Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 7, 2011 (Agenda)
Items A2 & A3
Number 2 is a public hearing to receive comments for the following subdivA-2, a public hearing to receive comments regarding a request to authorize the filing of an instrument to vacate two five-foot public utility and drainage easements located along the common lot line of lots 38 and 39, block 59 of Austin lake hills.
>> move the public hearing be open.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
>> this requires a five-foot drainage easement on each side of the common lot lines.
the purpose of the request is so the property owners that own these two lots, that they can vacate the easements and so their existing guest house do not encroach into the easements.
>> if anyone would like to give comments during this public hearing, please come forward.
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that carries unanimously.
action item a-3.
the action items for 1, 2 and 3 will be recommended as part of the consent motion.
>> mr. Tom jones has indicated a wish to speak on item a 2 and a 3 and that was our third public hearing this morning.
we have taken action to approve the item a 3 already.
but in my view we should give mr. Jones an opportunity to give comments.
he wants to speak in opposition.
if you would come forth at this time.
I really don't see us taking any action and even if we wanted -- there's t.n.r.
I was about to say we need t.n.r.
here.
but mr. Jones, if you very brief comments, we would be happy to receive them.
have you talked with the transportation and natural resources department already?
>> your honor, this is -- we've been going back and forth for years with this.
>> okay, if you would -- do you have something to hand us?
>> yes.
>> if you would give all of them to either ms. Gerhard or Commissioner Davis.
give us your full name we would be happy to get your comments.
>> good morning.
I apologize for arriving late.
I had a different time down for this item today.
this regards the application to vacate an easement at Austin lake hills section 2.
I am the past president of the neighborhood association, we call it the bluff at the creek.
the reason I am the past president is because of the criminal liability involved in being the president.
the city of Austin has declared this subdivision illegal.
they say the 1961 plat is not legal in city of Austin.
if you have that determination there on the first page in front of you.
the next page is a memo from the city of Austin that says that state law mandates a utility service cannot be provided to illegal lots.
and the next paragraph, our legal analysis shows that none of these lots are legally subdivided.
the following page is the letter that I sent to gerald daugherty.
as it happened, it was his last day in office when I appeared here.
on the 30th of December in 2008.
I asked the commission then to make a determination of Travis County's position on whether or not the subdivision was legal in Travis County's eyes.
this subdivision was platted in 1961.
just as a reference, there were -- there were no cell phones, there were no internet, we hadn't put men in space yet, the freedom riders were riding on buses in alabama to mississippi supported by young unknown man named martin luther king when this subdivision was subdivided.
there's 295 single-family lots here.
it's been under construction and development certain stages since that time.
there's still homes being built out there today.
the city has nonetheless declared the subdivision illegal.
this has hurt the neighborhood.
tax values have been severely depleted.
I have a home there that I cannot get an electric meter for, that I cannot sell.
it's apparently rated or valued at two dollars on the Travis County tax roll so the taxpayers are suffering here.
when I appeared in front of the commission here on December 30, 2008, and asked the commission to make a determination whether or not they supported or the city's position that the subdivision was illegal, the answer I got that afternoon, you'll see a copy of the letter, you sent out a warrant for my arrest for littering.
I don't think that's a very responsible thing to do.
of course, the -- it was dismissed because it was a bogus charge.
but that didn't answer the question.
we had to build a detention pond because the subdivision was illegal.
the Travis County has taken over the maintenance requirements for the streets and the drainage facilities out there, which under code 402 include detention ponds.
the detention pond failed because it's built on a residential lot on the side of a cliff.
it was a misguided attempt at extortion by the city.
it just didn't work.
it never will work.
and so I'm going to have to oppose the granting of vacation of an easement because you can't vacate an easement in a subdivision that doesn't exist.
the city of Austin attorneys have appeared in front of a judge in court and said that they had no idea this subdivision was even out there.
it's 3.4 miles of paved curb and gutter county maintained road.
it has a multi-million dollar underground Austin energy electrical distribution complex.
we've been collecting taxes out there for 50 years, half a century.
the city of Austin, well, the city of Austin has bought property out there to maintain their large electric transmission easement that runs through the middle of the subdivision, and the city of Austin for many years granted me variances or license agreements to build my septic systems in their utility easement.
nonetheless, they say that they never knew the subdivision was out there.
so it doesn't exist.
you can't vacate an easement in a subdivision that doesn't exist.
I would like to have the attorney general name a determination whether or not this subdivision is legal or not.
this has been going on for 11 years now.
it's done nothing but hurt everybody.
the lawyers have made money, but nothing else has been determined.
I can see no good reason why this has to be on.
it's counterproductive to everyone.
lastly, this is on a slightly different subject, but I would like to mention it, we were forced to contribute to a regional detention pond that would solve the detention problems for this entire area out there.
we contributed to that pond and you decided or someone decided not to build it.
you've refused to give our money back to us, but the attorney general has determined that the county may not assess drainage fees for a city project, and I have included a copy of the attorney general opinion from 2008 as well.
so I appreciate your letting me talk this morning.
I'm sorry that I am not here with the best of tidings.
ms. Huber, I have contacted your office numerous times and you've refused to meet with me.
I wish you would change your mind about that.
mr. Jerry smith can attest to that.
I don't know if he's still your assistant, but he's the one that kept telling me you are going to get back with me and he never did.
>> I don't have a jerry smith in my office.
are you contacting the correct office?
>> perhaps not.
this happened during the transition and when you were newly elected, and I would like to meet with you on this.
>> let's hear staff's response to your complaint.
I thought this was a lot more narrow than the problem you have laid out.
>> it's a big issue, sir.
>> what was brought to us really was the need to consolidate two lots into one to address a septic issue.
>> utility easements --
>> mr. Manila.
>> the county did approve the plat in the 60s, but the issue with the city, that's been ongoing, as mr. Jones has discussed.
the purpose of the public hearing was to vacate utility easements that were platted or that by plat note are included on every lot that shares a property line with another lot.
and that was pretty common practice back in those days.
and whether they thought that easements were needed or not, they just made a note that consider that every property line has a 5-foot utilities abutting them.
and in this case the applicant's engineer and our own staff engineer have looked at whether or not these easements are needed and they are not.
so our recommendation is to approve the request to vacate them.
>> and that's independent from the drainage issues that mr. Jones has been wrangling the city about.
>> we're aware of his issue with his pond and this will have no effect on that is what our engineers are saying and the applicant's engineers are saying.
>> so we were presented a much more narrow issue than the one you've described for us.
now, the issues he laid out regarding the legality of subdivision is an issue at the city of Austin but not in Travis County?
>> we have no problem recommending this vacation.
we believe that the subdivision is -- was platted to our standard back in those days, I guess.
we didn't have subdivision standards in '61, but it was approved by the county.
it apparently did not go through the city process, though.
I'm not sure what we can or cannot do as far as that goes.
>> are you still working with the city, mr. Jones?
>> well, the city's response to this --
>> but you are still working with the city, you all have not reached an acord?
>> I don't know the term working with.
they sent out summons to come to court, there are 172 entries on the court docket had o.
this matter.
they file charges and dismiss them and file them and dismiss them.
I've been made a criminal over this issue.
this is an old subdivision that grandfathers under local government code 245.
it's not subject to detention ponds.
there's no room for detention ponds.
there's no way to get detention ponds in there.
they took my life away from me and made me build ponds on the side of a cliff 14 feet tall, 200 feet long that wouldn't hold the water.
your easements don't drain the subdivision properly.
it's in the hills of western Travis County.
in the lake Austin watershed.
the city attorney told me he doesn't like the
>> [indiscernible] and if I assert my rights, he will bankrupt me and that's essentially what he's done.
there has to be a greater sense of right or wrong often the productivity or the counter productivity of this issue to the taxpayers.
and to the well-being of our county.
this issue is not going to go away.
they are going to keep filing criminal charges against me.
I'm not liable.
you will see in there is release from my company for warranty on the product.
Travis County assumed maintenance for the pond.
the neighborhood association was also supposed to assume maintenance for the pond.
the -- it's not my responsibility, however, Travis County has filed criminal charges against me individually.
>> but how does this relate to the vacating of these public utility easements?
>> there's no subdivision there so you can't vacate an easement that doesn't exist.
>> so you are asking this regulatory body to hold these other residents hostage because of a legal point that you want to make.
>> you are holding all the Travis County taxpayers hostage, yes, ma'am, and you are holding me hostage, yes and all the people in thigh subdivision hostage yes.
>> we're trying not to.
we're trying to actually grant what they asked for because we see no --
>> let's do it within the law then.
and this subdivision has been declared illegal.
I've asked to you make a determination on.
that your answer was to issue a warrant for my arrest for littering.
remember alice's restaurant?
>> I don't remember ever doing that as a Commissioners court.
thank you, mr. Jones.
we appreciate you coming down.
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.
