Travis County Commissioners Court
November 17, 2009,
Item 20
>> item 20 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding whisper valley variance request.
>> we can lay this out quickly and hear from the residents.
>> anna bolin, Travis County d.n.r.
whispering valley the a planned public utility district and public improvement district in the desired development zone of Austin's e.t.j.
this is a large development, and one of the things that goes with public improvement district is sometimes they -- sometimes there is the request to have at nature road standards to -- alternate road standards to make it more neo traditional in nature.
the developer approached us to have approximately 11 road variances and a variance to have parkland approved -- or the parkland nearest park provider be the city of Austin as opposed to Travis County.
ordinarily under title 30, we would -- the closest parkland provider would be the park -- would have -- would have the ability to make decisions regarding parkland.
based on the p.u.d.
agreement, they are proposing to add the city of Austin do that as opposed to Travis County.
we've worked with the developer and the city and looked at the variance requests associated with essentially the concept plan at this point, and we look to see what roadway and what -- what parks -- see if there was anything that we could support and we negotiated alternate standards to what they were proposing, and we have three remaining road standards that we are not in agreement with at this point.
and we would like to discuss those today.
but of the 11 road standards that they came in requesting, we found that several of them, after we decide -- after we met and figured what on -- what was in our standards that could be an acceptable alternative to them, there were two variances that we are recommending and like I said the three that we're not.
what these variances do is they lay the ground work for later when they come in with their preliminary plan, these would be essentially tools in their toolbox they could use when laying out the preliminary plan.
there is another significant issue.
this subdivision along with two or three other preliminary plans is, like I said, in the desired development zone of Austin's e.t.j.
there are there's a significant transportation issue in the manor area and it's been our position that we need to all work together and try to come up with a solution.
and by all I mean city of Austin, manor, the county and the state and the developers.
and alternately when the preliminary plans for these developments come in, we're going to look to see if they are contributing their roughly proportionate share to whatever fix is decided upon to help fix the situation that is in part made worse because of the demands being generated by their subdivisions.
but if you would like, I would be happy to tell you about the three variances that we are not in agreement on.
i know we're short on time.
>> why don't we do that.
i take it the residents are here on the three we don't agree with, right?
okay.
>> the first unresolved roadway variance request has to do with they would propose to have -- in some certain areas, limited areas, a local one-way street that would have parking on one side.
they are proposing for this roadway segment for a 32 feet of right-of-way with 21 feet of pavement and parking on the one side.
we've had -- we have safety concerns about this and we have concerns about the liability as well.
and we also have concerns that we don't want to be approving something that's going to cause an increased workload on the sheriff's office who would be maintaining the no parking requirements.
it's not anticipated that the city of Austin would annex this for 15 to 20 years after it's built, so we have -- we would have these streets for a while.
i did check about our road maintenance and I'm not aware of any one-way segments out in the county.
we have some parkways that have, like one travel lane on one side and a larger median and one on the other, but I don't know that we have any true one-asections such as this.
that being said, from a staff standpoint, we wouldn't object to this if it was privately maintained, but for a public street section, we weren't able to reach agreement on recommending that.
>> so the residents do not wish for a privately maintained one-way street?
>> it would be the developer.
at this point the developer has not agreed that would be privately maintained.
>> okay.
>> the second one has to do with alleys.
originally what the developer came in with was wanting on publicly maintained alley.
and we did not support that.
but what I suggested as an alternative would be to have a variance for the -- the provision in title 30 that would allow more than eight lots on a privately maintained access easement.
i would be supportive of that provided there was lot frontage for those lots, even if they weren't going to use it on an everyday basis but it's just there was frontage on the publicly dedicated road someplace else.
and --
>> to be clear, they wanted to see the alley lot where the homes abutted that alleys would have no -- would have no frontage on the public street.
correct?
>> that's my understanding.
i believe that they would all front on a common area, a large green space, per se.
but what they did did -- we were concerned about health and safety, that's normal for us, and they did work with the fire chief from emergency district 12 and they came up with some things the fire district would want to do later on when they do prelims and so forth.
some standard detailing the height of the buildings, how far away the hoses are.
that the side yards would be -- would be consistent with fire protection code and things of that nature.
that being side, I still have an issue with recommending a residence that doesn't have actual frontage because of the situations we have elsewhere in the county.
so that one has not been resolved.
>> and with regard to --
>> but I would support or recommend something, if there was a frontage or even if this was a condominium regime because it's one big lot.
>> when you referred to other situations in the county, you mean, of course, the situation where if this were alord lots would get sold that were essentially landlocked?
>> yes.
and we do have that throughout the county and it's -- people have to before they can get permits, they have to rectify the situation and it's very unfortunate in most of the circumstances we see this because it's usually involving people have been taken advantage of and don't have resources.
so we take -- you know, we hold this variance pretty close because of -- we understand why it was put into the regulations.
>> but the variances -- their request is that the alleys be publicly maintained?
>> right.
that was the request.
staff is not recommending that.
>> does the county have a policy regarding alleys and how they are maintained?
>> to my knowledge, we don't publicly maintain alleys.
but it would be more consistent with a joint use easement which is privately maintained.
>> okay.
what's the third one?
>> before we move on, what's the description of an alleyway?
what's the width?
if it's in here, I didn't see it.
>> I don't have the width off the top of my head, but it's narrower than a street section.
i can certainly get that.
supply you with that.
>> but an alley would be designated as such?
on the preliminary plat?
>> yes or -- yes.
or conversely it could also be labeled as a joint use access easement.
>> okay.
>> and then the final variance that they are requesting is for angled parking in their retail mixed use areas.
what they are proposing, again, in limited areas, is to have a public street with a angled parking way off of the street.
and they are proposing to maintain the parking spaces via a license agreement.
staff has concerns about people backing out on to county maintained roadways.
and we do -- we would not have a problem with this if it were included, like in their site plan and something that they were going to be proposing to maintain, but we don't necessarily believe that the taxpayers of the county should bear the maintenance cost of this.
and we have liability concerns.
so we are not recommending that.
they are, however, trying to include things in the design that would promote safety like stop signs or other speed control devices every 300 feet, but staff believes these should be privately maintained.
>> so are you still working with the developer trying to work some sort of agreement on these three areas of disagreement?
>> we would be happy to work with the developer.
>> and the -- because you did bring out license agreement and that's one tool that t.n.r.
does have to work out things in lieu of not having the preliminary plan right before you.
license agreements can sometimes bridge some situations especially if you are looking for certain things within a preliminary plan.
so that is available to t.n.r.
and it has been I guess used in other instances.
and I guess it's what kind of form or whatever you call it, I guess it's a t.n.r.
form that's been used in the past.
so I'm just want to make sure that the things that we're looking for on some of the recommendations you made and the fire marshal often other folk public safety issues, frontage, alley, all of these type of things, the signage of the one-way type situation, I think there are some things that can be worked out.
but the -- in lieu of that seeing a preliminary plan on -- at our door step, there are some things that we can expect to see in the preliminary plan especially if we continue to work with them and under the format of probably a -- and I guess it's the t.n.r.
form, the license agreement.
so I'm concerned about that and so I just want to make sure we have used certainly
>> [indiscernible] to bridge certain situations but we need to visit that again.
but again, I'm not going to try to speak for you and your department, but what I'm looking for is some type of resolution so we don't come into a situation where we get a gridlock.
and so those are just some of the concerns.
and thank you for bringing those points up.
very critical and very important to the court.
>> if I might just really briefly, you know, right now, like I said, they are at the p.u.d.
planning station which countywise relates closest to a concept plan, they are looking to see what tools they will have available when they move forward with the preliminary plans.
we won't be able to review the preliminary plans and look to see -- you know, we might have a better comfort level when we see where they are going the place these features that we are not in agreement on.
but at this point they are trying to get some certainty as to where they can move on with knowledge as they go through the development process with this project.
so that's where we are right now.
>> do we have reps from the developer or the -- if so, please come forward.
now, whisper valley, sounds to me, did we deal with this before?
>> some time back.
it was a smaller development.
along taylor lane by the same name.
this is a much larger development that is incorporated that and it's probably much larger.
>> there are four seats available.
three others can come forward.
name and comments, please.
>> judge Biscoe and Commissioners, I'm jermaine swinson representing park springs neighborhood association.
the his we are valley development is within our territory of our association whose boundaries are u.s.
29 # on the north, fm 973 on the west, fm 969 on the south, and the Travis County, bastrop county line on the east.
first of all, I want to make it clear that our association does not oppose this development.
we do want to work with the developer and government entities such as Travis County, the city of Austin and txdot to ensure that whisper valley is the kind of superior development it has set out to be.
jay marsh, steve metcalf, michelle rogerson and other representative have met with our neighborhood association board several times.
and I want you and them to know we sign searly appreciate their willingness to keep us informed and work with us.
i want also to publicly thank mr.
joe gieselman and your transportation and natural resources department who came to our association's meeting last may to discuss this development and its impact on transportation needs and roadways in our area.
we are pleased that whisper valley, which is asking for planned unit development zoning from the city of Austin, seeks to be superior to traditional zoning.
as you know, eastern Travis County has a history of being a dumping ground for undesirable development, and we welcome superior development in our area.
>> amen to that.
>> our concern, of course, is that this development will actually achieve the superiority.
i have given each of you a letter our association sent to Austin city council last June when it was considering an agreement with the developer.
our position remains the same as in in letter to Austin city council.
i would like to summarize key points.
we support the development with the understanding that the city of Austin will ensure that the zoning agreement provides for superior development and that the development approval process provides for adequate roadway improvements to handle the increased traffic.
major roadway improvements are imperative and our association insists that adequate roadway infrastructure be in place when residents move in.
if current regulations are inadequate, then city, county and state authorities need to devise new ones to assure that adequate roadway improvements are completed as development construction is completed.
>> amen to that.
>> representatives of our association have met at campo with representatives of several area developers, including whisper valley, and we are ready and willing to work on regional cooperative plans to address transportation needs.
but we will continue to insist that adequate infrastructure, including roadways, be provided as part of a truly superior development.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your comment.
appreciate it very heavy.
>> yes, sir.
>> my name is steve met calf and I'm here representing the developer.
and we have a power point presentation that describes the project, describes what we're trying to do, and I guess have I to ask the question, I know you guys have a noon rule and it will probably take 5 to 10 minutes to get through this and it's now like two minutes until noon.
what would you likir for us to do?
>> who else is here on this item who plans to speak today?
proceed.
>> great.
judge, Commissioners, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about.
we're really excited about this.
this is a really, really great project for eastern Travis County, which everybody understands has not historically been the place where this kind of development has happened so we think this is the way it should happen out there.
do you have the power point?
>> do you have a hard copy of the power point?
it would help us to have that, I think.
some of us are a little older than others and have a hard time seeing the power point from here.
do you have five copies?
>> I can run some for you.
give me the small ones.
i'll be right back.
so I think everybody knows what the project is on sh 130.
the issue with sh 130 in this eastern part of Travis County is there are no land use regulations because it's all in Austin's e.t.j.
and I think everybody understands the county has limited land use controls.
so part of what the goal has been is to create the type of quality development out in an area where there are no regulations.
pretty much what anybody can develop out here, any type of project they want right now because there are no land use regulations.
also there is a lack of infrastructure.
there is no water, wastewater, et cetera, to make this preferred growth corridor grow the way we want it to.
we would like to see it grow in a way that is environmentally conscious, air pollution conscious, traffic conscious, all those things, and the way you do that is create dense nodes of development instead of having sprawl throughout.
so that's been the goal of whisper valley.
and that's -- and that's where the entitlement structure comes in.
basically we've agreed to come into the city of Austin's jurisdiction, and by that it creates the land use controls and enforceable land use scheme through the p.u.d.
and land use regulations through the p.u.d.
and then we are also -- the city is going to create a public improvement district which will help fund the infrastructure in the area.
that's where the tradeoff is, you create land use controls and the funding necessary to fund the infrastructure to bring development out here.
some of the key aspects of the project, this project is a large long-term project.
we're ultimately talking about 5500 residences, two million square feet of commercial and retail space, but one of the key aspects, out of the 2,000 acres -- the largest piece would be a 600-acre signature park.
that's roughly the size of zilker park.
this will be a key amenity park in eastern Travis County.
here's a land use plan that gives you a little feel for what the project is going to be like.
the yellow areas are primarily residential.
the red areas are commercial and the brown areas are mixed use.
so we try to -- we try to -- we try to group the residential -- the commercial and the mixed use around the main transportation -- the main roads running to the project.
braker lane is going to be extended by the developer from 973 through all the way to taylor through the project.
and there's currently an agreement with Travis County that's been in place for a couple years to get that built.
but this plan is fluid in that this type of project, the way it works is even in the residential areas, you can have some neighborhood commercial development.
and so what you try to do is create flexibility with the idea of having a walkable community where people don't have to get in their cars to go to the commercial stuff.
it can be in the neighborhood and you use various setbacks and buffers to create a walkable environment that works for everybody.
here is -- here is a map that shows you how the roadway network is going to work.
again, part of this is conceptual, but the idea is to have it gridded out, walkable community.
not a bunch of cul-de-sac -- not a bunch of cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets like in a lot of subdivisions.
the idea is have an urban style grid in a suburban location.
again, to create that density and so you create density outside the open space.
you know, a large percentage of the land goes to open space, but then you densify the development around the transportation.
this -- this map here shows the bike lanes.
we want this also to be a very bike friendly project.
so all these here on these arterials and collectors, they are all being designed with bike lanes.
now, we don't put bike lanes to neighborhood streets because the design speeds on those are low enough that it's safe to have a bike on them, but on the larger arterials and collectors we're using -- we're creating bike lanes because making this community bikal and connecting into the -- bikable and connecting with the facilities through eastern Travis County that are being planned which you want mately connect into the lance armstrong bikeway is a big part of this development.
this development is going to get developed over a long period of time.
it's 20 years.
we have multiple phases.
and so none of this stuff is just going to hit the ground all at once.
when we talk about generating this traffic and density, you are talking about phasing that over 20 years.
in the first five years, you're talking about maybe starting with maybe 400 rooftops.
so it's not going to be all of a sudden dumping a tremendous amount of traffic out there day one.
and that's one of the things we've discussed a lot with the neighbors and I think they understand that.
he key aspects of the project, en, because we are coming into Austin's jurisdiction where they can enforce zoning and land use regulations, there's permitted use, prohibited uses.
it requires a pedestrian friendly design.
we're dedicating the parkland that we're talking about, which is one of the variance actually be requested is that the idea would be the 600-acre park would be maintained by the city, which I'll talk a little more about.
very environmentally conscious.
we're adegreing to do green building.
two star green builder on everything.
we're doing Austin's go green program to plants.
we are preserving the headquarters for gilleland creek.
again, -- head waters for gilleland creek.
this land has a lot of natural beauty and features and we're trying to design it around that such that we're not -- we're not changing the -- the beautiful landscape that runs through gilleland creek.
which also is a key aspect of the Travis County green print plan.
the new green print plan just came fourth the surrounding counties.
you've had yours in place a few years.
gilleland creek has been considered part of what needs to be protected in that plan and that's what's part of the guiding factor when we started on this project about how we wanted to design it.
there will be a p.u.d.
that controls the land use.
we'll also have a public improvement district that will provide financing for infrastructure.
and let me then talk about the variances we've talked about.
the ones that we've been working with staff for a while now and we've reached agreement with staff on most of the issues, as anna has told you.
there are a couple that we would like to get y'all's impression of and describe why we think these type of roadway sections make sense.
force if you will pop that back up there.
smaller roadway sections and this type of roadway design really results in four things.
clearly they are more environmentally friendly.
they take less payment.
they are safer.
smaller roadway sections and narrow roadways and people slow down.
you don't drive as fast on a small street as you do on a busy street so they end up being safer.
even those roadways that have the angled parking which I'll show you pictures of.
it helps create affordability in the neighborhood.
one of the key aspects, because of this being a p.u.d., we've agreed to do so% of our rental units at 60% m.f.i.
in whisper valley and 10% of ownership at 80% m.f.i.
basically we're going to do affordability and these those types of roadway sections creates that.
that's part of the affordability requirement is built into the p.u.d.
with the city of Austin.
also desirability.
i think it helps highlight if you look at these pictures.
here's a typical suburban wide street section.
and it just doesn't create the same kind of feel.
here's another one.
here's another one.
as the narrow, nor narrow, more compact street sections.
it creates a more desirable environment, not to mention the other things I've already told you about environment and safety.
these are the type of street sections and the type of feel we envision in whisper valley.
on the specific three we're talking about, the first one is the alleys.
and I don't know how well the picture is showing up on your screen up there, it's a little hard to see.
the only lots not front on a -- having the lots on the green space is really important to this kind of community because it helps you densify and makes things more affordable.
and it provides a better environment.
if you have little bitty lots with little bitty yards, people can barely use them.
but when you front on bigger chunks of open space -- here's a diagram easier to see -- it provides more recreation and open communities.
people are out there in this common space interacting.
but none of these -- we're not proposing any of this stuff be a landlocked parcel.
they are all going to have allies.
the alleys are privately maintained through a joint use easement.
and each of these alleys connects into a public street.
so you'll never had a dead end alley.
you'll never had an alley that causes a dead end or causes a safety situation.
we talked to the fire department, the key to them is that you design this in a way that there's enough hose length to come from the public streets to make it into the -- into the houses.
see, you have to design the houses that are front on this green space with the right amount of depth that the hoses can get there.
we're not proposing you just get to use this type of roadway section anywhere, these alleys that front on green space.
what we're proposing is a list of conditions that the only time we can use these, and I don't know if you all can read that up there, I think michelle can hand it out to you, is if we meet these conditions listed, which basically are assure ing this is not a landlocked situation, they have to front on green space.
we're not going to have alleys front on something that's not a good open space.
that these alleys can't have dead ends.
you have to be able to have access.
that's good because I can't read it up there very well.
also, we understand that at the time the plat is filed we will need to work with the fire department, the emergency services out there to make sure that it works for them as well.
so what we would suggest is that -- we would ask you to approve this type of roadway section, but only if it meets all these types of requirements.
>> so where did these requirements come from?
>> it comes from various discussions we've had with Austin staff, with Austin fire department, with the -- the -- I always want to call it the e.d.s.
the e.s.d., number 12.
we've met with chief krause.
we sat and talked with all the groups and said what would your concerns be so we try to to come up with a list of conditions that would cover everyone's concerns.
>> the city council basically directed staff to start negotiating with you about a year and a half ago, right in.
>> we started negotiating with the county and the city almost two years ago.
>> okay.
so are you still negotiating with the city of Austin or have you completed those?
>> we are still negotiating with the city of Austin.
the only thing we've entered into with the city of Austin is the development agreement.
the development agreement is just a road map.
it just says, okay, here's the process you have to go through.
we still have to be annexed.
we still have to be zoned.
we still have toy ate the p.i.d.
so the first real stop is with you guys.
>> what's the schedule with us?
when would you like for us to let you know what we will and will not do?
>> well, as soon as possible.
are you -- give me -- would you suggest we come back or --
>> my suggestion is that you continue to work with staff and try to resolve differences as much as possible and the next time we have this we know exactly what you've not been able to reach agreement on.
one is what you reached agreement on so we can see if we agree he.
and then what you have not reached agreement on so we can focus on those areas.
as for my part, today is the first day for me.
except for a general conversation I had in preparation for today's agenda discussion.
so this is new.
so it will take some time to kind of get used to the issues.
but based on what you are describing and what ms.
swenson says the neighborhood is looking for seems this is one of those win-win situations that if we put our heads together, we should be able to work through most of the differences.
>> I appreciate that.
>> and some things are -- like first request for us, typically people don't come and say we're doing a park, but tonight's the county, instead of you taking it, it's in the e.t.j., we prefer for the city of Austin to do it.
i don't know if that bothers me.
nobody has given me that option before.
that takes a little getting used to, but if we're transferring responsibility, liability, costs, et cetera, probably longer I think about it the better it looks.
>> well, the really great thick about that as well is that -- great thing about that as well, during the early years we have the same concern that you would.
you guys want to make sure that park is well maintained.
we certainly have that concern.
so until the project -- and we're only be limited purpose annexed by the city at first.
until the project is full purposed annexed by the city, we as the developer through p.i.
ds or h.o.a.
fees we want to maintain the parks.
so we're looking on a lie -- working on a license agreement with the city of Austin.
i think staff is okay with the concept of having the city of Austin maintain the park or take over the parks.
>> well, that was my decision.
in part because of the costs that are associated with a large metropolitan market.
we typically put anywhere between 500 and $750,000 a year in annual maintenance.
so a large park of this size.
so and we have one just within a rock's throw away from this location, so I think in terms of park need in the area, we feel we've established that with the east metro park.
now, I don't know how the city will pay for the maintenance of the park.
i'm not sure exactly how much improvement there will be in the park.
right now it's flood plain, treed, I don't know how extensive the area will be developed and how much actually needs maintenance.
maybe just open space land that, you know, maybe nominal maintenance.
>> is the city willing to commit?
>> the city did commit to take it over.
>> am I right to think, court and staff, I think you all shut work further, and then at some point when you've done the best you can, come back to us and say here's what we've agreed on and we can decide whether we agree also.
and then here are the areas of disagreement.
and we can spend our time trying to resolve those if possible.
you know, we kind of deal with, you know, what's a private street, what's a public street.
and on the public streets, we try to treat them all the same.
it's kind of hard to justify to one neighborhood that public streets county owned are treated one way, but public streets in another area are treated another way.
you know, normally we would look for consistency, uniformity, but I don't know that we're absolutely stuck out and I guess we would be flexible enough to look at all of the facts.
>> judge?
one thing that's intriguing about this project, it appears to me in my meeting with the developers, I appreciate you meeting with me, this is attempt to -- in terms of our discussion at campo on the growth scenarios between centers and trends, this is attempt to build a center and green space.
and so I want to be supportive of that.
so I agree with how the judge has laid out how we should proceed in the hopes that we can use y'all to some degree as a test case for how we approach these special circumstances while not upsetting the standards that we have laid out for county maintained roads throughout the county.
so that we can figure out a better mouse trap for encouraging this kind of development, and the only method we can which is through -- there the carrot rather than the stick.
i hope you don't feel like you are being put through an especially rigorous process just because you are trying to do the right thing.
there are broader considerations we have to look at with regard to the standards we maintain throughout the county.
>> I understand.
we've always approached this like we hope whisper valley a template for responsible development so we're frying to achieve that through these design consents.
>> well, we appreciate you offering yourself up to be control rat x in the experiment.
>> this is big deal and it's a superstar project and I think folks need to see some positive things coming east of i-35.
i think about something similar, something at robert muleer to see dedisagree.
we saw a big healthy development project and it went over very well.
this is something that, in my mind, it's bigger than that because it has a lot of amenities that even robert mueller doesn't even have.
so I think the folks in the community really need to embrace this and we've got a few differences, but we're going to work those difference out and we're going to move forward and have a big celebration, as I said, when we cut the ribbon on the effects of this thing and open it up to the community that we can do it, which is a great concept the way this is being done.
again, I appreciate your being here and choosing this portion of the county to do this particular project.
>> thanks, Commissioner.
>> so in terms of the schedule, ms.
bolin, if you all continue to discuss differences, the court can anticipate seeing this item again about when?
>> we could be back whenever you would like us to be back.
we're basically talking about three roadway variances that we're not in agreement with and then the two street variances that we are in agreement with and the park variance.
parkland provider variance.
so whenever you would like.
>> what about mid-december?
how about 30 days?
is that long enough?
i guess we need to know where the city is on the specialty areas where we sort of expect the city to commit and do certain things.
so I guess city staff will be able to let us know whether in fact agreement has been achieved there.
>> parkland dedication, I know they are in agreement there.
we'll sort out where the city has not yet checked off.
>> yeah.
i'm not sure I understand the alleyway issue.
so if maybe I could discuss that with y'all before mid-december, make sure I understand that.
okay?
>> first or second meeting in December?
>> mid-december is what I suggested.
december 15th is right in the middle.
>> is that one of y'all's days?
>> we work every Tuesday.
every Tuesday.
even when christmas falls on Tuesday, we work Wednesday.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> I hear you.
>> but if it's clear that you are ready for us to consider it again before the 15th of December, then by all means bring it back beforehand.
>> we'll have staff figure that out.
>> right.
in the meantime, it was good to see you today.
>> we're excited.
>> 1 schen 45?
1:45?
2:00?
>> 2:00.
>> move we recess till 2:00.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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, November 17, 2009 1:40 PM
