Travis County Commssioners Court
May 6, 2003
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.
Consent Items
The consent items are next. Posted for consent are c 1 through c -- c 6 and I show those to be ready for action today. We have been asked to consider add being the following items to the consent -- adding the following items to the consent motion, if you would like for us to discuss this separately please let us know as we call the item out. Number 5, 8, 9, 11 a, b, c, d, 11 a through d, 12, 13, 16 I only have one question, that is what legal matter is this. That's my only question if somebody can get that to me.
>> it's the d.n.a. Paternity case --
>> if that's so, somebody confirm that for me. There's not any backup. 17, 18, 19 my question is whether we need 19 c, the tertiary contractor is $100,000 more than the secondary. And my question is why did we contract for that. My understanding of the contract is that if -- if the primary and secondary fall out but contract we are obligated to go to the tertiary. It's $100,000 more than the second one.
>> [indiscernible] go to a third --
>> why not just a and b in 19.
>> okay.
>> that's the only question that I have.
>> okay.
>> 21.
>> uh-huh.
>> 25, 26.
>> and a 1? From just to make a correction, it's a minor correction.
>> and --
>> exhibit attached [indiscernible] --
>> a 1 there's -- I understand the legal description changed. The other thing is, joe, is that thing was two months of getting back to us, which in my view is much too long. But I was asked to sign it. I think the court has to do that. If it's -- if it's a different legal description, it's really a different action. But a 1 is a good candidate.
>> move approval of the consent items.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis. Would anyone like for any of these items to be pulled for separate discussion?
>> this is not just -- this is a very quick thing. On item 11 d it is a consent item. Related to this, this is a big deal because we had been pulling down only about $58,000 in terms of child care reimbursements with a new look at this we are going to be able to pull down $248,000 of child care reimbursements and if that matches what we are already spending on child care. So we are almost crowd group peopling -- quadrupling the amount of money that we are going to be able to pull down.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
Last Modified: Wednesday, May 6, 2003 7:52 PM