Travis County Commissioners Court
August 23, 2005
Item 10
The leaves us discussing number 10. It may be a good idea to discuss the impact on debt policy and future operating budgets so find out where that magical white line is, mr. Smith.
>> [inaudible] will be giving the presentation. I値l operate the computer and chip in when I can.
>> is there a white line memo that we should have?
>> yes, there's a presentation you should.
>> there's a presentation that should have been delivered to your offices and there is extra copies.
>> I don't know that I have --
>> here are extra copies. Anybody else -- I guess we have a stack there.
>> there's a stack of copies in the front. Then I will go ahead and begin. When planning and budget was asked to look at the afford built of the upcoming bond he licks, we looked at it in two ways. And the first way that we spoke about it was what we would like to call in this presentation exercise 1. And what we did there is maintained level debt service. And what that does is basically all things being equal signify no increases in taxes. You've heard that. That obviously assumes all other things being equal. Exercise 2, which we have recently performed and completed, is what we have now heard this morning as the white line discussion, and that basically is keeping Travis County below a debt service level that would in effect keep us within those white lines, what we've called the white lines. First, importantly, what are the assumptions because there are quite a few assumptions in the debt model. I値l go through those quickly. If you have any questions, just stop me. The first assumption is the potential 2005 bond issuance schedule, and that's really one of the most important assumptions we have in the debt model. For exercise number 1, which is where we kept the level debt service, future issuances were established to keep or maintain that level debt service. In exercise 2, basically we used our most constrained ratio which was the net bonded debt per capita. We would like to keep that under 500, and I値l talk about that a little later on. For the remaining 2000 and 2001 authorizations, we kept 19 million of prior authorizationss to be issued the next couple of years. I should note that 12.6 million, it assumed a savings from 2001 voter approved bonds, so that is not in the debt model at this time. As far as new certificates of obligation, we assumed that to be 13 million per year. And that was based on an historical review of annual capital needs for the county of $23 million between the general fund capital acquisition resources account, what we call car and certificates of obligation. This is basically just to maintain county government to do day-to-day business. We assumed a steady $2 million a year in c.a.r. Resources as well as the 13 million for c.o.s. For c.a.r. This year we are below that 10 million significantly. And currently this the preliminary budget we're also below the c.o. Side. So that goes to show also how these assumptions will change once reality hits. As far as the interest rate, the next page here is an historic review. We used basic historic reviews of interest rates at the county. For long-term rates, applicable to any bonds arrived in the upcoming November election, we took a highest long-term rate from the previous 10 years, added 50 basis points to be more conservative and assumed that to be the highest rate the next 10 years. Then stair stepped our way up to get towards it. We used this approach in consultation with our adviser as well as for southwest companies. We used a similar approach also on the short-term debt on the c.o.s, all those those rates are obviously a little lower because it's short-term debt. How much debt can Travis County while maintaining the level of service. That's the question we were answering. That debt service for '06 is 63.5 million. And assuming the interest rates that we just discussed, we can issue approximately $159 million over the next six years. With a very specific debt schedule, and that debt schedule is listed for you, it's 28 million in '06, 21 million in '07, 3,231,000,000 -- and this is based on financial information that's not program aticly driven. This of the in the debt model to maintain that level debt service. That gets to you a total of 159 million. A quick explanation as to why this number has increased you, it used to be about $142 million. And what has changed is we've done two refundings this fiscal year which is in essence refinancing like we do refinancing on our house and our mortgage, and that has gotten us a little more capacity. The 142 million, when we took that originally back in the fall, we subtracted out approximately 40 million reserved for the jails and rounded that to approximately 100 million. That has now been increased to 159 million. However, you would still need to take out the 40 million for the jails if that is what you desire to do.
>> did you put the 12.6 savings in already?
>> the 12.6, it is not in the debt model, sir. In other words --
>> exactly what is that? Savings isn't a good word.
>> right. It is related to s.h. 45 north.
>> txdot gave us a number, judge and it turns out it was far less than what was anticipated so we did not pay more just because that was what was the authorized number.
>> and it's money available for --
>> that is money that's been authorized by the voters.
>> it's not been issued.
>> not been issued.
>> and I値l let joe give a further explanation.
>> to be real precise, we have contracted with txdot for the 12.5 million. We have been told by them verbally they do not need all of the money that we contracted for them. So we have authorization, a contract with txdot binding us to that authorization. We have knowledge that they don't need all of that, and so it has been not transferred to txdot. We still have possession of the 12.5 million.
>> they need all we contracted forcep 12.6 million.
>> we contracted for all of it. We're going to have to have a contract amendment to get the 12 out of contract.
>> like I said, we need all you contracted forcep $12.6 million.
>> they have told us that verbally. I just want to make sure we're clear. We're not legally free to spend the money yet.
>> when was the latest they told you that?
>> about a year ago. About a year ago.
>> more than a year.
>> a year ago?
>> yeah.
>> somebody needs to make a call.
>> joe [inaudible].
>> but the money is in our bank account.
>> we haven't given them the money.
>> so that's a good reason to not put it in anything because we really --
>> that money may be available.
>> let me clarify something. If that money becomes available, that does not change the debt capacity presentation. In other words, you would have to substitute out the 12.6 million in new debt to live within these assumptions and these guidelines. In other words, it's not added capacity. It is within this capacity because it has been assumed as savings. Whether that is legalry correct yet or not.
>> that was my question. These figures incorporate the presumed $12.6 million.
>> in savings. Presumed savings, yes, sir. So the second exercise that we went through is how much debt can Travis County issue while staying within these white lines, which I think we should probably define a little better. Basically what they are is key debt ratios. There's a listing of them here before you. Net bonded debt is a ratio of taxable value which measures the debt burden on the property values. Net bonded debt per capita, which is going to turn out to be our most limiting factor other than overlapping debt. We've set aside overlapping debt. We are above overlapping debt. We've been telling you that four years or longer. If there's any questions, I値l be happy to answer, but I think I値l move on. The next is annual debt service payment to total general fund and debt service expenditures. Then there's short-term debt service ratio. We like to keep that less than 25% and that has not been a problem in recent years. Then overlapping debt per capita.
>> is it appropriate to say at this point these are the kinds of things that get discussed annually from susan and from christian usually with the bond rating agencies up in new york that these are the kinds of things that they are looking at related to ratios, flexibility, et cetera?
>> that is correct.
>> it may not have relevance for people in the audience, but it does for the two bond rating agencies.
>> there's a reason they are called white lines and that is that you are driving down the road, you have a white line on the right-hand side, it's okay to cross it, but you better know that you're going to come back on to the road and you know how that's going to occur. Because if you cross it and you keep going, then you will find yourself in the ditch. So they have -- it is not a wall, it is not a ditch, it is a white line. And it's a guideline. And it's something to help all governments. And these are national standards. All governments to help manage their debt in a prudent and balanced way.
>> having said that, how much debt can Travis County issue while staying within these white lines. As I mentioned before, the key debt ratio that provides the greatest constraint to us other thafr the overlapping debt is the net bonded debt per capita which we are trying to keep below $500 annually. Travis County can issue up to $228 million, which is approximately $69 million above the 159 that we mentioned already. And still stay within the white lines. Following a very specific debt schedule, which is listed as follows: 46 million in '06, 27 million in '07, 40 million, then 34 million, 41 million, 40 million. That totals 228 million. One thing I want to make very, very clear is once we go above the 46 million, in that first year, you've crossed that line. Now, we might need to if the programmatic information shows that we need to issue more than that in the first year. And I think what christian was trying to say earlier also as long as we have a plan and we know we're going to come back, that's acceptable and it's something we would talk in new york annually, but it would be acceptable. It would be something they would expect us to be able to show what the plan was. But that 46 million in '06, for example, is the white line tore that year. The 27 million in '07 if you go above that, you go above the white line given current assumptions on interest rate, et cetera.
>> is the 500 per capita, is that the magic -- is that the bench mark number for main aining aaa?
>> no.
>> that's not something -- you get below that --
>> your aaa bond rating is the composite of dozens of variables. And the bond rating agent, having now spent a dozen trips to bond rating agencies, we've learned they look at trends, they look at managing the future, they look at balance, they look at prudence, they look at responsiveness to community needs, they look at operations, they look at -- I mean they are looking at many different variables. So there is not one variable or one element that says, ahh, this changes. And it's an art, it's not a science. And so we have, since maintaining an aaa bond rating, gone over in the past, if you look at the last dozen years, there have been times we've gone over these white lines. But when we do, we've gone to the bond rating agencies and said you may remember we knew we were going to do this when our fund balance drops, we will remind the bond rating agencies, you may remember we wanted to spend money out of our savings account. The problem we get into is when we get an oops or when a project comes along two years from now or three years from now that you feel you must do, and yet you have made commitments to take you to the edge. Then you have restricted your degrees of freedom. You still may do that and you also may say the needs of this community are so great, the aaa bond rating may have to be sacrificed. And that's okay too. As long as it is a conscious decision of the policy makers. So that's why these lines are -- they are guidelines and there's no one right answer. And that is the art of government.
>> why does an aaa bond rating matter anyway?
>> well, it saves you on your interest rate.
>> issue a lot of debt like we do, like most urban counties do, then the interest you pay is real important. So if you issue in multiple millions of dollars, you really could be saving just hundreds of thousands.
>> yes, and I知 not advocating modifying that standard. That standard is a gold standard and it is also kept Travis County fiscally strong and given you degrees of freedom and levers to meet unknown needs as they arrive. All I知 suggesting though is if you push it and you push it to the limit, then you can have consequences that you would prefer perhaps today thought to have, but sometimes that happens. And so we also do not know, there are shocks to the economy that occur. We had -- and we know what those shocks can result in. And none of these assumptions deal with any future shocks that can result that have nothing to do with the quality of the management, about quality of the official policy-making, but it has something to do with the economy. And you need freedom, I believe, to modify those shocks as a government just like we all need them as private citizens when we're looking at our family budget. To handle an unknown problem as it comes around.
>> christian, I知 seeing ken in the audience and it's reminding me of something related to the white line list. If we look on page 6 here. We have had some lovely conversations with jail standards about some things that are must-dos, not like-to dos out at the jail of the of the first two years you have listed here of the white line, no less than 63 million of that could be the jail project out at del valle, and that would only leave $10 million left over related to white lines for two solid years. We are hearing from people saying get this stuff down, get it done quick. What I think is also needs to be considered are expectations of the public, and it has not been pleasant when the city of Austin gets bonding authority and has to put to it the side because they can't afford the issuance and/or the operation and maintenance. So if this is indeed correct of us going to that white line but not crossing over it, the jail could suck up all but 10 million of that and then you would have road projects, parks projects and open space projects get delayed until basically '09, '10 and '11. I don't think that's what people are telling us like get back to us in four years in terms of open space projects.
>> of course, the mix of projects is a choice. And I realize there are pressures for all projects to get done immediately, but there is another management issue for the court. If you did say there's $228 million worth of projects, some of which are jails and parks and open space and roads, you then manage the scheduling.
>> these numbers presume a reasonable, rational Commissioners court.
>> yes, judge. And none of us, of course, would be here if that were not the case.
>> thank you.
>> I値l take that as a compliment.
>> Karen, I want to go back to your 63. I mean the 63 is probably not absolutely accurate because I think we understand that we're really talking about 73.
>> I was giving the best case scenario. There is actually another $12 million that could be in play, meaning every penny of the first two issuance could zap away because of mandated, largely, issues out at del valle related to variance beds and being on the list with jail standards, which is one of those things that is a mandatory gig, not a discretionary gig.
>> but I think based on the last criminal justice project we had, we really ought to contract design-build.
>> I don't disagree with you. Yeah.
>> which gets us out of the day-to-day management.
>> I don't disagree. It just sucks up money.
>> it takes money to get done. But the thing is that no matter how much you issue at some point have you to plan it out. And when the bond rating firms chat with you, I mean they want to be left with the impression that you have thought through all of these issues and have landed and there's support on the Commissioners court and the community for whatever presentation you make to them.
>> and we have some more slides that will help you land on that lily pad.
>> after we get with susan, we'll look at those slides.
>> I知 just primarily sitting here if you have a question. Christian is right, one of the reasons that we're the only government in this area that has an aaa is that you have taken all those things into account. And we are a government that has the kind of things that we have to do are not controllable, however many people show up at our jail. You've done a really good job of saying look, we've got this out here, we can't take this chance, we need reservess hold the line, and I think that when you read the bond rating report, it reflects all that, that you have looked at all of the pieces and have done really an excellent job of holding those in line and try to keep a balance for the community. And christian is right, one of them can go over and they don't worry about that with us because you've done such a good job of keeping everything, you know, in order with adequate reserves. And that's the point. A balance. And it's not just -- I mean the bond raters look at operations too. They look at what we're doing, they are going to look at the state, looking at those revenue caps, they will not like that. They look at, you know, if you are investing in your workforce, that's been an issue many years up there. So they look at everything and say is it a balanced organization that has things under control t rating you all got and earned was aaa, the highest you can get because you've done that.
>> related to the revenue caps, and that has been an issue in terms of the lowering of the bond rating in houston when they decided to limit on their own initiative, and that is this. When you have less money, you unfortunately have to kick things over that we're pretty used to paying cash for because you've got enough money and flexibility to do your job, it puts that much more stuff that goes on the credit for that you are used to paying cash for. We've prided ourselves in building up that c.a.r. Account from when valerie was here, she was here when it first got started and it was a modest $1 million a year. And it got built up with a very prudent thing that -pbl of us grew up with is if you can't pay cash, you can't afford it. More and more things get put in for cash, but we will be much more restrained and have even more pressure on the i&s side if revenue counts are out there and will legislature has made it extraordinarily clear we didn't get you this time, but we are coming after you in '07.
>> jessica, let me ask a follow-up question to what we discussed a few minutes to go to make sure I have complete clarity. On page 6, that $69 million, if joe were to call the transportation department and they say, oops, we made. Mistake, we need all of that, we will need to subtract 12.6 million from the 69 million?
>> that's correct. Continuing on here, we're going to play the what if game now and that's if Travis County were to issue up to the $228 million in long-term c.o.s and voter approved debt. Further Travis County debt would be limited in the next six years. Commissioners court would not be able to plan on implementing other large projects. If issuance schedules were to change like we've been discussing the county would still possibly go over the white lines for a short period of time. Some of the projects that the court may wish to consider would need to be possibly postponed, and these projects include new courts, civil courts, additional road or drainage projects. Obviously that is a continuing program. There are continuing needs. Additional parks or urban space. General government campus. Regular general office buildings and other issues such as landfill, adult juvenile jails or et cetera. There's an unknown price tag there. As you can see from this slide, the total is between 115 million to 280 million. It could be much more. We were trying to give just a sense that there are other large projects in the next five, six years that you might be faced with considering. Therefore, under exercise 1, which is maintaining the level debt service, the county should be able to issue up to 159d million dollars and maintain relatively stable aor level debt service. Commissioners court mass reserved approximately $40 million as we've mentioned in debt caps to it address the near term replacement of the variance beds. And that would leave then the $119 million in available debt capacity. Under exercise 2, which is using the white lines as a limit, we could issue approximately up to $228 million between these same years and stay just below the most constraining debt area row of $500 in that bonded debt per capita. That's khraouding overlapping debt. This limits the court's ability to address our capital projects in future years and we may still need to cross the white lines depending on issuance schedules or if the interest rates were to change or if there was other changes in day-to-day operations that we need to do issue higher c.o.s and the like. I should know and I want to make this note a little more clear, modifications in the issuance schedule do matter to this debt model that we've presented to you. Even just plugging in 60 million above the 159 million, which is less than the number I previously quoted to you can make us go over the white lines in certain years depending on how we -- how the issuance schedules play out.
>> again, that's 60 million above the 159 assumes that we're not going to have to take $12 million off of that number because of an unresolved issue on s.h. 45 north.
>> that is correct.
>> we're not off the hook.
>> that is correct.
>> this figure have factored in the annual payments to retire debt.
>> yes, sir. Some other thoughts we would like to leave you with, the issuance schedule used in these exercises, I値l just say it one more time, were driven by financial outcomes, not driven by programmatic need. We know that this is not reality. Rerealize that these are just numbers that we've made up in our office and they are not based on what really is going to be driving this factor which is the programs, the roads, the jails, the parks, et cetera. And those projects will ultimately need to determine what our issuing schedules are like. We also want you to keep in mind and this has been stated numerous times today, these capital projects do require additional annual funds, m&o to maintain and some require new staffing perhaps. Parks especially we've seen that with the '97 and the 2000 program and then also the new jail beds.
>> keep in mind that in '07 the legislature is back in town.
>> that is correct.
>> that concludes the presentation. We'll be happy to answer any additional questions you may have.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...what's the average do you know because --
>> there is a minimum that we distributed to court on the 18th, a response to a question concerning the 60 million on the average homestead, the cost. What we did was just walk you through basically the certified tax role, what the penny would generate, what we concluded was that the 60 million would cost all things being equal, approximately $11.78. For 203,000 house, then you take out the exemption that we get. So 228 would cost how much?
>> we haven't run that number.
>> trying to be bold, christian.
>> old and bold? [laughter]
>> I知 glad that you brought that up, that's just talking about what tax increase would be necessary related to the ins piece of the tax rate. And as we all know, there is no [indiscernible] and that's really where we will go through markup every year, then you have what happens on appraisals, that even when we are at the effective tax rate, people can see their tax bills go up. Because it doesn't offset completely, depending on what's going on in the commercial real estate market. And the city of Austin is doing the same thing and aisd and other school districts are doing the same thing and the hospital district and it has a cumulative effect that I think that we cannot lose that there is an affordability issue here that goes beyond simply what will it take to pay off the debt that needs to be -- we need to be sensitive to that related to the cost of living in this town. And what we have heard about sensitivity on taxes.
>> well, and in particular, when you talk about one of the reasons, where do you find the additional [indiscernible] [papers shuffling - audio interference] the real resistance in the senate, for example, is in -- in increased sales tax, why is it in sales tax is because most people will tell you that it's aggressive. And -- and we -- I know that we continue to try to be mindful up here about it's not -- it's not the folks that live in the 470,000 home that -- that -- not to say that they don't say something to you. It's that person that lives in that $100,000 home or that 80,000 home because of the percentage that that takes. So it is -- it is -- I mean we are all mindful of the folks that just don't have the dough. I mean I think that we owe it -- to everyone to make sure, not to say that we can have meetings like we've had today, we always, in this community, if you have lived in this community as long as most of us have, of what a certain segment would do, you would guess this is the barometer and people really feel this way. But we all know as elected officials that, you know, when we see people at the grocery store and when we see people, you know, at the sporting events with their children, whatever, it is a subject matter that comes up and it is like what are you doing. And all of us probably we get ourselves into falling all over ourselves about let me tell you why county government is really not that expensive, this is what you get for it, this and that, because we all have to do that with people. So -- so you know those are the things that need to be said because I will guarantee you there's somebody watching this now, channel 17, that says "what are they thinking about?" "why would they tell us it doesn't make any additional, it's only an additional $11".
>> I think they know because if it's on the ballot they need to know whether to vote for it or against it. There is -- haul of the sensitivities that we have mentioned, there's also the sensitivity to the voter's request for an opportunity to go to the ballot and vote it up or down. Two questions. One is the five-year policy is self imposed. What if we were to say for this issue, we are looking at seven to eight years. And the question is what flexibility do we leave ourselves? See what I知 saying? Same amount of money paid off over a period of time of -- period of seven to eight years, the only reasoning behind that is that we give ourselves two or three more years to pay for the same amount, reserve at least some flexibility of year to year. The other question is, this is for the audience, maybe a show of hands more than anything else, while you think about the answer to that tough question, christian. If we are looking at $60 million, and we have an interest in getting Travis County residents to approve that, what have we looked at stand alone, $30 million for open space and stand alone $30 million for additional mobility? That would be the compromise. And if I were adamantly in support of those, what I would want to know is whether the compromise is such that -- that supporters of both -- of both advantages would get -- would get out and support both. So those are just -- those are the two questions that I have.
>> well, one question was to --
>> seven or eight years.
>> the first question, I can answer. The second question, you'll have multiple answers depending upon who is speaking. This would be paying the debt off after seven years.
>> more a don't issue around round of debt for seven to eight years. If you are comfortable that that standard can be met, that you would issue what you need to do, issue over a seven or eight year period of time, you will stay within those lines, there's no question. The question back to you, however, is your degree of confidence, since you've been doing this much longer than I --
>> but I知 thinking also if you reduced the annual payments, then that would free up at least some capital for other purposes during those seven or eight years.
>> yes. The issue there is what you do is you would say rather that we are going to go every four or five years issue a major bond authorization -- ask for authorization every four to five years you would be saying you are going to ask for it every seven or eight years.
>> there be leaving some financial flexibility in each year up to that seven grand. Not a whole lot, but more than we would do if we just locked in on five and stuck to it.
>> the real question is do you -- is the degree of confidence that you believe, that the court believes, that it can in essence say today we know the needs for the next seven or eight years. And only -- only you all can answer that question. I know how I would [multiple voices]
>> better than you can.
>> I know how I would answer it, but that doesn't matter.
>> there's also a pricing piece of this that we need to remember the lesson of 1984. The 1984 bond issue took 14 years to complete and unfortunately what we found out that the prices that were there in 1984 were not the prices that were there in 1997. In terms of right-of-way, in terms of construction costs, et cetera, et cetera. And one of the things that has happened with this particular thing is that we have priced it that -- with the reasonable expectation something can be completed or mostly done within a four to five year time frame, we have a pretty good sense that these prices will hold. T.n.r. Did not put in escalators to assume an extra three years on some of these things. As we have been lectured by folks on open space, adding three more years to the price of open space? That's not put in here, so our money would actually buy less, but more sensitive than that is -- some of these projects need to be done yesterday. The idea that you might be at the end of seven or eight years and then have to tell everybody else that's out there on any other project that didn't even make this cut, see you in eight years? That -- those are -- there are transportation issues, park issues, open space issues, there's a civil courthouse issue. I知 not making that phone call to judge dietz. There are things here that you push stuff so far out, there's no pricing in here related to escalation, if these numbers don't hold and they would have to go back and be reprised. Seriously reprised.
>> [indiscernible] so be it, that's what the majority thinks. What I was trying to do is get some flexibility.
>> I respect that.
>> five years.
>> five years. Because then, too, we are able to final -- finalize these projects.
>> get them done.
>> people can see that we have followed through with what they voted for. If you do it any further than that, I think the cost will -- will escalate and the projects will take forever getting done. I知 thinking of the nuckols crossing project.
>> I would like to see what christian's numbers would come up on it, proposed, judge, if you would look at that and if -- I don't know if that would be a good middle ground or not, but I would like to get some -- I don't think, we aren't going to file action today, are we on these?
>> there are a couple of things that I think we need to discuss and see where we are. We may be at a point where --
>> I think we have to --
>> the real big issue and that is whether we plan to -- what we plan to do about the 6 million dollar -- 60 million dollar amount over and above what the committee recommended specifically.
>> right.
>> > I would like to look at that alternative and suggestion what you said as far as some numbers with it. I would still like to hold on to the premise of the $60 million, we know what that is and exactly what the impact is as we look at that on open space. However we have still got those mobility projects that I still need to make sure that we get to a mill [indiscernible] I posed the question do we really have to come up with a final decision today. I think there are some things that we really need to deal with. I don't -- you know, but I would like to have those numbers.
>> I would think it has to land on looks like a majority of the court likes five years better than trying to stretch that out. If that is so, the next big issue is what about the $60 million. Based on the e-mails that I have seen, the -- to me the fair compromise would be between mobility and open space.
>> but the only thing there is that I think it's important for us to -- for those projects that are ready to go on the ballot, what are -- that are ready and the only thing left to do is to get voter approval again to avoid having -- having history repeated as with the nuchols crossing, low water crossing project. Approved in '84 and it didn't get completed until the '98-'97, something like that. And by then, the money that had been approved in '84 was very little. Compared to what was needed.
>> okay.
>> in the present.
>> judge, maybe this is a good jumping off point for a discussion that Commissioner Daugherty and I got started over the weekend. It's been referred to sometimes this morning as, you know, another report, another way. And where this started for me was -- because this is my fourth, '97, 2001, [indiscernible], 2005, we have asked for the citizens bond committee to help us, help us build this beast. In each and every time --
>> do you all have a copy of this? Should we get them a copy.
>> that would be great, judge.
>> can we get somebody to get us five, 10, say 15 copies of this.
>> well, like I said, each and every time we have tried to build these bond elections, we have used very, very good work at the citizens bond committee at our base. Each and every time we have added projects to that list. And we have subtracted projects from that list because as larry beard said this morning, these were recommendations from this committee, not mandates. And I liked valerie bristol's perspective there of try to go as far as you can go and what that is saying is that the final call on something has to be the Commissioners court because that's what we are elected to do. And it is up to us to -- to apply after all that good work is done out in the community, being prudent, protecting our bond rating, applying judgment, applying public policy, applying conservative budgeting principles, I致e gone to new york and/or here related to the bond rating thing for -- for 11 different trips. And what they also talked to us about is the need for flexibility. That when things go down the tubes, and oh, we've had a few of those conversations in new york, criminal justice complex, that we need to have the flexibility to respond to something that didn't go as well as planned and to be able to as christian likes to talk about make the -- make the levers move. It is important to know and I am so appreciative of the folks that took the time and the energy and the -- yes the resources to go out there and test the temperature of the public related to some of these issues. That's a really important thing because I am convinced that open space is valued, that parks are valued, but the one question that was not put to the bond -- to the voters was would you want us to go buy that stuff knowing that we could overextend the credit of the county. That the -- that the credit rating of the county would be putting jeopardy in order to do that very good thing. And that's a harsh question. It is one that I would ask. But I can understand why it was not asked. So Commissioner Daugherty and I got together this weekend and we tried to see if there was a way where we could respect the white line, not over extend ourselves on the credit, because again the only other thing that's worse than an overextending is to get the authority and then sit on it because something else came up or you can't offer the o&m and people's expectations are not met, because some other public safety need bumped it out. As you have already heard, the moneys for jails can be anywhere between 63 and $73 million. That is eating a lot of our discretionary additional capacity. Kind of like the dog ate the home work, well the jail ate the extra capacity. So did s.h. 130. We talked about that this morning. That the package, the very bold products -- set of projects that we did on s.h. 130, 45 north, mopac, I don't regret any of those votes. The people don't forget their votes on those, but that pushed us closer in time to the white line. It took up some space that now we don't have. It's going to have to be like christian likes to call it the egg passing through the snake. We have got this big bulge of debt called s.h. 130 is that has to work its way through the debt model. Now, there will be a point, it will dump off. We will have more debt capacity. But that moment is not today. So where Gerald and I were coming from is how can we leverage the money that the bond committee came up with related to the 119 million, apply our prudent financial principles, maximize, because I知 big-time hearing it, but not any other old space, what have we been hearing about, what have the e-mails talked about? The fragile environmental lands primarily in western Travis County and there are places where the development is just absolutely putting a squeeze on all of us. Stay within the guidelines, and while there are things that we talked about related to mobility, is let's have some backup projects because there could be some of these things that crash and burn, fall off, somebody decides I知 not going to do that, it gets annexed, whatever happens here. Let's have some backup mobility projects so that if indeed space has opened up, we have got things that we can slot in there and make sure that what money is approved for mobility makes it in there. Related to the parks, this is proposal the biggest place where Gerald and I spent a lot of good quality time, is there a way to embed within the nearly $408 million of the bond committee said was appropriate for parks, I知 not disagreeing with that number at all -- but a very painful decision, when we were talking about arkansas bend, that's a park on the north shores of Lake Travis, it already had been gutted through the process of losing the camping stuff and it was one of those things where it's like you know what? We would rather do it all, do it right. Than do it half right. And we would still suggest pulling a million as was always the plan from the lcra c.i.p. Plan, c.i.p. Account, to go ahead and get arkansas bend designed. So we would not lose out time, get it designed, let it come back and get everything done and not do it half heartedly. Then related to -- there as much as a specific line here on water quality, a little bit of money, about $7 million embedded in the parks proposition already on water quality agreements. We said let's try to build that up. Meaning put most of the arkansas bend money into that open space item and then it also turned out on the reimers ranch proposition, which is southwest metro, that a little over 7 million of that 14 million that the committee was recommending was really to upgrade the existing road that goes into reimers ranch and make it a more substantial road in terms of its, you know, more of an official park road rather than the caliche limestone thing that it is right now. Well, guess what, it's working perfectly well as the road that it is right now, gets people into that ranch and is a better use of that 7 million bucks upgrading a road that already exists for the park or putting it into land acquisition? And so what we have come up with is a strategy that under the parks proposition of $40 million, is to maximize what we were hearing from the public of put it into open space and to be specific about where Commissioner Daugherty and I thought we were hearing through growth dialogue, water stuff, christie, interim water quality rules, we have a big problem southwest, so let's just build that line item for southwest. It doesn't mean that we don't think there are water quality issues elsewhere. But they are not on the critical path that some of the things on the southwest are. I知 being real honest for you, judge.
>> Commissioner Davis and Gomez this is where you plug your ears. [laughter]
>> no, no, no some of the water quality issues in eastern county, includes precinct 2.
>> downstream, remember.
>> erosion and flood control things, that money is already in here under drainage and flood control and erosion. So those are the critical needs on water already built into this bond election. It's not like saying you don't count, you are already in there under drainage and floodplain buyout projects. Those are --
>> but --
>> I知 not finished yet.
>> you need to kind of complete. We need to go on.
>> I知 going through it, judge. Stomach it all up, basically take the 119 and to try and maximize open space et cetera in an area that we thought really was begging and to do it within the confines of 119 million knowing in four years we get to do this all again and more debt will roll off and we can continue to do stuff. So that was the thinking behind our memo.
>> okay. Sorry it took so long.
>> okay.
>> I think -- I don't know how much of that 40 million and I guess I didn't total it all up, but I need to find out how much of that 40 million are we really talking about to protect the open space area out there in southwest Travis County. So it's $18 million?
>> yes.
>> that's allowed to do that specific -- specific -- because I did hear folks ask about specifics. So it -- I kind of want to know about that.
>> the reimers it's $25.5 million. It's 25.5 million for southwest.
>> okay. On the other hand, drainage projects, sure, there's still some drainage projects, if we could just get included on here, you guys all got a list from me. That show, joe gieselman, this t.n.r. Department also has the same list that showed to me that some of the other drainage progress that didn't make the -- make the cut and been a drainage flooding problem for a long time, lockwood, [indiscernible] grove in that area. So that -- that didn't make the cut, but yet it's still a drainage area. So although the drainage concerns are not addressed as, you know, even though we do have some of these addressed, so the erosion in the drainage problems that we -- that we continued as Commissioner Gomez has stated that -- that upstream does affect us downstream as far as the drainage. It is a -- basin drainage area that needs attention. It's still -- I think the overage I applaud you guys for what you have done, stuff like that. But there's still significant questions that I have as far as some of the projects, for an example, in the tier 2 scenario, the projects that -- that have city participation for an example to cut and I知 talking about a mobility project to actually -- where the taxpayers are -- would have to pay as much as -- as far as Travis County, they are not even included there. There's only one of those. And -- and that's -- that's there, project number 6, which is the decker lane, south frontage --
>> [indiscernible]
>> I know. I say that is there, but it's in tier 2. These things are ready to go in my opinion. I think we should go forward with those that -- especially with the public private partnership aspect that -- that I think we should all hold dear and give it the proper merit that they deserve. So -- so we have to have some room and I really don't know how the folks feel again about the -- about the open space, if that $18 million could be specifically driven for -- for those particular water quality projects. I haven't heard anything from them yet. I think it would be good to hear what they say about the specifics as far as $18 million. I don't know. But I do know this: that what I stated earlier, it's the real deal, the real thing, those projects, if they can be instructed, that we need more mobility capacity than what we have here now. It's going to have to go beyond this $120 million that we are talking about here for this particular proposal that you and Commissioner Daugherty did come up with. It's still a lot of concerns about arterial a and I did hear some folks talk about that. But is this going to be an expansion driven project to expand those operations. If the legitimate is -- if the alignment is going to go through the landfills. I did hear testimony from one person that spoke, I知 sorry that david lurie isn't here, because none of the persons, [indiscernible] from tceq who was here earlier, because there was some specific questions that need to be answered because part of the report that they said this morning that there was really no length, there was -- there was really no link between the health effects experienced in that area over there around the landfill was not basically connected to the cluster of cancer cases they have. But I -- that's debatable because there are other -- there's other aspects of health effects, other than cancer. Cancer is a very severe problem, but within that 778754, for an example, one of the zip codes in and around the landfill, they had 14 cases of cancer. Adjacent to that 78724, talking about the park, talking about the l.b.j., crystal brook, all of that area surrounding that, significant, it was 50, 30, 35, those are significant numbers of people that have been stricken with -- with cancer. So -- so there are other things, health effects that maybe not have been measured other than cancer. So there are still some problems I think with that assessment. So arterial a, if it deals with expansion, I think everybody in my position, I can support arterial a if there are going to be expansion of those landfills there. It's just a health concern and public safety concern. So those are things that I see that are embedded here and of course I just really feel that -- that the -- that the second tier, I think you are saying well if it's -- if something falls through on the first tier, especially within the public-private partnership assessment, if they don't make the grade, then within a certain length of time, I guess within a year, then we'll pick those up from tier 2. But again, what I知 trying to say is that the -- the -- the -- the $120 million is in -- I thank you all for working on that Commissioner Gomez and -- I mean Commissioner Daugherty and Commissioner Sonleitner, however I still think there is room here with this $120 million to actually be added on to those. So that's why you have the list of those additional projects that I致e given and you guys know what they are, you can take a look at them, but braker lane 2, 1, future parmer lane south and decker lane, all of those things going into the south frontage road of s.h. 130 is another one. I just think that we need to look at those for what they are and if it's money -- that's associated with them, that -- that can decrease the cost, I think we need to entertain those. These things I知 talking about is in addition to what they said. I would really like to hear from those folks from the open space I applaud you all for doing it. I don't know if that will cuss the mustard or not. I appreciate what christian smith and other folks have been saying for us here today, but we still need to look at this bond package very carefully. I would again like to add those things what I mentioned to the -- to the additional precinct 1 capacity as far as the debt and --
>> we had 14 citizens working for months. And they came with a list of recommendations.
>> right.
>> and we had 35 to come -- 36 to come to court today to testify. Mostly all of whom testified in support of the committee's recommendations. Now I listened very carefully to ms. Bristol and ted siff and the others and I didn't hear them say I want you all to support open space verbally, but not do anything money-wise. They want us to be frugal and fiscally sound, but at the same time they want us to support the acquisition of more open space. Now, I got hundreds of e-mails over the last two weeks, I知 sure all of you did. And there were two things basically open space and mobility.
>> that's right.
>> which is why my idea really is to make sure that we put out there stand alone 30 million for each one of them. I don't think it gets any easier. So my motion is 30 million for mobility, 30 million for open space. If we are going to do that, then we give ourselves another week to come up with as many specifics as we can between now and next Tuesday. If we are not going to do that, then so be it. Is there a second to that motion?
>> I would second that for discussion purposes, judge. Again, I want to make sure if this doesn't pass I would like to make a substitute motion. But again I would make sure that if what we are doing here, the $18 million for the water quality area in southwest Austin, southwest Travis County rather is the specific money that we are really talking about now, I haven't heard that, I really wish we could give it more time. To -- to maybe hear what folks are really saying. I致e heard what they are saying this morning and -- but I would like to see where this goes and of course -- of course maybe make a substitute motion on yours if --
>> any more discussion of the original motion? All in favor? Show Commissioner Davis, Sam Biscoe voting in favor. Those against? Commissioner Gomez, Daugherty, Sonleitner. My motion now is that we have a stand alone for $60 million open space. Is there a second.
>> I second that.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion? All in favor? Sam Biscoe, Ron Davis. All against? Commissioner Sonleitner, Gomez, Daugherty. Any motions?
>> yeah, I would like to move that we have $60 million set aside for mobility projects within -- on this particular bond election.
>> is there a second? That motion dies for lack of a second.
>> I would like to make another substitute motion then.
>> original.
>> that's original. We are not substituting.
>> original motion.
>> okay, I would like to make another motion that we come up with $40 million for the open space, and $40 million for the mobility projects.
>> that would be a hard time getting to 80. [laughter]
>> 40 and 20? We will get you to the 60 that we think we have.
>> well, just go as best we can.
>> I second 40 and 20.
>> all right. 40 and 20.
>> 40 open space, 20 mobility. Seconded by the county judge. Discussion? All in favor? Consistent Commissioner Davis and judge Biscoe. [laughter]
>> all against. Gomez, Daugherty, Sonleitner. Any motions.
>> if I might try a motion now. I will be the first person to say this is not perfection, but it's trying to leverage and do the best we can and to be fiscally responsible and to try to maximize what is the heartfelt sentiment, it is my sentiment related to open space and a particular need in southwest Travis County. The motion that I will put forward is the strategy that Commissioner Daugherty and I have put out as what's being called boldly a Commissioner's subcommittee recommendation, which basically has a reconfiguration of the -- actually comes in right at $120 million. And embedded within whatever related to parks and open space, to make it very clear, that between reimers ranch and southwest open space, they would be embedded with no tax increase. $25.5 million for critical needs in western Travis County that we have many times talked about in terms of reimers, hogue and other kinds of thing in the vicinity. That would be my motion.
>> I will second it. Mainly because I知 comfortable with the amount of money that has been proposed. And then, too, it's -- it's close to what the citizens committee did. And I applaud their efforts, I mean, they made just incredible efforts to -- to listen to what we had -- told them that our parameters were and they -- they -- the public hearings that they had around the county at which people had the opportunity to go in and I attended some of those hearings and people came up and just laid out what their needs were. And they were heard. By the committee. And -- and the -- the only -- we'll talk about covenants later. I don't want any of these roads to be [indiscernible] even discussed, I don't want it considered.
>> amen.
>> but the other thing is that the -- the projects that are in the main -- main proposal in terms of mobility or drainage or whatever else I would like to know that -- that staff will do everything that they can to get those well prepared. For what needs to -- for the propositions. The projects on the tier 1 and tier 2, since we are saying that they should -- they should be -- there in case something else doesn't -- doesn't work. Then I think we need a treat -- to treat the projects the way we are recommending them in this list. That way there's no delay whatsoever on the main proposal of the -- of what the motion is today.
>> my position is based on three reasons, one is that it contradicts the recommendations for my 14 member advisory committee. Secondly that it runs counter to the hundreds of e-mails that I received from those interested in mobility and open space. And third, that it flies in the face of the 35 or so residents who came before us today. Any more discussion?
>> yeah, judge, I would like to just say this, also. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. But the bond [indiscernible] what you just stated there --
>> see the light Commissioner.
>> but you know, I just -- just unfortunate that we are in the threshold of -- of great potential growth, economically development opportunities for a thirsty portion of Travis County that's been thirsty for years and yet when it comes to the trough there's no water to drink. This -- in my opinion -- is really hurting the s.h. 130 effort in the connectivity that needs to take place in the effort and also the economic development that we desperately need in precinct 1. We are hungry for economic development and the kind of growth that we need, it's unfortunate that it appears that we won't get there with this particular -- the way things are going. For those that have wanted to put the -- their arms around water quality, issues as far as protecting it with open space, unfortunately it just appears that we won't be able to do that at this time. But I want to let you know my heart still goes out for that, that is also an issue in precinct 1. We love water quality just like everybody else do in this county. But of course the mobility portion, I did my looking at it, I just think we could have let the voters out there determine what we want, what we do not want. They are the ones that have to pay the bill of the voters of Travis County. If you don't give them an opportunity to voice their opinion on what bill they want to pay, then we will never really know if -- if the $60 million was something appropriate or not. Or whether the mobility was appropriate or not. We won't know that. But anyway I wanted to throw my two cents worth in there. I知 going to keep plugging right along to bring some of these things about. Especially the economic development things for precinct 1 that we desperately need, also our water quality in Travis County. So thank you. I知 not going to support the motion.
>> Commissioner Daugherty?
>> judge, first of all let me say to Commissioner Davis I think there might have been a time precinct 1 lagged behind in economic development and growth. I will assure you one thing that the driving that I have done in precinct 1, I mean there is a heck of a lot of stuff going on. I知 glad that it's coming your way because I think it has been a long time coming to come to the east side.
>> we still catching up, Commissioner.
>> you are what.
>> still catching up.
>> I知 not saying that you are catching up. Maybe I知 getting behind. Because I will tell you that I have a lot more piling on me than piling on you with regards to precincts. I -- I know that the prudent thing to do as an elected official is to not go beyond the 119 to $120 million worth of debt. That is the prudent thing to do. There is no question in any of our minds about that.
>> I wouldn't have made a motion if I didn't think so.
>> precinct 3 commissions mind, that we need to do. Which is the reason, judge, why I知 willing to make a friendly amendment. I mean, I am comfortable with what Commissioner Sonleitner and I have worked out. I think that it does, as she has stated, I mean, the electrifying things from 95% of the people that we heard today is open space. Open space is southwestern Travis County. I mean, no one is coming in here talking about I want open space in precinct 4 and precinct 1.
>> but I was thinking of that. I have never ruled out the other parts of the county. Clearly the problems that come to us involving water quality, which may be addressed through open space acquisition, are all southwest. But there are open space issues in the other precincts and at some point we have to turn to them. But looking at them won't help, though. We need resources to do it. That was the reason behind mine. Let me not cut you off.
>> and my read, judge, is that I would bet you that 95% of the people that spoke today, they were speaking about open space in southwest earn Travis County because it is the place in this community where you get the folks that say if you ask them say where do you want it? I bet you that 15% of them would say -- 95% would say we want it southwest. I don't say that pridefully because I知 sorry that precinct 3 is the target in this community for not wanting anything else going on other than what's there right now. I think that the majority of people in this community would say if there's a way we could draw a big circle around it, put a line through it, that's what we would want. After two and a half years as a Commissioner, going through several of these dialogue programs and processes, I can tell you that that's the -- that's the way that I feel. I think it's unfortunate, but that's, you know, the fight that I have got to continue to stay out there in front of. I do think that we can issue a little more debt, which is the reason why, you know, my substitute motion would be is that we issue an additional 20 for open space and 20 for roads.
>> second?
>> can I ask --
>> we later work out the specifics.
>> why not 30/30? I mean, if you are going to go 20/20 --
>> I wish that we could do -- [multiple voices] what we have on this page, what Commissioner Sonleitner and I worked out, that we take an additional 20 and 20 and that we go as far as we can go beyond that showing -- I do feel that if we pit open space against roads that we are going to have an issue out there. If the 20 and 20 are going to get us anywhere where we need to be? It just gets us 20 closer than what we would get if we don't do. I think that it makes us, continue to be prudent with the decisions that we know that we are going to have to make around the corner and -- and so I -- I think that that would be the compromise that would make.
>> doesn't that get us into that area where we may not be able to consider other projects, other big projects that we have on our agenda as well.
>> this court always figures out a way to deal with those issues. We have done it 16 years that I have been here. We will do it some more.
>> Gerald let me go one thing -- I知 very sensitive, was listening to mr. Clark this morning, that related unspecified road projects that is a recipe for disaster. That is a recipe for disaster. What we have really tried do in terms of bond projects, that's why we tried the tier 1, tier 2 is come to us with stuff that's ready to go. Create the competition, I am really comfortable with the strategy that you and I came up with. To put back 40 of the 60 million that we know is trouble related to the white line is troublesome. And I would really urge you don't really don't go there. Especially on mobility to have something stand alone on 20, that is a target for defeat. Because we have already heard many times in this community about sensitivity of wanting specifics, about where stuff is. We actually heard some folks this morning saying I can live with what you have put in here and not targeted anything, so I would ask you to --
>> let me -- let me say this to that. I probably am inclined to rescind, you know, my because in my heart I know -- mine -- I知 comfortable at the 119 at the 120. I hate to have to fight with folks that are generally my allies about -- about are you -- Gerald, you never met a road you didn't like Daugherty and you are not willing to put more money in towards roads. If I had it any way, I would tell you that I think that there are ways we can do roads, I think there are dallas in this community that if we had the gallon, the gumption to do what we needed to do with mobility and transportation that we could do it in this community. But unfortunately I am always, I always come up short with having people get in line behind me and say let's go and do those things. I think you're right Commissioner Sonleitner. I mean, judge, I would rescind that and --
>> withdraw your motion?
>> withdraw my motion.
>> I move the Daugherty motion, which is the 20/20.
>> second.
>> discussion?
>> he wouldn't do his, I知 doing mine.
>> we are keeping track.
>> getting voted down doesn't bother me at all, as you can tell [laughter]
>> all in favor? Commissioner Davis, judge Biscoe. All against? Commissioner Daugherty, Gomez and Sonleitner.
>> back to the original main motion, I would hope.
>> that would have been yours. Another substitute. So back to the original, which is the -- Sonleitner, Daugherty, alternative anti-committee, anti-[indiscernible] committee strategy.
>> I知 going to have to interrupt [laughter]
>> I am just joking y'all.
>> no, no, no [laughter]
>> this needs to be a point made. I would say 1 -- 95% of what we have in this strategy is exactly what the bond committee said. In fact they even made note of some projects that we wish they made the cut. But we had to cut them and so we have come up with strategies that says fine, you are on backup, janet. You are on backup, larry. You are on backup in case an opportunity comes forward. To listen succinctly to people who says parks and open space needs to be a priority. Anybody who says $40 million for parks in this community is slighting the issue, I think it's incorrect. But you are entitled to your opinions.
>> if the committee recommended 180 million.
>> they didn't. They recommended 119 million.
>> plus 60.
>> right.
>> you take -- you all vote to take 60 out, that is not 5%. $60 million is a third of 180. That's fifth grade math.
>> going over the line. This kind of thing I知 real sensitive right now, when you cheat on the diet, you cheat on the diet.
>> we get to --
>> let's move on. Other parts of this item.
>> we didn't vote, judge.
>> we didn't?
>> on the Daugherty-Sonleitner motion we have not.
>> I thought --
>> nice try.
>> all in favor? Show Gomez, Daugherty, Sonleitner. Voting against, Commissioner Davis and yours truly. Now, in terms of proposed propositions, if we follow the alternative strategy, what does that leave as a proposition?
>> well, judge, this is very interested. I think joe gieselman needs to help us here about whether we can or can't include floodplain.
>> I think glen opple would like to address you in executive session with regard to the -- how you tie these things today. We have comments on the state highways as well as the [indiscernible]
>> all right. So as propositions you have -- we have maybe drainage. We definitely know we can do drainage related to the road projects without question, glen needs to kind of lay it out for us whether there is one or two propositions related to mobility. I would articulate that the [indiscernible] needs to go into the main motion. Certainly parks and open space is absolutely a separate item and then a separate one for jails. So it's either four or three. And then there's a question of whether floodplain has to be done a slightly different way. Glen can fill us in on that.
>> let's start with one then. A proposed, a list of specific projects, that's in the document itself, right if.
>> yes, sir, that's it. It's the charts and then the -- the walk through on what's in there, in terms of describing what's involved in the public-private partnerships of what's necessary and being tier 1 versus tier 2.
>> okay. Proposed proposition we need to take time on. We discussed 3. Anything else on public/private partnerships.
>> you had put that you wanted to put some kind of a time line in there that basically says tick tock, get your stuff locked down at the county or we are moving on.
>> that would be January of 2007. It was in the first tier.
>> about a year.
>> they would have until January of 2007 to enter into an agreement with the county, those tier 1 projects, failing to do so, they no longer were eligible and we go to tier 2 projects. I think glen probably drafted a covenant that speaks to that?
>> okay. We'll call it up in executive session. Election schedule. The only thing important there is this has to be made today or next Tuesday. We are up against the statutory deadline of being able to proceed. That's the main issue there. I think where you are going right now --
>> next week.
>> I just want to make sure on proposed bond covenants that Margaret's suggestions were related to stating the obvious, there is nothing in the mobility propositions that has anything to do with the toll road, kind of like what we're telling folks, because txdot has kind of changed the rules on us, given what's happened on s.h. 45 southwest, we owe it to say whether this money is intended to go towards free roads, which it is, let's say the is it a the obvious. I -- state the of course. An excellent suggestion and put it in a covenant.
>> legal advice on that, too.
>> okay. Related issues?
>> no.
>> anything else related to number 10?
>> we did not talk about the annual operating and maintenance cost of the bond projects. That was actually on -- on number 6, we talked about the debt policy. So I feel just for the record the -- we looked at what our -- based on our current operations, we estimate that -- that the park proposition is -- that's currently structured would cost about $500,000 per year. Putting in operating and maintenance costs for parks. The open spaces and the drainage projects because many of the drainage projects will become open spaces after a buyout. We are estimating about $60,000. Per year. And that -- that is primarily mowing, litter pickup, if some cases, open spaces that you acquire open spaces management, there is some cost associated with open spaces management. With regard to roads, that is really variable. This is operating expenses associated with the different bond issues.
>> heads up. Ongoing costs associated with the debt. The road themselves you can see no -- no substantial costs of operating and maintaining the roadways. In the first five to seven years because there will be brand new roadways. We will begin to see substantial costs in the 10 to 15 years period, and that is presuming that these roads have not been annexed by a municipality in that time frame. But there you could see upwards of 500 to a million per year in additional costs because of the additional lane miles of roadway that are added to the system.
>> okay.
>> judge, if you --
>> we will take final action on this item next week.
>> yeah, that's fine.
>> final action next week.
>> okay. There was a question asked this morning that I wanted to make sure we did get an answer to to get it into the public road. Had to do with open space. How much is here in Travis County. They have been able to break it out, in terms of Travis County is 655,000-acres. 886 acres. You have to take out the water, which is also open space, but we are though the going to count that, then the total open space acreage in Travis County is 80,178. And we have gotten some break down numbers in terms of prop 2 lands, which are 12,000, bcp properties, 29,000, yea, Travis County parks 3800, Pflugerville park at 70, two states parks at a little over a thousand, lcra properties thank you very much, 6200, balcones national wildlife refuge, this is the thing that I talked about senator hutch common, 12,458 acres in Travis County and god bless the city of Austin, 11,648 acres. We do -- that is 12.6% of Travis County right now is open space. That's a good --
>> I need to tell you something about that. John kuhl, environmental officer with t.n.r. The legal sheet is actually a corrected version. What was pointed out to me by ted siff and some others, there were -- there was double dipping, emma long counted both at city of Austin parkland as well as bcp. We actually corrected some of that on the fly. That gives you a revised total of 76,321 in open space, which is approximately 12%. Now one other thing to consider is how do you define open space in do you find land that is available to public access or owned in fee sim pells versus that which is also conservation easement. If handwritten writing to the right there on the legal sized sheet you will see the approximate number of acres that are in conservation easement. That's a further refinement, getting you to about 67,000 in fee simple for if you again however you define open space, that's 10.5. So it's roughly 11, 12% open space.
>> we are doing a whole lot better than the state of Texas as a whole, way better.
>> thank you very much.
>> anything else on this item today other than the executive session discussion? All right. We'll have it back on next week.
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.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 10:47 AM