Travis County Commssioners Court
October 7, 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 24
24. Consider proposal for chapter 30, Travis County code, joint Travis County/city of Austin subdivision code for extraterritorial jurisdiction, authorize publication of notice, set public hearing date, and take appropriate action. Mr. Nuckols, your presence is requested?
>> nearnl I'm not sure -- joe gieselman with the transportation and natural resources. This item really is a heads up, [indiscernible] trying to conform to a state law that was passed two sessions ago. [indiscernible] house bill 1445. On -- city and county jointly regulated subdivisions within the extra territorial jurisdiction. In the latter session of the legislature further amended that law to require that the city and the county have one code of governance in the e.t.j. And so -- so we have had city regulations and county regulations that we've had to meld together into one document, one code. Now, so what -- what we have currently, going out to the stakeholders, effective tomorrow, is that codification, the unification of two separate codes, the county and the city code. It is it not change in substance what the city and county have agreed to. As you may recall we have some time working out the substitute differences between the city and the county codes. And by way of interlocal agreement, you have already agreed to those changes vis-a-vis the city of Austin and Travis County county code. So that's taken care of. What we spent the last two months doing is taking the code and cod flying it into one -- codifying it into one code, basically piecing it together so there's one document. So ideally, there are no substantive changes other than what has already been agreed to by the city and the county. On the other hand, there are new rules for process changes in how we process subdivisions to make sure that there's a -- there's a single office that the -- that the applicants can -- get a single response from the city and county. And then process those subdivisions with some semblance of order. And so what you will see in the code are changes in the process, not necessarily the code itself, the [indiscernible] themselves. What we want to do primarily is alert you to the fact that we are going out to the stakeholders for comments. So you may very well get telephone calls and comments from any number of -- (microphone feedback) excuse me, from any number of stakeholder groups, not just the development community, but anyone that may have an interest in the code. First and foremost what we expect to do today is to alert you to the process that will start tomorrow. We expect to have the final code back to the Commissioners court and the city council for [indiscernible] option sometime in the November, late November time frame. Because the law we have to adopt this before January 1. If we fail, to adopt [indiscernible] a code before January 1st, then automatically forcing into arbitration. Which we would like to avoid. We would rather have a hand in our own destiny than have an arbitrator decide what the city and the county have to do. So that is our goal.
>> joe, let me ask you this. You brought up a good point. Especially the time lines as far as the law that requires us to have all of these things evolved by January of 2004. This is basically dealing with the city of Austin. Would we also have other cities within Travis County that -- that we need to deal with. How are we going to deal with the other cities within the time frame of January 1, if -- if arbitration, whereby arbitration may not be the best possible solution to addressing the other -- how would that happen?
>> the deadline is not the same.
>> it's not the same, all right.
>> pardon me?
>> we have until January 1st of 2004 to do the city of Austin.
>> what about the others.
>> > 2006.
>> okay. 2006, okay. Okay. That's better.
>> so we have a little more time to work out those agreements and single codes with those cities. If we choose to do single offices with those other municipal impediments.
>> world war ii it derive with the -- this is something that is for not only Travis County, this is a state -- how -- how is that -- how is that derived differently between 2004 and 2006 deadlines, how will that determine?
>> well, I think the legislature recognized just how many cities there are in the state of Texas. And the issues were really with the larger cities as opposed to the smaller cities. We represented ourselves to the legislature saying we need more time to do all of these things. So they listened to us and they said, okay, the larger cities you have a near term deadline for the smaller cities we will give you more time.
>> I'm asking this question because for clarity. I think it really needs to be cleared out, this is why I'm fleshing things out. I understand the relationship that we have with Austin. But i've always been hearing people from other areas ininquiring that -- that how this is going to impact us, blah blah blah blah blah. So the stakeholders being in different settings other than dealing with -- with Austin, there are other tejano's other than Austin's e.t.j. So these are some things that I think publicly need to be flushed out and laid out accordingly to let them know that they do have time to address these type of codes that we are dealing with as far as the city of Austin.
>> that's correct.
>> thank you.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... We take a part, or we can go to a single office. All those options are being discussed with each one of those other jurisdictions. Once we decide the model, then we start drafting the interlocal agreement. If we choose the single office, then we're going to have to start talking about the single code that applies to that e.t.j. So --
>> does Travis County have a preference? Or does that vary from city to city?
>> it varies from city to city, it really does.
>> okay. Then have we determined what our preference is as to each city?
>> we are getting close to that, yes. In some we've already decided, very clear cut. West lake, there's really nothing to argue about. Most of the e.t.j. Was developed. We said it's yours. In other jurisdictions where we believe there is more at stake for Travis County, another entity wants to see jurisdiction, we're heading toward a single office. And some of the others, quite frankly, we're looking at dividing up the e.t.j. Where we recognize the city has more interest than Travis County. Therein we're talking about for those areas that want jurisdiction, our main concern is that [indiscernible] infrastructure.
>> so while the court has heard primarily about the city of Austin, we have been trying to work with the other cities.
>> yes, we have. I need to highlight some things with the city of Austin when the time comes in this discussion.
>> okay. Let's do it right now.
>> all right. You need to understand that the city independent of Travis County has regulations that they apply in the e.t.j. They have always been there and they will continue to be there. We have not attempted to amend our independent regulations. Unless we've already agreed to do so. But we are -- and the first thing I need to make you aware of is that when we adopt the city of Austin code, in some cases we are adopting regulations that they have applied in the e.t.j. Independent of Travis County. Water quality regulations are in that nature. We are asking the court to adopt the city of Austin water quality regulations within the e.t.j. That makes us a stakeholder to city water quality regulations. Now, we do not currently have the expertise to affect those regulations. We are -- we are dependent almost entirely upon the city of Austin to implement those regulations. They would independent of us anyway. But we believe in the process of adopting these regulations, the Commissioners court buys a seat at the table, so to speak. That you now have an interest in what regulations get amended in the future. That is a very important change in our relationship with the city of Austin. And for us acknowledges that we're adopting the regulations. Regulations that the city enforces in the e.t.j. That we would now have a future stake in what happens to those regulations. And at any time the city of Austin wants to amend those water quality regulations that is correct we, Travis County, will have to agree. [audio difficulties].
>> we're having a problem.
>> I'm sorry. That Travis County will have to agree to those amendments to the code because they are part and parcel of the code in its entirety. So that's a -- a -- not a rule change, but certainly a change for Travis County.
>> joe, how do we inherent -- inherit the procedures, but we don't inherit the process? And here's where I'm going with this. I think we have prided ourselves here at Travis County to be extraordinarily up front with folks that are coming in to do business with us. And when we lay out that this is the rest of things you -- list of things you need to do to get through our process with all the crew, that's it. Satisfy this and we move on. I think you nicely say that there is a corporate cultural difference between the city and county. Trying to be nice about it, but I do not want to inherit what seems to be this revolving door that goes on over there that just when you think you have satisfied everything, something else comes along. And water quality seems to be one of those areas where you just wind up getting into the whirlpool. I want to make sure when we say we are going to adopt their rules and procedures, we also do not become part of that game that goes on over there related to people trying to get through the process. I don't want to inherit things taking months and years to get something through the process. We pride ourselves over here that when somebody comes in, even if it's just for a plat review or one of our public hearings, they speak their mind, let us know what their difficulties are, and if it's contrary, sometimes we send you out in the back room to see if you can quickly and easily work out a meeting of the minds. If not you might need a week or two more, but we don't string things out over months to get something resolved. And kwroplt to go there. How do we ensure that we are good partners, but we do not elongate what to many is the high cost of doing business in Travis County. Impacting business and tax rates and the cost of trying to get through the process.
>> quite candidly, I think that's where 1445 puts you. Because 1445 in effect says the developer is tired of that going ban and forth and the city and county need to work out their differences. That includes the processes. We are somewhat mirroring two cultures and it's going to take ongoing discussions at a very high level to work out our cultural differences. And we need to be able to speak with one voice to the applicants. And where there is a process that goes on and on and on and coming to Travis County to say we're not going there. Let's get up front what the rules are, understand the basis of those rules and be able to say if you meet these rules, will you get our joint approval. And so like it or not, we do have perhaps a ways to go where our processes will speak with one voice and be definitive when they do speak. And that in part in adopting -- Travis County adopting water quality rules, it takes us there. And [indiscernible] have a voice and how those regulations are amend understand the future and perhaps how they are administered.
>> joe, during the course of going through all of these things with the 1445 and then looking at house bill 1204 also, and then listening to the stakeholders as they came and talked and made their presentation or said how we can do it better, how it will not impact them as severely, of course getting to a one-stop shop type setting where we can move forward to get development on down the road on the fast track, in essence, what have the stakeholders said at all or if they have had any comment on water quality issues within the e.t.j., City of Austin, and of course that is a big deal, water quality is and the protection of it. I know I'm going to do everything I can to protect it in precinct 1. But yet I have not heard any comment at all since dealing with this process from the stakeholders, the development community and things like that. Have they said anything different to what this joint marriage would be if the Commissioners court decides to be a part of the water quality process that the city of Austin now has? Can you comment on that, please.
>> first of all, I don't think from this point forward we can use the term "stakeholders" as a te to define the development community. I think people you will hear from perhaps are not just from the development and the housing community. Hereto, fore you may not have heard from the wide spectrum of stakeholders you may have between now and January. So I can't say that I can tell you what the stakeholders mean. If [indiscernible] --
>> that's what I was pointing to because during the meetings, stakeholders, the persons that I saw come up here before us, were the housing community, development community. Of course, I do understand that stakeholder deals a broad term, I understand that, but what I'm trying to say is that the -- if Travis County decides to be a part of this, and which I don't think -- I don't see no problem in my mind as far as supporting it, I was wondering have you heard anything from the stakeholders, per se, as far as their position on this matter.
>> I think we've basically addressed the water quality up to ts point as being a given regulation of the city of Austin applied within the e.t.j. It affects the subdivision of land within the e.t.j. That has not changed.
>> okay.
>> I do know exactly what you might hear from the stakeholders, meaning the development community, with regard to avis county adopting the code that includes the city's water quality regulations. We are venturing in to a new area for Travis County, and we might have disauthorities heretofore exercised by Travis County, and we already have water quality. We certainly are moving forward with the implementation of a Texas commercial discharge program. That is a water quality program. We are moving in the direction of storm water management. Now, [indiscernible] as broad as the code that the city of Austin has adopted. Probably not. And we have certainly an expert tease yet to develop in order tore Travis County to be able to comment on water quality issues in the e.t.j. We recognize this. It doesn't -- by the same token, it does not take away the existing authority of the city of Austin and the existing expertise that the city has in this area that currently apply in the e.t.j. I'm trying to as best I can walk a new line between saying we're adopting more regulations, which we're not. These are rules that currently apply. That's not to say that the county will not develop future regulations and future expertise in the area of water quality within the e.t.j.
>> joe, hospital does the Commissioners court learn what these water quality regulations are? -- how does.
>> we will probably need to have a sit-down work session with the court so that you clearly understand the city code.
>> when do you have that in mind?
>> between now and January.
>> joe, if there is a schedule attached to the backup, it does have two sessions for Commissioners court workdays.
>> November 6 and November 13 is when you have the work session.
>> yes.
>> I guess. Does the -- has the court agreed to these dates?
>> not yet.
>> probably have a hard time getting two consecutive dates. Now, so if we give notice of what we are about to do, how does the average citizen find out what the water quality regulations are? They will be on the internet and also available in hard copy. Mind you, these regional regulations already exist. We are not creating new regulations. These are regulations that exist right now in the city charter in chapter 30. 34 and 5 as we address it. So they are already there. They are now in the single code, which copy will be available -- available tomorrow in hard copy and hopefully available on the internet.
>> when will the executive summary be available?
>> when would you like it? [laughter]
>> I mean I think if you -- schedule a public hearing, you need this available. I'm assuming that the average citizen knows about as much as the Travis County Commissioners court. I mean I haven't read these regulations. I've read about them in the newspaper as they apply to specific projects, and over the last few months we've had discussions in court. But based on what you are saying, it is now time for us to become a lot more familiar than we had to be historically.
>> yes.
>> so one question would be, I mean if you look at a project like lowe's, and I know it's already here, you know, then we would apply the city's water quality standards --
>> actually the city will apply those regulations. Independent of Travis County. We are not creating new authority here.
>> but they really become Travis County's if this thing --
>> if you are at the table when these things come up, yes.
>> what happens to independent things out there such as the pipeline ordinance? It was approved by the city of Austin, but the [indiscernible] and the e.t.j., We plightly declined to take action because we were waiting on judgments coming out from the -- in the meantime the courts have weighed in on the pipeline ordinance in the county related to the insurance -- but I mean we're not accidentally codifying things like that that I thought were supposed to come to us individually for us to say yea or no and we have said no a least on the pipeline ordinance at this moment in time.
>> the pipeline ordinance is not in the joint code.
>> thank you. Okay.
>> now, there's -- let me just -- I want to make sure I'm very clear about this. There's no back dooring or no new policies or rules.
>> I just want that for the record.
>> excepfor the regulations that you and the city council have already approved. Remember the joint drive way, there's a whole myriad of -- we brought those to the court. They are in the interlocal agreement. They are in this code.
>> so where's all the transportation stuff then? That we never agreed to and never had a meeting of the mind. Where does that stuff wind up?
>> there is no [indiscernible] that says the campo plan is the master plan. That is in the code. Because it is state law. That is not new ruling that came out on the part of the city or the county. So that is in the code. And wherever there is state law, you can rest assured that this code represents the law of Texas.
>> has the city of Austin codified that campo rules?
>> it will in the adoption of th regulation, yes.
>> I look forward to that.
>> and also I guess -- and that's a good point, Commissioner. Also, I'm just wondering whether or not, you know, it was a heck of a discussion that we had about the cities -- what was it the Austin municipal transportation plan, amatp, yeah, and it was something that was discussed during that time, of course, which was also looking at the transportation scheme of things as far as campo versus that plan. But there's still some aspects of that plan that is still surfacing that I'm seeing now out in precinct 1. Sorry, joe, I didn't mean to cut you off.
>> the legislature took care of that. Campo plan serves as a master transportation plan for subdivision purposes within the e.t.j. As that plan is amended, by the county, by the city, anyone, that becomes a standing document. But we are now regulated by law, but the campo law is the master plan. Master transportation plan.
>> okay. And also in that regard, I want to know if there is any impact at all, and may or may not be, on any of our ordinances that we just adopted. An example, the siting ordinance, facility siting ordinance which has setbacks on certain things as far as some water issues in that. Also in the flood plain ordinance, per se, which was [indiscernible]. I really don't know if there will be an impact on what we did and it may or may not be any relationship at all.
>> there is one change and that was one of the three things I wanted to highlight to you.
>> all right.
>> the city and the county calculate flood plain differently. One of those things we had to come to terms w the city does it on a fully developed flood plain. In the adoption of this code, we are saying we are taking the city's method for calculating the flood plain. Quite frankly, it is a higher standard, and in the e.t.j., That higher standard will apply.
>> what's a higher standard?
>> what we're looking at defining the flood plain as fully developed. So we will determine what is the 100-year flood plain, we are projecting out the full development of that watershed and all the runoff that might occur in how we calculate what is the 100-year flood plain. Now, what that means for t.n.r. Is significant because there is a modeling process that has to take place to determine what is the fully developed condition. The city of Austin has that tactical capability. T.n.r. Does not. It is one of our areas that in developing and adopting this code, we are acknowledging that we're going to alert the court [indiscernible] on city of Austin methodology and city of Austin expertise to be able to help the county define what that is as we jointly review subdivisions within the e.t.j.
>> and we started that understanding, didn't we, and we went through all those meetings of working all these details out. And that's what's gotten us to this point where we're ready to have a comment period. But I mean I'm recalling all of these discussions in the past and we agreed to these things and we understood that these were involved.
>> we had to work out some things that were different. Again, what the law requires us to do [indiscernible] so we can't have fundamentally different ways of doing things w the code, with the rules, how we calculate things. But it does have some impact on Travis County. In that we've got to come up to steam with how we evaluate subdivisions in that area.
>> by January 1 of '04?
>> uh-huh.
>> no, not necessarily. We have a code that defines the method and the rule, and we're telling you past January 1 -- actually right now we will be relying on city of Austin expertise and professionals to help us make those kaolgs but if we don't meet the January 1 deadline, we go into arbitration.
>> well, the code, we'll use what we need to have by January 1. The expertise will come on over time.
>> if the adopted code clashes with a pre-existing county ordinance, we will need to amend the ordinance.
>> we hope not to have any clash in the single code that we are presenting to you. Hopefully all those things have been taken care of.
>> what about the flood plain difference that you mentioned a minute ago?
>> there's really no rule change. We are the regulators of the flood plain within the e.t.j. We are defining a different method, we are defining what is the 100-year flood plain in that e.t.j. Area. That condition was there all along in how the city and the county reviewed the subdivisions.
>> I thought you said the city had a better --
>> they have a higher standard.
>> higher standard. So the county standard applies?
>> here's the explanation, judge. Nothing in the joint code will affect either the flood plain ordinance, the 500 feet we adopted for solid waste facilities or the new siting ordinance. The difference is what you are using the flood plain for. In the context of the joint code, in the context of the subdivision process, what you are doing is trying to calculate where you put drainage easements in the subdivision. So for that purpose we'll be using the city's fully developed flood plain standard. That's one of the changes we adopted back a few months ago after the months of negotiation with the stakeholders and the city. But -- is it's just for defining where you want to reserve a drainage easement. It doesn't have any carryover effect on the solid waste stuff. For the solid waste stuff, we'll still be defining flood plain in terms of what's on the fema map.
>> okay. That's clear.
>> let me ask this -- did you finish your summary?
>> I guess in that light, I just need to say that any future changes to the code take approval by the Austin city council and Travis County Commissioners court. So no one will change heretofore after the adoption of this code can be effective unless both bodies agree to it. That's significant. Because the city has a culture of no more rule making than Travis County does. More frequently, more broadly. So that will bring us into a cultural day of reckoning in terms of how we agree and how often we agree to change the subdivision code from here forth.
>> that does it for your summary?
>> there's one final change I want to highlight.
>> okay.
>> very briefly. There's some delegation of authority to the executive manager of t.n.r. In the new rule. This comes in the form of amended plats and short-form plats of four lots or less. Right now the city of Austin does that administratively. So we bring this to the court because it is a change. You will by adopting this delicate to the executive manage their authority. We believe it is a good change, but it is a change that you would have to agree to. And that's the end of my summary.
>> but there would be a possibility of reforming -- informing the court as to what those changes are as a --
>> as a matter of course?
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> and then we would take action so we would not be [indiscernible] about the actions.
>> right.
>> this section here that let's empower joe geiselman a lot more.
>> I didn't ask for this. I'm just trying to be agreeable with differences. [laughter] [inaudible].
>> I get nervous when you don't laugh right along with me. [laughter] now, what action do we anticipate from the city of Austin on November 6th? That's in tom's time line. I can find out later if you don't know now.
>> we hope they put this on consent. Approve it on consent.
>> it looks like they've got it down for three second reads. The first reading, second reading, third reading. Is that right, david?
>> thank you, Commissioner david loy with the city attorney's office. We've got it scheduled for a city council public hearing and objection that date. And it's possible that the date would slide for final action.
>> what will there be to take action on?
>> they will approve chapter 30, which is the new chapter of the city code and the joint code for regulation of subdivisions in Travis County.
>> is that the one we approved already?
>> no.
>> the one you approved was chapter 82 of the Travis County code which will still exist. It will just apply everywhere but the city of aust e.t.j. We're adopting the new chapter -- the city is adopting a new chapter 30 to our code. We're adopting a new chapter 30 to the county code. It's going to be the subdivision code inside the city of Austin e.t.j.
>> so when is their corresponding county action on the council action on November 6th?
>> this schedule has it slated for November 18th.
>> 18 this? Okay.
>> and just in terms of --
>> before we go to council, you would want to know whether the Commissioners court agrees, don't you?
>> always.
>> that's what I'm saying. You don't want the council to just labor through something and then it comes to us two weeks later and us disagree.
>> no, I think this probably should be a subject of a joint city-county subcommittee meeting, and certainly we will alert you as soon as we know of any conflict with the city and bring it to the work session or whatever.
>> I think we need to get feedback from the whole court.
>> yeah, I believe so too, judge.
>> Commissioners court needs to meet twice in December. Based on this time line.
>> yes.
>> November.
>> November.
>> all right. When we meet really should be driven by what we need to do. After the first meeting, we'll know how much work is necessary to plan and prepare for the second. Maybe a week later, maybe two weeks, maybe three weeks.
>> what we're trying to do, January 1 is our deadline. And we have two holidays in between. That's what we're trying to do.
>> okay. When would you like for the public hearing to be posted? And another way to ask that question is when will we be ready to give the public the information it needs to be ready for the public hearing?
>> we were thinking November 18th, according to this schedule.
>> now, this says Commissioners court.
>> right.
>> [indiscernible] same day we have the public hearing, do you?
>> your thing and the public hearing needs to be earlier than November 18th. November 18th would be final action. We want the public hearing in advance of that.
>> I'm also thinking we need to give the public a concise summary of changes. And the more significant the changes, I think, the longer the public needs to be able to review and digest. Now, I know that a whole lot of public hearings we kind of meet with ourselves because nobody is interested. But I would thoeu something like this we would have a little more input than normal. I think we have a responsibility really to simplify and produce it in a form that the public can really use.
>> plus, if we're having work sessions on one or both of the 6th and the 13th, there's nothing in between there in terms of us trying to hash out internally the kinds of things we're talking about for the public. And, you know, we just can't have the hearing and the action on the same date. That's extraordinarily disrespectful.
>> we're posted today to set for the public hearing. We're really not ready, or are we? .
>> we have the subject of the public hearing ready. The code is ready. That's why it's going out tomorrow to the public stakeholders group. If you want to go ahead and schedule a public hearing on the document, we can get a date right now and just say this is it, comment, be ready by a certain date.
>> I think what's worked for news the past we've had an opportunity to see what the public will receive before we set the public hearing. And my guess is we will have the kind of laymen's background that the average citizen will have, not necessarily staff who have been working on this for months. You see what I'm saying?
>> uh-huh.
>> and I do think we ought to look and see what it is we will send out in response to requests for information.
>> I would then suggest you have a work session in October so we can brief you on the code.
>> or just if we set it for next week, just get with us the -- give us the next few days what you would provide john q. Citizen.
>> and you are taking an executive summary too?
>> yeah, a summary.
>> the changes that we went through many, varied.
>> yeah.
>> and I think a lot of that is so routine that I don't know that I would expect people to read it, but I think on the main things, if we can enumerate those. Then for those who want a whole lot more tpoerbgs tell them this is x number of pages, we can come -- you can come down and read it or we'll send you a copy if you want one.
>> why don't we do this. If we roll this one week under the same agenda, we can bring back next week the summary, executive summary of the changes as well as a specific day for a public hearing.
>> that makes more sense to me than I think scheduling the public hearing without knowing what it is we will send out.
>> on the landfill stuff, I actually told me, hi, this is the final version of it, it was really not ver fair to folks to say this is what it is and then to radical changes we would have to start the process all over again. Lessening of whatever it is up to a [indiscernible] before we say [indiscernible].
>> that's what I think.
>> we can have this exact same wording on next week. I do think we ought to see, though, what it is we will send out. The other thing is on a lot of these, I think citizens will call with specific questions. It would help for us either to know the answer or be able to send them where they can get it.
>> let me just make sure, this is what we're talking about.
>> that's what I'm talking about too. How many pages is that?
>> 176.
>> 167.
>> the average person is not going to want to read 167 pages.
>> neither does the average Commissioner. [laughter]
>> I'm speaking for myself there.
>> i'll get you a summary.
>> anything else today?
>> two quick ones. Joe, under the joe geiselman section number 3 here in terms of delegating more authority, a good deal of these amended plats and the short forms are plain manila, routine. But is there any thought given that some of those things might rise to a higher level that you might want to bring them? I'm just thinking in terms of interesting cases we had on spicewood springs. Lowe's is obviously not a subdivision, but I'm just trying to think of something that might be unusual that would still fit into that category that is there some kind of a thought process you might think about to bump it up to us if for nothing else than ground cover. It's just a thought. As much as we would like to make you the receiver of the shrapnel. Second thing, david, can you enlighten me what happened to septic tank regulations? The state law change understand '97. We spent to arduous years getting our regulations in place, but I never did hear if the city ever did adopt their own regulations or they are still back on the state minimums, which we are actually at a higher level than state mince. Where are you and how does that impact the e.t.j. If at all?
>> well, I'm afraid I'm not the expert on the septic tank regulations. The city has recognized that in the e.t.j. The county is the -- tom, give me the term.
>> designated agent.
>> thank you.
>> well, in most of the e.t.j. In the limited-purpose annexation areas, which is legally e.t.j., It's the city.
>> it's just I'm trying to make sure because in that case, if I remember correctly, we actually got through tnrcc, tceq, different regulations higher than the state minimums. Last I heard, the city had never adopted the regulations and so they deferred by default to the state minimums, which we actually had stricter rules, especially on things like separation of ground water. It's amazing how these things come back to you. That we thought were good ideas. I just want to make sure that things like that don't get lost in these discussions and perhaps that's a way for the city to come on board easily and quickly through this codification process.
>> that's a good point, Commissioner. That's a real good point.
>> I believe that's the [indiscernible] that the city never amended their order with tceq so they are still operating under the state minimums.
>> are you sure of that?
>> that's a real good point, especially protecting some of the aquifer, the underground water.
>> of course, the state minimums have been amended. So any time the state minimum was amended, then the city automatically begins applying that.
>> yeah, but there's some real important things that are especially important in western Travis County in the e.t.j. Related to separation to ground water. They basically had it I think state minimum was two feet, and we got them to adegree to thee because we have prove two to four is better so three is a cush. I don't want them relating back to state minimums because of septic simply because we said we defer to the city even though we are the designated agent.
>> that's a good point. Also in that same vein, and I'm going to be very brief, but there was also the aquifers that were existing in houston-Travis County, trinity, all those aquifers, that we want to ensure that if we did do a septic tank, they would have adequate protection. So it would be great, I guess, to hear what the city is and earmark it and if we're going to be using this I really think we should be using higher standards, which is the county's.
>> do we have it back on next week for appropriate action.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 7, 2003 7:52 PM