Travis County Commissioners Court
December 6, 2005
Items 4 and 5
4 and 5 are linked, right?
>> consider is to consider impact of construction price increases in county capital projects, cip project buckets, purchasing and cip management processes and bid letting schedules and take appropriate action. Five 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 fooling projects: a, 2005 bond authorization. A-1, proposition one, road related drainage and right-of-way. A-2, proposition two, parks and open space parkland. And a-3, proposition three, jail facility replacement beds and renovations. 5-b, 2001 bond authorization for roads and parks. 5-c, certificates of obligation for jail renovation related to proposition three of 2005 bond authorization. 5-d, certificates of obligation for the following, a list of 17 specific projects. S, gardner-betts juvenile justice center renovation, 2006 phase 1. Two, south Austin building, a.d.a. Improvements. Three, post road building renovation, design phase. Four, east side service center. Five, purchase of the south Austin building. Six, purchase of other buildings in Austin.
>> seven, hot mix, f mix. Eight, drainage study. Nine, parking lot projects. 10, arrest materials and collectors. 11, cost overruns on park and transportation related projects. 12, flint rock road extension. 13, other park transportation related projects. 14, mobile data computers for constables. 15, airport boulevard phase ii project. 16, precinct 2 building renovation project. And 17, other facilities management renovation projects.
>> item 4 is really item d-11. Item 4 is the logic behind the cost overruns. Item d 11 is whether you wish to fund them or not. We have a legal request regarding the use of barrowed money for cost overruns that are unspecified, versus those that are specified and known. And jessica and joe can brief you on that. Because we don't know yet. The answer to the questions.
>> I have not had an opportunity to discuss that in full with david. As soon as we have, we will forward that information to you.
>> but we have the right to use co's, the question is whether we have the -- even for co's?
>> the question was regarding the co's, I have an amount that totals less than five million that was related to I believe 20% cost overruns on the particular projects listed. And the question to david was could we issue five million in anticipation of other cost overruns, I believe, or not?
>> and we have links to that of individual projects and I think that was probably the legal hinge, so most of it has been tied to a project.
>> voter approved projects?
>> these are all voter approved.
>> they're 2001 projects, aren't they?
>> they're '97 and 2001.
>> you really have two strategic directions. You have voter approved bonds. You went out for authorization to expend x dollars. The costs come back higher. Do you wish to issue certificates of obligation for the cost increases or do you wish to reprioritize internally within the authorization provided? It is essentially that simple. Then the question becomes cost overruns, is it a legally can bore remoney for anticipated cost overruns? But the second question is really secondary to the first one, which is do you wish to do your co's?
>> I think related to programming, joe has already, as they say, checked the cushions in the couch on other savings that could be found within those particular programmed precinct-related pots of money of projects that are already completed, and therefore any leftover dollars have been appropriately applied to some of these challenges. But at some point it's like -- there's a gap and this is the best estimate we've got at this point, although it is quite possible that the number could be lower than 20%, but do you know what? It could also be higher than 20%, this is just the best estimate until each and every single one of those bids come in. But we certainly know what's going on with anderson mill road.
>> I guess I would be interested in finding out what the reason is for the cost overrun? Is it something beyond our control 92 that's one issue. But if it's because the project wasn't ready to go and because we didn't sort through everything in place, then maybe we should have done the planning before we ask for this project to be approved. So I guess for me it's why is it, why is there an overrun?
>> this is the report I gave last week, and I believe you may not have been here when I gave the report, but it's really a combination of things. A lot of what's driving the cost at this point is the economics, the market. The markets for building supplies, supplies, most of which is petroleum based, on your hot mix is being driven. Any materials being driven because of the fuel cost. Steel prices have gone up, plywood prices have gone up. So we've got national markets at work. We also have local markets, basically there's so much work being put on the street at this point in time because of all the highway construction, toll roads and whatnot. That is also having an effect on our prices. And then we do have some project specific conditions that are affecting prices as well. And mainly the adjustment of utilities, the uncertainty of whether or not utilities are going to be out of the way by the time the contractor starts work. And that uncertainty, not knowing, he's probably going to anticipate the prices may go up while he's waiting for utilities to be taken out of the way. So I think those are in sort summary basically what's driving the prices. We're not the only ones experiencing. The state is also on a statewide basis looking at price increases. Part of the discussion is whether or not these are permanent, probably not. They're just a bubble that we will see some price decreases over the next six months because things will get back online and production will start up where there's a short supply. But part of the issue I have is I’m starting to put projects out and they're coming out over budget. So I am bound by the covenants the way they are written. I cannot use surpluses because of the way the conditions of the bond are written. And they have no other source of money to be able to bid while wait waiting for the other funds to be freed up and I can move them around. It's not much flexibility when it comes to a single project, but if there's any order of magnitude, I could probably take care of some of the smaller ones, but the large like we saw in anderson mill. Mill, it's not probable. I don't have that much savings in all my various accounts to could have it.
>> it sound like, though, we have the capability of coming back and reasoning this out. If it's a project that was approved by the voters and they approved for the project to get done, sounds like we need to provide spoke some flexibility to be able to carry on with that project, especially if it's part of the county's authority and within our ability to carry out these projects so that they can fulfill the need that was approved by the voters as they saw it.
>> when do you expect a legal opinion on this?
>> I will be contacting david today. I contacted him this morning.
>> we certainly can't take action until we have a legal opinion. If it's not allowed, we can't do it. And if it is allowed, the question is whether we want to. A total of five million dollars, you think?
>> the five million was the original request. The question, I believe, is I believe it was 4.1 that was specifically tied. And if tnr needs to go back and revisit and fine tune those numbers and relook at them, I think the question isn't if we could or couldn't, it's how much could we?
>> so I guess we need to wait for that opinion.
>> I guess if there's any intent, legal opinion aside, the decision is going to be made today on the amount of the certificates of obligation,, if that decision is made without this amount in there, I do not have the flexibility to recommend award of projects, and that's where I’m at.
>> do you have the projects that you need to make a decision like on immediately?
>> I’ve got anderson mill sitting there. I expect I will reject the bid as it was bid and bid it over, but within six months if the market have not changed, then this issue will be right face and center, and I don't have a source of money to cover with maybe the same magnitude of overrun or maybe even a lesser one, then I won't be able to recommend award.
>> that involves how much money?
>> that is three million dollars in itself.
>> three million in addition to --
>> in addition to what I have authorized.
>> three million of the five that --?
>> no. The way we calculate our five million was basically looking at all the projects and looking at 20% price increase on materials is what we're expecting on a base level. We think the anderson mill road project was extraordinary. That that is not really the market. We're betting that when we go back out in six months we will not see a three-million-dollar cost overrun. We don't believe the project is valued at that other than some various conditions which we're going to try to take care of. But we do think over the long-term you will see your projects come in at anywhere between 15 and 20% above what you thought it was going to cost. And your engineers would probably start picking up those prices and the bid estimates before we even go out. And we have probably half a dozen, eight different projects that are still yet to be bid, and those are the ones that we're looking at, basically having some flexibility to be able to cover those cost overruns. Now, if I were finished with all the projects, and by propositions I could probably move around my savings more readily than I can right now, these are weighed down by proposition, by precinct, by year issued, and when you start breaking all that down, I already have savings in those authorized bond projects that I cannot move to the appropriate project where it's overrun because of the way the covenants are written. So I think when this all plays out, I probably won't need all five million dollars because I’m going to offset that with savings once we can get our hands on that. Then that freeze up and we can move it around.
>> how much savings do you anticipate?
>> millions. Millions of dollars.
>> 10 million?
>> no. No. Eye thinking we've got probably a million, two million -- probably one to two-million-dollar range as we sweep everything. I know I’ve got a million dollars on anderson mill in itself.
>> it may not be millions, joe.
>> I truly think that by the time we're through we will have -- I would say just off the top of my head, two or three million dollars off those other projects.
>> do we need a legal opinion or don't we?
>> yes, we do.
>> now, after looking at this long list for several weeks, it seems to me that the way for us to make progress is to start with d-1, try to figure out which ones are kind of no brainers because we are way down the road toward making a commitment. Thereafter if we just have the list and the backup and the total amount that they equal, then it seems to me that we can address some of the others that are a bit more problematic. When is the drop dead date for sizing the co's? Have we self-imposed one yet?
>> you could delay this as long as you wish.
>> that is not like this court, christian.
>> I know, but I’m answering you technically.
>> have we self-imposed a drop dead date?
>> we, we self-imposed a thanksgiving date to be able to resolve all these questions.
>> then I move that we self-impose December 31st. We'll be waiting on our financial advisor to get back so we can get this deal together and go?
>> no.
>> do we have two more weeks?
>> you have -- yes, you have two more weeks.
>> let's take two weeks. Let's indicate -- let's self-impose two more weeks, okay? And by that I mean two more Tuesday opportunities. Any objection to that? We get as much done as we can today. Is there a better strategy than starting with d-1 and trying to figure out if we can put this into the yes, we have said we will do this category?
>> judge, I thought we had gone down every single one of these things. The question was it was a matching game for jessica of does that go in a co list, is it a five-year, is it a 20 year, is it bonds? Matching the monies. And that's what she's now got in her December second memo.
>> we did not approve the second part, though.
>> no. I’m just saying that she's now giving her best estimate of where they would suggest all of these things be matched up against. I think the more critical question, I’m just asking, are we talking about going down line by line and blessing the strategy or are we talking about once again questioning these projects? Because we've already gone through these projects.
>> well, a whole lot of --
>> we informally approved, but not all of them.
>> may I suggest?
>> you certainly may.
>> you have already two weeks ago said d-1, 2, 4, 5, 15 and 16, for example, that you already either approved them or you had absolutely no questions.
>> 1, 2, 4, 5, 14 and 15. Those happened to be astericked in jessica's third page of her memo.
>> so we recommended 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
>> second.
>> and the question is have we impacted and previously said we would do these?
>> that is the gardner-betts juvenile justice center renovation, the south Austin building, the east side service center, the mobile data exiewrs and the airport phase ii. Those are the ones that two weeks ago no one on the court had any issues with and you all basically acknowledged through either specific words or the absence of questions that you were in full agreement or acknowledged that indeed you had already approved them, you just hadn't approved the funding. Some of these other ones I might suggest in order to expedite to get as much done as you possibly can, you may only have -- you only identified one or two questions. They were posed a couple of weeks ago. You may hear answers. Those answers may help you decide whether to approve it or delay it. Some of these I don't believe you actually can. You really don't know whether you're going to acquire this or that. In other ones, you had one question, it's a simple answer and you may say fine and it's on the list.
>> is it also fair to say that there are two other asterisks that ms. Rio has come up with which are co's that we happened to do during the budget process, that those also really had asterisks?
>> they were already approved and they're not even on the agenda because you already approved them. We're not putting something on the agenda that you already approved the funding for. This is funding approval. So that's why you don't even see it on the agenda. So we are taking that -- we're not questioning your prior approval.
>> so --
>> repeat those numbers again.
>> d 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 15. And I read the projects prior, gardner-betts, south Austin, east side purchase, purchase of the south Austin building, mobile data and airport computers phase two.
>> my motion cferz the six projects. I have one or two questions on the bottom. And I think -- and the reason is that I think we've discussed those enough. Is there a second to that motion?
>> I did.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
>> it will be good for me, those things that we approve today and those that we're going to bring back in the future for possible approval or whatever, is there any way we can separate that? In other words, these are the things -- this is the bucket over here that shows the approved project co's and these are the remaining ones that are left.
>> I’m trying to get as much in your bucket as I can.
>> that's what I had in mind. If we approve today, if they come back again, they come back as approved and we just see the bottom line amount.
>> exactly. What those are. It would help a lot, judge, for us to see that. I think everybody has the same concern.
>> just narrowing.
>> any more discussion of that motion?
>> judge, your motion is for 1, 2, 4, 5, 14, 15.
>> correct.
>> and when you say the bottom 2, you're talking about 16, 17?
>> no, I’m talking about the ones under co approved in fy '06 budget process, those two. I’ve just got one or two questions because of the wording of the agenda. So if our agenda wording today will authorize approval of those second two astericks in the bottom two asterisks, then I don't see why we ought not go ahead and do them anyway. The question would be if we've already approved them, do we need to?
>> they are filed as part of the approved fy '06 budget.
>> they're already done.
>> they're just done in fy '04.
>> they would already be added.
>> yes.
>> as far as d-11 is concerned --
>> we're not there yet.
>> I know. I know we're not. I just need to ask a little quick question. Even though we aren't doing it, how long do you think it would probably take for us to get an attorney's opinion on d-11 --
>> right now if you're interested. I have already talked with bond counsel on that. If you'll let me run upstairs and get my notes.
>> that's the judge's call.
>> and I don't know if you want to hear that in executive session or not.
>> walk briskly. [ laughter ]
>> no, it's not a problem. Here's my concern, and let me just talk a little bit here. My concern is this: there are other governmental entities that are experiencing the same plight of cost increases on projects because of whatever reason, material, da da da, da da da, those increases are being realized, not only Travis County. My concern -- I know the state has I think had to adjust their language, I guess to some degree, as far as bidding on a project; however, there may be adjustments or whatever within that bid process that they have to entertain because of the increase of the cost for the projects. Now, looking at 1997 and 2001 bond issuance here, that's what we're looking at now. And the voters of course want us to complete those projects. My question is what type of-- I guess later on we may see another increase or a decrease. I don't know because the jury is is still out on this stuff. But my question is this: how can we prepare ourselves for issuance -- for example, we just had a major successful bond authorization approved by the voters here in Travis County to take care of certain projects. And they're of course going to be looked at as far as being scheduling. My concern is what type of mechanism do we need in place to ensure that cost overruns is not experienced the way we're experiencing now. Right now we're piecemealing. There has to be some kind of mechanism in place where we maybe do not have to go down this same road again to address petroleum increases or whatever the material increases or whatever may be out there. Are we prepared to look at '06 bond issuance for example? Because that's the next thing on the plate. We're going to be issuing debt for these particular projects, so my concern is how will we address future concerns on this?
>> Commissioner, the way to do it is to not tie your hands in a bond proposition and not to tie your hands in an official statement and not to tie your hands with precinct unique obligations that. Then the attorneys have to advise you that your hands are tied, therefore you can't move money around. So it is a self-imposed restriction that the court has decided to do historically that made sense to you at the time; however, that does result in the inability of your executive manager to take savings from here and move it over there, so that then leads you to come to a conclusion, do you borrow more money because the voters said do the project, even though the project costs more money, or do you say no, the voters said approve this project at this cost, therefore you have to do something else? That's the strategic direction and that's the way in which you provide, I think, increased freedom in the future.
>> okay. Wiggle room language.
>> whenever I had the conversation with bond counsel last week, it was based upon a statute that I had found that specifically allows for certificates of lob gagation to be issued for cost -- obligation to be issued for cost overruns on certain projects. And he said he had never heard of anyone ever using that statute. And then he said why are y'all even concerned about that issue whenever your certificates of obligation are normally issued based upon categories rather than upon specific projects. Sometimes in bond covenants you will have specific projects listed, but in the actual issuance of the c o's and the official statements, they're category driven. So he had no problem with us issuing something that said for road projects and everything goes to cost overruns.
>> we have had times when we're buying property in a particular precinct and we wanted to make sure we would tie it to something that was specific project without getting into real estate kinds of things, but this is not one of those. You're right. These things are all done in very broad categories and that's how jessica gets to do the, as we call it, the sweeps, scrubs, reprioritizing because we do use broad categories.
>> we put in an amount of money in the recent proposition without allocating specific road projects. We put money down there for roads. Legally we authorize to take that money and complete previously approved, previously voter approved road projects.
>> don't use it for buildings, as long as you're on roads, you're okay.
>> so why wouldn't it make sense, rather than coming up with new projects, why wouldn't it make sense for you to use some of that money to complete voter approved road projects from previous issuances? And to me the reason that strategy makes sense is that we effectively delay the ultimate decision for two or three years. And by then maybe we don't have cost overruns. See what I’m saying? Because the money was put there so we could hopefully -- my thinking was add other road projects that we deemed appropriate. But if we have already have road projects that are voter approved that we have a hard time finishing because of circumstances beyond our control that have driven up the costs, to me it would be consistent with our covenant with the voters to deplete them. On the other hand, if we use the money now and complete the projects, we still have the flexibility three and four years down the road to add new projects. It just something to think about. Because at some point -- so we're sitting there thinking, I am, of $150 million plus 40. And every time we add an amount to that, we're going up over $190 million. It's still debt, but in terms of the total for '06, at least we kind of -- we keep that five million dollars lower. And I guess -- I mean, looking at these numbers here, $5 million standing alone probably is not much when it comes to road projects, but when you add it to 192 million and some other numbers here, they get to be real big. And if we're not careful, in '07 or '08, we will not have -- our debt issuance capacity will be much more limited. Just something to think about. Yes, sir?
>> let me just make sure, I think I’m understanding what you're saying. You're saying use the 2005 unallocated debt that was just approved by the voters and basically issue that in '06 to basically provide the cushion for cost overruns on a voter approved projects. And then we play out all the voter approved projects, '97, '01, move the money around as that starts freeing up. And then we postpone any issue of longer term cost overruns. In other words, basically if we have 2005 projects that go over budget, that is a decision you may have to face in '07 or '08.
>> or it could be that the savings you think may be out there related to some of those other projects, that until they completely play out, those dollars can then be legally freed up and replied forward. -- reapplied forward.
>> that's what I’m looking for. I don't want to spend any more money or debt than I have to, but I do want flexibility as things pop up. And I think jessica will have to change her cash flow projections if we do that. Basically that was not in her model for the 2005 debt issuance.
>> and if I’m understanding correctly, what I would do is drop the long-term co's by five million and increase the long-term voter approved fy '05 voter approved debt by five million. Is that what I’m understanding? It's a wash?
>> it should be a wash.
>> I don't think it's five million. I think it's four something.
>> four-point whatever.
>> that would basically substitute for your number 11, d-11.
>> so jessica, that's really just the source of funding. It was going to -- we were still going to be talking about the issuance of the co's for this year to handle it, and this just swaps out that it's bonds rather than co's. It shouldn't change any debt projections whatsoever.
>> correct.
>> in the short run.
>> in the short run.
>> would have us issuing less co's in 2006.
>> right.
>> and not more bonds.
>> I’m assuming a couple of things. I’m assuming if the voter approved road projects, they were critical in terms of meeg our transportation needs, they were then and still are.
>> I would say so, yes.
>> I would say for the average voter, if I approved it back in '07 -- '01, n '97, I would want to see the county doing it. We need to deal with the source of funding as best we can.
>> is it 4.1 or 4.6 that you know?
>> I’ll go back and look at the number. It's not in front of me.
>> the 4.1 that you keep referring to?
>> that's the specific cost overrun.
>> that's the authorized debt in 2005. You have most of the 150-million-dollar that the voters approved is actually tied to a specific project. But part of it, about four million, a little over four million dollars, is unallocated, not project specific. That is the core money that we would be using to the cost overruns.
>> I understand, but what I’m trying to get to is the actual amount of the cost overrun that you are suggesting to take care of road projects. It's a category. Is that enough unallocated --
>> all it is is the available money in the '05. It is not necessarily a representation of the total cost overrun. And as tnr estimated it, just at 20% -- and then I don't know if that's a number that's going to hold or not, but that was the basis for our request for co's.
>> so d-11 we can just -- if what we determine -- what we're doing today and we decide that this is the route we want to pursue, we can just -- if that's the case, then d-11 has no merit as far as what we're dealing with here today.
>> yes, it does.
>> proposition one, road drainage and right-of-way, those are voter approved bonds, 20 year bonds, that that amount rather than $7.9 million, would be increased by 4. X million representing the unallocated. That's really what your talking about, am I right?
>> yes.
>> but I wish we would take a week to think about that strategy. It makes sense to me. The other thing is I think on anderson mill, if you post that specifically for next week, I think we ought to deal with it. Is that okay? Have we got that much time?
>> I’m not sure I have no choice but to reject it because of the situation.
>> I agree.
>> I’ll post the item so we can discuss it next week.
>> but in addition, that's just -- that's a strategy that hopefully will give us a better price. At some point, though, we will still need to deal with a source of funding for the additional amount. There will be an additional amount, but the only question is how much is what I’m hearing?
>> okay.
>> we're still in the middle of a motion, aren't we?
>> d-1, 2, 4, 5, 14 and 15.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Can we think about the parks project, the strategy of using that bond capacity, voter approved bond capacity on that next week? What else on this list do we think is critical?
>> could I make another discussion?
>> is there any objection to our already having approved that?
>> no.
>> so that comes back in the future as an approved deal and a done deal?
>> yes.
>> now, you've done the stuff that you know, absolutely. What about a technique that would say, what on this list do you know isn't ready yet? I offer you the fact that you have the ability to issue additional co's at a later time, meaning rather than issuing -- having a credit rating trip in the end of January, early February and then issuing in March and getting the money in late March or April, and that's this current schedule. You can always have a second co if you have a large or multiple large issues that you won't know get resolved for a month or two or three. I submit you have some of those on this list. And they're large numbers. So you may wish to say, okay, when we know if we're going to have a second co, we will then pull that trigger and you can pull it in April, may or June.
>> and that makes a lot of sense, especially if the numbers are big. And I think we have ample time for staff to continue working on those issues and working on our questions, coming up with some of the answers that we need. And it makes sense to me.
>> then what you could do is if you decide this is a possible future co, then you look at what's left. You go yes, no, why he, no, maybe, shorter, smaller, and you've basically done your bond project markup.
>> which ones would fall under -- fall into the possible future co category?
>> well, you would start with 6.
>> well, that's a bold statement not based on perhaps other departments that are in the midst of huge crisis. We're in the process of some things and we have some offers that have been extended and we're in the midst of real estate negotiations, christian.
>> if you know that six is going to be ready in a short period of time, then six doesn't make sense. If you believe that six could result in extended period of discussions over many, many months, then you would -- you would not take that approach. So I don't know the specifics. You know the specifics.
>> right.
>> roger knows the specifics about six or do you?
>> I have some information, judge. Regarding six, depends on how many months christian is defining. I think two months would be the time when we're going to act on at least one of them within two months.
>> how many months?
>> two months. Within two months one of them -- I think everything is on the motion right now and we're going to act on that. This is one in central Austin.
>> are you saying contract or to closing?
>> to close.
>> by the time we get is money, that's in this current issuance.
>> I’m not talking about closing. What I’m suggesting -- I am asking on number six, when do you believe you will know it's a go, meaning I am now in escrow, I have a deal, and it's just a matter of the closing process. If that is going to be imminent on six, then you need to include that money in this issuance. If it is something that could extend over many, many months or not occur, you don't want to borrow three, four, five, six, seven million dollars on something that's not going to happen because then you borrow money for something that's not going to happen, so that's really the question.
>> so it still sounds like two months is imminent.
>> I just want the discussion to occur, we'll put it on or not.
>> it has been occurring. It's been occurring every single week for the last eight weeks in executive session. So we are having those discussions.
>> so it would be important to understand, of the rest of the projects which ones are imminent, meaning within two months.
>> actually, within six months because --
>> [ inaudible ]
>> we wouldn't do a co issuance and then do one two months later. Probably six months after the fact. We would do two and you would space them apart because if going to have something two months later, you should just roll it into the original.
>> six months, two months? What's imminent for the first issuance then?
>> to me it's anything within the next six months.
>> so we're talking about seven and a half million dollars or are we talking about the one project?
>> I think we're talking about two projects there.
>> I think, if I may say something on number six, I believe you authorized us to do negotiation on the second building on number 6, and we're in the process of doing so. And I think we have a contractual agreement on that contract, what the price we can start with and then try to drop it down or a part of negotiation. But I believe that will happen within the six months. The price is right and we bring it to the court and you approve the price, then I think we have another one in three to four months. Within six months we have that second building. Where we're going.
>> the answer to that other question is what the unallocated of prop 1? The answer according to our thing is 4.765 million. That does, though, including administrative and issuance costs. So that does not give you a net number, that is the gross number.
>> 4 point what?
>> it is $4,765,000 was the unallocated prop one. And again, this would be a deduct out there of issuance costs and administrative costs to give us the true, what really is available for spending.
>> thank you.
>> you bet. That was from our bond stuff.
>> may I mention one more thing? On number six, it directly related to number 16. If I don't act on number 6 pretty quick on the second building, number 16 will not start interpret si soon. And -- pretty soon. And I’ve gone beyond the August deadline on all of that stuff. So really it's not going to happen anything in this year if I don't act on number 6 within three months.
>> is 17 linked to it too?
>> no.
>> is it 16 and 17, aren't they all tied together?
>> I think -- I’m not sure about the 17. I think 16 was tied in to number 6.
>> 17 is what you distributed in executive session.
>> that is correct. This is on the other --
>> but 16 and 6 definitely have a direct relationship.
>> they go hand in hand. If 6 doesn't happen, 16 doesn't happen.
>> so I guess within the three month time frame that you're suggesting, that affects most of those within that same time frame. There's one outside of the time frame.
>> okay. The number 6 can happen within three months -- it can happen in three months. If it happened within three months, then number 16, it can happen this year.
>> okay.
>> but if number 6 cannot happen within three months, I don't think number 16 can happen this fy '06.
>> okay.
>> constructionwise.
>> okay.
>> and if we don't do something about the impacted departments in terms of a no action scenario there, we have a huge problem because we have people that have no space and they have already converted all of their conference rooms. And they're out of space.
>> well, this is one of the ones -- this is one that was outside the earlier vote. I guess, judge, I guess what I’m asking, is this one that we need to bring back in that time frame that you're suggesting? If it unresolved and we look at that time and decide what we're doing.
>> I think we ought to hear -- I think we ought to frame these facilities up in executive session today so we can discuss them specifically. And we can do that under the real estate exception.
>> okay.
>> so that would be number 6, and number 16, and we may as well bring up 17 too so we can just speak specifically about the projects and what we're thinking about doing, maybe a timetable. That will help us and put us in a position to take action next week. How's that? Now, on these studies, joe, the drainage study, which is half a million dollars, the arterials and collectors, is that a study also?
>> no, that's also paving.
>> okay. That's paving.
>> let me suggest a couple of things. I think you could probably put into a second issuance the issue of the drainage study and the arterials and collectors. I don't think there's anything that is imminent on either one of those that you couldn't consider more time. On the number 7, number 9 and number 13, the problem there is you have basically tnr prepares their bid specifications in the month of December to go out to award their hot mix overlay projects in January. It's the best time to get our prices. And we already have money approved in our general fund for doing some of these projects. So if we do not make a decision on this for six months, we basically would be out of our -- totally out of sync with our work programs in getting these underway by spring. And our paving season starts when the frost -- like March all the way through November. So if you delay those for six months, I really don't think we're going to be able to get them out to contract before it's too late. And most of this is paving work. Your hot mix, your f mix, your del valle parking lots, your facility parking lots, your park roads, all of it is basically stuff that we would lump into our bid specifications, and they go out this month. So it's going to be difficult for us to really anticipate what the court's going to do in six months. This is probably an up or down decision on 7, 9 and 13. You either do them or you don't do them, with the exception of the match to the gillliland creek. We had $150,000 in there for the match to the federal grant. There again, that is -- it could be up or down or postpone six months. We've been waiting this long to actually implement the project, so that is another --
>>
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>>
>> ...six months, can they wait until the next year? ...
>> number 8 and 10.
>> number 10 would be contrary to the adoptive policy, joe, in terms of what we are saying we are going to do, it's a very small amount --
>> I am trying to basically accommodate your debt here. Basically postponing your [indiscernible] rotation of the strategy. We will -- it's not that we won't get there, it will take us longer.
>> $230,000, delaying that by one year is not going to be some kind of substantive improvement here, that really is delaying a long-term strategy about upgrading our arterials and collectors to a higher standard in terms of -- that quite frankly can be tied into the hot mix. It's as much as we can roll it into the hot mix, in terms of the upgrade of those roads. That's something very critical in terms of how good are we doing. How well are we doing to our arterials and collectors being brought to a higher standard.
>> I guess that I would like to speak to the same regard of number 8. Especially with the drainage study. What the $500,000, [indiscernible] plan as far as drainage here which in Travis County and it -- it was brought to my attention in -- while you were at the last Round Rock, city of Round Rock meeting, with the lcra, a whole bunch of other folks, elected officials, of course what I heard there was very legitimate, very bona fide, justified concerns about the creeks that -- that being overwhelmed with -- with pollutants, other things that degradation, stuff like that, water and a whole bunch of other things there that's not invited in all of those -- in all of our creeks basically, especially those ones -- what's in -- what's in the precincts east of i-35. So it concerned me that -- that the other elected officials basically some of them may have testified yes, those are some legitimate concerns, how do we address those? I think the study was -- will help us get to the bottom of this as we go through this process and of course with all of this impervious cover, all of the things that are projected within the development, the s.h. 130 encroachment along with a lot of the things that are causing our creeks as we develop in these areas to not be -- to the state of where they should be, in my opinion it's a legitimate concern. I really don't want to see that put -- put that far down the road, especially with all of these other things that we are looking at for improving the area and that means including creeks and studies and things like that. So I think we need to go forward with that.
>> I was going to say I probably need some more information on the drainage study -- [multiple voices]
>> what projects are covered here do we know?
>> comprehensive watershed.
>> watershed, yeah.
>> important [multiple voices]
>> second the three motions to include the drainage study.
>> that's 8 and 10.
>> and may as well go ahead and put arterials in.
>> so 8 and 10 -- [multiple voices]
>> and 8 and 10 --
>> move that we also -- any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, Davis, Sonleitner yours truly voting in favor. Abstaining or voting against.
>> voting against.
>> voting against, Commissioner Daugherty. Now, I suggested that we bring back next week, flint rock road extension. That's a specific project that has issues that we ought to deal with, right if.
>> I’ll second that.
>> let's put those two projects right together and address them next week.
>> number 12 and what else?
>> number 12, the other one was anderson mill that's not on the -- [multiple voices] yeah, yeah, yeah.
>> okay.
>> both of these have --
>> specific issue that's we need to address, right? And there are funding -- funding consequence that's we need to address at the same time. We haven't paired this list down a whole lot.
>> one more judge. [multiple voices] you wanted an understanding of the space allocations before going forward, if you want to borrow the money on an contingent basis or how you wanted to have that transpire.
>> post oak right now is going to be about 12,500 square feet by the middle of January, it's going to be vacant. And we are willing to move forward with a owe with the design and -- planning and design. We said in our work session that we are going to come back to the court, you know. Once the court approve the design so we can have publication of resources, we can start doing the planning and design and bringing it through the court. At this time we will try to say we are going to have some saving of money from the lease facility, moving the ag for the [indiscernible] to post road. That's would be some saving of like $180,000 per year.
>> [indiscernible]
>> pardon me.
>> beginning when?
>> well, we have to have about six months of a design.
>> okay.
>> and the sooner we can get the planning and design going, the sooner we can start realizing some savings down the road.
>> 2007 [multiple voices]
>> $75,000 out of allocated reserve.
>> works for me.
>> instead of issuing debt. Let's not do that. That way if you want to start the design work January, you don't [multiple voices]
>> no more borrowing. Is that a motion, judge?
>> I guess we -- ratify it next week in case we are not properly posted for it. As an allocated reserve. It's too large for a routine budget transfer, right? Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> good suggestion.
>> now, you have not also -- now you have dealt with your co's, essentially, with the 10 plus million dollar question being linked in executive session. You have got a 1, 2, 3, b and c posted. I have -- the judge has offered some thoughts with respect to the jail facility borrowing and c has 0 behind it because all of the jail is related to a 3, which is the voter approved bond.
>> my thought was the work session in January.
>> I know that.
>> where we discuss the -- all of the issues. So --
>> that's for the court's education.
>> do you wish to borrow money? Would the believe that the -- belief that all of the issues surrounding the jail will be resolved in a timely fashion. Or do you wish to wait for a work session and have all of these issues surfaced without necessarily having the funding?
>> well, my strategy would be for us to use some sort of design build approach and figure out a way to legally make sure the money is available like in 2007 or '08, that's the question about in the past we have kind of heard when you contract the money should be there. Design build says basically after you -- after you basically receive the completed project, right, and certify that it meets your specifications, then you fork over the phone.
>> there's a variety of different ways you can arrange for the timing of the payments under such a contract.
>> so christian, my preference would be to arrange for a -- for an 2007 timing for virtually all of it. Which would enable us to forego most of it in 2007. I know some of the consultant related expenses we would have to meet in '06 to get this right. During the work session, we would -- you know, flesh those out. But my hope is that we figure out a way legally to have money available later than '06.
>> I think -- that makes sense to me. The other thing is I wanted to say take there's not going to be any room for overruns on this facility. And I think that we present it to the voters what we said we will deliver and I think we need to make sure that we deliver exactly what we said we would.
>> that message needs to be -- that line needs to be clear because the court has already been informed that -- that this project could result in overruns.
>> well, not because of change orders or not because people change their mind and want to add something else to it. But I think that what we talked about when we presented this to the voters it was to have a constitutional jail that met the needs around then of course mr. Martin had some really good participation to make sure that not only would we have a constitutional jail, but we would also have one that met the needs and not necessarily in a way that we would be the only county in the country to go over and beyond, you know, what -- what our needs were. And so I -- I just want to make sure that we don't fall into the deal of well, we have cost overruns because somebody changed their mind.
>> the way to do that, if that's the will of the court, one can build a contractual wall that is unclimbable by saying this is a $63,500,000 project and not a penny more and if there's a penny more, there's a penny reduction, if there's 100,000 more, there's a one hub thousand reduction, if it's a 5 million cost overrun, there's a $5 million reduction, that is established well in advance. That's wait to do it. But it requires the court to have that wall be built before you go out. Again that includes administrative and issuance costs. We need to make it really clear that that's the number, but there is a net number out of that that is truly the amount of money that we have to attach to that particular project.
>> that's part of the discussion, that strategy you need to discuss because you may have cost overruns and you need to decide up front how to handle it.
>> will we be in a position next week to have an executive session discussion of payment delivery under the various design build strategies? Because that's interesting. We may as well know, though, that no matter how you plan all of the -- as to the legal requirements, payment delivered, we need to know exactly when that is. Okay? What if we do that? Right on that part? And so -- so --
>> on the jail part.
>> on the jail part. The other thing I guess is on the open space, we may as well know since we closed on the other two properties, how much open space money is left? Next week? And whether we have any open space projects that we think.
>> that are ready to go.
>> ready or will be ready in '06.
>> remember we do have --
>> $31,550,000 for proposition 2 for open space.
>> we closed on both the southwest open space acquisitions. That money is spent. I know there's probably some nickels left over on that one. We were not anticipating that we would issue any additional debt in '06 for open space acquisition in other proposition. We will be issuing some park bond debt for east metro and -- and maybe a little bit in southeast metro as well. But most of the rest of the park debt is issued in latter years. The only front end that we had was a big acquisition of reimers hogue springs.
>> we do have an unallocated prop 2 amount $6.4 million, again that also includes administrative and issuance costs and joe is not planning on delving into those dollars until later years.
>> first adopt an open space plan that kind of maps out where we are going to go with this open space acquisition before we start spending the money.
>> writes -- where does the onion creek come in.
>> probably in the 2007-08 time table.
>> with that it appears to me that -- that even though -- that we looked at the [indiscernible] schedule as far as issuance of -- of the -- of the -- of the money that's it would take to complete these projects and get them on the road, as far as those is concerned, of course we have got the other years coming out of that, 2007, 08, 09, da-da-da, I don't want to appear what we have as far as our schedule is concerned, for example, 07, 08, whatever, something that's etched and locked in stone because I think we have some opportunities to wiggle and be at least flexible to the point where we can still make adjustments and I don't want to -- to feel that what's here on paper today as far as the other years other than '06 is something that we are locked into. I just want to make sure that I get that to your attention that -- that there's -- there's definitely some wiggle room and maybe some movement of some of these projects in '07, 50u8 '08, '09, down the line. Nothing is etched in stone per se.
>> we have made a lot of progress, we have an executive session discussion this afternoon involving the facilities thing and we figured out a way to next week deal with about three items. See anything else today?
>> yeah, that's just a simple question of whether it's today or next week. I can accept either answer. We had brought up some discussions last week about cash flowing and that there was some projects that were really on an expedited path and joe has come back and adjustmented some cash flows to move up the gattis school road, reimers peacock and the pecan Pflugerville projects, so there would be a higher issuance of voter approved debt, sooner rather than later. You were the one that was also bringing up those concerns. He has made those tweaks in the issuance. I don't know if that's something that is a bless that today or if it's a bless that next week. I can live with either answer. That would be the 2005 bond authorization, so that would be a 1 and that was part of ms. Rios' memo as well.
>> a 1 went from 6,030,000 from the last time we meant to 7.9 million based on those changes.
>> however the jury is still out on the cost overrun in in addition to that.
>> what now.
>> the jury is still out on taking the cost overrun money from the co and adding it to the prop 1 known [multiple voices]
>> I’m making sure. Okay. It's cool.
>> the four plus million. I’m not sure what the motion is. Whether there will be more out of the 2005 bond, we can roll that into the same discussion, I can tell you right now, I appreciate mr. Gieselman talking about making sure those projects get expedited which exactly were the expectations of voters.
>> is the court comfortable with the proposition 2 amount? The parks and open space parkland, 31,550,000. You also have the 5 b, which is the 2001 bond authorization. I realize that we have been talking about this a lot, I’m trying to minimize the amount of rollover as much as possible within your tolerance.
>> but christian, just to interrupt there, the 2001 includes the debt swap that they want to discuss next week.
>> okay.
>> as far as the prop 1.
>> can we have one item with three subparts, the anderson mill, gattis school road, and the extension next week? Instead of three?
>> I’m not sure I understand the gattis school. Why is that -- I understand the anderson mill and the [indiscernible] rock, but why the fwat advertise school? I thought that was pretty straightforward? In other words we moved up three projects in the '05 issuance. By a couple of months. And so that added some to your number 1 a, the 2005 bond, which is now standing at 7.9 million. Basically moves gattis school up, moves up the design of reimers peacock, at least preliminary design, and it moves up the -- the pecan street. So those are the things that bumped up the a 1. The only issue not resolved I guess is whether or not you add to that the unallocated amount of 4 -- 4 million something, to cover cost overruns on earlier projects. I think that is the -- what you want on the agenda next week.
>> it's a concern.
>> so what joe just explained is hidden in what?
>> it's not hidden.
>> it would be a part of the discussion next week on proposition 1. And my question is -- on -- now, with the clarification about item 5 b, do you wish to also roll proposition 2? Which is the parks and open space parkland? Are there issues surrounding that? Or are you comfortable with approving the proposed issuance of that amount? Which is 31,550,000?
>> most of that is the reimers hogue issuance.
>> and paying back the unallocated reserve for the reimbursement resolution this year.
>> [indiscernible] next week.
>> it won't take long.
>> we have made a lot of progress today. I don't know I have any problems with it, really.
>> thank you.
>> but now, I guess when I read the backup I was focusing on all of the specific projects listed under 5 d. There are amounts in 5 a --
>> yes.
>> -- 5 b and 5 c. 5 c we won't be able to land on until after the January work session, but we will be able to get legal advice on actually payment of the amount due for the design and construction next week, right?
>> 5 c is linked to a 3. They really are the same. Because actually as of this moment, 5 c is an issuance amount of 0. And a 3 is an issuance amount of $9.4 million. Those are all outlined in jessica rios' second page. Of the backup. The controversy, most of the controversial projects have already been dealt with. Yes, no, yes, no, yes, no. I’m assuming those are going to be operate straightforward since it's already voter approved debt.
>> I can hardly wait until next week.
>> me, too.
>> anything further on this item today? We will have it back on, I guess on the wording though, we will -- that item ought to be a whole lot shorter.
>> yes.
>> on the backup, if we read ms. Rios' memo in its entirety, we would get all of the facts that we need.
>> would you like a backup that simply gives you a summary of what you have done this morning.
>> yeah, two buckets.
>> yeah. Two buckets. The one that's full and the one that's filling. [laughter] and we will get you your bucket memo and then between the judge and joe gieselman and christian smith, I’m sure that we can come up with some wording that's perfectly acceptable and let's everybody know what we are doing.
>> and roger because there are facility related items.
>> that's the filling of that bucket.
>> we will see roger this afternoon on those facilities.
>> yeah.
>> all right.
>> thank you all very much.
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, December 7, 2005 7:31 AM