Travis County Commssioners Court
November 12, 2002
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.
Item 4
(Item 4)
[one moment please for change in captioners]
>> they've been having -- I think they had their meetings. And there have been a few valid issues that have come up from the community related to the ordinance. I can tell you about those and I can also tell you about the time frame for boards and commissions and council action, if that's okay with you guys, if you'd like to hear that. All right. Just gibb beginning on the issues that have come up, the community has pointed out that as it pertains to areas that are zoned manufactured housing, specifically in commissioner Gomez's precinct, in the dove springs and dittmar areas between manchaca and south first, there are some communities that come within the 200-foot set back -- oh, it's not a setback. The 200-foot prohibited area from those three pipelines that run together in that vicinity. The issue is, as we all know, manufactured housing has a finite life-span, and when it needs to be replaced by the terms of the ordinance, it would not be allowed. So that's one thing that city staff indicates it will probably be addressing in some of the modifications to the draft. Secondly, on that same issue, before I leave that issue, if they wanted to put that back, as you remember, there were some variance possibilities if you could design for a one-hour evacuation, there's simply for way to do that with a manufactured house. And the lots are too small for -- they would conflict with other parts of the city code for permanent homes. So that's going to have to be worked out. The second issue is how the ordinance affects existing homes and the issue of remodeling. If they were going to remodel and they were within that area that's prohibited, they would have to design for the one-hour evacuation standard to be able to be approved and get a variance. So those issues are going to somehow be addressed in the final version of this thing that would come out.
>> so remodeling is defined as what?
>> that's a good question. I would say anything that's under the city code would require a permit. And typically that's as it relates to wiring and plumbing, but I'm no expert on that.
>> but that's because of their proximity to the pipeline?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> but they're going to address that also, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> I'm thinking if you rebuild or remodel or make improvements in a floodplain after a flood incident, a flood event, then different standards kick in, fema sets those, so I would think that if I were a homeowner I would want to know exactly when I remodel to the extent that I have to comply with this new requirement and when I'm remodeling just short.
>> right. That's a very big issue. Time frames. The environmental board will be addressing this issue tomorrow on the 13th of November. And that will be televised. The planning commission a week from tomorrow on the 20th, November 20th. And they're still on schedule to bring it back to council on the 12th of December. And what they would need prior to that time is for us to figure out how we would adopt part 4 of the ordinance that does pertain to the etj in compliance with our 1445 interlocal. So that needs to be --
>> I guess the other thing that concerns me, by the time it comes back to council in December, how are they notifying the people affected, like in the manufacturing home or the neighborhood? What would be affected?
>> well, they had the public meetings, and as far as -- your question is probably --
>> for those people who did not attend the public hearing.
>> also, the other side of it is because of the issues that have come up they would have to modify the language. So I suppose that it will be posted on their website and, of course, discussed in these televised meetings, but I don't know if other than that they have additional public meetings planned, but I can find out for you.
>> i'd like to make it my business.
>> was it resolved when it came before the city of Austin, when it came before the commissioner's court, there was still some ambiguity to me that the issue of where the jurisdiction expired in this process and looking at the etj and a lot of these other things that this ordinance would affect, do we go with the same footprint of where they left -- where they leave off and we pick up? Did we ever get to disposition of authority as far as dealing with the setback, dealing with a lot of these other things as far as where the county's jurisdiction pick up? Was it the same footprint or would there be a difference in the footprint for a setback and things like that?
>> well, I think this part 4 of the ordinance that does pertain to the etj is limited to that, but we would need to adopt that in -- and that pertains to the platting requirements section. Now, none of this language at this time applies to just pure county jurisdiction. It has not changed because we have not drafted anything independent of that.
>> I think what mr. Commissioner Gomez is asking is along the lines of what we discussed is would it be possible for the county to adopt this ordinance? The part that's in the etj, could you then adopt it county wide and what procedures would the staff recommend to look at that possibility? I guess we haven't made any real progress on that question since the last time.
>> our deal with subdivisions, the county can adopt it countywide. Obviously within -- and it's a procedural issue because obviously within the city of Austin etj we've got our interlocal with the city of Austin that talks about procedures for adopting subdivision regulations. And we've got very similar interlocals now with Pflugerville and who else?
>> Lakeway.
>> Lakeway. So in those etj's we've got the same authority, but we've got to follow the process set out in these interlocals. Obviously outside the etj's you're free to adopt it unilaterally since you don't share jurisdiction with any cities outside the etj. So the short answer, yes, you can adopt this countywide, but there's going to be -- inside the etj's you're constrained by your interlocals with those cities.
>> but it sounds like to me that the staff would need to do an assessment of what etj's are involved, you know, whether there should be a hearing process outside the city's -- I don't know. I mean, it just seems to me to address that issue of using 873 to make this uniform. There's a little more framework to be done before the commissioners court can consider whether they want to do that or not.
>> I want to follow up on something that Margaret Gomez brought up about the public notification process. I'm on a chat list for south Austin. And the feedback that I got about the hearings in terms of who had gone to those eargz, that they would not very well attended. And in part it was because of the weather. And also one of the hearings was the day before the election and people were just a tad busy during that time period, plus we just had the torrential downpours. So I would be thinking that there are folks out there that really haven't had the opportunity that while I welcome the fact that they went after the nunt comunt to try to get these feedback, I don't think they got the desired results in terms of people truly having awareness of it that you would get if everybody has to go down to may not city council chambers at the lcra when you really have the attention and the spotlight. So I'm a little concerned about that as well, in terms of if folks are truly aware of what this means and that they're notified.
>> do we need to take a real close look at part 4, because that's the part that impacts us, and try to figure out what we need to give the city a response?
>> yes.
>> now, we need to have public hearings ourselves, then I don't know if we can meet that December 12th deadline because I'm hearing today that we're not sure of exactly what we need to do as a county under 1445, 873, a lot depends on what the city does, right? And then if we look at the etj's of other cities in Travis County, I guess we have some responsibility to let them know what we plan to do and encourage them to follow suit or at least explain to them why we're doing it.
>> I think we're waiting to see what the city was going to do because there was no sense in us having hearings on an ordinance that the city could well change in its final form and then we would have to start all over again. So it seems like there's that opportunity that once the council acts, and I quite frankly am skeptical that the December deadline they've set for themselves will be dead, but go for it. And then we would then have a time appropriately once we know what it is to set our own series of hearings, which obviously we have to kick in after the holidays because you just can't get into a public hearing thing that quickly.
>> the interlocal that we have with the other cities within Travis County in this regard, are they pursuing such an ordinance as the city of Austin?
>> not to my knowledge.
>> I don't believe so.
>> okay.
>> not at this point.
>> it just appeared that -- and I don't know how dead set the city is on the time line they're trying to meet with this ordinance. There still appears to be a lot of missing information --
>> probably a trial balloon, I think. See if it works.
>> judge, I expo with them this morning and they were not going to be able to attend.
>> instead of brainstorming now, would it make sense for us to brainstorm over the next week and try to figure out what all the issues are for us under part 4 of this proposed ordinance. Maybe in addition to identifying the issues, what we think we need to do to resolve them from our perspective, determine what impact we think any proposed resolution would have on any other city in Travis County and then what we think we need to do in order to address those issues. Because not only the city of Austin, but in terms of what we do on the 1445 and 873, what's the impact with the city of Austin as well as the other cities? And it's good I guess if we don't have to focus on part 4 of this multi-part proposal.
>> right. The quote of the year was last time we met they said welcome to regional planning. The 1445, 873 con none drum, maybe that's a new thing we're struggling through. And I can't apologize for the awkwardness there, but we will get our heads together. That's what city staff indicated needed to happen too, we needed to sit down and hammer out how part 4 impacts our operations. I kind of see it as a separate question. The rest of the Travis County jurisdiction, does action need to be taken simultaneously for that? I wouldn't think so. Couldn't that be after the fact. > you could do it all simultaneously, you could do it in separate ordinance. You could adopt an ordinance within the city of Austin etj and then an ordinance for the cities outside the etj the next week. The next week the Pflugerville etj, the next week the Lakeway etj and so on. It's very much a process issue. Of course, the process issue I guess is dictated by can you agree on the substance of the ordinance? Is the substance of the ordinance going to be the same in each of those jurisdictional areas?
>> I want to make sure that in terms of process that we not only -- this seems so far what we've done is it's Austin internal process in terms of talk among yourselves. And I'm sitting out here and looking at others that are watching what we're doing and I want to make sure that we get external feedback as well from the real estate council and any other environmental group whatever. It seems like we have only been asking questions about how does this impact us on an internal level and we have to make sure that we get some external vice as well. Judge, I don't know if that happens during the public hearing process, but it seems like that's kind of late as opposed to including people from the very beginning as we've been doing well on the 1445 discussions with the various groups about where we all landed.
>> I think we ought to come up with a list of issues for us by next week. And next week have a list of persons, organizations that we think we ought to notify and ask for input.
>> yes, officially.
>> because I think if we send them this ordinance, unless they've been working with the city of Austin, I fear that they won't know what to do. We see we've looked at it, part 4 impacts us, and I think we have some 1445, 873 issues and here they are and here's what we must decide. And we welcome your input. We should give them at least two weeks and then you get into the first part of December. If that is so true, I think next week we ought to let the city of Austin know whether we think we can give them a response by December 12th.
>> okay.
>> now, part of our determining these issues may be us doing it on our own and then trying to get an audience with the city of Austin staff dedicated to this project, get feedback from them as to our reading before next Tuesday also and then try to get somebody in next week.
>> they'll be happy to come.
>> based on the timing here, it would help us to have a draft of something by late Friday, even if we have to meet with the city on Monday, we meaning y'all, of course. [ laughter ]
>> I just want to make sure I understand. A draft of these issues?
>> the general issues.
>> I just want to make sure we were on the same page.
>> so we are the first to decide on this part 4 and working on the 1445, 873, the issues, decision we have to make. And I guess at some point what impact this may have on other if we move ahead. And discuss that interpretation with the city of Austin and see if they agree or disagree. But if we have that in writing where we can discuss it next Tuesday, as well as a list of those who generally are interested in these issues so we can notify them and ask for input. We have to give them two weeks, I think, even if we put something up next Tuesday or Wednesday, they would have 10 days to respond to us. So I guess we tell the city we're trying to move expeditiously, we're trying to meet this December 12th deadline, but there are things that we have to do, people we have to notify.
>> right. Just one last point. I wanted to let you know that I asked the city legal representative, holly, who is here, if they would be on the 12th giving council a revised ordinance and set of language that was addressing the issues that had been raised on the manufactured housing and all those other things and the remodelling. And they said yes. So they're going to be bringing them a revised document at that point. I'm not saying that's a problem, I'm just letting you know.
>> I guess the other question would be whether we think this is doable by Friday at, say, 5:00 o'clock, a draft, something we can work with really. But I'm looking for us next Tuesday to be in a position where we know we have a much better idea of exactly what we need to decide as a county under part 4.
>> I think that it's doable. I may have some delegation that I do myself. [ laughter ] a lot of it is the permit counter and the folks that handle the subdivisions and that and working with tom on that. So I can't say for tom's schedule, but I think we can make it happen for the tnr side.
>> I think we can have the issues lined up by Friday.
>> you're going to have to talk to the permits counter of what constitutes remold modeling. If someone has to get a brand new septic tank, would that kick in these new requirements? These things -- the same kind of thing, when a mobile home wears out, these systems also wear out and we've got a lot of folks out there sitting on systems that not only will they have to comply with the new state regulations and Travis County's own regulations related to septic tanks, but would that kick in a further review relate to the pipeline stuff? I don't know the answer and I don't expect an answer right now. I'm just going to throw it out there, would that be in that same kind of a category of kicking in a review of something, an unintended consequence?
>> well, it's an issue, but let me take this opportunity to raise a point that keeps coming up in the house bill 1445 discussions. The cities and the county's authorities on things like manufactured homes and on site septic are very different, and that's because the legislature has passed statutes that make cities and counties do things very, very differently. A lot of those statutes have been on the books for decades now, so I think the biggest challenge we faced in implementing the legislature's house bill 1445 mandate that cities and counties be consistent is the fact that there are all these other statutes where the legislature has ordered counties and cities to be inconsistent. I think that's one of the areas.
>> going back to what ms. Moore said. This is my final question. Commissioner Moore -- commissioner Gomez, I'm sorry, brought up about the notification process. John, do you know during the public hearings that the city has conducted on this particular ordinance whether or not there was a display of where the pipelines are actually located in the county? And I think in that discussion we had is something that the railroad commission would probably know exactly where the pipelines are. Has there been any renderings, per se, of where they are?
>> yes. That was a central piece of what they had. The last time we met -- and I'm sure there was at those meetings as well. It was that the railroad commission of Texas that has those pipelines that would be applicable in this particular ordinance -- I haven't checked their website, but they indicated it would be on the web seat.
>> can we follow up to see where they are? Because I think notification -- the notification process, and if public hearings are warranted in the future, it would appear to me that we would have some depiction of those pipelines. It just appeared that way to me. Anyway, thank you.
>> sure.
>> you're going to miss this. [ laughter ]
>> i'll be tuning in to channel 17 to see how this all turns out.
>> is there anything else today that would be helpful?
>> no, judge.
>> I think we need to get whatever county staff you need in one meeting between now and Friday. And it probably wouldn't hurt to try to get one or two city folk who claim to know this ordinance in the same meeting. And that may enable us to --
>> yeah.
>> the other thing, staff and the court members ought to start thinking of persons and organizations that we really need to notify about this possibility if we think we're doing it, if we think we would take some action. Let them know I would say real soon, try to have something in their hands by next Tuesday or Wednesday because there will be a pretty fast turnaround.
>> okay.
>> sounds like a mailing list, a cover letter followed by our issues and the ordinance itself at a minimum would need to be in that mailing. That's what you were thinking?
>> yes, sir. Anything further today?
>> no, sir, not on that item.
>> we'll have it back on November 19th.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM