Travis County Commissioners Court
February 6, 2007
Item 22
View
captioned video. (excluding 22.D)
View captioned
video. (22.D only)
Number 22 is to consider and take appropriate action on certain legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature, including the following. A is draft bill relating to the view of the state capitol. B, draft bill relating to the duties and liabilities of con stables. C, draft bill relating to the appearance of certain misdemeanor offenders before a magistrate. And d, proposal for legislation addressing land use planning and infrastructure financing in the state highway 130 corridor. . Ms. P e tis is here.
>> there is some legislation in the state, and you would not take any votes on it until eleven o'clock came around like the 130 bill.
>> which one are you here on on?
>> the corridor.
>> I agree with john. I hadn't planned to take action. I had planned to just listen listen. Anything on d? Any discussion on d? D.
>> 22 d.
>> yes, sir.
>> there are parallel efforts going on here. I think regarding state highway 130. You may be aware that senator watson has formed a working group, among all the implementing agencies, really, that would include the cities, counties, the lc lcra, tñcious the etñcious-- etñcious--tex dot, what is going on in the 130 corridor and specifically ask questions regarding what legislation he may need to sponce tor deal with the land development issues along the corridor. There are a group of us meeting to work on that, cities and counties, trying to work through what we might be anible to recommend to be able to recommend to the senator. The city of Austin has a specific proposal they are reviewing with the delegation. I have a fairly clear an understanding of what that is now, after speaking with city manager. And it is pretty well articulated in a fact sheet that you, I think, is part of your backup. They are looking, in this, first of all, understand that the 130 corridor is, has a lot of overlapping justr jurisdictions. It has municipalities with corporate limits as well as extra territorial jurisdictions. It has various providers of utility service, including those same cities, as well as private corporations like likeman real water corporation and other ent assist that have a need and necessity for serving the land in that area. You have counties, williams and haste, bsatrop, travis, all these accounts have jurisdiction at leads for subdivision authority. And in some areas there is authority looking to regulate, and that is primarily in the area of land use controls beyond the corporate limits. And so city of Austin is proposing that it be able the to annex for limited purposes the portions of their extra territorial jurisdiction within the corridor. Typically under the state law right now, give than they have that authority, but they have to annex for full purpose and full service the area within three years. What they are asking the legislature to do is relax that requirement and relax it for, so that they would not have to provide services for up to 10-15 years. So that is one prong of their legislative effort with regard to state highway 130, is to be able to have that authority that--that authority. The city of Austin has the authority. The other municipalities do not have that authority. The smaller cities are also asking for the new authority places like georgetown and Round Rock would like to have the authority to annex for limited purposes. What that gives them is the ability to zone property without providing services.
>> do we think that's a good thing or a bad thing?
>> it leaves the county in part being the service provider during that period of time. So there was some balance there and with the obligation to serve within three years, it was like okay, at some point the city will pick up the full service of the area. In this case it just leaves that area out there to be served by the county for a longer period of time. But in the absence of the counties having their own authority to regulate land uses, there are no other existing tools. I think the issue that both the cities and the account are acknowledging is that things are happening. We jointly would like to see some orderly development of the corridor. The cities have more existing authority to do it than the counties. Another way of skinning the cat would be for the counties themselves to have greater land use authorities and I think that was something also the court may want to consider asking the delegation to pursue legislation that would do that as well.
>> if we're going to do that joe, the time to do it is now.
>> absolutely.
>> not necessarily today.
>> well.
>> today or next week.
>> sure.
>> time is of the essence. If we were to ask for that, we would ask for it counti countiwide, right ?
>> we could or we could limit that request tor the 130 corridor, an area under the influence of the 130 corridor. It really is a strategic question on just how broadly you want to ask for that authority and what the likelihood that you would get the authority from the Texas legislature.
>> .
>> what's the likelihood that we think the cities may get the broader authority to annex on a limited basis ?
>> I would say better than 50-50. I think representatives crus cruse will probably sponsor the bill. My sense is that he could get enough votes to get it through. I think the cities are very focused on it on. I think they have organized on it.
>> do I hear the implication that they ought to get representative cruse to sponsor our county land use authority bill too? Too??
>> well, actually, there was a bill that was sponsored last session and the session before by senator went worth worth. That deals with this issue. I think would you certainly seek some one that has the able to get legislation through the committee system as well as through the entire, both houses.
>> you don't have to answer my question. That was rhetorical. I appreciate it. Why don't we bring last session's bill next week and take a look and see what language was there and whether we think--
>> I think that would be a good idea. I think the delegation as a whole is looking for some comment by the county on what the county wants them to do this session for them. The other issue that's at play here on the 130 core tor is what's called the infrastructure district. Any special district that may be formed to tax the properties, either some form of revenue collection that with pay for water, wastewater, and transportation within the special district. The city looks at these in parallel. They look at extending their existing authority to annex for limited purposes, zone the property, but they are also looking for a revenue generating mechanism that would help pay for the infrastructure that serves that development. And in their picture of this I believe that economic district infrastructure issue would be governed by the city and be basically formed within the extra territorial jurisdiction of the city. So it's not a regional district, doesn't go beyond the city's jurisdiction. Unless there is a parallel mechanism beyond the extra territorial jurisdiction, you may have some enequity in how infrastructure is extended because on the other side of 130 you would not have an economic develop development district unless it was separately created. And you have the issue of shared revenue. I know that the water providers in those areas are also looking for sources of revenue to help pay for infrastructure. But the particular district that the city is interested in may not provide that revenue to other providers that are servicing the core dñr. So the--the corridor. So the separate issue with the infrastructure district is something that really needs to be worked out in how it is worked out.
>> judge, would that not be part of the one-stop shop that we have with the city of Austin?
>> there are elements that need to be looked at with regard to overlapping regulations and overlapping infrastructure. It gets complicated because of the number of providers in this area that would you have to have agreement from, any number of different municipalities and counties and perhaps even the cnn's with regard to what level of service is offered and by whom. And also to have some common plan that would map out what the future is and how we are going to get there together. I don't think that's in the vision of what the city is proposing right now. I think they are fairly focused on their jurisdiction and what they have to do to control the growth within their jurisdiction.
>> might be good to just bring it to their attention since that's what we are doing in other parts of the county. The other thing is, do they have a copy of their draft that they could share with us so we can see how they are addressing this and we can kind of see where we might be able to compliment.
>> I have yet to find a draft in the number of questions that I have asked. I asked the city yesterday.
>> okay.
>> they do not have a draft.
>> okay.
>> I spoke with representative cruse. He does not have a draft. Neither does representative watson. The concept is clearly articulated in the fact sheet by the city and I think that's what it would be modeled on.
>> okay.
>> we held a meeting, meeting Travis County staff and myself, anticipating this meeting with the ccn's. Of course as we look at this whole process of economic development, one thing that we were trying to do, and I have been kind of charged with trying to come up with some resolve on this, is infrastructure infrastructure needs as applicable. And without wastewater, there are some challenges if you don't have these things in splace. So we have established a regular meeting with the various ccn's that server Travis County and also other parts of add adjacent counties, such as Williamson caldwell, haste--hays, and other parts of this particular region. In looking at those bills and other particular meeting it came to light last meeting we held that there was possible district formation that may be created. Of course that was the first I had heard of that. So from that conversation we had within the ccn meeting, ccn folks out there , actually the certificate of convenience and necessity, those are really folks that actually supply the water to the home, businesses, whatnot. But anyway, after recognizing that and dealing with that, I told those folks that I would investigate to see what is out there as far as proposed legislation or any other type of movement that has taken place. And I asked at that time for our lobbist, our consultants that work with our legislature, to start investigating, to see what movement, what activity has been generated going on at the state legislative end. Of course, then this is produced, a fact sheet, which joe confirmed is part of backup that you have today, is because of the effort that this was passed to us as far as the city of Austin had already, had submitted something to the legislature, the representatives and senator watson. So having this information in hand, of course, where is Travis County in all of this movement. And where we are at this point is that of course, we have been working on plans, working on trying to see how we can prevent our avoid east versus west type scenario where you have sh 130 on the western side being served and then east of sh 130 not been served adequately. It really boiled down to land use. Of course, after doing quite a bit here on the county side, we started ing several meetings with then--attend then--attending several meetings with then the senator kirk watson, and many groups attending, the county staff, Commissioners present the Commissioners court here, and other Commissioners from other counties and other cities, looking at the regional approach of how we are going to deal with the growth and also provide the infrastructure need in high demand. No doubt about it that sh 130 is going to be a magnet to a lot of growth. But the point is, how do we deal with that growth. So from those particular meetings, I found out, even as late as yesterday, trying to research is there any draft legislation floating around. Of course, at this point it's not anything in writing this is one of the first instruments that we have before us that has been provided to the city. This is in the form of a bill that will be sponsored I guess by representative mike cruse. Of course, but in the mind mindset of trying to go forward with all of this stuff, we have been trying to be shoulder to shoulder, eyeball to eyeball with everybody. I think what the cities and counties are trying to did, the worse thing is we end up killing a bill before it even takes flight. I think having eyeball to eyeball, shoulder to shoulder initiatives as we go forward with as many groups, entities, whether citiesrb counties, ccn's, whatever, we need to have that in place as far as going forward to be sure we get a bill passed that will address these concerns. I really look at this. Of course, I wanted to make sure to share it with everybody stars going forward. Right now Travis County does not have land use authority. Of course, we don't have that kind of authority per se. We are looking for things like that. Land use is at the top of the pyramid. It's been discussed with several people and persons. Of course, what the actually been added to this, as joe has stated, is an infrastructure type of district. As far as hang to finance and fund some of the capital that's going to be required and necessary to make such a project work similar to, I guess, a roads district type of setting. So, here again, Travis County needs to, I think, dovetail, as we have dovetailed from the ccn meetings that I've conducted for quite some time in other development initiatives along sh 130, dovetailed into what's going on on the legislative end of things. So I'm really wanting to look at how we, and what we can do. I think the judge stated earlier, he really is correct, with this movement, we really need to push ourselves really quick like to go forward and have something placed on the table as far as tools that the county can use to be incorporated into the proposed legislation being presented by the legislature and hopefully we can get something in in a timely manner. Because had this train is moving very, very fast. No doubt about it. So joe, I guess with that, I know there's a lot of questions that folks may have, but I just wanted to give some folks at background on the hard work that's been done as far as where we are now. But where we still immediate to go. We're not there yet. But I think that we are heading pretty rapidly in the right direction. So we just need to move forward. With some tools. We have to have some tools to add to what, the interests of Travis County, to be sure that we don't lose any power, we don't lose anything in this mind mindset. I hope we will gain and move forward because we can't afford to go backwards. We just can't. Thank you.
>> thank you, judge.
>> enlighten us.
>> let me see what I can do to help here. I think probably the best place to start is to wind back in history a little bit and talk a little bit about how the city has approached the state highway 130 project. Some of you may recognize this document that the city put together. We provided it to you probably over a year ago. And what it was, it was an assessment on the constraints on development that existing in the state highway 130 area. The city's interest was very broad at that time. What we were trying to, the question that we were trying to answer is, what kind of infrastructure would it take to promote the kind of development that we hear our community asking for. And that kind of development is different than a straight forward subdivision develop development. It is a denser, more aggressive mix of uses. So what this study did was analyze the infrastructure, the waterlines, the wastewater lies, the roadways that would need to be in place to support that kind of develop. What we learned from this study is that it would take an enormous public investment in order to provide the infrastructure. This is something that we have all known, which is that leapfrog development tends to be expensive because of building long lengths of pipe and lengths of roadlve it increases the expense associated with the infrastructure. So one of the things that we use this as was the start of what we knew would be a relatively long conversation about how to approach development out on state highway 130. Now, for people that don't know, this is not in the city's full purpose jurisdiction, which means the city only has access to a few tools out in this area area. So for example, the city cannot cannot zone in this area. What happened after the city published this, we learned many entities, including the county, were going through a similar analysis, looking at the state highway 130 area, asking themselves what part of this highway is running through my entity. This included counties, cities, ccn holders and others. And what do we want to achieve with this piece of infrastructure and how can we achieve it. There were a lot of groups forming a couple years ago to have these discussions. I think one of the things the city was concerned with is that there was no central place where everyone in the region was having the conversation. Then senator watson and representative mike cruse came together and pulled together a truly regional group to have this conversation. From our perspective, that accomplished several things. One, create add single place where everyone can come together and talk about state highway 130, the opportunities it created for each of us, and what we wanted to get out of that opportunity. That was really the first task, a very systematic review from each of the entities of what does this mean to you. The city of Austin once again presented this information and talked about the costs that we saw, but also the land use opportunities that we saw with sh 130. Each of the entities in that group participated in a similar way. The second step of the process was really to ask the question, given what you want to accomplish out on sh 130, do you have the tools to do it. Can you achieve what it is, your vision. I think there was a fairly conscious decision made not to impose a single vision on this very large group of local government providers, but to allow for some differences. What they want in the southern parts of sh 130 really is different than what the city of Austin is looking for, what may be different than fra williams son county is looking important. Think there was a lot of room for each entity to express their own values whan they wanted to achieve with state highway 130. In terms of tools, the next step is what tools do you have and what tools would you need to accomplish your vision. That has been happening in the last six months and requires everyone to look what the they have access to to. For the city of Austin that is a straight forward process. The tools we have are full purpose and limited purpose annexation. Those are the two tools we currently have access to that would allow to us go in and get some land use authority in the area. We have understood if we got land use authority that would in the mean much unless we had the ability to put in some of this infrastructure that we know is going to be necessary to support a more aggressive, denser kind of development. So the feed back we provided to the group was just that. With limited purpose annexation, a three-year trigger requires full purpose annexation, there is no way that the city could afford to provide all of the services that are associated with full purpose annexation and provide some of the infrastructure that would be needed to support denser development. And so we gave that feedback to the committee. There was lots of other feed back. There was feedback I know from the counties, different cities had different feed feedback. Not every city had the same set of interests. And from that, I think that our legislative leadership decided, now they have what they need in order to begin crafting legislation. Now, it is not my understand understanding that there will only be one bill filed that will cover everyone's needs. I think that, at leads, we had imagined that there might be a couple of different bills that would need to be filled to meet the various stakeholder's needs. I am aware of cruse's office is working on legislation. Like you, we have not seen a copy of it. But there will probably be several different ways of addressing our needs because I don't think one bill would fix everything. That the kind of our an understanding, is that what senator watson's group gave us was a comprehensive look at the reasonable, a comprehensive look at what tools different entities needed, and that's as diverse from pry perspective as a ccn holder to a major city and everything in between. And what we all got from this effort was some really solid legislative leadership on how to close those gaps. So what our goal is, to work with you and with the legislators and senator watson on making sure that any legislation comes forward, really does represent the needs of city of Austin and the otherer entities.
>> briefly, I think we are on the same page here as far as us want to go work together for a regional approach. I think the consensus, both at the account, at least our county level and the city level is to have a regional approach. This fact sheet is a great start. I think, I'm wondering, this is an issue not just brought about by 130. You see it in other spots took but 130 exer . If we have a ment district from the city's e tj, from an economic justice standpoint, what's the difference between those on one side of the line and the other. So perhaps we could work together on at least legislation that would broad broaden out our, broaden our attempt at a regional response to this so that we don't have that kind of in inequity in a development district. This fact sheet you are asking for, you are proposing a very small area. Under under a bringbring-- bringbring--under balismall d under abli.
>> that's correct.
>> the total, small in comparison to the amount of area affected by the 130 corridor inside Travis County.
>> part of the reason why we are responding to the 42 square miles is because we are not, we are explicitly not trying to design other entities' tools for them. One of the really nice things about this effort was that it was very respectful of each jurisdiction's wants and desires. There is no question that Travis County could get a set of tools that would become very compatible with what we are talking about. And we have heard discussion discussions about that all along. Without any land use authority whatsoever, you can't even do the basic planning for what will one day Austin's e tj, limited purchase and full purpose annexed area. So there's no question. I think that all along in these groups, there's been an understanding that the tools have to fit together. The tools that you get have to make sense with the tools that the city of Austin gets.
>> we've talked before on stuff. What I'm still concerned about, and I really do need for you all to help us help you in this effort. Like I said, we need to be shoulder to shoulder, eyeball to eyeballve I think all of us do. No big I and little you's . What I am trying to figure out whark what he discussed earlier in earlier conversation that we have had, one thingrb and I have to keep harping on it, that is we did not want to see sh 130 become a division, a divide such as icious icious icious--i 35 has been in the pass. We want to be sure we are able to economically prosper east of sh 130 just as some of these proposals appear to be a little more west. And how, I guess, the question is how can you assist. If we are going to work in this thing together, how can the city maybe assist the county in making sure that we, and I think you all are in full support of not allowing sh 130 to become that economic divide, which will be a terrible situation situation. The sqe how would you all be be--the question is how would you all be able to assist us? Making sure that doesn't happen? I know this is the first movement of that, but this is going to grow into something bigger than what we are dealing with right now. This is just something to get your foot in the door, the way I am looking at it. So we are going to need the city, we are going to need each other. That's all there is to it. But the question is, I want to make sure that is still in the utmost of folks' minds that we do not have another I 35 situation where we have a divide out there that you have part of prosperity on one side of sh 130 while the other is suffering and dying because of lack of investment.
>> Commissioner Davis, I hear you and that is a concern of ours. You raised that early on when we came to talk to you about sh 130. That is critically important to all of us, I think. I think that in some ways that gets very basic, very fast. For example, if there is inadequate infrastructure east of sh 130, it will impact the ability of the kinds of development that we are looking for closest to city of Austin limits to occur. If the utilities aren't there, it is going to be become a constraint a develop am. So I can see that. Again, there is going to need to be a combination of efforts and tools that we all have that do fit together. Again, I think that the nice part about senator watson's effort, part of the philosophy of that group is that one entity's access to a set of tools should not impede another entity's ability to be successful out at sh 130. I think that has been critically important to this effort because now that everybody understands what each entity is, what our limitations are, our goals are, then I think it allows us to work together. From just learning from what we learned when from our own analysis, when the infrastructure is inadequate it will become the block to good develop the. On the other hand, if the infrastructure is there but have you no access to land use tools, have you no control over what does happen when development comes. That's why we see the combination of appropriate infrastructure and some land use controls as being really really important combination of tools. One without the other probably will not allow any of us to accomplish our objecttive.
>> when do you expect to see draft legislation ?
>> I don't know.
>> when is the filing deadline?
>> first week of March.
>> okay then we will chat with you again.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Appreciate you coming over.
>> may I ask one thing, judge. Do we have a menu of possible tools that we would want to consider as a county for legislation to expand our land use authority?
>> we do.
>> I'd love to see it.
>> we'll get that with you next week. The judges were here on the first part of this. Do they have to leave? If they are still there, we can take up a relating to the view of the state capitol. If not, geel to b. And ms. Thomasson, we'll work you in as soon as we can. Okay.
Now, a is a draft bill relating to the view of the state car door.
>> yes, sir, administrative operations. Before you you have a draft bill. As we have discussed before, the state sets restrictions or heights in 30 capitol view corridors surrounding the capitol. The particular one that we are requesting exception for is wool ridge park. We own property south of here where the us b building is mow. If we did not have an exemption, we would not be able to build on that property. In fact, it would probably have to remain as surface parking lot because wool ridge park would restrict the height of any building up to 30 feet. That would be the maximum. And most of the property, it would be 10, 12, 14 feet that you could go up, which would not allow you to build build. The other two capitol view corridors that traverse that property are lamar bridge and the martin creek pedestrian bridge capitol view corridor.
>> we believe this language will get it done for us? That's not a trick question.
>> yes, sir.
>> whose language is this? Try it that way. One of our ?
>> it's a joint effort, I believe, between Commissioner Eckhardt, the county attorney the's office and myself. What we were trying to do is to provide an exemption to only a wool ridge park view corridor and not seek exemption on the other view corridors.
>> okay. So we need to run this by our allege legislators, get their input and take it from there. The last time theyd on Mondayishes--they admonished us for--not coming earlier. Our goal is to come as early as possible after today.
>> yes, sir.
>> judge, let me say that I think that one of the most important things about this, at least probably as it would stand to senator watson, because we have had breakfast with him at least once, I don't think anybody wants to get out in front of this thing if the Commissioners court is not going to be very solid with our desire to have this happen. Meaning, we know that there are going to be people, because we have already seen the e-mails. I mean, when you start dealing with the view corridors, there are people in this community that will come unhinged. I think that we've got a delegation over there that is very concerned about, if they get out and they support this, with the notion that we are going to support it, we had better stand pat with all that's going to come at us. And we all know there's going to be a bunch come at us. I think that we need to really be mindful that if we are going to take this step that we have got to stand our ground and not get weak kneed. Because if we do, we are going to drop somebody in the grease over there and they are not going to be very happy with us. And I think that when you just get down to the brass brass--brastacks, hats what this thing is going to be. We have a number of people that are willing to help us. We need to take a good hard look at ourselves in the mirror and say if we are going to move forward on this thing, are we going to be able to stand pat and say yes, this is what we agree to do. I think we they'd to say that every time this comes up because we almost need that rally talk to say, okay this is, I don't think there's any question, there's no question in my mind that that is a corner that we need to build the civil courthouse. That is the place that we need to do this thing. I mean, it is something that we own. We owe it to this community from a fiduciary responsibility to do that. And if we can scope this thing so that it's narrow enough that we're in the out here wanting to, you know, get really wild with, you know, the view corridor issue, then I think that we just need to stand pat. I think we need to, you know get in and give a big group hug and go, this is what we're going to do, and we're not going to move away from it. Because if we do, we are going to have a number of our folks over there that the going to have to carry this thing, that's going to go, don't want to do it. So, I mean, for whatever that the worth. I at least see our lobbist shaking his head like, that's pretty accurate.
>> just briefly, as far as the group hug, this is one thing I think, this is one step I think we could take and do the group hug on at this point. I think that we need a back stop in case we need to utilize that property across the street for civil courthouse. And conversation the fact that the southwest corner of that property, I think, under wool ridge view corridor is limited to 9 feet 24 inches, and the northeast corner of that property is limited by the view corridor to about 29 feet, between 28 feet and 29 feet, that's a pretty short building. There are several other view corridors that come into play. That's the only one that we would ask for exemption from from. We're more than happy to work inside the envelope of all the other. I agree with you, Commissioner Daugherty, view corridors, the whole concept of view corridors will die by a thousand cut and we don't want it to die. I acknowledge that we are asking to cut. And I think that today, we could vote a resolution to support this legislative language as a back stop to get our place in line, our place in the queue at the legislature, and then go forward with a public comment period, set a hearing for public comment so that we could establish whether the buy in is there, whether we really can do a group hug on an exemption to the wool ridge corridor. I agree with you, it's going to be a contentious issue, and it should be a contentious issue. But we are, through public comment and more dialogue on this, I thick we could limit it to its facts, to be so specific, as not to create a gaping holy in--hole in the view corridor concept that people would just March through. I don't want that and I don't think anybody here wants that. I would ask for us to vote as a back stopto get our place in line on this language, and then continue to talk with the community and see if the buy in is sufficient there.
>> this says the wool ridge park corridor. That's the same as the capitol view corridor.
>> that is one of the many. How many capitol view corridors ?
>> one of the 30 capitol view corridors. Just one. I believe probably one of the three smallest. There are three very small corridors.
>> yes, it runs from the southern edge of the park to the capitol.
>> okay.
>> and judge, two things. What is so debilitating about the wool ridge park view corridor, unlike the other view corridors, which start from places that ring Austin and come in as a plane to part of the dome of the state capitol, the wool ridge park view corridor starts at street level and very close and works its way up. I will say to the court the following. I don't believe this is going to happen unless the court gets behind it. I think it's necessary to put the signature of the county behind this project. I believe also that it's necessary to talk to the people that have legitimate concerns about the degrad ation of view corridors. I have been meeting with some of the people who have expressed concerns about it and talked about our project and how we're willing to live with the other view corridors. But build ago courthouse, I believe, is about a once a century project. And there are, mthis instance, we have competing considerations. And hose considerations are a view corridor that, in my own opinion, does nothing to help that park or to preserve that park. And it's in competition with a demonstrated need for a civil courthouse, which we haven't taken since the last century, in the late 1920s, early 1930s, of the last century. And there's competition, but it's also an opportunity to build a budding that is cons nant with the governor's max maxrb the Austin history center, with this area, so that we would be a good neighbor. I guess I'm saying this on behalf of the bar and the bench, that we really need your help on this.
>> judge, who is elected pick up the torch and run with it now? We have a whole delegation of folks over there. Who is actually picking it up and running with it sm.
>> Commissioner, we have talked with some of the members of the delegation. No one is running with it as a torch because that would be like running with a big target on their back and on their front. So I don't think anybody has done that.
>> no one has picked it up at this point.
>> no, but I believe that we have members of our delegation. If we showed our support, the Commissioners, the bar, the bench, that would be willing to introduce this legislation. And that's just based on conversations.
>> yeah. Okay. In other words, here is what I'm trying to figure out. If the Commissioners court decides to approve what we are doing here, and show full support of this effort for the court house, do we know of fib that will sponsor--of anybody that will sponsor? Has anybody identified themselves? Do we have to could that first and then somebody come to the table ?
>> I think that we would have sponsors.
>> okay.
>> I'm a little reluctant to say them because that put them in a crossfire.
>> okay.
>> and I don't have the license to commit them. I have to tell you, based on discussion that I have and others have, that I think we have people that will carry this legislation.
>> okay.
>> speaking of legitimate righteous concerns, we have at least one resident here to address this issue, maybe two. And ms. Thomason, you are here on this? First we have braten thomason, and she will be followed by linda team. And if you all will just come forward here. Give us your full name again so the huge public will distinguish the two of you all. We'd be happy to get your comments.
>> thank you very much, judge and Commissioners. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. My name is brighten thomason and I'm here on behalf of the tickation historical commission, a state agency for historic preservation in Texas, and on behalf of our executive director ho had to be in a legislative meeting earlier today. I'd like to read a quick state. The Texas historical commission strongly supports retaining all existing capitol view corridors as these corridors have been in existence for decades and are designed to protect the public views of the state capitol, one of our best known land marks in the city county and the state. Any redevelopment within these corridors should include protecting our existing historic assets. These capitol view corridors are a statewide issue whose importance goes beyond the city of Austin and Travis County. It is our an understanding that little or no public input from stakeholders has been sought, and I appreciate the coming of Commissioner Eckhardt, that public input should be part of this process. In addition, it has not been determined really that the blocks 126 and 108 are the most appropriate sites for the civil courts expansion when you're looking at the larger issues of the state statewide view corridors. The capital vow corridors underscore a long-standing comprehensive policy in looking at downtown develop development and how it may affect is trick vowers and the view corridors are one of the historic resources that we have. The historical commission respectfully asks that Travis County not seek an exception of the wool ridge park view corridor. Thank you.
>> any questions ?
>> yes, what are your suggestions on the best way to get the public input, after business hours, and m mthis chamber, would that be the best way to get had a kind of inut? Inut?? I am mindful that this is a statewide issue.
>> right.
>> I'm trying to figure out how to get all of that input so that we can really clear clearly vet all this.
>> I think that if you maybe contact the local heritage society of Austin, I don't know if the Travis County historical commission has been contact zñd high office did contact them. We need to have more dialogue.
>> right. I think that the local stakeholders as well as perhaps there's a statewide preservation entity, preservation Texas, that would probably also be interested in this. So if we could get together and think about inviting who the interested stakeholders rñrk I think that you would have some public comment and input. There has been some press on this issue, obviously, you're aware of the discussions and the interest interest. So I do think that a public forum is extremely important and would be very appreciat appreciated at all levels of stakeholders and that re redevelopment of this area and downtown Austin is looking at redevelopment on a larger scale. I think these view corridors are an important issue to keep in mind as part of that that. That's why they were originally enacted over two decades ago.
>> I really appreciate.
>> thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak.
>> christine.
>> thank you judge and Commissioners my name is linda team. I'm here representing the heritage society of Austin, dennis mcdaniel president. And I want to read a letter from the heritage society. The heritage society of Austin has learn that the county will consider seeking an exception to the current wool range park capitol view corridor for new civil court structures on blocks 126 and 108 from the Texas legislature. The heritage society of Austin firmly believes that appropriate redevelopment can and must embrace preservation of our historical assets, and no asset is greater than the state capitol to the region. The existing cvcs have been in effect and respected for decades, survivinging numerous economic cycles and development pressures, only sparingly revised to accommodate specific project projects. The heritage society believe believes that an extremely strong presum lun should exist in favor of retaining all current cvc's. The current to date has made no effort to utilize blocks 126 and 108 in a manner that is appropriate or complement ray to the add adjacent historic structures and park nor any effort to work with stakeholders to demonstrate that these blocks are the appropriate site for the civil court's expansion. It is for these reasons that heritage society of Austin respectfully requests that the county decline to seek an exception of the wool ridge park cvc from the legislature for blocks 126 and 108. Sincerely, dennis mcdaniel, president of heritage society of Austin.
>> thank you for that. What I think we are looking at today is basically a placeholder in the event that that is the block that is most appropriate. And further, in the event that it's the most appropriate, that we would need something outside the wool ridge park envelope. For instance, if we were to go down as the capitol annex did, nine feet 24 inches on one corner might make it problematic even for a structure to enter whatever is underneath. And I am very mindful of the fact that we definitely need to do stakeholder conversations about how to preserve the historical character. We need to redevelop wool ridge square park and re revitalize it. Also, I'm an architecture but. And--buff. Whan we have done to the human sweat courthouse isn't too pretty either. It would be nice to restore it as well I can't speak 230 everyone everyoneeveryone for--for everyone, but I can speak for myself. That whatever we consider doing it should be in context and scale with what's across the street, which is a really nice architecture, if you strip off some of the addition, a really good design so this agenda item is a place holy holier, because of the legislature being in session right now, and then to go forward with the kind of stakeholder conversations that definitely need to happen.
>> how much time do we have? Some one mentioned something about March time line as far as going through this process, as far as the legislation is concerned. I need to find out the timeliness of a lot of things. I'm hearing a lot of different things here but I'm also--
>> Commissioner, we had mentioned March.
>> I'm here, okay, you mentioned March. I'm conscious of time lines also. And then, you know, if there has to be some retre fit. I don't know what the going to happen with any of this stuff. But I'm very concerned with trying to meet the needs of our judicial system, which on are our courts. Those are mandated. We have to deal with our courts. However, we still need to consider other aspects. What I'm trying to determine is how much, you know, if you said March, is there still enough time to get, I think what Commissioner Eckhardt is requesting, some additional public input. I don't really know.
>> I think the reality is even if there is a piece of legislation filed, moving with legislator who is championing the day lights out of it at the 11th hour we realize there wasn't the public buy in, I think that legislation would die if the Commissioners court said, you foe, what e don't have the buy in, we don't have the public support for this kind of exemption.
>> the public comment period is part of our due diligence to show the delegation that we have done our due diligence.
>> absolutely.
>> then we can make some decision as to whether the buy in is in there. Let's not put that burden on our delegation. So I would be in favor of having public comment before just to kind of be really fair to everybody.
>> does the heritage society of Austin meet monthly ?
>> no. We have a board meeting every other month. We would be glad to participate as with the other preservation bodies in trying to get the word out to people. Again, a bit of a problem that is it's a statewide issue and not just an Austin issue. So we'd have to rely on statewide organizes to be sure that people around the state, especially in the larger cities, and san antonio and houston.
>> if it was impossible for them to come and be here in person, I guess they could e-mail or send written comments.
>> yes.
>> that would be part of the record as well.
>> I think preservation Texas is a good body for sort of getting, of course whark you are going to get is negative.
>> sure.
>> you know that. I'm not surprising you with that information. If you have any other questions.
>> no.
>> let me ask a question.
>> from me anyway.
>> there is a heritage and historical. These are two different ones right ?
>> state agency.
>> okay of because you're right, ms. Team. And we should do this because that's how we do things in this community. That's the judicious way that we allow everybody to weigh in on this. Do you think that if we were to go and do our due diligence, in which I'm very much, I think the court is very supportive of, if there is another place that's in this area, because I do think that the one thing that I have heard consistent consistently from the judges is that this courthouse needs to be in this area. It's not where you can take it and take it into another part of town. If we could find a place around here, I suppose there would be some dollar amount that we could say, okay, if you build it here, it costs you $25 million more, let's just pick a number. Do you think that most of the association people, and I know that's unfair to ask you to speak for people, but just you, if you were to find out that yes, you could go to another place, but it would be what I think most people would consider to be considerable amounts of cost would that just be so be it, because that's what you need to do because the view corridor really needs to trump any of those other considerations? Especially cost?
>> I think cost is down the list.
>> okay.
>> I think cost is really but it's down the list. I think functionality, from the standpoint of your functioning, obviously, is more important in many ways than cost. Obviously, if you go out on airport boulevard where the county clerk's office is, if you were mostly concerned about dollars. But preserving the historic assets of Austin, which are diminishing all the time, is an extremely important factor that's hard to weigh and measure.
>> okay.
>> so I would say that probably most people who have, who consider themselves stakeholders and have something to say about this, for them, that would be number one and cost would be down the way.
>> okay.
>> does seem to me, makes sense to get public input. There are a lot of facts that have to be considered. The course house is 75 years old. Normally they are replaced 50 years later, I understand understand. But if we don't do it down here, we got to do it somewhere. So the public needs to know about that. This issue is not getting easier am I guess it's been on our plate now four or five over six years. At the same time I think legislators should know exactly what's going on. So there are a lot of due diligence steps that have to be taken, saluting more public input. I guess my question would be why it make sense for us to touch base with the legislative delegation. They used to have breakfast together. Let them know what we are doing. That way they will know to tune into the public hearings that we have and to the extent that we get written communication, we can share that with them. I guess what I'm saying, if we hold off and try to get public input, which makes sense to me, there are other steps that we need to go ahead and start taking. At least identify those with an interest in doing this for us. We have consultants looking at possible sites.
>> yes.
>> I assume they could come up with a better one. They were to come up with this one, would they say you can do it this way and still comply with the view corridor restrictions ?
>> yes, absolutely.
>> yeah.
>> and anything that would be developed, I think there is a commitment to construct in harmony with preserving the site, the relationship. Not only have the state capitol, you have the governor's mansion, and you also have the historical courthouse, which one of the ideas in developing in that particular block would be to tie it in with the building and produce the best and highest use for both. But again, the wool ridge park corridor is one that is most restrictive and the one that we seek relief to. In terms of we have already done some geotechnical work on the site.
>> yeah. We did geotechnical, we got comprehensive site due diligence on that. One of them is the technical investigation am we had three borings from that site site. We went all the way down to 50 feet below the surface and turned out to be there's no restriction as far as in the past everybody was hearing there's a creek or water, groundwater. There is none. If you dig five to 20 feet you find lime stone all the way down. That that--site is good for foundation for buildings. That's one thing. Second with it, comprehensive survey where we look at every structure on the site, around the site to the middle of the add joining streets. And we plotted the counsel tours, elevations, and also the boundary lines, and all we have a complete boundary survey. In addition to that, we did a site, an environmental site assessment, call it phase one, in which it came 100 percent clean. There's no obstacle in the way in that particular site. Usually in the site phase one, environmental site assessment, they look at some environmental feature or there's a previous like underground tanks, et cetera cetera. And we have a report that thick. We did not find anything. So we have all those documentation for that us b site.
>> the consultant that, kind of following up with what the judge asked, especially dealing with the consultants aspect of looking at other sites, looking at other sites as far as coming up with something, I guess my question at this time is when will that assessment from the consultant be thoroughly completed ?
>> we're looking for about three more weeks.
>> from today ?
>> yeah, three weeks, by the end of the month, on the first week of March. That's what our time frame is. What we will have is a model for you on each site, to see the buildings and what it's going to look like.
>> in my opinion that's part of due diligence.
>> yes.
>> okay. Thanks.
>> sure.
>> motion that way hold off on filing the document but perform the other due diligence, including public input, formal and informal, and touching base with the legislative delegation and at the appropriate time in the future have this back before the court.
>> second.
>> discussion.
>> judge, does that also include something coming from the consultant ?
>> all due diligence.
>> okay.
>> regarding those two corridors.
>> good. Good.
>> all in favor. Show an unanimous court. Thank you very much. We'll keep you all posts too too. Maybe at some point come by and visit with the group as well as yours. Okay. I have your phone numbers from the sign in sheets. So we know how to reach you.
>> thank you judge.
>> thank you all.
>> .
>> now, there are a couple other pieces down here that suggest that we should go ahead and sort of formally post and sort of formally approve one of which is the b, relating to the duties and liabilities of con stables. Move that we formally approve that legislation.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor. Show an unanimous court. We talked about c last time. Certain misdemeanor offend offenders before a magistrate. Waiving that in order to save money in central book booking space. Any more discussion of that? Move that we formally approve it.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Bob and talia.
>> judge if you would like we can take a few minutes and give you a quick status report on the things we have been working on, and then we are done.
>> I would love that, bob.
>> bob cam here with talia gasser, and we are happy to be here on a beautiful winter spring like day. Nice out there. I think you have got this one sheet. If you have had a right now. We have one bill filed and that's the so-called clean-up bill on the 147th district court, senate bill 355. Senator went worth will handle that on the senate side, representative nast a t on the house side. The new account court law number 8, still waiting on the 30-day public notice period to expire. As soon as that is done we will file that bill. Again, senator went worth will handle on the senate and rettivity nastat on the house. Capital view corridor.
>> can you remind me what the 30-day waiting period is is?
>> sure, account court at law number 8 is a local bill bill. So the rules require you to publish a local bill in the newspaper 30 days prior to filing that.
>> if we do some sort of view corridor legislation, would that be viewed as a local bill with this requirement ?
>> I think it would be viewed as a statewide bill. We can verify that capital view corridor you just had your discussion, happen to answer any questions that you have regarding that. Misdemeanor citation bill and the where it of execution, we--writ of execution, we presented resolutions and that's been taken care of. The toll road violator, what we are calling the toll road violators bill, we have been distributing so different parties can look at it. That should come back to you next Tuesday with a bill to vote on so we can get moving on that.
>> what's the bill number ?
>> we don't have that yet. We just have the drav. On the medical examiner autopsy bill, you had requested that department to go out to the other medical examiner offices around the state to see how they responded. They got a favorable response from all but I think bexar county and they are have iting with bexar county. We hope to have that issue and report back to you next Tuesday from them. We are get to go a point where if they do, if you do want to pursue that bill, we need to get it finalized and introduced and start working on it. The early retire ees bill is on hold. Revenue appraisal caps, again, we're watching that bill. There are many different bills that have been filled but nothing yet that I think we need to bring to you. Of course, gasby 45, we're monitoring that. Susan spitaro has been taking the lead there. Then state highway 130, you had your discussion on that. So we'll monitor that.
>> if there's any draft legislation that perk lates to the top, it would be good good--
>> we do have a scheduled meeting with senator watson tomorrow afternoon.
>> good.
>> we are hoping to get a little more information and maybe he will tell us when that bill will be out.
>> yeah, we need to have a a peak see and look.
>> unless you have questions that's all we have.
>> the bill is here on hold, and any decision made to pull it down, what the your preference on terms of how we communicate that to you.
>> we were just going to ask you when we were here to ask you if you want to us take that off the list. However you want. We can leave it on there but if it's not going to be pursued this session, we would prefer to just take it off the list.
>> may I suggest a formal communication from the court either a vote in here, I don't know whether everybody has background on this or not. It classes with our gasby had a position which really deals with health benefits for early retire ees. If you look at this on surface it looks a lot mean meaner than we actually have in mind. The other thing is that we could easily got out there and start putting together the strategy and trying to implement it without legislation. It is a pretty good idea. If you come back with something that gives the same benefits or more, at the same cost or less, it makes sense to do it. But the legislation that I saw doesn't automatically get you to that point. You could enter pretty it a lot of other--interpret it a lot of other ways and most of those sort of clash with our position on gas b y 45, in my viewand we are still monitoring that as well.
>> right. My suggestion was for us to do what we could between now and the next session and decide next session whether they should write it or not. That's why my preference is to pull it.
>> that's fine judge.
>> bless you. We can communicate, we should always be looking around for a better strategy of where we can get same or more benefits for the same cost to the county or less, which we might be able to do do. Then once we think we have other partners to help us get that done, then we decide what we need to put in place to make it happen. So we can hold off on this. It's not quite posted, john hiller says, but do we think my thing would be rather than hold it and see it a thousand times, just pull it with the understanding that we are going to bring it back when it's riper.
>> second.
>> we will post it next week most specifically. Anything else today? John hiller wants to know. Whether it's posted or not. We'll have this item back on next week and try to reach it again at eleven.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, February 7, 2007 6:12 PM