Travis County Commssioners Court
May 4, 2004
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 36
36, consider and take appropriate action on -- ... Mental health and mental retardation at 56 east avenue, Austin, Texas. That has been used by Travis County sheriff's office crisis intervention unit.
>> good afternoon, your honor, members of the court. We're back again for the item for consideration up by the court, understanding that each of you should have received a document from mr. Connally with the county attorney's office, which is quite indepth in laying out the chronology of events and i'll probably turn it over to jim to discuss the findings.
>> the court -- anybody have any questions? I think it's -- I don't know, I apologize that it was Monday before we could get that to you, but it involved quite a bit of work to put it together and I知 here to answer any questions you have in that regard.
>> that was my problem. I was absent yesterday and saw it for the first time this morning and was not able to review it over lunch. So [indiscernible].
>> no, judge, I give you -- your legal options are several. But I did send an e-mail yesterday saying that if you didn't have time to review the backup between yesterday and today at this time that I don't see any reason why this item can't be delayed until next week to give you a opportunity to review my legal analysis and the factual basis.
>> I assume [indiscernible] let me ask you this. There's no question that we use the space.
>> that's correct. There should be an attached document to that effect.
>> okay. And that to the extent that we were furnished space free of charge for a certain time, we got the space free of charge. Do we know?
>> we got space free of charge for approximately 20 months. So it was in fact a little longer than what -- I think judge herman says that it was clearly the understanding of himself and atc and mhmr at the outset of this grant process that they would provide the space free of charge for 18 months, which was the duration of the original grant project. And in fact they provided it for nearly 20 months back then.
>> so the time to pay rent started when?
>> October 1st, 2002.
>> and moved forward.
>> until today. It's still there today, yes, sir.
>> and the amount that they charge us per month is how much?
>> $1,749 per month.
>> and we multiply that we get a total of on how much?
>> through the end of this month, I believe it's -- 34 --
>> 34,980.
>> and that's what they are asking for?
>> yes, sir.
>> and that money is in in sheriff's budget.
>> that's correct.
>> when line item?
>> we had secured that in otherer services. We had carried forward money from f.y. 2003 and have set aside money in f.y. '04 to cover that.
>> you all expected this invoice to come at some point and it's here now.
>> we have been trying to get this invoice for quite a long time, your honor.
>> judge, we have it in four different line items. We'll have to make a transfer depending on the court's choice of payments.
>> in terms of the option we've got in terms of denying the claim, I知 not there. It's clear we've been in the space. We can either handle it as a ratification and jim gives us arguments how it's okay to go that route or a mother reut claim in this case what the fair and reasonable taken price that is out there is fair and reasonable at $2 a square foot. So [indiscernible]. I don't care which one it goes because I think this thing needs to go. I知 not going to vote for whichever way it is because that is the only way to continue to send the message of we don't do things. And it seems like in the future we ought to require anybody that does it this way again to have to read every bit of this backup and watch us on t.v. As punishment of don't do it like this. I知 comfortable with either way, I知 going to vote no on either way.
>> I guess from the auditor or legal counsel perspective is one way better than the other? Contract ratification or quantum merit?
>> [inaudible].
>> [indiscernible].
>> $34,980, judge.
>> okay. We expect to move out by June 1.
>> yes, sir.
>> but judge, they've also said if we're delayed in our move-out that they will not charge any extra rent as long as we're out by the end of June.
>> okay.
>> and as long as we pay.
>> yes.
>> I think that might be part of it.
>> i've already made my point.
>> move that we use the quantum merit theory [indiscernible] legal standard as appropriate to pay this kind in the amount of --
>> $34,980.
>> to Austin county mhmr for space we have used since the date given us by legal counsel in '02.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
>> just for people watching and myself, tell me what that means, quantum merit.
>> well, that means that although we didn't have a formal contract, that we did receive benefits from a.c.t.-mhmr that justice dictates we pay them for the reasonable value of the services or the benefits we received although we didn't have a formal contract. So the law says that the law will imply a contract, a contract that says that we received a benefit that we should have to pay them for that.
>> so in other words, based on what the lawization, you got the product, you ought to pay for it.
>> correct.
>> but it's the right thing to do.
>> and if it had followed proper channels, there would have been a written contract. We discussed using the space, paying them after 18 free months, we got 20 free months. The time we did pay kick in, we put the money back to do it, we didn't have a contract. Austin-Travis County mhmr held off on invoicing us and they finally have.
>> what kind of safeguards can we come up with to ensure that we minimize any type of [indiscernible]? I know it happens. Sometimes it's oversight and for whatever reason, it just appears to me that the department heads should realize the situation they are getting into and if a contract is merited to take care of a service, then we should be on top of that. So I知 really concerned about safeguards and being proactive instead of being reactive in this particular situation. So as to other departments in the county doing business, let's make sure we have something in writing so we don't have to deal with kwupb item merit claims.
>> I sometimes doubt you are ever going to do this again.
>> just so --
>> I知 sorry.
>> I think we have learned the difficult multi-agency situations where on agency gets something going and then you later inherit the situation.
>> just so I completely understand, susan, why would you say quantum merit versus -- I知 having a hard time understanding this one is more important than the other.
>> no, the thing with the quantum merit, that's a legal settle: you decide we owe them the money, it's a legal settlement and we have no reason or authority to be examining legal settlements that you and the county attorney think are appropriate. The idea of going back and reconstructing a contract like it was there -- I mean it wasn't. So to me this seems like the most straight forward. We got the service, they were there, made a mistake, owe them the money, pay for it under quantum merit.
>> judge, would you take a friendly that is correct the authorization of the appropriate budget transfer is to make all of this happen as quickly as possible?
>> I certainly do.
>> thank you.
>> no problem with that, Commissioner Gomez? Any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, Daugherty and Gomez voting in favor along with judge Biscoe. And abstaining, Commissioner Sonleitner. Thank you all very much. And part of that was expedite payment to Austin-Travis County mhmr as much as possible.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 5, 2004 7:38 AM