Travis County Commssioners Court
January 13, 2004
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 let's call back to order the voting session of the Travis County's Commissioners court. And I think this morning we had gone through all of the items except session. We did indicate that we would need to call up item number 12 in executive session for advice of council. Number 12 involves the interlocal agreement between Travis County and the city of Austin for regulation of subdivisions in the e.t.j. So we'll call it up. To consult with our lawyers. We have been asked to postpone item number 27 for two weeks. 27 involves jody marshal and Travis County. Two weeks will be January 27th. 24 is to receive briefing from county attorney, give direction and/or take appropriate action regarding lease for 2919 manchaca road premises. And that's under the consultation with attorney and the real property exception to the open meetings act. 25 is to receive briefing and take appropriate action regarding ongoing litigation in congressional redistricting matter. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 26, receive briefing, consider settlement offer and take appropriate action in claim regarding ian taylor versus margo frasier, et al, that's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 27 postponed two weeks as previously mentioned. 28, consider and take appropriate action regarding the request for zoning change on the property adjacent to 4011 mckinney falls parkway. And we do have rosie and jim here with us today in case we need them. 29, that's a real property exception to the open meetings act, by the way. 29, receive legal advice on requirements for citizens communication agenda item during Commissioners court meetings and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney. There is backup on that item as well as backup on number 30, receive legal advice from county attorney regarding various questions under the Texas open meetings act. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act also. We'll discuss these matters in executive session, but will return to open court before taking any action.
>> judge, can I ask one question? On number 28, did you announce that as attorney-client? It really needs to be attorney-client rather than real estate. I'm sorry we gave you the wrong wording.
>> 28 we will be in executive session under consultation with legal counsel instead of real estate. Right?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>>
>>
>> we have just returned from executive session where we discussed the following items: number 12, involving the interlocal between the city of Austin and Travis County for regulation of subdivisions in the e.t.j.
>> go ahead.
>> I would move that we certify on all issues on this matter, with the exception of the issue of fees and the potential of duplication of fees because of duplication of services.
>> second.
>> and that an appropriate follow-up order be prepared for us for next Tuesday's signature that will clearly lay out the reasons why we feel that way and the very specifics about what things we are certifying and what it is that we are not.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. Some appropriate document that evidences --
>> yeah, beyond the minutes so that somebody can get a clear understanding of finalizing nine months of discussion.
>> so we will have it back on for that purpose. Any more discussion? All in favor? Show everybody present and Commissioner Gomez away from the rest of the meeting. She had another commitment that she had to run to. We discussed item number 24 involving the property at 2919 manchaca road. I move that we authorize staf to settle part of the outstanding issues for the amount of $3,345.75, which represents one half of the $6,691 that we have refused to pay the landlord in this matter. I think we did retain that amount of money. The motion basically is to pay the landlord half of it as the landlord requested to resolve out standing issues.
>> thank you.
>> any more discussion?
>> is it friendly, judge, that that true up happen as quickly as we can get going in terms of quick? And then I think the source of this at this point is out of lease savings, but if there is another option that that will be brought back to us if there is another option, but lease savings would be the source.
>> that's friendly to me. All in favor that passes by unanimous vote. Number 25 we did get an update on. We need this matter back on next week in the event that there is additional information that we need to get. And ms. Ford, do we need are 24 back on next week just in case? The manchaca road?
>> yes, put it back on. [ inaudible ].
>> okay. Number 26 involves mr. Taylor versus margo frasier and others. I move that we counter to the counter to the counter, wherever we are on that, in the amount of $70,000. $70,000. With a reminder to the defendant victim in this case that the deputy in question no longer is employed by Travis County and this goes with our full apology for what happened.
>> second.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 28 we were told has been postponed for two weeks, therefore there's no requirement that we take action today. My suggestion would be that we postpone it one week, give us another week to mull over this. And maybe follow-up discussion on what we discussed today so if it necessary to take action, we have plenty of time before the Commissioner's next meeting.
>> okay.
>> we did not discuss items 29 and 30 because I think we need a full court here for those, and I want those back on the court's agenda for next week, 29 and 30. Which really involves how we conduct business as a court. That would mean either another item or a long list of questions that we'll have to have legal advice on. My view is that there is no business for the court today.
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 7:18 AM