Travis County Commissioners Court
April 20, 2010,
Item 14
>> > 14 is to consider and take appropriate action for the county attorney's office to create two full time employees, one county attorney division director and one legal secretary.
>> morning, judge, commissioners. This is an item that dates back quite some time in carrying out the responsibility of our office to provide legal services, quality and efficient legal services to the commissioners court we've identified over the number of years a growing need and an increased activity of the court in this area with development law and trying to maximize the influence the commissioners could have in the development in the etj. We've just gone through item number 13 before on the comprehensive plan, so i'm preaching to the choir on this. It's a concern i've had for a number of years. I was going to request it in our budget request last year, but because of the resource concerns, i did not do that. In contemplating whether we would include it in this year's budget request in a conversation with a commissioner or two, i pointed out that this was something i was likely going to do and the concern came up with the timing of the comprehensive plan and the county's efforts and that these issues seem to be increasing and not waiting until the next budget, that it would probably be visible and a wise move to consider bringing this on if it was the will of the commissioners court in the budget. So what you have before you is a request for a division director, a secretary. I believe you have the budget amendments and you've had the memo from tnr in support of it. You have a memo from your office in support of it. I am available for any questions.
>> let me ask this: i'm going to support this. I'm going to let you know that right off the top, but my question is in supporting this with the two f.t.e.'s to your shop to deal with land use issues for travis county, when would that actually take place if we get the votes to -- to support this particular item? When would we actually see the results of this decision?
>> i believe -- it is my hope, let me start with that. I can't give you any solid decision on it, but it is my hope that we could have a person on board, in our office within a month from the date that you approved it. 30 days within the office, sitting, working, ready to get your calls within 30 days.
>> i have no problem with it. Other court members may want to make comments.
>> i have several comments to make. So how many attorneys do we have on board that are supposed to cover this area now?
>> we have multiple -- we have the litigation side, which of course is in support of the development areas of txi, wmi, issues with regard to the regulatory control and the appeals that we've had. But with regard to the transactions work, i think we have two to three designated to help. That is in addition to the transaction duties that they carry out for all the other elected and department heads. What we're really talking about here, judge, is an additional work load. I've got some hours to show what the gravel pit and what the landfills have caused us in the last few years, but it more these are becoming more and more complex issues. There is a greater drive for us to be involved in the legislative aspects of this to try to change the law after we maximize our use of it. So it's the giving staff that we have now dedicated to general transaction work. I think those of you that see -- particularly joe gieselman would probably be, chris gilmore and then john hilly and that is included in there, bcp and a number of other things that we do for tnr.
>> we have lots of good support from the county attorney's office, but what i find quite often, not only on a week to week basis with the commissioners court, but increasingly now as we approach the next legislative session, is an attorney that would work side by side with tnr in the development of our codes, in the development of new law, development of actually public policy with regard to land use. And i think that's for me, that's where i really feel i need additional support from the county attorney's office. And i would look for this position to do that. And as early as last week, for instance, we were called in to make some testimony before the state legislature. They're already considering these issues. What happens between now and january may be more important than what happens after january when the session gets going. And then quite frankly, almost weekly we have things that i would love to be able to sit down with an attorney responsible for this area, just to brainstorm contract issues, policy issues in this area of land use.
>> does the budget office have a position?
>> judge, the budget rules require such action obviously to be brought before the commissioners court midyear for consideration. I see really two options that you have. One, go ahead and approve it today and we'll put the necessary budget adjustment on court for the following week, and create the slot today. The second option would be to direct pbo to include the position in the fy '11 preliminary budget and to bring it forward in that regard. So those would be really the two options that pbo had -- in looking at this, short of not approving it, those would be the two options that pbo sees that would be available to the court in terms of this request. In terms of a position one way or the other, i'm really indifferent. Quite honestly, we can do it either way. I see pros and cons to both.
>> joe has indicate whad he thinks this person owe indicated what he thinks this person should do. So does legal have a description of duties and responsibilities?
>> yes, i do, judge, but i think what's more important, i think y'all should be less concerned about what i think this position should do, and i'm more interested in what you think this position should do. You're the ones that have had to sit up there and deal with each and every one of these positions. You're the ones that have had to go into executive session and gather advice. In a way, you're in the best position to judge the level of legal resources of the quality and amount of legal resources you've gotten so far in these areas, and are you satisfied? Do you see a need for more? I think it's frit clear what we could use it for. We've discussed a number of those ideas already, but it's really what you would want to use this position for, any development issues that you see proactive, coming down the pike, any legislative ideas that you have and like to see our support on. That's what we would use it for. This person is designated to respond to the commissioners court and to tnr.
>> it's a 200,000-dollar request.
>> and the support staff, which we cut, by the way, down from our normal team, knowing that the resources we have. But yes, it is a costly item, no doubt about that.
>> and it comes at a time when we've asked the other departments to implement a voluntary hiring freeze.
>> absolutely correct. I'll also mention that -- well, to add something to this, there's another rule, another budget rule that comes into play here. And my understanding if under these rules if any position brought in may be here in budget that the salary for that position has to be brought in at entry level. I do not expect that i will succeed in getting a division director of the quality that we're looking for into this position at entry level. And in order to enhance my success of getting quality that i want in this position, i'm going to have to supplement that with my own discretionnary funds, and i've agreed to to do, probably in the range of $20,000 a year. So i'm committing my own discretionary funds for this for your support. But it is an expensive item and it will be --
>> so it is a request of 180,000?
>> no. I'm saying in addition.
>> 200?
>> i think the amount under that existing request will not be adequate to bring in what you want in terms of a quality lawyer to handle this business. And therefore i am committing to include whatever it takes above that, and i anticipate at this point it will be in the nature of 20,000 a year from my discretionary funds to support this position.
>> judge, are you through?
>> i wasn't quite through, but --
>> go ahead. I can wait until you finish.
>> i was about to say i guess i would feel better if the court were to put together a document describing what we think this person should do if hired. We've not done that. Apparently a couple of members of the court have gotten together and they understand what they should do. And i read that into fact that two members of the court sponsor the item. The problem i have is this --
>> let me interrupt. It's their item. There's a budget rule that prohibits us from making this request.
>> i said two members of the court sponsored the item.
>> you're correct.
>> one question i'm against this one is that it comes not from the department where the two f.t.e.'s would be placed, and that department is headed by an elected official. This is a history making initiative. I mean, to my knowledge we haven't done that historically. There are ways to get it done, but we have not done it this way, i don't think. Two is that it's outside the budget process. Three is that it's $200,000, which is a large amount. And if we're going to consider this, i think the court ought to be a lot more actively involved in putting together a document describing what the position would do. Two is that we ought to take it up as part of the budget process in fairness to the other departments headed by elected officials and appointed officials. So i think that it would be inappropriate and bad precedent for us to do, so i would counsel against it. That's all i have to say on it. Commissioner gomez.
>> and let me add on to -- the main reason, instantly when i saw it the budget rules come to mind. And the budget rules are there because we need to hold on to some strong commitments we have made regarding the fund balance, the ability of all county departments staying within their budgets, and of course the ending fund balance, which helps us maintain our strong aaa rating. And having just come back from dallas meeting with our raters, the people who rate us, i think all of those things kind of figure in very strongly in how we conduct our business. So the reason for the budgets is obvious. We have to follow those so that we can not only make sure that we give direction to all of the county departments as to how we do business here at the county. And even though there some really, really great things that need to be done in county government, and this is no less, but i think every county department can certainly justify their ability to do more if we would give them more. And obviously we want to do that, but we have to maintain our constrain our stiers, our needs -- our desires, our needs and our wants. On top of that, the fact that if i were given an opportunity to list the things that i need for this person -- i would want to do that, but not in order to approve the position. I think we need to go ahead and let pbo process this as part of the budget process. But if i were given an opportunity, i would say well, what i need in order to deal with these issues, landfill and txi, i need legislation. I need the legislature to give us that authority. I don't know that more attorneys, you know, no matter how good they are, are going to get me that authority. You know, they're going to be able to then read what is in that legislation and show us -- give us advice, good advice as to how we handle those issues. Until i have that authority from the legislators that we somehow can't manage to get around to getting the representatives from the rural counties to give us that authority, i don't know what else. We can get probably a large battery of great attorneys, but i don't know how that is going to help us get that authority from the legislature. So that's going to be my number one desire, if given opportunity to make that list.
>> we sent out a press release and each one of you got a copy of that press release on this dais. We sent it out to all the media sources and we talked about the -- about land use, how our constituents out there come to this court and do not understand that they're in an area, an incorporated area and also in the etj, which we are not able to protect them for intrusive development that could be adjacent to a home or neighborhood. Somewhere along the lines -- it's not that we're complaining about the type of development that moves out there. That's not the case. But i think information need to be provided to persons whereby they're able to know that the county has very limited land use authority. We heard this morning about a plan, the comprehensive land use plan of the city of austin, whether its particular jurisdiction has an authority to deal with land use under zoning and other aspects. The counties are very limited in what we do. We have to follow a trail of regulation and things like that. At the end of the day we're going to need a person that understand and hopefully can lay things out. I hear folks all the time -- not all the time, but sometimes say please don't duck east of i-35. We've been getting dumped on this with lilz, we're dumped on this with txi, we're dumped on this with above ground storage tanks near schools. I hear that cry all the time and my hands are tied because of the fact we can't really do anything about it because of our limited land use authority. Hopefully this will -- hopefully this will lead us into a direction whereby we can have a person that can go to the legislature when the legislature convenes, when land use authority issues come up before the state legislature, and we'll have a person coming out of the county attorney's office that can maybe represent us in a more comprehensive manner. Hopefully we can have a person on board that can dictate exactly what we're going to be requesting and requiring when it comes to a travis county comprehensive plan, which is very critical. It's a hand and foot operation with the city of austin. The city of austin of course -- we have a partnership with them when it comes to the etj. Under title 30, for example, we work collaboratively on those things. In an unincorporated area we're out there by our self, but we still need to have i think some type of person -- a person in here that understands and is able to work towards the concern that this commissioners courts has. I heard them say we can create the position today and we can come back with the funding source next week to actually fund this 201,000 -- a little more than $200,000 for the director and a legal assistant, two positions. And they also suggested option 2 was that we can look at bringing this under the fy '11 budget, which would be later on and we look at this funding for fy '11. But point is that when i hear the folks in precinct 1 continue to cry out and cry out loud and suggest that commissioners help us in what we need to do -- we're not only asking help from not only the county attorney's office, but in the press release i asked the citizens of this community, the residents of travis county, to also contact their state legislators to let them know how in dire straits we are in to acquire a more comprehensive situations for land use. It's the critical pivot point today. Not tomorrow, but today, that we pursue this particular regard. And if the county attorney's office can come up with $20,000, i think we could come up with the rest as far as the difference of that, which brings a little more than $21,000. So i'm going to move approval of this whenever everybody else gets done. I would like to move approval of it.
>> can i make one comment?
>> commissioner huber?
>> i just wanted to say that i think that the -- that i agree with the judge and commissioner gomez in that we need to be very vigilant on when we change process around here. We have an obligation to our taxpayers to be good stewards of the revenues that we do have. In that respect i would like to say that as it relates to stepping out of usual procedure here, i think the county attorney did a very good job of demonstrating how the need is there. It wasn't presented last year by the county attorney because of the concerns on budget constraints, but what we've continued to see was a mounting pressure and given the fact that the legislature only meets every two years and the concerns that we have with needing land use legal advice in not only moving forward with the comprehensive plan at this point in time so that we can be in the right kind of parallel with the city of austin to maximize the opportunities there. And because so much is going on with the interim charges at the legislature, which were referenced erwin center, indeed last week -- referenced earlier, indeed last week, the question was asked in the hearing -- the opponents of more county land use authority say you're not using the authority you get. We had a good, solid person on board working with us who knows the law, who knows the options, who can brief those who are making testimony, then we can position ourselves better for getting that land use authority in the next legislative session. And october is too late to move with that for us. So i just -- i think it's unfortunate we're in the economic times that we are, but i think as good stewards of our taxpayer money, it's important that we realize that this kind of expenditure now may indeed save us more expenditures in the future with the kinds of lawsuits that we get in, the kinds of concerns that we need to deal with that may cause more county staff time, more legal resources. So i think that this is one of those times where we just need to be flexible and meet the needs.
>> well, one additional question that i have --
>> county attorney david escamilla. We'll give everybody an opportunity, or two. David?
>> i'll be quick, commissioner. Thank you for those comments. I'm concerned about the citizens of precinct 1, two, three, four, the entire county. And my worry when these issues crop up and the citizens are calling the commissioners court for help is that usually follows with me getting a call. What i'm concerned about is to have someone call it the development legal czar of this county that we can be correct when we say we don't have the authority here, we really need more legal authority from the legislature that we're correct and not be undercut by someone coming back and going actually, if you had looked here. We need to look outside the box, we need to look everywhere. I'm really concerned that, one, we're correct and two, that we're timely. Usually when that question comes in we have to get learned up on it and retroactively come back and be able to give you our thoughts on it. And sadly, as you know, sometimes that can take some time while the citizens are waiting and wondering what we're doing. If i had someone just devoted to this who really learns from this experience and brings experience already that they have to the job that hopefully we can deal with the timeliness of it and have more assurance that we're correct about it when we give our first initial advice on it.
>> commissioner gomez, then commissioner eckhardt.
>> from pbo, i imagine the sowrt of funding for this is the -- the source of funding is allocated reserve?
>> it would have to come from allocated reserve.
>> and what is the balance now? The balance of that allocated reserve?
>>
>> [ inaudible ]. I will have to get that number.
>> and that whatever the balance; that's supposed to last us through september 30th.
>> that is correct.
>> i need to know what the balance of that allocated reserve is.
>> if you will give me just a minute, i can go get that for you.
>> because it will come out of there.
>> yes.
>> commissioner eckhardt? It's probably behind the backup for number 6.
>> it is, but i don't have the backup for number 6.
>> your county judge does.
>> [ laughter ]
>> what is the balance now? And this is like a checkbook, right, where we keep writing checks out of here and then we figure out what's left for us?
>> that's correct. And you also have in that backup, which i failed to bring down with me, and i apologize --
>> commissioner eckhardt will scw her questions while you do that.
>> (indiscernible).
>> there are some ear marks on there.
>> but it's probably less than a million dollars.
>> yeah.
>> through the budget process we put ear marks on those reserves so that we don't spend it on other things.
>> allocated reserve status -- currently we have a balance of a little over $2 million in allocated reserve. Then when you put the potential expenses against that, the net number is 295,000 remaining, should all of the expenses come out of there.
>> okay. So that's what this would come out of.
>> that's correct.
>> and this is supposed to last us until september 30th?
>> yes, ma'am.
>> what was that number again?
>> 295,000.
>> the current balance, 2,027,317. After all of the allocated reserve adjustments to date, and then we have a total of another 1.7 million in possible future expenses for a remaining balance of 295,629.
>> commissioner eckhardt?
>> i wanted to respond to two key points with regard to the scope of work that this position would take on as well as the rules regarding the budgetary process. With regard to the scope of work that this position would take on, this is essentially a client driven request in every respect. The county attorney's office response to our needs with regard to land use planning are driven by -- are essentially -- absolutely understandable reasons are driven by cases. They are episodic in nature and we call upon transactions or litigation on a case-by-case basis, putting us in a reactive position -- this isn't the slag on the county attorney's office, this is how law firms work. But in our case, our needs are for something that is policy driven rather than case driven. We have a need for a more comprehensive view that as joe gieselman very, very succinctly points out in the bullet points in his memo, would be given with a more global thinking with regard to both statutory authority and code authority at the local level that spans across jurisdictional lines, including the 20 -- i believe there are 27 municipalities in travis county as well as additional authorities that play in this area, such as the lcra, groundwater conservation districts, utilities and various other governmental and quasi governmental entities that impact us. So an episodic case by case approach has served us well up to a point, but i would say that the starting point for our scope for this position are those bullet points in joe's memo. I think they're very good bullet points and they pretty much cover the territory. We could certainly expand on those bullet points underneath each bull lit to give more specificity to it, but i think basically that is the scope. With regard to the budget rules, i also am very mindful this this is an unusual request in its procedure. But it is not outside -- it is not unanticipated by our budget rules. It would be an exception to our budget rules, but the rules are ours and the rule itself does provide for midyear exception if you come to commissioners court, if you make the case. In this case it is odd because it's the client coming to the commissioners court rather than the division of government. And i recognize that that is unusual, but i think -- i think that the case is made that this is needed.
>> mr. Reeferseed, shed light on this for us.
>> i want to sing praises for you and for commissioner gomez because i'm not for rules generally --
>> that makes me nervous, mr. Reeferseed
>> [ laughter ]
>> i know. It's not that i'm a big fan of rules necessarily, but in this --
>> [ laughter ] in this budgetary function that we're talking about, i admire your steadfast understanding that we need to stick to some kind of structure on allocating funds. And there are procedures and if, gosh, you've got to have that extra money, there are ways that they can do it. After all, we're talking about lawyers.
>> [ laughter ] so anyway...
>> hey! Hey!
>> mr. Especially stein has joined us. Give us your name and full title.
>> my name is deeks eckstein, the intergovernmental relations coordinator for the county.
>> and how long have you been with the county?
>> i've been here for almost exactly 18 months now, judge.
>> okay.
>> much to my delight. And i hope the county's delight. But i am -- i just want to come up and see if i could be helpful to the conversation. I wanted to respond, commissioner gomez, to your comments about the notion that hiring more lawyers is not necessarily going to get us any change over at the legislature, but i think commissioner huber actually responded to that much better than i could. Part of the problem that we face at the legislature is land use policy is actually very muddled at the legislature. There are -- there's a general principle that applies to counties and applies specifically to travis county. And there are literally dozens of exceptions where a certain county with a certain lake has a certain land use power for the 100-yards around that lake and so forth. So it's a very complex situation and as commissioner huber as pointed out, the easiest line of attack at us when we talk about needing more county authority, frankly, commissioner, is you already aren't using the authority you have. And i think what i've heard both in terms of joe gieselman's presentation and the county attorney's presentation is a notion of somebody who really can devote time to thinking through, are we using all the authority we have now and can we help -- ce we really determine that in order to help us make our case for additional legislative authority? And in that context it is of course up to the court to decide the timing of all this and the wisdom of all this, but i would point out that if we were going to try to make that case, we really need to be doing that now. We need to be making -- fashioning those policy arguments about current statutory authority now so that we can actually begin the conversation about additional statutory authority this fall, which is the time to really be doing that.
>> thank you very much for your explanation. But i also want you to not overlook the fact that i've been working with travis county since 1973 pursuing county -- this very land authority, use authority, since then. The commissioners courts, all of those years, have worked on this issue. And every time they prepare for this issue, every time the legislature comes to town. And in those 30 some-odd years, you know, i haven't seen any real progress. And we were hoping that you would help us make progress in that area, but it's obviously not something that i can do or you can do, you know, singly or even sometimes collaboratively. The legislature, we've got to figure out how that works over there, and all of these years that i've been here, i've always heard we never want to compare ourselves to the cities surrounded by lakes. But somehow we can't reach the right representative who will tell us that they want counties to have land use authority. So we continue working around these issues so that we can find something that we can work on.
>> i think finding right policy proposals and the critical mass, both legislature and public support, stakeholders support, has been an ongoing challenge.
>> absolutely. And the cuc was formed in order to help urban counties come up with a strategy that will work to get that land use authority for all of those urban counties. You can't get there yet. Tac i think was -- the cuc was in addition to tac because of the urbanization that occurs in some counties. Not there yet. And so i just didn't want you to think that i was new to this process and that i wasn't aware of the importance of land use authority and how we could -- how we've been working to get there. And nor am i saying a stranger to any of the meetings and out cry from people throughout the county.
>> i am very mindful of that.
>> my point was about to be that 18 months ago when we brought in deeks and his one support person, the county invested an additional, what, 150, $160,000. The first time we've done that. This land use authority question has been around since i've been part of the court, and that's been 20 years. It's not episodic. There are projects that come up, but year in and year out we have dealt with that issue, legislative session in and out. We have gone over, dealt with that issue. It doesn't really turn on us because we're over there doing the right thing. It turns on other counties that don't want the authority and they kill whatever you have. So i think that a better move would be for us to work with the travis county legislative delegation, get their input on what we can do in addition to what we've done historically. The other thing is that we can come up with a set of legal questions that we can get answers to, and what we've done historically is that when we have issues that are critical to us and we don't have staff on board, we typically get consultants, including legal consultants, real sophisticated computer stuff, financial systems, gasb 45. People -- you don't necessarily have that expertise in house, but what you do is you contract and get it and then when you get your product, the contract is over. Whereas if you bring two people on and you invest $200,000 or 220 if you add 20 to that, you're looking at that indefinitely. And government will have -- governmental entities, we're not good at laying people off. So when we create positions typically we keep them forever. Is there a motion?
>> judge, i move that we -- that we approve this item and we direct pbo to put out for these two f.t.e. Positions in the county attorney's office, a little more than 20,000 -- i think it's 2010285 and that's the fund to come from the allocated reserve and to create this slot and bring that back to court next week. I guess for whatever necessary transfer of those funds come out of the allocated reserve to be listed and posted next week since it's no on the agenda today -- it's not on the agenda today. That's the direction i'm directing pbo to go into.
>> is there a second? Discussion of the motion? That we haven't had already? Commissioner eckhardt?
>> it runs the gamut across criminal justice, juvenile justice, health and human services, water issues. It's far broader than just land use issues with regards to the igr. Also the igr position is essentially that of politics. And the relationships necessary to understand one another's issues. What we're talking about today is a position that is pure policy and legal, that will explore every theme available to us in lieu of getting legislative change. Right now what we're faced with, as i think david escamilla pointed out, is that while we are responding from an episodic standpoint, we don't have the luxury inside the transactions and litigation divisions to ponder how these might have been asenior citizen voided, what we might set up for the future, what authorities we have that we have not traditionally considered that may be able to -- that may be explored in order to change the facts on the ground even without legislative change.
>> why haven't we tried to do those things already? The new person in the county attorney's office will do what the county attorney directs him or her to do.
>> assuming it will be what i see is the need, the priorities of the commissioners court, identify and of course that's where we put the time, on the civil side. The criminal side is completely different.
>> we haven't put together a statement of priority. Who knows what they might be?
>> actually, you do, judge. You do that every year when you approve the budget.
>> but we don't, david. When we go through the budget, we listen to pbo about the need for the person, we either appropriate the money or not. That's the budget process.
>> i hate to open it up -- a can of worms, but that is your one opportunity with every elected official in every department.
>> in addition to that, i think that you're right, the igr position does cover a lot of different areas, but none of those areas are asking forward asking for positions midterm here. Like landfill is. And there's a reason for that. But the -- so that's important to me. The other thing that i was asking, if this position gets approved, do we have a performance metric tied to it that if they don't get land use authority this next session, it's gone?
>> again, this is not -- this is not specifically about our political win on land use at the legislature.
>> i think it is. That's the way i'm reading this.
>> that's not the way i'm reading it. The way i'm reading it is what legislative authority do we have now, have we explored every nook and cranny of that legislative authority that we currently have.
>> you can spend 40 to $50,000 and get that answer.
>> and 30 years too.
>> i would like to point out that we have doubled our population in the last 15 years and we are scheduled to double it again in the next 15 years. And the pulse of the community out there is changing. Historically -- and i do dprea that a portion of this would be working very hard on the complexities of trying to position us for land use legislation. The greater part of it would be being sure that we have maximized all the use. But the problem is just accelerating it exponentially in the need for this kind of expertise because of our population explosion. And one of the things that we're actually seeing in the -- in part because of the drought, that we're seeing is people in the community who have historically been opposed to this suddenly stepping forward and saying we do have to do this. So there are a lot of moving parts out here and this is one very critical moving part to the county in being sure that we're prepared for the explosive growth we're going to have to the extent that we can do that in the legislation.
>> commissioner, all of that is happening in travis county. When we do to the legislature, the rest of the counties of the rest of the state of texas don't view the needs of travis county on the same par as they do theirs. And the fact that they don't want counties to have land use authority, so we suffer the same consequences as all of those other counties. So it doesn't -- i know all of the things that are happening here in travis county, but i don't know -- in our legislation, our legislative delegation from here is in tune with us. We don't have any problems with our delegation being for this as another tool for us to have. It's the rest of the delegations from the rest of the state of texas. That we have to convince to vote to give all counties land use authority.
>> that's historically been the case, but the cuc has a subcommittee on this this year that's called because of heightened interest. The counties around houston are rising up because they're having the same issues. There is a lot of movements statewide for this process. The chair of the county affairs --
>> large counties. The large counties.
>> the large counties. It's happened every year for the last 20 years. The cuc has had the same committees. I've sat in the same discussions. But when you go to the legislature, the small counties don't want it. A lot of the medium counties don't want it. They kill your stuff. They kill our stuff. And the other urban counties get their stuff killed too in the land use authority area. This has been a fascinating discussion, y'all. All in favor of the motion? Show commissioners davis, eckhardt, huber voting in favor. Voting against, commissioner gomez and the county judge. Thank y'all very much.
>> thank you for your time.
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, April 20, 2010 1:53 PM
