Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 9, 2011 (Agenda)
Items 17 and 20
by the way, I'm going to call up 17 and 20 together.
20 considering and take appropriate action on budget amendments -- no.
20, receive update and take appropriate action on Travis County debt model for proposed 2011 bond election and cash flow assumptions.
17, consider and take appropriate actions on various issues related to the propose 20th 11 bond election, including a, a list of projects, b, assumed implementation schedule, cash flow.
c, proposed propositions.
d, public-private partnerships and guidelines.
e, bond covenants.
f, funding of pass through financing.
g, impact on future annual operating budgets.
h, election schedule.
and i, draft election order.
if you have business with the court today, I seriously doubt that we will reach your item this morning.
and if you had call my office between 12:00 and 1:30, I will indicate to you what time I think we will reach your item this afternoon.
if you give the number.
>> leroy, budget director and jessica, assistant budget director.
we have been asked to briefly give you an update on the debt model in relation to the citizen's advisory recommendations.
I think you received your back up last Tuesday, and we did distribute an additional piece of back up, I think, about three days ago.
a graph that essentially showed you various options.
I've asked jessica to be brief in this presentation and will be open to any questions.
>> good morning, jessica rio, planning and budget.
I would like to go through the first few slides and I've inserted one of those slides from the additional information we presented to you late last week and hopefully, we will be able to spend most of our time there.
I will do my best to be brief.
the review right now of the current debt service, I just wanted to highlight for you that the fy-12 debt service ended that model for next year is 74.6 million that will not change with the November election because I just want you to recall that any debt that we issue in fy-12, our first payment on that debt is in fy-13.
another thing I think it is important to note is that we do pay off debt every year, and however, we have recently purchased 700 laboka and had some other large projects reflected here in the co issuance schedule, fy-06 to fy-11 and I just wanted to have that for you for additional information.
you can see that although in the let model we assume on going co issuances that are $21 million, we issued anywhere from 23 million recently up to 114.
actually, I think it was 120 million with the premium.
that was when we purchased 700 laboka and I think we've purchased a helicopter that year.
the preliminary budget for fy-12 included $33 million in short-term certificates of obligation and includes the issuance of $2 million for voter-approved get to for u.s.
290 this graph shows for you the existing annual debt service payments.
if we were not to have any future additional debt, I just want to note that this graph does assume that we would maintain annual co issuances of approximately 21 million, all the way up until 2025, which is why you see after 2025 that line dropping pretty dramatically, because after that we're not issuing any debt in the model.
and you can see that the county under these assumptions, which won't hold but just to give you an idea, we would be paying off all our debt obligations but 2033.
for fy-11, the citizens bond advisory committee you saw two weeks ago, the final report included 205.7 million.
that is one model we're presenting in the information we're presenting to you today.
or original recommendation from the planning and budget office was 400 million over seven years and I believe the committee's recommendation is over seven years.
our original recommendation included 150 million for roads, parks and open space and 250 million for the facilities project.
and I would like to note that the last bond election 2005, we issued approximately 124 million for local projects, road, parks and open space.
some information here, all this does, really, is provide you an overview of the 400 million original recommendation, the committee recommendation of 205.7 million, there's also out there the path-through projects that the court has approved.
the application of.
and I believe tnr is currently in negotiation with text dot on.
the -- txdot on.
the original recommendation it be included in the amount we could afford for the bond election.
if you were to take that away from the 400 million, what would be left is just 163.7 million and that is just for informational purposes.
the impact of the 400, which was our original recommendation is presented on this next graph, and what I want to point out here is that when leroy discussed with you two weeks ago the cash flow assumptions, and I realized tnr now provided cash flow assumptions and I worked up an additional model and if I f any of you on the cot would like to see that, I can get that to you, the model we usedded was the 2005 bond program which included 35%, 18%, 20%, 11%, 8% and then the last two years, we divided up between fy-17 and fy-18 at 4% each.
the 2005 bond program was actually a six-year program.
so that's how all of the models that we're going to talk about in the next graph have those same assumptions, they also have the same interest rate assumption.
one question that was presented was, if we have in the debt model covered for the fact that there's some financial uncertainty right now, and I just wanted to point out that when we last issued a in the spring, we issued at the lowest rates we could have, obviously, we are a natural triple-a property, our long-term get approximately 3.85% in model for fy-12, what we have is an assumption of 4.8% so you can see we've built in a little bit of conservative approach there we've also taken the highest rate from the last 15 years and assumed that to be the highest rate in the next 15 years, and worked our way up to that, so there is some of that built in assurance for the fact that there's some uncertainty right now.
>> and that is good, I'm glad you brought that up because really, there has been discussion as far as what's happening at the federal level, especially with s&p, with their new rating as far as the federal government is concerned.
and of course this being local government, of course, we have triple-a bond rating.
worse-case scenario as far as those particular voters that would be looking at these particular bonds, referendum, will have to rest assured that what you just said shows some stability with Travis County as far as taking care of a situation we're not really impacted by what is happening at the federal level.
>> and just today I think there was a story in "governing" magazine that says that the standard & poor's and moody's is going to look at the ratings for cities and it doesn't mention counties, but it mentioned cities that are heavily dependent on federal money so they may be looking at downgrading that rating for those cities.
so hopefully, it doesn't affect counties, but still, I think there is a reason to be cautious.
>> you know that I think he notified members of the court that s&p had been in contact with Travis County and he did discuss our rate, our triple-a natural rating with them, and their initial comment was that they didn't see any problem with us retaining that triple-a, so that was encouraging.
>> the next slide is actually a slide that is out of the additional slides that were presented to the court last Friday.
and feel free to stop me, I know I'm going fast.
I was told to be extremely brief.
this graph has a slide that actually summarizes the debt models that I've presented in your back up, and I think it is actually much more informative than the tables that I gave you, because that information on those tables is incremental and so I think it is much easier to see in the graph which is why I went ahead and gave some additional information.
what this graph shows you is the incremental impact of additional debt between fy-13 and fy-18, and everybody has that.
what you can see is the first line, the lower line that's green is isolating only the committee's recommendations of 205.7 million.
the next line, which is purple is at 236.31 million and I just want to note the difference between those two amounts is pass-through financing projects.
the third line is, I should say on the pass-through financing, we will be receiving some limited reimbursements, the debt model, though, to be conservative, assumes that we are paying out the 30 million and not receiving reimbursement at this time so just keep that in mind.
the blue line, which is the third line on here is at our original recommendation of 400 million, which included 150 for parks and roads and open space and 250 million for facilities projects.
and then the last one is one that I actually added, which was in that additional information, as well, which holds the 250 million for the facilities projects constant, and then takes into consideration not only the committee's recommendation of 205 but also the past-through so it is kind of the worst-case senario.
what this information shows you, then, based on the assumptions in the model, is the -- I'm trying to get to -- there we go.
is the impact of this additional debt on the average homestead, and as you can see from those charts, how to actually builds up and then starts to come back down in approximately fy-16.
and I would say that these are annual figures, so obviously, if you were to divide, for example, on the 400 million, that 31.41 in fy-13 is really $2.62 a month.
at the height, there, it goes up to, yes, $43.77.
that's $3.63 a month.
another question that was asked that I have information of and I won't go into detail but I do have this similar information by isd's that I can provide to the court upon request, as well.
but really, this graph, like I said, summarizes very well the four different scenarios that I've presented to the court.
I've also run one on the tnr cash flow that I have that I can provide to the court, as well, but I would say isolating the 205.7 million by itself doesn't provide full picture because it leaves out projects we know we will be facing in the next few years.
>> can I ask you a question?
>> of course.
>> did you flu this the amount of debt that we -- did you include in this the amount of debt we retunely issue?
>> yes the.
the assumptions in the debt model include approximately 21 million.
it is 20.4 million for a couple years and jumped up so I'm rounding.
it included the 2 million we're issuing this year for u.s.
209 and this year's co issuance systems we know that to be in the preliminary budget of 33 million.
>> but the 400 million total doesn't include the build out for a new civil courthouse?
>> that depends on the court.
the 400 million is the original recommendation from the preliminary budget and our original planning budget includes 150 for parks, roads and open space and 250 for facilities project, whatever the court desired those facilities projects to be.
>> this is over a seven-year period and we would anticipate that debt would probably be 30-year debt, correct?
or are we there yet?
>> I don't think we're there yet.
we've always issued 20 year.
I can say the debt model includes for all cos, five-year debt per policy that the court adopted in 2008 and all voter approved or other future projects we've assumed at 20-year debt.
I'm going to skip over these that we just discussed that we're in that.
now, I think it's important to note on this slide, slide number 14, that when you look at a particular project, instead of just, you know, the debt model and cash flow assumptions provided in the debt model, when you look at question of the impact project by project, the best way to account for that impact in our estimation is the graph that I'm going to -- or the table that I'm going to show on the following page.
so for every hundred million in additional debt, the impact was estimated at $18.39.
for example, I use Commissioner Davis' example because he asked me directly about taylor lane which was a $7.67 million project.
so I thought that was good one to use as an example and just doing the ratios there.
it is an estimated $1.42.
so if you look --
>> that's on top of the 2.5 right now?
I want to make sure we understand that.
if we decide to add this, this court decides to add teller lane to this particular project, that would be an additional $1.42 impact on the taxpayer so I want to make sure everyone understands that, particular, what you just stated.
>> it also reminded me, there is a footnote at the bottom of this page that wasn't in your back-up that I just want to highlight, just to put things in context.
the 5 y-12 preliminary budget estimated tax on the average homestead just for Travis County was, I believe leroy updated the court about this morning, as well, it was in the preliminary budget, $1,061.84.
I believe the certified values with 1,060.
it gives you more perspective on that incremental increase for the projects.
so going back to this table, one thing that this table indicates is the projected fy-13 average homestead value, we've projected with help from the apraisal district 280,022.
the reason it is fy-13 because if we issue an fy-12, the first payment is in fy-13.
this is not taking in account any other exemptions taxpayers might have but it takes into account the general homestead exemption.
I was asked how we came up with that estimated debt because the 80,000 doesn't have any explanation, and basically, all we did was ran a million dollars through the debt model, if you were to take a million dollars and divide it by 20, I believe is $50,000 is the rest of that is interest.
when we run it through the debt model it comes tout an average of approximately 78, 79,000 and I rounded up to 80.
that is how we got that number.
as you were heard from leroy, a penny on the tax rate is approximately $9 million.
that is how we get to the next number there.
if you do the math, it comes outto additional tax on the homestead.
>> when that penny was initiated years ago it did not generation that type of revenue.
>> when I got to the county, it was just under 4 million.
staffing, I'm not going to discuss that too much because tnr has that.
but tnr estimated it would cost approximately $1.3 million, that is capital and personnel.
when I spoke with cynthia yesterday, it sounded like it is 900,000.
we diddish knew 2005 approximately $2 million for staffing and tnr for their projects.
did I ask for and receive an update from 18.9 ftes authorized by the court and they have provided that and I'm sure they have that available to give to the court or inforward it on to you what the status of all of those positions, a lot of those positions are no longer filled as they wind down the old bond program.
>> that is a result of the rf ruling as far as not being allowed to use bond funds to pay exactly staffing.
>> that's correct.
>> is that correct?
>> the difference between the 2005 program and today's bond program is that any staffing to support the bond program will need to come from the general fund and it is not in the budget.
>> so when -- what happens to the money?
>> some of the -- it was all issues in old bond funds so if there is any savings, it week located in those each individual only bond funds so I would assume being used for other projects.
>> we use it for projects in the precinct where it was assigned to.
>> so I should not expect tnr's budget to go down every time we miss an fte?
>> I wouldn't say that, judge.
>> here is a little bit of information on the average assessed homestead values and isds, but I have more detailed information if the court would like that forwarded to them.
and then, I just thought this was a really neat idea that the bond committee came up with and tnr implemented that we helped a little bit on there, would the property impact tax calculator, which would need to be updated once an amount is decided on by the court but it it is a way for the general foul go on to our -- jen public to go on our website and estimate what the general impact is going to be on their particular homestead.
the numbers in the next two slides are from the spring, from when I did the original presentation to court back in February.
however, it just gives at least an idea of magnitude of some of the things that are coming, perhaps at the court in the next five to 10 years.
downtown campus, additional tnr projects perhaps, medical facility, central booking, jail beds and hms courthouse.
the one item not on here is the civil courthouse, which was included in our original estimate there.
obviously, the issuing schedule is an exercise that is based on many, many assumptions, any change in those assumptions could change some of the outcomes or conclusions that we've drawn from it.
the interest rates, as you're learning can change.
we believe we've accounted for some of that variation but I needed to point that out.
and capital projects require annual maintenance and operations.
as the former analyst for tnr, I can tell you that I've seen, since many, many requests for staffing to operate the parks and maintain our roadways.
so that's it.
I'm happy to entertain any questions.
I'm sorry that wasn't five minutes.
>> remind me of how we arrived at that $400,000.
>> I'm sorry, judge, I didn't hear you.
>> the 400 million.
>> I can tell you that on the 150 million for roads, one of the things we did look at was the facts that our last bond election for local projects was approximately 124 million, and I believe the 2001 bond program for local projects was approximately a little under 90 million.
so that portion of it, I'm a little bit more familiar with.
the 400 million, I don't know if you want to talk about the debt service rate, we were trying to maintain --
>> we were trying to maintain what we used to call the white lines on several of the ratios, and we were attempting to also take advantage of, we kind of pushed some of those to allow us to encourage the court to take advantage of the low cost of construction right now and the low interest rates, so we took all of those into consideration and come up with the 400 million.
at the same time, we did in this latest slide, we did show you 483 million, if, in fact, the court elected to do substantially more than the 150 on open space and roads, and then maintained the 250 million for facilities.
as jessica indicated, we have been conservative on the interest rates and we very well may be able to beat them in the near term, but we do think that we have the 10 year out numbers pretty well pegged, according to what we're seeing on the yield curves on bloomberg.
I might say that these numbers all assume on the 400 million that we would be issuing that 35% of the 400 million in fy-12, and that's probably not realistic that the facilities part of the 400 million could possibly be delayed another physical year before the 35% of that project, so you do have a little bit of head room, so to speak, in at least the first year of the issuance, I think.
>> the other thing is, I think in the past, before we put projects on the bond ballot, we wanted to -- we kind of said we needed to have everything almost ready for it, except the only thing we were waiting for say approval of the bonds and that kind of keeps the costs down of that project and no delays between the times that we issue bonds.
there by, having a less tax burden on folks.
>> have we done this time around?
>> we have worked very closely with tnr on the roads and the parks to get their best estimate of their cash flows, and we have incorporated that into a chart that we can share with you.
and we evaluate annually, you evaluate annually, what you're going to issue.
so although we have projected I based upon issuance, we do not issue debt until we are ready what we believe we will be using during that fiscal year.
>> and my sense of it maybe I'm just being a little biased with the county approach to taxes and budget, but it appears like we don't have as much of an impact on a person's tax bill, but when you look at the -- but when you look at all the entities taxing all together, the overlapping debt then does become an issue with everybody in Travis County, and normally, they're going to think that the county is, you know, the county is part of the, that burden when it really isn't as big of a burden if we just had to deal with the county tax bill, that would be, you know, very affordable.
but when we add everybody else, the city of Austin, acc, the hospital district and all those things, then I think that's the tax burden that people really complain about.
>> I do think that is important to note.
we are very good about maintaining our primary key debt ratios coming in well below those, well within the white lines, if you our secondary measures, which we don't have control over is the overlapping debt per capita and that is higher than we would like to be in the debt model.
>> I think we said that we would probably share, I don't know if our debt model or any bond elections, judge, with the committee on aisd and the city and the county, we have talked about maybe sharing this information with them so that we can have a real good view of the overlapping debt that people have that we have to respond to folks, you know, and we can see it on the tax bill, the percentage of taxes that they pay to the county verses all of the entities together.
>> in the tax office has added some additional information on the tax bills when they send them out in reference to suggestions from the court that shows the various exemptions and various percentages.
as I recall in fy-11 adopted budget, you remember the page we show that has the little house and it has Travis County and city of Austin and acc and the hospital district, I think we are about 18% of the total bill, so at Travis County at 1,000, approximately $1,000, so the total tax bill on an average homestead would probably be symptom -- somewhere between 5,000 and $6,000.
I know I live in one that is about the average homestead and ours is about 5500.
so we're at about 18%, I think, of the total tax bill.
so your point is well taken.
>> I think we need to still naught picture in there.
I think it is worth 1,000 words in explanation, but the other thing is in the, be sure in any documents that we may have out there, where it talks about the increase in taxes, that we put on there the tax relief that we give off the top, and that's what the homestead exemption of 20%.
and so I think we need to take credit for that.
>> over 65 and disabled, also.
let's throw that all in the mix.
>> I think 100% for veterans.
>> veteran a state man dade but just show we were -- mandate but just show that we're aggressively trying to say in range as far as the tax rate is concerned.
>> and 17, list of projects.
we received a list of 28 road, drainage, bridge, pike, pedestrian jected.
there are two sub issues I think should be pulled and discussed separately.
that will leave a list of 27.
any others we need to address individually?
>> I wouldn't find talking about bee creek road.
>> all right, let's talk about bee creek road, that is three to discuss separately.
that would leave 26.
move that we approve the 26 other roads recommended by the committee.
that is pulling out bee creek, loman ford.
discussion on that motion?
all those in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
lowman ford we heard a lot about.
and I know there's one person here because you signed in on the public measuring.
he did leave?
>> here, sir.
>> is here.
and that's --
>> I will be very brief.
>> mr. Awalt, we've heard from you two and three times, you may have something new and different say.
>> new and exciting.
>> then come forth.
we eagerly anticipate every word.
anybody else here on lowman ford come forth at this time.
>> got all warmed up.
thank you, judge and Commissioners.
nigh maim is jim awalt, I live on lowman ford road and one thing I would like to note to the court is that when the citizens review group for the bond, they have elected to remove the realignment of lowman ford road and then they came back with a recommendation for half million dollar study, and we thank them for that.
the one thing I would like to bring that's new is in front of you rolled up is a environmental study that is -- yes, sir.
that's done by carter burjiss engineering firm, and it really speaks for itself in that you can see where lowman ford is.
it starts to the north part of the map towards boggy ford and then down to sylvester ford, which is on the map, through had a area and it is very obvious of the sensitivity environmentally for that section of road.
and I think that just speaks for itself but we would like -- that's what I brought in new that I would like for you to, in your deliberations, to consider.
second thing, or the third thing is I know that there are a lot of very passionate people that came from the neighborhoods that use that road, and the one thing that I want to absolutely assure this court is those people spoke very passionately, and with that same passion, if there was a safety issue, I guarantee you they would be here in front of this court being very vocal.
so just take into consideration what they said during past hearings.
and in conclusion, I would just like for you to take those comments from those folks that use lowman ford road, they were eat ones that are saying we don't feel that it is safe and we don't think it is a good use of public money.
second thing in consideration, of course, the environmental carter burgess document in front of you.
and the other thing is that there is a significant portion of this road that is within the city limits, and according to mr. Manilla, they were contacted and they've elected not to put up any money towards study or towards any future realignment and I think that is important for this commission to consider.
and finally, in the current economic environment that we're in and the voter sensitivity to such, we just think that this half million dollars is not worthy and should be utilized in other projects for this county.
thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
my name is leonard strickler.
I'm here in behalf of a group in favor of the lowman ford project.
thank you for your time and service to our county, it is greatly appreciated and your patience in listening to opinions for and against.
I'm also going to be brief.
I think we have expressed through public out reach meetings, committee meetings and before the court that there is a significant group that is interested in seeing this road improved.
it is an improvement that has been promised for decades and has never come to fruition.
when this whole process began, we were very pleased to be considered in the bond package in general.
and then we were extremely pleased when the citizens advisory committee, the 15 citizens that with were appointed by the court, debated this, viewed the projects, went through a substantial process and giving of their time and came to the conclusion to include us in this lowman ford project in the bond package.
so you know, we just respectfully request that strong consideration is given to this project being in place.
in closing, you know in our opinion, the opposition to this has been mostly he is they nick nature.
-- mostly aesthetic in nature.
we believe a clear path has already been set by tnr for realignment of the road that follows along the plan being considered right now and the realignment, the group mentioned before, water ford subdivision who has basically been the only group here that's been in force against it, it's been shown that through this already predetermined path, it has little negligible effect on the water ford subdivision, and again, we respectfully ask for you to keep those engineering dollars in so we can study and see that this project is necessary.
we do feel that, if having to go, start all over again would delay this cycle for lowman's ford road another 10 or 12 years, the process of waiting for the next bond cycle where you might come up in that and we just could foresee having to wait that long, creating harm potentially, whereas including it now we don't see how it could cause any harm at all.
thank you again, very much, for your time.
>> thank you.
>> mr. Manilla, what is tnr's position on this road?
>> I believe the preliminary engineering study was good compromise.
the citizen's bond advisory committee recommended and I would support that.
it would help us to determine precisely where the road will go, look at alternatives and most importantly for us, anyhow is identify the right of way for a future project is going to be needed so if development does occur along that road we can preserve precisely what we need.
>> does this road lead to the park?
>> you need to get on this ready to get to arkansas bend, yes.
-- you need to get on this road to get to arkansas bend, yes.
>> don't you turn off arkansas bend before you get to the stretch we're looking at?
>> right, it does.
>> part of this is in the city, part in the county?
>> there is a portion in the city limits, that's true.
>> lago vista took into account we were studying the county part?
>> they are supportive of the project but they're not willing to commit any funds to it.
our project will require that we look at the engineering for their portion of the road, as well, to make sure we tie into whatever future improvements they have.
they have their own transportation plan and they're showing this road will be upgraded in the near future, but right now, they've not committed to put funds into it.
>> is there a motion?
>> I have a couple questions.
>> the engineering study that's proposed, would that address the environmental issues?
>> it would necessarily have to do that, sure.
one of the results of a study of that nature is to look at all fascets of a project, including environmental, and, sure, that will be a part of it.
>> and what is the shelf life of such a study, if we were to do that right away?
would it have been to be revisited if the road didn't get built in eight or 10 years?
>> perhaps, if regulations were to change, particularly in regards to the environmental.
design standards occasionally change, so that's a possibility.
I wouldn't expect wholesale revision but there is a possibility some amount of revision will have to be made.
>> we took it out for, to be addressed squarely, so in my view it is in limbo, meaning it is not on this list.
it would take a notion put it in.
is there a motion to put it in?
no motion means it is left out.
that's how I see it procedurally.
we also took out bee creek.
which is next.
the issues with this one are that, in a way of trying to reduce the overall amount of the bond referendum, the committee looked at down scoping some of the projects, and this is one that was down scoped.
it was originally intended to be four lanes all the way from hs-71 to about 1.3 miles to the east where it would connect with highland boulevard, whether I also be convert -- which will also be converted to four lanes by a developer in that area.
as a way of reducing costs, the committee suggested downgrading that to a two-lane road between a future school site and highland boulevard, it interhalf of the length, and it does, it is possible to do that.
it is noted in the minority report, though, that it has the affect of creating somewhat of a bottle neck, coming from highland boulevard, a three-lane section which is essentially two lanes with a center turn lane and back up to 471.
plus, you lose something as far as economies of scale.
so it is feasible to do it that way.
I wouldn't recommend it, though, for the reasons just stated.
I think it ought to be fully funded.
>> at 1.3, it is not fully funded?
>> the 1.3 will make it fully funded, if I remember correctly.
>> bee creek road?
I'm seeing 8.1.
>> that's the total project cost that's on there now.
to make it fully funded we would need to add another $1.2 million to that figure.
>> I have a question about what the bond committee was considering when they cut, scaled back on it.
did they have data on projected traffic coming from 71 towards that school, as opposed to from bee creek and highland boulevard to that school?
it seems backwards, just in the lodge I can of what I though about it, but you may not have the data.
my assumption would be even if we were going to consider scaling it back, the four lane towards highland and bee creek, the growth is in that area and this middle school is slated to be opened in the next two years.
and to answer your question, no, they didn't have that kind of data, but intuitively, I would think that it is four lanes, or proposed it remain four lanes is right stock choose, not knowing for sure how the school district intends to get kids to the new school site.
if we do that, it might make a difference.
>> are there sidewalks and bike lanes proposed on the two-lane part.
>> not at this point.
>> I'm prepared to make motion whenever you're ready.
>> so $8.1 million is a two-lane road.
>> it's part two, part four.
and it is 1.2, will make it all four.
>> so the recommendation is that that number be 9.3, roughly.
>> any other comments regarding bee creek?
>> I move that we put the additional portion back in, the 1.2 million, to bring this up to the full project that was proposed.
>> so that total would be 9.3 and some change.
second by Commissioner Gomez.
is that tnr's recommendation?
>> yes, sir.
>> discussion on the motion?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and then there was a recommendation to add taylor lane.
what was the committee's thinking on that?
>> it was, again, an effort to try to keep the overall package below, or as close to what the court had envisioned for this referendum.
taylor lane is one of four projects in essentially the same area.
it's intended to provide relief to the roadway network in the manor area.
and we have been discussing area developers the possibility of sharing the cost of these roadways through some sort of financial mechanism, and we've been working with tom on that, to find that mechanism.
taylor is the most southern leg of this system of roads it kind of stands separate, but it also provides the primary linkage from another large development, which to utilize the balance of the roads all the way north up to 290.
the intention was to reduce the bond referendum, this project is important to keep in just to keep the developers in the area at the table negotiating with us.
if we delete this, it takes impetus away from the largest developers to want to participate with us.
>> taylor is not in right now, right?
>> no, sip, it is not.
>> and the cost?
>> 7.66 million.
>> you were confident we would be able to get a public-private partnership?
>> I believe that we will be able to do that, yes, for this one and several others in that same vicinity.
>> judge that basically hooks in from breaker lane, from that point to taylor lane and points north up to blake maynor and up to 290 so it is a very intrical part of the road network, with all the other road projects we have over there.
>> that would be one way to soften the rejection of the majority's recommendation.
>> our guidelines for public-private partnerships, like the one in 2005 in the case that if the partnership is not perfected, basically the project is not done that wouldn't keep us from considering it further there after, but certainly as part of this deal, it wouldn't get done unless there is a private partner, right?
>> that's correct.
that's what we're working towards.
by the way, the guidelines is another item on this list, we have revised them to beef them up a little bit, as well.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> judge, I move approval over adding this particular project, taylor lane, described by staff to the project list for $7.66 million.
>> all right, I support a public-private partnership, otherwise I don't.
the recommendation is public-private partnership?
>> yes that's past the recommendation.
>> and second by Commissioner Eckhardt.
discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
anything else regard roads, drainage, bike, pedestrian projects?
>> not from me, sir.
>> I agree with the committee, it was hard to stoic that $150 -- hard to stick to that $150 million.
>> it was excruciating, yes.
>> what was the grand total with the addition of these two particular projects that we just added to the list?
>> it is going to be up in the 130, 131 million, right?
just for road, drainage --
>> it is 205 and we just added --
>> I'm just looking at road and drain and.
>> I'm sorry, Commissioner?
>> we're at 205 and just added 1.3 for bee creek and 7.4 for taylor lane.
>> minus the study.
to clarify, you added 2 million, subtract 5th hundred thousand and added 762,000.
before what we had on road is now 1,323,708.
I will need to be rounded and look at the additional portion we will work that out for the court.
>> I don't know what other numbers we will end up with but parks and land, con conservation projects.
there is a list there.
>> I move approval of that list, judge.
>> discussion on the motion?
the, glen, I see the language of the order here.
that does not necessarily mean that's what the ballot language will read, right?
there is a whole lot more in the order than will be on the ballot, right?
>> judge, that is correct.
the proposition is generally much more lengthy than the ballot language.
I think what soil today is some ballot language that we beefed up a little bit, though, to focus on some of the purposes, both for the roads and for the park open space and conservation easement.
>> the changes glen is speak about the legislative version on the top, which is the colored version, and then you have the, it's included to recognize the difference.
that's the latest league judge, you would see on that black line version in the official ballot, you would see where we added significant language to the ballot, particularly on the open space and parkland to make sure the voters were getting information on exactly what the county's purposes would encompass on the conservation easements.
>> we do that in voter education typically, but the language on the ballot is different.
I pulled from 2005 the order was a multipage document.
>> the educational material was probably four pages.
the ballot language was three short paragraphs.
>> in fact, if you looked back at 2005, the ballot language for roads would have said the issuance of x number of road bonds in the levee of a tax and approve payment there of, and on the parkland would have been very, very short, it would have said for the issuance of park bonds.
we have at this point in the draft on both the roads and the parks added some additional language to further elaborate on the types of projects.
we can keep that in or we can go back to very fundamental basic language from 2005.
>> we have an opportunity to review and consider a ballot language on another occasion?
>> the anticipation is that we would, we wanted to get this order in front of this week, we would look at order and the wall ballot, proposition language and next on the 16th we would come back with a final order.
once you adopt that final order that order approves the ballot language and it would, at this point, be set.
on the 16th?
>> on the 16th.
>> I have a question about that.
>> all right.
>> is there any -- I was wondering about whether there was any legal impediment or procedurial or historical that would mack the parks and open space bond proposition number one and the roads and bridges proposition, proposition number two.
>> legal impediment, I believe not.
historical or tradition or whatever you want to call, it historically the road bonds have generally been listed as proposition one.
I don't believe that is any other reason as that's how it's happened and the road bonds in many cases have been the larger proposition and it was put out there first.
>> my other question, with regard to the order itself, since it is -- it seems like the three really meaty parts of the big, long paragraph all involve what most people are looking for, the amount, do you remember duration of thedebt and what its interest any impediment to bolding those three apartments, amount, debt and purposes for portions.
>> in the propositions or in the ballot language?
>> in either one.
since that seems to be what people are looking for.
>> I think the answer seems to be in the ballot language, the answer is you would have to have all of the type face and response in bold and all be uniform in the proposition.
you cannot offset portions of the popsition but bolding it, that is driven by the election code.
>> doesn't mat sore much since the -- matter so much since the ballot language will be that and that alone.
it doesn't say that in the language.
>> it does not.
duration is a limitation, if you look at the proposition written to give you the maximum, I believe it says 40 years, typical debt issuance is 20.
in the propositions, I would have to look back and see.
the proposition, let me say, in your voter information, I think you have the opportunity to highlight potentially you could bold whatever portions of this proposition you wanted to.
I don't know that, beyond that, the order you as public information is going to be posted in accordance with the election code but it is not generally out in public circulation.
>> any other questions regarding the election order, which is i?
>> we didn't do that.
any more discussion?
thank you, miss porter.
>> yes, sir.
>> in checking, the order has the lowman's ford project in it, I believe.
>> let me say at this point the draft order that you have, the numbers will need to change.
that will need to change and the projects will need to be worked in, need to be added, amounts will need to change.
and that would come back next week.
>> I believe you didn't take any action on lowmans, so is it the court's desire to leave it in the extraordinary take it out.
>> no notion.
>> we voted on the project list --
>> no motion.
>> and cam back and specifically voted b and didn't vote lowmans so it is out.
>> you want that order to conform to the list.
>> so the order will come back for a formal vote next week with a correct projects and correct amounts for your consideration.
>> all those in favor of the moment approve parks?
that passes by unanimous vote.
we just discussed the election order, which is i, and we would have to revisit that next week.
but the language otherwise looks pretty good.
so without objection we will have legal see that as our official position today and we look forward to the presentation of, I guess, a final order next week, consistent with the actions taken today.
>> when will you probably have that about ready, leading up into next week's agenda, approximate ballpark?
>> I have one follow-up question but as soon as we get the numbers we can turn it around so probably tomorrow.
later today or tomorrow, we can turn it around pretty quickly.
>> I would like to see it as soon as possible.
it will come back in the same format and ordering as it is now.
>> I understand.
>> unfortunately, I think we need recess for lunch until 1:30 and come back this afternoon.
>> judge, is that request, did you want to talk about the bond covenants, election schedule for proposed propositions.
>> are you implying that glen doesn't look forward to coming back and joining us?
>> [laughter] is that the implication?
glen, you're on the clock.
1:30, you're back on the clock.
I move we recess to 1:30.
>> all those in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court this morning.
we were working our way through item number 17 when the lunch motion caught us.
mr. Nellis has assured me the information we got would cover g.
that was the impact of the bonds and implementation of those projects, what impact they would have on our operating budge nets the future.
that was part of miss rio's report.
any other questions?
if we go back to the beginning of this, a we covered.
b, assumed implementation schedule.
take is that what we covered the cash flow part?
>> we did seven-year period and in your backup it shows how we propose to cash flow that.
>> proposed propositions, were those we discussed as part of the act or different?
>> judge, that can be discussed all together
>> [inaudible] along with --
>> let's call up all three of them.
so proposed propositions in c.
e, bond covenants.
and anything else on i, draft election order.
>> judge, we'll kind of pick up I guess where we left off.
the draft order that you have we can kind of cover it and walk through it if you would like.
right now it sets forth two propositions.
proposition currently numbered number one is the road bond proposition.
as we indicated earlier in the meeting this morning, the numbers will have to change from the draft you have based on the actions the court took earlier today.
those bonds are being issued for road purposes.
fairly standard language in the proposition other than we've added some additional language to specifically identify that it includes without limitation road drainage, bike lanes and sidewalks and replacement and improvement of road bridges.
that is fairly -- other than the bike lanes and the sidewalks, that's almost identical to your 2005 bond proposition.
bond proposition number 2 is the -- essentially a combined proposition, if you would, or a proposition that covers the authorization necessary for the acquisition and improvement of park, parkland and parks.
the acquisition of open space land for park purposes, and also authorizes the issuance of bonds for the purpose of acquiring conservation easements in land and the way it's written at this point, it's for any authorized purpose under the statute, and we have, however, then taken certain of the language right out of the statute to give a sense of what the various authorized purposes can include.
beyond that purpose language, the propositions are fairly -- are standard in their presentation, the format and the authorization of the unlimited road tax, unlimited tax for the road bonds and the limited tax for parks and the conservation easements.
and I guess with that kind of take them one at a time.
if there are questions about the propositions, I'm happy to entertain those at this point.
>> well, I have a major concern about the reimers ranch project.
and my request of the court is to set it out alone.
and the reason I would do that is that way we can educate the public on it specifically and those that like it can vote for it, those that don't, vote against it.
so I would not group it with all the other park projects.
all the other park projects and open space projects I support.
I abstain on the vote on the reimers ranch last time for two weeks ago when it came up.
and the reason for that is that I think it's unfair to the public to give two life estates after paying $20 million to buy the land.
and we don't know whether the husband and wife will live two more years or 20.
and before we gave one of the reimers a life estate in a small part of the total acreage, but in this case the approximately 800 acres we're giving a life estate in roughly 700.
I wouldn't do that.
and so the position puts me in is that is grouped with all the other parks and open space projects, then I have to decide whether to go against what I consider to be an ethical responsibility to support the other projects or whether I'm allowed to vote against the reimers project alone.
I think it ought to be set out there where if I don't want to support it, I don't have to, and if I do I can support it.
this is my position for the first time they were dealing with a life estate.
the problem with a life estate, for the duration of your life, you per ownership over the acreage.
and that would be fine except if after we pay $20 million.
and I just wouldn't do that.
if we did anything, I would carve out a small part of that 780 acres, I think I've heard, but it's a little less than 800 acres.
we can cut out a small part of that and let them live on it as long as they live.
but I wouldn't let them exercise ownership of 700 acres.
that's what -- 85, 90% of the total.
not after spending $20 million of public money to acquire it.
and I don't think -- maybe the average voter will support the project.
I don't have a problem with that.
I do have a problem not fully educating the.
>> lock tore rate and taxpayers and pee not being able to exercise what I consider an ethical responsibility as to that project.
>> and on the list
>> [inaudible] open space?
>> is that it?
>> that's it.
>> we already voted the list.
you are proposing it remain on the list but be separated out in the ballot language?
>> that's why I asked about it.
I thought about it over lunch and we have done that before.
and I have -- I have had sleepless nights over that.
but the first time I heard that it smacked me as not being appropriate.
it would be a different thing if the total was discounted a certain amount of money in order to justify a life estate in 700 acres.
that would be fair, I think, we just explained that, and I think the average taxpayer would understand it.
>> judge --
>> people that I know, people that I know will feel the same way I do about spending $20 million of public money and giving a life estate in it.
>> yes, thank you, judge.
so what you are suggesting is,, of course, I guess let me ask this question of you first.
is there -- can we look at -- you have two propositions here now.
a third proposition as far as what the judge suggested as far as the reimers ranch for the amount of money, the life estate situation being on a separate deal separated from the other open space projects.
>> it is possible.
I think we could -- you could have a third proposition that was for the acquisition of parkland including open space -- acquisition of open space parkland and then limit that by saying to wit and identifying this project and we would have to look at how you would do that, but I think it is possible because you are distinguishing -- you have a third proposition that would be distinguished from proposition 2 in that it was limited to that particular project.
we see this a lot, not necessarily in county bond elections, but in school district bond elections where they will authorize the issuance of bonds for school building purposes and so to wit a new high school.
and then a separate proposition maybe for the football stadium where people can get a sense -- they have segregated out projects and in that sense and voted on them separately.
and it distinguishes the pro propositions.
I think it's entirely open -- you have that authority to do that.
>> could, so it's actually still considered as far as being part of the list, the point it would be voted on in an independent -- in an independent proposition.
>> it would be --
>> that's the essence though of what you are suggesting.
is that correct, judge?
but it makes a big difference because I don't want to be out there campaigning against all the parks and open space projects.
I support the others.
and I really support this one without the homestead right.
without the life estate.
without it, I mean I would be out there just advocating for it too.
and there is a number that is on whole lot better than 700.
>> if I may, a have a couple of points here.
the first one being that I think we can each pick our worry and pick our preferences on this list.
individually we may each have other projects on this list that we may not be as supportive of as certain others.
so I have a little bit of a problem on just carving it out because -- unless we vote as a group to carve it out because I think that a package deal is a package deal.
secondly, I would like to say I think there's kind of apples and oranges here.
we don't really like the deal that much and then there's the project itself and does it fit in the portfolio of what we want, need and what the public wants and needs.
we actually had the largest attended public hearing in precinct 3 with the biggest attendance and this was the biggest project that was supported.
when it comes to looking at components of a deal, we don't always have the luxury of saying, well, we just want to carve out a small piece.
we actually paid more per acre for hamilton pool in the time -- in the current value of dollars when we bought that piece of parcel, what, 20 years ago, 30 years ago.
sometimes we have to take advantage of what we have and we have to look at what the future costs are.
we won't get another chance at this.
we may lose it all together.
it is -- it protects the integrity, especially of the hamilton pool park, but also of reimers ranch.
it is the missing piece in the middle.
so I think we need to look at it from a project standpoint, not the deal standpoint.
it is certainly less than what we've paid for projects -- projects in the past.
and I think that we need to -- it ought to be in the big package because I think if we start picking pieces out, then we're not doing justice to our parks and open space.
>> but we have done that before.
45 southwest stood on their -- separated from all the other road projects.
as far as I know, we didn't give a life estate when we bought hamilton pool.
I wouldn't have voted for it if we had.
>> I thought we did actually.
>> hamilton pool cost 5, 7, 7 million dollars.
we bought the whole ranch which cost a substantial amount of money.
we have already acquired one of the reimers ranches which cost a whole lot of money.
we got hamilton pool, all those three are right there together and this would be a fourth one.
and I'm not against the purchase.
I'm against purchasing this property for $20 million, turning around and giving a life estate to the husband and wife that own it when we don't know how long they will live.
as far as I know they are in good health, but my mom is 91 years old and she will be -- outlive me probably.
so the life estate could be two years or 20.
I wouldn't spend a significant amount of my personal money to do.
that I certainly wouldn't spend up in the 20 million-dollar range.
so what I'm saying is for those that want to do it, even with a life estate, that's fine with me.
it's just not fine with me for me to be forced to vote on this when it's grouped with all the other roads and open space projects, which I have advocated for and supported.
the first time I heard that they were requesting a life estate, it did not make sense.
and I have thought bit and heard about it many times since and it still does not.
it doesn't make sense to me.
and I think ethically the voters ought to be told about the life estate before they vote on it, and if they vote on it in spite of the life estate, that's fine.
but with it hidden among all the other parks projects they won't know.
>> should we put all the deal structures on these other things out to the public?
>> my request is do one.
if other members of court have other requests, it's time to take them.
we have done this before.
this is not normal.
it would be 115, 116 thousand people voting.
but I would like that one person since it's me to at least have the option.
>> I don't think the court is at all divided on the merits of the project, but I share your concerns with regard to the life estate.
it does -- it has chafed me since the beginning that we would be offering a life estate in 700 acres.
that does seem -- I agree that that portion of the deal is rankling.
but I have real concerns -- I know we've done it in the past, but I do have concerns about splitting out projects put to popular referendum on a project by project basis.
it's one thing if we're divide odd the merits of the project to put it out referendum.
if we're divided on the merits of the deal, you know, I know we're living in a time where people don't trust government, but I would hope that the electorate would trust us as a five-person body to negotiate the best terms possible and then walk away if -- if the 700-acre life estate is just too much.
it may not be too much for a majority of the court.
>> or the people.
and that doesn't bother me at all.
>> but I don't think the people should be responsible for negotiating the terms of the deal.
I think only we can be responsible for negotiating the terms of the deal.
>> as county judge, I would never negotiate this kind of deal and take it back to the people and expect them to support it.
I would expect them to do the same thing I am and that is object to it and vote against it if forced to do it.
this is a integral part of the project, in my view.
you can't separate the life estate from rest of the project because we don't get full ownership of the property until the husband and wife have both passed away.
I hope they live long, healthy lives.
and that's why I don't think that any action I take should be based on an early demise.
>> I'm looking at, for instance, the onion creek park space acquisitions.
any one of those individual parcels could end up with life estate negotiation on them as well.
we had a discussion on one of those onion creek parcels with regard to a life estate and I think we walked away from it.
again, I'm trying to make the distinction between the merits of the project versus the merits of the negotiated deal.
I just don't think we can ask the public through referendum in a bond election to weigh in on the merits of the deal.
>> what life estate did we give milton reimers on the other reimers property?
I mean what size was the property?
>> I recall it being maybe 7 or 8 acres, maybe.
>> there's a large difference between 700 and 15 or 20.
>> that the long-term reservation on the reimers thing was essentially an easement to go horseback riding.
that was over the entirety of the property.
>> and I'm willing to give that again.
>> we are still in negotiations.
it remains to be seen exactly what is reserved on that land or not.
>> that's an item today.
>> and I ask glenn, I was hoping we could bring this back next week.
that way we would know for sure what was at stake and I was hoping for positive news on the executive session item.
but if it has to be set out in the order similar to the language that we use in the ballot, that's why I brought it up this afternoon instead of next Tuesday.
>> it will need to be set out in the order that you vote on when you authorize the bond election.
so -- but to the extent you want to go through additional process today and we work the language of the bond election order between now and Tuesday, next Tuesday, I mean we can -- we can turn that around.
>> well, there are 28 road projects, nine large parks, open space projects.
I've got concern on one, about one of them.
that's the one that I'm asking about.
what it will force me to do though if we leave it grouped with all the others, is I educate voters on the whole package.
the whole package totaled $75 million.
20 million is this one.
and 700 -- of the 780 acres, life estate for people that we don't know how long they will live, and there's no maximum there, basically, and so I just -- hey, I won't be around here anyway more than three and a half years from now.
however, I do think that my responsibility is to do the right thing now.
because we're spending so much public money up front.
20 million bucks.
I mean -- and more I think about it, the more unreasonable we would be to do it.
but if we set it out there alone, it certainly frees me up to go out and campaign for the other parks and open space projects and have my say on this one, and then basically yield to the -- to the decision of an informed electorate.
and my problem is I don't know that we meet our ethical duty if we group this one with all the other specific projects.
it doesn't have to be an all or nothing unless we make it that way, and we make that it way if we group all of them together.
>> just to be clear, I don't recall us having this sort of arrangement with any of the onion creek land that we purchased.
I don't recall us ever having a discussion about a life estate on any of it.
just to be real clear.
>> I think we did have one property owner who had asked about that, but we didn't follow through.
>> but we didn't do it because there was discussion and it wasn't to the county taxpayers' benefit.
>> with all due respect with the judge having his opinion, I would like to say, first of all, when the county negotiates for real estate, whether it's parks, open space, someplace we're going to do a facility, the county is at a distinct -- you cannot negotiate real estate deals, you lose -- if it's negotiated in the public, you lose your advantage dealing with the private sector because their dole is not public and our side of it is.
that is why I think what was mentioned earlier was we negotiate in good faith on behalf of the public sector.
we're not going the make what we think is a bad deal, and I respectfully disagree with the judge that this is a bad deal.
because if we look -- to me it is a deal that ties up property that we know we want at some point in the future.
we don't have a bond election but every five or six years.
if we don't figure out a way to tie this up right now, we probably will lose it.
if we waited until five or six years and it happened to be on the market, it is highly possible that we would be paying a lot more than this is now.
so there's more than one way to slice how you look at this.
and we each have our own ways that we evaluate these projects.
the other thing that I would say is that I think it sets a very, very bad precedent for this court for one -- for any member to say I don't like this project, I want it pulled out so I can campaign against it.
because if we do that in the future, then we're going to have problems on -- every time we have a bond election because we're polarizing.
we need to work together.
>> I can't campaign against all of them.
that's the choice I don't want to have to make.
there's nothing wrong with an informed electorate.
if this is a good deal, let an informed electorate go out there and vote for it.
that's all I'm asking for.
>> may I ask just in terms of the language, how much -- what restrictions are there on the ballot language?
how much can we put in the ballot language regarding the relative merits or demerits of the pedernales project if it's separated out as proposition 3?
>> ballot language should set forth the amount of the bonds and a general description of the purpose for the bonds and that there will be a levy and tax in payment of the bonds.
that's the general statutory guidelines after this session.
>> and you can't put additional bells and whistles on it?
>> well, you can provide a general description of the purpose for which the bonds are issued.
I think that's open to interpretation.
>> in terms of campaigning, aren't we barred from campaigning for or against --
>> as you are on other projects, you are going into further detail than you are allowed to go to on the ballot language in the bond covenants.
for example, we've got a great bit of detail about the conditions for our public-private partnerships.
we talk about in the covenant part of the bond order what road projects the money is going for, what parks projects.
I'll defer to glenn, but I think we've got more flexibility in what we put in those parts of the proposition and what we put in the ballot.
>> those parts of the bond election order than we have either in the proposition tore ballot language.
>> so what happens if we put into the covenants specifics about terms of the deal, and then the negotiation changes those terms after publication of the covenants?
>> I'm not asking for that.
all I'm asking for is the same descriptive information that we do on all the other stuff.
you don't have to put down the deal, but you have to put down the name of the project plus the amount.
>> I'm saying doing the public education part is when we talk about the other stuff.
last time we had a color foldout that we used so whatever we use this year we basically have more descriptions about the different projects, which is the public education effort.
I don't know there is anything in law that would keep me from telling the truth to the electorate when wee asking them to approve expenditure of $20 million for a tract of land.
>> I would also add you might have a fuller discussion of this after executive session when we've talked a little bit about the details of -- you know, what we're calling the deal, but Travis County doesn't have a deal yet, but that's what was going to be talked about in executive session.
>> judge, two things.
one, to clarify, what we're talking about acquiring is fee title to the property.
>> that's the issue.
what we are --
>> potential significant potentt determined exactly what the county would acquire.
>> I can hold off until after executive session.
but if I were another court member, I would want to know that one of the five of us feels so strongly about one of the projects that he or she would go out and campaign against the whole package unless it's pulled out.
I would also want to put another member of the court in a position where they can exercise their ethical judgment about a particular project if they chose to do so.
so I don't think there is any beauty in being quiet if there is something that disturbs you.
I think it would be counterproductive.
I would want you to express whatever issues you have so we can try to work together and figure out a way to deal with them.
what I'm asking for is pretty simple to me.
we just list this separately where those that want to give a public education to support it can do so.
those that don't feel as strongly in support can indicate that.
and ultimately I'm hoping the public will be informed and make an informed decision.
after that we basically live with it.
>> judge, as I understand it, you would say we would have a third proposition that would be for the acquisition of open space parkland, to wit the acquisition of reimers ranch.
>> and the amount of money.
>> and the amount of money.
not that you would further try to get into the details of the deal.
>> that's what do you when you are talking with the public.
now, what the news people pick up, and I have been speaking eloquently today, is there business.
they kind of control that.
but we depend on them to help us get out the word anyway.
so while I have a kind of negative perspective over the life estate, four members of the court are a lot more positive, I think.
that doesn't bother me.
and so I'm sure that will be reflected.
>> did your question get answered about what the Commissioners court can do as far as campaigning for the bond election?
I didn't hear --
>> the county as an entity cannot expend public funds to -- for or against to promote the proposition.
I think as individuals each of the Commissioners have the right to support or not support on their own time whatever they want to support.
>> well, I certainly hope that, you know -- I remember during the 2005 bond election, I was out there talking to more folks than I ever wanted to as far as making sure that they supported that.
and, of course, we were very successful in that regard as far as getting the support from the electorate to support the bond initiative in 2005.
this is no different.
if folk -- like I say, it's going to depend.
we put stuff on the ballot, but believe me, the voters are pretty sharp around here.
they know what's going on on on lot of issues.
very intelligent voters we have in Travis County.
and, of course, I'm going to try to continue to work toward that end to make sure that the voters support -- support the ballot.
how it shakes down is a whole different ball game, but if it needs to be a proposition 3, I have no qualm with that either.
just the fact that the voters are going to decide one way, shape, form, fashion if any of these particular propositions they are in favor of.
and that's my challenge is to make sure that we get the support of the voters on these different projects.
but again, you know, to each his own as far as what they do out there.
but it doesn't bother me at all to look at this.
and they ask me the question, you know, they pose the question, I'll answer the best of my ability with the information that I have.
but we do need to inform the voters.
I think it's very important that to be informed on what you are voting on if the information isn't readily available in front of them.
and that's why this private partner -- private partnership, the conservation easement, the parks, all this stuff is very important and I'm going to try to educate and arm myself to the best of my ability to abs the questions I know I'm going to be asked and I think everyone is going to be asked questions educational wise as far as how should I vote, you know, what's the deal here.
so I just think we need to arm ourselves accordingly, and that means educating on reimers, this particular deal.
I didn't know that.
how they vote out that's their business but at least they have the knowledge of what we're talking about on each one of those particular propositions.
>> Commissioner and Commissioner Eckhardt, one of the things we've already talked to the county attorney's office, that's coming back on the court at some point and having a briefing for the court on what the dos and don'ts on campaigning, what the county can do and what the ethics rules are as far as promotion of the bond election, expenditure of public funds and those rules and regulations.
we'll have a session at length we hope to at some point pretty quickly to refresh everybody on those rules.
>> right, yeah, that would be fine.
I don't think I violated the law so far.
>> how did you vote and why.
you answer the question.
>> you can answer the question.
>> you have to answer.
>> and that's the problem.
I want to be able to stand and tell the truth.
now, I don't have to be right, but I have to be right in my recollection of how I voted and the reasons why for it.
generally I go armed with that.
when you are out educating voters on the ballot especially during these tough times and this kind of money, seems to me that you ought to be willing to stand behind your position, and I'm saying that unless the facts have changed a whole lot on the deal involving the period peders project, I'm not going to look people in the eye and say I support it and it's a good deal for us.
the deal may have changed is what mr. Nuckols hinted to a minute ago.
do we need to take action on that part today?
>> no, we do not.
and we can keep the propositions open and work them -- finalize them through the week and try to bring back the final product to the court next week.
>> we need to change the language to reflect what we did this morning.
>> and the other little piece is hanging as far as I know is just this one.
and you'll I'm asking for at the appropriate time is we take a volt out and I'm going to make the motion.
if it dies, no problem, but I feel duty bound to say if this is just lumped with all the others, then my public education would be basically we ought to vote against the whole package.
and I hate to do that because the other eight or so projects I fully support and have from the beginning.
this one when I first heard about the terms, I indicated that I thought we would not be reasonable to do that.
I use stronger language than that.
I used loco, what I thought we would be loco to do it.
>> and I think we would be loco not to do it.
>> no problem.
you see how public education is?
>> [laughter] what else, mr. Opal.
thanks for such a lively discussion opportunity.
>> serious to point out real quick one of the other items is bond covenants.
you will notice if you flip the pages to section 5, we have a number of sections there.
these essentially mirror the same type of provisions that you had in '05 and I believe they go back in similar fashion even earlier than that.
in each case there's language, there are covenants in the document that allocate certain portions of the amounts in both the parks project proposition and -- and the road proposition to specific projects in specific precincts.
we've got language in there that allows -- if for some reason funds in those amounts that are allocated to precincts to do the projects that is correct the court has the ability to allocate or if there are funds left over with respect to funds allocated to a precinct that those can be used for other projects listed under that section.
and ultimately could be used if there was surplus bond proceeds for any county road project or as relates to the parks any county park -- any county park project.
>> or the bond could be defeased.
>> assuming you had projects and you had some other voter authorization you did not want to revote the next time.
but it gives you that flexibility.
it's an allocation to the precincts for various projects with flexibility built in on how you work with either deficiencies or surpluses and try to provide some ultimate flexibility within the proposition language.
this is very similar to what we did in '05.
there's also, you'll notice under the roads, there is a separate allocation of voted authorization to those projects that we classify or that are commonly referred to as the pickup private partnership projects.
those projects that you are going to authorize bonds for but with respect you expect to have a public-private partnership that meets the guidelines in place.
and what we've done is we've allocated those amounts to those projects, said that we'll do them in those guidelines are met, but if by a certain date there's not a public-private partnership agreement in place, that that allocation at the discretion of the court can be removed.
from that project.
>> or if the terms of the deal on the public-private partnership is not attractive to us.
if you don't approve the agreement, any agreement by that time whether it's because you don't like it, they don't like it, whatever the reason is beyond, what is it, December 31, 2014, if there's not an agreement in place, we've built in the flexibility for you to come in and say that project is not going anywhere.
we're going to move that authorization to other projects.
and just those are the bond covenants kind of in a nutshell that we have.
we haven't added anything different or new in that regard.
as represents to the rest of the bond election -- relates to the rest of the bond election order, that's pretty much fair.
we do need to before next Tuesday get a list of the -- before we can adopt the won't election order, and we're hoping that's before next Tuesday, we'll have from the elections division the actual exhibit a which is list of precincts and voting locations, polling places.
we could get hung up and delayed a little bit if those are not ready by next Tuesday.
now, let me ask this question to you, glenn, especially on the public-private partnership.
I want to make sure that if -- let's say the voters -- let me put a scenario up to you.
let's say the voters approve certain road projects, and for whatever reason the developers are unable to come up with their end of the deal, whatever that arrangement is at that time.
my understanding that the money that the voters have authorized to use on that particular project now, that money at that time still resides in that precinct for the road project was to occur?
>> at this point and the way we did it in 2005, the public-private partnerships are a pod -- are a subset of their own.
they are not divided into precincts.
now, the distinction would be that to the extent there's a project that doesn't go, it doesn't mean that it necessarily goes to another one of those projects.
the court would have the flexibility to look for any other county road project to apply that voted authorization.
>> all right.
but what I'm saying, though, I know --
>> go back to answer, if answer on the public-private partnerships is that money is allocated to projects, not to -- not by precinct at this point.
>> okay, but my concern is that these particular projects are within boundaries of precincts.
of course, I know it won't be looked at as far as bond, but this list of projects all over the county.
and earlier years, I think in the 2005, for an example, we had a tier structure.
and, of course, if it didn't -- if something fell through where they were unable to develop and county couldn't come up with an agreement, there were other persons that looked at this and other developers that looked at this and it went to the next tier.
in other words, it was broken off into tiers.
and I guess, I don't know if that will still apply in some instances or will it just -- I'm really trying to get the gist of it.
>> well, I think you are correct n 2005 there was a list of what was called tier 1 projects.
that were the pry number funded.
it was based on the amount of money allocated to this kind of purpose.
to the extent there wasn't -- and it was a little different in 2005.
because of the tiering, if the project in tier 1 was not -- there wasn't a public-private partnership in place by a date certain, then the allocation automatically terminated.
and that allocation would roll to any tier 2 project.
to the extent you had projects in tier 1 that did not get funded and it rolled to tier 2, if the tier 2 project, you dominod it and it didn't have agreement, it then became available for any county road project.
if I recall that.
it was not divided by precinct, it was divided by tiering because there was only a certain amount of money allocated and there was some tier -- the projects were prioritized into tier 1 and tier 2 and the money went to the extent it just flowed down the priority.
here there hasn't been a designation of any -- any of these projects as having a different tiering status.
they are all getting an allocation up front.
whereas the tier 2 projects didn't get an initial allocation in '05.
here they are all getting initial allocation to the extent there's money not used ,that money can be reallocated and we've made it discretionary at this point for the court after that date so it's not automate being but it's discretionary it could be allocated to any other county road project.
>> is that it?
>> that's it.
unless you want to get into the precincts and the guts of an election, I think that would cover the substantive part of the bond election order.
>> so that was c, proposed propositions, right?
>> we've covered c, e and i.
>> any other questions about those?
so we will see another draft of thinks and hopefully a final one next Tuesday?
>> yes, and that depends on whether or not there's any other -- the draft tires I await.
>> maybe this is a good jump, judge, to h, which is the election schedule.
we have to adopt the order calling the election no earlier than 90_ before the election and no later than 62_.
62 -- 62 days.
timely enough to work with the county clerk's office to justice department filing for the countywide election as a whole.
we've structured the end of that schedule August 16th as the proposed date for adoption of the election order.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> I'm just wondering when are we going to look at that portion?
>> well, I thought we had kind of decided not to include those on the November --
>> no, no, I'm just saying the when.
I'm just --
>> this is just for us to say, not included in this election, right?
>> more importantly to some of the constituents --
>> let's just get it done.
>> that's what they wanted to hear.
>> that's in part of the cos that ms. Rio incorporated in her cash flow analysis, right?
>> debt model.
>> we promised txdot we would do that if they approved the project and they approved them, so in my view we have kind of committed to issue cos for this.
>> I sawt them in the -- saw them in the debt model and I know that we didn't really -- it is there.
we didn't really flush it out.
I thought maybe -- I thought maybe as fairly as we can.
if we can wait on that, judge, I have no problem, but I wanted to make sure it was still left on the table, in the debt model discussion.
>> I thought we were going to just do those and we want to just clarify today that they are not part of the proposed 2011 bond election.
>> no, no, of course.
but just wanted to make sure that we visited in the scheduling, judge --
>> one technical matter on that.
they will not -- they will not be included as part of your co package.
they're separate stand-alone statutory authority for you to issue bonds for the -- to finance through the pass-through toll authority, that would be limited tax and pass-through financing bonds that are issued under a separate statute other than the co statute.
>> they're just shown, for example, in the model under the cos, just because it would -- to show that they were taking up some of that deck capacity right now.
that -- that lays it out, then.
>> this has been good work, al.
>> there was just one other thing, judge, we can bring up next week as well.
on the related issue, you recall the rolling owner control insurance program?
>> something we need to think about next time.
>> and we do have a description in the backup?
>> let us carefully read there between now and next Tuesday and be ready to discuss it fully.
>> and I'll try to do a better job of which time we'll reach this item and what time we'll conclude it.
>> [laughter] thank you all very much.
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.