Travis County Commissioners Court
February 8, 2005
Item 28
28 is to consider and take appropriate action on the pavement management strategy. And here, joe, you are looking for specifically what?
>> we had presented various alternatives in the session we had several weeks ago and we are now coming to the court with a recommendation so we can get a decision on which path to take as far as our multi-year programming of projects. To get some sense for the resources that will be available for this purpose. What we are recommending as our goal in the next five years is basically to change our goal from 70% fair to good condition in all roads and all precincts, maintain that 70% fair to good for the system as a whole. But for arterial roadways in all precincts, that would be 75%. So basically what we're doing is we're saying the general local road system will still be at least 70% fair to good, but to begin to apply additional resources to where most of the traffic is, and those roads should be at least in 75% fair to good condition. And so we're slightly changing the overall goal. Also in this alternative we're bringing on to the system for the first time all the park roads in the parks, that would be including the parking lots, and also all of those county-owned parking lots at county facilities, be it the jail or the gardner betts center, wherever it is that we own properties where there's some form of asphalt that needs to be maintained that t.n.r. Would pick that up as part of their work plan on an annual basis so we would include that as part of our charge of maintaining that. We get those requests periodically from facilities, but they have paid for it out of our budget. What we're saying is we'll pay for it out of the road and bridge fund.
>> so like the parking lot at the del valle jail.
>> that's right.
>> that's been in the facilities budget.
>> that's right. Anything that's county owned. We're not talking about lease faults. We're only talking about where the county owns the property.
>> not ex spoke.
>> what do you put expo in because the land underneath belongs to the city of Austin. Clearly all of the improvements including that pavement is owned by the county.
>> I guess that's a judgment call whether you want to put it in there or not. I mean we have private leases and that's kind of what we would say. We're not putting our efforts on a privately leased piece of property. In this case it's another public entity. I知 not sure that was the intent here. If we're already paying somebody to lease the facility, that should be included as part of the lease is their maintenance of the parking lot.
>> well, expo we don't pay anybody. That really is --
>> $10, 50-year lease.
>> with 37 years left on it.
>> to me I think expo ought to be treated like another county park. We put that pavement down, we ought to take care of it.
>> that will up your [inaudible] if you are going to put on the expo.
>> I think part of it is just deferred maintenance. I think once you get that road in good condition it may take a lot less to maintain it. It's just deteriorated.
>> [inaudible].
>> it's on the list here.
>> I知 just making sure we say expo out loud.
>> the only thing we are doing is upgrading our reconstruction standard to 20-year life. That would actually -- the price of doing that is more costly than the way we typically maintain or reconstruct roadways. So there are some higher costs of items that are part of the overall strategy. We also would allocate a half a million dollars into a drainage master plan, and that is just basically looking at the entire county and it's kind of a business plan real "where do we want to go with drainage. It's probably the first step in getting a view toward doing long-term drainage improvements in the county. And we might be able to also find some grant money to help us pay for that study.
>> in terms of the policy in terms of we have a good number of fines and fees and things that wind up in the road and bridge fund and we have the right this last year to withdraw some of those that were not specifically related to the j.p. Courts or something. This would have a reason for more of those dollars to remain in the future in the road and bridge fund as opposed to freeing them up to do other kinds of things. If we decide to upgrade and enhance what it is that we are doing in that operation.
>> the presumption is from whatever source it is, that the level of resource commitment would be the same as it was in f.y. '04. And we're not talking -- I知 not even going to use the term that we used to, the value is the same. The value is the same. I don't know where it comes from, whether it's fines and fees or whatever, but it's the level of resource commitment from all these sources would be the same as we had in '04.
>> and I think the problem we had last time when we set a goal is we wound up meeting the goal and didn't realize we had really run past it and so we need to be made aware of when we reach individual goals on these things, if indeed we choose to do this.
>> we could do that. I mean we do these road condition surveys about every three to four years so we expect that in that time period we'll be back to give you a report on whether or not we have achieved this goal.
>> or exceeded.
>> or exceeded.
>> joe, what would be the -- are you finished?
>> yes.
>> what would be the difference in what you are proposing here and the -- what I知 really looking at in my mind, looking at the 80% [indiscernible] and I think I supported that and I suggested that that we have 80% in all precincts in Travis County in fair condition. I知 looking at that because of the fact that the roads in precinct 1 and 4 are not at the 80% level, and the roads in other precincts are in the 80% level. For whatever reason over the years, precinct 1 has never had attained 80%. Never. I mean just the history of road maintenance, road upkeep and stuff like that, we have never achieved that particular goal, whereas other precincts have achieved that. My question to you is I don't know why it happens, I don't know how it happens, but it has happened. Here I知 looking at equity and I知 looking at 80%. You said 70%, of course, we're above 70% now. I think Commissioner Gomez, precinct 4 is a little above 70%, but the other precincts are above 80% currently. So I知 trying to wrestle with this to bring about some kind of equity at 80%. What's the deal on that?
>> this alternative sustains the commitment the court made in 1997 to reconstruct roads on the eastern side of the county. In terms of reconstruction or rehabilitation. And quite frankly that is what you are going to need to do to continue to have your road system elevated. So this alternative maintains that -- sustains that level of commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitation. It doesn't go so far as to post as a goal that we have 80% of all of our roads and all of our precincts in fair to good condition. It goes somewhat in between. It says 75% for arterials and collectors which are really where most of the people travel.
>> the main traffic.
>> the -- the -- if you want to look at the fine points here, it's really a danger of going to higher and higher levels of system-wide goals. 80%, 85%. Because you are beginning to direct your resources to roads that have nominal use. You know, you are getting them in very good condition, but the benefit received by that is for fewer and fewer people. So what we tried to do in this policy is not as a general policy say let's go up to the next step on a system-wide basis because I think at that point you start to not have as great as efficiency in the use of on your resources. With that said, we will continue to reconstruct roadways, and we believe that will elevate roads in the eastern part of Travis County. Particularly those that are used by more and more people, which are the arterial and collector road systems.
>> what I知 afraid of, and I知 really concerned about that is that it slips below the 70%.
>> yeah, I don't --
>> and of course, I know [indiscernible] but we've never seen 80%. 80% is just like asking for, you know -- I guess as far as I知 concerned. And the reason for this reconstruction is because of a lack and need for that reconstruction that's been lacking behind. What I知 quibbling about is to make sure we get the bang for the buck but make sure we continually are included -- [inaudible] and there are no slippagees.
>> I don't see any slippagees in this policy.
>> that's my concern.
>> can I ask a technical question? I don't have any, how are blade and oil projects, in terms of the conditions of those roads, do those blend in and impact the --
>> no.
>> because I see there's a whole bunch of them in precinct 1 and I was concerned that that was harming your average. So they are not considered along with the -- okay. Just making sure. I don't have any so I知 going that would concern me if I did.
>> they were not surveyed.
>> christian, did we give you a chance to voice opposition to the proposal? [laughter]
>> I didn't want to voice opposition, I just wanted to have everything on the table.
>> did I have everything on the table?
>> well, what you said was this will cost no more than the amount of resources in '04. Which sounds like one can approve this without requiring additional resources in '06. Could you explain this will not require additional resources in '04 with the backup that says I need $3.9 million worth of additional resources? I just wanted to reconcile those two utterances in public.
>> actually what we were trying to do without using the word that seems to misdirect all this debated is the value of the resources that were committed in 1997 remain there in '06. And those resources are now mixed in a lot of different sources, understand, and things happened to them in 2005. Whatever that was, what we're trying to say is that we will accomplish this set of goals with the level of resources that we had in '04, which included that value.
>> here's what I知 confused at. Next Tuesday the Commissioners court is going to have before them the approval of a set of budget guidelines for the f.y. '06 budget. In three months, your department is going to submit a f.y. '06 budget. If these goals are established, will your department be able to live within it -- within its f.y. '06 budget target or will your department need more resources in '06, independent of what happened in '97, '01 or '04? Because that's the issue that is going to be facing the court. Now, I think the answer is yes, but it may be no. That's what I知 trying to figure out. And I can't figure it out from the background that's here.
>> all right. Well, let me ask my financial folks to answer that question.
>> they were huddling in the back and I think they are answer is they are going to need more resources. That's why I知 bringing this out.
>> carol joseph, t.n.r. What I think we're trying to say is the value of the moneys that we had including what is now fines is the same in '06 as it was in '04. However, what jessica pointed out in '04, those moneys, most of it ended up in the allocated or unallocated reserve, and from that she took moneys for performance and increased health care. Which is not included in her numbers that joe gave you. So in essence as to christian's question, yes and no because we don't have -- we're using all of that in '06 in what joe proposed. We would not have the additional moneys for performance as well as any increases in health because it will be in allocated reserves which you then took from there and used in those items. So what we're saying is all of it in road and bridge plus [inaudible].
>> which adds up to substantial impact on the general fund in '06 given the change from '05. I just want to make sure that the court understands because you're referring to '04 as a magic -- and '04's books are closed. We're in '05.
>> '05 you took 1.96 million out of the road and bridge. And we moved that over to the general fund.
>> so to make this happen -- you need to leave it --
>> restoring the 1.9 or the 3.9?
>> they didn't take all of the 3.9. They took only 1.9 of it in '05.
>> so we would have to put the 1.9 back and that would be the equivalent of restoring to the point where we were in '04.
>> right.
>> the full 3.9.
>> right.
>> was that the oft discussed penny?
>> yes.
>> what I wanted to do was make sure everybody knows if they approve this, if the court approves this, that there is a -- roughly a $2 million expected resource change, which means from the general fund, to t.n.r. In '06. I don't understand why. From '05. For '06. So if there's, say, for example, $7 million worth of additional resources in the general fund, there will be $5 million worth of additional resources if the court approves it the way it is being presented right now.
>> and that would be the --
>> am I right?
>> that's correct.
>> that's what I wanted to let you know.
>> that's because in '05 you built in '06 what you did in '05. And whether we did it in '05, the understanding was you all were going to relook at it and you've made that function that it's already built in in '06. When you did the '05 1.96 we agreed you would relook at it and we're saying we looked at it and wanted it back and he's saying he's built it in already in his '06.
>> no, I知 not saying -- [multiple voices]
>> well, he's --
>> what I知 saying is if -- the best thing would be for the court to say in February or March, we want these resources in '06 to go here, here, here and here. In which case that's what we'll do. We'll put those resources here, here, here. What I want to avoid is the court approving a set of goals which have a set of fiscal assumptions behind them, not necessarily fully having on the table, having a budget submitted in may and having discussions of wait a second, you already approved this. All of a sudden we say and I didn't know that. I want to avoid I didn't know that. That's all I want to do.
>> let me ask this question of joe. The proposal that you are making here today, this -- the recommendation that you are making as far as alternative 4, is that particular proposal have direct relation to the $1.9 million, we're making a $3.9 million whole again as it was not before?
>> yes, it does.
>> it does? Okay, well, I need to hear that answer because the fact is that looking at what we're looking at, do we need re-- we need resources to do it. And if we have to restore the 1 $1.9 million back, I think that's what we need to do. There's no qualms about it as far as I知 concerned. But again -- I知 sorry, judge.
>> if we approve this today, it simply means in a preliminary budget, this -- it would be in there restoring the 3.9 back to the '04 level. But the budget would come forth with this in there. Now, the court thereafter could do whatever a majority wants to do. What happens is you got a lot of competing interests that surface as the budget process evolves. But it does make stones me to go ahead and -- sense to me to go ahead and indicate our position today we would like to see this done.
>> here's the other thing that's missing. We are talking about setting a goal. And I thought I heard joe say, and it may take us five years to get there. We are starting to act like we're talking about this goal has to be accomplished in fiscal year '06, and clearly we couldn't do that because that would be unbelievably expensive. So we need to have a sense of what this is going to cost for '06 resources and what we need to put back in. Because here's the deal. We're not starting at ground zero for meeting 70% of all precincts being in fair to good condition. We're already there. And we just approved things on blade, oil and hot mix and f-mix and seal coat that should continue to keep us at the same level that we're already at. What we need to find out is what is the gap to reach, if we set it, a new goal, which is that for all precincts and as a county that all of our arterials and collectors will not be at 70% but will be at 75%. I don't know if that's $5 million problem or a $50,000 problem because i've not been given data back to say what are the condition of our arterials and collectors. I think at least two of our precincts are already there. What we are adding is county-owned parking lots and park roads and upgrading our reconstruction standards. We need to price that. And again, I don't think when you set a goal you say you are going to do it in one year. If this is a five-year goal or four-year goal or whatever it is, give us what dollars per year that's going to take us to get to that goal.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> I would lining to make sure that we have the resources to catch up, maintain, all of these other kind of things, not ignoring, but the work hasn't been done. However much that's going to cost, I don't know. But I would like to make sure that we put something around some money. To make sure that that is achieved. That's what I知 going to be focusing on after restoring the $1.09 to make sure that happened within this process to get there, fine, but I知 not going to sit here and be shortchanged. Especially on people, persons, precincts that already is at that 80% level and above. And be shortchanged to the point that we are not even at the 75%, I don't really know. But the bottom line is that I want to make sure that we have that money available, so y'all know exactly where I知 coming from on that is to put us -- a fence around it. If we have to do that as far as the motion, stuff like that, I知 willing to do that. But of course we can -- we can wait, I guess, as far as what I知 kind of hearing you, but I don't want to just roll over. And play dead on this thing. I知 not.
>> christian, go ahead now.
>> the bottom of page 1, joe, what you all did was divide $1.9 million into the 3 known categories. What I知 thinking is once you start looking at specific projects, then we'll have a better feel for the full number.
>> this is a sustained effort over a period of years. You are for the going to do this in one year.
>> thank you.
>> so it's --
>> but --
>> the reason -- what we are trying to do is get a strategy, which is not a one-year deal. I mean, we didn't get where we are today by saying that we are going to do in 87 just for one year. You made a commitment as you did in 1997, and we sustained that for -- for however many years.
>> > six years.
>> almost eight years. A sustained level of resources. For the goal, we finally achieved the goal. That's our intent here is to get a goal, resources that match and we'll take you there over a series of four to five years. That's what we are trying to accomplish here.
>> we still need to find out where --
>> fy '06, you don't necessarily -- we can give you fy '06, but if we are not assured that the resources are going to be there sustained over a period of time, you don't know whether you will get there or not.
>> on the report we can clearly right now go back and pull it, know how each of our precincts and the county is doing in terms of fairly good. But what we do not have is that subanalysis of the pfluger report that says just tell us on our arterials and our collectors. I have no feeling for where any of us are in terms of our arterials and collectors, are we even remotely close to 75%? Or are we for one precinct or four precincts, we have never been given that information, we need to know what that is.
>> what christian would like to see, also, as you tie the money to the specific projects is on one hand what projects would you do in '06 if you had 3.9, what projects would you do if you had $2.9 million. That's not what I was going to suggest, but it's a good suggestion. [laughter]
>> well, also, we need to prioritize and in what order would you put these in in terms of what's the most -- most pressing of the needs?
>> yeah. That would help us.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> let me throw something even wilder into this thing. If it were up to me, I would give you one cent regardless of whether it created $6 million or $3.9 million. The one thing that is without question in this one, if you look at these three things, $3.9 million isn't enough to do this deal. I will tell you that drainage, master, this master drainage plan we are dreaming if we think we can do it for $500,000. Then if you go to the back, start talking about 10 and $20 million, to really implement something, we can't snip it for 10 to $20 million. I mean, if we don't get realistic about saying you know what,, I mean, the things that we have got coming down the pipe, with all of the stuff that we're doing in western Travis County and the growth and the things that we are trying to do out at t.n.r., I know joe knows this because this southwest dialogue plan is coming right at us. The dough that we are going to need in order to take care of the issues, not just, you know, western Travis County, I mean, you have got -- you have got large projects, between boggy creek and onion creek, they are just -- Karen might have something, you know --
>> all of -- [multiple voices]
>> water future.
>> city limits.
>> but we don't have -- we are fooling ourselves, how many roads can we do for 3.9, for 2.9. To get everybody up to the 75 to 80%, I told you this joe, if 3 has to come from its 82, you know, that lofty spot and you not put as many dollars in that to get them up in one and to get them up in 4, I will stand up to my constituents say you know what we are trying to do is get parity in this community with regards to roadways. I can live with that, i'll fight that fight when it comes time to do that [ applause ] realistically what we are looking at here is we need so much money in this particular area, these three line items here, I mean, 3.9 doesn't do it. Now I realize that christian just said okay you guys are going to get a shot to tell us where you want to put money into. I understand that, but I don't want us to lose sight. We are just talking about maybe we don't have to get the roads up there by next November. I mean, I think --
>> also road and bridge fund.
>> 18, $20 million.
>> are you talking about -- you end up with $20 million, 20 million plus, plus we are asking -- the bond advisory committee to look at some road projects, I don't know which ones they would be yet. But so it's just one pot.
>> yeah.
>> but there's the road and bridge fund is a big, much bigger pot, really. Then we have a little bit of wiggling room when we look at, you know, assuming voters approve a bond issue, bond funding so we have got a multi-prong approach to it.
>> I can tell you for sure some of my crummy two lane roadways if they are expanded get built at three to six labor roadways that -- lane roadways this goes. I don't think this is going to require any dumbing down for any of our roads. The nice thing about having all of that hard rock on the west side is that you can have different kinds of treatment that do good things, you don't have to totally reconstruct. I don't think it means that resources are taken from yours and yours to v to decline simply to get us there. There is a sustained effort. It's 3.9 million times six years, the last time we did it, you are talking $24 million here. So we are not talking 3.9 million. We are talking 24 million if you continue that sustained effort over five or six years. This is a longer view.
>> let me ask this question. Let's say that the bond committee says yeah we need to go with some jail bonds. The road to the jail would not be on that bond election?
>> yeah, the scope of the charter of the bond is roads, arcs, open spaces, jail, replacement jail beds, drainage parks.
>> that would be that pot for those, probably some of the county properties that parks that we own. So I mean that would kind of loosen up, I would think, some money to -- to deal with some of the other projects that we have in our precincts, especially one and four so we can work on not staying behind.
>> why use the cash to do major reconstruction that really ought to be bond funded because the equipment will last a longer period. It's just a smart idea.
>> some money.
>> don't use the pennies in the jar.
>> move approval of joe's recommendation of amount active 4.
>> I second that motion, judge. And with the intent of the coming back with the other -- follow-up I guess measure, with that -- joe seconded that. 80% [indiscernible] but I think we -- somewhere in the middle of the road.
>> that was seconded by the precinct 1 Commissioner, joe. [laughter] all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you for putting everything on the table, christian. [laughter]
>> my goal is to get 100% of my roads into the city limits.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, February 9, 2005 9:04 AM