Travis County Commssioners Court
February 4, 2003
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.
Item 8
Number 8. Consider and take appropriate action on projects and amounts for funding from road and park bonds and certificates of obligation to be issued in fy'03. Before taking action on this item, I think we need to have our executive session discussion. There is an item involving space for the clerk for election equipment recording and some other matters that we probably ought to discuss before we take action on this, but we can discuss it now. This has been on the agenda a few times, we have been trying to get final figures. Right?
>> and in our new backup --
>> I can -- I can briefly go over the additional information provided by p.b.o. Regarding the issuance of co's and voter approved bonds. It's a two-page memo that was submitted to your offices I believe on Friday at some point. Basically we were asked to work with facilities management to confirm project numbers for the preparation of issuance of debt. We have done that. The numbers that are in this memo have been seen by roger l. Corey, director of facilities management, it does show that the $1.4 million that we have been discussing previously on the savings is a confirmed number net of any ff and e that had been approved previously by commissioners court. Basically what this memo does is allow the court if they so wish to go down the path of how to -- to capture the $1.4 million worth of savings. The attached list is a legislative style format of how to -- how to do that. Basically, in short, in brief, the way to do that is to first take half of that savings from the precinct 4 office building project that was proposed to be issued, 677,000, which is no longer needed, and take the remaining half from a -- from a different project that has been reviewed by legal as eligible to be transferred over to old co's and fund 458, which is where the remainder of the savings is actually held in cash right now. So it is -- it should be invisible to the sheriff's office, it's actually -- I have spoken with bill campbell on this issue. It is the -- the building roof repair for building 130. And they would just be split funded now instead of having the funding on in the new co if the court wished to go down that path. That's really the only additional information that p.b.o. Provided on this matter.
>> so the bottom line would be instead of borrowing the 17.1, we would borrow 15.685.
>> that's correct, that's correct.
>> and I need to find out [inaudible - no mic] couple of weeks, but I want to make sure that in the c.o.'s that we are looking at, I see some of these things do have computerized upgrades and things like that. I want to make sure that this relationship with cscd and little in the county's end of this, if any of these co's are earmarked, will have any type of interface with cscd. So there's still stuff that I need to look at as far as that's concerned because there are upgrading, there are a whole lot of other things. [inaudible], a whole bunch of stuff. If we are looking at this, from a holistic point of view, I really feel that I need to know if those c.o. Have any relationship with that particular item. We will discuss that next week, so I need to know that. I have already talked with joe [inaudible] to investigate all of the financial obligation, the financial earmark obligation that we would look at in the future as far as igs and all of the other financial aspects of what we are doing here. So -- so I hope we will have some information for me within two weeks on that, also.
>> if with do the 17.1, though, none of is that for cscd, is it?
>> no.
>> I don't believe so. But what he was looking at was a lot of stuff in there for -- a whole bunch of other stuff. He really didn't have an exact answer for me on that. But I'm --
>> the toons my question is that's correct.
>> that's correct. 17.1 does not have anything --
>> okay. The other thing I told a couple of judges that I met with in -- and the the director of cscd, in my view the court hasn't acted. But in my view since we had made an investment for pretrial services, case management, et cetera, I thought that we would assume that the county's responsibility had been met. And if they wanted to change to another system, if they paid for it themselves, then that would be fine. We can't stop them anyway because of their call.
>> right.
>> but that I thought that we would be -- reluctant to pick up any responsibility for that new system in the future. And I think part of what they need additional time for is to come up with a contract between Travis County and cscd that would reflect whatever agreement we reach. And in '87 we did look at a similar issue and came up with a contract that was satisfactory to Travis County and cscd and I think we are trying to use that as a model to guide us in this instance. But before the court takes action, I think we ought to have a clear understanding of what our financial commitment is on the new system, in my view it really ought to be zero.
>> I agree with you. But I guess my whole point, judge, in this is that even on the case -- even if they do look at another system, I was just wondering, there has to be some integration somewhere along the line, as far as reporting, a whole bunch of other things. I know they reported a lot to the state. However there's still -- there's still some questions that really need to be flushed out now. So maybe the two-week period as far as item 9 coming back would be -- would have an opportunity -- for joe harlow to come back with some investigative funding -- funding -- necessary for us to move forward as far as this whole overall networking for the county. Just appears that there needs to be something put on the table so at least we will know exactly what we are doing. I definitely don't want to go backwards and get into another situation like we've been experiencing in the past. I don't want that to happen again. And so -- so just raising a red flag. That's what I'm going to do at this time. I'm going to stay on top of this as much as I can. So that was my -- that was my point.
>> how does that impact number 8, though, I guess is what --
>> for information purposes, it takes approximately 8 weeks from the time the court decides to -- to proceed with whatever projects the court wishes to proceed with until the proceeds will be here. So if it was approved today, in speaking with lad and -- it appears that the proceeds would be here in early April at this point. The first week in April. So any -- any weeks that -- just add a week to that. And I believe departments have traditionally been accustomed to receiving the proceeds in March. I can definitely call and see if there's any -- any problems with receiving it later. But that's just what traditionally it has been, late March.
>> jessica related to the roof repair for building 130, I see joe here, is that a project where we anticipate that building having -- I mean that roof project having a 20 year life span?
>> when I -- off the top of my head, when I put this -- put this list together, I went through each project and looked at that and I believe not. I believed it was just shy of the 20 years or there was some other issue with it that it was clear to put it in a five year. I can go back and look at my notes and remind myself taos why that was.
>> -- myself as to why that was.
>> it is -- it is appropriate overanalyzing this, I'm sure, but we would be utilizing the -- the c.o. S that have already been issued on precinct four.
>> five years.
>> there's no issue there.
>> super, thank you. I was concerned we were using 20 -- that would be a problem, okay, thank you.
>> any other questions or comments about number 8?
>> no, no.
>> let's revisit it after executive session then.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM