Travis County Commssioners Court
November 19, 2002
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.
Executive Session Items
26. Consider request from Travis County judges regarding workplace safety
issues at 1622 e. Riverside drive, Austin, Texas, and take appropriate action.
That's under the resultation can attorney and real property exceptions to
the open meetings act. We have been asked to postpone item 27 and 28 28 until
next week. 27 and 28. 29. Receive briefing from county attorney and/or take
appropriate action in teresa shields v. Travis County, Texas. That's the consultation
with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 30. Receive briefing on
an employee's appeal of grievance panel cision of September 20, 2002, and
take appropriate action. That's the consultation with attorney exception to
the open meetings act and personnel matters exception to the open meetings
act. 31. Discuss, approve or take any appropriate action regarding county
clerk lease space. That's the real property exception to the open meetings
act. We will meet in executive session to discuss these items with appropriate
staff. And will return to open court before taking any action. Maybe a good
idea to take the county clerk's -- [inaudible] 31. [inaudible - no mic]
>> we have just returned from executive session.
>> where we discussed item no. 26.
>> I move that we ask the county attorney and the real estate
manager to meet with the property owner to see if there is some mutually acceptable
way to terminate this lease and for negotiations to pursue related to a new
lease related to the needs of [inaudible]
>> and that we have this back on the court's agenda next
week.
>> yes.
>> for any necessary follow-up action. Seconded by commissioner
Gomez, any more discussion? All in favor that passes by unanimous vote. Item
no. 29 we did discuss. I guess the only thing we need to do is get directions
for the county attorney's office to proceed as they have been proceeding in
negotiations and we will have this back on the court's agenda again next week
in the event that there's something to report.
>> all right. And that's 11-26. We did not discuss item no.
30. We are advised that what staff needs from us is some indication of when
we can conduct this appeals hearing.
>> yes, sir.
>> then let us ask staff to give us an outline of the issues.
We will have this on the court's agenda next week. And advise all concerned
that we will allow up to two hours for this hearing. The reason for an outline
before then, preferably by 5:00 Friday is to give us an opportunity to learn
as much as we can about the matter. Both sides. So if we have a hearing that's
two hours, we can listen to presentations the first part, then give us an
opportunity to ask questions. And the question for the griefant, I guess,
is whether we -- he wants an executive session hearing or an open court hearing
and if we could have that answer by Friday, at 4:00 or 5:00, that would help,
also.
>> judge, could I get some clarity on something. Is it the
intent of the court that we would be utilizing whatever mutually acceptable
date is out there, but that date is going to be a Tuesday. In terms of utilizing
the time that this court already sets aside on a Tuesday.
>> well, the reason I said we go ahead and set it for next
week, the following week we are supposed to interview applicants for our regional
mobility authority.
>> what time deadlines are we under, linda, related to how
soon do we have to get this thing set? Is there a guideline on that.
>> actually, there would have been 30 days from the time
that -- that the grievant would have submitted all of the materials. Based
on the schedule we would have at least until December the 18th to have this
full, the grievians hearing with the court.
>> next Tuesday is not good?
>> it would be good, yes, it would be good.
>> so next Tuesday the -- next Tuesday -- I understood you,
I thought you said that you would set it next Tuesday for whatever date --
that's where I was confused.
>> we would have the hearing next Tuesday.
>> okay.
>> we would allow up to two hours. So that means from one
minute to two hours.
>> yes.
>> the way that I would do it is maybe 30 minutes aside,
with the hour for the court to ask questions as to to have any kind of discussion
or what.
>> I'm sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to do
for next week. I'm cool.
>> we have the information, the packet represents the information
that's available.
>> it would kind of help us if the packet doesn't clearly
show it, to have -- to have a kind of statement or listing of the county's
position and then a listing of -- or statement of the grievant's position,
kind of side by side.
>> yes.
>> if we could kind of review that, mull over that before
Tuesday, I'm betting that the hearing can go a whole lot faster.
>> okay.
>> we would be able to jump right into the question matter
rather than getting a whole lot of introductory stuff.
>> okay.
>> so I'm -- I guess the full backup is fine, but the outline
that I have in mind, the county side by side comparison will probably be a
lot more useful.
>> we can provide you with that. It's my understanding that
you want that by Friday? You indicated if not before.
>> is that okay, Friday?
>> that's fine.
>> about 3:00 or 4:00, if we could do it.
>> yes, we can get that to you. Just for the record to indicate
that we are following the grievians appeal procedure that as a court approved
on may the 29th, which is outside of what's in the policy of 10.016. I think
we've had -- this will be the third griefians that will come before you under
these particular guidelines.
>> okay. The only other kind of indefinite thing about this
is we would take it up as the last item in executive session. So it's hard
to pinpoint the exact time. When we see the agenda on say, Thursday, see how
many executive session items we have, look at the agenda, I can guess, I will
estimate that for the grievant if we need to.
>> okay.
>> try to reduce the amount of time that that person has
to just kind of wait around down here.
>> we will let the court know in terms of whether the grievant
would like an open session or executive.
>> but in terms of an open session, that does not mean a
televised session. That just means that this room is open and anybody can
walk in here and do it. But we have not done any televised sessions, in my
memory.
>> no. Even the other hearings, we are really have not had
any two that have been similar in this regard. But even the one that you did
here was indeed a closed session. So we will still ask the grievant the question
that you put before us.
>> but there's no requirement that the open session be a
televised session. Is my memory, if I remember right.
>> that's correct.
>> anything further on -- on the directions on 30? We also
discussed number 39 regarding lease space for the county clerk. There was
some matter that we could not discuss in executive session that we need to
discuss in court. Thank you, dana debeauvoir, Travis County clerk. What we
are here to discuss today is taking action on lease space to set up the elections
division for the county clerk's office. We have been through two budget years
where we have talked about a lot of the future planning for elections, how
we are going to organize it for the future. This court that -- has purchased
a new voting system and has indications from the community that other jurisdictions
also want to participate in using that equipment. We have been through our
first election using it. We have done an extensive public outreach campaign.
And the next logical step for us to take is to find a home for -- for receiving
the second half of the shipment of the equipment so that we will be ready
in time to conduct the next election for this community, that next election
is for the city of Austin and other participants on may 3, 2003, with the
early voting starting April 16th and by -- ballot by mail starting March 23rd.
So the plan that we brought before the court is to take the programmatic areas
of the county clerk's office, including the -- the old work that still has
to be done that has to do with providing a phone bank of telephone operators,
voters and election judge questions, a way to process ballot by may, as well
as the new program areas that have to do with receiving inventorying, testing
and programming our voting equipment and then making arrangements through
supply pickup for that equipment to be distributed securely out into the field
so that we can conduct the election using the equipment for both early voting
and election day. The preferred site and I have -- I have owe I'm very clear
about what I think is the better option for Travis County. The preferred site
that the county clerk wants offers us a footprint that allows us to be able
to test and program and train the equipment, train people on using the equipment.
The training area that is in the footprint then also doubles as space on election
night for a counting station. And the area that we are considering has adequate
parking as well as a drive-through parking lot so that we can make arrangements
for van driver delivery and supply pick up for the election judges. It gives
us all of the piece that's we could operate not only for county elections
but for other elections in the future. The square footage is -- within the
parameters of what the court had asked us to look for. And what I'm really
proud about is that we -- the court asked us when we went to go look at this
new space, this new home for the elections division, for us to stay within
the '03 budget we have tried very hard to do that. The preferred site that
the county clerk is recommending to you, along with staff recommendation is
the -- is an option that stays within that fy '03 budget. I would also encourage
the court to proceeding with entering into the lease negotiation because time
is of the essence. I'm concerned about being able to be prepared to get this
election up and running in a way that I can assure success so that then we
will have a happy partner for future elections. Now, let me just say that
in addition to the preferred site that I'm asking the court to pursue, lease
negotiations with today, i've also asked facilities management to help me
in presenting some initial research to the court that suggests that it might
be a very good idea for us to also consider moving another division of the
county clerk's office at the same time or perhaps shortly thereafter and that
proposal to the court is at the research stage at this point. The idea is
that we would move not only the elections division as we have planned for
quite some time, but that we should also consider moving the recording division
of the county clerk's office as well. The preliminary research that we have
done suggests that we -- we would have a way to co-locate elections and recording
and enjoy the benefits of having the management of the two largest portions
of the county clerk's office put together so that we would have support and
cross-training available for both of those offices. So there are some management
and program benefits that come along with considering this idea. The other
thing that I would ask the court to consider, too, is we have approximately
78,000 people who walk into the county clerk's office every day. Many of those
people are repeat customers. They come and live with us all the time. They
are researchers, they are title company people, they are attorneys, staff,
and for those folks I think having adequate parking would be considered a
benefit to them trying to do their jobs. So for -- for approximately let's
say half of our walk-in traffic, I think it would be good news to them to
not have to be in the downtown area fighting for a parking space. For the
folks who are first-time --
>> dana, you don't need to send me a thousand --
>> walk-in people per year. 78,000 people per year. Yeah.
For the rest of the people who --
>> a little bit different than --
>> did I say day? I'm sorry. I'm sorry, yeah, it feels that
way some days.
>> I was about to vote that we --
>> get them out of there.
>> move tomorrow.
>> 78,000 per year. I'm sorry. For the other half of our
folks, it's a little hard to predict who next year is going to get a marriage
license, for example. But we just have done a massive public education program
to teach people how to vote a new system. What I would propose is that if
the court wanted to pursue the idea behind this, also being a recording division,
it would include a massive education program to the public. I think as I was
giving this some thought the first obvious thing that we would do would be
to contact all of the churches and ministers in our area and advise them that
if people wanted to get a marriage license, they would be coming to a new
place, one that had adequate parking for them. With that in mind, what I would
like to ask the court for today, and I'm available for questions as well.
I would ask -- like to ask the court to proceed with negotiations to enter
into a lease agreement with the preferred site, and then bring that final
document back to the court. And I -- I'm aware that you may want to also put
some conditions on that, for example, varying time lengths and other kinds
of deal, parts of the deal that you would like for the lease to consider.
The other thing that I would like you to do is to instruct facilities to pursue
this idea of what if we did want to vacate some of the space at the courthouse
by moving recording out, what is the best and most efficient way for us to
approach that idea. And those are the two things that I'm asking the court
for today. Let's see what I can get.
>> question. Could I get some clarity, let us just say for
the second, we decided to pursue a lease option. What safeguards, options,
et cetera, would be built into whatever proposed lease, in terms of the final
terms and conditions, that if we decided to take another more permanent course
of action, but one that might take a couple of years or even three or four
--
>> yes, varying.
>> whatever, but something less than the full term of this
lease, what kinds of safeguards would be put into this lease so that we are
not saddled with something to the full end of the term as opposed to giving
us flexibility to do what's best for Travis County and --
>> right. Early option out, shorter terms, buildout costs
that wouldn't be -- have to be paid back. If we were there for a specified
period of time, those are the kinds of items that we would want to negotiate
in the lease for you. You know, if --
>> rephrase it.
>> so we don't really have those before us today related
to the final version of any proposed --
>> no. We have the -- you have the initial proposal. If you
want to change any of these items in this initial proposal, we will take that
directive and go back and try to finish up negotiations to bring you what
you really want.
>> even --
>> standards in all leases we don't have [inaudible - no
mic] [multiple voices]
>> even if we do want to have a more permanent solution where
somewhere down the line, you have deadlines relating to we have a lease that's
ending in a space that is wholly inadequate for elections as we know it come
the new equipment arriving and new responsibilities related to other jurisdictions.
>> correct.
>> is that correct?
>> that is correct. We cannot function as we are, we must
make a change. The proposal that we wanted the court to take action on was
a change that sets us on a -- a solution to the issue, how are we going to
provide a home for elections and to stay within the fy '03 budget.
>> I would like to see a comparison of -- of a suggested
permanent location what it would cost, the amount of square footage, of course,
is something that we are looking at as far as the lease is concerned. But
I still would like to see a comparison to a permanent setting for you. More
so than a --
>> do you mean if we bought a building or something? Okay.
>> I would like to see what facilities [inaudible] prior
to [inaudible] because I think in the long run leasing that we are just throwing
money out the window. I understand it's the urgency of what you need. But
I think it's something that we look at cost savings looking at something permanent
for you as opposed to long-term lease or whatever. It's something that I need
to look at.
>> okay. In fact what we can do, commissioner, along those
lines is to have a -- to have a two-track approach. To go ahead and commence
with some negotiation -- some negotiations on some of these options and at
the same time to go ahead and put together the numbers for going ahead and
purchasing a building or building -- buying the land and building a facility.
We can do that at the same time.
>> okay. Still yet your questions answered --
>> surely, I think an out clause, I think it's very important.
Without an out clause, we -- we are looking at other avenues to maybe bring
a permanentians to those particularly situations, defeating the purpose.
>> by providing a home, it also gives us the opportunity
to ask for other partners to help pay for that home, too.
>> exactly.
>> I need the one week professional courtesy on action, but
I distinguish that from directions to pursue a certain -- certain approach,
keep putting together information, for different options, there are different
things to look at. And I don't see any problem with that.
>> all right.
>> at least there's some activity.
>> how long do you think it will take to bring up those comparative
analyses situation that has been put fort --
>> next week to you.
>> I definitely agree with what's going on here, we do need
some extra time. But I think the time needs to be used to the -- to the --
to the aspects of coming to some kind of closure as far as running a parallel
tract of what we are doing here. Lease versus permanent home. Well -- well
in comparison. So anyway, that's a lot of information that needs to be shared
between now and next week, I think.
>> and explore, also, the possibility of perhaps a shorter
term lease.
>> some type of out situation.
>> yeah, we just wanted you to not have to incur any additional
expenses for '03, I was really trying to do that.
>> right, I understand. With apologies to the court, I will
not be here next week or the next couple of weeks, but my chief deputy can
handle negotiation in my stead.
>> will the members of the court be able to access the preferred
location between now and next Tuesday.
>> absolutely. Go see it.
>> is this building vacant or --
>> uh-huh, it is.
>>
>> judge, would you accept this in friendly, but just in
terms of general directions for us to see what progress can be made related
to going with option 1, but there be a dual track here related to a more permanent
solution, not only for elections, but for recording in terms of -- and any
other cooperation, collaboration with any other departments that may also
piggyback upon those same kinds of concerns for permanent solutions. But doing
nothing won't get us anywhere and so -- so in terms of bringing back for --
for final consideration by this court of any kind of option, that we see what
the full range of options there are, related to early termination, buildout
space, you know, other kinds of give and take on the lease so that the court
retains maximum flexibility, but still stays within the budget parameters
that we have established. But gets the clerk someplace knowing that we are
lease is up. -- that her lease is up.
>> second.
>> does that get us there.
>> just directions, we are not by any means to a final lock-in.
And to encourage anybody that wants to go out and take a look at any particular
preferred space to go do that over the next week, if that would be helpful.
>> so we can expect something back I guess from facilities
for the -- dual track or parallel track sometime --
>> time next week, commissioner.
>> I just want to make it -- we will keep you -- the permanent
comparison, permanent housing for the election next week. But not out of the
department, if I understand it correctly, commissioner, you were saying any
other department can also be in the same place with the -- with the election
or the recording. I don't know what department is looking at me.
>> I think some other people can fill you in.
>> okay.
>> without raising the hopes of anybody -- also it's part
of what we need to have brought back to us is to know what offsets there might
be in terms of other funding partners and to what magnitude, although that's
not locked down, so we can kind of get to a bomb line of -- a bottom line
of where we need to be for at least the next year and a half, potentially
two years. Is that friendly, judge?
>> for directions, yes.
>> just for directions, I fully --
>> keep moving forward here.
>> just to keep moving forward and see if we reach a place
where --
>> okay.
>> thank you. Facilities [inaudible] available this week
to discuss this one day, I could get with you all.
>> absolutely.
>> okay. Anything further on item no. 31?
>> no.
>> that's it.
>> that does it. Do you have another one?
>> vote.
>> vote.
>> there wasn't a motion. Just a recommendation. It wasn't
a motion.
>> okay.
>> that means if there's no objection -- those will be directions
from the court.
>> okay. There being no further business.
>> move adjourn.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM