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.
Executive Session Items
We are going to the executive session items. 40 is to receive briefing from county attorney on laws related to unmarked graves within county road rights of way, issues related to lockwood road and lockwood road cemetery and take appropriate action. That will be a variety of legal questions there. 41 is to receive briefing from county attorney in Travis County versus gene hubert johnson, retail deed to richard b. Smith, and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 42 is to receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County versus maria saldana, demetrio rebollar resale deed and take appropriate action. 43 is is to receive briefing from county attorney and consider extended period of administrative leave with pay for francisco s. Rodriguez an employee of the juvenile probation department and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 44, receive advice from county attorney regarding claim for compensation by mr. Larry dunnston for work performed for frank woodberry, aka frank lip woodberry, d/b/a sterling janitorial and maintenance service on Travis County construction project. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 45 is to receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding flower daniel incorporated versus Travis County in the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit. Usdc civil action number a-00-ca-021-ss. This is consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 46 is to receive request to the Texas turn pike 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's the real estate matters and the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. And our last executive session discussion item today is number 47, 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 incorporated versus Travis County, Texas in the district court of Travis County, Texas, 353rd judicial district court, cause number gn 300127, consultation exception with attorney to the open meetings act. We will discuss these matters in executive session and return to open court prior to taking any action. .
>> > we have just returned from executive session where we discussed the following items. Number 40 involving unmarked graves within county right-of-way. Specifically log wood road cemetery. I move that we authorize staff to take the appropriate action to determine what's underneath the log wood road, old log wood road in terms of -- lockwood road in terms of possible graves and we have this matter back on the court's agenda in two weeks.
>> second.
>> two weeks is enough time?
>> [indiscernible]
>> two or three weeks.
>> let's do three weeks, the 17th of June.
>> 17th.
>> with recommendations for appropriate follow-up action. We have been working with the state antiquities commission on that, that we keep working with them as part of the follow-up discussion that we know specifically what they think about our findings and what remedial steps, if any, need to be taken. That was seconded by Commissioner Davis, any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. On 41, I move that we authorize the county judge to execute the prepared resale d'andre hardemaning this property to richard b. Smith for the amount of $2,500, which we have been paid.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. On number 42 I move that we authorize the county judge to sign the appropriate resale deed to demetrrio rebollar, and if that's spanish, Commissioner Gomez, rebollar.
>> because he has paid us 12,641.70.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Did I say we authorize the county judge to sign both of those on behalf of the Commissioners court? Okay. If there's no objection, whether that's part of the motion or not, it will be done. On number 43, involving the leave for francisco rodriguez, I move that we authorize four days of pay covering may 14th, 15th, may 18th, may 19th, to mr. Rodriguez, this will be retroactive compensation.
>> second.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 44 involving the claim for compensation by larry dunsston I move that we authorize settlement for this claim for the amount of $1,000, that the county judge be authorized to communicate to mr. Dunston the reasons why, consistent with the discussion that we had with legal counsel in executive session.
>> second.
>> and that I be authorized to notify the county attorney of his response if accepted that an appropriate release be prepared by the county attorney's office, executed by the county judge, copied to other members of the court to inform you. Okay? Is that friendly?
>> yes.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We did not discuss number 45. We just pulled that item until further discussion. On number 47 I move that we ject the counter to the counter-claim of fortview, incorporated in this matter.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? We seem to be quite a bit apart on that. If we don't get a lot closer, I don't think there's any reason for us to -- to spend more time on it. However, we maintain our long-standing policy of considering any reasonable settlement offer. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 46 --
>> judge, I would like to make a motion on this particular item, essentially I would like to go ahead and request that tta go ahead and construct and design an interchange at s.h. 130 and proposed howard lane during the interim construction of s.h. 130. In addition to that, I would like to move that Travis County be responsible for 7 approximately 3200 feet of constructing two lanes that is above grade. And that the prior owners, which we are talking about three of them at this point, stone, the schribers and the [indiscernible] property owners out there be responsible for constructing two lanes at grade, for approximately 3250 feet. Thousand, knees numbers may change. Also, in addition to that, I would like to propose that -- that 1984 bond money be used by the county to do the -- the a and e work that would be needed for this particular major arterial. In addition to that, I would like to -- to direct the assistant county attorney to prepare the necessary warranty deed that will reflect the particular concerns as much as possible, within that warranty deed, and the commitment from the private owners of those three properties mentioned before, prepare the necessary documents in the warranty deed that would reflect these particular motions. Until the conveyance issue of easement. In addition to that, I think a phase-in agreement should be looked at and approached as we look toward the future and this particular endeavor. So with those particular -- I believe I covered all of them, but I'm not sure. I may have left something out. Also, I would like to encourage t.t.a., The Texas turnpike authority, that we are looking at this interchange and hopefully that howard lane will be at grade. I think it's very important, if it is at grade. So with that I would like to make that all in the form of a long, long, long motion and that future moneys that -- be made available for the next bond election would be looked at for some of the -- of the funding for this particular project as far as Travis County is concerned. So with that I would like to move on that and all of the things that were discussed with these particular private sector because this is a public private venture, looking at the approach to the bridge that we may [indiscernible] out there of the [indiscernible] creek within the particular phase, so even that should be included. So all of those necessary things that we have talked with the private owners and things like that should be disclosed in this particular motion and also reflected in the warranty deed and also the phase-in agreement. That's a long motion, but that's --
>> I second it. Friendly for us to ask -- we need two documents. [indiscernible] plus a deed, right?
>> yes.
>> that we prepare an appropriate agreement that sets forth Commissioner Davis' terms there and any other provisions that we discussed today over lunch and seem able to resolve this matter with. Further, I guess, can we correct joe to go ahead and notify t.t.a. That we seem to have reached agreement on this matter, but need specific language in a document that we can execute next Tuesday during the agenda, have it back on hopefully get with the -- with the appropriate language, get with the property owners so we can execute a document next week that really kind of seals the deal?
>> I think it's very appropriate, judge.
>> just, could I get a clarification in terms of Commissioner Davis referring to responsibilities to those two lanes, those are the additional two lanes, that is not -- because this is going to be a four-lane roadway. There are already commitments in terms of Travis County to do the initial two lanes, what we are talking about is the add-on lanes.
>> right.
>> in terms of the ultimate buildout of this. Clarification that you were talking about applying what moneys we have available in terms of the leftover account from 1984, right? [multiple voices]
>> for engineering and design and that we have some specific needs and desires related to right-of-way to make sure what right-of-way we are getting for howard lane will be sufficient for what we need to build in that roadway and we mean --
>> drainage easements.
>> water quality.
>> [multiple voices]
>> an omnibus right-of-way as opposed to just for the actual right-of-way for the road because as we know, to build roads it takes more than just the pavement that it will be sitting on.
>> this is kind of more a direction than motion. We hope to see something in writing that will capture all of this, you have earned some sort of bonus, I believe.
>> in melissa can get it down to less than two pages.
>> get all of that?
>> I was going to ask if the Commissioners would repeat.
>> you wouldn't do me like that, would you.
>> we are trying to get out of here before 5:00.
>> we have a few things quoig back next week or the week after -- [multiple voices]
>> but this is a very focused agreement related to the -- this intersection only.
>> right.
>> ask one question. With regard to other interests of t.t.a., Should I convey that we are to go continue to work with t.t.a. On those other issues.
>> absolutely. I think that there are resolutions to occur between us, but they need to be handled on their own because each of them has a different set of circumstances and I think each of them has a consensus position that would make all of us very happy, but they need to be approached case by case. And I look forward to a rapid conclusion on all of those discussions. Call us, 9383.
>> any more discussion? Back on next week. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. There being no further business today.
>> move adjournment.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote, also.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2003 7:52 PM