Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 (Agenda)
Executive Session Items
We are for Executive Session.
we indicated prior to lunch we would take item 13 into executive session, consider and take appropriate action on request for information, rfi, for public private partnership related to the development of a new civil and family courthouse and authorize purchasing agent to issue the rfi.
this will be under the consultation with attorney exec shun to the open meetings act.
posted for executive session are item 34, consider and to appropriate, on an offer presented in contract form to sell approximately 30 acres of undeveloped land near the intersection of state highway 130 and onion cream in four for inclusion in the open space park land 2005 bond program.
that will be the real property.
let's also say consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
35, consider and take appropriate action on an offer presented in contract form to sell approximately three acres of land near the intersection of u.s.
highway 183 south and own on downcreek in precinct had for incleeks in the onion cream open space park land 2005 bond program.
real property and consultation with attorney exceptions to the open meetings act.
36, consider and take appropriate action on offer for settlement of bond forfeiture cases from liquidator for am wes surety company and far west casualty can, consultation with attorney exception.
37, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding proposal for payment plan with bruce lipsh pay the county under lease agreement at 700 lavaca suite 405, consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act.
38, consider and take appropriate action regarding theful lease agreements at 700 lavaca.
a, university of Texas at arlington, b, aguirre roaden, inc, and c, Austin suites management limited, consultation with attorney and real prompt exceptions.
and also, a 1, receive briefing from county attorney authorize county attorney on hire experts and take appropriate action in regina jackson and rue --rudolf Williamson on barf of the estates of rachel jackson deceased versus john a ford, md, Travis County.
this says requested by plaintiff.
this will be under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
we will discuss these items in executive session but return to open court before taking any action.
we've returned from executive session.
where we discussed the items that we announced.
we had legal issues for item 13, the matter involving the public/private potential partnership regarding a new civil and family courthouse.
is there a motion?
>> I have a motion.
>> okay.
>> to release the rfi for the three p partners with the response deadline pushed out to may 31st.
and to work toward a release of an rfq or rff owner representative utilizing the same internal team that put together this rfi.
sawsan, ronny, danny, tom knuckles and our external legal adviser and external financial adviser to use the rfi as a base document to draft that for owner representative with the response deadline of may 31st for earlier and bring the draft back on April 26th if possible.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners]
>> we have have materials to review before the work session and we will still see the need to have a full discussion.
so probably it would be good to post an item on a Tuesday for us to have a follow-up discussion of what we would discuss -- of what we would try to discuss during that work session.
to the extent that we need a work session that would give us an opportunity to schedule one.
that would be 14 days from today.
it looks like --
>> a work session a April 28th?
>> yeah.
I will have to check and make sure that's it.
I'm sort of assuming that a week from today we will see the same need for it.
it seems to be a good thing to schedule it and see if we need it.
>> so how does this address the concern about getting information from the foxes?
>> the intention is that we would have an owner representative in time to appropriately evaluate the information that we got from the rfi.
since we don't know how to write a scope of services servis for that, how can we do this in a parallel process that ends at the appropriate time?
>> of course, there's no guarantee, but the hope is that if the response dead shrine the same or earlier for the rfq/rff for the owner's representative that we ensure that we -- we at least increase the probability that we'll have that person or firm on board in time to look at the information we're getting back from the rfi.
with regard to the scope, while I agree we don't have boots on the ground expertise in triple p among our staff, our staff internal had been doing a tremendous amount of research and at least I believe academically can put together an appropriate scope to look for the person who does have that kind of boots on the kind experience.
and I'm hoping that two weeks is adequate.
>> this morning when I asked the purchasing agent for the rfi who is concerned, she did indicate that they could have -- as far as their portion, two and a half weeks, I think, weeks, I think, within that time frame.
now, I guess it could come back or the rfi information first or the other things running parallel, but not expected at the same time we get information from the rfi.
>> my motion is predicated on running it at a -- running the rfs/rfq in a time frame that gives us the assurance that the same or earlier than the rfi.
if we need to move the rfi out further in order to make an rfs/rfq doable in the time frame, I'm willing to hear that.
>> I want to say I'm adamantly opposed to putting the cart before the horse.
I don't know where we have to put the rfi out if we don't have the expertise to craft the rfi.
>> the issue with we are reluctant to craft that game plan, so my hope in this motion is that we can find a middle path so that we can both get the information from the foxes and move forward on getting an owner representative.
>> it seems a little rushed to me.
I would -- I would still think that we have this training session on Wednesday.
I'll attend and I'll try to learn as much as I can from that process, but I also believe that we need to have also an educational process from someone who is objective.
someone who is not -- maybe this is asking for too much perfection, but someone who does not plan to propose, to be one of the partners.
and totally objective information on what is the best path that we can follow so that we have a business decision and not a political decision.
I just -- I'm not comfortable with that.
>> if this motion passes, we'd have a month and a half to get that person and get that education done.
>> but see, that's rushing it, judge.
I think it's rushing it.
>> we haven't even been able to get a team together in the last three months.
>> what I'm trying to do is put a time frame and with some goals inside that time frame, would it be more amenable -- I'm open to changing the dates.
I've pushed it out to may 31st hoping that that would be a time frame that would be appropriate, but I'm getting -- I'm getting looks from the purchasing agent that indicate that she might need more time, might feel more time is necessary for an rfs, rfq.
and certainly I'm getting a feeling from my colleagues to the right --
>> a little to the left.
>> [ laughter ]
>> what about the one to left?
>> [ laughter ]
>> you've got the right or you've got the left or the center.
>> June 15th?
>> the purchasing agent has to deal with this.
cid, I mean, I guess the thing is there has to be a comfort level with you.
and as of this morning, my comfort level was as far as an rfi is concerned, was two and a half weeks.
that would be your comfort level to get the information out and get something back to us if we were to do that today.
>> I'm sorry, when the team met we did talk about issuing it tomorrow and having it back on the 29th.
but we can certainly extend that for a certain amount of time to run the parallel track if that's what you want.
the bigger issue for me is the rfq for the owner's representative and writing that scope of work and getting that competed in a contract.
that will ache taik us --
>> a little more time.
>> I think two months.
and that's pushing it, getting the scope written, getting it out on the streets.
we usually have things on the streets for 21 days.
that's a month almost.
so negotiate the contract and have it back.
so to hire that owner representative I think is going to take us least two months.
>> is the interpretation then of the parallel would be within the time frame she's saying as far as the rfq and the rfq and also the rfp?
>> I think they should be next to one another, yes.
>> moving, but maybe not get to go the same destination at the same time?
>> no.
I think -- I do think that the destination timing is very important because at this point my concern about the rfi is we don't have anyone to evaluate the information that we get back at this point.
and I don't believe we will.
unless we do through the exercise of the rfs/rfq for the owner representative.
>> if she needs two months, why don't we say June 15th?
why don't we further indicate our intention to have that person on board before we evaluate the responses.
that may well stimulate more interest on a part of those who want to answer those questions.
>> so let me revise the dates that I threw out.
>> miss porter, are you keeping up with these dates?
>> yep.
>> trying to?
>> in revising the dates we release the rfi for the 3 p, pushing out the deadline for response to June 15th with an additional -- the additional caveat that we will not review the responses until we have an owner's representative on board.
>> that's what I'm hearing.
>> I can deal with that.
but I just want to make sure that the purchasing department and the person who have to do the end work of all of this has some handle as far as control on what we're doing.
and we'd want to put them in an uncomfortable position where it would be beneficial for us at the end.
>> I just want to say that everything I've understood and learned about a p 3 so far recommends having a clear, well-defined team internally on the front end with a vision to go with it.
we don't have that.
and if we move forward on this, I would ask to be taken off the subcommittee of the court for the civil courthouse.
I feel that adamantly about having a methodology on the front end.
>> can we meet soon and decide our internal team?
I mean, it's the court's direction, so we're waiting on y'all to tell us who y'all want -- y'all's -- who y'all want y'all's internal team tock.
so as soon as y'all can give us direction, we'll start --
>> we haven't even had the benefit of the whole court having a common work session together so that we have a common understanding of p 3's.
we're getting it in piecemeal here and there.
and there are so many different varieties of p 3's, and so different resources putting that information out that we do not have a clear vision from the court itself on the p 3 process.
I think this is so premature.
>> do you have suggestions -- I mean, the -- this is sort after three-prong motion.
one is for the rfi for the p 3.
the other is for the rfq/rfs, which includes utilizing a team that has been put in place at least for the purposes of the rfi, which includes susan, cid, danny reluctantly, tom knuckles, ladd and glen.
>> well, john and I are having problem with the legal language of this posting.
we really are posted under rfi.
we can indicate our intention on the others and bring that back for an appropriate item next Tuesday, right, john?
>> right.
>> we talked about this earlier today.
this posting was really to deal with the rfi.
but it looks like we're interconnecting the rfi with two or three other things that we think need to be done.
so I think expressing intention is good, we just bring other specific items back next week.
>> then I will withdraw the motion because I will not vote on rfi without also having the assurance that we're going forward with the rfq, rfs on a parallel track and a work session.
>> let's bring it all back.
this item does not allow us to legally do all of that.
>> okay.
>> but we can have it posted where we have subsections dealing with the other parts and it may be some members of the court want to vote for some, but against other parts.
we'll set it out that way, okay?
>> okay.
>> am I correct on that, john?
>> and judge, while we're at it then, adding the list, why don't we have a work session -- the work session will take over first training and work session so that we can get the entire court on not the same page, because we voted together or rolling quorum, but in a work session trying to get this same information out to all members.
>> we need to move the work session.
I will be in the state of florida on the 26th of April.
so if we move it back that next week I'll be back, though.
but what we'll do is --
>> or the following week.
>> I'll get my office to circulate dates and we'll see what's convenient.
I have no problem with y'all having a work session without me.
but it f.
it looks like we should all try to be present, we can do that.
we'll have an item that clearly sets forth the different components and allow us to consider and act on each one.
okay?
>> sounds good to me.
>> either step down or -- what do you say in the military?
>> stand down.
>> stand down on that item, miss porter.
until next week.
still on the subcommittee until next week, Commissioner Huber?
>> is that a question or a statement?
>> [ laughter ]
>> well, y'all, that was so much fun let's try another one.
>> [ laughter ] one real easy.
34 involves the 30 acres of undeveloped land near the intersection of sh 130 and onion creek as part of the onion creek open space parkland project.
>> judge, I would move that we accept the offer of $300,000 for that 30 acres of undeveloped land near state highway 130 and onion creek.
the funding source is the 2005 bond program.
>> second?
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
of the entire court.
35 is the matter involving three acres of land near the intersection of sh highway 183 south and onion creek.
this is part of the 2005 bond program also.
>> and I move that we counter their offer.
let me just say the amount.
>> I think we normally do, don't we, in open court?
>> by the counter of 167,000 for those three acres near the intersection of u.s.
highway 183 south and onion creek in precinct four and again the funding source is the 2005 bond program.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
36 is the matter involving the briefing regarding bond forfeiture cases for liquidator for amwest surety insurance company and far west casualty.
we did get a good update and good news regarding funds for Travis County in the near future.
but no action required on 36 today, right?
37, the matter involving bruce lipshy and the lease agreement at 700 lavaca, sweet 405.
>> move that we counter the settlement offer made with $2,000 per month up to --
>> per week?
>> I'm sorry, $2,000 per week to pay off the 115,000-dollar debt.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
is that what I heard?
>> uh-huh.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
show Commissioners Eckhardt, Gomez, Huber -- show a unanimous court voting in favor of that motion.
38, the matter involving three leases at 700 lavaca.
the first one, the university of Texas at arlington.
and they are requesting termination of the lease.
move approval.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion?
all in favor?ut show a unanimous court voting in favor of that.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
there is a modification to that lease, that I could just bring it back to the court and wouldn't need to bring it back to the court or would the court like to see that document again?
>> would the court like to see this?
any objection to that?
I authorize the county judge to sign the document unless it's significantly changes from what we heard in executive session.
b is a matter involving aguirre roden, inc., and I move that we approve this lease modification, but not the request regarding right to terminate with 90 days notice.
>> second.
>> as requested by the tenant.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
c, the Austin suites management limited.
I think what staff would like here is authorization for legal and facilities and other appropriate county people to negotiate further with Austin suites management and basically our goal is to enable them to exercise their option.
and what is that option called?
>> right of first offer.
>> right of first offer.
so it is basically finding appropriate space and getting a new agreement executed pursuant to the right of first offer that they possess.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and our final item today is a-1, the matter involving the litigation on behalf of the estate of rachel jackson, deceased versus dr. Port and Travis County.
move that we authorize the county attorney's office to contract with appropriate expert personnel necessary to this litigation.
that the funding be the risk management office and they keep us posted as appropriate.
>> second?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> colleagues, I'm happy to that does it for our agenda today.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor in that carries unanimously.
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.
