Travis County Commissioners Court
August 14, 2007
Item 15
Number 15 can to consider and take appropriate action on a request to approve a participation agreement with the city of Lakeway and a private developer to construct high land boulevard in precinct three.
>> good morning judge and Commissioners. I'm steve from mub works. What is presented to you today is a criteria between city of Lakeway, Travis County and rough hollow development. We have a representative from the developer today. This project will provide for the construction of a roadway between Lakeway and highway 71. Actually, it will take a roadway construction from an existing roadway in Lakeway about two miles to butecreek road and another half mile west to highway 71 and provide a back door for the residents. The genesis of the project was we had a 2001 bond project the voters approved to extend serene hills drive to 71, providing the same sort of operational benefit. As we got into the design of that particular project, we come to find that the residents out there were not particularly supportive of it. So we came to the court in 2002 and with your approval, essentially canceled the serene hills project and reissued co's in an equivalent amount to be used to make this particular project work. We negotiated with the developer. He is poised to begin construction of the project. The county's responsibility will be to provide 30 percent of the funding. The actual construction of the project will result in a four-lane roadway approximately two miles long with a median and sidewalks on both sides. It will be built in phases. The first phase the developer is ready to begin construction on, will cost $6 million. Our 30 percent will be spent down on that very first phase. He will continue bundr building out roadway for several more years but our responsibility will end with the expenditure of our funds. End result of our money is that we will have a connection from Lakeway to bee creek road. If there is a catastrophic ix dent at intersection of 71 and 620, I'm sure you're all aware now of all the con gex out there this can provide an alternative route to get around that. For that purpose we believe this is a good way to use our funds. Tnr would recommend approval of the participation agreement. If you do decide to approve we would ask to allow the judge to sign off on it after we get the developer's signature. We also have to get Lakeway signature on it so it will have to go to their city council. The structure of the agreement is fine with all parties.
>> this was a '01 bond.
>> yes, the project was to extend serene hills drive. It would have interconnected about two miles south of bee creek road. That project did not go well with the constituency out there.
>> any complaints?
>> this one we have not heard any complaints. It's staying away from the serene hills area. It provides the connection we were looking for. I think motion folks with looking for more connectivity. This won't solve all the problems but it does provide an alternative route, particularly if there is a serious situation at 620 and 71.
>> not any environmental implications in this?
>> the developer through his design has addressed that. We actually worked with him to use design standards that you wouldn't normally see in a campo arterial. We have allowed him to follow the --terrain more closely. He does have to take too care. We are going to cross a couple ravines that require construction of the binges of he has to follow at state and local regulations as far as sedimentation and erosion control and managing the stormwater flows off the construction site.
>> okay. I was looking for a map in my backup on this item. I didn't see one.
>> there is a map. What is up here before you, Commissioner, is a blow-up of that. The map in your backup isn't threer because it's reproduced in black and white. But there are actually two maps in the backup. One is a schematic showing the line the of the roadway relative to some plating that is going to occur, the other one is this one in front of youel.
>> I wanted to make sure that the environmentalel aspect and implications were minimized to some degree. And I didn't hear or see anything that would suggest what I'm saying. Hearing what you are saying, you are sayinging the minimized.
>> in the construction plans, perhaps joe can come up and help we, they are required to use a stormwater prevention plan and that involves placing silt fence rock berms, dealing with runoff to capture before it reaches critical environmental features.
>> is that why it's such a winding road?
>> that's right, judge, it does wind around because it's following the terrain.
>> this would be a completely new road.
>> yes, sir.
>> yeah.
>> between the developer up in Lakeway down to bee creek is completely new.
>> judge, I move approval of 15.
>> second discussion? City of Lakeway has to approve this plus the applicant.
>> yes.
>> use of county money is contingent upon basically all three parties approving and funding.
>> yes.
>> Lakeway does not have money in the project but they are going to be annexing the this area as the platting progresses. They will be taking on maintenance responsibility when it is completed.
>> when is it supposed to go before the city council?
>> joe? In September.
>> our money on segment one will not be used until all money needed for segment one is available.
>> right. You mentioned that after the piece that we are funding, that would be another piece but we are not involved in that.
>> that's correct, judge. The project will be built in two phases, actually about an eight or nine million project in total. First phase is $6 million. We pay 30 percent of that until our money is expended. That is the piece that will be going to construction this fall. When we finish that phase one we will have spent down all of our money. The future phase, phase two, remaining $2 million, that will happen as platting occurs through the city of lake way because by that all the issues will be in the city.
>> you will bring it back.
>> we will review with john and bring it back to you.
>> any questions or comments? All in favor. Show Commissioners Gomez, eckhardt, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Show unanimous court.
>> thank you.
>> 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, August 15, 2007, 18:30 AM