Travis County Commssioners Court
October 14, 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 12
12. Consider and take appropriate action to authorize staff to negotiate the following: a. An advanced funding agreement with the Texas department of transportation; and b. A fiscal security and indemnification agreement with thomas properties group for improvements to fm 2222 between sh 620 and river place boulevard related to a new target department store at four points center. Hello?
>> joe gieselman, with the transportation natural resources department.
>> yeah.
>> the issue here is the advanced funding agreement with texdot. What's being proposed is operate straightforward. It's a turn lane on a state highway and it is intended to be paid for by the private parties who are developing property adjacent to the state highway. Now, that is a target store, which has been approved already in the process. So we are not taking issues with regard to the target store or the fact that these are improvements to a state highway. The issue is that the county is the go-between, the state and the private parties. According to the state, they can [indiscernible] directly into a contract with private parties to accept money to improve the state highway. And so they want the county to accept the money from the developer, pass it back to the state. But in the process there is some risks that are being transferred and we want the court to be aware of. The state enters into the contract with the Travis County, according to our agreement, the county government is responsible for all of the costs of the improvement. Irregardless of if we get paid an equal amount by the private party, therein is a potential risk in that if the private party is unable to pay for any reason, bankruptcy being a possibility, it is our obligation to pursue the private party for payment because the state is expecting us to make up the cost to them for the improvement. So that's one transfer of risk. We want the court to be aware of. We will have a contract with the private parties that is -- that as best as we can will try to transfer all of those risks back to the private parties. But you need to understand that we cannot prevent bankruptcy. And so there is a -- an inherent limitation to our ability, of our ability to protect ourselves from the transfer of risk. Oart one is there are certain risks that are unknown. In our -- in the interlocal agreement, with texdot, they would have the local government pay for utility costs and environmental mitigation. We don't know what those costs might be. But we do know that our contract with the state exposes the county to the payment of those costs should there be any. Now, again, we will write the contract with the private parties, between the private parties and the county to protect ourselves as best as possible. From those risks. But we know that -- that in a very adverse consequence where the risk becomes large, we may be in a position of having to cover things for the private -- if the -- that the private parties refuse to pay for. I just want to make your understanding that being in the middle causes some of these risk transfers. So we have signed agreements like this in the past and we have become aware painfully of what some of the risks are. Those past risks, quite frankly, have many times been on county roads and our own projects. So basically agents more acceptable -- basically a little more acceptable when the county is entering into a contract for county roondz county trails and the like. Roads. In this case we were talking about state facilities. So we are assuming the risk in that case for roadways that aren't necessarily inherently county obligations. That's all that I want to do today is make sure how much risk you want to expose yourself to, with the understanding that we are going to do our best to make sewer that all of those risks -- to make sure that all of those risks are [indiscernible] with a private party.
>> my -- in looking at the backup, it didn't answer the question, I wanted to see what a map looks like. That section right now having been the Commissioners out there for 8 years is already stacked up confusing and congested. When the h.e.b. Went into four points, they wound up doing it that you could only make a right-hand turn coming out of the h.e.b., They are proper hingt the left-hand turn -- two hibting the left-hand turns off of 2222. I wanted to see what a map looked like because the nature of that signal at 2222 and 620 is that they separately let the directions pass and they get a huge stack up of people who want to make a left to get on to 620 and head down 620. It gets stacked up, not one lane, but stacked up double lanes. So I wanted to see some kind of schematic of what they are thinking about having to do this because there's not so much space in there between where the intersection and where the backup is so that's what I really want to see is what are they planning? Because they didn't figure it out on the h.e.b. It still gets stacked up and they have prohibited the left turns. This seemed to be allowing what they couldn't get figured out for the h.e.b., Now we are adding a target out there, I just want to see a map. I want to see a layout, the proposed design, because it's tight, joe, in terms of how things stack up back there because texdot does not allow two directions of the intersection to move at the same time. And the timing in between that on that signal are bad. Those are my concerns.
>> do you know how much the -- how much the improvement will cost?
>> it's roughly in the $400,000 range.
>> that's expensive. That tells me that this is not just a quick and dirty carve it out. That is a very --
>> excuse me. That's just texdot's part of it. The combined cost is 386 plus 189. Mother like 600 -- more like 600,000.
>> so -- the cost incurred by the -- by the private party is how much?
>> 200,000.
>> so that's the liability plus cost overruns?
>> my cost overruns, right.
>> about the $200,000, why wouldn't they just pay that up front and we pass it on to texdot?
>> that's exactly what we will require.
>> but -- plus with -- with an agreement basically committing target to -- to pay whatever cost overrun there's are, if any.
>> exactly. To the extent that we can make sure that we have fiscal so that there is no gap, I mean, we have had situations where the -- the cost increases are substantial. So it would be difficult for us to ask the developer to cut all unknown anticipated costs. That is a risk.
>> accept the contract to do it.
>> that's right.
>> I guess if I were a private developer and you asked me to pay the money up front but immediately prior to commencement of the real work, I would understand that. Maybe [indiscernible] over a year in advance. I think we can be fair about that. So -- but the goal I guess to protect ourselves to the extent possible -- you know --
>> yeah.
>> I guess my fundamental thing is I get that. But have they shared with us what this design is supposed to look like? Have we signed off that was the best way to handle it. I can guarantee you when people yell and scream because it is not working right, they are going to yell at us. They are not going to yell at texdot. It's just that that intersection has always been a mess and have you guys looked at the design?
>> no, we have not because this is not -- this is not -- [multiple voices]
>> let me address that, joe.
>> I just don't want to sign-off on yeah when we vice-president seen a design that says that this is even going to work.
>> we have the first draft of the actual advanced funding agreement from texdot yesterday. They are talking about basically adding a left turn lane from river place boulevard up to 2222. That's their proposed design.
>> right. That's precisely the problem is that during that stretch there, because you have a double turn left to go south on 620, you can't get across there even if you have that turn lane. That's the problem. They get so stacked up at that light it goes back to the place where they turn in to get into four points at the h.e.b., Which is why they have been prohibiting left turn lanes because people get caught in between because they get so frustrated. So it's like, I'm just -- I can get there related to the finances on it. I'm just not there having seen the design because I lived that thing for 8 years.
>> let me say something. I mean, I have -- I have worked -- I mean, have -- have seen what the applicants are talking about. We do probably need to have them come up. But I'm more than willing to, you know, take this next week, Commissioner Sonleitner, to come and show you what we -- what they are proposing to do. I think we are -- we are being -- we are not aware that this left-hand turn lane is closer to river place boulevard than it is 620. I mean, because you are right, everybody knows what a mess it is with those double turn lanes going north -- or going south on 620. But I think that we can show that that is -- that that is not an issue. Terry, can we -- do you want to come up?
>> can we just take another week and I can see some maps.
>> I don't want to take the court's time [multiple voices]
>> ask the court to go ahead and negotiate the financial part. At some point we need county engineers to take a look at it. I know we all have sort of earned engineering degrees by virtue of our experience on court.
>> absolutely [laughter]
>> we might want to get a licensed engineer to take a look at this and give us a professional jmght.
>> we will share those plans with --
>> I'm terry gray representing [indiscernible] [inaudible - no mic] we are working with target on this. On this proposal, the plans are in the works with texdot. The actual turning movements would occur a number of feet, a number of thousands of feet east of the intrks at 60. But there will be -- of the intersection at 620. But there will be a continuous left turn lane which will allow turning movements without people stop in this the middle of a traffic lane all the way from river place to 620. That's the reason texdot is very excited about getting this approved, this project on the ground, as soon as possible.
>> as a matter of fact, I mean, there's even some talk about doing a continuous left-hand turn lane all the way to 360.
>> that has not been part of our discussion.
>> it's not. But it -- [multiple voices] it is something that we are talking about because everybody understands that that left-hand turn lane out there is absolutely necessary, but I understand what you are talking about and we will --
>> can we take a week on this. [multiple voices] financing on it. But here's my other concern because I have lived this with our lovely friends at texdot. Their answer to everything is to put in the fifth lane. And it is dangerous still even though it gets you out of the actual moving traffic lanes. And up in Pflugerville on 685 they did the same mess, they are now having to go back in and make it very clear about here's where you can turn as opposed to every single business and while a good number of folks are going into four points, there are a lot of other small businesses every step along the way there. I have seen some horrific accidents up there because it's just basically, you know, every person for themselves with their s.u.v. And it's a mess. I would just a courtesy of a week to take a look at it [multiple voices] because I have seen [multiple voices]
>> additional wording if we want to deliberate on the design of the --
>> [indiscernible] would that be a map accommodating the backup for next week? I think there really needs to be something.
>> that would be acceptable to you all, to take a week, just so everybody can see it. I think once everybody sees it, it's going to be real obvious as to what we are trying to get done and if this is not the best marriage that you could have with private coming in, I mean, we can't wait for texdot to do this. We can't do it. But I mean obviously we want -- I mean, the key thing on this thing for me are the indem indication clauses that you have where you all I guess what we can do is we can run some financials on thomas properties and make sure that you guys have, you know, more than $150 in the bank. Make sure that -- that we are though the dealing with somebody here that's going -- that's not going to be able to take this project on. I am certainly in favor of -- let's take another week, i'll help walk through with everybody -- [inaudible - no mic] [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> that law ought to be changed.
>> I don't think that's the law. I think it's txdot policy. To my knowledge i've never -- I can't find the law that says they can't enter into an agreement with a private entity, it's just not their practice.
>> I think the court and the county is being exposed to unnecessary risk. It's not our highway and we have private parties that want to improve a state facility, have the money to do so, we've got no dog in this fight.
>> and it may be --
>> we're being put in the middle.
>> and we have a new fresh face engineer over at txdot in the form of bob day, a university of Texas graduate, it may be a new era over there that we can enter into those kind of things.
>> I will certainly try to do that.
>> have we had any kind of discussion with bob day?
>> we've had discussions with the staff, not with bob direct. And the statement I get is exactly what tom said, they cannot and will not enter into an agreement with a private party. I too would like to see that changed, but I know in the past it has been different, but I think this project would be delayed by six to 12 months or maybe years while we tried to work that out if we don't go forward. And I do understand, again, with help from tom, that the county has done with this other projects.
>> and successfully. I don't want to necessarily hold you all up, but I do want to see what the design looks like and to feel comfortable that this is the right way to do it and then let's get you guys moving as quickly as we can.
>> so we're interested in getting our engineer to take a look at it and basically get what assurances he can?
>> what works.
>> we'll have this item back on next week.
>> thank you.
>> and I guess we need different wording in order for us to consider where we seem to be headed.
>> judge, before we conclude on this item, if I could make some variations in the policy versus law here as far as txdot being able to do business with a private entity and thus bypassing the county. I'd like to see what exactly that language is. If it's something that we can deal with, i'd like to go that direction then. I don't know what the law is. (indiscernible). If you could give us some clarity on this issue -- thank you.
>> we'll have it back on next week.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 15, 2003 12:52 PM