Travis County Commissioners Court
May 23, 2006
Executive Session Items
I think that the performance pay item is probably more important to our executive managers than the reorganization, but maybe we can -- so let's convene in executive session on the few items that are left. First would be the sweetwater item that we announced and discussed at length this morning. That's item number 6, right? Okay. And that's under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. In addition, we will discuss 41, receive briefing from county attorney and/or take appropriate action concerning extension of paid administrative leave for Travis County juvenile probation department employee and slot number 412. That will be under the consultation with attorney and personnel matters exceptions to the open meetings act. 42, consider and take appropriate action on status report on administrative review of issues related to management of fire marshal's office. That's the consultation with attorney and personnel matters exception. 43 is to receive letter of resignation from dr. Elizabeth peacock, deputy medical examiner, and take appropriate action. Personnel matters exception. 44, consider and take appropriate action on performance pay as a follow-up to recent performance evaluations for the four executive managers and the two coordinators. That's personnel matters exception. And 46 is to receive briefing and take appropriate action on request to file comments on municipal utility project for sweetwater development proposed permit wq 0014629001, consultation with attorney. We will discuss these matters in executive session under the announced exceptions, but will return to open court before taking any action.
we have discussed the following items in executive session. Number 15, the complaints by ms. Salimena. Ms. Salimena, I suggest that, and to the court the motion will be that the following response be given to ms. Salimena today, and within the next 48 hours sent to her in writing, preferably by mail. And that is the county finds that the structure in question is a few inches off what is set forth in the permit, and while this is not precisely in compliance, it is in substantial compliance. And we find further that because the street is a cul-de-sac there should be very little traffic on it. If it were a serious violation, then the county would entertain enforcement action. But because of what it is, the county chooses not to taken forcement action at this time. Further, the plat that is made reference to is in fact not a county approved plat, but is governed by the rules of the condominium regime. The county has not approved the so-called plat or the rules, does not enforce them and really otherwise has nothing to do with them. Finally, the county does not enforce private deed restrictions unless certain requirements have been met, and those requirements have not been met in this case. Mr. Knuckles, did I come close to citing our legal position?
>> that's an accurate recite al, judge.
>> that's the motion, which will be reduced in writing. It may have been hard to understand. Reduce understand writing within the next couple of days and delivered to you. I know this is not what you wanted to hear, but that's the best we can do. We'll get it to you in writing and you can decide where to go from there. That's the motion, seconded by Commissioner Davis. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We appreciate your patience. I know it hasn't been easy for you. We did have staff all huddled up, and if it helps any, we had all seven or eight who have been involved in this matter for several months now, got their input, the best legal advice the county has paid for, and so that's where we stand. Moving to the items that were posted for executive session, which we should be able to cover quickly, did not discuss 39 or 40. They were postponed. Item number 41 I move that we authorize additional leave with pay totaling four days covering the days between may 7 and may 10, 2006.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. We discussed 42, but we need to the county fire marshal in executive session with us next week, therefore 42 will be postponed until next week also. 43, which involves the resignation letter from dr. Elizabeth peacock, I move that we accept that letter, that we express appropriate appreciation for her years of service to Travis County, and that the county judge sign on behalf of the Commissioners court.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 44 we discussed. Need further discussion. We'll have it back on next week maybe with a wording change.
>> I think Commissioner Davis wanted to be part of of that, so it would be two weeks, judge. And we'll need some different wording to encompass --
>> that's June 6th that it will be back on.
>> thank you.
>> did not discuss 45. 46, move that we direct staff to file with the tceq the letter, comment letter, a draft of which we saw in executive session, and we've been advised we can fax that over today and it will be deemed timely filed, and that needs to be signed by Commissioner Daugherty. Will whole court? Okay. That's the motion.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Daugherty and yours truly voting in favor.
>> I oppose, judge. This is tied in with item number 6 and, of course, -- I’ll have to oppose.
>> Commissioner Davis opposes. Now, speaking of number 6, let's call up item number 6. We did discuss 6, got legal advice on various matters that we discussed this morning, including the letter that we got from mr. Rock well. Travis County has entertained this item with similar wording numerous times in the past. One of the questions I asked was about the interim rules and the time associated with that, and really had forgotten that we started on those in January. But implemented a moratorium sort of in the middle with the legislature in town. And in July is when we finally put the interim rules in place, so it did take us awhile to get those. And we had a hard time understanding it. In my view, exhibit b, while not perfect, does make progress on the requirements that I thought mattered to the concerned residents, and specifically dealing with the wastewater plant and also the improvements on 71. The other question that we discussed and staff has told us in terms of the setbacks is that we come close to meeting or we meet some of the set back requirements in the interim rules, notwithstanding that it's staff's filings that the filings preceded the interim rules. That as to setbacks from the streams, the answer is yes. Setbacks are there. Environmental features, probably not. But we think the setbacks are there on the commercial tract and on the wastewater plant. For example. The other big question I think is about density and what is clear is that because we did not have on-site sewage, then the county cannot regulate density. Is that true, mr. Knuckles?
>> under the current regulations, that's true.
>> okay.
>> any other comments?
>> judge, I would like to say that mr. Gunn, you certainly know how controversial your development is, and I am going to move approval of a through k, but I do want us to have one very, very clear understanding, and that is, if at any time during the development that there are any issues with regards to any of the bmp's or any of the things that may happen where we have another incident like we've had at lick creek or at west cypress hills, that is the thing that we have got to have the understanding that any and everything that you're doing at that project has got to stop immediately until all of that is fixed. I can't fix 71. I wish that I could fix 71. I certainly can move towards trying to expedite everything that I can possibly do with 71, and I will work and I hope that the neighbors will do that. But with that I move approval of a through k.
>> I second the motion. And mainly because a month ago I thought that if we could keep -- if we can prevent occupancy of homes until the wastewater treatment plant were constructed, and construction of homes before improvements on 71 were made, and I may have added to that motion construction of the infrastructure. And the change that -- that exhibit b represents today that did not exist back then was that today we do allow construction of the infrastructure, but we have tried to take appropriate safeguards to really limit the traffic that would have to access the development in order to build the infrastructure. And at the same time try to reduce as much as possible adverse impact on 71. And the other thing is that whenever you start building homes and start occupying them, then you have other issues, but if this development takes place over an eight to 10 year period, we do have a little time to deal with some of these issues at the surface, but I think the most important ones are the wastewater treatment plant and also the improvements on highway 71. Any other comments from court members?
>> the last time this was before me, because I did miss one rather interesting meeting that occurred when I was off, I was very clear in articulating why I was voting against a revised preliminary plan, very specific in terms of the issues related to pump and haul, the not understanding where the location of the wastewater plant was going to be. Serious concerns about safety improvements to highway 71. This is not perfection, but everything that I said I need more information, to me it does not meet county standards, I’m there. The pump and haul is gone. The location of the plant is part of the final plats that we have before us today. The traffic controls are in place as the judge has said. We are eliminating about a mile of impervious cover through a road that I didn't hear anybody disagree that that was not a good thing. It saves a grove of trees. It is certainly better than the original preliminary plan that was originally approved. And in relation to the bcp, what's going to happen here is not insignificant. There is about a million dollars to be paid in in terms of participation certificates. The pc's are divided equally between the city of Austin and Travis County. In addition to that, there will be another $500,000 that mr. Gunn is voluntarily paying. You can do a lot with a million dollars in terms of with the bcp. And we are moving towards completion. I’ve run out of reasons, legitimate reasons, to be able to say it does not meet county standards. I have now gotten to the point where it meets county standards, and I don't know whether I’m proud of this or not, but the reality is in the nearly 12 years I’ve been on this court, I have never had a district judge tell me to do my job. Doing this job means sometimes you have to make very difficult decisions, very unpopular decisions. This is not a popularity contest about whether they meet county standards. It is my finding they meet county standards and I will be joining a yes vote on 6-a through k.
>> anything further from the court? All in favor of the motion? Show Commissioners Sonleitner, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor. Commissioner Davis voting against.
>> judge, I oppose this I guess basically because of a lot of things that residents have brought up. I know the interim rules I think is very, very precious. I know we need to lean toward forming permanent rules, and I have asked everybody and encowrnld everybody to help us get there on permanent rules. I think when we get there a lot of subdivisions will be able to -- the proposed subdivisions will be able to look at this as far as what the county is trying to do with the limited powers that we do have. And I’ve heard the community speak on a lot of issues, traffic and a whole bunch of other things, and I’m not there on this particular deal with the preliminary plans for this particular item, 6-a and 6-b and c, which is all connected to everything else here. We talk about over 1807 homes residential lots that will be in this particular area. So again, I do applaud everyone for participating in the process. This is what it's all about. And we're not going to all agree on the same thing at times, but again at least we're able to echo and state how we vote and the way we vote. And so again, I would just like to oppose it based on that. Thank y'all.
>> thank you. Any other business today?
>> move adjourn.
>> judge, are we just going to roll over 30 -- did we say that out loud for jill, 38, next week or the week after? It's okay. Just for jill.
>> is that it, move adjourn?
>> 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, May 23, 2006 1:12 PM