Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 9
Mr. Manila, are you still nearby?
mr. Steve manila?
>> here he comes.
>> number 9 9.
receive an update on approved state highway projects and provide direction on action to be taken to complete and close out remaining active state highway projects.
>> good morning judge and Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> I am here and with me is cynthia mcdonald, our right away program manager and we will answer questions you have.
many September of last year we received notification from txdot that they had completed a review of three of their projects for which we contributed funds for right-of-way acquisition.
they indicated in the letters, and there is three of them, in your backup.
they indicated for sh45 north that nothing was due, that the funds that we had provided to them were adequate and in return, though, they also said that we actually were due some reimbursement from them.
for sh130, they said everything was okay with that.
nobody owed anybody anything.
for loop 1 north project, they indicated that we still owe them 2.623 million to fulfill our part of the agreement with with them.
we took a look at the agreements that we had with txdot for these and tnr does believe the 2.623 is a legitimate cost that we should pay for that particular project.
included in your backup, about the gf double sided backup, about the third page back is a spreadsheet, a summary for funding for state highway projects, it is probably the best which the walk you through what is going on here.
so what we have is several highway projects a that we have completed, some have funds remaining and we have the one loop one north that we have to come up with 2.63 million.
you think with the savings on the over projects we ought to be able to pay off that additional cost for loop one but there are reasons we can't do that, at least not at this time.
if you look at the 2000 bonds for sh45 north, on the right side you will see 2 million of savings there.
directly underneath it, there is another 2000 bond project, highway 290 west, another $2 million funds on hold.
those projects are linked.
we can't release funds from one unless the other one is completed as well.
290 west project is a project that will be coming to court probably January February of next year.
those funds we would like to use as a county cost share with the city and txdot to improve a piece of 290 west in the vicinity of the y at oak hill.
what the city and txdot has come up with is a plan to improve the intersections -- several intersections in that area using modern design technology that will improve the ability of traffic after flow through that area and that will, they feel, hold the congestion problem as low as it can until they get their ultimate solution put into place.
so it is a five to six year window where that project will help to reduce congestion noticeably but that won't be the end of the y project.
they are still working on that on a parallel track.
so those moneys aren't available to us.
if you continue down the right column, you will see in 2001 bond moneys there is $18 million in savings from the highway 45 north project, state highway 45 north project.
those funds are linked to the project directly beneath it, 2001 bond fund fm1826, $700,000.
those two projects the same as with the previous discussion, one can't -- the funds from one can't be released unless the other one is completed as well.
1826 project is one that we have been speaking to txdot about for quite some time now.
they have indicated to us they have no plans to do that project at least within a ten-year horizon.
so we have asked them to provide us a release on that project.
once we get that release, we should be able to gain access to that $18 million.
we have been pursuing that really for quite some time.
txdot has gone back and forth internally try to figure out how best to do that, can they do it administratively, do they have to go back to transportation commission to resend the minute order and then they finally decided they do needing to the transportation and get them to recind the minute order, and so until that is done we can't do anything with the $18 million.
>> where is the $18 million to date.
>> it is two different funds within the county.
we have funds here.
>> within the country treasury?
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> once we get the minute order, we send it and then 700,000 and 18 million dollars, $18.7 million is funds that the court would need to decide what to do with it and --
>> I need to interject, there is not a lot of options the court could use if funds for.
it was part of proposition 2 back in 2001 which stated it could be used for sh45 north and fm1826 right-of-way.
one of the things we have been waiting for the release to be able to investigate and pursue is defusing debt with the funds which is an option I at least know is available to the court.
we will of course is bond council if there are other options that the court could consider.
>> thank you, jessica.
okay.
so we still have to find a way to pay this $2.623 million debt to txdot.
if we were to wait to go through this process of getting funds released, it probably won't meet the schedule that we have.
we have to pay txdot this money by next April, so I am not so sure that we will be able to do these gymnastics to get to these funds within that time frame and to jessica's point, it may not be an option available to you, to simply use this money to pay off that debt.
so what we would like to suggest is that once we do get funds released back to us, the court direction on how to use those funds, you have heard what jessica has suggested, and then we need a way to pay this loop one debt and the way that we see the most likely scenario would be to issue cos in fy '12 to do that.
>> and just to also add to that, what pbo discussed with tnr is number one submitting budget request so we have a place holder for the Commissioner's court to submit this in the budget process and I worked with tnr staff, there are a couple of cos we would like to review to see if they meet the same legal terms and we would put that review through our bond council as well as the accounting department at the auditor's office and if they do, it might have wiggle room there, it is not anywhere near 2.6 but it gets you closer and bring back to you during the budget process, any recommendations from our part on what you should do for the remaining.
meanwhile, also continue to work very diligently to get the release on the 18 million and 700,000 to see if we can pay off debt because that obviously has a direct impact on your debt service.
>> let me make sure I understand.
so we have 2.39 surplus dollars coming back from the state on 45 north?
>> we actually, on 45 north we already received a check of $5.2 million from them.
we had issued all the money.
we had paid them most of the money except for the -- there was like 12.8 million still sitting in our treasury and after the final accounting that we received from them in -- working with them from July through September, after alls that said and done, they returned 5.2 million of the money that they received, so the 5.2 and 12.8 are $18 million.
does that answer your question?
>> well, that more than answers it.
>> okay.
>> so we've got 5 million plus back on precinct two project.
>> right.
>> and we owe the state $2.3 million plus some change on another precinct two project.
>> that's right.
>> well, I guess I am -- why can't we take what we owe the state from what the state refunded us?
>> because they are different propositions and I believe are they not different bond programs?
>> yes.
>> they are different -- yes, 2000 bond vs.
2001 bond as well as obviously being in their own proposition.
>> so the $35 million that the state refunded to Travis County has restrictions -- the 5 million-dollars?
>> yes.
>> and those restrictions limit basically what we can do with it.
>> correct.
>> and we have looked at paying the state 2.3 million that we owe the state with with that money and concluded with legal counsel that that, in fact, cannot be done.
>> correct.
>> okay.
that's clear.
>> so what we would ask the court, then, is for direction on how to pay the $2.6 million to txdot and our suggestion would be fy '12 cos.
>> and our recommendation they submit budget request and we process that through the budget process.
>> and we will look through fund buckets but we don't think it will get us to full amount.
>> we agree with the state that we owe the state $2.63 millions.
>> yes.
>> and the backup reinforces that and in general layman's language, why do we owe them that money?
>> the costs were higher than originally.
>> a little more specific than that.
>> costs of right-of-way acquisition, were higher than estimated and our agreement is we would pay higher costs if that esa what it came in at.
>> right.
good work.
>> we need a motion.
>> what are we asked to do today besides understand where we are?
>> well, jessica, do you need anything?
>> we don't need direction on it, we worked with tnr and they will submit a budget request.
>> we will submit the budget request and it will be on the list of cos.
>> on the $18 million, let's say that the state releases it because the state doesn't know when it may do the project.
>> well, the $18 million is money that is left over from their completed sh45 north project.
what is hanging it up is 1826 project that was coupled with it in the bond proposition.
we can't get access to the 18 million until we eliminate $700,000 tied to fm1826.
they are both in the same proposition.
it turns out one needs more money.
you go back and forth with it.
it's hung up.
>> I sent a note that if they do recind the minute order, you won't just have 18 million, but 18.7, the 700 from 1826 as well.
>> right.
>> and I have already, so you know, given heads up both to david escemiya and lynn opal that that will be back in the office for us to look at.
>> I would love to be in the planning and budget officer.
>> if we could use it, if we could use it, that would be nice.
>> thank you very much.
we are fully informed.
>> thank you.
am I right we only have the legislative item next?
and with doe have lawyers on stand by for the executive session?
mr. Ekstein is at the capitol and I told him to be here at 10:30.
hopefully he is heading this way.
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.
