Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, January 18, 2011,
Items 8, 11, and 19
>> item no.
8 is to approve moisk of no.
1, the contract number ps 100185 je, klotz and associates inc.
for the financing program services, and close to that one is r, 13, and also no.
19, but I guess we ought to lay 8 out first and then we ought to jump to 13 before we take action on it, I think.
>> judge, it's actually items 8 and 11 and 19.
>> okay.
call 11 up.
>> yes.
>> 11 is to approve modification to no.
1 to contract no.
ps 1186 je, lja engineering & surveying inc.
for the pass-through financing program application services, and the other one that's closely related is 19?
>> 19 and no.
8 as well.
>> okay.
we read first, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> 11.
19 is to consider and take appropriate action on requests to provide resolution, acknowledging that Travis County will assume responsibility for abandoned sections of state highway in the unincorporated areas that result from the realignment of fm 973 if the county is selected to participate in the Texas department of transportation's 2011 pass-through toll financing program in precinct one.
>> okay.
thank you.
what's presented to you today are recommendations from tnr to submit a 2011 application for Texas -- for the -- txdot's pass-through finance toll program.
we submitted last year's, you know, for fm 1826 and 2304 in precinct 3 and then fm 973 in precinct 1.
the basics are that we would agree to pay all costs of engineering and right-of-way, and we would pay up front the cost of construction, and then txdot would reimburse us for that construction cost through an agreement that we would negotiate.
as I mentioned, we weren't successful in 2010, but they did -- txdot did come out with a 2011 bond program -- pass-through finance program again, and they made people -- notified folks of it in mid-december.
it actually hit the Texas register December 31.
and the difference this time around is first they've lowered the total amount for statewide applications from 300 million in 2010 to 250 million for this next cycle.
and the other big issue is that they've shortened the amount of time that we have to submit these applications.
when we did this in 2010 we had until late may to make our submittals.
this time we have until March 1, and we actually have a -- expedite that to meet epo's requirements because they will put the grant application -- they will present that to you rather than tnr, and they need the documents by February the 8th.
what this actually is for the two firms that helped us in 2010 are contract modifications.
they performed the same function for us in 2010.
what we need to do is to revise our applications to first take into consideration some advice that we received from txdot on how to improve upon the information that we present to folks.
Commissioner Huber and I met with txdot management, and they gave us some good advice on how to do that.
as far as the 1626 project, they went as far as to say, rather than combining fm 1626 with fm 2304 and reconstruct both of those roads, take out the 2304 component, they will take that for themselves and seek an stpmm grant later this year, which will come out of campo.
I think most of you are aware, anyhow, that campo is to receive up to $40 million later this year and they will put out a call for projects probably in may or June.
and that's where txdot hopes to get the funding for 2304.
so our application, or our contract modification for cost associates is to extract 2304 from the application, improve the responses that we -- given guidance from txdot, and one other thing that we did learn is that all of the applications, or at least most of all the applications that were approved last year by txdot, the applicant also provided some of the construction funding.
so in addition to engineering and right-of-way, they also agreed not to seek reimbursement for a part of the construction dollars.
they're entitled to 100% of that, but to be more competitive, the more competitive applicants are paying some of the construction.
it's not known at this time, but when we do fill out the application, I will be coming back to court and presenting that to you-all to go ahead and submit, and that will probably be in the next three weeks.
and at that time I’ll be recommending to you that for the 1626 project, anyhow, that in addition to paying engineering right-of-way, that we pay up to 50% of the construction cost.
that particular project is about a $12 million project.
we take out the 2304 and it drops down quite a ways, and what's left over, if we were to agree to pay 50%, is $3 million that we would not seek reimbursement on.
and hopefully that will get that project approved.
>> so just to be clear -- just to be clear, just so we know what we're talking about here, in order to sweeten the deal we have to agree to pick up even more of what the state normally would -- even more of state's responsibility in order for them to do the pass-through financing.
>> we don't have to, Commissioner --
>> you're right.
you're right, but I just wanted to lay it there.
not that -- I’m going to vote for this, because this is the way things are going these days.
we have to pay for it locally, what was formerly paid for at the state level.
but just to lay it there.
in order to sweeten our application we have to agree to take on more responsibility of the state.
is that a fair description?
>> that's the sense I came away with after meeting with txdot, yes.
>> and why is this not a non-funded mandate?
>> because we don't really have to do it.
>> we don't really have to do it.
>> it is our choice to do the project.
>> the thing about it, though, as steve brought up earlier, this last time around, discussion on this, but when we looked at this last time around we had about $300 million sitting on the table, and of course we didn't get it.
we applied for it and we didn't get that pass-through financing, Commissioner, as you well remember.
>> oh, I remember.
>> and
>> [inaudible] from the state.
so this is something I think Commissioner Eckhardt's point is right on.
you know, we didn't get it.
well, some folks got it.
I don't know the conditions that they got it, but I would assume that they had a little more to put on the table than we put on last time.
>> and I think it was a combination of them agreeing to pay a part of the construction when they didn't have to, plus that they've been in a queue for a while.
they've gone through a couple cycles than making an application and not being successful.
kind of like we're going.
we're learning our way.
>> while it's not statutorily mandated that we agree to take on the state's responsibility, from an economic viability standpoint, I mean, just because the state is abdicating responsibility if our economic viability with regard to transportation infrastructure, it's difficult not to pick up their responsibility.
>> okay.
you said some of the other localities, those oh whose applications were favorably considered by the state agreed to pick up some of the construction funding.
>> correct.
>> are you telling us that some of the construction funding was 50%?
>> I asked txdot staff that question, judge, and he said it was all over the board.
it was not 50, it was not 90, it was not 10.
there was no number -- no magic number, so to speak.
he couldn't -- he just said more or less it's whatever you feel you can afford, and we'll take our -- more or less our chances with whether someone comes in with an application and they agree to pay 70%.
it's going to influence the decision of the transportation commission.
>> but how much they paid is a matter of public record?
>> it should be.
>> because it's contained in an agreement.
>> uh-huh.
>> seems to me that we ought to have a better idea of what the successful localities agreed to pick up before we land on 50%.
>> right.
>> I can look into that.
I’m a little worried about getting these guys started.
I mean, if we could somehow qualify approving them to go forward.
that 50% number is not something that makes a difference in the application to a great deal, but when I come back and ask you to submit the application, I can bring to you what we've learned and we can make that adjustment from 50 down or from 50 up, whatever it actually comes out to be.
>> and where would the funds come from?
>> for the -- the actual construction of the contract -- or the project, it will be a bond program, our 2011 bond program.
the short list that I gave you a couple weeks ago, it came up to like $261 million.
61 of it was for these three pass-through projects.
>> thank you for reminding me.
>> so if we do decide to do all three of them and if we're successful, we'll know in may whether or not we're successful with these applications.
>> my concern remains and this is something that our bond committee can also look look at, I’m concerned that taking on state responsibilities will suck all the air out of our bonding capacity for things that we are statutorily mandated to provide, like courthouses --
>> local projects.
>> it could.
>> anyway, I can bring that number back to you when we bring the application forward, but there's another component to this, and that is the
>> [inaudible] package.
this is a different consultant, lj engineering and surveying.
we hired them to do our 2010 application for fm 973.
what we want them to do this time around is to reduce the scope of the 973 project from a $50 million project down to 25 million.
we talked to txdot.
they say that's doable, and they've also advised that if we design the full life and design the right-of-way and build $25 million worth of project, they're not going to hold us responsible for completing the rest of the project.
that will fall to whether or not we submit another application or whether they find somebody else to do that.
what this will do is build the actual bypass around the east side of manor.
the original application was to build that bypass around the east side of manor on a new alignment and line 973 all the way down to where del valle -- to the south end of walter long lake.
so we would lay that out in our application but we would also tell them we're only going to do construction on the piece that will actually function as the realignment and get you around manor, without having to go through downtown manor.
on top of that, they will have to -- they will have to revise their 2010 application to reflect that change of scope and the cost associated with it.
also on top of that is a separate request by two -- to get on the contract lja, again, but this time to create a new application for approving staff 969, and 969 has really come to the forefront recently with all the pretty severe accidents out that way, the congestion around the Austin's colony subdivision.
it's something txdot does not have money to do, but it's an opportunity for us to try to get money through pass-through finances as well.
>> well, since we have a letter, when we looked at the bypass of fm 973 and we looked at that last time around, of course we were unsuccessful as far as getting any of the pass-through financing through the state at the time, but there was a letter.
is there any way possible that this letter can be amended to include fm 969 since that now is important instead of the letter going to the Travis County delegation and all the other persons involved to make sure we get funding, maybe possible funding available.
but anyway, is that any way possible for that letter to go through to show support for this particular project?
>> there is, Commissioner.
that's one of the things that a consultant will do.
what he's referring to is part of the application is to solicit as many letters of support from as many folks as you can, elected officials and so forth, and we did that in 2010.
the fm 969 application, because of the short fuse, it's going to take some effort, but we are intending to chase down as many letters as we can through our delegation.
and also I forgot to mention, if we do approve the contract to lj's contract for fm 973, that's what item 19 has to go forward with it.
if you decide not to approve that contract mod, 19 doesn't need to be acted on.
and that's a resolution that we provide to txdot saying if we build this bypass in alignment the existing road, will become part of the county system.
the new road will be the state system.
>> is that the usual manner dealing with it or does it usually get dedicated into the county system of roads?
>> it does.
since I’ve been here it's happened at least one other occasion, realignment of fm 177.
>> the exception of that -- what will be the length of that section that will be vacated for the county to end up maintaining
>> [inaudible] in other words the section that's vacated overall overall.
vacated --
>> probably about a mile, a mile and a half.
>> okay.
that's about --
>> so no.
11 pertains to fm 973.
>> and 969.
>> plus 969.
>> yes, sir, it d it's the same consultant, different scope of work.
it's to provide existing application to start the work.
the other is to start from scratch and build a new application for 969.
>> I’d like to move approval on no.
11.
and Commissioner, I don't know about you but I’d like to move approval of 11 and 19.
>> do you want to include 8?
>> 8.
>> 8, 11 and 19.
>> is that okay with you, Commissioner, if I include 8?
>> yes.
>> 8, 11 and 19.
>> second.
>> and you'll promise to bring back the percentages -- that the successful localities offered the state.
>> yes, sir, be glad to do that.
>> and then after that this list will go through to the bond citizens committee.
>> what I -- the next steps will be, -- the consultant will start as soon as they get their notice to proceed, and I will bring the application back to court -- well, actually pbl will do that, for you-all's approval to submit it to txdot.
txdot will make a decision in may, is what I’m hearing, and we'll know right then and there whether we're successful or not.
if we're not successful in the game until the following year, if you want to consider it again.
if we are successful then we need to make some substitutions on that list.
if you want to hold the transportation in part bond referendum to a certain level, we may have to substitute out some from that list I presented to you two weeks ago in order to pay for the pass-through finance project.
>> so is the motion on the floor -- is it with the 50% hard or with the 50% to be reconsidered when we get some more information?
>> I would agree to that.
I think that we probably ought to have that information that the judge has requested on the others, and perhaps give us some reasonable options to consider for the percentage of funding.
>> will we be able to use the modification work, even if the applications are not approved by the state?
>> would we be able to use --
>> the work product.
>> well, it does -- you know --
>> [laughter] I’m thinking can we use the information we pull together, and they do a pretty good analysis of accidents and, you know, where they occur, the type of accidents.
so that type of information we could always use in planning our own projects, but that's all relative to 973.
we do -- or the state highway system, but we do have crossroads, and they would take a look at those intersections.
some of that could be helpful to us in planning for our future, roads in that area too.
>> actually, as steve pointed out, some of the ones that were awarded last year have been through this process and denied a number of times.
if this is our final product and it's -- for these roads and it's not approved this time, we won't have to reinvent the wheel, necessarily, to make another application if we choose to do so in the future.
>> sure.
yeah, it could be used again if you decided you wanted to try it again.
>> but we are seeing an increase of subdivision plats in the 973/969 area.
we had one today that has one -- just one outlet, fire marshal approved it for only one outlet on 973, and it concerns me we may be creating 20 years down the road another birdie lane.
>> modification in aid is how much money?
8, how much money?
>> that was -- $9,800, lja --
>> -- for lja the contract mod was 7500, around that area, and then for the brand-new application for 969 was about 15,000.
>> so a total of 22,000 --
>> and change.
>> for 973 plus 969 combined.
>> I believe that's right.
>> a little less than 23,000.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor.
that passes by a unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, January 19, 2011 4:03 PM
