San Marcos Mercury | Local News from San Marcos and Hays County, Texas
Email Email | Print Print --

January 31st, 2008
A quick-reference guide: Long road to road deal

EDITOR’s NOTE: County officials last week tentatively agreed to a revamped road agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation that eliminates funding for a widening of Ranch Road 12 but adds access upgrades to Interstate 35 and U.S. 290.

Here is a rundown of San Marcos Daily Record stories I wrote between May 2006 and September 2007 on transportation-related issues. [Headlines link to pdf reprint downloads].

2007

JULY

» For county, road options may be go fast or pass 07/21/07

» Texas 21: TxDOT says it will use safety improvement funds for FM 1826 resurfacing 07/17/07

JUNE

» Transportation advisory board members named 06/29/07

» FM 110: It’s too early to talk possible tax costs, mayor says 06/21/07

» FM 110: Ingalsbe says she will recommend city take over road 06/16/07

» Williamson County seeking TXDOT pass-through funds 06/15/07

» FM 1626: Barton fears no-bid contract will come back to bite 06/11/07

» FM 110: City wants to salvage state funding for loop segment 06/07/07

MAY

» FM 110: Ingalsbe at center of indecision on loop, roads package 05/31/07

» FM 110: Mayor wants to re-negotiate deal to keep loop funding hopes alive 05/16/07

» No to road bonds: Voters ditch plans for transportation projects 05/13/07

» Road bond proponents say safety above all is at stake 05/11/07

» With vote looming, Rose backs road bonds 05/10/07

» Roads bond vote may be determined by who voters believe 05/05/07

» Firms that would benefit funding pro-roads campaign 05/05/07

APRIL

» County’s hopes for parks, roads hinge on May 12 vote 04/27/07

MARCH

» Pending sale of university land on McCarty on hold awaiting vote outcome 03/31/07

» Ranch Road 12: Residents speak on proposed widening 03/09/07

» County leaders mull details of spring road, parks bonds 03/08/07

FEBRUARY

» Roadway wrangling: Conley out as county’s road point-man 02/14/07

» FM 110: As high school opening nears, rough-riding McCarty is main approach 02/10/07

2006

DECEMBER

» TxDOT deal awaits word from county; but it won’t wait forever 12/22/06

» As old court exits, Conley gets nod to head up road effort 12/05/06

NOVEMBER

» Judge elect says she wants to reconsider road deal with state 11/09/06

AUGUST

» FM 110: First phase of loop included in county-state road pact 08/23/06

MAY

» Road projects in fast lane as officials negotiate with TxDOT 05/23/06

Email Email | Print Print

--

9 thoughts on “A quick-reference guide: Long road to road deal

  1. If the proposed funding for FM 110 are added back to the county financing plan I say fantastic and we should all thank the Judge and County Commisioners. They have showed true leadership in recognizing that this is exactly the way a major loop project should be financed, with State,County, and local funds combined so that local taxpayers are not unduly overburdened.

  2. The County’s willingness to include FM 110 in their pass through financing package with TxDOT is based upon San Marcos funding 100% of the up front costs, currently estimated at $29.3 million. While providing us this opportunity, the county has not agreed to accept any financial participation in this project (with the exception of some costs already incurred). TxDOT, based upon future traffic counts, will first reimburse the county who will then reimburse the city an amount not to exceed $17.6 million over the next 15 years.

  3. I based my comments on the 2/1/08 SMDR article where Debbie Ingalsbe said the city may not need to front that money due to the evolving funding plans. If that is innacurate, then I am not nearly as enthusiastic. I did ask that all CIP items that would have to be removed in order to insert $30 million for FM110 be clearly listed to allow for a completely informed public debate.

  4. I have not heard much chatter about it but Will Conley says that if the court goes for another countywide bond election, funds for FM 110 should be included (with a considerable city contribution, I presume.) I think he and alot of people think the last package’s failure was largely due to TxDOT’s rather imposing five- to seven-lane design for Ranch Road 12. Without it muddling things, a package might have better chances. I’ve “>pointed out the irony if it turns out that every precinct in the county ends up with tens of millions in transportation money except his, which wouldn’t get anything (which seems to be how alot of his constituents want it).

    By the way, I saw on the Wimberley View where Steve Klepfer, the formerly Wimberley mayor running against Conley, is advocating a more expensive but definitely more attractive parkway design for Ranch Road 12. Conley apparently made the same argument years ago to TxDOT’s Bob Daigh but state funding was contingent on the five-lane model. Maybe the Wimberley sages can negotiate a funding agreement with the State of Texas as part of their Robin Hood school finance rebellion. They are, after all, nothing if not entitled.

  5. If the road package goes back out for a vote, the County should have FM 110 on the ballot. The City of San Marcos shouldn’t have to do this alone and the city has ALWAYS been willing to participate in a partnership with Hays County. I thank all of the city council and mayor for doing the best they could to help keep the program alive.

  6. As I once mentioned to Will Conley in an email conversation we had a few weeks ago, sometimes you have to “bite the bullet” and recognize that to develop and perform a road project in the best interests of the community, you will have to pay a bit more for it. It’s far better to do that than to agree to a super-expressway throughout our Hill Country as TxDOT usually wants to do.

  7. Pingback: County road issues coming to a head and it is Ingalsbe’s : Newstreamz

  8. Pingback: Sumter pencils Kyle into listening tour : Newstreamz

  9. Pingback: Going in circles: McCarty Lane discussion tonight : Newstreamz

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

:)