Travis County Commissioners Court
July 25, 2006
Item 15
Number 15, consider and take appropriate action on the following requests: a, a road construction agreement between Travis County, the city of Pflugerville and a private developer for improvements to pecan street in precinct 2, and b, amendment to guidelines for county participation in public/private partnerships for arterial roadway construction adopted July 12, 2005.
>> steve manila and joe gieselman, tnr and tom knuckles. This is one of our -- actually, it was 2001 and 2005 bond project. We were authorized in 2001 to initiate the engineering design and to buy the -- to initiate the design of the roadway. Pecan street is a road between city of Pflugerville and state highway 130. It will become a gateway to Pflugerville, which is one of the fastest growing municipalities in all of Travis County. The project has already been designed. It is ready to go to construction. It was included in our 2005 bond election as a public/private partnership project where in Travis County would pay for half of the construction and a private party would pay for the other half. This is proposed to be a four-lane section of roadway between Pflugerville and -- I'm trying to think of another intersecting street and pfenning lane. And from there out to state highway 130 there will be a six lane. This by the way is also the road that most of the traffic uses to get to our northeast metropolitan park. But really it's a growing corridor. We expect there to be a lot of traffic into Pflugerville for one 30 when it's completed in 2007, so we're ready to go. The property owner we understand is agreeable to dedicating the right-of-way, all the right-of-way necessary for the project. He is a signatore to this agreement. The city of Pflugerville is stepping into the shows of the private sector to pay for the other half of the construction. We're paying for half and Pflugerville is paying for the other half. So they're then a signatore to the agreement. The part b of your agenda item is a change in the public-private guidelines. The change is merely to allow for a public entity such as the city of Pflugerville to step into the shoes of the private party. We're still participating to the same extent that we would under the guidelines, but instead of the other half being done purely by private interest, it is being done in part by private interest and in part by public interest. And we want to make sure that we're whole with the bond covenants and that we did allow ourselves in the bond covenants the ability to change the guidelines as necessary, so part b would probably be necessary before you adopt part a, which is the agreement. Once the agreement is executed by the city of Pflugerville, which is this coming -- tonight. And then by mr. Timer man, who is the property owner who would dedicate the right-of-way, then we'll be in a position to let the contract through the county purchasing department. I think the only other specific item that may be unusual is that the city has asked for and the agreement will allow for them to cash flow their participation over two fiscal years, which part from now until October and then from another part after October. We thought we could probably accommodate that in part because the duration of the construction will be over 12 to 18 months anyway, so this just allowed them to better arrange their financing, but shouldn't materially impact our ability to pay our contractor.
>> so we think we have the financial ability to accommodate Pflugerville's request?
>> yes, we believe so. I think -- yes.
>> that doesn't clash with our work session discussion?
>> well, all of us -- let me just add, all this is predicated on getting expected prices for construction. I think the issue that we raised -- first of all, pecan street was cash flowed by Travis County this year, so we have our money, unlike some of the other public-private partnerships, we didn't cash flow all those this first fiscal year, but for pecan street we did because it was already designed. The other issue is whether or not in the aggregate we're going to see prices come in on these construction projects that far exceed what we budgeted for the cip projects. And we'll know that when we start getting these bids in for anderson mill road and pecan street. We'll know exactly what the market is doing in terms of pricing construction. That may be an issue, it may not be, but we're not -- we'll have to see how these bids come in.
>> so the answer to my question is no, if the bids come in close to the estimated construction price.
>> that's right.
>> and if the construction prices come in dramatically higher, I think you're figure was that they could go as much as 30% higher.
>> I'm sure Pflugerville will also be interested in looking at their financial commitment if this is substantially overbudget. We'll need to take another look at it.
>> my final question is over two fiscal years, the first of which is this year.
>> that's correct.
>> the next one starts October 1.
>> right.
>> the other thing, judge, is as we are proceeding through these things we'll have what I always call the pennies in the couch strategy and that is that we just finished within the last couple of weeks substantial completion of grand avenue parkway, another bond election project and therefore once the punch list is complete, we will know exactly where we stand on that budget and whether there are any dollars leftover on that one. The same thing with the little piece of wells branch that is closer to emanuel. So it's that natural thing that as we close things out we might see what dollars might be reallocated in the precinct 2 authorization to help, if there is indeed a problem. We hope that there's not, but this one -- we'll know when we get the bids in.
>> my question is since this is one of the first projects in the public-private partnership agreement, we need to look at this all across the board and even though this has been a cash flow type project and monies are readily available and I guess an interlocal between Pflugerville and the counties as far as the new guidelines, my concern is I guess this has all been accomplished in the debt service as we go forward because one of the things that we did discuss in work session was debt service for projects because there are a lot of projects that I know are in line that are ready to go, but I think the question was at that time how much debt service, how much can be funded because of the debt service requirement. So I'm still concerned about debt service and of course there will be other projects will hope will be coming in line before December 31st of this year as far as people are concerned. So this will -- I guess this project will not have -- that is not a part of the debt service model as we go forward or is this separate and distinct from that accrued debt service model or all the other projects that -- as you said before, you have people chomping at the bits wanting funding and want money to fund their projects, but of course the question then comes what about the debt services of these projects? How much debt capacity can the county actually take on? So I guess I need to have an answer on that because I'm still not too clear in my head on where we are on that.
>> Commissioner, if I could praik that down into two parts. The first part if I'm understanding correctly is was this prong a part of the cash flow assumptions that tnr presented to the court last fall? The answer to that question is yes. They are asking as you saw at the work session to accelerate some projects. This is not one of the projects being requested to accelerate, therefore it is not part of our original cash flow assumptions in our debt flow model. The second part of the question that was asked at the July 20th work session is what are the debt implications of the other projects that they're asking to accelerate and we're working on that and we will need to get back to you during this budget process.
>> because what I don't want to see -- and thank goodness in a we got the first one through. I think it's very significant because of the problems we've had in the past dealing with our partners out there as far as trying to get projects done. But here we're in a position now and looking to issue another future debt. And of course, debt capacity is very critical in my mind as far as what we can take on. Right now that's a moving target, but at some stage of this -- I don't know when that's going to happen, but I guess the when is to know how much more additional projects did we know right now did we have the public relationships right now?
>> well, I think as christian outlined on the 20th, it's not isolated to the tnr project.
>> right.
>> we'll need to be exploring that during the budget process.
>> that would be very important for us to good look at these as they come forward. So I'm anxious to see what that debt service capacity would be as far as how much we can get out there. Thank you.
>> ready for a motion?
>> yes.
>> go with the b part first which has to do with the amendment that has to do with tnr laid out in our guidelines for public-private partnerships?
>> it's really for the city of Pflugerville to step in as a player.
>> the actual language is if approved third party entity. And in this case that would be the city of Pflugerville. They would be our approved third party.
>> I still second the motion. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> and with that out of the way, I move approval of the road construction agreement and we propose to be number one in terms of the public-private partnerships.
>> discussion?
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, July 26, 2006 10:34 AM