PfCONA
Pflugerville Council of Neighborhood Associations
Building Communities Together
P.O. Box 679 v Pflugerville, TX 78691-0679 v v www.pfcona.org
NEIGHBORHOOD LEADER MEETING AGENDA
Monday, September 11, 2006, 7:00 p.m.-8:30 p.m. (till 9:00 or so if needed)
1611 East Pfennig Lane, EOC Room
1. Sign-in/New Member Sign-up - Secretary/Treasurer
Special guests: David Tumer, Bill Jerram, Jennifer Windler, and Joe Grennan, all from LCRA, Bruce Wood, Councilman; Karla Buitrago, Representative Mark Strama's Office.
2. Welcome/Introductions - Board/Members/New Members/Guests -
In attendance were the following PFCONA board members: Nancy Ramsey, Secretary/Treasurer (Katymead), Clay Leben,, Communication Committee Chair (Gatlinburg), Chris Carmon, Safety Committee Chair (Sky View), and Rod Reyna, Chair (Saxony). Also in attendance were: Jimmy Don and Charlotte Hairns (Richland Community Association , RCA), Lynn and Kathy Robbins (RCA), LaVerne and Ernst Engelmann (RCA), Hal Kuempel (RCA), Sally Ganneway (Bohl's Place), Percy Richardson (Gatlinburg), Jan and Bob Prater (Weiss Ln), H.L. and Merle Weiss (Weiss Ln), Nathan L. Weiss (RCA), Charles and Kathleen Sparks (RCA), Gary and Jackie Robertson (Boulder Ridge), Vernagene Mott (RCA), Ellen Bailey (Springbrook Meadows), Carl and Ruth Wasmuth (Bohl’s Place), and Julia Ruiz (Katymead).
2. Guest Speaker: Proposed Clear Springs/Zorn-to-Hutto Transmission Line Project: LCRA Government Relations Team/Staff, Joe Grennan, Project Manager:
Joe began the presentation stating that four open houses were held for the project. There are four reasons for the project:
a. improving system reliability
b. meeting future load growth
c. meet transmission
d. alleviating future overload.
He then showed the presentation slides of:
1. existing power lines and future planned lines,
2. must decide on structure (single pole or lattice structure) (120-190 ft. tall),
3. ROW width (100-150 ft wide),
4. cannot build structures under line as well as type of trees (no trees in some areas).
Routing Process considerations:
1. public input (open houses, letters, questionnaires),
2. environmental impact,
3. engineering constraints
4. cost
5. maintenance cost
6. system planning – routing correctly
PUC approves or disapproves project and route. Now completing CCN to PUC, and October 2007 is the date of decision. LCRA must:
1. notify all landowners within 500 ft of alternative routes,
2. ROW activities after approval.
Gary Robertson asked “why not underground lines?” The answer from Joe of LCRA was that underground lines would cost 10 times, and technically be more difficult to maintain and construct. David of LCRA added that “it is not feasible without great expense”. Another question was “why won’t lines be routed along 130 rather than routing lines through farms that have been in families for years”. The answer from LCRA was that they must generate alternative routes. Twelve alternative routes are planned with some following 130 as much as feasible since density is already around some parts especially next to Pflugerville with so much development. Another question from Nathan Weiss was: “What is average cost for turn in line?” The LCRA answer was “$300/500K additional dollars for angle”. Another question was “doesn’t placement of lines in blackland add to cost or affect dollar cost”? The answer was “testing will be done ahead and cost figured in. They will take soil into account, and they have experience building in all soils.” Another question from Chris Carmon was “what are the number of landowners affected by routes and does that make for a good decision?” The answer from LCRA was: “No, PUC drives criteria for routing the lines and the number of affected landowners is not one of the criteria.” LCRA stated that what is looked at is number of homes within 500 feet of the route. Another question asked was “How does this project relate to the TransTexas Corridor (TTC)?” The answer to the question was: the project area fits within TTC but no route for TTC has been chosen yet. They need route ready for TTC by 2010. Another question from the RCA was: “Is there a way that it could be aligned with 130?” Answer is that “routing criteria makes it unfeasible due to so any homes that would need to be purchased to align the route with 130”. Question: “one line goes down FM973 and then back to Richland, why not keep the route along FM973?” Answer: “hard to answer but LCRA is trying to reach Hutto, north of Richland”. Question: “What about home placement next to lines?” Answer: “LCRA would try to find owner of property within 500 ft but no homes can be built within 100-150 ft under lines once constructed”. Question: “Growth east of Pflugerville and schools being built there, are these being considered in routing lines”. Answer: “Yes, contact with the city about development is ongoing and definitely part of decision”. Question from Jeff Reeb: “Routes were pushed more west because substation is west of the city?” Answer: “Gilleland Creek substation, east of Pflugerville will expand this substation but moving substation would be additional cost. There are 5 lines going into it now.” Question from Jeff: “Could second substation be built to the east of the city?” Answer: “Support TXU, LCRA, and city of Austin lines are a routing constraint.” Question from Vernagene Mott: “Put lots of things together for less disruption, any clue during 130 construction that this was necessary?” Answer: “Yes, this was studied for a long time but building in area has restricted route, not anything LCRA can do”. Another question from Mrs. Mott: “What is big hold up?” Answer: “Falcon Point location is big hold up since it is very difficult to move homes and LCRA is trying to avoid homes.” Vernagene asked another question: “There is so much open land and it is nice to have a regional plan for the area”. Answer: PUC doesn’t determine water and wastewater needs. Public has access to PUC, landowner can be an intervener to PUC, if they are an affected landowner, and this necessitates administrative hearings. Question: Landowners don’t have attorneys so how do they become involved in the process without them. Answer: No attorney is required, but it would be nice. PUC will choose preferred route, and last 2 CCNS filed as preferred route. The PUC will choose one but not other route. Joe thinks that landowners could be heard. Vernagene stated that PUC will listen to cities and not landowners. LCRA responded that “They do read all letters and consider community values, spend lots of time talking and getting information and there are many avenues to get involved.” Bruce Wood asked this question: “You mentioned 2 of 4 CCNs rejected, another City Councilman stated that the PUC logic has been cost first. Is this true?” Answer: Yes, cost is major consideration but there are a variety of reasons the PUC may choose another route. Question: “Too costly to go underground for entire route but what about 3 or 4 miles of route?” Answer: PUC will look at additional cost and ask why but usually underground is too much cost. Question: “How about west of 130? Is there less development?” Answer: “SH45 takes away from this potential area”. Question: “Possibility that PUC could throw out all routes and come up with their own?” Answer: “Slim possibility but some adjustments are likely”. Question: “Deadline for public comment?” Answer: Always accepting public comments. Question: “What types poles along Pfluger Ln, FM685?” Answer: “138 KV lines now out of substation. These lines will be bigger.” Question from Sarah Eckhardt: “North Austin could be party to permit hearings, still may be affected even though outside the 500 ft. from the route area?” Answer: Yes, true.
5. A few other committee reports and announcements were made and the meeting was called to a close.