Travis County Commissioners Court
May 26, 2009,
Item 31
>> number 31 consider and take appropriate action regarding the following: a, agreement regarding enhancement of workforce diversity; and b, an order to participate in the Texas enterprise zone program to nominate golfsmith international, l.p.
as an enterprise project; and c, an order identifying and summarizing local incentives.
initiatives.
>> [sic]
>> let me just -- can I just -- so are you all here on the -- on the
>> [indiscernible] all right.
have a seat here.
i should let you know that I have a request to delay that to this afternoon.
by the auditor.
who is unavailable this morning.
i don't know that we'll be in court this afternoon.
but I did promise to make that item last.
okay?
and that is -- that is 15 e the matter involving the cdbg energy assistance grant, right?
>> yeah.
>> yeah.
so ...
so what we can do is try to let y'all know, what I will do is let my office know and travis and p.b.o.
and ms.
flemming, maybe a few minutes before then before we might reach it.
try to get my office to let you all know to head this way.
okay.
now, back to golfsmith, number 31.
we talked last week about a sort of an m.o.u.
or some sort of an agreement regarding workforce diversity.
and I did see a draft document, right, ms.
gearhart.
any issues with that, anybody?
i think that was Commissioner Davis' request there.
>> judge, liked to add --
>> let's go to b then.
an order to participate in the Texas enterprise zone project, any issues there?
>> no.
any issues with b?
>> no.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Davis, Eckhardt, Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against Commissioner Huber.
d is -- an order identifying and summarizing local initiatives.
my understanding of this is we're just supposed to identify and summarize those that are here that we use from time to time not necessarily that we'll use on this particular project.
>> correct.
>> judge --
>> okay.
>> -- I had a chance -- I guess this is the --
>> this is c.
>> [multiple voices]
>> go ahead.
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> the local initiatives and, you know, is this the portion that deals basically with some of the initiatives that -- that you had talked about earlier?
>> no.
this is just a list of -- of the different economic incentives that are sometimes available in Travis County, not that they will be negotiated between us and golf smith, but this is just a list for the state to see what kind of initiatives that we have like tax abatement, 381 agreements, permitting, those sorts of things.
>> I have no quarrel with that.
>> okay.
>> no problem.
which I fully support.
i just wants to make sure that -- want to make sure that we have an opportunity to look at the diversity --
>> we are going back to that, that's a separate contract.
>> that's a.
>> we called a, but you were chatting with ms.
flemming so we went to b and c.
>> oh, okay.
>> I just wants to make sure that the diversity of the contract is in place, because it's kind of a local thing.
>> we are going to call that right back up.
anything regarding c.
>> judge, the only thing that I would like is on both of these orders there are some pieces that we have to insert after things are done and so that you would be authorized to find these when -- when every piece is put in there.
there's some notes in there that says will be added the certified minutes, the copies of the public notices, we don't have all of those so we don't have an original for you today to sign.
so if you would include in the motion authorizing the judge to sign these when they are completed.
because everything is not available today to put in there and I do want to run including these local initiatives, I would like t.n.r.
to -- to give an okay on those, I haven't gotten that back yet.
so if the approval could be subject to that and the completion of the documents.
but it's what you have here.
there's a note as to what will be stuck in there.
and then authorizing the judge to sign those because of this June 1st deadline, then we'll put those pieces together and get the originals to your office, judge.
>> any issues with that?
then I move approval of it.
>> second.
>> move approval of c as well as to authorize the county judge to approve any I guess --
>> [multiple voices]
>> the order will have to go to everybody.
we will have to send those around to everybody.
the agreement, the m.o.u.
would come to the judge.
>> then we don't need the motion.
>> well, everybody would be authorized to sign the resolution when it's completed.
understanding that they need original probably won't be available today.
that's all.
>> but it will be available before the June 1st.
>> absolutely.
>> okay.
let's just act on c then.
any issue with c?
all in favor?
c passes by unanimous vote.
a is agreement regarding enhancement of workforce diversity; and
>> I -- thank you.
bless you, Commissioner.
i apologize for being off the dais earlier.
anyway, this is something that I wanted to make sure that we have an opportunity to address.
when golfsmith first come to the court asking us to accept their participation as far as an application process, to deal with enterprise -- state enterprise regulations, of course I had no qualms about that.
then I started looking at the diversity ethnicity within the existing structure of golf smith employment and of course it was about 331 employees.
my concern was then how can we go -- since the structure of the regulation dealing with enterprise with the state and of course y'all just came here as you have done with the city of Austin, to -- to -- to -- to ask the court to select you as far as one of the nominations so you could participate in this process.
which is all well and good.
but on the other hand, when you start looking at the ethnicity structure of golfsmith as far as its current employee practices, there wasn't any relief, per se, that would assure that there could be some possible relief factors as far as bringing up the -- the employment practices, diverse practices that you have that are there currently.
how do you deal with that?
need to be I guess a separate instrument outside of the regulations.
hopefully in the last discussion we had we said an agreement or m.o.u., which would still suffice.
let's -- last week I did mention some of the -- some of the -- ethnicity diversity as far as break down.
of course I failed not to mention the white employment persons there within your current employee status at golfsmith is more than 60%.
of course I did mention the black population, african-american a little more than 2 or 3%.
, the hispanics right around 27%.
other a little more than 2%.
as you go through this diversity break down, you can see there's some representation deficiencies within that.
how do we correct the deficiencies that's currently there.
of course there's something that hopefully we can do to the -- to an m.o.u.
of course looking at different plans that have been out there, programs that may be out there, that you can adapt a program and of course -- of course you have dell, you have i.b.m., you probably have several models.
i'm not trying to say this shoe probably don't fit all feet.
however, I think that -- that -- as far as the m.o.u.
and things like that to make sure that we -- that we benefit from just -- from just employment practices, especially if you are in a disadvantaged zone, a disadvantaged economic area where you are located.
i'm -- I'm sure that -- that you will aggressively bring some type of change, especially with your new hirings to make a difference as far as bringing those low percentages up to where they need to be.
that's basically where we left off somewhat on last week.
hopefully the m.o.u.
that -- that -- that I would like to applaud
>> [indiscernible] and county attorney staff for coming up with -- marietta and county attorney's staff for coming up with that particular m.o.u.
which actually addresses that little piece that we just talked about as far as you guys looking at a plan to bring about enhancement or increase, especially in those particular areas that are -- that are not represented properly with the layout of the percentages that I had just given.
so I guess it's your turn to talk and I'll shut up
>> [laughter]
>>
>> [indiscernible] as far as the m.o.u., I'm currently -- currently it is being reviewed by the executive team and the legal team right now.
so we cannot actually
>> [indiscernible] it today.
i would like to request that potentially that we could have that to you within the next 30 days.
because of the holiday, the memorial day weekend and short notice for our legal team and everything to look at that, it's not ready today.
but we can probably have it back to you within the next 30 days, that's what we would like to request.
>> okay.
i guess my concern, though, with that is how much clout or how much merit do I give your statement?
in other words that was sort of the leverage I think, in my opinion, I wanted to make sure that we got the county's -- Travis County supported -- as far as us being nominated for enterprise zone benefits through the state.
we got what we wanted from the county.
how do the county, how do we assure that you will actually go through this m.o.u.
and ensure that they need will happen?
in other words, we are giving you everything we can.
then what are we going to get in exchange?
how can we say that you are going to actually adapt a diversity employment practice program that -- that basically laid out to show you those numbers, local percentages of folks that need to be brought up in the employment opportunities at your shop?
how can we -- how can we be assured that you will even do that?
in other words, you got what you want from Travis County today if we would act on it.
>> correct, corrected.
the application that is being submitted to the governor's office is actually being submitted by Travis County.
for the purposes of golf smith.
the application review cycle takes about two months to actually go through the process of nomination and approval as an enterprise project.
so that means within that two or three month period Travis County can turn around and say we don't want that application to be in.
so we're asking for a 30 day to actually get animato you.
and during get an m.o.u.
to you, during that period you could withdraw that application.
>> > okay.
so we have an out clause I guess basically saying that what we would like to do -- well, I don't know what the county is going to do.
but essentially a window can be open or left open in this particular case whereby we the county can back off if you do not come through accordingly, successfully, as far as agreeing to look at a diversity hiring of new employees at your particular company.
am I hearing that correctly?
>> correct.
we are asking for 30 days to actually have it go through legal, the executive team, so that we can present the m.o.u.
to you, can come to an agreement within the next 30 days.
>> but that window of opportunity, as far as the county's opportunity, they took the ball in one hole.
60 days you said?
>> the review process at the governor's office was an application submitted, I personally I guess have never seen an application get approved within 60 days.
usually it takes up to the three month time frame as the other applications come in.
there are such things as a project being dedesignated.
i'm not sure what the process is, but you have to be aware that you are the -- the nominating jurisdiction that is supporting this application.
so you have weight on when an application is approved and stated designated.
>> we have to, according on what I'm hearing, though, action as far as we being the nominating organization here as far as having control of that, it's still must be done within a certain time line, which is June 1, stark.
>> correct.
>> all right.
>> is that correct.
>> correct.
>> our next meeting will be definitely after June 1st here on the court so we need to act on this today then as far as that time.
that time line is something that we must act on, something that we can't get away from.
is that correct.
>> the application process --
>> [multiple voices]
>> correct.
>> okay.
all right.
so that's where we are at this point.
i just hope that all of these other things -- marietta I think the things that she's commented on especially with that window, 60 days before the review process goes on then within 30 days of the m.o.u., at least they would have time to look at that within the 30 day window.
then come back to the court.
is that within the law if.
>> as far as the regs are concerned?
>> yes.
i can double check that, but -- I think what we can do today is indicate our intention, if we cannot reach agreement on workforce diversity in 60 days.
because I think that if we take the affirmative step of approving it today, we can indicate that we will withdraw our approval unless we reach agreement in 30 days on workforce diversity.
that's what I'm -- seems to me that will be a clear indication of exactly what we stand.
now the ones who have been coming down here have seen the language proposed.
>> correct.
>> but there are others higher up who --
>> [multiple voices]
>> just their h.r.
director.
>> I second Commissioner Davis' motion to indicate our intention to withdraw our support unless we are satisfactorily reached agreement on workforce diversity.
any more discussion?
>> I have a couple of questions that I don't anticipate getting answered today, but just to put out there in the world.
we are going to work on the m.o.u.
a little bit more.
items 2 c and d on the first page of the m.o.u.
that would probably be much most interest, particularly d ceasing to be a restatement of the enterprise zone requirements, pointing out the distinctions between the enterprise zones and funds.
but in regard to c and d operating in tandem, I think it would be good if we could identify at least the baseline of how many employees are currently residents of the enterprise zone and/or economically disadvantaged.
so that we have a baseline to work from.
>> correct.
as far as the enterprise zone.
the baseline for the enterprise zone residents would not be a problem, just a matter of geo coding where they are at.
actually identifying economically disadvantaged individuals would be a little bit difficult because it's more historical and they don't complete a form as they were hired.
>> I totally understand that.
we have been grappling with this quite a bit.
i was thinking that perhaps starting that process it would -- it would bring to light the difficulty in exactly that so that as -- as required by the state provision, as -- as employees are replaced and the requirement kicks in to hire individuals, 25% of individuals who are hired in this time frame from either the zone or their economically disadvantaged that they need paperwork or forms or process would be developed in the up front so we don't get down the road and say oh, well we couldn't prove they were economically disadvantaged.
we think they are.
>> they are actually used a post employment form to identify economically disadvantaged individuals.
but historical data of people hired five or six years ago --
>> hopefully if they were employed five or six years ago, they are not economically disvacked they have a good job at golfsmith which is a wonderful thing.
i am looking for the interplay between c and d.
although the state law does not require that 25% of your overall employees be from the enterprise zone, only replacement employees, the d provision, which is essentially ours and not covered by state law, I think the intent there is not -- is to increase diversity definitely that is the primary goal.
but underlying that is -- is to -- to increase the economic vitality of the individuals who are employed, so if we could fold in that baseline into d somehow.
>> the d would be a chart that we provided previously be the baseline?
>> yes, I'm asking that we also identify in that baseline how many individuals are -- are -- reside in the zone.
>> okay, okay.
>> to add it to the baseline statistics that you have already provided.
>> okay.
i understand that, thank you.
>> sorry, thank you for -- for forcing me to clarify that.
>> I just --
>> any more discussion?
>> another -- another change that had been brought up, we had discussed was putting in some kind of time line on that, the plan that we can get that like within 12 months.
>> 12 months.
>> time line --
>> [multiple voices]
>> okay.
>> I think that's reasonable.
>> so we can work on the language but that was another suggested change there that the plan be developed and-- and a copy to us within 12 months.
>> okay.
>> so with that I -- I'm ready to vote, judge.
12 months --
>> any more discussion?
this is the motion regarding workforce diversity.
>> right.
>> all in favor.
>> that includes the 12 months, too, judge.
>> passes by unanimous vote.
>> that is right.
>> I assume --
>> yeah.
>> yes that include the 12 month, that was something that was left out.
we needed a time line on it.
>> move that we indicate the court's intention to execute any additional minor changes necessary for us to meet the filing requirements.
is that broad enough to cover what you had in mind?
yes, thank you.
>> my discussion of that?
seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
do we need to do anything else on this item?
31?
>> that covers all of the bases --
>> thank you all very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you very much.
>> see you soon.
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, May 26, 2009 2:00 PM