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
February 3, 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.

Number 23, if tnr is around, 23 is to consider interlocal agreement with the village of weberville for the permitting, licensing and inspection of on-site sewage systems within the village and take appropriate action.
>> good morning, carol joseph, tnr. The mayor of the village of weberville requested that we continue to provide on-site septic services for them now that they're incorporated. We've done the same thing for the city of san leeann in a, and our septic staff has ma made their performance to be able to do that. We don't expect to see millions of septic systems being put in, so we feel that we could -- our staff could accommodate this. And what we did is charge an extra surcharge of 10% for that. And we've done the same thing for the city of san leeanna.
>> judge, I spoke with the mayor on this yesterday. Mayor gonzales. And he would like for us to go ahead and move forward with this particular item.
>> and if there's no objection, i'll go ahead and move approval of item number 23.
>> second by Commissioner Gomez.
>> so the city of weberville village knows about the 10% surcharge?
>> yes, sir.
>> and they agreed to pay it?
>> yes, sir.
>> actually, it's the applicant who pays it.
>> I thought the 10% was tacked on.
>> no, it is not. The city pays it. It's a fee for performing this service.
>> nine percent is supposed to be our cost less labor. 10 percent covers our labor. So we don't pocket from this.
>> none at all.
>> we're trying to get reimbursed 100%.
>> that's correct.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.


Last Modified: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 6:25 AM