Travis County Commissioners Court
October 4, 2005
Item 29
29 is to consider and take appropriate action on county participation in meetings on plans for sh 130 crossing of the colorado river. I put this item on after receiving an e-mail from representative krusee's some indicating that he was calling together a meeting to discuss where it crosses the colorado river. I know we discussed this before and took no action. This was an invitation to the county judge and I thought that the Commissioners court should indicate a response. After the initial e-mail, I did receive a second e-mail that said a meeting has been scheduled for October 26th, I believe, and it's at representative krusee's office.
>> there was several days on there and 26th was the one that I -- I had an alternative date that I was looking at, but I didn't know if you wanted to deal with it individually or as a group. I didn't really know, but I was basically, judge, trying to get a gist for what actually will be discussed because I remember when we were going through and we had several neighborhood meetings during the construction of -- during the layout of sh 130 as it went through particular neighborhoods and stuff like that and the different phases of it, I do recall asking some specific questions to the designers of that lsi, lone star infrastructure, so basically figure out some of the things on the bridge. And of course I do know that that the bridge deals basically with borderline between Commissioner Gomez precinct 4 and precinct 1, and one of the things that I know we did lay out and that I discussed about was boat launching and stuff like that. We didn't have a boat launch there. So I never really got a whole gist of what representative krusee is actually looking for since a lot of this stuff was laid out during that discussion of sh 130 alignment and then the impact that it would have on the surrounding areas. So joe and -- I asked joe to get with him and find out exactly what representative krusee is really suggesting. So I really don't know. I’m just kind of lost as far as that's concerned, but I know there are some specifics that are still going on that I think need to still be laid on the table as far as what's cropped up since those lengthy neighborhood meetings that we've had on that. I really don't know.
>> his assistant says chairman krusee has been approached by a number of individuals about the plans for the sh 130 crossing of the colorado river. There appears to be some uncertainty about what form the bridge over the colorado will take. And what its impact might be on surrounding land and other waterways. In an effort to become better educated and help address some of these concerns, the chairman would like to call a meeting to discuss this topic. In response to this I sent an e-mail and a phone call through my assistants, of course, assistant to sis stant, in which I suggested that we get more specifics about the purpose of the meeting so the Commissioners court could decide what our position is, if we have one, and who we should send to the meeting, if anybody. And as far as I know, the bruj would take the same form over the colorado river that it would take over 969 right now, right?
>> joe gieselman, transportation and natural resource department. I was Austin able to -- I was unable to contact representative krusee's aide to find out what issues may be being presented to the representative. I did talk with sharon gukin with lsi. He was unaware of any issues with the bridge or of this meeting, pending meeting. She did say that the bridge was designed and under construction, so that tells me that if there are issues with the bridge, it's probably somewhat late in the process to be redesigning structures. On the other hand, as Commissioner Davis said, we discussed the possibility of an access point to the colorado river as part of the state highway 130 construction. The response at the time was that lsi and txdot didn't have a problem with that, although the bridge wasn't currently designed to do that. It probably could be added to the design so that there would be some kind of loop road around and perhaps the local governments could actually request a grant from the Texas parks and wildlife or boat launch grant that would require a local match, but there may be a way of funding the boat launch if that is the issue. I don't know exactly what all -- who the individuals are and what their issues are, but I think we probably should attend the meeting and at least find out what the issues are since we do have a stake in this.
>> some of the other folks that are on the cc list, you've got valerie bristol and george cover. And you were at that same meeting that I was at the webberville park that there's a good deal of interest in making sure that there is access to the colorado river, and that was one of those discussion points out there. My memory is that when we were talking about, what's it called, interport, it was that big thing -- I thought that there was kind of a loop thing around and was going to get from one side of sh 130 to the other in terms of 130 splitting the interport property, in which case there may be some ways through, I’ll call it, local roads for lack of a better word to be able to do it. And I know that there's continuing interest by the Austin-san antonio corridor council that we don't have any missed opportunities with the spine that we call sh 130, that if there are ways that the bridge deck can accommodate at some future point, sidewalks, whatever in terms of that crossing so that a trail, whatever, doesn't have to have its own separate crossing of the colorado river. We didn't want this to be a barrier. Sh 130 was sold to everyone as a multimode al corridor. Well, it's modal. It's not multibecause the train's not going in and at this point we don't really have any kind of a trail, but this could be an amazing spine to connect everything up from the dell diamond, northeast metro, east metro, southeast metro and things in between. So I think there's just continuing discussion out there of making sure that opportunities are not missed simply because somebody failed to ask the question and it got wloan blown off and people go, oh well after the fact.
>> so we assume that that was our recommendation during that last discussion, then it was overlooked? Nd maybe this is an opportunity for us to renew it.
>> I don't think it was overlooked. It wasn't pertinent at the time to state highway 130. The function of the roadway. It was just basically -- it wasn't right for them to go in and start redesigning a roadway on the possibility that there might be a greenbelt there or something. So they said yeah, when the time comes let's talk. And I think that's where it was left. And perhaps now is the time to talk.
>> but we think you ought to be able to exit and enter 1230 at the colorado river?
>> well, there is a loop road, at least designs that we saw at the time, that would provide a way to get to -- indirectly to the river. There still would have to be a ramp and a parking lot that would provide space for people who would want to lawrchl at that point. And that's what has to be discussed is who designs that, who pays for the construction, and is there any link from the right-of-way to the adjoining -- any adjoining greenbelt, which is on private property. Those are some of the issues that I think my sense is that this may be headed in that direction as well as the pedestrian crossing of the colorado river. If it's not provided for already on the bridge deck, will there be some accommodation for pedestrians to get across the river on state highway 130?
>> it sounds like you've got it down. I move that we send joe to this meeting. [ laughter ]
>> (indiscernible).
>> I think they would like elected officials there also.
>> the other thing I would be concerned is the impact on our southeast metro park. And then also the erosion that is further down the colorado river.
>> we had those discussions before in terms of what all of this was going to mean in terms of erosion issues.
>> Commissioner Davis, are you interested in attending along with Commissioner Gomez?
>> it depends on what day it is.
>> it's October 26th.
>> it's a Wednesday?
>> there are several dates on there.
>> they've already set them.
>> 26th at 9:30 p.m.
>> what is the date that you had a problem with, Commissioner?
>> that one.
>> that one?
>> but there were several other dates that were on there. I didn't know that that date had been set, judge.
>> so you were not able to attend the 26th one?
>> if I have to, I have to.
>> it's not my meeting, so I don't know -- I don't know who will be there. I assume that -- it seems to me that you would have somebody from the sh 130 consultant there to participate and other folks were copied, so I assume all of them.
>> you've got the city of Austin, you've got Travis County, you've got nature conservancy, john langemore in envision central Texas.
>> move that joe gieselman, Commissioner dpoa ms. And -- Commissioner goes mez and Commissioner Davis attend. If Commissioner Davis cannot attend, the county judge will go as an alternate. Discussion? That was seconded by Commissioner Daugherty. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Part of that responsibility would be to report back to the court the outcome of the meeting.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, judge.
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, October 5, 2005 8:54 AM