Travis County Commissioners Court
May 29, 2007
Executive Session
Now, does that get us to executive session? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> you were looking like you thought I didn't have the votes on that one.
>> [ laughter ] now, do we need to take another week on number 40? If so, what I would try to do is get the executive manager's e-mails and put all those into one document, get those circulated by Friday at five so we can all look at what they're recommending, and tweak that language as much as we can and on Tuesday try to be a lot more productive than I think we can be today. Am I right in assuming that? Then we will not take number 40 today, but we will take it for sure next Tuesday and the county judge will -- and his staff will try to pull the recommendations from the other executive managers and staff into one document and circulate those to the Commissioners court members by Friday at five.
>> weren't all the executives managers -- they were all available for comment in our last executive session.
>> it's not what I'm talking about. We asked them to -- we asked them to pull from the language their recommendation as to what kind of person we need, whatever language would describe dha.
>> for a subsequent posting?
>> now they're not calling it a posting, they're calling it something he will, but it's the equivalent. They're calling it like recruiting description. They think there's something a little bit more sophisticated than what we did. On your behalf I objected to that, but they didn't change their mind. They're supposed to have additional wording and I got several e-mails where they had done that. I need to pull those into one document, show what all of them say, then we can individually try to add language that we think is appropriate and on Tuesday try to come up with another document, be whatever we call it. If we can think also about whatever we need -- whether we want to get professional assistance on this or whether to do it made a world of progress. Okay? 38 is to consider and take appropriate action regarding potential purchase of property along airport boulevard in central Austin. That's the real property exception to the open meetings act. Also announced usually consultation with attorney. 39 is to receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action in claim by jennifer maldonado, former slot number 45, eeoc charge number 31 c-2007-00733. Consultation with attorney. I think, john hilly told me not to announce under personnel matters. So only consultation with attorney is 39. 41, receive legal briefing and take appropriate action on the expansion application and related documentation of bfi-allied waste filed with the Texas commission on environmental quality. That's the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act. 42, consider and take appropriate action on purchase contract with the walter and aletha snowden family trust, walter l. Snowden trustee and aletham. Snowden, trustee, for the acquisition of approximately 53.944 acres of land in connection with the balcones canyon lands conservation plan. That's the real estate exception to the open meetings act and be also consultation with attorney just in case we need it for number 42. 43, consider and take appropriate action regarding the third amendment to lease between Travis County Texas and harry whitington, d/b/a travis properties, consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. 44, consider and take appropriate action on the sale of real estate at 6701 burnet road. Consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act. And number 45, receive briefing and take appropriate action on real estate issues in central Austin. And that's the real estate exception to the open meetings act act. We'll discuss these matters in executive session, but will return to open court before taking any action.
we have returned from executive session where we have discussed the following items. Number 38, purchase of property along
>> [indiscernible] boulevard in central Austin. I move that we reject the counter offer in the amount of $2.8 million. And make a new offer in the amount of 2.21 million.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? Passes pass, 39, we did -- that passes by unanimous vote, 39 we did discuss. No action required today. We will have it back on next week just in case. 40 we did not announce for executive session, did not discuss it, we will have it back on next week. Hopefully get a little bit more work done between now and Friday of next week. Number 41 deals with expansion application of b.f.i. Allied waste filed with the Texas commission on environmental quality. I move that the Commissioners court direct the county attorney's office to proceed with option a, that we start off that -- that the traffic comments indicating the county's previously stated position, with respect to November 1, 2015, that we indicate fully the other positions that we've had if -- if an application for expansion beyond that time is filed with tceq. That we pick up the points made -- those three points made by Commissioner Davis, except for the h.u.d. Language --
>> that was in option b.
>> option b.
>> let me --
>> the h.u.d. Language -- and let me finish this motion. I think that I have it in mind. That we amend those special conditions by adding language pertaining to the acquisition and permitting of -- of a green field site at b.f.i. Before November 1, 2015, and in that circumstance terminating the operation in northeast Travis County. That we in a -- in either a separate document or a footnote of some sort leave open the possibility of the agreement as well as the restrictive covenant with an explanation of the impact of it or importance of it. And invite comment on -- on those two. And the ore part of this motion is -- the other part of this motion is that we would review their revised draft by 3:00 p.m. Tomorrow afternoon and our intention would be that -- that in an hour or less we would approve a draft to make it available for public comment between tomorrow, two weeks from today, which is June 12th. At which time the court will plan to take action. That's a long motion, but contains mostly what was said.
>> I'm sorry. I did not catch the portion about the agreement. The restrictive covenant.
>> okay. That there be a footnote or some paragraph that calls attention to the fact that we are considering the agreement and the restrictive covenant and the reasons why, advantages that it offers. To give the public an opportunity to comment on it. Now, if we do that in a separate -- in a letter document that will be fine, too. It doesn't have to be in the body of the comments. Footnoted, just -- just I think that should be there because based on some comments that I have received the loophole that I have discovered is that the owner of the property might be able to do certain things even if the operator permittee were not, so in my view the value of the language would be that is how we obligate the owner of the property. But residents may look at that and say this is a quicker thing.
>> I would advocate that the -- that the comment regarding keeping it separate from the comment is in the draft.
>> okay. Part of this is getting it out there so that the public can respond to it.
>> and, judge, I wanted to add a couple of things of what's going on here. The portion of what the judge is referring to is a separate letter after b, the one that was produced by me in my office staff and is also presented to the tceq staff last Thursday at the manor middle school and I know that you brought up those different points. But one of the points, examples, set down immediately, the immediate operation of those particular landfills, b.f.i. And also josh
>> [indiscernible] landfill also the desired development zone which is -- which is
>> [indiscernible] the city of Austin not to be located as far as new landfills, in this particular closure does occur there. Number 3 of course you said that there -- it would not -- the concern was basically h.u.d. In other words Travis County continuing to the hub of -- of solid waste here for -- for this entire region. I think the community said they had a better
>> [indiscernible], but what the letter did say in option b is that it opposes, it actually opposes this particular application, amendment, from b.f.i. And also giles holden. This is the nature and intent of it. I don't want to lose that flavor at all of the opposition of the particular expansion. For the particular 290 east landfill for tceq. So I want to make sure that what we are doing is that the residents understand that -- that the letter that I have presented to tceq is in -- is -- asking tceq to deny the application. I don't want to use that at all. The community will get a look at this, review it, they will still understand my position is still to
>> [indiscernible] with that expansion? In my motion you lose that to the extent that it becomes part of our fall back strategy.
>> they have that, but I wanted to legality the public know that I'm not opposing the letter, but I am opposed to the content of the letter, especially if it doesn't oppose the -- based on the current history of those landfills operating practices there. I have to oppose that. Not that I'm not supporting the motion. Just people need to understand that it's not containing, the letter is not containing the opposition to it. I need to state that.
>> okay.
>> any more discussion?
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> well, hopefully this letter, this revised half would be -- the revised draft would be given to the court tomorrow by noon. We have our meeting tomorrow from 3:00 to 4:00. At 4:00 what we approve hopefully will be ready for distribution by the close of work tomorrow. Hopefully those that we have been sending e-mails to would be the e-mail to them between 5:00 and 6:00 tomorrow afternoon and I would be happy to try to help get those out. I'm assuming that we can make any changes that we -- that -- additional changes that we make between the 3 and 4:00 meeting within the next hour or 45, then start e-mailing.
>> depending on how many changes you all make.
>> it doesn't eliminate the party status. We have already eliminating that. Still needs to be highlighted so that the folks will understand that Travis County still wants to be a party and have party status at the table.
>> that's -- yeah, we don't -- entity that grabs us status is actually the -- the administrative law judge and --
>> I understand, I want to make sure of party status.
>> not abandoning that is what we are saying.
>> I'm ready to vote. I wanted to make sure that I -- that I -- the public listen, y'all come and get this letter when it's available. But I can't support the letter because it doesn't have the opposition language needed. That's my position. Thank you.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners eckhardt, Gomez, court Daugherty voting in favor, Commissioner Davis voting against.
>> yes. Based on my statements, thank you.
>> number 42 involves a potential bcp property. I move that we authorize staff to communicate and offer from the Commissioners court of Travis County to purchase this 53.944 acres of land for $1.46 million, and that we indicate that offer is open for up to 30 days.
>> second.
>> hopefully we will get it done faster. But if we need to address it again in 30 days, we'll come back. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Number 43 is a matter involving harry m. Whittington, d/b/a our landlord, I move that we authorize county staff to -- to seek an extension of the current lease that's used by the court plus the idf closet for a total of $37,248 which should get us through the end of this fiscal year, September 30th, 2007.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 44 involves the real property at 6701 burnet road. You want to make that motion, Commissioner?
>> sure, I move that we accept the terms proffered by mr. Dotey.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor? Show Commissioners Davis, eckhardt, Daugherty, yours truly voting in favor.
>> abstain.
>> abstaining Commissioner Gomez.
>> number 45 involves the potential purchase of a real estate issue -- real estate, rather. In central Austin. The way this is worded, take action on real estate issues in central Austin. I don't have a note here to take -- move that we recess this item also until 3:00 tomorrow afternoon.
>> okay.
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And that does it for today. Rather than adjourning, though, we will recess Commissioners court voting session until 3:00 p.m. Tomorrow afternoon, that will be may 30th. In this courtroom. Is there a second?
>> second.
>> all in favor? That passes unanimously. I thought that I lost my court all of a sudden.
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 30, 2007, 8:00 AM