     |
Hays County roadsPosted December 19, 2007, 1:45 p.m.
|
Hays Highway Editor
SAN MARCOS – As Precinct 2 Commissioner Jeff Barton ticked through the options emerging from a Monday meeting with high-ranking state officials, the future for state road projects in Hays County was no more clear.
But if the present, in the temporal sense, could be a present, in the material sense, road advocates in Hays County received a nice one from the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).
A $133.2 million pass-through agreement with TxDOT to finance road projects, feared to be all but dead months ago, is alive and well. TxDOT said so in the Monday meeting with county officials, during which the options for going forward emerged with wide-open possibilities.
If road advocates in the eastern county sighed with relief and pass-through detractors from the west were stomping their feet, the commissioners court is left to pick the next move. During the meeting between county officials and high-ranking TxDOT officials – Executive Director Amadeo Saenz and Austin District Engineer Robert Daigh – TxDOT spelled out four options:
1. Let the agreement expire, in which case the county would receive no state money until the TxDOT decides to re-vitalize the roads in its own time.
2. Fulfill the agreement and begin work on the roads, in which case the court would defy voters, who rejected a bond issue for the up-front costs in a May election.
3. Go forward with every aspect of the agreement, minus RR 12, the design of which was partly responsible for compelling western county voters to turn out in force against the bond issue. In that case, the Texas Transportation Commission (TTC), which oversees TxDOT, would have to approve the change. Barton characterized the scenario as a "dicey proposition, at best."
4. Go forward with the agreement, but replacing RR 12 with substitute projects to be agreed upon by TxDOT and the county.
Commissioners expressed the most interest in working out an agreement based on (4), though without a firm idea as to which substitute projects would absorb the $47 million ear-marked for RR 12. One strong candidate could be U.S. 290, which TxDOT began improving in "good faith," as Percent 3 Commissioner Will Conley put it, before the county challenged the pass-through agreement.
Barton mentioned at Tuesday's meeting of the Hays County Commissioners Court that TxDOT probably would seek payment for the work on U.S. 290 because it began that work, then the county stalled on the agreement. However, the county doesn't have a firm dollar figure for that work. Conley said he's heard estimates in the $15-30 million range.
Commissioners said they hope to find agreement with TxDOT through a short series of meetings in the next couple months, aiming for a resolution in February. After that, the county will consider up-front financing options, including revenue bonds, general bonds subject to voter approval or public-private partnership.
A May 2008 bond election is on the table, though commissioners conceded the timing may be difficult. If the county and TxDOT should agree on the new contents of a pass-through agreement in February, almost no time would remain for calling a May election, which must be declared in early March to meet the state's 60-day advance requirement.
"I think TxDOT fully expects us to do (a May election)," Sumter said. "I fully expect us to vet that through the transportation advisory board."
However, said Barton, running the issue through the county's transportation advisory board of citizens would amount to "re-inventing the wheel," as the board kicked the pass-through agreement back to the court in August, citing the project's sensitive timing.
A November 2008 election could be more feasible due to easier timing and heavier participation. Said Conley, "It would be interesting to see how the county would vote on a November election day in a presidential year, when you'll get much higher turnout than for a May election."
If the next move is like every other move in this saga, it's a long way from finished.
During the summer of 2006, the former commissioners court agreed to front the costs for improving or constructing several roads for which the state is responsible – FM 1626, U.S. 290, RR 12 and FM 110 among them. By fronting the $150 million in costs, the county could see improvements almost immediately. By agreement, the state would reimburse the county up to $133.2 million over 20 years.
But in November 2006, voters installed a virtually new court, including Judge Liz Sumter, who campaigned against the pass-through agreement. The new court agreed to put the agreement to a May 2007 vote asking citizens for $172 million in bonding powers to finance the up-front construction costs. However, the county's offering for voters adjusted some of the road projects, included no roads serving Kyle or Dripping Springs, and the bond issue lost.
For the last seven months, commissioners have battled over how to proceed, resulting in a peculiar compromise.
Led by Sumter, the court managed to express little interest to TxDOT and, indeed, Sumter voted against TxDOT pet road projects as the county's representative on the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). Pass-through advocates feared Sumter’s open defiance of TxDOT would undermine good will between the agency and the county, thus jeopardizing the agreement.
However, the county also engaged a TxDOT favorite firm to investigate alternative financing, began preliminary engineering work on FM 1626 and agreed to let the city of San Marcos carry the pass-through ball on FM 110.
Barton said he believes TxDOT was persuaded enough by the court's action on the road projects to keep the pass-through agreement alive. It remains to be seen how, or if, the agreement will prosper.
