Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 14, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 24
Now, we have had several residents patiently awaiting for us to call up item 24.
which we do at this time.
24. consider and take appropriate action on the following regarding the citizens bond advisory committee: a, progress report from the citizens bond advisory committee on the fiscal year 2011 proposed bond program; and b, application to use the del valle school district's opportunity center to conduct a public meeting.
good morning.
>> good morning.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners, I'm steve
>> [indiscernible] with t.n.r., joining me are several members of the citizens bond advisory committee that you all appointed back in February.
I'll let them go ahead and speak to -- to what they have accomplished thus far.
but part b is really just an application that we need for the -- for the judge to sign-off on to allow us to use the isd building for one of the public outreach meetings which the committee will start on next week.
we're going to go through six of them, they're identified in your backup, one of them is delva i.s.d., they have asked us to complete that application.
I would like to hand it off to them to brief you on where they are.
>> good morning, judge Biscoe, Commissioners, I'm carolyn vogel, with me this morning are representatives of the Travis County citizens bond advisory committee.
I'm the vice chair of the committee.
we would like to give you a status report.
we were put into place in approximately March of this year with a charge by Commissioners court to advise the court on the overall scope of the bond package for consideration.
in November.
and to recommend a prioritized list of projects.
I will tell you that the blood, sweat and tears of my colleagues on the committee, in addition to the wonderful dedication and support of the staff of the t.n.r.
department, has gotten us to this point and again this is our initial report to you.
we've had 15 meetings.
at every meeting citizens have come forward so we've heard from over 100 citizens at this point and of course we're anticipating much more of that in the next couple of weeks during the public meetings.
we're looking at, I will tell you the tough part of this, that's my word, the tough part of this is looking at the need in the county, transportation and natural resources needs in the county and taking a close to $600 million projects list and responding to the initial call from you of -- of scaling it to -- to $150 million.
and that's what -- that's what we've been doing over many hours and many meetings and again hearing public input.
and so at this point, what -- what we would like to report to you is -- you have -- you have the package, at this point we have a -- a -- scaled it to $206 million, which is in exhibit a.
steve, do you want me to read some of these bullet points about some of the particulars of this.
the $4 million u.s.
290 landfill project is under evaluation by p.b.o.
to determine its eligibility for bond.
in other words, there's several projects here that -- that the staff is still considering and eligibility criteria.
in may the Texas transportation commission approved Travis County pass through finance applications for farm-to-market 1626 and farm-to-market 1969.
>> and this commits the county to provide approximately 26 million to these projects if agreements with txdot are successfully negotiated.
all of these things are taken into consideration as we work on the prioritization.
in order to -- to again to scale this from the tremendous need to something that we hope the citizens and the -- and the voters of Travis County will support, is -- we've split the work into two subcommittees.
a road subcommittees and a parks and land conservation subcommittee.
and a couple of -- of weekends ago, both subcommittees got out in the field and spent their entire day looking at the different prongs.
so not only are we seeing it on paper, but we're seeing it on the ground and seeing the need on the ground.
the county has also established a website and a bond hotline so there's plenty and ample opportunity for the citizens and we're really encouraging the citizens of Travis County to -- to speak up, speak for and bring your projects to the forefront.
so we can make the best informed decision possible.
and with me this morning again are several of my colleagues on the committee.
and the -- the co-chairs of the roads community terri, and the chair of the parks committee, mark everett.
if you have any questions of us, we would be happy to respond at this point.
>> questions?
>> I have one question.
I have had constituents in my community stress a need for funds for substandard roads to bring what was previously private roads into the county constellation of roads.
and I was wondering, you know, what the discussion was around that.
>> go ahead, steve.
>> we did -- we did take a look at that program and we visited some sites on the weekend that we spent out looking at projects.
the problem is there's a huge demand throughout the county for -- for -- for reconstructing or building new projects that we know are going to be carrying an awful lot of the capacity that comes out of development that will occur as soon as the economy turns around.
reconstructing existing roadways is also -- also pretty important.
the substandard road program as you know is a program that is put into place to help bring roads on to the county system that aren't on it now.
so you have the issue of spend our money on the infrastructure that we currently have or spend it on -- on at least part of it on the infrastructure that is not really our liability at the moment.
but it is nonetheless a -- I believe a good program.
it's not too late to put something like that back into the list.
but it's -- it's a lot of debate that goes on and a lot of -- of -- of trading of projects to -- to get projects that folks are show more important for the constituency that they are recenting than other ones.
terri can add to that, but it's generally a tough call.
>> we have really struggled over this because we started out with $450 million worth of worthy projects.
>> on things that are currently in the county system.
>> right.
we've trimmed it down to 150 million, it's just now starting to hurt.
as steve said, we took an all-day tower and we viewed every one of the projects still on our list.
we looked at some of the substandard roads.
the problem with the substandards roads is that usually they -- to bring them up to current code requirements where they could be accepted by the county, it's extremely expensive.
then you get into this competition with some of the roads that are already in the -- in the county system that maybe one lane bridges and -- and roads with no shoulders and -- it's -- it's a challenge.
we -- we haven't -- we haven't written it off.
but -- but we're -- we're going to listen during all of the precinct meetings to see what the community has to say.
so far we've heard from about 100 people as carolyn said.
all of them have been urging support for projects that are still on our list.
>> mr. Everett, any comments.
>> the only comment, parks, I'm really excited about the whole parks program in general.
I really want to thank the t.n.r.
staff.
I think they've been, you know, very supportive throughout this whole process and they've done a great job, you know, helping us and guiding us.
through this, but -- but -- but I'm certainly anxious to hear the public input into the parks and for that matter the roads part.
I'm looking forward to that, it's been exciting being a part of this.
>> where would the wooldridge park fit into the parks program if it does?
>> which park?
>> the wool ridge right here across from the courthouse?
does that fit into the park system that we have?
although it's not our property, we have been asked about it before.
since -- since historically it's been right across from the courthouse.
but it's not under our direction.
but have you had any input about that.
>> not from the community, Commissioner.
I'm aware that we've been approached by the city of Austin.
with the possibility, Commissioner Eckhardt my want to chime in here, I think she knows a bit about it, too.
possibly an exchange with
>> [indiscernible] park that could happen as part of the overall downtown projects that the court is considering.
>> there have been a number of discussions, my understanding is the property itself is owned by the state.
with a long-term lease by the city of Austin.
so currently we have no -- no legal obligations to wooldridge, but its proximity to the courthouse does make it a -- a likely future project that we could do jointly with the city.
one thing that we have looked at is that we do own a pocket park in -- inside the city limits off of mopac.
the city is also looking for park accommodations in that same neighborhood, we're hoping that perhaps there could be a -- a win-win-win as far as improving not one but two parks and having a more robust relationship between the city and county with the parks departments.
>> that's been an issue for some time now, I was wondering how we are progressing towards resolving that issue.
>> it's being dealt with separately from the bond committee initiative.
I did want to add two more bits of information.
number one, I believe you all would accept a minority report, if one were to be developed.
there are projects that people feel strongly about, but for various reasons won't wind up on the final list.
so that will be coming to y'all.
and number two, behind the scenes, t.n.r.
is continuing to work with the development community on cost sharing.
if you look at your list, you'll see there's some asterisks next to some of the projects where we've gotten written commitments from some of the developsers, still working with several others to get to that point where we will have something in writing before we finalize the list.
that is still going on, too.
I wanted you to be aware of that.
>> that one, too, has a list from projects that we considered in the past, probably have some bond approval and would just have to be updated.
is that right?
>> I'm not sure what you are referring to Commissioner.
>> I think there were some partnerships that we pursued last time and I wondered those are probably still there?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> just waiting for economic recovery?
>> that's correct.
>> and so -- okay.
>> that's right.
we're still working on that, absolutely.
>> good.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> I'm kind of really concerned I guess about the timing of -- of commitment, especially from -- from governmental entities.
and joint participation with Travis County as far as some of these projects are concerned.
let me give you an example.
the pass through financing situation with f.m.
969 and f.m.
1626.
of course, we did receive a letter, you know, from txdot, Texas transportation commission, placing this particular situation on the table for us probably to make out some kind of arrangement of -- of an agreement.
with them.
but my concern is as the clock continues to tick, those governmental entities I guess are aware, at least I hope they are, that we have a certain length of time to deal with a lot of these joint participation type of settings before we go and place things -- before the board to consider.
and knowing that, what -- what are we doing to -- to ensure that -- that those -- I know that you are working with the developer, but those particular governmental entities, this is an example, arterial a is another one, are alert to the fact that this is time sensitive.
so what -- what are we doing in that preparation, I would just leave it like that.
>> thanks, Commissioner.
we have communicated with several government agencies, city of Austin, city of Lakeway, they have indicated support of these projects, but they are also relying upon bond referendums themselves that haven't yet occurred to bring their share to the table.
just like with the developers, we don't have a contractual arrangement with them.
we'll have a letter of commitment, in writing, saying that if we have a successful bond referendum, they will agree to sit down with us and negotiate it in -- an agreement.
one of the things that we're doing, though, to -- to put a little bit of -- of -- of emphasis behind our argument is we are going to have more projects than $10,050,000,000.
we'll probably -- more than $150 million.
we'll probably have $200 million worth of project, that will be substitute projects.
in the event that negotiations break down with a developer, then the funds will go to one of these substitute projects.
if you will recall, that's what you did in the 2005 bond referendum.
you identified six projects for public/private.
you had a tier 2 project that if the other six, any one of them fell apart the funds should be --
>> went to the next --
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> that's still out there too.
>> we will still be looked at as a tier option.
>> that's what I would like to do, yes.
>> top tier consideration, negotiates -- negotiations break down, then tier 2 we will look at as far as that type of setting.
>> right.
>> because that can be something that can be -- anyway, we've worked through that before, I just want to make sure that we're on top of it since it's just only a little amount of time that we've got to deal with in this process.
>> right.
I did want to just add one more point of information.
the list that you have totals about 205 million, carolyn mentioned the landfill and the pass through finance.
the costs for those two projects are not included in that 205 million.
>> okay.
>> that's -- between those two, it's another $30 million worth.
>> not included?
okay.
>> any other questions for the committee members?
>> I just wanted to add to again thank you, judge, wanted to recognize two other of the advisory committee members that are here this morning, dr. Lee
>> [indiscernible] and rosa valdez.
I believe I'm not overlooking anyone.
we certainly have used a very stringent set of criteria in making these recommendations that we'll be bringing to Commissioners court along with our response to the citizen input.
and a public/private partnership role is -- is certainly an underpinning of all of the recommendations, whether it's the road, the road capacity, and also parks and land conservation.
we recognize that leveraging is one response and maybe the best response to taking this -- this big need and trying to get -- trying to wrap our arms around it, as I know you all are doing.
I appreciate the opportunity to serve on this committee.
>> well, we appreciate y'all.
you don't know how much we appreciate y'all.
we appreciate y'all a heck of a lot more than you probably appreciate us.
>> [laughter]
>> thank you, I'm not sure y'all knew what you were getting into.
>> really.
whew.
>> dr. Kim, something related to roads, drainage, parks, open space.
>> other department.
>> beg your pardon?
>> other department?
>> huh?
>>
>> [indiscernible] department.
you are on number 7, right?
>> no, we're on 24.
item 24.
>> 24?
>> yes, sir.
>> sorry.
>> that's all right.
on b, basically there's an application to use the del valle school district's opportunity center.
and move approval.
>> second.
>> there is a small fee required.
>> [multiple voices]
>> our working relationship with the del valle school district is just -- has just improved.
>> I'm very appreciative, judge.
very appreciative to the del valle school district for working with us on this center.
>> discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
that's to authorize the county judge to sign the application.
>> yes.
>> I also want to take it to other school districts because we've worked with some of the other school districts including Lake Travis i.s.d.
in my precinct to schedule these hearings.
they've made space available to us.
truly grateful.
>> true.
>> we appreciate the work of the committee.
>> thank you all so much.
>> the outstanding work.
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.
