Travis County Commissioners Court
June 5, 2007
Executive Session
We are announced that we would try to cover some of the executive session items. Our lawyers are headed this way or in the conference room already. We will take up item 25, which is to receive briefing and take appropriate action on request from the city of Austin to use the Travis County exposition center as an alternative venue for certain events during June 2007. That is under consultation with attorney exception. 26, receive briefing from county attorney and to appropriate action in claim by jennifer maldonado, former slot number 45, eeoc charge number 31 c 2007-0073 2007-00733. Another consultation with attorney exception. 27 to receive update and take appropriate action on selection of executive manager of justice and public safety. Personnel matters exception. We will take that one last. 28, consider and take appropriate action on an offer to purchase property owned by Travis County and located at 9207 joan morris road in precinct one, con with attorney. 29, consider and take appropriate action on the sale of real property at 68 6801 burnet road, consultation with attorney and exception of real property act. And 30, receive briefing and take appropriate action on real estate issues in central Austin. That is the real estate exception and consultation with attorney. Just in case we need it. We will discuss as many of these items as we can up to about two p.m. This afternoon and then return to open court before taking any action on any of them.
4:44 pm
then under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act, we will convene in executive session, hopefully for a short period to get legal questions answered. I have one big one and there may be a couple little ones. John will tell us to have the legal questions before we get in there, right, john john?
item 25 is eninvolving the use of the Travis County exposition center by the city of Austin. Move that we direct staff to continue to negotiate with the city of Austin, if we can make the ec po center available on the days that the city of Austin requests. We have a hard time determining that that is youth activity as they mention, is we should ask staff to get the city to pick up the utility cost, especially since the hcac at this time of year is expensive and since the bill comes from city of Austin energy, their request to have food is approved kept we wish their items not clash with the food providing by the concession area and also the concession air has a permit so we do in the think it would be a good idea to sell alcoholic beverages. Otherwise we are fully supportive and continue to part never with them.
>> second good second by Commissioner Davis. All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. 26 is a matter involving the jennifer maldonado claim. I move that we thorize the county attorney to use outside legal counsel as much as possible and up to the total attorneys fees--
>> not to exceed 22.
>> s 22,500.
>> second.
>> discussion in all in favor in that passes by unanimous vote. We did not get to 27 today. We will get that on next week and try to make as much progress as possible. 28, we did give directions to staff to work with the neighborhood residents on this matter. And to the extent that Commissioners court can assist with that, call on us specifically Commissioner Davis.
>> right.
>> and put this back on the court's agenda at the appropriate time in the future. . There is a question about the brokers. We'll put that part of the item back on the agenda. Kind of surprising me. A week from tomorrow, we should be able to have it back next week. Okay. 29 there were presented a contract specific with directions we gave last week week. I move we approve the contract and authorize the account judge to sign on behalf of the court.
>> .
>> second.
>> discussion? At in favor. Show commissionrs Davis, eckhardt, dougherty, yours truly voting in favor.
>> I'm abstaining.
>> Commissioner Gomez abstaining. 30 involves real estate in central Austin. I move that we authorize staff to make a new offer to purchase real property on for account use for the sum of 2.3 million.
>> second.
>> and we authorize staff to put together an appropriate either contract or purchase contract, seal the deal and give us an opportunity to work further on more elaborate contract. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And number 20, by the the way, all the other items we discussed in executive session between 1:45 and 2: 2:30. Number 20 is a matter involving the expansion application of bfi-allied waste filed with the tceq. Commissioner Davis.
>> I'd like to move that we oppose bfi-allied waste application before the tceq. This is their amended solid waste 1447 a, and I entertain a motion that Travis County oppose this expansion.
>> second.
>> the motion by commission Commissioner Davis to oppose the expansion instead of responding to the letter for comments. That was seconded by Commissioner eckhardt.
>> did it include, sorry, I just heard it was a motion the oppose the expansion. Not in lieu of the comments.
>> totally disdistinctive and separate.
>> I believe the motion is--
>> just to oppose. In other words, Travis County with the testimony that we received, the comments we received, the e-mails received during this whole process, we have seen tons of communiques from the community asking Travis County to take a position as far as opposing the expansion of this landfill and even suggest that we follow the city of Austin. So based on that, I am making a motion to that effect.
>> I make a substitute motion at this time for the court to approve option a with the comment given legal counsel after receiving legal advice, that those things be incorporated into option a, that in addition we direct the account attorney's office to draft appropriate documents to make the mutual commitment enforceable, including consideration of the tceq permit, make the covenant, enforceable agreement, financial security, any other appropriate matters, and report back to the court in two to three weeks. This anticipates working with representatives from bf bfi between now and that time to put appropriate documents in place.
>> second.
>> substitute motion is the one before us. Any discussion of it ?
>> I second. Commissioner Davis is taking a position on it sh.
>> the subsequent motion comes first. The original motion and second and substitute motion and second, and the substitute motion comes first.
>> then I would offer a friendly amendment to the substitute motion and move that we strike all reference to whether or not we oppose the application and whether or not we oppose the application, and I would also suggest that we include comments regarding the explicit request to increase the rate in recognition of including our erroneously deleted authority.
>> I think those were recommended for inclusion in the revisions to option a.
>> I don't remember that.
>> to the extent--
>> I understand as part of the original, the substitute motion, that there would be an inclusion of the date in all places, the November date, and rate of acceptance acceptanceaccept. Is that the same thing, Commissioner eckhardt ?
>> no, what I now am proposing is a statement regarding the explicit request to increase the rate of acceptance and the issue of whether or not that is with the conditions that we set.
>> to the extent that is not consistent with the language provided, the county torb after receiving legal advice if it is not friendly, the person that made the motion (audio trouble)
>> the previous friendly amendment strikes all reference to whether or not the application is assured.
>> we discussed that at length. The language that landed on was that however, paragraph (audio trouble). To the extent that that is unfriendly, in my view, I would oppose itit. Anymore discussion of the substitute potion. All in favor. Show commissions Gomez, dougherty, yours truly vot voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Davis and Commissioner eckhardt. Thank you all very much for your input. We will have this matter back on the court's agenda in two or three weeks. The option a was prepared for the entire court to sign so we would have appropriate placement, john,john.
>> I'm concerned about, judge, whether what you have just done a substituted a motion. Now you have a motion before you, actually the substituted motion, that that hasn't actually been adopted. What you just voted on was the substitute, Commissioner Davis's motion. You successfully substituted that. Now, whether the court adopts that motion, it actually gives the opportunity for anybody else now to vote on that final motion. So I think now what you have before you is the question, final question, which was your motion.
>> all right. Now we have a substitute motion back before us. Any discussion of it?
>> my whole point is that I still would like to reflect the will of this community. So I cannot support this motion because it doesn't really reflect the will of the community demonstrating here today in meetings of the past. So I'm going to be voting in opposition of this substitute motion.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Gomez, dougherty, yours truly vot voting in favor. Same two as before. Move adjournment.
>> second.
>> all in favor.
>> judge.
>> yes.
>> 4 ?
>> .
>> 24 ?
>> we will take some other time when we have more energy.
>> 16.
>> 16 failed.
>> Commissioner Davis had that one.
>> that carried.
>> the motion failed.
>> 211 failed ?
>> yes.
>> Commissioner Gomez was off the dias at the time. We need to make some recommendation as to when the item comments back or no action at all.
>> you understand what it is.
>> uh-huh.
>> the recommendation was to propose two weeks and give them an opportunity to get together and give Commissioner Daugherty a chance to get back. We were hoping they would get together. They could not get agreement agreement.
>> we will bring it back the 19th.
>> yeah, that is the motion. Second ?
>> yeah.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. All in favor of that motion. Show Commissioners Gomez, dougherty, yours truly vot voting in favor.
>> bringing it in on the 19 19th.
>> you're in favor ?
>> Commissioner Davis in favor also. Commissioner eckhardt voting against. Any more delay by the lawyers? Move adjournment. 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, June 6, 2007, 8:00 AM