Leonard

I agree it's shocking. The Walmart, Kroger and HEB 380's should all be investigated. Something isn't right here.

It's not the whole list, just a couple of points I wanted to make. If you want the whole list, ask Mayor Parker. She'll gladly send it to you.

J008, my understanding on Kroger's street was that they would just build/fix up the stub. The 380 didn't allow for the entire street to be built, just to be ready. Ridiculous.

Yes, I understand that it's a loan. Just like if you go out and spend $500 on a pair of shoes and charge it to your visa, visa pays for the shoes and you reimburse them, plus interest. You must buy the shoes before you have to reimburse visa. If you don't buy the shoes, you don't have to reimburse visa. However, the 380 reimburses for stuff that Walmart would have been required to do, like landscaping, sidewalks, turn lanes and connecting to water and sewer. The City projects between $753,419 and $853,154 in ad valorem, personal property and sales taxes for 2013.

Yes, unfinished sidewalks and crosswalks, over 250 caliper inches of public trees mitigated to Walmart's parking lot (and it still looks barren). Curbs already broken and in the ADA ROW. The sidewalks as they go from Orr to Ainbinder are ridiculous. Why are we paying for a 6' sidewalk that turns into a 5' sidewalk in the middle of the block? Why are we paying for a 6' sidewalk on one side of Yale and a 5' sidewalk on the other when an ooopsie by the City means there isn't enough room on the Orr side to plant proper street trees? They would have built the Walmart without the 380. What exactly did we get for that $6M? And they did spend all the money. $146K on the Yale Street Bridge (a 3,000 lb per axle weight limit and scheduled to be torn down). Over $50K on "miscellaneous" project management. Hopefully the City will require them to break it down a little more specifically than that, but don't count on it.

"we should all agree to pay more so that we can run Walmart out of business?" Well, my issue with the Walmart is the 380. And you know that I do not agree that we should all pay more taxes so that Walmart can get free sewer lines, turn lanes, signals, sidewalks and trees. Although I do wonder how much of the sidewalk is wider than minimum and therefore reimbursable and the same with the trees. The landscaping looks very minimal to me.

I think it's pretty clear that I've said I don't know how much they spent. Neither do you. However, I'm not naive enough to assume that since they did not do the detention that they did not spend the 308K (or the 20% project management on the 308K or the 20% contingency on the 308K + 20% project managment).

At this point in time, I don't know the total spent or the interest rate. I'm comfortable with saying $6M plus unknown and uncapped interest.

Red, hopefully RUDH or someone else will find out exactly what was spent and on what. The 380 also called for $200K for a light at Koehler and for resurfacing both bridges. This wasn't done either. Yes, I use $6M because it's convienent. The total of the Exhibit C is 6,046,785. The language in the 380 caps it at 6,050,000, thanks to RUDH and others. Interest is on top of that. At this point in time, I don't know the total spent or the interest rate.

Jjxvi, connecting to the sanitary sewer is one item. There are different options that the developer has for paying for sewer lines - the developer can pay for 100% of the sewer and the the city can charge others to connect to the sewer and give that money back to the developer. With City Council approval, the developer can pay 100% of the design cost and the City pay 30% of the construction cost. If it's for new single family homes, the City, with Council approval, will pay 100% of the design and 70% of the construction costs. The City can pay 100% of the design and 50% of the construction costs up to $25K and charge others for connecting and give that back to the developer. Another option is for the developer to simply wait until the City is going to construct a new sewer line - in this case, the City had no plans to construct the sewer. They could have gotten part of the sewer paid for without the 380, but not all of it. I don't know if they would pay the developer for any interest incurred on any loans to construct the sewer using the traditional methods. Developers are often required to pay for traffic mitigation - signals, turn lanes and road widening. The developer's TIA was done after the 380 passed, therefore it was not "required" in the TIA but more "assumed" it would exist. The $308K in the 380 for onsite detention is private, not public. Even though they did not do this, the 380 allowed for the public to pay for private detention. Sidewalks and trees are required by the City. The City isn't required to pay for a road a developer wants to build, or to pay them back for a City owned alley.

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your time at this point, but I'm glad you finally cleaned up your lawn. I don't think that opposing spending $6M plus unknown and uncapped interest of public monies on something a private entity should have paid for is all that hard to understand.

They aren't "my" restrictions, they are TxDOT's. And yes, I do think the 3,000 lb/axle limit is keeping some people off the bridge, don't you? For example, Walmart delivery trucks? But I also think that the load limits are violated many times per hour. I'm not simple enough to think that the load limits are either a) keeping all over limit traffic off the bridge or keeping no over limit traffic off the bridge. So, are the restrictions working? No, not completely. My main issue with the development is and has always been the 380. According to statements made in the City Council meeting on the 380 by the Mayor, they would build with or without the 380. They should have built it without the 380.

Some people are following the restrictions, some are not. Not sure why you think it would be all or nothing on this particular law. I think most people realize that some people follow laws and some don't. You'd think a defense attorney would be able to figure that one out.

The City approved a Traffic Impact Analysis for the development with "F" intersections - not sure what the City traffic engineers "know". The Yale Street Bridge's extreme restrictions might have had an impact on the amount of traffic on Yale. We, as citizens, should request that the City pay off Ainbiner via the installment plan in the 380. We will be able to request the amounts paid and can compare the acutal sales and property tax generated by the whole development to those projected instead of judging how well the Walmart is doing by how long someone is willing to wait for an up front space.

Niche, thanks for the info. Gosh, I wonder was any of the stuff in the 380 in the seller's commitments to walmart?

Pretty sure that Walmart bought the land prior to development, maybe even prior to the 380.

Here is some news: http://www.theleadernews.com/?p=2703 "Walmart sets opening date, promises no trucks on Yale St. Bridge"

If you want to think that Walmart wanted the bridge beautified but has no interest in whether it actually exists or not, that's perfectly ok with me. If you think that a bridge on the main throughfare to the Walmart is of no concern to Walmart, that is also fine with me. If you want to think that, as Mayor Parker said over and over, that the 380 has nothing to do with Walmart that is also fine with me. If you don't what hyperbole means, that's also ok with me. If I have more news that I think will be of interest, I will post it.

Suggesting that someone commit suicide is reprehensible.

JJxi - you are absolutely right. It is the fault of the city and TxDOT. Why did they let this bridge get to this point? But to suggest that Walmart has no interest in this bridge - except to want it to look prettier - is a little naive to say the least. I'm sure they are concerned about when and how long Yale will be closed. The smaller retailers in the development are probably even more concerned. And the developers must be concerned about unleased space - would you want to lease there now? By the way, Walmart isn't a tenant, they own their property and developed it themselves.

It's not wrong to question how the government is spending tax money and how the government is or isn't maintaining infrastructure. It's not wrong to question why TxDOT and the City let the bridge get into this state with 4 more years before construction even starts - even with out of cycle funding obtained. The City is going to have to repair the bridge if it is to remain open for the next 4 years before it is torn down. That's more tax dollars spent on this bridge. If they don't know why this happened, they can't prevent it from happening over and over.

Yeah, Pleak, you're right. I'm sure everyone knows the weight of their vehicle plus passengers and cargo and how it is distributed between the axles.

Not sure what words I'm supposed to be putting in people's mouths. For the record, I've said before and I've already said it today, I don't think non-commerical drivers should be expected to know the weight of their vehicles.

fwki, are you accusing the engineers of faking the ratings to appease RUDH?

Or maybe I just logged on at the right time. So, you are saying if not for RUDH the bridge would not be fast tracked to replacement in 2016 and the load limits would be higher and unenforced? That the City would not be looking at options for temporary repairs in the meantime?