Travis County Commissioners Court
December 13, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 11
The first 57 seconds of this item were not captioned; not text is available for that portion of the item.
>> ...
that we receive from tceq.
these funds come through at program, the low emissions repair project, which citizens pay into and the state gives back to us to support programs to improve air quality.
I'm here to answer any questions you may have about this project or the contract.
>> I just wanted to say the contract, I'm very gratified to see it's a very good example of performance based contracting and I'm gratified that the datma has been worked so diligently at creating a work plan with concrete deliverable and a way to measure the effects that we're having.
>> some of these deliverables are supposed to be achieved in December of
>> [inaudible].
>> that is correct.
I have spoken with the executive director of the t.a.m.
and they have assured me and signed off on this contract these deliverables will be met if they haven't already been met as of today.
some of these are simply securing the funding from other entities which they have done, hiring the e.d.
and they have already started on it.
>> is it fair to describe the deliverables as a condition of entering into the relationship.
bylaws, executive director, partnership and whatnot?
>> that is correct.
>> the ones that I recall have a requirement that funding be secured from other sources.
so if not secured as of today, that amount will be secured by the end of this month.
okay, yes, please.
remind us of your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> judge, Commissioners, my name is glenn
>> [inaudible] executive director of the downtown Austin transportation management association.
and pardon me for the descriptive, but not too easy to roll off your tongue name of our organization.
we started this effort much earlier this year, April of this year.
we got aboard.
the downtown Austin alliance is one of the four partners.
they contributed the first amount of money.
we anticipate having all agreements with the four principal partners completed this month.
we have money in the door from two of those partners already, which is sufficient to comply with that portion of the agreement.
>> in terms of that requirement under the fiscal year 2011 deliverables, it was my understanding, and full disclosure, I sat on the interim board that was there to develop a board and then get out of the way.
and I believe that -- in my recollection of the conversation, that part of the reason for this kind of threshold requirement was to ensure that there was sufficient support in the community for this kind of effort demonstrated before actually putting money -- cash on the barrel head.
so I believe that has -- has been achieved to the -- you know, 99% achieved.
>> well, in -- I just want to add.
over the organizing the first couple of years of this organization, the real interest is to make sure this is a genuine public and private investment.
that the private sector is actually coughing up their portion of money to -- to make sure that this works for employers.
and so really the public sector is helping to seed this with their money.
several of those have come in and we have already had significant interest, you know, in membership from the private sector.
and we haven't actually opened our doors for business yet.
>> as a term or agreement, to receive these funds from the Texas commission on environmental quality, it is a requirement that we have a 50% match for these funds.
these funds do not require the match to be Travis County funds.
they can come from other sources like the city of Austin, campo, capo or other private funds.
in the past we have used it for pass-through for other cleanup projects with other partners.
>> I guess that's the backup is so voluminous.
>> it contains the original contract with tceq and a notice to proceed with this project.
>> what I recall is a large number of people work downtown and come down daily.
>> yes, sir.
>> that figure is just a little bit less than 50,000.
>> actually a little less than 60,000.
>> okay.
and many of these are county employees.
>> a good number.
>> so in this project you will do what?
>> we will work with our principal partners, Travis County, the city in particular, as morer.
employer.
this will happen with every one of the employers we can get our hands on.
we will work initially to make sure that there is senior level buy-in to this activity which is to basically give employees an option to not come downtown one person, one car.
figure out ways to help them to do that.
we will then work on some institutional kind of employer issues, order your policies that are in place that encourage or discourage the use of option, and at roughly the same time we will survey every employee of that organization.
to figure out where they are coming from, how they are coming, what they might have an interest in doing in terms of an option.
and how we might help them to do that.
we will then come back to the employer with a plan.
if you tie together transit passes, to go passes, do this with your parking, make sure you give the commuter tax credits, et cetera, you can expect to have 10%, 15% of your employees willing to shift their behavior voluntarily.
and that means you'll -- a package of benefits, that means a savings in your parking spaces, that means you'll employ health benefits, that means this as well.
and then you will decide as an employer how much of that you want to take on at one time.
and then we'll help you to implement that plan.
>> and this strategy has worked elsewhere?
>> this strategy has -- there are 43 cities that have one or more transportation management associations in them, and this has worked with great success where you have a clearer outcome that you want, the more successful it can be.
>> okay.
my final question then is on the third page -- fourth page of the backup, reference is made to attachment a and attachment b.
and what's in them?
I couldn't find them.
>> they are at the back of the package, judge, about the fifth and sixth piece from the very back.
>> what's in them?
>> scope of service for f.y.
12 and 13.
and 2011 deliverables.
>> okay, but we're comfortable that the 2011 deliverable would be delivered before the end of this month.
>> yes, sir.
yes, sir.
we're very comfortable.
>> if you are happy with it, I am too.
Commissioner Eckhardt, is there a motion?
>> move approval of item number 11.
>> with that also I would like to make sure, I know you gave good examples, the transportation management situation and other locations, I'm just wondering how much of that in example cap metro type setting in those other locations were they in agreement to also, because we have continued to get a lot of requests from persons that are coming downtown working for the county or working for someone else, another gun metal entity and they are coming downtown daily and, of course, they are requesting some type of transit services such as the cap metro.
it would be interesting to see what the other entities have done under their transportation management plan, how they actually included those transportation carriers of bringing persons from these suburban areas and then bringing them to the city, within the bounds of the city that surround it.
so I just really still looking to see because really I have had several requests for that.
and I do we do not -- cap metro makes their decisions as far as they want to deal with those kind of things, but the request, the need apparently is still there so I just want to lay that on the table.
>> thank you, Commissioner Davis, and I will be happy to follow up with you on that.
one important note is we initially have to live with the services that are available.
but one of the advantages of doing this kind of project is the more employees you survey and talk to and understand what their challenges are, the better armed you are to try to warrant, advocate for, whatever you might call it, changes in services to meet that demand.
and so we'll visit more about that in detail in particular about Austin.
>> and glenn, statistically, is it 30% of the central business district employees are from outside of Travis County?
>> the -- it is something on the order of 15,000.
and out of roughly 60.
so I guess that --
>> about 25%.
>> closer to 20 to 25%.
>> but in that regard, your comments, Commissioner Davis, 25% of the clientele for this service is -- is folks from outside our county.
so the -- I mean one conversation that was pretty robust in the early -- in the early discussions about this was -- was what to call this organization.
frankly, I advocated against calling it the downtown Austin t.m.a.
because fully 25 percent of its clientele is not downtown Austin residents.
this isn't for the guy who lives in the condo two blocks from his office.
this is for, you know, the gal who has kids and is -- and has to drive into town in her single occupant vehicle because she's concerned that if the school calls and says her kid is sick, she won't be able to get back to Round Rock in time to pick them up.
>> well, there's been certain demands, and thank you for those percentages, but I'm just saying as far and eastern Travis County, there has definitely been demand, an example like
>> [inaudible] there's been a lot of demands out there for folks want to go come into town using the capital metro situation.
and we have looked in the past, but I just want to make sure they are still laid on the table.
that's just one example, but anyway, just want to make sure that's laid on the table as we go forward.
thank you.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
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.
