Travis County Commissioners Court
October 31, 2006
Item 26
And since we have you there, why don't we just pull up 26 also. 26-a, consider and take appropriate action on a request to amend guidelines for county participation in public/private partnerships for arterial roadway construction adopted July 12, 2005, revised July 25, 2006. And 26-b is consider and take appropriate action on a request to approve a participation agreement between Travis County and a private developer for improvements to parmer lane in precinct 1.
>> thank you, judge. What you have before you today is a participation agreement with two developers for one of our 2005 bond projects and public/private partnership. It's the second one presented to you. Pecan street having come before you a few weeks ago. This particular project will result in the construction of parmer lane from the northside of u.s. 290 where it intersects with 290 heading in a southwesterly direction where it will connect to an interchange to be built at sh 130 and what is currently blue bluff road. I'd say about 9200 feet of roadway. Four-lane divided roadway to the cak poe standards. The participation agreement assumes that the developer will take the lead on getting the design completed and also completing the construction. Some usual elements of it are that this is one project that the city of Austin had at least verbally committed to provide funding for one-third of the construction cost. This is in an area where the city is considered near term annexation, and that's the first element of this agenda request has to deal with that. But the city has not entered into an agreement with us yet. We are in the process of developing that and we expect that could be going before the city council and before you two to three months out. In the meantime, the agreement has been structured such that if the city of Austin interlocal disont does not 'work out, the dwoarp will have the option owe developer will have the option of taking it or the agreement could be terminated. Also included in this agreement there is some existing county roads that would be be replaced by this section of parmer lane, and the extension of it over to sh 130. It's also indicating that the project will be built in phases with the first phase being perhaps 1300 feet lodge and the balance another 7300 feet long. They are -- as indicated in the agreement that the construction will start within the next year, but they have until December 31, 2010 to complete it all. That seems to be be the pattern with all of these public-private greamentz. They want the ability to be be able for phase construction, but my direction to them is phasing is fine, but we have to have our money spent within a certain time frame and December 31, 20 twen seemed to me to align with perhaps another bond referendum that you might want to consider in that time frame and so far all of them are agreeing with that. The part a of this agenda item has to do with the guidelines that were adopted by the court in July 2005. One of the terms or the guidelines was that we would not consider projects that were in near term annexation. You included in your guidelines, though, the ability to modify them. Understanding that things change. Projects that weren't in near term annexation before are now or in the future more projects will be in near term annexation. So under the advice of tom we thought we would bring that forward to y'all and recommend that we take out that verb be acknowledge that would prohibit us from using these fowndz a project that is near term annexation.
>> so do we substitute other language or do we leave that unaddressed?
>> the issue is is this: you adopted the guidelines, which were really done before the bond issuance. And they were really put in place to provide some parameters for negotiation of these public/private partnerships. And as steve said, one of the requirements is that there would be no -- a project can't be in a near term annexation area. However, parmer lane was specifically listed in your bond order as a project you wanted to do, although it wasn't in -- it was in a near term annexation area, so it was basically listed in the bond order, but the guidelines rolled it out, so it was sort of an internal conflict. The way we resolved that was to say, okay, if it's a project specifically listed in the bond order, then this thing at near term annexation area doesn't count because that was probably everybody's intend to begin with. That's the new language, be jufnlght.
>> in this case you do have the city of Austin financially participating in the process, so I think what we are saying is that when we made the guideline, it really was soon to be within the city, that the city should have the financial responsibility in part for doing the project instead of the county. And in fact the city has stepped up in this case, so I think what's being proposed is just really claire figure that we can use county money in the near term nation area, but in light of the fact thalt city's also financially participating, it's still in spirit conforms with the guidelines as the court adopted them.
>> so there were two reasons actually. Here the city is participating and two is that this project was specifically approved by voters. That's why I move approval of a.
>> there was specific language changed to a judge in answer to your question. We did have some modification to the language.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And b is is to the specific participation agreement. Commissioner Davis --
>> yes, I move approval of 26-b, be and I think this is something that has been on the books here for a little while, but these folks are ready to go in this particular regard, so I looked at this and we've been looking at this and it appears this particular project is ready to go forward. I'd just like to applaud the court. And staff and the development community, city of Austin and all of those that are participating in this particular public/private partnership aspect. I'd like to thank the voters of Travis County because without the support of you in the 2005 bond election, you supported these particular projects. None of this would be possible without the person that voted to support this. So with all of those kinds of things I'll ghed and 'move approval of this particular item, 26-b.
>> seconded by Commissioner Sonleitner. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
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, November 1, 2006 11:30 AM