Travis County Commssioners Court
February 25, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 3
Number 3 is to consider approval and execution of the roadway construction agreement with ringgold partners llp and catoosa springs partners lp for howard lane between ih-35 and scofield farms parkway in precinct 1 and take appropriate action. While joe is getting ready, it may make sense for us to try to call up the legislative item at 11:15. There are several folks waiting. Let's make that 11:00 o'clock. I do have a speech to give at 12 noon that I think is still on. It's been scheduled for three or four weeks, and because we didn't have court yesterday, we're meeting today, but I will need to leave at 15 minutes to 12 noon.
>> I have one too.
>> I have a luncheon appointment.
>> I'm happy for three members of the court to continue in our absence.
>> we would be glad to come back.
>> but if we break then, the question would be what time do we come back, so give that thought between now and then. So we'll call up the legislative item at 11:00 o'clock, for those wishing to visit with us on that item. And joe?
>> good morning.
>> [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ]
>> what's the different aspect of this project?
>> [ inaudible ]
>> in this case as a joint venture the people share the cost of the project.
>> joe?
>> joe, I did receive a correspondence from the neighborhood group in that area concerned about this particular project and the time line and things like that. Now, if we were going to enter into this agreement today, when will we actually have something to suggest that we've started the project or the first part of this, and we can lock that down? We did respond to them, but I want to make sure that we stay consistent with those time lines. So if you could, just basically give an overview of the time lines whereby those persons have not got this information out to the neighborhood associations in that area, they would basically be able to witness what we're saying here today.
>> as soon as the proposals come in here and -- [ inaudible ]. That would include the permits -- [ inaudible ] at that point -- [ inaudible ]. Cler cler [ inaudible ] [ inaudible ]
>> I wanted to make sure that was basically publicly illustrated the way you have just done because we have, again, we've been receiving correspondence with those neighborhood associations and communicating. We want to make sure that the residents understand that there is a time line, but we're moving forward with this particular project. So again, I appreciate that particular disclosure of that information. Judge, I have no further questions on this. I'd like to move approval.
>> I have a couple of questions.
>> go ahead.
>> joe, could you lay out for us in terms of the pedestrian amenities that have been built for this project for people who are concerned about bike lanes and sidewalks.
>> both sides of the street we'll construct the sidewalk on the north side. The south side will be constructed at the time the commercial properties are developed. [ inaudible ]
>> this is one that went through the 2001 bond process intending to be a public-private partnership. And I would hope that there are others that were also going to do the 2001 bond process that would see this as the template in terms of what we're looking for for that public-private partnership and it rang out very clearly who's got what responsibilities. And again, it's basically the developer is still doing what they would be responsible for doing, when they would go through the development process, and the county is piggybacking on at the same time the improvements that would be also necessary because of what's happening in this corridor. So it's a win-win for everyone. And I'm hoping others will take that template and yaw it in terms of their named project.
>> I think it a good example for others in the community to follow. So that's real good. Thank you for those comments.
>> what amount did the voters approve for this project?
>> [ inaudible ]
>> how much does this contract commit us to?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> we believe in our leverages is in the agreement. They're overseeing the design.
>> [ inaudible ]
>> once we approve the design, they oversee it?
>> they oversee the construction.
>> so it can be under the developer's will? In your memo, that's what I'm trying to understand.
>> they approve the final design plans. [ inaudible ]
>> okay. So when you say the developers would be responsible to second bullet oversee design.
>> design engineer. And it's under their contract that the engineer is working to design the roadway. But those design plans will be submitted to the county at various stages in the design process.
>> okay.
>> motion by commissioner Davis, second by commissioner Gomez to approve the proposed agreement. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM