Travis County Commissioners Court
March 16, 2010,
Executive Session
>> we have posted executive session early today because we ran outs of time last week and a couple of these items are critical important.
so we will go into executive session at this time.
items 2 through 8 are executive session items.
2.
consider and take appropriate action on requested debt issuance schedule and funding for fiscal year 2010 capital projects.
consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to it is open meetings act.
3.
consider and take appropriate action regarding proposal for downtown office building by d2000, a turn key development company.
consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act.
4.
consider and take appropriate action regarding seismic permit covering 338.167 acres of Travis County school land in throckmorton county.
1 consultation with attorney exception.
25.
>> [sic] 5.
consider and take appropriate action concerning settlement offers regarding payment for star flight services rendered to the following persons: 1.
elliot martinez; 2.
aubree ledbetter; and 3.
kathy kuecker.
consultation with attorney, all of five.
6.
receive briefing from the county attorney and take appropriate action in Travis County, et al v.
mh stafford and joann stafford (david l.
day resale deed.
consultation with attorney exception.
7.
consider and take appropriate action on brokerage services agreement with ugl equis corporation.
consultation with attorney.
and number 8.
consider and take appropriate action regarding contract with the Austin turfcats indoor football team to use Travis County exposition center.
i posted this under consultation with attorney exception.
and real property, legal has some questions about that.
so if it's not appropriate for executive session, we will bring it back to open court.
but we'll discuss these items in executive session, but will return to open court before taking any action.
>> we have returned from executive session, and we discussed all of the items except number 3, which we will take in open court in just a moment.
but during that time we did receive from the risk management office additional information regarding 30-c.
that's the cecelia sedillo bodily injury matter recommended for settlement.
based on that information I move that we call 30-c back up for discussion.
>> second.
>> discussion?
any discussion of the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
that additional information is in the backup.
it was indicated that miss sedillo claims totaled $4,000, which is the amount that we approved.
they have since learned that there was an additional $500 charged in an e.m.s.
bill, which we should pay for.
so instead of 4,000, it should be 4500.
and so I move that we approve the claim of 4500 to ms.
sedillo as set forth in 30-c and as given to us by the risk management department.
>> second.
>> any discussion?
everything else remains the same.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
now back to the items that we discussed in executive session.
we did postpone item number 7.
we did not discuss it.
should we have seven back on in a week.
okay.
we'll have it back on next week.
which is March the 30th.
item number 2 is the matter involving certificates of obligation that the county might enter to allow us to pay for certain 2010 capital projects.
in addition to the list that we have been working with, a couple of new ones were brought to our attention.
one of them was the matter involving item number 6 under roman numeral 3, and that is a request for an additional $12 million for open space.
mr.
davis?
>> judge, I would like rodney rodes, if he wouldn't mind.
i asked for an additional week on this.
if you could explain to us.
of not delaying this for a week of because of time lines and I would like to know what those time lines are.
>> yes.
as of last week we have a schedule for the pending bond sale for may the fourth.
that includes a number of items that must take place prior to.
some of which are required in terms of the number of days, but to be more specific regarding the schedule, we had planned on having the schedule approved last week, which was March the ninth, and because of some further discussion and some delay -- some scheduled delays, we checked with bond counsel to see if we could push it one more week.
we were under the impression last week that the niefnth was the absolute last week we could do it.
i went back and checked at your request, and our bond counsel -- our financial advisor advised us that we could go one more week and still be able to hold on to the schedule.
and any further delay beyond this week would delay the sale, which could have a ripple impact on delaying bond proceeds and wait a week.
>> I would request that be item be brought up again in one week.
and that's basically because of the analysis that need to be done when we are acquiring -- what this is all about, folks, this is acquiring open space in the gillian creek area, which is actually a priority.
there was a great presentation brought in by tnr on the onion creek greenway.
so we are continually moving in that vein.
ever since in awhile we have to use certificates of obligation.
sometimes we ask things to go before the voters, but every once in awhile we have to use certificates of obligation to do certain things.
this particular area, of course, is in the area of -- as far as such as the txi, which is doing mining operations in that area, however, this is in the greenway and some of these high priority open space land areas are within the greenway -- within the area whereby we are trying to at least get open space within the range of the green print.
and some of these are high top priority tracts of property.
so we are trying to acquire that.
the best we can.
so $12 million is is a good number according to staff, who has actually looked at some of these tracts, these high priority tracts within the open space green print scenario, which has been around for a long time.
this is nothing new.
it's nothing new.
however, today I think we need to have staff to come back and hopefully next week can be able to analyze thoroughly and give us an analogy thoroughly of the area whereby we'll be able to designate and look for those areas as far as which we're going to acquire.
so I would like for that one week to be requested.
i'm requesting one week on this.
and that's normally out of courtesy.
so maybe next week we can have a better understanding.
and I'll get with joe gieselman and see if he can basically come forth with some of this information.
and joe, I guess is that enough time?
to maybe come back next week.
will you have enough time to look at some of the things that were discussed?
>> I'll do my best.
>> okay.
so that's tnr joe gieselman, folks, who will come back next week with maybe a better analogy for what we're looking at for this $12 million that we're asking for as far as co's are concerned.
so I thank you for that.
>> mr.
rhodes, you were saying that next week was our final opportunity?
to keep to the schedule?
>> judge, actually, this week is the final opportunity.
last week I thought was the final opportunity until I checked with our financial advisor, and based on the revised schedule that he presented on March the 12th, it appears that this week will be the last week that we have in order to meet the posting requirements to get all of the os to the rating agencies for review prior to the ratings and then to do the final sale on may the 4th, which is what we're scheduling.
that will give us the opportunity to close on June the 8th and receive proceeds shortly after that.
and so we're on a fairly tight timeline right now.
now, one of the things that we might -- I was just asking jessica if we could accomplish this is if we take action on everything except this item this week and get the draft os working based on court action today, and then possibly come back and revisit this next week.
but, you know, it's one of these things that I thought we really needed to get done last week and ladd was able to get another week out of it.
but I don't know that -- this is -- it's pretty tight.
>> I thought I understood you to say right at the offset that we did have one more week?
>> no.
>> no, this is the week.
>> last week I told the court that we had -- were able to get one more week, and that is today.
>> remind me of what ladd told you now.
>> in order to meet the schedule to get the draft os out and have staff review it and to give them adequate time to review it and to get comment back so the second draft then comes out, that will give us the opportunity then to get the resolution for the notice of intent on court from March the 30th.
get any changes and comments from the second draft back to the -- to the financial advisor on April 1st.
get the publication on the notice of intent to issue for Friday, April 2nd, with the second publication on Friday, April ninth, which is required.
and then send the rating books to the rating agencies on April the 12th with a bond rating trip to dallas scheduled for April the 14th and 15th.
and then we will receive our ratings, we will go to market on may the fourth -- I'm sorry, yes, we'll go to market on may the fourth and close on June the eighth.
>> in order for all that to happen on those dates, are we required to take action today or can we take action next Tuesday?
>> it's my opinion, judge, we need to have action taken today.
>> but what did ladd say?
>> I have not heard from ladd.
he is not available.
>> okay.
i misunderstood you.
i thought ladd said --
>> this is the conversation I had with ladd last week.
>> I had a -- he was going to say I had a hall conversation with ladd last week when we postponed it and he was quite concerned about the postponement.
and he said -- he mentioned to me it had to be done today.
>> okay.
well, I have no problem with it as far as that's concerned, it's just the fact that I just think the $12 million can be definitely used again for open space in that area.
this I know has been a hot button issue all across the board; however, we are also charged with acquiring as much open space as we possibly can.
so this is just one of those things that we're -- we're trying to do using co's at this particular point.
so I have no quarrel with that because we've been -- if you look at these, these are 20 year co's used for a whole bunch of things.
in the past we've purchased a building down at seventh and lavaca.
we used co's for that.
you go right down the list of lines of things that we've used 20-year co's.
and this is an area that we're trying to protect as far as open space is concerned.
that's within our green print for Travis County.
so again, I would like to support this particular item of using $12 million to acquire open space within the green print -- the green print within precinct 1.
>> is there a motion regarding the land for open space, $12 million.
>> I will like to make the motion of $12 million for the dpreen print area with the open space area within precinct 1 along gilliland creek.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Huber.
discussion of the motion?
i'm against it.
i think that without this item we've got six million in for open space in precinct 1.
i'm against it at this time, but I'm not against it forever.
it seems to me that we need to do additional work, put together a much better strategy before spending about $18 million.
and so that's why my vote would be against it.
any more discussion?
>> judge, I'm very -- in very much support of open space and always have been.
i will continue to do that.
i just think we have a better avenue through the bond election after all of these issues are vetted and complete analyses are done including the purchases.
and then when we put it on the ballot, then voters have always been very good about aproving them.
i would like to delay on this item until 2011.
>> any more discussion?
>> judge, I don't mind it going to the voters.
that's not -- that's not the issue.
the issue is we're under siege on open space in this area.
there's no doubt about it.
some of this land that we're trying to pursue, we're pursuing the robbins tract now is something that we know that we took out of the -- it's not to try to stop txi.
by all means, I don't want anybody to get that impression.
but what it's actually trying to do, it's trying to take some open space that may be lost, will be lost forever with these particular operations.
so that was the point of the $4.8 million for the robbins tract, for example, which is within the mining operation of the txi.
so it's -- it's reserved and hopefully deal with open space.
and if it has to go before the voters, that's fine.
but again when I look at all of these other 20-year co's, none of these have gone before the voters either and yet we are still going to -- the co's, we're going to issue them.
if that's the case, let all of them go to the voters.
right now we're doing things because we have the ability to do it, sometimes we go before voters on certain things and certain times we do not.
and we acquired a building, for example, seventh and lavaca.
we didn't go to the voters on that, five million dollars.
we're looking here with other items of acquiring land with co's, for an example, which is the next item, item seven.
that's not going to the voters, but there are co's being issued.
my point is that we have to -- this is a situation that's a real estate matter.
of course, we're trying to acquire open space in the green print that's already been defined, it's been in the county's green print for years.
if we have to go before the voters for this, fine, but by the same token, if we're going to do it for one, we should do it for all.
i'm not knocking what we're doing it, I'm not against it as far as the other items on this agenda, however I don't want to be isolated where we aren't able to acquire property, real estate on the co and you allow it to happen under other instances.
that's my objection to all of this.
we want to talk about voter approval on one hand, and then on the other hand we don't want to talk about voter approval.
so either it's going to be -- it's going to be either or.
so that's my whole argument, it's real estate, we can acquire real estate with co's just as we can acquire real estate when we go before the voters.
this is a very critical state of affairs in precinct 1.
and of course, Margaret you have a great greenway in onion creek and I applaud that and it's a concerted effort, even though it was voter aproved, it's still a great concept.
but the folks in precinct 1 would like similar stuff.
they would like greent way along the gilliland creek watershed, which is very appropriate for precinct 1.
it's just a way of getting there using co's whereby we didn't have an opportunity didn't have an opportunity at that time to deal with it in another way because of what's going on right now.
we're trying to preserve somethings that are high priority, open space situations in the green print.
our priority, you've got low priority, you got other things within the green print.
but this is high priority land, high priority.
so that's my point.
we ought to be able to acquire that using the co's as we're doing in other things in real estate here.
all of this other stuff is also real estate.
>> mr.
rhodes?
would you like to say something.
>> yes, sir.
if it helps, if we could get action on everything except this item today, we can cut ladd and glen loose and let them start working --
>> too late.
>> okay.
any more discussion of the motion.
>> I would like to make one comment.
>> okay.
>> I seconded this motion.
i'm in favor of it today.
primarily because the open space is targeted land and given the real estate prices at this point in time and the interest rates available, delaying purchases of this land may well cost us more in the future.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor of the motion say aye?
>> aye.
>> Commissioners Davis and Huber.
those against the motion?
Commissioner Gomez and yours truly.
the motion fails by a vote of two-two.
item number seven is real estate in central Austin.
>> and judge, if I might move that we include $13 million in the co issue to purchase land for and/or to construct a civil courts building.
>> second of the motion.
>> discussion?
>> yes, I would like to discuss something.
this is a clear example of what I was just saying.
both of these are real estate issues.
both of them the market is down in real estate.
yet we're trying to purchase -- which is fine.
i don't really knock it.
i'm supportive of both of these.
however, on the one hand we're turning something down east of i-35 where we need the support on a situation desperately in open space.
and it's targeted, as Commissioner Huber said.
it's targeted real estate.
here we are looking to purchase real estate also using co's, certificates of obligation, co's.
co's.
same thing, real estate.
now, why is there a difference of real estate here downtown area and it's a big difference when you want to purchase targeted open space in precinct 1?
it doesn't make any sense to me.
but I support -- I support this.
i'm not going to vote against it because I think it's a good thing to do, even though it's not going before the voters as someone has recommended here.
why make a difference between the two?
that's what I don't understand.
>> as to my vote, on this item we've been discussing three or four years.
item six we discussed three weeks.
and I still don't quite understand it.
so I'm not closing the door on the one that we voted down, but I need more information.
any more discussion of the 13 million for real estate in central Austin?
>> we just don't have the time, judge.
that's the whole point.
>> all in favor of the motion?
>> we don't have the time to deal this other one.
show Commissioner --
>> no, I support it.
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
>> I'm a person of my word.
>> I move that we approve the other items on the list that's been provided us.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
joe, if we were to take a good look at at the open land question, would you be able to do that in one week or two weeks?
>> one week.
>> okay.
we'll have appropriate wording on next Tuesday.
is that okay, Commissioner Davis?
>> yes.
>> now, we control -- we control this matter.
and so if we approve it next week, then we will figure out a way to amend whatever ladd is working on.
>> yes, sir.
>> and I'm confident that since we have to vote -- don't we have to vote on ladd's compensation?
since we have to vote on that, I think we'll have his cooperation, attention and cooperation.
and he's always been cooperative with us.
anything else on two?
>> no.
>> okay.
>> thank you, judge.
>> thank you.
>> number 4, is the matter thofling county owned land in throckmorton k I move that we approve the seismic permit to expire on April 30th.
i guess the permit will be the same as a license to conduct this business.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
number 5, three requests raring payment for star -- regarding payment for starflight services.
elliott martinez, I move that we reject that offer.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
b, the ledbetter matter, $3,500 a month.
move that we reject the offer, but counter in the amount of one half of what's owed payable at 600 a month.
which would be paid off at about the same time, cutting it in half would be about $4,600.
is there a second for that?
>> second.
>> Commissioner Huber approves that.
and so it would be in the form of a counter, 50% of what's owed at 600 a month rather than 500.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
cr is the matter involving kathy kuecker.
we've heard all the circumstances.
was that offer 50%?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> but that's the united way matter, right?
united health care?
>> I don't recall who the --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> I don't recall who the insurer was.
the discount was 50%.
>> my motion last week was 50%.
and we had a second briefing today.
i don't have a motion on that one.
i'm still kind of uncertain about it.
move that we take no action today.
discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> number six is a matter involving the resale deed offered by david l.
day.
day to Travis County.
>> I move we reject the offer.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> as we mention add few minutes ago, we did not discuss item number 7.
we postponed it until next week.
number 8 is the request from the Austin turfcats regarding their contract to use the exposition center.
i move that we approve their request to amend the contract and give the turfcats the parking revenue whenever they chanch for parking and collect it.
discussion?
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 16, 2010 2:10 PM
