Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, February 22, 2011,
Item 15
15 while we have you there, mr. Manila, consider and take appropriate action on the following request in precincts one and three.
to a pass through toll financing program application for f.m.
1626 between brody lane and f.m.
2304, akamanchac arc road in precinct 3, d a pass through toll financing program application for f.m.
973 between u.s.
290 east and the future breaker lane in precinct one.
and c, a pass through toll financing program application for f.m.
969 between f.m.
3177, aka decker lane, and hunters bin road in precinct one.
>> thank you, judge.
16 item 16 is related to this.
it's resolutions that we would ask you all to approve for any of the applications that you decide to allow us to submit today.
in your backup, I think the best way to kind of break this down is on page 3 of your backup there's a chart showing the financials for each one of these projects.
and the widening of f.m.
1626, that's about a 1.3-mile road.
right now that's a two-lane county road.
we want to widen that to four lanes.
the cost breakdown is shown on page three.
and what I would like to remind the court about the program is that typically txdot would expect us to pay for all the soft costs.
that is the engineering, the right-of-way acquisition, the permitting, that sort of thing.
we would pay in advance the construction costs but normally they would reimburse us for that over a period of time we have to negotiate on a project by project basis.
it's anywhere from a 10 to 20-year time frame is what they typically use.
in this particular case, I'm suggesting that because we were unsuccessful with this application in 2010, I'm suggesting that we should go one step further and take part of the construction costs.
and for this particular project I'm suggesting that if we were to pay up to 47% of the construction cost, I think that would put news a much better position to compete against the other applications that we're competing against.
and knowing now that this year txdot has reduced the amount of money available for this program from 300 million down to 250 million.
so this percentage is totally discretionary on your part.
we could leave it without paying any part of the construction.
we could recommend for any portion or whatever percentage you all feel comfortable with.
but for this particular project I'm going to suggest 47%.
to keep the applications equitable amongst the three different projects, 47% of the 1626 project is about 3.6 million.
so I assumed that amount of money for each one of the other applications.
so we have an equitable amount of money being spread between projects.
the percentage varies, but the dollar amount for each one stays the same.
we would be putting in 3.6 million for each one of these.
I would also make note that it's going to be pretty unusual, I think, for us to get more than one of these approved.
all three of them are good projects.
I couldn't tell you with anyity, any one of them will beat out the other one.
all I can say is they're all good projects.
but given that this is a statewide program, they've reduced the amount of $50 million, I just think it's going to be very unusual if we get more than one selected.
anyway, on the spread sheet here, on this page it tells you precisely what amount of of money we're talking about.
we would have to fund all these projects upfront and seek reimbursement for whatever we decided to seek reimbursement for owl of the construct dollars.
we would have to work with -- for whichever project is selected.
the bulk of the money I suspect we would ask for in the upcoming bond referendum.
the schedule for this is, the applications are due on March 1.
we expect that they'll make a decision in may.
and they'll want to have all of their contracts negotiated and have the individual applicants under contract by the end of August.
so that's what we're looking for as far as time frame and dollar amounts.
>> this is a request to ask you to allow us to submit these applications.
if you approve us today we have about a week to wrap up any last changes we want to make.
we're still receiving letters of support from various stake holders.
we'll be adding that to that and we'll be delivering this to txdot on --
>> a couple of details on b and c of that item.
would that 47% be applicable across the board for each?
in other words, as far as participation from Travis County as far as money?
>> between the three different projects?
>> yeah.
>> no.
47% would be the percent for 1626.
that drops to 17% for 973.
it drops to or goes up to 33% for f.m.
969.
and what I have -- I held the dollar amount constant and allowed the percent to flow.
I felt like it would be better to allow for the same amount of money for each project to be equitable between them.
>> right.
I have no problem with that.
and just the point that we don't know what's going to happen.
last time we applied for this it passed through finance scenario with different levels of participation from Travis County.
of course then it was about $300 million that was alloted out there from the state to cover different projects throughout the state.
but of course we didn't fare well at all last time on this.
so I'm just wondering if by putting this application in with the particular additions to this request to apply, would that make a difference?
I really don't know.
we really don't know at this point.
so again, I have no problem with moving approval of these items. And hopefully -- but let me ask this question: there were some letters that we sent some letters asking the Travis County delegation to support some of these things as far as pass-through financing.
is this part of that process?
would letters also be attached to the application?
>> yes, sir, it will.
letters will be included.
>> okay.
that they're also representatives within Travis County that want to support this?
>> right.
>> few questions.
one is has the state announced criteria it will use to determine what projects are approved?
>> they do have a matrix of factors that they evaluate and assign points to.
>> what are they?
if you recall?
>> well, I can recall that most significant one is the amount of money that the applicant puts into the project.
I think that's 20 points out of 100 points.
and then there's eight or nine other factors.
but the more points are give ton that applicant that puts money on the table but they don't have to.
other ones are connectivity, safety improvement, congestion reductions, those sorts of things.
>> so do we know what percentage the winning applications got last time?
>> we do, judge.
you had asked this at the last time we talked about this.
on page three, I did discuss with txdot about this.
in 2010 there were 34 applications.
11 were selected to negotiate agreements, and four of the 11 were among those who offered to pay more than the minimally required.
>> okay.
>> and then the amount that they actually offered varied anywhere from 20% on a $19 million project to 48% on a $134 million project.
so it's not a sure thing.
>> but it ought to help.
>> it ought to help, yes.
so if the schedule contracts in place in August of this year, and we plan to have projects listed on the bond referendum we hope will go before voters in November --
>> right.
what I would have to do -- and again I'm assuming that all three won't get selected.
I'm assuming probably one will get selected.
what I would have to do is either negotiate this contract with txdot saying that we can execute the contract in August knowing that our fund -- that we won't start the design until we get our bond money in November, or working with t.b.o.
find enough money to get the design rolling by whatever project that is.
and that could mean going into allocated reserves up to $1 million.
and that will push us along to where the bond referendum is.
>> so you don't think that our payment being contingent upon voter approval two months later would be a death blow for us?
>> it could be, yes.
or we would have to come back to court to see if we could fund this through some other means.
>> Commissioner Davis?
>> judge, I have no other questions.
>> [overlapping speakers]
>> I move approval of this particular item.
>> seconded by Commissioner Huber?
>> judge?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> I'm struggling with this mightily.
as far as precedent goes, we have in previous years paid for right-of-ways for state projects.
last year we did an application for which we would do all of the engineering with a reimbursement on construction, correct?
>> that's correct.
>> and now we're being asked to do construction as well.
and I voted in favor of the pass through application last time.
this time I am pausing.
this is roughly $27.7 million worth of property, local property tax picking up what was statewide gas tax-funded transportation infrastructure?
is that a fair statement or characterization?
could you restate that, commission?
>> $27.7 million worth of local property taxes going toward what was a gas tax-funded -- statewide gas tax-funded transportation infrastructure?
>> you could put it in those terms, yes.
also we're going to have an agenda item a little later detailing $7 million worth of ongoing funding shifting from the state us in other areas, not transportation-related predominantly.
and that doesn't include what I imagine will have a multiplier effect on programs like the o.p.r.-o.c.r.
presentation we had today.
I can't today vote for this pass-through financing without knowing the full size of the shift.
we're living through an unprecedented shifting from statewide revenue sources down to local property tax.
and I know that these projects are really needed in these areas.
but I can't go this extra distance on us picking up an additional 27.7 million potentially.
I hear what you're saying.
it wouldn't be all three of these projects.
they wouldn't select all three.
so it's either going to be looking at this, it's either going to be 8 million, 12 million, or 6.5 million of state -- what was formerly statewide, revenue-sourced-funded projects.
they're just asking too much.
they're asking us to beg them to pick up their responsibility.
>> keep in mind, this is our approaching them saying we're willing to put money on the table.
they're not asking us to put money on the table for construction.
>> but we know that we won't get selected, that we won't be competitive if we don't enable them further.
>> I understand the concern.
but let me tell you what's happening in my precinct.
precinct one.
I think about the
>> [inaudible], that little car has become a very unsafe car especially with the winding roads.
it's like a moving snake.
and of course, the folks in that area around Austin colony and all the other subdivisions within that particular area coming toward town if a struggle to try to look at some type of funding mechanism, I guess all the way from 3177 down at decker lake road all the way up to hollow den property in this particular case.
they have been struggling for years to get some kind of attention from the state to do something about that road.
I think what we're doing here is sending a clear signal to the state of Texas that yes, we are willing to -- if this particular project is selected, yes, we are willing to do maybe architecture and design.
I don't really know the full attributes of what we are willing to do.
but we're willing to participate to correct that safety concern out there on a very dangerous road.
so we need to do something instead of just looking at talking about it.
I just think this is something, an action item to let the state know that we are willing to put what we need to do as far as on the table.
those folks out there are taxpayers just like anybody else.
and just like any other across the board, everybody kind of pitches in and pays for stuff when it comes to public safety issues here in Travis County.
so I'm speaking on behalf of those constituents representative of folks that reside in precinct one that have to travel this snake-like road which is f.
69.
and hopefully we can get to an end on a lot of these things.
a lot of support for it.
but I can understand where Commissioner eckhart's coming from.
but again, there are things we've got to do as far as taking action to correct some problems that are not safe here for the road in Travis County.
even though that is a state road -- that is a state road, want folks to understand, not a county road at all.
but there are some things when it comes to pass-through financing that they're requiring to us do and change many that's been a moving target.
one time before we didn't hardly have to put anything on in this thing.
but the request and demand coming from the state that's continually been changing.
so we need to make an adjustment and hopefully we can get something from the state of Texas on this pass-through financing.
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> I have to agree with Commissioner eckhart.
it is just unconscionable that county is even having to think about putting road into state highways.
but I would like to add that there is no money for these roads in any foreseeable future coming in a full package from the state.
and I think the down side that we may be facing is the cost in the future to not building these roads.
so I think it's very worthey for us to attempt to get all three, and any one or maybe even two that we can get is -- the value for the money spent, I believe, will be there in a better way than what the alternatives would be.
I feel the alternative costs are going to be higher.
I don't like it, it's not right.
but it's right.
it's not right from the standpoint of what the state's responsibilities are or txdot's responsibilities, but it's right for our people.
>> will we hand these three projects to the bond advisory committee?
>> we can.
we can do that.
they are going to have to make a decision at some point.
>> I think anything that goes on the -- that we think will go on the November ballot should be placed before the citizens bond advisory committee along with any explanations that court members want it give.
>> sure.
be glad to do that.
>> yeah.
because you're looking at a fire anytime sum at some point.
and we have to -- at a finite sum at some point.
all these transportation projects are critical, but some obviously a bit more chris cal than others.
so any more discussion on the motion?
>> p.p.l.
would like to add a couple of items to make sure you're aware of the uncertaintieses we have become aware of over the last week, week and a half.
this should take just half a minute here.
the first one is that I know it's gone through the add tor's office.
they're reviewing it right now to figure out if this would be considered grant fund or not a grant process.
so that process is ongoing currently.
the other thing that piqued my interest was that I've been inform and we need to have some followup discussions by the auditor's office that any amount that's reimbursed by the state, currently it's their determination it would not be bond eligible.
so that I don't think is set in stone yet.
we needed to do a lot more work.
but I wanted you to at least be aware of that.
because that's basically 29 million almost of the 55.5 million that we would be expending on these three projects if I did my math right.
like I said, we'll get further -- as we go along we'll get further knowledge on that.
the last thing I wanted to mention if a resolution is needed for these project, prior to the bond elections that might be a little awkward.
you mind -- might want to consider c.o.
funding or other alternative funding.
but we can work with the department and the Commissioner's court at that time.
>> we make that decision, those decisions down in July or August, really.
I don't know that I'm real confident that we'll get one of these funned in view of what happened last time.
however, it seems to me that it's just like the lotto.
I mean, it doesn't make sense to sit around and hope if you haven't spent at least a dollar.
and I'm thinking that if I were doing this I'd put them in priority order but that's kind of difficult.
but my guess is that if we are lucky enough to get one approved by the state, it would be miraculous.
so I don't see three.
but at the same time, there's no limit on the number that you can submit, I take it.
>> no, there's not.
>> hold up on that question.
any more discussion?
>> I just want to thank p.n.r.
for putting together tremendous backup.
they didn't hold anything back.
it's great backup that really shows the up side, the down side and the ambiguity in this.
and I can't thank you enough for having that transparency and that level of detail.
>> you're welcome.
>> it's very helpful in these difficult decisions.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor.
so Commissioners, Davis, Gomez, in favor, voting against.
Commissioner eckhart and Commissioner Gomez.
>> go ahead.
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, February, 2011 2:19 PM
