Travis County Commssioners Court
October 21, 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 Items
That brings us to executive session. Now, a moment ago we were given a request to pull item number 25. Until further notice. Number 20 is to receive briefing, appoint Commissioner's court representative for mediation and take appropriate action in john wisnant et al versus robert jones et al. That is the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. We previously announced intention to postpone number 21. 22 is to consider and take appropriate action on liability claim for arlicia norwood, compromise settlement. 23 is to receive briefing from county attorney and give direction regarding collection claim in Travis County versus barnes, landes, goodman and youngblood and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney. And 24 is to consider and take appropriate action on aus-tex concessions contract at exposition center. That is the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act also. We will discuss these matters in executive session and return to court, though, before taking any action.
>>
>> we have just returned from executive session where we discussed the following items. Number 20 involving mediation request and the action of john wisnant and others. I move we appoint dan man sufplt r to represent us at the mediation.
>> second.
>> that we express our appreciation to mr. Mansur to accept this responsibility. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 21 will be back on next week. 22 is the claim of nor wood. Move we authorize settlement in the amount of $100,000 of which 12,000 plus will be for property damage, the other for personal injury that is correct we shorz release of the money after the settlement and release and other appropriate legal paeurpbs, and we think we'll have them -- papers and we think we'll have them available when?
>> [inaudible].
>> second.
>> and you are here on this item, sir?
>> yes, I am.
>> okay. [no microphone on]
>> any more discussion?
>> thank you for your presence.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 23 involving the lawsuit of Travis County versus barnes, landes, goodman and youngblood, move we authorize the filing of a lawsuit against mr. Youngblood to collect on the promissory note. That we work with his legal counsel to try to make that as smooth as possible.
>> second.
>> is there any second to that motion?
>> second.
>> any more discussion? You got a second? All in favor? Show Commissioners Daugherty, Davis, Sonleitner and yours truly voting in favor.
>> I am present, not voting.
>> present not voting Commissioner Gomez. Number 24 involves the contract with aus-tex contract. We move we extend this court another four years in exchange for the current 39% plus an additional $50,000 payment to Travis County annually. That we prepare an appropriate contract amendment to capture this understanding, and put in there appropriate audit and food quality provisions.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
>> question. Was there a recommendation from the purchasing agent as to what we should do here? The pros and cons of an extension versus bidding it out?
>> I sent a memo to Commissioners court, I believe two or three weeks ago when this issue first came up. Our recommendation is we proceed as we did five years ago and formally solicit this contract.
>> because?
>> I believe this contract has been there for five years. I believe that competition is always good. It always gives us a base to look at what we currently have. If we don't go out, we don't know what others will provide us. I've had several vendors call asking when this contract would be up again for solicitation and we have been telling everyone that it was a five-year contract and it would expire in September of '04. So to look for it in the summer of next year. Also based on some e-mails I got just a few minutes ago, it looks like that they have been -- there have been complaints about the service, the food, the prices. One of the comments was the concessionaire has been there too long, we need a change. So based on all that, it's my recommendation that we formally compete.
>> in terms of a survey of what other facilities including the frank erwin center, do we have reason to believe that we might be able to -- i'll use the word "squeeze" but negotiate a better deal than the 39% that's currently in our contract?
>> I do not have my memo in front of me, but I believe the survey that was provided by the expo staff did show some contractors providing higher commissions. So my answer is we will not know that unless we go out and compete. And also, it might help the current contractor to know he has competition and he might be willing to negotiate better revenue with us.
>> do we know what the airport does?
>> those are all [inaudible] contracts.
>> do we know what percentage they get?
>> I recall seeing something 45%. One contract.
>> alicia perez, executive manager for administrative operations. We did call at the request of the court the airport, and they have two separate contracts, and their contracts are c.a. Aus-tex which is an area which includes el rancho and others. That's done by one contract as opposed to separate contracts with each of those. And it is the part of the building awarded the contract and the commission structure is 12% for food, 15% for alcohol, 11% for gifts, and 16% for sun address. For the ca-1 contract there's a minimum annual guarantee against the percentage of 523,000 per year. And then there is a walk-in row where they call it a walk-in row, and that is 14% concession with 52,000 annual minimum. Smaller separate area in the airport. So it's kind of hard to compare because they have different percentages for different items. Much larger area.
>> and I would say the vendors probably have a much higher overhead too at the airport.
>> what's happened to those vendors since 9-11. I don't know how they stay in business. I don't know why they stay out there. It's unbelievable about how -- I tphaoepb fewer numbers.
>> well, see, that one was interesting to me because it's the most recent addition to this community, and it's tested obviously with things that happen, you know, throughout. So that's why I was kind of interested in that.
>> judge, you know, I'm really between a rock and a hard spot on this thing. Because I do think that aus-tex deserves some additional consideration given that they have acted in very good faith with Travis County in bringing $50,000 a year to the table for the enhancements that we have done with the Texas heritage and exposition center. But I am basically uncomfortable with not having a bid process take place once you really have given somebody the ample time, I think, and this is not a legal deal for me as much as it is what's right is right. These guys have given -- we don't know whether they've given 200,000 yet or 250,000 -- or after they've paid the 250. But they did that predicated on knowing that we were going to have a climate-controlled environment that was going enhance our ability, waepb needed that money, Travis County needed that money to make that improvement. These people were very forth right in bringing that money to the table. Now, I would be more inclined to give them another year or another two years without the $50,000, but I understand that Travis County needs the $50,000 so we're in a spot with that. But in order to extend this thing to four years without a bid makes me uncomfortable. Because I don't think that that's something that we -- that we need to start doing is just arbitrarily going, well, we are going to bid that and we're not going to bid this. So I'm -- you know, I really am uncomfortable in this situation.
>> well, I mean I think that's why it's important to rely on what the county attorney told us that is correct it can be extended. There's no requirement for it to be bid out.
>> the other thing is that I'm not doing this because I like them. I mean they are going to pay $50,000 on top of the 39% that we have gotten initially. When we went out on this deal the first time, we got two bids, aus-tex was one of them, we chose aus-tex. Last time we went out for bids we only had one bidder, that was aus-tex. In 1998 or 1999 I and others on the court went to our major partners at the expo center and said we need an additional contribution to put in central air and heat. Livestock association said put the central heat and air in and come back and see us and we'll help. The ice bats said we cannot afford to do that. Aus-tex said basically, okay, we'll agree to pay you $50,000 annually to help out. And I didn't think it would take three years to do that. It cost a lot more than I thought it would and it took a whole lot longer. In addition to that -- so I think they have been more than good partners out there. The other thing, though, is that -- for the expo center to become sustaining, self-sustaining, it seems to me we've got to get additional revenue, and $50,000 a year on top of the 39% commission is nothing to sneeze at. I don't know whether we'll get additional bidders or not. I don't know what the amounts will be, but I do know the amount we're getting right now is competitive with what the other arenas of this type seem to be getting. Really we're getting a whole lot more than some of them like bell county and beaumont civic center. A few pay a little bit more. I think the erwin center probably gets a little more, but it's better located, much larger facility, they have much large larger events. It's the fair thing to do and it's fair to us also. This is a money deal to me. On the prices, Travis County sets the prices out there. We reduce the prices, we get less money. On the quality of food in the skyline club, aus-tex's position is if someone else's wants to get that contract, they are welcome to it. We get zero money from it as Travis County. Aus-tex gets very, very little. And they are thinking about trying to contract that out to somebody else. Soy mean I that I will do it. On quality of food, long lines, et cetera, you are talking about spending more money out there at a time when we're trying to get more out of it. So six and one-half, a dozen of the other. In the end I think the vote ought to turn on what's best for the expo center and Travis County. And what's best financially and I think we ought to reskwreblgt the recommendation of the purchasing agent. Any more discussion?
>> I wanted to finish off the one thing. I don't think this is the same facility we got bids on four years ago. There wasn't air conditioning. Thank goodness aus-tex was there and I do say thank to you them that they stuck with it and the air conditioning days. But the number of event days has radically change and I think that will change the number of bidders. The county attorney's advice is we may extend. It is also that we may compete it. I personally think that governments do best when they have competitive bidding. It's the appropriate scrutiny. It ensures the public process, and I won't call this a sweetheart deal, but I'm afraid there will be others who will.
>> any more discussion? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Davis, Gomez, yours truly voting in favor. Voting against show Commissioners Sonleitner and Daugherty.
Last Modified: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 7:52 PM