Travis County Commssioners Court
May 20, 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.
Item 31
31-a, discuss outstanding policy issues including subdivision regulation regarding amendments to chapter 82, Travis County code, to resolve inconsistencies with city of Austin code and as required by hb 1445 and take appropriate action. 31-b, approve amendment to hb 1445 interlocal agreement with city of Austin.
>> the city of Austin was going to approve something last Thursday.
>> I believe they approved the amendment of the interlocal that you all had blessed the week before, so I think now you all just need to formally approve that amendment. Because they basically agreed to it without any more changes. If you all will approve that, it's ready for the judge to execute.
>> okay. And that's --
>> thanks very much. I believe that's your concern. In case you have any questions --
>> is the b we have been looking at the last couple of weeks?
>> uh-huh. Do we need to do a first?
>> no, I think at this point the only outstanding issues are the transportation plan and the consolidated @ode, which we're going to be working on to bring about. I think those are -- we may very well find other issues as we consolidate the code. But right now I believe the only major issue we have is what transportation plan serves as a guide to the planning process. And our current regulations refer to the city of Austin plan. So there's no inconsistency, although in practice, Travis County uses the campo plan. So I think it's one thing that we worded to go in the direction we want to use campo and the city wasn't quite willing yet to do that without some further negotiations. So that's an area that I guess is an implicit unresolved issue.
>> in approving this today or us voting on this today would still leave that with the transportation plan still in limbo.
>> I think we'll have to continue to press that because basically the way the code will currently set and will remain that way unless the court takes some action. And then we will be following the city of Austin transportation plan in the interim until we resolve the issue.
>> until the issue is resolved by changes in state law.
>> you have the baxter bill that is -- I guess being heard today. And the intergovernmental affairs committee. That may or may not pass the legislature depending on what the [indiscernible] is. So that's over there. That may resolve the issue for us. If that bill fails and [indiscernible] legislation with regard to 1445, the way it currently sits, we will be in agreement with the city on most of the issues, including the transportation plan. Because our code refers to the city runway plan. And that will remain that way until we adopt a subdivision ordinance otherwise or we both agree, the city and county, to come together on the campo plan.
>> move approval of 31-b.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
>> you know, we presented you a package of Travis County code amendments that were -- you all haven't adopted those yet. Now that this agreement is in place, we have to go back and make one or two changes to that and that will be on the agenda soon for you all to approve.
>> a clean copy of -- that dates back several weeks.
>> basically [indiscernible] first amendment.
>> it's whatever was in your backup last Tuesday, the current version. But we're giving you a clean one to execute, judge.
>> last year we were looking back [indiscernible] before that, weren't we?
>> well, I gave you all an updated draft last Tuesday. Now, I think it was a legislative format with the underlines and the strike-throughs.
>> was the date last week?
>> it didn't have a date on it, it had a document number on it.
>> i've dated mine.
>> we need a, I guess, a clean, updated version. And that version will contain what we approved tentatively and what the city approved also.
>> yes.
>> the motion covers that. Any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners -- Commissioner Gomez and yours truly voting in favor. Voting against, Commissioner Daugherty.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:52 PM