Travis County Commissioners Court
April 28, 2009,
Item
21
21.consider and take appropriate action on budget amendments, transfers and discussion items.
and there are questions?
>> the questions that I had were in regard to the east side service center.
looking at it, the -- this transfer is for -- is for a -- for a requirement for the project that wasn't in the original budget, correct?
>> correct.
>> and -- and I was looking at the additional backup that was provided regarding the budget, which was really, really helpful.
i'm wondering if -- we have the funding source and the budgeted amount, do we have the actual costs that -- that each one of these -- budgeted items ended up costing?
>> no, we would have to pull that together?
>> okay.
>> we have to work with the department to -- to get all of the expenditures, facilities, for these basic items.
>> and the -- as I'm reading it, it appears that the original budgeted amount was -- was roughly 7 million.
is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> so the original budgeted amount was 7 million and then the -- the current -- current budgeted amount is 10 million.
>> that's correct.
>> okay.
and my understanding is that -- is that much of this was deuce to cost increases around katrina and also not being able to use road and bridge fund for portions of it?
>> the two million difference, the original budget was 4.92.
million and there was an intention at the offset of the -- of the project to use 2 million out of roads and bridge and it was later determined that that was not -- we weren't able to do that.
that's how we got to a seven -- seven million dollar budget.
one of the things that would be possible if in fact the individual items of these large projects, obviously -- I don't think that you would be asking for a -- on a project of much less size, this has been a continuing project and very large.
if in fact the individual elements that the court would like court would like to see on an updated basis were set up in project codes, then we could easily run project code analysis for the expenditures, when some of these items are all in just one different account, where's there's not another project around them, I'm not exactly sure how many of them have project codes.
to the extent that when the court approves these projects in the beginning, if we could have some direction on how you would like to account and analyze these large projects so that we could make sure in the budget we get it set up in project codes, then we could give you any -- we could just run a code by project and it will kick out the analysis of what the original budget, any -- any adjusted budget expenditures to date and free balance.
>> that would be in the ideal situation with hpe running project codes is difficult.
this project as most large smb projects have -- facilities management is very good about putting project codes on the large projects.
it hard to get that data out, we have to run special queries, that kind of thing.
we can do it, we would have to work on it.
>> will our -- our new financial system help with that at all?
>> that's one of the things that we worked with the auditor's office on for the requirements on the budgeting side, yes.
>> because it would be nice on these larger projects, because -- well, let me backtrack for a moment.
what explains the seven million to 10 million increment?
>> part of it is -- in fy 2007, Commissioners court did approve a 20% cost effectation reserve for a -- escalation for a pretty large list that smb came back and said, you know, the costs are skyrocketing, it is part hurricane, part economy, everything is just going up.
>> concrete
>> [multiple voices]
>> we can't keep up with the cost increases, so that was a big chunk of it.
another part of it I think was that there were some changes in the project.
i think dealing with the potable water, dealing with some of the other issues.
at first I believe that staff didn't think that we had to go to -- to the city of Austin for permitting, then it turned out we had to the consent get the electricity out there.
those kinds of things.
i think those added some costs, also.
in the end later -- later phases of the project.
>> if we could get to a point where -- for these larger capital projects, if we could get to a point where we did have the budget, funding source and the actuals by project code, I think we might be able to follow the progress more -- more easily.
over time.
i know that those directly involved in the project are on it and I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that it's being doggedly looked at.
but I would like to be able to -- to follow -- follow the progress as well.
>> it's a transparency issue like they're talking at the federal level.
>> it's been to the court several times.
it's not like we went from one number to this total.
it has come to us several times.
the issue before us today is $100,000.
to me the -- to meet a city of Austin requirement that we must meet in order to occupy a $10 million facility.
they are saying they want 100 year floodplain study done to get the permit.
>> right.
>> and actually we have no choice.
now, there are some minor items added to this.
but the bulk of $20,000 is to get the required 100 year floodplain study done.
>> correct.
>> and at -- I can see at the intersection where it's supposed to take place, I can see why it would be that way.
>> it's a big deal.
because actually at that intersection you really on 969 you really can't -- one entryway and it's closed off right now.
so the only entryway that you have is going on
>> [indiscernible] of course that is the back side.
so folks that are coming in off 969 have no way of entering this facility.
so the floodplain area.
txdot, a lot of folks got to get involved.
but this is something that's necessary.
of course when we first got into this venture, we did not know that the permitting requirements at that time the city of Austin would require this, this, this and that.
but since they are requiring it, it's going to take this money to accommodate for their -- what they're requiring us to do.
again, we have to have more access points to this facility.
>> [indiscernible] facility out there and of course combined combination of t.n.r.
road crews, a sign shop, a whole bunch of different things out there.
administrative buildings, anyway it's really a great site to go out and visit.
but of course one access point to this very critical area is no good.
especially if you got a
>> [indiscernible] coming off the main road from f.m.
969.
>>
>> [multiple voices]
>> I just wanted to say that it's my understanding that we do have the permit for the access out to the road.
this is to take care of that city of Austin requirement.
then going forward in the future, what I'm hoping that we can do to address Commissioner Eckhardt's concerns is break down these projects into their component pieces as a part of the capital improvements projects and so for example if there's right-of-way acquisition or permits or -- or anything of that actual construction of the facilities, then you have that broken down into -- into the estimated budget amounts for that particular component piece of the project and then you have the actual expenditures as we go forward.
so -- so it will allow us to do some financial planning going forward as well as allow you to see better how the -- how the pieces of the project were originally scoped and -- cost-wise and then how the actuals came in.
>> but this project started when?
>> first in fy '06, the first round of co's.
>> started before then.
i would be real surprised if there aren't volumes of documents available here.
it been to the court many, many times.
the reason it made sense we were consolidating two obvious into one, selling the other two piece of real estate, using the proceeds to offset part of this cost, but we were looking at long term efficiency.
when we started planning this there was one economy.
when we started building there was another.
now that we're closing it out, there's still a third one.
the prices that we have paid two or three years ago really were huge compared so what we can get this done for today.
the other thing is that when we started this, we really thought we could use a chunk of money from the road and bridge fund because this was a facility for road and bridge operations.
we later learned it has to be road and bridge projects to serve the public, not to serve the county.
i had always concluded that the county is the public.
but -- but here we are.
so I guess -- I guess my only point is no matter what we put in place, if you look at four years of activity, there will not be two pages to cover all of this.
luckily, though, today there's $100,000 piece.
the city is saying you must do this for us, I'm assuming they would also say if you or anybody else would -- we would require the same thing.
it's hard for us to argue we ought not to have to meet this requirement.
>> let me just comment on Commissioner Eckhardt.
what I understand that you are asking for.
if you would like to see a sheet on these large projects where the individual parts are identified at projects within the large and then I would assume that you will have an original budget and then below the line of original budget you would have any addition so that any time that you wanted to review the entire project it would all be laid out.
kind of like we do on budget amendments and transfers, your summary sheet at the back on the reserves.
you can see every single transfer.
is that what you are asking?
>> that's what I'm looking for.
i'm not questioning the wisdom of this transferor the wisdom of this project.
it's absolutely the thing to do.
i'm -- I'm only looking at a -- at a procedural change so that we can more -- mothersly track -- track our progress in terms of were we close to the mark or not in our original budgeting and if we weren't what changed and can we fix it for the future.
>> so we can anticipate it in the future.
>> what you are saying, it also provides a history of where this prong began and how -- project began and how the budget and other things.
so that would be good --
>> I agree with he--
>> accountability.
>> I agree with -- with what all has been said.
especially Commissioner Eckhardt.
and it is a lovely facility.
appreciate what mr.
roads the summary that he gave a minute ago.
the one thing that I would like to add or clarify a little bit is -- it still seems to me like this is significant overruns on a project from the initial budget costs.
>> I'm just wondering if can he can't take a look at the front end budgeting process a little bit closer, as you were talking about procedural.
to see if there aren't some lessons learned here that we can improve on the process in the next go round because -- because it just seems to me like perhaps there are.
and I would be -- I would -- separate posting.
>> what's before us is $100,000.
all of the other things make sense to me.
but if you sat here and heard the presentations, we have similar discussions four or five times.
then we approve the request.
you know, we lamented we could not take $2 million from -- from road and bridge.
then we issued debt to get it.
because the project was underway.
so I guess all this is good, but it's a policy change that we requires a separate agenda posting for which backup would be required and we would vote on basically to do it.
i can tell you right now I would support it, but we too it as we -- we do it as we go along.
i'm not sure if it helps to figure out now what went wrong especially since every step of the way we voted to do it.
it's difficult to vote to stop mid stream.
once you spend 3 or $4 million, you really have no choice to add another million if it takes that.
we had a big contingency from the beginning and we added to it.
we added to this contingency at the same time we added to four or five others.
they were big number ins.
but these were -- numbers, but these were projects that had been on the drawing board for years, projects whose time had come to do it.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> what -- my point is if we want to do something differently as a policy, then we really ought to put that on the agenda, discuss it and do it.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> was that all of the budget amendments and transfers?
>> it would take a separate vote of the court after posting a -- a specific agenda item --
>> no I just meant all of these or just the facilities one?
>> the whole item was approved, yeah.
>> just making sure, yeah.
>> 21.
>> okay.
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, April 28, 2009 6:10 PM