Travis County Commissioners Court
August 23, 2005
Items 4 &10, Morning Discussion
Now, number 4 is to receive comments regarding the citizens bond advisory committee recommendations.
>> [indiscernible] is another extension if you want to knock that one out of the way.
>> we will just pick that up later.
>> okay.
>> to hold the November 2005 bond election.
>> move to open.
>> second.
>> is there any reason why we cannot pull up 10 with this one and just take comments on all of them?
>> that would be okay. 10. Consider and take appropriate action on recommendations from the citizens bond advisory committee, including the following: a. List of specific projects and assumed implementation schedule (cash flow); b. Proposed propositions; c. Impact on debt policy and future annual operating budgets; d. Public-private partnerships; e. Proposed bond convenants; f. Election schedule; and g. Related issues. That way we should be able to discuss any issues relating to the bond advisory committee's recommendations and actions that this court plans to take. We did circulate three letter-sized sheets for those interested in giving testimony or making their positions known without giving testimony today. We will provide that opportunity. So we will get those sheets at this time.
>> joe, do we need to receive any kind of overview of the recommendations?
>> I知 sorry, we are prepared to give an overview if the court would like that. We have had a series of public hearings with the citizens advisory committee. We have handed out the citizens committee's recommendation, which is available on the table to the side. We are prepared to give you a walk through the committee's recommendations if it's desired of the court to do so.
>> do we need to give any of our residents a walk-through of the committee's recommendations or are we all pretty much familiar with them as a result of numerous public meetings, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> then let's just jump right into the comments from citizens. On the sheet that I have before me, charlie mccabe, followed by valerie bristol and shudde fath. It would help us to get your full name, then your comments. Good morning.
>> good morning. My name is charlie macabe, I知 the executive director of the Austin parks foundation, also a long-time park and trail advocate. I just want to express my support for the entire bond package that's recommended by the bond committee, including especially the parks and open space natural areas acquisitions. That's all.
>> thank you.
>> do you know -- do you realize that the open space -- well, let me put it to you like this. In the bond committee, the citizens bond committee that the recommendations that you are referring to, there was a indication of $60 million for open space. On that particular bond initiative.
>> yes.
>> so what you are suggesting is that you would like to still see these $60 million, as far as --
>> that is correct.
>> being set aside, even though you realize that the $60 million would -- would incur a tax increase.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> absolutely.
>> because what we have right now before us now is that we have a subcommittee report that basically have dissolved and did away with the $60 million that was on the -- on the bond advisory committee recommendation that you are referring to. It's no longer there. So what I知 trying to figure out now as far as what you are testifying to is that you was -- you are still supporting that $60 million for the open space. That's what I知 trying to --
>> that's correct. As the bond commission.
>> okay. That's what I need to understand.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> you support the committee's recommendation in its entirety.
>> that's correct.
>> thank you very much, mr. Macabe.
>> thank you.
>> ms. Bristol.
>> good morning, board, it's a pleasure to be in this room with you again, I know you face many tough decisions. Hi, tom. I am here, though, on behalf of the bond committee's recommendations. You named a group of citizens who have worked so hard. You did an excellent job of choosing people who were dedicated to this community and they studied the issues thoroughly. You had a great staff working to give them the information they needed. And so I知 here in support of the decisions that they made to press forward as far as you feel you can to protect and supply recreational properties for our community, but also to think ahead about something in a really is important and that's our water. We have got to think about where does our water come from and how does it function? So that as we build out and we know we are, we don't accidentally damage this incredible system that's supplying us with some of the best water in central Texas. Abundantly and cleanly. Just to give a very quick example of the kind of property that is available for Travis County to add to its inventory, both as recreational properties and to protect the water supply, next to rimer ranch there is a canyon that is one of the most incredible canyons that I have ever seen in my life. I have seen a lot of canyons in the hill country. The water that flows through this canyon in vast quantities is so clean that when you put your hand down in the water, if you didn't see the ripples, you wouldn't know that there was water. It's that clear. So we are receiving this water in large quantities into our drinking supplies. For most of the people in the county. Whether they live in Lakeway, city of Austin, del valle or [indiscernible] there's -- their water is coming from these types of places. [papers shuffling - audio interference] we find these kind of places, if they happen to be as this one is conveniently next door to this wonderful park, rimer's ranch, it makes sense to bring it in and manage is under one common management. The wonderful management of Travis County's parks department. So I advocate for the additional funds because I can see, it can do some marvelous things to protect our future, not only our outdoor experiences, but our water. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> while you're here, you used the phrasing as far as -- go as far as you think that you can go. You have sat on this dais with us, you understand the phrase the white line and in fact I think that you might have invented it. And is the idea that there is the concept of you can wipe out all of your discretionary bond authority, even if the voters are willing to pay extra taxes for it, and take away the discretion of the Commissioners court to do its mandated job. Can you just expound a little bit more because you did choose your words carefully.
>> I did. And I知 very respectful of the fact that y'all have many, many, many things to think about. I知 very fortunate that I just get to think about this wonderful properties that we could add to our inventory and do wonderful things for our entire community. We know that the community will support an additional tax increase if it's dedicated to a -- to a purpose that they see, has long-term value. Lasting many generations. For that, they said yes. And -- in our surveys around the community. So on that basis, I致e come forward advocating for you to go as far as you can because I believe the citizens will support it. But I also recognize that you have hard choices. So -- so it's with respect for that that I come to you supporting the bond committee's recommendations, because they did a thorough and studied job, but I know you also have decisions to make. So ... Whatever -- whatever you do finally decide, just keep in mind the value of some of these properties that will not be available to us very long. Thank you.
>> thank you. Ms. Fath.
>> valerie, thanks for pitching in, helping so much, especially with my office, you know,, I mean, we discussed many of these things for quite a while. Let me ask your opinion on something. I would think that -- that in will be some people -- there will be some people sitting in the courtroom this morning that may hear this for the first time. You probably are in the know. But given that the rimer tract, as we all know is such an attractive piece of property for the county to own or at least the 500 acres that the county is really talking about wanting to own, that is on the pedernales river, in order, unless we can somehow configure a different way to go about buying this tract, because it is my understanding that mr. Rimer is not interested in just selling 500 of his 2,000-acres, whatever it is, he wants to maintain about 500-acres for his children, that would be the frontage part, if you will, on ram ton pool road. If you take the remainder of that, on the box side, 500 -- back side 500 acres would go to Travis County as a park. But there's about 700 acres there that would have to be developed. Which is really the only way that the county today, as I said I think that we may have a mechanism or a way to go about securing all of the rhymer tract without having to put it in the realm of development. Because obviously the thing that makes the development of that remaining 700 or so acres that mr. Rhymer would have, I think the thing that causes a lot of consternation for folks is that it would probably necessitate bringing the -- the lcra water line an additional 5.5 miles or so down hamilton pool road. In your opinion if we couldn't work something out so that the county couldn't just outright take and buy all of that rhymer tract so we didn't have to consider the development of 700-acres or so, do you think that the community -- would be support, maybe what we ought to have is a show of hands, you know, in the audience if that's what it necessitated, in order to secure Travis County being able to own 500 acres and call it a park on the pedernales river, but -- 700 to maybe 13 or 1400 acres, an additional 5 or 600 acres had to be developed in more of the tradition way, maybe, you know, with a thousand, 700 to 13 or 1400 homes, is that something that you think that we still should move forward with if we get in a spot where -- where that's the only way that we could secure the 500 acres for the park?
>> Commissioner, those are -- [multiple voices] what I would urge the court to do is in the setting up of these bonds, whatever you end up deciding, keep it as flexible as possible. I知 working for the nature conservancy of Texas. We are willing to work in the community to try to expand what you were doing. To help you get more protection for your park, for the water resources, and we are willing to -- to come in there and help work on that, there's no promises any more than you can make. But if we work together, with many of these other groups in this community that are here today, I think that we can come up with solutions that will reduce the impact for all of the other citizens who live on hamilton pool road and certainly I commend you for convening those planning groups out there on 71 and hamilton pool road who took a look at this whole region and tried to think ahead about what would work and wouldn't work for the communities. That's my only pledge that I can give you right now is that I知 willing to stay in the ball game and stay out there and help make this happen as broadly as possible.
>> thanks.
>> I知 shudde fath speaking today from the save Barton Creek association. The resolution we passed unanimously. Whereas the citizens bond committee thoroughly researched the needs of Travis County and held numerous public hearings that garnered specific public input, whereas a one cent tax rate increase that costs the average household only $16 a year is a wise investment in our future that would have preserved water quality in our local creeks, lakes and rivers; and whereas bond elections occur only about every four years, conservation lands targeted by county staff will become developed, are too expensive to acquire if we lose this opportunity and they are not acquired now; and whereas much of the recommended infrastructure investments will help redirect growth away from our more environmentally sensitive areas and towards the desired development zone; and whereas the land acquisition and parks recommendations of the committee will help ensure the natural resources, quality of life, and healthy economy of central Texas; therefore be it resolved that the save Barton Creek association urges the Travis County Commissioners court to accept the recommendations of the citizens bond advisory committee and place the recommended items on the November 8th general election ballot for voter consideration. So the save Barton Creek association board voted unanimously to support the unanimous recommendation of the citizens bond committee.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> ms. Fath, I would like to thank you for your outstanding tenure of service to this community. You have been doing it for a long time, thank god for you and your continued efforts that you have made in the contribution to the Austin Travis County.
>> thank you, it's been my pleasure. Better than the pool hall. [laughter]
>> now, the first three speakers impressed me with their eloquence and brevity. Let them guide us. We will call out three more, as one finishes we will call the next one. We want everyone to get comfortable while sitting at the table, not so comfortable that you remain there after your testimony. Okay? Jill carpenter? Shannon [indiscernible] jed boyt shannon [indiscernible] still here? Maybe she want to show her support rather than -- jed boyt. Sarah baker.
>> I just want to express my support for the citizens --
>> I知 jill carpenter. I would like to express my support for the citizens recommendations. That's really all.
>> thank you. [laughter]
>> same.
>> thank you.
>> brad?
>> do you feel comfortable [laughter]? Shannon. Jed.
>> yes, Commissioners, I知 jeb boyt, president of Austin trails and green way. I知 here to today to ask you to support the recommendation for the citizens bond advisory committee. They certainly put a lot of good time and effort into crafting the bond package, I ask that you support it today.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> jane [indiscernible] yes.
>> good morning. I知 here to support the citizens' recommendation for the parks and --
>> name.
>> sarah baker, yes.
>> for the parks and the stand alone open space package. I attended one of the citizens committee hearings and I was so impressed with the -- with the parks presentation and there was I think the southeast metro park that I wasn't aware of, just thought that looked like a really great facility. You were doing a very good job managing it. So the $30 million that I think was the citizens recommendation for parks as well as the stand alone water quality and open space package I think it's very important and would encourage you to put that on the ballot for November. Thank you.
>> thank you, sarah.
>> thank you. Brad?
>> my name is brad rockwell. I知 here to ask you to support the citizens committee recommendation in their totality. We are to use an apt phrase at a watershed here with development proceeding so quickly in Travis County this is pretty much it. If this is your opportunity that is somewhat irreversible. If you don't take advantage of it, to acquire some unique, irreplaceable pieces of property that would be a wonderful amenity for everyone in Travis County and also to have great value for protecting the environment if -- if the full amount is not supported, at this time, the opportunities will not come before you again, development is proceeding so quickly. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> now that I have got you here, what would be your expectations on 60 million in terms of where you think those dollars should be spent and will be spent? What are your expectations?
>> Commissioner Sonleitner, I will say that I知 -- I知 here today as a representative of save our springs alliance, but I have not been active in the details and working with the various citizens commissions. Clark has been the person associated with us that has been involved, so I can't really give a very knowledgeable answer to your question.
>> if you were told that there were no specifics on the 60 million other than do good things, would that surprise you?
>> I知 not sure. I think everyone realizes that there's a -- there's a need to protect water quality and that the most sensitive area is the barton springs aquifer area, the contributing zone and recharge zone and certainly I would hope that -- that significant portion of that bond money would go to that. But other than that, I really can't speak knowledgeably about it.
>> I appreciate it. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> that's mr. Lowenthal, laura [indiscernible], did shannon gachou still here? Last call, shannon.
>> I知 gene lowenthal, president of the hamilton pool road scenic corridor coalition. In answer to Karen Sonleitner's question, I think that the money ought to be distributed throughout the county. I would be happy to be on citizens committee to figure out specifics concerning that. The citizens bond advisory committee has done an excellent job. On behalf of the hamilton pool road community, I encourage you to adopt the slate of recommendations of the committee in its entirety, including the 60 million. We have recently seen three related initiatives undertaken by the Commissioners court. First there was the southwest Travis County growth dialogue process, which among other things called for the protection of natural resources and the preservation of natural areas. That was number one. Second there were the interim rules for water quality protection. And now we have the bond proposal specifically calling out for funding of park lands and $60 million there, natural areas forks the protection of water quality. All of these efforts involved public input at the grass roots level. And the common theme that runs through all of them is that people wrefer in the county are interested in protecting water quality everywhere in the county. They are willing to accept both additional regulations and pay additional taxes to make this happen. You rarely get this kind of consistency and public input. The message is very, very clear I think. We thank you, Commissioners, very much for your past commitment to protecting water quality. We hope that you will continue to do so with this bond package.
>> thanks.
>> thank you.
>> can I ask you, is your organization non-supportive of upgrading of hamilton pool road.
>> I would say in general, if I were to take a vote, it would be -- the vote would be against that. But there are some folks who are worried about the growth on hamilton pool road and the additional traffic that will come and are looking for widening for that purpose. But I would not say there's any unanimity on that.
>> your organization would not be supportive of upgrading hamilton pool road.
>> except for bike lanes, perhaps, shoulders, that would be something that we would all support. The widening to four lanes would be where we would not support it.
>> would you be spawshtive of redoing two lanes, bike lanes and a center turn lane?
>> I would be happy to have that conversation. We didn't consider that option. We were looking at the -- what the -- what was on the proposal which was the hill country four-lane road.
>> you were not in -- I take it that you all are not supportive of the reimer-peacock road.
>> no. We feel like it's a bridge to nowhere. That there is not a compelling need compared to the other road projects talked about in the 10 public hearings that were held, very specific compelling needs out further east.
>> but you -- you are saying that what you all as an organization are supportive of is out of $47 million in the road package that precinct 3 has less than two million or roughly 3% of the road dollars, that is something that you and your organization, you are supportive of that.
>> yes. I hear that we are coming from -- where you are coming from Gerald.
>> I hope you do.
>> yeah. It's a function of I think what we are seeing on a broader scale, which is at the preferred growth area. It's not southwest Travis County and so yeah there's a tendency for more of the open land acquisition to come here, which I think is a mixed blessing, but where the road projects, where the real growth is being encouraged would be further east.
>> further questions, kind of on the same line. Is your opposition to those two roads so strong that you would urge people to reject the almost $50 million worth of road improvements in the desired development zone around s.h. 130, reject that whole proposition because of your opposition to those two projects?
>> you threw me on that one, Karen, because I don't know the relationship.
>> they are all in the same proposition. So is your opposition to that particular road project so great that you would tell people to reject $50 million worth of projects on the east side in the desired development zone because of your situation?
>> well, I guess I have a problem with the premise that it's all or nothing.
>> well, actually that's how we do it in terms of all -- all precincts are altogether.
>> I can't comment on that.
>> okay.
>> thanks.
>> we have noelke.
>> mr. Lowenthal. I think, I don't want you to be put in a box. I don't think no nobody should be put in a box. We can't get -- where you can't get out. What -- what we are looking at here and of course I would like for everybody to know right off the top that I -- that I did not come up with anything that's on this particular subcommittee, arterial listing, I was not involved in this per se the way it came out today, what you are looking at today. I have no input.
>> the committee or the subcommittee.
>> the subcommittee.
>> I don't have that either.
>> the subcommittee list floating around, too. But what I do not want to ever see happen is to pit east against west. It's no good for nobody if we both lose. The desired development zone is poised, is poised for growth. Here you have critical water area, desired area in the community, which you want to protect water quality. Here we have the desired development zone which we are poised for growth. Which means to me a lot of mobility projects have to take place with this s.h. 130 scenario. So my intentions is still to add to this particular bond package and to tell the truth about it, I would like to see the $60 million placed back in support of this if we go through this process and that's for the open space. If we divide it equally, how we need to do it, in my opinion it shouldn't be challenged. But I want to speak in both interests because I think we need to come up with a balance here. Here on one side of the city we have the -- of the county you have these particular needs. On the other you have different needs. But I don't want these things to struggle where we handcuffed and nothing happens. I don't want you to feel like you are in a box. I want to continue to push for the things that you guys are looking for, also, but I want -- like to make sure that the eastern part of the county gets its fair share of the economic stimulus that's necessary for growth in the ddz. So I want everyone to understand that. I知 trying to look for a balance and we do not need to be handcuffed either way where you have east pitted against west.
>> I absolutely -- we should not have east pitted against west. I do feel like the bond committee really wrestled with that dynamic.
>> I know they did.
>> I think they did a good job coming one the right balance. Which takes into account exactly that -- that east -- you know, the Austin and points east are the preferred growth area or the desired growth area and that I知 now speaking for myself, the water quality measures, the 60 million financial areas should be spread out possibly equally among all of the precincts.
>> I have no objections to that. At all. Thank you.
>> uh-huh.
>> let's show ms. Gochou being supportive of the committee's recommendations. She had to go elsewhere. Cindy nettles. John [indiscernible]
>> my name is laura groelke, fortunate to be involved in the southwest growth process over the last year. So you have seen me in court before. I知 a travis settlement were the out on bee creek road, I have lived in Travis County for 20 years. I知 aware of the challenges of rapid development because I live in that area, I have also grown up in houston, a lot of rapid development in that community without the wonderful planning that has been going on thus far. I thank the bond advisory committee for their good work and for the Commissioners for continuing to listen to public input. I have tried to assemble some of the wishes of my community on the homeowners association of travis settlement, about 300 homes. The neighbors in any area are supportive of the parks and reimers ranch purchase that could be purchased with the stand alone open space, 60 million would be a wonderful opportunity, very positive opportunity to protect water quality to maintain parks and natural areas in that part of the county. Austin is known for this. They are known employers, many people move to this area because of the -- of the life style and natural areas, opportunities to get out of town. I think that this is a unique opportunity and we should not miss it. I thank you for listening to the bond recommendations. And I -- I hope that people listen to the constituents of Travis County who are asking for this. We have heard from several folks today, I just appreciate your time. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> bruce byron. Yes, ms. Nettles.
>> thank you, judge. Cindy nettles from shady hollow. You all have seen me here before speaking for shady hollow, here I am again. Generally I wanted to let you know that we are supportive of the bond advisory committee's recommendations and also supportive of their lack of a recommendation in particular for improvements to the freight barker road. We don't feel that it's the time for those just yet. We encourage you not to add those to the bond committee's recommendations. Other than that, I知 brief.
>> thank you. No, jeff Davis was invited here from the Texas Commissioner on environmental quality just in case we have questions for him. Is this -- is this the right time?
>> in fact, if he don't mind coming up to people can take a look at him.
>> I知 john myric, the president of central Texas mountaineers, also on the central Texas climbing committee, a group of seven individuals that are -- that come from all over the state. I知 just here to show my support for the citizens bond advisory committee's recommendations to y'all. I would like to thank you all for -- for allowing all of this public input. I know there's been a lot of it. And I really appreciate it. I think that I can speak for the entire climbing community that we support this -- these recommendations in full. Including the -- the stand alone $60 million and -- and I just think that it's -- it's a really important issue, you know. The people around this area have been enjoying this land for -- for generations. I just had a little baby and I hope that she is able to enjoy that land as well. And -- I think -- Commissioner Daugherty asked earlier if there were any specific recommendations for the use of that 60 million and I personally do have a specific recommendation. There's the hogue tract of land right next to the reimers tract which is an amazing piece of land also on the pedernales river. If it's at all possible to acquire that land and preserve it as open space, I would highly recommend that as well as just using it to -- to acquire and preserve any open space in Travis County, you know, that's possible to acquire. I think -- I think that's what it should go towards. And I guess that's all that I have.
>> thank you, mr. Myrick. Bruce byron is next, jeff Davis, colin clark, ted shift.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, bruce byron with the capital area transportation coalition. I want to shift gears here and pick up a different topic on the bond agenda, which is the roadways. The roadways have been cut back to I understand about -- about 46 million in the basic package. Which we think is woefully inadequate to meet the demands of Travis County in the surrounding areas that traverse people to get to their jobs. The Travis County capital area coalition which represents many of the major employers has passed a resolution which I will forward to you under separate cover suggest thank we need to look at an additional 60 million, if not look at the entire list of the roadway projects that were cut from the recommendations of the staff to -- to look at a -- at a more adequate approach towards or transportation. We are pleased to see many of the improvements recommended in the basic package approached the 130 corridor and that's going to be vital in the next five years to fully utilize that if we are going to stand a chance to -- to optimize the growth in that area. But there are demands throughout the county and I think that -- that all of us know the priority that most of the folks in the county put on transportation. In the counties, I realize in a tight physical bind, but I realize that there are certain things that the county is along with jails is -- is required to do and one of those is infrastructure. And if you are going to get into any white line issues, then building infrastructure is a wise investment. I think if you -- when you get to that point in your deliberations, I realize those are not easy, that -- that the bond houses will be a lot more understanding of the county investing in infrastructure which will in the long term continue our economic development which will allow us to afford to do the nice things that we would all like to do. Thank you.
>> bruce. We sometimes need to remind ourselves what we did in '97, 2000 and 2001 and one of the reason that's we got closer to the white line in terms of our debt capacity was s.h. 130, 45 north and mopac. A $150 million check that got written to the state of Texas, far in excess of what workforce done for park -- of what was done for parks, in '97, 19 million on parks, we were way over that on roads and infrastructure. In 2000, 100% of the bond issue was dedicated to roads. And in 2001 there was the -- the finishing off of s.h. 130, bebumped up parks to -- we bumped up parks to 29 million, but it paled in comparison to what was going on with road. Would you not concede it is fair to look at what's happened over a number of years, not just what have you done for me today. Because other things had toll -- to be bypassed because of the writing of that big $150 million check to the state of Texas and we raised taxes and got closer to the white line on our debt capacity. I think we need to sometimes remember what we have done in previous years, not just simply what's on the list today.
>> I think that that's a good point to raise that the county boldly step forward and if it were not for the county in Williamson county and the city of Austin and Round Rock, s.h. 130 would not have been a reality. We understand and we appreciate that. But that doesn't overshadow the fact that the county's job is to build roads. And amongst many of its man dated requirements, it's to provide mobility and it is a -- there are many other expenditures that we would go back over the history of -- of the county and look at that were made that were not -- that were helpful to other areas. But I think despite the fact that the county was bold in stepping forward in roads in the past should not keep it from being bold and stepping forward on roads in the future.
>> thank.
>> well, the only thing that I also think that we need to put out there for people to understand is when we go through our budget process, we have presentations by the auditor among other officials who deal with the -- with our budget. And I just remember that we go through the statutory -- things that -- that county government has to do. Roads is not one of them. And I guess neither is open space. But I think that -- that we have to -- to value other things that -- that open space and water quality bring to all of us. But the other thing is because we wrote that big check to -- to txdot for those state projects, was one of the reasons that this time we wanted to address local projects, which we cannot let go unattended for very long. So then trying to remember that every five years we get some projects ready for the ballot, the following five years. That we have an opportunity to go out to the voters. So it's -- it's trying to balance again everything that we have to deal with. But thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Byron.
>> thank you.
>> now, mr. Davis, let me say for you that that big check we wrote the state, we did not write to your agency [laughter] so we don't want you to feel uneasy about that. [laughter]
>> good morning. My name is jeff Davis, I知 with the waste permits division of the tceq. Our group is responsible for permitting municipal solid waste landfills. I understand that this bond package includes a roadway that will pass very near some -- some municipal solid waste landfills on the northeast side of Austin and that there may be discussion today by Travis County health and human services related to one of those landfills. And that Commissioner Davis requested that tceq representative be here if that discussion took place.
>> okay. Thank you, mr. Davis. Because I know that our -- there is some neighbors here that may bring up some questions. I know that I have got a couple of them. But they may want to bring that up when they get to that point in the agenda. I wanted to point you out to folks will know who you are. Neighborhood representatives today talking about arterial a not in the overall bond initiative, by the citizens advisory bond committee is not there, but it's in a subcommittee structure of -- proposal that where arterial a does appear, in tier 2 section. Of this particular proposal. I知 quite sure it may be discussion and I really wish you could stick around with us for a little while.
>> I知 at a meter but I値l be here.
>> when we get to that there may be discussion on it. Since tceq is a party in this, I thought it was important for you to be here to maybe entertain some of those questions. Thank mr. Shengle, glen, the director for allowing this to happen. Thank you.
>> colin clark, ted siff, bryan sparey. Bryan, would you just like to show your support or are you giving testimony? Bryan sparey, is he still here? Bryan? Show bryan in support of the committee's recommendations. Joyce best. Mr. Clark.
>> good morning, I知 colin clark with save our springs. We are here to support in full the recommendations from the citizens bond committee, specifically the recommended parks projects and the 60 million for natural areas and water quality. To address some of the questions brought up earlier, we would support petting that on the ballot, we think it can pass and we would want to see that money spent across the county. There needs -- there are needs all over the county to protect natural areas and to protect water quality. Commissioner Sonleitner, you have mentioned the question about specifics on that, I think as you all know dealing with bcp, if you take a map and draw some circles on it, say that's what we are going to go for, land prices shoot through the roof. So there are some specifics where -- where certain people have land under option, they are willing to send the county at a reasonable price, but I think it makes sense to not -- not have a list across the county, this, this, this, this, when you don't have an option on it, because then your asking price goes up, the citizens don't get as much. That said, ted siff and others put together a list of watersheds across the county that it makes sense to protect the water quality in. After I speak I will pass that list out to you. As former Commissioner bristol pointed out, there is a need for flexibility so that the county can be nimble. Commissioner Daugherty you were bringing up a question about the balance of the reimers tract. I would just throw out something that the city did successfully on some of their open space bonds, which was divide land fee simple, put a deed restriction on it to say one house or two house per x many hundreds of acres, put it out to market and let the highest bid come in. And there's a chance that the county can recoup its investment there. And protect bigger chunks of land. That's just one option to keep in mind on that particular one and as the county thinks about having -- how to deal with protection of natural areas across the county. Regarding some of the recent proposal for -- for additional dollars for roads, Commissioner Sonleitner I知 very glad to hear you bring up what the county has done. In recent years. Because it has been a -- a huge investment but I did want to highlight some of the other dollars that are going towards transportation. Specifically, the campo plan, 2030 plan which is the 22 billion dollar plan over 25 years, so that's almost a billion dollars a year. To transportation in Williamson, travis, a little bit of hays counties. That's a tremendous amount of money. Some of the other projects going on that -- that you all in Williamson county helped create the ctrma, they have the ability to issue debt to finance projects and they are going full steam ahead on those. And as you know, txdot is planning on spending hundreds of millions of dollars expanding highway 290 and 71 in precinct 3. So we are able to support what's -- what the citizens put before you with the 47 million on roads. We asked that you follow their recommendations and we would be happy to support what they have put forth to you.
>> okay. Let me ask you this: we -- in precinct 1, that's the majority of s.h. 130. Go through precinct 1, no doubt about it as far as Travis County is concerned. Precinct 1 is -- is economically deprived and have -- deprivation I guess over many years, we need the mobility projects to bring about economic development to a community that's been thirsty for it for a long time. Those roads that -- that there are now, of course we appreciate that. But there need to be additional roads to -- to make sure that the economic well-being of a precinct that's been ignored for a long, long, long time needs to be at hand and right now I think it is at hand. Just the movement of s.h. 130 is progressed to where it is. Now, s.h. 130 will be complete as far as Travis County as far as the southern end, the last phase I think is 2007. So trying our best to make sure that we do these things progressively instead of having to go back and retrofit these particular roads which will be more expensive later on to do. So the communities over many, many months of working with the community for economic development to bring economic prosperity to an area that's been deprived have really looked at this and the lot of the economic development meetings that I have had, looked at the road systems and how it could boost. If growth is going to take there as everybody is saying in the desired development zone we need the infrastructure to do that. Now, I heard what you said but again, about the -- about the amount of money as far as mobility money set aside for roads and stuff like that, it's one thing. But it's not nearly the -- the things that we need to make sure that it happened [indiscernible] for the economic development. I have two elected officials here, one from manor, from manor and also from -- from webberville who understand and who have been involved with me in many economic development meetings to bring about that -- that change. So I just want to make sure everyone understands that if you are looking for ddz, desired development growth area zone, we are going to need the infrastructure to accommodate that also. So we can't have it both ways. You know, you just got to have the infrastructure. So I want everybody to understand that.
>> yeah. I understand and our concern is that if there's sort of open ended 60 million for roads, with no specificity attached to it, no public process to say well like the citizens bond committee have one list said okay these are specific projects, it could end up hurting efforts to protect natural areas where -- where the road is coming in, landowners might not --
>> I think I made a point earlier about wanting the 60 million dollar to retain and stay there as a stand alone project. But on the -- from what the recommendation that came from the citizens bond. I have no problem with that. But I want you to understand that I think in the direction that I知 trying to go, for the constituents and residents of precinct 1 here in Travis County, who have been crying and begging for economic stimulus, that you understand the other side of the picture as far as the ddz, stuff like that. I wanted to make sure there's that billion, you understand we can still get there.
>> yeah.
>> thank you.
>> judge, let me say one thing. Colin, I want you to know, I think people in this room know that I was supportive of the concept of putting an open space line item on this referendum unfortunately. I do think that we are going to be schooled -- unfortunately I do think some of us need to be schooled more than others with regards to what we can do and can't do in a prudent fashion with records to our budgeting. But let me say this: I mean since you are the communications director of save our springs. I have shown that I am willing to work with open space. I will continue to show that. If you are willing to buy people's property, then I知 willing to go to them and say are you interested in sell your property. I think that's the right thing to do. Along with that, I need s.o.s.'s help, I got five phone calls this morning coming to the Commissioners court from people on 620, people on 71 and some of you came from 71 because you came out from that area, 1244 Bee Caves road, I will tell you that traffic -- 2244 Bee Caves road, I will tell you that traffic out there is absolutely deplorable. I cannot continue to swim upstream with s.o.s. Whenever you make the comments and whenever you do the things that you do with regards to stopping some necessary roads to be built. I have asked you before, is there any road in southwest Travis County that you could support and you have told me no. I mean, folks I can't work, I can't deal that way. I can't work that way with that kind of thinking. I知 asking you, I知 trying to -- trying to extend the olive branch to you to work with me, I am not talking about impervious ground covering western Travis County. I知 talking about identifying some needed roadways, some locations where you can build some roadways where you can enhance some existing roads, so that the people that are just out there now, if no one else moves out there, is absolutely ridiculous. And it does mean -- it does me no good to continue to call txdot and say when are you going to build 45 southwest. It was passed in 1997. You know what I知 told. We have a letter from s.o.s. With the intent to sue. We have been stopped in our tracks from building a road that was spased by over 67% of the people in this community to build it. You hear the position in my voice. Passion in my voice. I do not think that I知 an unreasonable elected officials by saying work with me. If I was talking about doing 100 roads, by god I can't talk about doing one road without having opposition. It's not an east or west. But I知 just telling you that I知 got people in western Travis County that cannot get from point a to point b today if not another person moves out there. They can't do that. I would hope that you would go back to your organization and say you know what, we need to sit down with the Commissioner and we need to find a way to be reasonable because I do not think that I have ever given you an example of being unreasonable with what I知 trying to get accomplished and done. So I would just hope that you would take that back and perhaps we can work better than what it seems we are working with right now.
>> could I respond briefly.
>> you bet you can.
>> you might recall I made a presentation to campo with some animation looking at the 1.5 billion campo plans to spend just in the barton springs watershed. I suggested that we could reduce that significantly if we bought a lot of open space and prevented future traffic. I think that I made clear that we weren't saying not a dime should be spent on road improvements. There are -- there are projects that on existing roads where there are existing needs. And we can work with you and txdot on finding which ones those are. But as far as this bond process, we went through it, a rather exhaustive citizens bond committee process. I don't know of specific roads that you are talking about that were in there that are not in there. Maybe we can talk about those. I don't recall seeing 71 on that committee list. Or 620. Or Bee Caves road. I think there are Bee Caves road improvements in the campo plan. There are 71 improvements in the campo plan. I知 not sure that's -- as regards 45 southwest that's a road that would connect i-35 to the interstate. And cross the recharge zone. So we have very significant reasonable concerns about that project. Again that's not a project that's part of this -- of this bond process. So -- so what we are talking about here is how is the county going to let its voters vote on projects. We are supporting what the citizens committee recommended. And in general, our attitude is let's get the land protected first, because if we don't do it now, it ain'tnever going to happen. If we can agree did disagree, maybe that's where it will stand. I will be happy to sit with you and talk specifics.
>> thank you.
>> let me know if you all need somebody from the sheriff's office [laughter]
>> no guns in county buildings.
>> would trek english please come forward, ted siff is next.
>> thank you judge and Commissioners, I really appreciate the opportunity of getting citizens to comment on the citizen bond advisory committee's recommendations. I can't come here as a chair of the citizen advisory committee to the bcp and park because this court nominate noticed that committee. I appreciate the opportunity to serve there. I also come as co-founder with former Commissioner bristol of the Austin metro trails and green ways organization. As executive board member and director of the Austin parks foundation. I fully support the citizen bond advisory committee's recommendation, all of them, for mobility as well and drainage as well as the specific recommendations for parks and the stand alone proposition for natural area land acquisition. I have asked colin, if it's all right with you, Commissioner Daugherty to pass out a couple of sheets. The first sheet is -- is a listing not -- not a complete listing, but a selected listing, is this mic on?
>> we just lost a little volume on the middle mic.
>> okay. This is a listing of some of the communities throughout the country that have passed bond propositions just in -- in 2002, three, and four, for open space or natural area acquisition. And I wanted to highlight four. Because these are the communities we compete with throughout the country to attract jobs on the basis of quality of life, to stimulate our economy because of our quality of life. Think about tucson, arizona or particularly pima county, it wasn't tucson, it was pima county in 2004 that passed over $200 million worth of bonds to acquire natural areas. Think of bergin county, new jersey, while there are some affluent enclaves in bergin county, new jersey, not a particularly rich part of the country. $214 million bonded open space in 2003. Charleston, south carolina, $221 million. In 2002. I added a 2005 item here just because it's a neighbor, 78 miles away, san antonio citizens in may of this year authorized $135 million, that was after authorizing about $60 million about eight years ago. Leaders, elected leaders are being creative in figuring out how they have the bond capacity to do this. Texas counties aren't as flexible and you know it way better than i, than some of these areas of the country, but we're sure -- we sure have the same flexibility that -- that bexar county does and I would simply -- I would strongly encourage you to -- to consider all of the citizens bond committee advisory committee recommendations and do your utmost to -- to follow them. This -- the -- the question about specificity came up. I have also asked colin, is that sheet a separate sheet, it's been passed out. Okay. This is not my list for you. Of -- of -- of areas divided by county Commissioners precinct, that would be areas of appropriate space or natural area acquisition, it is not. This is simply a list that was developed by your county staff, by the city parks staff, too, because happily -- you know, something around 70, 80% of the county is full purpose city. These areas are outside the full purpose jurisdiction of the municipal impediment of Austin and -- of the municipality of Austin and would be appropriate areas for open space or natural area acquisition. How specific are they? They were first recommended nine years ago by the Austin metro trails and green ways vision map. They were then recommended three years ago by the thousands and thousands of citizens that participated in envision central Texas. And then the areas were also identified by the corps of engineers about 18 months ago in a county cash wide survey of citizens -- county-wide survey of citizens that listed trails and trail activities as the preferred activity, the number one preferred recreational activity in Travis County and Austin citizens. And fourthly, they were -- the result of a set of criteria that your county park staff developed. So they aren't specific tracts, but they certainly could be. And that's -- that's at least a beginning to -- to the -- to the question of specificity. I could talk a lot more about partnerships and other things. But I値l stop there and certainly be happy to answer any questions if you have them.
>> one of the concerns that I have, I have been working on it for a while with lcra and that's the erosion of the colorado river.
>> yes.
>> around caldwell lane. Caldwell lane is -- there's something on the ballot for it, to address the erosion of caldwell lane. But not the river itself.
>> right.
>> so my other thought is I also served on a committee over at the parks, with the parks department of the city of Austin, some development of the colorado river park. I would have thought that that, too, that plan would also address the erosion of the colorado river. And which is -- out in the county, but of course you start upstream to deal with the issue. That is still the issue that I have, whatever, I am asking for the public's help in trying to call attention to that issue. I don't know how it bogged down, but meantime the erosion goes on.
>> acquisition of open space or natural areas as you know is not -- is not -- combines a number of public purposes. You get at least three or four benefits using one public dollar. Erosion control, flood control, city of Austin wouldn't have to to spend the 40 or so million it spent in the shoal creek watershed over the last decade or so had there be open space and green way acquisition upstream in shoal creek watershed decades back. It's only through the blessing of a higher force that -- that we haven't had tens of millions of dollars worth of damage in waller creek because upstream in waller creek open space wasn't acquired decades back. We have the opportunity today, but not tomorrow. Perhaps. To buy open space green way area that would be flood control purpose money as well as open space money in wilbarger creek, gilowin creek, other water courses that are listed.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...to complete the b.c.p. We hit the 10-year anniversary of the signing of the documents next may. And we're more than 91% complete, but we have a job that we are mandated to complete, and it seems like that's something too that can ought to get some attention as well because it is consistent with natural areas and water quality relation to the preserve land.
>> absolutely, Commissioner. Thank you for asking the question because it allows me to point out that in the citizen bond committee recommendation, habitat is listed as a purpose for the natural area acquisition. It certainly is part of your county staff criteria in evaluating natural area potential tract acquisition. Priorities. And I think we've -- as you've pointed out, developed an incredibly valuable partnership with the federal government, and if we didn't -- if we did have natural area acquisition money in the tens of millions of dollars and didn't spend some of it on b.c.p. Acquisition, that would maybe damage that partnership going forward with the fed source.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Ms. Best is next. Would greg phillips please come forward?
>> thank you, judge and Commissioner, joyce best. I live in northeast Austin. I wanted to speak about one of the road projects that is not on the primary list, but I notice it's been included on the subcommittee here to look and that is arterial a and I wanted to speak to some reasons why it should not be considered to be moved up on the package. On may 17, 2005, you more of the five Commissioners voted to adopt a landfill strategy that included an item that said the Commissioners court will oppose any permanent expansion application by waste management beyond its current capacity. How would you implement this strategy at the same time you are making an agreement with waste management for a road that would endorse their application for a permit for 13.5 million cubic yards of caps tonight exchange for 2 million cubic yards they might lose for right-of-way? Does it seem logical that waste management would want to enter into this type of agreement out of the goodness of our corporate heart? Their business is to make money from garbage and everything they do is ultimately intended to improve their profits. Please do not condemn the citizens of northeast Austin to 25 more years of landfilling in exchanges for a mile and a half of road. That would be contrary to what you have told the citizens you are trying to do. We sympathize with the concerns of the people who support the arterial and are eager to work to explore options that would improve the traffic situation, but to exchange a road for a landfill expansion that would affect the quality of life of many thousands of people in the area is not the right thing to do. We would like for you to stand by your commitment to oppose a waste management expansion by not tying this road to such an expansion. Thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Best. In english is next followed by greg phillips. Is greg phillips here? This is support, so he supports the committee's recommendations. Joyce thorson please come forward. Ms. English.
>> my mic on? It is. Thank you.
>> coming through loud and clear.
>> this is trek english with the northeast action group, and I知 here to ask you to adopt the bond committee recommendation, the original recommendation. I知 not sure what exactly is being proposed above and beyond what I saw last week. And, of course, the additional package for the preservations of parklands and green spaces or acquisition of future park lands and green spaces. I think we're going to need those badly in the future. So now I am going to extend a olive branch to Commissioner Daugherty and ask him -- I listen to what you say.
>> how would you say that in french? [speaking french].
>> anyway, I am here to ask you not to come up with any more ways to give us an expansion of the landfill. We know that this road is a partnership with waste management, and there is no way, no way I will accept that one at all ever. I guess you will have to wait until I die or something because waste management and I go back a long ways. And you are about to make me pay twice for an expansion. In 1990, I fought this expansion here. And I begged the county, campo, txdot, whatever, when sh 130 was coming here, to buy the right-of-way before that expansion was being granted. No one wanted -- no one cared. Including this neighborhood. All they cared is as long as we don't have any trucks on springdale. They didn't care about the expansion. Now suddenly you want this road over here in this environmental disaster area. You want this road, and now suddenly you want to sell me that same little piece of land that I asked you to get in 1990, you suddenly want to shove it down my throat with another expansion. I won't take that. There's no way you can do that. That's inhuman. I don't know of another road package in the bond project that requires a 25 years expansion. No one is being asked to put up with that. What you're doing to us is immoral. If you want that land, you condemn it, but don't come up with a scheme of paying for a road with a 25-year expansion. That's not right. Now, we're having sh 130 is coming down right here, two miles away from that road to get this huge diesel fuels, whatever we need is coming. I never came to you and said I don't want it, I never came and opposed it, I never signed anything. Okay, we need it. Now, here's 290. It is being widened to 10 lanes. Did I come and scream and say I don't want it? No, we need it. Okay, you are giving me diesel fumes here, here, over here there's this big 183 overpass right here, which is going to help 183 flow. And then we've got dessau, we've got the tank farm, we've got everything else, and you want to give me expansion of the landfill? Why don't you just put a bomb over here and get rid of us? I mean honestly I知 not trying to be flippant. I don't understand how far you are going to push this thing of giving us more and more roads. This road here, I知 going to use your own words, Commissioner Sonleitner, it starts somewhere, it ends somewhere, it goes nowhere. It's just a local road. And if we need it, okay. If we need it, then let's sit down and see how bad we need it. Here's springdale road. When you get to ferguson right here, the traffic count goes down probably 5,000, if we go by that 7,000, which I don't think is actually actual anymore because of those traffic circles. That's another story. But anyway, traffic circle and they've diverted enough traffic that I don't think we're at 7,000. But beyond ferguson, from ferguson to springdale, the traffic drops drastically. From springdale north on sprinkle, the traffic is at 1900. I致e got a traffic study. It's 1900. So what I知 thinking here is the worst part that we have is maybe from 290 to ferguson. In which case your road here I don't think is going to help because if people are going to ferguson, then they are trying to get to dessau, avoid the 183 construction, and we're going to need to come up with a better way to get them to dessau. Maybe we'll wait until 183 is finished. When 290 is going to be finished, it's going to block people from coming across. That will already lower the amount of cars or reduce the amount of cars that are going to be coming on springdale. And then you're going to have, of course, your huge road here, sh 130, which I would love for us to pay. I don't like debt and I don't like to carry it for 100 years because it just accumulates. So it would be nice if we could use that road for what it was meant to be and that's a truck road and not come up here next to the landfills. Also, we have a misconception of how many neighborhoods are already behind that road, and I think that before you -- you go further or forward with this road, I think we need to have a public meeting where people understand the ramification of that road. You understand that that road is -- okay. This is all construction. You can't see it very well on the map, but all this green area here is subdivisions. So you are going to have people living all the way here, you have people living right across from the road which is right here, it's a whole subdivision, the rosemont apartments is right here. And right here you have this creek, you have railroad tracks, you have power lines, and it's all -- we got another gift that was given to us right here. Okay. So now we had someone need add waterline in Pflugerville. So what happened there, they waste everything. No trees, everything, everything we had to protect us from these landfills gone, and now what we have is a waterline. And the waterline, the waterline, of course, is next to the landfill, which I guess nobody cares. But, you know,, are you thinking about giving us some trees maybe so we can breathe or I mean I don't understand. You can't just give us all this, take out all the trees and then put a road on top of it. Somehow we're going to need to have some clean air somewhere where we can get it from. And I知 not saying that the need for an additional road is not needed, but I think it's needed where you have permitted, you and the city, 500 million tons of trucks, which is in that business park. The business park right now is exiting through ferguson, and by some miracle they make it to dessau road, but you know how ferguson is, it's just one narrow winding road, and I don't see any money to try to get this road fixed so we can get the trucks out faster and on to a decent road. You can also make [inaudible] much wider. I don't think there is anybody that would be opposed to that, so you can get the traffic out of sprinkle or whatever on to a side road, breaker. If they are all trying to get to 183, we're going to get them to 183. The closer you put them to the 183 intersection, the less they are going to have to go by our neighborhood to get there. I mean I知 willing to sit down and talk. Commissioner Daugherty, you know I am. I致e been trying to work with you guys for four years. So I mean it's not that I知 not trying to accommodate anybody. If we find another road and it works, go for it. If we don't, we'll get back to drawing number 1. But first you've got to disintegrate waste management. There's no way I知 going to put up with that. It doesn't work that way. This is the worst landfill in Texas.
>> your testimony today is for us to follow the committee's recommendation.
>> right.
>> and leave arterial a out. That's come through loud and clear. That's your point, right?
>> at this time, yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> is that the olive branch? [laughter]
>> no, no, the olive branch was that we would sit down and talk with you.
>> or is that reading the tea leaves? You confuse me.
>> the olive branch is mr. Thorson, mr. Hutchinson and other neighbors that have respectfully a different opinion about what is best for their neighborhood. So I hear your point of view. I respect your point of view, but I think we're fix to go hear another point of view on that road and I will respect that as well.
>> that's fine. I extend the olive branch to them too. I have for several months. Thank you. [applause]
>> ms. Thornson is next followed by christian hughes and angela gall.
>> I知 joyce thorson, interim vice president of the neighborhood association. As a matter of record, I personally collected money from my neighbors to fight the 1990 waste management expansion. So ms. English's statement that we didn't care is not correct. This is one last plea to include arterial a in the bond package. You have already received our petitions with over 200 signatures, and you have heard our arguments in support of the road in past meetings. I would like to bring to your attention one more time the fact that arterial a has been on the campo plan for more than eight years. The public has been offered ample opportunities to speak out against the existence and the alignment of this road. No one objected until now. A small group of people believe they are fighting a landfill by opposing arterial a. What they are really doing is destroying the quality of life in our neighborhood by forcing more traffic on to springdale and rejecting a desperately needed north-south arterial. As a matter of clarification, braker is east-west. Adding arterial a will the bond project will be inappropriate because by that date waste management will be putting garbage in the path of arterial a. Please consider the future mobility of our rapidly growing section of the county and include arterial a in the bond package this November. Thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Throson. John beall. He left? Terry tull.
>> he's here.
>> john, please come forward. Ms. Muse.
>> good morning, I知 christy muse with the hillcrest alliance. For the past year and a half or so, the hillcrest alliance has been seeking opportunities to allow for growth and development in a way that protects our area's natural resources and waerbgs. We have actively participated in every regional planning process. And we have found that there is an overwhelming amount of public support for acquiring land to preserve natural areas. I personally served on the southwest Travis County growth dialogue initiated by Commissioner Daugherty where it was recommended that we set aside 6,000 acres in southwest Travis County. We have been paying very close attention to the citizens bond advisory committee, and we have attended many of their public hearings. Today we're here to applaud their efforts. They have done their homework. They have reviewed each mobility project to see that it will meet the overall needs of Travis County. They have studied and toured jails, they have carefully analyzed each park and open space project. We support their work and we hope you will accept all of their recommendations today. This is not the first time we've been before you, Commissioners and judge Biscoe. As you are all away, there is a tremendous amount of tension in southwest Travis County regarding rapid development and the effect it's having on our creeks. And you have been cautiously exercising your county authority to guide a more responsible approach to growth. We thank you for that. However, we must recognize that given your limited regulatory options, the most effective way to preserve the quality of our water is to preserve sensitive lands that protect our water supply. So let's do it. The park projects including reimers ranch and the additional 60 million will go a long way to sustain this region. Please don't pass up this opportunity. Thank you for listening.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Muse. Ms. Call is next. And john -- what's your last name?
>> beall.
>> is jerry tull here? Jerry, please come forward.
>> thank you, judge and Commissioners. I really appreciate the opportunity to sit here before you. I have been a member of the '97 citizens bond advisory committee for the county so I have a huge appreciation and respect for the amount of work that the citizens bond advisory committee puts into this process of selecting, identifying, reviewing projects that are finally presented to the court for your review. I also have huge respect and appreciation for the court's thoughtfulness and prudence in looking at those recommendations and coming up with a final list of propositions that are set before citizens. Having said that, what I知 going to say right now is no news to anyone in this room, but I知 going to say it anyway, and that is I want to talk about quality of life. In '98, the greater Austin chamber of commerce conducted a survey, and one of the findings of that sure way sra eu was that -- survey was the fact that aoe-and I知 going to read from the -- this survey right here -- the report finds that addressing social and environmental issues are increasingly key to maintaining support for growth. We all sitting here know and understand that in order to have a vibrant and sustainable economy in this central Texas community of ours, we need to have, maintain and continue to invest in a good quality of life. That quality of life includes an agreement structure that is effective, that taste care of our natural resources, our water quality, and so I sit here before you asking you to please support the recommendations of the citizens bond advisory committee, the months of work that they put in into reviewing all the projects. I personally recommend supporting all of those recommendations including the 60 million stand-alone for acquisition of natural areas. As mr. Sith pointed out, the water quality acquisitions need to happen across the county. The pedernales watershed acquisitions, creek corridor acquisitions that will prevent and stop future costs because of erosion, Commissioner Gomez talked about erosion control on the colorado river. Investment in protecting those corridors also allows the county to save money in the future that might have to be spent on erosion control and flooding issues. So, again, I ask that the court supports those recommendations and thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> judge, let me ask a question. John kuhl, is there anybody or can you answer this, ted or whoever is in the room, who would have a guess on how many acres we now have secured in Travis County to include everything from city parks, county parks, b.c.p. Property, open space property, water quality lands. I mean I heard crazy things like 179,000 acres or, you know, I know b.c.p. We got about 29,000 acres. I mean what -- what is that number? John, do you --
>> I don't have the exact number. I can tell you we've got right now about 27,000 in b.c.p. Any idea on prop 2? [inaudible].
>> 10 or 11,000 that is also parkland. So let's not double count.
>> I mean it shows here that we have 146,000 ache senators.
>> I don't know -- acres?
>> that figure is wrong.
>> it says municipal parks of 16,000 acres. Preserves, county and regional parks, 60,000 acres.
>> that includes lcra land that might not be within Travis County but within 100 miles.
>> I think it's important for us, because what I don't want people to think is is that we are stingy in this community with what we own as open space parkland. I mean even if you discount 146,000 acres, if you just walked up to the average person and say do you know that we have over 100,000 acres secured in our region -- and I知 not belittling that, I知 not saying that we shouldn't continue to get more as long as we're willing to pay for it. But I do want people to understand, I mean whatever you read things in the chamber or whoever it is about quality of life, I mean there are two things that I think are -- if you ask people, say tell me the two things that come to quality of life in a community, open space is certainly one of them. Unfortunately the other thing that flies in the face is transportation. Because you're talking about -- I mean somebody can be thinking all day long about I really want to get to the park this afternoon. If you can't get to work and get home to get the kids to go to the park. So let's not -- let's not continue to talk about these things that we know that we need again. I mean if the community is willing to embrace, you know, buying all that this community will buy, that's fine, but I do -- thanks for this thing. So it was close to the 179,000 even if we discount for some of the lcra property. 100-mile radius.
>> Commissioner, how many acres are in Travis County?
>> well, it doesn't break -- it says preserves, county and regional parks.
>> [inaudible].
>> it's all acreage in all of Travis County regardless --
>> john? [laughter]
>> I do not have that number.
>> I壇 like to know that too. We'll get it to you.
>> the percentage is over [inaudible].
>> my name is john beall and I would like to continue on this topic that Commissioner Daugherty has just brought up. Our economic value of our land here is intimately tied to the fact that we have a beautiful place to live. We need to continue that process, and I don't think our percentage of parkland is high enough. It is as important an economic investment as our investment in state highway 130 and our airport and any of our other arts and municipal investments and government investments that we've made. Let me say that in all parts of this county, north, east, south and west, we need to continue o central Texas tradition of you don't need to belong to a country club to have a beautiful place to go. And I encourage you to let the voters decide on that $60 million of open space, which is going to become parkland at some time in the future. Let the voters make that decision.
>> you're not dogging me because I知 a member of Barton Creek country club, are you? Because I am proud of that. I知 proud to have the open space as well. I get your message.
>> and Gerald, I love this map, I haul it to d.c. Every year and it gets greener and greener. What I致e got here is just b.c.p. In terms of where you are, this is loop 360, so we are only talking western Travis County here. We are not talking anything east of loop 360. Everything you see that is some shade of green on this map is in the b.c.p. Count, and we are more than 91% complete of a preserve that's about 31,000-acre. Anything you see that's yellow is still stuff we need to get. Purple we have acquisition letters. As soon as we get money, we want to buy them. Reds are lost opportunities. But just on b.c.p. In terms of people wondering where is that open space, I think a lot of folks have lost track of balcones con I don't know land, but there has been an amazing amount of land acquisition and what is not in this count is 800 acres on steiner ranch. What is not in this count is the brightly preserve run by the state not with bird things in mind. This is just the balcones canyonlands. It does not include the balcones refuge which is in western Travis County and burnet county that senator hutchinson has been getting separate funds to acquire, and that's strictly a federal thing. I think Gerald, you asked a good question. Then overlay, prop 2. Then overlay prop 8. Then overlay not only lakes and rivers which are open space, but all the lcra parks. Thank goodness we finally got an effort underway beginning in '97, thank you for your efforts there, to get some parks on the east side of the interstate. Everything good was happening west. We did not do as well for what was happening in the east and I知 proud the Travis County taxpayers invested at 410 acres at northwest metro park near Pflugerville. We are getting open first phase of east metro park, which is, what, Commissioner, 300 acres?
>> right about that.
>> right about 300 acres. And southeast has been open since approximately 1999. Margaret, how big is southeast right now? 300? About 300 acres. So those are things that we've also invested in and in all the talk we're doing about what's in the citizens bond committee, I want to make sure people understand there are recommendations to continue the buildout as promised dating back to '97 on the three east side metro parks that are equal in size or bigger than zilker park. We are talking legacy parks being created right now and enjoyed right now by hundreds and thousands of citizens on a yearly basis.
>> anything else, mr. Beall?
>> Commissioner, let me ask that real quickly of joe. Is john still here? Kuhl? I understand that s.o.s. Considers athletic fields as impervious cover. Is that true? Because stp- that's the truth, I couldn't build a southwest metro park and put like what you have northeast that's, you know, out of the 400 acres, most of it is athletic fields and parking lot. But is it -- can somebody verify that for me? Does s.o.s. Consider an athletic field being baseball or soccer as impervious ground cover?
>> I can make a comment to that, and it has to do with the amount of herbicides and pesticides. If it's a contribution equal to impervious cover, then it should be counted as impervious cover. If the county manages it like they manage their golf courses with low use of chemicals, then no, it should not be counted as impervious cover.
>> would northeast park qualify, would those soccer diamonds or soccer fields and baseball diamonds, would those be considered impervious ground cover?
>> what is the [inaudible] load contributed off those tracts of land?
>> I don't know, but the point I知 making if you go up to the average everyday joe and say do you know that a soccer field is considered impervious ground cover, I will tell you that somebody will think they need to rush you somewhere.
>> I think the average person knows you should not walk across a golf course barefoot or let his children play on a golf course that's treated the way some of these golf courses are treated with herbicides and pesticides. So the average person may be smart enough to figure that one out.
>> you and I will walk down the street and ask 10 different people, john, and we'll see what responses we get. I壇 be more than happy to do that.
>> is that a different answer?
>> with regards to southwest metro park, my understanding is to make reimers ranch that facility and have mountain biking and rock climbing, and we support that.
>> yes, but can you answer that? As far as what john beall said is that the accurate?
>> my understanding is that the city of Austin, for instance, if you are putting in a golf course, they take that out of your net acreage. So I guess it's not impervious or pervious, it's just excluded. As far as ballfields, I don't know how the city deals with that. And there are some ballfields, is the soil compacted underneath to such an extent that when it arenas you have sheet flow, that might depend on the particular ball field.
>> okay. Thank you. If, mr.tull.
>> yes, thank you, judge, Commissioners, my name is terry tull and I知 here today to speak in favor of the whole bond package recommended by the committee and in particular to emphasize my support for the stand-alone bond purchase of $60 million worth of open space. I wrote a letter to you, sir, and to each of the Commissioners back earlier this month and I have provided a copy of that, the letter I sent to the judge for each of you today to refer to if you would like to. What I would like to do is not repeat all of that, however hit some of the high points of things that I think are relevant to the discussions of the bond package and its relationship to water quality. I致e had the privilege for about the past two years to work virtually full time in helping to create this regional water quality protection plan for the barton springs zone, the edwards aquifer, and this is a copy of the first volume of the plan when we recently completed. The plan, I think, is a worthy product because it was done through an open and public process. It had a great deal of citizen participation. It had stakeholder representation from a broad cross-section of stakeholders, and it makes several recommendations that relate specifically to water quality that are important to your bond issue. First, it recommends conserving open space. This is pretty obvious, one would say, obviously if you don't develop on land, you will protect water quality. But the amazing thing about this was that throughout the entire planning process there was virtually universal unanimity among all the stakeholders that the very best thing we could do to conserve land if we want to protect the water quality going into the barton springs zone. And I would underscore that they are talking not about taking it away from people but about buying it in the old-fashioned, free market american way. Hard dollars on the table and buying the land. Outstanding virtually unanimous support of that. Another recommendation in the plan was that we need to maintain some kind of a balance between open space and developed land so that we have the land to in effect help us clean up the ill effects of the development. There's a lot of discussion about what that number is. Commissioner Daugherty raises the impervious cover issue which is, of course, much in contention, but the best available information we have now that in the range of 10 to 15% impervious cover we start to see ill effects or impact on water quality of our development. And analyzing the different watersheds within the region there were a number identified in the plan as already being in excess of development levels that would protect the water quality. Putting it another way, if you could somehow off set or balance those higher development areas with some open space area, you could perhaps achieve more of a balance in terms of water quality. I highlighted those for you, but in the plan they recommend, we recommend that about 20,000 acres being set aside as open space to offset the high level of impervious cover in a number of watersheds. That includes bee creek, little bee creek, eanes and Williamson creeks, areas which are in large measure in Travis County and in Austin. I would underscore that this is also an equity issue. The participants in our process were very concerned that we not propose measures that would burden the jurisdictions that have not yet had much development, allowing those which had already enjoyed a great deal of development to go unscathed, if you will, and to not have to sort of pay their share of the cost to maintain water quality. So our group sees this, and I personally see this, as an equity issue. I would like to be able to say to my neighbors in hays and -- hays county and dripping sprepbgs and outside of Austin and Travis County that we who are here in this community who built what we built with the belief that we were doing it right now realize that perhaps we should have done it a little differently and that we have a debt to pay to try to clean up for what our actions were in the past. Very difficult to go back and receipt toe fit those existing neighborhoods, but it is much easier to take some dollars and buy some land and sort of offset that and try to maintain the water quality that way. So as a ebgtd issue, I think it's a -- equity issue, I think it's an important measure to consider. Other points I made and I think some of the other speakers are probably going to go into them, but preserving land brings enough significant economic benefits. My letter to you I included a copy of a summary of a document by professor compton at Texas a&m dated 2004 and it's called the approximate principle. What he shows there is that lands which are proximate to park land, open space and the like enjoy a very substantial increase in their value because of that proximity. It's the quality of life kind of thing that was spoken about earlier. But it translates into true economic benefit. For average planning purposes, he recommends about a 20% benefit if you are relatively proximate. And the thing that's important about this is that if it's done right and the benefit accrues to lands that are being developed around it, you can actually pay the cost of acquisition of open space like that as a result of the increased tax revenues that result from the increase in value of those lands that are close to the park or the open space. So I think that's something that -- I知 not an expert in funding and I don't know where you are relative to the white line, and I appreciate the difficult problem you have there, but I think that's something for you to consider as you weigh the option here about what to do in terms of park space acquisition. I also stress a holistic approach. You've had others mention about one dollar or -- accomplishs multiple objectives and I underscore that too. Not only the water quality but also recreation, also clean air, also quietness, vistas and habitat and on and on as well as the economic benefits. I think it needs to be done in way ma maximizes all of those. And I also think that what is done in terms of acquisition of both parkland and open space needs to be done on a regional basis. Our streams, habitats, our air, all those natural features don't respect political jurisdictional boundaries. And the people. And when they make their decisions about where to live, work and play don't really care much about whether they are driving over the line from hays to Travis County. I think when you look at the lands that are most sensitive, the streams that need protection, the features we want to preserve, those are situated irrespective of our political boundaries. And so I think that as we make our decisions about these kinds of actions, we need to do it on a regional basis. Our regional parks, I mean our parks and preserves and facilities serve people regionally, not just in our county. So I think that we will get much more bang for the buck, if you will, if we work together with other jurisdictions, Austin, hays county, other cities, to try to identify a whole fabric of park open space and recreation facilities to serve all the people. And also I think we can avoid competition for the same pieces of land or the same kinds of things that we want to accomplish if we work together that way. Get a synergistic effect. Finally the cost is reasonable, as I understand it. I知 not an expert in such matters, but as a property owner who pays much more in taxes in Travis County than I do in hays county, I知 saying to you I知 prepared to spend my dollars here, okay? I知 prepared to spend my dollars to be a good neighbor, to protect my water, to protect the water of those downstream from me who are going to receive what I send downstream, to try to work together in our community and to make up for the ill effects of some of the things we've done in the past. So in conclusion, I guess I would just say again I support all of the measures in the plan, particularly support the open space stand-alone for purchase of open space land, and heartily recommend that you work together with the other jurisdictions to try to come up with whatever is to be done. That's another reason why I wouldn't begin to recommend to you specific lands. I think it needs to be developed in a process with the other jurisdictions. Thank you for listening to me.
>> thank you, mr. Tull. Next is mr. Lewis. Hector gonzales, is he here?
>> no, he had to leave, judge.
>> tom bolt. Is he here? Phil tate. Phil tate. Joe turner.
>> he left.
>> they tried to hang in there, judge, but they had to take care of business.
>> the meeting is 15 minutes long?
>> also the mayor --
>> george [inaudible] is here. Mark mcaffee. Is still here. Mr. Lewis.
>> good morning. I知 kevin lewis. I知 on the board of the central Texas trail teamers, a volunteer group who help build and maintain facilities and trails and public parks and open lands. One of the things that we do is hope that there's more places for us to do our volunteer work. And we're really fortunate to have some opportunities in front of us and we look forward to that. I urge you to support the recommendations of the citizens bond advisory committee for the $47 million in roads, the $10 million in drainage and flood mitt education, $40 million in parks and open space, taken $60 million in stand-i loan proposition for open space. There's been discussion about what is county is obligated to do. What I really believe the county is obligated to do is promote the long-term welfare and the sustainability of the quality of life for all the citizens. Spending money on open space as an investment in the long-temple onomic health and sustainable fiscal health. There are counties in california that got themselves in hot water through other bad practices. I tend to [inaudible] the meetings. What I heard was speaker after speaker after speaker after speaker commending the county for looking at open space, parks, being responsible in its approach to building new roads and transportation infrastructure. Obviously there is a important role there, but it has been overbalanced, as Commissioner Sonleitner pointed out. And it needs to be balanced back the other way at this point. And in the future. Speaking loudly and clearly as community leaders one of the hardest things we do is ask -- and I知 talking about we in the community who are not elected officials, is ask our fellow citizens for support for tax increases. We take that very seriously. If we as community leaders are able to campaign for support of initiatives like this in November, we need for what's on the ballot to reflect what the input on the citizens input phase of this process was like. I appreciate your time and your support. Thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Lewis. Mr. Koffer.
>> I知 george koffer, executive director of hillcrest conservancy. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today. I will try to win the award for brevity by saying ditto to all the fine and eloquent speakers you've heard today. They've made great points. I know that they are resonating with you and I urge you to, as you go into your deliberations, to please remember these key points that are being made about the economic benefits, the heritage, the legacy, the leveraging opportunities that Commissioner Sonleitner is -- and I mean this very sincerely and thank you, you are so skilled at, there's tupbtsd to use our natural area money to leverage those dollars so that we can have even more money in this times of scarce funding. Commissioner Daugherty, I thank you on behalf of the green space community, if I may, for recognizing months ago that it would be a good idea for the voters to have the opportunity to say yes, we will tax ourselves for natural areas and water quality. As a life-long resident of Travis County, I took the same vow mr. Tull did, please tax me. I will gladly spend my dollars on this important heritage for the future. Mr. Lewis just made a very good point and I値l conclude there because I don't want to repeat what everyone has said today, but I too attended the hearings and I too heard those hundreds, hundreds of speakers in your precinct, Commissioner Daugherty, it wasn't even -- it was beyond standing room only. It was amazing how many people turned out. Almost to a person they spoke in support of the $60 million stand-alone item. So I urge you to adopt the committee's recommendations. Excuse me. I know there's a subcommittee report. Excuse me. I know about the white line. And the green space community, hill country conservancy, the nature conservancy of Texas, trust for public land, Austin parks foundation, and other fine organizations stand ready to work with you to figure out how we can address the issues of equity. How we can address the issue of the white line. How we can address the issue of mobility. And the other needs in the community. Please call on us as you go through your deliberations. We really want to partner with you and work this out for the best of all citizens. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Koffer. Mr. Mcaffee.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. My name is mark mcaffee. And I would like to start by saying that I strongly ditto what george just said and the previous speakers. I am for my tax money going to open space and park land. It will be -- it will never be any less expensive to procure what they are talking about procuring. But I do want to spend the majority of my time here talking about another issue. Albeit another environmental issue too. Arterial a. Arterial a looks like a road, but it is a landfill expansion. And it is a gigantic, huge landfill expansion. It is about a 46% increase in the size of waste management's landfill in terms of what they already have permitted. If it is -- if it includes the permit that is the only permit that we have seen. To date. For four years waste management and b.f.i. Have been doing everything they can to get the county's blessing on expansion and many thanks to you who are helped us in this fight. This is the latest in an ongoing series of tricks by the companies basically to get what they want, a landfill expansion. The road is basically a bribe to get their expansion. Bribe the county with donated easement, et cetera, buy off some of the neighbors further away from the roadway to ease their noise, and allow an expansion without the nasty fight that will occur with the normal procedure to get a humongous expansion. Make a landfill expansion look like a road. But someone will pay the price for this. As mentioned before, there are 3,000-plus homes either being built or already built just north of this area. These homes are being built as starter homes and will be full of children. Although it will move the landfill away from a few homes, the building of this road will absolutely entail moving the landfill closer to these 3,000 homes. And it will give them many, many, many more fumes that they will have to endure. Because the fumes are to a large degree just a proportion of how much is put in. There have been no public hearings about this road and yet is it going to amount to a massive landfill capacity expansion. And right next to a huge number of homes. There's a process that has to be gone through at the tceq when you're getting a landfill expansion. And to enter into basically they are going to be asking the county to lay down their ultimate responsibility, which is to look out for our health and welfare, if they give them the easement for this road. Now, we haven't seen anything at this point in writing in terms of the public-private partnership that will go along with this, so we don't really know what they are asking for, what strings will be attached with this roadway. And that's another within of the reasons why we're asking for this to be left off the bond package. The citizens bond committee in their infinite wisdom did leave it off so I hope you will see fit to do the same. Obviously the -- a giant corporation like this is not going to go and buy up easement ajays epbt to their easement and give it all to the county without expecting something in return. And again, someone will pay the price. The mokan corridor has been touted as a diamond in the rough about three months ago at envision central Texas, a large dinner, the keynote speaker, at least three times in his speech, referred to the mokan corridor, how important the mokan corridor was going to be. And it is directly adjacent to this landfill expansion. I知 not sure we want public dollars to be going into an area where there's still landfilling. This is also only 7.5 miles from the capitol building of the state of Texas. And that's a tragedy. I asked the expert who spoke at the -- at that meeting what he thought about the -- landfill expansion in area of public transportation corridor and he thought it would be a very bad idea. This person does studying ice all over the world. -- studying ice all over the world. As we're getting this road shoved down our throat with no time to adequately resolve the issues, you know, it's been -- the landfills have tried to make folks think that we are in a shortage of landfill space. We have about 25 years of landfill space available if we do not get anything permitted at all right now in the Travis County and Williamson county areas. There are all of the landfills are seeking expansions right now to try to get them grandfathered before the new rules go into effect and in our case before these 3,000 homes get built and have a voice. The -- pardon me. I lost my spot. There is no landfill space crisis. We do not have to rush into a decision on this roadway which will ultimately give them a giant landfill. I was going to tell you about the landfill expansions underway right now. The third largest landfill in the nation is trying to be permitted right now in Williamson county. The statistics I gave you a moment ago do not include any of these future expansion. The -- one of the problems with getting a lot of landfill space permitted in your area is you end up having a real uphill battle to try to get people recycle because they can always undercut the proper way through the cheap way. The cheap way has an ultimate higher price tag, 2 prao eus tag is on the environment and likely borne by the citizens. So finally, the petition that was presented to you all last week is basically to a large degree meaningless. When I saw the signatures that were on this petition, I made up a petition of my own and started on Saturday and walked house by house for nine hours. There was not one single person that I was unable to get to sign my petition. Many had signed the previous petition. And once they knew all the facts, they were not only glad to sign mine, but they were quite unhappy with the way the previous petition was presented to them. Now, these -- these are the people who will pay the price. Some of these people who signed the previous petition have views of the landfill and do not get any road noise. They were misled. Horribly misled. It took a long time for me to go house to house because there's -- it's fairly convoluted. There's a lot to explain to folks. In some cases when you sign a petition that's bad for you and your spouse is sitting next to you, you don't want to admit it so it took a long time to --
>> my house.
>> maybe even his mother or mother-in-law. But in the final analysis, he signed my petition. So there are many that will put -- that said it would be fine for you to call them and ask them how it was represented to them on the previous petition.
>> your recommendation is that we leave arterial a out.
>> absolutely. It would be immoral to grant a monitor landfill expansion by putting a road on a bond package.
>> would you be okay with the road if the landfill weren't there?
>> I haven't even gotten to really look at it that far Gerald.
>> that's not a complicated question. I mean -- if the landfill weren't the issue, would you be supportive of arterial a?
>> I would probably be supportive of arterial a if the landfill was not the issue, yes.
>> but you are afraid to let the citizens of Austin vote on this.
>> absolutely.
>> because you think that they don't know --
>> historically the folks who fight landfills are the people who live around them. Basically the majority of people forget about their waste the moment it hits their trash can. A lot of folks in this room are not those people I just mentioned. They care bit and, again, we have appreciated all your support. But generally speaking, it's the people around the landfills -- it will be hard for us to get the message out. And the other side has a lot of money. So absolutely. I think it's getting our cart before our horse if we get into this position, we're going to put you guys in a really bad position to negotiate with the landfills in terms of the closure of the landfills. As you well know, we've got -- we're talking closure with -- we were talking closure with both of them before this roadway came into being. Now we're talking closure with just one of them. At least in the last couple of months that's all we've been talking is with just one of them. So no, I知 -- now, I intend to get more signatures on this. Again, I have not had one person that didn't seen it. That would talk to me. There were a couple who didn't have time. There was one that was babysitting and that's it.
>> thank you, mr. Mcaffee.
>> I brought this in to show you how many neighborhoods are closer -- are just as close to the landfill area, and I値l just briefly -- I know I致e taken a lot of time. Basically the landfill area in question is right here. Where you might notice there's a couple of creeks. The neighborhood that is promoting the road is down here. The people that they got to sign it are right here viewing the landfill. It is pretty horrible. And this is where the homes are being built. They are either already occupied or partially built. This neighborhood right here is only partially occupied at this point. And there's going to be a lot of people who are really wondering about any decisions for landfill expansions in that neighborhood, I tell you. Thank you very much.
>> we at least ought to try to get through the rest of the speakers before 12 noon. Marsha purvis was here, she had leave, but she wants us to know that she supports the committee's recommendations for $39 million and 60 million for parks, open space and natural areas. Dominick chavez. And pete dwyer are the next two. And larry beard will be third.
>> judge Biscoe, honorable members of the court, dom is going to be passing out some letters so he wanted me to go ahead and go first. I知 here to speak in support of the existing package that's been put together for the committee in support of the additional $60 million for open space and in subpoena support of an additional $60 million on top of that for mobility improvements. The question that has been raised by the budget office about exceeding the $500 per capita debt limit for Travis County, the way I understand that, that would drop Travis County, if we were to approve the additional 120 million of open space in mobility projects, probably drop us from aaa to aa. And I think in retrospect if we look back and look at what could possibly happen if we add some of these mobility projects and get, for example, another samsung expansion, there's probably not a bond house on the globe that wouldn't write Travis County right back up there at aaa. Most specifically, though, the -- what dom is going to talk about is that the question when put to reca, I don't want to steal his thunder, to propose that if an additional mobility package were to be put together, there was a lengthy list that was put out to the bond advisory committee that had quite a few more projects on them than made it on to the recommendation because of budgetary purposes, and that the net effect of being able to have a voter approved $60 million piece would allow some of those candidate projects that have been on there for a long time to possibly receive funding. Most specifically on my projects which are shown on the map that we have been talking about that I知 here to advocate would be the southerly extension of parmer lane. You have here a map that shows highway twoeupbtd. 130 under construction, existing parmer lane which I know the court was a big advocate and instrumental of getting funded when it got built that currently comes down and terminates on highway 290. What we are seeking is the extension of parmer lane to connect into 130. Again, this is road on the amatp it's on campo, and I think it is fair and just to provide the future residents of this area with a non-toll alternative. And then the other piece is, of course, braker lane which ties on the parmer. These two are keys because right thousand this road over here is the 973 south of 290 expansion that txdot has stepped up, and the -- the reason -- we have a 1999 correspondence from Travis County where we sought funding for parmer lane extension and that funding wasn't garnered because instead the county chose to use its resources to provide the right-of-way piece for 130. I think 10 years from now looking back you're going to find that was an incredibly good investment for your tax base growth. These pieces are key pieces to continue to provide logical, non-toll mobility for the region. One of the reasons we were left off of the bond committee recommendation was the near-term annexation skhraous, if you will, and we have I think a letter on file that attempts to solve that problem with leveraging the court's and the county's funds, and that is that the city of Austin for these projects will offer to pay one-third, we will offer to pay one-third as the developer plus kick in what's millions of dollars worth of right-of-way, and we're asking that if there is an additional mobility piece approved to go to the voters, that that would provide the county's one-third funding for these. Mayor turner from the city of manor, you heard, and his city manager and city planner had to leave, but one of the things that he was going to talk about is that in terms of leveraging the county's position and everybody stepping to the plate for additional mobility in this area, we have in addition -- this shows the same view, sh 130, highway 290 to manor, this shows the jurisdiction lines between Austin and manor. These roads right in here which are parsons, hill lane, which goes out to the race track, you have a howard lane piece in the bond committee approved segment that would essentially connect at howard and 130. The projection eastward of that is to take howard lane into gregg manor, and if any of you have ever been out to manor, you know that gregg manor does not hit 290 at the most ideal angle. So the city of manor and our development entities have entered into a $35 million letter of intent to create districts to try to fund the manor mobility piece of this, and it will be substantially incomplete if we don't get parmer and braker done to tie on to the westward connections of sh 130.
>> the one-third, one-third, one-third partnership, that was for the extension of parmer lane?
>> yes, that was for the extension of parmer and we're negotiating on braker right now. We've said if the braker lane piece can be put in by the county, we'll at least match that 50/50 in the strategic partnership, and we are ready to produce in these financial partnerships there's been some question about about unable to fund. We're ready to produce our ability to fund if not in cash in a letter of credit the minute this thing is approved.
>> what's the estimated cost of parmer extension?
>> well, now, in the bond package that was sent to the committee it was estimated at $18.9 million. We've had our engineer, a large engineering firm look at that and they've come up with a cost that's more like 8.5 million. So somewhere in there I think we may have been projecting for a significantly costly grade separation over the capital metro tracts. Capital metro said if we can get this done, they will waive their normal grade separation requirement, and I think that -- I think the road can be built at a madd 4 for about 8.5 million.
>> you realize oerl in this process the Commissioners court made a strategic decision that near-term annexation areas were not eligible for this round of funding because we have limited amount of stuff. We got a whole lot more of to dos than money. And those are areas that have already got an annexation agreement in plays with the city of Austin, and they are going into the city of Austin. My question is why can't your deal, because you are one of those properties, be presented to the city of Austin appropriately and you go with a 50/50 deal with them? Now, I will grant you larry beard is not in that category. I will grant you mr. Carpenter's thing is not in that.
>> answer the question.
>> you know you were not eligible. It was passed a long time ago that those were not going to be eligible projects because they are going into the city of Austin.
>> well, first of all, it's a very fair question. I would answer with somewhat of a whine and that is we've been at this now since 1999 and we can document all this correspondence back to the county. And in '99 was like, okay, let's put you off until we can get 130 done. 130 is coming right through our project, and this is not the only project that we have. Wild horse ranch happens to be where parmer is located, and as the benefit of the bargain were, we agreed to limited-purpose annexation so we would have planning certainty. However, that limited-purpose annexation doesn't happen all at once. It's a 10-year roll-in, and there's going to be about 15,000 homes out here built during that 10 years. Some of which are in the county, and we are providing additional mobility and collective tie-ons to that. So I know we've talked about this and I know that there has to be that cutoff somewhere, but the -- the reason that I wanted to address it in the manner that I致e addressed it is to show you that there's such a need for roads and mobility out in that area, and you have other projects that have been recommended to fund that are going to create an impact on this area so we think it's a fair investment and one that certainly would be relatively quickly paid back to the county with other tax growth. You will still collect the county tax. And we'll help the economic development of the area augment that cash flow. Thank you.
>> in my opinion, though, let me say this because it's been a lot of discussion on this, and even though this is a near annexation, it's not annexed. This particular road project is -- this project has not been annexed by the city of Austin. What the city of Austin did do, though, with this particular project was to put through [inaudible], that's the parmer lane all the way to braker lane. Project number 25. They ended up putting a [inaudible] down, a third of that would go [inaudible]. That's a heck of an investment coming from the city of Austin as far as what they are going to put on the table, meaning that the Travis County taxpayers would only have to look at $3.6 million from the county. Now, when the city annexation, and let's get this thing straight, we build roads, we build roads, we build roads. Sooner or later one of the municipalities can annex it. They annex it, but they do not annex the debt capacity. The debt capacity is still borne by Travis County. And here with the annex in the future, the city would put up $3.7 million on the annexation scheme of thing. In my opinion, and of course that's my opinion, this is willable because of the partnership and the public-private partnership scheme of things that we're going to look at this. Commissioner Sonleitner has her view and I致e got mine. I would like to make sure that we get those particular projects, especially when you have the monetary partnership to reduce the cost to Travis County as far as our bond issuance is concerned is to look at those very favorable. Mr. Beard is another one that has another project whereby the city of Austin is also putting in revenue. You heard me state earlier, and I知 going to go over this again, don't handcuff precinct 1's economic development strategy as far as providing economic development in this community. I do not want to be handcuffed by that and Commissioner Sonleitner has her opinion, I got mine. I知 going to fight for my constituents and the economic strategy and the economic well-being that needs to take place. I say needs to take place because it hasn't ever taken place the way it should do in precinct 1. So I知 going to continue to push this particular issue and we'll just go from there. We can argue later about it, but right now I知 going to continue to support this. Thank you.
>> now, can I request that we try to be as brief as possible? We break for lunch at 12 noon and we've been sitting up here since about 9:10 so we need it today. But we have got seven or eight more speakers. If you can say something new and different, good. Now, we come back this afternoon at 1:30. So if you are in no rush and you would rather wait, you're in good shape. Thank you.
>> dominick chavez on behalf of the real estate council. I distributed a letter in front of you. I was approached yesterday by someone, they approached and said I知 hearing that the real estate council and some of the advocates are trying to torpedo the open space issue in front of the Commissioners court. Nothing could be further from the truth. The real estate council is one of the strongest proponents of open space. We are the single greatest organizational supporters of the hill country conservancy. Our memberships contribute to the hill country conservancy. Our message is not to say you ought to choose one over the other. Our message is let the voters have an opportunity to choose their priorities because I think Commissioner Daugherty hit the nail on the head. Congestion and mobility in this community is one of our top priorities. It has been for some time. And so we would like the opportunity for the Commissioners, if there is some flexibility in terms of your bonding capacity, that we can add an item on there that allows for us to bring in some very specific projects, not a blank check, but very specific projects that your own county staff identified, if we can have a chance to package those, but those on the ballot, let the voters choose whether they want them, that's what we're here to advocate today. Commissioner Sonleitner, I think it was important that you brought up the history of what this Commissioners court and this county has done over the last decade. You all have taken a strong leadership position, in fact, Commissioner Sonleitner, you were right there in 2001 helping put sh 130 funds on the ballot. And I believe your decision --
>> do you have to remind that?
>> I知 happy to remind because your decision was overwhelmingly vindicated by the voters. I don't believe any one of those propositions get any less than 55% of the vote. It was overwhelming the stunt said we're willing to make an investment. And Commissioner Davis is right on it in our assessment that these are investments for the tpaoufplt I can't possibly articulate for his particular precinct, I think he's a passionate evacuate for his economic development, but there is opportunities there. And roadways that aren't in this package that we should consider. Commissioner Daugherty, you have projects in your precinct that I知 sure many of your citizens would like us to consider. And if they had an opportunity to vote on, they may well choose to vote on them. That's our message here today on behalf of the real estate council. We're happy to work with your staff and other transportation mobility advocates as well as the open space folk if we can identify some money, and understanding the barrel that you are looking under in terms of the white line, but if we can identify some pot of money that we can find a package of enhanced mobility, that we can put to the voters and let them decide whether they want to help pay for it, we're here to say let's do it. And I think the voters as they have sense 1997 and beyond have absolutely vindicated in this community for better transportation. So thank you very much.
>> thank you. Let's not forget though that I知 very supportive of projects that assist mobility and open space and economic development in every part of this county, but I don't want anybody to forget that all of that development upstream has an incredible impact on people in precinct 4. Because the geology of this county is such that all of the water drains into precinct 4 as if there were a funnel there. And so we need to take care of those issues as well. They've been overlooked for many decades. And so my effort here is to try to address once and for all the flood, the drainage that occurs in precinct 4. Once we take care of those flooding issues, then we can talk about development. But you've got first things first. And so we need to -- I don't want anyone to forget the impact of development in other parts of the county on southeast Travis County.
>> absolutely, Commissioner. Just quickly, you will remember the real estate council is one of the people sitting at this table a few weeks ago on the eupblt rim rules trying to look at those issues and we're happening to work with you.
>> I just don't want them overlooked.
>> thanks absolutely. Thank you.
>> mr. Beard is next. He will be followed by katherine kowalzal. And she will be followed by fabian martinez. If you would please come forward, mr. Martinez, mr. Beard.
>> I知 glad to be able to say good morning.
>> good morning.
>> as opposed to good afternoon. I知 actually here to give me support to the advisory committee's excellent job that they worked very diligently on in all aspects with some exceptions. That would be that inasmuch as I always believe there is almost no way you can have too many parks, you can't have too many roads either because if you don't have roads, you're not going to get to the park. And not to go out and exceed our abilities to overextend ourselves in open space and park land because I feel dear and near to that as well, I also feel it has to be temperature pwerd with balance. And I phraoerb the Commissioner's jobs and judge what you are doing. I would think that possibly if you would understand that the advisory board has made a recommendation, it is not a mandate, it is a recommendation that allows for flexibility and some add-ons or subtractions and altering. I would encourage the county Commissioners to look at a bigger picture of the mobility needs that has actually been thrown upon us in this area by sh 130. If sh 130 hadn't landed out there, maybe it would have been on the west side, we wouldn't be having these discussions. But I fully support the things that pete said, and just because one piece may be in an area that potentially might be annexed the next three years, I知 not, but I am on the campo project. My project was on there a long time. And had sh 10 not come through here, I promise I wouldn't be here. But I知 not only talking to y'all, and yes, I have talked to the city and maybe with a little flagrant opportunities I was able to persuade them to kick in an opportunity -- it's not guaranteed, it was a recommendation to the -- toby futrell. There's nothing in granite, but except for what I promised you, and that is I would cap your expenditure at the 1.5. The project was estimated at 4.9, but that included a $1.5 million bridge which we don't need. There is some other expenditures. We went back and had our engineers evaluate. We feel very comfortable that on the 50/50 public-private opportunity, it would not exceed 1.5 on behalf of the county. That's why I gave you that letter. And we are more than happy to -- if I could recommend even if it be on the b team, if something doesn't work, you know, six months, nine months down the road or something, maybe if we could just be considered as an alternate or I would love to be on the front row, obviously. But truly I think there's some consideration to be thinking in terms, okay, if something does fall off, flake out or whatever, what did we have in mind to put in their place. Because when you recommend these bonds, let's get them spent, let's get those public-private partnerships in the mode to put up their part as well and make this mobility project forward.
>> john, if you would for me, you probably need to get a -- I don't know if you have the latest copy of some numbers that they worked out from the t.n.r. Department because I wanted to make sure they worked the numbers out under this public-private partnership situation agreement. And, of course, with those new numbers now, with the city contribution, your contribution and also the county's contribution on this particular project of yours, which is project number 6, anyway, about $2.4 million. So that -- I want to make sure you get the latest numbers on what was given to me on additional projects, mobility projects in precinct 1.
>> we were asking on ours is we would limit the county to 1.5 million, period.
>> that even sounds better. We'll get you these latest numbers as far as what they have.
>> feel free to contact me. Thanks.
>> [inaudible] please come forward.
>> my name is katherine kowalzal and I知 here in favor to speak in favor of the open space project recommended. I was born in the mid '70s in central Texas and I spent all my childhood here. After living around the world I live in central Austin again. I moved back here precisely because of the foundational relief that are the basis of these open space recommended projects. These foundational beliefs have characterized Austin for a long time, since before I was born. And they have allowed Austinites and Austin to have the current identity of a modern green city of which we all prize and is known around the country. I致e also been around to see how much has changed even over my short lifetime. Particularly the effects of sprawl. When I returned to central Texas after being gone for five years, my first observation was how much more lining los angeles this area looks. There's more strip malls, a larger population that's more dependent on personal automobiles, and an ever widening road infrastructure. As well a lack of transportation alternatives. These trends need to change. A good start is to acquire the open spaces recommended by the advisory committee. The urban core is also in need of more urban space and we support the efforts on the outskirts of the county to acquire more open space. The demand for more roads eliminates our growth and this validates the 5:00 s-gs of more space, of more open space. So I commend everyone for all their hard work and just everyone vote for the open space projects as recommended. Thanks.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much. Mr. Martinez.
>> my name is fabian martinez. And I知 a resident of colonial place. And I signed the petition about a week ago, a lady, a very nice lady came by with a petition and spoke to me and b. It and sounded like a good idea. Couple days later I caught the other Commissioner's meeting last week where some details came out that I was not made aware of at the time. Such as expansions and permits to 2025. I spoke to some of my neighbors around me. You walk out my front door, I知 one of those that has a direct view of this landfill. And I spoke with my neighbors around me and none of them were made aware of these other points that are part of this issue. And none of them want an expansion or --
>> so the petition that we received last week on --
>> I want to be taken off it because I wasn't given --
>> supporting arterial aen though it had expansion capabilities tied into it, that petition you signed you didn't want to sign?
>> well, I signed it, but I didn't -- I wasn't presented with all the -- all the facts about it. I didn't find out about the expansion and the permit until after I watched the program last week, I think it was on Wednesday or Tuesday it aired. And then the other people that I spoke to in my neighborhood, my direct neighbors also didn't know bit and they were under the impression it was a road that was just going to clean up the space that they had to landfill on. But they were not made aware of the expansion on the other side. Also the 2025 permit that they would get.
>> what was your name?
>> fabian martinez.
>> fabian, did you see what you signed? Did you see the -- because I think that the last line in bold print says exactly what you said that you weren't aware of.
>> right.
>> so did you just listen to somebody --
>> that's what I did. That's what it boils down to, yeah. I listened to it.
>> you are aware though that what you signed does say that.
>> I am now, yeah. I am now. That's why I知 here today because I wasn't aware then and I am now, and now that I have more information, I知 not, you know, agreeing with it.
>> which neighborhood?
>> colonial place. Ours is the new subdivision that directly looks over -- it would be on the west side of the landfill there.
>> and you've lived there how long?
>> I致e lived there for about three months.
>> three months. There are one closed landfill and two existing landfills and you went ahead and bought in that neighborhood yay?
>> well, yeah, I think like most people we're, a great majority of us don't really know all the details of things so we trust for other people to make decisions for us and to look after our, you know, our health, things like that. At the time I figured, well, you know, if -- being permitted to build, then it must be safe to live there, right?
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Martinez. Mr. Islet. Our final speaker.
>> I値l be brief.
>> this court will be back about 1:30 this afternoon. And the five or six or seven speakers for whom I have little notes will be called and then the court will start deliberating the issues that we need to decide if not this week next week.
>> my name is scott isgood, I知 a resident of Travis County. And I知 coming to you here on -- in both capacities. I just got back from a trip to utah climbing throughout the tains and when I told them I had to come back and go to this meeting about the land we're trying to save and the commission getting recommendations to purchase land, they were amazed. They were like you don't have all these parks and recreation areas available to you as we do. And I said well, Texas is a huge state, I mean el paso is closer to california, to san diego than it is dallas. But over 90% of our land is privately owned and therefore not accessible for recreational use. So it's an interesting situation that we're all in. I知 here to support all the recommendations by the parks and recreation department. I just wanted to -- I致e had the opportunity to speak with the advisory board a few times, and ask them if they actually have been down to reimers ranch, for example, and seen the features there and Commissioner Daugherty, I知 not sure if you've been down there, if you have, you've probably seen how beautiful it is. If you haven't, I highly recommend it. From the climbing community standpoint --
>> I致e been over it in a helicopter, walked around it, I致e been there.
>> good. Fantastic.
>> just so you know that.
>> I understand. I知 glad you guys have been there because from a climbing and mostly sunny biking standpoint, mainly from a climbing standpoint, you can go to south of monterrey, mexico climb those types of features or cuba or thailand or reimers ranch. You have an amazing resource in your district, in your precinct that I think we have a one-time opportunity to save. So just in conclusion, just want to say I support the recommendations from the group.
>> thank you very much. We deep I appreciate the input of our residents who took time out of their busy schedule to come down. We'll hear more at 1:30 this afternoon. Move we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Helicopter, walked around it, I致e been there.
>> good. Fantastic.
>> just so you know that.
>> I understand. I知 glad you guys have been there because from a climbing and mostly sunny biking standpoint, mainly from a climbing standpoint, you can go to south of monterrey, mexico to climb those types of features or cuba or thailand or reimers ranch. You have an amazing resource in your district, in your precinct that I think we have a one-time opportunity to save. So just in conclusion, just want to say I support the recommendations from the group.
>> thank you very much. We deep I appreciate the input of our residents who took time out of their busy schedule to come down. We'll hear more at 1:30 this afternoon. Move we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
>> 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, August 24, 2005 10:47 AM