Travis County Commissioners Court
October 27, 2009,
Item 25
25.
consider and take appropriate action on a resolution regarding the issuance of the river valley industrial development corporation revenue bonds (cross county water supply corporation water transmission project), series 2009 in an amount not to exceed $40 million dollars
>> something cake up quickly and it caught me by surprise, but also Commissioner Eckhardt has some questions.
this has come before the Commissioner's court before today back in June and the request was received and approved by the court and the corporation is now coming back after their due diligence and public hearing process.
and there are representatives from the corporation here that would like to address the court on what they are seeking from the court today.
>> judge, Commissioners, I am carol columbo, we serve as counsel for river valley industrial incorporate corporation, we are seeking bonds in connection with the water pipeline.
we did come to the Commissioner's court on June 23rd in connection with this item.
the way the statute is written in connection with the bonds that are being issued it requires consent.
these jurisdiction that the pipeline runs through, we therefore came to the county for that consent, in accordance with federal tax law we do have to hold a public hearing in connection with the project.
that was held on October 15th so now what we are considering, after we submitted the information regarding the public hearing and the publication of the notice, to receive the approval of the highest elected official in this this instance for federal tax for purposes solely so it is the second step of the process we went through in June
>> nobody appeared at that time public hear something.
>> no, sir.
>> it was held at the attorney's offices at 100 congress?
>> ma'am.
>> held at the attorney's offices 100 congress?
>> yes, ma'am.
at the corporation's office.
>> the corporation's office or the lawyer's office.
>> well, the lawyer's office is the office for the river valley industrial development corporation.
>> okay.
we -- did somebody advise you we like to do ours here in the Commissioner courtroom in the future?
>> okay.
>> we have had issues before, because of course the resolution back in June was, in anticipation of a public hearing, so in order that the public hearing not be -- not be a sham --
>> sure.
>> --
>> not that you would do such a thing.
>> and under the laws it is totally legal to do it in your lawyer's office but we do have a presence for a public hearing that is in a public setting.
>> and we appreciate that.
the -- we did have multiple jurisdictions and so we were trying to coordinate and so I apologize for any oversight on that.
>> anybody else here on this item?
come forward, please.
>> okay.
Commissioner, I just happened to notice this on the agenda, reviewing it over the weekend and was taken by surprise in that I had heard absolutely nothing about this proposal, and had not seen anything in the press about it, either, and perhaps I missed something.
but I am not really here to speak for or against this 52-mile pipeline, crossing several counties and delivering quite a bit of water into balcones Travis County, and southeast Williamson county and perhaps beyond that, but we don't know.
i am very concerned that the -- the public notice, sort of the issue that was already raised, with the public notice that was given was sort of the minimum legal requirement and as your backup shows, nobody showed up.
and so that -- that's not really the kind of notice that I think you -- you and your discretion can require above and beyond the minimum legal notice.
as I understand this, your -- your approval is needed to essentially delegate eminent domain powers to a private entity, to allow them to -- to exercise condemnation where necessary to build their pipelines and treatment plants and whatnot.
and so, to me, you need to take that responsibility very seriously.
the nonprofit water district that's the nominal force here, or applicant here, you know, I don't think the community knows anything about them or who is really behind them, perhaps everything is just fine.
but I just really think this is an incredibly important issue for the community and we are talking about, you know, building a pipeline, you know, 52-miles from, you know, lee, burleson counties to deliver water into Travis County and that's something that really deserves some, you know, that the public, the interested public knows about and can look at and really understand what it mines before -- before it moves forward rather than have it slip through under the radar and I am sure there is no ill intent whatsoever and I am all -- I am personally in favor of us not being solely reliable on the colorado river for -- for our metro region's water supplies.
diversification of water supplies is good.
on the other hand, I am concerned about, you know, what does it mean for the communities where the water is coming from.
i don't think we should inadvertently basically be taking somebody else's water and I know there is a public process for that and I am sure it's been dealt with before, but I know there is some controversy about whether there is sustained yield in that aquifer so that those communities are protected and there is plenty to export on sustainable and fair basis or whether there is concerns about overdrafting.
so I just encourage you to basically require some -- some greater public notice and have a real public hearing, perhaps as you suggested here, at the county Commissioner's court space, a public space, and not just in a lawyer's office.
and with that public scrutiny, you know, everything checks out, then, you know, sign on the dotted line and move forward.
thank you.
>> on down23rd, we had a discussion in the Commissioner's courtroom.
Commissioner Davis brought this item to us and there we did basically approve the project.
and what was before us was a financing part, but we were told that water was plentiful at the source where they were planning to bring it and they are bringing it across several counties, though, but we did approve it subject to a public hearing.
maybe we were not real specific about where we preferred a public hearing to be held, but, you know, this is kind of bringing water into an area of Travis County where it is sorely needed.
and we did approve it on June 23rd.
what time constraints are you under today?
>> obviously we are trying to close in connection with the bond issue.
originally scheduled for Thursday, obviously pending receipt of this approval.
>> Thursday like day after tomorrow or --
>> yes, sir.
>> or first Thursday in December?
>> day after tomorrow.
>> okay.
questions?
>> one of the -- I confess to not having been able to develop enough information and understanding around the project that I really should have to feel completely comfortable.
of course the vote in June was pending a public hearing, and public hearings, of course being designed to vet the project.
the facts of it, for those who may be listening, is it is a 52-mile long common carrier pipe, 26 to 32 inches in dimester that would be controlled by a nonprofit corporation and that would be available as a transmission line for -- for anyone, any ccn who wanted to put water on this line to deliver it to the communities along this line.
correct correct?
>> correct.
>> and I am, too, am 100% favor of diversifying our water resources, particularly in light of the fact that projections of our sustainability of our yield of surface water is in question, although I have had difficulty in getting sufficient information to know on what terms the water would be purveyed and who -- conveyed and who would be most likely the customer base for the pipeline if any kind of conditions are placed on the -- on the drafting off of the carrizo willcoxs, this is a very big and imwishtious project.
it could be and perhaps is the best thing as far as sliced bread in diversifying our water supply in northeastern Travis County, but it is kind of flying under the radar and I -- I -- I would say my vote in June was in favor -- a resolution showing intent to move forward with exploration of a project through a public hearing but I fall on my sword of having personally failed in fully vetting the project up to this day.
i do know that the water authority from which the project is bringing is based out of waco -- no?
the river authority.
>> river valley.
>> the river valley industrial development incorporation.
sorry, cross county supply corporation.
>> what's in waco?
>> we are not sent associated with anything with waco, judge.
>> what is in caldwell county?
>> caldwell county is where the well field will be located that we will transporting the water through the pipeline to delivery point right now is the shadow glenn storage tank in manor.
>> we set our resolution and consent over in mirror's court of the county is here by given aid to the financing by the issuer of the project a portion of which is located within the boundaries of the county and, b, we talked about the public hearing, conducting by the issue of any public hearings required in connection with the financing of the project.
>> and that only goes -- our only authority over this is in approval of the tax exempt -- federal tax exempt status of the bond issue, correct?
>> it is solely a federal tax law 57 proval, yes, ma'am.
>> any approval of pipeline you still need to go to county to get road crossing approval and thinking you need to do with the actual pipeline construction.
this is strictly the financing.
>> we saw this as a way to get other additional water into Travis County for those willing to pay the nonprofit to deliver it.
>> that's correct.
>> and, unfortunately, on most public hearings like this, we really don't get people to show up.
of course you never know, especially if you have them in a law firm not in Commissioner's courtroom, but the ones we have had here, I bet we have not averaged one person, for these matters, and if part of the line were not in Travis County this Commissioner's court would never have to act on this.
so the federal law really says if a line goes through the county, you have to go to Commissioner's court and get that court's approval.
in addition to Travis County, how many other counties, four or five other counties or three others?
>> three counties.
>> we are going through five counties, we have only gotten approval from lee county and Travis County, we have to use private equity funds associated with this project.
the amount of moneys we are getting on this bond issue will all be spent in lee and Travis County.
>> is the fund issue to be closed on Thursday in the amount of $40 million?
>> yes, sir.
>> yes -- well actually it will end up being a little less.
>> and 80 percent of the property that is necessary for the pipeline has already been purchased?
>> well the easement associated with this project, we with approximately 95% complete with the easement acquisitions and we don't anticipate any other problems for accuse quicks easements as far as eminent domain, as far as the property for easement of this project.
>> so this is all market purchase not eminent domain?
>> that's correct.
>> and to be clear river valley corporation was created by the cotton wood creek mud which is a municipal utility district in eastern Travis County and one of the districts with households that would benefit from the water source.
>> but common carrier -- the use of common carrier pipe would not just be limited to use of ccm servicing that?
>> no, ma'am.
>> okay.
our authority over this is very limited and in regard to, you know, in regard to the tax status of the bonds that are being issued, it is obviously a -- an infrastructure for public benefit.
i would just like to -- I would like to have a meeting with y'all to understand more about the project and really have a better basis of understanding, because this is a very big deal as far as infrastructure, which will dictate land use in eastern Travis County that I am at least nominally in charge of, though -- so I really would like to know more about the project.
>> we would be happy to arrange a meeting and sit down and go over every aspect of the project with you.
>> ha that would be fabulous.
>> I have a couple of questions, one is the action of the court for this one and only 30-inch line, and to the maximum of 18 million-gallons of potable water, and is there any action on the part of the court required to, and the line in the future?
>> no.
not at all.
no, this project is stand alone for 18 million-gallon case.
that's all we are requesting from the county.
>> if you were financing to improve the line, them, yes, it would have to come back to the court for the portion of the lines that in Travis County.
i guess to the extent that there were any kind of equity funds available that made improvements, it wouldn't require financing, public financing.
>> so if the -- if the -- if the venture is successful, the likelihood is you would never -- you wouldn't have to issue debt for the expansion of the line.
correct?
>> that would be correct.
>> so expansion of the line is -- would -- would fallout side the purview of any governmental entity, it would be 59 your option based on the availability of funds?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> the second question is, of the 18 million-gallons, how much of that has been sold to ccn's in Travis County?
>> right now, there is a take or pay agreement, with southwest water company.
southwest water is a publicly traded corporation.
they own hornsby utility which also owns community ridge which Commissioner Davis is involved in, southwest water also has an agreement with what we call the manor mud up in the manor area to service the 6,000 build out connections that are there of that residential subdivision and we have an agreement with the city of manor right now for a half million gallons a day.
and those -- excuse me, those are the only two agreements we have right now.
we are working with manville water supply corporation which crosses over, which is outside of travis but also has properties in Travis County, so everything we are working with right now is in Travis County.
>> so court, just so you are aware, a lot of the units, the dwelling units that this water will serve are in that 130 corridor.
some of these subdivision plats you will see before the court probably in the near future that are outside the city of manor corporate area, but I am presuming this water is enabling those subdivision plats to be viable and that the corridor we are seeing a lot of new development occur.
>> yes, they share a lot out there, including plain view escapes (n
>> yes, and to that it's a new water source, for new growth, but it also is replacing some -- some questionable water sources today, especially the drought we have been in, the aquifer that serves right now, has been -- so this will give a more reward for a customer base, also.
>> so these lines are not in Travis County right of way?
>> no, sir,.
>> because if you were to put lines of right-of-way in the future you would have to have our agreement to do that?
>> that's correct.
>> any other questions?
move approval.
is there a second?
we will have it back on the court's agenda at the appropriate time in the future.
>> thank you, sir.
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 1:40 PM
