On This Site

Commissioners Court

Previous Years' Agendas

Departments

Intergovernmental Relations Office

Administrative Ops

Health & Human Svcs

Criminal_Justice

Planning & Budget

Transportation & Natural Resources
 

On Other Sites

Travis County Commissioners Court

August 30, 2005
s 26 & 27

View captioned video.

26. Consider and take appropriate action on recommendations from the citizens bond advisory committee, including the following: a. List of specific projects and assumed implementation schedule (cash flow); b. Proposed propositions; c. Impact on debt policy and future annual operating budgets; d. Public-private partnerships; e. Proposed bond convenants; f. Election schedule; and g. Related issues. Glen, do we need to get input from you on 27? 27. Consider and take appropriate action on a proposed order calling bond election. Have you turn the clock off and go back to your office. >> yes, sir. I believe you should have in your agenda package, unless you decide to change something today, a draft of the bond election order. That would be up for -- up for adoption. Up for action. >> okay. >> there's probably a change folks will see in those numbers because of some advice that you gave about us, which is where some of the flood control items properly ought to be that were not tied into the road, so some of those things flipped over into the -- into the parks preserve open space category; is that correct? >> yes, the question on those items is where should they properly be allocated to with respect to your authority under state law to -- to issue bonds and some of those were -- were really facilities that were related to roads and road drainage. Some of them will end up really being more appropriately slotted into your parks proposition. >> can you just explain to us how you treated the tier 1 versus tier 2 in this document. >> sure. With respect to proposition -- proposition 1, which is the -- which is the roads proposition, if you look -- if you have the draft of the bond election, whether it is in section -- in section 5, the -- the total amount of $30,760,000 or -- excuse me, the total amount of $50,225,000 is bifurcated, if section 5 a we allocate a portion of those proposition 1 bond proceeds to various projects specified for various precincts. This is a pattern which the county has followed in previous bond elections. With respect to the tier 1 and tier 2, in section b, we allocate $19,465,000 to -- to the tier 1 projects and the tier 1 projects are listed out in the bond election order, what the bond election order provides is that -- is that the Commissioners court will agree not to expend the money on a tier 1 project until such time as a -- what we define as a partnership agreement relating to that project has been executed and delivered by the county. That participation agreement is an agreement that -- that meets the requirements for the county's guidelines for county participation and public-private partnerships as you adopt it on July 12th, 2005. Or as maybe amended if you choose to amend that policy. To the extent there is not an agreement, to the extent that agreement with respect to any one of these given projects is not in place, on or before December 31st, 2006, that allocation of bond proceeds to that tier 1 project terminates. And the amount -- that is allocated to that project, the court will then reallocate those amounts to the -- to one or more of the tier 2 projects that are listed in the bond election order in such amounts and in such a priority as the court determines at the time of the reallocation. If -- if then in fact if -- if the tier 2 projects carry the same burden, you have to have put in place a -- a participation agreement before you will expend money on that tier 2 project. It has to meet the requirements of your guidelines. To the extent that we have reallocated money to a tier 2 project, that project does not have a participation agreement in place on or before December 31st, 2007, the allocation to that tier 2 project terminates and the court has -- reserves the right in the bond election order to then use that money on -- on any other tier 2 project or any other county road project. So it is -- it is a -- you allocate the money first to tier 2. To the extent that they don't meet the guidelines, you can roll it over in your discretion to project and amount. To tier 2, tier 2 the projects don't meet the guidelines within the time frames, you can change it to another tier 2 project or use it on another county road project. >> question. Originally, howard lane, section 1 only, has been listed as a joint precinct 1 and precinct 2 project because quite frankly it splits the line. We have been working on it as a joint project. I’m not going to get crazy here that it's being put in precinct 1 in terms of where to put it. But that has been a change up until this point related to all of the right-of-way meetings, all of the things that we are doing that it is a joint precinct 1 and precinct 2 project because of where that project is. Once you get to howard two, that is clearly all precinct 1. So I’m just raising the question as it flipped at the last minute here in terms of that being called only one precinct. >> that was my doing. The court authorized the 1984 bond money that was allocated to do the preliminary. The actual legitimate of the -- of the realigned howard lane drops out [indiscernible] more than half of it, being in precinct 1. So it is a judgment call. In this election we are just all in precinct 1, if -- if the court wants to divide it into two precincts that's fine, too. >> I’m not asking for that. I’m happy for it to be where it is. I just want to -- because up until this point it's been called a 1/2 project. I am very comfortable with it being called a precinct 1 project for it to be managed under the precinct 1 umbrella. That's cool. There are no issues, we will continue to be stakeholders in that process in terms of dealing with all of the public meetings. Because we are. >> in the execution and delivery by the county as to the participation guidelines means what? >> the participation agreement that you have agreed to execute and deliver a final agreement in place with the third party. >> so the -- the substantial compliance that we are accustomed to dealing with, would leave you short of execution and delivery? >> substantial compliance with the guidelines? I think right to determine whether it meets the guidelines and execute it and deliver it. I’m assuming execution and delivery subsumes in that case the substantial compliance with the guidelines that you would not execute it and deliver it without substantial compliance with the guidelines. >> okay. So, joe, on tier 1 we kind of self-imposed the deadline of December 31st, '06. >> '06, that gives us a year after the election to consummate those four agreements, which should be enough time for the county attorney and t.n.r. To work with all parties that either come to an agreement or decide that no agreement can be reached. >> so even if the -- a tier 1 project in our view becomes construction ready three, four, five years later, we will put on our sales responsibility to get out there and try to negotiate the -- the partnership agreement by December '06? That's what they mean, basically? >> by December of '06 we have an agreement that actually would include the engineering design and construction of the roadway. Unless we have that agreement we would need to proceed to do engineering design on the project. It would literally cease to be a project altogether. >> so we have sufficient staff to do our end of it? >> oh, yeah. I believe we do. It's really more the intent of all of the parties to come to an agreement. And one of that -- we will know that pretty soon. >> okay. Any other questions for glen under item 27? >> are you staying around for the rest of the discussion. >> if you would like for me to? >> I’m sorry? Too if you would like for me to [laughter] >> we would love to have him present, wouldn't we? >> sure. >> did we have anything related to covenants. Where would that be a proper discussion? I’m happy to wait. Any other covenants brows private-public partnerships. Whether it was appropriate, what the other one, about the toll road thing, if we don't there are no toll roads in here at all. The only covenants are in section 5, the covenants on the allocation of the bond amounts under proposition 1 in accordance with 5 a and 5 b, as well as in 5 c there is also a similar allocation of proceeds under proposition 2 with respect to parks. To the various precincts. That is the limit of the covenants that we have put in the bond election order. While I think we acknowledge what you have said, that none of these bond process are being used on facilities that are or are anticipated to be toll roads. I don't think that's a -- it would be our recommendation to not put something like that in the covenant in the bond election -- >> to make it extraordinarily clear, these are all local roads and not at all anything like before. All free roads. >> we are preparing a public information document and that may be more appropriate for that to be mentioned in that document. >> okay. >> anything further under 27? Okay, thank you, mr. Oppel, now on 26. After the motion was approved last week, we did get e-mails and phone calls, I think regarding three specific items. One is the amount that we approved for open space and mobility. Two would be reimers-peacock, three would be the arterial a. Now, I do see residents here, I assume they come to give us comments. So I think it would be appropriate for us to hear us today. And so I guess in my view if we could hear from two or three on each item, maybe. We got about two or three hours of testimony on each item. There are -- in my view, if there are -- two or three on each of them, if there are votes here those or motions. >> in terms of conversations as you are coming forward, trek, that's fine. In terms of conversations that I heard from both open space advocates in terms of large groups, with reca and the chamber, both were giving messages to me and I think to others that they were all pulling back any further requests related to this idea of -- of is there yet another way to try to funnel money beyond the 119 million into those things. I think there was a realization that the debt limitations that we went as far as we could, in trying to maximize those dollar amounts. While all would love to have more, that was not a discussion for today. I think there were late e-mails coming in from people who clicked a site related to either one of those things. Still advocating it, but the conversations that I had with -- with valerie and certainly reca and the others, they were like we realize that you went as far as you could come and those are good discussions to have on another day when perhaps more money is available to plug into mobility and open space. If we could restrict it to two or three on each, if there's a fourth one that we don't know about. They ought to have an opportunity, also. >> good morning. >> good morning Commissioners, judge Biscoe, my name is trek english. I’m actually real happy that mr. Gieselman is right next to me this morning. Because there was a suggestion that I wanted to make last week but it took -- I took too long with my other testimony and -- and Commissioner Daugherty called it tedious rather than an olive branch so I’m going to try again. But before I do so, I would like to get something off my chest. I received several phone calls last week after the Commissioner's meeting, people were appalled at the treatment of the resident from colonial place. So I am here to protest the -- the -- your constant discrimination and berating of the people who have homes or bought homes near the northeast landfill and are fighting against their expansion. Of course you know I am addressing this to you Commissioner Sonleitner because I believe that you are discriminating against our people. >> do you think that it's inappropriate, trek, to ask somebody what subdivision they live in and then to ask somebody how long have you lived there? >> Commissioner it's appropriate for you to ask so, but you went out of your way to make him feel like he was totally stupid to have bought a house there and now trying to oppose the expansion. But you also omitted to tell him that you were going to stick a road, with 30,000 cars and trucks in his back yard for the rest of eternity. I notice that you didn't go out of your way to say that, either. >> I beg your pardon, arterial a was listed as a tier 2 project, that a been a part of the roadway plan of campo for more than 10 years. >> yes, but not in its meant alignment and you know that. Present alignment. >> that would not be a correct statement, but you also know that. Go out of your way for a road project in precinct 1, but you won't go out of your way to stop expansion of two landfills that will harm a large segment of people, not only in precinct 1, butments in precinct 2. I am perplexed that you are now willing to accept that a person who has chosen to buy a house near a landfill would oppose expansion of that landfill. But you advise me to accept and start working with three people who have suddenly changed their mind after advocating for 8 years against expansion of that landfill. By their own admission last week they told you had he collected money to find landfills they wrote letters on behalf of their executive committee with not my name on it fighting the expansion of the landfill, they have taken videos to show how bad that landfill was. And yet god knows how many complaints about that landfill, here they have changed their minds, everybody is very understanding. I’m also perplexed that you berate and ridicule people who bought houses near landfills. But you glorify and you advocate for people who knowingly bought houses on or near a major arterial county road. If you are going to have a position on this, it needs to be the same. It can't just be discriminating against one group of people and not the other. They knew what they were doing when they bought the road. The road was there way before the landfills. Springdale road has been on the maps for god knows how long. So -- so now my olive branch to you, Commissioner. Actually I have one more question. If waste management was not there at all. If they weren't there at all, would you even try to put arterial a on this bond package? >> I’m sorry, are you addressing this to me? >> yes. >> arterial a has been in the campo plan -- >> I’m not asking you that. I’m asking you if waste management was not there at all to fund this project, would you even bring arterial a on this bond package? >> waste management is not paying for this road. >> what -- the bond package says partnership between waste management and the county and you have gone to great lengths to explain what a partnership is. >> I -- I can't even begin to -- to respond to your question. That roadway is needed whether wm is there or not. It's been in the roadway plan. The idea that there is not a major arterial for seven miles going north and south, there are huge issues there, trek. And it would be so much easier if wm were not there because then we wouldn't be intermixing all of these discussions, but that road is needed. There's been talk about a road in that segment, be it the old s.h. 130 corridor was being looked at to go down that route. That has been a transportation corridor and -- and you know as everybody knows on the campo lines, those line goes aren't lines, it means a corridor. That road can verdict a mile on either side of the line and alignments have changed. The platting decisions have been made for years talking about the anticipation for that road. The folks at pioneer crossing are going to be a little amazed to find out that they posted money for a road that was never supposed to exist. They have been posting money for arterial a. So -- so I don't know what to tell you. >> arterial a is not where you proposed it to be right now and you know it. That was the alignment for s.h. 130 and s.h. 130 has been moved. >> arterial a was much closer to the railroad tracks. >> I’m not going to get into an argument with you, trek, we have to respectfully disagree on this. I do respect your position that you are opposed to arterial a. >> I am opposed to the waste management expansion based on the fact that you are trying to put a road through their landfill at this time. That you should have taken an opportunity to do it the last two years. If you are right and it has been the alignment has been such for the last 10 years, then you have plenty of time to work out an agreement before they reach this -- this last segment. You are going to have to make up your mind whether it's been on plant for the last 20 years -- on the plan for the last 20 years or it hasn't. If it has been on the plan why didn't you do something about it before? >> there are a lot of roads in the campo plan that are there in terms of the protection of corridors. It doesn't mean a road is going to be built. It means that there is a corridor that needs to be protected in the event that a road needs to be built there, or is going to be expanded in that area. And I don't know how else to explain it to you. I respect the position that you have on arterial a. I happen to disagree with it. Many of your neighbors happen to disagree with it. So we are going to have to leave it at that. I understand your position. I respect your position, but I disagree with your position. >> well, if you are truly interested in protecting my neighbors, then here's my original, just one suggestion. I have several. This one could be actually inexpensive and pretty fast. Do you know where the triangle is at the top, at the north end of springdale road by the bar mansion? >> yes. >> so why don't you put 2 -- do not -- put two do not enter signs for people travelling from blue goose on to springdale and from people that are travelling from sprinkle cut off on to springdale. Why don't you make them turn right on to sprinkle and you make the people from blue goose go straight and the only people that you would allow to take springdale road are the people that own and run the bar mansion and their guests and the people living on springdale road, that would alleviate all of these problems, all of these 30,000 cars that -- that has been called a despot by some, now advocating the virtues of the landfill, maybe he could put up with that. >> the barr mansion doesn't front on springdale road. It doesn't. >> let's not change what I am asking you -- >> I am, why are you all of a sudden saying they ought to get special treatment when they do not have property on springdale road, it is actually on sprinkle. Why shouldn't they and their guests have to go around as well? Because you are basically saying that a business that happens to have a corner there ought to be able to impact that particular neighborhood as well? >> so are you noise discriminating against the barr mansion, too? >> a public road is a public road, trek. >> I’m giving you a solution -- >> y'all. >> that you are picking on something else. >> ms. English, that's recommendation number one. Is there a recommendation number two? >> of what? Of -- >> you said that you have several recommendations. We have number one written down. >> I would like to know why this one doesn't work before I go to number two. I’m trying to figure out exactly if the waste management deal has to go through or if we are willing to open our minds to other roads. Or other courses. Because if we're not, then no matter what I suggest we are going to get back to what we need waste management and the deal. I -- I’m trying to show you, judge Biscoe, that I’m thinking of a way to help my neighbors. I am. >> but I think -- >> I didn't just come up with that just to help me. >> there's one question today. And that is whether arterial a remains in -- in the tier 2 list or not. And your testimony is it should be no. >> my testimony is that you do not enter into a partnership with waste management -- >> but see what's on the ballot has nothing to do with partnership. >> judge, if I can just explain a little bit. I think what she's referring to, it has an asterisc beside it. It refers to a public-private partnership. Her sums is that because it is on here, the entity that we would enter into a partnership with would be wmi. Right? >> no, actually it was written on the bond package. I’m going to have to extract it. It's amazing how much stuff I always have to prove. The landfills just talk and nobody is asking them -- >> is that -- >> it is actually written. It was it was written in the bond package on your website. It said waste management Travis County partnership. >> waste management -- >> at this point, it's all that they have offered in their proposal. I think what's important to understand here is that the court can reject a public-private partnership agreement just as well as the private sector can. Just because it's in the election order as a tier 2 does not mean that such an agreement will ever be executed, the court and the private parties will have to come to an agreement. You may not reach that agreement. Because you may not want to reach an agreement, so -- so all you do here is hold open your option to negotiate, if you get to the point where you do not want to negotiate with b.f.i. Or any other -- or waste management, with regard to arterial a, then end of story. So this does nothing but hold open options but the court can clearly delete arterial a from tier 2 and foreclose that option. So -- so that's -- this tier 2 really does nothing, but -- but to maintain the option for the court to enter into an agreement if they so desire at some point in the future. >> also it's kind of like a place where projects can be on a list, waiting for the outcome of the planning and design stages to see if it is indeed something that is possible. >> that is also the -- you are somewhat buying time because there's so many events here, there's a very complicated environment that we are working in here, you have permits being sought for expansion, you have got a lot of events, those events are still up in the air. So it's impossible right now for the court to land on any of this stuff, just merely to buy some time. >> joe, is there any dollars attached to anything in tier 2, it is dependent on there being savings on something else happening within that proposition. >> that's correct. >> or something on the tier 1 list crashing and burning. This is a backup list. There's no money attached to it, you would also be having to make a judgment call based on the dollars and whether something is ready, you are making an assumption that arterial a would be the number one project on the backup list. I -- I can see two other projects, braker and decker lake, that I think are much more modest, are probably going to be ready faster if indeed dollars free up. So I’m not even making any assumptions that -- you are assuming it's going to be number one, it's going to grab the money and it gone out the door. The answer is really there's a lot that's going to have to happen here, it's three -- probably three, four years down the line in terms of cost savings and/or people crashing and burning on public private partnerships and I can tell you on the private partnership -- public private partnerships in precinct 2, they are ready to sign their docs, ready to get into those discussions with the county attorney's office to lock it down. Don't look for anything on my end to be crashing and burning, we are going to get that money and keep it because too much hard work has gone into pecan. >> so there's no -- there is money that you are not getting. >> the only partnership I know about is right-of-way dedication. This court is on record being -- if they gave us cells nine and 10, there is added pressure for us to support replenishment of whatever space they lose as a result of that dedication. Beyond that I’m not seeing a partnership. But the question today is should we leave arterial a in tier 2 or not and your answer is no. And this opportunity is for you to give us reasons why, we need to get your presentation so we can move on, ms. English, to ms. Best and some of the others. >> well, judge, I am very happy of -- of miss -- Commissioner Sonleitner's clarification on the record. I am also -- also my position is that I’m opposed to any partnership with waste management regarding arterial a. That's a big difference and my neighborhood knows that's been my position from day 1 and I have not changed my mind. >> okay. >> so I hope that you understand it. I want you to acknowledge the fact that I did try to come up with this suggestion. That the barr mansion has had access to springdale road for over a quarter of a century, so I think the least that you can do is just respect that. That's what I’m doing here, I’m not trying to throw one neighbor to the dogs to protect the others. Thank you. >> thank you, trek. >>[one moment please for change in captioners] >> >> ...i think we were trying to see if we could get those things locked down before we set the ballot. When it became clear that none of them would be ready, that's why that January 1st 2007 number is in here, to say on any of the public-private partnerships, tier 1, and arterial a is not one of these, but we would give them a little more than a year to get their arrangement locked down with a legal document with the court. Because we clearly were never going to get there on August -- it was kind of presuming that something was going to get approved by the voters, so these contracts need to kind of follow the election. >> I certainly understand that. I’m just simply letting you know when a citizen gets information, they only have that information to go by. So that's where we're coming from. I do have another question, however. I understand that in the last bond election the figure I was given was $10 million, was approved to provide a relief road to help the same neighborhood that's now supporting arterial a and the waste management expansion or partnership. What happened to the funds that were allocated for that road? Why was an alternate road solution not pursued that didn't include a landfill involvement or expansion? I think county taxpayers will need a full explanation of why they're being asked to fund yet another road before we saddle the nearby residents with a bad deal. And I have heard the argument made that by putting the arterial on the bond package we're giving people a choice, and to me that's just political speak because we all know that the bond package is approved or disapproved in total, not by individual project. And I also wanted to mention that I was concerned by the way a precinct 1 resident was treated last week when he asked to have his signature removed from the petition. And the reason I’m concerned is that it bothers me that officials want people to live on the east side to preserve the environmentally sensitive west side of the county, and then when they move to the east side so they can own homes there, they're held in contempt actually or ridiculed because they want to live in a place without having additional bad development and where bad development is continuing to flourish and you're allowing it to do so. And at the same time you have sanctioned the establishment of those housing developments. If everyone could afford to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to live next to 3,000 acres of undeveloped land like the balcones canyon land preserve, I’m sure many would want to do so, but people who buy homes where they can afford to live have just as much right to want to stop additional undesirable development as the people who fear traffic problems and have a right to have a road to help solve those problems. And I would also like to mention that as far as the alignment of arterial a as late as 2002 when the subdivision of the wilder tract was done, it was done without dedication of right-of-way because the alignment was undetermined. That's our understanding. Thank you. >> thank you. And our goal is really to treat all residents respectfully. Now, the project that you may reference to, is that ny? >> it's not 10 million. >> is there like a 45 second answer? >> the project was designed, it was not executed because the property owner did not dedicate the right-of-way. And that was the presumption that all along in the the budget that that would happen. Most of the money that was allocated for the project was not county money. Most of the money was either city or capital money. >> what happened to the county money? >> we used a portion of it in the design of the project. The project is ready to go to bid, except for the right-of-way. >> where's the rest of the county money? It's in the bank. >> in the bank. >> I’m ms. English for the record and I’d like the number two plan. Since you asked me to prove that here's a bond that I got from your website, and it's on arterial a, it says requested as a potential public Travis County-city of Austin, even though the segment does not include the segment in the city of Austin, but it says potential public Travis County-city of Austin private partnership with waste management to reduce truck traffic and cut-through in the neighborhoods surrounding springdale road. >> thank you. >> okay. So I just went by what I read. >> I understand. >> okay. Thank you. >> now, if we approve the language that our lawyer recommends, then for tier 2 projects the new deadline is December 31st of '07, right, glen? So that's roughly two and a half years from now. Anybody else here on arterial a? Those who testified today are against its inclusion in tier 2. Now, should we go to rhymers peacock? Anybody here on that project? Full name and we'd be happy to get your comments. >> good morning. I’m cindy phillips. I live at pedernales canyon trail out in west Travis County. I’m a member of the guardians for lick creek and I’m here to speak on behalf of my neighbors and friends and the guardians of lick creek to ask you to remove the rhymers peacock road from the bond package. I want to thank you all very much for your ongoing efforts on this proposal, and convey to you how much we appreciate the prospect of having that land protected, the rhymers hope ranch and the watersheds that serve it also. The reimers peacock road would pass directly over the watershed, so if we're going to acquire land to preserve watersheds doesn't make sense to require land and then build a road over it. No. This road is not included in the initial citizens board recommendations. It doesn't serve any safety purpose. It doesn't relieve traffic congestion, and it contributes to the degradation of the watershed. So I’m respectfully asking you to remove it from the package. Doesn't make any sense. >> thank you. >> I’m christie miews, I’m here today as director of the hill country alliance. And I too -- I want to thank you, all of you, for making natural areas a priority in this bond package. And Commissioner Daugherty, I want you to know how grateful we are to you, that you have listened to us and that you're protected this wonderful area. We will all benefit in so many ways from your commitment to open space. Sincerely, thank you. But I did want to remind the court that reimers peacock road was not included in the recommendations given to you by the citizens bond advisory committee. Last week when the details were worked out between Commissioner Daugherty and Commissioner Sonleitner, this road project was added back in. And we feel very strongly that reimers peacock road needs to be removed. I’m going to run through a few facts and a lot of this is by studying the mobility criteria that was given to the bond advisory committee. First of all, reimers peacock road is not a safety project. It will increase traffic along highway 71. That stretch of highway 71 is truly the mobility problem in precinct 3. And adding another collector is going to put more cars on an already very dangerous highway. Reimers peacock road is not an intersection improvement project. It will add another intersection to the already dangerous highway 71. It will not relieve congestion, it will not serve as collector in the transportation network. The only support I’ve heard for this project comes from the fact that a few landowners are willing to give right-of-way. Of course they will give right-of-way. This road will open up thousands of acres for very, very profitable development. There is no commitment for public-private partnership for this road, and this issue has come up earlier today, and I’ve talked to Commissioner Daugherty about that. And I just want people to be aware that the intent for the public private partnership is that developers won't be asked to pay their share of this road until it's to be widened for four lanes. The idea is that the county will pay for this two-lane highway. And finally, the road cuts through a very environmentally sensitive part of western Travis County. It's the same area that we're trying to protect with this land acquisition and reimers ranch. I truly believe this is an unwise use of our taxpayers' dollars. Certainly there are better ways for the county to spend $825,000. In fact, our friends along hamilton pool road have come here today with a great idea to share with you and I’m going to let them fill you in so as not to be redundant. The hill country alliance is here to support the work you're doing. We respect you. I empathize with this difficult job you have. And we are very eager to do our part in getting the community educated about this bond initiative. So again, please take -- please consider removing this from the package before you approve the package today. Thank you. >> I’m mel (indiscernible) and I live on hamilton pool road. And I spent last Tuesday morning here listening to the testimony and was eager to find out what the outcome was going to be. And it was important for me as I believe there was a real commitment on everyone's part on the bond advisory committee to carefully weigh all of the projects and to select the ones that were the most needed. I’m going to refer to this again, Commissioner Sonleitner had made a statement back at the very first public open meeting for community input and her comment was that the bonds should -- the bond projects should be chosen on the basis of need, and that need would translate into that which is best for the county. And I think that's what we really had a solid foundation in when we made decisions. I watched in the afternoon session from home because I couldn't stay, and I heard the white line cautions from christian smith and I heard the commission Sonleitner, her motion and the court's vote. It it was not what the committee had proposed for open space, but it was okay. As a matter of fact, it was better than okay because in fact, you had heard what we had said and you provided for it. And I think we all were very happy for it. At that point I was unaware that reimers peacock was included in that bond package, was resford to it. And unfortunately, reimers peacock road does not fill a need for the residents of the county or for precinct 3 residents now. It does not comply with the criteria for public-private cost shares as the Commissioners court has prescribed. I believe it was given an exemption in order to get the right-of-way, and we would do the design and engineering work. This future road, as was said, will not relieve congestion on highway 71. It will not improve public safety for the residents of Travis County. What it will do is provide access to thousands of acres of undeveloped land and for future development. If and when there is a developer for this property, and if and when that developer will enter into a cost share agreement with the county, then that's when reimers peacock road should be considered by the county for a new arterial. Just as we had many developers come to the bond advisory committee and lobby for their projects, it does not seem unreasonable that certainly there would be an awful lot of developers egger -- eagerly waiting and wanting to give you the right-of-way. I have thought of an alternative, a different proposal that possibly would work. Basically it's a swap. The money for reimers peacock road for the design only was 825,000. And the money for the hamilton pool west sections 1 and 2 was design only was 997. If you total, it's 1.8 million. If that money could be used to provide shoulders for hamilton pool road from 12 to 71, that would be a real improvement, a public safety improvement that would go a long way. It is not something that is in the future, it is now. And I heard Commissioner Gomez many times recently say we want projects that will affect community and help us -- they can see what's happening and that this is a public safety improvement as well. The proposed money will stay within precinct 3. I understand from txdot that between 300 and $400,000 per mile is the average cost for shoulders, and they knew it was hamilton pool road, so I guess they had an understanding of that when they gave the figure. And I just based it on -- took the figure of 350,000 and figured it out that we could actually get 5.2 miles of shoulders from that 1.8 million. And that is just about the distance from 71 to 12. It's about six miles actually, but just east of the intersection of 12 and hamilton pool road are improved shoulders already, so that's a section we wouldn't have to do. Hamilton pool west, the design only, was not to widen that road, it was simply to upgrade it with bike lanes, etcetera. And I think hugh could address that that it's in good shape now. I don't think anyone would disagree with that western section of hpr. And it has very -- well, it's less trafficked than certainly the eastern half of hamilton pool road where the bike lanes or shoulders would certainly become a real safety improvement. I mean, everyone has their own horror story, but there's certainly -- the cyclists when you combine the cyclists, the cars and no shoulders, it becomes a real hazard. This change would not affect any other precinct, it would not affect the total money, the bond money, it would not take money away from precinct 3, it would just be a readjustments of the determination for the roads. I know we all, I especially, want to support and lob we by for the November bond election and I want -- I want it to be as good as it can possibly be. And I hope that -- and I believe the community, everyone -- and I have taken some time to put feelers out and see. I think the community at large is very much in favor of something like this. And I hope you will see the matters in it and -- matters in it and consider it. Thanks. >> thank you. >> my name is pepper morris. I just like what I heard a lot. I want to thank all of you for your consideration to our opinions and more specifically to the addition of reimers peacock road and the bond package. I thought that that had been taken out. I was surprised to find that it was there. I’m here as a western Travis County resident and as the vice-president of the guardians of lick creek. I approved the bonds as they were submitted to the court prior to the reimers peacock road being added. The court has the opportunity to allow the citizens of Travis County to have a say in their road issues, and we are speaking. Reimers peacock is not a safety related project, as you've just heard, nor is it an intersection improvement project. In regard to lick creek, the watershed of lick creek is right up there in the reimers peacock ranch, as well as the bee creek watershed. And I feel very strongly that until the permanent rules are in place that it just wouldn't be a wise decision to allow this road. I’m not anti-development. I feel like -- I don't feel like. I’m foalghtsly aware -- I’m totally aware that development is going to come our way. And I feel like the protections need to be in place prior to that. And so I feel like this is a wonderful opportunity for the citizens of Travis County, and I’m in hopes that you will take the advice of the advisory panel and your constituents. Thank you. >> thank you. >> morning. My name is hugh winkler, I’m a resident, live at 9510 Moore drive, which is right off of hamilton pool road. And thanks again for the open space that we do have and the bond package, and I just wanted to express my reservations about reimers peacock road. >> if you give them to me, I’ll pass them down. >> I bring that picture just by way of showing that there's hardly anybody out here to serve with that connection out to 71. My own house is in the lower right-hand corner of that, and I certainly won't be using that road. And it doesn't appear to increase anybody's safety or -- I do think that it seems some day they're going to want to develop that property out there, and they should be able to do so, but the county doesn't have a lot of -- the county has this ability to take over a road, and they can -- a developer some day can deed that road to the county, but the county ought to use that as part of its whole package to get the kind of development out there that will protect the water quality, and as you can see, I’ve also marked on there, the reimers road off to the upper right and the head waters of bee creek down there in that picture down by my house. It goes all the way down and it's gorgeous water in there. And it ought to be protected. And I’m sure that the present landowners out there are good neighbors and they're interested in protecting it too, but once you've sold your property for development, then it doesn't matter about the initial intentions of the landowner. I think we ought to keep our powder dry and just take over that road some day in the future when a development gets platted out there. And use it as part of driving a good clean development that preserves water quality. And with regard to nell's -- you're in the knell, but with regard to her proposal, I would say that I’m a daily cyclist along hamilton pool road. Of course when I come out of Moore drive I take a right and head out to cypress mill over in blanco county and come back. And I should say that that is -- that stretch of hamilton pool road and 962 on down beyond that is some of the best riding, you know, in this whole county. And I was just mystified why we would need bicycle lanes. We don't need them out there. It kind of bothers me about going down my hill at 35 miles per hour in a bike lane. I really do need the road because it's pretty -- and it's lightly traveled out there, whereas the east side of hamilton pool road east of highway 12 is a nightmare. And I occasionally will venture down as far as crumley ranch road. That's it. I can't bear to go further east on hamilton pool road than crumley ranch. It's just a nightmare. And the speed limit is 55, but people drive 60 or 65, and some shoulders along that stretch between 71 and ranch road 12 -- and actually deer creek is really as far as you have to go because there's already a shoulder up to 12. That would really improve safety a lot. And if we could just replace this thing that I don't see a lot of benefit from with this thing that would have a lot of safety benefit, let's do that. So thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. Winkler. Morning. >> good morning. I’m anne huffunanimous and my maiden name is peacock, so I’m part of the reimers peacock, which we've been in that area a long, long time. My daddy bought it when I was three, and I just celebrated my 59th birthday, so you can do the math. I really applaud everyone's far sightedness to buy the reimers ranch that adjoins us with the park and open land, but I also have lived in big cities and realize that there is -- with that comes a responsibility of the Commissioners to provide mobility to that. So in my estimation, our family's estimation, the opening of the road, the reimers peacock road, would certainly provide for that. About a year ago I was going out to our ranch from 71 to the hamilton pool road and was stopped at the elementary school by a -- I guess a county sheriff or somebody official to tell me that the road was closed for an hour because there had been a terrible wreck and it was going to take that long to clear the road. So I had to go all the way back to town, 290, ranch road 12, to get to our ranch. And as I was doing that, I thought what would happen if there had been a fire, what would happen if there had been an emergency? What would have happened if someone had to get beyond where this accident was? There was no way to do that. And this is what the original purpose of the peacock ranch, reimers ranch road was, it was a county road all my life. Until about 20 years ago it was called a five gate road because there were five gates on it. And the reason the gates were there was to keep the livestock, but it was always a county road road, it was maintained by the county. The reason my daddy asked to have it closed was because people were leaving the gates open and the cows were getting out, mixing up with the reimers who have the ranch next to it, and it became a real problem as a rancher, so he asked the county to close it. Had he note done that, this would be a moot point. Because it would be a county road as it was for all of my life. So that is the purpose of we think of keeping it on your ballot as far as the bond issue is because it's not today some of the things that they have commented about or for today, this is for what's going to happen in the future, and that's all you're trying to plan for, and we understand that that is your responsibility and that is -- and that is in our estimation the purpose of what we've done and what we've offered. Thank you very much for what you are doing. We understand that it's a hard job and you're doing a good job. >> thank you. >> thank you. Anybody else on reimers peacock? After this testimony the third item was basically lump sum money for mobility and/or open space. Yes, ma'am. Morning. >> judge Biscoe and Commissioners, I have just a very brief statement about reimers peacock road. >> and your name? >> and my name is pam reese. I also travel this road, hamilton pool road, almost daily, and am very familiar with the traffic situation out there. It is true that we all spent a lot of time in the traffic in Austin, and if there is an accident, it's unfortunate, we may spend an hour or more in traffic, but this happens also in the city. My main point to you is that the reimers peacock road is a road that should be considered in the future and not now. I would suggest that any funding for the reimers peacock road might be more appropriately addressed in a future bond election. There is not a need for this road at present. So those are my points to you all. Thank you very much. >> thank you. >> ma'am, do you have any thoughts about the swap? Because you are on hamilton pool all the time? >> about what, now? >> about the suggestion by nell of moving that money over to hamilton pool road? What are your thoughts about that? >> I would really support that. It is a take russ road right there from 71 to 12. That is well traveled as opposed to from 12 on out to the low water crossing of the pedernales. That is not well traveled. It's just night and day on those two sections of that road. I think something should be done for the safety on that eastern part of hamilton pool road. And I would greatly encourage you to transfer the reimers peacock money over to the eastern section of hamilton pool road. >> thank you very much. More money for open space and/or mobility. >> judge, let me ask a question. >> anybody for that? >> while he's coming, go ahead. I thought maybe there weren't any. >> I think that we ought to -- since we're on reimers peacock, finish up with the reimers peacock unless you're wanting to go through all this and come back. >> I thought we were done with reimers peacock. >> I would like for joe -- I think there are things that people are not aware of with regards to how long this road has been in the master plan. There are some indications from at least the testimony and from the e-mails that I’ve gotten that people are not quite up to speed on some of the things that perhaps everybody ought to know, and I’d like for joe to articulate exactly how long this rod has been in there, why we are -- why the county has allowed this thing to stay in the campo plan. Joe, why don't you articulate for us -- I know you probably sent an e-mail to everyone, but there are probably people in the room that aren't aware. Can you take us through -- especially as it goes back to the southwest dialogue plan. I know that there's information that can be gleaned from that. Do you mind doing that for us? >> what's called the reimers peacock road is an arterial roadway in the campo long range transportation plan connecting hamilton pool road with state highway 71. The staff when they were doing the master planning for the metropolitan area realized that this was going to be an area that would grow in the next 20 years, and there's really no other mobility arterial roadway from hamilton pool all the way out to the Travis County line. The reimers peacock route, per se, is almost a natural in that it's currently located on a ridgeline between the various watershed, including lick creek on one, bee creek on another. So it's on a high point. And if we did nothing, a road would likely develop there just because that's where you would put a roadway. But the route in the master plan is along -- roughly along where the current cleach road, the -- caliche road, the ranch road is now. As we went through the southwest road dialogue process, there was a strong sentiment for -- with the understanding that growth was going to occur, that we wanted a different type of roadway. And there was a discussion of what's called the hill country roadway, basically to maintain the character of the hill country. There was a proposal that this reimers peacock arterial be one of those hill country roadways. What that means is besides the right-of-way for the roadway, you would seek an additional 40 feet of scenic easement on both sides of that roadway, roughly then you're talking about 180 feet of right-of-way and scenic easement as opposed to the typical 90 to 100 feet of right-of-way along the additional buffer has two purposes, kind of a setback from any development that might occur on either side of the roadway, but there's also the grass buffer is also a water quality feature as well. So in the discussions -- and this was at one time in the package. I think it was as much driven by the available money and how the bond committee felt the money ought to be spread, given the limited at of money and the demand for the money. So it's really more of a priority than anything else that was taken out of the package. With regard to priorities, there's no doubt that mobility issues will be experienced probably first on state highway 71 in the haven't of Bee Caves. I think if you look through the entire development in a large way, your crucial issue is going to be on 71 where 620, 2244 and all that come together. That's really probably the highest priority in the entire southwest Travis County. Hamilton pool road or farm-to-market road -- I think it's farm to market 3238, otherwise known as hamilton pool road between 71 and ranch road 12, is also likely to have higher volumes of traffic sooner and would be a higher priority for actual construction than reimers peacock. But the reimers peacock, I guess I need to highlight, is in the bond package for design only. There is no money appropriated or authorized under the bond election order for construction. It is listed under the tier 2 public-private partnerships. And again, as we said with arterial a, the only way that reimers peacock would get funded for construction is if the Commissioners court entered into a public-private partnership agreement with the property owners along that route and only if funds were available because tier 1 projects failed in some respects. But I think maybe what the bond money does do, the 800 some-odd thousand that's appropriated, is help us to tie down not only an alignment, but also the design of the roadway. And I think there is some merit in the public sector doing the design of the roadway over incremental design of that roadway by diswikses as they occur. I think it will get more harmony in the cross-section if you do it at one time, and also include in that design the water quality features that we would be expecting of this type of roadway. I guess finally, the issue of timing. You have three property owners, three large property owners at this point, that control probably 90% of the route. That is not often that there is a three-mile corridor controlled by three families. That may not exist at some point in the future. I can't say exactly when those ranchers may sell off to developers and get subdivided into small parcells, but for us it the opportunity to avoid condemnation of multiple parcels. If you can come to an agreement and get the right-of-way tied down now with three property owners, it's so much easier to build a road that way than it is to come back at a later date and have to condemn what could be hundreds of parcels to get the same results. So I think there's an opportunity here -- and just because of the assemblage, the way the properties are set right now as opposed to what you might have on a later point in time, again, the money is for design, it's not for construction, and I think there are some opportunities here that exist now, and it may not exist at a subsequent date. >> joe, would you also address -- I think it's a creative notion, an idea about taking the money and looking at what seemingly would be the best thing to do with hamilton pool road. Unfortunately, I think that that is such an expensive -- I mean, securing right-of-way for hamilton pool road is not -- that would not give us the fix that we need because we still have -- txdot is not going to go and do that road. It is a txdot road. And I’m assuming that the cost -- the costs that we had with regards to if we were going to have this in the bond was a 33 to a 35-million-dollar fix. And -- I’m sorry. >> [inaudible - no mic]. >> then let's take 20 million. I can't get two more million dollars. I mean, because I’m not willing to go there because of our bond. The point of the matter is as far as I’m concerned is to go and to use those dollars to secure that right-of-way and then to try to come back and find, I don't know, I think that we are resistant to going out there and just adding asphalt as bike lanes, which is what some people would say let's just go and do that because that makes hamilton pool road safer. I know that we have had a resistance to doing that. First of all, I’m not sure that txdot would let us go out there and say why don't you add eight feet of asphalt so you can have a bike lane. I don't think they would et let us do that. I do not think as the county that would be a smart move either. I understand that hamilton pool road, if I had a magic wand and I had all the dollars at my beck and call, I probably would take and use those initial dollars to really fix hamilton pool road between ranch road 12 and 71. But I don't have that. Number two, I do not -- I will tell you, you all know well enough that philosophically I am against not appropriating money, not building a road because you think that it encourages development. That is a central theme that I hear from people. You're going to open up development, you're going to create a situation where people can develop. Folks, to me that is the reason you've heard me say it before, it is the reason that we have mobility problems in especially the southwestern part of Travis County is because there's not a piece of land in southwestern Travis County that's not near something sensitive. I mean, you just can't do it. That doesn't make sense to say, well, it's near or it's in and around sensitive areas. So not be able to build a road because it's close to a creek, I guess we shouldn't have built 71 over the pedernales river. I mean, it's just -- to me it is not the right direction to go. And again, if I felt like that we were going to build this road in the next couple of years, I would say I think that there are some things way in front of it, but we know that it's probably going to take another bond, and pam you're right, it's going to take another bond in order to come up with the dollars to even do reimers peacock, which is a lot less expensive -- or more costly than doing the hamilton pool road. I appreciate why you think that you don't want it, but I think that at some point in time -- I mean, y'all want us to buy all of this open space. We want to do parks, but yet getting there -- I mean, it is another way to get to the reimer park, I mean, as opposed to just having hamilton pool road. Is it needed now? No, it's not needed now, but we're not doing it right nowment. What we have the opportunity to do I think is to leave this thing in, leave the design money in, and that's what I’m supportive of. >> joe, do we have a rough estimate of the estimated cost to construct reimers peacock? >> as I recall, it was -- >> 14. >> 14 million. >> is that the total cost that would then have to be split in a private-public partnership in a way that we talked about in terms of proportionate share in terms of expenditures? >> there is probably some offset in terms of 80 feet of right-of-way. That's quite a bit more right-of-way than we normally require for roadways, so there is probably some offset in the -- in our calculation of rough proportionality? >> are we talking about a two-lane road or a four lane road or is it a two-lane road but you have paved shoulders? >> the hill country road is a two-lane road with buffers on the sides. >> is it needed? Is construction needed today? >> I would have to say no, the construction is not needed today. >> do we have any idea when construction will be needed? >> a lot of it is dependent on the timing of development in the corridor. We see some development occurring on this 71 side. It is moving out that direction, but it's not happening right now. We're not seeing subdivision plats on either side of -- that's in part because there's three families that at some point it's their decision on when they sell their properties off for development. That's when we would expect to see the subdivisions. >> do we think we have a right-of-way dedication deal if we have the design money available? >> the families have offered to dedicate 180 feet of right-of-way for the hill country roadway design. I cannot say that that was in exchange for the design of the roadway. I think they were expecting some construction to occur. So I would not go so far as to say there's an exchange if we design it, you will dedicate 180 feet of right-of-way. >> my only question was the citizens bond committee had all of this information to think about? >> for the most part, they were certainly discussed as one of the candidate projects. It was at one time in the package and then it was taken out in terms of the final recommendation. >> but they had all this information to think about and consider and then come up with a recommendation? >> I have to -- I don't know how much they understood at the time. I don't know. >> but they heard the discussion? >> we certainly discussed it. I can't say we discussed it as thoroughly as you might think we had. >> okay. >> anything else on reimers peacock? More money for mobility or open space? >> thank you, judge, and court. My name is ted seff. I come here as an individual. An individual who has lived in Travis County happily for the last 35 years. The last 15 of which I’ve been actively involved both as a private citizen and professionally in the advocacy and acquisition for public agencies and parkland. It is because of that history, both just as a citizen and as resident by choice of this county, and particularly the last 15 years that the first thing I want to say is sincere admiration and consideration for the package you passed last Tuesday. I think it's a balanced, well thought out and important package that stays within the debt ceiling limits that staff has recommended. I am here, though, to advocate for small, but powerful individual additions to this bond package. If you chose to accept the whole package of roughly 19 million dollars' worth of additions a little over 10 million in mobility and a little less than nine million in open space, staff's calculation is that would cost the average homeowner annually over the next 20 years less than a thunder cloud sub, $3.92 per household. Less than a six-pack for some of us, but less than the cheapest thundercloud subper year. Here are the additions. And please, don't -- you know, I don't want to present myself as the expert on mobility or frankly anything else here, but there's a heck of a lot of work that your staff has done and the committee that you pay r. Appointed has done, and they brought out these projects that were not included because of the debt ceiling limit. If they were added, it would cost less than a sub a year for a household, average size household, three or four people, less than a quarter of a sub per capita. >> ted, are you understanding that it really did not come down to what is the add on to the tax bill, it was that the debt capacity simply isn't there? And I think you would have a better appreciation of this than anyone of the frustration of authorizing projects and then they don't get done. And that's what's happening over at the city of Austin where they authorized park money and mobility money, and it is sitting there in their accounts being admired because they had other things that they had to spend their money on and they couldn't issue it. There are things called debt capacity. And this is not one that for us, at least for me, that it came down to, well, that add-on is not much and people can afford that. It had nothing to do with the add-on, it had to do with taking away the flexibility of the Commissioners court and explaining that to new york, to the bond rating firms about why when we know we only have about 69 million in play and we know we have a 12-million-dollar problem at the jail that may be extra taken off of that, we have a 12-million-dollar thing with txdot that they have not released us from an obligation, but all of a sudden you want to add on to that in terms of -- it's about debt capacity, it isn't about the add-on. It really is. >> I appreciate that perspective, and I do to the extent that a layman can and we're both in that posture, the concept of debt capacity. And part of debt capacity calculation is a function of what the tax rate is. >> you may finish. >> thank you. >> we respectfully allow you to finish. >> thank you. I just wanted to hopefully fairly succinctly summarize each of these recommended possible additions. The decker lake road project has a cap on it of $1.5 million, and the amount of money contributed by the city of Austin and/or the developer in that project would be almost six million dollars. The need for that project in terms of building and other economic development in that area, all these three mobility projects are precinct 1 is now. The second project -- >> you're not leaving, are you? >> no, sir. >> because I would have one or two questions. Sorry about that, mr. Seff. >> braker lane, less than five-million-dollar project, dollar for dollar matched by the developer. Parmer lane, 3.7-million-dollar project, $7.4 million matched by developer and the city of Austin. Again, each of these are recommended as individual projects, and those projects are the mobility add-ons that I’m requesting the court consider. With regard to open space and park add-ons, one project that was left out of the citizen bond committee recommendations simply because of debt ceiling was the onion creek greenway. That onion creek greenway would basically connect the colorado river along onion creek to moya park. We've seen just this year that the city of Austin was in the process of receiving a grant garnered by our local congressman doggett of $7.5 million to build trails along walnut creek on city of Austin, walnut creek greenway land that had been acquired. So there's the potential for that kind of public partnership with this land acquisition, parkland acquisition, open space project if you choose to add it. I would also add that if you choose to add this park and open space land acquisition project, it would be the only parkland acquisition on the ballot east of mopac. It would be in, of course, precinct 4. Those are my suggested additions and I would certainly be open to any other questions if you have them. Thank you for your time. >> I do have one question. Ted, are you aware that the decker lake project is being suggested as a tier 2 backup project? >> I am, and I would recommend it simply be raised to tier 1. >> and right now in terms of people saying how if we've been trying to meet the balance, right now, precinct is has 39% of all of the dollars that would be allocated and three of the four backup projects are precinct 1. >> driven by need. >> right. And I don't disagree. >> driven by the need that the citizen bond committee evaluated. >> what you're suggesting are even more precinct 1 projects, and one would say they've already got 39%. I’m at 16%, precinct 3 is at 30%, largely driven by the open space, and precinct 4 is at 15%. I’ve tried not to cop an attitude here of it's got to be 25% because it's not correct. We need to meet the need, but decker is already in there as a backup project and we've had discussions with mr. Beard about that being that way, and he's not here today saying move me up. He was okay with that status and is also going to seek city of Austin -- >> that's not true. >> it is, but you were not privy to my conversations with mr. Beard. The next two projects, we have said over and over again they were not eligible projects because they are considered near term annexation and there are many projects that got taken off because they didn't meet the eligibility from day one. And that's one of them. The waller creek tunnel project was heard about, but it was not in the unincorporated area. And I respect the fact that mr. Mcguire is being squeezed here, but it really is a project that those projects ought to be presented to the city of Austin for their bond election because it's in their near term annexation area. And we passed a resolution up front five-zero saying we're not -- we have to put the cutoff someplace. And near term annexation areas, they're going to go into the city of Austin and the city of Austin ought to be the ones ponying up on a public-private partnership. >> I certainly appreciate all those issues, and I view them as constraints within the citizen -- within which the citizen bond committee made its recommendations. The court votes every Tuesday and can vote to change a policy just as well as continue one. >> mr. Dwyer, your name has been mentioned. >> judge, members of the Commissioners court, thank you very much. I would just like to augment and add on using mr. Seff's list that he passed out as a good graphic. My good friend mr. Gieselman was speaking earlier of the opportunity out on hamilton pool road to assemble right-of-way and having three property owners potentially put together three miles of right-of-way. If you look at the two projects I’m here promulgating, which would be the number 3 and number 25, braker-parmer, that is three and a half miles of right-of-way. It has a value of at least four million dollars, and you get it from one guy, from me. And Commissioner Sonleitner, I appreciate the restraints on near term annexation, but I think we've demonstrated with our economic studies time and time again this would be an excellent economic investment for Travis County. Travis County would still collect its tax whether these are in the city limits or not. And by stimulating the development in the area and acting in an opportune time, what's critical about these two projects and critical about this timing and critical about the partnership that we put together, you leverage $22 million including the four million for right-of-way from our contribution and the city of Austin's contribution with Travis County's money and they are being built at the absolute critical time when 130 is under construction. So yes, it seems like the transportation mobility dollars are tilted towards precinct 2 and precinct 1, but that's because that's where 130 is being built now today. And it's critical that we act expeditiously. The parmer-# 90 interchange was just announced that it's going to be going into the ctrma, 350-million-dollar bond proposition. If we don't act to do these two critical mobility improvements now, we're going to be out there retrofitting and it will be two to three times more expensive. Anyway, I just wanted to augment on to what mr. Gieselman said about trying to assemble three and a half miles of right-of-way, one stop shopping here, and the fact that the county, should it see fit to add these as additional programs, I think will be looked upon three to five years from now as being very wise for having made the decision today to leverage these dollars and act before we have to retrofit versus having to come back in and like the judge noted, have to pick up many, many, many different parcels. Thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. We appreciate the participation of all of the citizens who have come down today. Now let's see if there's any interest on behalf of the court in reconsidering any of the decisions that we made last week. I move that we reconsider at least the three parts of the decisions that were discussed today. One would be mobility and open space money. Two would be reimers peacock. Three would be arrest serial a. So the question is not whether we decide on, it's whether we reconsider them. >> I move to reconsider, I second. >> I’m always open minded. The last call, judge, so I’m going to be supportive of this motion. [inaudible - no mic]. >> judge, if it's appropriate, I would like to maybe make a motion. >> there's a second to reconsider. >> okay. >> tell me what technically and literally that means? >> that we reconsider the positions that we took on those three issues. The motion would limit us to those three issues. Funding available for open space and mobility, which is kind of broad, arterial a, then reimers peacock. And to beyond reimers peacock. My own view is a construction piece is what causes me the biggest problem. But there was a second to reconsider. So if we reconsider that opens it back up to those three. We would then entertain motions, if there are, on any one or all three. >> [inaudible - no mic]. >> all in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, son nightler, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Daugherty. >> and my doing it is simply to be respectful of people wanting to make changes, which is what I think you would be allowed to do anyway. >> judge, I would like to make a motion here if it's appropriate at this time. I would like to move that on the open space and mobility project, I would like to move that $8.6 million be allocated to the onion creek greenbelt in precinct 4, $8.6 million as recommended -- as passed out here this morning according to this sheet here that I have before me; however, on the other I’d like to move that these particular projects in an effort of public-private partnership interests be included into the tier 1 category of the particular bond order that we have before us today and that is the braker lane south, u.s. 290 to the future parmer lane. Number two, the parmer lane project from u.s. 290 to braker lane. And number three would be the decker lake project from fm 973 to southbound frontage of sh 130. Those three mobility projects would come to a little less than -- and let me -- well -- I’ll get further explanation on the cost figures because the cost figures -- I can ask this after we discuss this because I want to make sure the cost numbers that I have here and that pbo orkd -- tnr has worked with me are the same figures that we have from ted's sheet, I want to make sure they're accurate. That can be done later, but I’d like to basically put that on the table. And actually, judge, as far as the tax rate is concerned, it would cost the average household person on a monthly basis for this particular increase in debt service, it would cost you actually 33 cents per month annually to -- on an annual basis. In other words, 33 cents a month to retire this particular debt service for the number of years that we have on it. So I jups wanted to throw that out there, judge. >> okay. Let me ask you this: is it friendly to increase both categories to 15 million but indicate including these and any others that we add later? And what I’m looking for is a bit more flexibility. And I don't think I have any problem with these. They have not quite been fleshed out. 15 million on each would give us a little more flexibility and an opportunity to pick up projects in other parts of the county if they exist. >> okay. >> in other words, $50 million of additional open -- $15 million of additional open space? >> yes. Last week we looked at -- I don't think we looked at 15 and 15. I’m looking at flexibility. And the question, I guess, mr. Lawyer, is I know in the past we have gone out with a lump sum of money available and just generally described the purpose. My recollection is correct or should the projects be specifically listed? I know that's the preference, but is that required? >> there is no requirement that you specifically identify any project in the bond election order. For example, your roads proposition could be $50,225,000 for county roads. Period. You don't have to identify any project in the bond election order. All of the provisions of section 5 are voluntary. That is a -- those are essentially restrictions you are putting on yourself through a contract with the voters by including them in your bond election order. >> the question is is that friendly? So it would be 15 at the top, including those three, 15 at the bottom, including those two -- >> I’m not understanding that, judge. Could you explain it to me? >> you mentioned these three at the top. They total $10 million. >> almost $20 million. >> and that motion would go to three. 15 and 15. >> 15 mobility and -- [ inaudible ] >> I see. >> those would be specifically included. But the purpose, though, is it gives us a little bit more financial flexibility to identify other projects in the county that might be worthy. One and two is if in fact we have the dollars left under the cap, this uses half, so we still have 30 million left. There's a lot of difference between 30 and 60, but if flexibility is a question, we at least leave some of it. >> judge, it's not what -- >> hold on. >> go ahead. >> I basically wanted to make sure that tnr has the right numbers. In other words, because if you look at the sheet that was handed to us by mr. Seff, especially on the 1.5-million-dollar cap by the decker lake project from fm 973 to southbound frontage of sh 130, according to the worksheet that's been produced by tnr, the $2.4 million that was allocated, 2.9 million dlafz that was allocated for this particular project, is that something that was looking at I guess a lot of the things that as far as you estimate, the construction costs, the inflation rate, the bicycle lines and all this stuff. If they can cap the county expense at $1.5 million, I guess that would have to be a contractual situation. So I’m just wondering and also county staff, its 1.5 -- the $1.5 million would reduce this amount of money that we are referring to earlier. Because the amount of money that if we add up those three projects would be 11,000,008 b. -- $11,000,080.917. So this would be a little less because it's at a 10-million-dollar clip. A little less than $10 million as far as what mr. Seff is suggesting. I just want to make sure if these number are what they are, how can we guarantee that that is actually the case as far as when an owner is saying that they would cap the county's expense to limit it just to $1.5 million. That's what I’m hearing so. Could someone respond to me on that. >> I don't know what cap that was referring to. I don't know what mr. Beard was proposing under that cap. I don't know if it included deflation. I don't know if it was actually the road that the county proposed to build. So I can't answer the question on what that 1.5-million-dollar cap entailed. >> so my concern, though, is that under what we have proposed as far as what I’ve given tnr staff to work the numbers, with all of these other considerations and categories that a road requires as far as what we look at as a county, that I’d rather not go with that cap, but with the actual number that was presented. >> 15 million, doesn't that give you the room to -- >> that would take care of it. Yes, that would take care of it. >> judge -- >> thank you. >> so glen, legally if we -- >> judge, I accept the friendly. >> glen, if we put project a down and we put a figure, say, three and a half million dollars, what does that mean to voters? >> we have actually aca ded in the bond election order putting a prong down with a -- putting a project down with a specific amount of money tied to it. And without any flexibility on it, that has been done in the past I think in '84, and it created some problems because of the dollarment nts. The way it is structured now is the projects are grouped by precinct. No specific amount is put on the project, but there is a toablghts amount that is allocated to -- total amount that is allocated to each precinct with the understanding that it is going on those projects allocated to them and to the extent there's money left over and it can be reallocated among those projects within the precinct, and when all of those projects are done, it could then be used for any other county road. >> with one exception. That is the public-private partnerships to tie a dollar figure to the project. >> correct. The tier 1. >> that's what Commissioner Davis is talking about, the public-private partnership. >> and let me say, I may be pedalling the slowest in the room here, but I’m not quite clear I understand what the -- what the motion was or what the request is. $15 million in which proposition? >> each. >> this would be -- it could be separate proposition, but 15 for mobility, 15 for open space, but under there would be listed the three projects, the mobility that are on the list that we got, and I can give it to you, and there are two listed here under open space. But 15 million in each category exceeds the estimated total of the listed projects. See what I’m saying? >> yes, sir. >> by law I understand that if you list three projects you have to do those before you can do a fourth one in that category with that money. >> correct. >> right. >> but you can go to others on the referendum. It may be another project in another precinct, but the same referendum. >> correct. >> judge -- >> mrs. Sonleitner, then susan. >> glad she showed up. We have 69 million in excess capacity for the next five to seven years. We have 24 million in question because there's a 12-million-dollar differential in terms of what the jail folks, sheriff hamilton, said is what's necessary for that project, and what's been put into this bond issue and the 40 million set aside. There is still a 12-million-dollar issue with txdot that is not resolved to this day. So that's 24 million that I’m going to take off as being in dispute or may need to be reserved until we get good information otherwise. We're down to 45. Then if there's 30 million, which is the motion here, you take that off, there's only 15 million left over. I think the civil district judges would be shocked to find out when they thought they were getting on the bond election in two years, there no, sir civil courthouse. It's gone. We don't have the debt capacity for it. I’m also a little verklempt that of the projects that are being suggested to go back in, two of them are city of Austin projects that are -- they've got an annexation agreement and they're going into the city of Austin. I am perplexed that the road that's not being talked about being added back in is a precinct 1 and 2 project that was cut by the bond committee, made it all the way to the end, but because of dollar considerations, and that's cameron road. And mr. Horn was at every single hearing -- it got cut. The bond committee had too cut it because of money. They didn't say, oh, decker, you made it all the way to this point and we have to cut you. Braker and parmer weren't even eligible, so they weren't even on their list, but the cameron road project was on the list, but got cut when they needed to put in the dollar amounts related to issuance, and it got cut along with reimers peacock at the end. Now, here's another piece. What we're talking about on public-private partnerships is 50/50, but the way mr. Dwyer and others have their things set up is that 33% would be paid by Travis County, 33% by the city of Austin and 33% by the developer. The city is the county, the county is the city. In this 50/50 partnership they're asking government to pick up 66% of the road and the developer to pick up 33%. That's not the deal that's being talked about on all the other public-private partnerships, on howard lane and pecan and slaughter lane. It's being offered up as a 50/50 deal. So I’m perplexed why the government, be it Travis County or the city of Austin, would pick up 66%, two-thirds of it, rather than 50%. So there ought to be a different number offered there. Plus let's go to it. At what point do we have something from the Austin city council saying they've offered up a dime. This is based on a staff person who is not authorized to deliver money nor promise money on behalf of the Austin city council, and I think there may be seven members of the Austin city council who would be a little surprised to find out that a staff member has promised money to a project before an election has taken place. Can we recall frate barker when the last time a city of Austin staff member made representations saying, oh, yeah, go for that project and it turns out the city council had a different perspective and that road got pulled out. So between a 66/33 on three projects that were not on the bond committee's last list to exclude cameron road chfses on that list, but got cut because of funding situations, to take the word of a city staff person to promise what may be five, six million dollars' worth of monies in projects that they're not authorized to give the money, and then to take away 30 more million dollars off the bond capacity and without any consideration for the civil district judges and the courthouse situation. I can't go there, I can't can't. And this would blow my support for this bond election. >> does it help any to indicate that the public-private partnership guidelines are still in place, so if you want to put an asterick by them, that's fine by me. The Commissioners court does have the right to address them individually. Having them here doesn't mean they're done, having them here means that we intend to do them. And unfortunately time does not allow us to go into all of the intrac tra caseys of all of these projects. We are against a deadline put together, basically a referendum, and that was my idea about the $15 million in flexibility. You've got the money there, you don't have to use it, but at least you have the flexibility. >> but let me make sure I understand. >> let me finish. I’m familiar with cameron road. So if your recommendation is to put cameron road on there, I don't have any problem. Still limited by the $15 million, though, something hey may happen on some of these projects that they don't get done. Every time we issue debt there are projects on the horizon that at some point we have to deal with. And the civil courts building is one of them. We've talked about it 10 years. We ought to get that deal done at some point. >> we won't now. >> we will as long as I’m county judge. And I’ll be up for reelection real soon. [ laughter ] we need to get that done. >> and judge, even -- in spite of today's vote, I will still vote for you and tell all my friends to vote for you. [ laughter ] are you asking that these dollars are added to prop 1 and prop 2 or are you talking about these being prop 4 and prop 5 because that's a very different thing. We have talked about -- [overlapping speakers]. >> otherwise we are putting forward two propositions along with the jail that must be no tax increase. And for some of us that was a pretty important thing is that there ought to be a way -- >> I didn't make that promise because I thought it was untrue from the beginning. There's been a tax increase every year since I’ve been here. When we significantly reduce the tax rate, the tax bill has gone up because property values increase, same tax rate means the bill goes up. That's a fact of life. And truth may in lending says you tell the truth, and the truth is the vote we look last week will not reduce the tax bill and that vote today won't reduce it either. Both of them would increase it. >> I respect where you want to go, but I will pull my support for the bond election in its entirety. >> based on last week's voting, we knew you would not support this. >> it's okay. >> Commissioner Davis? >> thank you, judge, for recognizing me. Joe, I just want to get some clarity because of the 50/50 ratio which we intended to do a lot of these things, especially under the public-private partnership, but as opportunities arise to whatever reason, all of these projects that we looked at, an example, what is the ratio between the percentage that Travis County is putting up on howard lane east to sh 130 from cameron road to sh 130 east or howard lane east? What the percentage, just ballpark? >> as we discussed this on an earlier agenda, you understand that the county in their latest negotiations offered to pay for the price of the bridge, which increased our portion. >> what's the percentage? Give me the percentage. 80 something -- about 13%? >> I don't recall what it was. >> in other words, it's much more significant than 56% on -- 66%. It's up to like 80%. Somewhere around 83, 17, something like that. So what I’m trying to say, there is inconsistencies as we approach this as far as participation levels at levels of government. So I wanted to just get that cleared up first. Secondly, the tax rate on the 30-million-dollar proposal, the 15-15 ratio where we're talking about on a average household would cost you 49 cents a month to retire this particular debt. Thirdly, in the propositions that we have before us now that a 15-million-dollar on open space, $15 million on mobility in proposition 1, for an example, which is 50,225,000, that would be 50 million added on to that, so it would be 65,225,000. Then on the open space where proposition 2 resides itself, we're looking at, according to the bond order, we're looking at that $47,150,000 with a $15 million added to that, which would be $62,150,000. So that's basically where those would fit in in the proposition, but of course these others being moved, the mobility projects being moved to the tier 1 project, so that's basically the clarity of that, so there has been some -- and as far as the information that came from the city, of course, working and looking at many ways of how we can reduce the debt to -- get as many people to the table to pay the bill I think is important as far as getting projects done. This is -- this is a critical, I think, pivot because of the economic development opportunities that have not been availed to a precinct and to areas east of ih-35. And I’m not trying to make it as an issue like that, but it just-- there are some opportunities that we need to take advantage of since the dddz, desired development zone is in this area and mobility is such a critical state of affairs when you're dealing with economic development opportunity and growth and things of in a nature. All of these things are very accommodating to do just this. So I’m ready to vote, judge, whenever y'all are. >> mine is an accounting issue. And that is the more specificity in terms of dollars is an accounting nightmare. The way the '84 issue was is like if you say we're going to -- this is issued for $10 million on x, then that's it. You can't take any more from that. And what happened in '84, there were so many projects that we would issue money for a project and there would be a hitch, you couldn't get the right-of-way or something like that. Then that money was sitting there, we couldn't reallocate it. So you need enough specificity to voters know what they're voting for, but to put specific numbers on -- from just keeping track of it and complying with the law in terms of expenditures is really a difficult and probably not a productive use of time. So if you could get a balance there where you've got whatever projects you want, but not specific numbers. >> just a lump sum? >> that would be -- >> that tells us more than anything else. >> yeah, because what happens is we almost have to say this amount of the bond was for this project, this one, this one, this one. And then if more comes in, we've got a legal order saying that that's not what the bond was for. And things do change as you're -- even if you had all the projects locked down, prices on some things go up, prices on other things go down, so that's just natural in building and constructing. So that's just from -- obviously whatever you decide, we will set up an accounting methodology to do that, but the more specific dollarwise is the more difficult that is. >> any more discussion? >> again, I just want to get clarification about whether you are adding these two props 1 and 2, which is what's on the piece of paper before us, or you are talking about something being a separate proposition which was actually where the bond committee originally had it that, gee, there are things beyond the 119, you ought to offer them up as extra money for mobility and extra money for parks and open space, and that people could make their choices based on that. I’m just trying to get a clarification of how you're trying to do this. Because it does make it -- >> well, there's a problem because if you give the lump sum, it made more sense to have that as a separately standing item. If you list three specific projects or two, as we do on the two examples, then it may make a lot more sense to lump them with the others. Glen? >> is it correct that -- let's speak first about the mobility projects. They would be added as tier 1 projects? >> that's my question. Are we talking about adding them as tier 1 projects? >> in that sense, judge, it would seem to make sense to add that amount to proposition 1 and increase in section 5-b the amount that we have by the 15 million that is allocated to tier 1 projects. That is gieng to create a lot less complication than trying to -- if we split that and it's a road bond proposition and we then have two road bond propositions on the ballot, we're going to have to go back into the propositions and back into the ballot language and somehow differentiate them, which is going to make it -- >> as opposed to the other roads, the amounts not on there anyway, but we know we have that much flexibility. >> on the -- we have at this point, we had allocated -- we had specific dollars on the tier 1 projects. >> or 50 million on the proposition 1, we would add like $10 million for these three projects. And on the second proposition for parks bonds, we would add like 8.26 million. >> and the question on proposition 2 is does that 8.6 million get slotted into a precinct? And in the sense that if you looked at this point, the park money -- it would go into four? >> and the mobility projects are in precinct 1. >> if we could take the dollar amounts off of the tier 1 number and slot it in just a tier 1 number. >> >> you can't do that. That's the problem. >> when does one tier 1 fail and it rolls to tier if you 't know the amount of the project? >> it would fail if you didn't have an agreement in place. >> but all that tier 1 would have to fail before you could use any of that money for tier 2. >> let's take a vote and the best way to do it before we end court today. Looks like we'll be here all day. Get back with us this afternoon. Any more discussion in the discussion before the court. County clerk? >> thank you, judge. Dana debeauvoir, county clerk. I need to under item 26-f it talks about the election schedule. Let me real briefly run over that with you. >> this doesn't have anything to do with the motion, though, right? Why don't you chat with -- why don't you chat with glen and y'all tell us about this this afternoon. Any more discussion of the motion? >> are you going to restate the motion? >> the motion is an additional $15 million for mobility, including the three projects on this list. >> and those being -- >> it would be helpful if I get the list. >> we'll give you mine if this passes. The motion is 15 additional million dollars on the proposition 3 parks and open space, including these three specifically listed projects in precinct 4. >> prop 2. >> proposition 2. >> we're in precinct 4. It says -- proposition 2. [overlapping speakers]. >> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Davis, Gomez, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioners Daugherty and Sonleitner. My motion now is that we pull arterial a out of tier 2. >> second. >> I think that it sends the wrong message. This does not mean that we won't work out some sort of compromise, but I think it puts us in an inferior bargaining position, plus it creates a whole lot more animosity, hostility, contentiousness than it's worth at this point. Any more discussion of that motion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, Gomez, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. >> abstaining. >> abstaining, Commissioner Sonleitner. My next motion is that we take reimers peacock out of tire 2. >> second. >> discussion? That means that the money for design and whatever is in tier 1 stays there. >> the design is not -- is a separate project. It just makes it ineligible for any use of the public-private partnership. >> for construction. >> for construction. >> but in terms of negotiating right-of-way, design, if this passes, you can proceed with that. >> no, that's not what you just said. >> we've taken it out of tier 2 is construction. >> it comes out of the -- >> but understand you've eliminated the public-private partnership. What remains is $800,000 for the design, but there's -- I think at that point you're probably not talking about a public-private partnership. The county will just proceed to design the roadway. >> but when you design it, then you try to get right-of-way, then you deal with the need and construction. >> but you're taking it out of the eligibility for any sort of public-private partnership. >> it comes off the list. >> I think that's what you're doing. >> are you trying to take away the design money, judge? >> no. >> you want to leave the design money in. >> the design money is in a separate pot. >> I’m not touching that. My motion doesn't cover that. >> you're just taking it out of any availability for using tier 1 money or a public-private partnership agreement. >> no, I just took it out of tier 2. >> >> [one moment, please, for change in captioners] >> >> ...that's right, to the extent that you had any other money available, you could use it for that project. But the money that's in the proposition, at -- that's outside of the tier 2 is -- is in the 2.6 million, it's slated for precinct 3 out of proposition 1. >> but the desire, judge, is to leave the design money in and take it out of the tier 2 with regards to construction. >> right. >> so that people worried that we are going to construct something -- >> I don't have a problem with that. Because we have to come back for bond -- if we have to come back for money whenever that time comes. >> so it becomes a paper road. >> it becomes a [indiscernible] also to the extent that there's interest in indicating right-of-way, why wouldn't we be able to proceed with that. >> we could. >> left over -- >> or being donated to another county. >> discussion for another day. >> it would have to be from surplus moneys or goodwill. >> judge, do you want me to make a motion on it -- >> I made a motion, I can withdraw it if you have a better one. >> making sure that we understand that. I was considering withdrawing. >> I’m withdrawing. >> the motion would be to leave the design money in reimers peacock road, let everything else fall -- if it's off of tier 2, that's fine, because I realize that we have to come back for an additional year -- >> when it's needed. >> when it's needed. >> it's off the tier 2 list but stays in there as the regular embedded road project not tier 1, just a regular thing, it wasn't a public-private partnership to the design piece. >> that's right. >> but nothing to be done with it until tier 1 are completed and -- >> yeah. It's a -- >> I can't imagine that I’m going to come and try to throw it in the middle of some of these things that we are trying to do. >> it's a paper road. >> you have to design the road to determine the alignment. >> that's right. >> you have to know alignment before you can negotiate right-of-way. [indiscernible] then when the road is needed we construct it and we come up with construction dollars to do it. >> okay. >> that's it. >> okay. But -- but construction dollars are not in this bond program. >> right. Potentiality in tier 2. >> you are eliminating that, deleting it out of tier 2. >> do you need to be more specific to leave the design money in, take the construction money out of tier 2, do you mean -- >> [multiple voices] >> it's only got design money allocated enough for design. >> there's no money in tier 2 at this time. >> yeah, I -- >> but it's not -- >> no money in tier 2 for anything. >> whose motion is it to -- to drop it from tier 2? >> I mean that could be part of my motion because -- Commissioner, I mean, I’m in favor in leaving the design money in to reimer peacock, to drop it out of the tier 2. >> the way that I would suggest that you effect that, move to delete that project from tier 2. >> I would move to delete it from tier 2. >> second. >> now we are back to the judge's motion which was a good one from the beginning. >> we were highly confused about -- >> we were confused judge, it's okay [laughter] >> I’m happy to have that as your motion, if you want to make a motion. >> it really is a paper road. >> any more discussion? All in favor? Showing unanimous court all of a sudden. Anything further on this item today? We need to see you at the close today I guess -- >> we will come back with a revised bond election order. >> okay. >> unfortunately, it is 12:05 and not 11:00.

do we need to take you up now? We indicated that on item number 26 we would look at the specific language that glen has worked on since our meeting this morning. >> what is handed out is a black line of the bond election order that shows the changes that we believe reflect this morning's discussion. >> so let's call back up number 26, the multipart item, and specifically we're looking at the language -- the order calling the bond election. Everything except one copy is underlined. >> one copy. You've got a clean and a black line of the document. The black line showing the changes we've made since this morning. Glad to flip through and run through those with you. >> okay. >> on the first page the first indicated change is in the first proposition. It's a change in the dollar amount to 65,225,000. In parks proposition you see the change, the total amount going up to -- up $15 million in both cases. In this case to 62,150,000. >> that's in prop 2, right? >> that's in prop 2. >> the others indicate 65,225,000 is in prop 1? >> is in proposition 1. You will see on page 3 the corresponding changes in the official ballot language, the 65225 in the road proposition, the 62150. In the parks bond proposition. You can then flip to in the black line page 5. This will show you -- and that is section 5-b, shows you the increase. The addition of the three projects, decker lake road, braker lane and parmer lane, and the corresponding -- with their corresponding amounts as well as the increase of the total amount to 29,600,000. And there are some -- if you flip to page 6, there's some corresponding changes that we had to make in the tier 2 language. There's in fact one tier 2 project that does remain. That braker lane is slightly different than the braker lane that is in tier 1, so we had to leave it as a tier 2 project. The deletion or at least from a language perspective of decker lake, it went to tier 1 and the total deletion of reimers peacock road. On c you see the language that deals with the unallocated with the bond of proposition 1. In paragraph 5-d you see the increase of the park bonds proposition, the allocated amount going. This kind of covers both pages. If you flip to page 17 in precinct 4, you see the addition of the onion creek open space parkland and the amount going from 850,000 to 16,650,000. That causes the corresponding change on page 6 of the total amount that's being allocated pursuant to that section increasing to 55,750,000. And then in section 5-d, the -- 5-e, the last change, which is language we added to deal with any unallocated amount of bond proceeds out of proposition 2. >> quick question. I’m just making sure I understand because certainly in terms of what we just talked about on the stp 4 c thing, on page 6, b, the language there in terms of what's expected, it's basically anything not specifically allocated because we did have some extra money there. Let us just say for purposes of discussion that we wind up getting all of our grants through the stp 4 c. We would have the ability to use some of the leftover bond money here to apply toward those projects that were listed under mobility under stp 4 c. Joe, is that correct? Okay.cool. Now, second one is, and I’m moving ahead, is on page 7 in terms of what do we do for the leftover money? I am -- I won't say troubled, I want to call attention to the use of the word that we can use it for any Travis County park project. And I’m just wondering if that is language that is so narrow that the extra money can only be used on a park as opposed to its open space, there's flood control open space that we have load understand here. The onion creek project is certainly open space. It's not a park. >> [inaudible - no mic]. >> I’m trying to make sure we have maximum flexibility. >> well, we're in fact voting all of that open space park property as under the park bonds authority for the county. I think that for any -- it would have to comply with the concept of a park, but I don't think it's too narrow to do what you're saying. >> as long as we've got that in the record that that was never intended to say, oh, I’m sorry, you can only use that on one of the metro parks. You feel very confident that basically we can have anything under that proposition because it gives us the maximum flexibility? >> I think in fact what -- what you would -- what you would fall back to is your proposition language. And the proposition language does-- if you look back, specifically includes language that identifies open space parkland. >> okay. >> those are the changes. I think that embodies the discussion from this morning. >> I see how we get -- I see where the addition of 15 million is added in on the roads, but do we see the 15 million where it's added in? >> on the parks? >> on the parks. >> it is on page 2 you'll see the increase from -- in proposition 2 from 47,000,150 to 62,000,150. >> so I don't seed need to see it on page 6 and seven? >> no. In fact -- well, you do see it -- you see part of it. You see the increase on -- >> it just shows part of it. >> shows the onion creek because the other part is really covered by that additional language, which is the unallocated. It would be e, the addition -- what you're not seeing is the unallocated amount. >> but I see that on page 2 because we go from 47 plus to 62 plus. >> yes, sir. >> we add 15, yeah. >> okay. >> judge, with that it looks pretty good as far as where we were this morning. Do we have to -- >> we've already approved this. >> I think you need to move approval of the adoption of the order calling the bond election. That's the official action to call the bond election. >> judge, you want to go ahead and make that motion? >> go ahead. >> I’d like to move that we approve this order to cause election as it has been presented to us this afternoon. And with the changes that have also been reflected. >> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion? >> just real quick. Because we had some lively discussion this morning, there are some things about this that bug me that I talked about this morning in terms of that open space, groups that have been working very hard were not consulted about this extra 15 million and how it got allocated. That there were three projects that went around the bond committee reports, and one that was in the last cut was specifically left out, but I hope we can get stp 4 c money for it. We don't have the city of Austin locked down other than from a staff member committing dollars that I would hope exist, but it's not there. And there's some real affordability issues. I’m mindful of some discussions that happened just a couple of minutes ago of people talking about the afford abilityd of living here, but with all of that said, I have sufficiently vented and talked about all this because there's just too much good stuff in here. And it does bust the bonds cap, but I just can't -- I can't in good conscience say, vote against this bond election because it is higher than level debt service. I think people are smart enough to look at it, to make their own judgments, but there's just too much good, good, good stuff and good work. So I have every intention of voting for the bond order. And will let the decisions this morning, we all move on. >> I’m with my Commissioner of precinct 3 on that. >> that would be jarrod. >> -- Gerald. >> precinct 2, I’m sorry. [ laughter ] >> hmm, judge. [ laughter ] >> that was just a little county judge late day humor, Commissioner Sonleitner. I’ll call your name next time. >> and I still have every intention of telling everybody I know to vote for this man. He's one hell of a county judge. >> melissa, you got any brown nosing you want to do before we -- [ laughter ] all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Commissioner Daugherty still absent. Thank you very much, glen. Are we bowled enough to -- bold enough to take up the airport item? >> can we do one other thing because I don't want him to not hear this. And the other advocacy groups that were here earlier, these things, if they all pass, and they're good projects, it's going to require something above the tax rate. And we're going to be up front and honest about the little bit my ti more it's going to cost. But I would hope the same advocacy groups that were here saying please do this will remember that when we have to set the tax rate and there are tax implications. Because it's not pleasant to be told, you need to cut your tax rate because this is really unaffordable and this is not helpful. Please remember what we do today next year and the year after and the year after when we have to adjust the tax rate to accommodate what we are doing today if indeed we are successful in November. It's a package deal and we need you for part 2 as well as part 1. >> [inaudible - no mic]. >> we do. But I think we've got good people who will make this thing happen. 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