Travis County Commssioners Court
May 13, 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 20
Item number 20.a is to discuss outstanding policy issues including subdivision regulations regarding maintenance to chapter 82 Travis County code [indiscernible] the city of Austin code as required by hb 1445 and take appropriate action. And 20 b is to approve amendment to hb 1445 interlocal agreement with the city of Austin.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> ted murphy from the city of Austin also with us today. We have met since last Tuesday on the conditions...
>> can we get a little more volume from joe's mic?
>> [indiscernible]
>> let's try it.
>> okay. I'll fill in for joe, here, judge.
>> we've been meeting with the city. I think we're down to one unresolved issue. That is the issue of extensions of preliminary plans. You'll remember from the chart in the latest draft of the amendment to the interlocal we distributed last week, there's a breakdown of which entity decides on extending a preliminary plan, and outside the areas -- well, first, in the areas that the city is about to annex, the chart calls for the city to make that decision. Outside the areas that the city is about to annex, it's broken down by drinking water protection zone and desired development zone and in drinking water protection zone it's a joint city/county decision. In a desired development zone it's a county decision. The city is acceptable to that for the administrative extensions. And as you may recall, we've agreed that the developer would be entitled to two extensions of two years each if the regulations hadn't substantially changed since he first got his preliminary plan approved. So the city is okay with that breakdown on the administrative extensions. Then there's this other category of preliminary plan extensions that we're starting to call negotiated extensions and th p idea came from the meetings with the stake holders where they basically said if a developer is making commitments, long-term commitments to build infrastructure in the development, then perhaps the preliminary plan ought to have a longer life and there's sort of a quid proquo for each increment of infrastructure the developer builds he gets an increment of time, and in the county's mind, that is mainly designed to deal with our phasing agreements. Right now county phasing agreements and county preliminary plans essentially don't expire and by agreeing to an expiration date of four years on the drinking water protection zone, ten years in the desired development zone, the county is going to start grappling with the fact that the preliminary plan in our phasing agreements expire in ten years and we are looking for some way so that the county could coordinate our cip projects and theike with what the increments of the infrastructure that the developer is building to go beyond that four and ten years and the idea is there would be sort of a negotiated extension. And I think it's the city's feeling that any of those negotiated extensions they ought to have the ability to approve or deny or at least sort of being an equal party with the county on. I i don't think joe and I are quite there yet. I think our perspective is that is probably acceptable on the drinking water protection zone where the city has heightened water quality concerns. In the development zone where the city does haven't the same level of concern, our feeling is the extension tied to the phasing agreement ought to be strictly a county decision. The city's position is basically it ought to be city and county, so we're basically down to one issue and tt is for the negotiated extensions pursuant to phasing agreements n. The desired development zone, the city wants it to be a joint city/county decision. Right now county staff is of the mind it ought to be strictly a county decision.
>> [indiscernible]
>> so I think this is true [indiscernible] a compromise. What the city is proposing is [indiscernible] the negotiated extension...
>> ... Beyonden years [indiscernible] the extension incorporates changes [indiscernible]
>> [indiscernible] at the city and the city risk of losing thingslopment. [indiscernible] agreement so as to [indiscernible] that's kind of the concern on our side. It's just the opposite for the city. Some additional protections from the [indiscernible] I guess it's going to end up [indiscernible] negotiated or not negotiated when we get to the extension agreement.
>> the conditions -- give me an example of the conditions of the negotiated situation. In other words, if we have to go through negotiations, that would predicate -- what would that be predicated on, between the city and the county in this joint effort as far as a desire to the development zone, you said details, but would that be looked at each subdivision that's coming up in the city's etj along with the county as far as looking at it. I mean how is that... The conditions of the negotiation based on what?
>> all of those negotiations [indiscernible] between the city and county for two years [indiscernible] the city has changed its resolutions, the county has a further agreement [indiscernible]. At that point the city and the county would say -- the city would say [indiscernible]. The county will say we want some infrastructure [indiscernible] agreement will also go beyond ten years. [indiscernible] the additional cost of the city resolutions moved the infrastructure that the county wants. Right now the county does not have any [indiscernible] so for us [indiscernible]
>> okay. Well, as the stakeholders, the developers, have they had comment on that type of negotiated process with the city and the county just on this that we're talking about now?
>> initially they were for the more time. The more time the better basically is what they were looking for. They're receptive to the sensitivity of additional iterations in the [indiscernible] of the county. However, additional iterations pending in the design development itself. [indiscernible] quite clear that the city and counties to develop [indiscernible] iterations in this area in the design [indiscernible] which will result in [indiscernible]. Those iterations are being developed, we expect [indiscernible] within the next two years.
>> okay. Yes, sir?
>> joe, I like you am a little apprehensive about going beyond where we -- where we are at this stage. No disrespect to the -- to david and pat that are here. I wish that I could become more comfortable with thinking that the city really would be fair to the county with regards to allowing us to do what we thought we needed to do in the county. History has not proven that, I mean as far as I'm concerned. I mean what the city is trying to do, as far as I interpret this, they don't have a crystal ball, but they realize that things are going to continue to grow beyond where we are at this stage, and some of those rules and regulations, I think, are used to be somewhat obstinate with regards to sensible development in some of these areas, and this is not even getting into infrastructure and roadways that I know we have a problem and I don't know how we're going to get around that other than probably through legislative means. But if you can get comfortable with this -- I mean I don't want you put in a spot where you eventually kind of go, okay, we'll deal with this, this is not the greatest thing that we've got, but we've got to move on. I think that's happens in all of this, people just give up and say, okay, what works in order to move us down the road?. And I'm not comfortable with that.
>> [indiscernible] the contract resolution [indiscernible] confrontation across the board on this issue. What this would manage to do is [indiscernible] there's exceptions to rules when you get there. In that instance uncomfortable, where in uncomfort is in the [indiscernible] the county I think is receptive to [indiscernible] ... With regard to future resolutions. [indiscernible]. I don't know at this point where and when those conflicts will come up, and right now the proposal [indiscernible] the conflict arises. So it may be the best that we can do at this point is agreeing to defer to negotiated extension when the time comes. We're in agreement right now about a [indiscernible]. The city has come [indiscernible] so we both compromiset. We don't know what will happen ten years out. Let's find out. Ten years is a long time. We don't usually have a contract unless between now and ten years there's some iteration that will [indiscernible] to the county that will cause [indiscernible] for ten years.
>> joe, I'm sorry, go ahead...
>> I'm fine.
>> okay. But the question -- not the question, but the fact is that the design development zone is basically located east of i-35. That is basically what we're talking about here, the west, the drinking protection water zone which is on the west side because this is a drinking water nature; however, the folks that I'm aware of are and do have a legitimate concern about quality of water. The u.s. Farm bureau folks have some of the main concerns about the rural community out there in their meeting, about water quality, a whole bunch of other stuff. The bottom line is there's a exern about water quality east of i-35 also. I do not want to see water quality lessened because it's east of ih-35 even though it's in a development zone and I don't think the suggestion of saying that, but I want to maybe sure that what we're doing here is not going to compromise water quality east of ih-35.
>> it's not so much that. It's at...
>> [indiscernible] clearly.
>> I understand. Most of the county does not have water quality regulations and as a result Austin has city ordinances independent of [indiscernible] resolutions. In some cases we have [indiscernible] I'm sure the city will be more than happy for the county to do all the work. [indiscernible] I think there will be a time [indiscernible] water quality regulations [indiscernible] the county. So as a result the city has a little role when it comes to water quality. What they're asking for in this is [indiscernible] for them to [indiscernible] take precedence over the county's infrastructure.
>> I guess we're not at that point yet, really don't know what is going to take place. We have negotiated situations here also that, you know with the new water quality standards that haven't gone before, I know they're working on them as far as the city is concerned and maybe the city can speak to that, but of course we don't know exactly what they are.
>> I'm sorry. [indiscernible] transportation [indiscernible] now [indiscernible] those con conflicts will [indiscernible] ... The differences are much broader and until we get [indiscernible] differences further [indiscernible] unfortunately that is [indiscernible] so what I'm telling you is won't have a conflict unless it comes about, and I tnk the best we can do the full amount of differences between the water quality regulations and the infrastructure regulations. As you can see the transportation [indiscernible] a much bigger issues to be resolved.
>> in addition to that, I think once you have some -- it sounds right to me. Once you have some experience with this issue, working for regulation going to continue to be with us, then we can tweak it as we go along the years, can't we? And it sounds like we won't know until we get there, until we get really across that bridge then we can know what exactly the fixes are that we need both from the county and the city, probably more from the county because we have less regulation authority, but at least we can -- can we leave room for ourselves to say let's deal with this when we come to that bridge? Certainly, I think that is within the realm of possibilities to have something in the agreement that requires after so many years that the city and the county revisit you could actually put that in...
>> won't that give us equity? Won't that give us equity that we both need to work out this potential conflict?
>> I believe so. I had a few comments that I hoped would clear this matter up from the city's perspective. Last Tuesday trying to explain this but I'm going to try to articulate a little better. The city's view is this agreement provides a better situation than they currently have. Right now the city is expiring preliminary plans at and five years. In spite of the counties not expiring, they're having to come back if that happens and reapply and get a new form from the city. So this actually approves that situation and takes it out four in ten years with the opportunity to go additional four years for the administrative extension. So they're really talking about going from three and five to eight and 14, assuming the regulations haven't significantly changed. This agreement also protects the county's interests longer because of that, up to eight and 14 years, so my point is currently, the city's plans expire at three and five years. This takes it to as much as eight and 14. I think it's a better situation than we currently have in the etj. Further agreements will be negotiated based on this proposal with the idea of balancing public policy in the desired development zone and the drinking water protection zone. Obviously the city wants to extend infrastructure. I see us being partners in this goal in the design and development zone and I i see us probably having no problem negotiating an agreement that will try to balance the public policy issues of water quality and transportation, for example and the real benefit to the city is the city does not want to provide long-term exceptions by our own terms. We are already deang with state law that does a good job of giving grandfathering to projects and we don't want to do that to the detriment of health safety. My last point is the city f. It changes the regulations, is going to come present those to the county and stakeholders and get input and try to address those relative to certainly as a requirement we have to agree on transportation drainage for example, our water quality it would still be our intent to come to you and present those to you and get your input and try and understand how that might affect the county's goals so thank you for allowing me to explain that.
>> did the city postpone this item?
>> yes, they did, last Thursday, because of these issues that we're talking about today.
>> so I think it would be right that [indiscernible] the city was going to do it. Makes sense to me. This is us stepping out there and committing anything at this stage.
>> [indiscernible]
>> I would ask him for a partner [indiscernible] is by trying to leave the door open to -- for the county to at least prevent our case when we get ready to cross that bridge.
>> I think we'll know shortly, like Thursday midnight, what is or is not going to make its way to the state legislature. There is still things happening over at the state legislature about what we do or do not have to get accomplished, whether people feel that we have accomplished the spirit or goals of 1445 and the reality exists, we do not have on the table right now anything related to transport take so we can say that we've moved as close as we can and we've resolved as much as we can, but the reality is for some, and I'm in that category, we've resolved nothing if the transportation issues remain unresolve and I think that is -- that is the reality of the situation.
>> [indiscernible] the opportunity to move...
>> [indiscernible] for five or six years.
>> [indiscernible]
>> yeah.
>> ... Agree to the compromise that we've been presented today, we will take a look at it and [indiscernible] transportation that makes the [indiscernible] as important as ever. We will negotiate it as best we can. That is the best that we can do. I say let's go ahead and do it. ... Our effort to really negotiate things, good public policy to the commission and...
>> [indiscernible]
>> second point?
>> talking about negotiating extensions that have been jointly approved by the city and the county. In the meantime, we endorse an agreement to gotten years, that would be done by both the city and the county concurrence.
>> right. [indiscernible] the city has thought over the county... We'll be able to decide that in two weeks.
>> a motion... I want to make sure that [indiscernible]
>> Thursday.
>> this Thursday?
>> yes, sir.
>> we'll try to make some movement here, good faith effort, the negotiation process... The development zone so looking forward to [indiscernible] and maybe have a project actually give some [indiscernible] on what we're doing. [indiscernible] that's what it's boiling down to.
>> thank you, judge. There's one other item that we discussed yesterday that I just wanted to mention to you, I think it rises to the same level of interest, but regulations which is in tom's draft, the concept is that the city and the county would put together some sort of a manual that includes a reference or a verbatim repetition of all city regulations and county regulations that apply to subdivisions in the etj within Travis County, and we will be working toward that in the next several months. That is also a big project, but I just wanted to clarify that we had discussed the language in the draft which says either a city code or a county code provision but not both, city's suggestion was that we should in fact include both city code and county code [indiscernible] applicable to subdivisions in that booklet and that would be adopted by [indiscernible] there would be a section that said for subdivision within the etj in Travis County refer to x, and the county would adopt a similar statemen so we have references to a manual that include regulations of the city and the county.
>> [indiscernible] 1445?
>> yes.
>> and we're planning on getting that done by January 1. And what stats talks about applicable [indiscernible]
>> so what do you think would be the stakeholders' response to that?
>> I think very positive.
>> that's essentially what they've been asking. Go to city code or county code, one joint code for the etj. That's what we're talking about.
>> ... A conflict. I mean that's an absolute understanding here that... And there's no conflict.
>> that's the way to guaranty no conflict is only one code plus the [indiscernible]
>> the county code provisions.
>> okay. Two sets of provisions?
>> no. What i've got in mind is city and county adopt a joint code and when you say reference to city and county code that is really just a footnote that will say the source of each provision was this provision of the old county code and this provision of the old city code. It's just telling people where it came from, but it's stand-alone general code.
>> that's what I would think.
>> it can work that way?
>> that's what I would think.
>> that's the intention.
>> I don't think it's a matter of it can work that way. It has to work that way, otherwise something legitimate ... I know we're being very careful with our words here, but let's be very careful with your words here. That can be interpreted to mean it's still two separate codes and it's just convenience that we've put them on the same page.
>> to create one code for the etj.
>> thank you.
>> [multiple voices]
>> and I guess that will come to the city council as it pertains to us today just as [indiscernible]
>> I'm sorry, are you finished?
>> yes, go ahead.
>> I recall such thing vote on [indiscernible] try to send a message that I'm willing to work with them and show them that I'm hopeful that the city is going to come forth and that we're going to be fair. I think it's going to be for two years. I think the individual subject matter that is basically willing to set the stage as to, I mean, two years is going to allow us the term to whether or not we're really dealing, you know, in an equitable manner here. We need to move this thing around. I think it's going to [indiscernible] we're going to extend the branch and let's move forward knowing that we've got at least one book of subject matter ahead of us to deal with but...
>> and I'm going to also cautiously join in terms of saying, yes, let's try to move this along, because I think, at least for me, we're kicking ourself if we think we've completed the work here. Any kind of a 1445 that doesn't tackle the issue of transportation and leave it out there, I for one do not meef we've finished our work, but I will move ahead on the things that I think we have done some very, very good work of pulling it together and getting some progress but there is still a huge gap in what we needed to get done. It didn't, and I think people will notice that.
>> judge, can I ask one clarification? Did I mention the idea that we will operate under this joint agreement for a period of time review it. From what I'm understanding is y'all are incorporating Commissioner Gomez's idea in a contract that said after a period of time we can renegotiate this, is that what...
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> the developers use the stakeholders that actually get involved in this the county, the city of Austin, those [indiscernible] as far as what we're trying to do here, so the jury is still out but we will definitely take the [indiscernible] we made it easier for them work with the city and county jointly instead of having to go to each one separately. Thank you.
>> ... So signify. I see Davis cautiously on this motionoo.
>> best we can do.
>> [inaudible]
>> we should have action on Thursday based on our knowledge.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 13, 2003 7:52 PM