Travis County Commssioners Court
May 4, 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 17
Number 17 is consider conveyance of four tracts of existing right-of-way to the Texas department of transportation as needed for use in development of the loop north north and sh 45 north roadway projects and take appropriate action.
>> my question was we have already through bond projects made a humongous commitment to right-of-way purchases to loop 1 north and sh 45. This is separate related to four county roadways being intersected by this roadway. The question is is this the time that we ask the state of Texas whether our county vehicles can get some kind of consideration when this is becoming a toll road to be able to get some of our county vehicles quickly dispatched throughout the county and not have to pay a toll. It seems like we've already paid enough with right-of-way [inaudible] being committed through the raising of our property taxes on mopac and sh 45. It seems like this is an extra something where we are not charging them for the right-of-way that is going to be going into this, unlike every other property owner that is making millions off the state of Texas by selling their land.
>> it's very logical where we're providing services not only on these projects that other projects that may come along later where Travis County as an entity is providing services to the local projects, that we would be exempt from those tolls.
>> these are going to be -- it's either going to be something embedded in the renewal thing, renewal sticker or it will be a separate tax, but this is something that could very much be controlled related to t.n.r. Vehicles. I知 presuming the sheriff's office is already exempted, but they ought to be on that list. But our own public safety vehicles and our own county vehicles, especially those related to roads, ought to be able to travel, since we are giving -- we are not asking for any kind of consideration from the state of Texas, unlike every other property owner who is making huge amounts of money off of selling of their parcels. To me it seems like it ought to be a question asked [inaudible]. This is our leverage point.
>> is that a request to postpone this item?
>> joe, what's the best way to ask that question of them? Conveyance contingent upon?
>> I think it would be part of the consideration and contract language.
>> i'll put that then in the form of a motion that in relation to this request that we do indeed convey contingent upon acceptable language being worked out in the contract related to county vehicles not exclusive to --
>> I want to give it another week. One thing is I do think rather than a sneak attack, I think we ought to find out what txdot's position on it is. I know that their position will be that however they traoelt avis county, they have a responsibility to treat the other counties. It may be a situation where this is inknock use. At the same time, if these projects are important, I don't know that having this condition, if the condition kills the projects, it may be a non-issue anyway. I do think we ought to find out, we ought to put txdot on notice and members of the court. This is a major addition to the contract. And I may well be in support of it, but it is news to me and does txdot know about it?
>> no. But it's -- looking ahead, this could be a -- it could be a substantial fiscal impact to the county.
>> absolutely.
>> I知 not against it. I知 dead again acting today. One of the things I do think we ought to get some preliminary response from txdot on it.
>> all right.
>> I agree with you, judge. As far as I won't be here next week of course to make a decision, but I really would like to see that laid out. And I would also like to ask leland at this point in time is there anything illegal or within the legal realm of us requesting such a conveyance as far as not being able to pay tolls for county vehicles or anything else in that area. Is that something that has precedence in other areas that have collected those and such nature as what we're dealing with today?
>> I知 not aware, Commissioner. I would have to look.
>> we can ask.
>> we can look at that also from the legal perspective. But of course a week ought to be maybe sufficient.
>> I think so. On sh 45 north, Travis County was responsible for 100% of the right-of-way which is quite hefty, and on loop 1 north we had our proportionate share of that also. As far as I知 concerned, my perspective is the Travis County taxpayers have already paid for the right to have twos two of the vehicles and this is the time to act. If we don't ask now, I can guarantee you there is no leverage point. Another week is fine.
>> well, I think it's certainly applause I believe asking, but bear in mind that r.m.a. Will tell you you don't have to take the toll. That is part of the whole toll system is where there is a toll, there is a free road option.
>> [inaudible] confirmed eye guess we would like a higher level of service.
>> that's where we will agree.
>> sh 45, what is that one, joe, 34 million, 35 million?
>> that's right.
>> seems like 35 million ought to cover a few cars going on the toll road. I think we've already invested. Thank you.
>> I eagerly anticipate next week's discussion.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 5, 2004 7:38 AM