Travis County Commissioners Court
July 12, 2005
Item 4
Number 4 is to consider and take appropriate action on guidelines for county participation in public-private partnership agreements for arterial roadway construction.
>> we had these draft guidelines on the agenda in may. The court instructed me to go and ask for comments from our current partners, which I did, and so what i'd like to do is step through the guidelines. Some of the comments that have been made, and also discuss the key issues that are imbedded in these guidelines because I want to make sure that the court is aware of the alternatives and the significance of some of the provision in the guidelines. Basically these guidelines provide for the conditions upon which Travis County will use its bond money to enter into partnership agreements with the private sector for the construction of arterial roadways within the unincorporated area of Travis County. We realize there's a tremendous need for additional roadway arterial roadway capacity in our county. By some estimates we need roughly 350 additional miles of arterial roadway in this county to accommodate the fiewth growth that we will see in this county in the next 20 years. That cost is about 900 million dollars' worth of new construction. And I don't need to tell the court that there's no way that this county government on property taxes alone will be able to go forward to pay $900 million just for roadway construction when we rely on that source of property tax for everything wells we do in county government. So we have to look for ways to stretch our limited dollars to do what we need to do for mobility in partnership with the private sector. Typically when we -- in the past we have relied on the private sector during the subdivision process to construct arterial roadways. So as a landowner came in to subdivide his property, he would dedicate the right-of-way. And either construct the arterial roadway or put up a fiscal for its construction. The problem with that approach is that only those landowners within the path of the article material got hit for the cost of the roadway. So if you're one tier property away from this roadway, you pay nothing for the arterial even though the traffic that you generated would use these arterial roadways. The arterial roadway, unlike a collector street or local street, is really there to provide mobility. That's the way you and I get from one area of the city to another. So everybody uses arterial roadways. So everyone somewhat needs to share in the cost of those arterial roadways. Unfortunately, the gasoline tax and tolls are generally not available to pay for this type of construction. All gasoline tax goes to the state highway system, as do the toll roads. We do use those, and as far as user cost, we share in the cost of those roadways by what we pay in gasoline everyday. But those only cover u.s. Highways, interstate highways, state roads, farm-to-market roads. When it gets to local arterials like howard lane, like cameron road, like any of the other -- slaughter lane, those are multilane arterials that we either get built through the subdivision process or we do through our capital improvements program for the city or through the county cip projects. So what we're trying to do here is leverage our money, our capital improvements, our capital dollars and partner with the private sector so we can get more arterials done sooner than later. If we wait purely on the subdivision process, what you get is pieces of arterials done when one landowner is ready to go and he'll build a short segment of the arterial, but the landowner on either side is not, and so you have a roadway basically to nowhere. And so what we're trying to do is have the developers come together, the landowners come together one time and contribute their fair share to the construction of the arterial. And the county would join them and we'll get longer segments of arterial roadways done sooner than if we waited for the market to subdivide all these properties. So that's a general thinking behind these guidelines. We're using our cip dollars as incentive to get more done. We are also using the private sector's power in the marketplace to buy services. We have found in the past that where we allow the private sector to purchase engineering services, to purchase construction services, they get better prices than we do when we bid a project out. They just have more power because they do more business in this type of work than we do. They have relationships with contractors, they're able to get better prices. We have been able to save the taxpayers a substantial amount of money on prior partnership's agreements because we've used the power of the private sector in other purchasing. But with that said, there are also precautions that the county need to take to make sure that we're paying only our fair share of what's needed. So in the requirements, we would have the private sector contribute all of the right-of-way, the land necessary for the projects. That would be the right-of-way, the drainage easements, all of the land that may be needed to convey water either to water quality ponds or detention ponds. They would bring that to the table no matter whether it's a four-lane roadway or a six-lane arterial. We would then share in the cost of construction, literally 50/50. Every development, no matter how large it is, needs at least a two-lane roadway to service the property, otherwise they would not be able to develop it. And in most cases, what we're seeking to build are four lane and six-lane arterial roadways. So what we're saying is if you build two lanes, we'll build two lanes. We'll have a four-lane arterial from the very get go and we'll have that basically a high functioning roadway designed to arterial standards from a connecting arterial to another connecting arterial. So we have a minimal viable segment that is not a road to nowhere. It has actually a good link in the roadway system that the public can use afterwards. The cost of construction would include all cost of construction. That would include bridges, that would include bicycle facilities or bed ways, if those are called for. It would include water quality treatment. And I want to make that note because as you have seen in the prior agreements here, we end up paying $1.5 million for water quality on heather wild sealy that may have been necessary in that case to get that particular project done. I would not recommend that the county do that on a routine basis. I think that is a legitimate cost of arterial construction and that too should be shared by the private sector on a 50/50 basis. As far as competitive bidding, we would require competitive bidding no matter whether the private sector bid the project, on whether the public sector bid the project. These guidelines don't prejudice the method one way or the other. We can bid the project as we are doing in the case of heather wild and sealy, or the private sector can bid the project as we did in the case of anderson mill road. What's most important for us, though, is that it's competitively bid so that everyone can see that this is really a low bid in the marketplace. It's not manipulated in some form or fashion. We also comp the county to a-- expect the county to approve the engineering design plans. We can hire the engineer and I think it would be our preference overall that the county hire the engineering firm that's doing the design work. But the guidelines again do not prejudice one way or the other. We are okay with the private sector hiring the engineer so long as the county sets the standards and reviews the plans. So we can -- so we can -- there is some potential for conflict of interest, and we want to make sure that the engineer when he's designing the roadway is designing it for the public purpose paramount because the engineer typically is also designing the rest of the subdivision infrastructure for his private client. So we want to make sure we separate the design principles that are guiding how this design is being done. The guidelines, let me go through some of the key provisions here in the guidelines. Number one, we establish what we call rough proportionally. As you are aware, the u.s. Supreme court, when it comes to subdivision platting, required that what we asked the development sector for be roughly proportional to the demand they place to the system. We have abided by that principle in these guidelines. Where there is a development plan, a preliminary plan, where we can measure the traffic being generated by that development, the proportionate share that's being requested by the private sector is based on that formula. Let me generally describe how that's done. We understand that in the campo plan that there's roughly 350 miles of additional arterial roadway network that is needed to serve the increased travel demand. We know what that increased travel demand is in terms of vehicle miles of travel on the arterial system. So we know what the pie is. We know the total pie is this pie. So when we try to define what is everyone's pro rata share in that pie, we take a development, we take a preliminary plan and we measure how many vehicle miles of travel will be generated by this development as it's being presented to us by the private developer.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...that is in this guideline here. Now, in the --
>> [inaudible].
>> yes, because we are moving forward to a -- not only in these guidelines where we are talking about fair share, but we are also moving toward an up did of our subdivision guidelines where we will also be using this portion and what we ask the private sector to plat as they are going through the subdivision process.
>> tom, do you agree?
>> Texas supreme court has specifically said that local governments can consider a subdivision's impact on the whole roadway system in determining, you know, what you can require as a condition of plat approval. That being said, we have to operate within the statutes. So it's going to be another one of those questions of what has senate bill 873 authorized you to do. I mean clearly it's authorized us to do more than we could do before 2001, so the issue is going to be coming up with a methodology that fits within the grant of authority under senate bill 873.
>> we believe that the calculation described by joe that he's asking us to approve today is consistent with the authority granted by senate bill 873?
>> this really doesn't have to do with subdivision approval. This has to do with entering into a contract, mutually agreeable terms of the developer. What joe is talking about is how you calculate, you know, what are the fair terms. Actually there was another item on the agenda, the bell la fortuna plan where we used the methodologies to determine what's the fair share between the developer and the county, and in that case the developer who was presented by some of the best attorneys in Austin and who are real bird dogs on this issue said that passed the test, Travis County, and so in the phasing agreement, the developers agreed basically to contribute $500,000 toward construction of the road. So what joe is talking about is how you come up with the cost share in a contractual setting. The tough part is going to be when it's not purely a contractual setting but it's the county saying in order to get your subdivision approved, here's what you've got to do. That's a step further down the road.
>> if there's agreement, no issue. The issue comes up when we say, based on our calculation, this contribution is required and the developer disagrees. And my question really is is the formula that joe is asking us to approve legal?
>> I believe it is. I believe it is. And what I?m saying is in the bell la fortuna case, attorneys on the other side of the issue also agreed that it was okay.
>> or they concluded if we have to spend a half million dollars, rather than spend it in court, let's spend it on the road.
>> that's a fair characterization, judge.
>> [inaudible] agreed upon by the county and the private developer since about 97, joe, when did we do [inaudible]? It was first on steiner ranch. And where we have ability to say so is when we are dealing with a large parent track. We were having folks figure out scenarios where they kept doing everything away from the roadway and by the time they got to the end nothing touched the roadway and they were claiming they didn't have any impact which clearly was not the case. Again, this is agreed upon phasing agreements, but it's using the same --
>> we've been doing this anyway, but today we're asked to approve the formal guidelines.
>> we are inching our way toward, yes. And in this case, mind you, this is a voluntary contract. We are using our c.i.p. Money. If you want to participate, financial contribution, we want to be fair, this is the way we declare fairness. But if you don't want to, that's okay. But I want to alert the court that we are proceeding on this same principle in the update of our subdivision guidelines. You will see this same principle in a final rule that we are proposing so we are saying -- we're beginning to March down in a public policy way to define rough proportion at. But here it's voluntary, it's contractual. In the subdivision it's going to be more of a requirement. So what we need is some form of a plan, a land use plan, what we call a preliminary plan. That may not be available in most cases when we talk about these c.i.p. Projects. And so as a default we say, but no less than two lanes of a four-lane arterial. No matter what you do, you have to have at least a two-way roadway to serve access to it. So we're saying if we can't get to the mechanism because you, the private sector cannot provide me a land use plan or a preliminary plan that's binding on what kind of traffic you are going to generate, then let's agree to it being a 50/50 share on a four-lane divided arterial. We still have a provision in this guideline to say, okay, you don't have a preliminary plan, but we can still proceed on the basis of what is roughly a 50/50 deal on arterial roadways. So that's number -- that's probably a very important policy issue in the guidelines. Now, also in the guidelines, and this pertains more to the use of the c.i.p. Money, is the timing of the private sector contribution. Heretofore, we have asked the private sector to put their money up at the same time we do. In other words, when we want to go out for bid, we want to go out for bid on the entire four-lane roadway or six-lane, whatever. So what we've asked the private sector to do is either have their money up front in a cash security or some letter of credit that we can draw down on when we need it. One of the comments we got back is can you separate that into two phases. We'll put up our money for the engineering design when it's due, then we'll put up the money for the construction when it's due. The private sector is very sensitive to the cash flow and when it's due. So they can save themselves some time value of money by not putting the money up too far in advance of when it's needed. They prefer to do that. So I have amended the guidelines in such a way to say, okay, we only want your money up front for the engineering. When we adopt the engineering agreement, you can then provide that the -- your share of the money for the construction when we go out for bid. Now, here's the issue. In one prior partnership agreement, we allowed the private sector to put up its money after the county has used up its entire proportion. In other words, we said, okay, we'll wait to tap into your cash until we've used up all of what the county is obligated to do. So basically we postpone for probably another six to eight months the time when we dipped into the private sector's money. They were still good for their share when it was due, but they wanted to use us to use our money first and delay their money until later. I?m not sure I have that issue one way or another as long as we have a fiscal security at the time we bid the contract so it's that there when we need it. We have a guarantee that their money is available when the time comes to dip into it.
>> joe, in that instance that you just talked about there, we didn't have a delay in the posting of fiscal for that 809, it was simply a matter of the drawing down.
>> that's right.
>> susan certainly for purposes of certification needs to know that the money is there.
>> that's right.
>> to do whatever the full contract is.
>> we were secured from the very out come, from the very beginning. It's just a matter that -- it's cash out the door so that's when they wanted to delay that as long as possible. Now, here's the issue. Forward thinking or if we apply these guidelines to the future, we know we have some private property owners that do not have money to put up front. They've said we're not developers, we do not want to put our money up. When we subdivide our property at some point in the future, we will pay for our fair share at that time. So it really starts putting the county into a different role altogether of basically getting out ahead of development and paying for some amount of infrastructure on the prospects that the remaining portion of that infrastructure is done in three years, in five years, in ten years, whenever the market is there for the subdivision of that property. I want to alert you to that because there are some landowners who are looking at this public-private partnership, but they are saying I can only afford to pay you after I sell lots. That's after i've finally platted the property, and I typically do that over the life of the parent track, which is sometimes five years, sometimes ten years, depending on the cyclical of the market cycle. There may be a market for private homes or single-family homes may be great one year. Three years from now it tanks. So they are not selling lots and they are not platting property. So you have to wait until the next economic cycle comes back. That may be seven years later. At that time they plat their property and they pay the county for the next section of the arterial. So the way the guidelines are drafted right now are based on the way we have applied them up to this point, which is cash on the barrelhead at the time the county bids the project. And we believe that's probably the appropriate way to use our money. Because otherwise you're really not getting the incentive that the guidelines were intended to provide. We're trying to get roads built now sooner than later. And so this is the incentive of using the public dollar to get people to do things as a group together and now instead of later. The third major point here is that the construction costs in these guidelines cover all costs. That includes water quality, it includes bridges, it includes bicycle facilities, it includes sidewalk facilities, if those are called for in the campo plan. When we say share the cost, we mean all the cost, not just the roadway. So everything that is within that right-of-way that is needed because of the roadway construction, we declare that as part of the construction costs, and that is the portion to be shared between the public and private sector. And finally, the final issue is really a matter of policy, and that is where this guideline applies. Right now we have it applied in the unincorporated area of Travis County. So we do not enter into public-private partnerships inside the city. We feel that if they are inside the city, the city should be the one entering into the sharing agreement with the private sector. We also exclude in these guidelines what we call a near term annexation areas. Now, that is defined only in one place and that is in the city of Austin, Travis County development code. It is in that code that we come up with the term near term annexation. And we actually define what areas those are in the agreement. And so we say if -- if this roadway is in a near term annexation area, it is not eligible for county participation. On the theory that within three years it will be inside the city, and we as a county backed out of any approval process on subdivisions in that near term annexation area because we said this is really more the city's jurisdiction than the county's. They will take over that infrastructure. They have full control of what happens to the roadway. We say as far as platting goes, it's the city's business, take 100% responsibility, and in three years take on the maintenance responsibility of that facility as well. So we're extending that same principle to Travis County capital improvements. But the city fully intends to annex an area within three years, it should be making the capital investments in the transportation system in that area, not Travis County.
>> joe, you said a whole lot more than these guidelines do not apply to areas in the near term or targeted for near term annexation. Your main point is that the proposed public-private partnership agreement would not cover projects in near term annexation areas.
>> that's correct.
>> but if the court wants to do something, then there's specific application would come to the court, we do whatever we choose, it's just that the private partnership agreement would not apply. Is that what -- your explanation went way beyond the proposed private partnership agreement but not cover subdivisions in the near term annexation areas of Austin.
>> I was just trying to give you the logic behind the guidelines.
>> I understand. My point is we would rather not apply the public-private partnership agreement to projects in the near term annexation areas for the reasons that you gave.
>> that is -- and let me say that is a staff recommendation. That is not your policy. I?m asking you whether or not you want that to be your policy.
>> that makes sense. But it also makes sense for somebody who thinks that Travis County ought to be interested and outside the agreement and bring the proposal for us, then that way we're free to respond as we see fit. So how can -- maybe the situation never comes up. If it does, I don't know that a vote on what should be contained in the public-private partnership agreement should foreclose all other possibilities. For near term annexation areas. It may be a kind of fine line that we're treading.
>> in terms of [inaudible] there is not that much. We had that map and it was very fine in terms of little things. I'll even call them pockets of things that naturally we're going to be going back into the city of Austin. But it really is where we agreed in the joint code we would not be doing the transportation because the city had already said we're going to be taking responsibility, so we basically said hands off. We're not going to have the regulations there, then we ought not have the fiscal responsibility for fixing the road in that area either. Because the city has already said we're doing it.
>> we would apply the same principle to other municipalities that had three-year annexation plans. So even though we don't have a joint code, those other cities, if they do have a three-year annexation plan, the same principle basically.
>> same principle, but there would be language in the guidelines that would exclude projects in near term annexation areas from the public-private partnership agreements.
>> that's correct.
>> that would be one guideline.
>> that's right.
>> no problem.
>> all right. So those are, I think, the major elements, major policy elements. There are others -- the comments that were made with regard to the draft, i'll go over some of the ones showing changes. We refer that the construction needs to be consistent with the subdivision guidelines approved by the cities and counties. And so in only one case right now do we have joint subdivision standards and that's with the city of Austin. So we say when we do these public-private partnerships, we will abide by the joint code if there is one. If there is not one, we're going to use the county's subdivision code in how the roadway is designed. So I think that's just one clarification because the original draft said the joint code, and we only have one city with whom we have a joint code at this point in time. Another comment made is that the landowners only be responsible for conveying right-of-way and drainage easements from land they control. In some instances, we may end up with a situation where there's an out parcel. You have 99% of the property owners in agreement, 1%, one property owner says I don't want to participate, and so the other property owners are saying, well, there's no way, we have no power to give you land we don't own. In those cases, the private sector would be relying on Travis County to condemn that out parcel and for it to be acquired in that way because, as I say, they have no power. Although we have found thus far that in all cases, in all the private partnerships we've entered into thus far, the private sector has delivered all the right-of-way and drainage easements. And in one case, even agreed to pay for the cost of condemnation of the out parcel. So I think the principle still applies. We expect most of the land to come from the private sector. But we do acknowledge that in some cases they may not be able to control an out parcel. And I did mention the phasing of the private sector's contribution. I think those are the key issues with regard to the guidelines. I do have another prospective project I could go over if you so desire and that's the howard lane project specifically, because this is a -- I know this is an issue that may be coming forward. If you want a comparison between how these guidelines comport with what the private sector is proposing at this time, I?m ready to do that. But that's really -- it relates to the guidelines in that it is a prospective project, but these are the guidelines -- generally it's set out the public policy they would apply to all projects in the future.
>> joe, is the intention to put these guidelines in a different format and have the court approve them or are these the guidelines?
>> these are the guidelines. Actually the exhibit b are the revised guidelines.
>> now, in the past, guidelines that we approved have been put in the Travis County code. They have a different format than these principles and basic requirements. These are sufficient, we think?
>> I think so. Again, you're basically dealing with a situation where you've got two parties interested in entering into a contract on voluntary mutually agreeable terms. I think this is just sort of your term sheet to use to start those negotiations with those various different parties. So I don't think it's something that needs to go into the code. This is sort of a way to save everybody time and money by saying if you're interested in doing one of these deals, here's the starting point.
>> certainly our bond committee is certainly [inaudible] because they need to pare down about $400 million worth of projects, and there are some things that clearly are not going to be eligible projects simply because of use of words like near term annexation area. They are just flat are out in somebody else's jurisdiction.
>> that's one. The other is basically putting the cash up front. That's the other one that will affect prospective projects.
>> joe, what kind of involvement has the private sector had in weighing in these, I mean and not just using our authority, so to speak, as a county. I mean have we had a number of those folks at the table and would -- because what I don't want is for us to get into these guidelines and the people come up and say, well, we get that all the time. Stakeholders say we really need to have the ability to weigh in on this. I don't think that any of these things are -- I mean I don't get the impression that they are so etched in stone that you can't negotiate. I mean obviously, I mean, these are kind of designed around when people have reasons to want to be involved in construction of roads, then they are at the table because they have a vested interest. And that's pushing and pulling, so to speak, and everybody is going to cut the best deal that they can. I?m as concerned about how do we really get beyond just simply the negotiations of where we're doing roads where people have vested interest versus us as a municipality sitting and looking at the big map and going where does it make sense to build roads so that we have mobility. You know, within the region. So -- but I guess back to my first question, how much involvement did we have from --
>> we sent these guidelines to all of the partners that we have agreements with to test them, look, you've been through this with us, what do you think of these. We got comments back from almost everyone that had whether they were a property owner or the project manager for those projects. We also sent them to all the prospective, all the ones that were listed in the Travis County proposed 2005 bond election. So they were aware of them. We will further, I think, get into some significant discussions with stakeholders when we start talking about the principle of rough proportionality as part of our subdivision guidelines and I think there will be a larger stakeholder committee when we discuss that. So I think we're -- in this case it's a discretionary policy, but I?m not -- we have been fairly candid. We have used the mechanism of rough proportionality, as tom said, already in some prior phasing agreements, so we are bit by bit in contact with developers, the developers' attorneys, and I think we'll probably in the next three to four months significantly increase that dialogue as we get into the subdivision guidelines.
>> well, I know that the one project in particular, the howard lane project, I mean I know that some of the sticking points there have been with regards to I think it's probably the water quality, you know, I mean how much acreage is necessary, I mean what extraction is fair, I mean, you know, whenever it comes down to municipality.
>> and I?m prepared to talk about that specifically right now if you would like to talk about that one.
>> I don't know that we're close to [inaudible].
>> well, it is -- well --
>> talk about it in the context of how it relates to these proposed --
>> may as well wait --
>> we certainty couldn't make any decisions on it.
>> post it and discuss it. It's coming up real soon anyway, isn't it? I don't know that we ought to make a decision today. That would be illegal. It's legal for us to act on the guidelines that are proposed.
>> i'd like to [inaudible] guidelines in the context of what is good public policy. And not that we write guidelines because we think a project may or may not fit a certain way. Projects need to fit into our guidelines and we need to establish fairness, something that's legal, and I was very pleased that some of the folks that have been through this process before in temperatures of fairness -- terms of fairness of what were other people asked to do and they willingly did it and that people don't get treated better or worse. Everybody is treated fairly in a consistent manner. I've mentioned this before, the county is not bank mom. We are not here to cover the cost of private land speculators trying to get in infrastructure, and if they are not ready, I respect that, fine, go through the subdivision process and we'll see you later. But we cannot and should not use public dollars to put in infrastructure of things that enrich and add value to somebody's land and they are not willing to put up their money at the same time. That's the whole point of the public-private partnership is that we both can leverage our dollars at the same time. You can have the construction on two lanes and the other two lanes that are going to be needed occur simultaneously. It works out better for everybody. But I respect if the private developer is not ready to do and they don't have the money, then we need to move on because there are plenty of other folks who are ready to make the commitment. But in no case should we be putting in the infrastructure first and somebody thinking, oh, i'll just wait until I sell my property. That is an inappropriate use of our dollars. If they are not ready, it's okay, get back to us when you are, but we're not bank mom.
>> I don't think that -- I mean aagree with some of that except for the fact there are some roads that we need to build. And now if this is an area where people are willing and they are ready to develop their property, absolutely then let's sit down and let's pull them to the table and say you need to be concerned. I mean let's take, for example, armor lane. I mean if we would have thought you really need to connect parmer lane from i-35 all the way over to 290, but you really only had people in that area up to a certain point that was --
>> that was a state road.
>> well, don't use it as a state -- then let's find a road, howard lane, let's find a road applicable to us. What I?m saying there may be parts of that where people are like, you know what, I mean the people that own it, they are not interested in developing their land. They just got deeded that land. I mean through inheritance or whatever. But we really need to punch the road through to a certain spot. I mean now I don't think we ought to say, you know what, we're not going to punch it through to that certain spot where we knee tpho e it needs to be built because we can't get six landowners to say you need to come 'and you need to dedicate all of this stuff, you need to participate in all of the things you need to. There's someplace here where we recognize that we're needing to build a road. And it may not be the benefit for somebody -- if somebody is benefitting from it, I think they will be the first at the table and say tell me what I can do to expedite this thing.
>> here's the deal. There are pieces all over the place where we have things, we have missing links. Dessau road. Dessau road between pecan, 1825 and Pflugerville, and howard lane was a missing link for more than 20 years, and we had to wait until we got everybody together, and there was readiness to do that project. It would have been inappropriate for the county to say, well, we're just going to punch it through and whenever. If there are responsibilities for private landowners in terms of coming up with their proportionate share, period. And they need to be -- helter wild should have been done 20 years ago. Somebody saying I?m not ready to do it that the public pay for something that is an absolute ex ction. There are developers that get it that they have responsibilities. I appreciate there are things that are inconvenience in terms of gee, it would be lovely for that thing to punch all the way through, but there are responsibilities to come with private property owners and the costs being assessed to the people who buy that product. And they don't get a free ride here. I think joe used that expression, no free riders. Period. And if you go up and down the interstate, you go down 290, there are places all over the place where an overpass is put in, but there is no road there. It presumes it will punch through eventually, but no free riders here. I?m sorry. There are responsibilities to come with people that are roads that need to cut through their land. The public doesn't pay for it.
>> I?m just saying the taxpayer in this community, I expect a municipality, I mean if you are going to tax me, I expect you to build me a comprehensive road system. I mean that is part of the reason that I pay taxes. You find a way to go out and if somebody -- if a developer is going to benefit from having a road cut through, well then so be it, let's find a way to get that person involved. But I think that we have -- the reason that we have the god awful traffic, the reason that we have no quality of life from a mobility standpoint is because we don't get out and build a comprehensive road system, and mobility and transportation is something that we always just take for granted that, well, you know, we need to do it, but we're only going to do it whenever we've got people we can extract dough from.
>> there's a policy we do not build roads, we add additional capacity on regional arterials. We're not the ones building the original road. We have responsibilities related to maintenance of that road once it's accepted by the county. We have responsibilities for something going from a two-lane county road to a four-lane or a six-lane in terms of what is our rough proportionality. But we have not gone in and said we're going to cut a road through virgin land because we just feel like we need to. That is bad public policy.
>> I know you don't want us to turn 4 into a -- this kind of conversation and I?m willing to stop at this stage --
>> it's good to hear, in my opinion, it's good to hear what everyone has to say on this issue because it is, in my opinion, a major deal. I do not want to revisit again and have to go through what Commissioner Sonleitner has just gone through with the [inaudible] all the heart aches, heart breaks, time invested for something that could have been avoided. I think if we would have had some guidelines in place. I think good government, in my opinion, ought to have policies that are guidelines and provide some type of efficiency. And I believe that the taxpayers want to see us as decision-makers and deliver a better product and deliver a good product to them; however, by not taking them to the cleaners to get to that end where their wallets are empty from having to pay taxes and having to pay for this and that and that really does interfere with the quality of life as far as other things are concerned. Fair share, I believe, is a good term to use. I don't really know exactly what the city of Austin is planning to do north of 290 specifically. And, of course, this may have some interrelationship with how and what we proceed as far as we look at mobility throughout all of Travis County. But I believe that we need to set some guidelines, have them in place so everybody will understand what their role is in this particular policy initiative. And I believe that we have done an adequate job on this, and again, I want to make sure that everyone participates accordingly to what we have set tpo rlt, and I really believe we should go forward because it does present on the table and also it has test and given and also according to our county attorney has met legal testing as far as senate bill 873 is concerned. So I think, in my opinion, we need to go forward. And let me ask this question, joe, as far as near term annexation, I guess really if you look at the whole map of Travis County, I really couldn't sit here and tell you what near term annexation is as far as what the city of Austin is doing. What is in the near -- near term annexation area. I really don't know. Commissioner Gomez, do you know?
>> del valle [inaudible].
>> in a nutshell, it's an area where the city has indicated they are going to annex it within three years.
>> right. And if they do not annex in three years, then of course what does it revert to after that?
>> it stays e.t.j.
>> e.t.j., right. So there are still guidelines if they don't do anything within a three-year period. But again, I still -- that defined area as far as near term annexation, which I really don't know what that is as far as what the city of Austin has in mind. But I do know this. Is that I think we need to go forward with a set of guidelines that I think the development community has been exposed to, we have been exposed to, and I just think we just need to go ahead and move forward.
>> move approval of the guidelines.
>> three questions. Number 1 -- by the way, there's a motion and second. So do we know what the definition of planned arterial is in that first bullet?
>> that is a campo arterial. It is defined in the campo transportation plan.
>> all right, then what's the campo's definition?
>> it's actually laid out roadway by roadway.
>> okay, so it has to be a roadway listed in the campo plan.
>> that's correct. Arterial roadway.
>> okay, so if they are not in the campo plan, you are disqualified.
>> that's right.
>> now, the second bull let on the basic requirements where we try to define fair share, proportionate share, we believe a developer will be able to read that, the owner will be able to read that and comply.
>> I think his traffic engineer could, but I?m not sure all property owners will understand what vehicle mile travel is. There has been some discussion about the clarity of that statement. We have tried on a couple different occasions to try to write in plain english. I think it's going to boil down to a formula at some point, more of an algebraic formula because it's a very precise statement and hard to translate into english, but I think the principle is generally straight correct as you see it.
>> [inaudible].
>> yeah, I mean there's no doubt we could probably do a better job of describing in plain english what we meant by rough proportionality.
>> so do we go with this language or do you hope to clarify it?
>> I would go ahead and adopt this and I will say I will work with too many to get yet -- tom to get a better definition, perhaps a plain english definition of what this is without just go so much jargon.
>> I visualize you and tom trying to work on language trying to simplify, I must say that I -- what if we work with developer or owner for several months and are not able to reach agreement on specific parts of this?
>> we move on.
>> that's exactly right.
>> and by move on, we mean what?
>> that we don't do the agreement --
>> well, what if you say let's not do the agreement and the developer says, well, I comply with all the guidelines?
>> there's two parts to that. One I think this guideline will -- it will be the first thing a private party will get, and I think we will want some declaration that you can apply in principle to these guidelines. Then we'll sit down and work out the details. There's a particular aspect of this where there has to be some give and take. I think that's where we go as long as we can until we can work it out or we say this is just not going to work, we'll break it off. But the other thing that's apparent here is there are probably more prospective candidates for public-private partnership than there is money for the county to participate in. So at some point you have to say there's someone else in line who has their money ready to go and so i've got to move on.
>> some are more important than others though.
>> it is, but I can't decide, you know, who is -- at some point we've got to move on.
>> why put that pressure on yourself. A developer or owner who disagrees with a decision made under these guidelines may appeal to the Travis County Commissioners court.
>> think you ought to add that to the guideline.
>> I think that is so whether it's in the guidelines or not. That's why I would put that language in the guidelines.
>> this is tied to the proposed 2005 bond package.
>> that's correct. That's correct. We expect to use these --
>> so in a way the decision whether a project is going to be done under these guidelines or not is going to be tied to the order calling that bond election and what's in that order, what's in the bond covenants and so on. So there's sort of a natural built-in decision point.
>> but if you are listed and approved in the bond referendum and are unable to reach an agreement with joe under these guidelines, then what joe is saying is he goes onto the other projects.
>> well, one -- at one point I had heard it stated that you aren't going to be eligible even to be considered for the bond package unless you had a signed agreement. I don't know if that's still part of this or not.
>> no.
>> I don't see that language.
>> no, I mean these --
>> I?m looking for wording that says basically you have a right to appeal to the Commissioners court for a final decision.
>> I think that's fine if you want to --
>> I think that is a fact whether it's in the guidelines or not.
>> [inaudible].
>> i'd put it in here.
>> that's fine.
>> joe, we just saved you a lot of stress. I would add that, I am still uneasy over that second bullet under basic requirements, proportionate share. But if that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do. My guess is that's where the appeals will come from. That's why I would spend a little time trying to simplify that and make it easier to comply with.
>> it's actually -- it's -- it's fairly straightforward. If we have a limb marry plan that shows land use.
>> if you are familiar with doing stuff like this. Half the time I have a hard time understanding what we're doing out there. I've only been on the board two and a half years now, but --
>> let me understand something about the appeal. The purpose of the appeal would be for what purposes? Under what circumstances would an appeal --
>> if the developer owner disagrees with joe, that person can come to the Commissioners court for final resolution of whatever issues there are. You hope they never get here, but --
>> they look at the guidelines we have in place and they don't conform with the guidelines or can't conform with the guidelines, does that -- is that grounds for appeal because they can't conform?
>> it would have to be more specific than that. Joe might say you owe a million dollars and the developer might say based on the formula I owe $750,000.
>> I?m trying to get some ground work because there's a disagreement with our executive manager of t.n.r. And if there's a disagreement based on what -- deal for appeal, I?m trying to get the merit for appeal.
>> Commissioner, I would see it pan out two ways. One is if you are going to adopt these as guidelines, the landowner would come in and say I disagree with how the guidelines have been applied. The other is he may look -- the landowner may look at these guidelines and say I understand the policy rationale behind that, but this is a unique circumstance and you should consider -- you should basically sort of granted me a variance. And just an example, there may be somebody within the near terpbl annexation area that can justify why the county should spend its funds there, given some unique set of circumstances. There may be one small piece of land in the near term annex area that's the key link between two segments of road. So those are the two I see as possible grounds for somebody coming to the Commissioners court and saying, you know, take a look at how the staff has applied this.
>> [inaudible].
>> what's the difference between a guideline and a policy?
>> well, again, I think this is just -- you're talking about two parties negotiating a contract, and as I see it, these are what you are laying ought to all these people interested in coming to you to negotiate a contract that this is the point where negotiations begin. They are negotiations, and as I said, there may be exceptions to these policies, these guidelines you need to make. The landowner may disagree on how staff has applied them. So it's just the beginning point for negotiations. That's all it really is.
>> any public notice, public hearing --
>> that's required.
>> -- for a guideline has been met.
>> I would say say the only requirement is that it be posted on the agenda to meet the open meetings act requirements. You've done that. There's no further legal requirements in terms of what you are proposing.
>> just for the record, we had these on the court's agenda in may. May 3 we had the memo we basically discussed that in public and directed that we communicate with stakeholders, get their inputted and you tried to do that basicallyly.
>> I did.
>> [inaudible].
>> anybody here on this item that would like to address the court at this time? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you, joe.
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:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 3:46 PM