Travis County Commissioners Court

March 20, 2012 (Agenda)
Executive Session

View captioned video.

I like -- now, ms. Porter, according to my calculations we have come to executive session.

>> yes.

>> and we indicated earlier today that we would call up item -- the item -- parking item in executive session.
under the consultation with attorney.
and that -- that is -- that is number 25.
receive update on issues related to a proposed pilot program with parking mobility and take appropriate action.
consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
the other thing was number 7.
consider and take appropriate action on proposed new exterior signage for 700 lavaca building.
consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act there, also.
30.
consider and take appropriate action concerning the settlement offer regarding payment for star flight services rendered to armando de lara.
consultation with attorney exception.
31.
consider and take appropriate action on acquisition of a conservation easement in the wilbarger creek watershed.
consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act.
32.
consider and take appropriate action regarding performance of and compensation and future assignments for leroy nellis, current budget director/former interim county executive of planning and budget.
that will be the personnel matters exception to the open meetings act.
33.
consider and take appropriate action regarding proposal for real estate and downtown office building from d2000, a turn key development company.
consultation with attorney and real property exceptions.
by the way, legal says that we do not need 34 today.
outside legal counsel is not available.

>> available if you need him.

>> available if we need him, unless we have specific things.
any reason why we should take up 34 or just postpone it? Okay.
we have abandoned any notion of appealing that ruling from san antonio, I take it?

>> I couldn't speak to that.

>> I think -- if we have any information on that --

>> I don't know what the timing is.
I guess if we -- we don't want to default waive that.
why don't we take -- just in case.
okay.
34.
receive legal briefing and take appropriate action regarding Travis County involvement in legal action objecting to congressional redistricting by the Texas legislature.
consultation with attorney exception.
I'm not suggesting that we ought to appeal it.
but I think we ought to at least address that and -- and.

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> yeah, if we don't want to appeal it, make that decision.
35.
consider and take appropriate action concerning the offer to settle disputes with wattinger/kemnitz, inc.
dba w/k mechanical and carrier corporation concerning the malfunctioning 30 ton chiller at the gault building.
consultation with attorney exception.
we will not be able to reach all of these items within the next 25 minutes.
but we'll cover as many as we can, but we will return -- we will not take action, we will discuss them, we will -- we will come to open court before taking action.

>> we are back from executive session, where we only discussed part of the items, we will have to reconvene in executive session this afternoon, move that we recess until 1:30, all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote of those present.
Commissioner Gomez and Davis temporarily off the dais.

Now let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County Commissioners court.
this morning we got part of the way through our discussion of item no.
25, I think is the number of -- 25? Yep, the matter involving the proposed pilot with the parking mobility.
and we went into executive session under consultation with attorney this morning.
we will go back into executive session in just a few moments under the consultation with attorney exception.
we also need to discuss item no.
7.
7.
consider and take appropriate action on proposed new exterior signage for 700 lavaca building.
consultation with attorney exception for that one, also.
and item no.
30, consider and take appropriate action concerning the settlement over regarding payment for star flight services rendered to armando de lara.
consultation with attorney exception.
31, consider and take appropriate action on acquisition of a conservation easement in the wilbarger creek watershed.
consultation with attorney and real property exceptions.
32.
consider and take appropriate action regarding performance of and compensation and future assignments for leroy nellis, current budget director/former interim county executive of planning and budget.
personnel matters exception to the open meetings act.
33.
consider and take appropriate action regarding proposal for real estate and downtown office building from d2000, a turn key development company.
that will be under the consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act.
any comments in open court? Okay.
we'll convene in executive session.
that item with the others.
we post -- nope.
34.
receive legal briefing and take appropriate action regarding Travis County involvement in legal action objecting to congressional redistricting by the Texas legislature.
consultation with attorney exception, the final item will be 35.
consider and take appropriate action concerning the offer to settle disputes with wattinger/kemnitz, inc.
dba w/k mechanical and carrier corporation concerning the malfunctioning 30 ton chiller at the gault building.
consultation with attorney exception.
we will discuss these matters in executive session but will return to open court before taking any action.

>> we have returnedded from executive session where we discussed all of the items we an nouned for cushion, number 7, the matter for new exterior signage for 700 lavaca building.
I move we approve the recommended proposed signing and that we share that information with rick holmes, the director and owner of Austin suites and that the matter be brought back to Commissioners' court for action if appropriate.

>> second.

>> discussion on the motion? All those in favor? This passes by unanimous vote.
item number 25 is a matter involving the proposal from mobility -- from park and mobility, which we discussed at length in open court this morning.
is there a motion? Or direction?

>> judge, I move that we direct staff to find a -- an right for scope for services to try to figure out how to do a pilot project for -- somebody said 6 months, to -- at the level of $50,000 or less.

>> and is it friendly for us to check with the city of Austin and find out specifically what the city has in mind and to the extent possible to take action consistent with them so we have one system in place, if possible.

>> I think that's possible and I think the pilot project certainly is something that needs to be done, and then we can see what else will come --

>> just for clarification, would bit a generic scope, or a scope specific to a certain vendor? Or with a -- with a scope in mind that would be --

>> if it is under $50,000, why don't we try to tailor it to the schedule.
the -- to the vendor and if it doesn't work it we can expand it and make it generic.
the other thing is, in my view, it would help me to see an outline of the direction we are headed in and at some point that outline needs to be discussed with ms. Spratlin before being brought back to the court.
if we could put that two weeks -- is that too soon to get that done? I don't know that a formal document is necessary to be prepared by then if we indicate generally what we think the document should contain.
so rather than let this language further, if we can kind of move on it, and assure the intention to move it as quickly as possible.
if two weeks is not enough, and you need another one, fine, but if we set a target two weeks from today, I will feel a whole lot better.

>> and the direction -- in order to enhance our ability to find disability parking spots, is that the idea, what can we do to happen.

>> yes, a brief outline and that way if individuals of the court have things they think should be added or deleted, we will have the opportunity to do that before it becomes concrete.

>> okay.

>> is that making sense? From our discussion, I gather that we want do the right thing but we may have a little bit of disagreement on exactly how I go about doing that and if we are likely to respond to a draft outline to the direction we are headed in, that will be better and plus it will let mr. Spratlin know what we have in mind and if he wants to jump that but it will give an opportunity to provide specific direction on that, alsos.

>> so a draft outline on the larger revision and then a proposed scope for --

>> I kind of excommanded on your motion.
I hope it's all right.

>> that's fine.

>> boy, I talked friendly, fine to me.

>> my we break it -- may we break it into two motions because I am very much in favor of collaborating on the elimination of handicap parking abuse but I am not, at this moment, comfortable with tailoring a pilot to a specific vendor.

>> well, I thought the direction, though, was to go ahead and do that, under $50,000.
if we can't do that, we will expand it and make it more generic and compete it and also find out what the city of Austin is doing so I am hoping the outline will show the best approach that we can do.

>> but is it the best approach to achieve a pilot with the specific vendor or is it the best approach to achieve the elimination of handicap parking abuse?

>> I am hoping we see both of them but we have an opportunity to land on bun.
do you know what I am saying.
so I think if we can can come up with the verbiage that will enable us to do one or the other or both, we would be this a better position to respond to it.
the other thing is that we've got to get legal input and as well as purchasing at some point, too, but I think the court art ought to land on that before you do a whole lot of work other than the outline.

>> okay.

>> I mean, I -- I am trying to capture what I thought we were --

>> yeah.

>> the direction I thought we were headed in.
so if we have got both of them there, you will be able to respond to a specific proposal at the right point.

>> I will not -- that's fine.
I -- I won't vote for a motion that -- that both lays out a goal and then assumes that the specific vendor is the best for achieving that goal.

>> well, it outlines two goals, one of which is what you just described.
the other one would be more generic.

>> it still addresses the pilot for the six months under $50,000.
$50,000.

>> I would be in favor of a pilot but not with a specific vendor in mind.
that's my issue with it.
if we are trying to find out what would move the needle motion effectively and efficiently, let's find that out rather than go in with a preconceived notion of --

>> but going in and simply putting it on paper.
we aren't doing anything more than that.
there is a motion and a second.
any more discussion? It was a long motion.
I won't ask you to repeat it.

>> [laughter] for.
any more discussion? All those in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, Gomez, yours truly voting in favor.
voting against, Commissioner Huber and Huber Eckhardt.
thirty is proposed settlement agreement to the star flight services.
and we want to settle for $2,073 and 23-cents.
discussion on the motion.
all in favor.
this passes by unanimous vote.
number 31, the matter involving proposed acquisition of a conservation easement in the will of wilbarger creek watershed.
Commissioner Davis.

>> yes, I move we direct staff to go in receipt with the arrangement of four public access -- public a assess visits in perpetuity.

>> sec.

>> second by Commissioner Eckhardt.
and do we -- do we propose to have this matter on the agenda in case we need it?

>> yes, please out it on next week's agenda.
agenda.

>> any discussion on that? All those in favor? And

>> [mumbling] 32 is for employ roy nellis and I move that we move on the proposed assignments that mr. Nellis discussed with us and the county judge get with him and put the assignments in writing between now and next Tuesday and circulate the different assignments to members of the Commissioners court for input and reaction and that we have this matter back on the agenda next week for approval of that document.

>> second.

>> second by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion? All those in favor.
this passes by unanimous vote.
number 33, matter involving a proposal for real estate, an office building from d2000.
I move we propose -- be -- support the purchase of the property in question for the sum of $7,250,000 but closing be after zoning issues have been addressed.

>> second.

>> second by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion on that motion? The zoning issues, I think surfaced before and we need those resolved.
closing immediately after that, though.
it may help us to get with legal after today and address those.

>> we have zoning issue I wasn't aware but evidently somebody with legal believes we to have one.

>> well, in order for us to use, it has to be zoned appropriately and questions have surfaced about that and it may be that a letter from the city of Austin clears it.
if so, so be it.
if not, whatever we need to do.

>> we will get it soaped get itd properly.

>> okay.

>> any more discussion.

>> I think it is a very strategic position for the could be thety but I can't vote in favor for this because I think the price is too high for the property.

>> okay.
any more discussion? All those in favor.
show Commissioners Davis, Gomez and yours truly against and Commissioner Eckhardt and Huber.
and number the next one is the 34, receive legal briefing about the action regarding travis legal action and we have still not heard from the court from washington dc and legal advised we ought to have this matter back on the court east agenda next week, March 27, 2012, so we will do that and decide whether to appeal this matter after chatting with the other plaintiffs in the case or what action to take and in my view no other action.
any disagreement on that? Be back in the court's agenda next week.
thirty-five, matter involving the 30 to be chiller, at the guide building, I order $10,366 pay, that the other parties to this transaction, specifically wittinger and carrier.
chip in appropriate amounts but the $10,366 get Travis County a new chiller delivered to Travis County and the old childer taken out of the gault building.

>> second.

>> discussion on that motion?

>>

>> [indiscernible] do you want us to take that back.

>> if the see settlement agreement is consistent with those terms I move the county judge be authorized to sign it, otherwise move we go back to Commissioners court.
how is that.

>> yes.

>> or would you like to see it?

>> the judge is not eager to sign another document.
would y'all like to see it? Then the motion says have the judge signing the document if it's consistent with what I just stated.
discussion on that motion? All in favor? It passes by unanimous vote.
ms. Porter, according to my records, does it for today.

>> move adjourn.

>> that is seconded by ms. Gomez.
all those in favor? This 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.