Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 2, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 17
17, consider and take appropriate action on request to sell approximately 7.3 acres to the community development corporation for reconfiguration of area roadway access near sh 130 and pecan street in precinct 2.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
joining me is craig chico from our right-of-way program.
we have a proposal from the Pflugerville development corporation to obtain from us or to purchase from us rights to use a park entrance road.
this is northeast metro park.
and what they are interested in doing is being able to use a portion of that road, a 1600-foot length between pecan street and the bulk of the park, to use 1600 of that to get access they currently own to the east between our park and sh 130.
right now we have exclusive use of this road and it was built with park funds, and for that reason we went through chapter 26 hearing.
and what they are proposing to do will be provide to us approximately $800,000 for this 7.3 acres of land, based upon an appraisal.
it's actually $799,000 total.
that amount of money would need to be used if the court approves the sale, would need to be used within the park and we already have ideas on how to do that and that is to build a new entrance for the park from the south approach to it off of the parkway.
we have a -- a warrant deed that has multiple covenants to protect our rights to continue to use the road and to also protect the appearance of the road, not allowing for certain types of development to attach to the road.
it's pretty well tightened down and how that road will look and function in the future based upon the covenants that are part of the agreement.
we have a taken a look at the value of the land.
we've taken a look at how we would approach getting a new entrance built.
we believe we can have a better entrance from the south because we do believe that once the economy does turn around, the pecan street entrance will be overwhelmed with commercial businesses even if they don't build the road but we'll have to share the access to pecan street.
we believe it's a good move to develop a new entrance from the south.
and the sale of the property to the pcdc is some $800,000 to help us accomplish that.
so if you have questions, be glad to answer them.
>> just to clarify, steve, this -- this would not -- we are not selling the entrance, we are just selling a portion of the road and it will remain our primary entrance until we build a second and then it will be our secondary entrance.
>> that's correct.
>> and the 800,000 does not cover the cost of building a southern entrance but it could go a long way towards building --
>> that's true.
we are looking at a couple of options and this will help pay for that.
we are asking for $3.2 million in the upcoming bond referendum, and that $800,000 would be added to that amount and the options will cost from 3 to 4 million dollars depending how much existing roadway we can use out there.
>> and also, just wanted to be completing above board because this transaction is not without its issues and we did work on it for, I believe, two years.
this has been a negotiation of two years.
one of the other issues with it, although I believe that we have reduced the risk to the greatest extent we possible can, is that the tracts on either side of the road with or without the transaction are not within our control.
by selling this portion to the owner of one of those tracts, we are able to get covenants that apply to the road and will also have to some degree an effect on how that tract will develop.
but the other tract the west is completely outside of our control.
so I just wanted to lay that out there, that that is one of the issues, but it's an issue for us whether we enter into this transaction with pcdc or not.
I understand that the western tract, what we call the timmerman tract, is currently not annexed by the city of Pflugerville, but there are negotiations to annex it at this point?
which will improve the northeast metro parks circumstances because it will fall under the -- the ordinances of city of Pflugerville with regard to what that property can be used for and what the look of that property would be.
so we are -- although we don't have any control over that we are hopeful that annexation occurs sooner rather than later so we have a standard of use and excellence around our continuing north entrance.
>> if -- I'd like to add one little point that dove tails with what steve said about the entrance challenges and the long-term viability of access off pecan street.
the traffic network and the accessibility of the park has been complicated by the location of sh 130.
when this property was purchased, northeast metro park, when it was purchased by the county, the access point that was selected and subsequently bought from pecan street was done well in advance of knowledge or any design for sh 130.
and the subsequent alignment of 130 has hampered traffic movement in that area.
from pecan street.
so that was something that no one could have foreseason here's ago when the property was purchased.
>> what year was that purchased?
>> the park was purchased with, I believe, '97.
>> bond funds?
>> yes, sir.
>> and bond counsel has given a legal opinion that it is okay to sell this land as long as we use the proceeds --
>> in the park.
>> in the park.
>> yes, sir.
I would add one more thing, I would be remiss if I didn't, you all got the final report from the bond committee a couple weeks ago.
and they did mention this in their report, that some of the members felt like the county ought to be receiving $2 million instead of $800,000.
and their belief is the higher value is more because that's what it will cost to build a secondary entrance.
I would argue we are paying appraised value and second, the entrance that we're going to be build will be quite a bit longer, larger, higher quality than what we have now.
we will also have to include a bridge crossing, a new bridge crossing over the creek that passes through the park.
I don't think it's a apples to apples comparison, but it's out there nonetheless.
>> and it is a consideration.
one way to value property is your replacement costs, but steve makes a valid point that if you are looking at replacement cost have you to look at apples to apples.
you don't look at replacement costs for a pinto by looking at a audi.
>> whose apraiser appraised the property?
>> paul hornsby.
>> who paid paul.
>> pcdc paid for it.
paul hornsby was the apraiser.
>> it was our recommendation to use -- we provided a list of appraisers that we felt were --
>> that are approved for county.
>> that are approved for county appraisals and they selected from that list.
>> we have representatives here from the buyer.
any comments?
>> none at all.
>> they look too honest to
>> [indiscernible] by our appraiser.
>> I would just, for the record, say that with regard to the bond covenants and the use of the proceeds within the park, in my own mind I take the chapter -- is it chapter 36?
26.
chapter 26 requirements very sufficiently with regard to how we handle those bond procedures and this being parkland.
but I'm likening and calling it the swap doctrine, a previous transaction for the bcp where there's an in-parcel that didn't have access, we sold the property and put the money back towards bcp.
so we do have that covered from bond counsel that that's okay and have run those traps, but also philosophically I think it makes sense for improvement to the park.
>> second.
>> any issues of which we should be concerned?
that means no.
right?
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt moves approval.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much.
thank you for your patience Pflugerville development corporation representatives.
>> thank you so much for being here.
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.
