Travis County Commissioners Court
June 14, 2005
Item 3
Number 3 is to receive comments regarding temporarily closing tower road between fm 973 and bois darc in precinct 1 for a 90 day period for the installation of a 10-foot force main and a 30-inch -- 10-inch force main and a 10-inch storm sewer as well as reconstruction and widening of roadway.
>> move the public hearing be opened.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> this is pretty much as you read it, a temporary closing of the road to enable construction of a utility line that will serve a subdivision further down the road.
>> this closure will start tomorrow.
>> yes, that's correct.
>> and we have posted notices.
>> we have. And I thinkmost of the resident there are aware of this. We've been in discussions with them for months on this subdivision. Their main concern was I think that more -- the impact of the traffic on the road itself because the subdivision is some distance from the main road, so this is their main point of access in and out to the new subdivision and it is a fairly small county roadway.
>> joe, also in addition to that, some of the residents were concerned about the activities that have gone on out there and would be kind of close to the fence row. And my concern -- of course, I heard that there are some animals out there, cows or whatever, my concern is did anyone address the possibility of dealing with that pet situation in case the barbed fences are damaged where the animals may be able to escape and of course become a problem? So I guess my concern was that -- has that fence -- how is that fence situation going to be addressed?
>> the contractor has no rights to do anything to those fences. I mean, that is private property at that point. It's a hypothetical. They're working on the right-of-way and have no right to damage the fences.
>> that was some of the concerns that I heard, so I just wanted to make sure whatever happens --
>> it's a very narrow right-of-way.
>> if fences are damaged because of construction and cattle break loose, then we've got to deal with that.
>> we'll deal with it if that occurs. And it's also an issue between the contractor and those private property owners. It is very narrow right-of-way, and short of actually requiring the subdivider to go out and purchase additional right-of-way without the power of eminent domain, it's very difficult for him to get those adjoining property owners to sell him additional right-of-way to expand the roadway, so he's having to work within the existing right-of-way as it is. And as we know, it's a fairly narrow right-of-way.
>> would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> please come forward. If you give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> my name is tom jennings. I live at 12101 tower, which is on the southeast corner of tower and what was the old 973. Nut section is open now. My fence that you're referring to, the roadway as designed with no additional right-of-way purchase is 27 feet fence line to fence line, curb and gutter with the force main and the storm sewer. You have old hackberries along that fence line in the right-of-way, almost impossible to remove that without tearing up that fence line. The same with the utilities that are on the south side in the right-of-way. They want to relocate them on to my property. I’m not trying to stop the development, but nobody has actually come to talk to me about it. I have a note hanging on my door. I've got utilities up and down, so I just have some concern about construct act, about how it's going to go and some accommodation on how we're going to work that out. That's just my comment.
>> would it help us to put you with the appropriate staff person right now? Delay this item until y'all have had an opportunity to chat?
>> i've seen the engineering drawings and i've looked at them and i've talked to the contractor, i've talked to the county folks. I mean, I know what's there -- I can certainly talk with them.
>> not only just to talk, but we can get more information and maybe get some questions answered, some concerns addressed. If we do something to damage your fence, then we're responsible. So if the fence is the issue, we will try to do this project in such a way that we don't damage the fence at all, but if we do damage it, you should file a claim for us to make you whole would be my recommendation.
>> well, and I appreciate having to go through that, I would just rather skip having to file a claim. I don't want to have that impact on my livestock. The road closure is due to start tomorrow. At this point the developer does not have a temporary construction easement from me. I don't know about my two neighbors to the east. Nor does bluebonnet electric, who has the power in right-of-way have an easement to relocate the power. So I’m sure there's some preliminary work, prep right-of-way and what have you that can be done in the construction phase, but that's where we are on that.
>> who would be the staff person --
>> understand this is not county construction. I want to make sure, this is not -- these are utility companies who are working within the county right-of-way, which I understand they have a legal right to do. That is the conflict between the adjoining property owners and those utility companies who are operating in our right-of-way and their ability to extract what they may need to do this work if they get outside the right-of-way. So this is somewhat of -- the county does not have full control over --
>> they've asked us to close the road so they can do the work.
>> that's right.
>> now, in spite of the fact that construction is supposed to start tomorrow, what if we get our people to get the utility folks to sit down with you as soon as possible this afternoon?
>> that's fine. They can contact me. I would also like to add another item. This is a 900 home development. For traffic planning purposes, there's x number of truckloads, x number of vehicle loads that will go per unit that will run in there. And realizing that the road is going to be rebuilt, I understand that, but at the end of the time when it is rebuilt -- they're not going to go from one to 900 in two days. That road is going to get hammered by weight tolerance permits. You've got gravel haulers, which they're allowed to do under house bill 2060 and house bill 47. You have ready mix concrete trucks which they have their allowances. All I’m saying is that road will be rebuilt only to be torn up in the process. And there should be some -- the maintenance and rebuilding after the new reconstruction should not be borne by necessarily the county again. I don't know if that accommodation has been made with the developer or not.
>> but by law they're obligated to return our road to its original condition or its preutility work condition. Sometimes they fall a little short of that, but we try to go out and --
>> I understand.
>> what I’m hearing you say is there are some questions you have and you have not been able to sit down with the appropriate persons and get an answer. And it seems to me that if utility companies are involved, maybe we don't have the answer, but we should be able to facilitate the meeting and maybe be there ourselves to chat about roadwork. If that will help.
>> that's fine.
>> joe, that makes sense to me.
>> we'll do what we can, judge. We'll have this back this afternoon then. The action item.
>> is that okay?
>> sure.
>> we don't woent take action on this this morning, but give y'all a chance to get together. We will be in court probably, optimistically speaking, three or four this afternoon, so if we delay this until late afternoon, that will give you a chance to get together and we can maybe get the people that you chat with from the utility company and one of our folk to meet and try to get some of these questions answered.
>> that's fine.
>> okay. Your name again is?
>> tom jennings.
>> and I guess the other landowner -- there are three property owners in this particular area that's being affected, per se for this little stretch of the road that's being dealt with by the tility companies. I hope if they have a concern, I hope we can address them all at one time and you take care and resolve it. And again, the judge said this will come up this afternoon as far as an action item, so I really appreciate you coming down. I thank you.
>> anybody else on this item?
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> why don't we postpone until late afternoon. Any objection to that?
>> no.
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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:
Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:10 PM