Travis County Commissioners Court
August 9, 2005
Item 10
And item no. 10. Is one we said that we would call up at 10:30, I do know there may be a couple of legal questions, after open court discussion we will take it up in executive session.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...unless we hear otherwise, within the next 30 minutes we'll do August 30th. Do we have the people here on 10?
>> yes, they just got here.
>> coming through the door.
>> did we do a motion on 23?
>> nope. Think we ought to wait 30 minutes. If we don't hear from them in 30 minutes, we'll do August 30th.
>> and dana is on her way.
>> do we need dana? I don't think we need her unless she wants to be seen or wants to see us. It's just a date actually.
>> I know.
>> and I told them in the e-mail it was a consent item, I thought. Do we know whether mr. Stone and his representatives --
>> I do not know. They asked for this day and so --.
>> maybe they will arrive before we complete it then.
>> all right. Mr. Davis, did they indicate to you whether they are come stph-g.
>> no, I have not heard from this and this is the date they set aside. In fact, the last time I spoke with a representative of mr. Stone, glenn hodges, I specifically told him this item would be on the Commissioners court's agenda today. So I haven't heard anything from him, but I guess whatever we are legally bound as far as to discuss, I guess we can as far as where we are and what we've been basically trying to do. And I know some of this stuff has to be discussed in executive session, but we are really trying our best to look at the fulfillment and the true tie-in to the east-west artery, arterial to sh 130. And, of course, that means howard lane. This is specifically what I知 having reference to and it's just a few more hurdles I think that we need to overcome to make this a reality, and that's basically -- and I think the state has basically done its part and connectivity at that particular howard lane interchange into sh 130, and just a few more snags that we need to get out of the way. And so we can proceed. So joe, I guess at this point, and I guess maybe a representative will come in, but if my office is hearing me now, I guess if you can call me and let me know that if there's been any kind of correspondence from the representative, glenn hodges, either from mr. Stone's office. So at this point we've just got to proceed, I guess, without that representation and just go from there. Joe, let me turn it over to you.
>> all right. This is the subject matter is howard lane east, which is a proposed arterial roadway in northeast Travis County. The section that we're talking about is a candidate project for the upcoming 2005 bond election. We call it a public-private partnership because we expect that the three private property owners would participate in the cost of the roadway. We have been in discussions with these property owners for well over four years. We still have disagreement about what is the fair share of all the participants. This is all within the unincorporated area of Travis County. It is between harris branch subdivision and state highway 130. Ultimately we have two projects that we're interested in in the next bond election. Both are howard lane from dessau road to cameron road. That's what we call howard lane 1. Then there's a section that goes through the city of Austin within harris branch parkway, harris branch subdivision and that would be done on city's cost on right-of-way that has already been dedicated for that purpose. This particular project picks it up from the city limits and takes it over to state highway 130. By our estimated cost, that roadway, which is a four-lane divided arterial, would cost about $7.8 million. The engineer for the private property owners did an estimate and estimated the cost at $5.3 million. The difference in our estimate and his estimate is $2.5 million. What their engineer does not include in the estimate is water quality and detention, mobilization of the contractor to the site, sidewalks, bicycle lanes, contingencies and any inflation in the cost of the project that may occur over time if not implemented immediately. Because the engineering design has not been completed, we do not expect this to start until six to eight months after the bond election passes if successful. So we're talking at least one year of inflation to make sure that we have current cost. And on that point let me say that we have used a very conservative inflation cost of 3%. We know, in fact, the material costs for highway construction are now well in excess of 3%. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 25%. In part because of the cost of asphaltic materials and the byproducts of petroleum, the cost of concrete, the cost of steel, and then locally the cost of labor and equipment because we are in a fairly heated period of competition with other major road constructers like the lone star infrastructure and the r.m.a. So to start off with, we have a two and a half million dollar difference in what they think the project is going to cost and what we estimate the cost to be. In our public-private partnership guidelines that the court adopted, we basically [inaudible] that they would contribute all the right-of-way and pay 50% of the engineering and construction cost. In real terms, whatever that is at the time the project goes out for bid. So these estimates are very important because they would have their share capped at 120% of what their engineer says the project could cost. So we're already off step by $2.5 million to begin with, and they are using costs that do not include any inflation whatsoever. In our original guidelines we called for the cost to be shared 50/50, the construction costs. On this particular project we have a variance to that proposal, those guidelines. We are crossing gilleland creek. Gilleland creek is a major tributary, major creek in northeast Travis County. The cost of crossing that with a bridge, the bridge alone is about $2.7 million. So the question is is it fair to burden the properties who are developing along howard lane with a total cost of the roadway including the bridge. During our four years negotiations, t.n.r. Proposed that Travis County pay 100% of the cost of that bridge to the tune of $2.7 million. And in a way to perhaps level the proportion at between what their share would be and what our share would be. The -- otherwise we would ask the property owners to pay for half of the four-lane arterial. That is true of two of the three property owners. The proposal that they have given us has offered to dedicate the right-of-way and pay for 50% of the cost of the arterial roadway. That is true of the shriver property and the weaver profplt property. That is not true of the stone property. In the stone property, they are proposing that the county pay 100% of the cost of the roadway on the embankment that approaches the bridge. That's about another 450 feet of roadway where the county would pick up 100% of the cost of the construction. That's about $350,000 additional that the county would pick up. So in all things considered, what you have is a -- between their estimate and our estimate and between the way they view the shares and we view the shares, on stone's property, they are proposing that he contribute 335,000 roughly to the cost of construction. We believe that estimate should be closer to $995,000. Our difference of about $660,000 difference. On the shriver tract, they estimate the share to be $287,000, roughly. Our estimate shows closer to 486,000 or a difference of about $200,000. On the weaver tract, they estimate their cost of engineering and construction to be 498,000. We estimate that closer to 532,000 our about $33,000 difference. So all told we're talking in the neighborhood of about 800,000 to 900,000 dollars difference to what we believe their construction costs ought to be given that we're paying 100% of the cost of the bridge.
>> joe, how are we so close on weaver and yet on shriver so far away? I understand the difference in stone, I believe. But on shriver, we're not even close. On weaver we really are.
>> yeah. I have to get under that number to tell what you the real difference is. I知 looking at it right now. On the next sheets exhibits, I could probably answer your question. The next summary is basically looking at their proposal and our proposal side by side. You see the county proposal, which is exhibit b, would have us pay for roughly about 74% of the total project cost and the private parties all together pay about 26%. Notice the big difference is in stone's property where we would pay 82% of the cost of the road and the bridge, 82% of the project on the stone property. He would pay roughly 18%. On exhibit d, this is using their cost estimate and their principles on how to prorate the shares. We would be paying for 78% of the total cost whereas they would pay for 22%. The major difference, as you can see, is in the stone property, again, where we would be paying 91% and stone will be paying 9%. Exhibits a, b, c and d, which are attached, go into more detail on how we derived those costs. Exhibit a is if we rigorously applied the county's guidelines for public-private partnership. That would basically be they dedicate all the right-of-way and pay 50% of the construction engineering costs irregardless of bridges, sidewalks or anything else. Exhibit b, on the other hand, the county concedes that it would pay 100% of the cost of the bridge. Otherwise we're still using t.n.r.'s estimate for the cost. Exhibit c is basically using their principles but t.n.r.'s cost estimate. Remember, our cost estimate is about $2.5 million higher. But it will use their principles and apply to our cost, this is the way it would shake out on every property owner. And then finally on exhibit d we're using truly their estimated cost and their principles. So there are, I guess, to boil this all down, the major differences are the following: we would propose that the property owners should pay their share of actual cost, all things included except for the bridge. We do water quality, we do sidewalks, we do all the things that we normally do in a c.i.p. Project. Their share would include all of those items including about a 15% contingency. The other difference is in the embankment. That they would have us pay for the cost of the roadway, four lanes of arterial roadway on top of the embankment. We believe that should be shared 50/50 with mr. Stone. He has access to the roadway and should bear the cost of the roadway, excluding the bridge.
>> the embankment is part of the road that goes on both sides of the bridge basically. The bridge and immediately after the bridge.
>> that's right. About 400 -- a little over 400 feet. 200 some odd feet on both sides of the bridge as it's coming up to the concrete structure is what we call the embankment. You can probably better display this on a map here. This is the roadway. As you can see, the orange piece is basically where the road is built at grade. The road grade is level with the ground. This is gilleland creek. This is the 600-foot bridge that spans gilleland creek. And that's elevated over a 100-year flood plain so it's a pretty substantial bridge. And we would build it for the ultimate section of the roadway. This piece in orange is basically the embankment that you need to get over to get to the bridge. And so in mr. Stone's property, we have about 231 feet on both sides of the bridge, 460 some odd feet of roadway that's in dispute. He would have us pay for not only the bridge but all of the roadway cost associated with the embankment. And mind you the only cost of constructing the roadway at grade is roughly about $500 a linear foot. When you start getting on the embankment, it's closer to $750 a lynn your foot. So there's a -- it's not an equal transfer. He knows what's being transferred. That's why it's not a proportional shift. A shift in the embankment, there is a substantial shift in additional cost back to the county. On mr. And mrs. Shriver's property and dr. Weaver's property, the roadway is at grade and they have agrowed to pay for 50% of the construction of the roadway at grade. The major difference there is that they are using a estimate that is lower than our estimate. That's why their share goes up, but the principle is in sync with the county's guideline 50/50. In the stone's property, it's clearly not 50/50 and we're not trying to make it 50/50 because we picked up the cost of the bridge at 2.7 million. There's one other thing I want to add.
>> joe, you -- maybe I just didn't hear you, but in the embankment area on both sides of the bridge, the approach itself, what they're propose ing is basically that we not only deal with what's at grade, the ground over the embankment, but also -- which is a four-lane deal, not only the two lanes that the county would have to do but the two lanes that they are not willing to deal with.
>> that's right.
>> so that's basically what it boils down to. In essence, we would have to look at for the rest of that embankment on both sides, we're talking about the county's expense of building or constructing what all the ramifications of eight lanes instead of four. Because on both sides. We would be looking at four lanes on both signs which would be a total of eight lanes which the county would have to bore according to their proposal.
>> four lanes on both sides.
>> exactly.
>> that's correct.
>> before the lobbying, if you will, took place back a year and a half or two years ago, whenever it was, to move across 130, which was going to be, what, greg lane? And we elected to come to howard lane. There were a lot of folks that thought that howard lane was the more important road to use as a cut-through, if you will, on sh 130. I mean we were part of that --
>> absolutely.
>> and the landowners, everybody was in agreement with that.
>> that's correct.
>> where has this -- where has this thing gotten upside down with regards to the -- I mean I can see where stone is going, well, my gosh, it just so happens that my tract does have all of gilleland creek, I mean was that not recognized at the time and were the numbers not -- I mean did we not envision getting to a spot where, you know what, this thing is going to be a lot more expensive to do because of this creek, because I suppose greg lane wouldn't have been anywhere near this expensive because we wouldn't have had to dealt with the creek, right?
>> we started out, I believe, with some common interests in moving and having the state construct the interchange in the first phase of 130. We believe it was the county and the private property owners thought it would be -- that we had a common interest in getting that accomplished. So we worked mutually to get t.t.a. To construct in the first phase that interchange at howard lane where it was proposed to be in the campo long-range transportation plan. Had we failed in doing that, we would not have seen howard lane or an interchange be built probably within 10 to 15 years. That has been done. It is now constructed. Where things fell apart was when we started talking about howard lane and how that got built. Initially they would dedicate the right-of-way and they would have the county build the roadway. We said, well, we don't do that. This is if we did, it would be on so proportionate share. Because if you were to subdivide your property, you would have to build this road anyway. So the county is not in the business of building new roads on new location on behalf of a landowner. So we were looking at it from the perspective of subdivision regulations. If we did nothing, these property owners eventually would dedicate the right-of-way and build howard lane. But we were also interested in getting howard lane done. We thought there was a larger public good brought about by connecting it sooner than later. We could wait for the land to subdivide. Whenever that happens, whenever they got utilities, whenever the market would allow them to do that, and we may have howard lane built. So we started talking about the use of bond money to join together in the construction of howard lane. And I think at that point it really quickly boiled down to money. How much was everyone going to have to pay in hard cash. We're no longer talking just about the dedication of rate of way land which they already owned. We are talking about having to put up hard cash to build the roadway. And I think if I were to summarize it that's where it all kind of broke apart. And it's in trying to maintain some type of balance between what the taxpayer pays for the roadway and what the property owners would have paid anyway had they subdivided at a later date. That is the dance we're in right now. Just trying to strike a balance that's roughly proportional. Our last best offer to the property owners was to pay for the bridge. We thought by paying the full cost for the bridge over gilleland creek would level the field. So basically stone's property is as if it didn't cross gilleland creek. That he would pay for what he had most use for and not be disproportionately having to bear the cost of the bridge and all the road construction. And I firmly believe at this point what the county's proposing is truly a fair deal. And I put it in the context of other public-private partnerships that we have already executed. For the most part, we have sought and gotten right-of-way dead indications at 50 -- dedications at 50% of the engineering and construction cost. One area that we deviated from that was on wells branch parkway because that is a six-lane roadway. And because the property owner was dedicating 140 feet of right-of-way. We agreed that to allow him to build or charge him 40%, not 50% of the cost of the roadway. But again, the whole notion here is to strike what we are trying to describe as a roughly proportional share. And I included also in your backup if we waited, what was the downside of waiting. What would we get if we waited for the property to be subdivided. And we took mr. Stone's property in particular and we said, okay, if we took his full acreage, deducted out the flood plain, deducted out the water quality zones, he would have about 200 acres of developable land. If he planted that land in single-family units, which is probably the lowest use of the property not the highest and best use, we estimate that his share, what we would seek from him at the time of platting would be about $1.6 million. From that he would deduct the right-of-way he is dedicating and any construction costs he would put into howard lane. So with that as a comparison, asking him at this time for 900,000 versus 1.6 million when he platted gives you some sense of what -- what we would otherwise call roughly proportional if we just waited for the subdivision to be platted. On the other end of the spectrum, he is asking to k-bt 300,000. I think that's in part why we're at odds is mainly in the sense of what they consider to be a fair share.
>> if you are stone, might not you have the opinion that as opposed to taking on the whole cost of building the bridge, the embankment, doing everything, isn't there access to the stone property if he wants to develop his land in there, and quite frankly, you know, he could walk away and say who cares about building howard lane all the way through, I do have access to my acreage, doesn't he?
>> he does have access to parmer lane, but if he came in to plat his parent tract, we would still require him to dedicate the right-of-way for howard lane.
>> okay. And he is aware of that?
>> I知 presuming he is.
>> .
>> and at the start of this, I mean have we said anything that we have had to go back on with regard -- I mean other than the fact nobody really knew what the figures were when we first started talking, is there anything where he would have grounds to say, well, I wouldn't have agreed to that because the cost is inordinately high for me to make, you know, my investment work?
>> I think he probably would claim that the costs we're asking him to pay he cannot pay. And there may be some disagreement in several areas. One, when they had to pay. I think perhaps initially we were looking at a cash flow as land developed. You know. That is not typically the way we do our public-private partnerships. We want their money at the time we go to bid. Or at least soon thereafter. So there is some real hard cash on the table when we start constructing. The other, I suppose -- I think the area we spent the most time in probably disagreement was this issue of at grade versus not at grade and obviously we're still not in agreement on that.
>> well, I値l throw some other perspective in on this. I think there is also a little bit of heartache -- choosing my words carefully -- that when it came time sh 130 was coming through, some folks didn't -- the other two families got paid for their right-of-way as opposed to they had to dedicate for sh 130. Mr. Stone because 130 do did not go through his property did not receive compensation from the state of Texas which could be helpful in terms of off setting other pieces of this. In terms of going back to was this the correct path to be going down on, I still maintain it was and I think everybody entered this with good intentions. Greg lane today, yesterday and tomorrow is a local road. And what we've got along greg lane are basically farms, mobile homes, and single-family units. That's it. Howard lane, on the other hand, is -- has been Marching east from mopac for years now. It was a 1997 bond issue project going from interstate 35 all the way over to dessau road. A partnership with the city of Austin. It also Marches west from mopac to 183. We are truly talking about a regional road in every sense of it. And what you have along howard lane, in addition to subdivisions, entrances to subdivisions. You basically have industrial use. You've got dell on howard lane. And that is what's going to be happening. This is a major roadway. Howard is more like parmer, greg is a local road and was -- it was always going to be not the place to put the interchange because it starts someplace, ends someplace and doesn't really get you anywhere other than local. I think where we got turned upside down is that just because you get named as a potential bond project that somehow you are going to get a free ride. Maybe I知 being a little harsh, but after all those months it never meant the county was just going to pick it all up and because the political will was there that somehow you weren't going to have to bear your proportional share. We did get caught up into this idea if I can't have access at grade, somehow that's the only thing that matters is a driveway cut off of howard lane. And that is so incorrect. Ask anybody with property along loop 360 where you are clearly not at grade, but that property is accessible. And I think the thing that really -- joe, you haven't shown this yet -- got me is there is a preliminary set of engineering drawings that shows that these folks are talking about building a road connecting howard lane down to parmer. And off of that road they have full access to all of this land. So it's not a question of I don't have highway frontage on howard therefore my land just isn't worth anything. It's not true. In fact, they've even looked at, gee, the best way to access the full amount of their acreage is to punch a road through there. And excuse me, that shows that even they concede it wasn't about what can we put along the frontage of howard lane or parmer, it is about trying to get full access to the entirety of that project. And I think one last thing I値l say is other developers who have dealt with the city of Austin, and this is like their regular thing, I think would see these numbers and jump at the opportunity to get into a partnership with the Travis County on this because they are seeing it is proportional, the county is picking up the bridge, and I think part of this is just we're dealing with somebody who has just not had the pleasure and opportunity of doing deals like this on a regular basis with the city of Austin and knowing what the requirements are related to water quality, retention, detention, and putting in your hard infrastructure costs. And the idea that you don't put hike and bike in here, excuse me, I would be happy to get tommy eaton to spend quality time with them about the importance on our campo arterial projects that we have pedestrian things. We have -- we have know from experience you have to have contingency. We know from experience you have to have inflation. So all of a sudden I think it's just I値l use the word new year's eve teu to truly get through the process and we have learned the hard way through the '84, the '97, the 2000 and the 2001 bond issues that as we prepare for '05, we darn well better get all of our costs in there and up front because it is not pleasant when something is forgotten and all of a sudden have you to figure that in and the deal is already locked down. So those are my comments.
>> joe, I guess -- Commissioner Sonleitner went over the majority of a lot of things I would conclude with. Appreciate that. But really, as we've gone through this process over the years, I think Travis County has really stepped up to the plate and said, hey, you know, we understand a lot of these things as far as arterials are concerned, and I guess the icing on the cake for me to make me really firmly believe that we are doing the best we can is the bridge that crosses gilleland creek. And that in itself will deviate from the 50/50 type situation that we have been dealing with because with that bridge it can't be 50/50. For us and also the landowner. So I don't know if you have anything else to say on this, and maybe the other court members do.
>> you get a chance to finish your stphrepbgs.
>> that's all I have.
>> I have four or five legal questions to ask in executive session.
>> y'all, this would be important, there is that map, joe, related to what I was referring to that they -- they had already talked about how would they get complete and full access to the property, but it's not simply about what borders either palmer or howard. Again, I didn't make this up. This is what was given to me and I gave it to joe saying they've already looked in terms of how best to get complete and full access so that there is -- that you are not just going to be somebody oh, I just need a driveway cut, I only get to do stuff right on howard and parmer. They were talking about punching a road through there. To get complete and full access to their property.
>> would that be a factor in the howard lane discussion?
>> well, the factor is this. There's an argument being made that this area cannot get access to howard lane, which is howard lane here. And so therefore mr. Stone should not have to pay for the road on the embankment. But the fact of the matter is all the development is occurring in here, you're going to tie on to this road which ties into howard lane. So it's like no, you don't have driveways all along this roadway, but all the traffic that would otherwise get to howard lane is going to get there by this connecting street. So it's like you get absolute full utilization of howard lane any way you cut it. And by picking up -- by Travis County picking up this section across gilleland creek, we've literally leveled his property. Furthermore, being on a perpendicular street to 130 is going to basically enhance the value of his total tract.
>> this is their fight. This is not t.n.r. Saying I guess they could punch a road through there. This is their preliminary their drawings in terms of how they were conceiving how to deal with the complete and full access to every piece of acreage that is developable.
>> anything else from the court on this item? Anybody else here on the howard lane item? I will announce we will take up item number 10 for a follow-up discussion in executive session under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act and the real estate matters exception. And we will discuss the following items in executive session, 25, receive briefing from county attorney and/or take appropriate action in cinco j versus Travis County, roy michael green, mj dean and michael wallace. Consultation with attorney. 26, consider and take appropriate action on purchase contract with diane finch grant for the approximately 83.4004 acres of land in connection with the balance conies canyonlands conservation plan. We are told we do not -- okay, we need 26?
>> 26, yes.
>> consultation on attorney on 26. 27 we do not need today. Have it back on next week. And that's August 16th. 28, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action in rosenbaum versus Travis County. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 29, receive legal advice and take appropriate action on reurbs relating to the Travis County kpheupld prom policy and/or tax abatement policy. Consultation with attorney. I do not think we need 30 today because 30 depends on 29. We'll have 30 back on next week and hopefully next week be able to take action on 29. Today I think we just need to discuss it and get questions, recommendations, et cetera. 31, receive briefing from county attorney and/or authorize county attorney to accept, reject or counter settlement demand and/or take appropriate action regarding angela d. Stedtler versus Travis County. Consultation with attorney. 32, receive briefing from county attorney in Travis County et al. Versus francis and ruth high lie and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney. 33, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding a Travis County precinct 2 constable office employee, slot number 7. That's the consultation with attorney and personnel matters exception to the open meetings act. And number 34, a long list of tax resale deeds, receive briefing from the county attorney and take appropriate action regarding offers to purchase resale property by cse development, llc, in the following tax lawsuits, all properties located in precinct 3. That's posted under the consultation with attorney and the real estate matters exceptions to the open meetings act. A, Travis County et al. Versus duane v. Kemerer. B, Travis County et al. Versus graciela corona ortega, trustee. C, Travis County, et al., versus virginia I will v. And mary ann graves. D, Travis County et al. Versus kenneth d olson. E, Travis County versus james h. And sandra l. Davis. F, Travis County et al. Versus kenneth d. Olson. G, Travis County, et al., versus suites costa dorada. H, Travis County et al. Versus julian r. And kathleen lang. I, Travis County et al. Versus taufan, t-a-u-f-a-n, palatehan. J, Travis County et al. Versus ronald and barbara sejd. K, Travis County versus james g. Alexander jr. L, Travis County et al. Versus michael d turner. M, Travis County et al. Versus wallace r. And betty j haynes. And n, Travis County versus delainh adams. We'll discussion these in executive discussion before return to open court before taking any action. Ttete ttete
>> > we've concluded our executive session. We'll have to go in about 3:30. Move we recess for lunch until about 1:30. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote with Commissioner Gomez temporarily off the dais. If,
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, August 9, 2005 8:51 PM