Travis County Commssioners Court
September 9, 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 11
11. Discuss license agreement with city of Austin for the installation of a fluid gate warning system on spicewood springs road and take appropriate action.
>> judge, that's the --.
>> Commissioners, this is a -- gee geiselman with the t.n.r. This is a pretty straight-forward request. The city of Austin currently has an automated flood gate within the corporate limits located at the south end of spicewood springs road. As you can see, spicewood springs road parallels bull creek. About 60 percent of it is within the flood plain of bull creek. So just a little bit of rain, the road is under water. There's seven low-water crossings along this stretch of roadway. A portion of the road is inside the city of Austin. The majority of the road is inside Travis County unincorporated area. Meaning it's a county road. The city proposes to put a second flood control gate up at the northern end, so basically when the gauge shows that there's six inches of water over the roadway, the gates automatically come down. And the gates are tied back into the early warning flood system of the city. So the license agreement allows them to install this gate within the unincorporated area on a county road. Now, ultimately the city will annex this roadway. It will become within their full-purpose annexation. But right now they need a license agreement from us to install the gate. It's totally at their cost. The agreement provides that they will take responsibility for the maintenance and the operation of the gate as well as any legal liability during the interim while it's within the unincorporated area. So we think it's a good deal for the public safety. It basically now controls both ends of spicewood springs road. And protects the public from driving into a flood event not knowing that the water -- the road is under water. So that's my comments on the agreement. Tom may have some additional comments on it.
>> I would just suggest one modification to the license that was included in your backup which the city drafted. The city scheduled to annex this area already, but if something goes wrong and the annexation doesn't go through and the gate ends up being more of a problem than a benefit, I would suggest the county reserving the ability to terminate the license in the annexation doesn't go through. Just by way of providing some means 'to protect us in event of a worst case scenario. The annexation will probably go through, at which point the license will terminate and the county is completely out of the picture. But if something goes wrong, I would suggest you reserve that ability to terminate it if they don't annex.
>> so we would just make an amendment? Eye added that provision to the agreement which i'll give the judge to sign in the event you approve this.
>> they already signed at their end?
>> I don't think they need to sign it. It's just a grant of the license by the county.
>> so the residents live between the two gates and have they been notified these gates automatically close if the water levels get to six inches?
>> understand that the gate only covers half the roadway. The lane in the north, it would be the southbound lane, on the south it would be the northbound lane, so you could actually get around a gate. It's really a warning device.
>> so we discourage traveling. N, but if you are bold enough to risk it, you can go around the gate.
>> that's right.
>> and for emergency response people to get there.
>> is there a motion?
>> I make a motion we accept.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion? All in favor say aye? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 9, 2003 7:52 AM