Travis County Commissioners Court
July 6, 2004
Executive Session Items
I believe that gets us to executive session. We do need to discuss 5-d. Issues related to independent audit required by health and safety code section 281.122. And the main item there is consider and take appropriate action on following for the Travis County hospital district. That will be under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. Returning to those posted for executive session, we've been asked to take another week on 35. I do know there's aking meeting scheduled with mr. Norville and his larry. We're trying to get that scheduled -- that's scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday. We'll have it back on next week and hopefully have some action on that. We're trying to come to some determination about our ability to negotiate a settlement or whether we have to pursue other avenues. 36, receive briefing from county attorney and/or take appropriate action in; cause no. Gni-03498; hci equity partners, l.p. Et al v. Travis County, et al. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 37, receive briefing from county attorney and/or take appropriate action in; stephen kuhns v. Travis County and Travis County court at law no. 7. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. We previously announced the postponement of 38 until next week. It will be back on. 39, receive briefing from county attorney and/or take appropriate action concerning the extension of leave for a juvenile probation department employee dept. 45., Slot 445. That will be the personnel matters exception to the open meetings act. 40. Receive briefing, appoint Commissioners court representative for mediation and/or take appropriate action in annell raymond cantrell, v. Travis County et al; (frasier: medical malpractice; personal injury) consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. And we have a-3, which is to consider and take appropriate action on need to acquire real property for Travis County indigent burials and that will be the real property exception to the open meetings act. We'll discuss these matters in executive session, but will return to open court before taking any action.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed the following items: number 36, involving hci equity partners, I move that we approve the settlement offer indicating Travis County's agreement to pay, one, reimbursement of claims in the to exceed 143,351 money 33 at a rate of $10 per claim. To costs for publication and implementation of claims process, we further direct the county attorney's office to structure means for claims process consistent with settlement amounts in cooperation with the appropriate county departments and then authorize the county judge to sign the settlement agreement upon completion by the county attorney and the attorney for the other side. If there are issues we will bring this back to court for further consideration. That's the motion.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Discussion?
>> I was won -- for those wondering what this is about. This is when the court charged [indiscernible] management fees that were later declared imper missible by our courts. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. /?txuwe did discuss number 37 involving stephen kuhns, no action, 39 concerning the extension for leave with pay for a juvenile probation department employee, I move that we approve an additional six days which should carry it through July 28th of '04. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 40 is a request that we appoint a county representative for the mediation in the annell raymond cantrell Travis County matter. Dan mansour has graciously to represent the court in yet another mediation. I agree that and move that we appoint him.
>> second.
>> discussion in all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> a 3 the acquiring property for indigent burials. I move that we direct staff to continue to do due diligence, in one ascertaining the owners and claimants of the land immediately -- of the land immediately adjacent to the international cemetery, one. That, two, that we determine which [indiscernible] if any, would be needed, including costs for us to acquire any adjacent property that may be owned by others. Which includes determining suitability of tracts of land. Taking into account slope, drainage, other matters that have been called to our attention historically. And, three, dealing with any other matters relevant to this issue, to put this court in a position to make a determination in say, 60, to 90 days, understand that we do have a little bit more space in there than I thought on Friday, but I think we ought to go ahead and plan to make some final decisions in 60 to 90 days, there are other options like pursuing mr. Gieselman's recommendation, determining the cost effectiveness of contracting out this service, which we have talked about before. We may as well go ahead and land on that so becan make an apples -- so we can make an apples to apples comparison.
>> I second that.
>> that was growing as I was talking.
>> would you allow is to grow more, included within that gieselman analysis we check with how other large urban counties are dealing with this exhibit same issue that we know is -- out there.
>> that's friendly. Makes sense to me.
>> friendly to me, thank you.
>> any more discussion in all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And we also discussed item 5 d, and -- we made -- and related items. Let me try a few motions. We did get from the city of Austin the city manager, toby futrell, on jul 22nd, a letter in response to our letter to the city suggesting that the two outside audit firms that represented the Travis County and the city of Austin respectively are not to be considered to perform a joint audit -- are to be considered to perform a joint audit to determine the tax rate reduction audit. Ms. Futrell recommended the firm of maxwell, lott and ritter, llp, for this kind of audit the county auditor has no oak. So I move that -- no objection. So I move that we indicate to the city our agreement to hire this firm for that purpose?
>> second.
>> any discussion of that?
>> judge, could you include in your motion authorization for county attorney, purchasing agent, someone to begin a negotiated contract with them to provide the service for the county.
>> okay. If the court agrees to this firm, my next suggestion was about to be that members of the internal transition committee meet with this firm this week. And try to determine what kind of scope the firm has in mind and I think it would be appropriate for county attorney's office and purchasing to be involved to go ahead and put together either a contract with us or a three-party contract that involves maxwell and city of Austin and Travis County. Two ways to go after it. I guess it really depends on the scope and what the accounting firm feels is the best or better of those two.
>> one of the things that we do need to determine is indeed that the time frame that we've got is one that they actually can accomplish what we need to have accomplished in a very compressed time frame.
>> okay. Just expand the motion to include that.
>> that's perfect.
>> all right.
>> if we are going to do this, it's time sensitive, so we need to do it, not only get somebody -- but get the contract in place, approved and funded, also. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We did discuss a list of Travis County hospital district financial policies provided to us by the auditor. It is fairly comprehensive. But probably requires a little bit more detail, based on advice that we received. For example, we do pick up the purchasing and contract policies here. As well as investments. There are things like collarization -- collaterization. Probably ought to be called to the board's attention. My intention is to approve this today, supplement this next week as we see necessary. The reason for that is the board may meet Monday or Tuesday based on what mr. Collins is saying. If not, if we -- whatever we approve next Tuesday will be included in whatever we gave them.
>> judge, one point of clarification. The county's collateralization policy is actually included in your investments policy. It is included. If you adopt the county investment policy to apply to the hospital district, that includes the county's collateralization policy in that.
>> okay. But on the purchasing contract authority, we cite chapter 262. That will not pick up significant county policies, right?
>> chapter 32. We ought to do some cleanup stuff like that, that specifically call to the board's attention county policy, et cetera, that would augment state law. Next week, we will need to do that. If so -- there would be no reason to supplement it.
>> in case anybody is watching this, in terms of what this all means, we will be saying that we will be using the county purchasing act, county purchasing policies and procedures which includes the ethics policy, we will be using county accounting controls and we are picking up the investment policy, which also encompasses the depository agreement and the collateralizational policy. These are all county, county, county, county, county. I think we are sending a message about some things.
>> two and a half pages. My guess is we will probably have questions when they receive this. If we are in a position to respond to those, it will be good. Now, the --
>> but we will get a briefing on all of these policies at their first meeting. They will at least have a foundation to --
>> right. These are intended to be some financial purchasing controls that basically we provide the hospital district. Any discussion of these? Sorry.
>> it has been seconded.
>> all in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. This that we got from the county attorney, do we need to act on this?
>> it's about the investment policy, do we need to specifically do a motion on that?
>> what that was to do was to make it clearer how to apply those because if you say that they are to follow the county investment policy, the county investment policy says that the investment manager does certain things and that the -- that the Commissioners court does certain things. If you want the board to step into the shoes of the Commissioners court in relation to district funds and you want the administrator of the district or someone within the district who is a district employee to step into the shoes of the cash investment manager or other county employees, then you would need to -- to put those kind of clarifications so that -- so that otherwise it's kind of confusing what you really intended, whether you really intended everything to come back here at board meetings or whether you really intended the board to make these decisions following the same types of policies that you followed when you make the decisions.
>> the motion that you just passed, our task in the next several weeks would be to work through those policies, make the appropriate changes in wording so that they become hospital district policies. I don't -- I at least have no confusion about what the court intends and understand there needs to be some redrafting, but you intend for those policies to be one that's are followed by a hospital district in the same way they are followed by the Commissioners court now.
>> right.
>> we will make that redrafting with the hospital district and we will bring that back specifically for your approval.
>> that would be fine. We would hold on this to next week, we will just do it.
>> that's fine.
>> now, I think those are the specific things under 5, so that will be back on the agenda next week. I hope for us to take final action on the various parts with an eye toward giving something to the board, the managers at the first meeting. If it occurs after Tuesday. With that I believe we are done with our business today.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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.
Last Modified: Friday, October 28, 2005 9:38 AM