Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 4, 2011,
Item 6
Number six is to consider and take appropriate action on request from campo for payment of annual contribution.
>> I sent everyone an electronic version of the backup.
I have a hard copy if anyone needs it.
I値l pass one on to the clerk.
what the backup is is a letter that was sent by maureen mcreynolds to the county back in August of 19 -- of 2010, August 26th --
>> maureen mccoy.
>> yes, I知 sorry.
>> you said mcreynolds.
>> I知 sorry, mccoy.
and it was sent to all the jurisdictions in the three-county area seeking matching funds for their stpmm contributions.
the Travis County reviewed the budget request, but did not approve it.
and that's similar to most of the local governments in the five-county area.
I think only -- if you see the backup, there's probably only a half dozen of the 30 to 40 entities that paid the request.
the city of Austin and capital metro being the larger contributors.
but the request has been renewed.
and that's why this is on the court agenda today.
the request for this fiscal year was $8,200.
to my knowledge Travis County has not ever paid campo any money of this regard.
we have been requested our records show back to 2006 for an annual contribution.
it has not been paid any of those years.
I think probably in the way we would typically do this as we do with envision central Texas or clean air force would be to ask for a scope of services and to put this into a contract and then to pay upon the contract so that there's a deliverable that is -- that you're getting in exchange for the payment.
so that's what I would recommend to the court if we proceed, to go ahead and budget the money, but also then come behind it with some kind of contract that clearly outlines what services will be performed for the $8,200.
>> I would ask that staff actually compile for us all of the contracts for services that we have with planning organizations in the region so that we can have more comprehensive or mindful participation.
I think clearly campo has provided us services over the years and frankly I知 a little embarrass that had we haven't been participating financially.
I think we could certainly come up with a scope of services in collaboration with campo in order to facilitate a payment, although I do agree that our policy of requiring performance based contracting for these organizations is important.
I think we need to preserve that policy.
but I do see that across the board we have several regional planning organizations for which there are contractual deliverables that I think maybe we ought to be a little bit more conscious about our coordinated efforts with these regional entities and be thoughtful about what we're getting for our participation.
>> the other thing to keep in mind --
>> and what we're getting from us.
>> the other thing with campo is that it is federally funded from its inception.
100% of what campo operates on is through federal grants.
>> but I think we have to recognize that both at the state and federal level they are moving in to a new pattern where they are less likely to fund things that don't have local participation as well.
while I知 not thrilled but that, I think that we have to read the tea leaves.
I think that these planning organizations, certain of them, and certainly campo, is important to our -- what is going to require a much higher degree of collaboration and coordination in this time of dwindling financial resources from the state and the feds.
>> well, I would like to make two observations.
one is that this is one of those 80/20 match programs.
>> the stp program that they're requesting money is an 80/20.
>> and local entities are supposed to put up 20% in order to access 80 percent from I guess the state and federal government.
the way that works is that whatever amount you have, you get 80 percent from the feds.
so the less you raise locally, the less of the federal money you're able to use is the way it was explained to me.
>> there's also a planning grant that does not require a match.
or if it is a match, it's done by the state.
these stp 4 cmm monies are actually capital monies that campo started using for study purposes, planning purposes.
so that's the new thing on this.
and that's what required the local match.
>> I understand it's been like this forever.
it's nothing new.
the second point I would like to make is that the major entities have been making a contribution, but we have not.
and txdot this year was asked to contribute 15,000.
txdot committed to provide $120,000.
the city of Austin has been paying 25,000 annually.
in my view I don't know that they'll be able to come up with specific activities in advance, but it seems to me that they ought to know what programs the money would be attached to, and I guess after -- at the end of the year at some point we ought to get a full report of the specifics of what was done.
for our contribution.
my final point is that as chair of campo it's kind of difficult for me to pressure the other entities who are members to make their contribution when we have not made ours, and it -- I was a little embarrassed at the campo meeting to know that not only had we not paid for 2010, but had not budgeted the amount, but that we had not paid it for the last 10 years.
and I just assumed that we had.
especially since it's a small amount of money.
and I guess what we ought to do is contract, so if the money is not used, either we have to approve it for the next year or we get a credit or we get a refund, do you see what I知 saying?
so there are things that we can put in place in a contract to make it accountable, but what I would like to say on the 10th of January, the next meeting where this will be on the agenda that we took action and if we have restrictions, then we can just let the campo staff know that and basically follow through with it.
so I think we ought to do it.
at the same time, though, I think we ought to know how the contribution is used and what match enables us to pull down from the federal government what specific programs we were able to implement as a result of the total amount of money.
and I guess I question whether that can be done in advance.
I know we can have the contract in advance, but in terms of specific reports, it probably will require a year's work and then for us to get maybe a summary.
>> programmatically they can probably tell you in their work program where they intend to spend this money.
I think in the past they've put it into air quality to commute solutions and some other programs in their iewn ford work programs. So I think they can probably tell you how they intend to spend this and other contributions.
>> on what programs.
>> on programs.
>> but our amount will be tied to other local contributions, which are ought to equal 20% and then we ought to see exactly what the 80% match is from the federal government.
any other comments?
>> yes.
I would just like -- I did both of the categories of comments that have been made.
in the category of leading by example, I知 just wondering if we can't come up with somewhat of a contractual template that might help facilitate other smaller organizations at campo to make their contributions because they may have some concerns along the same lines that we're discussing here, but not the resources to work on that.
>> let's not assume that they don't have a contract already.
I知 not -- these are governmental entities and I would think that when they forked over their money they had pretty much the same concerns and comments that we have today.
so I would try to find out what that is.
but if it doesn't exist it seems that we could take the lead and do it.
we could take a contract already in place, modify that to meet our needs and proceed.
>> I move approval.
>> I second that motion.
mr. Priest?
>> thank you, judge.
morris priest speaking on my own behalf.
we have this situation come up at the last campo meeting where it was mentioned bye-bye the representative from bastrop and I don't think that our county government nor campo ooze it did in the last campo meeting as well as it appears that the county is going to do again in this meeting to do such matters regarding our finances and our tax dollars without getting deliver rabbles up front and finding out -- deliverables up front and finding out clearly what we're paying for.
I wanted clarification is this money coming out of capital funds?
>> no.
I think the court's intent would be to fake it out of the general fund if I知 not mistaken.
>> I was about to mention the motion ought to mention a source of funding.
>> what we are doing is offering to fund this before knowing what the deliverables will be.
so I don't know how you --
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> you listed several counties that either have contributed or will contribute certain amount of dollars to this particular effort.
do we know if all of them have contributed?
counties, not anybody else, but counties, of the ones that you have listed, who has actually participated financially in this thing of those that are listed?
>> the record I received yesterday shows none of the counties have contributed to date.
>> none of the counties.
okay.
okay.
all right.
thank you.
>> well, historically there were just three counties involved, travis, hays and Williamson.
then we added bastrop and caldwell.
now, the sheet that I知 looking at, joe, 2011 local contributions, if the shaded ones in fact are the ones who have paid.
>> the city of Austin paid 25,000.
Bee Caves paid 500.
those are the two cities within Travis County that paid -- oh, west lake also paid 500.
so three cities within Travis County paid.
none of the other cities paid and Travis County did not.
so there are -- like I say, the major contributors are the city of Austin and capital metro.
and then --
>> txdot if it follows through on $125,000 commitment.
>> yes.
>> okay.
but what I知 looking at here -- okay.
but the problem I知 having is that we are at the meeting and I知 assuming Travis County had paid 8200 bucks.
and as chair, I知 kind of following through on staff's recommendation that we need to ante up and then I learned Travis County hadn't.
what I would like to say next meeting is Travis County voted to put its $8,200 and we need all of the campo partners to do likewise.
>> vouch for the city and the other --
>> [indiscernible] county level.
>> I have no problem with Commissioner Eckhardt putting our contribution as conditioned upon contributions by the other entities.
>> [laughter] unless joe wants to make that.
joe, on the way out, may be a good recommendation.
I think we catch the spirit of where we're headed.
but consistent with that, I think we ought to find out what entities have contracts in place already, look at them, and if we think they are satisfactory, tailor us one off of theirs and then maybe that reduce the amount of work we need to do.
but there needs to be some contractual accountability.
>> and hopefully the other counties seeing what we're doing, even with the new add-ons, caldwell and bastrop county, maybe they will come on board.
so as joe has said none of the counties up to today have been paying.
hopefully Travis County will take the lead on that.
>> my court and our budget office believes that all the departments should do likewise.
I hear me saying that now.
any more discussion?
>> I would only just like to reiterate that I would like to see a future agenda item where we look at campo, e.c.t., capcog, clean air force, our various regional planning organizations and to have an investment strategy and a deliverable strategy that's integrated with all of them so we can make sure that we are not double dipping, that we are getting back some bang and maximum collaboration and not over -- over organizing -- I do see that there is considerable overlap and the missions of the various organizations and it would be nice to have them coordinated in their efforts, or if some are less fruitful than others, I think we should support those.
>> I don't know that our contribution to any of these is so high that we can kind of dictate what they ought to do.
>> agreed.
>> I知 kind of driven by the public benefit or benefit for Travis County residents, and I think we really ought to be guided by that.
it may be that even a small amount of money should not be contributed because the benefit is not there.
and in that case, I think we ought to basically let them know and vote to eliminate it unless it's changed.
so I mean I think we can look at the programs and services and measure positive impact to our residents.
and if we can't see that, then that's a good case for not funding it, it seems to me.
if we follow through on that.
it becomes a bit more difficult when you start looking at specific programs.
>> I知 in agreement.
>> joe, as a volunteer, after January 31st, does that sound like something you would like to do?
>> [laughter]
>> if I知 in town.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and we'll follow through on those on our discussion today.
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, January, 2011 12:12 PM
