Travis County Commissioners Court
April 14, 2009,
Item 29
29.
receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding mountain view estates subdivision.
this is posted under consultation with attorney in executive session.
but we will have an open court discussion.
the residents who signed in can please come forward at this time.
terry, billy kelly, mr.
and mrs.
ruciski and -- and since our meeting last time, what is clear is that mountain view estates cannot be treated as we have treated apache shores because the program that we are helping apache shores and other subdivisions with, north ridge acres, kennedy ridge, plover place are low to moderate income based on h.u.d.
guidelines, this area is not.
i have chatted with staff, there is another possibility that requires further research.
that research will take three to four weeks, mr.
gieselman has advised.
so my recommendation to the court today is that we take three to four weeks, pursue that possibility and that's two to three weeks, not three to four, the reason that four comes in is that when we get this research done, if this creative solution will work for you all, what we need to do is outline what the requirements are and in my view have a meeting, not in the Commissioners court.
maybe in the Commissioners court room, but a meeting for residents out there to come and discussion it.
the solution that we have in mind really requires the approval of residents who will be impacted.
i don't know that Travis County has ever tried this one, right, joe?
>> we have not.
>> but it has been on the books.
so part of our research will be to touch base with communities that have used it to try to figure out what their experience was.
what traps they ran into that -- that we ought to try to avoid.
if we do this.
so basically, what we hope to do is be caught up, get caught up to speed on what the law is, how we can make it work, touch base with other places that have used it and then sit down and chat with you and try to make it work that way.
i describe it that way because we looked at what we're doing in the other subdivisions, clearly the remedy that we put in place for them are not available to the mountain view estates residents or property owners.
>> so we will be made aware of this, I guess, more and more of what this entails in two to three weeks I guess is what you are saying.
>> hopefully two weeks.
if not two or three.
a lot depends on whether we are able to contact others.
we hate to have a meeting when we have half the information that we think that we need.
we will get as much information as we can.
we think that we will be able to get that done in two weeks.
joe if I misspeak let me know.
we think two weeks, but if not two, certainly three, we would let residents know.
now the ones that have come down here y'all have done a good job of providing your phone numbers and so we would try to get word to those -- to residents and property owners who have not come to court.
to give them an opportunity to attend the meeting, ask questions, get informed, also.
that's the best that we have been able to come up with in a week.
>> judge, my name is terry arian.
i am here as you know representing the ruzickas who own a number of lots, I represent a number of lot owners, the mountain view owners property association, who has kind of taken upon itself the job of trying to clean this division up.
pastor do you remember ram and his -- durham and his wife from the church are here, a group of people want to work with you, partner with you to fix some things that have needed fixing in mountain view for a long time.
i trust that you all have seen the letter that I sent to your lawyer last Wednesday.
i'm not communicating with you directly at the request of your lawyer.
so I'm sending everything through him.
we -- we asked for three things in that letter and I'm encouraged by what I'm hearing from you because one of the things that we really do want is an opportunity to sit down with you, whether you call it a mediation or what, but in some informal setting and have a dialogue.
i'm taking it from -- from your announcements that you recognize that Travis County does have jurisdiction here.
that's one of the key issues that we have because -- because the city of Austin has -- has gotten involved in the middle of this, asserting their authority under the single office.
which you know is authorized by chapter 242 of the local government code.
we don't believe that the single office has any jurisdiction here.
this is a 1946 subdivision.
when this subdivision was reviewed, approved and recorded by Travis County, this property was not in the e.t.j.
of Austin and the code is pretty clear that, you know, if -- if the city didn't have any jurisdiction before the plat was approved, that it's -- that it's the county's baby.
and we're real comfortable with that.
we would like some clarity on who we are dealing with and we believe that it is just strictly with Travis County.
we want to partner with you.
we want to get this worked out.
we obviously have an immediate concern, billy here has an immediate concern that he will tell you about.
city of Austin has -- has refused to -- to release an electric meter to him.
he hasn't done anything, he's got a legally platted lot.
he hasn't done anything to build anything.
they won't give him an electric meter.
there's confusion as to jurisdiction.
there's confusion as to whether or not mountain view is a legally platted lot.
we ask that you acknowledge and confirm to Austin energy that mountain view is a -- is an approved, recorded subdivision and we look forward to -- to meeting with all of you in some informal setting in the next several weeks.
>> I should -- I should clarify, though, that -- that my statement was not intended to be any sort of acknowledgment.
i have chatted with county staff.
i have chatted with Commissioner Huber by phone or was it e-mail?
>> > e-mail, very, very briefly yesterday.
to let her know what I thought and after -- what staff had advised me.
the other court members, as far as I know, are hearing this for the first time.
i have not seen the letter that you sent our attorney.
but what it means is that we ought to take the matter into executive session this afternoon for consultation with attorney as is posted, get an update that way.
>> I appreciate that.
>> but I do hear the issues that you raise.
i do not intend to express a position one way or the other because I didn't know that I was expected to.
however, our alert lawyers will be available for comment later and I do think that we ought to try to go ahead and work through the issues that are available.
now, my comments today really stem from my desire to try to assist, if I can.
and get the court to assist if we can get a majority to do so.
the other issues that we addressed were as controversial and problematic and difficult as mountain view estates.
and we kind of searched the books and found a way to help and did it and luckily the income status in those communities was similar.
and so we were able to apply the same legal standards basically.
>> I would like mr.
ruzicka to comment on that.
>> I would like for a teaser to see what that might be, but that's all right, we will wait.
i was just going to add a couple of things that all of the previous folks who spoke up, the fire department, the fire department signed off on the final plat and they are happy that it's now a safer situation.
i guess the immediate concern is just the electric.
i'm willing to do whatever I'm told, basically, about this new deal that we could potentially do or whatever I have to do to help -- to help make it happen as well.
i'm 100% for that.
and -- but the immediate concern is that we can't transact business basically with this cloud over our head of -- I need to sell some lots here and there, to kind of raise some funds and keep going.
if I have a -- if I have a -- some questions on some lots, whether they are going to get electric or not.
even in the areas there was no improvements done, I can't make any decisions, I can't move forward.
so -- so if you could maybe look into just having the electric hold lifted so we can just transact some business and keep things going, we are more than willing to cooperate in any way with -- with what we have to do in the future.
>> that was one of the three requests in the letter that I sent to your lawyers on April 8th.
>> okay.
>> not just me and billy here as well, there are many, many others in the same predicament, you have to be honest with the people who are going to buy the lots there and say there are electric holds, this and that.
>> we can have that discussion this afternoon, but those meters are controlled by the city of Austin, right?
so --
>> what we would need is basically somebody to make a phone call or something to the city, so susan scroggins office.
>> my phone calls of that nature have not worked in the past
>> [laughter]
>> also, I mean I think it's important to note that the -- that the status of the plat is separate, it's a separate issue from the building standards necessary for the city of Austin to provide electricity.
>> you are correct.
we believe those are controlled by chapter 245 of the government code.
>> so your earlier request that -- or your assumption that the judge's statements were some acknowledgment in regard to the legality of the plat really -- really has no bearing on the electrical hookup issue.
so I think that we need to make that distinction.
>> well, that's my issue.
my lot there's been no improvements on the roads in front of my lot.
it's dirt right now.
on Thursday it will be mud when it rains.
the reason why I bought that lot was because the improvements that mr.
ruzicka has done to the other plots on mountain view.
i would have never bought --
>> could you use the microphone.
>> okay.
just before -- all of these environmentalists were in here.
because of the laws that were being broken, you all saw the pictures of the horrible waste that was being dumped on there, it was allowed to be dumped because it was covered up.
>> there's no question about that and the pictures were very persuasive about an environmental crime having been perpetrated there.
but that is a separate issue.
i'm very, very gratified that's no longer the case there and in great measure due to your efforts.
however, there are some separate issues and this is the first that I've heard of a possible proposal and I look forward to hearing what it is.
>> has anyone been out from the Commissioners court, anyone been out to view mountain view to see the roads that the condition they're in now?
also the improvements that has been done on them?
anyone been out there yet.
that request was made last week when I was here.
>> we have that calendared to go out there, before this actually came up in court
>> [multiple voices]
>> I really believe if someone would go out and there and drive on the roads, in fact do it Thursday or Friday when it's raining, that would really sell it right there.
>> state your name for the record.
>> billy kelly.
>> k-e-l-l-y.
i mean really that would sell it if someone would come out and look at it and see.
as far as what you said earlier about we are not -- in the same I guess tax] as apache shores, that income, if you can come out and drive around that might change your opinion on that.
of course --
>> I am told --
>> you have to realize, also, those lots weren't bringing anything to the county of travis, no money at all in.
but since this neighborhood has been opened up and improved upon, I wonder how much money the county is making off of those houses now for those lots now prior for what they were making.
>> the answer to that question doesn't meet h.u.d.
guidelines.
i understand that we did an informal survey out there, the people that do the community block development grant program under h.u.d.
and determined basically you did not meet the income eligibility guidelines.
>> because it's too -- the income is too high?
>> right.
>> well --
>> only the one that's are excuse me, there's only a few houses out there that would put it in that income.
the other lots and other houses that are out there, actually not houses just shacks you would think -- that's why I say.
if someone would come out and look and see what's really there.
they would see the only improvements, the only thing that makes that neighborhood worth of value is what mr.
ruzicka has done.
the other parts of that neighborhood is trash.
like I say again I would have never considered buying that lot if he hadn't come in there and improved those roads that were actually plotted and permitted in the 40s.
he hasn't built roads, just improvement.
that's what I don't understand here.
>> I don't know exactly what staff is going to -- joe gieselman and his bunch are going to come up with.
i do know they need two to three weeks, maybe four according to what the judge is saying.
i think we need to give that an opportunity.
>> yes, sir.
>> hold on.
i think the concerns that you raise are just as legitimate.
but I think there may, I say may be a remedy.
but I think that you need to hear exactly what that suggestion may be.
and of course I -- I don't really know what that is.
but I guess within that time frame, we will know something.
but I think that you need to give it an opportunity.
i think some of this commentation, comments that you made today, I know that I have heard some of the comments that -- the last time that you are here.
not saying I don't want to hear them today.
the point that I'm trying to get to is that there's been a suggestion that have been brought up and I guess with the names and -- of the -- the parties that's involved and -- I think that this is what we're trying to say that -- that we need to -- the direction that we need to go in.
>> thank you.
>> so --
>> so I said my two cents worth.
>> if you all
>> [multiple voices]
>> please look at it.
i think that would really help.
>> well, I --
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> uh-huh.
>> one last thing.
regarding the -- the site visit that I had arranged with Commissioner Huber, what, three weeks ago, something like that.
your lawyers have asked that I not communicate directly with any of you for the time being.
so if you -- I hope that you still will come out.
if you will contact any one of the neighbors here, the ruzickas or -- they will be happy to take you on that tour.
but at the request of your county attorneys, I'm not going to be accompanying you.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> if we could get the contact information from the reverend.
so when we send out notices we will be able to send him one.
>> very good.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all.
>> thank you.
thank y'all.
we will discuss the -- afternoon, mr.
erian and get our lawyer to contact you afterwards.
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, April 14, 2009 2:20 PM