Travis County Commssioners Court
July 1, 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
Executive session.
>> thank you, joe. 30. Receive briefing from county attorney and authorize county attorney to take appropriate action in the matter of merlin "spanky" handley v. Travis County, et al., In the united states district court, western district of Texas, Austin division regarding: a. Accepting, rejecting or countering offer for settlement; and b. Appoint representative for trial and take any other appropriate action. That will be under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 31. Receive briefing from county attorney regarding state comptroller's request for agreement to extend period of limitations pertaining to audit and take appropriate action. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 32. Receive briefing from county attorney and give direction and take appropriate action regarding former tnr employee james young (young, james; perez; subrogation). That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 33. Receive briefing from county attorney and authorize county attorney to accept, reject or counter offer for settlement and take appropriate action to settle the claim of darla roberson. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 34. Receive briefing from county attorney on laws related to unmarked graves within county road rights of --
>> don't need that one.
>> we do not need 34. Pull it or have it back on next week? Beg your pardon? We will postpone item no. 34 until next week, which is July 8th. 35. 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. This is under the consultation with attorney and the real estate matters exception to the open meetings act. 36. Receive briefing from -- we may need, may not need today, but let's announce it anyway, receive briefing from county attorney regarding open meetings requirements. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. Act, also. We will discuss these items in executive session. But return to open court before taking any action.
>> we have just returned from executive session where we considered the following announced items. Did not discuss number 30 as we are working on -- waiting on the appropriate paperwork, but that will be back on the court's agenda next week. Number 3 involving the comptroller, I move that we move to approve the request for an extension of the limitations to give the comptroller an opportunity to finish the audit and sit down with us and try to work out this matter.
>> second.
>> any more discussion?
>> judge the extension to November from what I understand, is that right, john, was it November? It needs to be the asked for very limited -- [inaudible - no mic]
>> this is not an open-ended extension.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 32 involves the claim of a former employee, james young, actually our claim against him. I move that we reject the offer and counter for the amount of $6,500, lump sum. Paid to Travis County.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We did get a briefing on 33, we requested additional information and we will have it back on the court's agenda in two weeks. Give us another opportunity to look at it. 34 we did not discuss. I think we are waiting on the consultant's report. We said that we put it back on the agenda on the 8th. Do you want to put it back on the 15th to give us the opportunity to get a full complement of court members? Why don't we do that on the lockwood project, July 15th, have it back on. On 35, the proposed howard lane arterial.
>> continue to work on this, judge, and i'll leave it on the agenda. Put it on next week.
>> okay. Do we want to try to have one final meeting with the owners here?
>> no, I don't think so at this time. I think if we do allow staff to direct them to have a particular meeting and they report back to us on -- on this -- on their findings on this particular issue where I don't think it's necessary for us to -- to allow staff and direct staff to do the necessary meetings --
>> my motion is that we ask, direct staff to contact the owners that we have been negotiated with in this matter, one final meeting with two members of the Commissioners court. Yours truly will be at this meeting if this motion passions and any other member of the court that wants to attend. That we try to reach an agreement before that meeting is over and that if we cannot reach an agreement, we all leave with that understanding, this motion basically basically is for us to make one last effort to get all parties involved and two representatives of the court to get with county staff to try to resolve this matter. Further that we ask staff to make a telephone call to set up the meeting and make it clear during that phone call that Commissioners court does not support the two-foot above and below standard that seems to have -- have basically gotten us to this impasse. More than anything else.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any more discussion of that one?
>> judge.
>> my thinking of the motion basically is that staff has been negotiating with the owners. Commissioner Davis and I met with these property owners which has been five, six weeks ago. I don't know that they have accomplished a lot besides working hard. They seem to have reached an impasse on one issue, though. If we could ge off of that one, fine. If we cannot, I distinctly -- we need to work our way around it if we can.
>> my other point, though, was just the [indiscernible] issue, that's my concern right now is that -- of course that hasn't been received very well. So -- it's either that or -- you can proceed, but I investigation my whole point is just that particular portion of that --
>> okay. I agree, I think that's -- [multiple voices]
>> I don't think need to be called.
>> I agree.
>> I would like to -- that to be restipulated. If that situation is -- is not satisfactory I don't think we should have the meeting.
>> I agree. I think it should be in the motion that [indiscernible] staff does not either, our engineer is telling us it makes no sense and if we can get beyond that, there is reason for a meeting. If not, then the meeting basically is unnecessary.
>> exactly.
>> yeah. I would -- you know, encourage everybody to go ahead and get the meeting scheduled, even -- people can always have the opportunity to change their mind at the last minute in terms of wanting to come to the table and visit as opposed to not getting the meeting scheduled. I would highly encourage one or more much those landowners to drive along loop 360 or -- or 2222, which also has some very interesting challenges related to topography, to see for themselves that this two foot standard that is out there is really one that does not keep folks from hooking into a roadway, accomplishing what they want in terms of development. [indiscernible], very greatly from two feet, they get there. The two feet really go see some practical examples. I would offer those two roadways as excellent examples of what we are talking about.
>> the other thing I do think we ought to have this back on the court's agenda for two weeks. Really I think we either ought to insist that either we have moved on to the next stage or -- or --
>> [multiple voices]
>> that is right.
>> I agree with that.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote, thank you very much, we will have this back on on July 15th, also.
>> we have not discussed number 36. I need some additional time to put together some real examples that false take it and be given advice by the county attorney. Rather than do that next week, we will do that two weeks from today, also. John, it would be legal for me to get my lists together, they will sically be -- what we agreed to this way, is that right, can we do this this way? You see what I?m saying, if I send that to the rest of the Commissioners court and they add to my list and then send it to the county attorney, for advance knowledge, preparation, for the 15th is that correct?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay. Yeah. That may be good because I?m trying to get as many real examples as possible.
>> in terms of this posted, is this also attended because our purchasing agent cyd grimes brought up a particular change the open meetings act that I think is also a relevant discussion. It seems like if we are going to capture open meetings requirements, that -- that would be helpful to throw that in there as well. Anything related to open meetings in the state legislature that we also need to be made aware of. We might as well make it a primer day if that's a friendly suggestion.
>> makes sense to me.
>> that would be fine.
>> did we vote on that motion?
>> so move.
>> that really was just directions. We did vote on howard lane, though.
>> yeah.
>> there being no further business today.
>> move adjournment.
>> second.
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, July 1, 2003 5:52 AM