Travis County Commssioners Court
April 22, 2003
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 8
Now, joe, we do have everybody here on number 8, don't we?
>> I saw some industry people here.
>> 8 is consider outstanding policy issues including subdivision regulation regarding amendments to chapter 82 Travis County code to resolve inconsistencies as required by hb 1445 and take appropriate action.
>> joe, is this different from what to come nuckols sent us yesterday by e-mail? So it's the same thing. I'm just making sure I have -- thank you.
>> actually, tom nuckols will be down at any hoament to help out here. In response to the court at last week's Commissioners court meeting, we went through all the outstanding issues and came up with language for you to adopt today with regard to all those out standing issues. We met with the city of Austin and the stakeholders on Monday, and to the best of our ability, we have gotten to an agreement with the city and the stakeholders. So if you would, let us go through the issues.
>> we're going to ask you to keep it down just a little bit there.
>> tom, if I can ask -- tom, perhaps it would be better if you articulated.
>> you just want to go through the amendments section by section?
>> uh-huh.
>> now, my understanding, what you just said was city of Austin, stakeholders, in view -- in your view have pretty much agreed.
>> I think the stakeholders would have preferred stronger language in one instance [indiscernible]. And my goal was to come back to this meeting today with a recommendation.
>> okay. This is your recommendation.
>> that is correct.
>> and we understand that whether we agree or not, this is what you will recommend.
>> that's right.
>> all right.
>> the first issue, park land dedication, that's an issue that county, city and stakeholders seem to be in 100% agreement on. It basically says that the county will adopt the substance of the city's existing park land dedication ordinance. And then b is basically city and county will each put language in their code that precludes double-dipping, so to speak. Either the county will get the parkland or the fees or the city will, but not both. It basically comes down to who has the nearest park to the subdivision in question. Number 2 is the roadway plan issue, and what this essentially says is you have in exhibit a attached to your contract, and there's a list of roads there, and for each road there's a county staff recommendation and a city staff recommendation. On some the city and county recommendations are different. But on about half of them, the city and county recommendation is the same. And what this says is the ones where we agree, city and county will make a joint proposal to campo to amend with the campo plan to make those changes that the city and county agree on. And that at the time the city and the county present this premium to campo, the city will -- present this to campo tshs city will amend the regulations to say that in the e.t.j., County regulations prevail when it comes down to which roads the developer is required to dedicate right-of-way for, post fiscal and build. And the county would change its regulations to say in the city of Austin e.t.j., Like the rest of the county, we will follow the campo plan to determine what those dedication and fiscal and construction requirements are.
>> I have a question, but I'm happy to wait until the end. Tell me what your preference is.
>> well, if it's on the campo issue, I would prefer to go ahead and take it.
>> a quick clarification. By looking at your thing of the county staff recommendation and the city staff recommendation, I only saw three roads out of the ten that were listed for the city and -- where the city and county were in accordance in terms of the staff recommendations. And only three that -- where we agree and there is a difference in the campo plan. And that's on frate barker, 45 to brodie, delete, delete. Then on the-assess bluff segment ---assess going to -- and -- from a minor two to a minor 4 which you look at the habitat map and go, yeah, you are not ever going to get four lanes in there. And the same issue on city park road. Both of our staffs are saying going to the minor arterial divided two as opposed to four. And again, the habitat maps basically say yeah, that's reality. So am I understanding that the only three roads that we would be talking about going to amend at campo are those three, because in the others, there are comments that basically say, sorry, campo plan is going to trump here for this reason. Just getting clarification.
>> that's my understanding.
>> joe drafted this, so you will have to -- [laughter] I think I understand it. Only joe can say for sure.
>> I think your understanding is correct. [indiscernible] expect the city to amend the transportation plan to concede on major state highways. They are not going to financially participate in those.
>> right.
>> the best we could come to is to suggest that the county subdivision regulations will prevail, and we have adopted the campo plan when it comes to differences between the two plans. That allows them to maintain their policy position but for subdivision [indiscernible], the county's regulations will prevail.
>> so what do we do when the city and county agree, but that agreement contradicts the campo plan? Like frate barker.
>> we go back to amend the campo plan.
>> so if the vote here changes, we will get with the city, go to campo and try to get frate barker taken off.
>> part of my recommendation to you is contingent upon us adopting attachment a, which says we are going with the city to campo to amend the campo plan on frate barker and all those other three roadways.
>> one section of frate barker because there is another section of frate barker where the city wanted to delete it and they are on board to keep it in as a mad 4. As part of the campo plan.
>> as part of the recommendation.
>> joe, when would this portion for the recommendation that we're doing now go forth? Have the city reviewed this portion of it?
>> the city will get this on Thursday.
>> they will get this on Thursday. Okay. Because frate barker is a big deal. It's a real big deal, and I don't want to get -- [indiscernible] you remember the deal the last time around when we dealt with frate barker. What I supported last time [indiscernible], however, I need to see what the city is going to say about this, and I'm not trying to delude anything, but I just want to see what they say Thursday on this, but my -- but my frate barker decision is still intact as far as I'm concerned.
>> and [indiscernible] asking us -- somebody has to go first.
>> so somebody has to go first. What I envision happening here is the Commissioners court making known their policy positions today. That gets forward to do the city council so they can agree or disagree with our position.
>> okay. So we're just moving forward.
>> that's right.
>> but reserving the right for me to make a decision as far as frate barker is concerned.
>> well, the recommendation is to delete it and that would be consistent with what you want.
>> exactly.
>> so at this point there's consistency in materials of your desires and what the staff is recommendings on the segment from 45 to brodie.
>> right. And the city council -- and the city council would like to hear what they are getting and giving up on this issue so they can take their action.
>> so on 2 b 1, basically the county's position prevails on the property [indiscernible] e.t.j.
>> with our differences the county and campo plan prevails.
>> okay.
>> since I wasn't here and didn't and never saw the conversation about the court not being supportive of frate barker from 45 to brodie, could somebody just real briefly tell me what the opposition to that is? Just so I know. I think I realize where I sit with that up here, and I'm willing to accept that, but I mean just to articulate in words ha the major opposition is to it.
>> the city and the county actually had been on the same path related to frate barker road in terms of that road moving forward, and we were having conversations with the original landowner in terms of the reservation of right-of-way for that road to go across there with the anticipation it would move forward through the citizens bond committee and we would see where it landed. What happened in between was the city of Austin bought that land for prop 2 purposes, the water quality purposes. And while the owner tried very hard to basically say can I cut my side deal with the county, the city said no, no, no, no, we'll deal with the county, and then it turns out that the staff version of moving ahead on that road was quite different from the city council verse of what they wanted to have happen on that road and I think it became extraordinarily clear as we moved through the bond process that for that project to move forward as a county bond project, we would have to condemn land that the city owned and acquired for another purpose, and I think there was a feel of the court here -- I abstained from that vote because I was so disgusted how it all turned out, but there was not going to be a vote of this Commissioners court to condemn land to make that project happen, and therefore it got removed from the ballot and we all moved on. I don't think anything has changed here. I'm at that point to say I'm not condemning prop 2 land to put a road across it.
>> that in fact was in the city of Austin's transportation plan. And capital metro had really voted and allocated money to design frate barker. We had frate barker on our plan and the referendum to go to voters, and the city council voted 7-0 against it. Basically.
>> I remember that.
>> if voters had approved it, we would try to con dm it, but if the city lost, we would end up in court and I don't know whether a district judge would say that proposition 2 was superior to the transportation or vice versa. But my position was it is the city of Austin's land basically. If the shoe were on the opposite foot and it was our land, I don't know I would want city of Austin condemning our land for which we had another purpose that was better. So I backed off that really. But [indiscernible] when we realized the city of Austin had changed its position or the position we had heard was not the city council's, but the vote was 7-0 against it. So we basically backed off that.
>> and one other little piece is why we were confused is we had just reupped the campo plan the year before, and all members of the city council approved it. The big fight that night was whether we included sh 30 east or west. Yes, I do remember that night. It really wasn't on anybody's radar screen so it's like we were really confused, it was like a year ago you put this on the campo plan. Lessons learned, communication, but it was extraordinarily made clear to us it would be over huge objections and we're just not going there.
>> we're going to revisit that issue again.
>> I understand. And I -- and I'm willing to accept it. It doesn't sit well with me that somebody nails me on a technicality with the intentions of this is how we're going to stop a road from being built, but that's been done, but, you know, I want to go on record that I'm not very excited about having to deal with those kind of things. If that's how I'm going to be dealt with in the future with regards to roads, I mean, whether it's in precinct 3 or whether it's in precinct 1 or whenever it is, that is not the way to deal with me. But I understand the role of the court and that's -- will of the court and that's been done and joe and I have talked and I think that's the reasonable thing to do to move on. I will tell you i've got an awful lot of people in precinct 3 that's just trying to get from point a to point b like everybody else in this community and that is something that's not made them very happy. But, I mean, I understand it now and thank you for giving me the time and we'll just move forward.
>> and they still have on here, I mean they originally were saying delete the piece of frate barker between brodie and manchaca. They are conceding if this document goes through as is they will reverse their stance on frate barker, that that at least can provide forward as a madd 4 as was originally envisioned in the campo plan and they were making way huge concessions related to the extension of mopac, the 290 west project, 1826, and other pieces of sh 45 related to the hov lanes. There are some big con investigations sear for the city of Austin to have to swallow and move on.
>> the frate barker part they are willing to look at unfortunately may entice people to do exactly what the people are trying to keep from happening out there, which is give me a road that I can come down and still get on brodie and still come through shady hollow and whatever. But I think I understand it and I appreciate you giving me a little bit of time and I understand what's taking place and let's move forward. Hank you.
>> the third issue is preliminary plan expiration dates. And the proposal is to delineate two expiration dates. One is for the brining water zone, edwards aquifer recharge zone, et cetera, and then desired development zone, which is the eastern part of the county. In the drinking water protection zone, the base expiration period, the period of preliminary plan would be four years. There would be the opportunity for two administrative extensions of that four years. If the preliminary plan had not significantly changed and the regulations the plan was approved under had not changed. Each of those two extensions would be two years. So you've got four years, the possibility of a four-year extension. Then there's sort of a general exception that everyone seems agreeable to, which is if you have a phase-in agreement between the landowner and the city and the county, the phase-in agreement can provide for a longer than normal duration day of the preliminary plan, based on whatever is in the phasing agreement. Basically the possibility or the -- what we're trying to carve out there is that if a developer is willing to build infrastructure in increments, then for each increment of his infrastructure he gets on the ground he gets an extra incorrect of time for his preliminary plan to stay in place. So if he is spending money to build roads or drainage or whatever, then his preliminary plan gets more time. The more he gets on the ground, the longer his plan lasts.
>> but is there a cutoff point?
>> not under the -- it's really sort of a -- you know, look at it as a planned unit development approach, you know. It's a negotiated deal where both sides say we think we're getting good commitments from the other side, we can give a commitment back, then I think everybody agrees there's no reason not to do that.
>> my only one minor question, and tell me if I'm being too picky, at the end of 3 a 2 is the word "and." Having gone through elgin bank, are we concerned that word really out to be "or" because I would not want someone to link 3 a 2 and 3 that you had to have that and a phasing agreement as opposed to it's a -- or you may have a phasing agreement. I know this is picky, but for us, "and" and "or" are very interesting words.
>> we need to clarify that.
>> don't we mean or?
>> well, what the agreement is saying is that the city and the county will put these things in their subdivision regulations. And you want all three of those in the subdivision regulations, but once they get in the regulations, you are right, you don't want --
>> the word "and" there.
>> you've got to do all three. But I used "and" because we're saying you need to put this, this and this in your regulations. So I think it's fine as is in the contract. The "and" definitely should not be carried forward into the regulations.
>> there you go. Okay. I understand that.
>> now, at this point I need to make you aware we had long discussions on this one. The stakeholders and we would prefer a longer period of time in the desired development zone. More than 10 years.
>> why, joe?
>> well, they are making substantial investments in infrastructure. They want some surety that the rules won't change once they start down that path.
>> okay.
>> so that's some of the thinking. On the other hand, the city of Austin is aware that it will likely have some changes to its drainage rules, particularly with regard to erosion controls in certain watersheds. They are equally worried that they are going to get prohibited from implementing new regulations in those areas with these same time periods. So there's a little bit of uneasness both on the part of the city, and quite frankly, perhaps maybe the county and the stakeholders. But I told them I wanted a recommendation we are moving forward. And so I expect both the city and the county and the stakeholders will push back in these areas.
>> okay.
>> judge, Commissioners, I just wanted to add something to that as well. I have talked to some of the stakeholders today, between this morning and now, relative to this issue. I think both the city and the county agree that we may want to adopt drainage regulations in the future to protect people and property. At least we want to be able to retain that authority. There's some concern that administrative extensions could be timed in such a way that they would be granted, let's say, just before we were to adopt those sorts of regulations. The interlocal requires the city and county to agree on what regulations we adopt that apply in this area. So if the city and the county were to agree in the future to adopt some regulations, for instance, to address the eroding creeks as part of our drainage regulations, we would not want these administrative extensions to be used to prohibit us from enforcing those. And so the stakeholders i've spoken to, and I think at least one of them is here right now, have, I think, agreed that that would be a reasonable exception to the administrative extension process. And so, joe, I just wanted to bring you up to date on that.
>> is that [indiscernible] here?
>> I'm sorry, sir?
>> I mean that discussion that you had. [indiscernible].
>> I'm one of the stakeholders. We just briefly talked about this. One concern the stakeholders are going to have is we don't want -- if we're allowed to get an administrative extension and there's no existing rules on the books that have changed, we don't want any -- [indiscernible] but just come in and propose rules to prevent us from getting an extension. I understand what pat is saying is that if we've gone #- 9% of the way down the road, the city and county agree the rules have been drafted, the stakeholders have commented on it and we're almost there but haven't gotten it signed, don't grant the extension. I think the stakeholders would agree to that. But I think there's got to be some negotiation there that if they just throw out a set of rules or the city throws out a set of rules and say we're going to implement these in a year, I think that wouldn't count. When question implement the rules and develop rules with these, we're going to have to look at that issue. I think where pat is going and where we want to get there, I think we can get there, but I don't think it's going to be a carte blanche.
>> the reason I raise this is there's a bill pending, 2130, at the legislature, that we're not sure if it's going to pass or not, but it came out of committee basically calling into question whether the city and/or county under grandfathering regulations would have the aauthority to apply regulations that were sperntly related to fema, for example. And so we don't want our own regulations, if possible, to cause us to have to accept someone from regulations that we feel are important enough to adopt. And when I say that, I mean you all and the council and so forth would be the very ones adopting those sorts of regulations. So that's why it came up, and I appreciate your comments.
>> okay.
>> second part of the preliminary plan expiration section deals with the other part of the county, the desired development zone, the eastern part. And this part of the agreement calls for a 10-year life for the preliminary plan. And again, you've got the two administrative extensions of two years each if neither the plan nor the regulations have significantly changed, and you've got the possibility of a phasing agreement or other agreement. And there's one additional feature to this part of it, and that is wherever we have been able to agree on it and discuss this with the city and the stake shoald holders, we have tried to do their best, the city and the county with the certain decision-making power so that we have reduced the number of times that the stakeholders are subject to the possibility that county will say yes, city no, city will say no, city say yes. So what we've done here is basically say in the desired development zone, any sort of the extensions, the phasing agreement, including what infrastructure has to be built and how long the preliminary plan lasts, or any sort of waiver to the preliminary plan expiration date would be determined solely by the county other than in those areas that we're calling near-term annexation areas where the city has -- where it's in the city's limited purpose jurisdiction or the municipal annexation plan or they have some sort of annexation agreement with the owners. So that we think will hopefully make things, you know, better in the desired development zone in terms of being able to do large master planned communities that really need a lot more time to build out.
>> now, I want to make sure I understand this. The desired development zone itself mostly is in eastern Travis County.
>> right.
>> and of course -- the infrastructure that's necessary justifies the length of these additions that have been proposed is justified because a whole lot of things that have to take place, erosion and other things and dealing with this type of development within the desired development zone. So I want to make sure we're all on the same page with that. And then of course it falling to the county that there's an indication of what they are doing there, they will come back to Travis County for those adjustments. Is that correct?
>> right.
>> I want to make sure we're clear on that. What is taking place and those other things that I brought up.
>> well, the amount of time it takes to do a development from the city east and west is just that the city would prefer having a shorter time period in the drinking supply area. So in fact a developer has some incentive to develop in the desired development zone because you have [indiscernible] guarantee. If you go west, a much shorter fuse for future development time.
>> I can't. Okay.
>> the next section carries forward on that same concept, and this is the area where using a combination of subject matter of the regulations and geography, the city and the county have divvied up the responsibility for granting or denying variance and waivers. And again, the idea here is that instead of having a variance or whatever -- variance or waiver require approval of both city and county, it would just be one, either city or county. Not both. And the table we've laid out there is pretty self-explanatory. One feature we did add there is although either city or county would have sole authority to determine variance or waiver, both city or county staff would still have input in the decision through the single office. Again, it's trying to reinforce the concept of we know we still have city staff and county staff, but they really ought to be coming up with single recommendations for the decision-makers. And I think everybody is very comfortable with that idea and looks at that as a big improvement. Section 5 is just some -- defines some of the terms we're using in section 3 on the preliminary plan expirations and section 4 on the variances and waivers. 6 is the language on natural and traditional character of waterways. As you will recall, the county is adopting some language that's in the city code that we had not heretofore had in the county code calling for maintaining the natural and traditional character of waterways, and the city, county and stakeholders were able to agree on some criteria, some language for making that determination and reviewing proposed modifications to waterways, and that's attached as exhibit c. Section 7 is sidewalks. This is essentially the city providing for an administrative variance instead of a variance by the zoning and platting commission to allow sidewalks on only one side of the street in the drinking water protection zone where it's necessary to meet a.d.a. And handicapped accessibility standards. I think the idea here is generally to make that a quicker process if streets can't be built with sidewalks on both side of the street because of the a.d.a. Issue, to go ahead and grant a variance on that especially in the e.t.j. So that the streets can be built so that the county can accept them for maintenance.
>> tom, was there any opposition against this approach for the variances, especially a.d.a. Compliance [indiscernible]. In other words to make sure sidewalks are meeting the needs of the a.d.a. And i' just wondering, these type of variances, was that something that they would have to be approached while we're doing this or what?
>> well, part of the plan review is to make sure that what's proposed to be built meets their standards. And what this is saying is if something the developer proposes can't be, then it -- it will be the city and county that waive our requirements, not Texas department of licensing and regulations. So we're not doing anything to grant them a variance from the accessibility standards.
>> I guess I was just basically referring to them as they will have to have their requirements being met still would have a say in some of these things that we're doing. [indiscernible] in other words, they are the authority. And I'm just wondering and my question is what are we doing now, and I'm not going to belabor it, would call [indiscernible] with what they are requiring.
>> we're making -- this basically makes it easier to comply with their requirements.
>> okay. That's what I like to hear. Okay. Thanks.
>> second issue, private streets and gated communities. Where we're essentially coming down on this is the city will let the county make the decision in the e.t.j. On whether a subdivision is a gated community to increase the city's comfort level, what they are asking is that decision be made by the Commissioners court and not at the staff level. Section 9, inspections and fees. This basically calls for the city and county by the end of August 31st to have basically reviewed the subdivision process, what fees are charged to applicants, eliminate anyplace where an applicant is basically being charged twice for the same work where city and county are overlapping, and make those fee revisions by October 1st, 2003. Having them go into effect for fiscal year '04. At the same time, the review is going to call for if it's the city providing the service, they are entitled to full recovery of their actual costs. Likewise, if it's the county that has to send the inspector out or whatever, there's a recognition that the fee that needs to be paid needs to recover that cost to the county. 10, regional storm water management prm. That reinforces the concept we've got a single office, but on any decision on a preliminary plan or subdivision plat application, city and county staff need on to be making joint recommendations on it. Heretofore on regional storm water empty program, the county had sellerly deferred to the city on a regular basis, but this reflects that the county will be assuming more of a role and being more of an equal partner in that decision.
>> how do we know that only one -- that the bill will be set for one service an not for two doing one service?
>> well, I think that's going to call for t.n.r. And the city watershed protection ab development review people to take just an absolutely close look at exactly what's being done.
>> do we think we'll be able to do that?
>> oh, yeah. We already started that process as we're preparing our budgets.
>> so if an inspection is required, it requires there be only one inspection, you paid for one inspection, you don't pay for one piece of paper, but two [indiscernible].
>> there may be city and county inspectors on a job. For instance, there's water and wastewater going on, there's streets going in. There's all sorts of things that get inspected. When we send an inspector out, we'll be inspecting for the drainage transportation system. We will only charge for that inspection. What we're saying there will be no duplication of effort. But we will charge for what we're inspecting for. You won't have two inspectors out there looking at the same thing.
>> so what assurance do I have that the bill isn't me will not include two inspectors out doing one inspection?
>> the basis of the fee -- we don't actually itemize. The fee is in the fee schedule. It's how we structure that fee schedule. That's based -- in other words, when we come to you with a recommendation on what we should set our fees at, it would be based on the notion that there is a single scope of service for that fee. No duplication built into the fee schedule.
>> okay. So then as we use the word "jointly," I can visualize two people working together all I want, the developer only pays one bill for whatever service is provided.
>> right.
>> so we bill for one service if it takes four people to do it.
>> it may take four people to do it.
>> and the bill would be as though one person did it.
>> that's right.
>> it would be one job done. And the way we ensure that is by having a fee schedule where you know in advance a certain fee would be charged for the service and when we get the service done we charge that one fee no matter how many people worked together to get it done.
>> which takes a whole lot of coordination. I don't want to underestimate the amount of work that it's going to take between now and August.
>> okay. Do we think the stakeholders are satisfied with our ability to do that and remain true to this principle?
>> I won't speak to the stakeholders on that. [laughter]
>> I would think there would be some sort of a fee structure set that's kind of you look back and the stakeholders say, well, this is what this generally cost us to do. All of a sudden if they say, okay, the fee to do that now is this. That's a lot more than -- I mean, making sure that, you know, both entities are saying, hey, let's just get this fee that kind of covers all of us because there may be four in there and we all want to get paid.
>> yeah.
>> I mean, that's -- that hopefully will have to --
>> there may be some skepticism here that we're not trying to do a little shell game, but we're going to purchase methodically and straightforward.
>> that ought to make us feel real comfortable. [indiscernible].
>> I can't wait until I get back from vacation and see how it turns out. [laughter]
>> you get vacation? [laughter]
>> section 11, the single center regulations, as you know, we've got city regulations and we've got county regulations. We have gone through a lot of work to get those consistent. There's still feeling among the stakeholders and indeed it looks like the bills progressing through the legislature will basically say you can't have two anymore, you got to pick between one or the other. So that's what we're doing here. We're basically saying we're going to pick each subject matter area in the regulations and say whether it's the city regs that apply or the county regs that apply. And then both city and county will look to whatever has been designated as the substantive requirement that they need to be applying. It sort of eliminates the problem that we think city and county regs are consistent, but maybe they are worded a little bit differently because historically city and county have different drafting styles for their code. But this should help, you know, remove a lot of potential for interpretation issues between city and county. And we're giving ourselves a whole 30 days to do that one, so -- so, joe, you can take a vacation while I do that. [laughter]
>> thanks, tom.
>> and that's basically it. I would be glad to answer any other questions you've got.
>> so we're satisfied this is the best we could do, so the question now is what will be the city council's response on Thursday, assuming we approve this document.
>> and, tom, let me ask you about the previous code amendments that were tabled. Are we not asking the court to adopt them as well?
>> we could, however, you know, we don't know what the city council is going to do. For example, on the preliminary plan expiration dates, they may say we won't go 10 years, but we'll go 9. So it would be my preference we find out what they do and if you are agreeable with it so we can then make any changes to those regulations. Of course, you could adopt them today and if there are changes come back and readopt the changes in two weeks.
>> knob [indiscernible].
>> sure.
>> there's been no response to the city council on a whole body of code that they've already adopted. They send it over here expecting us to adopt it. The court took no action because they wanted -- the court wanted all the outstanding issues resolved. I think as a minimum you should give the city council a sense of the court or not on that previous body of code.
>> have you all given that in a short bullet form of this is the other stuff that they did, because I don't quite remember it. So I wouldn't be prepared to act on that today even if I wanted to do a good-faith whatever because, quite frankly, be I don't know what's in that packet. It may all be just fine and dandy, but it's not part of the backup that we prepared for today.
>> so is this [indiscernible] three or four weeks ago?
>> these are the outstanding issues.
>> but the package you are talking about, this is [indiscernible].
>> yeah, right.
>> without taking formal action to approve this, I think we ought to let them know we looked at what they sent over. We pulled out these for review and based on the staff's reputation that county staff got with city staff and the stakeholders and for the time being this is the best document we can come up with. Basically we are supportive. Like that. But we don't approve the document, but we're supportive and basically want them to be supportive too. After which we put together a final document and approve it. [multiple voices]
>> that's really where I'm headed for is we really need to see everything all together. But we've got to get passed this stuff before there's going to be a final document.
>> that makes sense to me. Now, is there anybody else we need to hear today on this?
>> hey, david.
>> good afternoon. Thanks, judge. I want to say that, of course, the council hasn't seen this yet, and we're going to be discussing it with them on Thursday. Just one point I wanted to third-degree to tom earlier today, basically that it may be difficult for us to complete all these amendments in 30 days. But if we adopt the agreement and everyone is on the same page, we would go through the process of making these amendments. The reason for that, I think i've explained it before, is we have a planning commission review and approval requirement -- or review and recommendation requirement, and then a council review and approval requirement. Both of which require notice. So it may be difficult --
>> how long would it take?
>> on an ex be pe indicted track, how long would that take?
>> well, it's difficult for me to state exactly. We have to send out the notice. The notice would have to identify all the changes that were being made. And then we have to take into account the council meeting schedule and the planning commission meeting schedule and arrange for hearings at both of these before both of those bodies. And I really --
>> and an election.
>> well, I honestly [indiscernible].
>> if we don't have something ready, then it will be done for us. I think they need to know that.
>> well, we've had numerous discussions about that, but I just wanted to express the concern that 30 days isn't going to be -- it's going to be difficult for us to do it in 30 days. Maybe 45.
>> on an expedited --
>> still going by your legal requirements.
>> so, dave, will they be able to look at what we're doing as far as this document?
>> we're going to -- yes. We're going to -- we have an item on the agenda to discuss the city and county subdivision regulations including all the policy issues which time has set -- tom has set out in his draft of the interlocal. We'll give them copies of this also. If you could in fact be e-mail it to me.
>> is there any great value trying to get this done before the shakeup at the council?
>> I would think so.
>> elections.
>> I know the -- there's an election. I know the mayor is going -- doesn't step down that day, but he steps down in early June, right?
>> I think June 15th would be the last date.
>> [indiscernible] trying to get this done before the new people come in or the positions change? I know if one of the mayor or mayoral candidates wins, if I were working on this as staff, I wouldn't want to go back to square one and start working on this. Seems to me we've gotten a whole lot done over the last month.
>> I agree, but we really had not been thinking in those terms.
>> this won't be very new to all of the commissions, will it, when they see it? They've already seen parts of this legislation. So they are at least familiar enough --
>> with the concept, yes. And the planning commission has already approved all of those amendments and the council has approved all of those amendments. We explained to them a couple of times what house bill 1445 is, what it requires, be why we have to do this.
>> okay. All right.
>> so they are aware that we're going through this process.
>> but if the council per chance does not act this Thursday, when would be their next opportunity to take a look at this?
>> it would be the 8th.
>> may 8th.
>> they don't have a meeting on the 30th.
>> so it would be after the election.
>> may 3rd.
>> okay.
>> we'll do the best we can.
>> probably will elect people which is amenable to doing things with their bodies as you all's newly elected official. [laughter] [multiple voices]
>> what you told us. And that the entire court expressed shock.
>> and dismay.
>> and dismay. Implored council and planning commission to expedite this matter as much as humanly possible. That's about the best we can do, right? That's what I'm hearing.
>> we'll take that in lieu of a letter from the judge.
>> we had smiles on our faces. If it's appropriate, I would move approval of item 8 that we have judiciously moved through today.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Show that passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much. [multiple voices]
>> thank you.
>> thank you, joe.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 5:52 PM