Travis County Commissioners Court
February 2, 2010,
Item 17
>> number 17 is to receive update from broadus and associates concerns phase one campus needs assessment and master plan study and take appropriate action on the following.
a, staffing projections.
b, adjacenten si matrix, and c, space allocation needs.
good morning.
>> special assistant with the Commissioners court.
i'm going to speak a little slowly to allow our consultant to come back from the men's room.
she --he should be entering shortly.
this represents the cessation of phase one of the needs assessment.
it represents the combined wisdom and perspective and needs of over 36 county offices and departments and more that double that number of county oh officials elected and pointed.
the material you have before you will be shared by steven broadus heading the team of consultants.
much of the material you have seen before but sense you have last seen it there's been various tweaks and changes to ensure that it is right and tight.
that officials are in full agreement with the needs and the manner in which those needs are expressed between now and 2035.
and with that, I'd like to pass the ball across to steven colston.
>> thank you, judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> we potentially reviewed a lot of information you have seen before.
but we will kind of refresh you on the process that we have been through.
the methodology that we used to come up with the program, the summary of the space program, and the discussion and outcomes that you make I have as relates to the vote for this.
from a process perspective, as we went through the agenda, and the development of the needs assessment, one of the, some of the key issues that we want fod focus on were addressing existing deassist, approving and assess to resource, improving efficiencies in the quality of the work environment, ensuring the highest and best use of facilities within the downtown area that are utilized by public sector, informing near and long-term decisions as it relates to your facilities within the context of the strategic plan.
being a good steward of the taxpayer dollars, and addressing guiding principle set for the in the June 24 visioning session.
the guiding principles, quickly, were identifying and meeting the future space needs, keeping the symbolic functions of the court downtown, createl campus identity, enhancing access to the campus, improve campus connectivity and using technology access and technology within the campus proper.
you see before you here is the outline of the phase one needs assessment schedule.
we are here at the very end of the final voicing session for needs assessment.
and what is fourth coming is the final document ation of the reports.
and the initiation of the phase two master plan will take the needs assessment and start turning that into a physical planning strategy.
the functional operations assessment that we did for the facility just reviewing kind of how we came up with the baseline of the space program that we are sharing with you today, began with a detailed of the existing Travis County space.
and we gathered some observations from that which were, which included looking at some of the existing office suite layouts.
and identifying some inefficiencies there and some opportunities to improve on those because of some of the compounding of space problems there.
we discovered that there were some fragmentation of some of the offices and different departments in terms of the utilization of that space.
some of the campus configurations were rather than confusing in terms of creating both campus cohesive identity and really kind of creating barriers to access.
and then finally we observed that the facilities could much better serve the visitors and the staff by improving the quality and the organization of those spaces.
so utilizing that information, we work very closely with all of the county office and departments in the central campus to develop the space program projections that were generated on functional criteria.
one was projected staffing and the other was basing those upon a series of standards for space.
as we reviewed with you back in November and you voted on the initially staffing projections, we have gone back and nade a couple of tweaks as christian referenced in the projected staffing.
but this reflects the projected staffing for the courts currently to 2015, 2025 and 2035 which are the milestone cargs for our growth, as well as those for generally government.
those are a slight update based on reorganization of some of the data from what you review ed in November.
also based on some of the reorganization and unifying of a couple of the departments, we went ahead and updated the generally government adjacent sis, and fundamentally was incorporating the county attorney's office, initially split into the generally government category, une phasing those in one category.
that is reflected in the cratover adjacenten sis where we address update to the county attorney.
so the two items that had voted on prior were the space, the staffing projections and the adjacentsi matrices and those are two items that we are bringing back to you today for review and vote based on the update of the data.
the second thing that we used as our building block to come up with a space projections were those of space standards.
i'm going to just roll through those here quickly without going back through each one of those.
you have a detailed appendix in the full backup information that you were provided that shows the graphics and diagrams of each one of those spaces.
but we utilized those space standards together with the staffing projections to develop square footage projections that look at the net square feet, the net occupiable square feet, which includes offices and departments and ancillary space within those, and then ultimately we used those grossed up to a total gross square feet for building for long range projections.
as we broke out the space projections, we looked at opportunities for shared resources in the context of building amachine tys such as large conference and break rooms campus amenities that could be a campuswide resource in the central campus, and what we did not include was any specific data center program, which we are finalizing right now, or any other city requirements.
the space program summary that you see reflected here is kind of the final space projections for the phase one needs assessment.
and they represent an update, think probably the fourth review internally with offices and departments of all of the space configurations, needs and projections.
so this is a slight update addressing new information or revised or feedback information, I believe you asked about last time, judge Biscoe.
has everybody had a chance to give good feedback on this.
so the space program summary rents the existing net assignable square feet all the way over to left, the current need, which in the bottom line reflects this being at a current deficit of 180,000 square feet for current needs, projected to milestones of 20152025 and 2035, indicating a total net occupiable square feet requirement by the county by 2035 of just a little over a million square feet.
representing about 110 percent increase over the space that is currently utilized today.
that is encompassing space that we were already evaluating.
so it ipping rates existing space --incorporates existing space as well as additional requirements that would be brought on line.
of course this is space growth we really have very little control over beyond the programs the county offers because a lot of our staffing projection as you may recall and methodology of development of those are based on the demographic growth of this fine county that we are in here.
people continue to appreciate that.
just the detailed backup of those two, we summarized for the courts, on this slide, and for the generally government on this slide-- the details are included for both the general government and courts and summary in the full backup you have.
the acts for today are final approval of staffing projections and the square foodage preinjections we shared with you and our next items will be initiating in the latter part of the month the phase two kick-off and really initiating the public outreach involvement and physical analysis of the downtown area as we start looking at scenarios about which we would apply practical application of these space requirements over the growth horizons described here in.
>> steven, with regard to phase two, this is really where we start reaching out to the community and getting community input on the various, on our various issues.
>> absolutely.
>> and that comes at what point, taking a look at our time line, we will be looking to create some subcommittees that are issue specific in reaching out to the community on those specific issues, right?
>> absolutely.
>> we will go ahead and start working with the county representative to break out some focus groups.
we have three major public sessions that are planned over the course of the project where we will gather initial, kind of what we call our listening session, really kind of gather key information from the community stailstail2.
we will have a work session during the domment of the various scenarios as well as final presentation of the outcomes of those to the community .
in addition.
in addition, we will have smaller focus groups meeting with interested stakeholders in and around the property and the downtown area that will, obviously, have impact or influence or based on how the county may develop its property in the downtown area.
>> that is great.
looking forward to phase two.
>> me too.
>> those public meetings will be on the county website, plus posted on the county agenda as they occur.
>> correct.
>> actually, if you google Travis County downtown plan right now, it takes you right to the website where all the information is posted and updated on the master plan.
>> dates, times, places
>> yes.
>> may I make a comment?
>> sure.
>> what I would like to suggest, and I don't think it is disruptive, but for the civil courts, would you accept the report instead of approve it?
and let me tell you what my thinking is.
the designs that have been suggested in terms of court rooms is really very different than what we do now.
and you know, apparently it's the new wave in court rooms.
you about I think it would be useful for our judges to be able to talk to court rooms and operations that are designed that way.
kind of you might feel, call it a proof of concept where we would go and see how that is working and also see what impact it has a staffing.
we really don't know that.
they have concept said yeah, we can go with smaller court rooms.
the think about a court building is once you have built, those are very expensive and you are living with the configuration.
i don't know this came to me last night.
i used to have electioned office main years ago with a court reels operation.
i remember a clearly that made me think about this.
when we talk about civil courts it kind of strikes as a sterile operation and doesn't impact people but I want to remind you how important this is that we get it right.
first thing, they handle the family law.
they handle the termination of child rights.
and the judges are very concerned.
and they don't have this now at all.
is that they have areas where they can work with children and deal with them and make those horrible situations as least bad as they can.
what dawned on me last night, part of my job, I went out with a bailiff on an eviction.
and the little guy about seven years old came running up and got his fist up and punched bailiff in the stomach and said you're taking my home.
he was sleeping in the kitchen, wasn't much of an emho.
i would say that civilel action impaed that child forever.
how he looks at the court.
probably he was in the juvenile justice system.
i suspect.
probably is residing in a jail in the adult system.
so I know how concerned all of you are with children and families.
and a lot of it takes place in the civil courthouse.
it is important as we are looking at new things, to make sure that we can take care of that.
the other thing is that the civil courts here in Travis County handle at of the add administrative law for the state.
some of the major lawsuits, robin hood, school finance, the mold mitigation all kale flew our courts and impact everyone in the state.
the education cases impact every child in the state.
they are extremely important.
if you wouldn't mind doing this, what I think, just a suggestion(change in captioners).
concept is right.
so that's just what my suggestion -- because we will live with those decisions for a long time and they will impact a lot of people.
what I would ask is you don't approve those, but you accept the report, let them have a little bit more time as a proof of concept and then come back.
i don't think it will hold anything up, but that's just --
>> it makes a lot of sense to me.
>> how about as far as public input on this?
when is that supposed to come about?
>> I don't know.
>> as far as safety, what was y'all's thinking -- as far as phase 2, what's your thinking with regard to phase 2?
>> that's the time line when that will happen?
>> the public meetings are going to occur early.
>> ballpark.
>> February-march.
for a wide variety of focus groups and public meetings.
simultaneously with the physical analysis.
susan's thoughts are helpful.
the leadership of the judiciary has been working in some considerable detail with richey green.
that leadership has looked at these proposed standards of courtrooms and has said this makes sense to us.
indeed, they changed a wide variety of those courtroom standards.
whether it's accepted or approved I think is less critical than recognizing that this is a work in process, that we're not designing anything.
what we're doing is establishing space needs.
if you look at -- someone interviewed me from the "austin american-statesman" yesterday, andrew mcintosh I said the space needs are 525,000 square feet.
with the addition of 700 lavaca, we're looking in the neighborhood of 200, 250,000 square feet of need.
that essentially is going to be a new courthouse, not just civil, but there's also some criminal courts that are going to be necessary.
so the challenge in phase 2 is going to be the siting -- not the design, but the siting an stacking and blocking of a new courthouse.
the configuration of all of that is still an accordion.
and the idea that if the court approves something, it's locked in, is I think not necessarily accurate because an example of that is what we've done today where we presented something in November, we presented something in January, early January, and it's been changed and we're now asking here's the status.
and it may change again.
so I am a little -- I'm not sure I fully understand the notion that the judiciary is not totally on board with these courtroom designs because there's been so many conversations with them.
>> I think it's -- if it's not locked in, it's not locked in.
i just think we have had cases before where we've talked about design.
and people have not really had -- either had the opportunity or taken the opportunity to really look at operationally how the thing is going to work.
and once that building is up, you're now operating that way.
and I just think if you're not locked in to this, that's one thing, but I just think that that is -- we don't have -- to say -- take what we have with children and project that out.
what we have with children is totally unacceptable.
so we need to look at that.
the courtrooms are very different.
and on paper the judges want to be cooperative.
they don't want more space than you can afford.
they don't.
but they are the ones that understand how it works.
so if you say today if they go out and -- I mean, if I were them and I know that judge dietz and judge shepherd feel this way.
they would like to see some of these things in operation before they come to you and say we're fine with this because once the building is designed and they're in it, it's an expensive building that we will be living with that design.
so I just want to point out that I think operationally this is so much different.
the design is very different than what they are doing today compared to other offices, which are kind of similar.
so that's my concern.
>> and I get that and I would like --
>> I would like to see if christian's suggestion that it's always been a role or a door that the judicial system -- our judiciary has been able to enter during this process, I'm getting confused.
the door is not closed is what I'm hearing.
>> no.
as a matter of fact, I think there would be great benefit towards some site visits.
the last thing we want is to have -- in phase 2 in four to five months a stacking and bhoking exercise -- and blocking exercise that uses building blocks that the judiciary then say oh my gosh, this is not correct or it doesn't work together.
and I think it should be an a priority condition that the judiciary is happy because when there are unhappy judges, there are unhappy -- there's an unhappy county.
when there are happy judges, there's a happy county.
>> [ laughter ]
>> it's that simple, huh?
>> well, in some ways, yes.
>> [ laughter ]
>> and we've had experiences with that, with unhappy judges.
and that's nothing that anyone wants.
steven, I don't know if you have -- ms.
Gomez?
>> let me follow-up on that idea.
i think you're right, susan.
i remember the issue being brought to us in the past where families have to come in to court and they don't have any where to leave their children either.
and so we've kind of grappled with that issue and never really resolved it well.
so I think while we're in the process of now planning, this is the time when we can get some feedback from those judges as well.
how many of them have, you know, families whose children need to be cared for somewhere.
and it sounds like we need to start being a little child friendly around the court system because it's a reality.
and so I think it's a good opportunity to look at that issue again before we go too far down the road.
and then we don't have to do any backsliding.
so I think it's worth the time to invest.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> susan, I am -- this is the first I heard that the judges would like a different take on this agenda item.
and I want to push back a little bit, not too hard, but I want to push back some, since we have been working with the broadest -- with broadus since June of 2009 and before that actually the judges were the major pushers of this effort.
so we've had a long and in recent months quite fruitful interaction with judiciary input.
and we are looking at some real innovation in the use of space for courtrooms.
and I recognize that, that this is a brave new world for all of us.
i'm willing to entertain receiving rather than approving -- because it's really a hair of difference, but I am concerned and I would like to get a firm date by which the judges will do these site visits and give this input so that we don't get to the next point and say okay, we're ready to approve and there's something else that needs to be looked at.
so I would like a commitment from the judges that these are -- this is the list of things that they want to look at and this is when they will have looked at it by -- when they will be able to give input to the consultants.
>> that's fair enough.
>> so that we don't extrude the process.
>> because in looking at ours, I mean, one can say everyone has a chance to look at this.
when I talk to my own office, we have spent an inordinate amount of time on things that did not add up, were just clerical errors.
i am guessing that a lot of departments did not have the time or take the time to do that kind of analysis.
>> that's why I think a deadline would be good --
>> let her finish.
>> so I just -- I've seen over my long tenure here things that worked and didn't work.
and I just want to make sure that this is such a big thing.
and I would be happy to get that date.
and that's all I'm asking.
i don't think it's going to be that disruptive, but I think it would be useful because that operation is very different from other reports, very different.
and you look at these things on paper and we did that with offices.
this is what everyone is getting per square feet.
and I go back and I look at these people's office and this stuff doesn't fit in there.
well, there's the concept and there's the stuff doesn't fit in there.
so this is so big.
i don't think this is disruptive, but if they would have an opportunity to do that, I think you will get better input and a better product.
>> we will need --
>> I do want to stress, though, that I think that my suggestion of the deadline is to put every one on notice that really we are not going to just accept reports, we're going to approve them.
so really look at them before we approve them because I know my own tendency is to say yeah, I'll look at it later.
yeah, superficially it looks fine.
but I really would like to put a fire under it so that people really do spend the time to look and give their substantive comments by a certain time.
>> okay.
>> I don't know that my understanding was that the needs analysis was supposed to be a design.
>> that's correct.
the space parameters are intended to create parameters around which square footage projections can be built.
as I mentioned, they're fundamentally two building blocks to the space program.
the first being the staffing projections, which is based on the iterative discussions that I won't revisit right now.
and then the second piece is the basis of the space standards, which we went through with both of our -- with our general government subcommittee, and susan and all the representatives from that group.
and then also -- and actually for the courts, we broke that out.
we didn't do it just with the court's subcommittee, we did it with the criminal and the civil courts independently so we could look at each of those spaces.
and again, you have this in your detailed backup.
right now you have a couple of line items on the current space summary that refer to the courts and the square footages associated with that.
but what I might point out in the detailed backup is we do have allocations for courtroom waiting that is indicated in the civil courts category that accomodates some of the kinds of functions that susan is -- that we've made efforts to try to incorporate.
we've also specifically programmed out attorney-client interview rooms, which are currently in a deficit for space to be able to -- for folks to be able to meet privately on some of these matters as well as vestibule area and storage and so on so that a lot of those conference rooms, which currently I know if you go in the criminal courts building you will find out some of the conference rooms have been converted into storage closets.
and really keep those spaces dedicated for attending to the needs of the community that's really using those.
so that's an imperative component.
the purpose of developing space standards are so that we're using realistic, albeit not designed intent, for what designed configurations might look like for the purpose of master planning.
bearing in mind that we're master planning to 2015, 2025 and 2035.
so they're projections that are obviously morph over time as new information becomes available within your realistic five-year windows.
and will become much more specific as you get into design.
>> so my thinking was that by approving the report we beaskly accept the -- we basically accept the product, formally close phase 1, which was supposed to be the needs analysis.
so we could start phase 2, the master planning.
i don't think the judges ought to take forever, but at some point they need to land on what kind of design they would like to see.
during the master planning process is when I thought that would take place.
>> I'm okay with that, judge, as long as that's your understanding.
what I'm worried about is that you've got this in here and then the court aproves it and then later there's something about it that doesn't work.
and the answer is that's what the court approved and that's what we've got to do.
that's my concern.
if there's plenty of room for that, that's my concern.
>> early on in this process, and I've said this over and over again, I've asked the question have all the departments had the chance to have the necessary input into where we are today?
and every answer that I've received has been yes, yes, yes.
so what's different about that question today as I've asked it in the past?
because the need assessment and the space and all these other things were part of that questioning session.
so my question today is what is different than the question that I asked in the past about the participation level of the departments?
have they had an ample opportunity to determine where we are today?
that's my question again.
>> well, in my own department -- I wish diana were here, but I'm just guessing off the top of my head.
she's probably spent 120 hours on this report finding errors and things that didn't work out for us.
i think a lot of departments did not have that kind of time to spend.
and that's just my concern.
so I know -- I just -- see, I'm worried about what you said because if you think everyone has thought this all through and this is kind of etched in stone, I'm worried that it's not, particularly in an area where the current space is very different than this idea.
that's all.
they just need to be comfortable with it and I think that they need to go to a place that richey green has designed, like this, and see how it works.
how that works, and also see if there are staffing issues to give you the best information you have.
and I don't think they've had an opportunity to do that.
but this doesn't etch you in bronze.
i -- understand that I think they need to look at some more things.
>> Commissioner Huber?
>> as it relates to etching in stone, I just have a question about approval of this first phase and as it relates to the square footage.
specifically that's outlined in there on the different line items.
and if, say, one of the civil courts is projected -- the description is 1800 square feet and there are several line items hypothetically that total another 1200 square feet as it relates to usage of that court, if at some point in the future, phase 2, for example, or one of the next phases it's determined that oh, 1200 additional square feet for support, really under the conditions that perhaps ms.
pitaro is talking about, would really need to be necessarily 1600 square feet?
are we transferring from phase 1 to phase 2 how on those square footages in here if we approve it, are we saying oops, we're not going to exceed that kind of number, if indeed later it proves out to be so?
>> I don't think that is the case because one of the things I may have mentioned, I believe, when we were here a couple of weeks ago is the -- the approval before you today is for the needs assessment.
and the needs assessment is based on projections of your growth and ideal square footage configurations.
what we're going to do in phase 2 is start to apply that to your existing county real estate as well as potential redeveloped real estate within the central campus area.
and as we mentioned before, there may be certain spaces where -- I think rob mentioned it last time we were here when we start talking about the criminal courts, for example, our projections for how those courtrooms ought to be configured is probably a little more eye dpil lick because it is a needs assessment of where you should be going into a brand new mayorio today as opposed to space that in all likelihood we'll be using.
it means that the master plan will be different than the needs assessment requirements that you see today based on practical application to existing square footage.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt?
>> I have an idea to entertain.
i want to throw it out to you all.
i do feel firmly that we should approve our needs assessment rather than merely receive it.
so my suggestion is that we approve the general government portion of the needs assessment and come back to the courts portion of the needs assessment for approval in a month.
>> okay.
let me contact them and see when they can go find out what they need to look at and when that's happening.
or if you are saying you're voting on this, you're still after that -- it's not etched in stone.
and as they start looking operationally, of course in a reasonable time, then I'm okay with that.
i just am worried that I don't think people have had enough time to look if it's etched in stone.
>> and I'm mindful of that.
i am also mindful of while I don't want to say we will never give you any more than 1800 square feet because that's what it says in phase 1, I'm also mindful that I want to provide a level of stability through this process so that broaddus and associates as well as the internal folks who are working on this have some consistency -- have the consistency of knowing that phase 1 is complete and these are the assumptions on which we are moving forward.
if we leave the assumptions squishy and subject to change without warning, we may have -- it may result in some wasted effort or at least some very frustrated individuals.
>> mr.
smith?
>> may I make a suggestion?
number one, you approve the needs assessment.
that you set a date for not just the civil, but also the criminal because the criminal courts also have needs through 2025.
and there is an inner relationship with central booking that has to be dealt with.
so that the judiciary -- when I say judiciary, I mean civil and criminal -- have until April 1.
during the public input process, to take whatever steps they feel they need, which could also include site visits.
to then come back and provide feedback to the space standards.
that the court ask that there be an opportunity for this not to be etched in stone, but written on a white board -- and there is a difference, but as approved and that you have to reapprove should there be judicial input that would foster substantial changes in any of the numbers that are here.
>> christian, is that -- I asked -- the first question I asked is when would the public hearings be held or hearings held.
are you suggesting that the judiciary have a process to participate in that input phase and by April 1 of this year come up with a determination on what they are looking for within the judiciary, which is the civil and also the criminal courts?
that's what you're suggesting?
>> that's what I'm suggesting.
>> okay.
>> what's the importance of April 1 now?
i know it's two months away.
>> it seems like a reasonable time.
the public input process of phase 2 will have been mature.
the public input process is not -- it is intended really to deal with the various groups that are interested in wooldridge park and are interested in downtown and are interested in the neighborhood, what have you, and that the judiciary just be recognized as given what susan's concerns and fears and apprehension are that this thing be locked in.
and I think her points are absolutely well taken, that we shouldn't be locked in, we should be recognizing that they need to be -- the April 1 date also -- I won't use the word force, but establishes a point in time that the judiciary has enough time to take whatever steps they need because there's a lot of them, they're all independent, they all have different perspectives, and it's not herding cats, but it is herding butterflies, so bring them together in two separate groups is feasible, but a challenge.
and doable I think by April 1.
that has some impact on the final report, but I think the final report would follow the approval of this needs assessment and that phase 2 is we have new committees and we have a new day.
that would be my suggestion.
and April 1 was picked based on thinking quickly given the input that was provided to you that was rather unexpected.
>> so we touch base with them and find out whether two months is sufficient.
>> I will, judge.
>> and if they think they need three, I don't personally have any -- my thinking was if the Commissioners court met one day and stied that the Commissioners courtroom should be heart-shaped, we would have -- we have that authority.
>> [ laughter ]
>> absolutely.
that would actually more functionally take place in the course of design as opposed to the development of --
>> right.
so this idea of being kind of on the design is new to me.
i assumed we would be able to do that anyway.
at the same time, we have invested a lot to get these projections.
so in terms of what our space needs are in the future, hopefully these numbers are real close.
>> I think they are, judge.
>> but what you start doing actual design, then my thinking was that the flexibility was there.
and nothing in this report locks you in to a particular design.
>> that is the intent.
>> so my motion is to approve the report, give the judges until April 1 to -- if they have specific changes they would like to make, let us know what they are.
if that is not enough time and they think they need another 30 days or so, let us know that and we'll figure that in.
but as a general rule, design efforts, decisions will be made in the future.
>> right.
>> is the intent of the motion.
okay?
>> and is there a second to that?
>> I will second that, judge.
>> mr.
reeferseed?
>> I just wanted to throw out the idea that we have this -- I'm sorry, it's late.
but the county money has been spent and we have the resources already in the Austin community college system.
they have -- you spoke of earlier about the child development needs.
we really have an ongoing experiment example at their various campuses.
one, I forgot which one, it's been awhile since I was there, but they have grade patterns and ideas on staffing and space needs and all that kind of sthuf.
so the information is out there for -- right here in the county of travis.
and Travis County Commissioners and the Travis County community court -- community college system, that the information is there.
we could just get some from them right quick is the only point I'm trying to make.
and it's a really good thing to include that in the planning at this point.
>> it's a good idea to reach out to a.c.c.
for possible child care potential.
>> for ideas.
and maybe even staffing.
they've got some really great people there.
>> any discussion of the motion?
>> could I offer one -- just to make sure we're perfectly clear to the public in that the planning process we're in, we expect the numbers to change as we move through the planning process and over the designing process through many years of associated with these.
we will continue to update the master plan effort, but you're correct in assessing that this is kind of a rough order of magnitude.
we want to be as close as we can, but we do expect it to change.
it is not a document that we expect to be able to revisit in 10 years and have the exact numbers represented in the designs we're doing.
>> that clarification of the judge's motion is friendly.
any more discussion?
anybody else here on this item what would like to give comments?
all in favor?
it passes on a vote of seven to zero.
>> sure to tell the judges that we're trying to keep them happy.
>> and the Commissioners court also.
all five.
>> I may have sent out a false alarm in not recommending a-1 to be included in the consent motion.
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, February 2, 2010 2:15 PM
