Travis County Commssioners Court
May 20, 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 41
Number 41 is to consider and give direction by request of trinity corporation --
>> good afternoon, I’m cliff blunt. You asked me to come over, trinity higher facilities corporation where they are proposing to finance certain facilities for huston tillotson college. They have requested that the county have a tetfra hearing or a public hearing under the internal revenue code and to have the issuance approved by either the county judge or the full Commissioners court under the tax law, it can go either way. So -- so I guess I was really here to answer any questions or -- or talk about that a little bit and what the requirements are. We have talked to or mr. Davis has talked to dan plites who is bond counsel on this proposed transaction. I think the reasons that they want to use this issuer instead of a Travis County issuer is twofold. Number 1, I think the issuance cost is going to be relatively low and secondly, they are going under a small issuer exemption for the internal revenue code to make these bonds tax exempt where the issuer is limited to issuing $10 million in bonds. In any calendar year. And so this particular proposal is, I believe, for about 3.6 million.
>> right.
>> when we do the public hearing and I guess whatever else, whatever other expenses we incur, we send the applicant a listing of those expenses?
>> well, I believe in this case, since the applicant didn't apply to Travis County, we should probably have mr. Davis or myself let mr. Plites know what the expenses that we will incur are and make sure that we have a commitment for them to -- to reimburse the county for those expended. But I believe the applicant and/or the -- or the issuer in this case would pay the publication costs for the public hearing notice. And so I think it would be a fairly minimal amount of expense that we would go to to handle this.
>> that would be probably the biggest expense, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> the -- I assume that we would advertise this in the [indiscernible]
>> yes, sir.
>> and then conduct a public hearing.
>> yes. It's one of those that has to be published at least 14 kays prior to the hearing -- days prior to the hearing, one time.
>> okay. This case the law require that's the county with the -- in which the project is located has to approve the --
>> well, it requires that -- that an applicable electric -- elected representative, that would be the Commissioners court and/or you as the county judge, being elected county-wide, either one, would fit what's necessary for the tax code requirements. Okay. Questions? I move that we indicate our agreement to approve this, that we ask mr. Davis to contact the applicant or the attorney. And let them know that we do expect to get reimbursed for whatever out-of-pocket expenses we have. To meet the 14 day requirement, assuming we give ourselves a couple of days to get the notice together, get to the newspaper by the 22nd, we are looking at --
>> June 10th, I believe.
>> probably --
>> second Tuesday in June.
>> okay.
>> I’m not sure if they are prepared to move that quickly or not. I haven't --
>> I believe they are. Because they were trying to close in the middle of June, they told me.
>> okay.
>> second.
>> all right. Second Tuesday in June. That's what we will try to do. We think that we will be able to get it to the statesman by tomorrow or the next day?
>> yes, sir.
>> it's just a simple notice, right, a few lines?
>> I forget what the publication deadlines are, it's either 24 or 48 hours. It should be able to be published by the end of the week.
>> we determine that. Part of the motion is if it looks like based on the statesman I guess publication schedule the second Tuesday is not the right one, we will just move it to the third Tuesday, is that okay for that motion?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay to the seconder?
>> uh-huh.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you all very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:52 PM