Travis County Commissioners Court
April 17, 2007
Item 30
Now let's hurriedly go to the legislation items. 30. Consider and take appropriate action on certain legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80th Texas legislature, including the following: 1. House bill 539: relating to the regulation of fireworks and fireworks displays;
>> [indiscernible] didn't think we need to discuss this today. I did see the fire marshal. Do we need to discuss it? The fire marshal is here. There are a couple of other fire-related bills or fireworks related bills, right? B, house bill 1167, relating to the regulation of fireworks by counties during drought conditions; providing a criminal penalty; and c, house bill 3786: relating to the regulation of fireworks by counties;
>> good morning.
>> good morning, pete ball baldwin, I wanted to address 539 very quickly. The bill in its original format we quickly recommended not to support. However there's been a committee substitute house bill that we just received this morning and we would like to take a week to -- to review that before we make any type of recommendations.
>> does the committee substitute also have the takings provision in it?
>> no, ma'am.
>> if you shut them down --
>> no, it does not, it does not. But it does have some other interesting things. As I understand talking to talia this morning, there are some other things going on with this bill, also.
>> 539?
>> yes, sir, 539.
>> I kind of missed out what you said I was reading a note here. We take care of some issues with that --
>> we are not sure. We have a copy of the committee substitute house bill this morning. Weed this that there may be some rewrites as as we go through this. We would like to take a week before we make a recommendation on that.
>> we will have it back on next week.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. 1167, the next one.
>> > yes, sir. 1167 radios very appropriate. We don't know what that will end up being like, looks like we could support that bill and rim it to the court.
>> I understand the cuc had some opposition to it feeling that the exemptions were too broad.
>> yes, Commissioner. It is exceedingly broad, but it's broad in our -- to our arena. It's broad -- to -- to the benefit of the counties the way we read it.
>> should we support this but -- but question the broadness of the exemption?
>> judge, that would be an exceedingly wise course of action.
>> is that -- we can do that, right if.
>> yes, sir.
>> we can submit a card in support of but say exemptions should be reduced?
>> yes, sir.
>> we probably would have to do that in some form of written testimony actually. We can't just write that on a card. A card pretty much limits us to four, or against. We could certainly submit a paragraph of written testimony or invite someone to -- to come and speak.
>> okay. Should we support it but then send a letter to the -- to the fire marshal's office -- from the fire marshal's office to the sponsor of the bill or do we think that letter might be -- may not be effective?
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] .
>> there's a movement that makes a prohibition under 418 of the local government code during the '75 disaster act if the state or county is declared a disaster that you can't during time of drought prohibit firework and that's being worked out in the third court of appeals. It appears that this legislation would say that you can only do what 352 says. That puts the counties in a terrible position.
>> we believe we at least had v. The authority we had.
>> that's correct.
>> and this area when you have windy and drought conditions, it's a bad situation.
>> from our perspective, this is a horrible bill.
>> we have tried to use that little authority that we have judicial will you l.i. And we need to keep it, I think.
>> we vonl it happened once in the time that I've been here to ban university or sale of firework. That was over the period of new year's when many counties over the entire state went under the disaster declaration. Those were extreme measures for extreme times. We need to be able to retain that.
>> do we knee of anyone else -- do we know of anyone else --
>> the cuc is definitely against t.
>> and what about tac, Texas association of counties?
>> I don't know specifically, but historically they've opposed bills like this.
>> that support that outstanding precedent by indicating our opposition also.
>> second.
>> and a letter indicating the reasons why.
>> yes, sir, judge.
>> discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Thank y'all.
>> d is house bill 2006 relating to the use of eminent domain authority.
>> judge Biscoe, I recommend we put this off a week. There is a substitute being drafted. It's not available yet. There have been numerous eminent domain bills filed this session and they're probably going to congeal into one bill. As soon as we get a little better, we'll bring it back to you, if that's all right.
>> okay. E is senate concurrent resolution 42, granting maria isabel guerrero-mcdonald and guerrero-mcdonald and associates incorporated permission to sue Travis County. I have four or five legal questions to ask our county attorney. We did have a couple of meetings last week. They generated questions that I had for either don healy or whatever is in executive session with us this afternoon on this matter, and I think the court, especially those who were not around in '03, the answer to these legal questions are very important. Okay?
>> that's fine. F is gnat bill 1164 relating to the compensation of official court reporters for district courts. Judge mary horn in denton county asked me to support this bill, and I told her generally we would put it on the court's agenda. That we would in fact not have any problems with this in Travis County. I contacted peg lightsey who works for judge dietz late yesterday. She was not able to -- I was not able to reach her and she requested today that we postpone action on this. So I suggest that we have this discussion next week. Apparently in denton county an a lot of the other counties there is a big fight because now the district judges actually set the salary of the official court reporter. Archd the judges here do the same thing, but historically we have sort of put our heads together and sort of worked through it. Apparently that's not taking place in the other counties and this bill would give them that relief. So let's have it back on next week and see what we get.
>> judge, also on 30-e, I think, I think you said you were going to take it back into executive session. I want to make sure that all the chronological information is there when this was initiated and got started. 1994, '95, all the way up to where we are now.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> I think it would be very helpful to bring that. Okay. Thanks.
>> g, house bill 3612, relating to the authority of issuers to enter into contracts for services in connection with the issuance of public securities.
>> judge, Commissioners, ladd pattillo, your financial advisor. I had spoken to you last week about these next four item, g, h, I and j.
>> should I read all of them.
>> h is house bill 3616 relating to the selection of financial advisors by governmental entities. Was that the one we had last week?
>> no, that was 2677 last week.
>> I is house bill 3282 relating to the authority of issuers to ebbter into contracts for services in connection with the issuance of public securities. Ta reads kind of like d, doesn't it? J is house bill 3539 relating to interest rate management agreements relating to financing certain public improvements. What have y'all done to wake up the legislature over there, ladd?
>> [ laughter ]
>> well, judge, what's happened is that people were coming at this from different angles, from the broker, dealer community. So they filed multiple bills and most of these are redundant. All I wanted to do was explain that to the court so that -- you can help me with it. A lot of movement has been made in the last week, the day after you authorized 2677 I was over there until two a.m. Thursday for that committee hearing. There have been committee substitutes negotiated. And last Friday on one of these 3282, all the stakeholder got together and with rent branch's staff and had a big mediation. And I think it's -- if it had been laid out in committee yesterday, that the committee substitute, it would have solved all of this. So we've come to an agreement that would solve this that doesn't require people of joint associations for activities which they do not do, and it would put -- my suggestion everyone that does what I do in Texas would be under the umbrella of the state securities board, which I'm all in favor of. I used to work over there years ago. And I think we have one of the best ones in the country and they'll take care of making sure all the business is clean.
>> so we think house bill 3282 is the one that we ought to get behind?
>> well, the committee substitute, yes. That one behind and the others just have on a watch list here so that someone doesn't try to sneak this kind of language in. But I believe what we've done is -- will solve the problem. But I would like on the committee substitute that will be laid out next Monday, I would like your support.
>> so do we need to make it clier on the record that what we support is the house bill 3282 substitute?
>> yes, sir.
>> and which I guess we ought to see --
>> it hasn't been laid out yet, so we couldn't even testify on it yesterday because the author was tied up in another committee meeting. It won't even be laid out until next week.
>> so we can wait until next week to see the text of it?
>> yes, I have the latest draft, which is fine with me.
>> but it hadn't been offered, so it could change before next Monday.
>> the hearing is on Monday, though, to so provided that the substitute is acceptable to the court, we would need the court's approval this week to be able to put a card in on Monday.
>> move that we support the substitute for house bill 3282. And as long as this stays substantially the same we would be supporting it, but if there are significant changes, that support may well change.
>> if it moves back toward the direction of tying our hands on who you could shrek h. Select, then we will not support it.
>> I think we can do that and put language where we ratify the stiewbt next week when we have it. That's the motion. Seconded by metion dmition comitioner -- seconded by Commissioner Gomez. Discussion? You plan to be available nato watch things?
>> -- anyway, to watch things?
>> oh, yes.
>> all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much. And put the others on the watch list. We'll have those back on next week in case we need to take action. K is discussion of other bills and legislative issues as necessary. That's our catchall. Anything under it?
>> judge, I wanted to bring up one thing, house bill 1634. I can't think of the senator's name out of houston. Anyway, that particular bill was actually announced yesterday, and it basically supports the entertainment industry as far as films, television, commercials, digital type of settings and production. It basically is to give incentives to retain those type of productions here within the state of Texas. As you know, other states in the union are really being competitive by offering tax abatements, tax credits and things like that such as new mexico, louisiana, different folks like that. So this particular bill that is being proposed is actually just supposed to allow for incentives to these type of professions to actually stay here within the state of Texas, and this is something that I think we could support. I think it's moved pretty much -- what's the latest movement? I know it's moved through the house. From what I understand there was a little deal that they were dealing with as far as the finance committee on the senate side. Did you look into that?
>> see, the bill was passed out of the house on Thursday with a majority -- a very big majority vote. It is waiting to be heard in the senate. We can follow up and find out more than that, but that was the last update we had.
>> the issue on this one, Commissioner, is not so much the bill, it's the appropriations that would have to accompany the bill. And my understanding is that there is -- I believe it is a contingency appropriation in at least one of the budgets. I think it may be on both sides, but I don't know that for certain, that fund this. So this bill actually does not have a fiscal note, it simply sets forts what the -- sets forth what the quawl ta f.a.a. Indications are and how the program would work. The program itself has been in law previously, and this bill modifies that and makes if work better in the minds of many who support the motion picture industry and some of these related activities, but the real fight is over the appropriation. And we could perhaps give you an update on how that is looking next week.
>> that would be good because I did hear some testimony about a little difference as far as the money set aside from that appropriation bill and I think both parties have to agree in the house and also the senate. But I think it's something that we need to look at and it's moving pretty ran piddly. -- rapidly. : house bill1364. If you could bring us back that, we could see the proangses --
>> last year, Commissioner, I think they'll have some success this year. Last year, however, they got zero. There was no money appropriated for this legislation. But I think they'll have different success this time.
>> right. Okay.
>> we'll have it on specifically next week.
>> thank you, judge.
>> l is an added item, house bill 3003 relating to the investment of public funds in ways that benefit the state and local councilmember alvarez and to the selection of local financial institutions for the deposit of public funds. Mr. Davis?
>> good morning, harvey Davis, assistant investment manager. And mary maze, your investment manager. We spent yesterday testifying in opposition to these bills, but she became ill last night, so I'm here substituting for her. But I think the gist of the -- I didn't attend the testimony, but I think the gist of it was that they are probably not going to proceed with these two bills.
>> if I may, judge and Commissioners. These two bills deal with how the county would be investing their public funds. Representative christian has been wonderful in talking with us and wanting to work out a better version of the two bill. He understands that they're going to need a little more work and may in fact not go anywhere this session, but he would really like to sit down at the table with us and work through these. We support his ideas and we think that the bills can do something really good for the county, just not as written at the moment.
>> so should we just basically agree to keep working with representative christian? About both of these bills? Put them on the alert? The watchful watch list?
>> I think we should monitor these bills to see if something does happen and then come back to you, but I don't think any action would be necessary this morning.
>> okay. Let's do that on 3003 and 3004. So we'll have them back on just in case? Just in case some action is taken and we need to take action.
>> > and item n, house bill 3767, relating to state fiscal matters.
>> it's a general bill which it's referred to at the capitol as the comptroller's annual cleanup bill. It's usually technical corrections and other matters that relate to the administration and execution of the comptroller's duties and responsibilities. It's usually a 50 to 100 plus section bill, and none of the sections have anything to do with each ear. They're all completely kind of separate issues that deal with individual concerns or technical corrections, but as will be explained to you shortly, the first section in this bill -- so independent of the bill, have you to look at it section by section. The first section of the bill has a serious issue that we want to bring to the court's attention.
>> is the same true for senate bill 1848?
>> it's identical.
>> and let's call up o, --
>> this changes the long-standing practice of when you collect partial payments on criminal court costs, you pro rata the county and the state equally based on their total of the court costs and then the fine comes separately. This practice is based on multiple ag opinions and it was recently reinforced. This bill would change that so that when a partial payment was made, the state would get all their money first. This obviously delays counties receiving their money and it could also end up meaning we wouldn't get some of our money because of the people who make one or two partial payments and then skip out.
>> the state gets all theirs?
>> the state gets all of theirs first and we would come second.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> right, even though we've done the work. And in addition to that, it would mean change to all of the computer programs that are used to collect these payments. I had dusty look at the jp collections that he's in charge of, and he estimated that over 12 months, considering the number of people that had stopped making their payments, we would have lost a little bit over $30,000. So it's timing issue, it's also potential loss forever of some revenue, plus it's quite a bit of work in computer change.
>> (indiscernible).
>> these frr the comptroller?
>> yes, sir. Like I say, this is an annual bill, so this bill will pass, but of course what's in the bill is subject to discussion. But this bill -- except for one year, which was last year, some of you may recall we discussed with the court, representative keel decided to call a port of order -- a point of order on this bill and it fail and it took away in item that happened to be of interest to Travis County. But with the exception of that year, which was a very unusual situation, this bill will definitely pass. And we've recommended to staff that we be very careful about how we couch our position on this bill. We don't necessarily want to be against the bill. We want to clearly be against this section of the bill. We really don't care about any of the rest of it.
>> and I did speak with staff at cuc last week, and they had this on their monitor list, but hadn't really gotten into looking at it. And once I pointed out this section, they agreed that they will strongly try and get rid of that section from the bill. Because obviously it's not just Travis County, it's all counties.
>> and they have in fact -- urban counties has taken action on this bill. They are actively opposing section two as is Texas association of counties.
>> we ought to come up with a letter that indicates the reasons why, though.
>> yes, sir.
>> cuc has a draft letter. I don't know if you've seen it yet. They've delivered a letter and we can probably copy that.
>> and you should have a draft letter in your packet.
>> I don't believe we did.
>> I see your letter. Your letter or cuc's.
>> daniel took it and altered it so you could add your signatures to it. So it should be there. Thrierks a motion and second for us to vigorously oppose section two of this bill. And if we can find it, submit a letter in opposition. And I still don't see the letter for us to sign, but I see ms. Dam ron's bill here and an attachment.
>> isn't our practice on the letter that we'll just agree that it will get signed and we'll do a mail merge for all the members of the committee and while sign that?
>> that would be fine with me. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, I must note on that one, that is a bill that would warrant consideration by one of the members of the court personally contacting mr. Capper or the chairman of this committee just to kind of specifically bring this to his attention. A letter is valuable and we will follow up, but I would just suggest to you this is one where a phone call would be helpful. If that's possible.
>> if it's the court's wish, I would be happy to make that contact.
>> if it's important, it seems to me we ought to get the counties that make up cuc to --
>> well, I know that they're doik -- they're also doing some of that.
>> okay.
>> all that's included in the motion.
>> thank you.
>> unless there's objection. Okay. P is added item, house bill 1959 relating to disposition of state traffic fines.
>> judge, this bill as written is good for counties. We just found out this morning from representative ortiz's office that there was a problem with the bill. It has been pulled down for session. There was some erroneous information that they had obtained and that has caused the bill to no longer be applicable.
>> so this bill has been done away with?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay. And q, senate bill 12, an added item, relating to programs for the enhancement of air quality, including energy efficiency standards in state purchasing and energy consumption, providing penalties.
>> judge, as you know, the court took a vote on this bill to support the bill with recommended changes. Those changes are still being worked on actively with urban counties as well. We hope to accomplish some of the rengses we had asked for. There is one outstanding concern that Travis County alone is concerned about based on the way we run our program. The issue before you today is what options the court has to accommodate this one remaining concern. And I will let john and adell lay that out for you?
>> good morning, john wade, environmental program quality manager. Senate bill 12 is a bill that the court has already expressed its support for. It's an important air quality bill and among the issue it will address will be extension and expansion of the Texas emission and reduction program. The reservations that we had had to do with our lirap program and specifically with respect to the way in which the vehicle replacement segment of that is administered. The desire of the bill drafters in the legislature is to shorten the time period that it takes to actually obtain payment for the vehicle replacement element of this. As the bill is drafted right now, I believe the turnaround is one day. That would present some operational challenge for us as well as some other governmental entities. There is some discussion that this might be amended to go out to five days, but even so that would present still some procedural difficulties for us just because of the timing of the way in which our payments are made. Localvernment code lays out the specific ways in which we can make payments, so we've been trying to explore options in how we would do something like this. Is this a way for us to sort of finish necessary the administration of it so that there can be one final decision point that we can make fairly quickly or some other options. So we're still exploring that. Another option that's provided for us is that kicked potentially contract part of this is another entity, such as a council of governments. In this case it would be contracting with capcog. Another option might be for to us have some individual designated whoktd provide for -- who could provide for -- designated individual, designated by the court who could provide a signature in rapid turnaround. That's not something we have done in the past, but we're still exploring that. We're not -- we're fairly sure that even the most rigorous attempt to quicken our process would not enable us to meet a five-day turn around in all circumstances. The best option might be for us to arrange some kind of an agreement with cag cog where they could -- capcog where they could administer some pors of it. So we've had some preliminary discussions with them on how this might happen fbt it's new for them as well, so they're sort of stepping into this gingerly. So we're still trying to determine how much it would cost for them to be able to do that and exactly how we would arrange such a program. The bottom line for us at this point is do we continue to push for further amendment that would lengthen the amount of time that we have clearly against the intent and desires of the legislators who are looking for shorten that time, or do we try to accommodate them in some other fashion? And I guess that's the question before us today.
>> what are the penalties for not making the turnaround time?
>> there is no clear penalty. Clearly if the car dealers that are involved in this became unhappy with the way in which we're turning it around, we would hear very quickly. And I would suspect in the long run what would happen is that the program might simply be stripped from the county.
>> we're one of only two counties that do the program in-house, correct? The other ones operate through their cogs.
>> that is correct.
>> and there in lies the issue that Travis County is facing singly. The other counties operate through their cogs, circumvent the local government codes requiring certain amount of time pass before procedures are completed. And Travis County doesn't have that ability at the moment. So the other counties are pushing for the five days.
>> so is capcog willing to do this?
>> I think their discussions are premature before we could say that they would be willing to do it. They're at least willing to discuss it.
>> in either case, would it be safe to say that since the other cogs, the other counties who utilize cogs are also pushing for five day, that even if we did get capcog to do it, they too would want the more realistic five-day turnaround?
>> I think that's entirely reasonable, yes.
>> five days to do what?
>> five days to cut the check. Once the purchase is made of the vehicle to cut the check that then goes to the car dealer. The way the program works, somebody who is eligible for the program, go through, they get to be determine as eligible. There's a voucher that they get. They 10 then take that to the car dealer and it values anywhere from one thousand to 3500 depending upon certain circumstances. So the car dealer then sells that car and then the paperwork is transmitted to us and we would then have to reimburse them their -- provide them their one thousand up to 3500, depending on the circumstance. So they're look to go get that money fairly quickly. Understandable. They've got a substantial investment in that vehicle and they're trying to move cars off the lot as quickly as they can.
>> but it would be a state voucher?
>> it's through the county's program. We administer all of the vouchers for the program.
>> all right. But we would get a voucher from the seller of the automobile?
>> the voucher is provided by the program to the individual who is eligible for the program. They then take that to the dealer, who makes the sale. Then the voucher is submitted to us and we would pay the dealer. Firks we don't have to-- if we don't have to evaluate the voucher, it seems that we could figure out a way to do it in five days and if not, then contract with capcog. The problem with that is then capcog would have administrative expenses and presumebly we would have none or very little, right? If we're able to rely on the voucher, that's saying a lot.
>> we would still have all the administrative expenditures associated with determining eligibility and issuing the voucher. That's a considerable at of effort.
>> you do that before issuing the voucher. Once voucher is issued, that work is done. Are we doing that today through the human services department?
>> approving the voucher? Yes, we are.
>> we're doing that already. And we get zero administrative expenses, right?
>> we have some positions that are partially funned through the lirap program.
>> it seem to me that if we have the ability to rely on the voucher because all the prerequisites have been met, then it should be easier to get payment made in five days.
>> yes.
>> if not, then we ought to contract with either a third party or -- is that permissible in the statute?
>> we can contract with any entity that we want to.
>> yeah. I agree five days is a whole lot better than one.
>> and I guess the question beyond that is would five days be acceptable or should we push for an additional amy just to accommodate our own particular needs because we're a county as opposed to the cogz?
>> I think if the other counties and cogs are saying five days we ought to be a team player and go along with it is my view. Let's think five days outside the box.
>> this may work well. The real issue has to do with since the county is responsible, as I understand the way the money comes in, to us, it sort of become our money and then we provide it back out. It's not a strict pass-through, so to speak. And I believe that the money comes into the treasury. So what you've got are all the little things that require the court to put on an agenda, pass an approval on it. Y'all have certain tienl frames by which -- time frames by which you need things put on your agenda in order to make the vote. We have to make the time to look at it. I agree you it's a voucher, we're just getting a bill of sale, it may be easier to approve that versus the other part of the program where we're really look more at what done on the car. It was a muffler, was it an exhaust system, whatever it was. But there still theoretically is some oversight to that process and in order to make that work within the five days there may need to be some give and take in a number of places, not the least of which might be your agenda and your meeting schedule. The voucher is done up front before they go make the purchase and there could be some things done processwise at that point up front in anticipation of the voucher -- of the invoice or the bill of sale coming in, but again, those things aren't free. There are costs associated with that. So to say that we're -- we could absorb all of this internally, we haven't made a determination yet, whether to manipulate our processes to effect wait that, would there need to be more staff here works there need to be more staff other places to make these things happen in the five days. And that was the concern that we've all been working with twroordz that. I want to make sure that was sort of clear to the court that right now we process within our own regular time schedules for everything and to manipulate this right now there's not many. I think adell said there was like 16 in a year, but she also told me today that they anticipate this may increase, so we don't know that wha that increase will do to the work load in the various departments. And it just might not be cost neutral. It may be again that we would have to look at it and decide whether it was cheaper for our capcog to do it versus doing is internally. But that really is the issue is that it's required a couple of places for approval just by nature of the way the money comes in and the way the legislature has required counties to have these very strict internal controls before it let's money back out of its treasury.
>> that's just restricted to Travis County residents? For this particular program?
>> at a time wide.
>> I'm saying as far as the purchases are concerned.
>> but this area is Williamson county and travis because of the maintenance.
>> so first we could actually go out with the voucher and purchase an automobile be or whatever, with the voucher, per se, and that doesn't have to be restricted just to Travis County, it could be anywhere.
>> it could be anywhere in the state.
>> but they are Travis County residents. They are Travis County residents, but they can buy at any -- they could go down to hempstead and buy from the mega dealer that's on the highway at 290 this if they wanted to. It's also my understanding that the bill requires this to be an electronic transmission and I don't think what the costs would be associated with that and our capabilities on that currently. And the other thing I would note is that it's one day from the sale and I don't know how we would divine that. If they held it for five days and sent it to us, we would already be outside the requirements of the act if I understand it. There are still some things about it that don't make sense. I understand the intent, but the implementation has some questions.
>> they need to clarify five days from receipt by the county. I say we try to keep it as simple as possible. If we can't do it, we just contract it out for a bonded third party or capcog.
>> right. And it really should be complete and accurate.
>> right. We're looking at the statute here, judge. Those are change that we definitely need to make. The language is the date of the sale, and it needs to be recognized as received by the county.
>> yeah.
>> okay.
>> I assume that if you had money coming, you would be a lot more motivated to move faster, but I can't imagine there's not a slipup every now and then.
>> thank you.
>> I think we ought to try to keep it simple and if we can do it, fine. If not, we get a bonded third party or capcog or another qualified third party to do it. I guess with us claiming for 10 days and everybody else saying five will do, if I were the bill sponsor, I would think that Travis County was trying to kill it.
>> thank you, judge.
>> or at least holding it up. That's not to say that we shouldn't softly request as much time as possible. It's one of those deals where if the -- with money on the table, it's really advantageous for those whose cars don't meet the inspection standards to be able to get the repairs done. And if there's a source of funding, if we can facilitate that, then I think we ought to, but at the same time we conduct business in a certain way too and we ought to be mindful of that. Does that help any?
>> yes, sir. Thank you very much. All right. Move that we recess until 1:30. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
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, April 18, 2007, 8:34 AM