Travis County Commissioners Court

April 3, 2012 - Item 25
Agenda

View captioned video.

25 is the matter involving -- the circuit of the americas and formula 1.

>> and, judge, I think it was important following the county attorney's advice that we talk about some of the issues that -- that have been going on with -- with f 1.
and as y'all know, this kind of -- resulted coming to precinct 4 without a whole lot of -- of -- of preannouncements or anything of that sort.
however, we know that they have proceeded with some of their permits and they have gotten some structures on the ground and -- and so it looks like at the very least that the county staff needed to use some initiative and they did that to try to meet with cota officials.
they have been meeting off and on for about a year and david grier with t.n.r.
has been working with them on a transportation plan and I was hoping that david would be here so he can kind of give the court a -- a -- a synopsis of the meeting that he has had with them.
the second person is danny hobby and the fire marshal who had also been meeting with them about an emergency or a public safety plan.
how, to make sure that-- that people out there, residents as well as visitors to the -- to the race would have access to emergency vehicles.
no matter who needed them.
and then, of course, the sheriff's officer and the major is here to talk about the law enforcement concerns that they had and been working with those officials as well-to-do some planning.
and major claire if you wanted to talk to us about what the discussions that you all have had.

>> good afternoon, the Travis County sheriff's office has been working with cota for almost a year now, when they first started talking about their plans to have formula 1 race here.
I think things have been going well.
in those discussions.
we've had in-depth discussions about -- about safety plans that are needed out there.
as it relates to -- to the types of clientele that we'll be dealing with out there.
the traffic that will be attending the event and we've talked in-depth about -- about the needs of our citizens in Travis County out in precinct 4 out in that area.
so in my opinion, we've had some very good discussions with them.
there's still some things that they need to provide us with, but I anticipate that we will be getting that information and moving forward.
we have been working within our own agency on a lot of our plans, just based on the information that we have gotten with other events like Texas motor speedway, so we have been doing our own research and collaborating with them.

>> are there any time sensitive frames that you have as far as needing additional information in order to get things finalized in time by November?

>> the most pressing issue from my perspective is that we need to have a -- a pretty decisive picture of what the roadways are going to look like at the time of the race.
it would not be wise for us to get too far down the road with a traffic plan if the roads are going to change.
but I do have a lieutenant who has been speculating a little bit and getting pretty detailed in a plan, if things don't change at all, we've got some ideas of -- of how we would advise cota what that plan should look like and what the staffing needs would be.
the other part of the issue for the sheriff's office is that we know that traffic will take from some of our resources and we have already put our staff on notice that during those seven to 14 days, for now, we are freezing the so that we will -- so that we will make sure that we have sufficient staff.

>> so our planning efforts are con continuing get upon getting -- contingent upon getting additional information from them and having the facts nailed down?

>> yes, absolutely.

>> but I will say, we've had some very detailed meetings with them.
and in honesty, they are cooperating with us and taking our advice to heart.
I do know that they've had some change in roles at cota.
the individual that was working with us is gone and they've since hired another person.
I think we'll be connecting with him next week.
and I anticipate a good working relationship with them.

>> have they provided a final draft of the traffic plan?

>> no.

>> the question has also come up from time to time about will you all have sufficient personnel available out there.
and -- and of course we -- you know, we leave that to you.

>> yeah.

>> can you tell us about that?

>> well, like I said, we have advised all of the supervisors of our personnel that for those particular days, right now, till we get more definitive information, we're not going to be scheduling any time off.
once we get the plans more solidified, we'll look at that issue.
but we work large events, very large events in Travis County.
the university of Texas football games is managed by the Travis County sheriff's office.
all of that staffing is managed by Travis County sheriff's office in conjunction with u.t.
the -- the rot rally and the rodeo are managed by the Travis County sheriff's office.
those are big events that go on for days and they are staffed with -- with a large number of officers and what we have done with those event is we've acquired officers from other agencies who have a proven track record of working with us, and that would be the plan, should we be the lead entity, which has not been solidified yet, should we be the lead entity for the security inside the cota premises.
we know that we're going to have traffic input on the traffic and we'll have some responsibility with the traffic regardless of who the entity is that works the security portion inside cota properties.
so we're ready.
we do need some more information, though.

>> uh-huh.
we haven't entered into contract negotiations at this point to try security on cota property?

>> that's correct.
we have not had anything other than discussions at this point.

>> those three events that you mentioned involved officers doing off duty work.

>> yes, mostly.

>> mostly.
and let me speak to just the citizens that live in that southeast area of Travis County.
we have from day 1 realized that the magnitude of this event could cause concerns with officers just being able to traverse from point a to point c to get to a call and we have already had discussions about prepositioning officers in areas that may not normally get an officer prepositioned because the call load doesn't usually dictate having an officer there.
but we realize that we don't want to take any kind of chances with the safety of our citizens or our officers.
we will make sure that that's a consideration, too, that we have sufficient officers to respond to high priority calls.

>> any other questions?

>> I believe y'all have had some -- made some recommendations to them as to roads that are necessary for you to be able to do your work.
during that race.

>> yes, one meeting, it may have been as much as a half ago that we had -- that I know I personally asked them to -- to look -- it's kellam I think is the road in question, that that would be a huge benefit for us to have that road traversable.
to whatever standard that means.
some way in and some way out.
that's one that I think is important that we look at.

>> important to the safety of the -- of everyone involved?

>> yes.

>> thank you, major.

>> you're very welcome.

>> david just came back in.

>> I think that you had some questions about the transportation?

>> I wanted you to just mention all that you have done in meeting with the cota officials about the traffic plan.

>> all right.
yes, we have a meeting with them, for over a year now, we met originally with the consultants, kenly-horn, kind of coming up with a bird's eye view of a traffic control plan, general concept, really, to see what kind of congestion we might have.
we've been working with them for about a year now.
they've also now hired another consultant, bosta consulting that we're meeting with right now to get more of an idea of an on the ground five of design of how -- type of design of how we're going to deal with the issues.
they've been working really well with us this whole period, we think we are getting really close to a transportation plan.
they are hoping to meet with us, the city and txdot very soon to go over those details as well.

>> do with he have a final traffic plan from them?

>> we do not yet, no.

>> do we have any draft of the traffic plan from them?

>> we do not.

>> do we have a draft of a roadway agreement with them?

>> we do.

>> is it our draft or their draft?

>> it was prepared by us.

>> do we have a response to our draft?

>> not definitively, no.

>> do we have a written response to our draft?

>> no.

>> we have

>> [indiscernible]

>> oh, okay.

>>

>> [indiscernible] the roadway agreement, I would say, sort of been at a standstill because of the possibility of building kellam.
so that has basically made us look at -- look at the roadway situation in a different light.
so -- so those are all pending issues.

>> what we're hearing from them, they agree that he -- that elroy should be widened to the extent that we've discussed it before.
they agree that kellam should be extended to pierce lane, which we think is a good idea as well.
but we haven't gone beyond discussing that we agree that that is needed and we need to do that.

>> how long have you been in discussions with this particular roadway plan with them?

>> the agreement draft I think was presented back in December.

>> December?

>> well, t.n.r.'s first comments to circuit of the americas on elroy road were in September of 2010.

>> September of 2010.

>> there were also comments in November of 2010 and April of 2011, and then on may 25th, 2011, steve manila and danny hobby sent a letter to circuit of the americas outlining requirements for a mass gathering permit, county development permit and building permits.
and the road issues were specifically mentioned in reference to the county development permit.

>> actually, could we just go through kind of the time line, of documented communication, from our may 2011 letter forward, is that the beginning point, the may 2011 letter?

>> well, again, there were comments dating back to September 2010.

>> sorry.

>> on the road issues.
after the may 25th letter, t.n.r.
issued county development permits in phases for the -- for the site development.
and each of those permits contained -- contained this provision, prior to issuance of any additional phases after phase 6, completion and submission of the roadway improvement agreement and approval at Commissioners court addressing the widening of four lanes of elroy road needs to be completed and -- and phase 6 was issued on March 30th, 2012.
so the target date for having the roadway agreement has now come.
which makes this issue ripe.
the target date was may 2012 for doing the roadway agreement.
we first started negotiating that agreement with circuit of the americas in December of 2011.
that's when we sent our first draft to them, they sent a first draft back to us on January 20th.
there were various meetings and drafts were changed.
and then on February 14th, we got -- received a communication from their attorney that -- that he had talked with cota and believes we are down to just a few issues on the roadway agreement.

>> that was February?

>> 14th.

>> 14th.
okay.

>> what we would like to see is a road -- at least a draft of the road agreement presented at the same time the draft transportation plan is submitted.
they've had plenty of time to work on it.
I know they're trying to figure out how to finance it and that sort of a thing, but I think that they have enough information now to be able to put something in draft form to us that we can review and try to get on the same page with them on.

>> and you would like to see this by April 30th, so that we could have a month to work out all of the fine details and have a final by June 1st so that we could have a public hearing in July?

>> yes, we would.
and anna has a little bit more information about the progress of the permits, if you want to go ahead.

>> just I believe we've now issued six permits off of the main site plan.
there's still some -- there's still work to be done.
but at this point, with each permit we issue, we do -- we do clearly lay out the scope of what has been issued and what's new, and there are several provisions, including the -- including the -- the one that tom read.
also a position that's similar that speaks to the need of the finalized transportation plan, but I also want to echo what david said, that -- that you know they have -- they have hired very good consultants to work with us.
and -- and there's been a lot of dialogue and communication back and forth.
as we've gone through, we just don't have a finalized plan yet.

>> how much -- by when -- my concern is -- is working backwards from the first event date, which is not f 1, it's actually an event prior to that, working backwards from that, by when do we have to have all of the -- of these permits finalized in order to assure that the county has enough time to appropriately prepare for the -- for the off cota site, the planning that we need to do?

>> I would say the part of that that we've been thinking about, very strongly, is in the transportation plan, some of the elements I believe would probably require regulation to be adopted by court and I know that there is -- there is -- there is time to get that on the agenda and then I believe time to have it posted for the public hearing.
and so I hope our attorney will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that once we post that, I think that is usually posted for like three weeks.
so --

>> so what's the first date.

>> November the 16th I think.

>> you mean the actual race date?

>> we don't know when the first event date is, correct?

>> oh, the prerace that I on-- I don't know.

>> prerace event I don't know, but I believe the main f 1 race is on November 18th.

>> whether the f1 race is on November 18th, there's an event before that where all of these permits have to be in place.

>> they have told us they plan to invite the -- look the site over, introduce to the whole facility, they have not told us what date that would be.

>> so that may actually move the time schedule up.

>> could.

>> do we know

>> [indiscernible] date.

>> it was mentioned by them.
it would easily be over 2500, so triggered.

>> they need -- it's a mass gathering.
so if they have moved the date up, they need to give us what that date is so we can shift our time schedule appropriately, yes?

>> yes, this he do.

>> so we need that date.

>> we will ask them for that date.

>> any other questions regarding transportation?
thank you all very much.

>> and then the final person, judge, is danny hobby and hershell lee on the public safety plan.

>> my partly be brief -- my part will be brief, I just wanted to echo of of some of what major claire is talking about.
we pretty much have flown along with what they are doing.
I commend them for coordinating this whole thing and bringing all of the agencies in and working with cota.
I think our relationship has been very good.
I think communication has been very good.
ment I'm currently working on an agreement that will come to this court in regards to star flight.
and I realize that's probably a small piece compared to all of the agencies that are going to be working with this event and that's something that I would like for the court to understand is that even though we're talking about emergency services and tcso and star flight, that cota is little working with other agencies.
they're working with the emergency services district that's in your precinct, Commissioner Gomez.
I have spoken with them on several occasions and they seem to think that their communications are going very well and they are taking care of not just the race, but they are also taking care of the residents and making sure that they are safe, fire apparatus is available for them.
but they are working on all of that.
they are working, my understanding is, they're working with the Austin police department.
I think that they are working with the e.m.s.
department because we don't do ground transport.
we contract with ground transport.
so I think there's a multitude of agencies that they're working with and communicating with and I'm like major claire, I think from the public safety side, we're very pleased in our relationship so far with them.
yes, there's more work to be done, yes, we would like to see to the -- that the transportation plan is completed because that helps us, too.
but as far as our side of things, which again is small, but it's important, we feel like it's very important, it's going very well.
hershell, I will let him talk about the other side of this, which is his work which he's been doing quite a bit with these folks.

>> my part of the work with this project is primarily to review the building permits and inspect those structures as they go occupy.
we have currently permitted the main structures to be built and are in the process of reviewing and approving fire alarm, fire sprinkler buildings for those main structures.
there are about seven of those.
looking down through the list here, I think there are about 14 other structures that have been discussed and either applied for and are currently under review.
from the -- from the things that we come up with, with -- with their contractors, we have so far been able to work through all of them and come to agreements.
but we are really not to the inspection steps on these structures yet.
but the plans are that all of these structures will meet or exceed international fire code 2009.
they have added some things which updated even exceed that, including the way-finding plan and a mass notification system for the structure.
I anticipate that they will also submit to us a public safety plan, which will encompass all of these other things that are outstanding, such as traffic, fire, e.m.s., all of those type of things.
that will come in as a -- as a portion before they finally occupy those structures.

>> do you feel like you are tracking the timing that's workable for the fall?

>> if the weather holds.
I think so.
we did have a meeting this week about a possible preevent, again no dates were mentioned.
but they are asking now about -- there will be a lot of temporary structures that will come there, be there for 30 days then they will be ground, temporary grand stands, v.i.p.
suites, trophy suites, those type of things will appear just before the race and likely go away after the race.
so we are in discussions now with exactly how we will permit those.
and to ensure that there will be emergency vehicle access to each and every one of those structures.
so there are a number of things that we are still reviewing that we did not anticipate a year and a half ago when we started talking about these things, but so far things are going along well.
I hope that everything is completed in plenty of time for all of the structures to be inspected well ahead of the major events.

>> any other questions?

>> I just have to say thanks to the county staff because I'm really appreciative of the initiative that y'all took.
so that there wouldn't be any delay whatsoever in trying to deal with these issues, with these issues of tremendous importance and especially to the folks who live out there.
and regardless of how we feel about he -- about the race, there's some folks out there who are really very excited about -- about the f1 race coming to Travis County.
so not only there, but I think throughout the county.
if we're going to have visitors there, then I think these issues are important to have in place and so I certainly would -- would look forward to us -- to us dealing with whatever we need to do to make sure that people are safe.
especially our residents and visitors and I should would not want to set up anything for disaster or to -- for failure because I think that would reflect very badly on us and our lack of planning, so thank you all so much.

>> I have one additional question.
where are we on the mass gathering permit?
isn't that required?

>> we had a meeting, Commissioner, and they met with -- with the judge and me and I think the -- the attorneys were there.
as well.
jim collins was there.
and -- and I can't remember the other attorney.
I don't think it was tom.
it was somebody -- jim?
was it -- I'm sorry.

>> too many meetings.

>> I try to keep a low profile.
apparently I succeeded

>> [laughter]

>> you did.
I didn't even see you I guess.
but I think that the -- that the discussion was, you know, whether they needed it or not and -- and the attorneys interpretation that -- that they didn't see the need for the mass gathering permit.
however, I think when we left that meeting, there was agreement that yes, you know, it would apply.
they would turn in their paperwork and as far as I can tell, that's going -- that is in the -- in the works, and so for which again I'm very grateful for -- for this step to be taken because it -- it again, it will lend to the -- to the smoother running of -- of -- of an event this big.
I don't think we've ever seen anything like this, probably bigger than football games and -- and bigger than rot rally and all of those events.

>> you said the attorneys, you meant their attorneys --

>> [multiple voices]

>> no need, but we finally got to the point where yes, yes, we do need to move forward.
the last I heard it was in the works.

>> okay.

>> anything further?

>> thank y'all.

>> thanks very much.

>> thank you.

>> we do have a proposed motion.
I move that we authorize staff to immediately send a letter to cota lesting items related to county development permit and mass gathering requirements that need to be submitted to the county April 30th, 2012, toward a view of having a final traffic plan roadway agreement and other final items related to county permits by June 1, 2012, so as to enable a public hearing in July.
and that thought again is to -- to get -- we send a letter listing items that need to be addressed.
we get the responses by April 30 with an eye to having final documents in our hands by June 1, which is about a month later, with an eye toward a public hearing in mid July.

>> is this the mass gathering permit, public hearing?

>> well, it's a -- it's I guess yeah it would be that, too.
it would be all of the things that we need to have a public hearing on, the development permit.

>> traffic regulations.

>> traffic regulations, traffic plan, roadway agreement, public safety, document, mass gathering act, any other things that we need to put in that -- but if we have the documents that we need in April, we really can take a full month trying to put those in final shape and finally decided what we need to have the public hearing on before we notice it.
I do think when we have that public hearing, we ought to give people advance notice about what the hearing is about, give them an opportunity to see specifics and be prepared to give comments.
the second part of that ever-growing motion is to send weekly letters to cota documenting any issues that arise and adhering to this schedule so we will be able to address those issues and work through them.

>> that letter is written by whom?

>> this says county staff which means legal and/or t.n.r., fire marshal, danny hobby.

>> sheriff's office.

>> if we make it that large, though, how about saying steve with input from all of those folks, otherwise they won't know who is supposed to write the letter.

>> well, our people are meeting periodically.
I would reempower and encourage lab -- empower and encourage collaboration.
this item will be on a agenda weekly.
on legal stuff typically tom would write the work.
if there's a fire marshal issue, tom would work.

>> for sure tom with input from everybody.
my concern is if we don't say who is writing the letter, then they won't know.

>> point person to coordinate it.

>> a flame would be friendly -- a name would be friendly in the interest of time.

>> tom nuckols.

>>

>> [indiscernible]

>> steve and I --

>> county staff headed by tom nuckols.

>> how is that?

>> weekly letters?

>> will we see those letters on Tuesday?

>> tom share with the Commissioner of that precinct and any member of the court interested in seeing it.
how's that.

>> that's fine.

>> I will second the motion.

>> the big key, though, is for us to highlight issues that we need to address.
surface those and we address them.
along with cota representatives, right?
okay.

>> got it.

>> anything else?
any more discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.

>> I have one more motion related to this.

>> okay.

>> I move that we direct p.b.o.
staff to analyze cota's proposed economic development deal using the draft economic development policy as a template and reporting back to the Commissioners court on their evaluation within two weeks.

>> if any.

>> I second that.

>> proposed development agreement, if any.

>> yeah.

>> if any.

>> we don't have one yet.

>> but I figured we could certainly lay the predicate and find out what elements they're talking about.
I would suggest we might want to look back because we have the luxury of this, look back at the wandering creek subdivision plat that predates the use for this land because it would be nice to be able to look at that and see what its economic benefit was to the county as opposed to this utilization as a comparison.

>> second the motion.
discussion?

>> I would like to add a friendly to that.
as the Commissioner of precinct 4, I would like to make sure that susan spitaro also works on that plan with leroy nellis.

>> I don't find that friendly because susan as our independent auditor, I don't believe that our auditor or our purchasing agent or our offices that need to remain independent should be involved in our managerial decisions and evaluations leading to those managerial decisions.

>> it's not going to require having managerial duty.
it's just informative.
research information.

>> I believe it's not friendly to the motioner because I believe p.b.o.
is more than equipped to do that.

>> then I will just make a separate motion.

>> okay.
this motion is to ask the county executive of planning and budget to take a look at any proposed development agreement by cota.
that would have to be done this week as that matter will be on the agenda Tuesday, if one is submitted to look at it and conduct an analysis.
and did I second that?
Commissioner Davis seconded it?
okay.
any more discussion of that motion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
Commissioner Gomez?

>> my motion is to request that susan spitaro be added to work with p.b.o.
for the financial information that -- that -- that I trust in.

>> second?
I second that motion.
discussion on the motion?
that is that the county auditor work with the planning and budget department to do a financial analysis of any proposed development agreement by cota?

>> I have a question about that.
do we have our independent auditor working on the evaluation of the apple economic incentive?

>> it's late in the day to -- to ask a question that really requires no answer.

>> the answer is no.
the auditor -- does the auditor work on the evaluation of bizarre voice.

>> Commissioner, we already know that you are against this.
you indicated it earlier, I don't know why all of these questions are asked.

>> because this is an unusual move.

>> this is an unusual event in precinct 4.

>> well, those who support it ought to vote for it, those who don't ought to vote against it.
it's simple.

>> my point is made.
it's unusual.

>> all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioners Gomez, Huber, Davis and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Eckhardt abstaining or against?

>> against.

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.