Travis County Commssioners Court
January 14, 2003
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
25. Receive briefing from county attorney and tnr and/or take appropriate action regarding right-of-way transactions relating to county roadway connections to sh 130. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act and that's the real property exception to the open meetings act. 26. Consider workplace safety issues at 1622 e. Riverside drive, and take appropriate action, including: a) terminating existing lease and b) approving new lease. 27. Receive briefing from --
>> one moment.
>> yeah, we didn't announce what we are going to be taking that into executive session on. Also I wanted to mention, also, that the landlord is here to address you either before or after you go into executive session on this item no. 26.
>> all right. We will go into executive session under that's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. I guess for the court would we like to hear from the landlord before we go into executive session or afterwards?
>> before.
>> doesn't matter.
>> why don't we just before, in the events there's something we need to take up with counsel while in there. So we will get comments in just a moment, here, okay? Let me read the rest of the executive session. And then we will take open court comments under item 26. Then convene in executive session and then return. Is that okay?
>> uh-huh.
>> that's fine.
>> okay.
>> you are already well on your way.
>> > I'm on a roll on the reading. 27. Receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding possible settlement offer in michele rene weston v. Margo frasier, et al. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. Let's call up personnel -- no personnel matters -- is the sheriff here or sheriff's representative.
>> that was the plan. We did issue a special invitation to the sheriff or her special designee if my office could maybe call, dan, are you doing that yourself? To renew that invitation. 28. Receive briefing from -- we've been asked to postpone for two weeks until February 4th. 29. Receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action in fredrick pluet, (deceased) v. Margo frasier, et al., And in re: estate of fredrick pluet, deceased, in the probate court no. 1 of Travis County, Texas. That's posted under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
>> on 28 you said two week, that would be February 4th, that would be three weeks, did you intend three weeks or we weeks?
>> if my staff would let me know. [ laughter ]
>> I don't --
>> they said two weeks here until February 4th. We need to know whether on 28 they want two weeks or three weeks, which will get us through February 4th. My note here indicates both in there internally contradictory. This note says todd clark, assistive county attorney, wants us to announce number 30 under attorney consultation only. Not personnel. If there's a personnel matters part we will take that in open court. 30. Discuss certain personnel issues concerning george morgan, discuss starflight organizational issues, receive legal advice and take appropriate action. That will be only under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. We will take in open court any personnel matters. Now, before we go into executive session, let's hear from -- from the landlord and his attorney on item no. 26? If you would give us your name we would be happy to receive any comments that you have.
>> thank you, my name is jimmy nasour, an attorney here in Austin, also a share holder in -- the landlord of the property at 1622 east riverside drive. We -- we are here basically at the invitation of john [inaudible], nice enough to contact me after these issues arise on the buildinghere at 1623 riverside drive. We received a letter from judge Biscoe in early to mid November telling us of some mold problems on the building. And asking for a plan to -- to resolve these issues within 30 days. On December 10th, I had hand delivered to judge Biscoe and to -- to john hilly a copy of a plan that was prepared by hbc engineering. The plan was detailed and extensive and went into what was necessary to get the problems resolved at the building. We -- we immediately took action to -- to implement the plan. The plan involved some roof repair, instead of roof repair, we elected to do roof replacement. And the roof has in fact been replaced and I think was complete Friday.
>> Friday.
>> I'm john bevis, the property manager for capital leasing, I'm sorry.
>> john is going to pass out some photos here of the roof that -- the roof was complete on Friday, in fact the workers worked on christmas eve, they worked on new year's day and it would have been completed sooner but for a tornado -- for tornado problems. It's my understanding after an inch and a half of rain this past weekend, there was no leak at the property. The next step is to then remediate the property. We retained joyner environmental technological services company and they will be working under hbc engineering to oversee implementation of the plan. To complete the plan is less than 30 days, more likely three weeks. They moved equipment in on Thursday, and yesterday were denied the ability to begin remediation. I want the commissioners to know that -- that I take this very seriously. And I think I'm -- we are a good -- we are good landlords and we want to correct any problems that -- that exist there. And we are going to do it. We are going to correct them regardless of what action the court takes, we are going to move forward and we are going to get this thing corrected because we are going to honor our obligations under the lease just as we would expect the county to honor their obligations under the lease. We feel as landlords we have been responsive to the tenants' needs and john, excuse me, john with capital management leasing can further address that. But I just wants you to know that I'm here today to let you know how serious I take this. That we are going to be responsible about it. We are going to take action on it. And itment be complete -- and it will be complete immediately provided we can get access to the property and begin remediation. I'm told from the remediation company to prepare to be there in the morning, but the scheduling we tried to work out with the tenant and we are hopeful that with john's help that we can get that -- get that worked out to where it's -- it's done professionally, but yet with the least destruction possible. I will let -- I will let john address the manager. Can you pass the --
>> I gave commissioner Gomez a set of photos, there's five sets there. They are slightly different. I had two originals done from the film and then just picked enough to make up five sets. That was taken yesterday. I climbed up on the roof with the roofer and I also was up there during the installation of the new roof. The gutters are soldered, not screwed together. The roof is brand new. There's nothing repaired. All brand new construction. At a large expense on our part to -- to stop the leaks. Those -- as you all know, roof leaks can be -- you think you have them fixed and they come back and haunt you. We've -- jimmy finally said just, you know, let's just do it right and -- and replace the roof. And we did that. At a large -- at a large expense. Typically, when I get a call from either sid muellerer or part ford or an -- pat ford or an e-mail I respond that day to the request. Some of the requests that are made of me are my responsibility, ie jimmy's -- as per lease document the landlord's spomentd. Some of the -- responsibilities. Some of the requests are the county's responsibility. We are prepared to live up to the lease. We are living up to the lease. We would -- we would love to keep you guys there, want you to stay.
>> as a final comment, I want you to know we take it seriously, we are going to get it taken care of. If there's anything else that we can do what we would like to do about it that's what we will do. Do you have any questions.
>> the biggest problem that came to our attention was the presence of some of the real bad mold that was causing health problems for -- for county employees in the building. Good faith efforts have been made to remediate these problems, but notwithstanding those efforts the problems have surfaced more than once over the last at least a year.
>> what's happening, judge Biscoe, there was some remediation done before. Where the remediation was done, there has been no recurrence but for one office. So it's true, it was done, but the recurrence is not in a place where the remediation had taken place before. The occurrence now is in a new spot. It's on the front of the building and we identified the problem and that's going to be fixed. There are in the report that the county had -- had shris seted or -- solicited or obtained a report from remkis engineering I believe or consultants, that report identifies the bad mold and some other places where it's -- where it's not bad, but, you know, some signs are -- they identified it in different categories. But we have taken the position that not only are we going to remediate the stuff that is required to be remediated, but we are going to go above and beyond that just to be on the safe side. So the recurrence is not recurrence in places that were remediated. The guys that did the work did a very good job and they -- they are the same guys that we are getting to do this right here. It's on an opposite side of the building. A recurrence in one spot. What I am told is the recurrence is the result of something in the carpet, not as a result of the leak because that roof was fixed back there and it was a result of carpet, not a result of leak. But in any event, the roof has been totally replaced and we feel that -- that there's not going to be a recurrence. But following -- following this remediation.
>> but I know we had a consultant go out and look at -- at the facility and come back and tell us that there was mold, some worse than others. Some -- some more problematic to human health than others. I'm trying to get around using that word.
>> right.
>> but you do -- did you have a different consultant --
>> we followed your consultant's report. Your consultant's report confirms what I just told you. That is that the recurrence took place in one office, the rooms where they identified stachybotrus, the bad mold, was in rooms that were not remediated the lasting round but for one office. That's my understanding of what that report read. But we are following the county's report and the -- our engineers have -- have taken the county report, which is the ribkis report, their plan, the plan that was delivered to you on December 10th is a plan that addresses what needs to be taken care of pursuant to that report.
>> you think the remediation work can be done in less than a. Onth?
>> yes, sir.
>> any or questions from the court?
>> no.
>> I do have a question. Obviously you know how long I have been here. Seven or eight weeks. I'm really perplexed by this because I don't -- I understand there has been a problem out here for much longer than what -- what would appear to be your telling me that if I -- if I knew nothing about any of this stuff and was sitting here, it would make it sound reasonable to me to go oh, heck, I mean from November when -- when you got the first note or what you say you got the first note to -- to date and I think that you have -- I think people have jumped through some hoops. I mean, with working on christmas, working on new years, pretty obvious to me. But I'm really confused about this, because from everything that I know, this problem has persisted for a lot longer. Now, maybe, you know, the mold deal that originally happened whenever that did happen, happened in a spot and that was the -- the roof was fixed, we didn't have, you know, a recurring problem there. But I'm -- I'm really grasping here because it just makes it sound like that you all think that this really is not much of an issue and that is not the impression that I have at all. Having been here eight weeks. I mean it really surprises me. So can you tell me definitively from your standpoint that you really jumped on this thing, so to speak, or got on to this remedy as soon as you first heard about the problem? Or either one of you, john, can answer that.
>> I can address that. First of all the problem -- the problem occurred a year or so ago. When it occurred, I think the county will confirm this, we got right on it. It was extensive. We went above and beyond what was required. We involved, you know, the county's risk people, scheduling, implementation of the plan. All took place in concert. And it was done. The roof was fixed, remediation was done, it was expensive. We took care oft. There was a recurrence, we found out about through judge Biscoe's letter and through a visit with -- with john hilly and pat ford. The recurrence was in at least we found out about it, I want to say in November, but whenever it was, we immediately got on it. As soon as I got judge Biscoe's letter, we received a letter from john and pat, the visit provided us with a copy of the report, that's when we found out that the -- that the recurrence was not in the places where remediation took place, we were successful in what we did, which we feel the fact that there was one room that had recurrence of stachybotrus was successful, it was in a bad corner leak that was a problem there that wasn't picked up. In any event, we took it variesly the first time, we take -- seriously the first time, we take it seriously now. We got right on it thrsms --there's been no delays, I would differ with anyone that says anything to the contrary, we got right on it, just as we did this time.
>> I think the difference between what they did last time and what we are doing this time is we didn't try to band aid the roof this time. I mean, it's a new roof.
>> it's not -- it wasn't a band-aid back then. It fixed the problem. And we could have done flashing on the front this time and it will fix the problem, too. But we weighed the cost of doing that versus the replacement and said let's just do a full replacement, which is what we did and it's completed.
>> so we feel there's no chance the roof will leak and moisture is what mold feeds on. You keep the water out, you remediate what is contaminated, there should be, I'm not a scientist, I'm a real estate guy, the mold will go away.
>> > we are going to follow hbc's report, they are professionals. We are going to do everything to make it safe that we need to do to fix the problem. It worked for us last time, hopefully it will work for us this time.
>> judge, is it appropriate at this time to ask any of our staff if there is any conflicting story with -- with what he is telling us? Is that something that we can ask? We have staff or we have someone it's whether you take information from the -- during the executive session or whether you would like to hear from staff now it's up to the court.
>> it's not going to do me any good to go into executive session and have somebody tell me one thing, I'm told something else out here, I really need toed in when this thing started and obviously there is a -- there is a -- there's an issue here. With one side saying it happened here, we have said this. The other side saying, no, we had it at this point in time, so -- so whatever --
>> I think one thing that may be helpful, if you look at the date of the report, the county took samplings on the report. If you look at that, find out if they got the results, find out how long they held on to them, where they gave them to us, from the time that we were given, the results of that report, looked at that, and what we have done since then and I think that should answer, you know, your question.
>> I'm just curious, did either of you get up on top of the roof and take pictures of the roof before we got to the replacement project and what was your assessment of what the roof looked like prereplacement?
>> I went on the roof prior to replacement. I think city -- someone from the staff did -- there was some pictures that I saw. While it was being repaired. I went on the roof two or three months ago in the bid taking process, which we are talking large amounts of money here to replace the roof. I got three bids. Your question was what condition was the roof in.
>> what was your assessment of what the roof looked like.
>> that's when I came down and told jimmy, let's replace it. He said yeah.
>> did you get on the roof the first time --
>> I was not affiliated with the project at that time. I started in June.
>> did anyone associated with this property get on the property and -- get on the roof and make a different assessment back in springtime when we had using your words a band-aid approach to the situation in your building.
>> let me say that was a poor choice of words.
>> thank you.
>> john was not with the property at that time. We had professional people get on the roof and we took their recommendation. It was a flashing issue on the perimeter of the roof. That was replaced. When that was replaced, the problem took care of itself. We were told this time flashing on the front would take care of the problem, too. Along where the gutter, some [inaudible] something that needed to be replaced. So we rather than do that opted to go ahead and do a full replacement.
>> so between springtime the first time that this happened and there was an assessment made by your professionals that was just a flashing issue, we can take care of this, something cataclysmic occurred between then and now that prompted you all to say the whole darn thing needs to be replaced?
>> well, it was a cost issue. It wasn't a great revelation. When we weighed the cost of repairing versus the cost of replacement, it just made more sense to replace it.
>> so something was serious enough to warrant --
>> as I told you, commissioner, I mean I take this thing very seriously.
>> so do we. I am -- [multiple voices]
>> I don't want you to think that we take it any less seriously.
>> no, we don't. We expended large sums of money the first go round, we are doing it this time. But the -- the roof could have been repaired and the problem resolved. We opted to replace it.
>> in terms --
>> it has been replaced.
>> in terms of this remediation that you wanted to begin but have not yet been given clearance to do so, is it your understanding that that can be accomplished without people being displaced and/or the elimination or postponement of things like classes which is a revenue source for the county and has been substantially impacted by the problems, not just over the last couple of months, but over the last year.
>> well, I'm not -- the scheduling, we hoped to be very sensitive about the scheduling and the least disrun active as possible. -- disrun active. Disruptive. I'm sure there's going to be some minor inconvenience. But -- but we will do the best we can to be as sensitive as possible. But yet we need to get the problem taken care of.
>> do you think that inconvenience led to us not having the full enjoyment of that facility in terms of the full use of that property? We've had the -- do you think we've had the full use of that property over the last year?
>> obviously, whenever a room is being remediated, you don't have use of it. So to answer your question, there are times whenever the remediation takes place that those offices, you know, are not in use.
>> so --
>> they are not able to used.
>> so if there were times when we were not able to run classes, you would concede that the county perhaps might have lost some money over this gig in terms of not being able to have revenue producing classes in our facility that we have suffered financial losses during that time period of inconvenience.
>> well, that may be the case. The lease addresses what's necessary whenever repairs need to be made. We honor those provisions of the lease.
>> it may help for staff -- for somebody to come forward and answer these or four questions that commissioner daugherty had in mind there. One of them, when was that -- when was the initial roof and remediation work done.
>> [inaudible] the initial roof work, remediation, the first one was done in the -- in December of last year.
>> [inaudible] manages this property for Travis County. I have never been provided with any information about a roof repair short of this last action taken. To replace the roof. When this note -- when this lease was negotiated, renewed, as part of that negotiation, it was requested and required as part of the rule that the roof be evaluated and repairs made. I have never been provided one way or another if that's been done.
>> when was the initial roof work done, do you all know?
>> that was before my watch. I -- I also do the accounting. There are bills to the roofer that we have -- that we have paid, you know, thousands of dollars, because just like I replaced it, this last week, with [inaudible] blessing --
>> I'm hoping to get a date.
>> I don't have that. I can provide it.
>> that's the first.
>> we should be able to provide e-mails of complaints from cscd about wet rooms, or wet ceiling tiles after rains, that have happened ever since the remediation. Big question about the initial roof what it looks like. The second question is in our view, how often have we complained or when have we complained about roof problems, leaks, that the new roof would repair?
>> the new roof was completed last Friday o Saturday.
>> right.
>> Monday after we visited the site and we have not seen any roof leaks since then.
>> but leading up to the new roof being placed on the building. When did we complain.
>> many times, many, many times.
>> when?
>> I did not bring my stack of e-mails, judge, for the number of times that we have asked that the water -- reported water damage and the source of water damage, but they are very numerous.
>> we were told there were numerous complaints pretty much over the last year or more that have not been addressed. The new roof will address the roof leaks.
>> absolutely.
>> but we were told that we had complained over a matter of many months, right?
>> yes, judge. I'm rosy from cscd. When the first remediation occurred, from December to March, that was completed and then the rent -- heavy rain last summer started. So since the spring and the summer, with the heavy rains, there have been leaks, continuous leaks, I know there's -- there's a lot of documentation. Our staff complained profusely July, August, September, we let the judges know in September, you all got the letter in October. Ever since then, you know, we've been -- you know, bringing up the issues and the roof had not been worked on to our knowledge up until two weeks ago. Now year's eve, wherever they started work on it.
>> so remediation work, I guess some of which was roof repair, could have been, but that occurred we think between December of '02 and March of '03 -- no, December '01, March of '02.
>> yes, a year ago.
>> that's when the remediation took place.
>> during that three month period.
>> yes.
>> and what were we doing during the reimmediateiation work period?
>> in terms of staff? And --
>> right.
>> there was a large number of staff to -- displaced, our three units could not function, and that was why we were asking in the letters, in the letter from the judges, that if remediation is to occur again a second time, that we cannot go through this again. Right now looking at what they are recommending, we would displace at least 28 staff with computers, copiers, faxes, we can't function. We didn't function a year ago and it was three months of not being able to provide services to work in different locations. We just moved where we had vacant offices, that's why we are saying we can't have that done piecemeal again.
>> instead of inconvenienced, we would pretty much describe a picture of serious and substantial work disruption. A lot of folk being impacted, equipment, then basically being unable to to carry out their duties and responsibilities for a significant period. To make matters a little bit worse, a lot of this money if not all of it is kind of state of Texas money. And part of the funding that they provide for community supervision and corrections really is based on the money that we receive. So if we don't receive the money, it's reflected in -- in subsequent state budget for community supervision and direction, so the money is a big deal. In addition to the three month period last year, we are probably looking at another period now, you know, we have a lot of facilities county-wide, so the commissioners court is working on these issues then all of a sudden we get a letter signed by eight or nine judges, that indicates to us that the matter may be a little bit more serious than our routine problem, you know. Then we get to looking at it more closely, learn about the remediation effort, but also see hard evidence that the remediation done last year did not resolve the issue for us. And during this period, also, we were told that some employees complained of various health issues that left them unable to carry out their work. So all of a sudden, it really grew into a much bigger issue than a simple roof leak. And so the last effort to get a kind of follow-up consultant report about mold pretty much validated our worst suspicion, that it it was a serious mold that in fact causes health problems.
>> yes.
>> so the context here is -- you know, was sort of growing more serious all the time. To be honest, I this think that shortly before christmas, we pretty much found ours in a position that it seemed for us that the best option was to try to find another location to move these to. And that -- that -- I think it's fair that we kind of make that determination just short of -- of [inaudible] that's not to say efforts have not been made. But it is to say that after a year, we found ourselves pretty much facing the same circumstances.
>> if I could just address a couple of points that you brought up. First of all, whatever complaints were made concerning roof leaks were addressed. When you have a roof leak, you call your roofer, he goes out there and fixes the problem. That's what took place between the initial mediation and the roof replacement. It's a result, an accumulation of all of these things that go into the decision to do a full roof replacement. Our plan takes less than 30 days. There has to be a correction, we hope it's minor. The first phase of the remediation takes place in offices that are already vacant. Whatever disruption there is, it would seem to me there's going to be far more disruption in a relocation. That's -- that's your decision, but I just want you to know that -- that unless you had mr. [inaudible] substantiate that the roof is not leaking anymore, despite an inch and a half of rain this past weekend, the remediation as I said would be complete within 30 days, this thing should be over. And it would just seem to me that that would be not only for -- for safety, work safety issues, the -- my understanding, I can't -- I can't remember the terminology that the engineers use, but that the work is done while -- the work that is being done while the rest of the office is being occupied is not -- I mean, there's no risks associated with that. It can be ongoing. And the offices are vacant, you know, now anyway. I don't know what disruption there would be. [one moment please for change in captioners] .
>> was there something that happened in the spring of '01 or in the summer of '01?
>> it doesn't make any difference who answers this. I'm trying to figure out, I mean, I can see where you have an issue in December of '01, and you have to get in and you have to fix it. If you get in and you fix the problem, even though you have the inconvenience of having remediation done, I think everybody understands that you are going to be in a situation where it's the not going to be very convenient for you to operate and do business. After that gets -- and you think that whatever was done to the roof at the time -- won't use that term -- but that was basically, to your knowledge, it was fixed. Then we have another problem that starts after March or so of '02. Between March of '02 and when we -- the judge sends the letter that jimmy gets in October or November, are you saying that you got no word back from anyone from the county that between March and up into that time that there were additional problems, that there was new mold that had been found? Are you not aware of those kind of things?
>> I'm not. I started managing the property in July of 2002, and it was the tail end of the remediation at that point, and it was clean. I mean, everyone -- I accepted the building, the keys to the building, so to speak, with the understanding that it was clean, and I think everyone believed it was clean. I can tell you this. I mean, chuck watt is here and he can draws when he got that report and he can also address when he would have given it. And it's going to take us less time to remediate this problem than it did for them to get that report to us. I'm not trying to point the finger at anyone in this thing. I just want to get this thing fixed and I want to keep the tenant there and I want this thing to go to its term. It would just seem in everyone's best interest that that happen. We're committed to make it happen. And as I said, would do whatever we can to make it happen.
>> is that a report the county paid for?
>> yes.
>> so in terms of turning over a report, we're talking about turning over a report that belongs to the county that the county paid for. Has the landlord paid for that report? That is just something we've absorbed as another expenditure?
>> yes.
>> how much was it?
>> approximately $7,000.
>> what about previous times that led to the first remediation.
>> prior to that I had been in-house testing.
>> so you didn't have to go out for professional services and cost us money.
>> and what we had done was prior to to December remediation, we had done some spotchecks with tests to identify areas where we know we have moisture, and we performed remediation in those areas December through March. And later in the summer or late fall, I was receiving information from the people on site. They were still experiencing symptoms. We did some additional checks in-house, tests, identified some issues which led us to ask to have that report in which we tested every room on both floors. About 70-some-odd tests. From that we were able to completely map all the rooms that we had airborne issues with. That was the first time that that's really been done in that building where we had a full picture of all the issues in that building. Up until before that, we had only taken tests in areas where we had presumed there would be mold issues because there was some water intrusion.
>> but that's where the tenant did that, not the landlord.
>> the full?
>> yes.
>> yes, the tenant.
>> commissioner Sonleitner, we prepared our own -- we hired our own consultants to do testing at the same time when we did the first remediation. Then the county hired their own. So we had two sets of testing, and we compared those, and that's how we arrived at a scope of work and determined what -- you know, what needed to be done. We absorbed costs of our own testing. The county, to be safe, wanted to do their own, and that's where that came about. With regards to this last report, regardless of who paid for it, if they had the report and it was a problem, they've got to either give it to us as a landlord so we can take care of it. I mean, you don't just sit on the report and do nothing. I mean --
>> here's the date that chuck got it. I've got it stamped November 18th. What was the date your daughter was born?
>> November 18th.
>> that was the day we gave it to you.
>> when were the results -- you had verbal results -- we didn't even know a test was being done. When was that done?
>> the letter that -- the judge isn't to you originally -- sent to you originally was the dated chuck was sent to do the testing. That was within a week.
>> i've got a different date, but you know, i'll --
>> when does the current contract expire?
>> December 31st.
>> December 31st, 2003.
>> work you would have to do even if we stayed until December of '03 that you would have to have done this kind of work for whomever your tenant was going to be in that building because it was obviously substantial enough to warrant a complete roof replacement and you are going to have to do the remediation if not for us but anybody.
>> we're going to do this work because we're good landords.
>> but you would have to do it for anybody, not just Travis County.
>> for Travis County or for burleson county or john dough.
>> but it would be work that you would already have to do no matter what. If you want to lease this building out.
>> well, we have a lease with Travis County now. And that's --
>> but if you had somebody else that were to walk in tomorrow, you would have had to do this work anyway. This is not special work you are only doing for Travis County, and there is no other investment that you need to take care of this property beyond December 31st of 2003.
>> well, there's a difference.
>> it's the a timing issue, but you would have to do this anyway.
>> yes.
>> I would just like to say one thing. Again, mr. Nasseur has said he's not been notified that there was ongoing problems with this building. I would like to --
>> that's not what I said.
>> okay, good, because there are a million probably e-mails, that's probably some of what an exaggeration but not too much in my office concerning this building, roof leaks. I draw the attention to the document that we signed, that we both signed, and that was in January. This was the extension of the lease, and it is very specific, and it deals with landlord shall repair, replace the roof. And within 45 days of the execution of this lease. And that -- you know, it just goes on and on.
>> [inaudible].
>> let me address the --
>> I go back here to exhibit b. But, you know, we're particularly determined source of water leakage in upstairs southeast corner of building and repair. That's an exhibit. There's an entire exhibit dedicated solely to documenting and delynn eight the repairs that need to be made to this building prior to our extension of this lease. Those repairs were so extensive that you agreed to a reduction in the lease rate until these repairs were made.
>> exactly. That's why I want to be fair about that. When we found this, this was -- signed this, there was a laundry list we agreed to do as a landlord, and we had a time schedule for completing those items. If they were not complete by a certain date, we agreed to take a reduction in rent. We did all the work on the exhibit, but we didn't do it within that certain time frame. And as a result, we were penalized and the county benefited from that in getting a reduced rent. Is that not the case?
>> that is the case.
>> okay.
>> however, you never supplied us with any records, as you are required to under this lease, my opinion under this lease, concerning what repairs you made to that roof. What inspection was done to the roof and what repairs were made to that roof. And we're not talking about -- and this is -- because I go back and I believe this, I'm not rimkus, I'm not chuck, but I bet the reason that you had the mold the first time and the reason you have it right now is because these repairs weren't made.
>> yeah, well, that's --
>> I believe that. That's what I believe.
>> you were provided with all of that. The rent would not have started -- the full rent would not have started until all the work was done. Full rent was started. But I mean, you know, we can argue about this back and forth, you know. This is not a new building. It's an old building. The county has been a tenant in there over 10 years, I think. We're doing the best we can to keep this property in good shape. We spent a lot of money on it, and we're going to continue to do that, and I'm just telling you we're going to do the best we can to make sure this problem goes away. And, you know, what we're asking for, I don't think, is unreasonable. We can get this thing complete within 30 days.
>> so you are asking basically to be given an opportunity to complete the remediation work within 30 days and continuation of the lease through the term.
>> right.
>> we occupy a county-owned space, which may be sooner than December 31st, which is in the terms of the contract.
>> if you have a new building.
>> there's a provision in the lease that allows a kickout once the new building is built, yes.
>> anything further at this time?
>> he made mention earlier at the beginning of this that he was -- or his team of remediation had been denied access and that those repairs were not being allowed to be made. It is my understanding, i've not talked directly to cscd staff on site, that how this scheduling thing came about is that one of the unit managers was in her office and a gentleman came in and said we're going to start remediation tomorrow morning at 8:00 and we need you to have this, this and -- these offices empty. That was the first -- that's how this started about a week and a half ago. Mr. Hill yard wrote a letter saying no, no, we need some advanced notices. You know, terms of the lease allow for this type of -- this process here. Mr. Naseur wrote back, my memory -- I'm sorry, I did not bring the file, I brought another file, stated this work would be done on weekends. Nights and weekends. And that there would be no disruption. That this would minimize the disruption to the staff. What was discussed the other day with cscd staff, I was not there, neither was mr. Hillyer, neither was mr. Naseur, was that it would be a month, so many days, you know, we're ready to start. And again, the staff's response was where do we go. Where do we go here. What do we have to do. They have no place to go. All the -- I mean, unless you wanted to wholesale change out orientation schedule, move it back to south park, there's not a vacation. They can't just walk in one day and say you are not supposed to be here, you are supposed to be over there. If you -- they go to jail. These things have some advanced notice and there's advance notice for us to notify the clients. This is how it worked the last time. I also would like chuck to give some explanation. Mr. Naseur had stated on numerous occasions today that the remediation -- the mold has not recurred in any office remediated before with the exception of one office. I feel that that -- chuck can address that. There are some recurrences in other areas that were not -- that were in the previous remediation, identified in the previous remediation, and the main one that comes to my memory is the air conditioning system. The argument can be made this stuff is in the air conditioning system, it's all over the building. Also the argument can be made that the reason that we're back here again is because it didn't remove carpet, which they -- is standard in many remediations to do. I'm -- I'm not an expert on what standards. Many times the carpeting is removed. The carpeting was not remood in all the offices that had stachybotrys mold.
>> I feel I have to jump in. Pat, as you well know, the recommendation made by our engineer and chuck, we went beyond that the first go round. And the reason why it's the not being done on weekends this time is because we're doing the same thing this time. We're doing the same thing this time. So it's the unfair to say that.
>> but your letter said weekends.
>> well, initially it said we were going to do it on weekends because there was five or six offices that were involved, that had -- that required remediation. But chuck wanted additional offices done, and it expanded the scope of what needed to be done.
>> I believe your consultant also agreed with that assessment also.
>> that's fine. I'm not going to deny that, and I'm taking their advice. My consultant is working with chuck and I'm taking their advice.
>> okay. As pat asked me to identify, according to the map that I have, I show three areas that have recurrence of molds from the previous remediation last year. This includes the entire education lab upstairs, which is about maybe a fourth of the office area and a large area for clientele to use. And then two other areas on the first floor on the southeast corner that had remediation prior also. Now, these tests are airborne tests and we can only identify the mold that's in the air. That doesn't mean there's not any mold inside the walls. We were concerned with airborne testing to identify exposure, not necessarily wall check testing or carpet test to go identify sources. We felt identification of a source was the owner's responsibility. We wanted to identify the exposure to our employees, so that's why we did air testing.
>> I was going by what [inaudible] told me, I was looking at the list here, the rooms that were identified in the rimkus report, and there was one room there was a recurrence in. I'm in the aware of anything else.
>> in the final, there's a compilation of four different assessments, which includes the rimkus assessment, two others I had done and mcmahon had done that including [inaudible] and carpet. All the rooms are a compilation of all four of those tests.
>> this is a problem that can go away, and we're committed to make it go away. And, you know, we just ask for some patience.
>> for a second chance.
>> thank you. Well said.
>> even though the first chance -- the first chance remediation was done well by the company, but it's my belief that the repair work on the building was not successful by the owner. And as a result of the unsuccessful -- the roof reyou pairs, that's why we have this issue here today.
>> chuck, let me ask you, wasn't the fact that the roof is in the condition that it's in now and given the fact that you had knowledge as to whose going to be doing the remediation, do have you an opinion as to whether or not the second go round is more likely to succeed?
>> I would expect the second round to succeed, yes.
>> thank you.
>> I would just like to say that the southeast corner is the same corner we referred to in the lease renewal, December.
>> that's the one spot that we had agreed on.
>> yeah, that we had a problem in that area.
>> it's the one room, recurrence, and it's being fixed with the new roof.
>> it's the same roof that was mention understand the lease December of 2001. So for over a year, in that area, we have had a documented problem that it was of such a degree that it made us wait null -- made its way actually into a lease form. That's just one corner.
>> and I just need to reiterate and speak for the staff who we hear from daily, you know, their symptoms, they are sick, they want to do their job, and we -- and I understand he wants to remediate the building and that's fine, it needs to be done, but we cannot remain there and do our jobs and keep healthy employees at the same time. We can't do that. And serve the public that we serve.
>> you know, made this offer to the county before and i'll make it again now. If there are offices that are going to be displaced during the remediation, we'll provide, you know, offices for them. And, you know, one of the things that we've looked at doing and john is working on it now is g.e. Modular systems, they bring temporary offices on site so that, you know, locations are not -- I mean, you don't need to change an address, they are right there. I don't know all the details of it. I don't even know if it's workable.
>> I think it is workable. It's called a modspace.com. They will come and set up. I put in their query, he thinks it's three weeks probably top to do this remediation. I requested 10 offices that would be moved modular ly on to the parking lot. We own the properties, we have access to the radio shack, the parking, we can set up the modular offices in the parking lot while this is being done.
>> I just bring that up, that if that's -- if that's something that, you know, makes things easier, it's on the table.
>> I'm just wondering after all of us trying to work through all of this, why did you sue us this morning?
>> well, I can talk about that if you would like.
>> I'm just curious.
>> okay. Things were moving along without any disclosures or knowledge to me. Rather than be up front with us as to what the county's intentions were, as we're moving along trying to remediate the problem, in the background they are out, in my opinion, ready to default on their lease. So we did this, the actions in anticipation of repudiation of contract. If you don't repudiate the contract, then no damage is done. That's why it was done.
>> anything further at this time? We'll discuss this matter with counsel in executive session. Under the consultation with attorney exception. And we will discuss the other items that I announced.
>> remind me, it's been about an hour. Which numbers were those we were taking in again? As a courtesy.
>> thank you all.
>> I can't think of anything.
>> no, I'm just saying that previously you announced it over an hour ago.
>> 25, 26, a. And b. , 27, 28 --
>> no, not 28.
>> I'm sorry, 28 is postponed. 29. 30 under the consultation with counsel, but not personnel matters.
>> thank you, sir.
>> we'll convene in executive session.
>> good evening,. We just returned from executive session. Where we discussed the following items: commissioner Davis had to leave and he is no longer with us today. Item no. 25, we did not discuss but it will be back on the court's agenda next week and we will try to have it back on the executive session. 26, involving the lease space at 1622 east riverside drive. I move that we do the following, approve lease terms for south park lease, that we authorize the county judge, yours truly to execute the documents on behalf of the county. That we direct the county attorney to send written notification to the owners of 1622 riverside drive reflecting the county's intent to terminate the lease effective February 28th, 2003. That we approve the draft letter prepared by the county attorney's office of which will bear today's date, January 14th, 2003. Is that the same letter.
>> correct.
>> that letter to be signed by the county attorney or county judge?
>> either one is fine.
>> who would normally send that letter?
>> both ways.
>> then we authorize the county attorney to send that from the county attorney's office as the county attorney has a long history of being tougher and meaner than the county judge. That we reset this matter for further discussion and action next Tuesday, January 21st.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? Does that cover everything that we need to do on item number 26?
>> that's fine, yes.
>> the other thing is that there may be follow-up discussions after receipt of that letter by the property owner. We would anticipate that the county attorney would basically discuss, negotiate, consistent with our discussion today in this action. All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. By the court members present. Item no. 27 involving michelle renee weston versus margo frasier, I move that we renew the commissioners court's counter offer to settle for the amount of $5,000. Based on the lack of hard evidence of injury as discussed.
>> second.
>> does it have to be 5,000?
>> yes.
>> it has to be five --
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> [inaudible] outstanding offer.
>> yeah.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> that's okay.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We did discuss item no. 29, the frederick pluet matter, no action is required today. The county attorney will put that back on the court's agenda for another discussion when necessary.
>> what about 28?
>> 28 we previously --
>> two -- my staff never notified me whether it would be three weeks or two weeks, so let's do two weeks. So that would be the 28th of January.
>> my father's birthday.
>> unless I hear otherwise tomorrow. How's that?
>> okay.
>> so 28th unless other notified within the next few days. Item no. 30, the last executive session item, involves star flight issues. We did not discuss mr. Morgan. My motion is that we -- approve the recommendation for a star flight review panel from the committee of city and county personnel to review city of Austin, Travis County, f.a.a., Star flight, matters with an eye toward reporting back to the commissioners court and appropriate city personnel the -- the panel's findings as soon as possible. We understand that this will be a general review. Primarily. But to the extent that city and county employees are necessary for the panel to do its work, then the understanding is that they would ask the necessary questions, make the necessary findings, and recommendations to the court for the -- for the recommendations to be feasible. Did I just finish this last -- could I just finish the last part of the motion? The last part of the motion is for the panel to be made up owe.
>> I was keeping track of it, too, barbara.
>> -- of the individuals recommended and a memo from one of the assistant city managers and apparently I have misplaced my copy of the memo. Oops. I believe that I have it here. Those individuals would be: sheila gladstone, a local employment law specialist; dan mansour, the Travis County safety officer, bryan dunnagan, the city's e.m.s. Safety officer, lieutenant colonel charles spangler, army national guard, aviation support facility commander and those --
>> one more, judge.
>> what's the fifth one.
>> the professional to be named jointly by colorado burn and richard harrington the thought there was that it would be somebody specifically with section 135 maintenance experience.
>> that would be the fifth person, that's why I didn't -- so you will get with mr. Harrington, come up with that person hopefully within the next few days. That this action be communicated to appropriate folk at the city of Austin. Barbara, did that cover your point?
>> yeah. In the early part of your motion it had appeared to me that you were talking about a committee made up only of city and county folk and I just wanted that clarified. You clarified it completely.
>> do we also want to put in a clarification that this is not a personnel grievance panel -- grievance panel, it is one to deal with organizational issues in the star flight program, but specifically not a personal grievance panel.
>> our goal is that it be a star flight review panel.
>> yes.
>> second.
>> officer -- [inaudible]
>> that's all that I had.
>> any other parts --
>> does barbaraed in any other phone calls she needs to make? Got it. Okay. That's it.
>> if we do have a city council, city county subcommittee, to the extent that that subcommittee needs to be pulled together again, that's fine.
>> we stand ready to do so, sir.
>> okay.
>> now before that, we had -- mr. Morgan was down here named. We did not have a discussion of that. We told mr. Haley last week that he would be on specifically next Tuesday. So we will have him on to discuss his situation. And take action. Mr. Morgan further notice about his personnel deal? Next week or --
>> well, if we post it, then if we -- extra do we think, todd? If you don't put it down by name you are precluded from doing anything.
>> I think you can post any personnel item that may come up. In the future I'm not sure we need to roll that into next week's --
>> just strictly mr. Haley's issue.
>> it's kinds of a scheduling related matter. That's the motion. Any more discussion of it? Anybody? All in favor of the motion? That passes by unanimous vote. Appreciate you all's patience. I thought that we would be out of here today by 2:30. Little do I know about the operation of county government. That does it for us today. In terms of business.
>> move we adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 5:18.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM