Travis County Commissioners Court
March 10, 2009,
Item 23
>> should I read all or do we know what parts of item 23 we will discuss at this time?
>> move that we discuss all of them if we want to.
>> 23 is to consider and take appropriate action on legislative matters, including a, additions, deletions and modifications to the legislative priorities adopted by the Commissioners court b, benefits related to coverage provided to persons who retire early from employment by certain counties and immune is municipalities, c, legislation relating to court costs and fee increases concerning house bills, 755, 985, 1212, 1260, 1284, 1531, 1753, 1860, 2008, and senate bills 82, 409, 919, 934, 950, 1076, and 1120.
d is Travis County principles regarding and specific action on legislation relating to one, appraisal refor me cluesing house bills 2, 133, 134, 1038, house joint resolutions 22, 36, and senate bills 678, 721, and 771.
2, appraisal caps, including house bills 17, 46, 127, 700, 701, 711, 1018, 1092, 1575, house joint resolutions 12, 15, 21, 4 , 43, 44, 51, 55, senate bills 218, 299, 700, and senate joint resolutions 10 and 13.
d 3, revenue caps including house bills 1576 and senate bill 402, and d 4, tax baitments, including house bills 88, 703, 773, and 12127, and e, house bill 561 relating to the authority of the county auditors with respect to computer software and data of other local officers or departments.
>> judge Biscoe, members of the court, thank you very much.
judge, I know it seems you must have read every bill that has been filed or the number of every bill that has been filed this session but that is actually not the case.
if you look at the summary sheet that we put at the front of your packet you will see that as of last Thursday, there have been almost 4,000 bills filed.
i can tell you that as of this morning, almost another thousand have been filed just in the last four days.
we're getting to the class week.
friday the 13th is the deadline for filing bills.
so we're expecting anywhere from 250 to 300 bells or more to be filed every day.
i have greg nap, our slative ant with me.
we'd--consultant with me.
we'd like to run through the agenda items as quickly as the court would like us to could.
number one change is the list of priorities in order to add legislation adding a criminal court judge in Travis County.
this has been brought to the court by judge bob perkance.
there is some back ground information from judge pirkance and a copy that we ed you with yesterday, with I we literally just got yesterday afternoon.
that was brought around to yours offices late last night.
i don't know if anybody has had a chance to look at it.
the motion we would like the court to make is to add, creating the position of presiding criminal court judge, to the Travis County legislative priorities and then to direct igr and the consultants to go forward with getting legislation filed and passed.
>> I would be in favor of creating the position for equity reasons, but I think that the additional funding requirement is inappropriate in these economic times.
it's a small amount relatively speaking.
it's only $5,000, I believe, on top of a salary that is in the range of 140,000, in that range.
>> yes.
>> and so, again, I would be in favor for equity reasons, establishing the title, but I am a little uncomfortable at the salary increase in this particular climate.
>> anymore discussion?
it takes four of five votes to get it done.
>> that's a motion to not do or to create the title but not to fund?
>> that wasn't the motion.
that was the recommendation Commissioner Eckhardt may put that in formal motion.
>> I'll put it in the motion to advocate for the creation of the title but not for the funding due to the economic circumstances.
>> second.
>> that's motion and second.
anymore discussion?
all in favor.
show commissionrs Eckhardt, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
abstaining or no, Commissioner Gomez.
>> is there--
>> that fails to get the necessary four of five votes in support.
>> is there, are there any other motions with respect to this proposal?
>> I would move that we approve the title and the pay.
that would be true equity for the position in terms of what other counties are doing with presiding judges.
>> second the motion?
anymore discussion?
all in favor of that one?
show Commissioner Gomez and yours truly voting in favor.
voting against, Commissioner Eckhardt and Huber.
next item.
>> yes, sir.
number b, this is the issue regarding earlier retiree health benefits coverage.
the court that is first approved this as one of its slat legislative priorities back in December.
we approved specific language back in January but asked the benefits committee if they would do a review of the language and the concept, in fact.
and there has been considerable discussion since then.
yesterday afternoon there was a meeting at which elicia perez and susan sataro and I sat down to figure out what would be the best way to proceed forward with in idea.
based upon that there is a recommendation from igr to the court.
you have back upmaterials from dan man sur.
but what is most regular , the back of the back upwhich was provided to you yesterday afternoon would simply give the county the discretion to create another health benefits plan which would be oriented towards its early retirees but not contain a requirement that the county could limit their options in choosing health benefits coverage to only that plan.
so the original idea that had been discussed was to create a plan that would be specifically for early retirees and all this would be discretionary for the county.
to give the county the authority to create such a plan and to give the county the authority to direct or limit the choices of earlier retirees with respect to participating in that plan or any other plan.
what is now being proposed to the court would be that we simply seek statutory authority for this county or any other county to create a specific health benefits plan for early retirees.
>> what is missing from and I thought we captured it yesterday, but everyone is really bus yes, so this has nothing to do with money.
this has to do with access to the plan.
the current law sauce--says, so you know, early retirees the county has to allow on their plan.
you don't have to pay anything but have to allow them to have that coverage.
once you are medicare eligible we have no obligation.
nothing to do with funding.
it has to do with access to the plan.
and one of the things that dan came up with, which is a good idea, and that is could there if there are other plans that are as good, and they are less money why wouldn't we offer that to retirees.
i think the key in there is comparable coverage, and that definite notice needs to go back in that bill because the idea of comparable coverage is a big one.
what does that mean.
the definition that we had put in there was comparable coverage means the health benefits defined in the contract in summary plan description do not limit the medical and prescription choices of a person or person's healthcare in any way not also limited for employees.
so that people would have the choice of a comparable plan.
if in fact you allowed them to stay on our plan if they so chose, then I don't think it really matters if you also look for another plan that maybe has less coverage and is less expensive and might be a choice that retirees would want.
but I think it's important, if we are going to determine whether or not they can be on our plan at all, that there be a definition of comparable coverage.
>> I move that we support the language as defined, the comparable coverage, as well as the language regarding an alternative and the ability to access our current plan, which in keeping with our previous decision, in accord with our previous decision to support options for early retirees.
>> second.
>> you talked with mr.
mansur about the comparable coverage.
>> we remember chatting all over the place.
>> what dan would recommend is that we take the definition of comparable coverage and simply add a provision that an actuary would so certified that it was comparable.
>> that is the language in blue that is already added in.
>> that is correct.
>> did dan say yean or nay.
>> let me ask dan sense he wasn't in that meeting.
dan, can an actuary evaluate current coverage or simply the cost of the coverage you have?
that is just my question.
are they the ones that ought to look at it?
>> they can evaluate the level.
>> the level of coverage and decide if it's comparable?
>> yes.
>> I'm fine with that.
>> that language is acceptable?
>> yes.
>> there's a motion to approve or support this legislation with that language.
>> can I make a process observation that I hope will not derail this, but there is, in a sense two questions for the court.
one question is do we want to include comparable coverage, a statutory provision of comparable coverage as something that the court is recommending.
the second is can we get it done by Friday.
my concern is I believe I have persuade the the legislative counsel stole --to do a redraft that was written in jon that would accomplish what I just mentioned and is reflenthed in the document you have in front of you without all the yellow and blue in it, if that makes sense.
this was the draft provided to your offices last evening, on legal size paper, it says 89 r 76 at the top the tab number for the original draft.
my only concern is that we, is that I don't believe we will be able to get a bill filed, which knocks us out for this section, if we don't do something by Friday.
e think the best we can hope for is that legislative counsel will delete stuff from the original bill which they already approved.
i'm concerned they won't be able to add the comparable coverage language.
i've been advised that is the likely outcome.
>> in terms of the motion, I'm willing to say that we support this language and we support the filing of whatever is a ready bill and work toward inclusion of a definition of comparable coverage in whatever is filed.
>> than way we can have a committee substitute ready to go by the early part of next week.
but I'm just concerned that we get something filed that addresses this issue, then we can continue to work on it.
i think the language that susan has mentioned here is fine.
i just done think we're going to be able to get a legislative counsel draft of it before Friday.
>> and dan, isn't that what the benefits committee wanted that language in there?
>> yes.
>> comparable coverage?
yes, they did.
>> let's try to get it in.
we don't want that to prevent the filing, timely filing.
>> right.
my suggestion I guess to the court, court is going to make a policy decision today about what the content of that bill should have.
i just want to say let's go with the procedural observation that we may have to get something filed that doesn't have all the I's crossed and t's dotted but that of course we will work with the court and with other county staff in terms of drafting committee substitutes and working with our legislative delegation on that.
>> I don't know that we have much chance.
>> I think the we want to roll a bill out, we're going have to fight ourselves, roll out language and then say king x, we didn't really mean this, we really need to add these other things.
other people may have already look at this bill and now we're fighting with other people to get in what we want they might not want in there.
we have until Friday.
i don't know why we are already assuming that leg counsel will not be able to do that.
i don't know why we don't--
>> the motion as I understand is to try to get the language included but if we cannot get it included, we want the bill filed in a timely manner.
>> what the representative's office told is, if we are asking the leg counsel to make deletions to a draft that it has already approved, that it can probably do that by Friday .
if we're asking them to add new language it has not had a chance to vet or compare with other statutory language, they go through a whole office, and the resttive's office is concerned we won't be able to do that by Friday.
i share April's concern that any bill out there can obviously go in any direction it wants to go.
we're going to be working with probably members of the Travis County delegation on this and I believe we will be able to maintain control of the bill.
>> I guess legally if we get legislation, what would keep us from adopting a county policy providing definitions that would apply in Travis County?
>> nothing.
if the bill passed without the comparable coverage definition as was discussed and the county, Travis County wanted to make that language binding on it, it could pass policies that would require that.
so you could cover it that way.
there's no reason not to do it that way.
if you get caught in that bind.
>> the motion as I understand is to try to get the language in.
but if we, if to get a timely filing we have to go without it, then we go without it and try to get it in later if possible.
but if we end up fighting and the language becomes do or die for some governmental entities that we need, then we look at doing a policy where we provide definitions to govern how we implement the statute in Travis County.
>> that is fine.
i think part of that is the intent, if I'm interpreting you correctly, the intent of Travis County's Commissioners court is not to preclude our early retirees from having access to comparable coverage.
>> absolutely.
>> our plan or another plan.
fan we could get another plan that is the same but cheaper, good.
>> right.
>> or if we could offer a second plan that even has lesser coverage, if people may choose to be on, that's okay too.
it's just the fact that we're in the saying this is the comparable coverage that we have decided and you can't have it.
>> I feel confident we'll be able to work with the sponsor to add language regarding comparable coverage.
i'm just concerned we won't be able to get et done by Friday.
>> any questions tr the court?
all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you all.
>> thank you.
>> agenda item number c had to do with fee bills.
when we were before the court last week, there was a conversation about house bill 1284 which was a bill relating to collecting a court technology fee and using that money in order to preserve and digitize court records.
in the context of the discussion about that bill there was a discussion about the larger question of what kind of bills are out there, what kind of fees are being required of either civil or criminal participants in our system, and who do they affect.
so igr and the office of planning and budget have put together the list which is provided for your information.
there's no particular action we want the court to tax it's just offered for your information.
>> I would ask that we consider for the future that we come up with some principles in regard to fees.
this is a wonderful exercise just to point out, for instance, house bill 286 to create a stat executive Commissioner for the prevention of driving while intoxicated based on a $10 fee imposed upon defendants convicted of dwi with the entire amount going to the state to fund that office?
what the heck is that?
so I would suggest that we, that is just one of many.
one of very many.
>> we don't represent martinez fisher.
>> yes.
would I suggest for future agenda item we might come up with principles in regard to fees.
not fines but fees.
and that we might consider something along the lines of, one that the payer is either the direct cause or the beneficiary of the service to be provided by the fee.
two, that the fee goes to the governmental entity that is actually funding the service.
and three, that the per cap take charge --per capita charge is not so large in the funding of the fee.
just to consider those for future agenda items.
>> I think we ought to engage criminal justice planning folk to kind of take a look at fees, especially in criminal cases.
and bring back principles for us to consider.
>> I appreciate that.
as you can see, there's a number of fee bills that are out there circulating around.
i think it would help if the court set some broad principles and gave us some direction in terms of, rather than having to go through bills one by one.
that is all I have on item number c, judge.
>> okay.
>> on item d, this is a follow-up to the conversation last week where we briefed the court on the generally principles involving and some of the bills tackling issues regarding appraisal refor me, caps and revenue caps.
the court asked us to come back with some generally principles that the court might adopt and to, if there were specific recommendations on bills flowing from those, to give those recommendations to the court.
based on those, we have prepared the backup materials that you have here and are ready to entertain a discussion with the court about the principles.
i think we should take the principles first.
they are on page 2 of your memo.
>> what page is the memo on?
>> sorry, it's the memo for agenda item, actually 23 d.
it might have gone out as 22 d.
>> the March 5 memo.
>> dated March 5, judge.
>> all right.
>> page 2 lists a series of principles that have been really crafted by the pbo people.
rodney rodesis here and I'll led him address them.
>> what we're asking the court to take position on are generally principles to support more transparent and friendly or user friendly and efficient homestead appraisal processes.
this is in relating to the appraisal reform bills that have been filed.
in addition, on the position of appraisal caps, no position is being recommended, but to support the positions of the conference of urban counties and Texas association of counties at this time as it relates to revenue caps we do not support any legislation related to revenue caps.
do not support any legislation as it relates to unfunded countiwide elections.
and did I miss any?
>> there was the sales tax, the swap of sales tax.
>> right.
that we would support the ability to raise revenue via sales tax if and only if it didn't affect the roll back tax rate calculations.
>> for real property taxes.
>> correct.
>> I might just add that the appraisal refor me bills are scheduled to be heard next week.
there will be a committee substitute and some new bills filed but they are getting ready to move forward on the appraise refor me bills.
one of the concerns they have is making sure the bills stay as clean as possible because they space efforts to put either appraisal caps or revenue caps on appraisal refor me legislation.
and they, for the time being at least, legislative leadership wants to keep those issues separate.
>> principles mirror closely what is in the cbc platform, correct?
>> as far as I know, yes.
>> and that we do feel at least through our representation at cuc that we have a police at the table and may be able to work with the authors of these bills.
>> yes, I think so.
>> so what is cuc's position on revenue caps?
>> oppose.
>> good.
>> .
>> we have during previous sessions basically opposed such caps, right?yes, sir.
>> and we have generated written statements of the reasons why?
>> I can't speak to that.
susan, do you know?
>> I know we did--
>> we did resolutions stating our position on that.
one of the things they are doing, I just heard this morning on appraising refor me, they are taking house bill two, taking it out into several bills to aside exactly what dee said and they want it really clear.
we have not seen that yet.
but on the revenue caps we have had a resolution.
one might be, judge, we do not support revenue caps in excess of the current law.
we have a revenue cap at 8 percent and the roll back.
we already have that.
so we don't support any lowering of that revenue cap or a mandatory election.
and the reason is it's in a million dollar.
>> which is a recommended principles that you have before you.
>> yeah.
but we did do, court did a resolution.
>> I think that with these hearings coming up, we really ought to have something in writing that we can distribute.
not only to friends but to those who have an opposing point of view.
i mean, it's kind of easy just to oppose something.
i think some of the legislators would be interested in the reasons why.
>> these things are popping up very quickly.
it's not as though you get a lot of lead time.
all of a sudden you find out when it is set for a hearing.
>> what I'd be glad to do, judge, is look up what the court has written previously about these issues and then see if I can bring that back to court or work with rodney and susan on revising it and bring it back to the court for next week.
>> and see if the cuc and tap have something.
>> specific resolutions.
>> or the municipal.
>> tml.
>> yes.
>> I would suggest at the minimum move the last bullet to the first bullet.
think that is the message.
just as a point, some of these bills do have some discreet portions that are good and laudable, like transparency and appraisal, disclosure of sales price, things like that.
>> how are those deals going, by the way?
two or three bills regarding disclosure of sales price?
>> I think that is all kind of getting ready to move.
things got slow, I think, a slow start in the house.
as I said, the hb 2 was a shell bill that covered a lot of the appraisal reform.
now they said this morning that chairman otto wants to separate that into very specific bills on appraisal refor me.
so I'm thinking we will see that very quickly.
>> and sales price disclosure has been a topic of much conversation but there's apparently quite a bit of opposition from the realtors on that.
i'm not sure the legislature is going to move forward with that or not.
>> okay.
>> then with respect to those principles, if the court decides to adopt those principles, then there are recommendations we have on three specific bills which are related to revenue caps.
and those are in your packets.
those are in the materials back in the description.
>> I would move that we as stated opposition to senate bill 700, 402 and 15, and house bill 1576.
>> so 1576 is what?
>> I think what that bill does is it reduces the eight percent roll back rate down to three percent.
>> yes.
and all three of the roll back rate is reduced.
>> and is election mandated?
>> mandatory election under 1576.
>> second.
>> motion is seconded.
that covers 1576, 402.
>> and 700.
>> and 700.
anymore discussion?
nal favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, one final thing.
did the court adopt those principles?
>> I heard the discussion of moving them, moving the fifth principle up to the top of the list but I don't know if there was a formal action by the court.
>> move approval of the principles as stated.
>> second.
>> just for clarification, purposes we did address the revenue caps as relates to the roll back.
>> so we will still do the research to find out cuc, tac, other and language.
>> yes, sir.
>> any discussion on the motion?
these would be the principles set forth in the March 5, 2009, memo.
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, in the past this vote on any bill kind of authorized any of thauce would go over there to sign up.
like I'll go over and sign up for the auditors office.
in the past I signed up for the court reporter as well on revenue cap bills because I knew what your position was.
>> right.
>> rodney will probably be doing some of that as well.
are you all right with that?
i'm willing to go--
>> bills we have supported by a vote of 4-1 or 5-0.
>> okay.
>> officials, employees of Travis County are authorized to indicate that to the legislature.
any person, any legislator, committee, et cetera, I think.
that is the motion.
that way if you are over there and something comes up and we have tan a position.
>> it's popping up all over.
>> if you will, judge, on the back upmaterial, the third motion that I suggest the court make is one to direct igr and the legislative consultant to communicate both the generally principles and our specific positions on bills.
i sort of like the notion of a friendly amendment from susan that anybody else who happens to be over there can certainly communicate the county's position.
and so we do have that as a specific motion.
>> second.
judge, did you make that motion?
>> I thought I did.
>> yes.
>> to include the additional part there.
second by Commissioner Gomez.
discussion?
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> judge, we'll continue to monitor the sales price disclosure and appraisal refor me bills and if we see any change is make sure the court is aware of those.
>> okay.
>> the final item, judge, is 23 e, this relates to house bill 561.
and if I can, I'd just like to turn over to susan what whoa is much more familiar with the bill.
this is the bill generally that relates to the relationship between the Commissioners court and the auditors office in colin county but is drafted to be as of application, I think, to either all counties or at least all counties over 190,000.
>> we dropped a packet off at each of your offices that really gives the history on this.
what has happened, there is a controversy, a fight, a lawsuit in colin county as to who does what on the systems.
the county auditor, the judge and the auditor got into a dispute over it.
of the county auditor as we understand it went to the district attorney for an opinion on the law.
the district attorney told him to go to the attorney generally and get an opinion.
he drafted that.
that is in the back here.
the Commissioners court then sued him to prohibit him from going to the attorney generally.
they lost on that.
they then, as he prepared to go to the attorney generally, they filed a sues in district court against him on all those items.
the judgment of that suit is in here.
the auditor won on all of those issues with the ability to audit.
we opposed this bill.
it restrict the auditor's ability to audit.
the other thing is, as you know, as we're getting into systems and we have been into systems before, exactly who does what and who negotiates, you have to assume reasonable people are on the table at the table, discussing these things and working these things out.
we in Travis County have had some very unfortunate and expensive incidents in the past.
two or three of you were not on the court at the time.
where Travis County did go out for some major systems.
our office made recommendations on the financial parts of it and the controls, and we were outvoted and the Commissioners court went with the committee recommendation.
and as you remember, probably, very specifically with cscd, we were asked if the package they wanted to attach would work and we said no, it would not.
it was adopted anyway by the committee.
and the package, unfortunately, did not work.
we weren't happy that we were right.
but it did not work.
and cscd got in the point where it no longer could tell what probationer had paid the fines and fees.
they couldn't keep track of their money.
the system failed, couldn't handle the volume.
they got into position where the funding was threat .
this Commissioners court rectified that.
we wet in our office eight people to go over for I think 12 weeks the reconstruct the books because we did that, we couldn't audit and the Commissioners court paid for an outside audit firm to do the internal audit.
and so that is a case of it was a big mistake to proceed that way.
since that time in our county, since we're not having these problems here, at the suggestion of the county judge, again, most of you were not here, in our office we set up the financial strategy and systems team who had the specific responsibility to look at the financial controls at these systems so that we weren't buying expensive systems that did not have the financial controls that we have.
and those people functioned in that.
it was the judge's idea.
the court fuppeded it.
and those people are now working on the financial system.
so the reality is this.
if in fact the auditor is going to statutorily audit and records are on computer systems, we have to have access to those systems.
the auditor does not go in nor should they go in and change entries that offices make.
that doesn't happen now.
it should never happen now.
the access only that he argue about in here, every major system has access only.
our 20-year-old hde has access only.
i have read only access to hte because I don't make the journal entries and should not.
one of the things that is important, and you see in the bickering, and I just tell you it is bickering, is that when you program this system, any system for handling fees, for instance, there's a formula sitting in the computer.
and when you all know what the formula is, then you can be pretty county about what comes out.
but if someone goes in and changes that formula, then you don't know.
they do not want the auditor to be able to look at those tables.
and if you can't look at those tables, have you no idea what the computer is kicking out.
so, this is, this bill prohibits basically the auditor's ability to do their statutory function in audit automated functions.
the automation will just continue.
and if we cannot audit into the computer and around the computer, then we're going to have to create duplicate manual records and hire the kind of people that it takes to audit manual records again.
so our association has taken stance against this.
the hearing unfortunately was yesterday in county affairs on this bill.
and we unfortunately had a very sad fawn recall in our office yesterday.
so--funeral in our office.
so I could not go to the hearing but April represented our office there.
i think these things were clearly articulated to the committee.
so I would ask you to oppose house bill 561 and amended 561.
they just keep rearranging words.
>> I move that we oppose 561.
>> second.
>> move that we ask them to sit down and try to work it out.
if we need to send mr.
rose back down to work with them, we'd be happy to do that.
>> tell them to clean up their act.
>> I think what they really need is a conflict resolution process in place.
and then also a study about roles and responsibilities so that each of the offices that are in the county government, there's a purpose and there is a checks and balances built into county government and a purpose for this.
>> I'm glad they don't get our meeting down in colin county.
>> we don't let them watch.
>> that would be--
>> mr.
knapp and I sit through conversations about transportation policy planning that seem to spend a lot of energy on colin county issues.
>> judge, may I make a quick comment before we vote on this?
>> yes.
>> this bill does not balance our desire to fully out least our expertise in the day-to-day, fully utilize our expertise in our auditors our day-to-day operations.
again, maintaining the independence of the auditor, which is something that we are constantly looking at and I think we found a good, the right fulcrum.
and I agree that this is, as the backup elfrequently --eloquently states, this is a fight writ large where the auditor is auditing his own work.
i agree that we should oppose the bill as filed, and I also agree with the memo's arctic late that --articulates that we should support the counties to work with representative maden and perhaps advocate an interim study to clarify that that fulcrum point between full utilization of the expertise of the auditors and maintenance of that independence, I think that that, not to expand on a local fight writ large, but to maybe make some lemon aids out of lemons.
>> the real problem here is the law is not broken.
they don't want to follow it.
it is not broken.
they not want to follow it.
and what happens with these bills is very frustrating to me, and that is we get a really bad bill.
this is a really bad bill.
and it comes forward and then it's kind of like, in the spirit of cooperation, can't we agree on some of this bad bill?
and--
>> I think we can.
but that, also we have a huge benefit here in that the association, the auditors, are plainly against it.
it doesn't appear that it's gain ago tremendous amount of traction.
it's viewed as a local dispute writ large.
and the good lobbying efforts of the association of auditors as well as your own lobbists, are doing great work on this.
so I just don't want to elevate the local dispute beyond where it should be elevate ed.
>> no, think the local dispute needs to be solved in the local government.
one of the things I was thinking, you know, at the auditors association came out with a bill and said from now on we have a new law and the law is this.
we really don't like the way the Commissioners court sets the budget and we need to be able to approve it.
and we really don't think we need five Commissioners, we only need three.
let's say we filed an egregious bill like that.
no one would expect to say we need to adopt some of that.
that's a bad bill and it's just gone.
>> I'm saying that this is the auditors fight to fight and they are doing an excellent job and will prevail, is what I'm saying.
>> we appreciate that support.
we appreciate a no vote on the motion you make, Commissioner Gomez, if there are four votes noor.
>> that's the motion.
anymore discussion?
all in favorment that passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you very much.
>> move that we reset until 145.
>> second.
>> all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote..
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, March 10, 2009 2:17 PM