Travis County Commissioners Court
October 20, 2009,
Item 25
Number 25.
consider and take appropriate action regarding comprehensive plans: a, a process to appoint four members to the city of Austin comprehensive plan citizens advisory committee, including desired professional background; and b, scope, process and schedule for the development of a comprehensive plan for the unincorporated area of Travis County.
should we take a first, the city of Austin planning process?
>> you had last week the letter from the city manager inviting the court to appoint four members to the advisory committee on the city comprehensive plan.
i believe you were going to talk about how those four appointments would be made by the Commissioners court today.
one suggestion was that the judge may call for appointments.
that may not have gotten a second.
i'm not sure about that.
anyway, that's what we're here for today.
>> I think I was the only one that thought it was an excellent idea, though, joe.
>> I thought it was a fairly good idea, but --
>> joe, before we go there,
>> [indiscernible], this -- will this person that we suggest be appointed -- what type of role as far as -- well, how many hats will they have to wear, actually?
in other words, we the county, are going to in the future come up with an advisory own comprehensive land use, comprehensive plan, I'm not sure of all of the language, but I'm quite sure that they have all of it in it.
we come up with our own.
and there are probably persons out there in the community who would want to serve on trying to come up with -- with good comprehensive plan, you know, and I don't know really the capacity that they will serve, but probably have a lot of interest in it.
i know that we talk about stakeholders and a whole lot of other things, however, this person that -- the four persons that we are looking at today, to serve on the city of Austin comprehensive plan advisory committee, would that be the same person that would lend themself to Travis County's comprehensive plan when we look at it in the future?
>> I would certainly recommend that if at all possible.
if you can get somebody that would serve in both roles, advisor to the city as well as advisor to the Commissioners court on its comprehensive plan.
>> well, that poses a -- well, let me put it to you, let me -- let me suggest this maybe.
in the names that were sent down from the city manager, as far as for us to look at and some of the persons that may be suggested to serve in that capacity, with these city of Austin's comprehensive plan, they had an opportunity to apply.
in other words, it was an application process.
now, they have had one step into the direction whereby others that may have interests as far as -- as far as dealing with the county's comprehensive plan, won't have that luxury to already have -- have already applied.
so that's my concern.
you know it's almost like we're getting some names here that have gone through a process, versus those that we may have an interest in as far as serving, that had not had an opportunity to go through the same application process.
so -- so I --, so that's my concern.
>> I tend to believe what Commissioner Huber said last week.
that was the list that the city gave to the court was just a sum total of everything that they had received in the extra territorial jurisdiction.
i don't think they are suggesting to the court that you are limited to that group of people or that you can't appoint someone else to their process that didn't go necessarily to their application process.
i think what they said is this is -- this is what we have gathered up.
you can take it or leave it.
and you are welcome to choose people who aren't even on our list to be your appointments.
i understand, at least the way I understood it, the four appointments to this city's process is yours to make from whatever pool that you would like to make them from.
>> I understand that.
what -- my point, though, what I'm trying to get across maybe we're just not -- appearing to be a nexus between us.
what I'm trying to see, this person whomever we select today, you are also suggesting that they may serve in the same capacity as that same representative on the Travis County comprehensive plan and so that's where I am having some concern because of the fact that -- that they will have a dual capacity there and maybe knock out someone else that may would like to serve in that other capacity.
between Travis County getting -- when we get ready to do our comprehensive plan.
>> we plan to have more than four, right?
>> I hope so.
>> for the county deal.
>> we haven't put a limit on just how many advisors you want on the -- on the county comprehensive plan.
>> well, as long as --
>> you can have as many as you want.
>> as long as there is still some openings, I didn't want there to be an open shut case.
as long as there are some openings to the county's process, I guess there was a schedule and a time line as far as a lot of things going on.
i want to make sure that the home opportunity still afforded to the persons that serve maybe in a similar capacity but strictly, strictly only for the Travis County comprehensive plan.
i don't know how to make it any clearer than that.
>> Commissioner Davis, if I might add some thoughts that have been tossed around with at least joe and myself.
and also a little history.
the lists that we got from the city quite frankly we were -- I was having some discussion with the city at the time and they were getting very, very few even applicants in their advertised process from the e.t.j.
so I know that there were some of us around the county that were looking, we actually made some calls, so some of the applicants that came in through that process were ones that we helped generate.
but as far as it willings to our own comprehensive plan, I think the door is open for our decision making of how we put and who we put on our list of advisors.
>> also there's a distinction between those who would be appropriate as our appointments to the city's comprehensive plan because they must live in the e.t.j.
whereas individuals that we would want to draw in for help on our own comprehensive plan we would certainly want some individuals who live outside the e.t.j.
of Travis County.
>> yeah.
>> so I don't think who we appoint for the city of Austin's effort would then limit us in the future as to who we call upon for their aid in our uniquely Travis County effort.
>> well, I recall a little bit ago when we looked at -- at the land use research and studies that was done county-wide, that we could properly survey and come up with some results using the consultant, to determine whether or not if Travis County maybe awarded land use authority -- of course all of this information we helped put together as far as going before the legislature to hopefully have the legislature to grant Travis County such authority.
however, as you know, that particular bill died in calendar.
my concern is that some of the same persons and the same data that was put together in that particular effort was still maybe utilized -- but the point is that it -- we had groups, stakeholders, but not personally individuals, per se, so I'm just trying to get down to the individual aspect of this to make sure that we are mimicking exact -- that we aren't mimicking exactly what the city of Austin's structure is as far as their comprehensive plan is concerned.
i don't really know where you're coming from on that, joe.
we haven't gotten to a lot of this, but we need to get the ball rolling in that regard so I will at least know what to do because other folks who I know individually who want to serve on the Travis County comprehensive plan, but of course are asking what kind of application process and all of the other things that they have to go through and of course we don't have an application for them to apply.
we haven't come up with any structure per se, at this time.
i hope you understand the concern.
i just do not want the door shut on persons that want to serve on the Travis County Commissioners -- on the -- on the comprehensive plan.
so that's my concern.
>> as it relates to the -- our appointments to the city of Austin board, I've -- I've been putting a lot of thought into this and I really think that each Commissioner should make an appointment for their precinct.
but I also think that given the time involved, the length of time involved in the process, and the -- and the fact that even a lot of us have diversity within our own precincts, that we would like represented, that it would be a good idea to also appoint an alternate that could work with the appointed member and be sure that the precincts effectively are represented.
i have vetted this with assistant city manager and they appear to be comfortable with this process.
so ...
>> can we go to page 2 of joe's memo?
at the top joe has listed multiple elements of the county comprehensive plan.
my recommendation is that each member of the court, excluding the county judge, would attempt to find a person and an alternate in the following four areas: land use, transportation, storm water management and water quality, and I have combined bullets 1, 2, 3, 4 -- bullets 5 and 6, natural resources and environmental quality, parks and open spaces.
it seems to me that if you have eight individuals already working on land use issues or comprehensive plan and e.t.j., then we would have them on the county comprehensive plan committee, also.
>> right.
>> and on the county comprehensive plan that we try to have what, about 16, and we try to -- we try to maybe add one more to those areas, but I left uncovered goals and objectives, that would require a lot of work from staff probably, right?
>> well, I -- your advisors, the court itself, the staff, I think they would all be working on goals and objectives.
across the spectrum of functions.
>> all right.
then implementation strategy, also.
>> right.
>> and so if we -- if we follow this recommendation, there would be four members, plus four alternates, that we start with, so that's eight.
then we would choose eight more.
>> I would have to say, judge, given some of the conversations that we've had in our t.n.r.
subcommittee about this, one of the concerns that I personally have had is the usual process of public hearings and things like that gets the same people out all the time.
and we would really like to reach out in the community and go beyond those who are just the -- including the usual activists that go beyond that and try to get some really good feedback from some alternative resources and then also in looking at the -- at the eight that you're talking about right now, we feel that we need to have a really good representation from the unincorporated areas and both of the appointment and the backup for the city of Austin would all be from the e.t.j.
so I personally would like to see us -- indeed we create a subcommittee for this, let the subcommittee come back with some recommendations on the board size, the representation and let the court take a look at then what our process looks like it might unfold to be in a more creative mode.
i don't know if we need to be a larger advisory board, a smaller board given the other options where we're going to get input from.
i think that's something that I would like to see us take a little longer look at.
>> I talked with a couple of persons, there are several that I have in mind can serve.
a couple of person, one of 'em is on one of the list of 11 that came from the city manager, of course I
>> [indiscernible] had a chance to talk with him, also, but you mentioned the alternate because both of them show an extreme interest, this is just basically to serve on the city of Austin comprehensive plan.
however the opportunity and I think the judge kind of opened it up here a little bit, to serve on these other specialty subject matter is something I think that -- that we need to really I take -- take strong consideration.
have strong consideration for.
now, I do not mind fulfilling what -- what the city of Austin is suggesting as far as having somebody in the unincorporated, both of these persons that I have are in the unincorporated area of Travis County.
of course, do show interest.
so to fulfill their version of it I can maybe go there and but on the others, judge, I guess when --
>> let's just deal with them one at a time.
let's deal with the city's appointment.
did the city request e.t.j.
residents?
>> I think that was the presumption that they would be in the e.t.j.
>> they were explicit about e.t.j.
residents.
>> e.t.j.
>> the difficulties that they were find in this recruiting e.t.j.
residents participation they didn't get a lot of applicants from the e.t.j.
and were reaching out asking for our help.
>> I don't know --
>> so my recommendation would be as to a, then we would try to stress those four areas that I mentioned and we would come up with two residents in each precinct in the e.t.j.
>> okay.
>> to serve on the city's comprehensive planning committee.
that would be consistent with their request.
however, each -- each court member would be able to authorize to seek his or her appointees.
>> right.
>> you know, without regard to that list.
you can use the list or you cannot use it.
my thinking is that we would try to cover the entire county, so a Commissioner would try to choose two -- from his or her respective precinct.
>> with one being the representative and the other being the alternate.
>> right.
and we would just indicate that to the city, so if a member cannot attend, the intention would be that the alternate would come.
>> right, which I have no problem with that.
with that particular recommendation.
>> that's my motion.
>> second.
>> I have -- I have one question --
>> discussion.
question?
more than one.
>> one issue, one distinction between what the city of Austin, the scope of what the city of Austin is proposing for their comprehensive plan versus what's outlined by joe in this memo is that the scope of the city of Austin's plan also reaches to health and human services and service delivery generally of the type counties don't have.
around I'm wondering -- and I'm wondering, while I think these identified issue areas are 100% appropriate for the county's comprehensive plan, I'm sympathetic to the city's larger scope and the possible aid an e.t.j.
resident could provide to them in an attempt to make their service delivery as robust and responsive in the e.t.j.
that's a category no, sir -- category not covered by this memo, but we might consider covering to the city.
>> do you want to define the bullet.
>> I just recommended them, you don't have to follow these.
it would seem to me, though, joe thinks these are important to the county, we may as well start working on them in the e.t.j.
that gets us with people already work in this the different areas.
so if you have four opportunities and there's no reason why a person wouldn't have a keen interest in more than one, so you are saying health and human services is important, that makes sense to me.
we don't want to come back with four people of the same mindset was my thinking.
>> that's good.
>> let's just add health and human services, that's our list of recommended areas that we want covered.
>> all right.
>> for the city of Austin appointees.
>> right.
that's the motion.
>> second.
>> ms.
porter, have you got a second?
Commissioner Huber?
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
are we ready to act on b today?
>> I was going to lay it out.
i don't think -- it got to you late, so I'm not sure how much time you've had to review it.
>> late yesterday, joe, late yesterday.
>> I tell you what, joe, we will read it between now and next Tuesday and let you lay it out again.
>> sounds good.
>> we will try to be ready for action.
>> > late.
>> let's think about the size of our committee.
seems to me there is some value in having quite a few.
i normally think in terms of, you know, eight or nine, but this may be one of those cases where we want to have 16 to 20.
the other thing is if you look at joe's elements here, if we add health and human services to it, we would end up with eight bullets.
so the question is whether those eight are good, whether we want to add to those, whether we want to strike some of them.
joe will not be offended if we strike some of his recommended elements.
>> when are we supposed to come up with those specific names as far as the structure is concerned?
>> okay, for the county?
>> yeah.
>> I was thinking that we would agree on the element structure and get a schedule in place next week.
>> okay.
>> take action.
>> okay.
>> but we would have a chance to mull over joe's memo a few more days, then get joe to lay it out and discuss it next week, then take whatever action we're ready to take.
>> when will you make the city appointments?
they have a meeting coming up I think on November 4th, when they will gather their entire committee.
they were hoping that we would have our appointments made by then so our appointments could join the committee in the orientation.
>> I have my two today, the alternate and somebody, but whenever you guys wants 'em.
>> I have one person --
>> [multiple voices]
>> we will make as many as we can next Tuesday.
>> next Tuesday.
>> October 27th.
so there will be -- they will be ready for that November 4th meeting.
>> all right, joe.
>> is it okay to call b up next week?
>> I think Commissioner Davis
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> what's the first Tuesday in November?
>> I'm going -- I will let you know something about that, something else is pending.
i will get back with you later.
>> we will get your --
>> [multiple voices]
>> the county's schedule would be more extended.
so the action items probably two or three weeks later.
>> as far as getting the appointments, though, together since both of you will be off the dais next week as far as the getting the appointments to the city.
>> couldn't we get our appointments
>> [indiscernible]
>> I think so.
a little bit of background or resumes, if you think we can associate them with one of joe's bullets, if you would do that for us, it would facilitate our discussion.
if we run into obstacles, we will just delay action until we get it.
how's that?
>> okie-doke.
>> excellent job, mr.
gieselman.
>> thank you, joe.
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 20, 2009 1:40 PM
