Travis County Commissioners Court
July 24, 2007
Item 15
15. Discuss and take appropriate action on alternative funding for howard lane east.
>> we left this last week. You asked me to go consult with the city of Austin, we have done that. The response that we got was -- was they are inclined to join us in an application, but they want to check a few things first. They have some bond money appropriated to do the section of howard lane within the harris branch subdivision. They need to find out from the bond council whether or not, if they go for federal funds, can they use any savings of those bonds on other projects. That would be the same question that we would ask. If they can't, then it might not help them to go after federal funds. The other question that they would like to ask their own staff is if -- if they join Travis County in an application for federal funds, will it hurt their chances on other projects that they are also going to seek federal funding on. So -- so it's kind of a priority issue for them. If they join us would this be one of their higher priority projects federal funding over other projects that they also want federal funding on. So they are mulling those questions, we don't have a definitive answer from the city of Austin yet.
>> but
>> [indiscernible] the city council they have their first meeting coming up I guess what? This Thursday? And -- and have there been any indications from them that they will have this item on their agenda in the near future? So at least we can know what disposition they are in, not precluding what I think we should do, but -- but I think if we are going to -- we are going to enter into the relationship that we need to go to -- before campo, I just think that all parties ought to -- ought to, you know, say yes. In that type of partnership relationship for the request for the -- for the -- for that type of funding. So -- so I guess my question to you is has the city council -- given -- staff given any indication that -- that -- that have been brought up have been made a decision or if not when will that make that decision.
>> > I don't know the involvement of the city council, I have been speaking with the city works, it may very well be they would want to place this on the council agenda before giving any feedback to the county. I don't think even the staff at this point is settled on whether or not it would be -- recommended to the council. The time frame that we are hoping to get a response certainly before we have to put it on the Commissioners court agenda for -- for an application which is next month.
>> for the deadline for -- for -- this would be a
>> [indiscernible] amendment, right?
>> actually, it would be an application for federal money, we are ahead of the game here. So we have got some time to think about it.
>> we don't have that same -- same August 3, August 10.
>> no that's the t.i.f. Amendment. The projects will come out next month, that's when we will want to go ahead and start preparing our application and submit it. The decision occur by October, so it's a -- it's a ways down. Before -- before we have to have -- everyone signed up to the application.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> something that we can go ahead and move forward with and which would also satisfy the disposition of -- of defeasing the outstanding bonds on the -- on those two projects. Where are we on that?
>> I've just presented it as an option.
>> I understand.
>> I can certainly pursue that if the court wants us to do that.
>> yes.
>> right now it's still on the books, even though it's an option. But -- still need to satisfy 1826. Right-of-way acquisitions.
>> that's right.
>> we need to deal with txdot on that. Now I guess my question is can we -- can we request that -- that bond council look at that to see if this is all within the realm of satisfying those needs? For that option?
>> well, I did speak with bond council. I think they were pretty clear about what we would have to do to satisfy the bond covenants. That is that we would have to be -- we would have to satisfy the bond holders that that promise is fully completed. That would have to come about by insurance from txdot that from their point of view Travis County had met all obligations with regard to the project on the 1846. If it's -- I guess the question is can txdot give us that assurance in such a way that -- that we could then go back to -- to new york and defease the bonds.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> .
>> one of the landowners is ill and asked that we give more time to consider the proposal. So he is still recuperating from a hospital visit and just wanted to not have to deal with this at this point in time.
>> is there anyone else other than the person that is sick?
>> two property owners.
>> and what is the other property owner's attitude about this?
>> they are waiting until both property owners can get together.
>> how much time does the city need on the funding?
>> I somewhat expected to have an answer already. I'm thinking it shouldn't take all that much time.
>> okay. Two or three weeks.
>> oh, yeah.
>> okay. Any advice for us?
>> advice.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, chamber of commerce, on this item, the chamber back in 2005 did a report regarding sh 130 and one of the items that pointed out was the need for connectivity. Prior on that but especially since that time we've been particularly interested in doing what we can to be helpful and ensuring that connectivity happens in an appropriate time frame. I think we all agree that howard lane is one of those areas that needs to be a priority. We have had a number of heatings with a number of you here but staff as well as on the court, but then also at the city we've been having some meetings there as well. From our perspective, from the chamber we've been working with the transportation organization on this issue and we feel comfortable everybody agrees it's a priority just a matter of figuring out the right answer. I want to offer any way you see we can be helpful moving forward looks like we are waiting for information back from the city. We have a meeting scheduled the first meeting of August with the mayor and will be discussing with her we'll be happy to lort report back to you.
>> so you feel as far as what you can sense by your conversation with the city staff, is there any indication that you feel that this may be on their radar screen as far as agenda? Agenda so we will know where we are?
>> I don't know if they have a time line but I know it's something they continue to monitor because it is of interest to the city to see the project finished they have continued to maintain the funds set aside with the intention to go towards this project I haven't had a conversation with them regarding the issues brought up regarding the city's use of their funds and how they need to move that all around so I don't really have a feel for where I think they might go.
>> okay. That was, I guess, what I'm hearing today is the disposition of the city I think we are ready to move forward but we need to, really not an urgency, I guess, as far as what I'm hearing before the money that will be needed and utilized with the coapplicant's participation, is the thing that we need the wrap our arms around because that is money that--
>> why don't we present, why done we ask the city in writing to join us in going to campo for ste funding for all ours and theirs. And the fallback is if they have money for their part, they join us at campo for federal funding of our section, and let's reduce to writing what the options are as to the use of the surplus monies that tex dot has identified. We're looking at two to three weeks, though, to bring this matter back. And in the mean tile, if the city is back in force first part of August, if you are meeting with betty dunkeley, I guess we better give the city manager and council something in that will give them an opportunity to formally respond to us we might as well find out exactly what their position is as to options one and two which involve them. It's us going to campo together and what we ask for.
>> just for point of clarification, is this a letter from me to the city manager or from you to the mayor? How would you like to communicate with the city?
>> do you feel real bold today? Or do you feel like you want to defer? If the court agrees with that, I don't have any problem signing the letter it's just that is how we get howard lane proved. If the city says know to both, we may as well go ahead and have it in writing what the other options are.
>> judge, I think a letter from you to the mayor would be very impactful especially since he sits on campo with us all.
>> and also participation of the chamber in regard to our stated policies on public private partnerships and the involvement of the private community because with the dwindling funds, we simply cannot, and with our tax structure, we cannot do it without private partnership. And frankly, I don't think we should do it without private partnership.
>> and it's a situation where you are going to have private benefit as well as public it makes sense to have involvement of both sides we believe on howard lane it's one of those projects with the importance for the overal reasonable should also be considered. So you have maybe a three way, which makes federal funds a perfect match for that.
>> would it take, judge, did you put that in the form of a motion? As far as the recommendation? Or just directing. If the you put it in the form of a motion, I'm going to second. But I want to be sure that the timeliness of it gets done expi dishously, because I think the city council will be coming back to their first meeting this Thursday. So it would appear that if we have something in writing which I think is a good idea judge, have something in writing from Travis County to the city representatives, I think it would be something that, you know, at least we would have it in writing. So would that be timeliness, as far as timeliness is concerned, I know you are going to make a visit with them. But would that be appropriate? From a form of a motion or direction? Which one do you want as far as this letter is concerned?
>> if the court is in agreement I'll put in it the form of a motion.
>> I think it would be more--
>> it's a letter to the mayor and city council, basically asking two things as to campo funding, and that is funding for this project for the city and county, and the b of that, if the c has its money already and chooses to use that money for howard lane, then that they join us in asking campo to fund the county section. And also that we do further work on our ability to use county funding that at some point will be returned from tex dot because it's a surplus, how we can use those funds in various ways if we choose to to fund the county's part.
>> so I second that. And I think it's all inclusive. And I would want to, I guess with that second portion of that motion, the pbo, I guess would have to let us know also on some of the instances, especially with this county possibility of additional county funds, to make sure that that availability of that money will have to do certain things to acquire that. So, that means that we need to get involved as far as satisfying those other projects with tex dot and other the other situations that will release the city's that obligation.
>> bond council as well as budget.
>> the motion as I understand it includes to an action on facing the bond.
>> it's really to analyze the various options associated with those fund.
>> so are we saying we still haven't made a decision between options one, two and three, but we are pursuing the city's position in regards to any one of these options?
>> the preference is, number one, to get the city and county to ask campo for funding for howard lane. That would free up the city's money for the city to use as it sees fit the crit is asking questions and they don't know what the answers arement it may be that that is to their advantage to use the money on howard lane. If that is the case, we ask the city to join us to ask for funding for the county portion of howard lane. Separate anand part from that is for us to reduce to writing the various options, legal requirements, et cetera, regarding funds that will be available to the county once tex dot refunds them, senior plus monies from projects that we have funded for the state. And I'm not sure, bond council opined on that, joe kelly came back and informally shared that with us. In my view what we did was focus in another direction so we wouldn't have to deal with that. We may as we will go back and look and see what options there are. It may be that we don't have good options there. If so, we ought to know that. But we don't get to that point until we have kind of given up on the city joining us and going to campo. Now, we could go to campo and get turned down so we still need to know about options three and four that don't involve the city of Austin, about that involve the private sector and us using county funds that are available or can become available if way choose to make them available.
>> thank you.
>> two things.
>> option number three, jump not three and four.
>> I thought there were only three options sorry.
>> one, two and three.
>> one and three versus three and four.
>> no, it's one, two and three.
>> if it doesn't work, is what I'm saying.
>> yeah.
>> I'm sorry.
>> perhaps one of us will have a storm and come up with a five and second as well.
>> is there a fourth option on the table right now? I'm just confused. Sorry.
>> once you cut the city out of it, then we ought to be free to entertain whatever county options there are. If joe and his staff were to get together, brainstorm and come up with something that we have not thought of, I'd want them to present that to us.
>> in terms of the city involvement, that pertains specifically to the first and second option that we first considered last, was it last week?
>> right.
>> and not the third option, which would be just a bond package.
>> yeah, no.
>> okay.
>> not that at all.
>> sorry.
>> I'm not supporting that at all.
>> for the record, chair gray was here on behave of arrow and central Austin transportation.
>> capital area transportation coalitionthat is good enough. And he and they support completion of howard lane. To sh 130. As soon as possible. If he were here, that is exactly what he would say anymore discussion on the motion? It's dnd --dead but one more kick probably, all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you for getting us overhill on that one.
>> 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, July 25, 2007, 18:30 AM