Travis County Commissioners Court
August 9, 2005
Executive Session
I will announce we will take up item number 10 for a follow-up discussion in executive session under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act and the real estate matters exception. And we will discuss the following items in executive session, 25, receive briefing from county attorney and/or take appropriate action in cinco j versus Travis County, roy michael green, mj dean and michael wallace. Consultation with attorney. 26, consider and take appropriate action on purchase contract with diane finch grant for the approximately 83.4004 acres of land in connection with the balance conies canyonlands conservation plan. We are told we do not -- okay, we need 26?
>> 26, yes.
>> consultation on attorney on 26. 27 we do not need today. Have it back on next week. And that's August 16th. 28, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action in rosenbaum versus Travis County. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 29, receive legal advice and take appropriate action on reurbs relating to the Travis County kpheupld prom policy and/or tax abatement policy. Consultation with attorney. I do not think we need 30 today because 30 depends on 29. We'll have 30 back on next week and hopefully next week be able to take action on 29. Today I think we just need to discuss it and get questions, recommendations, et cetera. 31, receive briefing from county attorney and/or authorize county attorney to accept, reject or counter settlement demand and/or take appropriate action regarding angela d. Stedtler versus Travis County. Consultation with attorney. 32, receive briefing from county attorney in Travis County et al. Versus francis and ruth high lie and take appropriate action. Consultation with attorney. 33, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding a Travis County precinct 2 constable office employee, slot number 7. That's the consultation with attorney and personnel matters exception to the open meetings act. And number 34, a long list of tax resale deeds, receive briefing from the county attorney and take appropriate action regarding offers to purchase resale property by cse development, llc, in the following tax lawsuits, all properties located in precinct 3. That's posted under the consultation with attorney and the real estate matters exceptions to the open meetings act. A, Travis County et al. Versus duane v. Kemerer. B, Travis County et al. Versus graciela corona ortega, trustee. C, Travis County, et al., versus virginia I will v. And mary ann graves. D, Travis County et al. Versus kenneth d olson. E, Travis County versus james h. And sandra l. Davis. F, Travis County et al. Versus kenneth d. Olson. G, Travis County, et al., versus suites costa dorada. H, Travis County et al. Versus julian r. And kathleen lang. I, Travis County et al. Versus taufan, t-a-u-f-a-n, palatehan. J, Travis County et al. Versus ronald and barbara sejd. K, Travis County versus james g. Alexander jr. L, Travis County et al. Versus michael d turner. M, Travis County et al. Versus wallace r. And betty j haynes. And n, Travis County versus delainh adams. We'll discussion these in executive discussion before return to open court before taking any action.
court adjourned for lunch without taking any action.
we will call this item (15) up in executive session. Under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
we also call up in executive session 26. Consider and take appropriate action on purchase contract with diane finch grant for the acquisition of approximately 83.404 acres of land in connection with the balcones canyonlands conservation plan. That's the real property exception to the open meetings act. We will discuss -- 29, 29. Receive legal advice and take appropriate action on issues relating to the Travis County economic development program policy and/or tax abatement policy. 32. Receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County, et al v. -- by the way, 29 is the consultation with attorney. Receive briefing from the county attorney in Travis County et al versus francis m. & ruth h. Highly (tony cernosek resale deed) and take appropriate action. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. That's item no. 32. 34, I john I read that in its entirety this morning.
>> feel free to summarize on that one.
>> another resale deed to the by csc development, llc, these properties located in precinct 3 and there is one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, all of which were read in detail and in entirety this morning, we will discuss these in executive session but return to open court before taking any action.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed the following items: item number 15, we did get our legal questions answered. We previously indicated our intention to postpone this action until next week, August 16th. Anything further on this item today?
>> could have with have it on at an earlier time in the day, judge?
>> I can try to do that.
>> I would rather do it earlier. That's just me.
>> the other big item we will postpone another week until the 23rd.
>> but I know we do have the bond committee.
>> delinquent taxes.
>> is the bond committee going to meet?
>> we did receive their report and we'll take action on the 23rd.
>> the hearing is not until the next week. Thank you, judge.
>> anything else on 15 today? Thank you for waiting around mr. Gossling. We also discussed briefly number 25. And -- or did we?
>> no action.
>> next week?
>> next week.
>> number 26, rather, involves the property owned by di an finch grant.
>> judge, I would like to instruct them to make the offer of the state offer price.
>> and we would like a response back within one week?
>> in that case we will have it back on the agenda next week. Any discussion of the motion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 27, we did not discuss. 28, rosenbaum versus Travis County --
>> we'll have that back on next week and hopefully have something final.
>> okay. 29 we did discuss with counsel. No action required today. Right mary ellen?
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> the options that you outlined for us, the combination one was four, wasn't it? Option number 4, and request that the Commissioners -- members of the Commissioners court get to you any additional comments they have to the drafts by late Thursday afternoon so you can give us the quickest turn jrnd add on that and hopefully we can review it and take action then. Okay. 31 involves a matter that's going before the district judge on Thursday. We did get a briefing. We'll have it back on the court's agenda next Tuesday. Any action required today? Okay. I don't know of any. 32 is the proposed resale deed. I move that we authorize the county judge to sign the proposed resale today to tony cernosek who has given Travis County $4,500 in cash.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And on number 33, I guess we ought to give some thought to whatever funding issues there are. I need to get with lisa and make sure I understand what they are. We will have it back on the court's agenda next week, maybe with a specific proposal that I will try to give to the court in writing before Tuesday.
>> judge, really at this point in the fiscal year, we're running out of where it really makes any difference because anything that's leftover in the department anyway, it all winds up falling in the balance.
>> it could be easy for us.
>> could be easy.
>> number 34 involves an offer for 14 pieces of property, a will you n. I -- a through n. I move that we authorize the county judge to sign the proposed resale deed, one deed, that involves 14 tracts of land, all of which are in the lago vista isd. The deed is to cse development, llc, which has paid Travis County the sum of $95,000 in cash.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Aready coulding to -- according to my records, number 23, the item that we need to set a public hearing on,, move that we schedule the public hearing on August 30th, number 23, August 30th at nine a.m.
>> second.
>> any discussion on that? All in favor?
>> don't forget number 10.
>> okay. Is that by unanimous vote, number 23? By unanimous vote.
>> we still have 10 related to howard lane.
>> number 10, that's coming from -- as far as the recommendation by the advisory committee, do we want to make a recommendation today?
>> I?d like to make a motion, I?d like to move that based on a letter dated 7-22-05 to ben hodges, based on that response, I move that we proceed and continue to work with the weaver and schreiber landowners on the proposed howard lane east project, if this is their desire.
>> second.
>> okay. Do we want to just leave open the possibility of continuing to work with mr. Stone if he has any interest in doing so.
>> if he does, we'd still like to leave it open for them. But I know there are two persons that basically looked at us and basically looked at the way -- they're ready to go. That's fine, but right now we're ready to deal with those that are ready to go now.
>> do we know for a fact that the other -- that the other two are willing to stay in it?
>> that's why I stated if they are willing. If it their desire. We are willing to work with them if we are close to what we have asked them to do.
>> it seems like from my perspective, I would still like to leave the door open to mr. Stone --
>> we're not closing the door.
>> but he needs to understand we're not even close and I hope he would review why we have this discrepancy. And related to weaver and sclieber, we are -- shieber, we are close, but I think separate negotiation with them could get us to a place that is mutually acceptable based on the same principles that we are applying on the stone case in terms of rough proportionality --
>> the motion is if we can pursue agreements with those two with the door left open?
>> right, with the door left open. That's why I say continue to work. Proceed to continue to work with those two.
>> okay. That was seconded by Commissioner Gomez?
>> uh-huh.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Anything further today?
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote also.
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:
Tuesday, August 9, 2005 8:51 PM