Travis County Commssioners Court
October 14, 2003
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.
Item 14
14 is to consider and take appropriate action on proposed Travis County projects for Travis County regional mobility authority and issues related there to.
>> this was carried over from last week. I have since communicated with bob day by e-mail on the backup from last week on the criteria for the list of projects. Unfortunately, he's out of town this week at a short course, so we will be setting up a feeght mooeght to have a face to face discussion when he comes back. Suffice it to say that what's most important in this agenda item, we believe tnr staff, is that the Commissioner court have in your mind what it is that's most important in this selection of a toll project. And we have provided you some fundamentals on what we believe ought to be the county position with regard to a toll road. And i'd like to just briefly review those. We set up three sets -- three tiers of criteria. The first set is (indiscernible). There are some things that are threshold type of criteria. If you don't do these, you're not even in the running. The first one is the toll road project in the transportation plan of CAMPO, and it's not in the discussion because we believe that the CAMPO plan ought to be what ties everything together. Whether it's a county road, a txdot project, a toll project, all these things are interrelated. If it's not on the adopted plan, it's not even in the long-term thinking. So that's a fundamental threshold type thing. The other thing we believe is that these projects ought to rise to a certain demand before they're considered. We don't consider 4,000 cars per day all that important on the roadway. Every road in Travis County has that type of traffic volume. So we ought to be focusing on roads that look like they're at a certain traffic volume that would warrant a major highway. We believe that ones you go from a six lane roadway or arterial to a highway like a parkway or a toll road or a major highway, you're talking about about 50,000 cars per day. So we made that one of our thresholds. We said give us some projects that have 50,000 cars a day, and right now or in the foreseeable future, near term, so those are the type of criteria. We want to get these first in the ballpark. The second set of criteria get right to the issue of are these projects feasible? We know the mechanism of toll roads is a market driven process. Are there ratepayers willing to pay the fee to use these roadways? First and foremost, are these economically feasible as toll projects? What I mean by that is is there sufficient revenue or is there sufficient traffic that is willing to pay a toll in order to offset the cost of improvements? So it's a see saw. The higher the cost may make it economically not feasible. If you have a project that is just too costly relative to the ratepayers wanting to pay for it, so those two things are in sync. And fundamentally do you have enough prafk per se -- traffic per se in the foreseeable life of that project to pay for the project cost? So those need to be in balance. And we look for projects that we believe the bondholders in new york, looking at all the risk, would be willing to pay for. Because if they're not, someone else has to make up the difference to pay for that highway project. And that is likely to be the local governments and the state highway department. So the extent to which it's not toll driven, someone else has to pay for that. And so the costs start being transferred back to the institutions that have tax rate revenue like the gas tax and the property tax. So our thinking in this is first make sure that you can get these projects and make the projects possible with the toll revenue. Make that a keystone in your thinking about how you select toll projects. Another piece of that thinking is you have to watch out for the competition. If you go out and do a toll project, but in the same corridor you have multiple free roadways, you've just shot yourself in the foot. Why would anyone want to pay a toll if within the same corridor they can get to where they want to go free on a road totally paid for by tax revenue? So that's another variable. We believe you need to look for that. You cannot go in and select a toll project and then either by action of the state or action from local government it will construct another project within the same corridor that's paid for by tax revenues, gas tax or property tax. So we believe there need to be some very good coordination on the part of the rma or tta in the state and the local governments to make sure that we don't compete with each other in how these toll roads are put into place. So that's the thinking between the tier 2 criteria. The tier 3 criteria are really tie breakers. Once you have two toll projects that are equally economically feasible, you can take the two and lay them side by side and say it's a jump call. Both are good toll projects. We introduce this third band of criteria to break the tie. And that is primarily in the realm of project readiness. Does it have environmental clearance? Does it have the backing of the state and the local governments? Is it -- (indiscernible) from the right-of-way perspective or anything else that might make one project more ready to do than another project that is equally feasible? That is the recommendation that the county staff is giving you as a Commissioners court on thinking to show what we recommend to the rma. Now, mind you, the rma can go and do anything it wants to do, but when the rma comes back to the county for cost participation, at a later date we should say this is what -- this is how we view our priorities and how we cost participate, and otherwise toll driven project wnd we told you so at the beginning of the projects. When we negotiate with the rma on toll projects. Now, this being said, we believe any project ought to be a candidate. What we have so far are only those projects that have been recommended by the rma. So we used those in that table that accompanies the backup. We don't want to have to put any particular stake in any of those projects. Quite frankly, there may be others that aren't on that list that are equally desirous to be looked at. And I have heard of several since this list was published on projects that people have come forward and said, well, why don't you consider this? We say fine, bring it on. We think that first and foremost the county, the coordination with txdot and the rma's should be crystal clear in what thinking goes into the project selection process. After that bring on any project and run it through that screen to see what comes to the top as far as the project to be funded. So I think that it's very early on in the process, and quite frankly, much too premature to select one project to recommend to the rma. We would recommend to the court, quite frankly to the rma or to txdot, let's be very clear in our own thinking on what criteria drives the selection process before we start going and selecting projects.
>> judge, to share with the court, I had lunch with the new engineer, bob day -- I guess it was yesterday. And I feel very comfortable with -- no, it was last week, I'm sorry. With what joe is saying and with what bob day is talking about with regards to incorporating with us the needs for Travis County. Obviously all of this toll stuff is driven by how many dollars you can generate, you no, compared to obviously the cost of the project, but I doubt that we're going to find very many discrepancies with regards to what the rma and what Travis County is going to want to do. But what he did ask, he said before you all get so far out there, I would like to have 90 days because I think in 90 days I'm going to be able to bring some things to the court that's going to make a lot of sense. I mean, this guy is really high on getting all of this stuff moving in the right direction. And so that's when I talked to joe yesterday, I said joe, have you talked to bob day, not knowing that bob was out this week. So I asked, I said, let's give it two weeks so joe can come back after having talked to bob day and say now I do know sort of where they're headed with this. But I think that bob day was more concerned about, please don't get out there and commit yourself or just get mentally committed to something until we can sit down and talk to you and let you know what our thoughts are.
>> and that's consistent with -- I think we all seem to be having lunch with bob day. I had a lunch with bob day about three weeks ago following one of the rma meetings, and bob is really talking about a new day.
>> I need to have lunch with bob day. [ laughter ]
>> he's very nice. [ laughter ]
>> I mean, it is not often I use the word visionary with txdot, but bob day is a special individual and he really wants to take a very close look at all the funds that are coming in to the district and how he can best leverage things. And that's not something you can figure out in 10 days when you're trying to perhaps undo 20 years of policies and procedures. And I want to give bob the flexibility to say here's -- because that's the column I don't see here. And it's almost like a leveraging column of where it's not simply a matter of is there txdot funding approved, there may be some txdot money reapproved or reapportioned. There may be a leveraging column. I think the other thing that troubled me a bit was that there were defined limits of the project that I don't necessarily know that I necessarily agree with. I mean, to say that 183 hov's go to loop 1, that would be quite lovely if we actually had continuous frontage road at mopac and 183. It doesn't work. And that is one of the most hellacious intersections of people trying to get off of great hills trail there. You couldn't start a toll road there even if you wanted to. You will have to get past that mess there at the arboretum. It couldn't be loop 1 even if we wanted it to be loop 1. They've got to cut it off. The other thing I want to bring out is I'm looking at your key criteria about how you awarded points, and it seems related to the connectivity on the toll facilities, column 3 in the middle there, it seemed to be if it was no connectivity you got zero, one toll road you got 10 points, and two toll roads you got 20 points. And to me there didn't seem to be an evaluation of the quality of the connectivity, and here's -- under that scenario, mopac extension would have gotten 10 points. That is a huge connectivity of tying in to 45 even though it's only tying in to one toll road. And so, for example, on the 290 east, that is a huge connectivity issue with sh 130. Those folks coming down from georgetown and Round Rock and Pflugerville hopefully getting on that road, if they don't get off at 290 east and have a pathway to tie them into 35 and get in, they unfortunately are going to continue down sh 130 and try to cut through neighborhoods via mlk. So we've got to figure out a way to get those people dumped off and not hitting six signals before they get over to 35 or else we're going to create some issues in east Austin that we don't want to go there. So that to me was a quality of the connectivity as opposed to simply was there connectivity.
>> I don't want to suggest that the points given to those criteria are based in any science.
>> based on what, joe?
>> based on any science. They're strictly a value judgment. Those value judgments can be changed. Quite frankly, i'd like to see what added value a connectivity brings to the project. I mean, there should be some pricing data, something to show us if you do connect to another toll road, how much is that worth to the feasibility for project health? I don't know right now. 10 points, 20 points? I have no idea. I do know that it is an important variable, as would be competing roads in the same corridor. So this is where the debate ought to go. Let's get down and discuss what it is that makes a project toll feasible. And let us base our thinking on those type of criteria. The table itself I think is almost a secondary thought. Project limits, what projects there are can all be changed one way or the other. You might come in with one project and find out because of the cost that it could be improved by changing the scope of the project or the limits of the project. And by doing so raises its feasibility in the matrix. So I think we need to be open to that so that we clearly choose the projects that are properly scoped, well estimated with regard to the total cost and not just construction cost. And all variables are tightened down. But be clear in our own thinking in how we will evaluate those projects when they come to us. Come to us as a court or comes to the rma for final selection.
>> joe -- siem other.
>> I'm finished. Have you had lunch with bob day yet?
>> no, not yet. [ laughter ] [ inaudible ].
>> joe in that second criteria in project feasibility and in the fifth component of that where it discusses the -- will the project generate enough revenue to pay for itself, one concern that -- and I don't want to lose focus on this. Sometimes you can start something or get involved in something and then you look back and say, well, did we actually lose focus? Are we really continuing in the direction that we're intending to go in when we started dealing with the authorities? If you recall, after the court gave you direction to go out and look at this, coming back to the Commissioners court with some authority -- at that time we looked at the original toll road authority. And the whole intent of going out and getting this thing started before we even married into this regional mobility authority concept, we were looking at ways whereby we could generate toll revenue not only to pay for it, for the operation maintenance of that road, but also have enough revenue where we don't have to go back to the taxpayers and dig in any pockets any more. And this was my big support for toll generated revenue. Even though we didn't get the rta -- (indiscernible) which we elected to go back with the rma. I don't want to lose site of that. And I don't know if any of these projects here -- for example, the sh 45 southeast, which was the first petitioned toll generated road here in Travis County, which went along into the Texas transportation commission with sh 183 a, which is up in Williamson county, of course, txdot decided to take over sh 45 southeast, realizing it was generating revenue and the cash cow that it would bring as far as revenue is concerned. Now, it ties into sh 130. My whole point is this, and I'm going to be very cautious and very watchful of this. Is any revenue from any of these operations coming back to Travis County to help the taxpayers of Travis County, not help to empty the pocket books for any co or any general obligation bond issue coming up in the future if we can start decreasing that. And this is the whole purpose in my mind of not only the transportation network, but also investments that the taxpayers have made over a number of years of how we don't have to hit them so hard. And i've been arguing that point ever since i've been up here as far as the authority is concerned. So my question is has there been any matrix set aside in which we do -- there are experts that look at these -- generating these toll roads and say look, this will generate this much number of years, blah, blah, blah, and also to retire the debt, not only that, but also generate income -- revenue for the taxpayers of Travis County. Has anything been broken down like to to assure me that this is what direction I need to go in on some of these toll roads? Not just simply having a toll road, but the long, ongoing benefits to Travis County resident I think is something that we need to hold on to because that was my original intent and purpose as far as when I thought of this anyway. As far as an authority is concerned. And I don't want to get away from that. So is it tied into that? Because if it's not, then I'm going to have questions about it. So that's where I'm coming from and I hope you understand my drift because that's where I was originally coming from.
>> there are no -- you're asking for a level of detail on projects that is much further down the road with regard to actual traffic and revenue forecast on individual projects. But it's not premature for the court to be asking questions about what its role to be in the future with regard to financing any portion of these projects. So if you want to signal txdot or the rma with regard to your expectations about county financial participation in projects, you can do so concept actually even at this moment so that when they go to look at those things, they have in mind what to expect from Travis County at some point in the future. So I think it's -- it's a two-part question. One, it's not premature to express your policy, at least your conceptual policy, it's probably premature to get down to the actual numbers on any particular project. That's one response. The second is when you move to understand it, every one of these toll projects are intersecting local roads that help or inhibit toll feasibility. For instance, the state highway 130. We know that there are a dozen interconnecting arterial streets that have to be constructed to state highway 130 to convey traffic to that highway. Travis County, the private sector, will be responsible for constructing those arterial streets. So we do have a role in making sure that the network that supports the toll system is in place. And we do have a financial responsibility in making sure that network is in place. That is separate and aside from what gets financed by the rma for the toll road itself.
>> but on top of that joe -- and I hear what you're saying. I know it's in detail, but even so, there was a commitment -- I know made to me. But I think there was a commitment that we looked at -- when we went through this whole process and when we looked at this, we wanted to make sure that generated revenue from tolls would return to help us with our infrastructure and our roads and stuff like that in Travis County. And so that was my point. And there are firms and there are people that can look at a project right off the top and see whether or not is that going to be a revenue generating situation that would not only pay for itself, but also generate enough income to continue to maintain it and also return monies, I guess, to the county. They do this in other counties. So if they do it in other counties, it just appears to me that we should do it in Travis County to hopefully alleviate the taxpayers from having to empty their pocketbook for this project.
>> that is the thinking behind the central Texas rma, that once you start the engine and you start generating revenues that exceed the cost of construction and the ongoing operation and maintenance cost of that facility, when you get to that point you can divert those excess revenues to other toll projects. Now, I predict that that's probably a decade down the road.
>> even so, it need to be somewhere. I'd like to have it be part of this. I'd feel a little more comfortable if it was. This is what Travis County wants to do. Thanks.
>> but the key on this thing, I don't think anyone should be -- have any miss rception. These toll dollars that will be generated are not going to alleviate the need for Travis County, Williamson county to still continue to build their road system that they're going to have to do either through co's or through ad valorem taxes or whatever. I mean, it is my thinking that the rma is generating additional dollars to go and to build additional rma projects, which is certainly going to benefit the Travis County residents. I mean, that just means that we don't have to go out and spend money on that particular road. But I don't -- I don't want anybody to think that we're going to -- that the reason that we are toll roading is so we don't have to attack money from ad valorem taxes or we don't have to pass bond to do other county road. I mean, it's not like that 130 is going to throw -- plus, I mean, the amount of dollars that it takes to build some of these projects, most of us probably won't be alive by the time they are paid off enough for anybody to witness additional dollars, but those additional dollars are going to go to build craig manor. Just pick a county road that we would have. I don't think that that's what the intent of the rma is at all.
>> not at all. As a matter of fact, legislatively they are limited to state highways on the rma. So toll road monies cannot be spent on local roads. And we continue to have the allocation to improve our county road system. Some of which to feed the toll system. But with that said, the question is will the rma be looking to Travis County to participate in a greater extent than txdot would have in the cost of right-of-way on their toll projects? For a long time we have had the txdot policies that are very clear about what they expect the local governments to do. On a state highway of this magnitude, state highways and federal highways, typically our exposure on right-of-way costs are 10% of the total cost of right-of-way. We're now talking about an rma. There are no policies with regard to how much local governments will be expected to pay for right-of-way on toll projects. There in is a lot of discussion because it can affect our tax base and future co's and road fund.
>> and that's the point I'm trying to drive in. It can affect us in the future. I'm trying to set up a stage and set up a foundation where it won't affect us as much. And if -- and if we participate in the state projects and the acquisition of right-of-way as we did with sh 130, about 90-million-dollar of sh 130 right-of-way, those kind of things the taxpayers have to retire the debt. Still I think there are provisions that we still have to be alert to and provide ourselves with this, and this policy as far as what we're looking at, as far as those kind of determinations in the future. So that's basically what I'm looking at and direction I'm coming from and that was the intent as far as I'm concerned had we first started.
>> can I make a statutory point because I think it's relevant to what I think you're saying Commissioner Davis and what you're saying Commissioner Daugherty and what you're saying, joe. The statute says that the rma can spend surplus toll revenues on county roads. If they're generating more revenue than they're having to spend, they can send that back to the county. Now, what I think -- why I think this is relevant to your point, Commissioner Daugherty, is as long as the rma sees a need to expand its system and its roads, that's where it's going to send the toll revenue and you're not going to have any surplus.
>> that's right.
>> but one day when the rma says we've built out this system, if that day ever comes, then yes, they can start sending that surplus revenue backs to the local governments for local roads. The other point is if the tolls are generating enough revenue for them to buy their own right-of-way, they're not going to be looking to the county to buy that right-of-way. That's going to free up capacity for county roads.
>> joe, when I met with the representative naishtat and the txdot representative, they seemed to be concerned about income generation. When I look at your project feasibility criteria, you have a lot more detail than that, but basically that's the revenue generation item, right?
>> the second set of criteria get right to that point. We used existing and forecasted traffic volumes as a surrogate for revenue because the more traffic, the more potential revenue.
>> that second point was whether or not the project compliments or promotes a transportation system rather than being just another project.
>> yeah.
>> when I look at your threshold criteria, basically that's what you're getting to.
>> number one, it should be in the CAMPO master plan, so yes, that's kind of just a fundamental. Connectivity to other toll roads is another one. It is important to make sure that this is viewed as a system. We would agree with Commissioner -- chairman -- (indiscernible).
>> is there anything in your recommendations that would prohibit multiple projects concurrently?
>> not at all.
>> so it did seem to be in their minds. You have not met with bob day and the others about this criteria?
>> I have not.
>> and the recommendation today is that we give joe two weeks?
>> yes.
>> if you can get a free lunch out of the deal, joe... [ laughter ] otherwise, it's back on the court's agenda on October 28th.
>> my lunch wasn't a free lunch. I paid for mine.
>> mine as well.
>> go prepared to pay. [ laughter ]
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 15, 2003 12:52 PM