Travis County Commissioners Court
November 25, 2008
Item 33
33.
consider and take appropriate action on claim from william and luisa barlow regarding alleged damages to lot 75, cardinal hills estates, unit 15, maravilla subdivision.
consultation with attorney exception.
>> 33 is a matter involving the claim from william and luisa barlow regarding damages to lot 75, cardinal hills estates, unit 15, maravilla subdivision.
we did have a long discussion with staff on this matter before we get into that, though, any comments from mr. And mrs.
barlow?
>> judge, before they come in, I'm going to have to leave.
I want to wish everyone a happy and safe thanksgiving to everyone in the listening audience and all of my colleagues.
have a great holiday.
>> thank you, Commissioner.
>> welcome to have a seat there, give us your name and full -- for the record, any comments, we do apologize for taking so long today, but we just never know whether an item will take five minutes or 50.
>> I appreciate that.
first of all I would like to thank the judge and Commissioner for the opportunity to come and for you guys to have look at our unique situation.
mr. Daugherty, our Commissioner for precinct 3, what have in depth information regarding our priority.
he's even actually physically been there and seen the -- the somewhat destruction of our properties within different realms and the different engineers, the
>> [indiscernible] engineers for their house throughout the community that came there and examined the property.
through county officials.
the bottom line is that there is no -- for our particular piece of property, the bottom line is that the house is too large for the lot.
then you have other issues involving sheet runoff which sure that's an issue, but it's a secondary issue because the fact that that's only gone and curtailed the -- the sheet runoff but it's not going to address the issue of our particular property and we don't have to have the construction on our property just because it rains, destruction on our property just because it rains.
if we use any facility within the home, we've got issues.
it's not -- I've contacted the original manufacturer of our septic system.
they say well, mr. Barlow, it's not your system.
the thing is they said you just don't have enough impervious cover.
it's nothing that you can do about that.
we've had the house inspected for resale to try to -- to see where we are at there.
that was impossible.
we have also within the interim we had contacted our bank in regards to the property and their position on it was basically to get it to their risk management.
risk management said, well, if we do it this way, we won't have to disclose anything.
so -- so I had no actual power to try to resolve the issue due to the fact that -- the situation with the house.
even to this day actually right now, the same house is up right now being auctioned because they don't want the risk.
so I'm just in a no-win situation.
I think that the courted has -- court has been provided all of the evidence in regard to the house, pictures and everything else, so they can actually see and the only thing that I want is basically a -- to move forward with my family and I hope the -- the Commissioner and the judge give me the opportunity to do so.
>> any additional comments, ms. Barlow.
>> well, we hope to resolve this matter here today.
I mean a lot of questions have come up in the past as far as, you know, rainfall and storm water comes down the hill on that street as well as through the other adjacent street which is
>> [indiscernible] drive into -- intolariat.
it's not the size of the house -- the lot is too small.
even if it doesn't rain you have a cess pool situation on that.
you walk on the lot and you are drenched basically in sewage.
when you have rainwater combined with gray we are and sewage water it all goes down the hill on to our former neighbor's loss which is shirley ennis and victor rine.
there's no solution to the property.
for us it was a conscionable thing to --
>> the whole --
>> it was a serious health and safety issue.
the permits were signed off by the county that's where it started for that particular on site sewage facility.
I think we are just somewhere along the line victims of the whole situation unbeknownst to us until we started digging through the documents with the county and realized that there are serious issues with that particular lot.
so we hope that the court can -- I don't know if you've had a chance to look at all of the various documents and the permits.
the license to operate, the 1970's plat to the
>> [indiscernible] gardner hills 15 subdivision, which already deeded 10 feet in easements which was a public utility easement as well as a drainage utility easement.
so there was a lot of question regarding the drainage
>> [indiscernible] lines being in front of the easements.
when the additional five feet were dedicated, well the additional five feet had always been there for the last 38 years.
that's not news.
it's just that these properties were acquired, the individual property owners were deeding these extra five feet already accounted for on record since 1970.
that's another issue that the middle lines are inside the drainage easements.
by vacating that we don't have any other place to put those middle lines.
there's not enough disposal field.
that house requires at least a minimum 2500 to 3,000 square feet of disposal fill area.
right now the way it stands it's probably less than 1600.
if you vacate 350 square feet from the drainage easement where the middle lines are illegally installed, then where are you going to place them?
there's no room on that lot.
>> we are told by stacy, and stacy I need for you to come up.
but we are told that a -- a sanitary engineer thinks that there can be a septic system put on that property that would comply and that would -- that would work, is that -- is that true?
stacy?
>> stacy sheffield, t.n.r.
we believe there is an engineering fix for the septic system on this property.
>> I would like to know what type of fix that would be.
if it's an aerobic type of system because we're looking at a piece of land out there that has a lot of limestone involved and a lot of engineers we have spoken to say that's the only type of aerobic system that you can actually physically install in that area.
>> my question would be, stacy, as the fix that you see, what would be the square foot area for which this -- this -- the permit would be allowed to operate on?
>> the square footage of the home or the drain field?
>> the drain field?
>> that would --
>> the if six that you are referring to.
>> that would depend on the design of the fix.
we have not designed the fix for this property.
>> we are just told, that there is an engineering fix.
>> right.
>> for this piece of property.
>> here's what the problem is, is that I have met stacy sheffield a number of times.
we have discussed these issues.
also discussing these issues with them and this situation brought to stacy almost two years ago along with gwen negan, there's no fix as far as trying to recoup area for the entire house.
if you take the setbacks, Texas administrative code 285.
once you put all of the codes and regulations that's involved for a septic system there and an important item is that the county particular area you can only have one type of system and that's the anaerobic system, I'm sure stacy sheffield knows that.
here we are at this point almost two years later, for which stacy is saying now it's a fix.
prior to this there wasn't no fix.
but now we've got a fix for it.
I even asked -- I have spoken to gwen before in reference to that.
I said well, you know, I have laid out everything, the plats, everything, well, you know, the thing is would you sign-off on this?
the answer is no.
the thing is that the original engineer and I'm not talking about the sanitarian, I'm talking about a professional engineer.
the original professional licensed engineer that initially was a designer of record for that particular property, he indicated that it was a problem initially with that property, reason being is that the area that was involved.
now, this was the original engineer.
that said this.
now, this -- this is in writing.
so -- so when all of this started to develop and doing -- during the research and investigation on that, I called and contacted the original engineer and he was saying well, mr. Barlow the problem was with that house we had to redesign the original septic field because of the setback and everything because of the fact that the area is at the septic lines under Texas administrative code 285.
table x.
it can't cross over to public drinking line.
so -- so that initial area that they were trying to utilize at the front for the septic field, they couldn't use it.
so that reduced it all the way back.
so what happened is now I have contacted the -- the original engineer and I told her what was going on with the county.
and his last assessment was 2300 square feet and then the county's records had -- had a reflection of -- of 2925.
he said that's totally wrong.
so from the original engineer from the actual footage, everything is wrong to this date.
the actual footage legally bylaw under table 285, you have to have at least 1500 square feet.
not only that, engineers that I -- that I had come to the house and they looked at the -- looked at the house, they said the problem is that these type of systems are -- are troublesome already.
as it is.
and -- and they said that on the house this large with the output of your
>> [indiscernible] system, put out 3,500-gallons her day for which it's designed to do, it's for the going to do that in -- you have a four bedroom home, you've got two and a half -- two and a half bath plus a laundry room.
so you can get my entire family over there, hey, we have to wait an hour before we can take a shower or else we're going to have excessive sewage, raw sewage in the back yard.
that engineer, the original engineers had a problem with this thing in the first place.
stacy sheffield, they had plenty of time now.
two years later, Commissioners and judge now they have a fix to it.
one thing about a septic system is that I feel that I'm at a disadvantage in this particular case.
as far as the expertise.
it's because under this -- the Texas self -- safety health code is that -- 366 is that the county has immunity.
what happens is that even though stacy sheffield might have a design, I can come up with excuse me french crazy design in order to get this into compliance, but the question is is this normal?
is it normal for a design to put in place just to satisfy 285 at to the shortage of land, would that actually be used in a normal case?
even stacy's recommendation was that she wouldn't put her license on it because she can't.
I'm not on saying no disrespect to stacy herself, but if she was a licensed professional engineer to put her stamp on it and be liable for that like all of the engineers told me then that would be a different question, you know --
>> william, I'm not saying stacy said she would sign-off on this.
what I said was that stacy is told, that's the rope that I used a licensed engineer that does sanitation systems, says that this is something that can be done.
it's not stacy saying that.
>> no, no, no I'm just saying that I have spoke with stacy in reference to this whole situation and that the individuals involved in the county as far as their liability just like the five engineers that I spoke with on there and some of them go back to when maravilla was first being developed, they told michael kelly you don't have enough impervious cover here.
>> you have too much impervious cover.
that's the thing.
>> well --
>> [multiple voices]
>> it's not enough cover.
the problem is when you have got so many houses in this area that water got to go somewhere.
what I'm saying is that from all of the five engineers that I have had come out there and that looked at this property, they have -- the soil analysis, water analysis, everything, they are saying it's not going to work.
so I don't know who you guys consulted.
I think that you said what a registered sanitarian?
>> uh-huh.
>> after the fact.
of course after the fact.
but we what relied on at the time was the certified engineer's plan that came to us.
>> right, right.
>> and so actually I -- I know that you -- I know that you -- it would be nice to believe and I wish that I could support you in this belief, that we have the authority and the power to prevent this from happening.
in reality the sad truth of it is that we don't have the authority and power to prevent this from happening.
that's the painful reality.
>> sir, sir.
>> with the impervious cover it's too big of a house for the size of the lot.
we don't have the authority to say no.
>> right.
but I understand that.
but the -- my whole thing is --
>> [multiple voices]
>> one thing right quick.
there are certainly judicial responsibilities that go with being an administrative representative under the Texas economics on environmental quality.
there's a certain verification process that goes along with it.
we feel the more our research, the more we realize that somebody didn't do their job.
probably a series of people --
>> you are assuming that our job is broader than it is.
I wish it was.
but when the plan comes to us certified by an engineer, what you are asking for us to have the authority to do is to go behind the engineer's report and question it.
peer review it.
>> to verify it.
>> to verify it, yes.
>> to verify it.
>> the fact of it is, we -- even -- the fact of it is that we don't have as broad of a authority as -- as you would like or frankly as I would like.
>> well, I would -- even when this initial plan was -- was actually just put into the works, it was given to the city.
the city looked at it.
okay, said okay, fine.
all right.
then they gave it to the county.
for the -- for the permitting factor.
okay.
within those original designs that was given to the county to permit out there, all of these easements and everything was already there.
now, the question is -- is that at which point does the county or -- feel that they are responsible for within -- I respect what you're saying.
that's true.
but the thing is where on the county is that when those plans were given to the county, for -- for the implementation of the permits, it's that there's a chain of command.
a chain of custody.
that started within this whole process as far as the -- the initial permit, the -- the initial engineer of record.
okay.
then when that engineer of record changes, that protocol says that he has to submit a new plan to t.n.r.
to basically go over and approve for the outgoing design of record.
within that whole chain of custody and how it's supposed to work, that was broken and so if -- if that chain of custody, which is in your own regulations for which you are supposed to follow, if that was followed, this mistake, this error would have been found.
somebody could have said no wait a minute.
the original engineer of record said that it was 2,900 something square feet of drainage field.
but wait a minute.
now the new owner of record is saying that it's the same but the old engineer of record is saying it has been reduced.
you can't do that.
what happened was is that, you know, in order to understand the future you have to go back to the past to see exactly where the starting point was.
that is totally upon the county.
to ensure that your own protocol is fold within Texas administrative code 285, Texas health code, that doesn't have anything to do with me or the builder.
that's you guys' job.
that was the t.n.r.'s job to follow that.
so I'm not asking the court to -- to rule on something that's outside or what they are not responsible for.
I can totally respect that.
you relied upon fraud lent information to make a decision.
I understand that.
but the key part my argument is that you guys had a duty under 366 and 285 to follow that protocol.
that protocol wasn't followed.
that's where this whole disaster started, ma'am.
that's my argument.
it's not the point of the builder or the other issues that went around there.
as far as the actual -- the fix that's accommodating that.
the thing is somebody has got to sign-off on it.
every engineer that I have talked to that has something to do with marvilla have all said the same thing.
>> I would submit that the problem actually started where the engineer was given faulty information on which to plan.
>> well, he was given the information based upon the information that was given by the builder.
but at the same time here we go back.
but at the same time the information wasn't -- wasn't verified through the county for which under the Texas administrative code they had a duty to look at that information.
I give you another good example.
when this whole issue started that's when I met stacy sheffield almost two years ago in reference to this, the whole county process as far as the application for a septic system -- they used to have a two or three page sheeter that just signed off this, that, the other.
now --
>> survey
>> [multiple voices]
>> I went back.
the county corrected it now.
the application for on site sewage facility is about this thick versus three pages.
so you guys know even though that, you know, somebody, I mean, you guys have a duty and a mandate and also a mission statement as to, you know, ensure and enforce the Texas administrative code.
so you guys saw the error and you corrected it.
but that wasn't the builder's fault.
that was you guys' responsibility.
you just took advantage of you guys' system for which you hadn't put in place.
not 285 that was already had coverage.
it was the internal working -- mechanism of the county itself.
and if you -- I can provide the court with the initial three pager for which they did no survey really nothing.
it's like I'm going to build this house, I'm going to build this whole building we're in, but I'm only going to give you three pages and get a permit.
hey is anybody going to actually survey.
I mean absolutely nothing.
I can prove that the t.n.r.
saw a problem and corrected that problem.
but that's not my fault, though.
>> and I think -- you are asking for a level of contract compliance supervision by the county that is -- that is not feasible.
I hear what you're saying, you know, you're right.
a builder took advantage of a circumstance, took advantage of you and also took advantage of the county.
>> right, ms. Eckhardt and the permits was signed off, even under Texas administrative code, that individual was supposed to go out and look at this.
now we're talking an individual, I believe dale west, I don't know how long he had been with the county, but I'm assuming for him to achieve a credential of supervisor that he had to have been there with someone at some time.
based on that experience, that -- you know, looking at -- especially -- I'm just a layperson, I'm not an engineer or anything else, but if someone gets me some plans, I look at plans to come out to permit the septic, say wait a minute, hey, this house is 3,000 square feet, what kind of -- that's kind of tight, can I -- I want to take a look at the survey, you know, and see where the easements are this and that, this is really tight.
especially tight for a house that size.
none of that was done.
unfortunately the county, the t.n.r.
department, just allowed rubber stamping.
that's pretty much just what they did, ms. Eckhardt, during this whole process.
there was no verification.
I just find that -- extremely hard to believe.
and during the time when those
>> [indiscernible] processes I noticed the house that was going up that the septic system was going on.
the house right next to me.
I watched that -- I watched that hawk -- that like a hawk.
I tell you what, I seen the lines go in and inside of there.
not only that, I never saw nobody -- I saw the head engineer I mean the installer come dig the hole, put in the tank.
I seen them lay the lines, ground cover and everything else at no time and I know who dale west was by the end.
and I never saw nobody coming out and once they do that two days later, two days later, the yard was covered.
I was telling them I said, you know, nobody never came out there.
they finished it, within two days, the guy came back, backfilled.
I said wait nobody come out here and inspected this thing.
I said that's the whole point but it's rubber stamped.
so I seen the practices for what was utilized and to me it's just a matter of professionalism for which their experience says they are supposed to have.
to me I understand the court's position not to say that you guys are obligated to micromanage a contract or anything like that, that's not what I'm saying.
the only thing that I'm speaking to in reference to as far as the t.n.r.'s responsibility.
not micromanage any other contractor or the builder or me for that matter.
it's just that in my opinion, the evidence speaks for itself which is compulsive probably about 500 sheets of evidence that was given to you guys, it clearly shows from the original 1970 plat to the present day what actually occurred.
to rely the court to rely on something that the builder did that he took advantage of, that's irrelevant.
that's not my issue.
my issue is is that the county, the t.n.r.
didn't do its job under the Texas administrative code 36 -- 285, Texas health and safety code 366.
>> I think my wife wanted to say something.
>> s there's another example of this as well regarding the culvert sizes for the whole subdivision.
originally the engineering designer or developer was aaron gugins, he put the engineering plan together, I'm sure stacy sheffield is familiar with that.
well, he had designated specific consult vermont sizes that would account for the drainage and runoff in that community.
I think he did this for approximately 80 lots.
it turns out that 25% of it is wrong.
20 lots alone were the wrong culvert size, too small circumference.
we verified in the county had that chart that shows what sizes needs to go in for each individual lot.
it's very elementary.
you can look at the size for this particular lot.
match it to each individual permit for that culvert you realize once again the county is rubber stamping a permit that is not valid, that is not -- does not correspond to what the engineer and these were valid engineer plans, these were not fraudulent plans that the developer submitted somehow through these project engineers in order to do the septic system designs out there.
I have to tell you that I worked briefly for that developer, I ended up going to quite a bit of legal issues up against him.
but I was a witness to some of the stuff they were doing out there, it was not kosher at all.
they were making things look good on paper when submitting it to the county so they would get the approvals, but physically that is not what was installed on these lots.
time and again the middle lines were inside the drainage easement totally in violation of the Texas water code.
>> so this is a perfect example of legit -- the question is she was looking at if a builder has said legitimate information to you guys this wouldn't happen.
this is perfect what my wife just mentioned, this is one that had total legitimacy corrected by the engineer and it wasn't followed.
>> but those lines were too small.
>> they were.
>> too small today.
part of the fix that the bond will cover will be to enlarge those lines.
>> right.
>> but those lines are in the streets.
>> right.
that was just an example.
judge, I know, I was just using this as an example to ms. Eckhardt to say is that just because they are fraudulent information came in there is that's the reason why it happened and I just want to give her a situation where it was legitimate and noted on the plan as far as supposed to have been 36 but it's an 18.
so I mean this is an 18, this is a 36, you don't have to be an engineer to figure out, look on the plan and say hey, you know, something is wrong here.
the point was that nobody from the county never came out and physically which they was supposed to do, look and see what those culvert sizes was that was installed in there.
it's a big difference between an 18-inch culvert and a 36.
that's just an example, that's another area.
but I just wanted to make something clear is that nobody never came and looked at these situations and in my opinion that's the fraud of the t.n.r.
did not comply with their mandate -- the fault of the t.n.r.
did not comply with the mandate by the codes for which they are supposed to -- by the codes --
>> the best that I can do today is postpone this one week since we have lost two members of the court.
I will have 10 minutes to chat with you in my office if you care to chat with me.
>> yes.
>> but we will have it back on the court's agenda next week, you will see what happens.
>> judge, I'm not here next week.
I'm happy to be here for this thing.
I --
>> please.
>> some of us have spent so much time with this thing.
>> exactly.
>> this thing really gets down to who is it that really has the responsibility to do what?
the truth of the matter is there is more blame to go around for this god awful experience that's happened in marvilla.
the unfortunate thing for the county is that we are the ones that's kind of left standing here because you have got people in bankruptcy, you have people incarcerated, you have people
>> [multiple voices] waiting to be -- all of this kind of stuff y'all.
we have known for a long time that there were going to be issues that was going to really be difficult to get our arms around.
it's not an easy subject matter.
I mean I'm happy to -- to -- to look at it again.
we do need five members given the fact that we've had two go so yeah judge I would like two weeks for us to bring this thing back and if you are going to meet with the barlows.
>> I appreciate that.
the point is well taken -- because I agree with my husband on this subject.
it comes down to liability and responsibility and that's why it's so difficult to actually find an engineer to say okay I'm willing to put my engineering stamp on the redesign.
we couldn't find to one.
they said no way I want to stay away from that community, there's a lot of issues happening there.
I don't want to be involved.
this is something that's going to come back to haunt me in some kind of litigious matter.
>> I would like to say that I will challenge the Commissioner and the Commissioners to pick up a phone book and call the engineers that does work here.
all of them know this area, you know.
ask them will they put a stamp on our house.
I probably called them and faxed information to them already.
it's only a handful.
all of them don't do it, only some that design it.
they know that area.
they probably know my house because some I have fixed the information to them, they said I wouldn't even do that and let you have a minimum of at least 3,000 square feet on that thing.
>> it can get --
>> if I design it -- here's the bottom line.
if I design it, I'm responsible for it.
that's it.
>> you know, even if you are a layperson like we are not an engineer, but an engineer is going to look at all of the tables including soil analysis runoff, sloping down what degrees are going down, where is it going, you can look at all of the various factors, as a layperson basically we were living in a cess pool situation.
literally we could not take showers consecutively, we had to wait hours because the system disposal area was so small that the system would be overburdened which would trip the system causing the whole system to shut down electrically power go out and the entire house consequently and then we have to constantly call the maintenance provider to come out there and one point he didn't come out.
>> [multiple voices] inoperable.
>> and one point they said they wasn't going to come out there no more because they had the contract because they had to rewire the entire system.
and they wasn't happy about that.
not only that.
even to this day I called the manufacturer I said well do this supposed to be a watertight system?
they said no, it's anaerobic, has to have oxygen.
it has to have some type of opening.
they sealed it up because it kept flooding.
the whole thing is a nightmare.
like I said I appreciate the court.
like I said, I'm not asking the court to micromanage the individuals that come in and/or micromanage the individual homeowners.
the only thing I want the court to be responsible for the portion that you are responsible for.
>> I do have a question for stacy sheffield to look into all of the licensing for all of the individuals involved with the county in regards to the installers that were responsible for installing all of the septic systems in that community people like daniel baboa, rodney
>> [indiscernible] and subsequent authorities who put their stamp on the systems out there to see if these people were holding valid licenses by the Texas economics on environmental quality.
>> I think that I can answer that.
I believe both mr. Balboa and mr. Be -- that --ridge were holding valid licenses at the time.
>> okay.
>> yes.
>> because there are different players involved.
>> two weeks, I have about 10 minutes before my next meeting if you can come by.
okay.
move adjournment.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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:
Tuesday, November 25, 2008 7:43 PM