Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, September 13, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 11
11. CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING: AUTHORIZATION FOR TNR TO BEGIN SUBMITTING AGENDA REQUESTS TO USE $10.3 MILLION OF 2001 BOND PROPOSITION 1 PROJECT SAVINGS FOR CURRENT AND NEW UNFUNDED PROJECTS THAT MEET THE RELATED BOND ISSUANCE STATEMENTS (FUNDS 460,465,468,471, 508 AND 512) LEGAL REQUIREMENTS; AND CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON TERMINATION OF THE 2001 BOND FM 973 PEDESTRIAN WAY PROJECT.
(Missing caption text for first three minutes and twenty seconds of this item.)
>> ...It will be further away from the right of way of 973.
it will be closer to onion creek, but you will still be able to traverse from point a to point b as if it were the original project.
so that segment will be built.
what we ask the court today is to terminate this project in the 2011 bond referendum, and by doing that it freeze us up -- frees us up to use the savings from that bond referendum, proposition 1, is what we're talking about here t roads and bridges, and we have about $10 million in savings.
what we have done in the past, and this is true for 1984, '97 bond moneys, we have come to the court and asked permission to use on a case-by-case basis, to use savings from bond referendums for other projects within the same precinct that the original bond moneys were issued.
and that's what we propose to do here as well.
as we find projects that need funding, and these are usually the ones that come up between bond referendums or it could be that a subsequent bond referendum-funded project comes in overbudget, any number of reasons, we would come to the court and ask you to allow us to use these funds to meet our needs for that particular issue.
so we got a two-pardon agenda -- two-part agenda request here.
one is to allow us to use these funds, the second is to terminate the pedestrianway project.
>> so have you gotten input from bond counsel?
>> we have.
>> those two projects that you were kind of re -- where we're redirecting the funding?
>> on the surrey hills drive that was done in 2000 and that has -- 2002 and that has gone away.
you issued c.o.s to pay for that.
in the fm 973, we have no need to finish that project with these funds.
we have another means of getting it done.
by eliminating this project now, by terminating it, it will free us up to use these funds.
>> bond council is glen opal?
>> correct.
>> questions, comments?
>> you mentioned earlier, on a case-by-case basis, you will come to the court, especially with the savings that's been realized from those issuance of those proposition 1 -- bonds, as they pertaining to what we need to do to each precinct and of course, at some point we'll get to that stage of that discussion when you come to the court.
>> right.
I anticipate coming next week, will be our first request to use these funds to help fund the design -- one of the 2011 bond referendum projects which is b creek road.
and you may recall that the lake johnson independent school district is going to open a new school at 2018.
they asked us to do whatever we can to complete thee improvements and that will help us do that.
>> if something will be I think very important.
I think we'll all experience -- we're all experiencing some of the same similar ills as far as not having a grasp on the roads -- on the particular school districts when they are actually trying to -- when they actually are going to bring a new -- online and the impact that's going to cause those folks that deal with the transportation needs for that particular school, for this -- the state road, county road, or whichever.
somewhere along the line, we're going to have to get ahead of that and make sure that we are in tune with what the school districts have in their mind when they're designing and bringing on the purchase of property, whatever.
that's the first step.
when they're doing all of these things, to bring the county in line with what their intent is so we don't get caught up in a situation -- a good example is right there on that 969 type deal that we we're dealing with right now.
we have two schools that are -- ribbon cutting at gilbert road school here, that intersected the 969 along with the daly middle school.
so it's that type of scenario that we want to make sure we're ahead of instead of behind.
and of course, we just need to be pretty aggressive I think as far as having foreknowledge on where the new schools are going to be constructedded so we at least know how to deal with it in the future as far as maybe assistance of the road projects.
>> right.
we are getting better information from some of the isds.
I would say that there's a number of variables.
number one is even though they may have long-term plans for the middle school, you don't know for sure if they're ever going to get funded.
>> I understand.
>> just last year I know evens went out with a bond referendum and they had to repackage it because it did not pass.
>> those are the ones over there in the deer valley isd passed and that's -- for that middle school and also the elementary school.
>> right, right.
>> so there they are.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> how much do we still owe the 2001 bond?
>> I don't know.
>> do we know?
I would like to know how much we still owe on the 2001 bond.
I'm gradfied toman grattide to -- gratified to hear that we have a savings, but the first question is why don't we just pay down the debt.
>> that is a good question.
we're actually having a meeting -- the auditor and myself are having a meeting with bond council on prop 3.
from the 2001 election because we also have some funds there we think we cannot use on any other eligible projects because the proposition was so restricted.
I know there are some issues with replacement funds and arby traj.
so I need to work with the auditor's office on that and I would like some advice from bond counsel.
on these the practice of the court has been to use it on approved projects, not necessarily just to buy down debt, which is I think what the question is regarding.
I'll know how much more on the prop 3 question how much we owe.
>> I would like to know that before I vote on the second portion of this.
I'm fine with discontinuing the 973 pedestrianway project obviously.
but I would like to know how much we still owe on the 2001 bond.
that seems to be the knee jerk reaction is to take the savings and pay down the debt.
but the other is with regard to the precedent, I'd like to know how often we have used bond money to fund nonreferendum projects.
>> I'd have to look at the work plans historically and pull those out.
I can do that.
>> because I can concerned about that from a policy standpoint if we're going out for bond and asking voter approval for this class of projects, but then we -- blessedly save money or for any reason, like these two projects two, projects end up not being feasible.
I would like -- as a taxpayer's knowledge that the money is going to other voter-approved projects rather than nonreferendum projects.
>> specifically outlined projects, you mean?
because I know in -- and tom can jump in here, but I know that the bond order does allow for what he's requesting today.
in other words, there is a procedure that goes down the projects as listed and actually it's listed I believe by precinct.
and then all the projects listed and then after that, once we close out everything, the savings can be used for any road project that the court desires.
so that layout is being followed here with the request for a dnr.
>> that's what the voters approved.
>> the voters approved road projects generally in this precinct.
>> they approved -- once all the projects on this list have come to an end, any surplus can be used on any road project.
>> in that precinct.
>> that language is in --
>> within the county.
>> within the county.
>> oh, within the county.
>> within the county.
>> that makes sense, because the effort that we've just been through on this bond election, we started out with a long list, and we necessarily, because of the targeted amount of money we wanted to go for, those fell out at the bottom of the list that might have been on the list if the one that didn't make it in this instance had not needed the funds.
so I can understand the logic for bumping up and down to others that were on the initial list for consideration to specific projects.
>> and I said --
>> bumped down to what was on the original list.
this is to any road project in Travis County, correct?
>> right.
that's true, but some could be from that original list, too.
my preference is to not spend the money very quickly.
we do have other projects in queue to be bid.
we've seen some higher bid prices recently.
and I would really want to make sure, for example, the 2005 bond projects have not all been bid out.
I want to make sure we have enough funds to complete those.
however, there are small project that has come up occasionally and good example is what we've done with the 1984 bond money that -- the interest earned on those mostly sunny skies has been used -- moneys has been used to help complete almost a dozen projects.
>> do you need two weeks?
>> I have a third question.
>> okay.
is a week enough time for you to get that information?
>> if we could have two weeks, that would be great.
it might be easy.
the only complication is that I know that the way we issue funds, there's several funds that have 2001, 2005, and 2000 bonds -- I need to figure out if I can easily gather how much we actually owe just on the 2001.
so if I can easily do that, then one week is probably sufficient.
if I cannot, I'll just report that back.
that I was not able to and I need another week.
>> should we give you two weeks?
>> if the court --
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
let's give you two weeks.
>> one would tell us -- one, how much was owed on if bond, two is what other referendum projects if we spend bond money, on, and there's a it ised possibilities of using this -- suggested -- is the preliminary engineering work included in the 2011 bond dollar amount for that project?
>> no --
>> just -- seven million 369 is the final engineering?
>> no, that is a total project cost, I believe.
>> okay.
>> I think about 200,000 $is asked for -- dollars is asked for in the 2011 bond referendum for final design.
what I'd like to do is use the 2001 money just to finish it up, so we have a better chance of meeting that school deadline.
>> okay.
so would this -- what I'm trying to wrap my ray around is would the 11 bond money if it is approved reimburse the amount that we're spending from the 2001 or is the 2001 on top of the 2011 asked?
>> -- hopefully we'll come under budget because we're getting this done now instead of later.
and there already savings on the end.
but we don't know until we get into the design in ernest and see what we're seal -- earnest and see what we're dealing with.
>> someone needs to get with you on the savings that was realized from the bond initiative.
I went through and totaled all the projects that were related to precinct one.
I'm going to need to get with you.
I know it's a case-by-case basis, but I want to make sure we get together on the re-use of those funds.
but that's later.
and so two weeks is -- I guess as far as what the scrooge is requesting, as far as -- the judge is requesting, as far as the necessary time.
everyone needs to bullpen -- but in the meantime as I discussed with you earlier, I want to still get together with you.
>> that gives us enough time to go over this particular one with you as well.
>> and I'll also update the court at that time on our meeting with bond council on the possibility of paying down debt, if that's an option or what -- what flexibility is there.
>> 11a and b will be brought back on September 27th.
thank you y'all.
>> 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.
