Travis County Commssioners Court
September 2, 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 31
Item number 31 is consider and take appropriate action on fees recommended in the following areas: lets take a first. That is parks.
>> will be in here in two seconds.
>> after the public hearing last Wednesday we made some additional changes and charles will go through them with you in two seconds. Cynthia is handing you the updated letter.
>> you should have an updated letter and in your version it should be highlighted on what the changes are related. Rather than run you through, unless you want me to run through this whole document, I was going to run through the recommended changes and receive your recommendations on how you want to proceed.
>> okay.
>> over on permit revenue changes, recommendation number a, we included $10 special day use fee for hippie hollow. The others will be $8.
>> are you on page 2?
>> yes.
>> I guess it would be...
>> you should be looking at what is highlighted in green.
>> green, yes.
>> recommendation a at the bottom is the green.
>> are we skipping the top part?
>> the top part is just the highlights in total and he'll get back to that as an end result.
>> okay.
>> you have hippy hollow at $8, all other parks will be $8. The annual day use permit, I will -- pardon me?
>> page 4.
>> sorry. Page 4, recommendation e, we recommended $75 for the annual and we still recommend that s. However, we receive comments down on recommendation f about the duplicate annual, we receive comments from the users they would like to retain it, and so we're recommending a duplicate annual fee of $35...
>> what was it before?
>> it was 20.
>> seems awfully high. In terms of a...
>> these are recommendations.
>> the initial recommend daiks was to go from...
>> the initial recommend daiks for the duplicate annual was to eliminate it.
>> okay.
>> and the reason we think 35 is more appropriate is...
>> roughly half the price of the annual, a little less than half price.
>> to me that is one of we need to keep it, it needs to go up, but I'm a little uncomfortable with it going from 20 to 35. That really seems a bit. I don't mind ratcheting up next year and the year after that and the year after that, but it seems like we should not go...
>> what would be appropriate?
>> 20... It's not very many people.
>> this is second annual pass in one household basically.
>> I guess 25 is appropriate.
>> and I would second your motion if that's the motion.
>> let's kind of get a cumulative thing there. It's going up and I would say let's revisit it next year, but this is not a very large item. We heard the wind surfers eloquently talk about why...
>> I bounced over an item here that we had on the annual and the recommendation came up in our presentation last week and this was the base -- sell of the annual mainly primarily to Travis County residents only. That was a comment that we received from the users. We would use vehicle registration to help us delineate county versus out of county.
>> that is part of the vehicle isn't it? I think that is appropriate.
>> we would have a lot of nonresidents that have the annual...
>> about 22%.
>> I'm also seeing you're requesting a moratorium on the sale of annual permits, that also seems appropriate.
>> absolutely.
>> if you enact this increase today, we'll have a run on annuals this afternoon.
>> wanted to use the park.
>> go to lunch and get an annual.
>> I think a moratorium is absolutely appropriate.
>> I don't know that I do. Looks like we need separate votes on these.
>> uh-huh.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner moved that we reduce the recommended duplicate annual fee to $25 from $35.
>> and actually that is an increase over last year so I don't want to make it sound like we're not increasing this fee; we are.
>> and she's got good reasons for doing that. Commissioner Gomez seconds that. Anymore discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now, the other one is not to sell -- it would be basically in '04 and there after unless the court takes subsequent action, would basically be to discontinue the sale of an annual day use permit.
>> that's correct.
>> and the reason for that is that somebody recommended it or...
>> that came out of the discussion that we had the other day.
>> what's the reason, though? I mean, we -- we -- in all other cases we want nonresidents to come here and spend as much money as they can.
>> what we're seeing, judge, and it was noted by our users that a lot of folks who are not -- that they were basically have been to subsidize folks coming in from other counties in terms of increased fees and the benefit of having an annual bass ought to be something in terms of the cost savings to Travis County folks, and folks from out of county would have to pay the day entry fee...
>> do we think other counties treat our residents like that?
>> there are counties in the state that do have specialized fees for their residents. I can't quote them to you but it's not unusual.
>> is there a motion?
>> I move that we stick with the recommendation of it goes from 50 to 75 on the annual permit, and that it be available for purchase to Travis County residents only.
>> we're going to need to divide that. Let's vote on the nonresident part first because I don't have any problem with the amount.
>> I would move that the annual permit be available for Travis County residents only.
>> I second that.
>> second by Commissioner Daugherty. All in favor of the motion. Show Commissioners Daugherty and son lightner those who vote against. Show Commissioner Gomez and Biscoe. That fails. Commissioner Sonleitner moves that we increase from 50 to 75.
>> if we need a new motion on that, the 50 to 75 which is what has been talked about all along.
>> all in favor? Show Commissioners Daugherty and son lightner voting in favor, voting against Commissioner Gomez. Does that cover all on page 4.
>> what do you want to do about the moratorium? What does the moratorium do now. > if you're smart enough to see what we're doing and want to run out there and get you a pa pass before the new fee takes effect...
>> we're going to lose out on a whole bunch of revenue.
>> in my view you ought to be able to do it and I don't know that I feel right about increasing this and making it effective immediately. Didn't we advertise that the new fee would be effective October 1. Doesn't that mean that we'll wait until October 1 to make it effective?
>> I would think so.
>> this ain't a good thing for us to do.
>> if it's October 1, it's October 1.
>> again my east Texas upbringing prevail.
>> yes. Charm and personality has won me over.
>> is there a motion on that?
>> I'm not going to put one forward on the moratorium.
>> okay. [multiple voices]
>> we don't need a motion if it's going to be October 1, is that the understanding?
>> right.
>> now, I guess we ought to hear the residents because we're going through this fairly quickly. I know y'all are organized sports more than anything else. Right? Why don't we take citizens comments and then continue what we just started. I know we had two residents here. Y'all will come forward. Anybody else here give input on park fees? Park fees? We just need two of those seats. If you give us your names again, we'll be happy to get your comment.
>> yes. Excuse me, joe hartman.
>> yes, sir.
>> yes, sir.
>> ladies and gentlemen of the court, first off I would like to say the fees on tournaments, my main complaint is the parking fee. I've done a little chart here where most of the tournaments are two days and this is a price comparison figure based on 40 adult teams and the majority do it on full play basis, and right now the fees are as they are if you rent the fields, they're with lights and it's $220 for the two days, and if you add concessions it's another 170 and if this proposal was to pass for two fields for two day, the fields would be 220, the torny fee would be 160, lights would be another 180 and parking would be 1600. That is 100 -- I'm sorry, that is 981% increase if you base it on 40 teams. The most -- usually your youth tournaments they average about 80, 100 team, it's going to be considerably more especially when they use ten field as day to do a tournament like that, and I'm doing it on just two field.
>> yes. Is the parking fee...
>> right.
>> ... That is most trouble some for you?
>> yes, if this here was to pass I would not be using the park anymore, this I'm sure.
>> are you a for profit venture.
>> for profit? I want to make sure we keep these things separate in terms of for profit and nonprofit.
>> right. And if we did have access to the new fields it would be $75 per field per day for a tournament fee. I was just curious as how this major inkreerks how the county can justify raising the fees to this extreme, you know, for doing tournament.
>> yes. I think in our view the biggest reason is right now we get reimbursed less than 10% of the cost, and during these tough times we're trying to shift more of the cost to the users.
>> that is considerably a lot, I'm not for sure, but I could almost be certain that this here county would be the first charging a parking fee, you know, for sports athletic fee.
>> yes. Williamson county.
>> they're doing it now?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. Well, I'm sorry.
>> what do you do? Do you operate -- when you go out and secure, what...
>> I secure fields, this is for flag football.
>> for flag football. And we bring quite a few people in. I usually average 28 to 45 team, you, and that is quite a few teams coming in from out of town, 80% of them are from out of town, they come from all over the state, the county would want the tax dollars booking the rooms and I usually use the hilton at the airport and I fill it up almost every time, and the way I'm doing my tournaments now, all of them will have to stay over the next day, you know, run a full play system.
>> if we take the parking fee out, in your example, what is the cost? Total of all the others?
>> that would raise the fee to oh I did not total that. It's 220, 160-- oh it.
>> 's $1,600 more profit for you.
>> true, yes. When you add all of this in -- I know you've said before that I should cut corners. Well, this here would be without field prep, without the concessions. I would be cutting every corner I could because I would be putting two fields inside of one of the soccer fields to do that. I have prizes to pay for, refs to pay for. I'm not trying to gouge people, you know, but I'm within relative consistency with everybody else that runs tournaments in the state. I charge 250 per team, and there's maybe one or two other tournaments that are organized that even higher than that. Teams just can't afford, you know, I can't just raise the price on them, if they did, they would have to have a reason to pay more and that would be better fields.
>> and, charles, we don't have the women's tournament out there anymore, do we? The one that gerken used to conduct? See, that is out. That tournament is not out there anymore. Okay?
>> how many folks are on your team? Each team?
>> averages 12 players per team, that is just an average. Some come with less, some come with more.
>> so that is about -- doing my math right, 20 some dollars per person?
>> yes, I haven't actually figured that part upper person.
>> that's what it is.
>> just the standard fee.
>> that is 20 bucks a person for a two-day tournament. I'm not getting it.
>> well, I'm sorry. It's just, you know, the economics of it. And usually, you know, only privately owned fields charge a fee like that, most usually, and I know you just said that Williamson county is doing it. I wasn't aware of that. I talked to jim rogers before but he did not mention they were going to charge parking.
>> $2 fee every time. I'm sorry, y'all, I'm not seeing it in terms of $20.
>> would it be more palatable for a daily charge, I mean if the county -- we don't want to do this because of the labor, but I mean if we were there charging $2 a car or whatever, I mean obviously what you're trying to do is get out of tacking this on to your tournament fee.
>> that. And also at least if it was by the parking collecting, they would know it's the park collecting and not me.
>> except, you lose half the money if you have to pay for somebody to be at the front.
>> the most -- most of these teams kind of cringe whenever they have to pay to go to a tournament. Most of them do. I've done a tournament in houston and I did it on a private facility there and is softball fields there, jp -- p.j.'s softball park and they had to pay to enter the gates there and they were, joe, this isn't going to work.
>> the problem you have, joe, is is that people are so used to using public facilities where they don't -- where they get to bring their own product in. I mean what you're really dealing with is you're up against the competition of here is what most cities and most counties, you know, do, which is probably right. They don't charge, you know, the parking. I mean I can see the -- that is a pretty exorbitant amount...
>> 981% overall, yes.
>> you know, we are -- we are looking at trying to recapture. The truth of the matter is we don't cover anywhere near, you know, our expenses to run our parks. Now, we can get in touch with everybody in the state, say you know what, all of us are in this same situation, I mean, you know know, we're just not covering, people get so used to, as you probably know, having owned pleasant valley sports plex, I was in that private business, every time I had to charge somebody to come in the gate it was because I have to pay for the lights, I have property taxes, I had all of those things that municipalities don't have, but the operational part of parks is -- is rather expensive to operate, and, you know, we've got to find a way to get there to maybe it's not, you know, what we've got numberwise at this stage, but we've got to close the gap somehow.
>> take a closer look. What mr. Hartman uses is weberville, what we're proposing is $20 per team per day for adults. So that is 4 -- because it's adults, that is 40 buck, divided by his 12 person per team, that is an extra $3, that is actually less than if we charged them $2 per day.
>> this is just the principle of it.
>> I respect the fact, mr. Hartman, what your principle is. Either going to mean you have to charge a little bit more for the folks on the tournaments or you're going to have your profit be less, if we don't ask one or the other, our taxpayers are going to have to hear it and we've already heard very eloquently from the folks that use our west side parks, they're being asked to pay for 75, getting close to what, 90% cost of recovery. We don't have that situation on our new eastern parks and the ones that are already there. They're asking for some fairness as well, if they're being asked to pay a greater cost of recovery, because that's what it costs, we're not even close in terms of asking for the cost of recory and I can't get there in terms of somebody being a for profit operation...
>> recommendation s that we're looking at?
>> yes, sir.
>> and there's a difference there, in my mind, because...
>> I'm looking -- hold on a minute.
>> recommendation number -- page number 8.
>> an extra 3 bucks being asked out of somebody when they register I don't think is an outrageous situation.
>> and since parks were first set out there in del vallely, the del vallely fields and the moya fields, the intent was to provide recreation facilities for families who lived in that quadrant and I think we're, you know, it's slowly evolving to having folks use it for profit making instead of nonprofit where families can take their families there and enjoy softball, and bring their own things, bring their lawn chairs and bring their own to sell to each other is basically what they do, and there's no huge profit, so the parks have evolve and I guess that's where I'm having my problems in trying -- in increasing these. Now, if it's for profit, I think there probably ought to be a charge, but not for nonprofit, and -- and it's -- and again, let me say that there are families -- working families in southeast Travis County who are able to organize themselves and to having teams from people who live here in Travis County who live probably in southeast Travis County including the city of Austin, who still are able to organize themselves to play on weekends, but that is not happening as much as it used to in the '70s and '80s and '90s, the teams are dwindling, they've come a long way from the original intent of having parks in the different quadrants of Travis County. It also -- I mean it's getting more expensive to operate the counties -- I mean the park, and I think we're probably going to have -- at least I'm going to have to look at that a little closer before we ask taxpayers to approve more parks because they need to have the whole picture of what it's going to cost.
>> if I can say, with the adult, even though it's organized and all, we're paying our fees, we're actually helping support the parks, and I know the youth, they do not have to pay for the field usage, so that is attributing to part on the parks. Can't make it affordable for the adults and the decent fields.
>> I hear you.
>> you're counter productive.
>> I hear you.
>> seems to be the suggestion if to get this $20,800 in revenue for parking, may well cost us substantially more in sports teams' participation.
>> judge, I don't believe that for one second.
>> I'm about to ask our parks director.
>> I know the county has --
>> what is your response to that, mr. Berg? It's always hard to project these types of fee, what impact it has on the user, we've seen in the past a period of time where there's a retaliation, the people avoid to go, but visitation climbs back up to prior levels so you never know. If the court is reluctant to implement this this year, perhaps, you know, we can bring it back next year consideration, you're look at about $20,800 fee that you may be leaving on the table if the court chooses not to go with it.
>> I would like to check a different word, instead of retaliation, I think our constituents or taxpayers have choices to make and they make the choice that they're presented with in order to figure out where they're going to spend their money. I would not exactly call it retaliation.
>> probably a poor choice of words on my behalf [laughter]
>> with that...
>> let me say I am -- I'm sympathetic to what joe has here because I will tell you that you're either going to get it out of one or two places. You're going to take it out of the profit of the guy that's operating the thing and then you get to the point is the incentive there to maintain and to do this.
>> right.
>> okay. Now, the county unfortunately doesn't participate in sales tax and the hotel tax that the city does. I mean, the city is the one that really is the bigger recipient of the positive out of this thing, joe. But I do understand, you know, because you're right, I mean if you just arbitrarily say, you know what, I'm sticking another $40 on to your -- because it's $20 a day per team, or 45 per day per team, then you will have some people looking for a tournament to go to in bryan versus here. There is no doubt. Either you're going to keep your price in line with everybody and you're not really on a level playing field if we take it to that level.
>> right.
>> I'm more interested in not sending the business elsewhere, but I would like to see, you know, perhaps a stair step, and I'm probably the hardest line on looking approximate for revenue for these parks. You know, maybe if we met in the middle on year one to see what it would do to your -- so you could kind of stage that and let people know this is what is happening, as opposed to $45 per team per day, either do it $45 per team for the weekend, or take it down to 22.50, and see if it's going to really affect, you know, your numbers, that you're not going to be able to -- because obviously everybody knows that you got to pay a little bit more and then it's just dependent on how good a tournament you operate and how much people want to come to Austin, Texas. But I can see that that is -- that that is a large fee, even though you're breaking it down where it's 2, $3, that times the amount of players on the team, that's where you've basically get that, because a team pays for this, say, hey, what is our team fee to play? It's $250, it just went to what, $340, given that you're not going to make any less money, which is probably not the case, you're going to have to find a middle ground there to say I can't makes a much, now where does it get to the point where I'm not willing to do this?
>> right.
>> I would -- I mean I could see meeting somewhere in the middle, judge, on -- I do think we need to get somewhere with parking or some sort of a fee and you're right, I mean one of the things that we really have an issue with is that given that the -- that the youth programs do monopolize a lot of the facilities and that their fee is not -- I mean that is by law, we can't do anything about that.
>> I know by law that you can't charge them for the fields but I know y'all are wanting to charge for amenities, even though they're youth, if they're charged for the youth and trying to get the same they should be charged as the adults. I know that they're youth and they're nonprofit, but they're not hurting. They're not hurting at all.
>> okay. Say sir were you about to give issues on the parking issue.
>> yes. I play on joe's league and I was going to comment on the quality of the fields and the conditions of the fields. I don't know if y'all -- my second thing was on leagues, you know, what I wanted to say was also on the general use of the fields. I know the fees are going up. I understand the light fee increase, that's within reason to what everybody else does. And that is between public and private on the charge for $20 an hour for the lights. I can understand that. But what I can't understand is why we pay more for the field usage and the lights when we're not receiving what we should be receiving right now. I've got pictures that show gaps this wide, this long, we're out there playing and half the lights work. Why should you be paying more for something that is not working or dangerous to play on?
>>
>> (one moment, please, for change in captioners...)
>>
>> so we just haven'ted fixed it.
>> no, we have not.
>> are we going to?
>> it would be -- the magnitude would be a capital c.o. Issuance to get it.
>> okay. That was the reason that we built southeast metro is that we were, I don't want to use the word decommissioning, but we were getting off of the del valle fields and moving over to southeast metro, but it didn't make any sense for us to plow under usable fields but they are not the same as southeast metro.
>> that would be my next question, if you did, would I have access to the new fields, that's the problem that I have is getting access to the new locations. Open for multi-purpose, district being for a select group like soccer.
>> in northeast metro we were getting four high purpose fields up there so those will be open to things besides soccer. The whole intent is to handle the frisbee players and handle the sockers players and our football players. Multi-use. Coming on board spring of '04.
>> are any of these multi-purpose fields going to have lights?
>> good question. Charles?
>> no. On the other side of the complex.
>> they will be there for daytime.
>> is there anything that we could do to have at least a field or two with lights for multi-purpose?
>> at southeast metro the new softball complex is designed such that we can lay fields out in the outfield like you did at del valle, those are lit.
>> southeast metro ball fields that are going in are going to be multi-purpose, are you going to allow flag football on them?
>> those will be in operation charles when?
>> probably late spring of next year because of the grass.
>> my main thing is i've been promising these guys, voted for the bond to pass, hey we are going to get decent field I'm not good at my word because I have not been told everything correct, either. That's part of why he's here, I couldn't get everybody to come up here, you know, the day after labor day everybody has to be at work to collect their holiday pay, you know how that goes. A lot of them wanted to come up here and express their opinion about the fields. I just think that it's fair that I should be treated as everybody else. And i've been paying full price for everything for the last five years. And I have -- I have not been treated fair about this.
>> since we have your friend here, let's let him have his say.
>> criss cole man, i've been playing in joe's league for a couple of years now. The quality of the fields, conditions of the field are definitely something that the players come down on joe about saying joe how are we paying so much for these fields. I don't know if you have been out there, now they are largely -- dirt. It's not just the aesthetics, of course you want to play a o a good looking field, nice, green grass and everything, more just for safety. He has pictures, there are large cracks in the field, just pockets of like really loose dirt, one of the fields in particular has I guess at mid field like a 10 by 10 pocket where you put your foot in it and just slides right out. And you know none of us do this for a living we are out there having a good time of the myself I work in the service industry, if I turn an ankle, that's that. With any sport you know there's some assumption of risk that you can get hurt, you have 16 guys out there running around. But it's unfortunate when somebody gets hurt because the ground hasn't been watered or hasn't been well maintained. I guess it seems trivial, you know, a couple of dollars a person, be raising the rate. But that is something that when you are putting a team together, you look at, you say okay well now it's not 200, now it's 250. That is something that -- that people look at as a whole. And especially when people do consider coming into town for tournaments, some of that dallas teams, houston teams, they are not going to want to come in and pay $50 more, x amount of dollars more to play on these feel, it's just not something that's appealing as a player because there is, you know, the assumption of -- of well am I going to get hurt playing on these fields or is the quality of play even decent. And I mean there's not much that you can do as far as I guess the fields because they weren't built with a good drainage slope or anything like that. But just as far as having them watered or having grass on them would make a large difference. I guess that's about it. But also, I mean, I think the comment was made that these teams could organize themselves. There are times when it's hard not to put together an 8-man team and get people that can go out on the same night and show up and everything. And the league really wouldn't be possible without joe. He really has put together a community and I know it's like a community park but you go out there, you see people's mom's, friends, children, out there having a good time. And you know I mean it would be nice to keep that going and to build on that, maybe play at fields where there aren't just tons of ants, you know, attacking the people watching and if somebody doesn't have to limp off the field because they stepped into a pothole. Or you know where you can only run to the right-hand side of the field because it's too torn up on the opposite side.
>> chris, herein lies part of what's at issue, you know, it takes money to keep those fields. Now I think that you make a great point, joe. I mean if I'm paying, I want to give you what I'm paying for. That is a concern. I realize the expense that it takes, especially if you have an old irrigation system, patching that thing, you really -- it probably will take c.o. Money to really get the thing up the speed. It's auto matter what was kind of uses does it get. You can imagine trying to recoup the expense, the capital expense that it's good go to take to do a total irrigation system for these facilities and if you take what you all have to pay even though you all think that it's a lot, I mean, by gosh, we can't -- we pay probably less than 5 of the cost out of what you all come out and -- your participation level. So you all aren't at fault for that, you are saying hey we are looking for places to play. I mean, there may come a time where we look at the parks, especially the metropolitan parks where you say here are the parks where you really have the team sports played because we do keep those up, we put the capital outlay into those things and we keep them up, you about you know -- but, you know, an athletic field is not going to stand up if you can't irrigate it. It's going to be a cow pasture. You are right, sooner or later it's going to crack. Won't be the kind pawlt that you want to play. I think we ought to work with our parks folk and you all may really have to come into the metro park which means that you are going to have to pay some more money because those expenses there -- I'm -- I am at least sympathetic to the point of perhaps trying to phase this thing in. I don't know whether, you know, we have a majority that's willing to do that.
>> I am.
>> but I do know that -- that it is going to present a hardship for you to allot $45 per team per day for parking.
>> I think that it's huge. The thing is that we did say that those fields in del valle were going to be kept in separation until southeast got completed. The problem was that with the first bond election for the metro southeast, the adults, the adult fields got left out with that money that was approved and we had to go back and catch that and put it back on the ballot in -- in 2001. So -- so there really weren't going to be any fields out there in southeast until we caught that and got it back on the ballot. But in the meantime, the -- the del valle fields were supposed to be kept up until we went into the -- into the park. And I -- I guess, you know, I hadn't been out there in a good while because some of the teams that I used to watch play aren't playing anymore and i've worked the concession stand for them and -- and there were a lot of -- of issues there that were going to be intended to owe I brought them to the attention of staff. And the back stop had a huge hole on it. I don't know how long that went unattended. But that was not the -- the proper way to treat those fields for our constituents to use. So that is one of the reasons why I think we need to face, yes, there's some costs to run parks, but I think the increases are far too big for the concrete service that our taxpayers are getting in return for those fees. So i'll look at some of the phasing in some of these costs, but I think that it's too much.
>> and I can get there since this is a brand new fee, you may want to get to it -- I would throw out a motion that the recommendation s related to the tournament parking fee be cut in half. It be $10 per team per day for youth out at northeast, southeast and east metro. I would say rather than 45, rather than it being 22.50, round that up to 25. And then at webberville, del valle, moya to be $5 ter team for youth, $10 per team for adults. I think that would be a much more manageable -- [multiple voices]
>> we would monitor for a year, see where we are, see what happens, how much money this generates, basically cut everything in half with the exception of the large metro parks 25 rather than 22.50.
>> you are saying s as in sam, right?
>> yes.
>> I don't have s.
>> I have 8. But I have -- [multiple voices] I would say cop them all in half, monitor it for a year, the only difference would be the -- the large metro parks, make that 25 just to round it up so that we are not dealing with the crazy --
>> I did want to state that charles and roy have talked to me about the conditions of the fields, we have tried to work on this. We have come up with a solution maybe, I don't know, maybe cheaper for the county to do something about it. Not replace the whole irrigation system. I would like to see the lights fixed. You can't see in some of the corners at all. But as far as the irrigation goes, it's, since the field has cracked so many times, the lines are busted broken, too, underground. The mains I believe are still workable. I'm not for sure on it. If the mains are workable, we could put a three-way adapter to that and just run manual sprinklers on top. That would get the job done at least down the middle of the fields. My players are really tired of the bad conditions. My league has dropped considerably on Tuesday nights. Right now I only have 10 teams for fall. That is pretty bad. And most of my teams are all going to Sunday since I'm using Round Rock high school's fields. Since I'm using theirs, they have allowed me to get on them I'm filling up, I have got 20, 24 teams, I have never even come close to that.
>> how much is the district clarking you?
>> it's a deal with the head coaches, the Round Rock school has a -- [indiscernible] for the coaches to let me use it, I'm actually giving $1,200 for the use of all four field at stony point high school.
>> joe the -- if I had it my ways, my way, I mean, I would not choose to light fields. From a cost stand point, there's no way that we can recoup our expense of lighting a field for the capital outlay, and then the expense of operating. It's a wonderful luxury for people that are trying to go out, in your case, make a few bucks, I don't deny you making a few bucks. But from a pure cost standpoint, you know, we are blessed with the daylight savings so at least maybe it doesn't coincide with your seasons, but I mean from March to the end of October, I mean, you can do things outside up until, you know, 8, 9:00. But there's no way that we can recoup the costs of these lighted fields.
>> I'm content with the general usage, I mean even if I was running leagues and became available, it's viable for me to use them. And I would. Okay. As far as del valle, using the softball fields they come on line, my softball will still go out there to play. They love the game that we are playing, the type of sport that we are doing, I know they will still travel there to play. I would like to know for sure that they will be multi-purpose and I'm not telling my guys a lie.
>> northeast metro for sure are put tee purpose.
>> the -- multi-purpose.
>> the main concern of the players is that it's not unreasonable, I understand what you all are saying about the fees need to maintain the fields. From our perspective it's paying more while the fields are deteriorating. Over the last few seasons, i've been there what about two years, you can clearly see, he has like satellite photos that show a couple of years ago, nice green fields. Now you see like the sparsity of the grass and just how much of the field is actually just clumps of dirt.
>> Commissioners Sonleitner made the let's [indiscernible] motion.
>> I would second that.
>> where the parking fee
>> where the parking fee cut in half, 25, for the large parks, seconded by Commissioner Daugherty. Any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Daugherty, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Gomez. Round Rock is good news for you.
>> I got lucky, I knew somebody that knew somebody.
>> yes.
>> bad news is Commissioner Sonleitner knows everybody on the board out there.
>> absolutely.
>> I'm sure. [laughter]
>> judge, I would like to add that even with the vote, I would still ask that the that we do something about the maintenance out there in del valle. I don't think we ought to neglect in southeast Travis County.
>> it might be well worth a bond project next time around. [multiple voices]
>> another agenda item where we can appropriately discuss that. Moving on on fees. We did hear y'all. Thank y'all very much for coming down.
>> I know what I was going to ask. Let's look at this a year from now and see how the maintenance in southeast has increased and has improved the -- those fields out there in del valle. Especially southeast.
>> any more citizens to give comments? Thank you all very much.
>> I appreciate you all working with me on this. Everybody else. At least it will make it viable.
>> thank you, let's cover the rest of the changes you all or recommended changes.
>> where we last left recommendation number f on page 4, which was a approved at 35 -- 25. Or 25. Correct? So now we are going to move forward to recommendation number m, which is the bottom part of page 5. That is the boat trailer parking fee. Which we are recommending $2 per trailer per day. At the fee collecting parks and boat ramps on Lake Travis and lake Austin. We are also -- we heard comments from the users the other night that they would like to initiate an annual trailer parking fee. We are recommending $30 for annual trailer parking permit.
>> I know they didn't like that $2. Do you think that they would like the -- well, the annual fee of $30 is more --
>> it would make it more convenient for them. They wouldn't have to stop at the gate, they could drive right on into the park without having to encounter the gate staff.
>> I think that's a reasonable middle ground, make it annual because they really do take up more space, it's really more like having a space and a half out there.
>> didn't I hear them say they really didn't stay there very long, they drop off the boat to launch and then they take the vehicle out of the park.
>> using the park -- that one user Sunday use the park, loop 360, 157 157 time. For the annual it's unlimited use for the course of the year.
>> but they don't stay there.
>> sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. We don't keep track of how many times they come and go.
>> all I know is i've heard them say that.
>> well, if you don't park, how can you charge a parking fee? It really becomes a if you bring your boat in fee.
>> okay.
>> if a guy says okay I'm going to drop this off and I'm taking mine out, why wouldn't we not charge a parking fee? If you go ahead and park, you owe us a parking fee. With the annual you get the daily fee. Could we police that?
>> it's going to become an administration problem for the park staff because you are going to have people coming in and saying I'm dropping off my boat. They get into the park, drop the boat off and then go squirrel their vehicle away somewhere in the park and staff would have to spend time going and tracking it down, so it's more of an administration problem for us.
>> I think that it's nice middle ground to do an annual. I think it resolves most of the problems. Again the folks that were complaining were people that used the park more than 100 times during the year. And they are not used to paying zero, they are used to paying zero, that's not appropriate. That is not appropriate. They are using the park and they are using our facilities and they are taking up space and I think the -- the permit, the annual is an absolutely easy way for them to -- again it would pay for itself in 15 visits and these are folks that are admittedly using the park more than 100 times a year.
>> that's 30 cents.
>> thank you.
>> any motion?
>> I would move on m that we do initiate the $2 per trailer per day parking fee at all fee collecting parks that have boat ramps and that we have an annual duplicate annual permit for trailers at $30 per trailer. Which the recommendation of parks.
>> you know, charles, the 30 bucks allows you to trailer your boat in and park it, both.
>> that is correct.
>> so you are getting both there.
>> okay.
>> yes, they wouldn't need to take their trailer out.
>> so it's not if you don't park you don't pay the fee.
>> I personally think, judge, that would be a nightmare because there's usually only one person manning the fee booth. We don't want to be the parking police on this. It's just such a small fee compared to the usage that those folks are getting out there.
>> it becomes an administration problem for us.
>> I think that I have a hard time imposing a parking fee when you are not parking, though.
>> this would allow them to park.
>> I mean, I'm having a hard time determining if I come through the gate and say I'm going to drop my boat off and bring my trailer and truck or whatever it is vehicle out, okay, we will give you five minutes to do that. Is that how long we think would it take? It wouldn't take 30 minutes, would it?
>> you almost need to go to mansfield dam on a Saturday or Sunday to see how difficult that would be for staff to administer. You literally have, you know, the park is packed and you have -- you have -- could you have a number of people coming through saying that they are going to do that and you are asking staff to keep track of that.
>> going into a nightclub, I'm looking for a friend, I don't plan to stay. He says okay give me your driver's license, go in, look around, you don't come back, you don't get your license. I assume that means something to someone. You come back in five minutes, you get your driver's license, have a good evening. If we can make it as simple as we want to it seems to me.
>> I like the driver's license idea, judge. It works for me.
>> fine.
>> that works.
>> if you have of legal age and you have a driver's license.
>> that's a friendly to me that we go with the staff recommendation but if somebody is just doing a dropoff and is not going to park, that we could hold the driver's license and --
>> I would rather do that if it becomes an administrative nightmare --
>> revisit it in another year, how about that?
>> how much room is there, charles, if you want to come out to the bob west park and you don't want to park it in there and you have to take it up. Do we start creating issues, I can't imagine that for three bucks that somebody is going to pull out and park down the road or a mile.
>> there is no --
>> there isn't any parking outside of bob wentz.
>> it was 360 that they were complaining about. I understood it to be like a 360 boat ramp issue. Not for the others. As far as I know on the others you almost have to.
>> right.
>> that's a friendly.
>> do we have a second.
>> I second the nothing. Any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> okay. Page 8, recommendation number r. General usage trailer parking fee at loop 360. Mimic our other fees, 8 and 2. $8 and $2.
>> and folks could take advantage of getting annual permits. To basically have this thing completely covered. The annual would apply to this park, too.
>> I would move approval of recommendation r as listed.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes unanimously.
>> I have one more item that i've skipped over and I need for clarification purposes, that on the day use permit. We recommended $8 on the late parks and $10 at hippie hollow. We would recommend an upcharge if you went into like bob wents park and bought an $8 day use pass and you chose to get into hippie hollow. If you want into the park we would charge you an additional $2 to match the $10 fee.
>> they get a stick foretheir windshield, good for the day, they can go to any park in the system for that day. We are just recommending that what they choose to go to hippie unless there is a $10 fee. They would have to pay the additional $10 to get in there.
>> how would somebody be able to say I'm going here to bob wentz, the reality is they are walking down the block for splash weekend.
>> that's a pedestrian walk in.
>> okay okay.
>> so move.
>> second.
>> you pay the difference if you go from one of the pay dollar parks to a -- $8 parks to a 10-dollar. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> [indiscernible] I would make the changes, touch base with the auditor's office, see what the revenue certification change is.
>> I just want to claire phi. I know we -- clarify. I know we took some action on the highlighted items --
>> omnibus motion, judge?
>> that's what I would do.
>> I would move that we adopt all of the park fee changes effective October first as amended with our previous motions.
>> second. Any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Daugherty, Sonleitner, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against Commissioner Gomez. Thank you.
>> just a quick question. One of the other questions that I think was absolutely legitimate brought up by the wind surfers, could they work with staff related to the hours of operation for that park. It would seem that if we were raising the price, and adding on for their trailers, that it would be a logical assumption that they could expect a greater degree of service related to the hours only at that park. They have got very strange conditions out there that when the wind blows, that's when they go.
>> right. We will bring an item back to court here in a few weeks for the court to consider adoption to the hours at that particular park or portion perhaps just at windy point, at the point portion. The main part of the park would still maintain the rest of the hour of the park system, we will bring that item back for you all to consider.
>> that would be great. Thank you.
>> > okay. We did discuss the subdivision fees. Nobody attended the public hearing. Is there anyone here today who I would like to give comments on the subdivision fee recommendations? Move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> is that also October 1, judge.
>> October 1.
>> just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Constables, fees next. [papers shuffling - audio interference] move approval.
>> position to approve by Commissioner Gomez, I second that motion.
>> this is the recommendation here.
>> we are recommending generally a 20% increase. If you want discuss you'll be glad to --
>> I'm comfortable with it.
>> [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> why don't we call up --
>> item 26, I believe. Not 26, 23. To consider and take apopriate action on an order setting fees to be charged for services by the sheriff and constables in 2004. Since this involves the constables, maybe we can just discuss it now, too. The fees are listed. The proposed effective date of these fees is January 1st.
>> that's correct.
>> of 2004. That's item no. 23. Anybody here on this item? Move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. The quons stabl on fees on number 31 -- constable fees on number 31 was the effective date on them?
>> I expect it's the same item.
>> any reason to make it different.
>> no.
>> move approval of the fees covered in 31 effective date of January 1, 2004.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor that passes by unanimous vote.
>> fire marshal services.
>> move approval.
>> nobody attended the public hearing. Danny, any additional comments that we need to hear?
>> no, sir, we went ahead and made the changes as we had discussed at the last court session.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Is that what's the effective date on this?
>> we would like for it to be October first.
>> October first is that right, Margaret?
>> uh-huh.
>> that's included in the motion. Effective dat October 1st, 2003. For fiscal year '04. That does it for item no. 31. [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> is this going into the next revenue estimate this stuff, we get that when? The 17th of September. Thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 3, 2003 7:52 AM