Travis County Commissioners Court
February 23, 2010,
Item 7
The first two minutes of this item were not captioned.
>> that would bring that total for the allocated money of $6.34 million for open -- parks and oap space, it would end up totaling to be about $11,145,000.
and again this money is basically focused on open space, basically for the purchase of the robin tract, so this is what that particular money will be available for.
so that would be hopefully included.
and I guess that would be in the form of a motion, if you get a chance to examine this, and of course you can run through the debt model by moving this money to fy 10, parks and open space -- allocation for fy 10.
i won't go any farther.
yes, sir, if you want to goif ys with the court, that will be fine.
>> the presentation you have does not including the 4.8, but jessica has provided you with some alternate slides should the court decide to make that happen, just so you know.
we do have the debt model presentation as requested by Commissioner Davis sometime back.
that debt model presentation will include what is currently approved in the fy 10 budge, and 10 budget,then the additional as recommended to Commissioners court which we will touch on in item 8.
so those are the items that will be included in the presentation.
you do have some alternate slides that would include that should the court decide to go ahead and add that.
with that, jessica can jump into the presentation.
we'll move as fast as we need to move, being aware of the judge's time.
>> good morning.
i'm just going to go through these slides.
you should have -- in your backup, you should have an original presentation.
the slides that I presented today are alternative slides just to show you the difference.
and I think actually what I'll do when I get to that point is focus more on that table because that table actually -- the last piece of paper that I handed out, I did that this morning and it compares the three scenarios that I'll be discussing in a few minutes.
just to go through the presentation, the debt model jumtions just as a review are listed here.
i think yoofs these before.
i do want to note and I think rodney just noted already but the remaining 2000-2005 authorized bond issuance schedule includes 9.9 million of 2005 debt.
it does not include moving up any additional portion that was originally scheduled to be issued in fy 11, which is the 4.8 that I believe the Commissioner was speaking to.
as far as new certificates of obligation, the amount that's listed here of 109.5 includes the project as rodney was saying that's in item number 8.
i will note that when I get to item number 8 I'm going to take $100,000 off that I was made aware of we no longer need to be issuing for so I'll make that comment under item 8.
so this will be obviously tweaked a little bit.
the bond issuance schedule, it's based on likely projects that we know about.
obviously these figures will be revised as the potential bond election years.
this is in consultation with financial advisor given our market then the.
the long-term rates -- I will say that this model actually that I'm presenting today includes only five-year debt and 20-year debt.
there will be some discussion of looking at 10-year with our financial advisor so we will obviously keep you up to date on that as well.
i just want to say for this model right here year using five-year debt and 20-year debt.
there's some assumptions that are listed out here as far as how we determined what interest rate to start at and where to ease up to, and we used a similar approach on the long-term as well as the short term.
i won't go into much detail on this unless there's particular questions about the interest rate.
the next slide actually gives you explicitly what interest rates are assumed in the model beginning in fy 10 going to fy 16.
long-term here is assumed to be 20-year debt and short term is five-year debt.
going to slight number 5, this is just basically a review of what I've already said.
it just explicitly lets you know what is in the assumptions for the total voter approved debt.
this is all 2005 authorization, and it is 3.6 million related to roads and 6.3 million related to parks and open space for now.
and that totals 9.9.
in addition, we have included in the current co as of October 1, what was published in the adopted budget was 15.2 million, and it gifts a very high level summary of those projects.
and obviously the detail is in item number 8.
it's also listed in the adopted budget.
the proposed additional debt which is long-term financing proposed is listed here, it totals an additional 87.6 million.
most of that is related to the building purchased at 700 lavaca.
and then we are also showing here five-year debt -- just to note again, the helicopter listed under five-year debt we are going to be working with our financial advisor to probably -- if that -- I guess it was approved -- we would match that with ten-year debt financing.
so these are listed here and I'm happy to answer any questions.
the two items below the helicopter, actually tnr projects, and I believe -- yeah, the sidewalk improvements and the signage.
>> this is additional single on brodie lane, gap in the traffic to allow the residents to get to the properties
>> could you use the other mic if you don't mind?
that one has a problem
>> do I need to repeat myself?
the $250,000 on brodie lane is a traffic signal that has been warranted.
we did a study on the traffic flow, and the signal helped create additional gaps so that the people who live along brodie lane can get in through the traffic because there's so much through traffic.
so we'd recommend the court do that and perhaps relieve some of the stress there on brodie lane.
a sidewalk on fm 1826 is a new school that's been located on slaughter lane, and part of the attendance is coming from west crossing the highway at a fairly critical point txdot has agreed to put in a traffic signal and what they need is a sidewalk to get to the pedestrian crossing, part of which is inside the city of and you know, part of which is in Travis County.
so it's really a three-party project, txdot, city of Austin, Travis County, to facilitate the kids getting to school across 1826, which is really a safety issue.
>> let me ask you something on that.
i don't want to make it appear that -- and you've already mentioned the $4.8 million earlier.
and I hate to see you talking about this here on brodie.
however, this has been discussed, I guess, per se I guess to some degree, as far as open space is concerned, and I'm just wondering why that wasn't in -- placed as you were talking, speaking now, to what's there, why it wasn't placed on this particular list of things that we're talking about as far as --
>> I was asked to address brodie lane and fm 1626.
that's why I came to the --
>> okay
>> would you like for me to address the four point --
>> yes, I would
>> I think it ought to be in the issuance
>> really, it should have been, and actually what we're doing as far as getting it moved forward and moved to that, but it appears that it should have been there before instead of having to do what we're doing here, but that's neither here nor there, but it should have been up front.
and I'm just wondering why it wasn't.
okay.
thank you.
>> on the next slide, projects proposed, those projects total approximately 1.1 million.
item number 8, another hundred thousand dollars related for projects funded elsewhere.
the cash flow is on the next page, and I'm going to skip this slide because I think if we get to the tables, this slide is addressed in the tables so unless there's particular questions there's no need to go over that information twice.
same with the next slide, which is the projected debt service of those projects that are included in the presentation prior to any other discussions.
and then the white lines I've listed here a review of the white lines, our primary key rates.
that's a ratio of taxable value which measures the debt burden on property values.
we would like that to be one to one and a half percent.
we're under that so we're okay there.
net bonded debt here capita, that was revised to be under $800, which we are under these scenarios.
then annual debt service to total general fund and dead stfs which measures the afford ability, we'd like to keep that under 20%.
then this measures the short term debt burden, we'd like to keep that under 25%.
that is the only ratio right now that under any of these scenarios we are a little bit over.
and when I say a little bit, we're at 27, 26%, given the assumptions in the model.
obviously, the co's for future years I've assumed to be all five-year.
if that ratio -- or excuse me -- if that mix were to change and we were to have some long-term debt, which in many years we do especially if we purchase property or have longer term eats, that could impact this ratio.
so I want to note that we are a little above it.
we come back down into the fold, if you will, but I did want to at least highlight that.
>> so would the court like to prow without me?
Commissioner Gomez is senior Commissioner
>> we could do that or take a little break and we'll just pick up when we get back
>> either way is fine with me.
i will be able to get back by 1:30
>> let's do that then and we'll just pick and at 1:30 we'll be back
>> and we're really almost at the understand of the presentation anyway so I can answer questions at that time or I can go over the last two slides.
it'll be up to the Commissioners court
>> we hate to rush you, ms.
roi since you spent so much time.
i move we recess till 1:30.
that passes by enhance vote.
We were discussing -- item no.
7, right?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> we have -- we have -- we have jess ask has gotten through -- jessica has gotten through all but I think a couple of slides.
we will finish those up, answer any questions that you might have in preparation for item no.
8.
>> okay.
>> good afternoon.
planning and budget.
where I left off, I believe, was under other considerations, which is towards the end of the slide show.
this slide demonstrates some of the assumptions that were embedded in the presentation and the debt model for the presentation, including approximately 200 million for road and park projects in fy 12 and beyond.
this would be related to a future bond election and obviously additional work is required there.
but that is an estimate that we were using.
and then 189.5 million for county facility and infrastructure project, also, in fy 11 and beyond.
just to remind the court, the model assumes cash flow schedules that will likely change as specific projects mature and further planning is done.
the interest rates are also assumptions that we have made and are likely to change.
we are assume thank the county will have a bond election, November 2011 to obtain debt funding for meet some of the county's capital needs.
we always like to remind the court keep in mind requires annual operating funds to maintain, some of them actually require additional staffing as well.
so those requests will likely follow a bond election.
and that is the end of the slide show.
we're happy to answer any questions.
>> judge, I would like to request that we take this into executive session under real estate.
something has come up that I think we need to discuss.
>> item 7.
>> 7, yes.
>> okay.
any discussion, any discussion or questions for open court?
>> may I ask a couple just to -- so I can better understand the numbers?
with regard to the white lines, we're -- we're within all of our white lines with the exception of the short-term debt to total debt service.
>> that's correct.
>> is -- is our -- our coloradoation of being just beyond our 25% based on -- based on inclusion of helicopter as short term and the -- the granger improvements?
>> it does include the helicopter as short term, Commissioner.
and now --
>> the granger improvements actually are -- are an item for discussion and item no.
8, we're actually proposing some modifications to the -- to the existing approved cl list.
>> that's why I asked.
>> right.
>> I'm wondering if that 27% calculation will change --
>> it currently, I believe, unless --
>> the granger reductions or postponements or delays that are proposed in here are already taken into consideration in the model so that a five year debt is off.
however the helicopter is listed as five year debt in the model currently.
it won't change it significantly, though, Commissioner.
i'm happy to show that information to you.
>> okay.
i was just wondering as far as the -- the assumptions inside that white line calculation.
>> yeah.
>> oh believe that was my only question.
>> any other questions regarding item no.
7?
let's indicate our intention to take into executive session under the real estate and consultation with attorney, just in case we need both of 'em.
>> I think we also need to throw item 8 up on there, also.
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, February 23, 2010 2:15 PM
