Travis County Commissioners Court
April 3, 2007
Item 21
Number 21 first. That is to consider and take appropriate action on proposed resolution regarding information to be included in central Texas regional mobility authority strategic plan. We did cover this in work session, got some recommendations: and I'm advised that the recommendations have been incorporated into the newly revised proposed resolution. And the change are in red, right? We were e-mailed these changes earlier today. You may not have had a chabs to look at -- have had a chance to look at them. Can you tell us what they are, carol?
>> carol joseph, tnr. They recently just added the transition code. I think Commissioner Eckhardt has requested that we add to that. And refined the definition of their economic development opportunities. The other one was just the concurrent agreement with Williamson county. I think they've covered all the issues that you had last week.
>> questions, comments?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]. Can you define what you mean by regional planning? In other words, how is regional defined? This is really between Williamson and Travis County, so why doesn't it just say Williamson and Travis County. In other words, the regional planning may -- well, it can be ambiguous. And maybe semantics also. When I'm looking at regional, I'm looking at more than two counties as far as a region is concerned. But I don't know. I saw that there and I just wondered.
>> Commissioner, that would deal with both the mpo, which actually represents a little more than Williamson and travis, as well as say the clean air force, which represents three or four counties.
>> right.
>> those types of thing.
>> but I guess when you refer to the ctrma, if you go down through this resolution, it doesn't talk about these other folks. It just basically refers to as far as ctrma regional planning. Also regional planning is repeated several times and I don't know if that is the intent. I don't really know because it is as if that ctrma will be looking at the regional and dealing with the regional planning other than another entity such as an mpo, as a campo. If you read it, that's just basically what it's saying. There's just a point.
>> I'd like to make one brief comment. I think with the change in -- I think the change in language is good and I think it makes the distinction between the strategic plan for the operations within the rma and the making of regional transportation policy. I think that -- I think it has made the distinction, although as is usually the case, with a document like this it takes a trained eye sometimes to haggle through the salamander -- semantics.
>> looking at it from the surface, it doesn't seem to be together in what it's intended to be. And I guess concurrent, meaning there has to be an agreement between quown Williamson and Travis County -- and my point is this in the planning phases that we go through, can I ask this question if there is a change in a plan, in a strategic plan, how is that handled? Do you have to go to both Williamson and Travis County to make sure that we're both on the same page for that particular change? As far as the plan is concerned? Because I'm quite sure if this goes through today, Williamson county, who has already acted on a resolution, prior to us acting, we'd have to -- they'd have to look at this again.
>> I think, Commissioner, the resolution and the whereas and the therefore within the resolution are very proud and the detailed plan that make up the individual whereases would be within the board of ctrma, and they would make the detailed plan. I think in general as long as they keep the goal of the resolution that a detail to roll up to that particular item would not be necessarily to have to come back here as long as they don't change the intent of the resolution. I don't think that -- I don't know legally if that's correct. I think that they shouldn't have to come back for every little detailed change within the strategic plan.
>> what's bothering me, though, to some degree, is that when this came before us during the work session, I specifically pointed out in the plan itself it's been defeat dlooeted -- we talk about goals instead of strategies. It's referred to now as goals. If my recollection serves me correctly, western looking at goal two, which would have been pencilled in this time around that referred to the mobility projects, which was 183-a, 290 east and other as far as your mobility projects. And of course, it's been lined thrurks it's been deleted. So my point is that --
>> we asked them to take it out.
>> we sure did. I'm not knocking that. I'm just saying that there was a change, and that was done because it was observed from us, the observation came from that work session. And so if they're able to maybe bring it back, then what's the use of taking it out?
>> they couldn't do it, Commissioner.
>> for us to review again. I think it's still important and you said the directors should -- the board should look at it and say, look, da, da, da, but if it's not in the best interest as far as what I would perceive, I may not agree with that.
>> well, it's called the central Texas regional mobility authority. Now, I don't know whether the legislature gave it that name or whether we did, but from day one we have acquiesced and we talked about regional projects. And we are bold enough here in Travis County to assume that everything that affects us is regional. Workforce development, clean air, everything else. And broader than these two counties because normally bastrop, hays and caldwell are also included. So regional I think the worst thing in the world would be for us to take that out.
>> no. I wanted to bring it up as far as -- I don't want to take it out.
>> we're just hooking at the resolution. What about this resolution bothers us? We have looked at it many, many times. Fr so in my view either we're going to vote it up or vote it down, as well as we need -- unless we can change it right now.
>> I move approvalful of it.
>> second.
>> any more discussion of specific changes? Now, some of us may not want to vote for this, but I think we have probably spent more time word smithing it than it requires. I don't know that life changes as a result of this resolution. I really thought it was pretty symbol. Symbolic myself. But to be fair, if certain language matters to others more than to me, my suggestion was if harm wouldn't result, let's do it. I disagree, though, about changing regional. I think that would be a mistake.
>> we use that terminology in this community like it's "the".
>> like it means Travis County.
>> I think it's important to make the dition tings and I think we have made the distinction in what amounts to semantic changz, I think it does matter. Rma operations versus making policy decisions for regional transportation.
>> but is this captured here?
>> yes.
>> I have no problem. I agree with much of what said at the work session, and what I didn't agree with I acquiesced, but I think that's reflected here. If not, then let's recommend whatever changes we think ought to be made and vote on the recommendations and take final action on this.
>> I'm just (indiscernible) with the plan itself. That's what I'm trying to get to.
>> this is our road map to the plan. In other words, we will bring back the plan. We prefer you with audit, annual report and the strategic plan. All are provided to you as the board with adopts it. But this is our road map. In other words, as carol said, we can't -- we don't go outside of these boundaries. You and Williamson are basically agreeing that this is the road map for our agency. And I will communicate this back to the board and we will have fulfilled our statutory responsibilities.
>> but as far as the plan is concerned, this is a road map. I'm still focusing on the plan.
>> we will bring that plan back to you on an individual basis, and if you have comments or concerns, -- but that plan will have to follow these principles, so to speak.
>> but if it's given to you guys' discretion to change it, it's done at your level -- in other words, the things that I alluded to earlier about taking some things out, could be added back at a later date and I never would even know it as far as the plan is concerned. So that's my concern. And it doesn't open appear that -- in order, be I guess the board has the authority to do that, but again, I have the authority to agree or not agree with what's going on here.
>> I agree with that. And the board will not -- I believe what you took out stays out. And the board will adopt a strategic plan. I would bring that back to you, Commissioner, and have a formal presentation, if you would like. If there's any question we can deal with it then. I don't see us going outside of this and putting anything in that you should disagree with. I don't see that happening. I think we've already reflected some of those concerns of yours in the strategic plan. Primarily obviously the 290 issue. That will not go back in the strategic plan until such time as you indicate that it's in the mpo plan.
>> well, it's something that's out of my control, but those things that I can bring issue on, I'm going to bring issue on, and that was one of them.
>> Commissioner, you have my word on it.
>> because we do look the mpo to say what is and isn't in that plan novment one can act on something that is not in that plan.
>> right.
>> any more discussion of the motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor.
>> I'm going to hold up. I'm not going to support this.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt is in favor too. Commissioner Davis --
>> I'm just going to hold up.
>> is holding up.
>> hold up until I get a better review on this. Thank you.
>> thank you 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, April 3, 2007, 9:34 PM