Travis County Commissioners Court
November 28, 2006
Item 26
Number 29
>> [sic] receive --
>> it's 26.
>> what did I say.
>> 29.
>> 26. 26. Consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature.
>> bob has given us a list of proposed legislation that's been called to his attention. Bob, that's your cue.
>> good afternoon, judge Biscoe and Commissioners. If -- does everybody have a copy of the handout in what we have done is -- is just put together a brief list for you of -- of bills, potential bills that have brought -- been brought to our attention by staff and other elected officials. Primarily the -- the criminal court judges. And I wanted to review each of these items with you briefly. There are -- there are 10 -- nine items total. We have a draft bill or we are having a bill drafted for each of these items, except the last one number 9, because we just became aware of those issues during the work session that we had a week or so ago. But everything else, there is either a bill to look at or one being drafted, there's also background for those -- so they are ready, pretty much ready to go if you decide to -- to -- to go that way. And judge with your permission, I will just go through one -- briefly each one. The first one misdemeanor citation. This was one brought to us by the -- by the sheriff's office. And worked with -- with major balagia on this. But currently a peace officer is allowed to issue a suspect, a citation, in lieu of arresting that person for class c offense. And they would like to expand that to some class a and b misdemeanors and in that way they could -- they could give them a citation not arrest them, and -- and not have that person go into the -- go into the jail. Also, there's another issue there with -- with all of those defendants have to be brought downtown. And the background made the point of with -- with various lakes that we have out there in Travis County, those officers spend a lot of time just driving downtown. And so this would also have the beneficial effect of -- of allowing more of those officers to be there doing what they are supposed to be doing or doing other duties.
>> have we asked our pretrial services officials what impact they think this will have? If not, let's just do that, okay?
>> okay.
>> any reason why the pretrial service -- state-wide would oppose something like that, but you never know.
>> also give me a -- on each one of these a percentage, just a guess, on -- on what percentage you think this has of getting somewhere.
>> okay.
>> if you would on each one of them, bob. Not to put you on the spot --
>> [multiple voices] I'm not going to show you hey this is what you said.
>> no. That's -- that's something that we have been trying to assess. We haven't done -- we have -- we have background from the staff and we have gotten the bills drafted, but we have not gone up to other people and say what would you, how would you feel about this now? Some of the staff folks on some of these bills have contacted other counties and that type of thing. So we do have some limited background. But I will give you, drive to give you -- try to give you a guess as to what we think we will find. On this one, you know, it depends on what -- what the class a and b misdemeanors are involved of course and what that list is. But I think generally you are going to have support from -- from other counties that -- that might face the same issue. And the -- I guess the touchy thing would be as to whether or not they feel like as a public safety issue, you know, you are -- you are
>> [indiscernible] some people that you shouldn't. I think in david was up here, he is, he's going to say a lot of those people get bailed out in a couple of hours, they have to go through that process, be driven down here --
>> real quickly, I won't take a lot of time. The language is such that it's not mandatory. It's, you know, you can take them to jail or you can just issue a citation.
>> optional.
>> correct. So, you know, if they do think that the person is suspicious and they don't have any good i.d. On them, they will take them to jail. If they stop them and the offense is such that, you know, they are trespassing on the land that doesn't have some
>> [indiscernible] on it, posted sign out there, take them to jail. Write them a citation, let them go. The effective pretrial it would affect them, I believe, related to attorney appointments. Not that that -- that those things couldn't happen in first setting when they appear. It is going to have an impact of course on people that don't -- don't go to their first setting, then you have to issue a forfeiture, you know, bond forfeiture warrant for them and arrest them again. That happens now. The last -- the last national statistic I saw was that 7% of everybody that bonds out for fits that bond. Doesn't come back. That's not a real high number. 7%. .
>> major, is this something that applies equally to police departments within an incorporated city?
>> correct. Do you have assurances that the apa for example over at the a.p.d. Is on board? We wouldn't want to have a fight making sure c.l.e.a.t. Is on board as well.
>> I haven't talked to either one of those. I have given the -- the bill and the language and had a discussion with mike mcdonald at the city attorney's office. He supports it. He said that he was going to carry the flag over to -- over to the pd for us.
>> we can add that to the list of checking with pretrial. Checking with our counterparts. That would be great.
>> does this have history? Has this been tried before, bob?
>> not that I am aware of.
>> which would also somehow -- so new. If I just put out this is a new bill.
>> I think chief sylvester had made some contacts at the last legislative session on this same topic. But I don't know how far he -- I don't believe so.
>> would you give it a 60/40 at most or a 50/50?
>> 50/50 because I just don't know how folks are going to react to it.
>> all right.
>> you know, there is some precedent in that they do it for class c offenses and if it selected class a and b it may be workable, it may save a lot of people time and effort, so --
>> we will need to get the appropriate people to sign from the sheriff's office. When it comes time for committee reports, committee hearings, you know, in terms of somebody has got to take this ball and say I'm going to take responsibility for this, because this is really a bill on behalf of an independent elected official, not the Commissioners court, so somebody has got to take responsibility when it comes time for this to go through the "lege" of babysitting this all the way through the process. When people ask for information, that they quickly get that information to any state legislator who asks for it.
>> that would be the s.o.
>> thank you.
>> all right. The second one where it of execution, writ of execution, this is an issue that staff tells me they have briefed you on a number of times, I think Travis County has been sued or the -- the constable has been sued for failure to -- to properly execute a write. And there is -- there is a draft bill on this. A number of counties have been working with Travis County to come up with the language. And so -- so best I can tell, Commissioner Daugherty, they have been out there trying to -- trying to work this language to be acceptable to a large number. So I probably put this one up a little higher, hopefully. Then again I'm not sure what's going to happen with -- with -- who the opposition is going to -- going to hire to -- to get in there to oppose it.
>> the problem with that I think is that you have got to get the -- all of the constables Commissioners courts, county attorneys and d.a.s in the state working for this. Urban counties should know about it already. Smaller counties have not been hit yet. It's reasonable not on their radar. But they are covered by the same language. And -- and probably are more susceptible to -- to having some liability imposed against them in urban counties because -- because the problem is
>> [indiscernible] so fast until the deal is done. Dallas, harris, us, tarnts, we are all -- tarrant, we are all hit by it. But all of the other counties are exposed. My point, though, is I wouldn't just consider this to be a county attorney or d.a. Issue. It's really Commissioners court, constables, and whoever is concerned about public money, it should be a big deal to you.
>> okay.
>> I would not -- I was not under the impression that we were orchestrating support. I was left with the impression that the county attorney's offices were strategizing to find language acceptable to them. My guess though is that for cuc, tac, we ought to have a united front on this.
>> constables association.
>> so you try to get all of the potentially impacted entities, persons supporting you, get their delegations behind this, really ought to just flow --
>> which also raises another question. For example the cuc will allow the individual counties to bring their legislative items to them and then they can adopt them. And so I don't know if you all will vote on that, but that would be something if you want us to go ahead and do that, we could -- this one or any others, go ahead and present it to -- to cuc at one of their legislative committee meetings so they can vote on it and bring it to their full board.
>> this one especially is one of state-wide implication. This one and the previous one are state-wide.
>> we have real life examples of -- of where our county treasuries were hit as a result of this.
>> yeah.
>> and really two years ago, this -- this exposure didn't exist to our knowledge.
>> yeah.
>> but then --
>> this is a new -- this is definitely a new one. This is not -- has not had any history of any kind of bill trying to be done. It's new right, bob?
>> that's my understanding. My understanding this was a -- this was sort of a newly discovered cause of action for a particular lawyer or group of lawyers that -- so ...
>> great scam.
>> third one, toll collection violations, and this one Commissioner Sonleitner is very familiar with. But this would allow you to have toll violations add adjudicated through an administrative hearing rather than putting those into the j.p. Courts and tying up your j.p. Courts. The anticipation is that the volume is going to be fairly large. And we -- that is being drafted right now. So I don't have the language for you, but we can --
>> well, bob, I would just put this one on a list of if this can get passed as a local bill early in the session as opposed so that it get consolidated on whatever kind of omnibus transportation bill that always seems to come through, right now the toll roads are free. So other than speeding there are no plaza violations, but that will start ending in January. And you are going to start having issues come up so if this is something that can potentially be done as a local bill, up front, fast, with an early implementation date, but if this -- if this waits until the end of the session, gets on with an only my bus bill, omnibus bill, then it's September, we are going to have very unhappy j.p.'s in travis and Williamson counties.
>> my concern is that -- I remember this did come up for discussion before. Of course we tried to look at the workload that would be incurred by a justice of the peace, especially if toll road violations had to be remedied at that level before the jp's. I thought that basically we had anticipated that's where it was going to end up going. Again I guess my next question is the toll, the only toll that I'm aware of, I don't really know, the other -- the other tolls that will maybe come in place there's still a question on some of the toll roads as far as them actually being tolled, I really don't know what's remaining to be tolled is the question. What toll roads actually will be there after all of this -- after the dust clear and we ought to see exactly where we are on our toll. Right now we -- we don't really know exactly where we will end up being with the possible alternatives to tolling in this particular region. And right now it's kind of up in the air. What's going to be tolled and what's not? Of course we know that some roads are going to be tolled here within Travis County. But again there are some that may not meet that criterion. To be tolled and I think it's a possibility that -- that they may not be toll roads if there are alternatives to tolls. That do come up. So I'm kind of -- I'm kind of concerned about this because I don't really know the magnitude of -- of the -- or the victim I guess that would really be demonstrated -- the volume that I guess would really be demonstrated until we know where we are on tolls. That's my question, that's my point. I really don't really know at this point.
>> we know that s.h. 130 is going to be owe.
>> one of them.
>> 45. All sorts of toll roads. That's what we're doing it for. You're right we don't know about the phase 2 toll roads. But the fact that we have got one road that's going to be 49 miles of toll road --
>> Commissioner, just the impact of the ones that are 130, 45 north and mopac we are going to kill the j.p. Courts. It disproportionately is going to hurt, especially just bambry because she has all three of them in terms of what's going through there. There was no presumption about phase 2. Phase 1 was enough to kill the j.p. Courts.
>>
>> [indiscernible] I did mention and I did bring it up that there are some roads that are tolled, some may not be tolled, it's a volume thing also we don't really know exactly where we are on volume. But we do know that there are going to probably be significant toll violations. I cannot remember exactly how the j.p. Felt about that when it came up before. I know, I think it was maybe looking for additional staffing. Maybe looking for da-da-da, I don't really recall that portion. But I do know it was an issue that we had to deal with.
>> yeah.
>> so -- the issue is still there. It hasn't gone away.
>> yeah. We tried to do it last session and -- and it hit a bump in the road, we had to pull it out of the bill and so -- so it doesn't happen. But I think that's -- your recollection is correct. We did -- we did have it last session. I think the j.p.'s did come in and support it.
>> it is their priority and in fact they warned us during this last suggest process that if we do not get this relief, we will see impacts that could hit us mid year and absolutely become impact issues for next year's budget. They gave us warnings about the kinds of administrative impact that this would have on them if this bill is not passed.
>> Commissioner Davis, we should have a draft, I would think in the next two weeks that we can get back to you and your staff. But it's possible that it could be done as a local bill, Commissioner Sonleitner, and then your question about does it, you know, what -- does it apply to future toll roads or not. I'm not sure if -- if -- I'm sure it could be drafted that way. If that's your -- if that's your suggestion. But we will get that draft to you, we can -- we can get it redrafted if need be.
>> okay.
>> okay.
>> number 4, medical examiner's bill. In this bill it has been drafted, I think this may also address a lawsuit against the county. But this would authorize the medical examiner to retain any tissues, organs, blood, other bodily fluid, gases or any other specimens deemed necessary for diagnostic or evidentiary purposes. And those would be dispossessed of in accordance with state and federal laws. And I think the keep part is that they would not have to get consent to retain those specimens. Again, we will -- if you want, judge, we can -- within probably the next two or three weeks, we should have drafts of most of these bills. We can put this background piece and a copy of the bill, just deliver it to your offices so you all can begin to look at that.
>> so there won't be any family involvement? Let's say the person --
>> for a public --
>> [multiple voices]
>> pardon me.
>> for public purpose, the law is very clear on autopsies. If a person dies within 24 hours of admission to a hospital, a person is killed or dies a natural death, dies in the absence of one or more good witnesses, body parts are found, causes uncertain, and it goes on to several items, a child younger than age six, the autopsy is required. There's no permission requested from the family, the law says that -- that an autopsy is required. Sometimes specimens are -- are taken from the body. So this bill would allow us to do that without -- and retain them without asking the family for permission. Because the family doesn't provide for permission to perform an autopsy in the first place. That's mandated by law.
>> the standard filed in most states?
>> it is a standard followed in Texas. We have checked with the other -- you know, with the medical examiners in Texas and states --
>> why do we need this law then?
>> because there is a question. It is not clear. There is -- there is a question still. So -- so this clarifies practice.
>> it's consistent with the name accreditation standard?
>> the name act --
>> come up to the mic.
>> not for a long discussion. Every time something like this comes up I get a little worried because of a little -- little issues that we've had in the past with various families. So if -- if members of the public know about this, you can expect some opposition. If this is consistent with name accreditation standards.
>> it requires that the office have a policy and procedure on collection, retention and disposition of the removal of specimens. It does not specify how that's done and it does not speak to the issue of consent with regard to both collecting, retaining or dissupposing of those -- disposing of those specimens.
>> is it pretty much done like this in other states?
>> yes. The standard is that those functions are done without the consent. If it is a case that falls under the jurisdiction of the medical examiner's office.
>> is it supported by law in other states?
>> no. Some states have laws that specifically address this issue. Most like ours are silent. And don't really speak to it with specificity.
>> we need to listen to those that have laws that support this. I think we ought to get ready for a little fight on this one but proceed. We think the other urban counties will support something like this, too. In fact most of them do it already. Okay.
>> this is one of the questions that when we did our survey of the large medical examiner's offices in the state, we specifically asked for their copies of their policy. And what it is they do and this is practiced.
>> this was prompted in part by a lawsuit out of ohio where family members sued over a situation similar to these circumstances. It just clarify that's.
>> I just think that we should try to put together the most persuasive, most precise presentation we can in anticipation of opposition. Most of which will come from -- from Travis County. Unless -- unless people I have in mind are out of town for four or five months. All right. Okay? But we need it is what you are saying. So --
>> all right. Bob, were you supposed to be out of here at 2:00 or 3:00?
>> 2:00.
>> all right.
>> pick up the pace a little bit.
>> capital youth corridor. I know you all are familiar with this issue. We are drafting a bill in the event that you all elect to build a civil courts building. Take care of that issue. The early retiree health care coverage, this involves a little bit of explanation. Right now the county has 160 early retirees. And in a year or two you will have about 250. And -- and right now, under the language, you are required to provide them the exact same coverage that you have for your active employees. This would -- the language in this bill would give you some flexibility to -- to look at different plans that would be more cost effective for the county. I -- for example, you might look for a plan that -- that is -- has other early retirees in that plan. So that they would be put in with that pool rather than with active employees. That way you wouldn't adversely impact the cost to your active employees. So --
>> we need the pros and cons? On this -- a memo so we can understand exactly what we are getting into. Make sure that we don't have unexpected consequences.
>> sure.
>> could be one of those delicate areas. We are trying to do the right thing. We need to make sure that we understand exactly what we are trying to do. Agreement on that. That our language in fact does that for us. So -- so I think we need to see a little bit more in writing, especially some sort of supporting document. Is our goal for this to be Travis County specific? Local option or --
>> this would also affect the cities as well as counties the way it's drafted currently.
>> we think that --
>> we don't know. I think that dan has talked to other counties. I don't know if he's talked to other cities. No? Okay. Just counties.
>> let's do it.
>> yep.
>> it could be the best thing in the world. I just think that we need to make -- try to anticipate what our composition may read into it. And make sure that our language is precise enough to -- to eliminate that adverse consequence if possible.
>> we will do that. I would anticipate the cities would support all -- all governmental entities are facing this issue with early retirees and the expense. So this just gives you some flexibility. But we will run those. On number 7, these are all proposals by the criminal court judges. The first one there is -- is a new statutory county court. I think that you all are familiar with that one. First one. And then moving on to page two, these bills are in the process of being drafted so we don't have a lot of information or background. The background that you see here is all of the background that I have. And so I don't have a real good feel for whether or not these are going to pass or not. This next one, the one at the top of page 2 is fairly specific to Travis County. And so I suspect that we could do that as a local bill and that -- that one shouldn't be too difficult, Commissioner Daugherty. The next one amending article 17.16 of the code of criminal procedure, that looks to have state-wide impact. There was some question about exactly what the fix would be. The solution just said to clarify that. So we are going back to the judges to try to get some clarity on that because "lege" counsel couldn't draft it based on that suggestion there. Then the last one -- let's see. Amend 4212 to include defendants currently on deferred adjudication on felony offenses being ineligible for automatic probation. This one and the last two we need to get you drafts of bill and further background we don't have a good enough feel for these. These are ones that we got probably within the last three weeks, we just initiated the bill drafting process, that's all that we have done. So can't help you much in terms of whether or not it's going to pass or not pass.
>> at what point do -- do we supply additional legislation that -- that -- proposed legislation that we would like to see, the past -- from different departments I guess. When is that supposed to come about? I guess -- I know we had discussion in our last work session on several things, I'm wondering when they were going to be brought to the table. Example land use of -- trying to get parking fees for example at the
>> [indiscernible] especiallily
>> [indiscernible] along the corridor, that's very critical. I'm just wondering now how and when is that supposed to come forward.
>> the last number 9 from the transportation natural resources departments has some of those.
>> okay. Because I guess my concern is moving forward with it.
>> [indiscernible]
>> let me jump ahead to number 9. We will come back to number 8. These three -- these three requests are ones that were -- that were brought up in the work session.
>> right.
>> and this is all the background that we have. The question is that if you want to draft a bill, for example, in the first one, county authority prepared -- prepared comprehensive development plans regulate land uses and develop capital infrastructure improvements ...
>> [reading graphic] five miles both sides of state highway 130. First thing that we have to do is figure out more specifics, how that is going to work so that we can get a bill drafted. At least a draft of that to start the circulate it. But we haven't even -- we haven't had the chance to do that. We just -- we just got this. So --
>> well, there could be a lot of help coming in terms of what direction ought we be going. Senator to be watson has been convening a monthly group and quite frankly he is trying to get the region to land on what legislative fixes ought to be in the arsenal in terms of what he wants to take forward during the legislative session. That clarity may come the next meeting -- it's on a Monday.
>> the 13th.
>> the 13th. Same day as campo. So --
>> and Commissioner Davis we have been following their meetings and -- and if they have got recommendations or actual legislation then we can bring it to you. To see what you all think about it. But right now we don't have that. If you all want -- we can -- we are going to need support from that department as to what that bill is going to say. Because there just isn't enough detail from these one sentence summaries to drift a bill. That's -- that's the problem.
>> we have been continuing to just -- participate in the meetings for some time. This is with the kirk watson group, senator watson elect. Of course there's been a lot of discussion from different communities, cities, for the whole entire region but however I just -- t.n.r. Is well aware, joe gieselman and his bunch are well aware of this, Commissioners, I'm just trying to put a rope around this thing where we can tie it down in some kind of way move forward. It's going to take as you stated, you know -- cooperation from all levels, state and local. And the -- see what we can do. So -- so I know joe gieselman is hearing this and of course he's part of this. So I'm just wanting to make sure that we do that in a timely manner. That's my concern.
>> on all three of these items we can try to get something drafted if that's y'all's desire. But we need to start because we don't have anything right now.
>> I think there will be much more direction coming at the December 13th --
>> yes.
>> because there's no point in trying to draft something if the region doesn't land place, you know -- certain way without everybody else being on the same page. All of those reports are due back on the
>> [indiscernible] based on the last meeting that we had. Going back to number 8, the gasb issue, susan has been working overtime on that issue. They have a bill drafted. They have been meeting with numerous stakeholder and public officials on this issue and -- and the -- we have chris and I have -- have not done that much. We are -- we are ready and willing to support the auditor's staff if you would like to us do that on that bill. That's really all that we have, judge. What I would suggest is to allow us as we get these bills, as soon as we get the bill -- we have bill drafts for maybe half. For those let us go ahead and get further background and what opposition we know is out there. Pros and cons type of information and I just present that delivered to your offices. And then as we get the other ones in, which should be in the next two to three weeks, do the same thing. And then when you are ready come back and have a discussion with -- with the staff folks that have -- that know substancively what these issues are, then let us know if you want us to push forward and get house and senate sponsors.
>> this item will be on weekly.
>> okay.
>> rather than dealing with all of them each week, seems to me that we ought to try to prioritize. Some are more important than others, some are actually ready. Some we will do. The only question is how much support we have for it. So I think we ought to try to identify those put together, the strategy, try to work it between now and when the legislature gets to town, try to get some of these through when -- during the quiet times when they -- the first two and a half or three months when they are looking for stuff to do.
>> that would be great with us. I know at least half -- probably four or five of these items are ready. We have got bill drafts, we are ready to go.
>> yeah.
>> okay. Maybe we ought to just have the broadly worded agenda item, but each week plan to take two or three up and move on them. Maybe instead of 1:40 p.m. In the afternoon, we aquatic to -- the last legislature I think we tried to have it at 11 or 11:30, 11:15.
>> it was just before noon.
>> susan?
>> bob's description on gasb 45 is exactly right. What we have been doing now is we have been really educating, talking to other key players in the state. Because what gasb 45 does, it's an accounting rule that requires us to put obligations on our books that are inconsistent with Texas constitution and state law. Therefore if we follow gasb 45, there will be materially misleading obligations on our financial statements that are -- that are not consistent with Texas state law and we know that because we -- because we pursued a legal opinion to determine what our obligation or liability might be. So that's really in a nutshell it's an accounting problem, we have an accounting solution, which we are proposing. There are bases of accounting other than gap. They are called other comprehensive basis of accounting or ocboa, that is a regulatory basis of accounting. What our legislation will propose is that the method of accounting that Texas counties and we also did -- did an inversion, which would cover all governments that wanted to in the state of Texas, that the accounting method that we would have would be consistent with Texas state law and that for other post employment benefits we would -- we would accident for them on a pay -- we would account for them on a pay as you go basis the way we do right now had which is consistent with Texas state law. Bob, chris, nora and my staff got together on this. What we are really doing is educating and getting support from people who are technically involved. Getting the bill drafted. And what we will need for bob and chris to be doing once it is drafted is help us get individual legislators on board and so we are kind of doing the first part, which is education, getting support, the judge and I met with the council of urban counties executive director don lee. I did a presentation for the Texas association of county auditors. We met with the state auditor. We will be having a meeting with the -- with the comptroller, susan combs. I will be meeting with someone from the bond review board. We will be meeting with representatives from the governor's office on the 5th. Gasb has consented to a phone conference call with us based on our stance that will be taking place on the 7th. The financial advisor from the county and I met with the experts from one of the bond rating agencies a few weeks ago. We are working those kind of technical parts of the legislation now making sure that it's worded correctly and that we get support for it and then once we get that then we will be meeting to approach individual legislators.
>> okay. We will have this item back on. Even on gasb I guess it wouldn't help for us to kind of outline a specific strategy.
>> okay. And have the court sign off on that because as we run into different elected officials over the next 30 to 45 days, we may as well make sure this is on their radar.
>> right, yeah.
>> and it's kind of quiet now and probably will be, so until about mid spring, but I think the best way for us to use that time is to keep getting out the word, especially about some of these issues are pretty urgent.
>> they are urgent and they are expensive to implement so if in fact we can get legislation and get it passed early, it will save all governments in the state of Texas money in terms of -- of, you know, implementation costs that they may not need.
>> okay.
>>
>> [indiscernible] on that particular bill? That language? Did you hear me?
>> bob, we will see you earlier next Tuesday.
>> does he need to be around for any discussion on 24? Or is that something that you just want to --
>> we can talk about phone. I think we need to reword this item now. We gave directions last week. I told bob what I thought they were. I did ask for -- I do have a draft of the minutes that indicate exactly what it was. But I gave him
>> [indiscernible] we will have another phone conversation. He's proceeding along the line that's we discussed. Next item should be an opportunity for us really to take action on -- on what's taken place.
>> yeah.
>> great.
>> okay. Now, I do see representatives from the sheriff's office there and p.b.o.
>> we are not going to need 24.
>> we won't need 24 24 unlesssomething -- I would cy it from week to week until we have a chance to act on it. Bob assures me that he will move with deliberate speed on that, which is much faster than the -- than when the supreme court has used that expression in the past.
>> thank you very much.
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, November 29, 2006 07:48 AM