Travis County Commssioners Court
March 16, 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.
Items A2 & A3
Going to a-2... A-2 is to consider authorizing a joint use agreement with the manville water supply corporation for the location of water lines within the right-of-way of grand avenue parkway and take appropriate action.
>> can we do a-3 at the same time?.
>> a-3 is to consider authorizing a joint use agreement with the manville water supply corporation for the relocation of water lines related to the county's grand avenue parkway cip project and take appropriate action.
>> judge, once tom knuckles looked at these documents, we combined them into one document, so what we have now is a reimbursement and joint jew agreement. Unfortunately, I do not have a signed agreement from manville at this time. I put this on the agenda. I requested it be on the agenda because we expect to warrant a bid with the construction of grand avenue parkway next Tuesday. So we wanted to get the utilities moving along. They're in agreement that they will move the water line. They are ready to start immediately. We have in our budget the money to pay them for the relocation, so all we're lacking right now is a signed agreement to get things moving. What I would ask the court to do if it's agreeable is to authorize the judge to sign this reimbursement agreement pending approval by manville. And unless it's changed substantially, it would go just to the judge for execution. Now, manville comes back and says, no, there's a whole lot of other stuff missing, we'll bring it back to court next week again, I would like to proceed as expeditiously as possible.
>> do we have backup on this?
>> yes, you are --
>> we don't have it yet, though, right?
>> we have a draft agreement that has not been signed. The draft agreement says two things. We will pay manville $236,000 to move their water lines out of their private easement and put it off to the side of the future -- the future right-of-way of grand avenue parkway. We acquired additional right-of-way for the expansion of grand avenue parkway. So what we're doing is taking these water lines out of the private easement and putting it in the edge of the right-of-way. Because they have a private easement, they want to be made whole, which means that the future, if we ever require manville to move those water lines again, we would have to pay for it. Because that's a right they currently have. That's where the joint use comes in. But they're -- what they're saying is by this agreement manville gets to be within our right-of-way, but unlike other utilities in our right-of-way, if we make a move, it's at our cost, not at their cost.
>> which is a fair thing, but in terms of what -- what's the likelihood that we will have to move those lines again, that area is rapidly filling in with subdivisions, apartment complexes, etcetera. This should be the ultimate design of that roadway. But certainly I can understand why manville would ask that because in case we decide to make this a 10-lane highway and need to move the lines again, that is the appropriate thing that they need to be held harmless related to their rights with a private easement versus being in a public easement. And we are on a huge deadline here of trying to get these utilities move so that this county with get moving. The 2001 bond project.
>> motion?
>> move that the county judge be authorized to sign. The joint use slash reimbursement agreement with manville water supply pending the approval of manville and no substantive changes being made to that draft document.
>> second.
>> the on relocation fund are in the cip?
>> yes.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thanks, tom.
>> so there's a combination of a it and a 36789, but actually just one contract.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 7:22 AM