Travis County Commissioners Court
February 12, 2008
Item 20
20 is to consider and take appropriate action on a request to sponsor an update to the future campo mobility 2035 plan to reduce the cross section of the county-maintained section of hamilton pool road (blanco county line to ranch to market road 12) from a four-lane divided arterial to a two-lane undivided arterial (hill country arterial standard).
>> good morning, joe gieselman, charlie watts with t.n.r. We've had a request from the property owners along hamilton pool to consider downgrading the cross-section of hamilton pool road from the blanco county line to farm-to-market road 12. The -- as you know the Travis County Commissioners court adopts the campo plan as being its guide for transportation plans, that's a 20 year horizon so we're looking at how to plan the transportation infrastructure for the county. It includes this area, the hamilton pool road is currently in the campo plan as a four lane arterial. And that is what -- what the residents have asked us to reconsider. This is -- this has been brought about in large measure because the Travis County sought and successfully got funding for a new bridge over the pedernales river. And the bridge that was currently there is substandard and so in the design process the txdot, who is the -- basically the agency responsible for the design process, looks to the campo plan to determine what type of bridge to build. And there is in a -- in perhaps a -- perhaps in a -- in several considerations to be made. I think all parties are wanting to make sure that the bridge is the right fit for the environment that's there. Most of us believe that a two-lane bridge would probably be adequate to serve the needs of the area, for the long term. So -- so I think t.n.r. Took another look at -- at what is currently in the -- in the campo plan and will make a recommendation to the Commissioners court that we do in fact seek an amendment to the campo plan to downgrade the section of hamilton pool road between the blanco county line and reimers peacock road to a two lane section. That will allow txdot to proceed with the design of the bridge that's probably more appropriate for that bridge and that crossing. And allow us to work with them and how that bridge is actually fit into the pedernales canyon. On the other hand, I believe that the residents would seek that that same two lane cross-section be extended all the way out to farm-to-market road 12. T.n.r. Does not agree with that proposal in part because of the -- of the expansive area that is served by hamilton pool road. And the fact that Travis County has very little land use authority under state law to restrict the amount of -- of traffic generation or subdivisions that it is likely to occur in that expansive area. So we would for -- for just in terms of due diligence, want to preserve the corridor where we believe there is a likelihood that traffic volumes will warrant a four lane section of roadway. We believe they will be warranted in the long term between reimers peacock road, probably splitting the baby so to speak. We are trying to listen to the residents trying to listen for contact sensitive design. But also provide for the capacity that we believe in the long term will be needed by the county in that same corridor. So with that, let me -- let me have steve and charlie kind of walk through the proposal of the area, give you some sense of where we're at. I believe there are some residents here from the area that would like to address the court.
>> there's a backup in the area that we are referring to. It runs from the city of Bee Caves out to the blanco county line. About six miles of that roadway is in the state of txdot jurisdiction, they maintain it, they are responsible for any future upgrades to it. From -- from farm-to-market 12, which is the end of txdot's responsibility out to the blanco county line is about
>> [indiscernible] total miles of roadways that the county is responsible for. What we're proposing here is after analyzing what we think is -- is going to happen out there as far as the development goes, that -- that 70% of that roadway that is our responsibility can remain as a two-lane roadway. Arterial standard two lane wood way. It does need to -- roadway. It does need to be improved upon, but it doesn't not need to be widened. The balance, 30%, we believe which is closer to Bee Caves, closer to 12, that would still likely need to become a four lane roadway sometime within the planning period that we're talking about, which is 25 years. There are an awful lot of factors that are going to affect what's going to happen out there. Judgment that went into making this, coming up with this recommendation. We think that we were pretty conservative in how we came up with our traffic volumes. But one of the major driving factors is going to be how quickly water service can be extended out of this area, that's going to trigger additional development and what's goings on with -- what's going on with the new housing market which is not in the best shape at the moment. So it's possible that if water is not extended out there, within the next 10 to 20 years, then our numbers are -- are too conservative. If it happens sooner than that, then we may have to revisit this whole issue of whatever additional sections of it need to go to four lane. But the risks that we run by downgrading it to two lane is if the development occurs out there, before -- before or if development occurs out there and ultimately needs to be a four lane that means it could be more expensive for us to get right-of-way because we can only obtain from the development the right-of-way for a two lane section. That's the risk. And it's not like it would happen overnight, I don't think. We continue to see what's going on with the development process, the pace of it. If it is starting to look like a -- more of this needs to be four lane, we come back to court and go through the analysis again and make a different recommendation.
>> steve, are you -- in the consideration of taking this from 12 down to the reimers peacock road, are you saying that the reason that staff wants to leave that as a four lane or a potential of a four lane is just so you can secure the ability to -- to get the right-of-way? I mean, what -- what necessitates -- I mean, because it's not like we would go out and secure the right-of-way now, would we?
>> not unless we have funding for it. We don't have funding for it. We have the bond project approved, November of '05, to design improvements to the road, but it was only intended to design improvements for a two lane roadway section. The thing that's -- that's driving the -- the right-of-way requirement is the campo plan. We would not go out acquire right-of-way right now, we don't have funds to do that.
>> your legal basis for exacting right-of-way from development comes from the adoption of that plan. We say if it's in the plan we look to the plan as a guide for how to require certain right-of-way widths. When a piece of property is subdivided. And so if it's -- if it's two lane, we require so much right-of-way. If it's a four lane in the plan whatever is required in the plan. That's why the plan is such an important document. It enables us to provide for the future and it's also in sync with what all of the other agencies are doing at the same time. Our focal point with txdot, capital metro, keeps us altogether in uniform with regard to the vision of -- of what's needed from a transportation infrastructure point of view. So it's a very important policy document.
>> but you could alter, we can alter the plan any time --
>> we can.
>> going through the process with campo, is that correct.
>> there's some complications there that have come up recently and we have a representative from campo explain it. But we use the campo plan, there's multiple reasons to have the campo plan. The federal purpose of course is the program, the federal funding for federally funded projects. And it's a a guide to that. State law also uses it as a tie breaker. Separate from the federal regulations there's a law over here in the state that says if there's any discrepe panes in the extra -- discrepancy in the extra territorial jurisdiction, between the plans of the local governments, city and county for instance, campo will trump. It has a second use for us, the tie breaker. We look at it as being the superior authority for our planning in Travis County. The problem is that the federal government has changed the rules on -- on the type of analysis that has to be done when you amend the plan. They are making it more fiscally constrained so when a plan is updated, the campo staff will have to go through a financial analysis to determine how various improvements, how various sections of the plan are supposed to be paid for. It's not a trivial analysis. Campo, I think, would like to defer that analysis until -- for two years or so. We understand that. And so -- so if we go in and ask for a plan amendment, they're saying can you hold off until, you know, we are ready to do that? And so we can make recommendations to campo, but they're not likely to receive those until they gary them all up, do it at one time in two years. In effect what we are doing today is making a recommendation to campo. They may or may not choose to incorporate it into the plan at this time.
>> but if you -- if you know that what we're asking is most likely going to diminish the need for funding, which -- which this would, then I can't imagine that the campo board would -- would not allow us to do that. I mean maybe we're -- we're asking you or -- to see the crystal ball, but I mean I can't imagine that being a -- a great issue for us, I mean, doing this today, at least from the part, from rhymers peacock back to the blanco county line, could you?
>> maureen mccoy with campo, I?m the swim executive director. Unfortunately it's not that simple, any modification to the existing plan would trigger what's called a year of expenditure requirement. That means our entire plan would have to be looked at to see that the costs and the revenues are anticipated for when those expenditures are going to be demanded. So in other words what we do -- what we did for the 2030 plan was take all of our costs and our revenues back, most of the revenues back to $2,003. Along came the most recent federal authorization bill, they said no more. From now on if you amend your plan after December 11th of 2007, you have to have this year of expenditure cost of requirement met. What it would trigger is a very rigorous analysis of the existing 2030 plan, which would defer a lot of our resources away from the development of the 2035 plan. I?m not saying that Travis County in your wisdom if you would like to make that request, it would be up to our board to decide if they wanted to go down that line. But --
>> what costs might that be maureen?
>> the cost of the updating of the plan?
>> yeah.
>> the cost of the staff time, I?m sorry?
>> whatever we would have to really spend money on because I think that's what campo would take a look at determining whether or not they would be supportive of that.
>> it would take -- almost going back and looking well, it would, it would take going back and doing an analysis of all of the projects in our plan, working with the jurisdictions to determine if, when, which year those projects were anticipated to go to letting. It would require us to do all of the revenue analyses again. It would require us to do additional modeling. I don't have a dollar figure on that, but I can tell you it will be an inordinate amount of staff time that would be deflected away from our 2035 plan development process.
>> when was that work last done?
>> for the 2030 plan it was adopted in June of 2005. We've had subsequent amendments to our plan, but this provision of the new federal authorization transportation authorization went into effect in December of last year.
>> maureen and joe, I think what we're looking for is the precedential value of Travis County making the request in -- in this environment. Knowing that it probably won't be taken up for two years. So what will be the precedential value of Travis County making this official request? As far as our -- our changing our circumstance in getting right-of-way from development and --
>> I think there's two parts to that. From the perspective of federal funding, txdot is going to be looking at that bridge -- we have already made a request to txdot and txdot has agreed in the -- this is in the discussion of the bond, to enter into a contact sensitive design rose for hamilton pool. I presume that will include the bridge. Irrespective of what the plan calls for in terms of cross-section they are going to be looking at all of these factors, how that bridge is designed. I think our resolution here today which is further that emphasis on what we would like to see out there on the bridge. From the context of us subdividing it and exacting a right-of-way, the campo plan would basically rule. If we had a subdivision that came in out there, we would ask for what's called for in the campo plan, which is the four lane section. Now, all that does it reserve the right-of-way. It doesn't build the road. If at some time in the future the plan is amended, we would give back the right-of-way, no longer dated. If anything it's just a reserving the corridor, future actions can basically further restrict it. We're not at risk as much as perhaps the -- the developer who is giving land and then all of a sudden he gets it back because he no longer needs it. We would not hold property that we didn't have a public purpose for.
>> so in total the worst case scenario is that we have more scenic buffer.
>> yeah. Well, we would have more right-of-way.
>> do we -- do we have any idea of when this project may be reached?
>> it's in -- it's in the -- the bridge itself is already -- the project has been initiated so we're -- we're in the bridge design process right now.
>> let's -- let's -- I don't want anybody listening to this thinking that we are in the bridge process. The bridge process is going out there and perhaps -- perhaps being able to upgrade what we have. We have -- we have, I mean txdot has a million $300,000 which is -- which is -- we're not talking about a bridge, putting it across a river out there to the tune to where a lot of people thought -- if you're going to put a bridge out there, what is this thing. Is this a bridge that's like across the pedernales river on 71. No. I mean -- I mean steve is -- is starting to work with a group of folks out there to where this thing is -- is probably at best is going to be some sort of an upgrade with regards to safety on the existing -- I mean call it a bridge, call it a culvert, call it a whatever. I mean, I don't call what's out there a bridge. I mean it is a -- it is a way to get from one side of the water to another side of the water. But most likely what we're going to see out there is an upgrade from a safety standpoint. You know, given -- given the amount of dollars that we have, so I just -- I don't want somebody to see this and go oh, I mean they're putting a bridge out there in the -- in a context of what -- of what con jiewrs up in your mind -- conjures up in your mind what a bridge really is.
>> right, Commissioner. Essentially the bridge replacement project for with or without this name for the plan, it's a safety issue out there, right now it's a one lane bridge, goes under water fairly frequently, a list of other safety issues with it. The bridge project however did kind of trigger this discussion. Again, if you recall late last year there was a discussion of what hamilton pool should number the future. It was agreed at that time let's put this note in the campo plan. The context of the design. It was an uneasy solution at the time. It all got stirred up again when we started into the bridge project. From my perspective, it helps me to know that the the court is supportive of going to a two lane bridge, two lane roadway, it lends credence to we are designing the proper bridge for what is going to be out there now. The bridge that they are putting in is not one that we would necessarily use from an arterial standard roadway. Even a two lane standard arterial roadway. It would have to be something that would not go under water as frequently. We don't have enough money to raise that bridge high enough to where it doesn't go under the water real frequently. What this doesn't do is it helps me to plan for --
>> [indiscernible] if it stays in the campo plan four lane road, I?m compelled to design it that way when we start spending money, that 2005 bond money to design improvements. At least to identify what four lane right-of-way we would need. So when development comes in, we're getting, you know, an accurate evaluation of what we need to dedicate. If we back it down to two lane, even though it stays in the campo plan as a four lane, I would only design two lane for that section. The risk is when it does go forward to campo for approval, they deny it. I think the risk is pretty low here. The -- there is an element of it, but that's not what's really driving this.
>> really the issue here, the reason -- the reason that I?m supportive of doing what we're trying to do, which is sends a message that -- that yes we don't need a -- a four lane road on the -- all the way to the blanco county line. I mean that's -- that's pretty obvious. I think that most people, you know, that are here today would like to say that's how we feel about it, I don't have an issue with that whatsoever. If no no other reason, that we are sending the message that that is really quite frankly what we want. Number two probably all we need at this stage. So that goes a long way with I think the neighbors recognizing the fact that that is our intent. Now, if -- if we're going to get caught up in some sort of a -- of a -- of a situation where we're having to do something with the plan where we are already being told wait two years, we probably don't have -- don't have -- I mean, I would think that's a big deal given the fact that, you know, if it had to come back before the court we would probably say we're not interested in building the four lane road. I mean we made that comment on -- on February the -- what is today? The 12th? And -- and I don't -- I mean I don't think I?m going to change my mind unless -- unless somebody goes out there and buys 2,000 acres on the other side of the river and says guess what, I mean we're going to put a subdivision in there. I haven't heard of that. I mean I think that probably causes us to pause to say oh, you are going to do that, which is the reason why I?m assuming that staff is saying well it does need to go, we teed to keep the four lane -- we need to keep the four lane in out to the rhymers peacock, I?m assuming that's that terminus because I mean we do know that there has at least been a couple of people come in and discuss developing the -- at least parts of the reimers peacock ranch. As we all know there's a 1300-acre tract owned by one family, another sister that owns another 1300 acres.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> I would agree with you if you say, you could do that Commissioner, but if something does happen, then you've got your self a situation west of 12 where we probably don't want to deal with that. Is that effectively what we're saying?
>> we're saying that we looked at the entire area, including the information that we got on the development along reimers pea cock. And vast areas out there have the potential to create an awful lot of traffic. We looked at two different scenarios, 51 it was developed under the conservation ordinance and the other if the developers had no restraints on them. And on that little piece the volume that we projected are going to be high enough whether you use the low density or the high density to warrant a four-lane roadway. Again, it's all based upon water source being extended throughout, what's going on with the housing market. And how quickly it happens. It's kind of a best judgment as to when we think it will come about over the next 25 years.
>> soco we pass it today -- so could we pass it today and it not necessarily go to campo -- this is an intent of what Travis County Commissioners court wants to see happen, but we're not telling you that we're coming down there and making official, put this thing in because we know what that's going to do. That may trigger something that we number one may not want to do financially. Let's face it, who wants to do anything financially to campo? Txdot is our funding agent and they don't know whether they have 50 cents or 50 million. And I certainly am not, you know, going to weigh in on that because I quite frankly don't know what that number is. So I would certainly want to send a message to them that I think from the court -- I guess. Until we would vote on it, but I?m happy to do that.
>> other than the funds programmed for the bridge, I know of no project short or long-term that would federally finance anything on hamilton pool road. It's not roadway improvements, but more a right-of-way. A corridor preservation.
>> and it's not just hamilton pool road we're talking about. There are other roads that we're aware of. We've had conversation with developers and they for a variety of reasons want to alter the campo plan. Slaughter lane in precinct 4, rice lane up in precinct 2. The community and the developers want to make alterations to the plan, but they're kind of hung up on the same thing. So they see some value to having public bodies such appear yourselves at least make an expression of the intent so that they can make decisions on what they want to do.
>> is it clear that other campo partners will make requests for other changes over the next year or so or do we think the policy change might prevent them.
>> I don't know anyone that we've had conversations with that may anticipate an amendment. We've had the same discussion with and to date we have not yet had one, but it's only been two months. So we have --
>> historically we have periodically --
>> amended t.
>> considered changes.
>> yes, sir. And it would be up to the board to make that final decision to direct staff resources to either doing basically a wholesale amendment to the plan or to continue on with their 2035 plan. That would be up to our board.
>> now, if we are forced to do a review, who's to say whether we spend a thousand hours or 10? As long as we come back and make certain representations about it?
>> we have a federally mandated process that we have to go through and it's quite lengthy. So whether it's a thousand hours or 10, we'll do what the board tells us to do. But it's our preference, if at all possible, not to have any negative connotations at the local level, to hold off on these until the 2035 plan is considered.
>> which in the adoption year for the 2035 would be 2010?
>> yes. June of 2010 is the last time.
>> and what the process that's required leading up to that is that a year-long, two-year long --
>> we're in the midst of it right now. We're working with jurisdictions on demographic desegregation and we'll be working closely with the jurisdiction staff on coming up with some proposed projects. We go out to the community and it's an iterative process. So we're in the midst of it right now.
>> back to the question I asked a few minutes ago. Is it likely that the road improvement will be made before 2010?
>> no, sir, it will not be made before 2010.
>> the bridge is more urgent.
>> the bridge is a separate project. It is replacing -- essentially it replaces the same bridge with one that's more safe. It's not an article material standard bridge. It's -- it's not an arterial standard bridge in there. When we do that, it will be at a different location, higher and wider. If the plan is approved we will have a bridge with wider shoulders on it. It has no bearing on what's going on with the safety issues of the existing bridge. If you're worried about that, no.
>> now, some residence have come down to give us their opinion today, so if we could free up a couple more chairs there, we'd like for them to come forward and give us their name andad scenic coor coalition. We appreciate that the county is taking a second look at the western portion of hamilton pool road. We hope that the Commissioners will approve the measure that's on the table this morning. And we ask campo to scale back this road segment from four lanes to two lanes. We also asked that the county treat this as the first step of a much larger process of reconsidering all of the two-lane roads in southwest Travis County that are now slated for expansion to four-lane roads. This would include bee creek road, fit zhugh, and the remainder of hamilton pool road road whether it's state or county responsibility. We believe that the growth assumptions that drove the decision to widen these roads are highly peculiar la la -- speculative. Sometime will tell that the last few years campo has been subject to the same irrational exurberance as the rest of us. I think that officials should take the opportunity to question whether widening a few country roads in southwest Travis County is the highest and best use of limited funding for highway improvements in central Texas. Please take a step back to re-examine these growth assumptions and take another look at budget priorities. I agree with Commissioner Daugherty that even if campo can't respond to our recommendations that it is important to put a philosophical stake in the ground and send a message. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> my name is pam reese and I am a landowner out hamilton pool road in the cypress mill area. At the end of November I wrote to all of you to ask you to act and to change the campo 2030 designation of hamilton pool road from ranch road 12 to the blanco county line from a four-lane divided highway to a two-lane country road. So I am appreciative that we are here today to discuss this agenda item. In particular I want to thank Commissioner Daugherty and steve manela for listening to the neighbors n my letter I pointed out that in the 2005 Travis County bond election, hamilton pool road funding for this section of road was for design only of upgrades at two-lane hill country roadway. This is the wording that voters approved. I also described to you in my letter our community, and that we have an active neighborhood group. Anywhere from 50 to 80 neighbors meet regularly at west cave preserve. There is considerable effort among us to preserve our rural setting. A number of us have placed our ranches in conservation easements. By working with the state legislature, we have succeeded in protecting hamilton pool road in both travis and blanco counties from billboards and other signage. We have no businesses or commercial property beyond ranch road 12. This is an area of ranch land with the scattering of houses. In other words, this is pristine Texas hill country. It is in the spirit of preserving our beautiful neighborhood that I am speaking to you today. With this backdrop there is another point I would like to make with regard to the planned reimers peacock road. This is an unpopular road in our community. Many of us view it as an unneeded road that benefits a small handful of landowners. With all the media coverage about txdot lacking the funds for critical road projects and how they are working with county governments to come up with this funding, reimers peacock road should surely be placed on the lowest priority list. I respectfully suggest that reimers peacock road should not be considered an important piece of the equation in planning for the future of hamilton pool road. I urge you all to acknowledge what Travis County voters approved in 2005 and recommend to campo that hamilton pool road from ranch road 12 to the blanco county line remain a two-lane country roadway. Thank you.
>> [ applause ]
>> would you not be supportive of the rhymer peacock road? That's not going to be a txdot road f it's built it will be built with bond money. And I have said if it's going to be with bond money, then it needs to be on the ballot and it needs to stand alone and not be part of an overall road package. But the voters did vote to do the engineering for that road. And it has been done. And I?m certainly willing to put that on a bond on its own, and if it doesn't pass, then we probably won't build it because quite frankly, that's what we have to have. And I know that some people -- in this community when you want to defeat something, you take it out. Don't just lop it in to parks. Guess what you get with parks? You get all these other things. So I think if that ever happens, pam, I mean -- if I have anything to do with it, I will say that's how I want it couched. But I would not feel good about telling people that will never be on a bond issuance. If you don't want it, then defeat it because we have spent or we will -- how much money have we spent on the design? I think the bond was 900,000 or about a half a million bucks. I will give you that, pam. I mean, I think that if that road is built, it will be built only if the Travis County citizens say, we will appropriate the money and build that road.
>> you know, in the 2005 election, that was put in with the rest of the bonds. You know, I was supporting that bond election because of the open spaces that it included and other things, but I was certainly not in favor of reimers peacock road and I think a lot of people were in that same situation. So if you put it out there on its own, it might very well get defeated.
>> and that's fine. If it's defeated, then it's defeated. I think that it lives and dies by the vote of the people. But we would be -- we would look pretty crazy to say let's spend a half a million dollars or greater on the engineering of it and then just to say, well, we're never going to put it -- we're never going to put it back.
>> well, you know, I think there's better use of the county's funds than to build that road.
>> and I think that the majority of the people of this community if they feel that way, then that thing will go down in flames.
>> great. Thank you.
>> thank you, ms. Reese.
>> I?m going to let dan any go first. She's got a time constraint.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> could you turn on the powerpoint please? Very good. Will it stay there? Okay. I don't know how to make it work. All right. Hi, Commissioners and judge Biscoe. My name is annie bore den and I?m a resident of hamilton pool road in Travis County. And I want you to know I should be teaching a class at a.c.c. Right this minute, but because I think it's so important, I?m paying a substitute to teach that class. That's why they let me go. I wanted to give you a flavor of what it is out there. We live across west of the river, my husband and I do. And every morning we take a walk. We go out on hamilton pool road across from our gate, down to the river and up to the ranch and I also made this kind of big thing
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> that microphone will snap right off.
>> just pull that microphone off so you can talk into it. Just full up.
>> I?m sorry. Thanks. Well, I have it on that, the slide show thing too. But anyway, so over here, we just come down here. You can see you can cross over and go up here. And I want you to notice -- I?m not going to do my speech. I want you to notice how windy it is in here. And it's very, very fragile. There's cliffs that go up this side and cliffs that go down to the river there. Throod no room for the 80 feet. I was really pleased when I heard you last week that you all were considering changing this from a four-lane to a two-lane. I was so relieved. Because as soon as we heard about it, I have a whole slide show to show you what's out there. There's nothing out there. There's a ghost town. There's 18 houses mainly in Travis County. It's three miles west of the river. There's not much there. My husband and I go to a walks, a neighbor goes by, sts, w stand in the middle of the road and chat for awhile and they go and we go, and we don't see traffic. Much. Occasionally we do, but there's not many people that liveut there. And if you look -- you can look in your pamphlet. If you keep going, this is just to the blanco county line. But if you will lo your pamphlet -- I don't know how to make this thing -- space bar, did you say? There we go. All right. If you look at this up here, you'll see that -- I wanted to go back. Here we go. Stop. This is a road to nowhere is what I call it. It goes to past the blanco county line, which is here, it goes to cypress mill and cypress mill is a ghost town. And there's -- this is kind of the sign here if you will notice if you look up at the sign. One way goes to cypress and the other way goes to round mountain. And this is the overview. This is the church. How do you make it stop? This is the booming cypress mill. It's got a church that works and it's got a defunct post office. And a couple old gas stations. You go a couple more miles and you go to round mountain. And then you go to round mountain, and round mountain, it hits the hamilton pool road runs into 281 and there's round mountain. And round mountain has got 111 people, a cattle barn and a truck stop, and that's it. That's round mountain. So we were wondering why this four-lane road. So I was very relieved to hear when they decided to have it just be maybe two out there. And then we were -- we read it a little bit further and we found thiew the two lanes took an 80-foot swath of land for the roadway. 80-foot swath of land? So my husband and I went out to 71 with a tape measure and measured 71. It's 73 feet, 71, which is really, really busy. I couldn't understand why you want to cut a 80-foot swath for a two-lane road t doesn't make any sense to me at all. So we did measure it. So I want you to see kind of what it's like. This is what it looks like now. As it goes through our valley. The part I?m most interested in is this part in here. It's so fragile. And notice right here we have west cave preserve and we have this little strip of land here. And it just goes down to the river. This is a cliff. We couldn't figure out why this 80 feet is supposed to go. And this is all a big switch back and everything. So we went out and measured our road and we measured to the cliff and we measured to the bluff where it went down the river and it's not even 40 feet. So I don't see, I don't understand and it upsets me so much to think that they are considering doing that. What I?m showing up there is the orange is the 80-foot swath and the green is the greenbelt. It would take up so much land, especially there between the river and west cave preserve. And over going across the bridge. So I?m thinking that this one size fits all plan is foolish. I don't understand it. You would have to blast. You would have to blast.
>> amy, we have an engineer here. Would you like to have an engineer's response as to that particular question while you have 80 feet?
>> let me show you something and then I would love to hear what he has to say. This is the little road snaking through there. And that was an aerial shot. And you can just see there's just no room. It's just very beautiful. And twhas it looks like -- and this is what it looks like with the cliff and then the river down below. There's just no room for it. So I think this one size fits all is -- it won't work for us. You will destroy it. You will have to blast. It alarms me considerably. So yes, I would like to hear what he says.
>> one of the problems that confuses puke is the people -- s people is the pavement width and the right-of-way witnesses. If you measured 73 feet from edge of payment to edge of payment --
>> that's not my question.
>> for those of you that don't realize it --
>> is this helpful?
>> I don't know if you all have this, but the pavement width of the roadway, and this one in particular is gowivelt to be I think two 11-foot lanes, two five foot bike lanes. That's 32, plus another three feet. So 35 feet will be the footprint of the road itself. The balance of that 80 feet is green area. It's shown on here to be clear area, it doesn't necessarily mean it's just desolate area.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> if you have cliffs, then we will provide a barrier to prevent team from going off that. And I think you need to understand we don't build precisely this regardless of cost. We will downsize or reduce the footprint of the road if we absolutely have to to avoid that type of impact because it's very expensive to cut through cliffs and stuff. We'll work the road around in really sensitive areas or areas that we know it will be very expensive. But the bottom line is the road itself is a two-lane road. It will have five foot bike lanes on each side and a 35 feet is the width of the road. What goes on outside of that is something that we would use to try to keep our costs down, to avoid those cliffs and avoid the bluffs. That sort of thing.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> what they say by clear area, it's a term that the transportation engineers use. It's a clear recovery area. It's really forker rant vehicles. -- air rant vehicles. You remove things from that area that cannot be traversed or that cannot be knocked over if a vehicle hits it. It would be grass, small trees, the type of vegetation you see out in that area. But it can't have rock walls, masonry mailboxes, four foot diameter trees unless you put some sort after barrier to prevent a vehicle from slamming into it.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> you're talking about right here taking some land that's somebody's lot. And if you take that big chunk that you're talking about, you're taking everything they have. That really is upsetting.
>> right. And one of the costs that we do look at is right-of-way acquisition costs. And we do narrow up our right-of-way footprint if necessary to avoid the taking of a home. It may not be possible to avoid taking some of your property, but we have to pay for it, fair market value. Whatever that is and whatever you all negotiate with us. So we're going to try to minimize the amount of right-of-way we take from properties out there. That's a normal procedure for us. Particularly in urban areas where you pay a lot of money per square foot, we will narrow down that right-of-way so we don't have to pay that kind of money and the same thing would happen for different reasons. It's valuable.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> and we do take into consideration all of the environmental issues out there. We do culture resources survey. We look for bluffs, we look for seeps. We look for endangered species, all those types of things. And it's a requirement of us, whether it's county funded or federally funded. We have to work under those same regulations. So we're not just carte blanche going to go out there and take bulldozers and clear an 80-foot wide path if that's the concern. The footprint of the road is quite a bit less than what the right-of-way is.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I understand.
>> this particular part right here if you notice, there's nothing to take. Don't do it. This is just -- this goes down like that and this little part there is -- this little narrow part, this part here really you should just leave alone.
>> and that might be what happens. I don't know.
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> amy, let me ask you a question. You say -- if you will bring the microphone up. And you all live to the west of --
>> we live right there. This is west cave preserve.
>> who owns all this -- does ted stewart own everything behind the preserve?
>> yeah.
>> kind of draw where ted's is.
>> I don't know. He owns a lot of stuff.
>> how many acres is that?
>> I don't know.
>> thousands.
>> thousands. What happens if ted stewart develops his land, annie?
>> his name will be mud in the neighborhood?
>> I realize that. Here's the -- owe.
>> I think he won't because he likes living there himself. He likes his 360-degree view and he doesn't want it spoiled.
>> annie, that may be the truth. I don't know that ted will always own it. What we have to look at --
>> no, he thinks about his children.
>> what we have to look at -- and I don't think there's any -- I think there's a very little chance of any of this stuff happening.
>> well, I agree.
>> but government does look at what happens if something does happen? And you want the ability to upgrade something. I don't think in the foreseeable future that we have to worry about this at all, but it's not just ted. I mean, there are I guess a number of people that have larger tracts in Travis County.
>> all of these people, there's some of them here that have large tracts and all these over here. They're clearly not going to -- and also, another thing that I wanted to say was the gas prices. Somebody else mentioned this. The gas is going up, it's not going to go down. And people, this suburban sprawl is a thing of the 20th century. The 21st century I think that people don't want these long commutes. I?m wondering if people really are -- they're going to want to live closer to the city. And you will be building and something might not happen. You might destroy something.
>> I hope you're right, but what we're -- what I?m saying is that may not be the case.
>> but it is.
>> okay. I probably would agree more with you than not of this thing becoming very urbanized out here.
>> you think it would?
>> no, I think there's a small, very small chance of that being the case. But I do want people to understand the reason that we look at things like this, the reason that we are looking I think from reimers peacock back to 12 is because we do know -- the one ranch you talked about, the norsworthy, they are, from what I understand, trying to sell their property. Now, we may be fortunate enough for some philanthropic family to buy that tract and just live on it, which is what a lot of people would like to have happen in the hill country. But if that's not the case, then we may find ourselves in need of a larger footprint than what we have there right now. But it sounds like that with what we're having to jump through with txdot and the message that I and I think along with y'all and most of us are wanting to send is that we think in the foreseeable future a two-lane is what we really need to have out there. Now, who knows what's going to happen in 10 years, but I don't mine sending the message to txdot that that would be our intent at this stage.
>> don't you think they would be relieved?
>> who?
>> txdot. Because they don't hav
>> any additional that's about to run out. My name is rick sternburg and I?m annie's husband in case you hadn't figured that out by my teg her how to run the computer. I?m sure that you will hear and you have heard from cooler heads. I?m not one of those cooler heads. I hope that you will pardon my bluntness and my long-windedness in advance. I don't come before you very often and I?ve got a lot to say, but thank you for indulging me in this. We in the outer reaches of Travis County will probably be fighting back the encoach. Of suburban density for awhile, maybe the rest of our lives. The powers that be seem to love the idea of a densely populated hill country and the infrastructure that fosters it. A couple of years ago it was the lcra water line that we were resisting and we lost. The line is at least part way in now. Now road boosters, and I include maybe people in this room among them, seem to be using the existence of that hamilton pool road water line as part of the justification for enlarging the road to the four-lane divided arterial. This is the whole road I?m talking about, hamilton pool road. Initially the plan was to make safety improvements to a two-lane road somewhere along the way it became a four-lane, and now you guys are saying, well, maybe we can reduce one little part of it back down to a two-lane. I read mr. Manela's proposal very carefully, and it looks like that hill country arterial, this 80-foot -- he answer it had to some extent, but the picture does very clearly show 23 feet clear on each side. So you can protest that maybe nothing will happen, but picture a picture here showing the way it's been. And you can say no, maybe we're not going to take down all the trees there, but it seems to me that it's a grab. That saying that the whole concept -- I support the idea of the conservation easement on either side, the 40-foot conservation easement. I think that's a great idea and that does keep back the possibility of commercial development and billboards and whatever. But I do not believe that it is necessary to take all of this additional land to improve a two-lane road. All you're talking about is two 11-foot lanes and two five foot shoulders. It seems like that should be enough. You want to put a few more feet out there for the safety in case someone needs to stop or get around a bicycle or something, I don't know. But 23 feet on either side or whatever the balance is that makes up the 80 feet just seems like way too much. I don't think there's any justification really for the four-lane at all. The overblown projections could make your head spin. One of those projections in his memo is 10 vehicle trips per household per day. Does anybody really believe that there are going to be 10 vehicle trips per household per day? I?m sorry, I don't know -- who came one that? It's ludicrous. Give me a break. People would have to spend their days travelling back and forth to bee cave in order to make up that projection. Second, the projected number of housing units is extremely inflated. A developer's fantasy. The Sunday statesman, the quote is burbs no longer beck on. The high price of fuel, downtown explosion. There's an attitude shift going on and commuting is becoming uncool. Why should we build roads that are going to promote commuting? We should be concentrating on the downtown area, putting resources into public transportation, not into more roadways.
>> [ applause ] thank you. And then the memo talks about scaling back the last few miles of the proposed road expansion, which I think is not enough. I personally think it should be left two lanes all the way from 71. Some people support the idea of a four-lane from 71 to ranch road 12. And that could be justified by the fact that 12 is going to be made into a four-lane too. It makes a loop that's four lanes. But I think the whole thing should be left it an improved two lane. Nobody thinks a four-lane is warranted from 12 to the still nonexistent reimers peacock road. That to me is overreaching. And fourth, here's a biggie. The reduced road is described this way, and I?m quoting. The hill country arterial standard requires 80 feet of right-of-way for the roadway and 40 feet of conservation on each side. That's a swath 160 feet wide and there are numerous places where that would be impossible. So just by setting a it had like that -- set agriculture standard like that and trying to impose it where the poseibility just doesn't exist. One of the cases is west cave preserve. It's a gorgeous treasure, a natural resource. In order to get any kind of right-of-way you will have to blast away the cliff that holds up the edge of west cave preserve. It just doesn't make any sense. It would take an act of great magic to squeeze an 80-foot roadway and 80 feet of conservation easement into that. The whole hill country arterial designation is very suspicious to me. No mats can justify 80 feet of right-of-way for a two-lane road. As annie said, we went out and measured highway 71 west of hamilton pool road, and it still only totaled 73 feet. So 80 feet, I just don't get it! And then the -- let's see. A few weeks ago -- let's watch the -- I have a little movie for you. I hope you will indulge me. Can you guys in there run the movie, please? Run the video? Thanks. It's me again. They probably had it cued up so long that it lost it. I?ll tell you -- here we go. It looks like it's going pretty fast. A week ago, a counselor of weeks ago around 3:00 on a Friday afternoon my neighbor, john worrell, and I took a drive from hamilton pool road to the Travis County-blanco county line. We took it very slow, nice and slow as one should do on a quiet, scenic road. The whole trip actually took us 10 minutes and 41 seconds. And we're looking at that trip, but it's sped up by more than three times. Keep it rolling. It's already sped up, guys. Anyway, I want you to observe three things, please. First, look at how gorgeous it is. It's a classic, unspoiled, hill country road. It's worthy of a sun drive just to soak up the scenery. And we do get our Sunday drivers out there soaking up the scenery. Second, although you really can't see any of them, note that all along the way there are only a few residences. They're all buried back in there. As annie pointed out, the maximum number in Travis County from the river out to the line are 18 residences, and we're in the sure there are even that many. -- we're not sure there are even that many. And third, have you seen any other vehicles? Well, hang on because you're going to see one. Hey, you got the music going. So you are going to see one, just one. Except for us, of course. But we were only there to shoot the video. This is 10 minutes and 41 seconds of travel at a --
>> [ laughter ] okay. Here comes the car. Instant replay. A little slow motion just so you can see the vehicle. That's it, folks. One vehicle in 10 minutes and 41 seconds at 3:00 on a Friday afternoon. Who needs four lanes for one vehicle? In my opinion, and one echoed by -- I think it kind of makes the traffic projections a little bit suspect. Don't you think so, steve? But anyway, in my opinion one echoed by many of my neighbors, although I appreciate what you're doing here and I believe you are truly listening at this point to objections, I don't think you're going far enough. The real needs of the community are not being addressed. The real needs I believe are of developers, potential developers are being addressed. Just the idea someone might decide to develop out there, so we have to be prepared to widen the road just in case of that is the kind of thing that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. And you know, build it and they will come may apply to baseball fields, but not to our beloved hill country. I say save it, don't pave it. Thanks.
>> [ applause ]
>> hi. I?m going to be really brief. I do have a question. First I would like to thank tnr staff and Commissioner Daugherty and steve manela in particular for that wonderful memo. It really had a lot of good information and I?m very happy and hope you will support reducing hamilton pool road, the western segment from reimers peacock to the blanco county line to two lanes. However, that said, I would hope that we could save the whole baby, as mr. Gieselman said, instead of splitting it. Taking what everyone has said here, what are the predictors that are telling us that ranch road 12 to the blanco county line? We just saw that and that's not much different from ranch road 12 all the way to the blanco county line, what we just saw. And it not include that now with this recommendation to a campo seems that we've made a mistake considering what we just heard about the onerous, burdensome thing to get campo to actually take into consideration your request. Wouldn't it make sense to include all now to that entire section, that westerly half? It warrants a two-lane road to maintain that. And I think rick'd video showed it. That's not unlike that entire section. And to say that -- the peacocks have development that they may do, I really think it should be considered more thoroughly, especially just what we heard this morning from mr. Manela and gieselman that in fact this is going to be a big process, whether we even get this campo to adopt this little section, let's do it all at one time so that we don't have a recent process. In any event, I would like to thank you for considering this and I appreciate the fact that the county is listening to the community. Thanks.
>> steve winkler, I live at 9410 Moore drive and that's about half a mile east of the intersection of hamilton pool road about half a mile east of where the projected reimers peacock road would hit. First of all, thanks Commissioner Daugherty for getting behind as much of this as you have already and putting this on the agenda today. And I would also like to say thank you for our improving bicycle safety along hamilton pool road road by getting a share of road signs placed out there. They're very noticeable and we appreciate that. I?d like to -- hopefully I can bring you the last little bit here for that last two miles or 2.1 miles between reimers peacock and ranch road 12. I understand that steve has done a great technical job and a thorough analysis, but it's based on treating hamilton pool road like every other road in the county or in the country. And hamilton pool road is special and the first thing you see when you head west past highway 12 is a little round sign that says heart of Texas wildlife sale with a little roadrunner on it. And we have a number of other thing, including share the road signs. We have signs, hamilton pool road, whether you can swim there or not -- hamilton pool preserve. And obviously it's the home to west cave preserve and these other natural treasures that we have in the county. So hamilton pool road is special. And I think that when you're making these calculations that steve has made, you should also -- he's not factoring in environmental concerns except insofar as he has to according to federal and state laws, but we have -- it's a sort of a natural treasure that, whole road that we need to be considering. It's sort of -- as he said, there's a lot of judgment going into his numbers and we should fly our judgment as well to -- we should apply our judgment as well to how we want that road to develop west of 12. And then from a logical standpoint I would like to go over the numbers again, even using your assumptions because we've got reimers peacock road which everybody here opposed and it's not built, but exposing it's built and it's a hill country arterial, two lane. That's linlted to 40 miles per hour. And by the way, our existing hamilton pool road has a speed limit of 45. 45 on it at the max and 40. And that's a new change. It used to be 40 all the way. But the hill country arterials are going to be limited to 40 miles per hour, if I?m not mistaken, according to our meeting with the faulkner engineers who did the engineering on that. And 35 in places. So that will be the amount of traffic that can feed off of both the hill country arterial from reimers and the hill country arterial joining it a half mile from my house at hamilton pool road. Two little two-lane highways with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour on them. So why do you need four lanes suddenly to accommodate that traffic, most of which the reimers traffic naturally is going to gravitate towards highway 71. Nobody wants to drive from a new development that might appear in reimers ranch, go south to hamilton pool road, go left. That's going miles out of the way when you can just go up to 71, make a right and go to Austin, which is where people go or to bee cave. The idea that they might go to drip springs or something is not realistic. Nobody need toes to do that. So I can't understand the logic of building a four-lane highway that funnels down into these little hill country arterials. They will just -- a two-lane arterial will support all that traffic. And second of all, the new development that could occur between reimers and highway 12 is kind of a non-issue because it's already developed. I live in a subdivision. These are subdivisions that are platted already right now in the courthouse. I live on a little 1.7-acre lot in hamilton hills subdivision. That's something you've never heard of. It was platted in about 1969. And everything up to reimers peacock road is pretty much like that. So I don't see vast new developments coming in between reimers peacock and highway 12. If these are technical considerations that need going over with the engineer, I would suggest that we might be able to persuade engineering to agree that a two-lane arterial would support all the traffic. And so I hope you guys will instruct the engineers to go back and look at that and see if they can make that work. And just one thing that you guys brought up about norsworthy. It is four miles down from reimers peacock road and yet we're saying that a two-lane arterial can support that. So we don't suddenly need a four-lane highway starting at reimers peacock road because of anything norsworthy would do. Thanks for hearing me, y'all.
>> thank you, mr. Winkler. Yes?
>> my name is mara and I live at 2314 hamilton pool mile and a half west of highway 12. And I come in all the time at rush hour an I have no problem. I drive out at rush hour, I have no problem. The traffic is not there that I have the problem with the traffic. I really -- I border right on -- I mean, my land is on hamilton pool road, and I just cannot see making that road into a four-lane road. I think you're going to have people that are going to whip around these curves way too fast. And it will become like bull creek road, 2222. It's going to be a death trap like you wouldn't believe going around the curves right there through the shingle hills. I don't see how you can really straighten it out to slow those people down. It is a 40 miles per hour road right now. I think he brought up a point there that we do have to change. There's a psychology of how we look at roads in the american psyche. We're headed into a time where resources are really crucial and I hate to bring up the northeast because it identifies me as an age old yankee. I came down here when I was 17, but I came from an area around philadelphia that was intensely developed a long time ago, years and years and years ago. It's riddled with small towns all around philadelphia, and most of it is all service with small two lanes road and they're serviced with dense development and people expect to be courteous and expect to drive in those kind of areas. They don't expect to have a lot of freeways coming in at every -- you've got a four-lane arterial on fitzhugh and then it's going to be four lanes on hamilton pool road, so we're making up a country of nothing but freeways. It's ludicrous. I just -- you know, it's basically the paving over of our earth. And at what point do we slow this process down? As far as sitting in here and listening to the beginning conversation between you and the woman from campo, oh my god, that was an exercise in kafkaesque bureaucracy. I was very amused, but not that very well entertained. Or maybe it's the other opposite way. Thank you.
>> Commissioners, as you know, I tried to borrow barbara wilson's citizen hat for this. I actually live on pam pam about a mile and a half from ranch road 12 and I?m not going to repeat what all my neighbors have been saying, but it's all very valid. I moved out there 15 years ago when there was hardly anything out there. The road had only been paved I believe two years before I had gotten there. And when you -- I?m at the peak. When you start going past bill springs road, the road literally starts going straight down to the river. It's like a giant water slide. And 15 years ago there was a canopy much trees and you felt like you were in east Texas, judge Biscoe, again, with the canopies over the road. It was just gorgeous. All that has been cut down. We've already had one environmental disaster with the hamilton pool ranches. My concern is not only the beauty out there, but the environmental impact on hamilton pool because that road literally goes straight down into the river. It's going to be very expensive. You take away the whole preserve atmosphere of our hamilton pool. People when they get to ranch road 12 and hamilton pool, they should slow down and start to relax and enjoy the preserve that we've all paid for them to have. So name agreement with some of them that nothing needs to -- so I?m in agreement with some of them that nothing needs to be done. We share the road with bicyclists, that is extremely dangerous, but I don't know of any fatalities before, because we all live out there and slow down. So I?m very supportive of not doing too much out there. Thank you.
>> thank you. Anybody else? Last opportunity?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> anybody else who has not spoken? We'll need to you come forth and --
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> this is the last call. Anybody else? Hold on, hold on. Anybody else? I thought I saw a couple who were about to head this way. Nope? Yes, sir.
>> for what it's worth, I did speak to george thorsworthy not very long ago and he assured me at that time that he wasn't trying to sell, so if you've gotten inside information about that, I?m real curious about how you got that. Did you hear that from george, that he's trying to sell?
>> yeah. I?ve heard it from -- I think there are a lot of people out there --
>> I heard the rumor also.
>> that's what I?m saying. It's a rumor.
>> but I asked him directly.
>> I heard it.
>> but in any case, consider what would be there if his acreage got sold right there on the bluff, that beautiful place overlooking the pedernales river. What do you think would be there, maybe a dense subdivision or maybe a bunch of mansions perched on the bluff overlooking the river. I don't see 20 houses being something that warrants development of an overly wide road either. And ted stewart just Saturday I was up at ted's place and he took me out and said, you know, you guys are always accusing me of wanting to develop here, but look around. And he showed me all around -- we looked around the whole view all the around, and he said why would I want to spoil this? Why would I want to develop this? So you can speculate about all these large landowners that might want to develop, but I don't see a lot of development happening. Even the developments that are there now, the ones that have been subdivided and are trying to sell lots, I don't see them filling up either. So I think all of this is overblown based on old data, all these projections that this stuff is based on, old data. That's all. I?m sorry to take so much of your time.
>> thank you. Why don't we give staff an opportunity to mull over comments we received today and get with Commissioner Daugherty and look at maybe having this back on the agenda in two or three weeks.
>> thank you.
>> how's that? Is this what we saw today?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> this is exactly what we wanted.
>> [ laughter ]
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> we're resetting?
>> it seems to me we ought to give staff time to mull over comments made today and get with Commissioner Daugherty and at the appropriate time -- not next week because Commissioner eckhardt won't be here.
>> I?m fine to do that. I think the stage has been set. We may differ on some part of that road. What we probably don't differ on is you're right, there is no reason to leave what is in the campo plan in the campo plan because for the foreseeable future that's not going to happen. Now, I still want to talk with our engineers to determine where it is in there that -- because I do think there needs to be capacity on hamilton pool road so I definitely think there needs to be capacity on hamilton pool road between 12 and 71. There's got to be. Because you've got enough traffic out there right now. Now, anything west of 12, I?m like y'all, I don't have a crystal ball. I think all we're trying to do as government is if there is something that comes up, no, I don't know if norsworthy is doing anything. I don't know if ted stewart is doing anything. I don't know if anybody out there is doing anything other than I do know that there are realtors working on large tracts of land west of 12. Now, I think that the market is slowing that down an awful lot, but we talk like even if we were to say let's put this 12 to the reimers peacock road deal, leave it in the plan, then it would be done, I don't know that it would ever be done, y'all. I don't know that it would be done -- it may not be be done in any of our life times, but I do think that as government we do have a responsibility to look out and know I don't think that if you build it that ensures them coming. But I do believe this, not building it does not ensure that we will not have glopsd because the reason that we have the problems with traffic and mobility as far as I?m concerned in this community, given the fact that everybody wants to get in their car, is that it is going grow. Some parts of this community is going to grow and we have got to keep up with mobility and we've got to keep up with road building. And I wish that I could miraculously say, everybody take public transportation. If I asked you to take public transportation, y'all wouldn't be here today because it doesn't get out there.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> oh, yeah, get it. Let me get it for the 19 of you. That makes a lot of sense, just like oak hill. But I think we need to keep an open mind about all we're trying to do is protect ourselves in the event that something happens -- really what we're talking about is a small section of road that we may differ on. I may not differ from you at all other than the notion that I think that there's at least a chance at some point in time -- because I can't go out there and tell somebody that they can't develop their land. I?m not going to go and do that. I think that most of the people that own large tracts of land out there clearly know what most of you all feel, and that is you hope that they leave it in its natural state. And if that's the case, I?m all for that. I?m all for trying to buy as much land publicly that we can buy in western Travis County given the fact that we do have limited dollars, because Travis County can't buy all of western Travis County. We can go and buy the reimers peacock ranch. We might even be able to buy a few other ranches, but that's every five or six years, and that's if the citizens are willing to sign off on it. So I?m happy to work -- junk, if we want it back -- it's not like you've got to come down here again because I don't think that we're going to do something that you all find to be so bad. And we'll call, send e-mails to all of you all that came down today and say we're going to put this thing back on and here's the thing we're going to consider, what are we going to do with the campo plan. But I?m not very supportive of trying to go and put the campo plan into some sort of a spin, what maureen said, that creates a situation that we might not be able to get it done. But I think that they're going to hear loud and clear and I will talk to the chairman of campo that I think that the court has full intent of redesignating at least most of hamilton pool road from 12 to the blanco county line. There may be a few miles in there that we may differ on, but -- I mean, I think what you all want we're just about there. And if we send that to campo and it's not like any of us are going to change our mind, we get it. I get it. And I agree with you in that there's no reason to leave it the way that it is right now. So if you'll let us work on it, judge, we'll -- I guess steve and I will let you know when we bring it back. And we'll let you know and if you feel like you need to come down because we're going to do something you don't want us to do, we'll give you that opportunity.
>> we appreciate your input. Thank you.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:09 PM