Water District No. 1 board approves $150,000 one-year contract with Hilco Partners for Austin transportation lobbying

The Water District No. 1 board voted to authorize its general manager to finalize and execute a one-year, $150,000 engagement agreement with Hilco Partners, an Austin-based transportation lobbying firm, to provide legislative tracking and advocacy services related to the district’s Turkey Peak Reservoir project and negotiations with the Texas Department of Transportation.

Why it matters: the district said it needs transportation-specific representation in Austin to assist with TxDOT negotiations over conveyance of FM 4 and other transportation-related matters connected to the reservoir project. Board members and staff argued that existing contacts and relationships in Austin are a major part of the value for the contract.

Details and terms discussed at the meeting: - The proposed agreement covers roughly a one-year engagement (dated Feb. 5 in the draft) and was described by district staff as a flat fee of $150,000 paid monthly (about $12,500 per month) to cover the Hilco team’s services. - The district said Hilco would assign a lead contact, Jay McCart, supported by a broader Hillco/Hilco team; district staff said multiple references recommended the firm for its transportation experience and Austin relationships. - Staff told the board the firm could begin work immediately after execution; a verbal trial provision was described in which the firm’s lead said he would be willing to terminate the contract if, after a month or two, he determined the firm was not providing value. That trial period was described in the meeting as a verbal assurance and not written into the two-page engagement agreement. - Reporting requirements were not specified in the draft agreement; staff said reporting would occur on an "as needed" basis and compared the anticipated relationship to the district’s ongoing arrangement with another legislative tracking consultant. - The board authorized the general manager to finalize negotiation of the agreement and execute it on the district’s behalf; a motion was made and seconded and the board voted in favor (voice vote recorded as "aye").

Board discussion also noted other consultants who had been proposed or consulted, including Brian Sledge, and said the district might explore additional or supplemental resources in the future; any subsequent contract with another consultant would likely return for board approval if it fell outside the general manager’s contracting authority.

What remains unresolved: the engagement agreement’s written terms do not include a formal, written trial-termination clause and do not specify a detailed reporting cadence. The board asked staff to proceed with final negotiations and return to the board if additional consultant contracts are proposed that exceed managerial contracting authority.