Travis County Commissioners Court
December 11, 2007
Item 21
21. Discuss and take appropriate action on the following issues related to the redevelopment of the Travis County downtown campus: a, whether the Commissioners court and campus seat will remain in the central business district; shall we pause on these? In the order that they are on the agenda? Should we read all of them and just allow open discussion?
>> whatever you prefer.
>> > seems to me if we would pause on each one, we might be able to move forward in the order taken.
>> then I have paused after -- after 21 a.
>> all right. The first -- these -- these agenda items have come as a result of our work session on November 29th and our desire to help move this forward in a direction that seemed to be indicated by the work session. This one just reflects the request to have a record vote for remaining downtown in the central business district. I will tell you that judge dietz and I spoke to the d.a.a. Recently and they are real hopeful that you will vote this direction. But I think that it gives just a high level view and a direction in which we can go that begins the planning within the
>> [indiscernible] to my left. This allows us to do the planning in the right direction until something else comes up that makes us go a different course. That's what it is. I will just remind you as you know we would like to thank you first off for voting to -- to consider building the new courthouse and making sure that the courthouse is going to go forward to fruition. That's one. That's a big step. That moves us in the right direction. But these items we'll need to take on one by one, we are asking for this vote as well.
>> well, I would move that the Commissioners court and the county seat remain in the central business district.
>> I second that.
>> any more discussion?
>> judge? I was having problems --
>> [indiscernible] I do want to recognize that the language that goes along with each of these things does I think, if we have to come back to this at some point in time, it does give us some fall back, if you will, in the event that we find something that just makes it impossible to do something like keeping, you know, the -- the -- for lack of a better way of putting it, the administrative part of county government, the county seat, I mean,, you know, the county seat to me means -- may mean something different than the Commissioners court. I mean, I think if you really think of the 254 counties in the state of Texas, you say what's the county seat, most people probably think the courthouse because the courthouse seems to be the central building, you know, if all of the 254 counties. I mean, I think that it is our intent. I don't have any problem saying that that really is something that we ought to try to do, but I do think that we have language in here that states that if something happens, I mean, from a cost standpoint or whatever might arise, that we do have the ability to -- to look at that.
>> we appreciate your support.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That motion passes unanimously. B is a comprehensive multi-project capital improvement program approach for the redevelopment of the Travis County downtown campus;
>> thank you, judge. This one came about as you recognize -- as you will recognize from a series of meetings that we've had on where the best site right now would be for the courthouse. As you remember, we looked across the block to block 126 which is where the human services building is, but it's encumbered by a number of capitol view corridors we need approximately right now $250,000 -- thousand, 250 square feet of space at a minimum. It didn't happen with the capital view corridors and your preferences to build where we would have to encroach on them, looked like block 134 the granger site might be a better site. We moved in that direction. This talks about an overall approach because there are dominos that need to fall once you starting moving around with the blocks. We are asking you to start moving -- planning for multiple moves over the next few years.
>> now, did we approve previously a contract with the consultant to do -- to do site analysis work?
>> you have. Specifically what is b saying? I agree with the general words, I know that there is work underway to determine the feasibility of at least two sites.
>> that's correct.
>> and so we need to see those results before we get too far down that track, right?
>> so --
>> he is -- section b of this there's another item that is a more specific action. This direction is actually asking you to -- to let us look at all of the needs downtown as we move forward and in consideration of where you might choose to site a few civil courthouse. You have criminal court needs that need to be factored in. You have your own administrative needs that need to be factored in. You have parking needs that need to be factored into the placement of these structures. So b is actually only direction on taking that comprehensive approach. So we can do the planning work to do the needs assessments for all of those services and figure out where they might fit best in your properties downtown. It isn't specifically related to doing additional work. You have another agenda item --
>> there's also an acknowledgment, if I may follow up on what you are saying, it's an acknowledgment that this is indeed a multi-year project, that if you look just at downtown, you have several properties that you own, including the historical heman marion sweatt courthouse. The renovation of that, the building of an administrative office building, the building of a civil courthouse. All of those are -- are large projects that will take a multi-year phased commitment. That will maybe include more than one bond cycle. So this is a -- this is an acknowledgment, this is not just one project, but a multi-year project that has -- it's really a program that you are adopting. Well, that's kind of what I was reading judge. It kind of applies that we are going to continue with our approach now, that we will go out for bonds every five years and so we're going to do enough planning with the -- before we put this -- any part of it on the bond ballot, and then we're going to make sure that we complete that before we go to -- to another one. Are we still going to follow that philosophy?
>> really, kind of it's going to -- going to follow whatever plans that you have. We are really not to the point that you can determine that. I think what -- as we kept looking at this and seeing the facts that were coming in, what the can he really wants is for you to direct the research, fact gathering kind of scattered everywhere. Sort of focus on these areas. What became obvious as we looked at the different restrictions on properties in that by looking at it as a redevelopment numerous buildings, if we get planners in that -- that are really good at courthouses and historic renovations and office buildings, that -- and we -- we show them that -- the area that's available and we get a definition of our needs, then, you know, they may be able to come up with a very creative way to meet our needs with the constraints that we have here. So -- so that's why we looked at it as a multiple. In the past what we have done is we have kind of built one building at a time and planned one. The other thing, Commissioner Gomez, you asked me this question the other day in the hall, I thought it was an excellent one. That is, you know, we were talking about a 30 forward year horizon. How do you plan that way? I thought that was an excellent question the more I thought about it. That is that, you know, one of the things that we need to do is carefully analyze what we have, be able to take the vertical air space, which means if there are capital view corridors, if we have buildings that aren't, we need to be able to go really up. We may want to go underground. That may maximize what we have to use. There may be connectivity between buildings that really functions that work together don't have for be in the same building, the way they are designed there's connectivity. So what we're looking at is buildings that have a view toward 30 to 50 years and also are built in sustainable manner so that these are long-term projects. Each building when you are done, in a year or two you are not obsolete already. The other thing is that -- that no one can predict perfectly what's going to happen in those periods. But we teed to have a view of a longer terminator. And the -- the demographer from the state of Texas as well as the city of Austin, city of Austin is much more aggressive, but you know the city of Austin demographer is predicting the growth to double in this area every 20 years. So in all of the services that we are mandated to provide, I mean, we need to be looking at that rapid population growth because you can't put buildings like this up in six months.
>> the key is planning and that's what this project would allow us to do. What goes where, when it goes, who moves first, what happens, how tall is this building, how short is this one, all of these things are designed so that we can in fact plan this process and these sets of buildings so that they all meet the needs of Travis County. The next item that you have, just to look ahead just a little, sets a perimeter knows that we are defining these moves, the moves are well planned and well executed so when we get -- we don't get in a bind and we are meeting the needs as the population doubles or triples as it may be.
>> looking at the big picture, years of projection picture. I?m trying to go back to what I think the judge had mentioned and that is the consulting in that particular multi-year planning effort, the consultant efforts I guess that we have on board were actually -- actually review, if the court decides to -- to move in support of item b.
>> some of that --
>> that part of what we are dealing with here? Because I heard that question asked and I haven't got an answer to it as of yet to look at putting the pieces together.
>> that is the very -- towards the multi-year planning process to utilize something --
>> the people on the board now are designed to look at the spaces that we have, the blocks that we have under consideration now. We may need to bring in other people. In fact we definitely will need to talk to other people and have different conversations with different consultants once this has been done.
>> okay. But right now what you are needing, though, from the court is the direction to move forward
>> [multiple voices] with item b, is that correct.
>> absolutely, that's correct. Which will tell us what we need to do in terms of talking to the outside consultant.
>> okay.
>> here's what I think I?m hearing and if not I?m believing. There are a roll lot of parts of -- there are a whole lot of parts of this. We have to land on the question what departments stay in the downtown complex, which ones ought to move out. Then we need to look at the civil courts and determine what they need, what size that it will take to meet those needs and where. Then the same for the criminal courts. Then for the county attorney and district attorney, then for every department and office in this building. And the building across the street. And the new building that we acquired, what we call the rust building. So all of the county-owned buildings down here, including the eob, we need to look at and try to figure out where they fit into the long-term strategy.
>> yes.
>> is this --
>> [multiple voices]
>> then there's the question of how do we use the current county buildings, which ones do we demolish, if any, and what do we build where they are, if anything.
>> yes, sir.
>> so in order to -- in order to address the comprehensive multi-project capital improvement program, there are a whole lot of needs that we need to land on first. So rather than talk about multiple projects, it seems to be a multi-faceted strategy that turns on us meeting our needs. But doing a comprehensive analysis to determine what those needs are.
>> and what priority they are.
>> and how best to add them. Are we together on that?
>> yes.
>> judge, I guess -- I guess is this particular item b enhances our encompasses, capture what the judge had just stated.
>> yes, sir.
>> in item b.
>> yes, sir.
>> well, you need to have -- the way he laid it out it's something that has been discussed I hope that is the direction that we are proceeding so it need to be stated as such as the way the judge stated it there. But also in that same vein, sooner or later within this process, we'll have to determine who stays and who goes. Downtown.
>> yes, sir.
>> that need to be all determine and embedded here.
>> clearly an integral part of the process.
>> exactly. Okay.
>> yes, sir.
>> thank you.
>> judge dietz?
>> how we asked the questions, I wanted to remind the court, that the court voted both last March and I believe last July that we need a new civil courthouse. But as saying what are our needs in terms of personnel, I think that we have been doing this. You can take, if the word project at this point in time is a problem, I don't see any problem removing that. But in assaying or determining your need. But in many respects a lot of this has been done and we're just waiting the go ahead to finish it up.
>> I guess my concern is that the option laid out during the work session and during our dinner wasn't on the table months ago.
>> uh-huh.
>> and it impacts us in -- in at least two major ways if not more. We will lease offices to county-owned space across the street, taking it, converting this into a civil courts building, that's a relatively new development. I?m not saying that it's bad, I?m just saying it's new.
>> certainly. It came up --
>> but also impacts, when you start moving these departments here, the time is right to ask the question where should we move them to. I don't necessarily conclude that all of them should move across the street. Joe gieselman has started parking to move the airport because he said the writing it on the wall. My recommendation was let's squeeze that into our perimeter. So that's my thought more than anything else. In order to land on where should this go, we really need to figure out who should stay downtown, who really is better off elsewhere. I am thinking some of those would welcome opportunity to go elsewhere if they know the space will be as generous, free parking, it's certainly more convenient most of the time than down here. But that in and of itself requires a different analysis I think. There's a civil courts building plus. See what I?m saying? That option requires us really to deal with this building a whole lot sooner than we would have otherwise.
>> well, the other thing that was intended by b was I really think that the pressure, both on the criminal side and on the civil side and on your administrative side, is just going to continue to build and -- and what we were trying to suggest is that you are probably going to have to take bite sized chunks of this, rather than a python approach of doing everything all at once. So the reason that we said it was a multi-project is to look both at the civil, the administrative, court needs, and this is probably a good time if we didn't say it during the work session, on behalf of the civil courts. We're not saying that we have to be first. I mean if it's -- if it works out better with respect to swing space and moving everybody around, that we wait until -- until a new administration building. There's no problem in that. But I think that we really do need to start thinking about where are we going to put the courts, the the administration, where are we going to put the prosecutors that the county and district attorney, how much -- how much space do we need for civil courts and the associated people with the criminal courts, because in addition to the prosecutors you have also got probation and other types of things. But just to sort of at one time lay that out on the time line, and how are you going to take bite sized chunks, but I think your approach, judge, of taking a look at what our needs are and what our projected needs are is a way to do that.
>> really a -- a comprehensive needs analysis, comprehensive strategy, multiple projects in a sense there's no way to do the all of them at one time. There will be a series of domino effects.
>> absolutely.
>> judge. You know, even with that analogy, how are we going to prioritize? Within the multi-year plan or approach itself there has to be some priority set forth somewhere. As far as who is first, who is second, who's third, on down the line. That's what I?m trying to get to.
>> my response would be that you let the needs drive.
>> let the needs drive it. Okay.
>> plus the domino effect will drive some of that. Because if you move people out of one building, the whole building they have got to go somewhere and then you have got to figure out what happens to the building that you just vacated.
>> the planning will --
>> do you demolish it, rebuild there. Using it for other purposes.
>> this item is intended to get you, you know, authorization for you to think in that regard. We will scope contracts with that perspective in mind for services if we need them. The whole process of how you will go through the planning strategy, if you look at this, campus-wide downtown as opposed to individual buildings or individual department will help you address the answers to your questions in a more comprehensive fashion, which I think is, you know, what we're trying to get out here. It will help you stage those decisions and those priorities across multiple years. But this is really a process driven agenda item that will help us understand that we have -- that we have your authority to pursue it in this kind of fashion.
>> okay. Then that kind of helps me understand the item a little better. The thing that I keep going back to, though, is we've got to get into the -- the thinking of what are we going to look like in 30, 50 years. Let's say 50 years. Are we going to be crowded again? Are we going to need more space. And probably at the end of 50 years we should. But how are we going to make it to -- through 50 years? And I keep going back to surely we are not going to be working the way we work today. Surely we will take advantage of technology so we are not all having to be downtown. Then the other thing that I can't quite balance in my mind is surely not all of us are going to be able to be downtown with space for us and our cars.
>> that --
>> you know, I?m having a hard time making that fit with my ability to think of what we're going to look like at the end of 50 years.
>> part of that process that you're going to go through -- understand that you are not going to construct 50 years right up front. You are going to plan for where other buildings might go or where extensions to buildings might go. When you even run projections out, you are going to really focus on that first kind of 10, five to 10 year time frame because those are the numbers that are most likely to be the truest, that's how you --
>> [speaker interrupted -- multiple voices] following what you have been doing, though, we have been doing things every five years.
>> we want to put it in the framework of a longer vision is what we're talking about. Extend the vision out that so that the projects make more sense in the interim so that you have a better feel for when they might need to hit the ground. That does mean that you are going to take this approach and be able to walk away and implement exactly what's there. It's a management tool for you to make those decisions.
>> it's really an enhancement of a process that you started with the cjc. You knew that some point you would need more courts, you are basically coming down every level. As you come down, more people have to move out to make room for the courts. Now -- it's a similar process and this hopes to enhance that process so our planning horizon is not 10 or 15 years but 30 or 40 years so you can keep that building for a long period of time.
>> let me give you a real-life example of something that you have done in the last six years or so that is very similar to this. This focuses on the Travis County, redevelopment of Travis County downtown campus in taking a look at functions related to that. But about six years you said we want to reduce leases in Travis County. One. And we want to move to take services to the particular communities and neighborhoods. As a result of those two goals, you built precinct 4, precinct 3, and precinct 2. You also bought, purchased and built out airport boulevard, the
>> [indiscernible] building and the -- moved out the county clerk and the tax assessor from downtown. You have also made another purchase in that or have an offer for another purchase in that area. That was a very large capital improvement project, multi-year. Multi project. So with this, it's saying adopt the same sort of goals you want to address, the downtown -- the redevelopment of the downtown campus, along with other properties and have a multi-year and that can be changed to a comprehensive multi-year capital improvement program for the redevelopment of the Travis County downtown campus. It's the same idea. It's just acknowledging that it's not going to be done in one bond cycle or one year, but it's going to be a multi-year, multi project approach. Because the projects that you are taking on, civil courts, administration, the development of heman sweatt and civil courts are very large projects they will take a considerable amount of planning and implementation.
>> you can phase in implementation, but you almost have to do a comprehensive needs analysis up front. Once you complete that, and you have your strategy in place, then you implement based on affordability, timing, and I guess you can -- you can't do just -- just on multiple construction projects down here at one time anyway, can you?
>> well --
>> because you are already --
>> judge, the kind of -- the contract that we have now and what we're looking at is kind of an exploratory look. And the kind of planning that you are thinking of, you are absolutely right. It needs to be a comp -- we need to go to that step next. But that isn't this step. But in that step you are right. I mean now you get into what is the department doing, how many people they have, how many computers do they have, who do they work with, who do they need to be located with. Really a comprehensive program of what's going on. That absolutely has to be done. And I think that, you know, your focus on that is a recognition that we will never be more successful than that -- than that planning. And so to the extent that we get people who are experienced in that and get detailed enough, then we will have the space for -- for when we need it. But I think that you are absolutely right. The planning, this kind of says the planning will be done looking at the whole -- at the whole area. And, you know, like an example in the auditor's office for instance we are looking for a new financial system. Well, you know we have a main frame now. If we go to one with client servers there may be 20 or 40 boxes that have to go someplace. A planner looks at all of those things. It's much more detailed, much more focusing on interconnectivity. Then I think you can have a phased in approach, how you are going to do this and, you know, when the assumptions were given to you at the work session, one of them was you didn't want to relocate people if you didn't have to. The phasing like if you decide that the civil courthouse is going here, probably not going to throw everyone out, put them in a red building, knock everything out and start over. Probably going to build the county seat, move the people that are going there to the county seat and then look at, if this is where the civil courthouse then demolish it and put it in. That takes longer, but that is the kind of staging and phased approach that you would have to look at. Something like that. But yes there needs to be a comprehensive planning project. You are absolutely right.
>> I have a -- I have a suggested way to look at this. It occurs to me in discussing b particularly, it seems to me what's called for is an approach similar to what we're doing with market salary surveys over a representative cyclecal basis. That we need to commit to a comprehensive multi-project capital improvement program for all of the county facilities with central business district, airport, south congress and satellite offices on a rolling basis with the 50 years horizon but a five to 10 year implementation horizon. We do that continue yowlly. I think -- continually. I think part of our struggle with the courthouse issue, what is bulbing up on our -- bubbling up on our needs with the courthouse is not in step with our 2001 facilities strategic plan. What we are struggling with here is an acknowledgment that at least in regard to the civil courthouse and the domino effect, we have to amend our thinking on our as it phrased comprehensive multi-project capital improvement program roach for the continuing redevelopment of all of our county facilities. Is that a fair description? Is that what b is trying to do? Get us to a --
>> I think b is probably a little more focused than that.
>> which may be my problem with it actually. Is that it's narrowly focused on the central business district. Narrowly would not be a word that I would choose. Yes, I can understand why you might think of it that way. We have talked about other things, including as part of this. Part of what informs this process is for example we have talked about a high volume justice center in the south near the juvenile hall. Juvenile facilities. We have talked about looking at that as part of an adjunct to this with regard to what we need to put into this courthouse. By necessity we have looked at some other things. Our focus for this however has been our charge and to be given what we asked to do, where were we going to put the civil courthouse, what effect would that have. In doing so what needed to happen in terms of the planning horizon to get that done. As the judge said we need to start with a needs analysis. Judge dietz said we have done that, we know what it is for the civil courthouse. However the things we have asked you to vote for help us now to determine okay we know where it needs to go, pretty much know how much space we have based on not just the age of the building and the square footage that we have now, but how many courts we're going to need which is a number analysis that mike
>> [indiscernible] has done which pretty much nails it to a t about how many courts we will need in the next 13 to 14 years, we have done that analysis. The question is how does it fit in with rest of Travis County? We have looked more narrowly at the downtown campus and again the south campus because that was the thing most affected the courts. But we have been persuaded and in fact prompted to look at a broader picture. Right now we are asking you to do these so we can get to a broader picture.
>> I will reposit. I think you articulated exactly what has gone on very accurately. That we started with civil courthouse and it quickly -- quickly became plain that there are many other related issues regarding facilities planning that are affected by or affect our decisions regarding the civil courthouse.
>> given the assumptions which bottom line was if we were just going to build a courthouse across the street and renovate heman marion sweatt, do 126, this is not real difficult. Doesn't become this. It becomes this because our preference is not to build on 126 because of the capital view corridors as expressed by this court. We understand that. This changed and best of my knowledge a different.
>> beast.
>> plan b happens because judge dietz goes okay we can't build there. How do we effectuate what we need which is a courthouse and still take into the need the rest of the Travis County. That's what happened. Yes, that's very plainly what happened. So we are trying to do that, this helps us move forward in that direction.
>> there are many counties that do have capital improvement programs much like you are talking about, I?m sure planning and budget would be happy to entertain conversations along the route of focusing on a much larger picture. From my part in the planning and budget office this would be a major step towards that initiative, because it would in fact capture the downtown. We have got to start somewhere quite frankly. So auto comprehensive approach to downtown gets you much farther down the road in looking at a comp helpsive capital improvement program for all of your county assets. And so I -- you know, I very much think that this is a step in the right direction. But retains some focus to correct some issues that exist in the downtown today and that are real imminent space issues for you and concerns that you are going to have to tackle in the short term period in the next three to five. But probably some temporary or interim measures as you undertake a major capital improvement program. So I hear what you are saying from the big picture perspective. I think that there is a lot more work that can be done in that area. This team, you know, really is trying to make sure that we are capturing your best interests in the downtown focus area to move the programs forward that you need to have on your radar screen for the downtown, including the new civil court project because although I agree with judge shepherd that if you were just building on 126, it might not be a big issue to the project team. You could successfully move your courthouse project forward by itself, very quickly, but I would submit to you that I would still be bringing back needs from the criminal courts as everyone has stated here. And your own administrative needs that also are affected in the downtown. So we would have some different set of assumptions that we would be walking into on what sites were available. But the problem would still exist. So the team is bringing that forward.
>> I want to make sure that -- that we do not lose sight of the renovation of -- of the heman marion sweatt courthouse. I want to make sure in all of this that we are doing you know if it comes back this way as far as what we're doing, b on are whatever one that you want to put it under, we do not lose sight of the heman marion sweatt innovation project. I hope everybody understands where I?m coming from what I say that. All right, thanks.
>> speaking of criminal courts, we have a criminal judge and the district attorney here with us. This may be you all's opportunity to join the fray. Judge, flowers, too, hiding back there.
>> figure out a way for you to get six chairs. Even I haven't been able to do that down here on Tuesday.
>> nobody wants to come with us, judge. That's the problem.
>> we may need to change positions, judge, during this conversation.
>> what would you all like to know from us.
>> you have heard our discussion. The criminal courts will have needs especially if we are looking at the next 30 to 50 years.
>> judge, we began discussing this issue and we appreciate the fact that you alerted that we might need to discuss our needs in the near future. We have been looking at the 30 year time horizon but haven't had the time to develop numbers to the degree of speaks speaks physician tee that you may want. Judge perkins and judge crane who is with us have not met. I don't have the exact -- yeah, I didn't bring that with me. One of the things whatever year it occurs, with criminal growth and expansion, as you know we're going into the third floor of the blackwell thurmon building. The district attorney will relocate all of his staff from third floor to the galt building. The problem is going to which you are we go into the second floor. Mr. Earle and i, ronnie and I have talked that doesn't appear to be justify space in black well thurmon to accommodate his needs, pretrial services which we believe needs to be downtown near the central booking facility, court administration for the district and county court judges, criminal divisions, and I think that's when you are going to run into a severe crunch as far as the problems of space. But what we have also talked about is projecting our to the point in time when the blackwell thurmon building is full of courts. I think that we projected somewhere between 20, 25, and 2035, it may be these are approximates. At that point, the question is which will the county do when it need another criminal court and it has no space in the present building? Do you build another courts building? Should it be in this complex? Our answers to those questions is yes you must build, yes it should be adjacent to not only the existing blackwell thurmon building, but most importantly the central booking and prisoner transportation parts of black well thurmon, which are in central booking, of course. So those are issues that we were talking about looking at that long term, having some idea of where you were planning to put a facility, where you could, we have no idea. We have knocked around different thoughts on that, but we are no experts in this area. So the question is where would you put that facility when there's a need and can you use that potential footprint or building or whatever it is to accommodate some intermediate needs between the time the d.a. Starts transitioning? We have discussed that there's a definite need in the near future for the district attorney's office to have some space to put its people. As far as being specific on points in time, we have projections but I think our main concern is to express to you that the time horizon for a crunch as far as space is concerned, specifically for the district attorney's office is imminent. And I think mr. Earle can talk more about his concerns, but we share with him that there is a need and we believe that the district attorney's office should be near where these criminal courts are. I don't know where you would put it when we exist galt and blackwell thurman.
>> thank you for this opportunity. What you have succeeded in doing is bringing us together to plan together what we think the future of the administration of criminal justice at the prosecution and judicial level will be in Travis County. And of course it's -- it's necessary that those functions be carried out downtown. From both practical and statutory reasons. We have not put the same kind of pencil to it that we would have to put to it to be able to give you specific information. It has been suggested that -- that as the future is planned for, we need sufficient space for six additional criminal courtrooms by 2040. Six additional criminal courtrooms would require complimentary staff of prosecutors that would require a -- a corresponding complement of space. We currently have five lawyers assigned to each of the district court's trying criminal cases. That's the way we are able to move so many cases with so few judges. We would probably want to continue that arrangement in the future. That's a lot of people. We -- our staff has expanded enormously just in the last few years. So we are -- we are probably looking at -- at an adjoining building that is devoted primarily, if not exclusively, to prosecuteorial offices to the county attorney and district attorney's office. David escamilla and I have not conferred on that subject. As the district court's expand because of caseload, the need for new district courts is apparent. The need for new county courts at law will also occur. And a corresponding need for additional county attorney space. So -- so we're looking at perhaps replicating the experience of harris county that has a separate building for its district attorney's office. It is a -- it is a -- a -- a combination district and county attorney's office in harris county. But we are looking at some considerable space, really, we're -- we're in a position to -- sort of walking in lock step with the criminal district courts as they expand and -- the county attorney's office, I don't want to speak for david, but with the county courts at law as well. We are all kind of hitched together, you know, it like we either all stand together or we will all fall together. So I?m happy to answer any questions with my limited availability of information.
>> as far as space, I heard judge flowers state earlier that it's imminent. What is imminent? Define imminent as far as space is concerned within your shop.
>> it's all tied to the caseload. The blackwell thurman building was originally constructed as a court's building. The theory was that as the new district courts were created, they would expand downward, our new courts, county courts at law, district courts, whatever, would expand downward from the current top six floors, down to the third floor and in the second floor of the blackwell thurman building. When that happens, the both the third floor and second floor and the first floor of the blackwell thurman building are -- we are bursting at the seems with d.a. Staff on those flee floors. So we are going to move -- three floors. We are going to move to the galt building temporarily. That sprays is probably going to do us for -- that space is going to do us for a couple of years, that's about all.
>> two years.
>> two to four year window. If it's like everything else around here, that window will close in less than four years.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> judge, Commissioners, let me just say that we did send over a letter yesterday, I hope all of y'all received it from us to kind of briefly just kind of set forth in writing the concerns that we had. I guess it was about three weeks before the November 29th meeting, judge dietz come over and talked to me and indicated that they were going toavth's really the firste when we started lookingt isas when when he come over and I guess warned me about it would be the proverb. And so at that time we -- we decided we were going to come over on November 29th and try to be a part of that. I guess really as far as b is concerned in terms of what y'all have to decide, if you all are going to decide yea or nay on having a comprehensive multi-project capital improvement program approach for the redevelopment of the downtown area downtown campus, then I guess we are saying if you all are going to do that, we definitely want to be a part of it. We definitely have some irons in that fire so we'll do whatever we can to be a really --bv have not sat down and looked at our needs ay t civil courts have. We intend to do that pretty quick if you all need us to.
>> Commissioner Davis, you asked what did I mean by imminent. I based that upon the original projections done by the team that hired the Commissioners to plan the space needs for the blackwell thurman building. I still have access to that information. They projected that by 2015 there would be a need for 17 criminal courts, county and district. And so if that is accurate, then I think that it's imminent if you project that we are at 14 now and they are saying in this span of about seven years from next year, we'll be at an additional three courts. Which means we'll be beyond the projections of the d.a. Losing its second floor, but we will be into the first floor. Now, I have to tell you, you should have and may have information that deborah hill did, who I respect their numbers, she has the benefit of time. The numbers that she put together consulting with us is not as ambitious. The numbers that we have is not 17, but we think it's more like 16 courts. But if the population in Austin, in Travis County has great boost in growth. Then you can generally track criminal behavior along with that population growth and we may be. I don't know of anybody who is capable of accurately predicting future criminal behavior, number of cases that might be categorized by the legislature as felons or misdemeanors. Creation of new laws, introduction of crimes from felonies, misdemeanors to felonies. But the best we can tell you is that we believe that you may have an issue of another series of needs of courts in 2015. I can tell you, also, there are judges who work here that have just as much knowledge of the needs as I think I have. Who believe it mitt occur well in advance of 2015. I have heard as early as 2011 that there might be a need for one more district criminal or county court. Now, I don't know. You also understand very well the practical consideration is that it's easier to get a county court than it is a district court. So we have to deal with those issues. So when I say imminent, it's imminent because of the need for criminal court's expansion that would directly impact ronnie earle's office and his space need and it could be as much as 2011 but formally we are telling you we think that it's fwog happen in 20 -- it's going to happen in 2015.
>> how many more courts with can he get into the blackwell thurman building?
>> we can add two more courtroom at the third floor.
>> right now.
>> right now. So we have -- they have of the 11 to five floor we have about 16 courtroom, we are adding two more.
>> two more on to the second floor as a future stopgap and we should investigate viability of the first floor but that might affect general circulation in the building. Because as the volume of courts increases the circulation increases on the first floor. We do know it was planned for at least two more courts to drop down on to the second floor. But that irrangers people to vacation -- that requires people to vacate the space.
>> may I add one thing on that. In the design of that building one of the keyt urged by the sheriff's department at that time was the fact that we need to stop what we are doing of having prisoners going in public walkways so the beauty of the building is that these courts are jeants to that central -- adjacent to that central secured elevator shaft and prisoner holding area. In theory you cannot put any more than two courtrooms, if you plan on being consistent with that secure zone of prisoner transportation because if you go beyond two on the floor you have a problem of how are you going to get them to those courtrooms. That's key. And the theory behind all of this is that the most we would have are going into the first floor, but I have been told there are possible challenges with putting courtrooms on that first floor. I?m assuming that you are going into the first floor that's what we have assumed for our discussion processes. We may be told that's not practical.
>> two on the first, two on the second, two on third are coming in next year.
>> after we have gotten the two additional courts that have already been approved up and running, we will have space inside the backwell thurman for four more.
>> if you go to the first floor if we can use it.
>> yeah. That's why in the historical documentation you see that the building is sized for 18 possibly 20. Because 18 includes the second floor. That 18 I believe that's correct.
>> 18 is the first floor.
>> the first floor.
>> hunt for item b on the agenda to recap. One of the things that we need for you to do is signal the departments that this is the approach that you want to take. It does take a lot of staff resource, not just from the planning side but from the departments to focus resource on doing this type of initiative and that's part of the reason that we wanted from the court specifically about taking a comprehensive approach as well as a multi-year project. Capital improvement type of approach because it allows the departments to understand the work that they need to be trying to accomplish, staff that they need to bring into the table on discussions as we move through the snrees just for clarification, I?m sorry, I want to make sure that I understand this. On the first bullet point on the last payment of y'all's letter, y'all are requesting sufficient space to allow for the addition of at least six criminal courtrooms by 2040. In addition to the two that we are good to get up and running or does that include the two?
>> I believe that includes it.
>> includes it.
>> it does not.
>> no.
>> we are at 14 now. The six we are talking about 2040, we are showing 21 total, which is --
>> right.
>> it does not include --
>> does not include, the one that's started as you know. The 427th district court.
>> it doesn't include that one.
>> it doesn't include that one or county court 8 which is authorized but people are competing for that honor to serve in county court 8. And I think that it's authorized maybe January 1st I believe. But -- but the folks running for that office. And -- and --
>> so this would require either that we pack in more than two on the first floor or find additional space for additional --
>> definitely by 2040 we would be out of that building under any analysis.
>> schedule.
>>
>> [laughter]
>> why are we planning this thing? We get it. I mean you know which is the reason why I think that number one it's so important. About what I said. That is let's leave ours enough flexibility here to give everything that we know that we need to get downtown and getting downtown are the courts. The thing that goes along with the court, d.a.'s office, county attorney's office, I?m hearing pretrial. Knowing that we have limitations because of the capitol view corridors. This thing is -- we're making this thing so much more difficult, I mean, b is your right. What we need to do is need to move forward with finding professionals that help us say you tell us what are the primary things that you need down here. We know what the primary things are that we need. He also know that we would like to have the Commissioners court down here. But we may find. We have a perfect, I mean, empirical evidence can tell you, we have doubled the population, every 20 years, since 1900. Take a multiplier of whatever it is. Use take multiplier to take and determine how many folks that you have and the 2001 book showed you, which was probably fairly accurate about how many square feet you need per person and all those kind of things, it's easy to mathematically figure out here's how much space you need. This is the perfect time, the criminal judges to go hey, you know, glad we heard it, quite frankly don't forget it. We know that we've got to do that. Until you really sit down with the professionals that know how to do this and get the input from the people that know what we need down here, then that drives it. I mean that is going to drive it real fast. It is going to drive us here either out of downtown because we are limited in what we can put on 126. We know that because we are not going to get in the middle of the cvc's. It's almost like we are sitting here going how about the first, second floor gosh, you know, we are planning the things. I mean I don't think that we can do that, you know, at this stage. But I mean it's clear that moving to b is what we need to vote for and move on. And -- and.
>> second that motion.
>> I?m willing to --
>> I was just going to join in our conversation.
>> [laughter]
>> when you were asked about the -- asking about the six criminal court rooms that we would need,ance to that question, the number of courts overall, 21 is what we would ask. In that sense it does include those six. In terms of six courtrooms that would be over and above as what judge flowers said that would be over and above what we are building on the third floor right now. The second floor we will have to leave the building at that point and find something else to get those extra courtrooms.
>> if we direct that our aim is a comprehensive needs analysis, which I think we should, then at some point in the future somebody will come back and say here are the resources that we need in order to get this done.
>> yes.
>> is that right?
>> in fact that's critical for us to be able to appropriately scope what those resources are.
>> to the extent that b is my explanation a few minutes ago, I?m supportive of it. And that really is to be needs driven, put together comprehensive strategy and then the -- the multi-project program implemented over a period of years, makes sense to me. But a lot of work needs to be done on the front end is what I was saying. There are some assumptions that we are not articulating today. There was a time when civil and criminal courts were in the historical courthouse. So -- so if you build a new civil courts building, why wouldn't you build it big enough to build some of those courts out of the reman sweatt building and plan in years down the road to move criminal courts into that if you need them. Maybe the county criminal courts. See what I?m saying.
>> gets back to that east-west question.
>> so I?m not saying expand heman sweatt building, I am saying control how we use it.
>> part of it is the security needs that go with the criminal courts, that's the real driver for when you are dealing with that because you need a secure access that doesn't allow the errors to be brought out of circulation, heman is not --
>> I?m saying let's not close the door. There was a time when Sam Biscoe was in private law practice in Travis County.
>> when the jail was on the top floor.
>> sure was.
>> was that shortly after the either cooled?
>> that was a few years ago. We may well conclude that that is a not a viable use. I?m just saying that I would not begin by closing that door. I?m sitting here visualizing the problem that we had with the cjc, if you need three or four courtrooms I don't know that you go ahead and build an elaborate structure. Unless you really absolutely have to. It may be that we have to. But part of the analysis will be to get us there. We have some time on some of these. But when you start demolishing some of these buildings you run out of time quickly on whoever occupies the facility.
>> right.
>> that was a motion and second to approve b. Right?
>> yes.
>> any more discussion? I think that you catch the drift of what we are -- if we need to come back with a more fleshed out item we will do that. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. C is a little bit more specific. It says establishment of a planning perimeter for the multi-project redevelopment of the Travis County downtown campus; c 1, option 1, 12th to 9th streets and nueces to lavaca streets; c 2, option 2, include option 1 plus 12th to 13th streets and san antonio to guadalupe streets; or 3, any other option.
>> and item c follows item b because it is another element of scoping what it is that you are going to evaluate and the initial focus is on your downtown campus. This is a -- an effort to once again outline and define what that campus is or what the planning perimeter would look like. We have -- we have based on discussions at the number of 29th work session, made a recommendation that option 2 be established as the planning perimeter, which is actually validating your downtown campus as outlined in your 2001 master plan, cap facilities strategic plan. It says your planning perimeter, your campus, would be from 9th street to 13th street in order to encompass the eob and nueces to lavaca street. That captures all of your facilities that are clustered in this downtown region.
>> including the criminal courts.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> so it's just to clarify, this is neither one nor two. It's actually 3 because it goes all the way to lavaca and up to 13th.
>> right.
>> number 2 only went to guadalupe.
>> oh, I think that's --
>> that's the only block that they need to be --
>> you're right. They did limit it just to capture the eob blocks at the top.
>> this is actually any other option.
>> if you are valve dating the strategic plan, that's my mistake in misreading it. The recommendation is to just capture the eob. Part of that may have to do with availability of the sites surrounding it.
>> for clairety, 12th to 9th and nueces to lavaca.
>> as a total square and then 12th to 13th --
>> I?m sorry 13th to 9th and nueces to lavaca.
>> picking up the eob.
>> the only thing is that we can't act like it doesn't exist. We may decide later on to liquidate it, use those proceeds for something else. But it is an issue that has to be dealt with because cscd has a lot of activities there and t.n.r.
>> absolutely.
>> any more discussion of the motion?
>> Commissioner Daugherty is ready to vote. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. D is a contract modification with broaddus and associates for site analysis of blocks 134 and 108; is that all we want them to do in this modification?
>> judge, Commissioner, yes, for this -- for this broaddus & associates, they did the site assessment for us on usb block and san antonio --
>>
>> [indiscernible]
>> the final report is the -- that would be presented to the Commissioners court soon I guess. Then what we would like to do is just for the same scope of work, we would like to have broaddus & associates do the same thing for the granger building block and the rusk building block. Also not only the site assessment, we would like also to expand it just like we did on the usb and san antonio corridor, have a competitive site survey, fwee I don't technical investigation and environmental assessment. And each site, each block I should say it will cost about -- about $52,000 to do all of the assessment. Would be the site. And as -- geotechnical, environmental comprehensive. Just mirror image the one that we did before. Would like to give us authority to -- authorization to move forward with it and we do have the fund I believe within the -- within the budget.
>> for those of us who are not working with block numbers, which one is granger?
>> the granger is block 134.
>> 134.
>> rusk is 108.
>> 108, yes.
>> what number is that across the street.
>> 126.
>> 126.
>> that's included in the other one, the other study.
>> yes.
>> so the site analysis that you mentioned will cover, will encompass all of the -- all of the work that you mentioned?
>> yes.
>> sigh analysis, geotechnical, site
>> [indiscernible]
>> total cost of that, now.
>> total cost is 104,000.
>> that broaddus' quote or our estimate of what broad dution --
>> this is an estimate just like we -- same thing like we have in the existing contract.
>> broaddus performance the basic site analysis. The geotechnical, environmental assessment and site survey are obtained from other vendors who are under current county contract for those services.
>> okay.
>> not through broaddus.
>> okay.
>> but the total is $104,000 regardless of the number of --
>> correct.
>> that is an estimate.
>> contracts to get this done.
>> estimate.
>> estimated total.
>> that's the intention.
>> okay.
>> move approval of those.
>> second.
>> seconded by Commissioner Davis.
>> any more discussion? So when we receive -- the work product, we should be able to determine for the flee blocks, these -- for the three blocks, these two and the other ones.
>> four blocks.
>> san antonio garage black,.
>> we will add this work to that and we've got that work on four blocks.
>> correct.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] that passes by unanimous vote. E is to request county staff to meet with certain outside interest groups and industry professionals. Rumor had it that y'all had been doing this anyway.
>> [ laughter ] thanks for the courtesy of coming back. I thought you had been doing it. Let's bless it, y'all.
>> thank you.
>> there's not a definitive list?
>> no, there's not.
>> [overlapping speakers].
>> so people that are interested need to get in contact with facilities?
>> it includes, but is not limited to the city of Austin, roma, other peers, historical society.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> when you summarize the meeting, do not give us a date. We would rather not know, I think. Any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. I was just giving you a hard time on that. This is not only america, but Travis County.
>> [ laughter ] f is parking for county employees and the public. And this is intended to say that whatever planning we do, we need to make sure we include parking for employees and the public.
>> absolutely.
>> that's why I move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion? Do we need to know anything more specific than that? All in favor? Show Commissioners Daugherty, Davis, eckhardt and yours truly voting in favor.
>> I need to know more. I need to know more.
>> needs to know more.
>> would you say what you need to know, Margaret?
>> I need to know how will we -- how are we going to work in the future? Surely we're not going to do it like we're doing it today. And we're not going to get around then as we are today.
>> that's a good point. It's a very good point, Commissioner Gomez. And one thing to look at, of course, is the major changes that are -- Gerald is hanging his head in frustration.
>> [ laughter ] but looking at what the city is trying to accomplish with a parking enterprise.
>> well, we were in horse drawn buggies back in the day. Change hadn't taken place.
>> clearly swrel to take that into consideration given the plans that are on the table, but that's why we'll have the planners and that's what the planning process is for to figure out maybe we don't have to have as much parking.
>> you know, at least for the time being we've got to explore that with the acknowledgment that central business district property and air space is getting so valuable, will it really be the highest and best use to use it for parking in the future?
>> and that is where e also, we're not the only ones that are thinking like you are. There's been much discussion about transportation. So f goes into e in terms of us tapping other resources and other planning efforts to see how it is that they are also dealing with very similar problems.
>> I?m just thinking of a super highway. How are you -- how are we going to utilize that or continue utilizing it in the future to prevent us having to have travelling -- the way we've always done it.
>> it may mean we have to contribute towards parking solutions that ring the central business district or ring the transportation conduits that bring people into the central business district rather than providing parking within the central business district.
>> it's a big -- it's a bit problem for me. I just --
>> I understand. Footnote that the county judge says there will be free parking at airport.
>> [ laughter ] any more discussion? Oops, we just voted on that, didn't we? With Commissioner Gomez present, but not voting. G is to reaffirm Commissioners court appointed committee to head this project and make necessary modifications.
>> well, I was sort of insistent upon this, but the further we get into it, here are some things that I believe work, and that is having the interested departments sit down and work in a collaborative effort. If this -- if y'all rely on your segmented departments, I don't have great hope for it, quite frankly. It obviously needs a driver. I think we were able to work in a very collaborative -- at the work session I said I believe this had the endorsement of every one of your executive managers and of your department heads. Essentially what we've done is changed the scope of it. When y'all first appointed the executive committee, the court appointed two of yours members and judge shepherd and i, now that we're talking about a project that is a little bit larger and more comprehensive, I?m not sure that that structure works. I am sure that a executive committee driving it, whether you expand or add people on to it, whether somebody from the court manages it, but I truly believe that you need an interdepartmental, interdisciplinary type of approach to it with somebody taking the responsibility to drive this. Judge shepherd and I still have -- we're kind of partial to the courthouse part, but I?m not sure that the structure that was originally set up is appropriate because we've dramatically expanded the scope. And I?ll just leave that to your consideration what you want to do on it.
>> well, why don't we have this one item balancing on next week and address it then? So you're not asking that you and judge shepherd be taken off. You're asking that y'all be looked at for primary responsibility on the civil court part. And the other parts it may be better if others were to take the lead? Is that what I?m hearing?
>> well, we're cognizant that judge shepherd and I neither of us have a checkbook sufficient to pay for this, so we're going to be looking to the court. And I want to make sure that the court has the degree of comfort chur considering how large the task is. You've still got to obtain citizen support and other types of support. I?ve indicated to the court both in the work session and at other times with members of the bar and the president dents of the bar that we're ready to shoulder the responsibility during a bond election, if that's necessary and inevitable. But I just want to make sure that y'all are comfortable with the constituency of the executive committee and whether or not you want to continue the working group. I recommend it. We think we've put out a pretty good product. We've been working at this over the summer and throughout the fall, and the working session. And today is sort of the culmination of that. That was our work product. But I think y'all need to think about it because I know some people are chafing at the bit. Some went on, some want off. And y'all need to think that through and decide how you want to do it.
>> I like the idea of having a week.
>> okay. Mr. Earl has some ideas.
>> Commissioner, judge and Commissioners, there are a couple of matters that I will like to address. One is the continuation of this effort. I will like to recommend the addition of a person from the criminal side to represent both the district attorney's office, the county attorney's office, the county courts at law and the district judges. And that would be judge will flowers, who has been --
>> excuse me. We have an employee here who may --
>> [ inaudible ].
>> media, let stand in recess for about 10 minutes. We have an emergency to deal with.
>> good afternoon. Let's call this voting session of the Commissioners court back to order. From a very brief recess. We had a county employee who had a little emergency situation, so we took a short recess to assist him. We're in the middle of our discussion of item number 21, and we have discussed and acted on a through f. And we were in the middle of a discussion of g, which is to reaffirm Commissioners court appointed committee to head this project and make necessary modifications. And the county judge had just recommend that we repost this item for next week and come back with maybe a modified committee along with an explanation, but our district attorney, ronnie earl, was about to give comments.
>> I have a couple of very short comments to make. First, I think it would be appropriate to add to the committee that has been working on this issue, a representative from the county attorney, from the district attorney, county court at law and district judges trying criminal cases, four additional representatives just so we have a total perspective on what the new facilities will require, etcetera, etcetera. And secondly, I want to introduce this, which is something of a controversial, unnecessarily controversial topic. But the splitting of the courts into civil and criminal is not good for the public, it's not good for jurisprudence, it's not good for anything or anybody anywhere else. We have separate courts trying criminal cases and trying civil cases. We have judges that are capable of trying either one. Judge dietz is the presiding civil judge, is a former assistant da who knows a little bit about criminal law. We have other judges who are capable of doing both. So split those two -- to split those two and rashd them as two -- and regard them as two separate and not notter gratable parts does a great disservice to what this country is about. What it does is separate money from liberty and I think that is death to anything like democracy. There are on -- we have in this state a separate court of last resort for criminal cases. There are three jurisdictions in the english speaking world that have separate courts of last resort for criminal cases rls Texas, new zealand and oklahoma. So it's bad public policy. It doesn't accomplish anything. And it's a form of segregation of the most central role of government, which is protection of the government. I think it's a bad idea and I think that while we're in a position now to start planning what we're going to be doing in the future, we ought to do away with this unnatural segregation that we've lived under for many years. And thood the end of the sermon. Thank you very much. We'll have an invitation later.
>> judge, on the two committees let me make a brief sort of comment, and that is the executive committee which is -- has been four elected officials and then advisory people, has been kind of the policy group. And that is scheduled to meet once a month. And Commissioner eckhardt and Commissioner Daugherty are the two members of the Commissioners court that are on that. The second committee, which is kind of been putting things together, has sort of been the worker bees. And that committee, judge dietz has been working us until -- well, I don't need to say. Every Friday for about an hour and a half to two hours. And so there was a significant amount of work and that's not just policy discussion, that's -- here's what we need to do. Who is going to do this, what's the work going to be? So you will have two committees there. And I will say that judge dietz has done a very good job of getting people together, trying to get us thinking of one mind, pulling in our skill levels and coordinating this effort. But a lot that have has come through that working group. So there's really two committees as you're thinking through this. And I agree with judge dietz, anyone who wants to work ought to jump on board.
>> I think a disciplinary approach has helped us a lot. Because when you have all the departments sitting at the table in addition to the criminal departments, a lot ofs ideas that come up get vetted fairly quickly, so you can get them moving fairly rapidly because you've got a good vetting group right there. Can you do it almost instancely. Moving forward we have the best consensus very quickly because a lot of the affected departments are right there at the table. It's a reasoned approach, but it gives us a lot of ability to look at ideas fairly rapidly. The weekly deal is very much important. When you're talking about having some experience with past projects and having to work on those from one perspective, being able to get to somebody weekly and have that decision making group come to a consensus fairly quickly is critical. It helps tremendously when you're responding not only now, but in the future. And that's one of the things that we really appreciated and are -- the group needs to be able to do is that weekly meeting helps to us do a number of things moving forward fairly quickly and gives us not only a point of attack and a point to vet ideas, baugh quick response group as well with a solid group of intel right there.
>> so what the proposal on the table is, is to have the executive committee, an advisory committee and a working group. Am I correct about that?
>> the steering committee would be fine. You can leave that, but the working group -- what we're asking to you do, because you've already affirmed before the executive committee and the steering group. What we're asking you to do is give the same (indiscernible) to the working committee and make it the week to week in charge committee because the other committees meet monthly. This group meets weekly and does a lot of work in that fashion. And we report to to those other groups to get a high level few, but this is the down and dirty stuff that we have to get done every week and it's the best group to work with.
>> so mr. Earl, in response to your suggestion, are you saying that you want representation on all three of those committees or some combination thereof? Or is it premature to say?
>> I don't think I understand enough about where the ball is to know at this point, Commissioner. I think that whatever entity is responsible for making a recommendation to the court, that is what I think the entire ground of criminal justice -- entire group of criminal justice agencies needs to be represented on. And if that's all three, then it's all three. If it's just one, that's fine.
>> but it sounds like we may be coming back.
>> that's okay.
>> that's what I would do. I think we need to look at backup information as well as a proposal.
>>
>> [inaudible - no mic].
>> yes, sir. And hopefully backup prepared by Friday afternoon, a distribution, so we can view it over the weekend or Tuesday. Anything else on item 21?
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, December 12, 2007, 18:30 AM