Travis County Commissioners Court
May 16, 2006
Item 23
23 is to consider and take appropriate action on request for county approval of issuance of a construction contract for the road, galleria parkway, for hill country galleria lp. And we simply indicate that this item may be taken into executive session under the consultation with attorney exception. And if we do that, we could do it as early as late this morning. Now, I have been advised by the requesting party and his representative that what they're asking the county to do is simply confirm that the procedures leading up to the award of a construction contract comply with county purchasing standards. And so a question for legal maybe later would be whether that limited authorization is in fact what we're doing, whether we're thozzed to do that by -- authorized to do that by law and other related questions.
>> good morning, Commissioners, cyd grimes, county purchasing agent. Mr. Gieselman asked me to have a meeting with the galleria folks to discuss with them or advise them on the requirements of the purchasing act. We had several meetings with mr. Jim kehoe, their representative and some of the other folks in the audience. We also provided him a copy of our ifb's to sort of give them a format of what needed to be included. We also --
>> ifb stands for?
>> information for bid. They are required by law to competitively bid, to issue public notice in the newspapers. We've gotten copies of everything, and we feel confident that they have complied with the requirements of the purchasing act. The purchasing act requires you to award a contract on a unit price basis or lump sum contract. And they issued a lump sum contract and received three bids. The lowest bidder came in about 4.1 million. And tnr, myself, tom, have reviewed those documents. We normally do ours in a unit pricing and watch every -- we're out there a lot on the job making sure that we're not paying for more or less, but they chose the lump sum, which is in compliance with the law. So I feel confident that they have substantially complied with the purchasing act requirements and that the court consider their request to award this contract so they can begin construction.
>> and it's not that we're awarding the contract. It's giving our permission so that they can issue and award a contract.
>> I’m not familiar with the legal requirements. You would have to get tom's advice on that. But that's my understanding.
>> as you know, they have filed an application for creation of a road distribution, and their request is that once the road's built, the road district be formed and reimburse them for the expenses. And the law says a couple of things. One, the expenses of a road to be reimbursed by district. The contract for construction of the road has to be awarded in substantial conformance with county bid procedures. And two, the contract has to be approved by the Commissioners court. So your decision to form the district hasn't been made yet. That's still wide open, but they want to go ahead and proceed with construction. So just to preserve the eligibility of the project to be reimbursed should you decide to form the district, you need to go ahead and meet the requirements of approving the contract. And I think it's implied in the law that you wouldn't approve it unless they had complied with county bid procedures.
>> so would approval of the construction contract share the implication that we will approve the road district or is that still pretty much an open issue no matter what we do today.
>> absolutely an open issue no matter what we do today. There's no implication or assumption or intent on your part to create the district expressed just by approving the contract. It would just preserve the eligibility of the reimbursement should you decide to create the district later.
>> but if the county does not decide to create the road district, then what?
>> it's a moot point.
>> and the representatives for galleria are in agreement with that interpretation?
>> yes, sir, precisely.
>> okay. Then our motion should be to approve issuance of a construction contract because it has met Travis County purchasing requirements as required by law.
>> it substantially conforms with the bid procedures of the county is what the statute says, sir.
>> my motion is what I said and what tom added.
>> and I will second that.
>> so will you proceed to build the road and then what happens?
>> I’ll handle the development for hill country galleria llp. This is this -- y'all approving of our bid procedures and our contract which ms. Grimes has told you that we really followed the rules really strictly by six just to comply with the rules. We may that you haven't approved the road district and you may not approve the road district, but as mr. Knuckles said, this says that the Commissioners court agrees that we followed the rules and regulations and you approve of the contract and that we did everything just like the contract was doing it. So we complied with the law. You may later on decide that you don't want the road district. And if you don't, then that's y'all's decision. We hope you do, but you may not. So it's really a contingently agreement. You're agreeing that this is okay with you, but it really doesn't apply -- it doesn't have any force or effect, it's my understanding, if you don't agree to the road district later. This gives us the ability -- the way I understand it, we cannot start work on the roadway without y'all's approval of the contract, so if y'all did not approve of the contract or our bid procedures, we would not be able to start the work.
>> I will say this, they could start work. The problem would be if they let the contract and we later tem them you didn't comply with county bid procedures, they've lost the opportunity to be reimbursed. So all they're really doing is saying before we start work, we would just like the county to confirm we have preserved our eligibility by complying with county bid procedures because once the contract's let and construction starts, there's no chance then to go back and start over and follow county bid procedures.
>> right. So this would be our only role then today to say it complies with purchasing act, and that's our only role. So it's independent of any other action that we might want to take.
>> that's right. This is just -- this is very isolated.
>> okay.
>> how does the reimbursement proceedings work? I heard reimbursement two or three tiles here and I’d like to know how that process works.
>> well, the district has to be formed first, and then if the district's formed, then y'all sitting as the board of the district would enter into an agreement with opus on exactly what's going to be reimbursed and how much and so on.
>> it's almost like putting the cart before the horse in my opinion.
>> feels like it a little bit.
>> in my opinion.
>> it feels that way.
>> that's why I say in my opinion. That's my opinion, all right? So in other words, you follow the purchasing proceedings of what have been outlined by the county, you're going to go through the process, you're going to spend some money, go through the bidding procedures and hopefully get a contract, but then again, but the reimbursed portion of that, if a district is formed, that would be the way you would be reimbursed for the money that is expended basically through the formation of a district. Is that correct? Or am I wrong?
>> if the district was never -- if y'all -- if y'all at a later date -- let's say next week or the week after that, if you agreed to form the road district, then we would follow that through with an agreement that set forth the terms of the road district and how it would work and what amount of bonds were going to be issued and when they were going to be reimbursed and all the details, all the essential terms and elements of that road district agreement. That would be -- that would be negotiated. And so this only -- if we don't do this right, and that's why we've been very careful about these bidding procedures. If we didn't take the right steps, then we would never be able to get there. We wouldn't come to you and ask you to agree to let us form the road district because we would have broken the egg. We can't unbreak the egg. Once we break the egg, then it's too late. If we didn't follow the right procedures, then we would have not complied. And so all we want y'all to do really is to agree that, yep, you complied, you followed all the rules and procedures, the contract is okay with us, and really that's it. So we're not trying to get you to -- we're not trying to be sneaky here and get you to preagree to the road district or try to angle to get y'all to making a decision ahead of time. It is absolutely not a cart before a horse, it is just a preservation of eligibility in a contingent decision subject to y'all's future decision on creation of the road district.
>> can I give you a short history lesson, Commissioner Davis? This has happened before in the wells point road district. I think one or two of you may recall this way back where that road district was create and a reimbursement agreement was prepared and signed. There were two of them. But the bonds have never been issued. And so that situation may occur here as well. Just to let you know that you're not committing yourselves to do anything just by approving the construction agreement. You're not necessarily approving that you're a party to it, you're just saying it followed the procedures and they can go forward to the next step. You may never get to the next step of creating the district or getting to the reimbursement agreement. And the last step thereafter would be approving the bonds and issuing the process for reimbursement. It's just as he says, there's a procedure that you go through. There's nothing that says you have to approve the construction agreement. You could just say we're not doing this any further, but this is the steps that we feel comfortable enough to advise you that you could do that today.
>> I think during a work session there was probably nobody that was more vigorous in terms of questions that I had about the creation of the road district, but I am seconding this motion because I am wanting to preserve the opportunity for somebody to try and work through those issues or not. It does not have anything to do with the separate decision about whether a road district will be formed or not. It could be a situation where they have gone through the process of the bid process like Travis County, and that has been a lovely opportunity and exercise. It is totally independent. So this is preserving their options. And I am supportive of that. It doesn't have anything to do with the road district. If we get there, we get there. If we don't, we don't. It is independent. Kind of like when we approved the receipt of a report from the ctrma. It doesn't mean that we approve what's in that report. It's just that we received it. We are preserving these folks' options, and I am supportive of that. And I know that when we get to the road district, that will be a separate and vigorous and interesting discussion when we get there. This is not that decision.
>> do you want to throw that in there on this one?
>> [ laughter ]
>> but we're in agreement that this is open to the question of whether or not we approve the creation of a road district. We'll address that issue later on. And our approval today, if it is approved, will not be interpreted later as implying approval of the road district.
>> that's correct. That's the way we understand it also.
>> but this step is necessary to comply with the law in order to preserve the reimbursement opportunity later on is what I’m hearing you say.
>> to preserve the reimbursement opportunity.
>> you're talking about reimbursement. And the only way you can realize a reimbursement is through the district. So it's almost like it is tied together in the regard that I just mentioned, the cart coming before the horse. That's just the way I see it and I’m going to vote accordingly.
>> Commissioner Davis, I would just say that you're really protected -- you and the Commissioners court really protect or preserve your decision because this is not anything but the decision related to approving of our bid procedures and contract. So there's like a chinese wall between this decision and your next decision. So I understand if you don't feel comfortable --
>> there was a lot of questions that were posed before -- I have a lot of questions on those. I think it would be very premature in supporting this.
>> I understand.
>> thank you.
>> all in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Gomez, Daugherty, Sonleitner, yours friewlly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis voting against.
>> and based on the fact that I need more information and I need questions answered on the earlier statement is what my testimony is today.
>> thank you, Commissioners.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:30 AM