Travis County Commssioners Court
April 13, 2004
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 9
Going back to number 9. 9. Consider and take appropriate action on whether to set a public hearing to receive comments on request to place mooring buoys off the point at bob wentz park. (this item covers only whether to schedule a public hearing - not to discuss the merit of the request.) As the county judge's note we may have to discuss this in executive session under consultation with attorney, we may not.
>> good afternoon, charles bird with t.n.r. [indiscernible] parks program manager on my left. For those of you who that have been with the court for a number of years, you probably have some historical knowledge about mr. Barstow and his easement, his easement he has running through a lcra piece of property that we manage at bob wentz park is the easement that allows him to go from his property to the water's edge and then exit the park. It's basically an ingress, egress easement. He has petitioned the lcra, I think he did it last summer, early fall, to -- to be authorized to install up to 25 buoys off the point. The lcra has evaluated this request and forwarded it over to us to sign-off on. This is an unusual request for us, we have never been asked to small mooring buoys inside of a park, inside of technically a swim or no motor zone where wind surfers and swimmers enter the water and they play, they swim out in the water and are protected by a buoy line off-shore. No motor, sale boats can operate in there, so can swimmers. Mr. Barstow has requested the lcra to have the mooring buoys set in here, what we are doing here today is to come before the court and -- and present the request and then ask direction from the court as to whether or not you want to proceed with the public hearing or to deny the request. We believe that -- that -- that if we are going to consider the request, we most certainly ought to put it in a public hearing format to our users or other users because they will be impacted by these mooring buoys off-shore, primarily the wind surfers. Because the way they use the bob we ntz park with their sail craft, they traverse right through this mooring bouy location, and it does pose a hazard to them. We are at the point of whether or not the court wants to give us direction to deny the request or go ahead and set a public hearing and then ask the different users to come in and voice pros or cons for whether or not this request is -- should be accepted.
>> judge, since this is sort of my first rodeo with this, and I know that the court has had a lot of history with mr. Barstow and this whole area out here. After having talked to charles. I mean, I -- I would like to see --, I mean, I think that we could unilaterally say that's crazy to do this. There is a practical reason for what he is trying to get done, but I do think the only right thing to do is to go ahead and approve setting a public hearing and let people come and let him hear it from everybody I mean so that it's not just the court. You know, I think that we could say well it's pretty crazy knowing how this point is used and especially from the wind surfers. But I think from everything that I hear they will certainly show up. And I would like to -- I mean as the precinct 3 Commissioner, I have never had an opportunity to have them come and tell me that.
>> well, i've been here done this one. Do you think it's by any accident that you got this in redistricting. I think you're right. It is something that is not logical. And I don't need to fill this room with people to be convinced that the easier way to short circuit all of this is to tell mr. Barstow no thank you. Thank you for thinking outside the box, but no thank you. It's just -- it's adding one more layer of aggravation because it really does -- a lot of times when these things come up, it makes it look like we are the ones that are trying to make this happen and they are not seeing that we are the ones facilitating somebody else's request. To me, like I said, I don't need all the wind surfers in here to say that it's not a good idea. And they can tell that to mr. Barstow directly. I think we need to do our job. I don't need to have a public hearing to know that -- what the answer to this one already is, that is no thank you.
>> well, if I had one before I would agree with you, Commissioner. I mean, I知 just asking since it's in 3 and I知 the one that's going to be dealing with them, I mean not that they won't call you or whatever, but I think that they probably quite frankly would like to hear what the new precinct 3 Commissioner -- I have spent some time with mr. Barstow, and fully aware of some of the things that he wants to do and I think that he knows that i'll try if there's some reasonability to his asking. But ultimately I知 -- I知 probably going to look top my parks professionals. But I think, Commissioner, I mean,, you know, I would say heck you're right, there's probably no reason for you to show up, for you to hear them. But I think out of respect for them and this park with who I am out there, I would like to -- I would move that we would okay the -- the public hearing. Just because I would like to say --
>> are you going to hold the public hearing and are you going to hold it out in the area where it is most convenient for these folks to go? What -- if you want to have a public hearing, knock yourselves out.
>> then I知 going to defer to you all's expertise. I mean how -- what happened be the best way to do that? I don't mind going out there saying we are going to have it out there. I thought whenever somebody wanted a public hearing, they wanted to come and speak to the court.
>> if you want to make it most convenient for the users of that particular park you would have it on the at sat 2.
>> recommendation from the parks department?
>> as far as location?
>> as far as whether to have a public if so, where to have it.
>> I think our recommendation is that -- to deny the request.
>> do we have a list of reasons for and again.
>> primarily safety.
>> do we have a written list of for and against, advantages and disadvantages? If nothing else we owe the requesting party a written response. If the Commissioners court's position based on the staff's written recommendation is to take a certain action, that still does not prevent the Commissioner from posting a public discussion in the precinct. But I think mr. -- we owe mr. Barstow a formal response to his -- he made his formal request to lcra. If I recall what you told me, right?
>> that's correct.
>> lcra then kicked it to us. We owe them and mr. Barstow a formal response that indicates we took the request seriously, looked at it, seriously reached a certain conclusion.
>> judge, I don't mind, you know, conveying the message to -- to everyone that, you know, i'll set it up, joe, I don't want to take your evening time. I don't want to take anybody's time that I know that they have spent a lot of time and I know y'all have with it. All that I知 asking is that you know if I can get the building, if I go out there, say, hey, come out here and tell us what you want, I never heard it before. Quite frankly I think that I need to -- I need to do it. I understand why you are saying we ought to deny it. I can look at it and say it's something that seems unreasonable.
>> I think the whole court needs to see specific reasons in writing.
>> [multiple voices]
>> I thought the backup was fairly clear.
>> yes, in the backup, we just don't have it set up pro and con where it's easy to do a comparison. But it's embedded in the backup.
>> can they have thick document be reduced to as the judge likes about a two-page bullet page or better yet one bullet page, yeah. But I think that it's quite specific about the dangers involved here and quite frankly, it just reeked of so who is going to sue us because somebody gets injured on this and I think we would be the ones with the deep pocket because they would see that we did something affirm actively to say -- affirmatively to say this thing ought to move ahead. To me it's like huh-uh, I知 not going here.
>> with all due respect the request that bar strow has, I mean I understand that perhaps some requests that he has, you know, approached the court with have been, you know, pretty unreasonable. But there is an issue with what he is trying to get done with these buoys. And taking and allowing people to have a place to tie their craft up to while they do have to take their vehicles back up the hill. And that's -- that's what it is. So his request is not unreasonable. And I知 -- again, I mean, I知 more than happy to do this so that -- so that I知 not asking the court to do it. And i'll work with the parks department on having some sort of a meeting out there, we'll get the word out. So perhaps -- if I guess if what we need to do here, judge, is to -- is to not act on this and let me bring it to the people, to the users and have something out there that I can work with the parks folks to have a precinct 2 --
>> here's the definitive paragraph, though. Mr. Barstow has always been looking fought mr. Bar strow, that of course is his prerogative. On page 3 of the memo it talks about here that what he is seeking to do is put this mooring system off of the shoreline that we are trustees for on behalf of the public. He is not at this point talking about putting this mooring system off of the shoreline that he controls. And quite frankly, this is a kick -- if this is a kick butt, great idea, then as the memo says, mr. Barstow can seek approval from the lcra to set up a similar mooring system off his own shoreline. That's where he needs to start. But he has always been very proactive in trying to dictate what happens on and around and through the public's property as opposed to somebody who owns a private park, charges -- charges far more than we do, and we need to be looking out for the public and mr. Barstow as is his right is looking out for mr. Barstow, in these case these are not one in the same.
>> I think there ought to be a formal document to the court.
>> I disagree.
>> that is more neutrally worded than what I heard today. The request came from lcra, I assume they meant for us to take it seriously. They know this history, unfortunately I know it, also. That is not the same as the court putting in the draft letter that basically contains the reason why we tell mr. Barstow and lcra that we don't think that it's a good idea, therefore the Commissioners court voted to reject it. If you want to have a public meeting -- [multiple voices] I would -- I don't know that inflammatory language helps us any. Let's get it behind us. I don't see us setting this -- sending this back up to lcra and mr. Barstow with a little note saying the court rejected the request, right.
>> I think that we should have a very good letter.
>> I would also run that letter by the county attorney who --
>> mr. Collins [multiple voices]
>> it would be good to see the -- get the lawyers to see that letter.
>> I will draft the letter and have it back in court in two weeks. Which allow the meeting of Commissioner Daugherty and the user groups.
>> do you want to have this letter with you when you take it.
>> I will work with joe on it. That's acceptable to me. [multiple voices]
>> sitting there looking like he's receiving and hasn't made up their mind if the court has already told you we are going to reject it.
>> I don't mind telling them -- telling mr. Barstow you know what there's -- I can tell you that there's -- I don't think that there's, you know, three votes on the court that you are going to get this done, but I am willing to do my due diligence and go out to the folks and do whatever. Hey I知 going to take a few errors because that's my job. I知 willing to do that. To take a few arrows.
>> some of those guys use scuds.
>> this does not preclude mr. Barstow from revising his proposal related to a mooring system off of a shoreline that he controls and he owns. But thank you very much, but no thank you related to ours. But you know what --
>> located at -- give the reason why.
>> and -- and you know gillespie county. [laughter]
>> if that's a good faith recommendation.
>> lake long. [laughter]
>> sounds like that --
>> I get it.
>> sounds like [indiscernible] people that are more familiar with the history of this area.
>> if we are not careful we are going to need mr. Eubanks again, we don't need that. I think mr. Collins would be the one who has the most experience --
>> I will have my snorkel equipment available for that meeting.
>> stun gun.
>> one week or two.
>> > two weeks.
>> that works.
>> thanks, joe.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 13, 2004 12:32 PM