Travis County Commissioners Court
March 25, 2008
Item 26
Number 26 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following request regarding rocky creek ranch preliminary plan. A subdivision in precinct 3. A is revised preliminary plan 414 total acres. B, amended and restated phasing agreement between Travis County and the developer, kirby development limited or ll c. C, indemnification agreement with cd rocky creek lp to fund the turn lane improvements on fm 3238, hamilton pool road at rocky creek boulevard. D, construction and maintenance agreement between the state of Texas and Travis County for turn the lane improvements within the right-of-way of fm 3238 hamilton pool road e, use of alternative fiscal for rocky creek ranch section one and, f, use of two catch security agreements for rocky creek ranch section one and bound dear street improvements to the fm 3238.
>> anna bowlen, Travis County tn r. A lot of work has gone into this agenda request and the project in generally. The original preliminary plan was approved in 2004. There was one lot that was approved fiscal in 2006 of that original limb. What--prelim. What you have before you is the original plan revise the 2004 prelim. One of the significant changes is the new plan goes from 468 residential lots to 395. That 39 a 5 number was negotiated--395 null was a negotiated number. The developer and the neighbors had reached an agreement on several items that were out there from the if first prel I m. Another pretty significant change from the original prel istm in the revised prelim is that the spine street that guess through the property, rocky creek boulevard, will still be public but the pods off that spine streedstreet will be private. Those were the mine changes between the original prelim and the revised. The phasing agreement, when we first did the 2004 prelim plan we entered into a phrasing agreement. The phasing agreement is being amended today. The ownership of the property hats changed from what was in the the original agreement. The original agreement come contemplated advanced funding agreement with tex dot for turn lanes. Instead of using advanced funding agreement the developer is going to use a construction maintenance agreement they worked out with tex dot. Those are the main changes to the phasing agreement. This is the first time we've used a construction maintenance agreement with tex dot. The norm previously had been advanced funding. Tex do the doesn't take money directly from the developer but instead require that fiscal improvements on tex dot right-of-way be paid to the county and the county transfers that over to tex dot with tex dot having the spilled to--responsibility to do the improvements. In this case this construction maintenance agreement, same as with advanced funding agreements, the developer and their engineers work with tex do the on --dot on getting con send sunce on the right-of-way. In this case tex dot does the look to the county to enter into advanced funding agreement. This construction maintenance agreement allows the county to build the improvement. We don't have to have money thanks --that is transferred to tex dot. At the end they get an as built. The dem--indemnification agreement in this case mirrors the responsibilities and liabilities that the county is picking up in the makemaintenance agreement back to the developer so they are able to build the turn lanes on the road and cord nade with tex dot. So this is the first time we have done one of these. It's pretty, I think, pretty cool. Hopefully this may be another alternative that we have for improvements that will be going in on tex dot right-of-way.
>> who will construct the improvement?
>> the developer.
>> who will pay for that improvement?
>> the developer.
>> so Travis County does not advance funding.
>> right. This is an alternative to the traditional advanced funding agreement.
>> okay.
>> the next part of this agenda request is an alternative fiscal request for the section one final plat. The prelim is going to be done in phases and this this is just for the first phase for them to build the infrastructure. When they are ready to record the plat they will come back for approval. This is no different than any other alt fiscal request on the agenda routinely. Then the last part is the cash security agreement. One of the cash security agreements goes for the alternative fiscal in section one. The other cash security agreement with, we wanted to have revegetation, we the county, tnr, for the improvements in the tex dot right-of-way. In case anything were to go wrong we would be able to restore the right-of-way to its current natural condition. That is something that we felt would be appropriate and that's what I think there's like 29,653.32 for reveg and restoration in the event we need that.
>> question about the maintenance agreement, if you don't mind. Who is responsible for ensuring, after the work has been done, to go and inspect? We still have that responsibility?
>> are you talking about on the tex dot right-of-way?
>> yes, who actually has the physical responsibility to make sure that all the I’s have been dotted and t's crossed?
>> tex dot will be inspecting in the right-of-way. We certainly have the ability to go and look as well but tex dot has the responsibility.
>> they have the final authority to say this is a-okay and stuff like that, whereas we, anyway, so they end up doing it. That's what you, tex dot.
>> certainly. Improvements in their right-of-way, they are going to want the final word on that. So absolutely.
>> I understand. Okay.
>> I have talked with tex do the about this to be sure that, young--you know, they are comfortable with this. They have used a similar model elsewhere in the state. It's the first one in the area.
>> here in Travis County.
>> right. I’ve worked with them as has the developer and the engineer. So the precoordination has been very much the same between the developer and tex do the about the design design of whatever is going to go into tex dot right-of-way. In this case turn lane.
>> yes.
>> that part is the same whether or not it's an advanced funding agreement or construction maintenance.
>> they have the final say.
>> absolutely.
>> okey doke.
>> a difference between retirement and termination, right? Somebody working on term mation, not retirement. The note here says that our optimistic staff briefs the developer and residents have gotten together and reached agreement.
>> that's my an understanding.
>> residents here on this item, please come forward. Is there a representative here from the developer? Good morning.
>> good morning, I’m gene lowen thal, I live next-door to the proposed develop. When kirby development acquired the project from rebecca hudson, shortly thereafter the kirby team the reached out to the neighbors and started dialogue. Anna was helpful in getting that started as the county, very help with this. Kirby listened very well and ultimately incorporated many of our concerns in the project design, everything from dark skies to buffers to reducing the number of lots. Perhaps most importantly taking measures to minimize the impact on rocky creek. Just want to say it's been a very helpful process, very good process, one that should probably take place much more often than we see between developers and the surrounding property owners. So thank you.
>> thanks for all your work.
>> thank you for your support.
>> I didn't mean to pessimistic. I am is bit surprised by those remarks but happy also.
>> in the beginning--
>> I recall. Any comments from the applicant?
>> I don't have anything to add. It's been a pleasure really working with the neighbors out we had some differences to work out but it's a long process and we got through it and it's all going well.
>> judge, I move approval a through f.
>> second.
>> when all said and done, the only difference here really is method of financing of the infrastructure improvement. We think it's an improvement upon what we've done historically.
>> that's the most significant change. The prelim is being revised but to me the most significant change in this agenda request is that alternative for advance funding agreements.
>> okay.
>> does that speed up the process? In other words without having to go through reimbursement, advance refunding agreement as we have done stuff in the past and that we still do things currently with this type of if new arrangement as far as the contractual maintenance agreement, is that--
>> I think it definitely has the --capacity to speed it up. Now it's in the engineer's ballpark to do the improvements. I think that has, it's very possible that it might speed some of that up.
>> I’d like to see the advantages. Merds, if --in other words, things in the future.
>> thanks for your innovation and the applicant's on coming up with this out-of-the-box solution.
>> just for the record, the applicant had most of this worked out before they called me.
>> very generous of you to say.
>> thanks to everybody.
>> you will learn to take a little more credit, ms. Bowlen. All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> that was for a, b, c d, e and f.
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, March 26, 2008 8:51 PM