Travis County Commssioners Court
January 27, 2004
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 7
Did number 7 go on consent?
>> no.
>> speaking of number 7, the oft mentioned number 7 it is to consider and take appropriate action on amendment no. 1 to the development agreement with plaza v 620 and trammel crow development for the construction of anderson mill road.
>> we have already entered into a contract with -- with this developer to have them construct a portion of our 2001 bond project on anderson mill road. As it approaches the intersection the farm-to-market road 620. They own the site directly on the corner and are developing that corner and plan to put in an h.e.b. With -- with quite a bit of traffic. They approached us and asked us if we could do a joint venture where they would actually construct that section of anderson mill road as they develop their site. It -- it actually helped us by getting an intersection approved before we would otherwise be able to do the entire road section between spicewood parkway and 620. So we entered the contract. The clients had been already prepared. We went out to bid or excuse me they went out for bid twice on the project. Went out, when it was over budget the first time, we made some corrections to the bid, went out a second time, it still was overbudget by about $200,000. So we are -- we are confident at this point, unfortunately, the -- that going out a third time probably won't result in it being any less expensive than what we have seen in the previous two bids which brings us to where do we go from here? One option would be for the county to withdraw from the contract and just say, you know, we are going to make this again part of a larger project and wait for that -- when that project goes out to bid, we will just go back to the original project. Unfortunately that would not help the intersection and it would somewhat put trammell crow and the development on that corner in a bad situation in that they are developing without the improvements to anderson mill road which that development will rely on. The second option, which is one that I believe is both the staff preference as well as the -- our partner in this agreement, is to go ahead and move forward with the project with the partner paying 50% of the overage and the county paying the over 50% of the overage. As you may recall, the original contract would have us pay for 80% of the improvement and the private sector pay for 20% or about $100,000 on their part. For the $200,000 overage, they have agreed to pay for half of that, 100,000. We would pay, the county would pay the other half, another 100,000. So our share would be about 500,000, their share would go up to 200,000. We are -- we would just move forward with the amended agreement, award the bid and get the thing constructed. So that's -- that is what this amendment number 1 does. Basically it says we will amend the agreement so that -- so that the private sector picks up half of the yoanch acknowledge. -- overage, Travis County picks up the other half and then moves forward to implement the project with the kid that is currently on the table. The other thing this does is there's a project management fee that we pay for the private sector managing this project. That we will not be paying that fee for the overage. Under the private -- the private parties have agreed that they will continue to manage the project at the fee that was in the original contract.
>> so the bottom line is that the county's cost would be $500,000.
>> that's right.
>> and we have that in the budget?
>> yes. This is part of the larger anderson mill budget.
>> hum.
>> does it look -- I mean, I think that -- looking at this, and joe and I talked about it yesterday, the only advantage that -- that the county that -- see is that if we backed away, did a larger project, but then even then we wouldn't have the assurances, I mean, there's a -- there's speculation that if we did a larger project that this could come down, but then what we basically lose is --is the participation that trammell crow is willing to participate in. If we got out there and we didn't get a better price, unfortunately I think this is what we are seeing in the county. Sort of a double-edged sword when the economy starts getting better. I mean, you are seeing that contractors aren't giving you the prices that -- that they were giving a year ago. And given that we have already gone out twice on this thing, I mean, I'm fearful that if we were to do that, then we are going to not only put the project way behind, but lose the participation from the trammell crow folks. And -- and, you know, my first question was exactly what you asked. Is the $100,000, even though you don't want to spend, if you would like to see the county not being on the hook for that, we -- we do have it and I think that this is the best move that we can have.
>> I'm also sensitive to what the neighborhood is going to have to go through. We got this project started in '97 when that was still precinct 2. It is going to be difficult and challenging project anyway in terms of the patience of the neighborhood related to simply the road improvements on anderson mill road. We don't need to pile up on them in terms of the intersection improvement. That will be a traffic generator with the h.e.b. Going in there because there are limited numbers of opportunities represented to grocery stores. If we can get this challenging corner out of the way, it's going to make a challenging project a little less -- vexing for the neighborhood. So I would second any motion that you make, judge.
>> so would our commitment be $500,000 or 540,000.
>> 540,000.
>> 540.
>> you have a second Commissioner Daugherty?
>> your motion.
>> yes, I make the motion.
>> second.
>> that we appropriate it and go forward.
>> go fawrld.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: TUesday, January 28, 2004 6:44 AM