Travis County Commissioners Court
March 23, 2010,
Item 14
>> number 14.
consider and take appropriate action on Texas department of transportation call for projects for the pass through toll financing program.
>> good morning judge and Commissioners.
this gentleman with me is charlie watts from the planning department.
he is going to hand out maps to show you where a couple projects are talked about in my backup memo.
first off before I get too far, I did want to explain the name of the program.
it causes some confusion for some folks.
it's calls Texas pass through financing program.
that does not mean it's a toll road.
the actual--
>> pointing that out.
>> thank you, exister Commissioner.
i will give an explanation, the tomorrow nolge guy is statutory and does not emapply that each project must have a physical toll collection compolents.
the proposed project may or may not have the component.
for this program pass through toll means a per vehicle fee or per vehicle mile fee determined by the number of vehicles using the highway.
what would happen, there would be a measurement taken of the volume of traffic for a number of vehicles using a particular road after improvements are made.
based upon that number of vehicles or vehicle miles traveled, tex dot would pay an amount of money to reimburse for our costs.
we came to the course in 2007 for a pass through toll financing project, much larger than this one but it did contain at least the fm 1626 and 2304 projects in this memo.
at that time tex dot was reimbursing all costs, design, rights of way, construction, utility relocation, enk.
when we brought to court we had a private sector partner willing to front all the money unfront and we woo act as go between between tex dot and them.
the current rules we're only allowing for reimbursement of construct costs.
so if the court were to decide to go forward with an application, we would be on the hook for the design, the permitting, the utility relocation, the right-of-way acquisition, and we would be reimbursed for the construction costs but over a long period of time.
what we have seen from examples that have been provided to us by tex dot, the reimbursement could take place in a ten, 15 or 20-year window.
so what I wanted to explain to the court is if there's an interest in doing this, first of all, it's precedent setting for us to go out and build a state highway.
second thing is we would need to be able to act pretty quickly.
deadline for turning an application is may 11.
to help, if court wanted to do this to help us make sure that we met the deadline, I suggested in the backup that we use clots associates to help us with the application.
helped us with the application done back in 2007 and some of the information from that application they may be able to extract and put towards this application.
that is for the 1626 and 2304 project.
if the court wanted to do 973 project, I would propose we use the consultant that tex dot had been using and we would work with purchasing to get them under contract very quickly.
i provided an example in the backup of two projects that I felt were pretty important to us.
keep in mind we can only do projects on the state highway system.
one of them was in the manor area and it is essentially a manor by pass that would interconnect with 973 south of manor and then head into northeasterly direction and tie in with us 290 on the east sides of manor.
tex dot go off some cost estimates for construction alone $46 million.
that included a full blown typical section which is five lanes with paved shoulders and bridges at railroad crossings.
high ticket item.
tex dot had been doing work on it and started into the design and their funding went away.
right now the project is kind of in lim bo.
the project in the southwestern part is a piece of fm 2306 and fm 23004.
this particular project was mentioned in a resolution that the court approved a few months ago.
whether enwe came to you and advised you of the pass through toll project for hays county which was to improving fm 1626 from within hays county up into Travis County and terminate at brody lane, no one in this court thought that was a good idea dumb -- dumping all that traffic.
the court approved a resolution, that said if you are going to do that we would object unless you can extend the project to include this section of these projects that you can see on your map, a piece of 1626 from yode bree --brody lane to manchaca road and then up to ravens crossing.
each leg about a mile long.
put together some come tages and based upon what--computations based on what we think how long it would take to get paid back, assuming the traffic volume estimates are correct, we could be paid back within ten years or 15 years.
again depending on traffic.
quite a bit of a questions mat --guesstimate on how traffic is going to behave.
there is some risk in the actual pay back period.
that is the basics of it.
i would recommend if the court wants to do this, and maybe talk with pbo about how much of the amount of debt that I'm talking about in here, we could possibly afford, and if we can, if it's too much, then my recommendation would be to do the 1626 and 2304 project and maybe come back in a future year for the 973 project if the court wants to do that.
any questions?
>> in terms of traffic counts, what are the numbers for 973 today and 1626?
>> charlie?
>> 973 (inaudible) and for 1626, almost double at about 13,800 to 15,000 vehicle per day.
>> well, what, I'm sorry, judge.
>> let me hear those numbers again.
>> for fm 1626, 13,800-14,600 per day in 2008.
and currently on 973, for 2008, 6 h 700-7,600 vehicles per day.
>> what is the--
>> almost half.
>> there's a different number for 2304 in the backup.
it says 13,600.
>> that is correct.
>> for 2304, 13,600, as you go further north on 2304, it's up to 26,000 vehicles per day.
>> what number should we keep in mind?
13,000 or 26,000?
>> I would say that the 973 project volume-wise is considered about half of what the 1626 and 2304 project is.
a current volume.
>> the memo addresses the need for 973.
so is it on tex dot's radar to get it done?
>> yes, sir, it is.
they were actually working on the design and the environmental clearance on it.
then because of the revisions they had to pull over.
so they are not working on it today.
>> so how will they respond to the question, when do you plan to construction the 973 project--construct the 973 project?
>> if we were to do it for them?
>> no, when would tex dot do it?
>> when would tex dot do it?
we have talked to them about improving fm 973 in the vicinity of whisper valley close to this area we're talking about.
told by the engineer it's not on the radar screen and 15-20 years out before they would pick it up again.
but from my own observations, if money were to come to them or the project were to become suddenly very important because of perhaps higher accident rates they may move it up sooner.
that is what I was hearing from tex dot, 15-20 years.
>> 15-20?
>> yes, sir.
>> judge?
all right.
my point, I think the need is there.
the growth conditions to be there.
and of course looking at this, both 1626 and also fm 973, it appears that an opportunity that we can maybe look at this.
however, can you tell me what the length is from 290, fm 973, down to whisper valley?
what is the length of that road per se linear?
what would be that length?
>> approximately three and three quarters mile.
>> three and three quarters of a mile.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
i understand manor has been really trying to push to provide the least cost.
probably would be traffic that would be coming through manor and stuff like that.
so would be kind of a bypass especially with the traffic embarking through there.
i know they probably are in full support of this particular effort.
now, basically you spoke of the reimbursement of this.
but if we look at both of these projects, and steve, if I'm being veered off to another direction, please correct me.
if we looked at in total both these projects and look at what the payback as far as reimbursement is concerned by tex dot, basically we may be talking about what percentage?
about 85 percent as far as reimbursement?
in other words, the amount of money that it costs to do the projects, plus the amount of money that tex dot would be, would reimburse us on this particular matter since they don't do it a hundred percent anymore.
the percentages of course have changed since they first initiated that.
would the percentage be around 85 percent?
>> adding unat --up the design and construction costs, it would be about a 85 percent reimbursement.
however, if the cost of right-of-way is higher than expected, if we run into design issues, it could be up or down.
>> I was running the numbers.
at least on 2306 and 1626, looks actually like it's 77 cents on the dollar if you add in right-of-way and engineering.
i'm taking a number of $18.4 million in cost to the county with reimbursement of 14.25 million.
>> I'm adding all together k Commissioner.
>> I see, combining.
>> combining both.
in other words, I didn't want the fm 973 issue to slip off the table.
just trying to keep it before us also.
>> okay.
>> so that is what I was doing.
now, looking at the, there has to be involvement level that tex dot looks towards counties or cities for participation level according to them allowing the pass through financing reimbursement process to go through.
>> [one moment for change in captionsers, please]
>> we could enter into a contract with them, but we would need to have at least the design money.
if you were to do both projects, four million dollars, my understanding from txdot is that their application needed to be in by may 11th.
the transportation commission will make their decisions in December on who gets what.
keep in mind there's only $300 million available statewide for this program.
it will be very competitive.
they will make sure of which applications they want entered in.
the last year they required txdot staff to complete the negotiations and have the agreements in by the end of the year.
so by the end of this year we would have to have that four million dollars available to sign an agreement with them for the project.
and then two years out I would say two to three years out, after we get through the design and the need for process as well, we could start buying right-of-way.
that could take a year, year and a half to do.
after that we would ask for the money for that in that particular fiscal year process.
fine lien we would need to have the construction dollars.
we would need all the construction dollars up front before we could award the construction contracts.
that's the big thing that we would need out four to five years.
>> but this has been around a little bit, but I think Williamson county has also participated in a pass-through financing mechanism.
just the city of Austin, I think, has also participated in it have you heard anything that would not be -- that could be maybe a babier or something out -- barrier or something they did as to those two entities that would maybe -- maybe we should look at as far as the county is concerned as a tool to be embraced?
>> I have not.
many counties have entered into agreements with txdot and you're right, stint did just recently for the direct connect ramps down to the south end of loop 1.
in talking with pbo there's a concern that we front all this money up, we'll lose interest on it.
txdot is saying that they're only going to reimburse us for construction costs, but also in the guidelines for -- for the program, it states that we'll sit down and negotiate a lot of these points with txdot, the term of reimbursement, how much -- what the rate is per vehicle measured, how long it will take to get the improvements done and how long it will take to pay us back.
i get the impression from reading their information that that's all negotiable.
and if there were a particular issue that the court said we just don't want to back down on, we could cease negotiations at that point and pull out.
>> where does txdot get their money to pay back the local applicant who has taken all the risk on this?
>> what I've read in the program --
>> is it federal funds?
>> any pool that they have available to them.
so it could be federal or state funds.
>> they have to apply for those federal funds as well to keep their pool of money available so that they can pay back the local applicants?
>> I don't know that that makes sense that they would have to.
>> they would have to keep making their own applications for the money to pay us back.
and then do I understand that in order to move through with the application, we have to have the construction money in hand?
>> we would have to have the construction money in hand at the time we want to award the construction contract, which could be my guess four to five years from the time we actually execute the contract?
because we would go through the design process first, take perhaps two years and then the right-of-way acquisition process another two to two and a half years.
>> our own process here in trying to come up with projects that we can put on the bond election ballot is a much more sure thing given the fact that we can take all this time to come up with the numbers and study how we're going to find the money to have in place and then have the bond election and then have the money available to -- as soon as the money is available, then we get down to constructing.
and it seems to me like we've cut down our risk so much more, and we don't have to do all this stuff on having to have things in place, therefore while you make -- while you make application.
>> (indiscernible).
>> then they may not pay us back and they will keep negotiating on them paying us back.
it's a real dicey thing to me.
>> I spoke with carlos this morning, the area engineer, to get a real feel about the questions you're asking.
and first of all, one of the points that's negotiated that you may have mentioned, but I didn't hear is that in the negotiation part of the contract there will be a minimum and a maximum number paid back on an annual basis that will be assured.
>> correct,.
>> secondly, if this passes the second round of application and indeed becomes a project, their debt repayment, at the transportation commission, takes priority over any of their other projects.
so he says there doesn't -- that's the priority, so there should be no risk.
because I was concerned about that.
but that priority is there.
>> if they have the money.
>> yeah.
>> well, and also -- well, he said it would also have federal money, so it may be -- I don't know if it would be a mix with federal and something else, but there will be some federal money in there.
and the reason I had asked the question about federal money was because if there's federal money it requires the federal environmental process, which is a longer process, and they would require the need for process.
>> when do we need to act in order to allow staff sufficient time to meet the application deadline?
>> I would love it if you could act today, judge.
may 11 is only about 35 working days to get the application completed.
i was just assuming that we would do one, not both.
if we're going to do both we really need to get started.
>> all right.
you mentioned getting also help to get the application together.
how much will that cost and what's the source of funding?
>> we have spoken with claws and associates.
they are the associates that helped us with the --
>> how much with that cost?
>> $18,500 for the fm 1626-2304 project.
i don't have a figure for the 973 and I'm not sure what the consultant is that txdot was using, but we will talk to that consultant.
>> we need to look at that also.
>> what's the source of funding?
>> we were going to use road and bridge fund I think for this.
>> let's take two citizens, then we'll get mr.
rhodes and then we'll allow the court another round of questions.
mr.
baker was here earlier and mr.
priest.
comments?
>> thank you.
my name is roger baker.
i think that there's a lot of red flags, and I think you can already tell this.
i think that the pass-through tolls are a bad precedent and there's -- I think this is strong financial medicine that you only ought to use with great caution.
the reason that you're considering this is because of the funding crisis and not because of a traffic crisis.
i'll pass around a couple of things that will allow you to see that traffic has been flat probably for most of the last decade in Travis County.
we know this from the official txdot
>> [ inaudible ].
>> how many copies of this do you have?
>> I just made two.
if you can pass them around.
texas-wide traffic went up only one-10th of a percent in the last year.
in other words, it would take 100 years to go up even 10 percent at the current rate statewide.
the way I see it is that txdot is coming to you saying we found a little money and we'd like to show you an exciting new bay to invest it -- new way to invest it and hays and Williamson county be plunging big time, so you should too.
so I say it's a new policy and a very risky, bad financing habit.
what's really going on is that txdot didn't manage their money very well, so they're trying to shift funding responsibility from txdot to Travis County.
it says here cons for the county.
county takes on state responsibility in addition to 1200 miles of county roads and non-state arterials.
there's a whole list of cons for the county.
i think what we're asking to do here is sort of an analogous problem to txdot shifting responsibility to the ctrma that in this case they're shifting funding responsibility to the county.
since driving and fuel consumption are pretty flat in Texas, the road funds are flat, so your funding problems are actually caused by a change in driving behavior.
and this alone indicates that you shouldn't be enticed into trying to solve your old type of congestion problems in risky new ways.
roads should pay on -- I think you should have a policy of roads paying for themselves until you're sure what the road travel trends are in this county and that they really are going up and that there really will be the traffic that will pay off all of the debt that you would be entering into with this kind of agreement.
let's let the dust settle on our current funding problems.
use the money for maintenance where you know that you'll get a lot of good out of your money.
and you know, there's congestion on these roads, but there's congestion all over this county.
all you're doing is shifting congestion and encouraging traffic in new areas if you pick out one or two roads.
so I would say beware.
>> any questions for mr.
baker?
>> thank you.
>> I have one question for mr.
baker.
roger, how would you address -- I think these are very astute observations with regard to the flatness of the overall driving trends, although we are aware that there are some acute areas inside the county, and one of those particular areas is at brodie lane segment.
i hear what you're saying with congestion, to compare brodie lane congestion to, as I believe you have or perhaps mr.
bowerman has, to the south lamar congestion.
when you look at a node, a precifting node, there will be congestion.
that's what happens in these circumstances.
how would you suggest addressing the transportation infrastructure to support already existing nodes at manchaca, brodie and buda, the triangle of nodes.
>> there ought to be priorities.
where is the worst congestion and the worst problems and where is the most bang for the buck?
and I know that txdot and other people have their own agenda, but is this the smartest use of our limited and shrinking number of public dollars?
>> and similarly, we also have some node -- some preexisting -- nodes that have existed for 50 years in the other project that we're considering as well.
and with regard to manor, webberville, the manor, webberville and east Austin, Travis County node, there is very little grid in that portion of the county to support the kind of growth that we expect.
>> well, the kind of growth that who expects?
can you afford to provide infrastructure for growth in every part of the county?
i think there's -- I think you will have to make some hard choices.
>> mr.
priest?
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners, morris priest, speaking on behalf -- I too agree with the comments earlier made by Commissioner Gomez.
when we look at debt, we have to look at debt.
it's just enormous debt that's going to be generated by this pass-through financing.
and I'm glad that you did call it pass-through toll financing and I'm very familiar with funding schemes of txdot and I know it's not a toll road, but it is a toll in a sense due to the financing.
we've seen even with toll roads just used as an example, we give this enormous debt and then the county is having problems paying the ctrma for using the toll roads and things.
but this type of financing, the debt is just astronomical and it's not -- it doesn't matter how good of a project it is.
just the scheme of financing itself, which there are no assurances paying out these 18,000-dollar figures, paying awe two million for one road, two million for another.
this debt we may never get the project in the first place.
that's my biggest problem with this.
you may not get this project in the first place.
it's a real gamble.
it a roll of the dice.
it's worse than buying a television that you could find on sale somewhere at a department store for $400, but then you go a rent to own place basically and pay $2,500 for the same product.
and that's the best analogy I can give you for this type of financing.
we have come to this court and we have come to campo and I've come to roger and dick and other people and we've given this county and this campo board and txdot solutions, design better intersections if these issues that Commissioner Eckhardt was talking about, synchronize our lights, get traffic lights up for people that's been crying for years to get them, and most of the issues that we have can be handled with (indiscernible), which I've been asking that txdot and the campo board and this board to get a uniweed manager.
but we also have situations where we're having cross walks at mid block and bike lanes like on nueces and most of this congestion is not properly utilizing the roads that we have in the manner that they should be by synchronization of traffic lights, by having traffic lights in areas they should be in.
so what I'm saying to you is I hope that this is hands down voted down, the financing of this enormous waste of money debt is just astronomical.
and if we keep doing financing like this we'll be driving around on dirt roads.
we're already suffering and I agree with what mr.
baker mentioned earlier.
we have some severe maintenance as well as safety issues and I think when we look at transportation we need to look at funding first, but the second we need to look at maintenance and safety, and I think that this would just be a deplorable, horrendous decision if this court goes with this type of financing.
we've seen it with txdot on the toll roads, using the stimulus money, for flyovers and things.
and I just think that another thing, too, I'm tired and I'm not directing this to any of our staff.
i think we have the finest county staff in the world, but these lies -- because I'm not going to call it a mischaracterization.
these lies from txdot, oh, it will be 20 years before we look at this again, and we've seen that never once.
they can't give me an example that that's ever happened.
so yeah, we're dealing with some liars here.
>> morris, I really appreciate what you're saying.
yesterday when during my agenda briefing session I had a conversation and I polled the question to steve at that time.
i said steve, let's look at this for what it is as far as financing is concerned.
and of course, I didn't agree with the stimulus package being used for that manor express and all this other kind of stuff on it 90.
i opposed all of that.
however, in this particular situation I asked steve a question about this is a lot of money and the total will be about $71 million for both projects, 1626 and also fm 973.
you look at both of those and you combine them.
so I asked steve the question, I said I wonder if the voters of Travis County would allow -- as far as this county is concerned, whether the Commissioners court would at that time maybe place some of this on the ballot for an upcoming bond election to pay for the financing of these particular projects, especially the short-term ventures as far as what we will not get reimbursed for, except for over a period of years.
of course in the reimbursement scheme of things as we stand here today with this particular issue for both the projects combined, you're talking about a reimbursement of about $61 million of the $71 million that -- which is the toll of both projects, whether it be paid for in 10, 15 or 20 year reimbursement phase.
but the question comes to be now -- and I asked steve about this.
i said maybe we need to put it on the ballot.
but I'm going to ask legal at this point, what would the bond counsel say or what is the reading of this if the voters of Travis County had an opportunity to vote on this project as far as the future financing of it, and it would be actually a staggered type of financing situation instead of everything up front at one time?
what is the legal aspects on that?
>> I can look at this a little bit more, but it's my understanding from bond counsel that chapter 1479 of the government code provides guidance in these type of transactions.
>> okay.
>> thank you, mr.
priest.
>> if I might make one follow-up comments.
>> no, sir, we need to go to mr.
rhodes.
>> thank you, judge.
just a couple of points.
pbo received this early last week and we really haven't had much of an opportunity -- as you know we've been knee deep in working to finalize the debt schedule for this upcoming sale.
we have really not had a good opportunity to give this a thorough analysis nor have we had an opportunity to interact with the auditor's office regarding how the pay back could be structured for debt service payments or any other issue that we might be able to -- might have addressed.
a couple of things that I did want to point out, as we were able to look at these -- at the information that we have, Commissioner, you pointed out the 77 cents on dlart.
it should be noted that that 77 cents is for the principal amount only, not the interest amount.
>> and it also doesn't include possible o and m that we might be liable for depending on what the contractual negotiations with txdot would be.
>> correct.
i just wanted to make that point that it did only include the principal amount, not the interest payments.
so that is something to consider.
it would reduce available capacity in terms of looking toward the 2011 voter referendums that we might put out there or could potentially reduce depending on how much capacity the court was willing to take on, so that's something that needs to be pointed out as well.
and I think steve pointed out earlier the 14.2 million using the 1626 and 2304 example, the 14.2 million is for the construction costs only, does not include design, right-of-way, which would push the total for that particular project to 18.4, which we would have to -- we would have to front that as well.
>> and remember historically what we have done in Travis County is take care of local projects, not state projects.
and which is txdot's responsibility.
i kind of don't like to medal in other people's business.
i like to mind my own business.
and I'm a local person and I need to take care of local projects.
and so I think we need to talk about it just a little bit more.
>> mr.
priest, brief final comments and then we'll get to the court.
>> just what I was hearing last week when Commissioner Davis was talking about these certificates of obligations by the land that this county didn't vote on last time, and I just think that this goes against everything that I've heard the members of this court say that they're about.
and I just wanted to reiterate that and I support your comments, Commissioner Davis, and I just wanted to say that this isn't what I've been hearing from the court that they're about.
you do in fact vote for something like this.
>> thank you, mr.
priest.
in fact, I will need another week.
this is a big deal.
now, court members, do you have any comments?
>> yeah.
i just wanted to make a few on 1626, 2304 projects, because I hear some of the discussion of state versus local.
the reality of this is this is very local even though it's state roads in a local area.
we're faced down in that area with the congestion at brodie, and we're -- the 2304 part is actually, if you've been out there, is an incompleted five-lane road from ravens cross south.
this would be finishing what txdot has already started even in doing some of the utility relocations that they have done some of that.
much of the right-of-way is already bought there, but they don't have any plans to finish the project.
and the alternative that's being pushed so hard for the solution to the traffic congestion in this area is 45 southwest, which is an 80 to 100-million-dollar project, brand new, tolled only, that I personally feel like until these -- the 1626, 2304 ploj, which is the natural north-south corridor is finished, that that's the priority to help relieve the congestion on brodie.
and then see how that works that relates to the larger project that txdot has looking at down the road.
secondly -- and I think that we're at a financing paradigm switch.
i agree with everything that's been said on the concerns about precedent setting for pass-through financing for the county.
but because of the financing issues that we face now and in the future, he think that when you're looking at certain key road projects in our local areas that we need to consider these very thoughtfully or else they would never be done.
and on the 1626, 2304 combined project, by my calculation once the county is paid back it would be just a little bit less than three million that we spent out of pocket to possibly deal with a really problematic area down there.
also, I did speak with carlos lopez this morning and the operation and maintenance and liability would be part of the negotiating contract.
so it's not that that's hang outing there necessarily.
>> do we want pbo to do additional analysis on the debt capacity issue?
>> well, yes, especially since if we go this route that takes off the table a certain amount of debt that -- to go on the bond election.
so that means we're going to be rethinking what future plans for the bond election.
and then what that does to -- it will exclude local projects.
>> Commissioner?
>> I have a couple of questions about the two projects as they are.
i mean, frankly it can't be said enough that this is yet another example of txdot specifically and the state generally abdicating their responsibilities and the attendant cost of those responsibilities down to the local level.
I think we all agree on that.
but I have to deal with the facts on the ground rather than the facts as they really ought to have been.
this is a crappy set of facts.
the fact that it's a crappy set of facts doesn't change the facts, however, that the state is -- has not raised its gas tax.
it is not interested in any respect with generating the necessary revenue to meet its responsibilities with regard to the state roadways, so that having been said, it's my understanding that lamar used to be a state road, but it was then subassumed by the local when it became essentially a local arterial.
>> I do not know, Commissioner.
>> I think what we're seeing with 1626, 2304 as well as 973 these have become local issues that support the already existing nodes or activity centers.
from a transportation perspective, it seems that there is some competition between the development of 973 and ghts possible effects on 290 east.
would you -- would you say that that speculation is appropriate?
>> I'm not sure what the question; Commissioner?
>> looking at the map for 973, 973, if it's realigned, would be an alternative to taking 290 east into the city of Austin.
which I don't anticipate txdot being thrilled about doing.
>> it would.
but in a larger scheme here, the number three is the bypass on the map as you're looking at it.
and that is the particular roadway project that the city of manor would like to see plt.
built.
if you look at number eight and 18, that is -- number 18 is already funded.
it's a county bond project.
number 8 is a new project that would allow folks who are coming from the southern part of this map, which is the whisper valley, eastwood, tens of thousands of rooftops, to those who want to go downtown to avoid manor on the west side.
you drive west.
whereas if they stuck with number 3, they have to kind of drive out of their way to the east and then cut back.
txdot has been working on the project, number 3.
they have lost their funding, so they've pulled off, so it was important enough for them to get started.
they got some of the engineering done and the city of manor has been talking to property owners will dedicated right-of-way.
so there has been some work done and again, it's city of minor really wants that project -- stiff manor want wants that project.
of any of these that's the one they want.
i don't know if that answers your question.
>> it does to some extent.
we have existing activity nodes in Travis County, including manor and the other communities that are between manor and 130 -- between manor and 130 as well as between 130 and i-35.
for which the grid system in eastern Travis County is just crap.
it's very difficult to get around in eastern Travis County.
and these are for existing nodes, not sprawl.
now, similarly if you look at 1626 and 2304, the map for 1626 and 2304, both of these projects are about creating grid for existing nodes, not for highways to know where just they incidentally go by existing node, which is the thing that drives me berserk.
and I disagree with Commissioner -- and I agree with Commissioner Huber that this is an opportunity to creating 45 southwest.
this is the creation of an appropriate grid to service existing traffic needs.
i can't express the frustration I have over this hobson's clem ma that we're in because as I look at it your backup is excellent, steve, I really appreciate that, and anyone else in tnr who participated in putting it together.
and as it very aptly states, this program that txdot has created, unlike the previous pass-through financing programs, puts the risk of -- the risk and the cost of right-of-way, the risk and the cost of design, the risk of whatever level of vmt is generated by the road, the risk of increases in construction costs because the price for construction is negotiated up front in the contract, as well as the possibility of o and m on the county for a state road.
this is amazing.
this is an amazing abdication.
and yet I see a tremendous need to create an appropriate grid for both of these communities.
i think we should take a look at what it would do for our debt capacity.
i'm afraid this is an ugly world we're living in where txdot is calling upon the locals to pay up.
>> txdot has not asked us to these two?
>> no, sir.
it's a call for projects.
>> we don't have to do these.
i don't know in a it's fair for us to be super critical of txdot.
they have simply made pass-through financing available statewide to cities and counties, and for those interested in doing it, step up and do it.
>> but these are both roads in the twen 35 happen -- 2035 plan that the state advocated inclusion for the 2035 plan.
>> the state ran out of money and we've known that for years.
that's nothing new.
if we want to do these roads, we can do them.
txdot is not forcing us.
there are other cities and counties to use up the $300 million.
your facts are right, but I don't think it's fair to us to sit here and criticize txdot like they're making us do these two projects, because they're not.
they're saying we'll do pass-through financing and we'll reimburse you for construction costs if you advance the money.
the rest of the costs you eat.
>> frankly, I think that they probably won't choose our projects because they prefer to do 45 southwest and put their eggs in the basket of 290 east.
>> that's more of a reason not to be so critical, especially on these two projects.
>> I think they're preferable projects.
>> it's news to me that we were being considered up to 10 days ago.
i guess either we want to do these or we don't.
i mean, I -- my job is not to defend txdot, but at the same time I think in fairness they're not making us do these.
and if we do these, it will be because we decide to do them.
we stepped up to the plate, saw a local responsibility and we met it.
>> I think it does have an effect on our own local projects and what we decide to do with the next bond election and that's why I'm interested in seeing those numbers and kind of what do we normally -- the amount of debt that we normally put on that a regular bond election ballot.
and then you add these projects, and if we choose to go this way and see how much debt that removes or projects that we would put on the ballot, maybe precinct 1 and three want to take those two projects as their projects, you know, and not be part of the bond election.
because of the debt involved.
so we would kind of work with that debt that's allowed to Travis County in 2011.
so there are different ways of looking at it.
>> anything else from the court?
we'll have this back on next week.
>> I can wait.
>> thank y'all.
>> thank you very much.
i guess we ought to try to figure out what the schedule would be if we do this, okay?
>> yes, sir.
>> as well as what the costs would be to have both of them analyzed with the applications filed if we need outside help, where that will come from, whether there is money in the road and bridge fund to get it done or whether we are looking at the allocated reserve.
>> okay.
>> now, we got two quick items, if we can get to them.
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, March 23, 2010 2:53 PM
