Travis County Commssioners Court
May 11, 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 19
19, consider and take appropriate action on a utility agreement with manville water supply corporation for the grand avenue parkway cip project. So just an explanation, 116,000-dollar error.
>> it's probably more an oversight than an error. We have been submitting our engineering plans to the utility district. They are unaware that this we wanted to pay them for the entire relocation of their water line, even a piece through the city of Pflugerville. We have a separate interlocal agreement where we will bill back that expense to the city, but it meant the utility district itself needs to charge us for that relocation. So when they finally put all the pieces together, they realized that they undercharged us on the prior agreement that I brought to court. We approved the agreement, sent it to them. When they started looking at it in detail at the board, they said, well, what about this segment? And it wasn't in their cost estimate. So it is now. And that's why we need to have this revised.
>> that is the segment that we will then build back to the city of Pflugerville.
>> thoort.
>> so it was a mathematical error?
>> I think we are now in agreement with what it's going to cost the county to relocate this water line once and for all.
>> but based on how they charge, we agree that an appropriate price is $851,000, not 226,000 that we approved last week.
>> this is what their engineer is telling us it will cost them to relocate the line.
>> and make sense. It made sense to us.
>> yes. I mean, we're basing it on we're -- we have reviewed the engineer's estimate, so yes, it makes sense.
>> and this is in the budget?
>> yes, it is.
>> move approval of 19.
>> second.
>> if we approved an amount last week, 426,000, what we're doing now is request to increase that 350 -- 351,000. If we include it as a straightforward and take appropriate action, increase the amount -- (indiscernible).
>> as long as your intent's clear. I think it is. If you're increasing the amount.
>> I think what we need to do is increase the 236 per our approval last week to $351,000 as indicated in the backup for that.
>> have there been any other changes in the utility agreement? That was imbedded in the utility agreement we approved. That went on to manville. They rejected the agreement. So the question is is anything other than that dollar amount or an exhibit, did anything else change?
>> no.
>> so this really is an amended agreement that we're going to send back to manville and hope that that change in that number will get the job done.
>> they've already started --
>> they've already signed this one. [overlapping speakers].
>> okay. Last week I signed what the court approved.
>> that's right.
>> so manville had not --
>> they rejected it so you did not have an executed contract. Now you have their signed agreement. If you approve it today, it's executed.
>> the motion also includes our intention to n validate -- invalidate the action last week, otherwise render -- whatever we took action on last week.
>> right. That is now a worthful document.
>> except for my signature. [ laughter ]
>> so on behalf of this, this is in terms of us signing -- is the judge now signing a new executed document that's come from manville that they have indeed signed where they are expressing concurrence with the number that's put in there?
>> yeah. It was seconded by Commissioner Gomez, right? Any more discussion? All in favor? That pass busy unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:23 AM