Travis County Commssioners Court
December 10, 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 5
Number five is to consider reprogramming of surplus 1984 bond funds to conduct surveying, geometric design and right-of-way plans for cameron road between gregg lane and sh 130 and take appropriate action. Joe?
>> joe geese gieselman. Is this microphone on?
>> y'all need to turn up the microphone.
>> there you go.
>> all right. We have authorization from the Texas department of transportation to replace bridge 106 on cameron road. This will be done with federal and state money. We do not have to meet the match of this bridge. Typically that's 20%. But we committed to do other bridge improvements in Travis County, therefore txdot waived our participation in this bridge. Typically the state merely replaces a bridge with a like bridge, but cameron road is a planned art material in the -- arterial in the transportation plan. We have asked txdot to upgrade the construction of this bridge to take care of the arterial that will ultimately be in this corridor. They are willing to build a higher and wider bridge, one-half of what would be required for a four-lane arterial. They're willing to do that at additional cost to the state. What they want from Travis County is a commitment that we would build the road coming to this bridge as an arterial. We said we can do that in the next bond election. We do not have money right now to do the arterial. What I'm seeking from the court today is enough money to design the footprint for the arterial road, without which txdot would place the new bridge. So anything they do won't be a waste of money. They'll place the bridge where it needs to be within the right waive for a four-lane section of road. We also know that manville water supply corporation is fixing to buy an easement for a water line along cameron road. Lacking a description of the new alignment, they're going to place that water line right next to the existing right-of-way. If at any point in the future we want to widen the road, we'll have to pay the relocation of the water line.
>> Travis County would have to pay for that?
>> that's right. It would be very expensive. So the other thing is we want to define where the new right-of-way is so they can stay out of it. So there's two actions today. One, enough money to design the footprint of the roadway. And second, when txdot builds this bridge, they're going need additional right-of-way for the bridge the bridge, bawts it's he elevated, will need some slope easements and of course it will be a new right-of-way because it will be accommodating the new roadway. We'll have to pie that right-of-way. So I'm asking for an additional $300,000 in leftover 1984 bond money that we have remaining from the old projects. We have currently $450,000 programmed for this bridge project. That extra money would give us about 750,000. We believe that's sufficient to do the preliminary engineering design and right-of-way acquisition for the bridge construction. Now, we have property owners who have expressed interest in donating right-of-way for the four-lane roadway. Mr. Stone is here to take make a proposal to that effect. But I'm not here to sell that proposal. Quite frankly, when we do the right-of-way for the four-lane roadway before now and when we make any commitments to build the road by a bond election, we will be seeking right-of-way either from platting of a property on either side of that roadway or in agreements. We expect the property owners along this road to not only dedicate right-of-way, but to cost participate in the building of the arterial street as they normally would as part of the development process.
>> great.
>> joe, that footprint from gregg lane -- from cameron all the way to sh 130 is basically a footprint that we have looked at as far as campo and a whole lot of things in the future for their particular plan is concerned. It's consistent with that?
>> understanding campo has a very generalized route. What we're doing is actually tying it down to the ground.
>> exactly.
>> well, I would maybe a motion.
>> so I would like to go ahead at this point and move to approve it, of the necessary surveying, the geometric design, the right-of-way acquisition from cameron road to -- off of gregg lane to sh 1230. And the intent to to do just that as joe stated. The footprint along with the -- for the two-lane arterials and four-lane situation in the future, to do just that. So I'm basically in agreement with that. And also that the $300,000 be reprogrammed from the April bond money, added to the other existing bonds in the amount of $750,000 to do just that.
>> that was part of my second.
>> do we have that money or is that authorization?
>> yes, sir, we have the money. We have the cash. We've basically issued all of the 1984 bond money. The answer is yes, we have that money.
>> so if I'm understanding you're designing for. Our commitment is that in the next bond issue with ask for authorization to build two lanes. We would expect the state to put the bridge in, but they will know that at some point that will be a four-lane arterial. And manville will know when they put the water lines in, put them on the enl of the four-lanes that have been designed, not the two lanes that are built. There by making it unnecessary for removal of those lines or relocating those lines in the future.
>> that's right. And just one further point. Txdot --
>> mr. Stone, would you come on up? Unless everything is --
>> I am totally in support of the resolution.
>> but I think what the property owners out there want in exchange for a dedication commitment is a commitment from us that in the next bond issue we will have this project.
>> yes.
>> for two-lane construction by the county.
>> yes, sir. I met with some of the neighborhood association and property owners and told mr. Gieselman that we would get together and remain -- [ inaudible ] and we would debate the right-of-way and more easement in return for a commitment from the county to build the two lanes within the designed four lanes. So although he doesn't trust that next step about the bond issue, it does drea the next issue of steining the four lanes and getting manville in the right position.
>> right. It makes sense to do the design of four and the construction of two at the first opportunity.
>> yes.
>> but my point is I didn't want that portion of that now. I wanted to take care of this first. And I think when the tame comes to address those concerns and the language I need to look at, at that time I would rather do it that way. Right now I'm trying -- this particular bridge, 106, folks may remember, the public, is the same bridge where a person lost their life. Of course, we're in the business of trying to take care of our old bridges and stuff like that as far as replacing them. That right now is paramount to me to ensure. Thank goodness we have the bridge program whereby we can look at each a better bridge than the standard bridge we'd be looking at. The state and federal government boat get involved. We look in the -- constructing the new bridge constructed with the right-of-way in place. Of course, there's a footprint as far as the folks are concerned, a thousand feet on both ends on both end of the bridge as far as the approach is concerned, prus plus right-of-way. Now, that right now is what I'm working on at this point. I think a lot of other things need to be worked out in the future as far as what we're talking about now. But the footprint and vee I don't metric design is important. And hopefully if everything is favorable in the future we can look at that four-lane situation, but we've got traffic going north and south on cameron road leading to that to 290 and other points south, 183, for example. So we're looking at this in a holistic view and I would like to consider some of the things you're saying. I haven't had a chance to talk with you. Right now we're acting on that right there at this point. I want that tied into what I'm doing here this morning:
>> I think your motion covered exactly that. What are you asking for? I was trying to find iew if there's any disagreement. I'm not hearing any. Areyou disagreeing with me?
>> no, he's not.
>> I took it that the commission approves this resolution, we will have the opportunity to sit down with you in a subsequent meeting.
>> yes. That will come later.
>> later.
>> move forward, yes, sir.
>> okay. Well, I thought you were disagreeing with me.
>> no, no. [ laughter ]
>> thank you.
>> so let's go over what this motion covers. I think I understand it.
>> okay. A commitment to do the preliminary design and profile for the arterial road and --
>> four lanes?
>> four lanes from gregg to state highway 130. Design the roadway and a footprint. Without which txdot can construct without regret. The second part of this motion is to commit to apply the right-of-way necessary to construct the state's bridge, including the approach routes to the bridge.
>> okay.
>> (stand by for change in captioners.)
>> we're holding up manville and holding up the state. So I'm going to try to fast track this roadway.
>>
>> so you have $450,000, and the request is for an additional 3,000. Get done what you've described today.
>> that's correct.
>> and you will take that additional money from the 1984 bond fund that we previously committed surplus funds, we previously committed to precinct 1.
>> that's correct.
>> any more questions? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM