Travis County Commissioners Court
December 5, 2006
Item 2
Number 2 is a public hearing to receive comments on the following: a. A proposed policy and program for the construction and remediation of sidewalks in conformance with the americans for disabilities act and the Texas accessibility standards; and b. An increase in the driveway permit application fee from $21 to $41 to support the administration -- we say $41.
>> it should be --
>> I'm reading it -- I have to read the item first.
>> excuse me.
>> to $41 to support the administration of the proposed policy. T.n.r. Did tell the judge that instead of $41, the increase should be to $40. Right?
>> that's correct.
>> from 21 to 40, not 21 to 41.
>> that's correct, it's a typo.
>> typo.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you. This is a -- again a public hearing required by law on the amendment of section 8 2 of the Travis County code. Dealing with how sidewalks are constructed in subdivisions. But the part of the larger public hearing is also on -- also on a revision to the fee schedule. Which would increase our driveway fee from $21 to $40. That is necessary in order to support the -- the policy. Also, included in the public hearing, is the -- the issue of the programmatic, how do we upgrade our sidewalks to meet a.d.a. Standards. It would include a -- the creation of a sidewalk retrofit program, so if anyone from any citizen would call the county up, say, hey I have got a problem, negotiating this sidewalk, we would take in that -- that complaint or take in that work order and go out and actually correct the sidewalk to become a.d.a. Compliant. Kind of a demand response of program. Also, what we would have would be a sidewalk accessibility plan, where on an annual basis t.n.r. Would recommend a schedule of projects where we would go out on our entire network of sidewalks, and piece by piece upgrade sidewalks that are not currently a.d.a. Compliant. We have about 1200 miles of county road. Not that extensive of a sidewalk, but we do have in these particular, in the urban areas, sidewalks that have been built, they have been built to a.d.a. Standards initially, but because of perhaps failure in the sidewalk it is now non-compliant. They have -- there may have been a sidewalk built but no ramp to the sidewalk. There are various issues around the county that we know of and we have inventoried and this -- this plan would allow us to go out and periodically every year dedicate so many man hours and -- road and bridge funds to correct this problem. Getting back to the code itself, we are not recommending to the court that there be any variances to the -- to the law. There are federal laws, there are state laws that we are obligated to -- to follow. And we are recommending that we continue to do that. We are recommending that -- that we educate both the design community and our own review staff to what those requirements are. Early on in the design process. Because we believe that if we can capture these things early on in the thinking of the engineers and the planners as they lay out the subdivision, we will be far better off and avoid problems later when it comes to actually inspecting them to whether or not they meet these laws. So we are making a requirement that -- that the preliminary plans include a certification by the -- by the engineer of record, that the -- that the plans comport with the
>> [indiscernible] a.d.a.
>> [indiscernible] stately on sidewalk design. We are also requiring a -- a registered accessibility specialist certified that the construction of those sidewalks meet those standards. That would be part of our normal course of business is getting that certification. These -- these inspectors are certified by the state board. They know the law. They are capable of going out and inspecting and making sure that they stay within the law.
>> have we not gotten certification historically?
>> not formally. What took place was we used to have the state certify the sidewalks. The law was changed in such a athat they know -- that they no longer consider sidewalks part of their purview, so they stopped doing that. What we are doing here is bringing it back as part of our requirements. Even though the law has changed we are still going to be requiring these inspections. We are basically bringing them back into the process.
>> okay.
>> we will also be --
>>
>> [indiscernible] questions about having the authority to do that. They are also shifting the focus of the fiscal, phasecal are basically -- fiscal are basically financial assurances that things will be done according to our regulations. Right now we require the developer, the owner who comes into the property, to push fiscal to ensure that the sidewalks are constructed to standard. It is jerry are not built by the owner. The home builders who buy the lots and then go to construct the homes, the process of constructing the homes on the individual lots, they are also constructing the driveways and the sidewalks along the front of that lot. What we are doing in this change in policy is shifting the physical to the home builder for those particular sidewalks and driveway ramps. The developer will be responsible for the sidewalk construction in the common areas of the subdivision and along the major streets. The arterials and collectors. The remaining sidewalks in the subdivisions typically along those lots will be the responsibility of the home builder. We will be seeking a fiscal from that home builder as part of the driveway permit application. And so they will be separately inspected, separately posted, and the developer once he's finished, with his common area sidewalks in the road system, we will be recommending acceptance of that network of the infrastructure to the Commissioners court and we will take it on for maintenance. Then as individual lots get built out, those sidewalks get built, we will be accepting those sidewalks on a lot by lot basis. No matter how we go we are covered as a county for -- with some kind of fiscal instrument to ensure that the sidewalks are built to a.d.a. Standards.
>> joe, isn't it fair to say that -- that there are -- there are many areas in Travis County, especially western Travis County, it doesn't make any difference how much money you have, to retrofit a sidewalk, you cannot from an a.d.a. Standpoint you cannot comply because of elevation changes in some areas to build a sidewalk that really meets specifications that -- that a.d.a. Can sign-off on. I mean, aren't there -- you just physically in some neighborhoods, I mean, if you build a sidewalk, it doesn't make any difference how good of a sidewalk you build. You cannot get that to comply with a.d.a. Isn't that true?
>> I think the key word was retrofit. If it's already in place, in some cases it will be very difficult if not impossible to come back and try to make it fit at this point. If you took a piece of property from its origin, with the eye that the sidewalks had to meet a.d.a. Standards, I think it would be possible to build a network of a.d.a. Compliant pedestrian ways within that subdivision. But you have to capture it early on. You have to work with the designer. You say we need to be able to make sure the subdivision is accessible and be able to lay out the streets. I mean from the very get go, when you lay out the streets you are somewhat premed premeditating whether the sidewalks are going to meet the more stringent requirements of a.d.a. But the a.d.a. Does not require that you build sidewalks. If you build sidewalks -- they have to be a.d.a. Compliant. So there is some flexibility in our guidelines about whether or not you should build a sidewalk here or not. Or you should build a ramp here or not. Being able to take a look at the overview and say okay let's not build the sidewalk here, but we can get this route built, some of the way, by an alternative route, you can make those decisions early in the design process. Once they are in place, it's very difficult to come back and try to fit it in later.
>> that's where I think that we have got to be very careful and if we -- if we have the ability to look -- let's say a developer comes in, says okay we are going to do this tract, we go -- the county says okay, one of the -- one of the stipulations that you have with going through our process is that you are -- you cannot build sidewalks in this subdivision because we know what's going to happen. Sidewalks are going to get built non-compliant. We are going to -- which I think that, you know, I'm very supportive of getting out and getting people on with their lives. I mean, you know, the developers and even the home builder was moving the ball forward with regards to -- to, you know, it's time for us to take over, you know, the maintenance of streets and whatever now. All of these -- and the little -- the little nervous whenever I know that we are taking on something that -- that hey by the way, you all have just accepted the liability of this thing. And sometimes from a legal standpoint, I mean, by gosh, I mean, the last thing that we need to do is -- is have the baton handed over to us and say guess what, I mean, you came up with this policy and somebody is giving you some money, but -- but there -- there isn't enough money to take care of some of of the ills that we would -- that we would take on if a -- if they were being built in an area where we know that we couldn't comply. So I would much rather see, maybe this is necessitates more work, I would love for the county where there are some areas, in order to get your permitting from us, that we stipulate you cannot put sidewalks in this area. If a home builder goes out, puts the sidewalk in front of a house, well then that really is on their nickel. I'm not interested in getting $2,500 or whatever the fee is for us to take the liability on. Because we are never going to make it work.
>> I think we need to get some consideration --
>> we don't design the subdivision. The engineer for the opener designs the subdivisions. What we are saying is that you need to go ahead and build these sidewalks, understand from even entering into the design process, you need to look at the sidewalks as being a.d.a. Compliant. Become a situation where it cannot be done. Sit down and talk. We will waive the requirement that the sidewalks will be built on both sides. But show us that there's a good faith effort to create a network of pedestrian ways that were a.d.a. Compliant. That's what we are looking for. So -- so I do believe that that -- we are becoming much more successful at that. In part because the county took such a firm stand on not accepting roadways that -- that they've had non-compliant sidewalks on them. Now, with that said, we do have sidewalks out there fairly newly constructed sidewalks that do not meet a.d.a. Standards. This policy would allow for the developer to come in and pass the cost to retrofit the sidewalk and seek court acceptance of that sidewalk and as is.
>> does that an solve them of the liability -- absolve them of the liability then? It comes to us. What we are saying is somebody that comes out has constructed a sidewalk that they don't know whether it met a.d.a. Standards or not. Once we receive the dough, once we implement this policy and take it, then we are taking on the -- the liability. I mean and -- and whoever is, I mean,, you know, the legal folks that follow some of the a.d.a. People around, I mean, boy they would love to sink their teeth in on -- on the county versus maybe somebody that builds 8 homes a year.
>> I think that -- to keep it in perspective, we already have sidewalks in our system in that category. So yes it does increase our liability, but does it increase it any more than the liability that we already have for more sidewalks that don't meet standards? I think what we are trying to say is that we realize that we have sidewalks that do not comply with the law. That we are -- we are setting up a program to get there. But it is something we are going to have to make -- make a commitment to in terms of county resources and resources provided to us by the private community. We will go, when we do have someone that cannot get somewhere in a subdivision, they ask us to correct it, we will do that. We will also actively take on the sidewalks through the year, to make sure that they are brought up to the standard. We are moving toward a point where we can correct the problem.
>> judge, I don't mean to beat this thing up, but I just -- I mean, I see -- let's face it, there are some developed areas in western Travis County in particular that a large number of people don't want to see happen. This I see opens us to another area where -- where we are -- somebody can just absolutely stop somebody in their tracks, from either -- from either doing some -- filing some sort of infunction whatever I'm looking for here, tom, let me know. Could you see somebody actually stopping anything else going on in a development in western Travis County in particular. Because of a sidewalk issue.
>> based on my understanding of the law and the standards, I don't think so. I think it's possible to meet the standards. The issue is what does it do to the road system? A couple of things. When we started this whole discussion, about sidewalks and the a.d.a. It was true even if you had a sidewalk going up the side of a steep hill it had to comply with the a.d.a., the requirement was I understand you you had to build a switch back so that disabled people could get up and down the hill. Since then the interpretation has changed. On what they call the running slope. Your running slope -- as long as you are going with the natural grade, your running slope is okay. Which means that you don't have to physically alter the whole hill. To make the sidewalk comply. The challenge that's left is what they call the cross slope. That is -- that is you know the slope of the sidewalk from side to side so that a person in a wheelchair isn't going down the highway, the sidewalk leaning over to one side and it's really the cross slope that's the issue. And even a cross slope you could build, hank, if I'm saying anything wrong. I don't mean to practice engineering without a license, I know when engineers try to practice law without a license, I get my back up. You can build a system of roads that complies with the cross slope, but what you end up with is what they call the streets of san francisco syndrome where you have got a steep road coming down, then levels out and you have got literally a flat intersection and then it drops off again. Which -- which basically means cars can only go about 15 miles an hour sort of an alternative traffic calming system. But -- but I think with the rule we are proposing, you get some flexibility, so that you don't have to deal with that. You know, you maybe have one of those flatter intersections every other block or something. Hank? Help me out here?
>> again, my name is hank smith, with c faulkner engineering. We have been working on this sidewalk issue with the county for years literally, trying to come up with a resolution. I think that what you have before you is about as good as it's going to get. My understanding, I have asked joe. He's confirmed this that the county is not going to necessarily make you put sidewalks on both sides of all streets. They are not going to make you put a cross walk at every intersection. So you may have a situation where -- where for two blocks you had a sidewalk only on one side of the street and then you get to the box of the block and then you cross over and come back up. So if you are in a wheelchair, you want to go across the street, you want to follow it, an a.d.a. Path, you would go down two blocks, cross, come back up. And that's perfectly -- we can design and build them that way. What we can't do is when you come in and say you have got to have us on both sides of the street, ramps at every intersection. You simply can't build that type of a system anywhere in Austin. It's not just western Travis County. It's eastern Travis County as well. Anything that has more than a 2% slope. 2% is extremely flat. We went out in the field and -- with your staff and the commission staff you can't see it. You literally have to have an electronic level to see what a 2% slope is, because the eye cannot look at it and tell you whether it's 2% or not. One thing that we are probably going to get out to more, the policy of this commission or staff, not a allow mid block crossings for sidewalks. It's a traffic hazard when you have someone -- people drive through an intersection, they look for people crossing the street. You don't look for that in the middle of the block. This policy in the a.d.a. Criteria more than anything is going to dictate you put those crossings where the grade is flat. You ignore where the intersections are. You try to put your intersections where it's flat. But if you happen to have a flat area, top of the hill or bottom of the hill, it's in the middle of a block, you are going to want your crossing there. So there may be situations where we start looking at mid block crossings and signalizing those and there's things that you can do to make people aware of it. Generally these are going to be in residential neighborhoods where 15% of the traffic -- 95% of the traffic is people who live there. Once they understand this is a mid block crossing they will watch out for you. Those things have to be considered as we move forward under this policy. We have talked about that, the staff generally says yes we agree with that.
>> to the Commissioners court, I can't recall the name, but she came and spoke before the Commissioners court. And wheelchair bound. Individual. And of course their relationship as far as what's dealing with the city on. So as far as meeting the a.d.a. Compliance, making sure accessibility and the -- a whole lot of things brought fort. In your opinion, let me ask this question, number one, have you had a relationship with the city of Austin in trying to reach some of the same maybe policy directive. -- policy for the county. Is there any similarity as far as what the city is doing, as far as it is dress -- addressing the similar concerns that the question brought up last week. In your experience, big
>> [indiscernible] between what the city is doing, what we are doing. Are we pretty level.
>> the biggest difference that I have seen between the city and the county is the city generally accepts the streets regardless of when the sidewalks comply or not. So they still look at the issue of the sidewalks compliance, but accept the streets and move on down the road. Not an issue of having streets in the city that have been built for 10 years and never been accepted because of -- because the sidewalks don't comply. There's not as big of a push at the city's side to get that issue resolved.
>> what I have seen also within the corporate limits of the city is -- is coming back and retrofitting that type of -- with sidewalk access to sidewalks where they actually -- went there before, then next week, you know, next month, whatever, you actually have -- have the friendly accessibility to sidewalks that then in -- you know, subdivision that's basically have been around for a while.
>> yeah, the city does have cnp projects to come in and retrofit areas. They are also looking at when you come in and remodel, requiring part of that to come in and put in a sidewalk. Or put that money into a sidewalk fund because it doesn't make sense in neighborhood, talk for example barton hills. Where I grew up there, no sidewalks anywhere in barton hills. It wouldn't make sense if one person decides to remodel their house to put a sidewalk in front of that one house. They might have it anywhere else in the neighborhood. But take the money and put it into a fund that can be used in that general vicinity to put a sidewalk network together that makes sense. That's kind of where the city is going with a lot of their stuff. Which is similar to what the county is looking at as well.
>> thank you.
>> well, is it -- is it true that the a.d.a. Does not require you to build sidewalks but it requires it if you build sidewalks you have got to build them a certain way.
>> that's my understanding, yes.
>> so in the subdivisions that -- that Commissioner Daugherty referred to, what if the developers just don't build sidewalks?
>> well, we actually require them to build sidewalks, but we don't require them to build them to could non--- in other words, the intent is that the owe throw should be sidewalks where they can be built to a.d.a. Standard. We are not requiring developers to build sidewalks that are not a.d.a. Compliant.
>> why are we requiring that sidewalks be built if the a.d.a. And the -- and the tas do not?
>> well, because we think that they are a legitimate part of the transportation system that people walk, they need sidewalks.
>> > why don't we then provide that in certain areas, you have come in and make the case for not having sidewalks. If the feds and the state have already done that, why wouldn't we do the same thing?
>> it's -- they don't really make that type of -- of policy in terms of -- of -- it -- the policy is on accessibility for disability person.
>> what you decide in those subdivisions, that is what our policy is. We are making a policy what constitute a living community.
>> that's why I'm asking. Why didn't we provide that -- that you in development may in fact not need sidewalks.
>> I think that's what chapter 82 says today. If you will look in your backup, because --
>> why wouldn't that address your issue then.
>> the code amendments that are attached on page one it says outside the e.t.j. Many municipalities sidewalk lab plans shall be submitted for county review. The requirement for sidewalks will be determined by the county on a case-by-case basis will be based upon development density, proximity to schools and other high pedestrian traffic generators and anticipated volumes of vehicular traffic.
>> my only point is that -- that it would make as soon as to -- sense to require sidewalks if we promote danger more than safety wouldn't make sense.
>> I guess okay. I want to make sure that we are -- this is --
>> the language that he just read, let's go back and make sure that it does what we need for it to do. We are kind of running out of time on this item.
>> this is posted for action today. Too we have posted -- it's in your backup.
>> uh-huh.
>> exhibit a to the memorandum from joe.
>> this is the memorandum dated December 1st, exhibit b a. The legal description to the amendment to the code. It should be -- should be about the fourth page back.
>> okay. But it says what you just read.
>> yeah. That's the existing -- that's the existing one.
>> okay.
>> in the code.
>> okay. Anybody else to give testimony during this public hearing?
>> thank you.
>> yes.
>> thank you.
>>
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Do we need to take action on this item today? Let's take one more week, okay. That would help me.
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, December 6, 2006 9:34 PM