Travis County Commissioners Court
January 17, 2012 (Agenda)
Executive Session
>> we have been with asked to postpone item 27.
28, consider and take appropriate action on economic development agreement with Austin executive airport.
and this will be in executive session under the economic development notions exception.
29, receive update and take appropriate action on issues related to housing authority of Travis County, including a, current stratus of programs, and b, offer to sell Travis County real property owned by housing authority of Travis County located at 502 east highland mall boulevard.
consultation with attorney and real property exceptions.
30, consider and take appropriate action on issues related to employment terms of recently appointed tax assessor-collector.
personnel exception.
31, discuss and take appropriate action to appoint county executive.
personnel exception.
a 1, consider and take appropriate action on request to allow cremation of joaquin ysla, jr., and consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
we'll discuss these items in executive session but will return to court before taking any action.
>> let's announce item 15 for executive session discussion.
and it is to approve the exemption of the purchase of tasters and related equipment from gt distributor from are the competitive procurement process pursuant to section 262.024 a 7 a.
this is under the consultation with attorney exception.
and one assistant county attorney, namely john hilly, in a case we do not need, a motion to reconsider this item, we can simply discuss it.
now, john, the problem with being county judge --
>> we are back from executive session where we discussed the items that consisting of -- of number 15, the matter involving the tasers and the order exempting the purchase from competition.
we did get a legal briefing, any action.
we will stand on the action we made previously.
28 is the matter involving economic development agreement with the Austin executive airport.
>> move that we direct the Travis County staff
>> [indiscernible] executive airport, they bring back the agreement as soon as the items of agreement are reached before the court.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
and that would be basically actions consistent with our discussion.
>> yes.
it would be.
>> in executive session.
>> yeah.
is it friendly to recommend that we proceed with putting together the abatement policy, also, and at the appropriate time maybe consider options under both?
>> yes, that would be -- that would be very friendly, judge.
>> that's all right.
>> very friendly.
>> any discussion on that motion?
>> what -- what -- what is the category of industry this -- this -- this abatement goes toward?
that we heard something to attract?
>> mr. Nellis has an answer on the tip of his tongue.
>> there was some question at least from our -- to clarify if the motion includes the consideration of aircraft or only the physical construction and I'm not -- I'm not sure.
>> my understanding that is the motion would authorize that there be -- that that be further pursued that it be discussed in a recommendation back to the court at the appropriate time.
>> certainly.
>> there are some issues that we need to work through.
if we work through them, though, with the intention of arriving at an agreement, that may be the best direction we can get.
>> we can attempt to clarify some of those issues as still need to be resolved and then come back to the court with a -- with a recommended -- with another recommended draft, including I guess an agreement.
>> what we learned from staff is if we do the rebate agreement, we don't need the policy, but on abatement we would need the policy back in place.
in my view we ought to put ourselves in a position to consider options under either/or both.
>> so are we asked staff to pursue an abatement or rebate on both the new construction that they are doing and the planes that are owned by their customers?
is that what we're requesting them to go negotiate?
>> my understanding is that the direction that we act in a manner consistent with our discussion in executive session would be to focus on the new.
>> the new construction of the facility -- of both.
>> we said new construction, plus a new plane, right?
>> yes.
that's correct, in the backup it mentions both.
>> I thought that was what I heard.
>> right.
but would a specific proposal before us, I think, we would be in a much better position.
>> we will -- we will research the -- the pending items on the aircraft ownership issue and -- and get back to the court.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
any more discussion?
all in favor is that show commissions Davis, yours truly and Gomez investigate in favor, against economic and Huber.
>> 29 is the next matter involves the Travis County real property.
>> move that we direct staff to proceed in a man the same as our discussion, gathering additional information that we need to make an informed decision as soon as possible and further negotiations with the housing authority itself.
>> seconded.
>> discussion?
by the way, there are several -- there are some issues not directly related to this, but indirectly related meaning when we look at the palm school situation, giving it appraised, whether we ought to put it on the market, continuing to look for an -- an alternative location for health and human services now provided at the palm school location, with an eye to putting together the best option that we can for the court to consider, so I'm not saying we would do that.
I'm saying we ought to do the we, to lead us up to that point.
we've been talking about it for years, seems to me that if we can go ahead and take specific actions in that direction, we would be better off.
>> judge, do you have a time frame on that second request that is made as far as staff coming back with those particular concerns that he just brought up?
>> well, we voted to do the money, to do the appraisals today earlier.
>> right, right.
>> allocate the money.
normally we get that done in four to five or six weeks.
my guess is if we can get it about a being on the court's -- back on the court's agenda in say roughly three weeks, we will update if nothing else.
okay?
>> okay.
>> discussion on the motion?
did we get a second?
>> I seconded judge.
>> okay.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
number 30 we have clarification, the steps put in place are agreed to by mrs.
tina morton, which is a good news for us, moving on down the road.
and all of the necessary personal actions have been taken, isn't that right?
okay.
31 the matter involving the appointment of a county executive of planning and budget.
I move that we appoint ms. Browder.
>> second.
>> second.
>> as the county executive of the planning and budget, and ms. Browder's first name is.
>> leslie.
>> leslie.
and I promise to know her name by the time she starts, her full name.
>> second.
>> we need to put a second --
>> hopefully March 1, that's the date we discussed.
the other thing is that we need to sit down and negotiate a salary with her.
within -- let's say within the next week.
have that back to the court for consideration by the court, is that okay?
>> uh-huh.
>> is that friendly?
to the motion?
>> yes.
>> okay.
any discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
and our final item today, ms. Flemming, was item a 1, the matter involving the cremation of jaoquin isla.
based on our discussion, I move that the county judge be authorized to notify the requesting party of the county's lack of policy and inability to grant this request at this time.
but that we state for the record that we would expedite our consideration of a cremation policy that hopefully we'll discuss and act upon as soon as possible.
>> second.
>> discussion on that motion?
ms. Flemming, I may have to use your name a time or two when I discuss the rejection.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
ms. Gearhart, you saw me looking at you, too, right?
>> [laughter] ms. Porter, do you have any business that you want to discuss with the court while we're still in session?
>> no, sir.
>> move adjourn.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote, motion by Commissioner Gomez, seconded by the judge to adjourn.
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.
Subscribe for updates