Travis County Commissioners Court
November 14, 2006
Item 15
Well, let's see how much we can get done on the metal detectors item. I think we have quite a few residents here on that. And that is number 15, discuss and take appropriate action on policy regarding prohibition of metal detectors in Travis County parks.
>> good morning. We had this proposed policy before you several times, and so we're really just here again to reconsider the policy. What we are currently recommending is kind of a middle of the road approach to allow metal detectors in selected parks in our park system. Parks we believe that are probably safe with regard to the an tick with aties code of the state of Texas. As you know, the state opposes the idea of having metal detections in county parks. They've basically been public properties. And we're trying to create a recreational venue for metal detectors, but in places we city thy the state would go along with the idea that we permit it, but in places that doesn't run head long into their role as architect protectors of the antiquesty of Texas. So that is our recommendation and the basis of our recommendation to the Commissioners court. And have you in your backup those parks that we're recommending. It would be allen park, loop 360 park, ben fisher park and del valle park. We would necessarily have do some additional survey work of these parks in order to get a permit from the Texas historical commission to allow this activity within those parks, but we feel that that's a distinct possibility.
>> joe, would you clarify? Because we're hopeful that the historical commission will allow us to add on a basic cultural survey, which is quite modest in expenditure and I think quite frankly is a very good investment to get us in a place that would allow this kind of activity. But if they say we have to do a more full cultural survey, there is a very different price tag to that. If indeed that more expensive -- which quite frankly is a budget buster. Would that be brought back to the Commissioners court before any expenditures are made?
>> yes. The difference is substantial, as you indicated. I think before we went to that level of expenditure to get clearance, we would want to come back to the court.
>> do you know exactly as far as time lines are concerned how long does it take to get something back on a particular survey as far as the expenditures would be realized.
>> right. I believe that thc has 30 days after we notice them to evaluate these four parks. And so in roughly 30 days after that we should be able to come back and have a determination on the magazine knew tiewd of what we need to do to get them open to the public.
>> and I don't know what the substantial amount of money that would be recommended I guess to whatever is detailed in that particular survey, but my question is that money -- this thing is maybe from a low end, but then to an extravagant expense on the other end, and if that is the case, who has to pay for that extravagant expense if it is depicted after the particular service has been rendered?
>> that would be -- those funds would come out of the general fund of Travis County.
>> the general fund.
>> that's right.
>> so are we legally -- is it our conclusion that if we were to approve this recommendation we would have to get these four parks approved by the state?
>> did you want to hear that in executive session?
>> I thought I heard the answer last week and I thought it was different than what I'm hearing now?
>> why do we have to hear it in executive session? Why can't we say? I mean, because our backup reads that the state, that they oppose -- that they say that they oppose, but it also says that they may require. I mean --
>> maybe you could address that now.
>>
>> [ inaudible ].
>> tom has worked primarily on this, but I have been. I can tell you now that they don't have any authority over the Commissioners court on this specific policy. They can make your life uncomfortable in some certain situations and they have some authority over certain areas of park development, but what we have been discussing here is not something they can (indiscernible).
>> let me ask you this then: are these four parks that metal detectorrists have been metal detecting in? Do we know that?
>> I can't answer that.
>> who has been metal detecting in these parks?
>> I've been in just about every Travis County park. And truthfully they've all been hunted since the 60's.
>> allen park, loop 360, ben fisher, del valle park.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]. No one has ever had a problem in any of them.
>> what are the two or three most popular county-owned parks that you have been metal detecting in? County owned.
>> we need to get him a microphone.
>> if somebody can answer that for us, it may help us expedite this.
>> richard moya --
>> come to the mic. It's hard -- and then identify yourselfment.
>> east metro park has been heavily opportunitied --
>> would you please come to the mic and identify yourself, tell us who you are, stuff like that. For the record.
>> my brother-in-law introduced me to metal detecting in '62.
>> who are you?
>> my name is art team and I'm president of the Austin metal detecting club. I've been in metal detecting for many, many, many years. I started out with my brother-in-law, then I used it doing plumbing. The park out at east metro I hunted seven years before it was ever thought about becoming a park. I tried to get -- I apologize. I tried to get maps of all the parks to lay off areas of the parks to show where the earth had been changed and everything. I could not arrange with anybody to get the maps in spite of a number of calls, but virtually every park has been hunted for years. Both by club members and by general public. It has all been that you could go in the gate, talk to whoever was there and there was never anybody, ever said anything wrong with it, had a problem with it or anything else until recently.
>> I'm larry vicars and I've hunted moya park many times and I've had several of the employees out there say hey, you beat us to picking up the trash, thank you, and go on. But generally moya being it's closest so my house is the one I do most and I've hit basically all in precinct 4, which I think there's one more. And then I walk around the city from there on the county parks up until about a year ago was the first time I've had a little -- people said you know this is illegal? And I said I didn't know that. And where? And they said, well, quoj, but that's what I've been told. So about a year ago I basically stopped hunting the county parks because I was told it was illegal.
>> what part of moya park?
>> basically I hunt the sand lots and the volleyball courts and around the picnic tables.
>> so where park users tend to --
>> basically -- what I'm after there is basically lost coins, possibly a little jewelry, and toys. Toys make a wonderful display for kids. We have an annual show for metal detecting across Texas. This year it will be in killeen -- in 2007. And we go up there and we show what we've found. And kids come along and we have enough toys, we allow them to take one of their choice back. So we're hoping that they lose them again and we get to find them again because it's a thrill to find anything when you don't know what it's going to be.
>> I guess I'm wondering why is it that on some other parks, like moya, where we've already disturbed and where there are patron activities pretty much all the time, why we wouldn't allow them to use those areas? So if we don't know whether there are cultural values, artifacts, then if we could just declare it off limits, if we know that an area is culturally sensitive or what have you, then we declare it off limits. But where we have gone in and constructed and where we have put recreation al facilities, where people play game, where people picnic, where we know they go, why wouldn't we assume that they're all right? Do you see what I'm saying? So if the state is correct and in some parts virgin areas that we have not done county work and people have pretty much left alone, pristine, then we basically say we prefer you not to metal detect there and basically we're prohibiting you from doing it. And the other thing would be that if you find anything that is quawl -- that qualifies as the state law does, we make it clear that we believe that the responsibility under the law is, whatever that responsibility is, in our policy we pass it on to the park users. Metal detectorrists as well as others. If our gol is to preserve -- if our goal is to froferb the state whatever the an tick with aties law is supposed to protect for us, then we not only inform metal detectorrists about that, but all park users.
>> we need the park attendant to be the policemen to make sure the code is not vialled, which means having to monitor whenever the metal detectors go. It's a tremendous burden on the park staff and quite frankly it probably will not happen. You depend on voluntary compliance, don't you?
>> I mean, I can assure you that we're not in the process of policing individuals within the park on everything that they do, so it's just not -- it will be sporadic.
>> judge, what's wrong with your voluntary compliance? We have to voluntarily comply with the law that there's a speed limit. But the thing is people still speed, meaning there are still abuses. So I am very comfortable with the staff recommendation that is trying to find middle ground here saying, do you know what, we think we can identify four parks in four quadrants of the county, and one of them is near water, on the water, so there's even a greater chance of finding this stuff as people get in and out of boats. I'm comfortable with this recommendation and say let's start here and let's give it a go and see if we can then expand upon it if we get a good little record going here and we get the historical commission to slowly but surely see it our way. But I am not comfortable just adding ad hoc other parks on here where we have not made that assessment that we think we're in good place related to the land is disturbed, it's a -- it's not going to be any kind of an issue.
>> actually nrks reality, all of this land was disturbed long, long ago. And now we're trying to catch up and try to restore that which we have destroyed many years ago. The other thing is now we're trying to go back and restore what we have destroyed already. That's a good thing, but somehow it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, we spend a lot of money to try to buy land to make it -- for public purpose, and somehow when we don't have citizens being able to go on those public lands. It's kind of counter intuitive to me. The other thing is the metal machine that you have just goes down a little ways. If I saw them over there with a huge machine that could really dig huge holes, I would really have an issue with that. If it's public land, if it's private land that we have for public purpose, then I think that we need to -- our citizens go on those parks depending on the purpose that we purchased it for for families, and I think that if members of this club want to do those family type of activities with a machine that just goes a little ways, I just don't think we can restore the damage done by many people many years ago. I think we need to have some flexibility here in our policy of trying to get the fwloik use public -- the public to use public lands that we've purchased for the purpose intended.
>> just for purposes of representatives, have you gone to the city council and requested the same thing. If so, what their response as far as looking at things on their parks? It was thumbs up or thumbs down?
>> we have not gone to the city council. We've gone to the parks rec and their management, and they say they personally don't mind except that there's a rule that said no. And we've been putting our either into Travis County right now, we'll be honest about it, because we think this is most important because it has just occurred. And we feel -- we always thought we could go to the Travis County parks and metal detect, and the city under certain conditions will give us a permit. They do have a permit system which all they have to do is issue you a permit and then you can go and detect in their park for a period of time. And this period can range from a week to a year. I'm not sure what the max is. I think most of them are a week to find lost items and stuff. But the city council is on our agenda to do as soon as possible.
>> in zilker, the swimming pool, has always been open to them, the metal detecting people.
>> up until a couple of months ago.
>> all this came down about the same time.
>> we with had permits for zilker pool.
>> up until a couple of months ago?
>> yeah.
>> what happened?
>> all we were told is that they decided to start enforcing that and the permanents that we had were no -- the permits that we had were no longer good. The permits came in -- I think the gentleman's name was mcdonald, and he said, look, he says, y'all do a good job, so he says we like it, we gave -- issued permits for the pool area only, and they were indefinite until revoked. And the city has decided to revoke those permanent permits, and it was done end of the summer, whatever, several months ago.
>> can you tell me the possible expenditure, those folks that are actually responsible for the survey? From what point the minimum to the maximum as far as expenditures? And also I heard that these expenditures may end upcoming through the general fund. So what amount of money are we talking about?
>> I'm trying to -- after what john said I'm trying to make some kind of determination whether or not we are required to do the survey before allowing metal detectors in our park. Do we have to perform the surveys or do we not? I'm not clear about that.
>> if it's determined there's an historical interest or if there's -- a little known site where there may be a concern from an historical standpoint, yes, they could order you to go to that. But from the standpoint of some of the parks that you're describing. I'm not is aware --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> the parks that are recommended, the four parks that are recommended, not the other?
>> I think that's why they've chosen those instead of some of the others.
>> I think we need to -- what I'm trying to do is focus in on the issue itself. But outside these areas where we've kind of put forth the four parks out here and saying these are the ones that you can actually go look at and actually do your metal detecting, but my question still is that I still need to know those parks that are not recommended from staff that would have probably significant historic renders according to that survey from the historic commission and the expenditure from the general fund?
>> I do not have that answer. We have not evaluated what it would take to do a survey in those other parks other than the four that we've listed in the backup. I don't know.
>> okay. But there is a number out there somewhere that would be be an expense to the taxpayer.
>> we can find that out. I just don't have it right now.
>> I understand. So I guess -- but what I'm hearing from the testimony this morning is that the parks that are being recommended are not the parks basically where they would like to do the metal detectors at. So there's something there that we are not meeting what they're asking. And of course -- and what's being recommended. So I'm trying to look for an avenue whereby what they're talking about is one thing, but what we're putting on the table is a whole didn't matter. In my opinion. So I'm just trying to separate this to the point where they understand what we're talking about as far as recommendations are concerned, and maybe grow into what they're suggesting. I don't really know. But at this point I'm listening to what y'all are recommending based on the uncertainty, especially the amount of money that's going to maybe be expected by rendering a survey. That's an unknown right now. And --
>> but they can't spend any money unless they come back to court.
>> I understand.
>> do you have a response to Commissioner Davis' question?
>> I would like to respond. One of the things I would like to offer, if they want an electronic survey, we will be glad to do it with the historical commission standing there beside us. We will make for no cost to the county, they will survey in and all parks as they feel necessary. We just need a little time ahead of time to know so we can put together a crew that can do this. We'll be glad do that at no cost to any park.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> judge, I couldn't agree more than with Commissioner Gomez that the key to this whole deal as far as I'm concerned is that these are public places. And I have thought for a long time that, boy, if this is not a place that we can show that government is not against you, if I felt that we had a group of people wanting to do something that was really destructive to the parks, nobody wants that. There are obviously places that we know that we can't go and I know that we all reasonable people would respect that, but I just think that we've gone so far overboard -- I understand that the historical commission, they are in place to protect archaeologically sensitive areas and all of us want that to happen, but I just think that this is a place for us to have the ability to shine and to say, you know, thank you for wanting to do something, what I consider to be very law-abiding and a very innocuous sort of a hobby. I mean, gosh, if I were to go out on the street and find somebody and say, would you come and would you do these things for us? There are plenty of things that you do that would be very positive for us. We know now how sensitive it is. I understand our parks people being very concerned about this, and this times we have to get things like this to a certain level before everybody realizes that there is more to this than what we all thought. But judge, I'm ready to make a motion, whether we get anywhere with it or not, and it would be that we would open all of the Travis County parks to this use. I would say that we may approach -- hopefully we'd be able to approach the club with helping us identify areas. I think that that is the case. I do think that there needs to be a permit in place that the club members and anybody that wants to metal detect in our county parks. Will I would like to say Travis County parks can you do this. If the city has a problem with it, and quite frankly you all know that we do manage some of our parks for the lcra and we have are to run that by them because if they say no, then we have to be respectful of that. But if it's a Travis County park, I welcome you. I've never had a person as a Commissioner call me -- and trust me, my phone rings off the wall with people wanting to call about issues in precinct 3, but I've never had an issue about can you get these metal detecting people out of my hair? I've never had one in the four years I've been on the court. I do want to work with our parks folks and I think that y'all will, but my motion would be, judge, that we open this up to the Travis County parks, that we do come up with a way where they are able to help us and identify the areas in the parks that we can -- that we cannot allow that to take place and to move forward. And if we find that in a year that we are having issues, that we revisit this thing, but I would love to see them have the ability to go to all of the Travis County parks.
>> I'll second that.
>> can I get a clarification? I think one word can get me there. You mentioned that we manage parks on behalf of the lower colorado river authority. You're correct. We don't own that land. And we manage. And while it is, I think, appropriate for us to plead the case with the lcra, we need to go by their rule and not say you can do it and then say, but we hope to change their mind. We need to get them to change their mind before you say you can go do it. So if you will allow the words Travis County owned parks, then we are on solid ground and then it would then be be appropriate as a follow-up to go visit with the lcra and see if they will give us any leeway. But they do not allow it. And we cannot as stewards of their land on behalf of the taxpayers allow something that they do not permit.
>> Commissioner, I don't have a problem with that and I don't have a problem going with the metal detectorrists to the lcra to also work on getting them okay with this deal. But absolutely. I mean, as I said, I think this may only be able to apply to the Travis County parks. The Travis County-owned parks. But I will work with you on the lcra park.
>> and we would need to be unbelievably specific. It's like unfortunately a lot of the lcra parks out at the lake, which are very popular, like pace bend, the county does not own that and we have to go by somebody else's rule until those rules change.
>> right. We agree with that 100%. We understand.
>> you've got me.
>> so what about permit? The no charge permit or what?
>> I would like to work with -- let's find out if there is going to be some cost. I'd love for it to be just to get a permit, just to come and file and super a have apermit for nothing. If it will cost $10 a year to have a permit or whatever, if there's some cost in posting some thing or whatever, be let's let the club work with the department, but I'd say that initially I'd say that all it takes is them coming down and registering and getting a free permit.
>> okay. Let me ask you this then: in some of these parks we know or have reason to believe that there are historical artifacts, etcetera. This motion does not keep us or our staff from identifying those areas and making them off limits.
>> can I take from a different direction? My legal advice to you was only to the four parks. Whenever you bring in all the other parks, I'm going to have a little more concern because we do have known archaeological and historical concerns in a couple of the parks. So if you're talking about a permit process, could you put the authority on the permit, whenever these permits are submitted to the parks staff, could they authorize certain areas where metal detecting could occur as onsed in the -- as opposed in the reverse where they can't go.
>> see, my thinking on that was that on the ones that we know about, we certainly don't want --
>> you don't want folks to know what they are.
>> that's the whole point.
>> but the question is if we know about them, we know about them. We could go out and basically confirm the belief or not.
>> can I interject just a moment? There are clearly some known sites in some of our parks. There are extensive areas that have not been surveyed to the level that give us a confidence that there are not site there. Let me give you an example. All of these areas have (indiscernible) corridors. Those have known basketball sites of indian habitation and we just have not surveyed all of those areas. There are some distinct sites that we know about. Others we do not know. I think john's advice is probably more correct. If we can designate the sand lots, the volleyball courts, areas where these gentlemen want to go, and permit those, be I think we're on better standarding in -- better standing in terms of preserving rather than opening up the parks and know or not know whether or not there's anything else. I think going john's route are is a safer route to go and it also accomplishes what these gentlemen want to do within our parks without opening all area of the park to that.
>> and also with that is -- when you specify where, if the person or the motion could actually in the motion specify these areas, because if not you're going to open up everything here whereby folks will not be restricted to a designated area.
>> in several of our parks we have 300 acres. There's no way we can monitor the location of an individual on 300 acres with a metal detector.
>> so we have to be very careful, especially if we end up with a general type of motion, and it's not specifically saying where folks can go with these metal detecting deals when they can. And another thing is how much I think that I would also like to see. A lot of these things don't go through the budget cycle, they're after the budget cycle. And joe, I remember you mentioning the police and how are you going to police these things? Do you need to add additional f.t.e.'s? Can you cover it with current staff? I don't really know, but those kind of things need to be ran I guess through the gamut as far as what they need to do as far as staffing requirements. Because number one we don't want -- I'm not saying that you -- I'm not accusing the metal detector folks of not abiding by the rules and regulations, but there are people that do not abide by the rules and regulations. Have you some renegade situations there where people are not going to do what you gracefully intended by policy to happen. No offense to you, though. So I'm concerned about that very much so is those violators and then those that are violating, how do we police that to know that they are violating what's going on? So that's a lot, but still it's out there in my mind to -- within that process, there's still a lot of unknowns. And those are part of them.
>> what's clear to me is this, two or three things. One is we won't be able to get this done finally today.
>> right.
>> two is the crux of this motion is to allow metal detectorring in county parks, except in areas that we know to be sensitive and protected by the state law.
>> right.
>> then there are other legal standards, factors, implications that we need to take into play. But our -- this motion will rescind once we approve another order, the order that prohibits metal detecting in county parks. It seems to me that what we need to do is come up with with an order that captures what we are about to vote on, and that also includes legal standards that our lawyers are telling us that we need to use. I think we're making progress here, but I think it seems to me that what we need to do is vote on this motion, try to come up with a written order that does that, then put all the qualifiers in that order so next time we act, we will have a specific written order before us to consider.
>> okay.
>> this is basically a direction motion more than anything else, right?
>> that would be be fine.
>> and hopefully we will have an order that has specific language that we have to meet again and look at.
>> can you give a direction without a motion?
>> it's too late for that because there's already a motion and a second.
>> I want to make sure as we talk about direction. Again, judge, you said Travis County park, be and I want to make sure that the direction is Travis County-owned parks.
>> that's all we have the authority to do.
>> I know that but some folks will hear Travis County parks and go, woo, woo, that's pace bend. And one other thing, and that is that I want to make sure that this direction motion does not today rescind the ban in the parks because we do not have the permits ready to go, don't have the education ready to go, we don't have the legal standards ready to go. We're moving in that direction, but like going out --
>> we can wait two week, can't we?
>> let's have are it back in two weeks. Fire department.
>> I would like to make one other reminder that we do not pick up indian artifacts with the metal detector. So one of the things about pottery and burial grounds or whaf, we're not going to be disturbing because we won't get a signal there. And to add to Commissioner dave --
>> those may need to be in the order, though, just in case.
>> right. But just a reminder. And the other thing is if there's looters out there, you now have another set of eyes that will report this because we believe in reserving archaeological finds and that as well as everybody else. And one other quick thing, remember years ago when they first planted the pecan trees out in precinct 4, richard moya park, that they were off limits. And all the people out there knew that and you did not see anybody going out into the new pecan grove. So this is something that has happened. Thank you.
>> okay.
>> we have a gentleman here that has comments to share with us? Yes, sir? Your name?
>> my name is scott ha gle and I'm with the Austin metal detecting club. I'd like to point out one thing that I think is very key is all the expenses that they say are due to us using metal detectors there only single out metal detector usage in the parks. Most archeologists before metal detectors were around did things by sight. We have amateur archeology clubs here in Austin. We have some throughout central Texas. And I've never heard anybody address the need to secure the parks from those people. I don't see you sending park staff around following these people that are out there possibly scoping out a site. All of a sudden now it's because of metal detectors that that's come to the head, and I don't see that that's the issue. I think the issue is that the park is there. If there are types of items that need to be secured, they need to be secure from everyone, not just from metal detectors. I believe that if you have rules out there right now that say that it is improper to damage a park, so remove items from it, it shouldn't matter whether have you a detector in your hand or anything else. The rule is to not disturb that land.
>> it's already the law.
>> so why are we adding another one that says only those with detectors are the ones that we're going to search out now?
>> we're about to get somewhere here. Let's not get into the -- I'm not looking for anybody else to get in the middle of it. I'm trying to get you guys to a spot where I think that y'all will be happy. Object be vusly if somebody ulz up in -- pulls up in the park with a backhoe, we've got issues with with them. And that's what we're against.
>> let us not seize defeat from the jaws of victory.
>> I think we're moving in the right direction.
>> metal detectorrists need a little love and equality toovment.
>> yes, we do.
>> [ laughter ]
>> this is a direction motion. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Two weeks we'll have that written out. If you've been getting our e-mails, you're in good shape because when we get this ready, within a week we'll e-mail it to everybody fvment you -- owe if you have not been getting smaipg from Travis County, if you would flip one of the citizen communication forms over and give us either your e-mail address or written address, we'll make sure we send you hopefully the final draft of this policy. Okay? Thank y'all for coming down. We appreciate it.
>> I'd like to see an expenditure of projected possible costs associated with what we're doing today as far as money that we made in that. I'd like to see that. Thank you.
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:
Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:30 PM