Travis County Commssioners Court
December 16, 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 16
I guess since we have the city of Austin representatives here, maybe we ought to take up item number 19. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, proposal for chapter 30, Travis County code, joint Travis County/city of Austin subdivision code for extraterritorial jurisdiction jurisdiction, and 19 b, contract for professional services for a management audit of the single office for Travis County/austin subdivision review with deloitte & touche. Let's call up number 16 also. Consider amendment number 2 to the interlocal agreement between city of Austin and Travis County regarding subdivision platting in the extraterritorial jurisdiction and take apopriate action.
(A long discussion of Item 19 preceded the discussion on Item 16. The full discussion of both items is included in the textfile for Item 19.)
>>
I think it's fair to say the stakeholders have a different perspective, but I just wand to outline the points from the city's perspective on it.
>> did you have -- can you state your name?
>> david lloyd, assistant city attorney. I was noticing someone pointed out the sequence of items on your agenda, and I guess the amendment to the agreement is posted after approval of the joint code.
>> prior to.
>> prior to? Okay.
>> it's actually when you take on 16, joe. Go ahead and take whatever action -- [indiscernible].
>> 16 would be to amend the interlocal agreement. That would delete the asterisk. It would require single determination by the management officials, I guess. I’m not sure how the interlocal refers to them.
>> that's correct.
>> for the reasons that ms. Gordon just gave us.
>> yes.
>> there's also a third item on there related to the process review that --
>> and the case manager. Designation -- and a sunset provision. That would a basically require us to come back in six months.
>> any other discussion of the second amendment in number 16?
>> go ahead.
>> I don't know whether this goes in here or if it's the next. I'll wait if it's the next piece. But in joe's memo of December 12th, it does state that one of the outstanding issue still out there that was agreed to in the interlocal but it hasn't happened is the county staff having a connection to the city computer system. So where did we wind up on that, because without that connection we don't have a blended office and we don't have a way to empower our county work staff to see that work product and to be able to act as though we are one. It leaves a dependence on the city staff if we have to constantly go over there and get somebody to pull something up.
>> that's probably just a technological issue and will require -- [indiscernible].
>> the city is in the process of acquiring a new inspection and develoent review system that will be accessible on the internet. Some of the programs and that should be implemented by June. So one of the issues will be timing, but in terms of that being implemented and staff having access to the existing system. Because we need -- I wouldn't want the county to spend money to hook up to the old system when we're going to have an internet accessible system and you would have security rights so you could pull down that information right from your computer screen using existing technology. So we can address it, joe and i, to get whatever connection we can in the interim, but we have by June we should have the new system in which might not require any funds to be expended to get that connection.
>> I appreciate that, but there's got to be some kind of -- even if it's a quick and dirty patch, to be able to get there because we're going to be measuring a lot of our success in this first six months. I appreciate the fact you are moving to something more friendly by June, but that's when you guys are coming back in terms of how are we doing. I think that could be something that could impede progress unless we figure out some kind of a patch. We've got some very talented i.t.s. People that could figure out how to make it work even if it's just a make-shift connection. That's got to get worked out. Joe, when you guys can figure that out, get it brought back to us because I see that very much as a missing piece that could really hamper our end of the deal, not the city's end, but our end in terms of truly being a blended 5:00 office.
>> move approval. Anybody would like to address this on number 16? Stakeholders? Stpheub in all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>>now 19. Did we resolve the technological issue?
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 17, 2003 6:46 AM