Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, July 19, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 22
22.
discuss and receive final report of the citizens bond advisory committee.
>> any members of the committee that would like to come up and say a few words, there's a chair for you.
the court appointed a citizen bond advisory committee back in February to take a look at a very long list of projects that -- that we're seeking funding for.
this particular initiative or this particular effort by the bonding committee focused only on transportation drainage and parks projects.
did not look at all of the facilities projects.
they started, nonetheless, with a list of about 120 projects totaling about 4 -- I'm sorry, $640 million.
and they narrowed that down to about 36 projects totaling $205 million.
that does not include the two pass-through finance projects that we were advised by txdot earlier this year that we had been approved to pursue.
those two projects were considered by the committee, they felt that they should be funded through other means rather than through the bond referendum.
on an update on those two projects by the way, because we are in ongoing negotiations with text dot is that we originally were thinking that we had two projects totaling $26 million that we would have to finance and we would get reimbursed a total of $11 million of that over a period of time.
agreed upon between txdot and Travis County.
txdot recently just last week updated those numbers, it's now at a little over $30 million.
and our costs would go up proportionately, but we also get reimbursed more.
it comes to the tune of another $4.3 million being added to the projects.
we are continuing our negotiations.
I would just caution that any costs that we do receive from them are going to be subject to what's going on in the contract, the environment at that time.
we're several years away from that.
so it could go up or down again, but this is -- these are numbers that right now we're using to complete our negotiations with them.
>> steve, would you elaborate a little bit because when folks are hearing this for the first time, when you are saying pass-through financing, we are really referring to really two roads, f.m.
1626, we are also referring to f.m.
969.
I think it's pretty important that, you know, you lay it out because sometimes the people that are -- the persons that are listening to this, this is the first time that they're hearing it.
they may not be as familiar with what we have said in the past, but they are kind of listening to what we're saying right here today.
so that is the relationship that we have with txdot as far as some of the reimbursement type of situations as we deal with maybe alternative financing for those two pass-through financing projects.
>> thanks, Commissioner.
for those
>> [indiscernible] it is described in a little bit more detail in the backup.
but the basics are that txdot has a program where communities such as ourselves can compete for funding of projects.
the basic requirements are that the community will finance the entire project up front and then they would be reimbursed for an amount of those funds over the 10 to 20 year period.
the communities are expected to pay 100%, not be reimburse for the engineering, the right-of-way acquisition, the environmental costs.
essentially, we would only get reimbursed for construction expenses or the construction costs.
the construction management is another cost that we don't get reimbursed for.
in the case of f.m.
969 around 1626 -- and 1626, we went a step further and offered to pay a portion of the construction costs and not seek reimbursement on that.
approximately $4 million for each project.
that was done to make us more competitive because the previous year we had submitted these projects and we did not -- we were successful with them.
so increasing the amount of dollars towards construction, helped push us over the top.
we got two projects approved.
we are currently negotiating with txdot on how long of a period of time it is that we would be reimbursed.
and where he finished or agreed upon the
>> [indiscernible] for f.m.
969, about a four-mile section from f.m.
-- from decker lane to hunters bend road and for 1626 about a one-mile section from approximately proceeddy lane to manchaca road.
brodie lane to manchaca road.
>> steve, just to be crystal clear, that is a shifting of tax source under -- under -- in historically those roads have been paid for by gas tax, by shifting the burden to the county, the -- the -- a portion and an increasing portion of state roads is being paid for by local property taxes.
>> that's correct.
>> just to be clear.
>> that's correct.
and the committee did acknowledge that and actually made a statement to that effect in their report.
>> it's a very, very well written report.
thank you for that.
>> it really is.
>> I appreciate that being highlighted.
>> there are a -- there are several issues.
I would like to turn it over to them now so they can go ahead and brief you and then we can fill in the gaps.
>> can I ask one question about the pass-through financing.
so does the state have reimbursement standards that are used state-wide or do they look at reimbursement on a project by project basis?
>> they use the same standards state-wide, it's a program that goes out state-wide so the same requirements are there.
it's based upon vehicle miles traveled.
one year after the project has been completed, and open to traffic, they do measurements of the volume of traffic and they base their reimbursement upon those vietnam.
they also set a minimum amount that we would get per year and a maximum amount.
the minimum amount would stretch out over a 20 year period, we would get all of our money within 20 years if that's the route that we wind up going.
then the maximum would get us I think paid down in 10 years.
it's going to fall somewhere between the two.
we will be finished somewhere between 10 and 20 years I believe.
>> basically we're financing txdot for 20 years.
>> yes.
>> thank you.
>> okay.
committee members?
good morning.
>> honorable judge, honorable members of this commission, thank you, my name is for the record is frank fuentes, I was selected by my good friends to chair this committee.
I must say to the Commissioners and to the judge that you did a wonderful job in selecting your board members.
we had a passionate intelligent group that articulated their -- their projects, if you will.
the projects that were presented by staff to us.
and we did the best that we could.
so like in the projects that's before you today.
I also want to commend Travis County and their staff.
staff was there for us 100% of the time.
they gave us all that we needed to help us make this selection.
I think Travis County certainly has a unique group of folks that works for them.
at this time, I want to introduce folks to my right.
they were the committee chairs for the roads committee and the parks and drainage and conservation committee.
that will be john williams and carolyn.
and john, if you would like to in a brief synopsis, if you will, let the Commissioners know how the process, what process we used to select the roads.
>> > from the very beginning, we started out, once we found out that the pass-through financing had been approved, we decided that the court, which had already approved the application for that, we agreed with the decision you had made that those two projects had gotten approval deserved a very high priority.
we then were left with a list of something more than 70 projects, with an estimated budget of more than $413 million, I believe it was.
after -- after a long, arduous, period of time, having listened to many speakers at each and every one of our meetings, on Thursday nights, having gone out to the community in six outreach meetings, throughout the county, we cut that budget by approximately 75%.
even though the headline that you folks hear may be that we did not come in under budget, I know that p.b.o.
wanted us to come in at 150 and we're coming in at over 200, we believe that we are being frugal and that the projects we are presenting to you are all essential.
we made a point to try to follow the charter charge that you gave us to maximize the cost benefit by using public/private partnerships.
and other creative funding mechanisms. I don't really think I need to say much more.
you have the backup here.
what we have tried to do is list why we believe that each and every one of these 27 road projects is essential.
we, both as a subcommittee and as a full committee, reached consensus on that.
you will note in the minority report that the comments are that we need to do even more.
I was -- I personally was impressed that in all of the public meetings that we held, throughout the county, having heard from I don't know how many people, there was basically only one person who told us we think you are aiming too high, we cannot afford it.
so with that, I will simply refer you to the backup.
we tried to be brief enough in our description of each of the roadway projects that you have time to read it, we'll be happy to give you any additional information that you want.
and I want to make it clear that although I'm talking about how absolutely essential I and we on the road subcommittee feel all of these road projects are, the committee as a whole and all of us on the road subcommittee also fully support the full committee's recommendation about parks and open spaces.
>> thank you, john.
good morning, judge, and Commissioners, I'm carolyn vogel and I was or am,
>> [laughter], we're not quite sure of our status right now,
>> [laughter], you may need us some more, right?
the vice chair of the committee and also had the privilege of serving on the parks and drainage subcommittee.
and as -- I'll echo what frank and john have both said.
this was a -- this was an opportunity that -- that ranks right at the top of the volunteer capacities that I've served on throughout, actually throughout the country.
and I want to echo again the -- the joy it was to work with the staff.
and with Commissioners court.
and in producing what we hope the citizens will agree to in November, of course.
and just to quickly go to the parks and drainage subcommittee report, it stands at $73 million.
which was cut from $101 million in the original project list that was presented to us.
we went through a rigorous process as john described for this road subcommittee we likewise did on the parks subcommittee.
there are some -- some innovative items that are being presented to you and hopefully ultimately to the voters and the taxpayers of this county.
and those are the land conservation easement program, you know, being -- taking a progressive look at how to complete the parks project at rhymers, reimers park and hamilton pool, that's the biggest ticket item in this entire project list.
we recognize that, we had many supporters come out and talk in favor of the $20 million to complete one of -- I think one of the most incredible county parks again in the country.
so I would welcome any questions that you might have and want to thank wendy and everybody from the parks division, charles berg, robert armistead for their incredible work in preparing us to make these deliberate and tough decisions.
>> I think that I just missed the number.
I've got the 73 million for the parks and drainage.
what was the amount for the roads?
>> 111 million.
>> 111 million?
thanks.
>> number one, let me say this before we even go any further discussion.
I just wasn't mindful enough to say it earlier.
but let me thank you, each one of you volunteers that came out and did I think a heck of a job.
each one of us finally had a chance to attend the public hearings that were held in our precinct.
of course the one that I attended was, it was very well organized, very well orchestrated to the point where -- where you -- where you really embrace the input from the community.
you want to hear what they say.
I'm saying the board.
and that you need to be commended for it because we wouldn't be here where we are today I think without you and of course the supportive role that our t.n.r.
staff served.
I feel real good about this.
but I didn't want -- not one second to go by without thanking each and every -- each and every one of you for what you have done.
my hat go off to you.
so thank you.
>> [ applause ] I'm sorry, there was a couple of things after going through the backup and looking at a lot of different scenarios.
one thing where you had ranked the different projects, of course, the $205 million that -- that you are suggesting that -- that we should go forward with to accommodate the -- the -- not only the road projects, but also the parks project.
told both of them, that's what the -- with the -- with inflation plus the issuance of cost, we talk about a little more than $2.5 million.
you rank projects, I notice that one of the ranked projects, ranked number 1 was the Austin colony secondary access, which is of course very critical situation.
that's been hitting the news media very, very frequently as far as persons having excess in and -- access in and out of Austin colony.
of course I see that's ranked number one.
seemed to have got a real big push as far as precinct 1 is concerned as far as giving some folks some relief.
my questions to the board members, all of these rankings I guess were done whereby you looked at it and made decisions based on several factors and of course that had been -- that's been a squeaky wheel for a long time, that particular project.
and I notice that -- that there was some information that you listed in there in the example.
we had a category such as -- the way we looked at participation levels, you have public private partnerships, of course, that's one thing.
but then we also have the consideration that I think that you took into your heart and -- with the public partnership and of course even with this project I think the del valle school district, has to play a role about allowing us to have some right-of-way in which you gave an amount in this particular project that's ranked number 1.
in all of these projects, all of these things were basically looked at as far as those participation levels because the reason that I asked that question is because there may be some situations that we have not actually finalized what disposition the participation levels should be in.
it's not -- it's not a clear deal.
you mentioned some things earlier.
looking at a contract as far as some of the things that
>> [indiscernible] stuff like that.
still the contract that hasn't been finalized yet.
there has not -- blake manor type of situation.
we looked at that as far as looking at a partnership situation but it's still some pending things that are still going on that we haven't made a determination yet.
my point is if -- I have to ask the county attorney this question.
if we are put in a position where we still have pending situations that we haven't resolved, we are backed up to the date of making sure that we have this in line placed on the ballot in November, then what would be the final day that we can actually make adjustments to those situations that we haven't come to an agreement with, especially if there are pending outcomes that we are really looking at.
>> steve, do you have the time line?
there was a time line I believe the bond order has to be finalized by late August.
>> late August.
all right.
the last date --
>> probably the last Commissioners court meeting in August.
>> Commissioner, what we did in 2005, is identify projects that we had written commitments from, but --
>> right.
>> from half a dozen different developers wherein they agreed that if they could not come to an executed agreement with us within one year after the bond referendum, it would have been 2006.
>> right.
>> then the moneys that were allocated to those projects would go to another project.
in this case, we have a lot of letters from different entities and people saying that they will do certain things to help the project happen.
by no means is it a contract.
but in the same spirit of what we did in '05, we would like to put a time frame on being able to work out the details of an agreement actually have an executed agreement if we can.
otherwise, what these guys have written in the report is moneys from failed partnerships, we first go to completing other projects that may be overbudget or may come in higher than expected.
second, to -- to making whole projects that were down scoped as parts of their process of trying to get the number down, the total number down.
so that's where they are recommending those funding if we have failed partnerships at the end of a year after the -- after the voters.
>> Commissioner, we put in the report, the estimated value of what we thought some of these public-public partnerships or public-private partnerships might generate to help you understand the potential for helping supplement the overall costs of the project.
we did that rather than trying to trim some of those projects, we don't know which ones are actually going to come in and -- and fund in a timely manner.
>> okay.
that was -- that was my concern.
you put stuff out there.
we want to make sure that what goes out there is kind of ironclad going to the voters.
of course a lot of these factors that I'm looking at is something that I know we can look at because what we did years before, we had a tier structure, in 2005.
in other words, if something didn't work out, the first -- the first person doesn't work out until it went to the next tier, another level that someone else could do it as far as receive the funding.
I just want to make sure that all of the I's are dotted and t's crossed in this particular situation, especially pending type of situation that we are unsure of and the clock is still ticking, this is what I'm trying to, you know, trying to alleviate before I get to a resolve.
>> I understand, Commissioner.
before we move on, I would like to recognize some of our other folks that are here that were in the -- in the -- I would like the committee members to stand.
>> please stands.
>> and be recognized.
>> yes.
goodness.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you all.
>> [ applause ]
>> I think we have a quorum.
>> judge, I think we have a quorum of our committee here.
>> it's okay it was posted.
>>
>> [laughter]
>> there you go.
early on we understand that -- we understood that we were simple servants of not only this commission, but our citizens of Travis County.
if individually asked how these projects were to be ranked, probably you would have a different ranking.
but as a committee of a whole, this is what we came up with.
my dad used to say every head is a different world, that is to say everybody thinks differently.
I'm very proud of everyone in this committee because they were all very sensitive to everyone in terms of the people that participated by letters, emails, and also folks that participated in -- in coming and communicating in person in front of us.
so thank you all for accepting that.
>> I think people will continue to communicate.
we have gotten some emails on some of the projects.
>> I have no doubt, Commissioners.
>> no doubt.
>> some folks are opposed, some are in support, so I guess that process will continue until election day.
but thank y'all.
>> that's a testament to the citizens of this wonderful county, they truly participate.
>> so true.
>> just to follow-up, on what the chairman said, you will note that on page 13 of our report, we talk about the way we prioritized quote unquote the roads list.
the committee first reached consensus on this entire group.
then when we tried to cut the costs down, to come in under budget, we took a simple vote.
if you look at a spreadsheet of what the votes were, they were all over the place.
but you had given us in our charter, instructions to give you a prioritized list.
so the priority that we are giving you is that simple arithmetic score.
>> next we will have carol brief you on what's to happen next and when so you have some idea of actions that you are going to have to take.
p.b.o.
is here also, to provide comment.
if you don't mind, I'll turn it over to carol.
>> before carol speaks, I want to make sure that there's -- that there's a typo on one of the documents that shows the effective tax would be.
>> we will blame our attorney on that.
>> but it's actually -- it's talking about timber creek and they have precinct one as the representative of that particular area.
it's actually precinct 4.
so it's just a typo.
>> we will correct that.
it's on -- it's on the second sheet that lists the part.
but in the subsequent sheets it's correct.
timber creek is precinct 4.
sorry.
>> thank you.
>> but the numbers aren't incorrect.
the numbers were --
>> [laughter] yes.
we met several weeks ago with bond counsel and tom and p.b.o.
and we discussed the sequence of things and based on the law that changed the -- the notice to the constituents, particularly the -- the military folks that moved up the timing of when you have to get information out, the election laws, we had to move up our -- our schedule.
as a result, the -- you have to have the order, election order, ready and prepared and approved on the 16th of August.
it's 90 days -- earlier than 90 days, no latercthan 60 days before the election.
so glen had -- had figured a schedule for us and so that fell, the 16 fell right into the date.
so you have next week you will have a public hearing on all of these projects and I think there's some people here that may want to talk today, you will have a public hearing next Tuesday, then you have the second and the 9th to decide up or down, which projects or project -- no projects.
and then on the 16th you have to have the order.
so I -- this document is also also -- has also been sent to glen, so hopefully once -- he's -- we'll get back with him to start preparing propositions or something in that -- in that manner.
so we will be more prepared by the 16th.
so he will have it ready for the 16th.
>> okay.
>> it was something else that was mentioned, also, in the annualized looking at -- well, let me put it like this.
in the -- in the i.r.s.
interpretation whereas I think it's -- it mentioned that it's some things have changed, as far as -- as far as being able to pay some employees with using bond forms --
>> that is true.
>> of course that is something that need to be laid out because I don't know exactly how many f.t.e.'s we are referring to and then how I think they probably will need to be paid in the future through the general fund.
so -- so it just appears to me that -- that we don't know what that is at this time.
>> actually, we have the -- we have two --
>> $1.3 million I think as far as the outlay.
but I don't know exactly how many f.t.e.'s will be affected by that.
in t.n.r.
>> yes.
we I truly included that in our budget request.
with the intention being that if the bond passes, so we have -- we have a staff that continues through -- through fiscal year '12 and then if the bond passes, we have an additional staff that's needed because I forgot to say in that meeting that we had with glen, susan, her staff was there as well.
we were told that we could not fund any employees on the bonds.
so -- so all engineers, all inspectors, everybody is coming off and -- and the calculation we made based on a -- on a schedule -- as when we thought the projects would be ready or about to begin we -- we estimated the staff we needed and that came up to about $1.3 million and that's written in this -- in this, but we have that in our budget process so we will be going into detail even more when we have our budget hearing as to those particular situations, employees.
or numbers of employees.
>> but the $1.5 million, would cover staffing for what period?
it's one year.
it's per year.
that's the cost per year.
>> $1.3 million per year?
>> yes.
it will taper off towards the end.
but in the past referendums, we have allocated 5 or 6% of the total bond amount towards administration costs.
if all of that is not included in these numbers, it's -- the staff will be paid out of the general fund now.
>> see in all reality, since we are at least historically we've gone to bond about every five to six years, don't we have an ongoing need for this level of staffing to -- to maintain these bond projects.
>> no, Commissioner, right now we're -- we're reeving the bottom of our -- we're reaching the bottom of our list of projects from past bond referendums, we are keeping our people busy.
if we don't have a successful bond referendum in four or five months, we need to possibly look at reorganizing.
>> okay.
>> if we have current staff in place that worked on the last issue, why wouldn't your current budget pick up the cost for those employees.
>> we have some current, these are additional, in addition to the current that's already here.
the currents already in our road and bridge or general fund, as we were told them to move them off and there's only two employees right now left on bonds.
>> but we -- we brought additional staffing in the last time we had a bond referendum approved, and issued bonds for projects.
>> I'm sorry I miss the beginning of your question.
>> we've had three bond issues before.
each time we've had staphing on board to -- staffing on board to assist.
did we let that staffing go recently.
>> they have dwindled because of attrition.
we have not let them go.
as the projects go down, some retired, some left, we're down to I don't know maybe 10 engineers.
>> but we had approximately 18.9, that number was out there for a long time.
a lot of those are now vacancies, we have been because of working with the county auditor, we have been moving some of that staff on to the road and bridge fund, on to the general fund where applicable.
as a matter of fact the preliminary budget includes $200,000 for two additional ones to be moved on October first.
so that staff is -- there are a great number of perhaps positions out there.
but a lot of those I think what carol says are vacant because the program is coming to a close.
>> all right.
so for those vacant positions we eliminated the funding?
>> the funding would be -- yes.
the funding is sitting out there perhaps in bond funds, yes.
it's not on the general fund.
>> so they were bond funded.
we have grant funded positions.
so when the bonds dwindled.
>> the difference for the new bond program is that those positions are going to be on the general fund if approved.
>> all right.
>> but if we contracted for professional assistance, we would be able to use bond funds.
>> yeah.
at a greater cost, yeah.
>> well,.
>> well, we have asked around.
I contacted the folks in Williamson county and they -- they do use the -- they outsource a lot of the administrative tasks associated with the bond referendum.
I was given a number of anywhere from four to five percent of the total bond amount, but they also advised they can it on an hourly basis.
we selected tasks, keeping track of the financial record, kind of like time and materials for that particular task.
in the end it turned out that maybe four to 5% cost to the county for those services.
>> I have two or three other questions.
so when -- will we be briefed on the owner controlled insurance at some point?
>> we would like to do that, that was recommended by the committee.
we would like to have dan mansour come in and do that.
>> okay.
we had several public/private partnership projects in the last bond issue.
>> we did.
>> our results were missed.
>> true.
>> > the projects are still alive, the developer partners lost the ability to finance their side of the project.
and the economy is slowly turning around, we are finding other ways to getting their funds pulled together.
we are working on three of them that -- that had that problem.
>> [multiple voices]
>> five or six years later.
>> we are.
>> judge, we have gotten some letters of commitment, they are still interested.
it's just a matter of being able to borrow the money.
>> but we are confident that new public/private partnership projects will be more successful?
>> confident?
well, I feel like there's still a very viable means of getting a project done.
>> judge, we are looking at new ways to structure them so that the project can go forward even if the private partner can't secure private financing, which is what has delayed many of them.
so we're looking at new ways to do it to fix the problem we experienced in 2005.
additionally our code has changed since 2005 with regard to public private partnership, even though the -- the capital market is -- is frozen although thawing it appears, we are looking at alternative financing mechanisms like public improvement districts created by developers and that kind of mechanism.
>> we are -- at least one developer has mentioned establishing a m.u.d.
to bring in their funds and other one public improvement history or road district, all of those have been looked at.
it's not going to be the same model for every developer.
I can tell you that right now.
just from our conversations with them.
>> okay.
at some point will the court have an opportunity to see what evidence there is of the intention by private partners?
>> right now there are letters of intent.
you -- sure, you can see all of that.
again, they are not binding.
>> page 8.
>>
>> [indiscernible] development agreement.
>> okay.
>> that are --
>> I just think that we need to -- we need to see what that is and --
>> sure.
>> part of the public education effort will be us basically telling voters about that, right?
>> yes.
>> and some will wonder, well, why is it that you are optimistic about this, whatever evidence there is we ought to reference it.
>> we do have written letters from a large number of people.
>> okay.
>> page 8, I've got two more.
page 8, the 111 and 73 add up to $185 million.
>> uh-huh.
>> so how do we get to 205?
>> inflation plus issuance costs.
>> we use 10% inflation rate and a 1% issuance cost, that was added to the raw number of 111 is what their tally is without inflation, the issuance cost then goes up to 123.
with those factors.
>> so that's the fact that we've used -- that's the factor that we have used historically?
>> yes.
we got the issuance costs from jessica and the inflation, that's what we used.
we looked at, we've looked at the trend and went through what happened in the past 10 years and the trend for the inflation, that came out to about 10%.
>> okay.
>> so if you take the totals on -- on exhibits a and b, the raw numbers are 73-9 for park projects, 111-2 for transportation drainage projects.
you add issuance and inflation, you come up with a total between the two of 205 million.
>> judge, also an exhibit g.
you will see it, exhibit g.
>> yeah, thank you.
>> okay.
so how do we treat contingency.
>> it is embedded in the prices that we've provided to the committee.
contingency amounts are included with each project.
>> so there's contingency plus 10% inflation?
>> yeah.
that's right.
>> okay.
finally, on -- on exhibit a, we have a listing of projects, ranking through 26, we added el ray boulevard.
>> 27.
that needs to be added.
>> el ray has been included.
>> yes, sir, it has been.
>> all right.
we got quite a bit of email on loman ford road.
>> both ways.
>> what's the situation?
>> well, it's a project that -- it's a roadway in the campo plan.
it's been in the campo plan for 20 years.
this year it's in the
>> [indiscernible] list, but that's still a part of the campo plan.
ultimately it's supposed to be a four lane road.
the portion in the county is still a two-lane road.
it started out as a project requested by a developer who came to me last year and said, hey, I would like to be able to see if we can use this right-of-way and fiscal that's been dedicated in the past through the platting process, you all know that the subdivisions plat up against arterials in the campo plan, exact right-of-way and fiscal, they wanted to contribute to that as well to get improvements to this segments of lohman's road done, as the committee went through the process of identifying what projects, they also went through the project of what could be down scoped or not.
this was down scoped to about a 3100 section from 14,000, that got the number way down but made the project itself not very effective.
in the minority report you will see a recommendation from the committee.
if there's any moneys, found through failed partnerships or cost savings on other projects, they recommend that you fully fund the original scope, 14,000 feet from the city of lago vista to another point further south.
consider there are folks who live out in the vicinity, who do not want to see the project built.
they don't feel it's necessary.
they feel that it's going to really change the character of the road, that sort of a thing.
there are some that really do want it built.
but they would prefer the original scope versus this little 3100-foot section.
it's a mixed bag, about 50/50, we got a lot of people in support, a lot of people are building opposition to it.
the recommendation right now that the committee ultimately decided upon was okay let's not put any money in construction or right-of-way.
let's get the preliminary engineering done for the full length of the project and that way we can work out issues that the community may bring forth because it's part of that engineering process.
you invite the community in to take a look at alternatives.
build support for it so that perhaps in the next bond referendum, five or six years from now, it won't be a contentious issue.
>> any other questions for committee members or staff?
>> I just wanted to express to the committee that I'm very glad that there's some money in here for -- to finish the -- the green -- the open space in precinct 4.
the onion creek.
we got started and it's going very well.
and I would like to see that completed.
as well as being able to purchase other open space in eastern Travis County for -- for all of the families and the kids and, you know, and then the other one is the -- for precinct 1 and 4, the substandard money and I was going to ask staff do we still have that -- that point system that we used to have about -- about the level to which roads came up to?
in eastern Travis County?
>> actually, Commissioner, that should be county-wide, not just assigned to precinct 1 and 4.
>> I think for a while, though, we looked at eastern because we were lagging behind.
so I wondered how -- yeah, I guess I remember a report saying that they were pretty close, county-wide now.
>> as far as roadway condition?
>> uh-huh.
>> that's probably true.
they are all right around a rating of 70.
>> okay.
>> but this road reconstruction substandard road money that they are allocating was intended for all four precincts.
not just one and four.
>> oh, okay, I guess that I misread.
>> it says one and four.
>> yes, it would be very good to correct that.
we do have some serious substandard road problems. My understanding that is the lion's share of the substandard roads that are not accepted for county maintenance are actually in precinct 3.
>> that's true.
>> that's been true a long time.
>> yes.
>> and I want to thank the -- the board specifically for taking a good hard look at that.
>> the road improvement and substandard money, it's hard to put it in there, again as you so aptly point out in the road report, we are seeing a shifting of the burden of -- the source of funding for these kinds of projects and for -- for better or for worse, the reality is on substandard road projects, we will have to look to -- to local contribution to mix in with -- with the -- with the -- what will ultimately be general fund property tax in order to get some of these substandard roads up to snuff and pulled on to the Travis County system.
so I really, really appreciate that level of detail that the -- that the board went into, it was really profoundly detailed work y'all did.
and I really appreciate it.
>> judge, I would just like to say again thank you very much for your parks, conservation open space outreach.
thinks of that nature.
it's really important.
but also with the roads.
side of all of this, it's pretty critical.
it was earlier mentioned a little bit about 2005 when we dealt with the private public partnership, of course getting things committed, dah-dah-dah, getting things in writing and stuff like that.
I understand that we're going to look at other ways to make sure that it's more binding, more so than just having a letter.
but during that time, it was pretty successful in actually acquiring letters from folks that said that they want to -- to deal with us and of course this is basically from the city of Austin.
in that regard.
so there is some opportunities for something in writing alone.
tom, I didn't want to exclude the letter portion of this.
something in writing, of course we've got those other things that we'll be discussing later.
I think the commitment in writing is still very, very critical.
>> [indiscernible] willingness of a person's commitment on these particular projects.
so -- so with that I -- I reserve my comments for later.
if necessary.
thank you.
>> we believe we can do these 27 projects in five years if approved by voters?
>> actually, judge, we cash flowed this out over a seven year period.
within seven years, I think it's very doable.
five years, it will be more staff that taps more into the general fund.
>> you believe we ought to change our five-year policy.
that's your recommendation to the court?
>> you know, given our '05, we're still not quite finished up with that, here it's six years later, seven years, probably not a bad idea.
>> some of us don't see it as a good sign, mr. Manila.
some of us see it as a bad sign.
>> I'm sorry I have to say that, I'm sorry
>> [laughter]
>> now, some residents have come down to give comments.
this is your opportunity, six chairs are available.
so if we could get six of you to come forth and as one speaker finishes, if we could have another person come forth.
we can move expeditiously.
four chairs available now.
please come forth.
have a seat.
if you would give us your name, we would be happy to get your comments.
why don't we start to my left here and work our way around.
good morning.
>> judge, thank you.
my name is deanne
>> [indiscernible] I've been a resident in lago vista for 22 years.
and I'm here, also on the city council, but our council has already written in support of the safety improvements along lohman ford.
however, it's outside of our city limits that we're talking about which is why we're here with the county.
however, I'm here not as a councilmember, but as a concerned community member.
I have notes, please excuse me for looking down, I don't want to forget anything.
since I've been out there for so long, I've always considered lohman to be incredibly scenic, however it's very dangerous.
I don't have an expert opinion on this, just my own driving experience and -- and all of those are undocumented.
just experiences that I've had, close calls, as you like.
even before I came to lago vista, what used to be called the village of points venture had come to Travis County Commissioners back when bob hontz was a Commissioner, they had asked him to help address the unfit conditions there on lohman road.
I figured this to be probably in the early '80s.
early to mid '80s.
and the request was the request was to widen or reroute, just fill the potholes because the road was practically undriveable.
any expense for the rerouting or -- what ended up happening was the potholes were filled and the asphalt was resurfaced.
that was the extent.
I think that was the last time Travis County has spent any money out there.
and then when waterford, I'm sure there's many people here from waterford who are here to talk, but what waterford was just being developed by clyde peterson and george mitchell about 10 years ago, again residents of point venture made requests to Travis County to address perceived safety issues on lohman ford road, hearings were held, testimony was given by residents there in point venture, yet nothing was done.
so here we are again.
it's not as if this little sleepy town is where -- we should just know the known commodity of an unsafe road and deal with it.
and in the public hearings that we held in lago vista, that Karen Huber attended and so did many members of the commission here, that it was identified that the north shore was the big, red predicted growth spot for Travis County.
it was identified very clearly as a growth corridor.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] we need improvements, we don't need improvements.
we need shoulders, we need a realignment, we don't.
it will run the gamut.
but I'm not married to anything but what I want to have is an engineering study and to back up whatever it is what do we need.
I have experience, but I don't have the expertise.
in considering the minimal funding that we've gotten since 1984, which is zero from Travis County for projects and improvements, and I'm not complaining, I'm just -- it's a fact.
and the fact that we're going to have so much growth coming up that the Travis County staff itself predicts, I ask the commission to heed this need and this request and to continue to leave the engineering study in the bond package.
thank you.
>> thank you.
yes.
>> my name is regina bogart and I live in point venture.
I am a business owner in lago vista and I drive up and down lohman ford every day a couple of times.
unfortunately I did have an accident in driving that road.
it is only one lane going back and forth.
it was a rainy day.
I decided to leave my house early because it had been raining to watch my kids play basketball in the high school.
so thinking about the road, I took my time to go and I -- taking one of the curves, my car just started sliding.
unfortunately I did hit another car.
that was just part of the experience.
fortunately nobody really got hurt, but my car had to be towed and there was absolutely nowhere to park my car safely until the tow truck came to pick me up.
I stood there two hours in the rain, I missed the game, so I have an experience of having a wreck in that road.
I live in point venture.
I love it.
the road is a beautiful road to drive in, but it's unsafe.
I have two kids that are starting to drive right now and it is a concern.
I've known of a lot of people that have been concerned -- that want to live in point venture that have considered buying a house there, but thinking on the future and kids driving that road, they make the choice to live in lago vista or not in that spot at all because of the concerns of the road.
I don't have the experience, I don't have the engineering expertise of how to fix it.
all I know it really needs to be fixed.
I moved from guatemala, a third world country, and it's really sad to see I moved into the united states of america and I find exactly the same roads that I left back home.
you know, so please just keep it in mind.
like I said, I'm happy to be here.
it could have been worse.
and I really feel for the kids that are going to start driving and that road is unsafe.
so whatever needs to be done, whatever it is, please do it.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> so you want the road improved?
>> yes, I want the road to be improved, but I know you guys don't have the money right now, but just keep the engineering port of lohman ford in your thoughts and eventually let's get it fixed.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Reeferseed.
>> thank you, sir.
I'm ronnie reeferseed again and I wanted to say a brief comment.
I wanted to thank the citizens of lago vista to recently united to say no to no to the forced mass medication and poisoning of kids, pets, gardens and et cetera.
pay attention, citizens of Austin and everywhere else.
toxic sludge fluoride can be eliminated.
thank you, lago vista.
but my question is kind of along the lines of the judge, he mentioned the 10% inflation for five years?
well, where's that come from?
I don't know, seems excessive to me.
but I'm in favor of development and what you are talking about in lago vista especially.
I'm so politically proud of you guys.
thanks again.
>> you and I are not supposed to agree, mr. Reeferseed.
>> [laughter]
>> it happens.
every now and then.
>> thank you, judge.
my name is jack gullihorn.
I live in the northeast portion of the county, and I'm here to specifically speak in favor of the inclusion of the cameron road west project that's been recommended by the bond committee.
before I talk about a couple of specifics on that, I really would like to amplify what all of you have said about thanking the people that served on this committee.
I attended more -- more of their meetings than they wanted me to, but I developed a real appreciation for the amount of time they've put into this and I really do on behalf of a lot of people appreciate the service that you guys have put into this and I thank you very much.
this is kind of a separate thing in that I appreciate you the commission, Commissioners and judge for you guys being willing to move forward on this.
I know this is a tough time for everybody to be looking at bond issues, but this is something that's critically needed and that we need and I appreciate all of you for stepping forward on that.
I wanted to just touch on a few things to bring to your attention.
I know that all of you are familiar with most of these projects, but I wanted to hit on a few of the highlights of this one.
this road is a project that -- that is included in both precinct 1 and precinct 2.
it runs down the dividing line for the precincts.
and it -- it actually deals with some critical issues.
cameron road is the only north-south arterial other than dessau road that between 130 and i-35.
cameron road eventually will hopefully be four-lane all the way from 130 to 290.
it flows through harris branch which I believe is going to have some realignment in the future, but it connects in essence parmer lane and that intersection with harris branch and 130.
right now it is a two-lane road from howard road all the way to spoke and it's got a major t-intersection -- or two-lane road that's not sufficient for this area.
as you are aware, Pflugerville has been rated after the last census as the eighth fastest growing city in the country of the population of more than 10,000 people.
this -- this arterial connects the new executive airport with the infrastructure that allows it to reach howard lane and also parmer lane, which takes a lot of the commercial traffic coming from -- from the north as well as the south to those commercial facilities that include samsung, dell, and a lot of -- and applied materials, and a lot of the industrial complexes that -- that are off of parmer and also off of howard lane.
there are many things that I would -- I could say would -- I would want to bring to your attention to describe the merits of this, but I believe this is a critical project, it's received a lot of support in -- in your -- in your various meetings.
we have, I think, gotten close to -- steve, I don't know what the actual number is, but we continue to bring in donations of right-of-way because there's a lot of property owners along here.
I think we're around 60% of the property owners that we've been able to get to agree so far that have agreed to donate right-of-way to this.
and so we're trying real hard to do it.
again, I appreciate your time.
be glad to try to answer any questions about this project, but thank you and thanks to the bond committee for including us.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, jack.
really appreciate your participation in all of.
>> yes, sir.
>> I think I've been sitting here so I'm going to move ahead.
good morning, judge and Commissioners.
vera masaro, I'm here representing the owners of the Austin colonies subdivision aclp.
in addition, pace setter homes, who is a home building company in the area, and I am also on the board of directors of two of the active homeowners association, ac river creek hoa and chapel crossing.
I'm -- chapperal crossing.
thank you to everyone involved.
the meetings were interesting and you all have done an excellent job picking the committee members.
I was actually impressed on how educated and how well they played together.
so anyway, thank you very much on that.
I'm here to speak in support of three of the items. One of them, of course, is the Austin colonies secondary access to fm 969.
we all know that that part of the world has been what I'd like to call a roadway squeeze because of the txi sand and gravel operation to the east.
this is the secondary access is much needed and warranted and as Commissioner Davis has stated it's gotten an awful lot of attention by the press.
unfortunately, you know, we're, again, that area squeeze and it's the only other way to get in and out.
so I very much appreciate the committee's recommendation of putting that as number one on the priority list.
the second one is -- and this is number 5 on the priority list, is the hunters bend road sidewalks.
of course, this would be helpful.
the amount of money is minimal for the payback that it will get.
especially in light of the fact that the new middle school, the new del valle middle school that recently opened.
so again, thank you for that.
of course, number 1 on the list is the pass-through financing for 969.
I'm not going to take anybody's time any longer than that.
I think it's been discussed, but I did want to just acknowledge our support of that.
just a little note, that area -- and I have letters for y'all that steve was going to distribute but I forgot to, but it actually -- and I would be happy to email them to you as well.
that area of buildout, which is all of Austin's colony when it started in the '80s and hopefully will continue through, will have 2700 single-family homes.
of those 2700, 1625 of those have been developed.
and about 1325 are occupied.
so that gives you an idea of the roadway needs in that part of precinct 1.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> let me say this to you, again I want to applaud you for your participation and what you've done, and, of course, these projects are very critical to that area, the ones you mentioned.
I guess as far as the pass-through financing, of course we're looking at that with txdot, of course there have been some correspondence and whatever negotiating needs to be necessarily done to make sure that we get this particular road to the point where it has from 3177 all the way to hunters bend.
we have sidewalks, shoulders on both sides of the road.
so four lanes.
so it is very critical for that improvement.
I really don't know exactly when we will get a final answer on the -- as far as level of participation, all these kind of things like that.
we are looking at it and it's a continued negotiation, but somewhere along the line in this process, and this is probably going to be outside the bond issuance, but somewhere along the line I need to really figure out when exactly we can really get down to the nitty-gritty of it and finalize it where we can say this is what it is and everything is probably still in draft.
but right now that is part of the latest draft is what I just stated, sidewalks on both sides, lanes all the way from 3177 all the way to hunters bend, which is a real big, big, big plus and a big move on that suggestion as far as pass-through financing.
thank you for bringing it up on 969.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thanks for being such an advocate for the east side.
>> my name is david stone king.
I own 2,000 frontage on lohman ford road.
the bond committee has included in their suggestions to the court a $5,000 -- a 500,000-dollar study of improvements to the road.
in my opinion, per the county data that I've read on the websites, there are no mobility problems on lohman ford road now or major safety issues.
this is a dead-end road to a nearly fully developed properties towards the end of that road.
there are currently urgent mobility problems in other parts of Travis County per the county's website.
that's east -- the east Pflugerville area, down that way that probably could use money allocated to it more than this stretch of road.
the 2035 campo plan per the website has projected 60 people per year moving to the lohman ford area.
that would be lago vista, 1431, down point venture, 60 people a year.
the 2035 campo plan has 24,000 people per year into Travis County.
so to me allocating funds towards the lohman ford area is overwhelmed by the much larger capacity of people moving to the rest of Travis County.
I -- I urge the court not to use taxpayer funds to study the lohman ford road and will urge others to vote no on the bond issue if the lohman ford study is included.
thanks.
>> thank you.
yes, sir.
>> my name is harvey rider.
I've been a resident of waterford and that area for the past 14 years.
I'm also president of Travis County m.u.d.
number 10 which services that area.
the area is about one square mile which I have responsibility for.
the project being discussed today which is designed to realign lohman ford road for a distance of 3100 feet and has been recoded, so to speak, to do a study on evaluating 14,000 square feet of lohman ford road for realignment I think is a waste of taxpayers' money.
and I'm going to give you some facts as I understand them, as I've been able to obtain them related to that.
one, the road in question is not heavily traveled.
it is only traveled by those people who live outside of lago vista going down towards waterford and on towards point venture.
the area itself is what I'd call not densely populated.
the community that I live in was designed to house about 280 l.
l.eus.
the original developer was -- it was then taken over by winston and now we have a fifth developer in there.
the reason that has changed hands so many times is there's been no growth.
the developers that came in there found that they made a significant financial investment and they could not recoup their investment because nobody was coming into the area.
the residents that do currently live in waterford for the most part are made up of half permanent residents and half who have second homes there.
the second home people come up sparingly on weekends, but most likely twice a month.
so the traffic density going down lohman ford road from boggy ford all the way to pearson is at best quiet.
yes, lohman ford road is a curvey road, it is bordered on both sides by trees.
the area of the road that the county is responsible for does not have shoulders.
but that fact makes it a very attractive road.
as you approach the community that I live in, you overlook the lake and it is very pretty.
straightening out, changing, realigning lohman ford road at this time would really change the aesthetic views that the community enjoys as they drive to their home.
when I went through the campo document, there are a number of things that give Commissioners certain discretionary control.
the other is avoid damaging neighborhoods.
the other is where realignment of road should preserve or enhance regional mobility.
another one is the project should minimize traffic joins congestion.
another one is to provide safer streets.
and another one is to additional infrastructure so population can move back and forth.
well, none of these things apply to the community that I live in or the extension of lohman ford road going out.
we live on a peninsula.
if you are familiar with that area, we dead end at dink pearson park.
we cannot go across the lake because there's no means of doing that.
the people in my community, myself included, do not feel that any changes are necessary and that spending originally $1.6 million or currently a half a million dollars to do something that is not required is not a good use of taxpayers' moneys.
in fact, it would be better used, that money would be better used in applying it to dink pearson park and improving that or arkansas bend, improving that, which is on the north shore.
I respectfully request that the Commissioners and the judge understand the facts, understand what actually is transpiring in our area, and if they deem it necessary to spend money in our area, look at spending it in improving the two parks that are adjacent to our community.
leave lohman ford road alone at this point in time.
it is not creating any problems. It is, in fact, an enjoyable road to drive at the appropriate speed.
it is well marked by signs telling you what speed to drive at and I don't see there be any gain by spending a half a million dollars to do a study at this point in time given the fact that we have really no growth going out towards waterford and then out beyond on to point venture.
thank you for your time.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> first I'd like to thank this court for allowing me to speak and for your time and service to our community.
I also want to thank the t.n.r.
staff.
they have been fantastic through this process.
and the committee members that -- that went through this whole process.
I'm here to speak in behalf of the lohman ford project, which was stated earlier there's going to be pros and cons.
here's a pro.
the --
>> your name, please?
>> I would like to also state there have been substantial number of letters submitted in support, but they were submitted directly to Commissioner Huber's office and we were not aware --
>> state your name.
>> I'm sorry.
leonard strickler.
we weren't aware mrs.
Huber was going to be out of town so we will get those properly distributed.
I've been following this project since the early 1980s as mentioned before by one speaker.
my mom was a resident in point venture and I've been going to that area for almost three decades now.
and she did have me attend along with her a meeting with Commissioner bob hans and at that point this road was discussed and I believe moneys were appropriated in 1984 for improvement of this road.
and for some reason the project never came to fruition.
so this road is no secret that it's been on the radar for close to three decades and it's no secret it's been in the plans many times and discussed many times to have -- to have the road improved and moved.
I attended all of the bond committee meetings along with these braves soldiers referred to earlier.
12 or 14 of these meetings.
I attended every single one of them.
while I was attending these meetings, my daytime activity in regards to this was put into attending public meetings in our community.
I attended public meeting at the point venture council and presented the idea of the road moving to them.
there was public discussion and the council in point venture voted unanimously to present a resolution which I'll make sure that you guys have a copy of if you don't already in support of improving lohman ford road.
I did the exact same thing in a public meeting with the lago vista city council.
again, it was held up for public conversation.
there was public input and then, again, the council in this case voted unanimously in support of improvement of lohman ford road.
also attended a public meeting with Travis County emergency service district number 1.
their concern with emergency vehicles getting up and down the road.
one of the things that's been pointed out by many people is -- and I think it needs to be characterized properly, this is a peninsula.
there is a single road in and out.
that is it.
once you pass boggy ford, there is no way to go around on a detour to -- to get farther down this road.
and so the peninsula aspect of it is I think one of the things that clearly necessities an improvement and a widening of the road to allow for traffic to be mobile when some event does occur.
and also in my meetings I met with the -- we have letters of support from the police chief of lago vista.
we have letters of support from the lago vista independent school district.
their concern being the safety of buses traveling up and down.
and another thing I think is important to mention is that out of the subcommittee process, the arkansas bend dink pearson park project came out at the number 1 priority for parks in Travis County.
this road services both of those parks.
it is the only road into dink pearson.
dink pearson is at the very end of lohman ford road.
so we're hopeful that a blessing doesn't become a curse.
you know, that we create -- the reason it came out as the number 1 priority for the committee was it was perceived to be a regional draw, not just a local aspect.
as you know right now, Lake Travis levels are very low and it's difficult if not impossible to get on the lake.
dink parson would create a deep water boat ramp and there are only two out of 16 open on Lake Travis.
dink pearson would become a boat ramp open year round.
we're talking about a change in reflection of the type of traffic.
we're going to see trucks pulling boats, we're going to see campers going to the parks, we're going to see rvs and we're going to see an increase.
Lake Travis is one of the jewels of Travis County and it's a draw from all over the state.
and we suspect that -- that we will see a significant increase in folks coming to visit it in our area based on the fact that it looks likely that arkansas bend park and dink pearson park are going to be included in the project if the bond goes forward.
so there is a lot of support for this.
I will get you all of the documentation and make sure that it gets to you as a whole group.
and I just don't see any harm in doing the preliminary engineering.
steve manila has already expressed how the project has progressed to the point where it's at and he eloquently stated it, but we're at a point now where truly professionals, engineers, get out into the community and let's find out what the community really wants.
I know I've spoken to a lot of people and a lot of organizations that represent a lot of people.
I'm not coming from just one subdivision that is not having the road moved because they just don't want it moved.
and there's been an argument made this is a developer driven project.
and I sat through 14 meetings with this committee and the thing that I heard most prominently from this committee is how do you work for public-private funding for projects.
how can the county stretch their dollars.
and one of those ways is to get right-of-way donated and have private funding included in this.
again, I just would urge the committee to leave it as it is at a minimum.
we would like to see the whole road done.
with the parks coming in, we think it's critical.
we're horribly disappointed it got cut down from the full project.
but with the parks coming in and the mood of many, many folks in our community, I respectfully request and urge you to at a minimum keep the engineering study in place and let's find out what we really need to do out there.
and at a maximum, perhaps reinstate the full program based on new things that are happening with the parks.
thank you again very much for your time.
>> thank you.
>> thank you for your comments.
>> yes, sir.
>> good morning.
may name is jim awalt and I live along lohman ford road.
one of the things I want to point out to judge and Commissioners is, of course, it is a one way road -- not a one way but a dead end road.
once you turn off of 1431, the first stretch is a four-lane road in the city limits of lago vista.
that ends at dawn drive.
significant number of the residents in lago vista turn right there at dawn drive to go to their rbsz.
their -- residences.
from dawn drive it extends down to boggy ford.
at boggy ford, that is the last exit for all of the other residences that live in the lago vista area.
so once it goes to that point, all of the residences from lago vista have completed their trips home or either on their shopping.
from boggy ford, then down to sylvester ford, all along the left side and I think mr. Manila needs to be aware, all of that is within the city limits of lago vista.
continuing through a new p.d.d.
of montichino.
then from boggy ford all of the way to the proposed realignment is the city limits of lago vista.
there was a developer who had 316 acres that they wanted to develop.
the city of lago vista came unit water to a five-foot conduit of land under two miles of city limits, connected to it and created the island.
that island is the falls.
it's now bankrupt and it's toast.
then from -- from where the realignment was proposed, you then go down -- there's seven residents that live there and then it dead ends at point venture.
point venture is basically a saturation.
they no longer have the ability for storm water containment nor effluent discharge since they no longer discharge zoo the lake.
waterford who there's a lost residents here don't agree with the realignment as well.
I also would like to point out that during the citizens comment period and review, what they determined is that, one, mr. Strick le.
r is a developer and he's been to all of the meetings and citizens review because he owns 400 feet of the frontage.
if he would have been successful in convincing everyone of this realignment, that realignment would have been behind his 400-foot and had all waterfront for condo development.
the ruse has always been safety, but the reality and the citizens board has recognized it's really a developer.
there's one other developer along the way who has -- mr. Strickler acres had four, he had ten.
he had plans for a 11-story condominium if the road had been brought in behind his property.
there are currently liens on that property.
he forgot to pay the architect so there's a $50,000 lien.
he also forgot to pay the engineer.
so what we have is this is an incredibly scenic view, and so it's four way to dawn and from dawn to boggy it is two-lane with a shoulder.
and then from that point down to point venture it's two-lane.
shoulders could be made, could be wooden, but everyone was against that realignment.
the citizens board made a motion and there was a second to totally remove this project from any further discussion.
during their interim discussion from there, they compromised and said, well, let's do a study.
there are a lot of people who think the road is fine.
we don't need to spend $500,000 of citizens money for a road that's basically lot saturation.
the road has been there 75 years.
we want to invite you to come out and take a look at the scenic view.
also, also at this point there's a lot of people here that disagree with the realignment and also with the study, and if it's appropriate, I would just like for them to show their hands and all those who are against this.
judge, thank you.
Commissioners, thank you so much.
>> thank you very much.
I counted 12 or 13.
13 including in awalt.
right?
>> uh-huh.
>> I was good in math when I was young.
>> [laughter] yes, sir.
>> good morning, my name is john adams. Several times here the community of waterford has been mentioned and I wanted to come forward because I represent the board of directors for the p.o.a.
for waterford as well as the lohman ford action committee which was formed beyond the waterford community.
simply I'd like to endorse what's been said as far as the feelings that have been expressed against this proposal.
we did not think it was a worthwhile use of taxpayer money to do the larger scope project.
and when it was down scoped to include just engineering, we again think this is not the best use of taxpayer funds.
when you look at what else is out there that could be done and should be done.
don't believe it will take us to a point with anything we are going to want to end up doing and why start it and spend it if you are not going to do it when it comes down to it and it isn't necessary from our point of view.
we don't see it as a safety factor.
we believe that actually what's being talked about as rerouting would add to safety issues by shortening a approach into our gated community which could then cause congestion and backing up on to lohman ford, which particularly as you have semi trailers who are backed up waiting to come through the gated community.
now we have a reasonable approach that you can get in there and do it.
if you cut that off, now you are backed on to what is the larger road.
and we don't think that makes sense.
and certainly there are the aesthetic issues that have been mentioned before that we would hate to see lost unnecessarily.
please take in mind that our organizations and the community residents really do not see this as being necessary or a wise use of funds.
thank you.
>> thank you.
>> thank you, mr. Adams.
>> thank you.
>> anybody else?
now, we will have the public hearing on the advisory committee's report when.
>> next Tuesday.
>> okay.
>> judge.
>> Commissioner.
>> thank you, judge.
you heard my comments earlier when one of the persons came and -- one of the citizens came and spoke in support of the three projects she mentioned, basically the two Austin colony secondary and also the sidewalk situation where children have to walk to school.
right now they walk this the street.
that one, but also the pass-through financing project that our relationship with txdot and far as negotiating.
could you possibly let me know, and, of course, the latest draft we have, you know, we talk about the shoulders, the four lanes from 3177, fm 3177 all the way to hunters bend.
could you possibly let me know when we are getting to final terms for negotiation with txdot where we may can relay this information to those concerned citizens that have brought this up as far as the pass-through financing for that particular area?
>> it will be within the next couple of weeks.
>> within two weeks?
>> yes.
they are very anxious to wrap this up.
>> yeah, we need to respond as far as the negotiations and see what we can do.
within two-week time frame.
>> yes, I believe that's --
>> thank you.
>> did we advertise the public hearing for 9 a.m.?
>> yes, that's right.
we appreciate your input.
this will be back on the court's agenda next Tuesday at 9:00 a.m.
for a public hearing.
we have received numerous emails.
we will review those between now and next Tuesday.
all of the comments given today will be seriously considered and made a permanent part of the county record.
but you are still welcome to come back next Tuesday at 9:00 a.m., especially if you have something new and different to say.
thank you very much.
have a safe trip home.
>> thank you.
>> I notice a representative from the tax assessor's office on number 23.
I wasn't sure that I understood that.
I think I do now.
any issues with that?
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.
