Travis County Commissioners Court
November 22, 2005
Item 9
Christian, we may be ready for that big item. I知 assuming it will take some discussion, though. But number 9 is to consider and take appropriate action on requested debt issuance schedule and capital projects, including approval of funding and fiscal impact related to the following projects. A is 2005 bond authorization. And under 9-a we have one, proposition one, roads road related drainage and right-of-way. Two, proposition two, parks and open space parkland. And three, proposition three, jail facility replacement beds and renovations. 9-b is the 2001 bond authorization for roads and parks. 9-c is certificates of obligation for jail renovation related to proposition three of a 2005 bond authorization. The certificate of obligation is the difference there. And 9-d, certificates of obligation for the following, and this is a long list of projects. One, gardner-betts juvenile justice center renovation, 2006 phase 1 facilities management. Dn-2, south Austin building, a.d.a. Improvements, facilities management. 3, post road building renovation, design phase, facilities management. Dn-4 is eastside service center, facilities management. D-5, purchase of the south Austin building, facilities management. D-6, purchase of other buildings in Austin. Facilities management. D-7, hot mix, f mix, tnr department. Drainage study is d-8, tnr. 10, aerials and collectors. That's d-10. D-11, cost overruns on park and transportation related projects. D-12, flint rock road extension, that's tnr too. D-13, other park transportation related projects. D-14, mobile data computers for constables. D-15, airport boulevard phase ii project. And 4-d-16 -- 9-d-16, precinct it building renovation project.
>> most of these projects have been under discussion since at least springtime. A couple have popped up in the last month or two, but the purpose of this discussion is to show you the whole array of projects that are intended to have public benefit, provide you with an overview of the fiscal impact based on certain assumptions, which of course will only be proven correct in hindsight as opposed to foresight, but they are certain assumptions that are made about what the future will be.
>> what are you hoping that we land on?
>> today we hope that you will land on a decision regarding which projects you wish to proceed with and a decision on which projects you wish to mull over. So that when we-- we can establish the size of the debt issuance and proceed with the next steps of putting together bond packages.
>> well, -- will the circumstances allow us to mull them over one more week?
>> yes. So what we have is a powerpoint presentation of -- that will take 10 plus minutes to show you the whole picture, give you the fiscal impact. And jessica reeve has put together the numbers, the facts, the impact. I wanted to give a few thoughts on a strategic basis, and then allow you to ask whatever questions you have. There are programmatic benefits for each one of these projects, and those that are proposing them are I知 sure here to share any programmatic issues; however, many of these projects, if not all of them have had at least one, and in some cases a half a dozen discussions with Commissioners court about both benefits and costs. So really the purpose of this is to put it all together, and if you're comfortable move on, and if you're not comfortable, then adjust accordingly. So with that I壇 --
>> but with consideration that we will have one week to mull over it?
>> certainly. And the other thing is to keep in mind there are some other -- there's some other meals being prepared right now for the oven that will pop out in future years, and keep mindful of those. So with your indulgence --
>> let me ask one other question. So we are sizing the co project for a trip to wall street next spring, right?
>> that's early in the year, in January. Yes. Not only the co package, but the voter approved bonds. This will be the first issuance of the bonds that were approved by the voters a few weeks ago.
>> there's no reason to delay, but if we need another week or two, and there is a whole lot of projects here, and we have to consider I guess the overall debt impact, we can take another week.
>> and it may be that the -- of 15 projects, you want to say yes, yes, yes to 10 or a dozen or all of them, and you may want to say let's mull on these two or three, and that would be wonderful. And realistic.
>> morning.
>> the court should have received a memo from pbo on November 16th. That is the backup to this agenda item. The presentation that we're going to be making. As a follow-up, you should have also received the powerpoint presentation. I want to make sure everybody has that in front of them. As christian said, this should only take a few minutes and we can answer questions at the end. Or if you have a few questions along the way. Financial impact for the fy '06 proposed debt issuance. The request for issuance in fy '06 includes 53.4 million of voter approved bonds. That does include actually 2005 bonds that were recently approved as well as 2001, some later year issuances of that, as well as 27.5 million of known voter approved co's. And that number includes 2.2 million that was approved with the adoption of the budget of projects that were approved with the adoption of the budget, and then 25 million or thereabouts of co's that are proposed in addition. And then the rest of it being issuance costs. The cash flow for the voter approved bonds represented is the requested cash flow from tnr and facilities management. I should note that the jail project cash flow assumption was reduced for the fy '06 assumptions that are shown here from the total cash flow of 14.8 million prior to the election, and now we've got a revised cash flow of 9.4 million due to the project schedule. That's all of them provided by?
>> by facilities management.
>> and the first year of a multi-year project.
>> that's correct.
>> we should also note that the project that is proposed by tnr has been incorporated into these numbers as if it were to be approved, so if it is not approved, we will need to make modifications. What that did basically is for the fy '06 issuance it dropped the voter approved portion by 650,000. And then in the co's it moved up the 2-point -- I believe it was $2.2 million. So it kind of was a debt swap, but it did move up the issuance year by a year. On the non-voter approved debt, the remaining cash flow assumptions for the jail project are zero here because pbo is now assuming that all voter approved debt will be issued first, the 23 and a half million that was approved by the voters with the remaining long-term co's being issued in the later years. The total cash flow needs for the project for facilities management are captured under the voter approved debt, as I previously showed. I should also note real quick the error that was caught by Commissioner Davis' office and I appreciate that. Number one, gardner-betts project. Number two is eastside service center. I believe on your backup is jumps to number three. That was a user error on my part. The table skipped.
>> this might not be the right time to ask this. This was a 150,000-dollar project related to plumbing out at del valle to get some jail cells out there turned into proper cells. Where is that imbedded in this list?
>> in the '06 budget.
>> it's technically in the budget. We did that with cash?
>> I don't know whether it was a car or part of the co sweeps, but that was approved --
>> it's taken care of?
>> I値l go back and look. [overlapping speakers].
>> thank you.
>> as I mentioned before, the co projects currently approved to date total 2.2 million and the proposed co projects pbo has identified as possible and canned dots for 20 year review will need further review to make sure they are logical and eligible. Moving on to the projects eligible for five-year debt as shown here, there are these projects do total 25 million and the total co package presented here if all were to be approved would be 27.4 million. The effect on the debt service, if all 80.7 million is approved, the first thing I should say is we have lots assumptions imbedded in there as christian said. That includes interest rate siewmses. We use the same interest rate assumptions that we've been using throughout the bond process.
>> what is that?
>> that is in the memo on page 3. The long-term rate, basically what we did is we included the highest long-term rate from the previous 10 years plus 50 basis points. We did something similar for short-term rates. So for fy '06, we are assuming 3.5% for short-term rates and I believe 4.5% for long-term rates.
>> what we did was consult with our financial advisor as well as southwest, who is another professional set of financial advisors, and ask them what should we make our assumptions for future interest rates because we know they're going to be wrong. And because you're predicting the future. Both of those entities landed on this strategy on predicting what the future interest rates will be, and we used it. It's not something that christian drement, it's something that was based on both our financial advisors.
>> and it does stairstep up. It doesn't stay consistently 3.5%. It stair steps up to the highest rate over the last 10 years.
>> we believe these rates are reasonable and conservative?
>> they're at least conservative.
>> okay. That's even better.
>> but we don't know what interest rates will be, so just keep that in mind. I should --
>> don't hold you to it in other words.
>> I壇 appreciate that. Assuming the voter approved projected cash flow and the co's under consideration were to be approved the debt service would increase approximately $2.5 million from fy '06 to twefn, and that is shown on this table. You will see it actually peaks in 2009 and starts to come back down because we're paying off debt as well. The average effect on a homestead results in a tax increase in fy '07 of $6.67. And I should note that also there is an error on your backup. I believe the .41 and .0041, one of them shows 42 and that was just a rounding error on my part. They should both be .0041 as well.
>> what assumption did we make as to future debt issuance for the -- for 2008-20 on the?
>> what we used for the future debt issuances for 2008 and beyond, the only thing that changed is the jail revision on the project. And then for co's, we've been projecting 13 million in short-term co's?
>> and that 13 million is in a very important assumption, and it is based on history. We took historical analysis of I think the last seven or eight years.
>> 10 years capital. And it was general fund plus co's and that got us to 23 million.
>> plus voter approved bonds?
>> right, aside from voter approved bonds.
>> and that 13 million is really doing business. It is computers and vehicles and roofs and air conditioners and just the stuff of capital that is normal and ongoing business that the county has and not any ongoing projects and acquisitions. What you have before you.
>> there have been years that we've issued much less than that and we've had years we've issued more than that.
>> it also assumes no more roads, parks, and major buildings in this time frame.
>> there's no assumption for future debt.
>> so on the $6.67, though, from the educational materials --
>> that's the next line.
>> okay. Let me just hold on.
>> okay. The public proceed shurz indicated that the tax impact with the cash assumptions of that time and the co assumptions at the time would increase approximately $4.78. Scwlumpzing all the way up to $12.28 in 2009 and starting -- assuming no future debt.
>> and there's two ways of looking at that. And I致e heard them both. One is that's not a big deal. It's only two dollars a year. Look at the public benefit. The other side of that is it's a 50% increase, oh my goodness. That's why you're on your side of the table and I知 on this side of the table. The question is which way do you want to land?
>> and there are also implications in terms of not happening. One of the things that I was grateful to a previous Commissioners court before I got on here is that the Commissioners court from the 1994 bond election aggressively did projects even though there were numbers there that were kind of scary, but they went ahead and did them and were able to take advantage and get projects done in terms of right-of-way donations, the rkt situation and they got their projects done. Those that were more conservative and decided to wait. It cost so much more to try and get them finished 10 years after the fact. I mean, it's just hard to say that a price you give somebody in 2005 is still going to be a valid price in 2015. So there are positives and negatives both ways about advantages of waiting and being more conservative and advantages of not waiting and being more conservative.
>> and you can tell from this table that the cash flow assumptions that we were using at the time that were reviewed by the departments does front load that voter approved debt to a great extent, 39 million in '06, 32 million in 2007 and then it goes down, stairstepping down. The impact on the county debt policy if all 80.7 million is approved for issuance in '06, this table is a summary of the county's key debt ratios, which are known as the white lines. The most limiting of these I have shown at the top in bold is the net bonded debt per capita. We like to keep that at 500 or less. And give enthe current assumptions that are in this model, we are going beyond that for a number of years and then coming back under.
>> the 500 or less is in your debt?
>> correct.
>> let me make a comment on that. All our discussions with wall street the credit rating agencies, they have in essence said this is part of the art of managing your debt. These are -- the important thing, if you go beyond your while lines is you know you're doing it. And you have a plan to go back. It just like a white line. It's okay to get over as long as you're getting back. It is in the eyes of the be holder as to whether there is a dramatic move or not. We would need to display to the credit rating agencies what this shows and what our plans are. They want to know that. They want to see that you are looking ahead over the next five years and that you are managing your debt in a way that is appropriate. This is not something where we would say to you stop it, you've gone too far. But it is something where we say to you, know that it's happening, be mindful that you are over, be mindful of other projects that then should they come forward to you in a year or two that are extraordinarily large, we will then need to ring the bell and say be careful. So you are in essence mapping -- putting together a road map for the next four or five years and it is simply a road map, you're going here and it can always be adjusted, but it is a substantial strategic decision.
>> did our road map after the last bond issuance show us exceeding the 500-dollar per capita?
>> your road map exceeded 500 when you wrote a 100-million-dollar check for a certain road.
>> and we had a road map showing us --
>> coming right back. And you came right back.
>> we stuck to the map.
>> you stuck to it. You told wall street, we're going over, but we're coming back, and you came back.
>> and I知 glad that road was mentioned because from 2001 it was the culmination of three separate bond elections on sh 130, 45 and the mopac extension. And all those bonds were issued in 2002. About 10 years into the gig, we are going to start having a lot of that debt roll off, so it's by no accident some of the stuff starts coming off. So what's going on here is not sichly a culmination of the latest bond issuance and current need and projections. We have to take into account that there are things going on here with the incredible commitment that this community made for the three toll roads that are coming online in another year. That's what's going on here as well. This is a lot of this tightness is because of the appropriate decisions I think that were made related to sh 130, just that one road was 90 million.
>> but we're not trying to excuse the fact that this is a lot of debt.
>> no, no, it's a big number.
>> we've got two options really. Either we can cash these items, meaning from the general fund, or basically we issue debt. And it's like a credit card, you issue debt, you pay more, but at least you give yourself the opportunity to pay over a five, 10, 20 year period. , and when you issue debt there is a public benefit. When you incur a loan personally, you get a benefit. And when you incur public debt you incur a benefit. There's a judgment call as to whether the cost has been worth the benefit. And my guess -- I think it's fair to say that none of these projects would be on this list if they hadn't already gone through a series of discussions with the Commissioners court and it's clear that while no formal action was taken on most of them, I think there has been some formal action on a couple.
>> there's a fairness argument as to why you do do things over a period of a number of years. If you've got an asset, a road, for example, it is not just the persons who live in Travis County today who will get the benefit of that road. We are talking about an asset that will have a life-span of at least the length of the debt. So it is a way of fairly spreading out who gets to pay for an asset that people over a 20 year period will get benefits, not simply the people who happen to have the opportunity to approve the project. It's kind of like you pay for the fire truck by putting the jar of pennies, in which case it's gone, or do you appropriately spread out who gets to pay for the fire truck because all the people who will be able to use it, not just the year that you happen to buy it.
>> do we still have a copy of the chart that we put together in I guess 2001? Showing the per capita debt?
>> in our files, yes. You're talking about --
>> can we pull that out over the next two days and let us look at that between now and next Tuesday?
>> you're talking about the analogous presentation back in the year 2000 about here is the impact on your debt looking forward and seeing actually happened? Is that --
>> I知 hoping for one page, though.
>> we can do it on one, maybe two.
>> one page chart. I think we can do that.
>> but am I right that that's what you're looking at?
>> and the importance of it also is that two years from now or three years from now when members of the Commissioners court say how did we get to 69 million dollars' worth of debt service, you say, ah, that's part of the plan.
>> and again, I don't really -- judge, were you --
>> I知 done, for now. [ laughter ]
>> I guess for now for all of us. Going through this, and I知 glad we have some additional time to go through this and kind of focus in on what we feel comfortable individually I guess, but also collectively on the court as far as going forward as far as issuing debt, some of the concerns that I致e heard as we've gone through this process, and coming from the voters who have to pay the bill, is that they would like to see some things move forward. Basically we're looking at open space, the increase on open space property, what are we going to do about that, how are we -- because each year you go by, the property seems to increase in value and therefore increase in the cost. So the money that we are talking about today won't be the same money that we're talk being next year. There's a possibility of increase of just those type of things, not only that, the projects that we're working on, we have looked at as far as funding now, what would those projects cost in the future years when we do not aggressively look at funding them or getting them online for the design and for right-of-way, construction, those other things. So it is a process that we need to go through to look and prioritize on where we are. So I guess my concern is that when you go before the folks in new york and in front of the wall street folks over there, look, this is what Travis County is aggressively trying to do, this is what we're doing, the debt service, the $67 million of debt service that you mentioned christian, of course we're not there, but as a little debt service amount; however, when you stack all this stuff together, in my opinion there has to be some priorities. I think the general obligation bonds that the voters have authorized us to deal with, we need to move forward on that. And so now what degree and what amount, what is the breaking point before somebody slaps you on the wrist and says, you issued too much debtor da da da, whatever would be negative; a number that I don't know. What is that magic number? Because again based on all those things I mentioned, all the contingencies, whether it be mobility, transportation, parks, open space, the jail operation and all those other kind of things combined I think is a process that we're going to have to tie down and go through that. And I know that even with the co issuance with a little more than $27 million as far as the total amount of co issuance, certificate of obligation, we are -- there are going to be some challenges throughout this process to make this thing balance out right. But in my mind I知 still trying to see what magic number that is that we have to land on to keep us in the good graces of standing tall. So that's basically where I知 trying to come from. So hopefully you guys can let us know that. It's all a projection, christian, we just don't know what that number is. I think that your colleague basically has set said that. I知 just curious to see what impact this will actually have on what we're trying to do as far as prioritizing what we want, how we can get there without being penalized and put us in a bad light. A bad light with our financial folks up in wall street, new york. So I hope you understand where I知 coming from on that after saying all that, christian smith, but anyway, that's where I知 coming from. The voters have asked us to do some things and I壇 like to see how we can do it as much as we possibly can without going overboard.
>> I致e got one other question about where I find it. If it's not in here, it can come in over the next week or so. What assumptions -- I saw the assumptions related to what impact this can have on the residential homesteader. Where are the assumptions about what we think is going to happen with the property tax base, the taxable property for all of Travis County? And the reason I ask that is this, we have fixing to come on line in the '07-'08 time frame some huge projects that are going to be counted as new construction the first year that they hit and have multiple year impacts. The home depot data center, freescale, the domain center is coming online, and certainly we're very hopeful of getting a positive answer from the government of korea in relation to what's going on with samsung. So how did we put all of those kinds of things in there and then a big question unknown is what's going to happen over at the mueller redevelopment property, which is probably one of the biggest infusion of taxable property, in addition to the non-taxable stuff that is going to hit, again happening over the next five years.
>> there's -- the assumptions that are on the debt model I can summarize them and get them to you. I don't know if they paid particular attention to the projects that you've just mentioned. They have more of a steady increase over time.
>> there is an assumption in the material that we provided to the voters of a three percent per year increase in the value of the homestead. Because this isolates and concentrates solely on debt service, other economic benefits in the community as a result of hundreds of millions of dollars or billions of dollars' worth of new value are independent. They're independent of this.
>> it could have an impact on the debt ratios is where you would see that impact. It wouldn't necessarily be on the $6.67 is what christian is saying, but it would be on the debt ratio.
>> and we've been very blessed in terms of having good economic recovery going on in Travis County, but the kinds of projects that we are listing here are things that are I値l call them spikes that are the legacy kinds of projects. When you have the potential of a samsung coming in, when you've got the freescale doing an amazing investment, and then we haven't even talked about amd, if indeed they are proceeding on with their reinvestment in this community. These are huge spikes beyond the very good news that we get to read about every week in the Austin business journal in terms of what's going on around town.
>> so you did not factor in.
>> one of our white lined --
>> you did factor in or did you? New growth basically.
>> it is conservative in terms of new growth and not aggressively assuming another boom.
>> (indiscernible).
>> we've got that material, but let me point out one thing. One of our ratios is net bond debt to taxable value. If your taxable value goes way up, that goes down. We're already below that. We're already well in the middle of the road, if you will, away from that white line. Another, however, debt ratio deals with capita, per capita, population. As our paplation booms, should it, then those ratios will be even more favorable. Where we are unfavorable is overlapping debt and have been for many, many years. And overlapping debt is the total debt of all taxing jurisdictions in the region.
>> and I don't think any of us have any clue what's going to happen in the sh 130 corridor. There are land deals being announce odd a daily basis. There's a huge investment going on in that desired development zone, which is a good thing. So if we're on the conservative side and then we have these things, that could happen be a little bit of a pressure valve on some of this stuff, but not to count on it, but it is something that could be helpful in future years.
>> we have some conclusions to share.
>> I do. Just to summarize, the current assumptions, the debt service requirements, you increase by 2.2 million if we were to issue as is shown in the backup memo and the powerpoint. In fy 2007. And would increase by 5.7 million by fy 2009. So it would peak at 62.2 million. The impact on the average homestead would result in a $6.67 increase in taxes in fy 2007, which is $1.89 or thereabouts, an additional impact more than that was projected in the brochures that went out to voters. The projects listed above have been mentioned many times, but they have been discussed outside of this framework, so we wanted to make sure that you had the financial framework and without the benefit of overall priorization if need be. The projects do not include other future large facilities projects that are now under consideration and discussion, such as space for more courts, the general government campus and a forensic center. And that concludes the powerpoint, but we'll be happy to answer any further questions.
>> and I believe there are people available to answer any programmatic questions about the benefits of any of these projects.
>> now, 9-a, b and c are really voter approved. And so for those three broad categories, we made specific promises to the taxpayers and received their blessings as to those projects, so my guess is this Commissioners court would want to keep that covenant.
>> the only possibility that you might have, and it's my job to remind you that you front end loaded a lot of these projects, and the staff has responded to representations of members of the court saying do it now. So do it -- these are important projects, get them on the road.
>> a, b, c and d?
>> yes. A, b, c. We told voters what we would do on those and we would pretty much remain --
>> they were front end loaded.
>> that's correct.
>> so if you were discomforted by the fiscal in fact, what you would do is you would shift and delay some of these, still do them, but you told the voters you were going to front end load and this is front end loaded.
>> and I should note that c relating to the co's for the jail renovation as I noted in the presentation, we've actually assumed that prop 3 jail facilities to be issued before the co's. So there's a zero on the certificates of obligation for the jail renovation related to prop 3.
>> any discomfort I may have is not from ab and c, it's from d. But on the long list under d, some of these we have addressed several times before, and in fact approved. Right?
>> are we able to separate those from the ones that have not been approved yet? We have individuals here on these, right?
>> right.
>> and is there a purpose in attending to give us a brief reminder? Of what the project is about? Maybe this court's commitment? If any. Or simply to see what action, if any, we take.
>> may I make a guess?
>> you certainly may.
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ... Previous commitment.
>> yes.
>> and if we occupy that building these a.d.a. Are required by law. Questions, comments? Number 3. Post road building renovation design.
>> I was going off of jessica's numbing and I now realize where you are out.
>> some of our residents may be serious enough about our meetings to be following us by the agenda. What's the cost of number 3?
>> 100,000.
>> that's the design. Witness you start the design, it's logical to finish the project.
>> the total project is $900,000? The total project 900 or thereabouts with the design 100.
>> and we're going to be -- with the hole legal aid swap we've got to do very good design.
>> so the design is the only thing scheduled for fiscal 2006.
>> and in '07, assuming -- the design will help tighten the cost, but it's in the 900,000 range.
>> questions, comments about that? We really -- now, have we landed on exactly how we would use the post road building?
>> well, one thing for sure, it serves the deaf community, which is closeby.
>> but don't we need to make sure there is a formal action on exactly how we would use it before we do the design work?
>> that's correct. And back in the work session and we said that will come back to the court when we start doing some planning when you give us the direction to move forward, we'll do some planning and come back to you with the actual plan and then what is going to be designed. Is it going to be one courtroom, two courtroom or whatever. So we're going to come back.
>> but we need $100,000 for the design no matter where we land.
>> yes.
>> we had talked about getting the [inaudible] out of lease space and going into that facility and that would be a good place for out of downtown.
>> we talked about a lot of options. My point is I think we need to land on exactly what options we approve before the design.
>> sure. Absolutely.
>> anything further on 3? Number 4, eastside service center.
>> that request is 1,180,101 for f.y. 2006.
>> but that also loads '07.
>> the total project is 4.9 million and the cash request was 2.9 million less the t.n.r. Pre-encumbrance of 1.7 million.
>> is this the sale once you are completely out of there of the precinct 1 and 4 properties? Is that figured into these numbers or is that something after the fact that will be a positive?
>> I believe it's figured into the '07 numbers.
>> great.
>> can you find out for sure and let us know?
>> definitely.
>> because our goal is that we would liquidate the two satellite offices we use now after construction of the new one.
>> [inaudible] is figured into the overall to where we would have a wash on this project.
>> there's a one-page memo indicating what we think we can get for those two properties. Can you share those with the court?
>> yes, sir. There's a -- it's about a two-year-old preliminary estimate what their value was a couple years ago. We haven't done a current appraisal but we have an estimate of those values.
>> we believe those two estimates are pretty conservative.
>> very conservative, sir.
>> may I have a one-pager giving those numbers?
>> yes, sir.
>> anything else on the eastside service center? Purchase of the south Austin building.
>> this project is # 160,000, and it does also have -- there is 540,000 in car that is related to the purchase price as well. And that 540,000 has already been approved and that's due to tax implications.
>> okay. That's -- action on this is possible in 2006 or we think --
>> you have a commitment, I believe, to come up with the money in August of 2006, and that's according to contractual obligations that already exist. And the split here between c.o. And cash is -- the court approved $540,000 out of c.a.r. To allow no questions asked on whether or not these -- the c.o.s would be taxable or non-taxable. It was to assure it would be non-taxable.
>> so we think it will be for sale for sure in August or is this like a wait and see?
>> I think so. We have in the contract we called a purchase writer's clause. We can move forward in August 2006 and that will be planned in program 4.
>> okay.
>> and it really does need to be tied to number 2. If we're not going to -- if you are not going to do number 5, then may not want to be doing number 2.
>> we have assumed full and complete commitment that this project will be executed and the building will be owned.
>> I知 committed.
>> and the court I guess has previously voted to do so.
>> yes. You've got some words on contractual pieces of paper to that effect.
>> it has gone through very extensive programming with the impact of departments about why that space is not only necessary but also to protect their footprint.
>> on number 2, Commissioner, we are right now working with an architect to draft a plan for the a.d.a. Improvements so we are about one month we go go forward with renovation on that. We've got the money.
>> 6 is purchase of other buildings in Austin.
>> we assumed a range for this item. But for the debt model we did use the higher end of that range, which was conservative.
>> let me give you a thought or two on this. You can see in your memo it's 6.8 to $7.5 million. Identity is not specifically referenced. It may or may not be that you can execute a final deal within the time frame we have. And so there are some options you have. One would be to basically go forward with all of your planning that you've been engaged in and discussions and negotiations. If those result in a successful transaction of one or more transactions, before we issue the debt, then it is added at some time in the future between now and in February. We let wall street know in January here's what's going on. We have a certain size project. It may be increased by a certain amount. But we don't know if the transactions have not finalized. But let's say that you don't know and these transactions continue well beyond January or February. You can always issue again in springtime on a limited basis for a transaction that you know if it extends into the March, April, June, July time frame. These are large enough transactions that you can always issue another c.o. We've done it before. There's nothing that says you have to issue c.o.s once. That is our tradition, but you can do it multiple times. Harris county does it four times a year.
>> and I think there are some things coming up in executive session related to part of this where there will be clarity, but there are implications to not doing that that are quite serious related to some other projects that are being put on hold. I知 being appropriately vague, but I値l save it for later.
>> from whom may we receive a confidential memo that clearly sets forth what these projects are and the associated amounts of money?
>> well, the name roger comes to mind, but am I right that that's the source of all knowledge? [laughter]
>> I don't know.
>> am I right that you know more than just about anybody?
>> no, not really, you do.
>> what did you have to say about that?
>> we can bring a memo forward about the cost of those two buildings and the explanation of the use of those buildings and what the costs and all. And right now we have to talk about one of them in executive session.
>> I知 sure I know there's no number here, but are we talking about two buildings under this one?
>> that's correct, two buildings.
>> and we're talking in code purposely.
>> I understand.
>> frankly, judge, if it weren't confidential and if your lawyer [inaudible] if you would rather just hear that from roger in executive session and make mental notes, that may be a better way because once he puts it on paper it's going to be an open record.
>> do not give me a confidential memo. [laughter]
>> tell me in executive session.
>> so that's there. And you can leave it in or take it out. It's an easy discussion, I think.
>> but those are the two we've been discussing.
>> exactly. For the last month or two.
>> those two. All right. Hot mix, f mix.
>> that's a million 25,000. And I知 sure if there are questions, the good folks from t.n.r. Can answer any questions.
>> precinct 3 line item.
>> precinct 3 has had opinions on this for multiple years. The Commissioner from precinct 3.
>> these are critical for '06.
>> there's two components to this. One is the f mix. There is currently no f mix in the f.y. '06 budget. That's probably more critical than the hot mix. There is a budget for hot mix. But this increase would cover the expected increase in prices that we expect when we go out to bid. So it may mean if we live with the budget as it's been approved by the court, we would do fewer miles of hot mix overlay if prices were what we expect them to be. All the asphaltic materials have gone up substantially in the last year and we expect those prices to be reflected when we go out to bid.
>> if we generate savings in the road and bridge fund, and $100,000 comes to mind, roughly, why wouldn't we just use that for, say, to increase the hot mix or the f mix?
>> certainly any savings that are generated can be applied that way.
>> because it came up the other day my question was why couldn't we use that for something else and then I realized it was in a road and bridge fund.
>> I think that was $50,000.
>> okay. So you're saying -- well, do we have projects, though, that we need both of these for? That we would do in '06?
>> yes.
>> okay. Question about criticality was not intended to be a trick question.
>> we move to the f mix in part by customer demand. So if we do not have f mix, we could probably treat those same roadways with a less expensive treatment, but then it would not satisfy our customers.
>> okay. Drainage study. There's that word "study" again.
>> this, again, is our attempt to get upstream, so to speak, of our drainage issues in this county by doing a comprehensive watershed study. This is just a precursor to basins study, but to go ahead and do a master plan for all of our watersheds to get some sense of how to address the drainage prabs instead of doing it piecemeal. We go out and put a band-aid problem out, but it typically moves the problem upstream or downstream. This gives us a way to look at this comprehensively and we've been somewhat trying to get ahead of this for some time and this would be our effort to do that.
>> okay, and john, we think this is c.o. Eligible?
>> we discussed this with david yesterday, not to jump in here, but I知 going to. And he believed that it was c.o. Eligible.
>> john should answer the question.
>> the county attorney said it was good, then it's good.
>> he said it is or I believe so.
>> he believes yes, it is, yes, it is, because it's professionally contracted out, it's not done in-house, and it's professional services. So ...
>> this is to stay ahead of any issues such as development upstream and its impact for floods downstream.
>> it would actually help us to set priorities for all the drainage problems throughout the county. And so that instead of looking at each one individually, we kind of step back and look at the big picture and begin to get some sense what we're going to have to do to get a handle on this on a county-wide basis with some sense of priorities. If I were to put it into context, this would be the pavement management study for watershed. When we step back we look at the entire system before we go in and pave one individual street.
>> [inaudible].
>> have not. The only debt we've issued probably is certificates of obligation for a particular drainage problem. And we have done this.
>> you need half a million dollars, you don't care where it comes from.
>> no.
>> but it's big enough to stretch your capacity in '06 because it's not budgeted in the '06 budget.
>> but we have have found a solution if the court were to be comfortable with c.o. Issuance for this project, we could I believe with t.n.r. There's enough vehicles that we could switch over and do it that way. So we can figure out a way.
>> we future -- we were left with four or five million dollars in an unallocated line item in proposition 2 on the bond package. Right?
>> yeah, I would not go there.
>> I understand.
>> that has more to do with agenda item number 8.
>> all right. I understand. But when I look and see this other precinct 3 project, that flint rock road extension.
>> that's not new.
>> what's the amount for?
>> the amount for that one is 2.2 million.
>> I guess my question was about to be rather than issue c.o.s and add to what voters approved why wouldn't we take some other allocated amount. You are saying there may be cost overruns for the other projects.
>> yes.
>> one was [inaudible] was bond issuance for a certain project and we're swapping a different but equally important project so we have to do a c.o. Swap.
>> we would agree not to use the debt already approved for this project and in lieu of use the certificates of obligation but with the same amount of money. Without increasing our debt, this project was approved in 2001 as part of the bond program. But it was specifically earmarked for a different roadway. So by covenant that's what you are bound to. What we're seeing is we would not do that project but do another project in the same vicinity with the same purpose but use certificate of obligation to do that one.
>> the only thing I --
>> I知 not saying do another project, I知 just saying we have a huge amount of debt here and one way to reduce it is not to c.o. This but take it from the amount voted approved recently. It's a source of funding more than anything else. We go out on c.o.s every year, and sitting here looking at '06, seems to me we should try to reduce that. We'll have '07, 'on 8, '09 and if we run short, wouldn't it be better to make the c.o. Decision in be '07 or 8 rather than '06? I知 not saying don't identity in '06. I would say pull from one of the unallocated amount in proposition 2. That was the road, bridges, whatever it was. Just think about it.
>> but if you delay the project --
>> no, sir.
>> whether you issue debt out of the authority provided to you by the voters or issue debt out of c.o., it's still debt. The impact is the same.
>> I understand. The impact is the same but the source of funding is not and the explanation to voters is not.
>> right.
>> if that matters. The explanation does matter.
>> yes.
>> the non-voter approved debt does matter because it comes up every election cycle.
>> but you are about to get to item d-11, and mr. Geiselman is going to talk to you about cost overruns and we are carrying that at $5 million.
>> we are there, mr. Geiselman. D-11.
>> actually it's covered probably in agenda item a so I will just use that backup as my explanation.
>> why don't we hold on this and cull item 8 up after this. Is that all right?
>> that's fine.
>> let's just finish the others here, christian.
>> we skipped ahead. You were at d-8.
>> we were at 8.
>> parking lot projects. These are critical because the court has indicated the desire to address these in the past. Parking lot projects.
>> these are the ones that actually kind of fell through the crack in our budget process. Neither facilities nor t.n.r. Nor the sheriff's department -- I知 sorry, these are facilities parking lots.
>> $938,000 of poring lot projects, correctional parks and facilities.
>> right.
>> part of that was in our original request for the parks whether the county road and bridge system took over the park roads, these are improvements that we feel have to be done. We went out and did an assessment of the roadways just as we would any other county road. These are the roads that need immediate attention within our park system, and that's why we're asking for certificates of obligation. The nature of these improvements are long term and do qualify for debt as opposed to potholes and crack sealing. The same is true of the parking lot, facilities parking lots. And then the facilities at the jail, these are facilities that were not requested either by sheriff or by t.n.r. Or by facilities in the budget process and yet they are needs at del valle taken sheriff asked that we seek funding through c.o.s to do this.
>> is a large part of this the [inaudible]? Is that the biggest piece?
>> in your expert opinion, how critical are these? .
>> I don't think I could say uniformly. There are pieces of this that are credit cag. More critical than others. So I could probably go back within this list and pick out things that are more critical than others if you want to lower the amount. I can't say uniformly, they are all equally critical. I mean we've already gone through one iteration of priortization so we bring the items that we believe should be done.
>> these were in your '05 wish list?
>> for the parks and the facilities. They were not on the wish list when it came to the del valle jail. We just missed that entirely. T.n.r. And facilities did not represent that need, and unfortunately neither did the sheriff's department.
>> questions, comments? Ear tear yals and collectors.
>> this, again, is part of the overall road and bridge strategic plan to basically go from 70% to 75%, fair to good condition. We would do that by concentrating more reseniors on arterials and collectors, county roads that are arterials and collectors. So this was just one component of our overall stranl that we presented to the court back in February.
>> which we approved.
>> well, but you also approved all the other components. It's just a matter of -- the strategy is approved, the under ifing is not.
>> the stranl was approved.
>> yes, the strategy was approved.
>> okay, $230,000. Is what's in this memo. That's the amount for all of them?
>> that's correct.
>> are we at 13, other park/transportation-related projects.
>> that is a -- that includes $91,000 in capital equipment associated with the acquisition of the milton rhymers ranch park and the p.o.a.g.u.e. Sparks. This was the vehicle piece that was not included in the approval, the f.y. '06 budget. But the feth were arrived, but not the vehicles that support the f.t.e.s. This is where this is at. So that's the one piece of it. The other piece is $150,000 match to a federal grant that has already been improved a gilleland creek. We've had that creek tore several years, we just have never approved the local match to the grant.
>> we told the feds that we would provide the local match, they awarded the grant, and we have not come up with local match to implement it?
>> that's right.
>> and the federal part is still good?
>> still good.
>> this is one of connectivity in terms of filling in a gab between the Pflugerville hike and wiek system and getting us ee-.
>> I値l answer the question for you, joe, this one is critical. 14 is mobile data computers.
>> let me step back here. I misrepresented the sheriff's department needs. It's in this item here. They have a perimeter road at del valle for about $40,000. They've got road repairs for 117,000. Then a parking lot repair at 41,000. And that is where that item is, a total of about $200,000. And one related facilities at del valle, and it's represented in this agenda item.
>> I think the only confusion, I mistakenly put it up with parking lot projects. I believe it's part of the 930,000 on p.b.o.'s memo. If we need to change that is correct we can.
>> so we have it double represented here.
>> joe, have we always been -- I guess your department has always been required to oversee paving of the del valle facility?
>> well, this came up when we had our discussions on the road and bridge fund and we said as part of our strategy that we would take over county facilities. The parking lots and roads within county facilities. That would include both facilities management and the camp puses around the county, but also del valle and any facility under the management of the sheriff's department. So that was -- the court adopted that strategy, but this would be the funding that actually puts it in motion.
>> okay. Mobile data computers. I guess we've already approved that. Airport boulevard, phase 2.
>> is that which one?
>> 15.
>> on 15, what did we do with 14?
>> 14 was [inaudible].
>> did you have an issue on that?
>> discussion?
>> well, I think the issue is have we gone through all of the committees? Chuck, you're in agreement with stacy and pete.
>> pete baldwin -- I知 wearing my emergency wireless communications coordinating hat. We did review this, look at all the issues on it and the ewccb you should have received a memo signed by lieutenant pickering who chairs that committee and we do concur with this, yes, sir.
>> and chuck is thumbs up as well?
>> yes, sir.
>> any other questions, comments? 15, airport boulevard, phase 2. We've talked about that several times before. That's $675,000. Did we formally -- I know we landed on a big piece of it. Did we formally land on all of that, phase 2 at airport?
>> we landed on option number 1, which is to move c.e. And fire marshal and e.m.s. To phase 2.
>> I know on c.e.s. We landed. But on the other three did we land and see how we would basically get that done? You have to design that, correct?
>> thank. And we will come back to you when we have the schematic design for approval.
>> those two departments have been hot and cold about of mooing there. Did we get them hot permanently or do we need some follow-up discussions with them.
>> I think it's everybody in agreement as far as we're concerned. The fire marshal and the c.j.p., c.e.s., recommend to go to [inaudible] phase 2. Everybody on board as far as I知 concerned. That's what we discussed before. Right now my staff is going to meet with them to work out the detail on the planings on this space configuration.
>> if those departments have any issues, they need to call them to the court's attention immediately. And we need this item on the agenda either next week or the next week. To discuss them.
>> that's right.
>> I知 visualizing conversations I致e had with the various department heads and they've kind of been on and off. I mean my guess is even if they are moving there, they would want to know, you know, how their particular part would be designed, what cieb of input, et cetera. We any no matter what that is know, this amount of will cover it.
>> yes. Can I just mention that when we finish the schematic design, we'll come back with the -- everybody and to assure the court that everybody is on board. Because this is the only way I can see that the planning is done for everybody's sat ition faition.
>> but the majority tenant is c.e.s. And it's tied into other strategies.
>> this is to add a second story, correct?
>> that's correct.
>> c.e.s. Is not on the second floor. Now, it has been called to my attention if we move the sheriff, it would make sense to move one or all of these three departments what you just mentioned with the sheriff to another building. My own thing is knees options need to be fleshed out before we start dining because may as well make nem department exeiveg. And I知 -- make them department specific. We need to lock this in. I mean the initial move to airport taught us the lesson that we got to have everybody that we plan to move there signed on, not signed in blood, but certainly in black i.n.k. That's why -- I mean I think we need something from those department heads either acknowledging their knowledge that they move there and if they have issues come to the court and we formally make the decisions.
>> sure. I値l be glad to work with the department heads on this and bring it forward.
>> okay. Not to be critical, but this is -- there's no reason why this should be an issue months from now when all we've got to do is make sure that our decision is known, ab even if they don't have agreement, they know on a certain date they have to move out of there.
>> to only have one story on this particular site which can have 100% impervious cover, would be a lost opportunity in terms of being able to get twice as much square footage in that particular area. So yes indeed we need to continue our discussions from. But I think the second story makes sense. Even if there's a change of 100 feet in templs where people go into buildings.
>> but each department would want to know how much squire footage, what would be the configuration, design, et cetera.
>> enthusiasm.
>> I知 just asking bf we invest 675,000 and 2 other, we need those three signed on, if they are moving there. We also have to move to the space where we plan to move the sheriff to. I ain't dreaming these conversations up.
>> even if there is only c.e.s. And it's going to be close to the 675 already what.
>> c.e. Says. Precinct 2 building ren vation project. We voted that, correct?
>> I don't think you voted on that.
>> we have not voitd.
>> that. But it's tied into the -- just so people will not think of this as my office space, it is smeld j.p. 2 and c.s.c.d. Which are located on burnet road have terrific space challenges out there.
>> that's the 1 money 8 millions dollars.
>> under 17, 1.785.
>> and that's going to be discussed today also at the executive session.
>> if we do this, we think it will done in '06? Number 16.
>> the construction might start in the summer of '06. If we move forward with it quickly, yes, sir. The construction will start summer of '06.
>> let's prepare to discuss this in executive session. Well, that's it. How many did we say we would take off this list, christian?
>> none. But you have another Tuesday.
>> that means that exercise was worthwhile then.
>> it always is.
>> judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> before we leave this item, I wanted to make sure the court gave some review to the schedule of projects in the 2005 bond program that's part of the -- part a. To this 9-a. There is an assumption about how we proceed to implement the 2005. I want to make sure the court at least has seen this and understands it's part of your backup. We have prioritized the implementation of the 2005 based on the following understanding that when we have a project that's already designed, we would move forward with that first. Where we have land acquisition which is imminent, we would do that first. So we have literally front-ended half of the park bond proposition within f.y. '06. About 30 of the 60 million is spent in '06. That is mainly land acquisition. On proposition 2, which is the roads, we won't get to halfway until about the third year into the program. We will do projects, projects like pecan street, gattis school, howard lane, these are already designed and we go right into construction. Or these are partially designed if not completed. Then we spread the rest of the road and drainage projects over the five years of that program, and they are represented as such in this chart that you see. I want to make sure that is the understanding of the court. Sometimes expectations are very high that we passed it by in election and everybody thinks next year all the projects will be started, and that's not the way we implement our bond program. They are usually done over a five-year period and this is our best guess at this point on how those projects would be scheduled out.
>> if you look at --
>> I would like to maybe say this also because I did bring that -- just what you are suggesting right now and what you have presented to the court, I mentioned some of the same things earlier conversation for this particular item, especially in looking at how we prioritize, how we go forward, how we issue debt and things like that as far as when we issue the debt I guess would be the best way to say that. And some things that's going to go back and far as item number 8, we haven't gotten to that item and I know we're going to get to it, but the cost that is maybe affiliated with some of these schedules that you have here as far as when some of these projects are going to come on lean and the fiscal year and the amount of money we're going to issue to get there on these particular projects, all of these projections as far as schedule is concerned, are those cost figures indicated in that since we are having inflationary increases along with the cost of material and a whole lot of other things, we get to these particular years where you are getting ready to do the project, let's say we go to design and we come down to construction, for example, we get to that point and the cost has escalated to the point where we don't have -- we didn't have enough money set back in contingency for these projects to take care of the cost of these projects. I think that's very important because it's maybe more than the money we have on the table at this point. You all want to make sure where we are in these things, have they been addressed in this particular schedule is the cost projections. We have not realized because we aren't there yet as far as time is concerned. That's the first question. I got another one, but answer that one.
>> we have built into the schedule a 3% annual inflation rate that is the current inflation rate of building prices. Could be as high as 5 to 10 times that, but we are not certain whether or not that is a short-term bump in prices or whether that's going to be sus steand over a longer period of time. -- sustained over a longer period of time. I will get into more detail on that on agenda item 8. We built in a 3% annual inflation rate into our projections on the 2005 bond program. That may or may not be sufficient depending on what actual inflation rates turn out to be.
>> and secondly, I don't know where the court is going to land on this particular schedule that you put before us today on the particular proposition projects that the voters approved here on November 8th. My concern though is that nothing is etched in stone, per se, I don't really believe. There may be some -- and I think aggressive measures may have been mentioned as far as looking at what we can still bring forward, putting ourself in a financial tough situation with standard and poors or moody or the wall street folks as far as bringing some of these projects forward. I know there are some contingency factors in some of these particular transportation projects, for an example, our mobility project, and I think Commissioner Sonleitner brought up a good point and I kind of registered that in my head, and when she brought up the point about the [inaudible] all of these things being improvements in the construction and all of these other things that are going to be going on around sh 10 of course will yield higher tax revenue for the county and other governmental entities. I guess my question is, I need to find out for sure, and this may not be the time to do it, but I need to look and see what mobility projects may need to move up farther on the schedule other than what they are right now especially if some of the persons are ready based on the criterion you have set forth as far as to make sure these particular projects are ready to go. And of course I don't know the answer to all of that, but I didn't want to edge myself in a mold whereby someone may be able to go earlier than what your projected schedule is. This is why I知 posing this question so there has to be a cushion in my opinion what we can visit especially on our jail obligation bonds, the voter approved g.o.b.s the voters approved in 2008. Those are the questions I知 still trying to get some answers to and the limitation we're limited to other than what we have on paper. I don't need an answer today, but I guess I need to find out what that is before I finalize in my mind what we need to do here on some of this stuff. Schedule-wise also.
>> I think you are talking mainly about the roads here.
>> yes.
>> our schedule would call for about -- almost $21 million of road debt to be issued in 2008, about another 15 million in 2009. You can see that the real bump in the road projects are going to be in '08 and '09. If you are talking about sliding that forward to maybe '07 and '06, you could radically change the debt model because at the same moment you're constructing the jail improvements, they also fall in the 2007-2008 time period.
>> what I知 looking for is some wiggle room. If those things are possible. Right now I don't really know if there is any wiggle room. I don't want to assume before we have us here especially in voter approved debt from November 8th is something etched in stone as far as the schedule is concerned. I really don't know because there's a lot of contingencies that are still out there, and one thing I did hear again, and I know we issued just like for the parks and stuff like that, we said we had about $30 million worth. What we're looking off the to. However, I don't know if that covers the other open space things that we also look forward to as far as the purchase of property. And I may have mentioned that earlier. So there's still some contingency things on there because, of course, property is going to go up and increase and things like that. So I知 not really tuned in to exactly to that this is an exact, true document because we haven't gone through the whole nine yards as far as all this debt issuance and debt service. Of course we may even cross the line or go below. I really don't know. But the point is I知 not really locked into what we have today.
>> Commissioner, let me at least also put this in context with respect to what t.n.r. Did. We saw an obligation that the court had to expedite the jail project. That's a big project. That's $63 million. We saw a commitment of the court to expedite the park projects. That's $30 million. You total those up -- and we also realized that road projects are discreet and some have a time frame that you've got to buy the right-of-way, et cetera. So we asked t.n.r. That look at your schedule and let's try if you could without -- while still being programmaticly responsive, respect the idea that the jail is going to go forward quickly, and there's a big goal parks debt issuance out there and stretch it out over the life that you promised the voters to do. That's why you see on page 3 in part of jessica's memo that -- 9.6 million in '07 and 15 and a half in '09. Now, our assumptions regarding parks and jails aren't -- might not be right. For example, if you said no, move that jail, leave some room for roads, that's your choice. We assumed you didn't want to take that choice. But to the degree that you want to rearrange those priorities, that's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, to the degree that you want to issue more than $80 million worth of debt and expedite these road projects, that's also a reasonable thing to do. However, by so doing, you also put yourselves into circumstances that you might not want a year or two or three from now when individuals come forward with large capital projects that have a head of steam that are programmaticly critical. Not desirable, but critical.
>> on the gattis school road project, I知 sitting here sort of recalling conversations we've had, three questions. One is we were trying to tie our construction to completion of s.h. 130, right?
>> that's right.
>> I mean the impact is already occurring. Even without 130 being completed, that traffic is building up on gattis school road because it's the only road out there. So 130 doesn't even have to be completed for us to feel the impact. And with regard to gattis school, we have proceeded to buy out the three parcels, that's already gone. We have proceeded to issue -- we have a contract pending for the design of the project. We have an interlocal agreement with Williamson county for their cost sharing in the project. So that's one of those that are just ready to move forward into design and construction if the court wants to proceed. And that's what our assumption is in terms of front-end loading the gattis school road project. And we will step right into design and move on to construction.
>> so we think this is on as fast a timetable as the circumstances will allow.
>> yes, but that is also a choice. You could say I don't want to go that fast.
>> well, in terms of.
>> [inaudible].
>> what I知 thinking is s.h. 130 should be done in 2007.
>> early '07.
>> and we're starting construction in 2008. There are other partners. So the other partners, are they -- their cash flow schedule meets yours or do they have their money ready now? If we were to try to fast track this?
>> I believe we've already received their money, if I知 not mistaken. And there is a right-of-way component here that -- construction -- we have a bunch of acquisition to do before we have the right-of-way upon which to build the roadway. So that is part of the schedule, making sure we have enough time to close all those parcels.
>> but I have to think, judge, we've got some very motivated property owners. The ones in the neighborhood, we've moved ahead on, identified money from the capital metro precinct $2 that went into that particular thing. There was a donation of another little piece of property from mr. Timmerman that was contingent upon a plat we approved. We got that it's like you're going to donate newer property n. Terms of going further west, we're dealing with ms. Bowman and every time I run into hershey's like when are you ready to, we're ready. We've got to get that thing compressed. My big question is on pecan. You are going to have a riot in Pflugerville if they find out we're not going to start construction from a full year from now. It's part of a public-private partnership and if mr. Timmerman doesn't sign that and donate the right-of-way there is no project. That's not going to take nine months. It just isn't. And Pflugerville, as mayor c.a.l.l.e.n. Caught me this Saturday, they have their dollars, they are ready to go. So is there funding for pecan in this next fiscal year or do you think that's how the planning is going to take or is the funding not coming till '07 because that's a way huge deal for something already designed and is just sitting there screaming to get done because of sh 130.
>> the numbers that p.b.o. Have in their assumption is based on this schedule. So there is some money but not probably the order of magnitude that would fully fund construction.
>> it's like there's just no way that a full year from now is when we're going to start construction on a project that is completely designed and is dependent on basically 95% of the right-of-way as part of a public-private partnership. That's like let's go, let's go, let's go. We cannot have that thing lingering out there for a year to kind of get around to it. When it is probably more than any other project ready to go.
>> I don't know that it's any more ready to go than anderson mill. We've got a [inaudible] from anderson mill.
>> that's one in terms of the bid finally came back. This is one where literally get the bid documents, let's go.
>> have you already factored in all of these factors, I guess, circumstances? We work with other governmental entities and we have outstanding commitments. If their reasons for delay, we have to deal with those. If not, then we're talking about a few million dollars and my preference would try to be front end it. The larger the amount of money, if we can't really kind of juggle things here, we may be stuck with this. I would rather go to the residents of gattis school road and tell them we really tried to move on that project as soon as possible but could not. And if there are other projects in the same situation, then I mean I壇 rather focus on them one at a time before we lock in the schedule. Because once we do that is correct then I think we ought to let the affected residents know what the plan is.
>> I知 glad we had this discussion because this is exactly what the agenda item is about. If there needs to be adjustment to this schedule which affects their schedule it's best done now instead of a week from now.
>> I致e heard discussion on gattis school road because the Commissioner is just as much a proponent of that project, if we need to like shuttle it over to Williamson county and it's like hi, we've got cash flow issues and you will get your dollars and we move ahead on that is correct but it's like we -- they need relief right now, and this is talking about that their relief will not come until two years after sh 130 is open. And that -- they can't take that.
>> there may be other ways for us to work out some of these projects. What we need to do maybe is on another occasion spend a little time with you going over them.
>> I just want to make sure that before the launch on the debt stuff, I mean this is agreed to because this is pretty crucial in terms of the entire debt model.
>> that's why your county judge asks for a week to two weeks before we start discussing this item.
>> super.
>> especially looking at the opening dates on the sh 130 corridor. Some of these are more ready than others. But I will tell you gattis school road and pecan are two huge pieces of the sh 130 corridor that will be opening in from the Williamson county area that cannot wait until '08 and '09 for completion. We don't have that luxury.
>> with that, joe, and I can understand what the other Commissioners are saying here, the commitment and things like that I think are very critical. That's why I brought up the point that I brought up about the schedule. You know, lock ourselves into something that you and I and the court members and everybody else kind of not be [inaudible] after we find out other things and other factors. So again, I知 going to be looking at those commitments from -- and you know what those situations are. We talked about howard lane going all the way to sh 130. That's just several projects. Parmer lane south of 290 or braker lane to that future parmer lane connection. Decker lane. Decker lake road, rather, to [indiscernible] to sh 130. Burnet south. It's multiple projects in here that we're looking at to see where we are on commitment. I know you have the projections, but there may still be some wiggle room and I don't know what that wiggle room is. It may be two or three million dollar pool for different funding to be brought forth than where it is now. I don't know. But I think we need some time to land on it, especially if we've got commitment from folks that -- anyway, I値l leave it alone right now.
>> having said that, joe, we cannot do all of them in '06.
>> thank you.
>> and judge, in that spirit, let me tell you that --
>> very true, judge.
>> we were very, very blessed in precinct 2 about the quick attention given to northeast metro park. We have a third phase. I will be the first person to say I知 okay ee-i would love to have it tomorrow, but if we have to wait because others need to go before us I think it's appropriate because we were more than blessed and it will just give us more planning time. So I知 not going to give you a hissy fit on that one.
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:
Tuesday, November 22, 2005 2:41 PM