Travis County Commssioners Court
November 4, 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
Now we are ready for executive session. And we just discussed a-4. No, that was 37 we discussed, wasn't it? That is -- 18 we just discussed, the briefing on under utilized businesses, recommendations for improving the county's program. We will take this item into executive session to advise the council. Three questions we asked in open court. There may be others in executive session, but we will discuss that item. Number a-4, consider and take appropriate action regarding Travis County involvement in legal action okay to congressional redistricting effort by the Texas legislature. This would be the advice to council exception to the open meetings act. So those two we are taking in. Then we have the items that are posted for executive session. 41, discussion acquisition of approximately 254.53 acres of land owned by r-bar-b properties, inc. In connection with the balcones canyonland conservation plan, and take appropriate action. That's the real property exception to the open meetings act. 42. Receive briefing from county attorney and authorize county attorney to accept, reject, counter offer or settlement offer and take appropriate action in cause no. Gn-300127; Austin 1825 fortview, inc. V. Travis County, Texas, in the 353rd district county of Travis County, Texas. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 43. Consider and take appropriate action on lease at 2919 manchaca road, precinct three justice of the peace and constable offices. That's under the consultation with attorney and the real property exceptions to the open meetings act. And we do need a-2 in executive session, the matter involving the precinct 4 office building.
>> yes.
>> didn't we just [indiscernible]?
>> I don't think we have to announce that one. We'll discuss these items in executive session, but we'll return to open court before taking any action.
>>
>>
>> we have just returned from executive session. Where we discussed the following items. Involving stanley taking action to legally object to the con greg simmonsal redistricting effort by the Texas legislature. I move that we authorize the county attorney to file a motion to intervene on Travis County's behalf and that we authorize the count attorney at the appropriate time as the county attorney sees necessary to retain outside counsel and obligate the county up to the amount of $25,000 initially and to come back to the court once that amount is exhausted.
>> second.
>> any discussion of motion?
>> yes, judge, I have a few -- I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> no, Commissioner Gomez and Commissioner Davis seconded at the same time.
>> I just want to make sure that I get some things in the record that I would like to be part of the record as this thing moves forward because some of us do not have the luxury of -- I think it was mr. Robbins that said that all of our constituents may want us to do this, some of my constituents may want me to do this, but there is this huge block of folks that I'm going to respect perhaps giving them a lot more respect than were given some of us during the legislative session regarding other viewpoints being represented. I find it incredible that my brother who lives here in Austin right now are in the same congressional district and that is being split up so that I will be in the same congressional district with my brother in katy, Texas, and my Austin brother will be in a different district. I flew over the tenth congressional district to get to houston and I flew over the 25th to get to the mexican border and that just seemed absurd even from 37,000 feet. I absolutely believe that this redistricting plan not only disenfranchises people here in Austin, but everybody in between, because if you think we're feeling beat up and lousy about this, there are those that are living in small towns like gidings and karnes city who think they can't even last because they're competing with two book ends on this. I don't see any evidence in terms of what the legislature did of the same kinds of rules of engagement that we used when we went through redistricting. And believe me, it's not a pleasant process. We did have standards related to compact contiguous communities of interest, and yes, whether anybody likes it, incumbency is one of those standards. That does not mean that you guaranty that an incumbent must win. It just means that they have a reasonable shot at attaining success, that it's not so stacked against that that person has zero chance of being elected in their district. I think some of the issues that are real problematic for me is that there's so much uncertainty, the deadlines are coming up and there's vast new areas that somebody may or may not be representing. We've talked about the confusion at the precinct polls. This court spent an incredible amount of time, energy and money to make sure that all of our lines between congressional lines, senatorial lines, Commissioner lines, all of those things follow the same thing and now we've got new lines coming that do not match what we have put into place related to what are the true boundaries of a particular precinct and we heard from one of those persons this morning talking about their neighborhood has been split up where that previously did not occur. Again, as I said, I'm not -- i've got other viewpoints within precinct 2 that I am going to respect. I have been floating this by folks in my precinct for the last three weeks and I can't go there. I'm going to respect the other viewpoints that are out there, although I personally think that what happened on redistricting was a disgrace and I personally entered my own testimony into the record, and I want these things to be part of it. But some of my constituents do not want that, and I have to respect their viewpoint on this.
>> okay.
>> I would like to say, judge, that...
>> we're about to lose...
>> sorry.
>> Margaret.
>> I need to put that in the record.
>> okay. But I would like to make a comment.
>> discussion. All in favor of the motion, show Commissioner Gomezs, Davis.
>> thank you, Commissioner. I like to say that this has been a long hard struggle as we've gone through the pains of looking at this Texas legislature redistricting plan. I had an opportunity to participate at the very first public hearing at the house subcommittee public hearing concerning this redistricting effort and of course I was probably one of the first local officials to testify upholding the particular redistricting and the reason why I opposed that at that time and I continue to oppose the redistricting plan as it's drawn right now is that, number one, it does disenfranchise precinct 1, it does disenfranchise the community that I represent. In example the african american folks that reside within precinct 1. We told almost all -- about 80,000 folks totally all together, but of that 80,000, district 10 in the way it's configured right now will single ou african american voters in that area, you know, registered as people that can get out and vote and things like that, and then as far as 290 south, you talk about a population of i-35 which is district 25, you're talking about another 44,000 and then of course the other 8,000 is in district 21 which is from congressman lamar smith who resides in san antonio, so, yes, it does have a very, very negative impact on the community that I represent and of course we would fight and I think of all of these people in Travis County the numbers that i've seen opposing this particular legislature redistricting plan that is in the courtous to be reviewed. So again, I would just like to say -- thank this court in the direction of intervention. I think it's the appropriate thing to do, because I think out here have said, yes, we want the county to intervene, and so we're going to look in the direction. Thank you.
>> we also discussed 41 involving the balcones con I don't knowland conservation band and also made offer to r bar b. I move that we rescind the offer and proceed to negotiate with others.
>> second.
>> anymore discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Show Commissioners [inaudible] the rest of the meeting. Number 42 we did announce but did not discuss because we were asked to postpone that item until next week. 43 involves county lease space on manchaca road. Any action at 5:30 today?
>> no, sir.
>> [inaudible]
>> I have just decided not to do that.
>> okay.
>> right. Not to do that today. I was going to have it back on the agenda with different wording next week, see if the court is interested in doing that.
>> okay.
>> I think we said no action on 43?
>> [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay. And we did discuss earlier number 43, and suggested that we may be able to get clarification of different issue s if we could get the developer down with us, and we do have him with us now. A 3 involves an effort to basically extend [inaudible] from section 3 subdivision and this will involve the county clinic property, so we have been asked basically to indicate that we had no interest in the matter, authorize the city manager to go ahead and approve the subdivision request.
>> that's correct.
>> that formation [inaudible] this is an overview of the property that we had at the community clinic. This is the roadway in the parking lot and this is the roadway right here, the access to the intersection, and here this line eight here is the railroad track. Okay. I turned this way and that's what you have in front of you as an 11 by 17 sheet, it shows the property in the subdivision, this is a wild horse subdivision number 3, and this is the roadway -- access roadway to our property right here. Now, we discussed with the developer, danny burnett, the extent of the street, we extend it along the property right here, so the property right here is lot number 1, long-term access to our property, because we don't know about that road right here, what's our legal right on that. So this is -- we don't think it's a county road, it's a city road, it's just an access. So this is -- by granting us an access right here to our property along the new carey manor street access down the right. Right now they do have the library right now. They do have some jogging around here to get back to the property in case we have to vacate this access road. Today in the court we discussed this item right here which is to waive our right for any access to our property for this street this is the black manor road this way. We don't need any access to our property from this side. So I have the developer with us here, he can expand on that if you have any questions.
>> that is an access easement or a prescriptive easement. I want to make sure that joe explains it to me in a way that I understand exactly what this road is.
>> it's interesting. Manor road is a driveway [inaudible] and so the city is requiring the krukd of a new carey street because it's telling the applicant that's not a city street.
>> got it.
>> so my question is who is maintaining the road. The city is not. It's totally within the city. The lights went on, perhaps we have a driveway, but we don't have any legal right to the property underneath the driveway. So we're saying we need to take the opportunity to buy ourselves an insurance property just in case we don't have rights to the right of way of the railroad, and that's what we have before you is a letter where the applicant is going to convey one lot that will connect a new road to our property, doesn't mean we'll stop using the driveway that we currently use, but you know railroads, somewhere down the line they may call the question, we don't know how that will turn out. We will certainly argue that we've had access by that, we have rights to it, and everything else, but just in case we lose that battle, I think we've effected a better access long-term.
>> it's each weirder than that, joe, because it says it was quit claimed to the city of Austin property.
>> yes, that is the railroad, the city, the capital metro, you know.
>> this is technically part of the capital metro right of way?
>> that's correct.
>> joe, work it into the conversation [laughter]
>> plano gidings line.
>> got it.
>> and is the developer willing to do the lot 1?
>> yes.
>> I don't know if y'all reach nid final conclusion tons driveway yet, I know there was a school down there, when I was in Travis County we peafed that road and treated it like a county road so...
>> I understand. There's a lot of issues. This is an insurance policy. The applicant has also asked for an easement for a sewer line and we have been in discussions with him about that, so there's somewhat of an exchange explicit in this dedication of a lot.
>> this kind of reminds me a lot of mr. Barstow and the causeway.
>> [inaudible] [multiple voices]
>> no interest in this issue, working it out, no objection to the request for subdivision approval.
>> yes, sir.
>> then I move approval.
>> second?
>> with the ladder.
>> mr. Jones?
>> anymore discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote. Thanks for coming out. We appreciate it.
Last Modified: Tuesday, November 5, 2003 9:52 AM