Travis County Commssioners Court
August 19, 2003
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 30
Number 30, consider and take appropriate action on a license agreement to construct public and private improvements in the comanche trail right-of-way. There was a question from the court on this one.
>> yeah, I did know that Travis County was not being reimbursed for the cost that's we were trying to -- to protect our road. Why were those not charged back to the property owner? I understand this is something that predates them buying the property, but it seems to me that we ought not to be funding something that we didn't zoo. Protecting the integrity of our road, why is there no charge-back for those?
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. Fred nnick, Travis County. The toons that question basically emanate from the fact that my legal advisor indicated that it would be extremely collect to -- difficult to collect that, get that reimbursement from this particular individual, we did not go down that path negotiation-wise.
>> why do we think that? No offense, this is on comanche trail. I would be happy to although at t cad to see what this property is worth.
>> take another week and try to figure out if we can get it.
>> we can. But I do have a comment to make. We do have the property owner here. Commissioner, it is true that some of the barriers that have been put out there to -- toys protect people from going off on to this property that is privately owned. But we also have the guardrail out there that I understand that it's not part of the attached to the -- to the particular property that there was damage to the guardrail, is that right? So we put something out there not to -- just specifically for the private property. Is that correct, fred?
>> Commissioner, what we did, we felt there was a -- a possible danger to the motoring public out there by virtue of the fact that the guardrail had lost its integrity. And we placed those barriers on the edge for a couple of different reasons and the -- the damage to the guardrail was one of them. As well as the excavation for this driveway that was immediately behind -- right behind the guardrail.
>> can I say something also?
>> [multiple voices]
>> can I get the microphone up a little bit, please? This was really my decision. We were -- we have been talking about this for months. We kind of installed in our negotiations, quite frankly to me it was far more important to get the problem fixed, so in weighing the value I said okay you if I can the problem, we will do the retaining wall and the -- the larger duty of protecting the motorist from any damage are -- or of accident the county, this was my decision, I said the county would take on that cost because we would have had to do it no matter what. If there was an erosion of the hillside, under general circumstances I found it was the role of the county to protect the public and we do this routinely in a variety of circumstances. Of all of the costs of these who circumstances I could grab on to this one as being a legitimate cost as opposed to fixing the original problem. As a matter of splitting the baby, I figure if we can get this thing fixed we are all better off that's just the way I split it.
>> aren't there firm deadlines in this license agreement as to how quickly they will move to conclusion?
>> the longer it takes the more monthly rental fee of his 9 we continue to wrap up, is there a completion date.
>> I think we have a set of completion plans. I don't know when we intend to do it.
>> that's right. Approved plans. There is no such clause in the license agreement right now.
>> can we get commitment from the owner today to expedite completion as much as possible?
>> certainly it's in the owner's benefit --
>> absolutely.
>> to do this thing as quickly as possible as well. So I -- that would be the case.
>> yeah, because I mean they are throughout this thing saying that they will construct public improvements. I mean, if there is a -- if there is a short coming in things that we do is that we are not really specific about when we expect things to be finished and it's open ended and winds up costing us money.
>> I think we can tie that down.
>> if that's -- with your recommendation, I really would appreciate to tie down how soon that they have to get this stuff done.
>> tom and -- did you have any additional comments on that.
>> three, there are insurance requirements. In the license agreement, to my knowledge, we haven't received that yet. There's a requirement that their lender basically subboard nate l -- subordinate their lien to this if they foreclose we don't have to start over there. Were two language changes we made after mr. Neiman signed it. I would like to get his acknowledgment that he's okay with those changes.
>> I see his attorney and him -- his attorney robert kleman nodding for the record. If you approve it today, commissioned on getting the insurance and getting the lien subordination.
>> and a deadline.
>> any objection to those three things?
>> and a deadline.
>> those three things?
>> second.
>> Commissioner Daugherty moves approval subject to those three conditions, seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. Any more discussion? That passes by unanimous vote,
Last Modified: Tuesday, August 20, 2003 8:52 AM