Travis County Commssioners Court
May 27, 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 26
Carol, since we have you here, number 26 is to approve a preliminary plan in precinct 3 of the brodie subdivision. Sewage service to be provided by the city of Austin. No e.t.j. Commissioner Daugherty had comments.
>> carol, I just wanted to say that if we got back to the city of Austin wanting to pull this and talk about it. And I'm certainly inclined to do that, but I would like for the city to know that I am in complete agreement with our staff insofar as what we have done work wise on this tract. Is this outside the city e.t.j. And we do have the authority to do this, but I am more than willing to sit down with the city and anybody else that would like to sit down with me. I will make contact with ms. Gordon's office today and see if we can set up a meeting as to what seems to be the issue here. Joe?
>> if I might add, the -- it's our understanding that when the city of Sunset Valley released their e.t.j., That it took an affirmative action on the part of the city to make it their e.t.j. Lisa gordon called me and se she had that a-- she said that according to her attorneys, the e.t.j. Automatically reverts to the city of Austin, and therefore they didn't do the normal thing that they would do is send us a letter. When they annex, they always send us a letter saying this is now in our e.t.j. Or in our corporate limits. We didn't get such a letter in this case, so we thought it was in no e.t.j. But basically I guess a misunderstanding about whether or not it was in the e.t.j. Of Austin. In this case I would defer to the city because we are in a single office. If they and their attorneys consider it to be within their e.t.j., I have to respect that as part of the single office, and that's somewhat the background, the additional letter that we got from lisa. I don't know what our attorneys would say about the automatic reversion of the e.t.j., But that was some of the confusion that we were operating in.
>> well, i've at least got a little bit of background with respect to what generally happens when the city takes this stand and there seems to be some inconsistencies with that. I'm more than willing to sit down and talk to the city about this, but the information that I have to date, you know, I am convinced that we have the ability to approve this, but I guess we could talk about that. We do have -- terry, would you like to address anything with regards to that? Let the court know who we you are.
>> my name is (indiscernible) green. What I would say is I think that there is a legal issue here as to whether or not this property can come into the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the city of Austin without some aformative action by the city council. The case suggests that it can't, that there has to be some action by Austin. Austin hasn't taken any action. That's why we filed our -- we filed three preliminary subdivision applications since last September. We filed a Sunset Valley, they released. We filed with Austin. Austin rejects the application. We then did the resemp, determined that we were in nobody's e.t.j. Notified the county attorney of that. Their initial determination was we were in nobody's e.t.j. And we filed our third preliminary subdivision application in March with Travis County. It's now ready for approval. I'd be happy to sit down with you, Commissioner Daugherty, and anyone at the city and the county attorney, who I would would be a very important person to sit down and go through this.
>> can I clarify something, terry? What I got was our interlocal with the city of Austin on house bill 1445 requires them to notify us any time their e.t.j. Changes. So I told tnr it's safe to assume that this is not in city of Austin's e.t.j. Until you get the jts that's required by the interlocal.
>> is that an easy cure that they basically send a letter saying it's in, and is it possible to say, and it's been in since blank date, which basically back times the decision or is this something that can only be pro spekt active? It's a legal question for --
>> well, I don't think the notice -- I don't think the sending of the notice is what determines whether it's in the e.t.j. Or not. The notice is simply so that the city is telling us their partner in subdivisioning platting, its e.t.j., You need to follow the process that's in the interlocal and not the process you would follow, you know, if it was not in any city's e.t.j.
>> was there any time limitation involved with the city of Austin for them to pull this item, and if so, do we have any recollection of how much time are we looking at? Can anybody else answer that question?
>> I know that there's no time constraint on y'all. This is a preliminary plan and there's not a final plat associated with it. There's no deadline either under the statutes or under your own regulations for action. So there's no deadline you have to meet by acting today or any time soon.
>> then I'm more than happy to call a meeting with the city, terry, and whoever else from your camp needs to be part of that, if that's okay with the court, and find out and bring it back. It will probably take a couple of weeks.
>> that would be fine.
>> and do that, judge.
>> is this something that could be in anybody else's e.t.j.? If it's not Sunset Valley, it's either Austin -- I mean, does it even qualify for being no man's land out there in terms of nobody's e.t.j. Because of its proximity to the city's existing lines?
>> it's possible to be in nobody's e.t.j. I think that's a possibility.
>> I'm just thinking because of the location it usually has to be a certain kind of a distance from the five-mile-outline.
>> if there is an e.t.j., It's either Austin or Sunset Valley.
>> and Sunset Valley has already said we're out. Got it.
>> exactly.
>> when they rejected the application, what reason did they give?
>> you have to interpret. There are some comments that they put on a rejection form, but generally I would interpret them to be we think this needs to be submitted under our original ordinance requirements and not those ordinance requirements of Sunset Valley, which were in effect when you filed that application. Chapter 242 of the local government code has a grandfather provision. They rejected the grandfather provision.
>> so should we have it back on in two weeks? That is June 10th?
>> thanks.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2003 7:52 PM