Travis County Commssioners Court
December 23, 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
We completed all of our business except the executive session items. , number 37, receive briefing from county attorney, give direction and/or take appropriate action and/or authorize county attorney to accept, reject or counter settlement offer regarding project number 01 b 01-09-2 ca, consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 38, receive briefing from county attorney and give direction and/or take appropriate action and/or accept, reject or counter settlement offer regarding project 01 b 01-09-2 ca, grand avenue park way; parcel number 3. That will be the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act also. 39, receive briefing, consider settle offer and take appropriate action in claim re: ian taylor versus margo frazier, et all. Taylor, phraser, civil rights. This will be the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 40, receive briefing and take appropriate action regarding ongoing litigation in congressional redistricting matter. Consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. And because we have already dealt with 41, our final item will be number 42, receive briefing from county attorney regarding property at 1412 collier in Austin, Texas, and take appropriate action. That will be the consultation with attorney and real property exception to the open meetings act. We'll discuss these matters in executive session, but we'll return to open court before taking any action.
>>
>> [executive session]
>>
>> we have just returned from executive session where we discussed the following items. Number 37, involving grand avenue parkway and the parcel owned by the perales.
>> judge, I move that we accept their counteroffer in the amount of $27,000 and we designate that the attorney county attorney's office is authorized to help work out the exact details of moving the sign along with lamar advertising and the city of Pflugerville.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 38, involving another parcel of land necessary for the grand avenue parkway project.
>> judge, I move that we reject their counteroffer in the amount of $71,000 and we counter their counter in the amount of $45,000 and this does include the drainage easement that we need for grand avenue.
>> second.
>> and that's the schaefer tract?
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 39 involving the claim of former inmate taylor against the county sheriff.
>> judge, I move that we reject their offer and counter in the amount of $35,000.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And finally, we got a brief status report on item number 40, the redistricting litigation. No action required today. We'll is that back on the court's agenda next week in the event we need it. 42, regarding 1412 collier in southwest Travis County, this apparently is county-owned property. I move that we authorize the rifg management office -- risk management office to spend up to $3,000 from the risk management fund to erect appropriate fencing and apply appropriate signage to save guard that property and hopefully keep individuals and especially young people off until we decide what follow-up action to take. It is our position that the property as currently situated is probably a little too dangerous for some of the youth activities taking place there, and we need probably to take -- to do a follow-up study and take additional steps, which we will take after the first of the year, if not before.
>> second.
>> county attorney?
>> judge, you had mentioned signage and fencing. I’m not sure if there if you might use the term remediation because the pool -- dan, are we talking about refilling it? So if you would use the term in that motion of remediation up to 3,000 because I think they wanted to fill that pool.
>> do you want to fill the pool before you decide some other stuff? Do you want to fill it now or do you want to cover it?
>> you're talking about filling it with dirt. Putting the dirt back in it. [ laughter ]
>> it's a housekeeping measure. We're just losing stuff there.
>> including any and all appropriate remedial steps.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? The intent is for this to be on the court's agenda back in mid January for us to maybe take final action on this matter. There's been some effort to sell this, and we may want to beef up the effort to get what is an acceptable price. It could be that interested parties in the neighborhood want to acquire this and have the financial ability to do so. It may be a matter of us killing two birds with one stone. That's not part of the motion, just kind of an aside. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. There being no further business for the court today --
>> judge, before we adjourn, I would like to wish each and every one of you a merry christmas, and those out in the viewing audience, I want to extend a merry christmas to all of you.
>> that's moved and seconded by the court.
>> and happy hanakkuh.
>> and happy hanakkuh.
>> that passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 7:26 AM