Travis County Commissioners Court
June 6, 2006
Item 14
14 is to receive briefing and take appropriate action on public/private partnership roadway projects approved by voters in the 2005 bond election.
>> to cut to the chase, we have met with all the private partners who have listed projects and have come back to report to you on what those conversations were about to get some sense of direction from the court on how to proceed to negotiate those contracts. As you're aware we have until November 31st to have all of those under contract. So with me is steve manila and we will go right to the recommendation on each one of those projects.
>> I think the best way to get through this is to look at the issues and opportunities section of your backup. I値l go through that quickly. I値l also advise that there are representatives from a few of the developers in the audience who may want to come up and add a little bit more information about their particular projects. Looking at issue number one, this is more for your information. We have an occasion where the original property owner who had agreed with the county to public and private partner on a project has sold the property. It's not a problem for us as far as who we have to enter into an agreement with, it's just more for your information to know that that sort of thing happens and we might want to consider that the next time we come out, whether we want to put in language in the bond language to contain the deal to the person we initially start these projects with. Item no. 2 has to do with decker lake road project. The developer would like to change the alignment of the eastern terminus of the project at the southbound frontage roads to sh 1 130. The roadway extends from south of walter e. Long lake, is heads to the east, terminates at the southbound frontage roads. The developer would like to push the terminus farther south. I致e looked at that proposal. It's not going to have any difference on how we ultimately interface with sh 130, looking at the sh 130 plans and talking to representatives from that group that's managing that, they're saying that there's no plans for an overpass or a yosover of one 30. Where it term snaits on that frontage road should make no difference. I guess my only comment would be as long as it doesn't cost the county more money to change that alignment I知 okay with you. So I would recommend that we approve that. And they may want to come up and talk may some more about that. Item 3, this has to do with one of the projects where the private partners have -- they do not feel like they should have to put money into the project. The very basic agreements with these are that the developers or the private partners donate right-of-way, put up 50% of the cost is the essence of it. These folks after we got the bond money approved feel like they've put enough money in the project. They're still open to donating the right-of-way if we can find another source of those funds. What we're recommending here is that things will remain status quo with them. They have until December 31st, 2006 to make a decision whether they want to pull the money together or bail. If they do bail, then the court has the discretion to use this money for a tier 2 project. There is one tier 2 project, that's braker line from fm 973 to taylor lane.
>> if you actually went through the name of these projects, I understand it's one, two, three. --
>> that was howard lane.
>> it would be good to have the name of the project along with the number, but the public not knowing exactly --
>> where they are.
>> exactly. They voted on certain projects by name.
>> okay. Actually, I値l do that and then go back to it. The howard lane project that he spoke about was from the Austin city limits to highway 130. The project that we spoke about the decker lake road is from fm 973 to the state highway 130 frontage road southbound. Parmer lane is one I値l be talking about in a minute. There's really no issue with that. The developer in most of these cases, the developer wants to take the lead on the engineering and the construction, so we will be entering into a reimbursement agreement and we've been working with tom to develop that. Nothing really more to say about that one. Braker lane, identical situation. The developers would like to take the lead and we're okay with that. We're developing an agreement to account for that type of a situation. Slaughter lane from bluff springs road to mckinney road parkway, really no issue with the developers. We may have an issue with funding the full amount of the project, and I just -- I知 letting you know that if that does become an issue, then we would look to down scoping parts of the project and we would let you know that when we decide what we can build with the money we've got and if it's not to -- if it doesn't fulfill the full intent of the scope that was originally presented to y'all, then we'll come back and tell you that.
>> they made an assumption first they would put the money forward. They right now do not have funds to do that. So that's one issue. The other issue is exactly what intended to be built across the developer's property, we split is 50/50, but there's also a large segment that doesn't go through the developer's property that we would have to have the full bill for. Given the nature of the construction costs nowadays, these projects were put together back before katrina. There was some information, some continuously planned for in the bond referendum, five million dollars for discretionary use for this type of situation. I don't know whether it's going to be enough if all of the projects have similar situations with rising construction costs. We will get something done and I can come back to you once I get more defined information and let you know where we are and what options are available. That can actually apply to any one of these? Not just the slaughter lane issue. Pecan street up in Pflugerville, the only issue there is that more information as the developer, the private partner had worked with the city of Pflugerville to put forth the amount of money that he would normally have been expected to put forth. He's still putting up the right-of-way through his discussion with Pflugerville. They have agreed to pay his share of it. Personally I don't object to that. We're striving ourselves to find other partners to help us with our share through the city of Austin or through like campo and that sort of thing. So if they can get that done, that's -- as long as they get the funding pulled together, it makes it go. I think that's about all of them. If some of the private partners -- I知 sorry, this is the other one. Wells branch parkway, the eastern terminus of cameron road. There is a segment of it that was included in the bond referendum, the actual terminus points were spelled out in the bond referendum. From boulder ridge subdivision to cameron road. And the developer has an alternative project that he would like for us to consider instead of building a four-lane section across his property he would like to build a two-lane section and then extend that another 5,000 feet, another mile to hook up to a project that we just recently completed so that you will have a higher standard safetywise, wells banch parkway from cameron road over to i-35. The city of Austin is actually picking up the piece to i-35. Rather than a very high level standard of service at this eastern terminus and then a 5,000 piece -- 5,000-foot piece of substandard road and then all the new stuff. I think it's a better way to go traffic safetywise. What we're sacrifice sg a level of service for a period of time across this property, but that level of service won't be an issue that I would feel for several years and I feel the traffic safety issues are more important. And if we can get a high level of standard from cameron to i-35, I think it's a better way to go.
>> how does that square with our commitment to voters?
>> we will continue to build an improved project between the limits designated in the bond proposition.
>> do we legally have the authority to do what he just described?
>> in discussing it with gasoline opal, that's -- with glen opal, that's permissible under the bond order.
>> I understand the public funds will be used exactly in the way they were described in the bond election order. The extension will be private funds. So I think we're being consistent with what we had said to voters we would use the public funds for. Just what he's asking is that his funds be used instead to supplement a road outside the boundaries of what's described in the election order.
>> the county's 50% will get exactly what we promised voters we'd get for the original scope?
>> that's correct. Two lanes. Our money will buy two lanes within the limits that were described in the election orderment.
>> but we didn't describe the voters four lanes, half of which would be paid for by Travis County?
>> the guidelines adopted by the court did intend for all the right-of-way, and an additional two lanes to be built by the developer. So you would end up typically with a four-lane section within the property. What he's asking is instead of taking those two lanes, his money for two lanes within his property, he be allowed to complete the two lanes that connect to the property. That essentially is the difference.
>> and judge, let me add this. As you recall in the election order, you built in as a requirement that they comply with this set of guidelines y'all adopted a couple of years ago for public-private partnerships. Another thing you included in the election order was that you could amend those guidelines from time to time, so you left yourselves some flexibility there in terms of do they comply with the guidelines or not, and there were certain assumptions that went into writing the guidelines that may not be expressly set out in the guidelines. And I値l use an example. The pecan street project steve just mentioned, I think it's safe to say that when we wrote the guidelines, we thought the private partner would be contributing 50%. Well, in this case the city of Pflugerville is willing to put that up instead of the developer, so the question is is that stint consistent with the guidelines or not? Again, in talking with glen about this, the prudent thing would be just to say in the guidelines to say that another entity can put up the private developer's share. So you might also consider if you want to do the project, just outlined by steve, you would amend the guidelines to say that instead of four lanes across the developer's section of property, you could do two lanes there and two lanes across and adjoining a piece of land. So you can make that legal by amending the guidelines.
>> let me also say that this is not a deal killer. We are representing what the applicant wanted. We felt obligated to bring that to the Commissioners court. We should also make you aware that if we went with the original guidelines as adopted, they would be good for that as well. It makes a better project for them as they are proposing it, but at the end of the day if the court decides to hold to the guidelines as adopted, they're still good for that.
>> what project is this we're talking about?
>> this is the wells branch parkway.
>> which is kind of the reworking of killingsworth lane. Joe, on the middle section here, that was supposed to occur with unfortunately no trigger date by some communities. They had the requirement to be able to do that. If we did proceed in this fashion, would we rework things with some communities so that at whatever point the extra two lanes are needed for the ultimate buildout there, that that would still follow upon some communities or their successors as opposed to that Travis County would be anticipated to fill in that middle gap?
>> that is a separate agreement and that is really something that we would have to consider in whether or not we do this deal. We already have a contract. We would want to make sure we didn't get crosswise with that other contract.
>> so we need somebody else, their requirement to have to do that.
>> yeah. There's still some work that needs to be done. I don't think we're prepared to make the final recommendation to the court on this. We told all the private partners that we would represent their request to the court today, so we're just kind of laying it all out, and this particular one is probably more outside the box than the others.
>> so we've still got time enough before the final agreement anyway. And if there is a variance, a difference in which it is, I知 hearing an alternative based on what originally, and I知 also hearing the alternative on this dealing with those two lanes going on the adjacent property, so we still have I think time to look at that a little more thoroughly if that's the will of the court, and especially with the time line that we have already set forth in the public-private partnership agreement.
>> I think what I would hope is some direction on where to negotiate. The discussions to date have been pretty much in sink with guidelines adopted by the sowrt that you would allow us to negotiate the contracts with those. Where there are some variations where we would do some additional studies, especially on the wells branch one and come back as those get clearer in our mind how we would go about it.
>> when do you want this to come back as far as that variation? The wells branch, brodie lane deal, which would you want that to come back for further --
>> well, I think as soon as we're ready. There are quite a few agreements here, so we'd like to get moving on as many as possible.
>> I would like to get it done pretty quickly otherwise the costs will continue to go up and we'll be short some more money. In addition to that, aren't these all tier 1 projects?
>> these are all tier 1.
>> so we need to get going otherwise we approved the tier 2 this morning and we need to get these tier 1's going.
>> there is another issue, and that is everybody wants to start tomorrow, and we do not cash flow our bond money all the first year. We spread this out over a five-year period. So there are some discussions on whether or not if we do issue all these contracts sooner than later, how will that affect the whole debt issue and the ability to pay back the debt? And if we do an agreement in such a way that the developers proceed to cover the costs and then seek reimbursement in a layer year from the county, -- in a later year from the county, what implications does that have in your contract? So there are some financial issues imbedded in all of this just from the scheduling, time point, cash flow point of view.
>> but we don't want to run out of money because we waited too long and the costs went up.
>> in relation to pecan, pecan is already cash flowed to happen sooner, not later. That was one affirmatively moved up in the bond project. So in terms of for pecan, there is nothing standing in the way of get it done, get the agreement done before the end of the year, and the money is already there front loaded. It is not a tier 1 or tier 2 project, but the same thing is true of gattis school road and we had a very successful neighborhood meeting last week showing folks what the schematics are looking like on gattis. It's not a public-private partnership, but it is also front leaded to happen now, not later.
>> but then this also tells us that we're putting too many projects on the ballot?
>> no. I think we have what we have. We've budgeted for these projects. We did include a contingency for some inflation. It's just what we're seeing right now in the marketplace, the cost of construction and labor are more beyond what we expected. And that's -- believe me, that is influencing school districts, txdot, county government, city governments. We're all looking at the same thing. Construction costs are just going up at rates that are abnormal, abnormal in the sense of past history. So we're all trying to deal with that.
>> it just makes me feel like there's too many details that need to be worked out, and maybe there are too many projects on the ballot at one time.
>> I think the number of projects, Commissioner, is manageable. There's seven, and we are working them all concurrently. And I don't think it's an extraordinary amount of work to take on. The issue, though, of cash flowing is definitely there. If these guys want to get started now and we can't cash flow quick enough, then we'll have to work up some other kind of arrangement. I think -- we've already gone through the first round of negotiations. We now understand that they want to take the lead, so we have to develop a new kind of agreement. I think it's still doable to get these things -- make a major stride within the next couple of months. And I think we'll kind up executing all of these -- at least with the exception of howard lane, well before the end of the year. If we were to do it again, if we could have started this process, it would be the day we had the bond money. When I came on board in January joe made this my top priority and we started putting this together and setting up meetings as quick as we could get a master agreement.
>> that's our plan. We had talked about it and assumed everything was put on the ballot, and the only thing lacking was the approval of my voters. And then we would hit the ground running and not waste any time.
>> it was always staged. It was never going to be done all at one time. What you have now is you have people coming to the table because everybody wants to have something built right now. They realize just like we realize that it's cost. But in the plan, the plan always had that we were going to phase these things in. Now what we're getting caught with is everybody wanting to get at the table at the same time and that's where we may have the cash flow issue, period.
>> and we have that big issuance related to reimers, which was absolutely appropriate that we kneed to get taken care of literally within one month, and that was a 26-million-dollar write the check.
>> if you have the tier 1 project and there is not agreement on it where you have the need to call some aspect of it to the court's attention, please come forward at this time. [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> I really thought that braker lane, u.s. 290 to parmer was previously arterial a. But arterial a was defeated in the bond issue. I just need an explanation.
>> I can show her a map, you know, okay?
>> well, do you have it?
>> well, I will use a map, we will -- we will show you, okay.
>> okay.
>> 290. All of that.
>> right.
>> 290 and 69. This particular project increase -- braker lane scenario, parmer lane south tying into --
>> they essentially loop down south of 290.
>> all right.
>> [multiple voices]
>> you just couldn't understand that from -- from the -- from what the -- I have asked for the resolution, but I don't have it yet.
>> I understand.
>> the judge hasn't been very forthcoming about wanting had he to have that but I have requested it.
>> the resolution?
>> the resolution and the financial part of the bond issue. And I have requested it from the state --
>> the same as the cough fant? Covenant? I知 not sure that I am understanding you?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> the resolution is the same as the official statement? Ms. England --
>> she's asking for what establishes the covenant with the --
>> I知 not sure that I understand. [multiple voices] [inaudible - no mic] it says in the very part from part of what you sold on the new york market it says bond resolution.
>> what is that, glen?
>> order authorizing the bonds, I guess.
>> it's all public information.
>> yeah, I mean that must be --
>> [inaudible - no mic] [multiple voices]
>> here's our bond lawyer right here. If he understands, he will have both of us.
>> he understands.
>> custodian.
>> sure.
>> I知 --
>> you understand, glen? [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay.
>> when you use the word covenant, I used your word. But I have come to know that the -- that the word that asks for -- [indiscernible] the resolution.
>> resolution, also a covenant. I know the official statement I refer to that as our covenant with voters. We will get you that, right?
>> [indiscernible]
>> [inaudible - no mic] because you were not forthcoming.
>> the state comptroller has nothing to do with it, but that's okay. We will get it to you, ms. England.
>> yes, sir. My name is clay [indiscernible] this is mr. Howell. We're here on behalf of the decker lane extension, I would like to acknowledge your action and say thank you, we will yield our time to other matters.
>> as far as you all know, we are on track on that one, just a matter of getting it done.
>> ready to move on.
>> thank you, appreciate your patience, also.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> judge, vincent may speaking. The developers used to build their own roads with their own money and some of them built nice, good, four lane roads. Harris branch is a subdivision that I知 familiar with, four-lane roads with grass dividers. The theory behind the public-private partnership is that you are going to induce developers to build better roads, future arterials. If you contracted to get a four-lane road built, now it's being charged to a two-lane road, what is the county getting for its money? What you are doing is you are subsidizing development. When you subsidize development, you get more people moving into Travis County. Then when you have -- what you have to do, you have to go subsidize employers to create jobs here. And all of this boils down to the taxpayers wallet. The property taxes have to go up. We would be better off with a free market system where the developers paid for their own roads. From the subdivisions and the employers moved here based upon quality of workforce, not subsidies given. We wouldn't have the reckless mad house, growth, that's causing so many problems with congestion on our roads.
>> I recommend that you voigt against this.
>> thank you, mr. May.
>> thank you.
>> anything else?
>> no.
>> anything else on this item today?
>> trying to determine here -- I know that there has to be -- to be some -- some [indiscernible] especially with the debt service things. The recommended -- it appears to move forward of where -- when we are in a position to move forward, the decker lane, when was in the arterial one area, but of course there's others that's in that same tier 1 scenario, parmer lane, braker lane, I think there's others. I知 just -- wondering what would that -- what would that -- [indiscernible] was that something to be -- as far as -- especially after the reimbursement scenarios that have been placed before us as far as issuing and getting things started. I guess my question is when would you have to have that affirmed so that we can go ahead and move forward because I知 ready to move forward with some of these things. I hear Commissioner Gomez the only way, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, but again I want to make sure that everything is -- is proper and in order. On some of these projects. So I知 concerned about that. So those that are ready to go, in my opinion, I would rather move forward, but I would like to move forward knowing what the debt service or what that -- the reimbursement type of agreement that we are looking at.
>> let us work that up and bring it back to court under another item. I think that we are kind of running into several agenda items today.
>> I understand.
>> maybe do a little bit better briefing on the court on that particular issue of the -- that debt implications of doing these projects sooner than later. Let us bring that back to you on another agenda item.
>> okay.
>> one week or two?
>> two weeks.
>> two weeks. The work that you have within doing just continue to do it.
>> that will be June 20th.
>> -- thank you all.
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, June 7, 2006 12:54 PM