Travis County Commssioners Court
December 17, 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 9
Number 9 is to receive and consider report from county staff on the petition to incorporate the community of volente as a type b. General law municipality and related attachments and take appropriate action.
>> judge, the staff has, once again, reviewed the information given to us, and we can verify that it is -- it does meet the territory requirements as well as the population requirements.
>> okay. There was an issue that surfaced last week regarding lake level.
>> yes, sir.
>> what was in the petition at the time that the petition was presented to various residents, and the lake level that is held today, and incorporated in the two-mile description. All right? And there's some disagreement by residents on that. And if we could -- any additional comments from you?
>> we did use the 670 contour line to calculate the area, and it does come out to 1.99 square miles.
>> 1.99. Why don't we use the 670?
>> that was what was given to us in the description. That was also what the surveyor, terrafirma, had used apparently.
>> 670 is in the petition?
>> I do believe the wording is in there.
>> judge, as I understand it, and i'll try to characterize what others are stating, I think the issue is certain of the petitioners feel that when they signed the petition based on the map that was attached to the petition. When they looked at that map, they believed that it was calling for the 715 contour line. When we requested the narrative boundary description, the folks supporting incorporation had that drawn up and the surveyor used -- clearly used the 670. So I think the issue is that certain people that signed the petition feel like it was describing the 715. The narrative description we got clearly said the 670. So I think some folks feel there is a discrepancy between the map and the narrative description.
>> but I might add that the map was -- a scale that it would be difficult to decide that. That was submitted.
>> was there language in the petition regarding lake level?
>> yes, it does say the 670-foot contour line.
>> in the petition.
>> it says it in the field notes. Now, the petition --
>> which we would regard is part of the petition, is that true?
>> yes. Part of the petition.
>> did we know whether the field notes were part of the petition at the time certain residents were asked to sign the petition?
>> to our knowledge, they were not. The signatures were based solely on the map.
>> okay.
>> as far as we can tell.
>> is there any indication that the number of people who now think that they were confused by what they are saying, that if you take them out of the equation, would they meet the test related to the number of people that needed to sign the petition in order to meet the 10% rule, I guess is what it is?
>> well, in the case of the volente, the rule is 50, by the way. It's different.
>> okay. Do they still hit the 50 mark if you knock out the number of people that say, well, that's different. I wouldn't have signed that if I had known that it was the 670 line rather than the 715 line?
>> I believe they had 64 signatures on the petition, by my count. Is that right, allen?
>> [inaudible]. All of them stand by the petition [inaudible]. I believe the commissioners are referring to [inaudible] petition for election [inaudible]. Is anyone here today who signed the petition for annexation who --
>> will you open this up? [inaudible] between your staff, we have legal [inaudible] that when you open for comments.
>> my next question was about to be how significant is it anyway? What we have right now is something that indicates 670 on the field notes presented to us as part of the petition. Our finding of a two-mile -- two-square-mile area is based on 670.
>> yes, sir.
>> so if there -- if there was confusion about whether it was 670 or 715, is that substantive or technical or what?
>> well, again, i'll relate what some of the people that are concerned about this issue have said to me. I think clearly that if you are looking at it in terms of did they make the two-square-mile requirement, 670 gives them 1 point #- #- square miles. If you go to 715, then you've got some margin for error on the two square miles.
>> so it would be less.
>> right. The other thing i've heard people say is that they might -- well, again, I don't want to overcharacterize here. The objection to incorporation was stronger at 670 because people felt that would give the city the authority to regulate their waterfront structures like docks and so on. If it was at 715, then docks and things would be outside the city limits and not subject to the city's regulatory jurisdiction. So I think those are the two issues on the 670 versus 715.
>> we have both sides represented by lawyers.
>> yes.
>> or do we have one -- we have one of you on each side of ms. Ray there. Let's get your comments s that the only issue or are there other issues in addition to your understanding of what the facts are, the legal import of the 670 versus 715.
>> there are other reasons, judge.
>> if you give us your name, we'll be happy to get your comments.
>> allen [inaudible], your honor, representing save our volente, incorporated.
>> david brooks representing walt thompson and then his tribe of people who are opposed to the incorporation.
>> okay. Physician.
>> your comnts on the discussion -- comments on the discussion about the discrepancy, let me remind the court how we've evolved on this issue. This is not the first time the issue of the map has come up. Because we were located in e.t.j. Or the city of Austin, we had to get consent to incorporate. That consent came in the form of city of Austin refusing to annex us when they were presented with a petition for annexation. And through the petition for annexation, we worked very closely with the lawyers and planning staff of city of Austin to prepare our petition. The definition of a plat is not defined in Texas law. We had to submit a plat to city of Austin. So what we gave city of Austin was something their staff and their lawyers said was sufficient for petition for annexation. That being a computer-drawn map based on county tax maps prepared by professional, paid land planner. We also included in there -- and the petition described our boundaries as including certain platted subdivisions within volente. Those are words describing the boundaries. City of Austin found that to be sufficient. They sat on it for six months, as law allows them to do, thus giving us consent for annexation. We met that furs hurdle giving city of Austin's consent for incorporation. Now, the case law, the court causes, not the statutes, but the case law says that when you go to incorporate and you present the county judge with the petition, your description of your boundaries need to be the same as your consent. We did that. We turned in the exact same thing to Travis County that we turned in to the city of Austin. When county staff looked at the petition, they thought more should be done in terms of a statement of the boundaries. They said more should be done in terms of describing where the boundaries are for purposes of verifying the petition. As always, we were pleased to accommodate the county, even though we think it was the sufficient to begin with. This is not first incorporation I have been involved with. A small non-profit spent almost $1,000 to get a licensed professional surveyor to go through and prepare field notes description for you. We have provided that to the county and we have a letter today from that same licensed surveyor saying that the best of his professional ability, the written field notes that you have with you do adequately describe the map that we turned in to begin with. And that's as close as we can get without a survey. I'll remind the court and staff one more time that a survey, while ideal, a survey would take out a lot of ambiguity, is not required by state law because state law is clear a survey is only required after incorporation. I think reasonable people can look at that and understand that it makes no sense to have a survey and the expense of a survey when [inaudible] that money is wasted and the survey is wasted. Let a taxing entity like the city prepare a survey of its boundaries and file it with this county court as it's required to do. So there can be some discrepancies between the map and the boundaries. I don't know about the water levels. I trust my licensed professional surveyor to tell me that the map we gave you is the exact same thing as the field notes we gave you. I had it signed by a written surveyor that that's the best I can do for this court. What I will say is, you know, we've been at these meetings several times and not once has anyone presented the court or me with any indication that the differences between the boundary map and the description, if any, cut out anybody's house, excludes any voter. The worst this court has heard is that maybe if there is a difference, the city will be able to regulate my dock or not. And I don't believe that really is an issue for this court to consider. Certainly lcra already regulates docks in that area. It's the already a regulated thing. What we have is a maf that is sufficient enough as deemed by your t.n.r. Staff to meet the statutory requirements, give voters notice and put this issue before the voters and that's what we would like the county to do. I'm available for any questions if you have them.
>> so the map that we received was the same map that the city of Austin received from the petitioner?
>> yes, judge, absolutely the same. As was the verbiage in the petition.
>> it said 670?
>> yes. Whatever we gave city of Austin, the description and the map exactly, we gave you.
>> yes, sir, we would like to get your name again, please.
>> david brooks.
>> okay.
>> whatever happened with the matter with the city of Austin as far as the annexation is not at issue right here. What is at issue is what under the local government code is called an application. It's not called a petition under chapter 7 of the local government code. The application is a single document that needs to be signed by resident voters within an area that wishes to incorporate, and the application must also state the boundaries. Also, there must be a plat. Whatever a plat is. This is a very simple matter in the sense that the application that is filed with the county judge's office in October was signed by the resident voters, did not state what the boundaries were, and was accompanied by this little yellow map, as it were. To me, it's very simple that the application is failing in the sense that it did not state the boundaries. You need to state the boundaries to know whether people who signed it are residents and voters of that boundary. Here the application, which, again, is a single document supposed to have the signatures and the boundaries as filed with the county judge's office in October, a month later, they come up with the metes and bounds and this document over which everybody is arguing whether it's the 715 or the 670 and whether it constitutes more than two square miles or not. In my opinion, and the advice to my clients, is the county judge in this situation has no legal authority to order an election because the application that is turned in to his office did not state the boundaries. You cannot come back later, 30 days later and state what the boundaries are on an application that was filed earlier and signed by the voters. You need to know at the same time what the boundaries are because you need to know whether the people who are signing it live within those boundaries. And it's a very -- to me, it's a very simple matter. I understand from what the county attorney's office said moment ago that they think the metes and bounds that were turned in 30 days later are part of the application. And I don't see how that can be the case because, again, the signatories on the application must live within the territory. You don't know what that territory is unless you have a statement of the boundaries that the law man dates. That is in addition to a plat. The plat language -- the statutes under which this is all operating has not really changed for 150 years, since 1856. It's always been the people who want to incorporate will go to the county judge, ask to incorporate, state the boundaries, et cetera, et cetera. In 1897, the legislature passed a law to allow or require that you also include a plat. And I expect that is because people who were signing the application would look at metes and bounds and they would have no idea if they are in or out. And so a helpful map, plat or whatever was attached to that. Whether the plat in this situation is enough is really moot because the application made to the county judge in October did not have the statement of boundaries. The local government code says that it must. There's no way that an order for an election can be made on the documentation that has been done in this matter.
>> so your position is that if the application filed with the county judge has errors, those errors cannot be corrected before the judge proceeds?
>> no, I'm not talking about -- there is no errors in it. There's like a failure entirely. Because the people who were signing it must know what they are signing and what area they want to incorporate. In this situation they don't know. They have a yellow map which doesn't show them much. The local government code states that you must have a statement of boundaries and a map. Here they signed the application -- and you can't turn in the boundaries later after the fact. It's all part of one document.
>> okay. I received the application as county judge. I see the signatures of the alleged voters, but I don't see a statement of the boundaries.
>> right.
>> do I then ask the petitioners where is your statement of boundaries? I'm sitting on this until you give me one.
>> the application is in two parts. You cannot find -- you cannot find unless you know what the -- sign unless you know what the boundaries are. You cannot have a group of voters signing that we want to incorporate an area where you don't know what that area s you don't -- the local government code does not allow you to come back in after you have these signatories, come back in and then figure out what the boundaries are going to be. The signatories are saying we want to incorporate this area. That's not what they were saying. We just said we want to incorporate. They have to know exactly what area they are incorporating. And without a statement of boundaries, whatever a statement of boundaries is, they don't know. The boundaries that are turned in after the fact, you may have some signatories saying, "i did not want to incorporate those boundaries, I was wanting to incorporate something else."
>> let me ask you this, then. From what I have heard on over the last few weeks, the fight really is about the edge of the boundaries more than anything else. Whether the lake level ought to be 670 or 715.
>> and in my opinion that is entirely a moot question because the application, when it was turned in, did not state the boundaries at all. And whether --
>> let's get beyond that. We already met that argument.
>> okay.
>> so let's say that the fight really is over 715 or 670. In your view, is that fatal or is that technical or --
>> well, I have no opinion about that because I'm not an engineer and haven't spoken to any engineers and haven't looked at the metes and bounds, talked to an engineer and asked him whether he can express an opinion given the metes and bounds whether two square miles is exceeded or not. That is a technical question. That is a question that everybody has focused on, if it's the 670, 715, whether that bumps it over the two square miles or not. Have I no opinion about this.
>> what about this argument, then. That if in fact you are on the borderline, and you don't know whether you are in or out, then on election day you just go out and vote against it. If you don't want to be part of it.
>> well, if you are on the borderline, I mean, you are talking about on the borderline of the map or the metes and bounds? Because there's obviously -- on election day, there is supposed to be a boundary. People who live within it can vote, people who live outside of it can't vote.
>> right.
>> and in this situation, the application was made without any boundaries, and so you don't know if the people who signed it were qualified tore not because you don't have the necessary boundaries. It's just a fundamental, fatal flaw.
>> but I have from the registrar an indication that the requirement of so many registered voters had been met.
>> based --
>> based on the map that was submitted to her.
>> based on the boundaries or the map?
>> what did the registrar get, tom?
>> dan, do you know?
>> the map.
>> the registrar probably got the whole package.
>> every time I ask a legal question, the answer is not clear. The guidelines seem to be incredibly broad.
>> I'm sorry, the guidelines of what?
>> had what the judge is supposed to find prior to calling an election. And you are the third lawyer i've chatted with. I began with tom, who works for the county, then roy for the petitioner, then you. I don't know that I'm in a position to say who is right and who is wrong on it. There is not a lot of guidance in the wording of the statute, and what tom says there's not a lot of additional guidance in the case law, et cetera.
>> well, I think, judge, to a certain extent the issue david is raising was addressed when this was last on the commissioners court agenda. Because as you recall, the issue came up of they gave us the narrative boundary information after they have given dan smith the initial signatures and map. And the position the county attorney's office took is it's within the desecration of the county judge to have a policy on how you receive this information for filing. And if it's the judge's policy that the petition is not received until you put it on the commissioners court agenda and it is formally received, then essentially it can be supplemented any time up until that date. Now, after it's been farmally received, david would be right, it cannot be supplemented. But our understanding of your policy is it's not received until it's formally put on the agenda and we clearly got the narrative boundary description before that happened.
>> that's an idea that I have always put each of them on the court's agenda to formally receive it to give residents an opportunity to come down and give comments before we take that action, and so there will be an official record of the proceeding.
>> the local government code speaks about an application.
>> right.
>> the application must be signed, must be a statement of boundaries. You don't do that in two separate documents. It's one document, signed by the varieties we wish to incorporate -- the voters we wish to incorporate this area. This didn't happen in this case. They signed something with a little map attached. Then the boundaries come in later. You can't merge those because the voters when they signed it did not know what the boundaries were.
>> david, are you representing any of the 64 people that signed that petition?
>> I'm representing [inaudible] who is one who is paying me.
>> and did you represent -- do you represent any of the 64 people that signed the petition and are any of them saying that the petition does not accurately reflect what they intended it to reflect?
>> no, I don't represent them.
>> if I may say something, I want to give the court some comfort with the processes that are involved. The first one is the city of Austin's process under state law for annexation. We satisfied that. And I understand the court is wrestling with the ambiguity just like we have. So we satisfied the city of Austin's requirements and read state law the best we could. There is words in that petition as we filed it originally that describe the boundaries. We say what platted subdivisions are included in this city limits. Certainly anybody who owns land can know what subdivision they are in within volente. We satisfied that. Next it came to the county. We still contend we filed a complete petition. But the county needed additional information. We respect the county's policy. You've done all incorporations whether it's for library districts or others in terms of its not filed until it's on the agenda for the commissioners court. We respect that process, followed that process and gave you the additional information that you need to do verify. Now the next process that's out there is the election. Once your staff and the county is satisfied with the petition, it's a ministerial duty to order it, put it before the voters. If it's the a bad idea, it will be voted down. Even then there's a process the legislature has provided if it turns out there was some flaw in this petition, some flaw in this process, I don't think there is, but if there is, an election contest once it's all over. Even if you think there is ambiguity, some vagueness, if you think 51% more than 49% that the petition is complete and accurate and your staff has verified what it needs to, then i'll ask to call the election and put it before the voters and let the process work rather than somebody come in at the 11th hour and raise some technical objection. This has been in process two and a half years and here we are talking about when things were filed. I don't think it's the the petitioners and I would hope the election process can move forward.
>> can I ask the question in a different way because all of this is eerily reminiscent of what happened with a petition for a library district in the Lake Travis area. And the question was was the petition fatally flawed, could you make amendments or changes after the fact, did they meet all the things. These were basically fact questions and the question was whether, you know, we had a ministerial duty to either call the election or not and there were issues of fact that were really more appropriate for the courts. Since you all are both represented by counsel, why hasn't somebody walked across the street to either force this court to do our ministerial duty and call the election because the election process is complete and we need to do it; or, as what happened on the library district, there was an injunction that basically said Travis County commissioners court, they did not meet that test and so you need to stop what you are doing and we could not call the election. And it was something that it was not for us to decide whether the facts of law had been met. There is a civil courthouse over there where these kinds of things are decided on a daily basis by folks who are elected to do exactly that, and that is to sort out questions of facts of law, which this seems to just reek of. Again, I'm not an attorney, but it seems to be Lake Travis all over again.
I want to incorporate an orange and you end up with a grapefruit. I don't care who in between the orange and grapefruit changed that. You know, we have rights. We are citizens, people have been duped. Mr. Freeman has collected signatures on the petition in v.j.'s cafe without the map being attached to it. Is that against the law? I guess not if you want to sign a petition that way. Mr. Low collected signature cards signed by his residents when he brought them over to his house. He signed them, collected them, I don't know what he did with them. I presume he turned them in. Mr. Love is not a voter registered. Mr. Low owe these are just major problems with this. The fentress county that your staff, the amount of time that I'm sure they spent between webberville and point venture and volente clearly indicates that there is a problem here. Mr. Borques has drawn a line. Obviously his standard of incorporation runs from squeak key clean survey to something reasonable like webberville to a piece of garbage yellow map that people voted on and that's now his standard. That's what he put this county staff through. Ms. Adams is a former city council member. Mr. Tim Davis, owns volente reality. Um, john shiply is a real estate developer and I'm missing bob tinsman is is a former city manager. Those are all key players in save our volente. Do you think any of those would have understood this issue? I do believe so. I do believe they intentionally did not include any description of the boundary of volente so that it would not be an issue. They tried to wiggle worm that through the system all the way until it got here. Frankly sir I want to compliment you, your staff, mr. Daugherty, this is the first time that this has come to the light of day. 22 November, someone says these are the boundaries of the village of volente. You know what? I would venture to say unless they watch tv, 90 percent of the people that live in volente have no one to depend on but you because they have never seen those boundaries. I don't care if all 64 of those petition --
>> how different are the -- are the boundary that's we are looking at today --
>> no, sir.
>> -- than what you thought they were.
>> all right.
>> do you mind if I take that, walt, I will bring up what the surveyor had to say.
>> please, talk about the area, talk about the boundaries -- let me just --
>> I was hoping for a simple straightforward answer [ laughter ]
>> okay. I will do it -- my --
>> we will need you to get on the microphone, sir.
>> I am just wondering whether there was a substantial change or whether the -- whether the boundary lines themselves were just clarified.
>> there are hundreds and hundreds of acres difference, we have a surveyor in yesterday -- [multiple voices]
>> we can talk to that.
>> I'm not going to go -- [inaudible] this is the map right here. The written description says that it is elevation 670. This little thing right here is this little thing right here. This is your county's map. This is the 715 contour line. This is 670, this is the 715 contour. There is no way that that is a 670 contour map. Their legal description does not match that map. I would turn that over to any forensic scientist. I am nobody. I'm telling you. You have proved it right here this is not what's described in the village of volente. I say you can't call a vote on anything. The written description says 670, the map says 715. Yes, we could go to district court wherever we need to go to get an injunction. If we need to do did to make our case I guess that's what we have to do. Or you can let this thinking. There is 10 miles of shoreline in volente. Do you believe that? Two square miles, that represents 10 -- that represents 10 miles, 10 linear miles, not 10 square miles. 10 miles. Much of this is not surveyed.
>> the proposed boundary lines proposed today, that the court formally accepted last Tuesday, right, that those boundary lines are substantially different than what you thought they were before last Tuesday.
>> those boundary lines are not only different than what I thought last Tuesday, those -- no. What I thought --
>> I'm looking for --
>> yes, sir.
>> my understanding is substantially different, dramatically different, I'm trying toed in the difference. -- trying to understand the difference.
>> between when and when, sir?
>> proposed boundary lines. What the court accepted after we did ask for -- ask for a better statement of the proposed boundary lines and we as a court accepted them last Tuesday, the difference between what we accepted and are looking at now and what you thought the boundaries were. Prior to that time.
>> > it's substantial. You are talking -- you are talking about 10 square miles of undefined boundary that's never been surveyed, that your surveyor used the best tool he had to -- to complete that. This -- this is determined to 278 acres. If you have 200 -- I'm sorry, 1,278-acres. I will show you what fine hair we are splitting here, sir. If you have 1,280 acres, you are over two square miles, by law you cannot call the vote. If you have as it says right here, the friend of mine punched that into a calculator, determined that it only took two square miles to bust this, this is not survey.
>> two acres.
>> two acres. This actually is 1.993 on -- that came -- that should have come from the fuzzy yellow map. It is not possible. It is not possible. This was created by your staff. They determined this. When this thing went to the city of Austin someone was supposed to have signed an affidavit, this was no more than two square miles, they are not doing part of the stuff that they were supposed to do --
>> if the lake level were set at 715 instead of 670, that will reduce the size of the area proposed, will that address your objections? But this is not about me. I'm going to ask you a question. Would it satisfy my objection under the law, no. Because this is about voters. This is -- they have -- it has to go all the way back --
>> so your main objection is that at the time that -- that voters were asked to sign the petition or application, they did not have a map that showed the proposed boundary lines that the court accepted. That's your main objection?
>> if -- if you accepted this map, that's what they saw. That's -- that's -- that's the answer to the first part of the question. That's part of the answer. If you -- if you accept this, which is something different, the answer is no. They did not see that.
>> so the action you recommend today is for us basically to reject the application and require petitioners, if they wish to pursue this, to go back to square 1.
>> yes, sir. It has to go all the way back to the legal notice that -- that in this particular action was posted on 26 December, in the hill country news, that was the legal notice to the people of volente that something was going to happen. The petition that was posted in -- in -- in three or four locations -- I think three was require, three public locations, actually published it in four. One of them when it was the fire station, no question about posting. When that was posted, the people of volente were told we are going to do something, we need to pay attention. This is what we are going to do. A reasonable person looking at that map, if he was a -- if he was -- owned 10 miles of his land along here, might not have been concerned. I addressed this issue back when we went to the city of Austin. I specifically did it to ben lukens. I just explained why they wouldn't take any action. They didn't want to see this. He told city staff that he was going to have a big food fight in front of the city council just like this.
>> so you are saying that the response that you got from the city was -- was they were not going to -- to either annex or incorporate regardless of whether they got a boundary survey or not.
>> they were not going to release e.t.j. Which didn't require a map. They had no intention that we visited every city council, city council member and mayor's office. We knew, when that thing went to the city of Austin, that no one was going to annex the village of volente. Consequently the level of concern that they had with this was not much. I still couldn't interpret this map. I didn't know about the 670 contour line. Otherwise I brought it up to the city council. I didn't know about it until alison thrash got copied from your good assistance dan smith, that's the first time I saw that, I immediately called one of my neighbors and I said, look what's happened here. He called some other people, you know, we got some -- we realized that no one in the community knew about this. No one. Not one single person except perhaps ms. Adams, her attorney, tim Davis, john shiply, they alled in maps very well. I think this was done intentionally.
>> let me ask the question a different way. Are you or alleging that you have a surveyor that will say this, the analysis made by the trir staff use thank 670 mark, that 1.98999, whatever it is, somehow they have busted the two mile limit?
>> I would say until you can go to a data base wherever it comes from, you can determine the 670 contour line, not necessarily by a survey, but a reasonable surveyor look knowledge at that, you cannot determine that. In fact we brought a surveyor, we had a meeting with mr. Daugherty. The surveyor wasn't testifying. He's -- he works this particular area. He said you can't do that. You cannot get there from here.
>> but if we have professional staff who say yes you can get there from here, it's 1.99999, whatever the number is, it's under the two, that seems like that is a fact issue that you would walk over to the courthouse, if we think that that is sufficient we trust our professional staff that has -- you walk over there and say, we disagree, it's an issue of fact, and it gets decided over there. Because you have not presented us any evidence that says they have busted the two mile limit.
>> the county staff -- [multiple voices]
>> the county staff has not demonstrated that there is any -- that there is any validity to this map. Let me read you this. Disclaimer: this representation is not warranted for accuracy, completeness or any other purpose, appraisal district data from 2001 to 2002. Two months its taken your staff to determine that they cannot come up with an accurate demonstrate -- excuse me, not warranted for accuracy, completeness or any purpose. If you can't do that, I don't see how you can -- excuse me, sir. I -- I don't see how you can determine that it meets two square miles to that decimal point, actually about four more decimal points from the time you converted from it. They can't -- this map, they cannot get there from here. Two square miles cannot be determined. It's -- it's a boundary issue and as mr. Brooks has gone now, as mr. Brooks stated it's a legal issue. There's two things here. You can't confirm two square miles, you said it right here, number 2, nobody has seen this. Nobody has seen 670. This all -- the poor residents of volente have ever seen, I don't see any reason why we can't do this again. Nobody is being deprived of the opportunity to vote. There is no time frame here. We have been doing this for 2.5 years, for an entire year. Nobody said anything about the incorporation.
>> are you one of the 64 people that signed that feels like you should not have signed.
>> you weren't here.
>> I'm clarifying for the record.
>> I could not sign take document if I wanted to because I do not live inside the two square miles. I do own property there. That's unfortunate.
>> > so you are not one of the ones who will even get to vote in an election whether it is in February or may?
>> that's correct. This is the property that I own right here. An unsurveyed piece of property that I own down to 715, the d.c. Reed estate, who probably has no idea this is going on, currently I don't believe even being taxed on their property below 715, you do not have anything that tells me how much is in front of my property. From 670 to 715 or any of my neighbors or david springer, the property that goes out into the middle of the lake. Do you know how many property owners there are in these 10 square miles, we are a class of people. We are deprived of our rights. Somewhere down the road this could be a serious problem for a whole lot of people. I'm -- I'm sorry for owe.
>> that's all right. It would help us-- do you have any additional comments here, if we can have others that we need to get to. We ought to free up some of those chairs. How many more would like to testify on this item? Have something new for us to hear today.
>> can I make one more short comment?
>> can I see the hands? Something new and different for us to hear today. Raise your hand, I'm trying to get some idea of how many more would like to give -- this may be one of those matters that I need to talk with our legal counsel about in executive session. After my head clears over lunch. [ laughter ] and my guess is based on our agenda, it will be late this afternoon before we are able to take action. I'm just -- there are four or five questions that I think we need to get tom -- tom depending on -- free of the pressure of this courtroom. And tamaras and maybe one or two other attorneys. A group effort. We are crossing specialty boundaries here. Can I make one brief clarification, something walt said. The disclaimer at the bottom of that map. You have two different sets of data on that map. The disclaimer goes to the information depicted on that map from travis central appraisal district. That's what this disclaimer goes to. The red line and the determination of under two square miles is something separate. It got overlaid on that map and the disclaimer it's something left over. But the red map I think -- and I think it's fair to say is our surveyor's duane's best professional judgment as to where the lane is based on the survey information from the petitioner's as well as the square mile figures. Just in case there was any confusion over that.
>> make sure that you bring that map into executive session.
>> judge, I would just like to mention that you would need to call the election today.
>> I'm hoping to do that.
>> just wanted to -- I think they are entitlemented to a decision.
>> that's what I mean, you will need to do it today.
>> right. We will not go home today before taking action one way or the other on this item. Yes, sir?
>> yeah, I just have one more short comment that might help clarify in your mind what happened to us. There's approximately 8 miles of shoreline in question here. It's the shoreline that's the beach. It's where the water meets the land. The map we have had for a year up until last -- up until last week or the week before, with no description with it, showed that the city was going to I think operate, far away from the water's edge. Then all of a sudden at the 12th hour, right before we are ready to call an election, we find out, oh, no, the city is taking the beach as well. And imagine the value of 8 miles of waterfront land a few miles outside of Austin. It's an incredibly important and valuable piece. It was not disclosed to the -- to the citizens of volente during any of this process. We were only made aware of it at the 12th hour. That's all that I have to say. It was just -- we are blind sided and it's not fair, it's a hugely incredible -- hugely valuable portion of our property out there. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I hope judge Biscoe, commissioners, the good news is I'm going to be brief. As you can see.
>> name for the record.
>> could you state your name for the record, please.
>> I'm bob freeman, a resident of volente.
>> thank you.
>> as you can see it's a very heated discussion. I want to let you know that the map that -- that keeps coming up for discussion, the yellow map, has been posted in my business for over a year in the front windows, in three other businesses in volente for over a year. I've had comments from or questions from a few people saying, am I in or out? I say if you live here, you are in or you're out. The -- this waterfront issue is just another -- another attempt to buy the opposition, which most of them have been opposition from day one, I don't want to incorporate, to really split hairs again. We have been -- we have been taking the high road, we have been going through a lot of personal attacks and insin situations that were -- that were really having a hidden agenda. This isn't the case. I guess the -- you know, I know their intent is the same as our camp is for what's the best interests as we perceive it for our community. The difference I believe was in who has got the best crystal ball. We feel like that we have imminent danger by being taken in by early jurisdiction, regardless of who that would be, we would like to have some say so. I believe in their attempt they are trying to kill the vote to keep it from bringing it to a vote for whatever it takes. They want to kill the vote. I feel like he have earned it. You know, I will be the first one to tell you, it's been a growing experience. We have tried do our best to do everything according to the law and we have made some mistakes. And we've had to go back and rectify them. But as you know, the state law was heavily weighted in the favor of cities, big cities. And bob tinsman who is not here today helped write that initial law. The initial law and what it has become today is different. It's had more teeth put it over the years. It's a very expensive process to go through, it's a learning process. We are not attorneys, we don't pretend to be. But I do know this is just another splitting hair issue. Like many others in obstacles that we have overcome with them. I think a citizen -- we really deserve after two and a half years to say if they don't have -- if they don't have the information now, they are not going to get it. I mean, another two and a half years, they don't have the information they are not going to get it. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> you have asked for new information judge, this is all that I will mention. I provided the county attorney's office copies for the court of a letter dated [inaudible] 2002 whereby the save our volente incorporated's culling surveyor, a registered professional land surveyor, submitted a document explaining the written description and how it matches the crisp yellow map that we have been using from day 1. I don't know what more we can do than have evidence for this court that is stamped and sealed by a licensed professional surveyor. I'm very glad that mr. Thompson likes the work that webberville did considering this court ordered an election based on that material. Webberville having submitted a hand drawn map. That was created with a highlighting marker on county tax maps. Volente did much more than that. They hire add professional land planner to do a computer generated map and hired a professional surveyor to develop our written description. There can be no question that the folk of volente know about this. Mr. Thompson himself mentioned the three public postings a year ago and a newspaper article a year ago. Them of course we have the front page of the metro section from last week. I would think if we had 67% of the registered voters signing a petition, we only needed 50%, some of that 67% were upset about the boundaries, they would be here today. We don't have that. I think your staff has looked at the material volente has given you, has concluded that it is enough to call an election and that is of course what we would like to happen. I'm available for any questions if you have them.
>> thank you.
>> do you have a copy of that December 16th letter?
>> uh-huh.
>> good.
>> we certainly appreciate you all coming out and sharing with us your -- your opinions. I do need a little advice of counsel this afternoon. So we will discuss this matter in executive session. Based on how the day is going, and the number of agenda items left, my guess it will be somewhere between 4:00 and 5:00. Before we are able to take action, but we will make sure that we take action one way or another today.
>> > thank you, judge.
>> thank you all.
>> thanks for coming down. Now let's see how many more items that we can get done before -- before noon. We did indicate that -- that -- let's see if we can get 19 and 40. Are you here on this yellow -- you may have to get that this afternoon.
>> we have to take citizens --
>> yeah.
>> I would be real surprised if we could reach you in 15 minutes. Unfortunately.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> this afternoon. It would be at 1:45 after the corporations.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM