Travis County Commissioners Court
November 21, 2006
Item 9
Number nine, consider and take appropriate action on proposed policy and program for the construction 'and remediation of sidewalks in conformance with the americans for disabilities act and Texas accessibility stz?
>> we don't want to do 32?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I think we have met with the stakeholder group again on the memorandum that you got last week or the week before that, and I think for the most part everybody has pretty much settled down on what tnr had been recommending. There were just a few additional issues that I think we have resolved. One dealt with the performance period. In the past I think there has been an understanding on my staff's view that we would not recommend acceptance of the subdivision less 50% of the sidewalks were completed, the construction were completed. And we really don't have anything in our subdivision code that speaks to that, and I guess it just became an informal decision point for the staff and one that we probably will not continue to do. The percentage completed of the sidewalk doesn't are really have anything to do with whether or not the subdivision is ready for acceptance. So we will start recommending subdivision acceptance whenever the subdivision is constructed even if all the sidewalks have not been completed. Understand the process that again the builders for the most part are building the sidewalk as the homes are put in place. So the rest of the infrastructure can be can be completed for years in advance of that point, so there's no reason for you had not to accept the roadways when they have been completed and begin the maintain the roadways and as these lots are built out, the sidewalks are done, we will accept them at a subsequent point.
>> we will accept the roads, but the sidewalk are in fact not built out, then where does that leave us as to the sidewalks?
>> under this policy we will start having the builders, home builders, post fis dpoal the sidewalks associated with those lots. So it's the same process, it's just two different areas. As we recommended in the collector streets, the primary network of sidewalk that will still be the responsibility of the developer and it will be his responsibility plus fiscal for that set of sidewalks. But the rest of the sidewalks will be the individual home builders is will post fiscal for those. As every lot is built out andy builds the sidewalk -- and he will build the sidewalk in front of the house, we will vt fiscal.
>> so we think we have potential liability for the sidewalks if we accept the road, but the home builders's fiscal protects us.
>> that's right.
>> we draw down on the fiscal doond it and do it ourselves.
>> yes, sir.
>> the home builders know of that aspect of the proposal and are not here today to violately object?
>> they, they have been involved. Hank smith in particular was a representative of the improvements. I think he has verbalized to us in writing and last week that initially they thought they had some issue with the cost of remediation, but I think even there I think their comfortable with the numbers that my engineers have come up with.
>> when I went to hba last week and talked to them a little bit about this. Home builders association, I believe.
>> home builders association.
>> on county business?
>> yes, sir.
>> [ laughter ]
>> and you were saying? Other than having a good meeting?
>> we discussed the policy and they didn't have any beg comments for us -- any big comments for us.
>> this is what they said. This comes from hank smith that does represent hba. We did meet with joe last week rargd the sidewalk proposal and I think we are all in agreement that it is as good as it's going to get given the circumstances we are all under under tdlr and a.d.a. That kind of sums up how they feel.
>> jennifer is here, of course, to speak on her own behalf and so is sierra masero who I believe represents more of the developers, but they can certainly speak for themselves with regard to what we're attempting to do.
>> before we go there, though, I need to ask you a question. I can wait until I hear from them. It doesn't matter. I've still got some questions.
>> sure.
>> jennifer has been here patiently since early. Ms. Mcphail, right?
>> yes. I'm jennifer mcphail and I'm with adapt of Texas. What we've heard sound really good. I think that you have to be pretty strict because you'll open yourself to being liable for not being strict on compliance. And we don't want to see that. I think that what we found is that there are unique challenges since you're in rural areas, and I think that it would behoove to us work together and continue that committee or taskforce. And maybe what you want to eventually do is start working with the city taskforce on sidewalk compliance. Because what we found in the series of meetings that we had is the city's knowledge of the problem that you all are going to face in topography was really instrumental in helping to solve a lot of problem. And I think that you'll find that a different set of eyes from the community can help people be more creative in solving the problems. I've been involved with the city on the sidewalk taskforce since the very beginning of their deciding to comply with the requirements at the federal and state level andky tell thaw the relationship has been both fiscally available and also just common sense available. You get a better product and you get it cheaper. And who doesn't like that. I think it's very important also that you get an inventory of the areas that needed to be retrofitted and get a sense of how much that's going to cost in how to attack that. Those are the two major sticking points that I would see is planning and fund fog future retrofit projects.
>> jennifer whrks you work with the city do you recall that you got anything from the city on sidewalk compliance, especially in retrofitted area? Do you know who -- I'll see it as I go through the city of Austin. I can see where they have made sidewalk improvements in different subdivisions. My question is do you know whether or not if the homeowners or the developers have to go in and pay for that retrofitting or has that been just brought by the city.
>> I'm not sure. I think in certain projects it's different in certain areas. It depends on how and when the work is being done. What the city had found not too long ago was that it was just easier for them to set aside some money in the budget and say, okay, we're going to take responsibility for maintenance because that's a big issue. Not necessarily new construction. A lot of times in the city areas, but maintenance a lot of times in the urban areas. Because there's not a lot of development that's left to do in the urban areas. It's actually city right-of-way. What we found is the larger arterials have this problem of being a joint right-of-way with the state and then that opens up a whole can of worms. It's hard to work with the state d.o.t. To try to get funding for sidewalkment. Sidewalk sidewalks.
>> thank you on for coming down. We'll keep you in the loop. Any additional comments from you?
>> no, sir. I'm fine.
>> north Texas what has happened to -- now, what has happened to sidewalks that were promised in the past? How does this affect them?
>> we have a number of subdivisions that are current -- that currently have various sections that are problematic and we have -- the owners of those subdivisions have two choices. They can either go out there and bring those sidewalks up to standards and then the county will accept them or they can pay a retrofit fee to the county to have the county do it if ird to do so. And what we have done is come up with the various menu of costs depending on what the issue may be for -- for instance, to remove and install a curb ramp if it doesn't meet a.d.a. Test stz it would be three thousand dollars, so what we do is say okay, let's go out and assess this diswiks, find out what the problems are, meet with the ramps inspector and say here is the checklist, the punch list of things that need to be done. Go back to these menu of fees and determine what the fiscal would be -- the remediation fee would be for them to basically pay the county to accept the roads as they are. We would put that money into a special account of the road and bridge fund that will be used for remediating non-compliant sidewalks.
>> how was that received?
>> from what I can tell, well. At least it will get them out of the box.
>> I think that's what that means about it's as good as it's going to get.
>> so as soon as everybody is done I have a couple of questions.
>> my question is the responsible party that have to provide the necessary funding for compliance with a.d.a., especially dealing with the sidewalks, let's say that an example we have an established subdivision out there already and the roads have not been accepted and of course the sidewalks are probably there, but they're not in compliance. And let's say that this developed out, this particular subdivision has developed out. And of course, there are noncompliance situations there. And let's say it's not a homeowners association. Let's say that the developer has went on to some -- to another project or whatever. Who would be responsible as far as looking at those sidewalks to get a.d.a. Compliance on those sidewalks, who would actually have to fund that. Who would we look to to say we need your assistance, we need these sidewalks to be in compliance. They aren't in compliance and of course we still have not accepted the roads also that we haven't accepted at all. I think we may have some subdivision who may have some similar situations like that out there. Private roads.
>> we would go down the hierarchy. The first choice would be to either use the fiscal if we have fiscal posted to remedy the sidewalk, the county would draw down on the fiscal that had been provided by the original developer if it exists. First we draw down that fiscal and fix it and accept the roadways. If they're there's a developer of record and still in the subdivision, we would have him correct the subdivision with funds he provided. Short of that if we have neither fiscal nor an act of -- active developer, then it will fall to the residents of the subdivision, either through the residents of the subdivision or collectively assessed. Nen if you still want -- then if you still want to accept the subdivision as is, it is the general taxpayer to pay the funds to correct the situation.
>> is there anything in the -- I guess it's not a catchall situation because I think there may be circumstances in there that may come up, that the policy really doesn't address, that may be one of them. But I guess to hear folk say, well, Commissioner, we don't have law enforcement to come down this road. Well, --
>> and we don't have the other county involvement on these roads and we need to have law enforcement on these roads, however the roads have been accepted by the county. There are other situations and there are also sidewalks nonconforming type aspects, and I think I'm just trying to drill down to as much as possible to flush as much out to answer some of these questions that we probably all get as Commissioners, every court member probably gets called one way or the other. And I know it is probably in a good direction, but there are things that I think that whereby you have a road to end out there and you may go ahead and accept the sidewalks, but the roads still need to be brought up to county standards.
>> that's a different issue. We would typically have a punch list that's all encompassing. If the roads need repair before we accept them, then the roads need to be corrected as well. We have been focused on sidewalks right now, but the punch list is for everything. Whether it's punch list, sidewalks. And typically the developer will have to make sure all those things are corrected before the county accepts it for ongoing maintenance.
>> I'm just trying to look ahead as much as possible, I think all of us do. As far as some of the questions that may be generated, that the policy may not be dreation. So that's my concern. And that's just a few questions. I can live with those there.
>> I just know there are some situations where we do have some of the conditions that I just mentioned. And I guess to remedy those situations are the relief of making sure that you bring sidewalks into a.d.a. Compliancement of course, who is going to bear the costs. Okay.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> last week we discussed the public hearing, didn't we? A motion to approve this as a public hearing draft I think is appropriate. That's seconded by commission irrelevant Commissioner Sonleitner?
>> yes.
>> second? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Do we need a week from now, two weeks from now?
>> how long do we need?
>> let's do two weeks.
>> then let's post a public hearing December 5th. And have a public hearing. We can post it for action the same day if we get a lot of comments we simply won't take action f we need to respond to the comments, if we don't get a lot of comments, then we can go ahead and take action on that day. Okay.
>> please do not wait on me on this. I think it's so important that we are where we need to be, and barring some unforeseen that I hope would be incorporated and make the change, please move on without me.
>> that will be real difficult, Commissioner.
>> it's going to be impossible.
>> if you insist on it, we'll figure out a way to do it. December fiveth. Is.
>> to set the public hearing?
>> yes, sir. And action on the same day unless there's reason to postpone it.
>> any objection? Then we'll do it. How's that?
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> I would like to thank the stakeholders also for staying with us for so long.
>> we appreciate the citizens who assisted us also.
>> right.
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, November 22, 2006 12:30 PM