Travis County Commissioners Court
April 4, 2006
Item 19
Number 19. Consider and take appropriate action on the current status of and alternatives for future disposition of streets within the seven oaks subdivision, including marly way and olympus drive.
>> is it all right if I make a statement before we get started here. I need to address something that came in an e-mail this morning. I want to basically state this for the public record. Somebody was saying that I have a personal stake in this and that I know people over in seven oaks, therefore that's how I知 going to -- to weigh this. I will tell you I know absolutely no one in the seven oaks subdivision. For the record, I know nobody over there. I do know somebody in the bluffs and that person specifically because of our friendship has said he will not tell me what he thinks ought to be done with this connection or not because he does not want to impugning that friendship. I do somebody in the bluffs, I know nobody in seven oaks. So that myth out there, not true.
>> mr. Gieselman?
>> thank you. We have -- we have taken a look at all of the testimony that was given and I have had an opportunity to meet with the leadership of both neighborhoods. I prepared -- I am prepared this morning to map out a staff proposal that hopefully will address most of the issues of both sides, perhaps not all of them. But I think that we have incorporated some of the major elements that we have heard are of concern to both neighborhoods. So I would like to step through -- I handed out a copy of the staff proposal. And I believe there are copies in the audience. I expect that -- that both groups will want to present their -- their ideas as well. So this is just a kind of initial layout of what the staff is considering. The -- the first thing that we need to address, the staff is recommending that -- that olympus be opened to the public. That is consistent with what we have said early on in this issue. We believe that is -- that would be the right course to take for the court. But not -- it is not ready yet to do that. The barricade that is there does not meet the international fire code. We have been asked by the Travis County fire marshal to replace that. Or have the developer replace that barrier with one that does meet the fire code. And I don't know if the fire marshal is here or a representative of the fire marshal, but I --
>> [indiscernible] done.
>> immediately.
>> immediately. Okay.
>> but at whose expense.
>> that would be the developer's expense.
>> developer's expense.
>> yes. I知 presuming that's no the a major expense. I think the barrier that the fire marshal is talking about is probably something that's within the -- within the budget of the developer.
>> okie-doke.
>> the second thing we are recommending, this is something that we have already begun to work on, is to work with texdot to create two dual left turn lanes on cuernavaca at ranch to market road 2244. We believe that we need to increase the capacity of that jection for several reasons. One, it is always preferable to enter on to 2244 at a signalized intersection. One there currently. We believe there is need at least on a -- on a Sunday basis for the -- for the traffic that's -- that's exiting the church at that location, but I think long-term that will be the preferred exit for this entire area. So we believe a dual left turn lane would add to the capacity and make that the preferential route. We have discussed when to bring down the barricade. Right now the developer of seven oaks is not finished with the street system, he still has outstanding items on the punch list that typically would be done before we are requested to accept the roads and make them public. We asked mr. Gully when he would be firned with those, he said he would absolutely be finished before the parade of home, toward the latter part of June. There was also an issue about whether or not the roads should be opened during the parade of homes. I think we came to a recommendation that to allow all of the streets to be completed, to allow the parade of homes to occur, and then immediately thereafter accept the roads for maintenance. We are looking at a target date of July 15th, 2006, as the initiation of county actions that would address some of these -- of these other issues. So after July 15th, upon acceptance of the roads by Travis County as public roadways, we would first recommend that we strike marley way from brandon way to its end as a two-lane roadway, which it is today, but the lanes are 13 feet wide. We are recommending those lanes be 10 and a half feet wide, narrowing the lanes and putting them to one side which would be the east side, thus creating a one -- a six-foot lane on the outer side of marly way as a pedestrian way. Continuing to be able to use it as a pedestrian way. The striping will help to lower the speed of the traffic on marly way because of the constricted nature of the lanes. That would be our first action. Immediately upon acceptance of the roadway.
>> joe, what will be the speed be?
>> the speed is set 50% of the percent style -- the way they set speeds is measure the way the traffic is doing. The principal is 85% of the people will be driving a safe speed, 15% will be driving in an unsafe condition, so it allows for that. That is typically what the engine will use to post the speed. I can't tell you at this time. Basically we are waiting to do that survey.
>> does the county have the ability to alter that arbitrarily? Is there just such a strict rule that says here's how the speed limit is gauged, here's how it put in? Can the county u.s. Go you know what, we want this road to be 10 miles per hour.
>> my name is david grier, with t.n.r. There is -- there is some allowance to decrease it to 7 miles an hour if there are conditions that are hazardous to the public. Such as -- such as trees encroaching in the roadway, narrow road, windy road with limited site distance, accidents prevalent. You can use it up to 7 miles an hour based on engineering judgment.
>> joe, in terms of setting this baseline, that's going to be before the proposed open ing of olympus, therefore what is the baseline speed with the neighborhood will be set by the people within the neighborhood.
>> that's correct. Let me preface all of this. What we are looking at is progressive steps, depending on what happens, we move to the next stage. So your baseline is that's correct. What we will be doing is taking a speed study before the barrier is removed to get some idea of what traffic is going, what speed it's going, without additional traffic from the adjoining neighborhoods. So kind of establish a baseline. We will later be using that as our threshold or baseline to determine whether subsequent actions are necessary. So we are looking at it kind of like progressive movement here. Depending on what actually happens in the field. In stage 2, we would also narrow olympus drive, this is where the barricade is set up right now we would remove the barricade, but basically choke down the passage way. Instead of it being a two lane roadway for a section of it, it would be a one, 11-foot lane. In both directions. It would be like a narrow bridge. Someone would have to wait for someone to come through the point before another vehicle could pass through. We will be using that choke point for further measures, which I will get to in a moment, but -- but basically set up a point that we can use as a control point depending on what we see happen over time. So with -- with the striping in place and with the choke point in place, on olympus, we then do studies periodically over the next three months. These will be random studies done by t.n.r. Where we will take traffic counts and speed studies to -- to watch as things evolve. If -- if we conduct this study and the 85th percentile of the traffic has gone up by five miles an hour or more, we will then proceed to install either circles or speed cushions or accommodation thereof on marly way. This is -- at this point we would be recommending speed humps somewhere along the straight away at this point and then a circle at where campbell back ties back in with marlee way. The idea that those would be measures that we would use for further speed control. The other thing that I need to say is that we are using measures that affect different things. We are trying to get to volume and to speed. Overall we are looking at traffic safety, pedestrian safety, by opening up the roadway, we are looking at the issues of weather access, fire hazard act, all of these in some way or another trying to address the issues raised over the course of the last two weeks. The first phase would be installing speed humps and/or traffic signal or some combination thereof or marly. Parallel to that, at the same time, we need to be talking about volume control under certain circumstances. So we are looking at the amount of traffic coming down marly way. If the eastbound volumes at measured at olympus drive exceed 400 vehicle trips, one way trips per week day, let me repeat that. These are vehicle trips on a weekday one way 400 average. We say average because these -- these counts will be taken on several days, then we will average them to make sure that we are not measuring one time at a peak. We will be doing this randomly. So it will be difficult to manipulate the data. And/or if the peak hour volume is 70 vehicles per hour average, during the morning peak hour, then we would disallow eastbound traffic from 7 to 9:00 a.m. Weekday. What we are trying to do, now at the choke point, let me -- this is going back quickly. The striping plan basically taking marly way, having two -- two 10 and a half foot lanes, then an outer six foot paved pedestrian way. This is olympus drive, we would be putting in some type of a -- of a barrier, could be a landscaped barrier, we are not specific at this point what this actually is going to look like. But the principle is that there would be 11-foot lane through here. Initially this is a two-way thoroughfare. If the vehicles during a.m. Peak, which we would expect to be coming eastbound toward marly way and 2244, if they get to 70 vehicles per -- per peak hour, then what we do is we reverse that and only allow inbound traffic during that two hour period. So basically cutting off the task that's going eastbound through this choke point if those conditions occur. Or if we get 24 hour traffic over 400 vehicles per day. What we would do likewise if the volume is in the other direction. P.m. Peak going the opposite direction, 70 vehicle, we make it one way the opposite direct. What we are trying to do is nip the amount of traffic at a certain threshold so that we are balancing how much traffic ultimately gets on marly way and to the intersection of 2244 during peak hours. Now, mind you, this may not be necessary. Because there will be naturally, as seven oaks builds out, as traffic builds up on marly, you have a natural tendency to have queing, so where the preferential route will be cuernavaca so it may bounce back, depending on what happens there, we will witness this over a period of months. It may be a natural phenomenon that the traffic itself balances out and we never hit that 70 vehicles per hour on -- at this choke point.
>> jo? I want to back up just a little bit. I want -- when I asked the initial question that represented to the barricade that's placed there now. You said it's responsible that it be immediately ruled because of the violation of fire code, fire marshal stuff like that. Can you tell me when the new barricade will be placed after the old one has been removed? And as far as meeting compliance for the fire marshal as far as our fire code is concerned? Is that -- you said immediately, but I guess what is immediately?
>> um ... We have --
>> two steps.
>> we have spoken -- [multiple voices]
>> when I said immediately, I mean as soon as we can get a letter to the developer, we have already spoken with him. And give him some guidance on what type of barrier needs to be there. I would expect that one would be taken down, it is other would be put up instantaneously, no gap in time when the replacement barrier is substituted. I cannot give you a definite date on when that event will occur.
>> but at the end of this particular operation as far as the different things that you have showed us today, according to what I知 hearing, July 15th won the deadline for the need -- would be deadline for the need for that newburyier, that stub out [indiscernible] marly way to be still there, then I guess that will have to be removed, also?
>> yes, that replacement barrier then would be removed July 15th.
>> okay. I want to make sure all of those steps are in some type of configuration of my mind as far as time lines are concerned.
>> the first replacement barrier occurs as soon as we can get it to occur. The replacement barrier would come down on -- around July 15th.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> all right. So we are now controlling traffic by and large with the volume of traffic with the choke point. Now, the choke point also has some effect on speed, but it's a temporary effect. It will certainly affect the speed of what comes through this area. But it won't have a lasting effect necessarily on the rest of marly way. Takes where the speed humps and traffic circle will come into play and the striping on marly. If -- if those measures do not address the volume and the speed, then we go into step four. If we get either eastbound or westbound average one-way vehicle trips per week day to continue to exceed 400 vehicles per day, then we restrict the choke point to one way at all times. Also consider other -- note that throughout all of this, you have an open two way access point in the -- in the case of an emergency. The fire trucks can get through, emergency vehicles can get through, no matter what we post in terms of -- of a signage, those particular vehicles will be able to get in and out. In an emergency situation, where you have a wild land fire, again you have a way to get in and out without any type of crash gate or barrier to that movement. There was an issue that was raised about the possibility of linking tumble weed drive with Austin lakehills. I致e had a chance to drive that roadway and -- in the last week. I would not recommend that we open that at this time. The geo metrics are not conducive to additional traffic. The cost of upgrading that roadway from the connection all the way back to cuernavaca would at least the subject of a bond election. I think the amount of money that it would take to do that would be substantial. You are also again into a whole new series of issues with yet another neighborhood. We would not recommend that as part of our strategy. The -- then finally, we are -- we are learning on whether these measures effectively address the issues or not. We would suggest within a year we would come back to the Commissioners court with a full evaluation of how it worked. At that point we can reconsider any of this. Nothing that we put in place to be a series of measures is irreversible. If this doesn't work we take it out. It's not so costly that it would be a lot of money to do that. I think that within a year we will be able to see if we really did have the effect that we intended to have. That's the staff's proposal. Let me see if I can cover it -- in terms of the traffic calming, this would be an example of what we would use in terms of a speed cushion. This would be a -- a -- a raised piece within the -- within each lane. It allows the emergency service vehicles and fire trucks to get through without going over the -- over the hump. But any type of private vehicle would end up at least with one wheel going over the hump. So these are the -- this is the nature of the traffic calming cushion, not really a hump, it's a speed cushion that we would use. We would also need, since this is a [indiscernible] curve, which is flat, we need a way to prevent people from going around the speed cushion. Which they will do unless there's some kind of barrier that keeps it within the pavement surface.
>> in terms of that choke point, is visibility such that -- that a vehicle on -- on either side will be able to see traffic on the other side. The placement has not yet been determined. We expect to be able to avoid driveways, enough sight distance coming and leaving the cuing area because there will be queuing, because of people waiting to get in and out. What we see out there and when we actually design this and put it in place.
>> who was at the meeting?
>> we had representatives, about three representatives from both organizations. I知 sorry I didn't bring all of my names with me. I remember some of them, but --
>> six. You can ask the six to raise their hands, I mean,, you know.
>> [indiscernible] [inaudible - no mic]
>> now, some support this, some do not I take it [laughter]
>> yes. Both know of this proposal. We have -- we have briefed them yesterday morning. And they've had a chance to look it over.
>> any questions of joe? Or staff? Then now the representatives of -- of the different positions? Who plans to give testimony today? All right. Them let's ask that you try to self impose a three to five minute limit on your testimony. And please come forward. Give us your full name, we would be happy to get your comments. Now, staff and residents are hoping that the Commissioners court give some direction today about how we think this matter ought to proceed from here. Private, public, or the gieselman proposal. Or any other proposal that we can have laid out in three to five minutes. Okay? Can we start left, work our way to the right.
>> my name is steve marshal. At the beginning of the process we had a meeting and many things were discussed. Two of them were that the county was not fond of traffic calming, and that phillip gully would have marly way and olympus completed in a couple of weeks. That was about six weeks ago. Fast forward to last Tuesday. Joe gieselman recommended the roads remain public, at one point in the meeting he states that the county prefers unincumberred access or something to that effect. Additionally, in addition to joe gieselman's recommendation, we have heard that seven oaks wants private roads with gates in an ox box, we have heard that seven oaks wants public roads with smash through gates. We have heard that seven oaks wants the county to turn tumble weed trail into an access point. In response to these wants of seven oaks the county has now put forth the proposal before you. Through this whole process all of the bluffs has asked for is that the county enforce its existing regulations and that the developer deliver on the contract he made with the county and the public when he deeded and platted the roads public. While I appreciate that the county has put forth the proposal that attempts to compromise, based on feedback that I have received from our community, I can tell you inspite of its intentions it's not well received. Specifically in response to the choker. We have 12 or 15 folks that would like to speak to the proposal. I know how the court likes to hear new and different information. I have been informed there's a minimum of 10 different topics. However our community supports what I知 about to present you. I believe the county will not oppose it. I even think that seven oaks is going to have hard time dismissing it. That is the bluffs solution. May I approach the bench? [laughter]
>> thanks.
>> pass it down.
>> give me three, I will pass them down for you. I presented this to mr. Gieselman, mr. Grier, I have presented this to the representatives of seven oaks. Here's the propose, remove the fence. The road is open owe by and large this does, we do endorse a lot of what the county has proposed. We just package it differently. We think we need to remove the fence. The road is open. It is -- it has had traffic on it for 11 months. The only traffic it has not had on it is the bluffs traffic. We feel that 11 months is long enough, July 15th is too long. There's no reason not to open it now. If the reason is that they are not accepted under public maintenance, the roads in the bluffs were driven on for no less than 10 years without being accepted under public maintenance. It was only within the last several years that we -- our roads were actually accepted under county maintenance. We recommend they post speed limit signs. There currently are no speed limit signs on marly way or olympus so I think it's kind of hard to argue that they have a speeding problem when nobody really knows what the speed limit is.
>> you do know that you can't post legal speed limits nor have the sheriff's office patrol without the roads being semid by the county.
>> that's -- I do know that now.
>> accepted by the county.
>> my recommendation stands. Let's post some speed limit signs. I think that's a prudent thing to do.
>> but the roads have to be accepted to be able to put up the speed limit sign.
>> then let me move --
>> I知 letting you know there's a step here. It's not like we are saying let's not have speed limit signs. Of course when the roads are accepted for maintenance, then the sheriff's office can patrol and you will have legal speed limit signs up there.
>> I agree, I think that will probably alleviate any speeding issues that may exist now or conceivably could exist in the future. It's -- so I agree with you. Let's get the roads accepted under maintenance so they can post speed limit science.
>> there you go -- speed limit signs.
>> also, part of the bluff solution is to stripe the lanes per the county recommendation, including a jogger, stroller, pedestrian runner lane. We agree with that. We also are not opposed to traffic to the examining traffic calming measures in the future if the -- if the conditions arise that merit their use. So that's item four. We agree to examine additional traffic calming measure ifs the traffic conditions arise that merit their consideration.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> at last week's hearing we heard that the county had no policy regarding traffic calming. This week we're now hearing about some extraordinary traffic calming devices being put forth as a first step. The one example of county roads involving traffic calming measures include I believe it was springdale road where Commissioner Davis those were put in place because the residents agreed to and asked for them. We in the bluffs would be adversary affected by the choke point and we do not consent to it. And for those of you who aren't familiar with choking devices, I値l draw your attention to shoal creek and the debacle that the traffic half circles resulted in costing taxpayers many millions of dollars. The choker addresses access and volume, but not speed on marly way. We don't object to traffic calming per se as it addresses speed, but we defer to tnr's recommendation set forth in its packet and stated last week that we approach those in a progressive manner once there's a demonstration need. Regarding volume, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that adding bluffs traffic to marly would cause it to reach its saturation. Right now there are only 27 homes completed in seven oaks. At the rate of seven oaks development, it could take 30 years before buildout, and there's no suggestion that bluffs traffic when added to the traffic of seven oaks would cause saturation to be reached any time soon. Marly was designed and built to handle the volume of traffic. After all, when it was platted in 2000, it was required to connect to the bluffs, so it seems illogical to suggest that no one anticipated bluffs would access marly. So we consider volume control to be an issue that is addressed if and when volume is demonstrated to be a problem and we respectfully submit that 400 trips from the bluffs would not constitute the type of volume that would justify choking off access. We also have serious problems with counting. What trips count? Is it only commuter traffic from the bluffs to 2244? We heard I believe it was jill sayer self last week that she used a babysitter from the bluffs. Is the babysitter's trip into seven oaks count into the bluffs' alot the of 400 trips a day? Our children will attend the same public school? What if one of my sons becomes friendly with a family in the bluffs and I want to drop my son off for a play date? Does that trip count even though I don't access 2244? Further, what is to stop seven oaks from using the bluffs as a service entrance for its maids, contractors and landscapers? Do those trips count against the bluffs' 400 allotted trips a day. Quite frankly, it is simply not possible to identify the origin and destination of vehicles that cross that trip wire. I also suggest that this proposed solution raises the specter of different classifications of citizenship. Some preferred citizens get to access and use a public road in an unlimited fashion, whereas the less favored are limited in how often they can use a public road. The denial of access components of the proposal are simply a repackaged version of the, quote, limited use public road proposal made last week by seven oaks. And by that they want a publicly maintained road that can only be used by seven oaks residents. Further, restricting access at peak hours would prevent seven oaks from using the signalized intersection at cuernavaca. What sanctions are imposed from impermissible usage of marly if the lock down restricted access is imposed? Are there any exceptions for ex-is a dent circumstances? What if a parent in the bluffs needs to take a sick child to the emergency center on Bee Caves road or wishes not to call an ambulance but drive him or herself or a loved one to a hospital into town? In sum, the whole concept of the choker is contrary to the county's expressed access for dual access for both emergencies and circulation. The choker also presents safety issues. If in the hopefully never to be seen situation where there is a wild land fire, imagine the queue of cars that would be lined up to exit the narrow one way lane and factor into that emergency vehicles trying to go the other way. Even though the law would require obviously that the traffic yield to the emergency vehicles, I see, quite frankly, as a practical matter, serious problems with that, causing potentially tragic and fatal delay. There have been studies, and I have a link to a report that show traffic calming measures cost more lives due to the delay in safety and response vehicles than they can even hope to provide in terms of reduced pedestrian deaths. There's also the possibility of head-on collisions at the choke point. It cannot be ruled out. I知 not sure how to place a percentage on the likelihood of that risk, but considering the extreme damage that could be caused, I don't see why the bluffs should be asked to bear that risk. One of my neighbors, marlowe erdohl, lost three friends in a head on collision on a bridge in louisiana. These things happen. I think we need to step back a little bit and frame the issues appropriately. The bluffs residents aren't asking for any special treatment here. We're simply asking that the seven oaks developer honor the promises that he made to the county and its residents in exchange for approval to develop his subdivision and acceptance of his plat. The county in 2000 required seven oaks to connect marly to olympus as an unobject unobstructed road there by providing residents with circulation. The county's regulations regarding dual access haven't changed since the county approved the seven oaks plat dedicating its roads to the public. Nor have the underlying public policy considerations changed. It is as desirable now to provide subdivisions with dual access as it was then. Why then are we here? Seven oaks wants to change the status quo. The developer knew and all buyers knew or should have known that marly is dedicated to the public and connects with olympus. After receiving the benefit of the bargain, approval of the subdivision plat, the developer now wishes to renege on his reciprocal obligations. Consider the precedent that would be set here. Developers would feel free to renege on their obligations to the county. The barricade which fails to meet fire code standards and failing to complete punch list items and placing obstacles in the right-of-way would be established as an acceptable means of frustrating the balancing of interest that is set out in the county's regulation, 82.06 subsection 5. I should also point out that any delay in finishing the steps needed for acceptance of the roads carries with it a risk for the county, and the bluff subdivision roads are a perfect example of that. I don't know how it happened, but somehow the developer didn't finish, the roads were never accepted and some 10, 15 years later per the county's substandard road program, we were finally able to get county maintenance. The mechanism by which seven oaks seek to achieve their objective continues to change shape. First it was an application for privatizization. We understand now that's been withdrawn. Then we suggested the gated public road with the crash gate. I think that's been withdrawn. But the ultimate goal is here. They don't want to share their roads with anyone else. Nothing that has been offered by seven oaks demonstrates an entitlement to this change in the status quo. There would be public traffic on marly. That was always anticipated. The plat dedicates the roads to the public and connects with marly and olympus. Use of marly by bluffs residents would not adversely affect the safety of the marly 2244 intersection. With access the bluffs' eastbound traffic will not be in the stream of traffic coming east from cuernavaca. There is the center turning lane, which txdot has acknowledged reduces the need for a concern about high speed rear-end collisions. Speeding concerns on marley, which at this point are purely speculative, can be addressed if they are manifest by progressive traffic calming measures. Marly would not be used as a cut through by folks who live in areas other than the bluffs. We have a traffic engineer who has done a study showing that the traffic travel time is significantly longer. It is also safer to take cuernavaca. It's also more convenient in that there are businesses, gas stations and the montessori school which many people pick their children up from in the afternoons. Seven oaks' desires are simply inconsistent with the county regulations concerning dual access and privatizization. Moreover, they cannot satisfy the requirements for privatizization without the consent of the bluffs. So again, we ask what is the reason for this debate? Marly road is public and is platted to connect with olympus. Nothing seven oaks has put forward demonstrates a legal right for a change to that status quo. Thank you.
>> any questions?
>> dave, I致e got one question. I壇 just like to go back to an earlier statement that you made about the springdale road type deal and what that was, the neighborhoods did request a traffic calming situation there, it's a turn about, and that sprinkle road between 290 on springdale road as it intersects 290 all the way up to springdale road. On springdale road, and they requested that. And if I recall last week's testimony, there were a couple of residents, some that lived in the seven oaks subdivision who talked about safety, walking the children and stuff like that. And I asked the question at that time would they be supportive of a traffic calming device and let me know what type of device, we have turn abouts, we have speed humps, you have several different type of traffic calming devices that can be imposed. And of course those two persons from seven oaks did not object to that. But of course, it would have to -- it would have to come through the neighborhood. But the bottom line is this is not a publicly accepted road at this time and I guess until those things happen, even with the springdale situation, people can request a lot of things, but if the road is not accepted, there's nothing that I could have done on that anyway, even if the folks in that area would have wanted traffic calming devices, number one, twoaf have the road accepted to have that happen. So I wanted to get clear on what I was referring to as traffic calming devices on county roads. I wanted to give more clarification on that. Thank you.
>> thank you. And I would point out that the alternative to having the roads accepted as public roads is to vacate them and make them private. I believe we have demonstrated that that is not a possibility for seven oaks.
>> let me play county judge here, y'all. Now, mr. Marshal and ms. Price have done an outstanding job of laying out the bluffs' proposal. Who all supports it? Let me see a show of hands. While Commissioner Sonleitner and Daugherty are counting those... [ laughter ] okay. There are two other proposals before us. We will need those two seats, mr. Marshal and ms. Price. Y'all have brief comments about the bluffs' solution that are a little bit different than mr. Marshal and ms. Price said?
>> I believe they did an excellent job of presenting, thank you.
>> that was eloquently said. [ laughter ] [ applause ]
>> if you have comments about another proposal, either the gieselman proposal or I guess the seven oaks proposal, which basically is private roads and any other shades of it, we'd like to hear from you or any other solution. There are three chairs there. Yes, sir?
>> good morning, I知 tom jones. I値l be as brief as I can. 45 years ago next month this subdivision was platted with the implied promise from the government there would be future roads by the stubbing out of the existing roads. That we would have relief from the one way access in and out of this subdivision. 11 years ago I bought land out there and developed it and discussed the future use of the streets and was told that we weren't going to have to use any other streets out there because marly way was going to be the answer. Six years ago marly way was platted and dedicated to the public. Three years ago I dedicated my roads and they were accepted. I was told by fred dennik, dennis case with Travis County officials numerous times that marly way would be open in six months. Mr. Daugherty and I had breakfast together 13 months ago. He asked for a couple weeks of time to work this out. I wrote you -- you all a letter with photographs almost six months ago. I致e come to you earlier this year asking you that you put this on the agenda. We expected to see a decision last week. Now today we've got yet a new proposal. Time has gone on too long. That road has been finished for way too long. The only reason they want to leave it open until July is so they can have their private show of homes over there and they don't want our neighborhood driving through. I propose instead of waiting until then, open it today and if you want to close it during the parade of homes, we'll close it then. But don't make us suffer any longer. And you call us this moat between the decisions a choke point. It's not a choke point, it's a strangle hold. That's not going to work. People are going to run over that thing trying to run the traffic count up. Your own traffic count was 1120 cars. Now you're saying if only 400 drive we should close it off again. That's 60% of what's already there. We've got a lot of construction traffic in and out of our subdivision there. That's going to go towards that count. This is nothing more than a veiled attempt to give them what they want and keeping marly way private and it's just not fair.
>> tom, that is absolutely not true. Wait a minute, tom. I知 not going to sit here and have the accusation. You and I have had many a conversation. I think this thing needs to be open. I have said that from the get go. Wait a minute. What we are after is not trying to give in anybody preferential treatment, it's trying to give somebody something that you all would be asking if you were over there. All we're trying to do is try to get to a spot how we can do it safely. Yeah, I think the choke stuff is kind of squirrely. It's kind of like -- [ laughter ] but it's something that our staff is trying to -- we're trying, y'all. It's not that we get in a room and say let's throw this thing out so everybody will laugh at all. That's not what we're trying to do, tom. I know how frustrated you are, but do you know what, I have learned in the three years that I致e been here, government works as ridiculously as all of us think sometimes, which is slow. You've got our attention, we know that we need to get this road open. I think that it is probably sensible to say, okay, if we're going to open it, let's open it. We know we've got to take that fence down because our fire marshal said. That's not something that we're going to question. We're going to do it because that's what we have to do. But what really bothers me is when -- I pick up things that get put on people's doors, that just -- what it does is it doesn't create a situation where you put elected officials in a spot where we can really work with something because all of it it gets everybody agitated, let me call you this, let me call you this. That's not what we're after. We understand how frustrated you are. Trust me and trust this court, we are trying to get to a spot where we know that there is going to be a lot more traffic coming on that road. And we all understand that. We know that you've got 150, 180 homes and we know I guess that -- somebody told us it's 9.72364, whatever the number is, trips per day traveled out of a home. Okay. We use those multipliers, we do have to come up with something reasonable, and maybe 400 is not the thing. But we're not trying to do something -- I mean, I知 not after putting in a situation where you all don't necessarily want to come there. What I知 trying to do is make sure that the people that live there feel like that they can be safe, that they can walk and whatever and I would be going through this same motion if somebody were going to come into y'all's neighborhood. Now, you know that y'all's neighborhood is going to use it more. Okay, that's fine, that's just a fact and we understand that. Especially coming home. Now, I do think because I went out there the other day and I sat for an hour -- roughly an hour at both of those locations at different times, and I will tell you that in the morning I don't think your traffic will be the issue because you can't get out on that crazy road in the morning if you don't have a light. Now, if we can go out there and get a double turn lane off of cuernavaca, and we'll try to do that. Unfortunately, we've got to deal with txdot on that. But in the afternoon you all know as well as I do you don't have to live in the bluffs or you don't have to live in seven oaks to know that when you come home, you're coming home marly way. And that is -- that's -- do you know what? I don't have a problem with that. If I lived in the bluffs, where am I going? I知 going marly way. Now, what I may want to do, and this is the reason I致e asked joe gieselman, can we arbitrarily set something up so that the speed limit is 15 or 20? And that's something that I think that if you all lived there you would reasonably say, okay, we get your drift, you want us to be careful when we come down through there because you know if you put 25, somebody goes 40, especially if somebody's not watching them. But we're trying to get to a spot where, yes, we know that we've got to open this thing, it is the right thing to do, but we are not working -- I知 not working and I don't think anybody on this court is working towards making it punitive for you all to have to use it. That is not in my soul. And I don't think it's in anybody's soul on this court. [ applause ] try to deal with us in a manner so that, do you know what, god, I get so tired of being talked to like a dog about, what are you an idiot? No, I知 not an idiot. I have things that I have to try to balance and every one of us as elected officials have to do that. We don't do this job because we want to get out there and make 400,000 people mad. So it's something that we are -- we know we've got to do. I think we're going to get there. I know that you're frustrated as heck because it's not open tomorrow, but we are going to get there, but we also have to get there and take in consideration that, hey, y'all, you're going to have traffic, you're going to have traffic, you're going to have more traffic when you build the thing -- you will have as much traffic coming out of your own neighborhood in the next five, six, seven years or whatever because you're going to build your thing out. But tom, you and I have had many a conversation -- and I generally don't blow my stack until somebody just wants to get in my face and acme of doing something. That is the farthest thing that I want to do. I would do that if I didn't even like you. You and I have known each other for 35 years, I didn't see you for 28 of them. I don't have a problem working with you, I don't have a problem working this situation because this is what we're here to do, but let's please understand that that's what we're trying to do up here. It's not -- I don't care if somebody lives in a three-million-dollar house, I don't care if they live in a dog house. As far as I知 concerned we have a job to do as an elected body and that's what we're trying to get to.
>> any closing comments, mr. Jones? Lap clap clap.
>> Commissioner, we have known each other a long time. This is not meant to be a personal attack on you or anybody up there. I have the utmost respect for you and I admire your intig raty and I know you want to make the right decision. I just feel like this is not the right decision. This is like we know we owe you water, we're going to give you water, we're just not going to let you drink it. This is not the right fix. You're trying to solve a problem before it even occurs. Open this road completely. Let's see what happens. Open it the way it's supposed to do. Do the right thing, follow common sense with your rules, follow the will of the people, open this road completely. If there's a problem later on, let's address it again, but don't make us suffer any longer. Let's open marly way today. Thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Jones. Yes?
>> my name is (indiscernible). I知 a resident on mayan way. I will make my comments brief and not repeat the comments that my neighbors have already made. We moved to Austin four years ago and bought a house there. My biggest concern was there was only one access to the neighborhood. I did my research, talked to the county officials and I could see that the road was being built. After waiting many years for the completion of this road, now we are facing obstacles after obstacles and that is why we are justifiably frustrated about this whole issue. And putting the choker 100 feet long, that's almost five car lengths, that's just a potential for traffic conflicts. There are many different ways, stop signs and speed limits which are enforceable, which is practical and which can be effective in achieving the same objective whether it is to control traffic volumes or traffic speed. And I have another proposal. I know, judge, you were asking for a proposal. How about considering a traffic booth there, a toll plaza. We can have variable pricing -- that's just a joke, sorry. [ laughter ]
>> thank you for saying that.
>> we have plenty of toll specialists at my work and we can put engineering there and put it at marly way and bee cave road, a toll booth and collect tolls and do variable pricing depending on what time of day you use the street. Our safety is in your hands now. Please do not allow the developers to get their way. In the end their main concern is profit. They will make their money and move on and we will be left, we and our children, trapped in case of a potential natural disaster. As of right now, it is implied that the residents of the seven oaks are more important, more valuable, need more protection than the children of the bluffs and those children that live on canyon edge. I want us to be all treated as equal and I have heard that from you. Please vote to leave the road as it was planned by the county and promised to the residents years ago. And thank you for your time.
>> thank you. [ applause ] yes, sir?
>> my name is lyndon tillson. I知 here with my wife and my daughter to be sawyer. I致e goan up in Austin all my life. My mother lives in the house that I grew up in some four miles from my residence in the bluffs. It's about seven miles as the roads exist today, but hopefully that's going to change soon. I grew up learning to drive on Bee Caves road back when it was two lanes and I was 16-year-old. It was in my mind far more dangerous at that point than it is today. I知 happy that Bee Caves in my mind has stayed ahead of the curve in terms of roadways. I don't think we see that throughout most of the areas in Austin. I致e heard two points presented by the folks of seven oaks. One is that we feel the need to protect our children and to make sure that our children remain safe. The second is that there's a dangerous intersection at 2244 and marly. I guess a couple of questions that I would put forward to the court and to the folks of seven oaks is if those are truly the concerns, why is the petition to put up a choker or a gate or a ballard at olympus? Why are we not talking about fut putting that up at 2244 and marly. It seems to me that you heard testimony last week from someone who -- they lived in seven oaks and they prayed that when they went into labor that they didn't do so during peak times or even during the day for fear that they couldn't get out on 2244. I would submit if that barricade wasn't there today, and I致e thought about this a lot with a pregnant wife. If that barricade wasn't there today, that same pregnant person could go into labor, to safely travel through the bluffs and exit through the light at cuernavaca. I guess in closing I would like to reiterate the points that all of the folks have made before me today and recommend that you open marl marly way, that you open olympus and you do so immediately. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.
>> thank you. [ applause ] anybody else?
>> I thought we were going to hear from representatives? And I知 not hearing anything new.
>> I don't want to take any of the court's time. I知 a property owner and I live on (indiscernible). This is just in response to the proposal last week and so I just want to present it to the court.
>> okay. Do you have five copies there?
>> I do.
>> and your name?
>> here is the original copy.
>> this is a gift from mr. Jamesson. This is in support of the bluffs' proposal, right?
>> right.
>> yes, sir?
>> thank you and thank you for your time. My name is tom rogers. And I知 a resident of seven oaks and I know we've spent a lot of time on this this morning, but I thought it was worthwhile to take a couple of minutes to at least reiterate some of the issues of seven oaks and give it a proper perspective as we go through this process. One in particular seems to be a perception by the residents of the bluffs that the choker proposal or anything that was made this morning is our proposal and that we're changing our proposal. That's not the case. Our preference is still to have been private. What we're trying to do is to show movement and compromise and trying to find a middle ground that -- like in all negotiations both sides are sufficiently unhappy, but it's over. That wasn't our proposal. That came from county and I commend them for being creative and trying to come up with some ideas that will help resolve the issues. The issues again -- and again, I agree with Gerald that we need to focus on the issue and not make this personal. We're all going to be neighbors, we're all going to do other things together, you're going to handle more important issues with housing and feeding people in the county besides this. We'll deal with the issue on the table. And I think that we've had an ability to do that with our neighbors and not to make it anything that's personal one way or the other. Neither one is less favored citizens. I think that what we're all trying to do and what the Commissioners court is trying to do is try to figure out how to make the roads safe for all citizens. Comments that the developer has reneged on his obligations, actually is trying to complete the roads to the proper standards so that the roads will be in a position to be accepted so that either one of us aren't in a position that the bluffs were in where the roads were not finished and not accepted for 10 years. No evidence that marly would reach saturation point and it was built to handle the traffic. Marly was planned and platted eight and 12 years ago. It was planned more like 12 years ago, platted eight years ago. We've talked before about the unprecedented growth in the county and the traffic increase on Bee Caves road that has changed that. And I think what we're all trying to do now is make the best decision with the evidence at hand. And the county studies themselves show that 65, 70, pick a number, some percentage of what's in the bluffs, will use marly way and it will make Bee Caves more dangerous. Again, we'll have our interests, the bluffs will have their interests, but overall I would ask the county to stay the course of making a decision that may not be popular, but is at least in the interest of the citizens of the county overall. All the people travelling on Bee Caves road, all the people that are going to be interacting in this area. What do we do to make it safe? Is it a choker, is it not? I think there has to be some speed controls which deals with the microsafety issue within seven oaks, but there also needs to be volume control of some level so we can control the safety of what's out on Bee Caves road. Thank you for your time.
>> thank you, mr. Rogers. Any questions?
>> hi, my name is laura russo. I致e lived in seven oaks probably longer than anyone here, almost two years. And I just wanted to make a comment because I deal with that intersection all the time. When I moved in I was told too that that middle lane made is safe and I believed it. If you want to see me any day, 7:30 at that intersection, I have four kids in the car. No one can talk, the radio is off. I知 not kidding. And we all help get through that intersection. In the afternoons when I pick my kids up from sport sporting events it's actually ors worse because you have everyone trying to get home. My concern is I have a 15-year-old son. He tells everyone he'll never get his license because of that intersection. I do not let people drive him to school that have offered because I don't want inexperienced drivers making a left into my neighborhood and then a left out. I just think we need to think about all the kids that live in the bluffs and the other areas having to make that turn. It frightens me. And I bought a house there and I have to live with that decision when my son makes that intersection, but I do worry about all the kids who will automatically be on that road with all the cars making them nervous behind them and maybe making a left-hand turn that they're not ready to make. That's all I have to say.
>> thank you. Any questions? Yes, sir?
>> good morning, Commissioners. My name is michael ray. I spoke last week. I am the chairman of the traffic safety committee for seven oaks, and I will keep my comments brief. We do want to thank the staff for what we believe is a thoughtful and, you know, looks to be an elegant solution to what is a very divisive issue. One thing that I値l remind the court is that the status quo does need to be addressed because times have changed and specifically traffic on Bee Caves road. The second thing is that solving a problem in advance of having a problem is called being proactive. And it's something that this court should be lawded for trying to do. And creating solutions in advance of problems is something that any group or government that has some forethought should try to do more often. I believe that the staff's recommendation is a great place to start. Obviously we understand that the devil is in the details and it's my understanding that today the purpose of this hearing is for the Commissioners court to give direction to the staff on where they want to head. What they think of the proposal and what -- do they want staff to continue exploring these sorts of options. And I believe that they are worth exploring. I think that the staff has done a good job of trying to find some middle ground in a very difficult situation, and we support at least continuation of looking at these options.
>> okay. Thank all of you for your pin ought and come -- for your input and coming down today. And joe, let me pat you on the back for the gieselman proposal. [ laughter ] didn't get a whole lot of support today, but we understand that you were trying to come up with a compromise. Is there a motion? We need to give direction I think to staff and the residents who are affected by this issue.
>> can I ask a question first? I think we're all trying to get to a place where we get this thing settled. Is it possible that the thought of the choke point become part of the progressive sanctions, meaning there's no presumption, that it's necessary at this point, but it becomes one of those tools in the tool box that if worst case scenarios occur and you just need to go that next step, it is something that you can always hang over everybody's head of y'all, if this gets worse than we think it's going to be, we may have to go to that kind of option? So it doesn't presume there's going to be an option, but it says we've got something in the back pocket to be able to deal with it. I知 just asking that question. You start with the opening of that between the two subdivisions, but if -- at some point, and I don't know if it's a stage 2, 3, 4 or a 14, you've got that as one more weapon -- weapon, tool to say this is not -- well, it can be. And I want to say this too before we get started here. I appreciate the fact that you all have been living with this, some of you for months, some of you for years, some of you for decades. But the reality is this Commissioners court in terms of an agendaized item, the first time we saw it was last week. And I just tried to get up to speed very quickly on this by not relying on paper documents, but I went out there to take a look at it for myself. And I am not going to apologize for the idea that we are trying to anticipate problems in case they happen because I will tell you some of the most difficult and contentious decisions we've had to make on this court over the 12 years I致e been here have been because we're dealing with the aftermath of what everybody's predicting might occur in your two neighborhoods, and they are awful. And I will tell you that it's harder to try and work on something after the fact as opposed to lying it out there of are there some creative things that we can do? And I think as was mentioned by someone else, a mediation, a settlement is all about everybody walks away with something. And I am trying to validate in as many ways as possible what I heard from the bluffs and validate the concerns I知 hearing from seven oaks. And so I think in terms of where seven oaks is validated is we are hearing your concern and you all get to set the baseline because we're not going to be opening, I don't think, immediately because the roads are not ready to be accepted. I知 just kind of presuming of when this is going to occur. Y'all would have the ability to set the baseline speed limit within your own neighborhood, so you control your own destiny in terms of the baseline number because there is work for the developer to get done, there is an orderly way that things occur in terms of roads get accepted, then you can put up speed signs and we all move on with our lives. The striping is I think both sides can agree that that is a really good thing and I can tell you in wells branch that has worked really, really well in terms of cutting down the speeding on merrill town, again, a flat neighborhood, heavily traveled within the neighborhood. I think seven oaks deserves to know exactly what the consequences will be if speed and volume become issues at whatever point, not that, well, it's out there, we'll deal with it if we have to deal with it. I think we need to be very clear with people that there could be consequences and what those consequences are. And I think what's been laid out here in terms of the speed control related to the traffic circles and speed humps, cushions, whatever you want to call them, are reasonable. If you don't speed, you don't get them. So everybody has the ability here to control your own destiny. And I think I知 at the point of wanting to -- rather than the choke being up front, it's part of a progressive sanction. It's one more thing -- but again, you control your own destiny. If it's not necessary, it's not necessary. In terms of exploring all options, I think it was important to put it out there related to tumbleweed trail. And guess what? It was explored, it was rejected for all the right reasons, but we didn't want it said that somehow something was out there that was not fully explored and somebody got a better deal, they didn't even want to look at that. I will tell you the people on tumbleweed trail got very active in terms of what cut through traffic means because that's what we're talk being here. I appreciate that and I am happy to move that to the side as not being an ongs. Finally, let me tell you this. I am making a prediction today that the people who are going to be unhappy about this oh I壇 say six months to a year from now are going to be people on olympus drive. I am telling you right now you have no idea what it's going to be like to have 400 or a thousand cars a day coming through on your street because right now you're at the end of a cull cul-de-sac. And I知 making this prediction right now because it's happened in every neighborhood that was asking for access, and after the fact they are the ones going, oh, be careful what you ask for because you're going to get it. You want the cut-through. I知 willing to go there, but I知 telling you I知 also going to predict that the folks on olympus drive are going to be quite unhappy people when they find 400 or whatever it is cars a day coming down their roadway that right now are not. And I look forward to your motion.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> real quickly, joe, what is on the liability? Because this really gets to what our liability is as a county? If we accept the road -- is there something -- is it drainage? What is the real liability if we were to say, hey, we want to take it right now?
>> what measures would have to take to bring it up to county standards is I think what you're asking. We have a punch list of items that would need to be done by the county if we accepted it right now.
>> is that something we can come up with real quickly? I mean, about, here's the things that we need?
>> yes. Commissioner, anna bolen, Travis County tnr. I don't have the punch list with me and I知 not sure how old the most recent one was, if I知 remembering correctly, there were some -- I want to say some erosion control items on there and some possible license agreement things on there. I値l get that information and report back.
>> so that's going to weigh in how soon we can do it. We know we need to do it soon and we just need to --
>> the other issue is cost. Are you suggesting we draw down on the fiscal that we have to do those things?
>> well, I don't know. That's something that I would talk to you and I would want to talk to the want dwopper. It's not like I知 trying to get some somebody's pocket on this thing. But we need to try to get this thing done. I think everybody sees the spirit of what we're trying to get to of how can we move this along. That's number one. Can we, number two, can we arbitrarily put up speed limit signs tomorrow and put them up at 30 miles per hour? If they're not enforceable? I don't care if they're not enforceable. I would like to see can we do that? Can we put something up that says, hey, at this stage what we're really look at is what do we need to do afterwards? Can we know that we're trying to get this road to be safe I mean as opposed to saying, here, let's let this thing be an indy for a few months.
>> the legally correct answer is no, we cannot.
>> judge?
>> I move -- and there would be an opportunity for discussion of the motion. I move that we indicate our intention that the roads in the seven oaks subdivision be public roads. That we direct that the punch list be completed as soon as possible and that the court be given a status report in 30 days. That we further direct staff to work with residents of all affected neighborhoods to install appropriate traffic calming devices and other measures to deal with speed limit, volume limits, etcetera. The motion is intended to convey the notion that we continue to work, monitor the situation and as appropriate be willing to install traffic calming devices as agreed by the neighborhood association. I don't think we've ever done that without agreement of residents and other measures that would include in my view speed limit, etcetera. There seems to be an agreement of installation of pedestrian walkways, striping of roads out there. Hopefully we would do those. I think we ought to work with the developer and get the punch list completed as soon as possible. And if there are unexpected problems, then you would report back to us and we would deal with them at that time. That's the motion, long though it is.
>> I have a couple of friendly amendments, if you don't mind.
>> is there a second first?
>> I値l second it.
>> okay.
>> and Commissioner, do you want me to go first?
>> I want to make sure in the judge's motion that he made, I want to make sure this is included, and I think it is. But I brought up the point about knocking out that barrier immediately, and I just want to make sure that that's included. And also the erecting of another barrier there for another gate within this time frame until we're able to accept the roads publicly. Because I understand that's part of the process, so I don't know if that is -- if that is because of the public situation. Once we accept that as a public road, when the punch list has been dealt with, then that barrier can be removed. Now, I don't really know if that is something that is necessary, but I do know that it is necessary to remove the barrier as it is right now accord to go the fire marshal.
>> and what your attorney says, if I can help you a little bit with the language, is you're making a recommendation that this would occur and that the new barrier would meet the international fire code regulations.
>> exactly. Because I think that was part of the concern. It would all be an expense, from what I understand, of the developer.
>> isn't that what public road implies?
>> I thought the fire marshal's determination that the barrier did not comply with the fire code meant the fire marshal had the authority to impose it. If not, I do think we ought to communicate with the developer and say you need a barrier up that complies with the fire code. And we need to indicate what kind of barrier would do that. I didn't put it in the motion because I thought that was already working, but if we need it in the motion, that's fine with me.
>> I want to make sure that -- it may be moot in the event that we're going to try to get this thing open as quickly as we can. If that's 30 days or whatever it is, we're going to work to moving forward on this deal. So it may not make any difference other than the fact that we've got to get something to be compliant with the international fire code. So judge, given that we know that -- I do want to make sure that in this motion that it is not my intentions to put the choke point as part of this. [ applause ] and that in six months I think we're going to have a real good indication with counters because y'all want to know just like we want to know. There is a point where everybody is going to sit down and look at each other and go, I didn't know there was going to be 800 people coming through here. Quite frankly, if we need to start putting some door hangers on that might say do we have to use it as -- because we are going to get back down here in the event that we don't have some recognition that we can't just, you know, say we don't care. Let's use it regardless. Again, I think the morning will be self-regulating because it's going to be so darn hard to get out of that thing, but in the evening is I think where we're going to have the issues. So I would like to say that in six months we will look at the counts and we may have to put other measures in that -- counting is something that's going to be so difficult, but I am very sympathetic to the case that we do need to have some reasonable amount that everybody is going to be able to buy off on. There will be a tipping point somewhere where then we'll be just back down here in each other's face again, but I do want to look at it for six months to see where we're going to be. Obviously we've got all the things in your motion that talks about the width of the lanes, the walking paths. I still would love to be able to go out there however quickly we can and indicate to somebody that here's what we think the reasonable speed ought to be on this thing. And to me if you ask me right now, I will tell you that I think the speed ought to be 30 miles per hour because I think that is a school zone speed, it is something that you really can get a handle on knowing that that is a safe speed and given the fact that we're doing things with lanes, but the key here is how do we move towards opening this thing, with getting this punch list done? And my last thing would be is that I would like to have the understanding that during the parade of homes, even if we go out and put up a sawhorse and we put up a nice sign that says, due to parade of homes -- and the parade of homes is, what, a week, phillip?
>> three weekends.
>> and two weeks in between.
>> okay. Then whatever time -- whatever the time is that we put up something and that you do have the closure of that for the parade of homes. That being in there, if those are friendly amendments, judge, I would like to for the record make sure that we have those things in there as well.
>> fair enough to me.
>> really one more friendly, and I think it will be, and that is that tnr continue to work with txdot in terms of exploring the double turn lane at the signal, safe signal there at cuernavaca. [ applause ] that was also something that I brought up with mr. Gieselman yesterday in terms of if we had the double turn lane because that will help also get people moved out of cuernavaca and I think that would be very appropriate and hopefully not one that will take a long time.
>> and judge, until the punch list is satisfied before July 15th as far as the thing that's necessary to do to -- for Travis County to accept these roads publicly, if that's done before then, of course, the barricade that I suggested, the fence that I suggested need to be immediately removed on the acceptance of this road. So I just want to make sure that if it happened before July 15th. I知 not saying it will, but if all these things happen before then, we would like these things to move accord to go the timing of this particular project.
>> Commissioner, I do not anticipate that this thing is as of July 15th. I really hope we can get this punch list done and within reason. We may have hit a brick wall if our attorneys say, if you take that road right now without that drainage -- and the developer is here. He understands the intent of what we're talking about. It's not one of those things where we say I知 not going to get it done until August. We need to move this thing forward, but in the event there is something that could be so drastic to the county in the event that we accept that or we don't even have the time. Even if we draw down to on the fiscal and we're trying to fix the road or the drainage. If all of a sudden, trust me, we'll have one of these five or six-inch crazy rains here pretty soon, and we can't have the liability of what we would take on. So unless there is something that really stops us from moving forward on this thing, I would hope it would be before July that we're talking about getting this thing open. That is my intent and I think that's the intent of the court. Is that correct?
>> that's where we're coming from.
>> within 30 to 45 days.
>> right.
>> we won't know until we go up in here to talk to us and we'll find out what the thing is, but we understand where we're headed.
>> exactly. Safeguard.
>> judge, that's a lot -- if you're not dizzy from what we've put on this thing, I知 ready to vote.
>> you got all that motion, ms. Clerk? [ laughter ] any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all very much. [ 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, April 5, 2006 10:34 AM