Travis County Commssioners Court
October 21, 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 1
1-a is to consider and take appropriate action to authorize staff to negotiate the following: a, an advanced funding agreement with the Texas department of transportation; and 1-b is a fiscal security and indemnification agreement with thomas properties group for improvements to fm 2222 between s.h. 620 and river place boulevard related to a new target department store at four points center. Good morning.
>> good morning. Joe geiselman with the transportation natural resource department.
>> good morning, joe.
>> tom is handing out the two agreements that are subject to this agenda item. Commissioner Daugherty and Commissioner Sonleitner and I had a chance to meet with the property owner yesterday. We have reviewed the plans and have made comments to the owner about those plans. I guess tom could probably highlight any features of the agreements. I don't think I have any additional comments to make at this time other than the ones I made last week. [indiscernible] information that this project is inside the city of Austin, so we are acting on behalf of the city in their jurisdiction on the agreement. So this is a pass-through agreement, again, between the -- the first agreement is between txdot and Travis County, and then the second agreement is between Travis County and the property owner. And we are the go-between between txdot and the private party. With that said, the agreement we have with the private party attempts to transfer all the obligation and risk to the private party that we assume in our agreement with the state.
>> does the city of Austin know about this request and our proposed action?
>> yes. They've sent a letter saying that they consent to the county playing this role.
>> okay. All right.
>> and judge, the one other really good thing, I appreciate everybody that took the time and effort, I think it was a very productive meeting to really see the full extent of this. Got some good background. This is really a project that originated a long time ago with txdot, but because of funding issues it's now being combined with the developer's effort. But on page 1 if you all will notice under number 1, there is with the added provision that txdot will not seek to collect from or impose upon the county the cost of installing a traffic light within the project's limits. One thing that we saw there is that it is going to be designed within the scope of this project, but we wanted to make sure if for any reason there is a funding issue and txdot or the developer, no matter how it turns out, Travis County would not be the one imposed upon. It's kind of stating the obvious, but sometimes you need to state the obvious. I think the week's delay makes this a much more productive and meaningful document. And the fiscal was new too in terms of the 10%, which was number 2. The 10% kind of a fiscal security in case this thing blows up, goes away.
>> and judge, this sort of process, I think, is really the kind of things that we ought to be looking to do. The developer has certainly come to the table above and beyond the call. I think there their costs have gone from a contribution of around $200,000, as you can see it's in excess of 350, almost $400,000. Obviously, though, we have to maintain and make sure we are fully indemnified so that we don't get something passed on to us. But given what we're trying to do in the project, and if you've gone out 2222, I mean all of 2222 actually, from 360 west, but this is going to make this stretch at least from riverplace to 620 a lot more user friendly. So I'm excited about having the ability to work with thomas properties and everybody concerned.
>> I think it also codifies the respecting of promises that the developer made to the riverplace neighborhood related to things going through the city process in terms of making sure that the improvements that were promised actually come about. And what was also important, this is probably -- not really mislabeled, but it's not just about the target department store. There is actually going to be much more development that will be feeding off this same entrance in, and while target is the first, there are two other large properties as well. So this was a very important thing for us to take the big picture look at, and this is a very important document, and I would look forward to seconding Commissioner Daugherty's motion.
>> these are not signed. We have reason to believe that they will be acceptable to I guess thomas properties group, on one hand, and txdot on the second agreement?
>> txdot agreement certainly should be acceptable to txdot. They drafted this. The one caveat is the condition we're adding that they won't add on a traffic light and try to get Travis County to pay that part of it. Whether they accept that or not, I don't know. I wouldn't think they would have any reason to object. It's sort of insurance we're asking for just to make things clear. But possibly they could object to that.
>> but you want us to approve these today?
>> yeah, and I would say approve them in substantially this form. Throubl may be a number that changes or something small, but as long as it's nothing major. Obviously any substantive change would need to come back to you all.
>> any more discussion?
>> then I would move that we allow staff to enter into the negotiation for the project and go forward.
>> second.
>> do we execute phaoes documents?
>> yes. They will need to be executed.
>> that ought to be in the motion, call for the county judge.
>> authorize the judge.
>> the motion contains the authorization for the county judge to sign on behalf of the Commissioners court.
>> yes. Friendly.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:52 PM