Travis County Commissioners Court
December 6, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 1
Item number 1 is a public hearing to receive comments on the potential sale of a .092-acre, 3,990 square feet, easement area to the Pflugerville community development corporation requested and needed for construction of a wastewater line to serve property adjacent to the county's northeast metropolitan park.
I move the public hearing be open.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners, steve manila from t.n.r.
what we are asking here a chapter 26 public hearing that's required by Texas parks and wildlife code whenever you are dealing with acquisition that deals with park property.
greg will walk you through what this particular acquisition is about and we'll go from there.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
in mid-october Travis County was approached by the Pflugerville community development corporation to ask the county to convey an easement, a public utility line easement to them to facilitate development of the property, the renewable energy park to the east and north of the county's metro park.
the easement area that they are seeking is approximately 200 feet in length and 20 feet in width.
it's exactly 20 feet in width, and it comprises just between 3900 and 4,000 square feet or less than one tenth of an acre of land.
and the proposed wastewater line would bisect the narrow throat, if you will, of the county's northeast metro park that serves as the current entrance from pecan street between the majority of the park area and pecan street.
if you recall, earlier this year the county sold a section of the park entrance roadway land area, and if you can see, I hope this is visible to you, but on this map here the county sold the northern-most portion of that entrance area for a realignment of roadways that are planned to essentially what the county is doing is moving its entrance from pecan street down a little south closerrer to the actual park area.
and there's a -- in conjunction with Pflugerville, there are plans for improvements, roadway and traffic improvements in the general area.
things were complicated by the development of sh 130, and so this easement, this utility easement is at the southern end of the current entrance area from pecan.
and pcdc, the requester, has offered to pay the county $10,000 for the .09 -- .092-acre, approximately, utility easement area.
that value is based on an internal analysis of area values.
that value is sufficient and equitable to the county if the county were to proceed with this proposed sale.
one other thing I should mention is that there's the provision that the county has requested and that they have agreed to that any construction or operation, maintenance, installation, what have you, of any wastewater utility line in the area where Travis County has improvements and investment in the infrastructure, that any activity occur subsurface so that there is no disruption to vehicular traffic.
our park users are not inconvenienced in any way, shape or form and there's no damage to the existing roadway and pavement.
they've agreed to that and that would be a condition of the utility easement.
>> I would just add, as we did with the sale earlier this year, the proceeds from this particular sale would also go towards improvements within the park.
>> you are here with pcdc.
>> yes, judge, I'm the executive director of pcdc.
>> any comments?
>> no, we just appreciate your support on this project and we will unveiling the electric car charging station that is solar powered at the branson to our property which is also the entrance to your park property on the 19th that we would like to invite you to.
>> thank you so much for that invitation.
>> any objections called to staff?
>> not that we have --
>> would anyone like to give testimony during this public hearing?
if so, please come forward.
>> judge, one other quick comment, per chapter 26 requirements of the Texas parks and wildlife code that steve manila referenced, the county has advertised this hearing and the proposed conveyance of the easement in the Austin american-statesman.
>> okay.
>> judge, may I ask mr. Acres a couple of things just for our findings?
>> sure.
>> floyd, is there any feasible or prudent alternative pcdc's route for the utility?
>> it's not impossible to go around, but it would cost five times as much so it seems like an acceptable amount of money.
that's why the actual offer for the subsurface easement was almost double but we felt it was a good deal for both the the cannen the development corporation to do that.
>> and greg, with regard to the subsurface use, or steve may be the more appropriate person to ask, with regard on the subsurface use, unlike balcones canyonlands, do we have any park use in this less than an acre?
like in the bcp you don't want to sell off the subsurface because we have karst cave, salamander springs.
do we have anything like that with regard to a park related resource to be preserved subsurface?
>> none that we know of, Commissioner.
>> our survey shows 25 feet of mud under the surface.
>> 12 today is an action item.
what action is requested?
>> to approve the sale of the easement to pcdc.
finding no issue with chapter 26 as far as
>> [indiscernible].
>> do we have that document?
>> yes, we do, and execution, if approved, execution of the easement pending approval by the county attorney of the document that we've drafted.
>> we wouldn't normally approve the document without seeing it.
and my backup only has an explanation of pretty much what we've heard today.
>> well, then that action item would be -- if the court decides to approve the sale.
>> we've got a chapter 26 order if the court wishes to approve the sale.
>> but we have a chapter 26 order coming plus an agreement, right?
>> I'll have to check on the status of the agreement, but I think --
>> it's a drafted document that has yet to be approved or reviewed by the county attorneys.
>> that's what the 13th of December is for.
>> [laughter] why don't we indicate get some direction on item 12 today, real quick direction, and plan to execute necessary documents next week.
>> okay, that's fine.
thank you.
>> move the public hearing be closed.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passe
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.
