Travis County Commssioners Court
April 29, 2003
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 17
Number 17. Approve agreement with envision central Texas to provide Travis County funding for regional planning program in fiscal year 2003.
>> again, this is something that this court factored in so that we would not hit the general fund, we were happen to volunteer for the source of this money.
>> second the motion.
>> can I ask a question?
>> yes, sir.
>> absolutely.
>> are we committing with this to spend another 50,000 next year?
>> there is...
>> there's a hundred thousand dollars commitment that ect is asking for.
>> if it's agreeable... Where is the exact language? Because I just looked for that yesterday.
>> they have 50,000 ...
>> the agreement is effective for one year and may be renewed for another one-year period with further approval of the parties, meaning envision central Texas and Travis County could both have to agree to renew this for a second term so you would have another lovely opportunity during budget process to talk about next year.
>> well, I think that -- I think it is important...
>> but we're not required to.
>> I think it is important, and granted, you know, the court has voted on $50,000 for this year, but for $50,000 for next year, as long as we're not making that commitment and the way this thing read to me is that I was committing to 50,000 this year and 50,000 next year and I will say, you know, from pretty good sources that envision central Texas is not going to hit a couple of things they're saying in here they're going to do which is spring and early with an election, that they are -- they are probably not -- well, they're not going to meet. The board has already said that, I understand, and that they may have to push, you know, several things back. When i've asked how many people this election is going to affect, i've been told every where from 5,000 to 15,000 to I understand that somebody made a presentation to say that there were going to be 50,000 people that were going to be part of this election process. I don't think that that is happening. I think that we need to be fully aware that some of these things are not coming about the way that they say they're coming about and I think we ought to consider it. But if we're going to get another chance to look at and okay the $50,000 next year, then I guess that's the time to look at it.
>> I just know...
>> Commissioner, as far as envision is concerned for our support under the $50,000 a year, I would like to see more intertwining, well, subject matter that have been entertained by other existing [indiscernible] that we already have here in Travis County. We have a multitude of organizations and it appears dealing with our needs within this region, just to name a few, Austin/san antonio corridor, chapco, and the list goes on. We heard from just one, cttp, rma, we have an established rma, so we have several transportation organizations here and there may be duplication of services, of which I don't know, and if they do cross, then are we really getting the bang for the buck? So I understand that part of it and before we do go into next year's budget, I want to make sure that we aren't crossing concerns or that one entity -- we may be funding somebody and somebody else may be doing the same thing, so that is my concern.
>> just to let you know, that the city of Austin also capital metro rebate dollars to do their piece in envision central Texas so depending where our discussions would go, we would certainly look at it as another candidate, what would we do with next year's money if we have general fund situations, we certainly would be open minded to looking to year two.
>> anymore discussion?
>> just that I think that this is my way of contributing to studying the transportation system that we have, and we need to find some solutions.
>> and this is a five county planning area. I don't know if I did -- did I move for this, judge.
>> somebody did. [multiple voices]
>> my point is even though it is a five county, campo which represents this whole region, that's all we're doing, that involves our road, they even have rail. It's massive, but then we see duplication of services regardless, we're looking at a regional approach as we go forward, and we may have a lot of plans and a lot of people doing a lot of things, but the bottom line is that we need to resolve as far as transportation, I would like to make sure it's understood and clear, I don't want people doing the same out there, a duplication of services and then we have to end up paying for it, even if it is coming from begot money or whoever the heck it's coming from, it's still a cost.
>> and capital metro is interested in not being a cash cow so hopefully we'll find some solutions for our transportation system.
>> it's not simply transportation planning, it's where is the population that is going to be coming going to wind up. It has to do with education, business, and...
>> all in favor of the motion? Campo doing the same thing.
>> Commissioner Davis Sonleitner, Gomez voting in favor.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 1:52 PM