Travis County Commissioners Court
September 21, 2004
Item 11
We have some people who have come from out of town to discuss number 11 which
is approval termination of contract number 03 t 00118 ld with gulf states
asphalt for emulsified asphalt.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners. County purchasing
agent. To my right I have mr. Lewis pena with gulf states asphalt and his
attorney kevin george. To my left, for those of you who don't recognize mr.
Wheeler in a suit, this is don wheeler and mr. Ward. We entered into a contract
in February 11th of 2003 with gulf states asphalt for emulsified asphalt used
by t.n.r. On their chip seal operations on county roads. Last year we experienced
some performance issues and we worked with the contractor and decided in March
of this year to renew their contract with amendment regarding the county's
rights to reject loads that came in. We have had similar problems this season
and we are formally requesting that the court terminate the contract with
gulf states asphalt.
>> what's the problem?
>> bleeding of the roads.
>> and what does that mean?
>> we're the -- the Commissioners that probably had calls
on it we've had so far this year, I know in several of our precincts where
that the oil comes up through the rock and gets picked up by the vehicles
and gets thrown on the vehicles. When I first came to the county back years
ago, we used to have -- we had a different type of material. We went over
to the polymer material, which is a little more expensive. The court gave
me the authority to buy that oil. We haven't had that bleeding issue or problem
since. Although I know the state is tightening up their specifications on
this type of material. We should still be able to have a material that will
not bleed on us if we -- when we put it on our roads. We started having a
little issue with our equipment first part of this year. I instructed mr.
Ward and his crews to start testing the material. We tested a load -- I can't
remember the date off the top of my head.
>> June 17th.
>> June 17th. Did not meet specifications. We informed the
contractor and then again on 8-5 we ran -- we had stopped -- we suspended
operations, and again well, started back up after notifying the contractor
of the problems. And then the first load that we received on 8-5 failed the
test again. To meet specks. And we returned -- specks. And we returned the
load and we haven't been seal coating since.
>> bleeding asphalt, yes or no, mr. Pena?
>> I haven't seen it, but I have no reason to doubt it.
>> I can respond to your question. My name is kevin george.
The bleeding that they refer to is, I think, relates to an incident that occurred
in April of 2004. It was a one-time incident and it was not tied back to gulf
states' asphalt. The product -- and this is important for you all to consider
-- initially is tested by gulf states at their plant. And then it is again
tested to meet specification requirements of the state by the Texas department
of transportation. Once that test is accomplished and passed, then delivery
is made to Austin. Their reference to this bleeding is how the asphalt is
applied. It may not tie back to the product itself meeting specifications.
It has a lot more to do with how that product, how that asphalt is applied
on the road. And what mr. Pena tried to do is tried to find out the source
of the problem. And he wrote them a letter saying this is my thought on it.
This is how you can find a solution. They never responded to that letter at
all. There was never another incident that was identified on bleeding whatsoever.
Now, moving forward a little bit, the product was again tested, as you suggests,
sometime in June, June 17th of this year. The product was tested at delivery
in Austin. Now mind you, and this is important again, the product is tested
at the plant, again tested by the Texas department of transportation. It what
passed. It had met the specification requirements. What the Texas department
of transportation requires is if you are going to take a sample test, you
have to take it in an appropriate manner otherwise the test results are going
to be skewed. The way that they recommend that the test ought to be taken
is you get on top of a taerpbg, but this -- tanker, put this spoon that is
about three feet long and you take a sample in the middle of the truck. They
didn't do that test that way. Instead they took it from the spigot and typically
what you are going to have is because you have residue from other asphalt
that's been brought there you are going to have some residue that is going
to skwaou the test results. So what we found out that their test results at
delivery were inconsistent with two tests done by -- internally by us as well
as the Texas department of transportation, we suggested, listen, what you
ought to do is do the test in compliance with Texas department of transportation
standards. They refused to do that. They say we will do it the way we want
to do it. We suggested as an alternative that we go out there and test it
ourselves in the appropriate manner so that we would have consistent results.
The problem we're faced with today is they are trying to compel to us prove
a negative. We believe that the product meets specifications in every way.
And we also believe that the only reason that they have the test results i've
also taken the liberty to bring with me and provide to you the correct technique
that txdot recommends so that a representative sample is taken of what the
contained in the trucks. And as well --
>> so now, what sampling technique did we use?
>> let me tell the judge what the -- the contract says we
are not required to take a sample, first of all.
>> we're not required what?
>> to take a sample. That's left to the county engineer's
discretion.
>> but we did take two.
>> yes.
>> and we relied on the results.
>> yes.
>> so what tech knee --
>> what of my [indiscernible] this was not a single incident.
Then i'll go tour sampling procedures and testing procedures. I have a list,
ann showers road, 1600 feet, jacob son road, circle drive, 660 feet, edgebrook
drive, 588 feet, [inaudible] lane 13,600 feet, split rock road, 2980 feet.
Old san antonio road, 500 feet. Duvall creek, 10,085 feet. Pierce road, 8,335
feet.
>> that's 10 or 11 roads.
>> yes, sir.
>> during what time period?
>> from April to this -- to June. And we had consistent problems
throughout the summer, throughout the heat. Basically all summer long.
>> okay. So April through June of '04.
>> I would say through August. We're continuing having these
problems.
>> through August of '04.
>> yes, sir. As ms. Grimes pointed out, we do not specify
in our contract that we follow txdot sampling procedures. We specify that
we want this material to meet txdot specifications. And that's required on
each transport when it arrives on the job site. We actually follow the american
society for testing materials specifications which are probably a more global
specification. We have this material tested at a certified astm lab and bringing
this material to this laboratory and the lab has tested it for txdot specifications
as prescribed in the contract. The material has failed not only in specifications
but also in the afpl answer issues on all of those read ways and we feel it
will continue to do that during hot weather when this material has some performance
issues.
>> and there's a cost to us for that.
>> hold on. Hold on. So how many contracts did we have for
this same asphalt?
>> we have one contract for all the asphalt that we purchased.
And because we have one contract and one vendor, our contract prohibits us
from going out when we have a failure to buy asphalt from any other vendor.
>> okay. So if staff is right and we've got 10 or 11 roads
that -- where the asphalt is bleeding --
>> judge, if I can respond to that.
>> let me just -- and the picture they are saying is you
are the county's exclusive provider of asphalt, then we do have a problem.
>> you have a problem.
>> what's the solution?
>> i'll tell you one thing. In these 10 or 11 incidents they've
addressed with you today, they've never addressed with us. We've never heard
of any of these other instances he's talking about. We don't know where the
location is, the people that address this problem. It never has been brought
up to an issue to us and none of the correspondence you have before you today
addresses any of these points he's addressed. We have asked for that information,
they have failed to provide us that information. The only thing that you have
-- the only thing we have is these two incidences. Those are the only two
incidences. Now, to address the second part of your question what's the solution,
the solution doesn't -- the problem doesn't necessarily tie back to a failure
of the product. It can be the application. How the product is being applied
to the roads. We don't know what the solution is until we see the product
and identify what the problem is. We haven't been able to do that. The only
time we addressed this issue is in correspondence in April and unfortunately
do you not have a copy of that document.
>> is in this section.
>> what did you all recommend in April? Or did you?
>> we said possible reasons for the problem. This is in the
letter dated June 14, 2004. The second course is being applied, meaning the
second layer of asphalt is being applied before the emulsion has cured. Some
water is still trapped in the force course. Days with high humidity retard
the breaking of the water from the asphalt causing slower curing. Traffic
on the second course causes the -- forces the water out. That's causing the
bleeding. It has nothing to do with our product failing to meet specifications.
It has everything to do with how the product is being applied by tend user.
Recommendations, allow more time between the first and second layer. Tree
three to five days. Second recommendation, reduce slightly the rate of emulsion
on the second course from -- to point 25. Third recommendation, for the [inaudible]
near Lake Travis, we recommend full road closure for the workday. Roll well
with pneumatic rollers. Because they were rolling with steel rollers and that
crushes the rock and that destroys, makes it impossible for gravity to hold
on. And then allow three to five days between the coats. Sweep well before
the second course. Allow second coat to cure well before allowing traffic
back. This letter was never responded to. No one addressed any issue about
this letter whatsoever. This is the only evidence that we ever heard of any
bleeding out there other than these two separate alleged failures to meet
specifications when they tested the product, as I said contrary to what decks
dot txdot requirements. These other complaints, first time i've heard about.
>> sir, if I may, really, what we know how to do is make
the material according to specifications. We sell [indiscernible] at the same
time it is being sold to -- delivered to Travis County to several other customers.
>> what other counties in Texas?
>> specifically there's several. Lockhart, which is --
>> the city of lockhart.
>> well, it's the txdot --
>> project?
>> right. So you are selling it to txdot, they use it on
central Texas projects.
>> right. And they said they had no problems. As a matter
of fact, on one instance, and I believe first thing -- first time that we
heard about the problems was just a little before this June 14th letter. And
one of the recommendations that our people made to Travis County was to call
lockhart and find out what they are doing. Because they are using the same
product out of the same tank practically delivered on the same day and you
are having problems and they are not. City of college station is one of the
customers that uses this product exclusively, as far as I know. So and in
all the correspondence that has transpired between [inaudible] and myself,
all these other issues were news to me. I heard some of them on the letter
that she sent me on September the 16th. But.
>> this year.
>> of this year. But in response to my letter of September
the 8th. But we don't pretend to be knowledgeable in application. The -- whoever
does the application, that's their job. Our job is to make the material that
meets txdot specifications. And in order for someone to really know and prove
everything that whether the product made to speaks -- met the specifications
or not, a good sample has to be taken. A sample that is bad, that is off the
discharge pipe that contains whatever the trucks [indiscernible], it's a fairly
small amount. Those pipes [indiscernible] on the truck go between maybe [inaudible]
eight feet at the longest, they will hold at the most approximately a gallon
and a half, two gallons. But what is in that pipe is not representative of
what's on the truck. And they are [indiscernible] that small section of the
pipe that has no impact, has no effect on the load because the load is approximately
5,000, $6,000. And this is a couple of gallons. It will not do any damage
to the load, but it will certainly yield a test result that is wrong. Now,
on the first failure, on the one that happened in June, [indiscernible] in
one of the correspondence, in one of the letters that you have, it stated
-- well, in several that you have, that gulf states was [indiscernible] --
present and assisted with the taking of the sample. Which is not true. We
were called or we were told that a sample was going to be taken on that load
so christina pena, which is one of the sales persons, informed -- and I don't
recall exactly who she was talking to, but I think it was [indiscernible]
how a sample should be taken according to txdot procedures. And we requested
that we be there when the sample was to be taken. We were given a location,
we showed up there and there was nobody there. Final there any distributor
arrived at the location and [indiscernible] a first course. The material was
working fine, as far as I can tell, there was no complaints whatsoever from
the -- from the representatives. [indiscernible] back the sample and he says,
well, mr. Davis -- our salespeople -- gave our salespeople a location of the
road where the sample was to be taken. So they -- and he proceeded ahead of
them. They got there and the distributor-operator said [indiscernible] sample.
They did not observe it. They were not present when the sample was taken.
[indiscernible] which is another one of our salespeople, asked the operator
how do you take the sample. What the operator said is that he had pumped about
a thousand gallons out of the truck into the distributor, then he had unhooked
the hose intake and taken a sample. And mr. Hernandez's comment was, well,
that's really not the best way to take it, but it will do. However, and I
believe that the sample is taken that way would have passed. Now, ms. Grimes
wrote me a letter saying you failed, we're not going to pay for this. I wrote
her a letter and it's -- I don't know whether you have a copy of that, but
there's a copy of it here in this package that I brought. Change her mind
and agreed to pay for the thing. To me that's telling that she didn't believe
her sample, so the material [indiscernible] is going to be paid. On the second
sample, the one that took place in August, the -- and you do have that. There's
a statement from the driver of the truck that states exactly how the sample
was taken. When the truck showed up, they -- the valve is closed. They open
up the cap on the -- on the unloading pipe, and the first thing that was --
[indiscernible] that was seen there was [indiscernible]. When the truck got
back to our [indiscernible], we went ahead -- I asked the driver what had
happened. We took a sample exactly the same way from the residue from the
bottom of the pipe, and sure enough we tested it and the sample failed. We
also took two samples from the top of the truck [indiscernible] and both samples
pass. On Thursday, the same tank that was filled with, the state picked up
a sample also and it was taken to -- it was taken to here, to Austin. And
consequently we found out that the [indiscernible] they used [indiscernible].
The samples that we sent when we first made the material and the weekly samples
are not being tested by txdot. They've contracted for [indiscernible] and
I believe that's wrong, may through December, of the emulsion samples from
whatever the sort [indiscernible]. On that same day there was a sample from
the tank that we had shipped earlier that went to the state, and in this case
of the weekly samples no news is good news. If the weekly sample for some
reason fails, then the state immediately notifies us and pulls the numbers,
the numbers that we have that say this is -- this is a certification that
the state has sampled this material and that it meets specifications. So however-whether
the contract states it or not, that the material whether it meets specifications
or not, no proper sample has been taken. If you take a sample that is not
proper, then it's failure [indiscernible]. And that's really when we ship
something, if it bleeds, there's -- i've got something in here that the state
also publishes as to what are the -- what is the leading cause for bleeding.
Really the contract calls for and all that you can do is change something
that meets state specs. So if they blame us for the bleeding, it's unfair.
It's really not anything that we do that will cause that bleeding. There's
nothing that we can change in the making of the -- of that emulsion that can
change it whether it's going to bleed more or bleed less or not bleed. We
can only make the product in a way that it meets state specs. There's very
few customers that we have and right off the top of my head I can't recall
any that don't speaks tpaoeu for whatever we sell that state specs, txdot
specs have to be met.
>> what specifications did we require in our contract?
>> txdot specs.
>> well, I mean it's obvious that depending on where you
take the sample determines whether or not you get something that passes inspection.
I mean you all wouldn't argue that, would you?
>> one thing I might point out on the second sample that
we took, when the material arrived, we asked the driver who owned the truck
-- the truck was owned by gulf states tanker, and we inquired of the driver
what material he had hauled previously in this tanker. And he replied to us
that it was s.s. 1, which would have not provided any sort of failed sample
according to these specifications that happened in the laboratory. We did
run a gallon or so out of the spigot to remove any residue when we took the
sample, and then we took the sample, sealed the can, labeled it and took it
to the laboratory. That's the requirement that you run a gallon on the ground.
>> it's their position the sample [indiscernible] samples
passed state inspection.
>> they have a reservoir that they take a sample out on random
basis that was with a third-party contractor. That tank has anywhere from
40,000 gallons to probably 42,000, 43,000 gallons. The loads we get on the
field, which in our contract requires that that load at the time of transport
meet specifications. In the contract it says we can request that material,
each transport be tested and pass specifications. The load arrived on site.
We followed the astm sampling procedures that is correct sample fails, we've
got bad material.
>> you are saying the state specs requirement is you pull
the sample off the top, not off the bottom.
>> right. And in the contract it doesn't address how -- because
typically we wouldn't do this unless we had a problem. It says we will test
the material, test, which is different than sampling. If you want to look
at it --
>> if we say we want to you meet state specs, that means
we would imply that we would test in the same manner that the state does?
>> not necessarily. Astm is a testing entity that governs
probably nationwide. A lot of states adopt astm specifications and call them
their own specifications. Typically that's pretty much how each state does
it. They base them on astm guidelines. And then they -- a lot of state regulations
are based on that way. It's the e.p.a. Guidelines and they call them the tceq
guidelines.
>> what's our response to mr. Pena's position that apparently
our application procedure or process --
>> I can let mr. Ruler address that. My understanding is
we've been using this product 10 to 15 years and for numerous years [indiscernible]
had no issue. And only in the last two years by using the same type of polymer
have we had problems. I guess I would point out to you that it may be similar
to -- and this is fairly simple, buying a gallon of milk. You don't expect
the first drop to be bad and then you drink the rest of it. We're paying for
a material out the back end of a transport and we expect the material that
the county taxpayers pay for be good throughout that use. And what we're finding
out --
>> you are saying -- [indiscernible].
>> the first tests we took was from the middle of this transport.
It wasn't as to his sampling techniques. Their representatives were there
on site and had no issue with the sample.
>> and that sample passed? Aopb that sample failed. We took
a second sample, they failed. We got bad material. I don't believe the history
of the road crews that we've got over 10, 12 years using this material is
improper technique. We've got roads hundreds of miles of the county roads
have been used this material in the last 10 or 12 years, not a problem. Now
we've got a problem the last two years.
>> don, you just reeled off about 10 sections of about maybe
eight or 10 miles, I mean the linear feet. How many miles total have we done,
I mean are there places where we have used this and we haven't had the problem?
>> Commissioner, I would anticipate that it's an unknown
right now. Our typical work program per year, we do approximately 80 miles
of seal coat. Some of those roads were done from last year. So we're having
problems with roads that were applied with this material last year. We could
go now because of cool weather, these conditions, we might not have a problem
until next year. It's very unusual, but it's not right after it's applied.
The road -- seal coat and then it could be a week of 100-degree weather with
98% humidity and all of a sudden we have this problem. It's a weather condition
that kind of initiates this action in the material. They could sit there for
six months, a year, which is what we have seen, and then all of a sudden this
happens and we have to immediately address the situation.
>> one point is just income the middle of this discussion
is that the contamination possibly happened from the time they put it out
of their tank that was tested by txdot into the transport tanker because they've
used a different material prior to putting our asphalt in that tanker. So
[indiscernible] has pictures of what they are calling rubber particles in
it, so we think possibly contamination took place when they took it out of
a tank that met specs and put tonight a truck and brought it to us.
>> and I might address --.
>> of the application of -- throughout the county with the
roads that you've mentioned, that where are these roads? Basically throughout
Travis County?
>> throughout the county.
>> that's what I wanted to isolate on.
>> specific roads -- it's basically throughout the work program
where we have applied a chip seal within the last two [indiscernible].
>> can you tell me what would -- if the roads start bleeding,
what are the associated costs we'r having to go back and do that --
>> yes, sir. The cost of the amount of money that had to
be expended for a retrofit of bleeding of those roads.
>> yes, sir, what we've planned, and this is -- this is work
that is inclusive of what we've done already this year and what we'll have
to do whenever they are able to purchase asphalt again. Duvall creek road.
Hot mix overlay at the cost of $95,000. Pierce road, we corrected with a single
course of additional [inaudible], a cost of $21,991. We also anticipate a
cost with the other roads that something will be done corrective action at
a cost of 89,497. And this doesn't include we had numerous [indiscernible]
responses after [inaudible] to go out on roads and apply a sand course on
these roads after hours. That's an additional cost and I believe we had at
least three and possibly as many as five to six of those where we've sent
employees out basically after our work hours and with material and equipment
to apply sand course to these roads to prevent possible claims against the
county for possible damage to vehicles.
>> all right. Now, the folks from gulf states mentioned earlier
that -- I think the judge brought this question up a little bit ago and I
really didn't get a full answer. I mean I didn't hear a full answer, and that
was basically what they are alleging is that the application process, they
mentioned the humidity and the one time you do it and then the next time you
put another layer on it, kind of the procedure things and they said the procedure
of application with these roads is not followed properly, in the words of
-- that's the alleged comment, but I?m want to go hear basically what you
said. Have there been any deviation in the way, in the procedure of doing
these roads?
>> [indiscernible] we've been doing this many years. And
like I said, we've used this material for a long period of time prior to this,
same application, same equipment, same aggregate. Supposedly the same sort
of material that we speck and up until the last two work times we have not
had these issues.
>> yes, sir. And so from the last 12 to 15 years, we've applied
seal coat process basically the same. The process is the same. The amounts
may vary even on the oil. In mr. Pena's, the letter -- his letter was talking
about, they wrote the letter did go to larry and larry is not here today and
I didn't see this until this issue came up. It was brought to my attention.
And talking with larry, I believe he was in contact with gulf states, ms.
Pena, I believe, and [inaudible], and although did he not respond in writing,
he did respond verbally to this and informed them our process is we don't
-- we have always seal coated our road one course right after the other. We
don't have the luxury of being able to close a road for an entire day. Especially
in precinct 23 or other areas. So we could not change our process. It was
part of the -- the issue was part of the material. I understand mr. Pena feels
his material is very good, but all I can say is for the last two years i've
had equipment failure due to trash of which I thank his company for fixing.
His company has fixed the equipment. We've had it last year and we had it
again this year. We sent it down, they fixed it at no charge. Paid for my
fuel down and back. But I?m continue to go have problems with my constituents
calling me. That is why we started testing this material and it does not test
meeting specifications, clear and simple. I buy the material out of the back
of the truck, not the middle of the truck. I don't buy the material out of
his tank. I buy it out of the end of the truck. And that is where it did not
pass.
>> what's the term of this contract?
>> we made tonight March so it goes through March of '05.
If we don't terminate today.
>> judge, if I can say a couple things. One, i-gulf states
has been in existence for 50 years and as I understand they have followed
policies and procedures on application 10, 12 years, but likewise we have
followed policies and procedures for making asphalt for over 50 years. They
know what they are doing. Second, if you mention that gulf states were there
when they took a representative sample, no, what mr. Pena told everyone here
today is that they were invited to be there, they were there, no one was there
and these folks took the sample without our viewing it. And that sample failed.
I do find it very interesting that if they are having all these problems out
there in the field with bleeding, that something was not done and brought
to the attention of mr. Pena immediately. That just doesn't follow common
sense. If anyone is having a problem with the constituency or anything else
because the asphalt is bleeding would have identified where it is, tried to
find an immediate solution. There is no correspondence, no communication except
that one letter I read earlier in June of -- in April of 2004. That is the
only letter that addresses this particular bleeding issue. And we outlined
a solution and we never got a response. What we have before tkau is a quick
rush to judgment on the basis of how two samples were taken. The did sample
failed according to them, but they used that application, they used the product
out in the field and we never heard a peep about any problems with that product.
The second sample was taken in August of this year. Now, that particular truck
came back to gulf states and then we then again took two samples. One txdot
did, we took the sample and did it in conformity with txdot raoeurpltsd. They
are saying listen, we want you to meet txdot requirements, but we're not going
to observe txdot procedures as far as taking samples. Txdot identifies the
proper procedure. They did not follow it. We followed it, it passes. They
are asking you to make an exception here. Let's follow txdot procedures all
the way to making the product, but once we decide to take a particular sample
to verify whether it meets those standard, we're going to observe astm procedures
which is not something followed by txdot. So you ought to be consistent. And
[indiscernible] it had been identified in the contract saying, listen, I understand
we want you to follow txdot procedures, but we will take a sample by astm
standards. That I think will be a better full disclosure and would disclose
to mr. Pena in following that mechanism. That's all I want to say.
>> realty county's position [indiscernible]. What's your
recommendation about where we ought to go from here?
>> well, I would say that if it were my call, I would say
that mutually the parties ought to terminate their arrangement and just walk
away. It appears to me they are not going to be happy and they are going to
continue taking these samples and as far as we're concerned, we want to sell,
we do, and we believe our product works. We believe the sample tests we take
in conformity can everything shows the product works. But they don't have
that level of comfort with us and when you don't have a level of comfort,
you ought to just separate and I think you would have that arrangement in
the contract that both parties can mutually agree to separate. That would
be my recommendation.
>> do we -- if we accept that recommendation, do we need
to chat with [inaudible]?
>> you are talking about mutual termination, we basically
pay for what we've used and that's it?
>> correct.
>> and we terminate and we're free to go buy from another
vendor?
>> absolutely.
>> and we can't again claim failure where we're going to
have to pay that $250,000, we waive our claim against them if we do it for
convenience? The court might want to discuss that in executive session.
>> is that the figure?
>> it's an estimate.
>> what's the teug?
>> about 200, 250,000. -- figure.
>> well, obviously we have a problem. It's not like we've
done business with you and hadn't wanted to do business with you. Our guys
are just doing roads, they are going to do roads because that's their job.
So we really -- whoever is at fault here, I mean you all want to sell your
product, we want to build roads. But you are right, I mean I think that once
you lose the confidence of the product, it makes, you know, dealing with each
other very difficult. You know, it really probably boils down to and if there
were $250,000 on the table, probably be a real [inaudible] decision. You go
about your business, we'll go about ours.
>> the overlay you made reference to, who pays for that?
>> the county did.
>> the county.
>> well, let's chat with counsel in executive session. We're
looking at this this afternoon, I would guess. I mean if -- I don't see us
doing it between now and lunch. Do you want to come back after lunch?
>> might as well.
>> we'll come back, we're in executive session there, try
to deal with some of these issues. My estimate would be 1:30 we'll know. We'll
chat with counsel in executive session. Thank you very much.
>> judge, before we leave, on that item, I mentioned the
cost of having to retrofit to go back and fix those roads that were bleeding.
I would really like to have that number because that's another added cost
to the taxpayers should Travis County have to bear that expense.
>> Commissioner, that's the $250,000 we're estimating.
>> I didn't sum it up.
>> Commissioner, also, what I would like to point out to
you there are a lot of roads in the work plan that were done last year that
could come up and have these problems so that $250,000 number could be higher.
>> okay. All right.
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: Thursday, October 27, 2005 10:24 AM