Travis County Commssioners Court
June 17, 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 10
10. Propose subdivision regulation amendments to chapter 82, Travis County code, to resolve inconsistencies with city of Austin code as required by. Hb 1445, and take appropriate action.
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> al, could you raise the volume up? Thank you.
>> this is the loudest i've heard him talk in a long time.
>> these are the changes that have already been agreed to by the city and the county we adopted the local agreement with the city of Austin, but the court has not done -- what the court has not done is actually adopt the code, the county code that brings it about officially. So what this is then is the official action of the court to amend their subdivision regulations to affect the -- the items already agreed to in the interlocal agreement. On 1445.
>> [indiscernible]
>> correct. We have seen these several times over the last six months probably, probably longer. So this is really just a house cleaning issue of finding -- finally adoopting the Travis County -- finally adopting the Travis County code to effect the changes in our subdivision regulations as they have been adopted in the interlocal agreement and also by the city of Austin.
>> joe, by -- by approving this today, this does not have to be -- be revisited by the council if we act on this today, it doesn't have to go back before the city council, is that correct?
>> no. I have believe that they have already taken action.
>> already taken action on their end of it, so we just need to do our portion of this.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> [papers shuffling - audio interference]
>> we are just proposing these today. Not adopting them. We need to post a newspaper notice under the law.
>> okay. That's what I --
>> when you post the newspaper notice for some period of time that the statute doesn't specify how long it can be, as long as you want, then they will come back to you for final adoption.
>> I still move that we -- [laughter]
>> judge, do you -- [multiple voices] are the stakeholders -- they have signed off on this? I know you are saying just a reiteration of what we have gone over, I mean, but you are comfortable with --
>> at this point in time, I think everybody is on board.
>> on board, yeah.
>> I mean, these are literally the ones we have hashed out are probably a year and a half, finally came to the conclusion on them.
>> right.
>> a very good point about necessary and appropriate. How long would that have to be out there before coming back to the court, what level of difficulty?
>> well, like so many things, if you want to do absolutely the safest thing, I would recommend 30 days. Now, most of these you all approved and we posted back in February. But that's when we still had these major issues floating out there. We have added the major issues after that last posting. Again to be absolutely -- I think having gone through one posting period, I think it's defensible to have a short posting period, but to do the absolutely safest thing do 30 days.
>> what would the format of posting be, the same as the memo.
>> pretty much, yeah.
>> so any language tweaking that we need to do we give to you?
>> sure. Tweaking on the ordinance?
>> two or three things -- wordsmithing more than anything else.
>> yeah.
>> not changing the meaning of anything.
>> yeah.
>> you are thinking post and do that tweaking during the 30 days.
>> I am thinking that.
Last Modified: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:52 AM