Travis County Commissioners Court
January 3, 2006
Item 3
3. Consider and take appropriate action on the city of Pflugerville's request for county funding of certain improvements to the city's wastewater treatment plant and its effect on the city's existing agreement with Travis County to supply treated effluent from the plant for the irrigation of northeast metro park. And that's the Travis County northeast metro park. So -- so the importance of this is a water source for the county park is how we -- why we are discussing a Pflugerville improvement project.
>> yes.
>> yes, sir.
>> this is water we use to irrigate all of the sports fields in metro park, it's pretty essential for us. I understand that we've -- we are now on -- operating off an option d, and I think we have -- we have resolved most of the issues with regard to ownership of various portions of capital improvement. There was a pump for $202,900. That will be owned by Travis County. That's a portion of the improvement. There are also -- other reclaimed water components, totaling about $116,708. The city would continue to own these because it's part of the general wastewater treatment plant. They will continue to own that. We would own the pump, but they would own some of the other -- some of the other parts of that system. And we would be paying for that out of the general fund. And not out of co's. The first item, the on 202,000, we pay out of certificates of obligation because we will own that pump. We will have title to it. And then there's a $48,000 payment, that is for the engineering design of the system and we would be paying for that out of co, also, because it directly relates to the capital improvement that the county will own. And then finally, there's a -- there's a $16,000 payment for inspection of the capital improvements and that will be done, we're told, by an outside contract inspector. So that again as part of the project cost, just like the engineering design, you have inspection costs and that is also eligible for co's. I think there's one other item. I知 not sure why we would be paying for that at all, given that it's -- we are paying lump sum, I知 not sure that I understand why the financing costs are included in the option at all.
>> why don't we just put the 6300 on hold until we find out.
>> yeah.
>> where you say co's, we have identified fund in co's that we can --
>> we have identified some resources in the existing co and basically these resources remain looked at during the scrubbing process, but not tapped into, therefore they are available at this time. Those funds, the fund that p.b.o. Would recommend fund 456, currently it has [indiscernible] dollars available in the allocated reserve. You will recall that we had a reimbursement for election equipment and that happened very much towards the end of the fiscal year and some of those funds are -- are back now and available. Joe, if we pull out the $6,300, the -- the total of the amounts funded by the co's that ms. Rio just described would total how much?
>> 266900 if I did my math right.
>> good.
>> good it matches.
>> 266900.
>> right.
>> and the amount that would come from the general fund, 11670 will that's in your budget now? 116708, that's in your budget now? What's the source of funding for that.
>> it would be at the court's pleasure, car reserve or allocated reserve, we should note that that 116708, the reason we could not use existing co's is we would not own the equipment obviously. Howeverture's recommendation is to go ahead and -- however, t.n.r.'s recommendation is to go ahead and pay that amount, although Pflugerville would retain ownership of that, simple pay back is 8.2 years given the rates that they would charge otherwise.
>> do we have enough money in the capital --
>> car reserve currently has 6,010,000 and some change, the allocated reserve, 2.8 million, but there are earmarks. $500,000 worth of earmarks in car reserve.
>> at least that.
>> I知 not understanding?
>> are you talking about car -- I have already taken the 500 out.
>> my question is is there enough in the car reserve to cover the 116.
>> yes, there is.
>> I think that's what we ought to do and leave the allocated reserve for unexpected emergencies between now and the end of September if -- [indiscernible]
>> is there a new interlocal that we need [multiple voices]
>> we are actually -- these are the components pieces of it. As long as we are settled on option d, we will go to work on the interlocal, bring that back is my understanding also that our ongoing o and m cost will be 24 cents per thousand. Which is -- also be a change to the interlocal agreement. I agree with you if we lump sum cash pay this, we shouldn't have any financial cost. The other thing is when the draft interlocal, the numbers are the same as we are here today, it would be a good candidate for consent. If the numbers vary, if there's just a short information of why we would --
>> I知 expecting things to change --
>> yeah.
>> judge, if it's all right, I would move approval of the direction we take, as option d and that -- that the t.n.r. And p.b.o. And county attorney's office work to draft all of the appropriate documents, with the 266 the hundred dollars coming out of co -- 266,900, the 11670 will be identified as coming out of the car reserve.
>> second.
>> okay. This option b of what? I知 -- option d of what? I知 having trouble finding a, b, c, d.
>> I don't know that you all got --
>> option d is as you described it today.
>> yes. It ranged from basically paying everything out of the -- of the o and m costs.
>> I知 with you, for those that want to know what were ab and c, where can I find those?
>> we do -- we have that in additional documentation provided to me by Pflugerville.
>> if you can get that to melissa --
>> I understand.
>> was this the option d that we saw like a month ago that we limb nated -- abc we eliminated a month ago.
>> before the holiday.
>> we know that you plan to be creative and innovative in '06, but make sure the court is --
>> all right?
>> closely behind you, joe.
>> all right. Any discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thanks, joe.
>> thank you all.
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, January 4, 2006 10:36 AM