Travis County Commissioners Court
March 29, 2005
Item 17
Judge, something real quick. Can you call up item 17 for a moment so I can have a question. Is that okay?
>> 17 is to discuss and take appropriate action on Travis County comments to campo board of directors regarding draft plan 2030 plan. Commissioner Davis?
>> I wanted to make sure I made a brief statement on the Travis County Commissioners court agenda of March 22nd '05, I voted against the designation on roads in precinct 1 within the campo 2030 plan. And I did that because it did not provide similar relief to all of Travis County. Most of my constituents that have contacted me adamantly oppose toll road designation on existing roads in Travis County. Because they basically drive throughout all of Travis County, not just precinct 1. So that is the reason why I voted the way I did. And of course, what I ended up doing was supplied the clerk with that particular statement for the record, and also i'd like to go to the campo board as we continue this process.
>> Commissioner Sonleitner?
>> yes, sir. There are a couple of things, and arterial a is certainly one of them, that are decisions for next week. But knowing that tomorrow is the tac meeting, we had some ones that we did plop over to this week that I would like to get included for tomorrow's tac meeting. And I -- this would be -- this is on -- in terms of your chart that we brought up, it was just we had forgotten to put it on last week, so we needed to repost it for this week. It's the 1825 spur, fm 1825. This is the main road from i-35 into Pflugerville. We've brought up many, many times to not have this go to a mad six. It's something that in a very short time frame has to scrunch right back down to a two-lane roadway going through Pflugerville. Joe properly got it put on our chart and I was hopeful that we could at least get 1825 and the 1825 spur -- this is on page 4. It's the top two items there. They were left off of the chart last week. And for them to be med 4 on 1825 and down graded to mad 4 on what is a two-lane loy. I don't know what they were thinking having a mad 6 connect to the subdivision.
>> second.
>> so I move the staff recommendations on 1825 spur and fm 1825 so that can go to the tac tomorrow.
>> second? Any more discussion?
>> no toll roads?
>> no, sir. [ laughter ]
>> all in favor? Show Commissioners -- it passed by unanimous vote.
>> and another very quick update. North lake creek parkway, which is also known as arterial a, Williamson county, Commissioner boatright and I hosted a giant meeting of all parties involved to see if we could get something done. We have parties working diligently to see if there is a united proposal to bring to campo. We are all getting back together next Monday, so it will not -- so hopefully we might have some information for you next Tuesday if Travis County chooses to weigh in on arterial a Williamson county. And I think the only one that joe did actually make some changes as well from last week to this week in the section that is called proposed upgrade to 2030, additional projects previously preserve right-of-way. He's now gone back and he's got a whole new segment here that we have not acted on that said rather than saying we'll just preserve the right-of-way, they have now come back and said we really need to put them down as mad 4's. It's just part of the plan in terms of what's needed there and I wanted to make sure that joe was authorized to be able to take that giant section there as well to the tac to articulate for Travis County. Do you see the segment I’m talking about, judge? It should be page 5, and there at the bottom it starts with everything -- it refers to page 40, 45, 46. Do you see where I’m at? Originally they were talking in the comments and remarks, saying preserve right-of-way. Joe has now gone back in and said nope, to go ahead and put them in as mad 4's, rather than simple preserved right-of-way. I think it's a stronger legal position as well for us to be in, of not just saying preserve right-of-way. So I would move that section there in terms of the recommendations the staff is making that joe can go to the tac tomorrow with this is mad 4 simply rather than preserving the right-of-way for mad 4.
>> so the tac of campo.
>> yes, sir. They're going to meet tomorrow and they're going to look at things on a consent motion for the 2030 plan.
>> is that joe's plan?
>> yes, this is where it came from.
>> joe had a lot of stuff on the list last week. Joe? Joe gieselman, are you here? We have a proposed upgrade to recommend the 2030 additional project previously preserved right-of-way for mad 4 and tnr staff recommendation to make these changes?
>> you had a whole section of things that you said simply preserve the right-of-way.
>> yes. Because the discussion was that you really have to say one or the other. You can't say we want to build a two-lane, but let's go ahead and reserve for four lane. So I think what the staff would say, just say four lanes, period.
>> (indiscernible).
>> that's Commissioner Sonleitner's motion. Any more discussion? I wasn't sure. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote by those present, with Commissioner Gomez temporarily off the dais.
>> we did the change on 1825 and the spur to go to the tac tomorrow.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:50 PM