This is the official website of Travis County, Texas.

On This Site

Commissioners Court

Previous Years' Agendas

Intergovernmental Relations Office

Administrative Ops

Health & Human Svcs

Criminal_Justice

Planning & Budget

Transportation & Natural Resources
 

On Other Sites

Travis County Commssioners Court
January 20, 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.

Item 23

View captioned video.

23 is to consider -- we are looking for a document here more than anything else.
>> I got a document from tom's e-mail, but I don't know if that was the final version of it. There's tom.
>> anybody else short on backup besides me? Have you all got yours? 23.
>> as a matter of fact, joe suggested a revision, so I have a revised one.
>> bless you.
>> call it up. 23. Consider document to certify compliance with chapter 242, local government code, regarding the interlocal agreement between Travis County and the city of Austin for regulation of subdivisions in the extra territorial jurisdiction (etj), and take appropriate action. This is the joint city/county subdivision approval project.
>> bless you.
>> I had suggested to tom that we specifically reference the law and the proficience of the law and the resolutions so that we can reflect what it was that we believe that we have done to meet the law. That's what the underlined section is.
>> what this does in the closing paragraph, just before the date is, basically for us to certify compliance with the exception of the authority to collect fees, as provided in -- in our interlocal?
>> right.
>> and that's a matter that we are still working on, the city disagreed with us about whether fees are covered by this legislation anyway. We believe that it is just based on implication, expressions made while the bill was under consideration, et cetera. But we are trying to work on it anyway.
>> right.
>> okay.
>> I would move approval of the order as revised by t.n.r. And --
>> second.
>> tom nuckols.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank you very much.
>> thank you, tom. Thank you, joe.
>> thanks.


Last Modified: TUesday, January 21, 2004 8:25 AM