Travis County Commissioners Court
December 20, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 12
12, consider and take appropriate action on contract negotiations for advisory team for feasibility analysis of a p 3 for new civil and family courthouse.
this may be taken into executive session for consultation with attorney exception to the open meetings act.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
cyd grimes, county purchasing agent.
>> good morning.
>> happy holidays to everyone.
>> happy holidays.
>> I was here last week to give you a briefing on where we were in our process to hire a consultant to advise the Commissioners court on moving forward with a potential public-private partnership or a standard way of getting our courthouse built.
I briefed you on our -- my trip to canada and told you that one of the main learned was to communicate, communicate, communicate.
well, we've been doing that.
I wanted to recognize this morning all the staff that have been involved in this process.
the internal team began meeting towards the end of July.
we received our proposals at the -- in the middle of July.
we've spent approximately 21 weeks meeting every Thursday mornings, sometimes an hour, sometimes all day.
I think we had one meeting that went all day.
there has been 17 staff involved.
myself as your purchasing agent, as your contracting agent, as your business agent.
also involved was belinda powell who is with p.b.o.
who will be the project administrator.
also roger jeffries with criminal justice planning who will be your project executive managing the contracts.
we had diana warner from the county auditor's office.
deanna ramirez from the planning and budget office.
susan spataro, county auditor.
April bacon who?
the county auditor's office.
we had had mr. Collins, who is our first assistant county attorney.
we had tinley aldridge also in the county attorney's office.
mr. Hilly, county attorney's office.
roger el khoury, facilities director.
lessly strict land in facilities management.
steven manila, transportation and natural resources.
we had tom nuckols, your director of -- some director, land use, real estate.
we also had jorge televara on the committee from my office.
I want to thank all the staffs for the weeks and weeks.
and rodney rose was with us in the beginning on the internal team.
he recused himself when we got the proposals because his wife was working for one of the firms and then he resigned and left us.
and then leroy nellis is our interim county budget officer and he joined us about mid-august.
so we've spent a lot of time communicating.
there's been a lot of debate and discussion on this.
as you know when we wrote this r.f.p., we did not have a clear, concise, precise scope of services.
that's why we asked for proposals.
and that is a process.
I need to make it clear that this is not a bid process.
folks just use the term bid and proposal interchangeably.
they have a very specific meaning and procurement.
a bid is a bid is a bid is a apples to apples comparison.
once a bid -- everyone is bidding on the same terms, conditions, and if you are the low bidder and you meet all the qualifications, you win and that contract becomes the contract.
the bid becomes the contract.
proposals are a negotiated process.
we do not have a clear scope of work in mind when we start out.
sometimes we are more clear than others, just depends since this is such a new process.
we knew there was going to be some iteration back and forth.
during the process we started out with ten proposals.
we reviewed those, did written scoring of those.
we narrowed those ten proposals down to four.
we brought those four firms in to do interviews and have discussions on the scope of work.
from that we rescored them again, those four teams, and we came up with the two top firms, that be kpmg and ernst and young.
with those two firms, we had more interviews, more clarifications.
one of the big issues was how much financial analysis do we need at this point where we are in the planning phase.
both teams told us that the amount of analysis we're doing was potentially more than we needed.
at the next stage of this there will be more financial analysis.
I've tried to make this clarification to Commissioners court several times.
this value for analysis will be based on what we think we can do with the traditional methods and look at a hypothetical p 3 and maybe one of the more potential design models.
so we know at this stage in the planning phase that value for money will be at a more high level than a detailed level.
so both firms agreed that the level of analysis that we had negotiated through our visits back and forth was appropriate for what we needed in this phase.
once we had discussions with those two firms, the team took a final vote to decide who we felt we wanted to do the final negotiation with, and vote, as I discussed with you last week, turned out to be 2-4 for ernst and young.
so I briefed you a little bit last week and you were briefed in executive session on some of the contractual issues, and we are here today to answer more of your questions.
the goal today is to have the court give me direction to either move forward with ernst and young and get the contract finalized.
there's a few other contractual terms that we're trying to get finalized.
mr. Hilly and us, and so my goal today is for you to give us direction whether to move forward with ernst and young and bring you back a contract hopefully next week or the next.
so that they can begin their work in January.
as I mentioned last week, this will be about an 11-week even gaugement.
I gave to you the detailed scope of work.
you got a copy of the contract in executive session last week, but the process is very detailed.
it tells you, you know, they are going to meet with all of you, they are going to meet with some of the district judges, they are going to meet with the internal team and we have a very detailed breakdown of the tasks that we're going to do, but it's very -- very detailed tasks and we're going to have to do it in 11 weeks.
one of the issues that was brought up last week, there was a concern about -- that no reference calls were done.
our process, as hard as we tried to do everything in those 21 weeks, somehow the -- well, first much all, both of these teams are two of the top teams in the nation, in the world accounting firms. They are both very capable of doing this work for us.
they've done some work on p 3s so either one of them could do the work.
I want to be very clear about that.
but we did go ahead and do some conference calls this week or reference calls.
I think the one that's most important was the one at the long beach facility t their owners, the office of courts instruction management, gave ernst and young very high scores.
specifically gave very high scores to gordon did you knowfield perio, who is one of the key people on the team.
it just went on to say that they were very professional.
they brought a lot of experience to the table.
they did an excellent job of communicating with the stakeholders.
this is not an easy process.
one of the comments is a p 3 project is not for the faint of heart.
it's difficult to go through the process and stay focused.
but that did an excellent job.
they weren't just number people, they were able to communicate.
and then the other firm talked about another key player, tim fillpod who was added near the end of the negotiations, and they couldn't say enough about him.
so from our conference calls and I want to thank lance, leslie and jorge for doing these, they couldn't say enough good things about them.
they did say there were some contractual changes, but that was due to the government body's delays.
we on know that, that we have to be partner in any contract until we have to meet our obligations too.
so the conference calls were successful and we feel very confident that ernst and young can do this work.
so we also got together on Thursday.
leroy was back in town and we decided to write a majority report, which all of you got late Friday afternoon and again yesterday.
and hopefully that answers a lot of the questions that came up.
and hopefully everyone is confident that your staff have done the best that they could do to bring you the best team to be able to do this work.
as stated in the majority report, this is probably one of the biggest projects we're going to be doing and it's very critical and it's going to be in the public light.
so we are here to answer any more of your questions and concerns and like to get your approval to let myself and the county attorney's office finalize the contract with ernst and young and move forward starting our process in January.
Commissioner Davis did call me yesterday, and Commissioner Davis and I had a very passionate discussion about our hub -- our hub program and participation, and I think judge -- I mean Commissioner Davis and I come from the same place.
he's very passionate about getting more hub firms. I'm passionate bit.
we're doing the best we can and that's all I can do.
and although the other firm did hire a local firm, ernst and young, I did end you their eeoc stats to show that they do have an equal -- they are equal employment hires or employers, and so hopefully that gives Commissioner Davis and some of you some comfort that they -- they do have minorities in their firm, although they did not hire a local hub firm to do any of this work.
and again, there's a lot more opportunities as we move forward for local firms and the hub community to be involved in this process as we move forward.
so --
>> let me ask you this, cyd.
did amount of this contract is what publicly?
>> it's not to exceed $425,000.
>> not to exceed.
>> yes, sir.
425,000.
>> and I guess -- and I am really concerned about hub participation, as I've been for many years on this court.
and -- and it still appears to me that that may can be done -- that more can be done, and it is a negotiated process, as we said.
and it just appears to me that more can be done, especially when we need to have some type of outreach, and you may have heard the previous conversation that we had with the mobility parking folks when I mention outreach in that aspect too.
outreach as far as these particular firms outreach in this community.
now, I understand that kpmg did retain someone or either had someone available here.
and I'm just wondering if further negotiations could be made to that point.
and the reason why I say that because we have local folks -- this is a national organization, both of them are, nationwide.
I mean, you know, so I understand that.
but we're spending dollars, taxpayers' dollars right here from people in Travis County.
and so I'm kind of concerned, I'm really concerned about a lot of the participation levels all across the board in several contracts or situations.
so I'm just still concerned about that.
and I'm really not comfortable, I'm really not comfortable this morning making -- asking a few questions in executive session on this and -- because I'm really still looking for an answer.
so-and I know you do the best you can according to what you are saying, I don't really know if they did the best they could.
I don't know.
those are things I do not know.
but I'm concerned about it.
and it's legitimate concern.
as far as the type of participation that we I think feel that we should have across the board.
I think -- I think that adversity is -- diversity is very critical in my mind on some of these things.
on accounting, accounting, accounting, that's what we're talking about here.
so I'm still concerned about.
that but thank you for a great conversation we had yesterday.
>> thank you, Commissioner.
>> court members, any questions or comments regarding what ms. Grimes has had to say today?
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> on the minority participation, I totally agree that this project as a whole is an opportunity for us to greatly increase our hub participation locally in what is going to be a huge infrastructure project.
I was very happy to get the ernst and young my north distribution eeoc data because it does show that there's a 20% -- there's 20% minorities in their top executives, 32% minorities in mid-executives and 37% minorities in their professional classes.
and that speaks very well for them.
at least in two categories it exceeds the demographics for the state they are located in.
>> and I would be very impressed with those numbers; however, the folks that we need to get jobs for are not folks in middle management and upper management.
I think we have a lot of folks in our neighborhoods who really need jobs.
>> absolutely.
that will come from building the project.
>> I understand.
>> hold on.
have you finished yours?
>> yes.
and I only looked at those levels because those levels are usually the most indicative of an eeoc policy.
if you go further into support staff, it's not as revealing of their philosophy.
>> Commissioner Gomez.
>> Travis County needs to look at its eeoc plans for folks in middle management and upper management.
but nonetheless, that's impressive, those are impressive numbers, but we need jobs for people out there in this community who -- who have incredible pressures on them.
we raise taxes every time that we need to balance our bbudget.
and when they don't have a job, that's an incredible amount of pressure on them to what do they give up?
food, in order to pay taxes?
but the thing that I had to ask about this -- so I still have some concern on the -- on the jobs that we need in this community.
and I think we can do this and probably my guess is that we can do this even better if we went the traditional way of where we had contractors who were local and we can hire people who are local.
are these firms considered local?
were the firms that applied, were they considered local?
>> no.
they may have local offices, but they are both global.
I don't know -- I could go back and look where their headquarters are, but they are both gobel companies and have offices all over the country.
and I'm sure they both have local offices.
now, the teams, the people that was on the kpmg team actually live here, live in town, two of them.
and for ernst and young, I don't believe anyone lived in town.
most -- california, vancouver, canada, where they have been doing p 3s for 20 years.
that's what he was --
>> [inaudible].
did you all have any clarification?
>>
>> [inaudible] in san antonio, I thought.
>> according to their website they have an office at 401 congress avenue.
>> that's the local office that they have?
>> that's their auditing.
>> the other thing was do they have lawyers on their team?
because I think at one point we said we needed to have a team approach so that all of the issues involved with this would be addressed.
>> both accounting firms said that they could not practice law and they had both firms --
>> and I understand that.
>> both had an issue with contracting directly or subcontracting so they both suggested that we have a separate contract for lawyers, and that's what we finally were able to negotiate with ernst and young is that we would have a separate contract if we needed it that we would -- they have lawyers in-house who -- and they have worked with hawkins dellafield so some of the knowledge they have in-house already on p 3s and what's legal and what's not legal.
so we would be turning on the local Texas firm if we needed more specific legal analysis of what they were recommending to us.
so we think we've worked that issue out, Commissioner.
it was not ideal.
we wanted -- we wanted one contract, and they came back and said they really had a hard time, their corporate folks really had a hard time subcontracting to lawyers because they felt like that would be practicing law and they could not do that.
>> well, that was the position that all the teams had as well?
>> the two --
>> that they couldn't have accounting firms?
>> we need to let the other person finish talking before we start.
we have not been doing that.
Commissioner Gomez, are you finished?
>> let me just -- and if they do have lawyers, are they licensed in Texas?
>> I'll defer to mr. Collins.
>> mr. Collins.
>> both of the two accounting officials, kpmg and earn and young, who submitted their proposals, but said they could not subcontract with attorneys, but in their proposals each one of them recommended a law firm and they recommended that we contract with them.
so in the case of ernst and young, we have entered into a contract with the law firm that ernst and young represented -- recommended, and the contract is that that law firm will advise ernst and young in the event that that advice becomes necessary.
not advising the county.
we're paying for them like we would pay for a law firm that we're an integral part of the team, but we're not paying for them to advise us, we're paying for them to advise ernst and young.
the firm recommended was hawkins dellafield, they do not have any Texas offices, so that firm has contracted with jackson walker, subcontracted with jackson walker, so together they form a team and the jackson walker firm is a Texas firm that has a Texas presence.
so no, hawkins dellafield does not have Texas lawyers, but they have subcontracted for a local office with jackson walker.
on the other hand, kpmg recommended dawson which does have Texas lawyers, but it would have been the same thing, we would have had a separate contract with them.
the other proposers had lawyers as an integral part of their team, but they did not wind up in the top two when we got down to that point in the process.
>> the other -- I had another question about the -- I guess I'm confused about changing the scope of services once the proposals were -- were let out and then, you know, people submitted proposals.
I guess I'm confused about changing of scope of services.
is that something that we do?
it almost sounds to the ordinary person it would sound like we're changing the rules in the middle of the stream here.
and so why is that permissible?
>> well, let me try to explain.
again, it's not a bid.
it's a proposal.
we knew that we needed financial analysis.
we thought we needed real estate lawyers so, we set out in our request for services what we thought we needed and we asked them to send us a proposal, which we got.
as we got down to the last two firms, ernst and young and kpmg, we had discussions with them.
and changing the scope of the work is really incorrect.
we didn't change the scope of work, we clarified and defined the scope of work.
so we always asked for a value for money analysis, but what they were giving us and what we thought we needed was a value for money valleys on real deals, and we explained we don't have real deals yet, and so they both agreed that the level of analysis that we did was not as detailed as they had first thought.
so we clarified it.
so we didn't change the scope, we clarified the scope and detailed the scope.
same thing with the lawyers.
we went back and forth on how much legal work we needed.
you know, we have in-house lawyers.
we have, you know, I'm familiar with the procurement laws on what methods we can use.
so we kind of discussed that.
so again, we didn't change the scope of services, we redefined it and clarified it and the level of definitely that we needed.
so it was sort of -- it's sort of like using the word bid and proposal.
they are very different in my world, and to say we changed the scope of work, we didn't change the scope of work, we clarified and defined it.
so that we had understanding and they had understanding of what we really needed at this phase of the work.
>> so that wasn't necessary to bring back to the court for us to understand the clarification?
>> well, we brought that to court, that's why we brought it to you last week --
>> but before that though.
I mean I know it was brought back -- it's almost like when the work and everything is done, the final recommendation is ready, but before that.
wouldn't it have been brought to our attention to at least say this has been clarified?
>> well, when we came to court originally, I asked the court how you -- we explained how the process would work, and if you'll recall, I mentioned to you that we could bring both the firms forward, let y'all interview them and y'all decided not to do that.
y'all authorized us to go through this process and negotiate on your behalf and that's what we've done.
and again, we haven't changed the scope of work, we've only clarified it.
so I hope that -- that makes it easier to understand.
I see john has his hand up.
>> mr. Collins.
>> in direct response to your question, Commissioner, the rfs that the Commissioners court authorized to be issued specifically said that the rfs would not exceed the contract, that the contract would be separately negotiated.
and so it -- from a legal perspective, it was our opinion that it was not necessary to bring back those changes to the Commissioners court until we got down to the point of bringing you a contract because the rfs specifically indicated that we were going to negotiate the terms of the final contract and it would not be the terms of the rfs necessarily.
so we have brought it back to you and clearly the contract has to be approved by you, but the rfs itself authorized that there were going to be changes between the time of the issuance of the rfs and the actual contract.
>> I bring it up because I want to make absolutely sure we weren't doing something that changed the rules for one group and didn't apply to the other.
so it would be an equal, you know, level piece of land that people were operating on.
so if that's what happened.
so other thing talking about the contract, and I mean I saw it and I heard the briefing.
I guess I have, you know, just a real discomfort in -- in going with a contract because public money, obviously this $495,000 is coming from public money to pay for this study.
and I understand it's a study.
but then the contract, you know, presented to us said that, by the way, this was proprietary work for them and we couldn't share it with the public.
I have a huge problem with that.
if we're going to spend public money on a study, then I think I should be able to release that information to the public.
I just don't agree with that at all.
that's all have i.
I have.
>> court members?
Commissioner Huber.
>> I just want to start out by saying that I very strongly supportive of the civil courthouse.
we are way behind the times in getting one built.
I think cyd has taken this process as fairly and as transparently as she could through what she has been given to work with.
the list that cyd read of the staff that was included in this process, if you notice it was all staff.
I've had from the get go a problem that we don't have enough of the private sector expertise to help us guide our decision making on this process.
every good deal has a strong business component and a strong legal component.
we have a very strong legal component.
in our process that we're working through right now.
we have been lacking from the get go, I believe, the detail expertise on a project of this magnitude from the private sector.
absent that, we find ourselves in the position we've just been discussing about in this process of not being clear on the definition of our scope of services.
I don't believe we should go to those that we are going to give a contract to claire our scope of services.
I think our scope of services should be driven by expertise we have resourced from the beginning of the process.
I would like to say that the long beach reference that was mentioned worked well for them.
and by the way, I think both kpmg and ey are both excellent firms. I have no preference in the choices.
I have serious concerns about our process and the fact that this is one of the largest projects in the country if not the world right now and it is extremely competitive.
I don't believe we can use our usual processes here at the county to take us through something that we can have a measure of comfort with on a project of this magnitude without resources from the outside to help us guide that.
we'll say, well, this is where we're headed now.
I don't believe we started out right because we had the scope of services and not knowing exactly what we need to do and want to do.
and I wanted to go back to the long beach.
they actually had an entity organized with private sector and public sector from the get go to guide their process.
I cannot support this at this point the way it is because I believe we haven't addressed the tightness of our own structure internally and the resources we need to guide this project.
>> let me just respond by I respect you -- you and I have had a very good working relationship and we've been very honest with each other.
what we are doing here in this process, and I feel very confident that -- that we know how to hire experts.
we might not be the total experts in every field, we can't be, but we are hiring this firm who help us do the business case that you talk about.
and they will be helping y'all decide how we should do this, what our processes will be.
but up until this point I think you've had people that were very capable of getting you to this point, and that's where we're at.
ernst and young will do the business case.
that's part of the business analysis, would with all of you to even decide if we want to do a p 3.
I hear Commissioner Gomez's concerns she even wants to do a p 3.
from my trip to canada and listening to those folks, I think we've been in the planning process for years and I think we're on course.
and I respect, you know, what you are saying, but I think we're capable of getting you a expert in-house to do this and build your business case.
we've hired a lot of experts already to help us get to where we are today, so --
>> but we had no one from the private sector that outlines the business components of the team.
we this attorneys negotiating business components to the deal.
on a real estate deal, that's unacceptable to me to just have attorneys.
absolutely need attorneys, but you need business experts.
>> well, and you know, I guess I could -- I would hope that you would think the other people on the team had some business -- I run the everyday business of the county.
>> who on the team had a $200 million highrise project?
from a senior level.
>> but we've hired accounting firms, we've hired law firms, we've had experts to help us get through a lot of our projects.
>> you didn't mention real estate.
>> well, we did hire a real estate expert to help us buy the land.
>> I'm talking about this deal in and of itself.
>> and what I would propose to you is a that we are getting --
>> one at a time, please.
>> we're getting to that point and this contract will get you that outside expertise to help us move forward.
that's my only point.
I don't disagree with you.
I'm just saying that's where we're going to take you through this contract hopefully.
>> when did we hand this project to y'all?
>> we've been meeting --
>> when did we take the vote to --
>> the internal team?
when was the internal -- it was before rodney left.
>> it was about six months ago.
>> at least.
we've been meeting --
>> that's the answer.
one at a time.
let the judge speak now.
but we're trying to find somebody to help us evaluate the 20 or so responses we received to the informal request for information.
we plan to use that advice to put together an r.f.p.
or r.f.q.
or some sort of formal document to solicit formal proposals --
>> no, sir.
>> right?
what are we using the information for?
>> ernst and young is going to review the r.f.i.s, and lease and koa late responses, they are going to look at the breadth of experience of respondents in delivering methods.
they are going to look at the experience and documenting cost, resources and expertise need to do deliver the project.
opt philosophyization sites.
tragedies to finance the project.
use of taxable why is tempt debt --
>> miss grimes.
so the court will take that information and do what?
>> you will decide whether you want to issue a request for qualifications to do a public --
>> that's exactly what I'm saying only I took one or two sentences and you took two or three paragraphs.
let me finish my statement.
so we plan basically to take whatever information the private firm provides us, whatever recommendations they do, and respond to them and decide what kind of project we will have and put together a formal solicitation.
that's what we've been talking about the last two years or so.
the just under $500,000 pales in comparison to the $250 million that we're looking at.
we voted basically to get staff to look at this for us and try to help us determine what outside firm could help us.
six months ago.
anybody with different ideas about how we should proceed on any Tuesday could have brought that matter back to us.
I don't know that it was critical to have a private firm or person involved during the last six months.
but if somebody had come forth with the recommendation, I'm sure that I would have agreed with it because I wouldn't have known whether to do it or not.
so I think it's kind of late in the ball game; however, if there is a motion today and a second that supports doing that, then I'll erase the last six months and proceed in that direction.
but it has to be by majority vote here.
if I had felt strongly that we ought to have private sector involvement, I would have brought that idea to the court before today and got a second hopefully and a formal vote.
and if the court rejected that, I'd have to live with it.
so we don't have to take any action today.
but we are looking at six months of work.
consistent with what we asked for.
the other thing is -- this is $500,000, but it's on a project that may cost too million.
-- 250 million.
it's easier to get diversity on a $250 million project that includes a whole lot of contracts and subcontracts than it is to get a firm to do the work we have done.
I do know I didn't have all those details, but to me that's detail work we kind of wanted done by somebody else.
if the court had wanted to land on that, it seems we would have asked progress reports.
that's how we functioned.
I thought we were getting staff to do this for us in order to expedite the process.
we have not expedited the process.
we knew based on the vote we took last time, 3-2, to complete this, that it would be divisive.
and I never expected unanimity.
at the same time we voted to give staff authorization to go through the selection process and come back and give us a recommendation.
we implied that we would accept that, but we don't have to.
if we don't get a majority vote of this court, we don't.
but if we don't approve work we've done up to this point, it seems we ought to decide how we proceed from here.
I mean that's where we are, I think.
the other thing about diversity is that we can approve this and give staff direction to negotiate with ernst and young to improve diversity if we think that's important.
>> it's very important.
>> if we think it's important for diversity for the people in this community, then we should ask them to address that issue for us.
and if when it comes back we're not happy with that, we know what to do.
Commissioner Davis, remember my 101, let each person finish speaking.
Commissioner Davis.
>> thank you for that.
and my concern has been all along in this process has been diversity.
now, I didn't know whether I needed to take that into executive session, john, to figure out how that could be done as far as a process is concerned.
that's why I laid it out there and I didn't know if it needed to be discussed in open court.
I felt maybe something like that to see how we can come up with some kind of diversity on that issue, if that was something that needed to be discussed in executive session or could you discuss that without breaking the law in court.
that's why I didn't go into a lot of detail.
so could you give me a legal opinion on that?
>> you can speak about anything you like, Commissioner, in open court.
there are ways to talk about certain matters in executive session and that's how we prefer to give our legal advice to you is in executive session, but certainly if you want to talk with your purchasing agent on how to structure a transaction to provide more diversity, that's --
>> I just want to make sure I'm in the legal bounds.
I always try to make sure of that.
thank you, mr. County attorney.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> and so --
>> sorry, go ahead.
>> and so if we can go in this direction with that intent in mind with the firm that Commissioner Davis is concerned about diversity and making sure the local folks have an opportunity to participate in this process, so be it.
but that's part of what I am all about is supporting these others.
the p 3 have been with it for a while, however, I'm not with not being diverse locally as we go through this process because there is many, many, many steps in this process procedural.
so I just want to make sure that's adhered to from the beginning to the end of this process dealing with these contracts coming before this court is diversity.
>> Commissioner how about irrelevant.
>> I just wanted to remind the court I did make a motion and it failed that would have put together a group that included private sector to guide this process.
so I saw no reason to bring it back to court since the vote was taken that sent it this way.
I just was registering my continued disapproval of our process and continued concern that we're not putting the right foot forward.
>> but if the majority of this court votes for something, we proceed in a that direction.
>> we do.
but I'm just saying I'm opposed to this today because of where we are.
>> my motion is follow staff's recommendation.
>> second.
>> that we specifically address the issue of diversity and local participation prior to coming back with a formal contract to recommend and give the court an opportunity to respond to that.
if we like it, we'll approve of it.
if we think we can do better, we act accordingly.
that motion was seconded by Commissioner Eckhardt.
any more discussion on the motion?
all in favor of the motion?
show Commissioner Davis, Eckhardt, yours truly voting in favor.
those against show Commissioners Huber and Commissioner Gomez.
thank you very much.
we appreciate your hard work, dedication, et cetera.
>> thanks, judge.
Commissioners.
>> are the j.p.'s here?
justices of the peace?
nope, not yet.
clean air force and envision central Texas?
>> I have an executive -- judge, I wanted us to go into executive session, if you don't mind.
I think it's a couple of things I need to discuss in executive session on that first.
>> okay, both of them?
>> no, just the clean air force.
>> we normally go into executive discussion and discuss all items in there.
do you want to go now?
>> yes.
>> just hold off action until we go in there.
>> that will be fine.
>> so, okay.
29 executive session.
when we go.
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.
