Travis County Commissioners Court
January 17, 2006
Executive Session Items
The county attorney has asked us to postpone 35. And I take it that that means postpone it to next week. We'll have it back on next week. 29 is to receive briefing from county attorney concerning acquisition of right-of-way and easements in pending condemnation proceedings for wells branch parkway extension project, lisso hers, including acceptance of an alternate dedication of right-of-way and replacement of a portion of the overall taking and and take any action as necessary. Noose consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 30, receive briefing from county attorney concerning acquisition of right waive and easements in pending condemnation proceedings for the cameron road extension and bridge construction project and consider come condemn'83's offer of settlemenn the parcells as follows. The following several times there. 30-a, parcel number 1, and 1-e, record owner kings gate lp. 30-b, parcel number 2 and number 2-e-a/2-e-b, record owner, north gate lp. And 30 c is parcel number 3 and 3-e-a/3-eb, record owner bishop's field, lp. 32, receive briefing and take appropriate action in entertainment by j and j versus rufin oavment crornejo and lukemer certify, scon stabl, precinct 1. 32, consider and take appropriate action regarding the purchase of an office building located at 5555 airport boulevard. That's the real property and let's also announce the consultation with attorney. 33, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action in frederick pluet deceased and margot frasier et al. 34, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action in murray et al versus earl et al, nobody a-02-ca-252-ss, consultation with attorney. And number 36, is to receive briefing from county attorney regarding new ethics requirements of local government code, chapter 176, and take appropriate action. We'll discuss those matters in executive session, but will return to open court --
>> number 8, judge?
>> number 8, almost forgot. That was the third court of appeals matter on which we will have some legal questions, so it's under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. We'll try to cover all of these. It may be a minor miracle if we do. But we won't take any action until we get back in open court.
now this morning we did go into executive session, we announced all of the items. Except number 32. Which was postponed until next week. And we added to the executive session discussion what item was that?
>> 8.
>> number 8, sure was, involving the request from the third district of Texas court of appeals and so we announced that we would consider that one in executive session under consultation with attorney. We will have to do that this afternoon since we did not this morning. We will also return to number 31, the matter of day and jay incorporated versus 31. Receive briefing and take appropriate action in entertainment by j & j inc. V. Rufino cornejo and luke mercer, constable precinct one, we announced that this afternoon, did not get to it. We will do that this afternoon. The action by frederick pluet versus margo frasier, at all, consultation with attorney. 34, murray, et al. V. Earle, et. Consultation with other than, also. And number 36, a briefing from the county attorney on the new ethics requirements of local government code chapter 176. Under consultation with attorney 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 at length the request from the appellate court, the third district of Texas, and after discussing this matter at length with counsel, we are all convinced there are additional facts that can be gathered and additional law that need to be researched, so we will this back on the court's agenda either in two weeks or later, depending on how long the county attorney needs to get ready. And if barbara or somebody could let me know, say next week, whether we needed two weeks or three weeks or four. What I will do in the meantime is to contact judge laws, indicate the status and our decision basically to bring this matter up again at the appropriate time. And then if we do the fee increase, indicate that we'll try to do it in such a way that we maybe make up for some of the back stuff. And I’ll put the appropriate conditions on it. Otherwise anything else needed for item number 8 today? Okay. The last executive session item, number 36, involves new ethics requirements by the state of Texas, and in the rfq that we approved in item number 18, this really ought to be part of it. And so my motion is that we include the newly prepared and delivered, recently delivered language from the county attorney's office regarding the conflict of interest matter, and that it be added to paragraph 7.5 of the rfq that we approved this morning.
>> second.
>> under the item. Seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Any discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 15 we did discuss -- no. The first executive session item number 29 we did discuss and that involves a condemnation matter on the wells branch parkway extension project.
>> judge, I would move the following motion to approve, a, an agreement to dedicate right-of-way and directing and authorizing the county judge to sign such agreement. B, a waiver by condemns who are the landowners in cause number 22525. C, approve an amended condemnation resolution and d, for us to approve a first amended condemnation petition in said cause number 2525.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 30 involves a condemnation proceeding for the cameron road extension and bridge extension project and considers -- includes three specific tracts of land.
>> yeah, judge. I move that we reject the offer by the condemneeees and that we continue in the condemnation proceedings shown in the particular parcels 1, 2 and 3 in item number 30.
>> okay. And make clear our intention -- our willingness to consider any appropriate additional offer to settle.
>> yes, judge.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 31 involves j and j incorporated versus rufin o cornejo and lukemer certify. We did get an update from legal counsel. We were advised that the matter will proceed. We gave general directions in court. Any action required here?
>> I think that the county attorney's told us we could pull the agenda item for right now and they will repost when necessary.
>> any action required today? All right. We postponed 32, did not consider it. 33, the matter involving frederick pluet, we got a brief update, but no action required today. It will be back on the agenda next week in case we need it. 34, murray versus ealle and a whole lot of others. We were advised to pull this item after a brief discussion. Did not discuss 35 as it was previously pulled also. We did discuss 36, as we mentioned earlier, got an update on the new ethics requirements thanks to the Texas legislature for giving us another opportunity to prove ourselves accountable.
>> and excluding themselves.
>> there may be other comments given in private if they're bold enough to contact the Commissioners court. No other action required on that today. Any other business?
>> move adjourn.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, January 18, 2006 8:13 AM