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 18
View captioned video.
Morning discussion
Afternoon discussion.
18, consider and take appropriate action on whether Travis County should give comments to campo on the central Texas regional mobility authority and txdot's proposed toll road implementation program. This item basically is for us to let you know whether we think we ought to give comments.
>> that's right.
>> not what the comments ought to be.
>> well, that too. You have a public hearing coming up next Monday night. Three of you sit on campo and will be asked to vote on whether or not to include these toll roads into the campo plan in June. And so we thought we would give this opportunity to really find out if there -- at this point in time the court as a body wanted to make any comment to campo as part of its public hearing next Monday night. And that is certainly something you might want to do, you may not want to do it until after the public hearing, but we didn't want to let the opportunity go by without the court as an official body having this on the agenda. Perhaps it's not ready yet, but this is a significant change in direction as far as transportation policy in the Austin metropolitan area, and I think everyone should be aware of that and go into it with a heads up.
>> from the campo members that I have, you know, been visiting with informally, nobody seems to think that we are on a course that may [inaudible] the public hearing in June, four weeks later, that board will be voting. There seems to be there will be more time necessary. There was an e-mail sent out late yesterday from the ctrma that they have schedule add long list of community meetings which are highly appropriate for people to talk about this. It seems more likely that July is a target date. In which case there would be more than sufficient time for the Commissioners court to decide if and what we would like to put in our public comments. But also recognizing that almost half of our board if not more than half of our board is made up of state legislators. And they are a tad busy right now in special session. And so that also I think is what's playing into a lot of everybody saying it's not going to happen in June because we've got our lawmakers with a different task and their staffs are very busy right now dealing with school finance. But June just does not seem to be an achiefable goal until we know which way the session is going.
>> are there comments that you believe Travis County as an entity would be the best to make?
>> [inaudible] about the proposal. I think there are some significant things here that I think the court ought to make a comment on. One in particular is that in their forecast of the 2 billion some odd dollars to be invested in these toll roads, only 1% of it is local money, which is already committed. As you know, we put in about $100 million into state highway 130 just in itself. We've contributed probably $45 million to 45 north. So to come in with a level of investment of $2 billion and not expect any local match for right-of-way or utility adjustments is significant. What it's saying is all these roads will be paid for through user charges, toll roads, tolls, and/or federal and state gasoline tax matched at the state level. So they are not asking for local governments to contribute property taxes to purchase right-of-way for these facilities. That's a departure from the traditional policies of the state where they have expected local governments to buy the right-of-way in some proportion. That is a positive fiscal impact on the county. And given where we are with property taxes, I think that's a -- we should make a positive comment about yes, we think that's the way to go. Because not more than a year ago there was some discussion of local participation in these toll roads to make them feasible. That is no longer what is being proposed. So I think there are areas like that. Another one is the -- I think we all were looking at the non-toll alternative. Because there was a very, very subtle communication that we put into the report. Many of these toll roads are being built on top of existing arterial highways. Now, what I mean by arterial highways means they've got signals on them, intersecting driveways. When they construct a toll road, the toll road will go right on top of that existing facility and that toll road will be limited access. And when they say there will be a non-toll alternative, what they mean by that is parallel frontage roads which will have the same characteristics as the existing arterial, meaning there will be signals, driveways, lower speeds. So in order to get the higher level of service, you will have to pay a toll to get on the limited access highway. If you want mobility, you are going to end up paying for it. If you want just to get from point a to point z and have enough time to travel, then you can use the frontage roads. I think that's not clearly understood I think by many people who look at the maps and think that these roadways which they see out there today are somehow going to remain free roads. Only the frontage roads will be free. The toll roads that the real mobility will be on the toll road. So there are things throughout that I think in part need to be clarified. Another issue is the toll itself. There's no published document about how much will be charged on tolls. I think bob day was quoted in the newspaper it will be somewhere between 12 cents and 15 cents per mile. So it's a lot of misunderstanding about, well, you know, take the mile road, multiple by 12 and that's how much you are going to pay. I don't think that's an accurate assessment of how much toll will be charged. First of all, I think it's premature to say exactly what the tolls will be on any of these facilities given that there's -- there has not been any toll feasibility study. Those tolls may vary from time of day to type of vehicle to segment of roadway, so in part again it's a matter of public perception and clear understanding about what's going on here. So all I would say to the court is as we go through here, where we see that things are not being perceived correctly by the public, we should say so so that we can get the correct story out. And where we have an affirmative or negative comments about any one of the proposals, we should be willing to say that as well as we pick up because this is a very significant change in transportation policy. As we do at the court, these things get debated, discussed in daylight. All this should take place before we-especially the elected official on campo take a vote to put them in the transportation plan. And that's all -- I think knowing the attitude of the court about full participation, clear information and having certainly gone through prior bond elections at the county where official statements are very important about what you are fixing to do in terms of selling bonds and the improvements to be made and what those improvements are going to look like, I think we are sensitive, at least here in my knowledge about Travis County, about how things are put in and out the public forum.
>> there are comments that Travis County is the appropriate entity to make.
>> I think as local elected officials, yes.
>> my question then is when will this court have an opportunity to review those and act on them?
>> I have a draft of various comments. I’m not sure i've got a market on comments. I expect many of you have heard from your own constituents, so I can throw my comments into the pool here, but I expect others to have some of their own thoughts on the issue.
>> and joe, I guess --
>> I was just going to say I agree with Commissioner Sonleitner in that I think that we're going to see a little bit of time between now and when we're going to have to make comments on this. I would -- I know that I think your office knows that there is a so-called town hall meeting tonight at kiker elementary at 7:00 and it is a question and answer period where r.m.a. And txdot will be there rolling out this plan, and that's specifically what this meeting is for, at least in the southwest quadrant, because I am convinced that some people know just enough to be completely dangerous with this toll road, with the whole project. So I think it is imperative that we take the time to articulate, you know, our questions from the county, and there certainly will be plenty of them I’m sure from the public. But I agree, I think the legislators are very busy with school finance and we're probably going to have more time to deal with this and probably we need it. But more than anything, I want to make sure that the Travis County residents really understand all there is to know about the toll road project. So I’m glad to see us doing this. This is something that's going to be very important for us to do. So I agree.
>> okay, joe, I feel that those comments that you made really are very appropriate. I think it answers a lot of questions that are out there and you are just basically laying it out as far as the politics of things and then the understanding of exactly what's going on. I think it will be [indiscernible] as far as the direction I’m in. I know that we're probably going to have a series of public meetings in precinct 1, and of course that needs to be done because right now there is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of indecision looking at the overall project not only for the toll roads in precinct 1 and into our county. So I think an opportunity still needs to be awarded to the community to ensure that those questions that are still kind of foggy should come forth. So that is currently being looked at and worked on as far as a big, massive community meeting of precinct 1, and hopefully this will answer a lot of things. But in the meantime, but in the meantime, I really feel that those answers that you gave this morning were very, very well appropriate for the comments are concerned because it does clear up a lot of things. And so I’m really, you know, the positives I think are very appropriate. So anyway, thanks for those comments. I’m ready to get on with the public meeting and get everybody to understand exactly what's going on.
>> our intention to call up this item again after item number 6, which we said we would take up at 10:00.
Joe, let's see if we can take a few more minutes and finish the item we had started with you, and that was item number 18, right?
>> that's correct.
>> and that is whether or not Travis County should give comments to campo on the central regional mobility. What if we were to enumerate six or seven points that we thought we ought to make. Could you and your staff, even after taking a 30-minute lunch, have something in draft for us this afternoon that we could sort of bless and say, okay, let's develop these points further, put them in good shape and submit them to the campo in preparation for the Monday public hearing, and then later on if we wanted to supplement them, do it? Or is that asking too much? Seems like there are five or six points that -- four or five you mentioned, two or three others come to mind to me, and this court may have two or three other. I’m thinking we would have seven or eight points, and I’m also thinking what we would expect this afternoon would be five or six sentences regarding each point. Not a long document, but if we could bless those points and maybe direct staff to just go ahead and to the extent they need further refinement do that and submit them for us.
>> judge, can I offer a slight variation on that. The hearing is on Monday, but traditionally campo has kept open the record for two, three, four weeks to be able to get written comments submitted in time for the record. Knowing that, it seems like we have the opportunity over the next week, and there may even be some things that we didn't even think about that come up in the public hearing on Monday that we would want to add to our written record. And so to me we can ensure that that public record stays open long enough for this Commissioners court to consider that document either next Tuesday or the following Tuesday and still do everything that we want to get done in terms of get our comments in on the record in time for campo, but traditionally it's been open at least two to three weeks and in times that we thought it was a little washed, we've gotten that extend to do four and five weeks in terms of written comments. I know the last time we did that the deadline was hitting around christmas and we said, boom, it ain't happening, and they extended the time period for written comments. I’m just a little concerned about throwing something together over lunch when the reality is we really do have more time to put it down on paper the exact way we want to.
>> we may have two or three more months. However, I’m convinced that the public policy, public impact opportunity is Monday night. And it seems to me that up front there are five or six points that we ought to make. And I mentioned further refinement to the extent that, you know, we put together the best we can, but I think we ought to do that. After that if we've got a couple of months, we ought to fever the development. There are probably some points not on txdot's mind or campo's mind now that are on our mind, and in my view, I wouldn't wait to make it, I would make it Monday night. In fact, I don't think it would be a bad idea for joe to stand and say from Travis County we have the following points of concern and some of them are also principles that we ought to stick to. For example, I have seen it hinted -- really I have seen it said that the non-toll existing roads will remain. As it turns out that is correct is not quite the truth. I think we ought to say, though, that the quality of service of the non-toll part of the road will be comparable to what it is today. Because many residents have voiced a concern that if the non-toll part has a whole lot of traffic lights and a lot of driveways, et cetera, what you are doing is forcing us to use the toll roads. That's not the intention from txdot based on what txdot has told me. But when I see the pictures and the presentation, then the existing lanes are not the ones that whether remain free, right? On the presentation I saw, the existing lanes are tolled and the new roads are the ones that are non-tolled. And the new roads are kind of like access roads. I mean and I think I would make that point.
>> there are -- there are added capacity new roads that will be built, but there is -- you are right, judge, I mean the distinction between what you are talking about is the confusing thing. I mean I don't know that -- I don't think that I even believe that what they are going to do is take the frontage roads or the non-toll roads and really make it hurt if you get out there on them. I mean, some of them you already hurt because that's the only thing that you can use and that's the reason we have the traffic that we have today. But I totally agree with you that there are four or five things that we could bring up and at least address campo with Monday night, and we will add, you are right, we will add a bunch of things to it, but there are some that I would think that, you know --
>> that's the big one because folk that i've heard from who really are distrust full of government, not necessarily Travis County, but distrust full of government believe that the non-toll roads in fact will have a much lower quality level of service than today. And txdot has left me with the impression that that is not the intention. And if that's not the intention, then it seems to me that ought to be set forth in some sort of policy statement.
>> I agree with that, judge, and again, I still feel very strongly -- joe, here's what I would like you to do for me. Whenever the comments are fine-tuned, I would like to get that pretty quick like because leading into those public meetings that I know -- community meetings that I know we'll have, I would at least have some opportunity to have some of this right off the top. And I guess after you have your campo meeting, I guess if the campo board feels they need to add additional things as far as what Travis County can do, I would like to have that also. But in the meantime, some of these things that we discussed here this morning, there are several residents that are not aware of the things that we have even laid out here this morning. So to kind of clear the air a little bit for us, I would like to have that as soon as possible so when the calls do come in and as I see people, I will be able to lay out exactly what this is all about. And it would maybe, you know, solve some of the -- resolve some of the concerns that the folks are having. So I would like to have that as soon as it's fine-tuned. Thank you.
>> judge, here's my problem. When people have been calling me asking me what does number 18 mean and I looked at the wording, it's about whether we should give comments to campo on their implementation program. It's not what comments we're going to give. And so people who have called in saying are you guys going to give comments, I’m going that's not the way it's posted. It just says are we going to weigh in or not, and if the answer is not, that's the end of it. If the answer is is, then we would welcome comments. This is different from what was originally turned in in our backup about discussing the implementation program and taking appropriate action. I will have to tell you when people have called in about this one, I have told them we weren't going to get into what are our comments going to be because of the way the thing was worded. It's just are we going to get into this discussion, and if the answer was yes, we would have another item in terms of approval of the comments to go into campo.
>> john, where do we stand legally? And when I started today's meeting, that was exactly what I said. Joe indicated that he thought we would decide what comments. I’m talking about today. I’m not talking about when I put the wording on.
>> I was presuming you could under this wording develop comments if there was a desire of the court to do that.
>> let's just get a legal opinion out.
>> you want to hear that in executive session or do you want to hear it out here?
>> actually we were hoping to hear it in one or two words right now.
>> the word whether is seldom used on agenda and the words consider and take appropriate action are almost always used in order to provide you the broadest ability to address an item that you place on the agenda. So you have an internal conflict in the language here. I couldn't tell you straight out that you would not be challenged by utilize ing this word and then coming up with wording that joe and tom and whoever would be drafting the rest of the day. It's not a clear slam dunk.
>> why don't we hedge like we do sometimes. We can have the item back on next week basically for the same deal to ratify whatever document we come up with. I just think the golden opportunity is Monday night joe standing up and saying in Travis County's view -- and I don't know that we really have to be incredibly creative. Even if we said we believe that the following issues to be addressed and aoe norm rate them. See what I’m saying? And I think, though, that we ought to make sure that we summarize the issues that we know are important to Travis County residents because they have voiced them to us. So I’m not hoping we make disaddition but I am hoping we communicate to txdot and campo and the r.m.a. The very kwerpbs that we have heard from -- concerns we have heard from Travis County residents. So maybe instead of the five or six sentences I suggested earlier, maybe we ought to say roughly here are some points of concern that we think campo and txdot should address, and just enumerate them. So instead of the five or six page that's I had in mind, it will be one page of bullets and that will be six or seven bullets. If we don't do that, I think we miss the golden opportunity. The other thing I’m thinking is that we should be able to, you know, just from recollection put these points together.
>> well, we have that already and joe faxed it -- e-mailed it to us at 1:44 yesterday. And even his preliminary note says it reads whether Travis County should give comments. I don't presume thaw do, but a [indiscernible] some things to think about, take it or leave it. We didn't even get the staff input on this until yesterday at 1:44. Plus to think --
>> I was off yesterday.
>> right.
>> joe thinks [indiscernible].
>> for us to think we're going to create a document and sign off on wordsmithing on something we didn't even get staff input until 1:45 yesterday and at least one Commissioner that felt we were going into this meeting about whether or not we would get into comments or not, and i've told other people that we were not going to bring this up today because they would have been here to give us input.
>> the good news is they can come next Tuesday if they missed today.
>> the good news is they are all good-bye to be there Monday.
>> it is better -- going to be there Monday.
>> it is better for these six or seven points to be considered and acted on by the Commissioners court rather than have one of us saying that campo [indiscernible]. I strongly feel they ought to be said. I further strongly feel they ought to be approved by the Commissioners court. So maybe what we ought to do, and this is my motion, that over lunch we review joe's points with an eye toward coming in this afternoon discussing joe's points and trying to figure out whether other points ought to be added or whether we ought to delete from joe's points and basically figure out a strategy consistent with the due process notions that concern Commissioner Sonleitner, how we can do all of that and at the same time get these points across to campo Monday.
>> second.
>> there are three of us on campo. And our attendance has not been perfect. [indiscernible] so that motion was seconded by Commissioner Davis. Review joe'sñr list and basicaly revise that list and come up with points that ought to be made and this afternoon decide whether one of the three of us who are on campo should decide whether the court should take action. Any more discussion of that motion? That is the [indiscernible] Sam Biscoe golden opportunity motion. All in favor?
>> I’m abstaining.
>> show Commissioner Sonleitner abstaining and Commissioners Davis, Gomez, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor.
>> I can't leave until we approve these things. Oe, we'll see enthusiasm afternoon. You don't have to do any work except due e-mail the whole court.
>> and our staffs had the stuff yesterday.
Afternoon Discussion
Let's call back up 18. 18. Consider and take appropriate action on whether Travis County should give comments to campo on the central Texas regional mobility authority and txdot's proposed toll road implementation program. Joe, did send us an e-mail. If we use that e-mail as a basis, then here are my suggestions. On comment one that we [indiscernible] after gasoline taxes. Judge, can I -- I mean, I haven't been in my office since lunch, do you have a copy of that?
>> are you talking about the one that you sent us yesterday?
>> oh, that one?
>> yeah. I got that one, joe. I thought you had done something this afternoon.
>> the reason that I would do it that way is that joe makes other points that makes that a lot clearer. On point number 2, I don't know that I would -- I think that I would end two after using tax. What joe said basically is [indiscernible] taxes traditionally have been highway financed, highway capacity. Gasoline tax is a user Texas, like tolls. In joe's explanation, joe says always be available I would put a period there.
>> you just lost me, what one are you on now, judge?
>> background under number 2.
>> I was looking at comments. Okay.
>> joe says parallel frontage roads likely, blah blah blah, I would say however, parallel frontage roads may have slower speeds, conflicts and signalized intersections [indiscernible] so instead of saying likely, so and so, I would say they may, the next point is I would say Travis County advocates that non-toll alternatives will have the same level of service as existing roads, that's what we talked about this morning. I am sort of tweaking joe's wording a little bit. See, joe says texdot does not claim blah blah blah, I would just delete that part and say Travis County advocates or end courages or contends that non-toll alternatives will have the same level of service as existing roads. So if -- just kind of walking through that, if the existing road does have slower speeds and driveway conflicts and signalized intersections, that would be anticipated to still be there. There's no anticipation that you try and fix any of those? Would there be an obligation to enhance, upgrade?
>> the same level of service as the existing facilities.
>> that's what I would say. Your focus as a little bit different, that has been the commitment, that has been the complaint that a lot of residents have been concerned about. That all of a sudden they would have much -- much more level of service on -- on "existing roads". They are thinking that they would be like access roads all of a sudden.
>> okay. The other thing, the current three I guess that I would say, I guess the partial conversion of existing non-toll ultimate ter your -- if that's what you mean basically art, arterial. They say they won't convert existing roads to limited access toll roads.
>> what about substituting the word any conversion of existing highways to limited access needs to be explicitly communicated. That's why if it's all or part.
>> that's fine.
>> any.
>> any conversion? That doesn't say that we agree or disagree with it. Just basically says you had better be prepared to talk about this one. So when we ask the question, joe, as you do, what is our expectation there? Just the --
>> there's something lacking in clarity that that needs to be cleared up before they adopt the plan. I mean, for instance, I don't know on -- on comment number 4 if there is any diversion from a toll facility to a parallel non-toll arterial. And this is pertinent, for instance, on -- on 45 south where you have a toll facility and parallel to that is proceeddy lane. Brodie lane. The question is going to be, it has already been raised, if you charge on toll on 45, will traffic divert to brodie lane. I don't know. You can make claims either way that there's so much inconvenience going down brodie lane that people will gladly pay the toll and go on down the road. But I’m sure there's been some research done nationwide that would tell you when traffic would divert to non-toll parallel facility and in what event does that occur? How high does the toll have to get before people say well, I would rather not pay that, I would rather take my time going a slower route on a parallel free roadway. So the question really is for texdot to clarify this issue in public. If they have the expertise or can get the expertise to explain this to us because this will be an ongoing issue. Dr. Neighborhoods that are worried about -- there are neighborhood that are worried about if you have a toll road will traffic start coming through my neighborhood as a as a result to avoid the toll road. So all that I’m asking for here is clarification, can you enlighten us about the potential of that happening?
>> okay. What if I change that to this wording: when toll facilities are expected to divert travel on to parallel non-toll local arterials, texdot needs to be prepared to quantify that shift to the driving public? Or just to the public. Just changing a question into a statement. When toll facilities are expected to divert travel on to parallel non-toll local arterials, comma, texdot needs to be prepared to quantify that shift to the public.
>> okay, now I think on number 4 there, we really ought to start with something like the ctrma and texdot.
>> there you go.
>> should clarify for Travis County residents the following issues.
>> okay.
>> colon.
>> go from there?
>> yes.
>> got it.
>> because we have heard that complaint from -- that concern from residents, right?
>> sure.
>> yes.
>> and it's a good one.
>> frontage and backage roads. Yeah.
>> on some of this what we do anyway is to go other states that have had toll roads in place for years and I guess ascertain from them how they had discovered best practices to be, right?
>> well, I mean there's national -- the institution research board and other institutions like that have done formal research on this type of question. So there may be something already available.
>> okay. Now, the other little sort of delicate issue that has sort of come up hypothetically is this: a lot of roads were planned years ago. And the budget that was adopted back then is insufficient to cover the project now. So the question is what is texdot's policy on that? For example, let's say that -- that $25 million was approved for a certain road, and the ultimate cost years later is more than 30 million range. So you come up $5 million short. And the state's position may well be we don't have the $5 million. So under that circumstance, the toll, the $5 million part, do you implement a toll that is one fifth or one sixth what it would have been had you tolled the complete road or what. Now, when residents asked me I said, you know, I’m not sure what the answer is, but it doesn't make sense to give [indiscernible] 80% -- get bit 80% or 90% of the road and leave it at that. If public dollars tax or otherwise won't give you 100% of the project, then you want to build 100% and figure out a way to creatively cover all of it. So do we want texdot to land on the policy? You certainly would have to know that up front.
>> I will give you another one. It's a real-life example. I’m thinking s.h. 45 southwest. That was planned to be, because we approved bonds for it in 1997, a two-lane limited access roadway. But texdot was only the first foot in the door on that thing. It was always intended to be a four-lane roadway. Well, texdot hasn't even built the two. And so the question is is that appropriate for the four to become tolled or only two of the four to be tolled and what is interesting about that one as well in terms of why that one is goofier is it never was going to be built with frontage roads because of the -- because of the -- of the karst and the environment and the caves. So it -- there is no backage road on that one, nor a frontage road. What do you do on that one? I don't know. I’m just raising it as one of those really complicated cases out there.
>> you respond -- respond to that since I asked that question, the alternative fee road to 45 southwest is brodie. Alternative [indiscernible] road. I’m sure that we will hear some comments tonight about that. But that is --
>> there's potential for that. And depending on how high the price is to use 45. And I think that's a very sensitive issue. You can price yourself out of the market so to speak, but a normalnal charge may not cause any diversion to brodie lane. So it really is a matter of pricing. It's not that long of a segment, there are no utilities, the cost of construction will be typically what is in the urban area. The right-of-way is already available. So they could actually set a price on that segment of roadway that would be a -- high enough to pay for that -- the new added capacity but low enough not to divert traffic to broad die lane. It's all in the -- in how you cost these things out.
>> it may well be that texdot's position is to address them on a case-by-case basis. But I would that given it some advance thought, landing on that, to at least let people know. If you treat that road one way, next time you have similar circumstances, affected residents will expect the same result. Same treat.
>> I don't think that's the way, in my conversations, I think there's no standard format for every roadway in this program. I think there's a lot of variability. You won't see necessarily the same thing being done one place as you will in another. For instance, loop 360 that was is being proposed as a franchise, the only road in the entire plan that would be contracted to private entity to build and run. So you know just from that that they are not looking at doing the same thing everywhere. There will be different designs depending on what the roadway is. 290 will be built differently than 45 south.
>> hold on right there.
>> maybe the best we can do right now is make sure that they understand that there is that issue. That's really a hybrid between a toll road and a free road, right. But I think we're all interested in getting the road completed and kind of like 45 southwest the investment has been significant. We have a heavy interest in getting it done. At some point texdot has got to figure out what to do, thousand get it done, how many lanes, how to deal with the other issues. Seems to me that we are -- with time the issue would get worse, though. They multiply and kind of aggravate it by change in circumstances.
>> it's almost like there's no one size fits all on any of these things, if they are going to be different, texdot/crma needs to fully explain why one particular scenario in terms of construction, franchising, pricing, et cetera, was chosen or is preferred over another kind of scenario. And I would hoped that one of the things that's also in there, that I haven't seen in my comments, I sent you something over the lunch hour, I don't know if you got it joe, has to do with the idea of leveraging. It may be that one scenario leverages a certain pot of moneys that are available only in one kind of scenario versus another. And the word leveraging does not appear anywhere in here in terms of wanting to take advantage of leveraged dollars. Mr. Day sent something out to all of the campo members that he's going to be able to leverage dollars through the -- through the new house bill around the toll equity funds that if they don't go toll, we are not going to get access to them. It's about $1.6 billion, with a b, dollars. That's something for everybody to take into consideration. It may sway somebody one way or the other or maybe not. That needs to be put on the table is the idea of learning. He also very specifically answered my question that I asked at the last campo meeting, that is if we do not toll what is the cost of do nothing? If you go on the traditional way of building on some of the texdot projects, mr. Day says that if some of these things don't go toll, we go to the traditional route, it will fall back to local governments to acquire right-of-way and utilities to the tune of $150 million. That's one and a half s.h. 130's in terms of what Travis County put forward in terms of our commitment. That's a lot. Now, most of that, from what I can gather, is city of Austin. Because they have decided to strip annex down most state highways. So that's not something that's going to fall on our bonding capacity. That's something very serious out there, too. They need to fully understand if you don't go this route, go the tradition route, it used to be 90/10, then 80/20, now you are lucky if you get a 50/50 on right-of-way. S.h. 45 we are at 100% in Travis County.
>> [indiscernible]
>> really be good to look at the numbers here.
>> I’m going to forward that to you. I will make [multiple voices]
>> but what's -- what's being said here. It's upheld, something that we can substantiate, look at, if -- if that type of expense for right-of-way is -- is real numbers as far as amount of money that the tax bill would have to bear as far as acquisition of right-of-way, everything else, if that's the number that's we can look at, compared to those things that we may not have to spend money as far as the toll equity fund, the amount of money that we are out, from that funding source, those are some numbers I think that need to be put on the table. Right now I’m kind of at a disadvantage because we are, Commissioner Gomez and I are not on the campo board. In the next -- the next question is the city aware of what the -- what the strip annexing and things of that nature, if they are aware of what these things are, the cost drivers in this thing. So I don't really know where they are, the city of Austin is and all of this at this time. It would be kind of interesting to make some comparisons to that degree as far as dealing with real numbers, real dollar amount numbers. And doing it or not doing it. So -- so there will be something that I really would -- that I would like to get from your staff as far as getting that information to us. If anybody else don't have those because the impact the not having, doing the traditional way as opposed to what we are doing now, that would be something good to have, I think.
>> tied into what Commissioner Davis is talking about, the background is what he's talking about. The background for comment 6 led to you come up with different comments in terms of when I read that same thing in terms of the background for number 6, I asked the same questions that Commissioner Davis is asking in terms of leveraging and what are the costs of a do nothing scenario that fall back to local governments. In addition to your comments under number 6 from that background, which is and what about all of the others that are not going to be toll opportunities, how is texdot going to be able to fit that into the budget as well, just our kind of rank and file ranch roads and farm-to-market roads where they still have ongoing commitments.
>> the last resident concern that I have is -- is how will we evidence texdot's commitment to use excess toll revenue on road projects in this region? Rma really is a big deal of that. That may well help us deal with those projects where they have 80% of the fundings that fall 20% short. Especially if some of the toll roads in place generating excess revenue. I have heard that talk and they have lauded that as one of the reasons we ought to support it, we being Travis County. It's a whole lot more attractive if we know that one of these roads happens to generate beyond what's needed for that road, we with can use it for other projects in this region.
>> right. From the initial start of all of this, pursuing, trying to get in this direction, I always -- I don't know -- but I could have -- I always thought that part of the [indiscernible] on this, part of the excess revenue generated from toll would be always a part of this region [indiscernible] that the money wouldn't be transferred to some other part of the state, that it would stay here in local roads. That has changed ?
>> no, that hasn't changed. It's still in all of the speeches. I’m asking how do we evidence it, though.
>> all right. [multiple voices]
>> how do we guarantee that in language that we can enforce, that's been part of the political talk.
>> okay. I had thought that we had somewhere in writing. I remember even with house bill 3588 came up, one of the things that we wanted to make sure happened that this particular regional mobility authority, the ctrma, the partnership, that money would stay local. I haven't seen any -- anything to suggest that it wouldn't stay local.
>> I haven't either. But it's kind of like one of us out [indiscernible], that doesn't really combine Travis County and the Commissioners court. The minute we bring it in this courtroom and take a vote on it, then you have a binding commitment, you have a record of it. So -- so I’m really looking for something that we can rely and point to in the future.
>> okay. Everybody is saying the right thing, still.
>> all right.
>> joe, also on your comment number 6, you have mentioned a few roads here. I’m a little wary about putting in specific start points and end points because some of these are kind of like what's on our radar screen right at this moment, but I don't preclude that's going to be the situation. For example in 1826, the Travis County voter approved project in terms of right-of-way is from 290 down to slaughter. That just gets us past the little hospital there. And at some point it's going to be I suspect something beyond that. I don't know what the next cross-section is going to be. But I don't think that it's just to slaughter lane. Same thing on 2769. This mentions dies ranch road to 620. Also huge sections of 2769 that do not fall in the city of volente. Village of volente that are still in Travis County that have huge flooding issues that when the lake comes up, you got to go the long way around, around lime creek. That has always been a serious situation on other pieces of 2769 to the west of [indiscernible] road. A road that I don't see on here at all, not part of my precinct anymore, but I finally remember it driving out to lago vista is 1431. There are huge lake flooding issues on 1431 between lago vista and the Travis County line. Again when the lake comes up, those folks in singleton bend have to go the long way around, like 60 miles through marble falls to get back into Travis County. And that has also been unaddressed. Other kind of safety improvements to 1431 west of lago vista. Pretty much -- i'll put all of 1431 because there are still some left turn issues on 1431 between Jonestown and lago that it's kind of chicken lane right now, at some point they are going to have to address that. There are very few signals, it is not a pleasant road to be on.
>> I didn't try to make an exhaustive list here because I just wanted to indicate that there are other pressing roadways that are not on the list of tools. So the question is how long do we wait for improvements to be made to those highways? And these are all pretty much choke points on the system. At some point, probably yesterday, they should have been in the process of being improved. And they are not on the list. It just begs the question what about these other system improvements?
>> okay. Joe, now all you have to do is take what we have said today, add that to your memo [laughter], present it in such a way that shows that we are a full partner.
>> I missed your first comment on first question. You had said something I didn't get the -- your comments on the first bullet.
>> I would just end that comment after and/or gasoline taxes, period. I think we pick up the rest of that in the rest of what you say.
>> all right. Got it.
>> we might also check with mr. Olick about how Monday night is going to be handled. One of the things on here, judge, just to let you know, late yesterday they moved the meeting that's on our thing here that it's over at joe c. Thompson, it got moved auditorium because it's four times as large. A few steps away technically a different location than what we have got here. But it seems like if joe has to wait in line and they don't give some kind of say a cut in line to certain officials that need to give instructions, you may be there for several days waiting to give your comments. Which amuses me to know end because i'll be there, too. But seems like we ought to be able to ask at certain --
>> I thought that I heard the judge this morning say one of you were going to give these comments. [laughter]
>> coming from the staff --
>> can you get with mr. Olick and manager to manager.
>> you used to have his job. [laughter] on.
>> be happy to do so.
>> let us know if there's a problem with that, though.
>> all right.
>> because I do think that -- I don't know that this in the middle of a whole lot of other comments will have the same impact. It may well shorten some of the other comments that I know that he will hear. Most of these I think is stuff that most of this is stuff that we have heard from residents, right?
>> some of it is, yes, sir.
>> I wouldn't have the same problem if the city of Austin wants to have their austin librach be the one to give comments on behalf of some of the jurisdiction that's there are. I think that's appropriate. Whenever we to go the transportation commission, you had better believe that they have an order no matter what the signup sheet says in terms of who gets to come first before the transportation commission, it's just a courtesy to focus people on certain kinds of comments. That represent more than just the individual.
>> move the memo with our changes.
>> second.
>> and that we present this to campo Monday night. Seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner, check with -- see if there's a problem, we will figure out how to deal with it. All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Sonleitner, Biscoe, county judge voting in favor. Voting against Commissioner Daugherty.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 5, 2004 7:38 AM