Travis County Commssioners Court
May 6, 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 A2
A2. Discuss outstanding policy issues, including subdivision regulation, regarding amendments to chapter 82, Travis County code, to resolve inconsistencies with city of Austin code as required by hb 1445, and take appropriate action.
>> I知 going to have tom walk through the changes.
>> I apologize for handing this out on the day, but we just got it done yesterday evening. We -- after you took this item up last, we met with the city staff. There were a couple of outstanding items that we needed to talk about and so we have revised this agreement based on you all's direction at the last meeting and our discussion with the city staff. And i'll just go through it section by section and point out the changes. Section 1, the park land dedication, that hasn't changed. City and county staff came to agreement on that some time back, so this hasn't been an item of discussion. You'll notice that the roadway plan section, which was formerly section 2, has just been deleted from the document. We've met with city staff. We're not able to make any progress on it, and your direction at the last meeting was basically draft an agreement that didn't address the roadway plan if we couldn't come to agreement on it, so I think at this point the city and the county staff feel like it's best just to do the agreement without the roadway plan section in it. I think everyone knows that the legislation pending may make that decision for us so I think at this point, at least from the staff perspective, we're sort of resigned to letting the legislature, you know, say what the city and county should do in this case. We just really haven't been able to come to any agreement on it at the staff level. The new section 2 is preliminary plan expiration dates. That looks a little different than the last agreement, but it's substantively the same. What we did was basically take the part about which entity determines preliminary plan extensions and put it in the table that is now exhibit a, so that it's just in graphic form rather than text form. It was kind of confusing the way it was worded, so we thought the best thing to do was just put tonight this chart and hopefully it's easier to understand. The agreement for some time is preliminary plan dates four years in the drinking water protection zone, 10 years in the desired development zone. There would be two extensions in cases where needed, the preliminary plan nor the subdivision plans had changed significantly since the plan was approved. And there's also the opportunity to extend the preliminary plan expiration dates based on a phasing agreement or other agreement where the developer commits to building certain amounts of infrastructure by a certain time. And that basically allows to phase construction of infrastructure. And the way the decision-making would work is the county has exclusive authority to determine preliminary plan extension in the desired development zone. In the drinking water protection zone, it would be joint city and county. And the way we arrived at that was really the preliminary plan extension decision ought to be made sort of according to the assignment of variance waiver authority that we have agreed on with the city. And that would basically put it in most of the e.t.j. Except in areas that were about to be annexed, the county would have that authority. But because of the city's heightened sensitivity to environmental issues in the drinking water protection zone, they would be a joint signoff with the county so that they could serve as a check on what they felt might be overly long extensions in the drinking water protection zone.
>> within the desired development zone, that would strictly --
>> it would be strictly [inaudible].
>> tom, I know we had a good discussion here about the use of the word "and" to link all of these things, and I think we made it very clear that the "and" here really refers to making sure that everything in this document is included in the city's recapitulation of all of this. But we need to make it extraordinarily clear, and I see we have pat here, we need to make sure our sensitivity about the word "and" as opposed to "or" in terms of you either do this or this in terms of getting your extensions because otherwise the "and" means you have to have your plans not change and you have to enter a phasing agreement. But we understand the use of the word "and" here. We just had a major lawsuit so we're sensitive about the word "and" versus "or."
>> section 3, we went over that, that's the variance and waivers. That's been agreed to for some time. It hasn't really changed. We did tighten up the definition of what we're calling near term annexation areas, areas where the city will have exclusive jurisdiction because they are about to annex that area. Just so you all understand it, the city would have exclusive authority to decide variances and waivers in four areas. One is areas that are included in the municipal annexation plan, nairs that the city is going to annex within three years. Areas that are annexed for limited purposes, because, again, there's a statutory obligation for the city to annex those areas for full purposes within three years. We did carve out one exception. Sometimes the city enters into agreements with landowners to be annexed for limited purposes and the landowners waive the three-year requirements. We're saying if the landowners waive that three-year requirement pursuant to some agreement, thean the county -- then the county needs to be on that agreement. Obviously if the area is not going to be annexed for 10, 15 years, then the county has some assurances regarding the construction of the streets and the drainage in that area because we're going to be responsible for maintaining them for that 10 or 15 years that they are not annexed. And then there are areas -- all of the existing limited purpose areas the city is going to have exclusive jurisdiction there, and we've got a list of those. Most of those areas are already built out anyway, so it was the county's feeling we don't have a lot of risk exposure there. Section 4 is the natural and traditional character waterways section. That language has been agreed to for some time. Section --
>> sorry. I hate to be [inaudible], it says incorporate exhibit b. There is a exhibit c. Either change one to b or change the other --
>> I missed that. I should have renumbered that. Thank you.
>> not a problem.
>> sidewalks, that language is basically the same. We agreed on that. That hasn't changed. Same with 6, 7, and 8, private streets. Inspections, regional storm water. 9, one new item on number 9. Sipping he will set of regulations. Where we had left it before was to achieve the idea of having sort of eliminating the issue of the county has a provision, the city has a provision, while we think they are consistent, the language may be a little bit different, so there's always the potential for confusion. What we said was the city and county will go through their regulations and designate one or the other. We will eliminate the possibility that there is a city provision and a county provision that applies and come up with this list or index of what those sections are. I think we realized once we got this list, you are really just a word processing task away from having an actual bonafide joint city-county code. It was the staff's feeling we might as well go ahead and take that step. It's going to be a good bit of work, but, again, once you've got the list, it's sort of a word processing task. So we're committing in this agreement to come up with an actual joint code for the city and county to apply to subdivisions in the e.t.j.
>> by when?
>> well, we're a little bit squishy on when that is. I think it's our feeling that the county has 19 other cities right now the way the law is written to enter into these agreements with. And we really need to focus on getting those done before we do the joint code. I think that's the county's only reservation to say we'll do this by January 1, 2004. Now, obviously if it's a big enough priority for you all, we can get it all done. It's just in terms of managing workload, it's our feeling that -- if we don't -- you know, if we don't focus on getting the agreements with the 19 cities, we may inadvertently end up with arbitration.
>> tom, let me ask this. I guess we looked at any equations as far as what that would cost us as far as the [inaudible] is concerned, as far as staffing? And I guess maybe it would be directed to joe. Joe, with the event that we have to enter into an interlocal agreement with all the other cities within Travis County other than the ones that we are looking at at the current status, what would that cost -- would that be a mandate, unfunded mandate, per se, on your staff as far as having persons out there to actually go through this process dealing with the hb 1445?
>> well, first of all, it's not just -- it's not just t.n.r. The county attorney's office has been with us all the way on this.
>> right.
>> we have spent a year and a half in meetings, a lot of meetings coming to this point with the city of Austin. Now, I don't think the other 19 cities will be as difficult, but I have no idea until we sit down with those cities just how much time and effort this will take. It's very difficult to predict.
>> well, the way I知 looking at this, there are some cities that may not have the staffing to deal with this, per se. And if they do not have the staffing, of course arbitration is something that we have to look at on the legal end to make sure we get to the end and to ensure that this is enforceable and applicable. However, if staffing is not available to deal with some of the things that Travis County will have to deal with in hb 1445, then of course that means it would be on Travis County to deal with that. So if that is the case, it just appears that there has to be some money associated with that type of time and staffing requirements whereby it come from the county attorney's office, which would be a [inaudible] part of it, and also your staff. I don't know what that would cost, but it is [inaudible] a situation in my mind that would come up under unfunded mandates.
>> and it's somewhat eye Ron cal that it's probably going to take more time to get a 1445 agreement with some of these cities than it would take to review the one or two subdivision plats we would get in the e.t.j.s. We don't have that much activity in most of those 19 cities. So we've put our focus with the city of Austin and the five largest cities where 95% of the subdivision activity is. That's why our petition to the state was take these other 19 cities out of the bill. They are not material. When it comes to this issue. But right now they still are in the bill, and if they are passed and the bill passes as it's drafted, we will be mandated to have these agreements by January 1. And those will take time and effort.
>> well, it's my opinion that it appears maybe an unfunded mandate [indiscernible] conditions are made available where we won't have an increase as far as the fund to go take care of this. So right now I don't know what that is so that's the concern as we go through this. Thank you.
>> I have one question, tom. And pat brought this up, pat murphy with the city of Austin. On the preliminary plan, in part a-4, it reads: if the owners enter into a phasing agreement with the parties, plural, it presumes that the phasing agreements are three-party agreements, this may conflict with part b, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to an extension in the phasing agreement to one party or the other, the county. Pat's comment was if we have a three-party phasing agreement, then any extension to the phasing agreement ought to be three-party.
>> well, if it is three-party, I didn't mean to assume phasing agreements are always going to be three-party. Right now they are not. Although conceivably in the fiewlt they could be. -- future they could be. I guess the answer to that question is there would be a difference between who is a party to the phasing agreement and which entity decides how long the extension to that phasing agreement would be. Is that making sense, pat? But we could all three, the city, county and landowner could be parties, but in terms of the length of any extension that's granted under that phasing agreement, that would be decided by the table in exhibit a.
>> I understand. Let me explain that or try to get my point across real quickly, very succinctly. In the realm of life of preliminary plans, a phasing agreement is a way to extend the life of that plan beyond the time frame set. My understanding is the city and county would jointly agree -- approve a phasing agreement that would give that extended life to that preliminary. My point was just simply if that's a joint agreement between city and county, three-party agreement and the owner, and then it needs to be extended further, it seems that the same parties would need to consider that as it relates to extending the life of that plan longer. Only in that context. Now, I haven't thought about it in terms of other phasing agreements that might be entered into that outside of extending the life of the preliminary plan. So that's my point.
>> it could be applicable in the drinking water protection zone? In other words, there's a certain time limit to cut off there, but since there is a cutoff in your drinking water protection zone, would the phasing agreements be applicable if it goes beyond the time limit that's set in the drinking water protection zone?
>> yes. The idea is basically if there is some compelling reason to give more life to a plan that might involve city, county, c.i.p. Projects that would be infrastructure to serve that development, for example, no matter whether it be in the drinking water or whether it be in the desired development zone, that the city and the county could both consider that, Commissioners court and the city's planning commission, for example, would consider that, and if they felt there were compelling agreements, we could grant a phasing agreement and that would allow the plan to live long enough in order for the infrastructure to catch up with the development in that example. So yes, right now the idea would be that would be something that both the city and the county would look at and agree was a good idea or not. Beyond that four plus two plus two administrative extension.
>> right. Which would be applicable in both scenarios, the drinking water protection zone and also the desired development zone.
>> I think what joe and I are saying, unless it's an area going to be annexed by the city of Austin in the near future, then the need for a longer preliminary plan term is an issue that's driven by the need to plan and arrange for financing for and construct infrastructure over time. And again, unless that's in an area that's about to be annexed, that's a county issue, and the county ought to have the greater say-so over how much time is need to do plan and arrange financing for and to coordinate with county c.i.p. Construction projects in terms of roads and drainage. That's all we're trying to say.
>> I just need the make sure I知 understanding this. A lot of times when we talk about a phasing agreement, it's an agreement with Travis County and a developer about what the developer's responsibilities are related to the construction of a road at their expense, not a c.i.p. Project. So I知 just making sure since roadway and transportation issues are quite sensitive and actually they are not addressed in here, that when we're talking about the city being a party to a phasing agreement, it strictly has to do with an extension being granted as opposed to somehow the city would be needing to sign off on these private agreements between the county and the developer about how they are going to put the roads in. Because I just don't want to create an issue right now there isn't one in terms of the city not signing off on these phasing agreements related to road infrastructure.
>> right. And let me just explain the city's perspective.
>> you bet.
>> right now we're at three and five years in the desired development -- I mean drinking water and the desired development zone respectively. We have agreed to go out to -- four more years administratively potentially from those dates, so you could go from four to eight or from five to nine the way it's set up right now. We are extending those dates to four and ten with this agreement. And giving the administrative extensions to go further beyond those days. And then with the opportunity -- we're changing our code. Right now you have to do a phasing agreement up front. You have to have a crystal ball basically and do a phasing agreement up front. We agreed that was not necessarily a reasonable thing, and now you can ask for a phasing agreement any time within the life of that plan to go further. From the city's perspective, we're extending significantly how long plans can live just through the life, the number of years and the administrative extensions, and then there's this phasing agreement that can even take it longer with agreement. So from our perspective, we felt like that we were giving what we thought was ample time for all this roadway transportation things to occur, and if a phasing agreement wanted to be requested to go longer, that we could consider that in terms of the preliminary plan accepting it from maybe regulations that may have changed during that time frame. So that's the best job I can do with the city's perspective on it. I had understood both city and county -- but the administrative is going to be assigned to the county solely in the desired development zone and jointly in the drinking water protection between the city and county.
>> again, that's phasing agreements related to an extension as opposed to the original, i'll call it, the core phasing agreement, which is really between the county and that developer. And again, most of those things have to do with transportation. I know it sounds like we're going over it again and again, but this is a very sensitive matter about not infusing the city in a process related to transportation where we have specifically excluded it in this document.
>> perhaps the way to do this is where there is a three- party phasing agreement, any extension would be a two-way extension. I mine the city and county would have to agree to the extension. If it's merely a two-party phasing, then it's between those two parties. So if we enter into a three-party from the very get-go as a contract, then perhaps the extension of that agreement would also be a three-party agreement. Is that a way of brokering the deal.
>> who decides whether it's a two party or three party?
>> I guess --
>> pat, what -- could you articulate for us what the city's idea on this is?
>> well, I had --
>> I think the one thing we agree on is in the near-term annexation, it's the city's call. It's just outside those areas you've got drinking water and desired development. What's the city's idea on how to do this?
>> I知 not sure I知 necessarily taking a position in opposition or not regarding what you are saying today. I had just thought as of this morning that on phasing agreements, we had agreed that where the city and the county would both have jurisdiction on phasing agreements. So I had not understood that those are being divided up by that chart. And unless your agreement says that, then that would mean that any phasing agreement that extends the life of that plan would have to be approved by both the city and the county. So perhaps I知 confused. I will agree we've been working on this a very long time and there's a lot of things stored in my mind, but from my perspective, I had understood that was not being divided up on phasing agreements, the way the agreement is currently drafted. Extensions were being divided up based on the chart in exhibit a, and the only reason that I flagged that one issue is I -- given that my understanding and the city's understanding was phasing agreements were not being done by one party or the other independent -- independently, that an extension of that should also be done by both parties if that's not being assigned using exhibit a. So unless I misunderstand that this agreement assigns phasing agreements based on exhibit a, I did not understand that it did that.
>> that's what we had intended to do.
>> okay.
>> because we're breaking it down by geography. In desired development, both the administrative and the extension pursuant to this agreement would be exclusively county. In the drinking water protection zone, it should be exclusively county, but -- because you all have heightened water quality concerns. Our feeling was we would make it joint. I think you all are saying break it down by weather it's an administrative extension or an extension pursuant to an agreement.
>> okay. I知 not -- still, i've read the agreement, and I知 not trying to be difficult, but, -- believe me, I want this to be over too, but I知 not aware in here that it assigns the phasing agreements based on exhibit a. So if it does, that's something that I wasn't aware of.
>> that's in section 2-b.
>> pardon me for just a moment.
>> because the party designated in exhibit a shall determine whether to grant an administrative extension or an extension pursuant to a phasing agreement or other agreement.
>> I understand. But that's the extension of the phasing agreement.
>> right.
>> my question is were phasing -- where are phasing agreements assigned based on exhibit a.
>> yes.
>> that's what I don't see. That was my understanding. It is not the city's intention to try to get in the million dollars of its roadway projects, believe me, that's not what we're trying to do here, it's just a difference of what I understood that phasing agreements were not going to be assigned based on exhibit a. Because those could extend life indefinitely. And the only reason I flagged it was the extension was going to be able to grounded by one party when I thought both parties were approving the phasing agreements for subdivisions within the e.t.j.
>> well, pat, I guess the last time I guess you were here, we discussed when this was to appear on the city council agenda.
>> yes. It's on this Thursday.
>> it is going to be this Thursday.
>> yes, sir, it is posted this Thursday.
>> okay. That's good to hear.
>> judge, I just have one more question. We are fixing on item number 7 to start talking -- I知 sorry -- about flood plain ordinance and certainly related to solid waste siting orders. How does that fit into this discussion? Because there are a number of different ways we could go in terms of whether we do or don't use the drinking water protection zone, whether we do or don't do whatever. So I don't want to say that we, you know, blessed and pulled it all together except for transportation and two more items later we've got one more thing that may or may not be consistent. Can you give me a little direction as to whether we're okay?
>> let me just say this is merely a platform. You will have on your agenda next week the city's pipeline ordinance, a brand-new ordinance. Both the city and the county from here forward are married. I mean, every time they change their ordinances and it affects subdivision planning, the county will have to agree to those same regulations. Vice versa. If we change an ordinance and it affects planning, we wanted to give them notice they will have to agree to awr changes in the regulation. -- our changes in the regulation. That's a fact of life from here on forward.
>> so is the thing we're going the talk about later in that latter category, that if we passed our ordinance, we would have to send it to them to see if it's effective?
>> if it affects subdivision platting.
>> do we know the answer to that, does it affect subdivision planning?
>> right now it doesn't. It doesn't right now. It could be amended to do that, but it doesn't right now.
>> I have three or four questions. First one is so what are the ing agreements based on? We just talked about extensions. A phasing agreement would be based on what?
>> it's essentially the commitment the developer is making to build certain infrastructure. It doesn't make any sense to go out there and build it all at once. You sort of build it as you plat parts of your development to get ready for houses to be built. You know, you only need to build your infrastructure when you are about to build your next 200 houses, for example. So it's a commitment over time that as the developer plans to build another 200 houses or so, he will also build the supporting infrastructure for it.
>> so whose call is it, though? On the phasing agreement.
>> well, right now it's -- the phasing agreement is strictly a county deal in the e.t.j. I don't know that the city has ever been a party to one of our phasing agreements.
>> they haven't at this point n fact, just raced a possible way to negotiate this. Where the phasing agreement extends the life of a preliminary plat, then when the county -- then would the county be agreeable to having them as a party to the agreement. In other words, if it's a straight-forward phasing agreement, has nothing to do with extension, then it's strictly a two-party. The city is worried that we're going to unilaterally extending a preliminary plan irrespective of the impact it may have on the city. Infrastructure side. In other words, where it may extend their rule making, or exempting to rule making because we extend the preliminary plan for infrastructure. That's where they are saying wait a second, what about us. So they are saying perhaps a middle of the road is if it's a phasing agreement merely affects the infrastructure, is city is out of it. But where it has the potential to extend that preliminary plat, thereby grandfathering their regulations, they want to be a signator to the agreement.
>> in terms of degreing to the extension. Commissioner Sonleitner points out not the core terms of what roadways get built and where, but just signing off on the extension. I think that's what our proposal does in the drinking water protection zone where everyone knows the city has heightened sensitivity to environmental water quality issues. So we've done that in the drinking water protection zone. We haven't done it in the desired development zone because from our perspective the city doesn't have as big a stake there in terms of water quality and environmental sensitivity. Is that making sense, pat?
>> there are concerns in the desired development zone. Not as sensitive certainly in many ways, but there are certainly issues out there relative to those creeks. And, you know, tremendous erosion problems occurring. The city may want some regulations to address that in the near future to make sure the development isn't put in a situation where people are put in harm's way because the creek is widening, as an example. So I don't want to characterize it that there are no concerns out there. There are a few, but there are definitely some issues we want to address.
>> well, it's a concern of mine, but I still have some questions. Is the answer to my question then that as to extensions of a phasing agreement we turn to exhibit a, but on the phasing agreement itself who makes the call if it's in the e.t.j., It's the county?
>> usually.
>> historically it has been, and I think the answer, judge, is yes, it would continue to be the county only.
>> do we need to work on proposed language covering that? Based on what I知 hearing right now, we do.
>> I think it's safe to say we don't yet have agreement with the city on this issue.
>> I think the nut of it is is that don't -- obviously we're in agreement on administrative extensions of preliminary plan life. That's not an issue.
>> you are comfortable with the chart.
>> on the administrative extensions. But extend ago preliminary plan that has the same effect of extending preliminary plan life is an issue I知 not comfortable with.
>> we've at least narrowed it down it's the preliminary plan issue -- I mean the phasing issue. Other than that we're in agreement.
>> yes.
>> somebody bring back language [indiscernible]?
>> sure.
>> then as to the other cities other than the city of Austin, do we think we will need a listing under 9-a and b? And I guess c and d. The list that you need to put together? In terms of saying we're going to do these agreements first and then we'll work on the city on the joint code?
>> no, you said to really achieve an agreement, you need two lists, one from the city, one from the county. Under number 9.
>> that's --
>> that's city of Austin.
>> right.
>> I知 asking for the other cities, do you need the same list or a similar list?
>> we will have 19 lists, yes.
>> all right, then, why wouldn't it make sense for us to put together our list first. Send that to the city of Austin, all the other cities and say basically here's the agreement that we propose. I guess my question is why wouldn't we work with all of them at the same time?
>> because they are all separate regulations. Every one of those cities has an entirely separate code.
>> I understand. But would we have a separate county list for all of them?
>> well, we have to integrate the two.
>> I understand. But will the county list be the same for all of them? That's our proposed list, right?
>> we can -- we could send them the list of all the county regs and say we're proposing all the county regs. The city. [multiple voices] I知 sorry. Go ahead.
>> would we send them the same list we put together for the city of Austin? And not to expect them to have the same response, but at least to expect them to give us their responses. You see what I知 saying? I mean, I don't know that I would start from scratch with each one of them. I would start with the county's preferred position, then get their response. It will take some time for them to respond. But why wouldn't all of them be reviewing our preferred list at the same time? [indiscernible] small city that I think would respond and say this is fine with us. Right? Last time I thought we narrowed that list of 19 or 20 down to four or five that we really needed to work with.
>> we did prioritize with the top four or five cities, but now if the bill passes as is, we've got to do all 19 by January 1st, 2004. And I hear what you are saying now, judge. I think, joe, what the judge is saying is essentially what we're agreeing with the city of Austin or what we're going to try to agree with on the city of Austin is the joint regulations are going to be county, roadway and flood plain regulations, and city water quality and environmental regulations. And we would make that same offer to each of the 19 cities. Is that what you are saying, judge?
>> I知 saying if I were another city I would think if it's good for Austin, why isn't it good for Sam Biscoe city? And if I didn't [inaudible] then I would send back and say by the way, I don't think my city wants to do all this. We're ready for the county to go ahead and do it. Then the question would be whether we want to go beyond what we're doing with the city. I知 anticipating that a lot of cities have not been involved in this historicry, not to the -- historically, not to the same extent city of Austin has. They would gladly see our list and add to their list rather than their own. But I guess I知 also saying -- I would put together a preferred list, send it to all the cities and saying here's what Travis County would like to do to comply with 1445. Let us know what you think. I知 thinking four or five may have substantive comments to give us. And the others we're glad to get this from you and we agree 100%. Do by the way, do you mind taking this what the city has done historically. The other thing, and I知 done.
>> I知 just trying to get an understanding what you are saying. What you are saying is basically a known template of what we're doing here and proposing that template as far as working with the city of Austin, as far as 1445 be presented as such to the other 19 cities and the county that we do not have an interlocal with, working on an interlocal with at this time. A template or known format as what we have here. Is that what you are suggesting?
>> I知 saying --
>> that would go to other cities, this is what we're doing --
>> I知 saying that if the list put together under number 9 -- lists are as comprehensive, difficult as all are suggestings, then I would put that list together having in mind sending it to all the citizens of Travis County. And getting them to agree to it. And otherwise I don't see us needing any kind of deadline by January 2004. And the other thing is that if that is a requirement, I think in good faith we ought to try to meet it. And the best way to meet it, it seems to me, is for us to try to not do a job 19 times, but to try to do it once and apply to it 19 or 20 cities. Realizing with some of them we'll have to pretty much tailor the agreement. And the other thing is I think that we -- somebody needs to come out to the court and say here's the time we think it will take to put these agreements in place and either you have the resources in place to do them or we need additional resources. I知 also sitting here thinking that I don't know that we would expect people -- a person to work on this 40 hours a week, but one day a week is doable. If you dedicate one day a week to doing it.
>> judge, that's a lot of time. We have spent a lot of time on this far beyond anything I expected a year and a half ago. And it is [indiscernible] to other work, no doubt about it. I have a small staff dedicated to subdivision review.
>> don't misunderstand me, what additional resources you need. Now, I知 thinking that if there is a required time, we ought to in good faith try to meet it. And I知 not saying I would like it. I mean, there are resource challenges for everything we do. And I知 aware of all the other things [indiscernible] two more [indiscernible]. Another one next week. And there is only one tom nuckols. But thomas five days. We're degreing to additional time to comply with 1445 so we do it as best we can. But if I had 40, 50 hours a week to work on this, what I would try to do is dedicate a certain number of hours a week. I don't know there's enough for to us say it would be hard to get it done by January 2004. I think our responsibility to say in order for us to get it done, here's how we proceed and here's the resources we think we have in place. Here are the additional resources that we think we need. Bring those back to the court and we basically look at them and make the decision. I知 done.
>> and that is -- that's assuming the worst case scenario, that we still have to do the 19. We do have ongoing discussions with the home builders of ways that the bill sponsors might be agreeable to -- of getting some relief on that, such as finding ways to limit it to maybe the top five.
>> I never assumed a scenario where I visualized you sitting down with 19 or 20 separate entities and start from scratch and working through an agreement. I assumed that we would come up with an agreement with the city of Austin and get with the others --
>> sort of pitch that same model.
>> and with five or six of them, you know, a substantial amount of additional work might be required for the others. They would be happy to see us coming, shake hands, sign the agreement, bring it back to Travis County, we do the same and get it done.
>> well with the arbitration hammering the bill, it may be doable.
>> I had this thought before I even knew there was a threat. [laughter]
>> I guess, judge --
>> yes, sir, I知 done.
>> I want folks to understand that Travis County, particularly myself and I think everybody else here, do care about water quality and we do also care about erosion controls, all of these other things that I think pat brought up when he was talking about about the city having an interest in it. I want to make sure we're concerned about that. I know I知 definitely concerned about it because we do have a lot of flooding and erosion problem in the desired development zone. So I want to make sure that those kind of things are addressed as we proceed because public safety and environmental well-being is just -- is [indiscernible] to precincts out of the drinking water protection zone as it is in the other parts of the county. I want to make sure that comes across as that. That it's not that we're not environmentally sensitive or we don't care about water quality when it comes to desired development zone. I want to make sure everyone understands that.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge Biscoe, Commissioners, I知 hank smith representing the home builders association.
>> how are you doing?
>> very good. Couple of points. As the county attorney mentioned, he has been talking to the home builders association, we've been talking to representative baxter. I want to make one thing fairly clear. We have been talking to representative baxter. I don't see a lot of hope of getting anything added to the bill at this point to reduce it down in scope in terms of the other cities. The concern that is out there is that you may make it unconstitutional from the standpoint of trying to bracket it to narrowly and have it subject to lawsuits the state couldn't defend down the road. We're trying to balance can we bracket it down without bracketing down to the point it's unconstitutional. That is the concern the state has expressed. That is the reality you may be looking at 19 cities to be done by john. It's not something we intended to do -- intended is not the right word. Everybody knew going into the process what it was going to be. I would like to remind everybody this was a bill that was passed in September of 2001. And so it's been out there for two and a half years at this point in time or two years at this point in time. And a lot of debate went back and forth on what does a single set of regulations mean. That was in 1445, and I think the stakeholders and the home builders said single set of regulations means a single set of regulations. We've been pushing for that all along. We understood the complexity. We're willing to work with the city and county to come up with a set of regulations that didn't come flikt, but everyone understood we were looking for a single set of regulations in the outcome and that's what this second version of the bill has come out and said and said yes, a single set of regulations means a single set of regulations, same as it's always been.
>> I guess those comments and the house bill, hb 124, [indiscernible], however, I don't know what the position is of senate bill 544.
>> companion bill.
>> right. I don't know where that is at this point. But I guess what I知 trying to say, and I guess to get across is you may have heard me discussing with staff was about the additional cost that it will end up being I guess in my mind an unfunded mandate because of the increase of staffing, the time and everything else to bring in all the 22 cities and the county. Right now we have about 19 that are left. Of course that cost is a real cost, those are real figures. Right now I don't know exactly how much that's going to cost us to do that with the added staff to ensure that this is carried out to its full potential. If it could have been bracketed, that would have been fine, but since it's not bracketed, then of course that means additional cost. And I知 just trying to put a circle around what -- has anyone given really a thought to how much it's going to cost the county to do this to ensure as far as the amount of money to ensure that this is implemented correctly and by having the adequate staffing necessary to ensure that it's implemented properly if, of course, the other portion of the bill passes, and that's sb 544, if it's designed exactly as 1204 that's not bracketed. So I hope you understand my viewpoint as far as costs with a lot of other unfunded man dates coming from the state, this, in my opinion, may be an additional one, which is going to cost us money. We have no idea at this time what that will probably be. But every city's e.t.j. Is different, they have a different code, so it's an individual thing. So we would have to-whether it's a small or large city in Travis County, still 19 of them you got to deal with by 2004. So that means there's a lot of work and we'll have to address that as far as an unfunded mandate. So, in my opinion, and it appears that way anyway. So I just hope that you guys took that into consideration when you left it where it was not bracketed where it wouldn't have cost as much money. Do you understand my point of view?
>> I understand it very well. I worked a number of years nor the Texas water commission and we've seen a number of unfunded mandates. These are the things you are going to get them done and you have no money or staff to get them done. The home builders association will be glad to help the county out where we can. We have a lot of resources to help out where we can. The original bill as it was drafted or one of the versions of the bill actually said instead of going to arbitration at the end of the day, the authority went over to the county until such agreement could be worked out. In other words, you had time to work out an agreement between the city and the county, and if they didn't get worked out, the authority went fully to the county to implement the rule and regulations and platting process. That was the original draft. And we felt like that would be a little let burden some on what was going on, but through all the various debates, the city had concern that it really didn't put the county in a negotiating standpoint. There was no reason for the county to negotiate any further if they were going to get the authority anyway. And so that is where the arbitration came from through the negotiation and the testimony that was going through the house. The various versions.
>> what's the stakeholders' position on us excluding transportation and I guess dealing with it later as best we can?
>> you are still going to be subject to not having joint regulations. We think there's one potential solution we offered up and that is if you look at transportation just in terms of the platting standpoint and the city can concur from a platting standpoint we'll go with campo. If right-of-way needs to be set aside, it would be based on what campo said. Leave separate construction of roadways and how development gets done because that's not part of 14456789 that would at least get the technical issues from 1445 and the right-of-way set aside done from a platting standpoint, but doesn't necessarily mean a road gets built. Difficulty is if you have right-of-way out there, you are obviously setting aside to build a roadway, but leave that out of the equation at this point to at least get the city and county going down the road to same boat in terms of platting issues and 1445.
>> can we get the city's formal response to that, joe, if we haven't already? And my final question then, I guarantee it will be my final question, is on some of the jurisdictions, some of the jurisdictions that have only a handful of [indiscernible], why wouldn't we make them the offer that we could either do it for them or they can do it for us, and if they do our part, we simply send them our standards? See what I知 saying?
>> well, we have done that with Lakeway -- or West Lake Hills. We have a separate agreement with West Lake Hills because most of the e.t.j. Was developed. We can conceded entirely to the city of west lake. Which is to say that we don't treat every city the same. Depending on what the situation is in the e.t.j., We may break it down any number of general ways. Where we can concede to the city, we do. When they want to concede to us, we do. Typically it falls in between. Where they want some stake, we want some stake, and we end up conceding.
>> anything further on this item today? So where are we? Looking for something else to be brought back next week?
>> yeah, if we can agree on the preliminary plan extensions based on the phasing agreement, then I think we've got an agreement you all can approve, assuming everybody still just wants to leave the roadway issue out of it.
>> can you make sure we have a legislative version of this? It might make it easier to make sure all the picky things we brought up today have been picked up and incorporated.
>> do we need that version before we take action?
>> are we talking about action next week, judge?
>> tom is requesting action today.
>> no, no, we still have the preliminary plan extension based on phasing agreement issue unsettled.
>> put it back on next week. How is that? Is this writing satisfactory?
>> the agenda wording?
>> yes, sir.
>> just to be safe, you might want to add approve amendment to interlocal. Specify exactly what the action will be.
>> submit that to me.
>> okay.
>> anything further on this item today? It will be back on next week. Now, thank you very much. We appreciate you all's work.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 6, 2003 7:52 PM