Travis County Commissioners Court
February 15, 2005
Citizens Communication
Citizens communication is next. In is to give residents an opportunity to address the court on any matter not on the agenda. Nobody has h seened in a few -- had signed in a few minutes ago. Would anyone like to address the court under citizens communication? Mr. Barstow?
>> good morning, my name is bob barstow. I own [indiscernible] park. The first thing that I want to say is this notice that you have that you are going to consider and take appropriate action to appraise -- acquisition of easement right at or adjacent to bob wentz park located in precinct 2 does not inform me or the public of anything that you are going to take up in that executive session. I happen to surmize that that involves property that I own. But it could be construed to mean either the easement that I own to go through your park to use the lake from your waterfront, it could be consequence construed to mean -- construed to mean an easement for you to keep your causeway in place out there or it could mean that you are going to get an easement to go through my land proper to go around the cove in order to get to your park on the peninsula. So it really doesn't give anybody any notice of anything. Some of you haven't been in my park, so let me go on. I don't normally read something, but I'm going to read this to save some time and to not overlook a point, normally I just like to get started and you have to get me to stop. The park is a for-profit public park business. Its land connects the windy point peninsula to the main land at Lake Travis. It holds the foot of a cove that divides the lcra's adjacent tract. It includes an easement. A judgment declares that my customers may cross over the lcra's land to reach anyplace along the entire length of the water's edge. Once there, they may enter the lake for unlimited use. The land and easement together have about 3,000 feet of lake frontage. The park's profits depend on its ability to use its frontage and its land to supply the public with access to both the lake and the peninsula. I started the park four years before the lcra board approved the lease for Travis County to start wentz park. No one reminded that board that 37 years earlier it had approved an exchange of land that included the easement. Neither was it told that staff had in my hand, in its hand my offer to supply needed park services to the people who were on the lcra's peninsula land and got there because they used my overland, my exclusive overland access route. I'm the only one that owns overland access to the peninsula. They were able to get there only because I volunteered to use my land in public service [buzzer sounding] the lcra later testified through an employee that at least to the county, instead of to me, because it did -- they did not want me to profit from use of its public land. Now, former general -- lcra general manager charles herring --
>> mr. Barstow, mr. Barstow, two things. One is that you are out of time, unfortunately. Two, I think this is posted to ask the Commissioners court whether to appraise the easement. So the question for us today would be whether we want to hire an appraiser to go out and appraise the easement. So this is like step 1. Now, what you are telling us now, those of us that have been with the court a few years, know full well, we know about the disagreement. When I saw this item I inquired into it myself. The question really is whether Travis County is interested in acquiring the easement and if so step one is to appraise it. That's the only thing for discussion today.
>> that's right.
>> now, during citizens communication you have three minutes. When I call the item up you have longer, my guess is late this afternoon or this morning before we do it. The limited purpose here is whether we want to appraise the easement. To determine the value of it. It may be that we want to determine the value. Which would be step one toward an attempt to acquire. Or we may not want to do that.
>> all right.
>> so it's a lot more limited than I think.
>> all right. I only have a little bit more to finish. I gave you a copy of a letter. From the lcra's general manager.
>> okay.
>> I think Commissioner Daugherty said he had seen the letter, yet it's been a main issue for us for years. In the letter, the general manager acknowledged that the lcra's only right of access to the main peninsula is about water. It also admitted that a cause way would block public access between the lake and my business. Despite the consequences, staff allowed the county to build an earthen causeway on the leasehold. It thereby end ailed the county to -- enabled the county to take my business from the cove. That forced me into boat rental and launch businesses to have my economic use of the easement. Now the easement is the superior use of the lcra's land. The lcra owes me a legal duty to manage its land around my use of the easement. As you do. Its land is not appropriate for the county's intended use. This is evidenced by herring's letter and an injunction that prohibits interference with easement uses. The lease created a dangerous mix of people who swim from the county's leasehold in the midst of people who use motorized boats from the easement. Now, the lcra -- the lcra and I are the two concerned property owners. The county merely leases the lcra's land. It has no stake in a solution beyond the term of its lease. Therefore, I -- I want it to drop out of the solution process. As it is incapable of binding its landlord. I offered to use my easement in parks as much as -- I'm sorry. I offered to withdraw my easement from park service if the county will subsidize my lost profits. The two landowners on -- are the proper parties to resolve their title problems. I will license the lcra to keep the cause way, if it will reimburse my peninsula access business for profits lost to the causeway. The lcra is directly responsible for these unwanted consequences when it did not tell the county about the easement during negotiations. The county contributed when it did not run a title check. Now, giving an appraisal -- getting an appraisal is the first step to condemnation proceedings. There should be no need to file condemnation proceedings to correct a problem that should have been aborted during the negotiation process some 20 years ago when this first came up.
>> the last two [indiscernible] acquisition you were against it, you wanted to keep your easement is your position.
>> of course I do, judge. If I'm going to sell it --
>> all right.
>> sell the whole kaboodle, you know. That easement is vital to this park.
>> okay.
>> and you wouldn't own anything. If you took the easement as opposed from the lcra, all you are doing is preventing me from using a property right and it won't serve any property that you own. Why should you pay for it?
>> nobody has chatted with you about this item before today?
>> no.
>> okay.
>> you know, we have talked about these problems along -- a long, long, long time. But I don't think the board here, you personally are familiar with a lot of this information. I think it's held by staff. Just as over at the lcra the same problem, their board doesn't know a lot of this stuff done at staff level.
>> okay. Anybody else for citizens communication to address the court on any matter not on the agenda? Okay.
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, February 16, 2005 8:38 AM