Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:04]

>> OKAY. SO WE WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. AT THIS TIME IT'S NICE TO SEE EVERYBODY. WE DO HAVE A FULL HOUSE. IT IS TIME FOR INVOCATION.

I'M GOING TO ASK ALL OF YOU TO RISE. PLEASE REMOVE YOUR HATS, IF YOU HAVE THEM. AND PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE TEXAS FLAG AFTER WE HAVE OUR INVOCATION.

PLEASE WELCOME PAMELA, OUR SENIOR PASTOR FROM FIRST UNITED CHURCH.

SHE WILL BE DELIVERING INVOCATION THIS MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION TO OFFER THIS MORNING'S INVOCATION. BEFORE I ENTER INTO A SPOKEN PRAYER, I INVITE YOU TO A TIME OF SILENCE, THAT WE MIGHT REMEMBER THE LIVES TRAGICALLY TAKEN FAR TOO EARLY YESTERDAY.

WE MIGHT PRAY FOR OUR COMMUNITIES, SCHOOLS AND OUR NATION.

I INVITE YOU INTO THAT SILENCE NOW. HEAVENLY FATHER, HOLY GOD, AS THE STATUE IN FRONT OF OUR CHURCH PROCLAIMS THIS IS CORPUS CHRISTI, INDEED, FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM CHRISTIANITY, WHICH WE KNOW IS NOT ALL OF US, WE REMEMBER THAT JESUS IS THE ONE WHO CALMS STORMS AND WHO WALKS WITH US THROUGH THEM. SO WE INVITE YOU O GOD TO WALK WITH ALL WHO ARE IN ACUTE NEED THIS MORNING, IN OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY.

AND BE WITH THEM IN THE STORM. CREATOR OF ALL THINGS, WE THANK YOU FOR THIS LIFE THAT YOU'VE GIVEN US, FOR THE JOYS, SORROWS, TRIALS AN FAILURES, AND CERTAINLY FOR THE TRIUMPHS, THANK GOD WE HAVE THOSE. WE PRAISE YOU FOR OUR COUNTRY, BEAUTY AND RICHES, ALL THAT IT HAS FOR US. WE THANK YOU ESPECIALLY FOR ALL OF THE BLESSINGS YOU HAVE AFFORDED TO US HERE IN NUECES COUNTY, AS WE ENJOY THE UNIQUENESS OF THE BEAUTIFUL ON THE BAY. GRANT THAT WE WOULD CHERISH THESE GIFTS AND USE THEM FOR THE GOOD OF ALTOGETHER. WHEN WE DO NOT, PLEASE FORGIVE US AND SET US ARIGHT WITH YOU AND OUR NEIGHBORS. RULER OF ALL NATIONS GIVE WISDOM TO THESE YOUR SERVANTS WHO GOVERN OUR COUNTY, GUIDE THEM THAT THEY MAY LEAD WITH FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE FOR ALL CITIZENS AND WITH REGARD FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. PARTICULARLY, INSTILL IN THEM A RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE MOST IN NEED AND FOR THOSE WHO HAVE NO ONE TO SPEAK FOR THEM.

REMIND OUR LEADERS THAT ALL ARE PRECIOUS IN YOUR SITE AND WORTHY OF CARE.

THANK YOU GOD FOR THE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT. GRANT THESE AND ALL OUR COUNTY'S PUBLIC SERVANTS HUMILITY AND PERSEVERANCE, ON BEHALF OF ALL WHO LIVE, WORK AND VISIT THE COASTAL BEND. MAY WE WORK TOGETHER ACROSS THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BOUNDARIES THAT WE HAVE CREATED SO THAT WE MIGHT LIVE HONORABLY AND PEACEFULLY WITH ONE ANOTHER.

WE GIVE YOU THANKS FOR ALL WHO HAVE SERVED OUR COUNTRIES AND ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE GIVEN THEIR LIVES IN THAT SERVICE FOR OUR FREEDOM. MAY WE LIVE IN SUCH A WAY THAT IS WORTHY OF THEIR SACRIFICE. I PRAY IN THE NAME OF JESUS THE CHRIST, AMEN.

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, 1 NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL NA UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALLON , UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALLE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL THE COURT: AT THIS TIME I'LL NOTE FOR THE RECORD AND THE CLERK, IT'S MAY 25TH, 2022, WHILE I DID NOT LOOK AT THE EXACT TIME WE STARTED, I THINK I'LL CALL IT 8:35 A.M.

AND WE ARE HERE AT NUECES COUNTY COUNTY COURTHOUSE, ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF NUECES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURTROOM. I DID SEE HIM EARLIER, HE IS NOT PRESENT AT THIS EXACT

[00:05:01]

MOMENT, BUT I DO BELIEVE ONCE THEY COME IN, I'LL REANNOUNCE. BUT A QUORUM HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. COMMISSIONER MAREZ, MYSELF, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY ARE HERE.

WHEN THE OTHER TWO COMMIS COMMISSIONERS RETURN TO THE COURTROOM, I'LL MAKE THE NOTE. I'LL ASK REBECCA TO JOIN ME FOR SAFETY.

IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST OR ANY APPEARANCE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, IT SHALL BE DECLARED AT THIS TIME. IF THERE SHOULD BE A DISCLOSURE IN LATER IN THE MEETING, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCLOSE AT THAT TIME. ARE THERE ANY COMMISSIONERS THAT NEED TO BE DELIVERED? OKAY. I WILL ASK COMMISSIONER GONZALES WHEN HE COMES BACK IN AGAIN. SEEING AND HEARING NO

[E. SAFETY BRIEFING]

AFFIRMATIVE CONFLICTS, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE SAFETY BRIEFING. I'D ASK THAT YOU GIVE YOUR ATTENTION IN LIGHT OF YESTERDAY'S EVENTS, THESE ARE IMPORTANT NOTES WHEN WE DO A SAFETY BRIEFING, IT IS FOFR OUR OWN PROTECTION FOR OUR OWN ATTENTION.

DO YOU HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, SIR? NO. PLEASE PROCEED.

>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE. COMMISSIONERS AND ATTENDEES, OUR SAFETY BRIEFING FOR TODAY IS BEING HELD IN THE NUECES COUNTY AED IS LOCATED ON THE RIGHT WALL NEXT TO THE HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE. PROCEEDING OUT THE DOORS LOCATED ON THE SIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE, ASSEMBLE IN THE PARKING LOT ACROSS THE STREET. IT IS IMPORTANT TO STAY TOGETHER. SHOULD THERE BE A NEED TO SHELTER IN PLACE, DEPENDING UPON THE SEVERITY OF THE SHELTER IN PLACE, THE COURTROOM DOUBLE DOORS WILL BE SECURED AND REMAIN SECURE UNTIL GIVEN FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE NUECES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OR OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND OUR GUEST SANITIZER TODAY WILL BE MICHAEL. AND THAT IS OUR SAFETY BRIEFING FOR TODAY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. AT THIS TIME I'LL ASK TO HAVE -- WOULD YOU BE SO GOOD -- IT'S ALREADY HERE. WE HAVE A LARGE SIGN-UP THIS

[F. PUBLIC COMMENT: This section provides the public the opportunity to address the Commissioners Court on any issues within its jurisdiction. The Commissioners Court may not take formal action on any requests made during the Public Comment period which are not on the Agenda, but can refer such requests to County staff for review if appropriate.]

MORNING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M GOING TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, EVEN THOUGH SO MANY OF YOU ARE NOT ROOM FOR THE COURTROOM. WE HAVE A TIMER.

DIGITAL ONE. YOU'LL GET TO SEE IT DISPLAYED. WE ASK THAT YOU RESPECT EVERYBODY'S TIME. BUT AGAIN, I AM ALWAYS -- I THINK GOOD ABOUT ALLOWING YOU TO FINISH YOUR STATEMENTS. I ALWAYS WILL ALSO ASK THAT IF YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATES TO AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA AND YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THAT AGENDA, IF YOU'LL LET ME KNOW.

AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, WE AS THE COMMISSION WILL NOT ENGAGE IN THE DIALOG BACK. BUT WE CERTAINLY ARE LISTENING INTENTLY AND SOMETIMES THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT LATER IN THE AGENDA. SO WITH THOSE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT, I'LL ASK WILL MARTIN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME?

>> MA'AM, CAN I PLEASE WAIT UNTIL 3 H.22. >> YES, SIR.

I'LL MAKE THE NOTE. I'LL CALL YOUR NAMES OUT THAT SIGNED UP.

SUZANNE TAYLOR. YOU'LL WAIT. BETTY SHEETS.

MARGARET BALDWIN. EDDIE HINAMEYER. HE'LL WAIT.

KATHLEEN WHITE. OKAY. I WILL NOW TAKE IT IN ORDER OF -- IF ANYONE ELSE IS HERE REGARDING THE GAME ROOMS, WE WILL PUT YOU ON THE LIST HOOVER. I'LL MOVE ON TO JAY JAY. WELCOME.

>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE TEXAS VETERANS COMMISSION DID NOT RENEW OUR VETERANS ASSISTING GRANT LAST YEAR. BUT GREAT NEWS.

[00:10:05]

WE GOT THE GRANT BACK. AND THE GRANT IS FOR $150,000 AND THAT WOULD HELP US WITH OUR FOOD PANTRY, ALSO HELP US WITH GENERAL ASSISTANCE, INCLUDES BASIC LIFE NEEDS.

MORTGAGE, RENT, UTILITIES, FOOD, TRANSPORTATION, BURIAL. SO WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THAT.

THAT GRANT CYCLE BEGINS JULY 1ST, 2022. AND WE WILL BE WORKING WITH OUR GRANTS DEPARTMENT AND OUR SOCIAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS TAKEN CARE OF IN REGARDS TO THE GRANT. WE ARE VERY PROUD AND EXCITED

TO SHARE THAT NEWS WITH YOU. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

JASON GREEN. GOOD MORNING. YOU'RE NEXT.

>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN PLANNING THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, SO THANK YOU FOR HAVING US THIS MORNING. BASICALLY I WANTED TO INTRODUCE OUR MANAGEMENT TEAM AT THE RICHARD REGIONAL FAIRGROUNDS. WE HAVE A GREAT STAFF AND AN AWFUL LOT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVENTS THAT WE DO. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE TEAM AND A COUPLE OF MEMBERS OF THE TEAM THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE.

STARTING ON MY RIGHT, CRYSTAL GONZALES, FAIRLY NEW TO US, OUR MARKETING MANAGER AND SHE HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN MARKETING AND HAD WORKED DOWNTOWN IN CORPUS CHRISTI, IN MARKETING.

SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE HER. NEXT IS ARCELIA, DIRECTOR OF SALES. SHE AND I ARE TEAMING IT UP TO BOOK ALL THE EVENTS THAT HAPPEN AT THE FAIRGROUNDS. AND NEXT IS RAYMOND, HE IS OUR DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS.

SO HE MAKES THINGS GO, SETTING UP THE EVENTS AND TAKING THE EVENTS DOWN AND CHANGING OVER, ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. THEN WE ALSO HAVE STEVEN, WHO IS OUR EVENT MANAGER.

ONE ON THE FRONT LINES, TALKING TO ALL OF THE CLIENTS AND GETTING THE EVENT DETAILS AND MAKING THINGS HAPPEN. THREE OF OTHER FULL-TIME PEOPLE WERE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE, KATRINA, WHO HAS BEEN WITH US A LONG TIME, SHE IS OUR DIRECTOR OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE, ALSO OUR CHEF. WITH THE STORM, DOES NOT HAVE POWER OUR WATER AT HER HOME AS OF RIGHT NOW. ALSO, PHILIP HANSON IS OUR OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR THAT WORKS UNDER RAYMOND, FAIRLY NEW TO OUR STAFF BUT HE HAS BEEN A GREAT ASSET TO US. AND THEN OUR COUNTY MANAGER, SHE IS BACK AT THE FAIRGROUNDS. SOMEBODY HAD TO STAY BACK, TIFFANY, THAT HANDLES ALL OF OUR ACCOUNTING. RECENTLY WITH OUR CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH THE COUNTY, WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE A NICE THING TO COME DOWN HERE THIS MORNING AND INTRODUCE OURSELVES AND THIS IS OUR TEAM AND YOUR TEAM.

SO WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. AND ONE GREAT TEAM. WE JUST PUSH ON FORWARD AND CONTINUE. AND WE ARE HAVING A LOT OF ACTION WITH BOOKING EVENTS, A LOT. AND WHAT'S REALLY NICE ABOUT HAVING ALL OF THE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS IS THAT WE HAVE MULTIPLE EVENTS, ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF EVENTS FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY. SO AGAIN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING US AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO A CONTINUED LONG PARTNERSHIP. THE COURT: THANK YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. LOPEZ WILL BE NEXT, FOLLOWED BY DEANNA KING.

>> GOOD MORNING, MR. LOPEZ. >> GOOD MORNING. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE FIRE MARSHAL POSITION. AND WE NEED THE FIRE MARSHAL POSITION.

THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ONE IN NUECES COUNTY.

ALL YOU KNOW HOW BAD IT IS OUT IN THE COUNTY. ALL OF YOU.

WE DON'T HAVE FIRE HYDRANTS, ESPECIALLY ON THE WEST SIDE. . THE SCHOOLS DON'T HAVE IT.

DON'T HAVE FIRE HYDRANTS. THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN INSPECTED BY A FIRE MARSHAL.

BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER HAD ONE. I HAVE INVITED MANY OF YOU, ESPECIALLY SEVERAL OF YOU, THAT BELONG TO THE DISTRICTS OUT THERE. NONE OF YOU WANTED TO GO OUT THERE TO SEE THE HYDRANTS THAT. THAT POSITION, I'VE SPOKEN TO THE -- MR. OLIVERES.

HE WAS A VERY SARCASTIC PERSON WITH ME. HE DARED ME TO -- AUSTIN.

[00:15:07]

I'M SORRY. BUT I HAD ALREADY SPOKEN TO AUSTIN.

I HAD MADE TWO COMPLAINTS. HE SAID CALL YOUR FRIENDS IN AUSTIN.

YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE FRIENDS IN AUSTIN. I ASKED HIM, WHAT DO YOU DO HERE? HE SAID I SIT HERE IN MY OFFICE ALL DAY LONG.

SO GO AHEAD AND CALL AUSTIN. I SAID YOU SIT HERE ALL DAY? HE SAID YEAH.

BUT THAT IS BESIDES THE POINT. HE WAS USING OUR TAXPAYERS MONEY WHEN WE COULD HAVE USED THAT MONEY TO HELP THE PEOPLE OUT IN THE COLONES. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HIRE SOMEBODY, PLEASE PLEASE HIRE SOMEBODY WHO HAS BEEN A FIREFIGHTER, AND FIRE INSPECTOR OR HAS EXPERIENCE AS A FIRE MARSHAL. DON'T HIRE SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T HAVE THE BACKGROUND AS FIRE PERSON. BECAUSE I ASKED THAT GUY, I ASKED HIM SEVERAL BASIC QUESTIONS, AND HE DIDN'T KNOW. HE DIDN'T KNOW A SINGLE THING ABOUT FIRE. AND PLEASE WE NEED A FIRE INSPECTOR OR A FIRE MARSHAL.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FLUSH VALVE AND A FIRE HYDRANT.

THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE. A FLUSH VALVE IS A 200 PSI. THAT IS A FLUSH VALVE.

A FIRE HYDRANT IS A THOUSAND PSI THAT BELONGS IN THE SCHOOL. YOU CAN'T HOOK UP A FIRE TRUCK TO A FLUSH VALVE. YOU'RE GOING TO BRING UP THE WHOLE PIPES.

PLEASE, WE NEED A FIRE MARSHAL. WE NEED ONE. THIS COUNTY HAS NEVER HAD ONE.

THOSE SCHOOLS HAVE NEVER BEEN INSPECTED. BY A FIRE MARSHAL.

IF YOU NEED A COMMITTEE, PLEASE SIGN ME ON. THE COURT: THANK YOU, MR. LOPEZ. NOW WE'LL HEAR FROM DEANNA KING.

>> GOOD MORNING TO EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS DEANNA MICHELLE KING.

AND I'M NOT ONLY A NUECES COUNTY EMPLOYEE, BUT I'M ALSO A TAXPAYER OF THIS COUNTY.

EVERY YEAR PEOPLE COME TO THE THIRD FLOOR OF THIS COURTHOUSE PAYING THEIR TAXES.

SOME HAVE DIFFICULTY PAYING THEIR TAXES, SOME LOSE THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THEIR TAXES. WE IN TURN ABUSE TAXPAYERS MONEY BY USING COUNTY DEBIT CARDS AS IF THE MONEY IS THEIR OWN. PAY COMPANIES WHO DO FAULTY WORK. TURN AROUND AND SHUN COMPANIES WHO WOULD DO BETTER WORK FOR THE COUNTY FOR LESS. ALSO, THIS COUNTY IS TOP HEAVY. WE CREATE POSITIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT QUALIFIED. PAY CONTRACTORS AND/OR PROGRAM MANAGERS ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY. THE COUNTY COULD BETTER UTILIZE THE MONEY TO INCREASE SALARIES FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. AND TO OFFER FUTURE COUNTY APPLICANTS A DECENT LIVING WAGE. LET ME TELL YOU, TRICKLE DOWN REAGAN-NOMICS CAN WORK IN THIS COUNTY. IF THE WORD SELFISHNESS AND I WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE EQUATION.

THE MONEY NEEDS TO TRICKLE DOWN TO CONSTITUENTS NEEDS TO THIS COMMUNITY AND EMPLOYEES WHO

[00:20:06]

KEEP THIS COUNTY RUNNING. MOVING MONEY FROM ONE BUCKET TO ANOTHER SHOULD NOT BE NEEDED TO COVER PROJECTS OR EXPENSES TO KEEP THIS COUNTY AFLOAT. TAXPAYERS INCLUDING EMPLOYEES FAITHFULLY DO THEIR PART TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES TO SUPPORT THIS COUNTY, THEREFORE, THIS COUNTY HAS THE DUE DILIGENCE TO ENSURE THAT THEIR MONEY IS USED PROPERLY.

AS I WAS WRITING THIS LITTLE THING THAT I WAS DOING LAST NIGHT, A SCRIPTURE CAME TO MIND, WHICH IS IN SECOND TIMOTHY 3 AND 1. IT SAYS IN THE LAST DAYS, THERE WILL BE MANY TROUBLES. BECAUSE PEOPLE LOVE THEMSELVES, LOVE OF MONEY, BOASTFUL, PROUD AND ABUSIVE. IT IS OKAY TO BE PROUD OF OURSELVES.

IT IS OKAY TO LOVE OURSELVES. BUT WHEN IT BECOMES A -- >> NOW, LARRY FERKIN.

>> OUR DITCHES AREN'T GETTING CLEANED OUT THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED OUT, DOWNSTREAM.

AND WE'VE ASKED ROBSTOWN MAYOR TO COME TO THE MEETING. HE DON'T COME.

HE ASKED FOR HELP FROM THE COUNTY, AND SAYS WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER.

I DON'T SEE HIM COMING OVER HERE AND ASKING. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS ASKING HIM THE SAME QUESTION. 43 YEARS AND HE HASN'T CLEANED OUT THE DITCH THAT HE OWNS.

I DON'T KNOW WHO DECIDED TO HAVE THE PRECINCT OF YOURS MR. MAREZ OVER THERE AT COUNTY ROAD 44, BUT IT'S TERRIBLE. BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO RELY ON THE MAYOR OF ROBSTOWN TO TAKE CARE OF THAT ONE AREA OF DITCH OVER THERE THAT IS BACKING US UP.

TO ADD TO THAT, MR. HERNANDEZ, WE'VE WITNESSED A MOWER GOING DOWN MY STREET, HALF INCH BLADE OF GRASS AND THEY'RE MOWING. THIS GUY COULD BE DITCHING MY STREET REPAIR.

DIGGING OUT AROUND COUNTY ROAD 50 THAT GOES ACROSS 69 THAT DON'T HAVE THE TREES, YOU HAVE THE EQUIPMENT THERE TO DIG THE DITCH OUT THAT GOES TO 77. AT LEAST HAVE THAT HOLE OPENED UP SO WE CAN GET RID OF SOME WATER. THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU CAN'T BE DOING THAT. TAKE THE GUY OFF THAT TRACTOR, GET HIM BEHIND THAT TRACK HOE AND GET HIM BUSY OVER THERE. WE'RE HERE AT THE 11TH HOUR, OUR DITCHES ARE GETTING FULL AGAIN ALREADY. JUST DRIVE DOWN THERE AND YOU CAN SEE IT.

WITH JUST THE LITTLE RAIN THAT WE HAVE NOW. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR WHAT IS GOING ON. AND I'M TIRED OF BEING UP HERE EVERY TIME.

GETTING REALLY TIRED. THE COURT: THANK YOU. WE'LL HEAR FROM BOBBY CHESTNUT NOW. I'D ASK CONNIE TO PREPARE, IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS

ONLINE TO LET ME KNOW. >> ONCE AGAIN, I'M HERE AGAIN ABOUT DRAINAGE.

THE MONEYS THERE REPORTEDLY WE'RE NOT SEEING ANYTHING DONE AGAIN.

TWO MAJOR DEALS THAT UPSET ME THIS LAST WEEK, I WENT TO THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT MEETING.

ONE COMMISSIONER WAS THERE. 3 MONTHS AGO, ONE COMMISSIONER WAS THERE.

JUDGE, YOU WERE THERE AND YOU WERE GOING AROUND AND DOING YOUR BEST TO SATISFY EVERYONE WAS THERE. I COMMEND YOU FOR THAT. MR. HERNANDEZ, YOU COME AND DUG DITCHES OUT IN OUR SUBDIVISIONS. WIDENED OUR DITCHES.

[00:25:01]

MADE RETENTION PONDS OF OUR FRONT YARDS. BUT AT THE BACK OF OUR SUBDIVISION, THE 18 INCH PIPES THAT ALL OF THE SUBDIVISION GOES THROUGH ARE STILL THERE.

THE DITCH HAS NOT BEEN DUG TO THE BACK OF THE SUBDIVISION OVER TO COUNTY ROAD 52.

IT TURNS AND GOES UNDER THE BRIDGE, STILL NOT BEEN INSPECTED, EVEN THOUGH IT'S FALLING DOWN. TREES ARE STILL IN THE DITCHES. AND THE MONEY IS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE. WHY ARE WE NOT SEEING ANY WORK? THE WORK IS WHAT IS GOING TO CURE THE PROBLEM. IT'S NOT LIP SERVICE. IT'S NOT VISITATION.

IT'S LIP SERVICE THAT IS STOPPING THIS APPARENTLY. BECAUSE ALL OF YOU GUYS SAID WE WANT TO WORK TOGETHER, WE WANT TO BE A TEAM. WE WANT TO HELP EVERYBODY THAT IS INVOLVED. LET'S SEE THE TEAMS GO TO WORK. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE AFTER.

WE HAD A GOOD RAIN LAST NIGHT. I HAVE PICTURES ON MY PHONE OF WATER STANDING, EXACTLY WHERE WE KNOW THE PROBLEM PLACES ARE. GET STARTED. FIX SOMETHING THAT IS BROKE DOWNSTREAM. DON'T JUST TALK ABOUT IT. WE'VE HAD MR. REYES COME BY MANY TIMES TO TAKE THE PICTURES. HE TOOK PICTURES AND MADE RECOMMENDATIONS HE SAID. AND NOTHING IS BEING DONE. WE NEED TO GET PEOPLE.

IT TAKES ONE MAN TO RUN A TRACK HOE. TWO MEN TO RUN A DUMP TRUCK APIECE TO HAUL THE MATERIAL AWAY. MAYBE A SURVEYOR TO TELL YOU THE ELEVATIONS BUT THAT IS ALL IT TAKES. IF WE COULD GET THE MONEY TO THESE PEOPLE, THAT IS FINE. IF WE ARE CAN'T, LET'S GET A CONTRACTOR OUT THERE.

I'M UP HERE REPRESENTING ABOUT TEN PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEIR HOUSES FLOODED.

THEY'RE WORKING TODAY. THEY COULDN'T COME TO THE MEETING.

SO I TOLD THEM ONCE AGAIN, I WILL SPEAK UP FOR YOU. PLEASE LET'S SEE SOME WORK GET

DONE AND NOT SOME LIP SERVICE. THANK YOU. >> OTHER THAN MYSELF, THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES I HAVE LISTED ON PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT I'LL LOOK AROUND TO MAKE CERTAIN I HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN ANYBODY. OKAY.

MINE IS BRIEF. BUT IT IS -- IT COMES ACTUALLY FROM THE NAACP THIS MORNING.

THEY ASKED THAT I PLEASE ANNOUNCE THAT THERE WILL BE A PRAYER VIGIL FOR BOTH THOSE KILLED IN BUFFALO, NEW YORK AND UVALDE TEXAS ON TUESDAY, MAY 31ST AT SOLID ROCK CHURCH AT 6:00 P.M. REPEAT THAT BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WERE LISTENING AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO WRITE THAT DOWN AGAIN. AGAIN, A PRAYER VIGIL ORGANIZED AND CALLED FOR BY THE NAACP, ON TUESDAY, MAY 31ST, SOLID ROCK CHURCH AT 6:00 P.M. I THOUGHT THAT WAS AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC AWARENESS TO GIVE TO YOU. WE HAVE CONCLUDED PUBLIC COMMENT OTHER THAN THOSE FOLKS THAT WANT TO VISIT WITH US ABOUT THE GAME ROOM REGULATIONS. I HAVE YOU NOTED AND WE'LL GO IN ORDER.

I WOULD LIKE TO GET THROUGH THE RESOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS AND THEN WE CAN MOVE INTO THOSE AGENDA ITEMS THAT WOULD HELP THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE HERE. IT APPEARS WE ARE MOVING INTO

[1. In recognition of the London Boys Basketball Program on their outstanding accomplishments.]

G1. LONDON BOYS BASKETBALL PROGRAM HERE WITH US.

>> JUDGE, WE DID THAT ONE AT LONDON. THEY COULDN'T GET HERE.

THE COURT: I SEE NOW. IF I TAKE OFF MY SHORT GLASSES, I CAN SEE.

OKAY. >> I WOULD JUST MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE LONDON BOYS BASKETBALL RESOLUTION. THE COURT: MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THAT WAS JUST A CLEAN-UP TO GET ALL THE ALL STATE INFORMATION

IN? >> NO. LONDON ONE WE DID SEPARATELY.

[2. In recognition of High School State Champion Powerlifter, Noah Estrada, from Agua Dulce.]

I WENT YESTERDAY. THE COURT: YOU JUST WENT THERE.

THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. IN THIS CASE, WE'VE GOT A CHAMPION POWER LIFTER IN OUR MIDST AND HIS NAME IS NOAH ESTRADA AND WE WELCOME YOU AND YOUR STAFF. COACH, LET'S HEAR FROM BELINDA WHO HAS A VERY IMPORTANT

RESOLUTION IN YOUR HONOR. >> WHEREAS, NOAH ESTRADA IS THE TEXAS HIGH SCHOOL POWER LIFTING ASSOCIATION STATE CHAMPION IN POWER LIFTING, WHERE HE HAS THE STATE RECORD IN DEAD LIFTING CATEGORY, LIFTING 390 POUNDS, STATE RECORD IN THE 114 POUND WEIGHT CLASS DIVISION, TOTAL

[00:30:02]

LIFTING 985 POUNDS IN THE STATE COMPETITION. ALSO, NOAH ESTRADA IS IN THE 2022 PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HONORS SOCIETY AND HAS EARNED HIS ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE IN SCIENCE FROM THE COASTAL BEND COLLEGE WITH A 4.0 GPA. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NUECES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT THE COURT HEREBY RECOGNIZES NOAH ESTRADA FOR HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS FOR A VERY SUCCESSFUL 2022 YEAR.

THE COURT: WOW NOAH. COME ON UP. THE DA DOESN'T COME DOWNSTAIRS VERY OFTEN. BUT IS HE NOT A PROUD RESIDENT. LONGHORNS.

NOAH, SEE THAT MICROPHONE RIGHT THERE. WILL YOU TELL US WHO IS WITH YOU HERE TODAY. YOU'VE GOT IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE TEAMMATES, COACHES, SOME STAFF.

I GOT MY HEAD COACH, AND MY SUPERINTENDENT, RICHARD WRIGHT AND ATHLETIC DIRECTOR, GARY HEARTMAN. A LOT OF SUPPORTIVE PARENTS IT LOOKS LIKE.

ALL RIGHT. HOW DID YOU DO IT, NOAH? PLUS BEING AN OUTSTANDING ATHLETE. OBVIOUSLY AN AWESOME STUDENT AND YOU'VE ALREADY EARNED YOUR

ASSOCIATE'S DEGREE, WHICH IS PRETTY INCREDIBLE. >> I MEAN, IT TAKES A LOT OF SUPPORT FROM MY FAMILY. TO WIN STATE, IT TOOK THREE YEARS.

IN THE BEGINNING, I'M NOT GOING TO LIE TO YOU, I WAS PRETTY BAD.

BUT WITH THE HELP OF MY COACHES, MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS, I'VE BEEN ABLE TO SORT OF REALIZE THAT MY MISTAKES AREN'T NECESSARILY BAD THINGS. BUT LEAD MORE HARD WORK AND DEVELOPING DISCIPLINE AND JUST ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE. I'M THANKFUL FOR THAT.

I'M THANKFUL FOR THEM. AND ACADEMICS AND POWER LIFTING ARE JUST LIKE CORRELATED.

ALLOWED ME TO REALIZE THEY'RE BOTH VERY IMPORTANT. THEY BOTH TAKE A LOT OF COMMITMENT. AND I'M GLAD I CAN REALIZE THAT AT A YOUNG AGE.

REALLY IT'S JUST SUPPORT AND MY FAMILY THAT MY FRIENDS, REALLY ALL OF THE COMMUNITY SUPPORTS ACADEMICS AND ATHLETICS. AND I'M REALLY HAPPY FOR THAT. THE COURT: BOY, YOU ARE AN AMAZING ROLE MODEL FOR EVERYBODY THAT IS AROUND US IN NUECES COUNTY.

IT'S NOT JUST DULCES, IT'S EVERYBODY. YOU'RE KIND OF WHAT EVERY PARENT WISHES FOR. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. I LOVE THAT YOU GAVE HONOR TO THE VILLAGE THAT HELPED BRING THIS MOMENT FOR YOU. I WANT YOU TO KNOW WE DO DO THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY COURT. IT MAKES MY EYES WATERY.

BECAUSE YOU'RE THE BEST PART OF WHAT WE DO. WE GET TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE LIVE IN THIS BEAUTIFUL PLACE. NO MATTER WHAT HATE IS OUT THERE, NEGATIVITY, YOU BRING IT HOME FOR ME HERE THIS MORNING. YOU'RE WHY WE WORK SO HARD. WE'RE SO PROUD OF YOU.

LET ME DO A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSE KEEPING AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO -- COACH, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS. MR. GONZALES, YOU DO GRACE US THIS MORNING.

I KNOW YOU'RE PROUD. I'D LOVE FOR YOU TO SAY SOMETHING IF YOU WOULD LIKE ON BEHALF, BUT FIRST, COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE A MOTION TO --

>> SO MOVED. THE COURT: TO APPROVE SUCH RECOGNITION.

MOTION AND A SECOND. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? ARE YOU RELATED?

>> I'M COACH ESTRADA, WE ARE RELATED DISTANTLY, WHICH I'M EXTREMELY PROUD OF.

WE STARTED OFF HIS SOPHOMORE YEAR. AND I HAD HIM IN ART CLASS.

HE ACTUALLY, I TOLD HIM I SAID HEY, I'M LOOKING FOR A SMALL LITTLE GUY THAT I THINK I CAN GET PRETTY STRONG. AND IT ACTUALLY WORKED OUT. FIRST YEAR GOING TO REGIONALS, REALLY BIG DEAL. BARELY MISSED GOING TO STATE HIS FOLLOWING YEAR.

BUT HE WAS POUNDS AWAY FROM IT. I TOLD HIM HEY, KEEP WORKING. I PROMISE, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. EVEN AT REGIONALS, HE BARELY GETS BEATEN BY ANOTHER KID.

ALL OF A SUDDEN HE COMES BACK AND WE HAD A PLAN. I TOLD HIM LOOK, IT'S BETTER TO

[00:35:01]

BE A STATE CHAMP THAN TO BE A REGIONAL CHAMP. I PROMISE YOU, YOU'RE GOING TO REALIZE IT. SURE ENOUGH, ALL OF A SUDDEN EVERYTHING WORKED OUT.

HE GOES AND HE GETS THAT 390 POUND DEAD LIFT AND THAT SOLIDIFIED EVERYTHING.

THE OTHER KID, HE WAS ACTUALLY A PREVIOUS STATE CHAMP. HE ACKNOWLEDGED IT.

AND IT WAS ALL OVER FROM THERE. AS FAR AS ANOTHER COACH, OUR SUPERINTENDENT SLASH ASSISTANT COACH, RICHARD WRIGHT, HE HAS HELPED TREMENDOUSLY. ACTUALLY, I GRADUATED IN '98, HE HAD ALREADY STARTED COACHING POWER LIFTING. SO YEAH.

HE BROUGHT A LOT OF EXPERIENCE TO THE TABLE. HIS SUPPORT FROM HIS PARENTS, TREMENDOUS SUPPORT. I MEAN, CONSTANTLY MAKING SURE THAT HE WAS WORKING AND WORKING. OBVIOUSLY THE GRADES WERE NEVER AN ISSUE.

I MEAN, VERY PROUD OF HIS EFFORTS ON THAT. NATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY PRESIDENT. KID'S GOT A LOT OF ACCOLADES. EXTREMELY PROUD OF HIM.

THE COURT: FANTASTIC. FANTASTIC. WE DIDN'T ASK NOAH ABOUT YOUR

FUTURE PLANS, BUT I IMAGINE YOU HAVE GREAT ONES. >> COME BACK TO THE MIC.

THE COURT: IF YOU COULD. ONLY BECAUSE IT'S HARD FOR A FEW OF US.

>> I PLAN TO EITHER ATTEND CORPUS A&M AND DO MECHANICAL ENGINEERING OR KINGSVILLE AND DO ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING. THE COURT: MAN, AREN'T WE LUCKY.

>> LET ME SAY SOMETHING TO NOAH. THIS MUST BE YOUR LUCKY DAY.

>> IT'S A PRETTY GOOD DAY THE COURT: I WOULD SAY SO. BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE BETTER. I TELL YOU WHAT, WHILE YOU WERE SPEAKING THERE, I HAVE A SPONSOR THAT ASKED ME YESTERDAY FIND SOMEBODY I CAN SPONSOR FOR A SCHOLARSHIP.

SO THE EDUCATION IS FREEDOM SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A SCHOLARSHIP FOR A

THOUSAND DOLLARS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU WILL BE THE FIRST AND

HOPEFULLY NOT THE LAST. >> YES, SIR. >> SO GET WITH ME LATER.

AND LET'S WORK ON IT, OKAY? >> YES, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> CONGRATULATIONS AND GOD BLESS YOU. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU ALL OF YOU. THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY

SAYING AYE. >> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.

THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO THANK MARTIN GONZALES FOR CALLING ME AND LETTING ME KNOW ABOUT MR. NOAH. APPRECIATE THAT MARK. APPRECIATE MR. WRIGHT, SEEING HIM AGAIN. I DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE A COACH. NOAH, I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU AGAIN. YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU INSPIRED ME HEARING YOUR STORY.

AND I WENT OUT THERE -- I'M GOING TO DONATE $500 TO YOUR SCHOLARSHIP.

IS THAT OKAY, COMMISSIONER? >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY COMMISSIONER, YOU WERE

GOING TO BECOME A POWER LIFTER TOO. >> NO. I NEVER DID THAT.

BUT THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU ALL.

WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL REPRESENTATION OF THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS READ AND WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE HONOR OF PRESENTING IT TO YOU UP FRONT, TAKING PHOTOS WITH YOUR TEAMMATES, COACHES, WHEREVER YOU WOULD LIKE, TO JOIN US UP FRONT.

IF YOU WOULD GIVE US THAT HONOR. I ONLY GOT TO SEE TWO INNINGS, BUT LAST NIGHT I WAS AT THE HOOKS GAME. I KEPT THINKING ABOUT HOW HE WAS THERE ONCE AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE JOINING THE RANKS OF WHAT YOUR COACH SAID.

YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF ANYBODY BY THEIR SIZE.

YOU HAVE -- YOU ARE A GIANT RIGHT NOW IN NUECES COUNTY AND I JUST REALLY DO THINK THAT, AS I SAID, WHO HAVE YOU INSPIRED NEXT TO BECOME THE NEXT STATE CHAMPION.

MAYBE THOSE TEAMMATES RIGHT NEXT TO YOU AND MAYBE A LITTLE BOY OR GIRL EVEN THAT YOU DON'T KNOW YET. YOU HAVE A CHAMPIONS HEART, MINDS, DISCIPLINE AND STRENGTH.

WILL YOU JOIN US UP FRONT FOR A PHOTO. THANK YOU.

[00:42:38]

>> AS WE TRANSITION, IT JUST KEEPS GETTING BETTER FROM HERE. OUR NEXT RECOGNITION IS ALSO

[3. In recognition of Naval Air Station Corpus Christi - Department of Defense 2022 Commander in Chief's Annual Award for Installation Excellence]

TRULY THE PRIDE OF NUECES COUNTY. IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT RECOGNITION FOR NAVAL AIR STATION CORPUS CHRISTI, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HAS ISSUED THEIR 2022 COMMANDER IN CHIEF'S ANNUAL AWARD FOR INSTALLATION EXCELLENCE.

AND IT HAS BEEN AWARDED ON BEHALF OF NAS CORPUS CHRISTI TO CAPTAIN CHRIS JASON, OUR COMMANDER AND BELINDA HAS A VERY IMPORTANT RESOLUTION TO READ.

>> WHEREAS, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMANDER IN CHIEF'S ANNUAL AWARD FOR INSTALLATION EXCELLENCE RECOGNIZES THE OUTSTANDING AND INNOVATIVE EFFORTS OF THE PEOPLE WHO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE U.S. MILITARY INSTALLATIONS. WHEREAS, ONLY FIVE RECIPIENTS OF THIS HIGHLY COMPETITIVE PRESIDENTIAL AWARD ARE SELECTED EACH YEAR FOR THEIR SUPPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MISSIONS. WHEREAS, NAVAL AIR STATION CORPUS CHRISTI, UNDER COMMANDING OFFICER CAPTAIN CHRISTOPHER JASON WAS SELECTED FOR THIS PRESTIGIOUS AWARD.

WHEREAS, THE NOMINATION BY THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY TO REPRESENT THE U.S. NAVY IN THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AWARD FOR INSTALLATION OF EXCELLENCE, PLACES IT AT THE TOP OF 70 WORLDWIDE INSTALLATIONS. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OF NUECES COUNTY HEREBY CONGRATULATES CAPTAIN CHRISTOPHER JASON FOR RECEIVING THIS HIGHLY COMPETITIVE 2022 COMMANDSER IN CHIEF'S ANNUAL AWARD FOR INSTALLATION EXCELLENCE AND ENCOURAGES THE CITIZENS OF NUECES COUNTY TO JOIN THE COURT IN RECOGNIZING THIS OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT. THE COURT: THANK YOU SO MUCH. WITH US THIS MORNING IS CAPTAIN CRAZE CHRIS JASON. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS

>> SO MOVED. THE COURT: RECOGNITION. MOTION AND A SECOND.

CAPTAIN JASON, WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU THIS MORNING. CAPTAIN JASON WILL OFFICIALLY GO INTO RETIREMENT AND WE WILL HAVE A CHAIN OF COMMAND ON JULY 1ST.

AND IT HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY FOR MYSELF TO SERVE ON THE SOUTH TEXAS MILITARY

[00:45:02]

TASK FORCE ALONG WITH SO MANY OTHERS, TO SUPPORT ALL OF OUR MILITARY INSTALLATIONS.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE DO HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY, IT'S PRETTY FANTASTIC. WE ARE TRAINING THE FUTURE NAVAL AVIATOR.

UNDER THE COMMAND OF CAPTAIN JASON, HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REALLY INSPIRE US TO WORK AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, THE STATE LEVEL, TO PROVIDE MORE FUNDING, MORE DOLLARS, BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT THAT ONLY HAPPENS BECAUSE SOMEBODY HELPS YOU SEE IT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE NEEDS ARE. HE DOES THAT BY BEING WELCOMING OF BUSINESS LEADERS AND ELECTEDS AND REALLY HELPS US UNDERSTAND THE POWER OF OUR OWN LIVES WHEN IT COMES TO BEING ON BASE. TO KNOW THAT THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE VALUES OUR STATION ABOVE ALL OTHERS IN THE COUNTRY, IT'S JUST OVERWHELMING. I KNOW YOU MUST BE SO PROUD. SHARE WITH US A LITTLE BIT

ABOUT HOW YOUR TEAM TOOK THIS >> OKAY. THANK YOU, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS AND FELLOW CITIZENS. YEAH. LISTENING TO THE RESOLUTION, IT IS STILL A LITTLE BIT OF UNREAL. I HAVE TO SAY, I ENVISIONED THIS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO. I JUST -- BECAUSE IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG ONCE ARRIVED IN JULY OF 2019 FOR CHALLENGES TO EMERGE.

IN OCTOBER, ON MY SON'S BIRTHDAY, MY IN-LAWS WERE HERE FROM SAN ANTONIO, I HAD TO TELL THEM TO STAY IN THE HOUSE AND I HAD TO DEAL WITH A GATE RUNNER WITH STOLEN WEAPONS.

OTHERS FOLLOWED SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE SHOOTING, WHICH WE CELEBRATED A TWO-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF. MASSIVE WINTER STORM. HURRICANE HANNAH.

DID QUITE A BIT OF DAMAGE ON BASE. AND OF COURSE, THE COVID PANDEMIC. IT WAS A ROUGH PERIOD. I THINK RIGHT AFTER THE SHOOTING, AS I SAW HOW WELL THE TEAM WAS DEALING WITH CRISIS, I SAID THESE FOLKS DESERVE THIS RECOGNITION. AND I JUST SET MY HEAD ON MAKING SURE THAT WE DIDN'T HOLD ANYTHING BACK ON THE PROCESS TO APPLY FOR IT. I JUST WORKED VERY HARD PERSONALLY TO BRING IT ABOUT. BECAUSE I JUST KNEW THAT THEY DESERVED IT AND I ALSO KNEW THE COMMUNITY DESERVED IT. I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT PIECE OF IT A LITTLE BIT.

AS I THINK ABOUT IT, WHAT IS IT THAT MADE CORPUS CHRISTI STAND OUT.

FIRST, I LOOKED INWARDS TO THE DEPARTMENTS ON THE BASE. THAT IS THE STAFF THAT WORKS DIRECTLY FOR ME. INCLUDES SECURITY, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, PUBLIC WORKS AND KIND OF LOOKED -- RECREATION FOLKS, YOU NAME IT. THEY WERE ALL EXCELLING.

OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT IS NATIONALLY ACCREDITED. ONLY 15 PERCENT OF FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAVE THAT LEVEL OF ACCREDITATION. THEY WERE DOING OUTSTANDING WORK. AND THEN I LOOKED MORE TO THE TENANTS, WHAT THE CLINIC IS DOING. OF COURSE, I THOUGHT ABOUT THE COMMUNITY.

I CAN'T FIND ONE ELEMENT THAT IS THE DECISIVE ELEMENT. THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF IT.

BECAUSE IF WE ONLY HAD ONE THAT STOOD OUT AMONG THE REST, WE WOULDN'T BE AT THE TOP OF 70.

BUT I REALLY HAVE TO THANK THE COUNTY FOR THE CONTRIBUTION THAT YOU MADE.

IN PARTICULAR, I THINK THAT THE AGSA INITIATIVE, THE FIRST IN THE REGION FOR THE NAVY REALLY CAUGHT THE ATTENTION OF THREE STAR AND SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND ALL OF THOSE FOLKS.

I REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT THAT VERY THING HERE. ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND YOU KNOW, I BELIEVED IN IT AND YOU BELIEVED IN IT. AND WE'RE ABOUT TO AWARD THE FIRST PROJECT FOR THAT. BUT I THINK IT'S JUST THE BEGINNING.

WE SAID IT WAS THE TIP OF THE ICE BERG. I REALLY THINK IT WILL BE.

SO I REALLY WANT TO THANK THE COMMUNITY. I REALLY DO BELIEVE WITH ALL MY HEART THAT THIS IS NOT JUST AN AWARD TO THE BASE. IT IS AN AWARD TO THE CORPUS CHRISTI COMMUNITY. TO THE COUNTY, CITY, STATE. WE'VE GOTTEN GREAT SUPPORT ALL AROUND. I THINK THAT MORE THAN CELEBRATING THE BASE, I REALLY DO THINK NATIONAL LEVEL LEADERSHIP CELEBRATING THE COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE BASE AS A MODEL. I THINK THAT IS WHAT PUSHED US OVER THE EDGE. IT IS INTERESTING TO LISTEN TO THE WEIGHT LIFTERS, HOW THE COACH SAW THAT. I SAW THAT IN THE LITTLE BASE THAT COULD.

I TOOK THAT SAME APPROACH. AND I CAN'T BELIEVE -- IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE.

I AM RETIRING FROM THE NAVY. GOING TO FIND A DIFFERENT CAREER.

CHERYL SAID MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE RETIRED. THAT MIGHT HAVE HELPED YOU BE A FLAG FEAR OR SOMETHING. IT'S THE RIGHT OFFICER. WE DON'T KNOW YET WHERE WE'RE GOING. BUT THIS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN AN ABSOLUTE BLESSING TO MY FAMILY

[00:50:01]

AND THE WHOLE AIR STATION. I REALLY WANT TO THANK YOU ALL AND CELEBRATE THIS WITH YOU.

AND CONGRATULATE YOU ON THIS AWARD. SO THAT IS ALL I'VE GOT.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, CAPTAIN. IN TRUE FORM, YOUR HUMILITY SHINES AND I JUST REALLY -- EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE YOU SAY YOU KNOW, THE GOOD GUYS DO WIN. MAN, THEY REALLY DO.

BECAUSE YOU REALLY HAVE IN MY MIND, THE BASE OF THE FUTURE. AS WELL AS THE BASE OF OUR PAST. WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WORLD WAR II, THIS PARTICULAR BASE WAS DEFINED BY WORLD WAR II. OUR WORLD WAS DEFINED BY THIS BASE.

BUT THE FUTURE IS ALSO DEFINED BY OUR BASE, WITH THE MODERNIZATION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING AS ONE OF YOUR MAJOR TENANTS, C-CAD. AVIATION THAT IS HAPPENING.

IT'S WONDERFUL. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE NEVER ATTENDED A WINNING, I KNOW THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IS ALWAYS LOOKING. COMMISSIONERS, THAT MIGHT BE A NICE THING TO DO. COMMISSIONERS, ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE I ASK THE CAPTAIN TO JOIN US UP HERE FOR A NICE PHOTO?

>> CONGRATULATIONS. AND YOU MAKE IT SOUND LIKE YOU WERE HERE WITH 20 YEARS WITH ALL OF THE EVENTS THAT YOU WENT THROUGH. WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP. AND WE KNOW THAT WE'RE FORTUNATE WHEN WE CATCH THE BASE COMMANDER AT THE END OF THEIR TENURE WITH THE NAVY THAT THEY TEND TO YOU KNOW, SET UP THEIR HOME HERE IN THE AREA. SO I HOPE SO. ESPECIALLY WITH TIES IN SAN ANTONIO, THAT YOU CAN FIND OPPORTUNITY HERE. I KNOW MR. MCLAWFUL HOPEFULLY YOU CAN. BECAUSE WE LOVE OUR MILITARY, AS YOU KNOW.

AND TO HAVE SOMEONE OF YOUR CALIBER HERE IN THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE WELL MISSED.

SO BEST OF LUCK WHEREVER YOU GO. AND WE'RE A NAVY FAMILY.

WE APPRECIATE HEARING THE SOUND OF FREEDOM OVER OUR HOUSE EVERY TIME WE HEAR YOUR TRAINERS AND SEE ALL OF YOUR PERSONNEL OVER TOWN. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL IN FAVOR. SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN. CAPTAIN, WOULD YOU JOIN US FOR A PHOTO AND RECOGNITION.

>> THANKS, CAPTAIN JASON. THE MILITARY IS A FOUR BILLION IMPACT TO OUR COMMUNITY.

THAT IS IMPORTANT. BUT MONEY CAN'T BUY THE PRICE OF BRAVERY THAT IT TAKES FOR THOSE AVIATORS TO DO WHAT THEY DO. WHILE WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE ECONOMIC IMPACT, I'M MORE GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE THIS KIND OF SELFLESS COMMITMENT FOR OUR COUNTRY AND FREEDOM. SUPER. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER IMPORTANT WAY THAT WE CAN CELEBRATE OUR COUNTRY, THAT IS IN RECOGNITION OF DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS FOR MEMORIAL DAY 2022. WE DEFINITELY HAVE REPRESENTATIVES HERE AND I WOULD ASK THAT YOU DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION ONCE AGAIN TO

BELINDA. >> WHEREAS, ON THIS MEMORIAL DAY, WE REMEMBER THOSE WHO GAVE LIFE AND LIMB IN THE WORLD WARS KOREA, VIETNAM, PERSIAN GULF AND MANY MILITARY CONFLICTS

[00:55:04]

THAT ENGAGED OUR TROOPS AND NAVAL FORCES DURING THESE PAST DECADES.

WHEREAS, WE REMEMBER THOSE WHO DEFENDED THIS GREAT LAND OF OURS.

THOSE WHO CAME HOME SICK OR INJURED, AND THOSE WHO TOOK THEIR LAST BREATH IN BATTLE.

AND WHEREAS, OUR DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS SURELY GAVE UP THE EASE AND SECURITY OF CIVILIAN LIFE, LEAVING FARM AND FACTORY, HOME AND CLASSROOM, TO DEFEND THE UNITED STATES FREEDOMS THAT WE ENJOY EVERY DAY. WHEREAS, THIS MEMORIAL DAY WE REMEMBER AND HONOR ALL VETERANS AND WE ESPECIALLY RECOGNIZE THOSE GIVING LIMB AND INJURY AS A SACRIFICE FOR OUR FREEDOM. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF NUECES COUNTY THAT ON THIS MEMORIAL DAY, MAY 30TH, 2022, THE COURT HONORS OUR DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS AND URGES ALL CITIZENS OF NUECES COUNTY TO OFFER GRATITUDE FOR THE MANY SACRIFICES OF OUR VETERANS FOR THE FREEDOM PROVIDED TO EVERY CITIZEN OF NUECES COUNTY.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, BELINDA. WELCOME TO ALL. >> JUDGE, TO YOU AND THE COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE WORDING IN THE PROCLAMATION.

IT IS SYMBOLIC AND SIGNIFICANT OF WHAT WE DO. NOT JUST TODAY, BUT WHAT WE DID IN THE PAST AND HOW WE ALL CAME TOGETHER. YOU KNOW, JUDGE, IT IS VERY EVIDENT IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT THE RESPECT THE MILITARY HAS IS REFLECTIVE ON WHAT YOU DO FOR US. I KNOW YOU'VE NEVER LET US DOWN.

YOU'RE THERE FOR VETERANS, NOT ONLY DO YOU DO THE TALK, BUT YOU ALSO DO THE WALK.

WE APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT OUR COMMANDER IS NOT ABLE TO BE WITH US THIS MORNING. HE IS ILL AND ASKED OUR GROUP TO BE HERE TO REPRESENT HIM.

TO INVITE YOU ALL TO THE MEMORIAL DAY CELEBRATION ON MONDAY, AT THE NOW VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK. I KNOW THE NAME CHANGED. I ALSO WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT REAL QUICK, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, YOUR HONOR. IF THE CAPTAIN HAS NOT DECIDED WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO, WE SHOULD ALL WORK TOGETHER AND TRY TO RECRUIT HIM AND FIND HIM

A JOB IN THIS CITY. THE COURT: AMEN. >> HE BELONGS HERE.

HE BELONGS IN THIS CITY WITH WHAT HE'S DONE AND WE WORK TOGETHER WITH HIM.

THE SECOND OFFER I WANT TO MAKE, I'M A RETIRED CITY COP AS WELL.

I SPENT 35 YEARS WITH CCPD. I DID 30 YEARS BETWEEN ACTIVE DUTY AND RESERVE AND SERVED IN THE VIETNAM WITH THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE. I TOOK NOTICE OF THE YOUNG MAN THAT EVERYONE CONSIDERS NOT BEING VERY BIG. BUT IF HE CAN LIFT 390 POUNDS, CAPTAIN, WE KNOW HE CAN CARRY THE DUFFEL BAG AND THE AR-15, WHATEVER IS NEEDED.

THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN ENCOURAGE HIM. JOE GONZALES, WITH YOUR OFFER OF THE SCHOLARSHIP, THAT THERE IS AN ROTC AT TEXAS ALGORITHM AND HE CA&M.

THIS CITY IS SO GREAT TO THE MILITARY. WE LOOK AROUND AND WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT COME IN TO THIS CITY TO COMPLIMENT US ABOUT HOW WELL CORPUS CHRISTI TAKES CARE OF OUR MILITARY. WE HAVE A PARK THAT IS NAMED AND THE BENEFITS OF THE MILITARY IN THIS CITY. WE ARE SURROUNDED BY SAN ANTONIO AND THE FOUR AIR FORCE BASES AND AN ARMY BASE THAT IS THERE. THIS IS A MILITARY TOWN, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. SO I THINK WE'RE BLESSED. FOR THAT WE THANK OUR COMMUNITY LEADERS. AND LIKE I SAY, I'LL REPEAT IT 100 TIMES.

NOT ONLY DO THEY DO THE TALK, BUT THEY DO THE WALK. LOOK AT EVERY ONE OF OUR MILITARY FUNCTIONS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS CITY, THE REPRESENTATIVES ARE THERE.

I WOULD BE WILLING TO BET MONEY THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NUECES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL BE AT OUR CEREMONY ON MONDAY. SO WE THANK YOU.

WE THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMANDER OF THE DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS AUXILIARY TO ALSO SAY A FEW WORDS.

>> HE IS A LITTLE TALLER. I ALSO WANTED TO ADD MY THANKS FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE, FOR RECOGNIZING SUCH AN IMPORTANT EVENT. AND THE SACRIFICES, NOT ONLY THAT OUR VETERANS HAVE DONE, BUT ALSO VETERANS FAMILIES. THIS IS ALSO A SPECIAL TIME FOR US TO HONOR GOLD STAR MOMS. I AM A BLUE STAR MOM MYSELF. BY THE GRACE OF GOD AND PRAYERS OF MANY PEOPLE. WHEN MY SON CALLED ME AND SAID MINE, I'M IN MAINE, BACK FROM IRAQ. THAT WAS THE FIRST NIGHT THAT I SLEPT WELL IN MONTHS.

[01:00:03]

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECOGNITION. WE THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO HAVE THIS. AND WE HOPE TO SEE YOU MAY 30TH AT CHERYL PARK.

ALSO, PLEASE ENCOURAGE ANY GOLD STAR MOMS, WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THEM THERE.

WE WOULD LOVE TO RECOGNIZE THEM AND HONOR THEM. AND YOU KNOW, AS MANY AS WE CAN. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES FAMILIES, YOU KNOW, ARE NOT ALWAYS AT THE FOREFRONT. AND BUT WE ARE THE ONES THAT KEEP THE HOME FIRES BURNING.

SEND THE LETTERS, PACKAGES. JAY JAY, THEY SEND A LOT OF PACKAGES.

I DID A LOT OF THEM TOO. THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE DONE.

WE APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. THE COURT: THANK YOU. >> ALSO TRAINED A GENTLEMAN WHO SERVED IN THE MARINE CORPS, WE ARE BLESSED TO HAVE HER AS A COMMANDER OF THE AUXILIARY

TEAM. THANK YOU AGAIN, JUDGE. >> ACTUALLY, MY SON IS A POLICE OFFICER IN CORPUS CHRISTI AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT HE HAS DONE SO WELL IS BECAUSE HE HAD A WONDERFUL INSTRUCTOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. JAY JAY, BEFORE YOU LEAVE US, WE HAVE A CEREMONY AT THE VETERANS STATE CEMETERY. AND WOULD YOU REMIND EVERYBODY.

YOU CAN GO TO MORE THAN ONE. YOU CAN CELEBRATE ALL DAY LONG. >> YES, MA'AM.

WE DO HAVE A CEREMONY. MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND STARTS OFF WITH THE FLAG PLACEMENTS OVER AT THE COASTAL BEND VETERAN'S CEMETERY. FRIDAY, 27TH, FIVE P.M.

WE WILL PLACE A FLAG ON EVERY GRAVE SITE. >> CHERYL PARK IS IN THE

MORNING. >> IN THE MORNING. >> YOU CAN GO TO BOTH.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE HERE, MAY I HAVE IT. I NEED A MOTION. I'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AND MAY I PRESENT THIS TO YOU.

[5. In recognition of the week of May 22nd through 28th, 2022, as Search and Rescue Awareness Week.]

THE COURT: WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM G-5 FOR THOSE FOLLOWING ALONG.

G-5 IS A VERY IMPORTANT WEEK HERE FOR US. MAY 22ND THROUGH MAY 28TH, 2022, IS SEARCH AND RESCUE AWARENESS WEEK. WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES HERE WITH US THIS MORNING. I WOULD ASK BELINDA TO BEGIN WITH READING THIS PARTICULAR

PROCLAMATION. >> WHEREAS, IN 2021, THERE WAS 46,581 MISSING PERSON REPORTS

[01:05:06]

IN TEXAS. 12,807 OF THEM BEING ADULTS. WHEREAS, COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT NUECES COUNTY AND THE STATE OF TEXAS WERE IMPACTED BY MISSING PERSONS, LOST LOVED ONES AND DECEASED FAMILY MEMBERS, DUE TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES MENTAL HEALTH, NATURAL CAUSES.

SEARCH AND RESCUE RESOURCES BRING CLOSURE AND AID. SEARCH AND RESCUE PROFESSIONALS PERFORM FLOOD AND SWIFT WATER EVACUATIONS, LOCATE MISSING CHILDREN AND MEET MANY OF THE OTHER COMMUNITY'S NEEDS. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OF NUECES COUNTY DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF MAY 22ND THROUGH MAY 28TH, 2022, AS SEARCH AND RESCUE AWARENESS WEEK IN NUECES COUNTY. THE COURT OFFERS ITS THANKS TO FIRST RESPONDER AGENCIES FOR THEIR TIRELESS WORK. THE COURT: THANK YOU, BELINDA.

I'VE GOT MANY MOTIONS. RESOUNDING SECOND. WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO MAKE SOME

COMMENTS? >> MY NAME IS SHANNON SMITH, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS.

TERRY FOR DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, FOR TEXAS SEARCH AND RESCUE.

JONATHAN MCCOMB IS ONE OF OUR DEDICATED MEMBERS AND LOYAL VOLUNTEERS.

SEARCH AND RESCUE EMBODIES SO MANY DIFFERENT ENTITIES WHEN IT COMES TO EMERGENCY SERVICES.

THERE IS VOLUNTEERS ACROSS THE BOARD THAT PUT FORTH EFFORTS FOR THE GREATER GOOD.

WHETHER IT'S A MISSING PERSON OR DURING HURRICANE SEASON WHICH IS IMPENDING ON THE COAST, THAT IS WHERE WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE MR. REYES SUPPORTING THIS EFFORT AND OUR FRIENDS IN THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICTS HERE.

AND HONORING EVERYBODY THAT PUTS FORTH THAT EFFORT. THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY.

GOOD MORNING. >> THANK YOU. OBVIOUSLY Y'ALL KNOW MY INVOLVEMENT WITH TEXAS R, THAT STARTED BACK SEVEN YEARS AGO AS OF YESTERDAY, WAS THE MEMORIAL FLOOD THAT MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS WERE HERE. SO WHEN I WAS LAYING IN THE HOSPITAL, AS I LOST MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS, EVERYBODY RUSHED UP THERE TO DO WHAT THEY COULD TO DO SEARCH AND RESCUE. I CAN'T THANK YOU GUYS ENOUGH AND THESE GUYS ENOUGH.

WE'RE ONLY CALLED OUT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. AN INDIVIDUAL CANNOT CALL US OUT. BUT WE'RE TRAINED IN WHAT WE DO.

TRAIN VIGOROUSLY. I GOT DONE DOING MY SWIFT WATER CERTIFICATION AGAIN TWO WEEKS AGO. SO I CAN FIND SOMEBODY SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHAT I'VE GONE THROUGH. INCREDIBLE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS.

ALL VOLUNTEER. NOBODY IS PAID. AND EVERYTHING COMES OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKET. I THINK THERE IS 500 MEMBERS NOW.

WE TRAVEL EVERY SINGLE COUNTY IN TEXAS. AND OUR MOTTO IS SERVICE ABOVE SELF. TEXANS HELPING TEXANS. ANY WAY THAT WE CAN BE A FINGER TO ANY OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT HERE IN TOWN OR OUTLYING AREAS THAT MAYBE NEEDS MORE HELP, WE'RE HERE TO HELP. THANK ALL OF Y'ALL FOR WHAT Y'ALL DO HERE.

THANK Y'ALL AND FOR SURE REMEMBER EVERYBODY. IT HIT ME PRETTY HARD YESTERDAY AS I WAS NOT ONLY REMEMBERING MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY, BUT GETTING PHONE CALLS.

BECAUSE I WAS JUST OVER THERE THIS WEEKEND AND EAGLE PASS. I CALLED TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE OKAY AND THEIR KIDS WERE FINE. IT'S TERRIBLE. THANK Y'ALL.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE DEFINITELY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR LOUIE RAY. THIS IS THE TYPES OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS THAT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT REALLY NEEDS. WE DON'T RECOGNIZE HOW LARGE OUR COUNTIES ARE IN THE RURAL AREAS. THERE ARE SOME HOMES AND RVS THAT DON'T SHOW UP ON MAPS.

THIS TYPE OF PARTNERSHIP IS ONE THAT WE INTEND TO UTILIZE. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE CRISISES, WEATHER EVENTS, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO PREDICT THAT THEY WILL HAPPEN.

SO BY BEING ABLE TO UTILIZE YOU WITH OUR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE THINK

[01:10:01]

YOU MAKE US STRONGER. AND THE TRAINING AND RESOURCE THAT YOU CAN BRING TO THE TABLE ARE ONES THAT WE NECESSARILY DON'T HAVE. WE RUN VERY LEAN AND YOU HELP BRING THAT EXTENSION OF EXPERTISE TO THE TABLE. I'M GLAD WE COULD RECOGNIZE YOU. I HOPE IT BRINGS YOU ADDITIONAL AWARENESS.

WE DO HAVE AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FACEBOOK. TODAY IT WILL BE DEDICATED -- WELL, THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, AND WEEKEND, IT WILL BE DEDICATED TO SEARCH AND RESCUE AWARENESS, ON OUR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FACEBOOK. BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, CAN WE CREATE MORE AWARENESS. MAY I PRESENT THIS TO YOU. AND OFFER OUR GRATITUDE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. COMMISSIONER GONZALES.

>> I WANTED TO SAY AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO. I KNOW SOMETIMES IT'S REALLY HITS HOME. BUT IT'S TOUGH. AND YOU GUYS YOU KNOW HOW VALUABLE YOU ARE OUT THERE. WE HOPE WE KEEP YOURSELF SAFE AND THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING

YOU DO. >> JUDGE, JUST ADD TO THAT. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN SEVEN YEARS, JONATHAN. DIFFICULT TIME FOR -- NO MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOU, BUT CERTAINLY FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. I KNOW HOW HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT HOW THIS COMMUNITY HELPED AND DID WHAT THEY DID. I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN SEVEN YEARS. I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH WHAT Y'ALL HAVE DONE AND WHAT YOU DO. OUTSTANDING AND VERY IMPORTANT ORGANIZATION.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. >> I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU FOR WHAT Y'ALL DO.

APPRECIATE IT. THE COURT: I'VE LOOKED. WE'RE GOING TO INVITE YOU COME UP TO THE BEAUTIFUL SEAL HERE AND I'LL JOIN YOU MOMENTARILY. LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST,

[6. In memory of Augustin "Gus" Leija Rivera.]

WE ARE JOINED HERE BY FAMILY MEM MEMBERS AUGUSTIN, AF

AFFECTIONATELY KNOWN AS GUS. >> WHEREAS, IN 1961, HE MET THE LOVE OF HIS LIFE, WHOM HE

[01:15:01]

MARRIED SHORTLY THEREAFTER AND STARTED A FAMILY. WHEREAS, GUS WORKED AS A SEASONAL FARM WORKER AS A CHILD AND ATTENDED A SEGREGATED SCHOOL SYSTEM AND WAS A LIFE-LONG PASSIONATE ADVOCATE OF EDUCATIONAL QUALITY AND ADVANCEMENT FOR ALL.

WHEREAS, GUS WENT ON TO EARN HIS GED FROM DELMAR COLLEGE AND SERVED AS A DEPUTY CONSTABLE IN THE BISHOP DRISCOLL AREA. LATER BECAME THE BAILIFF FOR JUDGE BENNETT, SERVED FOR 15 YEARS, AND THEN FOURD MASTER'S COURT. WHEREAS, DURING HIS TENURE AS A COURT BAILIFF, GUS SERVED WITH EXEMPLARY PROFESSIONALISM AND A GENEROUS SPIRIT AND CARRIED OUT HIS DUTIES WITH DISTINCTION AND INTEGRITY AND EARNED THE TRUST AND THE RESPECT OF THE NUECES COUNTY BENCH AND BAR, AS WELL AS MANY COURTHOUSE COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS.

WHEREAS, HE WAS COMMITTED TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND SERVED ON THE DRISCOLL SCHOOL BOARD, PRESIDENT OF THE ST. JAMES CATHOLIC CHURCH MENS CLUB, BISHOP DRISCOLL LITTLE LEAGUE AND PTA, LONG-TIME LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL AND BASKETBALL COACH, CUB MASTER AND SCOUT MASTER. WHEREAS, GUS WAS A DEVOTED AND LOVING FATHER TO HIS THREE CHILDREN AND GRANDFATHER TO EIGHT GRANDCHILDREN, AND GREAT GRANDFATHER TO ONE GREAT GRANDDAUGHTER. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OF NUECES COUNTY HEREBY HONORS THE MEMORY OF GUS FOR HIS LIFETIME OF EXCEPTIONAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND SIGNIFICANT SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY. HEREBY ENCOURAGES THE CITIZEN OF THE NUECES COUNTY TO JOIN THE COURT IN OFFERING SERIOUS CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY IN THIS TIME OF MORNING. THE COURT: THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION? MOTION AND SECOND. AND AUGGIE, AND JULIANNA, WE WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THE GREAT CONTRIBUTIONS THAT YOUR DAD PROVIDED AS A NUECES COUNTY PUBLIC SERVANT.

SO MANY GREAT YEARS OF SERVICE. BUT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IT WASN'T JUST TO THIS COURTHOUSE, IT WAS TO THE CITY OF DRISCOLL, HIS COMMUNITY, TO THE SCHOOL CHILDREN, IN SO MANY WAYS, HE DESERVES THIS HONOR. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS GONE.

BUT I WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT HIS MEMORY WILL LIVE IN THESE WALLS AND I THINK JUDGE BENNETT SHARED WITH US DOWN AT THE CENTRAL JURY ROOM SOME OF THE BEST AND FONDEST MEMORIES OF HIS HUMOR, HUMILITY AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, HIS GREAT DEDICATION TO THIS -- TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE. SO WE WANTED TO PRESENT YOU, THIS IS REALLY A COPY OF WHAT SHE READ. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE JUST A FEW COMMENTS AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT TO YOU WHAT WAS READ.

IT IS IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION. SO COMMISSIONERS, ALL THOSE IN

FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS VERY SPECIAL HONOR. ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY, JULIE AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS. YOU KNOW, MY DAD I THINK WOULD HAVE BEEN ESPECIALLY TOUCHED BY WHAT THIS COURT, WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING HERE TODAY. BECAUSE WELL, FRANKLY, HE LOVED HIS JOB. HE LOVED THE COURTHOUSE, HE LOVED THE PEOPLE HERE.

IT WAS WHERE HE CAME FOR 20 YEARS, THEY BECAME LIKE FAMILY TO HIM.

SO HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ESPECIALLY HONORED THAT THIS IS COMING FROM YOU.

FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS, I MEAN, HE ESPECIALLY LOVED THE FACT THAT HE WAS A BAILIFF AND A COURT OF LAW. FOR 20 YEARS HE HAD A FRONT ROW SEAT AND HE GOT TO SEE EVERY DAY HOW IMPORTANT AND HOW MAJESTIC LAW CAN BE AND HOW IT IMPACTS PEOPLE'S LIVES EVERY DAY. AND HE FELT HE WAS THE LUCKIEST GUY IN THE WORLD.

I THINK HE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE SURPRISED BY GETTING HONORED BY YOU.

BECAUSE IF YOU KNEW MY DAD, YOU KNEW HIS WORK ETHIC, YOU KNEW THAT AS A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, HE WAS ONE OF THOSE GUYS THAT SHOWED UP EVERY DAY AND DID HIS JOB, QUIETLY, DOING HIS JOB.

AND SO TO BE HONORED FOR THAT, HE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT YOU KNOW, THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A SURPRISE. AGAIN, I CAN'T THANK YOU ENOUGH.

YOU MENTIONED THAT HE GREW UP IN DRISCOLL, AS I DID. AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE MAP, DRISCOLL IS ONLY 30 MILES AWAY FROM CORPUS CHRISTI. ONE MIGHT SAY THAT IS A VERY SHORT DISTANCE. BUT GIVEN THAT THIS COURT HAS HONORED HIM TODAY, AND BY READING OUT ALL OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND EVERYTHING HE DID, WE KNOW THAT HIS JOURNEY, HE WENT A LOT FURTHER THAN JUST 30 MILES. SO THANK YOU ALL AGAIN.

FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART. APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. THE COURT: THANK YOU.

[01:21:54]

WHILE WE MOVE TO TAKE OUR SEATS, I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMISSIONERS TO INDULGE US AS

[1. Discuss and consider making a finding for the method of solicitation for Richard Borchard Fairgrounds area development; authorize publishing notice; approve order.]

WE SKIP OVER THE MINUTES FOR JUST A MOMENT AND CONSENT AGENDA, WE MOVE STRAIGHT INTO COMMISSIONER MAREZ, C-1? YES, SIR. ITEM C-1.

AND ITEM C-1 IS A -- CAN BE FOUND ON PAGE 8 OF 9. THE ITEM READS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER MAKING A FINDING FOR THE METHOD OF SOLICITATION FOR THE RICHARD FAIRGROUNDS AREA DEVELOPMENT, CONSIDER AUTHORIZING PUBLISHING A NOTICE AND APPROVING SUCH ORDER.

I'M GOING TO LET COMMISSIONER MAREZ TAKE THIS LEAD. WE ARE HERE JOINED TODAY BY TWO FOLKS THAT I THINK WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS AND THAT IS MAYOR GOMEZ FROM ROBSTOWN TEXAS, AS WELL AS JOHN VOLLS. BUT FIRST, COMMISSIONER MAREZ WILL HELP SET THE TABLE.

>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. THERE HAS BEEN SOME INFORMAL DISCUSSION KIND OF OVER THE YEARS OF WHAT TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY EAST TO THE FAIRGROUNDS.

SHOOTING OUT IDEAS OF WHAT COULD TAKE PLACE IN THAT LOCATION.

WE REALLY FEEL, AFTER HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE RADC AND OTHERS IN THE COMMUNITY, THAT THAT AREA COULD STAND TO BENEFIT FROM BEING DEVELOPED. WE KNOW THAT THE HOUSING MARKET IS REALLY AT THE POINT WHERE SUPPLY CANNOT KEEP UP WITH THE DEMAND.

AND BEING THAT THIS LOCATION IS IN SUCH AN EXCELLENT PART, CROSSROADS OF HIGHWAY 44, U.S.

I-69, THIS IS A LOCATION THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED AND BECOME FRUITFUL AND A GREAT INTEREST TO MANY PEOPLE WANTING TO FIND A GOOD HOME, LOCATED IN THE CENTRALIZED PART OF THE COUNTY.

EASY TO GET TO. MANY LOCATIONS IN THE VALLEY NORTH OR INTO CORPUS CHRISTI.

AND SO THAT REALLY KIND OF DEVELOPED INTO MORE TALKS ABOUT WHAT COULD BE DONE, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. SO OVER THE LAST YEAR OR TWO NOW, DURING COVID, THERE WAS TALKS ABOUT WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT GETTING THIS DEVELOPED.

MAYBE WE SHOULD SEEK THE DEVELOPERS, PLANS WHAT WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH IF GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE THIS LAND. SO THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THIS TO THE NEXT LEVEL AND LOOK AT PERHAPS HAVING A DEVELOPER BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEIR VISION FOR THAT COMMUNITY, FOR THAT AREA OF THE COUNTY.

AND FOR THIS COURT TO BE A PART OF IT. I KNOW COUNTIES, ESPECIALLY NUECES COUNTY HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS HISTORICALLY, YOU HAVE NOT.

[01:25:06]

YOU FIND THAT MORE IN THE CITIES. BUT THIS IS OUR CHANCE.

SEVERAL HUNDRED ACRES THAT ARE INCLUDED, COULD BE IN PART OR IN ITS ENTIRETY.

BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS SOMETHING FOR US TO TRULY ENTERTAIN, DISCUSS, BRING BEFORE THE PUBLIC AND LET THIS IDEA BE DISCUSSED IN THE COMMUNITY AND OF COURSE, HERE IN COMMISSIONER'S COURT. SO APPRECIATE THE INSIGHT MR. VOLLS AND HIS BOARD HAS PROVIDED AND THE OTHERS THAT WE HAVE INFORMALLY SPOKEN WITH ABOUT THIS.

AND OF COURSE, THE MAYOR BEING HERE TO SHOW HIS SUPPORT. THIS IS WITHIN THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN CITY LIMITS. THERE IS STILL A WHOLE LOT TO WORK OUT.

THIS IS I THINK HOPEFULLY STEP ONE IN A FORMALIZED PROCESS TO GET US MOVING FORWARD.

I HOPE THE COURT WILL ENTERTAIN THIS IDEA AND VISION AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE MAYOR, BLAKELY FERNANDEZ IS ON THE LINE. BLAKELY HAS BEEN GUIDED US THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS.

IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING WHAT EXACTLY WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING HERE TODAY, I THINK SHE CAN PROVIDE CLARITY. AGAIN, THERE IS AN ACTION ITEM. AND THE ACTION IS TO BASICALLY ANNOUNCE THE METHOD OF SOLICITATION. AND AGAIN, THERE'S SORT OF THE STEPS THAT YOU NEED TO GO IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT. AND THAT IS PUBLISHING THE RIGHT NOTICE AND THE ORDER THAT IS MORE OF THE FORMALITY. BUT BLAKELY, BEFORE I INVITE THE MAYOR TO MAKE COMMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO OFFER REGARDING THOSE WORDS?

WE USUALLY DON'T GET SO FANCY, METHOD OF SOLICITATION. >> HI, GOOD MORNING, JUDGE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY THE COURT: YES. >> OKAY.

SO WHEN THE COUNTY -- I THINK TRADITIONALLY YOU WOULD PUT A BIT OUT TO SEE WHAT YOUR HIGHEST PROPOSING NUMBER IS. AND THAT IS CERTAINLY AN OPTION ON THIS SITE.

BUT YOU AS THE COMMISSIONER, THE LARGER GROUP OF US HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING, THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNTY TO SEEK A PARTNER AND TO HELP DIRECT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE IN A WAY THAT WILL MEET SOME SPECIFIC COUNTY GOALS. I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME ROOM THIS MORNING TO HELP DEFINE AND IDENTIFY THOSE GOALS. AND I DON'T KNOW.

I'VE GOT A FEW SLIDES THAT I CAN BRING UP OR STAFF MAY ALREADY HAVE THOSE CUED TO COME

UP. >> CAN I JUST ASK TOO WHILE YOU'RE PUTTING YOUR SLIDES UP.

THE COURT: COULD YOU E-MAIL THEM TO CONNIE? IF SHE CAN SHARE THE SCREEN.

>> WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT COMMISSIONER, GO AHEAD. >> I DIDN'T REALLY -- MAYBE I'M NOT REMEMBERING, FEEL LIKE WE CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT WE WANTED TO ELIMINATE ANYTHING.

SO DOES THIS ELIMINATE THAT IF WE FEEL LIKE WE DON'T LIKE WHAT PROPOSAL COMES IN, WE COULD LIST IT THEN AND SELL IT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER IF WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS? ARE WE ELIMINATING THAT POSSIBILITY TODAY OR AN OPTION

THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH >> PROCUREMENT LANGUAGE WILL ALWAYS SAY THAT YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO SELECT NONE OF THE RESPONDENTS. ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE MY SCREEN?

THE COURT: YES. COMMISSIONER, GO AHEAD. >> WE GOT AN APPRAISAL ON IT AND I THINK WE HAD THAT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR INTO THAT. AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE THAT.

I MEAN, IF COMMISSIONER MAREZ WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

I GET THAT THEY WANT TO DO THAT AT THE SAME TIME. YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD THE BEST OF LUCK WITH SOME YOU KNOW, JOINT DEVELOPMENTS BEFORE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ELIMINATING THE POSSIBILITY OF SAYING AT SOME POINT HEY, LOOK, THIS IS TOO MUCH FOR US TO GO INTO OR HANDLE.

WE'RE NOT THE RIGHT GROUP TO DO THIS. LET'S JUST SELL IT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER AND HOPEFULLY IT WOULD BE FOR HOUSING AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

BECAUSE I THINK IT KIND OF FALLS ALONG THAT LINE. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HELP ROBSTOWN GROW FOR SURE. AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT ELIMINATING THAT POSSIBILITY, I MEAN, I STILL HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS ABOUT DOING ANOTHER JOINT DEVELOPMENT.

BECAUSE I'M NOT SAYING I DON'T WANT TO DO IT. I'M JUST SAYING I DEFINITELY HAVE QUESTIONS. THE COURT: IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE IT.

SO LET'S LET BLAKELY QUICKLY GO THROUGH. SHE ONLY HAS THREE SLIDES.

I DON'T THINK IT WILL TAKE TOO LONG. BUT I THINK IT COULD HELP CLARIFY SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU BRING UP. GO AHEAD.

BLAKELY. >> OKAY. SO THE COUNTY RECEIVED AN UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL, WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR IN THE STATUTE, BUT YOU RECEIVED A PROPOSAL FOR

[01:30:02]

THE PURCHASE OF 162 ACRES, ADJACENT TO THE FAIRGROUNDS FOR A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.

THAT PROPOSAL -- THEY WERE LOOKING FOR THE COUNTY'S ASSISTANCE FOR PAYING FOR OFF-SITE AND ON-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. ONCE YOU'VE GOT THAT CONCEPT, THAT A DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SITE IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FOR THE OFF-SITE AND ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, THAT IS A REQUEST FOR SOME TYPE OF PARTNERSHIP AND INCENTIVE PROGRAM, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. THAT KIND OF LEADS TO THE CONCEPT OF THIS IS A GOOD SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE IN ORDER TO GET THE HOUSES OFF THE GROUND, THERE IS GOING TO NEED TO BE SOME ASSISTANCE IN THE BASIC GROUND

WORK >> THAT DOESN'T MEAN -- THAT IS ALL PART OF THE NEGOTIATION.

>> THE COUNTY IS GOING TO GIVE SOMEBODY AN INCENTIVE. HOW IS THAT DRIVING OR POSITIVELY IMPACTING OTHER GOALS OF THE COUNTY. SO YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T DO IT JUST FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUBDIVISION. OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT OF THIS SLIDE, SOME EXISTING ISSUES THAT WERE NOT REALLY ADDRESSED IN THE BRIEF, UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL, BUT THINGS THAT THE COUNTY NEEDS TO WEAVE INTO HAVE A PROJECT UNFOLD, ONE IS THERE AN EXISTING LEASE ON THE SITE. YOUR COUNTY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS WORKING ON HOW THAT WOULD WORK IN WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THERE IS WETLANDS.

THERE IS A STORMWATER PERMIT ON THAT SITE THAT HAS GOT REQUIREMENTS THAT WHERE THERE IS A GAP IN MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND THIS DEVELOPMENT PROBABLY PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN UP THAT GAP. INCENTIVES CAN DRIVE FASTER PHASING, LOWER LAND PRICES AND INCLUDE DEVELOPER RISK FOR SOME OF THE OFF-SITE AND ON-SITE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DEVELOPER SIDE AND NOT ON THE PUBLIC SIDE, SO THAT THE CITY OR COUNTY WOULD CARRY THOSE RISKS UPFRONT. COUNTY CAN SET HOUSING GOALS.

IF THERE ARE CERTAIN INCOME LEVELS YOU'RE TRYING TO MEET. SOMETIMES YOU'RE TRYING TO BRING HIGHER PRICED HOUSING INTO SOME NEIGHBORHOODS, BECAUSE HOUSING DIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT AND SOMETIMES YOU MAY BE TRYING TO BRING MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

OFTEN A GOAL TO HAVE MIXED INCOME HOUSING, 20 PERCENT OF AFFORDABLE, 20 PERCENT HIGHER END. USE MARKET RATE IN BETWEEN. YOU'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SET THE GOALS. CREATING A PROPER BUFFER TO THE VENUE SPACE, A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCONSISTENT LAND MAP ON THAT SITE, IF YOU'RE TALKING RESIDENTIAL ON TOP OF VENUE.

BUT THERE ARE GOOD DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES THAT CAN BE USED TO BUFFER THAT SPACE SO THAT THEY CAN JOINTLY EXIST IN A WAY THAT IS NOT CREATING A LOT OF COMPLAINTS OR DISSATISFACTION OVER TIME. AND THEN REDEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIGHBORING OUTLET MALL.

I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'LL GET ALL OF THAT IN ONE PACKAGE, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING YOU COULD ASK A PROPOSER TO WEIGH IN ON IF THEY HAD SUGGESTIONS OR IF THERE WAS ANOTHER PHASE THAT THEY MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN SUPPORTING. SO THIS SLIDE BRINGS US TO WHAT THE PROPOSED PROCUREMENT IS, WHICH IS P-3 PROCUREMENT, WHICH YOU'VE DONE SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE. IT WOULD BE TWO STEPS. WE WOULD SEE QUALIFICATIONS FIRST AND THEN A PROPOSAL. AND WHEN YOU DO A P-3 PROPOSAL, YOU'RE GOING TO GET BACK THINGS THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE APPLES TO APPLES. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK LIKE A SEALED BID WOULD. YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR THE LAND, BUT THEY WANT TO ACHIEVE -- DO WHAT MORE OF WHAT THEY HAVE IN MIND FOR THE SITE.

YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE THAT OFFERS LESS FOR THE LANDS, BUT WANTS TO DO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, TRAIL WAYS. YOU MIGHT SEE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO PHASE THE WAY THAT THEY PAY THE COUNTY BACK SO THEY CAN PUT MORE MONEY INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE UPFRONT.

I THINK YOU'LL SEE VERY DIFFERENT RESPONSES. AND SO IT WILL TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF CONSIDERATION TO WADE THROUGH THOSE. AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT ENCOURAGING AND EXPEDITING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, WHICH IS THE REASON THAT YOU WOULD ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, I HAVE LISTED A FEW THOUGHTS HERE FROM OUR GROUP DISCUSSIONS. THERE MAY BE SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN THE SOLICITATION. RIGHT NOW I'VE GOT A PROJECT THAT SUPPORTS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE AND

[01:35:01]

CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE OUTLET MALL.

THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT JUST LIKE 800 ROOFTOPS OR IT COULD BE SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC.

SUPPORT AND USE OF THE FAIRGROUNDS CAMPUS, CREATION OF HOUSING STOCK THAT SUPPORTS THE MIDDLE MARKET. AND PROMOTION OF COUNTY TRAILS AND PARK LANDS THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE SUPPORT OF THE DRAINAGE PERMIT THAT IS EXISTING, THAT WOULD NEED SOME ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THERE MAY BE OTHER GOALS AND DESIRES THAT THE COUNTY WANTS TO INCLUDE IN THE SOLICITATION. BUT THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE STARTING WITH.

>> THANK YOU BLAKELY. I'M GOING TO ASK JOHN AND MAYOR, WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS? AND MAYBE SOME COMMISSIONERS. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN USE THAT ONE, I THINK IT WORKS. BUT IF YOU DON'T MIND, THAT ONE IS THE ONE THAT I KNOW WORKS.

>> I THINK THE GREEN LIGHT IS ON. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE.

DOES EVERYBODY KNOW WHERE THE SITE IS? I HAVE BROUGHT A PRETTY GOOD SIZE MAP IN CASE YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION. I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER MAREZ FOR BEING INVOLVED IN THIS IN EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. JUDGE CANALES HAS BEEN THE FRONT RUNNER. IT'S A VERY EXCITING PROJECT FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY OF ROBSTOWN. WE'VE TALKED EXTENSIVELY WITH THE WATER DISTRICT AND UTILITY SYSTEM. THEY DO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE NEARBY SO THEY CAN SUPPORT THE PROJECT SITE. THERE WILL BE ASSOCIATED COSTS WITH EXTENDING WATER LINES AND POWER LINES AND SO FORTH. AS BLAKELY MENTIONED, ALL OF THAT CAN BE FACTORED INTO THE TIRS, BASICALLY WILL REIMBURSE THE DEVELOPER FOR THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE COUNTY AND THE CITY DETERMINED THE LENGTH OF THAT AGREEMENT. SO THAT IS THE MODEL. AND I KNOW YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, YOUR COMMENTS, IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THIS.

IF DEVELOPERS FEEL LIKE THIS IS A FEASIBLE PROJECT, THEY HAVE A MODEL.

AND THE PRICING STRUCTURE HAS TO FIT WITHIN THEIR MODEL. THAT IS WHEN ALL OF THE PUBLIC INCENTIVES COME INTO PLAY. AT LEAST IT'S AN OPTION FOR THE COUNTY TO CONSIDER.

I WANT TO BRING UP MAYOR GOMEZ WITH THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN. >> JOHN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I AM ASSUMING YOU REPRESENT THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN.

>> ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THAT IS MY INTEREST ONLY.

THIS PROJECT CAME TO US AND THEN THEY SUBMITTED AN UNSLICE SOLICITED PROPOSAL TO THE COUNTY. I SAID LET ME WORK WITH THE COUNTY.

I'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY TO TRY TO GET THIS PROJECT TO FRUITION.

MY INTEREST IS SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY TO REPRESENT THE ROBSTOWN AREA DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION.

I WORK CLOSELY WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY. THE COURT: MAYOR, WELCOME.

THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT THIS PROJECT. WHEN I TALKED TO JOHN ABOUT THIS PROJECT. IT'S BEEN A WHILE NOW. I WAS VERY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT.

BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AN UNSOLICITED OFFER, I SAW THERE WAS INTEREST IN THAT PART OF THE COUNTY OR LAND. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN I RAN FOR MAYOR AND TOOK OFFICE, ONE OF THE THINGS TALKING TO CONSTITUENTS ALL OF THE TIME IS ABOUT NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.

YOU KNOW, MOST OF YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THIS, BUT THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN HAS NOT HAD A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD OR SUBDIVISION IN OVER 20 YEARS. THE PEOPLE WANT A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD. NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF AN OLD NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE NEED TO DO THIS.

NOT ONLY IS THERE A NEED FOR IT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PEOPLE WANT.

I THINK IT WILL SPUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NOT ONLY FOR THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN, BUT FOR THE SURROUNDING AREAS, FAIRGROUND PROJECTS IS THERE. I THINK IT WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT. WE'RE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.

HOPEFULLY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL AGREE TO DO THE SOLICITATION FOR THIS ITEM.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THIS PROJECT.

THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU. >> MAYOR I HAVE A QUESTION.

I'VE GONE THROUGH -- WILL Y'ALL BE TAKING OR GIVING OUT PERMITS, I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN A DEVELOPER OR YOU DON'T HAVE ANYBODY IN MIND. PERMITS FOR BUILDING.

>> YES. BECAUSE WITHIN THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN CITY LIMITS, OUR

INSPECTIONS WILL BE THE ONE GIVING OUT THE PERMITS, YES. >> WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WILL

[01:40:05]

THOSE PERMITS BE FOLLOWED UP BY YOUR INSPECTORS, THROUGH MY EXPERIENCE, IN MY AREA, THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI GAVE PERMITS TO DEVELOPERS AND DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH, MAKING SURE THOSE DEVELOPERS DID THE DRAINAGE RIGHT, THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO AFFECT PEOPLE LATER ON AFTER THEY'RE BUILT AND GONE. THAT IS WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IF Y'ALL ARE GOING TO ENFORCE

THAT. >> DEFINITELY, I KNOW YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT AWARE OF THIS, BUT WE HAVE A BUILDING OFFICIAL WHO IS VERY ADAMANT. HE FOLLOWS THE ORDINANCES, THE STATE LAW'S REQUIREMENTS. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I GET COMPLAINTS ABOUT IT ALL OF THE TIME. BUT IT'S HIM DOING HIS JOB. HE DOES HIS JOB.

THE COMPLAINTS THAT COME IN IS BECAUSE HIM DOING HIS JOB. I HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE OF HIM THAT HE WILL DO THE RIGHT THING. ISN'T GOING TO ALLOW ANYTHING TO BE BUILT WITHOUT IT BEING WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE AND STATE LAW.

>> DO THINGS THAT WHEN Y'ALL GIVE OUT A PERMIT TO A CONTRACTOR OR DEVELOPER OR WHATEVER, Y'ALL MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO FOLLOW THE CITY ORDINANCE OR WHAT Y'ALL REQUEST. I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH JERRY. I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR A LONG TIME.

>> HE IS VERY THOROUGH, SIR. LIKE I SAID, PROBABLY MORE THAN SOME PEOPLE WOULD LIKE HIM TO BE. BUT HE IS VERY THOROUGH. I HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN HIM

ALSO. >> OKAY. JUST FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THOSE PERMITS AND GOING BACK AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE DOING THE RIGHT JOB.

>> IF I COULD ADD TO THAT, COMMISSIONER. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DICTATE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE RFP. IS TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER'S ARCHITECTURAL TEAM, ENGINEERING TEAM, TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE COUNTY, PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM, TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN PUBLIC WORKS.

YOU CAN DICTATE AND SPELL ALL OF THAT OUT IN THE PROPOSAL SOME OF THE DEAL POINTS THAT YOU WANT. COUNTIES DON'T HAVE BUILDING CODES.

EVEN THOUGH IT'S ON COUNTY PROPERTY, IT FALLS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY.

ANY DEVELOPER WITHIN THE CITY HAS TO FOLLOW THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING STANDARDS CODE.

AS THE MAYOR JUST MENTIONED, THEY DO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO DILIGENTLY ENFORCES THAT.

BUT YOU COULD SPELL THAT OUT IN THE RFP. >> GOOD TO KNOW.

>> THANK YOU. THE COURT: YES. >> I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO JUST EXPRESS MY CONCERNS OVER NOT THIS PROJECT, BUT THE COUNTY BEING IN THIS PROJECT.

SO I NEED TO KNOW HOW WE COULD PUT LANGUAGE IN THE RFQ, IF THE COURT SO CHOSE THAT GAVE THE PERSONS REQUESTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER AN ALTERNATIVE OF TAKING US OUT.

BECAUSE I THINK LESS IS MORE. I THINK TRYING TO HAVE THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN, RADC, NUECES COUNTY AND I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE A HUGE TIME COMMITMENT, HUGE FINANCIAL COMMITMENT, HUGE COMMITMENT COMMITMENT. I GET THAT THERE ARE SOME ADVANTAGES WITH THE TIRS AND OTHER THINGS. BUT I DON'T HAVE AN INCLINATION IN GENERAL, YOU KNOW, I HAD A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT DOING DEVELOPMENT. I THOUGHT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ENCOURAGE IT. BUT WE'RE ROADS AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO YOUR BASIC STUFF. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT GIVES WHOEVER APPLIES FOR THIS THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT JUST TAKES US OUT. WHETHER SOMEONE BUYS THE LAND FROM US AND TRANSFERS IT OVER TO THE RADC. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. TO WHERE Y'ALL CAN DO YOUR THING. TO ME, RADC IN ROBSTOWN SHOULD DO THIS PROJECT.

WE SHOULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO SELL THIS LAND TO SOMEONE AND LET Y'ALL DO IT.

I MEAN, IT'S IN NUECES COUNTY. IT'S NUECES COUNTY LAND. BUT I DON'T NEED TO HAVE MY FINGERS IN EVERY SINGLE PIE ALL OVER THE WORLD. WE HAVE GOT ENOUGH TO DO.

I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SELL THIS LAND TO SOMEONE WHO COULD WORK WITH YOU ON IT. BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GREAT. I WANT YOU TO HAVE HOUSING AND I THINK Y'ALL OUGHT TO HAVE THE SAY IN THIS. DO YOU NEED SOME OF IT BEING AFFORDABLE, NOT AFFORDABLE. I DON'T THINK NUECES COUNTY IN MY OPINION, SHOULD TAKE ON PROJECTS LIKE THESE IN GENERAL. BUT WE SHOULD HELP IN WHATEVER WAY WE CAN.

I GET THAT WE'VE GOT A VALUABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND MAYBE THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN CAN'T OUTRIGHT BY IT, BUT MAYBE IF THE PERSON APPLIES HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW HEY THAT IS AN OPTION.

WE AS A DEVELOPER WILL BUY THE LAND WE'LL WORK WITH THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN AND RADC, I WOULD BE ALL OVER THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD DO THAT JOHN.

[01:45:02]

>> THAT IS COMPLICATED. BECAUSE THE COUNTY, AS THE LANDOWNER HAS TO HAVE SOME LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT. NOW, WHETHER IT'S JUST TO SELL THE PROPERTY.

BUT IF YOU DO THAT, IF YOU DISPOSE OF IT JUST THROUGH HIGH BID, THEN YOU'LL HAVE NO INPUT IN CREATING A VISION OUT THERE. AND THE CITY WILL NOT OWN THAT PROPERTY.

SO THE CITY WON'T HAVE ANY LEGITIMATE INPUT IN HOW THE DEVELOPMENT IS MADE.

>> UNLESS THAT IS PART OF WHAT WE DO. >> BUT THAT COULD BE SPELLED OUT IN THE RFP PROCESS. I MEAN, AS YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY FROM YOUR TIME ON THE COUNCIL, CITIES, COUNTIES, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, NOT SO MUCH SCHOOL DISTRICTS, BUT THEY'RE TYPICALLY ALL INVOLVED WITHIN A UNIQUE AND A MAJOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

I MEAN, THIS PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP APPROXIMATELY 160 TO $200 MILLION IN PROPERTY VALUE. AND THAT IS A VERY UNIQUE PROJECT FOR THIS PART OF THE COUNTY AND DEFINITELY FOR THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN. SOMETHING AT THAT LEVEL I THINK REQUIRES MORE INTENTION. WHILE YOUR CONCEPT CAN BE ACHIEVED, IT'S JUST DEPENDS WHAT THE WILL OF THE COURT IS. IF THEY WANT TO DO A HIGH BID, SAY WE SOLD IT, WE'RE DONE WITH IT, THEN YOU HAVE NO OVERSIGHT. YOU CAN'T CREATE A VISION OUT THERE.

BUT AGAIN, ONE POINT, AGAIN, WHATEVER THE VISION IS, WITHIN THE RFP, IT MAY NOT MATCH THE DIVISION OF A DEVELOPER, IN WHICH CASE WE MAY NOT GET PROPOSALS.

RADC IS NOT IN THE POSITION TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THAT PROPERTY.

WE FACILITATE THE PROCESS. I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN, DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR THE MAYOR, BUT I AM SPEAKING FOR THE MAYOR, WOULD NECESSARILY BE IN A POSITION TO ACQUIRE THAT PROPERTY. NOW, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO SKIN A CAT.

IF THE COUNTY WANTED TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN AND WE FOUND A CREATIVE WAY TO FINANCE IT, THEN YOU'RE OUT OF THE EQUATION.

ALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN. WE'RE JUST DELAYS ON IN BETWEEN ALL PARTIES. THERE IS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO SKIN THE CAT.

IT DEPENDS WHAT THE WILL OF THE COURT IS >> THAT IS THE QUESTION.

BECAUSE I'M SURE THESE CONVERSATIONS, SIMILAR ONES HAPPENING WITH THE COUNTY PROPERTY THAT WE HAD OUT THERE WHEN THE GREAT OUTLET MALL. QUITE FRANKLY, THAT HASN'T WORKED OUT REAL WELL FOR US. I DON'T WANT ANOTHER BAD VISION TO HAPPEN AND THE COUNTY END UP GETTING A BLACK EYE AND WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO HELP ROBSTOWN. SO I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT GAVE SOME CREATIVE OPTIONS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.

THE REST OF THE COURT MAY NOT. IF I'M OUT-VOTED, I'M OKAY WITH THAT TOO.

I HAVE A DESIRE TO HELP ROBSTOWN. I HAVE A DESIRE TO SELL THIS PROPERTY TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER. I DON'T HAVE A DESIRE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE NEXT -- BECAUSE

THIS COULD BE A TWO OR 3-YEAR PROJECT. >> TEN-YEAR PROJECT.

>> I DON'T WANT TO TIE THIS COURT FOR TEN YEARS OF VISION CREATING FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IF WE SOLD IT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER, WHO IS GOING TO BUILD HOUSING ANYWAY, THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN. AND AS LONG AS WE DO SOMETHING CREATIVE AND CAME UP WITH SOMETHING LIKE YOU TALKED ABOUT TO MAKE SURE ROBSTOWN HAD A SAY IN IT, I WOULD LOVE TO BE OUT OF IT. THE COURT: COMMISSIONER GONZALES WANTS TO BE NEXT.

>> I'M ALMOST DONE. I WOULD FEEL THAT WAY IN ANY PROJECT, SO THAT ANYBODY IS CLEAR, THIS ISN'T ABOUT -- THAT WAS A HIGH DOLLAR PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT COULD HAVE -- WHO KNOWS WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE WITH IT. I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT THE COUNTY SHOULD BE DOING, TEN-YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLANS ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN NUECES COUNTY. UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP IT AND DO SOMETHING LIKE ADD TO

THE FAIRGROUNDS. >> THERE IS NO DOWN SIDE IN HAVING THE LANGUAGE IN THE RFP.

THE COURT: COMMISSIONER GONZALES WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.

>> I THOUGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, I THOUGHT THAT WAS GOING TO BE, WE WERE GOING TO TRY AND SELL THE PROPERTY. HAVE THE DEVELOPER COME IN. I REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OR HAVING TO DO -- WE HAVE ENOUGH TO DO ALREADY AS IT IS. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF ROBSTOWN COULD PURCHASE IT AND ROBSTOWN COULD MONITOR IT AND SEE IT. BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

I THINK YOU JUST WANT TO GO OUT AND SEE WHAT IS OUT THERE. COME BACK AND AT THAT TIME WE CAN DECIDE DO WE WANT TO DO THAT OR NOT. I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE

SAYING RIGHT NOW? >> IT IS, COMMISSIONER. WE JUST BASICALLY AT THIS POINT WANT TO GIVE ANY DEVELOPER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH THEIR PLAN AND IF IT'S ALIGNMENT WITH

[01:50:04]

THE VISION OF THE COURT, WONDERFUL. WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A BEAUTIFUL PARTNERSHIP. IF IT'S NOT, THEN AS COMMISSIONER CHESNEY ALLUDED TO, THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO THIS PROJECT IS SELL THE PROPERTY. AND THEN YOU'RE OUT.

>> THIS IS WHAT I -- I REALLY AGREE WITH THAT. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, WE

JUST NEED TO SELL IT. WHOEVER BUYS IT >> YOU COULD ALWAYS DO AN INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND SELL IT TO THEM FOR ONE DOLLAR.

THEY COULD DEVELOP IT THE COURT: ACTUALLY, THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW.

MAKE SURE. THAT IS NOT TRUE. I KNOW YOU'RE JUST JOKING JOHN.

THAT IS NOT TRUE, WHEN YOU SELL TO ANY POLITICAL JURISDICTION, JUST FOR THE REPORTER IN THE FRONT ROW'S EDIFICATION, YOU DO SO UNDER AN APPRAISAL AND AN ARM'S LENGTH.

IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S A FAIR MARKET VALUE BASED UPON AN APPRAISAL JURISDICTION TO JURISDICTION, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT TO RFP FOR. GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

IT'S SO HARD. WE DON'T HAVE BUTTONS. THEY ARE COMING IN OUR FUTURE.

SO I HAVE TO SORT OF GAUGE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK NEXT WITHOUT THE BUTTON.

BUT I THINK I HEARD BLAKELY. MAYOR, GIVE ME ONE MOMENT TO CHECK.

BLAKELY. >> YES. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.

I THINK I MIGHT BE ON A DELAY. TO THE POINT OF BOTH COMMISSIONERS, THE PURPOSE OF THIS RFP, THE SOLICITATION PROCESS IS THAT WE WOULD SELL THE LAND.

THE COUNTY WON'T BE A FULL DEVELOPMENT PARTNER, I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S POSSIBLE BUT I THINK THAT IS UNLIKELY FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. THE DISTINCTION IS INSTEAD OF GETTING JUST A MONETARY VALUE FOR THE LAND, YOU'RE ASKING SOMEONE TO GIVE YOU A BASKET OF VALUES. SO IT WILL INCLUDE MONEY, IT WILL INCLUDE STORMWATER SOLUTIONS. IT WILL INCLUDE PUBLIC AMENITIES.

AND THEN ADDRESSING YOUR HOUSING GOALS SO THAT YOU CAN SELL THE LAND TO THE VALUE THAT BEST MEETS THE COUNTY'S NEEDS. I ANTICIPATE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE PUBLIC AMENITIES AND MORE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A REQUEST FOR MORE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, BUT NOT IN THE FORM OF YOU STAYING AS A TRUE DEVELOPMENT PARTNER, I WOULD ENVISION THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE FORM OF A TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE, WHICH WOULD BE THE CITY'S TO CREATE AND THE COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE IN IT.

THE CITY WOULD BE THE CREATING ENTITY AND THEY WOULD BE THE MONITORING ENTITY.

IT WILL GIVE THE TIRS BOARD TO PUT DEADLINES IN THERE, LIQUIDATED DAMAGES IF CERTAIN MILESTONES ARE NOT MET. THERE CAN BE GREAT PROTECTIONS FOR THE CITY AND GIVING AWAY ANY PUBLIC MONEY. BUT I ENVISION THAT THE CITY AND COUNTY WOULD BOTH PARTICIPATE IN THAT ZONE. IF THEY FELT LIKE THEY WERE GETTING A GOOD PUBLIC BENEFIT BACK. BUT THE GOAL OF THIS PROCUREMENT IS TO CONVEY THE LAND TO THE DEVELOPER, BUT NOT JUST IN A SEALED BID SITUATION, TO A DEVELOPER THAT IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE BEST BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. THE COURT: I'M GLAD YOU

CLARIFIED. COMMISSIONER, GO AHEAD. >> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING REALLY IS THAT WE SELL THE LAND WITH RESTRICTIONS TO THE DEVELOPERS LIKE WE DO OTHER SUBDIVISIONS, RIGHT? DRAINAGE, ROADS, ALL MEET THE COUNTY STANDARDS, I DON'T KNOW,

PROBABLY THE CITY, I GUESS. >> IN THIS CASE IT'S IN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION.

IT WILL MEET THE CITY'S STANDARDS. BUT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO TO ENHANCE THAT, WE CAN ASK FOR THAT. WE HAVE A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITY IN THIS SITUATION BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT SUCH A LARGE DESIRABLE TRACT TO SAY IT'S NOT JUST WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS, BUT WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES HERE AND GOALS HERE THAT WE WANT YOU TO MEET ALSO THE COURT: I APPRECIATE THAT. I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO SAY ANYTHING. BUT I HOPE THAT THAT CLARIFIED COMMISSIONER CHESNEY'S CONCERNS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS JUST FACTUALLY IS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION FROM POTENTIAL DEVELOPERS AND ALL THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS TO ALIGN WITH WHAT IS IN THE NORMAL PRACTICE OF GOOD GOVERNMENT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE KNOW WE HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, BUT MORE PARTICULARLY, IN OUR COUNTY AS WELL. AND WE GET TO HELP IDENTIFY THAT BY SETTING GOALS.

BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO OUT THERE COMMISSIONER CHESNEY AND MARKET OR SELL HOMES OR LOOK FOR DIVIDENDS. WE'RE NOT GOING INTO PARTNERSHIP.

THAT IS A COMPLETE MISCHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT THIS IS.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT IT TO BE. WHICH IS TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD

[01:55:03]

PAY FOR THIS LAND AND TELL US WHAT ELSE YOU COULD DO. WOULD YOU PAY HYPOTHETICALLY X DOLLARS WITH PARKING, NOT PARKING, WALKING TRAILS. WOULD YOU DO IT WITH DRAINAGE.

WHAT AMENITIES WOULD YOU OFFER, DEVELOPER. THIS IS AN ALL CALL.

BUT AT LEAST WE GUIDE THEM TO SOME OF OF THE BASIC PREMISES THAT ARE IMPORTANT.

OTHERWISE, IN THE FUTURE YOU COULD HAVE A SITUATION UNDER YOUR THEORY THAT YOU WOULD JUST SELL IT TO SOMEBODY, YOU WOULD HAVE MANY MR. CHESTNUTS, SITTING HERE TELLING YOU WHAT A TERRIBLE THING YOU'VE DONE BY SELLING THIS LAND WITHOUT ANY THOUGHT WHATSOEVER TO THE BASIC PREMISES OF DRAINAGE, ROADS OF INGRESS OR EGRESS. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ADEQUATE WAYS IN AND ADEQUATE WAYS OUT. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHAT SOMEBODY -- WHAT THE CAPITAL MARKET WILL BRING TO YOU.

THIS IS AMERICA. LET'S SEE WHAT AMERICA CAPITALIST WANTS TO BRING IN.

THERE IS A NO HARM HERE. WHAT BLAKELY IS DOING WITH HER EXPERTISE IS SHOWCASING TO A COUNTY, HEY IT'S OKAY TO ASK FOR THINGS, BUT YOU'RE NOT BOUND BY THEM.

YOU'RE JUST SAYING THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS BECAUSE THESE ARE IMPORTANT GOALS FOR US.

AND THEN WE GET TO DECIDE WHETHER THEY MET THOSE GOALS OR NOT.

YOU COULD STILL CHOOSE A PERSON THAT DIDN'T MEET ANY OF THE GOALS.

BUT TO NOT SAY THAT WE NEED HOMES FROM 170 TO 250 IS A COMPLETE MISS.

IT'S WHAT THE CCREDC OFFERS IN THEIR EXPERT ADVICE AND TO FURTHER CLARIFY, BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS CONFUSION, THE PURPOSE OF THE RADC, WHICH THIS COURT NOT ONLY SITS ON WITH MEMBERSHIP FROM THIS COURT, BUT ALSO PROVIDES MONETARY SUPPORT, I'M GLAD WE'RE GETTING BANG FOR THE BUCK. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE RADC ACT AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARM FOR US AND TELLS US HEY, THIS IS WHAT IS NEEDED OVER HERE.

SO I DON'T THINK -- I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF HOME DEVELOPMENT.

I'M IN THE BUSINESS OF CREATING OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPERS. THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.

AND SO I FEEL LIKE YOUR CONCERNS ARE NOT CONCERNS. BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS. I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO BE MISLED BY THE IDEA, WHEN HE SAYS IT'S A 10-YEAR PROJECT, BECAUSE ANY GOOD MASTER DEVELOPMENT HAS PHASES.

AND THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. BUT THAT IS NOT US.

THAT IS THEM. AND THAT IS GOOD FOR US. BECAUSE WHEN YOU PUT 800 HOMES THEORETICALLY, THEY NEED TO GAS UP. THEY NEED TO GO TO THE GROCERY STORE. THEY NEED TO BUY THINGS, EAT OUT.

YOU KNOW WHAT THAT GENERATES, SALES TAX. SO THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ROLE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REGIONALLY. AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT. THEY'RE HERE TO OFFER LIKE THE CCRADC DOES THE SAME THING.

IN FACT, I IMAGINE THAT YOU WILL BE WORKING WITH ALL THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAYERS TO

LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS IS OUT THERE. >> DEFINITELY.

ONE OF THE THING I WANTED TO ADDRESS, I GUESS I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT SELLING THE LAND AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

BUT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THE COUNTY OWNS THE FAIRGROUNDS, THEY OWN THE BASEBALL PARK OVER THERE, I IF I WAS THE COUNTY WOULD WANT TO HAVE A SAY SO IN WHAT HAPPENS THERE BECAUSE THAT MIGHT AFFECT WHAT GOES ON AT THE FAIRGROUNDS. IF YOU HAVE FOR EXAMPLE, AN INDUSTRIAL THERE, GOING TO AFFECT THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO USE THE FAIRGROUNDS, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT. I THINK YOU DO WANT TO HAVE SOME SAY IN IT. THEN IT WOULD FALL UNDER THE CITY, BECAUSE WE WOULD BE THE PERMITTING, THE ZONING FOR THAT PROJECT, WHATEVER PROJECT IT MIGHT BE.

SO I THINK THAT THE COUNTY DOES HAVE A STAKE IN THIS BECAUSE OF THAT.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE RIGHT RIGHT ADJACENT TO IT, NEXT DOOR TO IT.

>> VERY SIMPLE. WE DON'T HAVE -- WE CAN SELL IT WITH RESTRICTIONS.

THAT IS THE ONLY THING I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. I THINK SHE PUT IT VERY CLEARLY WHAT GOES ALONG WITH THE SELL. AS LONG AS WE HAVE THOSE RESTRICTIONS AND THOSE SAY SOS, IF WE DO SELL IT, TO THE DEVELOPER, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

>> I DON'T THINK THERE IS -- I MEAN, THIS IS INSIDE THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN.

THERE IS NO WAY IT CAN BE ZONED INDUSTRIAL UNLESS Y'ALL LET IT BE.

THIS WOULDN'T BE INDUSTRIAL UNLESS Y'ALL LET IT BE ZONED THAT WAY.

THAT WOULD NEVER BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR. >> THAT COULD HAPPEN BECAUSE WE DON'T OWN THE FAIRGROUNDS, YOU DO. I'M SAYING, IF THE CITY FOR EXAMPLE, DOWN THE ROAD, MAYOR, COUNCIL DECIDED YOU KNOW WHAT, WE WANT TO BUILD AN INDUSTRIAL

[02:00:03]

PLANT HERE, THEN THE COUNTY WOULD BE OUT OF THAT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE SAY SO ANYMORE BECAUSE YOU SOLD THE LAND. THE CITY, THE ONLY WAY WE CAN GET IT DEVELOPED IS THROUGH AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT, THAT MIGHT BE AN OPTION FOR THE CITY, BUT YET IT'S ADJACENT TO THE FAIRGROUNDS. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE BECAUSE WE'RE INVOLVED WITH IT.

IT'S YOUR LAND RIGHT NOW. >> WE'VE DISCUSSED PUTTING DEED RESTRICTIONS ON IT.

YOU PUT A RESTRICTION ON IT THAT RUNS FOREVER THAT SAYS IT CAN'T BE USED FOR INDUSTRIAL.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT WE CERTAINLY WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT WITH. AGAIN, THE ONLY WAY IT COULD EVER BE INDUSTRIAL IS IF THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN ALLOWED IT TO BE. BECAUSE IT'S IN YOUR CITY.

I DOUBT ANY CITY COUNCIL, BUT WHO KNOWS, LET'S PUT AN INDUSTRIAL RIGHT WHERE WE WANT HOMES TO BE BUILT. I DON'T THINK IT WAS A MISCHARACTERIZATION.

IT WASN'T VERY CLEAR. THREE OR FOUR SLIDES. I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU.

TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. THREE OR FOUR SLIDES IN A PACKET THAT, I'VE HEARD THE WORD PARTNERSHIP. TO ME, IT SOUNDED LIKE THAT IS WHERE WE WERE HEADED.

THE SLIDES DIDN'T ARTICULATE TO ME THAT THAT WAS IN THERE. ALL I WAS SAYING I WOULD LIKE CLEAR LANGUAGE THAT SAYS IF THERE IS SOME WAY THAT SOMEBODY COULD COME ALONG AND BUY THIS PROPERTY WITH THE DESIRES OF ROBSTOWN AND THE RADC BEING HEARD.

THAT IS ALL I WAS WANTING TO ASK. THERE IS NO MISCHARACTERIZATION. NOBODY HAS MADE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT A MYTH OF THE HOUSING -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM. NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THAT TODAY. I KNOW THERE IS A NEED FOR HOUSING IN EVERY PRICE RANGE IN THIS COMMUNITY. I DO IT EVERY DAY. IT'S WHAT I DO.

SO I'M VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MYTH COMES FROM EITHER.

JUST ME WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR IN THE RFQ THAT WE'RE SENDING OUT, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELL IT WITH CONDITIONS AND GET INPUT FROM YOU GUYS. BUT I JUST -- IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT IS WHERE WE'RE HEADED. I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE IN A LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE COUNTY. THAT IS ALL I'M SAYING. MAYOR, I THINK YOU MAKE GREAT POINTS, REMEDY SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS AND PUTTING DEED RESTRICTIONS THERE.

THEN THE ZONING COULDN'T OVERTURN IT >> MY HOPE IS TODAY, WE JUST GOT THIS CONVERSATION STARTED. WE REALLY WANT TO GET STEP ONE DONE TODAY AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. SO I HEAR ALL OF THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS.

THIS IS JUST ABOUT TO SEE WHAT IS OUT THERE IN THE MARKET, TO SEE WHAT IS AVAILABLE.

I'M TOTALLY OPPOSED FOR US SELLING THE LAND TO ANYONE. DEED RESTRICTION OR NOT.

I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO HOLD CONTROL OVER THAT, IF WE DO NOT FIND SOMEONE WHO CAN ESTABLISH A REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS DIRECTED AND ONLY FOR RESIDENTIAL.

MAYBE SOME OF THE EXTRA AMENITIES DISCUSSED. SO THAT IS WHAT I HOPE THAT WE CAN ACHIEVE TODAY. BLAKELY, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS IS HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD, OR DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION OR WHAT LANGUAGE DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE

TO MAKE THIS FIRST STEP A REALITY. >> WELL, I THINK YOU'VE GIVEN US SOME GOOD DIRECTION. WE CAN CLARIFY THE LIMITATIONS THAT THE COUNTY IS NOT SEEKING TO BE A LONG-TERM PARTNER, BUT SEEKING TO FIND A DEVELOPER WHO WILL MEET THE GOALS OUTLINED BY THE COUNTY AND THEIR RESPONSES. I THINK YOU'VE GOT SOME LANGUAGE ON THE AGENDA THAT ALLOWS US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TWO PART SOLICITATION THAT WOULD BRING IN QUALIFICATIONS FIRST SO THAT WE'RE SURE IF WE TAKE A FINANCIAL BID FROM SOMEBODY THAT THEY'RE QUALIFIED TO COMPLETE THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE QUALITY THAT YOU WANT AND FINANCIALLY CAPABLE.

ONCE WE'VE GOT A LIST OF QUALIFIED DEVELOPERS, THEN WE'LL SEE PROPOSALS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, JOHN. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE ENGINEERING PART AND WHO IS GOING TO TAKE CHARGE. IN MY PRECINCT, THE DEVELOPER DEVELOPED A NEIGHBORHOOD OUT THERE, THE DRAINAGE WASN'T DONE UP TO PAR THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.

THE CITY IS NOT TAKING THE STREET, THEY DIDN'T APPROVE IT. THE COUNTY HERE SAYS IT'S NOT OUR STREET. WE NEVER APPROVED IT. THOSE PEOPLE ARE FENDING FOR THEMSELVES. THEY'RE TELLING ME WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

THEY'RE GOING TO BLOCK THE STREET. THEY'VE BEEN TOLD IT'S A

[02:05:02]

PRIVATE ROAD THEN. NOBODY IS TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.

AND THEY'RE DEVELOPING ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT BEHIND THEM AND THEY'VE GOT ALL OF THE BIG CONSTRUCTION TRUCKS GOING BY AND BREAKING UP THEIR STREETS. NOBODY IS THERE FIXING THEM, DOING THE DRAINAGE. THIS IS WHAT MY CONCERN IS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS DO, MAYOR, ONE INSPECTOR AIN'T GOING TO CUT IT. YOU'RE GOING TO NEED MORE THAN ONE INSPECTOR. THE COUNTY IS GROWING OUT THERE.

YOU'RE GOING TO NEED MORE PEOPLE. >> BECAUSE THIS PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE HAD AN INFLUX OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE HOME, WE HIRED A SUBCONTRACTING COMPANY TO HELP WITH THE INSPECTIONS OF OUR HOMES THAT ARE THERE, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, SEWER AND PLUMBING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE DO HAVE A COMPANY THAT WE HIRE TO HELP OUR INSPECTOR. BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE HOMES

BEING BUILT IN OUR CITY. >> GOOD TO KNOW. ALL I'M SAYING LIKE MR. CHESTNUT AND THE GENTLEMEN HERE, YOU DON'T HAVE INSPECTORS FOLLOWING UP WITH THOSE PROJECTS, ENGINEERING, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE CALLING US, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO THINK WE'RE RESPONSIBLE. YOU'RE THE COUNTY. THE WATER DRAINS INTO YOUR COUNTY DITCH. SO FIX IT. YOU KNOW, WHEN IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING ON. AND THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE A LOT

OF PROBLEMS FOR YOU AND FOR US. >> THE KEY HERE IS THAT IT IS COUNTY LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN. I THINK THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT DIFFERENT THAN ANY OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP TODAY. I THINK THAT IS WHY WE MUST MAINTAIN CONTROL, BE ABLE TO HAVE THE DIRECTION THAT WE CAN PROVIDE, OVERSIGHT NEEDED. LIKE YOU SAID THE DRAINAGE AND OTHER ISSUES. I THINK THIS MAKES A GREAT PARTNERSHIP.

SO JUDGE, IF BLAKELY CAN HELP ME WITH THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE METHOD OF SOLICITATION FOR THE FAIRGROUNDS AREA DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZE THE PUBLISHING OF THE NOTICE. NOT SURE IF THAT IS TOO GENERAL OR NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH. BUT THAT IS MY MOTION. THE COURT: BLAKELY, DOES THAT CONTAIN THE STEPS THAT WE NEED SO THAT I MAY SECOND THE MOTION.

>> SORRY, IT BROKE UP THE LAST PART. >> APPROVE THE ORDER FOR FINDING METHOD OF SOLICITATION FOR THE FAIRGROUNDS AREA DEVELOPMENT AND AUTHORIZE A

PUBLISHING OF THAT NOTICE. IS THAT TOO GENERAL? >> I THINK SPECIFICALLY YOU'RE

APPROVING 2267 PROCUREMENT WITH TWO STEPS. >> WHAT SHE SAID.

>> YOU THINK WITH THE DIRECTION THAT YOU HEARD THAT THAT MOTION IS ENCOMPASSING ENOUGH, BLAKELY, TO PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT SOME OF THE STUFF OR DO WE NEED TO ADD

TO THAT? >> COMMISSIONER, THE DRAFT SOLICITATION FOLLOWS MUCH OF THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. I'LL GO THROUGH AND TIGHTEN IT UP. BUT I THINK IT FOLLOWS YOUR LINE OF THINKING.

>> FAIR. >> GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN. WE DIDN'T ASK ABOUT TIMETABLES, BUT WE'LL ASK COMMISSIONER MAREZ TO KIND OF SHARE WITH US TIMETABLES.

>> NEXT MONTH, AT THE LEAST, BY JUNE. IF YOU CAN HELP US PUT THAT TOGETHER ALONG WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, BLAKELY AND OUR COURT ADMINISTRATOR.

>> JUST ONE THING TO ADD, JUDGE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE FINAL RFQ IS GOING TO BE COMING BACK TO THE COURT. SO YOU'LL GET A COPY OF IT WELL IN ADVANCE, LOOK AT ALL OF THE DEAL POINTS, REQUIREMENTS FOR OVERSIGHT. THAT PROJECT HAPPENED BECAUSE THE COUNTY WASN'T INVOLVED. WITH THE COUNTY INVOLVED, THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN.

IT WILL COME BACK TO YOU. YOU'LL HAVE TIME TO REVIEW IT. IF YOU LIKE ALL OF THE DEAL

POINTS, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD. >> STEP ONE. THE COURT: OKAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE DO HAVE SOME OTHER FOLKS THAT ARE ALSO HERE FOR

[1. May 11, 2022 May 17, 2022]

IMPORTANT ITEMS. LET ME SEE IF I CAN SCOOP UP THE MINUTES IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ITEM I-1. BUT IT'S MAY 11TH AND 17.

DO YOU MOVE FOR BOTH OF THEM. >> YES, MA'AM. THE COURT: SECOND FOR YOU.

[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.]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

AND THEN LET'S SEE IF WE CAN ALSO MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I'LL HOLD ON LOUIE, SO WE CAN GET TO GAME ROOMS. ALSO WE HAVE AN INSURANCE MATTER THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN UP THIS MORNING AS WELL. WITH REGARDS TO THE AGENDA ON CONSENT ITEMS FROM PAGES 4 THROUGH 6, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT RUNS ALL THE WAY TO U.

[02:10:05]

AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LET ME KNOW IF THERE IS ANY THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER. IF NOT, I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

ITEM U. H. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND.

M AS IN MARY. P AS IN PAUL. >> I THINK R SHOULD BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM. THE COURT: IT IS NOT AT THIS TIME.

NO HARM IN TALKING ABOUT IT. >> I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON.

THE COURT: I'LL TAKE THAT ONE OUT. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S HAVE A MOTION A THROUGH G, I THROUGH L, N, O, Q. S AND T PLEASE AT THIS TIME.

[H. Ratify revised Amendment No. 1 with the Texas Water Development Board providing for corrected organizational chart.]

>> SO MOVED. THE COURT: SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THE FIRST ONE TO DISCUSS IS H, WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD PROVIDED CORRECTED ORGANIZATIONAL CHART. GO AHEAD.

>> IS THIS JUST MOVING AROUND THE CHART. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THE CHART IS SHOWING THAT JUAN IS THE PROJECT MANAGER. THAT IS NOT CORRECT.

[M. Approve Renewal and Extension of Lease Agreement between Texas Boll Weevil Eradication Foundation, Inc. and Nueces County.]

IT SHOULD BE SUSAN. >> M. >> IS THAT WHAT WE PAY THEM OR THEY PAY US? APPROVE RENEWAL OF AN EXTENSION OF LEASE AGREEMENT.

>> THIS IS A REGULAR ITEM THAT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER, EVERY TIME.

SO WE WORKED THROUGH THE NUMBERS TO GET THROUGH THIS NUMBER THAT WE'RE PROVIDING

HERE. >> WE PAY THEM PER MONTH OR THEY PAY US?

>> WE ARE GETTING THAT FROM THEM. THERESA IS HERE TO CLARIFY

EVERYTHING. >> THAT IS OUR MONTHLY INCOME THAT COMES FROM TEXAS, MONTHLY

REIMBURSEMENT. >> THAT REIMBURSEMENT GOES TO WHERE, THERESA?

>> GOES TO THE BUILDING. THE COURT: THEY HAVE A LEASE. >> IT'S A LEASE AGREEMENT IT'S A LEASE AGREEMENT, COMMISSIONER AND THAT IS THE MONTHLY AMOUNT THAT THEY FUND US.

>> THAT MONEY GOES BACK INTO WHAT, THE GENERAL ACCOUNT? >> YES, SIR.

GENERAL ACCOUNT. I BELIEVE IT'S 1570, 1550, AGRICULTURE BUILDING.

THE COURT: I KNOW YOU DIDN'T MEAN TO SAY IT. IT'S NOT 3 MILLION.

IT'S 3,000. >> EFFECTIVE JUNE 1ST THROUGH MAY OF 23.

>> SO MOVED THE COURT: MOTION IS MADE AND A SECOND IS ON THE FLOOR.

[P. Approve BuyBoard Contract No. 597-19 purchase with ROMCO Equipment Co. for rental of standby generators and transformers for Nueces County Courthouse, Jail, and McKenzie Jail Annex.]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. LETTER P.

COMMISSIONER. >> ON THAT ONE, I JUST WANT TO ASK, WHAT EQUIPMENT, ARE WE STILL RENTING EQUIPMENT? WHAT IS THE RENTAL EQUIPMENT? THE COURT: ARE THEY ON ITEM P?

>> THIS IS FOR THE ONE FOR THE TWO GENERATORS, I BELIEVE SO. THE COURT: THESE ARE WHAT WE CALL OUR STAND-BY GENERATORS, SO AS WE ENTER HURRICANE SEASON, THESE ARE THE GENERATORS THAT ARE ON STAND-BY. YOU HAVE GENERATORS ON STAND-BY

BOTH AT THE ANNEX AND THE COURTHOUSE AND JAIL. >> HOW MANY GENERATORS?

>> FOR THE COURTHOUSE AND JAIL, FOUR GENERATORS. >> WHAT DO WE PAY A MONTH FOR

THE RENT? >> I DON'T HAVE THE PAPERWORK. BUT I CAN GET IT FOR YOU.

THE COURT: IN YOUR PACKET, AND IT'S THREE. $17,000.

THAT IS WHAT WE CALL THE STAND-BY. IF YOU HAD TO DEPLOY, IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT RATE. THESE ARE THE SAME ONES THAT WE'VE HAD FOR MONTHS.

THESE ARE THE RATES THAT HAVE BEEN THE SAME. SO IF YOU HAVE TO DEPLOY, IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN IF IT'S STAND-BY.

AGAIN, YOUR PACKET HAS THIS INFORMATION UNDER ITEM NUMBER P.

>> BASICALLY IF WE DO DEPLOY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE.

BUT IF THEY DO NOT DEPLOY, WE DON'T PAY THIS EVERY MONTH, I MEAN, WOULD IT BE A SAVING? I MEAN, 17,000 A MONTH. A LOT OF MONEY FOR SOMETHING TO BE SITTING THERE.

[02:15:01]

BUT IF WE DEPLOY THEM SAY IN APRIL, AND HAVE THEM THROUGH AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER.

WOULD IT BE LESS MONEY? I MEAN, TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE THE MONEYS WOULD BE A LOT LESS.

>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. SO YOU'RE ASKING ME IF WE KEEP THEM HERE WOULD THAT MONEY CHANGE, THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE PAYING ON THE MONTH TO MONTH

LEASE CHANGE? >> SO WE DEPLOY THEM FROM WHERE? WE RENT THEM FROM WHO? SO SAY WE WAIT UNTIL APRIL TO RENT THEM AND HAVE THEM UNTIL AUGUST, 17,000 A MONTH OR WHATEVER IT IS, 20,000, SEND THEM BACK, DON'T PAY FOR THE

NEXT THREE OR FOUR MONTHS, ISN'T THE SAVINGS BIGGER? >> I GOT YOUR QUESTION NOW, COMMISSIONER. I DON'T THINK THE SAVINGS WOULD BE BETTER.

I THINK WHAT WE DO IS TAKE A RISK ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE POWER FOR OUR AREA AND THE JAIL. IF WE DON'T HAVE THE STAND-BY GENERATORS ONLINE READY TO GO WHEN WE NEED THEM. I THINK IF WE THINK ABOUT THE PURE DOLLAR AND CENTS ISSUE, WE

WON'T BE SERVING THE COMMUNITY AS WE NEED TO. >> CAN I ASK A FOLLOW-UP.

I'M CONFUSED IN READING THE CONTRACT. BECAUSE THE CONTRACT SAYS THAT WE -- CUSTOMER AGREES TO PAY COMPANY RENTAL STAND-BY SHIFT OPERATION AT THE RATE OF 80,700 PER MONTH. IT'S NOT 17,000 A MONTH. THE COURT: PER UNIT.

>> 80,000 A MONTH THAT WE'RE PAYING. THIS IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF

MONEY. >> YES, COMMISSIONER. SO THE GENERATORS THAT WILL BE THE PERMANENT GENERATORS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ON LINE IN SEPTEMBER.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE ASKING FOR THE COVERAGE THROUGHOUT HURRICANE SEASON, JUST IN CASE THOSE GENERATORS ARE NOT ONLINE, WE DON'T HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH HOOPS TO FIX THE CONTRACT IF WE NEED TO FIX IT AGAIN. AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS, THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE FOR THOSE PERMANENT GENERATORS, IS BUDGETED TO COVER MUCH OF THE COST FOR THE RAMCO GENERATORS

AS WELL. THE COURT: COMMISSIONER. >> YES, MA'AM.

THE COURT: LET ME HELP A LITTLE BIT WITH THE AMNESIA. THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF A CONTRACT THIS COURT HAS ALREADY APPROVED. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS EXTENDING IT IN LONGER PERIODS OF TIME TO ACCOUNT FOR HURRICANE SEASON. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS COURT ALREADY HAS GONE THROUGH THIS EXERCISE. I'M SPEAKING.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THE COURT: WELL, YOU WILL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL I FINISH.

I DIDN'T GIVE YOU THE FLOOR. I WAS TALKING TO LOUIE HERE. I MEAN, WE DO $240,000 A MONTH TIMES TEN, IT'S A LOT OF MONEY. 80,000. JUST FOR A GENERATOR.

THE COURT: MY GOODNESS. >> SO COMMISSIONER, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE MONTHLY COST WAS $17,000 A

MONTH. >> EXCUSE ME. JUDGE.

THE COURTHOUSE AND JAIL GENERATORS, THE MONTHLY COST IS $52,000, FOR THE JAIL ANNEX, THE MONTHLY COST IS 28,700 PER MONTH AND THIS IS FROM JUNE THROUGH SEPTEMBER YEAR END, AT A COST OF 322, 800. IT IS FUNDED IN THE COURTHOUSE AND MCKENZIE ANNEX JAIL GENERATOR PROJECTS. THE COURT: TO BREAK THAT DOWN, THERE IS THREE GENERATORS.

1.25 MEGAWATT. AND THEY ARE 17,000 PER UNIT, WHICH IS WHY THERESA SAYS IT'S THAT 52,000. AND THEN CUMULATIVE. AND THEN THERE IS ONE FOR THE ANNEX, THERESA, YOU JUST REPEATED IT. 28.

AND THAT IS YOUR TOTAL. SO IS IT IT EXPENSIVE? YES.

TO THE TUNE OF $322,000 AND IT IS PROBABLY TEN TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE TO MOVE OVER A THOUSAND PRISONERS, AS WE ARE AT 99 PERCENT OCCUPIED. IF WE WERE TO HAVE A SERIOUS

[02:20:04]

WEATHER EVENT, WHICH WE HAVE A HIGH PROPENSITY FOR, THIS IS WHAT PROTECTS US FROM THOSE ASTRONOMICAL COSTS TO MOVE PRISONERS. IT IS EXPENSIVE.

SO IS INSURANCE. THAT IS WHAT THESE GENERATORS BRING TO US.

THEY BRING TO US THE INSURANCE THAT WE WILL HAVE POWER AT OUR JAIL AND ANNEX, WHERE WE ARE IN

THE 99 PERCENT IN OCCUPANCY. >> WE ONLY HAVE THEM FOR WHAT, FIVE MONTHS RIGHT NOW?

SHE SAID JUNE TO AUGUST. >> SO IT SHOULD GO THROUGH SEPTEMBER.

>> SEPTEMBER. >> SO JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH, WE ARE NOT PAYING RENT, RIGHT?

>> SO IT'S ONLY MONTH TO MONTH. ONCE WE STOP USING THEM, WE STOP PAYING.

THE COURT: CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY WE CAN'T JUST FIND THEM. >> ONE MORE QUESTION, JUDGE.

I'M NOT FINISHED. ONE MORE QUESTION, ONCE WE GET THE NEW GENERATORS INSTALLED,

WILL THIS GO AWAY? >> THE RAMCO GENERATORS GO AWAY?

YES. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YES. >> THOSE SHOULD BE INSTALLED

THIS YEAR? >> WE'RE LOOKING AT SEPTEMBER, COMMISSIONER, FROM THE LAST MEETING I HAD DONE IN PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE. SEPTEMBER LOOKS LIKE THE TIME

FRAME TO HAVE THE PERMANENT GENERATORS INSTALLED. >> JUST KEEP ME ABREAST OF WHAT IS IN HERE. 17,000 AND THEN 52,000 FOR THE TOTAL.

FROM JUNE TO SEPTEMBER, I GUESS. THE OTHER 28,7 IS THE TOTAL FOR

THE ANNEX. >> MONTHLY COST COMMISSIONER, 52,000 PER MONTH FROM JUNE THROUGH SEPTEMBER, FOR THE COURTHOUSE AND JAIL. FOR A TOTAL OF $208,000.

AND FOR THE ANNEX, IT'S 28,000 PER MONTH, FOR A TOTAL OF $144,800.

>> ALL RIGHT. GOT IT. THANK YOU, THERESA, APPRECIATE

IT. THANK YOU. >> IF I CAN FINISH UP REAL QUICK TOO. I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, COMMISSIONER.

80,700, I UNDERSTAND WAS PUT INTO THE PROJECT. WHAT I CAN'T REMEMBER, THERESA IS WE HAD -- THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD GENERATORS AT THESE PLACES.

SO WHAT HAPPENED WITH THOSE TO WHERE WE GOT TO THIS POINT? BECAUSE THAT IS THE POINT I'M NOT REMEMBERING. THE COURT: WE HAVE NOT HAD GENERATORS.

LET ME CLEAR THAT UP. WE DO NOT HAVE GENERATORS. WE DID NOT HAVE THEM DURING HURRICANE HARVEY. THAT IS WHY WE HAD A RIOT DURING HURRICANE HARVEY.

WE DID NOT HAVE GENERATORS THAT WERE OPERABLE. HOWEVER, THANKS TO THIS COURT, WE HAVE MADE THE MONUMENTAL MOVE TO NOT ONLY APPLY FOR BUT SUCCESSFULLY RECEIVE FROM FEMA GRANTS, MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, OVER TWO MILLION, TO HELP DEFRAY SOME BUT NOT ALL OF THE COSTS FOR GENERATORS. SO WE DID NOT HAVE POWER. WE HAVE A MINI GENERATOR ON THE FIFTH FLOOR. AND WE HAD AT ONE TIME SOME GENE GENERATORS, I'M CERTAIN IN THE PAST. BUT IN ORDER TO OPERATE THIS JAIL ANNEX AND COURTHOUSE, OUR MAIN HARDEN FACILITIES, WE NEEDED THREE 1.25 MEGA WATT GENERATORS. THE REASON WE HAVE THEM ON STAND-BY IS BECAUSE OUR EXPERIENCE FROM ALL OVER THE STATE, AND WORKING WITH TETEM, WHEN YOU'RE IN THE CONE, YOU HAVE 72 HOURS TO BASICALLY, ALL THE DISASTERS OF OUR RECENT PAST HAVE TAUGHT US THAT 72 HOURS IS YOUR TIME FRAME, TYPICALLY TO GO FROM A TROPICAL STORM TO A SERIOUS CAT 3, 4 OR 5 HURRICANE. THE ONES THAT DO THE MOST DAMAGE.

YOU CANNOT MOVE IN GENERATORS FROM LOUISIANA, HOUSTON OR ANYWHERE ELSE YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THEM WHEN EVERYBODY ON THE GULF OF MEXICO IS LOOKING FOR THE SAME THING.

THERE IS A REASON THAT THIS COURT APPROVED, I WOULD HAVE TO GET THE MINUTES, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN AT LEAST 6 MONTHS AGO, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, THE IMPORTANCE OF GENERATORS AND IMPORTANCE OF HAVING STAND-BY GENERAT GENERATORS, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE ANNEX AND JAIL. BUT ALSO FOR THE COURTHOUSE, ADMINISTRATION AND LAW AND JUSTICE. SO YOU HAVE THEM BECAUSE THEY

[02:25:04]

DID NOT EXIST. IF THEY EXISTED, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PIECE OF PAPER IN FRONT OF YOU. I HOPE THOSE FACTS HELP CLEAR UP THE CONCEPT OF DID WE HAVE

THEM BEFORE. >> LOUIE, THESE ARE TEMPORARY GENERATORS, RIGHT?

>> THEY ARE, COMMISSIONER. >> WHEN DO WE EXPECT TO GET THE PERMANENT GENERATORS?

>> SEPTEMBER. >> TWICE I'VE ASKED FOR A REPRESENTATIVE FROM GLENN COME IN, MY QUESTION WOULD HAVE BEEN ARE THESE GENERATORS GOING TO WORK? I'VE HEARD DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THAT PART. DO YOU KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO

WORK? >> I DO NOT, COMMISSIONER, BECAUSE I'M NOT REALLY AN

ELECTRICIAN. >> I WAS WONDERING, MAYBE IF YOU HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH SOME

OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE DOING THAT. >> THERE HAS BEEN TALK THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE WITH THE POWER SOURCE TO FUEL THESE GENERATORS.

I HAD SOMEONE BRING THAT TO MY ATTENTION AS WELL. OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO ANSWER, SINCE WE'RE SPENDING $320,000, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A POWER SOURCE THAT CAN FUEL IT. SO I THINK THAT IS WHAT -- I HAD TO HAVE SOMEONE REACH OUT TO ME ON THAT TOO. THE COURT: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POWER SOURCE FOR THESE RAMCOS. THEY'RE DIESEL GENERATORS.

YOUR FUEL SOURCE IS CALLED DIESEL. >> NO. FOR THE GENERATORS IN

GENERAL >> THAT IS A DIFFERENT AGENDA ITEM.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RAMCO GENERATORS. THE POWER SOURCE FOR THESE

GENERATORS ARE DIESEL FUEL. >> JUST A QUESTION ABOUT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GENERATORS.

QUESTION ABOUT GOING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A POWER SOURCE.

>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT WE'RE WORKING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND THE

DIFFERENCE. >> ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY, COULD YOU JUST CHECK AND SEE GOING FORWARD IF THAT IS A VALID CONCERN OVER THE POWER SOURCE FOR THESE OTHER GENE GENERATORS. WE'RE ON THE GENERATOR ITEM.

THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO ASK. IF YOU CAN SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING TO THAT.

IT MAY BE A MYTH. THE COURT: SO WHAT IS THE QUESTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE PUBLIC WORKS AND COUNTY ENGINEER TO ANSWER FOR YOU, WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION?

JUAN, WOULD YOU APPROACH? >> JUAN, WHEN WE TRANSFER FROM THESE GENERATORS TO THE PERMANENT GENERATORS. THE COURT: WE'RE RIGHT NOW ON THE AGENDA ITEM.

YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET TO THE OTHER AGENDA ITEM. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> LET ME MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT P. THE COURT: MOTION TO ACCEPT P AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[U. Approve a finding for the method of procurement (request for qualifications) for engineering services for design specifications and plans to rebuild the Briscoe King Dune Walkover; authorize the Purchasing Agent to publish a notice; and adopt an order delegating evaluation authority to a selection committee.]

ALL RIGHT. NOW U. BRISCOE KING DUNE WALK OVER.

>> YES, JUDGE. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE FUNDING.

MY PRO IS I DON'T PROBLEM IS I DON'T WANT TO DO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS.

I WANT TO REVERT IT TO AN IFB SITUATION. THE OTHER THING, MY INTENTION FOR TOMORROW, BECAUSE IT RELATES, IS TO ASK THE COURT DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO, FOR A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF FUNDS FOR A MAKE OVER FOR THE KING PAVILION.

I DON'T WANT TO PIECE MEAL. I DON'T THINK I MENTIONED THAT I WAS GOING TO DO THAT.

THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS AS AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT IF WE CAN MAKE IT PART OF THE WHOLE TOMORROW THE COURT: MAY I OFFER JUST A FEW THOUGHTS HERE, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY.

NUMBER ONE, ARPA REQUIRES AN RFQ. ENGINEERING SERVICES ARE NOT IFBED. IT WOULD BE AN IFB IF IT WERE CONSTRUCTION.

ENGINEERS, YOU WILL QUALIFY THEM AND THEN THEY WILL USE A CONTRACT IN ORDER TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOUR COUNTY. THAT IS THE FIRST. THE SECOND IS ARPA REQUIRES IN

[02:30:08]

CFR 200 TO HAVE IT RFQED. >> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT TO WHERE IT'S NOT -- IF WE HAVE TO DO AN ENGINEERING, I WOULD WANT TO DO IT FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT THAT I'M GOING TO PROPOSE TOMORROW. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO PASS.

SO I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ENGINEERS THE COURT: I HEAR YOU.

I HAVE ANOTHER THOUGHT. I THINK THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS VALID BUT TOMORROW THERE MIGHT BE OTHER INFORMATION. YOU COULD MAKE THIS SUBJECT TO OR WE COULD PUT MICHAEL ON A HOLD FOR 30 DAYS. I THINK THAT IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TOMORROW THAT -- I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THE WEEDS, BECAUSE I TOLD US TO STICK TO ONE AGENDA ITEM. BUT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TOMORROW THAT YOUR DOLLARS ARE VERY VERY LIMITED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. AND THAT ANY DOLLARS YOU CAN DEFRAY TO GOMESA, WOULD YOU BENEFICIAL TO THIS PROJECT. YOU ONLY HAVE $6 MILLION LEFT TO DO INFRASTRUCTURE COUNTYWIDE. THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IS TREATED UNDER ARPA. AND BRISCOE DOES NOT MEET ANY OTHER ELIGIBILITY BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE. AGAIN, THIS HELPS YOU DO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. I'M THROWING THE SLOWEST SOFTBALL I CAN.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT CONTINGENT, I PROMISE YOU THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT FOR WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO TOMORROW. I'LL TAKE THAT MOTION.

>> MAKE SURE WE DIDN'T DO TWO PROJECTS AT THE SAME TIME. >> I HEAR YOU, CONSOLIDATION IS GOOD. BUT IF THIS WORKS OUT TO YOUR FAVOR, KEEP IT.

IF IT DOESN'T, YOU CAN ALWAYS SUBJECT TO BRING IT BACK AND WORK IT AGAIN.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO IT POTENTIALLY BEING COMBINED INTO ONE PROJECT DEPENDING ON THE RESULTS OF TOMORROW'S MEETING. THE COURT: CORRECT.

THE ONLY THING COMMISSIONER, IS HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE FUNDING ON THIS ONE -- OKAY.

I'LL SECOND YOUR MOTION. GONZALES CAN SECOND ALSO. IT'S FINE.

HOWEVER YOU HEARD IT. WHOEVER WAS FIRST. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? SCOTT, WE'RE TRYING TO ROLL HERE.

BUT WILL YOU JUST NOD YOUR HEAD? YOU'RE GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. DIRECTOR OF COASTAL PARKS SAYS HE'S GOOD.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. WE HAVE NOW COMPLETED THE

CONSENT AGENDA. >> R. THE COURT: SORRY.

MY BAD. BUT R IS GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[R. Ratify the hiring of Branscomb Law to handle legal services relating to Medical Examiner's Office complaints and related matters.]

ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. WAS IT R OR P?

>> OUR OFFICE WAS ASKED TO BRING IN THIS COUNSEL. WE'RE ASKING FOR COMMISSIONER'S COURT TO RATIFY THE HIRING OF BRANSCOMB TO HELP ON THESE MATTERS.

THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN TO HELP ON THIS PROJECT. >> I SAW THAT, I HAD A QUESTION, IF THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION GOING ON, I MEAN, ARE THEY GOING TO BE DOING

SOMETHING ELSE? >> SO THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT ISSUES TO THAT, JUDGE AND I WOULD HATE TO MISSPEAK IN OPEN SESSION REGARDING POTENTIAL INVESTIGATIONS THAT

MIGHT BE GOING ON. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT ADDITIONAL THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING.

>> HIRED TO HANDLE THE EMPLOYMENT ISSUES THAT WOULD BE TANGENTIAL TO ANYTHING ELSE GOING ON AT THAT OFFICE. JUST THE EMPLOYMENT ISSUES. NOT CRIMINAL OR OTHERWISE.

>> THIS IS ISOLATED FROM ANYTHING THAT -- I MEAN, THERE MAY BE OVERLAP, BUT THIS IS A

DIFFERENT INTENT FROM WHAT MS. WEBER IS HIRED TO DO. >> OKAY.

I READ IT. I WASN'T SURE WHAT DIRECTION WE'RE GOING.

BUT IT'S STRICTLY ON EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS. OKAY.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. >> OKAY.

THE COURT: IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE COULD ADDRESS IT IN EXECUTIVE.

>> SO MOVED >> I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ HAD A QUESTION. WHAT TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT ISSUES? WHENEVER THERE IS ANY TYPE OF SHAKE-UP THERE IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYMENT ISSUES TO ARISE AND THE COURT HAD INDICATED A DESIRE TO HAVE OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO HELP WITH THOSE ISSUES.

AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE BRINGING. >> NOTHING THAT WE CAN HANDLE

[02:35:05]

IN-HOUSE, SUCH AS YOURSELF? >> THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE IN MY OFFICE TO HANDLE ALL THE

ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP. >> OKAY. THE COURT: OKAY.

DID YOU HEAR, THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND THEN THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION. AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

THAT NOW CONCLUDES THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND LET ME LOOK DOWN HERE.

11:10. HERE IS HOW I SEE IT, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF FOLKS SIGNED UP FOR GAME ROOMS. AND FOR THE GAME ROOM FOLKS, I'LL ASK FOR FORGIVENESS FIRST.

BUT THE INSURANCE FOLKS REALLY NEED TO GO FIRST. AND THAT WAY, YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR ME NOT RUSHING YOU. INSURANCE ITEM WILL BE

[6. Discuss and consider the authorization of premiums for a one-year policy term for Property and Casualty Insurance, per Broker of Record.]

PRESENTED BY OUR BROKER OF RECORD, TOM CARLISLE, ALSO BE PRESENTED IN PART, PARTICULARLY THE AUTO LIABILITY PIECE AND SOME OF THE OTHER LIABILITY COVERAGES BY TIM, OUR COUNTY RISK MANAGER. IT IS AN ITEM LISTED IN THE REGULAR AGENDA.

FORGIVE ME. IT IS ITEM 6. TIMOTHY, WE HAVE HAND-OUTS THAT THE COURT MANAGER HELPED US WITH. YOU MIGHT HAVE ADDITIONAL ONES.

THESE ARE REFERENCE. TO MAKE THE JOB EASIER. YOU DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN AS HARD. IF YOU'RE LOOKING RIGHT HERE. AGAIN, TO SET THE STAGE FOR THE CLERK, IT'S AN AUTHORIZATION OF A PREMIUM. IT'S A ONE-YEAR POLICY TERM.

OUR BIG PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE. SO IT'S GOING TO ENCOMPASS FLOOD, WIND STORM, AUTO, LAW ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY. THERE ARE OTHER SMALLER LIABILITY PACKAGES IN HERE. COMMISSIONERS, THEY'RE ALL LISTED FOR YOU HERE.

TIM, I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE, AS THEY SAY IN THE BUSINESS, A LITTLE GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS,

REALITY. LET'S HEAR THE GOOD NEWS FIRST. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS. IT STOPPED RAINING RIGHT NOW. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF GOOD

NEWS. >> WE NEED THE RAIN. HOLD ON A MINUTE.

THE COURT: TRUE. WE NEED IT IN MODERATION. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

BEFORE THE COURT THIS MORNING IS THE DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE AUTHORIZATION OF PREMIUMS FOR OUR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE.

I AM GOING TO PRESENT THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION COUNTY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE LIABILITY.

ON THE BOTTOM OF THE INSURANCE SUMMARY THAT I SENT TO YOU THIS MORNING, PAPER COPY, NUMBER 11 AND 12. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE GOLD RIGHT HAND PORTION OF IT, HIGHLIGHTED IN GOLD, IS THE RECOMMENDED, YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM LAST YEAR, WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCREASE IN OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COVERAGE, BUT NOT MUCH, HOWEVER, WE ALSO HAD AN INCREASE IN OUR AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, ALMOST A THOUSAND DOLLARS.

SO ALL IN ALL, WE'RE RUNNING ABOUT THE SAME WITH THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION'S COUNTIES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO NOW IS FOR THE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY PORTION, I'M GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO MR. CARLISLE, BECAUSE THERE ARE DECISIONS FOR YOU TO MAKE BEFORE THE COURT HERE TODAY, ON PRECISELY HOW MUCH INSURANCE YOU WANT TO CARRY FOR NUECES COUNTY. WITHOUT FURTHER ADO.

THE COURT: OKAY. PERFECT. >> FIRST OF ALL, WE APPRECIATE BEING HERE. WHAT WE TRIED TO DO IS GIVE YOU FOUR SHEETS THAT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT MAKE A VERY COMPLICATED PROCESS SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.

SO THE FIRST THING I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN REAL BRIEFLY, THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY AND THE MARKET FOR CAD INSURANCE, I'VE BEEN IN THIS FOR 44 YEARS. THE WORST I'VE EVER SEEN.

THE CAPACITY ON CATASTROPHES FROM FIRES HAVE WIPED OUT THE REINSURANCE MARKET.

EVERY TIME YOU BUY INSURANCE THEY GO OUT AND BUY INSURANCE TO COVER THE CATS.

SO THOSE FUNDSES HAVE BEEN BASICALLY DEPLETED OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS. THAT AFFECTS EVERYBODY'S INSURANCE. IT CAN AFFECT YOUR HOME AND EVERYTHING.

SO FIRST OF ALL, THAT Y'ALL UNDERSTAND, WE BUY YOUR INSURANCE NET OF COMMISSION.

WE MAKE NO MORE MONEY IF IT GOES UP, WHATEVER. OUR JOB IS TO FIND YOU THE BEST THING FOR THE RIGHT COVERAGE. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST SHEET THAT I'M SHOWING YOU,

[02:40:04]

WHICH IT'S GOING TO SHOW YOU THE MAKE-UP OF ALL OF YOUR POLICIES, BUT WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS GO TO THE SECOND PAGE AND WHAT THAT IS GOING TO SHOW YOU, AND IT MAY LOOK COMPLICATED, BUT Y'ALL BUY 334 MILLION I THINK OF VALUES. ON THE CATASTROPHE, WHICH IS BASICALLY NAME STORM WIND, YOU BUY 175 MILLION PER OCCURRENCE. NOBODY BUYS THE FULL LIMIT.

THE ODDS OF HURRICANE OR WIND STORM DESTROYING 100 PERCENT OF EVERY PIECE OF PRACTICAL IS IMPRACTICAL. THAT LIMIT HAS BEEN THAT WAY. WHEN WE BECAME YOUR BROKERS TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO, WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, YOU WERE WITH A PREVIOUS BROKER, BUT WE BROUGHT THIS UP WITH LLOYD, WHO WAS AN INSURANCE AGENT, THAT WE FELT WITH WHAT OTHER ENTITIES, I CAN SHARE THIS BECAUSE IT'S PUBLIC, BUT WE WRITE THE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY FOR THE CITY, SCHOOL AND THE PORT. AND MANY OTHER 72 OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES.

SO WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DECIDE HOW MUCH IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT WHICH Y'ALL HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, Y'ALL HAVE BEEN BUYING 175. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SHOWN YOU THAT IF YOU LOWERED IT 125 LAST YEAR, WHAT IT WOULD SAVE. THE PROBLEM IS, KNOCKING IT FROM THE TOP DOWN, YOU DON'T SAVE THAT MUCH. BUT WITH THE MARKET THE WAY IT IS, IF YOU KEEP YOUR CURRENT LIMITS, THE PREMIUM WOULD GO UP ABOUT 37 PERCENT.

OUR JOB WAS TO FIGURE OUT ALTERNATIVES TO GIVE YOU, AS COMMISSIONERS, ON HOW TO NOT SPEND THAT MUCH AND REALLY STAY SAFE. THE COURT: FORGIVE ME, TOMMY.

SO WE ALL GET VERY UPSET AROUND HERE OVER FIVE PERCENT, WHAT YOU JUST TOLD US SHOULD HAVE MADE ALL OF US GASP. YOU JUST TOLD US OURS IS GOING TO GO UP 37 PERCENT.

TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE FOR THOSE LISTENING AND THOSE OF YOU THAT UNDERSTAND WHY WE'VE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THIS WIND STORM CONVERSATION. GO AHEAD.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. DIFFERENT STORY, WHETHER THEY'RE FUNDING PROPERTY OR NOT. WHAT IS THE MOST INTERESTING ASPECT OVER THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS, WE HAD ONE CARRIER THAT WROTE YOUR 175 MILLION. IT WAS CALLED AMRISK.

AMRISK THIS TIME AND ON EVERY ENTITY IS CUTTING BACK THEIR WRITINGS, WHICH IS CAUSED A CAPACITY PROBLEM. THEY WERE THE GORILLA. THEY'RE OFFERING 7.5 MILLION OF THE PRIMARY TEN. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PAGE THAT I'M SHOWING YOU THAT SHOWS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PLAYERS, WE HAD ONE CARRIER THAT TOOK ALL OF YOUR INSURANCE.

NOW WE HAVE ABOUT 16. IT'S A COMPLEX WAY OF PUTTING OUT THE TOWER.

IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR LEFT-HAND SIDE, YOU'LL SEE TEN MILLION LIMIT.

YOUR PROPERTY NOW IS IN LAYERS. IN THE TEN MILLION, WE HAVE TWO COMPANIES.

YOUR PREVIOUS AMRISK AND YOU GO UP TO THE NEXT 25 MILLION.

25 MILLION OVER THE 10. YOU HAVE FIVE CARRIERS. 50 MILLION TO 100 TO 175.

EXPLAIN WHAT HAS HAPPENED HERE, ON TOP OF THAT, THERE WAS A LAWSUIT, THE COUNTY SUED THEIR INSURANCE COMPANY. AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, AS A BROKER, THERE WERE OTHERS THAT DID TOO. WE WERE NOT THE BROKERS WHEN THOSE HURRICANES HAPPENED.

THERE IS ONLY TWO ENTITIES THAT I KNOW OF THAT HAD TO SUE AMRISK, BOTH OF THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO CLIENTS WE DIDN'T HAVE. THEY WERE BOTH AT THE OTHER BROKER. SO THAT AFFECTS THEIR ATTITUDE WHEN A CLIENT SUES.

BUT THAT IS NOT WHY THIS RATE INCREASE IS HERE. I'M GOING TO FLAT TELL YOU.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL ON THE OTHER CARRIER. SO WHAT DO WE DO TO TRY TO CUT THE PREMIUMS. PART OF THE POSITIVE THINGS, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT THE VERY FIRST SHEET, YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT YOUR FLOOD INSURANCE. ITEM NUMBER 2 ON THE VERY FIRST SHEET.

YOUR FLOOD INSURANCE WENT DOWN $69,000. AND YOU'RE GOING TO WONDER WHY.

THE NEW FLOOD PROGRAM NOW DOES IT BY GPS. IT DOESN'T DO IT ANYWHERE THEY USED TO. SO THAT IS A POSITIVE THING WHEN WE RE-RATED IT, IT WENT DOWN 69,000. SO WHAT DO WE DO TO TRY TO GET THE PREMIUM SOMEWHAT DOWN? OUR SUGGESTION, WHICH WE PUT IN HERE, IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS. IS TO TAKE YOUR CAT LIMIT, 175

[02:45:08]

MILLION LIMIT DOWN TO 100. NOW, ONE THING THAT THAT WILL DO, Y'ALL HAVE BEEN IN ABOUT A 50 PERCENT RANGE. AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY WITH LLOYD NEIL AND ALSO BECAUSE THE MARKET WAS CHEAP. WHEN YOU CAN BUY INSURANCE AND SHARE RISK WITH SOMEONE FOR A LOT LESS, YOU DO IT. BUT WHEN EVERYTHING STARTS GOING UP, IT'S WHEN YOU HAVE TO RELOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING PREVIOUSLY.

THE 100 MILLION LIMIT PUTS YOU IN A 34 PERCENT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES IN THIS TOWN, THEY'RE ALL ANYWHERE FROM 30 TO 35 PERCENT AND THEY HAVE BEEN.

ONE OF THE OPTIONS WOULD BE TO SUGGEST TO DO THAT DOWN. YOU'RE GOING TO WONDER, IS THAT ENOUGH COVERAGE IN A CATASTROPHE? YOUR INSURANCE COMPANIES GO INTO A PROGRAM CALLED MODELLING. THEY GIVE ALL THE STATISTICS ON THE HISTORY OF WHAT SIZE HURRICANES WOULD DO. IN THE EVENT THIS PARTICULAR AMRISK GAVE US A COPY. I DIDN'T GIVE YOU A COPY. IT'S COMPLICATED.

THEY DO THEIR PRICING BASED ON WHAT THEY THINK A CAT 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 5 WOULD DO.

YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE THE PRIMARY LAYERS THAT HIT, NOT THE EXCESS.

IN A THOUSAND YEAR HURRICANE, WITH THESE VALUES, THEY'RE ASSUMING YOUR LOSSES WOULD BE

49 MILLION. OKAY. >> IS A CAT FIVE A THOUSAND

YEAR? >> IT'S WHAT THEY ESTIMATE. IT'S NOT RATED BY 1, 2, 3, 4,

5. THAT IS THROWN IN THERE. >> WHAT WOULD HARVEY BE CONSIDERED IN THIS TERMINOLOGY? WOULD IT BE A THOUSAND YEAR STORM?

>> I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER IT INCORRECTLY. WHAT WE DO, WE DO MORE PROPERTY COASTAL THAN ANY AGENT IN TEXAS, THIS MODELLING IS DONE BY EVERY ENTITY.

AND SO THEY AREN'T -- IT'S NOT FOOL PROOF. ONLY GOD KNOWS WHAT IS GOING TO BLOW IN HERE. THEY USE STATISTICS, A LOT OF ACTUARIAL INFORMATION.

WHEN WE ORIGINALLY QUOTED THE COUNTY, THE FIRST THING WE BROUGHT UP IS WE THOUGHT Y'ALL HAD TOO HIGH OF A CAT LIMIT. I'M GOING TO BRING THAT UP. AND THE COURT ALONG WITH LLOYD DECIDED THAT THEY WOULD KEEP IT. BECAUSE IT WAS NOT REAL EXPENSIVE BACK THEN. IT WAS CHEAP. IT WAS A SMART BUY.

SO WHAT HAPPENS HERE, IF YOU DECIDED NOT TO DO THE 100, YOUR PREMIUM FOR ALL OF YOUR

INSURANCE GOES UP $503,000 THIS YEAR. >> 175 LINE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS ALL YOUR INSURANCE. FLOOD, EVERYTHING.

>> DIDN'T WE GO TO 125 LAST YEAR? >> NO. WE PRICED 125.

THE COURT: IT WAS SO SOFT. >> Y'ALL DIDN'T ELECT TO DO IT. $25,000.

I CAN'T REMEMBER. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST TWO YEARS IS DRASTIC IN THIS PROPERTY INDUSTRY. SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN ABLE TO FILL SOME OF THEIR NEEDS.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON. THAT IS WHY WE WENT BACK AND SAID WHAT CAN WE DO, HE AND I AND THE JUDGE AND ANYBODY, MY SON CHASE.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO GIVE AN ALTERNATIVE THAT I WOULD DO. THAT IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS.

AND THAT CUTS IT. THE REASON IT CUTS IT SUBSTANTIALLY THIS YEAR IS

BECAUSE IT IS A HARD MARKET. >> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S A THOUSAND YEAR STORM MODEL, IT HITS THE ENTIRE NUECES COUNTY, NOT JUST PART OF. THAT IT WOULD BE A $49.0 YEAR

STORM DAMAGE. >> THERE IS A HUGE REPORT I COULD SEND EACH OF YOU.

BUT THAT IS CORRECT. IT EVEN GOES TO A 10,000 YEAR STORM.

>> BUT WITH A THOUSAND YEAR STORM, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THE LAST TIME WOULD BE, I HEAR ABOUT THE 100 YEAR STORMS ALL OF THE TIME. IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME WE'RE HAVING DOUBLE THE COVERAGE OF A THOUSAND YEAR STORM OF BEING TOTALLY WIPED OUT.

>> GOOD WORD. SO YES. THE COURT: SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE, WHICH YOU'LL SEE IS THE $100 MILLION MARK. YOU NEED TO GO INTO IT AS THEY SAY EYES WIDE OPEN BECAUSE THE REPLACEMENT VALUE ON THIS BUILDING AND THE JAIL ALSO EXCEEDS THE $100 MILLION. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO BALANCE AND WEIGH.

>> THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE MARKETPLACE.

WHEN YOU'RE BUYING LAYERS, THEY'RE GOING TO HIT THE LAYERS A LOT FASTER BECAUSE OF INFLATION AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE COST OF BUILDING. WE'RE GETTING THE PERFECT STORM HERE. AND SO THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT YOU DO HAVE TO THINK

[02:50:03]

ABOUT. THE VALUES HAVE NOT BEEN REEVALUATED FOR TWO YEARS.

WHICH YOU NORMALLY DON'T DO BUT EVERY THREE YEARS. AGAIN, SO YOU KNOW, WE COULD GO BACK AND SAY 125, BUT IN LOOKING AT -- I'M GOING TO USE THIS AGAIN, THERE IS A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. I LOOK AT WHAT OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES ARE DOING.

BECAUSE WE DON'T MAKE THIS DECISION. Y'ALL DO.

NUECES COUNTY HAS BEEN A HIGHER CAT LIMIT THAN ANY OF THE OTHERS.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, MAJOR HURRICANE COMES IN, YOU WILL BE GLAD TO HAVE IT.

HURRICANE HARVEY CAME IN, Y'ALL KNOW WHAT YOUR DAMAGES WERE DONE, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LARGE CLAIM AND THEY SETTLED IT WITH Y'ALL. SO IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION TO.

THEY MIGHT CHARGE YOU 300 PERCENT FOR THE LIMIT. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE MARKET,

IT'S HARDER TODAY THAN IT'S EVER BEEN. >> IT DOES INCLUDE THE

BUILDINGS OVER LAND. THE PIER OVER WATER. >> ONE OTHER ITEM THAT I'M GOING TO BRING UP, SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THE SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE, IT'S THE DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FIRST SHEET, OPTION ONE, INCREASE, DECREASE, AT THE BOTTOM, IT SAYS -- OPTION TWO IS DECREASING THE CAT LIMIT TO 100 MILLION.

IT SHOWS ALSO THE SAME CREDIT ON THE FLOOD. HUGE CREDIT ON YOUR FLOOD INSURANCE. AND IT ADDS IT ALL UP. IT WOULD BE 182,000 INCREASE.

>> I LIKED YOU BETTER LAST YEAR, TOMMY. >> I HAVEN'T LIKED THIS JOB.

I'M GOING TO POINT OUT ONE OTHER THING. FLOOD INSURANCE CONCERNS US.

LAST PAGE ON YOUR HANDOUT. IT'S GOING TO SHOW YOU AT THE BEACH, WHICH IS MR. CHESNEY'S AREA HAS FLOOD INSURANCE PRESENTLY. WHEN THE MARKET WAS SOFTER THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO, THEY WOULD THROW IN FREE FLOOD. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT SHEET RIGHT THERE, THE ONLY ONES THAT HAVE FLOOD, IT SAYS FLOOD BUILDING VALUE.

THE PARK OFFICE WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO QUOTE FLOOD ON.

IT WAS IN YOUR PREVIOUS PROGRAM FOR THE 500. IF YOU ARE WONDERING WHY THERE IS 500 ON SOME OF THESE, THAT IS THE MAXIMUM YOU CAN BUY THROUGH THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. FLOOD OUT THERE IS VERY EXPENSIVE.

EVEN THOUGH IT WENT DOWN. SO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION POSSIBLY OF WHAT YOU SHOULD INSURE AND NOT FOR FLOOD OUT THERE. BECAUSE FLOOD IS VERY EXPENSIVE OUT THERE. BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE SURGE.

SO THERE WAS A DISCUSSION MAYBE OF SELF-INSURING ANYTHING UNDER 200.

SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL SHOULD PROBABLY DECIDE OR DISCUSS. BUT WE'RE STILL GOING IN THE PROCESS OF THE PADRE VALLEY PARK OFFICE, THE FLOOD. LET'S SEE.

IN THAT ONE, IS THAT THE ONE WE ESTIMATED THE 50,000 PREMIUM ON? THE FLOOD IS A LITTLE BIT OF A WORK IN PROGRESS STILL. WHEN THEY CHANGED THE PROCESS, THEY CHANGED IT WHERE IT'S EXTREMELY HARD TO RATE. THEY'VE GOT SOME INCONSISTENCIES. A HURRICANE COMES, THEY'LL SAY WHY DIDN'T WE HAVE ONE OF THESE OTHER BUILDINGS INSURED FOR IT. YOU'LL SEE THAT IT'S NOT. THE BOARD WALK DECK COVERED AREAS IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO INSURE FOR FLOOD TWO. IT'S NOT A BUILDING.

SO TO BUY FLOOD, YOU'VE GOT TO BE A BUILDING. I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. AND MAYBE REVIEW. AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT FLOOD WOULD COST ON EVERY SINGLE BUILDING, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO

THAT. >> WE'VE GOT WIND STORM ON ALL OF THE BUILDINGS.

THE COURT: WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD DO IS I THINK SCOTT IS HERE, THERE WAS THE CONCEPT OF SHOULD WE LOOK AT A THRESHOLD. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS VALUED AT OVER $200,000, WOULD THAT BE A GOOD LINE IN THE SAND, NO PUN INTENDED THERE, TO BE ABLE TO

[02:55:01]

SAY THAT SHOULD HAVE SOME INSURANCE? AND THERE ARE SOME BATH HOUSES THAT HAVE THOSE VALUES, IF YOU LOOK AT THEM. BUT I THINK THOSE DECISIONS NEED TO BE MADE AT LEAST YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY QUICKLY, BUT TODAY, BUT WITH SOME COASTAL

PARKS THOUGHTS IN MIND. IN OTHER WORDS, SOME -- >> HE IS SUGGESTING A $200,000 THRESHOLD. THAT WOULD TAKE SEVERAL OF THOSE STRUCTURES OUT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE COURT: I THINK WE'RE LOOKING FOR INPUT.

I MEAN, SCOTT IS HERE TOO. >> YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT'S ALL A BUSINESS DECISION.

I MEAN, IT'S A TOUGH CALL. THE COURT: THOSE ARE TOUGH CALLS BECAUSE THEY'RE ON THE WATER. THE OTHER THING IS TOMMY YESTERDAY WAS GOING TO CHECK WITH MACO, DID YOU GUYS GET AN ANSWER BACK FOR FLOOD? THAT IS IMPORTANT.

>> THE REASON WHY THERE WASN'T ENOUGH TIME FROM THE TIME WE LEFT.

>> WE HAVE NOT VERIFIED THAT. IF YOU HAVE ANY WAYS, THEY HAVE NOT GOTTEN BACK TO US.

I MENTION IT IN CASE YOU WANT TO TEXT THEM. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO

KNOW. >> THE QUESTION WAS THAT WE ARE AWARE OF THE CONTRACTOR BUILDING THAT. ORIGINALLY THEY THOUGHT THAT HIS BUILDER'S RISK SHOULD HAVE FLOOD. BUT WHEN WE TEXTED HIM YESTERDAY AT THE MEETING, HE

DIDN'T THINK IT DID. HE HASN'T GOTTEN BACK TO US. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW THE

BUILDERS RISK WOULDN'T. >> OH, I DO. IT COULD VERY EASILY ON THE

WATER. >> IF YOU'RE A BUILDER AND YOU'RE BUILDING ON THE WATER,

WOULDN'T YOU HAVE BUILDER'S RISK. >> FLOOD IS NOT -- IT'S LIKE YOUR HOMEOWNERS. FLOOD IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC INCLUSION.

FLOOD IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE. IT STILL COULD BE. WE'RE TRYING TO VERIFY IT.

>> I GUESS, JUDGE, WE NEED TO MAKE SOME SORT OF POLICY MANDATE TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO HAVE FLOOD INSURANCE. I MEAN, WE NEED TO INCLUDE THAT IN OUR CONTRACT.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MAKE THAT A MOTION. BECAUSE IT'S GERMANE TO THIS.

>> THERE WAS A DISCUSSION THAT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS.

THE QUESTION IS, IS IT IN THE INSURANCE PROGRAM WITH THE CERTIFICATE.

THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIND OUT. >> RIGHT.

THE COURT: LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE GET SOME INFO. IT WAS DEFINITELY A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE INSURANCE. JUST WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN -- JUST VERY QUICKLY HERE, SO LET'S IF YOU DON'T MIND, MAYBE WE COULD QUICKLY MOVE THROUGH THESE DECISION MAKING TREES THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH. THE FIRST IS WHETHER TO SCALE

BACK TO THAT $100 MILLION OPTION. >> JUDGE, LET ME ASK YOU THIS REAL QUICK, ON THE FLOOD STUFF, STAYING ON THAT FOR A MINUTE, IF YOU -- I'M DOING -- I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 BUILDINGS THAT ARE UNDER THAT 200,000 THRESHOLD. LET'S SAY THEY'RE NOT ALL $200,000.

BUT TO BE SIMPLE, IF YOU MULTIPLY 13 TIMES 200,000, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE LOOKING AT $2.6 MILLION OF POTENTIAL EXPOSURE. IT'S NOT THAT MUCH BECAUSE SOME OF THESE ARE 4,050,000. I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTATE THAT. MAYBE IT'S LIKE 2 MILLION.

BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT -- HOW MUCH DOES IT COST FOR THAT MILLION 8

>> WHY DON'T WE GO BACK? I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO DECIDE THIS TODAY, BUT IF YOU WANTED US TO DO 100. I'M NOT TRYING TO COMPLICATE THIS, JUDGE.

>> I THINK THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH DOES IT COST FOR THE $2 MILLION OF COVERAGE THAT WE'RE SELF-INSURING? HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST EXTRA FOR US TO BUY ON AN INSURANCE? BECAUSE IF YOU ADD THE UNDER 200 THRESHOLD THAT Y'ALL THREW OUT THERE, 13 BUILDINGS THAT FALL UNDER THAT. ADD THAT UP AND TELL US WHAT THAT COVERAGE COST AND WE CAN MAKE A MORE EDUCATED BUSINESS DECISION ON THAT. DO WE HAVE TO DECIDE THIS

TODAY? >> WE CAN GET IT RATED AND DONE AS FAST AS WE CAN.

IT'S GETTING INTO HURRICANE SEASON IS WHY. >> I GET IT.

>> AGAIN, ON THE FLOOD, IF YOU WANTED TO RUN SOME -- AGAIN, TRYING TO MAKE MATHEMATICAL -- ON THE FLOOD PIECE OF IT. JUST THE FLOOD PIECE OF IT. IT'S JUST THE FLOOD COASTAL PARKS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION. BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER CHESNEY IS SAYING IS THAT THE FLOOD INSURANCE, AGAIN, LAST YEAR WE

[03:00:02]

PAID 132, THIS YEAR WE'RE PAYING 70. SO WE'RE PAYING 70 FOR COVERAGE ON FIVE MAJOR BUILDINGS. AND THOSE FIVE MAJOR BUILDINGS REPRESENT VALUE OF 115 -- $2 MILLION. YOU CAN MAKE A GENERAL GUESS THAT IF YOU DOUBLED THE PREMIUM

RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD EQUAL COVERING ALL OF THEM. >> THAT COULD BE A POSSIBLE GUESS. THE COURT: I'M GUESSING BASED ON MATHEMATICAL REASONABLENESS OF IT ALL. SO IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE THAT SUGGESTION, THEN WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS ANOTHER 70 GRAND, WHICH IS EXACTLY PROBABLY WHAT WE PLAYED LAST TIME MORE OR

LESS. >> OR MAYBE -- THE COURT: THAT IS GIVING LAST

LESS. >> OR MAYBE -- THE COURT: T LAST TIME MORE OR.

>> OR MAYBE -- THE COURT: THAT IS GIVING LAST. >> OR MAYBE --

THE COURT: T LAST TIME MORE OR. >> OR MAYBE -- THE COURT: THAT IS GIVING LAST.

>> OR MAYBE -- THE COURT: THAT IS GIVINGAI LA. >> OR MAYBE --

THE COURT: THAT IS GIVINGD LAS. >> OR MAYBE -- THE COURT: THAT IS GIVING -- WE CAN TAKE OUR LUNCH BREAK, ROUNDS TABLE WITH SCOTT AND WE'LL COME BACK AND DO FLOOD AFTER LUNCH OR SOMETHING. WHAT DO YOU THINK, SCOTT?TABLEE BACK AND DO FLOOD AFTER LUNCH OR SOMETHING. WHAT DO YOU THINK, SCOTT?ROUNDL COME BACK AND DO FLOOD AFTER

LUNCH OR SOMETHING. WHAT DO YOU THINK, SCOTT? >> YOU SAID THE OFFICE.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING COME BACK ONLINE IN SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COMBINE COVERAGE WITH THAT.

THE COURT: BUT WE CAN'T COVER IT UNTIL. >> I'M MAKING YOU AWARE OF IT.

THE ONLY OTHER THING ON HERE THAT I SEE ARE THE LIFT STATIONS.

THE LIFT STATIONS ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE TO FLOOD, YOU CANNOT ELEVATE THOSE ABOVE BASIC FLOOD ELEVATION. YOU CAN'T DO IT. IF THOSE GET TAKEN OUT, YOU LOSE YOUR WHOLE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE ENTIRE PARK. BECAUSE EVERYTHING GOES TO THE LIFT STATIONS AND EVERYTHING MOVES IT OUT IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI SYSTEM OR PORT A SYSTEM. CRITICAL PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT YOU'VE GOT THAT IS TIED TO EVERY SINGLE STRUCTURE. THE COURT: AGREED.

SO TOMMY, WE THINK THAT ONCE YOU STAR THE ONES THAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD COVER AND THEN

THE COURT COULD VOTE ON THAT >> THE LIFT STATION IS COVERED SEPARATELY?

>> THEY'RE COVERED. >> THEY'RE IN A HOUSING. >> INSURANCE.

>> THEY'RE NOT. WE RAN INTO THAT AFTER HARVEY. EVEN IF I COULD HAVE BROUGHT

FACILITIES ON LINE, I COULDN'T DO IT. >> HOW MUCH WOULD IT BE TO

COVER IT? THE COURT: THE WHOLE POINT. >> THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP, WE WEREN'T YOUR AGENT IN HARVEY. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE Y'ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT IS COVER AND WHAT IS NOT, SHOW THE PRICING AND Y'ALL MAKE THAT DECISION.

>> I THINK WHATEVER COST THE MOST, HAVE TO GO BACK AND REALLY THINK ABOUT THING.

WE DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE SAME THING HAVING TO PAY THE THING AREN'T COVERED THE COURT: AGAIN, THIS IS NOT WHAT IS GOING TO KILL US HERE ON THE INSURANCE.

YOU CAN -- WITH ANOTHER 70 GRAND YOU COULD PUT EVERYTHING ON THE TABLE.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE NEEDING THE COURT TO MAKE THE DECISION, TELL US WHICH FACILITIES YOU

WANT COVER AND WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. >> YOU'RE SAYING 70,000 WILL

COVER THE LIFT STATIONS TOO? >> COVERING WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR, THE PREMIUM EXACTLY WENT DOWN 70 SOMETHING THOUSAND. WE COULD MAKE THE ASSUMPTION, AGAIN, IT GETS RATED THROUGH THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. SO WE DON'T KNOW IT UNTIL WE INPUT EVERYTHING IN THERE. BUT WE ASSUME ALL OF THESE OTHERS WENT DOWN THAT WITH YOU TAKING THE SAME VALUE OF ABOUT 2, IT SHOULD WIPE EACH OTHER OUT.

>> WHICH IS GOING TO BE AN OVERALL INCREASE IN THE PREMIUM BASED ON OPTIONS 1 AND 2.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. BUT YOU COVER EVERYTHING IN COASTAL PARKS.

>> I AGREE. FOR FLOOD. >> ARE ALL THESE BUILDINGS

COVERED FOR WIND STORM? ALL OF THEM? >> GOSH, I DON'T HAVE THE

SCHEDULE RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. >> THEY SHOULD BE BY NOW. ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS SHOULD

BE COVERED. >> YES. THE ANSWER IS YES.

THE LADY THAT KNOWS THE SCHEDULE JUST TOLD ME YES. MISSY

>> MISSY IS HERE. >> WE PROBABLY SHOULD COVER THEM FOR FLOOD, I WOULD THINK.

THE COURT: I MEAN, I WISH WE COULD HAVE THE SAVINGS. BY THE WAY, THE SAVINGS, YOU MAY HAVE MENTIONED THIS, IS A RESULT OF TECHNOLOGY. THE SAVINGS COMES TO US FROM GPS TECHNOLOGY RATHER THAN USING THE OLD-FASHIONED FLOODPLAIN MAPS.

WE GOT THE $70,000 SAVINGS. NOW WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IS YOU COULD HAVE NO SAVINGS, BUT

[03:05:01]

YOU COULD HAVE HUGE COVERAGE HERE, MOST LIKELY EVERYTHING. BUT WE WON'T KNOW THAT EXACT DOLLAR UNTIL THEY INPUT IT IN TO THE COMPUTER, BASED OFF THE REASONABLENESS OF WHAT WE'RE

SEEING FOR THOSE THAT THEY DID EVALUATE. >> SO THE PARKS BUILDING WASN'T

COVERED WITH FLOOD BEFORE? THE COURT: IT WAS NOT. >> LET ME SEE.

NO, THE PADRE VALLEY WAS. IT WAS THIS RENEWAL THAT THE AMRISK TOOK THE FLOOD OFF.

THAT IS WHY I'M BRINGING THIS UP. >> BUT IT WAS COVERED, RIGHT?

>> YES, IT WAS. >> THAT IS WHY WE'RE BRINGING UP THIS LIST TODAY.

BECAUSE IN THE HARD CHANGE OF IT, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO PROVIDE FLOOD.

THE REINSURANCE NO LONGER ALLOWS THEM TO ON A COASTAL PIECE LIKE THAT.

>> I WOULD THINK, JUDGE, UNDER 100 WE WOULD BE OKAY TO SELF-INSURE, BUT OVER THAT WE WOULD WANT TO GET A QUOTE? RIGHT? THE COURT: I AGREE.

WE JUST NEED A MOTION FOR A THRESHOLD. GO AHEAD.

TAKE IT. YOUR MOTION WAS FOR 100,000 THRESHOLD TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FLOOD INSURANCE OF PREMIUM AND TO DIRECT OUR BROKER OF RECORD TO GET THOSE QUOTES AND ADD IT

TO OUR OVERALL SELECTION HERE. >> SECOND. THE COURT: MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AND JUST BECAUSE WE'RE EXTRA CAREFUL, SCOTT, GO BACK THROUGH THE LIST AGAIN, MAKE SURE EVERYTHING UNDER 100 YOU THINK

IS PROPERLY SELF-INSURED. >> CONTENTS TOO? >> YOU CAN ADD CONTENTS, YEAH.

THE COURT: CUMULATIVE. DO YOU WANT TO DO YOUR -- IS YOUR MOTION CUMULATIVE

COMMISSIONER FOR 100? CONTENTS AND BUILDING? >> YOU CAN DO 500,000 ON THE BUILDING AND MAXIMUM OF 100,000 ON CONTENTS. THERE COULD BE UP TO 100,000 FOR CONTENTS. THE COURT: HALF A MILLION WILL COVER THE CONTENTS INSIDE THE

BUILDING. >> THE HALF MILLION RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE -- UNLESS IT SHOWS

CONTENTS IS BUILDING ONLY. >> DOES ANY OF THIS FLOOD HAVE CONTENTS IN IT NOW? THE COURT: YES. MY MOTION IS WHATEVER THIS HAS WE DO A QUOTE FOR THE REST OF

IT AT 100,000 BUILDING THRESHOLD >> IT SHOWS THE BUILDING AND CONTENTS VALUE FOR EACH BUILDING THE COURT: SO HIS MOTION IS TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT WITH HOW YOU HAVE TACKLED ALL OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE QUOTED HERE.

SO YOU FEEL CLEAR NOW? SO THAT MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THAT TAKES CARE OF YOUR FLOOD. OKAY.

NOW LET'S GO BACK TO THE 100 MILLION WHICH REPRESENTS 34 PERCENT OF OUR OVERALL VALUE.

WILL YOU MENTION WHAT YOU MENTIONED TO ME THAT I THOUGHT WAS VALUABLE INFO TO HAVE THE COURT CONSIDER, WHICH IS THAT I SAID HOW -- WITHOUT REVEALING NAMES, HOW DO YOUR OTHER

JURISDICTIONS FALL? >> THEY FALL ANYWHERE -- WE HAVE AN ENTITY HERE BUILDING A LOT OF BIG BUILDINGS AND THEIRS IS ONLY 22 PERCENT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE READDRESSING. BECAUSE THEY'RE ADDING ON SUCH EXPENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS.

AS YOU KEEP ADDING MORE AND MORE HIGH VALUE, EVENTUALLY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE YOUR THRESHOLD. BUT THEY WERE ALWAYS ABOUT IN THE 30 TO 35 PERCENT RANGE

UNTIL ALL OF THESE NEW PROPERTIES HAD BEEN ADDED ON. >> IS THAT A DECENT GOAL?

>> IT WAS COINCIDENTAL THAT WE CHOSE 100 AND IT ENDED UP AT 34 PERCENT.

34 PERCENT IS DEFINITELY IN THE NORM. YOU'RE NOT IN THE LOWER

PORTION. >> JUDGE, IT'S A TOUGH CALL. I MEAN, WE COULD BE THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD OR THE MOST FOOLISH, BUT I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE NUMBER THAT EVERYBODY ELSE SEEMS TO FOLLOW AND QUITE HONESTLY, LOOKING AT THE INCREASES TOO, I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT AS WELL. I MEAN --

>> THERE IS ONE STATEMENT THAT I WOULD SHARE. Y'ALL'S IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL BECAUSE A LARGE PORTION OF YOUR TOTAL VALUE IS SITTING RIGHT HERE AND THEN THE JAIL.

THEY'RE BOTH RIGHT HERE TOGETHER. THE OTHERS ARE DISPERSED AROUND. SO A TORNADO COULD BE THE THING THAT WOULD WIPE OUT BOTH.

BUT WHAT ARE THE CHANCES. THE COURT: PLEASE DON'T SAY IT. >> PLEASE.

AFTER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. THE COURT: THE ONLY THING I WANT TO DO, BEFORE WE FINISH THIS CONVERSATION AND CALL FOR A VOTE, I DO WANT TO TURN TO DALE, NO MATTER WHETHER IT'S OPTION ONE OR TWO, OUR FIRST BIG CONTINGENT LIABILITY. AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WEIGH

[03:10:05]

IN ON THE DECISION MAKING. WHAT ABOUT THE 182, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN -- I'M SORRY. 182. DO YOU HAVE A FEEL ONE WAY OR ANOTHER? BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF AN OUCH ON THE 503.

>> JUDGE, AS WE GO THROUGH THE BUDGETING PROCESS, WE HAVE OTHER CONTINGENT COMING UP WITH OUR SALARY INCREASES AS WELL AS OTHER PERSONAL ACTION. SO UNTIL WE KNOW THOSE EXACT BALANCES, THE LEAST IMPACT YOU HAVE, BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE ARE LARGE INCREASES.

SO IF 100 MILLION IS 34 PERCENT, THAT IS ABOUT WHERE THE THRESHOLD IS.

I WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND OPTION TWO. THE COURT: OKAY.

I CALLED HER IN TO MEET THE CARLISLE GROUP TO GO OVER THIS. YOUR FORMER AUDITOR, YOU'RE A COURT MANAGER, ALWAYS HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR INPUT TOO. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I THINK THAT WE'VE REALLY HAD A TOUGH TOUGH DECISION. BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A DIFFERENTIAL. WHAT GIVES ME PAUSE TO SAY OKAY IS THAT 34 PERCENT NORM.

AND HOWEVER, I CERTAINLY WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS AT THIS POINT

BEFORE WE ASK FOR MOTIONS. COMMISSIONERS. >> MY CONCERN IS WE HAVE TO BE PRACTICAL WITH THIS. I THINK EVERYBODY HAS WORKED TO GET US THERE.

I MEAN, I KNOW THERE NEED TO BE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO MEET SOME CONCERNS.

BUT I SUPPORT WHAT IS BEFORE US. THERE IS A LEVEL OF COVERAGE WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT COVERS TO HOPEFULLY WORST CASE SCENARIO. BUT THE REALITY IS WE HAVE TO FIND A PRICE THAT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN AFFORD AS WELL.

THE ONLY THING IS I WORRY THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS COVERED AND YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALS, THEY YOU KNOW, FOR THEIR OWN, IF THEY HAVE A MEANS, TRY TO COVER EVERYTHING THEY CAN AND THEIR OWN COVERAGE, WHAT THE COUNTY CAN'T IS CONCERNING. SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND OTHER ENTITIES THAT HAVE TO REALLY BASICALLY OPERATE THE SAME WAY BECAUSE OF THE PRICE POINT.

THE WAY THE MARKET IS RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO COVER AT 100 PERCENT.

I'M GOOD WITH WHAT WE HAVE. THE COURT: OKAY. TWO HIGHLIGHTS TO POINT OUT.

WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY GOING DOWN EVER SO SLIGHTLY.

BUT THERE IS A LITTLE SAVINGS THERE. ONE OF THE ONES THAT KIND OF CATCHES YOUR EYE IS THE -- LET ME SEE. WHERE WAS IT?

>> WHEN Y'ALL HAD TO INCREASE YOUR LIMIT ON YOUR AUTO LIABILITY.

I THINK IT COST AN EXTRA $35,000. THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT ENTERPRISE, JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, ENTERPRISE REQUIRED IT.

BUT THE CEMETERY IS A SMALL PART. THREE VEHICLES VERSUS THE REST.

THE COURT: 70 OR SOMETHING. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION THEN?

>> SO MOVED THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO IS YOUR OPTION TWO YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER? NO WORRIES. OPTION 2 IS THE MOTION.

AND THERE IS A SECOND. AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

OKAY. YOU NOW HAVE MARCHING ORDERS BOTH ON THE FLOOD PIECE OF IT PLUS THE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY PIECE OF IT. AND LET'S STAY QUIET FROM JUNE

TO SEPTEMBER. >> ON BEHALF OF US AND OUR STAFF, WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE Y'ALL ALLOWING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE A PART OF YOUR TEAM.

THANK Y'ALL. THE COURT: YOU GUYS ARE GREAT. CHASE COULDN'T JOIN US TODAY, BUT BOY, IS HE A WONDERFUL ASSET. THIS CHART IS INCREDIBLY HELPFUL AND INSTRUCTIVE. YOU GUYS WORKED SO HARD. YOU DID NOT PROVIDE TO US,

[03:15:03]

MAYBE YOU DID TO THE WHOLE COURT, THE MARKETING SUMMARY. BUT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO UNDERSTAND HOW MANY MARKETS WE WENT OUT TO TO GET THESE HIGHLY COMPETITIVE BIDS TO BE THE LOWEST THEY COULD BE. WE NEED TO GET HER A COPY. BUT YOU GUYS, TO CREATE THIS BINGO BOARD HERE, IT TAKES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK. SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS OUR GRATITUDE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY. IT IS A DIFFICULT MARKET.

AND WE KNOW YOU DID THE BEST -- YOU WERE STILL TWEAKING NUMBERS LOWERED YESTERDAY.

[17. Discuss and consider the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of the Nueces County Fire Marshal, pursuant to Sec. 551.074 of the Texas Government Code.]

SO OKAY. THANK YOU ALL. >> QUICK HOUSEKEEPING ON REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 17. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THAT INDEFINITELY.

THE COURT: TABLE ITEM 17. MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE -- ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. TABLE 17. ACTUALLY, TO INFINITY AND

[1. Receive update on 1st quarter activities from Port of Corpus Christi Authority of Nueces County.]

BEYOND. ALSO, THERE IS A TABLE ON ITEM NUMBER 1, MS. HILLIARD'S SON WAS GRADUATING. SO WE HAVE A RESCHEDULE WITH THE COURT.

I'M CERTAIN THAT IT'S COMING. I JUST DON'T KNOW THE DATE IN JUNE.

ITEM NUMBER ONE. >> SECOND. THE COURT: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OKAY.

[22. Discuss and consider Game Room Regulations and Application, and other related matters.]

AND THEN IF THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, WE CAN NOW MOVE TO -- LOOKING AT THE ROOM.

WE CAN MOVE TO THE GAME ROOMS. THAT IS ITEM NUMBER 22. BE HAPPY TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. AND THEN WE CAN WORK WITH JENNY.

WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW. I'VE GOT IT IN ORDER THE WAY Y'ALL SIGNED UP. SO LET ME JUST CALL IT THAT WAY.

IT'S WILL MARTIN FIRST, FOLLOWED BY SUZANNE TAYLOR. OKAY.

NO WORRIES. GO AHEAD. >> JUDGE, ARE WE GOING TO RUN THE TIMER FOR THIS? THE COURT: I KNOW YOU GUYS WILL UNDERSTAND WE'VE GOT AT LEAST EIGHT OF YOU, NINE OF YOU, YOU'LL TAKE GOOD CARE I KNOW TO WATCH YOUR TIME.

GO AHEAD. >> REFER TO THE E-MAIL I SENT Y'ALL LAST NIGHT AND THIS MORNING, WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR THE WORDING THAT I'VE GIVEN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND NOW Y'ALL, THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING. IT COMES FROM THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND REFERS TO THE AMUSEMENT REDEMPTION MACHINE.

IT IS JUST A DEFINITION. TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THAT TO BE PUT IN AT 1.4B. THE COURT: I'M GOING TO REFER THOSE COMMENTS TO COUNTY ATTORNEY AT THIS TIME. AND SHE'S GOT YOUR E-MAIL.

>> YEAH. WE TALKED YESTERDAY. WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH.

AND SHE SAID THAT SHE COULDN'T MAKE THAT DECISION, Y'ALL HAD TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

THAT IS THE REASON I BROUGHT IT FORWARD. >> THERE ARE RAMIFICATIONS TO THAT WHICH WE'LL EXPLAIN IN A MOMENT THAT IS THE POLICY DECISION.

THE COURT: FAIR ENOUGH. SHE IS GOING TO EXPLAIN IT TO US.

WE'LL GET TO WEIGH IN. ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO. THAT IS ALL THAT -- WILL YOU WILL HAVE A BETTER EXPLANATION. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. >> MY NAME IS WILL MARTIN. THREE YEARS, JUDGE, SINCE I FIRST SAT IN OFFICE WITH YOU AND SHERIFF HOOPER AND WE STARTED ON THIS ROAD TO GETTING RID OF THESE ILLEGAL GAMBLING. AND WE WENT THROUGH A PANDEMIC AND WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE FINISH LINE HERE. THIS CHANGING OF ON PAGE 3 OF 1.4B, AMUSEMENT AND REDEMPTION MACHINES, IT'S THERE FOR PROTECTION OF Y'ALL AND ALSO FOR THE PROTECTION FOR THE BINGO HALL. MAKE SURE WE HAVE COMPLIANT MACHINES IN THERE.

AND THE ONLY THING YOU CAN WIN OFF OF THOSE MACHINES IS A GIFT CERTIFICATE THAT IS ONLY REDEEMABLE THERE AT THAT BINGO HALL FOR A BINGO PRODUCT. SO IT HELPS THE CHARITIES MAKE A LITTLE MORE MONEY AND BRINGS MORE CROWD IN. AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THAT, THANK YOU. THE COURT: OKAY.

NEXT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- YOU ALREADY KNOW. NO WORRIES.

[03:20:02]

JUST ANNOUNCE. >> HELLO, GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

SUZANNE TAYLOR HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CHARITIES. I WORK WITH MULTIPLE CHARITIES THAT USE BINGO GAMES. ONE OF THE ONES THAT I WORK WITH IS BIG BROTHERS, BIG SISTERS. PEE WEE'S PET ADOPTION. CORPUS CHRISTI NAVY LEAGUE.

I AM THE TREASURER FOR LOST PET HOTLINE. SO I'M VERY WELL AWARE OF WHAT BINGO FUNDS WE RECEIVE AND WHAT IS DONE WITH THE BINGO FUNDS. SOMETHING I HEARD SOMEBODY TALKING THE OTHER DAY, 100 PERCENT OF THE NET PROCEEDS FROM BINGO GAMES GO TO THE BINGO CHARITIES. THE LOTTERY COMMISSION HAS A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS.

WE'VE MENTIONED YOU KNOW, THE HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF REQUIREMENTS.

THEY REQUIRE, ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT ALL EXPENSES MUST BE NECESSARY AND REASONABLE. AND ALL THE BOOKS AND RECORDS ARE AUDITED FOR COMPLIANCE, AT LEAST ANNUALLY. THEY COME IN AND MONITOR BY THE QUARTER.

THEY LOOK AT ALL OF THE EXPENSES. THEY LOOK AT WHERE THE MONEY WENT AND THE MONEY THAT THE ORGANIZATIONS EVEN SEND TO THEIR GENERAL ACCOUNTS, YOU HAVE TO BRING RECORDS OF WHERE THE CHARITIES SPENT THE MONEY. AND IT HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR IRS NON-PROFIT STATUS. SO IT'S VERY VERY REGULATED.

IT COMPLIED. AND ONCE AGAIN, THE MONEY GOES RIGHT DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE, WHICH IS THE CHARITIES. BECAUSE I WORK WITH THE BOOKS OF THESE CHARITIES, I CAN TELL YOU I SEE WHERE THAT MONEY COMES FROM. I SEE HOW HELPFUL THAT MONEY IS. AND THAT IS WHY THE GAME ROOMS, I MEAN, FIRST WE HAD COVID AND THEN BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS. WE HAVE A DINNER AND PEOPLE COME TO THE DINNER, THEY PAY FOR THE TICKETS AND STUFF. OF COURSE, DURING COVID, THERE WAS NO DINNERS.

THERE WERE NO FUND RAISING OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAD BEEN DOING.

AND SO WHEN GAME ROOMS CAME IN AND TOOK THE MONEY OUT OF THE BINGO HALLS, THAT WAS A 1-2 ON ALL OF THE ORGANIZATIONS. GLAD TO SEE THAT WE'RE DOING SOMETHING TO REGULATE GAME ROOMS. YOU HAVE THE MASSAGE PARLOR, IT HAS REGULATIONS.

ANY BUSINESS NEEDS REGULATIONS AND OVERSIGHT. I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR GOING TO THE EFFORT TO PUT TOGETHER AND LOOK AT IT AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING.

THANKS. THE COURT: THANK YOU. SUSIE SALDANIA.

BETTY, YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'RE NEXT. IT SAYS BETTY SHEETS

>> VERY QUICKLY. ALL I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU IS FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR UP SOMETHING BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S CLEAR. THE CHARITIES IN THE BINGO HALL ARE THE CHARITIES THAT ARE LICENSED TO PLAY IN THE BINGO THOSE CHARITIES HAVE BEEN LICENSED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS. OTHER CHARITIES ARE CHARITIES THAT HAVE THEIR STATUS FROM IRS, BUT THEY ARE NOT LICENSED TO PLAY IN A BINGO HALL. WHEN WE ASKED FOR A DONATION FOR CHARITIES, THAT -- IN OTHER WORDS, SAY YOU HAVE A CHARITY YOU LIKE.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN COVID HIT AND ALL THIS HIT, WE WERE HURT. NOT YOUR CHARITY. IT WAS A BINGO THAT WAS HURT.

I JUST NEED TO BE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND, CHARITIES, I WISH ALL OF YOU HAD A CHARITY AND A BINGO HALL. BUT BESIDES THAT, THE ONE ONLY THING I REALLY WANT TO TELL YOU IS, IT'S NOT READABLE, BUT I'LL TRY MY BEST. IT WAS GIVEN TO ME LAST NIGHT.

BETTY, THANK YOU FOR FOOD FOR MY TWO BABIES. WE LOVE YOU AND WE APPRECIATE IT. KEEP UP YOUR GOOD WORK. THANK YOU.

AND A CAN OF SIMILAC WAS $27 TODAY. IT WASN'T THAT MUCH A YEAR AGO I DON'T THINK. BUT WE'RE DOING IT. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. AGAIN, SOME OF YOU HAVE SPOKEN ALREADY.

SO I'LL JUST ASK YOU TO STAND, BUT EDDIE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO NEXT.

YOU'RE FINE. OKAY. I'VE GOT SUSIE AND KATHLEEN WHITE. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE I'VE MISSED ON THE CHART.

OKAY. WANT TO WALK YOU THROUGH SOMETHING. BECAUSE THIS THING EVERY TIME I HAVE COME UP HERE, THE BINGO PEOPLE ARE HERE. AND THEY KEEP SAYING WE'VE BEEN WORKING AT THIS FOR THREE YEARS. YES.

THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR THREE YEARS TO GET RID OF THEIR COMPETITION.

[03:25:04]

THAT IS WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING. THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THEIR COMPETITION. AS A CONSUMER AND I'VE TOLD YOU THAT I DON'T REPRESENT ANY GAME ROOM, I REPRESENT MYSELF AND THE PEOPLE THAT PLAY IN THOSE GAME ROOMS. I DON'T PLAY BINGO. I'VE TOLD YOU THAT BEFORE. BECAUSE IF WE CANNOT HAVE A GOOD TIME, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TELL US HOW TO DO OUR TIME AND HOW TO SPEND OUR MONEY.

WHAT I'M HERE TO TELL YOU IS I LOOKED AT YOUR DRAFT, I KNOW THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THEM FOR 30 YEARS, SHE'S MET WITH ME ONCE. OKAY.

IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN LISTENING TO SOMEBODY FOR THREE YEARS AND MEETING WITH A PERSON ONE TIME. BIG DIFFERENCE IN TO THE INPUT. WHAT I'M LOOKING IS TO LOOK AT THESE REGULATIONS. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR REGULATIONS.

WHAT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM IS YOU TRYING TO LIMIT THE HOURS THAT THOSE GAME ROOMS ARE GOING TO BE REGULATED FOR. FROM WHAT IS IT? 11 TO 8 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME THAT I CAN ONLY GO THERE FROM NOON TO 8

>> NOON TO MIDNIGHT ON SUNDAYS TO THURSDAY AND 2:00 P.M. TO 2:00 A.M. ON FRIDAYS AND

SATURDAYS >> SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT IT'S 2:00 P.M. ON WEEKENDS UNTIL 2:00 A.M.? OKAY. THAT IS SOUNDS GOOD.

FAIR. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

WHAT IS THE ONE FOR THE WEEKDAY? >> 12 NOON TO MIDNIGHT.

>> MIDNIGHT. WISH IT WAS EARLIER. BUT IF THAT WAS YOU COME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION, I WOULD PREFER TO 11 TO THAT TIME. BUT YOU HAVE COME TO A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS THAT WE AS CONSUMERS WANT IN THE GAME ROOMS. ALSO, I'M SICK AND TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THE REGULATIONS THAT THE BINGO HALLS HAVE.

YOU WANT TO GIVE ME 133 PAGES OF REGULATIONS, GIVE THEM TO ME.

WANT TO DO THAT, GIVE IT TO ME. GIVE IT TO ME. DON'T CRY ABOUT IT.

BECAUSE YOU'RE DOING IT. BECAUSE YOU'RE PULLING PULL TABS.

THAT IS NOT BINGO. PULL TABS TAKE A LOT OF MONEY FROM PEOPLE.

YOU WANT TO WORRY ABOUT PEOPLE NOT HAVING MONEY FOR THEIR GROCERIES, LOOK AT THE PULL TABS. LOOK AT THE EXTRA THINGS THAT THEY HAVE IN THE BINGO HALLS.

LOOK AT WHAT THEY SELL THEIR FOOD FOR. LOOK AT THE MONEY THAT THEY MAKE. AND THEN TELL ME THAT IT'S GOING TO CHARITIES.

WHEN THEY TELL YOU IT'S GOING STRICTLY TO CHARITIES, SOMEBODY GO AND AUDIT THEM PLEASE AND FIND OUT WHAT IT'S REALLY ABOUT. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS UP.

BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF YOU HAVE CONSTITUENTS THAT GO TO THE GAME ROOM.

TRUST ME, THEY TALK TO ME. BRENT CHESNEY IS MY PERSON, PEOPLE FROM THE ISLAND COME ALL THE WAY OVER. PEOPLE FROM ROBSTOWN, PEOPLE FROM ALL AROUND SOUTH TEXAS THAT COME OVER TO THE GAME ROOMS. JUST REGULATE THEM.

DO THE RIGHT THING. GIVE US OUR CHOICE ON HOW WE CAN DO THINGS.

DON'T LET A FEW PEOPLE DICTATE WHAT THE REST OF US WANT. THANK YOU

THE COURT: THANK YOU. KATHLEEN WHITE. >> JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME AGAIN. I CAME TODAY BECAUSE I NEEDED TO EXPRESS THE NEED FOR THE LANGUAGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND THE TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION SO THAT WE'RE NOT CAUGHT IN BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE AND UNABLE TO HAVE THE GAMES THAT ARE ANTICIPATED UNDER THE ORDINANCE. HAVING HEARD ALL OF THESE COMMENTS, I GUESS I WANT TO COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF THINGS, MS. SALDANIA SAID, WITH NO DISRESPECT INTENDED WITH HER, I'VE HAD ONE MEETING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THREE YEARS, IS TO TRY TO GET LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ENFORCE THE STATE GAMBLING LAWS AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE HOPING THAT THIS PROVIDES THEM WITH TOOLS THAT HELP THEM TO DO THAT. WE HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING ON THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE WITH

[03:30:01]

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THREE YEARS. NUMBER TWO, VERY IMPORTANTLY, THE REASON WE TALK ABOUT THE BINGO REGULATIONS IS BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN THE GAME ROOM REGULATIONS IS A VERY MINISCULE MINOR LEVEL OF REGULATIONS COMPARED TO THE REGULATIONS THAT WE DEAL WITH YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT, ALL OF THE TIME.

SO THAT IS WHY THAT IS BROUGHT UP. ANOTHER THING IS THE BINGO HALLS ARE NOT TRYING TO GET RID OF THE GAME ROOMS. WE'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF ILLEGAL GAME ROOMS AND PROVIDE FOR A WAY TO REGULATE THE EXISTING GAME ROOMS, TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE LEGALLY OPERATED UNDER STATE LAWS. AND I THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORT. AND WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE -- OH.

THE LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE -- THAT MARGARET TALKED TO Y'ALL ABOUT AND E-MAILED Y'ALL ABOUT, MONTHS AGO I SENT Y'ALL A BUNCH OF PROJECTIONS COMPARED TO VICTORIA COUNTY, AND WHAT WE COULD EXPECT WITH THOSE REDEMPTION MACHINES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION RULES. AND THAT LANGUAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE NECESSARY OR ALL THE PROJECTIONS THAT I DID WOULD BE NULL AND VOID. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

THE COURT: REPEAT THAT. >> ABOUT 6 MONTHS AGO, I DID PROJECTIONS BASED UPON VICTORIA COUNTY AND THAT LANGUAGE THAT WE NEED CHANGED WITHIN THE VICTORIA COUNTY, SO THEY WERE ABLE TO RUN THOSE REDEMPTION MACHINES. IF IT'S NOT -- IF THAT CHANGE IS NOT MADE IN NUECES COUNTY, THEN THOSE MACHINES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE OPERATED UNDER TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION LAWS, THEY WOULD NOT BE IN THE BINGO HALL.

THEREFORE, THOSE PROJECTIONS THAT I SENT Y'ALL WOULD BE NULL AND VOID.

THE COURT: OKAY. THE LANGUAGE NEEDS TO -- >> IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT.

THE COURT: CHANGED IN ORDER TO SHOW THOSE PROJECTIONS. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

WE HAVE TO HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN THIS ORDINANCE CORRELATE WITH WHAT THE LOTTERY COMMISSION ALLOWS AND WHAT THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE ALLOWS. OR ELSE IT CAN'T BE.

THEN THEY WOULDN'T EXIST. JENNY IS GOING TO GET TO HOPEFULLY WEIGH IN ON THIS.

FAIR ENOUGH. THE COURT: ANYBODY ELSE WANTS TO WEIGH IN HERE.

I'M GOING TO TURN TO JENNY. YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME TO FOLLOW UP.

WE MAY HAVE TO DO A BATHROOM BREAK HERE. BUT JENNY, IF YOU'RE ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO LET -- WILL WILL TAKE A BATHROOM BREAK. JENNY FIRST, TO KEEP IT

CONSISTENT. GO AHEAD. >> THE PROBLEM WITH HAVING A CERTIFICATE THAT COULD BE USED FOR SAY, FURTHER PLAY, THAT IS NOT ALLOWABLE FOR THE REDEMPTION MACHINES ON WHAT THE COUNTY'S RESPONSIBLE FOR. OKAY.

SO YOU CAN'T GO IN AND SAY I'M GOING TO WIN THE ABILITY TO PLAY MORE TIMES.

BECAUSE THEN YOU VERY QUICKLY CAN RUN AFOUL OF THE NO WINNING SOMETHING THAT IS NO MORE THAN FIVE DOLLARS WORTH OR TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT OF PLAY. THAT IS A VARIABLE THAT IS NOT CONTROLLED. OKAY. SO AS FAR AS ADDING THE PART THAT SAYS GIFT CERTIFICATE, IF WE CAN POSSIBLY TAILOR AND MATT CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF THE GIFT CERTIFICATES CAN BE SOLELY FOR ITEMS THAT DON'T SAY NOT MORE SESSIONS, NOT MORE CARDS, SOMETHING AT THE GAME ROOM THAT IS A NON-GAME ITEM, THAT WE CAN PROBABLY WORK WITH.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. ACCORDING TO THE WORDING THAT WE HAVE THERE, IS THE MACHINE SAYING -- I'M SORRY. THE COURT: I CAN GET YOU THE MICROPHONE, COMMISSIONER.

IT'S RIGHT THERE. >> THAT'S GOOD. WHEN THE MACHINE IS PLAYING AND

YOU COME UP WITH ALREADY THE FIVE DOLLAR WHATEVER IT IS >> IT'S PER ROUND.

PER GAME. SO YOU CAN WIN UP TO FIVE PER PULL, CLICK, WHATEVER.

>> YOU WIN I'M THERE FOR 20 MINUTES >> OR TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT OF

PLAY, WHICHEVER IS LESS. >> SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU COULD HAVE A LARGE PAY-OUT.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE WITH MY QUESTIONS. I THOUGHT ONCE YOU GET IT, YOU HAVE TO STOP. OKAY. YES, SIR.

>> THIS IS MATT DENNIS FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.

[03:35:03]

TO QUICKLY PIGGY BACK ON WHAT MS. DORCY WAS SAYING, BASICALLY YES, THE WAY THE GAME ROOM ORDINANCES ARE WRITTEN, YOU CAN HAVE GAME ROOMS AS LONG AS IT'S LIKE CHUCK E. CHEESE PRIZES.

BINGO HALLS, GIVE GIFT CERTIFICATES THAT SAYS YOU CANNOT GIVE OUT BINGO GIFT CERTIFICATES, IF THEY HAVE MACHINES IN THERE, THEY NEED TO BE GIVING OUT THE SAME KIND OF

PRIZES THAT A GAME ROOM WOULD BE GIVING OUT. >> SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE BINGO ROOMS HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME GUIDELINES AS FAR AS THE MACHINES ARE CONCERNED.

THEY HAVE THE MACHINES IN THE BINGO ROOMS NOW, THOSE MACHINES HAVE TO ALSO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, YOU CAN PLAY AND ONLY WIN FIVE DOLLAR GIFT, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. SAME LIMITATIONS AS ANY OTHER GAME ROOM, EXCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF GIVING OUT A BINGO GIFT CERTIFICATE THAT WOULD ONLY BE REDEEMABLE AT

WHATEVER BINGO HALL. >> COST MORE MONEY? >> THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE TAC OPINION AND OAG OPINION STATE, IT WOULD BE BASICALLY A QUASI CASH ITEM, FUZZY ANIMAL EXCEPTION THAT MAKES GAMBLING LEGAL AND THAT LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCE WHEN WE'RE TALKING

CHUCK E. CHEESE OR DAVE AND BUSTERS. >> SAY FOR INSTANCE ON THAT MACHINE, YOU'RE WINNING TICKETS, MAYBE YOU ARE, WINNING TICKETS, THOSE TICKETS, YOU GO

IN AND YOU TURN IN THE TICKETS FOR A CERTIFICATE LATER ON? >> NO. DEPENDING -- YEAH.

SO BASED ON THE CASE LAW, THERE IS A SUPREME COURT CASE WHERE THEY WOULD BRING OUT VISA GIFT CARDS OR WALMART GIFT CARDS. THERE IS AN OAG OPINION THAT SAYS YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE IT OUT FOR A TOKEN TO PLAY A BINGO GAME LATER. YOU CAN GET A PENCIL ERASER.

CHUCK E. CHEESE KIND OF PRIZES, TOTALLY OKAY. >> NO FOOD?

>> I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU CAN GIVE FOOD. BUT WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT ISSUE. THE COURT: HAVING THAT OPINION, KATHLEEN MIGHT HAVE A QUESTION.

WHAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST IS PROBABLY NEW INFORMATION COMING TO YOU GUYS?

NO. NOT NEW INFORMATION. >> AG OPINION IS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE. BUT WHAT COMMISSIONER GONZALES WAS SAYING, IF YOU GO AND PLAY TEN TIMES, YOU CAN WIN MORE THAN FIVE DOLLARS OR TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT -- BECAUSE IT'S ON EACH PLAY. OKAY. THESE REDEMPTION TICKETS ARE BASED ON THE EXACT SAME STATE LAW AND RULES. THEY'RE NOT AN EXCESS.

SO WHEN YOU'RE GOING INTO THE GAME ROOM AND YOU PLAY, THEY GIVE YOU CASH THAT MEETS THE FIVE DOLLARS OR TEN TIMES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE REDEMPTION MACHINES GIVE YOU A CERTIFICATE, INSTEAD OF CASH FOR THAT EXACT SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT.

SO THESE ARE NOT IN EXCESS OF THE STATE LAW RULES, THEY'RE THE EXACT SAME RULES THAT THE

GAME ROOMS ARE ABIDING BY. >> IF WE ADD THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THERE, WOULD THAT CLEAR IT

UP >> STOP ME IF I'M TALKING TOO MUCH HERE, I DON'T THINK SO.

I THINK IT'S BECAUSE THE NATURE OF THE PRIZE IS SOMETHING FUNGIBLE THAT YOU COULD GET

FROM A BINGO HALL. >> BOTH ARE NON-CASH. IN ALL INSTANCES, IT'S NON-CASH. THE COURT: SO WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE -- IT MIGHT BE A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY, I CAN TAKE A BATHROOM BREAK FOR STAFF AND ME.

MAYBE YOU ALL CAN VISIT WITH KATHLEEN AND FOLKS ABOUT THIS VERY ISSUE AND IT'S JUST GOOD.

I MEAN, THAT WAY YOU COULD SHOW HER AND DISCUSS IT. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO A RECESS. COULD I HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT

>> HOW LONG WOULD YOU LIKE? >> THE COURT: 12:30.

>> SO MOVED. >> I'VE GOT A SECOND BY MYSELF. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE COUNTY'S ATTORNEY -- COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DOES NOT PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE OR ANYTHING TO NON-COURT MEMBERS OR MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT IS OUT THERE.

THE COURT: I APPRECIATE THAT. I KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND THAT. SHE'S NOT HERE TO BE YOUR LAWYER. SHE IS HERE TO BE OURS. HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE WILLING AND AMENABLE, IT MIGHT HELP IN THE FACILITATION OF TODAY'S MEETING TO SHARE THE INFORMATION THAT

YOU'VE JUST PROVIDED TO THE COURT. >> CAN WE PASS SOMETHING

[03:40:06]

SUBJECT TO YOU KNOW, Y'ALL SITTING DOWN AND DOING THIS LATER SO YOU GET YOUR 15 MINUTE BREAK TOO. THE COURT: THAT WOULD BE NICE SHE SAYS.

>> LIKE A SUBJECT TO FURTHER CONSULTATION, SO WE COULD PASS THE WHOLE ORDINANCE, INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE SUBJECT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WORKING IT OUT OR NOT.

THE COURT: OKAY. WE CAN LIVE WITH THAT. THE ONLY THING IS, AGAIN, JUST UP TO HOW YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT IT, THERE WAS SOME SUGGESTION THAT --

>> THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE NEED GUIDANCE ON FOR THE COURT THE COURT: OKAY. SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP DOING IS TACKLING THIS

IN EXECUTIVE SESSION >> THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES FOR THE COURT TO MAKE A DECISION ON AS FAR AS DO YOU WANT TO TRY TO SET A PROJECTED START DATE. THE COURT: WE CAN DO THAT RIGHT

NOW. >> TAKE YOUR BREAK JUDGE AND COME BACK.

>> WE'LL MAKE IT 12:35. AND YOU'LL BULLET POINT THOSE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE THROUGH THEM. YOU ARE STILL ALLOWED TO TAKE A BREAK.

HE CAN START THE CONVERSATION AND YOU CAN COME RIGHT BACK. OKAY.

THE TIME IS 12:18. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR FOR THAT RECESS, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN. 12:18 THE COURT: DR. SCOTT ASKED COMMISSIONER CHESNEY TO READ. THIS IS ME OPENING PUBLIC

COMMENT. >> MOTION TO REOPEN THE COURT: 12:44.

MOTION TO REOPEN PUBLIC COMMENT IS MADE AND I'LL SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY

SAYING AYE. >> THIS IS A RELEASE BY THE NAACP ON THE CORPUS CHRISTI PRAYER VIGIL AGAINST HATE CRIMES FROM JEREMY LANE COLEMAN, CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS OVER THE NATIONS HAVE ORGANIZED PRAYER VIGILS FOR THE LIVES LOST AND REAFFIRM NAACP, AS PARTNERS IN THE FIGHT, TOGETHER WITH MORE THAN 2 MILLION ACTIVIST ACROSS THE COUNTRY, NAACP WORKS TO ENSURE QUALITY OF LIFE TO ALL PERSONS, NAACP, ALONG WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS, CLERGY AND CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS STAND FIRM AGAINST ALL KILLINGS IN OUR CITY AND NATION.

I BELIEVE THIS IS ALSO TO INCLUDE UVALDE IS WELL. SOLID ROCK CHURCH, TUESDAY, MAY 31ST, 2022, TIME 6 TO 7:00 P.M. THAT IS -- I'M READING THAT FROM ADAM CARRINGTON AND JEREMY LANE COLEMAN ON BEHALF OF NAACP.

THE COURT: WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT SHE KNOWS THAT WE READ THAT THERE.

WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME AND AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT OF IF YOU'LL ASSIST ME HERE, WITH PATIENCE, EVERYBODY, WHEN WE LAST BROKE, WE WERE DISCUSSING GAME ROOM REGULATIONS, AN ITEM ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE HERE AS WE PAUSE ON THAT AGENDA ITEM FOR RIGHT NOW. AND MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 5.

[5. Discuss and consider adopting an order granting an exemption under Section 262.024 of the Texas Local Government Code for construction management services; Discuss and consider selection of Advanced Construction Management for professional construction management services related to Intergovernmental Services Agreement (IGSA) projects and related matters; Discuss and consider approval of agreement with Advanced Construction related to IGSA; Discuss and consider Work Authorization; and related matters.]

TO ACCOMMODATE SCOTT WHO HAS TO LEAVE SHORTLY AT ONE O'CLOCK. ASKING THE COURT TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE ADOPTING AN ORDER GRANTING AN EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 262, OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATED TO IGSA PROJECTS, OTHER ACTION ITEMS REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT WITH ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION AND DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE WORK AUTHORIZATION.

FIRST WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE METHOD AND THEN THE SELECTION OF THE ENTITY.

AND THEN THE WORK, WHICH IS SCOPED OUT IN THE APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT AND THEN FINALLY, THE WORK AUTHORIZATION. SO IT'S A LITTLE INTENSIVE ITEM NUMBER 5.

SO AGAIN, SCOTT MEARS IS ON THE LINE, HE HAS BEEN WORKING WITH IGSA TEAM, INTER-GOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT AGREEMENTS. THE FIRST ONE IS READY TO COMMENCE.

AND SO THE PURPOSE HERE IS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE TO REPRESENT US IN THE

[03:45:05]

SERVICES. JUST KNOW THAT THESE SERVICES ARE REIMBURSED.

PLUS WE MAKE SEVEN PERCENT ON THE CONTRACT PER THE AGREEMENT. PASS-THROUGH.

SAYING IT'S A PASS-THROUGH. >> THOSE ARE THE KEYWORDS, I WANTED TO REITERATE, ALSO JUST TO GET THE AGREEMENT IN PLACE. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH A PROJECT.

THE COURT: I THINK BELINDA IS HERE. SHE CAN HELP.

I BELIEVE THERE IS A WORK AUTHORIZATION >> I'M SORRY.

>> YES. SCOTT MEARS IS ONLINE. BUT WHAT IS BEFORE Y'ALL WOULD BE AN UMBRELLA AGREEMENT, SO THAT MOVING FORWARD AS WE HAVE THESE TASK ORDERS COMING IN FROM THE NAVY, WE CAN GET SOMEBODY ON BOARD PRETTY QUICKLY.

BUT ALSO ATTACHED IS THE VERY FIRST WORK AUTHORIZATION. WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO FINISHING UP OUR VERY FIRST TASK ORDER THAT THE NAVY WILL BE SENDING FORWARD OFFICIALLY.

SO ON THE AGENDA FOR YOUR APPROVAL WOULD BE AN ORDER, THE ACTUAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AND THE VERY FIRST WORK AUTHORIZATION. AND THE WAY WE STRUCTURED THIS WAS THAT WE KIND OF HAVE AN UMBRELLA AGREEMENT AS WORK COMES FORWARD, WE WOULD BRING

THE WORK AUTHORIZATIONS TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. >> ALL RIGHT.

I WILL BE HAPPY TO TALK TO -- OR LET SCOTT UNMUTE, IN CASE HE WANTS TO OFFER ANYTHING. BUT I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR THE DISCUSSION AFTER I MAKE THE MOTION TO SELECT ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES RELATING TO

IGSA. >> SECOND THAT. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF

QUESTIONS. >> DALE, HOW DO WE HAVE THIS SET UP WITH THIS? WE HAVE AN IGSA ACCOUNT. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PAY MR. MEARS OR ANYBODY RELATED TO

THIS. AND THEN THEY REIMBURSE US? >> SETTING UP A GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT WITH A PROJECT CODE. ALL OF THE BILLINGS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE NAVY FOR REIMBURSEMENT SO NET EFFECT FOR US WOULD BE 0 EXPENSE BECAUSE THE REVENUE WILL OFFSET THE EXPENSE. ADDITIONAL REVENUE WILL GO TO THE GENERAL FUND.

>> SO YOU'RE GOING TO PAY HIM, REIMBURSED TO US AND GOES BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND.

>> CORRECT. THE COURT: THE COMMISSION THAT WE MAKE GOES INTO THE GENERAL

FUND. >> THAT WAS ALL I HAVE, JUDGE. THE COURT: I NEED TO DO THAT AND NEXT PIECE MEAL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE SELECTION FOR THE SERVICES, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THEN THERE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT RELATED TO IGSA.

BELINDA, EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER HERE, THIS IS THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION

MANAGEMENT AND OURSELVES. >> YES. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DRAFTED THIS AGREEMENT AND SCOTT HAS REVIEWED IT. THE COURT: SCOTT, ARE YOU GOOD WITH IT? ARE YOU EXCITING ABOUT THIS PROJECT?

>> GREAT WITH IT. AND VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

THE COURT: YOU'VE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME. DID YOU SEE CAPTAIN JASON HERE THIS MORNING, IT WAS PRETTY EXCITING TO HAVE THAT DESIGNATION OF THE BEST NAVAL

BASE IN THE COUNTRY. >> I DID. IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH THE NAVY BASE LEADERSHIP AND THE COUNTY LEADERSHIP AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY STAGES OF THIS INITIAL TASK ORDER. THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING OPPORTUNITY AND I COULDN'T BE HAPPIER TO BE A PART OF IT. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY.

THE COURT: VERY EXCITING. SO THE NEXT MOTION I HAVE IS TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT WITH ADVANCED CONSTRUCTION AS WRITTEN BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, AS ACCEPTED BY SCOTT MEARS.

I'LL MAKE THAT AS A MOTION. >> SECOND. THE COURT: SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. NOW, THE LAST PART IS THE ACTUAL WORK AUTHORIZATION. AND BOTH BELINDA AND SCOTT CAN HELP IDENTIFY.

TELL US ABOUT THIS FIRST WORK AUTHORIZATION AND BELINDA IS FILL IN ANY BLANKS.

SCOTT. >> CERTAINLY. SO THIS FIRST WORK AUTHORIZATION IS FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF WHAT WILL BE TEN FIRE HYDRANTS ON NAS CORPUS CHRISTI, AS DESIGNATED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS OFFICER. SO WE'VE WORKED WITH THE COUNTY AND WITH THE NAVY PRELIMINARILY TO KIND OF FINE TUNE THE SCOPE AND THE CONTENT OF THEIR SOLICITATION WHICH BELINDA MENTIONED WILL BE COMING FORWARD OFFICIALLY.

BUT IT WILL BE EXECUTING THE REPLACEMENT OF THOSE FIRE HYDRANTS.

AND THIS TASK ORDER FOR ME IS IN SUPPORT OF THE COUNTY AND EXECUTION OF THAT PROJECT.

THE COURT: UNDERSTOOD. NOW, BELINDA, ANYTHING TO ADD HERE THAT WE SHOULD KNOW OR ANY

QUESTIONS OF BELINDA OR SCOTT, COMMISSIONERS? >> WE WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD, WE OBVIOUSLY NEEDED TO GET MR. MEARS ON BOARD, BUT WE WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD THIS

[03:50:07]

OFFICIALLY THE FIRST TASK AUTHORIZATION, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY STARTED TO REACH OUT WITH THE SECOND PROJECT THAT WE HAVEN'T YET VETTED. BUT WE DO SEE THERE ARE MORE PROJECTS COMING ON THE WAY.

THE COURT: AWESOME. GREAT. I'VE GOT A MOTION -- NO. I WILL MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE WORK AUTHORIZATION FOR THESE TEN FIRE HYDRANTS AND ASK FOR A

SECOND. >> SECOND. THE COURT: MOTION AND A SECOND.

I'M JUST CURIOUS, SCOTT, DO WE BUY -- IS THIS WORK -- WE'RE REPLACING THE HYDRANTS.

SO IT'S SOMETHING WE PURCHASE OR IS IT IN-SERVICES. JUST A LITTLE DETAIL THERE.

JUST SO I CAN LEARN. >> THE NAVY WILL ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE FIRE HYDRANTS, FROM THE COUNTY SIDE, THE CONTRACT SKILLED LABOR TO REMOVE AND INSTALL THE NEW HYDRANTS.

THE COURT: SUPER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. GREAT. BEFORE YOU GO, LET ME JUST EXTEND AN INVITATION, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, THE BASE IS IN YOUR PRECINCT, IS IT NOT?

>> YES, MA'AM. THE COURT: I WAS GOING TO SAY, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE ABLE TO JUNE 10TH, JOIN ME, SCOTT, YOU'RE OFFICIALLY INVITED, BY MOTION OF THIS COURT, THE SECRETARY OF INSTALLATIONS AND ENERGY FOR THE NAVY IS SENDING THEIR I GUESS SECOND IN COMMAND TO CORPUS CHRISTI TO DISCUSS IGSA'S FUTURE ENERGY PROJECTS, PRETTY EXCITING STUFF.

THIS IS LIKE YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER TWO PERSON FROM THE NAVY YARD IN THIS SPACE.

IT'S A SHE. LOVING THAT. MS. SANDRA KLEIN.

AND I WOULD REALLY LOVE IT IF YOU WOULD PUT IT ON YOUR AGENDA, GETTING THE FORMAL INVITES OUT NOW. BUT IT'S SOMETIMES HARD TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.

IF YOU WANT TO DEFER TO YOUR BROTHER HERE, IN A VETERAN, YOU CAN DO THAT.

IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT. TO COMMISSIONER GONZALES AND WE PROMISE THAT IF THERE IS OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, WE'LL INCLUDE OTHER COMMISSIONERS. BUT I THINK THIS FIRST ONE,

WHAT DO YOU SAY? >> JUDGE, I AM GOING TO BE OUT OF TOWN ON THAT DAY.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO DEFER TO COMMISSIONER GONZALES. >> IF HE WANTS TO COME, COMMISSIONER. OR ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER. BUT SCOTT, IF YOU'LL MARK THAT ON YOUR CALENDAR, WE'LL SEND YOU THAT FORMAL INVITE. IT SHOULD BE REALLY EXCITING.

>> YES, MA'AM. WILL DO. YOU'RE TALKING BIG PROJECTS.

SO WONDERFUL. THAT IS IT, RIGHT, GUYS? GOT IT.

ALL CLEAR NOW, SCOTT. YOU CAN GET ON TO YOUR NEXT MEETING.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY. THE COURT: THANK YOU.

OKAY. WE'LL GO BACK TO WHERE WE LEFT OFF, WHICH IS THE GAME ROOM DISCUSSION. JENNY, DO YOU WANT TO OFFER ANY UPDATES?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT IS READY TO MAKE A DATE LIKE THIS. LOGISTICALLY SPEAKING, I DON'T KNOW IF ALL THE PIECES ARE IN PLACE. BUT WE DO NEED A DECISION AT SOME POINT ON AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATION. AND SO BEFORE THAT, YOU MIGHT

WANT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SHERIFF -- >> I WAS GOING TO SAY.

SEEING AS WE HAVE NO INFRASTRUCTURE AT ALL PUT IN PLACE FOR THIS, I THINK WE CAN'T MAKE IT EFFECTIVE TOO SOON. I'M NOT TRYING TO STALL IT.

BUT WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THE APPLICATION. WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK. WE AT LEAST NEED 60 OR 90 DAYS FOR THE SHERIFF TO PUT THIS ALL

TOGETHER. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT WANTS TO SUGGEST A POTENTIAL DATE AND THEN HAVE US TRY TO WORK TOWARDS THAT. BUT I THINK BUILT IN TO THAT SHOULD BE THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DON'T WANT IT TO GO INTO EFFECT WITHOUT THE

INFRASTRUCTURE. >> WE CAN'T LET PEOPLE APPLY FOR PERMITS.

>> CAN WE SHOOT FOR AUGUST 1ST. NOT AUGUST 1ST. OCTOBER 1ST.

SO WE'RE ALMOST BASICALLY AT JUNE. SO JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER.

THROUGH THE END OF SEPTEMBER IS 90 DAYS. MAYBE MATCHES OUR NEW FISCAL

CYCLE. >> END OF SEPTEMBER. >> OCTOBER 1ST, TO MAKE IT EASY. THE COURT: OR SOONER IF THE SHERIFF AND THE CLERK CAN -- SHE'S ALREADY SUBMITTED A PERMIT APPLICATION TO US FOR OUR REVIEW, I BELIEVE AT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO I WOULD JUST SAY OR SOONER IF THOSE FOLKS WANT TO BRING IT TO US SOONER. OR IF NOT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT OUR DATE.

>> THAT IS MY MOTION. >> SECOND. THE COURT: MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> THIS HOLDS THE SAME HOURS

[03:55:04]

THAT WERE DISCUSSED BEFORE, 12 TO 12 ON SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY AND 2 TO 2 ON FRIDAY,

SATURDAY. >> I THINK WE SHOULD ALTER THAT FRIDAY AND SATURDAY TO GIVE THEM MORE TIME. THESE ARE NOW LEGAL OPERATING BUSINESSES THAT ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THINGS WITHOUT DOING IT. SO I WOULD LET THEM OPEN UP A LITTLE EARLIER. THE COURT: INSTEAD OF 2:00 P.M. ON THE WEEKENDS, GO BACK TO

NOON. >> THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. OR IF WE NEED A CLARIFY.

>> NOON TO 2:00 A.M. YEAH. >> 12:00 P.M. TO 2:00 A.M.

FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. >> THURSDAY, FRIDAY AND SATURDAY.

>> THURSDAY ALSO? >> SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY IS 12 TO 2.

FRIDAY AND SATURDAYS GO NOON TO 2:00 A.M. >> SECOND THAT ONE.

THE COURT: OKAY. THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> DID WE DO THE SUBJECT TO

LANGUAGE. THE COURT: NOT YET. >> THEN I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED BY MS. BALDWIN SUBJECT TO IT BEING WORKED OUT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO MEET LEGAL STANDARDS. THE COURT: JENNY, HOW DO YOU

FEEL ABOUT THAT? >> YES. I MEAN, WE WILL LOOK AT THAT.

ADVISORIES OF COURSE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE ADVISORIES.

WE CAN LOOK AT THE 2012 OPINION TO SEE IF THERE IS SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT WOULD MAKE THAT

DIFFERENCE. >> OR MAYBE LANGUAGE CHANGES. AT LEAST WE CAN MOVE FORWARD

WITH GETTING THE ORDINANCE PASSED. >> IT WAS A MOTION.

THE COURT: SO MOTION TO ACCEPT THE LANGUAGE SUBJECT TO. ALL RIGHT.

AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THE COURT: ARE WE ALLOWED TO.

>> ARE WE ALLOWED TO HAVE A SUNSET PROVISION OR KEEP TRACK WITHIN A YEAR AND SEE WHAT

WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T. >> I HAVE GOT ONE MORE. WE'RE PUTTING SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT REGULATES. TO ME, THIS ILLICIT IS A LITTLE STRONG.

I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OUT THE ILLICIT. WE'VE GOT AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO THROW SALT ON THE WOUNDS.

TAKE OUT THE WORD I ILLICIT. >> THAT LANGUAGE CAME FROM THE FRAMEWORK THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS. SO THAT IS UP TO THE COURT. WHAT IS THE PROCESS AND CAUSE.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TAKE OUT ALL REFERENCE TO ILLICIT GAME ROOMS. THIS SHOWS HOW THEY CAN DO IT LEGALLY. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THROWING OUT THE WORD I ILLICIT. AND ANY REFERENCE TO IT IN THE

ORDINANCE. >> THAT IS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE THE LANGUAGE ON PAGES 1 AND POTENTIALLY 2. AND WHEREVER ELSE.

SO WE'LL MAKE THOSE POTENTIAL CHANGES AND SUBMIT THAT BACK. >> BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE MEAT OF THE ORDINANCE. JUST TAKES OUT WORDS THAT ARE INFLAMMATORY IN MY OPINION.

OKAY. THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, I THINK MAYBE THE BEST WAY TO SAY IT IS THAT IT ALLOWS FOR -- MOTION AND A SECOND. DISCUSSION.

ALLOWS FOR THE COURTS, THROUGH THEIR CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS, TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S LEGAL OR ILLEGAL NOT THAT WE'RE MAKE BEING ANY DETERMINATION, BECAUSE WE'RE

NOT A BODY THAT MAKES A DETERMINATION ON THOSE. >> I JUST DON'T WANT TO MAKE ACCUSATIONS -- YEAH. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE TEETH OF THE ORDINANCE.

THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS. >> WE'LL SUBMIT THOSE CHANGES. >> JUST NEED TO VOTE ON THAT ONE, JUDGE. THE COURT: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. YOU'LL BRING IT BACK, THOUGH, RIGHT? IN THAT CASE, WE'LL GET TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN.

SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT THE COURT: JUST MAKE SURE THAT THE ILLICIT DOESN'T DEFINE ILLICIT. BECAUSE IF IT DEFINES THE WORD, YOU WANT THE WORD IN THERE. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON, WHICH IS REALLY MOVING BACK BECAUSE

WE ADVANCED >> WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE WHOLE ORDINANCE

[04:00:05]

THE COURT: I THOUGHT WE VOTED ON IT SUBJECT TO THOSE AMENDMENTS.

THE FIRST MOTION WAS THE WHOLE MOTION SUBJECT TO. >> THAT WAS FOR THE START DATE.

>> I THOUGHT THAT THE MOTION WAS THAT YOU WERE PASSING THE REGULATIONS, YOU SAID SUBJECT TO MS. BALDWIN'S LANGUAGE BEING INSERTED AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THAT IS HOW I THOUGHT IT. WE CAN REVISIT IT. THAT WAS IT CORRECT?

>> THAT WAS CORRECT. THAT WAS THE SECOND MOTION. >> SECOND MOTION WAS ACCEPTING THE LANGUAGE. BUT THAT DIDN'T PASS THE ORDINANCE.

THAT JUST ACCEPTED THE LANGUAGE SUBJECT TO JENNY SAYING OKAY. THE COURT: IF HE TELLS YOU

THAT IT DID, WILL YOU ACCEPT IT. >> IT MIGHT BE CLEARER TO SAY

PASS IT SUBJECT TO THE PREVIOUS THREE MOTIONS. >> YEAH.

I WOULD JUST MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PASS THE FINAL ORDINANCE WITH THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE

MADE. >> SECOND THE COURT: MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

[2. Approve Quarterly Investment Report ending March 31, 2022.]

ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT A QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT.

IT ENDS MARCH 31ST, 2022, INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MET AND WE HAVE THAT INVESTMENT REPORT IN

FRONT OF YOU. DALE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

AS YOU MENTIONED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 22.55, WE PRESENTED THIS INVESTMENT REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE, THE VALUES OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION TO THE COURT. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO TO PAGE 1, WHERE WE TALK ABOUT SUMMARY OF CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS. TOTAL CASH VALUE AS OF MARCH 31ST, 217 MILLION THERE IS AN INCREASE OF 94 MILLION. THAT SEEMED LIKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT. BUT AS YOU REMEMBER, FROM THIS POINT TO MARCH, WE HAVE A LOT OF COLLECTIONS FROM OUR TAXES, AS WELL AS A LOT OF GRANTS COMING IN.

SO THAT IS THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT. BUT IT'S STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE HAD IN THE PAST. THE NEXT LINE IS OUR COMPLIANCE MEASURES, AS REQUIRED BY OUR INVESTMENT POLICY. WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE INVESTMENTS WITH NO WAIT AVERAGE IN EXCESS OF 364 DAYS, WHICH WE DO NOT. THIS IS AN INCREASE OF 49 DAYS.

HOWEVER, WE WERE REQUIRED TO CHANGE OUR MEASURING AUTHORITY WHEN WE WORKED WITH OUR EXTERNAL AUDITORS. BECAUSE TEXAS CLASS, WHERE WE HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE VALUES IS A NEXT DAY VALUE CASH. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE THEIR FUNDS INVESTED AS WELL, SO WE HAVE TO USE THEIR CODES. SO THAT IS WHY WE HAVE 55 DAYS. INCREASE OF 49 DAYS.

NEXT LINE, DIVERSIFICATION, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'VE GOT A MAJORITY OF OUR INVESTMENTS AND CASH AND BANK, TEXAS CLASS, THAT REPRESENTS 99.8 PERCENT OF OUR BALANCES.

THAT SEEMS LIKE A LOT HIGH, BUT AS WE GET TO THE INTEREST RATES, THE LAST PART OF THE REPORT, WE'LL EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE THE INVESTMENT POLICY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1, YOU'LL SEE A GOOD NOTE, QUARTERLY INVESTMENT EARNINGS, $43,411, IF YOU COMPARE THAT TO DECEMBER 31ST, THAT IS AN INCREASE OF $20,000. BECAUSE OUR INTEREST RATES ARE SHOWING A SLIGHT INCREASE IN VALUE. VERY GOOD VALUE. PAGE 3, YOU'LL SEE THE BREAKDOWN OF EACH OF OUR OPERATIONS, CAPITAL PROJECTS, DEBT SERVICE, OTHER FUND.

OTHER FUND INCLUDES SELF-INSURANCE FUND, AND GRANT FUNDS.

YOU SEE AT THE TOTAL, VERY BOTTOM, 217 MILLION, AS WE SHOWED THE BALANCES.

YOU SEE THE PIE CHART AT THE BOTTOM, OUR BREAKDOWN BETWEEN CASH IN BANK AND CASH EQUIVALENT, TEXAS CLASS IN CASH, INVESTMENTS RIGHT NOW ARE CDS.

8.46 PERCENT OF THE VALUE. PAGE 4 AND PAGE 5, WE SHOW A BREAKDOWN IN THE FUNDS IN OUR OPERATING FUNDS, AS WELL AS OTHER FUNDS, HOW THEY INCREASED OR DECREASED THIS SAME TIME LAST YEAR. MAJORITY OF THEM SHOW AN INCREASE IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GENERAL FUND SHOWED A ONE MILLION DOLLAR INCREASE FROM LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR.

WE DID SEE SLIGHT DECREASES FOR THE LAW LIBRARY, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT USING THE LAW LIBRARY AS ITS FUNCTION, SO WE'RE NOT SEEING MONEY COMING IN AS REQUIRED.

[04:05:03]

WE HAVEN'T DONE A FEW OF OUR TRANSFERS AS REQUIRED. COASTAL PARKS, SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXPENSES. THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR, WE BELIEVE THOSE NUMBERS WILL SELF CORRECT THEMSELVES. THE LAST ONE ON THE VERY BOTTOM OF PAGE 5, GRANTS FOR OUR GENERAL. PAGE 6 AND PAGE 7, REPORT OF DIVERSIFICATION AS WE MENTIONED. CASH IN BANK, AS WELL AS TEXAS CLASS IS $107,000,363.

THAT SHOWS 99.08 PERCENT. OUR MAXIMUM INVESTMENT POLICY IS SUPPOSED TO BE 85 PERCENT.

OUR CDS IS 192,632. THAT IS .92 PERCENT. NOW WHY WE'RE SEEING THE LEVELS BECAUSE OUR CURRENT RATE WE'RE RECEIVING TEXAS CLASS .25. WHEN WE WENT TO OUR BROKER'S DEALERS, WE CAN GET A THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE YEAR CD AT .4. THERE IS A LOT OF CREDIT RATE INTEREST RISK THERE. WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO GO TO A FIVE-YEAR INTEREST.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE CARRYING A LOT OF OUR BALANCES IN EXCESS OF THOSE BALANCES.

WE WENT TO THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE AND WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT VALUE BUT WE CONTINUE TO CHECK OUR INVESTMENTS. AS YOU MIGHT REALIZE, OUR FEDERAL RESERVE JUST DID AN INCREASE IN THE INTEREST RATES. SO WE THINK THOSE ARE GOING TO BE GOING UP SOON. WE BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING INVESTMENTS VERY SOON.

LIQUIDITY AT THE VERY BOTTOM, 55 DAYS, AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER.

PAGE 7, VERY BOTTOM, IT SHOWS YOU OUR INTEREST. SHOWS YOU FROM THE LAST QUARTER, WE WENT FROM 22,000 TO 42,000. THE YEAR WENT UP A SMALL AMOUNT BECAUSE WE SAW THE BIGGEST INCREASE, SO WE CONTINUE TO SEE LARGE IMPROVEMENTS IN INTEREST RATES. WE HOPE THOSE WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THE FISCAL YEAR.

GOING TO GO TO PAGE 12, REMAINING PAGES ARE THERE, SHOWING WHERE INVESTMENTS ARE AT. PORTFOLIO HOLDING BY FUND. SHOW YOU OUR OPERATING FUNDS, DEBT SERVICE FUNDS, YOU SEE OUR OPERATING FUNDS IS 30.9 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL.

OF THAT AMOUNT, IS GENERAL FUND IS 25.3 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL. MAJORITY OF OUR FUNDS BELONGS TO THE GENERAL FUND. DEBT SERVICE FUND IS 6 PERCENT. CAPITAL PROJECTS IS 35 PERCENT, OTHER FUNDS, 27.7 PERCENT. SPECIAL REVENUE FUND IS WHERE WE HAVE SOME OF OUR BALANCES FOR OUR LARGER GRANT FUNDS. YOU'LL SEE THE PIE CHART THE BREAKDOWN.

PAGE 13, SHOWS YOU OUR BROKER DEALERS AND HOW WE ALLOCATE FUNDS.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE SHOWING THREE. WE DO HAVE FOUR IN HOWEVER ONE HAS CHANGED NAMES.

WE DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO DISCUSS THAT TODAY.

ON THE NEXT COMMISSIONER'S COURT, WE'LL BRING A CHANGE IN NAME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GO BACK TO THE FOUR WE HAVE. BUT AS YOU SEE, WE'RE TRYING TO DO AN EVEN DISTRIBUTION.

WELLS FARGO HAS THE LARGEST AMOUNT OF SHARES. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT IS ACCURATE AND STAYS EQUAL AMONGST ALL OF OUR BROKER DEALERS.

NOW, THE IMPORTANT PAGES ARE 14, 15 AND 16. PAGE 14.

14 HAPPENS TO BE OUR COMPARISON TO WHAT A ONE-YEAR TREASURY NOTE FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS. BAR CHART BELOW YOU, THE LINE GRAPH, WE WERE QUITE EQUAL THERE. AS YOU SAW, THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAS JUST ISSUED A RATE INCREASE. GOES UP PRETTY QUICKLY. OURS DOESN'T GO UP BECAUSE WE'RE INVESTED IN TEXAS CLASS. AS WE SEE MORE TREASURY NOTES AND AGENCY NOTES GETTING A HIGHER INTEREST RATE, WE WILL MOVE THE FUNDS THERE, AND OUR SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO WON'T BE SO DRASTIC. PAGE 15 SHOWS YOU A TWO-YEAR TREASURY.

AGAIN, TWO-YEAR TREASURY, THEY CHANGED THE RATES THERE. WE'RE NOT AS FAR OFF AS WE ARE ONE-YEAR TREASURY, .2 PERCENT. BUT WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE MONITORING THOSE BALANCES.

PAGE 16 IS WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE OUR INTEREST RATES ARE.

YOU LOOK IN THE THIRD AND FOURTH COLUMN. AT THE RITUAL YOU'LL SEE TEXAS CLASS. RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT .01 PERCENT. TEXAS CLASS, .29 PERCENT.

SAME TIME BACK IN 2019, DEPOSITS WERE 2.06 PERCENT. TEXAS CLASS WAS 2.58.

WE HAVE SEEN INCREASES IN OUR RATE. GO BACK A FEW PERIODS OF TIME, .10, .12, .29. SO WE EXPECT THAT TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE.

WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE MONITORING OUR INVESTMENTS. MY STAFF AND THE TREASURY AND

[04:10:05]

LORENZO CAN CONTINUE TO MONITOR THE INVESTMENTS WE HAVE. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE FOR MARCH 31ST, 2022.

SUBMIT THIS FOR YOUR APPROVAL AND BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THE COURT: BEFORE WE GET TO THE DISCUSSION, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> THE INVESTMENT REPORT AND ASK FOR ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. OKAY. WELL, WE'VE GOT TO LIKE THAT AT LEAST THE INTEREST THAT WE'VE IN THE QUARTER LOOKS BETTER THAN IT DID LAST YEAR.

>> BASICALLY TURNING AROUND. WE'VE SEEN MORE IMPROVEMENTS. AS WE SAW THE LAST INFORMATION WE HAVE, WE'VE SEEN A LOT MORE AT THE .3, .4, .5 PERCENT INTEREST.

FIVE YEARS AT .5, WHEN WE KNOW THE RATES MIGHT BE TURNING AROUND QUICKLY.

>> 22,000 WAS THE SAME INTEREST? >> LOOK AT THE INTEREST RATES FROM TEXAS CLASS, .05, NOW WE'RE GETTING PAID .25. IT WENT UP $20,000.

THE COURT: QUARTER HAS ALREADY MATCHED ALL OF LAST YEAR. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE, IF THERE IS NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

[3. Discuss and consider allocation of the Family Protection Fee Fund to the following agencies: Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), Children's Advocacy Center of the Coastal Bend, Family Counseling Service, Nueces County CPS Community Partners Board, The ARK Assessment Center & Emergency Shelter and The Purple Door.]

THANK YOU DALE. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ALLOCATION OF OUR FAMILY PROTECTION FEE FUND. WE HAVE CERTAIN AGENCIES THAT ARE THE RECIPIENTS AND AS SOON AS I DO THIS, I'M GOING TO TURN TO YOU, DR. SCOTT.

THE FAMILY PROTECTION FEE FUND IS GOING TO HELP THE FOLLOWING AGENCIES, CASA, COASTAL BEND, FAMILY COUNSELING SERVICES, COMMUNITY PARTNERS BOARD. PURPLE DOOR.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO EVERY YEAR. DO YOU WANT TO JUST REMIND EVERYBODY. IT'S IN OUR PACKETS. BUT HOW MUCH THE FAMILY

PROTECTION FEE FUND ACCUMULATES. >> THE FEES THAT WE CHARGE IS $15. TOTAL OF 30,000. SO GOING TO BE GIVING FIVE

THOUSAND TO EACH OF THESE AGENCIES. >> WONDERFUL.

THANK YOU. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[4. Discuss and consider funding for Flag for a Flag program; Discuss and consider outside agency agreement with Scripps Media related to the Flag for a Flag program.]

JJ, YOU'VE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY. THIS IS AN ITEM TO CONSIDER FUNDING FLAG FOR A FLAG PROGRAM. DISCUSS AN OUTSIDE AGENCY AGREEMENT WITH SCRIPPS MEDIA SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN. DO YOU WANT TO QUICKLY GIVE AN

OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR >> YES, MA'AM.

AGAIN, THIS PROGRAM WILL ALLOW RESIDENTS TO TURN IN OLD FLAGS, IN EXCHANGE FOR A BRAND NEW AMERICAN FLAG, AT ANY OF THE 13 LOCATIONS THAT WE DESIGNATED RUN FROM JUNE 10TH THROUGH THE 13TH. YOU CAN TURN IN THAT FLAG AND GET ONE NEW FOR FREE.

THE FLAGS COLLECTED, WE WILL RETIRE ON FLAG DAY. THE 14TH OF JUNE, IT WILL START AT 10:00 A.M. WE DID PARTNER WITH A LOCAL CONTRACTOR, TO BUILD 13 FLAG RETIREMENT BOXES, JUST LIKE THE ONE WE HAVE DOWN STAIRS ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

WE'RE DELIVERING THOSE THIS WEEK. WE HAVE 13 LOCATIONS, AS I MENTIONED, I WILL MENTION THOSE LOCATIONS IF THAT IS OKAY WITH THE COURT.

BELL FURNITURE IN ROCKPORT. MIKE SHAW KIA ON SPID. MIKE SHAW TOYOTA IN ROBSTOWN.

JIM WELLS COUNTY VSO OFFICE. CLAYBURN COUNTY VSO OFFICE. SAN PATRICIA COUNTY, VSO OFFICE. KEECH FAMILY LIBRARY IN ROBSTOWN.

MY OFFICE WILL HAVE A BOX AS WELL. BELL FURNITURE ON SPID.

BELL FURNITURE IN ALLEN. BELL FURNITURE IN KINGSVILLE. LASTLY, THE COASTAL BEND STATE VETERANS CEMETERY. AT THIS POINT WE'RE LOOKING FOR FUNDING IN ORDER TO HELP PURCHASE 600 TO 1000 FLAGS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE THIS PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL.

WE'RE ASKING IF POSSIBLE, FOR THE COURT TO FUND. AND THE COURT ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS GENERATED AN AGREEMENT WHICH ALLOWS THE COURT TO UTILIZE OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDS TO DONATE TO THE NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION WE'VE

PARTNERED WITH, WHICH IS SCRIPPS MEDIA. >> FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS

[04:15:05]

REQUEST? THE COURT: COLLECTIVELY. >> I'LL GIVE $5,000 MYSELF FOR THAT PLAN. THE COURT: GREAT. I'LL GO AHEAD AND ADD THE THOUSAND THAT I HAVE THAT I BELIEVE THAT IS AVAILABLE. SOME OF YOU DO HAVE OUTSIDE AGENCIES. WELL, THE BOTTOM LINE WAS THE GOAL WAS FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

WHAT WE COULD DO IS ASK THERESA, SHE HAD EXPLAINED HOW WE COULD USE OUTSIDE AGENCY

FUNDS, AS LONG AS WE HAD THIS. >> I'M GOING TO USE IT FROM MY PRECINCT FUNDS.

THE COURT: AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE RIGHT AGREEMENT THAT JENNY HAS CREATED, WHICH WE DO.

>> ARE THEY CONSIDERED TO BE THE NON-PROFIT, THOUGH? THE COURT: SCRIPPS MEDIA FOUNDATION IS. IF WE WERE BUYING THE FLAGS, THEN WE COULD DO IT.

IN THIS MANNER OF THE TIME, JUNE 14TH, BEING FLAG DAY, THEY'RE GOING TO BUY THEM, THE

AGREEMENT WILL BE ABLE TO CREATE THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US. >> SO CAN WE ALL PARTICIPATE? THE COURT: YOU CAN WAIT FOR NEXT YEAR TOO. A THOUSAND FROM EACH? I AGREE. THERESA HAS FIGURED OUT A WAY TO DO IT.

A THOUSAND FOR EACH. OKAY. NOW KNOW IF YOU GET INTO A FLAG

SITUATION TO COME BACK TO COURT. >> YES, MA'AM, I SURE WILL.

>> I JUST WANT TO DO IT OUT OF MY PRECINCT FUNDS BECAUSE I'M OUT OF OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDS.

>> IT'S GOING TO BE CODED AS AN OUTSIDE AGENCY CONTRACT, BUT THE FUNDS ARE COMING FROM YOUR UNALLOCATED FUND BALANCE. SO $20,000 FOR OUTSIDE AGENCIES, BUT THAT IS WHERE

WE'LL CODE IT. >> SO EVERYONE CAN PARTICIPATE. >> STILL HAVE MONEYS IN THE

OUTSIDE AGENCY, CAN IT COME FROM THERE? >> YES, SIR.

SAME FUND. SPECIAL REVENUE FROM YOUR FUND BALANCE.

>> THANK YOU, THERESA. THANK YOU, JJ. >> THANK YOU, WE APPRECIATE IT.

THE COURT: WAIT A SECOND. I MOTION TO PROVIDE FOR FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FROM THAT OUTSIDE AGENCY FUND AND APPLY THE APPROPRIATE CONTRACTS AGREEMENT WITH SCRIPPS MEDIA FOUNDATION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. MUCH BETTER.

NOW IT'S COMPLETE. ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES CARE OF PAGE 6 OF 9 AND AT THIS TIME, DR. SCOTT, WHEN YOU STEPPED OUT, WE WENT AHEAD AND READ ON YOUR BEHALF.

COMMISSIONER CHESNEY DID A GOOD JOB OF READING THE INFORMATION THAT YOU LEFT.

I'M REOPENING PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMISSIONERS, AT 1:20 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JUDGE AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU THIS MORNING FOR RESP RESPONDING, TO THE THING, CHILLS ARE GOING DOWN MY BACK AT THIS MOMENT, THINKING ABOUT IT. IN ADDITION, THE OTHER REASON I'M ASKING, MAYBE WE MIGHT TAKE A MOMENT OF SILENCE, IS BECAUSE OF THE CHILDREN KILLED IN UVALDE AT THE SCHOOL, WHERE THIS YOUNG MAN AND WENT AND KILLED ALL OF THESE KIDS.

SOME OF THEM THEY'RE STILL DOING THE DNA TEST TO MATCH THEM FOR PARENTS TO KNOW WHOSE CHILD, WAS IT THEIR CHILD OR THEIR CHILD JUST HURT OR WHAT HAS HAPPENED.

I KNOW I'M A VOLUNTEER OVER IN THE CCISD, AND THIS MORNING WE SAID TO THE PRINCIPAL THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO DO AND TALK WITH CCISD ABOUT, IN ADDITION TO THE ONE SECURITY OFFICER, WHATEVER IT IS WE HAVE WANDERING AROUND THE SCHOOL, EVERY DOOR NEEDS TO BE ALWAYS LOCKED OR PROTECTED IN SOME WAY. BECAUSE ESPECIALLY AT THE ELEMENTARY. BUT AT THE HIGH SCHOOLS TOO. BUT I WANTED TO JUST SIMPLY ASK US ALL TO TAKE A MOMENT AND JUST FOR A SILENT MOMENT TO BRING UP AND PRAY FOR THE FAMILIES AND THOSE CHILDREN WE KNOW HAVE BEEN KILLED. THOSE WHO ARE ILL OR HIT OR INJURED BUT THEY'RE NOT SURE ABOUT THEM, SO THEY KNOW WHOSE CHILD THEY ARE AND WHERE THEY BELONG AND JUST ON BEHALF OF THAT TO TAKE A MOMENT OF SILENCE.

MAYBE JUST DO ONE MOMENT OF SILENCE. THANK YOU.

[04:20:51]

BASED ON WHAT YOU HEARD THIS MORNING, WHEN YOU -- WE'RE GOING TO ADD TO THE AGENDA AND THE PRAYER VIGIL THAT WE WERE DOING AGAINST HATE CRIMES IN BUFFALO AND OTHER PLACES AT THE SOLID ROCK CHURCH NEXT WEEK, WE'RE GOING TO ADD NOW CERTAINLY THE YOUNG PEOPLE AND THE FAMILIES FROM UVALDE, I HOPE AND PRAY THAT THERE ARE NO OTHERS AND CERTAINLY NOT IN

[7. Discuss and consider funding source and approval of a proposal from TMI Solutions LLC for the topographic survey of the potential Bob Hall Pier Parking Lot, Access Rd 6 and surrounding area.]

THIS COUNTY. THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU DR. SCOTT.

WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME AND MOVE ON TO A SERIES OF ITEMS ON TOP OF PAGE 7, DIRECTOR OF COASTAL PARKS IS HERE TO GUIDE US THROUGH. THE FIRST IS TO TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER A FUNDING SOURCE AND APPROVAL OF A PROPOSAL FROM TMI SOLUTIONS FOR THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR THE POTENTIAL BOB HALL PARKING LOT. WELCOME, SCOTT.

WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT VERY IMPORTANT ROAD. >> SO COMMISSIONER CHESNEY FUNDED THE ENGINEERING PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT WITH ROAD DISTRICT FOUR FUNDS IN THE

BEGINNING. THE COURT: CORRECT. >> NOW, I KNOW THAT Y'ALL HAVE BEEN UNDECIDED ON REESTABLISH BE BEINGING THE PARKING LOT.

WE KNOW THAT WE CAN'T DO IT ON THE BEACH LIKE WE HAVE BEFORE. SO AS YOU KNOW, Y'ALL GAVE ME PERMISSION, I'M APPLYING FOR A GRANT. NO MATCH REQUIRED FOR FIVE MILLION DOLLARS THROUGH THE GLO. IF WE GET IT, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT WE HAVE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY, IT WILL PAY FOR THE PARKING LOT ITSELF TO BE CONSTRUCTED. AND IT WILL ALSO COVER WHAT WE CALL THE SKY BRIDGE, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, PORTION OF A PERIOD THAT COMES OVER THE BEACH AND COMES INTO THE PARKING LOT AND TIES IN YOUR ADA PARKING. LET ME MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION HERE, THOUGH, THE CURRENT RAMP WILL REMAIN. AND THAT ROAD THAT RUNS ALONG THE DUNES WILL BE REPAIRED AND CONNECTED TO THAT RAMP SO NOW ALL YOUR SERVICE TRUCKS, YOUR MAINTENANCE TRUCKS, EVERYTHING USES A RAMP AND ALL YOUR ARE OVER HERE, THEY'RE NOT CO-MINGLED.

SOMEBODY COULD STILL WALK UP THE RAMP IF THEY WANT TO. WHAT I'M ASKING OF THE COURT TODAY IS IN ORDER FOR THIS PROJECT WITH THE PARKING LOT AND THE SKY BRIDGE, WHICH JACOBS IS WORKING ON, TO BE SHOVEL READY, IF WE GET THE GRANT FUNDS, I NEED TO GET THE SURVEY DONE. I DON'T HAVE ANY DEDICATED FUNDING FOR THIS PARTICULAR SURVEY. YOU'VE GOT 26 MILLION THAT YOU'VE ALLOCATED FOR THE PIER ITSELF. BUT YOU NEVER ALLOCATED ALLOCATED MONEY FOR THE SKY BRIDGE, PARKING LOT OR PUBLIC PLAZA. THIS GRANT WILL HELP ME GET TWO OF THOSE THREE DONE. SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR THE SURVEY WORK.

>> THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR ROAD DISTRICT FOUR MONEY AND WE DIDN'T POST A ROAD DISTRICT FOUR MEETING TODAY. IS GOMES A POTENTIAL FUNDING

SOURCE FOR THIS? >> NOT YET. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT, SIR. THE COURT: I HAVE AN IDEA, COMMISSIONER, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT FOR NOW APPROVING IT WITH THE FUNDING BEING COVERED AT THIS MOMENT WITH THE CERTIFICATE -- WITH THE FUNDING THAT WE HAVE INSIDE THE $26.33 MILLION APPROPRIATION

AND WE CAN POST A ROAD DISTRICT FOUR AND REALLOCATE THAT. >> ONE OPTION.

OR WE COULD JUST DO IT SUBJECT TO US SETTING A MEETING AND GETTING DIRECTION.

I'M CERTAINLY COMFORTABLE WITH DOING THIS OUT OF ROAD DISTRICT FOUR.

WE JUST DON'T HAVE IT POSTED. >> I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT, SIR.

>> NO BIG DEAL. THE COURT: OKAY. HOW ABOUT WE'LL GO AHEAD AND

GIVE THAT APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE MEETING TAKING PLACE >> AND THEN WE COULD -- LET'S

[04:25:05]

SEE. THE COURT: I WISH WE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

>> WE'LL BLAME THERESA. THE COURT: THERESA SAYS WHY ME. >> EXCUSE ME.

>> I NEVER BLAME THERESA, I KNOW BETTER THAN THAT. >> WE DO HAVE A WORKSHOP THAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE 6TH. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOON ENOUGH.

THE COURT: GOOD IDEA. >> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE PASS THIS SUBJECT TO THE FUNDING BEING APPROVED LATER AT A ROAD DISTRICT FOUR MEETING, UNDERSTANDING I MEAN I WOULD HOPE THE COURT WOULD SUPPORT THAT AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME, WE'VE GOT A MILLION SOMETHING.

THE COURT: IF NOT, IT COMES BACK. >> IT'S A SMALL AMOUNT.

AND THIS IS GOING TO HELP ME SCORE REALLY HIGH WHEN I SUBMIT THIS THING.

MY GRANT TO THE GLO IS DUE ON THE 8TH. WE'RE WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW TO FINISH, PUT THE FINISHING TOUCHES ON IT. NOT ONLY WILL THIS HELP ME THERE, BUT IT'S CHECKING ANOTHER BOX FOR THE STORMWATER CLEAN WATER INITIATIVE THAT THE GLO HAS A NEW PROGRAM ON. WITH THIS SURVEY, IT'S GOING TO HELP US LOOK AT HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO DESIGN FEATURES ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO IMPROVE GROUNDWATER QUALITY OUT THERE.

I'M ALREADY AT SEA LEVEL. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK Y'ALL.

>> I WOULD JUST MAKE SURE THAT SOMEONE, WE POST A ROAD DISTRICT FOUR MEETING FOR OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. LET'S JUST MAKE SURE WE GET A

ROAD DISTRICT FOUR MEETING POSTED FOR JUNE 6TH, PLEASE. >> I HAVE A CONCERN, NOT CONCERN. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT DO WE DO THE RIGHT THING ON THE ROAD DISTRICT FOUR FUNDS, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT HE HAS TO TIE IN TO THE ROAD FOR THE ROAD DISTRICT FOUR. AND ENGINEERING AND THEN I DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT A SURVEY.

ARE WE OKAY DOING, SPENDING THOSE FUNDS ON -- THE COURT: THEY'RE TIED TO THE ROAD. SO AS LONG AS IT'S IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD.

>> SURVEY FOR THE ROAD? >> YEAH. TOPO SURVEY.

SO WHEN THEY BUILD THE ROAD IN THE PARKING LOT. THE COURT: ELEVATION.

>> WHAT IS THE ENGINEERING FOR? >> ENGINEERING IS TO ENGINEER HOW THE ROAD IS GOING TO BE BUILT AND THE PARKING LOT IS GOING TO BE BUILT. BUT THEY'VE GOT TO DO THE

SURVEY. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE COURT: ALL FOR THE ROAD.

>> ALL ROAD PARKING. LIGHTING FOR PARKING LOTS AND ROADS.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE >> I HAD TO CHECK THAT TOO. IT CAN BE UTILITIES RELATED TO THE ROAD, PARKING AROUND THE ROAD, ANYTHING RELATED TO THE ROADS.

GOOD QUESTION. THE COURT: I'VE GOT A MOTION. I'LL MAKE THAT A SECOND.

AND ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ON THE NEXT ONE, SCOTT, IT ALSO

[8. Discuss and consider a temporary Construction Easement and Right of Way to the University of Texas at Austin, Marine Science Institute (UTMSI) related to UTMSI's construction of student housing on property adjoining county-owned property near I.B. Magee Beach Park, and related matters.]

PERTAINS TO COASTAL PARKS, IT IS CONSIDERING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY, UTMSI, RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION ON THEIR PROPERTY REGARDING STUDENT

HOUSING, ON PROPERTY COUNTY OWNED BY IB MAGEE. >> I TALKED TO GEORGIA OVER THERE. I DIDN'T KNOW AT THE TIME Y'ALL WERE TRYING TO GET THIS DONE.

I HOPE YOU DIDN'T MIND ME GETTING INVOLVED AND MAKING SHORT WORK OF IT.

IT'S WEIRD. WE HAVE AN IN HOLDING ON THEIR PROPERTY THAT WE'RE NOT EVEN CONNECTED TO. IT'S DOWN THE ROAD FROM WHERE THE MAINTENANCE SHOP IS.

BEHIND THE WORLD WAR II GUN MOUNTS. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GOT THIS.

I DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD IT. ONLY 1.3 ACRE IN HOLDING THAT IF WE DON'T GRANT THEM AN EASEMENT, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN EASEMENT TO USE OUR PROPERTY.

THERE IS NOT A DEDICATED EASEMENT. THEY NEED THIS TO CONSTRUCT THEIR NEW DORMS. GOT EVERYTHING DONE, KENT AT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HELPED ME WORK ON ALL OF THIS. IT'S BOILERPLATE. WE MIGHT CONSIDER HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH UTMSI FOR THAT LITTLE 1.3 ACRES. BECAUSE WE'RE NEVER GOING TO USE IT. I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS THERE. FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THE COURT: OKAY. GREAT.

SO YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND IT'S AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY TO ONCE AGAIN, PARTNER WITH ONE OF OUR GREAT UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS. I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE THIS TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY.

I HEARD A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN

[9. Discuss and consider approval of Change Order No. 6 from Geofill Material Technologies for no cost time extension.]

[04:30:02]

FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THE NEXT ONE BELONGS TO YOU AS WELL, APPROVAL OF A CHANGE ORDER. A NO COST TIME EXTENSION. GO AHEAD AND EXPLAIN.

>> SO YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT THE PLANS AND SPECS BACK FOR THE RAMP AND THE PARKING.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MODIFY THE PARKING SURFACE THERE. CAROL HAS LOOKED AT IT.

GIVEN US HIS BLESSING. WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS WE NEED TO EXTEND GEOFILL'S CONTRACT OBLIGATION RIGHT NOW SO THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FINISH THE WORK FOR US.

I'VE GOT TO GO BACK AND LOOK, WE'VE GOT A 25 PERCENT CHANGE ORDER CAP ISSUE COMING UP.

SO I MIGHT HAVE TO PULL THE PARKING PORTION OUT OF THIS PROJECT AND BID IT TO OTHER INDIVIDUALS. AND JUST LET THEM DO THE RAMP PART.

BECAUSE I CAN'T GET OVER 25 PERCENT. NO WAY AROUND THAT.

IF YOU GET OVER 25, YOU'RE DONE. WE LIKE GEOFILL'S WORK.

WE LIKE THE CONSISTENCY. THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

IF I ONLY GET THEM TO DO THE RAMP, WHICH THE FUNDING IS ALREADY THERE.

Y'ALL GAVE IT TO ME A LONG TIME AGO, WE'RE GOOD TO GO. SO THAT IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR A CONTRACT AND TIME EXTENSION FOR THEM. THE COURT: OKAY.

I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES HERE. JENNY, DO YOU? >> NO ISSUE.

APPEARS TO BE IN ORDER. THE COURT: I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 6. WOULD THERE BE A SECOND AT THIS TIME?

>> SECOND. THE COURT: SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OKAY.

SCOTT, I'M GOING TO DOUBLE CHECK IT, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE HERE.

>> NO, I DO NOT. THE COURT: AS THEY SAY, YOU MAY GO, SIR.

>> I'M HUNGRY. THE COURT: I BET. SUPER.

SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON, I'M SORRY WE DID NOT CATCH MAYOR GOMES ON THIS ONE AS WELL.

[10. Discuss and consider funding for County Animal Care facility, including 2021 Certificates of Obligation. ]

BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER MAREZ CAN LEND A HAND HERE. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER FUNDING FOR THE COUNTY ANIMAL CARE FACILITY, 2021 CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION.

THERE IS A MILLION DOLLARS OF UNALLOCATED IN THE CO21 AND THE IDEA HERE IS TO GET VERY CLOSE, CLOSER AND CLOSER TO FINISHING THIS PROJECT. THERE WAS AN ITEM THAT -- NOT ITEM. THERE WAS COMMENTARY FROM PREVIOUS COURTS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM WAS STOPPED AT ANY POINT. AND WE LOOKED AND THE ANSWER IS IT WAS NOT. SO WORK HAS BEEN CONTINUOUS. AND I'LL PITCH TO COMMISSIONER MAREZ AT THIS TIME. TO TALK ABOUT THIS ITEM IN HIS PRECINCT.

>> SURE. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP BEFORE THE COURT FOR SOME YEARS NOW. WE'RE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER.

CONTINUING TO MEET WITH SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA AND OTHERS TO HELP US REALLY KIND OF FINALIZE THE PLAN THAT WILL BE RESPONSIVE TO PROVIDING THE MODERN FACILITY AT A MUCH BETTER LOCATION. FOR THOSE THAT ARE WATCHING FROM THE PUBLIC, THAT ARE NOT AWARE, THIS FACILITY IS CURRENTLY LOCATED BEHIND BY OFFICE ON FM 892.

OUT IN ROBSTOWN AREA. AND I THINK IT SERVED ITS PURPOSE WHEN IT WAS FIRST BUILT DECADES AGO. BUT I THINK THAT THE POPULATION HAS SHIFTED SOMEWHAT AND THE FACT THAT WE RESPOND SOMETIMES TO ISSUES THAT ARE NOT JUST BEYOND -- OR SPECIFICALLY TO WESTERN NUECES COUNTY RURAL NUECES COUNTY AND IT BEING RIGHT OFF OF HIGHWAY 44, BUSINESS 77, RIGHT NEAR THE I-69 HIGHWAY, PLACES, THE LOCATION THAT WE HAVE AT THE OLD SHOWBARN, AN IDEAL SPOT. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY ISSUES THAT CAN BE POKED AT THIS ITEM. BUT I HOPE THAT THE COURT TODAY SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT THAT WE HAVE MOST OF THE FUNDING THAT WE NEED TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT.

AND WITH ENOUGH SUPPORT, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. IN THE SLIDES I PREPARED HAVE SEVERAL PHOTOS AND MOST OF YOU, IF NOT THE ENTIRE COURT, HAS ALREADY BEEN OUT TO THIS FACILITY. AND IT WOULD BE I THINK A BENEFIT TO BRING THIS INTO FURTHER INTO THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN. I HOPE THAT WE HAVE THE

[04:35:03]

OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME UP. BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE CAN MOVE ASIDE FROM ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAYBE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED.

WE CAN REMIND THE PUBLIC OR REMIND OURSELVES WHAT ARE THE KEY FACTORS OF SUPPORT OR RESERVATION AGAINST. BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. SO I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE MR. LEBLANC AND OTHERS AVAILABLE TO HELP US WITH THIS ITEM TODAY.

BUT I THINK NOW IS THE MOMENT TO MOVE FORWARD, TO FINALIZE THIS AND IF WE DO HAVE THE FUNDING, YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE MINDFUL OF THE MONEY AND THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT AND OF COURSE, THE TIME FRAME TO DELIVER WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY FAILURES IN ANIMAL SERVICES PROVIDED BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND MOVING FROM THE OLD LOCATION TO THIS NEW LOCATION. BUT IF YOU RECALL FROM PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS, WE'VE HAD SOME REALLY EXCITING DESIGNS. WE HAD SEVERAL OPTIONS TO CHOOSE FROM.

AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE HAD, I HOPE WHAT OUR TEAM THAT HAD BEEN PUT TOGETHER TO HEAR OUR CONCERNS IS THAT IT'S A PRACTICAL DESIGN, THAT IT IS USEFUL, BUT IT'S NOT EXTRAVAGANT TO THE POINT THAT IT'S A BUNCH OF FANCINESS PUT THERE FOR THE SAKE OF DOING IT.

VERY SPECIFIC AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR MEETINGS. WAS THAT I WANTED THIS TO KIND OF MATCH THE STYLE AND THE FEEL OF COUNTY BUILDINGS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

ESPECIALLY COUNTY BUILDINGS OUT IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTY. AND ALSO JUST THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICES IN THIS AREA AS WELL. SO WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING THAT IS A SORE THUMB THAT STICKS OUT REALLY JUST DRAMATICALLY. SO I BELIEVE THAT THAT HAS BEEN ALL PUT TOGETHER IN THE PLANNING FOR THIS FACILITY. BUT THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL AND I KNOW WE HAVE OTHERS THAT CAN HELP PROVIDE INFORMATION. BUT AS I SAID, I KNOW WHERE WE STAND ON THIS, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO READDRESS, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY. IF I CAN ANSWER THEM, I KNOW WE HAVE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS ON HAND TO ASSIST US WITH THAT. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY, BECAUSE IT SERVES AREAS IN PRECINCT 1, 2 AND 3 ESPECIALLY. AND CAN DO ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE AREA IN PRECINCT FOUR. SO I HOPE THIS WILL FIND THE COURT'S FAVOR.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. PROVIDE TO YOU MORE SPECIFICS IN WHATEVER THAT I CAN. I HOPE YOU'LL SUPPORT IT. THE COURT: JUST A QUICK QUESTION, COULD CONNIE BRING UP THE SLIDES? IS THAT HELPFUL TO EVERYBODY? WE'LL GET TO YOUR QUESTION. BUT SOMETIMES IT'S HELPFUL. WE ALL HAVE THEM IN OUR NOTEBOOKS, BUT NOBODY ELSE DOES. IT'S IN OUR NOTEBOOKS, COMMISSIONERS. BUT SHE COULD JUST FLIP THROUGH THEM, RUN THROUGH THEM.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE COULD GO -- AND THEN THERESA, SINCE YOU'RE LISTENING, I WROTE IT DOWN, BUT NOW I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT, THERE IS A SPECIFIC AMOUNT THAT WAS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED TODAY TO BRING IN TO THIS ANIMAL CARE AND YOU HAVE THAT AMOUNT HANDY.

AT SOME POINT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU FOR THAT. IF YOU DON'T, MAYBE YOU CAN

GRAB IT. UNALLOCATED DOLLARS IN CO21. >> WE'RE LOOKING AT THE MILLION DOLLARS THAT IS BEING REALLOCATED FROM THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.

FOR THE 2019 TAX NOTES. AND THEN 1200 EXCESS WITHIN THE GENERATOR PROGRAM.

THE COURT: SORRY. 2019S. THERE IS $1,077,000 AVAILABLE THERE. SO THAT IS GOING TO BE THE ASK. NOW YOU CAN SEE IF YOU'RE IN THE AUDIENCE OR AT HOME, YOU CAN SHOWCASE THESE SLIDES VERY QUICKLY.

CONNIE, THE FIRST IS SOME BULLET POINTS, AND THEN COMMISSIONER GONZALES, GO ON.

JUST MAYBE KEEP THEM UP FOR LIKE A MINUTE, CONNIE AND THEN GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

>> FROM DAY ONE, I SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT. AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WHEN WE VOTED FOR THE 3 MILLION, I REALLY SUPPORTED IT. I THINK THREE MILLION, EVEN IF WE PUT ANOTHER MILLION, I THINK WHEN YOU'RE SPENDING FIVE MILLION ON THE ANIMAL -- WE'VE

[04:40:15]

GOT OTHER ITEMS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE DONE. IT'S ALMOST MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THE HILLTOP. WE ONLY ALLOCATED LIKE FOUR MILLION DOLLARS.

I JUST CAN'T GET MYSELF RIGHT NOW TO SAY MAN, I THOUGHT 3 MILLION WE COULD REALLY DO SOMETHING NICE. I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG WE WANT TO GO.

I LOOKED AT THE MATERIAL HERE. I'M NOT SAYING -- I SUPPORT THE CONCEPT AND PROJECT.

I CANNOT AT THIS POINT SAY MAN, WE NEED 5.4. WHY WOULD WE NEED 5.4, WHEN WE THOUGHT 3 MILLION WAS ENOUGH WHEN WE VOTED FOR THIS BACK THEN.

NOBODY EVER TOLD US WE HAD EXTRA MONEYS, NOBODY GAVE US A CHOICE.

AND SAID WE GOT EXTRA MILLION DOLLARS, I THINK WE ALL HAVE PROJECTS THAT WE COULD USE THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE. I CANNOT SUPPORT $5.4 MILLION ANIMAL CONTROL PROJECT, WHEN WE HAVE OTHER PROJECTS THAT REALLY NEED -- I'M GOING BACK TO THE HILLTOP.

WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH THE HILLTOP FOR ALL THIS TIME, FOR THE LAST YOU KNOW, YEARS, FIVE YEARS, WHATEVER IT IS. EVEN THE LAST THREE YEARS WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING.

NOW WE'VE GOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT SOMETHING THERE TOO, I THINK WE NEED THE COUNTY NEEDS TO GROW IN DIFFERENT AREAS. I JUST HAVE TROUBLE WITH IT RIGHT NOW, SPENDING $5.4 MILLION. ON THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY. VERSUS THREE MILLION WE HAD APPROVED. LIKE I SAID, EVEN IF WE DO FOUR MILLION.

THAT GIVES ANOTHER 1.4 TO USE SOMEWHERE ELSE. I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ROOF AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO. AS OF RIGHT NOW, I'LL SUPPORT THE PROJECT THE WAY WE HAD IT AND MAYBE INCREASE A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT I JUST CAN'T SEE RIGHT NOW DOING $5.4 MILLION. THE COURT: COMMISSIONER, BEFORE COMMISSIONER MAREZ RESPONDS, A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION. NUMBER ONE, WE HAVE $6 MILLION ALLOTTED AT HILL TOP, SO YOU CAN KEEP THAT NUMBER IN YOUR MIND.

IT'S NOT 4, IT'S 6. SECOND IS THAT THE MILLION DOLLARS WAS APPROPRIATED LAST COURT, SO WHEN WE MADE A MODIFICATION TO THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, THE MILLION DOLLARS CAME BACK. THAT IS ACTUALLY ON OUR -- I'M SORRY.

THAT IS GOING TO BE COMING UP ON OUR -- LET ME LOOK. IT'S ON ITEM NUMBER 11.

>> THEY HAD A BALANCE THAT WE COULD USE AND ONE OF THE ITEMS HAD ALREADY BEEN CUT.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO BRING UP TODAY TOO. THE COURT: I'M JUST GOING OFF THERESA'S NUMBERS. I WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT HAS BEEN AGREED TO IS NEW.

IF WE HAD HAD IT, WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL YOU, IT JUST CAME UP.

SO WE AGREED THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO COME BACK. >> MAYBE WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT ELSE WE CAN COME UP WITH. THE COURT: THE THIRD POINT THAT YOU SAID THAT I WANTED TO AT LEAST OFFER IS THAT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN WE DID THE FEASIBILITY STUDY, WE NEVER APPROPRIATED THREE AND THOUGHT THREE WAS THE FULLY FUNDED PROJECT. WE APPROPRIATED THREE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT DECIDED TO APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, THE 5.4 MILLION REPRESENTS ONE PARTICULAR RENDERING. AND I BELIEVE THERE IS HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN THAT PLAN THAT COULD BE I WOULD SAY REDUCED. BECAUSE IT CALLS FOR WHAT I'M CALLING AN EXTRA WING TO ACCOMMODATE ADDITIONAL SERVICES.

>> WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL WING. THE COURT: YOU DID.

[04:45:05]

>> I DIDN'T. THE COURT: IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME TO FINISH.

IT WAS DESCRIBED >> I'M NOT PERFECT. THE COURT: I DON'T THINK YOU ARE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS EITHER.

I'M WITH YOU. IF YOU'LL JUST ALLOW ME THE HALF --

>> YOU KNOW, I'M JUST -- THE COURT: I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I THINK MAYBE THE PRICE TAG AT 5.4 COULD BE REDUCED IMMEDIATELY TO MAYBE LIKE 4.9, 4.8, BECAUSE THE HALF A MILLION WAS IN THE INSTANCE IF THERE WAS A CONSOLIDATION OF OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND I DON'T THINK THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THE PRICE TAG AT 5.4 COULD INSTANTLY MOST LIKELY BE BROUGHT DOWN TO 4.8 OR 4.9. I WANTED TO SHOWCASE THAT TO YOU TO SHOW THAT THERE IS AN IMMEDIATE OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THAT COST.

BUT THE COST HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE 5.4. AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN THAT 500,000 OF THE 5.4 WAS FOR THAT WING AND THEN FURTHERMORE, AGAIN, IT WASN'T THAT YOU CAN'T DO IT FOR THREE MILLION, IT'S THAT THE DESIGN THAT WAS APPROPRIATED FOR THE GROWTH AND FOR OUR NEEDS RESULTS IN A CONSTRUCTION COST OF THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT LIKE YOU GET TO PICK A NUMBER. THE NUMBER WAS COST ESTIMATED AFTER IT WAS ESTIMATED HOW MANY DOGS, CATS AND OTHER SPECIES WE NORMALLY HAVE.

IT ACCOUNTS FOR GROWTH AND FOR THAT VERY IMPORTANT AMENITIES THAT THE POWERPOINT OUTLINES.

AND THAT THIS COURT HAS SEEN ONCE OR TWICE. BUT THIS IS A REFRESHER.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THOSE CORRECTIONS. BECAUSE YOU WANT TO FULLY FUND PROJECTS. BECAUSE A LOT OF MONEY HAS BEEN EXPENDED TO GET US TO THIS POINT. WE WOULD LIKE TO FIND A WAY TO FINISH THIS PROJECT AND MOVE FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE ON TO ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO

VISIT. >> I WASN'T FINISHED YET. I WAS JUST THINKING, JUDGE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS RIGHT. BUT GO TO 4.4, IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 4.8. AND THAT IS REALLY NOT EVEN $700,000 IS GOING TO MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE ANYWHERE. IT WILL HELP SOME, I'M SURE. BUT THE IMPACT IS NOT GOING TO BE THERE, LIKE IF YOU HAD A MILLION DOLLARS. OR 1.4.

AND I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE DID, I DON'T REMEMBER, THAT WE SAID 5 MILLION WAS GOING TO BE THE COST OF THE EXPENSE. I DON'T REMEMBER THAT WE EVER -- MAYBE I'M WRONG.

BUT I DON'T REMEMBER THAT WE VOTED ON 5.4 MILLION THAT IS GOING TO BE THE COST.

THAT IS WHAT I REMEMBER >> IF I COULD RESPOND. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ AND CHESNEY AND MAYBE OFFER MY RESPONSE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO GAVE YOU THE COST ESTIMATE OR WHY WERE THEY SO FAR OFF? AND HOW MUCH OF THIS BUILDING THAT I JUST GOT THROUGH SEEING, HOW MUCH HAS IT BEEN BUILT OFF

THE GROUND, OR ANY CONSTRUCTION GOTTEN OFF THE GROUND? >> AS FAR AS I KNOW, NOT ANY CONSTRUCTION THAT IS OFF THE GROUND. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE LAND REPRESENTED HERE AND SHELTERS PLANNING OF AMERICA. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ENDED UP COMING UP WITH THE PRICE POINT. I DIDN'T. THAT GOES TO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS WITH COMMISSIONER GONZALES. ANY OF Y'ALL ONLINE CAN CHIME IN THAT EXPLAINS THE COST BREAKDOWN, THAT HELPS THE COURT UNDERSTAND HOW AND WHERE YOU

GOT TO THIS POINT. KYLE OR MIKE. >> SURE.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO JUMP IN AND ADDRESS SOME OF THAT. I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD THROUGH THE DESIGN PROCESS, NOW WE'RE IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE OF THE DESIGN PROCESS, WE'VE HAD COST ESTIMATES ALONG THE WAY TO REASSURE THOSE INITIAL COST ESTIMATES THAT WERE OUTLINED IN THE 2021 CIP. SO SHELTERS PLANNERS OF AMERICA IS CURRENTLY IN DESIGN.

THERE HAS BEEN NO DIRT TURNED AT THE SITE. CURRENTLY, YOU ARE ABOUT 41 OR SO PERCENT INTO EXPENSES OF THE DESIGN FEES PAID TO SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA.

AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETE. ONE PHASE IN THE DESIGN.

NEXT STEP IS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. SO THAT IS CURRENTLY WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FULLY FUNDED

[04:50:03]

PROJECT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. BUT THAT IS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT

NOW. >> CAN YOU MORE OR LESS GIVE ME A BREAKDOWN OF THE CONSTRUCTION

FEES AND YOU KNOW. >> SURE. I CAN PULL IT UP.

IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT, WE CAN PULL UP SOME OF THOSE -- LIKE A BREAKDOWN, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE

LOOKING FOR? >> THE BREAKDOWN AND WHAT COMPANY THE COURT: REMEMBER, IT'S JUST A COST ESTIMATE. WE HAVEN'T GONE OUT FOR ANYTHING YET. THERE IS NO COMPANY INVOLVED, COMMISSIONER.

>> NO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INVOLVED NOW. THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS IS THAT WE'LL HAVE A DESIGNER COME ON, WHICH IS SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA, SELECTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. AND THEN ONCE THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS ARE COMPLETE, THEN YOU'LL GO OUT FOR BID. AND ONLY THEN WILL YOU IDENTIFY AND HIRE THE MOST QUALIFIED

CONTRACTOR TO ACTUALLY BUILD THE PROJECT. >> SO NO DESIGN HAS BEEN MADE?

>> DESIGN IS UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH DESIGN RIGHT NOW.

>> WE'VE BEEN IN THE 40 PERCENT FOR THE PAST TWO MONTHS. HOW COME IT'S NOT MOVING FORWARD? I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU WITH THE TWO LESS PROBABLY LAST MONTH, WE SAID 40 PERCENT. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HOLDING UP THE DESIGN.

I MEAN, IS SOMETHING HOLDING UP THE DESIGN? I MEAN, I THINK BY NOW -- HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN SINCE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON DESIGN? HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN?

>> MIKE, CAN YOU JUMP IN AND TALK ABOUT WHEN DESIGN WAS ACTUALLY STARTED.

AND THEN JUST BASED ON COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETINGS AND SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD ALONG THE WAY, WE'RE WAITING TO SEE IF WE NEED TO CONTINUE FORWARD WITH DESIGN

OR TO NOT CONTINUE FORWARD WITH DESIGN. >> UNTIL THEY KNOW WHAT THE COURT WANTS, I DON'T KNOW -- YOU WOULD WANT THEM TO BE MUCH FARTHER ALONG IN THE DESIGN.

THE COURT: YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DESIGNING TO FINISH.

>> GOOD POINT. BUT I WAS AT THE .3 MILLION OR 3.5 MILLION.

I THOUGHT WE WERE WORKING OUT OF THAT. >> SO FAR, WHAT HAS YOUR FEE

BEEN? WHAT IS YOUR COST? >> AS PROGRAM MANAGER.

I'LL PULL THAT UP RIGHT NOW. SO FAR LAN AS EXPENDED $63,000 IN PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FEES GETTING TO THIS POINT. THAT HAS BEEN ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS OF WORK.

UP UNTIL TODAY. WITHOUT ANY FURTHER AUTHORIZATION, ANY TIME THAT WE SPEND ON THIS EFFORT IS AT OUR COST. WE'RE NOT CHARGING THE COUNTY ANYMORE DOLLARS TO MANAGE THE WORK. WE'RE BASICALLY A DECISION POINT RIGHT NOW ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROJECT THAT IS FUNDED FURTHER OR NOT. IF IT IS FUNDED FURTHER, THEN YES WE WOULD REQUIRE MORE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FEES TO CONTINUE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

BUT AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE NOT AND WILL NOT CHARGE THE COUNTY. >> I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE, NOTHING HAS BEEN BUILT, GROUND HASN'T BEEN BROKEN AND YOU'VE ALREADY

CHARGED US $60,000. >> NO. $63,417. >> TO BE EXACT.

>> YES, SIR. >> BUT THERE IS NOTHING THAT WE CAN SEE -- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT Y'ALL ARE DOING. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE DESIGN IS ONGOING RIGHT NOW.

YOU DON'T HAVE IT READY. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TAKES YOUR TIME.

OR THAT WE HAVE TO PAY YOU GUYS MONEY FOR. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE BACKGROUND IN LEADING UP TO ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION HAPPENING ARE THE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE. SO NOT ONLY IS IT LEADING THE FOCUS GROUPS AND THAT LASTED MAYBE A YEAR, TWO YEARS AGO, WAS WHEN THAT STARTED.

WHEN SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA WAS FIRST HIRED BY THE COUNTY, MR. RAMIREZ IDENTIFIED SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA AS THE NATION'S EXPERT IN DESIGNING ANIMAL CARE FACILITIES. A COUPLE MONTHS LATER, LAN WAS HIRED AS YOUR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, AND GOING FORWARD, THERE WERE SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF FOCUS GROUPS ON WHERE TO PUT THE FACILITY, WHICH OPTION BASED ON THREE OPTIONS THAT

[04:55:02]

WERE PRESENTED BY SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA WOULD BE THE BEST OPTION.

SO THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF LEGWORK THAT HAPPENED TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE NOW.

>> WHAT IS THE COST FOR THAT SHELTER COST OF AMERICA, WHATEVER YOU CALL THEM.

WHAT IS THEIR COST? >> SURE. SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA WAS FIRST HIRED BY THE COUNTY JUAN RAMIREZ RECOMMENDED THEM TO DO A NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY.

YOU PAID SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA $22,000 TO DO THE STUDY.

I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHICH ACTUAL COURT IT WAS, BUT THEN TO DO THE ACTUAL DESIGN WORK, YOU HIRED SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA AT $595,000 TO DO THE DESIGN WORK.

SO THAT IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. AND ALREADY FUNDED THROUGH CO21. TO COMPLETE THAT DESIGN WORK. A LITTLE OVER $600,000 TO DO THE DESIGN, COMPLETE DESIGN AND THEN CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES.

THAT WOULD BE ANTICIPATED AS PART OF THEIR CONTRACT AS WELL, TO DO WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING, SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA WOULD COME PERIODICALLY FOR WHAT YOU CALL AN OAC MEETING, OWNER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR MEETING. AND THAT MONEY HAS BEEN SET

ASIDE TO ADDRESS THAT PHASE OF THE PROJECT. >> SO YOU'RE SAYING 600,000 TO

DO THE DESIGN? >> SO 22,000 TO DO THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT STUDY.

THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT MAYBE A YEAR AND A HALF OR TWO AGO.

MAY 2019, WAS THAT TIME FRAME. AND $595,000 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO FUND THEIR -- TO FUND

SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA'S DESIGN PHASE EFFORT. >> I KNOW THE CONCERN IS THE PRICE. I THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S OUT THERE THAT SOME OF THE COURT HAS ISSUES WITH LAN. MY EXPERIENCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT KYLE AND THE GROUP I'VE DEALT WITH HERE ON THIS PROJECT HAVE BEEN UPSTANDING INDIVIDUALS, PROFESSIONALS, WHO HAVE BEEN HUMBLE IN THEIR SERVICE OR VERY AWARE OF THE CONCERNS OUT THERE IMPACTING THE LARGER COMPANY AND THE REPRESENTATION AND REPUTATION AND I THINK THAT THEY'RE VERY AWARE OF THAT. I THINK THERE HAVE AND WILL PROVIDE GOOD WORK FOR US.

AND I HEAR THE CONCERNS AS FAR AS THE NUMBERS. I'M WITH YOU.

THERE IS NOTHING THAT I WANT TO THROW MY SUPPORT BEHIND THAT COSTS A LOT OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS. BUT IT'S ALL RELATIVE. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL PRICE TAG FOR MR. RICHTER OUT AT THE HILLTOP. THAT IS A LARGE SUM OF MONEY.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IT'S RELATIVE, IT IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY. I DON'T WANT TO UNDERPLAY THE AMOUNT THAT HAS BEEN ALLOCATED FOR THE PROGRAM WORK THAT LAN IS NOT A LOT. IT IS.

BUT I FEEL THAT THE GROUP WE'VE DEALT WITH HAVE BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE TO MY NEEDS.

TO OUR ANIMAL ADVISORY GROUP. AND THE YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.

SO I FEEL YOU KNOW, THEY'RE WANTING TO LAY EVERYTHING ON THE LINE.

I THINK KYLE COULD HAVE SAID VERY MUCH I CAN GET THOSE NUMBERS TO YOU LATER, BUT HE PULLED IT RIGHT UP OFF HIS COMPUTER OBVIOUSLY, TO BE ABLE TO GET THOSE DOLLAR AMOUNTS TO YOU SO THAT YOU CAN SCRUTINIZE IT. AND I THINK WE SHOULD.

BUT LIKE I SAID, I MEAN, EVERY PROJECT IS RELATIVE AS FAR AS HOW MUCH WE'RE PUTTING.

I HEAR THERE IS A STOPPING POINT. I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS COURT MADE A STATEMENT A WHALE BACK, UP TO 3.5 WAS THE MOST THAT WE COULD FEEL COMFORTABLE AS A GROUP WITH A CONSENSUS TO GO. WITH THIS ADDITIONAL FUNDING, I DON'T WANT TO BE GREEDY OR TO SAY THAT MY PROJECT DESERVES ANYTHING MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE'S PRECINCT.

BUT I'VE BEEN THERE EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. I NEVER VOTED AGAINST ANYONE ELSE'S PROJECTS FOR ANY OTHER PRECINCTS NEEDS OR DESIGNS. IT HAPPENS TO BE IN MY PRECINCT LIKE THE COUNTY AIRPORT AND THE FAIRGROUNDS, BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY ONLY MINE.

THIS SERVES THE ENTIRE COUNTY. WE REALLY DESERVE AND SHOULD HAVE A MODERNIZED BUILDING THAT IS A GOOD LOCATION, EASY AND ACCESSIBLE. I THINK THAT THE PRICE POINT

[05:00:03]

THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN IS FAIR, BASED ON MY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH PUBLIC FUNDED PROJECTS. I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO A LESS AMOUNT.

IT MAY NOT BE THE 5.4, BUT IF THE COURT FEELS THAT THEY COULD THROW OUT A NUMBER THAT IS HIGHER THAN 3.5, BUT SOMETHING THAT STILL LEAVES A LOT ON THE PLATE TO BE ABLE TO PUT IN OTHER PROJECTS, I'M FOR IT. I'M NOT GOING TO BE SELFISH AND SAY NO.

>> RECOMMEND 4.2 >> IF WE COULD DO 4.2, I THINK THAT GIVES THEM DIRECTION, THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD THE COURT: COMMISSIONER, I HAVE -- WE EACH HAVE 500,000 IN OUR COS. IF IT IS HELPFUL TO GET TO THAT 2, I COULD DO 100,000 FROM THE CO21S, YOU KNOW, THAT WERE APPORTIONED. BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS ONLY A MILLION DOLLARS IN THE UNALLOCATED. BUT I COULD DO 100,000 FROM THE CO21. I LOVE ANIMALS. I HAVE CHILDREN THAT ARE HUGE ANIMAL LOVERS. WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM IN THIS COMMUNITY WITH STRAYS.

AND IN THE RURAL COMMUNITIES ESPECIALLY. I THINK THE SPAYING AND THE NEUTERING AND ALL OF THE WORK THAT COULD BE DONE WITH THE MODERNIZED FACILITY, THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTNER WITH TEXAS A&M, 4H, IT'S ENDLESS. I KNOW IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE MUCH, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THAT. AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT MIKE FROM SHELTER PLANNERS, WHO HEARS US, IF THERE WERE TO BE A 4.2 FUNDING FOR THIS FACILITY, COULD YOU SCALE IT BACK SO THAT WE WOULD STILL BE IN KEEPING WITH OUR GOALS, BUT LET'S JUST SAY THE FACADE MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A MUCH MORE REASONABLE COST ESTIMATE, RIGHT? EVERYTHING HAS GOT A COST TO IT. MIKE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THERE? BECAUSE THE PURPOSE THERE IS TO

FINISH A PROJECT, NOT LEAVE IT HANGING. >> JUDGE, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US TODAY. I DO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF THE DECISION.

THERE ARE CERTAIN CONSTITUENTS WITHIN THE COUNTY THAT WOULD LOVE TO BUILD THE TAJ MAHAL FOR AN ANIMAL SHELTER AND YET OTHER PEOPLE THAT COULD CARELESS. I MEAN, CAN'T WE KEEP IT AT THE EXISTING FACILITY. SO THAT IS HOW WIDE THE SPECTRUM IS.

I'M SORRY I CAN'T TELL YOU JUST -- KYLE JUST TEXTED ME AND ASKED ME THE SAME QUESTION.

I'M CERTAIN IF WE DON'T FULLY FUND THE PROJECT AT 5.4 MILLION, WE CAN STILL DO A VERY GOOD PROJECT FOR YOU, IT MIGHT JUST NOT HAVE AS MANY FEATURES AS YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE WOULD LIKE. OR MAYBE EVEN IT WOULD BE VERY DESIRABLE.

SO I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES. I'M JUST NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE NUMBER IS RIGHT NOW.

4.2 COULD MAKE US WHOLE, REASONABLY WHOLE OR NOT. BUT IT IS SOMETHING WE COULD CERTAINLY, IF THE COURT WANTS TO VOTE TODAY FOR 4.2, THAT GIVES US A VERY FIRM NUMBER.

WE DO THIS ALL OF THE TIME, JUDGE. I JUST DID IT AT LAFAYETTE INDIANA EARLIER THIS WEEK. THEY WERE LOOKING AT TEN MILLION, THEY DECIDED WE'RE GOING TO DO SEVEN. IT WASN'T SO MUCH ABOUT THE NEED, AS ABOUT THAT IS HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE GOING TO GIVE. NOW YOU GO MAKE THE DESIGN, THE MOST PROJECT WE CAN GET WITH THAT MONEY, WE DON'T WANT FRILLS AND FUNCTION AND WE NEED TO MEET OUR NEEDS.

GO MAKE IT HAPPEN. SO WE'RE UP TO THAT KIND OF A TASK.

SO I'M SORRY THAT IS NOT A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER. THE COURT: IT'S OKAY.

I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED. I THINK IT WAS A GOOD ANSWER. YOU'LL GIVE ALONG THE WAY THOSE OPTIONS, LIKE COMMISSIONER MAREZ FIRST THOUGHT HEY, PLEASE KEEP IT IN KEEPING WITH.

KEEP IT LOOKING LIKE SOME OF THE STRUCTURES THE COUNTY HAS. MAYBE MAKE DIFFERENT

CONSTRUCTION CHOICES THAT COULD FURTHER LOWER THE COST PERHAPS. >> YES, MA'AM.

WE DEAL WITH THAT ALL THE TIME. THE COURT: OKAY. FAIR ENOUGH.

>> HARD CHOICES TO MAKE. I MEAN, I THINK YOU AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ WERE VERY KIND TO ATTEND FOR NEARLY TWO HOURS NOT TOO LONG AGO, AS WE WENT THROUGH EVERY DETAIL OF THE PROJECT, FROM THE FLOORING MATERIAL, TURNED UP THE WALLS SO WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY JOINTS SO

[05:05:07]

BACTERIA COULDN'T GET GUMPED UP IN THERE, AIR-CONDITIONING AND ALL OF THAT STUFF.

ALL THOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD THAT DAY, EVERY ONE OF THEM HAS A PRICE TAG ASSOCIATED WITH IT. CAN WE DO SOMETHING THAT IS THE LOWER PRICE, PROBABLY YES.

SO WE'LL HAVE TO CIRCLE BACK WITH YOU AND THE COMMISSIONER MAREZ AND JUAN AND HIS WHOLE TEAM WITH WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE. HEY, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE FROM

THIS TO THAT. >> ARE YOU SAYING 4.2 WILL GIVE A TURN-KEY PROJECT?

>> I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THE PROJECT WILL BE AT THIS MOMENT.

BUT YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY DO A TURN-KEY PROJECT FOR 4.2. THE COURT: WE'RE GOING TO LOSE SOME THINGS WE'RE GOING TO LOSE SOME THINGS THAT ARE GOOD IMPORTANT THINGS.

BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF, I APPRECIATE, BECAUSE YOU SAID IT, AND IT TRIGGERED ME. THE COURT SAID WE'RE AT 41 PERCENT, WE'RE THERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS AT THIS JUNCTURE.

WE'RE AT A FORK IN THE ROAD. ALSO, YOUR FEES ARE IN KEEPING WITH THE NORM OF ARCHITECTURAL PRACTICES, SOMEWHERE IN THAT 10 TO 15 PERCENT OF OVERALL COSTS. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. OUR FEE, EVEN THOUGH -- >> 11.5 PERCENT IS WHAT THEIR FEE IS. THE COURT: IN KEEPING WITH ALL ARCHITECTS.

>> IF THEY REDUCE THE NUMBER. MORE THAN 11 PERCENT IF YOU GO DOWN TO 4.2.

>> KEEP IN MIND THAT WE'RE ALSO AT 41 PERCENT OF A DESIGN FOR A $5.4 $5.4 MILLION PROJECT. THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF REDESIGN THAT HAPPENS BASED ON THE DECISIONS AND DISCUSSION TODAY. SO IN FAIRNESS TO SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA, WE COULD LOOK AT IT BUT I WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE, IF WE HAD THIS DECISION MADE AT TEN PERCENT DESIGN, OR 30 PERCENT DESIGN MAYBE, THAT WOULD HAVE SAVED A LOT OF LEGWORK WITH SHELTER PLANNERS OF AMERICA. BUT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE NOW.

AND YES, IF WE WERE TO REDUCE THE OVERALL BUDGET, THEN THE PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION WOULD GO

UP, YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT THAT, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY. >> I WOULD ARGUE -- WELL, I WOULD ARGUE WE SHOULDN'T BE AT 41 PERCENT. I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE SHOULDN'T

BE AT 41 PERCENT BASED ON THIS COURT'S -- >> LET ME SAY THAT TOO.

I AGREE. WE'RE AT WHERE WE'RE AT. THE COURT: LET'S MOVE FORWARD.

>> I DON'T KNOW, IF THAT WAS A MOTION OR I COULD MAKE IT AND I WOULD SECOND IT.

>> SECOND >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT.

I MEAN, I STILL HAVE FUNDING AS WELL THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO USE FROM MY PRECINCT FUNDS.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A LOT. BUT IF IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. MAKING SLIGHT SUBTLE CHANGES, THAT IMPROVES TO THE OVERALL QUALITY ENHANCEMENTS IT COULD PROVIDE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT. THERE IS A BIG OUTDOOR COMPONENT AS WELL.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE THE ANIMALS ARE GOING TO BE LIVING IN AC ALL OF THE TIME.

ENENCLOSURE INDOORS, AFTER HOURS. DURING THE DAY, THEY'RE IN AN

OUTDOOR TYPE SETTING? IS THAT RIGHT? >> YOU CAN SPEAK TO THE DESIGN,

MIKE. >> INDOOR OUTDOOR RUNS. EVERY DOG HAS NOT ONLY A SPACE THAT IS INSIDE THE BUILDING THAT IS AIR CONDITIONING, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE ACCESS TO A COMPARTMENT OUTSIDE, SO THEY GET FRESH AIR. AND YOU KNOW, THEY CAN GO TO THE BATHROOM OUT THERE RATHER THAN INSIDE THE BUILDING. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE SOME OUTDOOR DOG EXERCISE YARDS WHERE THE DOGS CAN REALLY LIKE RUN AROUND.

AND ALSO THE PUBLIC CAN INTERACT WITH THOSE DOGS AS THEY EXPLORE WHETHER OR NOT THIS DOG WANTS TO BE THEIR NEW BEST FRIEND, THEY CAN GET THEM OUT OF THE KENNEL AND INTERACT WITH THE DOG. WE CALL THEM GET ACQUAINTED YARDS.

AND THOSE ARE INCLUDED AS WELL. >> I KNOW I'VE MENTIONED IT BEFORE A FEW TIMES, BUT FOR THE COMMISSIONERS SINCE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN A PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS, THERE IS A PROPERTY RIGHT NEXT DOOR PRETTY MUCH TO WHERE THE PROPOSED SITE IS.

SO IT IS A MOBILE HOME PARK, WHERE IT'S PERMANENT RESIDENCY PRETTY MUCH.

[05:10:07]

SO THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN. GRANTED, YOU'VE GOT THE TRAIN, SOUTHERN PACIFIC THAT IS RUNNING NORTH TO SOUTH ABOUT 100 YARDS ACROSS THE ROAD. BUT AT NIGHT, WHEN THE TRAIN IS NOT GOING THROUGH TOWN, I DON'T WANT A BUNCH OF YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF ANIMALS BOTHERING THE RESIDENTS AS WELL. THAT IS KIND OF WHY I BROUGHT THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE PART OF THIS, IS THAT YOU KNOW, I RECEIVED THOSE CONCERNS BEFORE. I ALWAYS KEPT THAT IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD, TRIED TO REMIND EVERYONE PRESENT THAT THAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME, THAT WE TRY TO

RESPECT PEOPLE'S NEED TO REST AT NIGHT. >> GOOD POINT, COMMISSIONER.

AND JUAN -- AS NEARLY ALL ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY, THEY DO BRING THE DOGS IN AT NIGHT. SO THEY WON'T BE THERE AT NIGHT BARKING.

THEY WILL BE INDOORS. >> WE MAKE IT 4 MILLION. JUDGE, YOU'VE GOT 100,000.

>> I WILL PUT IN 100,000. THE COURT: YOU WILL DO 100. NOBODY ELSE WANTS TO DO

SOMETHING FOR ANIMALS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MERGE WITH THE CITY.

THE COURT: I THINK THAT IS A WONDERFUL IDEA. BUT THAT REQUIRES EXTRA SPACE

WHICH MEANS EXTRA DOLLARS. >> I'M TRYING TO STAY OUT OF THIS, BECAUSE I'M IN THE

MINORITY IN THIS. LET'S MOVE FORWARD. >> I'LL CALL THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE.

>> NO WITH EXPLANATION THAT I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH THE CITY AND NOT DONE THIS FACILITY WITHOUT DOING THAT. I WOULD LIKE THAT IN THE MINUTES ON WHY I'M VOTING NO. WHICH IS WHAT I'VE DONE ALL ALONG.

THE COURT: WHICH CITY? >> ANYBODY. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE COMBINED WITH SOMEONE WHO HAD AN ANIMAL SHELTER ALREADY. THE COURT: I'M WITH YOU.

>> I'M DEAD ON THAT ONE. THE COURT: YEAH. OKAY.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON. ALSO IF THERE IS ANY CORPORATE WONDERFUL SPONSORS OUT THERE, MANY PEOPLE THAT GIVE TO ANIMALS, AND ANIMAL SHELTERS AND CAUSES AND WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THAT ALL CALL. ALL KINDS OF OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE.

I KNOW ANNA IS HERE. ONCE YOU HAVE A FIRST CLASS FACILITY ANNA, THERE MIGHT BE SOME ANIMAL SERVICES AND ANIMAL CARE SERVICES GRANTS, IF YOU MIGHT DO THAT SEARCH.

YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND OUT THERE. NEXT ITEM IS DISCUSSING SECOND

[11. Discuss and consider Second Amendment to Work Authorization No. 1 with Lockwood, Andrews, Newnam, Inc. regarding Program Management Services providing for reduction in Estimated Cost.]

AMENDMENT TO WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 1, WITH LOCKWOOD ANDREWS NEWMAN INC.

>> SO MOVED. THE COURT: IS THERE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION.

>> I HAVE DISCUSSION. THE COURT: GO AHEAD. >> DIDN'T WE VOTE LAST TIME, I'M TRYING TO FIND THE PAPER. THE NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT. WE VOTED ON NUMBERS THAT IDENTIFIED WHERE THOSE MONIES WERE GOING TO. AND IT CAME OUT TO 1,077,280.

AND THOSE ARE EARMARKED AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE NUMBERS WERE DIFFERENT, WHEN WE VOTED FOR THAT. SO NOW THAT WE'RE DOING A REDUCTION, SO THAT MEANS THOSE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. IF THEY ARE DIFFERENT, THERESA HAS GOT TO GO BACK AND FIND OTHER MONIES TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.

I THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE, WHICH I THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN A SEPARATE REQUEST, IS WHAT I THINK LAN IS REQUESTING, $160,000 MORE, RIGHT? FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT.

THE COURT: COULD WE ASK THERESA TO COME IN TO HELP ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.

I BELIEVE THE PAPERWORK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE SHE COULD PROVIDE.

IS SHE AVAILABLE? I THOUGHT A SECOND AGO, SHE JUST SAID 1,033,000.

>> THERESA IS ON HER WAY OVER. >> YOU SAID IT WAS 1,000,077. >> HE WAS SAYING ALSO THAT WE

[05:15:05]

EARMARKED IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE ALREADY. THAT WAS MORE OF A CONCERN.

THE COURT: LET'S FIND OUT. >> ACTUALLY, THE NUMBERS WERE 2,000,801.

THE OTHER WAS 1,000,077. THE COURT: GO AHEAD, THERESA. >> AND THE ALLOCATIONS FROM THOSE NUMBERS WERE FOR THE EXTENSION AT THE AIRPORT, 470,708 AIRPORT AND THEN COUNTY ROAD 67, TO COUNTY ROAD 28. 129 AND THEN THE AIRPORT EXPANSION IMPROVEMENT RUNWAY WAS 309. SO THE ROCK ISLAND DRIVE 624. AND THEN COUNTY ROAD 48 WAS 269 WAS 27,000. SO THAT CAME TO 1,000,077, USING THOSE NUMBERS WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS. I CAN UNDERSTAND IF THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A REASON FOR AN INCREASE, AND I JUST HEARD HIM SAY PROBABLY THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.

I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN A SEPARATE REQUEST. YOU KNOW WHAT, WE DO NEED AN ADDITIONAL $160,000 FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT IF WE EXTEND OUR PROJECT WITH THE ANIMAL CARE. MAYBE THEY DESERVE A LITTLE BIT MORE. I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET. I DON'T THINK -- BUT THAT IS

WHERE THE NUMBERS CAME FROM, THERESA. >> YES, SIR.

SO ON MARCH 30TH, THE COURT REALLOCATED THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FUNDS FOR LAND AND THAT AMOUNT WAS AN ESTIMATE BECAUSE THEY STILL HAD INVOICES IN THE PIPE.

THOSE ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. SO THE AMOUNT THAT IS BEING REALLOCATED BACK TO THE 2019 UNALLOCATED TAX NOTE IS 1,077,280.

>> RIGHT. WE APPROVED THAT IN COURT LAST TIME.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> HE SAID THOSE FUNDS WERE EARMARKED.

THE FUNDS REDUCING TODAY, MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, ARE NOT ALLOCATED ANYWHERE ELSE?

>> UNALLOCATE IT RIGHT NOW. >> THEY JUST PUT IT TOWARDS THE ANIMAL CARE.

BUT THEY WEREN'T ALLOCATED PRIOR TO THIS. THIS IS A NEW REDUCTION, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT. THIS WAS APPROVED IN MARCH. SO WE'RE JUST NOW MOVING THE FUNDS, BECAUSE WE WERE WAITING ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BEFORE WE ACTUALLY MOVED THE DOLLARS. THIS IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT FROM THEIR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

DOLLARS. >> THAT SAVINGS HAS NOT BEEN ALLOCATED ANYWHERE ELSE?

>> NO, SIR. THE COURT: SO WE'RE GOOD. >> SO REDUCTION IS FOR WHAT?

WHAT IS THE REDUCTION FOR? >> THIS REDUCTION IS THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT THAT Y'ALL REALLOCATED FROM LAND. THEIR EXCESS THAT THEY HAD WHEN Y'ALL STOPPED, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU STOPPED THE WORK. AIRPORT EXPANSION. THE COURT: SOME ROADS.

>> RUNWAY AND THEN SEVERAL ROADS WHERE WE WERE COMPLETE. THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS,

THERE WERE SAVINGS IN THE ROAD. >> SO NOW THAT WE DEDUCT THAT FROM THERE, WHERE DOES THAT

REDUCTION GO? >> THEY GO BACK INTO THE 2019 TAX NOTES UNALLOCATED.

>> IT DOESN'T GO INTO PROJECT MANAGEMENT, RIGHT? >> NO, SIR.

UNALLOCATED POT TO USE WHEREVER YOU WANT TO USE IT. IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO PUT

THAT TOWARDS THE SHORTAGE FOR THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY. >> BUT TO BE FAIR, THERESA, WHEN WE PUT IT TOWARDS THE BIG PROJECT, WHEN WE SAY SOMETHING COST LET'S SAY TURNKEY 4.2 MILLION, THAT IS EVERYTHING IS IN THERE, ENGINEERING IS IN THERE, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IS IN THERE. RIGHT? I MEAN, CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE IN THERE. IT'S TURN KEY. SO WHEN YOU SAY THAT WE'RE TAKING THAT MILLION DOLLARS AND YOU'RE PUTTING IT BACK INTO A PROJECT, TO BE FAIR, EVERYTHING THAT PROJECT NEEDS TURN KEY IS INSIDE THERE. INCLUDING ARCHITECTURAL FEES,

ET CETERA ET CETERA. >> AS LONG AS IT'S BEEN UTILIZED ON THIS PROJECT.

THE NEXT PROJECT THAT COMES UP, WE HAVE THE MONIES THERE THE COURT: IF THERE IS SAVINGS.

[05:20:02]

BUT WE ALLOCATED THEM IN THE PREVIOUS -- THAT IS HOW WE FUNDED IT.

OKAY. AND THIS WORK AUTHORIZATION IS ACTUALLY THE ORDER THAT DOES IT. THAT DOES THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT AND ALLOCATION OF THE FUNDS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE >> THIS IS JUST A VOTE ON ACCEPTING REDUCTION IN ESTIMATED COSTS. AGAIN, I'M TRYING TO BE PARTICULAR. THIS IS WE'RE ACCEPTING THE ALLOCATION, I VOTED NO BUT THIS IS A YES FOR ALLOCATING THE FUNDS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CLEAR. BECAUSE I WANT THE SAVINGS I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THEM WHERE WE PUT THEM. THE COURT: WELL, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE JUST GOT TO -- ARE

YOU OKAY HERE? >> ALL THIS ONE IS IS ACCEPTING THE SAVINGS.

I ALWAYS WANT TO ACCEPT SAVINGS. THE COURT: RIGHT.

OKAY. BUT THERE IS -- THERE IS A WORK TASK ORDER HERE.

>> WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS IN REVERSE ORDER. THE COURT: BUT YOU COULD HAVE EDITED THIS. I MEAN, YOU REALLY SHOULD JUST LOOK AT YOUR AMENDMENT.

BECAUSE THE AMENDMENT SPECIFIES EXACTLY WHAT THE WORK AUTHORIZATION IS.

YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IT. I MEAN, IT'S EVERYTHING THAT TELLS YOU WHAT WE'RE DOING, INCLUDING THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY. NOW, KYLE, YOU WILL HAVE TO ADJUST THAT DOWN TO THAT $4.2 MILLION PRO RATA, CORRECT, SIR?

>> I'M LOOKING AT THE AMENDMENT NOW. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT IS GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO -- >> TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE FOR THE 2021 CIP WAS $5,445,794. THE TOTAL PROJECT COST ESTIMATE BASED ON LAST ITEM DISCUSSION, SOUNDS LIKE THERE WILL BE A 4.2 IS WHAT I HEARD.

I DIDN'T HEAR EXACTLY THAT WE WOULD MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT ON LINE ITEM 3B.

TO SHOW THAT AMOUNT. THE COURT: SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS MOTION SUBJECT TO YOU MAKING THOSE CHANGES WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. IS THAT ALL RIGHT?

>> YES. THE COURT: SUBJECT TO. >> OKAY.

THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, BRENT, IT DOES ACCEPT IT, BUT IT ANTICIPATED THAT THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY WAS GOING TO BE FUNDED BUT NOW HE NEEDS TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE CORRECT AMOUNT, NOT THE AMOUNT THAT -- NOT AMOUNT LISTED IN THE CIP.

>> RIGHT. IN READING THIS, IT SAYS REDUCTION IN THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF WORK, FROM 2.8 MILLION TO 1.9. SAVINGS REALIZE REDUCTION OF COST ASSOCIATED WITH VARIOUS PROJECTS. SO THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY FOR THE RECORD, EVEN THOUGH THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY IS REFERENCED IN THIS ITEM, I'M NOT VOTING FOR THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY. I'M ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT WE'RE GETTING A REDUCTION BASED ON THE DESCRIPTION. I GET IT.

>> JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER, MAY I SAY SOMETHING REGARDING THIS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE NOT

GETTING THE 1.7, YOU'RE ONLY GETTING BACK 800,000. >> YOU GOT TO FIND ANOTHER 200,000 IN THE 4.2. WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT IN REVERSE.

>> SHE'LL GO BACK AND REDO THE NUMBERS. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE GOING TO PASS THE WORK AUTHORIZATION SO THAT WE CAN GET THOSE REALIZE THOSE SAVINGS.

>> FAIR. BUT THEN BACK TO THE ITEM THAT Y'ALL JUST PASSED, I KNOW I VOTED NO, BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT WHAT Y'ALL SAID WAS 4.2 AND YOU SAID A MILLION FROM THIS, WHICH IS NO LONGER A MILLION. NOW WHAT JUAN IS SAYING IS Y'ALL ARE STILL 200 SHORT ON THE 4.2. THE COURT: LET ME EXPLAIN IT.

LOOK, THE MILLION INCLUDES THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. IT'S A TURN KEY.

IF THE TURN KEY PRICE IS 4.2, PROGRAM MANAGEMENT IN ADDITION THE WHOLE PROJECT IS 4.2.

WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT THE MATH LATER. >> YOU'RE REALLOCATING 168,000

[05:25:04]

FOR ADDITIONAL PROGRAM MATCHING >> WITH KYLE, I THINK HE MAY HAVE LEFT.

HE IS THERE. OKAY. SO WITH THIS NEW NUMBER, THE COURT PASSED A $4.2 MILLION TURN KEY ALL IN PRICE, ASSUMING THAT A MILLION WAS GOING TO SHIFT FROM THIS ITEM. 100 FROM YOU AND 100 FROM JOHN. NOW THAT WE WENT FROM 4.2, KYLE, DOES THAT CHANGE THE NUMBER OF SHIFT TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO COME UP WITH OR IS IT INCLUDED IN THE 4.2? I'M CLARIFYING. NOT CRITICIZING.

I'M JUST SAYING OR DOES THE COURT HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS ITEM AND FIND 50,000 OR 100,000, I DON'T KNOW. IF THEY DON'T, THAT'S FINE. BECAUSE WHEN Y'ALL DID THIS AGENDA ITEM, 5.4. THE COURT: KYLE, CAN YOU REITERATE, WHEN YOU SAY 4.2,

IT'S 4.2. >> SOUNDS LIKE -- I'M HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE FOLLOWING THE INS AND OUTS. THINGS SEEM TO BE CHANGING. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ANIMAL CARE BUILDING WOULD BE A $4.2 MILLION PROJECT. WHERE THAT MONEY COMES FROM, SOUNDS LIKE PART OF IT IS COMING FROM HERE, PART OF IT COMING FROM SOME OTHER FUNDING SOURCES. JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ. SO WHATEVER THE TOTAL IS THERE, IT SOUNDS LIKE WOULD BE THE 3 MILLION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED IN 2021 COS PLUS WHATEVER THE REMAINING BALANCE IS HERE. WOULD BE THE ALL IN TURN KEY PRICE FOR THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY. FORGIVE ME FOR THAT KNOWING THE MATH. THE COURT: LET ME GO BACK AND TRY TO GET EVERYONE'S MATH BRAIN WORKING. YOU DID A DOOZY HERE ON US. GO BACK.

>> BARBARA, I'M LOOKING AT THIS NUMBER. 860.

THE COURT: LET ME GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING. JUAN, CAN YOU HELP OUT HERE?

BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT I SAID. >> WHAT WE WANTED TO DO, PUBLIC WORKS WANTED TO DO, WE WANTED TO CLEAN IT UP, MAKE SURE YOU GET YOUR 1,077,000 BACK. AND THEN YOU COME BACK TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT AND COMMISSIONER'S COURT CAN DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO REALLOCATE 168,000 INTO PROJECT MANAGEMENT. THAT WAY THERESA CAN MAKE SURE SHE HAS HER MONIES IN THE BANK. WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS VOTING ON TWO SEPARATE THINGS THAT Y'ALL

APPROVED THE COURT: SAME THING. >> Y'ALL SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN YOUR $1.7 MILLION BACK FIRST AND THEN COME BACK TO THE NEXT COMMISSIONER'S COURT AND SUBMIT $168,000 ADDITIONAL MONIES THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. THE COURT: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION. THE QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER CHESNEY WANTS TO ASK, WHEN YOU

SAID IT'S A REDUCTION. >> HOLD ON. THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.

WHAT I CAUGHT WAS I'M LOOKING AT 3A.11, OVERALL THE REDUCTION IS 860.

SO I'M NOT -- I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE MILLION 77 CAME FROM.

TO MAKE SURE Y'ALL HAVE ENOUGH MONEY. THE COURT: THIS IS ONE WORK AUTHORIZATION THAT DOES EVERYTHING AT THE SAME EXACT TIME.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE DOLLARS. THINK ABOUT WHAT HE JUST SAID, HE SAID I WANT YOU TO TAKE IT AND THEN GIVE IT. THIS ONE BASICALLY REDUCES THE SAME AMOUNT. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE OTHER THAN IT'S CLEANER THIS WAY.

AND WHAT IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING, BRENT, IS THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FULLY FUNDED. WE ARE. WHEN YOU HAVE A $5.4 MILLION PROJECT, AS WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, THAT INCLUDED PROGRAM MANAGEMENT.

SO KYLE, THE CONCERN HERE WAS THAT WHEN WE SAID 4.2, WE'RE DOWNGRADING EVERYTHING.

SO THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT -- WE SHOULD BE 100 PERCENT FINE. I HEAR YOU.

IT'S GOING TO BE A BETTER SAVINGS BECAUSE THE 860 IS BASED OFF 5.4.

YOU'RE WITH ME, RIGHT? >> THAT MAKES SENSE. I WAS THINKING THIS NUMBER WAS A MILLION 77. THE COURT: CONSIDER IT ALREADY PART OF THE 4.2.

>> IF THERESA SAYS YOU'VE GOT 4.2, I'M GOOD. SHE IS THE ONE THAT KEEPS THE MONEY. THE COURT: WE COULD HAVE REVERSED IT AND IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE EASIER, BUT I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT ON THE AGENDA.

BUT IT'S FINE. BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY MADE THE DECISION FIRST AND NOW YOU CAN

[05:30:01]

APPROPRIATE THE WORK AUTHORIZATION TO THE DECISION YOU JUST MADE, WHICH IN THIS

CASE, ACTUALLY WORKS. DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? >> IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, THERESA WILL TELL US. THE COURT: THERESA, DO YOU FEEL LIKE BEFORE WE LEAVE IT, WE'RE

GOOD? >> RIGHT. BECAUSE WE'RE REALLOCATING THE COST IS GOING TO DECREASE, 4.2, SO WHATEVER CHANGE THAT LAN IS GOING TO HAVE AS FAR AS PROGRAM MANAGEMENT MAYBE WE'RE INC INCLUDING IN THAT NUMBER THE COURT: CAN YOU ITEMIZE IT FOR IT. AIRPORT, ROADS. AND IT'S ALSO THE -- AIRPORT

EXPANSION IMPROVEMENTS. >> A MILLION 77. NOT THE 860 ON THIS SHEET.

IT WAS THE MILLION 77 FROM THE LAST COURT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

WHAT THEY'RE INCORPORATING IS ALSO THE INCREASE FOR ANIMAL CONTROL THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THEY'RE TRYING TO INCLUDE IT ON THIS ONE, ON THE AMENDMENT.

THEY JUST INCLUDED IT ON THE AMENDMENT. SO NOW THE COST HAS GONE DOWN.

WITH THIS MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE'RE REALLOCATING, IT'S IN THIS NUMBER.

THE COURT: AND IF WE'RE WRONG, BRING IT BACK. JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ BOTH ARE SAYING THEY CAN DO AN EXTRA $100,000. THE COURT: IT WILL GIVE A CHANCE TO KYLE TO ABSORB WHAT WE JUST SAID. SHANE IS LAUGHING AT YOU, KYLE.

NOT AT YOU, FEELING SORRY FOR YOU. ALL OF THE ABOVE.

BOTTOM LINE IS I THINK WE'RE GOOD. BUT IF WE'RE NOT, FOR ANY REASON, WE GO BACK THROUGH EVERYTHING AND WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING IT BACK.

OKAY. BUT I THINK THIS DOES ADDRESS IT.

AND LIKE I SAID, IF WE'RE OFF, PLEASE LET US KNOW. ALL RIGHT.

[12. Receive presentation/report on COVID expenses submitted to FEMA and reimbursed to date.]

GOING ON. WE'VE GOT THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS KEVIN FULLER, KWE'RE GOING O RECEIVE THEIR PRESENTATION REPORT ON COVID EXPENSES SUBMITTED TO FEMA AND REIMBURSED TO DATE. TWO ITEMS TO LOOK AT HERE. ONE WAS OLD, ONE NEW.

NOTHING CHANGED, IT'S JUST AN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE FOR US TO SEE IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.

I JUST LIKED IT THIS WAY. BUT YOU HAVE YOUR CHOICE. THE ONE YOU GOT BEFORE AND THE ONE THAT IT'S THE SAME STUFF, WITH A LITTLE MORE FOOTNOTING. YES, SIR.

GO AHEAD. >> YOU ANSWERED. THE COURT: A LITTLE BIT OF FOOTNOTING. OKAY. CAITLYN OR KEVIN, I'LL PASS OVER TO YOU. YOU'VE GOT THREE DOCUMENTS. CONNIE, CAN YOU BRING THEM UP.

THE COURT WANTED TO HEAR COVID-19 RECOVERY, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HELP US UNDERSTAND IT.

>> JUDGE, I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN. THE COURT: SHARE YOUR SCREEN.

>> OKAY. CAN YOU GUYS SEE THAT OKAY? GOOD AFTERNOON, THANK YOU GUYS FOR ALLOWING US THE TIME TO BE ON THE AGENDA TODAY, AND SPEAK TO THE COURT OF NUECES COUNTY REGARDING COVID-19 COST RECOVERY EFFORTS. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT I HAVEN'T MET YET, MY NAME IS CAITLYN, I'M JOINED BY OUR DEPUTY DIRECTOR KEVIN FULLER TO HELP PROVIDE THIS REPORT TO YOU GUYS. SHARED WITH YOU TODAY, DEVELOPED A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE COST RECOVERY EFFORTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED UNDER FEMA A PA

[05:35:05]

OR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE AS WELL AS CORONAVIRUS RELIEF FUND AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL FUND.

AS WELL AS THOSE, WE HAVE ALSO KIND OF DELINEATED THE CURRENT AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN RECOVERED IN COMPARISON TO THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE PROVIDED TRACKING FOR THIS DISASTER.

TO GIVE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE PA FEMA PROGRAM, I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT SINCE YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE ANY TYPE OF REPORT ON THIS. THIS PROGRAM, ON THE FIRST PAGE, REIMBURSEMENT BASIS, ALL WORK AND COST CLAIMS ARE VALIDATED TO BE IN LINE WITH ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES. COVID-19 DECLARATION, ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES ARE ACTION TAKEN TO ELIMINATE OR LESSEN EFFECTS TO LIVES AND PUBLIC SAFETY. IN THAT, THE FIRST BIG PROJECT THAT I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH IS PW 145, EXPEDITED PROJECT FOR VACCINE ACTIVITIES WHICH THE COUNTY RECEIVED ADVANCED FUNDING IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE ADMINISTRATION ACTIVITIES, ALL OF THE RFRS IN THE TABLE BELOW THAT WILL ACT AS RECONCILEATION TO THE ADVANCED AMOUNT. NO FURTHER PAYMENTS WILL BE MADE ON THAT PROCESS UNTIL THE COUNTY MEETS THAT ADVANCED FUNDING AMOUNT. TO DATE, WE HAVE SUBMITTED MULTIPLE SCOPE OF WORK MODIFICATIONS, ADDITIONAL FACILITIES THAT THE COUNTY HAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE VACCINE ACTIVITIES, THE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE 100 PERCENT FEDERAL COST SHARE. THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT WE SUBMITTED THIS MONTH EXTENDS IT TO JULY 1ST, 100 PERCENT FEDERAL COST SHARE DATE.

FURTHERMORE, WITH THOSE RFRS WE SUBMITTED THREE IN TOTAL SO FAR.

ONE OF THOSE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND FULLY PROCESSED IN REVIEW QUEUES.

PART OF THAT ONE WAS DEEMED INELIGIBLE DUE TO THE CONTRACT PORTION OF THE MODULE BEING FOR TESTING WHICH WE HAVE GONE AHEAD AND INCLUDED THAT IN THE SECOND APPLICATION THAT IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER ON THE SCREEN AS WELL. AND THEN THE OTHER TWO, THEY ARE JUST IN THE TETEM REVIEW PROCESS, WE'VE BEEN REQUESTING INFORMATION TO TRY TO GET THEM THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THEY NEED TO MOVE THAT PROCESS ALONG.

>> CAITLYN, LET ME STOP YOU RIGHT THERE, TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE FOCUS ON ONE WORD.

ON RFR NUMBER 1, WHEN IT SAYS THAT THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS 268, AMOUNT APPROVED WAS 146, THE REASON IT WAS DEEMED INELIGIBLE IS THAT WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS.

547818 IS WHERE THE REST OF THAT AMOUNT WILL GET RECOVERED BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT TDEM WANTED US TO BIFURCATE TESTING AND VACCINATIONS. RFR 1, 2 AND 3 ARE ALL IN RESPONSE TO VACCINATONS ONLY. THE NEXT ONE IS IN RESPONSE TO TESTING AND OTHER EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR. GO AHEAD.

AND THE NEXT APPLICATION. >> TO CONTINUE WITH THE APPLICATION 547182, THAT ALSO REFERENCED AS THE SECOND COUNTY APPLICATION, THAT ONE DOES INCLUDE ALL OF THE OTHER EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES THAT THE COUNTY, SUCH AS TESTING RAPID INFUSION CENTERS, ALSO COSTS AND WORK PROCEEDED WITH THE SAFE OPENING AND OPERATION OF YOUR FACILITIES.

OUR TEAM HAS WRITTEN THIS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE MODIFIED TO INCLUDE FUTURE WORK AND COSTS AS THEY ARE INCURRED. AND THEN FURTHERMORE, THERE IS A THIRD APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE CREATED AS WELL THAT WE'RE STILL WAITING ON SOME DOCUMENTATION TO START FULLY PROCESSING. THAT ONE IS PERTAINING TO THE LABORATORY CONTRACT, LABORATORY

[05:40:03]

PROCESSING CONTRACT OF THE COVID TESTS THAT THE COUNTY HAD BEEN RECEIVING -- SORRY.

THE PROCESSING OF THE COVID TESTS FOR THE COUNTY DUE TO THE OMICRON SURGE BACK IN JANUARY.

WE KEPT THIS ONE SEPARATE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE HIT THE SUBMIT BUTTON ON THE SECOND APPLICATION AND THIS ONE, BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY ONE CONTRACT, A SPECIFIC SET OF WORK, WE WERE HOPING THAT ONCE WE GET ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS IN, WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THAT ONE THROUGH THE FEMA PRETTY QUICKLY. JUST WANTED TO TAKE A SECOND AND SEE IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

THE COURT: LET'S ASK. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE 4.899 UPFRONT SO THAT IS AN ADVANCEMENT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED ALREADY.

SO HAD 4.899, THE WAY THEY DO IT AT FEMA IS THAT THEY GIVE YOU HALF NOW AND ONCE YOU FINISH GETTING PAID BACK WITH HALF, IT'S IN OUR TREASURY NOW, THEY'LL GIVE YOU THE REST.

SO EVERYTHING KIND OF RUNS ON THAT 50 PERCENT NOW, 50 PERCENT LATER.

BUT THE AWARD IS FOR 4.899, THAT IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT WHEN WE GET TO THE NEXT PAGE, BECAUSE OUR BURN RATE IS ON THE NEXT PAGE. AND IT SHOWS A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT WE'VE ALREADY EXPENDED TO DATE, OVER THE LAST 2 AND A HALF YEARS.

IT SHOWS WHAT WE'VE RECOVERED AND IT SHOWS THAT WHAT WE NEED LEFT.

AND IF YOU WILL LOOK AT $4,921,000, IT'S DARN CLOSE TO THE 4,899,000 WE'VE BEEN AWARDED. THERE IS STILL A POSSIBILITY TO GO BACK AND COLLECT THE REST OF THE $22,000. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT.

BUT OUR GOAL RIGHT NOW IS TO GET ALL THOSE APPLICATIONS PAID FOR.

AND AGAIN, WE HAVE THE MONEY IN OUR BANK ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF 2.2 MILLION, BUT WE HAVE THE AWARD ALL THE WAY UP TO 4.899. SO WITH THAT AS A STAGE, CAITLYN, LET'S HOLD AND ASK FOR

QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONERS. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO -- I MET WITH ANNA. THAT WAS ONE OF THE BEST MEETINGS I HAVE HAD WITH THIS WHOLE THING. QUESTIONS WERE VERY WELL CLARIFIED THE PROCESS.

WE WENT STEP BY STEP. I WAS CONFUSED MOST OF THE TIME.

THAT WAS THE AWARD AMOUNT. WE DIDN'T GET THAT MONEY. WE GOT 205.

THAT CAME TO US. BUT WE HAD TOE USE THAT AMOUNT, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE GOT THE OTHER HALF. RIGHT NOW WE'VE ONLY USED 785,000, ACCORDING TO THE CHART IN THE BOTTOM, THAT WE NEED TO USE OR EXPOSE THE TWO MILLION THAT ARE LEFT.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE NOW. SO I MEAN, IF WE DON'T DO THOSE TWO MILLION, WE DON'T GET THOSE

TWO MILLION, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. YOU'LL NEED TO RECONCILE UP TO THAT ADVANCED AMOUNT OF THE 2.2 MILLION IN ORDER TO TAP IN TO THE SECOND HALF.

WE ARE STILL WORKING ON SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL RFRS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.

THESE AREN'T ALL OF THE EXPENSES THAT HAVE BEEN CATALOGED TO VACCINES.

SHOULD YOU NOT HIT THAT FULL OBLIGATED AMOUNT OR THE ADVANCED FUNDING AMOUNT, THERE IS ALWAYS THE POTENTIAL TO OFFSET IN FUTURE PROJECTS, SINCE THE COUNTY DOES HAVE MORE

EXPENSES TO CLAIM UNDER FEMA PA FOR ADDITIONAL WORK COMPLETED. >> BUT THEN AGAIN WE MIGHT NOT GET THAT. ON THE BOTTOM IT SAYS THE RFR, 6/21, REALLY ALMOST A YEAR AGO.

WE SUBMITTED 268,375. AS A REIMBURSEMENT. WE ONLY GOT 146,375.

[05:45:09]

AND THE AMOUNT IS ZERO. THE OTHER HALF WE LOST. >> IT DOESN'T.

>> HOLD ON. I'M NOT ASKING YOU, JUDGE, PLEASE.

YOU GET US CONFUSED. I'M ASKING HER TO RESPOND TO ME.

THE OTHER HALF, TO ME WHEN I SAY ZERO THERE, IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THE OTHER HALF? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SHOW ANYWHERE ELSE. SO LET ME JUST -- I'LL COME BACK TO THAT. THE OTHER ONE THAT WE SUBMITTED FOR REIMBURSEMENT 201,000.

AMOUNT APPROVED WAS ZERO. BUT IT'S STULE UNDER REVIEW, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. >> CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT IS STILL UNDER REVIEW AS OF 10/21. ALMOST A YEAR, MAYBE A FEW MONTHS. WHATEVER. THEN WE WENT TO THE THIRD ONE, WAS 12/8/21, WE SUBMITTED ANOTHER REIMBURSEMENT, 438,000,266.

AGAIN, THE AMOUNT APPROVED WAS ZERO. AND SO NOW THE

>> THEN FOR THE THIRD ONE, THAT IS REGARDING THE BCFS CONTRACT. THERE WAS A SMALL AMENDMENT NEEDED FOR THAT ONE, FOR THEM TO CONTINUE PROCESSING. THAT ONE JUST GOT TAKEN OFF OF

HOLD AS WE REMITTED THAT BACK TO THEM. >> WHEN DID YOU SUBMIT IT BACK

TO THEM? >> I WANT TO SAY WITHIN THE PAST TWO TO THREE WEEKS?

>> DO WE HAVE A LETTER THAT SAYS THAT? >> COMMISSIONER, YOU'LL RECALL

THAT THE COURT MADE THAT AMENDMENT HERE IN COURT. >> DO WE HAVE A LETTER THAT SHOWS THAT WE SUBMITTED IT, THAT WE ASKED FOR REIMBURSEMENT THE COURT: YES, IT'S CALLED THE

RFR. >> WITH THE RFR PROCESS, WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU'LL SIGN -- WE ROUTE A PAYMENT OF FUNDS REQUEST THROUGH THE JUDGE'S OFFICE FROM THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATOR. FROM THERE, ONCE WE HAVE THAT SIGNED FORM, WE GO INTO WHAT IS CALLED TDEM'S GMS SYSTEM AND INPUT THE EXPENSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON THAT RFR.

THAT IS OUR DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOWS THAT THE RFR IS SUBMITTED.

WE RESPOND VIA E-MAIL. SO I DO HAVE THE E-MAIL WHERE I HAVE REMITTED THAT AMENDMENT TO

THEM. SO THEY DO HAVE IT. >> DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THAT?

THE COURT: ASK HER AGAIN. I DON'T THINK SHE HEARD YOU. >> OF COURSE.

>> RIGHT NOW WE CAN SAY THAT THOSE TWO ITEMS, TWO AND THREE, ACTUALLY ARE STILL UNDER

REVIEW, RIGHT? >> YES. >> UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE SEEN AROUND THE STATE, WHERE TDEM, THEY'RE TAKING THEIR TIME WITH THESE REVIEWS. A LOT OF CAPACITY ISSUES ON THEIR SIDE.

A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS AROUND THE STATE ARE REQUESTING THIS STUFF ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

I THINK THAT IS LEADING TO A LOT OF THE DELAYS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THEY'RE SENDING RFIS AS QUESTIONS COME UP AS OPPOSED TO WAITING AND SUBMITTING

EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. >> WHAT WE'RE DOING IS USING OUR MONEYS, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE FUNDING THIS OUT AT A SPECIAL FUND PENDING REIMBURSEMENT.

SPECIAL FUND PENDING REIMBURSEMENT >> HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE IN

SPECIAL REVENUE? >> TWO MILLION THERE. BUT WE USE THOSE FUNDS AND

WAITING FOR THEM TO SAY THAT IT'S ACTUALLY OURS. >> THE OTHER THING, GO TO APPLICATION NUMBER 5478. IT SAYS SUBMITTED TO FEMA IN JANUARY, 2022.

CURRENTLY IN FEMA PROJECT REVIEW. THAT IS ALSO IN REVIEW, RIGHT?

[05:50:11]

IS THAT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS? >> YES.

THIS IS FUNDING OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WE ASKED FOR FOR THE EXPEDITED PROJECT.

DIFFERENT SCOPE ITEMS. BECAUSE IT'S NOT AN EXPEDITED PROJECT, THESE ARE COSTS ALREADY PAID THAT THE COUNTY HAS NOT BEEN PAID FOR THAT WE'RE REQUESTING REIMBURSEMENT FOR. IT'S GOING DIRECTLY THROUGH THE FEMA SYSTEM, AS OPPOSED TO HAVE TO FUNNEL THROUGH TDEM. IT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS FOR THESE PROJECTS.

>> DO WE GET THAT AMOUNT? I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

WE'RE ASKING FOR MORE FUNDS, WHEN WE CAN'T EVEN SPEND THE 1,215,000 THAT WE HAVE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR MORE FUNDS WHEN WE CAN'T SPEND WHAT WE HAVE.

IT'S STILL IN REVIEW FOR RIGHT NOW, I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

I KNOW IT WAS FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. BECAUSE ONE IS FOR TESTING, RAPID FUSION. YOU KNOW, BUT MAYBE -- I THINK THEY DON'T ALLOW US TO USE THE TWO MILLION FOR DIFFERENT THINGS. THE COURT: YOU ARE COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS ON ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU SAID. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BACK UP. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO INSIST THAT YOU HELP.

BECAUSE THIS IS NOT FAIR TO COMMISSIONER GONZALES, THAT HE HAS THESE THOUGHTS, BASED ON INCORRECT PREMISES. IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE NEED TO GET BACK TO BASICS HERE.

SO WE HAVE TO START WITH THE BURN RATE. BECAUSE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON YOUR PREMISES. WE ABSOLUTELY WILL NEED EVERY DOLLAR.

>> THEY WERE TELLING ME IT'S CORRECT. YOU'RE SAYING I'M WRONG.

WHO IS RIGHT, YOU OR THEM? I'M TALKING TO -- THEY'RE THE ONES HANDLING ALL OF THIS

STUFF. >> THE $300,000 HAVE THOSE BEEN SUBMITTED?

>> OBVIOUSLY ONCE THAT IS RECEIVED IN OUR HANDS, WE CAN WORK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO GET THAT FORMULATED AND IN FEMA'S HANDS TO START THE REVIEW PROCESS.

OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU SAID, WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE ORIGINAL EXPEDITED PROCESS.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE DON'T WANT THE FACT THAT THAT ONE SCOPE ITEM IS BEING HELD UP BY SOME DELAYS ON THE TDEM SIDE TO PREVENT US FROM SUBMITTING OTHER COSTS FOR OTHER ITEMS. SO OBVIOUSLY, IF WE HAVE $2.1 MILLION WORTH OF COSTS THAT WE FEEL LIKE ARE ELIGIBLE AND READY TO SUBMIT TO THE COUNTY FOR FEMA, WE'RE WAITING FOR THE EXPEDITED PROJECT TO WORK THROUGH AND WE CAN WORK THE MULTIPLE PATHS AT THE SAME TIME, WHILE OBVIOUSLY DRTRYINGO

GET YOU GUYS AS MUCH MONEY AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. >> ARE WE STILL WAITING FOR

INVOICES ON THE 300,000? THE COURT: YES. >> FROM WHO?

>> SPAN. THE COURT: AGAIN, WE HAVE NOT BEEN IN INVOICED.

WE CAN'T ASK FOR REIMBURSEMENT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T PAID ANYBODY ANYTHING.

WE HAVE NOT PAID ANYBODY BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT INVOICED US YET.

>> IF WE DON'T SUBMIT ANYTHING, WE DON'T PAY ANYTHING THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT, SIR.

THAT IS WHY IT'S FOOTNOTED THAT WAY. >> I KNOW YOU GET UPSET BECAUSE I QUESTION IT. I JUST WANT YOU TO READ IT BECAUSE IT SAYS IT RIGHT THERE.

UNFORTUNATELY, YOU NEED THE INVOICES. YEAH.

SO YOU HAVE NOT SPENT ANYTHING. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS. THE COURT: IT SAYS AWAITING

VENDOR TO SUBMIT INVOICES. >> I KNOW ALL THESE INVOICES HAVE GOT NUMBERS.

[05:55:08]

CAITLYN OR THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS TALKING TO ME. THE COURT: KEVIN.

>> I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP AND YOU KNOW, CLARIFYING SOME THINGS HERE.

I JUST KNOW, I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THAT -- THOSE MONIES THAT WE REQUESTED.

DO WE ACTUALLY NEED THEM I GUESS TO PAY SOMETHING THAT THE TWO MILLION IS NOT GOING TO PAY FOR? IS THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT?

>> GO AHEAD. SORRY. >> NO WORRIES.

SO THAT COST WAS ACTUALLY FORMULATED BY ACTUAL EXPENSES THAT THE COUNTY INCURRED AND PROJECTIONS TO GET US THROUGH WHAT WE HAD ITEMIZED AS THE END DATE FOR THE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE. SO THOSE ARE BASED ON ACTUAL COSTS THE COUNTY HAS INCURRED IN THOSE OTHER EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES, SUCH AS TESTING THE RAPID INFUSION CENTERS, SAFE OPENING AND OPERATING. SO THOSE ONES ARE REFLECTED ON WHAT IS STILL OUTSTANDING TO BE RECOVERED ON THE BURN TRACKER THAT IS ON THAT THIRD PAGE.

SO THAT IS INCLUSIVE OF THIS $4.9 MILLION. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT ADVANCED. WE CAN WORK TO SUBMIT RFRS ON THAT ONE UNDER THE VACCINE ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES. IF WE DON'T HIT THAT FULL AMOUNT ON THIS ONE, THE OTHER ONE WITH THE ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES CAN HELP US OFFSET THAT.

BUT THAT WILL COME AFTER WE GET THE OBLIGATIONS. AFTER WE GET NOTICE OF AWARD.

UNTIL WE GET MORE FUNDING. >> OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD CLAIMING AS MANY COSTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE AND COST EFFEC TRY TO TRACK DOWN AND CLAIM.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE ANYWHERE NEAR THAT POINT AT THIS POINT WHERE WE FEEL LIKE IT'S SMALL CHANGE, WE'RE DIGGING IN THE COUCH CUSHIONS FOR COST. I THINK WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF COSTS. IT'S PULLING ALL THAT DOCUMENTATION READY AND SUBMIT IT TO FEMA AND DEFEND IT AS QUESTIONS POP UP. DEPENDING ON THE EXACT PROJECT.

>> CAN YOU KEEP US INFORMED ON WHAT IS GOING ON AND WHAT Y'ALL ARE DOING.

WE DON'T GET ANYTHING FROM YOU GUYS. I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE KEEP INFORMED OF WHAT Y'ALL ARE DOING ALSO WITH THE FEMA AND REQUESTS AND

EVERYTHING ELSE. >> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST -- EVERY WEEK SHE MEETS WITH HAGERTY. THE TRUTH IS THAT YOU HAVE A PERFECT CHANNEL OF GETTING INFORMATION AT ANY TIME, IN ANY WEEK AND EVERYTHING IS UPDATED WEEKLY.

YOU HAVE A PERFECT OPPORTUNITY. YOU NEED TO ASK YOUR COURT MANAGER TO GIVE IT TO YOU.

THEY PROVIDE IT EVERY WEEK TO THE FOLKS THAT YOU PUT IN CHARGE OF MUCH OF THIS WORK.

BUT IN PLAIN ENGLISH -- >> I'LL ASK ADAY TO GIVE ME -- A PHONE CONVERSATION.

I DON'T MIND HEARING A COUPLE OF THOSE. THAT IS GREAT.

I'M SAYING ON THIS ONE, AT ONE POINT WE NEED TO START CLOSING THINGS OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE HEALTH DISTRICT ANYMORE. SO I MEAN, I THINK HAGERTY, I HEARD THEM SAYING THEY'RE TRYING TO -- WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO NOW IS BRING EVERYTHING FROM THE REAR AND TRY TO SUBMIT IT AND SEE HOW IT COMES OUT, RIGHT?

>> THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS KEEP IN MIND, THE ELIGIBLE TIME PERIOD FOR COVID COSTS FOR FEMA IS STILL ONGOING. THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE REIMBURSING ELIGIBLE COSTS AT 100 PERCENT, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, UNTIL JULY 1ST AND THEN AFTER THAT DATE, IT IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED TO BE AT 90 PERCENT REIMBURSEMENT. OBVIOUSLY I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO JUST SORT OF LEAVE COVID-19 BEHIND AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT LEAVING ANY COSTS ON THE TABLE THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY

REIMBURSED. >> I KNOW JULY EXTENDED TO JULY.

BUT I GUESS I WOULD JUST LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WHEN Y'ALL DO SOMETHING.

JUST INFORM US ALSO. >> WE'RE HAPPY TO WORK THROUGH IDA AND OBVIOUSLY THE JUDGE AS NEEDED. AS THE JUDGE MENTIONED, WE DO HAVE A MONDAY CHECK-IN EVERY WEEK THAT OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION IS COMMUNICATED

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION. MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER IT HERE OR NOT.

[06:00:04]

I DON'T KNOW. ARE YOU STILL TAKING APPLICATIONS FOR ERAP?

>> YES. THAT IS STILL AN ONGOING ACTIVITY.

I THINK WE ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT WITH THE HAGERTY TEAM THAT IS WORKING THROUGH A

LOT OF THE APPLICATIONS, LIKE STILL TO THIS DAY, AND ONGOING. >> I'VE HAD ELDERLY LADIES CALL ME SAYING THEY TRIED TO APPLY. I PUT THEM IN CONTACT WITH RACHEL.

IS IT? REBECCA. AND THEY CALLED ME BACK AND SAID THEY TOLD THEM THEY DON'T QUALIFY. SO IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THEY

NEED TO DO ELSE? >> HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR HOW THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE QUALIFIED. I DO KNOW THEY'RE STILL TAKING CALLS. STILL TALKING WITH POTENTIAL RECIPIENTS OF THAT PROGRAM.

I KNOW THEY'RE AWARDING MONEY, I THINK IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS, IT'S BEEN $120,000.

I'D HAVE TO REFERENCE THAT AGAIN TO KNOW FOR SURE THE EXACT NUMBER.

BUT UNDERSTOOD THAT PEOPLE ARE STILL TRYING TO BE A PART OF THIS PROGRAM.

ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT IT'S STILL ACTIVE AND ONGOING. I JUST WOULDN'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF AN INDIVIDUAL CASE TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU WHY OR WHY NOT SOMEONE WOULD BE

ELIGIBLE FOR A PROGRAM. >> IS THIS MONEY THAT IS AVAILABLE, IS IT STRICTLY THROUGH US? BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD THEY LIVE WITHIN THE CITY, THEY CAN'T APPLY ANYMORE. BECAUSE THE CITY RAN OUT OF MONEY.

>> YEAH. >> EXCUSE ME, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT COVID OR SOMETHING NOT?

>> I ASKED HIM A QUESTION ABOUT ERAP >> THAT IS A DIFFERENT AGENDA COMMISSIONER. RIGHT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COVID EXPENSES.

>> THAT IS WHY I ASKED HIM IF HE QUALIFIED FOR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, IF HE COULD ANSWER OR NOT. THAT IS ALL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THE COURT: OKAY. I'M NOT COMPLETE HERE.

BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO AT LEAST HAVE A FEW THINGS HERE ON THE RECORD.

BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY GOOD SPREADSHEET AND WE HAVE VERY GOOD FISCAL PEOPLE UP HERE.

SO I AM GOING TO MAKE TWO OBSERVATIONS. THEY'RE NOT NUMBERED.

WE NEED TO NUMBER OUR PAGES. BUT ON THE PAGE THAT IS ENTITLED NUECES COUNTY COVID-19 BURN RECONCILIATION, THAT SHOWS YOU WHERE WE WERE AT THE END OF THE 2020.

SO AT THE END OF

[13. Discuss and consider funding source for the 2022 Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) Nueces Medical Mission. ]

[06:18:34]

>> THE COUNTY WIDE THING >> OKAY. >> CAN WE AMEND THAT MOTION

[06:18:41]

THEN? >> THE COURT: JUST AMEND THAT.

[06:18:47]

>> CLHANGE IT TO THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND. >> SALE OR ASSETS.

CAN WE CHECK TO CONFIRM THAT WE CAN USE THESE FIRMS FOR THIS PARTICULAR CAUSE.

MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY. >> BECAUSE NORMALLY CAP FOLLOW

EXPENSES MAINLY. >> THAT IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN USING IT FOR IN THE PAST.

SELL THE ASSETS, WE CAN USE IT AGAIN FOR ANY TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

HOWEVER, THIS IS A SPECIAL THAT COMMISSIONER'S COURT HAS SET ASIDE FOR THESE PURPOSES.

I BELIEVE IT CAN BE USED FOR ANY SOURCE YOU CAN SO CHOOSE. >> THAT IS GREAT.

WE CAN DO IT SUBJECT TO JENNY TAKING A LOOK AT IT. >> IS THERE DOOR TWO?

>> I THINK THAT IS GOING TO WORK, THOUGH. >> I THINK IT SHOULD WORK.

>> TO ME, IT'S KIND OF A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. IT SUPPLIES FOR A CAPITAL

[06:20:01]

IMPROVEMENT >> VACCINATIONS FOR AN ANIMAL. >> I LOVE ANIMALS.

THE COURT: AGAIN, YOU WANT TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHERE YOU TAKE DOLLARS SO YOU CAN MAKE CERTAIN THAT YOU'RE MAKING GOOD DECISIONS. I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE YOU JUST THROW IT OUT. I THINK THAT YOU COULD DO MAYBE, LIKE EVEN LIKE I DON'T KNOW, IF THERE IS A TRAIN ORDER. BUT WOULD WE WANT TO MAKE THIS PART OF ANIMAL SERVICES BUDGET AND THEN WE TAKE IT FROM THERE. LIKE ON A CHANGE ORDER.

>> ANIMAL SERVICES IS PART OF THE GENERAL FUNDS. >> IF DALE IS TELLING US WE CAN DO THIS, EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH IT. THE COURT: AS LONG AS YOU THINK IT MEETS IT. COUNTY-WIDE PROJECT THAT WOULD HELP OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY.

>> THERE IS NOTHING IN THE STATUTE SAYING THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO THIS.

AS LONG AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DOESN'T FIND ANY ERRORS. THAT IS YOUR CHOICE.

>> FINE WITH ME. IF THE COURT WANTS TO DO THAT. THE COURT: OKAY.

>> OTHERWISE -- >> SECOND CHOICE WILL BE GENERAL FUNDS.

>> YEAH. PLAN B CAN BE WHERE ELSE DO YOU HAVE PLAN B, DALE?

>> IF WE DO ANIMAL SERVICES, ANIMAL SERVICES IS A GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT.

GENERAL FUND. 15,000 IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.

15,000. >> OKAY. WELL, THEN AS LONG AS COMMISSIONER GONZALES IS OKAY WITH THE SUBJECT TOO, JENNY CHECKS IT OUT.

IF NOT, THAT IS THE PLAN B, SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

15 TOTAL. 1-5. OKAY.

IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU ON YOUR MOTION? >> MY SECOND HOWEVER, YOU WANT TO DO IT, JUDGE THE COURT: TAKE YOUR MOTION AND SECOND.

I'M NOT SURE I LOVE IT. BUT I GUESS IT GETS THE JOB DONE.

I'M WITH YOU IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S LIKE AN LKE, YOU WOULD KIND OF LIKE TO TAKE THE SALE OF ASSETS AND INVEST IT IN SOMETHING ELSE THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO GROW.

BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, I BET BY PUTTING OUR HEADS TOGETHER, WE CAN MAKE IT WORK.

YOU'VE MADE IT SUBJECT TO. SO THAT IS GOOD. >> DISTRICT FOUR MONEY IS PAYING OFF ON STUFF THE COURT: OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY

[14. Discuss the removal of courtroom chairs from the Nueces County Courthouse and related matters.]

SAYING AYE. OKAY. GOT THAT ACHIEVED.

MICHAEL ROBINSON IS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE WITH US TODAY. AND HE WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT ON THIS NEXT ITEM. DUE TO FAMILY ILLNESS, BY THE WAY.

NOT BECAUSE HE DOES NOT WANT TO BE HERE. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD PLEASE TABLE THIS TO NEXT TIME SO THAT HE MAY OFFER -- JUNE 8TH.

GOT A MOTION TO TABLE. >> SO MOVED >> SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

[15. Discuss County generator Resiliency Project, including any update from program manager.]

ITEM NUMBER 15 IS THE SAME ONE, HE SENT US AN E-MAIL, ASKING TO PLEASE CONSIDER TABLING THIS AND JENNY ALSO GOT THAT E-MAIL, IN RELATION TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING ON BIDS, PACKAGES THAT WERE RECEIVED REGARDING THE GENERATOR RESILIENCE

PROJECT. >> I DON'T KNOW WHO PUT THIS ONE ON, JUDGE.

[16. Discuss and consider recording executive session meetings, identifying a funding source for the needed equipment, and related matters.]

THE COURT: COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. >> CAN WE WAIT UNTIL HE GETS BACK. THE COURT: MOVE TO 16. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETING. I'LL MOVE ON TO THAT ONE. THE NEXT ONE WAS TABLED.

>> HANG ON ONE SECOND. THE COURT: I THOUGHT I SAW A PARALLEL EXECUTIVE.

>> I PUT IT ON. I DIDN'T ASK FOR IT TO BE PUT ON EXECUTIVE SESSION.

>> WE ISSUED AN ADVISORY FOR ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS ON THAT EARLIER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE IF POSSIBLE, HOWEVER, IT'S A COURT DECISION.

>> I MEAN, I READ WHAT YOU -- THE COURT: BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IF SHE WANTS TO DISCUSS IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, THERE IS PROBABLY A GOOD REASON. WHY DON'T WE DISCUSS IT AND BRING IT BACK OUT AND TALK ABOUT FUNDING SOURCES, IF THAT IS WHAT THE COURT'S WILL IS.

>> I MEAN, TO BE QUITE BLUNT, YOU HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS THAT YOU WOULD

WANT TO -- >> YEAH. BUT THEY'RE ALL -- THE COURT: THEY'RE DISCOVERABLE. IN THIS COURT, EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE LEAKED. SO WE HAVE NO TRACK RECORD OF KEEPING THINGS PRIVILEGED THAT

[06:25:03]

SHOULD BE. SO I THINK THAT THAT IS VERY CONCERNING AND I THINK WE SHOULD TALK TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ABOUT IT. BUT I DON'T MIND COMING BACK

OUT AND TALKING ABOUT FUNDING SOURCES. >> I PUT IT ON.

I DIDN'T ASK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. I READ THE ADVISORY.

I STILL WOULD WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DOING IT. BUT IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO GO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, I RESPECT THAT. THE COURT: I THINK OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY DOES, THEREFORE, I DO. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 18, BUT ACTUALLY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ JUST SAT DOWN. BEFORE I GET TO 18, COMMISSIONER -- ITEM 15 IS THE REQUEST TO TABLE THIS SO THAT MICHAEL, WHO HAS ASKED THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I CAN GET A TABLE BEFORE WE -- >> IT WILL BE TABLED

>> WE'RE GOING TO TABLE IT, JUDGE. THE COURT: GET MICHAEL BACK IN HERE. AND ALSO MAYBE EVEN JOHN RODRIGUEZ, ET CETERA.

>> IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, TABLE IT THE COURT: I'LL MAKE THE

MOTION TO TABLE. WILL YOU SECOND? >> WERE YOU GOING TO TABLE IT JUDGE? THE COURT: YOU CAN TABLE IT. YOU CAN TABLE IT.

I WAS TRYING TO MOVE US ALONG. MOTION I'LL SECOND. >> JUNE 8TH.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

[18. Discuss and consider reallocating the funds for the Fire Marshal position and related matters.]

NOW NUMBER 18. >> ON THIS ONE, I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA AND I SIMPLY WANTED TO HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE IN PLACE WHILE WE LOOK FOR A FULL-TIME FIRE MARSHAL.

I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS, THANKS TO COMMISSIONER PUSSLEY WHO SUGGESTED THIS, HE SAID IF YOU GUYS NEED HELP, YOU CAN TALK TO THE CC FIRE DEPARTMENT. I APPRECIATE THAT SUGGESTION.

I DID REACH OUT AND REACHED OUT TO CHIEF CLAK, BOTH VERY WILLING TO PUT IN PLACE, ASSUMING PASS MUSTER ON INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, UNTIL WE FOUND A FULL-TIME FIRE MARSHAL, BUT UNTIL WE FIND ONE THAT HAS GOT THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ONE, TO HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH BOTH OF THEM, IT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD IDEA TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE IN GENERAL TO HELP US WITH FIRE INSPECTIONS, ARSON INSPECTIONS, GETTING OUR CODES PUT IN PLACE, THAT KIND OF THING. THE COURT: WHY DOESN'T JENNY BRING BACK SOMETHING FOR US. BECAUSE WE HAVE MUTUAL AID FOR A LOT OF THIS ALREADY.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO TARGET IT AT INSPECTIONS >> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO REALLOCATE THE FUNDS TOWARDS EITHER, WE HAVE TO HAVE MORE DIALOG ABOUT IT, TO SHOW THE INTENT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. EITHER WITH THE CORPUS CHRISTI FIRE DEPARTMENT OR ESD NUMBER ONE OR BOTH, TO HELP US WITH THESE PROJECTS UNTIL WE FOUND A FULL-TIME FIRE MARSHAL. BECAUSE IF THEY HELP US WITH ANYTHING, I'M NOT ASKING THEM TO DO IT FOR FREE. THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT THE STATE OF TEXAS? THEY DO DO IT FOR US ALREADY. WHAT ABOUT USING THEM FOR FREE? WHY DO WE WANT TO -- CAN WE JUST EXPLORE BETWEEN THE INTERLOCAL AND WHAT THE STATE ALREADY OFFERS US EVERY DAY?

I THINK THAT WOULD BE SMARTER. >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT. I DON'T.

SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK THE LOCAL FOLKS, I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA TO ADD IT.

BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S SMARTER THAN USING OUR LOCAL FOLKS, KNOW OUR AREA, WE COULD MODEL OUR CODE AFTER THE CITY'S CODE, ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY'RE LOOKING AT UPDATING THEIRS.

THEY ARE LOOKING AT CHANGING THE 2021 CODES. IT WOULD BE NICE FOR CITY AND COUNTY RESIDENTS TO HAVE THE SAME CODES THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING POTENTIALLY.

DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE, BUT A GENERAL FEELING. I THINK IT WOULD BE SMARTER TO INCLUDE THE CC FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ESD 1, BOOTS ON THE GROUND, BOOTS ON THE STREET, KNOW OUR LOCAL AREA. I THINK IT WOULD BE SMART TO HAVE THOSE TWO INVOLVED.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM INCLUDING IN THAT TALKING TO THE STATE OF TEXAS.

I THINK IT'S WISER TO USE LOCAL TALENT THAT WE HAVE HERE, HAS ALL OF THE KNOWLEDGE AND INSIGHT, WILLING TO HELP. ESPECIALLY WITH THE FIRE CODES. I THINK THAT IS A BIG DEAL.

SO MUCH BUILDING, SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT GOING IN OUR COUNTY THAT ARE NOT IN CITY LIMITS, THAT HAVING SOME OF THOSE CODES WOULD BE HELPFUL. SO THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION, REALLOCATE ANY OF THOSE FUNDS, IF NEED BE. JUST A MOTION THAT WE'VE STILL GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO ON. I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN CONTINUING

[06:30:03]

WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL POSITION. WE WOULD USE THESE FUNDS TO HELP GETS THESE THINGS DONE IN

THE COUNTY WITH PEOPLE THAT KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. >> I HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, I SAW ON THE NEWS A FEW DAYS AGO, WHERE THE CITY IS THINKING ABOUT HELPING OUT

PEOPLE IN THE RURAL AREAS, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY. >> I DON'T KNOW THE ROOT OF IT OTHER THAN WHAT I SAW ON TV, THE FIRE SERVICES ARE GOING OUT THERE AND RESPONDING TO FIRES IN THE COUNTY THAT AREN'T IN THE CITY LIMITS, THEY'RE GOING TO START LOOKING AT CHARGING THEM. I KIND OF UNDERSTAND THIS. OUR ESDS ARE ALSO ABLE TO DO THAT. I THINK WHEN YOU CALL 911, WHOEVER IS FIRST GOES.

YOU DON'T WANT TO STOP AND GO HEY, WHO IS COVERING. YOU WANT TO COVER IT.

THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION TO HAVE IN THIS DISCUSSION, IN THIS DIALOG.

I DON'T KNOW. THE COURT: I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING -- I MEAN, I'LL TAKE YOUR MOTION BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GETTING OVER YOUR SKIS ON THAT.

THAT IS A COG ISSUE, WITH MUTUAL AID AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE CHARGING PEOPLE AT ALL.

>> I'M NOT BRINGING IT IN. THAT IS ALL I SAW ON TV. I DIDN'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT IN THE CONVERSATIONS. ALL I HAD WAS CAN YOU POTENTIALLY HELP US WITH FIRE MARSHAL DUTIES IF NEEDED. THE COURT: FORGIVE ME, THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING ALL ALONG, WE'VE HAD A GREAT RAPPORT AND RELATIONSHIP THE

WHOLE TIME. >> THEY BOTH SAID IT WOULD BE PROBABLY ADVANTAGEOUS TO HAVE SOME SORT OF WRITTEN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO THIS.

THE COURT: AS YOU KNOW, WE APPOINT THE LEPC CHAIR, SO AGAIN, THERE NEEDS TO BE A REAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORGANIZATION AND CHART. I'M NOT AGAINST EXPLORING IT.

JUST SO YOU KNOW, BETWEEN NOW AND OUR FISCAL YEAR, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY LITTLE DOLLARS THAT ARE LEFT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. SO BEFORE WE JUMP TOO FAR, I WOULD SAY TAKE YOUR MOTION AND HAVE JENNY IN A REASONABLE TIME YOU KNOW, BRING IT BACK.

BUT LOUIE, YOU'RE IN A PERFECT POSITION TO TALK TO CHIEF CLACK, CHIEF ROCHA AND TRY TO ASSESS SOME OF THE NEEDS. BECAUSE I WILL TELL YOU, WHEN IT COMES TO FIRE AND WILDFIRES, YOU HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REPORT. BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU COME UP NEXT. BUT WE HAD A FIRE YESTERDAY, ACTUALLY THIS MORNING, I GUESS, AFTER MIDNIGHT. YEAH. SO WE SEE, I'M GLAD YOU SEE THE NEED. WE SEE THE NEED IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.

SUPER HIGH PRIORITY AND A HIGH NEED. NOT OBJECTING AT ALL.

MUTUAL AID IS HOW WE LIVE AND SURVIVE. EVERYBODY HELPS EVERYBODY.

I'VE NEVER HEARD OF US PAYING. BUT IF IT'S FOR INSPECTIONS, THAT IS OBVIOUSLY VERY VERY DIFFERENT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO FORMULATE COMMISSIONER CHESNEY WHAT TASKS THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN. AND IF IT'S OUR INTENTION TO HIRE SOMEBODY POST THAT POSITION AND HIRE SOMEBODY, THIS IS A VERY LIMITED SITUATION, WHERE I DON'T THINK AN INTERLOCAL IS NECESSARY. IT MIGHT BE SOME OTHER DOCUMENT.

>> AND YOU MAY BE RIGHT. YOU MAY NOT. BECAUSE WE DIDN'T --

>> IT DEPENDS. I AGREE. >> IF WE GET A GOOD APPLICANT POOL THAT HAS FIRE EXPERIENCE AND CAN DO THOSE THINGS. IF WE DON'T, WE MIGHT NEED IT LONGER. I WOULD HOPE NOT. I AM -- I GUESS I SHOULD MAKE THAT PART OF MY MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO HELP WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ON THAT.

AND KIND OF START THOSE DISCUSSIONS. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THOSE.

SO IF THE COURT IS OKAY WITH THAT, I'LL CONTINUE THE COURT: I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT IS FINE. BUT I THINK THAT LOUIE NEEDS TO BE A PART OF THAT.

BECAUSE HE UNDERSTANDS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF WORK THAT HAPPENS IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.

AND THAT IS WHAT A FIRE MARSHAL IS GOING TO BE TASKED WITH PRIMARILY.

AND IT HAS TO DO WITH PIPELINES. A LOT OF NATURAL GAS PIPELINES.

TANKS. POTENTIAL EXPLOSIONS. CHEMICALS.

>> I'M JUST SAYING, SO WE'LL LET LOUIE AND YOU START THAT PROCESS AND KEEP US -- I'LL BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THEM. SO WE'LL KEEP MOVING IN THAT GOOD DIRECTION.

HOW IS YOUR MOTION NOW? >> MY MOTION WOULD BE TO CONSIDER REALLOCATING THE FUNDS WITH SOME SORT OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, IF NEED BE, WITH EITHER THE CC FIRE DEPARTMENT OR ESD NUMBER 1, THAT INCLUDES MYSELF AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND CERTAINLY MR. RAY ON THAT

[06:35:07]

AS WELL. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL SECOND IT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

THE NEXT COUPLE OF ITEMS I HAVE IS DEEMED EXECUTIVE. BUT LET'S TAKE A QUICK LOOK.

[19. Discuss and consider the appointment, employment, evaluation, reassignment, duties, discipline, or dismissal of the Human Resources Director, pursuant to Sec. 551.074 of the Texas Government Code.]

[20. Discuss and consider settlement agreement related to former medical examiner's separation from county employment and related matters.]

[21. Discuss and consider taking action on notice of damages received from Tamara Gonzales regarding her deceased son; and related matters.]

19, 20, 21. WE'VE DONE 22. LOOK TO ME TO BE EXECUTIVE,

[1. Discuss and consider contract extension with the Texas Community and Housing Affairs related to the Texas Emergency Mortgage Program (TEMAP), or alternatively de-obligating remaining funds.]

JENNY. >> YES. THE COURT: I'M GOING TO MOVE TO GRANTS. ANNA IS HERE TO DO A TEMAP CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION ON A

MORTGAGE PROGRAM. WE'LL LET HER PRESENT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> JUDGE, WELCOME IN YOUR NEW OFFICIAL FIRST MEETING AND NEW CAPACITY.

WE ARE THRILLED TO HAVE YOU ON BOARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M BASICALLY, I SUBMITTED THE AGENDA FOR THE TEMAP, MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. AND THAT IT'S A LOT OF MONEY. AND WE ARE NOT GETTING AS MUCH ACTIVITY. BUT I HAVE REBECCA ROCK HERE THAT HANDLES THE SOCIAL SERVICES APPLICATIONS AND SHE HAS FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THAT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I SENT A HANDOUT IN YESTERDAY. WAS THAT DISTRIBUTED? OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THAT WHEN WE TOOK THIS OVER, TO DATE, OR YEAH, TO DATE, TO LAST FRIDAY. WE STILL ONLY SPENT ABOUT 26,975 OF THIS MONEY.

MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE, LOW INCOME MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE IN THE RURAL AREA IS -- WE DON'T GET A

LOT OF REQUESTS FOR THAT. >> THEY BUILD THEIR HOMES. >> SO WE'VE HAD I THINK THREE CONTRACT EXTENSIONS, THAT WERE OFFERED BY THE STATE THAT GRANTS BROUGHT BEFORE YOU PREVIOUSLY AND WERE ACCEPTED. WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, THE STATE HAD TOLD US THEY WOULD NOT OPEN IT UP TO THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND THEY WOULD NOT OFFER ANOTHER EXTENSION. SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE GOTTEN AN OFFER OF EXTENSION AND THROUGH AUGUST. I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO COME CLOSE TO MEETING BENCHMARKS OR SPENDING ANY OF THIS MONEY, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SPENT ALREADY.

I THINK OUR RECOMMENDATION, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH ANNA, WOULD BE TO -- BACK TO

THE STATE. >> AGAIN, IT'S JUST IT CANNOT BE USED INSIDE THE CITY.

AND SO THAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE. UNLIKE ERAP, THAT WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE THAT DECISION AND REALLY HELP A LOT OF PEOPLE. WE'RE SO SAD ABOUT THIS.

>> YOU CAN LOOK AT THE NUMBERS I GAVE YOU OF THE APPLICATIONS. YOU'LL SEE THEY'RE ALMOST ALL FROM THE CITY. SO THEY'RE AN AUTOMATIC DENIAL FOR THIS PROGRAM FOR US.

THE COURT: THE CITY DID RUN OUT OF FUNDS. SO WE DID ASK.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE DIDN'T ASK THEM TO GO TO ANOTHER LOCATION. THE ONLY THING THAT WE COULD DO HERE, WHAT I'M SUGGESTING TO THE COURT, IS TO GIVE IT YOU KNOW, 30 MORE DAYS, OKAY.

AND WHAT DO YOU SAY IF ALL OF US WE'RE ABOUT TO HIRE, OUR PIO STARTS NEXT TUESDAY, ASSIGNMENT NUMBER ONE, GIVE IT A REAL SHOT TO LIVE THAT THIS PROGRAM IS WONDERFUL AND IS OUT THERE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING WITH MORTGAGE. AND I JUST -- YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE ONE THING I SHOULD SUGGEST, BEFORE WE DEOBLIGATE, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THIS COURT MAKE A BIG EFFORTS. I'M ON RADIO TWICE A WEEK. LET'S DEDICATE OURSELVES TO TRY

TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY >> HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT, GET AFTER IT.

AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING AND GIVE US ALL SOMETHING THAT WE CAN UNIFORMALLY SHARE ON OUR SOCIAL MEDIA AND DO EVERYTHING WE CAN. I THINK THAT IS A GREAT FIRST

[06:40:01]

PROJECT. >> WE HAVE FLIERS AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF THAT WE'VE PUT OUT IN

THE AREAS. AND SHARED WITH OUR PARTNERS. >> CAN I HAVE SOME OF THOSE FLYERS. THE COURT: GOOD ONE TOO. SHE NEEDS A CONTRACT DATE EXTENSION. DO YOU THINK 60 DAYS, 30 DAYS? WHAT DO YOU THINK?

>> HOW LONG DO YOU THINK WE CAN HAVE WITHOUT GETTING IN TROUBLE?

HOW LONG WILL THEY GIVE US TO TRY TO PROMOTE THIS >> AUGUST 31ST.

>> DO YOU WANT TO TRY FOR THAT? >> AS FAR AS WE CAN GO? >> THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING US. THE COURT: LET'S TAKE IT AND SEE IF TYLER CAN HELP US.

>> MAYBE THEY'LL GIVE US ANOTHER ONE IF WE MAKE PROGRESS.

THE COURT: AGAIN, IF TYLER BUILDS STUFF FOR US ON OUR PLATFORMS, WE CAN PUSH IT.

IRT, IN MIDDLE JUNE. WE CAN PUSH IT THERE. EVEN IF WE HELP ONE PERSON.

>> IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN SEND SOME OF THE FLIERS LIKE TO CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, MAYBE THE

KIDS CAN TAKE THEIR FLIERS TO THEIR HOME. >> IT'S REBECCA.

>> I APOLOGIZE. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN DO THAT?

>> YES. >> THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE THE SCHOOL DISTRIBUTE THEM TO EACH SCHOOL BOY OR GIRL AND THEY CAN TAKE THEM HOME AND THEN AT CHURCH, THEY CAN PICK THEM UP

AS THEY'RE WALKING OUT. >> GOOD IDEA. >> LET'S TRY SOMETHING LIKE

THAT. >> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> AS FAR AS THE CONTRACT EXTENSION, SOMEBODY WILL HAVE TO --

>> WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO, MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT TODAY, JUDGE? THE COURT: I THINK WE NEED TO

DO IT TODAY. >> MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AUGUST 31ST EXTENSION.

ALSO, TELL TYLER LET'S GO. AND LET'S COME UP WITH A PLAN FOR NUECES COUNTY TO PROMOTE THAT. AND MAKE THE MOTION TO GO TALK TO THE CITY ABOUT THIS ONE TOO.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO THE GRANTING AUTHORITY. BUT THE POINT IS THAT YOU KNOW, WE CAN -- I WOULD LIKE TO TRY. BECAUSE WHAT IS HAPPENING TO A LOT OF THESE WONDERFUL PROGRAMS, IS THAT THEY'RE SEEING HOW IT'S NOT QUITE EQUITABLE AND SO IF WE CAN HELP -- WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THE -- I'LL TRY TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE CITY IS INSIDE OF THE COUNTY, AND THIS WOULD BE A WONDERFUL WAY TO UTILIZE THE FUNDS AS THEY WERE INTENDED.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF ANNA HAS CAUGHT UP TO SPEED ON THIS. BUT WHEN WE HAD ASKED TDCHA ABOUT THIS, THEY HAD TOLD US TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES, THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.

SO WE'RE BOTH DRAWING FROM THE SAME POT OF MONEY. THEY'VE EXPENDED THEIRS.

AN ISSUE WE HAVE IS THE CROSS-DUPLICATION. WE CAN'T BE HELPING THE SAME CLIENT OUT OF THE SAME POT OF MONEY FROM TWO DIFFERENT AREAS. SO WE'LL HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE SYSTEM FOR THAT. THEY TOLD US NO. THEY ALSO TOLD US THERE WOULDN'T BE AN

EXTENSION. >> EXACTLY. ALSO, THIS IS WHERE OUR SENATOR PLAYS A ROLE AND OUR CHAIRMANS PLAY A ROLE, AS THEY GO INTO ALL THESE SURPLUS DOLLARS NEED

TO BE REOBLIGATED >> INCLUDE TYLER AS PART OF THE MOTION.

MAKING HIM THE FIRST PROJECT. WE WANT HIM TO GET ON IT THE COURT: MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. WE ALREADY DID THE PURCHASING

[1. Approve Monthly Financial Report for the month of September 2021.]

AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO DALE. FOR THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL

REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 2021. >> YES. SEPTEMBER 2021 BALANCES, PROVIDE YOU THE BALANCES AND THE INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDE YOU FOR THE P CARD INFORMATION THAT REQUESTED. WE PROVIDE YOU A LISTING OF THE EXPENSES THAT YOU ASKED FOR FOR FOOD AS WELL AS WE DID THE ALL ACTIVITIES FOR FOOD AND EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021, AS WELL AS 2022. YOU CAN SEE WHO THE AREAS ARE FROM.

AND WHAT THEIR PURPOSES ARE FOR. THESE ARE ACTUAL EXPENSES THAT ALREADY OCCURRED. SO NOTHING WE CAN SAY. WE CAN'T VOTE AGAINST IT.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO START PROVIDING YOU A P CARD REPORT REGULARLY AND BRING THE PEOPLE UP IN FRONT OF YOU, IF YOU FIND AN ITEM THAT THEY NEED TO BE DISCUSSED, BRING SOMETHING FOR YOU. I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

ALSO PROVIDE YOU A LISTING OF EVERYONE THAT HAD A P CARD, THAT HAS AVAILABLE AND SHOW YOU THEIR LIMITS. SO I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTION YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THE REPORT.

SUBMIT THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 2021. >> I WOULD MOVE TO ACCEPT THE REPORT BUT WITH AN EXPLANATION IN THE MINUTES THAT I DON'T SUPPORT THE FOOD EXPENDITURES, BUT I HAVE TO VOTE FOR THE REPORT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN EXPENDED AND THE REPORT IS

[06:45:04]

A VALID REPORT. SO I KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, BUT I WANT THE MINUTES TO REFLECT THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT ALL OF THOSE FOOD EXPENDITURES, BUT I'M MAKING THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AS A VALID REPORT.

THE COURT: I'LL GET -- I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE -- PUTTING IT ON THE RECORD.

>> MY MOTION IS SIMPLY -- MY EXPLANATION IS AFTERWARDS. JUST WANT TO BE EXPLANATION.

MY MOTION IS TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AS A VALID REPORT THE COURT: SECOND THAT.

>> I'LL EXPLAIN MY VOTE AT THE END IF YOU WANT ME TO. THE COURT: WE'VE GOT IT.

>> CAN I ASK QUESTIONS ON IT? >> I HAVE A QUESTION HERE. PURCHASING, 361.50.

ON PAGE 6. PURCHASING, MARCO'S LUNCH CLUB, $200.

YEARLY INVENTORY WORK LUNCH. THEN THERE IS ANOTHER ONE THAT SAYS $82.

GOT MALL VACCINE. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN BUY FOOD FOR YOUR WORKERS, PROVIDING YOU'RE NOWHERE NEAR AN ESTABLISHMENT THAT THEY CAN GO TO.

IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE, YES.

AND THIS IS AN ITEM THAT IN OUR PURCHASING PROCEDURE FOR OUR P CARD, THAT IS MANAGED BY

PURCHASING. >> I UNDERSTAND. BUT ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BE

DOING THIS? >> YOU WILL HAVE TO ASK MICHAEL.

HE IS THE PURCHASING AGENT. >> I THOUGHT YOU HAVE CONTROL OF THE P CARDS.

>> I DO NOT. >> I UNDERSTOOD IT WAS YOUR PEOPLE THAT SPECIFICALLY TOLD ME AT NO TIME I CAN USE -- I ASKED THEM CAN I USE A P CARD IF I HAVE A MEETING AND BUY

FOOD. THEY SAID NO. >> P CARD POLICY.

>> OKAY. SO CONTROLLED BY PURCHASING. >> PURCHASING MAKES THAT A

POLICY. >> YES. >> THEN I HAVE ANOTHER ONE

HERE, QUITE A FEW $221. HARRISON LANDING. >> WHAT PAGE ARE YOU ON,

COMMISSIONER? >> PARDON ME? >> PAGE 5.

THEY PROVIDED LUNCH FOR THE ENTIRE STAFF THAT THEY HAD DURING THE MEETING.

>> I GUESS THAT IS ALLOWABLE. DISTRICT CLERK, $118. FOOD ITEMS. FLORES HOMER. DOMINO'S PIZZA. EMPLOYEE FUN DAY.

$172. FLORES HOMER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TJJD, $186.

LINDA'S MEXICAN RESTAURANT. >> WELL, FOR HOMER, THOSE ARE FUNDS THAT THEY HAVE FOR THEIR STATE AID FUNDS AND THE BALANCE THAT THEY RECEIVE FOR STATE AID.

DEPARTMENTS 1319, RECEIVED FROM THE STATE, THE STATE MAY HAVE OTHER CONTROLS THAT THEY USE

THE FUNDS FOR. >> THE STATE ALLOWS? >> THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR HOMER. WHEN WE START DOING THESE REPORTS FOR YOU, I'LL HAVE THESE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, WE

WILL MAKE SURE THEY'RE AVAILABLE. >> ELIZABETH NICOLE, $725.

RUDY'S. SOMETHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE DA'S OFFICE.

>> THAT IS -- EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY HAS A TRAINING THAT THEY HAVE, ACCORDING TO THE RULES AND FEDERAL FUNDS, THEY CAN USE FUNDS TO PROVIDE FOOD FOR THE TRAINING THAT THEY HAVE AT THAT PARTICULAR -- THAT IS WHAT I ASSUME THE BALANCE IS FOR.

[06:50:05]

>> OKAY. HERE IS ANOTHER ONE. TURNER MARGARET MARIE.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION. $1,338.75, SHORE LINE. HERE AT THE COURTHOUSE.

HERE IS ANOTHER ONE FROM MS. TURNER. 297.50.

FROM SHORE LINE. I THINK I'LL TAKE TOO LONG TO TRY TO READ THEM ALL TO YOU.

>> PROBABLY YOU'RE SEEING FOR HERE. THESE ARE ALL THE RECEIPTS THAT WE HAVE FOR THIS. WHICH WAS EITHER COVID VACCINATIONS OR TESTING SITES

THAT WE PROVIDE YOU THE RECEIPTS FOR. >> I THINK I READ SOMEWHERE THAT IT'S PERMITTED TO BUY FOOD FOR PEOPLE IF THEY'RE OUT IN THE RURAL AREAS, IF THERE IS NO ESTABLISHMENTS ANYWHERE NEAR, SOMEBODY CAN GO GET FOOD FROM AND BRING IT BACK, HERE WE'RE IN THE COURTHOUSE, IF THEY WANT TO GO EAT, THERE IS PLENTY OF PLACES THEY CAN GO TO.

OR GO TO THE COURTHOUSE. $2,434. MARGARET MARIE.

I'LL STOP THERE. BECAUSE IT'S TOO MANY. I'M ASKING IF THAT IS THE WAY

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE AND IS IT ALLOWABLE. >> QUESTION TO ASK THE PURCHASING AGENT. PURCHASING AGENT SUSPEND ALL COSTS.

THEY DO PROVIDE FOOD FOR YOURSELVES. >> I KNOW ABOUT THE JUDGES.

BUT I'M TALKING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THE COURT: DALE ASKED YOU AND YOU DID NOT RESPOND WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS. I ASKED HIM TO PLEASE CONTACT YOU IN CASE YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS. WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU ASK IN A CONTEXT WHERE THERE IS NOBODY HERE TO ANSWER. IF YOU'LL ASK THE QUESTIONS, WE CAN GET SOMEBODY TO ANSWER. BUT THE DOLLARS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, AT LEAST AS IT REGARDS TO THE SHORE LINE, HAVE ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED IN MULTIPLE PREVIOUS COURTS THAT THERE THOSE WERE FEMA ELIGIBLE. WE CITED THE STATUTE. CITED, IT'S BEEN VETTED NOT BY ONE PERSON, NOT BY TWO PEOPLE, BUT BY WHOLE TEAMS OF PEOPLE. SO IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHAT THE YOU KNOW, SORT OF EXPLANATION IS, DALE HAS EXPLANATIONS AND BACK-UP FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE. AND WHAT IS HELPFUL, RATHER THAN YOU JUST READING THEM AND WONDERING IN YOUR MIND, IS IF YOU'LL ASK HIM IN ADVANCE, HE CAN GET YOU A COPY OF THAT JUSTIFICATION. BECAUSE IN THIS CASE IT HAS TO DO WITH FEMA.

>> I KNEW YOU WERE HERE AND YOU WOULD ANSWER. >> THE ANSWER IS THEY'RE FEMA ELIGIBLE. SO IT'S APPROPRIATE PURCHASING PROCUREMENT.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL WAIT FOR MICHAEL AND HOMER AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP WHO ARE NOT HERE. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, WE CAN

GET THEM TO YOU. >> JUDGE, I ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT DARRYL WAS IN CHARGE OF THE P CARDS, BECAUSE HIS PEOPLE THAT CAME TO ME AND SAID HOW I COULD USE THE CREDIT CARD THE COURT: I UNDERSTAND. THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE CLEAR.

>> THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN JUDGE. THE COURT: AUDITOR. WE'VE GOT BUDGET CHANGE ORDER.

I'M SORRY. WE HAVE APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS. >> ONE QUESTION.

HOW DO WE FIX THIS THING AS FAR AS THE P CARD MEALS AND ALL OF THAT? I KNOW FEMA IS NOT GOING TO PAY FOR ALL THE MEALS. HOW DO WE FIX IT EVEN LOCAL?

>> YOU CAN TURN OFF ANYTHING YOU WANT. YOU CAN HAVE ANY KIND OF EXPENSE YOU WANT REMOVED FROM THE P CARD AND MICHAEL CAN DO IT.

>> WE GET CALLS SAYING WHY CAN'T WE? >> I'M PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA FOR JUNE 20TH TO COME UP WITH A NEW POLICY. THE COURT: WHY DON'T YOU WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE THE SET OF RULES. IF YOU'RE HOMER AND PROVIDING MEALS TO THE JUVENILE FOR TRAINING, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IT AS IF THERE ARE NO SETS OF RULES.

TONS OF RULES. TONS OF EXPECTATIONS. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT WITH

MICHAEL. >> I JUST SAID I'M PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA.

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. LET'S DO THAT. I WANT TO CORRECT WHAT YOU SAID. FEMA, IT'S PENDING. NOBODY HAS SAID THAT ANY OF THOSE MEALS ARE INELIGIBLE. IN FACT, IT'S THE OPPOSITE. THEY'VE BEEN DISCUSSED WITH FEMA AND TDEM AD NAUSEAM, IN CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID -- BECAUSE IT'S IN THE PORTAL IN STEP FOUR. BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND MUCH OF ANYTHING THAT WE EXPLAIN TO YOU. LET'S MOVE ON. LET'S MOVE ON.

[06:55:05]

>> HOLD ON. THE COURT: DALE HAS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IT AND LET'S MOVE

ON. >> DALE, ARE WE FINISHED WITH THIS?

>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> ON THE BURN -- DAILY BURN RATE.

WERE YOU TALKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW? >> BURN RATE IS NOT PART OF THE MONTHLY FUNDS REPORT. THE COURT: I HAVE GOT TO DO A VOTE.

WE'RE NOT THERE YET. THIS IS JUST THE REPORT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE REPORT, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OKAY.

YOU'VE GOT CHESNEY'S EXPLANATION ON THE RECORD. >> THANK YOU.

>> LORENZO, PUT ME DOWN FOR THE SAME THING, PLEASE. THE COURT: LORENZO, PUT ME DOWN FOR FOLLOWING THE RULES, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

ANYBODY ELSE FOR SIDEBAR COMMENTARY THAT IS IRRELEVANT? ALL RIGHT.

LET'S MOVE ON. NOW WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE FUN. LET'S GO.

YOU KNOW, IT'S ABSURD. AT SOME POINT IT BECOMES ABSURD.

BUT I THINK THE GENERAL PUBLIC SEES THE ABSURDITY. YOU'RE JUST THE MR. APOLOGY

>> THOSE ARE INAPPROPRIATE COMMENTS YOU MAKE, INAPPROPRIATE EXPENSES.

NOBODY SHOULD HAVE PAID FOR ANYBODY'S LUNCHES WHEN THEY WEREN'T WORKING.

THE COURT: THAT IS NOT TRUE. >> IT'S VALID. IT'S THE OPINION OF MOST PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT FREE LUNCHES SHOULDN'T BE PAID FOR PEOPLE WORKING 4 HOURS A DAY AND PEOPLE WHO COULD HAVE GOTTEN THEIR LUNCH ACROSS THE STREET. I'VE TAKEN 20 SIDEBARS AND HAVEN'T RESPONDED. THE COURT: WE'RE SO GRATEFUL FOR YOU.

>> APPRECIATE YOU BEING GRATEFUL. THE COURT: NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR YOU ANYMORE. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS -- DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL. I KNOW YOU ENJOY THIS ABUSIVE OF WOMEN.

LET'S MOVE ON. >> DEFLECT. DEFLECT.

[2. Discuss and consider approval of payments received from the City/County Public Health District invoices from January and February 2022.]

IT'S ACCURATE. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS.

YOU'RE GETTING TIRED AND HONERY >> DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE CITY COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DISTRICT. INVOICES IN OUR PACKET.

I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM WITH BELINDA, BECAUSE DALE HAD QUESTIONS ON THEM.

>> WE WERE PROVIDED THESE FOR THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, REIMBURSEMENT FOR SMALL AMOUNT OF REGULAR SALARIES, AS WELL AS THE CITY COUNTY, HEALTH DOCTOR THAT WE HAVE, AS WELL AS PHARMACIST. TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE REQUEST IS 23,269.

WE SUBMIT THIS FOR YOUR APPROVAL. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO MOVED. THE COURT: MOTION AND A SECOND HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE.

THE COURT: THESE ARE NOT THE PAYMENT. I WAS MISTAKEN EARLIER WITH THE ONES I REVIEWED. THESE ARE NOT OUR PAYMENTS. THESE ARE JUST THE INVOICES.

>> NO. THERE SHOULDN'T BE VERY MORE OF THESE COMING. I'M WITH YOU NOW.

I WAS REFERRING TO THE MARCH, APRIL, MAY. SO I APOLOGIZE ON THAT.

[3. Approve Budget Change Order No. 13 for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.]

NOW WE'VE GOT A BUDGET CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 13, FISCAL YEAR 2021 AND 2022.

>> WE HAVE SEVERAL CHANGE ORDER REQUESTS. FEW LARGE ITEMS FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. THAT'S BASICALLY JUST MOVING THE MONEY AROUND.

WHEN WE BUDGETED IT LAST YEAR, IT WAS NOT IN THE RIGHT CATEGORY.

WE NEED SOME OTHER SMALLER EXPENSES FROM OUR OFFICE EXPENSES, AS WELL AS MAINTENANCE REPAIR. PAGE TWO, YOU'LL SEE LARGE AMOUNTS FOR OUR SOCIAL SERVICES AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND WE NEED THAT FOR KITCHEN SUPPLIES AS WELL AS MOVING MONEY AROUND TO COVER COST THAT THEY HAVE FOR THIS. THE ONE SECTION HERE, 5107, I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THAT FROM THE LIST. BECAUSE IF WE DO THE REALLOCATION THAT COMMISSIONER CHESNEY MENTIONED EARLIER, WE CAN REALLOCATE THIS.

THEY ARE OVERBUDGET ON THEIR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. THE PREVIOUS FIRE MARSHAL DID TAKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TRAINING THAT WAS PAID FOR. I WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THE ONE FOR 5107 FROM THIS LIST. OTHERWISE, I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION YOU MIGHT

[07:00:02]

HAVE ON BUDGET CHANGE ORDER 13 >> IS THIS THE ONE THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ON THE

CLASSES? >> YES. HE HAD ALREADY TAKEN THEM.

>> THIS IS FOR JULY, THOUGH >> THIS WAS CODE ENFORCEMENT >> COMING UP IN JULY.

CAN WE GET THE MONEY BACK? >> WE SHOULDN'T HAVE PAID FOR ANYTHING IN JULY

THE COURT: IT'S THE CODE ENFORCEMENT. >> HE SAID HE SIGNED UP FOR IT

IN MARCH. >> HE PAID FOR IT IN MARCH, WE CAN WORK TO GET REIMBURSEMENT FOR IT. YES. IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE CAN.

THE COURT: WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS HE DID TAKE OTHER CLASSES FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT

THAT ALREADY ARE PAID FOR. >> THOSE WERE IN THE BOOKS. THE COURT: NO. THESE WERE A

COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. >> IF IT WAS FOR A CLASS IN JULY, WE CAN REQUEST FUNDS

BACK. >> WHY DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO BE RIGHT? THE COURT: BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT IT RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF YOU.

WHY CAN'T YOU READ. IT'S MAY, CODE ENFORCEMENT. YOU'RE IMPOSSIBLE.

>> DALE IS THE ONE WHO SENT IT TO ME. LET ME PULL IT OUT THE COURT: THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHATEVER WE CAN GET REIMBURSED, WE WILL.

HE WAS GOING TO GET HIS CERTIFICATION IN JULY. AND THOSE CLASSES, FOR THE CERTIFICATION, WE WILL TRY TO GET THOSE DOLLARS BACK. NOW, ON YOUR BUDGET, ON PAGE 2, YOU REMARKED THAT YOU'VE GOT THE EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE. I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO TALK ABOUT THE EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE. SO THE VEHICLE IS HERE WITH US.

THERE ARE MANY LAW ENFORCEMENT FOLKS WAITING IN LINE. >> DA'S OFFICE HAVE BEEN ASKING

FOR IT. >> I'VE ASKED IVA TO WORK WITH THAT AND BRING US BACK SOME SORT OF SOLUTION. SO WE'LL HEAR FROM THAT I GUESS NEXT TIME.

>> SPECIAL TYPE OF VEHICLE, SO IT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE ALLOCATED FOR CERTAIN AREAS.

>> YES. I'M GOING TO BE WORKING WITH PURCHASING.

>> IF WE END UP HIRING A NEW ONE, AREN'T WE GOING TO GET ANOTHER ONE AGAIN?

>> YES. THE COURT: FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR MENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS IN

CONSTABLE PRECINCT NUMBER TWO FOR INSTANCE. >> JUST AS LONG AS THEY KNOW IT MAY BE TEMPORARY. THE COURT: IT'S AN ASSET THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S

NOT SITTING HERE, THAT IS ALL. >> LEASE VEHICLE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE PAID FOR THIS OR LEASED THIS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO THE BUDGET CHANGE ORDER

NUMBER 13 IS MOTION TO APPROVE. WELL, SUBJECT TO -- >> WE NEED TO AMEND IT TAKING

OUT 5107 >> GOOD CATCH. >> ALL RIGHT.

AS AMENDED. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

[4. Approve Capital Project Budget Change Order No. 109.]

AND THE CAPITAL PROJECT BUDGET CHANGE ORDER IS LAST. AND IT'S 109.

>> YES, YOUR HONOR. WE HAVE A FEW ITEMS THAT WERE REALLOCATING SOME FUNDS BACK AND FORTH. AND YOU'LL SEE THE DEPARTMENT 1919, WHICH IS 2015 COS AND 2016 COS, AS THERESA MENTIONED EARLY, 1923, 1,077,000 THAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT, BEING REALLOCATED BACK TO UNALLOCATED. THAT IS WHERE THE FUNDS ARE.

WE MADE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES, GOING BACK AND FORTH FOR THERESA AND MYSELF AND MY STAFF AND MAKING SURE THAT THESE ARE ACCURATE. I SUBMIT THIS FOR YOUR

ACCEPTANCE. >> TALKING ABOUT NUMBER 4? THE COURT: NO. 109.

BUDGET CHANGE NUMBER 109. >> I'M SAYING NUMBER 4 ON THESE REPORTS THE COURT: BUDGET ORDER 109. IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

>> SECOND THE COURT: I'M SECOND WITH GONZALES, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. NEXT ONE IS CONTINUING SUPPLEMENTAL PAY FOR THE NEW

OFFICE MANAGER FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. >> HOLD ON.

ONE QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE, DALE, I GUESS YOU EXPLAINED THE DAILY ACTIVITY ON THE DAILY BURN RATE. IT SAYS THERE IS A PERSONNEL COST OF $881.

WHAT WAS THAT FOR AND ALSO THE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT OF 190, WHAT WAS THAT FOR?

[07:05:06]

>> WHAT REPORT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, COMMISSIONER? >> I'M SORRY?

THE COURT: WHICH PAGE? >> THE ONE YOU JUST GAVE US FOR THIS, 519.

520. >> THAT WAS THE BURN RATE. THAT IS NOT PART OF THE AGENDA.

>> IT'S NOT. >> BURN RATE IS NOT. >> I GOT IT IN THE PACKAGE.

SO WE PUT IT IN THE AGENDA THEN? >> I DON'T THINK IT'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION. THE COURT: IS IT A BURN RATE FOR THE DISASTER?

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? >> COVID-19 TESTING. BUT IT SAYS 5/19/22, THAT IS LAST WEEK. THE COURT: I MEAN, CAN YOU SHOW IT TO IDAY SO SHE CAN LOOK AT IT REAL QUICK LIKE. AGAIN, IF IT'S THE BURN RATE FOR COVID-19.

WHY DON'T WE -- LET ME BRING IT UP WITH LOUIE AND YOU CAN ASK YOUR QUESTION.

[1. Discuss and consider continuing supplemental pay for the new Office Manager for the Sheriff Department.]

ALL RIGHT. JUST GIVE HIM A SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

SO NOW I'M MOVING ON TO HUMAN RESOURCES. AND IT'S DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONTINUING SUPPLEMENTAL PAY FOR THE NEW OFFICE MANAGER FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND

>> WHY ARE WE DOING THIS ONE? >> GO AHEAD, CHIEF. WELCOME.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, JUDGE. MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THIS, THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN ON THE AGENDA, IS IT APPEARS TO BE TIED TO THE POSITION AND NOT TO THE PERSON. SO THROUGH DISCUSSIONS, WE APPEAR TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS NOT TIED TO THE POSITION, BUT TO THE PERSON WHO IS ACTUALLY DOING THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE GO BILLING. AND WE DID SOME HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND RESEARCH AND THE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CLERK AT ONE TIME WAS RECEIVING THE STIPEND, THEN IT WAS MOVED TO THE INTERNAL AUDITORS IN OUR OFFICE AND THEN EVENTUALLY TO THE OFFICE MANAGER. AND SO JUST THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, WE HAD A CONCERN THAT IT WAS YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE SHE OCCUPIED THAT POSITION, SHE WAS ENTITLED TO IT.

SO GRANTED THAT SHE'S DOING THE ACTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BILLING, WHICH SHE IS NOW

TAKING OVER >> DALE IS GOING TO GIVE US SOME BACK-UP.

GO AHEAD. >> LIKE ALL OF OUR SUPPLEMENTAL PAYS, IT'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE SHERIFF, WHO RECEIVES THE SUPPLEMENTAL PAY FOR THIS. WHOEVER THE SHERIFF SO CHOOSES TO RECEIVE THE SUPPLEMENTAL PAY, THEY DETERMINE WHO RECEIVES THE FUNDS AND HOW MUCH. THIS WAS A BUDGET ITEM IN OUR BUDGET LAST YEAR.

IT WAS GOING TO THE OFFICE MANAGER AS THE CHIEF SAID. BUT IT'S STILL UP TO THE SHERIFF HOW HE WANTS TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS AND HOW HE WANTS TO DISPERSE THE BUDGET

AMOUNTS. >> OKAY. SO THIS IS -- SO YOU NEED US TO APPROVE THIS BUT -- GO AHEAD. THE SHERIFF DOES THE ASSIGNMENT.

SO THE SHERIFF IS ASKING FOR THIS. YOU RECOMMEND IT.

>> IT COMES FROM WHERE AGAIN? >> COMING FROM OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE GEO FOR OUR PRISON CONTRACT. THERE IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF FUNDS, I THINK IT'S 10 OR

$15,000 TOTAL THAT THEY CAN ALLOCATE. >> SPLIT UP BETWEEN FOUR

POSITIONS. >> IT'S UP TO THE SHERIFF HOW HE WANTS TO SPLIT IT.

>> THAT IS WHAT THE BACKGROUND SAID. >> TWO PEOPLE.

>> I TALKED TO THE SHERIFF ABOUT THIS. I UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS SAYING, APPARENTLY BEFORE, PAPERWORK THAT THEY HANDLED WITH PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS, AND THERE IS A LOT OF PAPERWORK INVOLVED. INSTEAD OF HIRING SOMEBODY ELSE, STAFF DOES IT AND THEY GET I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT SUPPLEMENT OR NOT, BUT THEY GET PAID FOR DOING THE PAPERWORK. IN THE PROCESSING FOR THE INMATES. THE SHERIFF THOUGHT IT WAS ONLY TWO.

HE SAID I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS FOUR OR NOT. >> ACTUALLY, FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S ONLY THREE THAT ARE RECEIVING THE SUPPLEMENTAL PAY. IT'S FOR THE OFFICE MANAGER WHO IS ACTUALLY DOING THE BILLING. IT SAYS SENIOR CLERK HERE, BUT THAT IS OUR ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY. BECAUSE THAT WAS MOVED TO HER WHEN THE PREVIOUS SENIOR CLERK LEFT. AND SO THE SENIORITY PAY IS FOR THE TRAINING SERGEANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL PAY. SO IT'S ACTUALLY JUST THREE POSITIONS RECEIVING THE

[07:10:01]

SUPPLEMENT. >> THE SHERIFF HANDLES THAT ON A MONTHLY BASIS.

IT GOES THROUGH -- >> SUPPLEMENTAL PAY IS A SET AMOUNT PER PAY PERIOD FOR THE TIME THAT THEY'RE THERE. SOMETIMES IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TIED TO THE POSITION, BUT IT'S TIED TO WHOEVER THE SHERIFF SO CHOOSES TO RECEIVE THE SUPPLEMENT THE COURT: OKAY. SO I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AND I'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

THANKS FOR ALL THE EXPLANATION. YOU'RE RIGHT. SOMETIMES THE VERBIAGE DOESN'T

MATCH UP WITH THE INFORMATION. >> THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AT THIS TIME EVERYBODY, I'VE GOT TO GO BACKWARDS INTO 2N. I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH UPDATED INFORMATION THAT COMMISSIONER CHESNEY HAD ON FLOWER BUFF GARDENS.

>> THE ISSUE ON THIS IS THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS NOTIFIED ME, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR MR. SPEAR, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS WHAT, THERE IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THE DISTRICT SAYS THAT THE COUNTY OWNS, COUNTY ATTORNEY CAN'T FIND WHERE WE OWN IT.

THERE IS AN EASEMENT THERE. AND SO IT WILL HAVE TO BE A NEW ORDER I GUESS.

I NEED TO AMEND TO GET SOME TYPE OF TITLE SEARCH. JENNY CAN'T FIND ANYTHING BASED ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR. ALL SHE CAN FIND IS AN EASEMENT.

ONLY WAY TO DO IT SOME SORT OF TITLE SEARCH. >> LORENZO, I SIGNED THAT

ALREADY. >> I PAUSED IT. >> I MEAN, THAT IS FINE.

I GUESS WE CAN JUST DO SUBJECT TO >> SUBJECT TO A TITLE SEARCH.

I THINK WHAT JENNY SUGGESTED THAT WE JUST AMEND THIS A LITTLE BIT, GIVE MICHAEL DIRECTION, AND SAY SUBJECT TO A TITLE SEARCH, SHOWING THAT WE OWN IT.

>> APPRAISAL DISTRICT HAS LAWYERS. THEY CAN DO THIS FOR US.

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION.

>> SO I WOULD SAY CALL MELISSA AND SEE IF SHE CAN ASSIST. >> SO I GUESS ON THIS, I'VE GOT THE ORDER. I'M THE LAST ONE TO SIGN IT. IF WE NEED TO AMEND THE ORDER, RECIRCULATE, SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. THE COURT: I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP AGAIN I GUESS. WITHDRAW -- LET'S WITHDRAW. BECAUSE IT HAS TO COME FROM SOMEBODY WHO VOTED FOR IT. WE ALL DID. SO I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW THE APPROVAL OF N AS WAS ORIGINALLY VOTED UPON. AND YOU'LL SECOND IT,

COMMISSIONER? >> YES, MA'AM. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY

BY SAYING AYE. GO AHEAD WITH YOUR NEW MOTION. >> MOTION WOULD BE TO PASS THIS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION THAT NUECES COUNTY ACTUALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY, BY WHATEVER MEANS THE

PURCHASING AGENT CAN FIND IT. >> OKAY. AND I'LL SECOND.

AND THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

[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.]

WE'VE GOT FOUR ITEMS IN EXECUTIVE AGENDA. AND I CANNOT PREDICT.

BUT I'M SORRY. WE'VE GOT THREE ITEMS IN EXECUTIVE AGENDA.

WE DON'T HAVE ITEM B. AND SO THE TIME IS 4:16 AND I'M ELECTING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. I'M GIVING NOTICE THAT THE COURT WILL GO INTO THIS SESSION TO DISCUSS MATTERS LISTED ON THE AGENDA. AND WHERE AUTHORIZED BY PROVISIONS OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT, CHAPTER 551, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

IN THE EVENT THAT WE DO SO, I'M PUBLICLY ANNOUNCING AS A PRESIDING OFFICER THAT WE DO SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT CODE 76, 8 P # 6 AND COMMISSIONER COURT IS GOING TO HOLD THIS EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH OUR ATTORNEY, INCLUDING MATTERS RELATING TO LITIGATION, REAL PROPERTY, TERMINATION, SECURITY DEVICES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS, ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT MAY BE DISCUSSED. UPON COMPLETION, WE'LL COME BACK INTO OPEN SESSION AND TAKE ACTION. I SAID THREE ITEMS. BUT THERE ARE MORE THAN THREE. BECAUSE THERE'S JUST THREE ON THIS PIECE OF IT.

THERE IS MORE ON THE OTHER. OKAY. WITH THAT, IT'S 4:17.

>> MAKE A MOTION, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO BE FINISHED HERE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. I'LL TAKE A MOTION RIGHT NOW, MOTION AND A SECOND TO GO TO 5:30. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

4:17. OKAY. IF YOU GUYS WOULD PLEASE CLEAR

THE COURTROOM, IF YOU'RE NOT >> ALL RIGHT WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORD, FOR THE CLERK IT IS 5:5. THE COURT DID SAY 5:30 P.M. BUT I WILL MAKE A QUICK MOTION TO GO FOR FIVE MORE MINUTES.

[07:15:03]

>> SECOND. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING I SO WE ARE NOT VIOLATING THEIR OWN POLICIES PER WE HAVE SOME MOTIONS COMING OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING NOTICES OF DAMAGES FROM HIS AND GAULLIST FROM HER DECEASED SON.

IS THERE A MOTION. >> MOTION AND SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING I. I BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THE OTHER MATTERS WERE MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT FOR THE COUNTY

ATTORNEY. >> AND WE DO HAVE SOME TABLE

MOTIONS. >> ITEM NUMBER 16 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER EXECUTIVE SESSION A FUNDING SOURCE WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THAT TO JUNE 8. ACTUALLY EVEN JUNE 20 OR JU

JUNE 22. >> WHATEVER THE SECOND MEETING

IN JUNE. >> JUNE 22.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> AYE. >> IT WAS GONZALES.

>> ITEM NUMBER 19. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THAT ONE UNTIL JUNE 22 MEETING AT A TIME SPECIFIC.

I WILL SAY 10:00 A.M. THAT IS NUMBER 19 UNTIL JUNE 22 AT 10:00 A.M. SO WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.

NOT AT THE END OF THE DAY BUT THE BEGINNING.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY

[ Adjournment in Memory (upon request)]

SAYING AYE. THAT INCLUDES OUR AGENDA ITEMS. WE HAVE ADJOURNMENTS AND THE COMMISSIONER HAS ONE.

>> I HAVE TWO. >> SORRY TO.

>> THE FIRST ONE GONZALES PEACEFULLY AND QUIETLY PASSED AWAY ON THURSDAY MAY 5, 2022. HE WAS BORN GENERALLY 131939 TO LOUISIANA GONZALES AND HE WILL BE A LASTING MEMORY IN THE HEARTS OF ALL OF THOSE THAT HE LOVED IN TOUCH.

HE CAME INTO THE LORD FEBR FEBRUARY 28, 1980 IN TEXAS.

THERE HE SERVED AS A DEACON WITH A SUPPORTIVE WIFE VIRGINIA GONZALES AND SERVED AS USE YOUTH COUNSELOR SERVED AT CORPUS CHRISTI AND HE WAS A LICENSED ORDAINED MINISTER TO THE BAPTIST TEXAS FOR 38 YEARS REVEREND GONZALEZ SERVED IN SEVERAL CHURCHES AND MISSIONS IN SOUTH TEXAS FROM SAN BENITO TEXAS SERVING TOGETHER AS A FAMILY AS THE CHILDREN WERE DON REVEREND GONZALES AND HIS WIFE SERVE AS HOUSE PAIRINGS FOR THE SOUTH TEXAS CHILDREN'S HOME AND MINERAL TEXAS.

GONZALEZ WAS A GRANDFATHER OF WHAT MY EMPLOYEES DD GONZALES AND WE PASS ON OUR GONZALES TO THE GONZALES FAMILY.

THE SECOND ONE THE MOTHER OF ARNOLD LIAO, SOME OF YOU KNOW COACH LIAO. SHE PASSED WITH OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST, SHE TOOK A LAST BREATH MAY 9, 2022.

SHE WAS A LOVING MOTHER, GRANDMOTHER AND CERTAINLY WILL BE MISSED BY ALL. MY CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY.

>> THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TODAY? >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.