Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 3
We will call up 3 next after which we will call up 4, 9 and 29.
receive presentation of central Texas regional mobility authority's annual report for fiscal year 2010.
good morning.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
you should have -- you should have in your packets the annual report for this year and -- which includes the basic financials of the agency.
and as you know, statute-he statutorily, we offer -- it's up to the court to decide if they want a presentation, but that's why I'm here if you want one.
we're required to present to you the project schedule, the financials and answer any questions that the court may have.
and that's why I'm here today.
I've got so many little pieces of things, but this is your meeting.
>> give us five minutes of highlights.
>> this is your meeting and I'm going to tell you a little about some of our projects, number one, the annual report in visiting with victor mendez, he was very interested in making sure anything we got relative to the stimulus project was mentioned.
so what we ended up doing was dedicating basically the entire annual report to the people we put back to work.
so that was our story this time around.
and it's there for your reading.
as well as our financials.
we have, of course, the manor expressway project.
we have just gone to -- awarded a contract with a developer on that, design build process.
the total project cost all in including the direct connects off 183 is 426,184.
we got a bid on the construction side.
we're work hard on the right-of-way.
looks like 65 million cost on right-of-way.
that's included in the bond package.
we are also cooperating with, of course, txdot on the moe mopacimprovement project.
we are working with they can particularly on public outreach in terms of the standards that we have for reaching out to the neighborhoods.
as an example, we just had a meeting on the corridor with several of the neighborhoods.
it was well attended, lots of go ideas.
but the improvement project, one alternative to the improvement project is the express lanes, would be the express lanes.
we -- just a believe update on the hero project.
to date 2100 responses in the last six months on the interstate.
we have a very detailed breakdown of whether they are on the shoulder, on main lanes, how they got contacted, whether from the information center or from the roving heroes trucks that are out there every day.
so we can supply that particularly obviously I think to campo needs an update on that project since there was a significant amount of funding there.
other than that, I would prefer to leave it to questions if you have any.
>> yeah, I just had a --
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> I'm sorry.
>> I just wanted to clarify, 426 million is the total cost for the 290 expressway, that's coming in under budget?
>> yes.
the old numbers prior to the rundown in prices were somewhere north of 500 million.
and we had revised them about six months ago and we -- to be honest with you, we wanted to leave it a little fat because we weren't sure.
we did have bids in the 280, 290 area, but we had one bid at 209 that we accepted.
207, I'm sorry, 207.
it did come in quite a bit under.
>> that's very gratifying to see.
with regard to the 183 north extension and 183 a, I was looking at the report and it appears that the ridership on 183 a is flattening out, which is not surprising.
but since the projections in the report only go out to 2011, I believe.
>> that's correct.
2010.
>> 2010.
we are seeing a decrease in per capita and I would imagine we will hit capacity on 183 a in order to maintain the travel times that make it financially feasible.
have we reached that -- that capacity mark yet?
>> no, we're nowhere near it really.
we can literally get probably double the transactions that are there now and still be okay.
where we're running into capacity is south of there the mopac corridor and that's something we need to address.
I think the managed lane concept that's been discussed would be appropriate south of 620.
>> it would be good to see more of the out years of projection just so the bond covenant on 183 a was a -- itwould be good to see the period because I am happy about the decrease in per capita but it does call into question the projections over time.
your point is well made.
>> with regard to the mopac managed lane, I understand that there's a bill in the legislature to make it possible for the ctrma to enter into a con investigation development lane if approved by campo.
can you speak about that?
>> yes.
it's actually we prefer -- and it's not just semantics, we prefer the p 3 monitor because we could see the need to have at least that in the background if we run into issues at the municipal market.
the municipal market, as your adviser could tell you, has been just bad over the last six months.
it's hard to overestimate how it's trended down.
and having this available just gives us one more option.
you could do a design build, design build finance, the possibility of a p 3.
never one, obviously we can't ever transfer ownership and number two we want to leave it in the hands of the r.m.a.
it would give opportunity to give pension and/or other types of equity or near equity, I would say, it would give us that opportunity.
that it is the reason that's this the hopper right now.
it's not -- I wouldn't call it the preferred route by any means.
>> I wouldn't consider it the preferred route either.
with regard to -- with regard to your bond covenants and the financial structure of the organization, there's been much talk over the years about the -- the very -- your statutory authority is very broad, your bond covenant is extremely narrow.
limiting you to essentially nothing but toll roads despite the breadth of your statutory authority.
with regard to the recent movement on the financing for 290 east, are those bond covenants which utilize 183 a as part of the system, do those loosen up the structures you have been operating under?
>> we're still pulling together the official statement and the covenants, but other than the revenue dropping down into that -- the general fund revenue where it can be used for anything, it's pretty tight.
and I don't want to mislead you.
is there any broadening at this point?
there isn't.
mopac would be a different story.
probably its own system, so to speak.
but at this point to get the financing on 290 -- or on manor expressway they may remain narrow in terms of revenue off those.
I know that's not what you want to hear, but we can use those funds for any purpose.
>> is the trickle into the general fund still at roughly 5 to $6 million a year?
>> about $500,000 a year -- a month.
>> when you consider the scale of the projects are in the half a billion dollar range, 5 or $6 million a year doesn't get you much.
>> well, you are right, and I wish our revenue base was broader in some respects because our coverage is right at the tipping point.
I mean I don't know how much we could do even if we have that broader covenants.
it would be nice to have the broader covenants, really.
but in practical world it would be minimal.
>> what I'm talking about for the broader audience, a broader covenant would mean one of those buckets or series of those buckets prior to trickling into the general fund would include projects, related projects in the system other than toll roads.
we have discussed often the fact that on many of the projects that are currently in the system or considered for the system also have rail corridors that are immediately adjacent to them.
the 290 east project has the elgin-manor line running adjacent to it.
183 also has the manor-elgin lane running adjacent to it.
the potential for the lone star rail line running right next to it.
it's these sorts of projects that are of a similar scale as the toll road projects and also have the potential to pull from the same client base in a very cope settic way, although current bond exclude them.
is that an accurate description?
>> it's not excluded because of the competitive nature because we do have, as you know, the red line adjacent to 183 a.
and it -- there was never any question there about the compatibility.
>> although you are not contributing to the red line.
contributing to a project that could draw from the same client base.
>> out of that -- after we get through all those buckets where we have obligations to the debt, after we get out of that, we can contribute, but as you pointed out, there's just not that much money dropping down to that level.
one thing I do want to point out, I do think the mopac project offers benefits to transit.
where we can open up the door without sacrificing the bond -- the debtor issue, the investor issue we have, and that is not an insignificant to say you are going to put buses and van pools on that road is not insignificant because it does take capacity.
but I think it's going to be very important.
we are looking at it from a people through-put on that new lane and I think that's going to be really -- I think that's going to be vital for a lot of reasons.
>> I want to give credit where credit is due.
the ctrma has been far more accepting and even promoting of true people through-put with regard to transit than txdot.
txdot is still of the opinion that buses cannot go on its toll facilities because of its bond covenant, whereas ctrma has welcomed van pools and buses and projects are extremely similar.
I do appreciate that, I'm just pushing a little harder.
>> I don't mind that one bit because the board, as you know, was unanimous of their support of an effort to provide a symposium for the region.
I think they remain committed at many levels.
if we can figure out what the ultimate base would be for those initiatives, then I think they would be very supportive.
the problem is we are a one-legged stool right now.
>> I understand that and I appreciate the r.m.a.'s willingness to participate at least in the philosophical conversation with regard to a regional rail plan.
I would appreciate, and do appreciate, current work and future work toward making financial contribution an inclusion in the system a reality for transit.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you, judge.
I just had a couple of questions and you may have laid it out.
I had to step off the dais for a second or to and if you have laid it out, I guess I'm being redundant.
but I was kind of concerned about the manor express project from 183 at 290 east.
the completion date, if I'm understanding it correctly, on that particular project, 6.2 miles from that point at 290 east at 183 is, I think, 6.2 miles, I believe that's correct.
>> that's correct.
>> all right.
and -- and the completion date of this particular project is 2014.
is that correct?
>> it's 2015.
>> 2015?
okay.
and, of course, there was stimulus package I think money that was also received for this particular project in the amount of I think $59 million.
>> that's correct.
>> is that correct?
okay.
and that concern, of course, the neighborhoods that were in that, they had pretty good outreach as you've gone through this process for that particular project?
have you had the kind of support input from the neighborhoods and the groups in that area?
on this project?
>> Commissioner, last meeting, last time I did this you made a pretty strong point --
>> exactly.
>> -- of asking us to do that and we have followed up on that.
in fact, the latest round of meetings had more to do with aesthetics rather than -- they were very specific about what kind of aesthetic treatments we want to see on this particular facility including a bike-ped facility.
so there's -- there have been a number of meetings, Commissioner, and they've gone, I think, very well.
and I have to say we do keep in touch with your transportation department also and again, you requested that we do that.
>> thank you.
and do you -- can you possibly tell me if there's been any conversations, I guess with txdot on your end that will take care of the situation at the intersection of loyola lane at 183 north and south.
there should have been an overpass going to be put there as traffic goes directly out to the airport without any interruption as far as traffic lights and stuff are concerned.
and that is really a nightmare situation at loyola lane and 183.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> that is correct.
>> is that correct?
>> that is.
>> I want to be sure folks understand the beginning and ending point of this particular project.
so that is about all I have.
just appears that, I don't know what the number of jobs that will be created out of this particular endeavor, but I know there will be some job creation in this particular deal.
are you all tracking jobs and stuff like that?
>> we tracked those related to the design construction and all the professional services right down to the other, landscape issues at the end of the day.
but you're probably, I'm not sure how we get to the permanent but we're working on that.
I think you mentioned that.
>> I did.
>> and I'm conjuring on how we can get you something there.
the only thing I can point to is what has occurred along 183 a.
it's hard to say what will happen.
I think 290 east and manor express which is going to be a tremendous magnet for new business.
it's just hard to start, you guys see the platting before we will see it.
but I will try and get you something on that.
>> I appreciate that.
thank you.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> yes, most of my questions have already been asked.
but I wondered what is the distribution of your annual report?
who gets copies of it?
>> we have a list of about, last I checked, about 900 people.
we are still a bit old school, sending out the hard copy.
it comes from our public outreach, hahn Texas helps us put together a list.
then we do all the public officials.
we go through various organizations, civic groups, and have a huge mailing list.
anybody that wants one gets one.
>> I see these as educational pieces.
>> thank you.
I appreciate that.
>> I think you have done a good job here.
but I would like to suggest from an editorial standpoint, my looking through it, I confess I did not read every single word in there, but I think I would like to see a little background information on the ctrma.
>> sure.
>> enablement of it, the jurisdiction making the appointments to the board.
that way people know who, if they have a question, they can ask.
and what the authorization is.
>> it's been through so many iterations with different bills starting with 352 then to 3588, you know, just gone 27--
>> the summary.
>> yeah, we don't want to bore people, but we can get you that.
>> I think in future publications, it would be nice to see the jurisdictional appointments and background.
>> that is a good comment, thank you.
>> mr. Priest, thank you judge, Commissioners, morris priest speaking on my own behalf.
I appreciate what you have done.
I want to say on the 290 east previously discussed, the figures I believe the year before last were much higher than they presently are in your financial report.
I believe it was like $725,000.
initially I think they were going to spend like 90 million or a hundred million on the interchange that is going to be tolled.
the figure now is like 59 million.
I was wondering if the figures have come down on the rest of it.
because from what I understand, it comes out to, depending which figures you look at, 700 million or 600 million.
comes out to about $100 million a mile for this if you include the interchange.
>> the hall end is 426 from 183 to basically the manor high school area.
so the construction side is right at, with all end, right at 260 or 70.
a big part of the 400 million is the right-of-way costs which no one is giving land away and you have to go through the process.
so we had budgeted 90 million for that.
and looks like we are going to get in at around 65.
the construction cost side is about 260, 270.
it's come down quite a bit.
>> pretty much a hundred million a mile.
>> if you do the math it's less.
>> the calculator shows about 70 million a mile.
but it's still, 70 million a mile.
>> it is six lanes.
actually 12 lanes.
>> yeah.
>> we have to remember it's not a small deal.
this is, because of a reconstruction of all the access roads and the main lanes, you have 12 lanes there.
>> many people have expressed they thought this was much overbuilt.
the traffic numbers are coming down as well.
I was wondering, is there any way that char, we're budding this, I have conflicting reports that you haven't actually been signed off on the construction by campo.
>> it is in the campo plan and our job is to .
the only thing left to do at this point is to go to marketplace and see if we can borrow the dollars that we need to build it.
that is the only step left.
>> to reword the same question, we have issues with many people in the community wanting to build southwest 45.
you know, that would be like the money spent on this project, you could probably build five southwest 45s.
is there any way that we could get that put in before this?
>> short answer is no.
45 southwest is four years away on environmental work in and of itself probably.
>> I appreciate you giving the hard copies.
we are going not going to get is that at cam poe any longer.
I appreciate that.
>> move that we receive the report.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> only one comment.
I want to give you all accolades for your equity policies with regard to right-of-way on 290 east.
much appreciate.
>> all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> see you in a year.
>> thank you.
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.
