Travis County Commssioners Court
September 9, 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 15
15 is approve budget amendments and transfers.
>> good morning. A is $43,538 for the usb project. These renovations were approved by Commissioners court on July 22. This is for additional funding for a&e assessing ff&e construction and contingency. The recommended fund course would be the carr reserve and if there are any questions, I believe roger is here as well.
>> I know that p.b.o. Was saying, well, can we still ask the department to continue wherever possible to try and find savings, that that would be a not to exceed amount as opposed to anything, just to keep encouraging you to find more savings within this construction budget. And I think roger has consistently -- give us hard numbers and try and come under.
>> b-1.
>> b-1 is for appraisals for post road and 1101 nueces. Each would be costing $5,500. And the facilities management has found savings within facilities management that they would like to use for this. P.b.o. Did note that currently our end of year projections indicate that facilities management is projectioned to exceed the budget if it does not reclassify some of its utilities budget. Other than that, we concur with the funding source.
>> okay.
>> are we absolutely going down a path related to post road? Certainly I want to explore options related to nueces because it's either a keep it or bump it thing.
>> I thought we were going to look for people who could move in there.
>> I wasn't necessarily at a place saying that I would be exploring selling post road. I think that's premature. But nueces, absolutely.
>> yeah.
>> does it have the line item issue if we just appraise the nueces location?
>> the amount down to 5500 and with the direction it only be used for 1101 nueces.
>> the other issue on nueces would be that an informal appraisal on nueces, you can look at the ajaning property and -- adjoining property and see what the tax appraisal is per square foot and look at similar improvements and come up with something a whole lot less than $5,500 to give you a rough idea of where you want to proceed.
>> and then the [inaudible] could be used in your budget or other -- [multiple voices]
>> you know, good morning, roger from the facilities management department. We tried earlier to reduce the dollar amount for appraisal for adjust like it's 4,300 square feet [inaudible], but the nature of it is a commercial and we have, you know, a pool of appraisal and they already have a contract. We have to go by the contract we have at the -- in purchasing. So we pulled one of those appraisals and that's what the -- that's about the going cost to do a commercial appraisal, which is $5,500. And if we do an informal appraisal, like a [inaudible] without engaging, we could do that. I mean that should be no problem.
>> yeah, and I think the court did ask for a formal appraisal. I think what the court didn't understand at that time was that it was going to cost $5,500. That's only the reason -- I think my recollection of the the discussion with the court was the court wanted to have an idea of what that property was worth in order to decide whether to spend $75,000 to pull the mold out of it.
>> the request waz fr waz to be ppraisal at the time and it may have been during executive session we shared with the court the cost.
>> I don't know that we want to do another one. If you go and do an informal one and we decide to sell it later on --
>> that's correct, judge, you have to do a formal one you have to go to sale.
>> this is pretty simple in terms of its a simple buildings as opposed to it was quite complicated what we were dealing with at palm square and I think the matter at pleasant valley was a different matter because we were going through a formal process related to those.
>> is this a not to exceed amount?
>> that's correct.
>> the appraiser will charge a fee based on a service, I guess.
>> that's correct.
>> up to $5,500. It could cost less.
>> well --
>> or is this a --
>> I think it's a $5,500 how much it's going to cost.
>> yes, that's correct. Pat, real estate manager. On the nueces property of the appraisal is $5,500. That is under a contract that we have with -- through purchasing to use Travis County appraisers to do that work. In terms of an informal estimate of the value of the property, we have done that several times and we've presented that to the court when we've been discussing with you the various options to date for the nueces property. Based on the value -- the [inaudible] value of the adjacent property. If we were to sell nueces, it is a requirement that we've been informed by the county attorney on several occasions that we must have an appraisal, a full-blown appraisal, not just a value estimate. My understanding.
>> unless you did an open auction.
>> right.
>> and I'm not sure that's to the best advantage of the --
>> I agree it's not good for a public building at this location to just sit idle forever. So in my view, we ought to determine a value of it and move in some direction.
>> right. > so I'm not hot to sell us, but I'm hot to make a decision what we want to do with it, either sell it or renovate it and use it ourselves. But I think it's been sitting too long.
>> I think an appraisal will guide you in that direction. If you know the value of your asset, it will guide you and help to you see which direction you should go.
>> that's what my thinking was out.
>> do you want to go ahead and do it, judge?
>> I would appraise the nueces location.
>> yes. I'm not there on the post, but new nueces, my inclination is sell it, get it off our inventory.
>> okay, then we'll move awith the appraisal for 1101 nueces.
>> c-2 is a $100,000 transfer, one-time salary savings within t.n.r., And I believe this issue has been discussed with the court previously. It is to do an audit of the land development division for a joint -- or a joint independent audit, both the county and the city, of processes and fees for subdivision review.
>> and I do think the county ought to set aside this money. My legal question yesterday was whether the law requires that fees not be duplicated. I know we have said don't duplicate the service or the fee under 1445. I don't know about the city of Austin is pwaubing, but the e-mails I saw one or two of them indicated that the city really had not yet considered retaining an asset person to come in, conduct an audit to see what we were duplicate fees and -- I mean if the law requires it, I think there's a greater pressure to do it than if it's just a good thing to do. I just sent that out late yesterday, but I think it sent it to --
>> to -- [inaudible].
>> but we have obligations under the interlocal, don't we, joe, relating to the city and county gettingogether to talk about the fees? I just think we have not agreed on the not odd ology in terms of the -- methodology, but I think the [inaudible] feel the only way we can get a third-party no vested interest. And I think I share that --
>> yeah, we have a contractual igation to review our fees to look for obligation. It doesn't really obligate us to do it by external audit tore spend money to do it. That was my idea primarily to get a new set of eyes on it that don't have any particular vested interest in the outcome. And I proposed it to my counter part at the city that we share the cost of an internal audit 50-.
>> . This would enable us to do our part of the deal. And I still think it's a good idea and maybe gets us past the impasse we're at right now. I don't think the notion has been outright rejected. I think it's just going to take some work to get there.
>> one of my biggest concerns is from what I understand, there is -- I mean it may not have been definitively said that they don't want to spend money on an outside audit. There has been strong indication from everything that I hear, and I just don't want us to be in a spot where we're the only ones that's bellying up to the bar.
>> no, it certainly wouldn't be my intent to do this alone.
>> [inaudible] set this aside.
>> that's correct. And also just for your information, the $100,000 in temporary salary savings, we have already assumed that in the end of year balance, so it will not, all things equal, impact the ending fund balance spwaog going into the fifth revenue estimate. It will not be detrimental.
>> but I guess the point on my mind, though, even if we set this aside [inaudible], that's all well and good, but I still haven't heard anything positively enough from anybody else that's a part of this. And -- city of Austin, what they are going to do. When will we know that? We set money aside here, but when will we know that other entities are really serious about looking at an audit, looking at some duplication probably of services, looking at possibility of -- I think the judge brought up something about duplication of fees. You know, that's the way this thing is looking at as far as duplication of fees. I don't know. But I do know that in my mind we need to kind of sit and see what somebody else is going to do as far as money is concerned.
>> well, I think that's the intention here, isn't it? To set it aside -- I don't want to drag my feet just because the city is dragging theirs.
>> let me propose this --
>> but still, even so, we're we're going to do this in a joint effort as far as 1445, that is something we've agreed to do with the city on. That's money. We're talking about money here. So my whole point is still what is the city going to do to defer our costs if the order comes in -- audit comes in costing so much money, of course what are they going to put up. So I mean I think we need to know that. I mean, money is money.
>> I think our intention is to pay half, and this is a reserve we think that will cover our half, but it is certainly not my intention that this money covers both the city and -- and I think joe understands that and we all understand that. It might be helpful if this got referred to the city-county committee to see if we can get some Commissioner to councilmember momentum moving in this direction that we've put our money aside and we have the same expectation [inaudible].
>> understanding, Commissioner, that this is -- the discussions up to date so far have been staff to staff. I mean it's been my idea, i've got no commit friendly amendment the court has a whole to do this. By an action of the court to set aside the money, I can write a letter to the city manager saying the court has acted to set aside money. Now will you join us in a joint effort.
>> yes.
>> but I think in that letter you need to say whether the law requires it or whether we just think we're contractually bound or whether it's the right thing to do or whether stakeholders believe this is the best way and we do too.
>> all right.
>> now, can we get close our that or try to between now and September 29th?
>> oh, sure.
>> let's just try to get it --
>> [inaudible].
>> therefore, I move approval of a-1, and t-1, reduce that amount to $5,500 and cover nueces but omit the other one. And t-2.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor say aye? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 9, 2003 7:52 AM