Travis County Commissioners Court
May 3, 2005
Executive Session Items
We have come to executive session. And do we have our executive session -- you have been working with john hill on the farmer's market item, right?
>> john hill called me about two hours ago and said there was no point in their coming down because -- they knew how we felt. He said the county was not going to pay for repairs and hill rylander is not.
>> of the gas line?
>> of the gas line. So my question is the lease says that the landlord is responsible for pipes and running of gas to the building.
>> then we need to talk with john first because we didn't hear from him. We need to go into executive session and get this updated. 33 is to receive legal advice and take appropriate action on the request from city of Austin regarding county owned property located on tannehill in Austin, Texas. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. 34, discuss and take appropriate action on contract with republic of Texas biker rally for 2005 event. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. That was 34 I just read, the republic of Texas biker rally. 35, receive legal advice from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding claims received from tenants at the Travis County farmers market for repair of broken natural gas pipes and other matters. Consultation with attorney. We also have three added items, a-2, receive briefing from c-14-and take appropriate action concerning extension of administrative leave and settlement offer for a Travis County sheriff's office question's slot number 157 conversation with attorney. And personnel exception. 35 was the consultation with attorney. That's the farmer's market item. A-3 is to receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action concerning extensive administrative leave for an employee in Travis County precinct 2 constable's office, slot 7. Consultation with attorney and personnel matters exceptions. A-4 is to receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding youth operation and maintenance agreement for Travis County east metro park. Travis County attorney. We will discuss these matters in executive session, but will return to open court before taking any action.
we have returned from executive session and where we discussed items. , involving the request for administrative leave I move that we approve the settlement agreement that has been presented to us by the authorized county judge to sign on behalf of Travis County and the settlement agreement does provided for reinstatement and back pay and other entitlements for the affected employee. -- does that include --
>> that's in the settlement agreement.
>> thank you.
>> discussion?
>> all in favor?? That passes by unanimous vote a request for administrative leave for employee number in slot 7 of precinct 2 constable's office. I approve we extend leave with pay through may 17, 2005 to give the human resources department and county attorney's office to complete its investigation and report back to the court with recommendations.
>> clarification of that, is that up to may 17th? Because obviously they include their investigation sooner than that?
>> I understand they are supposed to report back on may 17th. If they can complete it earlier, then, fine. It depends on what the disposition, is I think.
>> not to exceed?
>> right.
>> thank you.
>> this would be through our meeting on may 17th. Anymore discussion? All in favor? The bill passes unanimous.
>> east metro park, no action required today. They will keep us posted on developments on that matter. We appreciate it. And 33 involves the -- hill county owned property, which need a report back next week and to respond to specific questions asked by the Commissioners court so we will have that back on the court's agenda may 10th.
>> 34 he we did get an update on the -- rally and move we approve the amendment to increase the amount to $30,000 that needs to be written in and we authorize the acting director of the expo center to sign on behalf of Commissioner's court discussion all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We are presuming that our initial change related to the dollar amount, the final dollar amount will be approved. Do we need to have this back on our agenda in case there is a last minute hitch related to the initial change we are doing here today.
>> I think we should hear it back just in case.
>> we don't need it but I am just concerned at this late date that there may be some unexpected stuff. Thanks. 35 involves the Travis County farmers market and specifically the affairs of a broken natural gas, broken natural gas pipe and other matters.
>> to start off let me make a clarification, there was a letter sent to all of the tenants by mr. Rylander regarding the rent that we need to absolutely correct the record related to our tenants, and it says dear tenants, I have been advised that the county suggested that you not pay rent for the month of may. And those of you who were here in the court and stayed to listen to the entire conversation would know that is not what Travis County told you all to do. We made it clear that the rent was due on the first but you had until the third when it was considered past due, and it al allowed us to get to -- get to where we are today so we never told you you did not have rent that was due for may. So we hope that you will take that from us and you all know that is not exactly what happened last week. And if mr. Rylander were here last week in the courtroom he would actually know that. Judge, I would move that we get this matter settled for the dollar amount of $10,000 that was discussed last week with the person who made all of the repairs and that is contentioned upon settlement documents being received from each of the tenants that this indeed does resolve all of the issues related to in particular incident and that this item be put back on the agenda next week with some appropriate language for some other kinds of situations and issues we have got at the farmers market that are not covered by --
>> discussion?
>> and that should be expedited as much as possible. I think hilly has draft settlement letters. As soon as we can get it resolved we can get it resolved.
>> -- where that might come from. We can always change that.
>> identify a better source later on we will take it from there.
>> and that would be part of the motion as well related to a budget transfer to make that happen. I guess we ought to address all of the other outstanding issues.
>> yes, sir.
>> put those on the agenda for next week also.
>> right now we are very limited. This is is just about the natural gas issue and there are some other things and I think some other options available to the court as well that is we wanted to be able to --
>> that $10,000, I think they paid 5,000, I think the tenants paid 5,000, so obviously what we would do is pay the 5,000 that is due. And then reimburse from the tenants the 5,000 that was paid.
>> -- get that amount to the contractor. They have a contractual relationship with the contractor. You don't have that. So I would say hand it over to the tenants and let them may the balance to the contractor.
>> it is intended whatever /out of pocket/out-of-pocket they have had to this point they will be reimbursed for and in whatever is the most expeditious matter. The contractor that performed the full amount of work be compensated the full amount.
>> the amount to be paid, I mean, I kind of got the impression some of them may have had some additional expense because it only got up to the building and there were some additional costs that they had in the building. Now, are we saying we are paying that.
>> just about the stuff within the common areas. I don't think I heard any of the tenants say the things that stopped at the end of that common area point was really the responsibility of the county.
>> would you come to the microphone, sir, and identify yourself?
>> my name is them think thomas and the owner of brentwood tavern. I submitted the letter to mr. Hilley's office and basically because as a result of that gas line issue I also had to upgrade all of the gas lines in the building and also get regulators for all of my appliances in there and that's where my total cost incurred as I stated on the letter to mr. Hilley's offices from, I think mine was 4,000, something like that for that outside gas line, all of the inside gas lines and all of the regulators that go on all of my appliances. I am going to take the stance that it wouldn't have mattered if there was a problem out in the common area or not, if you made some kind of internal changes to your gas lines, you were going to trigger the code requirements that the -- of the city of Austin and I think that is kind of, you know, not really related to the issue at hand. You were going to trigger code no matter what you were going to be doing. Well, I mean, my whole thing is that, you know, basically --
>> that building was not set up to be a professional restaurant. I mean not at all. I mean it was represented that way but --
>> that is an issue between you and mr. Rylander, yes, unfortunately. Well, whatever the claims are, let's just -- let's lubs so them we can look at them one by one.
>> that's what we need to do but I want to make sure you didn't think you are going to be able to submit -- I mean we can talk about that but basically what we are trying to do is get this $10,000.
>> we are trying to get the $10,000 paid.
>> but I do understand that there are incurred expenses, and I would probably side with you that, you know, had you not had this issue you wouldn't have spent 4,000 extra dollars to upgrade your deal. I mean but it is a mess and we understand that it is a mess. I mean, to date my costs to upbraid the building to code so far are in excess of $60,000. My initial investment that -- of coming into this with all of the -- this is my family's fourth restaurant and we have been doing restaurants in Austin for the last 20 years, and this is the first time that we ever have come across any of these kind of issues before. I mean, basically, you know, what we do is we get our broker who represents us and then they negotiate and, you know, based on the landlord they tell us what the condition of the building is or what not. He blatantly told us certain things that were not what we found to be true later blatantly like in our face, and I have other tenants to back me up on that, because for example, the whole building being condemned, red tagged because of a fire hazard, you know, they were made aware of it because they couldn't open their business establishment until our building was condemned. So when we wanted to rent that building and it was a red tag from the fire marshal we asked what is that red tag for? And the response was they he didn't know. When they red tagged that building they went to mr. Rylander and told him exactly why that building was red tagged and that was before we signed the lease and that's before we even started talking to him. It was just by chance that we happened -- I?m sorry it ever happened but for anybody that we decided to take this lease, you know, and, you know, we understood in the contract that mr. Rylander represented the county, and cocaine we had no reason to believe that the county would misrepresent a property of its own.
>> and that property used to be a road and bridge office and never was a restaurant ever and I can guarantee you that if this were presented in the lease oh by the way Travis County you may trigger 50, 60, 70, $80,000 worth of upgrades related to code on gas, electric, plumbing, fire code, I can guarantee you that lease would never have been offered to you, but that's not how it was presented to us. It was the condition of the building as is. Now, we are trying to get resolved with this motion what is going on in the common area on the $10,000 problem we know we have got and trying to get that piece resolved. If there is another piece and I hope this is all right with everybody that needs to be brought back for some other discussions related to the other piece. But that is not what this motion covers. It is to get the $10,000 common area gas line situation with all of the tenants fixed and if there are other things I think we are going to have to have another agenda item related to those, because my motion is absolutely not intended to cover 40, 50, 60, 70, $80,000 worth of other code things that Travis County had no say so over whether you should have been allowed to do that kind of work without our permission. The building was delivered as is. And I am really sorry that mr. Rylander said the things that you said, but you understand we are also dealing with somebody that doesn't exactly tell the truth sometimes when pressed. Let's do an agenda item next week and --
>> we are trying to get the common area, the 10,000-dollar issue resolved with this motion and it is not an intended to cover anything else.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We will have it back on next week and we probably will discuss your specific additional claims.
>> make sure mr. Rylander is on notice that is what this is about.
>> there is no use having next five weeks different deals I mean let's try to accumulate them all up because I bet that is not the only one who has the issue.
>> I have to run and give a speech. Move for adjournment.
>> 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:
Wednesday, May 4, 2005 10:33 AM