Travis County Commissioners Court
June 21, 2005
Item 29
Number 29, is to consider and take appropriate action on an order of abandonment of public streets and accept the second amendment to declarations of covenants, conditions and restrictions for the rob roy, a subdivision in precinct three (beecher lane, boardman lane, chapin lane, cicero lane, clarendon lane, coleridge lane, coustaeau lane, ehrlich road, humbolt lane, leopold lane, muir lane, pascal court, rob roy road, st. Stephens cove, stegner lane, thoureau lane, pascal lane and st. Stephens school road. Mr. Gieselman?
>> I think all of the issues were laid out in our last meeting. You asked that we gather with the parties on both side of this issue. Which we did. I -- I think tom nuckols and I and Commissioner Daugherty stayed for at least a portion of the meeting, we did not stay for the entire meeting. It was my impression when I left the meeting that there was no -- no common compromise from all that -- we talked about a lot of different issues, but I don't think we -- I知 not really speaking for the group, but when I left the meeting I didn't get the impression that they were settling on one solution. So I still think we have probably various opinions about whether or not to close to abandon the roads and to put up the gates or not. So I think -- I think you will probably hear from both parties again this morning.
>> it may help I guess to get a couple of spokespersons from each side? Especially if you have an opinion different than joe's. The -- the gist of your update is that as far as you know, no satisfactory compromise was reached.
>> unless something happened after I left.
>> I think this is correct. From what I know.
>> main a lot was done -- maybe a lot was done after that first 30 minutes, joe. This was a long meeting, right.
>> a four-hour meeting, yes.
>> why don't we get different perspectives, see where we are. I have been advised by telephone that the spanish oaks model was recommended.
>> judge, Commissioners, bob burton [indiscernible] jeff connally, one of the board directors to my right. We did meet on Thursday. The meeting was attended by both sides in -- opposing gating. Mike [indiscernible] was there, mike whelan who represents mr. [indiscernible], ken keller who spoke during the public hearing, sue cullin and dan gillian who I believe is here, joe was there, tom nuckols with a there, Commissioner Daugherty was there for about an hour, hour and a half or so. The present secretary of the association, terry scarborough, an attorney who represents the association on a pro bono basis was there. I was there, hector deleon was there, another resident. We started the meeting, the -- those in opposition presented some alternatives to gating. And they listed out the alternatives. For the board's position, we've had two votes on this from the membership who have -- by well over a majority approved an amendment to the declaration authorizing the association to perform the maintenance. And then a -- a vote by the members of the association to approve the special assessment. So -- we have already talked about the alternatives to gating. We have been working on this about a year, traffic safety committee, members of the board has talked with county staff. There again a little bit of interchange between joe and some of the other folks from the other side about whether there were any real practical alternatives to gating. We wanted to try to direct this back to a way where we could respect the membership's wishes with regard to privatization and gating while perhaps incorporate some of the opposition's concerns. And so when we got to that area, the principal request by the opposition was to be separated out from this process. So they would not have to pay the special assessment that was voted on by all members of the association, that they would not have to pay -- they might be better to explain this, but in general that they wouldn't have any responsibilities for assessments associated with maintenance. And then they wanted the session or someone, perhaps their insurance, to indemnify and hold them harmless. Also some discussion about what happens if the roads are destroyed. What -- what have you done as far as that's concerned.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> and I guess we really couldn't do that. We can't -- contrary to our governance documents, it's contrary to our organizational documents, it's contrary to the member vote. So when we met -- we left, everyone left the settlement, we promised to get some type of proposal back to them. The board then came to my office on Friday and we met again for about three or four hours, and on a big poster board we wrote down what all the options we could do. How could we somehow address the opposition's -- some of the opposition's requests. What we decided first that we just can't address -- we cannot satisfy their request to create a separate class of membership under our governance documents.
>> quick question about that. There are 11 or 12 homes outside of the association now.
>> that's correct. In rob roy. How did that happen?
>> the original developer did not annex the property into our deed restrictions.
>> so they have been outside from the beginning?
>> that's correct.
>> they were not carved out. The orks was created after their existence and applied prospectively.
>> they have never been subject to our deed restrictions by I think probably mistake, but that's the way it is. So what we decided to do is just go ahead and put together a settlement agreement or a proposal to send to the other side, and we decided to increase the amount of commercial liability insurance from one million to 6 million, which would be a one-million-dollar policy and a five-million-dollar um umbrella. We agreed to go out and get property insurance and kind of that all risk property insurance that would cover the roadways either at the full insurable value or whatever the commercial reasonably value is traditionally that's obtained for roads with this type of insurance product. We also agreed because there was some concern expressed by a couple of folks in opposition that there were members in the community that might have some financial hardship and not be able to pay the special assessment. And the special assessment is around $1,900. The first payment is $650 and then there's a 260-dollar payment over the -- once a year over the next four years. But still there was an expression that there may be some financial hardship. So what the board decided to do is make a reasonable good faith effort to solicit donations from the community and establish a special fund. And before taking any enforcement action against someone who has failed to pay their assessment, a confidentially and discretely -- a committee will be established to administer this fund. And confidentially and discretely a member will contact that person and see if they can to take advantage of this special assessment. Then the third issue or the next issue was there was some expression about concern that we -- or the board had underestimated the annual maintenance costs for this roadway. And so just to kind of give you a little background, the board and the traffic safety committee had worked with the county to come up with this number based on historical maintenance that has been performed out there and then also the board or one of the members of the board actually talked to some third-party providers who would actually provide the maintenance to get assurance that the same price could be provided by separate contract with the association. And those numbers were reconfirmed I believe Monday. Monday, is that right? But because of the concern about that, what we decided to do is to put a cap on the amount of assessments attributable to maintenance of the roadway at $24,000. Now, there's a rolling concept in this that if $24,000 is not used in one year, because that's the budgeted amount, then that surplus can roll over to the next year. And then there's also a cpi, cost of living escalator in there as well. We put all this together. I worked on it Friday night, I distributed it to the board members and to terry scarborough, who is really kind of the liaison acting as mediator in our meeting, was kind of the liaison between the board and mike lioso had talked to him a couple of times. I sent out the settlement agreement, I was waiting for comments and then I got word back from terry that he had talked to my end, and unless we cut these members out as a separate group, no deal. That's what was reported to me by terry. Terry basically said, he laid everything out and the other side wasn't impressed with it and then terry also called ken keller and I was told -- I got word back that ken felt the same way as mike did. So at that point we met again on Monday, father's day on Sunday, everybody was doing family things. We met again in my office on Monday because I recommended to the board that we go ahead and put something -- I mean, unlrlly try to -- unilaterally try to address some of these issues. If we don't have another party to sign a settlement agreement, then there's no point in sending a settlement agreement to them because they're not going to sign it. Let's do something proactive. So what the board did was adopt a resolution that incorporated all those points that I mentioned to you. They adopted the resolution and the resolution should be posted or will be posted on the website, and then also we didn't finish that until about 4:30 or 5:00. I sent a copy of it to mike whalen and his attorney. I wouldn't expect to hear anything back. And terry is in washington, d.c. Welcoming a new baby granddaughter into the world is supposed to have called mike and let him know kind of what the board had decided to do. And that's kind of the summary of the settlement.
>> so are we expected to look at the resolution today?
>> yes.
>> do we have a copy of it?
>> well, this is a resolution adopted by the board. This was a resolution adopted by the board, which I have copies of, I can provide copies of. I think whatever action is appropriate, whatever is the judge's and Commissioners' pleasure, we'd be happy to abide by it.
>> there's a resolution to obtain the board commitments as to what it will do if the court approves this?
>> yes.
>> and just for the record can you highlight the specifics?
>> yes.
>> for the record --
>> can we read along with you?
>> yes, I知 sorry.
>> if we read right along with you --
>> sure, I understand.
>> the first page is merely the secretary's certificate attesting to the fact that it's been approved on a favorable vote of four board members. There are five board members. The principal resolutions are attached as exhibit a. The first principal agreement is insurance for as long as the association maintains and operates the streets, the association will maintain in effect at all times, commercial general liability insurance with limited liability not less than one million dollars per occurrence, an umbrella liability insurance would limit the liability of not less than five million dollars per occurrence. And property and casualty insurance. The commercial general liability insurance and the umbrella insurance will cover liability arising from bodily injury and property damage as a result of operation and maintenance of the streets and vehicular access gates and other security devices regulating access to the streets. Property insurance will provide coverage of the streets against fire and/or other risks for the insurable value of the streets or the amount of insurance customarily available from conventional underwriting sources on similar policies.
>> do we have reason to believe that these types of insurance are in fact available?
>> yes.
>> dues and assessment. That the association -- in an effort to cause regular assessments to remain equal to or less than a level estimated by the board, as a result of the association's maintenance of the streets, the association agrees to maintain a separate line item budget item for the budget and repair of the streets, to separately account for the annual costs incurred by the association for such maintenance and repair, and to have costs to be expended and budgeted a an annual basis on an amount of $24,000 for the maintenance and repair of the streets, the annual maintenance cost limitation is subject to increase on an annual basis based on the consumer price index he is tor. -- escalator. And notwithstanding the limit in the event the costs expended in any year is less than the annual cost limitation, the association will be entitled to expend any accumulated surplus in subsequent years, but in no event may the annual amount exceed the annual maintenance cost limitation unless there's exists an accumulated surplus which may be applied to increase the 24,000-dollar limit under this paragraph. The annual cost limitation will be applied on a calendar year basis; however, for the remainder of 2005, the association may extend $24,000 for maintenance and repair of the streets. And if they don't use that amount in 2005, then the surplus can be applied to the subsequent year. There will be a separate accounting of amounts expended for the annual maintenance and repair of the streets, and those will be available for inspection by the membership of the association at all reasonable times. It will only apply to spend expenditures for maintenance and repair of the streets and will not apply to expenditures approved by the association at the may 12th meeting, which is a special assessment. Necessary and required to properly maintain and repair the vehicular access gates and other security devices and associated with traffic calming, drainage and signage. Then the next paragraph talks about the consumer price index escalator. It will be adjusted each year, each 12 month period. The difference between the cpi on the adjustment date exierd compared to the cpi in the prior year and the difference would be multiplied by the $24,000 to get the escalation incorporated into that. Then the next significant provision is this special fund for payment of special assessments where for a period of 60 days from the date the order to abandon the streets is approved by the county, the association will use reasonable and good faith efforts to discretely solicit donations directly from members to establish a fund which will be used for the purpose of paying the may special assessment on behalf of qualifying members based on financial hardship. We call this the special fund. All donations received will be maintained in a separate account and distributed to discharge in whole or in part the may special assessment due and payable by members approved -- as approved by the fund committee. Which is defined below. On or before declaring delinquent any special assessment due and owing from a member, a member of the fund committee will communicate confidentially with such member to determine whether the member desires to apply for full or partial payment of a special assessment from amounts deposited into the special fund until all amounts collected from the special fund have been exhausted. If the member decides to apply for full or partial payment, such member will not be declared delinquent and no assessment will be assessed against the member until a partial or full payment from the special fund. The board of the association will form a committee, which would called the fund committee, which will be comprised of one member not currently serving as a director or officer of the association, the president of the association and the pressurer of the association to adopt procedures governing the payment of amounts from the special fund and to make such payments from the special fund to the association on behalf of the qualifying members. The procedures adopted by the fund committee to determine whether a member qualifies based on financial hardship for full and partial payment of the assessment will be consistently applied. The fund committee will periodically provide to the board an accounting of the amounts disbursed from the special fund, and if amounts remain in the special fund after all requests have been processed and if approved, paid, such aamounts to be used to reduce regular assessments of the members who have obtained full or partial payment of the special assessment which reduction will be applied pro rata based on the amount of the special assessment paid on behalf of the members. So in order, if there's money left over after all the applications have been processed, that money will remain and then for future regular assessments we'll go ahead and apply that fund pro rata to everyone that received help with their special assessment, either full or partial.
>> [ inaudible ].
>> the board has approved this.
>> so is this now a legally binding document to be presented to the board?
>> no. This is an agreement or in effect this is a contract that's been entered into by the association of the board. The board has agreed on behalf of the association to file these procedures. And sort of the settlement, we don't have a settlement agreement where we don't have another party that's enforcing this or that can enforce this, is it possible that a future board may rescind this? Yes, it's possible. But right now this board -- this is this board's commitment, and we're publicizing it to the membership, and that's really the best we can do right now.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> 296.
>> let me ask and do some arithmetic here so I can understand this. What is the cost of the -- the initial cost of gating the community? What have y'all come up with?
>> the total cost which includes landscaping and other improvements is somewhere $533,000.
>> so that is where you get the 296 times the 1950 that gives you $577,000, so you've got half a million dollars. Joe, is -- in your opinion is the $24,000 a year for maintenance for the rob roy subdivision, is that -- are you prepared to tell me that is that fairly accurate? Because that's what we're assuming. That's what the board assumed that that's what it would take on a yearly basis. Maybe it would be pushed to the second year and you would get 48,000. But would you think that $24,000 is --
>> these are probably derived from our pavement management. I知 presuming that that's what they looked at, what they calculated, the 24,000. That would take care of the surface treatment. I don't know what they plugged in for crack sealing and pothole patching and side maintenance and -- sign maintenance and stuff like that, but that will run also. There's some routine costs that they're going to have to pay for.
>> but jeff, did you --
>> we actually took the county's next five years and the average came out to 16,000. We uplifted that by 50% to account for those items that joe mentioned.
>> so we've got $24,000 a year. If you've got 296 homeowners, that's $81 a year.
>> correct.
>> that somebody -- I think everybody needs to understand what these numbers are. We have a subdivision out here that probably the average value of the home is $400,000. I don't know what the average is, but we're not talking about, you know, meager amounts of dollars where folks live. But if we -- and if we take 215 homeowners that paid versus the 296, it's $111, so it's, what, 19 and 11. It's $30 more. If you just say, do you know what, let's just take them out. I mean, where I知 having a hard time getting y'all is the dollars are so inconsequence shall whether you're on the one side or whether you're on the people that want to gate it. What I知 trying to figure out is what is really driving this thing, because something that is deaf ening to me is 85% of 87% of the people that have participated, and as an elected official we operate with numbers. I mean, I知 not operating on whether you're going to vote for me or not. Vote against me, it's not going to make any difference. If I知 not doing the right job, then get me out of here, but I知 trying to come up with what is fair. And if I知 looking at this thing -- I can see where somebody might not want to plop down $1,950, but if you've got -- hang on a second, dan, i'll let you. But I知 really looking at 296 versus 215. And 215 is really taking out the 45 or 50 people that didn't even participate in the vote, so if you take all of those folks out, I mean, the dollars are pretty inconsequence shall. What is really the most interesting thing to me, and the judge asked, and I was going to ask as well, if there are 12 people that are within this gate that are not paying that you've already got two kinds of folks in there -- now, whoever made the mistake, let's admit that the mistake of the made. I don't know-- because they are in the gated community, are they not?
>> they are not part of the association, never have been.
>> but they are -- but they are -- they will be within the gated community.
>> and we've had to go to them and work out a special access agreement with them. And some may join the community as we go forward.
>> just a point of clarification because I think it's significant. Those of us that oppose the gating didn't say that we wouldn't pay the --
>> [ inaudible ] the.
>> I知 sorry, Commissioner, dan gilliam. We didn't say we wouldn't pay the special assessment, the initial special assessment. Most of that assessment is for the landscaping and the beautification of the entrances. That's not an issue. The part associated with the actual gate and the operation of those gates is a very small part of that, and that was the part that I think we asked to be excused from as well as the ongoing maintenance.
>> what I heard, and correct me -- [inaudible - no mic]. What I heard was a request to be cut out of the herd with regard to the special assessment. I did hear some folks -- I did hear some folks say that they might pay it voluntarily, but they didn't want the obligation to pay it. They wanted to be cut out of the community and treated separately. And what's the difficulty? The difficulty is that we have a set of documents, a governance document, set of declarations that provides for uniform treatment of -- that's been the practice of the association, to levee uniform assessments, except in the event of some deficiency assessment or when someone violates the covenants or something like that. We have the membership who has approved the special assessment under our documents that once it's approved -- and these are what our documents says. These are the documents that everybody when they bought their lot they are subject to. It says the majority of the owners can approve a special assessment, which is allocated against all members. So it's not just the -- the board does not have the authority to cut these folks out, even if they wanted to. We would have to go back, amend the declaration. We would have to go back to the membership and get the member to approve cutting these folks out, treating them separately with regard to gating and the roadways. And where we stand now is we have -- we've had two votes where the association has expressed their desire to gate and to privatize and we're trying to work out an agreement in the context of those issues. Wishes.
>> what if they sell their homes? Somebody who's not even a party to any of these discussions, would they get that special exemption especially when they know that they would be buying a home that specifically has these gates there? It's for the community good. I don't get to say I get to opt out of my full property taxes because I don't have any kids. It doesn't work that way. When there's an established community good, have you to kind of go along with the program if that's indeed how you have vested your authority that the majority rules and in this case the overwhelming majority rules. I've lived here 30 years and never called the fire department. I never in my mind would think that I知 not responsible for pitching in for the fire department. It's an established public good. Last week, that we the people stuff, that's the kind of thing that y'all agree up front. But if you carve them out, why would somebody who isn't even subject to these discussions today get that exemption? What if somebody else that's a part of the 215, 219, whatever the number is, what if they decide, you know, I don't feel like paying this any more? You've got both ways here in terms of somebody wanting to be part of the herd and others that might pass on that benefit to someone who isn't even a party to these discussions.
>> I don't want to get too far off track on this thing. I think that can be a good question, but I will say this about taxes, school taxes, you're right. I don't have children, never had a child, probably too old to have a child now, but that's not going to happen to me, and -- but I know that coming into this world that I知 going to pay those things. There is a point to be made when you've bought a home in rob roy and you bought it and you paid your taxes and you continue to pay your taxes that all of a sudden -- and I understand about the majority. And when push comes to shove, y'all, I think you will get pushed into a corner here where we will make somebody mad. The unfortunate thing is if somebody elected to buy a home in rob roy and when they bought it they were public streets, they bought it knowing that that was the case, now, there's something to be said that you've got homeowner association rules and all of a sudden you get a majority of the people that come up, I mean, they can cause you to do things that you might not want to do. Is that fair? I mean, it depends on which side you're on. I知 just trying to find a way here that I thought that we could work in going back to the table and saying how can we find some commonality here? It was real obvious to me -- I didn't need to be there for three or four hours that you were there that from the get go that this thing was -- I mean, our stance is we don't want it gated. This stance is we want it gated. Now, how do we get to the middle? It wasn't going to get there. I realized that. So if it's not going to get there, I mean, i'd rather look at dan and mike and the other 30 people that voted against it and say the best that we can do is get you out of -- I mean, I don't think that if you had another vote -- I can't imagine that people would go, nope, not there. Because if you divided the 550 by 215, you've got 2,500-dollar assessment versus a 1,950-dollar assessment. I mean, I would think that it would mean something to me that i'd like to be able to walk to my mailbox and see the guy next door that voted against the thing and not want to pull out a gun and shoot somebody because I have watched this happen in the westlake area with the two high schools where I know that people don't even talk to anybody any more because they're so upset over the issue. Now, if there's really no place to get where there's not consideration given to the folks and say, you know, I just don't want that to happen, then I think that you're going to have a court here that's probably willing to make a motion and go on. Is that going to make your life easier? I guess people think in six months people won't care. I think that that's a sad thing to do to a neighborhood. I live in a gated community in Barton Creek, and I will assure you that if we did that, my wife and I would probably say fine, tell them if they don't want to do that, we're wanting to impose this on them and it cost us -- it's one thing if this thing were costing monumental dollars, but it's not monumental dollars to either one. If it's a safety issue, I think the court understands that it's a safety issue and you'll put us in a spot to vote for it, but I just -- I was really hoping that we could find a way where somebody was willing to say, okay, the best that I can do is just so vote against it, I don't want to participate. Because I had always heard that if you don't participate that it cost everybody else an extra $600, but maybe the $600 is the difference between 1950 and the $2,500. Is that where -- did I just hear something of $600? Because on the yearly deal it's $30 between 215 people participating versus 296 people. And for the 215 that's paying that, y'all are willing to indemnify the other group that it's not going to go up at all, so you're subject to having more if the $24,000 a year is incorrect. So I have a hard time understanding.
>> clarification again. We certainly understand that the board has a right to special assessments for beautification. There is no issue, no legal issue with us paying -- all of us paying the special assessment or virtually all of it. The individual who was responsible for obtaining bids and oversaw the -- overseen the beautification tells me that the gating portion of that is a very small part. I don't want to quote him, but I think he told me something like 15% of the $1,900 was associated with the gates themselves. So that's the extent of what we are having a problem with as well as the ongoing maintenance of this. And underlying all of this as we started out this conversation before, last week our primary problem with this is that we read in the state and county statutes that we as property owners have a right to sign off on this. And we think that right is being usurped and that's what we're trying to avoid because if we give that up, what's next? I don't know.
>> well, unfortunately, here's where we're going to get with that. You have an attorney, you have an understanding about that reading. A different side has a different understanding. I tell you a person who makes the call on that is a district judge. And that's where I don't think anybody wants to get to. I mean, I hate to see people go to that measure, which is the reason I continue to say, isn't there a way that you can come out of this deal where the neighbors don't hate each other and if it's just a few extra dollars to say, fine, we want to gate the community because the community is going to get gated. And if that's the case, then let's at least allow your neighbor if it's a few hundred dollars -- and I知 sure that there are plenty of people in that neighborhood that even would take still the last part about, you know, that will solicit and establish a fund that if somebody can't take on that expense, I have a hard time believing that anybody in rob roy is not going to be able to handle $30 a month or the difference between $1,950 and $2,500, but I realize that some people live a lot closer to their paycheck than others do.
>> I don't speak for the board, but when I think about this, I think about process. I think about how if the board were to decide to do this, how would we go about accomplishing. Number one is I heard someone comment on the other side is they wanted whatever this agreement was to be a covenant running with the land. So it would exempt the owner of that lot in perpetuity from any responsibility for streets. Well, I think that's number one that I understand economic argument that you bought your lot without that gating and there's some value attributable to that, but I think there's also an argument that that decrease in value may be the increase in value because of the gating. In any event, I think the covenant range with the land is a problem. I think that granting an exemption for so long as you own the home maybe to the special assessment, you know, would be technically workable from my lawyer's mind. Secondly, in order to take this back to the membership you've got to be able to tell the membership what their financial obligation will be if they vote for this. That means you have to limit the number of people who can qualify for this exemption. You can't say we're going to have a vote, everybody votes yes, they're going to pay, and everybody votes no, they're not going to pay and we're going to divide the yes and divide the number by the yes because people won't know what their ultimate obligations are going to be even if it's 51% approval if you divide the number by that, that might not get you there. Me personally if I知 voting for it, I might not want to vote for it.
>> give them a scale. This is not something the people aren't -- [overlapping speakers]
>> in any event, the point is I have to look at it if this option were ever to be presented or considered seriously by the board, I would have to figure out a way to make it work.
>> we hear back one of the reasons we did this give this another week is not only for the meetings to occur, but we cannot gotten a piece of paper with letterhead from the top from the city of Austin and from saint stephen's. Where are we in terms of getting that official feedback from those two entities?
>> they're there.
>> do we have copies of those?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> we will need to go into executive session and have a little legal advice before we take action. So is there an agreement that there is a public safety issue in rob roy?
>> absolutely.
>> anybody disagree with that? I don't see any hands for the record. But the question is what's the fix, how is it paid for and who pays for it?
>> just one point of clarification before you go into executive session. There was an individual as bob has indicated who wanted the exemption to run in perpetuity with the land. I don't feel that way and hopefully I can beat that individual into submission. I think that as Commissioner Sonleitner has said, if the community is gated and a new owner comes into the community knowing that it's gated, then from that point forward it's a non-issue.
>> absolutely. A non-issue.
>> and I don't have a problem with that.
>> do you think that the others who are in opposition are willing to pay the beautification costs, which you think is 85%? And I hear one no there. Willing to pay beautification costs, but not willing to pay gate, gated or the ongoing maintenance?
>> well, I can't speak for those individuals, but I think that is the case, and I think that we all recognize that if you took the beautification piece of that as a separate item, we certainly recognize that the board has the right to do that and has the right to assess for that. So whether we wanted to or not, I think there's no way to oppose that.
>> Commissioner Davis had his hand up. Commissioner Davis, then we will free up five seats, so those who have something new and different to tell us today before we go into executive session, come forward and do that. Commissioner Davis and then this gentleman standing here.
>> [inaudible - no mic]. ... We want to make a decision on this particular issue. And i'd just like to say this: each year we go through hundreds and hundreds of items on the agenda. Some of these particular items on the agenda, sometimes we can get 100% support of this Commissioners court, sometimes you don't get the full support of the Commissioners court. But whatever comes out, a decision has to be made. And sometimes some folks are going to be happy and some folks are going to be sad. And that's the way things go. Everybody is not going to be happy on the thing that we decide to do, and there are some folks that are going to be sad also. So I want you to keep this in mind as we go through this process that decisions are kind of tough to make, but we have to make a decision and we just have to live with those decisions and move on down the road regardless of whether you agree or disagree with this Commissioners court, those decisions must be made and hopefully we can come up with a decision today as Commissioner Daugherty wanted to take action on this particular action today. Thank you.
>> yes, sir?
>> my name is richard (indiscernible). I知 actually the president of the homeowners association. And it's been a very frustrating period of time. I just wanted to make a comment regarding exempting certain people from paying for things they don't like. I am -- I think that almost every week in the community some people like the landscaping and want it a certain way, others don't like it and don't want to pay for it. Some people want more security, some people want less security. As a board, we try to do what we think is best for the community overall. And when we make a decision, we feel it's important for the community to stick together and go along whether they agree or not. Separating us into two tiers will not help this community at all. Thank you very much. [ applause ]
>> anybody else with new and different comments? We've read the e-mails, all of them, and have heard you during court testimony. Anybody else at this time before we convene in executive session to chat with legal counsel? Okay. Then under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act, we will convene in executive session to discuss this matter with legal counsel. Now, just for the record, I did receive this morning from dan gillian, the gentleman who testified earlier today, a memo, and we just got another copy of that, right?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> I did get a chance to look at it and I gave my copy to tom knuckles a few moments ago. We may discuss it depending on what's in it, but it will be in the context of receiving legal advice. So we will do that at this time and come back and take some action.
we have returned from executive session. Wherein we discussed item no. 29, only item no. 29. We will have to go back in this afternoon on several posted executive session items. But 29 is a matter regarding the rob reside subdivision and public safety issues there and request to the Commissioners court to vacate or abandon the roads there. Rob roy subdivision.
>> judge, I will make the motion to approve the order of the Travis County Commissioners court abandoning the following streets. Three (beecher lane, boardman lane, chapin lane, cicero lane, clarendon lane, coleridge lane, coustaeau lane, ehrlich road, humbolt lane, leopold lane, muir lane, pascal court, rob roy road, pascal lane, saint stephens cove, saint stephens school road, [indiscernible] to private streets where the homeowners will accept the full responsibility of maintenance for these streets. And the drainage. The rob roy homeowners association will provide the court with confirmation that the following insurance pertaining to the streets is in place: a, commercial general liability insurance with limits of liability not less than a million dollar per occurrence, an umbrella liability insurance with limits of liability not less than 5 million per occurrence and, two, property and casualty insurance against fire and other risks for the insurable value of the streets or the amount of insurance customarily available from conventional underwriting sources on similar policies. And also I understand that the board has -- has decided in his -- has done a resolution that they would limit the annual expenditures for maintenance of the streets to a budgeted level and they would solicit donations and establish a fund for the payment of the initial assessment for these members, who are unable to pay due to financial hardships.
>> second.
>> and, tom, did you have -- any special things order-wise that -- that we would need to -- to put in this?
>> well, I知 assuming that the -- that the issues that you are raising on the insurance and the assessment and I guess what I知 calling the hardship fund would be satisfied by this resolution that was presented to us today from the homeowners association board?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> tom, you -- if it's -- if this is approved by the court, you will have that order prepared by this afternoon?
>> uh-huh.
>> for signature?
>> yes.
>> and distribution to those who will contact either a member of the court or your office for copies.
>> yes.
>> is it friendly for purposes of the record that the letters that we received from the utility companies, the city of Austin and saint stephens would be a part of an attachment to whatever order it is that we are doing.
>> absolutely.
>> thank you.
>> we have recited in the order that we have received them. I don't think those we need to attach. I think it's enough to recite that we did receive them.
>> take note of them, okay.
>> any discussion of the motion?
>> judge, I do want to say to the residents I知 sorry that this is at gut wrenching as it is. But I have learned in the two and a half years that I have been your Commissioner that we have to make decisions that's not, you know, very nice. And I -- but ultimately, I think that the overwhelming majority of the people that are in support of this is where I have come down. I知 honoring that. I do hope that the community can work with folks because we know that there are probably -- there probably will be some scars out of this deal. I think that's unfortunate. It would be unfortunate for me, you know, living in my gated community. But I知 here to honor the overwhelming majority of the people that have spoken in this and I hope that, you know, some wounds can be salved and we can move forward. Thank you for your involvement.
>> [indiscernible]
>> okay.
>> I guess from my perspective there is a recognized public safety issue for which standard Travis County solutions so far have proven insufficient. And the professional judgment of -- of our staff is that the homeowners association might be in a better position to deal with the traffic volume, speeding, et cetera, issues, much better than Travis County. And finally, that -- that the -- the request seems to be supported by the overwhelming majority of the residents of rob roy and I think that's important.
>> judge, I -- I would like to -- to go ahead and move forward with this. But I still would like to reiterate what I stated earlier and that is that every week we are here having to make decisions, in one way somebody leaves here happy, some folks are going to leave here sad. But I think it's the best decision that we have and the direction that we need to go in. Again, I知 not mad at nobody. And of course I hope y'all ain't mad at me whenever we come up with a decision here. I hope you all don't throw rocks at us. But again we are going to just take action as far as what we have heard and what we have seen and what we have witnessed here through the testimony and also the backup that you have provided to us. So, again, I知 ready to move forward with this and --
>> and where it landed for me is that, you know, the sheer volume of the number of cars that are now going through this that are totally unrelated to either the school or to the folks who have chosen to purchase homes in this particular neighborhood, the numbers are staggering and we have the traffic counts that show this unbelievable spike of cars that are travelling through there, because basically now we have connectivity between two state roadways that are challenging enough and people are looking for that edge and to be able to have a signal to be able to get from one place to the other. In the 10 years that I have spent on this court, I have worked diligently with neighborhoods in terms of what can be done. We have tried stop signs. We have tried rumble strips. We have tried traffic circles and really in this particular case you guys have to get -- we have got to do something about the sheer volume. And I think the gates are the best solution related to trying to cut down that sheer volume. And i, for purposes of the record, although it's not necessary, I intend to submit all of the e-mails and letters that I have gotten on this subject matter simply for purposes that I did have a record that I looked at and read and considered when I was making this decision.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. [ applause ]
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, June 21, 2005 7:51 PM