Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 20
Item 20, consider and take appropriate action on the construction of floating habitable structures on Lake Travis.
>> judge and Commissioners, steve
>> [inaudible] from t.n.r.
this is a continuation of our discussion from two weeks ago when we brought before you a draft resolution outlining our concerns about this type of development on Lake Travis.
during the past couple weeks we received comments from Commissioner Huber's office, primarily, and I have some changes to that resolution.
and anna is going to pass out the resolution and we've highlighted those areas that are changed and when you compare them to the resolution that's in your packet.
generally, though, the same issues exist.
we're concerned about, you know, how these types of facilities would be constructed in a safe manner, particularly on the type of lake we have to deal with here, one that has widely fluctuating lake levels.
these types of facilities have been built elsewhere around the country, but I think we have a pretty severe issue with how quickly our lake level can rise and how attacks will be able to -- how folks will be able to get in and out of that area and also be able to with stand any damage that might be caused by that higher lake level and the debris we see floating after very disruptive events.
so in the resolution before you, we are still asking lcra to prohibit this type of development.
we believe that it would be lcra that will ultimately regulate these, but if they were to make a
>> [inaudible] to land in some fashion we would be involved with that approval as well.
so open for comments.
>> and I want to hear from mr. Shiply before we move forward.
mr. Shiply had comments.
>> yes, I certainly -- quite frankly, I guess I'm the developer they are targeting here.
I felt blindsided two weeks ago.
I've not been contacted by any of these people regarding when they say these structures are unsafe, I would greatly disagree with that.
when they say these structures are a problem with the rising and falling waters of Lake Travis, I take great exception to that as well.
what you must understand, there are two types of floating homes and floating habitable structures on Lake Travis.
there are those within a marina which are professionally managed, structurally more sound, and then there are the floating homes that are behind a person's residence on their private waterfront lot.
I would agree with these ladies and gentlemen that there is an issue with the floating habitable structures for floating private residences because number 1, the lcra has no way of regulating them.
they are not permitted to charge fees for them.
but within a marina structure, a floating habitable structure is well regulated.
numerous regulations, over 25 regulations in a marina permit require organized water, organized wastewater, proper anchorage, all of the issues you need to make a marina safe makes that floating habitable structure safe.
what I would like the court to first of all I would urge you to table this issue until I've had an opportunity to speak with these people if they would honor me with that so that I can explain these difference.
I'm doing the same with lcra before they recommend their recommendations to the board.
but again, the floating habitable structures are two types, those within a marina and those with a private individual.
I would ask that you look at those in two separate categories and the definition that the lcra is using is even correct.
how they can eliminate a houseboat or a yacht as not being a floating habitable structure is ludicrous.
I sold houseboats on Lake Travis when I owned sandy creek yacht club.
every houseboat had a minimum four bedrooms, full baths, full kitchen, full living room, and how that is not a floating habitable structure is beyond me.
at my marina I built at sandy creek, I designed a dock specifically for house boats.
they had organized water and wastewater directly to the slips.
people bought these houseboats for second homes.
seldom did they move them.
this is no different than the floating homes that I'm proposing in the new marina I'm want to go build and I would contend the floating homes that I'm designing once I could explain this to staff are safer and better for water quality than the thousands, count them, thousands of houseboats and yachts that exist in marinas on Lake Travis today.
what I'm proposing to build is safer, yet I've not had a voice to explain how it's safer for the public, for the neighborhoods, and for the water quality of Lake Travis.
so in my opinion, this is -- there is no danger right now.
there's no immediate urge even single source.
there's a more tore crumb on these floating homes.
what is Travis County in such a big hurry about?
I would simply like an opportunity to meet with staff, bring my consultants in, my architects and my engineers, my experts to answer their questions, share their concerns if there are any before we jump out on a limb and just recommend prohibition of this.
there are hundreds of jobs at stake for the people in Travis County.
when we would build these floating homes, they would be built locally.
they would not be bought from kentucky where all the houseboats are built.
and again, the waters of Lake Travis belong to the state of Texas.
why are we prohibiting people from houston, dallas, san antonio, a third of my marina came from houston on these house boats that we had at sandy creek yacht club.
I don't understand staff's urgency here.
I don't know in its politically motivated.
I would suspect it is.
however, I would love to have a chance to educate them on what it is -- not one question has been asked to me by staff yet they are making this recommendation to prohibit my development.
>> mr. Shiply.
>> yes, sir.
>> first of all, it's not staff, it's Commissioner how about their put this on the agenda.
I have been driving this.
I think it's something that needs to be open for public discussion.
I think there are a whole lot of issues around this.
this is in no way targeting your project.
you just happen to have one that's on the books right now.
this is a whole new ball game for Lake Travis.
and one of the biggest concerns that I have and one of the reasons I think this should be out for public discussion is that we have the whole situation with under water properties.
that if we allow floating habitable structures, the price of land is extremely expensive, shore land, buildable land on the shores of Lake Travis.
under water properties are going for a thousand dollars an acre and that's been recently upped from $100 an acre.
it increases problems with how do you valuate for taxation.
I mean your property is an underwater property, it's the front of a cove.
you have an access parcel that you have purchased, but there's theme and variation that could happen on these under water property that may not be as secure for the location in the future.
for example, the way the cove is where your property is, as you have to float down when the water level goes down, your proposed structures, they would still be over your property.
in another part of the lake they may not be over the property that's owned.
there is the fire and the emergency services issues related to these kind of structures.
access is difficult if not impossible in some locations.
you may be able to provide for that where you are proposing it, but it may not be that easily dealt with in other locations on the property -- on the lake.
so we really have to look at the bigger picture when we're looking at what the impact of these floating habitable structures could be.
I see a huge difference in the floating habitable structure that is designed primarily as a habitat and not as a navigable entity like a oath boat which can be taken out on the lake and anchored and used in that capacity.
one of the things we need to look out from a more global standpoint is the recreation at use of the lake.
Lake Travis right now, there's a study coming out from -- a sea grant study from a&m that should be on the streets, travis already has more marinas than any other body in the state of Texas.
more structures on the lake.
it is our water.
and it is not a constant level lake.
so we have to start being more sensitive to how we are expanding the use of this lake.
it's -- it's -- the jobs issue of building, does that outweigh the cost of homes when they burn or land that we have if we can't control emergency services?
how do we weigh those things?
I mean the water quality issues.
you may have that figured out for your parcel, but that -- it's an open-ended ball game when you are talking about under water properties and other places in the lake.
so I just think that it's something that really needs to be looked at very, very closely.
Travis County, as staff had said, if floating habitable structures are allowed, we would -- our regulations right now don't really cover how we would deal with those.
we would have to look at new development regulations as it relates to that and enforcement would be a huge challenge.
not something you drive up and inspect.
I checked with the tax office and that's a problem they have with valuation because they usually look at structures under construction and just the access to them would be difficult.
so it's just something that I don't believe is something we should walk down at this time.
I have no problem waiting another week or two to give mr. Shiply the time to talk with staff, but I'm not convinced yet that it's something that -- that the downside isn't greater than the upside for our lake.
>> I imagine staff and mr. Shiply will get together this next week?
>> we would be glad to do that.
no problem.
>> and then the Commissioner will -- whenever you are ready to put it back on.
>> put it back on in two weeks.
there is no hurry.
I put it on now to get it started.
we need to have dialogue, look at all the details.
lcra is looking at -- us having taken a position one way or the other would be helpful to them because they are reviewing their own position on this.
>> two weeks is may 10th, correct?
so we'll be back here on may 10th.
>> sure.
thank you.
>> and may I ask staff to -- I would like to know more about this because mr. Shiply, you mention that it's well regulated and yet I do know from lcra that they declared the moratorium because their policies don't specifically address these sort of structures.
so I have learned a considerable amount with regard to regulation in Travis County in permitting, but this is new territory for us.
I think the moratorium is appropriate while we figure out exactly what this trend means for us with regard to the lake as an economic engine, as a water reservoir, the emergency services impact.
it would be -- right now we struggle mightly just with providing fire service on dry land.
providing fire service by water is a whole new ball game.
I think we really -- we need to take the time to really understand the full impacts to the public coffers of having private residences on the water in this -- in this magnitude because I think we're seeing a trend that will be of considerable magnitude.
>> I would totally agree that we all need to take time to understand everything that's going on.
as far as the lcra, it's my understanding they are -- I have it in my presentation which I'm happy to email to all of you and I'll certainly share with staff.
the lcra has great regulations to regulate within a marina structure.
they have the ability to charge fees for it.
they have the ability to set guidelines and inspections within a marina structure.
that's why I urge the county and the lcra, I'm urging them to categorize floating habitable structures in two categories.
one within a marina structure that's professionally managed and they have great regulations for and the other the private individual.
that's a whole separate challenge.
it's been explained to me by the lcra that they are unable to charge fees for the use of their water by private individuals with their private land.
that's a whole bucket of problems for them to try to regulate and inspect floating habitable structures for the private individual.
why should the marina developers be punished?
why should the people of the state of Texas not have the opportunity to have an opportunity to enjoy Lake Travis because they can't regulate this sector?
>> oftentimes competing property rights, the balancing of competing property rights is perceived as punishment, but I assure you that's not what this resolution or attempt to find appropriate balance is about.
I don't believe any of us are interested in punishment, but finding the appropriate balance between competing property rights.
as I've said before, property rights are great but your neighbor has them too.
>> I did speak with esd 6 on several occasions which most of our marina sits in, and in the marinas, you may or may not be aware, but they require us to do full fire protection.
we have to have a stand pipe for them to utilize.
we have to have stand pipes all down the marina for the firefighter to hook up hoses.
we have voluntarily agreed to put sprinklers in all of our structures.
so I mean, I would ask the court, I'm within my rights to build a marina on this land.
I'm not asking for any variances.
would you rather have a marina full of houseboats and yachts that have hundreds of gallons of fuel and volatile liquid and no fire protection on their structure except for a fire extinguisher or have a floating home that has stringer will systems and no volatile liquids.
that's the difference here.
and I would contend that what we are want to go build is safer and better for water waterquality than a marina fullf houseboats and yachts.
>> very good.
we'll talk about this again may 10th.
Commissioner, did you have a comment?
>> looking at all of these, I'm hearing what he's saying, I've heard what staff has said and I've heard what you said and, of course, I understand you are bringing the issue you and bringing it to surface and the lcra as far as resolution of the moratorium and other the other things.
what I'm trying to look and forecast in my mind is with all these parts, the different categories that must be addressed, we would even have legal involved in this.
so we have a lot of moving parts.
what would you suggest as far -- and I think the young man mentioned some things with lcra not being involved with staff, per se and not being involved -- not being involved, but staff and others.
what are you suggesting, I guess, as far as maybe looking at a situation where all of these moving parts can come together and come back to us with some type of the direction as far as all the different input that we end up getting in this procedure?
within this process?
>> well, I think staff does need to visit with mr. Shiply, but I do think it would be -- your suggestion is good and I actually had talked with patrick brown about it from a taxation standpoint, but we have the issue of under water properties, and that's a big one.
and I don't know legally how -- that is a loophole in the law, but -- in my mind's eye and we can talk with legal more about this, but I can see the situation where you have a floating habitable structure built over a piece of under water property off shore that basically uses a public boat ramp to get to it.
and if that's -- if that is legally allowed, then we could have houses all over the lake randomly, and I don't know how that -- that would influence the bigger picture.
we have our own problems that staff has already identified in the -- how we would regulate our water antiseptic.
I did have a question for you, mr. Shiply, about your source of water.
you've got 120 units; is that what you are proposing in your project?
>> yes.
we have two options.
we can drill a commercial well and provide organized water in that fashion.
the other option would be that each structure would pull water from the lake and have a treatment system on each structure similar to many of the houses along Lake Travis have.
>> have you talked with lcra about that, about using the individual water on the lake?
>> I've not talked to them about that recently.
most -- most of what we talked about was the organized -- organized water through the well system.
but I will -- I mean obviously they regulate that so if they didn't allow that, I would go ahead and do the organized water.
>> but I guess what I've heard and I guess I'm going to ask you these questions, what -- as far as regulations are concerned, because really what it boils down to are we able to regulate and not regulate certain things.
what -- from just what we're hearing and I guess staff still has to get involved as far as a whole lot of things that are moving as far as the subject matter, but what -- is there any area where it's possible regulations and if so what would that come up under legally in the law?
>> well, it's like I said when this item was on the agenda a couple weeks ago.
he's building 120 residential units, then we can regulate it on the lake just as we can regulate it as if it was happening on dry land.
the fact that there's water under the 128 units does not change our regulatory.
I think it changes out people perceive this.
but the regulatory issue is the same whether the 128 128 unitsare on dry land or wat.
>> the elements they are considering during this moratorium, I note their moratorium lasts until October 31st.
I would like to know what the issues are that lcra has surfaced, no pun intended, and is looking into.
and then I would like to get a briefing from both t.n.r.
and legal with regard to our authority to regulate these floating habitable structures as condominiums, essentially.
>> I'd like to build off that too.
I think another component we need is if we end up in a regulatory capacity because these are allowed, how does that change how our own staff does its work at this point in time?
because I can see costs associated with it, for example, with inspection of services.
so it could probably greatly increase our costs.
>> as long as we're loading up, I can give danny hobby a call and ask him to provide us a briefing with regard to the likely emergency services ramifications.
>> the lcra --
>> yes, we do.
>> we've got the fire marshal.
>> is the lcra person there?
>> all three of us.
>> thank you for sending me the -- lcra had sent out a power point on some of their issues.
>> much as the lcra has been called, you all are mighty quiet.
>> given the requests that we're asking, let's let t.n.r.
-- there's not a huge hurry.
let's get them the luxury of time to get all the pieces together so they can contact us.
>> thank you.
>> thanks.
very much.
we are five minutes early for our 10:30 appointment so can we take a five-minute break?
be back at 10:30.
>> we need to ask to move that to 11:00 for consultation with attorneys.
>> number 7, 8, 9, 10?
>> that's correct.
>> until 11:00.
we have a meeting, though.
we have a meeting though at 10:45.
on 23.
deece should be ready.
is deece ready right now or whenever we --.
>> they are gathering now.
>> let me call deece right quick.
>> probably gives you a little more time to get them all here.
>> I'll give him a call.
>> we'll start at 10:30.
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.
