Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, October 26, 2010,
Items 9 and 12
>> now, tnr, if you're nearby, number 9, consider and take appropriate action on the following in precinct 1, a, amendment number one to participation agreement with club deal 120 whisper valley lp for the completion of a section of braker lane from fm 973 to taylor lane.
and b, amendment number one to participation agreement with club deal 116 indian hills tx, lp for the completion of a section of decker road from fm 973 to sh 130 southbound frontage road.
>> morning, judge.
I would like to recommend we pull up item 12 as well, judge.
there are some crossover commonalities here that we will probably be discussing.
>> 12 is to consider and take appropriate action on the following in precinct 2 -- in precinct 1, consider and take appropriate action on the following for wolfe tract subdivision in precinct 1, that's number 12, a approve a preliminary plan, 734 lots on 207.10 acres.
and 12-b is to approve phasing agreement.
>> thank you, judge.
I値l present the item about the amendments and anna will present the item will wolfe creek.
the amendments that are presented today are necessary to enable us to continue working with developers for the construction of two roadways that were included in the 2005 bond referendum as public-private partnership projects.
after the bond was approved by the voters, we entered into participation agreements that spelled out responsibilities and time frames for completing these two products as well as who funds what.
shortly after missing the agreements, it slowed down several of our public-private projects, including these and on top of that it was entered into negotiations for the city of Austin to develop a pid and a pud, which my understanding is now in place.
also they annex -- we are changing the time frames for the completion of of the projects.
for the braker lane project the original end date for completion remains the same, the dates that are changing or related to interim completion dates for the engineering.
according to the original agreement they were to have the project complete and open to traffic by the end of this calendar year and they're not going to make that date.
what they have asked for is about a year and a month extension on that project.
we believe it's still a viable project to get done and we believe that extending it one year will adequately allow them the time to do that.
so we recommend approval of that as well.
in addition to the braker lane project it was phased -- it was originally phased as four separate segments.
previous discussion to the court about issues with floodplain at the intersection of 973 and braker lane.
we agreed to convert two of those phases into one phase to build two lanes of the road, all the way from 973 to taylor lane, rather than piecemealing the project as we went between those two points.
so now upon completion of the first phase, we will have a two lane roadway between those two roadways.
in the event of a flood event at 973 and braker lane, there will be an alternative way for people to get in and out of that arrest then.
we would recommend approval of these amendments.
we have received comments from the park springs neighborhood association.
they are concerned that once these developments take off there will be an awful lot of cars placed on to existing county roadways in the area and they would like to see strong commitments or contractual commitments actually with developers such as these to chip in towards other roads that will help to improve the level of service for everyone in the area.
we have met with developers with neighborhood associations, with the city of manor, the city of Austin and we agree that more than just subdivision roads need to be put into place out there to accommodate all the potential development, wolfe tract is going to be one of those.
that's why anna is here to talk to that.
we have a general agreement with folks to help develop a super phasing agreement, for lack of a better word, to get funds from the private development communities that can be matched with public funds from us and the city of Austin where possible to build other roadways that are outside the limits of the subdivisions, but will certainly be needed to move traffic within the region between 130 and 290 and blake manor road and 973.
so bottom line for this particular agenda item is that we do recommend the amendments for these two particular participation agreements.
they are a requirement of our bond program, and they're not going through the platting process for these two roadways, but we are getting contractual arrangements with the developers to complete these two roadways.
on top of that I would add that the developer for the whisper valley pid has agreed with the city of Austin to take certain steps to address some of the larger transportation issues other than just building braker lane.
in the meantime if we could get anna to speak to the wolff tract.
>> if I could ask one question.
>> we were handed final amendments today.
we had revised amendments in the backup.
so there are significant changes between the two?
>> no, they're not.
we were in negotiation on several points and we did add in language to strengthen our position if the developer does not perform, then we are letting them know right up front that we are reserving our right to take that money and use it on another project and strengthen that language in each one of those agreements.
>> and steve actually, the private-public partnership agreement, things that we're looking in the past, there was some significant shift in the use of their one particular project that went to someone else as far as the money is concerned.
so it's really still following the concept of the original concept of what we were really trying to do as far as getting a relationship under this particular concept dealing with the 2005 bond election.
it would be used appropriately.
of course, this is just a revelation of those kind of things that had happened.
and of course there's been a lot of other things that have happened since then.
we've sent several correspondents to make sure that the correspondents that left from the Commissioners' court -- from my office, per se, as far as going to stint with its pid and other things, we wanted to make sure that the neighborhoods, park springs neighborhood group, mr. Williams and also mr. West, were in tune and locked into this process because what we did not want to see happen is that a project goes forward impacting an area in the regional transportation scheme of things in that particular neighborhood did not have an involvement level from the get go.
and of course they have been involved from the get go.
in fact, the neighborhood, park springs, even have supplied us with additional backup where it kind of leans toward some of the things that as far as what the city did in annexing this particular -- under the annex situation, bringing this in as a p.i.d., looking at this and (indiscernible) basically want to hold our feet to the fire to make sure that the development community is willing to really participate in some of the off site road projects to make sure that the regional transportation funding aspect is still looked at favorably and the commitment from the particular developers in these projects, including eastwood.
in fact, eastwood is also a part of it as far as some of this stuff is concerned.
we're looking at all of this as a regional approach to the transportation concerns out there and to ensure that the infrastructure funding is provided and that commitment to provide the funding is something that we need to underline.
and the county needs to take that position on these things.
so this is really kind of flushing all of this out and I知 glad you did call up item 12 because it is under the wolfe tract subdivision, which is another phase, another part of this.
and then other phases that will be coming in later, wild horse, a whole lot of other things.
so this thing is a big deal because we're all trying to get to the same place, but making sure that the development community are all committed in the -- with commitment in letter or any other type of format a binding situation to make sure that they're available.
we don't want one developer doing something different in the area where we allow a variance in the regional approach sparse bringing the -- as far as bringing the infrastructure online.
we work close with the neighborhood groups out there, with the development community.
and of course here with jodi faulkman.
I know there have been some conversations before when I think mr. Gillian came in before when this project came up sometime ago, there was some discussion made at that time.
and I haven't seen any variance from that type of commitment.
so that's basically some of the overview as far as what we've been doing from this office and of course working with you and tom out of the attorney's office and the neighborhoods and the developers.
so it's kind of been a lot of moving parts here.
so I won't go into anything else.
I know there might be some folks that want to say something on this particular project.
>> ms. Bouldin.
>> yes, sir.
the wolff tract is a preliminary plan in precinct 1.
it is comprised of 734 lots.
it's roughly off of blake manor road and surround odd three sides from the eastwood subdivision, just as Commissioner Davis had said.
one of the things that this prelim that they're -- one of the items on the agenda today is a phasing agreement that speaks to some of the transportation requirements and transportation infrastructure that is required prior to them doing certain platting activities.
in addition to that, in the phasing agreement they do make a commitment to stay at the table as we talk and work through a solution for the regional transportation issues that surround this part of the county.
very similar to what eastwood, the commitment that they made very similar to the commitments that whisper valley and indian hills developers have made.
they're very much aware of the regional transportation situation and I知 glad it was a component of the phasing agreement that deals with the normal things that a subdivision deal would have to address, be it the infrastructure that is required to happen before certain stages of platting.
and in this case there's two connectors that connect to the subdivision and before they can start platting any of them, one of the connectors has to be in place and before they can post -- can final plot the 100th lot, both connections have to be approved and under construction.
>> so we don't have contracts with these developers to force the issue of chipping in to pay for roads outside their subdivision, but we do have verbal written commitments.
they also I think recognize that if these improvements outside the subdivision aren't made, people within their subdivision are going to have a terrible time getting in and out of there.
they're going to have a hard time I think with their projects, with the success of their projects.
so there's some incentive for them to work with us.
and the indications are that they are willing to do that.
they -- the biggest concern is that no one developer is given an advantage over another one.
we'll have tow work through that issue.
the amendments again we recommend approval of.
those ever related to our bond program.
the wolff tract preliminary plan approval, we have a letter of commitment from their attorney similar to what we got with the eastwood.
they're being consistent with how we handle the eastwood preliminary as well.
>> actually, if I may, the overview from their attorney does speak to their commitment, but it's also a component of their phasing agreement that is one of the items on the agenda.
>> okay.
we do have residents here on this item as well as representatives from the applicants.
if you would please come forward.
I guess if y'all could use the two seats on the end there, that would make the other four available.
if you would give us your names, we would be happy to get your comments.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe, Commissioners.
I知 john williams, board member of the park springs neighborhood association.
tom is distributing a statement that we e-mailed to all of you yesterday.
again just to follow-up on the background that ms. Bolin and mr. Manila have given you, the whisper valley and indian hills development have been limited purpose annexed into the city of Austin.
whisper valley in particular have asked for and received a planned unit development, which you folks probably know more about than I do, but it's designed to provide a superior kind of building development to traditional zoning.
and we are convinced that whisper valley will indeed be a superior kind of development and we certainly can support that kind of development in eastern Travis County.
whisper valley is not a traditional subdivision.
it has a significant park and neighborhood parks.
it has provisions for libraries, schools, fire house.
it has neighborhood pedestrian friendly sort of town hall areas that are going to be combined residential business.
so we're convinced and pleased that we're going to have this kind of superior development within the zoned area.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> ...
so we all know exactly who is responsible for what.
if there are deadlines involved, we know what the deadlines are.
all the stakeholders deserve that and deserve it in some kind of legally binding way.
in addition, the developers, these developers, mr. Metcalf and his group have been right at the bat and up front about being willing to go above and beyond the legal requirements to provide some regional roadway improvements.
mr. Harrison, his client, mr. Wolf, have been right along with us during this who process also.
but they deserve the protection of having some kind of contract that's going to bind other developers as they move into the neighborhood as well.
so we ask respectfully but firmly that you come up with some kind of codification.
the reason that whisper valley and indian hills have to come to you now to get an extension is because there was a public-private agreement as a contract.
we ask that you come up with something similar for the entire region.
thank you.
>> thank you.
yes, sir.
>> thank you, my name is tom west.
I知 currently president of the park springs neighborhood association.
as you know, john williams is our most recent president and we're very grateful to have him continue to be involved, but I want to make sure everybody realizes that the entire association is -- at least the leadership association is up to speed on these issues and we will continue to be.
john stated very clearly, I believe, our position and has provided you with a document so I won't take up a lot of time.
other than I just wanted to stress that this is a real quality of life issue for the residents out there.
we're very pleased that you are taking -- and your staff are taking a very serious look at these phasing agreements and willing to or indicate you are very involved in holding feet to the fire.
developers likewise deserve the same treatment and we feel like this will level the playing field.
our incentive -- our role in these documents will be to hold feet to the fire to continue to play an active role.
we -- our voice is we feel important and we also believe that the developers and the future residents will likewise wish to move into a community that is pleased and welcoming rather than one that is aggravated at seeing their own property values, both businesses and residents, harmed by a transportation bottleneck in the area.
all of you know that the major development of Austin is heading out that way.
there's other avenues of development, but in the chronicle several weeks ago, I知 sure you perused those maps carefully and every one of them had a huge black arrow heading our our way.
we feel this is a critical issue for the future of the county.
let's keep working together and we certainly will play our role, so thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Harris.
>> thank you, judge Biscoe, Commissioners.
my name is jerry harris, I知 with brown mccarroll and I represent the wolfs who are here this morning.
ed, wow and your wife stand up and say hi to this Commissioners court.
they've been farming this land since the early 60s and they plan to continue farming it for a good while longer.
they got involved in the planning process and the platting process because eastwood sure surrounds this property on three sides.
and to get connectivity fully considered, the staff advised us that ed would have to file a preliminary plan, and we advised him to do so so that those interconnectivity of the street issues can be addressed fully.
and they've done that and hired the proper consultants and traffic engineers to get that accomplished and we thank everybody for working on that with the wolfs.
the preliminary plan has already been approved by the city.
the traffic analysis has been approved by the staff.
and we've done the phasing agreement, and as far as the regional phasing agreement, we've gone about as far as we can go at this time and we will continue to make that maximum effort.
we've attended all meetings dealing with the regional phasing.
in addition, I think we're the first one that actually put a binding agreement in our phasing agreement which has been executed by the wolfs and will be executed by the county and recorded in the deed records which means it will run with the land and all future owners, if any, will be bound by it.
and that agreement says that they will participate in the regional transportation effort as it proceeds on.
so we've gone about as legally binding as we can do at this particular time and we look forward to doing -- executing future agreements as necessary to proceed.
the only thing I would say that if you have any questions, I have some maps here.
the wolf track is in the green there.
you can see it surrounded on three sides by eastwood.
we bought some property by east woods to give us a 60-foot street out to you all blake manor road.
therefore on behalf of the wolfs, we would ask that the preliminary plan be approved this morning.
if you have any questions, I値l be glad to --
>> is this preliminary plan -- and thank you for your input, especially getting permission from the wolf family to move forward on this particular project.
however, we are looking really, really -- we're really looking hard at the transportation -- regional transportation for infrastructure future off-site road situations.
now, I know you are very aware of what the city of Austin did after this p.u.d.
was established.
of course, annexing had basically a p.i.d.
where you issued bonds and I think they actually will allow funding according to traffic reports and things like that as far as the growth potential in those particular projects, especially in dealing with the indians hills and the situation.
whisper valley situation.
I would like to know if -- and we heard the community ask for a contractual relief, meaning that not only -- they don't -- they don't -- they don't oppose the particular amendments here before us, but the more binding situation is there a possibility or will you be willing or the owners be willing to come in with a contractual situation whereby future -- it may even be a p.i.d., but for whatever financial situation we need to embark on in the future that we will be able to have a contractual arrangement between Travis County and this particular wolf tract, in this particular case, to make sure that the infrastructure aspect of making sure the funding and financial funding is available to make sure all this connectivity actually takes place?
I don't know a letter and I don't know legal, will a letter, a contract at this point -- and I know, mentioned a letter and things coming from the wolf family, but -- and I知 asking legal this, a contract is something more binding more so than a letter, correct?
>> certainly.
a contract is an agreement between two parties.
a letter is a statement by one party.
>> okay.
now, I guess my question is then would your -- the wolf tract family have any objections to the contractual situations since the neighborhoods, of course, have worked real hard with -- and they don't disagree with anything that we're doing here, but they -- their concern is contract, a contractual situation.
would there be any objection from you and far as a contractual situation in this regard?
>> not at all, Commissioner, but let me take this opportunity to clarify this.
that the phasing agreement, agreement being contract, has already been signed by the wolfs.
if it gets signed by the county, it's the very first step in a contractual obligation that is enforceable by the county and it will be recorded in the deed records.
and what that agreement says is that the owners of this property will participate in a regional phasing agreement.
and so it's fully anticipated that that regional phasing agreement will assign some costs to every developer that becomes a part of the regional phasing agreement based on their traffic impact on the system.
so we've already taken that first contractual step, if you will, by making that binding agreement and that will lead to future agreements consistent with that obligation and therefore the wolfs have not objection to proceeding along that line and signing future agreements based on that financial participation in making those regional traffic improvements that everyone sorely needs over time.
>> so do we -- I guess the question really is whether the regional phasing agreement is legally enforceable.
>> I think a lot will depend on how it's instructed, but I think mr. Harris has hit on the big question which is how do you measure every development's traffic and does each dolor agree they are bearing their fair share.
that's where we really don't have anything in place yet, we haven't figured out a way that every developer is happy with that sort of meets out that cost that mr. Harris is talking about that will be borne by each development.
that's going to be the challenge.
>> so the challenge for us is to try to figure out a strategy that will be fair to each and everyone.
>> equally, judge.
>> arrest for their to be an agreement on that, we would have to agree, they would have to agree also.
>> and there's also the issue of how many developers are we talking about here.
you know, some developers out there think they are not having any traffic impact on these roads, but other developers do think they are having traffic impact on these roads.
so, you know, an even more basic issue is which group of development projects are we talking about here.
>> well, in terms of getting a binding commitment from each developer that comes before us regarding contribution toward the cost of impact on the regional transportation system, what's the best language we can come up with now?
because the language that we ask these developers to adopt is the same thing we would ask other developers to adopt as they come forth, right?
>> yes, and, of course, some developers have already been approved I guess with no language in their phasing agreements.
I mean the wolf tract may be ahead of the others just in terms of even agree to go the concept.
>> and to that regard, because I want to be mindful, we've spoken at length under many circumstances about the need to establish what amounts to travelsheds where we recognize a common need for transportation infrastructure that will have positive impacts for many developers including existing neighborhoods.
to that point, because we have these projects that are currently in the pipe, but we have some other projects that have already been approved that won't be subject to the public-private partnership case-by-case basis here, under a p.i.d.
arrangement, don't we have latitude regarding to fund the improvement to actually go back and reach the other beneficiaries who may have already brought their plats through?
>> well, p.i.d.s., meaning public improvement districts, must be consented to by the landowners.
so if you have a group of landowners agreeing to be in a p.i.d., you can apportion the cost to all the land others using a travelshed concept or whatever.
the ones already approved, if they are not willing to join the p.i.d., we can't bring them in against their will.
>> but isn't it a majority vote, majority acquiescence by the landowners?
>> yes, and there's a couple of different tests.
there's basically majority of ownership and majority of value.
>> uh-huh.
>> so that you couldn't draw a p.i.d.
that included a lot of small tracts and those voters outvote the one big landowner.
it's not like majority vote, but it's not -- it's not true that there has to be 100% consent.
>> but I guess where I知 going here is there does seem to be a sincere desire to collaborate here among both existing residents as well as the developers for future residents.
to do some kind of mechanism that isn't a case by case public-private partnership.
because my concern -- I have genuine concern for developers who come late to the game, want to do the right thing and end upholding the bag for those who got in early.
that if we can establish -- I would -- I would favor a public improvement district.
how would you feel about that, mr. Harris, as opposed to a public-private partnership on a case-by-case basis.
>> well, I think the wolfs are willing to consider a public improvement district participation.
they haven't really been approached about that, but I致e done some and I will advise them of that.
it's actually just another mechanism to add some taxation for the improvements to a particular area that will benefit from those improvements.
and so I promise you they have no problem with that concept and will be willing to meet with whomever regarding it, developers, neighbors or representatives of the county.
>> I appreciate that.
>> you saw how the city, mr. Harris, you saw how the city worked with the -- with the whisper valley valley, indian hills type situation under p.i.d.
scenario and you are aware of that.
>> yes.
>> and see the neighborhoods out there, and that's why I brought that up earlier, I want to make sure this neighborhoods set that aside in their statement, the park springs neighborhood group kind of sat that aside as an example for us to look at, this court, to look at how the whisper valley, indian hills concept worked on the p.i.d., using p.i.d.
bonds and stuff like that.
I知 not speaking for the neighborhood, but according to what their statement is, they thought that was something that we could look at to especially when we're trying to hold a standard whereby this would be a regional approach to the traffic congestion that will be anticipated from growth in this -- in this particular corridor along that 6 on 130 and 290 and fm 963 and all over the place, blake manor all in that area there, they have anticipated that.
and park springs I guess have been above -- ahead of this process and especially by invitation on -- as I stated earlier on, a lot of things that we've tried to notify them to let them know what's going on at the city.
we've sent letters from this office to the city of Austin to let them know that what we were in support of and see if they could -- they could actually go and dove-tail into some things that we suggested that they could do.
so p.i.d.
is another concept.
I致e thrown out p.i.d.
because I don't know where the owners are.
you know the owners and I do not.
and --
>> the owners are wanting to go along with all planning and possibilities with a fair look at all tools that might be in the toolbox including p.i.d.s or other devices over than phasing ingredients to go along with everything that's already in place that requires posting at fiscal at the time of final plat, and they are aware of that and I will visit with them further about p.i.d.
and where the p.i.d.s are on whisper valley and make sure that they are up to speed on what that involves.
once again, I can just tell you that they have no built-in negative thoughts about the possibility of being included within the boundaries of a public improvement district.
>> right, okay.
well, tom, let me ask this question.
since the city has already issued a p.i.d., per se, in the development of the indian hills and whisper valley aspect and, of course, they had limited-purpose annexation and all this other kind of stuff, can the county piggyback on that or do we have to -- to make sure that that is in place especially in that particular example, and how do we ensure that that will actually end up happening according to what the city has put up under the p.i.d.
guidelines for the release of the bonds for those p.i.d.s?
how will that -- how do we -- how can the county be reassured that the concerns of the neighborhoods as far as what they brought up as -- especially with the growth and the traffic congestion or the impact of traffic that will occur in the future, how can the county be assured that will actually take place if it's a city p.i.d.
as far as bonds are concerned.
>> well, it is a city p.i.d.
which means the city council would make the decision whether to issue the p.i.d.
bonds to fund a part of the whisper valley infrastructure that they have said they want to finance other than -- the city, as you know, did commit before issuing those bonds to take a look at the traffic issues that are being raised by the park springs neighborhood association, but ultimately it's a city decision, so I think the best the county can do is continue working --
>> with the city.
>> -- with the city.
and let me add this, this is in the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
now, a county can create its own public improvement district in the extraterritorial jurisdiction, but the city can veto it.
so if -- a possibility of a p.i.d.
here, we would need to work with the city to make sure they are comfortable with it.
at this point I think you're getting into financial issues.
I mean the city may look at the county creating a p.i.d.
as having a negative impact on what the city wants to do with its p.i.d.
so either way, it's going to be a case where we have to closely coordinate with the city.
and let me point out one final thing.
the big advantage of a p.i.d.
or even a -- some sort of road district, the county has done road districts before, is that allows to you debt finance the infrastructure.
under the regional phasing agreement, the cost, the fee is being paid per lot essentially.
so all of the -- under the regional phasing agreement approach, all of those developments are going to have to build out and all of those roof places -- rooftops are going to be in place before the county has money to build a road.
soar in in other words, the roads are going to have to be catching up with the development out there.
under a road district or public improvement district, you can debt finance and then the payments that each lot makes, whether it's in the form of a ad valorem tax payment under a road district or p.i.d.
assessment, are used to pay off that debt.
but the benefit is you get to build the roads before all the rooftops are in place.
so you avoid, interestingly enough, the kind of situation you have with brodie lane where the whole area is built out and the road is improved.
with the public improvement district or some debt financing vehicle you avoid that.
you get the external roads, the infrastructure built before all those rooftops are in place.
>> okay.
all right.
>> also, tom, with the p.i.d., it seems that we also have -- the language provides a degree of sensitivity and perhaps sophistication with regard to the assessment.
any other manner the results in imposing equal shares of the cost on properties similarly benefited.
so that gives us some latitude to be creative from a policy perspective with regard to similarly benefited, as well as the reasonable apportionment or classification between the city and the county, which is -- it seems to me that it's a -- it's the right horse to ride to get the greatest degree of collaboration and tightes fit for the need.
>> well, I have no qualms with this, and especially if the owners are willing to accept the p.i.d.
concept on this particular project, you know, approve this particular preliminary plan, going to the phasing agreement along with the letter, but also in addition to that the owner -- of course, the county can offer p.i.d., but we hear from legal the owners must also be in agreement with the p.i.d.
acceptance.
and I guess, tom, as far as the drafting of the particular p.i.d.
language, if I was to make a motion to -- to just that effect that I just stated, how would that language be infiltrated or introduced into -- see, we have amendments before us today, but how would they be introduced into the -- the overall scheme of things as far as the motion is concerned to maybe approve, this but how -- with the agreement of the owners that we also enter into a p.i.d.
agreement.
>> well --
>> or would that have to be a separate item as posted today?
or would it have to be?
I知 just asking.
>> well, anna, mr. Harris said there was language in the phasing agreement that addresses this.
>> well, there's language in the phasing agreement.
it's item 1-e.
they are using the term regional phasing agreement in here because quite frankly that's the term I致e always used with the community because although we've talked about p.i.d.s and road districts, I use the term regional phasing agreement just to kind of -- I don't know how -- what exact solutions we're going to get to, but it's a regional problem and we're going to need to address it.
so there is language in this existing phasing agreement that's before you today "-.
>> 1-e?
I didn't see it.
I saw it in the letter.
>> it's on the top of page 3 of seven of the phasing agreement.
it should have been in the backup.
>> so the regional phasing agreement would be in lieu of --
>> no, no, this phasing agreement that's spoken of in the backup memo actually is for improvements required for their subdivision, very similar facing agreement type language.
in addition to that, there is --
>> only for roads internal or immediately --
>> well, right.
but in addition to that there is a paragraph that says the owner shall participate in a regional phasing agreement that will allow for a joint effort with the other developments within the area of the property to provide traffic mitigation measures for roadways and intersections impacted by the development of the wolf subdivision and other developments within the area of the property.
so my read, and I知 not our attorney, but my read is that they do contemplate that -- in addition to the facing agreement just for their subdivision, that there's a regional problem that will need a regional solution and that they will be on the table.
mr. Harris, am I reading that correctly?
>> exactly.
and once again, this is a recordable document that will run with the land.
>> okay.
>> from the legal perspective, I look at that language and it says the owner shall participate in a regional phasing agreement.
well, for their to be an agreement, everyone has to agree.
it really says we will agree to try to agree.
>> but that's the best we can do without having the details before us.
>> yes.
>> judge and Commissioners, before you make any motion, I did want to let you know that we do have representatives from whisper valley and indian hills here, steve metcalf.
he can answer some of the questions.
>> our discussion so far has been on item 12.
>> that was just 12.
>> is there a motion on 12?
>> yeah, I move approval of item 12.
and I want to make sure that on the record, jerry, if you will state for us on the record, if I heard you correctly, that even though this regional phasing agreement is something we have in place, I want to make sure that the p.i.d.
implications may need to be something we need to look at in the future.
because if -- if the wolf tract folks are interested, and I know this may be the best we can do at this time, I want to make sure that's a part of this particular discussion.
>> Commissioner, for the record, the wolfs are on regard through their attorney jerry harris, but they will participate as the owners of the wolf tract, and any discussions, meetings relating to the possibility of creating a county p.i.d.
or if this property somehow gets annexed a city p.i.d.
and will participate fully in any meetings that are called or in discussions in full, and they have no negative thought in their mind right now about p.i.d.s and are very accepting of that possibility.
does that do it for you?
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> mr. As mrs.
wolf you don't have objection to that.
the motion covers approval of the preliminary plan plus the phasing agreement that contains the language that ms. Bolin referenced and mr. Harris agreed with.
>> exactly.
>> mr. Williams, additional comments?
>> no.
I just wanted to remind the court, however that is correct the wolf tract, and I知 delighted with everything that's been said, but the wolf tract is, what, 200 acres?
200 some, roughly 200 acres.
it's a very small part of the regional problem.
mr. Metcalf, and I realize you are on item 12 --
>> we're going to mr. Met calf right now.
any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
not to cut you off, mr. Williams, you were in the middle of a sentence.
mr. Metcalf.
>> one of the leaders indeed, it was he who first suggested to our neighborhood association that we try and get some kind of a regional group together, and it's thanks to his efforts that last summer of 2009 and early fall of 2009, there were several meetings involving county, city of Austin, city of manor, five or six developers at campo.
but the big players in there are mr. Metcalf's clients, whisper valley, indian hills, over 2,000 acres, after the eastwood tract which is about 700 acres.
and there's some other players north and perhaps south also.
but you're looking at a total now of the three that we know about and are sort of on the radar of roughly 3,000 acres.
mr. Metcalf can speak for roughly two-thirds of those.
and then you need to talk to the others.
>> thanks so much.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Metcalf, you've heard our discussion today.
>> yes.
>> now, steve, what's before us on this is -- well, are two amendments.
and both of them really extend the deadline for accomplishment of certain things.
>> correct.
>> but there's also language that deals with exactly what we've been discussing in item number 12, right?
>> we did not cover the participation in a regional type of a development.
I don't think we have that kind of language in this.
>> so there's -- the language that anna had pointed out in the phasing agreement or the wolf tract, there isn't any such language in this amendment to the facing agreement for whisper valley, although we do have a letter from terry irian.
>> and we also have the p.i.d.
agreement with the city.
>> and the p.i.d.
agreement with the city.
>> which cindy can elaborate on if you have questions.
>> anything we've said so far that troubles you, mr. Metcalf?
>> no, absolutely not, and I think you guys have done a good job of describing about what we agreed to with the city of Austin in our p.i.d.
which is as part of the p.i.d., as part of any bond issuance under the p.i.d., and there will be a series, so each time a bond issuance occurs the city of Austin will look at the roadway network and see what the off-site situation is and take that into consideration in determining whether to issue bonds and what to issue them for.
and so we -- we are already committed to do that.
we have no problem with the county also looking at a p.i.d.
I know tom has got a tough job trying to figure out the right mechanism to do this because all of them have their challenges.
and we had suggested early on a phasing agreement where we have a per lot fee.
and we're willing to do that too if that's the regional decision on how to do this.
tom has pointed that brings in the money sort of behind because the road -- because the rooftops on the ground before you actually have fees coming in.
you know, p.i.d.s have their challenges too, as tom pointed out, you have ownership issues, but if you have a large enough area, you know, you only have to have a majority vote.
so you could pull people in even if they are not necessarily wanting to do that.
you know, another challenge with p.i.d.s, by the way, people can only be assessed according to state law for their proportionate share of the impact of something.
that would limit the amount the p.i.d.
would cover.
but we're open to any of these mechanisms, and we actually I think in some backup we gave you, we came up with a matrix on how about how to fund a per-lot fee.
again, per-lot fees have their challenges.
but we came up with a matrix on how you can fund a per-lot fee, and we're willing to do any of those type of things.
>> tom, let me ask this question.
since the city has basically limited purpose to annex this particular area, what authority does the city have -- or the county have within the confines of that particular annexed area?
in this particular planned unit development.
the city of Austin, of course, have done their limited purpose, per se, and zoned in a whole bunch of other things that come up under this.
and I guess my question is, what role will -- does the county have to play now even though it's out in the e.t.j.
and stuff like that, what role does the county have to play in that particular aspect of it?
>> areas that are limited purpose annexed are still considering extraterritorial jurisdiction for purposes of subdivision platting and roads.
so whisper valley and indian hills will still have to get a preliminary plan and plats approved by to the, and until they are annexed by the city the roads will be subject to the jurisdiction of the county out there.
>> and the reason I brought that point up, I want to make sure that the relationship that the county and the city have in this particular indian hills and whisper valley aspect of the subdivision, especially if the city is already submitted and brought this in under a p.i.d.
concept where they will be able to issue the bond and things like that or release the bond according to what the traffic reports and all these other kinds of things mr. Metcalf in that particular subdivision.
the relationship is well intact and how we can coordinate that.
and he brought up another point, if we're going to do a per-lot type situation as far as fees for lot, or either another p.i.d.
but if the county was to put a p.i.d.
in this same general area, did I understand you to say the city could actually veto a county p.i.d.
in the e.t.j.?
>> in the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
>> I thought that's what you said.
>> which is not such a bad thing because they need to protect their investment that they've borrowed money on this.
but mr. Metcalf, perhaps you could eliminate for us -- because as I知 looking at the list of improvements that you can do mid-for, it appears to me what we would be looking at in regard to utilization of public improvement district or some other mechanism probably is not covering the same infrastructure that the city of Austin's agreement with you all is covering.
>> that's exactly right.
>> so can you describe the kind of movements the city of Austin public improvement district is covering?
>> sure.
mostly it's covering water and wastewater infrastructure.
>> and that's under the public utility district, correct?
under the p.u.d.?
>> under the p.u.d.
but some of the structure is off site.
we're bringing water lines and wastewater lines a long way.
also some internal roads.
probably some park improvements.
and that's probably most of it.
I mean there will be other things that possibly come up, but mostly it's utilities, park improvements and internal roads.
>> so with regard to the city of Austin's concern with regard to public improvement district that we might contemplate, it would be an infrastructure that is not that which they've already entered an agreement with y'all.
so the -- I just wanted to raise that because the probability that the city of Austin would have issues with it is remote because these are things that they would are desirous of as well.
>> so would you agree to if the county -- even though the city may.
want to veto it, but if the county was to look at some type of mechanism to ensure the roads, especially the off site and things like that is correct or the infrastructure in this particular region, infrastructure improvement situation out in the area, what would you agree -- what would be your agreement on the type of arrangement that you would be looking at after hearing what we've heard today from the neighborhood, especially from the wolf tract folks, from mr. Williams and those folks with the park springs neighborhood, you've heard their concern.
and thank you for having such an open door to my office but also to mr. Williams in the park springs neighborhood group.
what would be your -- your -- your -- your -- intentions as far as wanting to go have a commitment to -- to -- to meet the ends of that particular request in this discussion today?
>> well, I think I would be in the same position that mr. Harris is.
we're willing to look at any of these mechanisms. You know, I do think that it's going to take some time for the county to figure out which is the right way to do this.
it's an important thing, but as long as you say fair or even-handed way of doing it where one developer is not overburdened, I think we would be able to do that.
let me point out one other thing.
and I think tom pointed this out, which is very haven't even come in with preliminary plans yet.
we still have to come through the same process that the wolf tract just did.
so we're back in here a few more times before we're done talking to y'all.
so we've got a lot of time between now and when we're actually going to have houses on the ground so come up with this system.
>> which is a good point.
and, of course, hearing these things, coming in with a preliminary plan and being able to echo with this major development, I think it's something we can look forward to doing.
but I wanted to make sure that the commitment is there and we hear that from you as far as the matter of record here today.
because this is something that the neighborhood folks and others have been really working hard on.
and so I have no problem with that type of commitment as you come forward.
I just wanted to make sure it's all laid out thoroughly, and wee will at the particular amendments and things like that within your particular item that you have before this Commissioners court on item number 9.
and I have no problem with this, and there may be other comments that someone may need to make on this, but I just wanted to make sure we're in the same record before I make a motion.
>> the answer so your question is yes.
>> that's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
are you with the -- mr. Metcalf.
any other comments?
>> no.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
we've got three or four items we need to get to before noon.
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, October 26, 2010 2:00 PM
