Travis County Commissioners Court
December 27, 2005
Item 11
Since we have you there... Number 11-a, consider and take appropriate action on extending the day use fee waiver at Travis County milton reimers park through January 31st, 2006. 11-b, consider and take appropriate action on plan to adopt fees. Let me ask one legal question. Let's say on 11-b our goal is to expand current fees on similar county parks to these two new parks. Legal my what must we do to get that done?
>> it does not require a public hearing to be held on setting and collecting fees for use of recreation al facilities in county parts. I’m not sure what you've done when you change or add new parts to existing fee structure. Posting for normal open session as the discussion is posted today suffices legally under the statute.
>> I noaf we've gone to public hearings related to changing the fees. Perhaps you guys can fill us in are on the fees being talked about here inconsistent with the current fee structure that we've got in our other metropolitan parks. Help me sort it out.
>> the reimers when they operated their park as a private enterprise, they collected a per person fee. The county, our current fee structure -- by the way, roy turly, Travis County parks. Our current fee structure is basically it's a day use fee per vehicle. And this day use fee per vehicle also allows a user when they purchase a day use at, say, hamilton pool, that day use for that same day allows them to go to any other county parks on that same day. By utilizing a per person charge, it really changes the fee structure and really it doesn't allow that cross-utilization of all of our parks on that same day. Does that answer your question?
>> yeah, and in times of trying to encourage people to car pool and try to get as many people in the vehicle as possible, it is more affordable for a family to do the per car as opposed to a per person. If you've got a family of four or a family of two or whatever, really it's more family friendly.
>> the other scenario is you would have situations -- if you had a situation -- you would have a situation where someone could conceivably go to hamilton pool to get their day pass there and then drive over to rhymers ranch which has per person pricing. So it creates a lot of operational problems. That's why we would prefer to keep it standardized throughout the system. It makes it a lot more user friendly.
>> that makes the most sense.
>> is there a specific recommendation as to a fiat these two parks?
>> yes.
>> was that in the backup?
>> it should be in the backup. I’m not sure if you received it. I can walk through that for you.
>> my question is -- my point a few minutes ago is your answer to my question is that we are not legally required to go through public hearing, etcetera, legally.
>> that's correct.
>> but we have not imposed any new fees without going through some kind of public hearing.
>> when we added northeast metro, east metro and southeast metro, I don't think we had a public hearing. We just added the -- we use the fee structure that was already in place. We've had public hearings for the fee structures every time we change our fees, we've had public hearings, but to add a park, we have not had a public hearing. We've just added the park and included the same fee structure, which is what we're recommending at reimers, the same fee sure that we currently use.
>> so when we do see the new --
>> we will have it next week and the backup. Because when I got the backup, we didn't realize how much you wanted. There's a little change we need to make to the one that was received. We will repost it and have it on next week.
>> what would you wish for that new fee to be I am implemented?
>> after the first of February after you approve this extended --
>> why wouldn't we post it for public hearing?
>> you can.
>> why wouldn't we post for public hearing two or three weeks out and give people who have something to say an ability to do that?
>> we can do that. We can post the public hearing for two weeks --
>> that would be my recommendation for the court. I think we need to see the specific document, the backup on that.
>> we'll have it for a public hearing.
>> b will be back next week.
>> next week?
>> we'll be setting the public hearing next week for the 10th.
>> I’m suggesting the court needs to see the backup.
>> we will get you the backup this week.
>> next week on the agenda. We approve a recommended fee increase on a certain time and it's three weeks off, four weeks off, then we have a public hearing two weeks later, zero people show up for the public hearings anyway, I just think it's a good government move to make.
>> okay. But you're accepting the fees prior to the public hearing.
>> the court ought to see them. We need to be able to explain it if nothing else.
>> we are going to need an item on consent out of we normally do from tnr setting a public hearing?
>> yes.
>> I’m just saying if you want to do it, that's fine with me. Part of the action we take next week in my view is we recommend a certain fee to implement at a certain time and we set a public hearing, a day and time certain --
>> got you.
>> now let's go to a.
>> an easy one.
>> a was postponed. [ laughter ]
>> what's a?
>> a was just to extend the waiver for a month, for another month, 30 days, to the end of January.
>> are we able to identify all of the boy scouts, girl scouts, eagle scouts, any kind of scouts, etcetera, in Travis County, and send them a notice and saying, basically, the county owns a new park, you ought to go out there and take a look at it. You can do it free of charge.
>> we're sending notices to the troop leaders and such. Part of it is up to them whether they distribute that or not. But to each individual child we're not.
>> and the girl scouts.
>> and don't leave the campfire u.s.a. Out.
>> we will. If you have any others that you recommend, please let us know and we'll notify them.
>> you get the motions and the second? You follow this court better than I do. 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:
Wednesday, December 28, 2005 8:56 AM