Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, December 7, 2010,
Item 9
>> item number 9, consider and take appropriate action on county comments regarding the city of Austin's imagine Austin comprehensive plan alternative growth scenarios as they relate to the unincorporated area of Travis County and the city's five-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction.
and while those individuals are coming up, let me announce for the record that on item 11, 12 and 13, we will call those up at 1:30 this afternoon.
morning.
>> joe gieselman and randy nicholson from the transportation and natural resource department.
the city of Austin has been engage understand an update of their comprehensive plan and are in a -- the next phase of their development, which is looking at alternative growth scenarios, how the city would want to grow in the next 20 years.
and their consultant has looked at various ways that the city might do that.
and they're going through a public comment period, which has been extended recently until December 10th.
so the county as an organization would want to comment, this would be the opportunity to do that.
Travis County itself has initiated a comprehensive planning process for the entire unincorporated area of the county.
besides the city of Austin we have 21 other municipalities that we share jurisdiction with.
all these cities have what they call extra territorial jurisdiction within which they have limited authorities to regulate development.
and it is that area of the unincorporated area that the county also has a stake because we also regulate the same within the e.t.j.'s.
I would say a good piece of the unincorporated area is within the city of Austin's five-mile extra territorial jurisdiction.
this is approximately if you followed a line here.
that's approximately the area of Travis County.
this is the city corporate area.
they have full and exclusive jurisdiction within this dark area here.
the areas outside the yellow area are areas where the county has ex-cliews sieve jurisdiction meaning it's knots in the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
you find that in the far northwest and in the far western areas of the county.
the areas in green are land that has been purchased for balcones canyon land preserve, storm water management other parks.
they're scattered within the western part of the county.
the purple is that's already developed.
some type of development or another, so not really open to development, so perhaps redeveloped over a longer period of time.
so when we started looking at the city of Austin's extraordinary jurisdiction.
the yellow area here are the areas developable, meaning that there's no current use of the land that it could be developed in some form or fashion.
and so we found that the predominance of the developable area where the city of Austincity of Austin's and the Travis County's interest overlap really are more along the eastern corridor, which I would call the state highway 130 corridor.
this area which is east of the corporate limits of Austin within their five mile e.t.j.
that are developable.
a lot less of that in western Travis County because it's either been developed, set aside or really highly regulated through ordinances, impervious cover or regulation.
so when we took a global black look at our interest and the city's interest we really thought that it is in this area of the 130 corridor that we have the most common interest.
it is also where the city currently has their desired development corridor this from plans current and past, trying to encourage development in the eastern part of the county and minimize it in the drinking water supply area here in the western area.
what you see in red are major developments that are pending in the extra territorial jurisdiction within corporate limits.
robinson ranch up here in southern Williamson county, you've got wild horse ranch, you've got whisper valley, you've got rio davita, a couple other developments along this area.
the formula one.
so a lot of things are beginning to happen in that 130 corridor.
we have put a lot of investment in this area both in terms of road development and also park and open spaces.
we have participated with the state.
we put up about $100 million in right-of-way acquisition for state highway 130 itself.
that highway is probably over a billion dollars in public investment.
besides that the county put probably anywhere between $150 million in other arterial roadways, lateral roadways that would connect i-35 and state highway 130 up and down this corridor on the fringe of what was going to be the developing areas of the city.
we also put major parks out there.
we have northeast metro park.
right now besides the 300-acre park there we probably have a 300-million-dollar investment inside the park.
we have east moat metropolitan troa park, southeast metro park.
so we have a number of major regional parks in that corridor and we have begun to develop greenways, along onion creek, which is along this area here and along gilliland creek.
the strategy, even though the county doesn't have a growth management strategy per se, we have encouraged development in the city's desired development corridor.
by wait, we have invested public dollars from the county's point of view.
so we looked at what the city has on their screen right now for the upcoming comprehensive plan.
and they have any number of different scenarios.
one scenario would be trends, which is just let things happen the way the market would have it happen.
the other is a redistribution, which is somewhat along this area.
another is the crescent.
the crescent is basically shaped like a banana.
it comes from the south around the city and up to the north.
you have a linear corridor which is straight up and down the i-35 corridor, encouraging more dense development in the central spine of the city.
and then you have a centers scenario, which would encourage development in high density developments at various parts in the extra territorial jurisdiction and downtown.
downtown is certainly one of the centers, but you have the centers up here.
you would have the centers in the manner area.
have you the centers down here at 71 and 130.
and I believe one down here in the area down around creed more.
when we looked at all the scenarios and given the momentum that we have from the past in terms of what the county has tried to encourage development through its investment, we believe that probably either the crescent and in some combination with center centers would be the one that where the county would probably have the most affinity with the city in its growth strategy.
what the city has received thus far --
>> why do you say that -- support your comment as far as the comment between the city and the county and the crescent.
flesh it out a little bit.
>> one of the things that the city will do with whatever scenario is selected will become the basis of its comprehensive plan.
all of its policies, whether it's regulatory policy or public investments, will begin to line up to encourage that type of development within the city's jurisdiction.
the city's jurisdiction remember is the corporate area in its five-mile extra territorial jurisdiction.
so ideally you would want these governments, the county and the city, to be rolling in the same direction.
and to the extent that we might be interesting in a scenario that's different than the cities, not quite as as active.
so -- not quite as supportive.
in my opinion because of the vast majority of the investment that we have made to date and also what we see occurring in the private market in terms of new development occurring in the 130 corridor -- and there are some desirable development policies imbedded in the city center, meaning trying to get higher concentrations of people, employment and higher concentrations.
I think the county would be supportive of that as well.
it's also realistic to expect with the limited authority that we have under state law, both the city and the county, that there's some interplay between the market itself where developers will buy land, where they will develop, and the interplay with government regulations and government investments.
so when you put all that together, it seems to me that the crescent and/or the city center had the highest probability of actually occurring in the next 20 to 30 years.
and it is where we with our authorities and also our capital improvements program can get things to happen.
can actually change from trends to something different than trends.
there are -- so what I?m really saying, I guess, is that the crescent in the city center in some combination is probably what the county should look at probably not only for its own comprehensive plan, but also encourage the city to look at seriously as well.
I just think the momentum there when you're talking about a 20 year plan, that's probably got a higher probability and possibility than the linear corridor, which is I guess the favorite option from the city's public process to date.
there are issues with that strategy in that we know that the preponderance of poverty in Travis County is in eastern Travis County.
and so we need to take that into consideration in terms of fair housing, the policies that we also support in terms of one of our primary missions as a county is indigent care, so how does that fit into our comprehensive plan.
availability of services.
we also know that -- school systems certainly have a major bearing in private decisions to locate.
so I think the -- not spoken here is how school systems play in to the entire comprehensive planning process.
both from enhancing the quality of the school system, but also in the choices that the private market makes in location decisions.
employment.
how to create employment in this corridor as well.
from new major employers to small businesses.
the other is the water supply.
the 130 corridor -- actually, 130 itself is almost on the separation line between the -- what we call the ccn's, the certificate of convenience and necessity.
it is the service area of water providers.
the city for the most part is the water provider west of of 130.
when you get on the other side of 130 this area out here, there are probably half a dozen water utility companies.
aqua, manville, garfield.
these are corporations that either -- either public corporations or semi public that finance not only secure the water supply, but also distribute the water supply.
so the capability of those entities, both the city and the private providers, can be a factor in whether or not development occurs and where it occurs in the eastern area.
not only do you have to have the water supply, you have to be able to afford to get the water pipelines to the development.
so financing water supplies is also a critical factor in the comprehensive planning process.
so all things considered, we believe the -- at least tnr believes that the major overlap in the city's interest and the county's interests are in this corridor, the 130 corridor, and that at least for this discussion with the city, we have many, many other discussions to have with Pflugerville and all the other 21 municipalities in the county.
and then we have our own separate issues which are in this western area where we may be the dominant factor in what happens and doesn't happen.
so when we go through the comprehensive plan for the county, we have not only the city's five-mile e.t.j.
to be discussing, but we have all these other areas.
and the interest in these other areas are not really the same in all cases as it is in the city's five-mile e.t.j.
certainly Lake Travis is also a key factor in our process.
it is the water supply for this metropolitan area.
these are things that the county has a major stake in addressing in their comprehensive planning process.
today what we're talking about is the interaction between Travis County and the city of Austin and development of its comprehensive plan, whether or not the court wants to make a comment on it, and if so, what nature of that comment.
>> I think we have some city of Austin representatives in the audience.
I really appreciate y'all being here.
and the huge effort and the planning.
I think it would probably be a profitable conversation for us to discuss what we could offer the city and what we would ask the city to provide for us for two things.
two things seem to jump out, joe, and tell me what you think about this.
one is the coordination of policies to get a steanable distribution of growth.
that would be a collaboration between the city and the county, but the other is collaborative financing agreements, which would not just be city and county, but also the private sector.
we have a couple of models for that collaborative -- coordinated policy making.
we're seeing that to some degree in the colorado river planning.
and with regard to collaborative financing agreements we're also seeing a little bit of that.
what exactly do we think that the ask of the city -- what our ask of the city should be?
>> right now I would say for the city to seriously consider some combination of the crescent and the city center approach to -- as the basis of its comprehensive plan.
>> would it be most beneficial for us to ask -- I mean, in making that consideration, I?m just trying to drill down on exactly where we're going with this, that with regard to our title 30 office, we have a mechanism for collaborative policy making with regard to the e.t.j.
it seems a good starting point for the city and the county to engage in perhaps a directed -- either a committee or some sort of working group to look at the type of policies that could be collaboratively developed for this e.t.j.
area so that the county and the city could be singing from the same choir book for that sustainable distribution of growth.
>> right now -- I mean, what you're talking about is probably on the other side of the comprehensive plan.
right now they're at a satellite view trying to get the vision in place for what then comes -- that becomes the cornerstone.
that's why this decision is so seminal in what goes forward.
and if we're not on the same page at this point, it becomes more difficult when you get down to policies and agreements on financing and stuff like that to get harmony between the two.
whether it comes to jointly financing a particular development or putting together a regulation that would become an extension of title 30.
all those flow on from decisions like this.
and if you have a -- really if you strike out in different directions, if the city chooses the linear corridor, for instance, which really calls for infilling the city of Austin, and not much developmentoutside in the e.t.j., then we don't have as much of a role perhaps in that as we might otherwise.
the other possibility in that given the limited powers of local government to affect that scenario --
>> which would include the city of Austin in extra territorial jurisdiction.
they don't have significantly more power than we did do in the extra territorial.
>> it doesn't.
so they're weak authorities all the way around, which means the marketplace is still going to exert quite a bit of power in what happens.
the extent to which we're -- the city and the county are headed in different directions could mean a disallocation of resources.
the city is putting major tax dollars to do something in the linear corridor.
we're putting major tax dollars doing something out in the 130 corridor.
so you have the potential for misallocation of resources instead of us doing things in common, we're doing things -- and then have you the private sector reacting in their own way and doing whatever makes money for the private sector.
>> to what extent are there expert working -- describe to me and perhaps mr. Stole would be a better person to ask on this, but it seems like where we would be most helpful to constituent and the city could perhaps get the most help from us is with regard to any expert working groups on the implementation -- on the hypothetical implementation issues with these scenarios as they're considered and discussed.
are there expert working groups at this point are or we not to that point yet?
>> thank you for joit viet meg to answer that question.
the type of specific area working groups are not yet formed, but are no the process of formation.
we at this point envision that process to kick-off in March.
so the taskforce, the planning commission, the city councilmembers, staff are trying to get the word out.
we certainly invite you in that process to get the word out.
if anybody is interested in working on the specific strategies to implement the vision in any one of the charter required elements, the 10 elements plus the four discretionary elements that were added, please get the word out.
we really want as many people participating in those working groups as possible.
and we're specifically interested in experts.
>> and we anticipate that further on in our process we will start to develop expert working groups on specific areas like transportation, green spaces, water and various others.
I?m wondering if we might not be able to find a circumstance where the city and the county could share expert resources so that we can approach singing from the same choir book.
>> yes.
and I might just very briefly talk a little bit about where we are in the process of creating a preferred scenario.
mr. Gieselman mentioned that we have a trend plaws + for alternatives to the trend in front of the council right now, which is still open for input until December the 10th.
so we're really hoping that more people would take the survey that's on our website.
imagineaustin.net.
over 3500 people have taken that survey.
we're hoping that we get more than that.
so if you know -- if you know of anything you can do to get the word out.
we're asking people to weigh in on their preference, first choice, second choice.
mr. Gieselman said that the preference is a scenario d, which is the linear north-south linear.
it's not a plurality.
there's a lot of support for scenario c, which is the centers approach.
the indicators that were generated to inform the public, to allow them to weigh in on these scenarios, look at density, mixed use, fiscal impact of the scenarios.
and the process very much entertains looking at a number of factors in creating the preferred scenario, some which mr. Gieselman mentioned, looking at the campo adopted plan.
obviously we want to be as coordinated as we can with the regional plan.
and campo transportation plan is very important.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> a Monday December 13, an open house from city hall outside the -- I believe it's the staff bullpen room.
and then the next night on Tuesday, December 14, one Texas center, room 325.
both open houses are correspond to go the planning commission meeting on Monday night and the citizens advisory task force on Tuesday night.
>> how are you getting the word out for that particular public hearing dates?
how that is that been disseminated through the community?
>> the open house is not exactly a public hearing but we're getting out through our information release and as well at our task force.
>> I guess Commissioner was still talking.
I guess I?m a little concerned.
I received emails from a person in the community, mr. John williams, and also mr. Jack gilleland, and we tried to disseminate and distribute their comments.
and they -- mr. Williams can speak for himself, I think he's here, I think I saw him earlier, but -- but some of the concerns are a lack of participation from the folks that are in the e.t.j.
and, of course, I think joe kind of laid out the growth potential along sh 130, at least in Travis County.
and, of course, the length of sh 130 as it proceeds south through Travis County, the majority of that length is -- of sh 130 is in precinct 1, which is also a big chunk of the city's intent as far as what they have defined in the desired development zone.
and I guess you've heard that the limited powers of the county and city are both realized in that e.t.j.
but the concerns of the community are that they have not been able to participate at a level where they think they should be with the city.
and it's very important because if we are going to project growth in these areas or the city is going to partner with the county or whatever and anybody else as far as all of those type of criteria or subject matter, whether it's water, whether it's development, whether it's all of those common things -- transportation, all of those common concerns, it just appears to me that future growth if it's going to take place, it just appears to me that the city should welcome the input from the residents that actually have to -- that are out there in the e.t.j.
so I don't know when that is going to take place since there is a common interest between the citizens -- or between the residents in the e.t.j.
that -- that, you know, have a relationship with the city and also the county.
so my question is, when will that take place?
because that's a big deal for those folks out there, and with all these scenarios we are looking at, but that's very important.
>> Commissioner Davis, we have been tracking who has participated by geographic area, and the total number of people that have participated in this process is over 14,000.
we also know how many have participated from the extraterritorial jurisdiction and I can get you that number, I don't have it in front of me, but we have actively pursued and the task force has actively pursued increasing interests in -- from the e.t.j.
and it's still not closed.
people can weigh in on the scenarios, which mr. Geiselman talked about.
folks can come to the open house next Monday and Tuesday.
people can right now sign up to be on the working group.
people can sign up to be on our email notification blasts.
we actively really need and want as many people from the extraterritorial jurisdiction as possible to participate.
so it's anything you can do to get that word out, we really need that.
>> we've been doing that.
what I would list the city has of that effort, I would like to have that list.
>> we'll get it to you.
because -- because in getting the word out and in having the committee meetings and stuff like that, and people can speak for themselves.
I don't think that they would be sending me falsehoods.
you know, the participation level isn't what it should be, and especially in these areas whereby that kind of development that we're talking about, I think joe mentioned whispering valley, indian hills, all that area has massive development
>> [indiscernible] which is another one.
but just want to make sure that the e.t.j.
has the fair representation that it needs to have in order to go forward since projected growth in the d.d.d.
is going to be along that sh 130 corridor which I stated earlier the majority of the road is in precinct 1.
so I just want to make sure that happens.
and like I said, people can speak for themselves if they would like to, but it's -- I have some concerns, some very legitimate concerns.
so anyway.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> thank you so much for your efforts in trying to get the highest level of participation in developing this continuum of preferred growth patterns.
it's been a really interesting process to watch unfold with the city residents and the county residents.
what I am most interested in is after the development of the continuum of preferred growth patterns, what the next steps are with regard to coordinating policies and collaborative financing agreements to get there.
and I?m wondering what your suggestion would be for mechanisms for the county and the city to participate together in that policy making and financing -- financing strategies.
because I do see this eastern e.t.j.
as being a tough nut to crack under any of the growth scenarios that are being discussed.
so what -- what is the -- I know that with regard to our mechanism, the mechanism for the city of Austin participation will be at the moment where we start developing those specific issue area groups to do specific drill-down work on what policies and financing strategies we can utilize to get to where our comprehensive plan is suggesting we should go.
and I?m wondering what will be the -- what will be the moment and the mechanism that the city might consider our involvement in your plan.
>> yes.
the strategies and the to-do list should be part of the next phase, phase 3.
if you recall, we had basically -- we were asking two questions.
the first question is where do we want to go, and that's what the preferred scenario is all about.
that's what 2010 is all about.
the next question is how do we get there.
that's where the strategy, the policies and strategies, and we absolutely need to coordinate it with all the jurisdictions surrounding Austin including particularly Travis County because it's so critical that we harness our strategies because of the limited powers that we have in extraterritorial jurisdiction.
so I couldn't agree more, and that is the question in front of the working groups that start in March.
but right now we're still trying to create this preferred scenario.
>> thank you so much.
>> is this a moment, is my question, to garner -- since we are in a public participation process, would you welcome a county's comment at this point in the development of your plan?
>> absolutely.
yes.
>> and would it -- would it be helpful from a -- from your perspective to have us weigh in on the Commissioners court state a preference or -- that seems a little odd, frankly.
I would think that what would be more useful is -- is for the Commissioners court and for whatever mechanism within, I suppose, city management to do some preliminary, broad brush, kind of rough order of magnitude analysis of the trends -- I shouldn't say trends because that gets confusing.
of the growth pattern scenarios.
because I am a little concerned about managing expectations.
and I do fear as lie at the growth scenarios that are being entertained that in some regard there may be an expectation for what we can do in the e.t.j., both of us, the city and the county, that simply is not possible is not possible under our current regulatory authority.
and I would be -- and I?ll just put my fear on the table.
although I would very much as a human being and as a citizen of the city of Austin be able to see the linear scenario be the one selected and the one, more importantly, implemented, I know as a county official that our ability both city and county to bring the linear scenario to fruition is virtually nil under our current regulatory rubric.
so would it be useful to us at this point as county officials and county staff to work with city staff in doing at least a rough order of magnitude analysis of the doability of the growth scenarios that are being cerd?
are -- being considered?
>> I they yes, it's very helpful -- I think yes, it's very helpful for the county and the city to look at the -- the tools that are available to implement a preferred scenario or a preferred plan while you are doing the plan.
that is where we are.
the preferred scenario that is evolving through the discussions with the task force and the public is not scenario d.
it's very much being adjusted to reflect policy decisions that are in our small area plans and neighborhood plans, our regional plans, and approved development already approved.
the task force staff, everybody is working on that, I think, in concert.
so at the -- what's in front of the public right now is very much alternatives to allow them to weigh in on their preferences for the future, but the process recognizes that has to be tethered in reality.
and that's where we are going now going forward.
>> I don't have a scenario e before me.
I have a through d.
>> I understand, but the preferred scenario never -- judge Biscoe, never was intended to be an endorsement of one -- a through d.
>> what's e?
>> e is what the task force and then later the planning commission and then the city council will be working on, which we will call the preferred scenario.
>> but you want to know what the county thinks today?
>> yes, sir.
>> all right.
the open house is not a public hearing.
>> no.
>> what is it?
>> it's an opportunity to come look -- view the work that's been done to date and discuss what staff and consultant team informally.
>> so staff's recommendation is a combination of b and c.
>> b and d, isn't it?
>> b and c?
>> bac?
>> d is linear -- is d the preferred scenario of the city?
>> yeah.
>> the city has never had a preferred scenario.
>> we are posted to give comments to the city on the county's preference.
>> judge, can I make one observation?
because --
>> you can make as many as you need.
>> as Commissioner Eckhardt and joe have pointed out, the issue of legal limited ability of both the city and the county is a huge factor here, and the way I would characterize this is that regardless of what preferred scenario the city adopts, the city and the county have limited ability to keep the market from sending growth wherever the market wants to send it.
if the market wants to send growth into the e.t.j.
in the 130 corridor, the city and county are not going to have the ability to say no, that's not our preferred scenario.
the only authority the city and county have is deal with infrastructure issues.
and basically on infrastructure, not only the market, but the city is already sending the growth there.
they are extending utility lines to the whisper valley project, they are extending utility lines to the formula one project, that's providing the basis for growth in that area.
so to a certain extent growth in the 130 corridor and the e.t.j.
is inevitable.
the preferred scenario will not be able to change that, so the issue seems to be yes, the county may have a preferred growth scenario among those that the city has laid out in its comprehensive plan, but there also needs to be a recognition that we sort of need to have the contingency plan.
if market sends the growth to the 130 corridor, the city and county need to have policies in place to deal with it because it's going to happen regardless of what the preferred scenario is.
>> I understand that.
>> and so why not start working on that contingency plan now because we know it's a reality.
>> joe, can you get that in comment?
b, c, plus the contingency.
I understand what you said.
I don't know that we can do anything today to change the law.
there are restrictions that we have to live with and we have lived with them historicry.
so unless the law changes, those restrictions probably will stay in place.
the other thing is that we don't control the market, we may be able to influence it in one way or another.
to the extent that the city and county can work together to achieve our preference, I think we should do so.
and to the extent our comments should contain that language, I have no problem with that.
but we can discuss this forever and not change the legal restrictions.
he we need a motion.
and we need a -- we need action of some sort today even if the action is we can't take action.
>> well, judge, before we do that, we have some folk that have come here --
>> I understand.
I?m just saying we ought to be real close to taking action, but we certainly want to hear from others who have come down on this item.
>> mr. Williams, I think he's here.
>> whoever you are, come forward.
>> he's not able to make it but he has very legitimate concerns.
>> joe, we will need one of those county chairs, and city of Austin representative, we will need one of yours.
that will free up four chairs for those who wish to use them.
>> and judge, that's one of the reasons I kind of highlighted on some of the stuff earlier as far as the e.t.j.
stuff because that's exactly as the county attorney illustrated, assistant county attorney illustrated, that's what's going on out there, I mean as far as that growth.
the only corridor.
so like it or not.
>> I think our comment would include whatever we think should be there.
my purpose is not to take all day to do it, though.
please.
>> my name is carol torgenson, I?m one of your appointees to the comprehensive plan citizens advisory task force for the city of Austin.
I live in the e.t.j.
and I appreciate your pointing me to that August body.
I have a couple of comments.
first of all, I think that it's -- it's a little late in the process to actually be proposing a particular scenario b or c on behalf of the county because the task force, staff and consultants have moved past that point now.
we're actually trying to look at the scenarios and address issues that citizens have raised that go beyond what's in any particular scenario.
and so that process has moved past that now.
we are working from basically c and d, if you will, as the ones that were most popular with the public, but we're looking beyond that.
and I agree with what garner said, the next phase when we have the working groups is when we're really going to get down to nuts and bolts and what we'll end up won't look like any of those scenarios because I think there's a problem with all four myself.
we are going to be pursuing that in the next year and those ofous the task force will be on those working groups.
I intend to serve on at least three of them and I vine it to you help us find experts to help us and use us, if you will, any time that your representatives to the task force can be used to help get the word back and forth between the city and the county.
we stand here to serve you too.
we are primarily trying to serve the citizens of the e.t.j.
in expressing their concerns to the city -- to the comprehensive plan, and I ask you if you have your own way of getting the word out to your constituents, if you have email lists, if you have newsletters, whatever to, take this opportunity to use those this week to remind those folks who live in the county, particularly those who live in the e.t.j., to get their inputs in by virtue of taking the survey.
if you can put that on your county website so people might see that link to the -- to the survey, that would be helpful too.
so anything you can do to help us get the word out would be great.
and I happen to live on the northwest end of the city of Austin in the e.t.j.
so I?m kind -- I?m not that familiar with how to get the word out on the east side of town, but I know that you guys have some resources and also be sure to talk to your task force members who represent the precincts on the east side of Austin to help you do that.
I think that's very important.
I think the thing that the county can do at this point is concentrate on the issues that you want to see addressed by the task force and the consultants during the next phase rather than a scenario.
so whatever the issues are, whatever the areas of interest are, that that should be the attack and not concentrating on a scenario itself.
I think that there are a lot of concerns on how to deal with the east side of the e.t.j.
area that need to be -- need to be concentrated on and brought up.
I agree with what -- what our turncoat mr. Nuckols said, it's good to see you back here, sir, I miss you over on this side of the fence.
>> I serve all the people.
all the people of Travis County.
>> I know.
>> inside the city limits and outside.
>> you serve a larger good now, I understand that.
>> [laughter] but I agree with everything thing he said, there isn't much to control the growth out there right now.
I?m alarmed at the subdivisions that are getting approved and the fact there isn't more control on the part of the city and county on what goes on out there.
it's going to do what it's going to do and I agree whatever can be done to affect that is really a good thing and I agree completely about the need for contingency plan.
even though I think that the linear -- the linear approach if not model d will be the basis for the comprehensive plan general approach.
I still think that we do need to do everything we can to address what's going on in the eastern e.t.j.
I know there are things coming up now before the city in terms of protecting the eastern watersheds to some other things going on.
again, a lot of it is piecemeal.
what is frustrating to all of you working on the comprehensive plan is just how piecemeal everything the city has done has been for the last 20 years.
so hopefully you guys can give us some inputs and help us as we go through the next year and trying to get some focus on those areas that can be addressed and help put together a contingency plan that will work for all of us.
thank you.
>> thank you.
we appreciate your service.
>> thank you so much.
>> mr. Williams.
>> I?m john williams, resident of eastern Travis County in Austin's e.t.j.
in the desired development zone.
right along the 130 corridor.
I?m speaking for myself now, not as a representative of my association because the association has not taken a position about any of these specific scenarios.
I?ve given you a copy of what I plan to say today, and I was struck as Commissioner Eckhardt made her comments.
she talked about the need for coordination of policy for sustainable growth.
I hope that means that two great minds think alike, Commissioner.
>> are those the same words you chose?
>> there must be city of Austin and Travis County cooperation and collaboration and planning within the e.t.j.
and then you went on to talk about the need for collaborative financing, public and private.
I think you're saying the same thing as I?m trying to say in my bullet point number 2, I would simply add bullet point number 3, which is affected, of course, by what mr. Nuckols has said, that the market will drive things and the county and the city have very limited authority.
but I want to reiterate the need for transportation infrastructure as well as water and wastewater infrastructure.
mr. Geiselman, I think, has hit the nail on the head.
he talked about the investment that the county has put into this area already in terms of parks, roadways, everything else.
he remarked on the city of Austin's investment in water and wastewater.
we need investment in transportation as well, and I realize that that has legal limitations to it.
so I?m not asking you to endorse any one of the possible scenarios, but I am asking you to take these three positions as vital to your ongoing city-county relationship.
>> can you repeat the three positions just so I can be clear?
>> there must be cooperation and collaboration between the city and the county.
there must be a procedure for developers to enter into collaborative agreements with the county and the city.
and funding requirements must include transportation as well as utilities like water and wastewater.
>> if we were to take those three and add issues under the contingency plan and pass on the opportunity to address the preferred scenarios a through d, I guess, and even e, do we have time to put those together and act on them next Tuesday?
>> would you repeat that?
>> I?m looking at mr. Williams' three points.
I?m hearing issues and contingency plan that our appointee endorse which are articulated also by nuckols and Eckhardt earlier.
so I?m speaking basically about instead of choosing one of the four or even the fifth one that we heard about today, and I still don't know what e is, if we just address those four or five points in comments from the county.
I heard earlier that the deadline for comments is December 10th, which is Friday.
our next meeting is December 14th, next Tuesday.
so I?m -- my question is if we were to draft comments consistent with what we are hearing today, do we have an opportunity to review a draft and act on it next Tuesday?
>> I?m still trying to figure out what effect those comments would have other than saying we want to cooperate with whatever you are doing down the line.
if what they are doing right now is trying to settle in on a scenario or combined scenario and we say we're not going to comment on that, but we do want to comment on what happens after that, whatever that might be, is that the gist of the county's comments?
>> well, that's one way to look at it.
if you are asking me will the city seriously consider comments of that nature from the county, I?m not the one to answer.
if you are asking where the county should, my answer is in the affirmative.
what I?m thinking though is normally we wouldn't submit comments without looking at them.
what we hear today has been pretty general.
we would normally revisit this issue with a draft document for us to review.
and we would act on that.
what impact would it have on the city's process, I don't know, but I?m assuming that if they ask for comments, they ask in good faith and that means they will use them.
they may wonder why didn't you meet our deadline.
we could easily say we're the government, city, we're just like you, we're slow.
>> [laughter]
>> but judge, that doesn't mean that the city -- thanks for those points and thank you, mr. Williams, for showing up today and I really appreciate that because when we sent that out to you initially letting you know exactly what's going on, you responded in a timely manner and then you came up with these suggestions also, which is a part of what I think the direction I think we should go.
but that does not mean that the city can't go with what they want to go with because they are a governing body but we're talking about the e.t.j.
and the folks that have to deal with it one way or the other.
so they should, in my opinion, have sufficient input in this process and that's why I?ve been hollering and screaming all along.
it ain't nothing new.
I?ve been hollering and screaming about this a long time.
again, mr. Williams, I want to thank you, and, of course, mr. Jack wanted to be here but he wanted to be here to express some of those same concerns so thank you for being here with us to share with the court because it is meaningful and it has a lot of merit.
so thank you.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> if it's too late for us to -- for it to be useful for us to weigh in on plan preferences, and if indeed the specific strategies are going to be developed by the working group, is it not important for us to go ahead and weigh in officially with these three categories of very specific interests that we think would be our highest priority for us and as it comes to the working group effort?
mr. Williams, mr. Ferguson, mr. Stole.
>> I think perhaps garner can correct me, and I?m sure he will if I?m wrong, but I think that there's some confusion about the deadline for inputs.
the December 10th deadline is only the deadline for -- for responding to the survey.
we're going to be taking inputs throughout this process and we would -- we would -- we would encourage you to give us your inputs on a continuing basis throughout the process personally is what I would say.
my comment about not picking -- not concentrating on pick ago scenario but the issues, I?m talking about the issues behind your concern with scenario d.
I?m saying rather than say we prefer scenario b to c to d concentrate on what is it about scenario b and c, what issues you have with d that would be better served by c and b rather than saying, you know --
>> is d already selected?
>> it's not selected.
>> why would we not comment on whatever the alternatives are?
it seems like d has been already ordained as being the alternative.
>> I was, frankly, shocked and surprised when I was told I prefer d and I think the rest of the city staff was too.
we never had a preference.
it is true that some of the land use indicators that were used to generate numbers tend to support density and mixed use.
shorter trips, transit use, less environmentally sensitive land being used.
so the numbers that are part of the survey tend to support d, but the process, the stated process from the very beginning was that we wanted to bracket the alternatives that are available that the public said we need to do bracket and let the public evaluate those alternatives with the idea that out of that process would emerge a preferred scenario.
we had never stated a preference for the alternative, the four alternatives.
>> I will again, you know, perhaps -- hmmm.
I think I feel extremely uncomfortable as a body, the Commissioners court, weighing in on the city of Austin's exploration of its continuum of preferences.
so I for one would not be in favor of the Commissioners court voting on which of the growth scenarios we five or four currently today would prefer, but I do see huge value in what the city of Austin is doing in developing this continuum of preferences because I think ultimately that's what's going to happen, there will be a continuum of preferences.
there will be something out here if we were all czars of the universe could make happen so we'll see a continuum of things and have to adjust in time as mr. Nuckols said based on what actually happens on the ground.
so what I would like to do is -- is perhaps -- perhaps, judge, you've already made this motion.
>> I haven't made a motion.
I did make a recommendation.
>> which is essentially to ask the county staff to pursue what the city staff recommendations for even sent I haveizing sustainable growth patterns in the e.t.j., whatever the preference continuum is for two specific areas that I think cover mr. Williams' points of emphasis here.
one, coordinated policies between the city of Austin and Travis County, and two, collaborative financing strategies that would include city of Austin, Travis County and the private sector for those kind of infrastructure needs for the kind of growth, whatever that growth ends up being.
I think that we need to -- I think the day has come where we need to have a standing and ongoing collaboration on policy and financing strategies.
>> can we get all of that in writing on a paper between now and next Tuesday, joe?
can we run that by our appointees on the committee and our legal counsel for input?
>> yes, we can.
>> my own view would be put in that document whatever you believe should be put in, and with the understanding that we do not want you to feel close to any of the language because we may strike it.
>> [laughter] but is the city asking us to land on those scenarios?
is the city asking for the county's input on a through d?
>> we certainly are interested in any comments that the county has.
we're not asking you to choose a preference, no.
>> all right.
then it doesn't bother me whether we do it or not, but in -- we have never been reluctant to give our opinion to the city on whatever we think the city ought to do.
and I think the city officials have felt the same way.
but if we think that we are better served by passing on the opportunity to address a through d and indicating some other wishes, the contingency, the issues that we think are important short and long term, then I think our language ought to be just that.
now, your understanding of this deadline is the same as we heard?
>> yes.
she stated it correctly.
it is to weigh in on the scenarios.
it is to take the survey, that the deadline is December 10th.
the process is open until council adopts the plan.
>> okay.
so joe, can we make sure that's on the county's website?
the survey of where to get the survey at the city.
and we urge basically county employees and county residents to take the survey.
>> thank you.
>> because if our employees take it, that's a lot of people.
then we try to get word to county residents who look at our communications routinely.
>> excellent.
>> thank you.
>> I second that motion -- second Commissioner Eckhardt's motion and whatever part of that picks up what I said earlier.
>> do we have another -- someone in city management over here who needs to comment on this?
>> [laughter] that look was priceless.
you just made my day.
>> again, thank you, mr. Williams.
>> any more discussion in we appreciate the input.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
joe?
joe, you can -- if joe circulates his document, I think we can have our best shot at responding to what the court requests today.
okay.
john, how are you doing?
>> good.
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, December 7, 2010 1:33 PM
