Travis County Commissioners Court

July 31, 2012 - Item 20
Agenda

Item 20, consider and take appropriate action on a presentation regarding proposed revisions to the Travis County Code related to Water Quality, Chapters 64, 82, 104 and 108.

>> Joining me is tom webber.
Tom is going to give you a brief overview.

>> Good morning, judge, Commissioners, for the record I'm tom web, manager of environmental quality protection program in t.n.r.
T.n.r.
And our program are closing in on the final deadline of August 12th of 2012 by which time we're required by our storm water permit to completely implement our storm water management program.
It's been a substantial effort to develop an effective program that improves quality of storm water runoff from construction sites, development projects after they are built.
The storm water program affects county operations, CIP
Projects for roadways and parks, private development of commercial sites, subdivisions and single lot development.
The storm water management program requires that a permitee like us adopt enforceable rules to control the discharge of storm water from construction sites in developed or urban landscapes after construction.
Ms-4 must also have rules to eliminate pollution from other activities that drain into our storm sewer system such as hazardous materials, oil and pollutants.
To meet these mandates of the us e.p.a.
Taken Texas tech tceq, the effort began in 2010.
Staff provided of the drafts in early 2011.
Public hearing was on February 12 of 2012.
Staff has had a significantment of interaction with interested stakeholders and made substantive revisions to rules along the way.
Since we were last here at court on February 7th, we met with representatives.
Home building and mining community, operators of construction sites and nearby municipalities and others to address concerns on the rule.
A revised informal draft was released in may and a final opportunity was then provided for submittal of written comments.
From the effort, the final proposal that we prepared today and a written response to comments received was prepared.
I'll just highlight a few of the substantive comments that we received.
These include concerns about the scope of the rule that includes extraterritorial jurisdiction of municipalities, except where subdivision matters are subject to the single office of review with the city of Austin, they wouldn't apply there.
A requirement for a permit governing the operation and maintenance of permanent water quality controls.
These are sometimes called water quality pond.
The format and timing of when construction site pollution prevention plans are prepared or submitted.
A request that the county establish sampling and monitoring of storm water discharged from a construction site.
Concerns that the draft rule exceeded county authority in the control of mining reclamation and impacts on water quality.
And also concerns with the setbacks or the buffer zones between the developed areas and nearby creeks in eastern Travis County.
Those are some of the more substantial comments.
We received many others, but regarding these issues and comments, the rules were either revise to do accommodate concerns or justification was provided for not making the change.
Today I propose in consideration of not having a full court here that we hear final comments from -- on the rule from the public and then I would recommend that staff return in one week if there are some concerns that are raised today, we may have one last chance to consider those and then bring a proposal for adoption next week.
Next Tuesday is the final Tuesday prior to the tceq deadline of August 12th.

>> So the August 12th deadline is imposed by the state?

>> Yes, sir.
The -- the county's storm water permit required us to develop and implement a storm water management plan over the course of a five-year period and that that water quality management -- excuse me, storm water management plan must be in place by the end of our permit term, which is August the 12th.
And so we've actually extended the deadline for this component of the plan, this rule adoption pretty much as long as we could.

>> Okay.
There was a comment submitted to the effect that we may be exceeding our authority?

>> On the buffers?

>> Yes.
We did get a comment relating to the buffers.
In terms of our authority there, we --

>> Did we run that by legal?

>> Yes.
These buffers -- these buffer zones are something that we are supposed to consider in developing storm water requirements based on the 40 -- I guess title 40 of the code of federal regulations, part 450, which basically outlines the responsibilities to have appropriate natural areas.
We have been participating with the city of Austin on their stakeholder effort where they are considering very similar buffer zone.
We've been working with them in the stakeholder group for about two years and there's actually a high degree of public support for the buffer requirements that we're establishing in eastern Travis County.
We have long had buffer zones both in the east and in the west.
It's been felt over the last few years in consideration of erodable soils and a lot of other factors that buffer zones were not significant or appropriate enough in the eastern watersheds.
We're not making changes to our buffer zones in the western watersheds.
They are fairly stringent already and we didn't open that up.

>> So if we'll get the buffer zones proposed in the east, are they similar to the ones in the west?

>> They -- they are not as stringent as the ones in the west.
In the west basically we developed buffer zones based on the lcra requirements.
They take effect where a stream has five acres of catchment or greater.
As an alternative to the -- and I believe they are 100 feet wide when you have five acres of cashment.
In the east, we're proposing a buffer zone starting when you have a stream catchment of 64 acres and it would be 100 feet.
So there's a difference there.
One thing that kind of confuses looking at these -- you know, wonton is that there's also an alternative in the west whereby you can opt out of the hundred foot and use a formula based on the flood plain that's delineated out there.
But I think generally speaking our buffers are more stringent in the west considering the to be operability fee and the -- topography and the water supply, reservoirs and the edwards aquifer recharge and contributing zones.
Those buffers have been in place for several years.
So we're trying to get our eastern watersheds more on a parity of protection to the -- to the west.
A lot of -- in addition to water quality protection in the east, one of the things that's been considered is how erodable the soils are in the east, and you may establish a development near a creek without a buffer and find out several years later that the creek is going to move and undercut what you've developed.
That leads to private costs for whatever was developed that close to the creek.
It also leads to public costs in regard to infrastructure, things like roadways that could be undercut or wastewater lines and things of that nature.
So having a water quality buffer of 100 feet provides a benefit beyond just water quality.

>> Let me ask me question point blank.
We are convinced that we have the authority to adopt these rules.

>> Yes.

>> Okay.
Questions, comments?

>> On the aspect of a lot of erosion, we do have a lot of significant flooding in the eastern part of the county.
We experience a lot of that.
Precinct 1, precinct 4.
When it comes to flood events, we get hit pretty hard.
So what kind of consideration is given to these flooding events that are quite frequent when, you know, water upstream comes downstream especially through precinct 4 and precinct 1?
It's pretty apparent, so what kind of consideration is there or is there any consideration in -- within what we're doing here today?

>> The -- Commissioner Davis, the -- sometimes these buffer zones are not the limiting factor for development, instead it's the delineated 100-year flood plain.
The floodplains often are wider than the water quality buffers.
And so under no circumstances other than, you know, doing a map revision or building higher or other mitigating factors that are already in county code can development occur in these floodplains today.
And so we are not revising those fema-related requirements in chapter 64.
A developer will have to consider both the flood plain requirements and these water quality and then accommodate one or the other.

>> Chapter 64 as being part of that also.
You know, years ago, and I'm going to be brief, judge, but years ago, it hasn't been that long, we were looking at the similar line with tributaries within so many feet set back from development, especially example of the colorado river.
At one time was the bank and then it went out to the center line.
Is this having an impact on that particular assessment?

>> We -- we have adopted or we're proposing to adopt the requirement that the buffer zone be -- begin along the colorado river at the ordinary high watermark of the river as opposed to the center line.

>> Okay, so it's shifted back from the bank then.

>> Yes.
Because obviously if you start at the center line in the colorado river, you may have no buffer by the time it gets to the bank.

>> Exactly.
I know one moving point but in flood plain some of this other stuff also.
I'm just trying to make sure that the path that we've taken through -- through the past actions we are making it better than what it used to be.
And hopefully that is the intent and, of course, I'm still not exactly sure of when you look at east and west versus buffering, there are still some vague interpretation in my mind of what that should be.
In my mind it should be just as in both instances as much as possible to reach parity.
Now -- but that's another issue.
But I'm still looking toward the best solution that I think we can -- we've had public comment on a lot of these things and a lot of good questions have been asked, but yet again I want to make sure that there is proper protection and setbacks as we deal with our water quality throughout Travis County.
So I'm still not positively sure or positively embraced on some of these things.
I'm still not there.
There's still some points may need to bring up later and that's why I'm glad we're not doing anything today.

>> As one example, the difference between -- I mentioned five acres of catchment in the west or 64 acres.
One of the things that you find in the east, you are in a totally -- you are in a coastal plane rather than the plateau and you oftentimes find you can't find a creek when you are in a catchment area less than 64 acres.
You could just be in a field where it's like you might see just a very slight depression where water would begin to collect and the creeks begin to form.
And so it's -- it's -- we thought it might be a little bit difficult and there was a lot of stakeholder discussion about this in the city of Austin's process.
So you have these kinds of differences of topography that help drive what we propose as opposed to saying let's have it exactly the same on both ends of the county.

>> Okay, well, thank you for your comments.

>> So the county's responsibility after adopting these rules will be to enforce them.

>> Yes.

>> In the unincorporated areas and ETJs?

>> That's correct.
We -- we would gain independent authority from -- from a municipality in regard to having our own set of water quality requirements.
You'll recall that we didn't have, you know, water quality requirements that were, I guess, considered -- we didn't have water quality rules that were in effect in the ETJ
Of Austin or some of the other cities when some proposals recently came in.
Things like the mining out in eastern Travis County.
We've kind of piggybacked on to the requirements that were more stringent set by a municipality like the city of Austin.
So that limited our ability to independently decide if that per military application was appropriate or not, appropriately stringent or not.
And then I guess the second way I would answer that question is that we have implemented interlocal agreements with the city of Austin.
We're going to be bringing one with the city of Pflugerville to you soon relating to how we will coordinate and collaborate or have a division of labor in the ETJ
Of Pflugerville, for instance, so that we're not stepping over one another on water quality inspections and related activities.

>> So are the other smaller cities in Travis County required to adopt rules such as this?

>> The city of Pflugerville is -- is another small ms-4.

>> I'm thinking of webberville, Mustang Ridge.

>> They are too small to have been caught by the federal mandate.
Pflugerville is a small ms-4.
There are some utility districts.
I think wells branch utility district is an example.
Lost creek utility district.
But in the case of Pflugerville, they -- they actually adopted water quality requirements pursuant to the same permit that we're under, but they adopted their rules only within their corporate boundaries.
So in fact by us applying these in their ETJ
There will jugs be one set of water quality standards in that ETJ
So we're looking for a lot of opportunities as we go down the road to, you know, try not to duplicate what's going on in those areas.

>> Two more quick questions.
Reference is made to a fee schedule.
And I think at some point in the future.
That point needs to be real soon for us to have enforcement capability, right?

>> That's -- we -- we do plan to bring back a proposal for fees.
This is for the bmp maintenance permits.
And because when this rule is in effect, we will start to -- for any development that's finished that wouldn't have been grandfathered under the government code, we would -- we would apply the requirement for a permit, and so yes, we do plan to come back with a fee schedule.

>> Next month, next year?
Next decade?

>> Probably in the course of a couple of months.

>> So do we have enforcement staff on board today?
To start enforcing the rule if necessary?

>> We do.
I did mention in the backup material under fiscal that we think we have the staff to begin enforcement of this program.
We've got some other things coming on line like my permit now that would be an important tool for us to help in these kinds of actions, but we're not under any illusion that we may need to have additional staffing especially as development starts to pick up in this thriving metropolitan area.

>> There will be a public education strategy?

>> Yes.

>> Because if we're relying on voluntary compliance, typically public education must precede that, right?

>> Yes.
We've got a website up and running.
We want to devote more efforts to it.
We're kind of at a real good threshold right now.
We finished this five-year plan and we're now setting our sights on the next five years.
And, you know, having had a lot of things under our belt like this rule, like mapping our entire storm sewer system in the county, we're now at the point where we can turn and focus to a higher degree on those kinds of things.

>> So I should work on feeling a whole lot better than I do.

>> [laughter]

>> Yes.

>> Court, any other questions or comments?

>> Well, I think there are going to be some plat notes that are going to be involved as well so does that mean that the -- the one-stop shop is going to see a lot of these things, that one office, combined office that we had is going to see a lot of these issues and iron these out?

>> Those -- the plat notes that are proposed here, Commissioner Gomez, are for subdivision matters that are not a part of the single office of review.

>> Oh.

>> That single office of review is between us and city of Austin.
So the areas outside that Austin ETJ, which might include those plat notes, would apply when they are appropriate.

>> This is my final question.
I understand that bexar county already has this type of kind rules and storm water management program going within its boundaries.
I don't know the fees they charge, I don't know how they operate, I don't know how they police it with their program on water quality.
But under this, Commissioner Gomez, you brought up a good point.
Especially under title 30, and, of course, this doesn't show because it's outside of the ETJ
Of the city, per se, but within title 30 itself, someone may ask the question, okay, then, Commissioner, court, this is outside of the realm of the city of Austin where do you have relationship under title 30.
My question then would come for those persons that are within that title 30 type situation, in the development aspects, who would be responsible for such program, per se, or the essence of the program, and also how and who would police it under the same -- maybe not the same setback, but the relationship between the county and the city would have to come in at some stage of that.
So if -- so the question is how do I answer a person that would pose a question like that.
Chapter 64, chapter 82, all these chapters, but hey, what about title 30, which is another -- another leg into what we're looking at.

>> Commissioner, there's an existing interlocal agreement between the city of Austin and Travis County that lays out the division of labor, environmental review of an application under title 30 is by the city of Austin and not my staff or not anna bolin's staff in terms of environmental review, and they've divided the work -- like, for instance, I think flood plain management is under us when you are in a title 30 matter.
Environmental review is under them.
So when that subdivision is being constructed, it's the city of Austin environmental inspectors that look at -- that look at those -- look at compliance on those sites and judge that construction against other requirements of title 30.

>> And since bexar county has a program such as this, do we have any information as far as how they police it and what they charge as far as fees?

>> I don't know the specific details of bexar county's program.
We've looked at some of their regulations, but in terms of how they actually operate, I'mxtdno carrierringcot and if you would give us your name, who you are associated with if any otherother tentative.

>> Hank smith, past president of the home builders association.
Harry is going to speak on behalf of the home builders association.
I've been involved in this process from the beginning.
First let me thank you for bringing this up and bringing it to public hearing.
I've been involved from this process for the last several years and quite frankly the process is somewhat disappointing in the way this one was gone through.
It's not followed the traditional rule making process we've gone through with the cities and counties in the past.
Historically we would put together a group of stakeholders who had diversity of backgrounds and so forth.
They would sit down, give direction to the county, the county would draft the rules and we would go through that process.
This was initiated by staff and done by the staff up front.
And about a year and a half ago they started releasing the draft rules to review.
They released them in parts and it was virtually impossible to review.
It's like building a house one part at a time.
Sitting down with a homeowner saying we want to build a house for you but this is what the front door is going to look like.
Agree with the front door and we'll look at what this bedroom is going to look like, then we'll tell what you the kitchen is going to look like and you can't build a house that way.
You can't build it looking at one piece at a time.
You have to get the whole concept and we didn't that until six months into the process.
It's been going on for a long time.
We've had average opportunity and staff has done a great job reaching out to organizations like the home builders association.
What we've not had the opportunity to do is sit down with a group of diverse opinions.
When we sit down with the environmental stakeholders and the engineering community and sit down together and go over the draft rules.
I can hear their opinions and what their concerns are and they can hear what our concerns are and that opportunity was never afforded during this process t only time we ever saw that was in written comments that came back recently where it said here's the comments made by these groups and here's our response to those comments.
So it's been very difficult to get a diverse group of people together and hear what their opinions are.
That's made the process very awkward.
One of the big concerns we have is something y'all were talking about, the rules seem to go into effect in the ETJ
Of other cities.
And we've asked the question --

>> Will you repeat that.

>> The rules are taking effect in the ETJs of other cities.
They are going into the ETJ
Not just outside of other ETJs but into the ETJs.
11 years ago, state of Texas sent out a mandate, house bill 1445, that said Travis County will enter into local agreements with all the municipalities and 11 years ago.
We've asked the question and told we don't have the staff, the resources to enter into these agreements.
If it's taking 11 years and we still don't have agreements with how we're going to implement rules in the ETJ, why are we putting out more rules that are going to affect in the ETJ
And enter into more problems addressed by the interlocal agreements.
Seems to me these rules need to back out of the ETJ
And address the county outside of any ETJ
And not complicate what's taken us 11 years and we still haven't made progress on and now we're going to further complicate that issue.
To me backing out of the ETJs is a critical component from what I perceive in dealing with the cities.
The buffer zones are an interesting matter.
A lot of the parts of the rules in here, and it's a very disparity set of rules.
Instead of making a logical progression, they started with an existing set of rules and pulled some rules from the city of Austin, some from lcra, some from san antonio, some from houston and threw them in in different locations and identify mate it a nightmare to read and digest what we're trying to accomplish because they don't flow together.
To see what you have to do for one component you have to read various section of the rules.
It's contained throughout hundreds of pages of text.
There's not one location you can say this is what we do.
When we drafted the rules in hays county, we went through and step by step with all the stakeholders said, okay, for a preliminary plat, here's what you have to do, abcdefg.
It is a logical progression.
In this case the county has decided to think what may come out of city of Austin and adopt those setbacks on Travis County.
Now, at the same time in the same rules if city of Austin changes their criteria manual in the ETJ, the county is not going to attempt to adopt that criteria until they have a full chance tonr review the criteria.
So on one side this may go into effect six months or a year, we're adopting here, yet in changes the county is going to say we don't want to adopt those up front.
We want to wait until those are fully in place and we'll have conflicting rules from the ETJ
Until the county --

>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] it mayss/atq0v1e0s10=50ghn(1nei try to understandrywv ifs and a and see what changed from version-to-version.
It would be beneficial in future as they go through the rule change, let us know what a legislative draft from version to version so I can see, what did we chat1n not again, it's easy4g.p]n for me t through and look at the specific sections I commented on.
But someone else may have commented somewhere else and a change in the section of the rules that I might not even read in noticing that the change was made.
I will leave it at that.
If youh&c!+q any questions, I'll be glad to answer them.
Most of the comments I submitted, they have been addressed.kp but the overall process at one point, what comments dool=i yo get from the other stake holders?
What feedback?
What =?
We had to file an open records request to learn what we were looking for.
It shouldn't be difficult to go out and find what other people were asking in the county, what direction we're trying to give.
I appreciate the process and I can be glad to answer any questions.

>> I thought I had remembered that when we were talking about the one stop shop for the city of Austin and Travis County that there were some other things that were involved about improving the process with others -- other than just the city)un in Travis County.
So I -- I'm -- I think I remember that.
I couldn't, you know, swear to,d but it seems like I remember something like that.

>> I know the county is looking at my penem process which would be a great process.
I think once they adopt that, it will smooth out a lot of the administratiadya?u function between the cities and the counties and between the development community and the countiese"p3 getting things in processed.
I think the county c/ adoptq 9#inkw/rono carrierringconnec you know, if we took staff and kl7encno "nuwio/j/ano crrierr3 smaller cities are subject to / water requirements.
But the individual developers who serve@ required to mitigate those impacts while things are under development.
But -- there's a -- there's a;n different set of environmental regulations that don't apply to small cities.cjo/

>> But then the other thing is if we're not there, somebody isn't there to work with them through the

>> [ them, then we wind up with $ec9 want out there and then havingx to react towjvz of those things.
But on county time with county staff and sometimes we have tomc them.tk>)x al smaller cities, we go through a review process.
We3;e have several single lpnr1%8'qd'ut we only have

>> [-4solidated code.
It's slow going.
But I'm talking to Pflugerville because we're still seeing a lot of activity)t there.
And we are slowly working towards the consolidated code there.
Then after 66!that, we'll probably address maynor.
That's a rapidly growing area as c0tknwell.
But, you" w, it is s going.
ut we will get there.b,

>> When I look at the -- okay, in the two point -- the 9.21 variance.
This is page 11 of 75.;g indeqseatis development wi variance will result in environmental protection that is at environmental protection achievable without the $gq0n variance.
So is that the same as environmental benefit?

>> Yes.u/n basically saying it's;8-n equivalent or of a greater benefit.

>> But the outcome will show that?tph

>> And that will be a showing that you could then say I'll g1hi# that variance based on that.?Y##cio4 That's an exhibit.
% like --

>> 1 through 14 is chapter 104, which is a different code.

>> All right.

>> Then therq that therv goes two pages also.

>> Yes.

>> I get --

>> Yes.
Those --

>> This is auq information.

>> It certainly is.

>> So when john doe calls and asks for a copyuw; of the recently adopted storm water management propose sal, do send all of this or are there certain7/g pages that will be available on our website plus I can just send0e/ a "hard copy of?zas of.

>> Those are the legislative --s legislative version of the existing subchapters of uf82.er you adopted many, many subchapters of 82 already in your generala33n subdivision requirement.
Iave we uaat of that.and amendkq and so we showed that separate from exhibits 1 and o2, which are brand new subchapters, the ? which is the heart of they requirements.
And then exhibit two is a brand new h62bnchapter, 104, wh relates to another aspect of our waterq quality program whereby we arew=oc mandated to control largely from commercial or industrial operations that they're not polutants.

>> We want to tell people chapter 82, here it is.

>> An August 12 deadline andi9] final action to approve next tuesda pmp the court won't have the opportunity to see the exact improving or affecting?

>> That's what you have before you?

>> That's all it is?

>> I think w21/ is saying is that once you adopt something, the part with all of the a strikethrough, we can basically make that go awayz and then everybody has a clean copy.o:ip the strikethroughs and underlines(isoun the show people what's changing.
The strikethroughs are what you're deleting and the j%$ underlines are what you are adding.

>> That's intended to be the full legislative --

>> :ifh

>> Got your lawyerdzn ready, mr smith?6ea I think next Tuesday, the court ought to see one%ksh document that after the meeting we can say when somebody asks,w well, what did you approve, the document could send.rjazcdmu&i14 the part we go through here, underline or not underline, that's part of thex$q.x proposa.
I keep seeing a lot of underlined stuff, that's new and differentd] language that we're considering.
Legislateively ultformatted.

>> All part of the proposal.biz the 75-page document, 5-auu+n it should be underlined because it's all new language.

>> Right.
All new language.g6m

>> Strictly speaking, it should all be underlined.

>> Okay.zjp

>> It's all new language.

>> Okay, so -- so --

>> Thkay%n bottom it says propol kn 2012.tion, July 31, but the part that's not underlined said the same thing.dp!cn we're not adopting all of it.
We're adopting one of them.
But one or two of themgax reall intended to explain in simple english language the simple changes that arejo9: being proposed, right?

>> I see how we could have confusevn you be having a different format for the -- the subchaptersenban are all new versus the ones where we're makingia&r surgical changr

>> I understand.dnc>

>> Our goal is not that clearly, right?n

>> The goal is czn -- for clarity.
You've got several different documents here.
N existing --ej

>> The explanation already.

>> Yeah.

>> An what the ngwj court approves next week, which will be asjs4n plan for o time, not three or four, not 5muq plan with the exhibits, I guess, the exhibits are important.
How manyx-@ changes should we expect?

>> Q

>> 89.

>> 89.
Plus the!68 amendments to chapr 82.
Which is 52.

>> Which is 52 pages.s,nn

>> And then we're also recommending/y repeal of chapter 108 which will --

>> [#d which is - we didn't include that because we didn't want to make this thicker.
But it would basica4qi= be a document that's 50 pages long that ish!
Completely struck out.

>> My recommendation would be that the2>2// item next week ha different parts.
Preeling some revisions.
Say what they are andd>a the action is and the request to appeal.
And if we're -- I guess what3a3 I'm sayihzu7$>w luckily I'm not a construction contractor or developer.
Butgcim voluminous documents.
The question is it's always necessary.
And if so, so be it.
But if not, I think our goal ought to be to simplify it.

>> It is all necessary, unfortunately.

>> But it can be simplified.
We'll get that done by next week.

>> Sumply iffing it for the court.

>> That that --

>> That can certainly be done.
We can make it clear as you say.
I think putting it into parts, a, b, c, d, etc., would make it a lot clearer.

>> We should understand what to do.

>> All right.

>> Mr. Smith?
You finished?

>> Yeah.
I mean there's a -- again, a few specifics.
One very specific I met with some of the county inspectors last week at a preconstruction meeting and they tended to agree that one set requires up front during the design development to identify what quarry will with used for our field material and our asphalt back will be used for the asphalt in our plant.
And there's no way to know up front who's going to be preparing what asphalt plant is going to have what asphalt ready.
What quarry will have what stock pile ready.
I understand what the county wants but you're circumventing the process.
You go to bid on public projects.
A lot of these aren't for projects, holidays, and utility districts.
We're telling the contractor you have to go to the quarry and use that asphalt badge, that badge may not be there at that point in time if it's six months to a year later if we submit our plans to the county.
That might not be there or that quarry might not have that same spot set aside.
Trying to identify those up front is virtually impossible and it may get us into trouble with the competitive bidding process.
I would encourage us to take that portion out.
I've never seen that criteria in any other rules and regulations.
You need to know it.
We can identify it in the inspectors of the field at the preconstruction meeting what quarry we're going to and the contractor can say I'm going to go to this quarry and this material.
At that point in time, he knows what's ready available.
Six months or a year ahead of time, there's no way to know what's going to be out there at this point in time.
There's specific criteria.
I can get with the staff among the specific issues and give them the feedback.
Some of the things that get us in trouble from a competitive bid process or a development process.
The other big item is who's going to inspect and maintain these facilities.
A lot of these -- the city of san antonio and bexar county first had the ho a's set up.
Those areas have gotten away from that.
The city of Austin maintained the ,#zxhoa-maintained ponds.
They tried to maintain them, they gave it to the hoa.
That didn't work.
They took thatw>eback so the city of Austin maintains all of the ponds in residential neighborhoods.
These rulesizw are going back t say no, we want the hoa to maintain those bonds.
It's difficultsr.j most hoas and volunteer organizations when plant poe sis or daisies, not do I maintain aah+ water qualit pond.
Houston is about the only city that has it and they don't apply itlklg in areas where there's utility district.
98% of houston is ina%n the cit or in a municipal utility district.
Little of these regulations z/+$)z terms of licenses to the hoa outside of the entities.
A b juaa tough aspect.
The county needs to be ready if they're going to implement all of the ponds, at some t in time, you're going to have to maintain the ponds and you better get ready for that 3+w cess.

>> I agree this is going to be a challenge.
What we've tried to do since 'n commentsn a lot of is to restrict when we would require that type of one,oqg/ we're not going to require that permit and the maintenance plan hoa when it'st in the city that is already got a similar requirement in place, like the citysrjuy of ustin.
Or in the case of the lower colorado river authority.6>hq keeping our feet wet, seeing how the requirements workyi ina small fairly financed set of circum;r(qj that get approve in the future.
Some oflscyn the ponds built ine last 10, 30 years would not be subject to the permit.
 we have the legal authority to, you know, go back in time x any.
So we're talking about small areas of thnr$bn county and kin of the beginnings of a program.
Ie'rq --tujn widh hoas may have some lack of accounta the other option is to start a county road program similar to a maintenance program>%;uz do this ourselves.
I don't believe we want -- ritchie and our staff are not ready toeu bring that kind of a thing forward at this time.
In fact, we're comez2n forward to you with a budget request for fiscal year 13 to#5add money to our budget so the county can maintain the ponds it does own0crmn associated wit the parks and roadways.
So this is thehjaac significant issue that we need to deal with.
And --

>> O4 particular budget requests andc this is very important.
The judge brought upua/k a goo point.
I brought up a point to look at that to see someway,po"uan have to pay for it.
That's why I ask how of the other programs that;n5t alread exist, how are they funded.
Per se in making sure that2d; you're able to police some of those thingings.
And, of coure, pays for-g itself, fine.
But if there are certain things you can't get, then we'll look at 4 p/that.
But at the end of the day, funding, if it:in takes additional funding, under current staffing, then that's but that -- I really would like to know what these other folks arez= charging.
What other county it is that's doing it, how are they payingn /or it?5 we talk about hoas and all of the other kind of things.
But if we3fsn have to do it, th that's another issue.

>> That's something for the county to be prepared for.
In the long run, like it or not, the county is going to have to maintain the odds.#7+i hoas don't know how to do I want.
Even if you send them an enforcement letter tellinga2ftu you have to do this, they'll get the association to go away and the#g ponds to maintain.
You may back yourself in a situation you have to maintainl the ponds whether you want to or not.

>> Two examples, Commissioner Davis,oh assesses a fee on every property owner that goes toward maintenance of these kinds of facilities.
The city of Austin, if you getp a utility bill from the city of Austin, it includes a drainage fee which ix think -- I think --

>> Look how we look.

>> $13 a month.

>> Been around%p for a long time.
They -- for the city of Austin.
It's been around -- some folks call it some other kind of fund.
But that's what they call it.
It's part of the utilities bill.
However, that's just one way they can offset it.
But we have only one source of revenue.
That's fines and fees in property taxes.
That's it, that's it, folks.
Ain't nothing else magical about this stuff.
That's what we have to operate on.
So we have to be very careful on how we make our decisions on what we do and how we pay for it.h2y

>> N25s I'll be happy to work w mr. Smith and hope we can meet today or very soon to about some of these things.
I think there's room3@n for changes on the variance and some of the issues that you brought z4s

>> Okay.

>> Good morning, my name is terry savi.
I'm the executive vice president of the home builders association in always tin.
I handed out to you a letter and just to kind of decode it.
And the -- it's all cut and pasted from the information provided by t&r.
And yet if you require they be put in the ETJ
When those areas are annexed they ultimately become responsibility of the city of Pflugerville, addition they decided they don't want.
And that's irrespective of the difficulty and complexity it puts on the builder or developer, in this case developer.
I put before you and mr. Nuckols and I hope he will relook at the section of the proposed rule but I think when you look at the language in the statute, it's clear that you can't have two indexes and clearly there are a number of high growth municipalities with ETJ
In Travis County.
You heard earlier -- I mean there's been discussion of Pflugerville and manor and bee cave is a very active community.
I think the north shore of the lake is just -- is really ready to explode so that's going to be -- there are lots of Travis County where this is going to apply.
The other area that I sort of -- I mean, in fairness I scratched my head a long time ago.
I guess mr. Nuckols and I had discussions on property rights a few weeks ago at a city council meeting, and I -- for a long time --

>> Property rights.
It wasn't --

>> I never thought I would see the day.

>> [laughter] and yet part of me wonders when do trees become part of the public domain.
When did the county get the authority to say to a private property owner we have the right to tell you what you can and can't do with trees on your private property.
And oh, by the way, if you remove a tree, you are going have to mitigate for that.
And I'm not -- again, I'm not an engineer, I'm not -- and I'm certainly not an attorney.
It may be in there somewhere.
I'm actually looking forward to hearing what that is.ni we -- judge, you talked quite a bit or you mentioned, and believe me, if it's difficult -- if these rules and regulations are difficult for the court to get their arms around and understand, believe me, when you see final implementation as engineers get hold of it and it's handed over to a builder or developer, it's beyond -- I actually have fairly significant past experiences doing land development and they are incredibly confusing to me.
For the most part, I ended up deferring to the engineering community to talk about the more technical aspects.
What I would say, though, is there's a answer.
There are water quality rules that apply whether they are in the city or not, whether they are in the ETJ
Or not.
Tceq has water quality rules and regulations in place that apply to eastern Travis County and they have a separate set of rules that apply to the edwards aquifer.
Lcra has its rules and regulations.
And tom led off by saying this was being done to meet the mandates of tceq and e.p.a.
The easiest, simplest way to do that in a way builders, developers, engineers, everyone understands is to -- is rather than developing your own, just by reference citing those and saying you have to comply with those.
And Travis County is still has responsibility and is going to undertake the enforcement of that.
So you get the added enforcement that was designed -- or desired under the ms-4 program but you aren't going out creating incredibly complex what I would call overreaching rules and regulations.
And instead are focusing your resources to achieve results that other entities have already attempted to do.
He wrapped up with extensive discussion on ponds and ponds authority, and again, I just encourage to you look at past practice and what has happened with the actual history.
It's easy to say no, we're going to make homeowners associations do that and practical experience has shown particularly in the communities that can least afford it that you are going to see situations -- you are going to see situations where those ponds are going to be neglected and the cleaning up won't occur.
I think the private sector will likely find a way to come around and -- and be able to do that and maybe that's a future business for me is I'll go out and be a water quality pond maintenance guy.
But what I know for sure is is that not everyone can afford that and that's an unanticipated cost particularly in the economic downturn like we're going through today.
Thank you.

>> So do we have any idea of how much it costs to, say, inspect, maintain -- I guess it depends on the size of the water quality pond, wouldn't it?
Some are larger than others?

>> We've -- probably in the neighborhood of -- it's going to depend on age to some extent.
It's going to depend upon the age of the facility.
It's going to depend upon what you actually have in the size.
Some things are simpler to maintain than others.
Sand filters, I think we've heard estimates that the sand media may need to be replaced every five years?
That's kind of an average typical cycle.
So that's something if you don't do that it won't function.

>> And tom, if you just explain that replacing that sand isn't just picking sand up and taking it out and dumping it.
It's considered hazardous waste.

>> Well, it's certainly a special waste.
I don't know if it's -- but it needs some special handling, but it may be subject to testing to verify that it's hazardous waste.
But anyway, it's -- you'll have a significant -- a significant investment in that kind of activity on a periodic basis for these kinds of ponds.
There's mowing that would need to be done annually.
That would probably be in the neighborhood of 500 to 1,000 dollars a year depending on the size.
And there could be operational requirements that need to be evaluated by a professional engineer periodically if something isn't going wrong or some redesign needs to be, sometimes there's erosion of berms and -- and other features like the outfall structures could -- a lot of times they are earthen and would need to be reinforced and repaired.
So you are probably talking on the order of a thousand or more dollars a year of effort.
To maintain these things.
It's a consequence of having to put the development in place.

>> But a thousand a year per development.

>> Per pond.

>> Oh, per pond.
So we would expect a development of, say, 100 homes to have how many ponds?

>> Maybe one to two.
A lot of times it depends on drainage.
You know, if everything can drain one direction, you might be able to have one facility.

>> Two things, I think that number is on the low side when you look at the ponds.
I think when you have to remove is son every five years you may spend 10 to 20 thousand dollars.
It may be more like 4 or 5 thousand dollars.
I haven't run the members.
The technology is such as we're designing more and different ponds, we're trying to get away from maintenance intensity ponds.
We've worked with the county and we're building a pond right now, we started construction last week where the water quality is actually incorporated this the landscape in the median of a roadway.
So the maintenance is really done by the m.u.d.
Who maintains the roadway.
It's not being maintained by the residents and it doesn't have a sand filtration base and it's got a porous media that needs to have the landscaped mowed and manicured the same way with any median.
It's not excessive maintenance costs.
It probably affords better water quality and is less expensive to build.
And so that is the way the engineering community or a lot of the engineering community are going is trying to find technologies where it's less expensive to build, it's better water quality efficiency and less expensive to maintain in the long run and the county has worked with us to get this project underway and it will be one of the first built in the county that I'm aware of so we're all anxious to see how it works out in the long run.

>> And that's kind of an important thing about the changes of technology.
There's -- in addition to what hank said, there's also just the cost of the footprint on valuable land of putting some of these more traditional water quality ponds.
As we're trying to reference technical guidance prepared by other entities like the city of Austin and lcra who have devoted a lot of staff resources developing more innovative water quality controls, and as those come on line, we -- we plan or hope to adopt those by reference so that we can have more of these low impact development things in place that -- that won't require as high of a maintenance cost.

>> Did we ever look at just adopting tceq's rules instead of our own?
And I guess if we did, I'm assuming we found them to be deficient.

>> They -- I think that issue relates specifically to construction, their construction general permit.
When it comes to post-construction and things of that nature, they -- that is not a -- that is not in a tceq requirement.
That's a requirement put on the ms-4s.
In terms of construction general permit, we did look at that and we look at that as being kind of a basic, more bare bones set of requirements.
And we've been encouraged by the tceq to adopt -- or excuse me, adapt their requirements to local circumstances.
My interests, I think the community interest is to kind of have a level playing field and similar requirements across jurisdictions, and that's why we focused on lcra and the city of Austin and the tceq's edwards aquifer program to look at christ.
Cry tear y we think it's a good starting point, but example, we talked about buffers earlier.
The requirement basically says the ms-4 permitee should have controls that are or that set natural areas between a waterway and development.
They don't say how wide, in what circumstances or any of the other specific things about how you actually go about doing it.
They give us sort of a mandate that that's what we think is the -- should be put in place.
So I think those are some of the reasons.
We gave some other responses, I think, in our -- to the comments that tceq regulations could change over time and we might not agree with where those regulations are going.
So our focus was on sort of independent authority that we could directly enforce if need be.

>> Do we know exactly -- well, it can't be exactly because I guess it's still in a

>> [inaudible] mode and that is new technology dealing with some of this latest and greatest water ponds, I guess my question, though, is do we have any idea of what that new technology as far as water pond, as far as maintenance, maintaining it?
I understand it's cheaper to construct and build it and also still enhance and promote water quality, but with all of that, as we go through new technologies, what would the probable cost be to that particular model compared to what we're doing now.
And I heard a thousand dollars for an example of some of the traditional ones that we're dealing with now.
But with the new technology of the new water ponds that may be coming up that are being looked at and experimented with, I guess my question is how much of a reduction from the thousand dollars that -- that we -- as far as traditional type water ponds and far as the maintenance and operation of those opposed to those that are coming new on line as far as new technology?
Do we have any comparison to those -- to those?

>> We don't have enough ponds that have been built with the new technology in place for four or five years.
Most are either in the design phase or just now being built.
Sand filtration base since have been in place 20 years so I know what it costs to maintain the sand in those.
Some of them there's not a good indication.
The design and the thought process is you have very little maintenance.
You don't have to remove the median every five years t thought is much less than it is now.
Certainly that's the intent.

>> I'd agree what some of the verdict is out on maintenance.
In terms of design, there's actually been some -- some efforts to compare costs and there's actually been design competitions in some of the nearby metropolitan areas.
There was one in houston that's gotten a lot of notariety where they looked at low impact development green infrastructure type innovative water quality controls and they found cost savings for various projects related to roadways, related to subdivision, related to other types of development.
So this is an exciting kind of I guess initiative to look at these kinds of things.
We've actually have a central Texas forum that's -- that the county is participating in to look and try to promote these kind of infrastructure changes and we're hoping that that's going to bear fruit in the next year or two and we're working with other municipalities and private developers on that.
I think -- I think it's -- it's -- it is the future.

>> So you all will try to get together between now and next week?

>> Yes.

>> Mr. Reeferseed.

>> It was a big addition to my life.
I bought a house that had a pool.

>> Mr. Reeferseed, these are water quality ponds.
This is storm management items, not swimming pools.

>> That's what I'm asking, do private property developers, people on their own private property, there's at least one other in my subdivision that

>> [inaudible] the crossing subdivision.
There's two of us at least who are maintaining their own privately resourced pond.
Mine is a pool.
He's kind of something like that.
Are there any resources for those available who don't live in the city.
I'm proud of my pond.
It adds value to my neighbors' houses, the wildlife that comes to my home and visits their property as well.
It's all a benefit.
Is there any way to receive any kind of help along those lines, like for me personally, the cursed southwest water company took over my area and they use fluoridated sludge water and so I can't use their water.
Is there any way to get around that or --

>> Basically the amount of impervious cover on a property drives whether or not on a private property you would be required to have some kind of water quality control.
Oftentimes private homeowner would have something like a vegetative filter strip instead of a pond.
But there's -- there's a variety of different things that could be, but that would be a private matter that would have to be privately funded and then subject to, you know, review by -- depending on the jurisdiction where that occurs.

>> That's reassuring.
I was wondering, could you share with me maybe how to get some of that information you just briefly mentioned?

>> Absolutely.
I'd be happy to get with you.

>> I do think it's important to take this into executive session.
there are two or three legal questions I think we should address under the consultation with attorney to the open meetings act.
in terms of bringing this back next week I think we should have this in subparts where each action of the court would be in a separate item, that way we would be able to address them specifically.
but we'll take this into executive session very shortly when we go in there.

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.

July 3, 2012: Travis County Launches New Video Playback System

Our new streaming video system uses a single video clip for each session and items are linked to specific locations on that clip. Some browsers and mobile devices do not recognize the location information and display the entire clip. If this happens the "start time" will help you find your item's video within the larger clip.

If you encounter playback issues check out our video playback help page. If you still encounter problems let us know.

On July 3rd, 2012, Travis County began leveraging free resources by posting Commissioners Court meetings on Youtube. Previously every video clip was edited separately and hosted on the county's video server. The old system also required RealPlayer to view the video clips.

The new systems save time and resources -- and that saves taxpayer dollars!