Travis County Commissioners Court
August 30, 2005
Item 23
Number 23, consider and take appropriate action on some mission of surface transportation program, metropolitan transportation funding request for campo. I told everybody these were quick items, joe.
>> I thought that went to consent already. Sorry. This is request for stp 4 c funding from campo. They are allocating additional stp 4 c money. Of course, we'll be in competition with every other local government in the area for these available monies. So we basically have several trail projects included in the list as well as some road projects. We have what's called the southeast regional trail. That includes mckinney falls trail from the state park to the entrance of william cannon boulevard. Also the pearce lane fm 973 project from elroy to richard moy I can't park and we have the state highway 130 brushy creek trail from northeast metro park to the county line. We also have frate barker road from brodie lane to manchaca road. And then we have cameron road from harris branch parkway, bridge 106 to state highway 130. All of these are being submitted to campo for federal funding. There is a 20% match that will be required if these are successful. At this point we do not have funds authorized for the matching money, but there may be some surplus money in the bond program that could be used for that purpose if all the other projects are --
>> facilities? We have got facilities money.
>> you've now got some flexibility, yes, you do.
>> joe, one that we talked about this morning, cameron road that didn't make the cut with the bond committee, got cut for affordability purposes. And its cousin is in here in terms of making it happen perhaps. And I致e had a long talk with morning to see about, okay, we need to muster our forces to go to campo and talk about who needs to go there. My question is this: one of the things where I was willing to let loose of this because of the affordibility issue had to do with the fact that this is not the final fix for this road. It is two lanes now and this will make it a straight two lanes and give it the sidewalks and the bike accommodations, but it is still lacking the last two lanes of this proposal. And my question is: should we not torture a neighborhood just once rather than twice in terms of ripping up 1.6 miles? Is there any way that we can just go for all of it at stp 4 c and get it all done and not have to go back with these folks? I just raise the question. This is one where, you know, we're doing so much -- yes, judge, I知 going to vote for the bond order. We're doing so much related to accommodations in the sh 130 corridor and kind of pivoting to sh 130 and we have listened intently with getting letters from representative dukes, representative strama, senator barrientos and many others have put as much of this stuff in your bond election as possible. It just seems that we ought to also have them assist us with the one project that is really about the connectivity that is impacting a neighborhood. And they don't have the banner of economic development to say that this will also put a lot of stuff on the tax rolls. And it just seems to me that we ought to just get it done. We did this on dessau road. We went beyond the initial thing because it's like, god, if we're going to build it once, ought we not build it right from the very beginning, never have to go back, and the biggest thing is why build something undersized from day one? It goes from a two-lane road to a two-lane road? That's kind of hard. Why wouldn't we just go for the big one on cameron and just get it all done? And we move on and we never look back. We don't have to come back in four years on the bonds.
>> what would that cost, joe, for what Commissioner Sonleitner is -- it's $8.3 million, I think, that was sitting out there before.
>> I don't have an estimate for that. Understand there's only $38 million total, total for the three county area. And we're right now asking for about 22 of that. So I don't think we're going to be successful at getting that amount of money in a fair competition with as many local governments that we have. I don't disagree with what I like to do -- would I like to do all of cameron road at one time, yeah. But the chances that we're going to pull that much out of 38 million is I would say very improbable.
>> well, it depends on who you pull together to say how it's going to be because if you look at the historical numbers, the city of Austin, and they are no longer the majority player, and you can't just sit and admire money that you get. You need to get it and spend it. And I知 just asking the question, if you don't ask, you shall not receive.
>> I値l do whatever the court wants me to do.
>> I壇 like to know what additional money would be added to the existing 8.3 for this cameron update of bridge 106? What would that be?
>> [inaudible - no mic]. Right now I want to move that we submit this program funding request in the amount of 4.6 million. Joe?
>> I知 sorry?
>> in the amount of 4.6 million, that's the request, the contract?
>> no, our request is probably close to 22 million.
>> so the 4.6 is what, the matching? Oh, I知 sorry, that could be the matching money. 20%.
>> some of the matches we've got can handle, it depends on if we get nunded, others we get funded and others would be match less.
>> match sg four million, that's correct.
>> we can find the 4.6 million somewhere.
>> I second that, Margaret. And joe, I guess --
>> what's the motion? To submit these projects as is or go back and add all of cameron as a four-lane loy roy?
>> I think we ought to just go for it. I mean, good golly.
>> it couldn't hurt to submit it and see what happens.
>> is that friendly?
>> yes.
>> because then the extra dollars that were created this morning could cover all of the match to that particular project, and golly, dessau road was a -- about a 20-million-dollar stp 4 c money and we threw in our right-of-way money.
>> somebody else may not have that 20%, joe.
>> are you ready, let's go.
>> any more discussion? Allin favor? That passes by unanimous vote with director -- with Commissioner Daugherty temporarily away. Show him away for the rest of the open session part.
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 31, 2005 12:10 PM