Travis County Commissioners Court
January 30, 2007
Item 26
26. Consider and take appropriate action on a request to approve the reallocation of lapsed 2005 bond proposition no. 1, tier 1, project funds for which no participation agreement was approved, executed and delivered before December 31, 2006. (Commissioner
>> good afternoon, judge, economics, I'm steven
>> [indiscernible] t.n.r. Public works. Proposition 1 of the 2005 voter approved bond referendum included $29,600,000 for road improvement projects that were to involve partnerships with private developers and in some cases the city of Austin. When lumped together with funding from those other sources it translated to about $65 million in improvements. In the proposition identified 7 -- what they referred to as tier 1 project, those projects were intended to have a fully executed agreement presented to you before the end of calendar year 2006. We were successful in getting five of those before you. For the two that we did not get an approved agreement, the proposition language goes on to say that the Commissioners court at its discreation may reallocate to a tier 2 project in an amount to be determined by the court. There was only one tier 2 project identify understand the bond proposition, that was the construction of braker lane between f.m. 973 and taylor lane in precinct 1. You have before you my recommendation on how to reallocate the funds that essentially lapsed from the tier 1 projects, they amounted to roughly 9.5 million. When you take out the administration, it comes out to about $8,411,000. What I'm recommending is that we allocate $6.5 million to the tier 2 project and the balance, roughly $2 million and suggested that we put that into -- into what was identified as the unallocated project fund account. Pop position 1 moneys was $4.8 million. For unallocated project, funding. What that means is projects overrun, weren't budgeted adequately or actually these moneys could be used for any project even outside of the 2005 bond proposition to those purposes. During that time the thinking was we had the hurricane, effects of that on materials prices on and on. What I am suggesting is 6.5 for braker lane, the balance 2 million back into that up allocated project fund account and be used specifically for the tier 1 projects that were approved by the court, rather than leaving it open for any project that may be short on funding. In that way I'm hoping to have more assurance that we can complete the tier 1 projects that you all did approve.
>> can you tell me referring to the trooer 2 project, did you tell me exactly what that project is? This is just for the public's benefit to know exactly what we are talking about from what point to what point, stuff like that. What our obligation is and then what is the obligation of the -- of the private sector.
>> sure, absolutely. One of the tier 1 projects was the extension of howard lane from cameron road over to s.h. 130. It would have involved us partnering with the city of Austin to extend it across city of Austin full purpose annexation, which is roughly the harris branch area of the county. The basic guidelines of these agreements was that the developers or the property openers would dedicate the right-of-way and fund one-half of the construction costs. These other agreements down south of 290 where the frupding structure was different, essentially how most of them were structured. Put up the right-of-way, split the construction costs with us. For that particular project, the property owners could not come forward with the necessary funds. They had indicated to us when we approached them early in 2005, we -- early 2006, when we approached them, said okay we have got the funds, do you folks want to do the participation agreement with us? And that -- in that case the property owners told us that they would be interested in ted indicated the right-of-way, but they did not have funds, dedicated. To put into the contract. Into the agreement. Which is a pretty fundamental requirement of these -- of this particular program. The other project was walter m. Parkway increasing, too, it extended eastward from cameron road about one mile. Just south of the northeast metro park. Essentially when completed will increase
>> [indiscernible] lane. That particular case the -- the developers were relying upon the sale of the plat of lots in their subdivision, which was abutting this section of roadway, that what their financial model counted on was selling platted lots to home builders and as the home builders came in to build the home, they would also build a section of wells branch parkway. This is about the time when the housing market started bottoming out, they couldn't find a home builder to buy into that type of an arrangement before the end of last year. They asked to be taken out of consideration as well. That section of wells branch parkway will likely be built through the platting process. Plat dedicated right-of-way, for their portion of the construction costs. It will be done at a slower pace. Does that pretty much answer your question, Commissioner.
>> the tier 2 that's what we really needing to maybe possibly hear today because exactly what that tier 2. I may have said tier 1 earlier. If you would tell me what the tier 2 is as far as what's all involved and the responsibility I guess again of the -- the county's responsibility, what is the responsibility of the private sector.
>> I would also offer there are at least one representative from that tier 2 developer who may want to come up and talk about the project a little bit. It the construction of
>> [indiscernible] lane, south of 290 and east of 130. Written from f.m. 973 eastward about 12,000 feet, if I remember, to taylor lane. It will be comprised of a four lane roadway. It's the same sort of arrangement we've had with the other tier 1 developers. It will pay for one half of the construction costs of the our estimate was $13 million for that particular project. We are estimating our half $6.5 million. That's why I recommend it be allocated to that project.
>> okay.
>> the developer, the person -- going on, we are making yet a little fuller flavor, a better picture. As far as what you are doing and over there and how things are going and all of this kind of stuff.
>> I'm greg hudson, a local attorney. Douglas gilleland with torres and Texas, the developer owner of this tract in which this tier 2 project would fall. Torres did participate in one of the tier 1 projects, we were successful in negotiating the participation agreement on the decker lake road extension. We had reviewed staff's proposal as to this tier 2 project. And -- we believe that the $13 million estimate is accurate and something that we recommend the Commissioners court consider. We are certainly willing to step up and negotiate with the county a similar agreement as we did in the tier 1 process for the tier 2 project. I don't know if you have any questions for the developer, mr. Gilleland or not.
>> while he's thinking about that, we have until the end of this calendar year to execute and bring before you this agreement as we -- tier 1. December 31 of 2007, is the date, right?
>> correct.
>> December 31 of '06. The -- for the other projects.
>> that's correct.
>> my name is douglas gilleland, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. We are in the process now doing a land plan for -- for approximately 2,000 acres that we purchase that braker lane will go through. At this point we end investigation predominantly a residential community. The utilitiation of a tremendous amount of open space in this particular property, gilleland creek runs through it, we have about 650 to 700-acres of open space. Which we would like to incorporate into your land plan. There will be a mixed use component to the community that will have both a retail and office component as well. So it's a -- it's a full service type of community in this particular case, braker lane will be a very important spine road that will go completely across the property and -- and make its development much more efficient. I will be happy to answer any questions.
>> questions?
>> the 650-acres out of the 2,000-acres.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> judge, if there's no question from the court, I would like to move approval.
>> anybody else here on any other --
>> any tier 1 or tier 2 project?
>> I would like to move approval of -- 6,000 -- $6,500,000 for the tier 2 project, that's the braker lane project, 973 I guess all the way over to taylor lane with the contingency that we begin negotiating, trying to come up with an agreement, partnership of -- of public agreement that complied with the guidelines that we already have established. I don't know how long that's going to take. But at least we will have money maybe set aside until that -- until that particular agreement is -- is -- before the -- before the Commissioners court. Also on the remaining amount of money that was in the tier 2 project, the $2 million be set aside and an unallocated reserve recommended by staff and used also as recommended by staff, I would like to make a motion to that effect.
>> second.
>> thank you.
>> 2 million is a round number, the specific number is 1.9 -- this is consistent with our covenant with --
>> yes, sir. 1
>> [indiscernible]
>> discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you very much. Appreciate your patience.
>> 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, January 31, 2007 6:55 AM