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.

[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.]

IN CASE ANYBODY WANTS TO ATTEND REGARDING THE TRAININGS.

AT THIS TIME I'LL TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE AGENDA AS WE BEGIN WITH PUBLIC COMMENT. AND ASK THAT THOSE ONLINE THAT

[00:05:03]

WISH TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU JUST NEED TO USE THAT VIRTUAL HAND ICON. AND LET US KNOW AND WE'LL CALL ON YOU. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE HERE AND HADN'T SEEN OUR DIGITAL CLOCK, IT IS SOMEWHAT NEW.

YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT THERE. IT BASICALLY RECORDS THE TIME.

WE'LL ASK YOU TO COME TO THE PODIUM, AS YOU KNOW, DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, WE DON'T NECESSARILY SPEAK BACK TO YOU.

BUT SOMETIMES IT'S RELATED TO AN AGENDA ITEM AND YOU CAN HEAR A RESPONSE. BUT PLEASE KNOW THAT WE ARE LISTENING INTENTLY AND THERE IS ALWAYS OPPORTUNITY AFTER THE MEETING TO REACH OUT. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WE ASK THE FIRST PERSON TO COME TO THE PODIUM, EVEN WITH GLASSES, THIS ONE IS TRICKY FOR ME. IS IT COLBY.

FORGIVE ME. WILTSY.

WELCOME. >> COLBY LIKE THE CHEESE.

>> GOT IT. >> THERE YOU GO.

JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, GOOD MORNING.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO ADDRESS THE COURT THIS MORNING.

MY NAME IS COLBY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COUNTY CITIZENS DEFENDING FREEDOM HERE IN NUECES COUNTY.

I CAME HERE TODAY TO ADDRESS AN MOU VOTED ON AND PASSED 5-0 BY THE COURT ON JUNE 8TH. DRAFTED BY COASTAL WELLNESS FOUNDATION. MOA WOULD GIVE COASTAL BEND WELLNESS ACCESS TO NUECES COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARIES AND ALLOW THEM TO TEACH PROJECT RUSH.

YOU SHOULD HAVE COPIES OF THAT ON YOUR DESK RIGHT NOW IN FRONT OF YOU. BUT I WANTED TO BRING AWARENESS TO A PARTICULAR CURRICULUM ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT RUSH, CALLED MAKING PROUD CHOICES. THIS CURRICULUM IS BEING PRESENTED AS AN INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY INTERVENTION THAT EDUCATES HIGH SCHOOL YOUTH AND FAMILIES ON TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION, AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

THAT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK INTO THE CURRICULUM A LITTLE FURTHER, IT APPEARS THAT MAKING PROUD CHOICES IS ESSENTIALLY A HOW TO MANUAL FOR SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

IMPLIES THAT MANY IF NOT MOST TEENAGERS ARE SEXUALLY ACTIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY. TEACHES THEM HOW TO OBTAIN CONSENT FOR SEX. HARDLY DISCUSSES ABSTINANCE.

MAKING PROUD CHOICES ENCOURAGES DETAILED CONDOM DEMONSTRATIONS AND A DEMO KIT INCLUDING A WOW WOODEN PENIS MODEL AND 75 CONDOMS. DVDS, ANIMATED STEPS TO CONDOM USE, ANIMATED FIGURES ACTING OUT DIFFERENT STYLES OF SEX. PROMOTES CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION AND UNDERMINES PARENTAL RIGHTS, TEACHES CHILDREN THEY DON'T HAVE TO TELL THEIR PARENTS IF THEY WANT TO GET TESTED FOR STDS. DO UNDERAGE TEEN NEED PARENTAL CONSENT FOR TESTING AND TREATMENT AT YOUR CLINIC.

WHEN WE PRESENTED THIS TO CORPUS CHRISTI STUDENT ADVISORY COUNCIL, THEY VOTED 8-1 NOT TO ALLOW THIS CURRICULUM IN CCISD.

IF OUR COMMITTEE WAS ABLE TO REALIZE THAT THE CURRICULUM WAS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR CHILDREN IN OUR SCHOOLS, IN OUR COMMUNITY, THEN I WOULD HOPE THIS BODY WOULD COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION. I WANT TO BELIEVE THAT IF YOU HAD KNOWN ABOUT THIS CURRICULUM ON JUNE 8TH, YOU WOULD HAVE VOTED DIFFERENTLY. I'M ASKING THE COURT TO RECONSIDER ALLOWING PROJECT RUSH TO BE BROUGHT AND TAUGHT IN OUR PUBLIC LIBRARIES, TERMINATE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH COASTAL BEND AWARENESS AND ULTIMATELY PROTECT THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE CHILDREN FROM CURRICULUM LIKE MAKING PROUD CHOICES. THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. THE NEXT PERSON THAT SIGNED UP IS CARRIE MOORE. I'LL MAKE NOTE RIGHT NOW.

>> GOOD MORNING. >> WELCOME.

>> MY NAME IS CARRIE MOORE. EDUCATION DIVISION LEADER FOR COUNTY CITIZENS DEFENDING FREEDOM IN NUECES COUNTY.

AND THE CHAPTER CHAIR FOR MOMS FOR LIBERTY IN NUECES COUNTY AS WELL. I COORDINATE THE VOLUNTEERS WHO RESEARCHED THE CURRICULUM THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING USED IN OUR 13 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS OF NUECES COUNTY AS WELL AS CURRICULUM AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE SCHEDULED TO BE PRESENTED AT OUR SCHOOL HEALTH ADVISORY COUNCILS.

IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS, AT BOTH FLOWER BLUFF ISD AND CCISD, WE

[00:10:03]

HAVE SHED THE LIGHT AND HELP THE SHAC MEMBERS STOP MAKING PROUD CHOICES AND EXTREME OVERSEXUALIZATION OF OUR MINOR CHILDREN CONTAINED THEREIN. IN APRIL, WE BROUGHT 17 BOOKS TO THE ATTENTION OF CCISD THAT VIOLATE STATE OBSCENITY STATUTES, 4322 AND 24 IN THE TEXAS PENAL CODE REGARDING SEXUALIZATION OF OUR MINOR CHILDREN.

AS OF TODAY, WE HAVE ANOTHER 21 BOOKS THAT ALSO VIOLATE STATUTES READY FOR SUBMISSION. NATIONAL LISTS ARE IN THE TENS OF HUNDREDS THAT WE HAVE YET TO CROSS CHECK WITH OUR COUNTY THAT WOULD VIOLATE TEXAS STATE OBSCENITY STATUTES.

THE OVER-SEXUALIZATION OF OUR MINOR CHILDREN IS PROLIFIC THROUGHOUT WAY TOO MANY AREAS IN THEIR LIFE.

THE MATERIAL THAT OVER-SEXUALIZES OUR MINOR CHILDREN MAKES AN ENORMOUS IMPRESSION OF BOTH THEM AND THEIR WORLD VIEWS. DIMINISHES THE VALUE OF HOW GOD CREATED THEM AND SUPPRESSES THEIR NATURAL INCLINATION TO PROTECT THAT VALUE. OUR MISSION IS TO ELIMINATE THE SEVERE LACK OF PROFICIENCY IN AREAS SUCH AS MATH, READING, WRITING, HISTORY AND SCIENCE BY PRIORITIZING THESE SUBJECTS AND ELIMINATING THE CONSTANT OVER-SEXUALIZATION OF OUR MINOR CHILDREN. WE ASK THAT YOU TERMINATE THIS MOU WITH COASTAL BEND WELLNESS. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. NOW I'LL CALL SHAWN FLANIGAN.

>> HELLO, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS SHAWN. I AM A VETERAN, I HAVE LIVED IN CORPUS 22 YEARS, I RETIRED FROM COACHING AND TEACHING AT A&M CORPUS CHRISTI. I'M HERE BECAUSE Y'ALL ARE BUSY. I THINK WHEN YOU PASSED THIS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT OR UNDERSTANDING WITH THE COASTAL BEND WELLNESS CENTER I DON'T THINK YOU WERE AWARE OF WHAT WAS IN IT. IT WAS A WOLF DISGUISED AS A SHEEP. I REALLY DO NOT THINK THERE ARE TOO MANY PARENTS IN NUECES COUNTY THAT WANT THEIR KIDS TO GO TO THE PUBLIC LIBRARY, TO LEARN HOW TO DO ORAL AND ANAL SEX. BUT THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE CURRICULUM. IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE MATERIALS YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED, ONE OF THE MATERIALS YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED IS THE CSE, COMPREHENSIVE SEX EDUCATION HARMFUL ELEMENTS ANALYST TOOL. IT PICKS OUT 15 DIFFERENT HARMFUL ELEMENTS IN SEXUAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN. MAKING PROUD CHOICES FLUNKS 15 OF 15. AND IF YOU DON'T -- IF YOU THINK THAT IS AN EXAGGERATION, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 4, AND HARMFUL ITEM 3, PROMOTES ANAL AND ORAL SEX, THEY'VE GOT TWO AND A HALF PAGES OF QUOTATIONS AND SEGMENTS TAKEN OUT OF THE CURRICULUM AND TEACHER GUIDE THAT GOES WITH THIS PROGRAM.

AS A LONG-TIME EDUCATOR, YOU KNOW, WHAT ADULTS DO, THE CHOICES THEY MAKE IS ONE THING. BUT WHAT THE CHOICES Y'ALL MAKE FOR THE EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR CHILDREN ARE IMPORTANT. AND I REALLY DO NOT THINK THAT THE COUNTY OR THE PARENTS IN THE COUNTY WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS TYPE OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM IF THEY WERE AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN IT. I DON'T THINK YOU GUYS WERE AWARE OF WHAT IS IT IN WHEN YOU VOTED FOR IT.

I'M ASKING YOU TO RECONSIDER YOUR DECISION.

THE CONTRACT ALLOWS YOU TO GET OUT OF IT BY WRITTEN NOTICE WITHIN FIVE DAYS. I SURE HOPE YOU TAKE THAT OPTION. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR. THE NEXT PERSON SIGNED UP IS

NANCY VETA. >> MAY SHE GO BEFORE I DO?

>> YES. IF YOU CEDE YOUR SPOT.

I'M JUST CALLING IT IN ORDER. AND I HAVEN'T DONE THIS, BUT THE CLERK REALLY LIKES IT. IF YOU WOULD REPEAT YOUR NAME.

I THINK SOME OF YOU HAVE DONE IT.

AND THE ADDRESS. DO YOU LIKE THAT, EMMA? IF YOU WOULD, FROM NOW ON, I'M SORRY.

I DID NOT REMIND. MS. WASHINGTON, PLEASE PROCEED.

>> THANK YOU. JUDGE CANALES AND COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS JULIE WASHINGTON.

I AM COMMUNITY COORDINATOR FOR THE SOUTHWEST REGION FOR AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS.

I AM READING TO YOU RELEASE FROM PRESIDENT OF THE TEXAS AFT. EDUCATORS STAND WITH LGBTQIA+STUDENTS, WHEN WILL OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DO THE SAME.

[00:15:01]

TEXAS AFT PRESIDENT COMMENTED TODAY IN SUPPORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS RECENT LGBTQIA+BOOK GIVE-AWAY. AFTER ONLINE ABUSE, STEMMING FROM A SOCIAL MEDIA POST BY NUECES COUNTY SHERIFF.

AT A TIME WHEN OUR STATE'S LEADERSHIP HAS MADE A PRIORITY TO BULLY VULNERABLE CHILDREN FOR TRYING TO BE WHO THEY ARE.

WE MUST REMAIN VILGENT AGAINST ANY ATTEMPT TO STIR UP HATE.

OUR UNION STANDS DISGUSTED BY THE HATE SPURRED BY THE SOCIAL MEDIA POST SINCE DELETED, FROM COUNTY SHERIFF CHRIS HOOPER SHARING HIS APPARENT DISDAIN FOR AN EVENT HOSTED BY THE CORPUS CHRISTI AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, COASTAL BEND PRIDE CENTER AND OTHER COMMUNITY PARTNERS.

THIS EVENT INCLUDED A GIVE-AWAY OF BOOKS THAT SHOW THAT COMMUNITY IN FRIENDLY AND POSITIVE WAYS. SOMETHING WE UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPPORT. WE KNOW READING, NOT ONLY OPENS NEW WORLDS FOR OUR STUDENTS, BUT CAN HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THEMSELVES IN THE PROCESS. EVERY CHILD DESERVES TO SEE THEMSELVES REPRESENTED IN THE BOOKS THEY READ.

AND WE ARE IMMENSELY PROUD OF THE EDUCATORS ACROSS THE STATE WORKING TO GET LIFE CHANGING AFFIRMING BOOKS INTO THE HANDS OF KIDS AND FAMILIES. THE SHERIFF'S POST IS ANOTHER INSTANCE IN A LONG LIST OF ELECTED OFFICIALS PROJECTING THEIR PERSONAL BIASES IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE.

GIVING LICENSE FOR THE HATEFUL RHETORIC THAT LEADS NOT ONLY TO THE VIOLENCE, BUT UNEQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW, SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE STUDENTS AMONG US.

AS EDUCATORS, WE CARE FOR EVERY CHILD IN OUR CLASSROOMS. OUR SCHOOLS. AND IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THEM, SUPPORT THEM, RESPECT THEM.

AND REGARDLESS OF GENDER IDENTITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION.

AS UNION MEMBERS, WE LONG HAVE CONSIDERED IT OUR COLLECTIVE CALLING TO STAND UP FOR THOSE WHO ARE TARGETED OR BULLIED BY PEOPLE IN POWER WHO TAKE THAT CALLING ESPECIALLY SERIOUSLY, WHEN THOSE BEING BULLIED ARE OUR KIDS.

WE WISH THAT ONLY THOSE IN ELECTED POSITIONS TOOK THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO TEXANS AND TEXAS CHILDREN AS SERIOUSLY.

THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU.

NANCY VETTA. >> JUST BEFORE YOU BEGIN, FOR THOSE OF YOU ONLINE, I DO SEE YOU AND WE WILL CALL ON YOU.

I AM WRITING YOUR NAME DOWN. AND YOU CAN ANNOUNCE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I SEE YOU. GO AHEAD.

>> JUDGE, I'M THE PROUD PRESIDENT OF AWARD WINNING CORPUS CHRISTI AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS.

PRESIDENT OF THE COASTAL BEND LABOR COUNCIL.

REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR 11 COUNTIES AND I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH TEXAS HUMAN RIGHTS CENTER.

THAT MEANS THAT I REPRESENT OVER 4 MILLION PEOPLE IN THIS AREA AND ACROSS THE STATE AND NATION.

I STAND BEFORE YOU BECAUSE AS AN EDUCATOR FOR OVER 35 YEARS, I HAVE WITNESSED SITUATIONS WITH REGARD TO OUR STUDENTS DURING WHICH THEY COMMIT SUICIDE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ACCEPTED OR THEY CUT THEMSELVES OR THEY ARE HOMELESS BECAUSE THEY'RE THROWN OUT OF THEIR HOMES BECAUSE OF WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY REPRESENT. I HAVE WITNESSED THAT FIRSTHAND AND I HAVE COUNSELLED STUDENTS AS BEST I CAN AS AN EDUCATOR.

ADDITIONALLY, WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT SUICIDE, THIS TYPE OF SUICIDE JUDGE IS ALSO AMONG OUR ADULT POPULATION HERE IN CORPUS CHRISTI. HIGH POVERTY.

AND WE WITNESSED A SUICIDE RIGHT HERE IN THIS BUILDING BY SOMEONE WHO IS IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES AS HE WAS A JUDGE. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT ANYMORE.

IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THAT IS HAPPENING ACROSS OUR COUNTRY, THE HATE, WE MUST LEARN TO COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER.

IF THERE ARE CONCERNS REGARDING ANYTHING THAT IS GOING ON, I DON'T SEE WHERE ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM WHO IS SPEAKING ABOUT THE

[00:20:04]

COASTAL BEND WELLNESS CENTER CURRICULUM, NOT ONE WHO HAS APPROACHED ME TO TRY AND SEE HOW WE COULD WORK THIS THROUGH.

I THINK WE NEED TO COMMUNICATE MORE.

WHEN SHERIFF HOOPER WENT AHEAD AND POSTED WHAT HE POSTED ON FACEBOOK ON A WEBSITE, SOUTH TEXAS POLITICS, HE MAY HAVE EXPRESSED HIS OPINION, WHICH IS HIS OPINION AND I RESPECT THAT.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HE CAUSED VITRIAL AND HATE TO ENSUE ON THAT PAGE THAT HURTS OUR CHILDREN.

WHAT WAS AN HONOR -- WE HAVE BROUGHT OVER 50,000 FREE BOOKS TO OUR CHILDREN HERE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

50,000. AND THIS TIME WE WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THE CHILDREN AND THE PARENTS AND THE FAMILIES WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS LGBTQIA+AND WE GAVE OUT A THOUSAND BOOKS TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO WANTED THOSE BOOKS. WE DO NOT NEED A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO HAS PEOPLE UNDER HIS LEAD WHO ARE ALSO IDENTIFY AS LGBTQIA+.

IN FACT I KNOW THAT TWO DEPUTY SHERIFFS HAVE RESIGNED AS A RESULT OF HIS COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY FELT SO INSECURE AND UNSAFE. I FEEL UNSAFE AS LIFETIME COMMUNITY MEMBER AND IN FACT, I'M FOURTH GENERATION LATINO HERE IN CORPUS CHRISTI. I FEEL UNSAFE.

WE BELIEVE SHERIFF HOOPER SHOULD APOLOGIZE AND SAY THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE HUMAN BEINGS, THAT EVERY HUMAN HAS A RIGHT TO BE WHO THEY ARE. AND THE CORPUS CHRISTI AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS WILL STAND BY OUR COMMITMENT TO VALUE EVERY INDIVIDUAL FOR WHO THEY ARE AND WHO THEY REPRESENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THE COURT: THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

PASTOR RICK MILLBY. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE AND THANKS TO EACH OF OUR COMMISSIONERS FOR OUR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY AND THANK YOU TO THE CITIZENS THAT CAME TODAY TO SHARE THEIR VIEWS AND OPINIONS FOR OUR COUNTY.

I'M A LITTLE TAKEN ABACK BY WHAT I JUST HEARD.

I SAW WHAT OUR SHERIFF PUT ONLINE.

WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK ABOUT HIM.

BUT ALL HE DID WAS POST A PICTURE THAT THEY HAD PUT ONLINE. HE COPIED AND POSTED AGAIN AND USED THE WORD WOW. I USE THAT WORD ALL OF THE TIME. THAT IS THE ONLY THING HE SAID.

I HEARD SUCH BITTERNESS SPIT OUT TOWARDS HIM.

I AM 73, I GREW UP IN A GENERATION WHERE WE OPENED OUR SCHOOLS IN THE MORNING WITH PRAYER.

MY PRINCIPAL HAD A BIBLE ON THE CORNER OF HIS DESK.

I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN MY PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE. I REMEMBER WHEN ALL OF THE KIDS DROVE TO SCHOOL HAD HIGH POWERED RIFLES ON THE BACK WINDOW OF THEIR TRUCK. WE DIDN'T HAVE SHOOTINGS BACK IN THOSE DAYS. WE DIDN'T STRUGGLE WITH THOSE PROBLEMS THAT WE DO. BUT IN 1963, WE REMOVED PRAYER FROM OUR SCHOOLS. ONE YEAR LATER, WE REMOVED THE BIBLE FROM OUR SCHOOLS. TEN YEARS LATER, WE BEGAN TO MURDER CHILDREN IN THE WOMB OF A WOMAN.

THAT LAW WAS PASSED. WE'VE SEEN DOWNWARD SPIRAL TAKE PLACE IN OUR SOCIETY. THE LAST SPEAKER TALKED ABOUT THE SUICIDAL RATE THAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT WHEN I WAS GROWING UP EITHER.

WE WERE TAUGHT PRINCIPLES AND VALUES.

I AM OFFENDED THAT SOMEBODY WOULD HAVE AN AGENDA TO TRY TO SEXUALIZE SMALL CHILDREN. ONE OF OUR POLITICAL PARTIES, THEY WANT TO HAVE SEX EDUCATION FROM K-4 TO K-12.

I DIDN'T HAVE SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOL.

MY PARENTS TAUGHT ME ABOUT SEX. WE HAD BIOLOGY.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT UNTIL HIGH SCHOOL.

WE WERE TAUGHT VALUES. I HAVE A SIX-YEAR-OLD GRANDSON, I LOOK AT HIM AND THINK YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SEX.

WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD SOMEONE TRY TO TEACH YOU THAT, THINK THAT THAT IS IMPORTANT TO PASS THAT AGENDA ON.

AND SO I LOOK AT WHO IS PUSHING THIS AGENDA, I LOOK AT OUR SOCIETY. AND WE BLAME EVERYTHING BUT THE REASON IS GOOD PARENTAL GUIDANCE, GOOD LEADERSHIP OF OUR COMMUNITY, COUNCILS AND OUR COMMISSIONERS WHO WOULD LEAD OUR SOCIETY BACK TO A RIGHT GENERATION, RIGHT WAY.

AND SO I APPEAL TO YOU TODAY, YOU ARE -- MANY OF YOU GREW UP IN MY ERA. MANY OF YOU ARE CHRISTIAN.

YOU IDENTIFY AS CHRISTIANS. WHICH MEANS THAT YOUR MORAL CODE COMES FROM A BOOK CALLED THE BIBLE.

AND IN THE BIBLE IT WARNS US ABOUT THESE KINDS OF THINGS THAT TAKE PLACE IN OUR SOCIETY, MOVE AWAY FROM THEM.

I DON'T HATE ANYBODY. I DON'T HATE ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM. I DON'T HATE THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN ALREADY. I LOVE THEM AND PRAY FOR THEM REGULARLY. WE PRAY FOR THESE PEOPLE.

BUT I DON'T WANT AN AGENDA PUSHED ON MY CHILDREN OR MY GRANDCHILDREN THAT IS JUST WRONG.

AND NOT GOOD FOR SOCIETY. WE SEE WHAT IT'S PRODUCED IN OUR CULTURE AND IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY.

[00:25:03]

THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU.

FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT MIGHT BE IN THE ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT CHANCE.

BUT NOW I'M GOING TO TURN TO OUR ONLINE FRIENDS WHO -- CONSTITUENTS WHO WISH TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.

I'LL CALL THEM IN ORDER AS I SEE THEM.

MR. RYAN TURNER. >> GOOD MORNING, COUNTY JUDGE AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS RYAN TURNER.

440 MAPLE STREET. THE COURT: WOULD YOU MAKE SURE YOUR VOLUME IS JUST A LITTLE LOUDER.

CONNIE, WOULD YOU HELP. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THE COURT: IT'S TOUGH.

BUT IF YOU'LL JUST SPEAK UP. GO AHEAD.

WE'RE GOING TO RESET THE CLOCK. I LIKE THAT BETTER.

>> GOOD MORNING. COUNTY JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS RYAN TURNER. 440 MAPLE STREET.

I'M HERE TODAY AS CHAIR OF THE BOB HOPE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND VICE CHAIR OF THE COASTAL BEND FOUNDATION.

WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CURRENT DESIGN OF BOB HOPE PIER, AS IT IS A ONE COLUMN PIER OR ONE PYLON PIER INSTEAD OF THE DOUBLE PYLON PIER IT PREVIOUSLY WAS BEFORE.

IT HAS OVER 60 YEARS OF HISTORY OF PRODUCING A GREAT WAVE HERE IN THE PIER. WE AS SURFERS ARE ALSO STAKEHOLDERS. PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE ARE ALSO AN ECONOMICAL BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE STAY IN HOTELS. GO TO THE RESTAURANTS AND BARS.

WE VISIT THE MUSEUMS HERE. WE SURF HERE.

WE GO TO THE VENDOR, MICHAEL MAYS.

THE CURRENT DESIGN OF A FOUR FOOT DIAMETER PYLONS WITH 66 FOOT SPACING IN OUR OPINION, WE'VE DONE A BUNCH OF RESEARCH WILL NOT PRODUCE THE SAME WAVE AS IT WAS BEFORE.

AND PROBABLY WILL NOT PRODUCE ANY WAVE THAT IS RIDEABLE.

AND AGAIN, BOB HALL PIER IS KNOWN FOR PRODUCING A BARRELLING WAVE, TOP TO BOTTOM WAVE THAT IS KNOWN THROUGHOUT TEXAS AND PEOPLE COME HERE THROUGHOUT THE NATION TO CORPUS CHRISTI TO SURF THAT WAVE. MANY OF US LOCALS HAVE MISSED THAT -- MISSED THE WAY THAT THAT WAVE IS.

WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT REPRODUCED.

PLEASE CONSIDER US AS STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY TO REDESIGN THAT PIER AS A DOUBLE COLUMN PIER.

OR DOUBLE PYLON PIER TO PRODUCE GOOD WAVES.

THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU, RYAN.

NEIL MCQUEEN. >> GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS NEIL MCQUEEN. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? 4213 ESTATE DRIVE IN CORPUS CHRISTI.

CO-CHAIR OF THE LOCAL CHAPTER OF THE SURF RIDER FOUNDATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE SOME THINGS THAT RYAN SAID.

THE NEW BOB HALL PIER, THE FUTURE PIER SHOULD BE A FISHING AND A SURFING PIER. YOU MIGHT RECALL SURVEY WHAT WAS DONE, ASKING PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANTED.

MANY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO SIGHT SEE OR EAT AT THE RESTAURANT, RESPONDED THAT THEY WANT TO WATCH SURFERS.

THEY ENJOY WATCHING SURFERS THERE.

I HAVE SURFED BY PIERS ON THE EAST, WEST AND GULF COAST IN OTHER STATES. PIERS AND JETTIES, THEY SLOW THE CURRENTS DOWN, ALLOW THE SAND TO SETTLE OUT AND THAT FORMS GOOD SAND BARS. WHAT HAPPENS IS THE WAVES REFRACT AROUND THE SAND BARS AND CREATE A GOOD SURFABLE WAVE. BOB HALL PIER HAS A REPUTATION FOR A CLEAN HOLLOW WAVE WHEN THE CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT.

TO SHOW YOU THAT, THIS IS A WORLD SURF GUIDE HERE.

BIG THICK BOOK. AND THEY HAVE SURF SPOTS ALL OVER THE WORLD. AND SO FOR TEXAS, THE WAVE THAT IS FEATURED, THAT BLACK AND WHITE PHOTO THERE IS BOB HALL PIER FOR THE ENTIRE STATE OF TEXAS.

IT DOES HAVE THAT REPUTATION. THE LAST THING I WANT TO MENTION, I SPOKE WITH A FRIEND WHO DID THEIR PH.D. THESIS AT HEART RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON SEDIMENT MOVEMENT AND THEY CONFIRMED THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO MODEL A SINGLE VERSUS DOUBLE PYLON DESIGN AND TO DETERMINE HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THE SAND BARS. IT'S VERY POSSIBLE AND I ENCOURAGE Y'ALL TO REQUIRE SUCH MODELLING.

THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU, SIR.

CLIFF SLOBIC. >> 122 WHITELY DRIVE, I'M THE

[00:30:04]

OTHER CO-CHAIR OF THE TEXAS COASTAL BEND SURF RIDER FOUNDATION. I'M ALSO THE CHAIR OF THE NUECES COUNTY BEACH MANAGEMENT AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BUT TODAY I AM HERE REPRESENTING THE SURFERS HERE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. I'VE BEEN SURFING HERE ALONG THE TEXAS COAST NOW FOR 59 YEARS THIS YEAR.

NEXT YEAR WILL BE 60 YEARS. I PLAN TO THROW A BIG CELEBRATION. A LONG TIME TO CONTINUE SURFING. ALL OF US HAVE BEEN HERE ALONG THE TEXAS COAST. I'VE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THE PIERS HERE. SURFED NEXT TO EVERY SINGLE PIER HERE THAT HAS BEEN BUILT HERE SINCE THE 60S.

I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THAT THE MORE PYLONS THAT WE HAVE IN THE WATER ON THESE PIERS AND THAT WAS CERTAINLY THE CASE WITH THE WOODEN ONES, THEY HAD A LOT MORE PILINGS THAN EVEN THE CONCRETE ONES HAVE NOW.

THE QUALITY OF THE SURF WAS MUCH BETTER THEN.

THOSE PIERS WERE DESTROYED BY STORMS AND REPLACED BY CONCRETE PIERS. AND THE CONCRETE PIERS HAVE LESS PILINGS. BECAUSE THEY HAVE LESS PILINGS, AS NEIL POINTED OUT TO YOU, CHANGES THE CONDITIONS.

AND WITH LESS PILINGS, THERE IS LESS QUALITY TO OUR SURF NEXT TO THOSE PIERS. SO I HAVE SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE SINGLE PILING DESIGN THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED FOR THE NEW BOB HALL PIER DESIGN.

I'M HOPING THAT THE COUNTY WILL STAY WITH THE TWIN PILING DESIGN. I FEEL LIKE THAT WILL HELP MAINTAIN THE QUALITY OF OUR SURF NEXT TO THOSE PIERS.

THAT WAVE IS CONSIDERED TOP NOTCH WAVE HERE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. WE'VE HELD NUMEROUS SURF COMPETITIONS THERE OVER THE YEARS, INCLUDING THE TEXAS STATE SURFING CHAMPIONSHIPS, ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS THAT WOULD BE REALLY REALLY DEVASTATING TO THE SURFING COMMUNITY IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO THAT WAVE. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THE COUNTY GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO STICKING WITH THE TWIN PILING DESIGN. I HAVE CHECKED THE INTERNET FOR YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO FIND ANY EXAMPLE OF A SINGLE PILING PIER LIKE THE ONE BEING CONSIDERED IN AN OCEAN SETTING.

I HAVE NOT FOUND ANYTHING. SO THERE IS NOTHING THAT I CAN SEE THAT WOULD ENCOURAGE ME TO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD MAINTAIN THE CURRENT QUALITY OF THE WAVE THAT WE HAVE AT BOB HALL PIER RIGHT NOW. I'M GOING TO ASK THE COUNTY TO STICK WITH THE TWIN PILING. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING EXTRA TO BE ADDED. WE'RE ASKING FOR THEM TO KEEP THE SAME PILING DESIGN AS THEY CURRENTLY HAVE.

THAT IS IT. THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THIS ISSUE TODAY.

AND I'M SURE THAT WE WILL BE SPEAKING WITH YOU AGAIN ABOUT THIS IN THE FUTURE. THE COURT: THANK YOU.

FINALLY, ONLINE, I SEE TOMMY SCHULTZ.

TOMMY, IF YOU WOULD UNMUTE. >> IS THAT BETTER?

THE COURT: YES, SIR. >> HELLO, JUDGE CANALES AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY. MY NAME IS TOMMY SCHULTZ.

I LIVE AT 430 NICKERBACHER. I AM A LIFETIME SURFER.

MEMBER OF THE SURF RIDER FOUNDATION.

VICE CHAIR OF A NEW PROGRAM DESIGNED TO TEST THE RECREATIONAL WATERS IN CORPUS AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS IN COASTAL BEND. I'M ALSO CERTIFIED BY THE NATIONAL SPILL SCHOOL TO BE EYES ON THE BEACH FOR OIL SPILLS SIGNS. I SURF ON A DAILY BASIS AND DO PROVIDE BEACH FIRST AID AND BRING A HUGE KIT WITH ME EVERY DAY FOR THOSE TIMES WHEN THE LIFEGUARDS ARE NOT PRESENT.

I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT A SINGLE PILING PIER DESIGN FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS AND OF COURSE, THE FIRST REASON IS BECAUSE BOB HALL PIER IS A GEM OF A WAVE.

I AM A VIDEOGRAPHER. IT CAN BE AMAZING.

A SINGLE PILING PIER WILL NOT BE AMAZING I DON'T THINK.

AND I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW IT WILL HOLD UP TO OUR STORMS. BECAUSE TEXAS GETS SOME STORMS THAT COME FARTHER FROM ANYWHERE ELSE TO GET HERE.

WE'RE REALLY -- WE GET HIT PRETTY GOOD WHEN WE DO.

THE SURF COMMUNITY IN CORPUS CHRISTI IS A LOT BIGGER THAN MOST PEOPLE KNOW. THEY'RE A VERY LARGE DEMOGRAPHIC. SURFING IS ACTUALLY A TOURISM

[00:35:02]

THING NOW. SO WE GET SURFERS FROM ALL OVER, CALIFORNIA, EVERYWHERE, COMING HERE TO SURF.

IT CAN BE REALLY GOOD. IT'S NOT ALWAYS REALLY GOOD.

BUT IT'S ALWAYS CAN BE DANGERS. AND I REALLY AM CONCERNED ABOUT IF THE SURFERS AREN'T REPRESENTED PROPERLY AT BOB HALL, THAT WITH LESS SURFERS IN THE WATER OR NO SURFERS IN THE WATER, I'M AFRAID THAT NUECES COUNTY IS GOING TO SEE AN INCREASE IN MORTALITIES AT THE BEACH.

I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN COUNTLESS RESCUES.

I HAVE BROUGHT PEOPLE IN BOTH DEAD AND ALIVE.

MOST OF THE TIME ALIVE. AND THAT IS THE WAY WE LIKE IT.

SURFERS RESCUE SO MANY PEOPLE ON A WEEKLY BASIS THAT IT'S PRETTY ASTONISHING. THERE IS NO RECORD OF THE NUMBERS. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT A MONTH AGO, I WAS PART OF A RESCUE THAT PULLED FISHERMEN OUT OF THE CHANNEL. THE BOAT CAPSIZED AND THEY GOT RESCUED. BY THE TIME THE COAST GUARD SHOWED UP EVERYTHING WAS UNDER CONTROL.

THAT IS THE CASE A LOT OF TIMES, IS PEOPLE DO GET THERE BUT IT'S TOO LATE WHEN THEY DO. SO THE SURFERS TAKE CARE OF IT.

I CAN ALSO TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE PULLED LIFEGUARDS OUT OF THE WATER. SO WE'RE PRETTY SERIOUS ABOUT HELPING PEOPLE OUT. I WOULD REALLY LIKE THE COUNTY TO THINK ABOUT THOSE ITEMS. WE DID MEET WITH THE ENGINEERS ON THE PIER TO TALK ABOUT SOME THINGS.

AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT BOB HALL PIER AND THE WAVE, I THINK THE WAVE DESERVES PRESERVATION AND THE SURFERS DESERVE SOME REPRESENTATION.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR MUCH. JUST WHAT WE HAD BEFORE.

AND WE WOULD LIKE EVERYBODY TO STAY SAFE AND THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND I KNOW -- I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW THIS.

CAN THEY SEE THE CLOCK ONLINE? >> YES, WE CAN.

THE COURT: GOOD. JUST FOR THE AUDIENCE, I TRY NOT TO INTERRUPT, IF SOMEONE IS ON THAT TRAIN OF THOUGHT, OBVIOUSLY WE ALWAYS ASK EVERYONE WITH RESPECT TO TRY TO BE AS CLOSE TO THE THREE MINUTES AS POSSIBLE.

BUT I HOPE YOU CAN SEE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF RESPECT FOR ONE ANOTHER, AN EXTRA 10 SECONDS, 20 SECONDS I DON'T THINK IS

GOING TO HURT. >> IF I WENT OVER I APOLOGIZE THE COURT: NO WORRIES. I WANT TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT WE TRY TO BE EQUITABLE HERE.

WITH THAT, THAT DOES -- THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

THAT DOES CONCLUDE BOTH WHAT I SEE CONNIE, ANYBODY ELSE IN THE COURTROOM? OKAY.

SEEING NONE, I WILL PROCEED WITH THE AGENDA AT THIS TIME.

ASK THAT WE MOVE COMMISSIONERS TO THE PROCLAMATIONS AND

RESOLUTIONS. >> JUDGE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE DO HAVE ONE MORE PUBLIC COMMENT.

THE COURT: I DIDN'T SEE IT. OKAY.

GREAT. I'LL HAND THIS BACK.

ALSO, I TRY TO DO MY BEST FILLING IT OUT.

IF YOU WOULD JUST ANNOUNCE YOUR NAME.

>> SORRY, JUDGE. I DIDN'T RAISE MY HAND QUICK ENOUGH. MY NAME IS PAT CRAIG.

39 YEARS AGO TODAY, I WALKED INTO THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY, RETIRED AIR FORCE PILOT. I HAD THE BLESSING OF ADOPTING TWO CHILDREN WHILE I WAS ACTIVE DUTY AS A SINGLE MOM.

I CONSIDER THAT A SUPER HONOR. MY DAY OF RETIREMENT, I BEGAN HOME SCHOOLING MY TWO CHILDREN. MY DAUGHTER GRADUATED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. SO MY KIDS ARE OUT.

AND SO I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THE LOCAL SCHOOLS.

BUT I HEARD THAT THERE WERE SOME BOOKS AND I STARTED RESEARCHING. AND SO WHEN I LOOKED ONLINE, ON DR. VETA'S FACEBOOK PAGE, ONE OF THE BOOKS THEY'RE GIVING TO THE KIDS IS THIS ONE HERE. ALL BOYS AREN'T BLUE BY GEORGE JOHNSON. I HAVE SIX PAGES.

I'LL GIVE ONE EXCERPT AND I'LL KEEP IT AS CLEAN AS I CAN.

THIS BOOK WAS DISPLAYED PROMINENTLY AT AFT ON THE TOP OF A BUNCH OF BOOKS. HE REACHED HIS HAND DOWN AND PULLED OUT MY, INSERT MALE ANATOMY, BEGINS WITH A D.

QUIETLY WENT TO GIVING ME HEAD. I JUST SAT BACK AND ENJOYED IT.

AS I COULD TELL HE WAS TOO. HE WAS ALSO DEFINITELY EXPERIENCED IN WHAT HE WAS DOING.

BECAUSE HE WENT TO WORK QUITE CONFIDENTLY.

HE CAME UP AND ASKED ME IF I WANTED TO TRY ON HIM.

[00:40:04]

THIS IS NOT SEX EDUCATION. THIS IS INDOCTRINATION.

THIS IS HOW TO, WHO CAN DO IT TO YOU.

THIS IS NOT WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE OUR CHILDREN EXPOSED TO.

THAT MOU, I UNDERSTAND, YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION NOW.

PLEASE MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE. THIS IS NOT HATE.

THIS IS TEACHING OUR CHILDREN, ENCOURAGING FOR THEM TO GROW UP AND BE THE HUMANS THAT GOD INTENDED THEM TO BE.

AND WE NEED BE A PART OF THAT, ENCOURAGING THEM.

NOT CONFUSING THEM. AND LET THEM GROW UP.

AND WHAT ADULTS CHOOSE TO DO AND READ, THAT IS FINE.

IF PARENTS WANT TO GIVE THIS TO THEIR CHILDREN, THEY CAN GO CHECK IT OUT AT A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN CAN'T CHECK IT OUT ON THEIR OWN. AS IT IS NOT APPROVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OBSCENITY LAWS IN TEXAS.

THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU, MS. CRAIG. ONCE AGAIN, I'LL ASK.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SEEING NONE, I'LL MOVE FORWARD, AS I SAID, TO THE PART OF THE

[1. In recognition of the month of July as "Minority Mental Health Awareness Month".]

AGENDA WHERE WE SHOWCASE OUR RESOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS.

THIS MONTH WE HAVE ONE. AND I'LL ASK BELINDA TO READ IT.

RECOGNITION OF MONTH AS MINORITY MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH. I NOTICE THAT WE HAVE OFFICER BARNES HERE. WE ALSO HAVE MHID.

ANGELA. RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.

AND IF I TAKE THESE OFF AND REFOCUS, I CAN SEE NAMI, YOU'RE HERE WITH US. IF YOU ARE HERE REPRESENTING A MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION, OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO RECOGNIZE YOU HERE IN JUST A MOMENT.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO TURN TO BELINDA AND HAVE HER READ THAT RESOLUTION. WE DON'T HAVE IT READY.

FOR OUR MENTAL HEALTH, THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO ADD, SO I MAY NOT HAVE A FINAL ONE FOR YOU.

BUT LET US AT LEAST RECOGNIZE THE MONTH.

I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE MADE A BIG EFFORT TO BE HERE.

GO AHEAD. FORGIVE ME, ERIN, I SEE YOU HERE TOO REPRESENTING NUECES COUNTY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH.

FORGIVE ME. I'M STARTING TO SEE EVERYBODY'S T-SHIRTS. IT'S NICE FOR YOU TO STAND UP AND LET US RECOGNIZE YOU. THANK YOU.

>> WHEREAS, BB MOORE CAMPBELL WAS AN ACCOMPLISHED AFRICAN-AMERICAN AUTHOR, JOURNALIST, ADVOCATE, LONG-TIME NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS.

WHEREAS, IN 2008, THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DESIGNATED JULY AS BB MOORE CAMPBELL NATIONAL MINORITY MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH IN HER HONOR TO ENHANCE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF MENTAL ILLNESS AND MENTAL ILLNESS AMONG MINORITIES. ANNUAL PREVALENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS AMONG U.S. ADULTS ARE 13.9 ASIAN, 17.3 BLACK, AFRICAN-AMERICAN. 18.7 AMERICAN INDIAN, 35.8 MULTI-RACIAL. 16.6 NATIVE HAWAIIAN OR OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER. 18.4 HISPANIC, 47.4 LGBTQ+, WHEREAS, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICE OF MINORITY AND NATIONAL AFFAIRS FOR THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, APPROXIMATELY TWO-THIRDS OF ALL PEOPLE WITH THE DIAGNOSABLE MENTAL ILLNESS DO NOT SEEK TREATMENT DUE TO STIGMA, LACK OF COMMUNITY BASED RESOURCES, INADEQUATE DIAGNOSIS OR NO DIAGNOSIS. AND WHEREAS, MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS DO NOT DISCRIMINATE BASED ON RACE, COLOR, GENDER IDENTITY AND WHEREAS, THE EFFECT OF RACISM AND RACIAL TRAUMA ON MENTAL HEALTH IS REAL AND CANNOT BE IGNORED.

WHEREAS, UNDER-SERVED COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR NEED CULTURALLY COMPETENT AND MENTAL HEALTH RESOURCES AND APPROPRIATE TRAINING OF ALL HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND PROVIDERS TO SERVE MULTI-ETHNIC CONSUMERS, WHEREAS ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT SERVICES, ADVOCACY AND QUALITY OF CARE TO LIVE HEALTHY AND FULFILLING LIVES ARE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE, WHEREAS, THE MONTH OF JULY IS A TIME TO AMPLIFY THE MESSAGE OF TOGETHER FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND TO FOCUS ON THE HEALING VALUES, PRIORITIZING MENTAL HEALTH AS MENTAL WELL-BEING AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS OKAY NOT TO BE OKAY. AND NOW THEREFORE, BE IT IT RESOLVED THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OF NUECES

[00:45:01]

COUNTY, DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM, JULY 22ND IS MINORITY MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH AND CALLS UPON ALL CITIZENS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO ELIMINATE STIGMA AND DISCRIMINATION FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS LIVING WITH MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS, PROMOTE PUBLIC AWARENESS OF MENTAL ILLNESS AND ADVOCATE FOR BETTER ACCESS FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

LET OUR COMMUNITIES UNITE TOGETHER.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINORITY MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH RESOLUTION?

>> SECOND. THE COURT: MOTION AND SECOND.

I JUST WANT TO HAVE YOU ALL SELF-RECOGNIZE AND BOY, MENTAL HEALTH IS THE CRISIS OF OUR TIME.

AND I JUST WANT TO THANK EACH OF YOU AS EACH OF YOU PLAY A ROLE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT, TO FOCUSING ON THE PATIENT.

WE CAN'T SAY ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT YOU DO AND WE CAN'T SAY ENOUGH HOW MUCH YOU'RE NEEDED AND HOW MUCH WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO INCREASE ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO REPRESENT THIS MORNING? I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. MY NAME IS ANGELA HORNER, I AM THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS, NAMI GREATER CORPUS CHRISTI AFFILIATE.

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS FACE THE REALITY OF LIVING WITH MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS. MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS DO NOT DISCRIMINATE. ANYONE CAN EXPERIENCE THE CHALLENGES OF MENTAL ILLNESS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BACKGROUND.

HOWEVER, BACKGROUND AND IDENTITY CAN MAKE ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.

BB MOORE CAMPBELL NATIONAL MINORITY OF MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2008 TO START CHANGING THIS.

MINORITY MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS MONTH IS OBSERVED EACH JULY, TO BRING AWARENESS TO THE UNIQUE STRUGGLES THAT RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES FACE REGARDING MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE UNITED STATES. COVID-19 PANDEMIC HAS MADE IT HARDER FOR RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITY GROUPS TO GET ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT SERVICES.

TAKING ON THE CHALLENGES OF MENTAL HEALTH CONDITIONS, HEALTH COVERAGE AND THE CULTURAL STIGMA OF MENTAL ILLNESS, WE WILL AMPLIFY THE MESSAGE OF MENTAL HEALTH.

WE WILL USE THIS TIME TO BRING OUR VOICES TOGETHER TO ADVOCATE FOR MENTAL HEALTH. TOGETHER, WE CAN REALIZE OUR SHARED VISION OF A NATION WHERE ANYONE AFFECTED BY MENTAL ILLNESS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR BACKGROUND, CULTURE OR IDENTITY, CAN GET THE APPROPRIATE SUPPORT AND QUALITY OF CARE TO LIVE HEALTHY FULFILLING LIVES.

NEXT WE'LL DO ERIN. >> WELCOME.

>> GOOD MORNING, AARON DIAZ. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH FOR THE COUNTY. AND WORK WITH DR. GONZALES AND OF COURSE, ALL OF THE PARTNERS THAT WE HAVE HERE.

I AM A SOCIAL WORKER OF OVER 40 YEARS.

OF COURSE, A MINORITY. AND I'M HERE TO CELEBRATE THAT MONTH OF JULY. DURING THESE PAST TWO WEEKS, WE'VE BEEN WORKING AT THE IRT, THANKS FOR DR. GONZALES COMMISSIONER, FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY.

IT WAS DURING THAT TIME THAT AGAIN, I WAS REMINDED OF THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING A MINORITY PERSON IN THAT LOCATION.

AND I'M SURE THE OTHERS THAT WE HAD WITH OUR OWN CULTURE THERE.

OUR MINORITY CULTURE. AND ABLE TO COMMUNICATE IN OUR NATIVE LANGUAGE. SO I THANK ALL OF THE PARTNERS, INCLUDING MHID AND ALL THE OTHERS THERE TO SUPPORT US FOR BEING THERE, PROVIDING THIS VALUABLE SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. >> HELLO.

JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MALIKA WILEY CO-FOUNDER IN MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST AT HEALING CENTER. LOCATED RIGHT DOWN THE STREET.

I'M HERE TO SAY THAT THIS PROCLAMATION HELPS BREAK THE STIGMA OF MINORITIES. I'M THANKFUL TO BE A PART OF THIS WITH NAMI AND THE OTHERS. IT'S AMAZING THAT OUR COMMUNITY IS TAKING ACTION AND TALKING ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH MINORITIES AND THE TIME TO TAKE ACTION IS NOW.

MINORITIES DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH.

AND CONTINUE TO CIRCLE THROUGH THE SYSTEM.

[00:50:01]

THE NEED NEEDS TO STOP AND WE'RE HERE TO HELP THAT.

MY HOPE IS THAT THIS PROCLAMATION ENCOURAGES MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE CHECKING THEIR OWN BIASES, BE AWARE OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND THAT THEY'RE GETTING THE EXTRA SUPERVISION THAT THEY MAY NEED SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. THE COURT: THANK YOU.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

HOUSEKEEPING PART. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IN ORDER FOR YOU TO PROMOTE THE GOOD WORK THAT YOU DO IN MENTAL HEALTH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD, TAKE A PHOTO WITH US AND AS I SAID MAYBE LATER WE CAN GET YOU THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION. WOULD THAT BE GOOD FOR AWARENESS. OKAY.

WE'LL ASK YOU TO COME FORWARD AND I'LL JOIN YOU SHORTLY.

[1. In recognition of Mr. Richard King for his tree donations to the Nueces County Hazel Bazemore Park.]

WE HAVE ONE CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION THIS MORNING.

IT'S UNDER H1 ON YOUR AGENDA, IN RECOGNITION OF MR. RICHARD KING FOR HIS TREE DONATIONS. THIS IS SPECIAL.

AND MR. KING, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RISE, AS THEY SAY, WE HAVE SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL TO PRESENT TO YOU.

BELINDA. >> YES.

I BELIEVE Y'ALL HAVE THE CERTIFICATE UP HERE.

BUT WHAT IT READS IS WE HEREBY EXPRESS OUR SINCERE APPRECIATION TO RICHARD KING FOR HIS KIND DONATION OF OAK TREES TO HAZEL PARK TO HELP BEAUTIFY OUR COMMUNITY.

>> ALL OF US HAVE SIGNED IT. AND MR. KING, I GUESS I DON'T KNOW THE BACKGROUND OF HOW THIS CAME TO BE.

BUT I CERTAINLY KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO PLANT A TREE.

THE SEEDS WE PLANT TODAY, OF COURSE, OR THE SHADE WE HAVE TOMORROW, I'M SO GRATEFUL. I'M GLAD EDWARD IS APPROACHING.

EDWARD, SHINE SOME LIGHT FOR THOSE WATCHING.

WHAT A BEAUTIFUL GIFT THIS IS. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE.

GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. HE IS A PARKS EMPLOYEE.

THERE IS NOTHING TO IT. HE IS OUT THERE MORE OFTEN THAN WE ARE WHEN WE WERE PUTTING IN THE TREES.

DONATION CONSISTS OF SIX TREES, WITH THE CALIBER OF ABOUT SIX INCHES. EACH TREE IS ABOUT $2,000.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SMALL TREES.

THESE TREES ARE GROWN UP. I'M SPEAKING FOR RICHARD, BUT HE ENVISIONS CHILDREN PLAYING UNDER THOSE TREES.

TREES ARE BRINGING BACK WHAT USED TO BE THERE, WHICH IS THAT AREA FOR THE RIVER AREA. AND IT'S PART OF A PROGRAM THAT NOW WE CAN SEE INTO THE FUTURE. COMMISSIONER AND I AND HE MET OUT THERE ONE DAY. HE SAID YOU KNOW WHAT, I WANT TO DONATE SOME TREES. HE WENT ALL THE WAY TO HOUSTON, I BELIEVE. IT WAS HOUSTON, RIGHT? TO PICK AND GET THOSE TREES. AND THEN HE CAME BACK.

AND OF COURSE, HE IS A GOOD SUPERVISOR.

HE SUPERVISED THE INSTALLATION, BROUGHT IN, SAID YOU KNOW YOU NEED SOME DIRT HERE. BROUGHT IN SOME DIRT.

MY STAFF MIXED IT UP. WE DUG THE HOLES A LITTLE EXTRA WIDE. WONDERFUL MAN.

WONDERFUL PROJECT. THOSE TREES ARE ALREADY BEING SEEN. AGAIN, PARKS EMPLOYEE.

THE COURT: AWESOME. THANK YOU, MR. KING.

>> WELL, I ALREADY GOT MY RECOGNITION FROM THE AUTOBAHN OUTDOOR CLUB. BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE

[00:55:01]

BIRDS MIGRATING BACK THIS FALL. AND I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE BEST GESTURES I GOT FROM THEM, WAS A LITTLE CARD IN THE MAIL.

I ENVISION POSSIBLY PUTTING IN ANOTHER SIX MORE TREES NEXT YEAR. MAYBE EARLIER IN THE YEAR.

I JUST WANT TO SEE HOW GREAT THEY'RE DOING HERE, THAT THE COUNTY HAS BEEN REALLY WONDERFUL ABOUT WATERING THEM.

AND YOU KNOW, STAKING THEM OUT, STRAIGHTENING THEM OUT.

I THINK THE COUNTY HAS PUT IN MORE EFFORT THAN I HAVE.

COUNTY HAS REALLY TAKEN CARE OF US DOWN THERE.

AND IT WILL HELP BEAUTIFY OUR PARKS.

SO THAT IS JUST HERE IS TO IT. THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THE COURT: IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE A GREAT PARTNER AND EMPLOYEE. THIS IS A GREAT GIFT.

COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. >> YES, MA'AM.

I PERSONALLY WANT TO THANK MR. KING.

WHEN I GOT THE CALL, I THOUGHT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT MEDIOCRE TREES. I SAID SURE.

WHEN WE MET OUT THERE, NO, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, I WANT GOOD TREES THAT WON'T TAKE LONG TO TAKE ROOT.

AND THAT IS WHAT HE HAS DONE. I'VE BEEN OUT THERE ON WEEKENDS. AND PEOPLE ARE ENJOYING THEM, LIKE EDWARD SAID. WHEN DID Y'ALL PLANT THESE HERE? NO. WE HAD A GENTLEMAN THAT DONATED THEM. HE SAID WELL, THANK YOU TO HIM.

BECAUSE HE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF MONEY.

WE KNOW WHAT THOSE TREES ARE WORTH.

MR. KING, AGAIN, I WANT TO APPRECIATE YOU, TELL YOU THANK YOU, SIR. I DO APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE FOR US. AND YOU BEAUTIFIED OUR PARK.

THE COURT: THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE WOULD BE HONORED TO TAKE A PICTURE WITH YOU. I'LL PASS THIS TO COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ TO PRESENT THESE BEAUTIFUL CERTIFICATES TO YOU AS A TOKEN OF THIS SPECIAL DAY THAT COMMEMORATES THE PLANTING OF THESE TREES. WE'RE TRANSITIONING HERE.

IF YOU'LL HOLD FOR US FOR JUST A MINUTE FOR THOSE OF YOU

[1. Discuss disaster preparedness and response, including matters related to COVID-19, Emergency Orders, severe weather, flooding, drainage, economic recovery, state and federal assistance, American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), and infrastructure status, and other related matters.]

ONLINE. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO GENERAL INFORMATION REPORTS. AND LOUIE RAY IS HERE WITH US TO DISCUSS THOSE ITEMS RELATED TO EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AND OF COURSE, OUR AGENDA TALKS ABOUT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ISSUES THAT COME UNDER, INCLUDING ERA, ARPA.

[01:00:02]

COVID-19, ET CETERA. GOOD MORNING, LOUIE.

>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE. GOOD MORNING, COURT.

SO WE'LL START OFF WITH THE WEATHER UPDATES.

THIS WEEK YOU CAN EXPECT TRIPLE DIGIT HIGHS THE ENTIRE WEEK LONG. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT AVERAGE OF ABOUT 100 DEGREES. AND THE HEAT INDEX IS GOING TO BE WELL ABOVE 110. WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 111 THROUGH 113ISH FOR THE HEAT INDEX.

THAT IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO FEEL LIKE.

AVERAGE HUMIDITY FOR THIS WEEK IS ABOUT 35 PERCENT.

AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE PEAK WIND GUSTS OF ABOUT 25 MILES PER HOUR FOR THIS WEEK. FOR THOSE CONCERNED WITH WILDFIRES, THE AVERAGE FOR OUR KDBI IS ABOUT 640.

AND THAT IS FOR TODAY. AND THEN OUR MINIMUM WAS 562.

AND THE MAX IS 683. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THERE IS A LOT OF POTENTIAL FOR WILDFIRES FOR THE AMOUNT OF FUEL OR THE POTENTIAL FOR IF THERE IS A SPARK THAT CAUSED A WILDFIRE OUTBREAK. WE ASK THAT YOU BE CAREFUL.

REMEMBER THERE IS A FIRE BAN IN PLACE.

COVID-19. SO THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBERS. WE'RE LOOKING AT A POSITIVITY RATE OF ABOUT 31.86 PERCENT. AND FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENTS FOR THIS MONTH, SO THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TEAM WILL BE SPEAKING AT THE NUECES COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY ON TUESDAY, 26TH OF JULY, AT 9:30 TO ABOUT NOON.

WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT A FEW SUBJECTS THERE.

ONE IS POTENTIAL FOR HAZARDOUS WEATHER.

ANOTHER IS TALKING ABOUT CHEMICAL REACTIONS, HOW TO REPORT THEM. WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT ACTIVE SHOOTERS. SO THE STATE DID A PURGE, THE STATE TEXAS EMERGENCY -- IFOR GOT WHAT THE A IS.

REGISTER. STEAR IS WHAT WE USE TO KIND OF IDENTIFY THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE MEDICALLY FRAGILE AND NEED TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF ASSISTANCE IN EVACUATIONS.

THE STATE DID A PURGE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO REGISTERED LAST YEAR ON THE 1ST OF JULY. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING THOSE PEOPLE WHO REGISTERED LAST YEAR IN THE STEAR PROGRAM TO GO AHEAD AND RE-REGISTER THIS TIME AROUND FOR THIS YEAR.

WHAT THAT ALLOWS US TO DO, TO LOOK INSIDE FOR NUECES COUNTY AND SEE IF YOU NEED HELP. NOW, REMEMBER IF YOU REGISTER IN THE STEAR PROGRAM, THAT DOESN'T MEAN OR GUARANTEE THAT WE WILL COME OUT AND EVACUATE YOU FROM THIS LOCATION.

BUT IT GIVES US AN IDEA OF WHO NEEDS THAT KIND OF EVACUATION.

SO I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE DRISCOLL COMMUNITY CENTER YESTERDAY ABOUT THE STEAR. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO BRING OUT IS A LOT OF TIMES IF YOU ARE IN A DIALYSIS CLINIC, THEY MAY REGISTER YOU. YOU CAN ASK THEM, AND THEY CAN PROBABLY DO THAT FOR YOU. BUT IT'S NOT ONLY JUST FOR DIALYSIS, IT'S FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ON OXYGEN AND NEED THAT EXTRA HELP. IT ALLOWS THE COUNTY TO HAVE AN IDEA WHERE YOU ARE AND HOW TO GET OUT TO YOU AND CHECK ON YOU. SO ERAP, ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING HAS EXPIRED. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT HOW TO PURSUE THE ERAP PROGRAM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE HELPING THE COMMUNITY. HMAP, HAZARDOUS MITIGATION ACTION PLAN. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, HMAP, THIS WOULD BE ON JULY 15TH.

AND IT WILL BE STARTING AT TWO O'CLOCK.

AND SHOULD WRAP UP AROUND FOUR O'CLOCK.

DOWN STAIRS. THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE.

AND THEN MONKEY POX. I SAT THROUGH A TRAINING, PUT A LIST OF THINGS TOGETHER THAT WE'RE GOING TO HANG ON TO THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WEBSITE AND PUT ON OUR FACEBOOK.

SO YOU GUYS CAN HAVE IDEAS OF WHAT IS GOING ON WITH MONKEY POX. IT IS NOT SPREADING SWIFTLY AS COVID-19. BUT IT IS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THERE IS A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN AFFECTED WITH MONKEY POX IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

ANY QUESTIONS? THE COURT: THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, IT'S REALLY TO INSPIRE A LITTLE BIT OF DIALOG FROM THE

[01:05:01]

COMMISSIONERS. GOD BLESS YOU.

IS YOU KNOW, IT IS SO HOT. AND THE INDEXES ARE JUST OUTRAGEOUS. WE'VE BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB AT THE COUNTY, YOU KNOW, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THESE COOLING CENTERS AVAILABLE. WHAT DO YOU THINK, AND MAYBE THIS IS MORE OF A QUESTION TO MAYBE BRING BACK NEXT TIME.

BUT IT SEEMS COMMISSIONERS, THAT WE OUGHT TO JUST HAVE OUR COMMUNITY CENTERS AS OPERATIONAL COOLING CENTERS EVERY DAY THAT WE'RE OPEN. AND THEN ANY EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. YOU KNOW, LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE'RE ON A HOLIDAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT DO WE HAVE AN SOP FOR THESE -- BECAUSE WHEN YOU SAID DRISCOLL, IT POPPED IN MY HEAD, WE KNOW THAT DRISCOLL IS THE BIGGEST USER, I'M GOING TO THROW EDWARD IN HERE.

BIGGEST USER OF OUR COOLING CENTERS OR WARMING CENTERS.

DEPENDING ON WHAT THE WEATHER IS DOING.

TELL US MORE ABOUT THAT SO THAT THE CITIZENS CAN KNOW IF THEY'RE IN TROUBLE, WOULD THAT BE A GOOD PLACE TO GO TO?

>> FOR RIGHT NOW, COURT, WE HAVE THE OUR CENTERS OPEN FOR REGULAR TIME. SO WE HAVE IN THE PAST, AND WE PROBABLY WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO FOR THOSE TIMES OUTSIDE OF OUR NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS FOR THOSE CENTERS, TO KIND OF EXTEND THEM FOR USAGE. BUT THAT COMES WITH A COST.

SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE TO RUN THOSE CENTERS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO RUN IT FOR OVERTIME. SO WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS WELL. IF WE CAN GET VOLUNTEERS, WE CAN USE VOLUNTEERS. I HAVE EDWARD TO SPEAK MORE IN DETAIL ABOUT IT. THE COURT: WHAT DOES YOUR NEED

LOOK LIKE, EDWARD? >> WHEN WE ARE OPEN, WE'RE OPEN EIGHT TO FIVE. EACH FACILITY THAT THE COUNTY OWNS, EVEN THE BISHOP CENTER OVER THERE, THE OPERATIONS, LITTLE ROOM OVER THERE, ARE OPEN FROM 8 TO 5.

THAT IS OUR CURRENT OPERATIONAL PERIOD RIGHT NOW.

SO WE WILL NOT TURN AWAY ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO COME IN, COOL DOWN, CAN COME IN FOR THOSE PERIOD OF TIME.

CAN GO TO THE LIBRARY I BELIEVE DURING THEIR OPERATIONAL HOURS.

AS LOUIE SAID, IF WE'RE GIVEN NOTICE, WE CAN SHIFT OUR HOURS.

MAYBE INSTEAD OF OPENING 8 TO 5, WE GO 9 TO 6.

THE COURT: YEAH. >> THAT WOULD BE THE TRADEOFF.

THAT WAY WE WOULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TIME.

THE ONLY TIMES THAT IT'S A PROBLEM, IS DURING A HOLIDAY.

IF WE RUN OVERTIME. THE WAY THAT THE COUNTY DOES THAT IS OUR EMPLOYERS ARE GOING TO LOSE OUT.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS FLEX EVERYBODY IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. WELL, YOU KNOW, IF WE SEE THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT PROBLEM, WE'LL BRING IN ADDITIONAL PARK STAFF. SO THAT WE CAN HELP FLEX.

BUT SOMEONE IS GOING TO LOSE OUT.

THE COURT: YES. WELL, I JUST WANTED THE COMMISSIONERS TO BE AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING DURING THESE UNPRECEDENTED YOU KNOW, HEAT, THEY CALL THEM HEAT DOMES, BECAUSE THEY'RE SO VAST. AND THEN THIS IS TRANSITIONING FROM AWAY FROM THAT. BUT BACK TO STEAR.

LOUIE, MINDFUL THAT WE JUST HAD LITERALLY ALL -- NOT ALL.

BUT SOME OF THE BEST ORGANIZATIONS IN COURT WITH US MOMENTS AGO FOR MENTAL HEALTH. I'M WONDERING IF YOU SHOULD REACH OUT TO DR. GONZALES AND AARON DIAZ AT OUR MENTAL HEALTH OFFICES FOR THE COUNTY. AND TRY TO SEE WHAT LIST, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY CAN HELP WITH ON STEAR.

BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS SO IMPORTANT FOR US TO, AS YOU SAID, IT'S NOT JUST OUR RENAL PATIENTS, IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

ALTHOUGH IT CERTAINLY, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WE WORRY ABOUT KIND OF BECAUSE OUR POPULATION WITH KIDNEY ISSUES AND DISEASE IS SO HIGH. BUT I WAS ALSO THINKING ABOUT THOSE MENTAL HEALTH ORGANIZATIONS AND GROUPS.

MAYBE AARON COULD HELP. AND THAT SOMEBODY I THINK YOU SHOULD JUST REACH OUT TO. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR LOUIE ON ANYTHING? EVERYBODY GOOD. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: .

I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR EDWARD. ABOUT EVERY TWO HOURS, GIVING ME THE NUMBERS. I FORGOT TO ASK YOU LAST TIME.

DO WE ALSO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF MEALS OR ANYTHING? I KNOW WE HAD SOME ON THE WEEKENDS.

DO WE PROVIDE ANYTHING FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE?

>> IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, NO. BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE

[01:10:03]

-- THEY HAVE WATER, TOILETS, THAT KIND OF USE.

BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, NO. WE DON'T BRING ANY MEALS.

WE DON'T BRING ANY -- THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY SHOULD BRING WITH THEM. THEY'RE NOT KEPT THERE.

IT'S NOT AS DANGEROUS AS IF IT WAS AT A NIGHTTIME ICE SITUATION, EVERYTHING IS FREEZING.

WE DON'T WANT THEM GOING OUT BECAUSE THE ROADS ARE BLACK WITH BLACK ICE. WE HAVE TROUBLE COMING IN OURSELVES. SO WE PRETTY MUCH HUNKER DOWN.

IN THESE SCENARIOS, WE DON'T KEEP THEM THERE.

COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: COOLING, SMNACKS OR BARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. LET ME KNOW IF I CAN HELP WITH THAT. THE COURT: THEY CAN USE REFRIGERATO REFRIGERATORS.

COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: DID I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO PROVIDE WATER. IF I CAN HELP ALSO WITH SNACKS OR WHATEVER YOU NEED, LET ME KNOW.

>> I THINK THE LAST TIME COMMISSIONER THAT Y'ALL HELPED PROVIDE, I BELIEVE IT WAS YOU, COMMISSIONERS, COLORING BOOKS, COMETIC BOOKS, IS GOOD, BUT NOT FOR NOW, BUT IN THE FUTURE.

THE COURT: IN BISHOP, WE HAVE A NICE PANTRY OF STRATEGIC RESERVE, SNACKS. IF YOU WANT TO GIVE, JUST GIVE.

I THINK IT'S TOO LATE AND SAYING EDWARD IS CALLING AND SAYING GUESS WHAT, THERE IS PEOPLE HERE IF YOU WANT TO BE A GIVER, GO HELP AT STOCKING THE STRATEGIC RESERVE AT THE PANTRY. IF IT'S PERISHABLE, WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THE EXPIRATION DATES.

>> YES, MA'AM. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR THAT REPORT. I'LL JUST MOVE ON AT THIS

[1. Nueces County Civil Service Commission]

POINT. AND TAKE US TO THE BOARD APPOINTMENTS. NUECES COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. WE DO HAVE ONE APPOINTMENT COMING UP. THIS AGENDA ITEM IS TO ESTABLISH OPENING FOR SUCH APPLICATIONS.

IS THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT.

>> SO MOVED THE COURT: I'VE GOT A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? I'LL JUST NOTE THAT THE APPLICATIONS FOR THOSE OF YOU LISTENING ONLINE WILL BE OPEN FROM JULY 6TH TO JULY 20TH.

HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY

[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.]

SAYING AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT ITEMS A THROUGH R, A THROUGH R. LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE SUCH ITEMS. TELL ME WHICH ONES.

COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: C. BUT I NEED TO TALK ABOUT 14, 16 AND 1. THE COURT: 14, 16 AND ITEM NUMBER 1. ANYBODY ELSE ELSE?

>> WE NEED TO TABLE L. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I'VE GOT OTHER ONES I WANT TO PULL. I'VE GOT F.

I WANT TO PULL F. THE COURT: HOLD ON.

LET ME DO F. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: AND I WANT TO PULL K. L.

O. AND Q.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS ANY OTHERS THE COURT: I'M GOING TO LOOK FOR A MOTION THAT INCLUDES ALL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS C, 14, 16, AND 1 ON SPECIAL MOTIONS LIST. ALSO ITEM F, K, LO AND Q WILL BE EXCLUDED. BUT ALL OTHERS WILL BE IN.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION?

>> SECOND. THE COURT: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

[L. Approve execution of Statement of Grant Award from the Texas Indigent Defense Commission (TIDC) for Public Defender Office with Mental Health Division, two-year grant.]

LET'S JUST START THEM IN ORDER. THAT IS THE TIDC GRANT.

IS THERE A REASON? >> YES.

AMANDA CALLED THE OFFICE AND REQUESTED TO TABLE IT.

AMANDA TALKED TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AS WELL.

THE COURT: CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE MORE WHY? BECAUSE THAT IS A HUGE IMPORTANT GRANT THAT IS PROBABLY TIMELY AND WE'RE NOT MEETING AGAIN UNTIL THE 27TH.

WHAT IS GOING ON? >> I THINK THERE WERE ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS THAT STILL NEEDED TO BE WORKED OUT ON THEIR END. IT WAS PROVIDED TO US YESTERDAY FOR REVIEW. AND IT IS MUCH TOO LARGE TO DO A VALID REVIEW OF IT TO PRESENT.

THE COURT: ARE WE WITHIN THE TIMELINE? COULDN'T WE DO AN APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW? I MEAN --

>> YOU COULD JUDGE, BUT I WILL TELL YOU -- THE COURT: YOU HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED.

ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S SEE THIS BACK AS A

TABLE THEN ON ITEM -- >> I ALSO HAD SOME QUESTIONS ON

THAT ONE. >> JUDGE, DO YOU WANT TO

[01:15:03]

COMMUNICATE ABOUT THAT? >> MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. THE COURT: MOTION TO TABLE TO JULY 27TH. LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT GOING THERE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

[C. Authorize payment of bills- Special Motions List, Special Motions List - American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and Special Motions List - Banc of America Public Capital Corp dated July 6, 2022.]

OKAY. WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO GO TO, COMMISSIONER? WANT TO START WITH NUMBER 1 OR 14. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: NUMBER 1, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DIFFERENT NUMBER 1.

I DON'T KNOW. I'VE GOT TWO NUMBER 1S.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT IDENTIFY IT FOR DALE.

COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: ABM. NUMBER 14.

>> WHICH ONE ARE WE GOING TO DO FIRST? I NEED TO FIND IT. SO I CAN FIND IT.

COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: IT'S IN THE BACK OF THE MOTIONS.

IT SAYS NUMBER 1, VENDOR NAME. IT SAYS ABM BUILDING SERVICES.

THE COURT: OKAY. >> INVOICE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING

AT, JOE? >> THE LAST PAGE IN THE MOTIONS. THE COURT: WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION FOR DALE? WE'LL START WITH NUMBER 14

THEN. >> EXCUSE ME, JUDGE.

THE COURT: YES. WE ALREADY PULLED O AND Q, SIR.

GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER GONZALES.

>> THIS IS FOR CLARIFICATION, WHEN IT SAYS MEN AND WOMEN'S HEALTH SERVICE OF THE COASTAL BEND, IS THIS PART OF THE DIABETES PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE, THAT WE GIVE MONEY TO DIABETES, OR IS THIS ANOTHER GRANT SEPARATE FROM THE MONIES.

>> DIABETES ASSOCIATION FUND, YOU SEE THE TOTAL AMOUNT.

I DON'T SEE WHAT PRECINCT PROVIDES THE FUNDS.

TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION IS 5,000, AS

NORMAL. >> I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T HEAR YOU. THE COURT: DALE, COULD YOU

REPEAT IT AGAIN. >> THIS IS A NORMAL DIABETES ASSOCIATION. THIS WAS BROUGHT TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT FOR APPROVAL.

I DON'T KNOW WHICH PRECINCT THIS WAS FOR.

BUT THIS IS A NORMAL DIABETES ASSOCIATION THAT COMES OUT OF OUR FUNDS FROM THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT.

TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION WAS FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS.

>> THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW.

THE COURT: CAN WE GET A MOTION, PLEASE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN. ITEM 16.

>> 16 IS THE SAME THING. YOU'LL SEE ON THE ITEMS, WE HAVE A LISTING OF THE PRECINCT, 1, 2, AND 4.

I BELIEVE IT'S 4. ALL OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE MATCHING FOR DIABETES ASSOCIATION IN THE AMOUNT APPROVED BY EACH COMMISSIONER. NUMBER 16 FOR THE AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION. THE COURT: IS THERE A MOTION?

>> SO MOVED. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. THAT TAKES CARE OF 14 AND 16.

WHAT ABOUT THE LAST ONE? >> IT SAYS NUMBER ONE.

ABM. ON ENERGY PROJECTS, BOTH DATED 3/31/22, AND ONE IS FOR 178,000.

248,000. SO 426,000.

SO WHAT PROJECTS ARE THESE? ARE THEY FINISHED OR IS THIS A

PAYMENT? >> NORMAL PAYMENTS FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS THEY'RE WORKING ON.

I BELIEVE THIS IS STILL AT THE FAIRGROUNDS.

I WILL HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE INVOICE NUMBERS FOR THAT TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHERE THEY'RE AT.

I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE COMPLETED AT THE MOMENT.

BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT YOU GET THE INFORMATION FOR THAT.

>> THAT HAS BEEN PAID? >> ALREADY PAID.

ALREADY APPROVED. SUBMITTED TO BANK OF AMERICA FOR THE FUNDING FOR IT THE COURT: HOW DO YOU KNOW

WHETHER IT'S THE JAIL, ANNEX? >> THE INVOICE WILL SAY IF IT'S BEEN PAID, APPROVED BY PUBLIC WORKS, INITIATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ADMINISTRATION FOR SUBMISSION TO BANK OF AMERICA. THE COURT: SO BY THE TIME IT GETS HERE, IT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH ALL OF THOSE STEPS,

FROM PUBLIC WORKS? >> CORRECT.

THE COURT: DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> WE HAVE THE INVOICE? >> COMMISSIONER, THIS IS INVOICE NUMBER 7 FOR ABM. IT'S FOR THE JAIL.

AND IT'S FOR JUVENILE DETENTION.

THE JAIL'S PORTION IS 178,965.90.

[01:20:01]

FOR JUVENILE, IT'S $247,500. FOR THE TOTAL OF 426,465.

>> WHAT KIND OF PROJECT WAS THAT

>> AIR HANDLERS. THE COURT: JUVENILE HAS BEEN

THE ROOF. >> FOR JUVENILE, TILE REFURBISHMENT AND COOLING TOWER REFURBISHMENTS AND THE ROOF

REPLACEMENT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE COURT: IS THERE A MOTION, SIR?

>> SO MOVED. THE COURT: SECOND.

[F. Approve personnel actions of budgeted nature: 1. Personnel Actions Summary]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM F. PERSONNEL ACTION.

F1. CAN I SKIP TO ANOTHER ONE AND

COME BACK TO IT. >> REALLY WHAT IT IS, ALL OF THEM I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M READING IT RIGHT.

JUST LIKE EVERYBODY HAS A NUMBER ON THE RIGHT.

DOES THAT MEAN THAT MONEY IS COMING WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OR MONEY HAS BEEN ADDED OR WHAT? I MEAN, ALL THIS SAYS IS RECLASSIFICATION AND THEN IT SAYS ABOUT HOW MUCH IS PAID.

AND THEN IT SAYS THE TOTAL. THE COURT: WOULD YOU BE SO NICE AS TO PLEASE CALL JULIE OR YOU ANSWER HIS QUESTION, BY LOOKING AT IT. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S SKIP FOR A SECOND NOW THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE QUESTION

[K. Approve Modification of Intergovernmental Agreement with the United States Marshals Services related to Nueces County – East Hidalgo Detention Center; Approve Modification of Intergovernmental Agreement with the United States Marshals Services related to Nueces County –Coastal Bend Center.]

IS. SHE WILL COME IN AND LET'S GO TO K, WAS PULLED. WHO PULLED K?

COMMISSIONER GONZALES. >> I WANTED CLARIFICATION.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN AS FAR AS MARSHAL SERVICES RELATED TO NUECES COUNTY. ARE WE HAVING THE MARSHAL

INMATES THERE OR WHAT? >> NO. THIS IS A CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE WITH THEM JUST FOR THE TRANSPORT THAT WE HAVE FOR PRISONERS THAT WE HAVE. THE REQUEST IS KIND OF ADJUSTMENTS WITH MILEAGE AND PER DIEM.

>> NOT FOR DETENTION >> IT'S FOR DETENTION AS WELL.

IT'S COVERING THE COASTAL BEND AS WELL.

SO WE HAD A CONTRACT WITH THEM AND WE ADJUSTED THE AMOUNT.

>> CONTRACT FOR THEM IS FOR HOLDING INMATES, FEDERAL

MARSHAL INMATES. >> TRANSPORT OF THEM.

>> DETENTION CENTER. WHICH ONE IS THAT ONE?

>> COASTAL BEND. AND THEN WE HAVE THE FUNDS IN SPECIAL REVENUE. WE ALWAYS GET THE FUNDS FROM

THE U.S. MARSHAL. >> I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM FOR DETENTION FOR FEDERAL INMATES AND WE ARE HOLDING THEM IN HIDALGO.

WHERE DO WE -- HOW DO WE DO THIS CONTRACT?

>> WE HAVE A CONTRACT ALREADY IN PLACE, YES.

AND THEN THIS IS JUST THE AMENDMENT TO ADJUST THE MILEAGE RATE AND THIS NORMAL HAPPENS IN THIS MONTH.

JULY, EVERY JULY COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

I CAN PULL THE INFO BECAUSE EVERY TIME WE RECEIVE THE INVOICE FROM THEM, IT REFLECTS HOW MANY PEOPLE WE'RE MOVING

AND THE MILEAGE. >> WE FIRST STARTED WITH FEDERAL INMATES, IT WAS TO SAVE MONEY FOR THE COUNTY.

BUT EVIDENTLY WE'RE NOT SAVING ANY MONEY BECAUSE WE PUT THEM

IN HIDALGO. >> WE NEED A TIME-OUT.

>> I KNOW WE'RE GETTING IT FROM THE FEDERAL.

I KNOW ALL ABOUT THE FEDERAL, BELIEVE ME.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING THE CONTRACT -- CAN I HAVE A COPY

OF THE CONTRACT? >> YEAH.

I CAN PROVIDE YOU THAT. THE COURT: DALE, COULD YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION HERE.

THIS IS A CONTRACT WE'VE HAD FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS.

AND WHAT WE DO IS WE RECEIVE A LOT OF MONEY COMMISSIONER, WE MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ON OUR ADMINISTRATION OF THESE FUNDS.

>> THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES HOUSING OF INMATES BUT THEY CANNOT DO A PRIVATE COMPANY BY THEMSELVES, SO THEY HAVE TO CONTRACT THROUGH NUECES COUNTY TO DO A CONTRACT, WE HAVE TWO FACILITIES, ONE HERE CLOSE TO US AND WE PROVIDE -- THE MONEY COMES THROUGH US. WE BRING IN ABOUT -- WE SPEND ABOUT 35 MILLION EACH YEAR. WE BRING IN ABOUT 37 MILLION EACH YEAR. ADDITIONAL FUNDS WE HAVE GOES TO OUR GENERAL FUND, AS TRANSFER OF THAT 1.6 MILLION EACH YEAR. THIS IS EVERY YEAR, THEIR LABOR COSTS GO UP. AS DO OURS.

THIS IS RENEGOTIATION OF THE COSTS THAT THEY HAVE TO BILL THE U.S. MARSHAL FOR TO COVER THEIR COSTS OF THE LABOR.

[01:25:01]

THIS IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN US AND THE U.S. MARSHAL BECAUSE THAT IS HOW THE CONTRACT HAS TO BE.

AGAIN, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT CONTRACT WITH OUTSIDE PRISONS. THESE ARE FEDERAL INMATES.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THE ONLY THING THEN, SO WHEN WE GET THOSE MONIES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, SO THAT MONEY ACTUALLY GOES INTO GENERAL FUND?

>> NO. WE HAVE A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND CALLED GEO CONTRACT WITH THE U.S. MARSHAL SERVICES, AS WE SAID FOR THE HIDALGO, WE PROBABLY SPEND IN 25 MILLION EACH YEAR.

AND THE DIFFERENCE WE KEEP THAT AND AS EACH, THE BUDGETED EACH YEAR, WE TRANSFER ANY PROCEEDS THAT WE HAVE UP TO 1.5 MILLION FROM THAT FUND OVER TO A GENERAL FUND.

>> TWO MILLION WE MAKE PROFIT. SO 1.5 MILLION AT THE END OF

THE YEAR? >> YES.

BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COVER ALL COSTS.

WE DO HAVE ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES HOUSED AT OUR LOCAL FACILITY HERE FOR OUR SIDE OF IT. AND WE DO HAVE EXPENSES FOR

THAT ASSOCIATION. >> WE USUALLY LEAVE ABOUT A

BALANCE OF 500,000 THEN? >> 3 TO 500,000, YES.

FOR THAT FUND, YES. >> CAN YOU GIVE US A COPY OF THE REVENUES THAT WE GET FROM THE FEDERAL?

>> WE CAN, YEAH. FOR BOTH OR JUST --

>> FOR BOTH. BUT WHEN WE KEEP THE 500,000, THAT ALREADY TOTALED FOR BOTH, RIGHT?

>> YEAH. THE COURT: JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE NEGOTIATE WITH THE GO GROUP. AND THE GO GROUP HAS -- WE HAVE TWO FACILITIES, BOTH OF WHOM HAVE DIFFERENT CONTRACTS BASED ON PRISONER POPULATION. WE HAVE RECENTLY IN THE LAST 2 YEARS, RENEGOTIATED THE COASTAL BEND TO BRING MORE DOLLARS TO NUECES COUNTY. AND EAST HIDALGO IS UP FOR RENEWAL I BELIEVE NEXT YEAR. SO AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON IN YOUR COUNTY FOR WELL OVER A DECADE.

THE U.S. MARSHAL SERVICE IS THE ONE THAT HAS TO APPROVE EVERYTHING. BUT WE'RE ACTING ONLY AS ADMINISTRATORS. SO THE DOLLARS THAT WE GET ARE NOT FOR THE ACTUAL DETENTION BUT FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THESE FUNDS. AND ELVA IS ONE OF OUR PRIMES ON THIS FROM THE AUDITORS OFFICE.

>> EACH YEAR THEY DO HAVE, AS OURS, WITH THE UNION, THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS, THEY HAVE INCREASES IN SALARY AND THEY INCREASE THEIR RATES EACH YEAR.

THESE HAVE TO BE BROUGHT FOR US FOR APPROVAL.

THIS IS WHAT WE'LL BE BILLING THE U.S. MARSHAL SERVICES FOR.

THE COURT: OKAY. YOU'LL GET HIM ALL THAT INFO.

IS THERE A MOTION NOW? >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE COURT: SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

[O. Authorize the execution of an Interlocal Agreement between Nueces County and the City of Corpus Christi for the purpose of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program FY2022 Local Solicitation Award.]

WE'VE ALREADY DEALT WITH L. WE'LL GO TO LETTER O.

COMMISSIONER GONZALES. THIS IS THE MEMORIAL JUSTICE

ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM. >> WHAT IS THE DEAL ON THE MEMORIAL? THE COURT: ANNA IS GOING TO

GIVE YOU A BACKGROUND. >> THE JACK GRANT IS THE ONE THAT THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI APPLIES FOR.

THEY GET AWARDED. WE SHARE HALF WITH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY. AND THEN FROM OUR HALF, WE SHARE IT WITH THE DA'S OFFICE AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

>> WE SPLIT IT? >> YES.

>> ABOUT HOW MUCH IS THAT? >> THIS YEAR IT'S 103,000.

SO EACH ONE WILL GET 51,000. 103,000.

THE COURT: DA WILL GET HALF AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WILL GET

HALF OF THAT. >> USUALLY THE BUDGET FOR THE SHERIFF IS USUALLY A LOT OF TRAINING AND MAYBE AMMUNITION.

THE COURT: I THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING, ANNA, ABOUT THE AMMUNITION, BECAUSE DURING BUDGET WORKSHOP THAT WAS DISCUSSED, SO I WAS WONDERING IF SOMEONE WOULD HELP FIND OUT IF THE AMMUNITION REQUEST IS NO LONGER NEEDED IF THESE FUNDS CAN REPLACE THAT. OR WAS THE AMMUNITION REQUEST

[01:30:04]

IN ADDITION TO -- IF SOMEBODY WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO US ON AN E-MAIL THAT WOULD BE TERRIFIC.

>> BUT ALSO, BECAUSE REMEMBER THEY REQUESTED SOME TRAINING

FOR THE CONSTABLES AND SHERIFF. >> THE TRAINING THAT COMES WITH THIS ONE IS LIKE TRAVEL. GOING TO CONFERENCES, PER DIEM.

>> NO. THEY SAID TO GO TO LEVEL TWO ON FIREARMS TRAINING.

>> AMMUNITION. >> WELL, NOT THE AMMUNITION.

THERE WAS A LEVEL THAT THEY CAN GO TO, THEY MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT A LEVEL. IT WOULD HELP THE CONSTABLES AND SHERIFF. I THOUGHT MAYBE SOME OF THE MONIES COULD PAY FOR THAT INSTEAD OF US GIVING THE MONEY.

>> WE WOULD SEND A REQUEST FOR THE CITY TO SEND IT TO THE CONTRACTOR TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE.

USUALLY IT IS. BUT IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR THE BUDGET.

>> WHAT DOES THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DO?

IT'S 51,5 EACH. >> IT HAS BEEN LIKE WITH COMPUTERS OR THINGS LIKE THAT THEY'RE NEEDING FOR THE DA'S OFFICE. IT USUALLY IS EQUIPMENT.

NOT NECESSARILY TRAVEL. AND NOT NECESSARILY -- I THINK PART OF IT WAS FURNITURE. IT'S USUALLY EQUIPMENT.

THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU, APPRECIATE THAT

CLARIFICATION. >> SO MOVED.

THE COURT: MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY

[Q. Approve West Complete agreement with Thomson Reuters Contract for fiscal year 2022 - 2023 for Nueces County Law Library.]

SAYING AYE. COMMISSIONER, ITEM Q.

GONZALEZ. >> I JUST NEED A CLARIFICATION ON THAT. THE COURT: WHO CAN PROVIDE THE CLARIFICATION ON THE ROUTE REUTERS CONTRACT.

THIS IS OUR NORMAL CONTRACT WHO HAS THE WESTLAW.

>> IN ALL OF THE LIBRARIES? >> IT'S PAID THROUGH THE LIBRARY. JUST FOR THE LAW LIBRARY.

THE COURT: >> DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH THAT IS? THE COURT: I HAVE $833 ON MY NOTES PER MONTH.

>> NOT BAD FOR WESTLAW. THE COURT: AGAIN, IF YOU'LL LOOK AT YOUR BACK-UP, IT'S GOT A LISTING OF WHAT IT'S ABLE TO DO, WESTLAW, ALL THAT STUFF IS ON LIKE THE SECOND OR THIRD PAGE. BUT THIS IS JUST FOR THE LAW LIBRARY. ONLY PLACE WE HAVE WESTLAW.

ONLY PLACE WE CONSOLIDATE OUR LEGAL LIBRARY.

>> IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR THE COST FOR WESTLAW WAS AROUND $35,000. AND BECAUSE OF OUR LOW AMOUNTS, TRYING TO REDUCE COSTS, I RENEGOTIATED, THAT IS WHY IT'S A LOWER RATE. THE COURT: IT'S VERY MUCH UTILIZED BY THE LAWYERS IN THE OFFICE, BUT IT'S NICE TO GET A

LOWER PRICE. >> SO MOVED THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

OKAY. >> GO BACK TO THE PERSONNEL REPORT. THE COURT: YES, WE CAN.

HERE SHE IS >> THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> AS I LOOKED THROUGH THE REPORT, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE I'M READING IT WRONG, I'M NOT SURE, SO EVERYTHING ON THE RIGHT OF THE REPORT, THAT HAS NUMBERS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS AN INCREASE OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT WAS TRANSFERRED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AND HAVE THOSE MONIES? BECAUSE SOME ARE PROMOTIONS AND WHATEVER.

SO I KNOW THOSE ON THE FAR RIGHT ARE INCREASES, RIGHT?

>> THE WAY THE REPORT READS IS ACROSS, FROM LEFT TO RIGHT.

FOR THAT ONE PARTICULAR PERSON. ALL THE WAY ACROSS.

AND SO IF IT'S A RESIGNATION, I'M ONLY GIVING YOU ONE DOLLAR AMOUNT, THEIR FINAL DOLLAR AMOUNT.

SO ON AN OH OWE DOWN -- DOWN AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE FIRST

PAGE, THERE IS A PROMOTION. >> SHOW ME WHICH ONE, JULIE.

>> UNDER FIRST PAGE, UNDER COUNTY ATTORNEY.

ALEXANDRA, IT SHOWS THAT IT WAS A PROMOTION.

UNDER THE CURRENT BIWEEKLY COLUMN, THAT IS WHAT SHE WAS AT. THAT IS HER NEW PAY AND STEP.

SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THIS REPORT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED OR IT'S BEEN BUDGETED FOR.

THESE ARE ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN AFTER SOMETHING HAS BEEN APPROVED THROUGH COURT OR WE KNOW THAT THE MONEY WAS IN

EXISTENCE IN THAT BUDGET. >> CAN WE IDENTIFY THOSE THAT

[01:35:02]

HAVE BEEN APPROVED THROUGH COURT?

>> THEY ALL HAVE. I'M ONLY PUTTING SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED. NOTHING WILL GO ON THIS REPORT IF IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED THROUGH COURT ALREADY.

>> LIKE ANY OF THESE INCREASES, RECLASSIFICATIONS, WE'VE

APPROVED ALL OF THEM? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BUT YOU DID SAY OR WERE BUDGETED FOR, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COURT.

>> WELL, IF SOMEBODY IS PROMOTED WITHIN, THAT POSITION IS ALREADY -- THE POSITION THAT THEY WOULD BE PROMOTED TO IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, IT'S ALREADY BUDGETED FOR.

YOU'RE MOVING ONE PERSON TO ANOTHER POSITION THAT WAS CURRENTLY ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. SO THE MONEY IS THERE.

>> MY QUESTION WOULD BE, THERE IS NO ADDITION OF MONEY BEING

PUT IN THERE? >> CORRECT.

DALE HAS TOLD Y'ALL BEFORE, IT'S THING HAPPENING THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY YOU ALL.

>> SOME THINGS DON'T HAVE TO COME HERE, LIKE IF SOMEONE -- WELL, HOW DOES THAT WORK? THE RECLASSIFICATIONS USUALLY ALWAYS COME THROUGH HERE. BUT LIKE A PROMOTION.

>> NO. IF THE MONIES ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT, THEN THOSE WEREN'T COMING TO YOU FOR APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT. BECAUSE THAT POSITION ALREADY EXISTS. SO THESE ARE JUST PERSONNEL ACTIONS TAKING PLACE. BEHIND THE SCENES OF THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY APPROVED. BUT HR KNOWS THAT THEY'RE APPROVED AND CHECKING WITH OF COURSE, THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AND THOSE POSITIONS ARE AVAILABLE SO WE'RE ABLE TO PUT

THOSE PEOPLE IN THEM. >> THANK YOU, APPRECIATE THAT.

>> YES, SIR THE COURT: IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY

[1. June 21, 2022]

SAYING AYE. OKAY.

I SKIPPED THE MINUTES EARLIER. I WOULD LIKE TO SCOOP THOSE UP

>> SO MOVED THE COURT: JUNE 21ST, I DO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY

[1. Discuss and consider approval of a retroactive Dune Protection Permit Exemption for the repair of a dune walkover DPP-202202-02e located at 15820 Park Rd. 22, Briscoe King Pavilion, Corpus Christi, TX. ]

SAYING AYE. AYE.

THAT TAKES US TO THE REGULAR AGENDA AT THIS TIME.

AND I WAS LOOKING FOR SCOTT CROSS FOR THE DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT EXEMPTION, BUT I DON'T SEE HIM.

BUT THE FIRST ITEM IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RETROACTIVE DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT EXEMPTION FOR THE REPAIR OF A DUNE WALK OVER. I'M ASSUMING EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER. I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION THAT WOULD SUBJECT ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT THE COURT: IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT? SECOND AND THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. GREAT.

AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP -- YES.

JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP, INC., ADDITIONAL TIME EXTENSION AND RELATED MATTERS. AND I KNOW THAT LEWIS WAS GOING TO BE HERE. BUT I DON'T SEE HIM ON EITHER AT THIS MOMENT. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? WOULD YOU LIKE TO TEXT HIM MAYBE? OKAY. I THINK IT WOULD BE SMARTER.

I WILL SET THE ITEM UP TO TELL YOU THAT IN YOUR PACKET, IS THE INFORMATION. I BELIEVE IT'S 337.

YOU DID. COME ON OVER HERE.

TALK ABOUT THE JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP.

>> HE IS HERE. THE COURT: YEAH.

I'LL JUST CATCH YOU UP. A MOMENT AGO WE DID APPROVE THE DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT EXEMPTION FOR THE WALK OVER AND I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO TELL US THAT EVERYTHING WAS IN ORDER.

>> IT WAS. IT WAS.

THAT IS RETROSPECTIVE, BECAUSE JUDGE, IF YOU REMEMBER, THAT WAS IN THE BRISCOE KING WALK OVER.

YOU GAVE ME THE MONEY TO GO FIX IT.

I FIXED IT AND WORRIED ABOUT CLEANING UP THE PERMIT ACTION LATER THE COURT: WE'RE GOOD NOW?

>> YEAH. THE COURT: WE NEED YOU GUYS TO INTRODUCE THIS ITEM. HERE HE COMES.

THIS IS AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, AN AMENDMENT TO JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP CONTRACT AND WELCOME, SCOTT AND LOUIS.

SCOTT, IF YOU WANT TO HELP TEE IT UP AND LET LOUIS TAKE THE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> YES, MA'AM. WORKING WITH JACOBS AND, WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THEIR CURRENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH ADDITIONAL FEES TO COVER THE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN ASPECTS OF ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS THAT Y'ALL ALL AGREED UPON THAT YOU WANTED TO SEE ON THE PIER, AFTER THE TOWN HALLS, PUBLIC MEETINGS AND ALL OF THAT. AFTER WE GOT ALL OF THAT INPUT,

[01:40:01]

OKAY, WE WANT TO SEE THIS. WE WANT IT 20 FOOT WIDE, ALL THAT STUFF. THAT IS WHAT THIS REQUEST IS ABOUT. CISCO, WE JUST GOT IT BACK FROM THEM LAST NIGHT. I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE THIS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER IT.

>> IS THIS BUDGETED? >> WELL, IT WOULD COME OUT OF PART OF THE 26.33 MILLION. THE COURT: CAN WE ASK LOUIS THAT? BECAUSE I ASKED HIM THAT VERY QUESTION YESTERDAY. I THINK HE CAN HELP ADDRESS IT.

>> YEAH. LET ME LET THE EXPERT.

>> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, COMMISSIONERS, JUDGE, APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO COME HERE TODAY.

WITH RESPECT TO THE BUDGETED ITEMS FOR THE FEES, IT IS NOT -- THIS AMENDMENT IS NOT A LINE ITEM IN THERE.

HOWEVER, AS I MENTIONED TO SCOTT AND SCOTT AND JUDGE CANALES IS THAT WHEN WE PUT TOGETHER AN ESTIMATE, WE LOOK AT ALWAYS IN THE FUTURE BEING ABLE TO TRIM THOSE COSTS THROUGH GOOD ENGINEERING, TIGHTER DESIGN.

SO EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT A LINE ITEM, WE FULLY EXPECT THAT THIS PROJECT WILL COME IN LOWER THAN 26.3 MILLION.

THAT THAT ROUGHLY 380K WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE OTHER COSTS

HAVE BEEN REDUCED. >> BUT I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND MAYBE I READ IT WRONG. ITEMS 1 THROUGH 11, 372, ITEMS 12 THROUGH 15, 381, SO THAT IS MORE LIKE 700.

>> CORRECT. WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THERE, THE ITEMS THAT HAVE CONSTRUCTION BUDGET, WITHIN THAT 26.3 MILLION ARE THE ITEMS 1 THROUGH 11.

>> SO THOSE ARE INCLUDED. >> THOSE ARE INCLUDED.

>> SOME IS, SOME ISN'T. SO YOU'RE SAYING TODAY, THE 372 IS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE LINE ITEM, USING YOUR TERM.

BUT THE 381 IS USING ADDITIONAL REQUESTS.

>> NO, SIR. NEITHER ONE OF THESE IS INCLUDED AS A LINE ITEM. 372, AND THE OTHER ONES, IF THEY END UP BEING BUDGETED, FUNDED FOR CONSTRUCTION, WE EXPECT THAT THE FEES WILL BE ABLE TO BE ABSORBED IN THE LOWER COST OF THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ONCE WE

GET FURTHER ALONG IN DESIGN. >> WE ALWAYS HOPE THAT IS THE

CASE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR 750,000 MORE THAN WE GOT IN THE BUDGET SO FAR RIGHT NOW TODAY. THAT IS WHAT THE ASK IS?

>> IT DEPENDS ON, CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT.

IT DEPENDS TO THE COUNTY ON WHETHER ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE BUDGETED FOR ENGINEERING AT THIS TIME.

OR ONLY THE ITEMS THAT HAVE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING ARE BUDGETED. IT COULD GO EITHER WAY.

THAT IS WHY WE'RE GIVING YOU A LINE ITEM FOR EACH ONE, SIR.

>> I DO HAVE TO KIND OF ASK HERE, I'LL TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY THAT I HAVE ON IT.

HOW DOES THIS NOT GET PUT IN THE ALLOCATION WHEN WE HAD THAT ENTIRE MEETING AND HAD THE COURT APPROVE ALL OF THIS STUFF, HOW DOES THIS NUMBER NOT GET APPROVED THEN? BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL $750,000.

WE CAN'T BUDGET BASED ON WE HOPE THE COST WILL COME DOWN.

WE HAVE TO BUDGET AS IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND EVERY DIME BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, WE REPRESENT TAXPAYERS. I HAVE TO ASK, WHY WASN'T THIS IN THAT ORIGINAL DEAL? BECAUSE THIS IS MORE MONEY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. AT THAT TIME, JACOBS WAS ASKED FOR CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS.

WE PROVIDED THOSE. I DID THINK ABOUT IT IN THE BACK OF MY MIND, WHAT ABOUT ENGINEERING COSTS.

IT WAS NEVER ASKED. SO FRANKLY, WE NEVER PROVIDED IT. EVEN AN ESTIMATE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, SIR. THE COURT: COMMISSIONER, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT -- FOR ME, THAT 20 PERCENT WAS PUT THERE KIND OF FOR THIS REASON. THERE IS A 20 PERCENT CONTINGENCY AS A LINE ITEM. THAT IS A HUGE NUMBER.

>> I THINK IT WAS 25. THE COURT: I'M SORRY.

IS IT 25? >> GOOD POINT.

BECAUSE I THOUGHT WHAT WE PUT IN WAS TOO HIGH TOO.

WHAT DID WE PUT IN AS A CONTINGENCY?

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE RANGE BETWEEN THE HIGH AND THE LOW COST, THE HIGH COST INCLUDES A 25 PERCENT CONTINGENCY.

WHICH IS WHAT IS BEING BUDGETED HERE IN THE 26.3 MILLION.

SO OF COURSE, THAT CONTINGENCY TAKES CARE OF INFLATION AND CONSTRUCTION, INFLATION AND MATERIALS.

YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT ARE UNKNOWN AT THIS TIME.

>> SO THIS IS KIND OF A BIGGER PICTURE DISCUSSION.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW >> A MILLION DOLLARS

THE COURT: 750. >> CONTINGENCY TO ME IS HIGH.

[01:45:05]

YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS.

I'M STILL WAITING FOR THE PARKS BOARD TO WEIGH IN, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS, ON THE AGENDA FOR ANOTHER ITEM, FIRST FLOOR SPACE. THAT IS KIND OF WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT. BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN MAKE MORE MONEY ON A BIGGER FIRST FLOOR SPACE.

WE MIGHT NEED TO HAVE A TIGHTENING UP ALL OF THIS MEETING BEFORE WE JUST DO THIS. THE COURT: I'LL JUST TELL YOU THIS, IN ORDER FOR HIM TO DO HIS WORK ON THE BASICS THAT HE NEEDS TO DO IT ON, I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO DO THE AMENDMENT.

BUT I WILL SAY THAT FOR ME, THE DOLLARS ARE THERE INSIDE THAT CONTINGENCY. THE REASON THAT CONTINGENCY WAS SO HIGH WAS TO ANTICIPATE, AS YOU KNOW, WE MOVED FROM AN $18 MILLION PROJECT TO 26 MILLION.

THOSE CONTINGENCIES REPRESENT EXTRA DOLLARS THAT ARE NEEDED.

THAT IS WHERE YOU CAN GET THOSE DOLLARS INSIDE THE 26.33 THAT WE HAVE APPROPRIATED. AT LEAST AS TO WHAT WE HAVE SAID GO SO FAR. AS LOUIS SAYS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LINE ITEMS, AND I CALLED HIM YESTERDAY ON THIS SAME EXACT ISSUE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LINE ITEMS, THERE ARE STILL SOME THAT REMAIN TO BE SEEN. WHICH IS REALLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT EXTRA SPACE.

SO HE JUST NEEDS THE AMENDMENT IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE DESIGN. WE DON'T WANT HIM TO STOP DESIGN. SHOVE IT IN CONTINGENCY.

>> BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THIS, THERE IS ITEMS IN HERE THAT HE IS QUOTING THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO DO.

THE COURT: EXACTLY. >> BUMP-OUTS IN THE MIDDLE AND WE DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE PUBLIC PLAZA AND SECOND STORY.

THE COURT: I AGREE. >> I GUESS WHAT I NEED TO FIGURE OUT IS HOW WE GET THIS TO AN AMENDMENT THAT IS ONLY WHAT WE APPROVED SO FAR. THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THAT.

I THINK THAT IS GOOD. >> ITEMS 12 THROUGH 15 IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

NO CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS BUDGETED.

I TOLD HIM JUST TO DO HIS PROPOSAL BASED ON ENGINEERING OF THOSE CONSTRUCTION ITEMS THAT ARE BUDGETED THAT YOU HAVE APPROVED, WHICH ARE 1 THROUGH 11.

THE COURT: EXACTLY. >> FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S YET TO BE DETERMINED BUT I WAS GOING TO DISCUSS IT IN THE ITEM LATER, I DON'T WANT TO DO THE SECOND STORY.

BUT I WANT TO ADD MORE SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

AND I GET THAT THAT HAS PERMIT ISSUES THE COURT: WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

YEAH. STICK AROUND.

>> WE'RE BUILDING THIS THING FOR 50 YEARS, HOPEFULLY LONGER.

YOU KNOW, WITH THE PERMITS DELAYED A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE GO BACK AND MAKE THE FIRST FLOOR BIGGER, TO ME IT'S NOT A HUGE DEAL BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT A 50 TO 60-YEAR BUILD HERE.

TO ME THAT IS BETTER. 12 THROUGH 15.

I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH TODAY.

BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GONE THERE. AND WE MIGHT NOT EVER DO THE SECOND STORY. WE MAY DO MORE ON THE FIRST STORY, WHICH SHOULD BE NOT A LOT OF EXTRA ENGINEERING DRAWING MORE SPACE. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? SO LET ME LOOK THROUGH 1 THROUGH 11.

YOU THINK WE'VE ALREADY DONE. THAT WE'VE COMMITTED TO.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> YES, SIR.

1 THROUGH 11 ARE ALL THE ITEMS. YOU SAID YES, WE WANT TO BUILD THAT AND THAT. THE COURT: SCOTT, DOES THAT REPRESENT THE 337,000? THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT I'M WORKING ON. 372.

THAT IS THE NUMBER I'M WORKING ON.

I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE THAT THAT IS INSIDE THOSE

CONTINGENCIES OF 25 PERCENT. >> WELL, NOW, GOOD POINT.

SO IT'S STILL -- I GOT TO SAY, I'M STILL BOTHERED THAT WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS WHEN WE DID THE WHOLE 26 AND A HALF MILLION. I SAID MY BOTHER.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN I'M GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT OTHER THAN ARTICULATE THAT I DON'T -- I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT THEN. SO I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, JUDGE. BUT I THINK THE 25 PERCENT IS TOO HIGH. BUT BEFORE WE GO AND ASK THE COURT FOR ADDITIONAL DOLLARS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE, IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL OR SAY THAT IT HAS TO BE INSIDE.

LIKE IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE PASS THIS, IF WE PASS THIS WITH 372 AND SAID THAT HAS TO BE IN THAT CONTINGENCY, WE'RE NOT ASKING THE COURT FOR ANYMORE DOLLARS AT THIS POINT.

I'M OKAY WITH THAT. BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS FAIR TO THE COURT. GETS LOUIS ON BOARD WHERE HE CAN DO WHAT HE NEEDS TO DO. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY ADDITIONAL DOLLARS. I THINK THE 25 PERCENT IS REALLY HIGH. I THINK WE NEED A CONTINGENCY.

BUT I THINK THERE ARE GOING TO BE DOLLARS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND IN THE 25 PERCENT. I PRAY THOSE ARE THE CASE.

[01:50:01]

IF WE PASS THIS TODAY SAYING THIS WOULD BE WITHIN THAT CONTINGENCY, THAT THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK AND BE ALTERED ON THAT LINE ITEM, TO WHERE IT'S A 23 AND A HALF PERCENT CONTINGENCY, THEN WE'RE STILL STAYING EVEN FROM WHAT THIS COURT HAS BEEN ASKED TO DO. THE COURT: YES, SIR.

THE ONLY THING IS HE DOES NEED THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT.

>> PASS THE AMENDMENT 1 THROUGH 11.

BUT IT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE CONTINGENCY AND NO

ADDITIONAL DOLLARS >> NO ADDITIONAL DOLLARS.

I THINK THAT IS FAIR, SIR. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

THE COURT: GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.

>> YES, SIR. YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T MENTION ANYTHING BECAUSE WE DIDN'T ASK. BUT DID YOU KNOW THIS WAS COMING, IT WAS PROBABLY GOING TO HAPPEN?

>> THAT WAS WHY I APOLOGIZED TO COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, SIR.

YES. I WAS THINKING YEAH, WE'LL NEED ADDITIONAL DOLLARS. I DID NOT OFFER UP AN ESTIMATE OF THOSE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS TO SCOTT HARRIS OR SCOTT CROSS FOR THAT I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE FUTURE IF Y'ALL NOTICE THAT WE DON'T ASK A CERTAIN QUESTION THAT YOU ALL ARE GOING TO BE BRINGING BACK, Y'ALL WOULD VOLUNTEER AND HELP US OUT.

>> YES, SIR. >> I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT, I MEAN, I HAVE 100 PERCENT RECORD IN SUPPORTING THE ISLAND ON EVERY PROJECT COMING ON BOARD, NEVER ON ONE MOTION HAVE DEVIATED FROM SUPPORT OF THIS. BUT THIS I'M NOT GOING TO ACCEPT. I'M NOT.

I THINK IT STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN.

CONTINGENCY IS ABOUT MATERIALS. IT'S NOT ABOUT THE COST THAT YOU HAVE AT THE INITIAL PHASE. IT'S AT THE FINAL PHASE.

IT'S ABOUT MATERIALS TO ME. AND SO THAT I JUST CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF ME TODAY SUPPORT ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY KIND OF CHANGE THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT.

APOLOGIZE TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY FOR YOU KNOW, THE MOVE FROM 18 MILLION TO MORE AND MORE.

AND CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT. BECAUSE I DO SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE. I DO BELIEVE IN SUPPORT THAT ONE PART OF THE COUNTY BENEFITS, IT BENEFITS THE ENTIRE COUNTY. WE HAVE PLENTY OF PEOPLE THAT COME FROM PRECINCT THREE AND ALL THE PRECINCTS THAT COME TO USE THE PIER. THAT HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MAIN TOPICS THAT I'M ASKED MANY TIMES OVER, ABOUT COUNTY ISSUES, IS ABOUT WHEN CAN THIS BE DONE AND WHEN IS IT PROJECTED TO BE DONE. BUT THIS I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS.

I'M ALWAYS POSITIVE AND ALWAYS LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND BIGGER SCOPE. BIGGER PROJECT.

BIGGER PICTURE. BUT WITH THIS, I CANNOT SUPPORT THAT TODAY. I WILL NOT.

>> I RESPECT THAT. THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO -- I DO. I'M BOTHERED BY IT BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE TO DESIGN IT. I HEAR YOU.

I CAN'T SAY I DISAGREE WITH YOUR PRINCIPLE.

THAT IS WHY I'M TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SPEND MORE MONEY AND I CAN MAKE IT AS MUCH AS A MOTION THAT SAYS THIS AMOUNT HAS TO BE CUT OUT OF THE PROJECT SO THAT THERE ARE NO MORE DOLLARS. I THINK WE CAN DO THAT.

THE MONEY WE'VE ALLOCATED. I'M SUPER BOTHERED BY IT TO.

WE HAVE TO DESIGN IT. >> I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ AND MAREZ, YOU KNOW, I THINK COMMISSIONER CHESNEY MIGHT BE UPSET, BUT HE IS NOT TELLING YOU A LOT OF THINGS WHY HE IS UPSET. THIS IS UNCALLED FOR.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ARE THE PROFESSIONALS.

THEY CALL YOU THE EXPERTS. JUDGE SAYS YOU GUYS ARE THE EXPERTS. THE EXPERTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL US AHEAD OF TIME, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, THIS COULD COST YOU SOME MONEY HERE.

YOU KNOW, THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME AT THE END.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS HERE.

BECAUSE COMMISSIONER CHESNEY MIGHT HAVE FOUR MILLION COMING UP. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WITH THE MONEY. COMMISSIONER MAREZ IS RIGHT.

WE'VE GONE FROM 18 MILLION TO 26 MILLION.

OR 24 MILLION. 26 MILLION.

AND BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY NEEDED FOR THE COMMUNITY. WE THINK IT'S A GOOD THING.

OR ELSE WE WOULDN'T BE SUPPORTING IT 100 PERCENT.

BUT YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT ONLY TALKING ABOUT YOU, MR. JACOBS.

THE COURT: HE IS WITH JACOBS ENGINEERING.

>> WHAT CAN I CALL YOU? >> LOUIS KLAUSMEIR.

>> AT THE END, WHEN WE GET HARD LIKE THIS, IF WE LEAVE IT UNDER THE CONTINGENCY, WHAT IF SOMETHING HAPPENS THAT WE JUST

[01:55:01]

NEED MORE MONEY AT THE END? WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET IT? GOING BACK TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT? YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHY REALLY IT'S HARD WHEN WE DEAL WITH THIS WAY HERE. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WHETHER IT BE YOURS OR OURS OR SOMEBODY ELSE'S.

I STRESS A LOT THAT HEY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TELLING ME IT'S GOING TO COST THIS MUCH, IT'S STILL GOING TO COST.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF YOU THINK THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE THERE THAT WE NEED, YOU NEED TO LET US KNOW NOW AND DON'T GIVE US A SURPRISE DOWN THE ROAD. I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS RIGHT NOW 100 PERCENT. I'M NOT.

BECAUSE UNLESS COMMISSIONER CHESNEY COMES UP WITH THE MONEY, I DON'T WANT TO PUT THIS IN CONTINGENCY EITHER.

BECAUSE THAT MONEY IS THERE FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

AND IF WE PUT IT THERE AND SOMETHING HAPPENS, WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AGAIN AND ASK FOR MORE MONEY.

BECAUSE WE USED THAT MONEY. COMMISSIONER MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER MONIES HE MIGHT WANT TO USE WHEN WE DO THE ARPA FUNDS, WHATEVER. BUT I JUST CAN'T -- I I AM DISAPPOINTED THAT YOU GUYS DIDN'T LET US KNOW OR LET COMMISSIONER KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WHAT WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED. I REALLY AM, REALLY.

TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH. >> UNDERSTOOD, SIR.

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A PRACTICAL SOLUTION, WHICH IS THAT I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, WHILE MOST PROJECTS MIGHT HAVE CONTINGENCIES SET ASIDE FOR CERTAIN PARAMETERS, AS YOU SAID, MATERIALS, THIS ONE WAS NOT ONE OF THOSE. IF YOU WILL GO BACK AND REVIEW THE REASON THE 25 PERCENT WAS SET, IS BECAUSE OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS, WE HAVE BEEN MAKING THE DECISIONS BECAUSE OF CERTAIN GRANTING OPPORTUNITIES, CERTAIN OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES. TO GO FROM STEP A, AS YOU WILL, TO STEP B. SO THE PROJECT, THE REASON THE 25 PERCENT WAS MENTIONED EARLY ON WAS BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU DECIDED, WE WOULD HAVE TO SEEK ADDITIONAL SERVICES FOR ENGINEERING.

THAT WAS IN MY MIND ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED.

THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER WAS AS YOU SAID, IS UNFORTUNATE. BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE OVERALL FUNDING OF THE PROJECT. AND THESE CONTINGENCIES, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE MATERIALS THAT YOU'RE INVOLVING HERE ARE MAINLY CONCRETE. SO WHICH IS A VOLATILE MARKET IN AND OF ITSELF. BUT I THINK OUR BIGGEST DISCUSSION COMES IN THE AND RELATED MATTERS AND SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WE HEARD THIS MORNING.

I MEAN, WE'RE IN THE EARLY STAGES HERE, THE TIME TO HAVE -- I AGREE, IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT SOMETHING AND YOU ARE THREE QUARTERS OF THE WAY DESIGNED.

YOU SAY HEY, I NEED ANOTHER X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS, TERRIBLE THING. BUT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS THE PERFECT TIME TO PRACTICALLY SOLVE THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE.

I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE THIS PROJECT DELAYED BECAUSE NOW YOU REALLY ARE THROUGH OUR OWN CHOICE, CREATING A PROJECT THAT WILL COST MORE TOMORROW. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO COST, IT'S GOING TO COST.

AND AGAIN, IT'S INSIDE THE OVERALL BUDGET.

THE CONTINGENCIES FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS MEANT FOR BOTH. THAT IS WHY IT'S NOT A 10 PERCENT CONTINGENCY OR A 15 PERCENT BUT THAT 25 WAS MEANT FOR WE DON'T KNOW YET IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT -- REMEMBER, WE JUST DISCUSSED THAT GEOMETRICAL, MID ANGULAR T, LESS THAN A MONTH AGO. THAT WAS LITERALLY PROBABLY A MONTH AGO THAT WE MADE THOSE DECISIONS.

SO AS THOSE DECISIONS GET MADE, THE COSTS FOR DESIGN CHANGES.

AND THAT IS WHAT THE CONTINGENCY IS FOR.

SO AGAIN, UNLESS YOU WANT TO STOP DESIGN ON ITEMS 1 THROUGH 11, THIS AMENDMENT PRACTICALLY NEEDS TO BE APPROVED.

AND I THINK THE MEASURED APPROACH IS YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN THAT BUDGET FOR NOW BASED UPON ITEMS 1 THROUGH 11.

I THINK YOU SAID YOU COULD DO THAT.

TO ME, YESTERDAY. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

AND THAT IS WHY THEY'RE ALL INDIVIDUAL LINE ITEMS. IF THE COUNTY CHOOSES TO DO 1, 2, 3 AND 4, ONLY AUTHORIZE 1, 2, 3 AND 4. AND WE'LL CONTINUE ON DESIGN FOR THOSE. THE COURT: I DON'T WANT TO JUMP AHEAD, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY TO THE OTHER ITEM, BUT I NEED TO LET YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE YOU CAN STAY, LOUIS, SO I CAN MAYBE GET TO THAT OTHER ITEM WHILE YOU'RE STILL PRESENT.

[02:00:02]

BUT SINCE THAT AND RELATED MATTERS IS STILL THERE, WHAT YOU HEARD THIS MORNING, MAYBE YOU DIDN'T HEAR THEM, BUT WE HAD A LOT OF MEMBERS OF THE SURF RIDERS ORGANIZATION TALKING ABOUT THE ONE PIER IF YOU WILL, OR COLUMN, EVERY 66 FEET VERSUS THE TWO EVERY 33 FEET.

AND HOW THAT IN THEIR MIND, EITHER SHOULD BE MODELLED OR SOME SORT OF ALTERNATE ANALYSIS BE PERFORMED, SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT THAT WOULD BEAR. BUT THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF DECISIONS GUYS, THAT WILL ALTER A DESIGN SERVICE CONTRACT.

THAT IS NO DIFFERENT THAN GOING HORIZONTAL FOR MORE SPACE.

ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE WE CAN AGREE ON MORE SPACE, COMMISSIONER. YOU WOULD ABSOLUTELY NEED MORE DESIGN SERVICES TO GO THIS WAY. BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE TO DESIGN A FOUNDATION. EVEN THOUGH YOU COULD GO MORE HORI HORIZONTAL.

I FEEL LIKE THAT IS A GOOD DISCUSSION TO HAVE.

DON'T KID YOURSELF, THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE DESIGN SERVICES. YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO START A PROJECT IN THE BEGINNING AND SAY WITH CERTAINTY, THIS IS WHAT YOUR DESIGN IS GOING TO BE.

I AGREE THAT THREE WEEKS AGO, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT TO GUESSTIMATE IT. BUT IT'S JUST THREE WEEKS LATER. I DON'T SEE IT AS A HUGE MONUMENTAL ISSUE, IF WE CAN STAY WITHIN THE 26.33 AT THIS POINT FOR ITEMS 1 THROUGH 11. AS WE EXPAND, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER THAT THE DESIGN SERVICES WOULD EXPAND TOO.

YOU JUST DON'T GET TO SAY I'M GOING TO GO THIS WAY AND NOT

DESIGN FOR THE FOUNDATION. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONTINGENCY. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE OKAY, PRICES HAVE GONE EVEN CRAZIER THAN WE COULD IMAGINE.

AND NOW WE'RE HAVING TO ASK EVEN MORE.

THAT IS MY WORRY. WE GET TO THAT POINT, THEN WE HAVE EVEN MORE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ADD ON IN THE END.

THERE IS NO GUARANTEE EVEN 25 PERCENT CONTINGENCY IS GOING TO BE WHAT WE NEED. IF WE CAN SCALE BACK NOW, WE'VE GOT TO DO THAT. I GET THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS. BUT THE FACT THAT WE'VE ADDED ON YEAR AFTER YEAR. BUT EVERY TIME WE BROUGHT THIS BEFORE US, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE AND A LITTLE BIT MORE.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY TODAY I APPROVE OF THIS AND IN THE END, IT'S NOT ENOUGH. WE CAN PLAN AS MUCH AS WE CAN, BUT THAT IS NOT ANY GUARANTEE THAT YOU CAN GIVE TO US.

>> THE GUARANTEE IS YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE -- YOU GOT TO HAVE A DESIGN ELEMENT. THAT IS WHY I THOUGHT IF WE SAY, THIS ISN'T ADDITIONAL FUNDS, THIS IS ONLY PASSED AND WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THAT CONTINGENCY.

WHICH YOU WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE. AS I SAID GOING INTO THIS, A 25 PERCENT CONTINGENCY IS WAY HIGHER THAN WE DO AT ANY PROJECT IN NUECES COUNTY. THERE WAS REASON FOR THAT PROBABLY. THINGS LIKE THIS THAT COULD COME UP. I THOUGHT 25 PERCENT WAS TOO HIGH TO BEGIN WITH. MAYBE NOW IT'S NOT.

SO THAT IS WHY I WAS TRYING TO PUT FORWARD SOMETHING THAT JUST SAID LOOK, WE'RE NOT SPENDING ANYMORE MONEY.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK WITHIN THE MONEY THAT HAS BEEN ALLOCATED. THERE HAS TO BE A CUT SOMEWHERE ELSE, THERE HAS TO BE A CUT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE. BUT I WOULD NEVER WANT TO REPRESENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM THAT I KNOW THAT OR GUARANTEE THAT. BUT I DON'T WANT TO LOSE ON THE MOTION. SO I WANT OTHER SUGGESTIONS FROM THE THREE OF YOU, THE CONCERNS WHICH I SUSPECT.

I AGREE WITH, I'M BOTHERED BY IT.

I STARTED THE CONVERSATION OUT BY SAYING I'M BOTHERED THIS WASN'T ADDRESSED EARLY ON. BUT I DO THINK WE CAN GET IT DONE WITHIN THE CONTINGENCY AND NOT SPEND ANY ADDITIONAL DOLLARS. BUT IF YOU THREE HAVE ANY

[02:05:01]

SUGGESTIONS OTHER THAN THAT, PLEASE MAKE THEM.

I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO GO FORWARD ON A DESIGN CONCEPT.

WE CAN'T DO THE PROJECT OR THE JUDGE AND I HAVE TO COME UP WITH MORE FUNDS FROM THE ARPA ALLOCATION OR WHATEVER WE CAN GO FIND. THAT IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT. CAN WE CONTINUE TO DO THAT? THE COURT: YES. HANG ON FOR A SECOND.

WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS THAT TO ANSWER COMMISSIONER MAREZ'S GOOD QUESTION, THAT IS WHY I'M SUCH A BIG FAN AND PROPONENT OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND VALUE ENGINEERING.

THERE IS NOT ONE BUILDING PROJECT OUT OF THE 150 MILLION THAT WE HAVE IN THE FIELD RIGHT NOW, SOME COMPLETE, SOME IN PROGRESS, THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO COMMODITY PRICING VOLATILITY OR WORKFORCE VOLATILITY. THERE IS NOBODY HERE HAS A PROJECT, ALL RELATIVE ECONOMIES OF SCALE.

IF ANIMAL CARE TURNS OUT TO BE HALF A MILLION MORE BECAUSE OF COMMODITIES THAT YOU HAVE TO GO BUY THAT ARE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THEN THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

WHAT YOU DO, IN ORDER TO TEMPER THAT, YOU DO SAY THIS IS WHAT I HAVE. AND LIKE A TURNKEY OPERATION, YOU SAY I WANT TO VALUE ENGINEER.

THIS IS THE MONEY I'VE GOT. RIGHT, LOUIS? WE'LL SAY HEY, MAYBE RATHER THAN DOING THIS PRODUCT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS PRODUCT.

AND THAT IS HOW YOU GET TO STAY INSIDE YOUR BUDGET.

WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, IT HAPPENED TO US ON IB MCGHEE. CERTAIN ROOF IS NO LONGER APPROVED BY OUR STATE. THAT IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF YOU DON'T -- I AGREE WITH YOU, YOU NEVER CAN HAVE A GUARANTEE.

BUT DON'T MISTAKE THE REASON THAT WE APPROPRIATED 18 MILLION AND WE HAD A CERTAIN CONTRACT WITH JACOBS FOR 18 MILLION IS BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE APPROPRIATED WITHIN THE CAPITAL, WITH THE COS. THEN LATER, WE HAD OUR INSURANCE FUND AND WE WERE ABLE TO DO MORE.

THAT IS WHAT SCOPED UP YOUR ENGINEERING SERVICES.

SO I DON'T SEE THIS AS A HIDING OF THE BALL.

I SEE THIS AS A LOGICAL SEQUENCING FOR A VERY STOUT PROJECT. AND WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN KEEP INSIDE THE 2633 AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS, FOR THE 1 THROUGH 11.

AND THAT PART IS VERY KEY. FOR EXAMPLE, LET ME JUST THROW SOMETHING OUT. NO. NEVER MIND.

THE PARKING LOT IS SOMEBODY ELSE.

NEVER MIND. >> AT ONE POINT YOU HAVE TO STOP. YOU GOT TO STOP.

ADD THIS, ADD THAT. YOU GOT TO STOP.

YOU KNOW, LIKE COMMISSIONER MAREZ MENTIONED TOO, WE HAVE GOT OTHER AREAS WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF TO, NOT JUST THE COASTAL PARKS. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A PROJECT RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE SPENDING $28 MILLION RIGHT NOW.

WE SUPPORT THIS 100 PERCENT. I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT WE WEREN'T TOLD AHEAD OF TIME WHAT SOME OF THE ISSUES WERE.

THIS IS REALLY, IT BOTHERS ME. I HOPE YOU TAKE THIS BACK.

I'M SURE IT BOTHERS ALL OF US. I'M SURE IT BOTHERS COMMISSIONER CHESNEY. THIS IS THINGS WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR. I THINK WE HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE. WE HAVE TO STOP.

>> CAN WE MAYBE PAUSE AND CALL THAT OTHER ITEM WITH THIS ITEM AND TALK ABOUT OTHER SOURCES. I KNOW YOU WANT TO TAKE A BATHROOM BREAK TOO. THE COURT: THAT IS GOOD.

WE CAN HOLD BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT WE'LL COME BACK TO IT IF THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

YEAH. AND I CAN MAYBE --

>> CALL BOTH ITEMS AT THE SAME TIME.

THE COURT: THAT'S FINE. >> I DO HAVE THOUGHTS ON THAT TOO. THE COURT: THE ONLY THING IS I PROMISED BECAUSE MS. BARRERA HAS TO GET BACK TO WORK, I WAS GOING TO ADVANCE AT 11 O'CLOCK THE ITEM THAT IS -- GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. ADAY, IF YOU COULD HELP ME.

E 1 AND 2. RIGHT.

SO I CAN TAKE A SMALL BATHROOM BREAK AND THEN DO THOSE 11 COMMISSIONERS AND THEN GO BACK TO THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE PIER, IF THAT IS ALL RIGHT. E 1 AND 2.

[02:10:03]

OR WE COULD DO IT NOW AND SAVE THE TIME.

WE CAN DO A BATHROOM BREAK LATER I GUESS.

HOW IS THE STAFF DOING ON THAT? ARE WE GOOD?

STAFF? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT IT'S PART OF THE BUDGET ITEM.

I THINK WE NEED TO HOLD OFF THE BUDGET AND FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE COURT: WELL, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CALL THE -- YOU'RE ON E1.

I'M ON THIS OTHER. I CAN CALL THE ITEM SO THAT WE

[1. Discuss and consider reclassifying the Deputy Director (Pay Group 24) in the department of Nueces County Development Commission (#1389) to Economic Development Director (Pay Group 32) and add a car allowance.]

CAN AT LEAST PRESENT IT AND GET INFORMATION.

SO LET'S GO TO E1. LOUIS, IF YOU WOULD JUST HOLD

FOR JUST A MINUTE. >> I'LL STICK AROUND.

THE COURT: THIS IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER RECLASSIFYING THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NUMBER 24. TO PAY GROUP 32.

AND ADDING THE CAR ALLOWANCE. IN OTHER WORDS, TAKING THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND CONSOLIDATING IT INSIDE THE BUDGET THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW. AND CINDY IS WITH THE NCDC AND HERE TO GIVE US SOME BACKGROUND.

GO AHEAD, CINDY. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. AS YOU ALL KNOW, YESTERDAY WAS HOLDEN HOPKINS LAST DAY, HE SERVED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NCDC. WE'RE THRILLED BECAUSE HE IS ON HIS WAY TO HARVARD UNIVERSITY. WE'RE PROUD THAT HE IS A PRODUCT OF NUECES COUNTY AND WE WISH HIM WELL.

WITH THAT, WE'RE ASKING THE COURT FOR ASSISTANCE IN A SMOOTH TRANSITION AND HELP US WITH THE IMMEDIATE APPROVAL OF THE POSTING OF THE NCC DIRECTOR POSITION.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE WITH A NET ZERO IMPACT CHANGE, BY REALLOCATING EXISTING FUNDS IN THE DEPARTMENT, 1389 BUDGET. OUR REQUEST IS THAT WE MOVE QUICKLY ON THIS AND ARE ABLE TO CONDUCT INTERVIEWS FOR THE DIRECTOR POSITION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE CLOSE OF POSTING.

AND WE LOOK TO YOU ALL FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE IN FINDING THE DIRECTOR. AND ALLOWING FOR MEMBERS OF NCDC TO BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS AS WELL.

>> 1389 IS WHAT BUDGET? THE COURT: IS YOUR BUDGET?

>> NCDC BUDGET. >> YOU HAVE MONEY THERE YOU CAN

TRANSFER? >> WE DO.

WE'RE FULLY FUNDED BY THE PORT. SO THOSE FUNDS ARE ALREADY IN THE BUDGET. THE COURT: FOR THIS FISCAL

YEAR. >> $50,000 FOR NCDC.

THE REST OF IT COMES FROM THE PORT, I THINK RIGHT? THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IF YOU WENT TO THIS PAY GROUP, DO YOU STILL HAVE THE FUNDS INSIDE THE FISCAL YEAR AND THE ANSWER IS YES.

>> YES, WE DO THE COURT: OKAY.

DO WE HAVE PROJECTS RIGHT NOW THAT NECESSITATE A DIRECTOR?

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE GOT SEVERAL ONGOING PROJECTS THAT NEED CONSTANT WORK AND REVIEW.

WE HAVE I WANT TO SAY A TOTAL OF ABOUT EIGHT ACTIVE PROJECTS.

WE HAVE ONE VERY EXCITING ONE THAT WE JUST STARTED ON AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE MOMENTUM. WE KNOW THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS CRITICAL TO ANY COMMUNITY.

AND IN NUECES COUNTY, YOU KNOW THAT JUST LAST NIGHT THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT OF YOU KNOW, BIG CHANGE EVEN FOR THE CCRADC, THEY'RE ON THEIR SEARCH. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO COLLABORATE WITH THEM AND ALL OTHER ENGINES THAT SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COUNTY.

WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT A DIRECTOR.

>> THIS IS NOT ELIMINATING A POSITION.

THIS IS USING UNUSED FUNDS. >> I'M NOT READY TO DO THIS

DURING A NON-BUDGET >> THOSE FUNDS COME DIRECTLY FROM THE PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI.

WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY NOT ASKING THE COUNTY FOR ANY ADDITIONAL

FUNDS. >> I GET IT.

BUT IF THE NUECES COUNTY COUNTY EMPLOYEE AND IF THE PORT FUNDING DRYS UP, WE'RE ON THE HOOK FOR IT.

I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE NCDC COME AND TALK TO US ABOUT THESE PROJECTS BEFORE WE POST A POSITION AT ALL.

ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INCREASING THIS PERSON SIGNIFICANTLY. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT STEP UP IN PAY AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO GET SOMEONE.

WHEN WE HAVE AN EDC. I THINK THIS IS A HUGE BIG PICTURE DISCUSSION THAT WE CAN'T DO IN FIVE MINUTES BECAUSE SHE NEEDS TO GET BACK TO WORK.

>> I'M NOT RUSHING BACK. I DO WANT TO RESPECTFULLY SHARE THAT EVERY MONTH WE DO HAVE A MEETING THAT YOU ALL ARE INVITED TO. ONE OF OUR PROJECTS, PROJECT BANNER, GREEN HYDROGEN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

WE INVITED ALL OF YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN THOSE MEETINGS.

[02:15:01]

ENGAGEMENT HAS TO WORK BOTH WAYS.

>> THE PUBLIC DOESN'T GET TO SEE IT.

I WANT THOSE PRESENTATIONS HERE BECAUSE I'LL BE HONEST, I DON'T HAVE TIME TO ATTEND EVERY OTHER MEETING THAT COMES UP.

I GO TO MEETINGS ALL OF THE TIME FOR MY CONSTITUENTS.

SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS COURTS MEETINGS SO THAT YOU CAN BRING IT SO THAT WE CAN SHOW THE PUBLIC WHERE THEY'RE DOING IT.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT EDUCATING US.

I APPRECIATE BEING INVITED TO THOSE MEETINGS.

SOMETIMES PEYTON GOES AND SOMETIMES SHE DOESN'T BECAUSE I'VE GOT HER AT OTHER MEETINGS. I WANT THAT PRESENTATION HERE

SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE IT. >> I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON DO HAVE CONFIDENTIALITY. THERE IS TIMES WHEN WE ARE UNDER NDAS, WE CAN'T DISCUSS SPECIFICS.

WE CAN DO SO IF YOU ALL IN CLOSED SESSION OR PRIVATELY IN MEETINGS. BUT IT'S INFORMATION THAT AT TIMES WE CAN'T DISCLOSE IN A PUBLIC SESSION.

>> I THINK IF YOU SAY THAT TO THE PUBLIC, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT GOES ON AS WELL.

THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE, SIGNIFICANT ASK.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE HAVE THE FUNDS OR DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT THAT I DON'T THINK CAN BE DONE QUICKLY. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE BUDGET TO DO. I'VE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WITH NCDC IN

GENERAL. >> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, WE WERE HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO AND HAD A PRESENTATION, GAVE YOU AN UPDATE ON SEVERAL OF THE PROJECTS.

WE ARE MORE THAN WILLING AND HAVE BEEN WILLING TO HAVE THOSE MEETINGS. WE'VE REQUESTED THEM TIME AND TIME AGAIN WITH EACH OF YOUR OFFICES.

>> I WANT TO HAVE IT HERE. >> WE HAVE BEEN HERE AND GIVEN UPDATES. MY QUESTION TO ALL OF YOU, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BE DOING MORE? BECAUSE WE HAVE GIVEN UPDATES. WE HAVE HAD SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS. WE DO HAVE SEVERAL ONGOING PROJECTS. AGAIN, WE ASK THAT THOSE NOT BE SHARED WITH THE PUBLIC. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE DOING? BECAUSE WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS LOSE MOMENTUM. WE CAN'T OPERATE WITHOUT A DIRECTOR. WE'VE GOT AN INCREDIBLE BOARD OF VOLUNTEERS THAT WORKS TIRELESSLY.

WE REPRESENT EVERY PART OF THIS COUNTY.

DIFFERENT INDUSTRIES. WE'RE READY TO CONTINUE WORKING. BUT WE NEED A DIRECTOR TO

CONTINUE WHAT WE'RE DOING. >> I'LL FINISH MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE I WAS GOING BEFORE YOU INTERRUPTED ME, WAS TO SAY I AM -- I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A LOT OF DUPLICATION OF THINGS GOING ON IN THIS COUNTY, BETWEEN THE NCDC, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A VERY BIG PICTURE DISCUSSION AMONGST ALL OF THESE ENTITIES AND THIS COMMISSIONER'S COURT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO DO ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT THINGS IN THE WAY THAT WE'RE DOING IT. THAT IS A BIG PICTURE ISSUE THAT IS NOT JUST A PRESENTATION OF PROJECTS.

EXACTLY THE KIND OF THING. RDC NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED.

I THINK THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED.

WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS IT'S NOT A 15-MINUTE PRESENTATION.

I HAVE CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS OF WHETHER WE NEED TO HAVE ALL THREE OF THESE ENTITIES DOING THINGS THAT MAY BE DUPLICATING SERVICES. WE MAY INDEED SEE THAT THAT IS NOT HAPPENING AT ALL. UNTIL WE HAVE THAT PRESENTATION, JOINT EFFORT, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS. SO THAT IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION THAT YOU'VE ASKED. SO I THINK Y'ALL WORK HARD.

I THINK THE RDC WORKS HARD. I THINK THE ROBSTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WORKS HARD.

ARE WE DUPLICATING SERVICES. CONSOLIDATE SERVICES.

THAT IS WHAT I LOOK AT IN LIFE ALL OF THE TIME.

CONSISTENT ON EVERY BOARD AND COMMISSION, IF I CAN CONSOLIDATE AND SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY, THAT IS WHAT I'M GOING TO LOOK TO DO. THAT IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH NCDC ALONE.

IT HAS TO DO WITH ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT I AM CONCERNED AND QUESTIONS WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE SPENDING TAXPAYER DOLLARS IN PLACES THAT WE DON'T NEED TO DO.

>> WE UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE DILIGENCE.

WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH YOU.

WHAT I WILL SHARE IS THE NCDC WAS CREATED OUT OF THE NEED OF AN ENTITY THAT FOCUSES ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SOLELY FOR NUECES COUNTY. THAT ENGINE DOES THAT EXIST WITHOUT OUR EXISTENCE. SO WE WANT TO MOVE QUICKLY.

IF WE CAN SCHEDULE SOMETHING TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON YOUR BEHALF OR ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE WILLING TO DO SO. BUT WE DO ASK IF WE CAN DO IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE'VE BEEN BUILDING MOMENTUM AND DON'T WANT TO LOSE OPPORTUNITY ON ANY OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER THIS, WHICH IS THAT YOU CAN STILL HAVE A BUDGET DISCUSSION DURING BUDGET.

BUT TO ABANDON SHIP WITH EIGHT PROJECTS THAT ARE PENDING, WHEN

[02:20:02]

YOU DON'T HAVE A DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUT YOU HAVE AN OFFICE AND A CLERK, THAT IS GOING TO CREATE A LOSS FOR THE

TAXPAYER, NOT A GAIN. >> EXACTLY.

THE COURT: SO AT MINIMUM, WE SHOULD REPLACE LIKE WITH LIKE AND GET A DEPUTY POSITION POSTED AND IF THAT CHANGES IN THE FUTURE, WELL, THEN IT MIGHT CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.

BUT TO LITERALLY SAY THAT YOU THINK YOU'RE SAVING THE MONEY FOR THE TAXPAYER, WHEN WE CLEARLY HAVE EIGHT STRONG PROJECTS THAT ARE YOU KNOW, ON THE TABLE, INCLUDING SOME THAT THIS BODY HAS ISSUED AN RFP FOR RECENTLY.

>> CREATED JOBS, BROUGHT TAXPAYER DOLLARS INTO THE COUNTY THROUGH OUR WORK. WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO DO THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE A WORKING STAFF. I AGREE WITH YOU, JUDGE, IF WE COULD GET APPROVAL FOR A DEPUTY DIRECTOR, WE DO THINK THAT IT'S TIME TO ELEVATE THE POSITION TO A DIRECTOR.

BUT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD.

AGAIN, IT'S ABOUT BENEFITTING THE RESIDENTS OF NUECES COUNTY.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HAS GOT TO BE AT THE TOP OF OUR LIST AS TO YOU KNOW, EFFORTS THAT WE'RE PUTTING FORTH. AND WE ASK THE COURT TO PLEASE WORK WITH US QUICKLY.

THE COURT: THE REASON I THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD ITEM, COMMISSIONERS, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ENOUGH DIRECTION ON WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU LOSE A DEPUTY DIRECTOR WHEN THERE WAS NO DIRECTOR. THAT WAS A CHOICE THAT WE MADE EARLY ON, THAT WE KNEW WE WANTED TO HAVE A DIRECTOR, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FUNDS FOR A DIRECTOR.

THE DIRECTOR COULDN'T BE AT THE PAY SCALE AND HAVE ANY REALITY OF GETTING SOMEBODY AT THE PAY SCALE.

WE CHOSE TO DO A DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

AND JUST LIKE EDC AND YOU KNOW, EVERY MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY KIND OF DOES IT ON THEIR OWN. THERE IS HUGE COLLABORATIONS THAT TAKE PLACE. HAVING SAID THAT, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN OFFICE THAT HAS NOBODY HOME.

THAT IS NOT GOOD. IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE HAD PROJECTS. MR. HOPKINS DID A GREAT JOB.

BUT WE ALL KNEW FOR 3 MONTHS THAT HE WAS LEAVING.

HE GAVE US PLENTY OF NOTICE. WE TRIED TO GET THIS ON THE AGENDA IN PLENTY OF TIME. BUT WE HAVE RUN OUT OF TIME.

ALL I'M LOOKING FOR IS GUIDANCE FROM THE COURT TO GET THE DEPUTY POSITION FILLED. IT'S CURRENTLY BUDGETED.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH BUDGET CYCLE TO GO TO THE NEXT BUDGET. BUT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT IS THERE. BECAUSE OUR VOLUNTEERS ARE JUST VOLUNTEERS. AND THEY NEED TO CONTINUE YOU KNOW, THE WORK THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT WORK FOR ALL OF YOUR PRECINCTS TO ENCOURAGE BOTH TOURISM DOLLARS, TECHNOLOGY DOLLARS, MILITARY DOLLARS, ALL THE THINGS, ALL THE PROJECTS, ENERGY DOLLARS. ALL THOSE HOUSING DOLLARS.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT AND RECOVER FROM COVID-19 IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HOME. THIS COURT NEEDS TO AT MINIMUM, AUTHORIZE THE POSTING OF THE DEPUTY POSITION TO FILL WHAT WE'RE COMPLETELY MISSING. AND MOVE ON.

>> I WANT TO ADDRESS ONE MORE CONCERN THAT COMMISSIONER CHESNEY BROUGHT UP, THE PORT LOSING INTEREST.

WE'RE FORTUNATE TO HAVE COMMISSIONER KATHRYN HILLIARD WHO SERVES AS ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS.

THEY'RE BOUGHT IN TO THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING.

VERY SUPPORTIVE. AND IT'S A PARTNERSHIP.

COLLABORATION THAT WE'RE VERY PROUD TO HAVE.

AND WE FEEL THAT DELAYING THIS PROCESS WOULD BE THE ONLY THING THAT COULD JEOPARDIZE THAT RELATIONSHIP AT THIS TIME AT

THIS POINT. >> JUDGE, I SAW YOUR COMMENTS YESTERDAY. THE COURT: WHICH ONES?

>> REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF MR. MACEY.

I AGREE WITH YOU. DISAPPOINTED IN THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WENT ON BEHIND THE SCENES THERE.

I KNOW YOU DIDN'T SUPPORT THAT, ACCORDING TO THE NEWS.

I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THAT TOO. HOWEVER, WHAT THAT PROVIDES IS OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AND SEE IF THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THINGS IN UNISON AND DO SOME SORT OF CONSOLIDATION BETWEEN THE TWO.

MAYBE THERE IS A BIGGER PICTURE HERE THAT THIS CAN EXIST AS AN ENTITY UNDER THE EDC WITH SOME SORT OF INDEPENDENCE.

BUT HAVING AN NCDC THAT RAN UNDER THE EDC, TOTALLY FOCUSED ON NUECES COUNTY PROJECT. BUT YET STILL RAN UNDER THE EDC AND WITH THE NEW EDC DIRECTOR COMING IN.

I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES RIGHT NOW. THE COURT: I DON'T DISCOUNT OPPORTUNITY. I THINK THAT IS AN AWESOME IDEA. BUT I JUST THINK THAT NOBODY IS HOME THERE EITHER. I KNOW BECAUSE I WAS THERE AT THE MEETING. THEY'RE GOING TO GO OUT FOR A

[02:25:02]

NATIONWIDE SEARCH. THAT IS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME NO MATTER HOW EFFICIENT WE ARE. WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IS HAVE THE PROJECTS IN THE WORKS NOT HAVE A DEPUTY.

IF HOLDEN HAD DECIDED NOT TO GO TO HARVARD LAW WE HAVE A DIRECTOR. I THINK IT MAKES SMART SENSE TO GET A REAL DIRECTOR WHEN THE MONEY WAS AVAILABLE.

'MONEY HAS BECOME AVAILABLE. IF NUECES COUNTY TOMORROW DECIDED TO GIVE ZERO DOLLARS, YOU STILL HAVE THE DOLLARS TO DO THIS PROJECT. I'M SORRY, TO DO -- TO DO THIS MOTION. SO IT'S NOT ABOUT NUECES COUNTY BUDGET MONEY. IT'S ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT THE PEOPLE EXPECT US TO DO. NOW THAT THE EDC DOES NOT HAVE A DIRECTOR, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER THAT WE GET THIS DONE. I THINK THAT OPPORTUNITIES SHOULD BE EXPLORED. HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I THINK THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT EARLIER WITH THE RADC, IF YOU MIGHT REMEMBER AS WELL. JUST BECAUSE THERE COULD BE YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOME -- BUT THAT DOESN'T NEGATE THE CONCEPT THAT WE NEED HELP NOW. SO MY HOPE IS THAT WHAT WE COULD DO, LET ME LOOK TO SEE HOW IT READS.

IF WE AMEND THIS, THAT WE WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE WOULD NOT AT THIS TIME RECLASSIFY THE DIRECTOR, BUT JUST LEAVE THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR. THEN ON ITEM NUMBER 2, I WOULD SAY PLEASE ALLOW US TO POST AND GET FOLKS INTERVIEWED SO THAT WE CAN GET SOMEBODY AT THAT OFFICE THAT WE ARE UTILIZING AND GET THAT CLERK WITH A SUPERVISOR.

MS. HOPE. AND LET'S MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD WITH SOME OF THESE GREAT PROJECTS.

IF THERE NEEDS TO BE YOU KNOW, EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM ON JULY 27TH, I'M GLAD TO PUT IT ON.

AS THEY SAY, IF THE MOUNTAIN WON'T COME TO MOHAMMED, LET MOHAMMED COME TO THE MOUNTAIN. SHARE WITH US ALL THOSE EIGHT PROJECTS. IF THAT IS EASIER FOR THE COURT. WE COULD DO THAT ON A QUARTERLY BASIS. WE NEED A DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

WE NEED SOMEBODY TO CONTINUE THE WORK.

AND NOT LEAVE THAT OFFICE BLANK THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR, WHICH

WOULD BE OCTOBER 1ST. >> WE'RE HERE OBVIOUSLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTY. WE WANT THE COURT TO BE ADVOCATES OF NCDC. THERE IS ALWAYS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT IN COMMUNICATION. IF WE NEED TO MEET WITH EACH COMMISSIONER INDIVIDUALLY, WHATEVER THE REQUEST IS, WE

WILL FULFILL THOSE REQUESTS. >> THE MONEY IS THERE.

EVEN IF WE SAID RIGHT NOW WE'RE CUTTING OFF OUR SOURCE, IT'S

STILL FUNDED. >> WE DON'T NEED FUNDING DIRECTLY FROM THE COUNTY AT THIS POINT.

>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM DISCUSSING THE FUTURE OR FURTHER IDEAS OF HOW DO WE MAYBE LOOK AT THE PARTNERSHIPS EXISTING OUT THERE ALREADY. THE FACT THAT IT'S ALREADY ALLOCATED AND AVAILABLE, I SUPPORT THAT.

COME BUDGET TIME, I THINK THERE IS AN AGREEMENT ON THE COURT TO LOOK AT WHAT OTHER WAYS TO HANDLE THAT COME OCTOBER 1ST, I THINK THAT IS FAIR GAME. I THINK FOR NOW AT LEAST I SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE THE MONEY IS THERE.

YOU'RE RIGHT. WE CANNOT ALLOW PROJECTS TO DRY UP. WE DO NEED LEADERSHIP.

I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE PROBABLY TAKING THE LEAD IN ABSENCE OF ANYONE BEING THERE. I KNOW YOU'RE THERE.

>> I WILL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH HOPE UNTIL WE'RE ABLE TO

FILL THE POSITION. >> WHEN IS HOLDEN LEAVING?

>> HE IS GONE. >> HIS LAST DAY WAS YESTERDAY.

>> HE IS LISTED AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR.

YOU'RE SAYING JOHN THAT WE CONTINUE WITH DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND BUDGET TIME LOOK AT WHETHER WE NEED A DIRECTOR OR NOT

>> I THINK THE TITLE IS JUST A NAME.

I THINK THE QUESTION IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.

THE FACT THAT WE JUST HAVE SOMEONE HIRED THAT CAN HANDLE THIS JOB, AT LEAST THROUGH OCTOBER 1ST, OR ONCE OUR BUDGET CYCLE DICTATES WHAT OUR NEXT STEP IS.

IT'S ALREADY THERE. I WANT TO TAKE A PRACTICAL APPROACH, THAT THE MONEY IS THERE.

IT'S AVAILABLE. I WOULD HATE FOR THIS TO STOP ANYTHING IN THE WORKING PROJECT.

I THINK OF AMAZON, THAT WE HAD COME ALONG.

WASN'T TOO SHABBY OR NAME TO BRING INTO OUR COMMUNITY.

I HAVE FAITH AND CONFIDENCE IN THE WORK THAT YOU AND YOUR BOARD ARE DOING. SO I WOULD JUST SAY AT THE LEAST THAT WE CAN AT LEAST CONTINUE THAT FOR NOW.

LET'S CONTINUE TO HAVE DISCUSSION AND DIALOG.

I AGREE AND SUPPORT THAT. MORE UPDATES WOULD PROBABLY BE

[02:30:01]

BETTER FOR US. WE CAN REALLY LOOK BACK AND SEE WHAT IS BEING DONE ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE AND WHAT WE CAN PUBLICIZE AND WHAT WE CAN, OBVIOUSLY THAT WILL COME OUT SOON AS A VICTORY FOR US, IN BRINGING IN OR ATTRACTING A BUSINESS. THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. IF WE CAN DO THAT FOR NOW.

KEEP MOVING ALONG. START THE PROCESS NOW.

BRING IN SOMEONE, HIRE THEM AND LET THEM AT LEAST FINISH OUT THE BUDGET CYCLE AND WE'LL DECIDE WHAT TO DO AFTER THAT.

>> WE'RE COMMITTING THAT PERSON HAS TO BE A COUNTY EMPLOYEE.

IF YOU WANT TO MERGE, WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT PERSON IF THAT DIDN'T WORK OUT. I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT RESTRUCTURING THE NCDC.

IF WE NEED TO BE INVOLVED WITH IT, WE NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN APPOINTING BOARD MEMBERS, WE NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN ALL ASPECTS OF IT OR NO ASPECTS OF IT.

I JUST THINK TO ME AGAIN, I AGREED WITH YOU.

I'M SORRY IAN LEFT. I AGREE WITH YOU ON YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT NOT BEING SURPRISED BY THIS WHOLE IAN THING. TO ME THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE OUGHT TO BE LOOKING AT ALL OF THIS IN ONE FELL SWOOP.

SO HIRE SOMEONE, WELL, WE'LL DO IT FOR NOW AND HOPE IT WORKS OUT. I DON'T KNOW.

THE COURT: TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, A DEPUTY DIRECTOR IS NOT A DIRECTOR LIKE YOU KNOW OTHER DIRECTORS ARE.

BUT HAVING GIVEN THE WHOLE PAY GRADE AND THE SCALE.

BUT THERE IS A HOUSING PROJECT. >> DO WE HAVE A SAY IN WHO THIS PERSON IS? THE COURT: THAT IS WHAT ITEM

NUMBER TWO IS. >> I GUESS THE BOARD HIRES.

>> NO. WE VERY MUCH WANT YOUR PARTICIPATION.

WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU ALLOW US TO BE A PART OF THE PROCESS.

>> I DON'T KNOW. I THOUGHT IT WAS SET UP TO WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SAY IN ANYTHING OTHER THAN POSTING POSITIONS. THE COURT: NO. THAT IS NOT TRUE. THEY FOLLOW THE OPEN MEETINGS

ACT. >> LIKE IN EVERY OTHER BOARD WE APPOINT. THE COURT: JUST SO YOU KNOW, I ASKED FOR EVERYBODY. JUST TO YOU KNOW, YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE, AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ, WHO DID THAT.

YEAH. >> I'M JUST SAYING I WOULD LIKE TO RELOOK AT IT AND SAY OKAY, LOOK, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS NCDC, WE NEED TO HAVE INVOLVEMENT IN THE HIRING.

BUT THERE IS SO MUCH OF THAT TO JUST DO THIS TODAY MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE. BECAUSE IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE. IF I GET OUT-VOTED I'M OKAY WITH THAT. THE COURT: IF YOU DON'T DO IT TODAY, NOBODY IS HOME FOR ANOTHER 60 DAYS.

WHO DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO DO THAT? THESE ARE NOT THE ONES YOU KNOW OF.

BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT CINDY IS TELLING YOU.

WHILE WE CAN GET IT ON THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.

>> I BET THE EDC WOULD HELP US FOR A WHILE.

THEY HAVE AN INTERIM DIRECTOR. WE COULD ASK THE INTERIM DIRECTOR OF EDC. UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO. TO ME, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD -- THE COURT: A REGIONAL EDC. I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU, SINCE I WAS THERE AND YOU WEREN'T YESTERDAY, THAT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA RIGHT NOW. THEY'VE GOT THEIR HANDS FULL.

NUMBER TWO, AGAIN, AS I SAID, I'M NOT BARRING THAT FUTURE OPPORTUNITY, BUT ONCE AGAIN, LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYBODY HOME, LET'S GET THAT ON

THE RECORD. >> THIS YOUNG LADY SEEMS TO BE VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE IF WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.

WHY DON'T WE MAKE HER THE INTERIM?

>> I HAVE A DAY JOB, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR VOTE OF CONFIDENCE.

I'M VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT IT. I'M THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT OFFICER FOR WEALTH ADVISORS AT FROST BANK.

THE COURT: BUT THAT IS WHY SHE IS SO GOOD.

>> YOU CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT ANY OF THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT Y'ALL

ARE WORKING ON? >> I COULD GIVE A GENERAL OVERVIEW, BUT AGAIN, OUT OF CONFIDENTIALITY FOR THE COMPANIES THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH, WE PREFER TO DISCUSS

THOSE IN CLOSED SESSION. >> JUDGE, WHAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO, DECENT SUGGESTION, IF WE COULD DO THIS AS AN INTERIM, I COULD SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> THAT IS FINE. YOU STILL HAVE TO POST.

>> RIGHT. BUT AS LONG AS YOU SAID IT WAS

[02:35:03]

INTERIM. OR YOU FOUND SOMEONE LIKE THE RADC FOUND. THE COURT: LET'S DO IT.

>> I JUST DON'T WANT TO HIRE SOMEONE AND WE GO A WHOLE DIFFERENT DIRECTION. THE COURT: I HEAR YOU.

BUT HIRING WOULD BE INTERIM. I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN.

>> INTERIM MEANING IT'S A TEMPORARY INTERIM POSITION THE COURT: LISTEN, I'M HERE SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

IT'S WORKING FOR ME. >> EXCUSE ME, ANYBODY ELSE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT THAT COULD BE INTERIM?

>> SO WE HAVE A CLERK RIGHT NOW WHO IS FAIRLY NEW AS WELL.

SO I THINK WE REALLY WOULD NEED TO DO A POSTING AND DO AN

EXTERNAL SEARCH. >> I'M OKAY WITH AN INTERIM TEMPORARY SITUATION. THE COURT: I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. INTERIM IS SOMEBODY THAT YOU WOULDN'T -- UNDER FAIRNESS, YOU WOULD WANT TO LET EVERYBODY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. HE SAID CAN YOU GO SELECT SOMEBODY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COMMISSIONER? YOU CAN APPOINT SOMEBODY.

YOU'RE SAYING LET THE BOARD APPOINT SOMEBODY? I JUST DON'T KNOW THE EMPLOYEE POLICIES ON THAT.

AS A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, MAYBE JULIE COULD RUN BACK IN HERE, TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO, WE DON'T JUST SELECT, WE DO ALLOW THE COMMUNITY TO SAY I WANT TO VY FOR THAT JOB.

>> BUT IF IT'S AN ENTIRELY AND TEMPORARY.

GOOD POINT. THIS COURT COULD SAY WE WANT TO -- THROWING THIS -- WE WANT TO APPOINT JOHN BRIAR TO COME BACK FOR TWO OR 3 MONTHS AND DO WHAT HE WAS DOING ON A CONTRACT BASIS BEFORE. VALID POINT.

YOU GOT TO POST FOR TWO WEEKS. WHO IS GOING TO APPLY FOR AN INTERIM POSITION. MAYBE YOU CAN DO A CONTRACT THING WITH MR. BRIAR FOR A FEW MONTHS SINCE EVERYBODY THERE WAS COMFORTABLE. I DON'T KNOW.

THE COURT: I'M LOOKING AT CINDY.

SHE NEEDS TO BE THE ONE. WHAT I'M OPPOSED TO IS LOSING OUT ON ALL OF THE GREAT PROJECTS THAT WE WORKED HARD TO

DEVELOP. >> WE DO LIKE THE PROCESS OF THE VETTING AND BEING ABLE TO MEET WITH MORE THAN ONE CANDIDATE. JOHN BRIAR IS FANTASTIC.

IF THE BUDGET ALLOWS FOR US TO BRING HIM BACK, THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION. WE NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE THERE QUALIFIED AND MEETS REQUIREMENTS TO FILL THE

POSITION. >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPOINT JOHN BRIAR AT THE SAME AMOUNT FOR THE NEXT 90 DAYS THAT WE PAID HIM BEFORE. IT'S IN THE BUDGET AND LET'S DO SOMETHING AND HAVE THESE JOINT MEETINGS OR WHATEVER WE NEED TO

DO AND FIGURE OUT >> CAN WE HAVE A BACK-UP PLAN

IN CASE JOHN IS NOT AVAILABLE? >> DO YOU HAVE A BACK-UP

SUGGESTION? >> IF YOU'RE WILLING TO POST AN INTERIM THAT WE HIRE AN INTERIM AND GO THROUGH THE HIRING

PROCESS. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO GET YOU SOMEBODY. THE COURT: I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I MEAN, WELL, IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

I'M SAYING TO YOU THAT I THINK WHAT WOULD BE SMARTER IS TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND SAY LOOK, YOU'RE AN

INTERIM. >> HOW ABOUT THIS, HOW ABOUT THIS THEN, A MOTION TO HIRE AN INTERIM FOR 90 DAYS.

AND Y'ALL COME UP WITH -- MORE GENERAL MOTION.

>> GOOD THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

THAT IS GOOD. >> PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING TO HAVE THE BIG DISCUSSION.

I'LL GET IT ON. TELL ME HOW YOU WANT TO CRAFT IT TO WHERE WE GET YOU 90 DAYS WITH WHOMEVER.

WE DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY POST IT BUT DO IT AS A PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT. BOARD PICKS.

THE COURT: JULY 27TH IS OUR NEXT.

THAT COULD ACTUALLY BE FASTER THAN GOING THROUGH THE HIRING PROCESS AT THIS POINT. SO JULY 27TH IS WE'LL BRING THAT BACK. SO I'M GOING TO NEED TO TABLE THIS ITEM. I'M SORRY.

NOT TABLE IT. GO AHEAD.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT THE NCDC BE GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE A PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR SOMEONE FOR 90 DAYS AT THE SAME AMOUNT THAT WE WERE PAYING JOHN BRIAR AND THE

BOARD PICKS IT AND YOU GO. >> THAT IS GOING TO BE IN LIEU

OF ITEM NUMBER 2. >> SO THAT WOULD BE ON ITEM 1.

[02:40:06]

DOES THAT GIVE YOU FLEXIBILITY? THE COURT: GO AHEAD.

>> I SUPPORT IT. BUT IN THE TITLE IT'S INTERIM? THE COURT: INTERIM DIRECTOR. WHAT WE WANT TO SAY IS THAT YOU'RE IN CHARGE. YOU'RE FOLLOWING YOUR DIRECTIVE

AS A BOARD. >> INTERIM PERSON WHO RUNS THE NCDC. THE COURT: NOW WE'RE GETTING SILLY. I THINK WE GOT IT.

I UNDERSTAND. THAT SPLITS IT A LITTLE BIT.

IT GIVES YOU AUTONOMY TO GET THINGS DONE.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE A JULY MEETING, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET ONE ON THE SCHEDULE. PLEASE LET EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW, KNOW ABOUT IT. AND THEN WE GET TO LOOK AT THE BUDGET AND DO IT THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS.

JULIE, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP, BUT I GUESS WE'RE GOOD.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN. HOW ABOUT THE TABLE? MOTION TO TABLE? HOW ABOUT A SECOND?

>> SECOND. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

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

GOOD. WE'RE GOOD.

>> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. THE COURT: I SEE THAT WE HAVE -- THANK YOU FOR THAT. I SEE WE HAVE JUDGE HASSETT.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO DO OUR BREAK RIGHT NOW.

JUDGE, I APOLOGIZE. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE IN TRIAL.

I'M GOING TO ADVANCE ITEMS THAT WERE PLACED ON THE AGENDA THAT PERTAIN TO THE PURCHASING BOARD, ITEMS 4, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE PROCESS OF REORGANIZING THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT AND THEN ITEM 5 ALSO DEALS WITH THE PURCHASING BOARD, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION FOR AMENDING

[4. Discuss and consider process for reorganizing the Purchasing department so that it reports directly to the Nueces County Commissioners Court.]

NUECES COUNTY REGARDING P-CARD USE.

ITEM NUMBER 4, COMMISSIONER. THIS IS YOUR ITEM REGARDING THE REORGANIZATION OF THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.

>> ACTUALLY, JUDGE, I WANTED TO TABLE THAT ONE AND DISCUSS THE

[5. Discuss and consider recommendation for amending the Nueces County policies regarding purchasing card (P-Card) use. This discussion should include but not be limited to food purchases.]

P-CARD. THE COURT: LET ME MAKE YOURS A MOTION. I'LL LOOK FOR A SECOND.

SECOND. AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

AND THEN LET'S GO STRAIGHT TO NUMBER 5.

THIS IS NUECES COUNTY POLICIES REGARDING P-CARD.

THIS IS GOING TO BE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS AND POTENTIALLY TAKE ACTION TO RECOMMEND. GO AHEAD.

>> JUDGE, I WANTED TO OPEN UP DISCUSSION ON THIS.

WHAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM MS. DORSEY LATE YESTERDAY, SHE BELIEVES, MS. ROBINSON I THINK BELIEVES TOO THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT ACTUALLY MAKE POLICIES IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THE P-CARDS AND HOW WE WANT THEM USED. I WANT TO GET A FEEL FOR -- MY DISCOMFORT IS ON THE FOOD PURCHASES AT THIS POINT.

BUT THAT IS KIND OF WHERE IT STEMS FROM ME.

BASIC DISCOMFORT, NOT TRYING TO BE ACCUSETORY AT ALL.

I HAVE A DISCOMFORT FOR P-CARD BEING USED FOR FOOD.

THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION.

DO YOU HAVE A DISCOMFORT WITH A CREDIT CARD, OR CHECK OR ANYTHING? ANY PURCHASES? BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT A CREDIT

CARD BUT MORE PHILOSOPHICAL. >> GOOD QUESTION.

BY THE TIME WE GET THE P-CARD REPORTS.

THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

IF SOMEONE SUBMITS A CREDIT CARD AND THEIR DEPARTMENT HEAD OR SOMEBODY HAS TO APPROVE THAT AND THEY ARE ON, IF THEY GO TO A SEMINAR, IN DALLAS FOR THEIR CONTINUING EDUCATION.

AND THEY HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING ON A CREDIT CARD, THAT HAS TO COME BACK AND SOMEBODY HAS OVERSIGHT OVER THAT.

THOSE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

JUST BEING ABLE TO USE A P-CARD FOR FOOD.

BY THE TIME IT COMES TO US THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO IT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN PAID. THAT IS MY PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOMFORT. I GET THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY WITH A TRAVEL OR WHATEVER.

IT'S MORE IN TOWN MEALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS. THE COURT: THERE WERE ISSUES THAT CAME UP WHERE THERE WERE FOR EXAMPLE, THE JUVENILE DEPARTMENT, THE DISTRICT CLERK. REMEMBER WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THOSE LITANIES, WHAT WE ASKED WAS FOR CLARIFICATION.

THERE ARE CERTAIN TIMES WHERE THOSE DEPARTMENTS OR DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE ELIGIBILITY AND MOST PEOPLE DON'T TAKE CHECKS IF YOU'RE BUYING FOR A GROUP. AGAIN, IF ELIGIBILITY IS PART

[02:45:03]

AND PARCEL OF THE WAY WE NORMALLY RUN OUR BUSINESS.

THAT IS WHERE IT IS A CONVENIENCE TO USE IT.

BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT VETTED.

DALE, CAN YOU HELP HERE? >> YES.

AS COMMISSIONER CHESNEY WAS SAYING, WHEN SOMEONE USES A CREDIT CARD FOR ANY KIND OF PURCHASES, THE CREDIT CARD USER, MUST POST THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IT IS FOR, ATTACH THE RECEIPT. GOES TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD.

WE REVIEW IT AT THE TIME. IF WE HAVE A QUESTION, WE REQUEST THE DEPARTMENT HEAD AS WELL AS PURCHASING.

IT'S BEEN DEPARTMENT HEAD AND PURCHASING WHETHER IT'S VALID.

THEN IT GETS PROCESSED AND PUSHED INTO OUR SYSTEM AND PAID. SO THE QUESTION YOU HAD, THERE ARE SOME DEPARTMENTS, JUVENILE DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS MAINLY FUNDED THROUGH OUR FUND 28, WHICH IS A GRANT.

THE COURT: WHAT SAFEGUARD WOULD YOU RECOMMEND? BECAUSE I BET ALL OF US, IF IT'S REASONABLE WOULD BE HAPPY TO RECOMMEND IT TO THE PURCHASING BOARD.

>> AGAIN, ONCE WE FIND A QUESTIONABLE COST AND FOOD HAS BEEN AN ISSUE, EVERY TIME WE SEE A PURCHASE THAT HAS TO DO WITH FOOD, WE MAKE SURE WE TURN IT BACK TO THE DEPARTMENT.

WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR IT? AND THEN WE TURN IT OVER TO PURCHASING DEPARTMENT AND THEY WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT IF IT

IS A QUALIFYING EXPENSE. >> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING DALE, PURCHASING DEPARTMENT IS THE ONE THAT APPROVES IT?

>> YES. THE COURT: AND THE DEPARTMENT

HEAD. >> EXCUSE ME, YOU SAID THERE

WERE GRANTS GIVEN. >> YES.

>> ARE THOSE GRANTS SEPARATED FROM THE COUNTY MONIES?

>> YES. THE COURT: MY THOUGHT IS, COMMISSIONER, IF YOU CAN -- IT'S NOT A BAD DISCUSSION.

YOU SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE SAFEGUARDS.

WE DEFINITELY HAVE THEM. BUT HOW CAN -- WHAT RECOMMENDATION ARE WE WANTING TO SEND UP?

>> WHAT MY STAFF AND I CAN DO, ANY TIME WE SEE SOMETHING THAT IS A QUESTION ON FOOD PURCHASES, WE TALK TO DEPARTMENT HEAD AND PURCHASING, WE CAN FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO COMMISSIONER COURT ADMINISTRATION, AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER'S COURT, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WE HAD, IT'S UP TO

DEPARTMENT HEAD TO DETERMINE. >> THE PROBLEM STILL LIES WITH, I DON'T KNOW -- LIKE I SAID, I DON'T HAVE A SOLID SUGGESTION ON THIS. BECAUSE THE PROBLEM STILL LIES WITH ONCE WE GET A P-CARD REPORT, THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. THE COURT: IS THAT TRUE?

>> THERE ARE CERTAIN QUESTIONS ON THAT.

BECAUSE BOTH MY DEPARTMENT AND PURCHASING DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THIS IS AN INVALID EXPENSE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A TRANSACTION YOU SEE ON A REPORT, WE HAVE SUBMITTED A CLAIM TO THE DEPARTMENT HEAD OR EMPLOYEE THAT CHARGE EXPENSE FOR REIMBURSEMENT. THE COURT: THAT IS THE REMEDY.

>> YES. STILL SEE THE EXPENSE.

>> MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST START WITH THE DEFINITION OF AN APPROPRIATE EXPENSE. BECAUSE FOR ME, AT THE ROOT OF THIS IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW I JUSTIFY PEOPLE'S FOOD OTHER THAN FOR WHEN THEY HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE FOR WORK OUT OF TOWN, I HAVE A HARD TIME JUSTIFYING ANY FOOD BEING PAID FOR THAT IS NOT THAT. SO MAYBE THE QUESTION IS THE POLICY HAS TO CHANGE OF WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE EXPENSE.

BECAUSE AN IN TOWN MEETING WHERE EVERYBODY HAS FOOD TO ME IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE EXPENSE. AN TO ME, I'M ONE PERSON.

TO ME, YOU CAN GO GET LUNCH SOMEWHERE ELSE.

EVERYBODY OUGHT TO BUY THEIR OWN LUNCH.

SHOULDN'T BE FREE LUNCHES ON THE TAXPAYER, UNLESS YOU HAVE TO GO OUT OF TOWN FOR A TRAINING.

THAT IS ABOUT THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN THINK OF THAT SHOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE EXPENSE. I MAY BE WRONG.

THE COURT: IRONICALLY, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED WHEN WE TRAVEL TO

[02:50:04]

-- THAT IS WHERE YOU GET YOUR PER DIEM.

IT IS YOUR PER DIEM THAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO USE YOUR OWN

MONEY. >> ALL FOOD EXPENSES IN TOWN EXPENSES THAT IS WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, THAT TAXPAYERS SHOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR PEOPLE'S LUNCHES IF THEY CAN GO BUY THEIR OWN LUNCH OR UNLESS THEY'RE FORCED INTO STAYING -- IF THEY HAVE TO BE IN A MEETING FOR EIGHT HOURS, AND THEY DON'T GET TO HAVE A LUNCH. THAT IS FINE.

EXCEPT US. THE COURT: I DON'T GET TO GO TO

THE BATHROOM AND EAT. >> I'VE HAD TO GO TOO.

SO THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING, I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE FOOD EXPENDITURES PERIOD BEING A TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

I REALLY DO. I DON'T THINK THAT IS NECESSARY. SO MY STARTING POINT, YOU'RE RIGHT. IF YOU GO OUT OF TOWN, YOU PAY IT ON YOUR OWN CREDIT CARD AND YOU GET YOUR REIMBURSEMENT FOR PER DIEM. EASY THING IS ALL FOOD PURCHASES DON'T GO ON THE P-CARD.

>> I WILL TELL YOU, I NEED TO HAVE THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS ARTICULATE IT. BUT IF YOU DO THAT BLANKET, FIRST OF ALL, HERE IS THE PROCESS, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE. WE CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION, BUT ULTIMATELY, BY STATUTE, THE PURCHASING BOARD, I KNOW YOU SAID NO. THAT IS WHERE JUDGE HASSETT IS HERE TO PROVIDE US CLARITY. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE PURCHASING BOARD IS THE BOARD THAT MAKES THESE ULTIMATE DECISIONS PER STATUTE. WE COULD HAVE THEM TALK TO COUNTY ATTORNEY ABOUT WHAT THE DISTINCTIONS ARE.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DENY LET'S JUST TAKE JUVENILE, THE ABILITY TO USE THE DOLLARS THEY GET WITH GRANTS, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT. BUT IT'S GOT TO BE CAREFULLY WORDED AND CRAFTED. AND LET ME EXPLAIN, BECAUSE THIS IS DEFINITELY CAME UP IN THE LAST FISCAL YEAR, LAST TWO FISCAL YEARS, FEMA, FOR EXAMPLE, DURING A CRISIS, ALLOWS FOR FOOD. WHY? WELL, BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF THE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE IS THAT FOOD IS AN ELIGIBLE EXPENSE. SO IT'S JUST IMPORTANT FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO SAY ON THE RECORD THAT THAT WHICH IS ALLOWED BY LAW CANNOT BE OVERRUN BY A POLICY.

LAW COMES FIRST. TEXAS LAW AND OUR FEDERAL LAWS COME FIRST. SO YOU CAN'T REWRITE THAT.

I DON'T THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO. BUT SOMETIMES IT DOES GET WORRISOME, I THINK FOR OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS, WHO ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW. AND THE GUIDELINES OF WHATEVER MONEYS THEY'RE GIVEN AND FOR US TO SAY, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

BECAUSE WE HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCE.

WHAT WE NEED TO BE WORRIED ABOUT IS IT BEING USED PROPERLY. IS IT ELIGIBLE.

AND WHAT WAS THE NEED. AND THAT IS WHERE YOUR AUDITOR AND OUR OUTSIDE AUDITOR MIND YOU, CONFIRMS. WE HAVEN'T HAD A PROBLEM. I DON'T LIKE INVENTING PROBLEMS WHERE ONE DOESN'T OCCUR. BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT.

BECAUSE I MIGHT AGREE WITH IT >> MAYBE THAT IS WHERE WE SHOULD START AND LIKE MAYBE THE MOTION SHOULD BE THAT WE CONSIDER LOOKING AT NO FOOD PURCHASES SHOULD BE PAID BY A P-CARD. BRING THAT BACK NEXT TIME.

TELL ME WHY I'M WRONG ON THAT. JUST BECAUSE IT'S ALLOWABLE DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NECESSARILY THAT I LIKE IT.

OR THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT.

THE COURT: EXACTLY. I JUST DON'T WANT OUR KIDS TO NOT HAVE SMACKS. EDWARD IS COMING UP WHICH MAKES ME THINK HE USES THE P-CARD FOR OUR SENIOR CENTERS.

>> WE DO MEAL PURCHASES. >> I'M TALKING EMPLOYEE FOOD.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT. PLEASE.

>> BUT TO ANSWER THE JUDGE'S QUESTION, WE USE THE P-CARD WHEN WE DON'T HAVE XY OR Z. SO IF WE'VE ONLY GOT TEN LOADS

OF BREAD AND NEED 20. >> THAT IS FOR A PROGRAM.

>> THAT IS DIFFERENT. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE CATEGORY THAT WE HAVE TO WORK FOR, IT ELIMINATES THAT.

>> I'M SAYING EMPLOYEE MEALS. >> YOU HAVE TO ELIMINATE A

CATEGORY FROM THE P-CARD. >> BUT YOU CAN ELIMINATE EMPLOYEE MEALS. CATEGORY.

>> CATEGORY TYPE OF EXPENSE. PUT ON THIS, WHEN YOU GO IN THE P-CARD, YOU TELL THEM WHAT KIND OF COMMODITY THAT YOU ALLOW.

COMMODITY WHICH IS BREAD OR WHATEVER, EDWARD MIGHT BE PURCHASING, MAY ALSO INCLUDE THE MEALS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE COURT: HOW ABOUT THIS? >> ALL I'M TALKING ABOUT TODAY,

[02:55:03]

IF I WASN'T CLEAR BEFORE, I THOUGHT I WAS.

>> WE CAN SAY FOR EXAMPLE, EDWARD USES THAT YOUR SENIOR 1490. WE CAN SAY THIS DEPARTMENTS, NOBODY ELSE IS. IF YOU'RE NOT ON THIS DEPARTMENT, YOU CANNOT DO IT. THE COURT: EVEN WHEN EMERGENCIES HAVE OCCURRED, WE HAVE SOUGHT PERMISSION BEFORE WE GO AND PROCURE. I THINK THAT THE CONCERN I HAVE COMMISSIONER, CHESNEY ISN'T THAT YOU'RE NOT RIGHT IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY. IT'S THAT IN THE PRACTICALITY OF IT, IT SEEKS TO PUNISH THAT WHICH IS NOT JUST ALLOWED, BUT IS NECESSARY TO TAKE CARE OF EITHER PEOPLE OR CRISIS.

AND AS LONG AS WE'RE CLEAR, AND IF YOU WANT TO STRENGTHEN IT, WHY DON'T YOU WORK ON SOMETHING WITH DALE AND BRING IT BACK TO COURT AS A RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN THAT RECOMMENDATION WOULD THEN GO TO THE PURCHASING BOARD.

>> I JUST WANTED INPUT FROM THE REST OF THE COURT TOO.

THAT IS WHY I PUT IT ON HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, THEY MAY NOT HAVE ANY OTHER PROBLEMS WITH

THE P-CARDS. >> MICHAEL AND I CAN WORK TOGETHER ON BRINGING A LIST OF DEPARTMENTS THAT WOULD BE AN EXPENSE. BEING ALLOWED THIS AND NO OTHER DEPARTMENT WITHIN THOSE BE ALLOWED.

>> AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE GET TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

BUT WE'LL WORK WITH EVERYBODY. YEAH.

ON PURCHASING ON THAT. THE COURT: AGAIN, THE IDEA HERE IS NOT TO PUNISH. IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED IN LAW OR STATUTE, PLEASE BRING IT TO OUR ATTENTION. BUT EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE HAS BEEN FOLLOWED ACCORDING TO GASBY PRACTICES, PURCHASING AND PROCUREMENT ACT, AS WELL AS FEMA.

I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO LIMIT HERE.

BUT IF YOU CAN HELP IDENTIFY IT WITH PURCHASING AND THROW IT TO COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE PURCHASING BOARD, I'M ALL FOR IT. I JUST DON'T SEE -- I MEAN, I DON'T SEE WHERE WE HAVE AN ISSUE.

>> DO YOU REMEMBER HOW MUCH WE SPENT ON EMPLOYEE MEALS LAST

YEAR? >> NOT OFFHAND, NO, SIR.

IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COVID STUFF, 20, $30,000 MAYBE.

>> SO IT SHOULDN'T BE, I DIDN'T MEAN FOR IT TO BE THIS LONG OF A DISCUSSION, IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LOT. BUT I THINK THE PERCEPTION THAT I HAVE AND THAT I GET FROM OTHER PEOPLE TOO IS WE SHOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR MEALS. THAT IS ALL I WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS. I THINK THAT SHOULD BE SIMPLE TO DO. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EDWARDS PROGRAMS FOR FOOD FOR PEOPLE.

LET ME REITERATE THAT. SO SOMEBODY DOESN'T MISINTERPRET THAT. WE DON'T DO EMPLOYEE MEALS AND GOING DOWN THE ROAD. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS THAT

DIFFICULT. >> MY CONCERN WAS WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH THE P-CARDS, THE LIST YOU GAVE ME.

I WOULD SEE THINGS LIKE PURCHASING SNACKS 200 SOME ODD DOLLARS FOR SNACKS. THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WERE BUYING THEM, FOR WHO, THE PUBLIC OR WHAT. THAT IS WHAT I READ AND SAW ON THAT SHEET THAT YOU GAVE ME, THAT LIST.

>> MICHAEL IS HERE, HE CAN AGREE WITH WHAT I'M SAYING.

NORMALLY WHEN THEY DO INVENTORY, IT'S ONE OR TWO DAY INVENTORY. THEY'RE HERE ALL DAY LONG.

ONLY TIME THEY BUY A SNACK FOR THE DEPARTMENT.

>> I WORKED THERE. ALSO WOULD GET US LUNCH.

THIS WAS HUB. >> INVENTORY.

>> 200 SOMETHING DOLLARS. THE COURT: WELL, PLEASE CALL THEM AND ASK THEM. WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN CONTEXT, IT DOESN'T EVER LOOK LIKE.

YOU'VE GOT TO KNOW WHAT THE BACK-UP JUSTIFICATION IS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SOMETHING WONDERFUL OR SOMETHING NEFARIOUS. BUT I THINK THE IDEA HERE IS THAT THERE ARE MANY INSTANCES, THERE ARE PLENTY OF SAFEGUARDS THAT BOTH REQUIRE OUR P-CARDS TO BE USED.

WHY? NUMBER ONE, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY DOCUMENTS IT BETTER THAN ANY OTHER WAY.

YOU LITERALLY HAVE A CREDIT CARD STATEMENT THAT DOCUMENTS EVERYTHING. INCLUDING WHO PURCHASED IT.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT RECORD. AND IF IT'S NOT ALLOWABLE, THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, ALONG WITH OUR OUTSIDE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, ALONG WITH THE DEPARTMENT HEAD AND THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT ARE FOUR DIFFERENT LAYERS OF MAKING SURE THAT IT'S DONE RIGHT. BUT IF THERE IS ANY CONCERN, WE NEED TO ADDRESS, I MEAN, LET'S ADDRESS IT.

[03:00:03]

BUT SAYING I SAW SOMETHING ON A BILL WITHOUT CONTEXT OF WHAT THAT IS, COULD MEAN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOMER NOT BUYING YOU KNOW, THE NOURISHMENT AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THEY DO GET AFTERNOON SNACKS IN DETENTION.

AND NOT. AND SO I JUST DON'T WANT US TO CREATE OR INVENT A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST.

BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU KNOW WE'RE BEING VIGILANT.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW BACK THEN THAT THEY WERE GETTING A GRANT FROM THE STATE. SO THAT IS WHY I ASKED.

BUT PURCHASING DEPARTMENT DID CONCERN ME THAT THEY WERE GETTING 200 SOME ODD DOLLARS IN SNACKS FROM HUB.

THE COURT: AGAIN, WHEN YOU SAY IT LIKE THAT, IT SOUNDS TERRIBLE. BUT IF YOU CAN SAY HEY, ON 5-1-21, YOU PURCHASED THIS, MICHAEL, WHAT WAS THAT FOR? I HAVE THE BACK-UP DOCUMENTATION.

IT MIGHT BE INCREDIBLY NORMAL. BUT WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE FACTS.

>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT LIKE COMMISSIONER CHESNEY SAID, BY THE TIME WE LOOKED AT ANYTHING LIKE THAT THEY'VE BEEN PROCESSED. THE COURT: BY THE TIME WE LOOKED AT IT, AUDITOR'S OFFICE ARE OUR CHECKS AND BALANCES.

INDEPENDENT GROUP THAT WE TRUST.

IF YOU CAN'T TRUST THE AUDITORS, WE'RE IN BIG PROBLEMS. THEY'RE THE ONES CHECKING FOR US. OKAY.

WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR MOTION OR WHAT DO YOU

THINK? >> I WAS GOING TO SAY TO BRING -- I THINK DALE HAD THE RIGHT SUGGESTION.

MOVE AT THE NEXT MEETING DALE BRINGS BACK A SUGGESTION BASED ON THE INPUT RECEIVED FROM THE COURT TODAY.

THE COURT: FAIR ENOUGH. WE'LL MOVE ON THEN.

COMMISSIONER, YOU HAD ASKED TO SPEAK.

>> I KNOW WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE NUECES COUNTY WATER CONTROL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER THREE HERE. MAYBE WE CAN MOVE THEM UP ON THE AGENDA. I KNOW THEY'RE BUSY.

PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE, I THINK WE SHOULD HONOR THEM FIRST.

THE COURT: I'M HAPPY TO EXTEND THE COURTESY TO YOU,

[19. Discuss and consider use of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to support Nueces County Water Control & Improvement District # 3 Booster Pump Station Project in the amount of $1,000,000 (or other amount).]

COMMISSIONER. >> ITEM 19 UNDER REGULAR AGENDA. THE COURT: ADVANCE IT OUT OF COURTESY HERE FOR ANOTHER POLITICAL JURISDICTION.

THAT IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS TO SUPPORT THE NUECES COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 3 BOOSTER PUMP STATION PROJECT AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ, I WILL LET YOU INTRODUCE AND ALSO WATER

DISTRICT NUMBER THREE IS HERE. >> YES, JUDGE.

THANK YOU. THIS HAS BEEN ONE REQUEST THAT WE'VE HAD HERE BROUGHT TO US IN THE PAST.

THIS IS TO HELP SUPPORT A BOOSTER PUMP STATIONS.

THIS IS A PROJECT WHOSE OFFICES ARE HOUSED IN PRECINCT THREE IN ROBSTOWN, BUT ACTUALLY SERVICE RESIDENTS IN PRECINCT THREE FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND PRECINCT ONE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF REQUESTS, ESPECIALLY DEALING WITH THE GROWTH IN THE NORTHWEST PART OF OUR COUNTY, OF OUR COMMUNITY AND ALSO INTO THE PRECINCT THREE AREA.

SO JUDGE, I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT.

I THINK THEIR INITIAL ASK WAS A LOT MORE AND HAVE REALLY KIND OF PUT THE PAPER AND PEN TOGETHER AND KIND OF WORKED DOWN TO A SMALLER AMOUNT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BRIEF, THEY'RE OVERLOOKED, AS MANY ENTITIES ARE.

BECAUSE THE WAY THE FEDERAL FUNDING HAS BEEN RELEASED, IT'S GONE TO CITIES OR COUNTIES. THEY ARE THEIR OWN POLITICAL SUBDIVISION. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE A CATEGORY THEMSELVES. SO THAT IS WHY THEY'VE COME BEFORE US TO SEEK THIS ASSISTANCE.

THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING THAT WE CAN HANDLE SINCE OBVIOUSLY COUNTIES DON'T HANDLE WATER DIRECTLY.

BUT WE WORK WITH OUR WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS. SO I FEEL THAT THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT TO FUND. IT'S VERY REASONABLE IN ITS PRICING AND SCOPE. MY MOTION WOULD BE TO ACCEPT THIS ITEM FOR ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO BE ALLOCATED.

>> SECOND. THE COURT: OKAY.

MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

>> YOUR HONOR, ONE ISSUE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM BECAUSE THIS IS AN OUTSIDE ENTITY TO THE COUNTY, THERE IS A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS THAT THE TREASURY REQUIRES THEY HAVE TO GET THE SIM NUMBER, WE NEED TO DO A PROJECT CODE VERIFICATION.

WE'LL NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DOCUMENT ALL OF THE EXPENSES TO

[03:05:01]

BE ALLOCATED AND STUFF. THERE ARE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS TO DO THIS. THE COURT: I AGREE.

WHAT I'M CONSIDERING AS BEING THE SMART THING HERE TO DO, ALL OF THESE GREAT PROJECTS THAT WILL BE HANDLED TODAY, PLEASE KNOW, I'M GOING TO LOOK TO IDAY, BUT WE'LL NEED TO BRING IT BACK FOR MOUS AND ALL OF THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION.

TODAY IS THE ADJUSTMENT OF WE'RE MAKING PRIORITIES.

TOMORROW, AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN WORK, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR TEAM, WE ACTUALLY DOCUMENT HOW THE COMPLIANCE WILL BE HANDLED, HOW THE AGREEMENT WILL BE DONE. ALL THE THINGS THAT DALE WAS SAYING. AND I THINK WE'RE MINDFUL OF IT. BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COURT AND PUBLIC TO. IF JULY 27TH IS TOO SOON, WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE. COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, GO AHEAD.

>> MY QUESTIONS ON THIS WERE THE COST OF THE PROJECT IS 4.3.

AND SO WE'RE COMMITTING A MILLION.

IS THE REST OF IT FUNDED? THE COURT: GOOD POINT.

>> WE HAVE CURRENTLY USED ABOUT 1.5, 1.7 MILLION OUT OF OUR OWN BUDGET. SO WE DO HAVE SOME OF THE PROJECT FUNDED. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL 4.3 THAT WAS LAST YEAR'S NUMBERS. BUT WE ARE LACKING A FEW THINGS TO GET THIS SKELETON GOING. NOW, AS TIME GOES ON, WE WILL USE BUDGETED MONEY JUST TO FINISH OFF THIS PROJECT.

AGAIN, WE HAD RAISED RATES. SO WE DO HAVE SOME MONIES COMING IN THAT IS GOING TO FINISH OFF THIS PROJECT ALONG WITH COUNTY MONIES. THE COURT: ONE THING TO BRING UP IS THAT THEY PROVIDE WATER COMMISSIONER.

>> I'M SUPPORTING THIS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT CAN BE FINISHED AND THE MONEY DOESN'T SIT THERE.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TO USE IT BY 2026 I THINK.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE -- THAT IT CAN HELP COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND NOT JUST -- YOU KNOW, THAT IS ALL I WANT TO MAKE SURE. MAYBE THE MOU WILL DEAL WITH THAT OR I DON'T KNOW IF PUBLIC WORKS WANTS TO BE -- IF PUBLIC WORKS WANTS TO BE INVOLVED AND HELP ADMINISTER IT.

I DON'T KNOW. I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT CAN HELP GET YOU TO THE FINISH LINE. THE COURT: IF THAT IS A MOTION

FOR MORE MONEY, HE WANTS IT. >> ABSOLUTELY.

WE'LL TAKE WHATEVER WE CAN GET AT THIS POINT.

THE COURT: IT DOES SOUND LIKE THROUGH YOUR BUDGETED REVENUES, YOU CAN COMPLETE THE PROJECT OVER TIME.

MAYBE FOR LATER, IT DOVE TAILS NICELY INTO THE QUESTION OF HOW CAN YOU FINISH. I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS MAYBE WILL SEEK NUECES COUNTY HELP. WATER IS SUCH A PRECIOUS RESOURCE. PERHAPS IN FUTURE FUNDING, WHETHER IT'S CBD MITIGATION, WHATEVER YOUR FUTURE FUNDING MIGHT LOOK LIKE THAT YOU'LL LET US SUPPORT YOU IN THAT LETTER OF SUPPORT. I MEAN, THERE ARE MANY WAYS RIGHT TO GET THE FINISHED FUNDING.

>> WE WILL BE SEEKING PARTNERSHIP THROUGH APPLICATIONS, AS YOU KNOW, SEVERAL ENTITIES TOGETHER CAN DO WONDERS VERSUS ONE. WE WILL BE SEEKING THAT.

THE COURT: YES. GOOD POINT.

SO I GUESS THAT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW.

BUT YOUR ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS THREE AND A HALF MILLION AND THIS REQUEST OF A MILLION ISN'T THAT.

BUT AS COMMISSIONER CHESNEY SAYS, YOU DO HAVE A WAY TO SEE

-- THIS IS A BIG HELP TO YOU. >> WE DO HAVE A PLAN AND WE HAVE AN ACCOUNT SET UP ALREADY. WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH SEVERAL GRANTS THAT REQUIRE THAT.

SO WE ARE THERE. THE COURT: COMMISSIONER, WE DID NOT -- WE VOTED WHILE YOU WERE OUT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL THE CLERK?

I VOTED >> I VOTED YES.

>> THANKS. >> IS THIS WASTE WATER, IS THIS ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE SAW AT THE --

>> NO. IT WAS NOT PART OF OUR TIER ONE CATEGORY.

THANK YOU FOR RESCUING US DURING WINTER STORM, THIS WEEKEND. THEY ARE ALWAYS COMING TO THE RESCUE, WHICH IS WHY THIS BOOSTER STATION IS SO CRITICAL

FOR OUR FUTURE. >> WATER DISTRICT THREE ALSO IS UNIQUE IN THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO WATER THAT ONLY THE CITY CORPUS CHRISTI DOES AS WELL. THAT MAKES THEM A UNIQUE WATER

[03:10:06]

SOURCE. PROTECTED AND INSULATED THEM.

THE REGIONAL SUPPLIER, THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI IS, WATER DISTRICT THREE HAS BEEN FINE. 2017, WHEN I FIRST CAME ON TO COURT, I WOULD GO TO ROBSTOWN TO EAT AND DO EVERYTHING ELSE.

WE HAD TWO SIGNIFICANT WATER BOILS HERE IN CORPUS CHRISTI.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INDEPENDENCE THAT WATER DISTRICT THREE ALSO HAS IS IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THAT ACCESS DIRECTLY TO NUECES WATER.

WE APPRECIATE ALL THEY DO. THEY'RE GREAT SUPPORTERS.

OF COURSE, JUDGE BOBBY AS WELL. BOBBY GONZALEZ WHO IS A BIG SUPPORTER OF THE COMMUNITY IN THE ROBSTOWN AREA.

ARDENT ADVOCATE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. LOUIS, I PROMISE I HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN YOU HERE. WE'RE GOING TO -- YES, SIR.

COMMISSIONER, WOULD YOU MAKE THE REQUEST.

I'M GOING TO FORGIVE ME. IT'S A SECOND ITEM FOR

[15. Discuss and consider birth and death certificate fees pursuant to Texas Health & Safety Code section 191.0045.]

COMMISSIONER MAREZ. ITEM 15, THE BIRTH AND DEATH CERTIFICATES PURSUANT TO TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.

THESE HAVE TO DO WITH THE FEES, MAYBE AS THEY SAY A REALIGNMENT FOR 2022. COMMISSIONER MAREZ ASKED SO THAT WE COULD GET THE JUDGE BACK TO HIS COURT.

15. IT'S BIRTH AND DEATH CERTIFICATE FEES. APPARENTLY WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT FEE. JUDGE.

>> YES, THANK YOU, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS JUDGE BOBBY GONZALEZ, 447 SOUTH 9TH.

I AM A MEMBER OF THE NEW BOARD OF DIRECTOR FOR JUSTICE OF THE PEACE CONSTABLE ASSOCIATION. BUT TODAY I'M HERE BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO JPS IN NUECES COUNTY THAT DEAL WITH DEATH CERTIFICATES AND BIRTH CERTIFICATES.

MYSELF AND JUDGE BISHOP. WE KNOW THAT THE COUNTY CLERK DEALS WITH MOST OF THE CERTIFICATES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CORPUS CHRISTI. BUT IN THE RURAL AREA, SOMETIMES DEATHS HAPPEN OUT THERE.

WE'RE IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION FOR THE FAMILY MEMBERS OR HEIRS TO THE FAMILY.

SO THE STATE HAS CHANGED THE PRICE FEES OF COLLECTIONS ON THOSE BIRTH AND DEATH CERTIFICATES.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, ON THE HSC 19.017, $23 FOR BIRTH, 21 FOR DEATH. WE AS JUDGES CAN'T INCREASE THE FEE. SO WE NEEDED THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT MOTION TO BE ABLE TO PROCEED FORWARD AND COLLECT THAT NEW FEE AS STATED BY THE VITAL STATISTICS ORGANIZATION.

>> SO MOVED >> SECOND

>> MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

THANK YOU, JUDGE. >> THANK YOU.

THE COURT: THANK YOU. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW, KNOWING THAT THE SECOND ITEM COMMISSIONER, WOULD BE JUST A FIVE MINUTE, CAN WE TAKE A BATHROOM BREAK FOR THE NEXT FIVE MINUTES. YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING ELSE?

>> WE'RE MISSING THE VOTE FOR AGENDA 385.

THE COURT: ONE SECOND. LET ME JUST CHECK.

IT WAS REALLY JUST A DIRECTIVE TO DALE TO BRING BACK.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. THE COURT: WHAT DOES SHE NEED A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. SO I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST, YOU KNOW, IT'S SEVEN MINUTES UNTIL NOON.

COME BACK AT NOON. THE COURT: I HAVE BEEN ASKED, I

[03:15:16]

AGREE, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET HIM BACK TO THE CITY.

AND I WAS LOOKING FOR THE RIGHT NUMBER.

GIVE ME JUST ONE SECOND. OKAY.

SECTIONS ON THE REGULAR AGENDA 8 AND 9 ARE IMPORTANT FOR US.

FROM A TIMELINESS. I DO NEED IDAY IN HERE FOR

[8. Discuss and consider adopting annual payment agreement amount – including request by City to increase budget based on Consumer Price Index (CPI) – for the 2022-23 fiscal year between Nueces County and the City of Corpus Christi pursuant to Section 4 of the Amended Cooperative Agreement for City-Operated Corpus Christi-Nueces County Public Health District and related matters.]

THESE. I'LL READ THEM OUT SO WE CAN GET IT ON THE RECORD. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ADOPTING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT AGREEMENT AMOUNT, INCLUDING THE REQUEST THE CITY TO INCREASE THE BUDGET BASED ON THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX, BETWEEN NUECES COUNTY AND CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, PURSUANT TO SECTION 4. DR. DANTE, WE'LL SLOW ROLL IT, BUT SHE WORKED WITH YOU IN GETTING THE CPI ADJUSTMENTS.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR US? WE HAVE IT IN OUR BACK-UP.

WHAT ARE WE INCREASING THE BUDGET TO AS A RESULT OF

GETTING THE CPI? >>

>> SO RIGHT NOW WE'VE HAD THE INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH IDAY REPRESENTING. AND YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT THE BUDGET. WE'VE ONLY BEEN 3 MONTHS INTO THIS NEW AGREEMENT. SO YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE DATA TO SPECIFICALLY BRING THE NUMBERS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT CARRYING OVER THE SAME BUDGET THAT WE HAD

LAST YEAR, BUT ADDING THE CPI. >> WHAT IS YOUR INDEX, TWO OR

THREE? >> RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THE INDEX, YOU KNOW, COST OF EVERYTHING HAS GONE PRETTY

SIGNIFICANTLY UP. >> RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THE AGREEMENT. WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS EXPECTED TO BE FOR THE AGREEMENT.

THE COURT: ARE YOU LOOKING FOR US TO HAVE A MOTION AND WE CAN

GET THE AGREEMENTS DONE. >> NO. RIGHT NOW WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD THING. OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY WENT OVER TO THE CITY, THEY DON'T DO LONGEVITY, LIKE WE DO LONGEVITY. SO THESE INDEXES ARE IMPORTANT TO HELP THE EMPLOYEES, IS THAT CORRECT? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT PARTICULAR -- IT WOULD BE THE SAME AMOUNT PLUS THE CPI.

ANYBODY? ANY QUESTIONS FOR DANTE?

>> ONCE WE HAVE THE PROPOSAL, I'M GOING TO SHARE WITH THE COURT. BE READY FOR THAT ON THE 27TH.

>> PPI COULD BE TWO TO THREE PERCENT.

>> IT COULD BE. IT DEPENDS ON THE NUMBER ON THE

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. >> WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT IS CURRENTLY PUBLISHED. CPI IS CURRENTLY PUBLISHED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. THERE IS A CPI THAT THEY HAVE ON THERE. WE CAN USE THE CPI THAT IS

CURRENTLY PUBLISHED. >> THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE THE BACK-UP. EXACTLY THE SAME BUDGET, PLUS CPI. THAT IS WHAT THEY REQUESTED THE COURT: THE SCARY PART IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT IT TODAY, IT'S INCREASED QUITE A BIT AND YOU'RE JUST GOING TO BRING IT BACK AND SEE. AND JUST SO WE KNOW, SINCE IT'S JUST DISCUSSION ONLY, HOW ARE Y'ALL DOING ON YOUR VACANCIES? WHEN WE LEFT YOU IN MARCH, THERE WAS LIKE A COUPLE.

BUT HAVE YOU ALL FILLED ALL OF YOUR VACANCIES FROM THOSE COUNTY BUDGETED, REMEMBER THERE WAS COUNTY BUDGET EMPLOYEES?

HAVE YOU FILLED THEM ALL? >> WE HAVE FILLED A LOT OF THE POSITIONS ALREADY. WE WERE WAITING ON SOME OF THE GRANTS CARRIED OVER FROM THE COUNTY AND MOVING INTO THE CITY. AND AS WE'RE DOING THAT, IT'S A CITY POSITION. WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH ALL OF THE VACANCIES. I STARTED BACK AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ON 21ST. THE COURT: YOU LEFT PARKS AND REC AND CAME BACK AND WE STILL DO NOT HAVE A PERMANENT HEALTH

DIRECTOR, CORRECT? >> NOT YET.

THE COURT: BUT YOU ARE A REAL ASSISTANT HEALTH DIRECTOR.

>> I AM THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. THE COURT: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR.

AND DR. O, IS SHE UNDER YOU IN THE ORG CHART?

>> SHE CURRENTLY WORKS AS THE PHYSICIAN FOR THE HEALTH

[03:20:01]

DEPARTMENT. CLINICAL DIRECTOR. SO SHE ACTS IN THAT CAPACITY FOR THE CLINICS. BUT NOT THE THE COURT: I GUESS SINCE WE'RE NOT -- IT DOES SAY IDAY TO CONSIDER ADOPTING THE ANNUAL PAYMENT AGREEMENT.

BUT DO YOU WANT US TO NOT DO THAT TODAY?

>> YEAH. RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST DISCUSSION.

UNTIL WE HAVE THE FORMAL AGREEMENT.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO WE'LL PASS ON THAT AS JUST DISCUSSION. CAN WE GO TO ITEM NUMBER 9 THEN. WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING SHE

SAYS ON ITEM NUMBER 8 >> WE CAN TABLE UNTIL THE 27TH

>> MOTION TO TABLE. THE COURT: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. 8 ONLY.

[9. Discuss and consider approving use of 1115 Waiver funds for the 2022-23 fiscal year between Nueces County and the City of Corpus Christi pursuant to Section 4 of the Amended Cooperative Agreement for City-Operated Corpus Christi-Nueces County Public Health District and related matters.]

>> HE IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT 9 THE COURT: I GUESS 9 WILL BE A PART OF THE AGREEMENT AS WELL. SO IT'S DISCUSSION OF THE 1115 WAIVER FUNDS PURSUANT TO SECTION 4, AND TELL US ABOUT I GUESS IT'S KIND OF SELF-EXPLANATORY.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ABOUT IT?

>> GOING TO BE BASICALLY THE SAME THING, JUDGE.

IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE ARE WITH IDAY, WE'RE TAKING BOTH BUDGETS AND PROVIDING THE CPI FOR BOTH OF THE BUDGETS.

SO IT WOULD BE ROLLING OVER THE SAME BUDGET, BUT WITH THE CPI.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, WHATEVER NUMBER OF PEOPLE 1115 PAID FOR, THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE INCREASED FROM THE CPI?

>> RIGHT. >> REPEAT THAT AGAIN.

>> I HAVE A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.

I'M SORRY. >> I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE I CAN GET CLOSER. I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO CLOSE TO IT. BUT YES.

THE SAME THING WITH 1115 WAIVER BUDGET, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS CARRYING OVER THE SAME BUDGET, BUT INCLUDE THE CPI.

CPI WOULD INCLUDE IT FOR EVERYTHING.

RIGHT NOW FOR SALARIES, OPERATIONAL COST.

IT WOULD BE FOR THE WHOLE BUDGET.

NOT JUST FOR ONE PORTION OF IT THE COURT: ONE OF THE THINGS I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, WE SEEK REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT. HAVE YOU MET WITH THEM? I THINK YOU HAVE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CPI, IT'S PROBABLY NOT A HARD SELL, GIVEN THE INFLATIONARY INDEX TODAY. BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE OPERATIONAL COST AS WELL, IF I WERE THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT, I WOULD WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT CONVERSATION.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT INFLATIONARY COSTS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HUGE PERCENTAGES.

THAT MAY OR MAY NOT ACTUALLY TRANSLATE TO OUR OPERATIONAL COSTS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN MAYBE MAKE THAT OBSERVATION TO PEOPLE'S LIVES AS THEY WORK, BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR THE OPERATIONS.

I MEAN, UNLESS YOU'RE BUYING NEW EQUIPMENT.

I FAIL TO SEE HOW THE CPI WOULD REALLY -- I THINK THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT HAS THE FINAL SAY. THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

>> THAT IS THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT.

AND YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO BRING THEM TO THE TABLE.

WE HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH JOHN WITH REGARDS TO OTHER ITEMS AND DISCUSSIONS. HIS DIRECTION THAT HE HAS GIVEN US IS THAT HE IS NOT MOVING FORWARD UNLESS THE COUNTY APPROVES IT. SO I THINK HE IS WAITING ON APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY. I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE THE SAME REASONING BEHIND THAT. THE COURT: WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. YOU HAVE TO SHOW ME WHAT YOU THINK THE CPI WOULD EFFECT ON OPERATION MAINTENANCE FOR THE PURCHASES OF CONSUMER GOODS. THAT IS WHAT CPI MEANS.

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. WHAT ABOUT YOUR RESOURCES ARE CONSUMER BASED THAT WOULD REQUIRE CPI FOR THAT? THAT DOESN'T TRANSLATE TO ME. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THERE COULD BE GLOVES, SWABS, THOSE ARE TYPES OF ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE TO PROCURE. THAT COULD BE PART OF YOUR O&M THAT I COULD BE PERSUADED. BUT I HOPE THAT THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT IS LISTENING. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY LISTENING ONLINE. BUT MAYBE THEY'RE OUT THERE IN TV LAND, THAT THEY NEED TO PAY ATTENTION HERE.

BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BLANKET A CPI FOR EVERYTHING ACROSS THE BOARD. BECAUSE IT COULD BE 30 PERCENT.

I MEAN, WE HAVE TO BE THOUGHTFUL

>> WE'RE NOT PROVING THAT TODAY.

WE TABLED. THE COURT: JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF SOMEONE IS WATCHING. YOU'RE WITH ME HERE?

>> I'M WITH YOU. I WANT TO LOOK AT THE BUDGET INTE INTENSELY.

I JUST WANTED TO HEAR WHAT HE IS SAYING AND GO FROM THERE.

>> JUST FOR YOUR COMMENT, JUDGE, WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE

[03:25:05]

IN MEDICAL SUPPLIES. RIGHT NOW THEY'RE A HUGE COMMODITY OBVIOUSLY. ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE USE THERE.

WE LOOK AT PATIENTS THAT HAVE DIABETES CARTRIDGES THAT HAVE AN INCREASE IN PRICE. AND SEVERAL OTHER COMPONENTS.

SO AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IT'S NOT ONLY PEOPLE, NOT ONLY ON THE SALARY COMPONENT, BUT ON THE OPERATIONAL SIDE AND THERE IS GOING TO BE AN INCREASE. WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETIMES SIX TO 12 WEEKS BEFORE WE GET AN ITEM IN.

SOMETIMES THE COMPANIES THAT HAVE THE ITEMS HAPPEN TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE OF AN UPCHARGE. AND WE LOOK AT THAT.

WE HAVE PROCUREMENT POLICIES. SO WE HAVE TO GET QUOTES.

THE COURT: LISTEN, I'M WITH YOU.

I LOVE TO SEE THE JUSTIFICATION.

AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, GET YOU EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS NEED BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO NEED IT COME FALL.

THEY WERE JUST A LITTLE OFF, WEREN'T THEY? THEY SAID WE WERE GOING TO SURGE IN APRIL, MAY.

AND THEY WERE JUST 30 DAYS OFF. BUT THEY ARE SO DARN ACCURATE.

THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS REALLY HOPEFULLY, IT IS DEFINITELY AFFECTING A BUDGET. AND I'VE ASKED THE QUESTION MANY TIMES AND GOTTEN ZERO ANSWER.

BUT NOW THAT YOU'RE HERE BEFORE ME, I'LL TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE.

I WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WAS FOLLOWING ANY OF THE FEMA PUBLIC ASSISTANCE DOLLARS AND WHETHER THAT WAS YOU KNOW, ALLOWED.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, PUBLIC HEALTH NORMAL DOES CRISIS, INCLUDING VIRUSES. BUT WHAT I DIDN'T KNOW IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU GUYS HAD OPENED ANY WHAT THEY CALL PROJECT WORKSHEETS. SO THAT WE COULD AVAIL OURSELVES OF THE 90-10 FOR THE 100 PERCENT, THE DEADLINE WAS JULY 1ST. I KEPT ASKING AND ASKING AND ASKING. WE'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS ANYMORE, I DON'T HAVE VISUALIZATION OF THAT. WHEN WE WERE WORKING TOGETHER, ON OPERATIONS, WE, THE COUNTY, AND AS OF JUST YESTERDAY, NO, WHENEVER IT WAS, YEAH, TUESDAY, WE GOT NOTIFIED THAT WE'RE APPROVED THROUGH APRIL. ALL OF OUR COSTS THROUGH APRIL, 100 PERCENT COVERED FOR VACCINATIONS.

I WAS WONDERING IF Y'ALL'S WERE THE SAME.

IF YOU ALL ARE MISSING OUT ON DOLLARS, I DON'T THINK WE THE COUNTY, SHOULD QUITE FRANKLY HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR GETTING THE DOLLARS OUT THERE FOR FREE. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE.

THEY'RE DOLLARS TO DO OUR JOB. YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE ANSWER, BUT AT LEAST YOU CAN HELP ME BY TAKING THAT BACK.

I TRIED TO NO AVAIL WITH YOUR SUPERIORS TO GET THAT ANSWER.

IT'S NOT HARD, YES OR NO. YES, WE HAVE A PROJECT WORKSHEET OR NO, WE DON'T. I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

BECAUSE WE WERE ALLOWED REASONABLE QUESTIONS. AND THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNTY, WHEN WE GIVE YOU THIS BUDGET, PLUS CPI, THAT WE KNOW THAT IT'S BEING STRETCHED. ANYWAY, I'M GLAD YOU'RE BACK.

I ALWAYS THOUGHT YOU SHOULD HAVE NEVER GONE.

I'M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU BACK WHERE YOU BELONG.

YOU'RE AN EPIDEMIOLOGIST OF THE VERY BEST QUALIFICATIONS.

AND WE NEED YOU IN PUBLIC HEALTH.

AND I'M GLAD YOU'RE THERE. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE.

WE'LL GET THE ANSWERS THAT YOU'RE SEEKING.

I'LL ASK AND THEN I'LL SEE HOW WE CAN BRING THEM BACK.

WHAT I DO LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF GRANT FUNDING AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF FEMA FUNDS.

WE DID APPLY TO THEM. THAT WAS THE LAST THINGS THAT I DID AS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, APPLIED FOR A HUGE GRANT THERE THAT WE'RE UTILIZING FOR THAT. I GOT APPROVED.

CONSTANTLY THERE WAS OTHER GRANTS ALSO APPROVED.

IF IT'S NOT THROUGH FEMA. I I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. THE COURT: I KNOW YOU CAN HELP, I KNOW IT AFFECTS YOUR BUDGET. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK BEFORE JULY 27TH, BEFORE WE POST SO WE CAN HAVE IT AS A BACK-UP DOCUMENTATION. THEY MAY SAY HEY, FEMA DOESN'T ALLOW IT BECAUSE THAT IS YOUR JOB ANY WAY.

I DOUBT IT. DOUBT THERE IS A COMPLETE BLANKET. BUT MAYBE.

I JUST NEED TO KNOW. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT COULD HELP US IN THAT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.

[03:30:04]

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IDAY WANTS US TO DISCUSS TODAY. WE'LL JUST MOVE ON.

>> WE'RE GOING TO TABLE TO THE 27TH

>> IS THE 27TH GOING TO BE QUICK ENOUGH ON THAT ONE?

THE COURT: QUICKER. >> MOTION TO TABLE WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE COURT: I'LL SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'LL GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE, WHICH IS BOB HALL PIER.

>> SIMULTANEOUSLY CALL THE OTHER ONE.

THE COURT: YEAH. WHAT NUMBER WAS IT?

[2. Discuss and consider amendment to Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. Engineering Services Contract for additional design scope, cost and additional time extension, and related matters.]

[25. Discuss and consider additional funding for Bob Hall Pier project from all available Nueces County funding sources.]

ITEM 25. BECAUSE THIS DOVETAILS INTO THE EARLIER DISCUSSION. IT'S DISCUSS AND CONSIDER FUNDING FOR BOB HALL FUNDING. SAME TIME.

25, NO ONE HAD HEARD BEFORE. SO I WAS VERY DELIBERATE ABOUT HOW WE PUT THE VERBIAGE HERE, ALL FUNDING SOURCES SO THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL FUNDING SOURCES AND WHAT SEEMS TO BE EVIDENT IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES. AND THOSE ARE VAST.

THERE IS ALWAYS GRANT MONIES. AND THERE IS GOING TO BE THE COURT APPROVED MAYBE WHAT, TWO OR THREE WEEKS BACK, A NEW GRANT THAT WILL BE FILED VERY SOON.

BUT THERE IS ALSO FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. IF THEY MEET CERTAIN ELIGIBILITIES. AND ONE OF THOSE IS THE INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE, NUMBER TWO.

ANOTHER ONE IS AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT.

AND THERE COULD BE OTHERS MR. CHESNEY.

SO THAT IS MY SETTING THE TABLE FOR YOU TO GO AHEAD AND START.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE BIG PICTURE DISCUSSION ON THE PIER IN MY OPINION, IS WITH THE FUNDS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, JUDGE, THOSE FUNDS WOULD NOT BE THEN A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL MONIES FROM THIS COURT, DEPENDING ON HOW WE DO IT. BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL THAT COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ HAD PUT FORTH IN EACH COMMISSIONER AND THE COUNTY JUDGE GETTING AN AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR QUALIFIED A ARPA PROJECTS FOR THEIR PRECINCT. MY THOUGHT WAS IF THAT PASSES, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS GERMANE ENOUGH TODAY TO MAKE THAT MOTION AGAIN OR IF THIS IS GERMANE ENOUGH AN AGENDA ITEM TO DISCUSS THAT. WAS TO TALK TO THE TERS ABOUT BRISCOE KING. USING SOME OF YOUR FUNDS, MINE.

BUT PREQUALIFIED. I'VE DONE WORK.

I THINK YOU HAVE TOO. TALKING TO HAGERTY.

IN REGARDS TO THERE ARE THINGS ON THE PIER WOULD QUALIFY FOR ARPA FUNDS, JUST LIKE THERE ARE ON BRISCOE KING.

SO THAT IS KIND OF THE BIG PICTURE THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE REST OF THE COURT WHERE IT WAS GOING.

BECAUSE I DO THINK THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS TO COME BACK. BUT THOSE WILL NOT BE REQUESTS THAT WILL TAKE AWAY FROM ANYTHING, ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER'S PRECINCT BECAUSE IF THAT MOTION PASSES, THEN THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY PRIORITY PROJECTS AND HOPEFULLY ONE OF THE JUDGE'S PRIORITY PROJECTS.

NOT SPEAKING FOR YOU JUDGE. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY ASK WHEN WE GOT THERE. GOING BACK TO IT, TO MAKE THE POINT OF I HEAR WHAT COMMISSIONER MAREZ AND GONZALEZ SAID, I AGREE I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AND ASK THE COURT FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT WOULD BE USED IN THEIR PRECINCTS.

BECAUSE THE COURT HAS BEEN SUPER GENEROUS WITH THIS.

100 PERCENT BELIEVE THIS COURT HAS BEEN.

5-0 VOTES ON THIS PIER SINCE DAY ONE.

EVERYWHERE I CAN GO, SO THAT IS THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO

[03:35:02]

DO. THIS IS AN EXCEPTION THAT I'M NOT HAPPY WITH. I EXPRESSED THAT.

I THINK IT IS WHAT IT IS. AND WE ARE WHERE WE ARE.

SO AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE ONLY WAY THAT I CAN THINK TO FIX THIS ONE TODAY, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD, IS TO DO WHAT I TALKED ABOUT PRIOR TO OUR TIME-OUT I GUESS, OUR BREAK, WAS TO SAY THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ADDITIONAL. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE WITHIN THE MONEY ALREADY ALLOCATED.

IF THAT MEANS THAT SOME OF THE CONTINGENCY GOES DOWN BY A PERCENTAGE POINT FROM 25 TO 24 TO COVER THIS, THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ELSE TO DO. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS DESIGN PART BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO. I THOUGHT LET'S TAKE IT OUT OF WHAT WE ALLOCATED AND NOT ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE.

THEN THAT WAS THE FAIREST WAY TO HANDLE THE PROBLEM THAT, AGAIN, IT IS WHAT IT IS. I'VE EXPRESSED TWO OR THREE TIMES NOW MY DISPLEASURE WITH HOW IT'S COME DOWN.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO ABOUT IT.

IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS OTHER SUGGESTIONS THAN THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO LOSE ON THAT MOTION EITHER.

SO Y'ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TELL ME.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I DON'T LIKE IT.

SO YOU KNOW, IF ANYBODY HAS GOT A BETTER IDEA, LET ME KNOW.

THIS HAS TO BE PAID FOR. BUT THIS IS NOT ADDITIONAL FUNDS. THIS HAS TO COME OUT OF THE CONTINGENCY. THAT IS THE ONLY WAY I CAN

FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT. >> I DON'T LIKE THAT WE'RE IN THIS POSITION. THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.

NEVER. I KNOW THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS. BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE -- FOR THIS PROJECT, THIS HAS TO BE A ONE-TIME THING.

I MEAN, WE CANNOT OPERATE MOVING FORWARD ALL OF THE TIME THAT OH, WE DIDN'T CONSIDER THIS OR WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT. ITTED IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOMEIT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOMETHING. WHAT IS OUR PROJECTED

COMPLETION DATE OF THIS? >> WE EXPECT ABOUT ANOTHER NINE MONTHS OF DESIGN BEFORE WE'RE READY TO GO TO BID.

WE SUBMITTED FOR THE PERMIT ABOUT A MONTH AGO.

PERMIT COMPLETION WITH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS IS ALWAYS AN UNKNOWN. GENERALLY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PERMIT, WHICH WE HAVE SUBMITTED FOR, IT'S ABOUT A YEAR.

SO ABOUT A YEAR MEANS A LITTLE BIT LESS, A LITTLE BIT MORE.

SO IT'S AT LEAST A YEAR AWAY FROM GOING TO BID, SIR.

IT'S THE PERMIT CONTROLLING THE SCHEDULE RATHER THAN THE

DESIGN. >> AND THE OPTION, COMMISSIONER, IS THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION.

WE COULD DELAY IT. BUT THE INEVITABLE IS THAT WE STILL HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A DESIGN, PLAN THAT --

>> RIGHT. >> HELPS GET US TO THE PROPER PERMITTING AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES BEYOND THAT.

>> RIGHT. THAT IS HOW I SEE IT, JOHN.

AND I THINK IF THE COURT SUPPORTED MY MOTION, IT WOULD STILL NOT COST -- WE WOULD NOT BE ALLOCATING ANY NEW DOLLARS TODAY. I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT TODAY, WE WOULDN'T BE ALLOCATING ANY NEW DOLLARS.

WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE PROJECT.

>> IN THE PROJECT, NOWHERE ELSE.

NOT FROM ANY OTHER MONEY IN THE COUNTY.

THE COURT: ITEM NUMBER 2. IS THE AMENDMENT FOR HIM.

FOR HIM. FOR THE WORK.

>> THAT IS WHY I WANT TO BE COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT.

IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL MONIES THEN I'VE GOT TO FIND THEM, OR THE JUDGE HAS TO HELP ME FIND THEM.

AND IT MIGHT -- I MIGHT CERTAINLY COME BACK, IF THIS ARPA MOTION, THAT MAY BE WHERE I WANT TO SPEND MY ALLOCATED QUALIFIED ARPA FUNDS. BUT THAT IS NOT COMING OUT OF YOUR PRECINCT OR ANYBODY ELSE'S PRECINCT.

THAT WOULD BE WHERE I FEEL LIKE WOULD BE TO USE IN MY PRECINCT IN A WELL-SUITED WAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IN OTHER WORDS, I'M NOT GOING TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR ANYMORE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATIONS, INSURANCE PROCEEDS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND THIS MONEY WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT OF WHAT WE ALREADY ALLOCATED.

AGAIN, YOU MIGHT NOT LIKE MY ARPA PROJECT THAT I COME UP WITH. I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

EVERYBODY'S CHOICE. BUT THIS MONEY TODAY WOULD COME OUT OF WHAT WE'VE ALLOCATED AND NO MORE.

UNDER THE MOTION I WOULD PROPOSE.

[03:40:04]

>> I WAS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP, WE ALL GET FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. I THINK IT'S FAIR THAT WE SAY WHATEVER YOU THINK YOU NEED, THAT IS WHERE YOU SPEND YOUR $4 MILLION. BUT I WOULDN'T CONSIDER ANY OTHER POT OTHER THAN $4 MILLION.

>> RIGHT. I WOULDN'T ASK FOR IT.

>> LIKE COMMISSIONER MAREZ SAID A WHILE AGO, KEEP ON DIGGING, KEEP ON DIGGING. I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO SPEND A MILLION DOLLARS OF OR TWO MILLION DOLLARS OF YOUR FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. THE COURT: IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A SEMBLANCE OF THE MOTION, AT LEAST ON THE AMENDMENT.

CAN WE START THERE. >> I FEEL THE SAME WAY.

I AGREE. SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE US EVERY TIME WHEN THEY SAY THE DESIGN. ALWAYS THE DESIGN THAT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED AND NEEDS MORE MONEY.

SO I DON'T LIKE THAT IDEA ABOUT WELL, YOU DIDN'T ASK.

SO WE DIDN'T MENTION IT. >> I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.

>> I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA WHEN THEY SAID YOU DID NOT ASK SO WE DIDN'T MENTION IT. ALL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. AND I'M AGAINST THAT.

IT'S THE DESIGN. IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS THING.

I'M IN FAVOR OF HELPING YOU OUT.

BUT AGAIN, THAT IS WHERE IT STOPS.

THE COURT: I APPRECIATE IT. I REALLY DO.

LET ME TRY TO MAKE THE MOTION AND THEN LET, IF ANYBODY NEEDS TO TWEAK IT SO THAT IT'S NOT CLEAR.

BUT THE MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT TO JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP FOR ITEMS 1 THROUGH 11 ONLY AT THIS POINT. THOSE FUNDS ARE TO COME OUT OF THE ALREADY ALLOCATED FUNDS THAT THIS COURT HAS ALLOCATED.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> THAT IS CLEAR TO EVERYBODY? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT. THANK YOU.

THE COURT: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

OKAY. NOW, GOING TO ITEM 25.

I PUT THIS ON WITH A LITTLE BIT OF --

>> WE'RE DONE, RIGHT? THE COURT: HANG WITH US HERE.

SO I'VE BEEN LEARNING A LOT ABOUT PIERS.

AND YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME THINGS I WANT TO BRING UP FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. AND IT'S REALLY THE IMPETUS FOR ME PUTTING ON THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING. NUMBER ONE, I'VE LEARNED THAT THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING THAT WAS SORT OF FROM THE GENERAL RENDERINGS WAS BASED ON A THEORY OF GENERALIZED ECONOMY.

IN OTHER WORDS, ONE BIG PIER EVERY 60 FEET.

OKAY. VERSUS TWO PIERS EVERY 33 FEET.

ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, THIS WAS ARTICULATED BY THE COASTAL PARKS BOARD, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, AN ALTERNATE ANALYSIS IS IMPORTANT.

AND I ASKED LOUIS YESTERDAY IS THAT POSSIBLE? HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE? I THINK THIS COURT SHOULD AT LEAST UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN, COULD, NOT SAYING IT WOULD, COULD IMPACT THIS ICONIC SURFING PIER, AS YOU SAW, IS INSIDE THE BOOK OF SURFING BOOKS.

WE MADE THE TOP LIST. THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH MULTIPLE FACTORS. RYAN TURNER, WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE CHAIR OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE IS ALSO A SCIENTIST AT CONRAD, WE ALSO HEARD THIS MORNING FROM MR. SCHULTZ.

SO WE KNOW THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PARAMETERS THAT CAN AFFECT SURF.

WHEN I SAY PIER, I MEAN THE FOUNDATIONAL STRUCTURE.

IS THERE A BETTER WORD, LOUIS? PILE?

SHOULD I USE THAT WORD? >> PILES SUPPORT THE PIER.

THE COURT: LET ME REPHRASE THEN.

I KNEW THAT SOUNDED VERY LAY TERMS. THE PILES THAT SUPPORT THE PIER, WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE DESIGNED THE WAY YOU'VE DONE IT, WHICH WAS TO DO WHAT WE SAID, TO DESIGN WITH ECONOMY IN MIND.

[03:45:06]

WE DIDN'T KNOW AT THE TIME, I EMPHASIZE COULD, HAVE A POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SURFING. WITH THAT IN MIND, WITH THE SECOND PIECE IN MIND, WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE EXERCISE WITH SPENDING THE MONEY FOR NOTHING. WE DIDN'T ASK 2500 PEOPLE TO GIVE THEIR COMMENTS SO THAT WE COULD IGNORE IT.

WE CERTAINLY DIDN'T HAVE THREE TOWN HALLS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY VIRTUAL MEETINGS, A DOZEN AT LEAST, WHAT I'M SEEING IS A REAL CONNECTION BETWEEN REVENUE THAT SUPPORTS COASTAL PARKS AND MORE SPACE. I'M GOING TO SHELF FOR JUST A MOMENT WHAT KIND OF SPACE THAT IS, LOUIS.

WHETHER THAT IS VERTICAL SPACE, HORIZONTAL SPACE.

FOR THAT WE NEED MORE FUNDING. I DON'T SEE IT THE EXACT SAME WAY AS EVERYBODY ELSE. I SEE THIS AS AN INVESTMENT WE MAKE IN 2022 FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS.

AND THAT IS SUPER CONSERVATIVE. AND THAT INVESTMENT HAS A REVENUE PRODUCER ATTACHED TO IT.

AND SO I PUT IT ON HERE IN THE SPIRIT OF, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT HAGERTY WOULD CAUTION THAT WHILE WE CAN'T DESIGNATE 444 FOR EACH OF US, WE KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN IN THE SPIRIT OF $4 MILLION WORTH OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.

TO BE DIVIDED EQUALLY AMONGST THE RESIDENTS.

IS THAT A FAIR WAY TO SAY IT? EQUITABLE AND FAIR.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST LIKE A BLANKET 4.

AND IN THAT VEIN, I SECOND WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH IS THAT I WOULD BE MOST IN FAVOR OF PUTTING A MILLION DOLLARS OF MINE IF THAT WAS, IF YOU WOULD DO THE SAME, BECAUSE THAT WOULD GET US THAT SPACE THAT WE NEEDED AND THEN WE COULD STILL HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION, DO WE GO VERTICAL OR HORIZONTAL.

FOR ME, THAT IS A DECISION THAT IS REALLY BEST ANSWERED AFTER WE TALK TO THE PERMITTING EXPERTS AND PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND LIKE LOUIS, THE DESIGN OF GOING HORIZONTAL AND COULD THAT MEAN MORE DOLLARS BECAUSE OF THE FOUNDATION NEED OR NOT. I'M NOT READY TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS TODAY. WHAT I WAS READY IS I SAY YES FOR THE MILLION. BECAUSE I'LL FEEL BETTER ABOUT NOT DELAYING THE DESIGN AND ALTERNATE ANALYSIS.

WE CAN GET THIS PIER UP SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

THAT IS WHY I PUT IT THERE. THAT IS NOT TO SAY, SIR, THAT I'M NOT EXCITED ABOUT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THAT COULD BE OUT THERE AS WELL. BUT JUST YESTERDAY, SOMEBODY INTERVIEWED ME ON FEMA, WHY AREN'T WE GETTING FEMA MONEY.

I EXPLAINED WHY. BUT YOU KNOW, ONE NEVER KNOWS IF THE GODS WANT TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING.

AND TOMORROW THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES COULD SAY, I DECLARE HURRICANE HANNA DISASTER.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE BACK IN BUSINESS.

THAT IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT THE CONCEPT IS THAT THESE ARE THE DOLLARS THAT WE WOULD EARMARK OR ALLOCATE TODAY. FOR THOSE LISTENING, THE TIRZ.

WE VOTE EVERY TIME WE HAVE A MEETING, WE VOTE TO SUPPORT PROJECTS THROUGH OUR BUDGET. THERE ARE SUFFICIENT DOLLARS THERE TO SUPPORT ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THIS VERY UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC AREA. AND IT COULD BE FOR THIS, IT COULD BE FOR ANOTHER ITEM AS HE MENTIONED.

OR BOTH. SO THAT IS SOMETHING I'VE ALSO TRIED TO GET ON TO THE AGENDA FOR OUR NEXT MEETING.

WITH THE TIRZ. SO WITH THAT IN MIND, COMMISSIONER, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A MOTION THAT WOULD HELP ALLOCATE ADDITIONAL ARPA FUNDING ONLY AS IT APPLIES TO YOURSELF AND MYSELF FOR A TOTAL OF TWO MILLION DOLLARS.

>> I THINK JUDGE, THE BETTER PART OF -- AND I AGREE WITH ABOUT 95 PERCENT OF WHAT YOU SAID.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE OTHER FIVE.

I HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.

I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A DISAGREEMENT.

TO ME, THERE IS AGENDA ITEMS THROUGHOUT HERE THAT I WOULD BELIEVE WE COULD MAKE THE MOTION TO DO THE ALLOCATION.

[03:50:01]

BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET FROM HAGERTY, IN FACT, AT THE CONVENTION THAT WE ALL WENT TO, THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW SEVERAL COUNTIES ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ SAID AND SAYING THEY ALLOCATED, IN FACT, SOME OF THEM SAID THEY ALLOCATED ALL OF THEIR MONEY TO THE COMMISSIONERS AN JUDGES FOR QUALIFIED PROJECTS. HAGERTY DID NOT TELL ME I COULDN'T DO IT THAT WAY. SMALL TWEAK, I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT BEFORE WE GO FURTHER THAT THEN I CAN LIVE UP TO -- I CAN LIVE UP TO WHAT I JUST SAID.

I'M NOT GOING TO ASK THE COURT FOR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T COMING FROM PRECINCT QUALIFIED PROJECTS.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION FIRST.

THE COURT: I THINK THAT IS FAIR.

>> I AM VERY ON BOARD WITH HORIZONTAL.

I AM NOT ON BOARD TODAY, MAYBE TOMORROW, NEXT DAY, SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD, I'M NOT ON BOARD WITH VERTICAL.

I LIKE GOING OUT. I WANT IT TO BE MORE SOLID.

I THINK THE PEOPLE THAT I TALKED TO IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THINKS THAT IS GOING TO BE MORE EFFICIENT, LESS MAINTENANCE, ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

SO MY COMFORT LEVEL IS WITH THE HORIZONTAL TODAY.

SO I'M NOT -- I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A BLANKET.

THE COURT: I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, I KNOW THE CONFERENCE THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING.

EVEN IF THEY SAY IT'S OKAY, YOU STILL HAVE TO PRODUCE A TON OF PAPERWORK THAT REQUIRES THAT JUSTIFICATION.

>> OR YOU MAKE IT SUBJECT TO. THE COURT: THAT'S ALL.

>> BECAUSE I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF AGENDA ITEMS. SO MOST OF WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE, RIGHT? THE COURT: RIGHT.

>> I THINK TIRZ IS AVAILABLE, WHETHER IT'S FOR BRISCOE KING.

AND SO I THINK TIRZ IS AVAILABLE.

I'M DEFINITELY WILLING TO COMMIT TO THE HORIZONTAL PART OF MORE SPACE. BECAUSE THAT IS GOING TO BRING MORE REVENUE TO THIS COUNTY. THAT SPACE IS GOING TO BRING MORE RETURN OF INVESTMENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE WE DO -- WELL, I HAVE GOT TO BE CAREFUL. THAT FISHING PIER IS PHENOMENALLY IMPORTANT. BUT THE RETURN INVESTMENT ON THE AMOUNT OF SPACE. BECAUSE THAT PIER IS HUMONGOUS, SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE A TON OF MONEY ON THAT SPACE.

AND A TON OF MONEY ON THAT PIER.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE NEXT STEP IS.

WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO NOW, LOUIS TO REALLY KIND OF PUSH THIS INTO THE NEXT REALM? I'VE HEARD CONSTRUCTION COSTS WENT SKY HIGH AND THEN LEVELLED.

WHERE DO WE GO IN YOUR OPINION TO GET THIS BACK ON THE DRAWING BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD? IT REALLY GOES BY FAST.

>> IT HAS. FRANKLY, ORIGINALLY WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH DESIGN BY NOW.

IT HAS TAKEN A LOT OF, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT.

A LOT OF HESITATIONS ALONG THE WAY BECAUSE OF THAT.

FRANKLY, I DID NOT THINK ANYBODY REALLY CARED HOW MANY PILES SUPPORTED THE PIER. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS. MY GUT FEEL AS AN OCEAN ENGINEER, IS THEY'RE PROBABLY RIGHT.

YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER OF PILES DOES EFFECT THE WAVE.

I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS SINCE I FIRST MET WITH THE SURF RIDERS, CAN I QUANTIFY THAT.

THERE IS ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT VARIABLES.

THE WATER GOES UP AND DOWN, WAVES ARE LARGE, AND THEN SMALL. I GOT INDICATIONS SURE WE CAN.

OH, YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT. BUT IT'S DIFFICULT.

I MEAN, THEY'RE SAYING JUST TO GET AN INDICATION OF SINGLE PILE PER BENT EVERY 66 FEET, VERSUS TWO PILES EVERY 33 FEET.

JUST TO GET INDICATION OF WHAT IT WOULD MEAN TO THE SUBSTRATE, ON THE ORDER OF HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.

JUST ANALYSIS. AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY WE THINK THAT IS THE CASE. IT'S NOT A GIVEN.

FRANKLY, IN MY MIND THAT IS NOT MONEY WORTH SPENDING.

I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO PROPOSE IT TO THE TEXAS A&M PH.D. GRAD STUDENT, DO AN ANALYSIS ABOUT THAT.

GREAT THING FOR THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD USE

[03:55:02]

OF PUBLIC MONEY, THOUGH. SO MY GUT FEEL IS IT DOES AFFECT IT. I DO KNOW THAT THE INDUSTRY IS GOING, IT'S LESS EXPENSIVE TO BUILD, TO DRIVE FEWER PILES, FEWER LARGER PILES, LESS EXPENSIVE THAN IT IS TO DRIVE MORE SMALLER PILES. BECAUSE TIME.

TIME IS MONEY. TIME IS LABOR.

LABOR IS EXPENSIVE THESE DAYS. SO REALLY MORE SMALLER PILES IS ALSO MORE PRODUCT. MORE MATERIAL.

SO IT WILL COST MORE. >> YEAH.

OKAY. SO WE'RE GETTING FARTHER DOWN THE PATH. THE COURT: WE'RE GETTING

DETAILED. >> WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO NEXT? BECAUSE I THINK THE JUDGE AND I ARE ABOUT 95 PERCENT ON THIS, AND HOPEFULLY THE COURT WILL SUPPORT THOSE ARPA PROJECTS QUALIFIED WHEN IT COMES FORWARD AND WE CAN GET TO COMMISSIONER

GONZALEZ MOTION. >> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, COMMISSIONERS, IS TO LET'S GET GOING NOW THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WANT TO DESIGN AGAIN. THE BASELINE.

WHAT IS BUDGETED RIGHT NOW. WE WILL CONTINUE THE DESIGN TO THE 30 PERCENT LEVEL, AT WHICH POINT OBVIOUSLY WE RECHECK THE BUDGET EVERY SINGLE SUBMITTAL. SO WE'LL TAKE A TEMPERATURE OF WHAT IS CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT THAT POINT.

AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND SAY AT THIS .30 PERCENT DESIGN WITH THESE ELEMENTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THIS IS WHAT WE

THINK IT'S GOING TO COST. >> IS 30 PERCENT -- BECAUSE THIS IS A GOOD LITTLE EXERCISE, IS 30 PERCENT FAR ENOUGH ALONG TO NOT SPEND TOO MUCH OF EVERYBODY'S MONEY. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO SPEND 40 OR 50 PERCENT, LIKE WE DID ON ONE PROJECT AND THEN GO OH, WE'RE ON THE HOOK FOR THIS.

IF WE CHANGE IT, IT'S GOING TO COST US A TON.

IS THAT A NUMBER? >> 30 PERCENT IS AN EXCELLENT TIME TO SIT THERE AND DO A CHECK.

BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, WE'LL UNDERSTAND HOW MANY PILES, WHAT SIZE DO THEY NEED TO BE. THE SIZE OF THE MAJOR MEMBERS.

WHICH IS GOING TO CONTROL THE STRUCTURAL COST.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE'LL HAVE A MUCH BETTER INDICATION OF HOW EVERYTHING ELSE IS DESIGNED, THE LAYOUT OF THE RESTAURANT AND WHAT IS THE COST OF THE RESTAURANT.

SO 30 PERCENT IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION POINT.

>> SEND US A TIMELINE OR SOMETHING AND LET US KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO. THE COURT: GO BACK TO THE MOTION WE HAD EARLIER ON. WE DIDN'T YET.

YOU MADE THE MOTION BUT THEN WE VEERED OFF.

AND YOUR MOTION -- EMMA, DID WE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT? I DON'T BELIEVE WE DID. BUT YOUR MOTION STANDS.

WE'RE GOOD? >> ITEM TWO WE DID VOTE.

YOU'RE STARTING TO MAKE ME THINK I'M INSANE UP HERE.

THE COURT: I'M WATCHING EMMA. SHE SAYS SHE'S GOOD.

THANK YOU. SO NOW JUST TO REDIRECT US, THE

CONCEPT HERE IS >> I WOULD LIKE TO FIND AN ITEM. THE COURT: YOU WANT TO ATTACH

IT. >> FIND AN ITEM THAT IS GERMANE THAT WE CAN MAKE COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ MOTION IN REGARD TO ALLOCATING QUALIFIED PROJECTS TO THE JUDGE AND EACH COMMISSIONER SO THAT THAT IS IN PLACE.

BECAUSE I'M SURE EVERYBODY UP HERE HAS GOT PROJECTS IN THE PRECINCT THAT THEY WANT TO START PUTTING ON THE AGENDA THE COURT: OKAY. WE CAN DO THAT MAYBE, WE HAVE SOME THAT SAY THINGS LIKE AN ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES.

>> LET'S MOVE OFF OF 25 RIGHT NOW.

THE COURT: COME RIGHT BACK TO IT WHEN IT'S GERMANE.

25 DOES HELP US. LOUIS, I THINK YOU'VE ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS. THE REST IS UP TO THE COURT NOW. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE OFF.

I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW IT'S APPRECIATED.

I'LL PASS ON 25 RIGHT NOW. AND WE'LL COME BACK TO IT.

TO SEE IF THERE IS A WAY TO MAKE ALL THAT WORK.

I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO 25, IF NOT. BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'S LIBERALLY WRITTEN ENOUGH TO GET US THERE.

>> THERE IS A BUNCH OF US. THE COURT: IF YOU'LL ASK ME,

[21. Discuss and Consider use of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to support the City of Driscoll in the amount of $150,000.00 (or other amount) for drainage widening and rehabilitation.]

I'LL BE HAPPY TO DO IT. I'M HAPPY TO DO NUMBER 21.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO HELP ALL THE POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS THAT ARE HERE GET TO WHERE THEY NEED TO BE AS QUICKLY AS THEY CAN. ITEM NUMBER 21, FOR THE COURT,

[04:00:05]

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE USE OF THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS FOR THE CITY OF DRISCOLL, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, THIS WAS YOURS. THE ONLY THING I HOPE YOU NOTICED IS IN THE BACK-UP DOCUMENTATION, I ATTACHED A NUMBER THAT I THINK WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE, WHICH IS 660,000. THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT WAS DESIGNED, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO AFFECT THE CHANGE THAT THEY SEEK.

>> WE'RE GOING TO DO AWAY WITH 150?

THE COURT: IT'S ATTACHED. >> SOMEONE IS GOING OUR TALLY. THE COURT: THEY'RE ONLINE.

WATCHING US HERE. >> WHAT ARE WE STARTING THE DAY WITH WITH REMAINING ARPA FUNDS. THE COURT: YIELD TO TOM.

A MONTH AGO IT WAS 48 MILLION ON REGULAR AND 6.3 MILLION ON THE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES. LET ME LOOK HERE.

TOM, ARE YOU ONLINE WHERE YOU COULD GIVE US THE UPDATE?

OR RACHEL IS ONLINE. >> HI, THIS IS RACHEL, I'M PULLING UP THE NUMBERS. THE COURT: APPRECIATE YOU.

WHILE SHE'S DOING THAT, IT'S 632,000, IT'S UP TO US AS A COURT HOW MUCH WE WOULD WANT TO ALLOCATE.

BUT I'M SUGGESTING TO YOU THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT NUMBER, OR AS

CLOSE TO IT AS IT CAN BE. >> 632,000 WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THEM. BUT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THE MASTER PLAN, THEN, OF COURSE, WE CAN ELIMINATE THE 150,000. AND THEY GET THE 632,000.

THE COURT: YOU CAN GO RIGHT TO --

>> EITHER WAY. THE COURT: I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD. I GOT THE INFORMATION FROM ICE AND CONFIRMED WITH PUBLIC WORKS.

>> MAKE A MOTION. >> SECOND.

THE COURT: THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND.

LET ME CALL FOR DISCUSSION. FORGIVE ME, I'M SORRY.

GO AHEAD. >> YES, GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. I'M PAULA, RECENTLY JOINED THE CITY OF DRISCOLL, AS THEIR INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR.

I'VE BEEN REVIEWING THE DETAILS FROM ALL THE MEETINGS IN THE %-P. AND SO YOU'RE CORRECT, THE TOTAL OF THE ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE WAS 632,635. AND I THINK THE ISSUE OF THE $150,000 BEING A PART OF THE MASTER PLAN IS STILL IN PLACE, IS THAT GOING TO BE A SEPARATE MOTION? THE COURT: TWO THINGS, THIS ONE WOULD BE FOR, I'M GOING TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT IT. BECAUSE YOU KNOW HOW ARPA IS KIND OF QUIRKY ABOUT HOW IMPORTANT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

IT WOULD BE FOR DRAINAGE, WIDENING AND REHABILITATION.

THE 600,000 WOULD BE FOR THAT. AND MAYBE WHAT WE COULD DO IS VISIT ABOUT A MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN.

BECAUSE UNDER THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD, WE GOT THAT EXTRA $450,000, WE TOOK YOUR REQUEST AND STUCK IT INSIDE THAT WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD GRANT.

AND SO YOU ARE GETTING A MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN EXACTLY AS YOU ALL DESIGNED IT. AND WAS SUBMITTED.

>> I THINK THIS IS GIVING YOU 630,000 INSTEAD OF 150,000.

THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT. BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO GET THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN. NOT FROM THESE FUNDS.

>> YEAH. THE COURT: WE CAN WORK WITH

YOU. >> WHAT JUDGE, BOTH OF THEM ARE SAYING, INSTEAD OF 150, WE'LL GIVE YOU 630,000.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE COURT: BUT SINCE YOU JUST GOT THERE, WE OWE YOU A SITDOWN.

WE OWE YOU A SITDOWN TO CATCH YOU UP TO SPEED ON ALL OF THE OTHER. I WANT YOU TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE DRAINAGE PLAN IS IMPORTANT AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A DELIVERABLE THAT IS OWED TO YOU.

AND IT'S BASED UPON SUPER SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT YOU ALL GAVE TO OUR ENGINEERS. AND SO I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO GET EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT. BUT THAT THIS IS DEFINITELY THE ICING WITH MAYBE A COUPLE OF CHERRIES.

BECAUSE THIS WILL GET YOU WHAT YOU NEED VERSUS NOT.

[04:05:03]

WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> WE'RE OVERWHELMED.

THIS IS A GOOD DECISION. WE APPRECIATE IT.

THE CITYWIDE PROJECTS ARE IMMEDIATE.

AS THEY SAID IN PAST YEARS WITH THE STIMULUS PACKAGES, THEY'RE SHOVEL READY. READY TO GO.

THE COURT: PAULA, YOU WERE NOT HERE EARLIER, MAYBE YOU WERE, TODAY IS A DAY WHERE WE'RE EARMARKING AND ALLOCATING DOLLARS. VERY IMPORTANT NEW MEETING THAT WILL COME UP SOMETIME IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE, WE WILL BE WORKING WITH YOU AND OUR COURT ADMINISTRATOR ON THE DOCUMENTS THAT MAKE THIS ACTUALLY HAPPEN. TODAY WE SAY THIS IS THE DOLLARS, BUT PLEASE KNOW WE'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU ON THE MOUS AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT DALE AS OUR AUDITOR BROUGHT UP. I'M SURE THAT IS NOT FOREIGN TO YOU. I WANTED TO REMARK THAT THE MONEY IS GOOD. BUT WE JUST NEED TO BUTTON IT

UP, IF THAT IS OKAY. >> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FINE.

WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE MOUS, ANYTHING ELSE REQUIRED WITH SIGNATURE AND SEALS SO WE CAN GET STARTED THE COURT: EXACTLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

OPPOSED SAME SIGN. RACHEL, I DIDN'T FORGET.

DO YOU HAVE THOSE NUMBERS NOW? >> RACHEL, WITH HAGERTY CONSULTING. THE NUMBERS YOU'RE LOOKING FOR ARE THE NUMBERS YOU'VE ALLOCATED TO ARPA PROJECTS.

>> HOW MUCH IS LEFT? I CAN BARELY HEAR YOU.

HAVE WE RECEIVED THE EXTRA MONEY YET? THE COURT: YES, WE HAVE. I CAN CONFIRM.

>> HOW MUCH IS LEFT OF OUR $70 MILLION INITIAL ALLOCATION?

>> SUBTRACTING NEW NUMBERS WE RECEIVED THIS MORNING.

YOU HAVE 52.6 MILLION REMAINING.

>> DOES THAT INCLUDE OUR LOST REVENUE GOVERNMENT SERVICES?

>> IT DOES. >> WE'VE SPENT 2.3 MILLION.

>> I CAN'T HEAR HER, I'M SORRY. >> 52.6.

>> GOT IT. THE COURT: YES.

CUMULATIVE NUMBER, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY.

SHE CAN BREAK IT DOWN FOR US, AS TO WHAT IS LOST REVENUE EQUALS GOVERNMENT SERVICES VERSUS WHAT IS WHAT I CALL THE EVERYTHING BAGEL BUCKET. SO MAYBE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT THIS SECOND, BUT WHEN YOU GET THAT NUMBER, YOU CAN LET US KNOW. RACHEL, WHILE YOU WERE ONLINE, WE ALLOCATED 632,635. DID YOU SAY THE CENTS OR DID WE FORGET THE $0.13? DID THEY SAY IT? OKAY. WE JUST MADE IT AN EVEN NUMBER.

>> I SAID 32. >> 632.

THE COURT: WE MADE IT AN EVEN 632,000.

IS THAT RIGHT? WE DIDN'T DO THE 635? ALL RIGHT. JUST 632,000.

SO RACHEL, JUST TO MARK THAT DOWN.

AND THEN EARLIER IT WAS THE MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE WATER DISTRICT NUMBER 3. OKAY.

I'LL MOVE ON. ANYBODY ELSE THAT I SHOULD HELP ADVANCE HERE? OKAY.

I SEE TRAVIS HERE WITH THE ITEM NUMBER 17.

LET ME TAKE 16 FIRST. I'M ACTUALLY KIND OF GETTING TO WHERE I WANT TO BE. I SEE EDWARD WAS IN THE

[16. Discuss and consider use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the Veterans Food Pantry project.]

HALLWAY. SOMEONE LET HIM KNOW HE'S COMING UP NEXT. 16.

JJ MAY BE ONLINE. BUT I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT BECAUSE WE HAD TO CHECK ELIGIBILITY.

THIS ONE IS TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS.

THE GRANT THAT WE RECEIVED, THANK YOU, DOESN'T COVER IT.

AND FOOD INSECURITY IS A WINNER HERE.

>> PASS IT THE COURT: TAKE THE MOTION BY GONZALEZ AND SECOND BY YOU, COMMISSIONER, IF THAT IS OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. I PROMISE, LET YOU KNOW FOR THE RECORD, I'LL PRINT OUT A FEW E-MAILS THAT COULDN'T BE HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, JUST SUPPORTING THE ITEM.

I'LL PRINT THEM AND TURN THEM IN LATER.

[17. Discuss and consider use of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to support the Nueces River Authority Regional Wastewater Plan project in the amount of $500,000 (or other amount) for an assessment study, pre-permitting, and identification of location for new plant and transmission main routes.]

THANK YOU FOR SENDING THEM. THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 17.

[04:10:05]

GO AHEAD. >> I INTERRUPTED YOU, I'M SORRY. I JUST HAD A THOUGHT ON THAT ONE. THE COURT: SAY IT AGAIN.

>> I HAD A THOUGHT ON THAT ONE. NUMBER 17.

I AM AGAINST THIS OR FOR THIS BECAUSE I'M NOT CLEAR ON IT.

I GET -- I MET WITH THE PEOPLE ON ZOOM.

I'VE HEARD THE PROPOSAL. BUT THEY ARE ADVOCATING FOR THEIR POSITION. BEFORE WE ALLOCATE $500,000 FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE HIRED OUR OWN INDEPENDENT ENGINEER FOR A COUPLE OF MAYBE $2,500, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TO GIVE US AN ASSESSMENT OF THIS PROJECT THAT IS INDEPENDENT, THAT SAYS NOT SOMEONE WHO IS ADVOCATING FOR SOMEONE ELSE.

BECAUSE I AM NOT AN ENGINEER. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS PROJECT VERY WELL, EVEN THOUGH I TALKED TO THEM ABOUT IT.

I JUST THOUGHT IF WE HIRED SOMEONE LIKE HANSON AND JOHN MICHAEL AND WE DID THAT, SO THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO GET INTO LIKE A BIG FIGHT OVER THIS. MAYBE SOMETHING -- IS THAT OKAY? THE COURT: FINE.

ONLY THING I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT I DID NOT NOTICE THAT.

BUT IF YOU WOULD RUN IT AS A PO OR IN OTHER WORDS, WE DID NOT

NOTICE THAT. >> IF I JUST SAID THAT WE WERE TO ALLOCATE $2,500 IN ARPA FUNDS TO HIRE HANSON ENGINEERING, JOHN MICHAEL TO DO AN ASSESSMENT ON THIS AND REPORT BACK TO US AS QUICKLY AS HE CAN, BECAUSE I'M NOT TRYING TO DELAY IT, I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS WORTH SPENDING $500,000 ON A STUDY FOR OR NOT. THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.

THE COURT: I HEAR YOU. AND BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REASONABLE, I MEAN, WE CAN MOTION, SECOND AND GET THAT GOING. JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS ONE HAS BEEN, IS IN THE PROCESS, BUT HAS ALREADY MADE IT TO THE TIER ONE CATEGORY, WHICH MEANS THAT SCIENTIFICALLY, IT'S MADE IT TO THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE REALM FOR WHAT THEY CALL THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO I THINK IT'S NOT A BAD IDEA BECAUSE YOU WILL GET SOMEBODY WHO WILL HAVE A LOT OF DATA POINTS TO BE ABLE TO ADJUST. BUT THIS IS A HUGE PROJECT.

ACTUALLY, I THINK IT BENEFITS YOUR AREA AS MUCH AS EVERYBODY ELSE'S, BASICALLY TO CREATE A REGIONAL WASTE WATER SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST RIGHT NOW. NO WAY TO BASICALLY HAVE MORE HOMES SUPPORTED IN THE RURAL AREAS FOR PRECINCTS ONE, THREE AND WELL BISHOP TOO. REALLY EVERYBODY.

ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR. WITHOUT THIS BEING DONE.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS IN PHASES.

DAN WANTED TO BE HERE, BUT HE HAD RTA TODAY.

I DON'T THINK HE IS ONLINE. BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE A HUGE DELAY IF SOMEBODY LOOKED AT IT.

YOU THINK IT'S OKAY TO MAKE THAT MOTION FRANCISCO?

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE MOTION? >> MY MOTION WOULD BE TO USE $2,500 WORTH OF ARPA FUNDS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 17, TO SEE IF THIS IS A WORTHY PROJECT FOR US TO

FUND. >> DO YOU THINK FOR $2,500 THAT

WOULD WORK? >> I ASKED THE COURT: I'M A LITTLE WORRIED.

>> I THINK IT IS SUFFICIENTLY RELATED.

THE COURT: I'LL SECOND IT. YOU ALREADY SECONDED IT.

I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ WANTS TO BE THE SECOND. WE'RE FIGHTING NOW FOR SECONDS.

IT'S A PUN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

SO WE'LL MAKE THIS HAPPEN QUICKLY SO THAT WE CAN GET THIS VETTED AND BROUGHT BACK TO COURT.

OKAY. YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THE LEAD ON GETTING THAT? YOU'RE GOING TO LEAD IN GETTING THE PROPER PAPERWORK GOING? JUST WORK WITH IDAY PLEASE.

>> I WILL LET THEM KNOW THAT IT'S COMING, JOHN MICHAEL AT HANSON AND I'LL LET Y'ALL CONTACT HIM.

THE COURT: OKAY. AND REALLY IT'S ANNA ALDRIDGE THAT IS THE LEAD CEO THERE FOR THE LOCAL OFFICE.

BUT I'M SURE THAT THEY CAN DIRECT -- JOHN MICHAEL CAN DIRECT US. OKAY.

[04:15:01]

ALL RIGHT. THAT TAKES CARE OF, WE'RE FLYING NOW. WE'RE DOING GOOD.

I'M GOING TO GO TO 18 BECAUSE HE IS HERE.

>> WHERE IS THE ONE THAT WOULD BE PERTINENT? THE COURT: IT'S COMING. I'M TAKING FOREVER HERE.

I'M GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT ONE, BECAUSE HE HAS BEEN

[18. Discuss and consider use of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds in the amount of $6,000,000 (or other amount) for the purpose of making necessary investment and improvements within our inland parks for outdoor recreational activities supporting health and wellness for all our county residents including improving our community center facilities to meet pandemic operational needs.]

STANDING HERE PATIENTLY. WHICH IS NUMBER 18.

EDWARD, WOULD YOU MIND JOINING US TO GIVE US BACKGROUND, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE USE OF THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $6 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING NECESSARY INVESTMENT AND IMPROVEMENT WITHIN OUR INLAND PARKS FOR OUTDOOR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, SUPPORTING HEALTH AND WELLNESS FOR ALL COUNTY RESIDENTS, THIS WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE WORDING THAT YOU WORKED WITH HAGERTY ON.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT TIME. THE WORDING MATTERS.

BECAUSE IT TELLS YOU, AS A PUBLIC, WHY WE'RE DOING IT AND HOW WE'RE DOING IT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO DEFINITELY MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE. BUT I WAS WONDERING IF EDWARD ALSO WANTED TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND.

IF YOU WANTED TO, EDWARD. >> JUDGE, YOU SAID IT PERFECTLY. THE WAY THAT THEY CRAFTED THAT, THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT IT, THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO GET WITH THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE PRIORITIES IN THEIR PRECINCTS AND PROJECTS, THAT IS WHAT WE NEED

FOR THE INVESTMENT. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DID HERE.

BECAUSE YOU DID EXACTLY WHAT THIS COURT ASKED YOU TO DO.

YOU CAME IN WITH $20 MILLION OF INITIAL REQUESTS, WHICH WE COULDN'T DO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY.

WE SENT EVERYBODY BACK AND SAID REDUCE YOUR REQUESTS.

I THINK THESE ARE GREAT PROGRAMS. I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU DID EXACTLY WHAT THIS COURT ASKED YOU TO DO AND I SUPPORT THIS.

I THINK THIS IS GREAT PROJECTS THAT YOU AND THE COMMISSIONERS

CAME UP. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. THE COURT: SO THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT AS THEY SAY, WELL DONE.

I'M LOOKING FORWARD. TODAY IS A GOOD DAY BECAUSE YOU'RE ALLOCATING, BUT I ALWAYS GET EXCITED WHEN THE PROJECTS COMES FORWARD AND YOU GET TO SEE ALL OF THIS TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE. YOU ARE REALLY GOOD AT THIS.

YOU HAVE A TEAM THAT DOES THIS AMAZING INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT.

AND WHEN YOU GET YOUR FIRST PROJECT, WHEN YOU GET YOUR FIRST WIN, SHARE THAT WITH THE COURT.

THERE IS AN I GUESS A WEBSITE THAT IS LOGGING IN NATIONALLY ALL SOME OF THE BEST PROJECTS THAT ARPA IS DOING.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT I FEEL LIKE YOUR GUYS GIVING YOUR INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT WILL BE ABLE TO SHOWCASE WHAT WE'RE DOING IN VIDEO. IT'S VERY EXCITING.

AND I LITERALLY JUST WENT OVER AND WHISPERED IT CAN BE BROUGHT LATER, BUT THE REASON WE PUT OR OTHER AMOUNT, IS BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS THAT MIGHT WANT TO BE CONSIDERED. THAT IS WHERE THE WIGGLE ROOM WAS FOR HILLTOP. THAT IS WHY THE 6 MILLION DOES NOT INCLUDE HILLTOP. JUST SO YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD 4 MILLION TO HILLTOP THE COURT: THERE IS A MOTION TO ADD FOUR MILLION FOR HILLTOP.

AGAIN, THE ELIGIBILITY IS ALWAYS OUT THERE, COMMISSIONER.

BUT I BELIEVE BY WORKING WITH IDAY AND WITH HAGERTY, IF THERE IS ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE FOUR MILLION DOLLARS, YOU LET US KNOW AND WE CAN BACK OFF OF IT.

BUT I'M CERTAIN THAT YOU'VE DONE -- YOU ALL HAVE DONE

HOMEWORK? >> YES.

WORKING WITH HAGERTY TO HAVE EVERYTHING READY FOR NEXT COURT. THE COURT: CAN WE PUT IT SUBJECT TO, SO THAT HE CAN HAVE IT AND SAY SUBJECT TO THE

CONFIRMATION NEXT COURT. >> SURE.

THE COURT: OKAY. WITH THAT, THE TOTAL WOULD BE 6 FOR INLAND PARKS AND FOUR FOR HILLTOP, SUBJECT TO THE CONFIRMATION, WHICH AGAIN, IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO AS A

MATTER OF COMPLIANCE. >> SO WE ADDED FOUR FOR HILLTOP? THE COURT: WE DID.

ONLY TO THE TUNE OF SIX AND THAT DOESN'T FINISH THE

PROJECT. >> WE'RE DOING ANOTHER 4?

[04:20:01]

THE COURT: DO YOU SEE SOMEBODY ONLINE? WE'RE NOT SPEAKING IN TO THE MIC WELL ENOUGH HERE.

RACHEL, WHAT WE DID WAS ANOTHER 10,000 SINCE WE LAST TALKED AND ANOTHER TEN MILLION. WE SHOULD BE AT ABOUT 42

MILLION. >> 52.6 MILLION MINUS THE 6 AND 4, PUT YOU AT 42 MILLION, MINUS THE 600 OR SO THOUSAND AND THE 1 MILLION PUTS YOU AT ABOUT 40 MILLION.

>> WAIT. OKAY.

WAIT. LET ME DO THIS.

52.6 WAS THE ORIGINAL NUMBER. WE JUST SPENT TEN ON THAT ITEM.

THEN WE DID OVER SIX ON THE OTHER ONE.

WE'LL CALL IT THAT. 42.

AND THEN HOLD ON. 10.

THE COURT: DRISCOLL 600,000. >> I'VE GOT 41.

YOU'RE SAYING 40. THE COURT: PROBABLY 40 AND SOME CHANGE. OKAY.

>> YOU MIGHT AS WELL JUST GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE THE COMMISSIONER'S FOUR MILLION EACH.

THE COURT: WELL, I THINK WE CAN.

I JUST -- THE ONE THAT I WAS GOING TO DO IT ON IS FURTHER DOWN. BUT I THINK IT CAN BE DONE.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AMEND THAT ONE THEN TO INCLUDE THE 4 MILLION OF QUALIFIED ARPA PROJECTS TO BE APPROVED BY THIS COURT FOR EACH COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY JUDGE.

THAT BE PART OF THAT AS WELL. >> EXCUSE ME.

LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS RIGHT, MY FOUR MILLION THAT WE JUST ADDED TO HILLTOP, THAT IS SEPARATE, RIGHT? THE COURT: WELL, I THOUGHT THAT WOULD -- SO YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEND YOUR FOUR MILLION ON HILLTOP?

>> NO. I'VE GOT OTHER PROJECTS.

THE COURT: OKAY. SO THAT'S FINE.

>> WE PULL OUT HILLTOP FOR A MINUTE.

THE COURT: HOLD THERE. THAT'S FINE.

>> I DON'T KNOW. THE COURT: THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, I TELL YOU WHAT, HOLD THE THOUGHT, WE CAN COME BACK.

LET'S CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH THEM SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT OUR

NUMBER IS, COMMISSIONER. >> LET'S DO THE 20.

I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE HILLTOP.

>> I HAVE OTHER PLANS FOR THE FOUR MILLION.

I CAN'T USE IT FOR ALL OF IT. THE COURT: ALL OF THE COMMUNITY

CENTERS AND PARKS AND YOURS. >> SO WE'VE GOT THE PARKS.

HOW ABOUT WE ADD THE 20 THAT I PUT THAT ON THE MOTION AND THEN IF Y'ALL WANT TO HOLD THE HILL TOP FOR NOW.

HOLD THE HILLTOP JUDGE. THE COURT: SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO HILLTOP. YOU WANT US TO UNDO THE MOTION.

>> I WOULD RATHER WAIT AND SEE ON THE PROJECTS THAT I WANT TO DO. THE COURT: WE JUST PUT SIX MILLION OVER THERE. I'M WONDERING WHAT IS THE

CATEGORY. >> I JUST TOOK OVER THAT AREA A FEW MONTHS BACK. I HAVEN'T HAD A GOOD CHANCE TO GO IN THERE AND FIND OUT THE CONCERNS.

I KNOW THE COMMUNITY BUILDING IS A CONCERN.

THE COURT: WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE ELIGIBILITY.

I THINK THAT IS WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO IT THE WAY WE'VE DONE IT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE SIX MILLION THAT WE JUST APPROPRIATED IS GOING TO BE EQUITABLE? EDWARD, YOU'RE GOING TO WORK WITH EACH COMMISSIONER.

YOUR COMMUNITY CENTERS AND PARKS ARE GOING TO BE TACKLED BY THE SIX MILLION. WE'RE ABOUT TO GET TO THE DRAINAGE PIECE, IF YOU'LL GET THERE WITH ME.

WE'RE ALMOST THERE. THE COURT: MOTION AND A

[04:25:50]

SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY

SAYING AYE. >> I WOULD MAKE ANOTHER MOTION THAT APPROVES ITEM 18 THE COURT: AS IS.

>> WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE OF EACH COMMISSIONER AND COUNTY JUDGE GETTING FOUR MILLION OF ARPA APPROVED PROJECTS TO BE APPROVED BY THE COURT AT A LATER DATE.

>> THAT IS TAKING CARE OF 23. BECAUSE 23 IS 4 MILLION

THE COURT: 23 TAKES CARE OF IT. >> MOVE 18 AND MOVE TO 23 TO

MAKE IT CLEANER. >> OUR PROJECTS MAY NOT ALL BE DRAINAGE. THE COURT: STICK TO YOUR

MOTION. >> I MADE MY MOTION.

I THINK THERE WAS A SECOND MAYBE.

THE COURT: I'LL DO IT. >> SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, THAT AGENDA ITEM NOW IS A $26 MILLION AGENDA ITEM.

SO THAT EVERYONE KNOWS. THE COURT: COMMISSIONER, I KNOW WE SAID IT EARLIER, THIS IS ALL BRINGING FORTH ELIGIBLE PROJECT THAT QUALIFY FOR ARPA. IN THE SPIRIT OF EQUITY ACROSS THE COUNTY. THE RIGHT SPIRIT.

>> IT'S ALL QUALIFIED PROJECTS AND BENEFIT THE WHOLE COUNTY.

ABSOLUTELY THE COURT: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

OKAY GUYS I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER -- WELL, I'M GOING TO HOLD ITEM 20 BECAUSE THERE'S PUBLIC WORKS, A BUNCH OF THINGS THAT HIT ON ITEM 20. WE'VE ALREADY DONE 21.

[22. Discuss and consider use of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds to support Banquete Water District #5 in the amount of $1,000,000 (or other amount) for rehabilitation of manholes and sewer lines throughout Banquete.]

>> I'M SORRY. THAT LEAVES US 14 MILLION LEFT, JUDGE THE COURT: I'M SORRY.

I GOT TO DO IS 6. >> IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ALL GONE. THE COURT: HANG ON ONE SECOND.

I'M GOING TO DO 22. BECAUSE IT'S YOUR ITEM.

IT'S THE BANQUETTE WATER DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE FOR A MILLION DOLLARS FOR REHABILITATION OF MAN HOLES AND

SEWER LINES. >> JUDGE, ON THAT ONE, I WOULD

REALLY LIKE -- >> MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO THROUGH PUBLIC WORKS FOR THAT ONE.

PUBLIC WORKS MONITOR IT. MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE ACCORDINGLY THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.

BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANY EXTRA FUNDS TO FINISH IT, THEN WE CAN'T DO IT. THE COURT: I WAS REMINDED, COMMISSIONER, THAT THIS WAS THE PROJECT THAT CAME TO COURT A LONG TIME AGO AS A PRESENTATION.

THAT TEXAS A&M KINGSVILLE DID. THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT JUAN WOULD BRING TO COURT AS AN RFP.

THEY WOULD GO OUT AND DO THIS WORK AND HE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS WORK. LOOKING OVER THIS WORK.

>> SECOND THAT MOTION. THE COURT: MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> I HAD ALREADY TALKED TO JUAN ABOUT THAT PROJECT.

AND WE WERE GOING TO GET INVOLVED THE COURT: RIGHT. BUT THESE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT I THOUGHT WERE GOING TO BE INSIDE THE FOUR BUT YOU'RE SAYING THESE ARE NOT GOING TO BE INSIDE THE FOUR.

>> NO. BANQUETE IS NOT MINE >> IT'S MINE THE COURT: IT'S HIS AGENDA ITEM.

THE COMMISSIONER WASN'T HERE. HE WAS OFF SICK.

LET'S SAY I'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANOTHER MILLION. AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

[23. Discuss and consider use of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for infrastructure improvements in the amount of $4,000,000 (or other amount) for county drainage improvements.]

OKAY. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT 23 THE COURT: 23 IS THE DRAINAGE AND AGAIN -- SO THAT WAS THE ONE THAT YOU SAID WOULD BE INSIDE FOR COUNTY DRAINAGE

[04:30:04]

IMPROVEMENTS, THAT WOULD BE PART OF YOUR.

>> 18. THE COURT: PART OF 18.

BUT I STILL WANT TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE ALLOCATION FOR THE

DRAINAGE PIECE OF IT. >> SO WHAT I'M SAYING, THOUGH, THE MOTION HERE IS TO APPROVE IT AS YOUR FOUR MILLION DOLLARS ALLOCATION THAT WE JUST DID. THE COURT: FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. YES.

FOR HIS FOUR MILLION. BUT I WANT TO SAY ON THE RECORD, IT'S FOR SOMETHING GREAT.

DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. >> 4.4.

>> REMEDIATION. AND YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US A LIST LATER. GREAT.

YOU'VE GOT THE ATTACHMENTS. APPROVED AS THE ATTACHMENTS.

>> BELT LANE GOLDEN ACRES, ACQUISITION ONLY.

THE COURT: GOT IT. >> ALSO WE HAVE SOME IN PRECINCT ONE THAT HAS HE TO PROVIDE BACK-UP AS WELL.

THE COURT: DID THOSE, COMMISSIONER, INCLUDE THE ONES THAT CAME FROM BACK-UP FOR WHAT I'M CALLING THE FM 1889.

THE STONE GATE. >> YES.

THAT INCLUDES STONE GATE. (CROSS TALKING) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN -- HE'S GOT SOME IN THERE. THEY'RE ALL ATTACHED.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT -- REALLY, COMMISSIONER, THEY'RE IN YOUR AREA. MR. CHESTNUT'S AREA, THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THERE. YEAH.

>> THAT IS ANOTHER ITEM? >> NO IT'S PART OF THE FOUR MILLION. THE COURT: IT'S ALL ATTACHED.

>> I'VE GOT ALL THE ONES THAT I READ OUT LOUD, ARE ALL OF THOSE

NOT IN YOUR PRECINCT? >> THOSE ARE ALL MINE.

>> WHERE IS THE AGENDA ITEM THAT DEALS WITH COMMISSIONER

HERNANDEZ'S? >> WE INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT THE 23, FOR THE COUNTY. SO EVERYBODY.

THAT WAS MEANT TO INCLUDE EACH PRECINCT AND THE JUDGE.

>> I'M TOTALLY LOST THEN I'M SORRY.

>> WE NEED TO ORGANIZE THIS. I HOPE THE NEXT MEETING TO HAVE MY ITEMS ON. AND I REALLY THINK THAT THIS IS GREAT WHAT WE'RE DOING. BUT WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE AT ONE TIME. AND THE SAME SCOPE OF WORK.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM AND SAW THAT THERE ARE SEPARATE ATTACHMENTS UNDER ONE SPECIFIC ITEM. BUT I THINK IT'S BETTER IF WE COULD PUT ALL THE PRECINCTS IN ONE TIME.

INSTEAD OF TWO OUT OF FOUR, TWO OUT OF THREE.

THE COURT: YOU'RE SAYING FOR THE DRAINAGE, COMMISSIONER?

>> YES. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT

COMMISSIONER. >> THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS I HOPE TO FINALIZE PROBABLY BY TOMORROW AND DEFINITELY WILL BE READY BY THE 27TH. SO THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY THING.

IF WE CAN ORGANIZE IT AND DEAL WITH IT TODAY, THAT IS FINE.

BUT I JUST THINK IT'S BETTER TO KIND OF PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC THAT IT'S ALL AT ONCE. THIS IS KIND OF YOU KNOW, DRAINAGE RELATED AND THESE ARE THE PRECINCTS THAT ARE INVOLVED AND THIS IS HOW MUCH WE'RE DOING.

RATHER THAN PIECE MEAL IT >> WE'RE GOING TO BRING EVERYTHING BACK ON THE 27TH, COMMISSIONER.

SO EACH COMMISSIONER'S PROJECTS.

INCLUDING YOURS. WE'RE WORKING WITH HAGERTY.

THAT'S CORRECT. ON THE 27TH, WE'RE GOING TO BRING THAT DOCUMENT BACK THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THE PROJECTS APPROVED, SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING.

>> SO WE'RE NOT A STEP BEHIND THEN TODAY WITH MINE BRINGING

UP ON THE 27TH. >> NO. NO. WE'RE GOING TO GET WITH YOU COMMISSIONER, SO YOU CAN PROVIDE US THE PROJECTS

THAT YOU HAVE. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE HAVEN'T PASSED IT YET. THE FIRST MOTION WOULD BE I GUESS THEN TO ALLOCATE ALL OF COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ'S ARPA APPROVED PROJECTS OF HIS FOUR MILLION, BUT THEN HOW MUCH IS GOING TO BE TOTALED FOR COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ'S

PORTION? >> 23, AGENDA 23 IT WAS MEANT TO INCLUDE EVERYBODY'S. TO INCLUDE ALL THE PRECINCTS

[04:35:03]

AND THE JUDGE. WE DID IT ON THE 18, WHATEVER WE MEANT TO DO WITH 23. 18 SHOULD BE 6 MILLION AND THEN THE 23 IS FOUR MILLION FOR EACH PRECINCT.

INCLUDING ALL OF THE PROJECTS. EVERYBODY'S FOUR MILLION.

THE COURT: YOU DID THIS INSIDE 18 INSTEAD OF 23.

>> I UNDERSTAND. WHAT IS COMMISSIONER'S HERNANDEZ'S PORTION. WHERE ARE HIS PROJECTS HER? HE DOESN'T HAVE THEM YET. WE'RE GOING TO DO COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ'S TODAY. THE COURT: REMEMBER THEY'RE

INSIDE THE FOUR MILLION. >> RIGHT.

MY MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOCATE THESE FOUR MILLION DOLLARS OF PROJECTS AND THIS FOUR MILLION IS COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ'S ALLOCATION THAT WE JUST PASSED, RIGHT? WE'RE NOT TOUCHING COMMISSIONER

HERNANDEZ'S TODAY. >> NO. IT INCLUDES COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ'S TOO. ATTACHMENT SHOULD INCLUDE HIS

PROJECTS AS WELL. >> STONE GATE WAS ONE OF HIS

PROJECTS. >> COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ'S WERE THE ONLY ONES LISTED. LET'S DO THAT AS A MOTION.

AND THEN GO BACK AND CLARIFY. >> I HAD BEEN OUT A FEW DAYS.

>> I JUST DON'T KNOW WHICH ONES YOU'RE DOING, THAT'S ALL.

THE COURT: I THINK WE CAN BRING THEM BACK.

THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM. I DID WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK, I'M CERTAIN THAT YOU'VE DONE THIS, LAND ACQUISITION? DOES THAT QUALIFY? MY ONLY CONCERN WAS THAT SOME OF THESE DOLLARS THAT WE ATTACHED IS FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE AS YOU'VE DONE IT. WHICH IS WHY THE AGENDA ITEM WAS BROAD THE COURT: IT'S REALLY MEANT FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND I DON'T KNOW IF LAND ACQUISITION IS GOING TO COUNT. THE GOVERNMENT'S BIZARRE, THEY DON'T ALWAYS SEE IT THE WAY WE SEE IT.

>> GOOD POINT. >> ON 27TH, HAGERTY IS GOING TO PRESENT EVERYTHING. THE COURT: I'M SAYING THE FOUR MILLION IS FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT IS WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. WHEN I LOOK AT HIS, I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOING TO WORK. WHAT I KNOW WILL WORK ARE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THE WIDENING AND MITIGATION FOR FLOOD. THEY'VE GOT A HAND UP.

LET ME LET SETH TALK. MAYBE HE'S GOT AN ANSWER.

>> SO AS A GENERAL MATTER, PROJECTS THAT ARE TAKEN UNDER EXPENDITURE CATEGORY NUMBER FIVE, INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, CAN BE USED TO PURCHASE LAND AND SERVICE THOSE PROJECTS THE COURT: THE ANSWER IS WE CAN.

>> THE ANSWER IS YOU CAN. TYPICALLY ALLOWABLE UNDER INFRASTRUCTURE PURCHASES. THE COURT: WE CAN APPROVE IT.

>> DO WE WANT TO THEN APPROVE THIS LIST OF PROJECTS AS YOUR FOUR MILLION DOLLARS ALLOCATION? IS THAT WHAT WE WANT TO DO TODAY?

>> YEAH. >> I MEAN, IF THESE ARE YOUR PRIORITIES. THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF, I'M GOING TO SAY IT FOR THE FIFTH TIME, BOBBY CHESTNUT'S CONCERN IS ADDRESSED BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN THE MOST

DILIGENT. >> THE ATTACHMENT IS THERE.

SO I CAN BRING IT BACK. STONE GATE.

660,000. THE COURT: 660.

DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT? >> WE CAN ONLY DO WHAT WE CAN

LEGALLY DO THERE IN THAT AREA. >> CAN I JUST MAKE A MOTION? THE COURT: BUT AGAIN, ALL THOSE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO COME BACK. ALL WE'RE DOING IS ESCROWING THE DOLLARS. WHEN YOU GET THE PROJECT, BRING

[04:40:03]

IT BACK TO COURT AND KIND OF EXPLAIN IT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IN CONCEPT, TO ESCROW THE DOLLARS THE PROJECTS THAT COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ LISTED IN THE BACK-UP DOCUMENTS.

THAT WOULD BE UNDER HIS FOUR MILLION DOLLAR ALLOCATION.

THE COURT: GOT IT. CLEAN MOTION.

MOTION AND THEN GONZALEZ IS GOING TO SECOND.

YES, SIR. HE SAID YES.

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

>> NOW, CAN SOMEONE READ THE ONES THAT COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ WANTS TO APPROVE TODAY AND WE CAN DO THAT UNDER HIS FOUR MILLION ALLOCATION. IF YOU'RE READY TO DO THAT.

I DON'T HAVE THAT LISTED. I WANTED TO LIST THEM FOR THE

RECORD. >> I'M NOT READY TO DO THAT THE COURT: HE SAYS HE'S NOT READY.

>> THOSE ARE THE ONES I WAS PROVIDED THROUGH JUAN.

>> LIST THEM AND WRITE THEM DOWN.

>> STONE GATE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

660,000. >> 660.

>> 660,571.50. VALLEY VIEW DRAINAGE.

2,000,513, 176.63. LONG OAK DRAINAGE, $300,000513.

LONG OAK DRAINAGE, $300,000513. LONG OAK DRAINAGE, $300,000176.

LONG OAK DRAINAGE, $300,000 EVEN.

>> SO YOU'LL HAVE ABOUT $400,000 LEFT.

THE COURT: DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?

>> IF WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK, YES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> ALL RIGHT. GOT A MOTION:I'M GOING TO TAKE HIS, AND YOUR SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OKAY.

I'M SCOOPING UP STUFF HERE. OKAY.

NOW, COMMISSIONER, I DON'T KNOW IF WE EVER GOT OUR CHANCE TO DO -- WE CAN GO BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 25 NOW.

ITEM -- YEAH. ITEM NUMBER 25.

NOW THAT YOU'VE MADE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE TWO MILLION. I'M SORRY.

OF THE 4 MILLION. NOW THAT WE'VE DONE THAT, NOW WHAT WE CAN DO IS APPROPRIATE THE MILLION FROM YOUR FUNDS AND A MILLION FROM MY FUNDS FOR THE BOB HALL PIER.

>> BRING IT BACK THE COURT: NOTICED NOW.

WHAT WE DIDN'T HAVE IS THE BUCKET OF DOLLARS.

NOW WE DO. SO MY MOTION ON 25 IS TO ALLOW US TO TAKE A MILLION FROM COMMISSIONER CHESNEY AND A MILLION FROM MINE TO DO THOSE -- I'M GOING TO CALL IT EXTRA

SPACE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO STICK IT WITH HORIZONTAL RIGHT NOW, JUDGE.

THE COURT: CAN I SAY CONTINGENT UPON IT NOT BEING MORE

EXPENSIVE. >> I BELIEVE THAT FIRST FLOOR SPACE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THIS COUNTY.

I THINK IT WOULD BE THE MOST SOLID STRUCTURE WE CAN POSSIBLY BUILD. IF I HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS OUT OF MY PROJECT OR OUT OF THE TIRZS OR COS, I WILL GO FIND THAT. BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT STRONGLY THAT THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN THE COURT: I'M NOT A DESIGNER OR ARCHITECT.

WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAD EXTRA SPACE. I LOVE THE IDEA OF THE VIEW.

BUT I'M MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN GETTING US WHAT WE NEED FOR REVENUE. THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO, WORK WITH US TO FIGURE OUT THAT FOUNDATION AND THE PERMIT

AND ALL OF THAT. >> ABSOLUTELY.

NOW THAT WE'VE GOT LOUIS ON BOARD, SINCE HE'S BEING PAID TO

[04:45:04]

DO THIS NOW. THE COURT: OKAY.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> MOTION WOULD BE FOR THE HORIZONTAL MORE SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, I WOULD PUT THE MONEY TOWARDS THAT. THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION THE COURT: I'LL SECOND THAT. BECAUSE I WANT MORE SPACE.

BECAUSE MORE SPACE MEANS MORE REVENUE.

BUT IT DOES MEAN A DIFFERENT DESIGN.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. HE IS NOT THERE YET.

RENDERINGS WILL CHANGE. >> THAT IS WHY I WAS ASKING HOW FAR ALONG HE IS. IF YOU LOOK AT IT, THEY'RE NOT DESIGNS. IT'S DRAWINGS.

THE MOTION WOULD BE THEN THAT I WOULD PUT A MILLION DOLLARS OF ARPA APPROVED AND ALONG WITH THE JUDGE'S FOR THE HORIZONTAL EXTENSION OF THE FIRST FLOOR SPACE.

THAT WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD SUPPORT.

THE COURT: I'VE GOT A MOTION AND I'LL SECOND.

AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. >> MAKE SURE THAT COMES OUT OF

MY ALLOCATED. >> THAT COMES OUT OF OUR FOUR MILLION. OKAY.

>> SO A MILLION EACH. THE COURT: AND THEN WHAT TIME IS IT? 15 UNTIL TWO.

I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND JUST SEE WHAT ELSE I CAN -- WE'VE BEEN ALL OVER THE DARN PLACE. SO GIVE ME A SECOND.

[14. Discuss and consider removing not to exceed amount related to Axis Forensic Toxicology for forensic toxicology laboratory services and NMS Labs for postmortem toxicology for the Medical Examiner’s office.]

THERE IS A COUPLE OF THINGS, ITEM NUMBER 14, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER REMOVING THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT RELATING TO ACCESS FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY, FOR FORENSICS TOXICOLOGY LAB SERVICES. I UNDERSTAND THIS WAS REALLY MORE OF A MISTAKE IN THE WAY THAT IT WAS BROUGHT FORTH AS ONE ITEM, WHEN WE USE THEM ALL YEAR LONG.

IS THAT A GOOD WAY TO DESCRIBE THE FORENSIC SERVICES? IN OTHER WORDS, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A NOT TO EXCEED BECAUSE

WE ALWAYS NEED THEM. >> YOU ALWAYS NEED THEM.

AND IN THE AGREEMENT, WHAT I'M TOLD IS YOU HAVE A SOLE SOURCE LETTER, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS $50,000 MARK.

I BELIEVE THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FINDING THAT IS A SOLE SOURCE. A STEP IN THAT PROCESS.

YEAH. IF YOU NEED THEM OVER 50, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. BUT I BELIEVE EARLIER THE COURT SAID NOT TO EXCEED. SO I THINK YOU NEED TO GO BACK

AND CORRECT THAT OR CHANGE IT >> YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT?

>> YES. THE COURT: WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION, COURT, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO DO JUST THAT? TO REMOVE THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT, GIVEN THAT THESE ARE THE SERVICES THAT ARE REQUIRED. THIS IS THE NORMAL SERVICES THAT THEY HAVE FOR THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS.

>> WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM, WHEN IT WASN'T DISCUSSED HERE, THE MOTION READS NOT TO EXCEED 50,000.

THAT IS WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT BACK.

THE COURT: IS THERE A MOTION TO DO JUST THAT.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO DO IT. THIS IS THE SERVICES THAT THE DA NEEDS TO GO PROSECUTE THESE CASES.

IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

THE COURT: SORRY, JOHN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY

SAYING AYE. >> CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION,

I'M SORRY? >> I'LL TAKE MINE AS THE

SECOND. >> CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION.

>> JOHN, WOULD YOU MIND RESTATING IT FOR BRENT.

>> SO MOVED. >> EVERYTHING THE JUDGE HAD SAID EARLIER. AS IT'S WRITTEN ON 14.

THE COURT: FORENSIC TOXICOLOGY, WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE NOT TO EXCEED BRENT. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO IT WITH EVERY CASE.

NOT TRUE. BUT MOST OF THE WORK WE DO REQUIRES SOME SORT OF PATHOLOGY.

TOXICOLOGY. AND THIS IS THE COMPANY THAT DOES IT FOR THE COUNTY. AND SO OUR CONTRACT WAS TOO LIMITING. BASED ON THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S RECOMMENDATION, SHE WOULD LIKE US TO REMOVE IT SO THAT WE CAN FUNCTION. IS THAT A GOOD SYNOPSIS.

>> I BELIEVE SO. THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY NEEDS IT, ALSO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER NEEDS IT FOR CAUSE OF DEATH ON NON-CRIMINAL RELATED CASES AS WELL.

>> I'M GOOD. THE COURT: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ON THAT PAGE, I AM LOOKING AT 14 THROUGH THE ENTIRE PAGE, 7 OF 11 BEING ACCOMPLISHED.

[04:50:07]

I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO PAGE 6 WHERE WE LEFT OFF.

SOME OF THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE. I'M GOING TO GO BACK.

I SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS WHEN LOUIS WAS HERE, BUT MAYBE YOU CAN CALL HIM ON THOSE PREPOSITION CONTRACTS. IT WILL

[12. Discuss and consider amendment to agreement with Forensic Pathology Staffing for Autopsy Report Continuation and Completion for the Medical Examiner’s Office.]

GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO COME BACK DOWN.

I'M GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 12, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AMENDMENT AGREEMENT WITH FORENSIC PATHOLOGY STAFFING FOR AUTOPSY REPORT CONTINUATION AND COMPLETION FOR THE MEDICAL

EXAMINER'S OFFICE. >> DOCTOR IS ONLINE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THE COURT: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS HERE? I THINK THE IDEA HERE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JENNY IS THAT THERE ARE SOME CASES, WHAT WE DID WAS WE HIRED THIS GROUP TO HANDLE 29 CASES.

BUT THERE ARE SOME OTHER ONES THAT WE DIDN'T IDENTIFY THEN BUT WE HAVE THEM NOW THAT ARE ALSO RELATED TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT WE NEED THEIR ASSISTANCE AND THIS WOULD GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO USE THEM AT THAT LIMITED BASIS.

IS THAT ACCURATE? >> I THINK THEY WERE TIME OF THE ESSENCE AUTOPSIES THAT HAD DELAY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE RELATED TO A DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

THE COURT: IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A HOMICIDE.

IT HAS TO BE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.

IT COULD BE, BUT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE.

IT'S A TIME OF THE ESSENCE. THE IDEA HERE IS WE NEED COURT PERMISSION TO TACKLE THOSE. HOW MANY ARE THOSE? TWO ADDITIONAL CASES. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THAT GIVEN THE NEED. DR. SHAKER'S CASES.

BUT THESE ARE ASAP CASES. >> THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF THOSE TWO CASES. WE HAVE THE CONTRACT WITH LIDEN CASES, 29 CASES. SHAKER'S CASES ARE TAKING CARE

OF IT. >> JUST TWO?

>> JUST TWO. >> WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REST OF

THEM? >> THAT HAS TO BE A DIFFERENT CONTRACT THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS.

THIS IS JUST FOR TWO CASES THE COURT: I THINK IT'S JUST A BUDGETARY SITUATION. WHY DON'T YOU BRING IT BACK ON THE 27TH FOR THOSE. BUT THESE TWO CASES NEED TO BE

TENDED TO IMMEDIATELY. >> I MEAN, I'LL GO FOR THE TWO.

>> YOU CAN BRING IT BACK ON THE NEXT COURT FOR THE OTHERS.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION FURTHER ON THIS MATTER? IS THERE A SECOND? WOULD THAT BE A MOTION,

COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ? >> SO MOVED THE COURT: MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE ADDITIONAL CASES WITH FORENSIC PATHOLOGY STAFFING. SECOND?

>> SECOND >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

[11. Discuss and consider appointment of interim office administrator for medical examiner office.]

ITEM 13 IS EXECUTIVE SESSION. I'LL MOVE BACK TO ITEM 11, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE APPOINTMENT OF THE INTERIM OFFICE ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE MEDICAL EXAMINER OFFICE.

>> EXECUTIVE SESSION THE COURT: EXECUTIVE SESSION AS WELL. I'LL TAKE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON ITEM NUMBER 11. THAT PUTS US BACK INTO ITEM

[10. Discuss and consider authorizing requesting funding from the Nueces County Hospital District for public health services and activities.]

NUMBER 10 IS UNIQUE. IT'S NOT IDAY, WHAT WE DISCUSSED WITH DR. DANTE. THIS IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT TO DISCUSS IF THEY ARE GOING TO PROVIDE EXPENSES.

JOHNNY IS OFFERING THAT WE CAN DO THAT.

THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE IN AGREEMENT, JUST THE COUNTY AND THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT TO CONTINUE SUPPORTING ANY EXP EXPENSES RELATED TO THE HEALTH

DEPARTMENT. >> WE PAY THEM AND THEY REIMBURSE US. WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE?

>> WE DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT YET.

BECAUSE THIS IS AN OLD CONTRACT, WE USED TO DO IT THAT WAY. THAT'S CORRECT.

SOMEBODY REPRESENTING THE COUNTY AND EXPLAIN THAT TO THE BOARD. THE NEXT MEETING THAT THEY HAVE IS ON JULY 26TH. IF THE COURT ALLOWS ME, I CAN

GO AND SPEAK ON BEHALF. >> SENDING YOU TO GO GET

SOMETHING AND BRING BACK TO US? >> YES, CORRECT

[04:55:01]

THE COURT: I WOULD MOVE TO DO THAT.

>> THE TIMING IS PERFECT. THE COURT: GOT A MOTION.

AND DID I HEAR YOU SAY SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. OKAY.

THAT TAKES CARE OF 10. 11, 12 AND 13.

WE'RE DOING PRETTY GOOD, I GUESS.

AWESOME, LOUIS. LOUIS, I EARLIER, I SKIPPED

[6. Discuss and consider establishment of pre-positioned contracts for disaster response, recovery, and logistics relating to extreme weather, and other declared emergencies.]

OVER TO ACCOMMODATE SOME FOLKS IN THE ROOM AND YOU HAD AN ITEM THAT YOU PUT FORTH TO TALK ABOUT PREPOSITION CONTRACTS FOR DISASTER RESPONSE RELATING TO ANY DECLARED EMERGENCIES.

YOU WANTED TO TALK TO THE COURT ABOUT GETTING READY FOR HURRICANE SEASON, AND OTHER CRISISES.

TELL US ABOUT IT. >> WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS TRY TO PUT SOME THINGS IN PLAY FOR A PREPAREDNESS LOOK.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS HAVING A CONTRACT OUT THERE THAT WE CAN KIND OF UTILIZE AS WE NEED IN TIMES OF EMERGENCIES, OR IN TIMES WHERE WE NEED TO GRAB LARGE ITEMS LIKE GENERATORS TO PUT IN PLACE FOR EMERGENCIES.

ONE OF THE THINGS I DID WAS I REACHED OUT TO EDWARD AND MICHAEL. TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN DO THAT. IN THIS DISCUSSION, THE FIRST INTO TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE THAT WE CAN BRING BACK TO THE COURT SO YOU GUYS CAN HAVE A LOOK AT IT AND VOTE ON IT.

NOW, I BROUGHT, HOPING THAT EDWARD WOULD COME AND TALK MORE ABOUT THE COUNTY ITEMS WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM ITEMS LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM ITEMSG FOR.

AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM , ITEM LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN WE ITEMS WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN WE ITEMS WE'RE LOOKIN FOR.

AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM KI ITE LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN WEN ITEMS WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN WED ITEMS WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM O ITEM LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN WEF ITEMS WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM THERE. >> ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE DO AT THE FAIRGROUNDS, WE HAVE ALL OF THE OPERATIONS CENTERED OFF THAT LOCATION. FIRST WE START WITH MOBILIZATION PHASE, REQUIRES THAT WE BRING IN CERTAIN PIECES OF EQUIPMENT. 2.5 MEGA WATTS OF POWER.

WE BRING IN FUEL TANKERS. FUEL STORAGE SYSTEMS. WE'LL HAVE BOTH DIESEL AND GASOLINE, REGULAR GASOLINE THERE AS WELL. WE STOCK UP ON FOOD, WATER.

WE GET EVERYTHING PREPARED. SO THEN WE GO INTO THE EVACUATION PHASE. AT THAT POINT WE START WITH THE RTA, WHO IS OUR PARTNER. STARTS BRINGING IN PEOPLE FOR US. SO LET'S SAY THAT YOU WANTED TO BE EVACUATED. YOU GO TO ANY OF OUR EVACUATION POINTS, YOU GET DROPPED OFF THERE AT THE FAIRGROUNDS.

WE HAVE SCHOOL BUSES THAT WE HAVE LOADED THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOADING. WE HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF ROBSTOWN ISD, PRETTY MUCH ALL THE ISDS TO ALLOW US TO USE THEIR EQUIPMENT TO TRANSPORT PEOPLE OUT. AND THEN WE HAVE THESE -- YOU'LL SEE THAT WE HAVE THESE TAGGING SYSTEMS THAT ITN, ETN, TAGGING SYSTEM THAT THE STATE FOLLOWS.

EVERY PERSON THAT GETS LOADED ON THE BUS GETS TAGGED INTO THE SYSTEM. YOU'RE GOING TO WEAR A PHYSICAL TAG. TAG ALLOWS YOU TO GET ON THE BUS AND DROPPED OFF OVER THERE. WE KEEP TRACK OF YOU IF YOU END UP IN SAN ANTONIO, YOU MIGHT GET SENT OUT TO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. THAT IS A HUB CENTER.

SO THAT IS THE SECOND PHASE. SO THAT IS THE OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT WE NEED. WE'RE GOING TO NEED SCANNERS.

WE'VE GOT THE COMPUTERS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO NEED OTHER THINGS IN THAT ASPECT. HUNKER DOWN PHASE, WE'RE GOING TO SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN. WINDS AT 60 MILES AN HOUR STEADY. MOST EMERGENCY RESPONDERS ARE STOPPED. WE HAVE EVERYBODY THERE ON THE PHYSICAL PLANT AT THE FAIRGROUNDS.

WE'RE GOING TO BE IN BALL ROOM A AND B.

TAKE SHOWERS IN THE EQUESTRIAN, IN THE PENNSYLVANIA VIL I DON'T KNOW NEXT DOOR. THEN YOU KNOW, AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THE STORM, LIKE WE DID THE HURRICANE, POWER STARTED FLUCTUATING GOES IN AND OUT. WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS WHETHER TO TURN ON GENERATORS OR PROVIDE OTHER THINGS.

SO WHAT LOUIS IS TRYING TO DO IS SET UP ALL THAT STUFF.

I KNOW THAT Y'ALL PURCHASED AND BOUGHT EQUIPMENT, BUT THAT MAY NOT BE ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE MAY NEED IN A HURRICANE.

SO I KNOW THAT YOU GOT ONE VACUUM TRUCK.

BUT MAYBE WE NEED THREE VACUUM TRUCKS.

[05:00:03]

BECAUSE WE NEED TO SERVICE ADDITIONAL AREAS.

SO WHAT THESE PRE-POSITIONED CONTRACTS DO, ALLOWS US TO USE OUR OWN STUFF FIRST, BUT THEN IF WE NEED TO BRING IN OTHER ITEMS, WE CAN BRING THEM IN AT A REDUCED COST.

WE HAD AN INCIDENT WHEN COMMISSIONER MAREZ WAS IN CHARGE OF DRISCOLL, WE WERE LOOKING FOR SIX INCH PUMPS, AND VACUUM TRUCKS. WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE LOST ALL THAT EQUIPMENT TO THE WELLS. SO THE OIL WELLS OR PRODUCERS WERE SOAKED UP ALL THAT EQUIPMENT BEFORE WE HAD A CHANCE TO GO OUT AND TRY TO ACQUIRE IT.

SO THESE CONTRACTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT IN THAT ASPECT, IN THAT THEY GUARANTEE THE EQUIPMENT IS READY AND AVAILABLE FOR YOU WHEN YOUTOGE. CITY USES A COMPANY CALLED GARRETT. COMPANY HAS DIFFERENT PACKAGES.

SAY FOR INSTANCE, YOU CALL IT THE HURRICANE PACKAGE.

YOU PUT TOGETHER ALL THE EQUIPMENT YOU NEED FOR A HURRICANE. YOU CALL IT THE FLOODING PACKAGE. AND THEN YOU TELL THEM OKAY, THIS IS ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT I WOULD NEED FOR A FLOODING.

YOU CALL THAT STUFF UP, THEY'LL AUTOMATICALLY DELIVER IT TO YOU AND YOU CAN BEGIN USAGE OF THAT EQUIPMENT.

>> EDWARD, WHAT I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT, IS THE COURT HAS SAID, WE HAVE LISTENED MANY TIMES THAT DURING CRISIS, THEY WANT TO BE BETTER INFORMED. THEY WANT TO BE MORE INVOLVED.

THIS GIVES THEM THAT CHANCE RIGHT NOW TO VOTE ON -- WE DON'T HAVE ANY. BUT IF YOU WERE TO BRING THEM FORTH, A VOTE ON PREPOSITIONED CONTRACTS SO THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHO WE'RE USING, WHAT THE RATES ARE.

WHAT KIND OF EQUIPMENT THEY HAVE.

AND EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE TO PULL THE TRIGGER AS WE SEE FIT DURING THE CRISIS, AT LEAST ALL OF THAT IS DONE IN A HUGE TRANSPARENT WAY. AND WE DO THIS KIND OF NORMALLY ON CERTAIN THINGS, WHERE THERE IS ONLY LIKE ONE LET'S SAY LOADSTAR UAS FOR THE DRONES. BUT THIS GIVES US A LOT MORE VISIBILITY, JUST LIKE WE DO FROM DEBRIS MONITORING, AND COLLECTION. WE'LL KNOW WHO WE'RE USING.

AND WE'LL KNOW THAT EVERYONE HAD A SAY SO.

>> WHAT WE'RE FINDING OUT IS IF YOU WAIT TOO LATE AND TRY TO GET EQUIPMENT, YOU WON'T HAVE IT THE COURT: OR YOU'LL PAY TOO MUCH OR THE RIGHT FEMA A LANGUAGE ISN'T IN THERE AND THEN YOU'RE CHASING ALL OF THESE RABBITS AROUND, WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF HUMAN CAPITAL BECAUSE WE'RE ON THE FLY AND WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT LANGUAGE AND WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET THE RIGHT FEMA LANGUAGE BECAUSE NO ONE IS WORKING DURING A HURRICANE.

I JUST COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THIS ONE WAS FOR YOU. THIS BUD IS FOR YOU.

DO YOU LIKE THIS AT ALL? I MEAN, THIS IS A REALLY GOOD WAY, I THINK OF -- WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SHOW YOU TODAY. THIS IS WHAT WE THINK WE'RE

GOING TO BRING TO YOU. >> I LIKE THE CONCEPT.

YOU KNOW HOW I AM, UNTIL I SEE IT IN FRONT OF ME, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SIGN OFF 100 PERCENT ON SOMETHING.

BUT I LIKE THE CONCEPT. I WANT TO SEE WHAT THE END RESULT IS. I APPRECIATE YOU DOING IT

>> TELL US, WHAT IS YOUR PLAN AGAIN, DO YOU WANT TO BRING THIS BACK TO COURT NEXT TIME WITH AN ACTUAL AUTHORITY TO REQUEST AUTHORITY MICHAEL TO PROCURE OR GIVE US A LITTLE --

WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT? >> WE'VE DONE ONE OF THESE IN THE PAST, WHEN DANIELLE WAS HERE, WE HAD A PREPOSITIONED CONTRACT WITH THE COMPANY THAT IDENTIFIED ALL OF THESE EQUIPMENT AND EACH OF THE OPERATIONS FOLKS WERE INTERVIEWED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT LIST WAS GOING TO COMPRISE OF. WITH THE VOTE OF CONFIDENCE FROM THE COURT TODAY, THAT WOULD EMPOWER OUR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS FOLKS TO START IDENTIFYING A SCOPE OF WORK OF WHAT WE WOULD WANT ENTAILED IN THIS PROJECT.

I WILL COME BACK TO THE COURT AND I WILL ASK TO GO OUT FOR AN RFP FOR THIS SERVICE AND THEN THAT WOULD BE DELINEATED IN THE BACK-UP DOCUMENTS YOU WOULD SEE EXACTLY WHAT THAT SCOPE OF WORK

[05:05:01]

WOULD INCLUDE. AND THE COURT WOULD HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY THEN TO ADD OR TAKE AWAY FROM WHATEVER IS IN THAT LIST OF ITEMS. ONCE THE COURT AGREES ON THAT LIST, AND GIVES ME AUTHORIZATION TO PUT OUT THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, THEN WE WOULD ADVERTISE AND THEN COME BACK WITH HOPEFULLY A VENDOR THAT WOULD PROVIDE THAT SERVICE TO US. THE CAVEAT IS GOING TO BE TYPICALLY WE NEED TO DECLARE DISASTER, WE NEED A NEED DESCRIBED SO THAT WHEN WE PULL THE TRIGGER, WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT THE FUNDING SOURCE IS GOING TO BE THE FUNDS THAT COME DOWN FROM FEMA TO FUND THE COUNTY FOR THAT EVENT THE COURT: THANK YOU, MICHAEL. COMMISSIONERS, I GUESS Y'ALL ARE SATISFIED AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.

THANK YOU. SORRY TO BRING YOU BACK.

I KNOW YOU'RE UPSTAIRS BUSY, BUT THIS DOES HELP US.

BY THE WAY, I AM GOING TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO HURRY.

BECAUSE AUGUST IS THE BEWITCHING SEASON FOR HURRICANES. IF YOU GUYS CAN WORK WITH MICHAEL QUICKLY, WE CAN AT LEAST TRY TO ACHIEVE ONE OF THOSE BIG CONTRACTS BEFORE WE SEE THE TROPICS GET MORE OVER -- MICHAEL, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

OVER-EXCITED. >> I JUST WANT TO MANAGE EXPECTATIONS. WITH US STARTING IN THE MIDDLE OF HURRICANE SEASON, THIS IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ANSWER FOR SOMETHING THAT COMES UP IN FOUR WEEKS FROM NOW.

WE'LL RELY ON OUR CURRENT METHODS OF ESCALATING TO GET THE EMERGENCY CONTRACTS IF NEEDED.

IF WE HAVE AN EVENT COMING UP. I THINK WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BE IN TIME FOR ANOTHER WINTER WEATHER EVENT, SPRING FLOODING.

THE COURT: FAIR. I APPRECIATE YOU SETTING THE EXPECTATION BAR. BUT GETTING STARTED IS GETTING STARTED. I THINK EVERYONE WANTS ME TO MOVE ON. WE'RE HAVING THE SUGAR DROP.

>> MY SUGAR IS GOOD. KARA IS HERE AND NO ONE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED. HI.

[7. Discuss SmithGroup, Inc. professional services agreement regarding medical examiner facility, and related matters. ]

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO ITEM NUMBER 7, IS NEXT. AND SO THAT WAS DISCUSSED THE SMITH GROUP, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT REGARDING THE MEDICAL EXAMINER FACILITY AND RELATED MATTERS.

WE CAN WAIT -- THE SMITH GROUP IS NOT ABLE TO JOIN US.

BUT THE CONCEPT HERE WAS TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A COUPLE OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT RELATE TO HIRING SOMEBODY AND ALSO WORKING SOME POTENTIAL DOLLARS FOR MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE SMART TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHAT WE'VE DONE, WHERE WE ARE.

ALL I'M PREPARED TO DO IS REMIND YOU THAT YOU GUYS SOMEWHERE IN YOUR OFFICES HAVE COPIES OF TWO THINGS.

ONE IS THE ABBREVIATED CONCEPTUAL PLANNING FOR THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE. THE BIG FEASIBILITY STUDY.

THIS IS WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. THEY'RE REALLY BIG.

EACH OF YOU SHOULD HAVE THEM IN YOUR OFFICE.

IF YOU DON'T, WE CAN GET THOSE FOR YOU.

THE SMITH GROUP WAS HIRED UNDER THE COURT'S AUTHORITY AFTER AN RFQ WAS CONDUCTED. AND I LOOKED IT UP AND THE COURT SPENT ABOUT $155,000, MORE OR LESS TO DATE.

I MIGHT BE A LITTLE OFF ON THIS GROUP.

THEY WERE PROCURED. THEY GAVE US DELIVERABLES AND THE LAST WE HEARD, WE WERE WAITING FOR FUNDING TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT. THAT CONTRACT WE SPENT A LOT OF DOLLARS ON WORKING ON THAT CONTRACT.

BUT AGAIN, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER BACK IN THE DAY BEFORE COVID, WE DID NOT HAVE THOSE DOLLARS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT THAT THE COURT VOTED ON. IT WAS PROJECT B, THE MIDDLE ONE WHERE THERE WAS A SHELL OF A TOXICOLOGY LAB.

BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THOSE FUNDS, THAT CONTRACT NEVER GOT EXECUTED. THAT IS THE UPDATE I WANTEDED TO PROVIDE. I LEARNED THAT THANKS TO IDAY'S OFFICE LOOKING INTO IT AND OUR OFFICE GETTING A COPY OF ALL OF THIS. I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT AS THE BACKDROP TO ANOTHER ITEM THAT IS HERE REGARDING ANOTHER FIRM. SO WITH THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. WE CAN LUMP IT INTO ANOTHER ITEM HERE LATER. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE WITH THE SMITH GROUP, CONSIDERABLE TIME AND MONEY AND MANAGEMENT HAS GONE IN, WE HAVE NOT ADVANCED THAT PROJECT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF FUNDING. AND THAT IS WHERE WE ARE HERE.

[05:10:09]

THERE IS NO COMMENTS. >> WHAT IS THE DEAL ON NUMBER 20? THE COURT: WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK THERE. I WAS TRYING TO DO THIS ONE.

I DON'T KNOW. YOU STEPPED OUT.

YOU STEPPED IN. DID YOU HEAR WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE SMITH GROUP AND WHERE WE ARE ON THAT? WE PAID THEM FOR THE STUDY AND WE ALSO PAID THEM FOR A PLANNING AND THE COURT VOTED ON A CONCEPT.

WE HAD A SITE SELECTION COMMITTEE.

WE VOTED ON THAT. WE WERE PENDING CONTRACT EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACT WAS NEGOTIATED BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE THE FUNDING SOURCE. BUT THEY WERE PROCURED AS THE ARCHITECT FOR A NEW MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE UNDER AN RFQ.

SO WITH THAT AS THE BACKDROP -- WE WENT OUT FOR RFQ AND WE DID CONCEPTUAL PLANNING WITH THEM AND WE GOT THIS DELIVERABLE.

THE ONE THAT I SHOWED YOU HERE. AND WE'VE DONE ALL THIS WORK.

AND WE PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR THAT.

I WANTED TO GO INTO THE AGENDA ITEM THAT HAS KIND OF COME UP A FEW TIMES, COMMISSIONER, IT'S YOURS.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE USE OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDSES IN THE AMOUNT OF $7 MILLION FOR THE PURPOSES OF RENOVATING OUR CURRENT MEDICAL EXAMINER'S FACILITY, INCLUDING NEW ADDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 6,000 SQUARE FEET FOR PROPER SAFE AND TO ENSURE THE SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR STAFF AND PUBLIC. ITEM NUMBER 20.

COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ'S. >> I WAS TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF JUAN. BUT I CAN'T GET AHOLD OF HIM.

I DON'T KNOW IF PUBLIC WORKS WILL BE HERE THE COURT: CAN I SKIP IT AND COME BACK TO IT?

[24. Receive clarification regarding the unclaimed capital credits received by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts from electric cooperatives under Section 74.602 of the Texas Property Code as discussed on June 21, 2022, including discuss and consider moving funds back to the non profit agencies under the family protection fee fund.]

ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 24. AND IT'S RECEIVE CLARIFICATION REGARDING UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS RECEIVED BY THE TEXAS C COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

CITES THE SECTION 74.602 AND THE PROPERTY CODE.

I'LL LET EITHER IDAY OR DALE TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS.

BECAUSE THIS IS A FUND THAT THEY PROBABLY KNOW QUITE A BIT ABOUT. UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS.

I THINK WE JUST VOTED LAST COURT TO ACCEPT THEM.

>> I HAVE AN ISSUE. MAYBE DALE CAN SHED SOME LIGHT.

LIKE LAST TIME I ASKED TO GET SOME EXPLANATION AND FEEDBACK ON WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE TAX CREDITS.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHERE THE FUNDS ARE GOING TO.

YOU KNOW, I GOT KIND OF A BREAKDOWN FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, THAT SOME OF THE FUNDS HAD BEEN GOING TO NCDC, BUT NOTHING IN RECORD THAT SHOWS THAT WE EVER APPROVED THAT.

NO ACTION TAKEN BY THE COURT. AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY GOT A COPY FROM LISA'S RIGHT? DO YOU KNOW WHO AUTHORIZED THIS? THERE WAS SOME HANDWRITTEN NOTE LAST BUDGET TO INCLUDE NCDC ON THERE.

DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT?

>> RECEIVED AND APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER'S COURT ADMINISTRATION. THE FUNDS COME IN SEPTEMBER OF EVERY YEAR, NORMALLY THEY GO TO THE FAMILY PROTECTION FUND.

NCDC TO BEGIN STARTING FUNCTION OF THIS.

WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE COURT ORDER TO DEPOSIT IT AS PART OF

FAMILY PROTECTION. >> BACK WHEN TINY WAS HERE, HE WAS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP TO THE COURT.

>> WE STILL DO. >> WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CREDITS? THOSE ARE THE MONIES THAT THOSE AGENTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GETTING.

>> THAT MONEY, FUNDS SET UP IN THE FAMILY PROTECTION FUNDS.

HOWEVER, THE STATE HAS SUSPENDED AND NO LONGER COLLECTING THE FUNDS. IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE THAT WE HAVE TO FIND DIFFERENT FUNDS. BUT THIS IS THE FUNDS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE STATE FOR CAPITAL CREDITS.

[05:15:04]

THEY WERE DEPOSITED IN THE FAMILY PROTECTION FUND.

WE'VE MADE THE PAYMENTS REQUIRED BY THE COURT TO THE INDIVIDUALS THAT THE NON-PROFITS THAT Y'ALL ASKED US TO PAY FOR. THEY ARE FUNDED THROUGH THIS FUND. EVERY YEAR Y'ALL TELL US WHO TO

FUND TO >> NCDC?

I'M ASKING DALE. >> FIRST YEAR, THE ONE YEAR WOULD BE DEPOSITED THERE. THIS NEXT YEAR, IT WILL BE DEPOSITED IN THE FAMILY PROTECTION.

WE DON'T RECEIVE FUNDS UNTIL SEPTEMBER

>> AGAIN, I'M GOING BACK TO LISA'S REPORT FROM YOUR OFFICE.

SAYING THAT AT NO TIME DID THEY SEE ANY RECORDS FOR ANYTHING BEING APPROVED, THE FUNDS SHOULD HAVE GONE TO DIFFERENT LOCATION. BACK AT PAGE NUMBER 14, SAID THERE WAS A HANDWRITTEN NOTE THAT SAYS DEPOSIT UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS, STARTING ON F 2021, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, I

DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THERE >> COURT ADMINISTRATION DID

THAT? >> THERESA IS THE ONE THAT AUTHORIZES IT AND TOLD US WHERE TO DEPOSIT IT.

>> WHO AUTHORIZED THERESA TO DO THAT?

>> THEY RECEIVE THE CHECKS. EVERY TIME WE ASK SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON.

EVERY TIME I ASK YOU SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW.

YOU SHOULD KNOW. I KNOW YOU KNOW, BUT YOU SHOULD KNOW. AND YOU KNOW, FOR YOU TO GIVE ME AN ANSWER THAT I DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, THAT IS NOT A VERY GOOD ANSWER COMING FROM THE AUDITOR, YOU KNOW.

BUT AGAIN, I'M GOING TO GO BACK ON WHAT HARRY SAID ALSO.

WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE VIDEO.

AT NO TIME WHATSOEVER WAS ANYTHING DISCUSSED ABOUT THE NCDC. TINY WAS THE ONE WHO PRESENTED THOSE AGENCIES. NOBODY ELSE ADDED TO IT EXCEPT THOSE TWO AGENCIES. SO I DON'T KNOW, THE MONEY, IF IT'S NOT GOING DIRECTLY TO THE FUNDS, WHICH SHOWS HERE THEY PROBABLY ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THAT SOMETHING HERE IS NOT RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT. >> IF YOU WANT, WE CAN MOVE THE FUNDS BACK FROM THE NCDC. HOWEVER, THE NCDC WILL BE SHORT. WE CAN REMOVE THE MONEY BACK FROM THE STANDARD PROTECTION FUND, HOWEVER, NCDC WILL BE SHORT AND REQUIRED FUNDING FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

THE COURT: I TAKE EXCEPTION WITH WHERE IT BELONGS.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS PERMISSIVE.

I TOTALLY TAKE ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THIS WAS NOT DISCUSSED. I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO REMEMBER IT IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DISCUSSED IN COURT.

WE DID DISCUSS IT. I APPRECIATE HARRY AND LISA DOING RECOGNIZANCE, BUT I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY RESEARCHED OR WHEN OR WHETHER THEY LOOKED AT BUDGET WORKSHOPS, BUT YOU'RE THE AUDITOR AND LISA AND HARRY WORK FOR YOU. I AGREE THAT I MEAN, JUST BECAUSE ONE COMMISSIONER SAYS HEY, I WANT TO GET ANSWERS DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO BACK PEDAL 100 PERCENT WHEN WE ALL KNOW THAT I MEAN, THE FUNDING FROM NCDC IS IN PLAIN SIGHT AND PLAIN VIEW. WE STARTED OFF WITH EXTRA DOLLARS, AS YOU SAID, WHEN WE STARTED IT.

AND THE COURT VOTED ON THOSE EXTRA DOLLARS.

I I THINK IT WAS $50,000 ORIGINALLY.

>> TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

AND BEFORE WE GOT THE WHAT I CALL THE THIRD PARTY FUNDING, THE PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI'S FUNDING, THERE WAS I THINK SOME LAG TIME THERE. AND I MEAN, THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED UNLESS SOMEHOW THERE WAS A RECOGNITION THAT THE NCDC RECEIVED THOSE FUNDS.

>> I'M JUST READING WHAT CAME OUT OF YOUR OFFICE.

DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING CONTRADICTORY TO WHAT YOUR

EMPLOYEES ARE SAYING? >> THERE WAS BUDGET TALK AND HEARINGS. BUT THESE BUDGET HEARINGS ARE NEVER PART OF THE MINUTES BECAUSE THEY'RE WORKSHOPS.

THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY COURT ORDER.

ONCE A BUDGET WAS ADOPTED, THERE WAS A PORTION OF THE

[05:20:04]

BUDGET, TRANSACTION THAT WE DID THE COURT: WAS IT DONE IN THE

BUDGET OR BUDGET CHANGE ORDER? >> CHANGE ORDER WOULD BE

EXPENSE, NOT REVENUE. >> FOR EXAMPLE, COULD HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT, PROBABLY WAS, I DON'T REMEMBER.

BUT THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE COURT VOTED ON, THEN WE TALK ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS, BUDGET HEARINGS AND WORKSHOPS.

SO I COULD SEE WHERE IT COULD EASILY HAVE GOTTEN JUST CODIFIED BECAUSE NO ONE CAUGHT IT.

AND MAYBE COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ CAUGHT IT IN A NEGATIVE WAY, JUST MEANING SOMEHOW IT GOT PUT IN WITHOUT COURT APPROVAL, WHICH IS NOT LIKE WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN.

AND SO THEN IT JUST HAPPENED AGAIN.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED. SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS

>> WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED A CHECK THIS YEAR YET

>> I GET IT. THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION, IS THAT CONSIDERED PART OF THE 50,000 THAT WE CONTRIBUTE?

>> NO. IT'S SEPARATE. >> HOW MUCH IS THAT?

>> AMOUNT WE RECEIVE FROM THE CAPITAL CREDIT WAS FOR $65,000.

65,000. >> THAT WENT TO THE NCDC?

>> YES. >> AGAIN, I GUESS TO ME -- THE FIRST YEAR THEY RECEIVED $90,000 FROM THE PORT.

THEIR TOTAL BUDGET WAS $130,000.

WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL 40 TO $50,000 TO BREAK EVEN.

>> HOW MUCH DO THESE FEES EQUATE FOR THE NCDC, 60,000.

>> 65,813. >> AGAIN, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE FROM YOUR STAFF WHERE THERE WAS ANY COURT ACTION THAT SAID THAT. SO WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT.

IF SOMEONE HAS PROOF OF THAT COURT ACTION, THEN PLEASE BRING IT TO US, BECAUSE HARRY OR LISA MISSED IT.

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DID SOME PRETTY EXTENSIVE RESEARCH.

ARE YOU CONTRADICTING WHAT THEY'RE SAYING?

>> NO. >> OKAY.

I THINK WE NEED TO KIND OF LOOK AT THAT.

BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER DOING IT.

BUT I'M NOT SAYING WE COULDN'T HAVE DISCUSSED IT.

BELIEVE ME, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY BEEN A THOUSAND COURT ACTIONS THAT WE'VE HAD. BUT THAT IS WHY WE KEEP RECORDS AND MINUTES. WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO FIND IT IF IT WAS. IF IT WASN'T, WE NEED TO

CORRECT IT. >> WE CAN CORRECT IT

>> HOW RECENT WAS THIS, DALE? >> LAST SEPTEMBER.

>> AND NCDC HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR ONE YEAR?

>> YES. >> SO THEY DON'T NEED FUNDING

FROM THE COUNTY. >> THEIR BUDGET IS 150,000.

THEY RECEIVE 125 FROM THE PORT. FUND RAISING OF OVER 50, WHICH THEY HAVEN'T DONE YET. THE FIRST YEAR WE CONTRIBUTED $50,000. WE HAVE A CONTINGENCY THIS YEAR OF $50,000 FROM THE GENERAL FUND IF NEEDED.

>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE PORT WAS TOTALLY FUNDING THEM.

>> THE PORT CONTRIBUTES 125. THEIR TOTAL BUDGET IS 150.

THEY'RE $25,000 SHORT AT LEAST. >> I KNOW I SAID MANY TIMES THIS COUNTY IS ONLY PUTTING IN $50,000 TO THE NCDC.

I THOUGHT THE REST OF IT WAS THE PORT.

I MY BAD. MY RESPONSIBILITY.

>> BUT THAT WOULD BE GREATER THAN.

YOU JUST SAID THAT THEIR BUDGET IS 140.

FORGIVE ME THAT IS A DELTA OF ONLY 15,000.

SO THIS COUNTY HAS NOT GIVEN MORE THAN 15,000 NOT 50.

>> GOOD POINT. >> BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T CONTRIBUTED ANY FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND THIS YEAR.

SO WE MOVED THAT, THE BALANCE WOULD BE NEGATIVE.

WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THE TRANSFER OUT OF THE GENERAL

FUND. >> IF THE BUDGET IS 140 AND THEY GET 50 FROM US, 175, WE DON'T GIVE THE 60.

AND WE GIVE IT TO THE NEGLECTED CHILDREN, ABUSED CHILDREN, THE THINGS IT HAD GONE TO IN THE PAST, WHICH WOULD BE GOOD.

HOW IS THERE A SHORTAGE? >> THE SHORTAGE IS BASICALLY IF I TOOK THE 65 AWAY WITHOUT GIVING THE 50, THEY WOULD BE SHORT. IF WE GIVE THE 50, THEY WON'T BE SHORT. TO SAY THAT THE NON-PROFITS HAVE NOT BEEN NEGLECTED. WE PAID EVERYTHING THE COURT

ORDERED US TO PAY. >> RIGHT.

SO YOU'RE SAYING WE HAVEN'T PAID THE 50 EITHER?

>> NO. >> WE OWE THE 50.

>> 50 WAS CONTINGENCY BASED ON FUND RAISING AS WELL.

CONTINGENT ON YEAR END. >> THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT

[05:25:01]

EITHER. WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THAT.

>> BECAUSE OF COVID-19. NOBODY WAS HAVING ANY EVENTS.

>> 50 IS BUDGETED. THE COURT: WE HAVEN'T USED IT.

>> FOR NOW. BUT I DO THINK IF WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT THAT 60 IN, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE WAS A COURT ACTION, OR I CAN'T FIND IT, WE PUT THAT TOWARDS, WHAT IT USED TO GO FOR, MORE THAN NEGLECTED CHILDREN, ABUSED FOLKS.

THOSE CHARITIES CAN REALLY USE IT.

WE'LL WORRY ABOUT THE FACT THAT COVID, WHATEVER THE REASON IS, THEY DIDN'T RAISE THEIR 50 WHEN WE'RE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD. THE COURT: IT GETS MORE INTERESTING AND COMPLICATED THAN THAT.

THEY NEED TO FORM A 501C3 FOUNDATION, WHICH THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE DONATIONS AND RECEIVE THE TAX DEDUCTION. THAT IS HOW THE CHAMBER DOES IT. SO THAT CONVERSATION NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE AS WELL. THAT NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE OF COVID. BUT AT ANY RATE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY DON'T NEED THE EXTRA DOLLARS.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THE COURT CAN CHOOSE TO PUT BOTH PREVIOUS DOLLARS AND FUTURE DOLLARS TOWARDS ANY OF THE ELIGIBLE

CHARITIES THAT WE DO. >> I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE.

BASICALLY WOULDN'T WE TAKE THAT 60, THAT WHATEVER IT IS AND DIVIDE THAT AMONGST THE ONES WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED AND THEN GIVE THE 50 THAT WE BUDGETED TO NCDC.

THE COURT: YEAH. YOU COULD DO THAT.

>> IS THAT REASONABLE, DALE? THE COURT: YEAH.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR BUDGET THAT THEY HAVEN'T TOUCHED YET.

>> DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO UNDO THIS? THE COURT: IT'S JUST TO RECEIVE CLARIFICATION.

NO, IT DOESN'T. IT SAYS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER.

YOU CAN DO IT UNDER THAT. >> LET ME ASK THERESA ONE QUESTION. ON THIS OTHER PAGE THAT YOU SUBMITTED, THIS IS FROM YOU, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T HAVE A NAME ON IT. IT'S NOT FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. IS IT FROM YOU?

>> IT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA.

>> IN 2021, WE REQUESTED THAT THE FUNDS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS BE DEPOSITED INTO THE NCDC

ACCOUNT. >> WHO ORDERED THAT?

>> TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FEES COLLECTED IN THE FAMILY

PROTECTION FEE ACCOUNT >> WHO TOLD YOU TO DO THAT?

>> IT WAS A BUDGET REQUEST THAT WAS INCLUDED IN EACH BUDGET YEAR. 2021, 2022.

FROM THE DEPARTMENT. THIS IS WHAT WE SUBMITTED.

FROM THE DEPARTMENT. THE BUDGET PACKETS.

>> FROM THE NCDC, THEY REQUESTED IT?

>> IN WORKING WITH NCDC, IN ORDER TO MAKE THE BUDGET WHOLE, WORKING ON REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES, WE REQUESTED TO DEPOSIT THE FUNDS FROM THE UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS INTO THIS ACCOUNT. ALONG WITH THE PORT REVENUE.

THIS WAS BEFORE THE GENERAL FUND GAVE THE $50,000 TRANSFER.

THE COURT: GOT IT. >> SO THERE WAS NO TRANSFER FROM THE FAMILY PROTECTION FEE ACCOUNT TO NCDC.

THOSE FUNDS ARE TOTALLY SEPARATE.

THEY'RE STILL IN THAT ACCOUNT. WE HAVE A $200,000 FUND BALANCE IN THE FAMILY PROTECTION ACCOUNT.

SO WE HAVEN'T TRANSFERRED ANY FUNDS FROM THAT ACCOUNT.

>> THAT IS PRETTY IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

SO THIS WAS -- SO YOU HAD THIS EXPLANATION AND YOU REMOVED IT.

WHY? >> WE WERE ASKED TO REMOVE IT

FROM THE AGENDA. >> THAT IS NOT RIGHT.

>> THE PUBLIC SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE THIS.

>> IT'S IN MY PACKET. >> IT WAS REMOVED.

>> IT WAS PART OF THE PACKET. >> IT IS A PART OF THE PACKET

[05:30:09]

THAT WENT OUT AND THEN WE WERE REQUESTED TO REMOVE THIS

ATTACHMENT. >> THERESA, IT'S IN MY PACKET.

>> BECAUSE YOU RECEIVED THE CONFIDENTIAL PACKET WHEN WE FINISHED POSTING. SO WE WERE REQUESTED TO RECOLLATE AND TAKE THIS DOCUMENT OUT OF THE PACKET.

TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE AGENDA. YOU HAVE IT BECAUSE YOU RECEIVED THE CONFIDENTIAL PACKET WHEN WE COMPLETED THE

AGENDA. >> BUT IT WAS UPDATED AND FINALIZED AND THIS DOCUMENT CAME OUT.

>> I GOT IT. SO NOW THIS THE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT WITH DALE.

>> I THINK DALE AND I ARE ON THE SAME BOAT, WE DID NOT TRANSFER ANY FUNDS FROM FAMILY PROTECTION FEE ACCOUNT.

THAT IS KIND OF WHERE I'M GOING.

THESE FUNDS WERE SIMPLY DEPOSITED INTO THE FAMILY PROTECTION FEE ACCOUNT. WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED THE FUNDS

FOR THIS YEAR. >> WHICH FUNDS?

>> UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS. THEY WERE DEPOSITED TO THE NCDC ACCOUNT. WE RECEIVED THESE FUNDS AT THE END OF THE YEAR, SEPTEMBER. SO IF YOU CHOOSE TO NOT PLACE THEM IN THE NCDC ACCOUNT, THEN WE CAN PUT THEM BACK -- WE CAN PUT THEM INTO THE FAMILY PROTECTION FEE ACCOUNT.

BUT THEY'RE SEPARATE FUNDS. >> OR WE CAN PUT THEM IN SOMETHING ELSE OR NOT TRANSFER THE GENERAL FUND TRANSFER AND CHANGE HOW WE DO THE NCDC LATER.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS THE FUNDS, REGARDLESS. SO IF WE USE THE DEPOSITS FROM THE UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS, WE DON'T HAVE THE USE THE GENERAL FUNDS MONEY. GENERAL FUND WOULD HAVE TO PICK

UP THAT ADDITIONAL COST. >> I THINK WE APPROVED TO GO TO

NON-PROFIT AGENCIES. >> THE NON-PROFITS ARE THE FAMILY PROTECTION FEE ACCOUNTS. AND HISTORICALLY THAT IS WHERE THOSE FUNDS ARE DEPOSITED. BUT THEY CAN BE USED FOR VARIOUS THINGS AND ONE IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WHICH WORKING THE BUDGET PROCESS, IT WAS A BENEFIT AND A PLUS TO PUT THOSE FUNDS OVER THERE AND NOT HAVE TO USE GENERAL FUND MONEYS TO HELP THAT DEPARTMENT.

>> WHAT IS CONFUSING TO ME THEN IS DALE JUST SAID BUDGET FOR

NCDC IS 140, IS THAT RIGHT? >> FOR THIS YEAR?

>> THIS REVENUE STREAM PROVIDES 230,000 FOR NCDC.

WHY WOULD WE NEED 230,000 GOING INTO THAT FUND?

>> YOU HAVE THE PORT REVENUE, WHICH IS CONSTANT.

WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO DO THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE AND WE WOULD HAVE THE FUNDS FROM THE UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDIT WHICH WOULD GIVE, ALLOW THAT DEPARTMENT TO HAVE A FUND BALANCE MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE IT IS A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE GENERAL FUND TO KEEP SUPPLEMENTING, WE NEED TO BUILD THE FUND BALANCE IN THAT DEPARTMENT.

THE COURT: IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S BOOKED A CERTAIN WAY, BUT

NOBODY HAS USED THOSE DOLLARS. >> THIS WAS DEPOSITED INTO NCDC. THAT IS NOT A TRANSFER,

COMMISSIONER. >> WHATEVER IT IS, IT HAS GOT TO BE APPROVED BY COMMISSIONER'S RECOURT.

>> WE NEED TO BRING EVERY RECEIPT FOR COMMISSIONER'S

APPROVAL? >> WHEN WE ARE DOING A BUDGET, WE NEED TO HAVE SOMEONE TO HELP US FOCUS ON THIS DURING THE NEXT BUDGET. BECAUSE THIS WAS CONFUSING BECAUSE UNTIL YOU WALKED IN, WE WERE HAVING AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. SO THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME EITHER. SO WE NEED TO REMIND US AT

[05:35:04]

BUDGET TIME PLEASE THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS AND FIGURE IT OUT. BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND NOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT THAT WASN'T WHAT WE WERE SAYING FOR THE 15 MINUTES BEFORE YOU CAME IN HERE.

WHICH WAS FRUSTRATING THE COURT: I THINK THE HELPFUL PART IS THAT WE'VE NOW DISTINGUISHED THAT THE FAMILY PROTECTION FEE IS PRESERVED AND NOT TOUCHED, IN FACT, HAS A VERY HEALTHY BALANCE AND ALSO WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT THE BUDGETARY, WHICH WE ALL AT LEAST RECALL, IS $50,000 AND WE HAVE NOT USED THAT. AND WHAT WE'VE GOT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE NEW CAPITAL, I'M SORRY, UNCLAIMED CAPITAL CREDITS AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

AND THEN WE'LL GET TO SAY WHERE THOSE SHOULD BE DIRECTED VERY SOON. SO I MEAN, AS THEY SAY, THAT IS THE RECEIVING CLARIFICATION BUT IT CERTAINLY IS NOT POSED IN A -- I THINK WE'RE CLEAR NOW. WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO YOU

HAVE FOR DALE OR THERESA? >> ASSETS, LIKE VEHICLES, WHAT

FUNDS DO THEY GO TO? >> THE ASSETS THAT WE GET FROM

SOLD ASSETS, LIKE VEHICLES? >> 131 IS I BELIEVE THE CODE,

YES. >> ARE THOSE THE SAME POT THAT

THESE OTHER ONES ARE? >> NO. DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT.

>> THAT MONEY GOES TO WHERE? >> THAT MONEY GOES ANY TIME ASSETS SOLD, ACCORDING TO THE BUDGET RESOLUTIONS, THE COURT PASSES EVERY YEAR, THOSE FUNDS ARE IN THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND BY ITSELF AND ONLY CAN BE USED BY THE COURT'S DIRECTIONS.

>> DO YOU KNOW OUR BALANCE ON THAT ONE?

>> I BELIEVE 600,000, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

PROBABLY ADDITIONAL FROM THAT. >> THIS IS NOT PART OF THE

AGENDA. >> THANK YOU, DALE, APPRECIATE

IT. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO I'M GOING TO MOVE ON AND ASK EVERYONE TO RE-READ THIS PLEASE. BECAUSE IT THOROUGHLY EXPLAINS IT. YOU GOT A COPY NOW.

AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 26.

WHICH IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER -- I DON'T KNOW HOW Y'ALL FEEL ABOUT THIS. BUT WE DID TAKE THAT FIVE-MINUTE BREAK. BUT NONE OF US REALLY HAD LIKE EVEN TEN MINUTES TO AT LEAST GET FOOD.

SO I DO WANT TO AT LEAST SEE IF WE CAN GET THROUGH THE REGULAR AGENDA AND THEN MAYBE TAKE ANOTHER TEN-MINUTE BREAK.

SO BE THINKING ABOUT WHETHER THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU

[26. Discuss and consider amended Work Authorization related to Winter Weather Recovery with Hagerty Consulting, providing for a decrease of $8,000 in not to exceed amount; discuss and consider amended Hagerty Work Authorization with Hagerty Consulting related to Emergency Rental Assistance (ERAP) providing for an increase of $8,000.00 in not to exceed amount.]

GUYS. >> ARE WE GOING BACK TO 20 OR

NOT? >> I'M GOING TO BACK TO MEDICAL

EXAMINER, RIGHT? >> AT SOME POINT.

>> YES, WE WILL. THE COURT: WE CAN GO BACK TO IT. REMEMBER YOU SAID WE COULDN'T REACH JUAN. SO I'LL CALL IT IN A MINUTE.

I'M GOING TO CALL 26 AND SEE IF WE CAN FINISH THESE.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AMENDED WORK AUTHORIZATION RELATED TO WINTER WEATHER RECOVERY WITH HAGERTY, PROVIDING FOR A DECREASE OF 8,000 AND DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AMENDED HAGERTY WORK AUTHORIZATION FOR AN INCREASE OF 8,000.

IDAY, NET NEUTRAL, DECREASING ONE 8,000 AND INCREASING ANOTHER WHERE WE NEED IT. IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> SO MOVED, JUDGE. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT.

MOTION AND IS STL A SECOND? >> SECOND.

THE COURT: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

OKAY. SO I GUESS WE CAN GO BACK TO

THE -- >> I SAID NO. MINE WAS NO.

[20. Discuss and consider the use of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds in the amount of $7,000,000 (or other amount) for the purpose of renovating our current medical examiner’s facility including a new addition of approximately 6,620 SF for proper space and to ensure a safe environment for staff and public.]

THE COURT: ITEM 20 IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER USING THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $7 MILLION, RENOVATING A CURRENT MEDICAL EXAMINER'S FACILITY. AND IN THE AMOUNT OF 6620 FOR PROPER SPACE AND ENSURE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR STAFF AND PUBLIC. AND THERE IS ALSO SOME OTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT ARE RELATED.

AND THAT IS WHY I GUESS YOU'RE HERE?

[05:40:06]

AND SO YOU WANT TO, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, YOU WANT TO MAYBE BRIDGE, ARE YOU TRYING TO BRIDGE THESE TWO ITEMS, B2 AND THE 7 MILLION? THE $7 MILLION FOR THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE. IT WOULD BE A RENOVATION.

NOT A NEW FACILITY. THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING?

>> NO. 7 MILLION IS FOR A NEW ADDITION AND RENOVATION.

>> I GUESS LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT THE SCOPE IS.

THE COURT: HOLD ON ONE SECOND, I GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT HE IS GOING TO AGREE TO BRIDGE THESE TWO ITEMS.

>> THEY'RE TOGETHER. THE COURT: HE'S GOT A PUBLIC WORKS ITEM TO SELECT YOU AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT YOU HAVE NOT BEEN HIRED BY THE COURT. SO YOU'RE HERE JUST AS A FRIENDLY RESOURCE. HAVE YOU BEEN HIRED?

>> NO, MA'AM. THE COURT: OKAY.

IT SO -- >> SHE'S SAYING DO YOU WANT TO DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? THE COURT: DO YOU WANT TO DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? BECAUSE WHATEVER YOU'RE HERE FOR, I JUST NEED TO KNOW HOW YOU'RE HERE.

YOU'RE HERE AS A RESOURCE, RIGHT?

AND A CONFERENCE. >> YES, MA'AM.

THE COURT: BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HIRED YOU YET.

AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, ARPA WOULD REQUIRE COMPETITIVE HIRING UNDER A CERTAIN PROCESS. SO YOU'RE REALLY HERE AS A LOSS LEADER FOR YOUR COMPANY, BUT JUST TO HELP THE COURT BECAUSE

YOU'RE SO NICE AND FRIENDLY. >> I GUESS GIVE YOU A BACK DROP TO HOW I'M HERE. HOW DID I GET HERE.

PRIMARILY, JUDGE, I WAS ASKED TO REVIEW THE MAGNITUDE OF A POTENTIAL MEDICAL EXAMINER'S FACILITY.

JUAN ASKED ME TO LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AND SEE WHAT I COULD COME UP WITH AND MAKE IT MORE FEASIBLE.

THE CURRENT OR PRIOR SCOPE OF WORK, THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SCOPE OF WORK, THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT IT INCLUDED, IT EXCEEDED THE CAPACITY OR AT LEAST THE FUNDING THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE. SO THE FIRST COMMENT OR THE FIRST REQUEST WAS TO LOOK AT THE EXISTING FACILITY AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD RENOVATE IT AND THAT GET THAT FACILITY TO COME UP TO PAR. IN REVIEWING THE EXISTING FACILITY AND THE NEEDS OF THE YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY BASED ON POPULATION AND THE CASES THAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO SEE, WE REVIEWED THE WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE ALLOCATED OR AT LEAST SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE ALLOCATED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BASED ON THE POPULATION OF OUR CITY.

AND WE ESTIMATED THAT IN ORDER TO MEET OUR NEEDS, AND OUR SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, WE COULD RENOVATE THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH IS ABOUT 5500 SQUARE FEET AND ADD ABOUT 6600 SQUARE FEET, NET TOTAL IS GOING TO GIVE US ABOUT 11,400 SQUARE FEET OF A FACILITY. AT THE END OF THE DAY, ONCE WE'RE DONE IN TWO PHASES, THIS WILL GIVE US A BRAND NEW

FACILITY. >> HOLD ON.

>> YES, SIR. >> LET ME SEE IF WE CAN GET JUAN ON THE PHONE HERE. I THINK HE IS ON STAND-BY.

THE COURT: AND ARE YOU ALSO AWARE THAT IS NOT ALL THAT THEY'VE DONE, THAT ALSO WE CAME TO COURT AND WE DID ANOTHER STUDY, ANOTHER RENDERINGS AND WE ACTUALLY HAD A CONTRACT NEGOTIATED WITH SOMEBODY. IT'S VERY ODD PROFESSIONALLY TO INTERFERE WITH ANOTHER PERSON'S CONTRACT.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. HOW YOU GOT HERE, WHY YOU'RE WORKING ON TOP OF WORK THAT WE'VE ALREADY EXPENDED TAXPAYER MONEY ON. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS.

>> YOU CAN ASK OR JUAN. THE COURT: I'M SPEAKING TO THE

[05:45:05]

GENTLEMAN THAT IS HERE. >> HE IS DOING WHAT WE ASKED HIM TO DO, JUDGE THE COURT: WHO IS WE? MYSELF. THE COURT: WE NEED COURT AUTHORITY FOR SOMEBODY TO COME AND DO WORK.

THIS IS VERY CONCERNING. >> I THINK IT'S MORE FOR YOU TO DIRECT THE QUESTIONS TOWARD OUR STAFF AND COMMISSIONER.

THE COURT: HE IS A VERY HONEST PERSON.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND. >> WELL, YOU'RE ASKING HIM TO COMMENT ON THIS AND THAT. THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE FOR

JUAN TO COME HERE AND EXPLAIN. >> HE IS ON VACATION THE COURT: WHY DON'T WE TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL JUAN CAN COME AND EXPLAIN. MOTION TO TABLE.

IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND? TABLE IT UNTIL JUAN CAN COME AND EXPLAIN.

BECAUSE YOU DON'T WORK FOR US. I WANT TO YOU BE A REFERENCE BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. WE ASKED EARLIER, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ TO WAIT FOR OUR FUTURE MEDICAL EXAMINER FROM JULY 18TH. YOU KNOW I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE IT UNTIL HE CAN BE HERE AND EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING HERE. AND I ALSO WANT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO HELP ME REVIEW BECAUSE THE LAST -- WE HAD A 5-0 VOTE. MAYBE IT WAS 4-1.

YOU ABSTAINED. >> I THINK I VOTED AGAINST IT.

THE COURT: ALL I REMEMBER IS THAT WE VOTED ON A CONCEPT FOR FUNDING AND WE SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY GETTING TO THAT POINT. AND IN THE SPIRIT OF WORKING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE -- WE WENT OUT AND SAID AS A COUNTY, JAVIER, WE WANT TO DO AN RFQ TO SELECT ARCHITECTS.

WHICH WOULD BE REQUIRED BY ARPA TO BE UTILIZED.

WE CAN'T GET TO THE OTHER ITEM. BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO WAIT.

JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS COUNTY WENT OUT AND SAID WE ARE LOOKING FOR QUALIFIED ARCHITECTS FOR MEDICAL EXAMINER FACILITIES. WE DID THAT AND SPENT CONSIDERABLE DOLLARS ON IT. THE ACTUAL ARCHITECT.

AND THEY DID TONS OF WORK. AND THEN WE VOTED ON A CONCEPT AND DESIGN AFTER WE DID A LOT OF SITE SELECTION.

WE DID THAT BY COMPARING WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE FOR THE REGION IN THE FUTURE. THAT TOOK $55,000 WORTH OF TAXPAYER MONEY. IF WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH DIRECTIONS, THAT MIGHT BE JUST FINE.

I MIGHT BE 100 PERCENT FOR SWITCHING DIRECTIONS AND APPROPRIATE THESE DOLLARS. WHAT I DON'T APPRECIATE THIS COURT HAVING DONE ALL THAT WORK, SOMEBODY WITHOUT TELLING ANY OF US, GOES AROUND AND HE HAS TO COME AND ANSWER FOR THAT. THAT IS WHAT I DON'T LIKE.

I DON'T LIKE THAT THEY USED YOU AS A GOOD ARCHITECT AND COMPANY THAT IS WORKING IN THIS COURTHOUSE AS A MEANS TO DO IT.

I FEEL VERY STRONG ABOUT THAT. CLK DOES GOOD WORK.

BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE HAVE TO BE RULE FOLLOWERS.

AND THE RULES AT ARPA REQUIRE AN RFQ, WHICH THIS COUNTY HAS DONE. THAT IS THE BIG THING FOR ME.

>> I WOULD SIMPLY THEN MAKE A MOTION, SUBJECT TO FOLLOWING THE RULES, THAT WE ALLOCATE THIS SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS FOR THIS PROJECT AND THEN SUBJECT TO THE RULES BEING FOLLOWED.

BECAUSE TO ME, THIS IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FOR WHAT WE NEED AND WILL SATISFY OUR NEEDS AND WE CAN DO IT THAT WAY.

THE COURT: I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ACKNOWLEDGE.

>> SECOND. THE COURT: THAT THE MONEY IS DEFINITELY NEEDED, COMMISSIONER.

I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME TALKS ABOUT TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

WHAT WE NEED IS WHAT THIS BOOK SAYS.

>> I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT. FOR THE RECORD, I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THAT. I BELIEVE I VOTED AGAINST THAT $28 MILLION PROJECT. I DIDN'T BELIEVE WE NEEDED THAT. SINCE YOU'RE BRINGING IT UP, I WAS MOVING FORWARD. I THINK WATT AS A SELF-SERVING STUDY BY THE PEOPLE WHO DID IT. THE MORE THEY GET, THE MORE THEY MAKE. I THINK WAS DONE INDEPENDENTLY.

THE COURT: I KNOW YOU DON'T MEAN TO DISPARAGE THEM.

LET'S STOP AND NOT DO THAT. >> I SAID IT WASN'T DONE INDEPENDENTLY. THAT IS IN ITSELF A PROBLEM.

I BELIEVE THIS WILL MORE THAN SUFFICE.

I MADE A MOTION. TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS AND THEN FOLLOW THE RULES. WHATEVER THE RULES ARE THAT HAGERTY SAYS THE COURT: THE RULES HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED AND THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED.

[05:50:02]

THERE HAS BEEN A HUGE WORK-AROUND COMMISSIONER CHESNEY. I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD APPRECIATE THAT ON ANY NORMAL DAY.

>> SO IT'S CLEAR THAT -- THE COURT: APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS. BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT IS. BECAUSE $7 MILLION JUST COMES

OUT. >> I THINK WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT ITEM AND THEN HIRE HIM TO COME FORWARD AS LONG AS IT FOLLOWS THE RULES, SUGGEST SUBJECT TO THE RULES.

IF HAGERTY SAYS YOU CAN'T HIRE HIM, I CAN LIVE WITH THAT.

I'M TRYING TO MOVE THIS ALONG TO WHERE IT'S SUBJECT TO THE

RULES. >> JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT IS ABOUT RIGHT FOR A MEDICAL FACILITY TO BE IN THE THOUSAND DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT RANGE. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU'VE GOT HERE. YOU'RE ABOUT A THOUSAND 57 PER SQUARE FEET. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO -- I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ALLOCATING GOOD FUNDS, FOR A MUCH NEEDED PROJECT. BUT WHAT I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM IS, IS WE LITERALLY SPENT THREE YEARS AND $155,000 PLUS OF TAXPAYER MONEY. IN ONE FIVE-MINUTE SOMEBODY THAT DIDN'T EVEN GET HIRED BY THE COURT IS GOING TO COME TELL US WHAT WE NEED WHEN WE'VE DONE ALL OF THIS

>> I'M SAYING LET'S STOP ALL THIS AND ALLOCATE THE FUNDS, AND DO THIS SUBJECT TO THE RULES.

HIRE HIM SUBJECT TO THE RULES. AND THEN BRING IT BACK.

SO THAT JENNY AND HAGERTY CAN SIGN OFF AND LET'S MOVE ON.

>> I JUST WANT JAVIER TO KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT APPRECIATED BY MYSELF AS A WORK-AROUND. IT'S NOT RIGHT.

AND YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT -- YOU KNOW FULL WELL HOW ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS GET HIRED AND THIS IS NOT HOW YOU DO IT. YOU KNOW THAT FOR A FACT.

I DON'T LIKE IT. IT'S NOT RIGHT.

PARTICULARLY WHEN WE'VE SPENT TONS OF TAXPAYER MONEY DOING IT RIGHT. AND THAT IS WHAT REALLY IS SO BOTHERSOME. THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR THE 7 MILLION. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT WE DON'T DISCUSS WHAT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS BECAUSE THAT IS BASED ON SOME PLAN THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT IN THIS COURT. SO 7 MILLION FOR JUST THE

GENERAL, IF YOU DON'T MIND. >> MY MOTION WAS FOR THIS PROJECT. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WHEN WE BRING IT BACK IT CAN'T CHANGE. THE COURT: THAT'S RIGHT.

>> I'M MAKING THE MOTION TO DO EXACTLY THIS THE COURT: ALLOCATE THE DOLLARS.

>> THE WAY THE MOTION IS WRITTEN AND THEN ADD THE LANGUAGE, SUBJECT TO HAGERTY TELLING US THAT WE'RE DOING IT

THE CORRECT WAY. >> RIGHT.

IT'S GOT SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE, THAT WE HAVE NO BASIS AND FACT FOR. I WOULD LIKE THE REMOVAL OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. WAIT.

WAIT. WAIT.

COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, GO AHEAD. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, I'M COMFORTABLE BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN COMFORTABLE WITH ALL ALONG. AND SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS SUBJECT TO HAGERTY TELLING US.

BUT THEN WHEN IT COMES BACK, IF HAGERTY SAYS WE CAN'T DO IT THIS WAY, SOMEONE GETS AN ARGUMENT TO ADD MORE, I'M SUPPORTING THIS MOTION THE WAY IT IS, SUBJECT TO THE RULES BEING FOLLOWED THE COURT: HOW COULD YOU SUPPORT THE 6600 SQUARE FEET WHEN YOU HAVE NO BASIS AND FACT FOR IT. ALLOW THE FACTS TO BE BROUGHT TO COURT. I'LL CONCEDE WITH YOU THAT THE 7 MILLION IS A GREAT THING. BUT I WILL NOT CONCEDE THAT 6,620 SQUARE FEET IS THE PROPER SPACE AND WE HAVE NO BASIS AND FACT FOR THAT. TAKE OUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE

>> I'M OKAY WITH IT. BUT IN TRYING TO YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, OR I CAN AMEND THE MOTION TO SAY TOTAL OF 7 MILLION TO BE SPENT AND NO MORE ON THIS MEDICAL FACILITY.

THE COURT: OUT OF ARPA. >> I'M SAYING PERIOD.

BUT I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT ON THIS.

I ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS WAS THE RIGHT NUMBER.

IT'S A PHENOMENAL FACILITY. THE COURT: HERE IS THE THING, DON'T YOU LET DATA DRIVE ANY OF THESE DECISIONS, ALLOW THE RIGHT PROCESS TO COME FORWARD AND SHOW US.

>> I'VE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH HIM ABOUT ALL THE WORK HE'S DONE ON THIS AND WHO HE HAS TALKED TO.

IT SUPPORTS WHAT I BELIEVE THREE YEARS AGO WHEN I VOTED AGAINST A $28 MILLION PROJECT. THE COURT: ALL OF HIS WORK HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT FORTH IN A PUBLIC AND TRANSPARENT WAY.

MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE 7 MILLION AND LET THAT BE AN APPROPRIATION. BUT IF YOU DO MORE, ALL YOU'RE DOING IS REWARDING BAD BEHAVIOR.

THAT BAD BEHAVIOR IS GOING AROUND THE COURT

[05:55:01]

>> I'M PAUSING ON DOING THE WHOLE THING TODAY BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHECK WITH HAGERTY AND EVERYBODY ELSE TO CHECK WITH HAGERTY.

SO I'M DOING WHAT I BELIEVE IS RIGHT.

BUT I'M LISTENING TO YOUR COMMENTS.

I DON'T AGREE WITH ALL OF THEM. BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS SUFFICIENT. YES, THIS IS ENOUGH MONEY AND ENOUGH SPACE TO DO IT IN. THE COURT: BASED ON WHAT, ON TALKING TO JOE GONZALEZ ON THE SIDELINE?

>> I ARGUED THIS THREE YEARS AGO.

THE COURT: YOU'RE SCARING ME RIGHT NOW, DUDE.

YOU'RE SCARING ME. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH SOMETHING THAT HASN'T -- HOW DO YOU IGNORE THIS? HOW DO YOU IGNORE THIS WITHOUT GETTING A PROPER VETTING OF IT.

WE PAID MONEY FOR THE EXPERTS. YOU'RE NOT THE EXPERT.

>> BUILD THE STATE OF THE ART BUILDING.

THE COURT: WHERE IS THIS COMMISSIONER?

>> STATE OF THE ART. HE SAID MAN, WE GOT DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF POPULATION. DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AUTOPSIES Y'ALL HAVE. THE COURT: COMMISSIONER, WHERE WAS THIS? WHERE WAS THIS, COMMISSIONER?

FORT BEND COUNTY. >> ARE YOU AWARE THAT FORT BEND COUNTY IS ADDING BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CREATE SUFFICIENT

SPACE? >> DR. FERNANDO WAS THE ONE THAT RECOMMENDED IT. WE TOOK HIS ADVICE, WE VISITED.

THE DOCTOR THERE, I MEAN, IT'S FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

IT'S NOT FOR AUTOPSIES. THE COURT: IT'S FOR SPACE.

MEDICAL OFFICES AND SPACE THAT THEY DIDN'T DESIGN.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE CRANE GROUP? OKAY. WELL, THE CRANE GROUP IS WHO BUILT THE FORT BEND MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE.

THEY WERE THE EXPERTS ON IT. AND ALSO THE FORT BEND, AS I SAID, IS IN THE PROCESS OF RENOVATIONS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT WAS PHASED OUT. AND AGAIN, IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL TO HAVE ALL OF THIS DATA.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT ANY REAL INFORMATION IS GIVEN.

BECAUSE THE WAY IT WORKS, WE HIRE PEOPLE TO BRING US DATA AND THAT WAY IT'S INDEPENDENT AND OPEN AND TRANSPARENT.

IT'S NOT DONE BEHIND PEOPLE'S, YOU KNOW, BEHIND PEOPLE'S

>> EVERYTHING WAS OPEN THE COURT: THERE IS NOTHING

OPEN ABOUT THIS PROCESS. >> YOU COULD HAVE ASKED ME.

YOU KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE DOING.

THE COURT: CLK SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN UNLESS THEY WERE PROPERLY HIRED, UNLESS THEY'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF FREEBIE WORK. HAVE YOU BEEN PROMISED THE

WORK, SIR? >> NO, MA'AM.

THE COURT: IT'S ON THE AGENDAS. DO YOU KNOW IT'S ON THE AGENDA

TO SELECT YOU? >> YES, MA'AM.

THE COURT: AGAIN, YOU CAN ACT LIKE WE'RE ALL WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON, BUT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON.

>> I WOULD RESPECTFULLY CALL THE QUESTION.

THE COURT: CALL THE QUESTION. >> WELL, IT TURNS OUT I HAVE TO CALL THE QUESTION. SO AGAIN, WHAT IS YOUR MOTION, SIR? ARE YOU GOING TO LEAVE IT AS IS ON 6620, ARE YOU GOING TO GO ON RECORD SAYING THAT THAT IS THE ACCURATE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHEN THIS COURT HAS BEEN GIVEN ZERO INFORMATION THAT THAT IS THE ACCURATE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE NEED WHEN THE CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER THAT WE JUST HIRED HASN'T BEEN HERE TO LOOK AT IT? THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO GO ON

RECORD FOR? >> AT THIS POINT, YES, MA'AM, I DO. SUBJECT TO THE HAGERTY CHECKING OUT THROUGH HAGERTY. THE COURT: I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, JENNY. WHOEVER VOTES NO CAN -- I MEAN,

WHOEVER VOTES >> THE WINNING SIDE CAN BRING IT BACK. THE COURT: THE WINNING SIDE CAN BRING IT BACK. ANY MEMBER OF THE WINNING SIDE?

>> YES. THE COURT: OKAY.

I WILL CALL THE QUESTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

OKAY. I'M ON THE PART OF THE WINNING, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR JULY 27TH.

>> BUT YOU GOT TO HAVE THE VOTES THE COURT: IT DOESN'T MATTER, COMMISSIONER.

THAT'S CALLED VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS ACT.

THE POINT IS, IS THAT I'M BRINGING IT BACK.

OKAY. >> EXCUSE ME, JUDGE, I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO YOU PREACH TO US HOW THINGS SHOULD BE DONE HERE THE COURT: IS THIS GERMANE TO THE AGENDA ITEM? IF IT'S NOT GERMANE, WE CAN'T HEAR IT.

JENNY, IF IT'S GERMANE, WOULD YOU ADDRESS IT TO JENNY.

>> YOU DIDN'T BRING THAT TO US, JUDGE.

THE COURT: WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

NO, I DON'T. >> THE ONE YOU SIGNED.

THE COURT: IF IT'S NOT GERMANE, WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING YOUR SIDEBAR COMMENTS. IT'S SIDEBAR COMMENTS.

[06:00:04]

JENNY, WOULD YOU INSTRUCT COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, THAT HE IS NOW IN JEOPARDY OF INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER THE TOPIC OF BAYOU PARK WAS NOT NOTICED ON

THE AGENDA. >> YOU NEED TO TELL THE JUDGE

WHEN SHE IS OUT OF LINE. >> OKAY.

THE COURT: WE'RE ADVISING -- >> DO IT BOTH WAYS, JENNY.

>> COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, WE'RE GOING TO STICK TO THE AGENDA ITEMS. THAT ONE IS DONE.

THAT ONE IS DONE. AGAIN, IF YOU CAN'T STICK TO THE AGENDA, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO BE PARTICIPATING.

[27. Receive update on Commissioner Court Courtroom audio/visual capabilities, including microphone system.]

WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 27. >> JUDGE, I DIDN'T CATCH EVERYONE'S VOTES. IT WAS CHAOTIC.

>> 5-0. >> ON THAT ITEM, THAT LEAVES US ABOUT 7 MILLION OF UNALLOCATED THAT -- THE COURT: LET'S ASK RACHEL. RACHEL, WILL YOU HELP US WITH THE TALLY HERE SHORTLY. I THINK THAT IS CLOSE.

>> RIGHT ABOUT 7. >> LET'S SEE.

LET'S HAVE HER DO IT. >> HELLO, I HAVE THE 22 MILLION BEFORE THE MEDICAL EXAMINER DISCUSSION.

>> NO. >> WE STARTED TODAY WITH THE 52.6 AND THEN WE HAVE 1 MILLION FOR BOOSTER PUMP STATION, 632 FOR DRISCOLL. 6,000 FOR PARKS.

1,000 FOR THE FOOD PANTRY. 2500 FOR THE ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT. 1 MILLION FOR BANQUETE.

20 MILLION FOR THE 4 MILLION EACH AND THEN TWO MILLION FOR

BOB HALL PIER. >> TWO MILLION CAME FROM ONE MY ALLOCATION OF FOUR AND ONE FROM THE JUDGE'S ALLOCATION OF FOUR.

>> YOU MENTIONED THE PARKS 600,000, IT SHOULD BE SIX

MILLION. >> THE PARKS IS 6 MILLION.

>> CORRECT. >> TWO MILLION FROM BOB HALL

PIER IS PULLING ONE MILLION. >> I THINK WE MISSED SOMETHING.

THE COURT: LET'S GIVE HER A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.

DALE, SOMEBODY TEXT HER ALL THE AGENDA ITEMS. WE CAN GO OVER THEM IN JUST A SECOND.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-TEN MINUTE BREAK.

LET'S GET ON THE PHONE WITH HER SO WE CAN GET A REAL NUMBER.

I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE A REAL NUMBER.

BUT I THINK IT'S BETTER IF WE GO OVER THEM PER THE AGENDA, IF THAT IS ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO MOVE ON AND GO TO DARRYL IS HERE TO TALK ABOUT AUDIO VISUAL CAPABILITIES, INCLUDING OUR MICROPHONE SYSTEM.

THAT WILL HELP US. OUR PERIPHERAL VISION IS NOT THE GREATEST HERE. WOULD BE GREAT TO LOOK LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS WITH MICROPHONES.

DARRYL, WHAT DO WE HAVE? >> WELL, ACTUALLY, I WASN'T REAL PREPARED FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM.

>> WHICH ONE, JUDGE? THE COURT: 27.

>> ACTUALLY, THIS WAS MINE. NO, IT WASN'T.

28. MY BAD THE COURT: I THINK 27 IS DARRYL.

>> SORRY. >> THIS CAME UP A WHILE BACK.

ACTUALLY, THIS IS KIND OF IN REGARDS TO WHAT I'M PUTTING TOGETHER WITH THE NEW IT POSITION WE'RE MOVING IN, AND GETTING PARTNERED UP WITH ANOTHER AV OUTFIT THAT IS MORE LOCALIZED. AND THEN ALSO WORKING WITH ZOOM PERSONNEL, WHICH I HAVE A MEETING WITH ON FRIDAY.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT SET-UP, WE HAVE, YOU LOOK IN TERMS OF THINGS BEING MISCONFIGURED OR THINGS BROKEN. SO THERE IS NOT MUCH BROKEN.

WE'VE HAD A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THESE WIRELESS MICS UP HERE.

I GOT NEW BATTERIES FOR THOSE. BUT AFTER THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT WAS SET UP A WHILE BACK, COVID CAME IN AND SO ZOOM GOT THROWN INTO THE MIX. THEN IN THAT PROCESS, THE PODIUM GOT MOVED TO WHERE I'M AT.

SO ZOOM AND THE SWAGIT STREAMING SYSTEM DON'T EXACTLY MESH WELL TOGETHER. IF YOU EVER CONNECT TO BOTH OF THEM, THEY'RE OUT OF SYNC. SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS WHERE THINGS HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME, SO THE STANDARD AV APPROACH HAS BEEN KIND OF HAD A MONKEY WRENCH THROWN IN IT, WHERE ZOOM OR OTHER TYPES OF MEETING SOFTWARE HAS COME INTO PLAY.

[06:05:03]

SO NOW WE HAVE TO INTEGRATE IT. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, THE WHOLE SET-UP, OUR AUDIO SIDE AND VIDEO SIDE AND NOW THIS MEETING SOFTWARE. WHAT I'M GOING TO LEARN, WHICH I KIND OF HAVE, MUCH MORE DETAIL WITH THEM, IS THAT ZOOM ACTUALLY HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REPLACE SWAGIT.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT.

I'M SAYING THAT FUNCTIONALITY HAS COME ABOUT THAT MUCH.

SO I NEED TO WORK WITH THESE COMPANIES.

SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A PRETTY BIG PROJECT.

SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT IF SOMETHING BREAKS, WILL WE FIX THAT RIGHT AWAY. BUT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE IS A MASSIVE OVERVIEW OF THE ENTIRE SET-UP.

SO THAT IS WHY THIS DISCUSSION CAME UP IN THE PAST, ACTUALLY NOT TOO LONG AFTER I WAS HERE. AND THE AGENDA ITEM HAS KIND OF FLOATED AROUND AND THEN IT'S BEEN ON PREVIOUS AGENDAS.

SO AT THIS POINT, I WOULD ASK THAT WE NOT PUT IT ON ANYMORE AGENDAS UNTIL I GET ALL THIS STUFF ORGANIZED AND BROUGHT BACK THE COURT: SOMETIMES IT LINGERS AND WE'LL SAY WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT NEXT TIME, IN ORDER TO FULFILL THE ACTUAL MOTION THAT WE'RE TABLING TO THE NEXT DATE.

WE CAN DO THAT. WE CAN ADHERE TO YOUR REQUEST THERE. THE ONE THING I WAS GOING TO SAY IN THIS CAMERA THAT IS RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF ME

>> BROKEN PART. THAT IS THE ZOOM INTRODUCTION.

THE COURT: BUT I'M SAYING, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, IT'S REALLY FRUSTRATING TO LOOK STRAIGHT WHEN I'VE GOT A CAMERA YOU

KNOW, RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. >> THAT CAMERA STANDING RIGHT THERE AND HAVING TO MANUALLY SPIN IT AROUND, THAT IS THE CENTER POINT OF OUR DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.

THAT CAMERA DOESN'T BELONG LIKE THAT.

THESE NICE CAMERAS WE HAVE CAN BE USED WITH ZOOM AS WELL.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULD REMOVE FROM STREAMING. SO WE HAVE TO WORK WITH THESE COMPANIES AND INTERNALLY GET THIS POSITION DEDICATED TO THIS STUFF. THAT HAS BEEN A WEAK POINT IN IT ALMOST FOREVER. BUT IT WASN'T THAT BIG OF A DEAL, BECAUSE IT USED TO BE THE STANDARD AV STUFF.

ONCE YOU GOT IT SET UP, YOU WERE GOOD TO GO.

BUT NOW AS WE LOOK AT IT, WE WANT TO LOOK ACROSS THE BOARDS.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MICROPHONES, ALL THE BELLS AND WHISTLES THAT COME WITH THIS, SOME WE USE, SOME WE DON'T, NOW IS THE TIME FOR YOU THE JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS TO VOICE YOUR CONCERNS OR YOUR DESIRES OF WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN COMMISSIONER'S COURT. IN THE FUTURE WE WILL HAVE AGENDA ITEMS, WHERE AS I START HAVING THESE MEETINGS WITH THE OUTSOURCING AND IT, ZOOM PERSONNEL, WE'LL START PUTTING SCENARIOS TOGETHER. SO THEN WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING GOOD TO PRESENT AND Y'ALL CAN PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT THE COURT: THAT'S GOOD.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT I KNOW ONE IS MORE SECURE THAN ANOTHER, I'M STATING WHAT I KNOW BASED ON WHEN WE WENT TO THE COURT SYSTEMS EARLY ON WITH ZOOM AND WHAT HAPPENED NATIONALLY, THEY MAY HAVE CURED THIS ALREADY.

BUT THERE WERE A LOT OF HACKS INTO ZOOM AT PUBLIC MEETINGS.

VERY INAPPROPRIATE THINGS THAT WERE BEING ZOOMED IN TO YOUR ZOOM. AND THEREFORE, ZOOM, THAT IS WHY A LOT OF PROFESSIONALS PREFER WEBEX AND TEAMS, MICROSOFT TEAMS MEETINGS, BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE IS A LITTLE MORE FIREWALL SECURITY. SO BEFORE WE MOVE OUT OF SWAGIT, I AM GOING TO ASK YOU OUTSIDE FOR YOU TO ADDRESS TO THE COURT THE SECURITY PIECES OF ZOOM.

THEY HAVE ADVANCED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS.

WHEN WE WENT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO COMPLETELY ON ZOOM, IT WAS A BIG FEAR. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN I DON'T THINK INSIDE OUR JURISDICTION, BUT IT HAPPENED TO A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS. ZOOM DID NOT -- ALLOWED FOR A

LOT OF EASY HACK ACCESS. >> SECURITY IS A BIG THING, WE ALWAYS TALK SECURITY. HE ACTUALLY DIRECTED ME TO THEIR WEBSITE TO WHERE THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF THE CERTIFICATIONS KIND OF BLESSED IN THEIR SECURITY MORE RECENTLY.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE OUT OF THE WOODS AS FAR AS US ASSESSING IT FURTHER. IN IT, WE STILL USE A WEBEX ACCOUNT. SO IT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. SECURITY WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR WHATEVER WE CHOOSE TO DO.

IF IT'S NOT THERE THEN THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION CAN'T BE

[06:10:01]

THERE. ONE THING WITH ZOOM, EVERYBODY THREW THE STUFF OUT THERE AS QUICKLY AS THEY COULD WHEN COVID CAME ALONG, YOU GOT DOLLAR SIGNS ROLLING AROUND.

WITH ZOOM, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A FREE ACCOUNT THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN BY WITH. AND THEN THEY HAVE LIKE THREE LEVELS OF PAID ACCOUNTS AFTER THAT.

AND WE WOULD NO LONGER, THE COUNTY HAS BEEN RUNNING ON MOSTLY FREE. WE'VE HAD LIKE THREE OF THE STANDARD PRO LICENSES INTERNALLY THAT CONNIE HAS BEEN ABLE TO USE. THAT IS HOW SHE GETS THE WEBINAR 500 FROM THE ZOOM PEOPLE, SO THAT IT CAN BE STREAMED OUT THROUGH YOUTUBE. BUT THEY'VE COME A LONG WAYS SINCE THEN. WE'LL TALK WITH THEM, ASSESS THEIR SECURITY, ALL OF THEIR FUNCTIONALITY.

MAKE SURE WE DON'T LOSE ANYTHING THAT WE LIKE.

AND THEN WE'LL START PUTTING SCENARIOS TOGETHER AND THEN WE'LL PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA LATER ON SO THAT WE CAN TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT IT. THE COURT: OKAY.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DARRYL? THAT WOULD INCLUDE THESE MICROPHONE SYSTEMS THAT WE INVESTED IN DARRYL, UPFRONT HERE, WHERE WE CAN LITERALLY RECOGNIZE BY LIGHTS, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY IS TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING, SO WE CAN STOP SAYING THINGS LIKE YOU'RE INTERRUPTING. YOU CAN SEE IT AND HE CAN BUZZ.

AND THE PORT ADMINISTRATOR SEES.

I SEE IT. THAT IS INVESTMENT WE KIND OF

HAVE SOMEWHAT MADE, RIGHT? >> YES.

THAT FUNCTIONALITY, I SAW WHERE IT EXISTED.

THE CAPABILITY TO DO IT. BUT IT WASN'T CONFIGURED.

LIKE THEY KIND OF STOPPED SHORT THERE SOMEWHERE.

I'M NOT SURE WHY. I'M NOT LOOKING AT THOSE COMPANIES. SOMETHING MORE CLOSER TO HOME AND PEOPLE THAT I'VE SEEN SOME OF THEIR INSTALLATIONS ALREADY.

THE COURT: RIGHT. IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE THIS WORK THE WAY IT WORKS AT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND ALL OF OUR POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE SAME.

SO YOU'LL BRING IT BACK WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AND YOU'LL WORK WITH IDAY TO GET IT ON WHEN YOU'RE READY?

>> YES. THE COURT: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DARRYL? OKAY.

DARRYL, THANK YOU. >> I JUST REALIZE TOO, ON NUMBER 20, YOU HAD ASKED EARLIER IF I WAS WILLING TO SAY THAT THE 6620 SQUARE FEET, IT'S ACTUALLY 11,400, WHICH IS THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AFTER THE RENOVATION.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR.

I WAS LOOKING AT 11,400. THE COURT: YOU'RE ADDING

ORIGINAL SPACE. >> RENOVATION AND ADDITION.

WAY LESS THAN THAT PER SQUARE FOOT.

THE COURT: I'M GOING TO HOLD UNTIL NEXT TIME BECAUSE I WISH IT WAS ALL THAT EASY. BUT I FEEL LIKE THE THOUSAND DOLLAR PER SQUARE FOOT MAY APPLY TO THE RENOVATION, BECAUSE IT'S MEDICAL AND WE HAVE TO BE ACCREDITED.

THERE IS LIKE A MILLION LAYERS HERE.

I HEAR YOU. YOU'RE WANTING PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT THIS PARTICULAR SCHEME WHICH HASN'T EVEN BEEN PRESENTED IN DRAWINGS, IN YOUR MIND, IS AN ADDITION TO THE FIVE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET THAT EXISTS, IN YOUR MIND.

BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> WE SAW IT ALREADY THE COURT: YOU SAW IT ALREADY.

NONE OF US HAVE SEEN IT. BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN

AUTHORIZED. >> THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT YOUR CLARIFICATION IS NOTED FOR THE RECORD.

AND I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO YOUR ITEM, WHICH IS ALSO KIND OF LEFT-OVER FROM LAST TIME. AND IT'S DISCUSS AND CONSIDER

[28. Discuss and consider recording executive session meetings, identifying a funding source for the needed equipment, and related matters.]

RECORDING EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETINGS.

THIS WE DREW INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION LAST TIME TO BE ADVISED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. DO YOU HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION

HERE, COMMISSIONER? >> NO. THIS WAS JUST TO GO AHEAD AND IDENTIFY FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE NEEDED EQUIPMENT AND RELATED MATTERS. I JUST HAD ASKED JENNY WHAT SHE

THOUGHT THAT WOULD COST. >> I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH DARRYL ON THAT. I THINK THAT IS KIND OF WRAPPED UP IN THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THE RECORDING AND THE COMBINATION WITH ZOOM AND THE SECURITY ON THAT.

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD AND USE ARPA FUNDS FOR THAT TOO IF THAT IS ALLOWABLE. I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR A NUMBER FOR A WHILE. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THAT IS.

>> FOR MYSELF, SINCE THIS IS SUCH A SENSITIVE AREA, RECORDING EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS, VERY CONFIDENTIAL, I WAS LOOKING AT KEEPING IT VERY SIMPLE AND KEEPING IT WITHIN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REALM, WHICH MEANS THAT WHAT I'M

[06:15:01]

DOING, WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THE ZOOM ACCOUNTS EARLIER, IF THE COUNTY IS GOING TO CONTINUE WITH ZOOM, GOING WITH TEN BUSINESS ACCOUNTS FROM ZOOM, MAKE SURE NOBODY IS USING THE FREE ACCOUNTS. WE GET THE ONES THAT ARE FUNDED SO THAT THEY ARE FULLY FUNCTIONAL.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I KNOW THE JUDGE HAD CONCERNS OVER THINGS GETTING LEAKED OUT. IF WE KEPT IT IN THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE KNOW IT'S COMING OUT OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. I JUST NEED A NUMBER TO MAKE A MOTION TO DO IT. THAT WAS GOING TO BE A PART OF MY MOTION, EXACTLY THAT. IT WOULD BE HELD STRICTLY IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND NO ONE ELSE WOULD HAVE

ACCESS TO IT. >> SOFTWARE ON THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S COMPUTER LAPTOP. THEY RECORD WHATEVER EXECUTIVE SESSION THEY FEEL LIKE NEEDS TO BE RECORDED.

THEN THEY TURN ON THE RECORDING RIGHT THERE ON THE LAPTOP AND RECORD IT. THEY HAVE TO BE ALLOWED IN SO NOBODY CAN ZOOM IN. COUNTY ATTORNEY LETS THEM IN.

THEY HAVE THE SESSION, THEY'RE RECORDING IT.

AND WHEN THAT EXECUTIVE ITEM IS OVER, THEN THEY STOP RECORDING.

EVERYBODY DISCONNECTS. YOU GO TO THE NEXT EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM. IF THERE IS NO RECORDING OF THAT, THEN NOBODY IS RECORDING ANYTHING.

AND YOU JUST CHOOSE WHICH ONES YOU WANT TO RECORD AND DON'T RECORD THE ONES THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO RECORD.

AND THAT WAY THE SOFTWARE IS ON THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S LAPTOP, RECORDING IS ON THEIR LAPTOP AND THEY KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL

THERE >> THAT WOULD NEED TO BE A LAPTOP NOT ONE USED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF ANY

EMPLOYEE'S BUSINESS. >> TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS.

I'M TRYING TO ALLOCATE SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU FEEL LIKE WILL COVER. I DON'T KNOW.

>> $2,500 >> PARDON ME?

>> $2,500. TALKING ZOOM LICENSE THE COURT: DON'T WE HAVE THAT IN OUR CAPITAL.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ARPA. THE HUMAN CAPITAL IN JUSTIFYING

THAT WILL EXCEED $2,500. >> MY MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE RECORD ALL EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WITH THESE APPROVED SOFTWARE BY THE IT DIRECTOR, AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $2,500 TO COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND THAT THAT, THOSE RECORDINGS BE KEPT 100 PERCENT SOLELY IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND NO ONE BUT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS ACCESS TO THEM.

>> SECOND. >> POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THAT, THIS ITEM IN GENERAL, I THINK THERE IS PARTS TO THIS.

CAN WE BREAK THIS DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

THE WAY THIS MOTION OR THIS ITEM IS WRITTEN IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER RECORDING EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETINGS.

THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED BASED ON THE OPINION YOU GAVE

US? >> WELL, WE DID ISSUE AN ADVISORY THAT OUTLINED PROS AND CONS AND A RECOMMENDATION.

BUT THAT -- I MINE, STILL THE CHOICE OF THE COURT.

NOW, I WOULD BE WILLING TO HOUSE THOSE THINGS.

HOWEVER, THOSE ARE GOING TO COME WITH VERY STRICT RULES.

IF WE BUTT HEADS, IT'S GOING TO BE IN MY CONTROL.

>> THE RULES ARE THE RULES. IT'S GOT TO BE SUBPOENAED.

IF YOU WANT ME TO MAKE THAT PART OF THE MOTION.

>> IF WE CAN DIVIDE THIS. WE'VE BEEN GIVEN THE OPINION, THE PROS AND CONS. I APPRECIATE THAT.

ON THAT ITEM ALONE, I HAVE MY HESITATIONS.

I HAVE NEVER BEEN PART OF AN ELECTED BODY THAT HAS GONE INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT HAD IT RECORDED.

MOST PEOPLE SAY THE CONS ARE PROBABLY YOU KNOW, THE PROS OR THE CONS OUTWEIGHING THE PROS AS FAR AS THE BENEFIT OF DOING IT. SO NO ONE -- I'VE NEVER BEEN A PART OF A MEETING THAT HAS DONE THAT.

I FIND THAT PART UNUSUAL. AND IT MAY ME SOME GETTING USED

[06:20:01]

TO. IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT WE TAKE, THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT DOES THAT, I UNDERSTAND.

I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT OUR COUNTY HAS DONE RESEARCH, HER AND HER STAFF THAT SHE WILL PROTECT IT PROPERLY.

THAT IS MY STATEMENT ON THAT. I DO FEEL THAT IS AN UNUSUAL POSITION. I WILL SAY THAT HERE PUBLICLY.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH I'M GOING TO INTERACT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE THAT IS VERY UNUSUAL TO ME.

I KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE TIMES TO START AND STOP.

WE WILL ALWAYS HAVE GUIDANCE FROM OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OR HER FIRM TO GUIDE US ON WHEN THOSE PARTS ARE TO START AND STOP. THEY REACT DIFFERENTLY WHEN IT'S NOT NORMAL OR USUAL. THAT IS ALL I'M DOING, KIND OF SHARING WITH Y'ALL KIND OF WHAT IS IN MY HEAD ON MY FEELING WITH THAT. ON THE FUNDING SOURCE, I SUPPORT. IF THAT IS THE ROUTE WE GO, I WILL SUPPORT FUNDING. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS BROKEN DOWN INTO SEPARATE ITEMS. IF THERE IS THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT THAT FEELS THAT WE NEED TO EXECUTE RECORDINGS DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO VOICE MY OPINION ON THAT.

BUT WE STILL MOVE FORWARD, TO BE ABLE TO SHOW MY SUPPORT FOR THE PROPER EQUIPMENT. I FEEL THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT SEPARATE ITEMS HERE. JENNY, IS THAT CORRECT? OR CAN THIS ONLY BE TAKEN AS ONE?

>> I THINK YOU HAVE DISCRETION. YOU DECIDED ONE WAY.

AND YOU CAN SPLIT IT UP INTO DIFFERENT VOTES IF YOU WOULD

LIKE. >> THAT IS ALL I'M ASKING.

I HAVE MY RESERVATIONS ON IT. I KNOW IT CAN HELP US WITH RECALL QUESTIONS THAT COME UP. OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS EXPRESSED EARLIER. WE HAVE AN ISSUE OF WHETHER YOU KNOW, ONE ITEM, HOW IT WAS DELIVERED OR IT WAS RECORDED OR HOW IT WAS RECORDED IN OUR MINUTES.

LIKE I SAID, AT LEAST FOR THIS ONE, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO

VOICE MY OPINION. >> IF WE CAN PULL IT OUT, SEPARATE THE TWO. SEE IF THIS FIRST ITEM, HOW IT GOES. AND THEN IF THERE IS A MAJORITY OF COURT THAT SAYS THAT WE SHOULD, THEN I WILL SUPPORT OBVIOUSLY THE FUNDING. THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE TO ME.

IF WE GET TO THAT POINT, THERE IS THREE OR MORE THAT SAY WE SHOULD, THAT IS OKAY. LIKE I SAID, I DID WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN ON THAT. IT'S NOT AGAINST THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. NOT AGAINST THE PROCESS.

I FEEL CONFIDENT IN THIS REQUEST THAT WAS MADE OF HER AND HER FIRM TO GIVE US THE BEST OPINION, WHICH I BELIEVE IT DID, WAS VERY CLEAR TO FOLLOW.

I THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'M HESITANT BECAUSE BRENT, WE'VE NEVER HAD A CITY COUNCIL MEETING NEVER RECORDED, IN MY FIRST FIVE YEARS ON THE COURT, NEVER HAD EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETINGS EVER RECORDED. SO I'M JUST WORRIED, I'M WORRIED AND CONCERNED HOW DOES THAT START AND STOP WORK.

WILL SOMEBODY BE AS VERSED AS THEY SHOULD BE.

MS. DORSEY IS ON TRAININGS OR THE PERSON REPLACING HER BE AS VERSED THAT IS PROPER OF WHEN THAT NEEDS TO START AND STOP.

>> NO. MY MOTION IS THAT IT'S ALL RECORDED.

>> YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ME TO PARTICIPATE OR TALK IN ANY EXECUTIVE SESSION IF THAT IS THE CASE.

I'M LETTING YOU KNOW NOW. >> THERE ARE CERTAIN PARTS COMMISSIONER, AS FAR AS CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ONLY WHERE YOU HAVE A 5-0 VOTE THAT IT'S NEEDED.

CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS. SO THAT PART IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU HAD THE CAPACITY TO DO THAT.

>> FINE WITH THAT PART. >> THAT IS AN EXCELLENT WAY TO SATISFY TWO VERY DIFFERENT POSITIONS.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS THAT WHEN A 5-0 VOTE IS GIVEN FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS TO BE RECORDED, IN THOSE CERTAIN INSTANCES, YOU WOULD NEED THIS CAPABILITY NO MATTER WHAT. AND FOR THAT REASON, WE COULD ACCEPT THAT THOSE DOLLARS WOULD BE APPROPRIATED.

[06:25:01]

THAT IS WHAT SHE WAS SAYING. >> BUT YOU DON'T NEED A 5-0 VOTE TO RECORD ALL THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

>> IF YOU DECIDE TO RECORD ALL OF IT, THERE ARE PARTS THAT ARE JUST -- THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION NEEDS THAT.

NOT THE OTHER ITEMS. AND IN MY ADVISORY, I TALKED ABOUT THERE ARE CERTAIN SITUATIONS WHERE IT IS RECORDING PARTS AND NOT RECORDING PARTS AND STOPPING

AND STARTING. >> JOHN'S COMMENT WAS HE

WOULDN'T BE COMMENTING. >> SO THE RECORDING THEN, OBVIOUSLY MINE WOULD BE BASED ON WHATEVER THE RULES ARE FOR RECORDING. SO THAT IS ALL I'M MAKING A MOTION, WHAT CAN BE -- IN OTHER WORDS, MY MOTION IS I WANT TO RECORD EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE RECORDED.

BUT THAT IS MY MOTION. PART OF THAT MOTION IS YOU WOULD BE THE KEEPER OF THAT. YOU WOULD BE THE ARBITER IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT PART YOU WANT TO PULL OUT.

>> SO IF I MAY, I WANTED TO FINISH UP MY THOUGHTS.

MY CONCERN IS INTERVIEWS. WE'VE HAD INTERVIEWS THAT HAVE DONE THEM IN PUBLIC. WE'VE DONE A LOT IN CLOSED SESSION. WHEN WE DID THE SHERIFF, BECAUSE THAT WAS A PUBLIC ELECTED OFFICIAL, I RECOMMENDED AND THE COURT FOLLOWED THAT WE DO IT PUBLICLY.

AND WE DID. MOST IF NOT ALL OF OUR INTERVIEWS THAT I CAN RECALL FOR INTERNAL IN-HOUSE STAFF FOR DIRECTOR POSITIONS, OR SIMILAR POSITIONS, WE HAVE DONE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH PERSONNEL MATTERS THAT DEAL WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS AND ISSUES.

THAT IS MY CONCERN. I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT IN WANTING A RECORD THAT CAN BE REQUESTED AND JUSTIFIED.

A JUDGE CAN DO ANYTHING HE OR SHE WANTS IN THEIR COURT.

IF THEY SAY THEY WANT IT RELEASED, THEY COULD GET IT RELEASED, WHATEVER LEGAL REASONINGS OR ACTIONS THEY HAVE TO TAKE. THAT CAN ALL HAPPEN AS WELL.

I WORRY THAT THE PATH THAT WE GO DOWN ON THIS IS NOT DONE BY MANY, IF ANY. THAT IS MY CONCERN.

IT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE FOR ME TO GET USED TO.

I CAN PICTURE MYSELF ALREADY START TALKING AND IN THE MOMENT IN THIS SESSION THAT WE HAVE. BUT THIS IS VERY MUCH DIFFERENT. THE COURT: I THINK IT REQUIRES CONSENT BY CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE ROOM FOR THOSE PURPOSES.

I THINK IT CREATES HORRIBLE LIABILITY AS YOU DISCUSSED LEGAL STRATEGY FOR CERTAIN CASES.

>> NO, IT DOESN'T REALLY, JUDGE.

BECAUSE YOUR ATTORNEY IS IN THE ROOM.

YOU CAN WAIVE PRIVILEGE ALL THE TIME, ANY TIME YOU WANT.

IF SOMEONE IS IN THE ROOM THAT DOESN'T WANT TO BE.

THE COURT: WHY WOULD YOU WAIVE PRIVILEGE?

>> LIABILITY IF SOMETHING GETS LEAKED OR RELEASED THE COURT: GOOD LAWYERING. ANY OF US CAN BE WITNESSES, ANY OF US COULD BE SERVING IN CAPACITIES.

SO MANY WAYS TO HAVE THIS ABUSED.

AND THE REASON THAT JOHN BRINGS UP THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT DONE BECAUSE FOR A REASON IT'S NOT DONE.

IT WILL NOT FOSTER THE LEGAL ADVICE AND COUNSEL THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO RECEIVE AND THE FREE FLOW OF INTERACTION TO ASK LEGAL QUESTIONS AND TO RECEIVE THAT AND DISCUSS STRATEGY AND THAT IS THE TRUTH. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ON THOSE LIMITED SITUATIONS WHERE THE COURT NEEDS TO DO IT FOR CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS, OBVIOUSLY THAT IS YOU KNOW, SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LITIGATION THAT THIS COUNTY ENDEAVORS IN.

AND YOU KNOW, I JUST I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S SMART.

IN FACT, I THINK IT'S NEGLIGENCE ON OUR PART TO DO IT

[06:30:03]

AS PART OF THE COUNTY? >> IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO PULL UP? YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT

BREAKING IT DOWN. >> NO. I JUST MEANT I THINK YOUR MOTION WAS TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE AGENDA ITEM.

AND LIKE I SAID >> WHATEVER THE RULES ALLOW.

BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT JENNY IS SAYING THAT WOULDN'T BE EVERYTHING. WHATEVER THE RULES ALLOW.

THAT WAS PART OF IT >> SO YOUR MOTION ALLOWS FOR SOME ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE PAUSE ON THE RECORDING SO THAT THAT IS NOT PART OF THE RECORDING.

>> NO. YOU OUTLINED CERTAIN THINGS THAT CAN BE AND CAN'T BE WITHOUT A 5-0 VOTE OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

WHY WOULD WE PAUSE? >> IF YOU THROW AWAY THE IDEA OF RECORDING EVERYTHING, YOU STILL HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO

RECORD >> YOU SAID I CAN'T RECORD

EVERYTHING WITHOUT A 5-0 VOTE. >> NO. THE 5-0 VOTE IS ONLY IN THE EVENT OF THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS.

>> RIGHT. I WOULD PREFER TO RECORD EVERYTHING. Y YES. WHATEVER THE LAW IS THAT WE CAN DO IT, I WOULD PREFER TO DO IT ALL, YES

>> THEN THAT IS THE MOTION. >> RIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO PULL SOMETHING OUT.

JOHN, YOU SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, I WAS TRYING TO RESPECT YOUR WISH TO VOTE ON SOMETHING SEPARATELY.

>> NO. THE FUNDING COMPONENT AND THE VOTE ITSELF.

I WAS ASKING FOR SEPARATION. >> WHAT DO YOU WANT TO PULL?

>> VOTE ON THE FIRST ITEM, WHICH IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER RECORDING EXECUTIVE SESSION MEETINGS.

PERIOD. FIRST MOTION.

AND THEN IF THAT PASSES, THEN WE GO TO THE EQUIPMENT PART.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT YOUR MOTION WAS.

>> HOW ABOUT IF I MAKE THAT TWO MOTIONS.

I'LL MAKE IT TWO MOTIONS, IN TWO SECONDS.

JUDGE, YOU CAN CALL WHATEVER ORDER THE COURT: IT SEEMS LIKE THE FIRST ONE FIRST MAKES MORE SENSE. I JUST -- I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO -- YOU HAVE THE MOTION, RIGHT?

>> YES, MA'AM. THE COURT: WHO IS GOING TO SECOND IT FOR YOU? GONZALEZ SECONDED IT.

>> YES, MA'AM THE COURT: I'M CALLING FOR DISCUSSION AND PLACING ON THE RECORD AND FOR FUTURE THAT THIS IS A TERRIBLE IDEA FOR LITIGATION PURPOSES.

IT WILL RESULT IN POTENTIAL YOU KNOW, LEAKS AND DETRIMENT TO NUECES COUNTY AND TAXPAYERS. THIS IS SUPER UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND EXCEPT FOR SOME POLITICAL MOTIVATION WHY YOU WOULD THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA WHEN YOUR COUNSEL TELLS YOU THIS, AND I REALLY DO FEAR FOR ALL THE CASES THAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS IN HERE THAT WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND GET ANSWERS FOR FEAR THAT THOSE ANSWERS COULD BE USED IN A CIVIL TRIAL AGAINST US.

I THINK THAT IS AS A LAWYER, I WOULD ASK YOU TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THAT. THAT IS, IT'S JUST AN ABSOLUTELY, IT'S NOT DONE BECAUSE MOST LAWYERS KNOW THAT THAT IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT AT ALL. SO I'LL BE VOTING NO. BUT AGAIN, PROTECTING OUR COUNTY IS OUR NUMBER ONE JOB AND IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, WITH CONFIDENCE, EVEN INMATES GET THE PROTECTION OF PRIVACY WHEN THEY ARE TALKING TO THEIR LAWYER.

YOU ARE NOT AFFORDING US THAT SAME RIGHT OF PRIVACY WITH OUR LAWYER. BECAUSE THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, ONCE YOU RECORD, IT IS A RECORD THAT CAN BE TOUCHED.

AND THAT IS THE TRUTH. AND THAT IS WHY THE ADVICE OF COUNSEL WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA. SHOCKING.

AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ONE JUSTIFICATION.

WHAT IS YOUR PUBLIC POLICY REASON? IF IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE TOUCHED, WHAT IS YOUR PUBLIC POLICY REASON FOR DOING THIS, OTHER THAN SOME LAWYER TO COME GET AHOLD OF IT TO HURT US AND OUR COUNTY.

I'M TRYING TO KEEP AN OPEN MIND TODAY

>> WE'RE A PUBLIC BODY. I THINK EVERYTHING THAT WE DO THAT WE TOUCH SHOULD BE TRANSPARENT IN THE VEIN THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO BE TRANSPARENT. SO THEREFORE, THAT GOES TO EXECUTIVE SESSIONS. AND THAT WILL ALLOW US TO BE TRANSPARENT IN EXECUTIVE SESSIONS IN A CONFIDENTIAL MANNER, THAT IF A COURT BELIEVES WE NEED TO DISCLOSE, IT SHOULD BE DISCLOSED. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO HIDE IN REGARDS TO ANYTHING.

I BELIEVE IT'S AN OPEN TRANSPARENT ARGUMENT.

THAT IS WHY I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT.

I SERVED ON OTHER BODIES TOO. THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW THAT

YOU CAN. >> YEAH, WE CAN.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THE SAME ADVICE FROM THE COUNTY

[06:35:01]

ATTORNEY, SHE HAS ADVISED WE CAN DO IT.

SO THAT IS THE CASE. THAT IS MY ARGUMENT.

THE COURT: YOUR ARGUMENT IS TRANSPARENCY?

>> IN THE REALM OF WHICH WE ARE, EXECUTIVE SESSION, IS FAR LESS TRANSPARENT. BUT WE SHOULD HAVE, IN MY OPINION, A TRANSPARENT RECORD SO THAT ANYBODY EVER QUESTIONS OR SAYS SOMETHING OR DOES SOMETHING OR ACCUSES OF US OF SOMETHING AND IT NEEDS TO BE PUT FORTH AND THE COURT SAYS IT NEEDS TO BE THAT WE HAVE A PROPER RECORD.

THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT PRIVILEGE? IF THAT IS THE THEORY, WHY DO WE INVOKE PRIVILEGES ON FREEDOM

OF INFORMATION REQUESTS? >> YOU CAN'T JUST GO GET IT.

YOU CAN'T GO ASK JENNY FOR IT. YOU CAN APPEAL IT.

ALL KINDS OF THINGS LIKE THAT THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU CAN GET IT. THAT IS MY ANSWER.

THE COURT: I APPRECIATE IT. I REALLY WANTED YOU TO SAY IT.

BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.

I THINK IT'S SUPER DANGEROUS AND JENNY, I WOULD JUST ASK, YOU KNOW, EACH OF US YOU KNOW, SEEKS SORT OF GUIDANCE OR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM YOU. DON'T I, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND EACH COMMISSIONER HAVE THE RIGHT OF PRIVILEGE? CAN'T I INVOKE PRIVILEGE WITH YOU AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WHEN I'M TALKING TO YOU ON E-MAIL, HEY, JENNY, THAT IS PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, WHAT MAKES THAT DIFFERENT THAN ME HAVING -- I'M WORRIED ABOUT MY INDIVIDUAL PRIVILEGE WITH YOU AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY BEING RECORDED, I WANT TO INVOKE PRIVILEGE EVERY SINGLE TIME. HOW CAN I SEEK MY PROTECTIONS

IF THAT DOESN'T TAKE PLACE? >> YOU CAN HAVE YOUR CONVERSATION PRIVATELY AND NOT RECORD IT.

I DON'T THINK -- >> THAT IS NOT OPEN.

>> I DON'T THINK SHE IS THE COURT'S ATTORNEY, JUDGE.

I CAN'T GO TELL JENNY SOMETHING AND SHE KEEPS A SECRET FROM

YOU. >> I'M ASKING FOR THE INVOCATION OF PRIVILEGE. EVERY DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE WHERE WE ARE TALKING BACK AND FORTH TO ONE ANOTHER, IF WE'RE ANTICIPATING LITIGATION IS PRIVILEGED.

>> I WILL ADVISE THE COURT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THIS MATTER. BUT NOT IN OPEN SESSION RIGHT NOW. THE COURT: GOT IT.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON IT AND WE CAN COME BACK RIGHT AFTERWARDS AND VOTE ON IT AFTER WE RECEIVE THAT LEGAL COUNSELING.

>> 30 IS EXECUTIVE SESSION. IS MR. TURNER ONLINE? IS HE WAITING FOR US? MR. TURNER.

WHAT AM I SAYING? WE CAN DO ITEM NUMBER -- HE'S NOT HERE. HE NEVER GAVE THE PRESENTATION.

WE'VE NEVER SEEN THE PRESENTATION.

>> THERE WOULDN'T BE A PRESENTATION.

THE COURT: IT SAYS RECEIVE PRESENTATION FROM TURNER RAMIREZ ARCHITECTS. I'M WONDERING IF MR. RAMIREZ IS COMING TO GIVE US THE PRESENTATION.

>> HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO BE HERE AT SOME POINT THE COURT: LET'S POSTPONE IT. LET'S HOLD THAT WE'VE GOT A BUNCH FOR PURCHASING AND WE HAVE A COUPLE FOR BERT.

B2 IS GOING TO BE TABLED. >> SUBJECT TO HAGERTY CHECKING IT OUT AND IT BEING LEGITIMATELY DONE.

THE COURT: UNDER THE ARPA DO WE NEED TO PROCURE RATHER THAN SELECT ON PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE DOING WORK FOR US THAT WE'LL

PAY FOR OUT OF THESE FUNDS. >> GENERALLY, YES, SIR, FUNDS ARE TIED TO THE UNIFORM GUIDANCE PROCUREMENT

REGULATIONS. >> WE SHOULD NOT CONSIDER SELECTION AT THIS TIME, BRENT. WE HAVE TO RFQ IT.

WE NEED PROCUREMENT >> JUDGE, IT'S NOT READY FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. THAT IS WHAT SHE TOLD ME.

>> EVEN IF ALL OF THAT, THE CONTRACT WAS GIVEN, KENT IN OUR OFFICE HAS IT, BUT IT IS NOT READY.

NOT BEEN GIVEN ENOUGH TIME TO WORK ON THE CONTRACT

[06:40:03]

>> MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL JULY 27TH.

BUT WE NEED TO GET CLARITY ON WHAT WE CAN DO ON IT TOO.

I JUST DIDN'T WANT IT TO SIT HERE FOREVER.

THE COURT: WE HEARD FROM HAGERTY THAT YOU HAVE TO

PROCURE. >> SHE SAID GENERALLY YES.

LET'S TABLE IT IF THAT IS OKAY. AND BRING IT ALL BACK ON THE

27TH AND SEE WHAT THE DEAL IS. >> OKAY.

TABLE TO JULY 27TH. MOTION.

WAS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND THE COURT: WAKE UP, FRIENDS. ALL RIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. OKAY.

AGAIN, WE'RE WAITING ON THAT ONE.

[3. Discuss and consider approval of a Supplemental Agreement No. 2 recommended by Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam (LAN) between Nueces County and NRG Engineering for the Nueces County Courthouse/Jail and McKinzie Annex Generator Project.]

AND THEN ITEM NUMBER 3, JP IS ONLINE TO PRESENT NRG ENGINEERING FOR THE JAIL AND MCKINZIE.

>> NUMBER ONE, I THOUGHT WE TABLED THAT ONE TO GET THE OPINION FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

ISN'T THAT WHY WE TABLED THIS ONE?

>> NO. WE HAD TO GET AUTHORITY TO DO THE CONTRACT FROM COURT

THIS WAY. >> SOMEBODY ADVISED US THAT WE COULD DO IT AND WE TABLED TO GET MORE INFORMATION I THOUGHT

FROM JENNY. >> WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE BARCOM CONTRACT AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THE FINAL WORD BACK FROM BARCOM ON THE CONTRACT.

THE CONTRACT WAS RECEIVED. WE HAD EDITS AND WE SENT BACK TO BARCOM. WE'RE WAITING ON BARCOM TO GIVE US THE FINAL WORD ON THE CONTRACT.

THE COURT: BUT WE HAVE A POSTED HERE AND THE LAST COURT OUR PURCHASING DEPARTMENT, THROUGH THE AGENT, TOLD US THAT WE NEEDED TO GET AUTHORITY TO PROCURE FROM THE BUY BOARD FROM COURT. THAT IS WHY IT'S ON THIS AGENDA. SO THAT YOU CAN BRING THAT CONTRACT BACK BUT THIS COURT IS THE ONE THAT GIVES AUTHORITY AND NOBODY ELSE. SO YOU CAN'T JUST DO IT WITHOUT AUTHORITY. IF YOU WANTED TO TACKLE THAT PIECE OF IT, WE COULD. THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION --

>> THEY TOLD US IT WAS OKAY TO DO IT BUT WE DELAYED IT.

I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT WE APPROVE THIS SUBJECT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S FINDING. THE COURT: WELL, MY MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE METHOD OF PROCUREMENT, WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE BUY BOARD. AND THAT THAT BE DONE FIRST.

AND THAT WAY, MICHAEL KNOWS HE CAN ENTER INTO A NEGOTIATION WITH THIS. THAT IS HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE. WE'RE BACKTRACKING BECAUSE IT

WASN'T DONE CORRECTLY. >> SECOND THE COURT: MOTION AND A SECOND. AND ALL THOSE -- ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE.

SO NOW THIS COURT MICHAEL, HAS GIVEN AUTHORITY TO USE THE BUY BOARD FOR THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT.

AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT IS HEAVILY BASED UPON THE CONCEPT THAT THAT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF NUECES COUNTY BUT I SURE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO SHARE THAT WITH US, THAT FROM THE MONEY SIDE OF THINGS, THAT NOT GOING OUT FOR BIDS THAT THIS CONTRACT REPRESENTS A GOOD VALUE FOR NUECES COUNTY.

>> OKAY. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE VALUE BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ENGINEER AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORTH OF THIS WORK PRODUCT IS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THE PROCESS THAT Y'ALL MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER.

AND I THINK WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IS WHEN WE'RE WORKING WITH ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS AND WE GET TO THE POINT OF I DON'T KNOW, 90 PERCENT COMPLETION ON DRAWINGS AND WE'RE GETTING READY TO WANT TO GO BID IT OUT OR USE A BUY BOARD APPROACH, IF THERE IS A PRESENTATION OPPORTUNITY THAT HAPPENS AT THAT TIME, OR THAT PUBLIC WORKS WANTS TO BRING IT UP AT THAT POINT AND SAY HEY, WE'RE CLOSE ON THIS ONE, BEFORE I TALK TO ANY INDIVIDUAL, PEOPLE THAT WE MIGHT HIRE FOR THIS WORK, IN TERMS OF CONTRACTORS. THAT THEY SEEK THE COURT'S OPINION ON THE METHOD AT THAT TIME.

IF THEY CHOOSE TO UTILIZE BUY BOARD, THAT IS CERTAINLY AN OPTION THAT MEETS THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PURCHASING ACT.

WE WOULD JUST COME BACK ONE TIME TO COURT WITH THAT QUOTE, AFTER IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY JENNY'S OFFICE.

AND THEN WE COULD AWARD THAT CONTRACT ON THE BUY BOARD.

[06:45:05]

ALSO YOU COULD CHOOSE TO HAVE ME BID IT OUT.

AND THEN THE COURT CAN AWARD TO THE LOW BIDDER.

WHAT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE, WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE, IS Y'ALL HAD DECIDED NOT TO APPROVE THE BUY BOARD PROCESS AND YOU ASKED ME TO GO BID IT OUT AT THIS POINT, THERE ARE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT THAT COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE VENDOR IN THIS CASE. HAD Y'ALL DECIDED THAT, IN THIS CASE, BARCOM MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM PARTICIPATING IN THAT BID. I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BID PROCESS. YOU HAVE ALREADY IN THE AGENDA ITEM RELEASED THEIR QUOTATION FOR THE VALUE OF THE WORK, WHICH ALSO IN MY OPINION DOES NOT GIVE THE COUNTY THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE BEST PRICE BECAUSE NOW WE'VE TOLD EVERYBODY WHAT IT'S WORTH BEFORE I GO OUT FOR BIDS.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA FOR THE COURT TO GET THAT DECISION MADE RIGHT BEFORE THE DRAWINGS ARE ALMOST FINISHED.

GOOD PRACTICE, I THINK. DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THIS CASE.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO GO WITH THE BUY BOARD.

>> WE DID THAT >> Y'ALL VOTED ON IT.

THE COURT: WE VOTED ON IT. WE'RE BACKWARDS.

I HOPE THAT IT WILL BE -- THIS WILL SERVE AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT CORRECTLY FROM HERE ON FORWARD.

>> YEAH. I WOULD ASK PUBLIC WORKS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WHEN THEY'RE GETTING CLOSE TO A PROJECT BEING FINISHED ABOUT NEXT STEPS.

MY DOOR IS OPEN. I'M HAPPY TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT ADVICE ON WHAT MIGHT BE RECOMMENDED.

THERE IS ALSO GOING TO BE PROBABLY A TIME THAT PUBLIC WORKS CAN LET ME KNOW. IF THERE ARE TIMING CONSIDERATIONS ON WHEN THIS PROJECT GETS DONE, MAYBE IT'S TIED TO GRANT FUNDS, THOSE CERTAINLY FACTOR IN TO WHAT PROCUREMENT METHOD I WOULD SUPPORT AS WELL.

THE COURT: SINCE YOU'RE STANDING UP THERE, WE HAVE FIVE ITEMS FOR YOU. WE ALSO HAVE ONE -- SOME OF THEM THEY LOOK FAIRLY QUICK. BUT LET ME GO AHEAD AND DO ITEM 3 FIRST. AND THEN WHILE YOU'RE ORGANIZING. BUT JP IS ON THE PHONE AND THIS RECOMMENDATION IS FOR JAIL MC MC MCKINZIE, LET NRG ENGINEERING DESIGN ANOTHER FEATURE. RELATABLE TO YOUR ITEM C2.

JP, DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN HERE? ITEM 3. WE'VE DONE 1 AND 2.

I MIGHT BE WRONG. I THOUGHT HE WAS ONLINE.

>> I THINK IT'S JOHN RODRIGUEZ. >> I MOVE TO TABLE THAT ONE TOO UNTIL JUAN GETS BACK THE COURT: JUAN IS NOT IN CHARGE OF THIS PROJECT, WE NEED TO GET THIS DONE OTHERWISE WE CANNOT GET GENERATORS DONE. THIS IS A COMPANY THAT JUAN RECOMMENDED. THEY ARE RUNNING POINT ON THIS

>> TO PAY THEM ADDITIONAL 22,000? WHY? IT WAS THEIR ERROR.

>> WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL COMPONENT AND HE NEEDS TO DESIGN FOR IT. HE SAYS HE CAN DO IT EFFICIENTLY, BUT HE NEEDS TO HAVE THE SCOPE OF WORK AND THE SERVICES PAID FOR. AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT. IT'S WITHIN OUR BUDGET.

>> HERE WE GO AGAIN WITH SOMEBODY ELSE MAKING AN ERROR.

>> JUDGE, IT MIGHT MAKE BETTER SENSE TO THE COURT IF WE TOOK ITEM 3C2 FIRST. THE COURT: I THOUGHT THAT.

IS JOHN RODRIGUEZ ON? >> YES, I'M HERE.

THE COURT: HEY, JOHN. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, SO I CAN GET THE RIGHT AMOUNT, CAN YOU REMIND ME OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WHILE I TURN TO MY NOTEBOOK HERE THAT HAS GOT IT?

>> 22,000, JUDGE. THE COURT: 14,950 FOR THE COURTHOUSE AND 7400 FOR THE JAIL.

AND THIS WORKS NEEDS TO BE COMPLETE, RIGHT, JOHN?

>> YES. THIS WORKS NEEDS TO BE COMPLETE. SO THAT IT GIVES US AN ADDITIONAL OPTION INSTEAD OF SO WE'RE CLEAR, YOU CAN DO THIS

[06:50:27]

WORK FAIRLY QUICKLY TO GET US BACK ON TIME, MAYBE?

>> YES. THE COURT: THE TIMETABLE IS --

OKAY. >> JOHN, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES. >> WHAT HAPPENED HERE? I MEAN, Y'ALL PUT THIS THING TOGETHER, RIGHT?

>> I'M SORRY? >> Y'ALL WORKED ON THESE

GENERATORS? >> YES.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT NOW FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

>> SO WHAT HAPPENED HERE? I MEAN, Y'ALL DESIGNED WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DESIGN. AND Y'ALL PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER. NOW SOMETHING IS NOT WORKING.

NOW YOU NEED ANOTHER $22,000? >> SO THE PROJECT THAT IS DESIGNED IS SET UP FOR THE ASSET OPTIMIZATION SO THAT WE CAN RUN THE GENERATORS WHILE WE ARE CONNECTED TO THE GRID.

THIS WOULD ALLOW THE COUNTY TO SELL BACK POWER TO GRID.

WHICH IS THE ASSET OPTIMIZATION PORTION.

HOWEVER, THAT IS AN ALTERNATE BID OR AT LEAST WAS AN ALTERNATE BID IN THE PREVIOUS BID THAT WE TOOK.

AND THAT OPTION WAS NOT BID UPON BY ANY OF THE CONTRACTORS.

SO WE WOULD LIKE TO NOW SINCE IT WAS NOT TAKEN, THE SYSTEM FOR EACH CAMPUS OPERATES MANUALLY.

>> JOHN, IT'S VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

ARE YOU HERE IN TOWN? >> YES, SIR.

>> WHY DON'T YOU COME IN-PERSON SO WE CAN -- I'M HAVING A HARD TIME. YOU'RE COMING IN AND OUT.

IF YOU'RE IN TOWN, HOW COME YOU'RE NOT HERE? I WISH YOU WERE HERE. CAN YOU COME IN-PERSON AND TALK

TO US? >> SURE.

>> COME ON IN. >> I WILL COME ON DOWN.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

I APPRECIATE IT THE COURT: I WOULD LIKE TO HOLD JOHN FOR JUST A MOMENT HERE BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE LINE, BECAUSE YOU'RE INSTRUMENTAL IN MAKING CERTAIN THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT -- I MEAN, I HEARD YOU FINE.

BUT THE $22,000 IS NEEDED BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL DESIGN FEATURE SO THAT WE CAN CHOOSE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. BUT WE HAVE ALL OPTIONS

COVERED. >> THAT IS CORRECT THE COURT: SO THIS IS INSIDE OUR BUDGET TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS WORK. IT'S NEEDED WORK AND YOU CAN FINISH THE PROJECT SO THAT IT CAN BE BID PROPERLY.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT COMING DOWN HERE IS GOING TO CHANGE.

ALTHOUGH I DO ADMIT SOMETIMES IT IS SOMETIMES HARD TO HEAR ON OUR ZOOMS BUT THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE, IS THAT WE NEED TO GET THIS WORK DONE BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW AND HAVE NOTED, THE FURTHER WE WAIT, THE MORE COSTLY IT BECOMES TO KEEP THOSE STAND-BY GENERATORS ON. WE DO NOT NEED TO DELAY.

THIS DESIGN NEEDS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED.

IT'S A PRACTICAL MATTER. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO THIS AND GET THIS WORK GOING SO THAT WE CAN GET THESE GENERATORS TO THE NEXT PHASE.

WHICH WILL ALSO BE DISCUSSED IN 3C2.

BUT JOHN'S WORK HAS TO COME FIRST.

WE HAVE TO HAVE THE DESIGN SO THAT MICHAEL CAN DO HIS JOB.

GOT TO HAVE THE DESIGN ATTACHED.

>> DIDN'T THEY DESIGN IT ALREADY?

THE COURT: THEY DID. >> IT'S AN ADDITIONAL DESIGN OPTION. IS WHAT WE'RE NOW INCLUDING.

THE COURT: IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART THAT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED IN ORDER FOR THE GENERATORS TO HAVE VERY FAST TURNOVER.

AUTOMATIC SWITCHES TO BE ABLE TO GET THEM TO TURN ON WITHOUT A MANUAL WAY TO DO IT. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR THE JAIL.

AND HE NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO DESIGN FOR THAT.

AND IT'S AN ADD-ON. EXTRA AMENITY THAT IS

NECESSARY. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU THE SAME THINGS WE ASKED JACOBS, DID YOU KNOW THIS BEFORE?

[06:55:02]

>> MAYBE I CAN CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ON THIS POINT.

FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THE COMPONENTS WERE DESIGNED WITH A FEATURE, BUT IT WAS CONTAINED WITHIN THE RESILIENCY PIECE.

THE RESILIENCY PIECE WAS ADDITIVE BID FOR WHICH NONE OF THE BIDDERS BID ON. SO IT'S NOT AS THOUGH JOHN MADE ANY MISTAKE IN TERMS OF THE DESIGN OF WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US.

IT'S THAT THE BIDDERS DIDN'T BID ON THE COMPONENT.

AND SO WHEN THEY DIDN'T BID ON THAT COMPONENT, WE DON'T GET THAT FUNCTIONALITY IN THAT COMPONENT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

JOHN, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG

>> IF THEY DIDN'T BID ON THE COMPONENT, WAS IT BECAUSE THE

COMPONENT WASN'T ON THE DESIGN? >> NO IT WAS.

>> I CAN'T ANSWER. THE COMPONENT WAS IN THE DESIGN DRAWINGS. AND JOHN CAN ANSWER THAT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE COMPONENT WAS IN THE DESIGN DRAWINGS. IT WAS AN ALTERNATE.

>> WE CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY THEY DIDN'T BID ON IT.

THEY JUST GIVE YOU A BID NUMBER.

THEY DON'T GIVE YOU HERE IS WHY I DIDN'T BID THIS LINE THE COURT: THIS IS A HUGE ITEM. IT'S A HUGE $6 MILLION PLUS PLUS PROJECT, OR $8 MILLION PROJECT THAT WE'VE ESCROWED.

THIS IS A $22,000 NEEDED DESIGN FEATURE.

NRG ENGINEERING HAS DONE GOOD WORK BUT THEY NEED US TO APPROVE THESE AMENDMENTS AND HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THEM THAT THEY NEED TO DESIGN THIS BECAUSE THEY'RE TELLING US THIS IS WHAT IS NEEDED. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US GET THROUGH THIS SO THAT WE CAN GET THROUGH THE 3C2.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY NEEDED AND WE DIDN'T GET ANYBODY TO BID ON THE OTHER PIECE OF IT, WHICH WOULD HAVE CONTAINED IT.

SO LET'S PUT IT IN THE MAIN PACKAGE AND GET IT DONE AND CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD ON OUR GENERATOR PROJECT.

MOTION TO APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL FOR THE 22,000.

REMEMBER, THAT IS A BREAKDOWN OF TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, JAIL AND ANNEX. 14 FOR 1 AND 7 FOR THE OTHER.

AND HE SAYS HE CAN BE FINISHED VERY QUICKLY.

>> JUDGE, TELL ME, THIS IS ADDITIONAL? THE COURT: IT'S IN THE BUDGET FOR OUR GENERATORS.

IF YOU'RE WONDERING WHAT THE FUNDING SOURCE IS, THE FUNDING SOURCE IS THE GENERATOR PROJECT IN AND OF ITSELF, THIS PIECE IS A DESIGN FEATURE THAT WILL ALLOW FOR AUTOMATIC TURN-ON OF THESE GENERATORS. IT'S NEEDED. IT WAS DESIGNED IN ANOTHER PART THAT WASN'T BID ON. SO THIS ONE NEEDS TO BE ON THE

PACKAGE >> THIS UNFORTUNATELY IT SEEMS LIKE NOT EXACTLY, BUT ANOTHER KIND OF JACOBS SITUATION, WHERE

WE'RE KIND OF LIKE -- >> HE SAID NO BECAUSE HE

DESIGNED FOR IT >> THIS IS NOT THAT SITUATION.

THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THE VENDORS THAT PROVIDED BIDS ON THE PROJECT, THEY DID NOT BID THIS PIECE.

THIS PIECE CONTAINS THAT AUTO TURN-ON CAPABILITY.

WHEN WE PUT OUT THE PROJECT, OUR EXPECTATIONS IS WE WERE GOING TO GET BIDS ON EVERYTHING.

NONE OF THE BIDDERS BID ON THIS PIECE.

SO NOW THAT FUNCTIONALITY -- >> WE STILL HAVE THE FUNDS FOR THAT PIECE SET ASIDE. BECAUSE NO ONE BID ON THAT PIECE, THEN WE DIDN'T ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT? AND NOW THAT WE'RE BIDDING ON THAT PIECE WE'RE ALLOCATING FUNDS? THE COURT: JUST THE ENGINEER

DESIGN. >> TO MOVE THE FEATURE INTO THE MAIN BID. THE COURT: SO IT DOESN'T HAPPEN

AGAIN. >> IN THE CASE THAT WE GET A

NON-BID. >> NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS ALLOCATED TODAY, THIS IS USING SOME OF THOSE FUNDS, IS THAT CORRECT? THE COURT: THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I THINK THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> ANY OF THOSE BIDDERS, DID THEY GET THE JOB? THE COURT: THAT IS GOING TO BE NEXT.

>> COMING UP ON 3C2. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF THEY DIDN'T SEE IT WAS REQUIRED IN THE DESIGN, MAYBE YOU OUGHT TO LOOK FOR OTHER COMPANIES THE COURT: WE'RE GOING TO GET TO 3C2. GIVE US A MOMENT.

[1. Discuss and consider selection for IFB No. 3202-22 Heavy Equipment Public Works Phase 2.]

[07:00:35]

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER SELECTION FOR THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT PUBLIC

WORKS PHASE TWO. >> ON THIS ONE, WE HAD A LITTLE ISSUE. AND THE REASON YOU'LL SEE ON THE ATTACHED PAGE THAT IT SAYS I RECEIVED NO RESPONSIVE BIDS, THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM SAYING NO BIDS.

NO RESPONSIVE BIDS IN THIS CASE MEANS THAT THEY DIDN'T BID IT CORRECTLY. I HAD TALKED TO JENNY ABOUT THIS. BUT BASICALLY, WITHOUT REVEALING THE NAME OF THE BIDDER, WE RECEIVED TWO BIDS FOR THE SAME EXACT ITEM FROM THE SAME BIDDER, WITH TWO DIFFERENT PRICES AND TWO DIFFERENT DELIVERY DATES.

ACCORDING TO MY RULES AND THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WAS APPROVED BY LEGAL, YEARS AGO, THAT IS THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS WE USE TO DETERMINE WHEN SOMETHING IS NONRESPONSIVE, WHEN WE RECEIVE TWO BIDS FOR THE SAME ITEM FROM THE SAME VENDOR, THAT IS CONSIDERED A NONRESPONSIVE BID.

I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THAT IRREGULARITY OR FORMALITY IN THE BIDDING PROCESS, BUT THE COURT DOES.

SO IF THE COURT IS WILLING TO WAIVE THAT IRREGULARITY, THEN I CAN VIEW THE BIDS AND PROVIDE THOSE TO PUBLIC WORKS SO THEY CAN LOOK AT THEM AND DETERMINE IF THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON

THAT PURCHASE. >> THAT IS A LITTLE DICEY.

YOU GOT A RECOMMENDATION THERE, COUNTY ATTORNEY?

>> YOU CAN CHOOSE TO WAIVE IRREGULARITY.

>> YOU CAN ALSO CHOOSE TO REJECT ALL BIDS

>> YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, LEGALLY?

>> YOU COULD DO EITHER. IT WOULD PROBABLY BE CLEANER TO

REJECT ALL BIDS. >> I WOULD THINK SO TOO.

I MEAN, WE CAN REBID IT AND LET IT COME BACK THE RIGHT WAY.

MAYBE WE GET ANOTHER BID. WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE BIDDER

IS. >> YOU DO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE THAT -- WELL, I GUESS I CAN'T TELL YOU YET UNTIL YOU DECIDE

ON THIS. >> HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE,

MIKE, TO GET THIS EQUIPMENT? >> Y'ALL NEED WAIVE IRREGULARITIES BEFORE I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WAS IN THE BID AND IT WOULD ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

YOU HAVE TO WAIVE IT FIRST. >> IF WE DO REBID, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO GET THE EQUIPMENT?

>> PROBABLY PART OF THE BID. >> THIS IS THE SECOND TIME I'VE BID THIS OUT. IF FIRST TIME I RECEIVED NO BIDS FOR THREE OF THE FOUR ITEMS. WE RECEIVED BIDS FOR ONE ITEM. WE AWARDED THAT PREVIOUSLY.

THIS TIME I BID THE REMAINING THREE ITEMS AND I HAVE THIS CONDITION THAT IS PRECLUDING ME FROM GIVING YOU INFORMATION ABOUT THE ONE BIDDER THAT SUBMITTED TWO BIDS.

I RECEIVED NO OTHER BIDS FROM ANYBODY ELSE.

ON ANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS >> THIS IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR BUY

BOARD? >> THIS IS ARPA.

I CAN'T USE BUY BOARD. THE COURT: HOW FAST COULD YOU DO IT? IF WE REJECTED ALL BIDS.

>> I COULD REBID NEXT WEEK THE COURT: MAKE A MOTION TO REJECT ALL BIDS AND REBID NEXT WEEK.

OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SURE. >> OKAY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. KEEP US POSTED.

[2. Discuss and consider rescinding conditional selection for CSP No. 3192-22 Infrastructure Construction for Emergency Generators for Nueces County Courthouse, Main Jail and Jail Annex; discuss and consider rejecting all bids; and discuss and consider authorizing the County Purchasing Agent to rebid at a later date using the request for competitive bids IFB method.]

NEXT WEEK, MICHAEL. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. THE NEXT ONE IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER RESCINDING CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF CSP 31922 FOR EMERGENCY GENERATORS, MAIN JAIL AND JAIL ANNEX.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO REBID USING THE IFB METHOD.

>> SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING DURING NEGOTIATIONS THERE WERE DIFFERING ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING THE PREVIOUS VENDOR THAT WAS CONDITIONALLY SELECTED, WHICH WAS HJD CAPITAL.

THEY ARE DIFFERING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL AND THERE

[07:05:02]

WERE SOME VARIANCES THAT WERE REVIEWED AS WELL THAT WERE DETERMINED THAT THEY COULD BOTH DISADVANTAGE THE COUNTY AND VENDOR. AND SO IT'S RECOMMENDED BASED ON THAT THAT WE RESCIND THAT CONDITIONAL SELECTION.

AND THEN I'M RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT REJECT ALL BIDS AND ALLOW ME TO REBID AT A LATER DATE.

ONCE I GET THE NEW DRAWINGS FROM NRG.

AND WE WILL REBID INSTEAD OF CSP, LAST TIME WHEN WE BID THIS, WE USED CSP. THIS TIME IT WOULD GO IFB.

STRAIGHT UP LOW BID >> ARE YOU AT LIBERTY TO SAY

WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT? >> WELL, THERE IS MULTIPLE FACTORS. ONE, MOST IMPORTANTLY IS THAT THEY DID NOT BID ON THE RESILIENCY PIECE, WHICH CONTAINS THE AUTO TURN-ON FEATURE THAT WE NEED FOR THE GENERATORS TO WORK IN THE MANNER THAT WE EXPECT.

>> WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH ALL THIS

BEFORE? >> WE DIDN'T MAKE IT MANDATORY,

RIGHT, MICHAEL? >> WE DIDN'T MAKE IT MANDATORY ON THAT ITEM. IT WAS AN ADDITIVE ITEM BECAUSE OF BUDGET -- USUALLY PUBLIC WORKS CAN SPEAK TO THIS.

BUT USUALLY THEY BREAK OUT A BID, ENGINEER WOULD, INTO DIFFERENT SEGMENTS, BASED ON BUDGETARY CONCERNS.

YOU TRY TO GET YOUR BASE BID, ADDITIVES MIGHT BE THINGS THAT ARE NICE TO HAVES VERSUS HAVE TO HAVES.

RESILIENCY I THINK WAS CONSIDERED A PIECE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DESIRED BUT IT WASN'T REQUIRED FOR US TO DO

THE PROJECT. >> NOW PUBLIC WORKS THINKS IT

SHOULD BE REQUIRED? >> WE THINK THAT THE AUTO TURN-ON CAPABILITY NEEDS TO BE REQUIRED.

SINCE NOBODY BID ON THE AUTO TURN-ON CAPABILITY, BURIED WITHIN THE PIECE, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO REBID IT IN ORDER TO GET THAT COMPONENT INTO THE MAIN BID.

>> WHILE HE'S WALKING UP, I MEAN, THAT CAN'T BE INCORPORATED INTO THE LOW BID THAT WE HAVE NOW? IS THAT PRICE TOO EXPENSIVE? WHY IS IT THAT WE CAN'T GO WITH THE LOW BID AND INCLUDE THAT IN THERE?

>> SAY THAT AGAIN. >> SO WE HAD A LOW BID.

I MEAN, IS IT TOO COSTLY? ARE THEY GOING TO BRING IT CLOSER TO THE FIRST BID? IT LOOKS LIKE PRETTY DECENT BID, ALMOST $600,000 DIFFERENCE IN BID.

AND YOU'RE SAYING THEY BOTH DIDN'T BID.

SO EVEN IF WE ASKED THEM TO INCLUDE THAT, WHY WOULD WE GO BACK OUT INTO THE PUBLIC AND PUT THIS OUT THERE AGAIN, MORE TIME THAT WE'RE SPENDING, MORE MONEY THAT IT'S COSTING AS WE WAIT. I MEAN, EVERY TIME WE TURN AROUND IT'S A GENERATOR FOR SOMETHING AND EVERYTHING.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, ALLUDED TO EARLIER, IT'S THE SAME PROJECTS WE'RE DEALING WITH. I WOULD LIKE SOME RESOLUTION HERE AND BE ABLE TO SAY THIS IS OUR BID.

AND BY THE WAY, YOU HAVE TO ADD THIS PART.

WE WOULD HAVE TOLD EITHER COMPANY THAT.

IS THAT NOT ALLOWED? WHY WOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO GO

THAT ROUTE? >> THERE IS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS THAT I HAD TALKED TO JENNY'S OFFICE ABOUT, I'M NOT CERTAIN IF THIS IS THE RIGHT FORUM FOR THAT PIECE, ABOUT WHETHER WE CAN AWARD WORK ON AN ITEM THAT WAS NOT BID ON.

RESILIENCY PIECE BEING THE PART THAT WAS NOT BID ON BY ANYBODY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN REWARD THAT TO NECESSARILY THIS BIDDER WITHOUT ADDING COST TO THE PROJECT.

AND IF THAT COSTS BRINGS US CLOSER TO THE NEXT BIDDER, THEN

WE HAVE THOSE CONSIDERATIONS >> WHO ALSO DID NOT BID ON

THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PRICE OF THAT ADD-ON WAS.

SO IF VENDOR B HAD A LOWER PRICE ON THE ADD-ON THAN VENDOR A AND THAT ITEM COULD BE THE ONE THAT CAUSES THE BALANCE TO SWITCH TO ANOTHER VENDOR, IT'S AN UNKNOWN.

>> IF BOTH ARE LACKING THE SAME PART.

>> AND THE DRAWINGS, MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WAS BID ON

DID NOT INCLUDE THIS FEATURE. >> DID NOT INCLUDE WHAT?

>> AUTO TURN-ON CAPABILITY. >> THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. BOTH PARTS ARE LACKING THAT ONE PART. SO EVEN IF THIS ONE INCLUDES THAT PRICE, AND BRINGS THEM UP HERE, THEY STILL HAVE TO, GROUP B STILL HAS TO RAISE THEIR PRICE TO COVER FOR THAT PART AS WELL. ISN'T THAT LOGICAL? I MEAN, YOU WOULD ASSUME THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT FOR FREE.

>> WE'RE GETTING INTO TECHNICAL AREAS.

>> IS IT WORTHY OF TAKING IN? BECAUSE I'M DYING TO TAKE A

[07:10:03]

LITTLE BREAK. TWO EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OR NOT?

>> TWO OR YOU COULD BRING IN PURCHASING FOR SPECIFIC

QUESTIONS DURING EXECUTIVE. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT MICHAEL JUST SAID ABOUT LIKE BECAUSE WE WERE IN ON THIS.

NONE OF THIS CAME UP. THE COURT: CORRECT.

I THINK HIS LEGAL QUESTION IS, IS THAT CAN HE -- HE WANTS

GUIDANCE. >> WHO DOES, MICHAEL? THE COURT: MICHAEL WANTS GUIDANCE TO DO IT.

YOU KNOW HOW WE HAVE OUR CONTRACTS AND WE CAN ONLY DO 25 PERCENT OF A CHANGE ORDER, I THINK HE'S WONDERING HOW MUCH

THAT SWITCH WILL COST. >> I CAN'T SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE THE SCOPE OF THIS BID. THAT COMPONENT MAY BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTANTIAL BID THE COURT: HE'S ASKING FOR GUIDANCE. DO YOU MIND IF I ASK JOHN

RODRIGUEZ. >> I WOULD PREFER THAT Y'ALL NOT DISCUSS AMOUNTS, BECAUSE WE'RE REVEALING AMOUNTS.

>> BERT, AS AN ENGINEER, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW WE GOT HERE.

>> COMMISSIONER, AS FAR AS PUBLIC WORKS LAN IS HANDLING THIS PROJECT. WE ARE A LITTLE FAMILIAR WITH.

LAN IS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT AND WE'RE KIND OF FAMILIAR.

WE REVIEWED PLANS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

BUT AS FAR AS THE CHANGES, I BELIEVE IT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH LIKE THE JUDGE SAYS.

I BELIEVE MAYBE, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, JP, THE BASE BID REQUIRES IT TO BE MANUAL SWITCH AND THIS COMPONENT IS ADDING A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT IS GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY CHANGE FROM GENERATOR DIRECTLY TO GRID WITHOUT ANYBODY HAVING TO GO OUT THERE AND MANUALLY DOING IT.

>> SO I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, JP IS ON HERE, WHY DIDN'T WE DEAL WITH THIS WHEN WE DID ALL OF THIS?

>> MY OPINION, I GUESS THE BASE BID WAS DESIGNED TO HAVE THE MANUAL AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, WHEN I USED TO DO PROJECTS, BASED ON BUDGET, I WANTED THE PROJECT TO WORK.

AND PUT A MANUAL SWITCH IF THERE WAS ADDITIONAL FUNDS, WE BASICALLY DID ADDITIVE BID ITEMS TO SEE WHAT THE COST WAS AND IF BUDGET ALLOWED, WE WOULD TAKE THAT AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH AND BUILD IT IN TO THE BASE BID.

AS AN ADDITIVE. THAT WAS THE INTENT.

>> CAN YOU BID THE ADDITIVE? >> IN MY EXPERIENCE, YOU

CANNOT. >> SO MICHAEL'S QUESTION IS CAN

IT BE ADDED TO THE CONTRACT. >> JUDGE, YOU DID MENTION

SOMETHING. >> ADDITIVE CAN.

>> YOU THINK SO? >> AGAIN, IN MY EXPERIENCE, IF IT'S WITHIN -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT COST IS RIGHT NOW, BUT IF IT DOESN'T EXCEED 25 PERCENT, YOU COULD DO IT THROUGH A CHANGE ORDER LIKE YOU SAID, JUDGE.

AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T EXCEED 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROJECT.

>> PLUS WE ADDED THE ADDITIVE WAS THERE.

WE DIDN'T NOT HAVE IT ON THE BID.

NO ONE BID IT. SO IF WE FEEL LIKE NOW WE NEED TO ADD THE ADDITIVE, WHY WOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE LOW BIDDER TO ADD THE ADDITIVE AND GET THEM TO BID IT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WOULD VIOLATE ANY PROCUREMENT RULES OR ANYTHING ELSE.

BECAUSE NOW THE NUMBERS ARE NOW OUT IN THE OPEN.

THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT FAIR. SO I MEAN, WHY CAN'T WE JUST DO THAT. ADDITIVE WAS ON THERE.

WHY CAN'T WE GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE THE ADDITIVE WITH THE LOW BIDDER BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T BID IT.

ANYBODY? I'M ASKING JENNY OR WHOEVER WANTS TO JUMP IN HERE. I THOUGHT SOMETHING LIKE THAT YOU COULD GO BACK AND DO THAT. I DON'T THINK THE 25 PERCENT MATTERS. THIS ISN'T A CHANGE ORDER.

WE WANT THE ADDITIVE. YOU WANT TO GIVE US A PRICE FOR THE ADDITIVE. AND IF WE DON'T, WE REJECT IT

>> WE DON'T HAVE AN INDICATION RIGHT NOW OF SEVERE OF A CHANGE

THAT IS. >> I'M SORRY, BUT YOU CAN'T GET INTO A CHANGE ORDER UNTIL YOU DO AN AWARD.

>> I'M ASKING IF YOU CAN GO BACK AND REVIEW AND REBID THE ADDITIVE. I SAID NO CHANGE ORDER.

IT'S NOT RELATIVE HERE. >> WE DON'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF OR HOW BIG OR HOW IMPORTANT THAT CHANGE IS.

IF IT'S VERY SMALL, IT'S VERY SMALL.

[07:15:41]

>> IT'S A SWITCH, BUT IT'S MANUAL.

DON'T THEY GET THEM UNDER AUTOMATICALLY.

I'VE BEEN TO SEVERAL BUILDINGS AND THE GENERATORS KICK ON BY

THEMSELVES. >> YOU CAN HAVE EITHER ONE.

IN THIS CASE, I BELIEVE THE AUTOMATIC SWITCH WAS AN

ADDITIVE. >> I THINK WHAT WE'RE FOR GETTING IS THERE WAS A SEPARATE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS. SEPARATE YOU KNOW, ITEM THAT WAS NOT BID ON THAT HAD ALL OF THAT.

AND THERE'S SORT OF AN UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES HERE THAT THOSE DID NOT GET BID ON, RIGHT? OTHERWISE THIS WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. SO IT'S KIND OF HARD MICHAEL, TO NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, I KNOW, WHEN YOU REALLY NEED THE QUESTION ANSWERED.

>> WHAT ABOUT THIS WAY, JUDGE, WHAT IF WE SAID LET'S DO IT THAT WAY, SUBJECT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY SAYING THAT WE CAN.

IF WE CAN'T, WE PUT IT BACK ON TO THE 27TH.

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THESE BIDS.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE COULDN'T GO BACK AND ASK THEM TO BID THE ADDITIVE. THE COURT: UH-HUH.

>> JUST THE LOWEST BIDDER, THOUGH, NOT BOTH?

>> YEAH. YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU CAN GO BACK AND ASK THEM BOTH, I DON'T CARE.

BUT THERE HAS GOT TO BE A WAY TO DO THIS WITHOUT HAVING TO REBID THE WHOLE THING AND START ALL OVER AGAIN.

BUT NOBODY SEEMS TO -- IT'S KIND OF NOT RHETORICAL.

>> FROM WHERE I'M STANDING, BRENT, IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES.

YOU'RE ASKING ME TO CREATE ANOTHER BID PROCESS WITHIN A BID PROCESS FOR AN ITEM THAT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE ORIG ORIGINAL ITEM WAS BID.

>> THAT IS WHAT I'M ASKING IF IT'S LEGAL.

>> YOU CAN WAIT FOR YOUR LEGAL ANSWER.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THERE IS ANOTHER FACTOR THAT I WANTED TO DISCUSS IN CLOSED WITH Y'ALL THAT MIGHT WEIGH INTO YOUR

DECISION >> JUDGE, WE'VE GOT 100 OTHER THINGS TO DO. IF YOU DON'T MIND, LET'S SEE HOW FAST WE CAN DO PURCHASING ON THE OTHER ITEMS. WE'RE GOING TO HOLD FOR THE CLERK ON THAT ITEM.

[3. Discuss and consider conditional selection for RFP No. 3201-22 Janitorial Services.]

ON ITEM 3, RFP, JANITORIAL SERVICES.

IS THAT ONE THAT LOOKS GOOD? >> WE RECEIVED THREE BIDS FOR THIS. WE'RE RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF AHI FACILITY SERVICES.

THEY WERE THE LOW BIDDER ON THIS.

IF YOU'LL LOOK AT MY RED TEXT, ACTUALLY IN THE GRAY BAR THERE, YOU'LL SEE WHAT OUR PREVIOUS PROVIDER WAS CHARGING US, WHICH IS OUR CURRENT PROVIDER, ON AN HOURLY RATE.

THAT HOURLY RATE IS CALCULATED ON THEIR MONTHLY COST PROPOSAL DIVIDED BY THE PROPOSED TOTAL NUMBER OF HOURS.

WE ADJUSTED THOSE HOURS TO BE EQUIVALENT TO THE HOURS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY GETTING. AND SO IN COMPARING THOSE ACROSS EACH OTHER, AHI HAD THE LOWEST MONTHLY COST AND THEREFORE THE LOWEST ANNUAL COST.

BUT IN THE RED TEXT, YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT PRICE INCREASE OVER WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT RED THING MAKES SENSE.

>> WITHOUT GIVING THE FIGURES AWAY, LOW BIDDER IS HIGHER THAN OUR CURRENT PROVIDER. AND THAT FIRST FIGURE IS IN ONE

[07:20:01]

YEAR. >> IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE LOW BIDDER IS STILL THE LOW BIDDER, BUT IT'S HIGHER THAN WE'RE CURRENTLY PAYING BECAUSE EVERYBODY WENT

UP ON THEIR PRICES? >> YES.

WE'RE IN A MONTH TO MONTH ALREADY WITH OUR CURRENT PROVIDER, WHICH IS I THINK SCHEDULED TO END IN THE END OF JULY. SO BY MAKING THIS AWARD, I JUST WANTED Y'ALL TO BE AWARE OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THAT

DECISION. >> I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THE NUMBERS EITHER, MICHAEL. I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN LIKE THE ONE THAT ON THE TABULATION COMPARISON, WHO ARE YOU

RECOMMENDING? >> THE ONE IN GREEN.

>> WE'RE NOT SAYING ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.

>> I THOUGHT HE SAID THAT. TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE --

>> THE ONE IN GRAY IS NOT A BIDDER.

THAT IS YOUR CURRENT PROVIDER. >> THEY DIDN'T BID AT ALL.

THE COURT: THEY DIDN'T BID. >> I JUST WANTED Y'ALL TO HAVE A COMPARISON. THE COURT: WE HAVE NO OPTIONS ON THAT CURRENT BID. THAT CURRENT PROVIDER.

>> IT'S GOING TO COST US MORE, I GOT IT.

>> THE CURRENT PROVIDER, WE'RE IN A MONTH TO MONTH.

SO I WANT TO GIVE Y'ALL ALL OF THE OPTIONS YOU HAVE.

OPTIONS YOU HAVE ARE A, AWARD TO THE LOW BIDDER.

B, REJECT ALL BIDS. AND WE STAY IN A MONTH TO MONTH. I REBID LATER.

>> WILL THEY CONTINUE TO DO IT ON A MONTH TO MONTH?

>> WE'LL HAVE TO CHECK WITH THEM.

>> WE HAVE TO KNOW THAT BEFORE WE REJECT?

>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DO WHILE WE'RE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? BECAUSE THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY THAT SAVES OVER THREE YEARS, REALLY A BIG DEAL.

>> WE WERE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE COUNTY WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THIS PROVIDER.

WE HAD THEM UNDER CONTRACT. THIS IS ONLY, THEY'VE BEEN UNDER CONTRACT ONE YEAR OF THEIR NEW FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT.

I WAS ASKED TO TAKE IT OUT TO BID AGAIN, INSIDE THE FIRST

YEAR. >> MICHAEL, I CAN TELL YOU FIRSTHAND THAT THE CLEANING SERVICES IS NOT GOOD AT ALL.

YOU CAN GO CHECK OUR BATHROOM RIGHT NOW.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU, THAT IS THE TYPE OF WORK THEY'VE DONE DOING. THEY NEVER SCRUB THE FLOORS.

WE'RE NOT REALLY GETTING ANYTHING.

WE ARE JUST PAYING OUT MONEY TO PEOPLE THAT DON'T DO ANY WORK

AT ALL OR DON'T BRING CHEMICALS >> I DON'T KNOW, JENNY, WHERE ARE WE GOING HERE? PLEASE HELP.

>> I JUST WANT TO MOVE ON AND HOPE THIS IS BETTER.

>> I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT -- ONE PERSON'S OPINION.

DURING COVID-19, THEY WERE EXCEPTIONAL.

WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF GREAT E-MAILS SAYING HOW EXCEPTIONAL

THEY WERE. >> I WAS GIVEN DIRECTION FROM THE CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR, PUBLIC WORKS THAT THEY WERE UNHAPPY WITH THE SERVICE. I CHECK EVERY CONTRACT.

WE SEND A NOTICE TO EACH DEPARTMENT BEFORE WE GO OUT TO RENEW AND ASK THEM IF THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THE SERVICE AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO RENEW. THEN I COME IN AND BRING A RENEWAL BEFORE YOU. IF THEY'RE UNHAPPY, LIKE ME TO REBID, THEN I REBID THE SERVICE.

I WAS INFORMED THAT PUBLIC WORKS WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE SERVICE. I THINK DARRYL MENTIONED THAT IT WAS UNHAPPY WITH THE SERVICE THEY WERE GETTING OUT AT THE WRECKERS WAREHOUSE. SO WITH THOSE REASONS, I ASKED PERMISSION TO BID THIS AGAIN. Y'ALL VOTED FOR THAT.

I ACTUALLY GAVE Y'ALL THAT WHOLE BACKGROUND WHEN I ASKED TO GO OUT TO BID. THE COURT: I THINK THAT WE -- IT WOULD BE NICE TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO SAY YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THEY WOULD CONTINUE MONTH TO MONTH AND CHANGE THE DIRECTION BY LETTING THEM KNOW THAT WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. DO THEY NOT WANT TO DO THE

WORK? >> I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY DIDN'T BID. THE COURT: I KNOW.

BUT I THINK EVERYBODY ELSE KNOWS TOO.

BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY OVER THREE YEARS, MICHAEL. MORE MONEY THAN WE CAN REALLY AFFORD. HOW DO YOU DO THAT? ISN'T THERE ANY WAY THAT WE COULD AT LEAST FIND OUT IN OUR BREAK WHETHER THEY'RE WILLING TO CONTINUE AND TAKE DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE THEIR WORK FOR WRECKERS WAREHOUSE, WHICH WE TALKED ABOUT AND SCRUBBING MR. HERNANDEZ'S

FLOOR. >> JUDGE, AS YOUR OWN WORDS, WHY DO WE WANT TO PAY PEOPLE FOR DOING BAD WORK?

>> I DISAGREE WITH YOU. I THINK WE'VE HAD TONS OF INFORMATION. I'M EXPRESSING AN OPINION LIKE YOU HAVE ONE. WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU IS THAT THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE DURING COVID-19, WHERE WE HAD HEIGHTENED SERVICE WAS VERY GOOD IN THE TOWER.

THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT WAS DONE FOR SANITATION.

AND WE'VE GOT A LOT OF COMPLIMENTS AND A LOT OF

[07:25:02]

E-MAILS REGARDING THAT FROM THE JUDGES AND BOARD OF JUDGES.

THAT IS WHAT I'M REFERRING TO. >> THEY'VE HAD THIS CONTRACT FOR TEN YEARS. TWO DIFFERENT FIVE-YEAR SPANS.

AND THEN WE JUST STARTED OUR NEXT FIVE-YEAR SPAN A YEAR AGO.

>> I'M SAYING FOR THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE SHOULD AT LEAST TRY A REMEDIATION. EVERYBODY, I MEAN, UNLESS SOMEONE IS HANDING OUT MONEY FREELY.

>> HALF A MILLION DOLLARS MORE. >> I SAID THE LOW BIDDER IS AHI

FACILITY SERVICES. >> THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANY BEARING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO NUMBERS, BUT WE HAVE EXTREMES ON THE FINAL CATEGORY BETWEEN THE THREE BIDDING COMPANIES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT WITHOUT GETTING INTO NUMBERS. I DON'T WANT TO RELEASE OR

EMBARRASS ANY COMPANY. >> EACH BIDDER BID A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOURS THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD TAKE TO CLEAN THE BUILDING AND A TOTAL COST OF THAT NUMBER OF HOURS.

DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF HOURS THEY PROPOSE TO GET THE RATE THAT YOU SEE THERE ON THE HOURLY RATE.

SO I HAVE THE ABILITY IF THE COURT WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONDITIONAL SELECTION, ANOTHER OPTION IS THAT JUAN AND

DARRYL AND -- >> I'M SORRY.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SCORING SHEET MICHAEL.

I'M SORRY. THERE IS AN EXTREME.

>> WE UTILIZED THE SCORING MATRIX WHICH ALLOWS FOR PERCENTAGES OF SCORES TO BE GIVEN OUT AND BASED ON 13 PERCENT DIFFERENCE IN PRICE. SO IF YOU HAVE A PRICE THAT IS 13 PERCENT HIGHER THAN THE NEXT BIDDER, YOU WILL RECEIVE ZERO POINTS. IF YOU HAVE PRICES CLOSE TO EACH OTHER, THEY WILL GET A SCORE CLOSE

>> IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN BEFORE?

>> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE COUNTY HAS UTILIZED AN RFP METHOD FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES. WE HAVE ALWAYS GONE WITH LOW

BID. >> I CAN GUARANTEE I'VE NEVER SEEN A SCORING MATRIX OF POLAR OPPOSITES.

NOW ONLY 50 PERCENT BASED ON PRICE.

>> THERE IS VERY MUCH DATA DRIVEN.

IT'S NOT ARBITRARY >> IT'S DATA DRIVEN.

>> IT'S NOT INDIVIDUAL SCORES. >> CATCHING MY ATTENTION, I APPRECIATE THAT. BECAUSE YOU KNOW, BEFORE YOU KNOW, THERE ARE INTERPRETATIONS OF WHAT THE SERVICES LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE CATEGORY LOOKS LIKE. YOU COULD GET EVER SO SLIGHTLY IN POINTS. HERE IT MAKES A VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION. AS LONG AS IT'S MEASURABLE.

DATA DRIVEN, LIKE YOU SAID, YOU HAVE IT LISTED THERE, THEN I'M GOOD WITH THAT. BECAUSE IT GRABS YOUR ATTENTION LIKE WOW, YOU DON'T EVER SEE ONE EXTREME TO THE OTHER, AND WHEN COMPANIES HAVE BEEN RATED SIDE BY SIDE IN A PARTICULAR

CATEGORY. >> RIGHT.

>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. >> MICHAEL, ONE MORE QUESTION, HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE THEY REQUIRED TO HAVE EVERY NIGHT TO

COME TO WORK? >> I DON'T MANAGE THE SERVICE.

I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT THE REQUIRED EMPLOYEE COUNTS ARE, BUT IN THE BID BOOK, WE INDICATED ON THE PROPOSAL RESPONSE FORM A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SUPERVISORS AND EMPLOYEES

[07:30:01]

FOR EACH SITE. THAT WAS THE SAME THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US BY THE DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT WERE USING THE SERVICE, WHICH IS FOR THIS BUILDING, PUBLIC WORKS, IT GAVE US THE WRECKERS WAREHOUSE, PUBLIC WORKS GAVE US FOR THE YARDS, HOW MANY PEOPLE. COASTAL PARKS GAVE US NUMBER OF PEOPLE FOR THEIR AREA. WE GOT INPUT FROM JUVENILE DEPARTMENT ON THEIR HEAD COUNT. BASICALLY THE SAME HEAD COUNT THAT WE'VE ALWAYS HAD. THAT IS WHAT THEY ALL BID UPON, WAS HAVING THE SAME NUMBER OF FOLKS WORKING.

>> WELL, I REMEMBER WHEN THIS COURTHOUSE FIRST GOT BUILT, THEY WENT TO JANITORIAL SERVICE, REQUIREMENTS THEY HAVE TO REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST 12 PEOPLE IN THE BUILDING TO DO THE CLEANING. BUT THAT IS WHEN THEY WERE DOING VACUUMING AND CLEANING. NOW WE DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE, RIGHT? I MEAN, APM, I'VE SEEN HERE WITH TWO PEOPLE, THREE PEOPLE. THE LADIES THAT WORK FOR THEM, I ASKED THEM IS THAT SOLUTION SANITIZER

>> I CAN SAVE YOU SOME BREATH BECAUSE ABM HAS NOT BID ON THIS

PROJECT. >> THEY WANT TO CONTINUE THIS

SERVICE ON A MONTHLY DEAL. >> THAT IS WHO WE HAVE CURRENTLY PROVIDING THE SERVICE.

>> THAT PRICE IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN OUR LAST BIDDER.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO GO WITH THE LOW BIDDER.

MAKE A MOTION TO GO WITH THE LOW BIDDER.

>> SECOND. THE COURT: ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? OTHER THAN JUST I WANT IT ON THE RECORD THAT THE LOW BIDDER IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN OUR CURRENT SERVICE. AND WILL CREATE A CONTINGENCY LIABILITY. I'M TRYING TO SPEAK.

IT'S SO RUDE. TRYING TO SPEAK.

>> ALSO ON THE RECORD THE COURT: ONE MORE TIME, COMMISSIONER, I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU, IF YOU WANT TO ADD ON, I'M DELIGHTEDED TO CALL ON YOU. PLEASE HOLD.

AGAIN, I'LL BACK UP NOW FROM THE BEGINNING.

SO WE CAN RESTART. THAT BY GOING WITH THE LOW BIDDER, YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN WHAT WE HAVE AND IT WILL CREATE A CONTINGENCY LIABILITY FOR US IN OUR NEXT FISCAL YEAR TO A LARGE EXTENT WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO DO OUR VERY BEST TO FIND ADDITIONAL DOLLARS TO QUITE FRANKLY CHANGE SALARIES, DO ALL KINDS OF THINGS.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WITHOUT HAVING A REAL HONEST DISCUSSION, THESE DOLLARS MERIT AT VERY LEAST A DISCUSSION.

I WOULD HOPE MAYBE YOU WOULD AMEND YOUR MOTION TO SAY YOU'LL GO WITH THE LOW BIDDER SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT BIDDER, MAYBE NOT AGREEING TO STICK MONTH TO MONTH THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE OUT -- I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE

FISCAL, CONTINGENCY LIABILITY >> THROUGH THIS FISCAL YEAR? THE COURT: AT LEAST SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT AND BUDGET.

AM I ALLOWED TO SAY HOW SIGNIFICANT OR NO?

>> CAN WE LOOK AT JUST STARTING IT? IN OTHER WORDS, JUST MAKE IT STARTING OCTOBER 1ST.

THE COURT: I MEAN, WE COULD PUT EXTRA PEOPLE ON THE PAYROLL AT A HUGE AMOUNT WITH THE SAVINGS THAT WE'RE GETTING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE IGNORING THAT.

BECAUSE THAT TO ME, I UNDERSTAND IF YOU DON'T LIKE PUBLIC WORKS DOESN'T LIKE THEIR SERVICE BASED UPON IMPORTANT PEOPLE SAYING HEY, WE NEED TO DO BETTER, BUT WHAT HAVE WE DONE TO TRY TO REMEDIATE THE SITUATION.

BECAUSE IF THESE DOLLARS, THOSE ARE THE SALARIES THAT PEOPLE WANT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

THIS IS SCARY TO ME THAT WE'RE NOT ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IS A BIG AMOUNT OF MONEY. THAT IS ALL.

WE'LL CALL THE VOTE. EVERYONE IS TIRED.

BUT IT'S A REAL SHAME THAT WE ARGUE ABOUT STUFF IN THE

MORNING >> LET IT SHOW TOO THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE NOW DID NOT BID FOR THE JOB.

IT MEANS THEY DON'T WANT THE JOB.

BESIDES THAT, MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY WITH THE JOBS THAT

THEY DID. >> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.

DOES THE CURRENT PROVIDER, WERE THEY DISCOURAGED FROM BIDDING

THIS AGAIN? >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK THEM, COMMISSIONER. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM.

THE COURT: THERE IS A PERSONALITY CONFLICT BETWEEN

[07:35:01]

THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND THIS COMPANY.

THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. >> I HAVE HAD PEOPLE STARTING TO WEIGH IN, TELLING ME, THEY'RE NOT VERY GOOD.

I THINK THE COUNTY CLERK WOULD TELL YOU THEY DIDN'T DO IT REAL WELL. THERE IS LOTS OF PEOPLE THAT SAY IT NOW. I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR THAT CONFLICTS.

I WISH WE WOULD HAVE DEBATED THIS MORE WHEN HE BROUGHT IT BEFORE. WE APPROVED IT TO GO OUT FOR BID. IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS, SOMETIMES YOU BRING UP, JUDGE, IF WE GO OUT FOR BIDS.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, I DON'T LOVE IT EITHER.

I DON'T KNOW. THE COURT: FOR THESE DOLLARS.

>> I AGREE ON THE LIABILITY ISSUE THAT IT PRESENTS BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF THE YEAR, IT'S GOING TO BE MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO PAY FOR IT.

LET ME ASK YOU THIS, BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, FOR THAT CONTINGENT LIABILITY ISSUE, COULD THAT BE COVERED BY ARPA FUNDING TO MAKE UP THAT YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT IS -- IT'S COVID-19. I MEAN, COULDN'T WE SAY --

BECAUSE I THINK WE -- >> THIS IS OUR MAINTENANCE AND

OPERATION. >> I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE. I'M HEARING HER, SHE IS RIGHT.

ON THE FACT THAT IF WE SWITCH NOW, IT'S GOING TO COST US 50, 60 EXTRA GRAND TO MAKE IT THROUGH THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN THE NEXT BUDGET TOO. AT LEAST FOR NOW, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. COULD YOU USE THE ARPA FUNDS TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

IT IS DEFINITELY COVID RELATED. ALL THE EXTRA CLEANING WE'RE

DOING. >> PART OF THE SERVICE IS COVID

>> NOW THAT WE'RE BACK TO TRIALS.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A PRETTY FAST EVALUATION.

>> I THINK PART OF IT, NOT ALL OF IT, BUT PART OF IT, MAYBE THAT IS THE PART THAT CAN BE HANDLED.

I'M SAYING IT SEEMS STRANGE THAT WE HAVE AN ABILITY TO YOU KNOW, REALLY SEE FOR THE FIRST TIME THESE NUMBERS GLARING AT US OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS. AND KNOWING WHAT WE'RE FACING, I WOULD RATHER SAY HEY, GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER, YOU'VE GOT MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS. THESE GUYS ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF GLOBAL CLEANING. THEY DO BUSH AIRPORT, A HUGE HUGE FACILITIES. IT'S NOT WE -- I WISH WE COULD HAVE GONE TO THEM. I WOULD VOTE TO REJECT BIDS AND GO TO THEM AND SAY YOU BETTER DO BETTER OR IN TWO MONTHS, WE'RE GOING TO -- IN 60 DAYS, WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT TO BID

AGAIN. >> WASN'T THERE A MOTION?

>> SO I'M OKAY MAKING A CHANGE. BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION ON THE MONEY AND I WOULD LIKE IF THAT IS GOING TO BE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT WE MAKE IT PART OF A MOTION OR SUBSEQUENT MOTION THAT THAT EXTRA IS COVERED BY THE ARPA FUNDS, BASED ON THE INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF EXTRA CLEANING THAT HAS TO GO ON ON THIS. AND THEN WE MAY NEED TO LOOK AT THAT GOING FORWARD FOR NEXT YEAR TOO, JUDGE.

BECAUSE WE'RE STILL GOING TO END UP WITH A HUGE AMOUNT OF EXTRA CLEANING BECAUSE OF COVID.

>> LET ME SAY THIS, I NEED TO ASK --

>> I NEED TO ADD SOMETHING IN THIS POINT.

I NEEDED TO ADD SOMETHING. IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARPA, ARPA WAS NOT PART OF THIS BID PROCESS.

>> IT WASN'T PART OF THE MEDICAL EXAMINER PROCESS EITHER AND WE USED ARPA FUNDS TO COVER.

IT'S GOT TO BE ARPA RELATED. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE MAKING UP A SHORTFALL. THIS IS GOING TO PROVIDE A SHORTFALL IN THE FUND BECAUSE IT'S MORE THAN WE HAVE BUDGETED. SO I'M SAYING TO USE THE SHORTFALL, ARPA FUNDS FOR THE SHORTFALL THAT THIS WILL CREATE FOR THE COUNTY, BECAUSE IT'S COVID RELATED, JUST LIKE WE DID FOR THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. THAT WASN'T PART OF IT EITHER.

BUT WE USED IT. BECAUSE IT WAS ALLOCATED.

IT WAS TOLD WE COULD. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS

COULDN'T BE EITHER. >> I WOULD WANT TO GET

HAGERTY'S OPINION ON THAT. >> MAYBE IF WE CUT HAGERTY AS A

CONSULTANT. >> BOY, THERE OUGHT TO BE AN

AGENDA ITEM JUST FOR -- >> WE'RE DOING SO GOOD TODAY

THE COURT: WE WERE. >> STICK TO THIS ONE, I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE THIS, IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE LOW BIDDER, WHICH I'M HEARING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE, THAT IS FINE

>> I'M GOING TO COME BACK ONE MORE TIME, IF Y'ALL APPROVE

[07:40:01]

CONDITIONAL SELECTION, I WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK ONE MORE TIME

TO DO THE CONTRACT. >> FINE.

AND SO WHATEVER THE SHORTFALL IS, I WOULD MAKE AS PART OF THE MOTION THAT THAT BE COVERED BY ARPA FUNDING.

AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT POSSIBLY FOR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET TOO. BECAUSE WE ARE SPENDING AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF EXTRA MONEY BECAUSE OF COVID.

NO IFS ANDS OR BUTTS ABOUT THAT.

SO WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RECOUP SOME OF THOSE COSTS.

THAT IS A LEGITIMATE RECOUPMENT OF COSTS WITHOUT QUESTION IN MY

MIND. >> I WOULD REALLY WANT TO DEFER TO JUAN ON WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY SPENDING THE MONEY ON.

PREDOMINANT SOURCE OF THIS EXPENSE PRE-COVID WAS 90 PLUS PERCENT OF THIS COST. ENHANCED CLEANING IS VERY SMALL COMPARED TO THAT. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A GREAT CASE FOR COVID DRIVING ENOUGH OF THE INCREASE

TO REALLY PUT A DENT IN THAT. >> TEN PERCENT OF THIS AMOUNT IS ABOUT WHAT THE BUDGET SHORTFALL WOULD BE.

SO YOU SAID 90. TAKE YOUR 10.

10 PERCENT OF THIS WOULD BE ABOUT WHAT WE THINK THE BUDGET SHORTFALL IS GOING TO BE. IF IT'S ONLY TEN PERCENT, LET'S DO IT. IF HAGERTY COMES BACK AND SAYS WE CAN'T, WE'LL ADJUST IT. THE JUDGE HAS A GOOD POINT.

IF WE CAN FIND THE FUNDS TO COVER THIS, WE NEED TO.

>> YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO TABLE THIS A LITTLE BIT AND GIVE US

TIME TO CHECK OUT. >> NO. I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO TABLE IT. I THINK COMMISSIONER MADE A MOTION AND WE SHOULD GO WITH IT.

>> MAKE A MOTION AGAIN TO USE 10 PERCENT OF THE ARPA FUNDS.

THE COURT: FIRST WE HAVE TO DO THE SELECTION.

>> MAKE A MOTION THAT WE SELECT A LOW BIDDER.

THE COURT: LET ME RULE ON THAT ONE.

THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TAKING THE LOW BID, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

[4. Discuss and consider conditional selection for IFB 3198-22 Maintenance Hangar M3 for Lease.]

LET'S MOVE ON. MICHAEL, WE'VE GOT A MAINTENANCE HANGAR IFB. 3198-22 FOR LEASE.

THIS IS A SELECTION AS WELL. >> YES.

WE RECEIVED ONE BID FROM ALBERT JAMES, WE RECOMMEND AWARD.

HE BID $1,120 PER MONTH. >> WAIT.

DO I NEED TO MAKE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION FOR FUNDING TO BE COVERED? THE COURT: WE INCLUDED IT.

WE'RE GOOD, COMMISSIONER. >> I'M SORRY.

FAIR ENOUGH. GOING ON TO THE HANGAR, RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE HANGAR LEASE FOR $1,120?

>> YES. THE COURT: IS THERE A SECOND?

>> YES. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION BY GONZALEZ AND SECOND BY MAREZ.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS AIRPORT HANGAR LEASE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[5. Discuss and consider authorizing a Sole Source purchase with Dailey and Wells Communications, Inc. for 100 law enforcement radios for the Main Jail and McKenzie Jail Annex.]

OKAY. SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE WITH DAILY WELLS FOR 100 LAW ENFORCEMENT RADIOS FOR THE MAIN JAIL.

THIS IS PURCHASE FROM DAILY AND WELLS, SOLE PROVIDER OF THIS RADIO FOR THE NETWORK THAT REQUIRES THE P-25 OPERATION.

THEY HAVE AUTHORIZED A PAYMENT PLAN, IF WE WISH.

THREE INSTALLMENTS. >> THIS IS JUST 100 INDIVIDUAL

RADIOS. >> P-25 RADIOS.

I BELIEVE THE COURT NEEDS TO MAKE A FINDING ON THE RECORD THAT IT IS SOLE SOURCE, BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE HEARD.

>> CORRECT. LET'S DO THAT FIRST.

OR IS THAT CORRECT? YOU WANT THAT FIRST? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO AS A COURT FIND THAT DAILY WELLS IS A SOLE SOURCE FOR THESE P-25 LAW ENFORCEMENT RADIOS FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND THE COURT: THAT OF COURSE, IS BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN COURT. AND ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY

SAYING AYE. >> I PROBABLY WANT TO GET WITH YOU ON THIS, BECAUSE I BELIEVE I DETERMINE IF IT'S A SOLE SOURCE. AND THEN THE COURT JUST APPROVES THE ORDER OR NOT. THE COURT: EITHER WAY, YOU HAVE BACK-UP. YOU CAN DO IT OR WE JUST GAVE

IT TO YOU. >> I JUST WANT TO SPEED THINGS UP IN THE FUTURE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO TWO STEPS.

THE COURT: LET ME DO THE SECOND STEP, WHICH IS EXCITING FOR THE

[07:45:04]

SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND MUCH APPRECIATION TO WORKING WITH PETER COLLINS, TO GET THIS DAILY WELLS OPPORTUNITY.

CAN I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE TO PURCHASE THE ACTUAL LAW ENFORCEMENT RADIOS WITH THE FUNDING SOURCE THAT HAS BEEN

IDENTIFIED? >> SO MOVED THE COURT: SECOND. DID YOU NEED MORE?

>> THE FIRST ONE, BECAUSE ALL IT IS ONE, PURCHASING SOLE SOURCE. SO IT'S ALREADY IN THERE.

BUT YOU HAD THEM DECIDE? THE COURT: SHE ASKED FOR THAT.

>> IT'S ALREADY IN THERE TOGETHER.

THE COURT: SHE'S RIGHT. IT IS IN THERE.

BUT I THINK WE JUST TOOK IT AS A SEPARATE DETERMINATION AS A FINDING, JUST TO BACK IT UP. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, THE WAY THE AGENDA ITEM IS, IT REVEALS ITSELF, BUT WE WENT AHEAD AND GAVE IT A BACKSTOP. THAT WAY DOESN'T PREVENT THESE RADIOS FROM BEING PROCURED QUICKLY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

THANK YOU MICHAEL. WE NEED TO GO TO THE AUDITORS.

[1. Approve Budget Change Order No. 15 for Fiscal Year 2021-2022.]

HE'S GOT TWO CHANGE ORDERS. BUDGET CHANGE ORDER AND ANOTHER ONE IS CAPITAL PROJECT. LET'S DO THE BUDGET CHANGE

ORDER NUMBER 15. >> THANK YOU, LENGTHY CHANGE ORDER. THE MAJORITY OF THIS IS MOVING SOME OVERTIME EXPENSES TO COVER IT.

BECAUSE MOST OF OUR JAIL AND JUVENILE FACILITIES HAVE SIGNIFICANT VACANCIES. AND REQUIRING THIS.

LARGER EXPENSES IS BECAUSE OF THE FULL HOUSE AT THE JUVENILE CENTER, AS WELL WHAT WE'RE NEEDING TO DO IN HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, FOOD COSTS ARE SKY HIGH.

MY STAFF AND I HAVE GONE THROUGH EACH OF THE BUDGET CHANGE ORDERS THAT IS PRESENTED HERE.

WE SEE THAT THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THESE CHANGES.

WE SUBMITTED A BUDGET CHANGE ORDER 15 FOR YOUR ACCEPTANCE

AND APPROVAL >> MOVED THE COURT: THERE IS A SECOND? THANK YOU, JOHN.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAREZ. AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DALE? OKAY.

HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[2. Approve Capital Project Budget Change Order No. 110.]

AND THEN PROJECT CHANGE ORDER 110.

CAPITAL SIDE >> BASED ON OUR FUNDING SOURCES, WHETHER IT'S CO OR GENERAL FUND, MOST OF THE CHARGES ARE ADDING THE BALANCES FOR THE NUECES COUNTY ANIMAL HEALTH FACILITIES. ALSO MOVING SOME OTHER MONEY AROUND FOR OUR 2015 COS, MOVING SOME MONEY TO COVER THE COSTS WE APPROVED FOR THE CASH DRAWER.

COS THAT WE'VE HAD ADDITIONAL FUNDS MOVING TO COVER ADDITIONAL COSTS FOR OUR COURTHOUSE AS WELL AS MY STAFF AND I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS AS WELL.

PAGE 2, WE'VE GOT A FEW MORE COUNTY ROADS BRINGING ON.

SO THIS IS THE PROJECT ENGINEERING PORTION OF THIS.

WE SUBMITTED PROJECT CHANGE ORDER 110 FOR YOUR ACCEPTANCE AND APPROVAL. THE COURT: OKAY.

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

AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

OKAY. AND YOU'LL REMEMBER EARLIER, WE DID E 1 AND 2. AND WE'RE GETTING CLOSE HERE TO MAKING SOME DECISIONS. I WONDERED IF WE COULD GO TO 5:30 TODAY, IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING THAT IS GOING ON.

MOTION AND A SECOND. >> WE MAY TO TABLE SOME THINGS IN ORDER TO GET THAT 5:30. BUT WE CAN AT LEAST TRY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[3. Discuss and consider Fire Marshal Job Description.]

>> AYE. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY I CAN TABLE THE FIRE MARSHAL JOB DESCRIPTION IF YOU WANT TO. I WAS TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF CHIEF BECAUSE HE SENT ME SOME INFORMATION.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S TELLING ME.

SO IF YOU WANT TO TABLE THAT. >> I OWE YOU INFORMATION THAT I GOT FROM THE STATE AS WELL. JULY 27TH.

>> IF WE DO JULY 27TH. AND THEN MAYBE START WITH THAT UP HIGH, SO I CAN GET CHIEF TO WEIGH IN.

>> THAT WOULD BE VERY GOOD. MOTION AND A SECOND.

[4. Discuss and consider allowing the District Attorney's Office to hire or transfer attorneys or staff during any time in a pay period because of the urgency within the office.]

MOTION AND A SECOND. ITEM NUMBER 4, IS A LITTLE TRICKY. AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE HERE ONLINE, BUT I THINK I CAN EXPLAIN IT AND I THINK IDAY AND I HAVE GONE, HERE COMES JULIE. I THINK WE'VE HAD A LOT OF GOOD DISCUSSION WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS.

BUT I'M GOING TO LET YOU AND JULIE LEAD.

THIS IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ALLOWING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO HIRE OR TRANSFER ATTORNEYS OR STAFF DURING ANY TIME IN A PAY PERIOD BECAUSE OF AN URGENCY.

THERE IS BACKGROUND HERE. AND I'LL LET YOU START, JULIE, OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE GOING TO BE OUR REFERENCE ON THIS PAY

[07:50:01]

PERIOD PIECE OF IT. >> JULIE, GO AHEAD AND START.

BUT LET ME JUST GIVE THE BACKGROUND.

THERE IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF VACANCIES IN THE OFFICE AND WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO TRY CASES.

THIS GIVES A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY.

BUT IN A WAY THAT WE CAN HANDLE IT.

BECAUSE IT WOULD COME ALMOST ONE AT A TIME, RATHER THAN CHANGING A WHOLE STATUS QUO. NUMBER FOUR.

JULIE, THE WHOLE THING IS NORMALLY WE START ON A PAY PERIOD BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT MAKES SENSE, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. HOWEVER, THERE IS A POLICY THAT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT HAS IN THEIR MANUAL FOR EMPLOYEES THAT WE SWITCH OVER EMPLOYEES EITHER FOR A TRANSFER OR PROMOTION AT THE BEGINNING OF A NEW PAY PERIOD.

AND THE REASON THAT THIS POLICY WAS WRITTEN, IS BECAUSE IT'S FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEE.

THAT IS ACTUALLY MOVING. THE CURRENT SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW FOR PAYROLL ALLOWS FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO JUST GET PAID THROUGH THE END OF THE DAY THAT THEY WORK.

SO IF WE CUT OFF THE PAY PERIOD HALFWAY THROUGH, THEY WOULDN'T GET THAT REST OF THE PAYCHECK UNTIL ANOTHER TWO WEEKS.

SO THAT IS WHY THIS POLICY WAS WRITTEN.

FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE EMPLOYEE.

DALE CAN SPEAK TO THIS AS WELL, BECAUSE HIS PAYROLL DEPARTMENT WAS THE ONE THAT HAD RECOMMENDED IT WHEN WE PUT IT INTO THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES LAST TIME.

>> I THINK WE OUGHT TO CHANGE IT IN GENERAL BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAVE EMERGENCY NEEDS. IT NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED CLEARLY TO THESE PEOPLE WHEN THEY COME IN, THEY

MAY NOT GET A CHECK. >> THAT IS NOT REALLY THE ISSUE, COMMISSIONERS. THE WAY OUR PAYROLL SYSTEM RIGHT NOW IS, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE TRYING TO GO FOR AN ERP SYSTEM, REVISE AND RENEWAL.

IS WHEN WE TRANSFER AN EMPLOYEE, WE HAVE TO END THEIR EMPLOYMENT. WE HAVE TO START THEIR EMPLOYMENT OVER. WE HAVE TO PAY EVERYTHING THAT WE OWE THEM BACK. SO IT'S SO TIME-CONSUMING BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO END EVERYTHING, CREATE THE NEW ONE, AND IF WE DO THIS MULTIPLE TIMES, I ALMOST GUARANTEE YOU, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO PAY ONE PAY PERIOD.

>> WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD WE HAVE TO DO THAT IF WE'RE

TRANSFERRING? >> OUR PAYROLL SYSTEM REQUIRES.

THE WAY THE LABOR LAW SAYS, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU'RE WORKING IN ONE OF YOUR CURRENT JOB AND LET'S SAY YOU'RE NON-EXEMPT, EXEMPT, OR NON-EXEMPT, YOU HAVE OVERTIME THAT YOU'VE EARNED, WE HAVE TO PAY OUT 100 PERCENT OVERTIME AT YOUR OLD RATE BECAUSE WE CAN'T PAY THE NEW RATE.

>> I WOULD THINK YOUR OVERTIME GETS PAID EVERY CHECK.

>> NO. WE CAN COMP IT WHAT WE CALL COMP TIME.

NOW, IF YOU LEAVE OR YOU TRANSFER, WE HAVE TO PAY YOUR OVERTIME AT YOUR OLD RATE BECAUSE WE CAN'T PAY YOU THE NEW RATE BECAUSE IT'S A HIGHER RATE.

>> I'M ASSUMING FOR THE DA'S OFFICE, IT'S GOT TO BE LIKE NEW HIRES, RIGHT? BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A LOT OF ATTORNEYS THAT ARE GOING TO TRANSFER AROUND?

>> THERE WILL BE A LOT OF TRANSFERRING AROUND.

THREE TO FOUR, PAY GROUP THREE, 32, WE HAVE TO PAY YOU AT THAT LEVEL AND THEN BASICALLY END YOUR EMPLOYMENT AT THAT LEVEL

AND START YOU A NEW LEVEL >> IF YOU RECLASSIFY SOMEONE?

>> YES. THAT IS WHY WE'RE IN THE

PROCESS OF TRYING TO CHANGE IT. >> NEW HIRES CAN START ON ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

NEW HIRES, NOT A PROBLEM. THE COURT: WE'RE TRYING TO GET HER THE FLEXIBILITY TO HIRE. THE ANSWER IS SHE CAN DO IT IN THE PAY PERIOD, SHE IS GOING TO LET THAT INDIVIDUAL KNOW.

>> WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE IS THIS, URGENCIES, WHAT WE CAN DO IS WORK WITH THE DA, WHOEVER MIGHT BE THE CASE, IF THEY WANT TO TRANSFER, THEY TRANSFER TO KEEP THE OLD POSITION, DETERMINE WHAT WOULD BE A PAY, AND WHEN THEY GET THE NEXT PAY PERIOD TO START, WE COVER THE DIFFERENCE.

THE COURT: I DON'T THINK THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CARES HOW WE DO IT, JUST THAT WE DO IT. DO YOU MIND SAYING THAT?

IF THAT IS CORRECT. >> I THINK WE OUGHT TO DO THIS

FOR EVERYBODY, THOUGH. >> YOU'RE 100 PERCENT RIGHT, JUDGE. I DON'T CARE HOW YOU DO IT

>> JUST DO IT >> PLEASE DO IT.

IT MATTERS WHEN WE CAN'T MOVE A MISDEMEANOR UP TO A FELONY.

AND TRIALS COMING UP THE COURT: WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO ALLOW THIS UNDER THESE URGENCY, FOR EVERYBODY.

>> MAKE SURE THAT THE EMPLOYEE BEING TRANSFERRED KNOWS THAT WHEN THEY TRANSFER UP, ONE CHECK MIGHT BE AT THE LOWER RATE AND NEXT PAY PERIOD MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS.

>> THAT MEANS HR, YOU NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THESE DEPARTMENT HEADS ON THIS CHANGE WHAT EFFECT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE FOR WHAT WE DO. YOU'VE GOT TO SEND SOMETHING TO ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND SAY LOOK, WE CHANGED THE POLICY

[07:55:01]

AND THE POLICY IS THIS. HERE IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF.

YOU ARE GOING TO NEED TO GET WITH DALE AND YOU MAY HAVE TO SEND IT THREE TIMES BECAUSE EVERYONE IS BUSY AND THEY MAY NOT HIRE SOMEONE FOR 6 MONTHS AND FORGET ABOUT IT.

>> SO MOVED >> SECOND THE COURT: IF THERE COMES A DAY WHERE WE ARE FULLY STAFFED, WE

CAN REVISIT THIS. >> MOTION AND SECOND THE COURT: YES, I KNOW, I HAD THE MOTION.

MOTION AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CHESNEY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

[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.]

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO GO TO

EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> MAY I BE EXCUSED? THE COURT: YES YOU MAY. THANK YOU FOR ASKING.

I'M GOING TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO THIS EFFICIENTLY. BUT I NEED TO GIVE NOTICE THAT COMMISSIONER'S COURT IS GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS WITH OUR ATTORNEY CHAPTER 551, THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL SECTIONS APPLY, 071, 745, 7687, WE'RE DOING SO TO INCLUDE A CONSULTATION WITH OUR ATTORNEYS WITH MATTERS RELATING TO LITIGATION, REAL PROPERTY, PERSONNEL DETERMINATION, COUNTY ADVISORY BODY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND ANY OTHER MATTERS THAT MAY BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. UPON COMPLETION, COMMISSIONER'S COURT MAY IN OPEN SESSION TAKE SUCH ACTION AS APPROPRIATE.

SO JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE TIME IS 4:55.

AND WE ARE GOING TO BE OFF THE RECORD.

GAVELED OUT.

>>> I NEED A MOTION FOR AT LEAST TEN MORE MINUTES SO THAT WE CAN CONDUCT THE BUSINESS THAT'S NECESSARY FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AS WELL AS THE ADJOURNMENTS IN MEMORY.

IS THERE SUCH A MOTION? OKAY I'LL SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.

>> AYE. >> WE SHALL HURRY.

OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION I BELIEVE THERE'S A MOTION THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE TO SETTLE THE CLAIM OF ROSEMARY JIMENEZ IN THE AMOUNT OF $50. IS THERE A SECOND?