Travis County Commssioners Court
November 19, 2002
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.
Item 4
Number 4 is to discuss and recommend aesthetic and landscape features for
sh 130 and take appropriate action.
>> elaine with t.n.r. This is a continuation item that we
talked about last time. And I have edited the memo as you all had requested,
and so I wanted to give the memo back to you to look at. And you have received
it on -- we have an amended -- the latest one I hope that you got. Also, I
attended the sha receipt that was held at del valle, and it was not very well
attended. I think they had like 20, 30 people. I think they were a little
disappointed from the turnout. When they divided us up into groups, there
were only five that went over to the trails and the bike way segment, which
is kind of where our emphasis had been to a certain extent. And there I learned
that l.s.i. Says that in terms of sidewalks -- you know, itself mostly listening
because you all had instructed me mostly to gather information. And l.s.i.,
Which is lone star infrastructure, the consultant, they are saying that sidewalks
will be installed where existing cross-streets go over state highway 130,
or where there are existing sidewalks. And everything else will be on a case-by-case
basis. So that was sort of the message that I got there. The deadline forgetting
comments --
>> is that good news or bad news? I'm not sure how to interpret
that.
>> they are not flexible when it comes to adding sidewalks
anywhere else or crosswalks. Or even paying for it. They will accommodate
sidewalks or future sidewalks for us to build, but they are not really wanting
to invest money in trails or sidewalk infrastructure except where it -- the
already existing roads are going to be crossing 130 or where there are existing
sidewalks and everything else is up to negotiation. So -- but they will accommodate
so that the local areas, the local governments can put -- can build whatever
we want.
>> at our expense.
>> right.
>> do [inaudible] spend that $10 million?
>> well, there's a lot of different ways that they can spend
it. For instance, on the stone and the more -- that abuts to the structures
themselves, you know, the concrete, landscaping for the concrete, noise walls,
a lot of different things. But mostly the impact that the road has or the
look that the road has, even landscaping. Those are eligible. But, you know,
when it comes to this is a very long road, $10 million is stretched a long
way. So, I mean, it doesn't add up to a lot when it comes down to --
>> elaine, is that 10 million intended for the full authorized
stretch of 130, which is georgetown to seguin? Or what is reality and that
is the only segment that may ever get done because of funding reasons is georgetown
down to the Creedmoor area?
>> that's a good question. The fact they are holding these
in just two locations, Williamson and Travis County, I have not really asked
them that question. But that's a good question to ask them tonight because
I have another one tonight and I will attend that one too. At which time I
will -- if you [inaudible] prepare a letter based on this information. They
will accept comments until November 2nd.
>> okay. -- November 29th.
>> elaine, I attended that same meeting on the 13th down
at del valle, and there were some questions that I brought up and as I went
and looked at the displays for this study, some of the structural concerns,
including some of the land skaeupbing aspects -- landscaping aspects, and
what I did not get clearance as far as -- a clear answer as far as information
is concerned is who would pay for what. An example, some of the hike and bike
trails, would that something that would be coming from a campo initiative?
And also I brought up the issue about the pedestrian cross -- the pedestrian
bridges, especially the area where we're looking at s.h. 130 as it crosses
the colorado river. And similar to something like that at mopac where you
have the walk -- the pedestrian bridge that comes up under mopac. And, of
course, what would be the cost of that and are they really looking to fund
that particular expense. Because the pedestrian crossing bridges, we're not
only talking about that particular location at the colorado site location,
but we're also looking at gilli a n and onion creek. That in my mind is a
big expense of all expenses. If you were to lump them together, they could
not give an answer what that would actually cost. So I think the pedestrian
bridges is something that we're going to have to look at and then look at
the costs because they actually said they had about -- well, $10 million for
one and another $5 million for some other stuff, but then another $5 million
to that. So really a total of $20 million, but I think some of that money
was held back as far as contingency is concerned. So again, I think if we
do go forward, I think we need to look at, you know, not only the landscaping
aspects, but also the very important pedestrian bridges that I think have
to be very necessary in this process. Of course, I don't -- don't really feel
favorable of that, but however you have one on the mopac, so why wouldn't
we put one on the other side for sh 130 is my question. And then, again, as
far as some of the design -- and I guess a lot of folks will be attending
that meeting tonight up at the hutto high school with these folks. There's
still some differences, some variances, I guess, as far as who would pay for
what and then how much. And there was no structural breakdown of the pot of
money, of the amount of money that they have to not dispose of but to use
for what rear looking at, but then the breakdown of how much those categories
would cost. And that was what I didn't get an answer to that night, and of
course I hope they come back with an answer to satisfy some of those concerns.
So, again, I think it's very important that we tie down some factors as far
as money is concerned and then would they be willing to pay for -- or would
some of these things have to actually come from campo. Which I'm kind of still
newspaper the air on. I don't know if you got any clarity the night you attended,
but those were some of the kind of questions that I posed and have not yet
gotten.
>> well, campo sets aside a certain amount of money every
year for the -- the money for bikes and -- bikes and sidewalks, projects,
things like that is correct trails. So that's definitely a eligible expense
in that category. And I'm not suggesting that we not go ahead and ask them
for what we propose in this memo. I think that we should go ahead and, even
though say say they are not going to fund it, I think that -- or this was
one person that told me this. So -- at the meeting. So I think that we need
to insist on what we think would be a great mitigator to the fact that this
road is going to be there, you know. And that was something that [inaudible]
address was there should be some sort of mitigation for the environmental
impact of the roadway being in the neighborhoods.
>> and one other point is the lighting, the interference
of the lighting that would be illuminated from the -- from sh 130 sites. And
those would be decreasing the lighting for southeast metro park, however we
have two other parks. Northeast metro has already established and I was wondering
would that be a concern for northeast metro park and also the newly proposed
construction of east metro park. And I don't think it would be an impact,
but I want to make sure that if it's the been thoroughlyly investigated to
see that the lighting from sh 13 does not impact these other two parts. Southeast
metro, I understand it would affect them and this is the requirement as far
as dimming the lights so it won't have a negative impact on the users of the
park.
>> well, that -- that item has to do with the viewshed that
relates to southeast metro. And a structure that was built at that park to
view the downtown and other things that are in that vicinity. So that was
really what that was trying to address. I haven't really done -- I haven't
looked to see if there is any kind of impact, I don't know that anybody has.
>> for northeast metro, right, right.
>> i'll speak for northeast metro. We will probably light
up the skies more with our soccer field lighting. Actually, we were more concerned
about how our soccer lighting would impact the next odor neighbors who are
-- next door neighbors who are residential. So I don't think the highway is
going to impact us. We were more concerned about how we were going to impact
the neighborhood. It's pretty flat out there. There aren't any businesses.
>> I didn't know.
>> I appreciate you being concerned, though. We don't have
the vistas that we have down --
>> pardon me?
>> the vistas. It's flat.
>> right. And I think I may have gotten an answer for east
metro, but I want to make sure. I was coerned about all of the parks, not
just --
>> we'll have to take a look at that. I was concerned about
all of the parks.
>> have to check and see if the vistas are there for all
the parks.
>> yes.
>> the people who run the meeting are being inflexible, why
are they having a public hearing anyway?
>> I don't know that they are being inflexible, but I know
even the preacher at the meeting discussed under what circumstances sidewalks
would be built. But I think we need to insist that this -- our proposals are
good ones and really need to incorporated into the design.
>> so we don't need you to authorize -- we don't need to
authorize you to demand for next built at the next public meeting?
>> that's true.
>> judge, on some of these things that are real important
to us, you know, the staff is just trying to get their job done in terms of
running these public hearings and the reality is decisions are made much higher
up the food chain and we will have better luck, I think, that if we don't
get the flexibility and the kinds of things we're seeking in terms of best
practices, we'll just take it up the food chain ourselves in terms of our
case. And if it's a good one, we've had very good reception to a lot of things
with the transportation commissioners. They know us by first name now.
>> but elaine has always achieved remarkable results working
with the state staff.
>> thank you.
>> anything further?
>> so I should draft this as a letter, perhaps, with everyone's
signature, or should I just forward it as a memo?
>> how long do we have?
>> tonight. Or until the 29th.
>> 2nd?
>> I think a memo -- 29th.
>> I think a memo from t.n.r. Indicating commissioners court,
this is submitted on behalf of Travis County commissioners court. That will
save you some time if it's tonight. But I think they need to know this is
an official communication from the powers that be at Travis County.
>> right.
>> beginning with t.n.r. On down. Anything further? Any objection
to those directions being given to staff? Okay.
>> I guess you can probably find out, which I did not get
an answer to as far as the costs of those pedestrian bridges and these particular
sorts of cross that indicating -- onion creek and also the colorado river.
Some of the ones like on mopac, the pedestrian bridge there, I really would
like to see if that can be done similarly.
>> okay. I think we can come up with an internal cost or
estimation for what --
>> right. A cost breakdown. I appreciate that. Thank you.
>> I understand.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM