Travis County Commissioners Court
December 13, 2005
Item 4
4. 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. 2005 bond authorization 1. Roads, road-related drainage, and right-of-way - proposition one; 2. Parks and open space parkland - proposition two; and 3. Jail facility replacement beds and renovations - proposition three and/or certificates of obligation. B. 2001 bond authorization for roads and parks c. Certificates of obligation for the following: 1. Purchase of buildings in Austin; 2. Flint rock road extension; 3. Precinct 2 building renovation project; and 4. Other facilities mangement renovation projects d. Reject all bids in response to ifb no. B050105-lp relating to anderson mill road construction and drainage improvements due to all bids significantly exceeding the project budget, and take other appropriate action. >> this is a follow-up to the discussion that occurred last week as well as at the end of November. You should have a two-page memo from jessika rio which provides a status report of the 13 projects that you have already approved out of co's totaling $10,596,000,000. That's on the first page of that memo. On the second page you have a listing of the outstanding issues that you have not yet voted on. You have heard and discussed the -- the various projects and various forums over the last few months. The -- the table on the second page outlines the three bond propositions, which passed and the proposed amount of issuance in each of those bond propositions. The first is roads and road related drainage and right-of-way of [indiscernible], the second is the second proposition, parks and open space parkland, $31,550,000. And then the jail facility replacement beds, that's proposition 3, it is 9,425,000. The totals are 53,740,000. In addition you have got 2001 authorizations that -- that are for roads and parks. Those total 6,380,000. So with respect to voter approved debt, the proposed issuance is $60,120,000 and -- and one of the reasons that I said that I thought that you could expedite it because I am under the assumption that you have pretty much discussed this to the degree that you need to. Although the judge has mentioned that perhaps you want to -- to wait until the work session on the jail bonds, but that's -- that's up in the air.
>> we may as well do the [indiscernible], then if we want to modify that after the work session in late January, for a time we'll do it. How does that sound? Now, on the -- on b, parks and open space, that includes I guess the -- the reimbursement for the general fund for those open space and we think that in addition we will spend the rest of this money on other parks projects.
>> yes, we have in east metro park, for instance, already designed, it will go right to construction.
>> okay. Any questions about the -- about the components that together add up to $60 million?
>> and just to make sure that we have always signed off related to -- we are going to go to go with the judge's suggested strategy of using the unallocated portion of the '05 authorization, to handle our issues that we have got going on with '01, with the hope that all of the things that sort out for 2001 that right now haven't will be able to come back and -- and be a new source of -- of unallocated for later use. Did I say it right if.
>> you -- that's in your backup.
>> we are saying for the general public that we --
>> $4,865,000 of unallocated road bonds to be used ... Previously authorized growth projects. Included within the issuance amount that is proposed of 12,765,000.
>> any questions or issues? Regarding two? Move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? That would be -- that would be on the second page of ms. Rio's memo, ii, a, b, c, d, e. They total that at $60 million. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> that then leads you to the remaining projects that are proposed for certificates of obligation. There are four projects. The first you have been talking about in executive session for a while. I believe you are very close to landing on some firm numbers. But that is the purchase of other buildings in Austin. We are assured that the range of numbers is correct. And it certainly is more likely at the lower end. Mr. Roger el khoury has -- I’m sure will -- well give you assurances to that effect. The second -- the second -- the second project is flint rock road extension, proposed by t.n.r. Of 2,891,000. Then the precinct 2 building renovation, which is in -- linked to number 1, then other f.m. Facility management renovation projects which are also linked to number 1. So -- so there are -- one might segregate this into the flint rock question, which is -- you could segregate that out and deal with it, yes, no, maybe, delay, go, and then deal with 1, 3 and 4 because 1, 3 and 4 are really -- really linked in maybe ways. Both programmatically linked as well as financially linked. Physically linked in some cases.
>> well, flint rock is basically a reprogramming of a great idea from 2001 that didn't work out and now there's a better substitute project that will get and meet all of those same goals in terms of the back door into lake we and it's a public private partnership and it's getting all of the right-of-way and it is a swap out of -- to fulfill what was promised in 2001 in a better way and it's -- it's very much recommended by the people of Lakeway and the management of Lakeway and public private partnership and the precinct Commissioner and I look forward to seconding Gerald's motion.
>> I would make that motion.
>> motion on flint rock if.
>> on flint rock. Okay. Now, flint rock was part of the 2001?
>> yes. Just costing that much more than --
>> actually opposed by many of the people off in the area, the connection as we had originally contempt natured would [indiscernible] it was clear once we went out and had public hearings and showed them with our schematics that that was not acceptable to many of the residents out there. Whereas this alternative, we understand is. It does not present the same through traffic problems that the original design did. It wouldn't cost any more because the private sector would pick up the difference.
>> is that the project that we took -- we received the presentation?
>> that's correct. That's right.
>> okay. Court? Okay. Any more discussion on the motion on flint rock? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> that then leaves you with 1, 3, 4, they are programmatically linked, physically linked. One is the acquisition of building a and building b and the other is the renovation of building a and building b. And you may wish to deal with this in executive session. You may wish to punt until you have a discussion at 2:00 on programmatic issue, then you may wish to review them right now. At least one of this is posted for executive session today, right?
>> that's correct.
>> under 3, 1?
>> yeah.
>> yes.
>> at least one.
>> which ones are not?
>> 3, 4?
>> 3 is renovation, we think we need that weather we --
>> I’m sorry, number 37, 38 in executive session deal with those two buildings. The question is referring to --
>> okay. Do we need the renovations whether we acquire the building or not?
>> oh, yeah. Absolutely, for both of them. For both of them.
>> you wouldn't renovate a building you don't own.
>> absolutely, after you own the buildings.
>> right, you would have to buy it first.
>> absolutely.
>> then renovate it.
>> absolutely.
>> I you think the question was the building you didn't own would you renovate it.
>> if we do not purchase the building, would we still work with the opener and renovate it?
>> I misunderstood that. Once you get those two buildings, then you would have to renovate, yes. The first decision is to buy it, the next decision is to renovate it. I think there is an assumption if you buy it, you will renovate it. Am I wrong?
>> no, you are not. That's correct. You know, that especially for the one in central Austin that -- that have to renovate it. The second one would be renovating then [indiscernible] yes, it is.
>> one of the reasons we are talking about triggering a purchase is because of the severe space issues and it makes more sense for us to purchase and make those additions as opposed to trying to start over someplace else.
>> continuing to rent.
>> or continuing to rent. We are at that point. It's tricky.
>> I have some information I need to tell you in executive session really. Regarding building number b. I don't know if you can [indiscernible]
>> why don't we hold off on 1, 3, 4, until after session. But indicate our intention to bring it back during the three subitems -- bringing the three subitems back up after executive session.
>> the discussion that you will have in six minutes will probably help you programmatically in your discussion in executive session.
>> okay. Then we will call up parts of -- of 4, joe, while we have you here, though, we need to deal with d, don't we?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> anderson mill road. Move that we reject all bids. What other action would you like for us to take today?
>> nothing other than I need to basically state for the record that we are going to proceed to clear the right-of-way with the -- our road and bridge crew. So we are not going to waste time between now and the time we rebid the project. We are going to start some clearing of the right-of-way, working with southwestern bell to clear the utilities out of the way. These are two of the methods that we hope to bring down the bid prices the next time around by creating more certainty with regard to the work area. We are going to rebid the project and hope we come in with some lower prices next time around.
>> okay. Motion to re-- to reject our bid because all of them exceeded the budget. Seconded by Commissioner Daugherty. Suggestion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We will call the other parts of this item back up after our executive session discussion.
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, December 13, 2005 3:38 PM