Travis County Commssioners Court
April 15, 2003
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.
Consent Items
The consent items are next. Posted for consent. Are c 1 through c 4 and I show those to be read for action. Ready for act, we have been asked to consider the following items to the consent motion. Item no. 4, that we had the public hearing on. Number 6, if you would like to discuss these separately, please call the number out. Number 7, number 8 --
>> I have some questions.
>> 7 is not part of consent. What about number 8?
>> I think -- I’m fine with --
>> any objection to 8 being on consent? 12. And 11 a is in the amount of 4,050 for 11 a, 4,050 for 11 a. 12.
>> judge, is that inclusive of the recommendation from p.b.o. On those grant adjustments, that's the only thing that was in the budget amendments.
>> yeah.
>> trying to get some policy direction from us there.
>> the -- -- hit to do with the juvenile justice grant, moving some line items around, normally something that needs to come to us and they were wanting if -- if those -- grant adjustments need to be automatic or not. So we were needing direction in addition to improving -- [inaudible]
>> I thought they pointed out the automatic part was that typically they would be automatic, but this time they are bringing them back for some reason.
>> we had actually had a budget rule that said they would be brought back to us, but they felt this kind of a technical correction was not what was intended by the budget rule, they wanted to make this kind of a technical correction an automatic and those that are truly movement between line items on a grant back to the court.
>> I think that I would bring that back to the court in a separate item if they want to. The recommended budget amendments are set forth in a 1 through a 9. Anything further on that I think you ought to bring back to us.
>> they do have a line item here saying they will recommend a change in the budget rules, that may be the appropriate place to --
>> yeah.
>> okay. No, ma'am objection with c being part of the consent motion.
>> no.
>> there's a long list of subsections under 14. Half of them are real ugly. Meaning we cause accidents, one party accidents, but I think that if we were to discuss these 3 minutes or three hours, we would end up at the same place, therefore my recommendation is that we put 14 a through 14 g on consent. G really is for us simply to authorize signing an agreement and we have received payment a year later than the agreement, but got here. Any objection to all of 14 being part of the consent motion?
>> no.
>> 14 a through 14 g. Still amazed that we have so many accidents where it looks like we are at fault.
>> and they are expensive, too.
>> at least three of those are tied to things that have been ongoing issues in executive session for a number of months. And there are law enforcement and constable type of people having the accidents.
>> and t.n.r. T.n.r. Was letter b.
>> now the members of the court never have accidents, so --
>> I haven't so far. [laughter]
>> we are just safe drivers, I guess, Commissioner.
>> we understand the --
>> exactly.
>> a discussion would leave me too sad to complete business today. Number 15, 17, 21,.
>> 21 a and b?
>> right, 21 a and b, thank you. 22 we just need a little explanation, we are displacing some vehicles that we have been buying. The explanation given to me, we can conclude that overall we are saving money. But I wanted to get that on record before I have too much happiness. 23, 24, 25, 27, 28 --
>> I have a couple of questions on 28.
>> 28 will not be part of the cop sent motion. 31 --
>> move approval of the consent items.
>> second.
>> would anyone like for us to pull any of these items for separate discussion?
>> judge, you did not have 30 on there?
>> no.
>> it's a required report.
>> no. No no particular reason. Anybody else got issues with that one? Then let's add 30. Okay, include that in the motion.
>> okay.
>> and second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 3:52 PM