Travis County Commissioners Court
October 18, 2005
Item 9
Joe, since we have you here, and a full 12 minutes before the 2:30 item, let's call up the mobility item. Number 9 consider and take appropriate action to: a. Enter into an interlocal agreement with the city of Austin and other transportation agencies for cost participation in a mobility plan study. (phase 2 toll study); and b. Appoint a member to the steering committee, and a proxy.
>> I think what is most important here is the draft scope of work is just that. It's a draft at this point. It has been reviewed and approved by both the city of Austin and the central Texas r.m.a. It has not been reviewed and approved by other proposed signature tores to the interlocal agreement. With that said, the interlocal will establish an 11-member steering committee, and Travis County will have one appointment to that and it would be the role of this committee to finalize the scope of work. So there is some flexibility in this scope of work. There seems to be some agreement between the parties but that doesn't mean it can't be changed in the process of the steering committee. So if there are any amendments to the scope of work, that is still possible.
>> the other thing is that the combo board did approve a document that was to be forwarded to the consultant and the importance of the steering committee is it was an effort to place the power in the hands of a coalition of the participants rather than just one of two. Started out in the city of Austin, the mobility study, but the rms a making a significant contribution. The city is probably still committing more financial contributions that any other entity with the rma being second. So I do see the steering committee as being very important. The other thing is that the board looked at the study and this was back in may, I believe, or earlier if the work were completed. So I know the 22- or 23-member board will look at the planning and see if the board reflects the study. We basically decided to do that and it was almost analysis. So there will be -- almost unanimously, and in fact I知 sort of surprised they are not waiting on the work given the time since the vote.
>> I think part of that was they didn't have it locked down in terms of the financial contributions and I think even we said, we are not entering into something until everybody has the money lined up to get what you got down and I don't think Round Rock acted on their 24,000 until a few days ago. They needed 350,000.
>> I thought the total was 150.
>> at one point it was.
>> the scop scope expanded.
>> but when they chatted with us, I thought it was a 150,000 deal and our position is that we were sfwhd two pieces but -- sfwhd two pieces but not the -- interested in two piece bus not the total seven or eight, and I always thought it warranted further study. Those two were the ones we viewed favorable, and there was other stuff and we thought was way down the road, anyway, I agree with you. I think the best thing now in my view is for us to go ahead and approve the agreelt and make sure -- agreement, and make sure we have a desinee and the work is so important that if we have a proxy, we'll make sure there is always Travis County representation. And the other thing is they expect staff from the entities for form a technical advisory committee and I believe they believe that the bulk of the work will take place at the committee level with a consultant. And every two or three months, the steering committee will be conqueened, and -- convened and brought up to speed and asked to give feedback, but I believe they expect the consultant to meet with the technical advisory committee a lot more often. That is not to say you're supposed to be that person, but somebody from tnr, don't you think? This is kind of a heads-up. Yes, sir.
>> joe, the other countries that are still sending participation, I guess well f we do anything, there is going to be one less county, but I guess Williamson and hays county, those entities such as the city of Austin and Round Rock, and others, as far as this interlocal is concerned looking at the scope of work within this interlocal, does this vary according to each particular entity? In other words, this is the same document for everybody and it's just the concerns that each particular entity has on its concerns as far as this particular study? Because we have -- can you all see that for me?
>> I知 positive the scope we have in front of us today is the same being presented to all the other country governments. And I think the final scope will be negotiated but the steering community.
>> so what we have before us now as far as -- I guess the question is I知 assuming that the city of Austin has already looked at this document and the city of Round Rock has already looked at this. And if that is the case, then what we have before us today is something that already has been reviewed by them and this is being passed forward or being forwarded to the next entity as far as this document is concerned?
>> I can only say that I知 confident that the city of Austin and the center Texas rms has reviewed the draft that we have. I cannot speak for any of the others.
>> all right, but I guess the version of it runs the gamut of what we have here should reflect all of the input from the entities that are involved in this process for this particular study. That's what I知 assuming.
>> that input will probably come through the steering committee. Their input is not represented in this document.
>> and I guess my next question then is, what type of binding things would be recognized when it finally comes before council to suggest as an example some of the things we look the at here, what we would like to see in Travis County, whatever that may be, with all of the inclusiveness in here, how much grit does that have when it comes before the campo board, and in other words t shouldn't just be a rubber stamp situation. Will those com components really be considered in the scope of work. The comments that the judge and Commissioner Daugherty drought up, as far as the -- brought up, as far as the amount of money that changes according to what you're asking for in the study. We may be talking about this amount now, but when it runs the gamut and comes back, would those additional inquiries into the study, escalate the costs? In other words, we are talking about one thing, but there has to be parameters, that's what I知 trying to get to. How many money is actually going to be spent on the study itself?
>> I guess the way to answer that, I知 confident -- I think that once they have commitments from all of the various government entities to the total dollar amount, then they will scope the work to match that amount of money. I think there are tasks that will not get done once they sit down with the consultant. He will match the scope to the amount of money. And if there is too much scope, something will have to get left off.
>> there may be some legitimatey from one or several of the entities that have helped define what they would like to have studied that may get left off the plate.
>> and some of the scope that you see here today may not make it. Maybe there will be substitutions and a half is clearly up to the steering community to decide what stays and what goes pe.
>> and that's what I知 concerned about, who gets the attention and who does not depending on the amount of study dollars that have to go into it.
>> well, I値l also say that the ctm, rma and the city of usstin are the major contributors to the study and I知 sue assuming they will have a heavier say on what remains but there is an 11-member steering committee.
>> the purpose of including the others was to promote objectivity and include comp hen siness. For one city or one member of campo to come out with specific recommendations in my view would have leaft whole lotto oa left a whole lot of work to get by in, but if the consultant is working for all of the member entities and we are kept up to speed as the work progresses, then I think we are way down the road in implementing the suggestions. That is the strategy. And if the total cost increases beyond this amount, the entities have to agree to pay it. My updzing our $24,000 commitment is locked in, not to say that we can't change our minds, but the commitment is 25 now,. And if it -- 2 r5,000. And -- 25,000. And if it goes beyond the current scope of the work, seems to me we have to decide.
>> and the words are clearer, in no event shall a funding party be required to contribute more than the maximum amount shown above and it's the work of the committee to present an expenditure it that does not exceed the total amount.
>> there you go.
>> I think they already priced the scope of the work and now need to make sure there is money to cover the traffic and now that Round Rock is on board, they've got it.
>> now, Commissioner Daugherty chatted last week in your absence.
>> oh, please don't say it was because I wasn't here.
>> you were doing other important work.
>> I was! Did you know I was at the auditors meeting last week?
>> oh, we could do a rock, paper, sizers on it judge, and say whoever is scheduled needs to do it and we'll be there to back you up, and bless you, bless you! Thank you.
>> and that way it's covered.
>> any other issues? I move we approve the proposed interlocal. Do we want us to sign that now or after it coming back to us with all of the other signatories.
>> I would imagine they want to you sign it and move on.
>> we won't hand over the money until we see a fully signed.
>> I think the auditor would require that.
>> and Commissioners, you two and me to serve as the first and second proxies and alternates. A quite Commissioner Daugherty seconds the motion. Discussion? All those in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> great. Thank you, judge.
>> thank you.
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:
Wednesday, October 18, 2005 10:46 AM