Travis County Commissioners Court
September 1, 2009,
Executive Session
Now, a 1, we do need to take into executive session.
under consultation with attorney as well as real estate exception.
right john?
a 1 is to consider and take appropriatation on purchase contract offer from the city of Austin to sell approximately 79 acres of county owned land called fm 969 east Austin for park purposes, consultation with attorney, real estate exceptions to the open meetings act.
and we will take the following item to executive session also, 36, receive legal briefing from county attorney and outside council, rene hicks, esexacquire and take information in the matter of northwest Austin mud, consultation with attorney exception.
37, receive briefing and take appropriate action on the capital metropolitan planning organization, campo, proposed changes to bylaws, consultation with attorney.
38, consider and take appropriate action on request for amendment to sublease from expo signatures center from certain terms from star of Texas rodeo and related issues and agreements.
consultation with attorney and real estate exceptions.
39, sev briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action on claims from tecolote farmsrd raing water availability and related issues, consultation with attorney.
40, consider and take appropriate action regarding moment of the executive manager of administrative operations, consultation with attorney and personnel matters exceptions, and number 41, consider and take appropriate action regarding the employment of the director of the human resources management department, consultation with attorney and personnel matters exceptions to the open meetings act also.
we will discuss thighs matters in executive session but return to open court before taking any action.
We have returned from executive session where we discussed the following items, the 73 acres of lan the county owns off of fm 99 and the offer from the city of Austin to purchase that.
I move that we approve the prepairedpurchase and sale agreement that we authorized the county judge to sign the same on behalf of the Commissioners court.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
number 36 the matter involving the legal briefing we got in the northwest Austin mud case.
any action today?
that will be back on the court's agenda at the appropriate time in the future.
we also discussed 37 involving the campo proposed changes to bi laws.
they are legal issues that we discussed and we'll have a follow-up discussion September 8 2009.
our drop dead date to get good legal advice as we prepare for the next campo meeting.
38, the matter involving the star of Texas rodeo and related issues and agreements.
we did receive a briefing.
our subcommittee is negotiating with the star of Texas representatives.
we will have it back on the court's agenda next Tuesday for a follow-up briefing and any appropriate action.
anything else required today?
>> no, I don't think so.
>> okay.
>> we'll have it back on.
>> 39 is the matter involving request for us to address the claim from the tecolote farms, incorporated, involving water there.
I move that we hold true to the county's previous position that we indicated by vote on April 14 2009.
that after an appropriate survey by dr. John sharpe and his people, the county would be willing to drill five test wells on the property.
after seeing the results of the survey.
the surveys was real positive as to three locations.
in my view, the county should hold true to this commitment and agree to drill for those wells.
and the funds will be taken from the risk management fund which is also part of the motion.
>> second.
>> .
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
>> judge, you know, possibly there are federal dollars may be available if the person actually goes to apply from the research that we had done earlier.
also confirmed by another staff person, that they could also look into this particular area for federal dollars may also be available to assist.
so I just think that is another option that needs to probably be looked into.
>> okay, how does that option affect the motion?
>> well, as far as funding sources.
an alternative funding sources.
in other words, another funding source.
>> for the test wells or for--
>> I think for the test well, I think it would also cover that.
I just think they should look into that and at least apply for federal dollars that may be made available to them.
>> well, it's hard to see that gutting my motion is friendly.
>> I question--
>> am I missing something?
if we accept that, it really is more like a substitute motion.
>> right.
>> than friendly.
>> if Commissioner Davis would like to make an amendment to your motion and try to get a second for that, he could.
you're right, it's a different funding source than what you suggested.
your motion suggests the risk management fund.
>> okay.
so it's not friendly.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> in regard to your motion, I am concerned about demand, the distinction between demand number one and number two in the tecolote lawyer letter of August 31, '09.
does your motion contemplate that we have satisfied demand number one?
and that we are now moving to demand number two??
or not.
because I'm concerned that I wasn't totally clear on the obligation under the original motion.
>> in my view what we committed to do by vote and unanimous agreement of the court on April 24, 2009, was to drill five test wells after seeing survey results.
and we also said as part of that motion that after we look at the survey and the test wells, we would decide how to proceed.
so my motion only covers those test wells, which have not been drilled.
>> because it was my understanding that they drilled test wells to do the survey, and that three were found to have at least in the professor's opinion quote, adequate water.
so it was my understanding, and perhaps my understanding was flawed, that we have satisfied their demand number one.
demand number two goes to drilling working well with casings, electricity, installing the pump, connecting it to their main waterline, and ensuring the adequacy of that water supply for two years, or connecting them to our water supply.
>> the motion basically went to the survey that the university of Texas would conduct and they have done that.
as a result of that, they came back with five spots that they said should be drilled.
and they had real goodness about three of them but not all five.
so to be honest, in view of what they told us, I'm happy if we drill for water at those three locations.
that has not been done.
>> is it contemplated in your motion that the drilling for water is in the nature of a test?
the minimum necessary to test its water capacity?
or the drilling of an actual well that is cased, connected to electrical, connected to their pump, et cetera.
>> well, this is language that I have used because our staff and stultants used it.
they left me with the impression that going out and doing a generally survey splee enables you to locate spots where further tests should be done.
so that is what I understand that university of Texas and the geology class did.
the next step is to really drill down in those spots and find out if there is a sufficient supply of water.
so my motion is intended to cover that.
further, although we committed to five, since the good news really pertains to one, two and three more than four and five, I'm happy with one, two and three.
and I'm told you are drilling at these specific spots for water, and at the end of the drilling, you will know whether there's water down there in a plentiful supply or not, is my impression.
>> and is there a not to exceed amount that should be, I think, laid on the table as far as--
>> actually, my motion, we would kind of secure the consultant to drill them.
I thought joe left me with the impression that that made more sense than anything else.
whoever drilled ours.
that way we could control that, the tecolate people would authorize us to get on their property.
but there are people who drill for a living.
and this one should not be an unusual assignment for them.
>> but these are strictly just test wells, right?
just test--
>> these with wells identified by the survey and the testing basically is to drill down far enough to find out if there is a supply there that can provide water for the farm.
>> and will that be in your vision under this motion, would that be the end of the county obligation?
or would we then be further obligated to rig out the well as demanded in their claim of settlement?
>> in my view if this motion passes we met our duty by drilling at those three.
Commissioner Davis may have hit on a point.
if there is another source of funding, we may want to pursue that if one of these wells works out.
I'm more than happy to try to pursue that.
>> should we not negotiate a settlement document in advance of this vote?
>> as far as this vote, no problem.
settlement agreement to claim.
that is the language that came close to it.
there is no reason to do all that work if we are not going to do it though.
if we are going to do i, let's just go and approve the motion and get that document and get it approved.
>> I'm concerned, and I have been concerned all along.
this isn't news.
I am concerned that we are being asked to enter into a settlement agreement with a private business where the claims are factually and legally light.
and also I don't know what the term of the settlement agreement are.
>> the motion would commit us to drill test wells in at least three of the low educations if I wanted--locations filmsed.
if this passes we can defer to legal's judgment on the appropriate settlement agreement to address the claims.
>> judge, are you meaning that the test wells would be contingent upon a release?
is that what your intent was?
>> that is not my intent.
>> okay.
>> my intent was the settlement agreement that we had been discussing.
>> about you we --but the motion con item --contemplates that we would agree to produce the test well, not a production well but a test well, and then negotiate with them for relief based on that action?
>> exactly.
that is my understanding.
that is my understanding.
>> my motion was fairly clear.
if you are wondering what all else would it include--
>> I'm just wondering--
>> then maybe we need a document yeah.
the motion would end with us drilling at the top three of the test wells that surfaced in the survey that is the --the motion.
jim also said if you do that I would recommend a settlement agreement to address the claim.
that don't bother me at all.
what is in the agreement we can settle later.
as you know the majority of the court will determine what we do.
if there is not a majority vote for the next step, we maybe can make that determination when settlement agreement comes back.
I have to live with that because we do every Tuesday.
>> I have no objection I guess to the test well itself.
my whole situations was with the production wells that may be a part of what may have been suggested.
so the test wells is something I think that we voted on as far as just test wells.
but the other is kind of left to the side there.
so, if we like to look at further negotiation just on that because I'm really concerned about a not to exceed amount, shouldn't go beyond test wells.
>> joe told me these tests cost four to five thousand a piece, right?
>> where is joe?
>> what I'm trying to get done is the next step which is really drilling down and finding out if there's water.
>> yeah.
>> if one of these wells shows that there is in fact water, then I have no problem with trying to work with the farm to secure funding from another source.
especially if there's not a majority on the court who support that see what I'm saying?
so the motion today, my intention is to hold true to the commitment made in that April vote.
and I interpret that to mean us drilling, if the survey comes back and says these spots right here is where you ought to drill then we would drill the test wells to find out if in fact a plentiful supply of water is in them.
the other thing is my understanding is that if you drill spot number one and you conclude that in fact this is where the water is, there's reason to go to two and three.
but if you drill one and leaves you with a question about whether the supply is sufficient then you would look and see what two gives you.
that is my country boy understanding of what I heard geologists and drillers say over the last six months, I guess.
you know what the drills cost?
>> yes.
and I did in the executive session maybe have given you some information.
I am not in this at all.
what I have is from talking to the geologist and our driller.
but the test well process according to our driller is about $300 a day.
>> how much?
>> $3800 a day.
and they basically will move in a rig.
and they can do three to fire holes during that day.
you are going to pay 3800 for them to move their equipment in there whether or not they do one or tw or three wells.
so you probably want them to hit all of the preferred sites during that $38 hundred expinned tour.
>> maybe that is where I got the four to five thousand from.
>> let me clarify.
the $3800 is the driller cost.
and then there's a $1500 cost on top of that which brings you up to $5300, which is the cost of having a geologist there working with the driller.
because when they do a drilling operation there's materials that come up in the drilling process that the following--geologist identifies to see if you are in the right location to make the well successful.
>> but, so, that cost would cover a day's work.
and in a day you are looking at about three wells.
>> three to five.
and what happens is when they get done with that, they will determine which of the wells looks promising.
but they really won't know until they do a draw down test.
and that is the next step.
they will come in and did a draw down test a two of the maybe four or five holes that will that will cost $5600 for the driller and another $1500230 the geologist--$1500 for the geologist.
>> we will be up to four to five thousandant in a well.
15,000 is what it adds up to.
>> it does add up.
once you have identified you have done a test on two wells and you figured out one of the two is better, you are going to develop that one.
that is where the driller comes in and for $15,000, you drill in case, put in a pump, you know--
>> see, my motion didn't cover that casing.
>> I'm just--
>> do you want a copy of this?
>> well, let me--
>> tomorrow morning when I'm fresh.
a lot more appreciatetive then.
>> I know that I voted to support the test well.
and I'm going to honor.
I voted in the past.
that is just my intent of this motion.
and as you stated, judge, you are not going to all of a sudden bring the charge of the case and all these other kind of things.
that is in my opinion an alternative source of funding probably that needs to be looked at by the owner out there.
again, let me say this for the public, that really looking at this and concern about what the job situations is out there.
throughout all of Travis County we are really suffering devastating drought.
but within this geographic rare of what we are talking about today, we have directed staff, tnr, Travis County staff, to look at the possibility of annexing with the lost pine groundwater conservation district to get a sustainable source of water out there.
they are actually doing what they are doing now, talking to all of the ccns, certificate of convenience as necessary, water suppliers out there, like the manville, the hunter, all those folks out there, to make sure that they are in agreement with this annexation.
so that is another long range sustainable water supply scenario that we may be embarking on pretty soon.
but right now we are talking about just this one thing and that is just the test well.
again, I think the not exceed amount should probably be thrown in there.
>> I'd like to weigh in.
I have been rather quiet on the subject.
I'd just like to say first of all that I am definitely a supporter of sustainable agriculture.
I think tecolote farms has made a huge contribution to the community.
I want to see these kinds of farms continue and have the resources they need.
I have long been a supporter of revising the rule of capture and the fragmented problematic groundwater situations we have in the state of Texas.
and I have to say that I personally believe that with the study that the county has done, that we have satisfied the target of where water should be.
I have a real problem in that neither scientifically nor legally has the county been shown shown to be culpable here.
I think that we have an obligation to our taxpayers as a whole out there to look at the broader picture.
it sadens me a lot that this farm has really become kind of the case study for our problems with groundwater.
if we had groundwater district out there already, we might not be facing these same issues.
>> exactly.
>> but we don't.
can the county solve this problem legally?
no.
and I'm really saddened that the target of this wonderful community support that tecolete has had from their own community is focused on the county solving their problem.
if we can capture these resources, take them to the legislature, then we would be far better down the road for both tecolete farms and agent --all others in the state dealing with groundwater issues and historical uses.
I think when we look on a case by case basis from the county, I cannot in good conscience throw god county resources, and we have already thrown some, in an effort to try to help towards solving one individual farm's problems. Because it's basically opening the door the say well, the next person next-door that has a groundwater problem.
>> so far we haven't spent a penny on this one.
>> well, we are getting ready t.
>> if this vote passes we will.
we have not spent one red cent yet.
>> we committed a lot of staff time to this, junk.
I just feel like we need to draw the line.
and I am actually quite a little miffed that the demand request item number two on the attorney letter we cot from tecolete farms suggests that the county go further and encase the well for electricity, county the waterlines.
I mean, we have to stop somewhere.
we cannot do this for everybody that has a problem.
and particularly when the county isn't even directly responsible for it.
the other point I'd like to point out is that drilling these wells may not solve their problems. Our wells out there, the other municipal water supply wells are currently being stressed with water, for water.
they are not recharging.
so I mean, I'm sad that this is the situations.
but this is the groundwater situations all the way across Texas.
and I think we need to work together with all the supporters for sustainable agriculture, those that support tecolete farms. And I do want to sue them have a solution--see them have a but I don't think the county is the solution.
we can't change the law here.
we have do what we can working together as a state to change the law.
so I feel like we have done what we can do.
and I'm sad that this is where it is for tecolote farms and I hope a reasonable solution can be reached.
that is where I am on it.
>> I echo those sentiments and it was so very well said.
I would only echo it to say that I think that to move forward with this motion would provide the illusion that we were responsible for and resolving this problem when in fact I think the problem will persist beyond this vote even, and I'll just leave it at that.
>> well, it is a fact, though, that they seem to have water before we drilled our two wells.
and we did pump a whole lot from those two wells into our new county park.
our people say we didn't cause it.
and I don't have any evidence to say that we did.
this would be a small effort to assist a farm in that area that a whole lot more people have been benefitted by than I ever thought imaginable.
I had never heard the name of the farm until this situations came up.
so we may not have legal culpablity but I don't know that our hands are cleatly clean because when you look at the facts, if we didn't contribute, it certain lie appears that we were part of the problem.
and I'm thinking that we ought to be part of the solution.
some of the folks that I have chatted with think the county ought to provide a little assistance if we can.
I have sort of drawn the line at us just keeping our word and looking for the results test drills.
you learn in life to ask for the world and then be happy with whatever you get.
my last communication with them was I don't you are claim needs to be more--your claim needs to be more specific.
whatever it is that you want, put it in your claim.
send it to legal.
that is what legal wants to see.
and I heard that from your lawyers.
I didn't get up on that.
they said two or three claims. Legal still says the claims are not sufficient.
anyway, we have given this a lot of time.
and if time is money, as you hint, then we have spent money on it.
but in my view, we ought to do the right thing.
the right thing in 556, there was a vote one way or the other.
anything else?
all in favor of the motion?
Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Gomez, yours truly.
shule.
against Commissioner Huber and Eckhardt.
that passes by a vote of 3-2.
now to item number 40.
regarding moment of the executive manager of minimum --administrator operations.
we discussed this item at length and several other discussions previously.
is there a motion?
>> item number 40.
>> item number 40.
>> I move that we terminate employment as of today and continue negotiating on a possible settlement of any legal claims with regard to termination.
>> second.
>> second by Commissioner Huber.
discussion?
all in favor of the motion.
show Commissioners heber, exheart, yours truly voting in favor.
voting against, Commissioner Davis and also Commissioner Gomez.
item number 41 is a matter involving the director of human resources management department.
>> same motion.
>> motion to terminate the director.
second Commissioner heber?
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor.
though show commissionrs heber, Eckhardt, yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Gomez and Davis.
>> vote know.
>> okay, colleagues, I believe that does it for today.
>> move adjourn.
>> I second that motion.
all in favor.
>> we are out of here y'all.
>> 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 1, 2009 7:38 PM
