Travis County Commissioners Court

January 8, 2008
Item 14

Why don't we go to -- to 14. We the right people here. Joe? We need purchasing on 10.

>> yeah. I just wanted to know what the violations were --

>> [multiple voices]

>> five minutes we can get the other staff members over here.

>> okay.

>> [inaudible - no mic]

>> one of the things that I think we need to discuss on that in preparation for next week is like the advisory committee. One thing that I’m going to recommend to the court if we're going to do, we need to work on it next week to have a full complement of the advisory committee members. But otherwise -- one week won't bother me. We'll put it up for limited discussion with the understanding that they won't take serious action except on that advice -- citizens advisory committee I think that we ought to get a recommendation. This is 14, right? So 14 a. Discuss balcones canyonlands conservation plan coordinating committee structure; and -- is it anticipated that we will need legal advice on that.

>> probably not.

>> I don't think so.

>> all right. 14 b is to consider and take appropriate action on the balcones canyonlands conservation plan coordinating committee's proposal regarding a recreational use master planning stakeholder process and increased recreational use on balcones canyonlands preserve land by 2009.

>> good morning.

>> good morning, judge.

>> I’m john white the environmental officer. With me is

>> [indiscernible] and kevin connally. Rose and kevin have been instrumental throughout the development of the balcones canyonland preserves, they are our resident experts in all things out there, I appreciate having them, I appreciate all of the work they have put in on this over the years. So we have a couple of different items on here. One is to talk about the coordinator committee. How that works, then we're going to lead from that into the planning process that is about to -- on which the coordinating committee is about to embark. This planning process would lead toward some consideration of additional public access within balcones canyonland preserves. There is a convening committee, ultimately a planning can he and a structure to be determined over an extended period of time here. That will guide the public access planning involving the stakeholders and the lake. The second part of this is to talk about some issues that may arise out of the costs, planning, staff effort and additional kinds of costs in terms of land management and such out there. If there is to be some additional public access. So the planning process itself will involve some costs, some staff time involved with that, kevin and rose will be able to talk about that. Ultimately should there be additional access to some of these parcels, there will be additional costs and efforts associated with that. I think we need to be very clear and cognizant of what those costs are likely to be in the long run. As staff our role is twofold. One is to act as biologist professional staff telling you what we think is the appropriate course of action out there. The other is to make sure that whatever decision you reach we will implement it to the best of our ability to make sure that it does what you want and is consistent with what we think are the biological principles at stake here. With that I will turn it over to kevin and rose to talk about the -- coordinating committee and the convening committee.

>> > sure. The coordinating committee is the -- the body that -- that administers the bccp that Commissioner Daugherty is the county representative and mayor will wynn is the city's represent on the coordinating committee. This body has authority to make decisions over the b.c.p. For the city and the county. For the permits and at that time things need to come back to the elected bodies of the city council and Commissioners. The things that are proposed right now as far as we know the effort isn't to not actually need to change the permit itself so we are coming to you today just to present what is being discussed and what the coordinating committee has passed, policy that they have staff beginning to work on. We wanted to just make you aware of this, to help you understand what the implications of that would be. We appreciate the work of Commissioner Daugherty. He's done an excellent job on the coordinating committee. We look forward to working with him and with y'all on this discussion.

>> was the coordinating committee created by local agreement or was that a requirement of the fish and wildlife or -- it was just done --

>> it was created -- it was an agreement between the city of Austin, Travis County. There's the shared vision agreement interlocal agreement between Travis County and the city of Austin in 1995. That set up this organization as the group that will administer this permit and then the federal permit was issued in '96. So this is the structure that we work under. To administer this plan, this permit.

>> is the structure mandated once the permit was set? In other words is it a binding situation or can that change? In other words if the permit that the structure was created in 1995, issued in 1996, is there a direct relationship or connection or a tie-in to the permit and also the structure?

>> I think this could be changed if there is a reason for it. But it would be -- have to be approved by the city council and county Commissioners.

>> right.

>> I don't think that it would -- it would involve fish and wildlife service so I don't think they care how -- how the plan is administered just so we meet the terms and conditions of our permit.

>> so it's independent.

>> I think they are very much linked but there's a lot of things other than just, you know, that the interlocal agreement talks about many different things, not just the coordinating committee, talks about funding, staffing, budgets, a variety of other things as well, infrastructure and so forth.

>> john is there any legal impediment to amending the interlocal agreement to change the size and membership on the coordinating board?

>> I would agree with rose to an extent that the two parties to the interlocal agreement are the city of Austin and Travis County. But but the u.s. Fish and wildlife is a non-voting member of that coordinating committee and in that sense they have a vested right to input.

>> if that aspect didn't change, though, would there be -- if they were still a non-voting member.

>> if you add more people it tends to dilute their input so to speak. I think we will at least be needing to advise them of what they're thinking about. I would agree with rose to the extent that probably would go along with it.

>> but of course consider the fact that there's two voting members and they advising them means that we either have to do it in a voting session of the board or through intermediate intermes not to violate open records which is part of what's so difficult about the way it's constructed right now. For instance in advance of this discussion, I have a phone call in to mayor wynn to ask him what his thoughts are about changing the size of the board knowing that Commissioner Daugherty could not call him and ask him.

>> [laughter]

>> no problem with you or staff having that conversation with him, though.

>> which is all the more reason why it's ridiculous to have it this way. We need to have more than two people on this thing. Let's just recognize what needs to be done and when Commissioner eckhardt and I talked about it, I said I can't ask that question of will but why don't you ask that. I would think that would be the sensible thing to do.

>> it was a different question.

>> as long as you don't report back.

>> I’m not reporting back, I’m not an intermediary.

>> we need to somehow move there. I cannot imagine that fish is going to have a problem, I mean, since they're non-voting member and they do -- it's not like the mayor and I don't try to bounce things off of fish because, I mean, if you are just doing something that's crazy fish is at least going to give you hope a nod that you are moving in the wrong direction. I think maybe we need to agendize that with the coordinating committee next time we meet and the mayor and I discuss as an agendad item altering the number of folks on the coordinating committee. I think judge that's got to be sensible to all of us, I mean, two of us can't even talk to each other. I think that the court certainly needs to weigh in on the opinions and ideas about -- about those other three people where they would come from.

>> to that, rose, john or kevin, I printed up a list of all of the partners. Who in your opinion, what would be optimal as far as three additional voting members? I mean, one idea would be to add lcra nature conservancy and one landowner developer.

>> I think it's important to remember that the original coordinating committee structure was created to reflect who is responsible to fish and wildlife service. The city of Austin and Travis County are the only two governmental entities that are responsible for the permit, which is why the coordinating committee structure reflects that relationship. The lower colorado river authority is what we call a managing partner under the bcp, they signed an agreement saying they will partner with us, but they have no legal obligation to u.s. Fish & wildlife service other than to our partnership arrangement. Same thing with the other membership based non-profit organizations like nature conservancy and audubon. They have been tremendously helpful, but they have no stake in ensuring compliance with the permit to the level that the city and county do.

>> although they do have significant financial interests and should.

>> absolutely without question.

>> should the named partners as it were mess it up -- for them, they have a significant stake.

>> true.

>> but to me it makes sense that you -- that the original purpose is to protect that permit and -- and the whole purpose for putting it altogether was for that purpose and I think that's the -- that's the main purpose that has to be defended here or, you know, that's -- that's what it -- what it sounds like to me.

>> although it seems that the board itself can function much more efficiently with additional members. And it could be one additional member making it three, but that still doesn't get you over the hump that -- that the board has been dealing with.

>> yeah.

>> five is a more efficient number. It's a matter of identifying three other stakeholders that would be appropriate.

>> but in case there was a conflict, it still comes back to us. To try to resolve.

>> so should we do one more county Commissioner and two more city council members?

>> I say we leave it as it is because eventually any conflicts are going to come back to us and I think it just kind of muddies up the water to have more opinions from people who aren't responsible for the permit. To in that's just -- to me that's kind of adding to the woes of our coming to a good decision about this process.

>> but Margaret then let's have another Commissioner, let's have seer councilmember and let's have, you know --

>> that makes more sense to me because two parties

>> [multiple voices] who are responsible for the permit, you know, that are responsible for the permit.

>> yeah. Then I think that -- that it would be fine to have another councilmember, another Commissioner and then us come up collectively kind of like what we do with the hospital district. You have a consensus of someone, judge, wouldn't that make sense to try to get this thing to five folks?

>> I would like to see the list of pros and cons. This is for us to discuss today. I hear a majority saying probably another structure is better. But I don't know that -- even if another structure that we won't end up right here and in six or nine months, what caused this was that a group of our resident believed we should open up the preserve to additional or expanded recreational purposes. There's a way to land on that. I thought we had the best idea in the world, check with u.s. Fish & wildlife service and see if that jeopardizes the permit. They said you've got to be more specific. I thought the planning process was to put us in a position to be more specific where they could say yea or nay. We don't want to jeopardize the permit. But at the same time if we can grant additional access without disturbing endangered species, I thought we were aiming toward that. Where we land on that, seems to me it's appropriate for the city council and Commissioners court to act on it. I think the two person structure can be what we make of it. Any time those two wants to go to the city council and Commissioner court they can do that, right. But we have he will gated a certain amount of authority. My question is do we look at the structure or look at the authority that was delegated. We had a big discussion deciding whether or not the request would constitute an amendment or a simple action short of an amendment that did not require official action by the two entities. I don't know that another structure eliminates agonies such as we are going through right now. It may well increase it. I mean, but -- you know, I can land on either one of them. No matter which structure we have in place, we still have the issue of do we grant additional recreational uses or not. Seems to me that a planning process would enable us to land on that. Otherwise it comes back, I see us periodically asking fish, can we do this, can we do that, I see them saying we need to get more specific. Exactly what do you have in mind. The other thing is since we started on this, there was a history that I was not familiar with about certain tracts of land and the -- there is not one history covering all of them, there's like a history for this tract of land, one for that, you know, one for this one at the city, one for that one at the county. That's a long way of saying I think. I’m not sure changing the structure will get us where I think we are trying to get to. I would ask that we look at what we have authorized a two person committee to do. Maybe consider whether or not we want to change that authorization to require formal action by the city council and Commissioners court for certain things. At the same time, though, I don't want to put in place a process that's a lot more cumbersome than what's there now.

>> uh-huh.

>> the other thing would be a clarification from fish and wildlife. When we say that we have a conservation plan, that has to have some kind of meaning to them. And it should have some meaning to the two -- to the city and the county who are responsible for that permit. The other thing is the preserve. That has to have some kind of meaning to them. And then there's -- there's a parkland. And I think that -- that -- I mean I can distinguish those in my mind. And -- but seems like since we are going to be looking to fish and wildlife to -- to say yea or nay on whatever we propose, you know, is it possible to get some definitions from them? As to what exactly they mean? In a preserve and conservation plan tell me something very definite. And if they are going to get a chance to look at our plan then let's have them tell us what definitions they have on those -- on those two items.

>> but Margaret that's the reason that we are where we are right now. Fish has told us until you tell us what we want to do we're not going to tell you that.

>> I know.

>> that is excialghtly what they said. Otherwise they would have told us don't even go there. They haven't told us that.

>> but at the same time then certainly they are sitting over there looking for something that doesn't fit their definition of something that they would not approve.

>> is there a staff recommendation, if so what is it and why?

>> the staff respect the coordinating committee. I don't think we have a significant recommendation at this point. It really sort of depends upon what the Commissioners' view as a workable structure. Obviously there's shh operational difficulties in terms of dealing with meetings and things like that.

>> if we want operational clarity.

>> yeah.

>> what specific language would we aim for? Not that you have to answer that right now. Maybe we ought to give that some thought and get the city council to look at that. We say okay coordinating committee, in our view you are authorized to take these actions but not these. We prefer that you come to the council and Commissioners court, on these actions. Our challenge is to provide enough definition for there to be real guidance or do we further confuse the situation. That's the problem I’m having. It's hard to -- to decide that without looking at specific wording. Comparing that to what's in place right now. And really probably getting with the powers that be and -- and trying to decide is this better than what we have. So ... It's easy to ask the questions. But -- what else do we need on 8.

>> > would it help you or anybody here to see if Commissioner eckhardt gets any sort of response back from the mayor if the mayor says hey let me take this to the council and see -- get back with you, would that have any bearing on your opinion, judge.

>> it would help to know that. I thought we ought to decide for ourselves what we think the next step will be. You see what I’m saying.

>> those seven members of the council are very intelligent people. Often I defer to their judgment. But often I do not.

>> I understand.

>> so I don't know -- it's hard to do that without seeing what they're recommending, too.

>> this is a no win deal here. You have got people here that don't want any more access. You got people in this community that say we get access if we do not affect the species. I would love to know that. I think both the mayor and I are on record as saying if fish finds this to be unacceptable, I mean, where there is a take, then you can't do it. That's -- it's that plain and clear. But I don't think --

>> when is this coming up before the actual vote before the Commissioners court as far as access versus non-access. I hear what we're saying. We've been talking about this for quite a while. At the end of the day the community is wanting to hear what the position is on access or non-access to the bccp and I don't know how long that's going to take for that to come up for a decision for us to vote on in one way shape form or fashion, what fish says or doesn't say. I have heard from the community several times, they have come down here and spoke and another one, another one, gave our two cents worth on it. My question though is where and when, staff you have basically gone through this process, can you anticipate how long it would be before we as a Commissioners court can make a vote one way or the other to support access to bccp or oppose access? Which one of those two. Where are we in the time line of making a decision so the folks can go on with what they are doing one way shape form or fashion? Can you tell me basically where we are in the process to come up with the determination?

>> Commissioner. I believe that there are any number of different opportunities, number of points in time in which the Commissioners court can weigh in on this. It really sort of depends upon how much guidance that you want to give to the process or whether you want to let the planning process play out to the extent that you then finally have a recommendation that you would then vote yea or nay upon. Certainly if there were to be some sort of decision taken that would ultimately require an amendment to the permit, clearly there would have to be a vote by the Commissioners court as well as the city council on that. But at any point along this -- this process you can potentially weigh in with specific policy guidance, I think that's kind of what we're trying to sort out here.

>> judge, can't we agendize, I see what Commissioner Davis wants, Commissioner Davis wants

>> [multiple voices] I said it two months ago.

>> yeah.

>> if I need to agendize an item here just for the five of us to either put your hand up or leave it down, I mean, it's obvious that some people want to let the community know where they stand and where they don't stand with the -- with regards to public access. And I think that's simple enough whether you want to agendize it Commissioner Davis or whether you want me to agendize it, we come back next week and say who is in support of public access because that's what I think that you want to be able to do and -- in front of this community and on the television. I’m fine with that.

>> I wouldn't mind doing that as well before I forget all of the public comment that we have heard. I think that would be good. Be mindful, of course, that even if we had a majority against public access, it is the -- it is the balcones canyon land coordinating board that decides. I think that's --

>> why if the -- --

>> [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices]

>> if it doesn't amend the permit it doesn't come to us.

>> so b really is to -- to discuss where we're going with the recreational use master planning process. You are well aware that recently the staff completed a land management plan. A key element of that was a public access chapter. That chapter became a considerable bone of contention and that's basically what led to this additional planning process. Clearly public access is a key element to the success of the balcones canyonland preserve. If we don't have public -- have the public support for the way in which we manage the preserve, ultimately the preserve is likely to fail. We cannot simply impose our will in terms of putting up fences and everything all over the place. We have to have the community's consent and participation, otherwise this is not going to work. Arising out of that sort of difference of opinion, which we have already talked about a little bit here, there was a resolution from the coordinating committee which is part of your packet, that basically sets forth the charge to the staff, to come up with -- to develop this -- this master planning process. I think that to some extent the -- the charge is still a little bit confusing. Because there are -- it's being interpreted in different ways. I think we need to clarify that right off. It's not clear whether the charge is to -- to develop a process that will result in additional public access or whether it's going to -- it's a charge to study the factors that would then be one to decide what kind of public access there ought to be.

>> I have heard the latter part, the latter definition that you gave.

>> as a voting member of the coordinating committee, let me just say it, will and I put this -- this says support public access trails. That's what we voted on. I mean I hi that the mayor and I are on record of saying that's what we would like to have, provided it can get signed off on by u.s. Fish & wildlife service. If it can't, then it can't. I think that's simply what the mayor and I voted on. There's nothing ambiguous about that. When it gets down to it is fish going to give the thumbs up or a thumbs down on the deal? I mean they are not going to tell us that until we go through this process. All of the backup that you all eloquently put together clearly states, it was discussed when we were discussing this, at the coordinating committee is fiscal issues here that we have going to -- we are going to have to recognize and I said it, more than once, you all just reiterated here. In order to make this thing work and for you to have some sort of a benchmark I mean as to how to -- to judge this thing at the end of the day, I mean whether it's just the county judging it or whether it's u.s. Fish & wildlife service, I mean there are these things that I think that we have to have in place and they are going to cost us some money. They are going to cost us, take some f.t.e.'s, there's -- there are a number of things that we will have to do. And I am in agreement with that. So be it. Because if we don't do this, it's the only way that we really get to where we're trying to get to, which is can we come up with a plan that is acceptable to fish with regards to more public access. I mean that's simply what the thing is. I think that we have determined that what we were doing with this policy statement supporting public access trails on the b.c.p. Did not qualify as being any sort of an amendment or whatever that would necessitate us bringing this before the court. But reading the tea leaves that I was doing and listening to my colleagues, it was obvious that some people on this court wanted to be able to weigh in that they may not agree with that. I think that is fine, I have never wanted to put anybody with a spot where they weren't able to say in front of the public -- if I were the coordinating committee member from the court, I might not be supportive of doing that. But I think that's fair.

>> you bring up some good points. But let me just back up a little bit. Let's go back in time just a little bit. You recall the situation where we had to make this court, this court had to make a decision on the wtp 4 situation in the bccp and in the preserve. We looked at the lucas tract, catona tract, but at the end of the day it would be located at the head waters of bull creek, which of course was not acceptable. Wtp 4. But this court as a body weighed in on this thing we did, went to the public, da-da-da, requiring public hearing. Because of the land use change. In that particular preserve. That gave me a conflict level of being -- being able to state my position. Officially. In a remedy, now the city of Austin lately would have changed that. Now it's not going to be at the ahead waters of bull creek. Even so, at the end of the day we had a chance to do that, I just want that same opportunity afforded. I hope you understand.

>> [indiscernible]

>> so let me ask this then. The -- the -- deals with the -- the decision about the coordinating committee to bless a 12 months study, right? Of possible additional access to the b.c.p. Preserve lands and if this is followed roughly one year from the date of the charge, which is November of this year, hopefully there would be recommendations about what to do and hopefully the recommendations would be specific enough for us to submit them to u.s. Fish & wildlife service for a determination. So is that what's in place right now, what's recommended by the coordinating committee as you understand it?

>> yes.

>> what's staff's response to that recommendation?

>> I think that the staff's response is that we want to talk about the processes that are involved and the costs both in terms of the planning process itself as well as staff time and the ultimate costs that would be involved with our -- with a shift in the way we are managing the bccp.

>> can we have that discussion without knowing what the specific recommendations are?

>> in general terms, yes.

>> have we had them today or --

>> we are prepared --

>> they are all -- we're all --

>> may I ask one legal question in advance that. We have said today and previously that this process would result in basically a fact summary presented to fish where fish would make the determination on those facts whether it was an amendment to the permit or not and whether it was a permissible amendment to the permit or not. Correct? I would ask legal, though, well, first I will ask y'all, what if -- is it likely that fish will then punt yet again and say it's up to you all, you asked to be placed in our shoes through this permit. So swim at your own risk. Is that possible?

>> sure.

>> yes, I would say that it is possible that u.s. Fish & wildlife service service will say yes you can go ahead and do this, but it's up to you Travis County and the city of Austin to monitor this to make sure there is no take. And that we will have to do the kind of monitoring which could cost a fair amount of money. We will figure out what to do ahead of time. We will have to monitor it, be ready to shut that down.

>> I know that I’m asking you all to speculate but you are experts in the field.

>> speculation -- experts in the field of speculation.

>> bcp, come on judge

>> [laughter] that scenario probable?

>> I think it's conceivable that fish and wildlife service takes a very strict regulatory approach and state that their role is strictly to enforce the endangered species act, any actions that the city or the county choose to take are at our own risk.

>> they will avoid answering the fact question. Here's my legal question. Then isn't the fact finder -- we're assuming that u.s. Fish & wildlife service is going to be the fact finder after this process. But there is a pretty decent probability that they're going to say it's on y'all. In which case the fact finder would then be a court if we were sued for a taking.

>> that would be the next action, right. Someone could have an action saying that one party or another has gone beyond the scope of their authority.

>> why wouldn't we expect the report to be specific enough to contain facts that would enable us to decide whether or not to even go to fish and ask if that greater access is possible? Why wouldn't the report say okay we believe in this tract right here, it's okay to allow bikers to go from a to b if you got a going right here, this routed to b and then you exit the preserve. Along the way you have to make sure these safeguards are in place. Why wouldn't that be sufficient facts for us to determine ourselves for us basically. If we do this, then the impact will be so small that we don't have to worry about harming endangered species or to the contrary, if you go from a to b, we still believe that we cannot control the impact sufficiently to guard against unacceptable impact. If we do that, it will be don't do this. You see what I’m saying? I see the court as following the recommendation and not even going to fish. And not even going to fish saying let's don't do this. We believe it will be all right. Then I see us saying okay let's see if fish agrees. In that case, I see fish as saying okay you help with this in a way you describe it. It's fine. Because we have concluded and implemented as we describe it, the impact will be acceptable. If you have a $50,000 contribution from the county, we can get the specifics that we need, right? But who knows what the impact will be to implement whatever recommendations come back. I guess my question is, it's easy to say we will go through the planning process, but we want ourselves and our residents to know that. Now to be honest, I have talked with some bikers who told me on this tract of land right here, we used to have all kinds of routes there. We are not asking for all of them back, we're asking for one of them. We go from a to b here, the impact will be very, very minor. Of course the question is okay how do you know that, what's there now. The trails used to be there, they are not there now. If I were to go out and take a look, could I see where the trails used to be. So in some places yes, some places no. Seems to me that it begs for additional research and work and don't we owe it to ourselves to do that. Hold that question. Some residents are coming down to address us on this issue. Now may be a good opportunity to hear them. We will come back ourselves. Did -- if you all can slide down, we have three chairs available, let's just come in the order that you prefer. But don't take too long and miss this opportunity. And give us your name and we would be happy to get your comments.

>> my name is richard ward, I live at 2002 shuley avenue in Austin. My purpose here is to speak against the policy statement supporting public access trails on the balcones canyonland preserve dated November 28th, 2007. I would also like to say before we begin that I appreciate the dialogue that is going among the -- among the members of the court and the committee here. I have been active as a volunteer at the wild basin wilderness preserve for eight years. I started as an adult guide after training. I have guided school children. I have been a board member. And I’m currently on the land management committee at wild basin. And I’m -- I do pro bono advisory work for the staff. The mission of -- of the wild basin preserve involves continuing education and conservation. And that's what a part of the definition, which you asked for, judge Biscoe, is about. When we talk about preserve. The key word preserve means for not only the present but also the future. Wild basin teaches everything is safe here. And that means the rocks, the plants, the animals, the insects, the spiders, scorpions, any reptiles or any other birds. There are some -- some we are talking about endangered species, not only with birds but also with plants. Access of mountain bikers and dogs to -- to -- to the bcp and specifically to wild basin will destroy the preserve and attack these endangered species such as the yellow cheeked warbler, the black capped vireo, trees as well as other plants. Some are even being studied from the -- as far away as st. Louis coming in to the preserve. There's also a major safety issue. Mountain bikes in preschool and school kids don't mix. Mountain bike tires will tear up pathways and in particularly when they put on their brakes and go sliding down. The historic plants and dog feces are totally unacceptable. I encourage all of you to nullify the policy. I thank you for your time, I would entertain any questions that you might have for me. I know that I’m speaking from a lesser level than the major issues at hand. But I am -- I have a lot invested --

>> are you speaking as an individual or as a group.

>> I’m speaking as an individual, sir.

>> okay. Thank you.

>> so as -- what public access has there been at the wild basin.

>> there's a $3 charge for adults to go in, I think a $2 charge for kids. That's paid at the entrance. I don't know if it's --

>> it's controlled access, education more than anything else.

>> absolutely, particularly the school. They bring school buses out there.

>> okay.

>> so I haven't heard that come up during the greater access discussion.

>> wild basin is part of the bcp. Owned by Travis County. It is one of two locations that has controlled access hamilton pool is the other one. So hamilton pool and wild basin are two locations in the Travis County's bcp land that have controlled access. We also believe that all of our other Travis County preserve properties are available for public access. We will take any groups to any tracts, so we consider all of them open for public access.

>> on a reservation basis.

>> yes, absolutely.

>> the charge --

>> wild basin is in its own category.

>> in addition to that, there is some -- some areas where there are conservation easements where there are neighborhoods that have the primary access I think steinner ranch is the best example of that.

>> the charge lists three particular tracts, canyon vista, forest ridge, emma long. And says priority review is I guess what they should be given. Why is that? Because it --

>> most often asked.

>> that's why the highest public --

>> where they are the most.

>> staff's interpretation on the convening committee that it's our charge not just to look at those tracts. That we will look at those tracts, but to look at the bccp as a whole and to say if public access recreational use is allowed why is it the most appropriate? So we will look at those tracts and we will look at all of the other tracts as well and try to -- to designate which areas would make the most sense if this is something that will have to be, then why would it be located?

>> judge.

>> [indiscernible] probably can answer that question better than anybody because he chairs the citizens advisory committee meeting.

>> the citizens advisory committee committee to the bcp did facilitate all of the public participation. For at least a large chunk of the public participation aspects for the last two years worth of input on this issue. During that time, my personal -- I’m the chair of the citizens advisory committee, my personal estimate is that 90% of the comments pertained to either canyon advice take, emma long, specifically turkey creek trail within emma long park or forest ridge. That's why they are listed in the policy study and it's priority tracts within a planning process that would ultimately submit plans on a tract by tract basis. Wild basin was never brought up. I don't remember anyone ever commenting on wishing bicycle or hiking with dog access to wild basin.

>> seems to me that if -- I sort of foresee a recommendation where there's a list of preserves that -- that would be untouchable.

>> absolutely. I think that's assumed by everyone that has participated in commenting on this process.

>> what he said makes sense to me. I mean, everything seems to be working well.

>> with wild basin, absolutely. A model tract I would suggest.

>> yep.

>> with regard to public access.

>> mr. Smith, in the instance of -- of public opinion wanting mountain bike and dog access to a particular tract, considering that under the permit we made an agreement to lay aside 30% of the endangered habitat so that we could access the remaining 70%.

>> I would disagree with your characterization.

>> correct me.

>> what happened was there was an attempt to develop a biologically sufficient amount of land to create a preserve. When the process occurred more than a dozen years ago, estimates even during that session period when land prices were cheap estimates were that it would be infeasible to require 30,000 acres at current prices. To try to make a fiscally responsible plan, both the city and the county, very much more so the city than the county, identified already existing public land that was owned by that entity and so the city identified what now amounts to something close to 10,000 acres.

>> 13,000.

>> thousands and thousands of acres.

>> 13251.

>> thanks.

>> sure.

>> of acreage. I was talking about parkland acreage which includes emma long park, the balcones -- the barton springs wilderness park and all of the rest of the barton springs greenbelt. And a few other tracts. That were in addition to carrying their responsibilities as parkland have imposed upon them additional restrictions so that they could also be considered as balcones canyon land preserve land.

>> is this issue really just about grandfathered use on city of Austin bcp designated tracts.

>> actually just the flip of that. Other than turkey creek on emma long park, all of the public access comments were directed at parcels, tracts of land, that are pure preserve tracts. Currently they have no -- they have no -- no access -- other than that which would be applied for and permitted at the staff through the county or city.

>> but what you have just characterized in your statements previously about the city of Austin designating a certain thousands of acres really that had previously been park as part of bcp. But that statement really isn't applicable to the Travis County acquisitions, correct?

>> well, hamilton pool and now --

>> wild basin.

>> subsequently wild basin, right.

>> reading from the city of Austin's website, going back to my 3070 split, the city of Austin's website says land developed ... As follows approximately half of the known occupied black capped vireo habitat ...

>> [reading] to better illustrate this means that under the bccp 70% of the potential habitat in Travis County may be developed while 29% of it is conserved. That's where I got the statement. 30%.

>> of the 300,000 or so acres in western Travis County, 70% of them are -- are threw the bcp permit able to be developed privately because the bcp permit establishes mitigation bank for that -- for that take.

>> I’ll go back to my original question. If the public opinion for a specific tract is for increased recreational access, including mountain biking and dog walking, whatnot and it -- it presents a -- a -- an intolerable risk of take, shouldn't we just remove that parcel from the b.c.p. And make it parkland? And go acquire some other actual preserve?

>> I think the policy statement actually focuses on the converse of your question. That is clearly I don't think there's any disagreement among those in this policy discussion that there are preserve tracts that probably couldn't sustain any public access. On the other hand the reverse of that is also believed to be true by public access advocates. That there is sustainable, responsible and permittable public access that is not currently allowed, available on some preserve tracts.

>> [multiple voices] the process proposed by the coordinating committee by which we would determine what possible additional responsible public access there may be. Within the permit. Without requiring an amendment.

>> so is it your opinion that the resolution, because this was part of our discussion earlier, does the resolution say there will be increased access and the public -- the process is to figure out how we're doing that or is the interpretation of the resolution -- or is the second interpretation correct, that there may be increased access after a comprehensive review?

>> well, all of that language is included in the policy statement. But here's how I would -- here's the plain english reading of it to me. This policy statement mandates, uses the word shall, describes trail, public access trail master planning. It also asks that three tracts be considered as priority tracts. But ultimately it says that there will be trail plans on a track by track basis submitted back to the coordinating committee for their approval or not. Those trail plans would include if it's on a new preserve tract, where there isn't public access now, clearly that would be -- it would be proposing increased public access, but it wouldn't be approved until it comes back to the coordinating committee. This whole year long process with -- involved -- wouldn't have ever happened, the policy statement wouldn't have ever happened, I submit to you, respectfully, had not the -- the adam

>> [indiscernible], the u.s. Fish and wildlife representative, written a letter to the coordinating committee saying there isn't the specificity we need but we will be happy to work within this process collaboratively to help the planning, how are they going to help? Hopefully by keeping us on the straight and narrow, to not submit recommendations that would generate a need for a permit amendment.

>> that would generate a take?

>> well, that, too. But even before that, simply recommend -- prevent a recommendation that would require a permit amendment.

>> but what we're really after is preventing take, correct?

>> the permit prohibits a take, yes. But there are things before an actual take that nitrogen rate a take appear -- that might generate a take, I’m saying those things are sort of what our eyes and ears of the u.s. Fish & wildlife service bill sewell are there at table to help us avoid.

>> did we give you a chance to finish, sir.

>> yes, sir.

>> mr. Ward, let me ask you, is your real concern that wild basin might be opened to this? I mean, are you -- are you okay if -- if wild basin is kind of off the table with any of this biking and dog, you know, accompaniment all of this kind of stuff.

>> I understand your question, sir. I’m very concerned about wild basin being excluded from this kind of policy, totally. But I also understand about -- about the preservation of things that are disappearing. That are being built over, they are being lost. We -- we have black -- black capped vireos are gone in the wild basin preserve itself. Last year I think we had five nesting golden cheeked warblers. We stopped all trail work using noise, power sauce, thing like that during nesting season between March and August, so that those birds can survive. We -- we want the children to understand something about preservation and conservation and also open that land for educational purposes. Not only to the young ones who started about four years old, tiny tots go on little trails. As well as advanced sclos sticks.

>> on top of that -- over a years's time. In other words under the controlled scenario as far as the number of visits have there been an accounting of that?

>> [one moment please for change in captioners]

>> the tis --the things that would help destroy the preserve and the safety issue. I heard mountain bikes and kids don't mix and dog feces are not acceptable because of the harm they do. I hear loud and clear the education process that is handed down to young children about the preserves and conservation. So thank you very much.

>> thank you, ma'am.

>> there is no public citizen comment, there is month such thing as it being lowerment you are our boss. Thank you for coming.

>> thank you, ma'am.

>> did you get a chance to finish?

>> yes. I, of course, started to talking in response is to questions, but actually a lot of the give and take the covered portions of what I was going to say. I will try to be concise. Certainly, I want to acknowledge that this policy statement generates an additional burden on both city and county staff. The advisory committee in passing its initially recommendation over a year ago as the first element of that recommendation, a resolution, recommended additional funds for city and county staff to deal with this issue. The staffs back up to this agenda item put that estimate for this planning process at $50. Let me, if I may, simply put that $50,000 figure in context. $50,000 is a lot of money. On the other hand, the participation certificate process and the tif funding process that the county, that generates fund for the bcp for county use generated millions of dollars in the last 12 months, double or so what it had generated in the year prior. And it's sitting, as best as staff presented to the citizen's advisory committee, there doesn't seem to be a let-up in the increase in that funding source. I’m not suggesting that that source be raided in perpetuity or frankly in any significant way, but $50,000 would be one segment of one tenth that the staff currently has targeted to build in the future. So it's a digestible amount of money for a plan that the citizens across the board have asked for over the last two or three years of the planning process.

>> is that something available for this? Is bcp tif money available?

>> when the two funds were set up, Commissioners court directed staff to spend those funds first and foremost to acquire land. We are not free to use those funds for anything aside from land acquisition until such time as we meet our land protection obligation. The participation certificate funds were also directed to acquire land. The court has in the past directed us to use some of those funds to meet other management needs such as building fences and whatnot.

>> also, doesn't the resolution also state that funding for acquisition of of preserve habitat or species management within the preserve shall have funding over funding for recreational access?

>> absolutely does. I would suggest spending millions of land acquisition and other operational needs like fences is priority over a $50,000 one-time expenditure.

>> I wanted to add that we are spending participation certificate money, we are spending that money on land acquisition.

>> and fencing and other things.

>> well, to date , I believe dn.

>> that is another issue. If we want do this, we will pay $50,000 to do it. The source doesn't matter. What matters is that we basically come up with the mone.

>> i--

>> that is what we are here for? Not to take over your job in items of identifying funds, I was simply trying to give a context as to the size of the expenditure.

>> one more follow-up question. The question is did, when this particular recommendation, whatever we come up with, is sent to fish to make a determination, will the position of this Commissioners court as a body accompany that particular recommendation by the committee? The resolution that has been readily made available and suggests that public access is appropriate.

>> I think the answer to that is that if we want to communicate a formal official position of the to fish, we do it.

>> okay.

>> we have to do it on the agenda da and vote and do it.

>> okay.

>> other thing is, I’m sitting here thinking, seems to me a good change of policy would be that when, before any decision to grant greater access to the preserves is made, the Commissioners court wants to vote on it.

>> yeah.

>> we can't tell the city of Austin what to do. We certainly can say, it would be no problem with that, really, would there? But, I mean k before we vote, we need to see something. Before we see something, got to be work done. Did you finish your statement? We have other who have comeyou.

>> you have come to my conclusion. First of all, it's a thank you to be considering all these issues as seriously as you are the. But my request in addition to that is to let the planning process happen rather than stifle it or restrict it in some way. I did have one other comment to offer some perspective. The public access advocates and requesters over this period of two years, they may have used the word recreation occasionally but do I want to point out that this five-page staff backup document, I think it's five pages, probably uses the word recreation dozens of times. It is used in two specific instances in the policy statement, but the policy statement is supporting a public access plan for trails on the preserve. Recreation infers a level of intensity that I don't think certainly is not anticipated by me, not represented by the current use levels at hamilton pool, which is a park. Public access trails that would be narrow, that would not break a canopy, that might not be used during the nesting season as all that would be controlled in terms of access by some sort of credentialing process, is the context in which this public access policy statement was passed, and that was the vast majority of the public sentiment requested.

>> the point is this, and I’m going to keep hammering on it until somebody sees point. The point is still that a resolution has been presented in November of last year, and it is suggested that access, we have public access as far as recreational, whatever you want to call it to the preserve. And I don't know how long this process is going to take, as I earlier stated. How long is this process going to take? But in my opinion, I would like to take a position on it as soon as I possibly can. I have heard a lot of things and I have witnessed a lot of testimony. Of course, I’m in a position to where I would like to make one up or down, support or oppose. I don't want to be hand tied or strung out behind a process that it appears the authority given to the commit is that we'll go forward to fish. In the meantime, they have presented their side of the issue as far as what they are recommending. But we haven't officially said anything one way or the other. So we got one element that has spoken and said this is what we like to see happen, and yet the Commissioners court still is sitting here and haven't done anything one way or the other. It just appears to me that I’d like to move in that direction to show where I stand officially on this issue.

>> how many other have come to give testimony today? Thank you, mr. Fisk. Can we get two others to comfort at this time, have a seat.

>> my name is peter targelson, I’m a neighborhood immediately adjacent to a lot of the prompt. I--property. I generally support the trail system. It would directly support me and many of the residents. I am opposed to dramatically restrict access in the bcp. Currently there's a variety of projects, guided hikes, something almost every week somewhere in the bcp, providing plenty of public access to the property in a way that everybody is already comfortable am does not provide the threat of any additional taking. There seems to be a presumption in this study that we will have increased public access, dramatically increased public access. The propointants of such access keep talking about unlimited public access. Those things are like red flags in my mind. This is a preserve, not a park. There's a huge difference in that. Going back to the the origin of the bcp, this is an accommodation made so that we could destroy the vast majority of the endangered species in this area in exchange for providing maybe better protect sun for the small number of the remaining specimens of that species, and now we're talking about increased public access and we haven't even gotten to the full acreage that we committed to put into place in the first place. I think any efforts which are going to have the threat of putting additional taking into the system is a huge step in in the wrong direction. The kind of access that I’ve heard people talking about, mountain bikes, dogs, stuff like that, toes are things very hard to control, I’m sure the impact is much bigger than anybody is even planning, and those things are pretty much irreversible, not something we can decide, that didn't work, let's step back to where we were two years ago. That's not going to happen. My personal experience in a related area is that the canyon ridge pud at 2222 chester , a big development in there, we did a plant rescues in conjunction with city of Austin last fall and during that process had a chance to see the greenbelt part of that property there have been significant mountain bike trespass that has impromptu trails cut across the property. The habitat has sustained dramatic damage, completely destroying the habitat pretty much. That's what I anticipate as a result of letting activity like mountain biking and such into the territory. People might sigh we're going to stay on the trail, but that's kind of boring after a while. Let's zoom off on this part and zoom off on this part and before we know it we've done some dramatic and serious damage. I completely oppose that kind of thing. We have to be very careful if we allow any increased access it has to have a sound scientific backing and we have to be confident and sure we can prevent damage to the property. That's why I suggest that the current process we have right now, projects, hikes, I’ve done those and recommend them. Anybody can do them. You do have to make a reservation in advance but not like hordes of people are trying to do those. Plenty of public access and in the current model we do not need to change and increase the public access. Thank you.

>> thank you.

>> can I follow up on that just with y'all. In your backup said we have had on average 40,000 visitors at hamilton pool. We just had testimony of 10,000 visitors at wild basin. Additionally the backup mentions 1500 or so in the guided tours on the other portions. So we are really talking not about, we're talking about increased access of a certain type. Sounds like 50 or 60,000 a year, there is access.

>> we agree.

>> that's correct.

>> the request is for more trails.

>> beyond trails, the question is really not just about a pathway through the woods, but actually it's the people managel managing the users of those trails that are the source of the concern for the citizens advisory committee, the scientific advisory committee and staff. It's not just about the trail itself. It's about managing the people and the types of recreation that take place as a result of those trails.

>> on that point, I want to draw a distinction here. There is a difference between recreational access that is tied in purpose to the preservation of the species for which the preserve was created, and then there's recreational access that is unrelated to the preservation of the species for which the preserve was created. And I think it's really the latter that we're speaking of essentially.

>> yes, ma'am. Your name, please.

>> my name is barbara vincent. I am a small business owner and my business is dependent on ou m y at. Use of the balcones canyonlands conservation area is not beneficial. It was set aside as mitigation tor taking habitat. I agree that already we have good structured use of the property. We are desperately in need of more park land, more recreation area. Taking the balcones canyonlands preserve area is not the way to address that need. We really need more park land. That is the bottom line here. People need green space. But the preserve is just that. It's a preserve. And I do not want to see and cannot support more public access. It was not created as a park. Although it's a beautiful green space and people are hungry, hungry for that green space, this is not what it was created for. It is a mitigation process. It was created to protection engagerd species. I utilize the areas, I take the tours. They are wonderful and they really give you a sense of what this preserve is set aside for. But this is not the way to address our need for more recreation area. We need more parks. We have the funds, we've had the bond set aside for them. Let's create them. If we open up the preserve, I want to ask, are we going to continue and purchase more land to buffer what we are opening up for public access? Because again, this is not created for public recreation. If we open it up for public recreation, then we need to substitute and create more land, purchase more

>> [. To take care of what we are opening up for public access. Rather than doing that, let's create more parks more recreation areas so people have what they need. Let's not rob peter to pay paul. Let's not cut back on our preserve. That's not what it was created / for. Thank you.

>> thank you.

>> thank you. Yes, sir.

>> my name is john kelly.

>> who else wants to give testimony during this? We're about to cut off, about to go to another item of we need both of y'all to come forward and be ready. As one finishes, if the other would go ahead. Sorry to cut you off. Yes, sir.

>> john kelly. I do have some experience doing bird surveys on the bcp as well as on the balcones canyonlands national wildlife refuge in northwest Travis County. Just to reiterate what many folks have already said the bcp was acquired as a preserve, not as a park. Although many parts of the bcp, as we have already heard, do allow public access and more parts do allow public access under restrictions as, for example, in group tours. The problem is with the possibility of opening up the bcp to increased public access, much more than what we are seeing right now, there is the distinct possibility of harm to the endangered species on the preserve lands. As you know, the supreme court has held that harm can constitute a taking. And under those conditions, it's conceivable that the fish and wildlife service could revoke the permit under which the bcp operates, with fairly dire consequences for development in western Travis County. What all this boils down to is this. Any actions you take to increase public access must be taken with the greatest caution. And anything that involves the endangered species has to be a situation where any erring has to be on the side of the endangered species. That's why this was set up, and that's what its intent should be forever. Thanks.

>> thank you.

>> thank you. Yes, sir.

>> my name is charles zuker. I had an opportunity a few months ago to address the courts. I’ll be even briefer today. I did did a little research since my last appearance, and perhaps members of the court might not have seen this editorial in the new york times from June 19. Millions of missing birds vanishing in plain site, based on audubon society annual report. The average decline of the species in the report is 68 percent. For example, an estimated 31 million bob whites 40 years ago, now 5.5 million. So the point is we're on a path where bird that are plenty full then become engage dangered and then exting. I think just as with global warning, it's an inconvenient truth that we are losing an unprecedented number of plants and birds and all sorts of animals. I think because of this we need to take extraordinary measures to protect the animals. When the golden-cheeked warbler goes, what will be the next bird that steps up to the gilloutine. Under ordinary circumstances, it might be okay to allow biking. These are not order circumstances. Therefore, we must take extraordinary measures to protect the warbler. When it's gone, what bird will be on the hit list next. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time.

>> thank you. Our final speaker.

>> thank you, judge. I am chair of the scientific advisory committee, and I e-mailed this morning a copy of my statement to you. I won't dwell on repeating after of what is written.

>> unless you can hit the highlights in a minute.

>> yes, sir.

>> I did didn't check my e-mail. I got here just in time to get here ten minutes late as I normally do on Tuesday.

>> I mailed the graphic that goes with it. I would like to point out, the group from forth hood that has completed studies now, and we should have copies of that forth with, their findings with respect to mountain biking on trails in endangered species habitat results in 36 percent decline in nest productivity. For nests in territories thatter intersected or adjacentant to trails with mountain biking compared to nests with territories remote from such sites. So 30 percent, 36 percent decline in nest productivity is greater than, a take greater than one of three nests. Every year. Now, you take about cost. If we are going to mitigate cost of this kind of impact on the species, how many more acres are we going to have to add to the preserves to deplete our minimum requirement of 31,000? If we start this kind of disturbance inside the preserves that minimum 31,000 that was projected is way out the window. Everybody knows what we've seen with respect to increase in costs. Now, this is not something that is unique here. The mountain biking advocates are active all over the country. There's an international organization. One of the organizations that's here is affiliated with them. They have paid staff in all 50 states. They have field representatives that come around and help people understand how to do this advocacy stuff. Public-owned lands throughout the country are under an assault. Once the mountain bikers get access, here come the atv's. Most of the complaints or request for access that we are hearing come from two groups, the gang runners and the mountain bimers. These are roudy people. They don't just ride single file down a narrow trail. All you have to do is go down to Barton Creek trail and see how that trail is degraded. There are multiple, multiple trails interveaving back and forth all over the landscape. To let that kind of crowd own the preserves is going to result in habitat degradation unless you are escorting every one of them. The only way to prevent the take is to completely exclude such access during nesting season. And it's been suggested here this morning that that might be a possibility. This is the first I’ve heard of it because all these people that want access, they want it year-round. Unconstrained. I just urge you to really stick with the original purpose of the preserves. Let's complete the preserves. Let increase access for those uses that are specified in the permit and in the shared vision agreement. The permit terms now specifics esinclude mountain biking, horse back riding and at v. It's clear. I don't know what fish and wildlife couldn't understand about the question, because they have responded to this before. They have been assertive that mountain biking is not permitted on preserve tracks. In fact, they took action back in the late '90s to stop it on the forest ridge track. Thank you, sir.

>> thank you.

>> what is an atv?

>> all terranine vehicle, four-wheeler, three wheeler.

>> okay.

>> john, answer something for me the way the language is presented on today's agenda, 14 b, is that adequate language for the court to take action one way or the other on this item? As far as access? Is that enough language to do that even with the recreational use?

>> let put in it perspective. The coordinating committee voted late last year. You have the resolution in your backup.

>> right.

>> that addresses if access is going to occur, this is how we would like to see that happen. And your staff is asking you, do we need to put forth the resources and begin the process of doing the things that that resolution asks. So what is before you is your response to that resolution that was passed.

>> . I’d like to make a motion. I stated before, and I think Commissioner Daugherty brought it up about the position we need to be looking at. If this particular language can address this particular issue of public access with the resolution and things that has already been acted on by the committee, I would like to move that we, I’d like to move that this particular Commissioners court oppose this particular resolution that has all the amendments, amenities in it that include, which include additional public access to the preserves. So I’d like to make that motion that we oppose this item.

>> second.

>> that basically is not to do the master planning process.

>> resolution and all that.

>> anymore discussion?

>> I have one question in clarification in advance of the vote. I just want a clarification from Commissioner Daugherty. Is the intent of the resolution, the intent is that public access will be increased through this process.

>> only with the sign-off of u.s. Fish and wildlife. I can't speak for the mayor, but I think that's what, I don't know, willie, you talked to the mayor. Would you think--

>> your question?

>> the question that Commissioner eckhardt asked was, was our intent to have public access period? I can tell you that my intent was public access with sign-off on u.s. Fish and wildlife. If u.s. Fish and wildlife doesn't sign off on access, then you know, we can't have it. Have you talked to the mayor? I know you hate to have somebody--

>> I can't speak for the mayor but I’ve been participating in this process with the secretary for the coordinating committee. I can tell you how I’m interpreting this and tending to move forward. I’m going to be the lead person for this process. My an understanding is that we're supposed to develop a trail master plan that does two things, a general policy and five specific plans for trails on bcp tracts. That these plans must not create a situation where we amend the permit, the habitat conservation plan or the public access guidelines. And that as long as we avoid amending any of those, that we should move forward with a specific plan that will eventually lead to implementation of new trails beginning in 2009.

>> I think a better position for the court to take would be that Commissioners court reserve the right to vote on any increased access to the preserves, which we are not quite posed to do, but we would do next week, and I think that the better than not doing the master plaque --planning because I think master planning ought to be don.

>> I agree it ought to be done but I don't think it ought to delay us how we want to see the bcp continue to develop. I believe we may have an opportunity if the city provides us with us to add some more land to the bcp. I just think we need to complete it. I think it's a commitment. And I feel pretty strong about keeping commitments. And let's get this done. I totally agree. This was started out at a preserve and I think we ought to keep it.

>> I agree.

>> but I don't want to take this long process and then determine that we need another year's process and then another year's process when it comes down to giving full direction as to what we expect this planning to lead to.

>> I have a substitute motion that master planning for trail and public access be delayed until completion of the act range acquisition mandated by the permit.

>> second.

>> let me comment.

>> did you second both of them?

>> sure. Why not?

>> can that be done under robert's rules?

>> robal not--probably not.

>> that's tand amount to withdrawing her second of the first one.

>> you need to vote on the first one.

>> I’m about to vote on the substitute.

>> that is what it would be.

>> yeah.

>> second motion she likes better than the first. I think she can substitute her second as well.

>> under robert's rules you can have your cake and eat it too?

>> yeah. There are places.

>> okay.

>> the purpose of my motion was to prevent sent additional public ago assess to our preserve. I make no qualms about it from the get-go as far as that's concerned. And if this particular setting is to increase public access to our preserve, I just think it's inappropriate as far as protection of our species. This is the reason I made the particular motion and it didn't appear to me that what is going forward would accomplish what I’m trying to overturn. That is to ensure that the preserves are protected and we do not have additional access to it.

>> the substitute is to delay master planning until.

>> completion. Until completion of our acquisition requirements under the permit.

>> that was second the by Commissioner Gomez. Anymore discussion of the substitute potion?

>> yes, judge. My question about the substitute motion is this. If the structure itself in a of this item overrides anything that this Commissioners court does officially, then will the statement be bonafide to let them know we do not want the see additional public access achieved or acquired to our preserve? What kind of message will this send to fish? Are we going to stand here and protect the preserve but not allowing additional public access, or are we going to weaken the position by saying, well, we'll wait until all the acquisition of the property has been acquired, and then we come back and say, okay, by the way, we'll deal with additional access. I think this court needs to take a strong position--

>> Commissioner, any discussion on the substitute motion?

>> I just--

>> you haven't done it yet. So you are out of order then. Commissioner Daugherty.

>> I think consider.

>> any discussion on the substitute motion?

>> yes, judge.

>> I’m discussing it.

>> no, you're not. You haven't.

>> I think I have.

>> you haven't.

>> anyway, that's your opinion.

>> that's my opinion and as presiding officer, that's what matters. Commissioner Daugherty is recognized by the county judge.

>> all right, go ahead.

>> judge, if we are going to embark on finding the additional 25, roughly 25 to 2800 acres, we know that we are talking about, if you just put them at 25,000 an acre, we, and we study openly in this court that we think that we are somewhere between 50 and $100 million away from finishing the preserve.

>> exactly.

>> I will tell you, I do not, I don't know, this community needs to have the opportunity to tell you whether or not they are going to spend another 50 to 100 million to do this. I know that one of our choices or one of the things we talked about is do we go to fish, to the feds and say consider us done with our acreage. But this is, this is the reason we need more than two people on this coordinating committee, y'all. Because we have effectively just overturned, if we make this vote judge, that I go back to the mayor and go, guess what? Whatever we did, I mean that we thought that we had the legal authority to do because it was an amendment, I mean, somebody needs to tell me how we can continue to operate this thing. I’m all ears for that.

>> let me make it clear. The vote of the coordinating committee based upon pretty skillful wording was a legal act for that coordinating committee to make because of the skill used to on on a tract by tract basis. But what effectively the motions that have been made will be doing is removing resources that the county would be providing to back up that coordinating committee.

>> motion is pretty clear. We don't support the master planning until after the preserve is completed. That's the substitute. Based on the david escamillan interpretation of robert's rules the second vote would be on the substance of the motion. All in favor of the substitute motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, eckhardt voting in support. Voting against the substitute motion, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Daugherty. County judge sitting here abstaining. We're back to the original motion of Commissioner Davis. That motion fails, by the way, of a tie vote. Commissioner dave's original motion was, remind me of that?

>> the motion was to not support--

>> let's get Commissioner Davis's motion.

>> to oppose the resolution.

>> yes, oppose the resolution. Exactly.

>> to oppose the resolution.

>> right.

>> that was seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Back to the original motion made by Commissioner Davis. Anymore discussion of that motion? All in favor of that motion? Show Commissioners Davis, eckhardt and Gomez voting in favor. Show commission Daugherty voting against. Show the county judge still sitting here and abstaining. That motion carries. Thank you very much for your paration. We probably will need a legal interpretation.

>> working on that already.

>> next week, john.

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, January 9, 2008 8:00 AM

January 8, 2008 Item 14

January 8, 2008
Item 14