Travis County Commssioners Court
December 16, 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 15
We have two or three little items for you, joe. Number 15. More than anything else I simply want this to be laid out in the public. Consider and take appropriate action regarding request to approve the first amendment to the anderson mill road participation agreement between twin creek oldings limited and Travis County. And authorize a final reimbursement amount of $1,162,832.28 to twin -- it's the amount I guess that got my attention more than anything else, to twin creeks holdings ltd. For all construction costs, project management fees, engineering services (including reimbursable costs), utility relocation costs and topographic survey services.
>> this is -- this is a -- a true up correction to the contract that we had with twin creeks. The project is now complete. As you may recall, this was a -- this was a part private venture, actually probably the first that we entered into. It shows you what can happen. First of all, number one, it's completed. Well ahead of schedule. Number two, we saved half that much. It was originally budgeted at $2,260,000, we spent roughly 1,000,001. We have a 50% savings by jury do you have the fact that we dove tailed on to some existing contract into a project that was already in position. I think that this shows the power of a public/private venture in getting c.i.p. Projects done. Now with that said, it is $60,000 over, not to exceed amount in the contract. But for good reasons. The construction itself was about $35,000 over budget. The miscellaneous services topographic surveys, the fee of the prong management was based on the project costs, as that went up it was a fee because it was a percentage of.
>> services were needed to complete the project.
>> absolutely. But I think not to lose site of the fact that we are increasing not to exceed of 60,000, we still saved 50% of our budget, well over a million on this project and it's completed.
>> tied into the idea of the trueup, at some point we are going to need to completely start trueing up and closing out completely and putting the stamp on the file on the 97 bond issue and 2001. And what we have here is a true up on what was part of the precinct 2 allocation of a project. That's a good thing because we all knew that we had to manage within the dallas that were for all of our projects and when one went over, you were going to have to find it someone else within your allocation. So this is a good thing. There are also good things left over from 97 related to howrld lane. Using the idea of true up, this is a true up that needs to be done, but we need to start closing out some of those other bond issue that's we have got in terms of contribution things up -- trueing things up, in terms of what dallas are still left on the table, what can they be applied to if anything still on that bond issue just so that we have a better running total, whether it's precinct 2, 1, 4 or 3, we just need to start closing some of these old bond funds out and to get new line items set up about, okay, so where does this go? But howrld lane is the biggy that we have never trued up.
>> agenda item on that one.
>> exactly. But it's tied into, because -- it can only be spent in this same 2001 bond issue of which this particular one is one of about four projects. So just --
>> I would be happy at the first of the year bring back a budget amendment and true up all of the projects.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 17, 2003 6:46 AM