Travis County Commissioners Court
September 30, 2008
Executive Session
>> let's call back to order this voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court because we do not need the road district nowm 3. There are no claims so the voting session is called back to order. This morning we got much of our business done. In fact -- yeah, 64 we did approve. 55 we have been asked to postpone until next week. 55, the expo center item, by roner khoury. We'll have that back on next week. 65 we sort of maybe obliquely addressed. 65 is discuss and take appropriate action on proposed assignsments for the special assistant to the Commissioners court. I think based on the action that we took in number 64, we would like for the special assistant to spend his time on the Travis County downtown development master plan especially over the next few months and we'll take a look at it in several months and see if we need to change that. Is that okay? We just gave those as directions for 65. Any problem with that?
>> judge, I'm hoping that christian is going to be able to mention that he said it would be delivered to us tomorrow. But I would pretty soon like to know what is the time line that it's going to take to deliver to this court the final
>> [inaudible] for this particular job. In other words, when are we going to have delivered to us the needs assessment so that we can move much further beyond probably a, b and c. And maybe christian will tell us that. Just wanted to say that out loud because I wanted to know what that time line was because otherwise it will get here when it gets here, which is not acceptable to me.
>> okay. 57, we need to take up in executive session under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. It is to approve amendment number 2 to interlocal agreement il 080014 ml, city of Austin, for central booking and related jail services. By the way, we've also been asked to postpone item number 69 until next week. Number 69, the matter involving the camanche trail conservation fund and the joseph lucas tract. 67, consider and take appropriate action regarding lease of parking spaces locate at 9th and lavaca. Consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. 68, consider and take appropriate action regarding the potential purchase of real estate along airport boulevard. Consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. We'll not take up 69. Number 70, receive legal briefing and take appropriate action regarding contract for third party administration. 70. 70 comes after 69. Receive legal briefing and take appropriate action regarding contract for third party administration of Travis County section 457 deferred compensation plan with nationwide retirement solutions. Consultation with attorney exception. 71, consider and take appropriate action on a proposed second amendment to contract for the existing improved property commercial contract between Travis County and balcones resources, incorporated, for the sale of property located on johnny morris road in precinct 1. That's the consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. 72, receive legal briefing on issues regarding contract with faulkner usa on jail construction project. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. And I did provide legal with about five questions that I think we need to address. We will discuss these items in executive session, but will return to open court before taking any action.
We've returned from executive session where we discussed the following tumedz.
number 57, the matter involving the central booking interlocal with the city of Austin.
and here to give us brief comment in addition to the several e-mails that we discussed that debbie russell sent yesterday and today along with county staff and legal, is mr. Simpson.
and if you would give us your full name, we will be happy to get your brief comments.
>> my name is matt simpson.
I'm with the aclu of Texas.
I just wanted to identify a couple of concerns that we have as the affiliate here in Texas about the use of the facilities for a city lobotomist to draw blood.
it's not clear at this point who that would be.
clearly we would have greater concerns if that was some kind of a trained police officer program, it doesn't sound like that's where things are at right now.
it sounds like right now the idea would be to bring in a vendor.
so regardless of who the person is that will be drawing the blood, the two main concerns I'd like to identify, iend glad to elaborate if you have any questions, the first is the liability issue.
it still in your jail, still in the county jail, and a variety of thing could go wrong.
I assume that some of the decisions no longer -- to no longer have the county nurses drawing the blood may have to do with their liability.
clearly there's concerns about liability at hospitals when a.p.d.
takes people there and without consent they refuse to -- nurses refuse to take blood.
taking blood without consent is definitely -- raises the possibility of liability.
the second one is infectious disease.
it's not clear to me where in the building this would be.
I'm sure that there are very sterile, medical areas within the jail, but because of the eye hate of infectious disease in jails, just adding in a room where there is blood draws being done raises an alarm bell, twhawn could definitely be addressed, though.
and those are the two main concerns I'd like to highlight.
and I guess if you have any questions.
>> here's what we were told.
>> okay.
>> and why I think we should go ahead and approve the interlocal.
in the interlocal wily agree to set aside -- we basically agree to set aside appropriate space in the event that a.p.d.
needs it.
now, I understand stwha at one point a.p.d.
was a bit more enthusiastic about this idea than they were today.
they may move on officers being trained to do this, they may not.
really the choice is kind of theirs.
but the status quo will continue until January 1.
of 2009 that is the sheriff's nurses to do what we've done in the past.
if we give them space it will be sterile and meet whatever medical conditions are imposed and the state does a pretty good job of imposing those and also inspecting for them.
so continuation of the status quo.
we've committed to do it through January 1, but we hope not to do it after that, I'm told.
if this changes, though, then county staff will notify me or another member of the court and we will notify you and/or ms. Russell to you will have an opportunity to have appropriate discussions with chief as ray dough and members -- as vai dough and members of his staff.
we believe that current law as interpreted by judges, there have been some cases, have ruled that a phlebotomist is an appropriate person to draw blood under the appropriate circumstances.
>> that's my understanding as well.
I'm not a lawyer, though.
it's kind of hard to deal with something when it's so nebulous and general as it is right now.
but I do agree that it surfaced and I think that when a.p.d.
talked about it sort of generally months back, several advise contacted them about various problems that could arise.
and I think right now they're looking at it a lot more closely than they were back then.
they still may do it, but they may not.
but something different has to be done, right, roger, because as of January 1, the sheriff really intends to stop using county nurses to do this.
now, I understand too that if you want to beef up this effort you don't just impose the blood draw, you have to go get a search warrant to do it legally.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> unless there are bizarre circumstances that otherwise justify it.
or you get consent.
>> consent or a situation under chapter 724 of the transportation code where there's been an accident, the person is reasonably suspected to have been intoxicated and somebody has died or is likely to die.
there's a very limited set of circumstances there that it could happen without a warrant.
>> right.
but since it's in our space, we will know when changes occur.
and our commitment is as soon as we know about that, we will call it to your attention and give y'all an opportunity to chat with a.p.d.
and the chief.
>> you know, I think part of it -- in response to that, part of the reason here is that, you know, down the line if there does start to be some kind of a blood draw facility within the county jail, I don't want you to be surprise that had we have concerns about it.
I'm coming now to identify it as something we have concerns with, obviously how it's implemented makes all the difference.
if we're talking about a narrow -- the 724.012 b where it's this narrow situation where it will be used, if we're talk a sterile environment, if there are search warrants being gotten, at that point it's harder to criticize.
and frankly the question of whether police officers will be doing it or not makes a difference as far as our concerns.
and that is -- and that goes directly to the point I'm trying to make, which is things like -- this is maybe the wrong thing to bring up, but things like the ice in the county jail controversy and other things like that develop over time when people say down the road we're going to work out how this relationship will work.
and this is the initial steps of starting this blood draw room.
and I'd like to think down the line what controversies may come up, what problems may we have, and I wanted to give you all the chance to talk to me about it right.
in the very opening minutes of considering this.
>> although unlike the ice issue, just to draw the distinction, is that we currently do have sterile blood draw facility inside the jail and health care administration for the inmates.
in our charge we must provide that kind of environment and that kind of care to those who we are incarcerating, whether temporarily or for longer periods of time.
so I would hate for us to muddy the waters in that regard.
whereas ice is entirely a federal activity, this is -- it's not optional we have a sterile facility for the possibility of blood draw, whether it's for health reasons or whether it's for prosecutorial reasons.
>> I should arrest late why I -- articulate why I made that comparison.
the reason why I made that comparison is I think when the Travis County jail started having ice agents operating independently within that jail -- and I'm not sure that they ever had an office, but should she have had an office or whatever, at that point it's a different agency.
they're operating under their own rules and it's a little bit harder how to figure to make that something you're comfortable with within your own facility.
in this situation we have a.p.d.
officers -- it's not clear to me this is headed that direction, but you have a.p.d.
officers drawing blood, community out cry and it's in your county jail.
so you'll catch some of that.
unfortunately also people would probably be concerned about providing that.
>> and of course, if the a.p.d.
officers training is commensurate with whatever the different codes lay out, then really it's an issue with the legislature.
>> fair enough.
absolutely.
>> > or the new procedure could be better than ours is now.
although you and I find that hard to believe.
>> yeah.
and I want to make clear that I'm here -- this is an initial kind of consultation.
just highlighting concerns.
>> we're headed this direction and they've sort of articulated support for, then we want to do the right thing.
we want to do it right.
but it's our jail it cannot occur secretly.
we will know when the change occurs and let you know it and let you give us put.
a lot depends on what's proposed at the time.
>> to be honor necht, we were kind of like the city council.
the interlocal comes up every year.
most of the time we focus on money more than anything else.
and sort of -- this idea sort of surfaced towards the end there.
and as a possibility during the contract year.
>> I appreciate your time.
>> thanks for coming down.
with that I move approval of the proposed interlocal.
discussion?
in addition?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
we discussed the items that were posted for executive session beginning with number 67.
that's the matter involving parking spaces that we lease at ninth and lavaca.
I move that we authorize staff to go ahead and keep leasing the 80 parking spaces at $100 a month.
that's an increase from 85 to 100.
through December 31st, 2008.
and that we take advantage of the 40 available after January 1 and lease those at a cost of 100 apiece through the end of the agreement.
and the end of the agreement is I think another nine months.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> right.
discussion?
also, I guess as part of this that we continue to innovatively and creatively deal with our employee parking problem.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
we discussed item 68, but I need another week on that.
and we need to give some thought as to how we would use that facility if we were to acquire it.
I know we integrated with the property we currently you own, but if we acquire another building, how would we use it in a manner that benefits resident out there, county employees, etcetera.
>> okay.
that's fine, judge.
>> 69 we did not discuss.
we previously announced intention to postpone it.
we did discuss item number 70.
we'll have it back on the court's agenda next week for a follow-up discussion.
and we do plan to have our consultant here if at all possible to participate in that discussion and assist us.
so 70 we'll have back on the agenda next Tuesday, October 7th.
71 is a matter involving the county-owned property on johnny morris road.
Commissioner Davis?
>> judge, I move that we extend the contract between Travis County and also the balcones resource inc.
until the first -- January 15th, 2009.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
72 is a matter involving faulkner.
we did get a series of legal questions answered and clarification of other issues.
in my view no additional action today except to encourage that faulkner continue to work with subcontractors.
is that okay?
with that I believe we've done our job.
>> might have adjourn.
>> 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:
Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:35 PM