Travis County Commissioners Court
October 30, 2007
Item 16
16 is to consider and take appropriate action on request to amend chapter 82 of the Travis County code regarding public innocence of nonresidential developments. We had a public hearing on this this morning. I thought we should -- the idea of us really trying to figure out what we can include in the city of Austin e.t.j. Lists of neighborhood associations, then supplementing that with a list that we put together ourselves, it seem to me that that's almost required, isn't it?
>> well, it's not a one-time deal. Those things change periodically, all the organizations have different officers. Somebody has to be there to maintain the database. That's why we chose the city of Austin because they have staff dedicated to keeping t.
>> I'm worried about the ones outside the city of Austin. T.j.
>> I understand. We did not include that in the original proposal because of the labor that tnr would have to have to maintain such a database. So we did not anticipate that we would go anything beyond an existing database. We weren't propose to go create one or maintain it -- we weren't propose to go create one or maintain it.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic]. You all as Commissioners have a lot of affiliation with oaks folks outside of the city, areas outside the e.t.j. An example, the pond springs folks, joe, the blackland prairie, you guys do have that information and do you have it as part of your database. Hold organization let me finish. And the point is that we know who the contact persons are. When you deal with pond springs, all you dial with, for example, blackland prairie, you know exactly who the folks are as far as point of contact. We have had a lot of experiences -- let look at the conservation easement ordinance. Just an example. With outside arenas outside the city of Austin that have actually came in contact with. I think each Commissioner on this court has an inkling of that. And as far as the developer excess to these particular points of interest is something that I think is very achievable and I think we should go ahead and move in that direction.
>> that is on an ad hoc basis, you're absolutely right. Let me finish what I'm saying. Every time we have an issue, it may have come up in your precinct, we have to get on the phone and find out who is the current president of such and such an organization and then do the mailing to that. Sometimes we have to do a research in the tax record to find out. We do not normally sustain that level of effort on every subdivision plat that may be coming into us. That is why it is a level of effort to be able to not only identify and be age to keep it current -- be able to keep it current. Officers usually change on a yearly basis.
>> let me ask a question.
>> we have the same concern, joe.
>> I think we ought to notify the esd's, volunteer fire departments, any other groups like that that operate routinely in unincorporated areas, ask them who the neighborhood associations are, or for that matter any group of homeowners. And then whoever the contact person is, ask that person if and when you step down, we will need to know the name and address of your successor. And we keep that information as best we can. So if an applicant comes in about to build a nonresidential project sort of way out, and it asks is there a neighborhood association out there, we go to art and give them the best information we have. And after that -- isn't that a good faith effort to comply?
>> what you're talking about is an ad hoc -- remember, these things come in every week, everyday we get subdivisions in. Many of which are going to be nonresidential in character. And you're asking us every time for one of those to come in to do an individual research to find out.
>> I'm not asking that. If the applicant says --
>> [overlapping speakers]. If the applicant says I don't know who the neighborhood associations are or is in this area. Do you know? Then we give them what we have. We don't go do research.
>> I'm saying we do not have that. What you're asking to us do is go out and research that and then --
>> I'm asking to you contact the esd's, volunteer fire departments in a form letter and ask them to give us the information of this nature that they have. That starts our data. And I'm saying neighborhood associations, when the contact person leaves, we ask that person, we will need to know your successor so we can pass that information on to anybody doing a project out there under whatever this county section is. Hey, if we can do a -- we can do a much better job be I think than john doe applicant.
>> I'm saying we can do a far better job, but it does take effort and a staff person to do that. What you want me to do is create a database. I'm willing to do that, but it's not what we originally proposed. I'm willing to do it. We will have to dedicate staff resources to do it. How do we fill the gap then?
>> primarily we were banking on the majority of these coming in within the e.t.j., so we will be able to lean on the city's database and not have to create one of our own.
>> a lot that have will be there, joe, but however, there are still those sentences that you need to --
>> if you want us to research, we will proceed the applicant with the names of these people, we will do so. It will take a level of effort for us do that.
>> that's just part of what it is as far as this process is concerned, period.
>> I understand. It's not the way we originally proposed it. We said this has zero impact on staffing and it did not as exroinchtsd we do what we need to do between now and the next budget cycle?
>> yes.
>> and if it looks like it's a lot more labor intensive than we anticipated, bring us that specific documentation. Specific documentation. Wrirks did christian go? I hope christian is listening.
>> move approval. We're not going to be able to win joe's vote.
>> second. And joe, as folks must realize, this is a county-wide issue, not just for precinct 1 as it initially was looked at. It's county wide and public notice for nonresidential -- a request for nonresidential application for developers. It's something that I think is in the best interest and good public policy. There will somebody glitches, but as we stated earlier, we'll work these glitches out, so let's move forward and as far as implementation, when can we start implementing this?
>> within the e.t.j., as long as we can use the database in the city, I would say inside the e.t.j. We'll do it right away. Outside the e.t.j. Probably jan 1 would give us time to do the research.
>> judge, would that work for the immediate --
>> that's fine with me. We do need an effective date because we don't have that yet, do we?
>> we do not. What's the effective date?
>> it's your choice. The motion didn't say when you want to have it started.
>> (indiscernible).
>> the way it's worded right now, it doesn't have a differentiation between the e.t.j. And
>> [ inaudible ].
>> judge, we could have it go into effect immediately with the intentions of getting all the necessaries to joe in that time flame he's requesting. And and that's -- wherever it take place. And joe, we'll just try to work out the differences as far as providing you with the necessary information, and if tupt to know the current neighborhood association presidents and everything else in my precinct, I've got that stuff. And we have to change it and update it every once in awhile because there are changes, but we keep current records of it.
>> I was going to say as as much as -- my office can help you with some of that as well. Or somebody who is in a certain neighborhood, we can help you check out those folks.
>> I wouldn't make the effective date today, I would make it November 15th. And outside the city of Austin five-mile e.t.j., maybe January 1.
>> that's agreeable with me. As long as the folks know when it's going to effect, I think thies the bottom line. We can go forward with that and share this information with those folks and I guess they'll be picking it up anyway. I have no problem with it now. I'll provide you with all the information that you need, joe, as far as those particular neighborhood associations groups and everything else that's outside of the e.t.j. Or city of Austin. You can come to my office and we'll give it to you.
>> those dates all right with everybody. Any problem with did?
>> I have a problem with this. I have a problem because I think if you gave us each a sheet of paper and said write down the definition of what we're about to do, we would all have five different opinions about what we're telling joe to do. And I think that it's a good idea for the intent of this, and that is to make sure that everybody knows that there may be something built around them that is nonresidential. I think that's a good idea because people of western Travis County want to know just like yours, Commissioner Davis. But I'm hearing some disconnect about how we're going to get there. We've got e.t.j. Language, we've got -- well, I've got some people that do have -- joe, you know the people that have those kind of organizations out there. And I'm sure that you probably could hand pick a number of the organizations in each one of our precincts and say yeah, I do know who the right person is to say something about this to. I'd like to see a begin active paragraph or two about what you are actually going to do. Mail you can do that and we can vote on it before we leave today. I don't want to vote against this because I think that it's going in the right direction. But I'm really confused about exactly what you are going to do and how you're going to do it. I mean, can you put something together in a paragraph or two and get it to us so I can at least see it?
>> I think that the wording that's been submitted is exactly what tnr's obligation will be. And I think that the wording plainly states that the burden is on the developer to identify the hoa's that are -- that are within the definition of the rule. And I don't think that that's inappropriate. I don't think that it's hard to identify those hoa's and if it's in the extra territorial jurisdiction, there probably aren't hoa's that fall into the language that's in the rule.
>> so are we saying then if there's not something definitive for an applicant to say I know exactly where to go get that, within the e.t.j. It's easy because it's the city's website or it's in their format. But we don't have it for us. And if we're -- and I'm not interested in telling an applicant, do you know, what you by hook or crook go out and find a way to identify these. If I'm an applicant I'm going to say if you're telling know do this, tell me exactly how to go out and identify this? Because we know what happens. If somebody is against something, you don't have to have a legitimate organization to be against it, you just roundup eight or 10 people that want to come down and stand with us. And they may not even live in the area.
>> I don't have the language right in front of me. I didn't pull my previous backup. I didn't realize this specifically was going to come up. But isn't the language specifically a homeowners association?
>> homeowners association, neighborhood association.
>> homeowners association, neighborhood association.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> hold on. I'd like to hear the --
>> all neighborhood and all homeowners association within one thousand feet of the proposed development.
>> I think -- imperfectly comfortable with laying that burden at the applicant's feet. If the applicant is so disconnected from the region in which the applicant is intending to build. I think it would probably an good idea for the applicant to become connected enough to know what homeowners associations and neighborhood associations are within a thousand feet. I don't think that's burdensome on the applicant.
>> nor do i. I think that's a good point.
>> and plus, you have the esd's along with the fire marshals. So this notification is I think it covers all bases, especially if you like to know --
>> the burden is on put on the applicant. The question is if an applicant comes in and in good faith says I'm about to build a nonresidential project in the far eastern part of this area, and to be honest, I've seen two property owners, but I don't know if there's a neighborhood association out there. Do you know of one? What are we going to say? None of your business?
>> well, that's exactly what they'll do.
>> what we ought to say is we don't have any information that there's one out there either. Or if we go to our list and there is one, hey, john doe is the xyy neighborhood association's contact person. Send the notice to john there. Which means you are in compliance. So I guess I'm -- my guess is once this starts rolling it won't be nearly as burdensome today as we sort of path om the many possibilities. Most of those will be in Austin or the Austin e.t.j. Or some other city, and we've got 22, 23 of them besides Austin in Travis County. But there still are some areas where there are areas that are sparsely populated where people who are new to the area may well have -- in fact, people who have been out there for some time may have some question about an association or homeowners. So we're not saying individuals. But a thousand feet if they're just five structures, the simple thing may to be notify all of them.
>> right. They could cover all their bases.
>> this is done all the time.
>> [ laughter ] what are we discussing?
>> it would make me feel a little easier if my executive manager didn't continue to grimace. I'm not real sure --
>> that's probably joe's nature.
>> [ laughter ]
>> well, November 15th --
>> so you don't have -- so joe, you think you can deal with this thing?
>> the esd's will help you.
>> I'm getting the sense that --
>> [overlapping speakers]. We will do our best faith effort to notify, and you're happy with that. What will happen is if we don't know who it is or we have a list and there's only one person on the list and there may be five out there and we didn't know the other four. And the applicant contacts that one person, they will have complied with your wishes. And if the other four show up, they're not going to get dinged for not having notified people that weren't on our list. I'm just trying to think through an applicant deion the best they could, they notified the one person they could, but they didn't notify the four that neither we nor they knew about it, how will the court feel when those people show up saying we weren't notified?
>> I will give the same answer that I gave before, it will be a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure this will be true for every case, but if we didn't know of them either and we have been dealing with this area a lot in recent past coming up around an application, I think the presumption is going to be there was good fate. If we haven't dealt with them in a really long time, that area in a really long time and said I don't know, the last we heard was ages ago when we last dealt with this area it was this person, but go out there and check and they rely on that exclusively, then I might say that wasn't good fates because I think the rule is fainly written to place -- is plainly written to place the burden on them. And I don't think it's an onerous burden.
>> do we want this back on next week to look at specific language?
>> the language couldn't be any better.
>> we don't have language about the effective date and how this policy will be implemented. We don't have language discussing what we're discussing right now. We have a motion and a second. But I don't know that -- if we're unclear about it, it won't hurt us to take another week and land on specific language that we can review in advance if the court wants to do that.
>> I'm pretty clear on it, judge. I seconded that motion. And in fact, from this morning's conversation, if I can recall correctly after the public hearing, one of the things that were brought up at that time was to look at I am plelttation date -- I am plelttation date.
>> let me suggest the following. We know the city of Austin has a database that they keep up to date. So we can implement this just as soon as you want it as long as we rely on that database. And give us until January 1 to see what we can disrach up on the rest of the area.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> any more discussion of let's put joe to work? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. In we run into unexpected problems and issues, let us know and we'll work through them. How's that?
>> sounds good to me.
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, October 31, 2007, 18:30 AM