Feb 08, 2023 Commissioners Court - Regular

>> ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

>> YOU KNOW, JUDGE, YOU WERE WANTING TO SPEED UP THE APPLICATION DATES BECAUSE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT GETTING A CHECK QUICKER. LIKE THIS APPLICATION DATE, IT SAYS IT IS NOT EVEN DUE UNTIL MARCH 8.

IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT, BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP GETTING

THE CHECK... >> I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT.

I HAVEN'T SEEN. THAT I HAVE SEEN THE ORIGINAL ONE. WHEN WE WERE IN DISCUSSIONS.

I DON'T HAVE ONE OF THOSE. I'M LOOKING EVERYWHERE TRYING TO

GET ONE. >> ACCORDING TO THIS, IT IS A FEBRUARY 8 APPLICATION TO OPEN UP APPLICATIONS DUE.

>> NO. WE HAD FEBRUARY 1 OPENED FEBRUARY 28 APPLICATIONS ARE DUE.

AND THEN I DIDN'T HAVE A DATE ON.

THAT WE JUST SAID THE FIRST MARCH MEETING, TO BE ABLE TO BRING IT FOR APPROVAL AND DO A CHECK RUN THE SAME DAY.

I THINK, CARBON MONOXIDE DA DALE,... I THINK, DALE, I TALKED TO YOU. WE TALKED ABOUT MARCH 8.

>> IT WOULD NEED TO BE AN EXCEPTION ITEM FOR IT TO BE

APPROVED FOR RELEASE. >> YES.

>> MAYBE I'M LOOKING AT THE OLD ONE.

SORRY. IS THIS THE OLD ONE WITH THE MARCH DATES? I DO HAVE TWO.

THANK YOU. >> THAT IS IT.

THAT IS THE RIGHT ONE. >> THERE IS TWO.

>> ONE HAS FEBRUARY 8. ONE HAS MARCH 8.

>> MINE HAS FEBRUARY 28 FOR THE DEADLINE TO URN IT IN.

... TURN IT IN. MARCH 8 IS THE MEETING WHERE WE WILL APPROVE. I'M SORRY?

>> THE ONE ON THE SCREEN IS THE ONE I WAS GIVEN THIS MORNING.

>> YOU ARE RIGHT, JUDGE. I HAS THE FEBRUARY 1 APPLICATIONS OPEN, FEBRUARY 28, THEY ARE DUE.

IS THAT THE ONE YOU ARE WANTING TO GO WITH?

YEAH. >> MARCH 8 IS OUR FIRST MEETING IN MARCH. HOPEFULLY, WE WILL GET THAT APPROVED. PEOPLE GETS THEIR CHECKS MARCH 10. WE NEED TO GET THIS DONE.

. >> DO WE HAVE A DOLLAR AMOUNT

FOR THE SEA LIFE CENTER? >> YEAH.

IT IS ON THERE. >> NO.

IT HAS NOVEMBER 2 ON BOTH CATEGORIES.

>> OH, SORRY. >> IT HAS A DATE.

>> IN THE BACK-UP, JOHN. IT'S GOT...

>> I'M LOOKING AT THE HANDOUT SHE JUST GAVE US.

>> YEAH. IN THE BACKUP, I BELIEVE IT HAS

$250,000. >> YUP.

THAT IS ON THE LARGER AMOUNT. NONPROFITS.

>> THAT IS WITH ONE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CLEAN THAT UP.

>> THANK YOU. >> IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE FUNDS NEED TO BE SPENT BY A CERTAIN DATE.

>> 2026. THEY HAVE TO BE SPENT BY 2026.

BUT WHEN YOU TURN THESE IN... YES.

WELL ALREADY HAD A MOTION. WE CHANGED THE EMPLOYEE... ARE YOU WANTING TO CHANGE THOSE DATES? WE ARE FINE. YOU ARE NOT DOING A MOTION?

>> I WAS LOOKING AT THE OLD ONE. I'M SORRY.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAD A MOTION.

I THINK WE ALREADY VOTED. EVERYTHING IS FINE.

>> NO, MA'AM. I APOLOGIZE.

>> ON ITEM 9, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE? ARE WE GOING TO WAIT SINCE WE ARE GOING TO SCHEDULE A MEETING MONDAY FOR Y'ALL TO TAKE OVER WITH ALL THE OVERAMOUNTS, THE LARGER ONES? WE WILL MOVE THAT ON AND LET YOU

MEET WITH THEM AND COME BACK. >> YES.

THAT WOULD BE... THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD.

I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE THAT REAL CLEAR.

JUST QUICKLY. AGAIN, DONE INCORRECTLY.

BIG MESS. WORKED HARD TO CLEAN IT UP.

>> I PROVIDED THIS LIST. IT IS ALL THE NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS. AND IT IS LISTED BY AMOUNTS.

SO ARE WE GOING TO MAKE ALL OF THESE NONPROFITS $49,000?

>> RIGHT. YUP.

>> WE HAVE CAN'T. WE GAVE $4 MILLION TO... WE

CAN'T MAKE THEM $49,000. >> IT IS CASE BY CASE.

OVER $50,000 IS A DIFFERENT PROCESS.

>> OKAY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS

[01:25:02]

ANOTHER CATEGORY NOW OF OVER $50,000.

THAT WE ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH THE RULES AND PROCESS.

YOU ARE GOING TO SHOW EVERYBODY, LOOK, BEFORE YOU GET THIS MONEY, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH PROCUREMENT AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. WE ARE NOT SAYING THE POTENTIAL DOESN'T EXIST TO GIVE THEM THE MONEY.

RIGHT? WE ARE SAYING DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE IT FOR AND WHAT THE APPLICATION SAYS, THEY MAY OR MAY NOT QUALIFY. RIGHT?

>> OKAY. EVERYBODY ON THIS LIST WAS CONSIDERED A BENEFICIARY, MEANING NO JUSTIFICATION, NO DOCUMENTS, AND JUST A BLANK CHECK... OR JUST A CHECK AND

THEN BE ON THEIR WAY. >> RIGHT.

>> THAT IS MY CONCERN. >> DONE WRONG.

. >> YES.

>> BY FORMER FOLKS. WE ARE NOT THERE ANYMORE.

MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, DOES THE POSSIBILITY EXIST TO STILL GIVER WAY, AND IF SO, WHAT IS THAT WAY?

>> IT IS UNDER REVIEW. WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY.

HOWEVER, WE ARE GETTING PUSHBACK ON WHAT WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY.

>> THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN WAS GOING BACK TO $49,000. WOULD THEY QUALIFY FOR THE $49,000. THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO LOOK

AT. >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY.

>> THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE BROKEN CHAINS.

LET'S LAY IT OUT. BROKEN CHAINS WHO REALLOCATED THE MONEY. THOSE PEOPLE WERE COUNTING ON THAT MONEY AS REPRESENTED BY FORMER PEOPLE, AND SO HOW DO W WE... HOW... IS THERE A POSSIBILITY AND YOU ARE SAYING IT IS UNDER REVIEW. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THESE PEOPLE CAN STILL GET THAT MONEY? IF NOT, WE NEED TO TELL THEM AND BE HONEST.

>> AS FAR AS THE PROCEDURES BEFORE, THE COURT DID VOTE AS IT ALWAYS DOES, TO SET ASIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND NOW THE PROCESS OF GETTING CONTRACTS SIGNED AND AGREEMENTS MADE, THAT IS A NATURAL PART OF THE PROGRESSION.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON THE PROCESS BEFORE IN ANY NEGATIVE WAY. BUT AS FAR AS YOUR QUESTION IS, CAN IT HAPPEN? YES.

BUT IT IS GOING TO REQUIRE REPORTING RESPONSIBILITIES FROM THE OTHER PARTIES. AND IF THEY CANNOT COMPLY WITH THOSE, THEN THAT IS A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.

>> AND WHEN YOU SAY... >> THAT IS WHAT THE MEETING IS GOING TO BE FOR. WHEN YOU SIT DOWN WITH THEM.

THAT IS WHAT THE MEETING WHEN YOU CALL THEM IN IS GOING TO BE FOR WHEN YOU SIT DOWN WITH THEM. EVERYONE IS JUST LISTED AS A BENEFICIARY. THEY ARE SUB RECIPIENTS.

>> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUB-RECIPIENT AND BENEFICIARY.

LET'S JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR: THAT WAY WE UNDERSTAND.

>> IS HE STILL HERE? >> YES, HE IS.

>> DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE FOR US, TO CLARIFY?

>> DO WE HAVE SOUND? >> HE IS MUTED.

>> CAN'T HEAR. >> YOU NEED TO UNMUTE, PLEASE.

>> CAN YOU UNMUTE? >> YES.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? >> YES.

>> OKAY. GREAT.

SO JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN... IT WILL LEAD TO SOME ANSWERS AND MORE QUESTIONS.

BENEFICIARIES ARE GENERALLY SPEAKING, INTENDING TO BE THE END RESULT OF THE MONEY. THE BEST EXAMPLE I CAN GIVE YOU FOR THAT IS IF YOU WERE GIVING MONEY DIRECTLY TO HOUSE HOLES, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO MICRO-MANAGE WHETHER THEY ARE BUYING, YOU KNOW, HEINZ KETCHUP OR... WHAT FOOD THEY ARE GOING TO BUY, IT IS NOT YOUR CONCERN. THEY ARE A BENEFICIARY.

SOME NONPROFITS QUALIFY AS BEING BENEFICIARIES AS WELL.

USUALLY THE SMALLER ONES. THE BIGGER YOU GET, THE HARDER THAT IS. WHY IS THAT? A SUB-RECIPIENT ALSO EXTENDS A BENEFIT TO THE END RESULT.

IF THE MONEY YOU ARE GIVING TO THEM WILL ULTIMATELY WIND UP BENEFITING SOMEONE ELSE DOWN THE CHAIN, THEY ARE A SUB-RECIPIENT.

THEY RECEIVE THE FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY.

THEY RECEIVED THE FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THEN THEY ARE GOING TO DISTRIBUTE THESE FUNDS AND BENEFITS. IF THOSE BENEFITS ARE RESULTLING IN SOMEONE ELSE, ANOTHER PARTY, THEN THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE REPORTED BACK TO THE COUNTY. THEREFORE, YOU CAN FOLLOW YOUR AUTHORIZATION TO REPORT BACK. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY WANT TO CAPTURE THE ACTUAL BENEFICIARIES.

WHAT POPULATION BENEFITED FROM THIS.

WHO ACTUALLY GOT THE MONEY. THE MOST UNDERSERVED.

[01:30:08]

ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE THINGS THEY WANT TO CAPTURE.

IF YOU GIVE MONEY TO A NONPROFIT, AND IT SERVES 100 PEOPLE, THE NONPROFIT WAS NOT THE BENEFICIARY.

THE BENEFICIARY... YOU NEED TO HAVE THAT NONPROFIT REPORT BACK TO YOU, HOW THOSE FUNDS WERE DISTRIBUTED TO THOSE PEOPLE.

YOU CAN FOLLOW YOUR REQUI REQUIREMENTS.

>> YOU KNOW, THAT IS A REAL GOOD POINT.

A REAL GOOD POINT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, HOW DO WE KNOW... WE SHOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY PROVIDE US IF A REPORT ON A QUARTERLY BASIS OF WHAT THEY SPEND, HOW THEY SPEND IT.

SO WE CAN KEEP TRACK OF THE MONEYS THAT THEY HAVE.

HOW DO WE KNOW WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING TO? YOU KNOW, HE BROUGHT UP A REALLY GOOD POINT.

WE HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF... IF YOU SAY THEY ARE GOING TO SPEND IT FOR THIS, WE NEED TO HAVE A REPORT.

COMING BACK TO US ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.

TO YOU, TO LULU. YOU KNOW, HERE IS THE INVOICES, THE RECEIPTS. WHATEVER.

>> IT IS UP TO WHATEVER AMOUNT WE GIVE THEM.

IT IS $49,000, EVEN THAT, THEY HAVE TO SHOW WHERE THEY USE THE MONEY. .

>> A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THEY SPENT.

>> YES. OKAY.

>> THERE IS ONE OTHER THING. IT ALSO TIES INTO THE FACT THAT PROJECTS HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY DONE BY DECEMBER # 1, 2026.

>> 2026. DOWN PAYMENT ON PROPERTY, ANYTHING, THE PROPERTY HAS... IF YOU ARE BUILDING ON IT, HAS TO

BE FINISHED BEFORE 2026. >> SO...

>> THAT IS WHAT THE RULE SAYS. >> YOU CAN'T PAY IT OUT ALONE.

>> I'M NOT SAYING THERE IS NOT A DIFFERENT WAY YOU COULD DO THAT.

I KNOW THE PROJECT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I WOULD LOVE TO TALK IN DEPTH ABOUT THAT ONE ON ONE.

WHEN WE COULD GIVE IT THAT ATTENTION.

I WANT TO HELP ANY WAY I CAN, TO MAKE SURE YOUR COMMUNITY GETS THE HELP IT NEEDS. SOME OF THESE THINGS GET INTO

SOME REALLY DETAILED THINGS. >> AND SO ARE YOU AVAILABLE T

TO... >> THIS IS JUST ANOTHER HARD LINE. WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT THE COUNTY ITSELF

HAS. >> SO ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO BE AT THAT MEETING WHEN THEY HAVE THEM? WE HAVE TO SEGREGATE THIS TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE UNDER $50 AND THE GROUPS OVER $50 AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, A MEETING IN THE MORNING. A MEETING IN THE AFTERNOON.

WHATEVER. BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO GET TOO CONFUSING IF YOU HAVE BOTH GROUPS IN THERE.

IT IS TWO SEPARATE THINGS. HOPEFULLY, YOU CAN INCLUDE THIS NICE GENTLEMAN WHO IS VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND DOES THIS, OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE TIME. WE APPRECIATE THE HECK OUT OF IT. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO MAKING SURE WHAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, SIR.

IF WHO THEY SERVE IS THE BENEFICIARY, THEN ARE YOU SAYING THAT... I'M SORRY. THIS IS REALLY CONFUSING.

LIKE I SAID, WE ARE JUST GETTING ALL OF THIS.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT KIT BE DONE BUT THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE THE...

THOSE FRONT PROFITS HAVE TO DO REPORTING ON A REGULAR BASIS IN AND MAKE SURE THEY DO ALL THE REPORTING ON THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE. ARE YOU SAYING IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE? I KNOW IT IS BASED ON EACH

PROJECT. >> IT SHOULD BE DONE.

>> IT CAN BE DONE. THE BENEFICIARIES HAVE NO REQUIREMENTS TO REPORT BACK TO THE COUNTY.

(INAUDIBLE) SOME RECIPIENTS, IF THEY ARE GIVING THE MONEY TO SOMEONE ELSE, THEY HAVE TO REPORT THAT BENEFIT THAT IS BEING ULTIMATELY GIVEN OUT TO SOMEBODY BACK TO THE COUNTY YOU

HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO REPORT. >> I'M SORRY.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE. >> THOSE ARE THE RULES BETWEEN

BENEFICIARY AND... >> KIND OF WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH ON MHID.

NEGOTIATING THE CONTRACT. MAKING SURE ALL THE RULES ARE FOLLOWED. ALL THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO FORTH. THE GOOD NEWS IS IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN STILL DO IT. THE BAD NEWS IT IS NOT GOING TO BE OVERNIGHT. IT IS GOING TO TAKE TIME.

WE ARE JUST NOW FIGURING THIS PROCESS OUT.

[01:35:02]

EVERYTHING WAS RUSHED LAST YEAR. >> TAKE TWO YEARS.

>> OKAY. I MEAN, THAT IS THE GOOD NEWS.

THEY CAN STILL POTENTIALLY QUALIFY FOR THE MONEY.

>> THEN WE PROVIDE IT. WE WORK ON A CHECKLIST.

WE CAN SAY, LIKE, WHO IS THE RECIPIENT AND BENEFICIARY? WE SCREEN EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE UNDER THE

RIGHT CATEGORY. >> AND THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THIS CONTRACT THAT I KNOW THAT TALKS ABOUT... YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DO THIS AND THIS. THESE ARE ALL ACCORDING TO FEDERAL RULES. IT IS NOT US BEING A HARD CASE.

I WANT TO SAY IT WHILE EVERYBODY IS IN THE ROOM.

THE SAME THING WE ARE DOING WITH EVERY CONTRACT NOW.

WE ARE DOING IT RIGHT. WE ARE TAKING OUR TIME AND MAKING SURE WE FOLLOW THE RULES. SO THEY DON'T COME BACK ON YOU AND US. THAT IS PART... OKAY.

FAIR. >> WE ARE GOING TO MEET WITH

EVERYBODY ON MONDAY. >> YES.

>> HOPEFULLY, OPEN IT UP. >> A QUESTION I WAS JUST ASKED.

CAN THEY APPLY FOR BOTH? >> THAT IS A QUESTION TO YOU.

>> THAT IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT

WE ARE GOING TO BE ASKED. >> WELL, IF YOU APPLY FOR THE OTHER ONE, THEN YOU ARE GOING ABOVE THE $49,000 THRESHHOLD.

THAT PUTS YOU IN THE OTHER... I MEAN, I WOULD THINK YOU EITHER

DO ONE OR THE OTHER. >> CORRECT.

>> IF YOU GO OVER THE $49, THEN YOU HAVE SEPARATE REPORTING WE

HAVE TO GO BY. >> CORRECT.

>> YOU APLOORT FIGGER... YOU APPLY FOR THE BIGGER ONE.

>> I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

WE WANT TO GET THIS DONE. >> THAT IS A GOOD POINT, THOUGH IT IS NOT LIKE YOU CAN APPLY FOR THREE THINGS THAT ARE UNDER

$50,000. >> YES, YES.

>> YOU HAVE TO EITHER PICK THE UNDER $50.

>> YOU GO FOR THE OTHER AND FOLLOW THE RULES.

YEAH. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

YOU CAN'T CIRCUMVENT THE PURCHASING RULES.

APPLYING THREE DIFFERENT TIMES FOR $49,000.

IF YOU HAVE UNDER $50 APPLY FOR THAT ONE.

>> WE JUST WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULES.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

HALLELUJAH. >> ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE FINISHED WITH THAT. WE WILL LET YOU TAKE THAT OVER, THEN AND DEAL WITH IT. SO MOVING BACK...

>> JUDGE, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE?

>> DID ANYBODY HERE WANT TO COMMENT OR ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? OR HAVE A QUESTION. SINCE IT IS...

>> WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THAT THE PROPER CORRECTIONS.

BASED ON THE MOTION. WE WILL HAVE IT ON-LINE.

SO PEOPLE CAN STILL APPLY AND THEY ARE READY.

OKAY? IT WILL BE THE WEBSITE.

>> YOU WILL HAVE COPIES OF THE PROPER ONE ON MONDAY FOR PEOPLE TO COME THROUGH. WHEN THEY CAN TAKE IT AND

HOPEFULLY... >> YEAH.

AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY SEE ALL THIS BACKGROUND THAT WE GOT TO ON THESE ONES THAT ARE UNDER REVIEW.

>> CORRECT. >> MAKE SURE EVERYBODY SEES

EVERYTHING. >> WE WANT TO DO OPEN IN FRONT.

>> YES, SIR. YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I'M GOING TO NEED YOU TO SIGN THIS AFTER YOU GET THROUGH, IF

YOU DON'T MIND. >> IT IS NOT PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> IT IS NOT? >> MY NAME IS ROBERT REID.

I RESIDE AT BRENTWOOD DRIVE, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF BROKEN CHAINS RECOVERY CENTER.

A LOT OF THIS PERTAINS TO US TODAY.

WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS THAT ARE BEING INVOLVED IN THIS NOW, IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I UNDERSTOOD. THAT IS OKAY.

>> US TOO, US TOO. >> THAT IS OKAY.

WE WILL GO WITH THE FLOW. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS WE WANT TO SPEND THIS $300,000 FOR.

WE WANT TO USE IT FOR ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY.

AND THAT IS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE ABOUT TO LOSE, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE BELIEVE ME, I HAVE LOOKED IN EVERY AREA OF THIS CITY, TRYING TO FIND A PROPERTY BIG ENOUGH FOR WHAT WE NEED. AND RIGHT NOW I'M TURNING DOWN AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT 12 PEOPLE A WEEK THAT WANT OUR SERVICES, AND I CAN'T DO IT. WE ARE FULL.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE A LOCATION AT 709 WACO STREET WHICH IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, AND WE HOUSE 20-SOMETHING PEOPLE THERE.

AND WE HAVE TWO OTHER LIVING FACILITIES.

ONE ON LAMONT STREET. ONE ON ELDEN CIRCLE.

IF I CAN GET THIS PROPERTY, I CAN COMBINE ALL THESE HOUSES INTO ONE LOCATION WITH. THAT ONE LOCATION, INSTEAD OF HAVING ROOM FOR APPROXIMATELY 40 PEOPLE, WE WOULD HAVE ROOM FOR

ABOUT 160 PEOPLE. >> WOW.

>> WE ARE DEALING PRIMARILY WITH THE HOMELESS COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THOSE WHO COME TO US WITH ADDICTION PROBLEMS, THEY HAVE ALREADY HIT BOTTOM. THEY ARE ALREADY HOMELESS.

THEY HAVE LOST EVERYTHING. AND SO WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE THEM A PLACE TO LIVE. WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE THEM...

PUT THEM BACK ON THE RIGHT TRACK SO THEY CAN REJOIN SOCIETY.

[01:40:04]

BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BUMPED FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER TO ANOTHER. OUR PROGRAM IS THE ONLY ONE THAT OFFERS EDUCATION IN ADDITION TO HOUSING.

I DON'T WANT TO JUST HAVE A WAREHOUSE FULL OF PEOPLE.

THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M LOOKING TO DO.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO HELP THESE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T EVEN READ AND WRITE AND FILL OUT AN APPLICATION FOR A JOB.

>> I HOPE YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WE WANT TO HELP YOU.

ALL OF US UP HERE. WE ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS HAVE GONE IN THE PAST. WE ARE NOT HAPPY THAT WE ARE HAVING TO COME TO YOU WITH THESE KIND OF THINGS.

WE DO UNDERSTAND THE SERVICE YOU PROVIDE IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND WE ARE VERY THANKFUL FOR PEOPLE SUCH AS YOURSELF.

WE ARE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN HELP YOU HELP THESE PEOPLE. IT IS JUST WE ALL HAVE RULES THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW BY. AND WE ARE JUST FINDING OUT THAT THESE RULES AREN'T EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE TOLD BEFORE.

I'M NEW HERE. IT IS NOT WHAT I UNDERSTAND AS WELL. WE WANT TO EXPEDITE.

THIS WE WANT THIS TO HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY.

AND HOPEFULLY, WITH THIS MEETING THAT WE DO ON MONDAY, GETTING EVERYONE TOGETHER, HOPEFULLY WE CAN HELP YOU DO THAT.

WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO. WE DO UNDERSTAND THE VALUE YOU

SERVE IN IN COMMUNITY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE IT. >> JEREMY COLEMAN IS ON-LINE AND WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT AS WELL. CAN YOU UNMUTE?

>> YEAH, JUDGE. I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU AND COMMISSIONER CHESNEY FOR JUST ADDRESSING THAT ONE ITEM.

YOU KNOW, AT N.A.A.C.P., WE HAVE OVER 2,800 CHAPTERS WORLDWIDE.

OUR INTERNATIONAL COMPANY HAS STAFF, BUT A LOT OF OUR LOCAL INDIVIDUAL CHAPTERS DO NOT. IT IS 100% VOLUNTEER-RAN.

VOLUNTEERS DO SPEND UP TO 40, SOMETIMES 80 HOURS A WEEK WORKING IN THE ORGANIZATION. I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT TO TELL YOU ALL THANK YOU FOR LOOKING AT THAT PIECE OF THE APPLICATION.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

ON THIS. WE KNOW IT IS A TOUGH SUBJECT AND ISSUE. WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT RIGHT.

WE ARE GOING TO GET IT DONE. YEAH.

THANK YOU ALL. NOW GOING BACK TO OUR LIST.

[G. Accept the following Minutes:]

LET'S GO WITH ITEM G, ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING MINUTES.

WE HAVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 18, 2023.

THE JANUARY 24, 2023. CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE

THESE MINUTES? >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> AYE. THAT MOTION PASSES.

ALSO I WANTED TO ASK YOU ALL, I'M NOT SURE, IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO MOVING THE MINUTES TO THE CONSENT?

>> SORRY? >> IS ANYONE OPPOSED TO MOVING THE MINUTES TO THE CONSENT? LIST?

>> THAT IS A GREAT IDEA. >> I MEAN, WE ALL HAVE THEM.

IT IS RECORDED VIDEO. IT IS PRETTY STANDARD.

>> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE DO THAT, JUDGE.

>> IS THERE A QUESTION, YOU CAN PULL IT OUT.

>> A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR. THAT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE

SAY IEVMENT. >> AYE.

>> THE MOTION PASSES AS WELL. GOING TO ITEM H.

[1. Nueces County Beach Management Advisory Committee]

BOARD APPOINTMENTS. WE HAVE THE NUECES COUNTY BEACH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. WE HAVE SIX OPEN POSITIONS ON THERE. MR. BISSEL RESIGNED.

WE HAVE THREE RE-APPOINTMENTS. WE DO THOSE FIRST.

I GUESS. WILLIAMS, DINN, AND SCHLABACH.

THEY SENT IN REQUESTS TO BE REAPPOINTED.

>> JUDGE, I WOULD MOVE FOR REAPPOINTMENT.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND SECOND TO REAPPOINT THE THREE. SITTING MEMBERS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENT?

>> ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN: THE MOTION PASSES.

TO REAPPOINT THOSE THREE. WE HAVE TWO NEW APPLICANTS.

MR. MICHAEL PITTMAN AND EMILY CLOWER.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION... I WOULD MAKE MOTION TO APPOINT BOTH OF THEM TO THIS BOARD. DO I HAVE A SECOND IN.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS? OR COMMENTS? NONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> THE MOTION PASSES.

>> I THINK THAT FILLS... >> WE ARE MISSING ONE ON THERE.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE ONE SHORT ON THAT.

I DON'T KNOW. IT SAYS SIX POSITIONS.

OPEN ON MY LIST. >> DEIDRE WILLIAMS ALSO REAPPLIED. SO IT WAS...

>> WILLIAMS, DINN AND SCHLABACH. WHO?

>> NATASHA DAVIS DOESN'T LOOK LIKE SHE... I'M SORRY.

[01:45:03]

>> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND ANOTHER APPLICANT.

>> ANOTHER APPLICANT. WE ARE SHORT ONE ON THAT.

YES. >> MR. OR THE REST, TORRES IS IN HOLDOVER UNTIL WE FIND SOMEONE TO REPLACE HIM.

>> OKAY. >> MOVING ON TO...

>> IS MR. FRANCES STILL ON THE BOARD?

>> NO. >> HE EXPIRES AT THE END OF THIS YEAR. WE CAN CERTAINLY REACH OUT AND

SEE WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. >> I'M JUST ASKING.

>> GOOD QUESTION. >> THERE ARE SOME QUIRKY RULES

OUT THERE. >> IT WOULD BE GOOD, TOO, TO FIND ANOTHER ENGINEER IF ANYONE HAS INTEREST OUT THERE.

IF WE HAVE A SLOT OPEN. IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE ANOTHER ENGINEER ON THE BOARD, TOO. JUST MY TWO CENTS.

FOR WHATEVER IT IS WORTH. OKAY.

>> EXCUSE ME. JUDGE, ON CHRISTUS SPOHN, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT MR. GOLDMAN. RIGHT?

>> WE ARE NOT ON THERE YET. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO

[2. Christus Spohn Board of Trustees]

NEXT. ARE WE THROUGH WITH THAT?

>> YES. >> ITEM H-2, CHRISTUS SPOHN, BOARD OF TRUSTEES. MR. GOVIND NADKARNI IS ASKING TO BE RE APPOINTED. A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[3. Coastal Bend Air Quality Partnership]

>> AYE. >> THE MOTION PASSES.

THE NEXT ITEM, ITEM 3, NEEDS TO BE TABLED INDEFINITELY.

WE DID FIND OUT THAT THE FORMER JUDGE DOES SERVE ON THIS BOARD, AND IT IS NOT AS A NUECES COUNTY APPOINTEE.

SHE JUST SERVES ON THERE. THAT WOULD BE TABLED.

THEY ASKED HER TO SERVE. SHE IS STILL SERVING UNTIL JULY.

THEY APPOINTED HER. SO THIS JUST NEEDS TO BE TABLED

INDEFINITELY. >> SHE DIDN'T PUT IT ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARTNERSHIP. THAT DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT TO ME.

BECAUSE IF YOU NEED TO BE ON THERE, WE WOULD NOMINATE YOU TO BE ON THE THERE. RIGHT?

>> WELL, THEY GOT... WHERE... THEY GOT CLARIFICATION.

S IF. >> WHY DO WE WORRY ABOUT THIS IF

THEY DON'T HAVE TO? >> YEAH.

IT IS NOT OURS, IN FACT. >> FOR THE EQUALITY COMMISSION.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE STARTED DOING BACK IN 2020.

I BELIEVE IS. 2019.

2020. THEY STARTED HAVING THESE MEETINGS. BUT IT IS NOTHING... IT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW. IT IS UP TO THE COURT TO DECIDE

HOW THEY WANT TO DO IT. >> WELL, I THINK WE NEED

REPRESENTATION ON THAT BOARD. >> EXACTLY.

YES. >> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE NOMINATE JUDGE SCOTT TO BE ON THE BOARD AND ASK THEM TO CONSIDER THAT.

>> YEAH. >> I MEAN...

>> BY LAWS, IT IS UP TO THE JUDGE.

AND THE COURT. YOU KNOW, TO APPOINT WHOEVER IT IS THAT WILL REPRESENT THE COUNTY.

>> RIGHT. >> THAT IS NOT WHAT I HEARD YESTERDAY. I'M SORRY.

I THOUGHT WE DIDN'T HAVE AN APPOINTEE FOR THIS BOARD.

IT WAS THE AIR QUALITY BOARD. AND THEY APPOINTED.

I MISUNDERSTOOD. >> WHICH IS IT?

>> IT IS THAT THE WAY IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE?

>> WHICH IS IT? DO WE KNOW IF THIS BOARD... IS THE PERSON ON THERE APPOINTED BECAUSE SHE IS THE COUNTY JUDGE AND REPRESENT EGG THE COUNTY OR NOT?

>> NO. >> DO WE KNOW?

>> NO. >> I TALKED TO THEM, AND THEN I EXPLAINED THAT THE COURT... THE POINT OF HAVING SOMEBODY TO REPRESENT NUECES COUNTY, SOMEBODY IS ACTIVE.

IT COULD BE THE JUDGE OR ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE CO COURT... IT IS THE WILL OF THE COURT. THE JUDGE WILL BE THE ONE

ATTENDING THESE MEETINGS. >> I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT BOARD. IT TALKS ABOUT AIR QUALITY.

NUECES COUNTY NEEDS TO BE REPRESENTED.

THEY ARE NOT. I WOULD NOMINATE JUDGE SCOTT TO

BE ON THE BOARD... >> SECOND.

>> IF THEY WANT TO TAKE SOMEONE FROM NUECES COUNTY, THEY DON'T HAVE TO. I RECOMMEND THAT SHE BE ON THE BOARD. IF IF IT IS NOT AN APPOINTED THING, THEY DON'T HAVE TO TAKE HER.

THEN THEY DON'T HAVE ANYBODY FROM NUECES COUNTY.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPOINT ME TO THE BOARD.

AND WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY IEVMENT. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES. I AM APPOINTED TO THAT, IF THEY

WILL ALLOW IT. >> TO REPRESENT NUECES COUNTY.

WE NEED REPRESENTATION ON THAT BOARD.

S IF. >> YES.

YES. >> ITEM NUMBER 2, THE CONSENT

[2. CONSENT AGENDA: The following Agenda Items are of a routine nature, and the Commissioners Court has received supporting materials for consideration. All of these Agenda Items will be passed with one vote without being discussed separately, unless a member of the Commissioners Court or the public requests that a particular Agenda Item be discussed. If so, that Agenda Item will be pulled from the Consent Agenda and discussed as part of the regular Agenda at the appropriate time. One vote will approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.]

AGENDA. 2-A, AUTHORIZE PAYMENT OF BILLS,

[01:50:04]

REGULAR BILL SUMMARIES, DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2023.

CHECK REGISTER PAYMENTS FROM THE VENDORS EXCEPTION LIST.

DATED JANUARY 13-RBGS 2027 AND 23 AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SPECIAL MOTION PAYMENTS. DATED JANUARY 20, '23.

CAN I GET A MOTION OR DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THOSE? CAN I GET A MOTION?

>> SPECIAL MOTIONS? >> CAN I MAKE A MOTION FOR THE

ENTIRE CONSENT, JUDGE? >> OH.

THANK YOU. I WENT TO CONSENT WITHOUT ASKING IF ANYBODY WANTED TO REMOVE ANYTHING.

>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON I. A QUICK QUESTION ON I.

>> WE WILL PULL I. >> SCOTT... I JUST FORGOT.

>> ARE YOU ASKING ME, SIR? >> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU.

WHENEVER JUDGE IS READY. >> MOTION TO APPROVE A THROUGH P

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF I. >> SECOND.

TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF I.

>> ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN.

[I. Authorize the execution of the Reinstatement and Amendment No. 2 with Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program related to the Packery Channel Nature Park project to extend the Agreement's termination date to June 23, 2023.]

MOTION PASSES. AND COMMISSIONER CHESNEY DO, YOU

WANT TO ADDRESS I? >> IF YOU CAN JUST EXPLAIN WHAT

THAT IS, SCOTT. >> WE ARE EXTENDING THE GRANT TIMELINE ON THIS PROJECT. WE ARE COMPLETING THE DESIGN WORK FOR SOME EDUCATIONAL SIGNAGE.

PACKERY CHANNEL. THAT IS IT.

IT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENT.

>> THAT IS ALL IT IS. >> IT DOESN'T COST ANY MORE

MONEY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. >> WE NEED TO FINISH THE DESIGN OUT THERE ON THE BOARDWALK FOR THE FACILITY.

>> GOTCHA. >> MOTION TO PASS, JUDGE.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND IN. >> SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVING ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

[1. Receive update from the Nueces County Hospital District on the Memorial Medical Center demolition project being conducted by CHRISTUS Spohn Health System Corporation; demolition project located at 2606 Hospital Boulevard, Corpus Christi, Texas.]

3 AFTER A. 3-A.

3-A1. AN UPDATE FROM THE NUECES COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT ON THE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER.

DEMOLITION PROJECT. JOHNNY, THANK YOU FOR BEING

HERE. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.

WE WANTED TO DO JUST A BRIEF UPDATE.

CONNIE, IF YOU COULD BRING UP THAT CAMERA VIDEO.

COMMISSIONERS, WE WANTED TO BRIEFLY UPDATE YOU ON WHERE WE ARE ON THE MEMORIAL DEMOLITION PROJECT.

>> YOU HAVE BEEN UP AND DOWN CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY, YOU ALL PROBABLY NOTICED THE WORK THAT IS TAKING PLACE THERE.

THE WEST BUILDING IS ALL THE WAY DOWN.

THE OVERALL DEMOLITION PROJECT IS ABOUT 40% COMPLETE.

AND THE BUILDING MATERIALS THAT ARE COMING DOWN AS PART OF THE DEMOLITION ARE RECYCLED. I HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN THREE CAMERAS THAT ARE STATIONED AROUND THE DEMOLITION SITE.

AND THOSE WERE AS OF THE MOMENT I GUESS CONNIE CALLED THEM UP.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT VENUES OF THE PROJECT, BUT THE WEST BUILDING OF THE DEMOLITION IS DOWN.

THE EAST BUILDING WHICH IS THE NEWER BUILDING IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING DEMOLISHED. THE OVERALL DEMOLITION PROJECT SHOULD BE FINISHED BY JULY. I HAVE JERRY KRAMER HERE WHO IS THE ARCHITECT THAT WORKS FOR SPOHN.

HE IS OVERSEEING THE PROJECT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

[2. Receive update from the Nueces County Hospital District on the District’s planned expansion of the Dr. Hector P. Garcia Memorial Family Health Center located on the Memorial Medical Center campus at 2606 Hospital Boulevard, Corpus Christi, Texas.]

>> VERY GOOD. >> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY...

>> YOU HAVE ITEM NUMBER 2 AS WELL.

IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND UPDATE US ON THE DISTRICT'S PLANNED EXPANSIONMENT OF THE HECTOR GARCIA MEMORIAL FAMILY

CENTER. >> I'M SORRY.

YES, COMMISSIONERS. ON A HAPPIER NOTE, WE ARE PLANNING... WORKING THROUGH THE STEPS OF THE PLANS NEEDED TO

EXPAND THE HECTOR. >> GARCIA CLINIC LOCATED ON THE EAST END OF THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT'S PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF HOSPITAL BOULEVARD AND 19TH STREET.

AND THE HECTOR GARCIA CLINIC WAS BUILT ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.

AND IT HAS RAPIDLY OUTGROWN THE FACILITY THERE IS FOR THE SERVICES THAT THEY NEED. THE CLINIC NEEDS TEACHING FACILITIES AND EXAM MAKES THE EXAMINATION ROOMS. WE ARE WORKING WITH SPOHN NOW AND DOING AN IDENTIFICATION, IF YOU, WILL TO FIND OUT WHAT ALL IS NEEDED IN TERMS OF AN EXPANSION PROMPT. ONCE WE HAVE THOSE NEEDS TOGETHER AND HAVE SORT OF GONE THROUGH THEM, WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFIX AN APPROXIMATE COST OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THAT EXPANSION. WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT.

AND I JUST WANT TO UNDERSCORE THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET.

WE ARE ONLY WORKING THROUGH THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT NOW.

[01:55:01]

ONCE WE HAVE IDENTIFIED COST, WE HAVE ALREADY HIRED A FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO WORK WITH THE DISTRICT TO HELP US IDENTIFY FINANCING OPTIONS. SO ONCE WE HAVE ALL OF THAT WORK OUT OF THE WAY, WE WILL BE BACK TO YOU ALL WITH THOSE PLANS AND HOW THEY WOULD WORK. BECAUSE THE LAW DOES REQUIRE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVE ANY EXPANSION, ANY WORK AND STUFF THAT WE DO THERE. THERE IS AMPLE SPACE ON THE HOSPITAL CAMPUS TO EXPANELED HPG TO INCLUDE ADDITIONAL EXAM RO ROOMS. PROBABLY GOING TO RELOCATE SERVICES OUT OF THAT BUILDING INTO ANOTHER BUILDING, AND THE PLAN ALSO HOLDS FOR THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT TO MOVE ITS OFFICES AND STUFF TO THAT LOCATION AT THAT TIME.

WE WANT TO SIGNAL TO YOU THAT WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THE PLANS FOR THAT. THE ARCHITECT IS WORKING WITH SPOHN. WE HAVE A LIST OF NEEDS ALREADY.

WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THOSE TO GAUGE THE COST AND DE... AND THE SIZE OF WHAT WE CAN AFFORD. MR. KRAMER IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MIGHT V.

>> IS THIS STILL GOING TO BE WHAT YOU ARE PROJECTING...

MAYBE THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT WILL MOVE TO THAT AREA ALSO?

>> THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT'S OFFICES WERE PLANNING TO LOOK AT THEM IN THE FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT OR THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT WE ARE DOING TO RELOCATE THEM FROM THE TOWER TO THAT CAMPUS. WE ALSO HAVE AN ELIGIBILITY OFFICE THAT IS HOUSED AT THE HGB CLINIC.

WE WILL PROBABLY MOVE THAT INTO THE BUILDING.

LIKELY BE MOVING THE PHARMACY AND SOME CLASSROOMS OUT OF HPG INTO THE NEW BUILDING. THERE IS AMPLE SPACE.

>> YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE SITE LIKELY WHERE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO GO. THAT IS WHERE THE HEALTH PAD HELIPAD IS LOCATED NOW PARALLEL TO THE CLINIC.

>> IT IS A GOOD IDEA. IN THE LONG RUN, IT SAVES LOT OF

MONEY ON THE RENT. >> YES.

AND ALSO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF NOT HAVING ENOUGH EXAM ROOMS AND STUFF. THE SPOHNS MEDICAL RESIDENCY PROGRAM HAS GROWN. SINCE WE BUILT THE CLINIC.

AND THERE IS ALSO PATIENT VOLUME THAT HAS GROWN THERE.

HPG IS THE MAIN CLINIC OF ALL THE CLINICS WE HAVE.

>> JOHNNY, YOU KNOW, THE CLINIC IS GREAT.

I MEAN, I REMEMBER THE OPENING AND I HAVE BEEN THERE A COUPLE OF TIMES SINCE. IT IS GREATLY USED.

YOU KNOW, THAT WAS MY CONCERN WHEN THERE WAS THAT TRANSITION, GETTING RID OF THE SPOHN MEMORIAL AND COMBINING IT TO SHORELINE AND THEN. WHAT WAS THE CLINIC GOING TO HANDLE. IT IS OBVIOUSLY PUT TO USE.

RECENTLY, ANECDOTALLY, I HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND THE SPOHN SHORELINE. THEY ARE INUNDATED.

THEY ARE OVERRUN, IN MY OPINION. I DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE NUMBERS WORK FOR A MEDICAL CARE. I DON'T... YOU KNOW, I DON'T CLAIM TO BE AN EXPERT. JUST WALKING AND SEEING AND HEARING FROM CONSTITUENTS THAT... YOU KNOW, THERE IS A LOT THERE. I KNOW WE NEED TO EXPAND OUR FOOTPRINT. I REALLY WAS NEVER A FAN OF THE MOVE THAT WAS MADE IN 2014. BUT IT WAS DONE LONG BEFORE ANY OF US WERE HERE. AND IT WAS DONE... I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ WAS HERE. BUT YOU KNOW, IT IS WHAT IT IS.

RIGHT? WE HAVE MOVED FORWARD.

GREAT FACILITY. SPOHN SHORELINE.

THE E.R. TIMES, THE WAIT TIMES, BEING A COUNTY FACILITY AND BEING A REGULAR E.R. FACILITY, THERE IS A LOT TO BE, TO BE SAID ABOUT HOW PEOPLE ARE WAITING, THE WAIT TIMES, THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABILITY TO GET BASIC MEDICAL CARE.

SO I'M HOPING THAT THE CLINIC, AS MUCH GOOD AS IT HAS DONE AND PROVEN THAT IT CAN MAYBE TAKE AWAY BACK SOME OF THOSE BASIC NEEDS. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE GOING IN BECAUSE THEY HAVE MAYBE NEVER BEEN ON HIGH PRESSURE MEDICINE.

HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE MEDICINE. THAT IS EXTRA TIME, EXTRA EFFORT. THAT THEY ARE TAKING AWAY FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE MORE SERIOUS ELEMENTS.

I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE OUR HOSPITAL DISTRICT WARD AND OUR PARTNERSHIP REALLY SEE HOW CAN WE DIVERT SOME OF THOSE THAT ARE GOING INTO THE E.R.... I THINK IT IS MAYBE O'WORD OF MOUTH THAT THEY NEED TO BE MADE AWARE OF THE CLINIC.

ANY TIME SOMEONE GETS SICK, THEY AUTOMATICALLY THINK I NEED TO GO TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM. IF THERE IS A WAY TO BE ABLE TO PULL THAT BACK AND YOUR VISION OF EXFLANGS AT THE CLINIC, I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. BECAUSE I HAVE JUST REALLY BEEN CONCERNED WITH HOW PEOPLE WHO ARE NEEDING THE REAL CARE ARE HAVING TO WAIT QUITE SOME TIME BECAUSE THERE IS OTHER PEOPLE WHO COULD BE SEEN IN A LESS PROMPT SETTING.

[02:00:02]

IN A MORE MINOR E.R. TYPE SETTING.

OF COURSE, WE KNOW PEOPLE MAY NOT HAVE THE HEALTH CARE OR THE ABILITY TO GET TO SOME OF THOSE FOR-PROFIT ONES THAT ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE AREA. THAT IS MY CONCERN.

AND I HAVE BEEN FEELING THAT WAY FOR A WHILE.

I WANTED TO GET YOU HERE BEFORE TO SHARE THOSE CONCERNS.

BUT IF THAT IS A PART OF YOUR VISION, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT IT. WE CAN SPEND TIME OFF-LINE TALKING ABOUT IT. I WANT TO SHARE WIT YOU.

I THINK THAT IS SOMEWHERE WHERE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FOCUS OUR ATTENTION. SO WE CAN DIVERT THOSE PEOPLE AWAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT CAN BE DONE.

MAYBE IT CAN'T. IF IT SIMPLY CAN'T, THEN THAT IS FINE. I WILL TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE EXPLANATION. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE HOW CAN WE KIND OF SEPARATE THE TWO, RIGHT? THOSE THAT KNOW, HEY, YOU NEED TO BE SENT OVER HERE TO THE CLINIC. RATHER THAN GOING TO THE E.R.

THERE. THAT PLACE IS GOING ALL THE TIME. ALL THE TIME.

AND I HEARD AN ISSUE OF A GENTLEMAN WHO WAS IN LIMBO IN OUR E.R. BEFORE E EVEN GOT SEEN. AND YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T TOP-OF-THE-LINE EMERGENCY. HE HAD SOME TOE THAT IS NEEDED TO BE AMPUTATED. BECAUSE HE WAS SEVERELY DIABETIC. BY THE TIME HE EVEN GOT...

RECEIVED THE CARE, IT HAD TAKEN SOME TIME.

LIKE I SAID, USING THE EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE THAT MAYBE JUST NEED TO BE SEEN FOR MEDICATION OR OTHER MORE MINOR TREATMENTS, I KNOW THAT THEY ARE DOING THAT AT THE CLINIC.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT CAN BE DIVERTED OR MAYBE THEY ARE ALREADY DOING THAT THERE AT THE E.R.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT COME TO REALITY ONE DAY, IF IT IS NOT

ALREADY IN PLACE. >> COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. THAT ISSUE CAME UP IN THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT, ACTUALLY. IT IS ON THE NEEDS LIST THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US TO ADDRESS, AND WHAT TRANSLATED WITH THAT, IN THIS LIST, SPOHN HAS PROPOSED THAT WE ESTABLISH AN URGENT CARE CENTER OR SOME FUNCTIONING THING THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY OFF-LOAD THE KIND OF PATIENT YOU DESCRIBE FROM THE SHORELINE EMERGENCY ROOM AND WE ARE WORKING THROUGH. THAT THAT IDEA HAS ALREADY GOTTEN ON THE LIST. IT IS HIGH ON THERE FOR CONSIDERATION. JUST TO KIND OF BACK-TRACK A LITTLE BIT, WHEN THE SHORELINE EMERGENCY ROOM AND THE MEMORIAL EMERGENCY ROOM WERE COMBINED, WE KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE VERY BUSY. THEY ACTUALLY HANDLE TWO KINDS OF PATIENTS, IF YOU WILL. THEY WERE COMBINED AT SHORELINE.

IT WAS ONE EMERGENCY ROOM. SPOHNS LIVE WITH EXACTLY THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE SAID AND ENDURED THE CONCERNS THAT Y'ALL HAVE, TOO. THE THOUGHT OF... I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS GOING TO BE ABURMT CARE CENTER OR SOME OTHER CENTER THAT FUNCTIONS TO OFF LODE THE WORK FROM THE SHORELINE EMERGENCY ROOM FOR STUFF THAT IS NOT CRITICAL, NOT LIFE-THREATENING. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER IN, A SHORT WAY, YOUR THOUGHTS.

IT IS ON THE LIST. IT IS HIGH ON THE LIST.

>> THAT IS GREAT. I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT WE NEED. I NEED TO HEAR THAT.

SO WHEN WE HAVE RESIDENTS ASK: WE CAN TELL THEM IT IS IN THE PROCESS. IAS PART OF THIS OVERALL PLAN AD VISION THAT YOU HAVE AND THE PARTNERSHIP WORKING WITH SPOHN.

SPOHN IS GREAT. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK THAT I'M NOT DOING THEIR PART OF THE JOB OR THAT THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT IS. IT IS HEALTH CARE THAT IS SO OVERWHELMING. WE KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE THIS PLAN AND THAT HOPEFULLY, IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN SEE WITHIN THE NEXT FEW YEARS COME TO, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF NEW STRUCTURE BEING BUILT OR A NEW WAY OF DIVERTING THESE NEEDS, I THINK THAT WILL HELP EVERYONE, WHETHER THEY NEED THE MINOR OR THE IMMEDIATE SEVERE EMERGENCY NEEDS.

THANK YOU. >> IT IS HIGH ON OUR PRIORITIES.

>> WILL THIS EXPANSION THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, WILL THAT INCLUDE TAKING OUR PEOPLE FROM MEANTAL HEALTH? WILL THEY BE GOING THERE AS WELL?

>> WELL, COMMISSIONER, THERE IS A LOT OF WORK GOING ON WITH MENTAL HEALTH RIGHT NOW. AS YOU ALL KNOW...

>> WE HAVE THE BROWNLEY LOCATION.

>> WITH THE RESTORATION AT BROWNLEY.

I WO WOULD HAVE TO SAY MY INITIL THOUGHT IS PROBABLY NOT.

THE RESTORATION CENTER IS ALREADY SORT OF IN PROGRESS.

IN TERMS OF WORKING OUT FUNDING AND STUFF FOR IT.

IT IS NOT BUILT. THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT ALREADY FUNDS PROBABLY $3.5 MILLION OF OTHER MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS. MOST OF THOSE ARE CHANNELED THROUGH MHID.

SO UNLESS ON THE LIST THERE IS A REQUEST FOR MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIESES, THEY WILL LIKELY NOT BE THERE.

THEY ARE BEING PROVIDED SOMEWHERE ELSE.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

I WAS JUST WONDERING. >> CERTAINLY.

>> COMMISSIONER, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP ABOUT THE WAIT TIME. I WAS THERE NOT TOO LONG AGO.

[02:05:01]

PEOPLE WERE WAITING THERE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX HOURS.

YOU KNOW, THERE IS A SHORT VISION, A SHORT FIX THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO INCLUDE. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT.

I THINK IT IS ABOUT TRANSPORTING PEOPLE FROM SPOHN TO HECTOR P GARCIA. WORKING WITH THE RTA.

THOSE THAT DON'T HAVE TO WAIT SIX HOURS, CAN TRANSPORT TO HECTOR GARCIA. EVERY THE MINIMAL CARE... YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU SAID. DIABETES AND WHATEVER YOU HAVE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S GOT TO BE A WAY WHERE WE CAN OFFER THAT TRANSPORTATION FROM SHORELINE TO HECTOR P THAT DON'T HAVE TO WAIT. YOU KNOW, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.

WORKING TOGETHER WITH SPOHN. WORKING TOGETHER WITH RTA.

WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF TRANSPORTATION TO PEOPLE FROM SPOHN TO HECTOR GARCIA.

KIND OF ELIMINATE THE WAIT TIME AT SPOHN.

PARKING THE HOBBLE, TOO,... PARKING IS HORRIBLE, TOO.

RIGHT? I KNOW THEY ARE WORKING ON THAT.

IT IS REAL BAD. >> YOU LOOK AT THAT VISION.

THERE IS A WAY TO TRANSPORT THE PEOPLE.

IF THEY DON'T HAVE TRANSPORTATION.

THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE WAIT TIMES FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE TO SIT THERE FOR FIVE, SIX HOURS.

>> THAT IS A FIRST-CLASS STREET BETWEEN SHORELINE AND HECTOR P GARCIA. THANK YOU.

>> WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT LATER. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY, TOO. WE APPRECIATE THOSE.

[3. Discuss and consider public application to close/discontinue/abandon a portion of West River View Drive, a designated road, pursuant to Texas Transportation Code Section 251.052.]

>> THANK YOU ALL. >> MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER PUBLIC APPLICATION TO DISCLOSE, DISCONTINUE, AND ABANDON A PORTION OF WEST RIVERVIEW DRIVE, A DESIGNATED ROAD PER STUDENT TO THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE.

I THINK... >> ORIGINALLY, I MADE THIS REQUEST BACK IN OCTOBER. AND THERE IS A COUPLE OF POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. BEFORE Y'ALL MAKE A DECISION.

ONE, THE ROAD ITSELF WAS PLATTED BACK IN 1956.

BUT IT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY OAMED AS A ROAD.

IT HAS NEVER BEEN A DRIVABLE ROAD SURFACE.

THE OTHER ISSUE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF DRAINAGE THE PORTION OF THE ROAD WRA DRAIN DE WAS AN ISSUE WAS ACTUALLY IN WRITING. THE PORTION THAT RUNS CONT CONTIGUOUS, THE PORTION OF THIS ROAD, HE INTEGRATED INTO THAT.

OR SIGNED OFF IN WRITING. THAT PORTION OF THIS ROAD TO BE A PART OF THAT 250-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT.

THE DRAINAGE ISSUE HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF A LONG TIME AGO.

AND I REALLY KNOW OF NO OTHER ISSUES THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE CLOSING OF THIS ROAD. IT WAS PLAT... IT WAS PLATTED IN 1956, LIKE I SAID. NEVER BEEN USED FOR ANYTHING.

AND I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY, I WOULD WAGER IF WE HAD NOT MADE THIS REQUEST TO CLOSE THIS PORTION OF THIS ROAD, NOBODY WOULD EVEN KNOW THAT IT EXISTED. YOU ARE NOT REALLY SURRENDERING ANYTHING. THE COUNTY HAS NEVER HAD ANY USE FOR IT. YOU ARE NOT SURRENDERING ANYTHING. IT IS JUST HELPING THE CITIZENS OUT THERE. THE PROPERTY OWNERS.

>> COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, I KNOW THIS IS YOUR DISTRICT, AND YOU AND I BOTH HAVE BEEN OUT THERE.

I DID GO OUT THERE AND LOOK AT THIS PORTION OF THE ROAD.

>> THAT IS CORRECT, JUDGE. >> FOUR DAYS AGO AS WELL.

>> WELL, AND I'M GLAD YOU ARE DOING WELL, SIR.

I HEARD YOU WERE SICK. I'M GLAD YOU ARE HEALTHY... YOUR HEALTH IS BETTER. I CAN ONLY GO BY THE ADVICE OF OUR COUNTY ENGINEER. OKAY? NOW, SINCE I HAVE BEEN WITH TWO OTHER PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS, IT IS, ACCORDING THE OUR COUNTY ENGINEER, IT IS A DRAINAGE... IT MIGHT BECOME A DRAINAGE PROBLEM. WE NEED IT THERE IN CASE IT

[02:10:05]

DOES. I KNOW THAT IT HASN'T BEEN MAINTAINED PROPERLY. OKAY? I HAVE ONLY HERE... BEEN HERE... I AGREE WITH YOU.

I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS EASEMENT OR THIS ROAD UNTIL YOU BROUGHT IT UP. I LOOKED INTO IT.

AND I ASKED... I ASKED PUBLIC WORKS WHY IT HASN'T BEEN

MAINTAINED. >> I'M SORRY.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE REGARDING DRAINAGE.

ANY ISSUE REGARDING DRAINAGE WAS ADDRESSED IN THAT HEATHER RIDGE

PLAT. >> WE SHOULD ASK JUAN TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THE DRAINAGE ISSUE.

>> MOST OF THE ROAD... MOST OF THE PORTION OF THE ROAD THAT WE ARE REQUESTING, IT IS ONLY 30 FEET.

IT IS A 30-FOOT STRIP. MOST OF THE PORTION OF THE ROAD THAT WE ARE REQUESTING TO BE CLOSED IS ON TOP OF A HILL.

WHEN YOU GET FURTHER SOUTH AWAY FROM THE RIVER.

NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE EVER HAD AN ISSUE.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ISSUE. IF THERE HAD BEEN MAJOR ISSUES REGARDING DRAINAGE, YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD FROM THESE PEOPLE

YEARS AGO. >> WELL, I'M GOING TO LET THE COUNTY ENGINEER COME INTO THIS DISCUSSION.

HE KNOWS ABOUT THIS AREA BETTER THAN I DO.

>> OKAY. YOU NEED THE MICROPHONE?

>> I'M SORRY. >> NO.

>> HE PROBABLY NEEDS THE MICROPHONE.

SO WE CAN HEAR HIM. >> YOU DON'T MIND.

YES. >> OKAY.

>> HERE, JUAN. IF YOU WANT THIS ONE.

YES. >> OKAY.

>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS.

IN YOUR CREDIT, COMMISSIONER, THIS ITEM HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO COMMISSIONER... HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO COMMISSIONERS COURT SEVERAL TIMES. WE HAVE BROUGHT IT TO COURT.

I KNOW WE REQUIRED THE OPINION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND ADVICE. THERE IS NATURAL DRAINAGE THAT RUNS THROUGH THESE PROPERTIES. THE MAIN CONCERN, COMMISSIONER, AND WE ARE ALL SPENDING, YOU KNOW, ARPA MONEYS TO CORRECT THE DRAINAGE ISSUES WITHIN THE COUNTY.

WE ARE NOT AWARE OF WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER... WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS TO CLOSE THIS EASEMENT.

ARE THEY BUILDING A STRUCTURE THAT IS GOING TO BE BLOCKING THE NATURAL DRAINAGE WAY? IS THAT SOMETHING THEY CAN PROVIDE TO US? YOU DO HAVE TWO RESIDENTS THAT ARE ACROSS... THEY HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS THAT CROSS A DRAINAGE WAY. THEY HAVE SOME CULVERT THAT IS DRAIN TOWARDS THE NORTH. ON THE EAST SIDE.

AND OF COURSE,S A WOODED AREA. IT IS OVERGROWN.

I TALKED TO JERRY. JERRY HAS INFORMED ME THAT YES, THEY HAD MAINTAINED IT PREVIOUSLY WHEN THE PREVIOUS ENGINEER WAS HERE. HOWEVER, IT HASN'T BEEN MAINTAINED SINCE. BUT THERE IS... YOU KNOW, AND NOT ONLY THAT. WHAT THEY ARE PLANNING ON BUILDING OR PLANNING ON CONSTRUCTING IN THE FUTURE, HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE THERE? THERE COULD BE SOME BLOCKAGE OF NATURAL DRAINAGE. THERE IS SOME DITCHES... A DITCH THAT GOES THROUGH THERE AS WE SPEAK RIGHT NOW.

>> THANK YOU, JUAN. >> JUDGE, IN LOOKING AT THE ATTACHMENTS THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT LEANS THE ARGUMENT MORE TOWARDS THE EXPLANATION THAT JUAN HAS GIVEN US. WHEN YOU GO TO GOOGLE EARTH, IT IS HARD TO FIND ANYTHING THAT RESEMBLES A ROAD.

>> THERE IS NO... I DROVE OUT THERE.

THTHERE HAS NEVER BEEN A ROAD THERE.

THERE ISN'T A ROAD. >> THAT IS WHAT'S BEING

DESCRIBED AS... >> THERE IS NO ROAD.

IT DOESN'T EXIST. >> MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE THAT LAST STATEMENT THAT YOU SAID.

THAT THERE IS... YOU SAID A DITCH.

>> YES. THERE IS A DITCH.

>> THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD MAKE ME SAY OKAY, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE DISTURBED.

>> YES. THERE IS A DITCH THAT GOES THROUGH THERE. I MEAN, OF COURSE, I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER. THERE IS NO ROAD RIGHT NOW.

THERE IS A DRAINAGE DITCH THAT GOES THROUGH THERE.

AND THERE IS A COUPLE OF CULVERTS FOR HOUSES THAT ARE THERE. THEY HAVE DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE CROSSING. WE HAVE GOT COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE ON THE SITE. THERE IS A DRAINAGE STRUCTURE THAT CROSSES FROM 64. THERE IS A GENTLEMAN THERE COMPLAINING ABOUT DRAINAGE ALREADY.

THERE IS A NATURAL DRAINAGE THAT GOES THROUGH THERE AND GOES

[02:15:03]

TOWARDS THE NORTH. >> IF THEIR PROBLEM IS NOT BECAUSE OF ANYTHING GOING ON IN THE DRAINAGE DITCH ALREADY.

>> NO. BUT YES, JUDGE, AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLOSURE IS FOR.

ONCE WE RELEASE, ONCE WE RELEASE THIS EASEMENT OR RIGHT OF WAY, THEY CAN BUILD ANYTHING THEY WANT.

>> HAVE YOU BEEN OUT THERE AND LOOKED AT THIS?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME BUILDING ANYTHING ON WHAT I DROVE ON.

IT IS A LOW DITCH. THE DRAINAGE.

YES. >> YES.

WE HAVE DRIVEN OUT THERE SEVERAL TIMES TO.

MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE COME UP HERE, THAT WE DISCUSS AND GIVE

YOU THE RIGHT INFORMATION. >> YEAH.

YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY SOME, I THINK IT IS THESE FOUR OR FIVE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT OWN BOTH SIDES OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH THAT JUST WANT CONTINUOUS PROPERTY.

I UNDERSTAND, IT IS DEFINITELY A DRAINAGE DITCH.

YOU DON'T WANT TO BUILD ANYTHING ON IT.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AND MESS UP THAT PROCESS.

BY ALL MEANS. THAT IS ALL IT'S EVER BEEN.

I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE. I DON'T SEE ANY POTENTIAL.

I THINK I WAS EVEN TOLD WHEN I WENT OUT THERE TO LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY, THAT THEY HAVE HAD KIDS EVEN TRY TO GO THROUGH ON FOUR-WHEELERS OR SOMETHING. AND IT DOES HOLD WATER.

YOU HAVE STUCK. PARENTS ARE UPSET ABOUT TRYING TO COME GET THEIR KIDS OUT OF THERE.

I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER. I INTERRUPTED YOU.

>> NO. I WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

AND SO I HAVE HEARD MR. HIGGINBOTHAM'S CLAIM.

I NO EHIS PREVIOUS... I KNOW HIS PREVIOUS WORK.

AND HIS WORK IN NUECES AND THE COUNTY.

HE IS A VERY THOROUGH MAN. HE HAS BEEN HERE BEFORE SEVERAL TIMES. I KNOW ONE THING ABOUT MR. HIGGINBOTHAM. HE DOES HIS HOMEWORK.

I TRUST IN JUAN IN VOLKING FOR OUR INTERESTS... IN ADVOCATING FOR OUR INTERESTS. THERE IS A THIRD PART TO THIS.

THAT IS OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. IF WE CAN GET AN OPINION ON THIS, AND I CAN'T RECALL IF WE HAVE HAD ONE PREVIOUSLY.

>> DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION ALREADY?

>> BUT MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THIS IS THAT WE... IF THIS IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS, AND IT IS ONE OF THOSE... I DON'T WANT TO SAY GOTCHA MOMENTS. BUT I FOUND A LOOPHOLE OR I FOUND WHAT THE LAW SAYS. AND WE SHOULD FOLLOW THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. THEN ARE WE IN THAT SITUATION? IF SO, MY WORRY IS HOW DO WE CLEAN UP EVERYTHING ELSE? BECAUSE THERE COULD BE POTENTIALLY OTHER ROADS THAT THE SAME CLAIM COULD BE MADE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY.

I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT IT IN A BIGGER PERSPECTIVE.

IF YOU CAN JUST HELP US WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT.

>> TO ADD TO THAT QUESTION. IF YOU DON'T MIND.

AND I KNOW I TALKED TO THE COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ THIS MORNING. HE SAID HE FULLY INTENDED AND UNDERSTOOD ABOUT... IF THIS IS AND WE DON'T DO THIS, THEN IT IS THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THIS DRAINAGE DITCH. WE HAVEN'T EVER DONE.

THAT WE HAVEN'T EVER MOWED OR CLEARED OR DONE ANYTHING ON THIS PROPERTY. SO THAT BEING SAID, WE ALSO NEED TO KNOW OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS NEEDS TO BE BETTER.

IF WE CHOOSE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD, I DON'T KNOW THE WILL OF THIS COURT TODAY. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ TOLD ME THAT WAS HIS WISH AS WELL. AND HIS UNDERSTANDING.

>> THAT IS CORRECT, JUDGE. THAT IS CORRECT.

IT IS OUR COUNTY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN THAT AREA. AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE TO YOU, SIR, IF IT HASN'T BEEN DONE. WE HAVE BEEN UNDERSTAFFED.

WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE EQUIPMENT WE NEEDED.

I THINK WE HAVE ONE BACK AGAIN WITH THE EQUIPMENT.

THERE IS A FEW MORE. EMPLOYEES.

THEY WILL HELP US GET THIS STRAIGHTENED OUT.

IF YOU ALL SEE ANY PROBLEMS, YOU HAVE CALLED ME BEFORE.

GIVE ME A CALL. I WILL GET IT TAKEN CARE OF.

>> WELL,... >> YOUR OPINION ON THAT, JENNY?

>> OKAY. WE WROTE SOMETHING BACK IN JUNE OF LAST YEAR. SO I'M GOING BACK TO THAT.

YES. YOU CAN, IF YOU VOTE UNANIMOUSLY 5-0, VOTE TO CLOSE DOWN THIS ROAD.

IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS. THERE IS SOME POSTING ISSUE, I BELIEVE THEY SAID THEY HAD POSTED AT A DATE PRIOR, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS POSTED, YOU KNOW PREVIOUS TO THIS MEETING.

>> IT MAY HAVE EXPIRED. >> IF IT DOES COME TO A 5-0 VOTE, WE CAN GO BACK AND MAKE SURE A POST WAS DONE APPROPRIATELY. IF NOT, WE CAN HELP MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS. THAT IS THEIR POSTING REQUIREMENT. NOT THE COUNTY'S REQUIREMENT.

WE CAN WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED T THAT, AND POSSIBLY BRING IT BACK JUST TO INFORM THE COURT THAT THAT HAS BEEN... THAT HAS HAPPENED APPROPRIATELY.

IF THAT IS THE DESIRE OF THE COURT.

>> WHY WAS THE OPINION BEFORE TO NOT DO IT?

[02:20:03]

TWO OTHER PREVIOUS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OR THEY BROUGHT THIS BEFORE, I MEAN, YOU ARE JUST SAYING NOW THAT WE CAN.

WE JUST HAVE... >> WELL, YOU CAN.

THAT WOULD BE AGAINST THE ADVICE... THIS WOULD BE AN OVERRIDE OF THE ADVICE FROM THE COUNTY ENGINEER.

>> OKAY. >> AT ANY TIME, YOU DO SO, THEN ANY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS COULD HAVE... COULD RECOVER IF THEY ARE DAMAGED BY THAT. IF THE COST... IF THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY IS DECREASED BY THIS ACTION.

OR IF THERE IS ANY OTHER DAMAGE TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BECAUSE OF THIS, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO

CONSIDERATION. >> EXCUSE ME.

>> GO AHEAD. YES.

>> EXCUSE ME. >> YES.

>> Y'ALL ARE AWARE THAT WE ARE ONLY REQUESTING A PORTION OF THE ROAD TO BE CLOSED. FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOT 15 NORTH TO THE... WHERE IT EXTENDS UP TOWARD THE NUECES RIVER.

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR... LOT 15, I'M SORRY.

LOT 15 SITS ON THE TOP OF A HILL.

AND FROM THERE, IT IS... IT SLOPES DOWN TO MR. MURPHY'S 250-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT. LIKE I SAID, T THAT'S ALL BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BY AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY REQUIRING... AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HIM PLATTING THE HEATHER RIDGE ESTATE'S PLAT. THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE COUNTIES.

ALREADY. IT IS DONE.

THE ISSUE REGARDING DRAINAGE HAS ALL BEEN ADDRESSED.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT. LIKE I SAID, IT HAS NEVER BEEN A ROAD. THE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE SOUTH, ALL OWN BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.

THEY OWN... THEIR HOMES ARE IN HEATHER RIDGE ESTATES.

THEY OWN ALL OF THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE.

AND YOU KNOW, RIVERSIDE ACRES. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND.

66 YEARS. THE COUNTY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS ROAD EXISTED. NONE OF Y'ALL.

NOBODY HERE EVEN KNEW THIS ROAD EXISTED UNTIL I BROUGHT IT UP.

UNTIL I REQUESTED THIS ROAD CLOSURE.

NOW EVERYBODY KNOWS THEY EXIST. IT IS LIKE THE CROWN JEWEL OF

COUNTY ROADS OR SOMETHING. >> I AGREE WITH YOU, SIR.

I DIDN'T KNOW IT EXISTED. I AGREE THAT MAYBE NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE KNOW IT EXISTED. NOT UNTIL YOU CAME UP AND REQUESTED TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF IT.

>> RIGHT. >> ALL I CAN DO... I'M NOT A DRAINAGE PERSON. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON DRAINAGE.

I DO KNOW FROM THE 2021 WEATHER EVENT THAT WE HAD, THE RAIN, WE DID HAVE AN AWFUL LOT OF FLOODING.

THE WEATHER PATTERNS ARE CHANGING TO WHAT I HAVE SEEN.

I'M GOING ON THE ADVICE OF OUR COUNTY ENGINEER.

AND THE OTHER TWO PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS, THAT SAID NO.

>> OKAY. WELL, I WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THIS WAS... THIS DRAINAGE ISSUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN WRITING FOR A LONG TIME BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND DAN

MURPHY. >> EXCUSE ME.

>> AND ONE THING... I'M SORRY. JENNY, ONE QUESTION REAL QUICK.

I KNOW AND JUAN, PROBABLY TO YOU AS WELL, THE ISSUE THAT YOU ARE SAYING NOT TO DO THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE AND SOMEBODY COULD BUILD SOMETHING ON THERE. IS THERE A WAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS WITH THE STIPULATION THAT NOTHING COULD BE BUILT ON THIS DRAINAGE? EASEMENT?

>> YEAH. NOTHING COULD BE BUILT THERE.

>> LOOKING AT IT, I WOULD DOUBT IT.

BUT YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BUILD.

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. IS THERE A WAY TO MOVE FOOFERRED FORWARD WITH SAYING OKAY, WE AGREE TO THIS ROAD CLOSURE WITH THE STIPULATIONS? IS THERE A WAY TO ADD THAT?

>> AAS STRUCTURED NOW, IT IS AN ABANDONMENT OF THE EASEMENT ISSUE. WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT ANY TYPE

OF... >> IF WE ABANDON, WE ABANDON.

>> IT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM, THEN. >> THAT COULD BE ADDRESS IN THE ORDER. THE ROAD COULD BE ABANDONED.

IT COULD BE ADDRESSED IF THERE WAS ANY DRAINAGE ISSUES, THAT AN EASEMENT COULD BE PROVIDED. IT CAN BE WRITTEN IN.

THERE IS NO REASON THIS CAN'T BE A WIN-WIN.

[02:25:02]

THERE IS NO REASON THE COUNTY CAN'T HAVE WHAT THEY WANT AND THE PROPERTIES HAVE WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY WOULD OWN THE PROPERTIES, SUBJECT TO THE COUNTY'S RIGHT TO COME IN AND ADDRESS DRAINAGE AS NECESSARY.

AT ANY TIME. >> OKAY.

JENNY, SAY WE ABANDON THE ROAD. HOW DO WE DIVIDE THE ROAD?

WHRO IS GOING TO PLAT THE ROAD? >> THERE IS GOING TO NEED TO BE SOME SURVEY AND TITLE WORK. I'M NOT SURE IF THERE HAS BEEN

SURVEYING. >> WELL, IT IS ALL PLATTED.

NO. NO.

THEY MAY NEED SOME TITLE WORK. >> TO BE.

THAT THEN IT WOULD CLOSE. IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD.

IF THEY ARE SAYING... >> HOW ABOUT THE EASEMENT, THOUGH? HOW ARE WE GOING TO HAVE AN

EASEMENT TO GET BACK THERE? >> THAT IS A NEW ISSUE.

>> OH, MY GOODNESS.K AT THAT. RIGHT.

>> WELL, IT IS NOT AS EASY. BECAUSE IF WE GIVE YOU ABANDONMENT, YOU HAVE TO PLAT IT.

YOU HAVE TO PLAT IT GIVEN AS AN EASEMENT.

THE PEOPLE ACROSS, THEY ARE GOING TO GET THEIR PORTION.

THEY HAVE TO ALSO AGREE... >> I BELIEVE THEY ARE SAYING THAT IT IS THE SINGLE OWNER ON EACH SIDE.

>> WE OWN BOTH SIDES. >> THREE OWNERS ON THE SOUTH END OWN BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD. AND THAT PORTION IS UP ON THE TOP OF A HILL. IN ORDER TO GET...

>> THEY OWN IT NOW. THEN IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY SELL ONE SIDE, THEN YOU BECOME A PROBLEM AGAIN.

I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT... IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PLATTED.

BOTH SIDES WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN EASEMENT.

>> THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED. AS A CONTINGENCY IN THE ORDER.

THAT COULD BE EASILY ADDRESSED. I HAVE 45 YEARS EXPERIENCE IN THE TITLE INSURANCE BUSINESS. I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS EVERY DAY FOR 45 YEARS. KIT EASILY BE ADDRESSED.

THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE COUNTY CAN'T HAVE WHAT THEY WANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE WHAT THEY WANT.

SUBJECT TO THE RESERVATIONS BY THE COUNTY.

>> THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, DO THEY AGREE?

>> THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO DO THAT.

>> DO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AGREE TO GO AHEAD AND PLAT IT TO GO AHEAD WITH THE EASEMENT? DO THEY AGREE TO THAT?

>> WHY WOULD WE GIVE THIS UP WITH NO MONEY? HAVE YOU OFFERED FUNDS FOR THE VALUE OF THIS? HAVE YOU HAD AN APPRAISAL? YOU KNOW PEOPLE DO APPRAISALS ON PROPERTY LIKE THIS. THAT IS BEFORE THEY CAN CLOSE.

HAS ANYBODY TALKED ABOUT HOW MUCH THAT IS WORTH? IF WE GIVE IT TO YOU, DO WE HAVE TO GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY ELSE?

HAS THAT BEEN ADDRESSED? >> NO.

WE WILL BE HAPPY TO HAVE IT APPRAISED.

>> WE ARE HERE TODAY. I WOULD THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE

BEEN DONE BEFORE. >> WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO ADDRESS ANY CONTINGENCIES THAT WE NEED TO INCLUDE IN. THIS WE ARE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR AN ALL OR NOTHING.

WE ARE NOT. >> IT IS ALL OR NOTHING TODAY BECAUSE YOU ARE ASKING FOR US TO ABANDON IT.

IT HAS BEEN TABLED SEVERAL TIMES.

ALL OF THESE THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT WITH PUBLIC WORKS BEFORE. TALKED ABOUT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. ALL WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TODAY IS DO WE ABANDON OR NOT ABANDON? I MEAN, I'M NOT... IT IS KIND OF SILLY TO SIT HERE AND NEGOTIATE IN PUBLIC WHEN MAYBE THAT SHOULD

HAVE BEEN DONE... >> I WAS ONLY ALLOWED TO SPEAK AT THE FIRST MEETING. EVER SINCE THEN, IT WAS IMMEDIATELY TABLED. I WASN'T ALLOWED TO SPEAK.

>> I MEAN, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU COULD GET WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. LIKE, TO SIT HERE AND NEGOTIATE THIS IN PUBLIC IS NOT HOW WE NORMALLY WOULD DO SOMETHING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE. WE WOULD TRY TO, YOU KNOW, YOU SIT DOWN WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OR THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

>> THAT HAS ALL BEEN DONE. THAT HAS BEEN DONE.

>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? HE SAID THEY HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT COST. IT HASN'T BEEN APPRAISED.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU, SIR. YOU HAVE TO GET ON THE MIC.

>> THEY ARE WILLING TO APPRAISE THE PROPERTY AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. THEY ARE NOT ASKING THE COUNTY

DO DO THAT FOR THEM. >> I'M JUST SAYING.

HE SAID IT HAS BEEN ALL DONE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS WORTH.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PRECEDENT WE ARE SETTING.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS DIDN'T DO IT BEFORE. PROBABLY BECAUSE THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ADVISED NOT TO DO IT.

AND THEY WENT WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY I WANT TO GO AGAINST THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR EITHER. I'M WILLING TO LISTEN.

I'M NOT GOING TO NEGOTIATE AGAINST MYSELF IN A PUBLIC SITUATION. SO MAYBE WE SHOULD DIRECT MR. HIGGINBOTHAM TO GO MEET WITH STAFF AND SEE IF THEY CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WORKABLE AND BRICK IT BACK? WE CAN RECESS IT AND BRING IT BACK LATER TODAY.

>> CAN WE BE ALLOWED TO MEET WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY?

[02:30:01]

AND RE-PRESENT OUR REQUEST? >> SURE.

>> CONTINGENT UPON ALL OF THIS STUFF? I CAN'T SEE IT GOING YES OR NO AT THIS POINT.

BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY CON TIN JOHNNIES.

IT WOULD MAKE THIS A WORKABLE DEAL.

EVERYBODY COULD HAVE EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT.

>> YOU NEED TO SIT DOWN WITH THE COUNTY ENGINEER BECAUSE MANY OF US DEFER TO THE COUNTY ENGINEER'S...

>> I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO IT AGAIN.

EVERYBODY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN IN.

WHY DON'T WE GET TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT

WORKS FOR EVERYBODY? >> SHOULD WE MOVE THIS ITEM TO... I MEAN, THIS LOOKS LIKE IT IS GOING TO BE LENGTHY.

>> YEAH. >> IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS.

IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT IS GOING TO BE.

I WOULDN'T WANT TO VOTE TODAY IF I WERE YOU.

>> YEAH. WE SHOULD MOVE THIS TO THE MARCH

MEETING. >> PLEASE JUST DON'T WRITE THESE PEOPLE OFF. WITHOUT A CHANCE TO EXPLORE THIS FURTHER. WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE COUNTY WHATEVER CONCESSIONS THEY WANT.

REGARDING ANY TYPE OF DRAINAGE ISSUES.

>> WELL, THIS IS IN YOUR DISTRICT, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. DO YOU WANT TO MOVE THIS TO THE... BRING IT BACK IN THE MARCH MEETING?

>> I WANT TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND COUNTY ENGINEER.

SEE WHAT Y'ALL CAN COME UP WITH. >> WE WILL MEET WITH ANYBODY ANY

TIME. >> I'LL GIVE YOU THAT

OPPORTUNITY. >> MY REQUEST IS WHEN YOU ARE

SCHEDULING THIS... >> WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU ALL TO COMPROMISE. PLEASE BE WILLING TO COMPROMISE

WITH US. >> YES.

AS YOU ARE PICKING A MEETING TO MOVE THIS TO, AS THE COURT IS AWARE, WE HAVE SEVERAL BIG ITEMS THAT WE ARE FOCUSED ON AT THE MOMENT. IF YOU PUT IT IN MARCH, IT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT IT WILL NOT BE RESOLVED AT THAT TIME TO THE

COURT'S SATISFACTION. >> OKAY.

WE NEED TO GET SOMETHING GOING. I AGREE.

I MEAN, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE APPRAISED VALUE IS. IF THIS HAPPENS AGAIN, WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT. IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS, DEWANT SAY, WELL, WE GAVE TEAM THAT ROAD.

THEN EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING TO SAY YOU GAVE THEM A ROAD.

GIVE US THE ROAD. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS WORTH.

IT MA I BE WORTH $5. I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS WORTH. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I'M GOING TO WANT TO KNOW. WHAT THE VALUE IS AND HOW WE GOT THERE. I MEAN, IT CAN'T JUST BE THEM HAVING IT APPRAISED. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE US HAVING IT APPRAISED. SO THAT IT IS FAIR.

I DON'T KNOW. SO YEAH.

>> IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT YOUR OTHER NEIGHBORS?

>> WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE APPRAISAL.

THAT IS NO PROBLEM. WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH

Y'ALL ANY WAY NECESSARY. >> WELL, WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION TO JUST TABLE THIS UNTIL, I GUESS, SOME NEGOTIATIONS AND APPRAISALS AND THINGS ARE DONE. I WOULDN'T EVEN SET THIS FOR A MARCH MEETING BECAUSE IF YOU ARE TALKING APPRAISALS AND THINGS, IT MAY TAKE EVEN LONGER. LET'S WAIT UNTIL YOU GET ALL THE INFORMATION BACK AND ASK TO PUT IT BACK ON A MEETING.

WE WILL COME BACK TO IT THEN. >> OKAY.

I WILL ADMIT, I WILL ADMIT THAT THE WAY I PRESENTED THE REQUEST WAS AN ALL OR NOTHING REQUEST. AND THAT WAS IN HINDSIGHT, THAT WAS NOT RIGHT. THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE RESEARCH, CONVERSATION GONE INTO THIS.

>> IT IS FAIR. >> THAT IS FAIR.

>> WE WOULD LOVE A CHANCE TO WORK WITH Y'ALL.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. >> TRY TO GIVE EVERYBODY WHAT

THEY WANT. >> YOU WILL FIND JUAN TO BE A WORKABLE GUY. WE ARE WORKABLE.

WE DON'T WANT TO PUT THE COUNTY IN A BAD SPOT.

IF F I DON'T KNOW. THE VALUE AND COMING UP WITH A PATTERN OR A CONSISTENCY SO WE ARE NOT GIVING YOU SOMETHING...

THAT WE ARE NOT LOOKING LIKE WE ARE DOING FAVORS.

>> I APOLL JIETZ FOR NOT ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES IN THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.

THESE THINGS DO NEED TO BE DISCUSSED.

ADDRESSED. AND AGREED UPON.

SO THAT EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WHEN WE WALK AWAY.

>> THAT IS FAIR. >> SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS. SO DO WE HAVE...

>> MOTION TO TABLE TO WHEN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE COUNTY ENGINEER ARE READY TO PUT IT BACK ON.

>> WHO MADE THE MOTION? >> COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ.

>> SORRY. >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> AND WE HAVE... UNTIL THEY ARE READY TO PUT IT BACK ON.

>> WE WILL NEED TO KNOW WHO AND WHEN TO CONTACT AND WHAT TO START DOING WITH REGARDS TO MEETING.

>> JUAN PIMENTAL FIRST. HE WILL GUIDE YOU TO THE NEXT ONES AFTER YOU GET SETTLED WITH HIM.

THERE IS NO REASON TO MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY UNTIL YOU ALL GET SITUATED. YES.

>> I MET WITH HIM ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS.

I HAVE HIS NUMBER IN MY PHONE, ACTUALLY.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. >> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR

HEARING US OUT. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DO AT THIS TIME?

>> NO, SIR. >> GET WITH JUAN BEFORE YOU

[02:35:01]

LEAVE. >> GET WITH HIM.

SET UP SOMETHING. >> OKAY.

[7. Discuss and consider adopting the ratification of the order for Emergency Powers.]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> JUDGE, COULD I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE NUMBER 7? I APOLOGIZE.

I MEANT TO DO THAT EARLIER, TOO. I'M SLACKING TODAY.

I'M NOT READY WITH THAT ONE. I NEED TO GO OVER IT WITH JENNY SOME MORE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO

TABLE. >> SECOND.

>> I'M GOING TO SAY UNTIL THE SECOND MEETING IN MARCH.

YEAH. ANYWAY.

>> WE ALREADY HAD THE MOTION. SECOND MEETING IN MARCH.

[11. Discuss and consider updating Commissioners Court policies and procedures, including policy related to board/committee appointments.]

I WANT TO GO AHEAD, TOO AND SINCE WE ARE DOING THIS, AND TABLE ITEM 11 TO THE SECOND WEEK IN MARCH AS WELL.

>> SECOND. OKAY.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE.

[4. Discuss and consider acceptance of a grant award in the amount of $1,750,000.00 from the Texas General Land Office (GLO) under their Project of Merit (PSM) grant program to Nueces County Coastal Parks for the construction of a parking area to service Bob Hall pier that includes all required ADA access components.]

>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO NUMBER 4.

DISCUSSING AND CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $1.750 FROM THE TEXAS GLO UNDER THEIR PROJECT OF MERIT GRANT PROGRAM TO NUECES COUNTY COASTAL PARKS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF A PARKING AREA TO SERVICE THE PIER.

>> GO AHEAD. >> YES, SIR.

MA'AM, EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY.

SO THE PARK BOARD PREVIOUSLY, PROBABLY ABOUT A YEAR AGO, TROY, I THINK, IT HAS BEEN A WHILE. WHEN WE STARTED VETTING, REBUILDING THE PIER IN THE PARKING LOT.

WE GOT TO LOOKING AT OUR OPTIONS.

AND AFTER WORKING WITH THE GLO, THE OPTIONS THEY ARE TRYING TO GO BACK ON THE BEACH WEREN'T THERE.

ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT THE MEAN HIGH TIDE LINE HAD SHIFTED SO LANDWARD WITH HURRICANE HANNAH, WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ROOM. AND SO WITH THEIR APPROVAL, AND I'M PRETTY SURE I BROUGHT IT TO COURT.

I BRING EVERYTHING TO COURT. I WENT AFTER A PROJECT, A SPECIAL MERIT GRANT FUNDING SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS.

AND THIS IS WHAT THEY FUNDED. SO WE COULD GET THE PARKING LOT AREA BACK. AND COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, GRACIOUSLY ALLOWED FOR MONEYS TO TAKE CARE OF THE ENGINEERING.

WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS AWARD, I UNDERSTAND I PUT A LOT OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THIS AND THE NEXT ITEM FOR Y'ALL IN YOUR AGENDA. WE ARE JUST ACCEPTING THE AWARD TODAY. WE STILL HAD TO BRING THE CONTRACT BACK WHEN GLO GETS IT FINISHED FOR APPROVAL.

NATURALLY, THAT GETS VETTED THROUGH JENNY'S OFFICE.

IT IS A GOOD SOLUTION. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M HAPPY ABOUT, THE ENGINEERING WORK AND DESIGN WORK IN IT.

IT IS INCLUDING SOME GOOD GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL HELP WITH DRAINAGE AND RECHARGING THE GROUNDWATER SYSTEM OUT THERE.

AND OUR STORMWATER RETENTION POND WE ALREADY HAVE.

AND THE INGRESS AND EGRESS OFF OF ACCESS ROAD 6 ALLOWS ME TO SEPARATE PEER TRAFFIC FROM R.V. TRAFFIC.

THAT WOULD BE A CLUSTER. YOU HAVE ALL THESE PEOPLE TRYING TO GET THROUGH A NARROW CHOKEHOLD OR CHOKEPOINT.

ESPECIALLY PULLING THOSE BIG FIFTH-WHEELS.

I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> JUDGE, REAL QUICK. >> YES.

>> OBVIOUSLY, I SUPPORT THIS AND ASK THE QUESTION REGARDING, I THINK, THERE IS NO CONDITIONS ON THIS THAT I SAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT US FROM CONTINUING TO PURSUE THE OTHER PARKING LOT AS WELL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS PART OF THE MOTION OR PART OF THE INTENT.

I WANT TO LAY IT OUT THERE. BECAUSE I HAVE RAISED THIS ISSUE TO THE LAND COMMISSIONER HERSELF.

JUDGE SCOTT WAS AT THAT MEETING AS WELL.

WE HAVE SOME WORK TO DO. THIS IS AWESOME.

THIS IS GREAT. SCOTT DID A LOT OF GREAT WORK ON THIS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT CONTRACT, THAT JENNY, YOUR OFFICE IS AWARE OF.

THAT I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE BACKGROUND THAT INDICATED THAT. I KNOW THAT IT IS NOT LIKE THEY ARE QUID PRO QUO OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THAT IS, I THINK THIS IS AWESOME.

>> YEAH. THEY ARE NOT SAYING WE CAN'T...

NOBODY IS TELLING US WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ON THAT OTHER SIDE.

THIS IS A SOLUTION RIGHT NOW BECAUSE JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW, RELATED TO ANY TYPE OF PARKING ON THE BEACH ITSELF, I'M WORKING WITH THE GLO UNDER THE RESILIENCY PLAN.

AND IT IS ATEER ONE PROJECT... A TIER ONE PROJECT ALONG WITH THE CORPS TO MOVE FORWARD IN PERMITTING AND ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, OUR BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT.

WE HAVE LOST SO MUCH BEACH... SIX FOOT OF BEACH THIS WINTER OUT THERE W WITH THE RATE OF EROSION.

AND THE ENGINEERING SURVEY STUFF IS HELPING.

WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE GET THE SAND FROM.

A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL SAY THE SHIP CHANNEL.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT FOR ONE MINUTE.

I DON'T THINK MOST OF IT IS BEACH QUALITY.

WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WE HAVE NEVER HAD ENGINEERED BEACHES IN NUECES COUNTY. I'M NOT TRYING TO DRIFT OFF

HERE. >> OKAY.

BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS

GRANT. >> YEAH.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS GRANT.

WITH THE INTENT BEING IN THERE. YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO RESTRICTIONS ON OTHER AREAS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT PARKING LOT WAS TAKEN UP WHEN IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVEN'T BEEN.

[02:40:01]

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY IEVMENT.

>> I MAKE THE MOTION. ANYBODY SECOND IT?

>> WELL, I WANTED TO PUT MY INTENT IN THERE.

>> YOU MADE THE MOTION. YOU SECONDED.

>> WELL, I DID. I WANTED TO ADD THAT PART IN THERE. TO THE MOTION.

THAT THERE WAS NO RESTRICTIONS TO DO OTHER...

>> THERE ARE NONE THAT ARE SPELLED OUT RIGHT NOW.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL CONTRACT AT THIS TIME.

WE WILL KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR THAT, OBVIOUSLY.

>> YEAH. I WANT THAT TO BE PART OF THE INTENT. THAT IS IT.

SO IF THAT IS ACCEPTABLE... >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AND THERE IS NO MATCH. >> I SAW THAT.

FIRST THING I LOOKED FOR. >> GREAT JOB, SCOTT.

WE APPRECIATE IT. THANKS TO ALL THE PARKS BOARD,

[5. Discuss and consider execution of a grant contract from TCEQ in the amount of $7.5 million dollars for restoration and enhancement of I.B. Magee and Padre Balli Parks.]

TOO. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> AND ITEM NUMBER 5. YOU SAID YOU WERE BACK UP DISCUSSING, CONSIDER EXECUTION OF A GRANT CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $7.5 MILLION FOR RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF

THE PARK. >> YES, MA'AM.

JUDGE, THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON SINCE 2012.

FOLLOWING THIS RESTORE GRANT PROGRAM.

I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH TCEQ FOR FIVE OR SIX YEARS TO GET TO THIS POINT, TO GET A CONTRACT. COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, YOU HAVE HEARD ME TALK ABOUT IT. I KNOW COMMISSIONER CHESNEY SAYS "I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT." HERE WE ARE.

YOU CAN BELIEVE IT. WE GOT THE CONTRACT.

I'VE GOT NATALIE HERE WITH GRANT WORKS.

SHE CAN SPEAK TO MAYBE SOME OF THE REPORTING IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON IT. BECAUSE THIS IS A HUGE GRANT CONTRACT. IT WAS 176 PAGES LONG.

I HAD TO GO THROUGH THE... THROUGH AND FLAG THE SECTIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO SIGN, JUDGE. THAT IS JUST PRELIMINARY EXECUTION. BUT AL LECTS AND JENNY'S OFFICE, SHE HAS BEEN A ROCK STAR, MAN. SHE HAS REVIEWED THIS THING TWO TIMES FOR ME. AND JUST DONE GREAT WORK DOWN THERE. JENNY, JUST SO YOU LET HER KNOW THAT, PLEASE. BUT SO THIS IS TO, LIKE I SAID, RESTORE AND ENHANCE THE R.V. PARKS.

THERE ARE SPECIFIC METRICS THAT WE WILL TRY TO ACHIEVE.

WORKING WITH TCEQ AND TREASURY. THEY KNOW THAT THIS BUDGET AND THIS BUDGET NARRATIVE WAS DEVELOPED SIX YEARS AGO.

AND WE KNOW PRICE POINTS DON'T HOLD.

WE KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WEREN'T SPECIFIC IN THE GRANT...

WE WERE GOING TO BUILD THIS N MANY WIJTS.

THAT WAY, WE GO THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, RFP, WE WILL BE GOOD TO GO. SO I'LL WORK WITH THAT.

WITH PURCHASING. BEST WE HAD TO FOLLOW ON THE RFQ PROCESS. TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO SELECT GRANT WORKS. NATALIE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND,

COULD YOU EXPLAIN REPORTING. >> SCOTT, MAKE SURE WHATEVER YOU

DO, IT IS THE CORRECT THING. >> OH, YEAH.

YEAH. >> WE DON'T WANT TO COME BACK

FOR ANOTHER ROUND. >> ANYHOW, I DIDN'T...

>> WE KNOW. WE KNOW.

>> THANK YOU, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS AND NATALIE GONZALEZ WITH GRANT WORKS. SCOTT INVITED US OVER TO KIND OF TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT... AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE EVEN MAYBE TWO MINUTES. I HOPE.

TO JUST DISCUSS WHAT OUR ROLE CONSISTS OF IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. SO SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE DOING AFTER CONTRACT EXECUTION IS AUTHORIZED AND COMPLETED HERE TODAY. HOPEFULLY.

WE WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING A PROJECT-SPECIFIC WORK PLAN THAT IS CONSISTS OF BASICALLY DESCRIBING A PROJECT SCHEDULE BUDGET AND ACTIVITIES IN THE FORM OF A NARTIVE THAT GETS SUBMITTED TO TCQ. THAT WILL BE IN COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTY. EVERY SINGLE DRAFT THAT IS PUT TOGETHER WILL BE, OF COURSE, HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY SCOTT, SCOTT'S OFFICE. AND SO THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD GO OUT AND DO ON OUR OWN. WE WILL ALSO BE TAKING ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL OF THE REPORTING FOLLOWING IN COMPLIANCE WITH LABOR STANDARDS. INITIAL REVIEW OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER PAY APPLICATIONS TO ENSURE GRANT COMPLIANCE. THE TYPE OF REPORTING WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS GOING TO CONSIST OF NOT ONLY PONTE VEDRALY REPORTING BUT ALSO QUARTERLY REPORTING.

SO TWO DIFFERENT KINDS. MONTHLY REPORTINGS WILL BE YOUR FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT. SUBMITTING INVOICES TO TCQ FOR REIMBURSEMENT. NOW, THE FIRST MONTHLY REPORT WILL INCLUDE OUR NARRATIVE PERFORMANCE PROGRESS REPORT.

THAT BECOMES QUARTERLY AFTER CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.

UNTIL SUCH TIME OCCURS, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED ON MONTHLY. AND THEN THE QUARTERLY REPORTS WILL BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT SCOTT WAS MENTIONING EARLIER.

THE METRIC GOALS. RIGHT.

DELIVERABLES. THERE IS ALSO MILESTONE REPORTS.

THE GRANTS SCHEDULED WILL DETERMINE WHAT THOSE MILESTONE REQUIREMENTS LOOK LIKE. THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE

[02:45:01]

QUARTERLY REPORTS, AND THEN OF COURSE, ULTIMATELY, MAKING SURE COMPLIANCE WITH PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS ARE BEING MET.

AND BEING FOLLOWED. >> A LOT ABOUT THE 2CFR.

>> IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PIECE. YES, MA'AM.

>> VERY DETAILED. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

WERE THERE ANY MATCHING FOR THIS?

>> NO. NO.

>> I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ON. THAT THIS IS ALL GRANT.

>> JUDGE, THIS IS ANOTHER ONE. I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN YOU STARTED. SOME OF THE GRANT INCLUDED BECAUSE WE HAD SPENT SOME SIGNIFICANT MONEY OUT OF PRECINCT FOUR. THAT HELPED WITH GETTING THIS GRANT. SCOTT WORKED HIS TAIL OFF FOR YEARS TO GET THIS THING. THE PARKS BOARD DID A GREAT JOB ON. THIS I MEAN, IT IS A NO-MATCH DEAL. OBVIOUSLY, THEY ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND BRING US THE PROJECTS AS THEY COME UP.

WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE GRANT FIRST.

BUT THIS IS DEFINITELY N IN GREAT PART TO SCOTT PRIMARILY AND CERTAINLY THE PARKS BOARD FOR ALSO SUPPORTING HIS ABILITY TO APPLY FOR THIS. I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPTANCE OF

THIS GRANT. >> SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DID YOU WANT TO TALK, COMMISSIONER? SORRY.

>> I DID PUT A TIMELINE ON THE AGENDA BACK-UP.

I GAVE YOU A TIMELINE OF WHAT WE EXPECT TO DO IN 2023, '24, AND '25. THANK YOU.

>> I SAW THAT, TOO. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

[6. Discuss and consider approval and execution of 2023 Agreement for Interpreting Services between Nueces County and The Deaf and Hard of Hearing Center, and related matters.]

>> ITEM NUMBER 6. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF THE 2023 AGREEMENT FOR INTERPRETING SERVICES BETWEEN NUECES COUNTY AND THE CENTER FOR DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING. RELATED MATTERS.

THE TERM ENDS DECEMBER... I GUESS IT ENDS DECEMBER 23.

IT IS JUST AN ANNUAL TERM. >> GOOD MORNING.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING.

IT IS STILL MORNING. WE HAVE ALWAYS WORKED WITH THE DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING CENTER WHEN WE HAD CLIENTS WHO WE NEEDED INTERPRETERS FOR. THIS YEAR, THEY ASKED US, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE EVER HAD AN AGREEMENT, A WRITTEN AGREEMENT WITH THEM. THEY ASKED US TO GIVE THIS, AND WE RUN IT THROUGH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RECOMMENDED THAT WE MAKE IT A BLANKET ORGANIZATION OF NUECES COUNTY RATHER THAN JUST THE

SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.

BECAUSE THE SHERIFF USES THIS AT TIMES, TOO.

WE THOUGHT IT WAS EASIER TO DO ONE INSTEAD OF US ALL HAVING OUR OWN AGREEMENTS. YES.

>> SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DO HAVE ONE RECOMMENDATION THAT IS ON PAGE FOUR. I BELIEVE WHEN THIS WAS LISTED AS SOCIAL SERVICES, IT HAD MY ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT'S NAME

ON HERE TO SEND THE INVOICES TO. >> YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE IT ACROSS THE COUNTY, I'M NOT SURE WHO YOU WOULD WANT INVOICES TO

GO TO FOR THAT. >> IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO... WE HAD TALKED ABOUT FOR THE COURT, GOING TO EMILY WALL DRUM.

AND FOR ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT, FOR THOSE TO GO TO COURT

ADMINISTRATION. >> VERY GOOD.

VERY GOOD. >> VERY GOOD.

>> DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT? >> MM-HMM.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RESPOND BY IEVMENT.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. WITH THOSE CHANGES OF THE REPORTING, YES. WE HAVE ALREADY DONE... SO

[10. Discuss and consider the allocation of ARPA funds, previously allocated by Commissioner Chesney, for Flour Bluff, London, Port Aransas, and Seashore Learning Center schools. ]

MOVINGEN TO ITEM NUMBER 10. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ALLOCATION OF ARPA FUNDS PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED BY COMMISSIONER CHESNEY FOR POR ARANSAS SEASHORE AND THIS IS JUST BECAUSE IT WAS A SMALLER AMOUNT THAT WAS ALLOCATED.

THAT WAS VOTED ON. YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO INCREASE

THE AMOUNT. >> JUDGE, THAT IS CORRECT.

IT IS ALSO TO WORK THROUGH THE CONTRACTS OR TO APPROVE THE CONTRACTS. HOLD ON.

LET ME GET THIS ENLARGED. TURN TO THE RIGHT PAGE.

I'M SORRY. AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK LUL U FOR HER HELP ON. THIS I DON'T KNOW IF SHE IS HERE. YEAH.

GET ON UP THERE IF YOU DON'T MIND.

WE WORKED THROUGH THIS WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

BASICALLY, WENT TO EACH DISTRICT AND INDICATED AN AMOUNT BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. TWO DISTRICTS OPTED TO STAY UNDER THE $50,000. SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT ON THIS. THE OTHER TWO, BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THEIR NEEDS AND SIZE, QUITE FRANKLY, INDICATED WHAT THEY NEEDED THEIRS FOR. THEY WENT THROUGH THIS WITH THE SCHOOL. WE NEED TO APPROVE TODAY AND THEN THEY WILL WORK OUT THE CONTRACT.

I SAID THAT WRONG. I APOLOGIZE.

MY FIRST... MY INITIAL ALLOCATION WAS $225,000.

THE AMOUNT IS, AS YOU CAN SEE, IN THE BOOK, IS $292,000.

I HAVE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO ALLOCATE THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT BETWEEN $292,000 AND $225,000. THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION, FIRST OF ALL. THEN INCLUDED IN THE MOTION

[02:50:01]

WOULD BE AS PER THE ALLOCATIONS, PUT FORTH IN YOUR BACKUP WHICH IS $49,TO PORT ARANSAS. $49,000 TO SEASHORE.

$80,000 TO LONDON. THOSE ARE FOR SCHOOL SAFETY.

ALL FOR PROJECTS THAT LULU HAVE LOOKED AT AND SIGNED OFF ON.

THEN WE WILL BE BRINGING BACK CONTRACTS THAT WILL REFLECT ALL RULES AND PROCEDURES AND SO FORTH THAT WE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY. THIS COMPLIES WITH THE NEW WAY WE ARE DOING THINGS. THAT IS MY MOTION.

THAT WAS PROBABLY A LOT OF MOTION.

I'LL TIGHTEN THAT UP. BASICALLY, TO APPROVE THE NEW ALLOCATION OF $292,000 OUT OF THE PRECINCT FOUR ARPA FUNDS WITH THE ALLOCATIONS AS ARTICULATED TO PORT ARANSAS, SEASHORE, LONDON. TWO ARE UNDER $50.

THE OTHER TWO, THEY UNDERSTAND THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESSES OF THE COUNTIES.

THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT TO GET THOSE FUNDS.

>> AS A SUB-RECIPIENT. >> YES, MA'AM.

WE WILL GET THOSE TERMS DOWN AT SOME POINT.

>> YOU NEED A SECOND? >> I DO NEED A SECOND.

>> SOMEBODY MADE THE MOTION? >> I MADE IT, YES, SIR.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ON COMMISSIONER CHESNEY'S MOTION TO WORK WITH HIS SCHOOL DISTRICTS. $250,000 AND THE OTHER THREE, OVER $50,000. SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED?

>> MOTION CARRIES. NUMBER 7 HAS BEEN TABLED.

AND NUMBER 8, 9, HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

NUMBER 10. NUMBER 11 WAS TABLED.

[12. Discuss and consider appointment of County Judge Connie Scott to Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ) Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5.]

NUMBER 12. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF COUNTY JUDGE CONNIE SCOTT TO (INAUDIBLE).

DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR THAT? >> COMMISSIONER, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT COUNTY JUDGE SCOTT IN THE PLACE OF THE FORMER

COUNTY JUDGE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. WE APPOINT THE JUDGE CONNIE SCOTT. TO REPLACE JUDGE CAN ALSO IN CANAS. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> DISCUSSION, JUDGE, NOW THAT YOU ARE BACK.

I KNOW WE TABLED POLICIES. THAT MAY BE A GOOD PLACE TO PUT THIS IN. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO OUTLINE IT AS PART OF OUR POLICY.

OR THAT MAYBE THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR COULD BE MONITORING THIS. WHEN OFF TRANSITION, THAT ALL OF THAT IS AUTOMATIC. RIGHT? THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE. THAT THE OUTGOING COURT AT THEIR LAST MEETING, MAKE A FORMAL MOTION AND TAKE ACTION IF WE NEED TO. OR MAYBE HAVE IT ON THE FIRST MEETING. AND IF THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT IN POLICY, GREAT. IF IT IS THE COURTED A MONEY SAY OR THE, CURRENT OR ANY FUTURE, THAT THEY MAY MAYBE HAVE THAT PLANNED OUT. IF WE NEED TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE IN WRITING, THEN I'M ALL FOR IT. I WOULD MAKE THAT SUGGESTION SO SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT. THERE WERE COMPLICATIONS EARLY THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. WITH THE CLEAN AIR GROUP.

THAT CAN BE WORKED THROUGH. THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

>> HAVING IT IN A POLICY. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA.

WE PUT ITEM NUMBER 13 ON THERE. >> THAT WOULD COVER NUMBER 13, TOO. WOULDN'T IT?

>> WE PUT 13 ON THERE TO COVER ANYTHING WE MISSED.

OR ANYTHING. BUT... IT SHOULD BE STANDARD POLICY. EXACTLY.

>> WE HAVE FOUR YEARS. WE CAN FORGET ABOUT IT OR THINGS COULD CHANGE BY THEN. YEAH.

>> IT COULD BE FOR ANY OF US. ANYBODY.

>> NO. I AGREE.

ANY MEMBER OF THE COURT. >> OR THAT WOULD BE A BETTER POLICY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN INCLUDE IT OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PREPONDERATE THE COURTED A MONEY SAY THERE OR THE TO MAKE HOUSEKEEPING TYPE ITEMS. WHAT WOULD BE THE SUGGESTION ON THAT?

>> IT WOULD SEEM THAT IT WOULD BE JUST FINE IN HOUSEKEEPING.

IT NEVER HURTS TO HAVE IT SPELLED OUT.

WE CAN PUT THAT AS A FAVOR, A CENTRALIZED PLACE FOR ALL OF THESE DECISIONS. IF WE COULD PUT IT INTO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

IT WOULD BE A ONE-LINER. TWO-LINER.

WE COULD BRING BACK AND PROPOSE. >> THE FIRST MEETING.

>> YEAH. AND WE CAN, WHEN WE BRING ITEM 11 BACK IN MARCH, WE CAN TALK ABOUT ADDING SOME WORDING TO THAT. IF YOU WILL HELP ME WITH SOME WORDING ON THAT. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>> YUP. SO YOU WANT TO DO 12 AND 13 TOGETHER? I'M SORRY, JUNK.

>> I'M FINE, YEAH. YOU

. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU STARTED IT.

[02:55:02]

DO YOU WANT TO FINISH IT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: DO 12

AND 13 TOGETHER? >>JUDGE CANALES: BASICALLY JUST A BLANKET, ANYTHING WE MISSED WE COULD HAVE MISSED.

>> REPLACE WITH ALL BOARDS, COMMISSIONS WOULD ENCOMPASS 12.

IF YOU DO 13 AND NO ACTION ON 12, WE HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THE

BUSINESS. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: MOTION

NUMBER 13. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE CAN DO IT BOTH. THE RTA FAIR COMMITTEE MENTIONED IN BACK-UP THAT WASN'T PUT IN HERE.

A MOTION ON 12. >>JUDGE SCOTT: DOING BOTH WILL

NOT HURT TODAY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IS A CATCH-ALL. THAT WAY WE KNOW THOSE FOUR AND

THEN -- >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: 13 IS

COVERED THE BLANK DEBT -- 13? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NEED TO

VOTE ON 12. >>JUDGE SCOTT: APPEAR MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

OPPOSED. ITEM NUMBER 13, WE BASICALLY ALREADY COVERED AND DISCUSSED IT.

WE JUST NEED A MOTION. WAIT, WE HAVE ONE MORE THING ON ITEM NUMBER 12. A SEPARATE ISSUE, THERE ARE -- ON TIRZ 2 WE HAVE TO BRING BACK BECAUSE ANOTHER APPOINTMENT CAN BE MADE. THE COUNTY HAVE HAVE THREE TOTAL ON TIRZ 2. AND WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE CURRENTLY

ON THERE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHICH IS 2. IS THAT MINE? I CAN'T REMEMBER. I DON'T REMEMBER --

>> WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION FAIRLY QUICKLY.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS?

SORRY WE CAN DO THAT ONE LATER. >>JUDGE CANALES: NUMBER 13.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: THE ISLAND.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: A NEW ONE -- THAT WAS THE NEW THING THAT WE DID, JUDGE, WAS TO ADD ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATION TO THAT TIRZ. AND WE NEED TO BRING IT BACK AS

A DISCUSSION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE DON'T HAVE TO

MAKE A MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: BECAUSE IN PERSON. WE WOULD HAVE THREE AND HAVE A QUORUM. THAT IS A LITTLE MORE .

[13. Discuss and consider replacing the former County Judge on all boards, commissions and committees with the current County Judge and/or her designee.]

>>JUDGE CANALES: NEEDS TO COME BACK.

ITEM NUMBER 13 WHAT WE DISCUSSED.

>>JUDGE CANALES: MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED.

[14. Discuss and consider yearly written personnel evaluations and all related matters of all appointed department heads who report to the County Commissioner's Court.]

THERE BEING NONE, PASSED UNANIMOUS DECISION.

13, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER REPLACING PERSONNEL EVALUATION AND ALL RELATED MATTERS OF ALL APPOINTED DEPARTMENT HEADS.

WE HAVE BEEN STRESSING IN THE DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETINGS THAT WE NEED AN ANNUAL EVALUATION OF ALL EMPLOYEES AND DEPARTMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THIS. I AM HOPING WITH THE NEW HUMAN RESOURCES PERSON THEY WILL HELP US TO FACILITATE THIS AND MOVE THIS FORWARD. BUT DEPARTMENT HEADS ANSWER TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. SO I FELT THAT WE AT LEAST SHOULD HAVE ONE ANNUAL EVALUATION OF ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND I PUT A TIME FRAME TO GET IT START.

WE NEED TO WORK IT OUT. NOT ANYTHING IN WRITING BUT PART OF A MOTION WHERE WE MAY ADD TWO IN A MEETING OR SOMETHING OR SPECIAL MEETINGS, ONE-ITEM MEETINGS, ADD TWO OR THREE THAT DAY JUST TO GET THROUGH THEM. BUT WE CAN'T OUR DEPARTMENTS TO

DO IT AND US NOT DO IT AS WELL. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SO

MOVED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THE ONLY ONE WILL BE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.

THAT IS YOURS, AND I DON'T THINK I WOULD WANT TO PULL THAT ONE OFF BECAUSE WE DON'T -- THAT PERSON DOESN'T REPORT TO US.

THAT WILL BE THE ONLY SUGGESTION.

THE REST OF IT. YOU MAY WANT TO MOVE ONE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU SAID DURING HARVEY YOU WERE COMING UP HERE.

>>JUDGE CANALES: >>JUDGE CANALES: I AM TRYING TO

HAIR THE WEALTH. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T INFORMATION ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND YOUR APPOINTMENT AND STATUTORY. IF PEOPLE WANT TO I GUESS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REALLY EVEN NEED A MOTION FOR THIS ONE. I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION AND GET IT STARTED.

DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR IT? DO WE NEED A MOTION OR IT GETS

PUSHED TO THE SAID. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: FOR

PEOPLE WHO ANSWER TO JUDGES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SAME THING GOES FOR PEOPLE WHO ANSWER

TO JUDGES, THE BOARD OF JUDGES. >>JUDGE SCOTT: DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE NOT OUR PURVIEW. JUST PEOPLE TO ANSWER TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. KIND OF LIKE I SAID LAST NIGHT,

[03:00:02]

THE OTHER ELECTED WILL HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY DO.

NOT OUR PURVIEW. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DO THIS OTHER THAN PULLING THE EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT OUT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WITH THE CHEPGS OF THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND WE HAVE A SECOND ALREADY ON THAT

MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: CLARIFICATION EVERYBODY WHO RECEIVES AN APPOINTMENT BY

COMMISSIONERS COURT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NOT AN

APPOINTMENT, DEPARTMENT HEAD. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: APPOINTED DEPARTMENT HEAD. SELECTED BY THE COURT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: NOT ONLY THE COURT, HUMAN RESOURCES.

I HAVE BEEN HAVING THESE MONDAY MORNING MEET WITH ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS AND IT WORKS VERY INFLUENTIAL.

SO I THINK -- I JUST THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY IF WE ARE GOING TO ASK THEM TO DO IT, WE SHOULD BE EVALUATING THEM AS WELL.

AS A BUSINESS OWNER, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE STUFF ON FILE WITH EMPLOYEES. IT JUST DOESN'T HURT FOR US TO KEEP TRACK AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS DOING WELL.

AND WE ARE DOING EXCEPTIONALLY WELL.

NOBODY SAID NOT. WE SHOULD HAVE THESE REPORTS SO EVERYBODY CAN IMPROVE. WE ALL HAVE ROOM FOR

IMPROVEMENT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: GREAT

IDEA. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND A SECOND. IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AYE. JUDGE, I HAVE A QUESTION.

SINCE WE ARE STARTING THIS QUICKLY, WHO WILL DEVISE THE WAY WE EVALUATE -- THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SUGGESTED IN THE JOB DESCRIPTION THAT I HAVE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE COURT AS ONE OF THE NEW JOB DESCRIPTIONS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I THINK AND MY THOUGHT PROCESS -- I DID HAVE A THOUGHT ABOUT IT. I THOUGHT WHEN WE DECIDE WHO WE ARE GOING TO TALK TO AT THAT MEETING TO ARE WHATEVER, WE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO PRENOTIFY THEM AND LET THEM BRING US A LIST OF THEIR JOB -- WHAT JOB DUTIES THEY DO.

AS WE SAW IN THESE JOB DESCRIPTIONS, SOME OF THEM ARE SO AN AT THE QUITTED THEY ARE NOT EVEN ACCURATE.

BUT IF THEY BRING THAT AND ONE OF THOSE STANDARD FORMS AND MAKE IT MORE BROAD AND CONCISE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO IN THEIR POSITION, THAT WILL HELP HR WHEN WE TURN IT OVER TO HER AND IN THE FUTURE IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, JUST UPDATING.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: A GREAT IDEA.

FOR ME I WAS HOPING THAT WE WOULD COME UP WITH A FORM THAT WE AGREED TO THAT SAID THIS IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT.

WE CAN DO A IT AND A QUANTITATIVE REPORT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WHAT WE HAVE FROM THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF

COUNTIES. >> I HAVE A POLICY THAT I WANT TO SHARE WITH THE NEW HR TO WORK WITH THE NEW FORM.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE MAY TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT AND THE USUAL FORM.

THE OTHER ADDITION TO ASK THEM BEFORE THEY COME IN.

A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE DOING JOBS THAT HAVE NOTHING RELATED TO

WHAT THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION DOES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AS LONG AS WE HAVE A FORM THAT EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH.

LET'S TALK. WHY DON'T WE COME TO A

CONSENSUS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU WILL GET -- I

NEED TO GET THOSE OUT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, JUDGE.

[15. Discuss and consider execution of Property Transfer form for a 20KW Single Phase Generator from Texas A&M University Property Management to Nueces County.]

WE ALREADY VOTED ON THAT ONE. ITEM 15, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER EXECUTION OF PROPERTY TRANSFER FORM FROM 20KW SINGLE PHASE GENERATOR FROM TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

IN NUECES COUNTY. >> SO MOVED.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: THE CL THE COLNIA GROUP. THEY ASKED US IF WE WANTED THIS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: AWESOME. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WENT TO PICK IT UP. IT IS A DONATION.

A TRANSFER, BUT A DONATION. WE HAVE A LETTER HERE, JENNY,

THAT SAYS DONATION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: GOOD

JOB. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE BASICALLY HAVE

TO ACCEPT THE DONATION. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: PORTABLE GENERATOR FOR ACCEPTANCE IN THE NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT. THE VALUE IS $6203.

AND MIGHT BE ANOTHER ONE COMING SO STOP RENTING GENERATORS.

IF WE GET ANOTHER ONE AND SOMETHING HAPPENS, WITH HE

GENERATORS TO WORK WITH. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE CAN ALWAYS USE GENERATORS. VERY GOOD.

VERY GOOD. I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THAT. YES.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

UNANIMOUS DECISION MOVING FORWARD.

[16. Discuss and consider next Commissioners Court meeting date, and related matters.]

THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 16, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING DATE AND RELATED MATTERS. THE NEXT COMMISSIONER COURT SCHEDULED DATE IS FEBRUARY 22. AND THAT IS THE COASTAL BEND

[03:05:01]

DAYS AT THE CAPITOL. WE WERE THINKING WE MIGHT WANT TO CHANGE THAT BECAUSE I KNOW I WAS PLANNING TO ATTEND.

I THINK BRENT SAID HE WAS PLANNING ON GOING.

I DON'T KNOW -- ARE ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS PLANNING TO

ATTEND. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: YES.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: SELF-OF US ARE AND WE NEED TO WORK ON A NEW

DATE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THE 23RD WORK FOR EVERYBODY INSTEAD OF THE 22.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THE 23RD? MY CALENDAR?

I DON'T HAVE IT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: A

THURSDAY? >>JUDGE SCOTT: A THURSDAY?

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YES, NO, MAYBE SO.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL CHECK IT. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I NEED TO CHECK MY SCHEDULE WITH DOCTORS.

I WILL DO THAT TODAY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOLD OFF

FOR THIS ONE UNTIL YOU CHECK. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I HAVE IT ON MY CALENDAR. GIVE ME A SECOND.

LET ME LOOK REAL QUICK. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHATEVER

YOU WANT TOTO DO. >>JUDGE SCOTT: DO WE GO TO THE

NEXT ONE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE CAN

GO TO THE SHERIFF AND COME BACK. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SECTION B.

[2. Discuss and consider funding source for body cameras, in car cameras, tasers and interview room technology for Nueces County Sheriff's office; and approve cooperative contract purchase method.]

NUMBER 2. WE ALREADY DID NUMBER 1.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER FUNDING SOURCE FOR BODY CAMERAS, IN-CAR CAMERA, TASERS AND INTERVIEW ROOM TECHNOLOGY FOR NUECES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND APPROVE COOPERATIVE CONTRACT PURCHASE. AND USE THE PPO FUND FOR THIS PURCHASE AND THE SHERIFF HAS PROVIDED THE ANNUAL FEE FOR THE FIRST YEAR. $112,000 ANNUALLY OR $115,000.

>> WE MET WITH MICHAEL IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ON THIS ISSUE TO FIND OUT. BECAUSE THEIR CAR CAMERAS, BODY CAMERAS AND INTERSTREW ROOM TECHNOLOGY IS COMING TO AN END OF LIFE AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.

IF IT IS NOT REPLACED, SIGNIFICANT DAMAGE TO THE COUNTY. WORKING WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WE FOUND THAT A VERY LARGE EXPENSE.

WE TRIED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST FUND THIS NOW.

AS WE KNOW WE ISSUED A BOND ISSUANCE PPTO.

AND PERSONAL FINANCE. AND SEVEN MILLION AVAILABLE IF THE COURT SEES FIT TO DO THIS. NOW IT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR CAPITAL EXPENSES BEING THE CAMERAS, THE TASERS.

CANNOT USED FOR SOFTWARE. SO WE MET WITH THEM.

IF THE COURT IS WILLING TO DO THIS, THERE ARE FUNDS IN THAT PARTICULAR FINANCED -- FUNDING SOURCE TO COVER SOME OF THE HARD COSTS. THE REST OF THE COSTS HAVE TO BE THROUGH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND OTHER MEANS FOR THE SOFTWARE AND OTHER ISSUES THAT THEY WILL HAVE.

I BELIEVE THE CHIEF IS HERE TO HELP DISCUSS THIS.

OR HE WAS. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS. THIS PROPOSAL WE HAD PLACED ON THE AGENDA, BACK TO EARLY 2020 BEFORE I EVER CAME ON BOARD AND UNDER A PRIOR ADMINISTRATION, THE COUNTY RECEIVED NOTICE FROM WATCH GUARD WHICH IS OUR PRESENT CAMERA SYSTEM.

WATCH GUARD HANDLED OUR INTERVIEW AND BODY CAMERAS AND IN-CAR CAMERA THAT THEY WILL BE COMING TO THE END OF LIFE AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT OUR SYSTEMS FOR THREE YEARS.

WE ARE AT THE THREE-YEAR MARK. WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE SUPPORT AT SOME POINT. WE HAD ISSUE WITH SOME OF OUR CAMERAS BREAKING DOWN ON A REGULAR BASIS.

I WAS ADVISED RECENTLY WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME MARKED UNITS IN THE FIELD. SOME OF OUR WARRANT UNITS THAT DO NOT IN-CAR CAMERAS BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION DETERMINED WE DON'T NEED IN-CAR CAMERA.

THE DEPUTIES HAVE BODY CAMERA BUT THE IN-CAR CAMERA IS A VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF IT. WE LOOKED AT AXON AND I FEEL IT IS THE BEST PROPOSAL OUT TH THERE AXON IS INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN. THEY WILL PROVIDE BODY CAMERAS.

THEY PROVIDE THE IN-CAR CAMERA FOR THE FLEET, ALL THE UNITS WE NEED THEM IN. THE TECHNOLOGY FOR THE INTERVIEW ROOM WHICH IS THE SMALLEST. AND UPGRADE FROM THE TASER --X 26 TASER AND EYE INITIAL PROPOSAL IS TASER 7, BUT I HAD

[03:10:02]

ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION AND I HAVE MATT APPLEBAUM THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM AXON. THEY WILL GIVE US THE TASER 10 JUST RELEASED FOR NO ADDITIONAL CHARGE SO WE COULD UPDATE THAT BID AND BASICALLY REPLACE THE TASER 7 WITH TASER 10.

THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS INTEGRATED. FOR EXAMPLE, THE NEW SYSTEM, IF A DEPUTY PULLS THE TASER OUT OF THE HOLSTER FOR ANY REASON TO UTILIZE IT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT UTILIZE IT, THE BODY CAMERA WILL AUTOMATICALLY ACTIVATE AND GET THAT THERE.

WE PROPOSED IS THE HARDWARE BE COVERED UNDER THE FUND THAT THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, THE AUDITOR HAD IDENTIFIED.

AND AN ADDITIONAL $564,597.80 OVER A FIVE-PAID PERIOD.

A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT WHERE THEY GIVE US FULL SUPPORT.

ALL THE CARTRIDGES FOR THE TASERS, WARRANTY.

THERE IS ALSO A $10 MILLION LIABILITY COVERAGE ON THE TASERS IF WE ENCOUNTER AN ISSUE AND GET SUED AND EVERY TASER OVER FIVE YEARS OLD WE CAN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT LIABILITY POLICY AND WE HAD OUR PRESENT TASERS SINCE 2015.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING WAS PROVIDED TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THE INITIAL QUOTE OR THE -- THAT WAS PROVIDED, MATT APPLEBAUM IS ON THE AIR THERE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE AXON REPRESENTATIVE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: LOOKS LIKE MICHAEL HAS SOMETHING HE NEEDS

TO ADD AS WELL. >> BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD WITH THE VENDOR. TODAY'S ITEM IS FUNDING FROM THE

COURT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NOT ABOUT THE

INDIVIDUAL VENDOR. >> AND UTILIZE A COOPERATIVE VENDOR. SO IF YOU ALL APPROVE THE ACTIONS, I WILL WORK WITH THE SHERIFF AND COME BACK TO YOU WITH THE ACTUAL PURCHASE UNDER THAT CONTRACT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, GO AHEAD.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MICHAEL, STAY THERE.

I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH CHIEF YESTERDAY AND I APPRECIATE HIS TIME AND TOLD HIM WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK AND THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. BECAUSE I ALWAYS -- YOU KNOW MY STANCE ON NOT LOVING SOLE SOURCE OR WHATEVER IT IS UNLESS WE HAVE TO DO IT. I KNOW IT IS NOT SOLE SOURCE, BUT COOPERATIVE VENDOR IS THE SAME KIND OF THING.

>> IT'S NOT THE SAME. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOW ARE WE GETTING AROUND THE FACT THAT THE BODY CAMS. I KNOW THE TASERS ARE PROPRIETARY AND THE ONLY ONES WHO DO TASERS. HOW ARE WE DOING AROUND THE BODY CAM PART OF IT BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF BODY CAMS.

>> THE PROCUREMENT IS THE COOPERATIVE PROCUREMENT METHOD.

WHAT THAT MEANS A COOPERATIVE CAN PUT OUT A BID WHERE THERE IS FREE AND OPEN COMPETITION. ANYONE CAN PARTICIPATE IN THAT PROCESS. PEOPLE SUBMIT PROPOSALS.

THE COOPERATIVE REVIEWS THE PROPOSAL AND MAKES RECOMMENDATION TO THEIR BOARD. THE BOARD APPROVES CERTAIN VENDORS TO BE AWARDED THAT SATISFY THE COMPETITIVE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE PURCHASING ACT.

AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO LEVERAGE AS AN INDIVIDUAL PURCHASING AGENT I CAN LEVERAGE THOSE CONTRACTS WHERE THE COUNTY HAS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO UTILIZE THAT COOPERATIVE.

SO JUST AS THOUGH WE BID IT HERE.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THIS WOULDN'T BE BECAUSE -- AND THE CHIEF -- WE TALKED ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY.

IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY US SAYING WE ARE GOING TO USE THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY TODAY. WE WILL PUT IT OUT TO A COOPERATIVE VENDOR PROGRAM WHERE OTHERS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY

TO BID ON THIS. >> LET ME CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK THE COURT DOES NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND COOPERATIVES.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU JUST EXPLAINED IT.

>> I TRIED TO. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU EXPLAINED GO OUT TO OTHER PEOPLE.

>> THEY ALREADY DID. THEY WILL DO THIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT COMMODITIES.

THEY WILL PUT OUT PROPOSALS. ADVERTISEMENT.

WE HAVE SOME THAT COME TO NOTIFY OUR LOCAL VENDORS THAT THEY WISH TO PARTICIPATE. THEY CAN SUBMIT PROPOSALS.

THEY GET REVIEWED AND SELECTED. THAT IS THE BIDDING PROCESS.

ONCE THAT PASSES, THERE IS A SET OF PRICING THAT EACH VENDOR WHO PROPOSED IS GOING TO BE HELD TO. SO WE CAN THEN SELECT ANY VENDOR ON THAT LIST THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY COMPETITIVELY BID AND AWARDED TO UTILIZE FOR OUR CONTRACTS AND NO NEED FOR AN ADDITIONAL SEPARATE BIDDING PROCESS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO BASICALLY WE ARE SELECTING THIS PERSON TODAY. YOU MAY SAY WE ARE NOT, BUT YOU ARE. THEY ARE ON THE COOPERATIVE

VENDOR LIST. >> THEY ARE ALL ON THE COOPERATIVE VENDOR LIST. YOU CAN SELECT WHAT YOU WANT.

[03:15:02]

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: BUT THE REALITY IS, THEY ARE ON THE LIST. THEY ARE WHAT THE PRICE SOMETHING FROM. YOU ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND TELL US THIS IS THE ONE WE ARE PICKING AT SOME POINT.

>> I STILL HAVE TO TALK TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO CONFIRM, BUT

HEADED THAT DIRECTION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE NEED

TO SAY THAT. >> BUT NOT THAT THERE IS NO COMPETITION. I DON'T LIKE THE IMPLICATION THAT THE COUNTY IS NOT DOING COMPETITION, BECAUSE WE ARE BY UTILIZING THE COOPERATIVE PROCESS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE ARE TECHNICALLY, BUT THE WAY YOU EXPLAINED IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE THIS WILL GO OUT TO TO A COOPERATIVE VENDOR TYPE SITUATION BECAUSE IN REALITY THAT IS NOT WHERE WE ARE GOING. WE NEED TO BE UP FRONT AND SAY THIS IS NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING BECAUSE A COOPERATIVE VENDOR PROGRAM THAT, IF THE COURT USES, THEN THE COURT CAN DO THAT AND MEETS THE PURCHASING ACT. BUT WE CAN'T TRY TO NOT -- WE CAN'T IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM MAKE IT LOOK LIKE IT IS ANYTHING THAN WHAT IT IS. WHAT IT IS, WE -- THEY WANT US TO GO OUT FOR THE COOPERATIVE VENDOR APPROVAL TODAY.

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR THAT WILL BASICALLY BRING BACK THIS VENDOR AT THIS PRICE. THAT IS WHERE IT IS HEADED.

>> WELL, TO BE FAIR, COMMISSIONER, THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS IS FOR Y'ALL TO SET ASIDE SOME FUNDS FOR FOR ANY PROJECT TO BE DONE. AND ONCE THAT IS DONE, THEN Y'ALL HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO PUT OUT AN INDIVIDUAL BID FOR THIS OR YOU WANT ME TO UTILIZE THE COOPERATIVE VENDOR FOR THIS. THE COOPERATIVE VENDOR HAS ALREADY MET THE COMPETITIVE REQUIREMENT OF THE PURCHASING ACT. THAT IS OUR LAW OF CHAPTER 262

OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: BUT IN THE BACK-UP, ALL THE COOPERATIVE AND BIDDING FROM ONE VENDOR AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE HEADED AND WE NEED TO BE HONEST TO SAY THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. IF THAT IS WHAT THE COURT WANTS TO DO, GREAT. DON'T STAY IT OTHER WAY BECAUSE THIS BACK-UP SAYS THIS COMPANY. YOU SAY GET WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE -- YOU KNOW WHAT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS GOING TO DO BECAUSE YOU REVIEWED THE BACK-UP, RIGHT?

>> THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE PROVIDED THE BACK-UP FOR YOU.

I DID NOT SEE WHAT THEY PROVIDED FOR BACK-UP.

I KNOW THEY HAVE TO GET A QUOTE IF YOU ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT CAN I AFFORD SOMETHING. PRICE THE MARKET TO GET SOME PRICE WHAT BALLPARK WE ARE IN. AND RIGHT NOW THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IS REQUESTING THE COURT TO CONSIDER FUNDING BASED ON THE -- THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY REVIEWED AND WHAT THEY COST TO ASK FOR A CERTAIN DOLLAR FIGURE. AND THEN SEMI COLON ON THAT IS THE COURT'S DECISION TO USE A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING METHOD.

THEY HAVE FOUND A COOPERATIVE VENDOR THAT WILL WORK OUT FOR US AND BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PRODUCTS AND WORK WELL WITH WHAT THEY HAVE AND SELECTING A VENDOR AT A LATER COURT, I WILL BE PRESENTING EXACTLY HOW THAT COMPLIES TO THE PURCHASING ACT

AGAIN. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OKAY.

SO YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE BACK-UP FOR THE ITEM.

I THOUGHT YOU HAD -- >> I HAVE SEEN -- I SEEN THE INFORMATION SEPARATELY. I DIDN'T SEE WHAT HE TURNED IN FOR THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM TODAY.

OUR DISCUSSION WAS AROUND NOT TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUAL VENDORS. I TONIGHT KNOW WHY THAT WAS

INCLUDED AT THIS TIME. >> COMMISSIONER, HE HAS SEEN THE BIDS THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR HANDS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO IS THE REST OF THE WORLD BECAUSE POSTED ONLINE. SO TO SAY I GOT TO GET TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. I MEAN, NO GETTING WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, IT IS RIGHT HERE IN OUR PACKET AND POSTED ONLINE FOR THREE DAYS. IT IS OUT THERE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WE ARE GOING WITH THIS AND MEETS AND COMPLIES WITH THEIR THING, THEN, OKAY, THAT IS FINE AND WE NEED TO BE STRAIGHT UP WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING AND MY QUESTION, CHIEF, I WAS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT YESTERDAY WAS -- AND DALE TOO, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU ON THIS TOO. HE WAS TELLING ME WE HAVE TO BREAK THIS OUT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE LONG -- THERE IS A LONG-TERM COST ON THIS IN ADDITION TO THE HARDWARE COST WHICH IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. IT IS GREAT THAT YOU FOUND THAT MONEY BECAUSE AS I TOLD THE CHIEF, YOU WERE ABLE TO FIND STUFF BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW YOU FOUND THE KIND OF MONEY SITTING THERE. GOOD FOR YOU FORKING TO IT.

BUT HE INDICATED HAD TO BE BROKEN OUT AND NOT ALL FROM ONE FUND AND WE NEED TO BREAK IT OUT.

>> YES, COMMISSIONER. WE WENT OUT FOR THE LOAN IN 2022 FOR THE NEW SYSTEM, THE PPCSO. THAT CAN ONLY BE USED FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SOFTWARE ONLY AND NOT THE CONTINUATION WHICH IS THE FIVE-YEAR PROCESS AND ONLY USED FOR HARDWARE.

[03:20:03]

SINCE THE ITEMS THROUGH THIS EVENT IS HARDWARE THAT CAN BE ALLOWED WHICH IS THE $941,000. HOWEVER, THE SOFTWARE, SINCE MULTIPLE YEAR PROJECT CANNOT BE FUNDED -- WE HAVE TO FIND OTHER

MEANS OF FUNDING THAT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I HATE TO USE THIS WORD, BUT BECAUSE THIS WILL BE A -- A SPECIFIC ONE-TIME FUNDING, WOULD SOMETHING LIKE ARPA BE ABLE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS BECAUSE CONCERNS ME TO PUT THIS IN THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET. IF WE HAVE THESE ARPA FUNDS AND PAY FOR THE WHOLE THING NOW AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE SHERIFF COMING BACK FOR $100,000 FOUR YEARS AFTER HE IS KIND ENOUGH TO

PAY FOR THE FIRST YEAR. >> WE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR ARPA AND WE NEED TO FIND OUT IF IT IS A QUALIFYING EVENT AND MAY REQUIRE A LOSS REVENUE SIDE OF IT AND OTHER FORMS. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE

DONE THAT REVIEW YET. >> THIS AND THEN MAKE A DECISION, YES. TO LOOK --

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU HAVE TO GET ON THE MIC, I CAN'T HEAR

YOU. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE NEED TO CONSIDER FUNDING SOURCES. I SUPPORT THE SHERIFF AND THE CHIEF AND WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE LOOKED AT ALL FUNDING SOURCES.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: ARPA AT ONE POINT WITH THIS, KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU CAN PAY IN ADVANCE BUT FOR FIVE YEARS AFTERREGARDS AND 2026.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IF YOU PAY IN ADVANCE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: PAY IN ADVANCE AND DOESN'T MATTER IF IT GOES

PAST THAT AMOUNT? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THEY ARE LETTING US PAY IT OUT BECAUSE A YEARLY MAINTENANCE TYPE COST BECAUSE DALE SAID THEY HAVE TO BREAK IT OUT.

>> THE REQUIREMENT THAT NEEDS TO BE MET IS THAT IF THE REPORT INCLUDES THAT THERE WAS AN ARREST AND INCLUDED A GUN, LET'S SAY, IT HAS TO BE NOTATED. SO THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT THE BODY CAMERAS HAVE TO ABIDE BY IN

ORDER TO QUALIFY BY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN ENOUGH REVIEW TO MAKE A DETERMINATION IS WHAT YOU

ARE SAYING? >> I RECEIVED AND I LOOKED.

IT DOESN'T SPECIFY IF A ROBBERY OR A TRAFFIC STOP STOP.

>> YOUR GUN VIOLENCE HAS TO INCREASE OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME AND SEVERAL OFFICES HAVE TO COME FROM THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. IT HAS TO BE A OFFENSE.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOW DO WE GET TO THAT POINT WHERE YOU CAN TELL US YES OR NO. WHAT DO YOU NEED TO GET TO THAT POINT -- LULU, WHAT DO YOU NEED TO GET TO THE.WHERE YOU CAN TELL

THE COURT. >> REPORTS FROM THE CITY AND THE

COUNTY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SAY THAT

AGAIN? >> REPORTS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: BACK REPORTS, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE?

>> CORRECT. HOW THEY ARE GOING TO UTILIZE THE BODY CAMERAS. WE JUST NEED A TREND.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OKAY. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A

LARGE NUMBER. >> IT IS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE HAVE AS WAS PROVIDED TO YOU HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF PERSONNEL COMING OFF ARPA OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS WHICH WILL COST THIS COURT A FORTUNE.

I AM LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD ANOTHER 112,000 THAT WE NEED TO KNOW AFTER THE FIRST YEAR AND THANK TO THE SHERIFF AND:CHIEF FOR PAYING FOR THE FIRST YEAR, AND FOUR MORE YEARS OF PAYING FOR IT. I WOULD LIKE FOR THIS COURT TO CONSIDER ARPA AS A FUNDING SOURCE IF IT QUALIFIES AND PAY IT UP FRONT AND NOT HAVE TO PAY ADDITIONAL $112,000 IN ADDITION TO THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS STICKING ON THE COURT.

HOW FAST? >> THREE TO SIX MONTHS IF YOU WANT THESE REPORTS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

WE ARE ALREADY AT THE END OF LIFE ON THESE -- THESE THINGS.

THE MONEY IS ALREADY THERE FOR THE HARDWARE.

WE ARE WILLING TO COVER THE SOFTWARE THE FIRST YEAR, AND IF WE NEED TO, COVER IT INTO THE OTHER FOUR YEARS AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE A BUDGETED ITEM AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AND IF SOFTWARE IS BEING BUDGETED.

AT THAT TIME YOU DON'T WANT TO PROVIDE IT, THEN WE WILL ADDRESS IT THROUGH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND AND INMATE BENEFIT

FUND. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE ASKING FOR THIS TODAY.

>> I AM. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT ARPA FUNDS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH -- EXPLAIN ABOUT THE BIDDING PROCESS.

>> SO IF YOU CHANGE FROM T THE PPFCO TO THE SHERRIFF'S FUND TO ARPA. WHOLE RULES CHANGE OF HOW TO PROCURE AND THE SUGGESTION OF USING A COOPERATIVE VENDOR IS

[03:25:02]

OFF THE TABLE AND THEN WILL HAVE TO START A BRAND-NEW BIDDING PROCESS LOCALLY FOR ANOTHER 60 TO 90 DAYS AFTER WE GET THE REPORTING WHICH IS ANOTHER THREE TO FOUR MONTHS OUT.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: CAN WE JUST DO THIS FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND SEE WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO?

>> MY PROPOSAL IS WE WILL COVER THE FIRST YEAR ON THE SOFTWARE.

WHEN WE START DISCUSSING THE BUDGET FOR THE NEXT -- FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND THE YEAR AFTER, WE WILL BRING IT TO THE COURT.

IF THE COURT CHOOSES TO FUND IT AS PART OF THE GENERAL FUND, PART OF THE BUDGET, OKAY. IF THEY SAY WE WILL PREFER THAT YOU FIND THE MONEY ELSEWHERE, THEN I WILL WORK WITH THE SHERIFF AND WORK WITH THE OTHER FUNDS TO COVER THE SOFTWARE SIDE

OF IT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I THINK THAT IS FAIR. I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD FOR

THE FIRST YEAR. >> WE WILL COVER THE SOFTWARE ON THE FIRST YEAR. NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

WE WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT, COMMISSIONER.

BUT THE HARDWARE IS THE ISSUE ON THE FUNDS.

THE$941,423.65 FOR THE HARDWARE THAT GIVES US THE IN-CAR CAMERAS, BODY CAMERAS, TASERS AND INTERVIEW ROOM SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THE FUNDS THAT THE AUDITOR HAVE IDENTIFIED IS FOR HARDWARE ONLY. THE SOFTWARE IS WHAT GETS TAKEN OUT OVER A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD AND $112,899.50 EACH YEAR.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NO OTHER COS THAT WILL QUALIFY AS AN UP-FRONT COST. I KNOW YOU DIVIDED IT OUT.

>> THERE ARE SOME OLDER C.O.S THAT HAVE SOFTWARE AVAILABLE IN THEM AND I CAN WORK WITH TERESA ON HER SAID AND DARYL ON HIS SIDE TO SEE IF THERE ARE SOME SPOTS.

I BELIEVE 2021 HAS SOME FUNDS AVAILABLE AND KIND OF HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED SO WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR APPROPRIATION.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AT LEAST FROM THE COURT CONSIDER IT.

I AM NOT SAYING WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD BUT BRING BACK --

>> '21 HAS $1 MILLION WORTH OF SOFTWARE AND DARYL HAS STUFF HE

NEEDS TO DO AND MAY BE ROOM. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU ARE WANTING TO BASICALLY LOOK FOR FUNDING THAT IS ■ALLOCATED JUSTFOR SOFTWARE POSSIBLY OR SOMETHING -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANT TO NOT USE -- AND I AM NEW, Y'ALL, SO PLEASE HELP ME.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT'S OKAY.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WHY THIS PPCFO MONEY IS NOT OKAY WITH YOU.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT IS OKAY BUT ONLY FOR CAPITAL

EXPENDITURES. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU ARE LOOKING

FOR THE ADDITIONAL, OKAY. >> IT CAN NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER EXPENSE. JUST CAPITAL EXPENSE FOR THE

USE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I THOUGHT HE WAS

ASKING FOR THE OTHER -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HE IS

SAYING OTHER C.O.S. >> IMPLEMENTATION BUT NOT A

MULTIYEAR PROCESS. >> CAN'T BE USED FOR ANNUAL

EXPENSE. >> WE COVER THE FIRST YEAR OF THE SOFT WARE AND THE AUDITOR AND THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR CAN EXAMINE C.O.S FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

WE COVER THE FIRST YEAR, AND THEY CAN LOOK AT THE FUNDING, THE C.O.S, CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. IT IS AVAILABLE, THEY BRING IT TO THE COURT AND SAY WE IDENTIFY THIS.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO THAT.

>> COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE EBB THERE MIGHT BE ROOM.

SOME OF OUR C.O.S. FUNDS IN THE BANKS AND INTEREST RATES ARE 5%. WE ARE MAKING A A LOT OF MONEY ON OUR INTEREST. SO THAT SCENARIO WHERE WE COVER

THE COSTS HERE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MOTION WILL BE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THE CHIEF ARTICULATED WHICH IS TO APPROVE ARE -- APPROVE THE PPFCO MONEY AND FIRST-YEAR EXPENDITURE OUT OF WHATEVER FUND THE SHERIFF IS DOING AND BRING BACK TO COURT A REVIEW AS SOON AS YOU GOT IT TO LOOK AT HOW WE FUND THE OTHER

FOUR YEARS. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO GO RIGHT NOW.

GIVES EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO WORK ON IT FOR THE NEXT YEAR.

IF WE USE ARPA FOR ONE YEAR, THEN WE USE FOR OTHER.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> JUDGE, THE MOTION IS TO -- YOU WANT WHATEVER THE SHERIFF H HAS?

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: MAY MOTION IS THE CHIEF'S

RECOMMENDATION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE CHIEF'S

RECOMMENDATION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: APPROVE THE PPFCO FOR CAPITAL EXPENSES THE FIRST YEAR THAT HE SAID HE WOULD PAY FOR AND COME BACK IF DALE REVIEWS AND SEE ANY OTHER OPTION THE POSSIBILITY OF PAYING THE OTHER FOUR YEARS UP FRONT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: DO YOU HAVE THAT? >>KARA SANDS: LOOK VERY WEIRD.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: PUT IT IN WRITING.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: NEXT YEAR WE BRING IT BACK TO TRY TO FUND IT.

[03:30:01]

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OUT OF HIS FUNDS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: FIRST YEAR FROM FOR THE SOFTWARE.

>>KARA SANDS: THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING.

NOT WHATEVER THE SHERIFF WANTS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES.

AND GOOD LUCK, SHERIFF. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> DID YOU APPROVE THE AFTER SEMICOLON PART, COOPERATIVE METHOD.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, JOE?

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: THE SECOND COST.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: APPROVE THE CONTRACT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THAT COOPERATIVE CONTRACT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THANK YOU, THE MOTION PASSES. SORRY, WE DIDN'T REALIZE WE

[1. Receive an update on the Emergency Rental Assistance Program being managed by Social Services; discuss and consider whether to continue Emergency Rental Assistance Program including requesting additional funds, authorizing temporary workers, and related matters.]

NEEDED TO DIVIDE THAT UP. MOVING TO C. GRANTS.

RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON THE EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. THIS HAS ACTUALLY EXPIRED, I BELIEVE, RIGHT? THE -- IT WAS APPROVED FOR 90 DAYSES AND EXPIRED. IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN.

>> TEMPORARY WORKER. WE HIRED THEM BACK IN OCTOBER.

AND THEY WORKED FOR US THROUGH JANUARY.

SO WITH ALL OF THE ERAP CASES, WE WERE HANDED 182 CASES, I BELIEVE. WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THOSE.

WE WOUND UP HELPING A FEW FOR A TOTAL OF $38,563.82.

AND ALL OTHER CASES WERE DEEMED INELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.

THAT IS REALLY OUR UPDATE. WE ARE --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU ARE NOT ASKING TO TO EXTEND OR REDO THIS. YOU ARE UPDATING US AND TELL US THAT IT IS EXPIRED AND THE WORK IS DONE.

WE ARE FINE. >> YES.

SO WITH THE TWO WORKERS THAT WE HAD, WE SPENT ABOUT A TOTAL OF $9014 IN SALARY. SO THEY WERE JUST WORKING

PART-TIME. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ANY QUESTIONS.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE CLOSE THIS OUT.

E CANRAP IS DONE. WE ARE THROUGH WITH IT, DONE?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS IS JUST AN UPDATE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WHAT ARE WE -- I THOUGHT ERAP WITH AS DONE WITH A WHILE BACK. I KNOW THAT HAGERTY CAME BACK TWO PART-TIME PEOPLE TO WORK WITH HAGERTY TO GET THIS THING DONE AND GET RID OF IT. SO NOW VICE PRESIDENT SPENT ALL THE MONEY, RIGHT. HAGERTY IS STILL HANGING ON

THERE. >> NO, SIR.

THE PURPOSE OF SOCIAL SERVICES TAKING OVER WAS THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT ALLOCATED TO HAGERTY DONE.

AND IT WAS TO TRANSITION THEIR INFORMATION TO SOCIAL SERVICES.

SO WE WERE STILL USING THEIR SOFTWARE.

SO RIGHT NOW, WE ARE IN THE -- WAITING FOR THEM TO TRANSFER OTHER INFORMATION FROM THEIR SOFTWARE TO SOMEHOW GET IT TO US. BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO DO

REPORTING ON THE INFORMATION. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE ARE HAVING TROUBLE GETTING THEIR INFORMATION?

>> NOT REALLY. I GUESS THEY HAVE TO WORK WITH I.T. TO MOVE INFORMATION OVER BECAUSE IT IS THEIR OWN SOFTWARE AREA. THEY JUST CAN'T SEND IT OVER.

AND THE NUECES COUNTY STILL WAS ALLOCATED ANOTHER AMOUNT.

THIS IS WHEN IT CAME BACK AND ASKED A SECOND TRANCHE.

AND IN THEIR REPORTING THEY SAY, WELL, YOU HAVE TO REDUCE IT BY THIS MUCH, AND IF YOU WANT TO -- WE ONLY GOT A CERTAIN AMOUNT.

AND THIS IS WHAT WE WERE USING TO PAY OFF ANYTHING ELSE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE WILL SAY WE WILL CLOSE IT OUT AND BE

THROUGH WITH IT. >> IF USREY ALLOWS US TO SEND BACK THE FUNDS, WE CAN PROCESS IT AND NOT HAVE TO COME BACK AND MISS THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THAT.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I RECOMMEND WE CLOSE IT OUT AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HAGERTY ANYMORE EITHER.

THAT IS MY MOTION. IT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT IS THE MOTION?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: CLOSE OUT THE ERAP.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ SECONDED.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THANK YOU, THE MOTIONS PASSES.

WE ARE TO GO TO -- WE HAVE A SPECIALTY ITEM SET FOR 1 P.M. ON

[03:35:09]

CONDUCTING THE INTERVIEWS. ARE THE PEOPLE HERE?

>> PUSHING THEM A HALF HOUR. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THEY MAY

HAVE TAKEN TIME OFF. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE THEM SET FOR 1:00. AND WE WERE -- WE NORMALLY -- ARE WE GOING TO DO EXECUTIVE SESSION AS WELL AFTER THE

INTERVIEWS -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOUR

[4. EXECUTIVE SESSION: PUBLIC NOTICE is given that the Commissioners Court may elect to go into an Executive Session anytime during the meeting to discuss matters listed anywhere on the Agenda, when authorized by the provisions of the Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. To the extent there has been a past practice of distinguishing items for public deliberation and those for executive session, the public is advised that the Court is departing from that practice, and reserves the right to discuss any listed agenda items in executive session when authorized by law to do so. In the event the Commissioners Court elects to go into Executive Session regarding an agenda item, the section or sections of the Open Meetings Act authorizing the Executive Session will be publicly announced by the presiding officer. In accordance with the authority of the Government Code, Vernon’s Texas Codes, Sections 551.071, 551.072, 551.073, 551.074, 551.0745, 551.076, 551.086, 551.087, the Commissioners Court will hold an Executive Session to consult with attorney(s) including matters related to litigation; deliberate regarding real property, prospective gift(s), personnel matters, including termination, county advisory bodies, security devices, and/or economic development negotiations and other matters that may be discussed in an Executive Session. Upon completion of the Executive Session, the Commissioners Court may in an open session take such action as appropriate on items discussed in an Executive Session.]

CALL, JUDGE. >> I HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA AND I WILL HAVE TO READ ALL OF THIS. THE INTERVIEWS, PUBLIC IS THE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ANYTIME DURING THE MEETING TO DISCUSS MATTERS LISTED ANYWHERE ON THE AGENDA BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

TOS EXTENT THERE HAS BEEN A PAST PRACTICE OF DISTINGUISHING ITEMS FOR PUBLIC DELIBERATION AND THOSE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT THE COURT IS DEPARTING FROM THAT PRACTICE, AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS ANY LISTED AGENDA ITEM IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WHEN IT IS AUTHORIZED TO DO SO.

IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT ELECTS TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING AN AGENDA ITEM, THE SECTION AND EXCEPTIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE PUB DLILY ANNOUNCED BY THE WERE HE SIDING OFFICER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE, 551.071.072,.073,.074,.0745,.076 ,.06 AND.07. THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL HOLD EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY FOR REAL PROPERTY, PROSPECTIVE GIFTS, PERSONNEL MATTERS AND INCLUDING TERMINATION, COUNTY ADVISORY BODIES, SECURITY DEVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS THAT MAY BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

UPON COMPLETION OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY OPEN SESSION. ITEMA, SPECIALTY SET ITEM, CONDUCT INTERVIEWS FOR APPLICANTS FOR POSITION OF HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, 551.047. B, CONSULT WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY ON LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO TERMINATING ALL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES ON COUNTY PROJECTS, 551.071.

CONSULT WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING CEASE AND DESIST LETTER RELATED TO PADRE BALLI PARK PROVIDING STAFF THE US IT UPDATES, DISCUSS LEGAL ISSUES AND 55.017.

D, CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY FOR MEDICAL EXAMINER.

E, CONSULT COUNTY ATTORNEY ON LEGAL MATTERS WITH HAGERTY CON SULTING FOR DISASTER RESPONSE. TEXAS 551.071.

F, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS OF THE DEMAND DATED JANUARY 26, 2023 IN CASE NUMBER 2:22-CV-00112, GUY WILLIAMS, VERSUS NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AND RELATED MATTERS. TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071.

ITEMG, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO HIRING OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR A. SHAKER IN CASE NUMBER 2022-CCV-61337-4, MARIA KRAUSKOPH HE WILLAL, NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, AND RELATED MATTERS.

551.071. H, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING TO LEGAL MATTER TO THE CLAIM BY JU JUAN PIMENTEL AND RELATED MA THEERS.

CONSULT --I, CONSULT WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO 2:19-CV-0043 DIANA BOND INDIVIDUALLY AND REPRESENTATIVE HEIR OF THE EGGS STATE OF TAMMI BOND AND NEXT

[03:40:05]

FRIEND FROM A.R.B. A MINOR CHILD VERSUS NUECES COUNTY IN THE UNITED STATES COURT. 551-071.

ITEMJ, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY PERSON TO REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATING TO 2:21-CV-00235, MARGARET MARY SMITH VERSUS NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS, GAGE MATTHEW HINOJOSA INDIVIDUAL WELLPATH RECOVERY SOLUTIONS IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION AND RELATED MATTERS, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071.

ITEM K, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY RELATING TO LEGAL MATTERS 2:21-CV-00299 CURTIS ANTHONY JONES VERSUS NUECES COUNTY IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION AND RELATED MATTERS. 551.0771.

L, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY EASTERN TO REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS YOU ARE SUPERINTENDENT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 381.004B AND RELATED MATTERS. TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071.

AND THENM, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO HEARING AN IN-HOUSE INVESTIGATOR FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND RELATED MATTERS.

TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071. SO IT IS --

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: JUDGE, DO YOU -- I KNOW MR. RICKTER IS

HERE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE JUST

ANNOUNCED. >>JUDGE SCOTT: DO I HAVE TO

REANNOUNCE ANYTHING? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THINK YOU HAVE TO REANNOUNCE EVERYTHING AGAIN.

THAT THE RULE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SORRY, MR. RICKTER. IT IS 12:46 AND BREAKING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.

>>> 3:59 AND COME TO CAN BACK FROM EXCUTIVE SESSION.

WE WILL TAKE UP THOSE ITEMS NOW. AND SECTION 5.

I BELIEVE WE NEED TO DO -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE DOING, EXECUTIVE SES

SESSION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WON'T DO 5-A.

WE WILL GO TO 5-B. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HE WAS GOING TO MAKE THAT, BUT I WILL TRY IF YOU WANT TO.

THE MOTION WOULD BE TO -- JENNY, HOW DO YOU WANT TO WORK THIS? THE MOTION WOULD BE TO TERMINATE --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I CAN READ IT FIRST BECAUSE I HAVE TO READ IT OFF IN HERE. WAIT A SEND.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THOUGHT YOU WERE READY TO GO.

>> DISCUSS AND CONSIDER. CHANGE THE BOB HALL PIER AND RELATED MATTERS AND I BELIEVE WE WERE GOING TO ADD ALSO THE ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY ON THIS ON

ONE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JENNY, WHAT IS THE RULE, CAN SHE JUST SAY ITEM A.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ITEM A. >> THE READING IS IMPORTANT ON

THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: GOING INTO AND NOT COMING OUT. WE CAN DO SECTION BEEN THEN.

BELIEVE ME, I NOT COMPLAINING.

>>KARA SANDS: WHY DID YOU ALL ADD 5?

[B. Discuss and consider terminating all program management services on all county projects, change the Bob Hall Pier Project with project management services, and related matters.]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: JUST TO COME BACK AND DEAL WITH.

ON SECTION 5-B, COMING OUT OF OPEN SESSION, I BELIEVE YOUR

MOTION, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: MOTION WILL BE TO TERMINATE ALL PROGRAM MANA MANAGEMENT, WORK AUTHORIZATIONS EXCEPT FOR A SEPARATE CONTRACT NUMBER 5. SEPARATE CONTRACT WITH THE PIER.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: EXPECT BOB HALL PIER.

>> FOR THAT CONTRACT WITH LAN. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS YOU WANT TO GET RID OF ALL WORK AUTHORIZATIONS THAT HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN ISSUED EXCEPT FOR THE ONE INVOLVING BOB HALL

[03:45:04]

PIER. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WORK

ORDER NUMBER 5. >> WORK ORDER NUMBER 5.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND, IF THAT WASN'T SECTED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: IT WAS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SORRY,

OKAY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL IN FAVOR -- THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: NO. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE MOTION

[C. Discuss and consider authorizing the County Judge, Precinct 4 Commissioner and Chairman of the Parks Board to meet with the Jones family including but not limited to Mr. Larry Jones and Mr. Brud Jones and any other family members that have legal standing in the Padre Balli dispute and all related matters.]

PASSES. ITEM C.

RELATING TO PADRE BALLI PARK, BRENT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THINK THAT IS TIED BACK TO ONE ON THE AGENDA. I AM TRYING TO FIND THE NUMBER.

I AM SORRY. IT WAS THE ONE -- GOSH DARN IT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: ANOTHER ONE BACK --

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: MOTION MADE TO ALLOW THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO MEET -- TO CONTINUE TO MEET WITH HIM.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOLD ON, THE ONE I PUT ON REGARDING THE COUNTY JUDGE, THE PARKS BOARD CHAIRMAN AND MYSELF TO MEET WITH THE JONES FAMILY WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER TO TRY TO DETERMINE A POSITIVE RESOLVE. I AM TRYING TO FIND THE AGENDA ITEM IT RELATES TO. I AM SORRY, I AM TRYING TO FIND IT HERE. MY AGENDA IS OUT OF ORDER.

HANG ON. ANYBODY WANTS TO HELP --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ARE ALL LOOK

LOOKING. >> THIS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN AN

OUTSIDE ITEM. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YEAH, THERE WAS. .BECAUSE I PUT IT ON SEPARATELY.

OPEN SESSION C, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY JUDGE, PRECINCT 4 COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN OF THE PARKS BOARD TO MEET WITH THE JONES FAMILY BUT NOT LIMITED TO MR. LARRY JONES AND MR. BRUD JONES AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS LEGAL STANDING AND TO SIT DOWN AND RESOLVE THE MATTER PEACEFULLY.

THAT IS THE MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THE MOTION PASSES.

[E. Discuss and consider termination of agreement with Hagerty Consulting, Inc. relating to disaster response and recovery support related to ARPA, FEMA, and Infrastructure and Recovery Grant Support and related matters.]

AND WE TABLED ITEM D. ITEM E ON HAGERTY CONSULTING.

[F. Discuss and consider taking action on demand dated January 26, 2023 in Case No. 2:22-CV-00112; Guy Williams v. Nueces County, Texas et al; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; and related matters.]

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NO ACTION.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: NO ACTION. ITEM F.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, A MOTION TO REJECT THE DEMAND MADE

ON -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: SECOND THAT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: -- ON THIS CASE.

[G. Discuss and consider taking action on hiring outside counsel for A. Shaker in Case No. 2022-CCV-61337-4, Maria Krauskopf, et al. v. Nueces County, Texas, et al; In Nueces County Court at Law #4; and related matters.]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL THOSE IN FAV FAVOR. ITEM G.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, BECAUSE DR. SHAKER IS BEING SUED IN THE SCOPE OF THE EMPLOYMENT, THE COUNTY IS LEGALLY OBLIGATED AND ALWAYS LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE HIM A DEFENSE AS WE ARE FOR MANY EMPLOYEES SUED IN THE SCOPE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT.

SO BEGRUDGINGLY I MAKE THAT MOTION --

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE HAVE NO CHOICE.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL. THAT IS THE MOTION, JUDGE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOLD ON.

DO I NEED TO SAY WHO THAT COUNSEL IS?

>> YES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT WAS MR. SHOWER AT THE RATE OF $400 PER HOUR.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WHAT IS HIS NAME. >>S-C-H-O-U-E-R.

AND HIS LAW FIRM -- DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE THE LAW FIRM.

>> YOU WILL BE HEARING THE LAW FIRM.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND INCLUDING HIS LAWYER THAT WILL REPRESENT HIM. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> NO. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION PASSES WITH ONE NO. H.

[H. Discuss and consider taking action on the claim by Juan Pimentel dated January 28, 2023; and related matters.]

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: CAN WE GO UP, I WILL A NO ON NUMBER C

-- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU

SECONDED THE MOTION GOPZ. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: G.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I AM GOING TO VOTE NO TOO.

YOU SECOND SECONDED THE MOTION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: JUST FOR

DISCUSSION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SORRY?

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I SECONDED THE MOTION FOR DISCUSSION. BUT --

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LET'S DISCUSS THIS.

BECAUSE I AM NOT DOING THIS ANYMORE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: PAY AN ATTORNEY $400 AN HOUR?

[03:50:02]

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HERE IS THE DEAL.

I AM NOT GOING TO SIT HERE -- WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DEFEND

THIS GUY -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU OPENED THE

ITEM. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T WANT TO DO IT EITHER. MAKES ME SICK -- WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. IF ANYBODY IS SUED --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: HIS MOTION CLEARLY STATED WHY WE ARE DOING

THIS AGAINST -- YES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ONLY EXCEPTIONS WOULD BE -- AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT THAT ONE OUT THERE BECAUSE IT IS OUT THERE, BUT VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS.

IF ANYONE IS SUED IN THE CONFINES OF THEIR JOB DOING THEIR JOB IN NUECES COUNTY, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DEFEND THEM. IT IS DISGUSTING THAT WE HAVE TO, BUT IT IS THE LAW. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW IN

THESE THINGS. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I

FORGOT ABOUT THAT ONE TOO. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T WANT TO DO IT EITHER BUT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

>> 4-1 STILL OR 3-2. >>JUDGE SCOTT: 4-1.

SOFT H. NO ACTION.

AND -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WELL --

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: TRYING TO GET BACK WITH US, I GUESS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THINK THE MOTION TO REJECT THE CLAIM AS PUT FORTH AND FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO GO TALK TO HIM.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: AS FOR THE REST OF --

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IS THERE A MOTION.

>> JUDGE, A MOTION ON H? >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION ARE

REJECT THE CLAIM HAS PRESENTED. >>KARA SANDS: INSTRUCT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO -- IS THERE MORE TO ADD?

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I KNOW. >>KARA SANDS: THE REASON WHY YOU NEED TO STATE THE MOTION SO IT IS CLEAR FOR THE MINUTES.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IF ANYBODY WANTS TO ADD TO IT OR

NOT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: DIRECT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE STILL. THERE WASN'T AN AMENDMENT OR ANYTHING TO GIVEN. IT WAS TO NEGOTIATE.

SORRY, I AM TOO IG TO THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE.

WE HAVE BEEN GONE A WHILE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WAITING TO SEE WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE WANTS TO DO.

I WAS TRYING TO FIND OUT. >>KARA SANDS: WHO MADE THE

MOTION? >>JUDGE SCOTT: BRETT MADE THE MOTION. CHESS TEE MADE THE MOTION.

I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. EVERYBODY IS OKAY.

AND THE END OF MY LIST ON ITEM 5 ENDS THERE.

BUT WE STILL HAVE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE TOOK UP -- THAT IS ALL

THAT I HAVE PRINTED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE,

CAN I JUST -- ON SPECIAL. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: ANOTHER

[I. Consult with the County Attorney regarding legal matters related to 2:19-cv-0043, Diana Bond, Individually, as Representative/Heir of the Estate of Tami Bond and as next friend for A.R.B., a minor child v. Nueces County, Texas; In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas; and related matters. (Tex. Gov’t Code §551.071).]

ONE NOW. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SORRY.

I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE TALKING. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ON I.

WE WANT TO REJECT -- IS THAT YOUR MOTION TO REJECT?

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY NEGOTIATE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: AND HAVE IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY NEGOTIATE AS WELL. A MOTION AND A SECOND.

[J. Consult with the County Attorney regarding legal matters related to 2:21-cv-00235, Margaret Mary Smith v. Nueces County, Texas, Gage Matthew Hinojosa, Individually, Wellpath Recovery Solutions, LLC, Wellpath, LLC, et al.; In the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division; and related matters. (Tex. Gov’t Code §551.071).]

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL THOSE IN

FAVOR, SAY AYE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: J.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: J IS -- TWO SEPARATE ONES ON THAT ONE.

TWO SEPARATE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: STILL A MOTION TO REJECT, AND FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE.

THAT IS ON J, A MOTION TO REJECT AND FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO

-- >>KARA SANDS: THAT'S YOU,

COMMISSIONER CHESNEY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. ARE YOU GOING TO SECOND THAT ONE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[L. Consult with County Attorney concerning legal matters related economic development programs pursuant to Govt. Code Sec 381.004(b); and related matters. (Tex. Gov’t Code §551.071).]

AND THEN L. NO ACTION.

A AND.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: K WAS NO ACTION.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: K WAS NO ACTION. L IS --

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, A MOTION TO HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY COME UP WITH AN ECONOMIC POLICY WORKING WITH THE CITY AND EDC WHATEVER ENTITY TO FIND A POLICY TO THIS ON.

[M. Consult with County attorney regarding legal matters related to hiring an in-house investigator for the County Attorney's office; and related matters. (Tex. Gov't Code §551.071).]

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AND M IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S --

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: M. >>JUDGE SCOTT: AUTHORIZE THEM TO, IF NECESSARY, HIRE AN IN-HOUSE INVESTIGATOR.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT A MOTION, JUDGE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO ENGAGE A CERTIFIED ATTORNEY TO INVESTIGATE IF NEEDED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: AUTHORIZE IF NECESSARY.

>> IT WOULDN'T BE A LAWYER. IT WOULD BE AN INVESTIGATOR.

[03:55:02]

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LIKE A PRIVATE.

THAT WAS A MOTION. THEN SECOND.

-- THAT A MOTION, JUDGE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: HE CORRECTED IT.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: AUTHORIZED THE ATTORNEY TO HAVE

AN INVESTIGATOR IF NEEDED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

[A. Discuss and consider selection of Director of Human Resources.]

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN, THE MOTION PASSES.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, IF I CAN GO BACK TO A, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE FEBRUARY -- WHAT DID WE DECIDE ON -- WE NEVER SET THE MEETING.

SO I WOULD MOVE WE TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING IN FEBRUARY WITH THE POTENTIAL -- WITH THE PROPER POSTING TO DELIBERATE. SPECIALTY ITEM A.

I AM SORRY? NO, JUST SPECIALTY ITEM A, UNDER

EXECUTIVE SESSION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: FOR HUMAN

RESOURCES IS WHAT IT IS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SHOULD BE SCHETT UNDER HUMAN RESOURCES BECAUSE NOT AN EXCUTIVE SESSION ITEM. JUST AN INTERVIEW AND DELIBERATIONS. MAKE SURE IT GETS POSTED TO DELIBERATE, PLEASE. THAT WILL BE THE MOTION TO TABLE FOR THE NEXT MEETING IN FEBRUARY.

>>KARA SANDS: IT IS NOT AN ACTION ITEM.

ON OPEN SESSION A. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I AM

TABLING THAT ITEM. >>KARA SANDS: 5-A, CORRECT?

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: 4-A. >>KARA SANDS: SO YOU ARE GOING -- YOU ARE GOING TO TABLE -- YOU WILL NOT DO INTERVIEWS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE ALREADY DID AND TABLE THE ITEM AND ASKING TO ADD THE LANGUAGE TO DELIBERATE.

>>KARA SANDS: 5-A. GO TO THE NEXT PAGE.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OKAY, 5-A.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT'S FAIR.

5-A. I WAS JUST DOING IT -- BECAUSE IT WAS A SPECIALTY ITEM. 5-A.

BUT, YEAH, NOT AS AN EXECUTIVE ITEM BUT A HR ITEM.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: NOW BACK TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

WE HAVE TWO -- ARE WE VOTING TO DO THIS.

TO TABLE IT? >>KARA SANDS: A MOTION TO TABLE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION TO TABLE.

AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. TRYING TO GET IN A HURRY TO GET A LOT OF THINGS DONE. SORRY.

GOING BACK TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEMA-16.

NEVER SCHEDULES OUR NEXT MEETING.

ARE YOU AVAILABLE? HE IS GOOD? EVERYBODY IS GOOD WITH THURSDAY 23 BEING OUR NEXT --

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO MOVED.

[1. Receive a brief presentation of the Hilltop Community Center Facility from Richter Architects; Discuss and consider selection of LEED Certification options.]

>> SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. THEN MOVING DOWN TO D-1.

WERE WE TABLING THAT TO ANOTHER MEETING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT?

WERE WE GOING FORWARD? >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: ON

GRANTS? >>JUDGE SCOTT: PUBLIC WORKS.

PRESENTED BY JUAN -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE HAVE SO MANY.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

>> WITH YOU HEAR ME NOW? THERE YOU GO.

WILL BE DOING A PRESENTATION FOR HILL TOP COMMUNITY CENTER.

WE ARE PRETTY MUCH AT 50% -- OR 100%.

HE WILL BE DOING A PRESENTATION, JUDGE.

>> THANK YOU. FOR SOME OF THIS, THIS DESIGN WILL BE KIND OF A REVIEW, BUT FOR THE JUDGE, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE SEEN SOME OF THESE IMAGES YET.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I HAVE ACTUALLY. >> YOU HAVE, GOOD.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WITH COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU CAN MAKE IT BRIEF FOR US IN LIGHT OF THE HOUR AND THE TIME PER HERE.

>> IF YOU WOULD LIKE, IF YOU -- I COULD JUST SKIP ALL THE IMAGES AND GO STRAIGHT TO THE CORE OF THE DISCUSSION.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I THINK EVERYONE HAS SEEN IT.

IF YOU COULD. >> THIS IS NOT FOR ME, THIS IS

FOR YOU. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I APPRECIATE IT,

BUT I HAVE SEEN IT. >> THEN I THINK THE MAIN THING TO REPORT WE HAVE RECENTLY COMPLETED THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE WORK BY THIS FRIDAY, ACTUALLY, WE ARE SCHEDULED TO PRESENT 50% OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WHICH IS THE LION SHARE OF THE TECHNICAL DRAWINGS.

WE HAVE MORE THAN 100 DRAWINGS ALREADY COMPLETED WITH OUR -- WITH OUR STAFF PLUS ENGINEERS. SO MECHANICAL AND STRUCTURAL.

[04:00:01]

AND THEN BY THE 10TH OF -- OF MARCH, WE ARE SCHEDULED TO HAVE COMPLETED DRAWINGS. SO WE ARE ABOUT FOUR WEEKS FROM BEING 100% COMPLETE. AND THE 10TH OF MARCH WILL HAVE A SET OF THE FINAL DRAWINGS TO THE COUNTY FOR COUNTY REVIEW.

AND THEN JUST A MATTER OF WEEKS AFTER THAT, THEY WILL BE READY TO GO TO PURCHASING. SO WE ARE CLOSING IN ON THE SORT OF FINAL STAGE OF THE DESIGN WORK.

THE -- JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WE HAVE TALKED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT OF IT BEING A LEED PROJECT, A VERY ENVIRONMENT ALLY SUSTAINABLE PROJECT, HIGHLY ENERGY EFFICIENT WITH A LOT OF SORT OF INNOVATIVE FEATURES.

ALL OF THOSE ARE INTACT IN THE DESIGN, BUT FOR COST REASONS, WE HAVE DECIDED TO PURSUE -- I SAY "WE DECIDED" BUT THE CONSENSUS BETWEEN US AND ENGINEERING STAFF TO PURSUE LEED CERTIFICATION, NOT THE HIGHER LEVELS GOLD AND PLATINUM BECAUSE THEY GET INTO A PREMIUM COST AND WHAT TRYING TO DO IS DELIVER TO THE COUNTY A BEST VALUE. HIGH DEGREE OF SUSTAINABILITY BUT NOT PURSUE THE SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES TO DRAW THE COSTS WAY UP. SO THAT WITH WHY YOU ARE APPROVAL, WE WILL CONTINUE ON THAT PATH.

AND WE WILL PURSUE A LEED CERT IF HE OCCASION BUT NOT LEED GOLD OR PLATINUM. I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE ITEM TO REPORT OTHER THAN THE DATES THAT WE ARE -- YOU KNOW, WE ARE THIS FRIDAY GOING TO BE SUBMITTING THE 50% TECHNICAL DRAWINGS AND FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW, THE 100%.

SINCE YOU HAVE SEEN THE DRAWINGS, HE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: NO, I DON'T. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: MR. RICHTER, JUAN INFORMED YOU

$8 MILLION. >> A TOTAL --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: SIX. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: WE

FUNDS SOME MONIES ELSEWHERE. >> A GOOD THING, SIR.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE THANK YOU. THIS IS JUST AN UPDATE.

NOT AN.ACTION ITEM. WE ARE NOT MAKING IN I DECISIONS. THAT'S OKAY.

BUT GOOD TO LET HIM KNOW. BUT THANK YOU.

UNDER D-2, PUBLIC WORKS, DISCUSS AND THE RENEWAL OF A DRAINAGE

EATMENT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE MIDDLE OF THE

ROAD AND NOT LEED. >> DOING THE MEN MUM LEED CERT

IF I. >>JUDGE SCOTT: HE DID AND SAY CONSIDER THE SELECTION. SO THERE IS AN ITEM TO BE SELECTED. HE RECOMMENDED THE --

>> THE MINIMUM, YES. >>KARA SANDS: Y'ALL NEED TO VOTE

ON THAT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YEAH.

TO CONSIDER THE SELECTION, SO SI ASSUME WE NEED A MOTION AND YOU ARE RIGHT. THE MINIMUM, BUT STILL PROVIDING

>> THAT WILL BE CONTINUED THAT THE FUNDING WILL BE THERE.

YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE ESTIMATED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THAT'S WHY I WASN'T READY TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE WERE LOOKING FOR FUNDING.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THE $10 MILLION.

BUT WORKING WITH COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ.

WE HAVE $6.2 MILLION. AND I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER

HERNANDEZ IS LOOKING INTO ARPA. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: CONTINGENT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, YOU

TONIGHT HAVE IT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE MOTION WILL GO TO THE MINIMUM ON CONTINGENT THAT WE FIND THE MOTION FOR IT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON IT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

ANY OWE OEZED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR SKIPPING THE

[2. Discuss and consider the renewal of an expired drainage easement within Naval Air Station Corpus Christi’s Cabaniss Field facility, and related matters.]

LINE. WHEN I DON'T READ THE WHOLE THING, I DON'T LOOK AT IT. NUMBER 2, DISCUSS THE RENEWAL OF THE DRAINAGE OF CORPUS CHR CHRISTI CABANISS FIELD FACILITY.

>> PUBLIC WORKS IS RECOMMENDING NOT TO RENEW THE EASEMENT WITHIN NUECES COUNTY AND THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI.

AND RECOMMENDING THAT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION

AND A SECOND. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION, THE REASON WHY?

>> NO LONGER SERVES -- IT IS IN THE CITY REQUIREMENTS.

[04:05:05]

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: THEY ARE GOING TO BE PROVIDING.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THEY ARE TAKING CARE OF IT.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: WHO IS TAKING CARE OF IT?

>> I AM NOT SURE, COMMISSIONER. IT USED TO BE WITHIN OURS, BUT BACK IN 1972. WE WILL TALK TO I GUESS NAVAK AND THE FOREMAN TO NAVIGATE WITH THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: ISN'T ANYTHING THAT WE TAKE ON RECENTLY. A 50-YEAR-OLD RENEWAL THAT WE DON'T NEED TO RENEW AT THIS POINT.

>> I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT RENEWING IT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: AND IT EXPIRES. WE ARE NOT GOING TO RENEW.

A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: WE ARE GOING TO NOTIFY THEM.

HAVEN'T GIVEN THEM THE HEADS-UP. OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WILL CHANGE THE WAY THEY ARE DELIVERING ANY SERVICES OUT THERE. TO PUT THEM IN JEOPARDY -- ANY

CONCERNS. >> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE

CITY. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: TALKING

ABOUT THE BASE. >> NO.

IT IS AN EXISTING EASEMENT AND THEY PROBABLY WILL END UP JUST CLOSING IT. AND NOT DEDICATE IT AS AN

EASEMENT. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: YOU

HAVEN'T TALKED TO ANYBODY THERE. >> WITH NOVAK? YES, SIR. I INFORMED THEM IT WOULD COME TO COMMISSIONERS COURT AND THIS OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS GOING TO BE THAT WE ARE GOING TO NOT RECOMMEND IT.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I MEAN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION. THAT IS WHY I WAS ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

I KNOW EVERYTHING IS SENSITIVE WORKING WITH THE NAVY.

AND WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY BASE REALIGNMENT CLOSURE COMMITTEES IN DECADES NOW, BUT ALWAYS THAT CHANCE ONE DAY THAT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN. I WOULDN'T WANT ANY AREA OF SERVICE THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY US, THE CITY OR ANYONE ELSE TO FALL SHORT AND MA HE CAN IT LOOK LIKE WE ARE NOT IN SUPPORT.

I KNOW WE ARE AND I KNOW WE DO EVERYTHING ELSE FOR THEM.

BUT THAT IS ONE AREA I WOULD NOT WANT TO MAKE IT SEEM LIKE THAT WE DON'T SUPPORT THEM OR THAT THEIR COMMAND WASN'T AWARE OF IT. IF YOU SAY YOU HAVE TALKED TO

THEM AND THEY ARE AWARE OF IT. >> WE INFORMED THEM WE WOULD BE

COMING TO COMMISSIONERS COURT. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: ALL RIGHT,

THANK YOU. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES.

[3. Discuss and consider approving a TIPS Cooperative No. 22010601 Contract with Johnson Controls (JCI) for the planned maintenance services of mechanical equipment for the Nueces County Courthouse and Jail.]

ITEM D-3, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING A TIPS COOPERATIVE # 2010601 CONTRACT WITH JOHN ON CONTROLS.

>> WE RECOMMEND THE TIPS COOPERATIVE NUMBER 220100601 CONTRACT WITH JOHNSON CONTROLS. AND MAINTENANCE AND TOTAL 93,461. SECOND YEAR 122,631.

THIRD YEAR 1, 989. THESE MONIES WILL BE PAID OUT OF OUR 1570 BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT ALLOCATED MONEY FROM PUBLIC WORKS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES.

[4. Discuss and consider execution of a GLO Certificate of Construction Completion for the IFB: 3136-20 Nueces County Road Rehabilitation Project CR 67, CR 69, CR 77 and Bauer Road project completed by Bay Ltd.]

THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 4, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER EXECUTION OF A GLO CERTIFICATE OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. YAY.

>> THIS IS FOR THE -- YES, MA'AM, THIS IS -- WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE EXECUTION OF THE GLO CERTIFICATE OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION. JUDGE, THIS IS JUST TO CLEAN UP SOME PAPER WORK WITH GLO. AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE EXECUTION OF THE -- OF THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: DO WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> SO MOVED. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ:

SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

[5. Discuss and consider funding source for the continued temporary cooling equipment rental at the Keach Family Library.]

THE MOTION PASSES ITEM NUMBER 5, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE CONTINUED TEMPORARY COOLING SYSTEM RENTAL AT THE KEACH LIBRARY. I THINK THIS RENTAL EXPIRES IN

FEBRUARY 2023. >> YES, MA'AM.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE -- WELL, THE -- TRYING TO FIND A FUNDING SOURCE TO PAY FOR THE RENTAL. THEY HAD THE EQUIPMENT COME IN.

SO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE 33,400 MAY BE LOWER THAN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT AND RECOMMENDING -- REQUESTING A FUNDING SOURCE TO PAY FOR THE TEMPORARY --

[04:10:03]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THE NEW UNITS COME IN.

WHEN DO YOU EXPECT THOSE TO BE INSTALLED TO COMPLETION?

>> I THINK THEY ARE WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW, JUDGE.

TAKING SOME OF THE MONIES TO PAY SOME OF THE RENTALS THAT HAVE BEEN IN SERVICE AT THIS TIME. SO WE ARE REQUESTING SOME OF IT

TO GET PAID AS PART OF THIS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: BUT YOU STILL HAVE NO IDEA OF THE COMPLETION DATE AND NEW INSTALL.

>> I WOULD UNDERSTATEMENT MID NEXT MONTH.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: MID NEXT MONTH? >> MID NEXT MONTH.

HOPEFULLY SOONER. FUNDING SOURCE?

>> WE LOOKED INTO IT CAPITAL PROJECTS.

WE HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE AND WE CAN ACCEPT IT.

>> FROM WHAT. >> 1901.

WE WILL LOOK INTO IT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IN OUR PACKETS? 1901. I DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE BACK.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT AND A SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OWE OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. NUMBER 6, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER

[6. Discuss and consider authorizing BuyBoard Contract No. 654-21 purchase from Firetrol Protections Systems for quarterly, semiannual, and annual fire alarm inspections and maintenance of the Courthouse fire alarm system.]

AUTHORIZING BUY BOARD CONTRACT PURCHASE FROM FIRETROL PROTECTIONS SYSTEMS. THE CONTRACT EXPIRES TODAY.

WE HAVE TO DO THIS TODAY. >> THAT'S CORRECT, JUDGE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH FIRETROL.

IT HAS BEEN EXPIRED. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS IS ONE I ALLOWED WITH AN EXCEPTION. HE WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO

APPROVE THIS. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ:

SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THESE IN FAVOR.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. I AM SORRY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

[7. Discuss and consider approval of a Goodbuy EZIQC Contract No. 21-22 7GCJOC2 with Barcom Construction, Inc. for the Nueces County Jail Steel Wall Repair project.]

THE MOTION PASSES. LOOK AT ITEM NUMBER 7.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A GOODBYE EZIQC CONTRACT

WITH BARCOM CONSTRUCTION. >> COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORK THAT WILL BE DONE APPROVED INSIDE THE JAIL.

SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED AND OTHER WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE REQUIRING WELDING AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT -- OF THE CONTRACT.

AND I THINK THE MONIES WERE COMING FROM C.O. 2021.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO MOVED.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[1. Approve execution of Amendment No. 1 to the Main Subscription Agreement (MSA) with Workday, Inc.]

THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: MOVING CONTINUE TO PURCHASING, E-1, APPROVE EXECUTION OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 MAIN SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT MSA.

BASICALLY TO CORRECT ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES, I

UNDERSTAND. >> YES.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[2. Discuss and consider conditional selection for IFB No. 3212-22 Water Pumps with Trailers, Tractor Mowers and Hydro-Vac Truck.]

MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 2, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION FOR WATER PUMPS FOR TRAILERRS, TRACTOR MOWERS AND HYDRO-VAC TRUCK.

>> YES, JUDGE. THIS IS AN IFB.

WE RECEIVED THREE QUOTES IN THE DIFFERENT PRODUCT AREAS AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL FOR ODESSA PUMPS AND EQUIPMENT FOR TWO VALUE PRIME PUMPS, DIESEL POWERED WATER PUMP WITH TRAILERS, 8696. AND CABDRIVER TRACTOR MOWERS WITH THE FLEX WING ROTARY COVERS FOR $529,561.54.

AND FOR ONE NEW INTERNATIONAL HYDRO-VAC WITH A TOTAL $519,279.

THESE ARE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEERS AND MEET

[04:15:02]

COUNTY SPECIFICATION AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL LOW BIDDER

WINS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: FUNDING

SOURCE. >> ARPA FUNDS.

>> SO MOVED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ITEM NUMBER 4,

[4. Discuss and consider method of procurement (request for qualifications) for architectural services for Infrastructure Projects under American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding; authorize Purchasing Agent to publish a notice; and adopt an order delegating evaluation authority to a selection committee.]

METHOD OF PROCUREMENT. >> ITEMS # AND 4, ONE OR ENGINEERING AND ONE ARCHITECTURAL.

COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ REQUESTED TO HAVE A SECOND OFFERING TO THE FOLKS IN THIS LINE OF WORK TO JOIN FOR ARPA.

AND GIVE PERMISSION TO. WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE COURT LATER THIS MONTH TO BRING THE CONTRACTS FOR THE FIRST ROUND. AND THIS WILL BE THE SECOND

ROUND THAT WILL COME UP LATER. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[3. Discuss and consider method of procurement (request for qualifications) for engineering services for Infrastructure Projects under American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding; authorize Purchasing Agent to publish a notice; and adopt an order delegating evaluation authority to a selection committee.]

OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. I GUESS WE NEED TO GO BACK AND DO NUMBER 3 FOR ENGINEERING, THE SAME THING SECOND ROUND FOR ENGINEERING. THE LAST ONE WAS FOR

ARCHITECTURAL. >> SAME THING.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO MOVED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ:

SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL THOSE IN

FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[1. Approve a monthly procurement card report ending for the month of September 2022 and year to date.]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: TO THE AUDITOR, NUMBER 1, APPROVE THE MONTHLY

PROCUREMENT CARD REPORT. >> THIS BECAUSE -- AND VERIFYING THE REPORTS. WE ARE ASKING TO YOU RECEIVE THE REP REPORTS AND FOR THE REPORT, I PREFER THAT YOU ACTUALLY READ THROUGH THE TRANSACTIONS AND MAKE ANY COMMENTS TO MYSELF IN PURCHASING IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WE CAN DEFINITELY PULL THE TRANSACTION AND WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND FIND OUT IF THERE IS ANY ERRORS AND WE WILL BRING IT TO YOU IT LATER.

FOR SEPTEMBER, 367,000 WORTH OF EXPENSES.

FISCAL YEAR $4.3 MILLION FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.

I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND PROCUREMENT FOR

SEPTEMBER 30, 2022. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: EXCUSE ME, DALE, I STILL SEE A WHOLE BUNCH OF LATE CHARGES FOR T THE P-CARD. RESTA

RESTAURANTS. >> WE CONSTANTLY WORK WITH MICHAEL FOR PROCUREMENT FOR MEALS.

AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE -- HAVE HAD SOME THAT WE REACHED OUT TO THE DEPARTMENTS AND THEY HAVE REIMBURSED US FOR IT.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THEY HAVE?

ONE -- STUCK OUT AT ME FOR 2021. >> WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON?

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: 111. ON THE BOTTOM.

$124 FROM SHORELINE. >> WHICH ONE WAS THAT?

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THE SECOND ONE FROM THE TOP.

>> OKAY. IS YOUR QUESTION ON THAT?

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: ARE WE STILL RECEIVING BILLS -- GOES

BACK TO 2021. >> NO, THIS IS FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE.

FOR YOUR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, YOU WOULD GO ALMOST TOWARD THE END WHERE SEPTEMBER BALANCES WILL BE AT.

WE WANT TO GIVE YOU AN ENTIRELY YEARLY REPORT WHAT OCCURRED FOR THE FUNCTION AND THAT IS WHY IT SHOWS UP HERE.

THEY ARE NOT RECEIVING ANY MORE BILLS FOR THAT, NO.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION TO APPROVE.