Travis County Commssioners Court
October 22, 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.
Item 6
6. Receive briefing regarding recent actions of the capital area regional transportation planning organization (cartpo), request for action regarding certain projects, and take appropriate action. We asked mr. Gieselman to check into a couple of issues for us. And try to report back today.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> I was able to contact the state and their concern is that the commissioners are the elected bodies from this area. Come to the transportation commission with one set of priorities.
>> thank you.
>> one set, joe?
>> one set of priorities. And they don't want two separate sets of priorities for within the same area. Now, if it's not the same area, they don't conflict, but if -- this puts Travis County in a -- in a kind of dual -- kind of a dual area, whatever we recommend for cartpo we should also be recommending with cap depot that -- capco so that we don't arrive at the commission with two sets of priorities. That's all they ask. So they asked us to coordinate to make sure that we come to the commission as Travis County with a clear set of priorities.
>> so if we speak through campo, and a project that is on the campo list is not on the cartpo list, they would ask us to speak with the one voice of campo?
>> they didn't say one way or another. They just said they would like a clear signal from the local elected officials about what their priorities are.
>> let's just walk through this. Campo is all of Travis County. And pieces of Williamson and hays I hope soon will be all of Williamson and hays. It would seem inconsistent that a group where we are not only active participants, but we go through a ranking process that takes in the ranking of urban county areas, it would seem inconsistent that we would somehow ignore all of that work that we do on a daily basis related to campo and hook up with another area that doesn't even speak for the urban needs of this area. It seems like we ought to take these cartpo projects, if there are valid ones in Travis County, to campo and get concurrence there. But it seems like we ought to come through campo, not cartpo.
>> no matter what forum you go through, I think the end result should be that these line up.
>> I do not --
>> [inaudible] spoke with representatives from the Texas --
>> I was not able to contact mike allick, several attempts, but we never did hook up.
>> so as to the one project, the one Travis County project that cartpo is considering, if we take that advice, your recommendation is what?
>> that we take that project back through campo to make sure that it is also on the list of priorities of campo.
>> [inaudible]
>> right now we have I think at least three priorities at campo. This one that's in cartpo is not on the list. It's a good project, it's just not in the campo priorities at this time.
>> > right.
>> and it hasn't really been vetted by any kind of a citizen project which we have a campo people bringing forward projects, having the comowp tee show up and saying this is something we support. Just because it is out in that particular area, believe me the folks from Cedar Park and Leander have been very effective in bringing forward little projects that only impact them to campo and getting campo's endorsement on some of the 4 c allocations. They need to go through the process.
>> uh-huh.
>> well, yeah.
>> joe, let me ask this question from you. In the rural community, have they actually voiced, broke down any priority projects other than the one that you just mentioned that may need to come before the campo?
>> no.
>> other than this -- I mean, is there any way that they can bring theirs separate from what we are doing here to the Texas transportation commission as we do with the campo projects and other projects that we have prioritized? Has anybody discussed that?
>> certainly any local government can go directly to the transportation commission. I think would be the preference of the state that all of the areas come together and express their priorities jointly. What we have is campo, by and large does that, for the urban area. Cartpo has recently formed and is trying to do the same thing for the rural area. Unfortunately what we have right in Travis County is that we are on both. That brings up the potential conflict and we just need to make sure that as we operate in both forums, that we as a Travis County government are of one mind about what our priorities are. However, we get there. However we get there.
>> I think the next review of things, I mean traditionally it's in December time frame, is that right, elaine that we will be reviewing our priorities.
>> because I know that we are not going to the transportation commission for the normal gig come February, which is our normal, because they are doing a two-year funding cycle now at the transportation commission. So I'm not even sure that we are going to be reviewing, but the projects that we are still seeking have not been fully funded, but I would not anticipate priorities are going to change much until 290 west is completed and all of the pieces of 183 are finished and 71 by the airport.
>> is there any possible amendments to the campo project? In other words, is that on board mow? If so, when would that be coming up? I'm not part of campo anymore, but if -- are there any leaning toward looking at other projects to include in the campo plan? If so, when would that be coming up for that type of inclusion, whatever it may be.
>> it's not so much about the campo plan. As what the priorities are and any special tellation to the transportation -- delegation to the transportation commission. And we have right now three priority projects that we have taken to the commission and I think on two separate occasions where discretionary funding and we are on record with the commission on the priorities.
>> they -- they can change, right.
>> they have not changed.
>> okay. That's what I'm driving at. You --
>> on the same token --
>> right.
>> -- cartpo can be ready to send a delegation for rural projects and this is where we are somewhat in conflict right now.
>> unless we defer to them that knowing that this is a very large rural region, that we let them move along on those other priorities in the other counties, and they need to appropriately bring forward to Travis County the priorities in the more rural areas of Travis County to the commissioners court so that we can then sponsor those things and bring them to campo for an appropriate airing of them, either through discretionary funds or there are also stp 4 c funds that might also be available. Maybe they fit under a safety category. So we just need to bring it through the campo process and see what might be possible.
>> I think it's down the list, it seems to me having now participated in the discussion at cartpo and then bringing it to the court, it may have to be that the commissioners court takes a policy position that if you are in -- if it's potentially in campo, we would not support it as part of cartpo. Because really there's no other way to resolve this. This particular project was put in the mix not by Travis County.
>> right. That's what --
>> and it was put in there by other participants in cartpo who see it as a very high priority. I do think that it's something that need to be --
>> looked at.
>> -- voiced at campo because of traffic and safety considerations out there. I never -- have in fact said that very thing to those -- the very cities that nominated this project that we have got to get more effectivet campo with these issues 71 west. But -- but where I'm struggling is how resecon style our participation as -- reconcile our participation -- we are not the dictators at cartpo.
>> by any stretch of the imagination.
>> by any stretch of the imagination. We have to reconcile our participation in the two different processes.
>> can I make a recommendation?
>> please.
>> [inaudible]
>> this is very early on in the cartpo process. I would say that there are some local governments within Travis County that have offered this as a project within the cartpo realm that we as Travis County support that and also keep it rolling in the cartpo process, subject to the endorsement of campo. So as not to -- this early on eliminate ourselves as a project, but understand that we are objective -- our objective is to bring the two together.
>> well, understand, too, that it is one of six projects and that there will be -- they will be narrowed to three. We have no reason to assume that this will be the three at this point.
>> but, joe, are you prepared to offer us a recommendation? Has your division veted what has been proposed and we have looked at it in terms of technical requirements, environmental requirements, bcp land out there and anything else that's being talked about as that's a decent project? Because I am very hesitant to say, we ought to be pushing this thing forward we haven't looked at it and we haven't had anybody from that area, in terms of the local jurisdictions come forward to the commissioners court and say move this project for us. It didn't even show up on the radar screen related to our bond committee, and we now have had three bond elections, this is the first that I have ever heard of anything like this being brought up is by other counties. It's just bizarre.
>> it's not another county. It's really the city of Lakeway, the village of bee cave, but --
>> they never brought it forward.
>> first time --
>> when the -- when the mall, the shopping mall was going in, at 620 and state highway 71, we did raise the issue about additional capacity and that -- and this project does address that [inaudible] point. There is a problem. Now to answer your question, commissioner Sonleitner, we have not given it full evaluation.
>> I think we need to do that before we say it needs to push off because we may go, you know, we validate there's a problem, but this may not be the fix. Those chicken lanes on 71 scare the -- the bejesus out of me. They are just dangerous. I'm not sure that they are the correct thing to do. You may need to go to a full divided highway to be able to have safe kinds of turns going off of that roadway.
>> but texdot will make that call before they put discretionary funding behind the project, right?
>> I think they would probably need to scope the project.
>> really, that -- wasn't that what -- you all weren't at the meeting. It seemed to me that mr. Garbody was wally just saying to cartpo, this isn't even in the long-range plan, by elevating the attention to it, it -- you get texdot to start doing that kind of work a little sooner. Really, I -- you know, I think this is so new and it is an evolving thing, I -- I do think, though, that -- that it would be helpful if you all tried to find a way to -- to reconcile the two different entities and how we address them through our internal processes. I think that's going to be a critical piece. How you staff that, how you present it to us so that we can move forward in both bodies effectively. Participate --
>> there are two issues on which we need motions, a two-part motion. One is basically what is our position on 71 west. And two is do we plan to designate three people to cast votes at the next cartpo meeting on the six projects, one of which is 71 west. And in their letter that's basically what they want us to do. I don't know that any action that we take really means that all that we have to do is wait for delivery of the funds to do the project.
>> right.
>> there would be some -- some serious deliberating by the numerous people who have attended cartpo meetings, and they will reduce that list of six projects down to three. And I -- to me the question boils down to whether we want this project to remain, to have a chance at remaining one of the three. But whether we really just want to put it -- pull it out and say it is Travis County's position, Travis County's newly determined position that cartpo projects for our county should -- should be part of our priority list as campo, which I assume is reasonable. But even if we decide that, the question is what do we feel about the -- do we tell them therefore we do not want to participate in the voting? On the six projects? Or --
>> well, the problem with that is we have got bill hamilton who is known -- who is now an -- in a position -- he's vice chair. He's been participating. We have the mayor pro tem from Lakeway, who has been participating. And then the mayor of bee cave, who has been showing up somewhat regularly.
>> here's a middle -- there is another middle position here. And that is you don't just go to the transportation commission once in your life and that's it. It may be because we are raising I hi some very legitimate policy questions of whatever it is that we need to live with it, that in this first round we defer and pull this project down until we can answer to our sufficiency that this is a project that is a good one and ought to be moved forward. And whether we choose to vote or not, I say go ahead and send three people to cast votes for not this particular project, but the other five to show that we are part of a regional voice of trying to support other projects that are going on out in the rural area.
>> say Travis County has decided to take no official position on these six projects they are not on our priority list -- not on our campo priority list.
>> that works, too.
>> however we are aware that three other officials from our area have been actively involved in cartpo and have a strong position, therefore we designate them as the Travis County three representatives for the purpose of short listing from six to three. Just leave it at that.
>> is that a motion, judge? Sounded pretty good.
>> that kind of is the middle of road but at the same time --
>> I think that we can talk to them, too, and explain what's going on here. I did raise exactly these same issues at the meeting, but -- so it's not like they are unaware of it. -- me personally, I would second that as a motion because that doesn't just disend franchise folks who have taken their time and effort and gone to these meetings. I do think, though, that we will have to say this -- as this progresses forward --
>> we also need to make sure they understand that's not -- those three votes being cast, they are not speaking on behalf, it is not a Travis County endorsed project just because we have three people having the ability to cast votes -- [multiple voices] -- because quite frankly they are looking to have the big dog was them at the transportation commission. They want us, but I don't think it's for anything other than -- [multiple voices]
>> other than the --
>> we can say Travis County takes no position on these six projects because they are not of our campo priority list.
>> that's a great way to say it, judge.
>> however we are aware that several representatives from our county have been actively involved in campo meetings to date.
>> cartpo.
>> cartpo, I'm sorry. Therefore, we are designating the three of them as the voting members from Travis County.
>> that would be --
>> and trust them to exercise their judgment on matters to be discussed on the [inaudible]
>> that would be bill hamilton, car role murphy and [inaudible] I second that.
>> okay.
>> middle ground.
>> uh-huh.
>> you should change your name from samuel to solomon. [ laughter ]
>> solomon. [ laughter ]
>> we will talk about that after the cartpo meeting, joe. [ laughter ] [multiple voices]
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM