Travis County Commissioners Court
January 17, 2012 (Agenda)
Item 22
Item no.
22 is to consider and take appropriate action on an election for pro ra ta election for a pro rata assessment of adjacent property owners in conformity with chapter 253 of the transportation code for the improvement of rick whinery drive, emmet parkway and quiet pond court in wells branch.
I had indicated that -- that hopefully we would call that item up at -- at 10:30 a.m.
and we missed that by 25 minutes.
let me indicate another time certain that I gave was -- was -- was 11, we'll call that up next.
and county clerk
>> [indiscernible] well, always a pleasure to have you here.
22.
>> there are three roads, what that item refers to is three roads in wells branch mud that are unaccepted substandard roadways.
we have unaccepted substandard roadways program where the court has allocated funds we have gone out throughout the county, brought roads up to our current standard so they can be accepted on to the county maintains system.
these three were built -- were built in the mid '80s, early to mid '80s and -- and for reasons unknown, they were never accepted.
I mean, we could speculate on how that happened, the bottom line is they weren't accepted.
when it came to their knowledge, that -- that there was no -- no government entity to maintain their roads, they asked well okay what do we need to do to make that happen.
so they approached my office and -- and I sent our -- our engineers out to take a look at what the deficiencies were, if any, what would prevent them from being recommended for acceptance by the court.
in addition to some resurfacing or surface treatment of the pavement itself, because it was, you know, 20 years old, sidewalks was the major issue because a lot of them don't meet current americans with disabilities act standards.
the total cost of correcting all of the sidewalk deficiencies and surface treatment about $210,000, which is a pretty big number.
the folks from the district, we went back and forth about how best to work this out.
and -- and ultimately, they landed on -- on a provision that's in your chapter 84 substandard road program guidelines, of an assessment rather than them putting up an amount of cash, matching with ours, which is what we have done historically, they wanted to take advantage of that language that's in there.
this is the first time that we've been asked to use this method.
as far as how much they will contribute to -- to just, willing to be assessed, 50 some odd property owners, they would like to ask the court for -- for approving them to contribute to the tune of 25% of whatever that number is.
and I think that I've probably mentioned to you in past presentations about substandard road projects, 30% is kind of the starting point, in the guidelines -- in the guidelines themselves, there is no dollar amount.
it just says that priority will be given to those entities that -- that cost share and the higher they cost share, the higher priority they get.
but what we have advised folks like these when they come in to talk to us about the program, we think at the very least, they ought to try to make 30%, it's fluctuated a little bit.
they are coming in asking for consideration of 25% to be assessed towards all of the properties in the subdivision, w 2 a which comprised of these three roads.
so -- so that's where we are today.
what I handed out to you is their petition.
one of the things they are supposed to do is petition the court.
that's what you have now.
I don't know if you have questions about how this assessment process works.
I think tom can help fill you in on that.
>> if I could just make a -- make a point with regard to the 25% participation rather than the 30% participation.
this -- this is a -- this is a -- what sets this -- this circumstance apart from other circumstances that may warrant the lower participation rate is at the time the roads were built, I think that it is assumed and fairly credible that at the time they were built they would have been accepted on to the county system but for the developer's failure to ask the Commissioners court to accept them.
it's true that a number of years have gone by since that time and they have not in the intervening time been maintained or upgraded to current standard by the county, so we are -- we are -- we are behind in that regard.
they -- they are now substandard.
but I believe that -- that the distinction here is that -- is that this was an error of the developer at the time and but for that error, it's highly probably they would have been accepted at the time.
>> any additional comments?
>> yes.
>> residents?
>> my name is janet maxey.
I don't live in this subdivision, but I do live in wells branch and serve on the m.u.d.
board there.
one of the other considerations as they both very well explained the fact that -- that this was totally a surprise.
not one person ever dreamed that they actually lived on a private road.
a lot of the other areas I know that you all have to consider for doing these road improvements and pro rata sharing are bigger areas with a lot more people to divide that percentage by.
this is 50 something, you know, homes that have to bear this burden and they are small streets and they are in a very well developed subdivision.
in fact the roads in there are nicer than some of those that are in other parts of the subdivision.
so we want to thank y'all for considering this period.
we want to thank sarah's office and her specially for all of the work they have done and steve and letting us all understand what the process is, how it works and even though no one wants to have to do this, it is the best resolution to the situation and we would greatly appreciate you considering the lower percentage and let us move on down the road with this.
>> I do want to thank the residents.
y'all have been just unbelievable at working through all of the options, there was a great deal of anger, frankly, at the beginning of this issue, shock really, from the neighbors that their streets were not public.
accepted streets like the other streets that their neighbors lived on.
but in working through it, diligently and running all of the traps, I think we have come to the consensus that this it's our best option.
>> we do have the original, bob has the original petition signature.
>> you need the original?
>> we will at some point.
>> I just want to comment, too, I am a residents of w 2 a and --
>> name, please.
>> bob
>> [indiscernible] and -- and as sarah said, we were shocked at first.
I've been there 16 years, I couldn't -- I was in an urban area.
I said how could I not be on accepted streets?
so it's been a difficult educational issue for all of us, but the committee has done a great job and just this weekend we -- we issued the petition, went around and did the petition.
we have 70% of the people that signed off on this petition and it would be higher except a lot of them weren't home.
that's the only reason it doesn't 99% or something like that.
>> if we were to approve this, steve, what would be the source of funding for the -- for the I guess we actually pay 100% and get reimbursed 25%?
>> we have fund in the substandard road program.
we manage from 2007, we also have remnant funds from past bond referendums that I think we can tap at well, then I think $1.5 million for substandard road projects, so we are covered in that respect.
>> we have a long list of projects, don't we?
>> well, we do have a long list of projects, but very few of them where folks are actually coming to us and saying I've got my money, let's go do this.
I think a lot of this has to do with the downturn in the economy.
a lot of them were gung ho early on, but with the downturn they have kind of stepped back.
these guys were the first in quite a while where they came with a way to finance a portion of the project cost.
>> ms. Rio.
>> I was just going to add that the source of funding has been identified.
as far as the reimbursement goes, we do still have to work with bond council and make sure where the appropriate place is for that reimbursement.
>> what source did you identify?
>> the -- the bond, 2011 and whatever substandard road program that t.n.r.
has currently is appropriate.
>> you are convinced the money is there, though.
>> yes, it is there.
>> to be clear, the -- the source of the 25% will come from the residents themselves on an -- it's an assessment on the residence that is a personal debt, but it runs with the property.
so if they sell the property they sell the debt with it to the subsequent owner, the proposal is to -- to provide a five-year time period for the assessment, but if the resident wants to pay it off in one chunk, they can in order to avoid any kind of -- kind of lien on their title.
>> we measured any driveway and sidewalk crossing to come up with their number.
>> looks like we have to advertise a public hearing, then hold a public hearing.
would the public hearing be in the Commissioners court?
>> I defer to tom on that.
>> or out in the neighborhood.
>> the neighborhood is great.
>> you can decide where to hold the public hearing, it's not dictated bylaw.
it's simply that you have a hearing.
so if you would like to have it somewhere else or at a different time than your normal public hearings, you may do that, or you may do it like you do every Tuesday and have it at 9:00 here in the Commissioners court.
>> the county clerk was here a few minutes ago.
she -- she you will work with dana on this?
>> I think it would probably be the elections --
>> this says 30 days after hearing, county clerk tallies ballots received.
>> we do have to work out the logistics of doing that ballot.
it is a very small university.
>> we involve the county clerk to date.
when duty beckons, she responds.
she has a sixth sense.
we are doing a ballot by mail for a substandard road initiative to -- to a finite universe of about 60 households.
we have not yet contacted you about the logistics and the costs, but it was on the assumption that that would be a fairly small -- so small that it probably wouldn't -- wouldn't be -- wouldn't be any challenge for someone as expert and robust as you are.
>> yes, they are always a challenge, I do think we know how to do best.
>> we also would like to thank dana again, she has come to wells branch, actually spoke before our neighborhood association basically in a third world country, so she knows we can handle the 58 houses involved in this.
>> why did we conclude that proceeding under -- under this transportation -- this transportation statutory provision is better than just a regular --
>> the choice of the folks in the neighborhood.
they -- they did go back and forth about -- about different options and this is the one that they finally landed on that they felt the most comfortable.
they felt I guess most equitable.
>> the biggest obstacle is that this particular area has no homeowners, association, so there was no existing entity to enter into the contract with.
that made it more difficult than some of our other substandard road agreements that we had in the past.
where we had, in this case we don't need an agreement.
that was our issue.
that was an entity that we had to contract with.
here we don't have an entity to contract with.
so in a way through referendum we're contracting with each of the households individually.
of course whatever the majority said of those households all will abide by.
>> so how do we secure the -- the -- the commitment to reimburse the county approximately $200 a year for five years.
>> so the --
>> [multiple voices]
>> mr. Nuckols.
>> that's correct.
you essentially define the area that would be covered by the assessment, define the landowners who would be obligated to pay the assessment, they each then get to vote.
through this ballot by mail.
and if -- if the majority of them vote for the addressment, then all of them have to pay the assessment.
even if the majority of the affected residents support it, you are obligated and the documentation of the obligation -- is the election itself?
>> yeah, well, the -- when you have the public hearing, there will be an order for you to -- to approve.
if the Commissioners court goes through with this, the order will say how much the assessment it, assuming you approve that order, that gets filed in the deed records, becomes an --
>> the order is the assessment?
>> yes.
>> it's like a minimum a miniate public improvement district kind of.
>> yes.
>> any more discussion?
motion?
>> I move approval of -- of moving forward with the 25% participation on a for the recommended forecast.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis, discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote, thank you all very much.
>> thank you so much.
is that that's echoed right back at you.
>> your department, steve's department, mr. Nuchols who also attended meetings, so thank you.
>> thank you all.
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.
Subscribe for updates