Travis County Commssioners Court
March 16, 2004
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 13
Now --
>> 13?
>> yeah, 13.
>> the question I got from the auditor ooze office on funding on 13. 13 is to approve contract award for the grand avenue parkway widening project, ifb number b 040071 jj to the low bidder, dayco construction company. Is a partial po. It will be issued when the remaining fy 2001 authorized bonds be authorized and received for the project. While not a contractual problem, it does prevent total contract funds verification. So there is a contract funds verification issue.
>> yeah. There is adequate budget in thcounty budget to cover. I think what you're probably talking about is the 120,000-dollar component of the award that goes for the relocation of the windermere water lines. The county budget is sufficient to cover the award of that item. However, we still have on this agenda on -- on this court agenda item a-2, which is the payment agreement which will reimburse the county for that $120,000. There is still a step that needs to take place for that money to be to be incorporated into that county budget. But that should not stop us from awarding in for the construction items because we have sufficient money in our budget currently to cover all costs, including the 120,000.
>> does the windermere utility need to reimburse us?
>> they were using the 2001 bond authorized money, but we have not issued that bond money yet for next year's portion of that.
>> we have. We have cash on hand. There is cash -- unless you're telling me we don't have any cash on the 2001 bond election for the contract --
>> you do, but not for the entire amount that was given to us on the contract amount. It will be issued in two different phases. A phase for this year and then a future date whenever the remaining 2001 bond money comes through. With the documents that I received.
>> was that issued?
>> the complete authorization, though?
>> I guess there's two parts to this issue. This is a two-year construction contract, so there will be -- it will be the actual payout of this contract will be done over two years. But-- so there is time still to issue additional 2001 bond money if it's not in the right, correct project budget. On the other hand, there is a total cash available in the 2001 bond program to cover this entire award even if all the construction were to be done this year. I’m not sure exactly what the issue is.
>> the funds verification is all it is. If they have the money, that's fine, but the way it was set up, what we received was not -- the entire contract was not covered.
>> so do we need to see the exact funds that will be covered -- that will be used this year? To be heard by verification of the -- [ inaudible ]
>> we would prefer it that way because right now they have a partial po. We would rather see the entire amount covered under this agreement.
>> is this something we can approve with the instructions to tnr to do precisely that because this is extraordinarily time sensitive relating to getting utility lines moved and to get this project moving?
>> I can assure you that we can work this out because I am positive that there is a way to do it and meet the requirements of --
>> if we just have this back on if we need to approve something else, we'll do it.
>> yeah, we'll work with the staff. We don't have a problem.
>> why is that?
>> you can approve the contract, then I would not issue it until a purchase order is entered to cover the other amount. And as soon as that po -- that money is preencumbered, then I can sign the contract and send it on. And then we would issue the notice to proceed accordingly. We wouldn't issue that notice to proceed until all the money is in the right place. And we ought to be able -- joe ought to be able to enter that requisition tomorrow.
>> since what is occurring right now, today, is the utility relocation, when we had our neighborhood meeting last night, we were telling folks that the actual construction construction would begin mid April. So that seems to be consistent that we could do this.
>> this is not a contract that the purchasing agent signs, is it?
>> the court approves it and then it comes to my office and we get the documents together, we have a cover letter that we send --
>> who signs the contract?
>> all of us. You sign it, I sign it, joe signs it, the auditor signs it.
>> $6.3 million. Get the funding in place, we'll have it back on the agenda in the event the court need to take some action. Everything has been worked out, then we don't need to take any action, right? How's that? Move approval of the contract.
>> move approval with those items in mind. Judge, could you call up a-2 as well?
>> I did not. I'll call it up next. Seconded by Commissioner Daugherty. Any more discussion? We'll have this back on next week also.
>> if we need to.
>> we'll have it back on next week also.
>> only if we need to.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. With Commissioner Gomez temporarily away from the dias.
Judge, on number 13, would you count me as being for?
>> Let the record show Commissioner Gomez voting in favor of number 13, that we approved in a-2.
Last Modified: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:40 PM