Travis County Commissioners Court
November 20, 2007
Items 8 & 11
Number 8 is discuss and take appropriate action on additional projects proposed for inclusion in the f.y. '08 certificate of obligation including revised issuance costs as needed. A, final phase to complete prior approved projects recommended for inclusion in f.y. '08 certificate of obligation. 1 is east side service center, ffe/its, move/security, which total $991,539. B, projects not recommended for inclusion in f.y. '08 certificate of obligation which are 1, precinct 2 office building, first floor renovation. 2, precinct 2 office building, second floor ffe/its/move/security, $287,402. My thinking is we would do more discussion and try to figure out where we would land on it. D is demolition, design building and parking structure, $2,244,240. 4, mckinney falls parkway pedestrian way, $555,000 requested for f.y. 2008 with a projected cost of $620,000. When I learned the history of that, I said maybe we need to take more time to put it together. C is a list of items we probably are committed to go ahead and doing so I think we can come up with alternative funding is why they are in this category. Projects to be completed in f.y. '08 with source of funding to be later identified. Purchase airport boulevard building, which we have committed to do. 2, i.t.s. Disaster recovery site, $275,000. I’m told that's really quite critical and we're kind of lucky in that we haven't had that yet. 3, various small projects for the civil courts, $93,168. That's a lot of small items including the restrooms over there. And every time I hear a description of those problems, it's kind of frightening. So my thinking is we ought to be able to come up with the county cash source of funding to cover those improvements. 4, mobile data computers for park ranger vehicles, $160,000. And 5, blake manor hike and bike trail to east melt troa park, $250,000 with the total project cost of $900,000. I guess the simple one here is a, isn't it?
>> sure. I could give the Commissioners court a status of what their c.o. Is currently. As of last week with the actions taken, the non-voter approved certificates of obligation proposed for f.y. '08 currently total $20,275,000. That includes approximately 98,000 of issuance as well as the projects that were in the adopted budget minus the h-max because we were able to find existing certificates of obligations.
(Item 11) and putting back the tiburon item that is on your agenda today for consideration under reimbursement resolution. Given those modifications, the current c.o. Is 20,275,000.
>> what's the other 20 million figure? Is that voter approved?
>> there were voter approved figures and I could read those off to you. 27,025,000 with -- voter approved bonds of 2,675,000 in 2001 voter approved so a total of 27,025.
>> the only reason I did not recommend the other item for consent is I did think it ought to come up in the context. But we have previously approved the resolution to go ahead and get that done. That was item number 11, right? Why don't we do it now. Number 11 is consider and take appropriate action on reimbursement resolution for the acquisition and installation of computer equipment and software for criminal justice purposes. Tiburon version 7 upgrade. That is how much?
>> that was a -- a transfer was done on October 2 from the c.a.r. Reserve. What this reimbursement would allow the court to reimburse the c.a.r. Reserve when the proceeds are received in March. I would like to thank the department for working with me on this last week to get the backup prepared.
>> and we previously basically approved this several times. In any case -- this is a reimbursement resolution.
>> and the plan and the purchase of the equipment and the contract with tiburon.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners eckhardt, Gomez, Daugherty in favor. Abstaining Commissioner Davis.
so back to the east side service center, the $991,000, really we are constructing that project now and we need this to move into it. Right?
>> correct. This part is ongoing right now and we're going to finish that in August of '08.
>> and this would be an amount we would add to the c.o.?
>> if I could make a recommendation to the court, if the court so chooses to add this project, if they could add 8,$461 to make it an even million, that $8,641,000, we issue in $5,000 increments.
>> let's stay real tough now.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> so you said increase to cover additional costs?
>> that's correct. It would be a $1 million with 991,539 for the project and 8,461 for issuance. And rounding.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> the certificate of obligation is 21,000,275.
>> can we skip down to c? See if the court agrees with my thinking on those. That airport boulevard building we had talked about several times. What would the source of fund be be?
>> the c.a.r. Reserve. And given some of the actions that we've already taken, we believe that the c.a.r. Reserve is sufficiently large this fiscal year to accommodate that purchase. That will allow the court some flexibility as well with relation to that purchase.
>> and really my category c was not let's issue debt, let's figure out another way to get it done and we're looking at different stuff, but the c.a.r. Reserve would cover acquisition of the airport boulevard building which we unanimously agreed that we ought to go ahead and acquire that as soon as we could and get it done. Move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. The i.t.s. Disaster recovery site we talked about several times. This is the first part of a three-part project. We have kind of been put on notice that we may be proceeding precariously.
>> that's correct, judge. The first part of three consecutive years. The first part is 275,000 and that should take care of some air conditioning units and also the
>> [inaudible] floor and related items.
>> what would the source of funding be?
>> c.a.r. Could also be the source of funding for this project.
>> ms. Real and christian put our heads together, but I expect them to remember what we decided to do.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? You don't have anything to say if we approve this, right? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> I remember everything I heard.
>> good job. 3 is various small projects for civil courts building, 93,168. It was my understand we ought to hit allocated reserve and get these covered, or as we do projects throughout the year, if funding becomes available, it will take a little while to get this done, right?
>> that's correct.
>> so I think my recommendation was the facilities budget backed up by allocated reserve. And if we don't generate surpluses, you would think that this is a small amount of money. If we don't generate it we hit the allocated reserve and cash purchase this.
>> second.
>> how is that? And when it's time for us to get them done, if you don't have the money, just let us know and we'll allocate a reserve at that point.
>> sure, I will.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you. Number 4, the mobile data computers for park rangers. During our meeting I was persuaded by joe and danny hobby that park rangers really ought to have this in their vehicles. That security, overall operational efficiency by law enforcement folk require it.
>> it's definitely needed. It allows them to interact directly with --
>> what's the source of funding?
>> c.a.r.
>> did I say c.a.r. Or allocated reserve?
>> allocated?
>> any luck in c.a.r.?
>> right.
>> are with you running out of c.a.r.?
>> our basic recommendation would be to work with t.n.r.
>> [multiple voices]
>> so c.a.r. Could be used --
>> this is the first I’ve heard of that.
>> it was actually in my recommendation last year.
>> when would the money need to be available?
>> well --.
>> at the time of purchase, not at the time of delivery, right?
>> that's correct.
>> allocated reserve.
>> second.
>> let's just do allocated reserve. Thank you, charles.
>> did you make the motion?
>> I do now.
>> well, I second that.
>> allocated reserve still has --
>> allocated reserve currently has -- after earmarks, 1.8 million, approximately.
>> so this takes it down a little over 1.6. Blake manor hike and bike trail. I guess phase 1 of that, $250,000. That's number 5.
>> are you going to vote on 4?
>> all in favor? Sorry about that. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> move approval. What's the source of funding for blake manor hike and bike trail?
>> at the court's pleasure: it could be c.a.r. Or c.o.
>> how is c.a.r. Looking?
>> when we get to the precinct 2 building project, there's going to be some discussion there and what the options are and whatever is not able to be alieve eight by the remaining funding in car will need to go on a c.o., if the project would like to be complete this year.
>> let's take it from c.a.r. Then.
>> for number 5?
>> I move approval of that.
>> I have one question about that. $250,000 is for the design only, correct?
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> okay. So 250,000 is for design and possible right-of-way acquisitions with a total -- with an additional 650,000 needed for completion of the project?
>> still at some future point, yes.
>> but it will take -- the design will take probably through this year?
>> yes.
>> right-of-way acquisition -- after the design we'll figure out what right-of-way we'll need. This goes from the school to the park, right?
>> that's right.
>> blake manor elementary.
>> so my thinking on this was in view of the time that it takes to design and acquire right-of-way, if we could get it started with the commitment to complete it once design and right-of-way was acquired, it would be a giant step. Let's do c.a.r. All right? Commissioner Davis moves that and I’ll second it. Discussion? All in favor? Passion pass. That passes by unanimous vote. Now on to the kind of problematic pieces. You know, on b-1, b-2, I thought where we were was sort of trying to figure out how to proceed to the next step. Right? We're looking at whether we complete the second story on this project or whether we abandon that approach and do something else.
>> that's correct. And we'll have about one more week, judge, Commissioners, to come up with this recommendation to you, as discussed before.
>> why don't we hold b-1 and b-2 for another week. And after that discussion we'll know exactly what we plan to do and we'll know what it costs.
>> correct. And may I ask, under number b, b-1 for 742,174, regardless what the recommendation is to build the second floor or move away from that building, we cannot execute the renovation of the first floor this year in f.y. '08. So this has to be postponed until fiscal year 2009. And this year if the recommendation is to go ahead and build the second floor, we need that money in may so we can start ordering furniture and start ordering the
>> [inaudible] and also the security items.
>> so b-1, '89. On b-2 discussion next week?
>> yes.
>> we've got a short week this week. Will you be ready next week?
>> we are getting our number from the contractor so we need to put everything together. I think we'll be ready for the 27th.
>> and just to clarify, b-2 has a sister item, if you will, on the awarding of the contract, correct?
>> a sister item?
>> in other words, there's another -- a related item on the awarding of the contract, that there's not sufficient funds to award the contract. So that 287,000 is under the amount that facilities management will be talking to you about; is that correct?
>> that's correct, in f.y. '08.
>> just ballpark.
>> if we're going to build the second floor, we're short of $1,400,000.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> that would be 1,165, 955 to award the project. And then we have a con contingencyto run the project so $2,465,000. $1,465,000.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> has that changed since yesterday afternoon when we spoke then?
>> it changed by about -- the engineer I told yesterday we were still working on it. About $65,000 a little more than what we talked about yesterday. Let me get those numbers together for you next week after I finalize everything so I will have better numbers for you.
>> it's a big number. Quarter of a million dollars.
>> that's correct.
>> and the number, the b-2 number only reflects ffe/its/security and the move; is that correct?
>> uh-huh.
>> it doesn't reflect the cost of building out the second floor.
>> correct. It does not reflect the cost of building.
>> so that cost is not on this list.
>> the related items --
>> we really should when we post for next week, if we're going to be discussing precinct 2, it's the second floor plus the amount needed to award the contract for the original project approved in f.y. '06.
>> we'll need an agenda item addressing that specifically.
>> uh-huh.
>> d is demolition of existing building. That's building in April?
>> I think we would like to postpone this item for '08 because we don't know yet who is going to go over there. Because the 2 million, 244 includes the design of large buildings. If we don't need large buildings that is going to reduce and also a large parking structure. So I would like to wait on that until the discussion with p.b.o. And facility go to the court about who is going to
>> [inaudible] our site.
>> we can have other followup discussions this year.
>> sure.
>> just '09 action.
>> absolutely.
>> the final item is b-4. Joe? That was the one we thought we would get federal funding?
>> that's right.
>> is there just a question mark about that or have they nixed it?
>> no, the last federal aid highway bill actually had a grant, looked like we were going to be in it. The Austin area did get some money, but Travis County did not get a piece of it. Basically we have the matching money but no federal money. And this is a voter approved -- our portion, the matching money is a voter approved bonds and so we're just looking for a way to complete the project. If it doesn't get done this way, it just sits there and until we find another grant.
>> voter approved how much?
>> as I recall, it's about a quarter of a million, I think little.
>> this has to be designed also?
>> that's right.
>> how long will it take to get it done?
>> oh, you know, six to eight months design.
>> what if we fund the design piece with voter approved amount and look for other grant possibilities and if we don't get those we know we have to come up with the additional money, which we're looking at just under a half a million dollars.
>> mckinney falls between the school and the state park.
>> it can either be on the list of c.o.s for next year or the list of bonds for the next bond election so it can be completed.
>> yeah, if we spend $250,000 to design it and is that any right-of-way acquisition money?
>> no, I think most of this is within the existing right-of-way.
>> if we do that, then the commitment basically is to get it done. You hate to spend that much money designing it and not doing it so we'll have to do it.
>>
>> [inaudible].
>> it would be next year, though.
>> voter approved money now.
>> the bond money --
>> okay, bond money, possibility of c.o. Money next year.
>> for construction.
>> bond money for this year as far as getting it started. Is that what I’m hearing?
>> I may have to have that qlud in the bond issuance and the cash. I need to check whether or not we have that in cash or
>> [inaudible].
>> but it can be used for this.
>> it can be used. It's just a matter of whether it's in a form I could write a check from.
>> okay. All right.
>> either you have the cash or we need to put it as part of the voter approved bonds.
>> whatever amount is being issued this year in cash out of those approved bonds, I need to make sure this is in there so I can spend it.
>> okay.
>> but you're not anticipating spending a quarter million dollars for the design.
>> I don't know exactly what all -- what the design cost is, but it could be that much.
>> I mean the design can be $275,000 of a -- of a project cost of 900,000? A quarter of it could be the design?
>> a little high. Usually it's in the neighborhood of 15 to 20%. I think christian was clearing his throat.
>> 20% and --
>> just whatever amount we need, let's define it that way. It's voter approved so I feel committed to try to get it done. In the meantime, though, we can keep trying to hustle up grant money. And if it doesn't come through, we just realize we'll have to fund it ourselves. That's a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. That does it for out list of them. That was easy.
>> just to summarize and wrap up, the one outstanding item, if I understood everything correctly, is the precinct 2 office building that we'll come back next week and the department will update you on that. The item that the Commissioners court has chosen to fund out of c.a.r. Or allocated reserve we will process as automatics. Is that at the court's pleasure to get those projects started at the appropriate time. And also just to keep in mind, I did talk to bond counsel this morning on the scheduling. We would like to receive the proceeds in March which means really an early February sale. And because of the new law enacted, we need to get that order authorizing the public notice of intent to issue the c.o.s by December 18th. So it looks like we are well within that schedule and I just want to emphasize we should be done with this project no later than the 11th and hopefully next week.
>> we'll try to get it done real early. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
>> thank you.
>> now, starting at the top of the agenda and working our way through it to see what we have omitted, 11 we did approve because we called it up, didn't we?
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, November 21, 2007, 18:30 AM