Travis County Commssioners Court
June 17, 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 6
Number 6 is next and that is consider portion of the city of Austin pipeline ordinance, part 4 and 5, for adoption by the Travis County Commissioners court and take appropriate action. Good morning.
>> judge, Commissioners. Fred [inaudible], t.n.r. Earlier this year the city of Austin passed a pipeline ordinance. And what we're here to consider is parts 4 and 5 of that ordinance in the context of their part 11, which basically specifies that parts 4 and 5 do not take effect in the city of Austin's jurisdiction until such time as the county passes or considers similar regulations. There are approximately eight major components of that part 5. Part 4 basically adopts similar considerations that we're considering within the city of Austin subdivision ordinance that applies in their e.t.j. Part 5 contains the substance of what we're here to talk about. The basic program is -- with this ordinance is to increase resident safety adjacent to pipeline corridors. There are -- there does not appear to me to be any house bill -- 1445 implications in the sense that those parts do not take effect until the county considers -- Commissioners court considers these ordinance elements.
>> but the county does not adopt parts 4 and 5, though, do you see 1445 implications?
>> parts 4 and 5 of the city's ordinance would not take effect until the court takes action. So, in other words, if the court does not take actions on parts 4 and 5, those parts do not apply in the city's ordinance as well. That's my understanding. I'm sure tom could tell us more about that.
>> therefore there's no conflict.
>> I think that's the right analysis. The city of Austin ordinance, I think, reflected what the law is now anyway given house bill 1445, and that's a new regulation regarding subdivisions in the e.t.j. If the city adopts an ordinance, it doesn't become effective until the county adopts it and vice verse savment you've got the case where it takes approval on both entities to adopt a new subdivision regulation in an e.t.j. That's the legal side of it. We do have a house bill 1445 interlocal with city of Austin and it does address the process for adopting regulations and does provide coordination between the two entities [inaudible]. I think certain points for this discussion there's no real deadline, there's no consequence of failure to act, so you are not under any sort of deadline here, not under any sort of mandate to adopt the ordinance. The interlocal calls on one entity to consider an ordinance, the other entity has adopted. So I just wanted to sort of set out the parameters for both under the statute and under your interlocal with the city of Austin.
>> and I'm really glad you said it that way, tom, because we don't have the deadline for doing this, and I thoroughly respect the work that the city of Austin has done on this -- to this point. But they spent more than six months getting to the final adoption of their ordinance because it was here last fall when they were considering things and it got postponed and postponed, and they spent a whole lot of time and energy coming up with what it is they came up with. We are way landfilled up right now in terms of the work that is before t.n.r., You, and the environmental office. And quite frankly, I think this court ought to decide where does taking on a brand-new project with no deadline other than what we want to, where we choose to put it in our work plan. And I think we ought to talk about that as opposed to saying we're going to just dive into something that does not have a deadline under 1445, but we do have other deadlines related to the adoption of a budget, we do have deadlines related to other things under the original 1445 that we need to get in place by January 1st. And I just -- before I delve into something brand new, I would like to know this is where this court would like to go as opposed to its a request from the city of Austin for us to jump this in line to the top of the list and having gone through this on the landfills, sometimes these things that seem to be very simple aren't and it takes an awful lot of staff time, and I just want to -- I think this court needs to talk about whether we want to do this now or it's something that happens after we get some other things out of the way and we can properly take the time and energy, the same way the city of Austin took the time and energy, into coming up with a final ordinance.
>> we don't have all the information yet, do we? I mean is there still some more information that we need to have before us to make any kind of good decision?
>> I think the information is available for the court to discuss the ordinance. I don't think there is anything outstanding other than what I could contribute or tom or others could contribute to your understanding of it all. I'm here to do that.
>> but we have all that we need in order to make a decision.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> is there not a federal study underway talking about best practices in pipeline safety? Coming down later this year?
>> the u.s. Department of transportation's [inaudible] pipeline safety has an ongoing -- yes, the short answer to your question is yes.
>> so would it be helpful for us to wait then?
>> in all honesty, I don't have enough expertise in the area of pipeline safety to really be able to answer that. It's just not something I have any expertise in.
>> and that's precisely where I'm going here. The time and energy of our staff related to a very complicated and important issue and whether this is the day that we launch another lengthy education not only of our staff but also of the Commissioners court. That's just where I'm coming from.
>> I do think there are certain areas that we need to know a bit more about. But I think if nothing else we ought to try to give staff an outline indicating what additional information we think we need to see. If we give you an opportunity to finish your short presentation -- did we?
>> in all honesty, judge, there's not much more to it other than maybe a couple of the issues that I wanted to make sure that I put out on the table for you all's consideration when you went into this ordinance that -- and sort of down the same path, one of the items that certainly the court would want to consider is the hazardous liquid pipelines are currently regulated by the us d.o.t. Office of pipeline safety. That t.n.r. Does not currently possess expertise in this area. And to regulate it, we would have to acquire that expertise in some way.
>> city of Austin possess that expertise?
>> not to my knowledge. And the last item is that one of the elements, components of the ordinance requires the owner of a lot containing a restricted pipeline area to notify any potential buyers of that lot that the restricted pipeline area exists, its legal description and its limitations on development. Item a in that -- in part 5 requires that a note be placed on plaques to that effect. And I just wanted to make sure that the court understood that without some level of expertise in what pipelines mean and how they can be worked around, et cetera, that we basically would be relying on input from outside sources to regulate that.
>> okay. Here's what I would like to take, and if the city has it, fine, if not, I guess we ought to try to get it and I guess before the end of the day we can try to figure out where we are in terms of scheduling the next move on this. But it seems to me that we ought to at least have a bit more information than i've seen on how critical the problem is. Or the need for the ordinance. And to be honest, i've gotten conflicting information about just how serious the situation is. So that's for me, I guess, a critical -- and I guess from a local perspective, if there is a state regulatory agency, we may as well contact that body. They would have the same information. And if -- the state information. And if there's a national regulating entity, you would think they would have information also. It would help us to see that. The other thing would be the impact of the statute on affordable housing. I guess it would be on housing and especially affordable housing. You are talking about now a 200-foot setback on both sides.
>> no --
>> 25 feet on both sides?
>> yes, sir.
>> judge, the building setback is really just the pipeline easement itself. You can't build, excavate in a pipeline easement unless the pipeline is within 25 feet of the boundary of the easement. And then because there are cases where pipelines aren't centered in the easement, it may be over to one side. The ordinance says if that's the case, then there's a 25-foot setback. Either way, max, it's going to be the pipeline easement plus 25 feet. That's the broadest the setback ever gets.
>> typically a pipeline easement is how wide?
>> they vary, but typically 50 feet. It's fairly common for them to be at least 50 feet wide. But as tom points out, the -- in many cases there is more than one line within that 50-foot easement which would cause an additional some additional distance outside the easement to be a setback. Sometimes they are not centered in the ease back.
>> with a 50-foot easement, you would be expected to add another 25 feet?
>> in a situation where you had a 50-foot easement and the pipeline was centered in that easement, there would be no additional setback required by this ordinance.
>> so it would be 25 feet from the pipeline.
>> from the pipeline itself essentially, yes, sir.
>> if there is an impact on housing and affordable housing, it's easy to see that. The other thing would be the impact on property values for current residences in order to comply with a notice requirement.
>> judge, I don't think the ordinance would apply to any houses that already exist. It would apply to new subdivisions.
>> what if they want to expand out in terms of a renovation that all of a sudden moves them closer toward an easement? That was a great deal of discussion at the city related to renovations that enlarged the footprint and impacts.
>> that's one of the features of the ordinance that only applies in the city limits.
>> the features that we're discussing applied exclusively to subdivision ordinance. So it would only be something new in the form of a subdivision that would come under these regulations.
>> you are saying pre-existing subdivisions who want to enlarge their footprint of their home, and for whatever reason it would get into this easement over 25 feet of the pipeline, you are saying that wouldn't be impacted?
>> I follow what you are saying.
>> yeah.
>> it's not -- that's correct. It's plausible that there could be that impact.
>> unless they were resubdividing the thing.
>> right.
>> so does the city of Austin address the location of the schools that are along that pipeline?
>> I think they did. But again, that part of the ordinance only applies within the city. It's not on the table for the county.
>> right.
>> well, tom, that's a good point, Commissioner, and I remember when this issue came up before the Commissioners court before as far as pipelines. One person that I can recall being asked was how would a person even be aware of a pipeline if some of the pipelines aren't designated or even identified that they are a pipeline really there. And I was wondering how would that be regulated to ensure that new construction or anything else wouldn't be on a pipeline and it would be an after the fact type situation. So the person at that time -- have there been any identifying mechanism in place to outline the pipelines outside the city limits? I don't know if that has happened or how the city works as far as identifying where the pipelines are. But some of them are -- a person wouldn't know until after the fact probably. Because they are buried and some of them aren't marks as pipelines. Designated as pipelines. So probably need some int interplay with this.
>> the way the city ordinance defined hazardous pipelines, it's only going to be pipelines eight inch necessary diameters so you are only talking about the pretty big ones. In the material the city generated there was a map showing existing pipeline locations. I'm looking to somebody at the city to say then how thorough is that map, do you know there are other pipelines out there.
>> I never did get a definitive answer. And I am still looking for one.
>> Commissioners, I'm holly muelke with the city of Austin. I was here on another item and I heard the discussion. I have some familiarity with the city pipeline ordinance. The city does have maps about which delineate the locations of the pipeline this would come under the ordinance before you. The exact location we think needs to be checked, that they are identified. It's from information that has been supplied by the pipelines to the federal government, the federal agencies and the state agencies that we do have those located and we have those available for the county. The -- I know I saw the fire chief here earlier.
>> it's based on reporting of pipelines are required to do to the regulatory agencies, it sounds like you would be fairly confident that you know there aren't any other pipelines out there that aren't shown on your map.
>> yes, the precise location is often off by a number of feet. However, the identification of the pipelines themselves we feel fairly confident that -- that that list is complete. For those that are -- come under the ordinance. Now, as to a property owner's awareness of whether or not a pipeline is located on their property or whether a pipeline is located on property that potential buyers are looking at, that is one of the issues that the city council was trying to address in requiring that they be -- that their existence be noted on subdivision plats so that potential buyers would be aware of the location.
>> what's the reason for -- I guess you have greater distances in the city of Austin that are reduced to 25 feet in the county.
>> well, actually, the ordinance sought to do two things. One was to reduce the chance of a didn't during construction or activity on the site. And the other was to address the danger to people in the event there were an explosion, the safety issues. Those are two different things. In order to prevent a pipeline accident, one of the things that federal studies have suggested is that construction activity occur a certain distance outside of the -- away from the pipeline in order to prevent unintended accidents. The -- that's what the subdivision regulations address. And that -- that's what's before the county. The other avenues that the city addressed was in the event of an accident, how do we -- how can we remove people and how can we address the fire issues, et cetera, and the rescue issues. Those were done through our zoning authority. And that's why that's not part of what's in the county. So those are -- to avoid a -- one was to avoid an accident and one was to deal with rescue in the event of an accident. To avoid an accident, no construction close to a pipeline. That's the -- that's something that everybody suggests.
>> you agree with our interpretation that if there is a residential subdivision already in place, this ordinance does not apply?
>> correct.
>> the prition about transferring a -- provision about transferring a lot in part 5, this is a vacant lot.
>> yes, sir.
>> without a structure.
>> right.
>> and -- but if there are certain things -- to sell there are certain things you have to do to notify the prospective buyer.
>> yes.
>> do we attempt to assess the impact of that on the [inaudible] of real property? See what I'm saying?
>> i'll check. I don't know whether we had any data on that. Since -- since the existence of the pipeline -- since it already existed on the lot, the -- I don't know that that -- that we would -- if we research it, I don't know that we would find there is an impact since the pipeline already exists on the lot. And there's probably a requirement that -- there may be a requirement that future property owners already be notified of that. I know that any title search should -- an easement will come up on any title search. The -- I don't know whether the city did a specific study on that or not. But we can provide it if we have it.
>> well, once again, the only way that a pipeline under the ordinance that -- the elements of the ordinance that we're considering would show up on a lot would be after it's subdivided, because that's the only time that it comes under this ordinance. In other words, an existing lot somewhere right now today would not be subject to the elements of this ordinance. It would have to be subdivided in order for it to come under this ordinance.
>> okay, but in g, how does that apply to g?
>> that's for a subdivided lot. That's after the lot has been subdivided, judge. There are requirements -- if you own that subdivided lot, once you have -- once you buy that lot in that subdivision that is regulated by this ordinance, and that lot is -- title to that lot is transferred, that notification is required under g. But not for a lot that currently exists that has not gone through the subdivision ordinance. Am I correct on that, tom?
>> yes.
>> that's not a real big difference, is it? If you own the lot, typically hasn't it been subdivided? If you are trying to sell it -- have you a lot you are trying to sell, it's been subdivided -- [inaudible].
>> think of it in terms of when the plat was approved. Any plat approved before this ordinance goes into effect, none of these requirements apply to it at all. It will only apply to plats that are approved after this ordinance is adopted, if it's adopted.
>> let's recall some of the things that have been problem areas that we've had to address and that is that when somebody passes away and then the kids inherit the property, a lot of times the subdividing occurs simply because they are trying to settle an estate. So things that wouldn't have simply because of the economics of what's going on in the family for them to be able to divide up the property, you wind up subdividing and could trigger a whole lot of things in a whole lot of places that was never intended.
>> for that specific case, there's an exemption from platting. In the case where it's the family divvying up property amongst themselves, they are exempt from platting.
>> on all acreage sizes? Not just a 10 acres?
>> not just a 10 acres.
>> okay.
>> judge, I have a couple questions here, but let me make a comment that I agree to getting this on our plate at this time, I echo, you know, what has already been said from the dais. But this whole thing is predicated on safety. And, of course, it's pretty easy to get people worked up in this community about what will happen if this happens and what would happen if this were to happen. I've always found it odd to really try to implement an ordinance like this. I mean, let's take a school, for example. If you were to go to a school and find the diagram of everything that is under a school, I mean, that are legal, that has just as much potential of doing the damage that something like, you know, a pipeline that's ruptured or whatever, and most of the time from my readings I find that instances where you real have I the big issues are when things are being worked on or people are out in the middle of a field and they've got a backhoe and they, you know, take a large scoop of -- and bingo, they hit something. But I would like to have enough time on this to get in, and perhaps I'm missing something with this, but it is, to me, before I'm willing to get in and to create some sort of an ordinance from a county standpoint, I'm going to have to get a lot more comfortable with the fact that there is a real issue here. Now, I'm not saying that you can't go to whatever neighborhood and ask a specific question or get a certain amount of concern over something that's, you know, perhaps running close to a school or home. Fred, for example, I mean, what other cities have ordinances like this and are -- or how do other cities handle -- how does houston -- I mean, houston must have 8 trillion miles of gas pipelines coming from the gulf coast. What do you know -- do you have any history on what takes place down there?
>> I could verify that. Most subdivision ordinances, and that's really what we're talking about here, most subdivisions ordinances already require that all easements be shown on plats as part of that process. And on so that part of it is really not new, if you will. We would already identify a pipeline, a hazardous pipeline easement on a plat today. The difference would be such as the judge pointed out, some requirements that would take place after the subdividing. But I have no particular information on that. I can find that out.
>> I would like to know that, and I would like to know -- I mean, how many lots, you know, might this really affect. Could we find out? Because I do think there is -- you know, we continue to try and deal with affordable housing, I mean that's probably the issue that comes to mind first. But I'm -- I am, for one, very skeptical of getting out and in a knee-jerk reaction dealing with an ordinance that I'm not real sure, and especially until I talk to enough people that would have, I think, a lot of information about this. You know, until that happens for me, I mean, I'm more inclined to pull back on this and say give me some time to look at this. But I don't want to create something out there, you know, if we don't have a huge problem right now to start dealing with something that, you know, is not exactly what I would consider to be, you know, tops on my list to take up at this stage.
>> well, and I can tell you, Commissioner, that i've heard from the home builders association, I believe they may be here to offer some of their opinion on this as well. So --
>> we'll hear from them in just a minute. I was trying to put together a list of additional information that we think we might need. I should think if you have already been sub dwided, parts 4 and 5 do not apply to you.
>> that's correct, judge, yes.
>> if you apply to go through the subdivision process, then parts 4 and 5 of the ordinance would be triggered.
>> correct.
>> okay. We have the state and federal governments involved in here now. We think that a local effort is necessary?
>> from an engineering point of view, I don't believe so, no, sir. But I don't have what -- to answer that question, I think I would feel more comfortable if I had expertise in that area. I don't really have any expertise as a technician, as an engineer on pipeline safety issues.
>> we found out from the city, maybe others exactly what the state and federal governments do and then what we would do here that we believe is better. That's [inaudible] right? It's better because we're here locally and can give it more attention or we can respond faster or whatever the reasons are.
>> judge, here's the distinction as far as I can tell. I did a brief reading of the federal regulations. It appears to me what the department of transportation regulates is where a new pipeline is placed. And they do have restrictions on how close it can be to houses and so on, but that's the case of the houses are there first and the pipeline is coming in after. What this ordinance would regulate is the flip side, where the pipeline is already in the ground and the housing is coming in after the pipeline. As far as I can find, there were no federal regulations that dealt with development near the pipeline. It appears to me that's not something the federal or state governments do, and that in essence is -- it basically leaves that to the local government.
>> and it ought to be in the written overview you give us. When I look at the ordinance here, I was kind of confused about the distances. I saw 200, 500, 25 feet is a whole lot less than those. Subdivision angle sort of makes sense. And if you are saying if the pipe is already there oon the subdivision has taken place, don't worry about this, it applies respectively, that's a little different than what I was thinking. But I think we need like an overview that simplifies the force. It may [inaudible] it may be that under each one of them somebody says exactly what they mean.
>> yes, sir.
>> and I would like -- if there's enough information about the need, I think we ought to see it impact on affordable housing and property values. The other thing is what's required now in the subdivision process, and it could be this is already required. If it is required, the question is who is doing it and who is supposed to enforce it. Then I guess the question is the city of Austin plan to enforce this ordinance?
>> in -- inside the city limits now and outside the city limits when you all adopt it. Under our agreement --
>> so the answer is yes in both places if the county adopted in the e.t.j.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay. Can we hear from some others? If we can get to you move to the end in case we have a few more questions. Thanks for coming by on the other item.
>> a two-fer for you.
>> [inaudible] come forward. I guess it would help to hear a little bit more about the [inaudible] and I think they plan to report back in December. What we expect to be in that from -- staff may have a little bit more information to.
>> I'm janice cartwright, and the purpose of my testimony was to address the study. H.r. 360 was signed by president bush December 17, 2002. It instructed the u.s. Department of transportation to conduct a comprehensive review of best practices for regulating land use and zoning around pipelines and pipeline right-of-way as well as to clearly identify the appropriate regulatory authority with respect to such regulations, and that review is to be completed by December 17th of this year. The real estate council with respectfully suggest that you defer any action on this ordinance until such time that the u.s. Department of transportation concludes its comprehensive review of best practices for regulating land use and zoning around pipelines to ensure that what you do adopt does not conflict with the federal standards.
>> let me ask you this, with that comment. Do you know, is there a time line for the u.s. --
>> the deadline is December 17th, 2003. So it would be --
>> so December of this year.
>> yes, sir.
>> and what would that bill -- that you mentioned earlier that --
>> h.r. 3609.
>> h.r. 3609?
>> yes, sir. I do have a copy of that. I will leave it with your staff.
>> oh, that would be great.
>> judge, I'm the executive vice president for the home builders association of greater Austin. We cover a five-county area. And I represent the residential construction industry. The -- and I will be very brief. Here's just a couple of quick points, almost all of which came out in your discussion. I would just like to add some emphasis to if I could. One was the comment this deals with pipeline safety. I heard the court addressing what sounded to me like a need for risk assessment. There's been allegations that pipelines do create a public safety threat. We did extensive research on it and found that since they've been keeping records, there's been a total of 36 deaths. Almost all of those were associated with either pipeline workers or construction workers. There is no history that we can find anywhere of anyone being killed in their residence as a result of a pipeline fire. So the need for the one-acre lot minimum is something that we would seriously contest. That takes me to the issue of affordable housing. If you talk strictly in terms of a 25-foot easement, which is -- as fred said, is required on the plan anyway, that is no big deal. When you start mandating minimum one-acre lot sizes, that essentially takes that five miles of pipeline that exist within the city of Austin, and I don't know what the total is in e.t.j. In Travis County, and says that along that five miles plus, you are going to have to have minimum one-acre lot sizes. We believe that that is a significant and meaningful impact on affordable housing. I think the question that came up in our minds is what's the statutory authority for the county to begin the adopt pipeline regulations. Are there other state statutes that affect pipeline regulations. There's already been discussion in the office of pipeline safety, I would point out the Texas railroad commission also have authority, and so the -- placing a charge on staff, whether it would be duplicate responsibility is something that we serious question. And that -- the idea of having to administer an additional note on a plat, on a site plan may not be a big deal. It doesn't sound like much. I brought up as a visual the city of Austin criteria manual just so -- that you all could get a feel for what all the city of Austin ultimately tries to regulate and affect and impact. And each one of the rules and ideas and suggestions in here started out with one idea, one small thing. It's not going to take that much, it's not going to be that big of deal, it's gosh, all you got to do is glance at the plat and make sure it's on there and on there correctly. Suddenly it becomes a charge to the staff and it becomes something we on the private sector side have to watch out for, be sure we do, and it's it's a gig, if it doesn't get left off, you end up going back through the process. And so the councilmember la cumulative impact becomes something substantial to us. I was asked the question is this something you want to fight over, 25 feet is not that big of deal, and the answer came back every one of them is important because every time you add something it's a level of importance to the private sek sector and more equally on your staff. One of the concepts is in item subparagraph g that -- what's the enforcement mechanism for that? Why put on something that's -- as a requirement that no one is going to enforce. Jugs quickly, we mentioned takings. Or re had mentioned takings in the past. I understand the city attorney [inaudible]. We would suggest any takings assessment include a review by an economist and legitimate risk assess many. A risk assessment looks at many thins. It looks at the probability of death or injury. I mentioned there's never been a pipeline death in the city of Austin and that's because there's never been a pipeline fair in the city of Austin. But there have been deaths from christmas tree fires, for example. Maybe we ought to ban christmas trees. I'm just -- I'm not serious on that. It's an example what I would expect and some government entities would do in their attempt to overreach. The last point I will pick up on quickly goes back to the public safety issue. Is there really a public safety issue if you are exempting all existing residents? I mean the city of Austin has said we have supplemental standards for building code requirements, but we're not going to apply it to existing houses even when they are being substantially remodeled. They exempted all mobile home lots because -- and mobile home ultimately wears out and you have to replace it, we're going to exempt that. If it was really a public safety threat, would you exempt those? And our response is no, it's not a public safety threat, it's just something else that the city of Austin in their wisdom decided they wanted to go out and play with. Well, they -- our last reviewed showed they had eight times the staff, ten times the budget of any city in the state to do land development. That may be okay for the city of Austin, but we believe that Travis County does not have those kinds of resources. Thank you.
>> let me ask you one question. Have you dealt with the city and also the county in maybe construction of new development, especially residential units? Have you dealt with both of us on both ends?
>> yes, sir.
>> let me ask you, when you brought up afford built, and I'm really concerned about affordable homes, constructing a home out in the county's e.t.j. And the city's e.t.j., Is there a big difference as far as what the bottom line cost would be on that particular structure out in the city's e.t.j. Opposed to within the city?
>> there are sort of three levels of regulation. There's within the city itself, within the e.t.j. And within Travis County, not in the city of Austin's e.t.j. Or another municipality's e.t.j. Austin has the most costly, difficult, contentious building environment between the east and the west coast. D so if you can get out of Austin's subdivision regulatory authority, that has a huge impact on affordability. If you are in Austin, it's incredibly expensive. In you are in e.t.j., It's less so. If you can get outside of the e.t.j., And that's where you will see almost all of your affordable housing going now. There used to be a joke about new york, that if it moved tax it, if it still moves, regulate it, subsidize it. City of Austin is now subsidizing affordable housing within its city limits. And I think it's following that market.
>> okay. Thank you. I just wanted to know affordability, the different tier levels that you just suggested. Which is really important, I guess, in my mind to ensure that folks here have an affordable place to live. But again, that's another issue. But I think it is an issue. Affordability.
>> it's a huge issue.
>> otherwise folks are going to leave the county, I know. That's what's happening.
>> Commissioner, this has gone from being one of the most affordable communities in the country in 1990 to the least affordable community in the state right now. We have the highest median income -- highest median cost of house of any major municipality in the state.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... Let's say we care about the safety in the Austin e.t.j. But we don't care about safety in the other e.t.j.'s physician soally -- (mic cut out) I'm not sure those other communities feel the pressing needs which again respects their local beliefs as opposed to the city which is also entitled to its stance.
>> there are other public, other fire emergency service districts, emergency services out there, also, that might have concerns or regulatory authority.
>> would the one acre minimum lot size apply to -- to e.t.j.?
>> that's -- that's how I read the ordinance.
>> okay. [multiple voices]
>> part of the e.t.j.?
>> that's part of what --
>> here's what I have [multiple voices]
>> my suggestion would be that we check with the city of Austin, see if they have this information first, if not then we right to get it on our own, I guess at the end of this meeting try to figure out how much time it will take you. Some assessment of the need, how critical it is, impact on affordable housing, impact on property values and areas covered, four would be that [indiscernible] study, if we think that the issues covered there are relevant to our discussion and this ordinance, what value that would be in waiting to see that and the other question would be of whether these recommendations are made and acted on, those would take priority over any kind of local effort anyway. But if we think that the ordinance in question is exactly different than -- than, you know, I would just state that. Five, the question of what authority does Travis County have to do this. I guess we may be riding 1445 of the city's authority.
>> I would look to senate bill 8730 first.
>> okay. Then let's address that issue. If the city has done an assessment already -- harry, have you seen the city's?
>> [multiple voices]
>> okay. Unfortunately, counties are not [indiscernible] [laughter]
>> the risk assessment and financial impact makes sense to me.
>> yeah. How it would apply in other cities. There's a question about whether other counties have done something similar. Then I guess if we confirm that one acre lot minimum.
>> yeah. The other thing unfortunately is when I read that, there really wasn't a whole lot to read, but I guess I read it fast. It's kind of hard to read 45 without the inclination to go back and read 1, 2, 3. But it gets to be a little bit more confusing if you read all of it and then I guess only toward the end try to figure out does 4, 5 apply because you have to pick up the definitions, et cetera, in the other parts, don't you? But a kind of simple, written over-vue of this is what it means to Travis County would help.
>> I could tell you each one of the elements and prepare --
>> practiceally what that means, if you are the only one working on it, it may take a little time. Do we have the people at the city willing to come over and give you a hand on this?
>> judge, I'm going to bold and put out 60 days, at a minimum. I mean this is a huge, hefty home work assignment. I'm going to be sensitive to the tact that the city of Austin also has a few thousand other things on their plate, including trying to get their budget done and their resource people are going to be precious on their side of the fence. The more I think about it, it almost sound like 90 days, this would kick it into June, July, August. The middle of our budget process. It seems like this ought to be something that we give everybody lots of time. If we tell people to hurry up and get this information, we ought to be sending a message that we intend to delve into it and act. I just don't see us getting into this before the adoption of our budget. And that doesn't mean that we don't think this is important and it doesn't mean that we -- that we might not go here. But it's just -- it means that we need to set some work priorities here about -- about is this the next thing that's -- that sucks up staff time and energy, I don't know. I see after October 1st, give everybody plenty o time to get done what they need to get done.
>> along with that, is there any way possible that staff -- does staff have a copy of the latest rendering of the map that shows the existing agency pipeline -- do you all have that? Okay, good, because I would like to see exactly where the city's limits are as far as that pipeline is. Of course right up to the city limits, then we get into the e.t.j., That would really be important to see where it runs through as far as the e.t.j. Is concerned. We continue to -- of that pipeline that come into the city limits. So that would be -- you got it. Okay.
>> I would be in agreement with just about everybody that's on the list. But I think 120 days might be a little more realistic.
>> June --
>> I wouldn't reinvent the wheel. I would send the city of Austin of this already, they have already adopted the ordinance.
>> yeah.
>> the information that they have, I would ask that. If they send itronix would take some time to get through it. We need to figure out how much of that we would need to supplement and how to do that. It makes sense -- to contact the regulators if they are easy to contact, get information from them. So I would easily -- next few months, that's [indiscernible] as I could. The other thing is when you think you've got the information I would share that with the court. Maybe have joe meet with the transportation subcommittee. Trying to figure out where we are.
>> uh-huh.
>> Margaret, that's a good suggestion on the 120 days would get us to mid October. It solves both problems in terms of the budget. But as the judge suggested, sharing information along the way so that it's not a -- a data dump in October.
>> right.
>> the city of Austin has already adopted this and implemented it.
>> yes. We do have quite a bit of information relative to the questions that you have identified that we -- that we can certainly supply.
>> 120 days gets us --
>> what [indiscernible] are you working with?
>> the home builders, the oil companies, the --
>> real estate council.
>> the real estate council, the neighborhood associations, the state agencies.
>> who is the city point person for the pipeline?
>> lisa gordon.
>> assistant city manager lisa gordon.
>> who is the grunt person then? [laughter] I can find out that information. I have to sneak back into the office and say --
>> a point person, a grunt person.
>> not that ms. Gordon doesn't work real, real hard. I know she has a pull plate, there's probably somebody spending a lot more time on this one, I would think.
>> yes. I'm just not sure who the appropriate contact person would be. I know that fire chief warren has been working on it, but there would be somebody else that would be a contact person.
>> okay. You might as well bring the county fire marshal into the loop and get his take on it. Maybe get some feedback from esd's.
>> capital area fire chiefs, which would be all of the fire chiefs within our esd's and that also includes the city of Austin as part of that, so cafca would be a really good organization.
>> okay. Anything further on this item.
>> judge, you mentioned other cities. Are you talking about what ordinances other cities have adopted or are you talking about making contact with the other cities in Travis County to see their level of interest in --
>> [multiple voices]
>>
>> [indiscernible] city of Austin e.t.j., What did we do with the e.t.j.s from the other city. The question is aside from that, what are other cities, counties in Texas doing, if anything. Those are the questions that I kind of had myself.
>> sure.
>> am I hearing consensus on 120 days? Seems reasonable given everybody's demands, grunt people --
>> I think more than that, we ought to indicate our intention to see the federal results and recommendations before we take action. So I would move as extinguish showsly as re-- expeditiously as resources allow on this item. If the federal study is supposed to come back in [indiscernible], then I would try to get all of what we need to get done by then. If we say 120 days the tendency is start working 110 days from now. I'm thinking there's auto whole of -- a whole lot of stuff we could get from the city of Austin, contacting state regulators, federal folk, fire marshal,.
>> okay.
>> you know, maybe take it -- if you -- if you were to look at the language in parts 4 and 5 and figure out a way to simplify it for us, get that to us, I say the sooner the better.
>> okay. I can do that.
>> okay.
>> on the legal authority, we may as well know, if we don't have legal authority if we take [indiscernible] the conclusion is no legal authority here, we need to let the city know, right? I don't know that we ought to wait until December to do that.
>> oak.
>> sure.
>> so I'm in agreement, I don't know that I would --
>> yeah, just let the time --
>> looks like everybody wants to see what's in the federal study.
>> uh-huh.
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
>> anything further today? Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:52 AM