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.
Executive Session
Now, this morning, we indicated our intention to discuss in executive session number 27 which is approval the call down of the letter of credit for sidewalk improvements associated with the replat of steiner ranch commercial tract 126789 that's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. Number 30, consider request to the Texas turnpike authority to design and construct an interchange at the proposed howard lane arterial during the initial construction of state highway 130 and take appropriate action. That will be under the real estate and consultation with attorney exceptions. To the open meetings act. Number 43 is receive briefing from county attorney and/or take appropriate action regarding flurry daniel versus Travis County text, number 02-50378 in the united states court of apiles for the fifth circuit. That will be the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 44, receive advice from county attorney regarding claim for compensation by mr. Larry dunston for work performed for frank woodberry, aka franklin woodberry, dba, sterling janitorial and maintenance service on Travis County construction project. That is consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 45 is to receive briefing from county attorney, discuss proposed settlement and give direction regarding collection claim of Travis County versus j.c. Evans construction company and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. And 46 is to receive briefing from county attorney and authorize county attorney to accept, reject or counteroffer for settlement and/or take appropriate action concerning the matter of fortview versus Travis County, Texas in the district court of Travis County Texas, 353 rdz judicial court, cause number g.n. 300127. That will be the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act also. As previously announced, we were asked to pull number 47. We will discuss these items in executive session and return to open court before taking any action. [executive session].
>> we also need to announce we need to take up under the personnel matters exception 40 a. And b. 40 a., Senior recommendations for say signing duties to a manager and officials from duties now handled by the executive manager of justice and public safety. And 40 b., Consider new job descriptions and pay grades for emergency services coordinator and criminal justice coordinator and take appropriate action. We won't discuss all of this item, but some of this item is covered by the personnel matters exception, we'll discuss those also and return to open court before taking any action.
>> > we have just returned from exeg. Instead of taking motions
on the items discussed there, at this time we will -- we will take those this
afternoon.
>> Commissioner Gomez moves that we recess until 10:30. -- until 1:30, seconded by commis sioner Daugherty, that passes by unanimous vote.
>>I guess we will go to the executive session items
that we discussed.
>> on number 27, I move that we authorize the county judge
to sign an appropriate call down of the letter of credit, at or about 5:00
on Thursday, which is 24 hours before the deadline unless a substitute
has been filed.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous
vote. On number 30 involving the proposed howard lane arterial, I move
that we ask staff to schedule an appropriate meeting of the property owners
and parties requesting us to take this action with two members of the Travis
County Commissioners court and the -- and appropriate county staff. And
that we try to resolve the two outstanding issues and let this matter be
reposted on Tuesday of next week for us to take final action one way or
the other.
>> second.
>> all right. I have not identified the two members of
the court. Commissioner Davis or Sonleitner, precinct 1 or both of them
or 1 and 2?
>> I would say Commissioner Sonleitner.
>> it's in 1 and 2?
>> I mean, this is actually in 1, I think, isn't it?
>> I guess it is.
>> Commissioner Davis'
>> county judge and the Commissioner of the precinct where
the project is located.
>> that's fine.
>> pass part of the motion that Commissioner Gomez moved.
>> uh-huh.
>> seconded by Commissioner Daugherty.
>> yes, second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. If joe
will take care of that for us. Schedule that meeting as soon as possible.
Now turning to the items that were posted for executive session today.
Now, on number 43, we did get an update. I don't know that any action is
required today.
>> no.
>> we will check with the county attorney's office tomorrow
and see if we need it back on again next week. 44 we postponed until next
week to give the county attorney's office a further opportunity to review
that claim. 45 I move we authorize the county judge to sign the prepared
written agreement that settles this matter.
>> second.
>> and that we thank mr. Kumkauff that works at the county
attorney's office for his outstanding work on this matter. Any more discussion?
All in favor that passes by unanimous vote. 45 involves the -- the real
estate at forth view, the community -- the department has to move out.
I move that we reject the settlement offer that we counter in the amount
of 45 [indiscernible]
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> We previously announced that we will pull 47. We
did not discuss it. Anything further? Missing anything?
We are out of here; thank you all very much.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 5:19 PM