Travis County Commissioners Court
June 3, 2008
Item 27
27 is consider and take appropriation action on a proposed license agreement for temporary action by sendaro construction services, inc., to a construction area for development of improvements to property adjacent to a Travis County facility located at north lamar boulevard and west 10th street in precinct 2.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. Greg chica with transportation and natural resources. This is a why from the property owner immediately to the west of the county owned property at 10th and lamar. The property is under development, there are a number of high end condominium units proposed and planned to be built at that location. And the -- the neighbor and owner and developer and contractor have asked Travis County for authorization to use a -- a 20-foot wide strip of land along the back of the county property. The western edge of the county property. It's roughly 97 feet in length and as I said, 20 feet in width. They have been in discussions with -- with t.n.r. Staff for a number of months about this, this area is needed for staging. And exterior development or exterior construction of the property. The -- the proposed temporary easement area, the license agreement for that temporary easement area, calls for a payment to Travis County of $15,000. And the term on that proposed easement is until, from the point of ratification or execution, if approved by the court, until February 1st of 2009.
>> so how are we using that property today?
>> that property is currently used for parking, there are nine paved parking spaces that satisfy t.n.r. Fleet. Or Travis County fleet vehicles. The fleet manager with t.n.r. Has investigated and determined that -- that those vehicles can be parked on a rotating and interim basis in other locations. There are facilities at that location for maintenance of county vehicles and it's my understanding that -- that through a little juggling, if you will, without any particularly undue hardship, long-term would be very difficult for fleet. But on a six to seven month basis, fleet services has indicated that they can accommodate this request.
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> go ahead.
>> so the staging area that they are acquiring with this little temporary access, I guess, do we know how long specifically will they actually need that 20-foot width area? At this particular date will be you through and we can resume the -- the use of this -- of this particular area?
>> yes, sir. They are committed to -- to the -- to be off the property no later than February 1st of 2009. They are also under the proposed license agreement required to restore the property to the condition that existed prior to their use of it. In terms of their actual when they would be on that. There are times when they would have no access or no use for that property, maybe weeks or maybe a month or two.
>> right. The reason why I asked that question was because there's a lot of contingent type of situations that happen when you go into this type of project as far as time lines concerned. There's no guarantees that no one will be complete at the date that they say they will be completed at. So I was just wondering what other avenues would be made available to make sure that this actually happens according to what happened. If it doesn't then what? I was looking for the then what? You are correct, there are no guarantees on any of this. When it comes to construction, there certainly are no guarantees. However, after the termination of the license agreement, it would be a matter of trespassing and the county attorney can comments on that. But they would -- it's my understanding that they wouldn't have any legal right to be on the property after February 1st of 2009 and if they were on the property it would be a trespass against the county. No different than if they decided to go there tomorrow without any agreement or authorization from the Commissioners court.
>> mr. Chico, this is just a straight contractual arrangement between us as a landowner and another adjacent landowner, this isn't -- we are not condoning the project that they are doing. We are in no way involved in their construction project. This is merely a -- a contract for use of temporary use of our space; is that correct?
>> that is correct.
>> so this is just a straight up business deal. It makes sense to us financially. It doesn't harm us in any way?
>> correct.
>> and we bare no liability for their use of the space?
>> well, under the proposed license agreement that was reviewed and approved by the county attorneys, they are required and do name Travis County as an additional insured.
>> as what?
>> additional insured.
>> so we are carried on their insurance for any -- any mishap on the -- on the property.
>> correct.
>> I don't have any problem with it. I’m just very cautious, especially in contractual relationships, that's with anything. I was looking for the then what answer. If it's not as it appears to be contractually, then what after -- after, you know, so I was looking for the then what. I think that you answered that. If they are not there out at this certain length of time, even though it is a business relationship, the contractually we are locked into that, but then what as far as when legally probably have to kick in? And -- and for the temporary use of this particular property. So after that, that answer and so -- so everything that's in writing doesn't necessarily have to go accordingly because it's in writing. That's why I posed the question then what.
>> yes, sir.
>> I appreciate you all doing this. This is the neighborly thing to do. They ought to be real easy stuff. I think that we have recognized that we have the ability to do that. I mean quite frankly there are some people next door that would like to work with us at some point in time. I think that this is a step in the right direction. I mean we have the ability to work with the private sector. They are willing to pay us some money. No brainer. I move approval of this and thanks for working on this.
>> how did we arrive at $15,000?
>> negotiated amount.
>> $13 a foot.
>> it -- a number of proposals were floated back and forth. One -- one proposal was that the -- that the property owner obtain and lease on our behalf on Travis County's behalf parking spaces, the actual net cost to that neighbor would probably have been significantly less based on lease rates. Than this amount. This is -- this is -- was a negotiated amount, it's also the highest amount that was ever discussed between the two, between t.n.r. Staff and the -- and the adjoining property owner and t.n.r. Staff is -- is very confident that it represents sufficient and equitable compensation to the taxpayers in Travis County.
>> any more discussion?
>> one more just a comments, mr. Chico. We have received no complaints from the neighbors as far as the effects on the neighbors utilizing this space or staging area.
>> no.
>> okay. And okay.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much e.
>> thank you.
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:
Tuesday, June 3, 2008 12:51 PM