Travis County Commissioners Court
September 14, 2004
Item 34
34-a, consider interlocal agreement with the lower colorado river authority
to conduct a planning process for the development of southwest Travis County
and take appropriate action. And 34-b is to consider and take appropriate
action on request for $25,000 to fund Travis County's share of the cost of
the planning process for development standards in southwest Travis County.
>> well, we basically got had this thing started -- joe,
do you want to come up?
>> didn't mean for you to wait so long, but we know you're
on the clock.
>> probably in the last six months we have all seen the headline
in the paper with certain things that have gone on in western Travis County,
that being the lick creek development, the issue of the lcra wanting to bring
water, especially out into the hamilton pool area. And that has really rallied
a lot of different thought processes with regards to the same argument that
we have. If you build infrastructure, do you encourage growth? But do you
just act like that growth is not going to take place and therefore you don't
put things in place that really allow us to enhance our abilities when the
time comes to accept this kind of growth? So I had sent a letter to the lcra
about six months ago, to the board of the lcra, stating that the position
of Gerald Daugherty/precinct 3 Travis County Commissioner, that I was highly
supportive of bringing surface water to western Travis County, and that would
eventually probably evolve into having some wastewater capabilities, but basically
taking on and trying to put in place the ability to handle some of the growth.
Everybody knows that the wells that are in western Travis County have some
real issues. So fortunately for us, the lcra determined that they really needed
a spot at the table in a big way, and that they were very willing to sit down
with Travis County and work with certain things that we felt like that we
needed to address in western Travis County in particular. Lcra has been a
great partner to date. They have appropriated, you know, $90,000 plus just
for this project, not counting the money that they're putting into projects
in the dripping springs area. So they obviously have been willing to make
a commitment, and a few months ago we talked about where joe had brought forth
that he felt like that the county really needed to take a look at some of
the regs that we had and some of the things that we were dealing with that
we really didn't quite, as we all know, have the ability to deal with whenever
it comes to certain regulations. It was brought to our attention -- joe has
probably always know known this, but house bill 873 has been enacted that
would allow us to really be able to do more and have the capability of performing
certain things that would make it easier for us to develop in western Travis
County. So long story short, lcra's gotten together with us, determined that
we really need a point person in order to take this, for lack of a better
way to call it, the southwest Travis County plan. I think joe has come up
with a different name. We've had a couple of meetings where we've had stakeholders.
Stakeholders meaning property owners. Developers and just neighbors. And I
know that -- is it tomorrow, joe, that we're having the third?
>> it's the second meeting.
>> the second meeting actually.
>> they'll be at.
>> so that's where we have gotten to date. I mean, we asked
for $25,000 to put -- for us to put into this program. We felt like with lcra
putting $90,000 into it that joe said that he felt like that some of the things
we probably would need in conjunction with pulling this plan together -- and
we're going it have something in eight months. We are going to have a plan
because we've got joe for eight months. We've got him under an eight-month
contract. We've made a commitment to the lcra and to tnr that we are going
to actually come forward with something that says here is-- even though I
guess it's not a legal document, it is something that we all can feel like
that we can roll out and say we've gotten buy-inasmuch as we can to build
and enhance what so many people want in western Travis County, and then this
may go to southeast Travis County, eastern Travis County, because lcra is
in that business. And so we're fortunate to have this plan put in motion.
And joe, i'll turn it over to you and the joe's.
>> I wanted to say that let's not forget to include the impact
of development in precinct 3 and along precinct 4, and especially runoff or
the effects on creeks, and if it goes downstream. That's a real important
part of it. In the past when we've had the other -- another group working
on the lakes and the impact of all that runoff, it's been an effort by three
or four to address those issues because there's no doubt but that there is
an impact on precinct 4.
>> and Commissioner, we have -- I have had conversations
with the lcra that this -- even though it's going to start in precinct 3,
and with our involvement in this and with 873 and the things that we're wanting
to do from our side, because we know that there are implications southeast
and in east Austin that we really are going to have -- and northeast as well,
I suppose. But we are not taking our eye off the ball there. It just so happens
that right now our emphasis on this since the lcra is effectively doing to
issue their ccn's, which would what they would like to do at the first of
year, that's the reason we've got so much emphasis on this. But it's not leaving
out any other parts of Travis County.
>> let's not forget that part.
>> it's item 552 on our cleanup sheets that we had this morning.
It's already there.
>> and just a codification. The interlocal agreement has
the lcra putting up $80,000 $80,000 and Travis County putting up $10,000 within
the interlocal agreement, totaling $90,000. The difference is what we may
use if we have to hire additional outside expertise. But we may not have to
do that. So right now it's an absolute cost of 10,000 to the county. If we
have to spend the additional 15,000, we will, but it's basically in the general
fund --
>> sort of earmarked.
>> earmarked. It's basically we'll use it only if we have
to.
>> did we earmark that against the allocated reserve?
>> we actually -- [overlapping speakers]. It's a real project
as opposed to that it was mid kel.
>> -- mythical.
>> we will not spend it if we do not have to.
>> it's in tnr's budget?
>> yeah.
>> the other issue is that I’m going to be committing a good
piece of tnr resources to this effort over the next eight months. I want you
to know that my planners, my environmental section, my development services
section, at various stages are going to be involved, as will the county attorney's
office. So it's not just the cash out lay here, it is the resources and mapping
studies, technical expertise that's going to be behind the scenes working
in support of joel. And I think the lcra will do like ways on its part. So
this is a major effort on our part. We believe it's a direction that we should
be going on. To look at an application of 873 in a broader way to the unincorporated
area. It would be done based on community input for what they want as far
as a live-in community. So a lot of what this front end is about is sorting
out the goals and values that are going to be giving us direction for thinking
regulations.
>> what steps do we take to promote inclusion and the manifestation
of inclusion. It seems to me that actually doing it is one thing, making it
so rob vus that nobody can overlook it is another.
>> joe lazar, who is the project manager, described the process.
>> good morning.
>> good morning. The process that we're using here this morning
really is -- focuses on the use of an advisory panel. We are right now in
the process of asking representatives or interested parties in the community
to give us nominations for folks to sit on that panel. We anticipate there
will be 19 seats on the panel. At least 50% of them should be property owners
and then the other nine seats, 10 seats are property owners and nine seats
for other interested parties such as economic interests and development interests
and so forth. So right now we're doing an outreach effort to contact people
and let them know that we're looking for individuals who can give up the time
and have the interest to participate over the eight-month period. That's going
to be a sear -- once we've identified those individuals, then we'll do a process
of sort of interviewing and discussing and finding out whether or not they
can actually commit to the time line and commit to some basic ground rules
on how we'll work together to come up with recommendations. So there's an
outreach effort going on right now. We've already started those conversations,
and we're basically requesting or pleading with folks who have an interest
to tell us who else they think they may have an interest. And we've made it
real clear that the group has to be a balance. That just because you've got
an interest that you want to have represented that the group really isn't
going to be successful unless both and all interested points of view are laid
on the table. So we've asked them to give not -- not just recommend folks,
but alternative people who work with in the community who have other points
of view that need to be represented on that panel.
>> we have six categories of groups set out in the backup.
That's still set for September -- that still has September eighth. It will
save us a phone call if we can read those into the record.
>> we're looking for residents and property owners who are
interested. Other property owners such as agricultural, ranch landowners,
economic development interests, environmental preservation interests, and
then other interested organizations or individuals who have an interest or
a representative of one of the groups i've mentioned, tax great groups and
so forth. Then we'll also be asking, as joe mentioned, the county will be
participating in the dialogue -- eight representatives will be there and we'll
be asking school districts and adjacent municipal jurisdictions to attend
as is appropriate for them.
>> I guess you've had the good sense of making public service
providers and governmental entities and non-voting members.
>> they can provide technical expertise as well as take the
information back and develop the internal rmtions from the -- recommendations
from the staff that will go back from the voting boards to you in essence.
>> judge? I just wanted -- Gerald, I think it's something
really appropriate, I know, the ccn concept and the way you have a different
person kind of staking out their territory I guess as far as defining within
the ccn. I do know that if we want to look at precinct -- eng Commissioner
Gomez brought up some points, but I think Commissioner Daugherty brought up
east, northeast. And I think we know that development is going to come. However,
there's always been some doubt as far as how can I develop and of course we
need the water resources. I guess my question to you is is that on a request
basis as far as looking to see what the lcra can do in a given area to provide
the surface water maybe for a new subdivision, new school that may be outside
of an established ccn? Because I know we do have some ccn situations whereby
I know the city has already kind of staked out some things there in precinct
1, but however, you have other water supply corporations that also provide
water for some of the things that are going on. But then you have some that
are not even come up under any of those type of water supplier avenues. So
I guess my question to you is how would those persons that may want water
obtained through the lcra, how would they go about it in the precinct that
we need for future development?
>> generally speaking, you wouldn't approach the lcra. I
think their area of interest right now is somehow limited to western Travis
County because the city of Austin basically has taken over the central and
the ccn's for the eastern part of the county. But they also depend upon what
water corporations that hold ccn's in the area are at. So lcra would be a
good place to start. And then alternatively you might approach the city of
Austin if you're interested. Between those two entities you would probably
get tell you if they don't provide the service, who is -- who could provide
that service?
>> but I guess my point is there some that fall outside of
those two providers?
>> there are parts of the county --
>> especially the unincorporated areas. Okay. I just wanted
to pose that question to you.
>> any other questions, comments? Looks like a good deal
to me.
>> I would move approval of 34-a and b.
>> second.
>> have the county judge sign in.
>> absolutely.
>> any or discussion? That was seconded by Commissioner Davis.
All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you, judge.
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.
Last Modified: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:26 AM