Travis County Commissioners Court
February 26, 2008
Item 3
3. Consider and take appropriate action on a -- joe gieselman are you nearby? Consider and take appropriate action on a proposal to conduct a community opinion survey of county land use authority
>> judge and Commissioners, we discussed this back on January 29th. Quite a bit of discussion among all of the court members. I have since had a chance to talk with another professional in the field. I think to some extent she validated some of the concerns of some members of the court about -- about the approach we were talking about taking, which was a general survey of the community, a random sample of people on the street. About not perhaps getting what you want if you -- if you went that route. She suggested perhaps another methodology, which would interview 50 to 70 leaders, stakeholders, opinion formers, whatever you want to -- basically knowledgeable people about county government, land use issues, take those and do a telephone survey of those individuals that are fairly more open ended type of interview. And then from those get some opinions about -- about county land use authority, take a subset of those interviewees and form two separate focus groups where you can then start interacting among the interviewees about the range of opinion, the sensitivities of that opinion, and then from that come back and write a summary report that takes not only the entire spectrum of opinions, but also how they overlap. So you can begin to see where there are common elements, where there is general support no matter what end of the spectrum that you're on about, yes, we believe counties ought to have this type of authority. But you also see the diversity where perhaps one group or another wants more or less of that -- of that authority. And to use it -- that might be more instructive to the Commissioners court about the general sense of what people want county government to do in this area. So that is -- that particular survey could cost anywhere between 20 and 30,000. Depending on the number of interviewees, the number of focus groups and stuff. And I think -- and in talking with this individual, I think it made more sense to me that this perhaps would yield more benefit to the county than the approach that we were talking about taking before. Without -- without really spending a whole lot more than we were talking about, 15,000 before. This is probably 10, perhaps 15,000, almost more than that, but I think what you get in return is probably more valuable. So that is -- that is basically the -- the agenda item. And what I hope to get today is a sense from the court on how to proceed. If we choose to go this route, we still need to -- to solicit proposals for the purchasing department or do an exemption order for a particular firm, I need to look for the money that we need to budget to perform this. So I think today I知 just looking for a discussion of the court members on how to proceed and some direction.
>> I知 much more comfortable with this approach. The in depth interview certainly I think is much better than just a real fast and dirty approach to -- to trying to get input from the community.
>> this works. This is -- this is exactly the kind of thing that we want to do. I mean these are the folks that will know the kind of things that we are looking for. I really feared that we were just going to be calling folks and before you know it you get kind of a push poll sort of a survey which I think that we would have spent -- even if we spent $15,000 we wouldn't have gotten 15 cents out of it. Something like this, I think there are probably still names that need to be put on here.
>> I meant to also add that that -- the attached list are just truly brainstorming issues in the past, certainly not a complete list. I would expect -- none of these people have been contacted, I don't even know if there's any particular interest in the survey. Is it just my initial list of people that have been involved throughout time.
>> so I guess my question would be -- I don't think the average Travis County resident is aware of our land use issues. But I知 not convinced that we can name each and every one that is. Why wouldn't we advertise during a citizens communication on channel 17, et cetera, that if -- for residents who want to participate in a county land use survey, to contact certain persons at a certain phone number. That's not here, but it seems to me that we can easily do it.
>> or even provide a survey on the Travis County website for completion and submission.
>> but I thought part of this was that somebody would conduct a phone interview or in person interview.
>> yes.
>> or something like that.
>> yes.
>> so --
>> I mean I think that's another element that we can add to it. Actually broadens, you could actually do a -- couple that with a website questionnaire. Anybody could log on and complete that survey, you would have something automatically tally. It would be actually combine the elements of what we were talking about before with this. I think it actually enriched the results. But it would -- wouldn't necessarily be random. That's the only problem with the web is that you can stuff the ballot box, so to speak, with that type of -- but it's truly open ended and you know that and you know the results of that way. So it's -- so you have to take the results with that in mind.
>> I think that we would have to recognize that this approach recommended by new stats as well isn't random. Either one of those approaches would not be ran tom, but would give us relevant information going forward in our, you know, in our quest for appropriately expanded land use authority. I would suggest a third prong in addition to the new stats in depth interview, the web based open ended survey. I would also suggest that we as a Commissioners court establish, say, three public forums in which we can discuss with the public the current state of the -- of our land use authorities and some case studies in the -- in the various categories of land use authority that we would see as desirable. So that folks can actually come and have a conversation about this.
>> I have no objection to anything. I put this item on the agenda when I first started looking at this some time ago. I wanted to make sure, thank you Commissioner for also co-sponsoring this item with me. I wanted to make sure what we end up doing would not be obtained in any -- tainted in any shape, form, fashion. I have heard all of these suggestions, I went through the backup with a fine toothed comb, george, as far as what we are doing here today, what we have been doing in the past. But in the end result, the process must be where it's not flawed and the process must be the true representative of what the folks actually feel as far as the public opinion community survey. Now, the question is this, in my mind, what does the person that will be overseeing this, we don't have to pay for services. We are saying here 20,000 to $30,000 and you got this broken down into categories, per event of the category for how and what must be done and the when portion. The question is the suggestions that are being made here today, that would be good if we had the persons or persons that's interested in doing this, could hear what we're doing, get the results of what we're doing, and say hey, wait a minute, I hear that the court is making these recommendations, they are saying this, this, that, a, b, c and d, but at the end of the equation is it something that will not flaw or deter the end results where they aren't what -- what they are. So -- so my concern is I -- I saw the mechanics here. When will we allow the services of whoever we end up choosing and picking for this, if the court deems that, to look at what we have here, the -- the scope of services, scope of work, the mechanics of this operation, when will they be allowed to see -- look at this and say well this is I think acceptable. This is not acceptable. As far as getting the type, the survey that will not be flawed. Do we have an answer to that question?
>> other than -- other than we have the backup of this agenda, and it's always -- I mean, all of our agenda items are -- are public information and anyone can comment on -- I mean I think this is right now public information, so if anyone wanted to comment on the proposed methodology, it is -- it is here to comment on.
>> okay.
>> so I知 not sure exactly I know what -- what the issue you are trying to address an issue. I think it looks like --
>> wait a minute, I知 not finished yet please.
>> it sounds like there may be some lack of confidence that this is going to be an open process, that the review -- somehow the survey would be skewed toward a certain outcome. And am I hearing --
>> no, no, no, no, that's not the concern.
>> okay.
>> the concern is that the components and the mechanics of this operation, we are adding different things to it. I looked at this -- an example some of these persons that -- persons that we were looking at as far as stakeholders, we have non-profit, we have legislature, we have, you know, community leaders, we have planners, we have engineers, we have all of these stakeholder groups, blah blah blah blah blah. And developers. Several groups that are included in this operation. What I知 asking is are these the acceptable mechanics that are necessary and conduct -- in conducting a survey whereby the end result will be as it needs to be as far as -- are these the mechanics that's needed -- not to get the results, but to have the operation as far as the survey not being
>> [indiscernible]
>> let me address -- I think what you may be getting at, the list the attached candidates is not a complete list.
>> I understand that.
>> that list needs to be broadened so that we do have a broad cross-section of opinions. Anyone looking at that list may think those are the only individuals that they are going to interview. If they thought that they would probably think the results could be skewed heavily towards the development industry. It is a complete list -- an incomplete list. I think the issue would be to make sure that that list of 50 to 70 individuals is as complete and as diverse as we can get it. I don't think the methodology itself as it's proposed is biased.
>> not saying it is, joe. I have never -- I知 just trying to make sure --
>> I知 just saying that we are suggesting, what we are putting is something that the -- that the consultant dealing with this. Is able to work with based on what we are putting on the table. That's the bottom line.
>> I think the -- not just -- not just the -- the individual firm that helped put the proposal together, but I think any firm, this is a fairly standard scope of work. I think if you asked any firm to give you a proposal it would look something like this. I don't think -- the methodology part of it is not -- is not unique. So I think that in itself is fair, the prices are probably reasonable given the nature of the people that would be used for the survey. I think the -- the key to this is making sure that the survey instrument that's developed as well as those being interviewed truly reflect Austin or Travis County. And part of what you are going to be wanting to see is what type of questions -- how -- what type of information does the court want to get back from this? And that has a lot to do with the -- with the nature of the base questionnaire. Even though it's an open ended they are going to have some list of questions that will provoke a conversation, that's going to be an important element. The other important element is who constitutes the 50 to 70 in depth interviews. And that -- that list you have before you I expect the members of the court will have other individuals that they feel are important leaders in your own communities, stakeholder groups that you would want to see on this list.
>> all right.
>> I知 looking for some feedback in that area in particular.
>> joe, I have here a list of several names. I won't call them out. We need to really -- the person that we feel that -- that would be able bodied and could be a part of this process, I want to -- chris will give you those. We -- because we are looking for 50 to 75. And of course those are -- those are mine.
>> sure.
>> and -- and I had to talk with the state representative as early as this morning who is very interested in also participating in this process. So I have no qualms about that. The only thing that I知 just trying to figure out is the instruments is the things that we are dealing with. Everything is -- you have answered my question, I wanted to make sure that we laid out the -- that folks can really understand out there. The scope of work is something that -- that would be included in -- in any public opinion community survey. That's basically what I was doing. The land -- laying things out on the table. Not challenging you, but getting you to say and put out before the public exactly what we're doing here and the step process that we are dealing with.
>> that's basically the layout of my comments.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> I heard the Commissioner ask a question, one of the things about this, joe answered this, trying to get the input for us to put together the scope of work and decide whether you want us to do some sort of formal process in hiring someone to do this or to come back and exempt it. Part of the scope of the work talks about meeting with you all individually, going through all of the things that Commissioner Davis and joe were talking about, going through the full process, all that being under your direction and -- and depending on how soon we can make decisions on who you want to be on that list and what process you want to follow, it will take us a couple of months to get a contract back to you depending on which, you know, process that you want to do. But I think what joe is looking for today is direction on how you want us to proceed and bring back your formal scope of work for you to approve with the complete -- I mean you'll be working -- the consultant will be working with you also to develop the list, I would assume.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> you would be directing a lot of delegate to t.n.r. To direct the questionnaires and approve everything that goes out so that you are very comfortable with everything.
>> susan.
>> I have a suggestion.
>> [inaudible - no mic] I think it's always important when the county is looking at whether or not to expand what it does, see if people are willing to do that. Because it's almost like people want more services but they don't want the property taxes to go up and pay for it. Whether it's this or anything else, it's important that that's part of it. If we start new programs, those new programs are funded of course by county services. So I would just like to --
>> certainly be part of the in depth interviews --
>> [multiple voices]
>> questionnaires placed on the web. I would suggest that time is of the essence since we are ramping up to a legislative session. I would move that we do go forward with the development of the scope of services.
>> second.
>> as well as --
>> how could you all steal my motion and my second on this item?
>> [laughter]
>> sorry. Let me finish -- let me finish it. My motion is --
>> how can you do that?
>> [laughter]
>> let me finish my motion. That we move forward with the scope of services as well as a web questionnaire and establishing a -- a -- three forums for the public on this issue as part of our plan for -- for eliciting the community opinion on land use.
>> something that I知 sponsoring, just out of courtesy, I think that the motion that Commissioner eckhardt and I both are co-sponsoring this, but I would like to second this motion since I am one of the sponsors.
>> can I ask for some clarification on the motion. Would we want the consultant to develop the questionnaire or do you want us to develop, t.n.r.?
>> done together.
>> so that's part of the scope of work.
>> yes, right.
>> that it would be part of the scope of work for the consultant to assist with developing that questionnaire?
>> I think their professional input would be --
>> also part of that would be the three forums.
>> yeah.
>> I don't know that I agree with the three forums. The recommendation is two.
>> two?
>> if we -- if we don't want members of the court swaying residents opinions, it seems to me fair to give the consultant an opportunity to use a -- an approved instrument, do the surveying, get the information, write the report and we determine how to proceed from there. That would be my understand. Whether we do two or 10, in my view it really should depend on the report and where we want to go with it to get whatever we think we ought to get out of it.
>> right.
>> is that a substitute motion? Or a friendly amendment?
>> well, you added a whole lot to the motion.
>> you want to restate that motion again Commissioner.
>> I want to finish my statement first. Then as chair I would like to recognize a person.
>> okay.
>> the other thing I think is that the people to be interviewed should be in categories. They are environmentalists, neighborhood association members, developers, looks like there are public officials.
>> yeah.
>> probably six, seven, eight categories, that way we will know exactly who is on there. We can best determine whether or not we will get any fair survey. That will be important for this instrument to be worth 20 to $30,000 for us.
>> yes.
>> the other thing is that I think when we approve the contract, we ought to be sure that we are together on exactly what we get out of it. What we hope to get and whatever we approve should be calculated to get us exactly that. 20 to 30,000 is not a lot of money in the scheme of things, but it is 20 to $30,000.
>> it is to me.
>> but if we get that much benefit, then it seems to me fine. Those are my views.
>> judge, if any of that direction -- I don't disagree with any of those things that you are saying.
>> I think --
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> earlier question, if you noticed my direction was the result da-da-da, naming the participants, stuff like that, I have no problem with any of that.
>> all of that is something, i.
>> I want to make sure that is included in what your intent of the motion was Commissioner.
>> I will restate the motion in a way that I think incorporates those. Tell me if they do.
>> you get the motion. The only part that I disagree with really was I wouldn't do three forums. I would add the persons to be interviewed by category so that we can make sure that we have a cross-section.
>> exactly.
>> later justify --
>> would it address your concerns if we -- if we said that we would have some forums, that we would just -- we are going to wait until the report comes back to decide how many and under what circumstances?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> whether you want to include that.
>> I think that's fine.
>> I will second that.
>> we will certainly --
>> judge, just what you suggested. The lists that I have, the breakdown, the developers, the -- all of this stuff is really in this list here, the -- the elected officials in the list that I presented to joe. Cross-section with that to make sure that we have persons in the neighborhood, all of those included in this list that I gave you.
>> I would err on the side of being inclusive. A lot of these folks will not want to be interviewed. A lot of them will not be available. So if the understanding is that 60 to 75 would be interviewed, I mean, I think that we would be lucky to get 60 to 75% of the total willing to interview.
>> I also think the general public's input through the web based survey
>> [multiple voices]
>> I値l include a list. I will get that to you.
>> let me ask one more question. I知 presuming that the forums, that the county itself can conduct the forums, that you didn't need the services of a consultant to help you with that? Or is that to be included in the scope of services
>> [multiple voices]
>> I think that we are
>> [multiple voices]
>> that's what I知 pushing for Commissioner.
>> my understanding is that we are going to -- while the motion states -- the intent of the motion is to state a desire for those forums, but to wait until after the delivery of the report to decide how and under what circumstances the forums would be performed. So it may require an amendment to the contract.
>> or just additional services not to be triggered unless the court so says.
>> I think that it would be good to have that level of flexibility within the contract. If we did want to utilize the services of the consultant to -- to run the forums, that we would have that flexibility.
>> would one of the public forums be here in Commissioners court with them making a public presentation to you on the findings of --
>> I think that would be very prudent.
>> it's hard for me to imagine not doing anything without the services of a consultant. When -- when Commissioner -- again, when this thing first started out, I wanted to make sure that we had the necessary tools and mechanisms in place and my whole concern is still to make sure that we have somebody available that know what they are doing with this stuff. I知 not a consultant. I know nothing about surveys and how we get the results. I don't want to put myself in a position ever of something that I don't know anything about. But we -- so that's why I want to make sure that we include the services of some consultant whoever they may be to -- to overlook and see what we are doing to make sure that we are doing the right thing. I知 just very adamant about that. Very supportive of that.
>> I think the public forum as -- as an opportunity for a presentation, the results of the survey is good. I would suggest that when the time comes we might also want to have others that are after business hours for those who can't make it to Commissioners court.
>> well, let us if -- work on it. Finalize the scope of the work. Get more input from you all on the list on who you want like Commissioner Davis has given us and bring that back to you just as quick as we can.
>> is it the court's wish to complete this or -- or exempt it?
>> would you like me to recommend that we do just an informal type of protesters? Maybe there's one or two or three that we know here, joe has been talking to a few I think, maybe get a proposal from at least two or three that he's been talking to.
>> if time is of the essence and which it may be
>> [multiple voices] we are rapidly
>> [multiple voices] --
>> [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]
>> doing it I object formally, hopefully under 25,000, we can just do it informally and not have it advertised in the newspaper which it what that means to do it informally which will lessen the time. It will take us I think at least a week, though, to finalize the scope of work and get our document together and work with the attorneys to get a contract sort of drafted. We will work fast on it. But we need a couple of weeks probably at least.
>> anybody else here on this item who would like to give comments to the court? This is one of those areas where everybody is an expert but nobody is.
>> we are generalists in the purchasing office. Just know a little bit of everything.
>> do you have that motion? Maybe a good idea to kind of summarize it for us, get us to us between now and next Tuesday. Any more discussion? Joe, I知 sure that you have clear directions. Give the first copy of those minutes to joe so he will understand it. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you. We're about to -- you all are here on campo? Are you all here on land use plus campo?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> all right. You had a successful morning.
>> we did, thanks.
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, February 27, 2008 8:09 PM