Travis County Commissioners Court
March 30, 2010,
Item 21
>> 21 is to consider and take appropriate action on Texas department of transportation call for projects for the pass through toll financing program.
>> thank you, this is a follow-up from last week's discussion.
i like to call ed collins up with the Texas department of transportation.
he might be able to help answer some questions raised last week.
when we end the discussion, I advised the court what we have in summary is an opportunity to get an improvements to a couple state highways.
that is a precedent for us but it is one way of getting the projects done since tex dot has no plans do them in the immediate future.
one committee Commissioner Eckhardt asked, are these projects going to be in the plan sponsored by tex dot.
no, they are not.
they are placed in there and shown to be sponsored by us, Travis County.
and that is the same as for other counties.
the reason we wanted them in there is if they are out of sight, out of mind, and if you have an opportunity to fund a project, like now, it's going to be one step more difficult to get it included into the transportation improvement program, the tip with campo.
if it's already there you don't have to go through that scep and it keeps it visible.
we think it's an important project but we are not telling tex dot that we're going to fund every state highway that is in the 2035 plan.
973 is shown as sponsored by us as is 1626, 2304, fm 812, several in there.
so anyway--
>> thank you for that clarification.
that is an important clarification.
>> it is.
>> that it's our priority, not tex dot's.
>> that is true.
but it doesn't mean that we can't impress upon tex dot how important they are to us.
in the 973 project written up in the backup is one such project.
it's a large project by our standards.
typically for us a $10 million project is huge.
this is a $50 million project.
that is a lot of debt to take on and a huge project, a lot of responsibility.
but wanted you to be aware here is an opportunities.
we looked at what other types of projects tex dot has approved with other counties .
there's been 30-some odd projects since 04 when the program began and about a third of them have been under the $20 million range.
when they first started they had several very large projects over a hundred million and they scaled back and started dividing up a little bit, separating a little more than they started.
right now there's $300 million available.
that is important.
for the entire state.
the deadline for an application is may 11, about 30 working days from now.
we would have to take on all of the debt.
and we can kind of reduce some of the risk associated with it.
i think Commissioner Eckhardt, you also brought up the concern about being liable for state highway.
while it was under our charge.
it's possible, I did ask the question to tex dot, well, if we don't want to assume that responsibility for more or less managing your road while it's being designed and built, could tex dot simply receive money from the county and go do the project themselves.
yes, that is an option available.
so that risk can be taken away in that fashion.
one of the other questions y'all asked had to do with pbo's analysis.
i assume they are done with that now.
maybe they can give you some answers to some of those questions at this point.
meantime, if you have questions for ed collins.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> what is the likelihood of us being able to get 70 million in pass through financing through the state level?
what is the history of projects in this area?
>> we have had some projects approved in the hundred million plus range.
one was $151 million for Williamson county.
hays county had $131 million project as well.
multiple projects have been approved.
those are early on in the program.
last year the largest project that was selected was about a $56 million project.
>> in this area?
>> statewide.
>> statewide.
>> one project or several?
>> that was two projects in the san antonio area.
one selected here in city of Austin, loop one at u.s.
290, two direct connectors that remain to be constructed.
the city of Austin initially put in an application for $13 million but when negotiations were completed it came in at $10.2 million.
some of the projects, in the negotiation phase they did go up in cost.
others went down.
so there is a payback period also that is negotiated as well.
once you get on the list, from whether I can tell we had 14 projects.
based on the information I found on the website and talking to the program manager, there's 14 project selected, 11 a priority and of those three dropped out and they were sub disuted.
the exist awarded 250 million out of 300 mill million available last year.
there's probably other projects that made last year the program time line was too short for them to know about it so probably others in the wings, just that the department doesn't have a lot of resources available and communities are noticing that and saying this is how we will be able to get state participation on state road waist important --rodeways important to us.
>> do they look at spreading that money go graphically.
>> I think they do.
there are 17 factors that go through.
air quality and congest relief.
if it's on hurricane evacuation route.
it does end up being dispursed from the smallest to large efforts communities in the stat.
>> I would add one of those factors, I was kind of advised by one of the consultants that we spoke about, if the county wanted to be real competitive.
one way of is to put more on the table than they ask.
right now they are asking us to put engineering, right-of-way questions, utility relocation, and up front, and if we put that on the table and say also x percent of the construction cost that gives us a collect in the positive column to be more competitive.
>> you mean more dollars per project on the table.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> these relative to tex dot.
>> do we know if there are other applications for projects in this area?
>> I haven't heard of anything any.
we have had city of san marcus, hays county did about five, and winston county was one of the first to come in at 151 million on five different corridors.
>> historically.
>> historically.
>> how often do you put out--
>> under state legislation we are to do it annually.
>> annually.
>> the city of Austin does have a pass through finance agreement with them for the connectors down at the south end of loop one.
it is something they signed off on last year, I believe.
>> do you think there is an advantage if a project already has right-of-way and is partially under construction as in the 2304 project which there has been utility relocation and things like that already taken application.
>> I think that is a good project.
you're right Travis County purchased the right-of-way some time ago.
we were able to get safety funding to do continuous left turn lane.
utilities are being moved and it will lower the cost and make it more cost effective.
it does, it's in the campo long range plan, it has a lot of good benefits to it and I would hope would rank high.
>> Commissioner Davis.
>> what I really wanted to find out, and I guess maybe you have answered this and maybe you haven't, the amount of money that has been set aside as far as pass through financing for this particular fiscal year is the number of applications that have come in for this set amount of money.
i understand that listening to what steve had to say earlier, by may 11, those that really are looking at this very seriously as far as applying for this amount of money within that particular, what is it, 300 million?
how much is that?
>> 300 million available this year.
>> available this year.
and that is statewide.
>> yes, sir.
>> that means there's going to be some real across the state of Texas, that is going to be really looked at seriously.
i guess the point is, has there ever been any money left on the table in a statewide initiative for passthrough financing?
could you answer that question?
>> sure.
the last program in 2009 approximately $50 million was not awardrd for passthrough financing.
maximum could have been 300 million but 250 million was allocated to projects.
>> what happens to the money that was left on the table because county did not apply for it and it's just left out there?
what happened?
did it roll over into this amount this year?
or what happened to that money?
>> I'm not sure but I can get back an answer to you.
>> that would be good.
>> it can be rolled over to future projects.
>> it could be good to know what happened to this $50 million.
>> I can get that information if you like, I can get it to steve.
>> oh, that would be good to have in that regard.
also, let me ask this question.
since the competition may be stiff for that, it appears that the lesser the amount of money as far as the applications is concerned, the more likelihood you may get stronger consideration to get that money from this pot of money.
i really don't know what all of the bells and whistles are to receipt of this money.
however, I think there are certain things that need to be in place.
of course, we are looking at a and e, stuff like that which once, according to what I have heard, is significant.
along with the possibility of right-of-way acquisition, which is significant.
we don't know all the right-of-way, at least I don't know all the right-of-way implications in this particular efforts.
so there's a lot of loose ends that may need to be factored in.
steve, I'm assuming all of these have been factored in accordingly.
but where I'm kind of going is that I want to make sure that county road projects get the most bang for the buck as far as funding, not state project per se, but the county road projects.
i want to be sure we get the most bang out of the buck for looking at this.
>> this particular program is only for onstate system roadway.
>> I understand.
and it's all for state stuff.
of course, I want to make sure that we get as much money from the county's perspective.
of course, this is something that is dealing basically with state roads and things of that nature.
so I have a real concern about that.
>> Commissioner, I think I know where you are going with that.
and that is, if I had $50 million in my hand and I had the choice of spending it on a state highway or several county roads in the manor area, for example, I think I would get more bang for the buck with the county roads.
but I would also send a message to tex dot that fm 973, in that area in particular, is extremely important to us.
and that they should make efforts to at least get it shovel ready so that if an opportunity to them, comes to them, say in another stimulus package or whatever they can pick it up and run with it immediately or at least get into the right-of-way and then build it.
a message from the court or from me at tnr to tex dot, we can send that and say, if we decide, if it's decided not to do 973 with this, we could tell them that doesn't mean it's not important to us.
but we really feel strongly that tex dot needs to place a real high priority on it.
>> I guess how do they do that.
that is where I was trying to get to, to make sure that if not this time, especially putting the money on county roads, of which I'm leaning toward more so than anything, how could we bring that to tex dot's attention that yes, fm 973 is a high priority project for us in precinct one.
that is why I asked about the leftover money.
that was my intent to see what kind of leftover money could be utilized to make sure that that is part of it or even with the stimulus package money.
i'm just listening here.
i'm l--letting you know I'm not letting tex dot off the hook but I want to be sure they keep it mindful this is still a top priority project for them.
>> I think maybe if the court wanted to we could draft up a resolution for you.
there's always cost to the district engineer.
but we can go with draft a resolution for court to approve if you prefer that way to get the message to them.
>> okay.
>> one of these projects on the trace we just approved to send to the city of Austin?
>> no, sir.
>> no.
>> okay.
>> these projects are state highway only.
>> state highway only, yeah.
>> okay.
let's say that we approve the 70 million or so today.
based on the time between approval and turning dirt in the other projects, about when would we need the cash available?
>> I was estimating last week that, for 973 in particular, that we would ask the court, two million for the next fiscal year to get design started, then another one and a half to two years after that we would come to the court and ask for another two million or whatever it is to acquire right-of-way.
construction would start anywhere from a year and a half to two after that.
so from now until we actually need the money for construction, six years, I would plan on.
but we are going to need pieces earlier to get the design done and the right-of-way acquired.
>> let's say we approve the 70 million, put it on our, we want to be a partner with, good partner with tex dot list, and money becomes available with tex dot between now and six years from now.
do we think tex dot would go ahead and fund these projects from that available funding?
>> good question.
i would doubt it.
>> .
>> let's go to tex dot to answer that.
>> I was looking.
>> (laughter.)
>> there's agreement that it will be in place --
>> nothing on you, mr.
collins.
just saying.
putting you in an awkward position.
>> there will be contract chal agreement between the county and the state.
some of it will be a lot more needs than dollars available.
>> that $50 million left on the table last time, that is why I ask that question.
i'm still back there to that answer, what happened to that $50 million.
>> you are going to get that to us or try to.
>> yes, sir.
>> let me ask you this then.
let's say of the eastern Travis County projects that we knew about, those on the table and those that should be on the table, where those one fit on the priority.
>> fm 973 project compared to all the other county projects in this map.
>> and eastern Travis County.
>> okay.
>> it will be the highest state project on my list if I had a list of state projects that needed to be done.
i have a higher county, several higher county road projects that I would prefer to be done but I would separate state projects, that is number one.
>> what about the list we approved this morning that had county city and hopefully private partner contribution projects in eastern Travis County?
>> right.
>> that was a list of 13, wasn't it?
>> the ones we just spoke about.
>> yeah, where does this one fit among those?
because 70 million bucks is 70 million bucks.
if you are going to spend five or six years down the road it's easier than spending next year.
at the same time it's a significant amount of money and it's important for us to know where this project falls among the list of the other eastern Travis County projects that we are looking at.
>> that has been a point of quite a bit of discussion.
if you ask the city of manor, the 973 is the highest brother--priority.
>> I'm asking county staff.
>> probably number two or three of all the roads we talked about today.
>> it is near the top.
>> it is near the top, yes.
>> well, it's $60 million but payable in full in five or six years.
>> we would need to have the bulk of the money, the construction dollars in five or six years, that's right.
>> between now and then we would need two or three million.
>> right.
>> anything else we need to hear?
that we haven't heard already?
there there was a bit of other information.
>> okay.
>> someone had asked about interest.
we go sell our bonds we are going have to pay interest on that.
i asked tex dot manager if that was reimbursable.
financing is not.
only construction is reimbursable.
i have two consultants lined up.
i spoke about one last week, klotz associates.
they are available to do the application and complete within the time frame for $18,500.
the other firm working on the 973 project is asking for 22,500.
because their argument is that klotz is familiar with the 1626, 2304 project from a past application we made back in 2007.
they don't have that advantage.
>> let's get a reality check, ms.
rio.
headed back to you Commissioner Davis in just a minute.
>> the court received the memo that was distributed I believe on March 25.
just a couple points as we're talking about the cash flow.
my understanding, and might be that I need to correct what is on here, but on the first page, I do have the cash flow that I had understood from tnr with regards to engineering, rights of way, construction for these two projects which I actually broke into three projects.
it has here at least that the construction monies would be needed in fy 13.
just wanted to point that out.
might be that needs to be revised.
the other thing I wanted to at least point out to the court in this memo is the amount of interest that you would be responsible for if tex dot sounds like would not be reimbursing.
and that amount is for the first two projects that totaled about 14 million over 20 years at planning figure 4.5 percent, seven and a half or 7.7 million, and then interest on the 51 and a half million over 20 years at 4.5 percent is 27.9 million.
>> for the whole chunk, what does that add up to?
if we were to do all three projects.
>> it would be approximately 35 million in interest only.
on top of the constructions costs reimbursable and the costs not reimbursable which I understood to be the right-of-way, engineering permitting and environmental clearing and utility.
>> that is a hundred million right quick.
>> yes, sir.
>> your total comes to that?
>> not what it came to judge.
104 or 5 million.
>> with interest.
>> that is interest.
>> no, no, no.
>> 70 plus the 30.
>> right.
>> that is 105.
>> right.
>> are these definitely a 20-year payback?
i thought that was negotiated based upon volume of traffic.
>> according to the program manager they have a minimum and maximum payback time and they try to get the reimbursements done in a 12-15 year window.
>> they only reimburse construction costs.
>> correct.
>> excluding interest.
>> that.
>> that helps some though.
that would be $60 million that they reimburse us over a long payback period.
>> yes, sir.
>> is what I'm hearing, right?
>> right.
>> we would be seeing that in not 20, 15.
>> that is what I understand from the program manager in conversations yesterday, that they try to pay back in a 12-15 year window.
>> pbo's figures are based on 20 years.
>> that, because this type of debt would be issued on a 20-year typically.
>> right.
>> which for planning purposes is what we have used for calculation.
>> so looking at this then, as far as the construction, which is the only, appears to be the only reimbursable category that we could maybe look at, I'm basically looking at of course 1626, but I'm also looking at 973.
as far as reimbursable over the period of time, we are talking about basically, if I'm looking at this correctly, and if I'm not, then somebody correct me.
we are talking about $62 million that will be reimbursed back to Travis County if we twor take this route.
this is not the reimbursement on the interest.
just on the construction aspect of this as we , if we move into that direction.
not we are standing to assure that what we approve this morning we sent that to the city that list on item, the early item we looked at and said these are the projects of course that are county roads with about $50 million for those, basically right around that ballpark figure.
however, I want to make sure that we all are in the same ballpark as far as the reimbursables that we will be receiving from the state on this particular issue of dealing with fm 973 and also 1626 does that still hold true as far as the construction reimbursable around $62 million?
is that wreck?
am I in the ballpark on that?
>> Commissioner, we show the construction portion for 1626 and 973 to be about 53 and a half million.
>> where am I getting 62?
>> it includes the second portion of that 1626.
i was getting 60 million and half.
>> I would recommend that 1626 and 24 be joined together.
i don't think one will be very effective without the other.
>> so 2304 plus 1626.
>> 14250 construction?
all construction.
>> the construction amount for the 23004 and 1626 project is $14,250,000.
>> the construction amount for fm 973 is 46,300,000.
>> so which is a grand total of what?
>> 60,550,000.
>> okay.
now let me ask this question.
in the tex dot scenario of this project, passthrough financing, what would that do to, and this is $300 million statewide, statewide, is there any, and there's a lot of folks applying for this money, no doubt about it.
does that jeopardize, or would that jeopardize Travis County's effort in these two scenarios as it looks at all the other applications, and tex dot has to answer this, coming throughout the state of Texas as far as the application, as far as the application process looking at these particular monies that may be made available under that $300 million scenario.
>> the question was asked of our program manager.
he kind of shied away from giving an answer.
i would do the same thing too.
we just, depending on the types of projects submitted, the mer the of each project, there's 17 factor s looked at.
it would be the first to last based on not knowing what applications are going to be turned in.
the other option could be also they might want to submit two separate projects and have them stand each on their own merits.
>> is that possible?
>> yes, sir.
>> not joining them, but bringing them in separate.
and I don't want to knock 1626 off, 23004, $14 million, and saying fm 973 is a bigger piece or bigger bite out of apple for the $300 million.
but again, it is a an --a priority project for precinct one also.
i'm trying to look at this but not knocking precinct three with these two projects of 2304 and 1626 combined.
i'm trying to get to the guts and nuts and bolts of this issu.
>> we will submit two applications, right?
>> we can.
>> we consider both of them to be number one and let the state decide.
>> can we do that?
>> I don't see why not.
we may submit on 2007, it was a combination of several projects and we could have broken them out and submitted individually.
i don't know that there's any disadvantage to doing that.
>> do we even have rank or request we submit two?
ranking them both first is the same thing.
seems to me 23 they are short of money they would obviously choose the one that costs less.
if they look at traffic and some of the this is that transportation experts typically look at, they would choose the 1626 and 2304 because the numbers are grating.
>> right.
>> the numbers at 973 may be greater ten years into the future.
so unless something is done, 1626 and 2304 based on the facts that we have, ten years from now it will be a lot worse than it is.
>> right.
it's definitely situation where we can put, I think judge, we ends up coming with a two application process, fm 1626 along with 2304 being one.
then of course fm 973 being the other application process.
i think for what we are trying to end up doing I think is to put on the radar screen there's definitely a need for tex dot to give fm 973 the priority that it needs for future growth situations in that area.
especially with the other things that we sent back to the city of Austin on the other cost sharing efforts that we are making.
like I say, I have no problem with it per se.
but how did we--
>> but do you have a motion for it?
>> pardon me?
>> but do you have a portion for them?
>> yes.
i do.
that is the motion.
>> second.
>> all right.
>> the 973 project, does it touch down the manor at all?
>> within the corporate limits, I'm not sure.
it skirts very closely.
>> at some point it seems to me that we have to go down and sit and chat with them about their resources available for transportation projects, et cetera, especially where we brought them up several times.
i guess they have been talking to county staff.
>> they have, yes.
>> but ten years ago manor was a poor little city.
i don't know that that is the case today.
>> that is what they are telling me, judge.
>> they always say, even I say that when I'm out of Travis County.
>> we have addressed the pry or needs --priority needs for 973 and have discussed these.
for the benefit of anybody watching, these segments are the natural progression of 1626 coming out hatesthat will help relieve some traffic out of brody lane.
that is the priority of getting that in place as quickly as possible.
>> it's definitely a fix-it situation.
if the state would look at that, I think Commissioner Eckhardt brought a good point and that is to make sure we do not have a bottleneck situation on brody lane as expressed this morning.
we want to eliminate and make sure that doesn't happen again.
>> there were several issues with brody that could be resolved with this that don't exist on 973.
one is it's a terrible traffic problem.
if something is not done out of manor that will become like brody.
>> right.
>> another one is--
>> do you have money for consultants?
>> yes, sir, I do.
>> in the tnr budget.
>> yes, sir.
>> we had 18,500.
do you have an amount for what the 97 project is?
and you would be able to cover that intern.
>> yes, 22,5.
i believe we can.
>> okay.
we may as well see another issue and schedule based on, if you need to rethink the dates you gave us previously today, get those to pbo so we can realistically look at fiscal impact.
>> okay, I will do that.
>> my question, and I don't know if y'all can answer at this point, what will it do to the tax rate of $70 million borrow.
>> I can't answer that necessarily but I can get back to the court on that.
one thing we did do in the memo, however, is provide a table that shows you our currents projection as far as for planning purposes what we see on the horizon for short-term and long-term co, certificates of obligation, as well as future long-term and/or voter approved debt.
and our recommendation to the court was that for planning purposes we have included 200 million in the next bond election for roads and parks, than would, obviously, impact that, and our recommendation would be that come off the top.
obviously, court can direct us to use whatever you would like for planning purposes.
>> there isn't a whole lot.
>> there is a, as you can see on here already with the planning figures that we have that include the 200 million for roads and parks as well as close to 200 million for other projects that we have listed here, the total debt service goes from 68.6 in 2010 up to 98.8 in 2014 and up to 106.3 in 2017.
so there are some large steps coming up that I want to at least highlight for you.
>> why wouldn't we try to draft language that would obligate us to use the reimbursement money to pay down?
>> one thing--
>> road debt.
>> exactly.
>> one thing with our bond counsel a few minutes ago, he would obviously, both flat and bound counsel and the county attorney's office, would needs to be involved as we move forward, if this is the court's desire, so that we can see what kind of options are available as far as different kinds of cos or alternative funding for this type of project.
>> okay.
>> we can withdraw from this until we execute the contract, I take it.
>> yes.
>> if we wake up tomorrow morning--
>> as far as I know.
>> and that was going to be my next question.
with regard to the negotiation of this contract chal relationship with tex dot, appears that would be crucial in our, in moving forward, is having the most robust team negotiating this as possible.
so would we be doing, utilizing both county attorney's office and vincent and el kins?
is that what proposal?
>> that is what we would propose.
and we would ask that lad be involved as our financial adviser as we go forward.
>> I think we ought to give that additional thought and have an appropriate item on the court's agenda to dress that.
>> yes, sir.
>> real soon.
>> yes, sir.
>> any more discussion of the motion.
the motion to approve these two segments and the other project, looks like three in the backup but really two.
>> correct.
>> one broken down in two segments.
>> right.
>> I think for safety purposes, the only thing is I want us to remember that we do need to keep an eye on the debt.
then for the bond election, that we maybe go back and follow pbo's recommendation that these are two projects that have already been approved for debt.
then there's another list that we'll need for local projects.
>> well taken.
>> can I ask for one thing as follow-up to this.
because I think that it was, the judge reined me in appropriately last Tuesday with regard to tex dot not asking us to do this.
this is our request.
i do see that we are taking on more responsibility for funding projects that have traditionally been state obligations.
i'm wondering if as a follow-up to the possibility of taking on considerably more debt to do what is arguably the state's business, that we look at ways under the current law and ways that we might advocate for the legislature under new law to inject some progressivity into our property tax system.
it is going to be a higher burden and some folks can't take any more burden.
the ability to pay, the amount of property you have has only a nominal relationship to one's actual wealth.
>> the tax rate, Commissioner, you are currently at about $89 on the average homestead where you are right now with your debt and your financial guidelines.
when the entire $60 million is issued and we have the debt service in, which jessica had said was 2013, that would add an additional approximately $15 to the tax on your average homestead.
in comparison, last year your tax was $42.26 cents.
on the average home schedule.
right now you are double that going into 11.
>> we will work on reducing tha.
>> just to follow your point, in 2013 it's going to almost be up to $102.
>> unless we take steps to lower it.
we vote the tax rate and the budget.
>> that is why on pbo's recommendation to look at this debt.
>> put me pbo's band wagon, y'all.
or have I been on there all the time?
>> no, I'm on it.
i just don't want us to forget.
maybe we need to memorialize.
>> we have assumed that for 2011 we will ramp up a bond study or bond committees.
in January with an election in November.
and the issuance will begin in 2012 and stretch out to about 2016.
so about five years.
as you know, that sometimes goes beyond a five-year period.
so if we ever, if we needed to try to work through that, we could.
but for planning purposes, we are assuming time years on the total issue for the--
>> the other thing that I don't want us to forget, did I see something written where if this step is taking thane then you don't need --
>> I wouldn't count on that.
>> I wount bank on that.
>> also need to be I think looked at also as far as the five, ten, 15 and 20 year, I think tex dot was looking for some of the reimbursement stuff.
so I want to be sure that still is looked at along with the resolution that you had brought in, steve, to make sure that tex dot, we put on the radar screen this is kind of critical, especially with the fm 973, along with of course the fm 1626 combined with fm 2304.
i think it's pretty significant especially if we are looking at reimbursement opportunities that we have, that will be made available through the state as far as paying us back for what we are doing.
it's kind of critical in my mind.
so that is as far as the discussion, judge, I already made the motion.
and who seconded?
>> the judge.
>> I seconded the motion but I had forgotten.
>> okay.
>> the motion includes hiring two consultants.
paying them from tnr available funds.
>> okay.
>> who are they, for the record?
>> klaus associates.
>> which project?
>> that will be the 1626, 2304 project.
>> all right.
and the other one?
>> is.
>> the 18,500 for one of them.
who was the other one?
>> didn't get the name in the record.
>> I have it right here.
it's lja engineering and surveying out of houston.
>> okay.
>> houston?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> my hometown.
>> hmm.
theirs won 22,500 and klaus would be 18,500.
>> are they on our list of rotating engineers?
>> knows, --no, sir, I need to confirm with purchasing.
i have a tentative agreement with marvin.
we don't have to go with the traditional rfq process.
we should be able to communicate directly with them because of their knowledge of this project.
i don't think another firm could prove they are better qualified.
>> specialized expertise.
>> yes, sir.
>> okay, anymore discussion or delay?
all in favor.
show Commissioners Davis, Eckhardt, Huber and yours truly voting in favor.
Commissioner Gomez abstaininging.
thank you all very much.
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 2:10 PM
