Travis County Commissioners Court
November 9, 2004
Item 42
Number 42, consider and take appropriate objection the following: a, county
participation in various regional planning processes. B, a briefing from county
attorney on county authority under sb 873. That was mentioned several times
in our last open court discussion. We all talked about it was it last legislative
session or one before that. Certainly it was moved to the back burner, but
b is important, I think. Some of that we can discuss in open court. The other
part I think is just legal advice. C is appointments to the southwest Travis
County growth dialogue advisory committee. If we think it's appropriate. Joe
and I had a discussion on this and the reason I thought we ought to agendize
this is that we did have a discussion in open court that this is one of those
areas that is getting to be more and more important all the time. And the
other thing is that I think it's important for the entire Commissioners court
to be involved, up to speed, et cetera. The other thing is that some of these
committees were really initiated by others and may have done a whole lot of
work or out there doing things have school district for our cooperation, collaboration,
partnership, et cetera, and being good stewards, you know, we always agree.
So I知 just -- the reason I thought we ought to have this on is we ought to
make sure the entire court is on the program. The other thing is that it's
been a long, long time since I have looked at the language of 873, and I just
think we ought to be sure exactly what it is we can and cannot do on that
one. The other thing is that a lawsuit has resulted on one of those deals
that i've received an open records request on, it may be lick creek project.
>> are you talking about the --
>> I guess just the m.u.d.
>> not lick creek. Sweetwater.
>> okay. And Travis County is not a party to that yet, but
it looks like we kind of get dragged into them whether we want to or not.
So I mean I think this discussion is more and more important. The other thing
is it looks like on some of these subdivisions, applications that we approve,
you know, it's almost a foregone conclusion that when litigation results,
we'll be there. Either as a witness or as a party. So that it is my thinking.
The other thing is when I saw joe's list on processes underway, I was amazed
because there's two or three I haven't heard of. Which is not saying a whole
lot, but I had heard of the one that we started with lcra, the one that involves
dripping springs and hays county and travis, but there are two or three others
on your list, right?
>> I have probably 15 to 20 different planning processes
that are going on. Some more important than others. So I guess -- and I didn't
really prepare much background for today's meeting in hopes of getting some
guidance on just how much information the court wants from all of these. And
you have the Travis County, southwest Travis County dialogue process which
is actually going on and it's fairly intense right now and it's a going concern.
And I think the court should be briefed on where they are. There's some material
in your backup today on that. They are expecting you to appoint this committee
which is meeting in about an hour, and they have agreed to meet now [indiscernible]
excuse me, weekly to speed up the process. So you have a group of very interested,
very diverse group of people who are engaged this a planning process, and
we're involved in that. And so is the lcra. That's one process. I think is
a major process the court needs to be aware of and understand what -- what
type of expectation that the committee will have of this body when they get
finished with their work. But then you go to another area and basically central
Texas. We've been only on the periphery of that process. I don't know what
expectation the court has with regard to involving being involved in that
on an ongoing basis. We have been monitoring the process, but we really haven't
developed any products, haven't been asked to draw up any ordinances or anything
that would affect that planning process. So I guess I知 really looking for
some direction. I can give you a briefing, a summary, one-page summary on
each planning process so you know basically what the purpose of the process,
what's the status, what involvement does the court have, what involvement
does the staff have, and where is the process going with regard to Travis
County.
>> when do you expect to give us that?
>> I think I can get that to you in two weeks. Given that
Thursday is a holiday, we'll probably have a little interruption there, but
I think in two weeks I could probably come back with that total summary.
>> and I don't think that I知 overreacting on this because
it seems that when -- every time there is a subdivision preliminary plat or
final before us, I mean there are really sort of ideas tossed out that apparently
others have been contemplating and discussing and that are kind of new. And
so in my view if we will be dragged into this legitimately at some point,
we may as well be in there from the beginning. And the other thing is that
some of these really should apply to the whole county; whereas others logically
probably only apply to development out west and southwest. Right in on the
envision central Texas, you know, during the budget process we earmarked a
contribution for them that they asked for, but that was conditioned upon us
having a follow-up discussion with them. They have a new executive director
and I talked with -- she e-mailed me I think about a week or so ago. I told
her that I thought sometime this fall we really needed a follow-up discussion
with them to try to figure out where they are headed, and I was trying to
get her enough time to get her feet a little wet, but I would think in two
or three weeks we would ask for presentation in Commissioners court to find
out exactly where we are as a county. But if you would put that together on
each one of those processes, then that would help me. I had four or five legal
questions that really are driven by stuff that I either read about in the
newspaper, commitments that either -- either others think Travis County has
made or that we will be asked to meet at some point in the future. The other
thing is, tom, are you ready to give us like an overview of 873?
>> sure.
>> now, I did get a phone call wondering why that was not
an open court discussion, and my response really was that we will be getting
legal advice, as any county would, and on most of the matters that my questions
would concern are ones that are as likely to end up in litigation as anything
Travis County has ever dealt with. It's really about what can the county do
legally, what is it the county cannot do. What possible, you know, ramifications
for us. What about others. You know, this planning thing is normally when
we plan, we probably take democracy to the nth degrow, but I don't know that
we're adding that much to legal restrictions. And so there's not much room
for us to act overnight. I mean when you put in the drafts and the public
input, et cetera, I mean there is a whole lot of built-in time. So I had questions
that rile went to that. If we have authority under 873, what that authority
is and how we should go about using it. Built on-in time lines. -- built-in
time lines and that would be an executive session discussion.
>> I would agree with you. I think that's entirely appropriate
at this point.
>> judge, would you help me out with some translations here.
The joe lasard group; that the southwest Travis County dialogue where he's
the facilitator?
>> he is the project manager of that.
>> okay. I've also heard people talking many times on our
different subdivisions of Commissioner Daugherty's working group. Is this
one and the same or is there another one? This is one taken same. Then there
is also one I think councilmember slusher is taking lead on in hays county.
Is that a different group, does it have a name and is it listed here?
>> it is --
>> and does Travis County have a role in that.
>> thank you, that's the follow-up question.
>> that is the regional water quality planning project.
>> yes, we do have a role.
>> okay. So I知 just putting little crib notes here. Okay.
Got it. Thanks.
>> those are the two major ones.
>> yeah. The ones being run by --
>> that you can sometimes get a little confused about.
>> there is one more that we're not directly sroflgd involved
with but will have spillover with and that's the hamilton road envision process
that was started by the lcra. They will be finished with their work in December,
but some of the same people involved in those other two are also involved
in that one. So they tend to get blurred sometimes between one taken other.
>> is that the pipeline?
>> one is related to the waterline. So is the southwest --
all three of them -- [multiple voices]
>> all three of them. That's right. And understand, we're
not alone in this process. We have -- because we are the county government,
because we have subdivision authority, we are affected by what others do.
The lcra is committed for standing water lines to these areas. Those water
lines will be a catalyst for some involvement that we'll begin to see if the
in the subdivision plats. That's why we're involved. Part of the hope I think
on the citizens part is that we will mitigate some of the -- some of the consequences
of the waterline extension. And that -- that's why these planning processes
are going on because there's -- the spectrum is fairly wide between what one
group would like to see and what another group would like to see, and we're
hoping, quite frankly, the planning process itself will begin to distill some
of these visions and also put in some brackets what county government can
and cannot do to way lay the development that comes as a result of the water
lines eye hope there's also an expectation that the lcra will be involved
with and participate in mitigation related to the extension of the water lines
as well. That it doesn't just fall on Travis County because the reality is
the infrastructure is being put in by the lcra and perhaps they can contribute
as well to mitigation.
>> I don't think there's any question that that will happen.
>> I don't disagree with you, but I will keep saying it to
keep it out there.
>> keep saying it and I will -- well, let me say a couple
of things that I think that could help the court. I mean if -- in your backup
on 42, if you will go back to the third page where it says southwest Travis
County growth dialogue process status report, from this -- from last week
or two weeks ago when we did this, I had also sent out a cover page on this
that basically just said, you know, within five working days of each of these
meetings, each of these sessions, we will have sort of a capsule of these
kind of minutes that we will get out and i'll make sure that all the court
members get it so you will be able to see sort of what we did on that particular
-- on that particular date. I mean let me tell what you. This process is being
prodded along quickly because of the concern that a number of the people have
in western Travis County, in particular the people along hamilton pool road
where it may have some effect on the lcra board of directors on December the
7th that basically, I think, I mean from what -- joe, correct me if I am wrong,
but it's my understanding that December 7th they are going to let it be known
whether they are or whether they aren't moving forward with the waterline
in western Travis County. Now, I think that's the intent. Now, I know and
I think that most of the people that are involved understand that there is
probably going to be a large contingent at that board meeting asking for their
not to be that commitment until this process is over. And this process is
really supposed to be over in April. That's sort of the contract time period
that joe lasard has to do. Now, I don't know where the -- I don't know where
the board is going to come down on that, but the board has -- the lcra board
has, you know, publicly said that they are interested in issuing a c.c.n.
For western Travis County, that that is the intent of what that has. Now,
that's the reason that we are so involved in this thing taken reason that
joe says, you know, I think we need to wait a little bit to see what comes
out of this. Last week's meeting was really the first meeting that we had
where what we really want to do today is we do want to get this advisory panel
recommendation okayed by us, which I think is a good, well-rounded -- I mean
there's nobody that's lop side odd this thing where you've got everybody from
a major developer to a s.o.s. Person on this thing, you have included, you
know, everybody in this. Now, obviously there are some of these alternates
that would rather have been up on the voting, but, you know, I purposely have
let joe lasard take the lead in this thing so that it takes joe and myself
out of driving the process. Let's face it, some folks want you to immediately
get in on one side of the drawn line. Are you with us and helping us not to
have water come out, not having surface water come out, because quite frankly,
everybody knows that that will spawn some growth out there, and then the other
side is well, are you with us on this thing. So joe and I are really trying
to be in the middle and saying we're going to take recommendation from this
thing, implement them with what tom is going to be able to help us do with
873, and really at that point in time bring it back to the county with regards
to here are the recommendations, here are the things that, you know, people
have asked. I mean, are they plausible, are they doable, whatever. I think
we're moving along really well on this. Let's put it this way, we've kept
everybody on the reservation and that's sometimes difficult to do, as you
all know, with this process. But if we could, judge, whatever we want to go
over in executive session that you feel like you have some legal questions,
but I don't want us to get away today without, you know, making -- and my
motion will be for us to accept these panel members so that we can issue that
to joe and they know that these are the people that we are comfortable with.
Joe, is that --
>> the major difference between the hamilton pool planning
process and this one is this is not a consensus process. There are going to
be votes and there are going to be difficult votes and that's why we have
a committee that at the end of the day if two sides don't agree, we're going
to put it to a vote and that's the way the recommendation is going to come
to the county and the lcra. Because we have deadlines. We expect this committee,
panel to be substantially complete with its work by December so we can take
their majority recommendations and start building county ordinances from them.
And i've told the committee that I知 not start to develop whatever those regulations
are until I see where this group is going. Because like I say, the spectrum
is a to z. And I can't guess where these people may end up at the end of the
day.
>> so if a recommendation comes up with a vote of 5-4 with
three or four absent, are we expected to go with the five?
>> I don't know of any other way to do it, judge. And these
people are fully engaged. I don't think somebody is going to miss a critical
vote.
>> well, do they know that a recommendation is not a directive?
>> of course they do. They know that the Commissioners court
is going to have the final say in this. But as a starting point, they are
going to -- I need to know what that framework looks like. And then I知 sure
as we start drafting a draft document, it comes onto the court, you will receive
additional input from this whole group. But at that point we have a document
that gets us close to what the majority of that committee is saying.
>> okay. So the names on here come from that source?
>> they are self-appointed. Basically the committee was put
into five major categories, and then they -- there's major landowners, there's
developer, there's an environmental group, and so they were committed among
themselves who would serve on -- as the appointees. Because there were so
many that wanted to that joe had to actually work with each group to get down
to the final five in one case and the final three with alternates as backup.
So I think a lot of this is distilled in part by their interaction with joe
lasard.
>> yeah, joe, let me make sure that the judge or the Commissioners
court is not misunderstanding there. Joe lasard is really the one that has
chosen these folks. He interviewed 52 people over the phone with his line
of questioning, and he is the one that has come up, I mean all the people
appointed, you know, self-appointed and somebody said, hey, how about this
person, and you can see the four major categories. The other interest, there
are five of them but four are complete because the other interests you can
see the to be determined. Those were really difficult to come up with. But
if take you the four major ones, neighborhood, [inaudible] and homeowners,
other property owners, economic interests and environmental and conservation
interests, those are complete. And those were all done through verbal interviews
over the poepb by lasard. And, you know, he had sort of his matrix as to --
I mean here is the balance that I want. We handed this out last week. There
were questions from some people that said, you know, i've been on board in
these meetings and so and so and joe's response was I realize that, but what
I tried to get was a real balanced group of folks here. And I think at the
end of the day, I mean even though somebody might have wanted to have been
on the voting part of this thing, I think most people just said, you know,
this looks like a fair process, this is not slanted one way and we divided
into three groups or four tkpwroups groups and got the thing going. I think
we have the momentum, but I do think they need our approval with regards to
this is the group that you say that you got, well then let's go with it. I
mean I知 pleased with this, joe. I知 pleased with these recommendations.
>> I think we have very strong people in all of these categories.
>> so on the status report on November 4th, 2004, came from
your office?
>> it came from joe lasard and is he the one who is going
to take minutes because there are minutes now being done and he will be getting
those things out within five days of each meeting.
>> is there somewhere a description of joe lasard's charge
or mission or --
>> yes. We have an interlocal agreement and attached to that
interlocal agreement is his scope or his charge.
>> okay.
>> we can get everybody a copy of that as well. So I mean
if it's appropriate, judge, I would like to make, you know, the recommendation
of approving c today, if that's okay with you.
>> that's fine with me.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous
vote. Commissioner Davis temporarily away. So who is the county's point person
on this?
>> I attend the meetings. John kuhl attends and tom nuckols
attends. All three of us. And we'll have additional staff as needed.
>> okay. So you offer I guess to provide certain information
about each of these [inaudible].
>> the other groups, you know, that you were going to do
in two weeks, that's what you are going to bring back to us.
>> yes, i'll bring you a summary of what's going on in each
of those other groups and the legal of effort that we're putting out.
>> okay. It would help me, I guess, to know at some point
what the expectation is for Travis County.
>> i'll do my best to bring that. I知 clear in some cases,
I知 not in others, but i'll do my best to find out what they expect we're
going to do for them.
>> I think we need to know that eye think so too.
>> if their expectations don't meet ours, the sooner we bring
that to their attention the better. Not all of them have to do with subdivision
development, but transportation and all the others. That list had about 20
on there, didn't it?
>> yeah.
>> but there's a lot of effort. A lot of good can come of
it, a lot of effort can be put into it.
>> a lot of trees can be killed.
>> so we will take up items 42-b in executive session for
advice of counsel.
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 3:15 PM