County Commissioners

Meeting notes - Feb. 24, 2009

Steve Hawley, Feb 24, 09.

Tagged with transportation, government, grand parkway

Harris County Commissioners Court
February 24, 2009, 9:00 am
Download a pdf of these notes

Listen to the public comments and the commissioners’ discussion (audio provided by the Citizens’ Transportation Coalition)

Houston Tomorrow publishes notes from public meetings to help local governments in their mission to provide transparency and to allow a greater pool of Houstonians to participate in important policy discussions. These notes are not official meeting minutes, nor do they record every agenda item.

Note: The Commissioners Court covers a wide variety of topics. Houston Tomorrow only reports on issues relating to land use, quality of life, and transportation. Questions or comments regarding agenda items are discussed during the meeting, and some items may be removed. At the end the commissioners vote on the agenda as a whole.

Agenda item #1, Public Infrastructure Department

Section d(1)(d): Recommendation for appropriate officials to take necessary actions to complete the transactions and for the County Judge to execute agreements/amendments with: TxDOT for advance funding for development, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of Segment E and a portion of Segment D of the Grand Parkway in Precinct 3 at no cost to the county.

The Harris County Commissioners Court today authorized County Judge Ed Emmett to sign an advance funding agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for Segment E of the Grand Parkway. The item was approved with the rest of the agenda, despite opposition from numerous speakers. The agreement does not obligate any money, and the county can still refuse the project.

Individuals representing the Citizens’ Transportation Coalition, Houston Tomorrow, the Katy Prairie Conservancy, and United to Save our Spring spoke against the Grand Parkway. Another individual, speaking as a private citizen, also opposed the project. Each of the speakers was allotted three minutes, and the comments spanned half an hour. Concerns included the environmental impact on the Katy Prairie, urban sprawl, geographic fairness, fiscal waste, lack of transparency, and lack of local support.

Two representatives of the Grand Parkway Association spoke in defense of the project, saying that the project would set aside $1 million for environmental preservation.

Art Storey, executive director of the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, clarified what was and was not on the agenda. He said that Harris County primacy on the Grand Parkway was not up for a vote, and that the proposed agreement concerned just Segment E, not the entire Grand Parkway. He also said that stimulus funds were not on the agenda.

Under the agreement, Harris County could either develop Segment E and receive all its toll revenues, or turn the project over to another developer and receive reimbursement for all its expenses.

Storey said that, while US 290 badly needs to be fixed, it is unlikely that any project will move forward in the near future. Instead, he said that Segment E “could happen soon to relieve some of the congestion [near 290].” Storey estimated that Segment E would cost at least $400 million.

Storey said that Segment E of the Grand Parkway is toll viable, meaning that if the county chose to develop the project, it would recoup all its costs over time. However, he conceded that the entire 180-mile Grand Parkway is not viable, stating, “The whole highway [Grand Parkway] is demonstrably a loser.” He said that while he had no information about stimulus money, the Grand Parkway’s readiness could help it receive funding for the non-viable portions.

Storey said that Segment E was in the county’s interest, and that if it chose not to develop the highway, TxDOT would. He also said that acquiring rights-of-way now, when the area has little development, would be cheaper than acquiring the same rights-of-way in the future, assuming development occurs in the meantime. He also said Harris County could address local concerns, like those raised by the speakers, better than other entities such as TxDOT.

Commissioner Steve Radack (Precinct 3) said that TxDOT has been inconsistent throughout the process and encouraged the agency to be more open and transparent about its intentions. He said, “I want TxDOT to have the backbone to say, ‘If you don’t do this [build the Grand Parkway], we will.’”

Radack also expressed concern over potential costs, saying, “I don’t want the taxpayers of Harris County to be out one penny” for the Grand Parkway. He added that he has been dealing with the Grand Parkway for 20 years, saying, “It disturbs me that we don’t see a lot of public support for this project.”

Commissioner Sylvia Garcia (Precinct 2) asked if the county would be fully reimbursed for its costs. One of the lawyers responded, “The agreement is contingent on a developer coming in and developing the entire Grand Parkway. In that case, [Harris County will be reimbursed].” If not, according to Storey, the county would receive enough toll revenue to cover its costs.

Storey also noted that if the county invests money toward the project but no one ultimately develops it, the county will not be able to recoup its sunk costs. He said the agreement did not obligate any money, and that he would have to reappear before the court in at least two weeks to present an actual contract.

Other agenda items

Unrelated to the Grand Parkway, in a budget meeting directly preceding the regular agenda, several commissioners expressed concern that the budget allocated only $10 million for roads to the four precincts, a decline of over $70 million in recent years. A representative of the Budget Department said that the precincts were receiving money from toll revenues.

Commissioner Garcia suggested that the budget department could allocate toll road funds to the general fund, but Commissioner Eversole (Precinct 4) said he did not want to do that. Judge Emmett agreed that it would be a bad precedent, and added that the money would have to be very specifically prescribed for transportation. Commissioner Radack agreed, saying, “It should be a goal of the Budget Department not to spend toll road money on maintenance.”

Also among the agenda items approved by the commissioners is a provision requiring new county buildings to be constructed according to environmentally-friendly Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.

Houston Tomorrow comments

Mary Anne Piacentini, executive director of the Katy Prairie Conservancy, noted that $1 million would preserve less than 100 acres of land.

Stimulus funding for the Grand Parkway is on the agenda at the Houston-Galveston Area Transportation Policy Council meeting on Friday, February 27. The possible stimulus funding projects list includes $397 million for the Grand Parkway. $181 million is listed under primary projects and would construct the portion between FM 529 and US 290. $216 million is under contingency projects and would construct the portion between I-10 and FM 529.

Previous County Commissioners notes (February 10, 2009)
Next County Commissioners notes (March 10, 2009)

More Initiatives