Travis County Commissioners Court
July 29, 2008
Item 20
20. Consider and take appropriate action on the following: a. Request to use 2005 bond unallocated project funds, or 1997 or 2001 bond fund savings from completed precinct one projects, to acquire right of way for the realignment of fm 3177, in precinct one; and b. Advance funding agreement for voluntary local government contributions to transportation improvement projects with no required match for the fm 3177 and braker lane 1 project, in precinct one.
>> good morning, judge and economics, I've steve from t.n.r. Public works. What was being presented to you today is really the -- one of the final steps that we are entering into to complete our braker lane 2005 bond projects. It's been a project that we have presented to you twice before. Once when we entered into a participation agreement with in developers, then when we entered into an interlocal agreement with the city of Austin. What we're asking the court to do today is to -- to, number one, allow us to -- to -- to coordinate with bond counsel and the county attorney's office on a fund source for a portion of this project and I'll explain that in a minute. Second to approve an advanced funding agreement with txdot. If you don't mind I'm going to move up to the back. Is this on? Okay, can you hear me? In 2005 the county bond voters or the county voters approved a bond project to extend braker lane from its intersection with u.s. 290 at harris branch parkway to proposed intersection of parmer lane and state highway 130. On this map, this line here is parmer lane. This line here is u.s. 290, over here is 130. The braker lane project runs from here, this will be the interchange with parmer lane and 130. It runs in a northeastly direction. And it was intended to plug straight into the intersection of harris branch parkway at u.s. 290, this being harris branch parkway. After we got into looking at the project, with txdot, they proposed that -- that rather than have an interchange here at decker lane at that severe skew, that it would be much better, more efficient, safer intersection to realign decker rain road with harris branch parkway and then plug our braker lane project into that. It works out as a much safer interchange here the decker lane would have been too close to 130 interchange with 290. Txdot also offered in that investigation that they would do the design, pay for that themselves also pay for the construction of it. About $4 million construction project for txdot. If we would acquire the right-of-way for them. Rather than us paying for design, right-of-way acquisition and construction to go between decker lane and u.s. 290 we would be limited to just acquiring the right-of-way. The question that was brought up by jess ask at p.b.o. Was can we use 2005 braker lane bond money to acquire right-of-way for a realignment. It achieves the purpose the bond project which was to make that connection between 290 and 130 with braker lane, but you are using a portion of the state highway to do that. That is the purpose that we are having can bond counsel and the county attorney's office on Friday. If we cannot use the braker lane bond money, that was money approved in the bond referendum referred to as unallocated project funds which can be used for any project. If we can't use the braker lane bond money, I would propose that we use that money. There may also be an issue with not all of this realignment is necessarily following the same alignment that braker lane was following. If you look in the exhibits, you will see a little tail end piece that is not really -- couldn't be consequence construed as part of braker lane. That might have to be funded from a different source. We have remnant money in precinct 1 from 1997 that might be a possible source. There's 2001 bond money that -- that I'm pretty sure we're going to have available, but it's not available today. If we were to go after it, to use that, we would probably have to wait until early next year. Then again we would look at that unallocated project money. We need to have that conversation with bond counsel, the county attorney's office to verify where do we get the money to do this right-of-way acquisition. The advanced funding agreement part of it is once we determine where the money is coming, we enter into the advanced funding agreement, which obligates Texas dots to the follow through, completes the design, completes the construction for us to accomplish the right-of-way.
>> steve, in essence, let's say that bound counsel says okay Travis County you cannot use the bond -- the bond moneys from -- from the money that you are trying to get this out of to make sure that we get that connect on this particular road project. Braker leading into 3177. Now, if they come back and say you can't get that, well, what you are suggesting is there are alternate funding sources other than what we are looking at as far as a is concerned today.
>> that's right.
>> so what I'm trying to make sure that we get an understanding is that regardless of how a comes out, the source of funding, the b portion of this particular item is intact, that is ready to go forward. It's just a matter of identifying the -- the -- the funding for a. In this particular regard. So -- so I have no qualms with that but I would like to ask this question. If -- well, when will this project be completed if the court decides to approve a and b today?
>> it won't be today because we don't know the source of funding.
>> I'm just saying b --
>> seems to me they need to go ahead and have the meeting and come back with a source of funding that we can rely on. I don't have any objection to us doing this. But we just talked about a world of possibilities on source of funding.
>> okay well not approve it today. Let me -- judge, brought up a good point. And -- but at the end of the day, the source of funding is going to have to come from one of these pots of money. We don't know which pot of money it's coming from, but we know that it's coming from one of the pots. Now, I guess bond counsel will let us know what pot we can get it out of as far as what we are looking at this morning.
>> that's what we're counting on.
>> that's the 2005 bond stuff.
>> that's right.
>> is that correct.
>> that's what I -- we know that for sure. All right.
>> probably going to be braker lane 2005 bond money which is specific for braker lane or it's 2005 bond money that was not allocated to any particular project but --
>> right.
>> or '97 remnant money from our --
>> [multiple voices]
>> what I'm also hearing is this. Regardless of how the source of funding comes out as far as the bond money, bond council says we can't use the 2005 bond money, there's no restrictions on the other pots of money that can be still used for this project; is that correct.
>> that's another question that we have to ask bond counsel.
>> I didn't get that. I thought that was the situation that was just automatic if a didn't work, b would work.
>> I wouldn't say it's okay. I personally think it would be okay --
>> we need to hear then from those folks.
>> that's right
>> [multiple voices]
>> what I was going to --
>> I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> what I was going to ask, though, the court is if we have this meeting on Friday and we work out a funding source, is it possible that the court could approve the judge to sign the advanced funding agreement once we get an approved bond referendum or -- excuse me --
>> bring it back --
>> bring it back.
>> the judge suggests just bringing the whole package back instead of piecemealing it, I can understand that. Because number one I thought we pretty much had guaranteed source of funding on one end. If one didn't work that b would. But according to what I'm hearing now, we still have to have --
>> yes, I believe so.
>> let's do as the judge suggested.
>> okay.
>> if we have to have legal interpretation for both, do that and bring it back.
>> okay.
>> I would rather do that than to piecemeal it.
>> okay.
>> y'all in agreement with that.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
>> all right. Now if I thought work would get done between Friday and Tuesday, signing it this weekend would make sense
>> [laughter]
>> thanks anyhow, judge.
>> [laughter]
>> see you on Tuesday, mr. Manila. Thank you.
>> [laughter]
>> okay.
>> thank you. Now, number 20 --
>> thank you, steve.
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:
Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:51 PM