Travis County Commissioners Court
October 27, 2009,
Item 17
17.
consider and take appropriate action regarding application for american recovery and reinvestment act (arra) funds through the Texas state comptroller's state energy conservation office - competitive grant to use for the installation of distributable renewable energy power generation facilities at Travis County owned facilities located at the exposition center.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioner.
>> good morning.
>> I am
>> [indiscernible] from the management department and I have with me the project manager, rick avery who have been working on the project.
facility management has --
>> can I just -- the e-mails are going back and forth and a lot of people trying to work this together, so are those -- have they kind of worked through thee issues that I have been reading e-mails about?
>> and we incorporated all of the comments coming from the county auditor, coming from the -- I mean -- county auditor, kimberly and also county attorney and from the pbo and one comment from purchasing.
>> I didn't mean to cut you off but we have discussed this twice before, right?
>> yes.
>> and the issue now -- this is one of those deals even if we make the application we may not get it because it is competitive.
>> right.
>> even if we get it we aren't obligated until we sign the contract?
>> no.
>> this is a legal fund, in displace that if we commit to it we have to go along with that.
>> so if we file the application and are successful and let's say you've got the money then we have to implement --
>> correct.
>> the project?
>> correct.
>> so do we still have serious reservations by the others who have been communicating with y'all on this?
>> not -- not that I know of, as far as the technicality of the grant and all of that stuff and the information -- probably the only issue right now, I think it is matching fund, and rick can speak on that.
>> okay.
so if the state says you've got two million in federal money, we've got to come up with our 20%?
>> correct.
>> which is $400,000.
>> now if they give us less than 2 million, let's say they give us 1 million, what we will have to come up is for 200,000.
>> if we apply for 2 million and they say we can't give you 2, but we can give you one, we aren't obligated to accept the 1, are we?
>> I am not sure that is the case.
i -- I am not sure that is the case.
i know there is a percentage match requirement so it would seem that we would only be required to do the percentage match, which would lower the -- the requirement from 400,000 to 200,000, but that's an assumption on my part.
>> but if it's a -- a 2 million or $2.4 million project and we get a million bucks, that's half of what we expect from the feds.
so I guess my -- my position would be we should indicate that we will do the 20% match if we get the full amount applied for.
would that make sense?
>> that would make sense because I was also going to comment that this grant, unlike other grants that I think we have reviewed in the past, have -- contains or require that is you include statements such as, we are obligating ourselves to perform this project and there is no sort of caveat of funding out provision, so I think that would make sense to include a provision that a we are not obligating ourselves if we don't have county matching funds nor are we obligated to do it if we don't receive the full amount of the grant application we are requesting.
>> there is also an additional issue of the in kind match, the enkind match at least at current funding level that is being requested by facilities is -- would -- would, at least as the post stands would be $80,000 worth of in kind match --
>> we changed that, Commissioner to 40,000.
>> okay and the auditor feels that we can actually provide truly $40,000 worth of enkind match.
what about the nepa approval prior to the project moving forward, which I understand from the auditor can take 6 to 24 months?
>> the -- the previous grant that we applied for had the same sort of provision and we simply provided a statement saying that we have no hazardous materials or no waste issues and if we were to discover them, we gave them a plan of action and that was fine.
in this case, we would be installing pv arrays on a rooftop so there would be no hazardous materials issues so we would anticipate no requirement for a nepa report.
>> but what is the time frame of getting the nepa approval?
>> it's been estimated from 6 to -- I think somebody said 6 to 10 months, but -- and we factored in quite a bit of time on the project.
we -- we have no reason to expect that we would have any reason for a report but if we did, we would have time to do that.
>> is in a time limitation on -- on when the project has to be completed or there is a clock -- or the feds get a call back.
>> on September 2011 but we estimate to be complete by February 2011, at the latest, so if we needed to go full two years, we could.
>> and this is a long time.
we can do it in that time frame.
>> and how will this impact our other -- I mean, of course we have got some other needs at the expo center as well.
we've got roofing issue that needs to be addressed, that is probably a 1 million-dollar item as well as having voted the cost of the seats at 190,000.
>> the -- the roof is on the arena roof, that is on the --
>> correct --
>> not on the shore one.
>> right.
but we are talking about dedicating another $400,000 to this -- this capital project.
>> yes.
>> so that's --
>> I mean there is fund left at the expo center, I am not sure, the expo center to the pvo to determine the -- I think I have 670,000 and then we have about 190 right now, are obligated to go ahead with the seating, so what is left if there, there is some fund but there is another source of funding, the pbo, not recommending, suggesting that it may come from allocated reserve at this time or other things but whatever the fund is, I think -- I think there will be a good -- a hard number of return investment, like I mentioned last time --
>> five six years.
>> yes.
>> and under the grant program, it is a requirement for us to monitor the energy savings.
so what we have right now -- what we know -- what we have exactly what we are spending and what we are using -- spending and what we are using in terms of kilowatt hours of energy and if we -- once we install the portable tank, we are going to monitor that to see how the energy, you know, the projected, you know, savings versus the actual savings down the road and I think $83,000 is significant amount of must understand, you know, where that can be saved on a yearly basis at the expo center using this solar technology.
>> you don't have to sell me on that part.
i am in the position of having been forwarding the e-mail because I was excited about the program but then putting on my other hat which is a budget hawk hat on this because it's -- what my concern is this was a call for projects that were already baked and we threw some ingredients in a plan real quick to try to bake up something quick and I think we have and I think it is laudable and I want to make sure we are sticking the fork in it and it is really done and we aren't going to get down the road and find we really were only half baked going into it because I think the call for projects was for things that already had been vetted and were rolling down -- rolling through the pipeline.
this was not anywhere close to the pipeline when we received the e-mail and y'all have done a tremendous job at throwing it together, very ambitious and amazing project.
i would ask, could we -- could we bring this back up in the afternoon, because I had a couple of other irons in the fire to look at?
>> that sounds fine, they will be here this afternoon.
>> I will be here for questions.
>> did the auditor's office --
>> question for the auditor?
>> thanks -- thanks for tolerating.
>> obviously if we spend $400,000 on this project, we are still free to take any action we deem appropriate on any additional requests for improvements at the expo center.
we are aware of the other requests because they have been brought up, as far as I know, we are not committed on spending except for the ones we have acted on, so I am under the impression that we will treat future requests, the same way as we have historically, if we buy into the project and money is available, which means it is affordable, we do it.
if not we either postpone it or we just don't do it.
>> there is no disconnect on that, right?
>> correct.
correct.
>> right.
>> the auditor's office --
>> she is here, did she have something to add.
>> she said she would answer questions if we have some, right?
would you like to make a statement?
>> [laughter]
>> good morning, I am kimberly walton grant manager as a resource if you have any questions about our review, but at this point I think they have been answered.
>> that is a good statement.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> we will call this one up --
>> I want to make one comment.
>> go ahead.
>> I just want you to reapprove this project or not, I want you to recognize the other department worked for us, so much of a short term, the auditor's office and people from the county office and pbo, I appreciate all of their work and I have to thank gary, he was behind this application, I thank you.
>> you have worked at light speed on this.
it really has been amazing.
>> now, on item 15, we discussed only one of those --
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> wiring.
wiring.
>> we expect -- we discussed only one of the personnel amendments, but our attention was for the motion to cover all of them, right?
is that okay?
all right.
well, if we are going to call that item back up, we are to executive session, right?
>> uh-huh.
>> why don't we just leave early and maybe come back this afternoon on time.
that would be five minutes early t if we can get our county judge back at 1:30, can we start this afternoon?
>> uh-huh.
>> I move that we recess until 1:30.
>> second.
all those in favor?
this passes by unanimous vote.
Let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
this morning we indicated our intention to call item 17 back up this afternoon.
should we do that now?
>> sure.
>> consider and take appropriate action regarding application for american recovery and reinvestment act, arra funds, through the Texas state comptroller's state energy conservation office cemcompetitive grant to use for installation of distributable renewable energy power generation facilities at Travis County owned facilities located at exposition center.
>> I ran some numbers over lunch and talk the the county attorney's office.
looks like we tap danced really fast and plugged all our holes.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> that is what you were looking for?
>> yes, yes.
poor tenly has been running back and forth like a mad woman and loaning with roger and auditor's office.
some significantly fast tap dancing.
i can't find any remaining hole.
>> that is why she is wown of my favorite thousand lawyers in the state.
>> thanks for putting up with m.
>> all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank all of the e-mailers for their hard work.
now may I make the request that for the next application that the county judge be brought in toward the end?
not toward beginning
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, October 27, 2009 4:50 PM
