Travis County Commissioners Court
June 3, 2008
Item 26
26, a quick and fun item. Discuss and take appropriate action on proposed testimony to the Texas senate committee on international relations and trade on policies relating to development and growth in rural and unincorporated regions of the state.
>> good afternoon, joe gieselman and anna bolin. We were told or informed by bob cammer, our legislative consultant, that the senate committee was asking local governments to testify on county authorities, land use authorities, what additional authorities they may need to -- what problems they may have, and then what additional authorities they may seek to remedy those problems. In the area of building codes in the unincorporated area as well as I think the charge says incompatible land uses. Because of the number be of that have come before the court in the last two years, we thought this is probably a topic that's of interest to the Commissioners court. So we have -- we put the item on the agenda that the senate hearing is on June 18th. We put together a list of what we saw were past issues that came before the court, various agenda items that reflected some of the issues that constituents are asking Travis County to take care of. And for one reason or another we're not able to fully accommodate those. And I guess the clearest example of that was the landing subdivision that came in right outside the city. It was a fuel deep poe right next to a residential area and it was subdividing, and the bottom line was the court could not reject or deny the subdivision because it did meet our standards, but it was still something that I think for the most part we were uncomfortable approving because it was the type of things that in-- incompatible uses that go to the heart of the lack of authority. So we put together a memo that basically parsed out several issues that we thought were relevant to the senate hearing. They may not be as comprehensive as you want and may be totally different. But the purpose of today's agenda is just kind of roll it out. We have one more Tuesday before the 18th, then we can go back and work on this further. Really today is just to get some sense from the court on a, whether or not you want to testify before the senate committee, and if so, what would be the content of that testimony and who would go over to give it.
>> what time is the hearing? What time do they usually take place? 10:00 a.m.?
>> it's probably going to go all day. And probably bob or talia will be able to let us know a closer estimate on what time.
>> because that's the day of our county employee hearing at 4:30.
>> it will most likely be in the morning or in the early afternoon is the way it usually works. Would that be your guess?
>> yes, I agree with that.
>> 10 analysis I think is when -- 10:00 a.m. Is I think when those things start.
>> are we able to figure out where the other urban counties stand? Maybe the conference of urban counties also?
>> I have not done that. I can certainly do that before next Tuesday.
>> I haven't heard anything.
>> at least in terms of the annual conference, though, the feeling among the cuc members was that -- all of these items are represented in the platform, all of them.
>> and they have been for a long time. So I guess that we can assume that they'll have something to say about them.
>> because in the past when you sat down to chat with five county judges they all had five different perspectives. But I would run ours by don lee and see if he has any intent, preliminary reaction. So I’m not suggesting that we necessarily get his approval, but I would get his input.
>> and find out what they may be testifying to?
>> if he knows. And what he thinks.
>> the last meeting the judges were pretty -- they were not quite together on exactly what to ask for, right? That's what I heard.
>> yeah. One nice thing about this memo I think is it does cover the waterfront for all the categories, but it's true there is disagreement what's the most important thing. The counties to the west of us feel that potable water and environmental flow is most important. The industrialized metropolitans feel that incompatible use is the most important. Those with serious transportation issues feel impact fees are the most important. So what flavor of land use -- I think all the flavors are represented in this memo. I think the only disagreement is how to triage those.
>> are these listed in any order?
>> no. We've tried to give specific examples. I think that would be most helpful for the senate to actually hear about a particular instance and know why there was a lack of authority as opposed to just general statements.
>> I think that's a good idea. So should we give you in writing any ideas we have between now and, say, Monday at noon?
>> that would be fine. In the meantime I will check with don lee and anyone else that you want us to consult with.
>> and legally I think we can share with one another as long as we don't go back and forth. So if I have suggested language for staff, I think I can share with other members of the court as long as we don't engage one another. Let's do that then. Let's get it to -- do you feel comfortable chatting with don lee?
>> sure. I know don.
>> okay. Why don't we do that? And I guess we want to make sure when we do these examples is to point out where we think additional land use authority would have helped us.
>> uh-huh. What problem could we not address and what additional authority would have helped us take care of it.
>> I think I’d highlight what additional authority would have helped us. I would set that apart, maybe even underline it or in bold letters -- so even if you don't read the memo in its entirety, you won't miss those recommendations. G.r. R. Why don't we do that and -- why don't we do that and see how it looks. That's helped me in the past.
>> all right.
>> any other ideas? Have it back on next week. That will be our drop dead date. This doesn't have like a comment period that we need to-- a comment deadline that we need to meet? It's just indicate to them whether --
>> I think bob cann was actually expecting testimony to be given. He's looking at actually somebody showing occupant 18th to give the court's testimony to the senate.
>> okay.
>> do you need a decision on that today?
>> no. Next week is fine.
>> we'll be able to let you know next week. We'll have it back on.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:51 PM