Travis County Commissioners Court
September 19, 2006
Item 32
32, consider and take appropriate action on request to bob daigh, Texas department of transportation regional director, for a ramp off s.h. 45 southeast to a county road.
>> judge, I just have a question I guess I wanted to make sure -- I'm really want to go know what we're really doing, basically this letter going to txdot is a letter supporting that ramp, but been driven by the applicant. And I'm just wanting to make sure that the county in the future -- and future growth improvement projects that the area we're concentrating and focused on that the county will be abandoned by the efforts of persons that are requesting this particular ramp is still available and still committed to what I think needs to happen. I really don't understand I guess some of the dynamics of it, jill, and I guess you need to explain it to me a little bit more. Seeing what we're looking at here, it's almost as if -- so if you don't mind kind of explaining that and where we are with the commitment from the development, the nearns are actually coming forth with some type of facts for development in that area at some later date. Where are we on that?
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> in further discussions with txdot they indicated really all they wanted was a letter from us to indicate that the ramp was going to be there. And that we were not obligated to finance the roadway or make any financial obligation to the state for the ramp. The cost of that is borne solely by the property owner and any additional right-of-way for the ramp or the internal road would be borne by the property owner. Nor did Travis County commit to any approval of the property when he does come in, they will be approving property planes with this owner of a subsequent owner and we didn't make any commitments to approval whatever comes forward. Typically in a design of this sort, there are a lot of questions and we said just because we are writing a letter to txdot doesn't get you prior approvals from the county, and they understand that as well. We believe that the letter is the state is fairly benign from our point of view. It is an unusual request and we don't do this often. Quite frankly I'm not sure I understand why travis county is in between the property owner and the state, but that is what they asked us for.
>> has there been anything in writing from the property owner to txdot saying that -- with the fair involvement in this project moved forward? In other words, have they put anything on the table through txdot in concern or conjunction with what this letter is intended to do that, yes, the county is in favor of the ramp, but what position does that put the adjacent property owners --
>> I don't know --
>> -- without their participation. In other words, participation to txdot.
>> if you're reading your question correctly, there is no contractual relationship between the property owner and the state regarding the ramp or the internal road.
>> jason -- ones that asked for this.
>> that is correct.
>> and not internally impacted. They initiated this.
>> that is correct.
>> and when you look at it from a county perspective we are a whole lot better off with the revised design than the current make up. And step in and do significant work whether it's two years down the road or 10 or 20.
>> I think there may still have to be improvements done by the county, and it's the total amount of development that is likely to occur once the 45 is in place.
>> and [indiscernible]
>> txdot is not averse to the ramp --
>> no.
>> and if there were other issues, I would think they would say that, but I think they see the other benefits to that as well.
>> -- precinct one and I just want to make sure that what we end up doing here is not a repeat performance in my opinion on something that the adjacent property owner promised and sometimes things are not delivered on, promises, I'm kind of concerned about that, but however I think it's an ideal location for a ramp, but I'm just very, very timid and nervous about the future participation as far as the cost initiation and the adjacent property owner picking up the costs. So that is my concerns. Not having anything in writing except just verbally I'm going to do this or that, that is making me nervous and that's what I'm saying.
>> that's why we made notes of all of those but I would move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion on the motion? All in favor. And the Commissioners, voting in favor --
>> giving reluctant approval --
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 10:25 AM