Travis County Commissioners Court
January 13, 2009
Corporations
Now let's call to order the Travis County housing finance corporation 1. Consider and take appropriate action on request to approve new signature cards for the jpmorgan chase bank accounts.
>> good afternoon, I'm harvey Davis, manager of the corporation. Travis County finance corporation has two accounts at j.p. Morgan chase, one for the down payment assistance program and then an operating account. What we're asking you to approve is to -- to add Karen huber -- because she's the treasurer as the signer on the account and then take off Gerald Daugherty since he's no longer a director.
>> who else is on the account, all of the board?
>> no, you as the president as the signer, then sarah eckhardt is a signer. We have three signers on all of the accounts of the corporation. And each check requires two signatures.
>> okay. That's a lot of clout and a big responsibility.
>> move approval.
>> director.
>> discussion?
>> I second the motion. All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. 2. Consider and take appropriate action on request to approve membership invoice from Texas association of local housing finance agencies.
>> this is an organization that we have been a member of since 1998. It is made up of housing finance corporations in the state of Texas. And we're asking you to approve a payment of $525, which would be membership for leroy nellis, harvey Davis and mike gonzalez. This was -- it is in our budget for the corporation and these are the people that were members last year.
>> move approval.
>> this is a good investment?
>> yes, it is. They have a -- they give us very valuable information and give us lots of opportunities to exchange information with other housing finance corporations. And have a great convention each year.
>> now, I was hoping that you didn't say that, mr. Davis
>> [laughter]
>> not in vegas, is it?
>> I got carried away.
>> I was about to ask for your assurance that it is not more than a social outlet for you
>> [laughter] but all right, we know that you have got to go to the big conference. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. And item no. 3. Consider and take appropriate action on request to approve a plan to apply for funding from the Texas department of housing and community affairs for a neighborhood stabilization program.
>> and I'm here with mike gonzalez who works in our office and with christie moffat who is the cdbg expert, these are cdbg funds. What we would like to do today is to -- to provide you an -- an overview of what is the neighborhood's stabilization program and -- and ask you to -- to approve our plans to take advantage of this opportunity and to -- to also ask you to explain our staffing needs, because of this program, and to approve our requests for staffing -- additional staffing needs. With that, I would like -- if mike gonzalez would explain a little powerpoint on what this program is about.
>> good afternoon, we did prepare a powerpoint that was left at your places. It provides a great opportunity for Travis County to continue our mission of expanding affordable housing and healthy communities. Neighborhood stabilization program is authorized under title 3 of the housing and economic recovery act of 2008. It's essentially a h.u.d. Program that provides emergency assistance to acquire and redevelop foreclosed properties that might otherwise become sources of blight within community. The purpose of nsp is to stabilize local housing markets that have had a negative effect due to high foreclosure rates. Funds are also meant to target homes that have already been legally foreclosed upon. Funds cannot be used for foreclosure prevention and funds must be used in neighborhoods identified by h.u.d. As areas of greatest need. Some of the key points for nsp is the -- the funds are essentially use 'em or lose 'em. They are federal funds coming down through the state, through the Texas department of housing and community affairs. They will directly benefit those homeowners who currently continue to make their mortgage payment and pay their taxes by assisting them, maintaining
>> [indiscernible] within the neighborhood. It also works to improve property values and preserves the affordable housing progress that we made within the county. If you turn to the next slide, nsp allows for five eligible activities. The first one is to establish financing mechanisms for the purchase and redevelop of foreclosed homes. Including soft costs ... This is very similar to the down payment assistance program that we do with the corporation through the 7 home grant we receive from the state. The next item is to purchase and rehabilitate properties that have been abandoned and foreclosed. Rehab may include improvements to increase energy efficiency. Item 3 to establish land bank his for homes that have been foreclosed.
>> [indiscernible] there is considerable flexibility in the nsp program as far as what activities can be done, so these are five tools that nsp does allow. Some quick nsp fun facts, funds are intended to be utilized quickly, which is why they have pretty tight time line of when funds have to be dispersed. They must be obligated --
>> how much time do we have?
>> well, the funds must be obligated within 18 months and they must be fully expended within four years. The -- what will happen is the except, the Texas department of housing and community affairs, we expect them to issue a notice at the end of February. We have 30 days to submit our initial application to that notice, to the state, to -- for funds that have been reserved for -- for the Travis County area. 25% of the nsp funds must be used on persons below 50% ami. The balance of the funds must be used to benefit persons at or below 120% ami. The revolving funds essentially you could -- it's anticipated that you will be able to do one activity such as let's say purchase a foreclosed home and then sell it to a qualifying home buyer. You will be able to recapture those funds and use them for another activity within the area and obviously westbound the guidelines of the nsp program. As harvey mentioned earlier, this is considered an extra allotment of cdbg funds. However, there are some varying requirements from the typical cdbg funds. On the next slide, I show a brief time line for nsp. Back in July of 2008, the housing economic recovery act was enacted. In September of '08, 3.9 billion in funding was awarded out to states or directly to entitlement jurisdictions. December 1st, '08, the Texas department of housing and community affairs submitted an action plan to h.u.d. Which included a 2 million direct allocation for the Travis County area. We anticipate that in February of '09 the Texas department of housing and community affairs will put a notice requesting grantees to submit their application. It's actually has March and April, but really in April of '09 we anticipate the state to actually award funds to those who had submitted applications. July 2010, all of the funds must be obligated. July 2013 the program ends. Now, the critical time issues, Travis County as I said before has 30 days to respond to the notice that's posted by the state. Again it's pretty critical that all of the funds need to be allocated within 18 months and fully expended within four years. You look at the next and the last slide, this is a map derived from h.u.d. Information. Very preliminary map, really just to give us an idea of -- of some of the areas that h.u.d. Is considering to be areas of greatest need or targeted areas. There's still other information that we have to factor in. There's a lot more inputs that we have to have from the community. But essentially the way this would work is the first standard to meet is we would have to -- to use these funds in areas designated by h.u.d. As target areas. Then we will look at area that's are not within the -- within the state limits of the city of Austin. Because they are also applying separately. And then the last thing we would look for within the target areas, we would look for specific neighborhoods for us to target nsp funds towards. Once we have an idea of specific neighborhoods, we can -- of the five tools we had earlier, we can devise a custom plan that would actually help stabilize property values within those neighborhoods. Do we have any questions on the presentation?
>> I do. You just touched on it. Go ahead, Commissioner Davis.
>> okay. As far as notifying the -- the public of -- of such brand new program, especially with -- with h.u.d. Dollars that may be available I guess everybody will have to -- to want to get a piece of the pie will have to apply. But I'm looking basically at at what -- as far as the jurisdiction, I think that you did mention something about the city of Austin even applying. Somewhere along the line there, I don't know how h.u.d. Is going to distinguish where the county begins and the city picks up? Just within the corporate limits of the city, is the county outside of the corporate limits? Is h.u.d. Going to borderline situation, if there's a need there. But how would that be determined.
>> I think one thing that critical, even though we do receive cdbg funds, we are entitled to jurisdiction --
>> [multiple voices]
>> hold on. You are going too fast. Slow down. What -- you are saying -- repeat what you said, slow down and say it. What I'm trying to determine is -- is again what is h.u.d.'s cite I don't know as far as where the city begins and ends and the county picks up and end it. Would it overlap.
>> it wouldn't overlap. The real issue is -- we would be applying with the state for funds, h.u.d. Sets the guidelines where all of those funds get disbursed. The first threshold you have to expend funds in areas they identify as the areas of greatest need. That's the first threshold. Based on census tracks regardless of jurisdiction --
>> all right. That was my point, what I was trying to get to? Here you have the city applying and the county applying. H.u.d. Becoming where the census track is of the greatest need and then down, down, down, down. Up, up, up, as far as priority, as far as those needs are concerned.
>> that's correct.
>> my question then is since both county and the city are both applying, who would have jurisdiction of that need that h.u.d. Determined?
>> what I would -- what we anticipate as far as collaboration is that the city of Austin will -- will have all of their activities within their city boundaries and Travis County will do all of the activities that's inside Travis County, outside of the city limits of Austin. That could even include other municipalities such as -- such --
>> Pflugerville or manor. But again they are targeted, it appears that they are -- there are h.u.d. Areas of greatest need both within the city limits and within Travis County. So there -- each jurisdiction would pretty much take care of their own, of their own need and their own requirement.
>> all right.
>> we will be applying to the state, though, for these funds so it -- it will pretty much be how the state pretty much weighs the application. I'm not sure if christie was --
>> well, what we have been told is that --
>> all right.
>> what have you been told?
>> that Travis County would be eligible of the two million for approximately $750,000. And the city of Austin would be eligible for the balance or one and a quarter million dollars. And that -- that -- that calculation is made based on -- on census tracks that have needs. Within the city and outside of the city.
>> can you repeat that draft possible distribution?
>> it's $750,000 for the county. Then the remaining 1.2 million for the city of Austin. That is based on -- on when -- when the nsp funds became available the statute was provided and hued had to determine how they were going to distribute the money. They came one a formula. Foreclosure data is very difficult to actually pin down, lots of different definitions of foreclosure. So h.u.d. Had to do extrapolations and the access that they have to the u.s. Census data provided them the opportunity to use a variety of sources to come up with a formula with which they determine allocation amounts for each cdbg entitlement community. If you didn't meet h.u.d.'s $2 million threshold, that allocation got rolled into the state's allocation and so -- so there are actual direct h.u.d. Grantees that are entitlement communities who received money from h.u.d. But they received over $2 million. If we look at -- at h.u.d.'s spread sheet, Travis County would have received $750,000 had we received a direct allocation from them. That's where we are getting that amount from. Now, in terms of the amount that we actually end up asking for, it would be based upon a conversation with anyone else who was applying for Travis County such as the city of Austin or if there's any other city within the county that wants to apply. It's kind of a negotiation so we don't end up asking in total for more than the $2 million that the direct allocation has been provided by the state. Kind of a negotiation has to occur.
>> soance to -- when this money is doled out, those particular -- I guess those particular low income persons who -- who qualify and they -- they may be in situations where -- whereby they -- maybe in foreclosure situations or not, I really don't know. This particular money can be used for those within the
>> [indiscernible] guideline.
>> it's 120% --
>> [multiple voices]
>> yeah.
>> which is actually significantly higher than the federal poverty guideline.
>> yeah, yeah, okay.
>> okay.
>> the thing is this money actually has to be used, it can be used to benefit people at 120% median family income.
>> 120 okay.
>> but this is to redevelop areas where people have already been foreclosed upon and we can't get them out of foreclosure. These are houses that potentially are going to be vacant in the neighborhood. This is redevelopment so that the money, the moneys used to go in and acquire properties that are currently empty to do any rehabilitation that may be needed and that potentially to provide some down payment assistance or some other kind of financing structure to get low to middle income families into the household. So you are maintaining the property values of subdivisions and communities and you are preventing blight from occurring.
>> okay. Now, I want to make sure that -- that this is not a -- not a byproduct of something that has stipulations under that homestead preservation situation that -- that we're so familiar with. Whereby the land owe oat person that ends up acquiring the property don't own the land. Is this parted of that or what.
>> > what we're asking is your permission for us staff to develop a plan once the state gives us more guidance on how to apply, that they would prepare a staff recommendation -- recommended plan and present it to you for approval.
>> but you mentioned land bank, I heard mike mention that. What I have been hearing lately has been coming through the homestead preservation district which is something that the community have -- have said --
>> land bank was one of the tools that --
>> right. You mentioned land bank kind of raised a red flag right off the top.
>> in this more specific instance they are really looking at land banking to let's say purchase property that's been foreclosed to be able to hold it until it is able to be resold, so you would hold it and lang r land bank it and do the maintenance on it. But when it's sold it's sold with the land and improvements.
>> so the improvements plus the land.
>> that's correct.
>> would be sold to the person that end up wanting to purchase it, is that correct?
>> that's correct.
>> I want to be perfectly clear that strikes a cord when you mention that.
>> as a point of clarification, the land bank is -- is in -- in terms of the homestead preservation district is exactly the same. It's the land trust that's part of the homestead preservation district that would own the dirt while another individual would own the improvements.
>> it's not the same. I beg to differ.
>> you all want permission today to put a plan together.
>> to proceed.
>> right. When the -- when the notice from the state comes, including the deadline for applications, we will see what the plan is before you submit it.
>> that's right. Because you have to approve it.
>> yeah.
>> so -- and we -- what we -- what we hope and foresee is that the -- that the housing finance corporation will be applying for these funds rather than -- and implementing the program rather than Travis County. And -- and an important part of this is that this is -- this is required -- requires quite a bit of work in preparing the plan and -- and hopefully implementing a plan and so -- so what -- and mike gonzalez who is now a -- a part-time senior financial analyst, we want to -- to convert him to a full-time person and devote his efforts 100% to this task, this important task and we -- and that the funding for this position could initially come from the housing finance corporation, because it does have some resources. But hopefully down the road when we get more guidance from the state, that -- that the -- that the grant funds, the -- the funds that we would get, the $750,000, we would be able to use some of those funds to pay for this -- this owe for this and other needs that we would have to implement a plan.
>> so that's the only staff requirement that -- that -- as far as increased staffing? Because I did hear him say that there will be an increase in staff. Is this the only staff increase or staff that's necessary for such a program?
>> that's what -- at this time, that's all that we see that is needed.
>> on that point, is there a cap on the -- on the percentage of allocation that can be put toward administrative?
>> it's 10%. But we don't know how much the state is going to take of the 10%. Whether they are going to take all 10% or divide it. I mean, we expect that they would divide it like -- like with our home grant, h.u.d. Allows 10% administrative fees and they -- they keep six and we were able to apply for 4%.
>> will there be any collaboration between health and human services, administration of cdbg and the corporation's administration of this cdbg?
>> well, there will be collaboration between us, I really hadn't thought about collaboration as far as spending their cdbg funds. In conjunction with this program. As you know, the -- the cdbg funds can only be spent in unincorporated areas so couldn't spent in manor or Pflugerville or incorporated cities, this is the program we foresee being able to spend money in those towns and may -- maybe that quite a bit of funds would be spent in incorporated towns.
>> certainly as we are coming up in our new action plan -- we already have a high priority category -- that is certainly the court's consideration for an upcoming project.
>> apparently you said what sherri intended to.
>> [laughter]
>> incredible.
>> that is just a mind medal.
>> similar, is there -- while I recognize the -- the difference in the -- in the terrain in which our money can be spent versus the city of Austin's, might there be any kind of collaboration or complementing activity between their expenditures of -- of -- expenditure of their allocation versus ours.
>> we have been having conversations, especially christie has with the city. We actually have scheduled a meeting with -- with city staff and Williamson county staff. This Friday to -- to -- to see what each -- each of us are doing. And whether -- whether there might be some collaboration. Without knowing the details that the state is going to give us, there could well be a -- a -- a joint effort that -- that could be made by the -- by the city and the county. I wouldn't foresee that because -- because it would probably mean the city would forego the money and in other words the county would manage a two million dollar project. All two million dollars. But they could -- not all two million, but they could and we could conceivably hire the city to help implement a plan.
>> I'm thinking more in terms of leveraging the cap on our administrative costs. If there was some sort of -- you know, double dipping that could be done administratively. And not to stir the pot --
>> well, that would be -- possibly could be some collaboration just thinking off the top of my head, I mean, we -- the city housing finance corporation has years of experience of owning and selling and managing properties whereas our housing finance corporation is -- is never purchased property or managed property. Has never. If we were to -- to -- to consider that avenue, then certainly collaboration with the city would make a lot of accepts.
>> and -- a lot of sense. And this has nothing to do with the homestead preservation. I'm only talking about land banking as a tool. Although they discuss it in homestead preservation, in terms of the city's owning, managing and then selling off properties, has that been part of their -- part of the city wide land bank or just inside their housing corporation? Or is it just -- how does that work?
>> well, I -- in Travis County, nobody -- no government entity has -- has done a land -- has implemented a land bank program. But the city has -- has developed properties and -- and built houses and sold houses and -- but not as part of a land bank program. I guess in my mind a land bank program is a -- is acquiring property that has unpaid property taxes. Nobody is going to pay them and you -- you put it back in production by -- by giving the opportunity for non-profit to -- to build a house to sell to a low or moderate income homeowner.
>> but in your understanding of land bank there is no shared equity with splitting up the dirt versus the improvement?
>> well, no. Not -- not in the land bank concept that I'm -- that's in my mind, no. I guess you could change a land bank and have that as part of that program.
>> okay.
>> when do we expect the state to make a decision on this?
>> we expect them to come -- to give us the guidance in February and then -- then we would have 30 days to -- to respond and -- and --
>> in March.
>> so we expect the state to make a decision by March?
>> well, we -- I think in the time line of -- we expect them to make a decision in April.
>> so --
>>
>> [indiscernible] they have to have time to review it.
>> when do we expect mr. Gonzalez to become full time?
>> I think our desire would be that -- as soon as possible.
>> what if the state's decision is against us in April?
>> I don't expect that. I guess --
>> do you have reason to believe --
>> I think that the state has indicated that this -- the two million is -- is reserved for Travis County and -- of which we --
>> we believe the money is forthcoming.
>> right. It's non-competitive
>> [multiple voices]
>> you are asking the board today to approve a certain amount of money for mr. Gonzalez to -- to transition from part-time to full-time.
>> uh-huh.
>> so you are looking at February or March, maybe three months. I guess at some point we need to see a number, right? So what you are asking for today is whether we are interested in doing this? So if -- if the corporation advances, say, enough to cover three months, then my recommendation would be that we ask for administrative costs from grant fund and we reimburse the corporation if possible. But if we don't get the money, that means the corporation basically eats that additional cost. Which will be two to three months. You are saying mr. Gonzalez these are -- needs to really start working immediately in anticipation of more specific notice from h.u.d.
>> that is right. Because -- because we have a short time. 30 days. We want to let you know whether we are supportive enough to approve the funding and I guess you give us that exact amount of money next week, but you all can start gearing up to fight plan when it's due.
>> that's right.
>> my motion is to do that.
>> > second.
>> basically put together more specifics, bring that back next week.
>> we'll do that.
>> and -- and the understanding here is that if -- if for some reason or another we are unexpectedly rejected then the corporation will eat whatever expenses we have -- we have paid up to that point. We may as well see next week what we think we need in addition to additional -- additional time for mr. Gonzalez. During that two to three month period. I'm not -- I'm not saying you need to come up with something, but if there is something else we may as well go ahead and hear it.
>> okay. That makes sense.
>> so this is a -- this is a -- let's proceed. I think the benefit here would be great enough for us just for the investment. The thing is with our h.u.d. Program, we started out with ms. Moffett and somebody else spending a little time on it, now we have two people, right, spending full time, the annual amount is about $700,000. But after three years, you really have three plans that we're trying to finish. So I'm assuming unless this is a one year deal we may end up the same impact of the stabilization program, right?
>> also might be hindsight. If the state was allocated $100 million to disperse the local jurisdictions, there was some discussion whether there was enough to really use those funds, it might be possible that those funds get reallocated and Travis County might be eligible to apply for additional funding, so this initial 750 might not be -- the total available funds. But -- but we could kind of have a little bit of lessons learned on how we proceed and use that for additional -- additional application of additional funding from the state at a later time.
>> and let me ask this question before we shut down. And that is -- that is those that are viewing in the public right now and they probably asking this question, well, what is the amount of money that 120% of median family income actually equate to? Can someone tell me what that amount of income is?
>> well, for -- for family -- I know in our bond program, which that is the limit, a one person family, it was about $71,000 and two or more it was the low 80s. So it was 80 -- 82. So those are the -- it's definitely middle class.
>> yeah. It's $85,300 for a family of four. And $59,700 for one person household.
>> 59,000 for a one person household.
>> and 85-4 for a family of four.
>> I guess this kind of bothers me a little bit. The reason why I posed that question, because my whole, I mean, the intent I think when we say low income and we talk about the needs of -- of persons occupying homes, then I question what's affordable. I really don't know and how does income match -- I don't know how many people out there are making 80 something thousand dollars a year. Now, those that are even at $60,000 a year, and my question is why was is set up with that higher of a -- of a -- of 120 something median family income when we really are looking at even in our single family housing program, we are looking at something like 60% and stuff like that. It doesn't -- something is just not too cool with me as far as how we are really addressing the needs of the poor. I'm concerned about this high, high, high requirement that's been set up by whomever of 120%. I'm having some trouble with that because again there's not that many people making $90,000 a year as far as for housing in this community.
>> that's what was passed by congress. Obviously you all as a board have the option of --
>> those are maximums, right.
>> we must spend at least 25% of those at 50% of area median family income.
>> so -- so it would be good to have -- call my office. I know that. Good for me to have from a low range, talking about the very bare bone minimum, what we are talking about here to the max. There's some in between stuff here we're talking about. I don't even know what the in between stuff is. There's some in between conditions or settings that I think folks need to know about. Fax call my office, Commissioner, what do I need to do, da-da-da, to qualify in the program, stableization effort, this may be out of my range, here I am still left out. It may not be out of purchasing a home on a down payment assistance program because of the significance of a lot of up front grant opportunities, moneys that can be forgiven that they will have to pay. But situations like this, it's just a little different. Now I understand we're trying to stabilize, saying return money, get the money back into the tax roll. I understand all of that. But at the same time, it just seems like there needs to be some room, anybody, that folks can -- in my opinion, that folks can benefit. That's my concern, you don't have to give me all of the answers today. I'm letting you know that I know that I'm going to be getting phobe calls, folks, you all will have to help me out.
>> ms. Flemming, make the Commissioner comfortable.
>> sherri flemming, executive manager for health and human services. A couple of quick things. The first thing is we certainly can appreciate the concern that you are expressing Commissioner. I think that it's important for those who might be listening to -- to completely understand that this is not a project whereby we will be able to assist homeowners who are about to lose their home. That's the first thing. If a person is down that road and in foreclosure, this program, this particular program is not designed to help that. What it is designed to do is once those homes are empty, as ms. Moffat said, to allow the county an opportunity, depending on how we design our program, after talking to our partners what is more important for the community, to potentially purchase those properties, improve them and make them available. The other point that I would want to make is that this program allows you to have a continuum. Certainly the Travis County Commissioners court maybe not the board of the corporation but the Travis County Commissioners court has heard health and human services talk about continuums of service in all of the programs that we attempt to provide for the community. So while this program looks at paux who are maybe at a little bit higher end of the spectrum, you certainly have made investments in folks who may have lower incomes but still have the opportunity to own a home in the investments that you have made with cdbg and the potential for habitat homes. So this would be sort of another tick up the continuum of making homes affordable.
>> it would be good to know. It would be good to know the answer to this question: those homes that have been foreclosed on, those homes that are vacant and empty, the persons that were not able to continue to pay or stay there in that particular residence were what income level were they at? In other words, the persons that were there, were they low income? They lost their house. Apparently whatever situation it was to -- to make that property empty and available for what we considering as far as stabilizing. Somewhere along the line somebody lost out and maybe other conditions all -- I don't really know. But the point that I'm trying to get to, was the persons that were in those homes that are empty right now, were they low income or what income level were they? In other words they are not there because they couldn't afford whatever. I don't really know the conditions, I don't know. But it's good to know I think the circumstances of why a person's house is empty, was it because of taxes, because of this, because of that, they couldn't afford it, the mortgage, blah blah blah, what income levels they was at all of those kind of things, because if they were poor folks, poor persons, this is not going to make it more affordable to them when they couldn't afford that place on what conditions that actually drove them out. I'm concerned about a lot of these things. Whether we are replacing with what was already there. I have a lot of concerns.
>> I hair your concerns. But I want to say that I'm not sure that would be a concern that we would be able to provide you comfort about. If the home has completed the foreclosure process on the market, we may not know the conditions under which the previous owners lost that home.
>> may have been a subprime deal. May not have been. We really don't know. There's a lot out there. I do know some of these homes were affordable to some persons out there. They are now becoming available. They are becoming available to another level maybe of income. Basically they are setting criteria looking at these places where the properties are empty for whatever reason. So I'm concerned about that. Just a lot of investigating, in my mind, that has to be done because I'm believing I'm going to get the phone calls, y'all hear me? I'm going to get the phone calls.
>> all in favor?
>> I'm supporting it. Just saying --
>> show a unanimous court.
>> need more work folks from y'all.
>> see y'all next week. More specific, thank you.
>> thank you.
>> do I need to come by and visit with you?
>> they are going to have to do--
>> the one thought that I have at some point when we find out from the state what specifics, what specifics are, I would go by and sit down with the executive director of the Travis County housing authority, you remember their lease to own program? And some other things. And I would just see what kind of help they can give. Not in terms of running the program necessarily. But if we can collaborate with them, that will help. So --
>> okay.
>> good idea.
>> I will be hollering at y'all.
>> move adjourn.
>> thank you.
>> thank y'all.
>> seconded by -- all in favor? That passes by unanimous vote. Now, remember the work session on Thursday? 1:30, everybody on board?
>> three critical items.
>> I may be called out of town because of a family issue.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:28 PM