Travis County Commissioners Court
October 12, 2004
Executive Session Items
Now, it is time for executive session. So we will announce that we will take up item number 14 under the consultation with council exception to the open meetings act. John, I have read that item in full twice today already. 14 (a) and (b), that is the rocky creek ranch. Okay. Then with your approval, I will not read it a third time. In addition we will take up 26, which is to receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County county et al versus oliver houston, jr. (rogelio a. Rayos resale deed), and take appropriate action. 1. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
>> 27. Receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County, et al v. Palazzo construction co. (w. Newman casey resale deed), and take appropriate action.
>> 28. Consider and take appropriate action regarding the opportunity to purchase real estate in south central Austin.
>> that the real property exception to the open meetings act. Do we need number 29.
>> yes, sir, we do, should get legal advice on number 28 as well.
>> number 28 would be the consultation with attorney.
>> 29. Receive legal advice and take appropriate action on implementation of Travis County hospital district. 1.
>> that will be the consultation exception to the open meetings act.
>> 30. Consider and take appropriate action regarding salary for executive manager of health and human services. 3.
>> there is backup on that item that we got from health and human services and human resources, it will be good to have that backup with you. That's the personnel matters exception to the open meetings act.
>> 31. Consider acquisition of land for the development of Travis County southwest metropolitan park project. Cip #01-b02-31-3pa and we will call up item number 31, the last item, which is to consider and take appropriate action on security issues related to the conduct of the November 2004 joint general and special election.4.
>> we will discuss these matters in executive session but will return to open court before taking any action.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed the following
announced items. 14 (a) and (b) involving rocky creek ranch. Preliminary plan,.
Let me just stay we did discuss at length the possibility of a moratorium.
It appears to me that would be inappropriate for us to adopt one at this time.
For one thing if we applied it countywide it would pick up developments in
different parts of the county, southwest Travis County, I think that we probably
could invest the time necessary to describe more particularly what we wish
to cover and it seems to me that before we considered a doption of a moratorium,
then we ought to do that. My guess is we would probably be looking at 2 to
4 weeks to get that done. The second thing is that I don't believe that it
would be appropriate for us to declare one from the dais here without notice
and opportunity to respond, et cetera. The other thing is the retroactive
application seems to be difficult to I believe, if we applied it retroactively
to one before us that was filed with us in March, the question is what day
would you -- what date would you make the effective day because right now
I think we'd be duty-bound to pick up applications that have been filed with
us since that point t other thing we discussed was the applicability of the
taken statute. I would think that we would be required to do some due diligence
that has not been done so far, especially the impact assessment. Normally
it takes about 30 days to get that, 30 to 45 days is what we typically do.
The other thing is that if we want to consider a moratorium then the legal
way to do it in my view would be to come up with a specific moratorium policy
or regulation, reduce that to writing, advertise that, give notice as we normally
do, have a public hearing on that, and then formally adopt it. And in that
document we would have the effective date. So to make a long story short,
it seemed to me the more answers we got to questions asked about the moratorium,
from a practical -- from a perspective of applicability to this particular
application, we ran into all sorts of questions, then the bigger question
was whatever we did to this project in fairness we would have to apply to
others that have been filed with us in pretty much the same time period. So
the more I looked at it, it seemed to me that the clearer it became to me
that it was inappropriate for us to do that as to this one project today,
but if we decide to proceed with that, then it does seem to me that there
is due diligence that we ought to proceed with a moratorium on other matters
then there is a 30 to 45 day process additional work that we ought to do before
we do so, and that raises the question about whether it would be more appropriate
to do that or to make sure that we get the regional studies already underway
expedited in whatever way we can and try to get some relief from that. The
other thing is that from my own perspective if recommendations come from those
groups in two to three months, I have a hard time anticipating less than another
two to three months of negotiation in the public forum before something is
finally adopted and when we put those in place as a body, my thinking was
that we wanted to be as open as possible, invite input from the various sections
of our community. We knew there would not be anonymity, but we hoped at some
point a consensus would be achieved, and each working in that direction, I
would be tickled to death if we have something by the first of the year but
I think realistically we're probably looking at longer than that, and I will
do my share by staying out of the way. To the extent my staying out of the
way will expedite matters, I can guaranty that. Also county staff is available
to assist in whatever way we can, right, joe? Because these are delicate matters.
Those are my views art the moratorium. Did I take a real good look at it.
There were e-mails that suggested it as a possibility. I do not think it's
appropriate at this time for the reasons I just gave and i'll probably reduce
those to writing for those who want to see a written explanation later on.
>> there are a number of things that were real important
to me in terms of not only the e-mails i've got, the testimony we've got,
but just good common sense, if I could have mr. Ahmbrust, mr. Hudson, joe,
if you wanted to join them too. One of the things that you all mentioned was
that the overall impervious cover for this development was going to be 16.1%
which under the fish guidelines is under the fish guidelines because this
is contributing zone development. Would you all be willing to make a commitment
to go with the same limits on impervious cover that are applicable to the
recharge zone which is no more than 15% impervious cover for the overall density?
>> we'll let rebecca respond to that since this would undoubtedly
require some loss of density. Rebecca?
>> so you're asking me to meet the 15% impervious cover?
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> and then we would need you to work obviously with ms.
Bowlen in terms of whatever minor revisions need to be made to your preliminary
plan to make that happen and to make that part of the plat notes as well that
it's no more than fifteen% and that would move through the process. The second
thing had to do with -- david, you're going to have to help me out on the
language with this. I?m struck by the conversations related to grass and fertilizers,
et cetera, and it seems that there is something related to the lcra had certain
kinds of guidelines related to getting water service, related to water conservation
that may incorporate some of this, so that we -- we can limit water guzzling
grass being grown out there, a commitment to zero escaping and native landscaping.
Can you help me out with some language here that could -- some kind of a document
can be part of our process here as well in terms of a commitment to what I
think the lcra is already going to require of you.
>> I?m going to look at the lcra representatives, but...
>> randi.
>> ... As part of our process of entering into this water
contract with the construction of water line, lcra requires an applicant or
they require of us that we have to imlie with their water conservation measures
which is a litany of a number of things that are done for specifically for
water conservation. It addresses grasses and native plants and thing like
that.
>> I would like to have that incorporated as a part of whatever
plans, plat notes, contracts, et cetera, so that we also piggy back on what
the lcra is talking about, that that would also become a part of our process
and part of an enforceable document that we have too.
>> agreed.
>> great. Thank you.
>> anything further from the court?
>> yes. I will say something, Commissioner Davis, are there
any things you want to say.
>> you are sure the setback requirement under u.s. Fish is
something y'all are willing to comply with and y'all are looking at some of
the ordinance requirements for 15% impervious cover in which I think you agree
that you would do that, and I think that is very, very instrumental and of
course with the other u.s. -- the fish, probably I think that those kind of
compliance things are something we're willing to deal with. However I did
here some say that there are some areas in and around there that may be a
hundred somewhat thousand dollars, about affordable issue, and I know you
said these homes would be $300,000 and up, is that the bottom line? Is that
anything that could be looked at as far as some of the affordability of the
homes being maybe a little less than 300,000? I?m not sure, but I don't want
to put you on the spot but that question did come up and I was just under
the affordability of some of the home, was that just the ceiling?
>> that really will be driven by discussions with different
builders in the area and they will probably know better than I think moment.
>> so it is a possibility.
>> certainly.
>> it may be something less than that $300,000 benchmark?
>> yes.
>> okay. Good. Okey doke. I think that was about all I had,
Commissioners, were those concerns there.
>> well, first of all, let me say I appreciate everybody
coming down today, I know it's been a long day for everyone. When I started
this process, I think that I clearly stated that I was not in favor of a moratorium.
I don't think that it's right. I wouldn't think that it was right for any
of y'all if somebody came in and wanted a moratorium on your tract of land.
The process that we are going through is a process that I still feel very
positive about with regards to having all of the players at the table, and
what we are trying to do in this process is we know that there are things
in development right now that are unacceptable, quite frankly probably even
the developers will understand and say, you know what, we do understand that
there are changes that we need to make, and that's the reason we're doing
this process, and I think that we can still come out with a -- with projects
that are in the pipeline. My biggest issue is, folks, and i've always said
this, if something is in the pipeline, I?m not going to change the rules.
That is something that has driven me crazy in this community and i've been
here for 36 years. I don't think that it's right to have somebody go through
a process, say this is what you need to do, and then all of a sudden say,
you know what, there are just things that we don't like about this and we
are arbitrarily going to say we're going to change them. I?m not going to
ask for unreasonable things from a developer, I?m also going to ask a developer
to say if you got two hundred residents that want this kind of planning done
or this kind of setback or these kind of things, it's going to make your life
a lot easier than everybody -- and everybody else's life easier in this community
for us to try to comply with those things. And I think that's where we're
headed with this process, and I give you my word that I will stay highly involved
in that. All of us know that there are traffic issues -- let me tell you what.
There's no just traffic issues on hamilton pool road, folks. I mean -- I mean
I would like to ask each and every one of you what you think about the toll
plan. I would probably get all sorts of different ideas about that. And it's
about mobility and it's about transportation. We know that we've got to do
some things toal hamilton pool road, i've made it clear to rebecca, i've made
it clear to everybody that has talked to me about wanting to do something
in western Travis County. I said we've got to do something with traffic and
mobility and you've got to get out in front of it and you've got to commit
to me that you're going to participate and you're going to be a fair player
in this. I?m fortunate -- or Travis County is fortunate to have lcra involved
in this thing because lcra has put a lot and continues to put a lot of resources
and especially money into this process. Lcra is also willing to accept the
fact that, you know what, we also need to do more stringent things to make
sure that development is taken care of and is done in the right way. I want
everybody to understand, you know, we had this kind of project before us 8,
9 months ago, if any of you watched us deal with the lowe's tract in Sunset
Valley, it was basically we were being asked 0 do the same thing. We statutorily.
I don't care how somebody wants to interpret. Well, the law says you don't
have to do that, when you set up rules and regulations and say if you comply
with that, then bring your plat down, and if you do, then we are obligated
to say okay, we're going to do that. We do not have -- or I do not feel like,
I mean as one person of five up here, I do not feel like I arbitrarily should
say, you know what, you complied with those, but I just -- I mean i've changed
my mind. What I?m willing to do is to continue to work to say, you know what,
I know there are things out there in the 36 years i've been here, western
Travis County used to not have a problem. The county used to be country. I
mean the reason that so many of you moved out there and bought your 10-acres,
50 acres, 500-acres, your 2-acres of heaven, you did it for the right reason,
I understand that. But I am not going to -- I mean from -- from just a philosophical
standpoint, I?m not going to put somebody through the rigors of saying, you
know what, can you jump this high? Well, if you can jump this high, well,
can you jump this high? That is not the right thing to do. No. I?m willing
and i've told everybody that has come into the office, I mean since way before
rebecca came in to see me three days before I was elected two years ago and
the sweet water tract, I mean things that had been in the pipeline, you know
what, it's unfortunately that we have had west cypress hills had the issues
they have. I don't like it anymore than anybody else. I will tell you that
rusty parker doesn't like it anymore than any of y'all. There are things that
go along with development. There are ways that we have got to tighten up rules
and regulations and I?m willing and committed to stay the course, but I think
that whenever we are asked to do something at this court where we've put out
rules and regulations and that people come in and they comply, that I -- for
my vote, I -- I have an obligation to say you complied, now, by the way, I
still want you at the table, and i've told rebecca and i've told mr. Gunn,
i've told everybody that has come in to see me, i've got to have you participate
along with the people in this community. And I think that that is how we're
going to get to where we're going to get to, because, folks, I can't stop
growth. I mean whether you've got 478 homes that is clustered or whether you've
got 478 homes because 478 individuals have gone out there in four or five
years and have bought one or two acre tracts of land and they've got on the
road and they've contributed a little bit of what we all know can be problems,
you know, those are things that I can't do anything about. Now, i've often
told people, if you want to go to the legislature, if you want to take personal
property rights away from people in the state of Texas, and you know what,
there are probably some people that are willing to do that, that's fine. I
mean I?m not going to say, you know, you shouldn't go over there and do that,
I mean but we have -- I mean in the state of Texas, there are laws and there's
-- there are rules that say that you can do just about whatever you want to
do unless, you know, you know that you're going to have the community come
and rise up against you, and nobody wants to do that. But those are the things
that, I mean, do we work on those? Yes, we work on them, because that's how
we came about with 873. We know that we are going to take 873. We know that
we're going to put some measures in line that will help us be more accepting
of the development that we are going to have in western Travis County. And
-- and as long as I?m the Commissioner there, I will tell you that I will
continue to work on that. That being said, judge, I will make the motion to
accept the -- I mean if we're going to do this in a and b, I guess we are,
then I will make the motion that we accept the preliminary plan. We're going
to have all sorts of plat notes that the applicant has agreed to do and that
-- that lcra is going to work with us and during this process, I think that
we are going to be able to -- because I will go to the applicant and say,
"now, even though that is not on the plat note, I mean the spirit of what
we've been trying to do here, if that is something that ugh do and the community
thinks that you need to do it, I?m going to be there asking that with you.
" I mean be assured I?m going to be doing that. I would move approval of a,
the phazing agreement for the preliminary plan.
>> second it.
>> and what about the preliminary plan in b?
>> well, if we want to do them together, I also will make
the motion to...
>> that will be (a) and (b).
>> (a) and (b).
>> the changes that we discussed today, the motion includes
those, right?
>> yes, they do.
>> we would need to see a document that contains them, and
I guess the question is realistically should we expect those changes to be
made in writing by -- by Tuesday of next week or two weeks from today? One
week all right? Can we do it one week?
>> that is part of your motion, right?
>> judge, can I clarify. What are you expecting?
>> you've turned in the preliminary plan that shows a layout
with 16.1% impervious cover. Obviously you need to go in and appropriately
erase some lines and eliminate some impervious cover and you need a little
bit -- one week to be able to do that or george?
>> there's one other way, we can deed restrict the impervious
cover that is going to go on either lot and that is -- an option.
>> gets us to the same place, but we would need to have an
appropriate plat note language that talks about the 15% and incorporate however
it is y'all are going to lock that down and then the second thing was the
plat note related -- we need a plat note related to the piggy backing on the
lcra's water.
>> conservation.
>> conservation compliance issues, yeah, that that becomes
an actual plat note.
>> the best way to get...
>> put it back next week?
>> the best way to get the impervious cover change included,
we would expect testimony I guess to reach agreement with you on that, just
that I think we need to memorial memorialize that, formally approve it in
court. We did talk about several other things today, probably more minor than
these, it's a good idea to pick them up.
>> thank you.
>> understand?
>> yes, sir.
>> that...
>> can we try to do it in a week? If we account get it done
in a week, we'll do it in two weeks.
>> contingent upon these plat notes which would be browg
back to the Commissioner's court for final authorization.
>> I?m sure the minute we approve them, some resident also
want to see them so...
>> yeah, yeah.
>> should we say two weeks then?
>> sure.
>> okay.
>> is that all right?
>> that is fine with me.
>> unless y'all are up against a time deadline.
>> two weeks is fine.
>> two weeks is fine.
>> second that motion?
>> yes, mr. Davis.
>> anymore discussion?
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all
very much for your input.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. 26, we discussed. I move that we authorize
approval of the deed of the tax resale deed to rogelio aks rayos who has paid
to Travis County the sum of $10,000 in cash.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
27? I move that we authorize the county judge to sign the tax resale deed
to debra newman casey who has paid Travis County the sum of $6,522.34.
>> second.
>> second by Commissioner Sonleitner. Discussion? All in
favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 28 involving the opportunity
to purchase red cross in south central Austin, I move that we authorize a
contract between Travis County and mike buhls, to serve, to execute the professional
servicesal services agreement and that we also authorize mr. Buhls to citizen
a letter to the seller containing appropriate provisions for Travis County.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
We did discuss number 29 briefly, no action required today, that will be back
real soon. Number 30 we discussed briefly but have it on the court's agenda
for action hopefully next week. 31, we discussed, that will be back on the
court's agenda at an appropriate time in the future. Number 32 involving security
issues related to the November 2004 joint and general election, move that
we authorize the sum of $5,250 to cover the cost of security personnel, that
we further authorize the county clerk to work with the sheriff's office to
make sure that appropriate personnel are available at the times they are needed
and we authorize this amount from allocated reserve.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> will that be put as an automatic budget transfer, judge,
or however that needs to be? Because we didn't have it as the budget transfer
today.
>> yes.
>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Those were
the matters that we discussed in executive session. [inaudible - no mic]
>> all right, we have 28 on again next week? We certainly
will.
>> and we did need 18 (c).
>> no, we didn't.
>> the hospital district.
>> 18 (c) we don't need, have it on next week. All in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.
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: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:34 PM