Travis County Commissioners Court
August 15, 2006
Executive Session Items
And we will go into executive session on the following items, 29 consider and take appropriate action regarding city of Austin proposal to amend the balcones canyonlands conservation plan 10(a) permit, issued to the city of Austin and Travis County by the u.s. Fish and wildlife, concerning the relocation of water treatment plant no. 4. Attorney and real property exceptions. 30. Consider and take appropriate action regarding settlement and release of claims (including change order no. 2) from rgm constructors, l.p. For kennedy ridge roadway and drainage improvements contract. Consultation with attorney. 31. Receive status report and take appropriate action on risk management liability fund. And our final action in executive session, will be a 2, which is to receive briefing from bond counsel regarding creation of and calling of bond election for proposed gallery road district, executive session pursuant to Texas government code annotated 551.071, that's the 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.
>> judge, 31 was also -- ...
>> [inaudible - no mic] also number [inaudible - no mic]
>> okay. I didn't announce that?
>> right.
>> 31 is under consultation with attorney.
item 28 we discussed this morning and 28 is to consider and take appropriate action on proposed election precinct realignments pursuant to section 42.031-b-1 of the election code to conform to congressional redistricting plan 1438-c, and the issues that were outstanding have been resolved if they existed. And we approved two of the orders, but we did not approve the order adopting precincts for the election of justices of the peaces and constables and I move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That carries fans unanimously. Thank y'all. That does it for that item.now, quickly, we did discuss a few items in executive session this morning. Number 29 rediscussed and -- number 29 we discussed and hopefully set out a direction that will enable us to take action next week, so we'll have it back on the court's agenda August 22nd. Any other action required today? Number 30, the matter involving the kennedy ridge roadway and drainage improvement proovmented contract.
>> I move move that we accept the settlement and the claims, including change order number 2, to rgm constructors lp, in the amount of 336,003 freezing rain .20 dollars. -- $3,600,349.20. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Move that we authorize Commissioner Davis to sign the settlement agreement on behalf of the Commissioners court once the same has been prepared. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. A-3 we did not discuss in session, did we? We did discuss a-2. The galleria road district. We got legal advice, hopefully good legal advice. No action required today. And just for the record, we will need to go back into executive session on item number 5 as we did not have a chance to discuss it this morning and didn't announce it. But there's an important legal discussion that we need to have have on that item.
number 5 we will need to discuss in executive session. That is to consider and take appropriate action on the following plat. 5. Consider and take appropriate action on a final plat, cypress creek ranch in precinct three: one -- that's 1149.4-acre, correction there. Hamilton pool road - no fiscal is required with the final plat - sewage service to be provided by an on-site private sewage facility. We will go into executive session under consultation with attorney, this is the only item that we will announce and discuss in executive session.
we have returned from executive session where we discussed item number 5 with legal counsel. And number 5 is a final plat for cypress creek ranch in precinct 3.
>> judge, chip, would you come up here?
>> my name is chuck carroll with cunningham allen engineers, surveyors. We're the ones that prepared this one lot subdivision for ted stewart and anyway, I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can. Just to kind of make sure you all are familiar with the project. This is a one lot subdivision in Travis County. We've gone through the review process with joe and anyway we've met all of Travis County's subdivision regulations and requirements. We are not asking for any variances or waivers so right now what we're asking for is approval of a one lot subdivision in Travis County that, like I said, does meet all the subdivision regulations.
>> tell us what you think that ted stewart has in mind with doing with this. I know you may not know it completely, but just give us an idea what he's told you. I don't know if any of y'all have had the opportunity to go out to this property, it's beautiful property. I believe what he has out there right now is a hunting cabin, another residence, two or three homes out there I believe is what he has. The only thing that we've really spoke to ted about is he may want to build a couple of additional homes out there for some of his family members, recreational type use stuff. We are a land development firm, but we've not been presented with any sort of land development options for anything from ted or anyone. So that's -- you know, outside of that I would be totally speculating and I don't think that would be fair to the commission or ted. So lips.
>> in terms of my own mind in taking a look ate, it's kind of a blank slate and because there's not the laying out of any roads or drainage, any kind of public improvements, and I have to be left with the thought that there aren't going to be any or they will be taking direct access off of hamilton pool road in accordance with the rules that are out there in terms of driveway cuts.
>> yeah, and I mean that's all we can say at this time.
>> anything else would be substantially different and not be the one lot subdivision with no roads or drainage infrastructure on it. It would be something radically different and require whole discussions with t.n.r. Because that's not what's been laid out.
>> and I believe joe can probably correct me, but if public right-of-way were dedicated internal to the subdivision, that would require a resubdivision of the property and so that's -- I believe you are correct with what you stated.
>> resubdivision or replatting -- it's a blank slate.
>> yeah, that's -- like I said, the only position we had moving forward with this is that we did not ask for any variances or waivers from subdivision regulations. This is up for approval meeting all regulations. So outside of that, I really don't know what I can say more about the project because, you know, we obviously don't know anything more than you do. So --
>> one-week extension.
>> the judge has asked we have a one-week extension, which is something we customarily do. But chuck, I do want you to understand that between now and next week, I would suspect that -- or at least some of the members of the hill country alliance would like to weigh in on some opinions that they will have about this. And I think that one of the things that has been, you know, bantered about is the notion of putting some sort of a plat note with regards to grandfatherring of this property. And quite frankly, that's not something that we probably, you know, are even in a position that we could do, number 1. I mean we don't know that by -- that we should be doing something like that. I mean personally it's not something that I would be supportive of asking the applicant to do. But at this stage I think that it may make things move a lot smoother, and since you don't think that there is any great issue with this thing about bringing it forth next week because next week I will make a motion, you know, to go forward with the thing, but I mean, you know, in the jew judicious manner that we especially do in western Travis County, you know, they are probably going to want to -- some folks that want to make some comments on this. So, you know, I'm certainly --
>> I guess is that the -- I guess the reason for the postponement, would you all like us to meet with the hill country people or --
>> absolutely.
>> I'm sorry. Just the -- this project has been going on since I believe August of 2004. So it's not like this is a new project. This has been a public record, the application has, for -- you know, coming on two years now.
>> I think the court would be very pleased and you had a meeting with ted stewart and there was no issue where ted and the hill country alliance said yeah, we understand what we're doing with this thing and that the court understands that. Then I think this thing would be -- maybe would be a consent item next week if we don't have people that want to come down here and talk about it. So I would imagine that would go a long way. It would probably save ted a trip down here and everybody else. Why don't you get back to my office and let me know how that comes out. I'll share wit the members of the court.
>> okay.
>> it's fine with me. What's your name?
>> chuck carroll with cunningham allen engineers.
>> okay.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you very much.
>> see you Tuesday.
>> there being no further business -- 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:
Tuesday, August 16, 2006 12:08 PM