Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, July 13, 2010,
Item 21
21 is to consider and take appropriate action to use the local initiative program grant for a transportation management association partnership. We will call 14 up next. Let's go.
>> a transportation management association organization would be beneficial for the travis county area. It would help to alleviate traffic in downtown area by providing and offering strategies for the downtown -- for people who work in the downtown area, the businesses and the property owners. And this amount of money would help, would be seed money. There would be three other -- at least three other organizations matching this dollar amount for the first year to start the organization and to get it going off the ground. A study was conducted in the spring of 2010 which showed that this program would be beneficial to the downtown austin area. This program would help alleviate traffic in the area, which would also reduce air quality for our area.
>> i'm prove air quality.
>> yes. So who would be the other partners?
>> the downtown alliance organization is going out and recruiting other members. They are looking at capital metro, campo, possibly.and the city of austin.
>> as well as travis county.
>> so they're looking for other partners and other money.
>> correct.
>> and when all of that is put together, then our funding, assuming this is approved today, our funding would be committed.
>> correct.
>> but our funding would not be committed until the pieces are put together.
>> that is correct. And if the other partners, there's not enough organizations that cannot be found to make up the rest of the money, then the money would be returned to travis county. It would never be spent in the first place.
>> john white, tnr. Keep in mind that this is under the lrp program, the local initiatives program. We've had preliminary indication from tceq that they would look favorably upon this, but no confirmation of that. So they would still have to give final approval that this is an appropriate use of lip dollars.
>> so when would that --
>> we would try to get that approval from them as quickly as we can.
>>
>> the way the process works under the llp grant is that the court approves a project summary. We submit the project summary to tceq and they approve it and send us a notice to proceed which authorizes us to move forward with the project.
>> we work with others on putting an evaluation component together? Evaluation component?
>> evaluation component of the project or --
>> if we're spending $37,000 of state money, then i guess others are coming up with two times that? At some point we need to determine whether it's a good investment or not. So there needs to be an evaluation component.
>> understood.
>> we don't have that here. What i'm trying is we need to put that together before a final commitment is made. Don't we?
>> i would agree with that, yes. Something that would have actual performance standards and deliverables, that sort of thing.
>> right.
>> presumably tceq would be looking for that as well in terms of their approval of this for use of lip funds.
>> so the proposed transportation management association, also my understanding is that they are putting together a metrics to indicate success. And the assumption, correct me if i'm wrong, but this $148,000 is essentially seed money to get the tma up and running and then there would be a fee for service component to the private sector to participate in this with the intention of being able to increase the percentage of downtown employees whether public or private, who were utilizing alternative modes of transportation.
>> the 148 is for one year. They anticipate the need would be an additional two years for a total of three years, but we can also ask for the 37,000 at this time under the lip grant because our contract ends on august the 31st of this year.
>> august 31st?
>> yes, sir. We just received an amendment to extend our contract, which i am preparing that for court approval once we work out the nuts and bolts with the tceq and between our attorneys to present it before the court, which would actually extend our contract through august 31st, 2013.
>> so to recap, this organization is supposed to encourage and assist employers and employees in finding alternative sources, but also jermaine to the topic that we were talking about two items back, parking management, including parking pricing and enforcement strategies, i am plem implementing parking cash out employees that has employees choose not to use employer parking and working with coordination between public transit providers as well as the various local governmental entities in order to maximize the capacity in the down area. So with regard to that, are we looking at -- are y'all looking at all of working with broaddus, the parking committee and the parking consultants, because it appears plain from the presentation earlier that we're shooting for an increase from two percent to five percent utilization of non-single occupancy vehicle commutes among our workforce.
>> we certainly could consider working with thevment i think up to now the engagement of travis county has been through other departments. Our role simply here is to facilitate the funding right at this point. But certainly these are kinds of things that we would be interested in.
>> because it seems like we will be asked for continuing contributions to this over time so this year is 37,000 and it's state money, but next year presumably the state money won't be available for that, is that correct?
>> it won't be available. The state money -- 2010 funds are eligible for '10, '11 and '12 and we'll be getting more money, presumably the same amount, 433,000 for fy '11, which will be also utilized for fy '11, '12 and '13.
>> so it is possible to continue to use lip funding for our participation in the transportation management association.
>> that is correct.
>> that's correct. Keeping in mind that we still have to get tceq's formal approval of this. I mean, in the past some of that has been a little he will lewis sieve, but presumably if we can get them to approve at this time, that would continue.
>> but you're asking for a one-year commitment today.
>> correct.
>> first year is what they're trying to get going with.
>> at some point we will have some sort of agreement to review and approve.
>> yes.
>> this is just certification of the county's interest.
>> that's correct. So that we can go ahead and make that application to tceq for the lip funds.
>> i do think that in that contract there should be evaluation criteria.
>> i agree also. I'm having a problem, but i also would like to make sure that -- if i brought this question up with broaddus when they were giving their presentation, i asked the question about this item coming up because of the air quality issue. Of course, they said we're looking at -- but at any rate, my concern is still the fact that we are looking at a timeline whereby -- i would like to know exactly what that timeline is whereby we would hear from the folks, eep and all these other kind of folks, as far as travis county's attainment or non-attainment status, whether it be 70 parts per billion or what is it, 65 parts per billion? I don't recall --
>> commissioner, we expect that e.p.a. Is going to be making their final determination in august. Would be the 15 the, could be the 31st.
>> august 15th?
>> i believe the latest i've seen is they will make that announcement on august 31st.
>> august 31st.
>> there after, the state will make a recommendation on what specific areas to designate. The big question will be in terms of e.p.a.'s determination is whether we'll be in moderate non-attainment or marginal non-attainment. And that's going to depend on where they actually set the bar, is it going to be 70, is it going to be 65, is it going to be 60.
>> if we're looking at the new standards, the new emissions bar that they had ended up giving us, 60 parts per billion, 70 parts per billion as far as what e.p.a. Had come up with was marginal or whatever is standard, the bottom line is we as a court, we encouraged as many persons to help us reduce our emissions as far as the things that harm the ozone. There was a lot of volunteer situations that we asked folks to do and i remember we were out at manor, a city council meeting once, we tried to encourage those folks to maybe help beef up the effort to make sure that we protect the quality of our air because we saw -- of course, this court and we had offers coming down the pike. My question is at this time, we don't really know where we are in this and we don't know that until the 31st. And it was pretty difficult to get folks to volunteer to make sure that we stay in harm's way as far as keeping out of the jaws of non-attainment. And my concern is still that. And of course, i see what we're doing here, reduce vehicles, da, da, all these other things, but at the end of the day where will we be when it comes to what the e.p.a. Is saying?
>> commissioner, it will depend almost entirely on where they actually set the bar. If they set it at 70, we'll probably be in some sort of a marginal non-attainment status because certainly as of this year our design standard is going to be at about 72. At least that's where we stand right now. The final determination of all of that will probably be about a year after they set the bar. They will be getting some information on exactly how -- who is going to be designated, what counties, that sort of thing.
>> right. And this is going to the next question, even though the timelines as you've laid them out, and i understand that. My question is we're looking at money and i understand that as we just stated that we will have a continuum of funding through the state up until we get 2011-2012 on this particular money. But the point is will that money be necessarily -- is it being utilized correctly in my mind to make sure that whatever -- wherever the bar or the benchmark is set, must not that made available to us -- owe how much money is made available to travis county from the state for this particular program? I know we had the sticker program, we had different things that we ended up dealing with, but how much money is made available?
>> so for fiscal year '10, i believe adele has the numbers for that.
>> for fiscal year '10 we received $443,186.97. We will receive that same amount for fy '11.
>> i guess my point is this. I really would like to this -- this is in august, i would really like to see where we are in august because i'm thinking that if we're on the other side of non-attainment, the question then becomes what do we do to get into attainment status. And what financial monies can we utilize to get there. Now, again, we would look for volunteer compliance and we did this and we've done that and this has been a very progressive court as far as trying to make sure that the folks understand that it's an educational aspect. Two, that there are consequences that we have to deal with if we ever get in the non-attainment status. So i'm just laying all this out because i really don't want to get in a situation where we -- where we maybe need all the financial support we can get to make sure this happen, even though this is leaning in that direction, but it's going to be a pretty tough pill to swallow if we end up getting in attainment and can't get out of it, in the non-attainment status. That's my concern.
>> commissioner, once the bar is set, whether it be at 70, 65 or 60 --
>> i think it's 60 parts per billion, isn't it?
>> that's the lowest that it can be set at. That seems unlikely. It will probably be 65 or 70. Once that is established we'll have a specific designation for the area sometime in the spring of 2011. It could be as late as august of 2011. When that happens we'll be given a specific timetable for making plans to demonstrate how we can come back into compliance. However, once you're designated, your obligations with respect to planning are likely to extend for 20 years. So there is no quick out in terms of that.
>> i know it's a long-term process. I understand.
>> nevertheless, we have made extraordinary progress here, a lot of which is basic lie due to the improvement of the vehicle fleet. We've just made striking progress over recent years, so we'll probably be in fairly good shape, but the question for us is going to be what sort of time frame they're going to give us to demonstrate compliance.
>> we don't know that.
>> we don't know that. What we're asking for is rather than give us a very short time frame, which is sort of the mindset that has been used in past by e.p.a., they give you a fairly short time set if you're in a marginal non-attainment status. There's a certain ill logic for that for some of us because you're being asked to make a lot of improvements in a lot of short order where a lot of communities with more serious issues and who actually contribute to the ozone problem are given a much longer time frame to actually demonstrate compliance. So we'll have --
>> roping this back in to this grant, all this is today is asking for approval to pursue utilization of local initiative -- of local initiative program grant for participation in the tma in order to -- with the goal of hopefully reducing our employees' contribution to non-attainment.
>> well, that's correct. So the tma will be specifically focused on issues affecting downtown. There are about 125 of these organizations across the country. They vary in terms of the specific things they do. This particular organization seems to be focused specifically on congestion relief, parking issues and things like that. Their solutions may vary over a period of time. But they're specifically going to be focused on downtown issues that they as stakeholders and property owners and such can really focus on. So they'll be --
>> but they would include our employees as well as employees --
>> it would endeed.
>> we are a member of the downtown alliance, so we would be part of that as a major employer in the downtown area.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> this is for the first year.
>> correct.
>> with the understanding that the item will be brought back to us when there is a contract and other components for us to look at and review before finally approving.
>> right. And judge, with that, if it could be a friendly, i would also like to see this is a request, i guess. August 15th or 31st standard as far as what the e.p.a. Has set forth for the county, whether it's -- the benchmark, whether it's 70 or 65%, i don't mean what that number is going to be, but it would be good for that to be brought back to the court so we will know exactly what we need to do in that time frame, whatever they bring forth with that. It's definitely a part of this.
>> i think there should be more direction to bring that back at the appropriate time.
>> yes.
>> whenever that is set.
>> it's got me very nervous even though we have a lot.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all 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, July 13, 2010 2:35 PM
