Travis County Commssioners Court
August 26, 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
But on to executive session. 36 is to discuss lease at 2919 manchaca road and take appropriate action. That's the consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. 37, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding barbara oakley as legal guardian for richard danziger versus city of Austin, hector polanco, et al, consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 38, consider and take appropriate action on purchase contract with robert d. King and janet k. King for the acquisition of approximately 39.524 acres of land in connection with the balcones canyonlands conservation plan. That's the real estate and legal consultation exceptions to the open meetings act. 39, receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County versus lavaee moussa, tone cernosek resale deed, and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 40, receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County' versus barbara kill kz, Austin energy retail deed. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 41, receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County versus k. Neal and lois lewis and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 42, receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County versus Texas real estate marketing and consulting, cm l. Stone retail deed, and take appropriate action. Consultation attorney exception to the open meetings act. 43, consider and take appropriate action on changes to the contractual agreement with the workforce development board addressing Travis County's potential liability for workforce funds. That's that's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 44 is to receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding fluor daniel incorporated versus Travis County, Texas, number 02-50378 in the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit, united states district court civil action number a-oo-ca-021-ss, that's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. And our final executive session item today will be 45, approve or reject proposed farmer's market lease agreement with general fur kunz, d/b/a, jenny's bake house and deli. Real property exception to the open meetings act. And let's also put 45 under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. We will discuss these items in executive session and return to open court before taking any action.
>>
>> we have just returned from executive session. Where we discussed several items. Let's call up number 43 as we do have some guests here on that one. That is to consider and take appropriate action on changes in the contractual agreement with the workforce development board addressing Travis County's potential liability for workforce funds. This basically is a new requirement that came to the county judge's attention a few days ago. The mayor and I are the chief executive officers of this board, who basically sign for the workforce development commitment. And what came to me was a document that asked that I as a Travis County ceo sign and basically agree to become potentially liable for, I guess, any misuse or abuse of workforce funds. And so the item was posted on the executive session for us really to have a discussion with the county attorney's office about exacy what that entailed. We will need to take another week on this to do some additional research and fact finding, but I'm told that y'all brought with you today a clarification document, documents, explanation or you're just here available if we have questions?
>> your honor, I have handle it any way you wish. My name is rochelle. I am the general counsel for the workforce board here in Austin. Don't let my hair color fool you, i've been doing this about 10 years, everywhere from el paso to Austin, way down to sou Texas. So I have some historical background going back to the fix, but I'm here to address really three things. One is the statutes that we're all bound by. Two, the protections that are in place and even creased protections that have been undertaken recently to ensure that any potential liability on the ceo's of the county is minimized through the maximum available methods under the law. And three, I have -- I contacted Texas workforce commission, general counsel's office, to identify how big is this issue? In other words, are disallowed costs a substantial amount? Is the risk high or low? The amount of -- according to the general counsel's office, in Texas the amount of disallowed costs from which county, ci or boards have ever had to repay is .01 percent of the funds. So we really are dealing with a very small percentage. And my real concern here is, one, the law hasn't changed. We're dealing with the workforce investment act of 1998. And --
>> why is this necessary in '03?
>> it's not.
>> I don't have to sign it?
>> no. Because the contract came up -- with all due respect, we ask you to sign it. The reason is the highest risk of disallowed costs that the ceo's or any entity face are right now -- because currently this board and this area is out of compliance. That means any monitoring today or subsequent to July 1 would result in disallowed costs. The one thing I do ask is that some action be taken today if at all possible to come up with an interim agreement extending last year's through when the new date could be done. We're not asking for any changes to the contract that's been in place since the workforce investment act came into effect.
>> well, I signed some agreement a few days ago, but I understand it's not the new one that dls with potential liability.
>> probably the memorandum of understanding concerning the ceo agreement, I suspect that's what you signed. Or icould have been the board plan. Those are the two things that have been executed.
>> the plan -- I think it was more the plan. But the reason I think it would be hard to get my signature today is that I think there are two or three other areas that we need to look into that will take a few more days. Now, I thought we had a little bit more time than today.
>> your honor, we have been pasted deadline since July 1.
>> for a contract that doesn't begin until when?
>> well, the -- the ceo or interlocal agreement was due to be renewed, reexecuted, new contract signed July 1, 2003.
>> let me try a different way. This is one of our questions we're asking, but maybe you know the answer. How are other large counties with these similar workforce boards handling this exact same question that we are dealing with today? Is judge echols down in harris county personally taking the liability on for anything that happens in harris county?
>> I can't specifically address judge echols, but I can tell you that none of the other areas i've dealt with in alamo and el paso are two of the biggest boards in the state with budgets 10 times what we have here. In el paso and san antonio, probably -- it depends on what year and child care funds, but multiple of this, none of them have indemnification.
>> repeat that last for us.
>> neither of those counties have indemnification and I'm not aware of any board that has indemnification in their ceo agreement. I have not polled all 28 local workforce boards, but I'm not aware of any. I know lawrence called fort worth --
>> this would be the first one?
>> that I'm aware of. I won't make a representation to you, judge --
>> the noncompliance finding -- being asked to sign this? Am I following you? The other workforce development ceo's have not been asked to sign this?
>> well, each ceo organization within the local workforce area negotiates its own contract with the board. But with those contracts I'm not aware of any major board in the state that has indemnification of the ceo's by the local board. I'm also not aware of any that have been without a ceo agreement past the deadline for this period of time.
>> let me ask something else. She asked basically have the other ceo's of other counties signed the agreement about potential liability that they're asking us to sign here?
>> yes.
>> and what counties have?
>> you have up until June 30 --
>> I think the agreement that we had in place prior to this specifically had provisions in it that the board was liable for misuse of funds.
>> there's three levels of how funds are recovered, in other words, a priority structure.
>> so you're saying their request of Travis County to indemnify is not new. We have been doing this all the time?
>> you have been under the legal obligation to do that all along, yes, your honor.
>> but we have never signed any document admitting it to my knowledge. [ laughter ] we may have been liable, but --
>> and, your honor, if there's no language in there --
>> there's language because it came to my attention.
>> but, your honor, there does not have to be language that says the ceo's are liable. By federal statute that happened. And I did bring the documentation for you.
>> do any of them take additional coverage out to make sure that they're covered like we are road Commissioners, I have a road bond and I have a Commissioner bond. Surely they're not just saying oh, I think it will be just fine and a hope and a prayer. I mean, these are responsible people. Surely there's a bond or some sort of something.
>> judge, where we got into problems with the request by the county that the board indemnify the ceo's, not by a request from the board to have the ceo's indemnify them. That's just by statute. You don't have to have that in the contract.
>> would a one-week delay on this make a difference Sundays we're already -- a one-week delay on this?
>> Commissioner, that's your call. Any day you get monitored, I can't tell you when that's going to happen.
>> are you here in Austin?
>> no, sir, your honor, I am from san antonio.
>> how long will you be her this time?
>> I i was planning on going back tonight, but I will make myself available whenever this court needs me.
>> mary ellen, how are you looking tomorrow?
>> I'm certainly available.
>> okay.
>> I'm able to meet at 10:30. I think we need to meet and discuss this. That may be better than trying to do it this afternoon. This is something that I signed, so I guess -- I have been signing this. You're saying whether I do it or not or whether we do it or not, by federal law at one of those tiers was Travis County with responsibility to indemnify, but you're saying further historically this has not been a big issue.
>> in our previous agreement the three tiers were to recover from the service providers, from an insurance carrier and from the board. That's by law.
>> that's what -- what I'm suggest sg that we sit down tomorrow -- and the earliest I can do is 10:30. I've got a 9:00 o'clock that involves eight or nine other people.
>> judge, with all due respect, I am a judge and if I need to cancel this I will because this is important to me. I do have a 9:00 o'clock meeting right now in san antonio with my husband. If it could be later --
>> 1:30 would be better.
>> 12:30.
>> 1:30 would be adeal. I would be grateful if we could do that.
>> 1:30.
>> spoken like a true public servant. [ laughter ]
>> and if I may -- [ inaudible ].
>> one other thing I need clarity on. When you say we're out of compliance, is there any other reason that we are out of compliance other than this ceo agreement?
>> not that I'm aware of.
>> all right. Clarity for the record that there's not something else out there. Okay.
>> now, has mayor wynn signed these?
>> [ inaudible ]. [ laughter ]
>> I guess that answers that.
>> the city attorney's had the same concerns we had.
>> maybe we'll invite them to the same meeting tomorrow. If the mayor can't come, maybe the city attorney can.
>> that's an idea.
>> okay. Will y'all be able to come tomorrow at 1:30? [ murmuring ]
>> we'll share this with everybody. That would be good.
>> I will get them for everybody.
>> so tomorrow at 1:30?
>> okay. Thank you. Thank very much.
>> sorry to keep you waiting.
>> hopefully we can get this wrapped up by next week.
>> would you also like copies of the -- we summarized all the insurance coverages that's available, the bonding that's in place.
>> that would be good to have.
>> i'll read it before the meeting if you can get me a copy now. Would you rather be available by telephone at 1:30?
>> I don't mind at all. We can drive. I make it for cases that are a lot less important than this.
>> thanks for your patience.
>> okay. In reverse order, 45, no action needed today. We'll put this back on when necessary.
>> yeah, but if we can communicate with the -- our landlord out there that there is no lease and if anybody is on our premises without a license agreement with Travis County, they need to remove themselves yesterday.
>> all right. And number 42, I move that we authorize the county judge to sign the tax resale deed to william l. Stone because he has delivered to Travis County $14,470 in cash.
>> second.
>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Commissioner Daugherty did have to leave at noon and Commissioner go mez had to leave -- Gomez had to leave at 3:30 for another commitment. Moving on up to item number 41, I move that we authorize the county judge to sign the resale deed to ketan pandya, who has delivered to Travis County five thousand dollars in cash.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And item number 40, I move that we authorize the county judge to execute the tax resale deed to the city of Austin and the Austin energy resale in the agenda item is that -- I guess it's the department of the city of Austin, but the deed is supposed to be the city of Austin. And the city of Austin has paid us $41,416.94.
>> so move.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 39, I move that the county judge be authorized to sign the resale de to tone cernosek, who has delivered to Travis County cash in the amount of $8,200.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 38?
>> judge, I would move that we reject the counteroffer of the kings on this property and that we have no new offer to forward on.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> item number 37, I move that we --
>> is it a counter?
>> in the amount of $500,000.
>> second.
>> let's authorize the county attorney to communicate that to the attorney for mr. Danziger. Any more discussion? And this matter will be back on the court's agenda again next week. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Item number 36? I did get a little language from a staff member. I move that we basically authorize the county staff to communicate to the landlord in writing that Travis County's position is that the landlord is in default in response -- as a response to the manager's communication to us of the landlord's unwillingness to pay for the testing balance that's necessary. That we also communicate to the landlord Travis County's decision to conduct these tests ourselves and to deduct from our next month's lease payment the amount of the cost. And that because this matter s dragged on, if that test is negative, we will basically invoke other default provisions of the contract and be prepared to take immediate action.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? Pat?
>> you okay?
>> anything in addition?
>> [ inaudible ].
>> and we did ask staff to pursue some other possibilities. If they would simply take those comments as dirtions from the court and position ourselves to carry out this veiled threat.
>> or not so veiled. [ laughter ]
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> 44?
>> on 44, we authorize the county attorney to sign the letter that basically terminates this matter for all parties on all issues that have been raised or that could have been raised.
>> second and an amen.
>> hopefully this is a finale on this.
>> that was seconded? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes unanimously also.
Last Modified: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 7:52 AM