Travis County Commissioners Court
August 16, 2005
Item 13
Item no. 13. Consider and take appropriate action on final report from the citizens bond advisory committee regarding the fy 2005 proposed bond program. I have advised numerous citizens that in my view the court would formally receive the report today, express appropriately -- appropriate appreciation, have this matter back on the court's agenda next Tuesday for action. If you think that would be the wise course of action to take. This is not the time for the committee members to be shy. We did hear I guess a preliminary report a few weeks ago.
>> we had a limbary report. At that time a total of about $114 million. We went back, at the five public hearings, took in a lot of input from citizens and then when we met last Tuesday finally got some final figures from the staff that changed a little bit, quite a bit, really, the cost of the individual projects. So what we have to do is go back into -- back to me and sadly enough to report to you folks that we had to eliminate some projects in an effort to reach the amount of money that -- the size of the bond issue that you all advised us to come back. We started out, as you recall remember, with $100 million bond issue, trying to come in with $100 million. Then in the course of our deliberations, about July of this year, there was a new estimate forwarded to the Commissioners court by -- by the personnel and budget office that changed the numbers upward a little bit to about $159 million. We subtracted from that $40 million, that total that you all were going to use, co's to do some jail improvements. That left a balance of $119 million to try to allocate $119 million for you all's consideration. We have done that. We have exceeded the 119 by about $500,000. But what I need to report to you folks, in order to come up with that number, we had to make some adjustments in some of the project that's we had recommended to you all the last time we were here. The report that you all received on Friday lays out the new insurances, for the record I will read them out. The mobility projects now total $46,918,000. Floodplain 9,629,000, parks and open space, 39,454,000. And that -- that gives us a total for mobility drainage floodplain, parks and open space of 96,200,000. Now, we add to that the amount of money that we were recommending for jail improvements to -- of 23,500,000. That gives us -- our recommendation to the Commissioners court to consider for the next bond issue adds up to $119,502,685, which puts us over what we should have brought to you 119, 502,000 over. We just couldn't find a project that fit that half a million deal to eliminate, so we just bring it to you a little over. In addition to that, the committee voted to recommend to the Commissioners court that they consider putting an item on the -- on the ballot, a separate item for open space acquisition in the amount of $60 million. That is our report, but before -- before I go any further, I really want to take time out to -- on behalf of the committee to thank the staff that you all allocated to us, tnrc, joe gieselman, carol joseph, that bunch, did a great job for us, so did the people from the jail, major balagia, his staff, they were very helpful, we wouldn't have done without them. I know we couldn't have done all of the projects that you would have liked to have had. We started out when we first appointed the projects, totaling $415 million. So we were kind of charged with the job of making 75% cuts, which during the budget process is kind of difficult. I had a hard time when I sat up there to make 10% cuts. 75 seemed to loom even larger. We did the best we could we have the report for you and we will answer any questions.
>> questions.
>> a quick one, richard. Where do we find embedded in here what are the issuance costs? Are those on top of the 119?
>> the way I understand it, it's included in the project.
>> embedded in each project.
>> that's what made us go back to --
>> it's okay, I知 making sure that I understand where it is.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
>> judge, I don't know how much you were willing to allow us to get into asking specifics about things, I know it sounds like you wanted to kind of take the report and sign-off on it, on that part today.
>> I will ask if we have questions of the committee members, as long as we don't get real personal [laughter] these are all close friends of mine, Commissioner. [laughter]
>> well, let me start out by saying that I am, you know, a little concerned about -- about you know the certain precincts and I don't have to tell y'all, I mean, what precinct 3's attention is. We have $46 million worth of road projects and precinct 3 has 1,700,000 and some changes. I mean 3%. I知 -- I知 going to feel a lot differently about that. I mean, by the time all is said and done. Number 2, I understand that -- that it sounds like to had he that the committee is supportive of putting the second item on the referendum that -- the open space of which you know I致e spoken in favor of. I think, you know, probably surprisingly so. Some people that I would be supportive of that. But I never thought that I would -- get back from what I understand was an overwhelming majority of the board not in support of having another referendum on the November referendum not put something additional in there for road. I mean, that's -- that's pretty surprising to me. I mean I -- I like the word vote. I think vote means a lot to people. And if we are going to be willing to vote on somewhere between whatever the number is and $60 million worth of open space, I will tell you that this community is absolutely crying for infrastructure of road system. And $46 million is not a drop in the bucket. I realize that we can't do 284 million or whatever the total number was, but I will say that, you know, when time comes for us to take a look at what we are going to do with additional road dollars, I知 going to be pretty hard to move away from -- from not having another, I mean, I知 fine with it, saying, you know, if you vote for these roads, this is what it raises your taxes to. Full disclosure of what that is. I think that's only fair, I mean, which I thought it was fair to do in open space. Can you tell me, richard, what you think might have been the opinion of the committee that were willing to vote for open space but not willing to have another line item referendum that would have allowed us to vote on more road money?
>> okay, yes, I think that I can Commissioner. What happened with the open space idea surfaced almost in our first meeting. The idea started, floated around at the parks and open space committee and some recommendation that no dollars were [indiscernible] at that type. It gained momentum because it was talked about at all committee members. The idea of having more -- a separate item for additional road projects, never surfaced at the mobility committee at any time except our last meeting. And it surfaced the way I知 understanding it from the committee, because we discussed it when we all got together as a group, that it was just mentioned very casually, by one of the members and according to him, he said that we talked about it for about one minute. So when -- when the motion was made that we include the roads into the proposition, I think that the committee was not ready as a group to vote on it because they were not aware of it. I guess what I知 saying Commissioner it should have been interjected into the discussions at a much earlier date so it would be properly considered. It just caught everybody off guard.
>> I was under the impression, though, richard, that a lot of -- a number of meetings, I mean roads, additional roads -- road money was -- was often talked about. Now maybe it wasn't -- I mean, hey, we've all been in this community for a long time. You can get people rallied around open space, you can get people rallied around clean water, around a number of subject matters and in this community that doesn't surprise me that we wouldn't have had -- I mean, for example, I think one of the meetings was overwhelming a large number of people for skate board park. Well, I mean, the point here is that we all know that if you rally people to go do something and say you know what, we all need to go down there and let everybody know that -- that 97% of the people in this town, you know, put on their knee pads and go and skate board, I bet you there aren't two people in this room, you know, that put their knee pads on and go and skate board. The point is that we intuitively know of these things. We know that intuitively know that $46 million in this bond package for roads is woefully inadequate. I知 just telling you that I am surprised that the committee, because I think it was like 13 or 14 to one or two or something from what I was told. So I mean I guess we'll talk about that more next week. But obviously I do have major concerns about --
>> I understand, sir. I understand fully.
>> $1.7 million being out of $46 million in precinct 3.
>> I was challenging folks because I heard that, too, a, round one, nobody was testifying on that particular subject matter. I basically said if you feel strongly about that, you need to get in there on round 2. I think there was some effort in that part. But knowing that it doesn't work well when it takes 14 years to get road projects done, which is what happened with the 1984 bond election, I challenged folks to say rather than say I want a chunk of money for unnamed roads, that we don't really know what will cost and when they will be completed, timing, be specific about what road projects you think are lacking and put in a plug for very specific road projects, because one of the things that has worked exceptionally well for us after the lessons learned from '84, in '96, 2000 and 2001, is we put things on here that are ready to go. It is timely and we can promise the voters that it will be -- underway or completed within a five year time frame and as we have all found with concrete and steel prices and other mobilization of large projects within the Austin area, you've got to have that kind of a window to have any kind of a certainty that you are even in the ballpark on a particular project. So I tried to get folks to focus more on -- on tell me a road project that you think is timely, ready to go, meets or criteria and I am more than happy to consider those particular road projects. So I was really hoping rather than just saying oh, slam money in this direction, as opposed to the open space even though it is also open in terms of what's there, you still need to lay out certain kinds of criteria, expectations, you don't want to have failed expectations there. But that's a whole lot easier to -- to nail down in terms of guidelines, et cetera, expectations. On property. Between now and November as opposed to invent where this x amount is supposed to go on mobility. So I have tried to challenge people, give us specifics. The voters appreciate specifics when it comes to mobility. So that's where I will leave it on that. Related, I do have one other question related to the water quality, maybe can get to this. We have one particular water quality agreement that is embedded in parks and open space. I知 just wondering what the thinking of the committee was that something that you do label as water quality would be embed understand a parks and open space proposition as opposed that it might be the first named project under a separate water quality amendment.
>> this is a compilation or -- a distillation of projects where you see under a, parks and open space.
>> put this on --
>> thanks.
>> this is two parts here. A and b, on the report that you have got, attachment c, a is a distillation and -- the top priority items that were on the original list that was given to us. The thought of the committee was that he would take that list, distill it like every other group did to what we felt were high priority items. The b item then is the $60 million stand alone for natural areas. That was simply the logic. Distill what was given to us by staff, distill it down, b would be the $60 million open space. I agree they achieve the same purpose, which is enhanced water quality, very much natural areas. So -- so they don't necessarily have to be differentiated. But that was the logic.
>> it raises a question which is a good one to have between now and next week. G if that's embedded in a parks and open space line item, should other stuff be there as well or should that one be part of a specific one related to water quality? I don't have an answer, it's just a great discussion point of saying gee that might be the vehicle to put it altogether or that could also be the vehicle to pull one out and apply it towards the other.
>> sure.
>> it's just a discussion point. I知 sorry, the one other one related to howard lane, too, there may be some issues related to whether a public/private partnership indeed comes to pass. So I guess your recommendations are one -- do you have kind of like a parking lot list of if anything were to crash from this list in terms of it doesn't come together, do you have a next project, slot in for that space if indeed it does not occur in that dollar amount?
>> yeah, I believe we do. Cameron road would be one. I think it was mentioned. I thought that I read it mentioned in the letter with mobility drainage. That any of the five projects that are -- excuse me, four project that's are cost shares would if they didn't come through, we would endorse cameron road and we also had other ones. But that one would be the immediate one, I would think. I think that was mentioned in the letter, I hope it was. Is rimers peacock also in that category?
>> not really. Simply because we wanted to give. Just to give back a little bit, I was in a meeting that you were at in Pflugerville. Kind of stuck in my head that we should really I think representative krusee said what about my district.
>> strama.
>> strama, that's right. And you had said something in response to him that this is really -- we hope this is based on need, not my share of the pie kind of thing. That stuck with me. Certainly a greater need as projects went through, we really focused on need, I think. That and money being a -- you know, an influencing factor, of course, not having as much as we wanted and so yes cameron road would be a second, certainly.
>> that's not to say, though, in -- and what we end up doing as far as trying to resolve that phase 2 of the howard lane extension to s.h. 130, howard lane was to basically look at what we could do with the landowners there that we are dealing with right now. Of course two of the three are willing to cooperate at this point and I will get further as soon as staff gets back with me, get further disposition of those two as far as where we are, I think Commissioner Sonleitner did mention the public private partnership. But of course we try to get at a 50/50 type level of participation, however it will never be a 50/50 level of participation for this particular project and that is because of the Travis County is going to end up -- constructing an dealing with the bridge and paying for the bridge that are going across gideon creek on that howard lane east to s.h. 130. So it won't ever be a 50/50. But even in the limelight, let me say this to you. Number one, you have a heck of a job to do. Going through what you have gone through and probably made some enemies, probably made a lot of friends. I don't really know. But anyway I applaud you for what you have done and willing to serve as far as coming back to us. But as I致e told you on July the 12th, I said listen I知 looking forward to adding several other mobility projects to the list that's -- if they don't come out on the final recommendation list. That's still my disposition. Precinct 1, which I represent, of course everybody will have to vote on this, but we are in the crux of economic development and of course we do need the infrastructure and the mobility. S.h. 130, the majority of s.h. 130 is going through precinct the majority of s.h. 130, across Travis County is going through precinct 1. There are several networking possibility that need to take place. You would rather be proactive instead of reactive in a lot of these situations. We have to have the infrastructure, the roads for the economic development as we look at the ddz, desired development zone, the growth pattern, where growth is coming, it's coming there. Yet we need to have the roads to accommodate that. Now, it's no secret. And I知 going to make sure that whatever we do we -- we do it and -- in a way where we can accommodate and -- what Commissioner Daugherty said earlier but I stated this on the 12th. I知 going to make sure that we as a court, I don't know how the court is going to go. But include those mobility projects that can -- can -- as need not only that but can also facilitate economic development. There have been several meetings, that I致e had as far as economic development is concerned, some of these economic development meetings I think Commissioner Daugherty, I think maybe you attended one of them. Even during that meeting there, the same things we're talking about here as far as roads, things that the take in together to make all of this a possibility come true and folks in the community have no objections to these kind of things, at least I haven't heard of any. So it's all enhancing, comprehensive as far as moving forward with the mobility projects. Even with everything else that we have here, but I think the mobility projects, I think you need to look at it as far as the total package for Travis County. Again, I think all of us will have what we need to say at that appropriate time as far as what we would like to recommend. But in concluding, there are ways I think that we could reduce costs and we have gone out to maybe get a cost sharing situation with other governmental entities. To reduce the costs of what we can actually place out there before the voters, for them to vote on, on these particular projects. And of course the city of Austin, I think that I stated that, on July the 12th, and then I gave a copy of some letters to the clerk and my colleagues and everyone else that wanted them to show that there are certain projects that the city of Austin want to participate in to reduce the costs and I guess at some appropriate time, I don't know when that's going to be, judge, but at some appropriate time for these specific projects that we are looking at as far as 50/50 participation, the things where you have cost sharing with other governmental entities, all of the other projects that we want to have put out there, at some given time I think they need to be discuss and flushed out. This may not be the appropriate time. Whenever that time comes up, I really would like to have the say as far as what I知 hearing from the community, as far as what we want as far as the mobility projects.
>> okay.
>> why, what I want to say is thanks very much for all of the time that you spent on this whole process of trying to give us an affordable package. I知 really interesting as I was in the past to make sure that -- that we have a package to offer the voters in Travis County, regardless of what precinct they live in so that we could improve the structure, the infrastructure of the county and of course in -- in precinct 4 it's all of the drainage, it's like a funnel and all of that drainage goes down to -- to precinct 4 so we have to -- so add that issue and -- but I would like to -- to offer as much as we can to everyone in Travis County at -- at no additional taxes. If -- if at all possible. One of the things that we hear about is -- how high the taxes are and that's taken it altogether. Even though Travis County's portion is usually about 16% of the total tax bill. But nobody really notices that. So we hear about how -- how high their taxes are here in Travis County. And I知 really appreciative of the other, of the additional package for the open space. I think that's the way to handle it so that people can distinguish what is an additional package and that that calls for additional taxes. And so that we can make that clearer for them. The other thing was I wanted to not forget the lessons of the past. And that's one of the things that we've kind of really worked on since -- since '95 when, you know, we got here. To try to learn from the past and make sewer that projects -- make sure that projects that are put on the ballot are ready to go. We have done a lot of preparatory work on the front end and then we just -- the only thing lacking is asking for voters to give us the approval of being able to have the bonds to fund the projects. That works much better than trying to always play catch up on a project, you know, trying to make sure that it's progressing instead of falling behind. And then of course, you know, it -- when we do that, too, it's more costly to the taxpayers because we have to constantly be playing catchup and explaining why the project fell behind. I don't want to go there anymore. To me it's very important that all of the projects be ready to go on the ballot. But thanks very much for your time and the attention that you gave to the process. And from hearing from all of the citizens everywhere. Thanks.
>> judge, you know, I think Margaret brought up some good points. Projects that are ready to go. I know the ones that I have been dealing with approximately we have gone through a whole lot of things with a lot of folks, it appears that some are ready to go. But anyway seeming that be as it may, Commissioner Gomez brought up another correctlystanding thattch if . Debt service -- debt service and everything, everything about the 119, issuance, a whole bunch [multiple voices] already included in the $119 million.
>> right.
>> so what I知 trying to say, $60 million for an example is a stand alone deal whatever is in addition to all of these things here. Then is the tax assessment on that $60 million pretty accurate as far as what -- what increases your taxes, then it wouldn't be until 2007, right, as far as -- in other words not '06 but '07.
>> right.
>> but is the increment as far as the assessment of the taxes on that 60 million dollar is that pretty accurate?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> may be understated. Maybe less to the taxpayer.
>> all right.
>> it's very close.
>> pretty --
>> [multiple voices]
>> maximum.
>> it's the max. Okay. So -- I知 asking that question basically because, well, from $119 million, of course there will be -- the only increases that we are talking about right now would be the $60 million of open space. The board would decide to support that. So I think it's pretty valid for other projects that are maybe coming yao line or ready to go. As far as possibility projects, things like that. So I知 wanting to get a feel for where we are on that. Thank you.
>> judge, I知 simply going by what we did in '97, 00, and '01. We probably need to get some advice between now and next Tuesday related to owe is there an anticipation we could combine roads and drainage, we have never broken drainage apart as a separate stand alone, it's also been embedded as roads, drainage, et cetera. Parks is totally separate but we have never broken apart drainage before.
>> that's fine with me.
>> I don't believe the committee would have any problem with that.
>> no.
>> if we -- especially if we did it next week when they are not around.
>> there you go [laughter] my second question is to make sure that we can have t.n.r. Just reconfirm all of these numbers that the -- that embedded costs of issuance are indeed correct because we just -- we want to make sure that all of the numbers are right for the road projects and bridge projects et cetera and then we haven't forgotten anything and -- and it's just last call for -- for making sure that the numbers indeed capture everything that they are supposed to in terms of water quality, drainage easements, right-of-way, yada, yada, yada. Just making sure those numbers are correct.
>> is that in conjunction, Commissioner, with the -- the private/public partnerships. That's what I have --
>> whether it's mobility, whether it's parks, whether it's what. To make sure that we know that the numbers are correct. And the other thing, too, is -- I would want to get from p.b.o. -- christian?
>> I would want to get from p.b.o. Between now and next Tuesday that for any reason we chose to go some incremental distance past the 119 what would be the tax implication. So if there was a desire, christina, to put in arterial a. If there was a desire to get cameron road back in there, and we can't find any other way to cease it in, but there's still a desire to put some things back in, I would want to per 5 million, per 10 million what -- what nose -- what would those numbers be so that we could be up front and honest about those things to see if that's something that works.
>> the committee deserves a gift certificate to neiman-marcus and overnight stay at the holiday in -- hyatt hotel. Basically, you all are used to that. But the good government model we went to years ago does not allow us to do it. But we have a big thank you for each and every one of you. We really do appreciate your public service.
>> I知 happy to tell you all that neimann's will be opening up at the domain in spring of 2007, so I have my plug in for an economic development agreement as well.
>> now the residents who come came down, simply came to give the report presented today or to give their very, very brief comments? Come forward with very, very, very, that's three veries, comments at this time.
>> good morning, Commissioners.
>> good afternoon.
>> good afternoon.
>> john hutchinson. I live in walnut place neighborhood. I will make this as brief as I physically can. At one of the meetings in precinct 1, one of the neighbors got up and spoke and said we don't need arterial a, he lives on a side street. He got up and showed up at the neighborhood the other day, someone asked him what are you doing, you're at the intersection here counting cars. He goes I wanted to see why you all on springdale road were so upset. I said I had absolutely no idea how bad traffic was on springdale road. He said I知 now pro arterial a. So that being said. If you all can see any way to put an additional bond package in, mr. Daughterty, to increase the possible amount of money, even if it's just to set some sort of money aside to start the project, get the thing lined out, whatever, we greatly appreciate it. That being said, there was a sound bite on the radio yesterday afternoon, I never could find any more information about congressman mccall getting money for highway 290. It's in the federal money package that they just -- the president just signed. I don't know, I called his office, no return phone call.
>> 290 west.
>> the y, okay. Darn. I was hoping they were going to fix our road faster. So there's obviously we are going to have 130 out here, with these guys' project, all of the stuff in our neighborhood, all of the houses coming. Please let's really consider putting arterial a back in in some form or function. You've had philosophy or six people repeatedly speak to you all anti-arterial a. Ms. Kubec is going to give you a petition signed by 214 residents of the three neighborhoods that are going to be most directly impacted by this. We would like to submit that so you can see we are not just three or six people that keep coming into the meeting that are pro arterial a. We actually represent 214 more. That's only in two weekends. Given more time we could give you more signatures if it would help make a decision.
>> thank you all very much.
>> john, does -- had you also saying that you are okay with waste management? Having an extension of their landfill?
>> no.
>> along with this? Could you know what this really triggers?
>> I know exactly.
>> are you in favor of that or are you not?
>> I知 willing to live with it.
>> with waste management going to 2025.
>> yes, sir. Now, that being said, mr. Daugherty, you will notice in the caption on the top of this petition, it specifically states, every person that signed that, was read that, it says we understand that if arterial a is built, there is a better than even chance that or something to that effect, that they will get --
>> this may result in extending the life of the waste management landfill. Period.
>> that's in every petition. That's what they signed. We know that traffic is coming. The landfills have a begin active life span. They will have to move, but those houses that are coming north of me are coming. There's 3,000 platted and on the ground coming, they are building the roads as we speak right this second. There's another huge section between samsung and harris branch that's all about developers, that's coming, that's going to turn into houses, no way around it. There's 1500 trailers coming over. This gentleman is going to tell you how many houses are coming to the east of us. That is the fastest growing area of Travis County. If we don't have a new road, we are going to be flat run over. I don't want waste management to be there. I have been fighting them for 10 years. But I know what traffic is going to do. Mr. Gieselman back here will tell you about a thing called green light effect. It's how much traffic can go through a green light. That determines how many cars go on that road. That's springdale road is at 7,000 cars now, the green light effect will be 5,000 more cars, that's a 73% increase in traffic on springdale alone.
>> I understand the statistic. I am just blown completely away. I am trying like the dickens to get 2015 and now I have somebody coming to me with signatures that's telling me that they can live with 2025 because I know what everybody would rather have. Y'all go away, build us a road. Given that's not going to be the case, this is whew this is hard -- this is a lot to take.
>> Commissioner Daugherty, there's a slight difference. It's an ugly difference. The difference is b.f.i. Is going vertical. They are going into the sky and everybody -- all of us is going to see it, it's going to the biggest eyesore there ever was. There is no argument about it. They are already using it as a sighting lineup for the air traffic control people, all of the airplanes. It's in the middle of Austin, it needs to go away. So does waste management. But if waste management stays and builds an arterial, in the path of arterial a, we get their permitting right now for the wilder tract and I don't want to gamble that they get the wilder tract and we don't get the road, then we get both end of the dirty stick. That to me is unacceptable. My neighborhoods are this is a no brainer, can he can't take any more traffic, it's going to destroy our neighborhood. If god forbid, even came back in the old days, which is the [indiscernible] of springdale road, they would take -- that makes me a corner lot, I didn't want a corner lot. Thank you all very much.
>> hi, joyce thornson, walnut place. This is waste management's draft application for expansion into the wilder tract and arterial a people have carried their copies of this document to public hearings to show why arterial a should not be built. I have a different interpretation of this situation. This draft filed with cap cog exists. It has been filed despite uncertainty regarding arterial a. Waste management is pursuing this expansion, whether arterial a is funded or not funded. Opponents have been telling the bond committee that if arterial a is funded, waste management will ask for expansion into the wilder tract. Guess what is this they have already filed this application. Will killing arterial a put this 2,000-pound waste management gorilla back in the cage? I don't think so. Walnut place residents are painfully aware that funding of a road does not always translate into building of that road. But without the funding there will be no arterial a. Let's try to get arterial a funded now. The next bond package will be too late. We need our arterial a added to this bond package. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I知 christina kubeck from walnut place. Let me just read you the cover letter to our petition which 100 of the signatures I personally went and explained to these people, you know, there's -- you know, there's the landfill, if the road goes through, it cuts the corner of the landfill, they have to back out -- you know, landfill in two cells, you know, and -- it may, you know, they may expand on the other side, but look, this does set the landfill back further from -- from these neighborhoods, they are currently 700, allowed to fill 700 feet from the nearest homes. Well, with the setback of the road, it adds water detention that would not otherwise be put there. And 7 the -- the expansion on the other side, there's a space between it and blue goose road where there is no development that's nearly 2,000 feet. On the other side. So it's not really burning it that closer to someone who's there. It's a mess. But let me read, dear judge and Commissioners, on behalf of the walnut place neighborhood association we thank you for your hard work and time spent on the proposed aerlt a road project. Arterial a road project. We recognize the complexity of issues raised regarding arterial a. The attached petitions were developed to demonstrate wide street support exists for arterial a. In the limited time before the July bond committee hearings, bona fide residents door to door within the impacted neighborhoods. They had maps showing the location of the proposed roads. They explained the full scope of both the pros and cons of the project. The neighbors have clearly expressed that they are in support of arterial a. The chairman of the roads and bridges subcommittee of the citizens bond advisory committee stated on August 9th, 2005, that arterial a is unnecessary -- is a necessary project. The people fighting arterial a are sticking northeast Travis County with the worst end of the stick because they are going to end up with landfill expansion and no road. The group fighting arterial a set up the whole section of northeast Travis County for failure. Well, we agree with -- with his assessment. Landfill expansion is a separate issue that can be dealt with at another time. We respectfully request that you consider this petition, give it the weight it deserves and put arterial a back in the bond package. Judge Biscoe and Commissioners, we appreciate your help and support and you can count on our continued support in the future.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for the opportunity. I致e never sat so long, had so much to say in so little of a time. Most of you already know my name is larry beard, I live on the east side of Travis County and I知 five generations worth out there. And we have enjoyed the growth and look forward to helping with the growth. There's a couple of things that I would like to bring to your attention. One is y'all have a -- just an overpowering burden of trying to decide what's best for this county, open space roads, god knows there's more needs than money. Maybe there is an opportunity to divide out some segments of open space on the ballot. And allow the voters. You all are big on allowing voters. I trust in that. This -- let's allow the voters to look at some opportunities that may or may not increase their taxes or may or may not include in the 119 or whatever it is millions without tax increase. Maybe there's an option to look at these things because under the guidance of the bond committee, which did an outstanding job and I致e been to many of their meetings, as you all well know, between 1325, i-35 and slaughter lane is 16 miles. Under the current proposal there's absolutely no connections of s.h. 130 in a 16-mile radius. I don't think that anybody would have ever built i-35 with the intent that you couldn't connect to i-35 for a distance of 16 miles. I think that's narrow minded, not very far thinking and there's a lot of public/private joint ventures out there, including one of mine. That we would like to propose an alternative and I suggest that you put all of the alternatives, all of the public/private on one side, let the people vote. If these people want to participate, fine. You all want to go buy all of this stuff later, go ahead. It's going to happen. You are going to have to have transportation. I -- I commend Commissioner Gomez. And Commissioner Sonleitner on their harping and more recently Commissioner Davis about the issues as this stuff isn't going to be built in the next 18 months, I don't want it on the proposal. If you can't get some kind of guaranteed letter of credit, commitment or otherwise financial agreement, out of the -- out of the developer of these projects, you do not need these on your ballot. You can come back to it next year. Or the year after. We don't need to be voting on things, the people of Travis County, my mic just go off? Did you all turn me off? [laughter] I appreciate the fact of what you are trying to do. But what I知 trying to suggest is look people, let's get real. If this stuff isn't going to be built in the next 18 months, let's don't do it. If you can't get the financial guarantees from the people that are advocating this, then don't put it on your proposal. If you have got a problem, some segment, some commitment, something other ear, put it on a separate issue. The people voting in November need to know what's going to happen in six months. We can't be turning dirt, let's don't do it. That is on my proposal, which is proposition number 6 of the original bond proposal which I was limited your exposure to 1.5 million and I believe mr. Gieselman's office indicated that it was some $4.9 million, which I have already got the city willing to come in at a third on, it's not even in the city, they recognize it. We have got to connect to s.h. 130. Thank you for your time.
>> what is the name of that project?
>> the decker lake road extension, ma'am?
>> okay.
>> do you -- we are going to meet on Thursday so we'll have a chance to discuss.
>> yeah, we'll visit.
>> but you do recall there was an incredible or maybe you don't, I知 making sure everybody does know. I have been on campo for more than 10 years. Yeah, I致e got the gray hair to prove it.
>> I apologize.
>> it's okay. It's an obligation, not an opportunity these days. But there was a great deal of discussion as we talked about the route of s.h. 130 that there would intentionally be very few access points into east Austin. That it basically was going to be by design 290, mlk, 969 and that's it because they did not want inappropriately for people to get off and then be cutting through east Austin on roadways that were never intended to handle regional east-west traffic. So I do want to make sure that point was understood. That the idea that yeah we know it. And that was intentional. And in fact it was also intentional that there would be very few frontage roads only to provide access to land locked properties and as it turned out, there's been a whole lot more frontage roads put in because we didn't want to replicate big, ugly, interstate 35, we wanted it to be more of a limited access situation like we do on mopac when you are not going to have the billboards or the commercial development and what commercial development occurs would appropriately occur at an intersection, an exit point. So I just want to make sewer that you understand that there was a reason that there were limited exits into east Austin. For the very good reason that we did not want them slamming down through off of manor road, trying to create cut-throughs where none were ever intended but we all can say 969 was always intended to be an access point because not only is it a state highway, but then it is a road that literally does get from one county into the heart of the business district. Just some perspective there.
>> may I address that?
>> sure.
>> the decker lake road extension does connect to a frontage road which is only a quarter of a mile from -- from 969, s.h. 130 intersect. It allows the utilization of the heritage center of which if you will discuss with -- with your manager, if people could move from the heritage center, more quickly, straight over to the frontage road to s.h. 130 and proceed south or do a turn around and get north on s.h. 130 and be up to the Pflugerville Round Rock georgetown, they could be there in 20 minutes as opposed to just trying to make decker lane one light, turn left on 290, it would take them over 20 minutes just to get to i-35. This is a major corridor intersection. The other roads identified that I would ask your attention would be the braker lane extension out to the new -- to the northeast Travis County park that we have spent about $10 million on and your satellite sheriff's department. Which is necessary for the safety and the public other than trying to drive down burleson lane road, which is a non-striped two lane road to 969 which is a non-striped two lane road to get an east-west major corridor. The braker lane, put these on separate agendas, that's fine. Separate voting referendums or whatever. I understand that you can't put it all under the same umbrella. Maybe not. I would like to have been under the umbrella, but in reality maybe we're not. They are proposing, I say they, I believe mr. Carpenter's project is something to the extent of like $2.4 million maximum for the county expenditure including future two lane additional space, mine is decker lake road extension. I limited your exposure to 1.5 million. Mr. Gieselman's estimation at his office was 4.9 million. I even had the city of Austin realizing the net community of that -- necessity of expansion for the arterial, I have a letter which I -- distributed, they are willing to recommend they pay for a third of this. There are other connections to s.h. 130 here that are not arbitrarily anywhere and everywhere. Mine is 969 and s.h. 130. Carpenter I believe was braker lane, expansion over to your northeast park. There's $20,000 lots platted or being platted in the east Travis County sector. If you will pick up the entire city of temple and move it out there, that's what's going to happen in the next eight to 10 years. That's just a fact. I don't necessarily like that I moved out in the country to stay away from everybody, now y'all are crowding in. But anyway thank you for your time. I do encourage you to look at what is going to happen now. If you can't build it in the next 12 months, then don't put it on the bond. Thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you, larry.
>> ms. English?
>> yes, my name it's trek english and I知 here on my own. I知 not really speaking on behalf of anybody. I just would like you to understand that I find it totally immoral for -- for a -- for a series of neighborhoods to have to put up with a -- with a 25 year expansion of the landfill just because of a road. I would like you to look at all the bond packages that were offered to 400 million and come and tell me how many -- how many on that package involved the 25 year expansion. How many people do you think in Travis County would put up with it? So frankly, it has to be -- a better alternative to this. Than sticking people with the 25 year expansion of the landfill. Also, I am not interested in bringing you -- in getting neighbor against neighbor. That's -- the petition -- you know, I知 not -- I understand what they want. I understand what we need. I understand what's going on here. I知 just saying there were no public hearings on that road. Many people are going to pay for that road in Travis County that have never, no idea of what it is or -- where it is or what it entails. I don't think that if we told people that the partnership that is on the bond package is at waste management, Travis County partnership would get a lot of support, that alone in the northeast courtroom would make people scream at you. We have tried not to make it a huge issue and we are willing to -- we are willing and have asked, I personally have asked them to meet with us so that we can figure out where the road goes, if they are -- if there are other alternatives. I don't want to go to the waste management site. I can walk there by myself, you know, see what's going on. I would like to have Travis County explain to the people what's going on, what it entails, questions asked, responses, I would like to sit down and -- with my own neighborhood. I知 not even going to call them pro and against because there's no such thing as against. I would like to meet with neighbors and say this is what we have a problem with. This is what we have a problem with. How do we solve it? There may be a solution and if you don't put it on this bond package, it on the campo plan. Like the previous gentleman said, can you put it in two years? Can you have another bond package and put it because then we have an agreement? Do we know where waste management is willing to go, how far they are willing to back off their position? That's all that I知 asking. And if we are going to quote a gentleman of the bond committee as to what he said. We should say the whole quote. He said their landfill issue is not separate from the road issue. It's intricate and -- and intertwined matter. You need to iron this out and it's a $10 million road. Just cut 10 million off of the package for something else. So it is an expensive road. 10 million to 18 million for 1.5 miles of road. I think there's something wrong, especially when you are building a $1.65 billion road two miles away, nobody has looked at where does it start on parmer, how close is it to another intersection, whether that would cause a problem. We have though the talked about that. There's a gentleman that's offering another solution and I would like you to hear his presentation at some time so that you can see that we are trying to find solution. We are just not saying, no, no, no, just saying okay let's see if we can come up to an understanding so that you don't have such a hard choice to make, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good afternoon, commissions, judge, I知 mark mcfee. I might add I知 mark macafee formerly, they sent me back my dues this year. We have been a member for a quarter of a century basically. So there is definitely not any unanimity in the neighborhood on this issue. But definitely want to reiterate what mr. Coleman said and that was that there are too many issues with this road. It would be unethical to basically make a decision on this road until we have settled the other matters before us on that. And also there are other alternatives right there before our eyes. The braker lane extension is half as much -- well, half as much as the original amount of money that was slated for arterial a. It's I believe -- I believe it is 8.1 million. It is slated to carry 32,000 cars in 2030 as opposed to arterial a which if both are built out will only carry 22,000 cars. It seems to me that there isn't a big rush. We -- if we are really worried about it, let's put braker lane back on there. It's cheaper. And there's not a landfill issue tied in with it. So thank you.
>> thank you.
>> I知 anne macafee, you might have a feeling that you are being ganged up on today by members of my family. But I hope that you don't really feel that way. Anyway, I only wanted to address two issues that were brought up this morning. One was a question that Karen Sonleitner brought up, that was the question of -- of Travis County needing to take care of its own garbage. Which I agree with. The problem is that Travis County is taking care not only of its own garbage, but the garbage of 17 other counties. Plus additional ones apparently from time to time. I heard the figure of 31 counties are contributing to our dump site from time to time. But seven regularly, seven counties regularly contribute to the northeast Travis County dump site. And today clint smith was here, talking about this issue. And he pointed out that killeen, that ft. Hood is -- is dumping military waste in the Travis County dump site. And then I -- I believe judge Biscoe asked the question of the b.f.i. Lawyer, how many counties are you taking garbage from? He had a sudden failure of memory, he couldn't think of what that figure was. Although I understand that those figures are somewhere in the -- in b.f.i.'s own documents. So I致e heard sometimes toxic waste can cause a medical lower loss. I don't think that the b.f.i. Lawyer who spent that much time on site, I think he has an office in downtown Austin, but at least drew a blank memory on the question that you addressed to him. I think that's an important question. Both the question that Karen Sonleitner asked and the one that you asked, judge Biscoe. So that was really the only two issues that I wanted to address. Thank you.
>>
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
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, August 17, 2005 10:52 AM