Travis County Commissioners Court
April 12, 2005
Item 14
Last night at the campo meeting, we decided to postpone action on that item until June sixth. Should we postpone that another week?
>> I don't have anything extra.
>> the campo item is 14.
>> unless there's objection, let's just old 14. We've got another -- let's just hold 14. We've got another two weeks. This is come back in two weeks. There's a lot of backup and last night we were given -- I guess it was more than 120 pages.
>> are you talking about the citizens' comments?
>> there was a lot of comments about transportation stuff that was part of the backup. And I don't know whether the other court members want to see that. I can make my copy available if you would like.
>> if you have any comments from other jurisdictions that tnr may not have received, we can look at that as well and see if -- if there's something that we might want to bring back to the court as a result of that. I don't know if the city of Austin has submitted any formal comments. I have not seen any yet, but these other jurisdictions, I believe, are looking at the campo plan. And as they presented comments, we ought to look at that as well.
>> why don't we do that. Maybe we ought to touch base with mike and see what he received. On some of these entities, maybe we should contact them directly and see what their thinking on on these recommendations.
>> all right.
>> why don't we take two weeks on number 14, April 26th?
>> and joe, just a brief conversation I had last night with gary coe of Round Rock. They are working on specific comments, so they would need be checked with. I think the thing that disturbed me on most is on the tac that the city of Austin representative on the tac was abstaining with a lot of critical votes that I thought they would want to weigh in because it's their own jurisdiction. I don't understand the things that are not in your jurisdiction and you don't want to worry about, but it was like, excuse me --
>> the representative was trying to say that their policy body had already taken a position. And what the tac was doing was not in sync with the opposition, so they were abstaining from the vote, just as tnr's view that we recommended to you last Tuesday on manor and 38th and a half street, I probably should have an strained on the recommendation given that the court already had given a position. So that's all they were doing was acknowledging that the city council had taken a position and she did not want to go contrary to that.
>> or you could have voted no so that the tac recommendation would not be a unanimous one or one that appeared to be unanimous. And the abstention, you have to have a little asterick there to explain them. I think we need to find out because that was the one I was concerned about is the manor and 38th and a half street one is, gee, if the city is in sync with them on that one, then let's have --
>> let's just indicate our intention to post tone poen it two weeks.
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, April 13, 2005 10:09 AM