Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, August 24, 2010,
Item 18
Number 18 a, consider and take appropriate action on contract award and modification number one for water treatment systems, ifb number b 100181 nb. To the sole responsive bidder. And b, receive update from the manchaca community taskforce regarding community preferences for use of the mon shack or manchaca five hall. And we simply indicate that b may be taken into executive session under the consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act.
>> item 36 and 37 dealt with testing water well at the manchaca location. And there was discussion on whether we really needed to delete those. If weksd add them back in. As i discussed with staff further, they did not have the required tceq, those folks, tceq certification. So if we do want to provide this service we will contract with just an individual who has that certification. We spend less than $3,000 a year out there. 5800 a year. That includes the service and the monitoring of the well. If you want us to provide that, we'll have that separately with someone else who has that tceq certification to do that work there.
>> i move approval of this because it's already been disconnected and we need to have this contract.
>> that's a?
>> that's a, but i have a contract.
>> i second that.
>> so because of the amount in the professional nature of the work, we can exempt it from competition.
>> a piece of it, yes, sir. The two items. If the court decides that they do want the water treatment down at manchaca, then they just need to direct us to do that and we'll do it under separate purchase order.
>> is this what we discussed last week?
>> yes, sir.
>> what is facilities position on it?
>> it's fine. Our position is at this point tceq is not requiring us to do the reporting, but definitely if the court would like us to go ahead and initiate that, we would be more than happy to.
>> i had asked for a legal opinion which i have not had feedback on as far as the utilization on a temporary basis and how it would apply to what tceq requirements are.
>> we thought we would provide that to you in executive session. If you want to have it individually, we may be able to provide that to you over the lunch hour.
>> we're not taking any action on this today. I just need the opinion.
>> i think we ought to get the opinion if they have it when we go into executive session this afternoon.
>>
>> so can i ask you are you approving -- you are approving the contract award.
>> it doesn't relate to --
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. B?
>> we have with us here today ken vargas to give a report from the taskforce that has been working down in manchaca regarding the fire hall.
>> thank you, judge. The committee that was formed after a town hall meeting as to what to do with the manchaca community center came up with a subcommittee to look at what some of our options were. And the first thing we did was do a survey of the community in terms of what their input would be. We did a newspaper survey, an online survey and a mail-in survey, and we have the results of that. We have a total of 119 responses from people who came in, and answered a series of questions of what they wanted to see happen with community center. Overwhelming the majority of the respondents wanted to see the community center reopened very much similar to what was there before. They wanted to see a food service operation there. Spefntion specifically a country style cafe similar to what was there before. And we also asked the community what the key values were in terms of the purpose of the facility. And overwhelmingly civic and service club access was ranked as the hire priority as well as -- as the high priority as well as making that community center available for fund-raising programs and youth programs. So those were the uses that the community wanted to see used at the clarence vogel community center. Some of the obstacles that we have going forward are that in order for it to become a profitable operation and get an owner-operator, which the community said they wanted to see, an owner-operator come in and run a restaurant businesslike it had been before, was the beer and wine license. And with the lapse of the license before that, it appears that we're going to have to go through a process of requesting a new beer and wine license. And the obstacle to that is the proximity next to the school, manchaca elementary school. We've already had some discussions with aisd and it is going to be a policy issue. Right now their policy issue is that they will object to any applications or new applications for beer and wine license on properties that are next to them. However, they understand the iconic nature of the community center and what was there before, and they would like to entertain, but it would be up to the board of trustees to waive that policy in the future. But that discussion still needs to happen probably with the attorney level first with mr. Waxler over at aisd and then possibly some lobbying of the trustees in order to get that okay so we can move forward. We feel the -- the committee feels that it's important to have that in place, that discussion and that agreement before you let out an r.f.p., otherwise we feel that there might not be any operators willing to take the risk to go in there and try to make it a profitable vengs for them to go ahead and invest. One of the things that we had asked the community in the questionnaire is would you be willing to give a reduced rent to an owner-operator in lieu of a higher rent in order to make improvements to the center, and the majority said yes. So that was kind of where the committee wanted to see if there could be put together a proposal to kind of find the creative way to finance the improvements that are needed for that community center because it is in pretty bad shape and it needs a lot of improvement in order to bring it up to what we call modern restaurant standards or even community meeting standards. So that is what we're looking at and we're just wait to go hear more from what aisd will say on that issue.
>> commissioner?
>> where else in the county do we have community centers?
>> i don't know all the facilities.
>> facilities and hhs -- yeah, they're coming.
>> good morning, judge and commission ers, sherri fleming. We have community centers in del valle, manor, in Jonestown, in Pflugerville and i'm missing one. Oak hill.
>> there were communities centers and we also lease a portion out to the health care district for the operation of the clinics in those areas.
>> do we make those locations available for things like youth programs, fund-raisers, senior programs, school groups, civic groups and whatnot?
>> yes.
>> and are those community centers geographically -- i guess what i'm saying is do we already have a distribution geographically that is -- that is fairly even in your view.
>> that's difficult to answer off the cuff. Certainly because of the shift in population and in the community i would say that that the airport area, for example, if you look at our distribution we have the palm square site for services. It is not operated as a community center. Unless you go down 290 up to manor. In that area pretty much stands out because we sort of talk about that a lot. In terms of the area we're talking about where this fire hall is located. I don't know if we have specifically looked at that zip code. The way we would determine the gaps would be to look at the zip code data that we have on the persons who use the community centers.
>> one thing and it's a philosophical issue and i'll throw it down on the table. I'll see according to the table in regard to the fire hall, 62 of 68 said that they would like to see a restaurant operated in the fire hall. I am an ex-restauranteur and i don't believe that operating a restaurant is within the core functions of travis county governance. I do believe that a community center is, but i would like to be mindful of our distribution of resources to where they are most needed. And i am not yet convinced because i simply haven't seen any data that indicates that this particular location is an area of the highest need for the inclusion of additional community center facilities. I do know that we have tried to get an appropriate distribution that's not just geographic, but also youth based, need based. And i would very much like to see that before we go down the road of being a restauranteur. I don't think that we do it well. We've done it in the past. We've never done it well. And i just -- i don't believe that we should be committing county resources to a facility that is essentially a restaurant.
>> so what schedule does the committee have in mind?
>> our hope was that we would find a private investor that is willing to go in and make the improvements and have an agreement with that operator that at least half of the usage would be for the community. In orders, if they want to rent the room, they want to use the pavilion, that the priority use would be for community access. So that civic groups, 4-h clubs, for example, etcetera, would have priority access to the meeting space as it has been in the past. And at the cafe -- and that the cafe would be run as a way to have the revenue to keep that place open and make any improvements that are needed for that facility.
>> judge, if i may, i can tell you that in communication with the various communities where you already have community centers, the need for affordable, accessible meeting space, community room space, you know, for things that vary from church fund-raisers all the way up to civic meeting groups, we are finding that there's very little space available that does not have a significant charge associated with it. So they may be booked all the time for activities like that because of the cost of renting other facilities that may not be public.
>> would the committee be interested in having a facility that really is more of a community center than a restaurant?
>> yes. We have looked at that option. In fact, some of the creative ideas have been having perhaps market days and being very civic minded in terms of how we could raise revenue to make improvements. And that's one of the things the community said, we want to have this community space available, but we want to see improvements made to the building. And i understand how the budget is right now and i'm going to ask the county for a million dollars to fix that place up, it's probably not going to happen. So one of the other questions was would they be willing to have community fund-raisers in order to build the money to make those improvements and the community has said yes, as we have done in the past.
>> because i don't know that it would look good for us to petition aisd to waive the no alcohol beverages sold within a certain distance of the school facility. The other thing is that the -- to my knowledge the only other county property that beverages -- i call it beverages are sold on, is the expo center. And it opened up in the middle of the country, there are more closer residents now, but not a school type facility. It's sort of isolated and the vendor or concessionaire that contracts with us responsible for meeting tabc requirements. We kind of shift that to the operator, contract with that person for a personal of the gross revenue more than anything else. So i guess my thinking would be -- we sort of backed into a different history on the manchaca center. It was operated as a fire hall by individuals, and we sort of inherited the history as well as the facility and all the operations i guess years and years ago and just allowed it to continue to operate that way. But i don't know that -- quloj that we really ought to be that supportive of an alcoholic beverage license anyway. Plus i think it makes it more difficult to justify making the facility available to the community if it's a restaurant. And in terms of getting our assistance, if it really is more like the other community centers that we operate, i mean, i would think that we would feel more duty bound to make it available for the community. Which is what i'm hearing. And we also heard that seniors and young people and everybody really got used to using that center for a variety of community type purposes. And it just happened to be a restaurant, and i thought more about the fish and fries that people bragged about than i did beer.
>> i think that's a tradition, judge, that people wanted to continue. Without the beer and wine license, the committee feels that it would be difficult to find a private operator to come in and justify making those improvements to the center because that was the thinking of the committee, that we could find a private investor to come in and operate as a food sfts, but the attractiveness would be the ability to sell big and wine at big events and weddings and things like that. Without that at least from some of the discussions we've had from people interested in that, they say that's a no go, we can't make money that way and can't have enough revenue to make any improvements to that facility. So that would have been a creative way to make those improvements to that facility, but without that if it's truly going to be just a county facility, is the county going to be able to make those improvements, and that's the question the court would have to answer.
>> has the committee explored the possibility -- i'm just putting this out there because i'm reaching back into my prior life. Has the committee considered any sort of hybrid approach whereby -- because i agree the only way that this is a parcel that is -- the location is very good. The improvements on the location are -- you're hard pressed to even call them improvements at this point. So i totally see what the committee's up against with regard to improving and maintaining the actual facility plant. Has the committee entertained the possibility that the county could sell the property with some sort of -- with some sort of caveat, some sort of restrictive covenant placed on it that would make it available for civic use in hours and on days that are not highly profitable for restaurants?
>> the survey -- we did ask that question, would the community be willing to see the county sell the property.
>> and i saw that the reaction was --
>> they overall said no.
>> was no. But no may not be -- may not be the best option for the county taxpayer on the whole.
>> and you have to understand that at the time of he -- of this spay, afs an emowing national sperd for a lot of the -- an emotional period for a lot of the residents in that area that were reacting to the actions in the spring to close that center down. I mean, they've had something that's been there for dozens and dozens of years and you take that away and so there was a very strong reaction from the community that said no, we want what we have.
>> they feel they have a culture down there that they would like to preserve. So i think the answer to that question might be a little different now if we had some additional specifications related to it.
>> and that -- i throw it out as a possibility because things can be different in that particular geographic area because where i ran restaurants was utterly alien to this region. I had one up in new york.
>> i had a soda pop cookie stand in tyler. Laugh.
>> [ laughter ]
>> but early sundays at 10:00 is a dead zone for restaurants, but a very active zone for civic opportunities.
>> monday evenings and tuesday evenings are low nights for restaurants. People are off doing civic things like church, which is exactly when you would want to be able to utilize t. So there may be a way to have a public-private partnership that could be very fruitful here.
>> i just put it out there for exploration.
>> it's something we can look at because we're looking for creative right now. The point is that the committee would like to see it reopened. They would like to have meeting space. That was expressed as a strong need and we're trying to figure out how do we do that. And how do you do that with no money. More importantly. Because that's been a challenge. Everything there needs to be improved from water services to even the food service area, the dining area, the upstairs area, the pavilion is not enclosed. It's not air conditioned. So during the summer it's quite brutal to be in there and have any kind of activity. The cowboy church meetings there on sunday mornings and they have to be out there pretty early in order to tolerate that heat. But the community would like to see it reopened. They feel like that's a part of their history. And they don't want to see it taken away. So it is iconic and the question now moving forward is how do we preserve that, how do we improve that so that it can serve generations to come. And we can take that back to the committee and continue to work on it.
>> thanks.
>> i'd like to say first thank you, ken vargas. He has spent a tremendous amount of time on this, as has the taskforce. And he worked hard to get the input, multiple articles in the slaughter creek reporter to outreach to community down there. And i'd like to just -- in addition to the responses to the survey, the community meeting that we had down there was attended by over 70 people. And it was a very vigorous dialogue, different people on different parts of the spectrum. So i think ken's done a really good job in leading this taskforce of pulling together the consensus of what they want to see down there. And just to reiterate some of what he has said is that the whole process of assessment of where they wanted to go with this is uncovered. Additional challenges in addition to the fact that the building is substandard and the liquor license is -- could be problematic. There's stillwater and sewer and parking issues down there as well. When you look at the potential improvements to 1626, which goes beside that and what kind of right-of-way that may take additionally, there's some real challenges that we have to look at here in order to be creative and move down the path that the taskforce is interested in.
>> but the good new is we have a checklist now of what we have to work through.
>> we need to perhaps lookn at what we think is realistic for us to consider. There's some options that we can look at under real estate. We've had people indicate interest in this. This is an interesting time if they're ready to move on something at this point in time is another question. The same thing if we looked at selling the property with conditions on it. There may be people interested out there, but the timing may not be right. So the court needs to consider how important it is that we do something i think quickly or what kind of time we have to work with on this property.
>> okay. I'm left with the impression the longer it remains closed, the more difficult it will be to reopen with any chance of success.
>> you're right.
>> learned that from my stand back in tyler, commissioner eckhardt. Well, do we take this into executive session and try to get those legal questions answered?
>> i think there could be some -- real estate as well.
>> mr. Vargas, anything else?
>> not unless you have any questions. If you have any questions i'm happy to answer them.
>> you know, that fundamental question about the tabc license can be answered by aisd, especially if they say no.
>> they're leaning towards no right now. The conversations that i've had with facilities, it would take the trustees to say -- to waive their policy. Their policy is no, an absolute no. So it would be an exemption.
>> and what's their history on waiving that policy? Do we have any idea?
>> from what i gathered in my mi discussions with their facilities folks, they've not had that issue.
>> okay.
>> this would be an exemption.
>> judge, if i might say also, while it is not in policy, it is certainly in practice that we have users of the other community center sign off that they will not have alcohol on their premises.
>> thanks.
>> thank you very much. We'll discuss this further today in executive session and if appropriate this afternoon take action.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, August 24, 2010, 2010 2:30 PM
