Travis County Commissioners Court
January 22, 2008
Item 14
>> number 14, is to consider and take appropriate action on the state department of highways and public transportation commission, minute order 84428 to propose the terms of a new agreement with the state relating to the upgrade of fm 826 between slaughter lane and 286 in southwest Travis County.
>> good morning. We had the county entered into an agreement many years ago in 1986, a minute order with txdot at the time it was called the Texas department of highways and public transportation, so that tell you how old this minute order is. But a minute order is kind of like a tender offer. It's not exactly a contract, but it comes close to that. It's an agreement. In that agreement Travis County agreed to acquire the right-of-way, do the engineering, pay for the improvements of 1986 which is a state highway out in oak hill down to slaughter lane. Typically the county would enter into such agreements, but also to purchase the right-of-way and adjust utilities. In this minute order we actually agreed to do the construction and engineering as well. But we did so because we had another agreement with bradley development corporation to delay those costs. We were the pass through. In other corporations the state's policy is not to contract directly with the private developers for improvements to the state highway system. They prefer that their local government be the contractor and that we be -- and that we collect whatever funds from the private development and kind of be in the middle. In this case we went ahead and agreed to the term of the agreement. The development never took place. The improvements -- fm 1826 was never widened. No right-of-way is was acquired, no engineering was done. And the bradley development corporation has since gone bankrupt, is defunct. So we now have a minute order that is alive and well, but we don't have our paying partner. So what we'd like to do -- there still needs to b improvements to the farm-to-market road. Since that time traffic volumes have continued to increase, particularly as the traffic funnels to 290. We don't have the funds authorized to pay for the engineering design or the construction. So what we'd like to do with this agenda item is basically send the letter to bob day, the u.s. Engineer of txdot, to rescind the order of 1996 and to enter into a new agreement where we get back to our traditional rolz. Travis County would pay for the right-of-way, the utility adjustment. To my knowledge problem is okay with that given what's happened to our private partner in this. So they can go ahead and seek funding or at least the engineering design. You know that txdot right now is under some severe funding restraints, but it still allows them to proceed for a couple of years to get and start the engineering design, acquire the right-of-way based on that design with funds that we have authorized. We have county bond funds, road bonds that were authorized in 2009 and 2005, $700,000 worth of bond money that voters have approved to acquire the right-of-way for this project. We can't use it because there's no engineering design ', so we're in a catch 22. This would allow us to enter into an agreement basically escrow the money that's been approved by the county vote foarz the right-of-way, put that in the hands of txdot. They can move at least through engineering design and right wf way acquisition and at some point this is probably two to three years from now and seek construction funding. By that time you may be seeing new alternate funding sources that aren't available today. You may have surpluses from toll prongs. You may have stpc 4 money that's freed up.
>> the state would have to agree in order to get minute order rescinded?
>> that's right.
>> this is a state highway, though?
>> it is a state highway. They would have to agree. They have no -- I’m in the sure why they would retain any interest in holding us us to a minute order that we're telling them that we have no funds to accomplish.
>> is that something that --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> at least from the district level, they understand that there's no paying partner at this point.
>> judge, I move approval.
>> second? Discussion? So has the state indicate state indicatedwhen constructios might be available?
>> they haven't. I think where they are right now they don't have a clue where they will get funding for this project or any others until things clear up at the federal level and also statewide.
>> the Commissioners court signed this resolution in 1986, more than 20 years ago.
>> in regard to the 700,000 that we're escrowing, is there -- do we have anything in agreement with them as to when that escrowed money, if it doesn't get used, reverts back to us?
>> we can certainly negotiate that term.
>> and what would be the advicable length of time on that?
>> I think in term of acquiring the right-of-way, that certainly could be done in five years. If the engineering plans had been done, we could probably have the right-of-way acquisition from 12 months to a year and a half. To louisiana to hold on to -- to allow them to hold on to our money for five years. Use our money to acquire right-of-way and be done with it. And any splis surplus money left overcomes back to us. Or if you don't accomplish it in five years, the whole amount comes back.
>> I would just suggest that the tightest appropriate time frame, considering the time value of that money in term of construction costs, I would think. I know we can't use it for anything else.
>> that's right. We can't and nor can they. And we would probably write the agreement in such a way that any interest earned can be used on right-of-way acquisition, but then any surplus remaining after the complete acquisition would be returned to the county voters.
>> all right. But if the construction costs are escalating faster than interest.
>> this is something we're talking about at a lower level. It still has to be approve at downtown add straig. Administration.
>> but our interest today is in rescinding the minute order and negotiating a fresher --
>> the new agreement will come back to Commissioners court for execution. You will see that before.
>> now, the $750,000, I know that it's been authorized in 2001 and '05, I guess. Do we have the money on hand?
>> I don't know that for sure.
>> I thought just the authorization was given, but at the appropriate time we will issue the debt and secure the money. That's a good question, I think, though, because if it's on hand, based on the timetable, I don't know if we want to just set somewhere -- I don't know -- I don't think we put it in escrow, if we haven't issued it, then we issue it in a timely manner when we want to use it.
>> they won't get to the actual right-of-way acquisition for at least a year. So I’m not too worried whether or not we have that in cash form or not because we'll have it at the time they need it. I’m confident that we'll be able to issue the cash when they need it.
>> okay. Anymore 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, January 23, 2008 8:09 PM