Travis County Commissioners Court
April 7, 2009,
Item 10
>> roger, since -- roger, since we have you there, consider and take appropriate action regarding request for a new site location for the new del valle wellness and health clinic.
this is item number 10.
this is follow-up to our conversation with the state department of transportation regarding expansion of 71.
right?
okay.
>> this is an item -- judge, I'll go ahead and start off.
it's an item that was budgeted by the court in fy '09.
it is the -- really rebuilding of the del valle clinic which serves our employees in that area.
we had an initial location which roger will show you, and then because as you mentioned of what's happening with fy -- I'm sorry, with the highway and txdot, we needed to relocate that, and roger has worked with sherri fleming and the folks out in that area.
and I think we have a solution.
>> I think we can address this move as a good move anyway, even -- because let's say that sh 130, that extension or that highway wouldn't go through there at all.
then this is still a good move because we have a building on site that needs to be replaced anyway.
and so that would be a good reason to do this.
without regard to the other stuff.
>> can you quickly lay out what you have in mind?
>> okay.
the court a couple of months approved the wellness clinic in this area right here.
let me give you a bearing first.
this is 973.
this is north right here with the 71.
and this is the access here as for the jail construction area and also for the softball area and also another access to (indiscernible).
we -- the court approved the location of the wellness clinic right here before we know anything about the txdot proposed expansion.
the blackland right here, that's existing right-of-way.
now, txdot are proposing to move 17th street toward our property and this is where the shaded area is.
now, the one that's clinic at this time, it is not in the proper location because if this happened, then we're going to lose an access to the building right here and another access to the wellness clinic and the center.
so we're saying right now it's best to go ahead and move the we willness clinic to where right now it's called intern facility on the site.
and by moving it right there on this one, we replace an old facility.
we recommend demolishing that old facility anyway.
and also we will have a -- the water -- all the utility there, the electrical, water and wastewater around this area.
so this is also a cost issue.
and it's going to be visible and there will be no problem with the access to come to the we willness clinic.
and -- the wellness clinic.
and one more thing is we don't increase impervious cover on this area.
so we propose two things, to move the wellness clinic, the entrance facility is, and also we would like you to give us the okay and approval to demolish the interim facility.
>> roger, have we notified the Texas department of transportation and what we have to do?
>> no, I did not have any communication with Texas -- txdot at this time.
but the bills I think is -- because we have to have additional geotechnical investigation, we already have some survey costs.
those are still on tap right now.
until we have the time, the negotiations start with txdot.
>> I think we ought to basically approve proceeding in the direction that you are headed, but that we put txdot on notice that because of their 71 expansion plans, we have to change our plans for the location of the wellness clinic.
and so we lose whatever investment we have made at our current site.
but it doesn't make sense for us to put that there when we're losing access and convenience and other things.
also I think we need to let them know that whatever additional costs there are, we need to send them an invoice and get them to pay it.
and I guess I would -- I do that as soon as possible, which is if we do that today, as soon as we can.
>> and in addition to that, I think you can still stress that if they continue with their plans, that's going to continue to put pressure on the other services that face 973.
so I think we can add that on to there.
>> what will we do with the activities that are currently taking place in the temporary facility?
or are there?
there's nothing going on?
>> it's an old, old building that has kind of served its purpose and it really needs to go.
>> right now it's just storage.
>> the good thing is that there are utilities there and it is good space and the county owns it.
>> correct.
>> at the same time, though, that is not the site we had in mind for the wellness clinic and we're losing that site because of the transportation -- state transportation project.
i just think they ought to know and we ought to expect them to reimburse us, whatever the additional costs are for having to change the strategy.
that's my motion.
>> second.
>> I have a question about the motion.
are we going to invoice txdot for some costs preor post notice that they provided to us.
>> my guess is legally we can ask them to pay any additional costs that we incur.
we only spent a certain amount of money nato get our project done without their action.
if their action would cause us to spend more, I think.
so I think we ought to try to put together a document that really identifies the additional costs that we incur as a result of their decision and our having to relocate the new wellness clinic.
am I answering your question?
>> well, I'm thinking perhaps we should look at their notice provisions and how the information came to us so that we can make sure this doesn't happen again.
i'm concerned about the conduit of information and how this -- how we didn't know about this.
because I first heard about it from a consultant working with an adjacent property owner.
and then txdot came and said that they had provided us notice and presented a letter, but -- and sure enough, there was a letter.
but I'm not sure if this information was filtering through our organization in a way that we could truly utilize the notice.
>> we'll chase that down, the letter.
and use that date.
use that date as a notice date.
but either way I think that the point is made that if indeed it costs us more money to relocate that we need to notify them of those costs.
>> I agree, but I think that in order to be straight up, in order to make the strongest claim for reimbursement that we need to determine when they provided us notice, whether that notice was sufficient -- well, three things.
when did they know they are going to do this?
when did they provide us notice?
and was that notice sufficient to truly put us on notice?
and then when did we actually know?
>> okay.
i heard about it in an agenda meeting from judge Biscoe.
>> I'm some stranger on the street.
not anything official.
but I guess the point is if -- if you're going to take someone's property, whether it's a public or a private owner, I think that you ought to give a different kind of notice than you give just to notify people that you're having a public hearing, a public meeting on a highway project.
it's not like we sit here and look for opportunities to attend state public meetings.
but in an appropriate letter that has those dates is fine with me.
and that's friendly.
all right.
any more discussion?
i would go ahead and put them on notice as soon as possible because it's -- my guess is they are not accustomed to reimbursing these kinds of costs, but they need to know that these costs result directly from their decision and basically actions.
>> all in favor?
ms.
fleming -- you thought you would get there in case we had questions for you?
>> no, sir.
i just wanted to express that while health and human services does support the plan that facilities is bringing forward, in the spirit of the motion, I believe I'm in the spirit of the motion, I think there's some additional costs that we should be considering and I've been in touch with facilities about, and that is if the project moves forward as planned, health and human services is very concerned about the entrance to the community center.
and at this point we feel very strongly that we should consider repositioning the interest, and that's not the --
>> reorientation.
>> reorientation of the opening of that building because of the loss of our entrance from the street.
the other thing is health and human services is also very concerned about the time period that will be involved in this construction and whether or not our clients will be able to access the services at that facility.
we're talking about wic services, clinic services, community -- our community programs and emergency assistance and whatnot.
so all of those things I think should be factored in to our costs related to this project.
so we did want to express that concern.
also I have expressed to facilities that while the building that we are about to demolish has not been used for services, it has been used as a staging area for the agrilife extension program when they use their -- when they have camps in the southern part of the county, they're able to have supplies there and not have to go back and forth to smith road and whatnot.
we have expressed interest in trying to work together to try to figure out how we might use some other space or even some improvements to the community care facility for that use.
>> we will be working with hhs is on fy ten package to address those issues.
>> I guess that's friendly.
>> [ laughter ] any problem with it being included?
>> no.
i think it's part of the cost, the additional cost that the highway department needs to know, txdot needs to know about.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
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, April 7, 2009 2:03 PM