Travis County Commissioners Court

Tuesday, November 16, 2010,
Items 13 and 18

>> number 13, 13 is to approve contract award for professional land planning services, colorado river corridor plan, ps 100169 jw to bosse and pharis associates, inc.
and the other part of this item is 18, right?
and 18 is to consider and take appropriate action on community outreach for the development of the colorado river corridor plan.
and so 13 is just a consultant to help with 18, right?

>> yes.

>> all right.
the Commissioners' court several months back approved an interlocal agreement with the city of Austin and the lower colorado river authority to do a comprehensive plan for an area called the colorado river corridor.
it's an area between the city and the bastrop county line north of state highway 71, south of fm 969.
and as a result of that interlocal agreement we are employing bosse and associates to help us conduct the planning process.
the contract basically provides for a couple of different phases of work.
the initial phase is a collection of data by the staff so the city and the county and the lcra, that has been completed and I would like to make a brief presentation of that this morning.
the next phase is kind of gathering up all that information and developing a schedule of what that corridor might like like in twen years, 20 years, 30 years as it becomes more urbanized and what are the constraints of that happening.
and hopefully by February we'll have a final plan that kind of hops maps out what the city and the county might be able to do to assist in the development of that area, either capital improvements or regulations.
40% of the area is currently owned by mining companies because of the aleuvial of the sand and gravel along the colorado.
we know there are some challenges because of that.
it's not your typical urbanizing area.
but -- so this item, actually the second item is more of a -- basically the court's approval for us to go out and seek some input from the community.
the first phase will just actually be laying out the data that's available, as we have it.
what we know about the area from all the aspects, just kind of lay the table so to speak and begin to understand what some of the opportunities and constraints are.
so the first item here is really just a contract with bosse to get them on board, have them help us develop a process.
and they will be assisting the staff to develop a stech plan.
so with that -- a sketch plan.
so with that I will launch into my presentation, but let me just stop there and see if there are any questions.

>> launch.

>> launching.

>> let's go.

>> okay, good.
all right.
charlie, is it on?

>> yep.

>> all right.
and you just press this button to move?

>> correct.

>> all right.
I’ll go through these really quickly.
what you're looking at on monitor is the study area.
and as you can see it straddles the colorado river in eastern Travis County.
it's partially in precinct 1 and partially in precinct 4.
what do we know about the area?
these are -- this is the elevation.
as you would expect for the most part it's in the aleuivial plane, at the lower levels, 350 to 400 mean satisfy level elevation.
a few high areas along 971 and 969.
so the wawrds are really marked -- the watershed are really marked by the roadways.
and then it pretty good goes down as you expect to the floodplains.
this is the area of the 100 year floodplain.
a large portion of this area is in the 100 year floodplain of the colorado river, onion creek, gilliland greek, elm greek, wilbarger creek and ends up being a con fliewns of all these tributaries that are coming from higher elevations into the basin.
now, that creates both some opportunities and constraints.
it certainly constrains development because it's in the 100 year floodplain.
it can't be as developed as it might be otherwise.
but as you will see later, some of these floodplain areas are the very areas that Travis County would be interested in acquiring for parkland and open spaces.
you also have this corridor that goes down the colorado river.
it could very well be an extension of the town lake greenway along lady bird lake and the central city, extending that down the corridor.
the city has some regulatory setbacks from all of these creeks, and they vary depending on the creek size.
but this gives you some idea of where those regulated areas are, the dark line and the yellow lines, they're protective zones that require setbacks from the creeks.
this is not exactly a very good map, but this is -- in detail if you were able to see this close up it gives the soil types of the corridor.
as you imagine, it's fairly rich, productive farmland because of the nature of the soils, but also some clays.
this is the geology.
again, what we'll see here is the nature of the aleuvial plane.
one of the reasons you have mining companies locating or purchasing properties along this corridor is because deposits that have been left there over centuries of sand and gravel.
and that also includes soil.
so you have a lot of area that would be considered part of the blackland prairie.
you can see again in this picture it's more of the high level -- high areas.
there are some bluffs overlooking the colorado, but for the most part you have very few steep slopes.
it's fairly level areas.
tree cover area.
this is the tree canopy in 1992.
not a whole lot of tree cover.
most of the trees have been removed over the decades by farming.
land has been cleared.
this otherwise might have been a treed area.
so you do have some treed areas in the aleuvial planes along the tributaries and along some bluffs.
what's considering is in this picture, 2006 -- remember, this is now about 10 years or more later.
this area through here, if we went back you notice there are no tree covers.
2001 no tree cover.
2006 it's all tree covered.
those are in fact pecan orchards that are planted along the aleuvial plain next to the colorado river and it shows you that there's economic potential there for tree farming, but it also gives you some sense for what -- that these floodplain areas can be reforested in a very short period of time with a concerted effort.
so the message for us in terms of parkland and open space to develop is that we could actually take some of these flain areas and reforest them over time.
here are some of the environmental sensitive areas.
these have come to play in what we call green print.
these are some of the areas that we would want to preserve in our planning process.
now, this area -- I know you can't see this map very well.
it's an aerial photograph that was taken in 1995, and this is another aerial that was taken more recently in 2010.
what it shows you if you toggle back and forth is the conversion of the land in that short period of time.
basically going from family farms to larger aggregations of property, and then finally you see state highway 130.
so what we see is an urbanizing process that's taking place in the corridor.
and that urbanizing process will probably continue radiating out from the central city and moving eastward.
this is open spaces that are currently owned by the city and the county.
you see some up north in the -- around the walnut creek area here, some stuff along hornsby bend along where the city has their wastewater treatment plant.
you have the acquisitions by the county along onion creek.
and then way out here in webberville park.
these are the lands that are currently under ag exemption in the tax code.
so you see a good bit of the land out there.
not necessarily being farmed, but it is still under a tax exemption for agricultural purposes.
here you see the mining parcels.
and this is kind of an eye opening graphic.
this entire area, which is called the dog's head.
you can see picture of the dog.
this entire area is either a legacy mine, meaning it's been mined for some period of time, or it's being mined currently.
then you have the big txi property, the green site all through here.
you have this site that is south of the river that has been mined already.
you have the hornsby bend east and west site in here.
and then you have the webberville site, the txi site here, and then this far eastern site also by txi.
but south of the river you also have these two sites and then this site here.
so all told when you take all those properties into consideration, that's about 40% of the land is currently either being mined or it's owned by mining companies.

>> so all of the pink, green and I guess beige or yellow.

>> that's right.
the pink is an actively mined area.
the yellow is land that is owned by mining company yet to be mined, and then the green are what we call the legacy mining operations.
those are already either completely mined and are just kind of like dormant in some stage of redevelopment.
you might notice the green area here, there was an article in this morning's newspaper about what's called rio divito.
this is the area that txi is proposing to redevelop into a mixed use community on either side of 130.
there again you see the major roadway network.
the point here is 130 toll road bisects the corridor.
but more importantly this whole corridorly re lies on two thoroughfares for all of its access and mobility.
that's fm 969 coming up from bastrop and state highway 71.
fm 969 right now has roughly about 3,000 cars per day as it enters in from bastrop.
by the time it enters into the city it's about 25,000 cars per day.
on state highway 130 you have 29,000 vehicles entering in from bastrop county.
and then by the time it gets in past the airport it's about 33,000.

>> not 130, but 71.

>> excuse me, 71.

>> what that tells you is at least for 71, the bulk of the traffic on 71 right now is coming in from bastrop.
and these roads will be used not only to provide access to this corridor in this area, but it will also be providing access to the developing areas to the north.
you have whisper valley and all the stuff going on up around manor.
they will also be using up some of the capacity of 969 and all the development south of 71, birdall farms and some of the development along 71, they will also use 71.
so clearly we've got a problem that is going to evolve and that is in the capacity of 71 and 969.
how much more traffic can it take and what do we have to do to accommodate any of the traffic be it from Travis County or adjoining bastrop county, which is also growing quickly.

>> these are the utilities.
for the most part they're not all that robust.
you have the major kb 345 line coming down the lcra just put in to trek tra fi -- electrify the 130 corridor, but you don't have a lot of infrastructure, water, wastewater, electric infrastructure in the area.
it's mainly, and we'll see later, done by smaller areas.
smaller providers.
this is the type of land use you had in 2008.
again, it just shows that it's either being mined or it's open spaces.
the rest of it is pretty much agricultural.
and what you don't see here is commerce.
you don't see any technology companies, you don't see any commercial jobs.
it's pretty much dominated by mining and agricultural.

>> and no grocery stores.

>> the newspaper also reported eloquently on.

>> there's no commerce.
what's going on?
here are some of the -- some of the developments that we know about.
the darker areas are the areas that have already been developed.
we know about Austin colony and chaparral crossing.
some of the smaller residential development, timber -- river timber, those have been in place for years.
what's on the horizon is rio davito and that could be a significant change in the character of the development of this area as well as interport just south.
both those developments along state highway 130.
you also have water's edge, which went somewhat dor meant when the economy went down, but there is a planned subdivision that will provide housing and some commerce along 71.
you have the former villa muse site which is coming back.
and probably not in the character that was proposed originally, but it is being marketed as a residential community.
we know there are developments on the cusp in the area and depending upon what type of utilities they can get, both water and wastewater, that could happen sooner or later.
this is the population -- not high concentrations.
the red is the higher concentration and again mainly this is because of the Austin colony and chaparral crossing in this area.
not a whole lot as you see.
the larger area, the red areas are the higher concentrations of employment -- excuse me, of population.
in 2035, and this is a forecast by campo, your population center migrates to state highway 130, as you would expect.
that particular roadway is going to change the character of this area.
you will see more development along 130 and that could come in any different number of land uses, residential, commercial, office, and so as campo does well to predict most of the significant changes will be right along 130.
again, this shows where the jobs are.
there are no jobs out there.
pretty much the jobs are -- at least in the corridor are located much further in along 183 and along 71.
so it's -- the city -- what's happening here will move outward, eastward, but it will start occurring here in this area along 130, so you will see some of the jobs migrate, but for the most part there's no forecast for significant change in employment under the campo forecast.
so who controls the area?
most of the area is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city of Austin.
almost all of it except for a little piece out here around webberville, most of it is within the five-mile e.t.j.
of the city of Austin.
and then quite a bit of it is within the corporate limits or the two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction.
it's all pretty much within the desired development zone as it's currently defined in the city of Austin's comprehensive plan, which means that they would favorably receive new development there.
it's pretty much all within the del valle independent school district, with a small portion up in the northwest in the manor school district and partly along 183 in the aisd school district.
for the most part what happens in this corridor is happening in the del valle schools.
esd's, you have a variety of different emergency providers, both for fire and e.m.s.
and this is not untypical of rural areas in Travis County.
the emergency service districts provide that e.m.s.
and fire protection.
this is an interesting graphic.
this is who provides the water.
the green area is the area of what's called the ccn, the certificate of convenience and necessity.
it's a designation on who is obligated under state law to provide the water service.
the green that you see here is the city of Austin.
the blue is hornsby bend.
the brown is manville.
the blue down here is garfield and then you have a piece of it in aqua.
so you have at least five different providers of water, potable water to this area.
they get their water supply from various sources.
and their capability, their financial capability to distribute the water varies their financial ability to make capital improvements for water line distributions, very significantly from one ccn to another.
wastewater also is under ccn.
a larger portion of the corridor is serviced by the city of Austin for sewer, but you also have a fairly significant area north here that is under hornsby bend.
again some out here that is aqua.
so what are other people -- what are all these agencies looking at in terms of their future planning?
this is just part of what Travis County is doing, and that is down here.
we're developing the greenway along onion creek.
so we have been putting in some significant capital improvements, acquiring property and developing parkland along onion creek in the south.
you have the city airport, which is significant outside the corridor, but very proximate to the corridor.
and you have hornsby bend and you've got a smattering of city parks and open areas in the area.
this is green print.
this is when Travis County adopted the green president clinton it put in priority the areas that it would want to acquire or promote as open spaces in this corridor.
this relates directly to the floodplain.
and you can see a good portion of this area we would envision as being open spaces in one form are or fashion.
not necessarily owned by Travis County or a public entity, but preserved as undeveloped open spaces.

>> the dark green?

>> both the dark and the light green.
the dark green is the higher priority.
the light green is the medium priority.
and then no priority for the other.
so the green print is literally concentrating its focus on the floodplains, the areas that are wooded, probably have more natural features to them, and they're of course along the colorado river, they're along gilliland creek and they're along onion creek and then some of the tributaries that lead to those major tributaries.
let's talk quickly about where the city is envisioning things to happen.
they're in the process of developing a comprehensive plan.
they have various scenarios that they're looking right now?
they have their citizens committee looking into alternative futures.
I want to quickly step through these.
all of these are just possibilities.
this will be their trend scenario that shows development along the 130 corridor.
some commercial development here at one 30 and 71.
then another node of commerce further out.
but a large area as you would expect is open spaces here in the very same area that we would that the green print would be identifying as preservation area for open space.
again concentrations along 130 and in the dog's head, perhaps redevelopment of the mining operations closer in to the city.
again have you a commercial center here, but again repeat.
you have this greenbelt right hire in the confluence of onion, colorado and gilliland.
now you have the centers scenario.
the centers tries to take future development and concentrate it in higher density centers, so people are living and working and shopping in closer proximity.
that's the idea of trying to concentrate development in clusters.
so you do have a center here again along 130 and you've got some concentrated development in the dog head.
again, repeat, you've got a large area of open space area in the same area that the others.
this is the crescent.
by the crescent is basically kind of like a bow that goes from, say, georgetown, Round Rock, around the eastern side of the county and then back down to buda/kyle.
that's what they call a crescent.
a little development pattern pretty much along the 130 corridor.
in that scenario they had development along the 130 corridor, some smattering down here along 71 corridor.
the open spaces again, you can see some consistencies between the scenarios about where any one of these scenarios predict -- either predict or envision future development to occur over the next 20 to 25 years.
this then is the linear scenario.
the linear scenario has the least amount of development in the corridor because it's concentrating all the development in a north-south corridor with the central city.
basically it runs from Round Rock straight down i-35 between loop 1 and i-35.
so it's trying to concentrate all the new development in a very linear, transit-oriented corridor in higher densities, more in the inner city than in the suburbs.
and that of course as you would expect would forecast that this area would have much less development because it's in a suburban area.
so that's the linear scenario.
but even with that scenario you see some familiar patterns.
whatever development they forecast on linear is along 130, closer to the existing core, and then again this large area of open spaces.
this is the campo plan.
this is again -- they forecast centers.
they have one up here at the area of 969 and 130 and then another one down here at 71 and 130.
this would be almost like the interport and you can envision if you took this and moved it slightly south that could actually be what you saw in the newspaper this morning called rio davito.
so they're anticipating concentrations at major thoroughfares, like 130 and the other systems. Again, this is the same -- but this has the mass transit component which shows a light rail system coming from downtown to the airport and then you have inner city bus coming from bastrop.
you have rapid bus lines coming from the webberville setting into the central core.
so some concentrated transit lines.
let me go back.
as far as the road development, I -- let me -- we kind of skipped over that.
you can see --

>> are we getting close to the end?

>> we're this slide away.
this is the end of it.

>> this is the -- there will be some improvements to 969 and state highway 71 because they're the only two thoroughfares out there.
130 is pretty much in place.
what is new in terms of additional capacity that's not there today is this thoroughfare called the burleson-manor extension, which again would be a new road that bisects the corridor between 969 and 71, crossing over.
so providing brand new access to this area further between 130 and the county line.
so that's what we know so far about this corridor.
and we're learning more as we go along.
we want to at least go ahead and take this data out to community, kind of lay it out and then work in terms of where do we go from here.
what happens -- you see how the city is planning the area and how do they want to plan the area?
if they had their druthers, what would they rather see or not see?
and start building -- because the -- we believe the people who live out there, who might live out there ought to have some say in what the future is for their area.
and that's all.

>> so 18 really is for -- if we approve 18 we basically are saying here's how we start the community outreach.

>> that's right.

>> for.
this.

>> that's right.

>> right now there's a whole lot of options basically.

>> right:

>> Commissioner Davis?

>> thank you, judge.
joe, I guess part of that scenario -- maybe it should be mentioned that we're looking at the gilbert lane expansion.
I think it's something that we may can end up doing.
I know you mentioned the burleson-manor road to 71.
of course that's another scenario but connecting from 969 into 71.
however, there's another immediate urgent need, I think, that may be available and that may be that gilbert lane extension.

>> can I take a minute to go over that?

>> okay, thank you.

>> there are four phases to sha.
we realize when school opened it's been a traffic mess on 969.
and our first response to that is going to be putting in some dual turn lanes on hunter's crossing on to 969.
we have an interlocal with the state department of transportation since it's a state road, fm 969 is a state road, they would actually have to do the project.
so -- but we would pay for it.
so we're putting in about 400,000, up to $500,000 in county dollars to put in a dual left turn lane.
that should help relieve some of the traffic out of Austin colony in a very short period of time.
we're also looking at putting in a -- an alternate route out of Austin colony that would connect up to 969 at gilbert lane.
it would be a back door.
and the back door would come behind the new school, connect in at gilbert lane at a new signal at that location.
because really what's happen sheriff's department you're having to rely on one road to get everybody in and out.
and if everyone ends up on 999.
so that is probably about a four to five-million-dollar project.
we would expect that that would be included in our list of projects for a 2011 bond election.
that the county is proposing to consider.
not a done deal.
even if the voters approve that money, it would take two to three years for the county to design, purchase the right-of-way and build a road.
then we're also looking -- stepping back and looking at the long-term.
we really need a facility parallel to 969 that is south of 969 that connects all the way to 130.
we'll be taking a set of proposals so campo to first have this network of roads put in the master plan, and then work over time to get funding for a larger network of roads that really provide much more long-term relief to the developing areas.
at some point we're going to have to do something about 969.
and that is going to take some state dollars.
ultimately 71 -- state highway 71 and state highway 969 have got to be improved and they've got to be improved in the segment immediately east of state highway 130.
that's where the bottleneck and that's where the congestion will build up.
we need significant state transportation dollars to be invested in both of those state facilities.
the county may have some role in assisting those state projects.

>> and later on this week -- in fact, Thursday the 18th there will be further explanation on these particular points that you brought up in a meeting, especially with the possibility of the gilbert lane extension, whereby it will bring some immediate relief in the near future, and also that information that you mentioned about the hunters bend and the left turn area.
so that will be splaibd more in detail later on this week at the meeting in the community.
so we appreciate that very much.

>> now, if we're doing community outreach, I think we ought to make sure that we include whatever neighborhood associations are in the corridor.

>> we have a fairly extensive list of people that were involved when the txi permits were coming through.

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] so barry wimberley, he planted his trees, moved away from his dad who lives down the road in '85 and that's the same time they were planted at my house so they are not like four, five years old.
that stuff doesn't come like that.
I guess my question is, you know, after the article in the paper today, one of my first questions was does bosse and pharis actually represent t.x.i., obviously they are developing this rio davita place.
the lack of infrastructure, all the maps point towards that's where all the development is going to be and I’m sure that since t.x.i.
is involved in the county and planning that whole area that they are going to be wanting to advantage themselves as much as possible in moving the infrastructure, whatever it takes to develop that area.
in fact, the people that live out there have already developed an area much to the east of that, Austin's colony, chapperal crossing, we all know that.
there's thousands of people that live out there now.
so the gravel mining operation that's going to be vitae del loco or river is moving up wind of where all those people live.
and I keep hearing about 40% of this area that's owned by the mining interests.
I don't know if they've actually brought the rise and hackett land yet, but the reason they have that property is because you all gave them the permit a year ago.
so it's not like that just happened.
let's make that clear.
I guess my questions is in -- so if bosse represents t.x.i.
as their contractor, the question is are they going to influence how this study is made and stuff like that, is there a conflict of interest.
Commissioner Huber, I know that mr. Bosse e-mailed you back in August saying he wanted to talk about this green plan with you and I guess convince you what a good job they are doing for t.x.i.
that they ought to do it for the rest of that corridor and stuff like that.
my question is, like I said, do they represent t.x.i.
and what are t.x.i.'s interests.
here's another letter that I got, you know, I have an ongoing open records request of which I’ve received $12 worth of pages for my $400 investment that I had to put up front to get open records for 2200 estimated pages of information.
I apologize for little information.
but after your exchange with t.x.i.
over your article in the west lake picne, you got a letter from steve mayfailed saying he wanted to talk about their plans for the hornsby bend area and one of their agenda items was alternative to county's plan to condemn 600 acres on ricin land.
and you were a bit shocked by that and you e-mailed your vista, Commissioner Eckhardt, and everybody knows about this that they have an alternative to that thing.
so it definitely in planning and hiring bosse and pharis as t.x.i.'s agents to do this, t.x.i.
has an interest in not conserving that 600 acres.
I don't know where that stands.
at least it existed at one point.
and it seems to me that bosse and pharis is a little confused or the county or t.x.i.
between conservation and reclamation because what I thought was understood that the 600 acres was not tied to the county's plan, that it was for conservation of that area and that that's what was going on.
but I do think it was an interest of t.x.i.
to not have the county do that.
they expressed this months ago to the court, I’m sure, and I’m sure to mr. Geiselman, and -- and now it -- bosse and pharis, who has been their agent, are going to plan the county and I’m just wondering how is that going to work out.
I have another email that I got through some open records, some of the little that I got from mr. Geiselmanen it expresses another interest that t.x.i.
has in the area.
what mr. Geiselman says there, large bee pan arches, the wimberley property is located at the south end of dunlap road that rely on two wells to irrigate orchards.
likewise if Texas nursery moved to milo road over a decade for ground water supply and defeesed former manage dan davidson also has a tree nursery in that area.
and this is three months after we were -- when the permit was issued for hornsby bend and we were told that we didn't have anything to worry about our water and that you would monitor and stuff like that.
geiselman says: needless to say if t.x.i.'s altars the ground water it may threaten the viability of these agricultural operations and may end up having to sell to t.x.i.
for the sand and gravel under the orchards.
t.x.i.
told me that they sent letters to both properties already expressing their interest in purchasing.
so I don't know if this bosse and pharis plan that's going to be developed is going to work on getting those orchards for open space or whatever, but it seems to me that the county is aware of t.x.i.'s interest in that property and it seems like bosse and pharis is working for t.x.i.'s interests or that's another interest in the county.
I just wanted to point that out.
the study and the scope of work that they are hired for that the plan -- I have it here somewhere, but I know that it includes land use planning for the next 24 years for this area and things like that.
these are the things that we were told the county didn't have the authority to do and yet now they are paying -- I’m a little confused there, you know.
I know the study says that you are going to use this study to propose new codes and stuff like that, but my understanding after the compatible law was removed out of the code that you didn't have the authority to do that.
so I would like some clarification on that.
anyway, that is my one interest, I guess, that I’m trying to make the point is that bosse and pharis is t.x.i.'s consultant.
bosse and pharis is being hired by the county with a no bid contract to do this study, and t.x.i.
has certain interests in this area both to, I’m sure, turn their development towards what advantages them and to get ahold of those pecan orchards and to not have you buy that open space which is the highest priority area for open records.
so I’m just wanting to make sure that you are considering any kind of conflict of interest here.

>> okay.
thank you.
let's get some questions answered.
joe, remind us of what action we took on August 17th.

>> you authorized us to, first of all, enter into an interlocal agreement receiving money both from the lcra and the city of Austin and to proceed and negotiate a contract with bosse.
there was an exemption order approved by the court to do so.

>> see, when this issue came before us on August 17th, we kind of went through all of this and concluded that for this work bosse and pharis associates was the best one.
and remind me of why that's true.

>> well, number one, they have a good bit of expertise, and I think the issue, and mr. Mcdonald is raising, is conflicts of interest.
I would say that t.x.i.
and the government entities involved here both have mutual interests and conflicting interests.
and part of the planning process is to resolve -- try to resolve those.
it's not -- it's a process of some tension.
the governments don't have all the authority that they -- basically the governments don't have all if marbles here.
landowners have rights.
they exert those rights.
to the extent that governments can work to achieve its goals and not with those rights in place, we're far better off than -- than thinking that -- especially for the county government that do not have land use authority, we certainly have the power to put in capital improvements, roadway improvements, acquire open spaces, but we can't tell t.x.i.
what they can or can't do with their land.
and so, you know, we would like to know what t.x.i.'s plans are for their property and how they might dove-tail with the larger community's interests and whether there are conflicts or there are not conflicts.
so yes, in part this planning process is going to deal with mutual interest and conflicting interest.
there's no way around it.

>> that's the thing.
in August we kind of decided to to go ahead and negotiate a contract with this particular vendor.

>> right.

>> and I guess it took two and a half months to iron out specifics.

>> I understand it's t.x.i.'s contractor and they know the area and -- but you see how it looks, right, that bosse and pharis is basically handing over the -- you're handing over the planning of that whole corridor.

>> but we do -- I think that mr. Geiselman makes a good point, bosse has expertise admired by both governmental entities in this process and by the private landowner, the big dog in the corridor.
so it's -- I mean bosse is recognized by lcra, city of Austin and us as having the expertise.
but you are right, I mean the conundrum is we don't have the authority to enforce the plan that we're contracting with bosse to develop.
we have to entice the private landowners to go along with the plan.
otherwise we have no chance.
so in many respects we -- we must find expertise that t.x.i.
admires or else we have no chance of having the plan stick.

>> during that time the water issue came up as far as evaluating it and make sure that the wells were not polluted after any activity as far as the mining operation is concerned.
and I know we said that that would basically be looked at and who actually police that, per se, to make sure any operations didn't take the water from its normal course of -- of quality.
do you recall that during that conversation, joe?

>> let me have tom give you a status of where we are.

>> because that's pretty significant.

>> you mean the monitoring?

>> yeah, as far as the monitoring of the water.
especially the wells.
because part of the allegations that were brought up was that the mining operations may interfere with the water quality of persons that use the water for drinking purpose or whatever purpose they used them for.
so my question is who was made -- made themselves available or what entity made themselves available to actually go in and make sure that the water quality wasn't interrupted from its state of quality before the mining operation took place.
so that's where I’m at on this now.

>> yes, Commissioner Davis, back on August 17th when the interlocal agreement was approved, that included a phase 3 which was monitoring.

>> right.

>> on that date you also directed us -- the court directed us to go into an open bid process.
we had initially suggested a contractor that the county has used in the past as ground water expertise in that area.
so we have developed a scope of work.
we have received the funds from the other partner entities and we're working with the purchasing department and expect to have a solicitation that will go out.
the scope of this, just very briefly, includes ground water monitoring, water level measurements of ground water.
it includes the monitoring of air quality and of noise.
and we're looking at doing that both before mining occurs at this t.x.i./hornsby area, and then after.
so that we can discern whether there's -- so we'll establish a baseline conditions and then determine afterwards have there been any effects from the mining on the ground water.

>> and -- and if there is significant problems with the water after mining operations, then what?

>> I think that's -- that's something that's going to be a matter of the facts, and it could result in something -- that's something we would have to look at down the road.
but I think there are -- there are legal remedies and other things that the county can take in a situation like that.

>> but this goes back to at the time when we established this interlocal agreement, and tom, would you tell us who the partners are in the monitoring of water quality, water availability, sound and air quality.

>> well, we would -- we would contract -- we would get professional services to be determined.
we're looking at having a professional geo scientist and the partnership should be the city of Austin, the lcra have both contracted Mondayer to mony funds.
the lcra has additionally indicated it will give in-kind services for the laboratory analyses that we're talking about.
we also -- although not part of the interlocal agreement, you heard from capcog this morning.
they are interested in helping us by establishing some mobile air monitoring things there.

>> because our belief at the time, and it is continuing as our belief, is that the local residents in their private property rights just don't have the resources to go up against these really large private property interests who do have conflicting interests with regard to the quality of air, water, sound.
so we are through this monitoring effort trying to provide the baseline and the data.
we don't know yet what that will reveal and whether or not any -- whether or not private landowners will end up having a cause of action or whether there will be some sort of governmental cause of action.
hopefully there will be none.

>> the water will be gone.
and like --

>> but we don't have the authority --

>> they will have to bulldoze their orchards and sell them to gravel pits.

>> yeah, because we don't have the authority from the state to deny a permit based on --

>> because to protect water rights for those people in the trinity aquifer, didn't you?

>> that's because there is a ground water management area.

>> there's not in eastern Travis County.

>> that's right.

>> and that's kind of what the people out there are upset about.
which leads me to talk about the --

>> only the people out there can establish a ground water management area by vote.

>> Commissioner Huber.

>> I just wanted to clarify the comments you made about the correspondence with mr. Mayfield.
at the time that that correspondence took place was when we were initially looking at the permit and knowing we had very little authority to help you out and we were secureying around to figure out what we could do to expand influence to do it the right way.
I reached out to the chairman of the board at t.x.i.
and the community which was related to the article you referenced to try to get the business leadership of the community to come together to work with t.x.i.
because it impacts all of the businesses here what's out there as well as the homeowners in the subdivisions.
however, I got rather apathetic response from the business community and at the same time I had the response back from mayfield that you spoke to, and what you didn't read was my response to him which said basically I think we're going to put this on hold at this time.
I had heard that joe was embarking down a path which is ultimately ended up in where we are today, but I’ve not been a part of that.
those were two completely different efforts at the time.

>> right.
I understand that.
and you said because of the ongoing discussions about the permit, and that was when I turned in my open records request because I don't understand why after the permit was issued is there all these ongoing negotiations.
didn't they have to provide the information and they got their permit?

>> didn't have anything to do with the permit from my perspective.
we knew we didn't have the breadth of authority so the consensus.
I worked for bosse and compton years ago.
if t.x.i.
has done anything right they've hired them because they are considered the best out there.

>> the permit only with the flood plain management.

>> we decided August 17th to negotiate with bosse and pharis.
and 13 is the report back on those efforts and it's a proposed contract.
that's why I move approval of item 13.

>> second.

>> discussion?
any final comments, mr. Mcdonald?

>> well, on item 18 I know that this --

>> any final comments on 13?
then we're going to go to 18.

>> no.

>> all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Davis abstaining.
number 18, we also have discussed.
that's the community outreach effort.
mr. Mcdonald?

>> all I want to say is I think there's a whole lot of people in my neighborhood that would have been happy to be involved in community outreach but we've been down here outreaching for about two years and nothing that we have brought forth seemed to have panned out.
we were told that the permit process would be open and it didn't seem very open.
we were told that you were going to buy 600 acres of open space land that was not contingent or connected to the permit at all, but it would be that area of highest corridor of conservation and that seems to have disappeared.
and so whatever the last-minute -- you know, this plan has been going since may to come up with this corridor study plan, and only in August was it sort of thought maybe we ought to get input from the community.
and I’m just saying from my personal experience, we had 200 people come to the service center and our input was we don't want a gravel mine.
we want conservation and not reclamation, and I just hope that you have good luck getting some input after the way that that neighborhood has been considered previously.

>> I think we ought to lean over backwards to get input from everybody in the corridor.
whether you've been to a court or not.
that's why I move approval of 18.

>> second.

>> discussion?

>> judge.

>> Commissioner.

>> I just wanted to thank mr. Mcdonald and the many, many others who have sent a tremendous number of emails to us as well as come to court because I know there's frustration out there because of our lack of authority.
but your pressure and your good ideas and your input has moved the needle.
it might not have resulted in what you wanted, but I got to say it's because we didn't have the power to give you what you wanted.
but it is moving the needle in ways that are novel in the state of Texas.
and -- and I’m proud to be a part of that while sharing your frustration that we couldn't be a part of something more.

>> Commissioner Davis.

>> okay.
thank you, judge.
mr. Mcdonald, and everyone here, this -- this is -- this is a real big deal all across the board because of the fact that here we are Travis County, and, of course, being a subdivision of the state of Texas and we are authorized to do things by the state constitution, we're not allowed to do things outside of that.
what they tell us to do, we do it.
but anything outside of that, we can't do.
and that means to me that there's troubled waters.
troubled waters means that there are situations where this court and any other Commissioners court doesn't have a lot of land use authority by the state of Texas.
a lot of things can be prevented in the long run.
hopefully this legislative year maybe they will allow the state -- the state will allow the counties to have more discretion as far as land use authority and also the limits that we are infinned upon as we go through this process.
it's a day to day struggle when we go through this and we hear residents in the community say, well, Commissioner, I wish this, I wish this, and yet I’m sympathetic with them, but our hands are tied because we don't have certain authorities where we can zone distances for those things that are compatible we'll put them where they need to be.
hopefully we can get there in this legislative session.
that's what we're looking forward to doing.
and again, I think the outreach is very important, and, of course, I didn't support the permit to t.x.i., voted against it.
and, of course, -- but the -- but the crux of the matter is just what I said, limited authority.
the counties have very limited authority to deal with a lot of these situations.
we are improvising and doing the best we can, I think, and I think we've come up with innovative ways to try to overcome some of these things.
yes, it is a lot of open space out there and unfortunately we aren't able to afford to buy all the open space.
that would break the bank.
but we do what we think until a better day comes and a better day will come when the states will allow counties to have more authority than we have as far as land use is concerned.
limited land use authority.
that's the bottom line.
and thank i.

>> all in favor of the motion?
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 16, 2010 4:36 PM

Tuesday, November 16, 2010, Items 13 and 18

Tuesday, November 16, 2010,
Items 13 and 18