Travis County Commissioners Court
September 1, 2009,
Item 6
>> item number 6, receive briefing and take appropriate action regarding county participation in city of Austin's comprehensive planning process.
we do have city representatives here.
councilmember cheryl cole, sue edwards.
>> thank you for inviting us.
it's always a pleasure to be here before the court.
i haven't seen you in a while and I'm just glad to be invited back.
it's also our pleasure to be given the opportunity to potentially work with the county on any issue given that we have many, many items that we face together.
i just wanted to let you know that we were taken a little by surprise by the item to agenda and I have not discussed in detail the item with any of my colleagues and it will also need to be sort of vetted with our city manager and appropriate staff.
but that's not to say that we do not want to have some intense discussions with you about how we may work together and we hope that we can do that as soon as possible.
our contemplated comprehensive plan is supposed to take a look at the entire city and its e.t.j.
from a 30,000 feet view.
and basically we're going to be making decisions regarding transportation, the environment, social service issues and many, many other issues.
and I brought sue edwards, who is our assistant city manager covering this issue to kind of give you a briefing on what we are considering.
>> councilmember cole couldn't have said it better.
i think she articulated everything about wanting to be a partner with you and really enjoying the work that we have been doing together.
the comprehensive plan is a two-year plan.
we are hoping that we complete it within two years.
we've seen other plans where we've had some difficulty in getting things off of the ground and this is one where we would really like to see it succeed.
one of the things that we will be doing is with councilmember cole and her subcommittee, they will be -- have been selecting the members that will sit on the team.
the team will be about 25 to 30 members.
>> I think it's 21 to 29.
>> okay.
and that team will be the working group that will be looking at all of the 10 elements that we have in the comp hence of plan.
we anticipate that we'll use every kind of media that we can possibly have as well as going out into the community and listening to everyone who wants to participate.
we will also be making sure that we get a very diverse group both from an economic standpoint as well as from how they work and what the jobs are and as well as the ethnicity.
so we are intending to get that underway as soon as possible and I think the council on its 24th -- September 24th meeting will be appointing the committee and that will be actually the working committee.
not excluding anybody from participating.
>> I'd also like to add that I am chair of the comprehensive planning and transportation committee, and I also serve on that with councilmember laura morrison and councilmember chris riley.
and we will be meeting on September 10th to consider the applications that have been forwarded to the city of people that want to serve on the steering committee.
ands we said earlier, that committee is anticipated by council resolution just our last meeting to be between 21 and 29 members.
but that committee will also go on later in the process working with the consultants to engage technical subcommittees on some of the various issues that we talked about, transportation and environmental issues, and we think that members of our boards and commissions will also be involved in that.
i also want to let you know that we have a September 3rd deadline for applications.
but several members of the city staff and the city manager are anxious to meet with you guys to talk about the -- more details about the plan and how potentially we could cooperate and so we probably just need to figure out when we can do that, and so today we're here mainly to ask you to postpone the item until we can have those discussions and actually get a proposal on the table or potential proposal or just more details about you guys understanding what we're trying to do.
>> well, I -- in fact, I think in my opinion a good suggestion.
i had a chance -- all of us had a chance, I guess, to look at the plans as far as our backup is concerned and I have some reservations and I think you may need to talk to your colleagues about especially when you are talking about the membership, who is going to actually serve on this particular committee.
and, of course, we're talking about e.t.j.
stuff and, of course, I want to make sure that the -- the county has an equal share and setting in such a plan.
a comprehensive plan I think is just that, comprehensive, but inclusive.
and, of course, being inclusive means to me that we have folks that reside in our e.t.j., that probably need to have the same say or the same amount of leverage, in my opinion, as significance as those folks that are being appointed by the city.
so when you say 25 to 30 people -- 29 folks coming from the city, I'm just wondering how inclusive that is with the county.
of course, I think, in my opinion, the county should have a lot of say in what goes on in a plan especially if it's in the e.t.j.
under title 30.
so I'm concerned about how much, again, leverage the county will have as far as participation and have a significant say in what the city is intending and looking at as far as the vision and its plan.
so I hope that you translate that to your colleagues, councilmember cole and sue edwards because as far as I'm concerned, I can't speak for the court, but I can speak for Ron Davis, Commissioner of precinct 1, and we have a lost things going on in my precinct and, of course, it would be an outcry for folks in the secret that's not within the incorporate limits of the city of Austin who actually are in that e.t.j.
have an equal footing and say in what goes on in the plan.
so a delay -- you know, I can live with that is correct but I want to make sure that the message is taken strictly back to your colleagues that under title 30 since we deal under that situation that we'll share equal weight.
we want to keep that in place.
so that's my -- one point of view.
i have several others, but I don't want to hog up all the time.
but I hope you --
>> you all meet until 2:00 in the morning just like we do, don't you?
>> pardon me?
>> you all meet until 2:00 in the morning just like we do.
>> I do not want to divorce the county's position under the title 30 because that comes under the e.t.j.
and since it does I don't want to relinquish that to a situation with a plan that may be one sided.
i don't really know what amount of authority these particular persons that you all are going to have to apply for these positions with the city, I do not know, but I do know that are they going to be within the city limits of the e.t.j., I don't know that.
i don't know if they are going to come from, from the county or stay win the corporate boundary of the city.
the only thing I realize what it comes to the county, when it comes to the county, as far as I'm concerned, that the e.t.j.
is where we are and it's definitely under title 30, which we are mandated to operate under by law.
so that's where I'm coming from.
>> okay, let me say two things to hopefully ease some of your concerns.
but first and foremost, we certainly need to visit with you in detail about those concerns.
second, we have a matrix that was actually approved by a council which requires all type of diversity and it does include the e.t.j.
and we are reaching out to people who actually reside in the e.t.j.
the second item is that, of course, the city of Austin is a component of Travis County.
and we do not as far as I know, and I think I can speak for all my colleagues, have any desire to be at odds with the county on any issue.
that is just simply not the case and I want to assure you of that.
even though I assure you of that I want also want to make the invitation about --
>> the information I have is the information I have according to what I'm looking at as far as the backup is concern.
i want to make sure when the county participates, and it's a great idea.
i'm not here to argue, but I'm here to point out -- excuse me -- the difference.
in other words, looking at this in the county has to have a true partnership in this thing.
i mean really true partnership.
i would like to have one of the persons that I think would be very good in my precinct to be on this particular committee.
that lives, you know, and I think there's some -- in an area out there in precinct 1 not in to the limits but in the e.t.j.
and, of course, I would like to maybe have the right to appoint who that person is, per se.
and I'm just laying it out as far as what I can see or what I'm looking at here now and hoping that we can keep a good relationship.
>> [indiscernible] pretty good relationship under title 30 and I want to make sure that balance under title 30 under one single office still stays intact.
even though we go through a plan that deals with transportation, land use, environmental concerns, all those concerns that I mention within this comprehensive plan, that's great.
i'm not knocking it.
i just want to make sure that we have a stake at the table as far as the county is concerned and the county has a level playing field to operate from even though you may have significant more appointees than the county has.
so I'm just want to reserve that and let you see exactly where I'm coming from, and I'm not trying to override anything, but just led you know I want to stay and make sure that title 30 is not destroyed or it's not compromised in such a land use plan whereby we cannot go in the same direction as we've been doing, and making pretty good progress as we have in the future.
>> if our goal today is to facilitate exploratory discussions in the future, what's the step for us to take?
postponement and awaiting further word from you?
>> or I mean I think either side can initiate that discussion.
it would just be a very urgent merging of the calendars to see who on the county's Commissioners court and staff would want to participate in that process and, of course, I'd have to alert any councilmember that would want to participate.
and let me quickly address your other concern.
i want you to know that we've already defined our scope and hired our consultants, but there will be numerous town hall meetings so it's not as if just one person from your precinct need to participate in this process whether the county formally participates or not.
you can invite your whole precinct to go to a town hall meeting.
so I don't want you to feel like your voices will be muted just because we have a small steering committee.
>> the point is still authority.
whenever I look at plans and stuff like that, I look at who's calling the shots.
and, of course, I do not want to see the county get into a position where it doesn't have any teeth and that's not where I'm going.
i want to make sure the county maintains its teeth in this plan and that means to me that we have to have a strong partnership as far as looking at the county, as far as who we would like to have represented in this overall committee.
in other words, I see where you are coming from, I see the number of persons you have on the committee here is several.
but, of course, outside the corporate limits of the city of Austin, then you talk about the e.t.j., then you cross into the county's territory.
once you do that, then I think that it's very important for us to keep that relationship and also have members that serve on its committee that's appointed by this particular Commissioners court.
so that's a very strong component on where I think we should go.
>> judge?
>> normally we would appoint two members of the court to explore different possibilities like this.
>> okay.
>> so I guess my question really is should we just hear further from the city on how you would like to proceed?
then we will figure out what the appropriate response is?
>> I think the appropriate action would be for the city manager to actually contact you, judge, and you guys or whoever you decide you want to speak for the court.
>> judge, if I may offer up, I've actually had a number of conversations with yourself and other city councilmembers and staff at the city about this.
i think there seems to be -- that all along an indication of interest and working with the county on this.
i think that given the short time frame that the city is on right now that is correct we probably if you want to play ball with you guys, we ought to at least create a subcommittee of the court and organize staff to pursue working with the city and see what we can carve out that's appropriate for -- for both entities to work together.
because I do feel that particularly when it comes to e.t.j., there are components of the city plan that we may not need to be involved in, obviously, but there's some that are very critical like the e.t.j.
and your moving fast enough that if we don't move a little faster to work with you, we may both lose because there's opportunity here.
i know that we had talked about an interlocal agreement perhaps, carvings out some of the ways that we would work together in parts of this so I really think that we should go ahead -- I would recommend that we go ahead -- in fact, I move that we create a subcommittee of the court and authorize staff to have --
>> Commissioner, I want to apologize to you because I do remember you coming to my office and making some suggestions about this in a long conversation that we had about a lot of things.
and I did not take that in a formal measure forward to my colleagues or the city manager.
so I want to let you know that right up front.
>> that was not a formal, but it was informal discussions.
>> [multiple voices]
>> judge, from a -- just to be procedurely up front, the Commissioners court, none of us as Commissioners or the judge or mr.
geiselman could move forward with approval of the full Commissioners court without an agenda item.
but there have been numerous conversations.
we've discussed the idea of collaboration as well as discussions I've had with councilmember morrison, councilmember riley, staff at councilmember martinez's office and staff at the mayor's office.
so -- and I was very, very gratified to see us included in the organizational chart of you all's draft 715 document.
>> along with 15 other entities.
>> yeah, we're thinking about you guys.
>> didn't leave anybody out.
>> we're trying not to.
>> and also -- and I totally get that y'all -- that y'all are -- I mean this is y'all's comprehensive plan and a lot of this came out of internal discussions after y'all's housing study came out in March, which was just a tremendous piece of work that we have used a lot within health and human services.
and internal discussions that it would have been very good for the county to approach the city at the beginning of that study because it was very, very plain from that study and I think we all agree that a large portion of the affordable housing equation was occurring outside the corporate jurisdiction of the city of Austin and we would have gotten a bigger bang if we had participated.
so we didn't want to -- we didn't want to lose the opportunity this time.
>> well, this is the city's planning effort and they are telling us being on the jeeped today may be premature.
-- being on the agenda today may be premature.
i believe I hear you saying let us get back to you.
>> yes, let us get back to you and let's schedule a meeting as soon as possible with staff and other councilmembers and explore what we can do together.
we'll take responsibility.
>> we need to keep joe geiselman in mind.
>> speaking of joe geiselman, he hasn't said anything today.
>> keep joe in mind right there.
>> we have a motion and second on the floor.
>> we sure do.
>> have you all made a motion about which Commissioners are going to lead the effort?
>> the motion is we appoint a subcommittee.
if this passes, I guess we'll take a week to figure out who.
>> so I guess I'm trying to figure out who you want -- do you want us to contact the entire Commissioners court?
>> it's in our hands now.
>> okay.
>> once that motion and second are made.
motion is to appoint a subcommittee.
and I guess my response to that is that's how we normally proceed, but I am hearing city representatives about the city planning process.
and I guess I'm disinclined to think we ought to --
>> well, if we're --
>> move counter to that.
>> I don't think that a motion to have a subcommittee to explore the comprehensive plan is exclusive to working with the city.
i mean there's been discussion among the county of the need for a comprehensive plan for the county itself.
to the extent that we can dove-tail that to what is city is doing, that's great, it would probably be better.
but I think given the calendar --
>> ought to do what we're about to do.
that is, the city council has not formally acted to extend an invitation to the county to participate.
so we have put the cart before the horse is what I'm hearing.
>> yes, but I don't think that because we haven't acted that a meeting is, you know, out of order.
i think that the decision about-to what extent your comprehensive plans will ultimately be developed -- and I don't think that necessarily needs a subcommittee.
that could just be whichever one of the you guys actually want to come over and visit more with staff and a few councilmembers.
that might be a good idea.
>> I think I've expressed my sentiments, but joe geiselman who is sitting there, and as the judge said is mighty quiet and hasn't said anything, but I would hope that you do not leave joe geiselman, executive manager of t.r.n.
out of the loop whenever you contact anybody.
that's just part of it.
the only thing I'm concerned about more than anything else is the county not having a authoritative role, a partnership role in what you are doing especially when you come to the e.t.j.
where you dictate to the county what you think is best for the county, and that's not -- it's not something I can swallow.
especially if the county don't have a say in what you are dictating.
so there's some very strong concerns sentiments because I don't want the city -- running the e.t.j.
that's why I think it's very important that we have some equal footing in whatever we come up as far as a plan.
so that's -- that's about as far as --
>> seems to me based on what I'm hearing a better move might be to ask councilmember cole and ms.
edwards to communicate to the city of Austin city council our interest in partnering with the city the -- comprehensive planning effort and then let them act formally and get back with us, then we'll know thousand proceed.
there is a motion on the floor.
it was seconded.
any more discussion.
that motion is to appoint two representatives of Commissioners court.
if this passes I'll ask for a week to figure out who it should be anyway.
all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioners hueber and Eckhardt voting in favor.
those against the motion show Commissioner Davis, Gomez and yours truly voting against it.
my recommendation is that the city basically extend to us a formal invitation to partner after indicating our interest in doing so at the first opportunity and we will know how to respond.
>> thank you.
>> it's always a pleasure to see you all here.
do not take joe geiselman with you.
>> [laughter]
>> 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:
Tuesday, September 1, 2009 3:14 PM
