February 26, 2024 Hood County Special Called Meeting

Open with transcript & summary →Search this meeting's transcript →

The Hood County Commissioners Court held a special called meeting on February 26, 2024, to consider proceeding with a master thoroughfare plan update in collaboration with the North Central Texas Council of Governments (COG). The court discussed two study options offered by COG, the associated costs and timelines, and the potential return on investment through federal and state transportation funding opportunities. The court unanimously approved an additional $50,000 authorization for TNP to work with COG on the project, contingent on receipt of an updated proposal, and established next steps including formation of a steering committee and preparation for an initial workshop scheduled for mid-March.

• Call to order and openingThe Hood County Commissioners Court special called meeting was opened with invocation and pledges.
• Master Thoroughfare Plan update and TNP/COG involvementThe court discussed clarifying TNP's involvement in the North Central Texas Council of Governments' thorough planning study as it relates to Hood County's Master Thoroughfare Plan update approved January 9.
• Category one versus category two study optionsRyan Jones of TNP explained the two study categories COG offers and their respective scopes of work and timelines.
• TNP cost structure and budget approachTNP proposed an hourly billing model with staged budget approvals rather than committing to an unknown total cost upfront.
• Purpose of master thoroughfare plan updateRyan Jones explained the planning document's role in coordinating county infrastructure growth and providing leverage with state and federal agencies.
• Federal funding and COG coordination benefitsCounty staff and TNP emphasized that the thoroughfare plan creates basis for federal and state funding assistance for transportation improvements.
• TNP's role in supporting COG modeling and public processTNP explained their consultant role in supplementing COG's limited resources to deliver faster results and better stakeholder engagement.
• Traffic data collection methodsDiscussion covered how current traffic counts would be gathered from various sources for the planning model.
• Coordination with adjacent countiesAttendees raised importance of synchronizing Hood County's plan with neighboring county efforts.
• Steering and technical committee structureRyan Jones outlined the governance committees that would oversee and advise on the study process.
• Need for county champion and oversightDiscussion identified the necessity of assigning a dedicated county coordinator to manage relationship with COG and maintain momentum.
• Wise County example and timeline comparisonRyan Jones provided concrete timeline data from a comparable study to illustrate differences between category one and two approaches.
• Relationship to concurrent Granberry Road projectDiscussion touched on how the master thoroughfare plan update relates to other road projects already underway.
• Federal funding timeline and implementationFinal discussion addressed how long federal funding processes take once planning is complete.
• Highway 144 bridge and interchange project fundingOne project at the west side of Lake has been funded; additional funding is anticipated through a Cog grant application for $25 million.
• Master plan and federal funding strategyA master thare plan is required before federal funding will be considered; Cog has the databases and programs to do the analysis needed for state or federal grant applications.
• Work authorization scope and Cog collaboration optionsThe original $25,000 work authorization covered two workshops and map creation but did not include Cog partnership; Category 2 collaboration with Cog would require more meetings and deliverables.
• Cost-benefit analysis of Cog collaborationCounty investment in Cog collaboration could yield a 3 to 4X return; improvements to roads like 157, 156, 167, Temple Hall, and 377 could result in hundreds of millions in funding.
• Role of professional relationships and COG representationPersonal relationships between county representatives and Cog staff matter significantly for moving projects forward; the speaker emphasized the value of working with professionals like Cog.
• Decision process and meeting rationaleThis workshop meeting was called to gather input on whether to proceed with Category 1 or Category 2 options, since the decision would cost more than the previously approved $25,000.
• Flexible budget and hourly billing optionsThe county could bill against the existing work authorization and submit additional statements of work as funds run out, or use the existing hourly Engineering Services agreement with the county.
• Cost estimate and fund availabilitySpeaker's gut estimate for the entire project is $100,000 or less; county has approximately $1 million in unallocated capital funds.
• Budget tracking and accounting proceduresThe auditor requested tracking procedures because any additional allocation above the initial $25,000 would not automatically appear on spreadsheets or budget lines until the next fiscal year.
• Staffing and hourly rate analysisTnP proposed two staff members at approximately $43 per hour combined; 100 hours would equal $43,000 and 200 hours would equal $86,000.
• Work scope and deliverables clarificationCog will do the data grinding, hashing, and data production; TnP will produce deliverables including the finished product and visual aids while facilitating county and stakeholder involvement.
• Motion and authorization approvalThe court unanimously approved a motion to authorize an additional $50,000 from Fund 55 for TnP to work with North Central Texas Cog, contingent on TnP providing an updated proposal for Commissioner's Court review.
• Project timeline and meeting cadenceStakeholder steering committee calls and transportation policy committee meetings will occur approximately monthly or every two months, with completion anticipated sooner than the 14 months required for the county study.
• Stakeholder committee compositionThe county should be involved in determining committee membership; it typically includes the judge and at least one representative from municipalities, though composition can vary based on stakeholder representation.
• City of Granbury MTP and shared costsThe city of Granbury has an existing and updated master thare plan and is currently updating it in segments; question raised whether the city should share costs of this study.
• Initial joint workshop agenda and questionsTnP is preparing questions for the county to consider before the initial workshop with Cog, anticipated for mid-March, to ensure the group is prepared rather than improvising.
• Key roadway problem areas identifiedMultiple specific roadway problem areas were identified including Old Road, Saratoga expansion, Turkey Creek, and South County Road 2425 area.
• Map preparation and prioritization strategyTnP will distribute a draft map for Commissioners and stakeholders to annotate with problem locations and priority areas prior to the Cog workshop; Cog's model will help identify additional priorities based on traffic data.
• Map functional classification and featuresThe current map uses color coding to show functional classes (major arterial, minor arterial, collector, minor collector) as designated by roadway engineers; municipalities are shown with shaded colors.
• Map distribution and adoption processThe draft map will be distributed to Commissioners and stakeholders for annotation; the court will eventually need to adopt the final map for development purposes.
• Master Transportation Plan map refinement and coordinationStaff presented a working map of the Hood County Master Transportation Plan with plans to incorporate additional street names, connect with Johnson County roads, and convert the map to GIS format for 911 integration.
• Comparison with COG's regional model and roadway detailStaff demonstrated the COG's 2045 roadway network model online and explained limitations in roadway detail and coverage compared to Hood County's needs.
• Bridge construction cost considerations for rivers and lakesStaff discussed cost factors for bridge construction across water bodies, clarifying that pricing is typically calculated per square foot of bridge footprint rather than water type.
• COG's Wise County Master Transportation Plan process and timelineStaff presented the Wise County MTP process as a model framework showing task sequencing, duration estimates, and deliverables for Hood County's planning effort.
• Wise County MTP recommendations and priority corridor identificationWise County's plan process produced long-term and near-term improvement recommendations, priority corridors, and comprehensive analysis incorporating traffic safety and flooding data.
• Nuclear power plant evacuation routes as additional planning componentA participant noted that nuclear power plant evacuation routes, an ongoing Hood County issue since 2001-2002, should be included in the updated MTP with COG's involvement.
• Next steps and action items for county preparationStaff outlined immediate next steps to distribute information, establish a steering committee, and prepare commissioners to provide feedback on MTP priorities.
• Steering committee establishment and workshop preparationStaff and commissioners discussed forming the steering committee ahead of the first workshop and identified logistics for collaborative map markup and feedback collection.
• Workshop format and final preparationsCommissioners discussed whether TPG (consultant) should attend the collaborative workshop and confirmed the mapping activity would not consume multiple workshops.