Travis County Commissioners Court
March 30, 2010,
Item 10
Speaking of patience, item number 10.
is to consider presentation and take appropriate action regarding hospital proposals for housing of available star flight aircraft at their locations, a, seaten family of hospitals, and b, st.
david's healthcare and foundation.
danny hoppy and other county staff will probably enter through that door soon.
mr.
hobby.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners am we -- we bring this item up again.
i think mainly for discussion as to what our next steps are going to be.
i gave a report I think several weeks ago.
going over several aspects.
one was why do we need a third aircraft.
and for this particular topic, why it is important that we have a relationship with our local hospitals.
and that we have had one for quite some time.
and that we had two networks showing interest in housing, the second aircraft which is 12-7.
today I'm hopful that we can continue that discussion and move toward a decision in regards to where we would house this particular aircraft.
again, the 24 x 7 is already at breckenridge and has been there almost since the inception of the program.
and so this particular second aircraft which is now going to become more available by your decision to purchase a third aircraft, meaning there's into the going to be a third aircraft in the sky but we are going to better guarantee the one 1247 and the 112-7 that will be available for service for all the hospitals and your residence.
i think y'all were going to form a subcommittee and look further into the various issues and matters regarding the proposals and the two networks.
and I believe we might have the two networks here.
>> yesterday I tried to put together a summary of steps that Commissioner Eckhardt and I took a page and a half summary.
plus I attached three attachments.
on February 23 Commissioner Eckhardt and I were asked by the court to take a closer look at the proposals for seaten and st.
davids.
we met with both on March 11, 2010, discussed with seaten its proposal and with st.
david's its proposal.
during the meeting st.
david's came up with another idea basically using a third party consultant to evaluate proposals.
we asked them what selection criteria they would recommend in addition financial con triand number of trans ports.
and st.
david's did provide us a list of proposed selection criteria.
Commissioner Eckhardt and I committed to discuss that criteria and the proposal with county staff and discuss whether to take that with seton or st.
david and how to proceed.
we got that information on March 19.
and that is attachment two.
and a few days later, Wednesday, March 24, Commissioner Eckhardt and I had another meeting with danny hobby and basically discussed staff's response to the proposal.
i described staff's position to be, staff strongly believes the use of the third party consult the and the proposed criteria would result in the same decision because the seton proposal is superior.
based on that and other things we discussed in our meeting, Commissioner Eckhardt and I agreed with staff.
and indicated that to st.
david's.
st.
david's representatives met with me after this and said they had other ideas and wanted to submit a proposal.
i basically communicated to them that they were free to provide any additional information or proposals to the Commissioners court.
and yesterday we did get a written proposal from st.
david's which was delivered to me and also sent to members of the court.
and that is where we are today.
and their proposal, st.
david's basically committed to contribute $3.2 million if selected, which puts both of them at $3.2 million.
there are other factors to be considered in addition to money.
and I guess the main one to my knowledge would really be the number of trans ports to south dakota david's versus seton and some of the other criteria mentioned.
and I with like to get staff's response to those factors.
if money is equal we have other factors to look at, what is staff's position on that, if any of some of this is kind of new in that before the money difference was 1.6 million to 3.2.
if both are looking at 3.2, then the other factors probably become a bit more important.
talk to us about the number of transports and if we need star flight personnel here to assist you, we can get that.
>> yeah, I'd like casey and willy to come up.
if you want to talk about operational numbers, we can do that.
yeah, I think as they are going to probably describe to you, might be good to help you have a better understanding of what we are talking about when we are talking about transport.
casey, might be god for us --good for us to get into that.
>> we are still getting feedback media.
something we can do?
>> the mike that danny is on.
>> the second from my right to left as I face him?
>> that's right.
>> thank you.
why don't we get gin then and answer any questions that the court might have in regards to transports.
again, let us entro, if we can, what we are talking about when we say transports.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
you are still casey ping?
>> yes, program director.
and to my left is willie cobber son, director of operations.
the information that we have on transport is information from fy '09, our team accreditation report that requires us to break down patients by specific types and destinations.
in fy 509 seton had 533 trans ports, 68 percent of our overall volume.
and st.
david's network had 157, which is 20.2.
then there's a smattering of 1-5 percent for other destinations.
>> why don't you describe, when you talk about transports, you are talking about specialty, why don't you break those out as to what those are casey.
>> when we talk about transport, that encompasses all the missions, both interfacility and scene.
the interfacility includes the specialty teams that could be high risk, ob, knee oh nator pediatric.
i don't have specific breakdowns of those numbers by team.
we can go that if you wanted.
on inner facility transport, we aren't involved in the selection of where the patient goes.
that is typically done by the receiving and transferring hospital.
they are looking at what cape the does the patient need and where can we get a bed and accepting physician.
when we are called those decisions have already been made.
and they are saying we have a patient that needs to do from here to here and we transfer that patient.
if it fits within the dispatch product col that you have approved.
the scene calls are a little bit different in that the hospitals really aren't involved in those.
but there is, as far as the selection, there is a dispatch, transport destination that is approved by the system medical directors, dr.
kempan and dr.
hitchy.
the first thing we look at is where they want to go, does that hospital meet the patient's requirements.
a trauma is something that we are aware of but we also have strokes and other patient sensitive issues.
so we ask the patient where they would like to go.
if they say we want to go to this facility and that facility meets that criteria, and this e have a hello pad, we transport to that facility.
those would be our transportation des ty nation criteria.
if they didn't, they would be provided a list and the family or patient could choose from that.
that is how we make a destination decision.
>> some of the destinations are basically made on request?
then the other, how do they become optional?
>> on a scene call where the hospitals aren't directly involved in choosing, making a destination, it first becomes a patient choice.
as long as that patient's choice has the capability to care for, to meet their clinical needs at the time, we honor that choice as long as they have a heli pad.
>> how, if you would, interest great transport into the numbers that you have given us as far as seton 532 and 157 for st.
david's, how would you integrate those requests if you were to look at that and break those numbers down as far as transport is concerned?
have they been broken down as far as transport?
we could brake those numbers down and look at what percentage were scene calls and what percentage involved specialty teams.
i don't have that data in front of me.
we'd have to pull those manually and look at each one to be able to get that data.
but we can do that if that is a request of the court.
>> yeah, I didn't meet with st.
david's personally because of the fact that we had a subcommittee dealing with this issue, Commissioner Eckhardt and judge Biscoe.
so I didn't want to, I guess, deal with that because of the way it was structured.
but I did have one of my staff members to meet to be sure I didn't vile late anything here on the court as far as meeting is concerned.
i have some concerns.
let me ask this question before I ask my question.
when is the final deadline that we need to adhere to?
of course we talked about the additional helicopter that we are going to pursue anyway.
when is that final deadline to make sure we get it at the prices that will not escalate if we get it in a timely manner to make sure we get it at the des --discount rate before they increase prices for helicopter.
when is that deadline?
>> Commissioner, that has already been taken care of.
we have already purchased the aircraft.
>> right.
but my question is, the deadline as far as paying for this, is there a set deal on that?
that is what I'm trying to get to.
not the deadline for the helicopter but as far as paying to make sure sha we have the most bang out of the buck.
if the two opposing deals are to look at the cost of paying for the helicopter.
that is what both are offering.
in other words, to get the most bang out of the buck.
because that is a debt to us.
that is what I'm trying to get to.
the deadline, not the purchase of the helicopter per se, but to make sure we have the money in here to help offset some things.
>> the actual problem of the seton network is that their proposal, their $3.2 nondonation was unrestricted.
so it was not directed for payment for the helicopter.
>> that is what I'm trying to get to.
the debt service, the debt that we have incurred for the helicopter, who would be able to put the money on the table to alleviate that debt as far as the amount of money they are putting on the table?
who is doing that?
>> it's actually, but doing the unspecified amount, then you are able to reduce what is going to be anticipated operational costs.
so the offset is that the donation is going to help the star flight for example operational.
in exchange we are purchasing a third aircraft.
so you are getting the $3.2 million contribution which is a benefit to the star flight program of which we would not have to spend fund dollars.
>> exactly.
but the question is who can put that on the table now to offset?
that is what I'm trying to get to.
>> yes, sir.
i think from what the judge just told us, we now have another proposal from st.
david's of where they are offering the same I'm assuming, judge, unspecified amount, 3.2 million.
so therefore, as far as the dollars, you have each network, correct me if I'm wrong, judge, to where they are now offering $3.2 million unspecified.
is that correct?
>> $3.2 million unrestricted contribution to be applied towards star flight operations.
this gift will be applied immediately upon the execution of an agreement for the location of the new station at st.
david's north Austin medical center.
>> the distinction is the offer is for immediate delivery upon excuse of the agreement, distinct from seton offer of 3.2 million over five years.
>> that is the cruxof the matter as far as the way I'm looking at that.
and I want everybody to understand where I'm coming from.
on that.
talking about immediate relief versus five-year relief.
as far as dead is concerned.
>> I with like --would like the add.
the court is learning this for the first time in regards for this proposal.
i don't think seton network is aware of this proposal.
so therefore, I would recommend to the court that I be given an opportunity to visit with both hospitals and review their proposals.
unless the court is ready to make a decision.
to where I can actually assess that.
again there's other elements of this besides just the money.
there's also the other elements of the enhancements.
i'm assuming part of that is in yours again as well as the original and their proposal.
again, I can let the two hospitals speak.
and I think seton network had a situation of where, I don't mean to speak on your behalf, but you wanted a helicopter at each one of your locations and what impact does that have.
but yet if the st.
david's network is coming forward to balance out the other proposal, then it's not good for me to sit here and judge that good or bad.
i with like to be able to look at it.
>> why don't we add the other part.
the other part of the seton proposal is I guess either the third party consultant or rfp process which we have not had.
before it was the third party consultant and they thought we could get with st.
david's and select an independent objecttive third party expert.
in the letter delivered yesterday there was reference to a request for proposal to basically make the decision.
solemn, so your position, you have not had an opportunity to review and consider the proposal that st.
david's dropped off yesterday.
>> I do not have a copy of that proposal.
>> okay.
any other questions from the court?
i guess we may as well hear from seton and st.
david since they are here.
>> judge, I would prefer, from the very beginning, what I heard was we are going the try to did a win-win-win.
and that is what I was expecting to hear about.
and I don't hear that yet.
i think while we don't reach a point where we can have two comparable proposals and then the bidding stops, basically.
everybody's cards are on the table.
and we're able to have someone evaluate the two proposals side by side, with coming to a decision to make the right decision, not make the easy decision.
it's not a easy decision tor me.
it's a tough decision.
i realize it's going to go into the future.
so for that reason I'm not taking this lightly at all.
so I really need to see some really good objecttive evaluation of this.
this is very important to me.
and so I think if we go an extra week or however long it takes for us to come to a decision as to when the proposals stop.
and this is the financial proposals and we put them side by side and evaluate them and maybe get the third party who can be very objecttive to it.
fan that leads the a proposal, it's still a final ty, two proposals being given to us.
and all in mind, for me, to have a good, the right decision.
not an easy decision.
>> I don't know that it's going to be easier with time.
>> no, an its not.
>> the problem is we have two proposals and we have to select one.
the competition between the two is a whole lot more fierce than I imagined.
whoever we don't select will be very unhappy.
that is the reality of our swigs--situation.
>> and that is the way it is when you make the right decisio.
>> now, cyd, a rfp will take how long?
even if we expedite.
this is our purchasing agent, cyd grimes, about to speak.
>> on a new and improved mike, I understand.
>> we could, depending, let me just say, depending on what they have, what spegsspecifications they have, we can get a proposal out in a couple of weeks, have it out for 15 days to 20 days and get it back, do the evaluation process.
so two to three months working hard with the expertise.
>> if we do are.
d--rfp process, who would do the evaluating?
>> the Commissioners court.
a committee would determine the process.
i could determine the process or the Commissioners court, which probably should make a decision on who should be on the evaluation committee.
we typically do not hire outside consultants do help with that.
in this particular situation, since I have heard that being discussed, we might consider having that person sit in on the evaluation committee if we want to or an outside expert.
or just internal staff.
>> anything else from the court before we hear from seton and st.
david representatives?
>> one more thing, judge.
i want to be sure that staff understands that it will be significant for me to get a breakdown of the particular transport flights that have been made.
you couldn't categorize before, and I'd like them broke down per category, each one of those hospitals.
i think it's kind of critical.
then again, well, there will be some other things coming up.
but I want to make sure also, I kind of agree with Commissioner Gomez and what our first intent was to look at this.
how can we get a win-win situation if at all possible.
sometimes somebody can't win.
but then again, I want to make sure that our doors are left open for a win-win situation as much as possible.
i don't know how it can be done in this situation but it's a possibility.
i think the attitude has to be in that direction.
i don't want to lose the flavor of a win-win situation.
so I just want to make sure that y'all are aware of that.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> I just want to say, I have not been actually involved because we are a subcommittee.
one of the problems, we keep getting new information, a new progress, one step forward, another step forward.
i think we have two very fine hospital systems here.
i hate to see such fierce competition when I know the goals for both are to service this community so well.
so one of the things that I would just, the challenge I would lay out, can you two systems get together and come up with a proposal that will work.
because this is for the community.
this isn't about winning or losing.
>> right.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I thought that is what originally was being done.
>> Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> okay.
>> in an attempt to frame this in the positive light that I think that it really should be framed in, it's quite wonderful that these two large hospital networks are so actively engaged in the support of the star flight program for which the primary purpose is that trauma on scene service delivery and for which the interfacility transfers do so much to subsidize that service.
it's tremendous what we are seeing as far as the interest of these two healthcare networks.
in the hopes of trying to redefine what is a win-win, in discussion with staff in the subcommittee, I don't think that a win-win could be defined as both hospitals getting exactly what they want.
because we don't have the resources to have star flight home base at both hospitals.
that is a when-win scenario that is not an option program at ecally.
but what is an option as far as a win-win, and I think that it's just not an option, it is the fact.
irrespective of which hospital is chosen, the protocol for the hospital getting the trauma patients or using the interfacility transfer services will not change.
in either case, both hospitals and indeed all the hospitals in the region, will get the benefit of increased capacity through a third helicopter and enhanced home base, home heli pad facilities.
i think that is the real win-win is that all of our providers in the emergency services category, as well as the specialty providers, will get the benefit of the increased capacity and improved service facilities through better infrastructure.
it took us by surprise, I think, that there is such fierce competition between these hospital groups.
and we were not previously mindful of some apparent benefit to the actual location of the helicopter to the hospital systems.
but that is sort of ancillary to our decision making process.
>> now, we have about five minutes to noon.
why don't we hear from st.
david's representatives.
make sure I characterize your latest proposal correctly.
then we'll hear from seto n.
and based on two mikes not working, I guess we do need those seats there, staff.
but don't go too far.
>> I think they replaced the one that wasn't working.
>> danny, you may want to sit on the end.
we need a guinea pig to see if that mike is working.
>> can you hear my okay?
mark clayton, vice-president of st.
david's healthcare.
glad to be hear and appreciate the opportunity to make a couple of comments.
since we are where we are, we have provided, obviously, a proposal that in our mind sort of takes the two options and equates them in many ways.
there is a time value of money issue.
but that was our intent, essentially, to have the dollars not be an issue.
we do think that this is definitely a county asset.
and we would encourage whatever decisions you make to just echo what has already been said from the dias.
you keep that foremost in mind.
there is competetiveness between the systems.
the one thing I think to take cha and channel to your benefit is maybe through more of a structured process.
if that can work within your time line, I think a request for proposal process channels that competiveness to your advantage having whatever offers come through be at least equivalent to what you received so for.
really no intent negatively through mr.
hobby or any of ut, it's been more of an auction process that maybe has contributed in some way towards a sense of competitiveness between the facilities.
personally, from st.
david's perspective, this is something I have offered up before, and obviously is in writing in my letter that you received yesterday.
our offer is what it is.
but if the county would so choose to move into a more of a request for proposal process, we would encourage that.
we would participate in that.
st.
david's healthcare would.
if there would be logic to, again, to address the clinical issues, is it more important to have the station be where the service is provided or is it more important that the station be located towards where the pick-ups occur.
those kinds of issues that can be sort of charged issues because there's obviously a difference in the perspectives that we have offered both at seton and st.
david's on that particular issue, then we would support maybe pulling in that clinical perspective either through obviously some of your county staff, dr.
hen chi, others that others may know that could provide a perspective of that.
we have even included in our preceding proposal an over of offer to contribute towards offering up a couple of names that could be mutually agreed and even compensating for a like consult the, a clinical consultant, to be brought into the process at no expense, therefore, to the county.
again, we'd have to mutually agree on who that would be.
we have tried from the beginning given the limitations of the process that we have had here, again, no fault of anyone's.
i think everybody was well intended all through this.
to offer up collaborative options and alternatives that would take the competitiveness issues and channel them into your benefit for maybe an enhanced contribution, enhanced collaboration from both systems.
in terms of the win-lose, I will tell you, our perspective, and I put this in writing before, whatever is in the county's best interest, to me, is something that is not a win-lose situation.
that is a win-win.
so it sort of takes the station location out of it.
i think we will live on.
if the station is not at the st.
david's site.
so long as, I think, that we are comforted that a logical process was used and sort of a blinded process was used.
think we would feel a lot better about accepting whatever the outcome is to where it feels less like an auction and more about a process that you have driven with criteria that you have determined and that we are both aware of and sort of had by five o'clock on the neck date to give our last and best offer, to have those opened and make your decision.
we think that would be the best approach.
>> Commissioner Huber asked earlier, is there any way possible that you two can work together?
i mean, seton and st.
david.
to come up with something agreeable to the both of you where you both would have service.
is that possible?
i'm very interested in that.
you are serving Travis County per se.
i'm kind of concerned about tha.
>> I understand.
and I understand the question.
clearly, I respect that question.
obviously a collaborative answer would be the best answer.
i think the challenge that mr.
hobby can speak to, perhaps in an even more unbides--unbiased way, is operationally it's hard to have both systems participating either through a part time at one location, part time at our location, operationally that may incur greater costs.
so really think that our perspective on the collaboration has been that there's already one station that one system has, and that is the bracken ridge station.
>> uh-huh.
>> our thought of clan ration would be why don't we have both systems have a station, have the next station be within the st.
david's network.
and we offered one location we feel is closest to the pick-ups for the current volume since most is coming from the north.
so again, collaboration is in the eye of the beholder, I realize.
from our perspective, though, operationally it's challenged to split the stations.
secondly, we feel that collaboration would be a station within each system to take full advantage of really the networks that seton has and the networks that st.
david's has.
>> thank you for your answer.
>> any questions for mr.
clayton?
can we hear from seton.
>> thank you very much.
>> thank you.
>> thank you judge, member of the court, I'm president of the eton houses and we have the seton vice-president.
it's hard to know exactly.
we didn't know about the new offer until this morning.
>> neither did i.
>> if we had had warning I think we mate have come with a different offer.
i guess st.
david's make their recommendation after they heard about the staff recommendation.
talk about fair, we have had our proposal the same from the beginning and haven't changed it based on what we thought you were going to do.
i think the important thing is to think about as we were just talking about what is important for the community here.
i think there are a number of things to sort of set the record straight and make sure you guys know this before you make whatever decision you want to do.
one, we're talking about two level one trauma centers that we'd like to place the helicopters at.
it's unique in the country not only Texas to have a children's and adult trauma center level one in the same town.
north Austin is not a trauma center, a high level trauma center.
to have a trauma center first takes millions of dollars of investment in terms of the type of call you provide, the type of care you provide, and it is the highest level of care you can get for any sort of accident that may occur, the hiest level of complex ty.
those investments have already been made and will continue to be made by seton.
in addition, one of the critical things for level one trauma, you need surgical residency programs to participate.
and those residencies require a level of volume and type of surgery being provided there that you have in order to maintain those residencies which is not only a big part of level one trauma, which is important important this community, but also part of our attempt to bring academic medicine to the community which is critical for a number of reasons I know you all are aware of.
one of the reasons we will have helicopter service there one way or another at the two hospitals is because we need to maintain that type of volume to provide that type of service at the two level one trauma centers.
we like to continue our part ship with the county and continue having this helicopter at the two sites which are the only level one and trauma centers anywhere near this level in central Texas and we'll have to have the helicopter there one way or another.
a couple things I think it's important for y'all to understand as you talk about this, one, the central location of the service area that star flight services is actually fairly near the courthouse, extremely close to braken ridge and dell medical center.
further from north Austin.
when they talk about growth that is actually outside the county in Williamson where there is a lot of growth.
if you look at the center of population it is clearly closest to the two seton hospitals.
i think that is an important point to remember.
while there may be a lot of growth in Williamson and counties outside your purview, the service areas these helicopters are based in is located next to the two hospitals.
the other thing in the last meeting there was discussion about growth of number of babies in the st.
david system and those kind of things.
the average daily census of the nicu are relatively equal.
the big difference is the severity of the condition taken care of at dell children's are significant live higher than the north Austin nicu and that is the type of care that you are going too need a helicopter transport system to be brought this.
although a lot of nicu trans ports are done by surface vehicles because that is actually the better way to bring in a nicu.
you do have the higher acuity at dell, in fact more surgeries performs in.
on r as opposed to north Austin which I think last year had two in total and performed in besid.
>> what does nicu mean?
>> neeo natal intensive care.
the place where the sickest babies are.
acuity is the severity is significantly higher at dell than any other hospital in central tex.
also a facility at bracken ridge but even there we send those babies to dell as well because of the facilities they have there.
the transportation, the nicu transport there is significantly even though the average daily census of the nicu at both hospitals is similar the severity at dell is significantly higher.
>> are you suggesting that st.
david's cannot--
>> I'm sorry?
>> that st.
david's if the they were to receive the helicopter services that they would not be able to send patients there?
>> no, obviously, it's our hope that doctors are sending them to the best place possible.
>> exactly.
>> that will continue no matter what the decision.
>> exactly.
ed to make sure what you are saying.
may have sounded that you can do it and nobody else can.
>> I think the level of severity provided in nicu is unique to dell children.
i think that is true.
we take babies from any hospital.
you have to take care of them at the best location possible.
most of those--
>> that is my point.
>> the highest number of severe vurgeri--surgeries for nicu is going to be providing at any hospital where they need to be.
>> thank you.
>> I think the level of care, higher acuity, level one trauma, residency programs, those type of things are why there is already the higher number of takoff and landing at bracken ridge hospital.
again, the level one trauma, you know, collaboration is a wonderful thing.
seton st.
david despite the competition you guys may say collaborate on a lot of things.
that will continue.
this is not about that.
i can't stress enough from the seton the commitment to level one trauma, not something we just started.
we have been doing for many years and it's costs millions of dollars, is a commitment we will continue on no matter what because we can't do the higher level of academic medicine without that commitment.
we have to have helicopter service based at those two level one trauma centers.
that is really critical.
i think the proposal we put forward, which has been the same we have always had there, the long service, the type of service we provided, working with the county and danny and kc and willie and the folk, the relationship and partnership we have I believe just points to the logic of putting them at two level one trauma centers.
i know in a perfect world you would figure a way to have collaboration and there's lots of places we can do that.
you talked last time about working on other counties and we have been doing that and would love to have st.
david's join us.
we would love to collaboration but the helicopter is not a place for collaboration.
it's not about competition.
where do you application the service to be most convenient and most rational for the care of the sickest patients that we have to bring in to the area in addition to bing geographically located most centrally.
>> Commissioner Huber asked about you and st.
david's being able to work together to come up with a solution where you both could participate in this particular service.
what are your comments on that?
>> we and st.
david's collaborate often and think we will continue to.
for the location of a helicopter I don't think this is the case where collaboration makes sense.
to have multiple crew quarters, to do the type of things, north Austin would have to build a heli pad.
to go through that level of investment and share a helicopter, and it's also I think somewhat impractical from an operational point of view to share a helicopter.
so again this isn't to say collaboration isn't important.
collaboration is really important.
when it comes to locating a helicopter at a base, that is very difficult to collaboration between two different sites.
>> purchasing agent spoke early but also trying to do research as to how much we paid for the particular helicopter, which was $6 million.
my concern, as I asked earlier, was the debt service and stuff like that, how can we reduce the debt as quickly as possible.
it's very important.
i know you had a chance to reviewing what the proposal is.
does that mean that you have maybe a possibility of moderating your latest proposal or what?
>> I can't say that.
again, to be honest, coming in here and hearing, after getting the paperwork from the county in terms of what the recommendation was today and everything, to hear there is another recommendation has thrown us for a loop.
i don't know who got the last proposal in or something.
it's hard for me to say exactly what our resons is going to be until I have had a chance to talk to our leadership.
>> okay.
>> I have three legal questions that I have to ask the legal in executive session.
in my view, that will take place at about 2:30 this afternoon.
any other questions for seton or st.
david's since we have representatives here?
thank you all for coming down.
i thank you for your patience.
what we will do this afternoon I don't know.
hopefully the lawyers will be able to answer my three questions or to declare them nonlegal and not answer them.
speaking of easy way out.
thank you all very much.
with that I move that we reset for lunch until 1:45.
>> second.
>> I need that 15 minutes if that is all right.
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 30, 2010 3:54 PM
