Travis County Commissioners Court
October 19, 2004
Executive Session Items
That brings us back to executive session. We do have to bring up one other item, but I don't see our lawyer here. 28. Receive briefing and take appropriate action in paul koen v. Margo frasier, et al (koen; frasier; civil rights) (requested by plaintiff. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 29. Receive briefing and take appropriate action in jodi marshall v. Travis County, et al. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 30. Consider and take appropriate action regarding an opportunity to purchase real estate in south central Austin. In case we need that, one that will be the real property exception to the open meetings act. Final item, in executive session, 31. Consider and take appropriate action regarding salary for executive manager of health and human services. That's the personnel matters exception to the open meetings act. We will discuss these matters in executive session. But will return to open court before taking any action.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed the following
items: 28, if paul koen matter. I move that we counter -- reject the offer
to settle and offer in the amount of 15,000.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners droughtry,
Sonleitner, yours truly in favor, voting against Commissioner Gomez. 29, move
we reject the offer to participate in the settlement of the nurses part of
this lawsuit.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Number 30 we did not discuss. Somebody needs to let me know later today or
tomorrow whether that item needs to be back on the court's agenda next week.
We did discuss number 31. Between now and next Tuesday I will chat with the
executive manager involved in this matter and other members of the court may
want to do so also one on one. We'll have it back on the court's agenda next
Tuesday for formal action. This morning we did discuss item 12. We did not
discuss this matter in executive session, but we left open the question of
whether we by law are required to post the fee changes that we discussed.
>> there is a section in the statutes that talks about the
county adopting subdivision regulations, and in that section it says you have
to do a newspaper notice beforehand. So there's your posting requirement.
In an entirely different section is authority for the Commissioners court
to impose review fees on plats. And it doesn't contain any sort of advance
notice, hearing or posting requirements. So it seems to me you can read the
law to say you really don't even have to adopt a regulation to impose your
fees. You just have to say we're going to impose a fee. And under the statute,
there's no notice or hearing requirement as a prerequisite.
>> so is that ad you mentioned really more of an information
schedule that gets published so if somebody says what are they it's in the
public notices section?
>> right.
>> okay.
>> so the fees we looked at in the backup such that we will
adopt that item in toto, that document, and that would be it?
>> they are all review fees, right, joe?
>> [inaudible].
>> what was part of your backup was the fee schedule. It
included the subdivision review fuse. It also included park fees that have
already been adopted by the court, so it basically a red-line version of the
fee schedule including those changes made because of the 1445 agreement.
>> so if we have the authority to adopt a fee and impose
it immediately and still advertise it and have the public hearing -- I mean
what I’m fighting is a long-standing principle on my part to give notice of
the fees and have an opportunity to get public input.
>> there's nothing that precludes you from doing that if
you choose to. Clearly you can do that if you want.
>> to do that, though, we have to --
>> as a matter of policy.
>> do we have to go through the normal way we call a public
hearing?
>> I think you can do whatever you want because you are simply
doing it as a matter of policy or good government. There's no set legal requirement
on how you do it. You are not legally required to do it, so if you just want
to do it, you can do it any way you khaoeus.
>> could we just post something for next Tuesday saying we're
going to have the public hearing and the action item on for next Tuesday?
>> I would feel better doing it that way.
>> we're only losing a week.
>> I don't expect rolls of people to come down, but I would
feel like every now and then somebody comes up with something we hadn't thought
about.
>> would you adopt part a, the interlocal agreement? I think
this is scheduled for the city council meeting.
>> makes sense to me.
>> so we'll go ahead and put together an item for the fees
for next Tuesday.
>> then I would move adoption of amendment number 3 as listed
under 12-a.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> go for it.
>> so 12-b we simply post this as a public hearing at 9:00
and we post it for action also and go ahead and do it then. Is that okay?
>> we'll put it together.
>> we lose a week, but at least --
>> that's all right because that just is about the subdivision
fees, although there's some other things listed, it's just about the subdivision
fees.
>> okay.
>> let's do that. So we'll just have -- do we think the wording
on 12-b is fine for next week? Put it in a different place, we'll do it that
way. Okay.
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.
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:30 PM