Travis County Commissioners Court
May 22, 2007
Item 35
35 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative issues and proposed bills before the 80 80th tex legislature. Let me read through the entire list and we can pull out the ones we want too discuss. I know there were a couple three items that we probably will want to discuss. A is house bill 2006 relat relating to the use of eminent domain authority. We need to sort of status report that, don't we? What is happening to that one, the eminent domain bill bill?
>> the bill was placed on senate intent for today on the senate floor. There is talk about new language coming out that would remove some of the county's concerns, but we have not seen that revised language as of yet.
>> I did contact senator watson's office after our conversation last week. I didn't talk directly with him because he was in the available, but I chatted with his aids about our continuing opposition to this bill. We understand that they tried to improve you but the version that came out may have been more damaging to the county than before we started collaboratingi think so. Judge, I think the--
>> I think so. Judge, I think the good news is that both the Texas municipal league and the county organizes are participating in ongoing discussions to point out their concerns. There also, I understand, has been information beginning to be provided to legislators about what the actual cost to local governments of the language would be, and that is in the big number. Probably--
>> hundreds of millions to local governments. And about 1 is00 million to the state.
>> okay.
>> so that is going to put some sobrietn why the legislature's thinking about whether to pass that bill in its current form. It's heading in a better direction.
>> what amount was in the initial fiscal ?
>> I do not recall seeing there being a sos associated with it.
>> after the session I'd like somebody to explain the me just how they arrived at the fiscal no facilities bill.
>> there is a big target and they throw darts at it.
>> in other words, that would be a short conversation we have.
>> yes, sir.
>> b is senate bill--
>> on a, I don't suppose they accepted any of our suggested amendments.
>> those amendments were not.
>> b, senate bill 1638 relating to the calculation of certain tax rates and certain notice requirements for local taxing jurisdictions. This one dead yet or is it poofing ?
>> the bill is dead itself. There are some possible vehicles for it. The discussion over this issue is not concluded. In fact, let me use this as an opportunity to say that bob on our team is watching right now, as are many around the capital, for amendments. That is really the point of next couple of days for us, is to pay attention to possible vehicles where things can get added in. That is where bob is as we speak.
>> I did move, I hoofed to recess the item. Commissioner Davis seconded. We didn't take a vet. All in favor of that motion. That's to recess the american federation item, which was number 25, wasn't it ?
>> 34.
>> number 34. There it is right there. Number 34. Sorry about that. So we have to remain on the alert about b in spite of the fact that the bill probably has died.
>> and I should say that the form of this legislation is greatly improved from certainly what we were talking to the court about in January and February, and even from what we were talking about the court about in April. It looks to us like if something were to pass at this point, and it's likely to be more disclosure or notice related rather than restrictive to the court.
>> okay. C, senate concurrent resolution 42 granting maria guerrero-mcdonald and the guerrero-mcdonald associates isk, permission to sue Travis County.
>> dead.
>> okay. D is house bill 1892 relating to the authority of certain counties and other entities with respect to certain transportation projects, providing penalties.
>> judge, if you could call up 792 also.
>> e is senate bill 792 relating to the authority of certain counties and other entities with respect to certain transportation projects and to comprehensive development agreements with regard to such projects, authorizing the issuance of bonds, providing penalties.
>> judge, these bills are almost identical except for a number of amendments that got put on the house side. These are the cda moratorium bills that have caused so much controversy and disagreement between the legislature and the governor governor. Governor has vetoed house bill 1892. He had to do that. He had to act one way or another because the legislature sent it to him before the last ten-days of the session. If you send a bill to the governor the last ten days of the session, he has until June 19 to let it become law without a signature or to sign or veto. We do not have the pocket veto, of course, in Texas like they do in washington, d.c. It is not clear yet what is going to happen with all. There was a key amendment. The one that has the gone the most the attention is number 13 from ms. Colcohst. It essentially closes a loophole that I would describe simply as saying a moratorium simply means that that. It eliminates the ability for facility agreement in connection with projects which are not permitted otherwise to move forward by the language of these bills.
>> just for clarification, c cds--cda is a concession agreement to Ron the toll roads.
>> yes, private toll roads. It is unclear whether a conference committee working on 792 will be able to reach agreement between the house and senate and send a bill to the governor which he will not also veto. If he vetos 792, he can do that after the legislature leaves. So that veto would hold up. 1892 does not contain the co colkorst amend am, which although the private toll advocates, which include governor perry and chairman kruce, they don't lining either of the bills but they especially would like to get rid rid kolkorst amendment. The answer to all this, we don't know for sure what is going to happen here. The governor has threatened a special session over this issue depending on how this all plays out. And based on other things going on at the capital right now, I think that possibility is definitely looming.
>> two-year moratorium was in 1892?
>> and 72--792. The bills will almost identical in that regard.
>> questions regard these two is this f is discussion of other bills and legislationive issues as necessary. One bill that came necessary yesterday is the one involving the curt fund. John would advise us we may not be able to take action today but we can certainly be informedjudge and Commissioners, there were two bills--
>> judge and commission, there were two bills that cape up reece thely with amendments. Both of the bills in their original form did not impact Travis County in a way that we felt we needed to take a position on. They recently both adopted two amendments, an amendment each, that would reallocate money that's been put into the turp fund to the rail relocation program. And this has raised some attention by certain counties who were counting on the money in the t e rp fund to be allocated to other programs. That is where we are at the moment, is these amendments. Adele is here from tnr to comment.
>> by the way, we were not as actively anticipating using these funds as dallas and probably harris. But we were planning to use these funds ourselves if authorized to do so by the legislature.
>> actually, we are eligible for these grants through this latest round of terp application. It ends on June 22. We were anticipating but we do not know for sure in August if we will be includ included in that next round of grants as well. To give you an idea of the importance of this grant, te terp has reduced nox emissions in the Austin area by two tons per day. To compare that the imp program has reduced nox by 3 3.2 tons per day. So it is an important part of cleaning up the air in the Austin area.
>> how many tons per day do we put into the air?
>> I do not know that exact number. I can find that out for you.
>> more than we take out though.
>> yes.
>> and last year, judge, I think it was last year or probably the past two years, we also encourage cuc to work real hard on increasing the amount of money that was put into terp because we needed to get that money to clean up our air here as well as through san antonio. We really worked hard on that. Cuc was very instrumental in helping with that, to clean up the air in Austin. And san antonio.
>> in layman's language, the terp fund is what ?
>> Texas emissions reduction program. Was started in 2001 to clean up air quality by the legislature. It replaces dirty engines, locomotives, construction equipment , with cleaner newer engines.
>> where does the money in the fund come from ?
>> from a variety of sources sources. For example, some of it is a fee based upon the sale lease of on road diesel vehicles, vehicle title transfer, ten percent commercial vehicle registration surcharge, and a $10 commercial vehicle inspection surcharge. That comes for the year 2006 2006. But there have been other programs in the past, different surcharges, that have funded this program as well.
>> so it's auto related fees basically. Now, there are those who sponsored the legislation, probably have concluded that with more passenger rail, there would be less automobiles on the road.
>> I think the rail relocation --
>> mr. Malloy is here to enlighten us on that if we want to be enlightened. Sorry to cut you off. Come forward, mr. Malloy.
>> I was going to point out that ross is here. I also wanted to point out that, and let ross say this, the recommendation that we are talking about came from the Austin san antonio corridor council. That is where the amend am came from, which of course Travis County is a member of of. Senator went worth, when I asked his office about this amendment yesterday, one of the things they pointed out, and adele actually showed me the numbers because I did not know these numbers, and they confirmed something that everybody from Austin and san antonio has said for a number of years, I think Commissioner Gomez may be aware of this also, is that of the money in the fund, I think Travis County has gotten, I believe, $18 million, bexar county approximately 21 or 22 million, houston and dallas respectively have gotten 200 million over the same period and 125 million. So the money, although we contribute proportion atly to the fund, the money dis disproportionately has gone else where. I think apparently one of the goals that senator went worthad was to try to figure out a way to distribute those dollars more equitably I just throw that out there.
>> the state agency would say, I'm sure, is that dallas and harris are in non nonattainment whereas we are in near nonattainment.
>> yes, sir, absolutely.
>> we are not real, real bad compared to them, but we are bad. Mr. Malloy.
>> judge, the last thing I want to did is be here this morning in kind of a debate with our colleagues at the c cuc. I think what has happened here is that as the legislature has moved fairly rapidly, I don't think there's been maybe a chance to communicate as well, maybe perhaps as we should. But our message is Texas rail relocation fund is important. It was passed by the voters overwhelmingly in a constitutional amendment in 2005. We think that it has a direct relationship with air quality. I'll just give you one example. Just south of here in san mark us we have 33 lighted and gated railroad crossings in the city limits. Every day union pacific is sending 34 trains through there up to 7,000 feet long. At every one of those intersections you have traffic stacked up waiting hour after hour sometimes, hundreds maybe thousands of cars. That is happening all over the state. We believe that the rail relocation fund could be used to eliminate some of those grade crossing issues around the state, relocate some of these freight lines that are old and currently congested, dangerous, that would give us an opportunity to move some materials currently moving through populated areas into un unpopulated areas, improve them so they are more efficient and we can move more freight by rail instead of by truck, particularly in heavily traveled corridors like I 35. It's true this has a, could have a tremendous tremendous tremendous--impact on air quality. I believe there are some core layer larry benefits. Senator went whort I think that is properly identified a fund that could be used to seed financing for the rail relocation fund. I would also point out that terp fund right now has a balance of 438 million in it as of the end of March. They are spending, I have the numbers here, Commissioner Daugherty asked me to put them together, looks like spending 150 million a year. At the end of this fiscal year they have an un unobligated, uncommitted balance of about $118 million. At the committee hearing on this legislation, which by the way passed unanimously with comments of support from senator chafley, senator corona, it was pointed that the fund have been used as a balancing act for slate of accounting of we think it's an important use of the funding. We think it's an important program that has to be funded. If we don't start funcing there are 17 billion of rail relocation projects that the state has if I wantif I want want--identified as being of immediate concern. If we don't start funding this program near term, when when? Especially when we seem to have the money available at this time. Our position is that it's a worthwhile program. The senator has directed the money in a way that puts it to its highest and best use. We are in favor of it and we are not alone. The Austin and san antonio papers have come out last week in favor of this program and in favor of funding with terp money.
>> ross, do the railroads pay any kind of fees or anything into the fund?
>> into the terp fund?
>> uh-huh.
>> I don't know the answer to that do you ?
>> I don't believe they do.
>> if they use locomotives.
>> there is a fee on diesel.
>> there is a fee on diesel. There would be some desment.
>> they must pay something.
>> I just don't know, Commissioner. I know they testified in favor of this at the senate transportation committee hearing a couple weeks ago.
>> the voters approved rail relocation. That was not a source of funding identified.
>> no, judge. It was done just the way they traited the Texas mobility fund. One section of the legislature they created the mobility fund and the next session they came back and figured out a way to finance it. They did it in that case with various fees, the same kind to go to terp. In this case the legislature passed it and came back in this legislative session. As you know this has been a pretty tumultuos session particularly on transportation. My understanding was the lead ship was going to try to get 200 million to put into rail relocation. From generally revenue. There was less consensus from house and senate. I think as a matter went worth and representative mc mclen done have chosen this as a method to at least get something into this legislative session. There are a lot of reasons for doing this. The railroads themselves need to begin to get some assurance that the state is going to work with them to move some of these old and old--old lines out of the system.
>> too often when one of these funds is set up, the reason the money is not used is because the controling state agency doesn't turn it loose. Is that the situation here ?
>> or turns it loose for a lot of di version. That is the problem. That is what really happens. Everybody starts dipping into it.
>> I guess i--
>> my point is a lot of air quality issues statewide.
>> I believe this is directly on point for what terp is about and having a number of other core layer benefits. I cannot answer the question judge, about whether the e c cq is holding the money for its own purposes. I would not touch that with a ten foot pole.
>> judge, I would point out there is some legal discussion going on about whether these dollars can actually be spent. The argument and I'm not sure which side of this is correct, I'm just warning the court that there is an issue here, as I understands it, the fees that have been created to fund the terp fund have a sunset date on them, and they e e--expire, is it four years ago is this.
>> 2013.
>> okay, 2013. That raises the question, this amount of money which was set aside in the went worthamendment is intended to be debt service on bond issue. There is very little that could be done with 25 million. I think the theory would be they would issue some amount of bonds, maybe 150 million worth of bond or something like that and pay the debt service with that. But the question arises as to whether the source of funding for the terp fund that would in theory pay the bonds back expires, whether you can in fact issue bonds. Presumably the legislature might reauthorize the fees and the fund might continue to be funded into the future future. But the bond council will look at the source of revenue at the time of the issuance of the bonds possibly, and that could be some sort of concern, as I understand it.
>> unfortunately, this came to us at the 11th hour and we are not posted for action action. Our attorney is sitting in the courtroom here. Otherwise we may figure out a way to creatively do it.
>> you could vote to ratify next week. Less than optimal.
>> another portion of this, the rail relocation fund desperately needs to be funded. Ross and I talked about it yesterday. I mean, the state needs to take part of the 19 to 14 billion now, obviously, everybody has a lot of opinions about is that really, you know, there. It is there, but how is it going to be spent. But to not turn around and at least fund, you know, $2 $200 million to get this thing started. Especially given the fact that you have seven percent of the people that passed it it--87 percent of the people that passed it the place that I do support rail is when it comes to freight. Attention the thing that we need to get behind and do whatever we can. Obviously, I mean, we don't have the stroke here to get the legislature to say hey, fund $200 million out of the 9-14 billion surplus and get on with getting on. That is really what happened happened. The unfortunate thing here, I told don lee when he and I spoke yesterday, I probably am not for this, but the more I found out and got to talking to ross, I mean, this thing is typical of a lot of funds. From the 911 funds, whatever you get a fund, you know, and it builds up all of this cash. Before you know it the legislature starts using it as a slush fund. For that reason, I'm more inclined to say, hey, stick some of it in there. I wouldn't mind, you know, telling don that that is probably where I would come down on it. Think it is unfortunate that we are at this spot. I appreciate the senator trying to get something started with it. Boy , these are the tough things to do at this time with the legislature that has these things come at us and just smack us right between the eyes and then we have to react. Nobody is comfortable.
>> what is the time line? Where are we at this point? In other words, if it's not posted--
>> likely it will come up on the senate floor. The bill was amended in committee. It's a house bill, it's passed the house. It's passed out of the small committee senator went worth put this language on the bill in committee and he has placed the bill on the intent calendar for today. In order for the bill to pass, it would have to come up today or tomorrow before midnight in the senate. It's on the list it's possible that it's come up while we've been sitting here discussing it.
>> it will come up later.
>> later this afternoon.
>> so next week would be too late to act on it ?
>> yes, sir.
>> there is some about doing nothing. It did commonality the 1 1th hour. We have been air quality agonies. I do recall vote on rail lines, moving them. I really thought some funding was available. I don't know. Like the 9-11 money. Once you start tapping for other sources. I mean, almost impossible to stop it.
>> although it does appear that the sources being tapped for this fund do relate to freight, both road and rail freight. This is an appropriate use for, I mean if you are looking at a use feel world trying to figure out whether the beneficiaries of this money are also contributing toward it, this is an appropriate loop.
>> it's exactly on point with the purpose of the program. Just that it has other core layer benefits as well. I gave a presentation to ric rica yesterday and pointed out, and I think this is also relevant, right now in the passenger, the motorists in the Austin area are spending $391 million a year stuck in traffic. That is what it costs them in time and burnt up fuel and wasted time. Like-wise in san antonio it's over $400 million. We have to begin to do some of these things differently. I think it's an appropriate use of the funds. I think it's the right time to do it. I'd appreciate anything you can do to support us at the very least, ask that you not fight it and let's see if we can get it through the senate and out of the house floor and signed by the governor.
>> seems to me coming at the 11th hour and with our public position in support of air quality, and our interest in trying to access more of these terp funds for Travis County, there is a long list of things that we really ought to do. We in near nonattainment, and san antonio, I understand, is in non nonattainment but officially just a matter of time before they slide into a worse category. Seems to me the better strategy now is just to not actively oppose it and just go back to our offices and wish what we may and it will be done tomorrow, we think ?
>> probably this afternoon or this evening. It could be tomorrow.
>> the best of intentions on both sides. Of they are kind of clashing clashing. Here are the clean air force the clear air force, that is what I'm chair of, vice-chair of the clean air coalition, I would appreciate an opportunity to at least discuss it with those two groups. Then maybe get with the bill sponsors and try to figure out if there's not a way to kind of have our cake and eat it too.
>> I think if there had been more time we would have been working with those people and they would have been more supportive than they are at the moment, judge.
>> it's not bad then, ross, we are not a no vote. We understand the need for it and probably the justifi justifiable, when you really look at it. After all, and you have said this is exactly why the thing was put in place. But it sort of teeters on not being able to vet it always makes us nervous. The inclination is to say, you know, it probably is more appropriate to do it.
>> you can understand why those bigger counties like houston and dallas would like to protect money they are getting and money they look at at theirs.
>> sure, especially with all the growth going on.
>> these are two two worthy goals competing against each other for the same pot of money.
>> sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.
>> talia, you had mentioned that you already briefed the delegation. To what end did we reach them ?
>> just as a courtesy, I did not represent any position of the county. Michael vasquez had wanted to visit. Because they were our senator, senator went worth, I accompanied him on the visit.
>> the other thing is that it may be borderline legal to take action and ratify next week, but it is all right to take no action.
>> certainly.
>> uh-huh.
>> we have john hiller to blame.
>> this can't be a yes vote either. And so, it is kind of hard to come up with a last minute.
>> I remember when this came up a long time ago. A lot of concern that it's being moved to the east side especially if it's going to be hazardous. That shot not be close to anybody. I really would like to see also in that vein, in the same vein and note, what the designated areas would be as far as the relocation of those lines. I remember when this thing first came up some time ago, some of the concerns from the east side was would the increase the hazardous transport of hazardous material that the east side would be exposed to. We don't want anybody to be exposed torque exposed--to, but as far as the voluming with exposed to one part of the county as opposed to being spread out across the board I don't know the answer to any of these questions. We had talked about it, but it's actually to assist and take a lot of things off the road to deal with air quality. That is the bottom line. Again, at the end of the day where would they actually be relocated to. Still there are some questions but I'm not saying I'm not for anything. I'm not going that direction direction. We do need to get our share of money to preserve the air quality in Travis County. No doubt with that.
>> I move that we take no position.
>> second.
>> discussion? All in favor. That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you.
>> thank you judge.
>> thank you all.
>> I want to answer Commissioner eckhardt question about the tons per day of nox.
>> great.
>> I did find that information. 70 tons per day just from Travis County a total of 128 tons for the five county area per day. That is use of nox. Like me to repeat that number ?
>> would you e-mail that to me ?
>> I will.
>> .
>> e-mail it to all of uslve e-mail it to me also. I'd like to have that information.
>> thank you.
>> thank you.
>> anything else under f other bills and and legislative issues ?
>> judge, we'd like to make a couple quick comments. Tallia is going to go through the priorities. I want to mention one amendment that has come the our attention just to give the court a sense of the kinds of things we are concerned about. Yesterday on s b 11, which is a homeland security bill, the fireworks lobby managed to put amendment number 8 onto that bill, because we all know that has to do with homeland security, which is very, very bad bill from the perspective of counties. I want to bring that issue up to let you know that is the kind of thing that we are really concerned about in these last couple of days days. The house deadline for passing bills on second read reading is tonight at midnight. The senate deadline for passing bills on second and third reading is tomorrow at midnight. So the big focus of activity will be in the house today, in the senate really tomorrow, and these are the kinds of things that we will be looking for and working with cuc and others to either get sent to conference committee or somehow or another get taken out of the bills.
>> what about senate bill 1688 ?
>> senate bill 1688 is the dead last bill set on the house calendar for tonight. I would say the chances of reaching the end of the calendar are remote. It's, I believe, on page 18. At the pace that the house worked yesterday, they would be lucky to get to page 10 or 12. It's possible, but it's not likely that that bill would be reached.
>> 1688 is g on today's agenda.
>> sorry, judge.
>> that is the status update.
>> yes, sir, and tallia would like to give, I'm sorry.
>> so amendment number 8, s b 11, is what now? Fireworks ?
>> it is a fireworks related amendment that I understand the counties are not comfortable with.
>> can you tell us more than that? What is it? What does it mean ?
>> it restrict the counties' ability to declare disasters in a way that we would be able to prevent people from using fireworks.
>> any fireworks? Or just, would we still have the ability to did like the handheld and all of them, what we presently have ?
>> I will send you all an e-mail with more detailed discussion later today. We just got that recently so I haven't had time to look into the details.
>> this is probably an intent to unravel the case law that's been developing recently about emergency drought restrictions.
>> this is on urban counties radar and they are also working on it.
>> okay.
>> and in ten seconds or less, I wanted to comment that all of Travis County's priority one bills with the exception of gasby 45, have passed and are on their way to the governor.
>> thank you so much for that, you all.
>> gasby is on the calendar today. Good news.
>> any reason to be concerned about it ?
>> no, sir, it's pretty high on the calendar I think it's likely that they will reach that barring any major disaster in the house, which is a distinct possibility. It's pretty high on the calendar.
>> our legislature has shown outstanding wisdom by supporting the Travis County legislative agenda. I take back everything I said about them prior to today.
>> we will relay that on your behalf, judge.
>> you should have heard what he was saying about them this morning.
>> anything else today under item 35? Do we need to, can we have generally worlded items for next week, like a status report on Travis County priority legislation or something like that ?
>> yeah. What I was also thinking of, is there a need for you all to have, I hate to say this, but a special meeting on Friday? Would there be any benefit for setting a five or ten minute meeting just to take any action that needed to happen ?
>> I can't think of anything right now that the court might want to express an opinion on that we could actually do anything about by Friday. On Tuesday, of course, we would simply be reporting to you, we have given you the report on the big item. Then bob and tallia and I were going to suggest that we take a couple of weeks and not report to the court and then come back the third week of June or something like that and give you a full report of everything that has passed.
>> you think it's going to be a special session ?
>> I believe that there is a very realistic chance of a special session session. I think it's conceivable that something could go wrong with budget, which is being taken right up to the very last moment here. I think it's possible that on transportation front, the governor might choose to call special session, as he has suggested. There are also are some people that are urging consideration of a special session in connection with water issues, the major water related legislation has not moved forward this time. I don't think anybody wants to have a special session. I don't think if you went to the capitol you could find one person who would say they think we we ought to have a special session. It would be lard lard--hard to look and tell thought to tell youtell--not to tell you, yes, there is a possibility. If that is the session, we will ask the court to let us come back each week.
>> let's have the item next week just to get a status reporti.
>> I certainly have no objection to posting for Friday. If we don't use it, we don't don't. Certainly there could be some scenario where a conference committee is considering something that we may want to ask you to have an opinion about. That is probably a prudent suggestion.
>> it would be a good possible circumstance.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> no Friday ?
>> I'm sorry? I hadn't put anything in on Friday. It would be too late for us to do anything on a matter anyway, right ?
>> the only scenario, judge, and I can't think of one specifically, but hypothetically would be a conference committee report that we wanted to take a position on, where the house and the senate were trying to decide on a particular provision.
>> but it will be legislation that we already have a position on probably.
>> I would think so.
>> doesn't bother me. We can get it posted by two o'clock Friday afternoon, 72 hours from the time we post it. What is the will of the court? Give me a motion.
>> I move that we set one in the event that we need one.
>> I second.
>> discussion? All in favor. Show unanimous court. Two o'clock Friday, that means we are all committed to be here.
>> judge.
>> two o'clock Friday afternoon, let us know. The question is what do we put on there? That is lawful.
>> at best, all we can do is a discussion item like we have a f. You have no idea what might be coming up. Then ratify any actions that you might need to take on the following Tuesday.
>> if we ain't got it done now, saying something about it on Friday--
>> I know.
>> we have the opportunity to present some stuff.
>> things have been so crazy.
>> your recommendation is--
>> we have a speaker--
>> we will put it on. The court has spoken two'clock Friday. Yes, sir.
>> item number 22, we need to roll that one for one week. We have not gotten the information from the attorneys on the water utility.
>> 22 we will have back on next week.
>> yes, one more week.
>> as well as, I did get a note from the county attorney, actually from a alish iaperez, 38, she requests that we pull. So she will let us know when to put 38 back o we will not announce that for executive session this afternoon. Move that we recess until 1: 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor. That passes unanimously.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, May 23, 2007, 8:00 AM