Travis County Commssioners Court
October 15, 2002
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Agenda Item 3
3. Receive briefing regarding recent actions of the capital area regional transportation planning organization (cartpo), request for action regarding certain projects, and take appropriate action.
>> members of the court, I know that you received a memorandum that bears my name, but reflects a lot of work by [inaudible] walker, so I thought it important after the last meeting that I attended at cartpo that -- that these issues be brought before the court for discussion and possible action. I started attending the cartpo meetings after my appointment on the 26th, you can tell from the memo that considerable work had been done before I got there. Judge Biscoe attended some of the meetings with me. Cartpo has begun to take on a much more active role. Before we got too much further, I thought it important that you be apprised of this new activism on their part an the implication -- and the implications. As you can see from the memo, Lakeway, there was a sort of a wide ranging, informal, bring all of the projects that you think would be good to make a big list and of course capco covers 10 counties and participation has been largely on the part of the outlying counties. The counties that are not in campo. So they did. They brought a list of them and -- and I can -- I con -- I confess that I thought it was starting out as a much more informal thing, discussions about how to elevate some of these outlying products to more visibility. There are traffic problems that are occurring in some of these smaller counties in particular, like burnet county with the traffic on 281 that's really releaving -- [inaudible] -- causing problems in marble falls that, which I was unaware. The discussions proceeded along that line. Then it all kind of coalesced into doing something much more formal and making the trip a delegation in April to the Texas department of transportation commission and formally asking for some of these projects to be considered for some discretionary funding. On 71 that was proposed by the village of Lakeway. And of course improvements to 71 are already in the campo plan, so we had to have a discussion last meeting about what is the relationship between campo plan and this cartpo initiative. And frankly, I wouldn't have said it would resolve that. But we did decide that there were going to be instances when there were projects of such concern to our neighboring counties that they might want to lend their support, even though it's a project in the campo plan, it didn't necessarily have the same prioritization in the campo plan. There was a long discussion. I don't know exactly how that will end up being worked out. But for the moment, this project stayed in the list of six that remained after a preliminary discussion. And at our next cartpo meeting on November 8th, the plan is to take the 6 and reduce it to 3 that will then be taken by the delegation to the commission. Now, the process by which those 3ment -- those 3 will be identified is not as formal as we might be accustomed to in the campo process. The participation in cartpo has been fairly free form. Started out with a formal body as I understand it with by laws, those bylaws have now been abandoned apparently and the membership of cartpo is consisted mainly of folks who just show up and be there. So at the last meeting the decision of the group was with in particular science behind it, give every participating county three votes and use those three votes in the scoring process of the six promises. We pointed out that -- of the six projects. We pointed out we've had at least five participants from Travis County lately and that we never went through a process on this court of identifying projects from Travis County that might be included in the discussion. But they are nonetheless proceeding with this scoring and this presentation of projects. I guess that I will just stop there and say, you know, that's where we are. I do think this identification of three people to represent Travis County will just be for this one scoring and that -- and that -- in the future that the cartpo membership and the way they proceed will have, I think, have to be much more formalized if they enjoy any kind of success at all. That's where we are right now.
>> commissioner Moore, have there been any -- what are the three projects -- I guess the question, have the three projects, or number of projects from Travis County been identified as far as what you would like to see go forward?
>> this is not three projects from Travis County. This would be three projects from the entire cap for --
>> of the --
>> three from the six.
>> of which one is in Travis County.
>> one is in Travis County.
>> okay. Sh 71 west of u.s. 290.
>> okay, that's the one, okay. Thank you.
>> all right. Then let me ask you this --
>> clarify one point. If we can send people, we will still have three votes.
>> that's right.
>> if a county were to send one person, one person has three votes.
>> three votes it's three votes.
>> that's the magic number.
>> if your county is 812,000 people you get three votes. If your county has 30,000 people, you get three votes.
>> right.
>> which is the big problem.
>> to be honest early on when they were trying to organize more formally, the quest for more structure really got in the way of progress. Maybe not abandoning it totally, we sort of got away from doing real work. There are no bylaws, that's where the majority is headed, don't be surprised if this ends up as one of the short list of three. The other thing is at some point texdot discretionary funds sort of surfaced. Mr. [inaudible] indicated the need for basically cartpo to recommend a short list of projects to be considered. Mr. [inaudible] of texdot has probably been as active as anybody else. Every meeting that I have gone to, I think that I have been to three or four, he's been there.
>> yes, he has.
>> and actively participates understand the discussion.
>> so has michael [inaudible] from campo. In fact when asked to michael alick to comment on the potential conflict or how will this relationship work out between campo and cartpo, he did not seem to be too concerned about there being that much of a conflict. This is an evolving thing, it's a -- it's a new thing. It's -- it's operating very differently from -- from a troupe [inaudible] so --
>> is there any whatever the short list is, the one that will be recommended as far as the projects that we will be considering, will there be a relationship with existing plans, an example, campo, will this be outside of campo as far as those projects that we think would be something that Travis County can go with? In other words, I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that let's say that there is a project selected even though it may be on the short list. Is it consistent with any other regional planning effort that's being looked at now? Would any of those projects be in that category?
>> at this point, the highway 71 west is the only project on any -- on the list at all that was in the campo plan, too. The others are in counties that don't have an mpo.
>> I understand.
>> so -- [multiple voices]
>> 71 west came up because of -- because there's -- because there's much more traffic pressure on 71 west now between burn knelt county and -- and -- between burnet county and Austin and of course Lakeway residents and Briarcliff residents and village of bee cave residents use it every day, so it's -- so there are elevated concerns about 71 and their frustrations that it is so far off in the campo plan to be addressed. So I believe -- not speaking for Lakeway, but having heard the discussion about it, they simply wanted to get it io the mix somehow. I don't know how it will score against the other six projects. When we go there are some excellent suggestions in that list of projects. A loop around marble falls, for instance, some improvements to 290 east. Outside of Travis County. Up improvements to 71 east in bastrop county. All of which I think Travis County residents would see the need. If you are driving out of town, you realize that it hooks up to our system. To this is a brand new thing, we have never been through this process before. They are really truly making it up as they go along. After the last meeting I was -- I felt lining this needed to get before you all, so that you would understand what was taking place and I talked to a -- to joe and shalene, discussed how we are going to deal with this in the future --
>> well, before you we go to -- before we go to staff, as we are going through this process, especially according to what we have here, we have to go before the [inaudible] in April of next year, my question is, and you mentioned discretionary funds may be made available through texdot, if we go before texdot, before the tcc, whether it be Austin, the county, whomever, there have always been some basic requests for matching funds. Would this be something whereby matching funds are going to be made available of the discretionary funds that the state, texdot say they have will be sufficient to deal with these projects or will matching funds be required.
>> ians that question.
>> okay. Staff?
>> I'm not that familiar with the kinds of discretionary funds that mr. Garbody identified as being available. There are apparently funds that are totally under the control of the commission for special projects.
>> staff, can you -- have you all looked at that as far as matching funds, possibilities that we have done with other projects?
>> reporter: certainly texdot [inaudible] certainly texdot will appreciate any local funds that the counties bring to the table. Whether or not a local match is required depends on the type of highway. And in this case a state highway 71. A state facility. It may be in that case that all of the match is made by the state. But there may be some requirement that they would want us to purchase the right-of-way for the project.
>> at the time the decision is made, if you don't have any local participation, they can't make you too it. Now, they can decide whether or not to continue with the project.
>> that's right.
>> but that has not been addressed yet.
>> that's right.
>> so during many sort of informal discussions, the -- the availability of discretionary funds at the state level popped up, along with mr. Garbody's recommendation that it would make sense for there to be a sort of short priority list presented and that's what kind of drove this. Now the other thing is at their next meeting, November 8th, I don't see them doing anything -- I think their priority will be to get down to 3 projects. And the other thing is that -- is that small counties really sort of predominate, but I do think they try to be fair and you will notice in the middle there here that what hays and Williamson county had not really participated that much, they did have representatives at some of the meetings. And I don't know the reason for that. It seems to me that a broader regionalism in campo would say try to work with the smaller counties because their traffic problems impact us somehow. So --
>> it's -- it seems -- I have got real issues with cartpo and what they are trying to do. I actually don't think it's a bad thing that the [inaudible] have a voice for themselves. Quite frankly I think Travis County ought to back off and let them organize and do what they want to do and bring forward projects. We have in campo. And we always have a lot of interesting discussions about how sometimes the Austin plan is at odds with the campo plan. Well, what we have got here is project that is at odds with our campo plan. I don't see this as being any different than the discussion that's we are having at campo. At campo we are having very good discussions about changing our boundaries, which I think it's going to be that we will go to a full travis, hays and Williamson. That's where our voice ought to be before the transportation commission. It doesn't mean we don't go to these meetings and we are not an auxiliary, because we are part of the region. But I don't think we ought to be sending mixed signals to the transportation commission about what our priorities are here in Travis County. This ought to be their opportunity to voice in those smaller counties. I think we ought to back off and let them be the priority projects to take before the transportation commission and Travis County can still be a very good regional partner by going with them to say, we think those project haves a lot of merit. -- projects have a lot of merit. But I have some real -- real issues with the not speaking as one voice and this particular project has never ever been brought to the attention of campo in terms of to even surface as a priority plan. It could be a very good one and we ought to work it as such. But it ought not come through a back door and to be -- have us competing over the transportation commission. Because when we go over there we want to be saying 290 west is our number one priority, then pieces of 183 that I know it's very important to commissioner Davis trying to get the area near the airport fixed. Those are Travis County's priority projects right now. And this one needs to be appropriately brought through the campo process. And aired. It might be a safety improvement project that can come through another pot of money they have over there at the state. To me it's like we should -- I think it's appropriate that we should participate in terms of being knowledgeable about what they are up to, but this ought to be an opportunity for the rural counties to have a voice and unite and to take projects that are important to them that are not going to be part of any kind of a campo item, but I see us getting at cross purposes here, I see a great deal of confusion that can arrive between campo, cartpo.
>> that would exist anyway.
>> should exist.
>> to the extents that the existence of both create confusion, that will be there.
>> oh, yeah.
>> but I don't know -- see if the state were to hear from campo on one hand and cartpo on the other, we are included in both.
>> I think we should be one or the other and not both. But --
>> what's staff's position on it.
>> just one last point, judge. I think it speaks volumes that hays county and Williamson county are not taking a very active participation in really pushing projects. Hays county is not even participating and Williamson is going, but they are not pushing projects. I think the urbans out to stick together and speak with a voice and the rurals ought to, too. Dispnt mean you can't participate. But this ought to be their opportunity to have a voice, we ought not to have a conflicting voice.
>> the meetings really were not that productive. If you went to a two hour meeting, you kind of left thinking that maybe you had not made a wise investment. [ laughter ] but toward the end is when it kind of picked up steam when the availability of discretionary funds surfaced. So I don't know that Williamson county and hays really are cognizant of the recent actions. But I didn't know they weren't there. Early meetings I went to they were present. But these were probably a year and a half or two years ago. This has been in existence for quite some time. But in terms of the importance of this project for Travis County, we can participate even -- I mean, my guess, though, if we get citizens from -- from western Travis County to go, they have a right to vote, they are going to vote on this project. I'm going to say if this is not a priority for Travis County --
>> we did not -- that's --
>> that's what bugs me, this has never been veted by t.n.r., Never before a bond committee, not campo, other people are saying do it, it's like excuse me there's a process here.
>> how important is this, if there is free money available for it?
>> no. You are in competition.
>> you are in competition with ourselves.
>> with whom?
>> with the discretionary money is state-wide. And it's available to everything, we go after it for other purposes.
>> > the 290 west. The 183's. This would be competing with it.
>> it does present a dilemma between the rural and the urban and if we as Travis County go forward with two sets of priorities. [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> and then how are projects brought forward and screened and prioritized in a way that's much, much more like the process we're used to. I think that's going to have to happen. The problem is right now you have a group of folks who have been meeting for a good while. It's co-leed into a group that had been showing up regularly, and they want to move forward with or without us at this point. So we're there. I think it's appropriate that we're there and I think it's important that we're part of the discussion. I do think that all of the issues you've raised, commissioner Sonleitner, are very important, valid issues, it's just that right now this group is not -- it not seeing it exactly the way we as a court might see it.
>> we have a little more time. Why don't we touch base with mike. And then maybe hays and Williamson and reflect on this another week. It will be October 22nd. If we participate, they want the names by November first, prior to the November eighth meeting. And I thought this was a kind of positive. I do think that being in and working with them is important. We don't necessarily have to push certain projects. We have to say that our projects are in the campo plan and we want to take our chance there, but we want to work with other partners in the region as much as we can. But we'll participate with hays, Williamson and mr. Olig and see what their take is, what we're missing. And also make sure we're talking about the same discretionary funds.
>> go ahead.
>> along with that I think it's very important for us to canvass exactly what those rural counties or rural areas are really looking at. And I know as far as priority, if we look at the whole scheme of things, we're looking at a regional approach to solve a lot of our transportation crisis situation we have within this region. There may be -- and I'm saying maybe because I don't know. There may be in a relationship with the proposals that come in from the rural counties on some of the projects that they're proposing that may tie in to the regional approach of transportation construction that will happen in the future. Now, if that is the case, that may be a relationship and I think that would kind of trigger me to say wait a minute, this particular project is supporting something that campo has envisioned or even the Austin metropolitan area transportation plan, which is another plan or even maybe the rma to some future degree as we look at the whole regional mobility approach. So there may be some value to those projects. And if there is, again, a relationship, I think that relationship needs to be refined as far as where we're going now within the Travis County, Williamson county, hays county direction. So you can ask mike olig to identify what those relationships are, coming from those rural communities on those particular projects, I think it would be very important so we could maybe have a connecting direction to look at that.
>> and I don't want to totally disrespect what they are doing because they've certainly been very good partners in terms of supporting when the Austin delegation goes before the transportation commission of bringing in others from other counties to say that this is a good thing. Certainly there efforts on sh 130 are to be applauded. But again, I think we need to be very cautious here. I heard a statistics the other day that actually now more people are being killed on our rural roadways than on our interstate system. And I'm not necessarily sure, given i've got one or two of these in my precinct as well, that slapping a chicken lane down the middle of highway 71 is the best way to handle what are some serious speeding and land use issues that are out in that part of the county. I don't think anybody's looked at this in terms of what's going on with habitat and other kinds of issues that just go along with being in western Travis County. I think this needs to be seriously looked at. And if this is indeed a priority project, it ought to raise as a priority project by the people in Travis County to say this is what we want and this is how we want it because often times we're very particular with the state about how we filter projects and the kinds of 84 lays we want related to -- overlays we want related to environmental concerns and other issues that perhaps are not at the same level in other counties. So it seems like it ought to be with a Travis County filter and not with others saying that this is the way that they would go do it andious slap down a chicken lane down the middle of 71. That may not solve the problem and may actually make it worse.
>> let's try to put together a list of pros and cons after chatting with them and try to present both sides to the court. Plan to take action next week.
>> yes. I did not anticipate that we would necessarily act today, I just thought it important that we bring the court up to speed as quickly as possible. So the developments were breaking fast.
>> okay. We'll have this one back on. D that will be October 22nd.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM