Travis County Commissioners Court
October 18, 2005
Item 5
Number 5, consider and take appropriate action on the following requests: a, approval resolution in support of river of trade corridor coalition, and b, approval membership in rotc c. And we do have representatives with us today. Joe, what item were you -- you're on another item, right?um okay. All right.y1 7xyañatw if you look at the power point and turn to page 4 of the power point, you will see the various trade patterns for the united states. You know that traditionally the united states has received most of its trade from europe coming in through the east coast going through the rest of the united states and then down to mexico. Those trade patterns are shifting and shifting dramatically. The majority of our trade now is coming from asia over to the ports of long beach and los angeles and up through mexico city to the northeast through dallas and then in Texas, and from ottawa and toronto and the ontario area of canada and back down through Texas to mexico.
>>
>> [one moment please]
>>
>> ...you will see that the route for these containers coming off of those ships is from los angeles down through the southern area over to Texas, and then again coming in through dallas or san antonio and going up that river of trade or then down to mexico. If you look at page 8, dallas recognized that this was an important river of trade for our state and for our community and we sought to join with other communities to protect this river of trade route. The first thing that we did was create a congressional coalition and caucus to provide a link between 35 and 69. This link was enacted into law when the president signed the safety bill in August of 2005 trading a congressional high priority designation between i-35 and i-69. If you look on page 10, you will see the link and you will also see the two other corridors, 35, which is also a congressional high priority corridor, and 69, which is also a congressional high priority corridor. The caucus that enabled us to do this is listed on page 11. The reason that this is important is because this designation allows us to then apply for various federal moneys as a coalition that we would not otherwise be able to do. On page 12, you will see a list of various members of the rotcc and you will also see the initial proposed route for the transtexas corridor that was set forth in approximately 2002. The river of trade corridor coalition is not opposed to the transtexas corridor, but when we saw this and we realized that it would be a bypass to dallas and san antonio and Austin, we became concerned. We wanted to make sure that the transtexas corridor alignment is consistent with our goals and objectives and the goals and objectives that we think you have too which is to promote trade up through our river of trade corridor coalition. And if you go back -- if you go back to page 2, you will see the various goals and objectives of the river of trade corridor coalition listed. Again, we're not opposed to the vision of the transtexas corridor, we support it, in fact, we want it closer to dallas. We are committed to working with our other communities along the corridor to make it stronger, and we hope that you will join us in our endeavor.
>> after my meeting with you on the fifth floor, I was left with the impression that your goal, your primary goal is to promote the route set out on page 8. And it left me with the impression that Travis County should be interested because i-35 goes right through the middle of Austin-Travis County, and as soon as 130, sh 130 is completed, our goal will be to direct traffic from 35 on to sh 130 to bypass most of the city of Austin and part of points north of here.
>> that's why we need you so bad in this coalition. If you join our team, our concerns become our concerns and our concerns become your concerns. But we are definitely sensitive to the fact that state highway 130 is very important to y'all and would be very important to us too. Because of the quality of life, we face the same issues in dallas county as you face here and we also would support you on that state highway 130 and by passing that traffic off of 35 on 130 back on to 35.
>> did I misunderstand our conversation when I left with the impression your primary goal is really the trade traffic on 35?
>> that's our concern. That's our main concern. We want to keep it right on the loop.
>> you are saying concern, I’m saying primary goal.
>> our primary goal is keep it on 35, yes, sir.
>> and this transtexas corridor has really gotten to be super controversial.
>> it has, and not that we don't support transtexas corridor, it's an alignment issue with us. We definitely want to keep 35 as a primary corridor between traffic from laredo up to the northeast.
>> we also support local control. So if, for instance, Travis County and Austin feel that a bypass such as state highway 130 is needed, we would support that. In fact, we don't want, you know, the traffic going -- the transtexas corridor going right through downtown dallas. We would like a similar thing such as you are proposing. So I think our goals are consistent with your goals and that's what we're here to support.
>> as you could tell from the campo meeting, the members are quite divided on it. So what's the membership fee for river of trade corridor?
>> there is no fee, sir.
>> questions, comments? Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> the fee right now is zero, but clearly you are trying to take this to the next level and to be a lobbying force in washington, d.c. -z. It takes money. So at what point would members of this coalition be asked to contribute in terms of financial support? Because I don't see how you can continue along this line on good will and somebody's copiers.
>> if you look at page 14, you will see the various components of the dallas nafta trade corridor project, and I’m the project manager for that project as well. You'll notice that the river of trade corridor coalition is listed as one of the components for that project. The city of dallas the already funding this project with dallas county and several of the southern sector mayors in the dallas county area. And we're supportive of the river of trade corridor coalition efforts and our funding that effort too. If its members decided that at some point it mate sense for the river of trade corridor coalition to become a dues paying organization, then its members, including dallas, dallas county, if Travis County joins, Travis County, and all of the other communities that are listed on page 12, if they decided that it needed to be dues paying, we would address that item at that time.
>> related to the transtexas corridor, I had the joy of not being at the campo meeting this last Monday night, but there is nothing more controversial than the transconclusion corridor, and a good portion of what you have here says you're not a posed it and there's a whole lot of people opposed to it for a vast number of reasons. Right now the alignment of sh 130 is only for a highway. They blew it on rail relocation. There are no pipelines that will go into there. There are no utility lines that will be going into there so we've got a whole lot of folks, in fact some here on item 6 who are concerned about 1200 feet more of right-of-way being taken out of some very productive farmland. The other thing too is that will be a tolled road and there are people who will continue to stay on interstate 35 and I see this as being at cross purposes. We're trying to get funding for interstate 35 because as somebody who has gone I don't know how many years in row to d.c. To lobby, interstate 35, the most dangerous stretch between mexico and canada, is Austin, Texas. While you are trying to get funds for this corridor, we're trying to get funds for interstate 35 to be rebuilt right here. The bypass will help us get people off there so that can occur. But how -- how do you jive up when you want to speak with one voice that there may be different communities along the path saying where's our piece of the pie on [inaudible].
>> I think you raise a very good point and as part of ety[inaudible] they have -- I think there's a borders anchor doors program. There's other multi mow tkal programs that are considered as well. And so because we're part of a corridor now, we can go and say we want improvements to 35 in a way that we couldn't necessarily before just as in Austin, just as a dallas county, just as a city of dallas by itself. When you walk in with a congressional caucus that's already been successful on some fronts, you are likely to have some momentum there to address some of the issues that you raise. And I’m sure that if you were to attend our meeting in little rock, arkansas, on the 27th and 28th, even if you had those concerns after this meeting, I think that you'll be very pleased with some of the things that you hear.
>> but when we go to d.c., we do speak of the region. We speak of the region called central Texas where we're trying to get funding for segments 5 and 6 and got five whole million bucks the last time around. We have been going up year after year building relationships with exact people like many of these folks I have personally visited with people on this list about the specific problems and needs of central Texas. And on different things that have come up before, everyone who wants to talk about the overall goal, but when it comes down to yes, but how do we make sure that the specific problems of our region do not put us at cross purposes because it is difficult to speak with one voice up in washington, d.c. When the pot is so big. We're already a nafta super corridor, and we are not getting the funds, we are in competition with ih 69, the proposed corridor. These things are at cross-purposes.
>> well, we would respectfully say that there is a new day dawning and we actually have written support and demonstrated support from the 69 alliance. They have come out in writing supporting this corridor coalition and the link between 35 and 69. And so I understand how you would have these concerns, and again, I invite to you come to our meeting in little rock and raise those concerns and talk with the folks that are there.
>> well, that's my final question, judge, is that in terms of -- it seems like when we join things, we ought to be active participants. And I know Commissioner mayfield is quite disappointed we are not members of maco, but while that is a national organization and they do wonderful, good things, we've got different goals and objectives when we go to washington, d.c. That we're not consistent with what maco was working on. We aren't a member, we don't have much of a travel budget. If we're going to participate, people need to be prepared to participate and to go to these meetings, to be an active voice. And I don't know who is that person. Or --
>> you're saying Commissioner Sonleitner is not that person.
>> I don't think they want me there.
>> we do want you there. Exactly.
>> that's why we're here, we want you at the table, Commissioner.
>> I am quite focused in terms of we join the Texas association of counties, we are active participants. We are active participants in [inaudible]. We are have I active on conference of urban counties. And when c.u.c. Has tried to divert its attention from the task at hand to let's go to d.c., we have not said that's a good idea because every time we say but Travis County has specific issues to take up in washington, d.c. It's like, well, we just can't get there on the specific stuff. We need to be on the main goal. And we sent joe on a very similar thing. We said check out these meetings. And he said, well, it was interesting, but didn't get that much out of it. And this involves travel, it involves participation, and I just -- if you're going to belong to a coalition, you ought to be an active part. I don't see this today as fulfilling that goal. That doesn't mean a year from now, two years from now, as you go down your course, that this is something that's more relevant to us, but to me this is very much at cross-purposes with us seeking funds for sh 130 and i-35 and way at cross-purposes to have an organization that says we love the transtexas corridor and are online when we have tons of citizens who have huge issues and concerns about transtexas corridor and what that's going to mean for central Texas.
>> what you do on 35 will include all of i-35?
>> yes, sir.
>> whether Travis County supports the coalition or not.
>> well, obviously if we had an esteemed Commissioner like Commissioner Sonleitner at our meetings, I think that Travis County would be well represented and we would be excited to listen to the concerns and help to draft some. And certainly --
>> whether we're at the table or not, i-35 that goes through Travis County will be discussed and incorporated into discussions and to the extent that money is available, I guess --
>> it would, judge, but we still want you at the table so we can hear your concerns and they can hear your concerns as one voice.
>> we won't know the concerns that you have if you're not there.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you, judge. Thank you all for being here to discuss this issue with us. As you know, sh 130 does -- as far as Travis County is concerned, does go through three precincts that's represented on this court here today and that's precinct 1, precinct 2 Commissioner Sonleitner, and precinct 4 Commissioner Gomez. And of course as you have gone through your process and gone before the different counties that you have talked to on this particular issue, have there been any discussion with these counties per se on the local concerns per county, as Commissioner Sonleitner brought up, there are a lot of, a lot of concerns that she raised. I don't exactly know what was discussed in the campo meeting. I’m not a part of that. Judge Biscoe, Commissioner Daugherty and Commissioner Sonleitner who said she was not there. But within the discussion if there were divisive -pbgs, reasons for the divisiveness and there had to be legitimately hopefully concerns brought up about what is going on. I guess my question to you is what or how do you address each particular county that have unique and maybe similar concerns as you go through this process? How are they resolved and what are you taking those into account. Just give me a mechanism, please, as far as dealing with that.
>> I would answer that question this way. All concerns are local. This corridor is made up of a bunch of counties in various geographic regions. When we get together at these meetings, that's what we discuss, our concerns and the sum of them and how we are going to address the concerns up and down this corridor. I mean that's specifically what we're designed for. And we have phrased our position regarding the transtexas corridor very carefully. Our position is not we love the transtexas corridor. Our position is that we don't oppose it, but we are interested in its alignment. And so I guess I would answer your question that way and to say that various concerns are raised at these meetings and then we all look at those concerns and try to address them. The first step being development of this bridge to get more money to address the infrastructure.
>> okay. I just wanted to see exactly the format. I think that what I would like to see happen is that these concerns that have been brought up, and there are probably additional ones. I’m quite sure t.n.r. May even have some questions, and again, I don't know whether these discussions at the campo meeting, where you presented these to them, I think I would like to see what all those concerns are because we do have folks that are kind of overwhelmed with a lot of things that are happening just dealing with sh 130. So I kind of want to maybe hold up and wait and see exactly what is actually being unfolded based on the concerns that we hear not only from our community but from the local officials that have to deal with this. I’d like to hear more of that.
>> if the members of the coalition at some point in the future approve sort of a -- some sort of dues, I assume that whoever -- the members at this point will have the option of withdrawing membership or continuing membership and paying.
>> absolutely.
>> you don't have the authority to mandate that a public entity pay dues to you to participate.
>> no.
>> okay.
>> and at this opponent we -- it's not a dues paying organization. And any dues structure, if there were ever one contemplated, it would have to be something that the members brought up, the members decided, the members took a vote on, et cetera.
>> does that mean that -- as far as the dues are concerned, but let me back up a little bit here. What type of binding aspects of the meeting or the concerns that a county brings up are actually adhered to? In other words, if there are some very legitimate concerns within a county on the local situation that this thing may bring about, what type of binding control would that county have if they joined or become members of this? Is it majority rule or does anybody else care about what the county that gets involved with this, membership and majority rules? How does that work? In other words, somebody might say well, so what, mr. Davis. So what. Or whatever. How would that work? I’m concerned about that.
>> I understand your concerns and it sounds like what you are asking is if I were to join this organization, how do these meetings run and is there a majority vote and how will I be assured that my concerns will be heard.
>> exactly.
>> my response would be if you -- you know, this coalition is made up of communities just like Travis County that have local concerns. And I would be very surprised if the organization as a whole just said, well, sorry, we're not interested in what you have to say. This organization is specifically designed to hear what you have to say and to support you. And so it is majority rule. There's a board and they take votes and that sort of thing, but other than that, you know, everybody goes there to listen and to be heard and to support each other.
>> okay.
>> talk about local control, Commissioner.
>> I want to make sure that's emphasized as much as possible, local control.
>> if a majority of the court is interested in Travis County membership, what I would do between now and next week is to draft an appropriate resolution which contains our concerns. And I would designate the county judge on the Travis County Commissioners court as the county's designee to participate. That is not to say that I would attend all the meetings, especially those in other states. I’m kind of like Commissioner Sonleitner about them. But I would make it a point to remain up to date, up to speed on what's happening and to communicate with the court on a fairly regular basis. So my motion now is to indicate whether or not the court is interested in proceeding to the next step, which would be for me to draft an appropriate resolution for our consideration next week.
>> well, I think before we go there, I think that the safety issue is something that needs to really be addressed and concentrated on. We're talking about the ih-35 crossing the colorado on i-35 and that being a very dangerous area. If that is not addressed, and I don't see how nafta traffic moves north of Austin, and then the other thing is I don't see anything addressed here as to how we're going to remove 4100 trucks off of ih-35 in case that the improvement of that bridge is not in the plan, in the safety plan and addressed up front. I would normally say that those trucks can be taken off of the highway with freight, but freight is not addressed here either. So I just think that there are a lot of things that are still missing, judge, from the resolution and from this plan to make me feel like we're going to get somewhere.
>> I don't know that you get those things unless you make clear your position on them and unless you participate and try to convince the others.
>> well, I would say those things need to be addressed up front. They do need to be the priority issues because without Austin proving i-35 at town lake and we address the removal of these trucks from the highway, because it can be -- nafta traffic can be addressed in freight trains, and I don't see, you know, us achieving anything.
>> ma'am, Commissioner, you raised an excellent point and if you will take a look at page 14, you will see one of the main components of the project is safety and security. We've actually vetted this entire project with several federal agencies including the federal highway administration, the federal railway administration, and the secretary of the transportation, national transportation and safety board. You I’m sure recall her name is ellen connors and when we presented this project to her including the river of trade corridor coalition, she sat back, looked at us and said, in all humbleness, I’ve been in d.c. 11 years, the entire time working on transportation. Secretary mineta was the best man at my wedding and my best friend is his chief of staff. I know transportation issues. This is wufpt best projects and well thought out to come across my desk the entire time I’ve been here. We understand the concerns you are raising. Safety is key and it is one of the primary components of our projects. It overrides everything. Rail is also very important. If you look at page 15, you will see that we're trying to work with houston, and again, these are some historic partnerships here, one of houston and dallas working together, but we're also trying to work with houston to develop alternative routes with rail and truck. So we understand your concerns and we're trying to hit all of those. But I think judge Biscoe raises a great point. If you are not at the table, then we can't hear you, and you probably have some key points that we need to hear.
>> but I’d like to see safety and security can be moved up to a higher priority.
>> if you also look at page 3, you will see that safety and security is in this particular power point as part of our river of trade presentation.
>> and I’d like to see freight addressed.
>> my opinion is we would draft an appropriate resolution to set forth Travis County's concerns and we would enter the coalition with those thoughts in mind. And periodically we would review progress and decide whether membership and participation are worthwhile or not.
>> I think we can also ask t.n.r. To evaluate those issues to see how fast we can get them done. Right? To see if we really are going to be effective in the coalition or not.
>> you mean up front? I don't know how t.n.r. Can do that.
>> [inaudible].
>> so far I haven't asked t.n.r. To do anything. I’ve kind of committed myself to participate. To the extent that the court basically directs t.n.r. To prioritize this, I’m sure t.n.r. Will do this. But if you've got coalition members meeting periodically and pressing for certain things, then it seems to me that in order for Travis County's voice to be heard when the discussions start, somebody ought to be there representing us. And I mean I think that the resolution ought to clearly set forth what our main points are and periodically we ought to review progress and try to figure out whether we are moving toward accomplishment of those things or whether the other members of the coalition have, you necessity, different goals and objectives. And the cost I think is an investment of time by a member of the court willing to do it. And what I’m suggesting is that at least for this first year I’d be willing to become the sack official lamb if other court members wouldn't do it.
>> that's fine with me except I think that in 1995 I was on campo, and we're talking about the need to -- the safety issue on i-35 at town lake. And here we are 2005 and we're still hoping to be able to get some help to address that issue.
>> but if the 4100 folks take sh 130, I know you can't force them, but you can certainly help get the other governmental entities to help you prioritize in this area not taking 35 through downtown.
>> but whether i-35 or 130 is taken, freight will still take a lot of those trucks off the highway regardless of whether it's i-35 or 130. That's not being addressed yet. So it's like --
>> judge, I guess what I’m trying to determine --
>> how many years do I wait?
>> come join us.
>> have you been to talk to the city of Austin?
>> yes. In fact, we're going to be appearing on their -- their agenda November 3rd.
>> it would be very helpful for me to know what their thoughts are on this, and I would also want to know where the capital area transportation coalition, catc, they are an advocacy group and between catc and the chamber, they are the core business group that helps us formulate our plan and our platform when we go to washington, d.c. I’ve been a part of that effort for multiple years. And I would be interested in knowing if catc in particular thinks this might be at cross-purposes or be complimentary. That opinion would help tremendously because as we all know, great thought-out plans in washington, d.c., there's authorizations and there are appropriations. And those are both very tough processes. And it is sometimes [inaudible] wind up getting the money. It is still a very political process. And you are in competition and oftentimes in competition with people in your own state to try and get good things done.
>> and where is --
>> I’m sorry?
>> where is webb county? Did you all visit with them?
>> I can't recall off the top of my head, but I can get you that information.
>> my pointed today is I don't know that it makes sense for me to invest time, energy and effort into it if a majority is not interested in it. On the draft resolution what I would do is solicit input from members of the court, put that in a draft resolution that we think is appropriate for us, but if a majority is not interested in going in that direction, I just think we would let the good people know today so they don't waste any more time with us. But the county judge can become a member individually even if the Commissioners court does not.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge, I’m concerned about, I guess -- I don't think -- I think what I’m hearing is not that we have opposition. I think what I’m hearing today, I may be mistaken, is that we're hearing inclusiveness as far as the things that want to be considered I think as we go forward with this thing.
>> I’m asking for a show of hands of us going forward. If we're interested enough to go forward, we do additional work and try to address some of the issues.
>> I’m not sure that this addresses the issues that I’ve been waiting for.
>> if it's including [inaudible].
>> the other thing is that this resolution very artfully never says the words transtexas corridor and yet a good portion of what you've got in here is talking about the transtexas cordon and that being one voice and supporting its vision. And I’m going to be real honest with you, I don't want to have anything to do with anything that puts me on record as being one voice in favor of the transconclusion coalition as it now -- transtexas coalition as it is now. There are huge issues related to the transtexas corridor that have not been worked out and there is no way -- from my voice, I don't have one voice and I’m going to be respectful of the fact there's a lot to be worked out on that thing.
>> well, I appreciate your comments, Commissioner.
>> I think an appropriate resolution would be our own. We would tailor one to meet our needs. This is the resolution that was in the packet of information that you gave us basically. Right?
>> uh-huh.
>> Commissioner Daugherty.
>> judge, I’m happy for you to do this because I’ll tell you, if this -- maybe this is a mocked up copy, maybe I’ve got a bad copy, maybe this is a tie poe, but it says Travis County samuel Biscoe, county judge already in here.
>> I told them that I support the effort individually.
>> and I’m fine with you being that representative. But if you want to do a resolution, I’m happy to do that as well. There are things that makes us nervous. Let's face it. Let's say what it is. Everybody is afraid to say transtexas corridor. You all are afraid to say it, we're afraid to say it because we know people get upset at the highway commission. Let's not tiptoe around it, you all have been put in the same spot a lot of us have. If you are not supportive of the transtexas corridor, you are not supportive of the governor's movement. I don't know that I’m against it, but I certainly hear a tremendous amount of folks [inaudible] over the subject matter. There's a lot of work that we need to do and you all can see where we would be a little, you know, because we are saying it here, I know the reason you are saying it in here because you got a gun pointed at you. We want you to say that you're not against the transtexas corridor and that puts some of us in a very odd spot. So I guess you all are going to have to determine are we against it, are we for it, do we not know. But watch it before you put something in here because it does kind of sign some of us up for this is what we're --
>> we understand where you're coming from. That's why the resolution does not say anything about the transtexas corridor in it. We don't want to support it in this resolution. This is strictly to get people to come on as a team. Obviously the bigger voice we have, the more concerns we can voice across to Austin. You know, we can see some changes being made toward the transtexas corridor and becoming more friendly to what our local needs are.
>> the other issue to me is and I don't want this lost, because I applaud you for this effort and I think at this point it is much more centered on the needs of the dallas-fort worth area, and certainly down in the houston area related to what, as you just said, I’m a houston gal, you know, some historic relationships and other things that are going on that have happened in past versions of all of this related to the nafta super highway effort. But this thing is so focused on it's about protecting the trade corridor. And what we have seen here in Austin-Travis County, state of Texas is we are being slammed to the point of having the most dangerous section of interstate 35 because all of the thought was about the nafta corridor in terms of the economic implications and we got slammed in this community in terms of being that choke point. Those are the words we use in washington, d.c. Those are the words I use in washington, d.c. And everybody is so focused on protect the trade, protect the trade, it's like but when are you going to focus on what is the infrastructure issue in Austin, Travis County that is very separate and distinct from what's going on up in dallas. And it's very separate and distinct with the discussions going on in houston that has multiple corridors up there. We got 35. We're being hurt tremendously. And so for me, I am appreciative of the economic and the business implications of this, but for me, like Margaret, it is all about the safety issues related to interstate 35 and those come before the other. Because that unfortunately is how it -- it went in the wrong order when all this stuff happened.
>> so are you working with jurisdictions south of Travis County on 35?
>> yes. We're working with jurisdictions down in mexico all the way up to memphis, tennessee. And as I mentioned earlier, with the goal of going towards canada. The concerns raised about infrastructure are very important, which is --
>> laredo, san antonio?
>> exactly. And that's why we ended up getting that designation because we felt that the first step in order to make the infrastructure improvements was getting that congressional high priority corridor designation done.
>> again, I would like to see something much what's discussed here today be reduced to writing whereby the concerns that Travis County has brought up are legitimate to the point where they can be embraced as we go forward, if we go forward. I really don't really know. But right now it appears to be some uncomfort among us because there's nothing guaranteed in writing that these particular concerns that have been brought up this morning is something that will actually be carved in stone. Now, as you remember earlier I mentioned that the interest of Travis County should be protected, and you said local control. Well, how can we guarantee that local control on these concerns that have just been brought up and they are adhered to. That's my struggle this morning.
>> so should I work on drafting a Travis County tailored resolution? If so, what I would ask the court members to do is take the master copy, make whatever changes you deem that you would like to see on it, get those to me and I’ll try to incorporate all of those into one. And try to capture some of the opinions expressed here today. Get that could the court by Friday.
>> again, Commissioner Davis, let me address your question or comments on that. Look at page 3 at the very bottom it says the coalition exists that the existing congestion and safety and pollution issues along the corridor be addressed. Again, it's local issues, again, your concerns highlighted in that prar there.
>> -- paragraph there.
>> well, I guess it just is I guess a plus I guess in the direction of what Commissioner Gomez had brought up, safety concerns. And I guess with all this stuff again, as the judge stated, if a lot of these things that the Commissioners have brought up can be incorporated within the resolution or the body of the resolution itself, it just appears that those are things we need to come back and I would like to see that maybe reduced to what we're trying -- where we're trying to go with this.
>> judge, I would just like to make sure that [inaudible] this is important. I’ve been down to laredo several times, and as soon as you get to san antonio south, if you don't come over on town lake, you can just fly and it's a wonderful trip. It's a wonderful trip on the way back. Until you get to town lake. So I mean if I --
>> don't know where town lake is?
>> it's where the bottleneck is. [laughter]
>> and I’m sure it's true for people going north. Once they get past that bottleneck, you know, it's great sailing. And it's sailing going south. Until you get to that bottleneck.
>> you all would like to see us prioritize our goals and objectives anyway. Get those comments to joe and me, okay? Within the next couple of days. We'll come up with a revised draft. I cannot thank you all for coming, but we're out of time on this item.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> by the way, I don't know that your presence here this week -- would we like a representative here? You may want to let us do this battle alone next week. We'll let you know the outcome.
>> thank you all very much.
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.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:21 PM