Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 31, 2011 (Agenda)
Executive Session Items
We have come to executive session.
number 27, receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County et al versus edwenna long, christopher taylor resale deed, and take appropriate action.
consultation with attorney.
28, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding the possibility of improving one or more venues related infrastructure using one or more of the methods of finance authorized by the Texas local government code.
consultation with attorney.
exception.
29, consider and take appropriate action regarding the lease agreement at 700 lavaca with john t.
barrett.
consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act.
on historical exemptions on the legal issues, let me just review elliott beck's stuff.
that may be stuff.
the rest of you may have looked at it already.
if I have questions I'll k ask it next week since the item is coming back next week or the week after.
we didn't say when we would bring back historical exemptions.
do you want to do it next week?
>> when is that, the Travis County historical commission doesn't meet until the eighth.
what's the date?
>> that's Tuesday, isn't it?
it's Wednesday.
>> next Tuesday is the seventh.
>> so next Wednesday is the eighth.
let's do two weeks then.
>> we'll see what they say.
okay.
so we'll discuss only those three items we just announced, 27, 28, 29, and we'll return to open court before taking any action.
We have returned from executive session where we discussed the three items that we announced beginning with number 27, the proposed resale deed to christopher n.
taylor.
>> move that we accept the offer of r.
of $6,190..63 for the property located at 14708 anderson mill road.
>> second?
>> any discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
item number 28 is a matter involving the possibility of improving one or more venues and related infrastructure using one or more of the methods of finance authorized by the Texas local government code.
we did get our briefing.
and in my view should have this matter back on the agenda if appropriate in a couple of weeks for specific direction.
29 is the matter involving a lease agreement at 700 lavaca with john t.
barrett.
I move that we authorize county staff to continue to negotiate a mutual termination agreement with mr. Barrett and report back to court at the appropriate time.
>> second.
>> discussion on the motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and miss wilson, we need to bring back up -- will we be required to take further action?
>> yes, sir, clarification.
>> 16-d?
>> f.
>> 16-f, and that was a matter involving the standard pay, the difference protocol for using a brand prescription drug when a true generic is available on the formulary and deemed acceptable by the prescribing physician effective January 1, 2012.
we did approve this subsection, 16-f.
but let's hear the clarifying information.
we'll need to see whether we need to take action or not.
>> when I was discussing this with the hr director before it was brought up in court, I said that there would be a lot of confusion and concern if it happened that somebody had already had a prescription and asked for a refill on it.
and then found out that they were paying an extra large amount of money for the difference between the brand name and the generic, once the generic became available after January 1 when it was a new situation.
like, for instance, one of the highest use drugs on our list of costs is lipitor and it's going to become available as a generic in about November.
and so this could create some confusion and some heartache.
and diane's response to me at that time was oh, no, it wouldn't because this would only be for prescriptions that are written after January 1 rather than refills or purchases of drugs made after January 1.
so if you had been to the doctor, say, in may and your prescription for take you for the next 12 months, the fact that you were getting a refill in February, you wouldn't incur this additional cost because your prescription wouldn't have been written for generic as okay.
but when you get it rewritten in may, that's when the impact of that would happen if you did not use the generic.
and rather than leave a confusion there as to whether it's at the time that the purchase -- any purchases after January 1 or any prescriptions written after January 1, I thought that we should clarify so that there wouldn't be any question on the part of the prescription manager when they were billing people.
>> on judge, just a point of clarification for that would be effective January 1, 2012 for all prescriptions written after January 1st.
>> so we make sure we clarify that in our education materials for employees and this covers retirees too, right?
>> yes.
>> employees and retirees.
I think on this language, though, we can approve it as set forth, but we ought to make sure that we clarify that for the record and in the education material that we use, we communicate with employees and retirees and make sure that point is clear.
that would seem to be important, I think.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> yes, sir.
>> there being no further.
>> move adjourn.
>> 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.
