Travis County Commssioners Court
October 28, 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 33
Number 33, I just want this laid out for us. Consider approval and execution of the anderson mill road cypress canyon participation agreement with the developer, standard pacific of Texas, lp, for construction of roadway located in precinct 3 and take appropriate business.
>> let me have greg chico explain this.
>> can you just describe it? I think it's enough for us to lay out basically what it is that the agreement calls for and why.
>> the agreement is with a developer, standard pacific of Texas, lp, for joint public-private partnership for the construction of a -- the major arterial, anderson mill road, from just north of accept lien drive up to the Williamson county line. The voters in 2001 passed in the bond election and approved the construction of a two-lane divided arterial through that area. Travis County tnr has been working with an adjoining property owner to enter into a cooperative agreement with that property owner so that we can leverage the monies that the county would be spending for development of that roadway. This agreement works to benefit the county by allowing us to develop a roadway for the northwest area with a savings spend sure of the county, but greater capacity with the end result.
>> and it not even be a toll road? It will not be a toll road?
>> that is correct. [ laughter ]
>> this is a good deal for the county?
>> because the net result to the county as planned under this agreement will be a four-lane divided arterial. The budget -- the budget approved in the bond election for the same expenditure would give us a two-lane divided arterial. The added benefit of cooperating with the private landowner enables the county to secure all of the design for a six-lane divided arterial, which is what the roadway is designated by campo as. In addition, the agreement calls for the private developer to grant or deed all of the easements needed, also their private properties for water quality features and drainage. There are a number of cost savings that are achieved through a cooperative, collaborative effort where you get councilmember alvarez of scale and -- where you get economies of scale and so forth.
>> I might add that this same developer was the owner of the tract where it was located and donated 100% of the right-of-way to the county for the roadway. He's also the same company as the owner of adjoining property where water quality features are located.
>> so on the price of a two-lane road, we get four lanes constructed and actually six designed.
>> yes, sir.
>> and if this project comes in over budget...
>> we go back to the drafting board.
>> yes, the agreement is structured such that if it bid out at more than -- we have capped on it.
>> the county's contribution is capped?
>> yes, sir.
>> you do have the backup, joe, related to needing to work out an exchange agreement with the city of Austin? What's the status related to the preserve land -- what's the status of that? Has that gone to the bcp coordinating committee? Are there ways that some of us on this Commissioners court can be helpful in termed of stirring discussions and closure?
>> we have not -- the county has not approached the city on that matter. Primarily because at this stage we do not know exactly what it is we need. My estimate is approximately two to two and a quarter acres, but until we have a better handle on if in fact we do need it and if so how much, we believe it's a little premature to contact the city regarding that.
>> on a very similar kind of manner in terms of a swap that the city wound up doing with another developer related to a wastewater treatment plant, fish insisted on about a five to one match, so they may have the same kind of thing that if we need to we may actually have to purchase or swap 10 to do the match. I'm just telling you that that's already out there in terms of one of these kind of deals. I'm not saying that's what it will be, but we should not be unprepared for a higher match than a one to one acre gig.
>> we do not have the budget for that kind of match. We have capped this construction budget with the understanding that we require a fair market value on a one to one basis. If you're now saying that we need to be prepared for a one to five, this agreement does put the money into construction of the roadway. I'm just saying that. That will cause a problem with our budget.
>> and there are habitat pots of monies -- we can work cooperatively on this. This is not something that we can't get through. I'm just telling you the idea that it's one to one perhaps is wishful thinking, will not reflect reality once we get there because i've been here and done this on a project with the city, and it had to do with not a roadway, but the construction of a wastewater plant that's happening in the preserve land down near spanish oaks. Five to one match.
>> I move that we approve this -- so we should not approve this item? That's a question. You don't know?
>> we have money set aside for additional right-of-way acquisition on the presumption that we're going to be able to acquire it on a one to one ratio. And I am contractually obligated the rest of this budget to the construction of the roadway.
>> we also have a provision that says if we can't acquire that right-of-way, we can terminate the contract.
>> it's contingent.
>> if the five to one busts the budget, there's a way for us to get out of the contract.
>> I would move approval of it, judge. The anderson mill road project.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Is that what you heard? Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 28, 2003 7:52 AM