Audit and Finance Committee (AFC) Special Called Meeting Transcript – 2/3/2026 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 2/3/2026 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 2/3/2026 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. [1:00:08 PM] It's 1:00, so I will call to order the Austin audit and finance committee of the Austin city council for this special called meeting. It's February 3rd, 2026. We are meeting in city council chambers, which are located in city hall, which is at 301 west second street, and we have a quorum. We have all of the audit and finance committee present. The mayor pro tem is joining us virtually. With that being said, I will turn and ask if we have anyone signed up to speak and call their name. >> No, we do not. >> Okay. Very good. And we have no one signed up to speak. Members that will take us to. The first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes. I have an addition that I want to make to the minutes, and I must admit, I didn't think about it until I saw them here sitting on the dais. So with if there's no objection, I'll bring those to the next meeting of the audit and finance committee so we can add that, because I need [1:01:09 PM] to write something as a proposal, if that's okay with everybody. And let me just tell you what it is. We voted on an item, and I want to make sure that the minutes properly reflect that. There was a vote on that item, and it just indicates that there was a discussion. So I want to I want to add to that. All right. With that being said, that will take us to item number two, which is discussion and possible action regarding a framework for developing a general obligation bond program. That is the discussion about the decision TRE members. The other day, I posted on the message board in response to things that I just hear about in terms of questions and thoughts, I posted two things on the message board. One was an updated version of the proposed message I'm sorry, proposed decision TRE. And in that, working with the financial staff, we added a couple of things to it. One is we added [1:02:11 PM] what was already existing policy of the city. We also added the existing staff procedure and then where we made changes based upon comments that have been made by the audit and finance committee and other comments that were out there, we we made some additional changes to this. My guess is that today we will we will talk about some some even potentially some more changes. But that's the whole purpose of this, this the meetings. The other thing I did is I posted some general q&a related to the potential decision TRE. So I just mentioned those things as part of the process we're going through. With that, I'll open it up for discussion and let me but let me ask first, if Mr. Vanino, do you have anything you want to add to what I just said or anything you want to say? [1:03:15 PM] >> I don't, mayor, but of course, here I'm here for any questions that might come up during your discussion. >> Very good. All right. Well then let me. Members, is there anybody wants to start off this discussion? Yeah. Councilmember alter. >> Thank you very much. I really appreciate the work that y'all both done on this. I know this has been a team effort. >> It has been. >> And being able to, you know, more concretely put down a lot of the questions I think a lot of us are asking and trying to figure out where we go with this, when's the right time, the scope and all that. The big question I have for you, and we've had a little of this discussion at previous meetings. It's the current financial policy that we have about not going for a bond election unless there are two years or fewer of bonds remaining to be issued. And I think at the outset, I think I mentioned the last meeting. I think this is a [1:04:16 PM] financial policy that needs some adjusting. It's just on its face. Not clear given that at the last meeting you, I was either you or someone mentioned that the way we interpret that is 90% of the bonds, which is not actually what the financial policy says. Right. So our policy is 90%, then it needs the policy should say 90%. But also I just I continue to have a concern around a particular department that may be way behind, and they might have four years worth of spend plan left and them holding up everybody else. I think that's just a question we need to grapple with and figure out how we roll that into the policy, and minds may differ. I think we just need to have a conversation around that. >> And if it's if it's appropriate, my, my, my kind of instinctive reaction to that is that in preparing a proposed [1:05:21 PM] decision making framework, and one of the first steps you would do is you will focus on what are your policies, right? Especially when those the failure to follow those policies in a disciplined way may put the current group of us into somewhat of a box. And I'm going to react in a couple ways. One is that. If we're going to change the policy, then I think that ought to have us engage in a discussion about the policy and maybe even set it separate from the framework for decision making. Because I think that that there's been a lot of questions about how we go about that. And that would allow us, I think, to have a more robust [1:06:22 PM] discussion about why you have the policy. What why you what, what kind of exceptions you might have to the policy and why those exceptions would be there and actually make it as a, as a discussion about because, for example, one of the things the decision TRE attempts to do is create an opportunity for an exception. It may not be the best, it may not be the wording we end up with, but it's the idea that you would take into consideration. We might be in in different circumstances. We would take into account the context in which you're making decisions. But that's a policy decision. That's not a necessarily a framework decision. So what I would recommend, or at least I'm thinking we ought to do, is if we if we're bothered by that in [1:07:24 PM] the decision TRE, then we need to have a full discussion about the two years. >> And I completely agree. I think as we you are clearly taking what exists today and putting it here, and I think that makes complete sense. And so either we do have that discussion about the policy itself. And you know, we've got three weeks between now and the next to either start that discussion or this language could just point to that policy. So if we do adopt the policy it would kind of automatically change. Right. So our are the amount of bonds remaining to be issued consistent with financial policy or something like that. Just kind of thinking out loud here. >> But I. >> Would like and again this is just an idea. This is not I'm not beholden to this. That's the reason we're having it is a kind of a discussion is if we're going to do this early [1:08:25 PM] enough in the year that it's meaningful, then probably the 26th is when we need to do it right. And so if we're going to make it as a recommendation from the audit and finance committee, creating some language where but with the recognition in the motion, I think would be that we're not going to pass this unless we've had a full discussion about the policy and bring that we won't have time. I'm not going to try to have another special meeting of the audit finance committee, but have a real discussion about that at some point before we then vote on this and maybe even post that for that meeting. But, Mr. Benigno, we're doing a lot of your missing in your business. So tell us what you think about all that. >> Well, I do think and we do this every year. Staff typically brings forward proposed tweaks and changes to our financial policies because stuff changes, best practices change. And so every year staff [1:09:26 PM] will typically bring forward 2 or 3 policy recommendations, policy change recommendations to audit finance to get your feedback, and then ultimately your recommendation for approval. And then we incorporate those into the budget for ultimate approval by the city council. So this would be fully appropriate role for the and historic traditional role for the audit finance committee to take up an existing policy and to, you know, seek to to alter it. Yeah. >> Okay. Well, other than that, I really appreciate the updates that that you have made here. You know, highlighting a few that I, I think are really important that kind of minor, but, you know, making sure our projects have environmental benefits associated with them. That's something that's really important. I know to myself and, and this council. And then also really piggybacking on the discussions we had earlier today about how the city operates, not we want to make sure that we're addressing [1:10:27 PM] deferred maintenance because things get more expensive both to rebuild them. But if you invest in, let's say, a facility or a new or existing that can actually lower operational costs, and that's something that we should always be conscious of as well. So just want to say appreciate that being rolled in here. I'd certainly love to listen to what everyone else has to say, and we'll go from there. >> And we can take a stab at revising that policy just based upon what we've heard today. I mean, off the cuff, it's generally good to have your policies be clear, but not overly prescriptive. The way staff will talk about it is substantial completion. You know, we we kind of have been quantifying that as 90% done. But in in essence, the bond program is substantially complete for any variety of reasons. There could be a long tail to the final spending occurring. You know, you can look at some of the tables, Kim, [1:11:28 PM] all of ours is going to share in a bit. You'll see that there's a little bit of money still remaining from 2012. That does not mean and it should not mean. Well, we still have. We still have bonds, you know, remaining to be issued. We shouldn't do it, you know. So we really look at it in terms of substantial completion. And that would be the kind of language here that maybe it would make sense to include that in there. You know, two, two years of bond remaining, you know, and substantial completion of the of the bond program or something along those lines, as opposed to prescribing 90 or 90 5 or 85%. And again, that's how staff has been interpreting this policy. But I think in addition, like that would would be an improvement. >> Great. And actually one more and this is a really minor edit on the box. Under the blue box under the no. Does the proposed bond election meet the following urgency conditions? Just either a clarification in that top part or after the very first bullet, if it's an and, or an or just for the future. >> It's I believe it's meant to [1:12:29 PM] be as an end right now. Okay. >> Because I could I'm just trying to think through, you know, if you have a significant community need, but that it wouldn't have the federal or state you wouldn't run afoul of state or federal law would. Do we want to think of those separately or together? And that's just a clarification was seeking. And we'll where in the pink part the the box on the left. Does the proposed bond election meet the following urgency conditions. And then there's you have the significant community need that cannot be addressed through non voter approved debt or basically reserves. And then a delay in funding to or delaying funding to address the identified community need would result in noncompliance with federal or state regulations. >> But that has an or in it to see. That's the difference. I get what you're saying, but there are three there are three elements to that, and not just federal or state. >> Yes. Okay. I'm with you now. [1:13:31 PM] All right. Just wanted to understand the. >> The idea being that if nobody's made a recommendation for a bond election, you're not going to have a bond election unless you have an unforeseeable and unanticipated urgent need. And that would delay. If you don't do something, you're going to delay funding that would help you with federal or state regulations. You'd be in noncompliance federal. It would cause irreparable harm to all or a segment of the community, or it's an economic loss to the city. So you might not be delaying anything with regard to the federal or state, but you would still have a bond election because it it creates irreparable harm to a portion of your community, or it causes an economic loss to the city that okay. >> I will. >> Hang on one second. Mayor pro tem. >> Just on that point, I would this was kind of thought about by staff and added as a true belts and suspenders. It's hard for me just to come up with an example of where this would [1:14:32 PM] actually come into play because of in the first part, it talks about, there's this unforeseeable, unanticipated, urgent community need, and it can't be met through other mechanisms, you know. So I think back to the onion creek floods, where we we had a lot of homes were damaged and people were literally living in their driveways of these flooded out homes. And so the city did an urgent nonvoting debt issuance of $78 million to do those property buyouts. And so I've not really yet thought of an example of where this may come into play, but it was just, again, to be full belts and suspenders that if there was a need to do a bond election to meet this type of circumstance, it was clear in the policy that that clear in the framework that that had been a vision. But again, I think in every circumstance I could see or think of, it would just be, no, we would come to council with this is an urgent action, and we recommend issuing non voter approved debt for, for this issue. So I just wanted to put that out there. I don't necessarily see this as being [1:15:33 PM] restrictive. It was really intended to be. We want to make sure every potential potentiality is covered. And that was considered in here. >> Okay. Yeah. Mayor pro tem, I'm sorry to cut you off. >> No, not at all. I understand, because the version that you have up here is the the let me call it version one, but I understand that there is a version two floating around with some changes and, and whatnot. Could could we get that one up? >> Yeah. I wasn't looking at what was on the screen so I agree. Yes I agree with you. Can we how do we get that done. And that's the one by the way that the one you're at calling for mayor pro tem is the one that council member alter was asking questions about because he he made specific reference, for example, on environmental benefits. >> Yeah. And I just wanted to to make sure that we're all working off the same. >> No, you're right. I'm glad you I'm glad you did it. That's. >> And actually my staff just sent me that version two. And I [1:16:37 PM] mean, I think it's, it's it's honestly fine. I do have that kind of two year citywide financial policy that are there two years or fewer of estimated voter approved bonds remaining to be issued? I'm still kind of struggling with how to square that with the differing departmental needs. I I'm just trying to understand that. I don't know if, for example, Mr. Benigno could, could, could, could touch on that a bit. >> Well, and before he does that, let me just say I think that's really what councilmember alter was talking about as well. And, and what I was saying was, and I really believe if we're going to, to change that the way it's currently worded, if you change it in any way other than sort of what councilmember alter was suggesting, and I'm going to come back to some potential language, then you're changing the policy and the vehicle for [1:17:38 PM] changing the two year, what I'll call generally, the two year policy shouldn't be a framework for decision making, but what we could do in this version is make that box instead of it reading. Are there two years or fewer of estimated voter approved bonds remaining to be issued? Make it for now. And what the recommendation of the committee would be to the full council with the idea that we would. Change, probably make make some decisions about the two year policy, have the question be something to this effect. And y'all, I'm going to read it out loud and y'all start editing. Is this consistent with policy related to the number of years? Or substantial completion of estimated voter approved bonds remaining to be issued? Put [1:18:42 PM] that in there, which would cover us on whatever the policy is. But it also then would allow us to prepare for the 26th and maybe even the work session on the 24th to have a complete discussion about the two year policy. It would allow our professional financial staff to bring us any recommendations. And then if we change that, we can always change this back to whatever the policy says, or leave it where it just says it's consistent with that. And miss Ito, do you have a comment on that? >> Well, I think what you're I think that would work. And I think we could make some offer, some tweaks to the policy in its current form. That would be an improvement. I think that that that existing policy of are there two years or fewer estimated voter approved bonds remaining to be issued should really be considered, along with the other existing policy of bond propositions have been sized such that all projects [1:19:42 PM] can be delivered within six years. If both of those things are clicking and working, this works really, really well. What happens is, is when we've not been as methodical and thoughtful about our bond projects or, you know, programs and taking them to the voters, getting them approved, the sizing of them. We've been bringing bond programs maybe that weren't fully or far enough along in the design process for us to have a really, really good handle on how long they're going to take to deliver and how much they were going to cost, then it's caused problems. But if these are really being adhered to, I look at it like the operating budget, the best way to do an operating budget is once a year. We bring all the different council and community priorities forward, and we look at our funding constraints and we make a decision about how we want to allocate the operating budget. I think that is by far the best way to do a bond program as well, whether it's every five years or every six years, which is what our policy calls for. But on a regular cadence, we're saying we are going to have a comprehensive community [1:20:42 PM] discussion about what our capital needs are, what our priorities are, how much tax money we're willing to collect in order to cover all those expenses. And then we size everything for six years. And that's very important on the staff side that we manage it like a six year program. So if we go through this process and the council says we're comfortable with $30 million for sidewalks, okay, that's a six year program, that means we need to spend about 5 million a year on sidewalks. Don't spend 10 million because then you'll run out of money and you won't have anything for your staff that delivers those programs to do. The council has elected to put onto the ballot 30 million a year for sidewalks. The voters have approved that. We need to manage the program like it's a $30 million sidewalk program. And then when we get to about two years of bond money left, we start the whole cycle over again, go to the voters with a new six year authority, and it works really well. I would caution council against, you know, if it's working well. I think it's the way we want to be, you know, as opposed to having one off [1:21:44 PM] decisions on a variety of things. So, you know, this department didn't manage its bond allocation. You know, they were too aggressive and they spent it too fast, and now they're out of money. And so now we're going to do a special election just for them. But then that kind of you don't have the full picture. You don't know what the other priorities might, might be. So that's my that's why I think these policies have served the city very, very well for the for the several decades that they've been in existence. I think it's just in more recent times we've strayed from those policies. And that's why it now appears that they really make sense. But I think when they're working, they do make sense. And if we can get everything synced back up to sizing our different propositions for six years, and then when we're two years out, we have another election, I think it's going to work really well for the council and makes it more predictable for the community and staff members. >> Yeah. And mayor, if I may follow up with Mr. Benigno and I completely understand that, [1:22:45 PM] and I'm glad to hear that it has worked well in the past. The reality is, though, right now we're a little out of whack in terms of some departments have more money than than than others. How does that policy then kind of interact with where we are today? That that's kind of my, my, my concern because again, we have a department like for example, a parks that has if I'm recalling the presentation correctly, I think $25 million of capital funds left. Their last bond was I believe 2018. You know they're in need of capital funds. If we want to continue to to to develop our parks. How how does that kind of the current situation, how do you see the current situation interacting with our established policy? >> I think there's two options there. And I think in the past the city's used both of those. And I think this framework allows for either of these. One would be to look at nonvoting debt, to say, you know, what [1:23:45 PM] are we talking about? Where where do the gaps exist? And are those gaps, you know, how how big are they? And are they allowable under state law for nonvoting debt? Another way would be what you saw in 2010. So we did a comprehensive bond in 2006. The next comprehensive bond was in 2012. In 2010, we had a one off election for only $90 million. And it was that exact situation where a couple areas had run out of funding. And so we did a bridge bond to get us back in sync. So we've done both of those in the past, and we can certainly look at our current situation. You know, I think when you look at parks, maintenance, sidewalks, which I've mentioned previously, those are some areas right now where we are short funding. And then there's of course, other areas where we have plenty of funding to get us through the next two years, but we could use either of those methods to get things back into sync. >> And mayor pro tem, as we've worked on this, one of the things that I would add to that [1:24:45 PM] answer is that the framework allows for, as Mr. Benigno has just pointed out, the framework allows for that to be considered. And we've actually, I think, improved the language so that down in the rectangular block on the left hand side at the bottom, has city council considered any of the required conditions due to unique or urgent circumstances? And I think that gives the city council the opportunity to do as Mr. Benigno just indicated. Set aside his first part of the answer, which is non voter approved debt. It gives the council the ability to say, okay, things have played out in such a way where we have a unique set of circumstances and we have a need here. That's the way I, that's the way I read that. >> I appreciate that and I think that's a very helpful. And I will say that the version two, it looks fine to me. Again, I think pending some additional kind of conversation and [1:25:45 PM] thought about these kinds of things like that. But and I don't want to cut short the conversation, but I would be fine with, with moving this out of committee into the full council's consideration for the, I guess, the February 26th meeting. Right? >> Yes. Hang on one second. Let's let the let the council member speak, and then I want to recognize Mr. Rogers. >> I just the. >> Version two, are we referencing what mayor pro tem vela posted on the message board last night? Or is what's in our packet? Version two? >> Let me see. No, that's that's that's the one that's up on the I don't know how this. >> So what he posted on the message board. >> No not his message. Oh it's a different than his message board post. It's the one that's on the screen right now. You got you got copies. Okay. Hang on. Max is going to hand out copies. Assistant city manager. [1:26:48 PM] >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. And I don't want to veer too much away from the policy, but there's. I just wanted to add some things. As you're making this decision, whether it's two years or 90%, I think there's some operational items that also need to be attached to this. And that's a really a project management information systems or some type of transparency tools, which we're working on. So you all myself and the public can also see where every one of those projects is at any particular point, whether it's the dollar spend or the construction. So they know exactly where we're at. So it's not a surprise when we get to this point of making a decision. We want to make sure that we have the higher level of transparency. So that's one of the things that I think really needs to be a part of this process. So we have the ability to monitor the situation so things don't get too out of whack. [1:27:52 PM] >> And that would that we could do that sort of thing as part of any policy discussion that we make going forward. Yeah. Good. Thank you very much for that. Yes. Councilmember duchen. >> Thank you, mayor, and thanks for everybody's work on getting us to the latest version. I had a couple of questions. One is around the idea of the urgency conditions. And I'm curious because I know in some early conversations I've had, I was just trying to understand if a department came to us and said, hey, look, if we don't invest in X, Y, Z, it would, you know, this potential building could cost infinitely more money to repair three years from now than if we do it now, which I assume falls under the economic loss to the city. Part of the urgency conditions. My question, though, is what sort of [1:28:54 PM] information could we expect to be shared so that we have sort of a landscape perspective on what those funding needs might look like, so that we can understand whether we're meeting those urgency conditions. Has any have you have you all thought through sort of what sort of or maybe there's information that already exists out there that I don't know about that would have that kind of detail in it. So we can make we could either make that decision the correct decision as part of the decision TRE. >> I think that's probably going to vary depending upon the circumstance, but it would be incumbent upon staff at the time to bring it forward to the audit finance committee to kind of, you know, say that, yes, that we agree with staff's assessment of that and that box is checked. So it's a little harder, like I was saying, to think forward where this might come into play. But looking back the again, the onion creek [1:29:55 PM] floods, buyouts, if you know right now that was and still is allowed for nonvoting debt. And that would definitely be our recommendation and the circumstance like that. We need to move quickly. We shouldn't be waiting till November before we take action to help those victims. But state law changes, you know. And so if state law changed so that we are not allowed to issue voted non voter approved, we would have to have some type of election. And this essentially would would would be the provision that would allow for that. It's an emergency situation and it would be harm to the community if we weren't to move forward with it, even though some of these other conditions might not be met. So it would be that kind of circumstance that we'd be looking looking at. >> So is the example I just offered. Would that qualify then, if it's not the same level of urgency as a, as a flood where we need to act immediately? >> Yeah, some of this, some of this language and we're trying to rely on kind of past practices. And so the things like urgent and unanticipated [1:30:56 PM] and economic loss to the city, these are you'll find that same type of language in our policy about non voter approved debt, which essentially says our, you know, your your priority as a city council is to get voter approval for debt. But in certain circumstances where it's an urgent issue, it was unanticipated. It would result in an economic loss to the to the to the city and those types of circumstances. And it actually does include in there things like addressing life health, safety issues at city facilities. So if we had a facility that was had so much deferred maintenance, there was dangers of working in that facility, we would issue, you know, we would address that with non voter approved debt. My main thought was on this is to make this as resilient as possible. And state law does change every, every year it seems, in regards to some issue of city finances and certainly [1:31:56 PM] allowable uses of certificates of obligation, non voter approved debt is something that's discussed every year. And so there could be a change that puts restrictions on there where now we would have to go to the voters for things. And that's the main reason I felt that provision was was was necessary. Not so much that as things exist today, I don't think it would probably come into play. It's hard to imagine a circumstance where something would come into play that was truly urgent in nature. And, you know, and we had the ability to do nonvoter debt that we wouldn't choose to do that. >> Okay. I appreciate you clarifying that and and pointing in the direction of the policy regarding the non voter approved debt that I can go refer to. The only other question I've got is. When miss Lang presented to us a couple of weeks ago and shared with us what the taxpayer impact would be on debt, I think she was probably referring to debt in general as we issue it. I want to just make sure that that would apply to that. That would [1:32:57 PM] apply equally to both voter approved and non voter approved debt. When she talked about like, was it $14.38 for the average ratepayer for every $100 million? Yeah. >> That that's that's the same for non voter approved okay. That's yes we would present all of it. >> Got it okay. Thank you. >> Yes. Councilmember Fuentes. >> Mayor I just want to make sure because I know that we do have a 20 plus advisory citizen bond advisory committee that follows along. And they're especially tuning in today for this conversation around bond decision TRE that councilmember mayor pro tem vela posted last night a his amendment to the decision TRE. We have before us a version two. It seems like you've incorporated some of what he suggested. >> That's what this is an effort to take what he did last night and put it into a proposal for an amendment, and that's what he was just saying with, with, with the exception [1:33:57 PM] of his continued concern about two years, he thinks I've incorporated it enough that he would be okay with it, assuming we have the right motion on the two years. >> Okay. So this version two incorporates some of what. >> Yes, it's it's based upon what we saw on the message board. >> Okay. And mayor pro tem is that is there anything else that you want to speak to, what you had proposed on the message board. And as it relates to what's been incorporated on version two? >> No, I think that that incorporates just about everything that I was suggesting, honestly, some of it with better language, the priorities, I think the way that those are laid out, the priorities. I think that's a good way to to express it. Again, I, I feel like we can get to a resolution on the kind of the two year and the exception and those kinds of things like that. But but I think largely this does incorporate the, the, the suggestions that that I had [1:34:58 PM] yesterday. >> And again, what I would suggest is that when we when, if we're ready for a motion, when we take the motion, when I take the motion, the motion would be that the upper the rectangular box in the upper right hand corner that currently talks about the two years that that be changed for the motion to go to the full council to ask the question, is this consistent with policy related to the number of years or substantial completion of estimated voter approved bonds remaining to be issued? And that way it leaves us the flexibility. Now, if we don't change the two year policy, it would be it would be consistent. It would basically be the same thing as it's worded now, but it would give us as a council the opportunity to come back by [1:35:58 PM] the February 26th meeting with reliance, total reliance upon the professional financial staff to bring us some language with regard to that, that two year or substantial completion policy. And we might not even need to change the language of of the decision framework, the decision TRE, because we'll have a different policy. Okay. >> Would you mind reading that one. >> More time? Sure. And let's hope that I keep saying it the same way. Is this consistent with policy related to the number of years or substantial completion of estimate of estimated voter approved bonds remaining to be issued? And by the way, there may be better language if I have more time to think about it than that is, and we'll work on that between now and the 26th as well. I'll read it again. Is this consistent with policy related to the number of years or substantial completion of [1:36:59 PM] estimated voter approved bonds remaining to be issued? Thank you. Other comments or discussion? Okay, mayor. >> Assuming the I'm sorry for not being there, but assuming that we're we're kind of rounding out the discussion, I would make a motion to forward the version two with the language that you just read to the full council for consideration. And again, like you just said, that gives us a few weeks to kind of finalize this and get it just the way we want it. >> Great. The mayor pro tem moves that the audit and finance committee recommend. Version two of the decision TRE to the full council, with the rectangular, the rectangle in the upper part, upper right hand part that currently refers to two years or fewer. It will read. Is this consistent with [1:38:00 PM] policy related to the number of years or substantial completion of estimated voter approved bonds remaining to be issued? Is second by council member alter any further discussion? Yes. Councilmember Fuentes. >> So I think this is great, and I appreciate your leadership on this mayor and giving us a framework so that council is more thoughtful and deliberate in our considerations of potential bond proposals that we put forward to the community. I do want to speak to the fact that we have a current bond advisory task force that's meeting and providing recommendations, and I just want to make sure I'm really clear on the process and timeline of this particular framework. So this goes before should this pass momentarily, it will go before council on February 26th. >> Yes. >> Council will vote to approve it. And does that. At what point does the council actually implement this decision TRE and make our consideration, whether or not we move forward with the 2026 bond? And I want to ask [1:39:02 PM] that because I know we currently have a bond advisory committee that's making recommendations for this year. >> I'll I'll be deferential to Mr. Benigno and others, but the way I would see this working out is then they will know the task force will know the framework we're going to use once they make recommendations to us about where we ought to, what they're recommending we ought to have, I think that will help guide them as well. But ultimately, when the recommendations come from them, we will work through. We the council will work through this framework, this decision TRE, as we decide whether how much and what. I think there may be another one in there, but at least those three things, once those recommendations are made by the task force. >> So a timeline for this could [1:40:03 PM] potentially be I mean, the committee will give us recommendations in may from my understanding. And then we have to call an election if we do decide by August. So really we have in that June July time frame to actually make the decision. That's right. >> Okay. That's the way I see it. Mr. Benigno, do you disagree with any of that? >> No, that's the timeline. >> Okay, good. Yes. Councilmember. Councilmember duchen. >> I just have a comment. That's. Slightly adjacent to the TRE, but something I wanted to just to think about, and that is this is all about voter approved day. But we have often make very large decisions around certificates, obligation or cos and I. And that has a huge impact on this decision. Right. How much money we have available, what the what the taxpayer impact is and all that. So I would like for us to a [1:41:05 PM] future discussion really look holistically, not only at our bond process, but where certificates of obligation fit in, both in that process and outside of that process, as we're just thinking about the impact to taxpayers and our ability to do these types of projects that these that we're talking about today. >> Yeah, just. >> A note. >> Good. Councilmember duchen. >> This is thank you, mayor. This is purely speculative, but I'm just curious if we're if this is really in time to create a very clear delineation between the operating dollars that the ip dollars or whether that for our conversation on the audit earlier, that there's any likelihood that we're going to get some information back from that. That would also change our outlook on cip dollars as well. >> I'm not sure I understand the question. Say that again. >> I'm wondering if in the course of and we don't know what sort of information [1:42:05 PM] recommendations we will get back from the audit process, but if some of that may influence even the decision TRE that we might make here based on nature of that information, or if it's strictly operating dollars, that is going to be the lion's share of our focus from the audit process. I'm I'm just wondering whether you think that that we might have to revisit this after getting some information back, depending on what those. >> Well. >> Certainly we would. It ends up if there is something that comes out of all that, in that in the time frame that we just had. In answer to councilmember Fuentes's question, then it helps inform the answers to these, these various questions. But you're right. I mean, we would all be speculating about whether or not we'll have that, but hope matters. So let's hang on to it okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anything else? Okay. The motion has been made and seconded without further discussion. Let me without [1:43:06 PM] objection, the committee votes to do that. But I'm also going to councilmember Laine, you have participated fully in this, and we the whole committee, I think, joins me in appreciating your involvement in this. How would how would you like I mean by technically you don't have a vote, but but how would I want to make sure I recognize you so that you get an opportunity to say something? Because because of the level of participation and care you've put into this. >> I appreciate that, mayor. I feel quite welcome on the committee, and I certainly support the votes of the members who are here and just look forward to continuing to participate. >> That's great. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. All right. That takes that a good, good work everybody I think that's the way this is supposed to operate. So thank you very much for that. That will take us to item number three which is a briefing on the status of remaining geo bond funds. [1:44:24 PM] >> Good afternoon everybody. >> I'm Eric Bailey, the deputy director of capital delivery services. And you know, appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today to share information on where we're at with the 2016 through 2022 bond program. We're going to split the presentation here a little bit. I'm going to talk about the past bond stuff. And Kim's going to talk a little bit about certificates of obligation and some of the other funding mechanisms that we have. Next slide. So we'll go perfect. There we go. We'll go over the overall remaining general obligation bonds. The balances in the data that we're going to show are the fiscal 26 quarter one close, which is December 31st for 12, 16, 18, 20 and 22. And then Kim's going to talk a little bit about the the certificates of obligation and the other contractual obligations, as well as a bond sale and options that are available for reallocation and or authorization. From a general legal standpoint. So [1:45:25 PM] before I get really started into this, I want to, you know, go from an overall aspect for the 2012 through 2022 bonds. These investments include a total appropriation of $2.45 billion and represent over 1200 individual projects. And those range from simple crosswalk installations to large scale engineering projects and affordable housing investments. Of that, 2.45 billion, 1.5 billion is spent that represents all payments in the program. Those go to construction contractors, engineers, architects and for real estate acquisition. So on the upcoming slides, you'll see expenses shown here in green, which represent dollars out the door. And these are for design consultant work, construction contracts, everything that we've spent on the bond projects. These are a great measure of the completed work for the past bond programs. And in those programs, we've completed over 700 projects representing an investment of [1:46:26 PM] $865 million, with an additional 134 projects that are currently in construction. The value of those projects is $444 million. You'll see on the slides this obligation in dark blue. That's a key metric that we use here at cds to monitor the money that's under contract. These dollars are encumbered in a contract that's been authorized by the council that the city has yet to spend. So in the case of the bond program, obligation mostly refers to large construction contracts where the city's entered into the agreement with the contractor to build the project. It's currently underway and progressing, but it's not complete yet. And finally, when we talk about balance, which is shown in light blue, these amounts are not just floating out there free for use. Nearly 100% of the bond programs have identified future spending for that balance. Money. Project managers in our department and other departments that deliver cip create a spending plan in Capri for each project that details how much money is going to be spent and when the data shown on the spending plan line and some of the backup documentation included in this presentation, and that balance [1:47:28 PM] number is funding that's not currently spent or under contract, but the project team has a plan to spend these funds in the coming years as the project moves through the design process into construction. Historically, the city doesn't move forward with project designs without funding. That's been identified for the construction costs. When we move forward with several bond elections in quick succession, it put a financial strain on the city that we're currently dealing with as it relates to our existing financial commitments and the alignment of those commitments with the needs of the community in the historic bond programs. One of the major issues was that the projects were not fully developed prior to the bond election. For example, with the 2016 bond corridor corridor program, the projects where the concept level, when we went to the voters and they hadn't been fully vetted, the preliminary work was not complete, and it caused extensive delays in the program. As many challenges were addressed, the scopes were clarified, realistic budgets and schedules were developed, and projects were coordinated for construction. As the [1:48:28 PM] program moved through the design process, the proper planning and evaluation of bond projects is one of the reasons that cds was created, guiding the bond development through to make sure the projects are ready to be evaluated by council and the voters, and ensure that the scope, schedules and budgets are accurate and that we can deliver on that six year general obligation bond interval. So I'm going to brag a little bit about cds. In the past two years, we've contracted over $500 million in bond funds. And in the last year alone, we've spent over $200 million in bond funded cip design and construction contracts. Right now, we're currently experiencing a large increase in construction, contract bidding contract award and project completions. So the remaining fund balances that we have left in the presentation are concentrated in a few projects. In each bond year, there's about 20 projects that account for 60% of the non-housing bond balance. We've highlighted those in the presentation here. In addition to the main slides that we show, [1:49:29 PM] we've also included more detailed backup that has data on individual propositions and programs showing spending and obligation over time. And the data, as I mentioned before, the data in these main slides is based on the 26 quarter one results, and the backup information includes up to date data through the end of January as well. So for the 2012 bond, that bond is 97% spent with an additional $3.7 million in contractual encumbrances. The two primary remaining projects here are the east 51st street revitalization, which includes roadway improvements on 51st street from I-35 to Berkman. It's currently in the 90% design phase that's due in March, and construction is scheduled to start in 2027. Transportation and public works has identified additional funding for the construction of this project, and this one has experienced delays for several reasons. Code changes related to the atlas 14 flood model requirements, as well as a design consultant that had to be terminated for lack of performance. Second one up here [1:50:30 PM] is the walnut creek district confluence link to palm park. 100% design drawings are in the permitting process. Now, as you can imagine, this project requires considerable coordination with the confluence and I-35 capital express central projects. It is scheduled to bid in 2026. So for the 2016 bond program, of the 184 million in balance, 169 of that is in the corridor program. The corridor program currently has ten projects in construction with a value of $68 million, and there are seven other projects that are in the design process, with a total cost of $92 million. And the last two years, the the corridor program has contracted $133 million and spent over 60 million as it moves into its primary construction phase. There are several projects here that are ending the near nearing the end of design and moving towards bid and award in 2026, including south Lamar boulevard from Barton springs to I-70, one estimated bond [1:51:32 PM] cost of $36 million. East mlk from 103 to decker Laine. Estimated cost of 7 million. North Lamar from rundberg to palmer at 13 million. And we have actually a recently awarded construction contract for burnet road from Brite Verde to mopac at 28 million. In these numbers here, there's also a $16 million contingency account that is there for if bond prices come, bid prices come back higher than expected. That money is planned to be used for construction on smaller programmatic projects on the corridors. If that risk doesn't materialize, another subset of the 2016 bond is the regional improvements. There's a remaining balance of 14.2 million here. That's primarily in the lakeline boulevard improvements from lyndhurst to palmer for 8.2 million. That project is at 90%. Design. And the west rundberg Laine extension from burnet to metric for 3.5 million. That project obtained a campo grant and is currently at 60%. Design. Finally, the local mobility programs and local mobility is [1:52:33 PM] composed of things like safe routes to school, bikeways, sidewalks, vision zero. Some standard streets have 1.1 million remaining and are 99% obligated for the 2018 bond. There are several propositions that are 95% or greater obligated. Those include the affordable housing, flood mitigation and open space, health and human services, and public safety propositions. Propositions B, C, and G make up 98% of the remaining balance for the entire program. Projects that are included in prop B are the Dougherty arts center at 22.3 million, the mexic-arte museum at 14.7 million, and the Asian American resource center phase two at 4.6. Dougherty and mexic-arte are both in the design process, and arc is entering the construction phase. The remaining funding in prop C is in three primary categories parkland improvements at 9.8 million, building renovations at 6.2, and parkland land acquisition at 4.9, and then [1:53:35 PM] finally the rest of prop G has the one remaining project from the transportation proposition for the redbud trail bridge over lady bird lake. At 36.1 million. That's undergoing a design evaluation to align the project's scope with the funding that's available in that proposition. For the 2020 bond, it was a transportation only bond for $460 million. Proposition included several categories, including major capital improvements, sidewalks, urban trails, vision zero, substandard streets, bikeways, safe routes to school, local transit, and neighborhood partnering. There's some unobligated funds remaining in all of these categories, however. Major capital improvements, substandard streets, and urban trails represent the bulk of those unobligated funds. The major cip category includes funding for the congress avenue urban design initiative from Riverside drive to 11th street, the Barton springs road bridge, south pleasant valley corridor improvements, and the longhorn dam wishbone ash wishbone bridge. All of these projects. [1:54:37 PM] There's $22 million left in the congress avenue project, which has a portion already under construction, and there's a $29 million funding resource account. Again, that's a construction contingency account, and those have yet to be distributed to individual projects. It's important to note here that the Barton springs road bridge doesn't have construction funding that's currently allocated to the subproject, working on allocating the matching funds from a federal highway administration grant of $32 million that was received by transportation and public works, and then finally on the longhorn dam wishbone bridge. That project is actually substantially complete. There's a ribbon cutting coming up this week. And so that's a great example of a project that was well designed and thought out before the bond election, and was able to be completed within a six year time frame. So we're talking about the substandard streets category. There's two projects there, Johnny Morris road at 5.6 million, which is at the 90% design phase and moving through permitting. And [1:55:37 PM] the other substandard street is Ross road north at 4 million, which is currently in construction. The urban trails category includes funding for the shoal creek trail, Bergstrom spur west, Bergstrom spur east, as well as a resource account to be used as contingency for several other projects that are being delivered. With this funding, all these urban trail projects are moving through the design process and scheduled to start construction in late 2026 or early 2027. I know that's a lot of information go through really quickly, but again, I'd like to say that there's additional backup behind the presentation where there's more details about the individual programs and spending. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kim to discuss the CEOs and other funding mechanisms. Oh, I'm sorry, I got housing housings one left. So housing is a little bit different than the other bond funding projects in that the city contributes to developers to establish low income housing that's restricted for that use. And so there's not the incremental spending in obligation as you [1:56:38 PM] move forward. The 2022 bond has affordable housing for rental housing ownership, home repair and land acquisition. And the money that's in there can be used for any of those purposes. In talking with our folks in housing, the original plan was to have that spent by the end of 2027. However, because of the pending discussion that we're having related to the bond program, they're able to stretch or contract that funding depending on what the needs may be. And with that, I'll hand it over to Kim. >> Yes. >> Thank you. I just want to ask the question on housing, because this is top of mind for me. So the 166 million that shows as a balance staff has identified uses for all of those dollars. At this point. >> I'm going to phone a friend. >> Good afternoon everyone. I am Nicole Joslin. I'm the housing and community development officer for the [1:57:38 PM] housing department. We have for the $166 million balance. We have a portion of those funds that have been awarded to projects but have not closed on their financing. So some of those projects, just due to regular market forces, may not get to closing. So we would be able to allocate those funds to other projects. And then we have a portion of those funds that have not yet been awarded. So we would be able to stretch the funds that we have not yet awarded in this fiscal year, and then the next fiscal year, over the next three years, and be able to take back some of the funds for projects that won't be closing and allocate those to other projects. >> About how much do you do we have that have not been awarded yet? >> So we have 180 million that have been committed and 166 million that have not remains [1:58:40 PM] uncommitted. Okay, so maybe I misspoke there. So 166 million have not been committed to projects. >> So essentially the balance that's left for housing is uncommitted at this point. And staff has not identified uses for them. >> We do have projects that are in a funding round right now for our housing development assistance program that we're considering right now. So we have about $30 million, I believe, in gap financing assistance requested, and then we have a portfolio of vacant land that we will need gap financing for to develop. So I believe we issued a memo about two weeks ago, the three projects that we are going to be moving forward with solicitations on have about $50 million of gap financing, but the projects that will be funded with those funds go through our normal housing development assistance application cycle, which we have moved to a twice a year application cycle. [1:59:40 PM] >> And if I could just build a little bit on what Nicole is saying, Mandy Demayo, deputy director of the housing department, we have programed all the dollars, 350 million. We originally programed them into these four different major programs rental, housing ownership, home repair and land acquisition over a five year spend plan. That was the original plan. So as Eric mentioned that would have us finishing up an fy 27. However, because of these conversations, rather than a five year spend plan, we're looking at a six year spend plan to take us through fy 28. So we would just in the coming three years, reprogram those dollars in order to fit the proposed six year spend plan. But we already our budget internally accommodates all four programs. For example, home repair is a five year contract with nonprofit organizations that we do five years every year. That is extended over five years. In [2:00:41 PM] this case, we would be extending it over six years and then reprograming internally to accommodate that. >> Okay. Very good. Thank you. That's helpful. >> Thanks, miss Olivares. >> I'm sorry. Can I follow up? >> Wright? Sure. Don't go too far. >> Didn't quite get the answer to councilmember Fuentes question, though, of in terms of that balance, how much has been committed again, and I understand that there's a number of projects where we've already promised them money that, you know, let's say 10%, 20%, whatever are not going to go through. And so we're going to have that available again. And then there's another chunk of money that where we haven't promised that to anybody or that's that's just free and open. What are those numbers? And again I know the projects that you can't obviously predict which projects are not going to move, but what is the amount that that's pending that [2:01:42 PM] we have not promised it? Anything like that? >> I believe I misspoke earlier. I think the 166 million is uncommitted. >> With the caveat the 166 million, I apologize. The 166 million is in fact technically uncommitted. However, as Nicole mentioned, you all received memo from our team about the Austin housing finance corporation, our vacant land prioritization. We have plans based on what you received in that email. I mean, in that memo, we have plans to put out solicitations for three parcels in the coming year to year and a half. That will require 50 up to $50 million in gap financing. That up to 50 million is included in that 166 million in the light blue. >> So there's. [2:02:42 PM] >> 166 million that is uncommitted, but up to 50 million of that is money. You know where you want it and you believe you will. >> That is correct. And then an additional about 50 million should be awarded through our Rhoda and oda rental housing and ownership housing competitive application cycles. We have two cycles this fiscal year. So then we subtract out that as well. >> So that's. >> A second or second and third bucket. That's up to 50 million. That's also part of that 166 of uncommitted money. >> That is correct. So based on that uncommitted, that light blue line, the 166 million we have internally projected out how those funds would be spent this fiscal year and next fiscal year based on these conversations we're doing, we're reprograming based on upcoming three fiscal years, and we're able to do that. [2:03:45 PM] >> Thank you very much. That's the best explanation I've got for that number. Appreciate that. >> Thank you. All right. We really mean it, miss Olivares, it's your turn. >> No worries. Kim Olivares, director of financial services. So in my last presentation to audit finance on our updated debt capacity projections, I. I made it clear then. And I want to stress this again today, is that when it comes to our debt capacity and our when we refer to geo bonds, geo bonds are bonds that are backed by the general obligation, full faith and credit of the taxing authority of the city of Austin. So that includes not only voter approved bonds but non voter approved bonds. So your voter approved bonds that Eric just aptly detailed is the are the public improvement bonds voter approved. And then we have certificates of obligation and contractual obligations that [2:04:47 PM] fill out the remainder of that general obligation credit. So with our CEOs, the remaining authorized but unissued totals just over $790 million. Now, CEOs are similar to the public improvement bonds in that they have a 20 year payback period. So the biggest difference is that again, it is non voter approved. So I've broken it out into various categories here to provide a little more detail on what makes up that 790,000,001st facility renovations there. And I want to note also that with these facility renovations and the new facilities in particular these acquisitions, this work, these projects were all part of a extensive, multi-year, actually decade plus effort relative to our facilities planning, as we've been working to get ourselves out of lease space. And then when the office [2:05:47 PM] market took had some significant challenges, we we leapt in and took advantage of that to be able to speed up our transition away from leased spaces, but also address existing facility conditions that in many cases are very concerning. So with our facility renovations, there's about 30 million related to city wide capital facility rehab that our facilities management department leads. We also have ems fire station renovations. About 10 million. Town center will have the final last 50% issuance on that in the upcoming sale. We're actually almost at substantial completion on that that renovation and will be having staff move into that building here just in in just a few months. And then finally various parks facility renovations from our new facilities. That is a much more sizable number, the northeast service center, that is a [2:06:49 PM] project that has been on the to do list for years, and it was in recent couple years that we were finally able to bring that forward and really address some very significant and long needed improvements to the facilities that our fleet and folks are working in. I also want to note of that project, total project cost, which is around 254 million. The 47% of it is self-supported by debt service payments coming directly from the departments like enterprise type departments. So that means 53% of it is hitting against the debt service tax rate. I think that's also important for folks to understand when it comes to our geo credit rating. It doesn't mean that every bit of it is being paid for from the debt service portion of the tax rate. There are some unique situations in which the debt is actually being paid for. Without property tax dollars. So this is one of those unique situations. And it is. And I wanted to point it out because it is such a sizable project. [2:07:51 PM] Also, our public safety campus, the acquisition we're able to make for both the campus and then the public safety warehouse, there's 100 million left to issue there. There were a series of new fire stations that were built throughout the city. There's about 16.7 million left there. And then the university park acquisition, there's about 6.8 million left there. And that facility was acquired so that we can move out of one Texas center and make much better use of that site. Also, a building that is in not the best of conditions. Nothing. Okay. So next up is land acquisition. There's 50 million sitting in that fund. However, acquisitions from that fund are actively happening. Going through appraisals and the sort parks transportation infrastructure. This is a a large swath of projects, but [2:08:52 PM] with cap and stitch there's 104 million. So there's both. That includes both a CEO and the cib loan. The cib loan. It is basically like a private placement CEO. So it's it's included in there. There's also various road projects breaker, Samsung, lakeline, Jane Laine and meadow creek for about 24 million sidewalks. There's 10 million longhorn dam that we have about 3 million for some immediate needs, but we are definitely having some continued conversations about long term and permanent solutions for addressing that dam's condition. And then there's a smattering of of dollars amongst shade structures, trail repair and a bridge replacement in Roig Guerrero park. Finally, there's our tirz and related investments. So colony park, that's 121 million that is aes, but it is supported by the revenues generated by that tirz, not the debt service portion of the tax rate. Similarly, with walnut creek, the vast majority [2:09:52 PM] of the 77 million is supported by tirz revenue. There are others. There's a small amount in there that is being supported by donations that the Waterloo greenway is securing as well. So for contractual obligations, this is a little bit different than your peers and your CEO's, because it's a much shorter payback period, because contractual obligations is for personal property that is movable. So vehicles, equipment, things of that nature. There was a time and this is one of those I'm showing. I've I'm an old lady around here. There was a time many, many, many years ago when we actually would use cash savings from the prior fiscal year to be able to cover the cost of vehicles and equipment like this in the next fiscal year. But over time, for a variety of reasons, and also because just the prices of vehicles has increased so significantly, we have shifted to this pefko structure to buy them. So that's why you see 164 million for vehicles and equipment noted on the latter [2:10:54 PM] half of the slide, but also in the first half, state law changed not too long ago. That allows for us to utilize this shorter term debt for technology solutions because similarly to vehicles, technology solutions have also become incredibly increasingly expensive. So being able to finance these things over a even a short time frame of 5 to 7 years is is much more ideal for for the city and for the taxpayers. So that is supported. Things like our investments in the human capital management system, our financial system, and also Amanda for licensing and permitting. So and the other bonus with pefkos is that your your interest rate is incredibly low because it is such a short term debt. So it's it's not that much more of an additional cost total to be able to cover those, those projects. And finally, I also or not finally, one other thing I wanted to note, just to kind of be a refresher of like, what [2:11:55 PM] is the general timeline for a bond sale? So when and that bond sale includes both motor and non-motor approved debt. So if a bond program is approved by the voters, or if council approves a non voter approved debt there, there has to be an action that is authorizing that debt, whether it's the voters or council, then city council ultimately approves all the project appropriations and a corresponding reimbursement resolution, which is a wonderful tool that the irs gives us where we are able to maintain the tax exempt status and issue the debt at a later date on a reimbursement basis. So we are not beginning to pay debt service on debt that we haven't actually even spent on the associated projects. So once the project has the work is completed, the expenditures incurred and payments are made. We then in that following year will do this bond sale to reimburse the city for those payments. So we do our sale [2:12:58 PM] basically every August so that at times with the the new fiscal year and the corresponding debt service payments. So the benefits of utilizing that process, you're able when you do a single issuance per year, your your bond issuance costs are, are are much better because it's there are certain amounts that are the the amount is what it is and it's not relative to the size of the actual sale. So by doing it all at once and paying those costs a single time, that creates a savings. Also, with the reimbursement resolution process, we're able to avoid unnecessary interest costs. And it also gives us some flexibility in the actual sales timing. And it also helps us handle market conditions in a more efficient way as well. So the last thing that we were asked to discuss was reallocation and deauthorization. Now, when it comes to remaining bond funds, [2:13:59 PM] you if you the desire is to reallocate them to from one project to another, no matter what, you have to use them for one of the purposes that was named in the original proposition. So for example, transportation transportation proposition might name road construction, sidewalks, bikeways or and similar. Now, if you're reallocating dollars from sidewalks, you would have to use it for bikeways or road reconstruction or whatever the case may be. So you cannot use it for something in a different proposition. So, for example, I can't take sidewalk money and use it for parks facilities. You might also require council action depending on the intended use. So if, for example, there were remaining funds sitting in a smattering and I'm not trying to pick on sidewalks, but that's what keeps popping in my mind. But if there are smattering of funds that still remain in a variety of sidewalks projects, you can sweep those those [2:15:00 PM] remaining funds and use them for other sidewalk purposes without council action because of the manner in which you appropriated them in the first time, which is on a programmatic basis. Now, if the funds are were appropriated for roadway construction and you want to shift the sidewalks, then council would have to take action for the reallocation. The same also applies to if the funds were appropriated for a specific project, and you wanted to use it for another purpose. Now, it's also important to note if you're reallocating funds from a specific project that was also a named project in the contract with the voters, we would need to explore if there's any flexibility on making that change because of you would still be eventually issuing those bonds, which I will talk a little bit more in the authorization options section. So if you were to want to deauthorize any of the remaining bond funds, you have two options. You can call an election at which the voters [2:16:01 PM] are able to decide if they want to deauthorize those funds or not. You also have if you wanted to deauthorize and reauthorize for a new purpose. So just basically reallocating the the existing funds, but for a completely new purpose than what they were originally approved for, then you can have those as ballot on the same ballot and make them contingent upon another, so that if you if they pass the new authorization, it can only pass if the authorization passes as well. Then there's also the staleness doctrine. So we have found there's not very specific case law, but based on prior actions from the ag's office there, we we know that you generally have the authority to deauthorize the bond funds. If ten years have passed since the election, that ten year time frame is where there's a question Marc. There's not that clear case law, [2:17:02 PM] but based on other instances that have gone to the ag's office, that ten year Marc is appears to be kind of that sweet spot as the minimum barrier. So when it comes to the contracts with the voters. So each of those contracts was passed by council. It is contingent on the issuance of bonds. So if the bonds are never issued, the contract has no effect. However, if you are looking to reallocate those bonds or those dollars to other items, that would not match up with the contract with the voters, that's where we have to start being much more careful and making sure we're not in violation of that as we as we make those or consider those changes so clear as mud. Any questions you may have? >> Anybody have questions? Councilmember alter? >> Thank you very much. This provided a lot of information. [2:18:03 PM] I really appreciate it because one of the reasons why I've been really interested in what we have outstanding is to see if there's a way to integrate the large projects that are still out there into our thinking about the 26 bond. And I'll give an example. One in district five, the south Lamar corridor project, which was 2016 bond project. They've been told the community it will start at last year. We'll start it this year. Now they're being told maybe next fall. I mean, it's it is almost a running joke at meetings. I go to, to that, you know, ten years and we're still talking about when we're even going to start this project and be it as it may, that's where we are today. But my question in all of this is, you know, staff provided us a really comprehensive list of not only what you'd recommend, but here's how things score out, [2:19:05 PM] right? Here's the priority. Whether it's the environmental priority, the community priority. But here's a set of things that we looked at, metrics to decide what are our highest priorities. And would the south Lamar corridor, if we put that into today's matrix, would that be at the top? Would it be at the middle? Would it be at the bottom? If it's more of the latter, should we be thinking about these projects that are still, you know, the the bridge project you talked about and others? Should we be thinking about what are the needs of today? Not what did we think the needs were in 2016? Because those are funds that can be relocated as, as you mentioned, within at least that proposition. So we know we're going to have transportation related projects. We have those needs. We know we're going to have parks and others. So I would I would love for us to think about a way to look at, [2:20:07 PM] you know, if it's $500,000, maybe not worth your time and effort, right. But if there are substantial sums of dollars for large projects that. We haven't done yet, can we think about? Is that still a priority today, given the other priorities that we have? And that's just I don't I don't know how we do that. I don't know that we've ever done that before, but almost treat these as new or undone projects. And yes, we've spent some design money and maybe that design gets put on the shelf for another day, and it's a great design we can pick up again and modify. It's not full money lost, but I just I think it's incumbent upon us, given the financials, that are the reality. We only have so much to go around. We should fund the priorities that we have. >> And take into account what Mr. Rogers was saying earlier about deliverability and that that those aspects as well. [2:21:09 PM] Other comments. Yes. Councilmember Fuentes. >> Thank you. And this is either for Rogers or Mr. Bailey. He's still here. There was a comment made that best practice is that you wouldn't put funding towards design unless the construction funding has also been identified. Is that right? >> Historically, we don't progress with design contracts through design unless the construction funding is also available. So we don't generally just do design only projects. There's a lot of reasons for that. Some of it is in the rules around bonding for those projects because of the long duration payback for those. So there's some financial rules around it. But then also like I said, historically we just haven't done that. >> So okay, so it's standard practice for the city to bake in both of those costs at the same. >> Time, correct? >> Yes. And that's what we've done. Even with the 2020 mobility bond. >> Yes. >> Okay. And one thing I want to surface, colleagues, I sit on the campo board is, you know, [2:22:10 PM] for that board they're moving towards their criteria now been updated to really prioritize projects that are shovel ready, ready to go. And so how does that affect what we might consider with our own local bond projects? Knowing that the local match is so critical in positioning our projects for federal funding. >> Yeah. So generally what we do is we will have the full bucket of funding that's available to deliver the project, and then we'll apply for those grant funds as we move forward. The Barton springs road bridge is a great example of that, where we had the money that's or have the money that's available to do the full construction. We apply for grants along the way. Usually there's a match. Generally it's 80, 20, 20 city 80 from the federal government. And then once we obtain that, we're able to say, okay, we now have money that's available in that bucket that we can potentially reallocate to other projects, for example, in the way that we write the propositions. We say generally structural improvements to existing bridges. And so there's a lot of opportunity there. We can then take whatever money we get from the grant funding and whatever is [2:23:11 PM] available to repurpose it for another project. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Yes, councilmember duchen. >> Thank you, mayor. Thank you guys for the update. I wanted to clarify a number that I heard at the beginning relative to other numbers that I think I've heard recently on the same topic of how much what progress we've made towards spending down the amount of outstanding bond dollars that are out there. I thought I heard at the beginning total amount of 2.45 billion that we've spent 1.5 billion, which would leave about 950. Is that did I miss hear that? Because I also heard, I think at the beginning of this. Sorry. The other data point I heard recently was when I started last year, we had about $1.3 billion that was unspent. And we've now we're now down to $700 million. >> So the 2.4 billion is all the programs in some together. That's all the money that's related with the bond programs. The number that I mentioned, we're actually at $600 million in terms of authorized, but [2:24:12 PM] unobligated dollars. And that's down from what it was 1.4 in mid 2023. >> So okay. So it's none of my numbers are right is what you're telling me. Well okay. >> No no no no actually you're right. There was when we had our orientation we were at the classic and it was 1.34. So that at that particular time it was 1.34 billion that was unspent. >> Thank you for making me feel better. What can we expect at the end of this year? What is the sort of projected spend by the time we get into, say, the end of the year or perhaps, you know, going into what could be a vote on a bond in 26, depending on how things shake out. >> Yeah. The the best graph that shows that overall is actually in the appendix there. There's one of the charts that really shows what the projected spend is, which is the purple line there. And so just I don't have the exact number in front of me, but eyeballing it's about 1.4 billion by the end of 2027. And so we're we're projecting that 90%, 90% spend [2:25:13 PM] in 2028. >> Thank you. And then the last question I've got now is and I appreciate the update on Rogers board, I know that's conversations we've also had with capital delivery. I'm curious to know when we can expect some of that information to start to be deployed. And just a general timeline of. Right. >> Yeah. Thank you for that question. I think it's really important for us to to really focus on the delivery of what we've got is we really need to build that trust back with our community. And so as a part of of the process right now, we're, as we just talked about looking at, working with consultants and others, we're we're we're looking at everything that's related to how do we do a strategic implementation plan for those projects. So we're [2:26:14 PM] developing that strategic implementation implementation plan. And we should have that completed by the time these decisions have to be made with with the whole bond. And well, it's going to take us probably 4 to 5 months to, to be able to, to have a true report that has the whole strategic plan. But within that plan, it's also looking at the technology that's going to be needed, working with our, our arts and our other teams to ensure that that we're all working on the same page with the same technology that that meets the needs. Also doing the benchmarking of other cities. And there's quite a few other cities through throughout this region that do a really good job, where you can actually go on their websites and see where those projects are at at any particular point. And so those are the things that we are those are all scheduled for this year. Let's just put it that way. To have those complete this year. [2:27:17 PM] >> Okay. Thank you very much. That's all I got now. >> Good deal. Anything else. Thank you all very, very much. Good report members. That concludes all of the items that are on the agenda for this special called meeting of the audit and finance committee of the Austin city council. So without objection, the audit and finance committee is adjourned at 2:27 P.M. Thanks, everybody.