Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 31, 2010,
Item 22
Since we have joe,, 22 is to consider and take appropriate action on process to select a firm to perform professional environmental monitoring services in the colorado river corridor. Mr. Gieselman.
>> as you remember, this was a carryover from a previous agenda where we talked about a multiple phased study of the colorado river corridor. You authorized me to proceed with the comprehensive planning section of that and we held back on the environmental monitoring, which is not only groundwater monitoring, but surface water air quality and noise. And we were going to hire a particular firm, our recommendation was to seek a variance to hire a particular firm that has local knowledge of the aquifer. Some of the residents of the area objected to that because the same firm had been hired by txi and they believed that they would not get an unbiased survey. One of the recommendations that came out of that was to perhaps hire a different firm, but also seek out professional help from the university of texas. As you recall, we engaged doctor john sharp from the university of texas to help us on that same aquifer when we had some issues. I contacted him and he was more than willing to serve as a paid advisor, independent advisor, to our effort. So today what i would recommend the court do is go ahead and put the scope of work out on a professional request for proposal, just go ahead and open it up. There are four firms that dr. Sharp said that he has worked with in the past. He thinks highly of them and we would of course send out solicitations to those firms as well as any other firm that might want to apply for the proposal. We'll go through a normal purchasing process, put out or rfq, get things in, screen them and then bring a recommendation back to the commissioners court.
>> how long do you think that will probably be after the r.f.p. Is --
>> i think -- my guess is probably going to be at least a month before we're able to bring something back because the normal postings and sendings things out, getting back and evaluating, and i'm presuming that dr. Sharp or whoever is selected will serve as a paid advisor. So we'll have not only his expertise, but that of whatever company the court selects to do the work.
>> so should we approve either an r.f.p. Or rfq as appropriate, let you get with purchasing and try to figure out which one? I notice you mentioned both of them. They're a little bit different.
>> either one is fine.
>> and that would be okay. We'll approve the issuance of an r.f.p. Or rfq as appropriate and let you put your heads together and proceed to issue the appropriate one of them.
>> second.
>> we normally wouldn't do both, right?
>> well, i'm sorry, i missed. Are we hiring two people? Two different independent firms?
>> we're inviting competition.
>> it's a company under which dr. Sharp would serve as an independent advisor.
>> so are we asking for these firms to show their qualifications?
>> that's correct.
>> or to make a proposal?
>> both.
>> we have the scope of work. I would also want to see their proposal on how they would approach the problem. That's why i prefer an r.f.p. Because in some way i begin to understand how they would approach the problem. If we get to understand their professional approach to the problem.
>> i think mr. Mcdonald --
>> let's just approve either, or or both? Mr. Mcdonald, any comments and input?
>> well, i'm sorry that i missed the previous discussion.
>> we're discussing item 22 and basically opening that up to competition. And we will issue either a request for a qualifications or a request for a proposal or a document that includes both.
>> and also utilizing professor sharp as an independent -- under independent contract to the county.
>> okay. That's what i expected. My question earlier to mr. Gieselman was this whole study was passed two weeks ago. What we're really discussing here is the contractor for the monitoring, phase 3 of the txi colorado river study.
>> that's correct.
>> but the study has been passed. We're going to do all of it no matter who we get paid for, right? And what i asked mr. Gieselman was in phase a of the study when you're developing a general plan for the development of the corridor, one of the things that surface and groundwater management, is that going to be the same contractor that is -- it's listed as a subconsultant here and there's no name.
>> we have -- we will certainly draw from the expertise of that phase three, but we'll also be drawing from the expertise of the city and the lcra who have also water quality experts on staff.
>> but is the company that's being chosen for the monitoring phase the same fc as listed here? That will be the water consultant?
>> that will be the water consultant.
>> okay. And the other only -- the only other thing i wanted to talk about was this ongoing issue of this monitoring. The county is getting ready to spend a bunch of money monitoring this dirt road right through the creek bed that txi is planning on using to haul trucks across. You know, the city and the county declined to include this as part of txi's construction plans and therefore no variance was needed and no public discussion was made about this road crossing and yet i think there are two phases of their mining on the eastern side of this road which apparently just like everyone else, 250 trucks a day have to go across this road. And so in the monitoring phase we've got county people going out there, i guess, to watch them to make sure they're not doing it too much. Where is the line that this is -- in other words, what happens if they go out there and this is decided, well, gee, they're using this as part of their construction? Why didn't we catch this before? They're polluting elm creek. That truck just tumped over 40,000 tons of gravel into the creek. I guess my question is the monitoring is getting this information. In the case of this truck crossing, what information would be required to say you've got to do something here, this is a problem?
>> i think that's part of the methodology throughout, just like the groundwater. I mean, we haven't predetermined where the best places are to take samples. I would say the same thing of both the air quality stations as well as any type of noise stations. Those are part of what we're going to ask our consultant to do is tell us where the best place is to make sure that we have the appropriate sites.
>> so it might be stopped?
>> there is certainly the intent here is to monitor the situation before binding begins and then have data to support any type of action by the county if there are impacts.
>> the only other thing i wanted to ask about is this whole sort of sponsorship. What does that mean? Is that used in other studies like this? Where txi is listed as a sponsor, what does that mean?
>> they are paying for a piece of work in the entire scope.
>> and that piece of work is the --
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> and just to be clear, they're paying for that because we can't do that. Only they can as the landowners.
>> but all of the -- it's the same consultant as far as who is going to be doing their work, as far as who is going to be doing the county work?
>> yes. In terms of their land plans, they will probably use the same consultant.
>> and there wasn't ever put into that plan any citizen communication forums of any sort.
>> we will have forms. It was not -- because we had a limited budget, we weren't asking the consultant to do that, but we will have a process where travis county employees and city employees will do that public outreach.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> thanks for coming.
>> mr. Mcdonald, mr. Mcdonald? Are you in agreement with the process as far as going out to an r.f.p., rfq, and also utilizing dr. John sharp, the university of texas to kind of as was stated earlier, kind of overseeing this operation per se as far as profits is concerned?
>> you know, i just don't understand it very much, i know that carry lee foreman was against the r.f.p. Process and it seems to me that my discussion with my friend dr. Barrett who works with dr. Sharp, said that they were suggesting some companies or something like that that were different than the company that we were against because they work with txi. It seems to me this whole study, the same consultant is putting together the information for the land use study as working for txi and that this is a txi-sponsored study. I don't know if the company that does the monitoring can be separate from txi because all during the discussion it was supposed to be a mutually beneficial contractor. That means with us or with them.
>> joe, does txi have any involvement as far as this process is concerned after the selection is made from the approach that we're taking, whether it be the rfq or the with respect?
>> it is the decision, sole discretion of the commissioners court. It does not require any approval or okay or even consent on the part of txi. The environmental monitoring is the travis county run, paid for, everything there is strictly at the discretion of the commissioners court.
>> but that's not what's before us today.
>> well, it is. Your rfq, r.f.p. Process is your process.
>> he i know it's our process, but i think what mr. Mcdonald is suggesting that does txi have any not influence, but any financial commitment with this process, whoever selected at the end of the day.
>> none whatsoever.
>> is it fair to say that --
>> do you understand, mr. Mcdonald?
>> right, because it's separating phase three from phase one and two at the same corridor study.
>> so what i'm hearing is that if the court decides to approve this process, txi has no input as far as paying for whatever the results are after this process as far as getting the work done, is that correct?
>> the environmental monitoring, they are clearly -- they're out of that phase 3 piece of work. That is where we're actually testing the water quality, air quality, noise.
>> they are excluded.
>> they're excluded.
>> i'm just trying to break it down where i want mr. Mcdonald leaving with an understanding because otherwise things get miss construed out there and i want to make sure he has understanding of what's going on here.
>> and i think this was brought up in the initial discussions of this probably a month ago when my water -- when and if my water goes bad and i decide it's time to take txi to court, is this information that the county is gathering, information that i can access?
>> absolutely. And that's the point is that it would be our information and not txi's. This is information that would be gathered by governmental entities that represent the individuals out there, all of that would be available except for, i'm assuming, turning to the lawyers, if travis county itself brought a lawsuit and was there by exempting it under a privilege because we were bringing the lawsuit.
>> and that's what i'm trying to get some clarity to what you're asking, and i think he laid it out.
>> so that's the issue of this monitoring is --
>> independent monitoring. And i think that's what we're suggesting is trying to come up with a process to go through the process, whether it be r.f.p., rfq. I just want to make sure that you leave here with an understanding of exactly what's going on and there's no involvement as far as what txi is what you alluded to earlier as far as the financial participation in this process. So i want to make sure that it's clear when you leave here.
>> but i do want to be transparent because you did bring up an important point. With regard to the land use, that will not be independent to txi because you're right, we are using the same planner, but i just want to be transparent about that. While -- speaking for myself only, but i think the full court agrees with this. While it is extremely important for the monitoring efforts to be completely independent, the land use planning efforts can't be independent because of property rights and a lack of planning authority by the counties. So we must have collaboration with landowners in order to make anything stick.
>> i'm going to support the process and on the basis of what we've heard here today and the clarity that we've laid out, i'm going to support the process r.f.p. Or rfq in this particular regard. So if the motion has already been made, i guess, to support this process, and i guess in 30 days we'll have something. And dr. John sharp with the university of texas, mr. Mcdonald, is the person that's going to be also looking into this matter. And of course, no financial tie-ins as far as what txi -- it's a separate, independent type movement, but there's a process that have to take place for us to get there. So this is basically what we're trying to do, but separate from -- i understand your concern on that other issue, which was as commissioner eckhardt said sed, was under the land planning aspect. This is not the planning as spct, this is the monitoring aspect that goes o.
>> do we have a motion and a second? Didn't you move approval.
>> i've forgotten really.
>> commissioner eckhardt seconded.
>> did i move?
>> you moved approval.
>> i moved the r.f.p. Or rfq or both? It was a good motion. Any more discussion on the motion?
>> commissioner eckhardt seconded it.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you. To the extent that the law allows, let's keep mr. Mcdonald informed there, joe.
>> please do.
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 31, 2010, 2010 2:30 PM
