Travis County Commissioners Court
July 21, 2009,
Executive Session
This morning we discussed at length the matter involving commercial appraisals and that is item no.
25.
25.
consider and take appropriate action regarding a request to file a challenge to commercial appraisals performed by travis central appraisal district or request a performance audit of the district.
we will discuss that further in executive session under the consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
in addition, posted for executive session discussion are 21 settle proposes in the fog imminent domain -- following imminent domain proceedings.
1.
Travis County vs.
kings gate l.p.; 2.
Travis County vs.
north gate l.p.; and 3.
Travis County vs.
bishops field l.p.
1 and 2 and that discussion will take place under the consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act.
22.
consider and take appropriate action on an offer to sell approximately 90 acres of undeveloped land in precinct four, located east of u.s.
183 and onion creek, for inclusion in the onion creek open space parkland - 2005 bond program.
consultation with attorney and real property exception to the open meetings act.
we announced this morning we would postpone 23, we will not discuss it.
24.
receive legal briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action regarding whether to file suit against rocellus slaughter to recover for damage to a county-owned guardrail.
consultation with attorney exception.
25 is the commercial appraisals item.
26.
consider and take appropriate action regarding possible sale of county-owned land off fm 969 in east Austin.
consultation with attorney and real property exceptions.
and number 27.
consider and take appropriate action regarding proposal for downtown office building by d2000, a turn key development company.
consultation with attorney and real property exceptions to the open meetings act.
27 there is a letter backup that we will need to get legal advice on.
we will discuss these items in executive session, but return to open court where taking any action.
before taking any action.
>> we are back from executive session, but prior to executive session we had a brief discussion of the a 1 and decided to give staff an opportunity to meet and discuss this item before we decided to take action today or next week.
staff has had a chance to get together is this.
>> yes, sir, we have.
and we believe that the motion before you is appropriate.
i think john has a motion.
>> if the court authorizes the rodeo to pay the full amount of that bill, I would encourage you to pursue some kind of document back from the rodeo saying they release you from that obligation that is in the contract right now that we have to pay our half.
some kind of letter or something saying hey, we've paid it, we're not looking to the county to pay us back.
>> the rodeo has agreed to that and I believe we have an e-mail so I'm sure they would be willing to put that in writing.
>> are you okay with that?
>> yes.
>> based on that condition, I move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all very much.
Item 21 is the matter involving those three condemnations that ended up in litigation.
>> > move approval of item 21 with the settlement agreement and also that the court will authorize staff to prepare the necessary papers and also the deliberations of the particular checks that need to be cut. >> > second. >> > seconded by Commissioner Gomez. >> > I move we accept the offer for $700,000 for the 90 acres and that the source of revenue is the 2005 bond program. >> > second. >> > second. >> > discussion? >> > second. >> > okay. >> > judge, along with that, I think the public needs to understand the challenge opportunity for this particular court to -- to -- to face a challenge, the deadline was actually June 15th of this year. 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.
and that deliberations is for the kings north gate, also bishops gate and also kings gate, l.p., can Travis County.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
item 22 is the possibility to purchase 90 acres of undeveloped land for inclusion in the onion creek space parkland.
discussion?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
we did not discuss item 23 as previously announced.
24 I move we authorize the county attorney to file a lawsuit against rocellus slaughter for damaging the county owned guardrail.
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
25 is the matter involving the commercial appraisals.
i move we indicate our rejection of the request to file a challenge because the deadline for that has come and gone, and the request for a performance audit of the district because by state law there would be such an audit conducted every other year by the comptroller.
but at the same time we indicate our intention to pursue the following steps and that we will have a written document describing these in greater detail for formal action by the court next week.
but one is that we indicate our intention to join the fight for mandatory disclosure and we plan to hustle up not only the jurisdictions in Travis County to assist in the efforts but to contact all of our colleagues in governmental entities statewide.
secondly, that we immediately work with other jurisdictions in Travis County, large and small, to get to the central appraiser district as many of the appraisals and appraisal type information as possible beginning immediately.
three, that we work with the central travis appraisal district and assist in any way to crave the appraisal and protest process which we discussed a little bit in court today.
and three, that we brainstorm with the chief appraiser so identify any other proactive steps that we can take in Travis County to make sure that the commercial appraisals are more accurate in the future.
that does not mean that we are not concerned about what was brought before us here today with the appraisal district and, of course, mr.
brown and also mr.
rogers, I think they brought some very legitimate information and I do not want the public to feel they are being short changed.
and I think this particular motion that's being made here today will actually start a process of collaboration not only with Travis County but with outreaching to other governmental entities to assist in Travis County as far as what we expect the Travis County appraisal district to do and we're going to try to assist them as much as possible as we deal with this -- with this commercial property issue that's been brought before the Commissioners court.
so I think it's a step in the right direction and hopefully the other governmental entities here within Travis County will join with us in assisting as much as possible to deal with the commercial property challenge that's been brought before us today.
i want to make sure that the folks understand that we're not taking a back seat on this thing.
no, we're not doing that at all.
i think we're right up front on this and I would like to thank mr.
rogers for all the information that he's brought before us along with mr.
brown who has really laid out some of his concerns and some of (captions ended).
Last Modified:
Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:31 PM