Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 17, 2010,
Item 21
>> item 21 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following, a, an interlocal agreement with the city of austin and the lower colorado river authority to conduct a colorado river corridor study, which includes several tracts currently targeted for sand and gravel mining. B, approve order exempting the purchase of professional land planning services from bosse and pharis associate inc. From the competitive procurement process pursuant to section 262.024-a-4 of the county purchasing act of. And c, approve order exempting the purchase of professional environmental monitoring services from thorn hill group inc. From the competitive procurement process pursuant to section 262.024-a-4 of the county purchasing act. Or d, consider and take appropriate -- and the or applies to c or d. D, consider and take appropriate action on process to select a firm to perform professional environmental monitoring services. And i thought we ought to have c or d in the alternative based on e-mails that we received from some impact that residents. But joe, last time we did discuss a, just the interlocal agreement itself.
>> the city is ready to go. The city council authorized the dead with the interlocal agreement. I checked with city manager sue edwards. She said it's a go with the city. The same with the lcra. I don't think we need any further amendments to the interlocal agreement as it is written. So that's ready to go. They're committed to the contributions that they're making and also the scope of work.
>> a is travis county, city of austin and lcra.
>> that's correct.
>> move approval of a.
>> i don't have a problem with that, judge. I would like to move approval of item number a.
>> seconded by commissioner huber.
>> works for me.
>> discussion. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We're just on a, motion to approve and a second.
>> absolutely.
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
>> b is to exempt the land planning services contract with bosse and pharis associated. That's pronounced bossy, right? Any objection to them? I didn't see an e-mail object to go this firm.
>> i move approval of b.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> judge, i would like to abstain.
>> okay. On b?
>> on b.
>> all right. All in favor? Show commissioners huber, eckhardt and yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner davis abstaining on b. C pertains to professional environmental monitoring services, and the recommendation is that we would contract with thorn hill group inc. Joe?
>> well, and you've received the same e-mails that i have about potential conflict of interest because -- well, number one, txi has employed thorn hille in the past for their application on the permits that the county granted. With that said, travis county has also employed thornhill for work that we have done in the aquifer. And so i think whereas i understand the suggestion that there might be a conflict of interest, i also think that thornhill is probably the expert in the aquifer. That's why we both hired them, that particular firm. I would still recommend that thornhill be our contractor just because they know pretty much where the wells are. They know the situation and i have a pretty good feel for the aquifer. I cannot say that they're the only ones that can do environmental monitoring or water quality monitoring. So it's not like they're the only firm in town. I just think that they have a state of knowledge that's probably superior to others. So i can lay it out. I'm open to whatever the court wants to direct.
>> if the court does not select thornhill, would we do an expedited r.f.p. Process or would we fairly quickly try to select another firm and exempt them as a way to --
>> either way. You can exempt it there competition and
>> [ inaudible ].
>> there's also a middle of the road that if there's a suggestion that there is some conflict, that to team thornhill up with someone who doesn't have the same potential for conflict. One of the e-mails received suggested one or more professors from the university of texas, professor sharp i remember, he made a presentation here and was very helpful in brokering our conflict with our situation. That would be another option. Maintain the expertise that thornhill brings to the table, but team them up with someone else.
>> would that be -- has he been made aware --
>> no, professor sharp has not. I've not talked with professor sharp or any other professor at the university of texas.
>> okay. So that would basically be item -- could that come up under item d?
>> that could come up under item d, yes?
>> how long would it take you, joe, if the court decides to go with -- i don't know what the court will do, but if the court decides to go with an alternative, which would be item d, maybe a combination of item d and c, but if that was to happen, how long would it take you to get back to the court?
>> probably a couple of weeks, if the professors -- hopefully they're available and not on vacation. I can bring you back two options. One with a prime such as a professor from the university with a subcontract with thornhill. The other being a totally different company altogether doing the entire scope of work. So then you can choose which ones you might want.
>> the e-mail that recommended the u.t. Professors, did it recommend coupling them with thornhill or did it recommend us --
>> in response to my e-mail saying about thornhill, so i took it as being teaming up to address the specific issue of potential conflict.
>> i guess my question would be, would there be any -- any problem, i guess, with the u.t. Persons teaming up or if they're even able to deal with it. Right now i don't know because there hadn't been no contact made.
>> why don't we do this then? Why don't we just respond to residents and make that recommendation. They're all kind of in the loop because it looks like when we get one, several people are copied. Make sure all of them are copied and find out. And when it comes back maybe it ought to come back with the u.t. Professor and thornhill coupled as partners, and the other option would be basically another firm. I guess i'm -- it seems to me that there is no reason to go into a situation where so many people -- so many impacted residents are claiming that there's a conflict of interest or even the appearance of one, if we can start out with a clean slate, that is probably the best thing to do.
>> so you want this back on next week, judge, after that information maybe has been --
>> give me two weeks.
>> two weeks?
>> two weeks.
>> maybe give residents an opportunity to think about it and let us know what they think also. I hate to -- this could produce real good benefit for us, and i'd hate to go in realizing that if the wrong recommendations come forth, it will be alleged that they were a foregone conclusion and we didn't give the process a chance to work. Commissioner eckhardt?
>> judge, i would also like to throw out my preference for involvement of academia in the monitoring process because i think that that would give it the highest level of credibility. Also to point of if something were to be discovered it also gives the residents not just the county, the city and the lcra as points of leverage, but also the academic community. Which i think is important to them and could be important to us in the future. It would be nice to have the academic community's involvement in our environmental policies generally. Not just the txi issue and the gravel mining along the colorado river. If this is our portal in on environmental issues, particularly water quality and availability in eastern travis county, i'd say let's take advantage of it.
>> if the u.t. Professors agree.
>> yeah.
>> they've been known to speak for themselves.
>> yeah.
>> always that.
>> at length, i should say.
>> that's what makes -- that's what lends the credibility. They are known to speak for themselves. That's exactly why we want them.
>> judge, with that -- joe, i really want to make sure that we have ready and available -- you gave a great presentation when you brought this issue up before the court a little bit ago. And of course, especially where you had that map that depicted the (indiscernible), those particular areas that are proposed to be mined. The ownership of mining operations within this particular corridor study. How can we make that disclosure or that map available or if you will, if you've got a couple of minutes to just point those out again because i think disclosure in this situation is very paramount. I think folks need to know what's going on, where it's going on and what we -- what we're looking at in this overall study. And of course, the relationship to where residents -- existing residents are according -- and within the study areas. So i think it's important, if you just have just a minute or so to point those out real briefly again, if possible.
>> sure. I have with me -- this is the map that you saw last week.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> thank you.
>> joe, let me ask this. The -- so have the city of austin and lcra already contracted for the provision of environmental monitoring services?
>> no, they will write us a check. That's what the interlocal will be about. We'll be going to purchasing to prepare the contract with who ever we contract with.
>> if we can pull off the partnership.
>> the lcra will be doing all the lab work that is correct thf their in-kind services. They will be doing all the testing so that will come at no cost to the parties and the lcra will contribute that as part of their partnership with us.
>> unless there are objection, we will postpone c or d until august 31st.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Move that we recess to 1:30. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, August 17, 2010, 2010 2:30 PM
