Travis County Commissioners Court
November 17, 2009,
Item 18
Number 18, mr.
geiselman, is to consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, charter for court's subcommittee on the county comprehensive plan; b, appoint two members of the Commissioners court to serve as comprehensive plan subcommittee; and c, reclassification of transportation and natural resources slot number 327 to comprehensive planning manager and slot number 456 to senior planner.
>> so when I brought this to the court last couple weeks, you asked that I bring this back in steps.
and these are the first steps to move the process along.
one is to appoint a subcommittee, two members of the court, to help give direction to the comprehensive planning process.
and I put together a draft charter for that subcommittee which is part of your backup.
pretty straightforward.
the purpose of the subcommittee is to give direction to the process, to serve as liaison to other governing bodies.
there are 22 municipal bodies with e.t.j.
z so we'll be interacting with those other agencies that have regulations and plans that affect the unincorporated area.
they will also be able to identify issues and opportunities that come up periodically with a sense of how that might affect the county.
and basically just provide general guidance to the process, especially looking at staff preliminary findings, studies, draft policies, get some feedback before that comes to the deliberations of the Commissioners court.
it pretty much functions as our subcommittee system does, just helping them to ferret out issues before they come to court.
and the last bullet is basically a -- I guess more a reminder than anything else that the subcommittee does not represent the Commissioners court and anything that they do would have to come back to the court and have a vote of the majority of the court before it can be represented as county policy or even draft policy.
>> the thing that I keep recalling about the comprehensive plan for the county was our decision to exclude health and human services.
so I say that to tell the court -- I'm not expressing an objection.
i'm just telling the court that we need to do our comprehensive planning for that in another way.
but we should be mindful that we kind of pull that out.
city of Austin made kind of a big deal for putting it in, right?
but our does sort of seem to be transportation and natural resources land use planning oriented, so it's fine with me except we need to cover that in another way.
ms.
fleming, did I get your attention?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> that when I think about it, looks like all the others really are sort of t.n.r., land use-type stuff.
>> and this is the physical development plan.
>> so it does make sense not to force us to include health and human services, but that's a pretty big area and pretty important area so we have to make sure we do comprehensive planning to cover health and human services and veteran service in some way.
not necessarily part of this plan.
>> and my understanding is that a business plan is being developed for hhs.
you're in the process of doing that leg of --
>> that's correct.
health and human services has a strategic planning process underway that will be comprehensive in that we will be trying to do a 360 on the community to determine whether or not our current structure and programs are meeting the needs of our current community and then the projected needs that we see our community having in the future.
so not quite as big a project as what you're contemplating with transportation and natural resources, but certainly will give you an indication of, you know, what needs are out there in the health and human services area.
>> anything else regarding the charge?
move approval of the recommended charge.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
b is the two members of the court to serve as subcommittee.
Commissioners Eckhardt and Huber were trying to get themselves included in the city planning process.
>> [laughter] so to cover the time that was freed up, I move that we appoint the two of them to serve as a subcommittee of the court if they will agree.
>> second.
>> well, I would like to maybe be a part of that also because the significant things that are happening in precinct 1 is just -- can't be ignored.
and we have a lot of development going on over there and there's no way in the world I would not entertain possibility of being a part of that.
it's just a lot of land use growth issues in my precinct, as you have heard.
and I don't think -- so I'm just laying it out to you like that.
>> joe, make sure that judge Davis is included if this motion passes.
>> and then post the meeting.
>> well, my motion is for two.
i don't know that three would work that well.
three you got to post, three takes a lot more time.
>> I've also consulted with the county attorney on that point.
i think they are much more comfortable under the law with two than three.
just because the open meetings act.
>> but it seems to me that on precinct 1 planning initiatives, I mean not everybody has to be included.
and at some point all of this has to come back to the Commissioners court anyway.
>> that's true.
>> but I guess my point is I want to make sure that -- I know the court has to approve things, of course, and I understand that, but I don't think neither one of these persons here are as close to the precinct as I am.
with the kind of issues that we're dealing with over there.
>> one way to address this -- let me
>> [inaudible].
part of the backup concerning comprehensive planning was to put together a cabinet of individuals to work closely with t.n.r.
and the various other departments since they get pulled in to hone this plan.
and perhaps through representation, through appointing folks to that e-cabinet, we could achieve that kind of representation for precinct 1.
>> rules and regulations of that.
we appointed some folks here just recently to serve with the city and, of course, we came with an alternate and a primary person.
the city don't even recognize the alternate as far as them sitting at the table unless they pass a resolution.
so to sit at their particular comprehensive plan.
and, of course, these particular persons were out of precinct 1.
so again, I don't want to see precinct 1 short changed again, in my opinion, as the city has just short changed us.
brought to my attention that in order for the alternate to have a voice -- they couldn't even sit at the table.
that really shocked me when we got information that the alternate could not even sit at the table because the table was reserved for those that were able to vote on stuff.
so it's a lot of rules and regulations that I think need to be looked at.
of course, I am the official Commissioner of precinct 1.
as far as -- and something else on this land use issue, I've devoted a lot of time into it and I'm just saying that, you know, the court does whatever it wants to do, but I will be very terribly uncomfortable about an area that's developing so quickly and the Commissioner of that precinct is not a part of the decision-making process or a part of the planning of the area that's growing rapidly.
in other words, somebody else planning for the folks in my precinct that aren't accountable to the people in the area.
that's my problem.
>> what about having someone serve from the western side and someone from the eastern side?
>> doesn't bother me one bit, but I'm just saying -- I just stated what I just stated.
i just wanted to make sure that precinct 1, the development and things that are going on over there and the issues that we have over from that we confront all the time need to have equal footing on this issue and I think joe is very well aware of it and I don't know what's going on, but we've had some talks about this stuff and he understands where I'm coming from better probably than anybody in this room.
>> I guess I'm a little confused about the city of Austin reference.
are you saying the other alternates from the county were able to sit at the table and --
>> no.
>> is city authorized us for four people.
that's where the four principals came from.
my thinking was you get more input if you do an alternate.
that way if a principal is absent, the alternate -- I don't know that we thought all the alternates would sit at the table like the principal members.
my thing was that if a principal could not attend --
>> that was the point.
.
>> -- the alternate would go.
these are public meetings and anybody can sit in there.
if the alternate wants to go to all the meetings to remained informed, I think the alternate ought to be able to do that, but I don't know that I think you ought to be able to sit at the table with the principal members and I never thought they would be.
>> well, the principals, judge, in this particular case, was not there and the alternate that was wasn't able to participate at the table.
>> do you want me to try to clear that up with the city?
>> I got a call from councilmember cheryl cole, and she said that she would have to resolve this via resolution because the original charges didn't give the alternates the kind of recognition so that would have to come up via recognition for the city.
of course, the very first meeting they had, the alternate that -- the alternate that I selected and was able to attend and, of course, the primary person wasn't able to attend and they didn't get any -- it really was bothersome to me and it's bothersome to them.
>> and me too because it doesn't make sense to have alternates if they can't participate in the absent of the principal, right?
the idea I thought was if the principal is not there --
>> that's exactly what happened.
>> I think that was our intent.
i've also since heard from councilmember cole that the rules at the city do not recognize alternates and they would have to change their city code in order to provide for alternates, that traditionally they appoint board members and if someone doesn't show, then they don't show.
>> so anyway, that's where we are and I just do not want to see the future of precinct 1, the planning and development of whatever we come up with.
i do not want to see the future of that with Commissioner Davis not having a role in it.
as an elected official representative of precinct 1.
>> I would just like to add that I think that we've got four precincts and we've got growth issues of one form or another in all of our precincts, whether it's actual subdivision growth or transportation issues or whatever.
and it seems to me like incumbent -- I mean there's apparently some legal issues with more than two or challenges for a subcommittee of more than two, but since we are each elected from four different precincts, plus the judge, that it's incumbent that the t.n.r.
and the staff that's guiding this and whoever serves on -- the alternate subcommittee, that we have a format for participation and representation equally from all four of the precincts.
it's not a two and a four or a one and a three issue.
it's the entire county that we're looking at here in a more comprehensive way, not as the resistanter related goes.
it's not just what's happening in an individual precinct.
i think that's incumbent on the charge is be sure the entire county is looked at in an equal and balanced way.
>> I don't have any confidence in that and my whole purpose is to make sure that precinct 1 gets a fair shake in all this because it hasn't gotten a fair shake in the past and I want to make sure that does happen.
so that's why I'm saying what I'm saying.
>> well, there's a motion and a second, and the motion contained the appointment of Commissioners Eckhardt and Huber.
if we need additional time to try to work through this, I withdraw the motion to allow another week.
but my motion expresses what I think ought to be done.
>> I would like another week to work on it.
>> then I'll withdraw the motion.
who seconded?
is that okay?
>> uh-huh.
>> so we will have 18-b back on next week.
c is reclassification of slot number 327 to comprehensive planning manager.
and slot number 456 to senior planner.
move approval.
>> second.
>> we heard joe's explanation last week.
source of funding?
>> I have it within the department.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
now that we've done that, we can pass the budget amendments and transfers item.
>> move approval.
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, November 17, 2009 1:40 PM
