Travis County Commissioners Court
March 2, 2010,
Executive Session
Ms.
porter, we have come to executive session.
16 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding settlement offer of payment of stair flight service rendered to tyler borger.
17, receive briefing upon Commissioners court representative for remediation or take appropriate action in matthew doolittle versus john charles laug ran individual will be as as representative of the sherist offers and .
16 is under consultation with attorney and 17 also.
plus personnel merits.
18, consider and to appropriate action concerning the settlement offering regarding payment for star flight services remember derd to eric bradley.
and 19, consider and to appropriate action on appropriate action for license agreement for man sham shack--manchaca community centers.
consultation with attorney.
we will discuss in had executive session but return to open court before taking any action..
>> we have returned from executive session where we discussed the following items.
number 16, the matter involving starflight services provided to tyler boringer.
we've received an offer to settle this matter from the insurance company in this case.
i move that we reject that offer and ask for full payment immediately.
seconded by Commissioner Davis.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
number 17 is a request for a representative from Travis County for mediation in the matter involving matthew doolittle versus charles loughran individually and as representative of the Travis County.
mr.
mansour has agreed to represent Travis County in this mediation.
i move that we accept that offer.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
number 18, the matter involving an offer to settle -- an acceptance of our counter to the counteroffer to settle for the amount of $3,000.
i move that we settle for that amount and that we authorize the county judge to sign the proposed settlement agreement of one paragraph where in we basically release eric bradley in this matter.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
number 19 is a matter involving Travis County-owned property, namely the manchaca community center in southwest Travis County:
>> in light of the testimony by ms.
nalman today, I move that we postpone consideration of this until next week because I believe it's important that we get complete and accurate information from the community group that has raised funds for this center.
and pursuant to next week's decision would like to require that we have two signatures on the check that you're speaking of.
and that we have a written statement of the vote from this group that raised funds as far as utilizing the -- those funds for rent.
and then also would like to direct staff to contact the other governmental entities regarding the financial issues surrounding the community center and give us a complete record next Tuesday.
>> second.
>> judge?
i have a substitute motion.
>> okay.
>> to provide notice to mr.
vogel of the court's intention to not renew the license agreement with mr.
vogel beyond June 15th.
>> I second that for discussion purposes.
>> my reason for making the motion is I believe that mr.
vogel has repeatedly demonstrated not only with us, but at least two other governmental entities that he's no longer capable of safely or responsiblebly operating this facility.
so I feel that we should at least make intentions clear today that we would not extend the term -- would not enter into another term of this license agreement beyond June 15th with mr.
vogel.
>> any more discussion?
typically we would not do that.
i think there's a way to get that done and there are communication possibilities between now and the next four or five, six weeks.
and I would use that period to communicate with the community, also mr.
vogel.
and if the community wants to come in and salvage that, then I would give them that opportunity.
so the first question is whether we will vote on the substitute motion first.
is I think the way the rule goes.
so all in favor of voting on the substitute motion first, right hands, please.
mr.
davis, Eckhardt voting in favor.
voting against, Commissioner Gomez, Huber and yours truly.
now we are back to the original motion, which is to require two signatures, some indication, documentation of the vote of the active residents and a request to county staff to check with other nomplet al entities and find out the financial situation.
we've been hearing various rumors, we will be impact bid that one way or the other.
they're already contacted us about various financial matters, so I think it would be helpful for us to get an update of that next Tuesday and try to lay out all of the issues and make the best decision we can based on the total facts as I understand the spirit of the motion.
>> is that for discussion, judge?
>> yes, sir.
>> and I'm going to support this motion.
but I want to make sure that by supporting it that we do have all the financial information made available to this court by next week.
in other words, we can say next week, but how can we be rest assured that the financial information be made available by the other governmental entities other than Travis County that we're asking for their assistance.
i'm really concerned about the timeline on this situation.
and of course, asking staff I guess to do the work to see if that will be made readily available for next week's stition, if it will be brought back to the agenda for the Commissioner's court.
and I want to put a little steam behind that effort from the other governmental entities.
we don't really control them, but we can request that they provide the information, but that don't necessarily mean they will have it before us by the timeline that we're looking for.
so that's what I'm kind of concerned about, not having the authority to make somebody provide us information even though they request it.
i'm saying from the other governmental entities.
>> ms.
wilson?
>> I think from a time lien perspective, there probably isn't a problem.
i would not want the court to feel assured that they will be given the information.
it may well be that the other entities will not advise us of the amount of money that's outstanding or what they're planning on doing because they will feel it is inappropriate to share information personal to the finances of mr.
vogel with us.
but if they are going to take that approach, I think you could give them a year and they still wouldn't provide it to you, they would take whatever action they're going to take within the year, but they wouldn't feel that it was appropriate to share information.
now, I'm not saying that they won't share, I'm saying I don't know whether they will share, but I think that if they're going to share, they're going to share soon as opposed to saying oh, it will take us two or three weeks kind of a thing.
>> right.
which may put us back into the same spot as the Commissioner Eckhardt brought up.
in other words, we're trying our best to deal with the very critical situation.
we have a person that apsz -- persons that appear to be split in their community one way or the other.
and which the time -- the clock is still ticking.
and of course from what I understand the license agreement does expire I guess June, what, 15th?
the terms of the agreement is June 15th.
so we still would be right back to where Commissioner Eckhardt had brought us up earlier, if, if conditionally that information is not shared by governmental entities who may be willing to or not willing to share the information with the Commissioners court.
so that's the -- maybe a little paradox that we may be in at this point.
>> there are four or five issues.
that's only one.
>> it's true.
>> the contact -- we were advised of these other problems by other entities.
now that we sought them out for the information.
the intent of the motion is for us to try to get that information.
if think don't give it, we won't have it.
>> exactly.
>> but there are other issues that I think we need to try to bring to light between now and next Tuesday before we take action.
so the spirit of the motion really is for us try to get that done.
you raised your hand--
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> ms.
norman, if you have brief comments, we would be happy to get them.
mr.
vargas, if you have comments, we would be happy to get them too.
>> yes, sir.
since I met with you this morning we have in the account, save the fire hall account, $5,065.77 available.
a little more than I had anticipated.
there were a couple of deposits made to the cpa getting that information.
right now I have votes, but I will be happy to get that in writing for you.
four votes were in favor to pay the lease.
two were in favor to pay the money directly to mr.
vogel so that he could bring the money to your court.
and two were in favor of like putting additional chairs and tables and things like that, improvements into the building itself, which those are not fixed items anyway, they're just property there.
i understand where you're coming from.
if you're saying these other entities may not provide you the information, how do we know about this information already?
>> they brought the information to us.
>> okay.
so if they brought it to you at that one point, they shouldn't have a problem bringing it to us --
>> that's for them to decide.
>> okay.
>> that's all we're saying.
we don't know.
we can ask all day long.
whether they give us the information is left to them.
>> okay.
i can appreciate that.
>> so it's in our control to ask.
it's in their control whether to give.
>> okay.
>> and Commissioner Davis was just citing that limitation.
>> okay.
so one week away out, should come back in a week.
>> two signatures on the check.
>> I've already confirmed that.
no problem.
we have the two signatures on the check for you.
and I will have those votes, whom they are and who is on the committee and how they voted, I'll bring that to you and I'll be here -- I'll show up for next Tuesday's meeting.
>> okay.
>> thank you so much.
>> I want to make it clear that the motion we have today is not saying that we will necessarily accept the check.
it's one part of the overall picture of the information that we need to get.
>> absolutely.
>> but for the check for us to accept the check would be two signatures.
we've got to look at other situation.
>> I'll bring it prepared that if you should make the vote to accept it, the check would be prepared and signed by both parties and the requested information that you did request.
>> so we're trying to accommodate and assist, but there is a kind of tough reality that we're facing also.
>> yes, sir.
>> and so --
>> I believe I'm pretty aware that if the lease is not renewed, which is what I think I understood that it would not be renewed after the may payment, I think I can comfortably say that probably that's not going to be an issue anyway.
i think we're probably buying time here for the vogels, and maybe they could wrap some stuff up between now and may, but I know we have these funds of $5,065.77 that needs to go to something towards the community center.
>> June 15th.
drop dead date.
june 15th.
>> got it.
okay.
>> any more discussion?
>> thank you, sir.
>> thank you.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
there is no further business before the Commissioners court today.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> 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, March 2, 2010 2:57 PM
