Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Txdot Advance Funding Agreements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conroe staff recommends funding for TxDOT utility relocations, approves first payment for fiber project
Summary
Council heard staff recommendations for multiple advance funding agreements with TxDOT including a $5.725 million utility relocation segment along SH 75, a $163,496.24 change order on SH 105, and an initial $8,300 payment for a fiber connectivity AFA tied to a congressional earmark.
City staff presented three advance funding agreements (AFAs) with the Texas Department of Transportation at the May 21 Conroe City Council meeting, recommending the council authorize city participation in costs for utility relocations and to approve an initial payment on a fiber connectivity project.
Norman McGuire (referred to in the meeting as Mr. McGuire) explained the largest item before council was an AFA for utility relocations along State Highway 75 from FM 3083 toward Willis. "It is totaling $5,725,000. TxDOT will design it and construct it…this is a tool that we always use on TxDOT projects, that locks in the city's funding participation," McGuire said, noting the relocation costs reflect water and sewer facilities in the TxDOT right of way.
A second item was an amendment (change order) to an existing AFA for State Highway 105 East, covering the segment from Tenth Street to South Loop 336. The amendment is for $163,496.24, described by staff as the city's responsibility when design or construction reveals additional utility conflicts beyond TxDOT's control. "This is an amendment to an already approved AFA…staff does recommend approval," McGuire told the council.
The council also reviewed a fiber connectivity AFA tied to a congressional earmark obtained with the assistance of the city's congressman. McGuire called the project an 80/20 match and said the initial payment before council was $8,300. The fiber would link traffic signals along the South Loop corridor to improve signal coordination; the remainder of the city's match would be authorized as construction progresses.
Council discussion checked the scope and costs. The council did not record a final vote in the public portion of the transcript; staff consistently "recommended approval" on all three items. McGuire emphasized that utility relocations often fall to the city when utilities are located within state right of way.
Staff indicated they will proceed with the standard AFA process and return with necessary documents if the council approves the AFAs at a later formal action or vote. No recorded roll-call outcome for these AFAs appears in the public transcript.
