Travis County Commissioners Court
December 22, 2009,
Executive Session
>> thank you, ms.
holden.
this is item 15 a and b, which we will now take into executive session under the consultation with attorney exeps to the open meetings act.
>> before we go into executive session I need to make a correction on a statement I made earlier.
i mentioned linda bolton as far as sponsoring a bill.
i may have given the wrong bill number.
i think I had it reversed.
anyway, it's house bill 4175.
because I was asked about what -- as far as the authority, as far as land use for the county.
this was the bill number.
i just wanted to make a correction.
>> in addition to 15 a and b, we will take 13 into executive session.
13 was the item, consider and take appropriate action on proposed corrections to Travis County code number 64, Travis County regulations for floodplain management and guidelines and procedures for development permits regarding land use.
these items are sort of interconnected.
if my lead is followed, we will be back before 12 noon and take action on both items today.
we can discuss these items in executive session, but we need to return to open court before taking any action.
ms.
porter?
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> consultation with attorney with both of them.
We have returned from executive session where we discussed 13 and 15.
on 13, in view of our , I recommend we postpone action on 13 until either next week or January 5th.
january 5th may be better.
is that okay?
any objection to that?
on 15, hornsby bend east and west, is there a motion?
>> I move, judge, that deny the application permit for t.x.i., number 08-24-30 east and also the adjoining permit application from t.x.i.
08-2431 west.
>> second.
>> discussion?
all in favor of that motion.
show Commissioner Huber and Commissioner Davis.
those opposed to the motion?
show Commissioner Eckhardt, judge Biscoe, Commissioner Gomez.
that motion dies by a vote of two in favor, three against.
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I would like to move that we direct staff to pursue agreements with t.x.i.
and any additional agreements that we may need with homeowners associations and neighbors to facilitate the establishing of base lines of water quality and availability, air quality and noise level, and to further acquire agreements to monitor all three of those -- four of those on an ongoing basis throughout the mining if the permit is approved.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Gomez.
i heard air, water, noise and monitoring.
basically directions to staff to pursue specific agreements on that and what does that say about the application?
or what does the motion say regarding the application?
>> the motion doesn't speak to the application.
it's to achieve these agreements separately from in order to monitor the assurances made by t.x.i.
i don't believe that we can make the agreements contingent upon the application itself.
>> so if staff successfully negotiates agreements with t.x.i., where are we left on the applications before us?
i mean what's -- I guess what's the incentive for t.x.i.
to negotiate?
>> I'm a frayed that is -- afrat is a serious flaw I cannot answer.
my hope is desire to be a good corporate citizen, perhaps, but I am under no illusion that the statutory scheme in Texas requires or obligates them in any way, shape or form on those things.
>> any more discussion?
all in favor of that motion?
show Commissioners Gomez, hueber, Eckhardt voting in favor.
voting against, show judge Biscoe, Commissioner Davis.
that motion passes by a vote of three in favor, two against.
so the question now is what about the two applications before us?
move that we recess until 2:00.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
Now let's call back the order the voting session of the Commissioners court.
based on the people in the audience there, we kind of recessed for lunch after taking a couple of motions.
do we plan to take this item up again this afternoon?
is that legally permissible?
the lawyers say yes.
thanks for being together on that, lawyers.
is there a need for further discussion of item 15 this afternoon?
>> is there a need for maybe a clarification on the last action that we took on the agreements that we asked and we approved?
who will determine what those standards are of each thing that we're going to monitor?
will we sit down with them and work that out?
>> I think that would have to be the case.
>> okay.
>> we will have to sit down and work out standards, protocols, who is going to pay for them, how that is going to be handr handled with regard to water quality, water access, air quality, and sound nuisance.
>> that us or our tnr staff as took place before?
>> I think that it would have to be an all-court press with tnr staff, county attorney press, us as well, neighbors and txi representatives.
>> do you have the wording of that motion?
>> (inaudible reading)
>> okay.
>> all the stakeholders.
>> that pass 0 by a vote of 3.2.
>> that is all stakeholders.
>> that is where we are.
another motion?
for those in the audience, that is where we stand.
those are the agreements covering noise, air, water, monitoring of those three.
so based on what I'm hearing, the index would be for steak headers, the applicant, Commissioners court as appropriate, to form a huge team to get it done.
at some point the question is where do we go from completion of that project, if anywhere.
mr.
gilmore, you had a question?
>> judge, thank you for recognizing me.
for the record, I'm henry gilmore representing txi.
i was raising my hand because I was wondering if you wanted response from us on that previous motion, just to clarify.
>> that will be fine.
what I would like to reiterate is that during this process, obviously, we fulfilled the requirements that have been set for the by the county.
we have gob threw a pretty extensive process in regard to preparing the applications, also with the city, as well as going through the road improvement agreement.
and we feel that woo e have done what we needed to do in order to complete those .
we do have an interest and willingness in working with the staff, county, residents and neighbors in assessing and evaluating, looking at this as evaluation in order to help the process move forward and do the things that we are required to do to make that happen.
>> I would also add first of all that we don't view those, that motion as being tied to the permit.
we feel like the permit applications meet your requirements, and we respectfully request approval.
but if you are asking us if we are willing to work with staff and the neighborhoods to address those monitoring issues, we are.
what we don't know is protocols, costs, what the standards would be that we would be judged against.
until we do, it's difficult to just say yes, we're going to do everything.
but as far as sitting down and visiting and trying to work something out, yes, we're committed to doing that.
>> let's work something out, right?
based on what I'm hearing.
and at the appropriate time, though, I assume there would be some report back to the court.
>> ume sure staff would schedule it.
we'll be here.
>> okay.
anything else?
anybody else?
mr.
rigs by, we'll need you on the mike.
>> okay.
i just wanted to make sure by asking, that I heard them making room for residents and neighbors.
and being a tax paying member of the Travis County community, that includes concerned citizens like myself.
i don't live right next to that potential plan.
but that includes others.
correct?
i'm just assuming that from the wording.
>> no, I contemplated that it would be people who had direct stake in the outcome of the monitoring.
>> and by your determination, that meaning only people who live within--
>> those who would have standing if something were to happen to their health due to the mining operation.
to their health, their safety or their quality of life.
>> and other concerned citizens.
>> no.
>> it would be excluesary.
>> yes.
>> it's my tax dollars, too, it's my property value too.
>> I have answered the question with regard to my motion.
>> yes, judge, Commissioners, mayors speak.
basically, I want to be sure I understand.
there is not going to be anything in this negotiation that has to do with traffic.
and it is absolutely a 100 percent nonbinding resolution.
is my understanding correct?
and I also agree with that that further complicates negotiations and I was wondering if that had been pass ed through legal and if I can get an opinion from county attorney whether it's legal to have something so exclusionary.
a very large part of the county from being involved in this process.
>> would you like to respond, judge?
>> go ahead.
>> the motion does not contemplate that there are going to be public meetings that would be subject to review.
>> sorry, I did not hear a word you were saying with the coughing.
>> the motion does not contemplate public meetings.
these are the kind of negotiations that would occur in any contract negotiations.
it is standard and yes, legal, to exclude those from the meetings that negotiate the contracts until those are brought for the in a public meeting like this one.
>> all right.
thank you, sir.
that is all I had.
>> if you come up with any unique ideas or perspective, if you would share that with the county judge--
>> I have some ideas.
>> I will make sure the committee gets them.
anybody else?
we appreciate your input.
this has been a tough issue.
it has not been put to rest yet.
but it has for the day.
According to my records here, ms.
porter, we are ready for executive session.
posted are 32.
by the way, we postponed 311.
32, to consider and take appropriate action regarding the settlement offer regarding payment for star flight services rendered to laura smith, consultation with attorney x ep shun.
33, receive briefing from the county attorney and take appropriate action in Travis County versus Davis john junior, resale deed, consultation with attorney exception to open meeting act.
we have asked to post post item 34 until January 5.
35 to consider and take appropriate action regarding potential purchase of real estate in central Austin area consultation with attorney and real estate exception to open meeting act.
a 1, consider and take appropriate regarding possible sale of county land off fm 969 in east Austin.
this will be under consultation with attorney exception and real property exception to open meeting act.
a 2, receive briefing from county attorney and take appropriate action concerning extension of administrative leaf with pay for juvenile probation employee in clot 335.
this will be under personnel meetings and consultation with attorney open meetings act.
we will discuss in executive session and return to open court before taking any action..
>> we discussed the following items.
number 32, basically a wafer for star flight services rendered to lara smith.
is there a motion?
>> we discussed number 33, proposed resale deed to ro in, nylahn, prepared to pay the county for the, change of tax resale deed.
i move we approve the transaction.
discussion?
all in favorment that passes by unanimous vote.
we did not discuss 34.
35, we did discuss the matter involving the potential purchase of real estate in central Austin area.
we received an update.
in mew view, no action required today.
we will have it back on the court's agenda at the appropriate time in the future.
a 1 is a matter involving the possible sale of county own land related to the city of Austin, land off fm 969 in east Austin.
i move we ratify judge Biscoe's signature on the document extending the deadline in this matter to February 2.
>> second.
2010.
>> 2010.
>> second.
>> second by Commissioner Davis.
should be February 5.
>> yes.
>> February 5, 2010.
discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
a 2, request for additional administrative leave with pay for juvenile probation employee in slot number 335.
i move we approve up to four additional days.
>> second.
>> discussion in all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
i'm happy to say at 3:25 on this day, we are done.
>> second.
>> move a.
>> all in favor.
that carries unanimously.
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, December 22, 2009 2:30 PM
