Travis County Commissioners Court

July 10, 2012 - Executive Session Items
Agenda

With that, I think we are ready for Executive Session, aren't we?
We actually voted on the item, it was caught up in -- we voted on number 11, didn't we?
We didn't vote on 11.
Move approval -- we need to move approval.

>> We did move approval.

>> Okay.
Did I get a second?

>> Yes.

>> All those in favor.
That passes by unanimous vote.

>> Thank you, robert.

>> I thought robert was looking for a chance to vote against me.

>> It is robert's rule.

>> So that's 29-2.
This morning we indicated we would go into executive session with the consultation with attorney exception on item -- on number 5 and 9.
They really have the same item.
Nine is the action part of the public hearing.
Nine is to consider and take appropriate action on property tax exemptions for travis county regarding the following, a historic exemptions, 4, fiscal year 2013 and b, over 65 and disabled optional homestead exemptions for fiscal year 2013.
Posted for consent are --

>> Judge, sorry.
Did I miss, that was unattorney attorney?

>> No, I said up front before I read the item, con sumtation with the attorney.

>> Does this need to be folded into that since it may ask the same questions?

>> It is the same questions.

>> I don't know if it was actually announced or not.

>> If you are going to discuss it.

>> That's for the health care district.
Is there a deadline to it?

>> Yes.

>> Okay.
Yeah.
So I will follow -- I am assuming I will follow whatever the court does.

>> Yes.
Thirty receive legal briefing regarding real estate contract on project and 31 consider and take appropriate action on proposal to convey title to relungish park management p of and transfer maintenance responsibility to allen park in precinct two from travis county, consultation with attorney and exceptions and 32, consider and take appropriate action on proposal to convey title to, relinquish management of the and transfer maintenance responsibility for david reed park and laura reed park in precinct 3, consultation with attorney around real exceptions, and 33 consider and take appropriate action from the could beer offer received from nelda carol phelps for acquisition of 9,448 square feet of undeveloped land located precinct 2 of Travis County, needed as right-of-way for improvements to county road 138, to be constructed by Williamson county under terms of existing interlocal cooperation agreement considered approved and adopted by the commission by Travis County in early 2012.
Real property exception, somebody say something?
No.
Thirty-four, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding mutual release of claims with graedel affiliated companies for 700 lavaca building moves.
Consultation with attorney exception.
Thirty-five, receive briefing and take appropriate action regarding circuit of the americas and formula one and we let this -- we have this item on agenda.
Aware of anything.

>> Not aware of anything.

>> Announce or not announce it?

>> I would not announce it.

>> I withdraw whatever I said about item 35.
We don't announce the circuit of the americas item and we will have it back here in case and number 36, receive briefing and take appropriate action regarding lease issues at 700 lavaca with Austin suites, consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to open meetings act.
We will discuss these in executive session but return to open court before taking any action.
&Nbsp;

>> We have returned from executive session where we discussed the items that we announced, including, but not limited to 309, the matter involve -- limited to number 9, the matter involving the property tax exemptions, and specifically a, historic exemptions for fiscal year year 2013.
And b, over 65 and disabled optional homestead exemptions for fiscal year 2013.
I move that we adopt city of Austin ordinance number 20111215-091 relating to historic landmark tax exemptions, historic landmark and historic district designation criteria.
And certain permits and certificates of appropriateness.
And also including the affidavit and the annual inspection and other features of the ordinance that were shared with us this morning by city of Austin representatives.
And the intent of this is for us to basically adopt the historic exemptions in which pre-2004 exemptions are grandfathered and we impose a 2,500-dollar cap on post-january 1, 2012 designations.

>> Second.

>> And mr. Nellis, that's pretty much what it means, right?

>> What will we do with the 2004 to 2011's?

>> That's part of the ordinance.
It's just tiered in there.

>> The detail is specific on the 2004 to 2011, is that there was a 2,000-dollar cap on those properties during that period.
And then effective January 1 of '12 they put a 2,500-dollar cap.
Everything prior to 2004.
And these specifics are inside that ordinance spelled out in them, and we're in the backup.

>> The other thing we should do, I guess, is indicate our intention to review the impact of this new county order regarding historic exemptions annually until we realize the full effect, and we can tweak it as much as we need to.

>> Second.

>> Any discussion on the motion?
And we do this after really about three years of study.
It was a kind of complicated matter that -- and this is not perfect, but it's probably a move in the right direction at this point, we think.

>> That's correct.

>> I seconded it first and then you got two or three other seconds.

>> Sorry.

>> Pardon me?

>> I haven't had two seconds in a long time.

>> [laughter].

>> Any more discussion?

>> Yes, judge.
What impact will this have, leroy and I think the public needs to know what kind of impact this is really going to have with this 2,500-dollar cap.
What kind of impact will that have, per se, looking at homes in the medium range and how much revenue would that probably be made available to the county?

>> The calculation on what -- going to adopting the city's ordinance and all the provisions in the city's historical preservation reduces the total exemptions about $23 million for Travis County.
And when you take the tax rate times that you would come up with about 116,000 dollars' worth of savings.

>> When we do our order we can incorporate into our order the city of Austin's ordinance, can't we, john?

>> Yes.

>> Because when people ask for the order, it won't be -- we won't provide enough information just for the order, but if we have the ordinance incorporated into it, they will see all the specifics.

>> That's correct.

>> Any more discussion?
Did you get your question answered?

>> Yes.
Now, is b coming up?

>> As soon as we vote on a.

>> Thanks.

>> Any more discussion of a?
All in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.
B is a matter involving the over 65 and disabled optional homestead exemptions.
Commissioner Davis, you have questions about this?

>> Yes, judge.
As I stated earlier, we have some senior citizens -- not senior citizens.
I guess over age 65 and disabled persons that have struggled for a long time, and they have pulled a heavy load in their golden ears and yet I believe that -- golden years, and yet I believe that they have been told similar to me and I guess to others that they do need some type of tax relief.
Right now Travis County offers $65,000 exemption, homestead exemption to those particular persons 65 and older, and also to the disabled.
And of course with this type of exemptions does offer some relief, but it's not the kind of relief that I think that we can probably do better at this time.
And I think that we need to look at ways to increase the homestead exemption on the 65 and disabled homeowners out there that are struggling in their golden years and their hardships of tax burden that we have been placed, we're looking at probably more tax relief.
My question is at this point is that the $65,000 that Travis County offers, if we were to increment that up to an example of $70,000, of over 65 homestead exemptions for those particular over 65 years of age and also disabled, what would that probably equate to as far as money that we would have to see that they realize and what they get in a, how much would that equate to as far as --

>> For each $1,000 that you raise the over 65 and disabled exemption, I had calculated with the tax office help about 205,420 was the estimate of what to raise it one thousand.
So in order to raise it 5,000 it would be five times that amount, which would be about 1,025,000.
Now, by adopting the city's ordinance you saved about 116,000.
So the difference between the two would be about 900.
# $70,000 of revenue to take it to the full 70,000 exemption.
In the backup I had indicated the savings in taking the city's ordinance which you have voted and approved.
You could move it and be tax neutral at $65,560, about.

>> And if we were to incrementally increase -- if we were to take the savings -- not the savings, but the increments on the historic exemption, put it toward the over 65 and disabled and take the over 65 and disabled from 65 to 77 with a commitment to look at it next year and look at it with the idea of incrementally raising it year after year, what would be the hit on taking it to 67?

>> Well, that would be a 2,000-dollar increase, so that would cost you about 410,000 less the 176.
So around $300,000 to take it to 67.

>> Okay.

>> Is 70,000 the maximum provided by law?

>> No.

>>

>> [inaudible - no mic].

>> And harris county is in the 200,000-dollar range, I believe.

>> I think we ought to go to 70,000 or leave it where it is.

>> I agree with you, judge.
I'll second your motion if you would make that motion because I think it's something that we need to do and I think we need to be real serious about providing the kind of tax relief that the over 65 and disabled have been struggling with in their homestead.
We're going to talk about affordability of our homes for this particular age group of persons, I think that we need to -- I think we need to send a message to the other taxing jurisdictions that Travis County means business when it comes to providing tax relief to over 65 and disabled homestead property owners here in Travis County.

>> I move that we do the 20% plus we increase the 65,000 to the 70,000 for those 65 years of age or disabled.

>> I second that.

>> Commissioner Davis seconds that motion.
Discussion?
It's a-million-dollar hit and we just find a way to fund it.

>> Find it.

>> Discussion on the motion.
All in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.
Thank y'all very much.
Thanks for your patience also.

>> We need to do item number 10 and I believe you passed up the road districts because we weren't here earlier.

>> We got several motions before we get to the road district.
Dinner at 5:00 or 6:00?
10 is to consider and take appropriate action on property tax exemptions for the Travis County health care district.
D/b/a central health, regarding the following: a, historic exemption for fiscal year 2013 and b, over 65 and disabled optional homestead exemptions for fiscal year 2013.
If we assume that the health care district wants to do the right thing, can we just assume that they do the same thing that the Commissioners' court just did for Travis County on historic exemptions and the over 65 and disabled and the 25% homestead?

>> I did have a conversation with the chief financial officer for the health district.
John stevens did indicate to me that they were okay with following what the Commissioners' court approved for Travis County.

>> I have a request, though.
Question that we explore with the health district over the next year how it fits with their mission?
Because I think that there are members of the board that do want to have that discussion with us because it is difficult to see how an historic preservation fits within their mission of providing health care.

>> That's friendly to me.
The maker of the motion.
Who seconds that?

>> I second.

>> Is that friendly?
Okay.
Discussion on the motion?
All in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.

>> > 31 is involving a matter -- a matter involving county to convey title to to relinquish management of and maintenance responsibility of allen park to the city of Austin.
Commissioner Eckhardt?

>> I move that we do transfer title of allen park over to the city of Austin with the understanding of course that legally speaking it will always remain a park and the city of Austin is in a much better position to fully utilize this as such for the neighbors.

>> Second by Commissioner Gomez?
Discussion?
The legal documents will address that park nature?

>> Definitely.

>> Definitely.
All in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.
32 is involving david reid park and specifically that we convey title to, relinquish maintenance of and give responsibility of the park to the city of Jonestown.
, I so move that we transfer these -- david reid park and laura reid park to the city of Jonestown as he described.
And as Commissioner Eckhardt said, the same for these properties, that they will remain a public park.
I do believe that this transfer is in better keeping and use and management for the future as it relates to Jonestown and the activities going on out there.

>> Second.

>> And that we make that effective as soon as the paperwork can get done?

>> Sound goods to me.

>> Instead of waiting to the end of the maintenance agreement, which is 10 years.

>> Exactly.

>> And that's friendly, Commissioner Gomez?
Discussion on the motion?
All in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.
33 is a matter involving the purchase of 9,448 square feet of undeveloped land from nelda carol phelps for Williamson county to use in a Williamson county road project, specifically 138.

>> I move that we counter the proposal by the landowner with the amount of 30,770.

>> Seconded by Commissioner Davis.
Discussion in all in favor?
That passes by unanimous vote.
34, the matter involving the claim by Travis County against graebel affiliated companies for the 700 lavaca building moves.
And this is the second time we've discussed this item.
What did we decide to do or did we decide anything?

>> I think we gave direction, didn't we?

>> If you wanted to give direction to the purchasing office to get three bids this.

>> And indicate to the company that we are looking for those bids because the bids we have is no longer supported by the vendor.
So we need estimates of the cost to get the work done and then we'll get back with graebel as soon as we have estimates and we'll have our purchasing officer do that.
Is there anything that needs to be added?

>> My apologize for having to leave.
I have to pick up my kids from camp.

>> No problem.
On 35 we did not discuss and really withdrew the announcement.
36, the matter involving 700 lavaca with Austin suites.
We gave staff direction on that item too.
No action required in open court.
Anything else during this voting session of the Commissioners' court?
Move adjournment.

>> Second.

>> 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.

July 3, 2012: Travis County Launches New Video Playback System

Our new streaming video system uses a single video clip for each session and items are linked to specific locations on that clip. Some browsers and mobile devices do not recognize the location information and display the entire clip. If this happens the "start time" will help you find your item's video within the larger clip.

If you encounter playback issues check out our video playback help page. If you still encounter problems let us know.

On July 3rd, 2012, Travis County began leveraging free resources by posting Commissioners Court meetings on Youtube. Previously every video clip was edited separately and hosted on the county's video server. The old system also required RealPlayer to view the video clips.

The new systems save time and resources -- and that saves taxpayer dollars!