Travis County Commissioners Court
February 21, 2006
Item 37
37. Consider and take appropriate action on proposed changes to Travis County standards for constructing streets and drainage in subdivisions, chapter 82.202, relating to the design and construction of sidewalks.
>> joe gieselman, transportation natural resource department. You have heard this morning from -- from jennifer mcphail with the adapt. I think she will probably have more comments after she sees the memo that -- that the court has. We also had comments from two developers, one from dr horton and then another one from adon -- that was garrett martin for d.r. Horton and then a comment from don --
>> don [indiscernible]
>> sorry, thanks. There we go.
>> they had probably as many questions as they had statements. So I think the word is getting out. I知 not sure at this point that I have a very robust comment from the stakeholder groups. I think what I would suggest at this point is that we have a small task force put together from the various stakeholders where we can work through some of these questions. Adapt the policy and bring it back to court. Still needs some cooking. Once we are able to work out some of these issues, I think we will be better prepared to recommend that the court adopt a particular policy. We did -- we did also by the way estimate the cost of retrofitting our best estimate at this point is to remove and install a curb ramp would be about $3,000. To remove and install a driveway 10,000. Again, this is taking out the concrete that's there and relaying it to a.d.a. Standards. And removing and installing a four foot wide sidewalk about $50 a linear foot. To modify sidewalks due to obstaclors driveway approach abouts $200 each, that's all inclusive, labor, materials, equipment. So that's just kind of unit cost. I would presume that our variances would be based in some part on those costs. Whether that's 100% or some fraction thereof is really a policy issue. There's also been a recommendation that -- that the burden is going to fall on those subdivisions where we already know that there's non-compliance and -- and -- but the lots have been sold, the homeowners are in the subdivision, the -- they are more difficult to come back now and retrofit and also how to charge the retrofit. Whether it's paid for by the developer, paid for by the home builder who -- who probably was the actual person who constructed the sidewalk. Our -- by the county or some portion on everybody's part. So I think there's -- one thing to correct the sidewalk building as you are coming online. New subdivisions. It's an entirely set of issues with those subdivisions that have already been constructed in the sidewalk -- and the sidewalk system or some pieces of it are non-compliant. I think we probably ought to treat them separately. When we charge a variance for a brand new subdivision we would -- it would probably be higher than we might charge for a subdivision that has been in the state for -- for five years and more. And then -- then I think just -- just what we call a variance is also I think a question that we need to be working on, at what point does it become a variance because we've had some comments from stakeholders that -- that they believe the standards ought to be more relaxed, comments from adapt that said it should not, you know, vary at all from a.d.a. Standards. So I知 sure that's what the task force will try to get their hands around is where -- where should the court stake its interest in granting variances.
>> so do we -- we have the authority to deviate from the federal a.d.a. Standards, but it's on a case-by-case basis, right? Ad hoc? Or can we just adopt a policy that sets forth a standard that is short of the federal requirement?
>> that's not what you said last week. I mean you said if we are going to have a sidewalk program, then it has to meet a.d.a. Standards, which drives me to the same question that I asked, why don't we have more flexibility where we are going to have sidewalks, I mean, because that would be easier than variances. I mean, there are obviously, I mean, in a lot of places, not just western Travis County, but there are places all over where -- where, you know, getting compliant with a.d.a., I mean, but if we have a steadfast rule that says do sidewalks with us -- but hey I知 -- I think that you'd like to -- to postpone or to have some sort of delay for kind of action on this thing and that you want to bring these groups together, bring adapt and, you know, get some of these folks that have fired at least, you know, a couple of these questionnaires to you, joe. And put together, you know, a little ad hoc, you know, committee to bring this back to us?
>> but I do think that it's important, the overall philosophy of what I have in my memo is to create as many -- as many sidewalks as possible, as many accessible routes as possible, meeting [indiscernible] meeting a.d.a. But there will come a point, instances where that cannot be done. That's where I would say the variance and so -- so in some regards the law is the law. And we will in the spirit of a.d.a. Make as many of those routes compliant as we possibly can. That will be the thrust of our policy. But I do say in the memo that at the end of the day, there will be places where that cannot be done. And that's where I would have the court grant variances. It will go -- basically say we know what the law is and we have complied with the spirit of a.d.a. But in this situation we can not do that. We cannot meet the 2% slope or whatever it is that we are giving a variance toward because of the physics of the situation.
>> so is the answer to my question that we have to -- under the policy, either you comply with -- with the federal standards or we grant you a variance.
>> that's right.
>> the way our policy is right now.
>> that's where I知 heading.
>> okay. Is that our policy right now?
>> no, our policy is that when you build sidewalks on both sides of the roadway, and you meet a.d.a. Standards.
>> okay. If we build sidewalks on one side, do you meet the federal standards? I can wait until next week to get the answer I guess.
>> I can tell you this, judge. If you go look at the standards, you won't find a standard that says that you have to have sidewalks on both sides of the street. I think it's safe to say as a practical matter, it's easier to meet the standards if you are only building a sidewalk on one side of the street.
>> okay. The problem that we have right now in the subdivisions that you mentioned last week is that sidewalks have been built. But not up to a.d.a. Standards, right?
>> in some subdivision, that's correct. That is one layer of the problem, that we have subdivisions out there that would -- that were built probably in the mid 90s where the sidewalks are not a.d.a. Compliant, sidewalks and/or driveways are not compliant. This is after we've had the standard in place, but because of construction practices, they were not built to a.d.a. Standards.
>> the policy until recently was if you get your certification from the Texas department of licensing and regulation, that you are 100 100% compliant, you are compliant with Travis County requirements and we will accept the street, it's been very hard for folks to get the 100% tdlr compliance certification. Because tdlr looked at every single feature of the sidewalk system, each driveway, each ramp, and if any one of them didn't meet standard, then functionally the whole subdivision didn't meet standard. The change has been now tdlr is no longer involved in that game. So -- so in a sense we are having to come up with a new policy because our old policy was to rely on tdlr, and they no longer have jurisdiction. Hence we are developing the new policy right now.
>>
>> your recommendation today is?
>> I would like to form a task force with representatives of the stakeholders groups and have havea member of the Commissioners court serve as a liaison to that particular group.
>> I suggest Gerald. I think that you are the logical one.
>> I知 happy to do it.
>> you have most of the challenges represented to Travis County. Mine are all flat.
>> happy.
>> I accept.
>> super.
>> do you need a formal list of -- to get approved, will you put it together or what?
>> I don't have any problem with it, just that sometimes it helps to formalize it so we will know exactly who's on there. There are segments that probably should be represented.
>> I would certainly want someone from the disability community, someone from the home builders association or home builders stakeholder group, and a member of the developers stakeholder group and then I think the staff and city representatives will represent the government sector, which is the other stakeholder. So you really have four groups here. Stakeholders that should be involved in the development of the policy. The government, the developer, the home builder and the disabled community.
>> joe, what do the other cities outside of the city of Austin but within Travis County require? As to sidewalks?
>> I haven't done any research on that. But I know that everyone is struggling with this same issue. This is something that's also going on in washington with the -- with the americans with disabilities act itself. I mean, everybody is trying to deal with the standards. So it's not an uncommon problem that -- that what we are facing in our policy, I think other entities are doing the same thing. Finding a way to meet the spirit of a.d.a.
>> okay. My own view is that this is one of those task forces where it's better to have too many groups represented than not enough. Because it -- because no matter what recommendations come, unless this -- unless it's to back off sidewalks, the recommendations will -- will impact folk differently. But be mostly to implement.
>> there could be multiple representatives from each stakeholder groups. This is not a new issue, either. We have been dealing with this now for a couple of years. I think the stakeholder groups have kind of identified themselves in this process.
>> two or three weeks?
>> I think three weeks probably. That would be necessary to -- to resolve some of the issue that's we have if we meet a couple of weeks and bring them back.
>> middle of --
>> fine with me.
>> what if we try March 14th. Is that on a Tuesday? Do you need a full month?
>> no. I think shorter is better. I would like to stay focused on the issue and get it resolved.
>> 3/14?
>> yeah.
>> spring break week?
>> I don't have spring break. I知 just -- raising the question in terms of sometimes people are gone during that time period and if that's to -- to report back whether people are going to be there, whether they just turn it over to the chief and say joe, you need to be there and give the report while everybody is down at the beach.
>> that's not [indiscernible] week or something.
>> it's up to you. Whatever you -- whatever.
>> did we see that we are having an issue -- we will let everybody know.
>> okay.
>> was there a motion to approve the committee.
>> that joe gave unfettered authority to the membership? Unfettered authority to reject or accept any recommendations.
>> second.
>> I will ask these groups to identify their own representative. I知 not choosing people. They will probably recommend their own sources. The gieselman recommendation has been moved and seconded. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Mr. Smith, any comments today?
>> [indiscernible] joe was saying, so [inaudible - no mic]
>> I think joe reserved a slot on the committee for you. [laughter]
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
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, February 22, 2006 10:26 AM