Travis County Commssioners Court
February 10, 2004
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 29
Moving on down the agenda, number 29. Consider and take appropriate action on request to authorize use of surplus 1984 bond funds for the engineering design of howard lane between dessau road and cameron road and between the city corporate limits at harris branch subdivision and greg manor road. And [indiscernible] Austin. City corporate limits.
>> good morning.
>> mr. Geiselman.
>> .
>> we are far enough along on many of our projects to be able to sweep the remaining '84 bond money from some of the projects that have been completed and to put it to use on new projects. And I'm recommending, and we have approximately -- almost $1.2 million, about 1.85 -- $1,185,000 that we can reprogram at this point in time to additional projects. One of the projects that I'm recommending to the court is the engineering design of howard lane. Howard lane right now is a two-lane county road, east-west, between dessau road and cameron road. From there it goes through a right-of-way of harris branch subdivision, and then from there crossed just as a planned arterial, there is no existing right-of-way or existing roadway across state highway 130 and finally connects into gregg manor road, just north of manor. This is or will become and is planned to be a major east-west arterial up in northeast Travis County. It would literally connect howard lane, the portion that we completed in 1997 with the city of Austin, right around the dell computers complex there on howard lane. That would then be -- that same roadway would be extended eastward over to state highway 130, and then from 130 to 290. It would be a parallel facility to parmer lane, which is another major arterial further to the south. What we've proposed to do with the '84 bond money is merely first do the preliminary engineering design schematics to show the footprint of the roadway. So that as land develops along this corridor, we can set aside the right-of-way for the arterial roadway. And there's a lot of new subdivision occurring along this core do so what we're trying to do is preserve the corridor for the future roadway expansion. So the first benefit of the engineering design is merely to set down the footprint so that as land is subdivided, that they will set back and dedicate right-of-way for this future arterial. The next part of the engineering design now would actually be to set up this for a future bond election or perhaps even federal s.t.p. 4-c money if we were successful getting a grant from campo. What this does is -- there's no construction associated with this programming of funds. It's merely engineering design. And it's kind of getting ahead of the curve so that as land sub divides, we'll be able to get the necessary setbacks by the private developers when they occur, but also get one leg up on a future bond election so this would be ready to go just as soon as we have bond moneys to do it. I would ask the court, we have been in discussions with keystone and several property owners on the leg of howard lane between harris branch park way and gregg manor road. We have not yet executed a partnership agreement with those landowners. I would ask the court that we condition the use of the '84 bond money for part b to the successful execution of a partnership agreement with the landowners. So that we would only use the funds if we had that agreement on their participation in the ultimate project.
>> joe, can we have a document that basically contains that condition?
>> we have a --
>> one the court approves today.
>> we have had -- actually all I think you would have to do in this, part of your resolution today is make that condition. We have a draft partnership agreement that we've had for some time and we've just not been able to bring closure to it or some of the details in that agreement. And that's what I would say that for us to spend any more money on howard lane, I would want to make sure that we have that agreement.
>> the condition ought to be in some document.
>> I can certainly prepare a resolution to that effect.
>> rather than relying on our memory.
>> can you have it ready for us before the day is over? Because this is a real big deal, and of course it is the tie-in to s.h. 130 for the east-west connection on howard lane. And of course you must remember that txdot is -- we have already agreed with txdot to move the interchange that was originally died in with s.h. 130 be moved down to this howard lane interchange. So that has already been worked out with the txdot folks and the interchange will be at this particular location where howard lane does tie into s.h. 130. I think it's something we need to pursue, and if you can go ahead and get that part of the conditions based on the howard lane situation, I guess between the eastern boundary of city limits -- city of Austin corporate limits and between the eastern boundary of harris branch subdivision at gregg lane that is correct is actually the portion we are really looking at as far as the resolution is concerned is that particular portion now. But the other portion of this it doesn't appear to be a problem, and that is the construction and engineering design work from dessau, between dessau and cameron road. That seemed to be on howard lane. That seemed to be no problem with that as far as that portion. Do you see any problem with that, joe?
>> no.
>> I don't see any problem with either one of them. I would go ahead and approve the item. I just think there ought to be some evidence of condition.
>> right.
>> and I think we need to have that -- I agree with the judge. I think we need to have that in writing because it is a conditional-type situation.
>> I can bring that back --
>> we're spending money and we really haven't come to a final agreement with the partners.
>> I second your motion.
>> we'll go ahead and do that. [multiple voices]
>> i'll bring it back this afternoon.
>> based on the contingent resolution, if you can bring that back to us today. Go ahead.
>> i've got a couple questions on -- is this going to completely wipe out anything left over on 1984 related to precinct 1?
>> we will probably have some additional savings when other projects are completed. We're still holding back some money for some remnant condemnation. We've got other projects using '84 bond money that are in progress.
>> that's my concern.
>> so the extent to which those produce savings, we may have further savings, but this pretty much soaks up what's available.
>> that was my question because I think we had something on blake manor, did we do that last week or this week, I sometimes forget, you've got some things currently ongoing.
>> that's right.
>> and while the market has been extraordinarily good to us, it can flip in a heartbeat related to constructions costs. And I'm noticing on blake manor, for example, to be bid in '04, was littig bid?
>> it's under constructn.
>> okay. But anyway --
>> and blake manor --
>> sure that the other things previous to this that have been approved and all of a sudden we don't run short because we have drained it completely.
>> no, I have protected those budgets. Blake manor realignment should be award understand two weeks. I'll know with certainty just what the bid is on that.
>> great.
>> so i'll probably hold back a little bit of money in case there's any contingency during construction. I think I have enough held back on the live projects in order to go ahead and commit to the recommendation today.
>> what is the potential, and I won't hold you to it, but I'm trying to get a sense of what you think the change in the seat cushions might be related to after all of this stuff is done, what potentially may still be out there in terms of scooping up all the remainder. Because I had a huge desire to get '84 gone and we never discuss 1984 again because it's all done.
>> my next step is to sweep all the rest of the funds and bring back to the court a comprehensive budget amendment on c.i.p. So we take any '97, 2001 that's freed up and start rectifying those budgets as well. So clear out the accounts.
>> but do you have a sense what the magnitude of what the leftover may still be on 1984 even with this thing approved today? I'm just trying to get a sense whether it's only going to be good for maybe something little or whether there still may be room to squeeze out another engineering project?
>> no, I think my senses of order of magnitude is you might be able to squeeze out another bridge or perhaps another short reconstruction project.
>> okay.
>> and I have one in mind in case we do have leftover. So we're ready to go on yet another project depending on how these other get closed out.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> any more discussion?
>> did you understand the motion?
>> yes.
>> okay. All right.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 6:44 PM