Travis County Commssioners Court
October 14, 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 15
15 is to 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 other appropriate action. Let me just indicate our intention to call up the number 18 next, the social services item. Joe?
>> all right. First of all, I want to let you know that the code itself has been published. It is on the internet. It has been handed out to the stakeholders. And we had our first meeting yesterday with the stakeholders --
>> media, can we give joe a little bit more volume?
>> all right. The code is out, the draft code has been published and is on the street. It is on the internet and it's been handed out to the stakeholders. And we had our first meeting yesterday with the stakeholders to go over the content. So we've begun to get some feedback on the code. That process we expect to take weeks and we're asking them to give us back their written comments so that we can study them and respond to them. What I would recommend to the court that you have a public hearing on the 28th of October, that's fw two weeks from now. That gives the stakeholders about two weeks to review it. By that time all of the city boards and commissions will have reviewed it and at that time we can get an early read from all the stakeholders on what their issues may be with the code. In your backup there is a general summary of the code. We still have not put in the backup the entire -- almost 200 pages of backup, but we can get that to you if you would like to read that in detail. We have gotten any number of comments and in the comments -- (indiscernible). I guess it would be how you would like to get back comments that we are getting from the stakeholders, some of which may be -- and some of them are in detail. And if you would like to get into the detail, we're prepared to do that with you. It may require a separate work session for the court to do that. But we can spend as much time and you would like on going over the comment.
>> joe, I just want to say up front, whoever were the joint authors of this supplemental information did a great job. It was very clear, very precise and I appreciate all the work that went in from the folks on the executive summary. It was very well written. Thank you.
>> joe, let me ask this question. Does anything have to go back before the city council on this at all?
>> yes.
>> could you tell me when this is supposed to happen? Is there a time set as far as going before them?
>> i've got it.
>> the first date it's on the council agenda is November sixth. It's on again November 20th.
>> hold on. Hold on, tom.
>> November 6.
>> November 20 and December 4th. And of course it's on the various boards and commissions, several dates in October.
>> okay.
>> joe, I would have a question -- and I agree with Commissioner Sonleitner, the executive summary really is a nice piece. It con ceasely -- concisely tells you basically what you all have done. But I'm still in question about this 100,000-dollars that we voted on and put aside for this audit. Are we -- I mean, because I can see the letter that we've sent to toby futrell. Where are we with that? I know that -- I see pat and a couple -- david back there with the city. Are we in agreement that we are going to do this audit and where are we with the city on this thing? Do you want pat to come up, joe?
>> I don't know if pat's prepared to answer that question or not. I have not gotten a response from the letter, so I don't know what the official position of the city will be.
>> hey, Gerald, at 12 noon, city manager toby futrell will be addressing the riek election that you and I are both attending. Perhaps that could be a question from the audience. [ laughter ]
>> just real quickly, david and I have not been directly involved in any discussions about this issue, so I'm assuming those discussions are happening between the city manager's office and you all. So we have not been directly involved in that discussion.
>> i'll join in on that question. We could have an answer for you shortly, y'all.
>> thanks, pat.
>> you're welcome.
>> you indicated why you believe -- why the county believes the audit is necessary in your letter?
>> well, it was an issue that was raised early on in the process of duplication of effort with regard to inspection of subdivisions in the field. Are the applicants being charged for two guys to inspect the subdivision? If we're going to a single code, then we -- while we are streamlining the process, so then we're not doing -- not both agencies are doing the same thing and not charging double. And so --
>> so you indicated in your letter to the city manager the reasons why Travis County believes the audit is necessary?
>> well, I think it's part of our interlocal agreement that we agreed to look at it. And yes, it was in the letter.
>> I'm wanting a yes or no answer. [ laughter ]
>> yes.
>> so we need to know I guess one way or the other because if we're to get that done by the end of the year, we probably need to go ahead and start seriously working on it soon.
>> yes, judge. I mean, I'm looking at a copy of joe's letter September the 11th, the last paragraph states, I suggested to the Commissioners court that the city and county jointly conduct an outside management audit of the subdivision review and inspection process and it's associated cost and use the audit as a basis for the fee adjustment. So there's not much ambiguity there with regards to -- from our side and then goes on to state that we did set aside $100,000 in our -- so that has been specifically.
>> we believe that there is duplication now.
>> no, I didn't say that.
>> do we believe that there is duplication today? Fee duplicating?
>> I'm not convinced there is. But I'm open to looking at it seriously.
>> this is more than an academic exercise, we think.
>> and that's why to maintain credibility, that's why I think it's important an outside set of eyes look at it. We're not trying to avoid the issue, but let's deal with it straightforward and respond.
>> okay. Yes, sir.
>> yeah, my name is hank submitted. I'm one of the stakeholders.
>> and I'm rick reed. One of the stakeholders.
>> I have a few things I can go over. I don't want to go over the details. I think the staff has done a great job of putting together the joint regulation. We're going through those. We'll get some feedback on specific items, but there's a couple of major items I would like to point out. One is the fee and inspection. A lot of the stakeholders do agree that there is duplication of effort. If the fee is truly designed that you pay to support those job duties of tnr and of the city of Austin and both the city and the county through tnr are reviewing the same thing. They're both reviewing and approving streets, drainage systems, obviously there's some duplication of effort if the fee to support those programs and there's duplication of fee and the way we are looking at that. We would urge the county to get an audit by an outside auditor and how that program is set up with the fees and inspections. When we originally envisioned this, a lot of us looked at this similar to the way the central appraisal district goes in and looks at taxes. You pay your taxes. You don't pay separate taxes to all the taxing entities. You go to a central appraisal district. And that entity is who you go to for appeals and everything else. The system, the way it's set up by these rules, again, we haven't gotten into the details. It doesn't appear to fully go that direction. The city and the county are still doing separate things, there's still an opportunity -- we still have to go before the commissionrs court to get an approval of a plat. Y'all sign the plat. We still have to go before the director or the various board of the city of Austin to get their approval. We're still getting dual approval processes and there is a poakt that one can say yes and one can say no. We're still kind of back in the same situation the way of rules are going as before the language was drafted. I would also point out when you go through and review these regulations, the county is assuming a lot of responsibility. They're assuming a lot of the water quality regulations that weren't previously being handled by the county. From our standpoint it's not changing the rules and regulations in the e.t.j. We have always had to build water quality prondz and we'll continue do this. But now suddenly that's a responsibility that the county is taking over. When you sign a plat saying that everything on this plat has been done in accordance with the rules and regulations of Travis County, you're signing that wrook looking at water quality when the s.o.s. Regulations are in this thing. The county is taking over the s.o.s. Regulations as well. And be careful when you do that. Make sure you understand what it is you're taking over because I don't think Travis County has the staff with the expertise in a lot of those areas. You don't have water quality staff. So you're relying on staff that is not within the county's control when you are reviewing and approving plats and different documents. There's statements in here that says the council and commission will act jointly in certain areas. I don't know if there's a mechanism right new on on the council and the commission to act jointly. There are some things that will have to be set up administratively. It can be done, but it not there right now. The council and the commission to act jointly. Some of those things are on items such as describing the extent of the edward's aquifer. It specifically states that the council and the commission will act jointly to determine what is the edward's aquifer boundary. I again don't think the county has the expertise in-house right now to send someone out and say is this he had he did recharge zone or is it not? So you will be looking more inherently towards the city to do that work. Keep those kinds of things in mind when you're looking at the rules and regulations is what I'm trying to say.
>> dick, let me understand something because you had mentioned something of still you would have to be going through two different bodies. Working to mandate a consolidated code, it didn't consolidate the gompl. We still have the Commissioners court, with its duties and responsibilities under the local government code and a different chapter that clearly states what the duties and responsibilities are of the city of Austin. And in terms of joint -- acting jointly, we meet Tuesdays, they meet Thursdays. We meet 52 weeks out of the year. We can act jointly by having it appear on our Commissioners court agenda on a Tuesday and the city could do it the previous Thursday or the same Thursday. So just separating out. I get it in terms of you don't want to have to keep seeking hide and seek in terms of where you're supposed to go. But this was never intended to object blit rail that there are distinct government entities that have governmental duties set out by state law and the local government code that need to be respected. This was not about consolidated government, it was about a consolidated code. And we still need to respect the fact that there are organizations here that are still mandated to do our duty even though --
>> right. It's not quite that clear. There were four choices that were given. The city could take control, the county could take control, you could difficult I have it up along a hard line and say inside this line the city has control and outside this line the county has control or you could work up and morph those two together somehow. And that's what the city and county have chosen to do. And it's not 100% clear and I don't think anybody exactly knows what that is going to look like. There's some dispute -- not dispute, but some issues as to what does that mean exactly? Does it mean one spral appraisal district who reviews and approves everything as on opposed to the council and commission? That could be interpreted that wait a minute does it mean the two act independently still? Yes. As long as they don't have differing opinions. You don't want to be caught in a situation where the Commissioners court looks at things and says, no, we're not going to approve this or yes we will and the sap could comes in and says yes or no. Now we have the same situation as before when one entity is saying yes and one is saying no.
>> but to your appraisal district example, yes, there is agreement as to how are we going to figure out what somebody's appraisal is, but it does not obliterate the fact that there are hundreds of taxing jurisdictions out there who have their duties and responsibilities.
>> we don't want to see those go away.
>> it's more of a process.
>> exactly. Again, this is still -- you're still going to have the city reviewing street and drainage. You're still going to have the county reviewing street and drainage. They will do that as a single office. And it is defined if it is there is a variance or waiver it goes to one or the other. I think we've got 95% of the way there and they've done a very good job. But some issues we're still trying to digest and figure out how it's going to be implemented and there's no mechanism of how it's going to be implemented. Nobody knows until this thing actually gets implemented.
>> do you have a list of those issues?
>> we're developing those right now.
>> as soon as you give them to us --
>> we met yesterday and went over a lot of those issues. We'll put it down in writing and get it to everybody.
>> again, rick reed, stakeholder and as a real estate councilmember I'm now looking forward to the q and a session at the luncheon here. We all appreciate that we're operating under legislatively mandated deadline of January 1 or we go to binding arbitration on this. I know there's notevation to avoid that. There's been many hours spent by many, many people from the county, city and the stakeholders since last April -- April of 2001. And so there's been a lot of seed work done. I want to specifically compliment the county staff and no offense to the city staff, but these are your bosses here. [ laughter ] but joe, tom, fred, anna, all of them have just been very professional to deal with and exceptional people to work with. We don't always agree, but we disagree respectfully. We got to draft 181 pages of proposed ordinance or proposed code last Wednesday, I believe it was, and we've within been spending a lot of time reviewing this. It's not just a simple read, like tom's executive summary. This is painstaking, you know, making sure things on page 36 match up appropriately with things on page 97. So we've been going through that. We met yesterday with the single office city, county, staff, we provided some ininput. We had a very good discussion. We're going to meet at stakeholders either later this week or early next week, discuss among ourselves the various comments, some of which hank touched on and some of which i'll touch on briefly. We'll put together a set of comments. I'm sure we'll have some dissenters as well who will have other comment to add, and we'll get those written comments to the -- however the process works. Hopefully sometime next week. To me the significant concerns that I have as a stakeholder is we want to ensure that the intent of 1445 -- house bill 1445 and 1204 are respected. As Karen and hank were discussing, there are some disagreements about what the intent actually was but as best w can work towards lake making sure that intent is respected. We want to make sure that the interlocal agreement with the city and county as amended is respected. In reviewing the document, I am not yet comfortable that the appropriate entity has approval authority in the appropriate geographic area, the near term annexation area for the city and the county for the -- and the area for the county. We have to go through some painstaking review in making sure the words say the right things. If they don't I know that the city and county will be receptive to getting those things worked out. We also want to ensure that there's no expansion of the city jurisdiction over issues that isn't clearly intended. For example, with the environmental regulations of the city covering all of the e.t.j., For example, we want to make sure -- this is just an example -- that the tree ordinance which the city only has within its zoning jurisdiction, does not become applicable out in the e.t.j. So there's some things like that. And then everybody has touched on this one and I think this is a critical -- is that we resolve the dual inspection and dual fees. We think that there are dual inspections and possibly dual fees that could occur. So whether it's country by ought or if it's done by the by the drafting, be do need to make sure that an applicant is not paying fees that are more than required. And we want to make sure we're not having a city staff person and a county staff person both going out and inspecting the same thing. That is part of the intent of 1445 and 1204 is to have that aspect be consolidated, consistent and unified so we're not getting two different voices speaking, but one different voice. Thanks for listening.
>> will you have that before the public hearing on the 28th?
>> yes.
>> is that enough time to have it --
>> we will have it absolutely be enough time.
>> thank you.
>> thanks.
>> do we have like a public comment period underway?
>> if you adopt the recommendation of staff to have a public hearing on the 28th, then we will in fact open up a public comment period. If you adopt --
>> when does the public comment period close in effect?
>> that's up to y'all.
>> as of right now the morning of the 28th: we had discussions with the stakeholders yesterday and we said we think the Commissioners court is going to have a hearing on the 28th. We're recommending a hearing on the 28th. Is that enough time for y'all to get us written comment? As rick pointed out, they said yes, we'll make that happen. So informally I guess we've set a public comment period of maybe a few days in advance of the 28th. We don't have a hard date yet.
>> and then we would take action the following Tuesday or two Tuesdays later?
>> according to the schedule, we have laid out with the city. You wouldn't be taking formal action until Tuesday, November 18th. I think the hearing on the 28th is just to say is there anything major here, is there anything that needs to be changed? And then you've got basically three weeks to do that before you take final action on November 18th.
>> what we typically do at campo is even though you clees the public hearing you still receive written comment. Certainly anything that's on our agenda is subject to a public hearing whether it's posted as a public hearing or not. So it really isn't cut off until the Commissioners court takes a motion and a vote.
>> okay.
>> those who want an executive summary can contact the appropriate person at the city or county -- I guess the county and get it in preparation for the public hearing? Move that we schedule the public hearing on October 28th.
>> second.
>> at nine a.m.
>> second.
>> any discussion of that motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>>
>> thank you, judge. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> what other action is required today?
>> none.
>> that's it.
>> any reason to have this back on next week?
>> I don't think so.
>> so October 28th we will have it on again. Thank you.
>> take care.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 15, 2003 12:52 PM