Travis County Commssioners Court
September 23, 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 19
19 a., Acquisition ofist .21 acres of property. That will be the real estate exception to the open meetings act. Second item we'll discuss at this time will be number 25, consider and take appropriate action on f.y. '04 budget rule on lump-sum compensation payments for legal advice on lump-sum compensation. And number 28, consider and take appropriate action on -- by the way, number 25 will -r consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 28, consider and take appropriate action on recommendation from elected officials salary grievance committee. This discussion will be under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act act also. I have two legal questions that I want answered by the county attorney's office. We'll discuss these three items in executive session at this time. And we'll return to open court before taking any action.
>>
>> [executive session]
>>
>> we will this -- we will have this reposted as an executive session item next week. We have a couple of items that we need to reach this morning. We have several folk down here on them. On 19 a.
>> judge, I would like to move that we counter the offer from reverend aaron counter with the amount of $240,000 for the 12.21 acres of [indiscernible] east metro park.
>> any or discussion? All in favor, signify by saying aye.? That passes by unanimous vote. 19 b is proposed terms of agreement with the milburn homes and ymca of Austin for construction, operation and maintenance. B. Proposed terms of agreement with milburn homes and the ymca of Austin for construction, operation and maintenance of a swimming pool ; c. Amendments to master plan; and. D. Scope of phase 1 construction. For east metro park in precinct 1.
>> again, judge, before we even get started, I would like to thank everyone before I -- before I forget to do that. On this particular item, especial especially the neighborhood folks. Milburn, those folks that are really -- really put a hard forth effort. Also our county staff, joe gieselman's staff who has really come together working with the community to come up with a proposal to get a swimming pool in the -- in the east metro park. Of course that means a lot to us, we have been struggling with many issues, on a case-by-case basis, trying to deal with sludge from operators, landfills, things like that. This is something very positive that can happen for this community. If everything goes accordingly, we will have a swimming pool open in this area in June, this coming summer of '04, construction starting in December of '03. If everything goes accordingly and the court decides to support 19 b, c and d. So it's real important, I'm really glad to see the community here. We have several of them here on this particular item and to show us support and there may be somebody there in opposition, I don't really know, but we do know that we have a lot of support for this swimming pool in east metro park. At this time I will go ahead and let staff do what they need to do.
>> joe, what are the proposed terms of the agreement?
>> first of all, we need to talk about what it is we are building. This is a swimming pool complex. It's a class b pool. I want to be very clear because the last time we addressed this, 30 days ago, we were talking generally about a swimming pool. We have now much more details on what it is that we are building. A class b pool is a public swimming pool. It is not a competitive swimming pool. The purpose of this pool is primarily for children's recreation and lap swimming. So that's the first thing to -- to understand. Because we are regulated by the state. A class a and a class bnd a class c pool. All mean different things. This is a class b pool. It will have a four-lane lap pool and it will have a children's recreation area with slides and aquatic tick toys. The thing that we are modeling after is the ymca outdoor pool at the mcneil site up on mcneil road. That's typical of what we are looking at for this swimming pool. It will have a restroom, it will have a fee booth, it will have a storage room. It's not a -- it's not the cadillac of swimming pools, but nor is it just a neighborhood type of pool. The second thing it is a seasonal pool. It will be open during daylight hours between may and September. Four months out of the year. So it's a seasonal pool. Now, another distinction that's very important is this a is -- is a market driven concept. Even though it's a public pool, it will be paid for by the private sector in its construction and it will be operated out of fee revenue. Subscription memberships and daily memberships. The objective from the very beginning was this this be done as an enterprise being driven as much as possible out of private contributions. Today we have dick rathgaber and milburn homes who have agreed to pay for the capital cost of the swimming pool, the restroom and the septic system. That is valued at about $550,000. On a per lot basis, that is about $500 per lot. Part of the membership subscriptions, as you will see, are -- are in three tiers. Those develops who contribute $500 per lot capital recovery, they -- their homeowners will pay half price memberships in the pool ongoing operations. This is roughly $75 per year. For anyone who does not pay the $500 per lot capital recovery fee, they will be paying twice that, in this case that's about $150 per year. There will also be daily memberships. The daily memberships are valued at about $6.50 per adult, $3.25 per child. So it's important to understand that this pool is not free. The county will not be paying for the o and m. At least in part. There will be a -- a start-up cost within the first years of operation, where the membership subscriptions are still building up, it may be a county subsidy to get things up and running. We would limit that not to exceed 50% of the o and m. And not to exceed five years. So whereas we expect this to run entirely by membership subscriptions, we understand that there may be a short-term subsidy on the county's part to get the concept up and running. This is an innovative concept. We have never done this before. And so there's somewhat of a risk here. The risk is offset in part by the fact that we have a subdivision that is willing to pay the up front costs and also apply the half price memberships. Right now there are 250 homes in the brier creek subdivision that are buying into the half price memberships. We expect that next year they will put another 200 homes on the ground. A break-even on this pool is 650 prepaid subscription memberships. Once we have those 650, we will break even for the ongoing o and m. So in short, we believe --
>> [indiscernible] proposed.
>> the terms of the proposal are this: dick rathgaber of milburn homes will pay for the swimming pool, the restroom and the onsite sewage system. Travis County with its bond money would pay for the site improvements, valued roughly at about $460,000. That would include a parking lot, which is lighted, the drainage, the design of the site improvements as well as the design of the septic system. We would pay for the utilities, getting the water, the electricity, and the telephone to the site. We would pay for the perimeter fence around the pool. We would pay for the landscaping, the sidewalk, and the road to the pool. Basically all of the infrastructure outside the fence. Within the fence, the excavation, the pool, the restroom and the septic system would be paid for by the private sector.
>> okay. And this is set forth in your backup memo.
>> that's right.
>> the proposal is that those terms would be reduced to a written agreement and signed by the parties.
>> the parties would be the ymca of Austin and dick rathgaber and milburn homes and Travis County.
>> and they have seen the memo.
>> yes.
>> and the proposed terms or -- and are in agreement? And if the -- [multiple voices] if the private sector monetary contribution does not become available, where are we? Or there is a guarantee that the private sector monetary contribution will become available, period?
>> dick?
>> so the private sector monetary contribution one way or the other will be available.
>> show me the money.
>> well, I didn't say it in those words. All right.
>> dick loves to put it on a bumper sticker.
>> back to acknowledging and recognizing ymca, that's an oversight on my part. But the ymca, of course, is in partnership with this along with dick rathgaber and milburn homes, along with Travis County at this point and it's -- judge, it appears to be something that is pretty safe and pretty sound and as you know earlier today, we did have a motion, made a motion to -- in which we got the core support to get at least $25,000 for the operation and maintenance of this before start-up funds. This money really won't be necessarily needed until the summer of '04. So what we are saying is that right now, we are in a good position to move forward. I think with the layout and the -- what's demonstrated in the backup, let's say, looking at what this particular subdivision is doing, as far as subscription membership and also for the capital recovery contributions, it seemed to substantiate that there is going to be some good things happening over there. And in fact I think [indiscernible] homes that's projected from buildout in the brier creek subdivision, looking at that, the addition of 200 homes each year, on the basis, looking at 650 homesteads, lots there, is more than enough. I think people in -- [indiscernible] so I'm pretty excited about this. Dick, did you want to say anything again --
>> I think one of the -- [multiple voices]
>> I think one of the best things is that it -- that I have provided a method for if other developers come in, that you can provide for expansion of the pool with the capital recovery fee. There will be enough capital recovery fees within the briercreek subdivision itself to pay to these facilities. But if you -- if they are really utilized you are going to need more pool. You are going to need a little pool. By having this capital recovery fee, you will have the means of doing this and I think this is just a really outstanding example of how the public, the private and the non-profit sector can work together to make a project happen. I'm really excited about it.
>> it lays out the template that it could work at east metro and if there are other locations, it would do the same -- it would be the same kind of template in terms of trying to bring together partnership to shift the liability to the folks that know how to run swimming pools and we appreciate that, but also to bring in the private sector related to the capital construction costs. It might, doesn't mean it will, but it might happen that southeast metro, it might happen here, but we all now know what the template will be to bring that kind of project forward -- [multiple voices]
>> -- must have a partnership.
>> in the -- and the deal that we are making is no so sweet that you can't afford to give it to somebody else. I think that -- you know, a deal has got to be a good deal for anybody or it's not any good for anybody, I think this is a fair deal.
>> commission Davis's motion to approve 19 b.
>> yes, I did make the motion to approve 19 b as we move on down the line.
>> discussion, Commissioner Daugherty?
>> well, do I have a few concerns about this. Dick, why wouldn't you build this within your development?
>> well, several reasons, Commissioner Daugherty. For one reason, if we built it within our development, we would have to pay -- we would have to charge everybody a -- say $20 to -- a homeowners' fee. In addition can you imagine how sad it would be to come by and you are going to have a fence and see little kids hanging on the fence wanting to come in and they can't because they don't live in that subdivision? I don't think that I could take that. And this makes it open for everybody. And this makes it not necessary for us to build it within the development. And yet it's still a pretty decent marketing tool because we are in close proximity, about a quarter of a mile away, we can advertise that you have a swimming -- you have swimming privilege ifs you live in our subdivision. Because the homeowners association will buy the memberships. And it will be mandatory.
>> and for those that -- Commissioner Daugherty, I don't mean to --
>> did that answer your question?
>> well --
>> sorry, go ahead, Commissioner Daugherty.
>> goodman: I'm -- I'm afraid --
>> I'm afraid of this thing from the precedent setting stand point, dick, than anything. I don't think that everybody is going to -- the different precincts in this community are going to have the same opportunities, unless you are going to go around and tell me that we are going to find these projects where the developer is going to come in and do this with each side of town. I mean, maybe we will. I mean, I don't know. I think that it's generous, you know, the -- what you are doing. But that bothers me, number one. Number two, ultimately, the county has the responsibility and the liability for this pool. I mean, if -- if the y doesn't for whatever reason, if the y says, you know, we can't make this thing work the way that we thought that we could, the county has the ultimate responsibility and the ultimate liability. Now, I know that we have got late -- you know, we have lake parks and from a liability standpoint there is some application with having, you know, from strictly the liability aspect of a swimming pool. I have operated a pool before. I mean, a very small one and it is expensive. And what I think that some people think that you can get in and make these things work easily. There's -- they are sometimes pretty difficult to make work. I just -- I don't want -- what I don't want to see the county get into is a business that it doesn't need to be in if we ultimately get pushed up against the wall it is our responsibility. And I don't -- you know, dick, I don't think we are going to be able to come back to you after the generous offer of up to $500,000 and ultimately with it being on county parkland, it is our responsibility.
>> mr. Daugherty, if I got another subdivision right up against your park land, I will be back.
>> well, let me say this, as far as liability is concerned. Commissioner, if you look in your backup you will see how we are going to halt some of that liability. And -- and I think it's a lot of things here. You will see no alcohol, we have a seven foot fence, no diving boards. We have lighting. Things like that. Also going to -- going to insurance type of coverage with ymca in agreement with the county. But in fact even 24 hour law enforcement. You have ymca swimming -- let me say something about the ymca person that's are life guards. They must do an outstanding job because they haven't had one death yet at the ymca under those particular activities as far as the guards, life guards watching the pool. That's very substantial. Then if I were to just -- let me just compare hamilton pool, for example, which is a -- is a Travis County owned facility. It has no lights, what we are talking about is going to be lighted. It's 20 feet deep. It has no life guards. And things of that nature. So there is a potential liability here we are reducing liability as much as possible. And who is to say who will drawn anywhere. But the record of the ymca as far as this pool is concerned is a high track record. So liability is a concern and that's something that we looked at, also. We considered liability and how do we reduce our liability. This here alerts us to how we can actually reduce liability and I think that's a good approach to it. And so -- so that's the liability issue of this I think it's very, very promise nebt. As long as with this, may not do anything about it. As far as the daily fees, in other words there may be folks, anything about the capital contribution fee, what about me, I want to go to the pool, I heard dick rathgaber say little kids standing on the fence. This is open to the public, meaning that the family, the adults will be paying 6.50 on auto daily pass type of situation, little children are paying $3.25. Again that will be access to this particular approval and it's a three tier funded type driven operation there. This is one of the three that we are dealing with. When you look at this it's a great positive for the community and of course I want to go --
>> all in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Davis, Sonleitner, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
>> I will abstain.
>> abstaining show Commissioner Daugherty. I think we need to -- [multiple voices]
>> vote against me -- [laughter]
>> we did try to cover -- we need to come try to cover 37 and -- 19 c is amendments to master plan. What changes do we need, joe? We saw the master plan last time, can we just get the changes identified.
>> yes.
>> good morning, you want to see the master plan an accurate record of what we are doing -- first and foremost we want to add the 12.2 acres to the drawing and show the realignment of blake manor road through there. Both of these are opportunity driven. We want to get rid of out parcels because it is a way to eliminate future potential undesirable land uses or conflict there. And also this section of blake manor road is in the -- in the proposed -- Travis County is proposed as an arterial in the 2030 campo plan which will be adopted in 2005. So it's very much in keeping with our intent on --
>> do we have to technically wait until reverend taylor decides to accept our very generous offer or -- I mean, I don't want to get ahead of -- in anticipating that we can come to an agreement with reverend taylor, but it seems like to say I changed the master plan when he has not formally accepted our lovely offer.
>> good idea.
>> we will have c back on next week.
>> okay.
>> do we need d today.
>> d scope of phase 1 construction.
>> I would like to move ahead with d with plan a of this because [indiscernible] which includes the pool. So --
>> second on that.
>> so the change in phase 1 construction is inclusion of the pool that we approved.
>> exactly, judge.
>> it includes the pool and then it puts into the alternate bid category some of the items that we may be able to afford once we get into construction. There's a tradeoff. The -- you have to shift some of the bond money to support the pool. If we go with plan a, some of the items we will do double duty on, some will not. We moved into alternate b items that we might be able to afford once we get into construction. It's basically holding off on the construction of a series of items until we get the bid prices in.
>> got a second?
>> yeah.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Joe, we will have c back on for you next week.
>> I would like to thank you all for coming down.
>> good job.
>> thank you very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:52 AM