Travis County Commssioners Court
December 2, 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 35
Number 35, approve license agreement with Travis County and h.s.i. To if I am on city park road, crum ranch road, murfin road, ranch road 620 and ranch road 222 on December 8, 2003.
>> my question is it used to be we were getting these license agreements related to the films once in a blue moon, once a year, twice a moon. Now all of a sudden we are being inundated with these things and they are not going by the guidelines that we've got in place. I think the guidelines need to have some work done with them and turned into official Travis County policy, but it is beyond unfair to dump stuff on tinley or who ever is the county attorney of the week that gets stwubg this to quickly try and respond, and they are not turning in the information that we need to. The one that came to us on this one actually had to have changes because ranch road 620 and 2222 are state roads. We very clearly say in our guidelines, you know, you need to know which ones are county roads, which ones are state roads. So it's my -- this one is finally in shape for us to go ahead and identity, but it seems to me that we ought to spend some time and energy to turn what has been guidelines that are now being abused into what is official Travis County policy related to these different applications. And what I'm looking for is to have still a very film-friendly policy, but some consistency between what you have to go through at the city of Austin which has a wonderful reputation as being film friendly, and Travis County. We charge 10 bucks. That's it. The city of Austin has an application fee of $250 because they understand that to go through everything that needs to be done is not a $10 gig. It just isn't. And so I would just ask that -- to get permission for to us spend some time to turn what has been licensing guidelines into an official policy and for us to once again put back the work of submitting this application to the people who are submitting it as opposed to this thing gets turned in and becomes the county attorney tracking down information or sheleen tracking down information to try to accommodate something we want to accommodate. These things are just being thrown on our agenda and we are not getting the synopsis of, you know, what's this for. I'm always going to be in horror we approve a horror film happening in the the can jail. They are not doing what they are supposed to be doing so I would like to see us formalize into a policy what have been guidelines that have just not been adhered to. Have I pretty much captured -- when did you get this latest one related to this one?
>> almost exactly a week ago.
>> and we very clearly state in our guidelines a minimum of two weeks advance notices. So it seems like we need to formalize because they are just going by guidelines. Whereas if we had an official policy and consistency with the city of Austin which has a film officer, they've done all the good work. To work with the film commission so that we continue to have a reputation of being film friendly, but let's not dump out the county staff in terms of attorney time in terms of what should be up front on these applications in terms of roadways and facilities eye think it's a good idea and I think we need to carry it further and incorporate the other entities -- at least get with them and say how do you all want to participate in this because we solved del valle independent school district last week and it basically got put in the same spot. I think we need to go to each one of these entities and say, you know, let's come together and come up with some sort of a format.
>> yes.
>> and certainly reduce our expenses. I mean, you know, it's insignificant. That's not being infriendly to the film industry to say, you know what, we have -- if $250 is what it is or 500 or whatever it is, but the timing last week was the thing that was the most disturbing to me. I mean, it was almost like, well, yeah, it started last Thursday. I mean and so everybody had to take their time from the superintendent, all of us for you all to go in there and huddle up so I think that's a good idea.
>> it also becomes what we have is a license agreement, but we need to have a form that somebody fills out with required fields that, you know, this is not a completed application until you fill in the ones that have the asterisks. The rest is stuff we need to fill out so that henley or whomever it's can quickly turn an application into a license agreement. We want to make this easier. And unfortunately all this stuff is being dump odd the county staff to try and figure out what this information is. And I think it starts with a form. I am happy to have ann from my office work with whoever would like to on this, but to work cooperate weufl the Texas film commission, cooperatively with the city of Austin film contact person to see if we can get some consistency and something that will work for everything and that will still be very film friendly, but basically respects that we just can't have that stuff dumped on us when it comes to things like closing county roads and changing things around. Especially deadlines must be adhered to.
>> well, if somebody knew that our personnel were going to be -- that we're going to bill you for the personnel, if we have an attorney, then it's $127.50 an hour. And -- maybe it's $200 an hour.
>> and some of the things the city has related to certain kinds of things, some of these things can be done internally. If you meet certain criteria, it is all an in-house approval setting. It doesn't have to come to the city council. There's certain things they can sign off internally, especially if it's like a half a day shoot or one-day shoot, and it's really the more complicated ones in terms of a license agreement that have to do with the closing of roads, of course, because the Commissioners court has a say-so or county roads and we have policy. That has to come. But it seems like there's got to be a better way than what's happening right now and we are being inundated. The $10, there was no rhyme or reason other than it couldn't be zero, and so a number was just thrown in and henry's time certainly is more than just $10 in terms of trying to hold this stuff together, and it takes her away from her other client work to try and accommodate.
>> I think as long as we have something that everybody has access to at the same time and everybody knows and has the same information.
>> you bet.
>> and who is going to be the center point to let like the i.s.d.s know, the folks who are in the --
>> with nothing in this policy that says you must.
>> you need on to be told about these things.
>> second? Motion to approve this?
>> I would move approval of this license agreement and we spend quality time to bring back to the court an official poll stoeu make this process much more easy to understand.
>> I second the one we're posted for. And the other one bring it back --
>> is it okay for staff direction that it would be all right for us to --
>> I don't think we can take objection this today, but have I no objection -- we move in this direction.
>> you bet.
>> any for discussion of this item? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. I think we can go ahead and just move on that and put it on the agenda.
>> just a clarification. Do they have the updated one that makes it clear that ranch road 620 and 2222 are not part of this item?
>> yes, they do. The license came in today and initialed that change.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Tuesday, December 3, 2003 6:52 AM