Travis County Commissioners Court
June 23, 2009,
Item 15
>> number 15 is consider and take appropriate action on the information and telecommunications system career ladder analysis and recommendations plead by evergreen solutions, l.l.c.
>> good morning.
>> good morning.
>> linda Moore smith, director of human resources.
>> pass them down.
thank you.
>> are you ready, judge in.
>> yes.
>> good morning, judge and Commissioners.
we have before you a presentation of i.t.s.
career progression evaluation and the findings of that evaluation and study.
this was a project that we initiated for an fy '08 and this is a career ladder or i.t.
progression ladder for all the job family.
we have evergreen solutions, a representative, brian wolf is here and he's got a power point presentation for you and we are asking for the court to consider and asking approval of the career ladder and we're -- we'll answer any questions after his presentation and we'll be able to discuss funding also.
>> should we follow the document handed out today?
or the backup in.
>> the document handed out today.
supported by the backup if the need so arises.
good morning, judge, Commissioners, it's a pleasure to be here.
my name is brian wolfe and I'm here representing the evergreen solutions to present the findings and recommendations that came about as a result of the i.t.s.
career evaluation study that we completed.
very briefly, I'll outline the two primary goals of the studyings aunderstand by us.
we are tasked with providing a view reof a career analysis previously initiated as part of a prior assessment and then to determine the appropriateness of implementing a career ladder system within i.t.s.
the methodology we used was to examine the career matrixes and take into account several key issues that are laid out here.
we analyzed the current department's structure from an organizational standpoint to determine what shape the organization is currently in to assess how best any career ladder process could be implemented into that existing structure.
we expected workforce trends and best practices and i.t.s.
and the labor market as a whole and we assessed what factors for motivation that implementing a career ladder in i.t.s.
could have, what would be the impact of a career ladder be and we also assessed the existing performance and promotion policies to determine how well those would line up with any career ladder system that would be implemented.
lastly we examined the existing career ladders that exist in other county departments here in Travis County.
we made a number of interesting findings.
firstly, i.t.s.
career progression is limited in a number of key ways.
at present there is a relatively low amount of turnover in mid and senior level positions within the organization.
that is a fact that is true today, but one thing that the report explains is that over the next 18 months to two years, the potential for turnover is relatively high because of a significant number of employees who are either currently eligible to retire or will be eligible within the next 18 months.
the report states that specific numbers were not provided but it is the opinion of the c.i.o.
and director of i.t.
that the necessities some level of planning in that area.
there's a small amount of flexibility or lack of flexibility to provide merit or performance-based pay and right now the system of promotion in i.t.s.
and across the county is relatively rigid.
it requires Commissioners court approval to create or reclassify positions as it exists today.
that level of rigidity is somewhat restrictive to career advancement in a field as dynamic at i.t.
the leadership did feel strongly that implementing a career ladder would serve well to motivate employees.
give ten stated goals of retention and motivation and attraction of qualified talent, the implementation of a career ladder would help in that regard is the opinion of the i.t.s.
leadership.
prior to work on the part of i.t.s.
and h.r., they've produced a course structure that could easily be implemented.
i.t.s.
and h.r.
did a significant amount of work prior to evergreen coming on the scene providing a system core that could easily be implemented in the confines of the organization structure of the department.
presently and history tells us that workforce trends are showing that a number of organizations are looking to embrace a more flexible model of career path development.
that is particularly true in information technology.
we've seen that throughout the market starting around the late 90s, '98, '99 and early 2000s.
2002 was another big year for implementing this type of system.
there's two options that are most prevalent in career ladder development.
that is a traditional top down more of a single or dual system and also a latticed approach.
the latticed approach is much newer and much less proven particularly in i.t.
and one of the things we've discovered on the following page is thatity has tended to trend toward one more than versus the other.
also an important consideration in the finding of the study was the Commissioners court has approved and has traditionally been supportive of career ladders in Travis County for several departments and we've listed those here.
finance and budget, the county attorney's group, counselors, engineering, purchasing, audit, cfcd, juvenile probation and pretrial services most recently, I believe.
that being said, given the option between the latticed approach and the traditional career ladder approach, information technology has tended to hold fast to the traditional approach rather than opting for a latticed approach to career ladder progression.
>> by the way, I don't know that it's true to say the Commissioners court has approved half of those listed because they work for other people.
purchasing, there's a purchasing board.
Commissioners court has no say so over the salaries there.
audit office, that's another entity, not the Commissioners court.
cscd, district judges is not Commissioners court.
juvenile detention, pretrial services, same thing.
just point of information.
those five don't answer to the court.
>> okay.
>> now that we disapprove -- not that we disapprove of them, we don't have any authority to a have any say so unless we say it at home at night.
>> but they are established career ladders within our classification structure.
>> by other people.
>> by other people or other bodies.
>> under which --
>> they don't work for the court.
>> under prior courts.
judge, but those departments, what has happened --
>> no problem.
they have career ladders but others put them in place, not the court.
that's my only point.
that's true, isn't it?
isn't that true?
>> yes.
>> is it true?
>> yeah.
>> the court approved the career ladders.
what happens with those departments is those departments voluntarily agree to certain policies and procedures that are offered -- and services offered by rumored.
the judge is -- hrmd.
the judge is correct and if that department and the court said no, we don't approve it, they had the authority to do it anyway.
but we have very good partners that wish to get the advice of the department and get -- whether it's approval or consent by the court, to make sure that they are following similar policies as other departments are.
they also want equitable treatment.
>> if we did, it was so formal that it escaped my attention.
okay.
>> moving on to the next page then, are two primary recommendations.
first is Travis County should implement a formal career ladder system consistent with the outline provided in appendix a of the report.
it lays out including experience and tenure that would be important.
it should include the components listed below there in in so for as alignment laid out for i.t.
communication of the purpose of the ladder system to employees and management to make sure they fully understand why the system is being implemented.
clear linkage between pay, career development and performance management.
performance management is an important one because one of the things we lay out in the report is that in no way should these progressions through the career ladders be automatic.
they should be contingent upon a number of things, and if you've seen the report or have got it on page 6 we lay out that the following conditions should be present for movement through the career ladder system.
so those things were laid out there for you.
most important among them and one that is often over locked and difficult to implement is notation of the employee receiving a rating of exceeds recommendations or standards during previous two performance evaluation cycles.
those are employees that must be at the top of their field and at the top of their knowledge skills and abilities sets to progress to the next level most certainly.
the department should use the career progression system to attract, motivate and retain key talent.
given the succession issues mention would earlier, we believe that is an important factor to understand.
and also making the career progression part of i.t.'s culture internally, the field in general has always nurtured skill development and improvement and performance individually to improve service delivery of the organization as a whole and making that a big part of the i.t.'s culture and the organization will be very important as well.
and then further, utilizing the system to properly motivate employees, providing them opportunities to advance their skills, advance their worth to the organization by exhibiting, you know, initiative in those other things that will lead to them delivering a higher level of service to the organization.
next up is the Travis County should implement career progression changes consistent with others in Travis County.
career progression advancements would be naturally submitted through the department budget and at present there is a separate fund.
the county's budgeted career implementation ladder fund that would fund those advancements and, of course, career ladder funding increases would be separate and apart from department funding allocations.
>> what does that mean?
>> it means that it is budgeted as a line item in the -- in, like, the preliminary budget.
it's not -- maybe someone from p.b.o.
could explain it better, travis, but it is included in the preliminary budget as a line item.
>> for fy 10, it's my understanding career ladders are not projected and included within that budget, but traditionally a separate line item has been included in the budget to fund career ladders.
>> that's basically correct.
typically departments submit a request for the forthcoming year.
we review them.
if there is money for compensation, historically we have recommended career ladder funding.
i would just describe the as an incremental increase to existing budget rather than a separate line item.
i think it's important to note this year and potentially in future years or at least this year and next year we don't anticipate there's going to be funding for compensation.
this year the -- to internally fund career ladders if they wanted to have them for next year.
i don't think that will likely change for fy 11 given it appears fy 11 could be worse.
i don't think any department should have the expectation right now there's going to be additional funding beyond what they already have to implement any changes.
>> how is career ladder -- a career ladder line item different from performance-based pay?
>> there's not a separate line item.
it would be an incremental increase.
performance-based pay would be over and above that so that would be two separate allocations is how it's historically worked.
>> isn't career ladder supposed to capture performance?
isn't that what it's based upon?
>> I'll defer that.
>> it certainly includes that, but it's considered separately for the career progression purposes and the retention and recruiting opportunities that are unique to that particular industry.
it does consider performance as one of multiple factors, career ladders would.
>> then would career -- would performance-based pay on top of career ladder be double dipping?
>> that would be something that the department would consider.
i wouldn't consider it double dipping because what we're doing with the career ladder is focused on the criteria that were mentioned in the study.
performance is just one of those areas.
>> so it's increased expertise, increased experience and performance, I believe were the criteria, were they not?
>> correct.
and I would just say that performance-based pay typically addresses performance of current duties and current classification requirements.
career laddering indicates preparedness for an individual to move beyond current classification and into a new more responsible role.
performance of their existing duties is a component of that process but additional education, experience, certifications can all lead to readiness for that person to step beyond the limits of their current classification and into a higher level an up the career ladder.
>> lack of career ladder would a significant amount of red lining indicate a need for career ladder implementation?
>> I'm sorry, say --.
>> red circle.
>> red line.
>> a significant number of red circled employees I would think would indicate a need for career ladder implementation.
>> not necessarily.
it depends in the particular area that you are looking at.
this is a career progression.
there would also be even in -- even in i.t.
a place where that progression would peak.
that this provides both motivation and incentive for individuals that start, say, without necessarily the license but had some i.t.
experience and have a degree or education.
but they don't have their networking license or they don't have their windows license.
as they achieve those, perform well and availability of openings come up, then they are considered for a career ladder.
so it's career progression as opposed to pay for performance that progresses you along the range.
>> I'm thinking hypothetically, let's say someone comes in at 18 and they achieve additional certification and they achieve as a performer, they theoretically would move swiftly along that pay grade and be red circled, unable to move out of that pay grade without a career ladder.
is that -- is that an accurate hypothetical?
>> hypothetically that could happen, but if that person is achieving with the certifications and meeting the needs of the department for the changes in the industry itself, they would have access to the career ladder structure that would move them above that pay grade 18 and progress in terms of the level of skills that they have earned.
and their experience.
>> so they are moving --
>> they are moving vertically rather than horizontally.
>> right.
so would you -- in that hypothetical, would you ask for reclassification of their job title or would you try and move them into a new job?
>> they would move into a new job.
one of the -- we're all kind of chatting, but one of the challenges that I think we all remember is in the early 2000s which the high tech industry was booming in Austin, we lost a significant number of of our i.t.
skilled employees to that industry.
the industries were able, we weren't, to offer bonuses and other type of incentives to attract them.
i remember h.r.
was charged with the task of recruiting and trying to get that skill in place.
the court made some decisions on the comp side to make some adjustments at that time.
had we had a career ladder structure, we would have been able perhaps to retain those individuals who left.
what we're saying now and just to remind you that the i.t.
job family has been included in our general job analysis projects for 2004 as well as 2008.
we recognize in those two years that there had been at least an average two pay grade movement and many of those high demand, i.t.
titles.
so you are up with the market in terms of the movement of the titles within that.
what we're saying now and we do anticipate it is that the high tech industry is going to make a turn in probably the next 18 to 24 months.
and without something in place, not just having our structure market competitive from the routine studieser but without something in place to retain those that we currently have as well as those that are potentially eligible for retirement, we could be back to where we were in year 2000 trying to maintain that skill to support our i.t.
needs.
>> can a department implement a career ladder internally without Commissioners court approval?
>> career ladders have traditionally been approved.
those that particular are those report to go the court have been approved.
certainly departments are promoting individuals into positions as upward mobility positions exist, but it's not a structure that allows for internal equity for those opportunities to be offered throughout a particular department.
that that you are proposing is on an individual type basis as opposed to a structure that would allow not just for one individual to move but for the recognition and a littlement for all to move and to be compensated for that.
>> I think the court would have to approve it for employees under the Commissioners court.
elected officials would have the opportunity to put in place whatever they want to, we just have control over the money they have available.
>> we have some 137 i.t.
slots within the job i.t.
family.
17 departments are affected county-wide and certainly the majority of those slots and titles are within our i.t.
department.
about 90% I think you said, john?
85 to 90%.
>> my whole point though, I'm looking at this and I'm hearing what you are saying, and I just got some strong reservations about, you know, we just had a big discussion about money a little earlier and how are we going to tighten up and do this and that and I'm wondering the there's other departments that may want the same thing, say hey, what about us, we have specialized skills and we've opened up the door for every department under the Commissioners court coming in and saying you all allowed this to happen, why not us.
i'm not too comfortable with what's going on here, especially with other departments out there that are watching us like -- you know, watching what we're doing here today and say we want the o.j.
the samethings they have becausa contrary ladder.
right now the economy is just about as critical as it can get and it's going to get worse.
it's going to get a lot worse, folks, than it is now.
and to create situations that will open the door for every department that's under the Commissioners court an opportunity to do the same thing that you are asking us to do today I think is something that I have some real concerns about.
and just the way it is.
it's just -- unless somebody can convince me different, it's just -- and as far as those appointed officials and elected officials, I think some of them have even said hey, wait a minute, these are tough times and we aren't going to do this and that even though they have existing structures that
>> [inaudible].
>> but they have to get money from the court.
>> exactly.
that's the point, judge.
>> so are you all asking to us approve --
>> no.
>> let me finish.
maybe the answer is yes.
you are asking us to approve the career ladder but you understand money may not be available this year or next year.
whenever money is available for compensation is when y'all would basically fund the career ladder structure if we approve it.
>> that is correct, judge, and we have internally funded -- it's like travis said, p.b.o.
has requested this for fy 10, that career ladders be internally funded.
and that's what i.t.s.
will do just like all other career ladders for fy 09 the same thing.
>> have we as a court and a matter of policy basically voted to make other compensation available to career ladder employees?
so if we give a cola or performance pay --
>> yes.
yes.
>> there is a written policy on that?
>> I don't know as it's written policy.
it's certainly practice.
it's certainly the practice.
>> I'm going to need to see the policy or practice by next Tuesday.
i need another week on this.
i have no problem putting it in place.
we have enough career ladders in the county.
i don't know that I've ever appreciated in addition to your career ladder you also benefit from any other compensation that we vote during a given year.
i just think the court ought to land on that.
the other thing is if we end up with a significant percentage of county employees on a career ladder or under a career ladder structure, doesn't it work unfairly against other employees?
i mean it -- whether we call it two bites at the apple or not, it really is kind of double dipping and I don't know that I ever appreciated that.
not that it's good or bad, but if you are forced to think about it, the fairness equity issue does surface.
>> that was the point I was trying to bring up judge, there are other departments that can come in and say the same dad-gum thing and I don't know if other departments could say we would like to have career ladders also.
based on this, who is to say that they are right and who is to say they are wrong?
i don't know.
>> what categories -- what departments or categories of employees would career ladder not be appropriate?
>> Commissioners court.
but what --
>> but that's the bottom line.
and then there's no money.
>> but what we have done in the past, we do the market studies as we are authorized by the court to complete.
and as we go into the marketplace, we're not bringing, you know, structures that let's just put a clear carr ladder in place, they are basically put in place for the reasons that we have stated and it's beyond the performance.
it's either the high demand skill, which i.t.
certainly we've had the experience with that, in the attorney job families and the other job families that have been brought before you.
it's because of that demand in recruiting and retention that the career ladders are in place.
i remember a few years ago when departments were saying we need a way to progress our employees through a series of titles.
once you approve the consistent classification consistently during the market studies, we created many of those series for the departments that created basically a way to move people within a title without a formal career ladder.
the reason that the funding piece of this has been not necessarily known in terms of the double dipping question, when we come before you with compensation it's typically the compensation pot that's being looked at.
and traditionally the career ladder consideration in funning has been totally separate from the compensation pot.
so now with the question of do they come together in your interest and taking a closer look at it, I think it's appropriate to do that.
>> is it nor advantageous from the human resources perspective to address this issue in a compensation pot or in a career ladder budgeting framework?
>> from human relations, hrmd's standpoint, we would say in the compensation pat because career laddering is a part of compensation for employees.
>> let me ask you this.
you know, what I'm reading in the backup, I hear what you are saying as far as the rigidity of our system in that the -- traditionally it's been a percentage -- the peanut butter gets spread evenly with a cola and that has been rather rigid in the past.
i'm wondering what flexibility does exist and to what extent has it been used inside i.t.s.?
>> jean pittsburgh, i.t.s.
i would like to address the motive behind our request.
>> I'm totally with the motive.
i'm just thinking -- it's the same motive for all employees.
>> it is.
>> who wouldn't want a career ladder.
and I think that's good and right.
>> from an i.t.
perspective, we -- technology is so dynamic in the last ten years that we are requiring our staff to learn more.
and what I want to do is more than just a cost of living or an increased salary to keep up with the cost of bread and milk.
i want a tool that will motivate quality.
because we know and Commissioner Davis, to respond to your comment, we don't want to be greedy.
we know the situation.
however, I'm asking staff to do more and to learn more and we're not going to add any more people to get the job done.
and having said that, what I want is a tool that will motivate quality and motivate --
>> what tools are label --
>> [multiple voices]
>> I want to ask the two questions I already asked and see if I can get an answer.
what tools are currently available to motivate quality?
>> it comes from the heart, number one.
the tool that's available --
>> from a human resources --
>> reclassification.
>> reclassification.
>> performance management system.
>> and performance management.
we motivate through performance reviews for a good job done.
but from a bonus standpoint, we can't say if you do this in a timely manner we'll do this.
>> so from a performance review perspective, the carrot is the performance-based pay.
from a reclassification perspective, it matters how many f.t.e.s spots you have and which ones are filled and not.
and you haven't had any significant turnover.
you've had 2% turn overwhich is far lower than the county average of 7%?
>> yeah, turnover is not our issue.
>> I'm saying it is an issue because you don't have the ability to offer another position to somebody to promote them.
>> well, it is an issue, you are right.
>> what kind of management training is available within withini.t.s.?
i'm not saying they are adequate, I'm just saying what training is available.
>> for performance or performance-based pay, what training --
>> what training is available for managers so that they can most efficiently utilize the tools that are available.
i am not weigh in whether the tools are sufficient.
>> management training is offered through the h.r.
department and i.t.
managers as well as other managers across the county have every opportunity to attend that training.
>> we also partake in outside classes as well.
>> okay.
>> we also learned throughout the study currently there is no standard performance management document that exists to assist managers in providing that feedback for their employees and for Travis County, right.
it's not unique to i.t.s.
the system that we experienced and the information that we pulled through, you know, our meetings with the department was that most managers everywhere really are providing across the board increase, you know, through, you know, under the umbrella of the performance management pay.
and true distinction in performance isn't really be recognized.
>> are their supervisors grading them low for doing that?
>> I would say it's fair to say that some supervisor are grading their employees low while other groups of employees are being graded unfairly high to bring the average somewhere in the middle so that as you said before the peanut butter is spread evenly.
>> no, I'm saying if a manager does a across the board with performance-based pay which is not what performance-based pay is for, is it part of the i.t.s.
culture to go to that manager and say that's inappropriate use of performance-based pay.
>> we don't use performance-based pay that way.
we use it as it is supposed to be used.
we don't give it across the board.
>> we do not.
it's a percentage of -- each manager from a performance standpoint has so many employees, and when we do performance-based pay, it is based on performance.
>> so what am I take take from this statement that most managers provide a across the board percentage to all employees?
>> that's an accurate statement.
>> is that county-wide or --
>> that's county-wide.
>> that's cola.
>> that's not within i.t.s.
>> but I do need to clarify that we have a performance evaluation structure in place contrary to what was mentioned by brian, it's just inconsistently applied throughout the county and that's what the training is attempting to make consistent across the city.
>> is it consistently applied within i.t.s.?
is there a consistent performance review system within i.t.s.?
is there a standard form you view from performance review to performance review?
>> we've revised a storm so that it will be standard and we had in our management staff meeting multiple discussions about how long and how much that should be.
and we previously used a program that was employee appraiser and so it made the performance review standard.
>> that's good to hear.
>> so if our position is that you cannot have both a career ladder plus performance pay, but we will give i.t.
department its share of compensation at some point in the future and we also authorize the i.t.
department to use that for performance pay or career ladder, that's better than the status quo, I take it.
>> that would be.
>> now, to be fair, the court has kind of mandated a cola in the recent past and the reason for that is rank and file employees would prefer to have that and they are not as sold on performance pay as some managers.
it's been my experience that the employees who get performance pay love it.
the ones that don't hate it.
with the cola you don't have to make a determination, you have to calculate your increase based on percentage.
that's the reality we've had to deal with.
but you know, I believe in performance pay.
and if the -- I don't know that I believe you ought to get career ladder and performance pay in a certain year especially if part of the career ladder is based on your performance.
but I hadn't thought about it a whole lot.
but I will between now and next week.
is there a definition of career ladder in here?
in the report somewhere?
>> there is.
the definition of the two primary systems will defined.
>> but is --
>> we can get that to you if it's not.
>> these two show how the different systems work.
but if somebody were to hear career ladder for the first time and ask what's the meaning of this.
>> let us get that definition to you.
>> that would help.
if there is a policy governing entitlement to other compensation, a county policy, then I think we ought to pull that up.
>> I don't think there is.
>> there's a policy on pay performance.
there's a policy statement on career ladders.
>> if there's not one, there's not one.
let's confirm that between now and next Tuesday.
>> is this going before the compensation committee?
>> no, this is a project that was set in motion two years ago.
fy '09 it was part of the market salary survey for fy '09.
so it could kind of already -- the train has left the track before we had a compensation committee.
there are other career ladders so if you are saying take the whole policy of career ladders to the compensation committee, that's a whole policy issue and one in which the court has already acted on.
to answer your question, no, it has not.
>> this is not market driven.
the motivation here chiefly is that some of your senior employees who are approaching retirement, right?
and you think the career ladder will help with succession?
>> I think the career ladder can help with succession.
career ladder also gives us a way to encourage people to get their certifications and if you are sitting in an environment where you are going to get cost of living raises, why would somebody want to go to school at night to get certified if they don't see some light at the end of the tunnel.
those are some of the underlying reasons why the career ladder would benefit i.t.
get people trained in the current technology.
>> because I was a double dipper, I was getting a retirement check from a corporation, I took a big cut to come to work for Travis County for two reasons.
they were my customer and I really liked the people and I wanted to serve the citizens.
>> [one moment, please, for change in captioners]
>> hrmd has the recommended -- has recommended eliminating, but there are many people who came, manager who came for this that know they are a useful tool for us, especially for retention, for motivation, being able to keep people that get this training.
if you get people with their own motivation, go outs and get all of these skills, there's nowhere for them to move up, they start looking for different jobs.
we have lost people in its because of that.
what we would like to do is to be able to provide them opportunities within our budget limitations, within our budget limitations.
opportunities to -- to move up.
>> okay.
one other comment that I will make is that one thing that we are definitely witnessing in the market today based on the economy as it exists is that the private sector is building a backlog of demand for these highly skilled technical positions and as the economy begins to rebound, private sector entities and other public sector entities, that have been storing up these projects that necessitate these skills are going to begin to actively recruit people with those skills.
i think the retention piece of this potential, of this plan, will -- will certainly have a positive impact on the county's ability to retain those skills when the flood gates sort of open, if you will, in the private sector for the demands of those jobs to increase rapidly, which we propose to happen in the next 18 to 24 months.
it's also an unfortunate coincidence that we also expect to see some of these issues coming into play.
which I why I think a unique case can be made for unage --
>> [multiple voices]
>> beg your pardon.
>>
>> [indiscernible] struggling just as we are here in Travis County.
>> certainly.
>> the public and private sector both are struggling with the economic crisis that we are experiencing throughout the nation.
not only in Travis County, but throughout the country.
i don't want anyone to be misled that we are in direct competition, which we are to some degree.
but the private sector has the upper handled.
private sector right now is cutting back, laying off persons.
i mean laying them off, they don't even have jobs, that's a fact.
and, also, those that they are retaining, they are cutting the salaries, hey, this is what we're going to offer you today, either take it or leave it.
this all based and contingent on the economy.
it's -- it's bad across the board, so I don't want the public to get misleading feeling that -- that the private sector is doing just great.
i don't want that to come across like that.
i know some cases where people have gotten laid off.
Travis County is not even attempting to even lay off employees.
but there are others that are.
i want everyone to understand that.
>> yes, sir.
>> we will complete this fascinating discussion next Tuesday.
move that we recess to 1:30.
>> second.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous
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, June 23, 2009 1:31 PM