Travis County Commissioners Court
December 12, 2006
Item 8
8, it is to consider and take appropriate action on recommended policy regarding the use of metal detectors in Travis County parks.
>> we did get a letter to share with many of the metal detectorrists. Anything to start off this item?
>> no. I think we're -- wech the order that the -- we have the order that the court was looking for. Basically the policy allows for metal detection within detection within county-owned park. This does not include the preserves and it does not include the properties that are managed by Travis County for the lower colorado river authority. As we know, their policies do not allow for metal detection. And within county-owned parks, we would allow for metal detection in disturbed areas, which would include playscapes, picnic areas, parking lots, volleyball courts, basketball courts, tennis courts, trails and sidewalks, boat ramps and fishing piers. As far as procedures, we would have this done under a permit, which would be free to the user, so we could have some registration that the metal detection is taking place in the park. We do ask the metal detectors to abide by state law, which the county itself is subject to, with regard to the preservation of an tick with aties, and that is certainly the staff's major concern in allowing metal detection within parks and that we can keep ourselves consistent with the law. And we know that there are areas within our park that do have historical and prehistoric significant areas and we surely do not want any type of excavation in those areas or metal detection taking place. So we believe this policy probably is a good middle road and gets the metal detectors where they want to be, but also protects the county from -- just keeps us on the right side of the law.
>> any questions for joe? Let's hear what the metal detectorrists think? Let's start on this end right here and work our way towards y'all. Can we?
>> my name is carolyn soft. I am not a metal detectorrists, I am an arcologist. I represent myself as a Travis County resident and the Texas archaeological society. I believe you all received my letter, and I don't want to belabor it, but what I stated still goes even with the current suggestions for the metal detecting in the parks. It's not a good idea. It can't be monitored nearly as well as you would need to do so to protect the archaeological and historical resources that are there. Many of them unknown because not all of the parks have been surveyed and recorded.
>> my name is may schmidt and I'm a volunteer archaeological steward, a member of self archaeological societies. The democratic precinct chair of precinct 250, but I'm here today as chair of the Travis County historical commission and I was authorized at our regular meeting last week to convey to you our deep concern about the ramifications of allowing metal detecting in our county parks even in disturbed areas. The potential exists for destruction of archaeological and historic sites and dispersion of items from those sites. Sites which are protected by the Texas an tick with a tees code. We also feel it's inappropriate for the county to adopt policies that are inconsistent with laws and procedures that are established at other governmental levels intended to protect our heritage. And there are very few of those laws, by the way. Aside from these broad concerns, even after reviewing the policy, we have a number of specific questions and we would like to meet with you or with the staff and share our expertise in this area. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> my name is lane nelson and I served as the past president of the Austin metal detecting club. I am currently serving as secretary. Our metal detecting club board met and has reviewed the three drafted documents regarding metal detecting. And first of all, I'd like to say that we're very pleased with the county's proposal and the direction regarding the efforts. If I may, if this is the appropriate time, we had a couple of minor recommended changes or additions to the documents, and a couple of areas where we thought might need clarification. The first document is the application for the metal detecting permit, which is a one-page, actually very short user friendly document. First would be a noalt note that we would say that potential users would be able to pick up applications at numerous locations or, for example, the precinct offices o the application itself, the body of the application, the first thing that came to mind was a question, and that is, it's our understanding that the permit would be for the user, for the person who would be detecting. And that as such the permit when issued would remain with the person as they enjoy their hobby. With that in mind we didn't know if it was necessary to have all the information about our vehicles as they do on the entrance permits since it's the detectorrist and not the vehicle that's being issued the permit. So we just wondered whether that was necessary. Another consideration with that is a number of us have more than one vehicle or we might ride together so that it wouldn't necessarily be accurate a number of times. One other item is the drivers license number. If it's actually the picture id that personnel is looking for, maybe that could be broadened to say picture id or if indeed it is the license, is the purpose of having the license to run our licenses prior to approval? We didn't know the purpose for that. And that was all on the application itself. On the actual permit, which again we had a question as to where the permit would be, on the person or in the car or either/or. And if it is to be carried with us, although this is totally fine, it would be easier to have something small that can go in a wallet. So that was the only recommendation on that item. Then moving to the guidelines, under the guidelines themselves, metal detectors may only be used in the following disturbed areas. We would like to add two more bullets to those disturbed areas. One would be areas around the athletic fields. And another one would be the beach areas, realize be, of course, that the lcra owned properties are not part of that, but there are a couple of Travis County-owned parks that do have swimming listed beaches. Then towards the very end there's a statement that parks personnel owe porn knell at the parks must review the items found. And mainly we wanted clarifications for that, a couple of things that many of the parks, there are no personnel to be found. Many of the remote parks. But even so does this include that personnel would like to see pennies and pull tabs or is the intention that we report items of significance, meaning items of value or potential historical significance, that type of thing.
>> joe, is this a good time to respond or do you understood more time?
>> I certainly think the areas, items of historical significance most certainly. I think it's up to the court whether you want the county staff to monitor other valuables such as wedding rings and things that may be found in the park. To what extent does the court want to protect the assets of other individuals who may have visited the park. That's a policy decision.
>> what's staff's position? Does staff have one?
>> staff is open to policy direction at this point. I think we've tried to at this point be receptive to wherever the court wants to take this item. We know what the law says and that's the bottom line, protect the historical artifacts. Okay. Let's get other comments and see where we go.
>> I also have more dplents guidelines.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe and Commissioners. My name is leslie bush, president of the Travis County archaeological society. I think you got my letter and thank you, requesting a meeting, because we are a concerned constituency. We're a hobbyist group of 60 or more paying member and various hangers on. We have some overlap in our membership with arc archeologists and metal detectors because we're concerned with the same stuff that people made in the ground, art farkts. But I want to be clear that I'm speaking as a private citizen because we haven't had a business meeting since this issue was on your board and that came to our attention. And it looks like we won't be able to have one because of the timing. We don't meet again until January 11th. I'm speaking as a private citizen. And melissa and rob were both very helpful and I'm wanting to recommend revision to the proposed policy before implementtation and I'm specifically concerned about four item. The first is double permitting of archeologists when remote sensing techniques are used. We're going to have to get permits both from thc and from Travis County now. And your permit isn't anywhere near as rigorous as thc's, but it's still another layer of government bureaucracy for us. The second is this item, the park personnel at the parks office must review items found, which is good. I'd like to recommend keeping that in a revised form because recognizing objects, items, artifacts that are protected by the code can be tricky. It's even tricky when you have training and the parks office staff do not have that kind of training. And it could require -- in fact, a little bit of a reference library and a reference collection. The trouble is again there are parks that don't have staff. And I understand that in all cases the staff who are going to be doing this are located downtown, and I think that poses a real burden on hobbyists to have to come downtown to show your pennies and whatever else you've got. And I think even a very reasonable and law-abiding citizen would be attempted to skip that step and I know I would. And so what I would recommend personally would be to get the park staff on site trained in some way to be able to have some kind of minimal recog sition of historically significant objects, and also unfortunately to limit metal detecting to parks that have that kind of staff so that people don't have to go downtown to get this done. My recommendation there. Third, consideration of utility easements. I don't know if that's been done. I know that electrical wires and cable wires and things ought to be down below six inches, but they're often not which I know as a gardener and I'm concerned about the safety of people poking around with metal instruments to the soil and also the cost to the county if any of those become broken and damaged as I have done in my garden. And the fourth thing and I think this is the one I'm most concerned about as a citizen is that there's exclusion for objects of great value that aren't amount ntiquities. The finder would be able to keep a 20,000-dollar engagement ring if no owner can be found for that, and the taxpayers who paid for the park and neferg it would get no benefit from that, as the proposed permit stanz. I'd like to see a revision there. Thank you for your time.
>> what's your response to this? Up until last spring, these activities went on forever.
>> you mean the metal detecting?
>> right.
>> but they went on illegally as I understand itment.
>> no. They went on lily. We had -- went on legally. We had no prohibition. The policy we had to prohibit use of metal detectors we adopted last spring. I had been on the court 16 years and not one time had it come up.
>> then I would want to know what prompted you to prohibit metal detecting? What happened.
>> staff came forward with a recommendation.
>> and for no reason?
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> we adopted the whole policy.
>> it was also occurring on lcra land and we are all conceding it is not allowable on lcra land.
>> I think it's a good idea to have a policy to clarify what is legal and what is not legal that can be -- having a card in your wallet or to hang on your metal detector.
>> but if you're walking through the park just strolling or jogging and you jog up on a 50,000-dollar ring, and you pick it up and put it in your pocket, I wouldn't call that theft. I'd call that a found 50,000-dollar ring.
>> but at what point does it become abandoned property?
>> if you're jogging and you find it, you have found lost property. I don't know that I would --
>> but if you found it on state land --
>> I don't know if there's obligation to find the owner of the ring.
>> that's different if you found it on your land.
>> I'm jogging through a county park.
>> it belongs to the county.
>> one of the recommendations that we would have as metal detectorrists is that if we found anything of value, we would report that and say, if the person who has lost this can identify it, and my name is ray doles, the problem who has lost this, if they can identify this object, then we will certainly turn it back over to them. But if no one comes forward that's why we treasure hunt.
>> is there a mechanism for -- would there be a mechanism for returning that? It was hard enough to find out what's going on at the county commission meeting, let alone a ring that was reported to a park staff member.
>> well, if I find a golf club that belongs to a set, I typically turn it in. What the pro shop does with it, I have no idea. My guess is sometimes somebody comes back and complains and they say here it is. Other times they don't and the pro shop keeps it.
>> what if someone finds that spanish gold buried up on Barton Creek?
>> what does the state law provide?
>> it's on county provide. I would say it was county property myself and that the benefit should -- but I don't know.
>> judge Biscoe, my name is
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> if you would sit in front of that mic, that would be fine. What I need I guess more than anything else is instead of -- what we need, instead of discussing a lot of this in detail, we really kind of need to look at the policy and see where we ought to tweak it, make I am proovmentz, do you see what I'm saying? But I am thinking that up until last spring apparently this was not a problem. Now it is a problem and because we had the prohibition in place and so we are trying to put in place reasonable standards that on the one hand would allow the use of metal detectors. On the other hand, provide maximum safety, security, etcetera and compliance with state law. So I think when staff looked at this we were trying to figure out, okay, where should it be safe to use the metal detectors in county parks and what language do we use, how simple can we keep this, etcetera? I do have a question of if we need your driver's license or a picture id to identify you, then I don't know that that's really a big problem. Especially if we accept some sort of picture id. What we would do with it other than look at the picture and look at you and say, yes, this is jan dough or jane doe or john doe is beyond me. We certainly won't run a license check on you, at least we shouldn't. And information about the vehicle, I guess I'm wondering too why is that necessary? Let me be quiet and listen. Yes, sir.
>> judge, again, my name is Ron ralph. I'm a citizen of precinct 3. I'm a registered professional archeologist. I'm a past member of the Texas archaeological -- past president of the Texas archaeological society. I think something -- you had asked a question as to the antiquities of those in the ground. The code states that objects over 50 years old are antiquities and those objects by right belong to the people of Texas and cannot be given away by the state. They must be cure rated and dealt with. So the state of Texas is actually the owner of those artifacts.
>> so a shiny diamond ring wouldn't be over 50 years old.
>> well, this one is, so it would have to be a case by case.
>> well, I'm making up the facts. Mine is not 50 years old.
>> I think I would up hold your right to find things in parks lying on the ground surface. But I'm not sure it would be a good idea to have you disturbing the ground. That's probably not a wise gd. I think the consensus of the comments I've heard so far shown shoe that there's kind of a sticky wick cet here. Perhaps you ought to take advice and just back off on it.
>> what's your recommendation now?
>> I think you ought to reconsider, just let go of the religious to have -- to allow metal detecting in county parks.
>> we voted unanimously last week to do that.
>> we understand.
>> two weeks ago. After numerous discussions. We are to the point of what's in the policy. Our vote was to allow the use of metal detectors. The question today is what restrictions do we have in place? And the policy is to guide us on that. I don't know that rehashing the same -- I'm thinking -- I asked staff what's the harm? What examples of harm do we have? And the answer was zero. And I did not predate my tenure here, but 16 years is a long time, and that's why I'm thinking it can't be be all that bad. Let's put in place reasonable restrictions, though. Thanks for your recommendation.
>> thank you.
>> yes, sir? On the end here.
>> my name is art teeman. I'm president of the Austin metal detecting club. I wish to point out that our website has a place for anybody that's lost anything, and we have hunted countless of lost pieces of jewelry for people that have reported them and have lists of jewelry that is missing in certain areas to go help find them, particularly like when lake Austin is down. Another thing is we have returned hundreds of pieces of jewelry. If the jewelry is identifiable, we get it back to them. The site is open to anybody. All the restaurants that are along the lakes know about it and constantly send people over to us. If it's anywhere in Austin, football field, baseball field, wherever, we've helped them find it. We've spent our time and our money doing it. And it's been rushed hand over 50. -- hand over fist.
>> if our policy, joe, if our policy is for the county to look at any found jewelry or valuable jewelry, we would keep that a certain period and if the owner showed, we would give it to the owner if they could prove ownership. If not, we would return it to the person who found it?
>> yes. Anything we find in the parks, whether it's a t-shirt or wedding ring, we put it in the lost and found.
>> nobody comes and claims it, we would return it to the person that turned it in?
>> yes.
>> we wouldn't want to hold it forever. It seems to me we're causing problems for ourself. Would we train the people in the park so they would be able to identify artifacts?
>> that is an excellent question and I don't have an immediate response.
>> is training available? Does the state provide the training? If so it, seems to me it would be pretty easy to get our people trained.
>> niement sure that's correct. But I will find out the answer to that. This is not a trivial -- if you find a rusty nail, I think it's going to take some training, considerable training and education to identify whether or not it is an artifact or not. And the body of knowledge I'm thinking is fairly extensive to be able to do that. It's not something I'm going to be able to take a maintenance tech and turn into an archeologist overnight with some short-term training and that's my issue and I think I need to research that a little bit more.
>> ray hills whvment it comes to artifacts, many of us are not trained archeologists, but we know what a scwai nail looks like and we know it may be significant and there may be other items in the ground that are significant as well. We would turn in those articles to park staff if they were available. The problem is on many of our county parks we don't have staff available there all of the time or there may be a maintenance guy come by once in awhile. They would need to be aware of this and turn if into the correct authorities and the park staff administration to say look, this might be something of significance, and they turn it over to the archeologist. It's a no brainer what you've got to do. We know how to handle our end of it. The state needs to know how to handle their end of it. It's not that hard to figure out. But on another note, in these predisturbed areas, if there is so much concern with the history and the archeology, then where are these people out there digging up all of this stuff right now? It's not happening. And the reason that it's not is because the county previously, and we've already talked about this before, has already had the surveillance done and they've placed the certain significant places like the campgrounds and its athletic parks and the playgrounds and all that on non-significant areas. So it's not like we're trying to go in and try to tear something up. I want to remind you, judge, that we only go six to eight inches in the ground anyway. And most archaeological artifacts are going to be found way deeper and we certainly don't pick up any pottery or any arrowheads or anything like that.
>> judge, I think we're just about there. There are a few things that we would like to discuss. There are some things that do make sense. I've never thought that the metal detectorrists were opposed to, okay, let's find the folks that are the professionals and say we don't really quite honestly know whether this is or isn't some significant find. I agree, I don't think that we can get our staff up to speed. You might have wanted to have gotten a degree in that if we're really going to get what we need out of it. But maybe we can work with some of the local organizations heesh to sit down with the staff and with the metal detectorrists and maybe there's a system that we can set up for it. Say okay, we don't expect our staff to know it, but obviously there are people in the community that can identify those things, but we are so close to getting this thing to where we want it to be. I do think that we do need -- if we need a picture id, you can have a picture id that's not a driver's license so that you've got a number. Everybody is suspicious about what your driver's license number, what your license plate number and for good reason. So let's let staff work with a couple of those things knowing if we can say here's the reason we do need something, I don't think that the metal detectorrists have exemplified any resistance. If it's practical, let's do it. Maybe we've got some work to do about areas around an athletic feel because of our whole athletic field deal. The sensitivity that we have with athletic fields. Beach heads or beach areas, I think that we can work with those k, but there are two or three things that I think that if we let the did he detectiverrists work with the -- detectiveterrerrists work with the staff and the other folk and say let's share this thing. But move forward with it because I think the court has exemplified that we're willing to let the metal detectors go on county parks that are true county parks. I think that's where we need to move.
>> Commissioner, one of the points about the athletic feel, we're not interested in the manicured areas. What we're interested in is the bleachers and things, places where people drop stuff out of their pockets and things like that. That's where we're interested in in where the public is, not the manicured area.
>> so maybe what y'all do is sit with staff and say, okay, let's say 25 feet away from the athletic field. Maybe you want the coach that'sner vus about losing the game and pulls out something right on the line lyon. You won't get that. But if -- you're right, it's the stan. That's where people want to go and do this. I think that's something that we probably could work out. I think that's a reasonable request. But let's let them --
>> except there is not that much of a difference between the manicured fields and the immediate stuff needly adjacent to it. It is all mowed at the same time. It's not like that is a dirt area and something else is manicured. This grass extends into the bleacher area. And it's like, I'm not even going there. There is one other opportunity here that has come up in the last two weeks that I think is where I'm headed now. I've now changed my mind flee times and give me another week and I'll probably change it again. Two weeks ago I cd our legislative consultant what is up for sunset? And I got the e-mail, I went through them day before yesterday, and the historical commission is on sunset review. And I think what y'all are really pressing for is for the state to give absolute clarity or not as to what you can and you can't do because this is not just about Travis County, it's about everything. And so the most respectful way, at least for my brain is right now, is to say, do you know what, su have an amazing opportunity that only comes up every so tiewfn press your case with the historical commission because they are going through sunset review and that is when they seem to get a whole lot more attuned to what people are saying in term of being more consumer friendly. Now, I don't know if you're going to be successful or not because there are very legitimate issues relating to the ant ifkt quites code that must be requested. And this whole thing started because of things happenoglcra lands which were never supposed to be metal detected. So where I'm at right now is call it a day, table this, take it to the ledge, let this go through sunset review and all parties press your cases before the historical commission to weigh in or not. I'm done.
>> I'm not about to send these people in the legislature. Some of them will be livid by the time they finish the legislature. This is a county -- this is a county issue. What we are simply being asked --
>> we are a division of the state --
>> I know we're a subdivision of the state, but what we're being asked is for people to be able to do a benign something in our county parks. I will like for them to work with the local antiquities to not go over the edge, but to tell these people to work with the state -- I've been working with the state for four years and I can't get one answer for anything. I'm not about to send the citizens of Travis County to that spot.
>> I mazing thing happen --
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> you may want to change your opinion over what you did a couple of wookz ago, but I think we're there with coming up with a policy where they can metal detector in county parks and I think there are three or four things that are of utmost concern from id taos this and that, and in particular areas where we go. Let's put them together and see if they can narrow the gap on where it is and let's move forward.
>> Commissioner, thank you. And both of you Commissioners for your comments. I've heard and listened to this intensely, but I'm really not there either on a lot of thing. I think there are still a lot of unknowns in my opinion that still need to be explored. Travis County taxpayers and Travis County voters and residents of Travis County have invested a lot of money, and y'all probably are here now that probably voted in support of a lot of bonds that the citizens approved, the voters approved to spend a significant amount of money into our parks. And from that wre have we have been very diligent and have been very aggressive of coming up with a park network for the county. The latest of these is the southwest Travis County park over in Commissioner Daugherty's precinct. All that area out there, that's a real big deal. Folk are still applauding the county for what we did as far as that area, but of course the voters had to give us the authority to do that. Northeast metro park which has been a around for a little bit, but it hasn't been that long that the voters have approved the necessary funding to make sure that that park is ready and available for use. And southeast metro park and then one of the latest is east metro park, which we are still continuing to do a lot of things out there. The grass is being planted, the turf is trying to get -- to grow anything at a rate whereby we could maintain it. Sthrr a lot of legitimate concerns. I'm uneasy, very unsays about where they are -- very uneasy in this process with some of these arcs and not even being established: these are long-term investments that I think the citizens of Travis County want to protect as much as they possibly can. I think it's an investment for what we can cherish for what a park is really supposed to be about. And of course a
>> about the preservation of archaeological sites. At the same time, I hope some christmas to get a metal detector. And use that responsibly, of course. My concern, however, is that -- is that some folks may not be members of the metal detecting group, I'm not sure what your name is. The association's name. And some folks may not be members of the archaeological group. You may have folks out there who take advantage of the technology to see what they can find out in the dirt. This -- these guidelines, I think, are obviously an improvement over what was not there for the years that you mentioned. So I'm happy to see that. I'm looking at a map, this happens to be actually of a state park, rather than a county park, but it illustrates a concern that I might have because this might apply to county parks, also. I'm looking at this and it happens to be cap rock canyon. Again this is an example. You have archaeological site right by a road. What you also have is -- is a total map of the situation. Some unscrupulous person might go to the park person and say I -- I lost something of value and here is where I lost it and son of a gun if they didn't just lose it right over the archaeological site. That site may be very close to one of the items where the people could metal detect. So I'm concerned that -- that the staff at the various parks needs to know what's on that park in terms of archaeological sites, so if somebody does happen to claim that they have lost something and it happens to be on a site, rather than just -- by the football field, baseball field, whatever, that special attention and protection needs to be taken when somebody suggests that they lost something that -- that is on a site. So the staff, the county parks, needs to know what -- what sites are there and they need to be trained how to handle the situation when somebody says they have lost something on -- on the place that may be a site. So I commend you for your -- for your detail in this. I kind of think, Karen, you may be on to something actually. But at the same time these county parks need to be -- need to be protected now and maybe the state can do something later, but, you know, I think -- I think citizens when they buy a metal detector or citizens when they are out there enjoying the park need to understand that they shouldn't be digging around at random, thanks.
>> joe, if we know of a -- of a potential site, we would proactively take steps necessary to exclude it from -- from --
>> the other route we have tried to direct people where we know there are no sites. Because there are areas of our parks that we have not explored, so what we are trying to do is take them to the disturbed areas where we are fairly confident that there are no archaeological sites. So if -- we would try to be proactive here and put the metal detectors where even our maintenance techs can be assured that there are not any sites of significance. We do not want to advertise where those sites are within our parks, even to our own staff members. I mean, this is a -- we try to protect them in part by not giving out information about those sites.
>> so we tried to concentrate on the disturbed areas?
>> that's right.
>> and -- in our policy.
>> that's right.
>> who has not had a chance to address the court or who wants to address the court briefly, a second time? Let's start right here and work our way around.
>> > my name is larry vickers, I'm a metal detector. I happen to agree with the gentleman that we do not want to mention areas that you cannot detect. We want to mention only those that you may. That only leads to somebody wanting to go over there see what you find.
>> the second thing is a gentlemen who just got up, anything recently lost would be on top of the ground covered by the most grass. There's no reason to do any digging if it's an archaeological area or not. If somebody says I lost something a week ago, it will not be anywhere -- unless it's in a sand pit, not anywhere on top of the ground. There's no reason to dig for artifacts, anything else, go out there with your hand, metal detector, pick it up, return it. Most of all I want to commend you on an excellent job that you have done with the guidelines. We have very few things that we would like to see improved or changed to our benefit. I would like to thank you, ladies and gentlemen, nice working with you.
>> okay. Anybody else?
>> just wanted to bring the -- again to reminds you all, metal detectors have a thing called coin mode. When we are in coin mode, 90% of the people that use these things would be in coin or jewelry, we wouldn't know there was an artifact down there or not. It wouldn't tell it. I would be glad to prove it to anybody who has a question.
>> I want to remind you again that the Travis County historical commission does exist and that when you have issues of historical and archaeological impact, that we would like to be included from the beginning.
>> so I guess the big question from our discussion today really is when we say park personnel at the parks office, must review items found. What do we need? Do we need to work on that further? Or what?
>> no.
>> it would make sense today --
>> don't want to expand the disturbed areas to beaches and within the athletic fields or perimeters of athletic fields, we need to be able to define that as well. If you want to amend the -- the areas permissible areas, let us find a beginnings that's acceptable to -- find a definition that's acceptable for our ability to maintain the turf, but still allow metal detectors around the field.
>> well, the question then is do we want to take action today tonight and then have staffing off and continue to work and -- at the appropriate time in the future, maybe amend the amended policy or do we want to delay action today and have this brought back when ready?
>> I think a delay would probably be better. I think that we might be able to mediate the groups here by -- I know -- I know you have been at this for a long time. I say that with some reservation. But I did hear some stuff today that I think we could probably mediate. Tweak the policy get it to the point where we can adopt it.
>> did you think that you can do that with -- with the -- within the first two weeks of January?
>> oh, yeah.
>> I mean because that -- I mean, personally I'm not interested in carrying it any further than that. You know, we'll have this thing for a year and a half, I mean, with people weighing in on it. I think we ought to get the people that want to weigh in on it, I think we have some people here today, they need to participate. And let's, you know, hit, you know, let the detectors pick two or three people out of their group, sit down at the table and let's -- let's come up with -- with something that -- that, you know, that works.
>> I think the general sense I get from the court is that -- is permissive to allow metal detection within the parks, but to develop a policy that -- that meets our test under the state law. That's where we have taken a step, a good step in that direction I think we just need to tweak it a little bit more.
>> judge, based on the -- on the new information that I've gotten related to -- to the historical commission going through sunset review during the legislative session, which starts on January 9th, my motion would be that we table this issue until after the legislative session and get guidance from the state during the session.
>> I will second that motion only if we are able to bring forth some type of -- we have a legislative item here on today.
>> yeah.
>> I think we need to get as many things on that legislative agenda that is really -- dictating the way I think the court should go. It's a lot of uncertainties out there. A lot of ambiguity as far as what role we can really play in a lot of these things. I would like to have some guidance I guess from the legislature. If we can end up placing this on the aght legislative agenda, that is one of the other legislative issues that we have to take forth, then of course I just think that it would be appropriate. I just think that we need to look at all spectrums of this thing and then go from there. So --
>> that's the point of trying --
>> that's the point.
>> that's what you are trying to say there.
>> that would be after June? After the --
>> sine die is the 1st, if we give us review later than that, but no later than may 31st.
>> I'm -- I've not met a person who is optimistic about the legislature in my days on this earth.
>> there's an original sine die.
>> I think that I understand the motion. Seconded by Commissioner Davis. Any or discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion.
>> show Commissioners Gomez, Davisnd r and Sonleitner voting in favor. That motion basically was to --
>> table it, wait on the legislature to give us guidance.
>> against the motion show judge Biscoe and Commissioner Daugherty. Thank everybody for participating.
>> thanks.
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, December 13, 2006 10:35 AM