Travis County Commssioners Court
March 18, 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.
Item 40
Now, let's go back to number 40.
>> if we do that, we have to do some real serious time management because we can't have executive session at 5:00 o'clock and have two or three hours of executive session before us. So I'm willing do it in the afternoon, but we will have to do some time management.
>> 40 is to consider request from Austin community college for Travis County assistance from the may 2003 election, and take appropriate action.
>> thank you, judge and commissioners. I have a copy of a partially signed contract that I need to share with you today and some changes.
>> what you have before you is a contract between Travis County and Austin community college for the conduct of the may 3rd election for Austin community college. Last night the community college voted that they would join the election date for the city of Austin. So that's very good news for both acc and the city of Austin and their joint territory. There are a couple of changes, though, that you need to be aware of. One of the things that had been discussed is would the court be interested in offering a payment schedule to Austin community college to help them with their current fiscal year constraints so that they could pay for the conduct of the election. That now turns out that it looks like it will not be necessary for y'all to do that because the agreement that has been worked out between acc and the city of Austin is that acc would pay a fixed amount for election expenses related to the joint election between acc and the city of Austin, and that the city of Austin would pick up the difference to reimburse Travis County for the full amount. So the city of Austin is going to end up paying just a little bit more, but overall the cost of the election stays the same. So we're talking about the split between the two jurisdictions has been negotiated between those two jurisdictions. Now, if -- and here's what I'm asking the court to do today. What I would ask you to do is -- and I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself. Acc voted last night to hold their election jointly with the city of Austin on the may 3rd election date. They also voted to ask dr. Fonte to be the person that executes any further documents that confirms our agreement to conduct an election in this fashion. So the task before the commissioners court is today is for you to adopt -- and I think signature is not appropriate at this time, but for you to adopt this contract, which is the identical language that the city of Austin oi dopted with you. So you have seen this contract before, you've seen this language before. There is one small change that acc made to the contract, and it has been reviewed by the county attorney and we'll get counselor hilly to speak to us about this. They had asked for this to be a one-time contract and not an ongoing one, which is fine with me. They also will not be involved in the runoff election. So it's only may 3rd. All right. So what we would ask you to do is to adopt this contract language today as being the intent for us to conduct this joint election for both the city of Austin and acc. Then dr. Fonte will then execute the document, we'll bring it back to you with all of the signatures in place, including a letter of understanding between acc and the city of Austin saying that this is their agreement regarding the expenses.
>> so what's the amount of the contract?
>> the first page owe, the second to the last sentence says that acc agrees to pay a flat rate of $375,000 for their portion of the joint election. And that acc will pick up the remainder.
>> so the district here is acc?
>> correct.
>> so the district will pay Travis County $375,000?
>> yes, sir. It all comes in together.
>> so the other agreement you they have with the city is just like this, the amount?
>> we can let our attorneys address that, but the way they voted on it is that they want to make sure that their partnership with the city is clear so that when ante up their 375,000, whatever we say the final total is, we say the city will pay the whole thing to us. So it's really all three of us together. We can certainly let our experts tell you. I've tried to solve this and get it clear.
>> I guess where -- I'm sorry.
>> a few more questions. Why don't we just wait and sign a contract that really reflects the agreement? You're not asking us to sign it.
>> no, I'm not, I'm just asking you to adopt the concept today.
>> what they have done is -- I'm meyer mcdaniel, attorney for the district. We have taken with the city and paired down all of the long-term language just so that it looks like a one-time deal. And indeed it does look like it except for a couple of typos, and maybe one paragraph that she left out that I would recommend that we put back in there that meets the local cooperation act. It looks like something that we could approve.
>> take out ken oden's name and put in kevin escamilla's name.
>> we should do that.
>> who at the county is the contracting party? Is it the county clerk?
>> right.
>> I would prefer signature from the court too if that's possible.
>> so why does the commissioners court need to approve it then?
>> it's something that because -- I think this came up when we were talking about it with the city as well. She could go ahead and move forward with the agreement just as you say according to statute, but because it involves a bunch of equipment that y'all paid a lot of money for, I think you may want to speak for yourself on this point, but that was why we went ahead and had the commissioners court oversee the whole transaction.
>> and if I may add, that's also been the relationship we've had is that we both sign on to any kind of agreement like this because elections are not exclusively the exclusively county clerk. There are other departments that are involved in the conduct of elections.
>> then in the direct contract there's a place for us to sign?
>> we would need to add a signature block.
>> we need to approve on a certain date and then the contract ought to provide us to do that as the law requires.
>> I could make those changes. Again, we can come back and approve this next week because the board will ratify --
>> that's all I need today is just to indicate you're okay with this.
>> move approval.
>> sec.
>> any more discussion?
>> just a quick question. Are we then going to have to have some kind of amendment to our contract with the city of Austin so that we have some kind of legal assurances that we're going to get the differential between the acc amount and the Austin amount?
>> we're going to lock in --
>> this contract commits acc to pay $375,000. It does not mention the city.
>> that's why --
>> I can answer the question, if I may.
>> where do we get the assurance that the differential will indeed be picked up by the city of Austin?
>> you don't have any commitment from the city.
>> that's why I'm asking the question.
>> the answer is the language in the city of Austin contract says proportional, so what we need is a letter of understanding between acc and the city that this is their proportional agreement. And that was just when you were walking walking in the room.
>> this is part of the deal I did not --
>> we can go back then to the minutes of the city of Austin meetings that basically talk openly about, hey, we'll pick up the differential, we can always go back to that.
>> yes. Although I do believe the vote of city council was the same, that they authorized the mayor to execute any subsequent documents, so what you really need is that letter to include in your minutes.
>> and in terms of will you need to cm back to us if indeed the city of Austin has a runoff, does their proportionate share of expenses change, which would sound like it's 100%?
>> it is.
>> and they're prepared for that?
>> that's correct. If they have a runoff, then their proportionate share is 100%.
>> thanks. Thanks, mr. Smithers.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 2, 2003 10:25 AM