[3. Discuss and consider acceptance of the resignation of Robert "Bobby" Sherwood, Nueces County Constable Precinct 4, pursuant to Section 201.001(a) of the Texas Election Code.]

>> LET'S DO ITEM THREE AND THEN WE WILL DO THIS.

BOBBY, YOU LEFT WE THOUGHT YOU WERE GONE.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESIGNATION OF ROBERT BOBBY SHERWOOD AT NUECES COUNTY CONSTABLE NOTION PRECINCT COUNTY FOUR. SECTION TWO 0 ONE.0 0 ONE OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE AND WE ARE SAD TO SEE YOU GO BUT WE GREATLY APPRECIATE YOUR 44 YEARS OF SERVICE SO I NEED A MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND TO APPROVE AND ACCEPT HIS

RESIGNATION, BRENT CHESNEY. >> OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A MOTION THAT I NEVER HOPED WE WOULD BE DISCUSSING AND CERTAINLY SAID WHAT I NEEDED TO SAY ABOUT BOBBY LAST WEEK AND HE KNOWS HOW MUCH HE'S MEANT TO ME PERSONALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY BUT BEGRUDGINGLY VOTE FOR THIS MOTION TODAY BECAUSE CERTAINLY NO MATTER WHO TAKES HIS PLACE THERE WILL BE NO ONE WHO CAN TAKE HIS PLACE.

THANK YOU BOBBY FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR FAMILY FOR THE SACRIFICE YOU MADE AND I REITERATE EVERYTHING THAT I SAID LAST WEEK.

I DIDN'T WANT TO BLOW THROUGH THE MOTION AND MAKE IT SOUND AS THOUGH WE WERE ACCEPTING IT EASILY BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE CASE AT ALL HE DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB AND WE APPRECIATE EVERYTHING. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE?

[4. Discuss and consider appointment of Nueces County Constable Precinct 4 Deputy Christopher Stimson to Nueces County Constable Precinct 4, on recommendation of former Constable Precinct 4 Robert "Bobby" Sherwood, and pursuant to Section 87.041 of the Texas Local Government Code; establishing an effective date; and related matters.]

NONE THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AGAIN.

ITEM FOUR DISCUSSING CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF NUECES PRECINCT FOR DEPUTY CHRISTOPHER STIMSON TO NUECES COUNTY CONSTABLE PRECINCT ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ALMOST FORMER CONSTABLE, FIVE MORE DAYS AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 87.0 41 THE LOCAL TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHICH RIGHT NOW WE ARE ASSUMING WOULD BE MARCH 1 OR UPON WHEN THE BOND AND EVERYTHING WOULD BE COMPLETED FOR THIS APPOINTMENT.

I WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPOINT CONSTABLE CHRISTOPHER STIMSON TO BE THE PRECINCT FOR CONSTABLE AND REPLACEMENT.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I HAVE SOME DISCUSSION TO SUGGEST.

>> THE CHIEF DEPUTIES RESIGNATION FROM CONSTABLE SHERWOOD NEEDS A LOT AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH AND PROCESS THIS WITH THIS. I RECOGNIZE AS A FORMAL PROCESS BUT I KNOW AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THIS THE STANDARD WE'RE GOING TO FALL FROM NOW ON I KNOW THE LAST TIME WE HAD A VACANCY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT I BELIEVE SHERIFF WAS RESIGNING AND WE WENT THROUGH VERY OPEN AND VERY TRANSPARENT PROCESS WHERE WE DID THE INTERVIEWS PUBLICLY SO I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP WITH THAT.

[00:35:05]

>> AND THE REST ON THIS I WANT CLARIFICATION THIS IS THE PROCESS WE WILL FOLLOW FOR ANY FUTURE FOR COMMISSIONERS FOR AN

ELECTIVE. >> MY PROBLEM AND THE REASON I CHOSE TO GO THIS WAY COMMISSIONER IS BECAUSE EACH POSITION IS DIFFERENT, EVERY VACANCY IS DIFFERENT.

I UNDERSTAND WHEN THE SHERIFF CAME IN THAT IS THE WAY BUT WE WENT OUTSIDE THE SHERIFF WAS SITTING IN THEIR UNTIL HIS REPLACEMENT CAME. I UNDERSTAND BOBBY IS HERE TODAY BUT CONSTABLE SHERWOOD HAS BEEN OUT QUITE A BIT AND THAT'S A REASON HE RESIGNED WITH HIS WIFE'S HEALTH ISSUES AND THINGS.

WE ALL KNOW IN OUR JOBS AND OUR BUSINESS WE ARE OUT ONE EMPLOYEE IN THE COURT MANAGER'S OFFICE. WE ARE OUT 13 PROSECUTORS IN THE DAS OFFICE. WE ARE OUT 86 DEPUTIES IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. YOU KNOW WHEN PEOPLE ARE OUT IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE THE STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND DO THE JOB. I CALLED AROUND TO BUY BOTH OF THESE GENTLEMEN I KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND VERY WELL CAPABLE OF DOING THIS JOB.

THIS YOUNG MAN WHO'S DONE DOING THE JOB AND I DID THE TITLE AND HELPING OUT. THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT TIME AND THIS TIME IS A TOTAL DIFFERENT SCENARIO AND THAT'S THE REASON I TALKED TO THE ATTORNEYS AND THEY SAID THERE IS NOT A POLICY IS HOW IT FITS THE SITUATION. TO ME THIS FIT THE SITUATION BETTER AND IS THE REASON I CHOSE TO GO THIS ROUTE.

>> ALSO AT THAT TIME WE WENT OUTSIDE BECAUSE THERE WAS NOBODY RECOMMENDED WITH SHERIFF KAELIN AND THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THEY WANTED TO MOVE UP AT THE DECISION OF SHERIFF WE HAD TO GO OUTSIDE AND BEING THAT NOBODY WAS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF YOURSELF WAS ACTING LIKE THAT AND NOTHING WE HAVE A POLICY WE HAD TO STICK TO ONE WAY OF DOING ALL THE TIME.

IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION AND WHAT HAPPENS.

A DIRTY HELPER FOR A YEAR AND I REALLY RESPECT THE RECOMMENDATION OR THE CONSTABLE FOR MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION.

IT IF ANYBODY KNOWS IS HE. I THINK THIS IS TWO SCENARIOS HERE THAT ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. ALL I AGREE MAYBE WE SHOULD GO OUTSIDE BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE SITUATION AND THE SITUATION DOES NOT APPEAR TO THE ONE THAT WE HAD WITH THE SHERIFF.

>> ALSO THIS DECISION IS JUST FOR ONE YEAR, YOU HAVE TO RUN

AGAIN? >> A LITTLE OVER ONE YEAR.

YES. >> A TERM ONLY.

>> IS FINISHING THE TERM. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. >> THE MOTION PASSES 4 - ONE,

CONGRATULATIONS AND THANK YOU. >> YOU HAVE SOME BIG SHOES TO

FILL, THANK YOU FOR STEPPING ON. >> I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP TOO

MUCH TIME. >> TO JUDGE SCOTT AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE CONSTABLE SHERWOOD. THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU'VE DONE TO PREPARE ME FOR THIS DAY I APPRECIATE YOUR GUIDANCE AND MENTORSHIP THROUGH THE YEARS, 44 YEARS OF BUILDING A LEGACY OBVIOUSLY BIG SHOES TO FILL BUT I FEEL I'M UP TO THE TASK INTO THE PEOPLE OF PADRE ISLAND, ALTHOUGH I WAS APPOINTED IN THIS POSITION TODAY I INTEND TO DO EVERYTHING IN MY POWER TO EARN YOUR VOTE OF CONFIDENCE ALSO. AGAIN TO JUDGE SCOTT AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS I APPRECIATE YOU APPOINTING ME AND I HOPE MY ACTIONS MOVING FORWARD WILL MAKE YOU PROUD OF YOUR

DECISION TODAY. >> WE ARE GOING BACK TO G ON

[G. 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.]

[00:40:06]

PUBLIC COMMENT IF I GET THE L LIST.

>> WE WILL LET THEM GET ON CLOSED DOORS.

>> THE FIRST PERSON SIGNED UP IS IN HELLCAT HERNANDEZ.

>> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS, JUDGE SCOTT AND I SIGNED UP TO SPEAK WITH REGARD TO REGULAR AGENDA ITEM A TO.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANY ACTION THE COURT MAY TAKE TODAY WITH REGARD TO THE REQUEST FOR SUPPORT FOR THE CREATION OF TWO NEW WITHIN NUECES COUNTY BUT I FELT COMPELLED TO COME HERE TODAY INTO SPEAK VERY BRIEFLY. RIGHT NOW OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND NUECES COUNTY IS ALREADY OVERWHELMED AND VERY BURDEN. THE SUCCESS OF DISTRICT COURTS IS NOT DONE IN A VACUUM CALL. IT ABSOLUTELY RELIES ON COLLABORATION WITH THE NUECES COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ALL OF THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS, WHETHER APPOINTED OR RETAINED OUR NEWLY CREATED PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE DEPUTIES THAT ARE TASKED WITH TRANSPORTING INMATES FROM THE JAIL AND KEEPING ORDER, THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT, THE IT DEPARTMENT THAT DEALS WITH THE ODYSSEY SYSTEM.

I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I HEARD THIS IS BEING CONSIDERED WHEN I SAW IT ON THE AGENDA.

I THINK THE LACK OF COLLABORATION WITH ALL THE ENTITIES THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BETTER OVERBURDEN THE DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE IS LACKING FULL-TIME CRIMINAL CLERKS.

THE PROBATION DEPARTMENT WILL NEED ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES, THE IT DEPARTMENT WILL BE TASKED WITH CREATING TO THE ODYSSEY SYSTEM THAT WILL COST US COUNTY HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD OUT TO NEW SIDES FOR TWO NEW DISTRICT COURTS.

OUR OFFICE WHICH IS 13 PROSECUTORS DOWN RIGHT NOW, THE COURT APPOINTMENT IS THE SMALLEST IT'S EVER BEEN ALL THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ARE GETTING OFF BECAUSE OF NOT GETTING PAID ENOUGH MONEY. YOU HAVE THE SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT WHICH IS DOWN ANYWHERE FROM 80 N OVERBURDEN THEM CONSIDERING THE CREATION OF DISTRICT COURTS, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A FISCAL HIT TO NUECES COUNTY EACH DISTRICT COURT AVERAGES A 600,000-DOLLAR BUDGET SO TO CREATE TWO NEW WINTER JACKET ABOUT 1.2 MILLION YOU HAVE TO FIND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS FOR THE ODYSSEY SYSTEM AND YOU SUPPLEMENT DISTRICT JUDGES WITH AN $18000 SUPPLEMENT IN THE JUVENILE BOARD AND THE EXTRAJUDICIAL.

I GUESS MY POINT IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO SPEND $2 MILLION THEN OPEN IT UP TO OTHER ASPECTS OF NUECES COUNTY THAT CAN USE IT MUCH MORE. I DON'T BELIEVE OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND WILL SURVIVE AN ADDITIONAL TWO DISTRICT COURTS. I ASK YOU TO REALLY THINK ABOUT HERSELF HALF AND DISCUSSION BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY DECISION ON

THAT. >> THANK YOU, WE ARE GOING TO

TABLE IT. >> MARK DELANEY.

>> 105 CHINA BEACH AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF ITEMS COMING UP ON YOUR AGENDA AND BUILDING PERMITS, LOT 73, LOT FIVE IN 103 BACKSIDE I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST ON LAW FIVE AND 113 NOT REQUIRE PERMEABLE PAVERS. ANYWAY THAT IS MY MAIN FOCUS HERE, REAL QUICK I LIVE OUT THERE AND I BUILD IN THE CONTENT AND ON THE ISLAND. 95% OF THE LOTS ARE COMPLETELY FLAT, THE TWO LOTS HAVE GONE TO YOU AND THEY SHOULDN'T BE IN YOUR COURT BECAUSE A COMPLETELY FLAT IN BUILDERS ASSOCIATION BEFORE WE REQUIRE PERMEABLE PAVERS WE NEED TO TALK TO THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION WHICH HAS IT BEEN IN THE ROOM YET NUECES

[00:45:03]

COUNTY WATER IN THE HOA'S. ON THOSE TWO, LOT 73 IS IN THE LINE OF VEGETATION IN IT WILL REQUIRE 350-FOOT LINE OF VEGETATION IT WILL REQUIRE PERMEABLE LABORS.

>> CAN I INTERRUPT I REALLY NEED HIM TO STICK AROUND FOR THE AGENDA ITEMS I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF BUT I HOPE HE'LL STAY FOR THE AGENDA ITEMS SO WE CAN ADDRESS THIS IN PUBLIC, PRE-I KNOW IT'S NOT PUBLIC COMMENT BUT ARE YOU PLANNING ON BEING HERE

FOR THE AGENDA ITEMS? >> I DON'T PLAN ON BEING HERE

BUT I STAY. >> I CAN'T ASK YOU QUESTIONS BECAUSE THE PUBLIC, AND I NEED TO.

I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE IF YOU WANT TO STAY I MAY NEED SOME HELP LATER FROM 70. AND AGAIN, A CUT OF HIS TIME, IF

YOU CAN START HIS TIME OVER. >> IS A TRICKY SITUATION.

THERE HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM WITH THE WATER PERMEABLE PAVERS.

THE WAY THE WATER FLOWS ON THE ISLAND EACH ONE OF THE SUBDIVISIONS HAS A LITTLE POND SO IT GOES FROM THE HOUSE TO THE STREET TO THE POND IN IT SEEPS AND WHEN THE PONDS OVERFLOW THAT GOES TO THE CUL-DE-SACS ALONG 361 AND THEN WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS RAIN IT SEEPS AND FLOWS ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE OCEAN IN THE BAY SO THE PAVERS ARE NECESSARY IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM I LIVE OUT THERE AND IF OTHER PEOPLE ARE PAYING FOR A PROBLEM TO BE FIXED PLUS I AM A BUILDER IT MAKES MY BUILDS MORE EXPENSIVE, I WORK OFF A COST PLUS I MAKE MORE MONEY AND IF THERE IS A PROBLEM I WOULD WANT IT FIXED AND THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM WITH THE PERMEABLE PAVERS SURFACE IN THE WAY THE SURFACE RUNOFF WORKS. ANYWAY THAT TO SAY THERE'S JUST NOT A PROBLEM, I CAN WAIT BUT WE HAVE A PROBLEM TO ITEMS THE WATER PAVERS GOT PUT ON HERE AND IF IT'S BOTHERING YOU GUYS IT SHOULD BE SOLVED AWAY FROM YOUR OFFICE AND BROUGHT TO YOU IF IT'S GOING TO IN THE PERMIT PROCESS IS TAKEN TOO MUCH LONG I GOT PERMITS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PERMIT PROCESS THAT ARE TAKEN UP TO 200 DAYS AND IT IS HARD THEY SHOULD NOT TAKE THAT LONG IT'S VERY SIMPLE THERE'S ONLY TWO QUESTIONS THAT ARE COMPLETELY FLAT LOTS. SOME OF THESE ITEMS NEED TO GO BEFORE YOU THERE IS 73 WHICH IS GOING TO BE CLOSE TO THE LINE OF VEGETATION I'M GOING TO EXPAND MY HOUSE PRETTY CLOSE AS SOON AS WE ESTABLISH A LINE OF VEGETATION AND WE WILL PROBABLY NEED TO TALK WITH MY HOUSE WITHIN A YEAR TIME SO THE ONES RIGHT ACROSS THE DEW LINE WILL NEED SOME, BUT 95% OF ALL THESE PERMITS ARE BACKUP COMPLETELY FLAT.

AREAS AND SHOULD BE MOVED THROUGH MUCH QUICKER AND NOT

TAKE UP YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU.

LIZ MILLER. >> DO I NEED TO GET MY ADDRESS

AGAIN SINCERITY WROTE IT DOWN? >> LIZ MILLER 5139 TOMAHAWK ROB STILL AND I WANT TO TALK REGULAR AGENDA 13 AND 14 THAT WILL BE ADVISORY BOARDS I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE A LOT AND 14 IS FUNDING INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS AND I JUST WANTED TO REINTRODUCE YOU TO SOME OF THE DATA THAT YOU HAVE IN THERE SO MANY NEW FACES OVER THE LAST TWO AND HALF YEARS IT JUST MAY NOT BUT HAS A LOT OF INFORMATION. IN SHELTER PLANNERS FIELD ASSESSMENT STUDY I DON'T KNOW HOW FAMILIAR YOU ARE WITH IT BUT WE DO SPEND $4.2 MILLION ON THESE GUYS SO THEY SEEM PRETTY SMART AND ARCHITECT FOR A SHELTER PLANNER IS ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER AND WAS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR DIFFERENT SHELTERS FOR 11 YEARS HUMANE AND MUNICIPAL.

IN THE OPERATION CONSULTANT WHICH HE COULD BE HIS OWN OPERATIONS CONSULTANT HONESTLY BY HIS OPERATION CONSULTANT HAS 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AND AS A LOBBYIST, VERY COOL.

THAT IS 41 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AND IN THE FIELD

[00:50:03]

ASSESSMENT STUDY THAT WE WERE PAID FOR THEY GIVE YOU 14 KEY COMPONENTS FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATIONS.

IN THE ONLY TWO WE HAVE HIT IS A $4.2 MILLION IN CONSTRUCTION AND THE REST HAVE NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED.

SO OF THE 14 KEY 11 OUR CURRENT OPERATION AND THREE ARE PREVENTATIVE. SO OF THE 11 YOU VISIBLE SHELTER LOCATION WHICH CONSTRUCTION HIT, VISIBILITY OF ALL ANIMALS, WE COULD HAVE A DIGITAL STOREFRONT TO A HALF YEARS AGO, WEEKEND AND EVENING HOURS, WEBSITE PET LISTING ATTRACTIVE WELCOMING SHELTER VISIT WITH CONSTRUCTION WELL GROOMED ANIMALS.

IMMEDIATE PROMOTION, SPECIAL EVENTS AND STRONG RESCUE PARTNERSHIPS THE THREE PREVENTATIVE AND ONE TOGGLES BETWEEN THE TWO LIST THREE PREVENTATIVE ARE LOW COST AND SUBSIDIZED SPACE NEUTER, PUBLIC EDUCATION THAT HAS BOTH LIST AND THAT IS FREE. ANYWAY THAT SPECIFICALLY PAGES SIX AND EIGHT OF THE FIELD ASSESSMENT STUDY THAT IS TWO AND A HALF YEARS OLD. I'M KIND OF JUMPING PAGES HERE BUT JJ AND LOUIS RAY HAVE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DATA ON THE NUECES CODE AND THEY HAVE A FACEBOOK PAGE AND IT SHOULD BE FEASIBLE FOR ANIMAL SERVICES TO DO THE SAME THING.

IN THE ADVISORY BOARD SHOULD BEEN USING THIS AS A SHOPPING LIST IN MY OPINION I JUST WANTED YOU TO GO BACK TO THE DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR. THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT THAT ANYBODY DIDN'T HAVE

A CHANCE TO SIGN UP FOR. >> I HAVE ONE ITEM I WANT TO TABLE 382 AND ASK IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ONES THAT YOU WANT TO

TABLE, ANYBODY ELSE? >> YES, MA'AM I DO.

>> THREE A1. >> ONE AND TWO.

>> THEY ARE SEPARATE, THEY ARE TOTALLY SEPARATE.

>> BUT SEE, HOLD ON. NUMBER 14 SHOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN

ON. >> 14 YOU WANT TABLE?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> 13 WAS FOR INFORMATION AND WILL SEE HOW THAT GOES BUT THAT WAS MORE FOR INFORMATION THAT 14

FOR SURE. >> OKAY, DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON

THAT? >> TABLE 3A2 AND 3A14 AND 3A1.

>> 3A1 IS NOT VERY CLEAR WHAT IT IS ABOUT, IS THERE A BACKUP ON THAT? IS IT TO COURT?

>> IS NOT PART OF THE TWO COURTS IS A DIFFERENT INDEPENDENT ST

STUDY. >> SO JUST LEAVE TO ON THEIR.

>> JUST LEAVE TO? OKAY, NOT DO ONE?

NO. >> TO WANTED A TIME, HOWEVER,

YOU WANT TO DO THEM. >> 3A2 0 MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE INDEFINITELY, OF A SECOND, MOTION AND THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

3A14, YOU MAKE IN THE MOTION TO TABLE 3A 14.

>> YES MAN. HIS ACCOUNTING MANAGER THERE, I CANNOT SEE. I NEED SOME DIRECTION FROM HER THIS IS ONE THAT SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND I DON'T THINK THAT INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE BUT I NEED TO KNOW WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE WE ASSIGNED IT TO A

LONG TIME AGO. >> THIS IS GOING TO BE READY, I'M EXPECTED TO HAVE THAT BY THE SECOND MEETING OF NEXT MONTH

COMMISSIONER. >> THEN MY MOTION WILL BE TABLE TO THE SECOND MEETING OF NEXT MONTH WITH ACCOUNTING MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE BACKUP IN THE AGENDA FOR THAT NOT IN MY OFFICE.

THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. >> SECOND.

[00:55:02]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY

AYE. >> AYE.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO LEAVE 13 ON THERE?

>> TABLE 13 TO OR LEAVE IT ON? >> LET'S JUST DO 13 AT THE SAME TIME WE DO 14 BECAUSE IT ALL KIND OF RUNS TOGETHER SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE 13 TO THE SECOND MEETING IN MARCH ALSO.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY

AYE AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

[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.]

THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO G TO THE CONSENT

AGENDA. >> JUDGE I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA UNLESS THERE ARE SOME THAT NEED

TO BE PULLED. >> I WANT TO PULL SEE.

>> ANY OTHER ITEMS OUT OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? THAT YOU WANT PULLED? ANYONE?

>> I WANT TO PULL H M. >> MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE REMAINING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A THROUGH M OTHER THAN C AS IN CHARLIE AND M AS IN MARY, THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.

>> SECOND THE MOTION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AI MCKINNEY OPPOSED SAME SIGN, THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING TO TO SEE AUTHORIZE

[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 February 23, 2023.]

PAYMENT OF BILLS. >> MAYBE I JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON C. ALL START PULLING SOME STUFF HERE. I HAVE A QUESTION MAYBE TO CLARIFY I SEE A LOT OF THE ITEMS ON C SPECIAL MOTIONS TO PAY SOME OF THESE ITEMS PER BUT A LOT OF THESE ITEMS ARE REALLY OLD ITEMS BACK FROM OCTOBER, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER SO WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF IT. I THOUGHT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING THEM BY THE MONTH OR CEMENTING INVOICES BY THE MONTH BUT THEY'RE NOT SUBMITTING INVOICES.

>> WE PAY THE INVOICES WHENEVER WE RECEIVE THEM SIR SO YOU WILL SEE ON EACH OF THE ATTACHED BACKUP THERE IS A MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT HEAD WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED.

WE BEGUN STAMPED DATING ON THE FRONT OF THE MEMO SO COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL BE ABLE TO SEE WHEN WE RECEIVE THOSE IN OUR OFFICE SO THERE WON'T BE ANY QUESTION IF WE'VE BEEN HOLDING IT OR WHERE IT'S BEEN ALL THAT TIME.

>> I PROCEED THAT VERY MUCH. I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK IF IT YOUR FAULT, BUT SOMETIMES THE AGENCIES ARE HOLDING TO US SHE WERE THREE MONTHS BECAUSE THE CONTRACT SAYS IS SUPPOSED TO BE

SUBMITTED ON A MONTHLY BASIS. >> EXACTLY ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME WE CANNOT TELL YOU WHERE IT GOT HELD UP IN THE CHAIN WE COULD JUST TELL YOU WHEN WE RECEIVE IT, WE DO HAVE A STAMPEDE ON ALL OF OUR INVOICES SO IF YOU WANTED TO COME BY OUR OFFICE AND ASK WHERE WAS THIS INVOICE, WHEN DID YOU GET THIS END, WE COULD LET YOU KNOW AND YOU CAN REACH OUT TO THE DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY GOT IT IN SOMETIMES IT IS THE UPDATED ON THE INVOICE AND SOMETIMES IT IS NOT.

WHENEVER WE CONVERT TO THE NEW WORKDAY WE WILL BE ABLE TO CHECK THE MATRIX SO YOU BE ABLE TO SEE WHEN THE VENDOR SUBMITTED THE INVOICE, WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAD APPROVED IT AND WHEN OUR OFFICE

SUBMITTED FOR PAYMENT. >> IN THE BACK IBM BUILDING SERVICES LLC, THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS THERE, AND THEY'RE ALL SUPPOSED TO BE ENERGY-SAVING PROJECTS.

BUT IF I LOOK AT IT DOESN'T SAY LIKE WHAT SPECIFIC ITEMS WERE DONE, RIGHT? I CAN PROBABLY RESEARCH ALL THEM BUT I THINK IN THE FORM HERE IF HER PAIN FOR A PROJECT 54000 IT SHOULD SAY WHAT THE PROJECT WAS, YOU KNOW?

>> THAT WHEN WE GOT LAST MINUTE WAS A LAST-MINUTE ATTITUDE THE

AGENDA FOR ABM. >> AND ONE FOR 90001 FOR 21000,

ONE FOR 90001 FOR 105,000. >> I BELIEVE IF YOU CONTINUE TO GO BACK BEHIND THE REQUEST FOR PAYMENT THERE IS A CERTIFICATION APPLICATION CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT NO ONE TREND THAT IS INCLUDED LOOKS LIKE TERESA COMMISSIONERS COURT ADMIN

[01:00:03]

RECEIVED THAT ON FEBRUARY 14 THEY SUBMITTED IT TO JUDGE SCOTT IN OUR OFFICE ON THE 14TH FOR APPROVAL WHICH WAS THE CUTOFF DATE FOR THE AGENDA SO WE TOOK IT THE LAST DAY AT 3:41 P.M. AND IT WAS DUE AT 5:00 O'CLOCK AND ADDED IT TO THE AGENDA SO WE

COULD GET THAT ON THEIR. >> THIS IS THE ONE ALSO I WOULD NOT SIGN UNTIL THEY BROUGHT IT INTO ME AND I NEEDED HIM TO CLARIFY WHAT THE WORK WAS DONE BEFORE THAT'S WHY IT WAS SO LATE

ON THIS ONE. >> IT WAS REVISED.

>> NOW MY QUESTION TO MAKE IT A LOT EASIER I GUESS FOR US CAN WE IDENTIFY WHAT PROJECTS THEY ARE OR IN THE BACKUP, MAYBE I DIDN'T

LOOK AT THE BACKUP. >> I BELIEVE THE BACKUP WHERE IT IS THE APPLICATION AND CERTIFICATION FOR PAYMENT AND THEN IT SAYS AIA DOCUMENT G7 0 THREE PAGE ONE OF THREE THROUGH THREE OF THREE. I BELIEVE THAT ITEMIZES WHAT WORK WAS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED, WHAT WORK CURRENTLY COMPLETED AND WHAT THE BALANCE IS TO FINISH.

SINCE I JUST SAW HE WALKED IN HE IS THE EXPERT I WOULD DEFER TO THE EXPERT. WE JUST PAY THE BILLS.

>> I KNOW THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR US.

>> I UNDERSTAND SIR. >> WHEN WE SUBMIT THE BILLS THE ENERGY SAVINGS PROJECT, IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN DOCUMENT WHAT WORK WAS DONE AT THE JAIL? CAN ANYBODY ANSWER THAT, JUAN?

>> I WOULD DIFFER TO THE EXPERT. >> I'M SORRY COMMISSIONER I WAS WALKING APPEAR I DID NOT HEAR THE CONVERSATION UNTIL I WALKED IN HERE. I APOLOGIZE.

>> MY CONCERN IS IDENTIFYING THE PROJECTS, I HEAR WHEN WE GET THE SPECIAL MOTIONS THE ENERGY-SAVING PROJECT AT THE JAIL IN 90000 IN THE PROJECT MCKINSEY UNDER TENSION WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PROJECTS WERE TALKING ABOUT WHETHER THEIR USED SAVINGS OR NOT, IF I KNEW WHAT THE WORK WAS I COULD PROBABLY SAY YES ENERGY SAVINGS IS ENERGY SAVINGS.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ENERGY-SAVING TO ME TALK ABOUT

THE PARKING LOT. >> YOU REQUESTING GALA HARDWARE THERETO IN THE PARKING LOT RIGHT NOW, I THINK THE 40 OR 50% COMPLETE GIMMICK THEY HAVE BEEN DOING EVERY TWO YEARS.

>> THAT'S A NON- ENERGY SAVINGS. >> THIS IS WHY I JUST NEED

CLARIFY. >> TERESA IS ONLINE SHE WOULD

LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT TO. >> MAYBE IDENTIFY THEM, A PARKING LOT YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING SO WE KNOW WHAT WERE LOOKING AT AND MAYBE WHEN IT SUBMITTED TO YOU SHOULD INDICATE

THE SAME THING. >> WE CAN COORDINATE WITH IBM ON

THAT. >> TERESA THERE?

>> YES. >> YES, SIR COMMISSIONER I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT THIS APPLICATION COMES WITH THE DISBURSEMENT RECAP THAT YOU WERE JUST MENTIONING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EACH PROJECT FOR INSTANCE HOW MUCH WE WOULD PAY FOR THE COURTHOUSE, THE 54000, HOW MUCH FOR THE JAIL BUT THE ACTUAL DETAIL OF WHAT WAS WORKED ON.

THE FIRST ONE WAS FOR THE COURTHOUSE AND IT WAS FOR THE TRANSFORMER UPGRADES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DETAIL ON THE ACTUAL INVOICE IT SHOWS WHAT AREA THE COST IS IN.

THE ONLY THING WE MISSED ON THE DISBURSEMENT FORM IS THE NAME.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WORK EVERY DAY SO YOU KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM WEDO AND SOMETIMES YOU DON'T HAVE TIME TO READ EVERYTHING AND WE SUBMITTED A DAY BEFORE AND WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO START DIGGING THROUGH ALL THIS OTHER STUFF WE HAVE OTHER STUFF TO DO TO PARADIGM TO SAINT IF WE COULD IDENTIFY IT WHEN WE SUBMITTED. IF YOU ALREADY HAVE IT IDENTIFIED I WOULD JUST SUBMITTED WITH THE INVOICE, YOU KNOW. SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT.

[01:05:04]

IF WE HAVE TO CALL JUAN, WE CALL ONE OR WE CALL SOMEBODY BUT WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE LOOK AT IT THE DAY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE TO CALL ANYBODY. I GUESS I'M TRYING TO MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR US TO STAY ABOVE WATER TO KNOW EXACTLY WHERE WERE SPENDING THIS MONEY WHEN I SAW $409,000 FOR THE FAIRGROUNDS AND I SAW $90000 FOR THE JUVENILE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE THAT MUCH WORK TO EARN THAT MUCH MONEY.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION, JUST KNOW IN THE FUTURE WE NEED TO IDENTIFY OUR PROJECTS. I KNOW IT'S IN THE BACK OF ASSUMPTIONS IS NOT THE BACKUP AND YOU HAVE TO DIG THROUGH THE BACKUP SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE THINGS EASIER FOR US TO QUESTION THE CALL AUDIT, YOU, JUAN, SOMEBODY, WHO DO WE CALL IT WE KNOW IT'S HERE AND WE KNOW EXACTLY WHO TO CALL IN TO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHY WE SPENT SO MUCH MONEY WE WERE STILL THERE DOING THE PROJECT. $109,000 YOU WOULD THINK WE WOULD FINISH THE PROJECT. I DON'T HOW MUCH THE PROJECT IS AND IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A BALANCE ON EITHER.

IF I KNEW WE HAD A BALANCE WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T FINISH THE PROJECT. THIS IS JUST MY THING.

>> ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. >> MY RECOMMENDATION MAYBE WE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR AND SPECIFIC.

I KNOW IT COMES TO YOU AND IT COMES WITH TERESA AND JUAN AND YOU CAN LET US KNOW THERE IS A BALANCE.

IF THERE IS A BALANCE THAT MEANS WE HAVEN'T FINISHED THE WORK.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A BALANCE OR NOT OR IF IT'S FINISHED OR NOT. EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN IS NOT FINISHED. WHEN I SEE THIS WORK AND MONEY AND NOTHING FINISH. BUT THAT WILL COME UP LATER I GUESS. ANYWAY I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CLARIFY THIS THING AND GIVE US MORE INFORMATION AND MORE

CLARITY. >> VERY GOOD.

>> JUDGE I HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION.

>> COMMISSIONER, THE BALANCE FOR THE ENERGY-SAVING PROJECTS IS $7.6 MILLION. IT'S ON THE FIAT, THE FIRST PAGE, BALANCE TO FINISH 7.695, 277 AND 87 CENTS.

>> 7.677? >> 769-5277.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU TERESA.

>> SKEWS ME JUDGE OF A SIMILAR QUESTION, DIFFERENT VENDOR.

I'M ASKING ON $7000.400 FOR INVOICES FOR ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FROM SMITH AND ROTH, JUAN CAN YOU HELP US OUT ON IT?

>> YES OR COMMISSIONER I KNOW THOSE GET SUBMITTED TO THE GRANTS DEPARTMENT AND GET SUBMITTED FOR RECOMMENDATION PREPAYMENT. I LOOKED AT SEVERAL OF THEM AND

WE ARE LOOKING TO GET THEM PAID. >> DO YOU RECOMMEND PAYMENT?

>> YES OR. >> I MIGHT COMMISSIONER GONZALES, WE DID NOT SEE ANY BACKUP IT JUST AS ENGINEERING

CONSULTANT AND THEIR VERY VAGUE. >> ESTHER WE WILL BE IN MORE DETAIL. THINKERS ARE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM C AUTHOR IS THE PAYMENT OF BILLS.

>> SO MOVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.

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

>> MOTION PASSES UNDER. >> MOVING ON.

TO ITEM M. >> YOU WANT TO CHANGERS TO KNOW ON THAT ONE, OKAY. THAT WOULD BE 4 - ONE VOTE ON

[M. Authorize award and execution of Agreement with LanceSoft, Inc. for IFB No. 3195-22 Personnel Services.]

THAT. DID YOU ALL GET THAT, DO YOU NEED TO DO ANYTHING ELSE, ARE YOU GOOD?

>> MOVING ON TO ITEM M THAT WAS USED TO PULL AN AWARD OF EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH LAND SOFT.

I THINK PEOPLE THAT WENT TO. M ON THE CONSENT.

>> I WANT CLARIFICATION WHAT DOES THAT MEAN IT SAYS EXPENSES.

[01:10:05]

>> IN HUMAN SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.

THEY TELL ME THAT TOO. >> MY BAD.

ANYWAY NUMBER IN I'M JUST SAYING CAN YOU GIVE ME A CLEAR EXPLANATION THE EXPENDING NOT TO EXCEED 250,000 PER DEPARTMENT?

>> THAT IS ACCORDING TO OUR COMPLIANCE PART 200 TO EXCEED VALUE ON THE PO THAT MIGHT BE FUNDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT SOME POINT AND HISTORICALLY THE SPEND IN THAT ACCOUNT IS GENERALLY AROUND 70000 USED BY THE COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE BY ELECTION WORKERS IN THE LITTLE BUT TIME TO TIME THERE.

THE ANNUAL SPEND HIS SUMMER AROUND 68 OR $69000 ON A REGULAR BASIS BUT DURING THE PANDEMIC WE SAW THE HIGH GO UP TO 220,000.

HER CURRENT CONTRACT HAS A NOT TO EXCEED 500,000 I THOUGHT THAT WAS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE SO I VISITED WITH THE HR AND WE FOUND THE ACTUAL COST AT THE PEAK BEING 220 SO WE RECOMMEND NOT TO EXCEED 250,000 ALTHOUGH WE FULLY EXPECT THE REGULAR EXPENSES WITHOUT A PANDEMIC SHOULD ALWAYS FALL BELOW 75000 AND WILL ONLY BE USED ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS AS IDENTIFIED BY THE COUNTY CLERK OR PUBLIC WORKS AND NO WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH HR FOR ANY PARTICULAR PERSONNEL THAT THEY NEED FOR THOSE JOBS.

>> OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT. >> SO MOVED.

>> THE RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.

>> I DID VOTE ON IT, I WAS A LITTLE LATE.

[1. Discuss and consider approval of a Board of Judges Resolution in Support of Study of Counsel at First Appearance.]

I VOTED AYE. >> ON THE REGULAR AGENDA THREE ITEM ONE, 81 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE BOARD OF JUDGES RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A STUDY OF COUNSEL OF FIRST APPEARANCE, THE TEXAS A&M APPROACH OF NUECES COUNTY TO CONDUCT A STUDY AND PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED ANOTHER SEVERAL TEXAS COUNTIES TO STUDY COUNSEL APPEARING WITH DEFENDANTS AT THE FIRST MAGISTRATE HEARING. THIS STUDY WILL BE A NO COST TO NUECES COUNTY WITH A&M PAYING FOR ANY EXPENSES THROUGH A GRANT HAS NOTHING TO DO THE TWO OTHER COURTS THAT WE WERE TALKING

ABOUT EARLIER. >> SO MOVED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY

AYE. >> AYE.

>> THIS IS A NO COST STUDY. >> DO WE NEED THE MOU?

>> I APPROVE A&M LOCAL AGREEMENT TO APPROVE.

>> WE NEED LOCAL AGREEMENT. >> APPROVED LATER IF WE AGREE TO

PARTICIPATE. >> WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND WHAT'S NEEDED BUT WE HAVE A BEEN PRESENTED WITH THE PARAMETERS AND WHAT INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE REQUESTED TO BE SHARED.

>> THIS IS JUST A RESOLUTION RIGHT NOW AND WILL COME BACK IF

WE HAVE TO DO IN MOU. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> WHERE DID THAT LET'S DO IT AGAIN AND DOES NOT HURT. SORRY.

THE MOTION PASSES FOR THE STUDY. MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE.

[5. Discuss and take action on request from the Nueces County Hospital District for assistance from legislative consultants Joel Romo and Patricia Shipton on pending House Bill 1489, which seeks to amend the purposes for which certificates of obligation may be authorized under §271.45 of the Texas Local Government Code, as well as any other related proposed legislation which may affect the Hospital District.]

DISCUSS INTAKE ACTION ON REQUEST FROM NUECES COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT FOR ASSISTANCE FROM LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANTS JOEL AND PATRICIA. THIS IS TO ALLOW THEM TO ASSIST HOSPITAL DISTRICT FOLLOWING HB 1489 AND ANY OTHER RELATED MATTERS THAT BUILD CHANGES TO ANOTHER NUMBER.

AND JOHNNY HIP IS HERE IF YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM HIM OR ANYTHING ON THIS. I THINK WERE ALL FINE.

WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

[6. Discuss and consider approval for County Judge, on behalf of Commissioners Court, to sign a letter in support of the Nueces County Hospital District's Appeal Summary to FEMA Region VI - Public Assistance Branch (Application #674808) for the social determinants of health (SDOH) analysis that were expended by the Hospital District.]

THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU JOHNNY FOR BEING AROUND. ITEM 6, YOU MIGHT STAY.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY JUDGE ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO SIGN A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE NUECES COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT APPEAL SUMMARY FOR THE FEMA REGION PUBLIC ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION NUMBER 674808.

>> SO MOVED. >> I DO HAVE QUESTIONS.

>> GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER CHESNEY.

>> THANK YOU JUDGE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> JOHNNY IS THIS THE APPEAL, THE LARGE APPEAL THAT WE DID.

IS THIS THE $500,000.1 THAT WAS REPRESENTED TO THE FORMER COUNTY JUDGE THAT SHE WAS GOING TO COVER IT AND IF SHE DIDN'T AND

WE LOST ON IT? >> YOUR CUTTING OUT JOHNNY.

[01:15:08]

YOU'RE BREAKING UP JOHNNY HOLD ON YOUR BREAKING UP BAD, MAYBE

JUST ME. >> NO WE CANNOT EITHER.

>> CAN'T HEAR. >> YOU WANT TO CALL BACK IN ON THE PHONE OR SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO BUT I CAN'T HEAR

HIM AT ALL. >> IT'LL PROBABLY BE EASIER ON

THE PHONE. >> DO WE HAVE TO PUT HIM ON

SPEAKER. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PROCEED.

>> @. >> COMMISSIONERS.

>> YOU NEED TO MUTE YOUR COMPUTER BEFORE YOU TALK IN THE

PHONE. >> TALK IN THE PHONE WITH YOUR

COMPUTER. >> THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER SUBMITTED THE APPEAL TO RECOVER VIA 507,000 FOR THE SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH IN THIS ITEM IS SIMPLY A SUPPORTING LETTER FROM THE COURT FOR OUR APPEAL.

THIS IS THE SUGGESTION OF CONGRESSMAN CLOUD FOR THE COURT TO SUBMIT A SUPPORTING LETTER IN ADDITION TO THE APPEAL DOCUMENTS

THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED. >> OKAY, BASICALLY, I READ THIS AND OBVIOUSLY WE WANT TO HELP YOU GET OUT OF THE MESS THAT WAS CREATED BY SOMEBODY WHO'S NO LONGER HERE BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DON'T WANT TO SUBMIT ANYTHING THAT COMMITS THE COUNTY TO THAT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCOMFORT WITH US FEELING LIKE WE OWE IT AND IT WAS REPRESENTED TO YOU THAT WE DID. I'M JUST MAKING SURE THIS LETTER DOESN'T COMMIT US TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN SUPPORTING YOU AND TRYING TO WIN YOUR APPEAL OR IT'S NOT INDICATING IN ANY WAY THAT WE FEEL LIKE WE OWE IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> COMMISSIONER I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE LETTER COMMITS THE COUNTY TO ANY PAYMENTS OR ANYTHING AND AS I MENTIONED THIS LETTER WAS AT THE SUGGESTION OF CONGRESSMAN CLOUD AS A PART OF EFFORTS TO HELP OUR APPEAL AL ALONG.

IT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT COMMITS THE COURT TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN JUST SUPPLYING THE COURT BREACH IF YOU WILL FOR RPO

APPLICATION. >> OKAY, I GUESS LEGAL HAS LOOKED AT THIS AND THE JUDGE HAS READ THIS AND THIS IS ALRIGHT? BECAUSE WE WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS BECAUSE IT WAS CIRCUMVENTED FROM THE COURT, TAKEN OUT OF THE COURTS HAND PRIOR TO THE COUNTY JUDGE. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS RIGHT OR NOT WHEN I READ THIS LETTER, CAN SOMEONE VERIFY THAT THIS IS RIGHT BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE IT BUT I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS AT ALL SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS LETTER IS RIGHT OR NOT, HOW DO WE KNOW THEM CAN SOMEONE ELSE ANSWER

THAT WORD THAT THAT. >> MARY IN OUR OFFICE WHO HELPS REPRESENT THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT, THIS IS JENNY DORSEY HAS LOOKED AT THE LETTER BUT WE CAN LOOK AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE IF YOU WANT US TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE I BELIEVE THAT'S REALLY HAPPEN AND IT'S GOOD TO GO BUT WE CAN GIVE IT A LOOK I DON'T KNOW IF SHE LOOKED AT IT WITH THAT ISSUE IN MIND.

>> IS A LITTLE BIT OF A TOUCHY ISSUE I GET IT BECAUSE THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT KIND OF GOT HOSED ON THIS AND WERE TRYING TO HELP THEM BUT AT THE SAME TIME THIS COURT WASN'T INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM IT WAS PURELY DONE BY THE COUNTY JUDGE ON HER OWN, THE PRIOR COUNTY JUDGE ON HER OWN.

[01:20:04]

SORRY JUDGE SCOTT. I DON'T HOW TO VOTE ON THIS I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RIGHT OR NOT. IF IT'S LEGAL IS NOT ONE THING BUT IS ACTUALLY SUFFICIENT, I DON'T KNOW.

>> CAN WE JUST INDICATE THAT WE WON'T BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE OR RESPONSIBLE ALTHOUGH WE STILL MIGHT WANT TO WORK WITH THE DISTRICT IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER SPIN A AUTHOR RAISING THE JUDGE TO SIGN THE LETTER I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S RIGHT.

ONCE WE AUTHORIZE IT WERE SAYING WEIRD HE ANSWERED IT DOESN'T PUT US IN LIABILITY OR OBLIGATE US TO PAY, THAT IS FINE BUT THE SECOND ISSUE I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

NONE OF US WERE INVOLVED IN INCLUDING THE COUNTY JUDGE IS IT OKAY FACTUALLY TO AUTHORIZE OR SIGN IT? BECAUSE NONE OF US WERE THERE AND KNOW WHAT ONE.

>> WE ARE HAPPY TO LOOK. >> I MIGHT ADD THE CONTENTS OF THE LETTER WERE DRAWN FROM THE UNDERLYING APPEAL DOCUMENTS THAT WE HAD USED TO SUPPORT IT. SO WE'RE OKAY WERE NOT IN ANY HURRY TO HAVE YOU SUMMIT THIS LETTER IF YOU ALL WANT HAVE THE COUNCIL GO BACK AND GO THROUGH IT.

HAGGERTY WAS THE ONE THAT COMPILED THE LETTER FOR US.

AS I SAID IT WAS BASED ON UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS.

>> GO AHEAD. >> MAYBE WE SHOULD SEND IT BACK JUDGE? IT'S YOUR NAME ON IT JUDGE.

>> I SENT ON BEHALF OF THE COURT AS MINING.

>> THEY ARE NOT AN HURRY FOR IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN GET A COPY.

>> IS IN THE BACKUP IT'S RATHER DENSE IS A HEAVY DOCUMENT AND WE ABSOLUTELY CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, WE

ARE HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> YOU HAVE IN YOUR BACKUP.

>> WHEN YOU SAY IT DENSE WHAT YOU MEAN BY.

>> SPEAK INTO YOUR MICROPHONE PLEASE.

>> IS AN ALMOST TWO PAGE SINGLESPACED LOTS OF NUMBERS

LOTS OF INFORMATION LETTER. >> IS GOTTA MEAN SOMETHING TO SOMEBODY. ANYWAY I'M WILLING TO TABLE THIS FOR WHATEVER IT TAKES YOU AND READ OVER THE LETTERS AND SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE TO US. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO GO TODAY. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO VOTE ON THIS. I'VE READ THIS THING AND I'VE GOT NO CLUE IF THIS IS RIGHT OR NOT BECAUSE WE WEREN'T THERE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

>> COMMISSIONER GONZALES DO YOU WANT TO PULL YOUR MOTION TO

APPROVE? >> IS THERE SOMETHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY THAT WOULD MAKE THIS DIFFERENT?

>> IF THERE IS A PROBLEM IT PAYS TO REQUEST THOSE CHANGES BEFORE

THEY GO OUT. >> BUT SHE BARELY LOOKED AT IT ONCE OR SOMEBODY IN YOUR OFFICE HAS.

>> NOT VERY MUCH ACTUALLY AND COMMUNICATING WITH MARY ESTHER RIGHT NOW AND WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU PUT ON THE NEXT AGENDA SO WE HAVE MORE OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT.

>> OMEGA MOTION TO RECITE IT FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND TO MOVE THIS TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

>> WILL I GIVE YOU TIME FOR THE NEXT MEETING OR DO YOU NEED THE

SECOND MEETING IN MARCH. >> IF WE CAN HAVE A SECOND MEETING THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.

>> SECOND MEETING IN MARCH AND WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND ALL

THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AS I COULD PUT YOU IN A BIND?

>> COMMISSIONER AS I MENTIONED EARLIER THE APPEAL HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEADLINE SO THIS LETTER THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING IS A FRIEND OF THE COURT, A BRIEF IF YOU WILL BUT CONGRESSM CLOUD THOUGHT THAT HAD VALUE IN

[01:25:01]

SUBMITTING IT TO FEMA BUT THERE IS NO TIMEFRAME RIGHT NOW.

>> MAYBE WE NEED TO DO IT ON THE FIRST MEETING IN MARCH I DON'T WANT THEM TO RULE AND NOT GET THIS IF IT'S RIGHT AND WE CAN HELP. I WANT TO HELP BUT I JUST WILL

MAKE SURE IT'S RIGHT. >> MAKE UP OUR MINDS SHOULD BE A GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THIS THING.

>> I'M ASKING JOHNNY IF WE DON'T DO THIS UNTIL THE SECOND MEETING

IN MARCH. >> COMMISSIONERS IS NOT A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE LETTER IS NOT A PART OF OUR APPEAL PACKAGE BECAUSE THE APPEAL HAZARDING BEEN SUBMITTED.

>> BASED ON THAT I WOULD VOTE AYE FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN

MARCH. >> EVERYONE ELSE VOTED AYE ALREADY THE MOTION PASSES TO THE SECOND WEEK IN MARCH.

[7. Receive information on the county's indigent burial and cremation program. Discuss and consider options for final disposition of paupers.]

MOVING ON, THANK YOU JOHNNY FOR BEING HERE TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN RECEIVE INFORMATION ON THE COUNTIES BURIAL AND CREMATION, REBECCA YOU ARE UP, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> GOOD MORNING JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.

I'M JUST HERE TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION ON THE COUNTIES PROGRAM NUECES COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICE IS TASKED WITH CARRYING OUT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE FOR A FINAL DISPOSITION OF INDIGENT CLIENTS. I PROVIDED YOU SOME INFORMATION IN THE BACKUP REGARDING THE COST THAT WE PAY OF A BURIAL VERSUS CREMATION WHICH IS 1875 FOR A BURIAL COMPARED TO 824 CREMATION I HAVE THE OWNER OF DUNCAN CEMETERY HERE IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. IT IS BEEN THE CEMETERY I BELIEVE SINCE 2005 ACCORDING TO MY RECORDS, LAST YEAR WE USED 78 PLOT THAT DUNCAN CEMETERY. OF COURSE THE PEOPLE OF OTHER PLANS ALREADY IN PLACE FOR EXAMPLE VETERANS THE VETERANS CEMETERY OR THEY OWN A PLOT WE CAN BURY AT THOSE PLACES THAT THEY QUALIFY FOR MAKING A CONVERSATION WITH ME TO SEE THE DUNCAN CEMETERY WAS UP FOR SALE OR ARE THE PRICES GOING TO

CHANGE. >> I CAN ANSWER THAT.

IT HAS BEEN UP FOR SALE BUT THERE'S NOT A IMMINENT SALE PENDING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THERE IS 1500 PLOTS AVAILABLE FOR OUR USE WE THINK WE HAVE YEARS AND YEARS STILL AHEAD WE DON'T FORESEE A PROBLEM WITH THE AUTO.

ALSO I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE MS. LUPUS SHE'S THE ONE THAT DEALS WITH MY STAFF AND TAKES CARE OF OUR INVOICING AND THAT'S

HER THING. >> I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. >> MAYBE WE NEED TO GET A HABIT OF PUTTING ALL MATTERS CAN I ASK ABOUT SOMETHING ANOTHER PROGRAM THAT THEY HAD WERE TO HAVE TO STICK WITH THE BURIAL?

>> I WOULD ASK A QUESTION ABOUT ANOTHER PROGRAM.

>> DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BURIAL OR CREMATION.

>> NO I'D BE HAPPY TO PUT IT ON ALL OTHER MATTERS.

>> IT DOES GIVE THE COURT MORE FLEXIBLY.

>> AND WE KIND OF LOOK AT THAT. >> NEVERMIND I'LL BRING IT BACK.

>> REPRESENTATIVE ALSO WHAT I ASK IS THIS DUNCAN?

>> I WOULD RELY ON REBECCA'S REPRESENTATION.

>> IS THAT THE ONE? >> I KNOW WHERE IT IS NOT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY IT IS VERY NICE TO MEET YOU BOTH, THANK YOU FOR BEING

[8. Discuss and consider approval of a Dune Protection Permit for large scale construction of a single-family residence (DPP-202207-03) located at La Concha Estates, Block 1, Lot 73, Corpus Christi, TX.]

HERE. >> THANK YOU.

MOVING ON TO ITEM EIGHT DISCUSSING CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT OF A LARGE SCALE CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED ON THE CONTRA ESTATES BLOCK ONE, LOT 73, CORPUS CHRISTI IS COMMISSIONER CHESLEY YOUNG, THIS

IS HIS AREA. >> IS SCOTT ON?

>> YES. YES, SIR.

>> WHICH ONE ARE WE AT THE TO THE GOT TABLE FROM LAST TIME?

>> THE CONTRA ESTATES BLOCK ONE, LOT 73.

[01:30:12]

>> THE APPLICATION THERE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS HAVE TO FOLLOW UNDER THE TEXAS DIMINISHED TRADING CODE AND THE NATURAL RESOURCES CODE WHEN YOU INSIDE THE 350-FOOT SETBACK LINE, THAT LAW WAS PLOTTED MANY YEARS AGO AND WEBER BOUGHT IT AT THE TIME DECIDED TO BUILD ON IT. I RECOMMEND ALL APPROVAL OF THAT THE WAY IT IS RECOMMENDED AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE

APPLICANT WANTED. >> WHOSE APPLICANT ON THIS ONE?

>> I CAN'T REMEMBER THEIR NAME. >> YOU'RE HERE, COME ON UP.

I DID NOT KNOW YOU WERE HERE. >> ROB MCMANUS, I OWN THE LOT

AND I'M THE APPLICANT. >> YOU'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF

THIS TODAY AS IS? >> MOTION TO PASS JUDGE.

>> SECOND. >> WITH EMOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

>> THANK YOU. >> WILL GET YOU A NOTICE OF A

[9. Discuss and consider approval of a Dune Protection Permit for large scale construction of a single-family residence (DPP-202209-01) located at Lot 5, Mustang Island Estates, Corpus Christi TX.]

PERCEIVED LETTER OUT RIGHT AWAY. >> EXCERPT.

>> ITEM NUMBER NINE CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT LOT FIVE

MUSTANG ISLAND ESTATES. >> THAT WAS TABLED ABOUT A MONTH AGO. I RECOMMEND THAT YOU ALL APPROVE IT WITHOUT THE RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL SERVICES.

OTHER THAN THAT IS ADMINISTRATIVELY CORRECT AND WE NEED TO GET THESE GUYS GOING SO THEY CAN GET BUILDING.

>> IS THIS MARX? >> NO THIS IS NOT YOUR

SPECIFICALLY. >> HE'S DOING APPLICATION FOR NEWCASTLE, I DID NOT KNOW THAT WAS YOURS OR JOHN'S.

>> I'M SORRY I CANNOT TELL BY MY STUFF IS THIS NEWCASTLE'S

APPLICATION? >> YES.

>> MARK ARE YOU REPRESENTING NEWCASTLE?

>> I AM, CORRECT. ARE YOU ASKING TO BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO PERMIT NOBLE SERVICES BEEN REMOVED?

>> YOU WANT THAT REMOVED? >> WE WANT THAT REMOVED, COR

CORRECT. >> SCOTT RECOMMENDED THE PROMOTABLE SERVICES BE REMOVED, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PERMIT TO REMOVE THE PROMOTABLE SERVICE AS RECOMMENDED BY SCOTT AND AGREED TO THE APPLICANT IF I CAN MAKE

THAT MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. >> I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS THE PERMIT OVERALL AS WELL WITH THE AMENDMENT.

>> THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS ON THAT?

>> I AMENDED IN THE MAKE A MOTION TO PASS.

>> WITH EMOTION AND A MOTION. >> OPPOSING SIGN.

[10. Discuss and consider approval of a Dune Protection Permit for large scale construction of a single-family residence (DPP-202209-02) located at 113 Backside Drive in Lot 11, Blk 3 of Island Park Estates, Corpus Christi TX.]

THE MOTION PASSES, MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10.

THE DISCUSSING CONSIDER APPROVAL OF DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. LOCATED AT 113 BACKSIDE DRIVE AND LOT 11 BLOCK THREE OF ISLAND PARK ESTATES.

>> SAME SITUATION WAS TABLED FROM LAST COURT AND I RECOMMENDED THAT YOU ALL APPROVE WITHOUT THE RECOMMENDATION OF PERMEABLE SURFACE IN THE APARTMENT.

>> JUDGE SAME MOTION, IS THIS SAME MOTI, NEWCASTLE AS WELL.

>> EXACT SAME AS THE PREVIOUS B MCKAY WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE RECOMMENDATION TO TAKE AT THE PROMOTABLE SERVICES RECOMMENDATION AS RECOMMENDED BY SCOTT CROSS AND APPROVED BY THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION JUDGE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE READ THE MOTION PASSES TO TAKE OUT THAT. NOW WE NEED YOUR NEXT MOTION.

GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU JUDGE, I APOLOGIZE AND MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE PERMIT AS AMENDED IN RECOMMENDED BY SCOTT AND APPROVED BY THE APPLICANT PRESENTED.

>> WITH EMOTION IN THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. THE MOTION PASSES.

AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH BE MET THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. MOVING ONTO IIIA 11, DISCUSS AND

[11. Discuss and consider approval of interlocal agreement with the City of Robstown regarding improvements to Diaz Park, Portella Park and Kiwana Park.]

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF ROB STAMM REGARDING IMPROVEMENTS TO DIAZ PARK, PORTILLO PARK AND TIJUANA

PARK. >> THAT IS MY ITEM AND I KNOW WE HAVE THE ATTACHMENT FOR THE MAP IN THE PARK LOCATIONS.

SO A MOTION TO TABLE THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING TO HAVE AN

AGREEMENT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND TO TABLE TO THE SECOND MEETING IN MARCH OR THE FIRST.

[01:35:03]

>> TO THE NEXT MEETING. >> YES, ARE WE WAITING ON

RESPONDENTS? >> WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR BACK IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES FROM YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

>> OKAY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND TO TABLE TO THE FIRST MEETING IN MARCH, ALL THOSE IN

FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN, IT IS TABLED TO THE FIRST OF MARCH.

[12. Discuss and consider reinstating the Nueces County Insurance Committee with representation of Risk Assessment, Auditing, a Commissioner or Judge, and representative from County Insurance Broker (Carlisle). ]

ITEM NUMBER 12 DISCUSS CONSIDER REINSTATING THE NUECES COUNTY REINSURANCE WITH REPRESENTATION OF RISK ASSESSMENT, AUDITING THE COMMISSIONER OR JUDGING REPRESENTATION FROM THE COUNTY INSURANCE BROKER CARLISLE. I WAS IN A BEATING EARLIER THIS WEEK AND WAS TOLD THEY USED TO HAVE THIS, ARITY ASKED COMMISSIONER IF HE WOULD BE WILLING TO REPRESENT THE KORAN THAT AND I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO REINSTATE THE INSURANCE

COMMITTEE FOR THE COUNTY. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSING SIGN.

>> JUDGE? DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION

TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER MODEST. >> YES I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO

APPOINT COMMISSIONER MODEST. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE READ ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONER MODEST FOR DOING THAT. ITEM NUMBER 15 DISCUSSING CONSIDER FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE HILLTOP COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION AND COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ THAT IS YOURS.

>> JUDGE HE WAS GOING TO GET MR. >> JUDGE CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION, I APOLOGIZE. ON THE INSURANCE IT SAYS COMMISSIONER OR JUDGE, IS IT JUST COMMISSIONER MAREZ OR BOTH

OF YOU WELL. >> JUST COMMISSIONER MORRIS, NOT

BOTH OF YOU ALL. >> WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON ONE WE

[16. Discuss and consider the hiring of Ricardo J. Navarro with Denton, Navarro, Rocha, Bernal, Hyde & Zach PC, Attorneys at Law, on legal matters related to collective bargaining, and related matters. Discuss and accept the proposed rate schedule. Authorize the Nueces County Bargaining team consisting of an individual from the following departments: County Judge, County Attorney, Commissioners Court Administration, County Auditor, Human Resources and Sheriff's Office.]

CAN DO ITEM 16, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE HIRING OF RICARDO J NAVARRO WITH DENTON, NAVARRO, ROCHA, BURN ALL, HEIDI ANZAC PC ATTORNEYS AT LAW ON LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING AND RELATED MATTERS. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, DO WE HAVE -- I'M SORRY EVERY QUICK DISCUSSION WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT IT SO WE CAN REMEMBER AND I REMEMBERED AND REMINDED MYSELF WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THEY ARE LAW-ENFORCEMENT, THEY WERE HERE EARLIER TODAY WITH CONSTABLE SHERWOOD, HE HOLDS THEIR BADGE IN THEIR OUT OF HIS PRECINCT BUT IS WILL BE HAVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN THE PAST WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO REAP THE BENEFITS OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.

SO THEY HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT. I ALWAYS MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD GET THEM IN THIS NEXT ROUND AND HERE IS OUR NEXT ROUND.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING FORMAL THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND TO INCLUDE OR CAN THAT JUST BE ADDED? IS THIS SOMETHING THE SHERIFFS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION HAS TO APPROVE TO INCLUDE THOSE OFFICERS IN THERE? LIKE I SAID DEPUTY CONSTABLES OUT OF PRECINCT FOUR.

>> I WILL BRING THAT TO MR. NAVARRO WHO IS OUTSIDE COUNSEL. THAT FIRM HAS HANDLED IN THE PAST AND IF THAT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

IF IT'S NOT THERE WILL BE AN EXPLANATION.

>> THEY ARE CERTIFIED AND ALSO I THOUGHT ABOUT THE DAS OFFICE HAS ONE OR TWO INVESTIGATORS. THERE MORE THAN LIKELY NOT INCLUDED. ALSO THEY CAN BE INCLUDED.

LIKE YOU SAID I AGREE NAVARRO, ROCHA, THE WHOLE FIRM THEY'VE DONE THIS MANY TIMES OVER SO WE COULD JUST GET AN OPINION ON THAT. I DON'T OF THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ASSOCIATION ALSO HAS A GIVEN APPROVAL.

I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTEP THEIR BOUNDS BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE NEGOTIATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

A SECOND PART TO THAT, JUDGE AND COURT.

I ASKED THAT WE CAN GET FREQUENT UPDATES.

THE LAST TIME MAYBE THERE WASN'T TOO MUCH TO DISCUSS.

I KNOW JUDGE CANALIS WAS APPOINTED ON THAT AND THEN THE

[01:40:03]

SHERIFF'S OFFICE CIVILIZATION APPOINTED ON THAT.

THERE WASN'T TOO MUCH TO DISCUSS IT WASN'T CLEAN-CUT WE KNEW HOW MUCH WE COULD AFFORD AND THERE WAS ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO BE NEGOTIATED BUT FROM WHAT I RECALL IS 30 BEEN A FEW YEARS COMMISSIONER GONZALES AND CHESNEY, SEEM LIKE WE AUTHORIZE AND IF YOU EVER HEARD ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT IT.

I SEE THE TEAM AND SUPPORT THE TEAM THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED HERE BELOW TO US, IF WE COULD JUST GET ONE OR TWO EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WE MAY NOT NEED THAT MANY WE MAY JUST NEED ONE BUT IF WE COULD GET ONE MAY BE BEFORE THE MEETING ANTICIPATED TO FINALIZE JUST IN CASE THERE'S ANYTHING SO WE CAN HEAR THE UPDATE AND GET ANY FEEDBACK TO YOU ALL, I TOTALLY TRUST THE FIVE OR SIX NAMES THAT ARE INCLUDED TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THIS. BUT IF WE CAN ENSURE INTERNALLY THAT WE GET AT LEAST ONE UPDATE. I DOING TO SEPARATE WORKING IT PRETTY QUICKLY BUT IF IT DOESN'T DEFINITELY WE NEED MORE UPDATES BUT IF IT DOES MOVE I JUST ASK FOR THAT COURTESY.

>> THE MOTION RIGHT NOW IS TO APPROVE THE HIRING AND THIS IS THE SAME LAW FIRM THAT WE HAVE USED MULTIPLE TIMES IN THE PAST FOR THIS. WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND TO APPROVE THE HIRING OF THEM. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE

IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> THE MOTION PASSES. THEN WE NEED TO AUTHORIZE THE

TEAM. >> SO MOVED.

THAT THE SEPARATE MOTION, WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, ANY

OTHER DISCUSSION? >> JUST A CLARIFICATION.

>> IT WOULD BE AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE AN ATTORNEY THE COURT ADMINISTRATION COUNTY AUDITOR IN HUMAN RESOURCES AND

SHERIFF OFFICE AS THE TEAM. >> OF TICKETS LISTED ON YOUR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE READ ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING BACK TO ITEM 15.

JUAN IS HERE NOW. >> AND I REQUEST FOR THE ITEM TO BE MOVED AB BACK ABOUT 15 MINUT. DAVID RICHARDS IS PLANNING ON

BEING ON THE WEB. >> IS IN AUSTIN?

>> YES OR. >> WE WILL HOLD OFF A LITTLE BIT. GOING TO ITEM 17.

>> ON ITEM 16 DID THE COURT AS IS DISCUSSED AND ACCEPT THE PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE. WE DIDN'T DO THAT.

>> WHICH I BELIEVE SHOULD'VE BEEN CIRCULATED PRIOR.

>> IT WAS A BACKUP JUDGE. >> IT WAS IN HERE IS IN MY

BACKUP NOW. >> DO YOU WANT US TO APPROVE

THAT SEPARATELY? >> WE NEED A MOTION IN THE

SECOND TO APPROVE. >> MOTION IN THE SECOND.

WE HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

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

NOW GOING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 17 PRE-DISCUSSING CONSIDER THE NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING IS CURRENTLY SET FOR MARCH THE EIGHTH AND WE DID GET A NOTICE, JENNY WILL NOT BE HERE FOR MARCH THE EIGHTH GRADE SOMEONE ELSE WILL BE SITTING IN THE CHAIR BUT

YOU WILL NOT BE HERE. >> DO YOU WANT TO MOVE IT?

>> NO THANK YOU. >> OSHA'S GIVING YOU A CHANCE.

>> TO EVERYONE'S FINE WITH KEEPING THE SCHEDULE THAT WE

[1. Discuss and consider approval of Memorandum of Understanding between Nueces County and Youth Odyssey for programs relating to the Truancy Prevention Initiative.]

HAVE SO WE DON'T NEED A MOTION BECAUSE IT'S EARLY ON OUR SCHEDULE. OKAY, B1, GRANTS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN NUECES COUNTY AND YOUTH ODYSSEY FOR PROGRAMS RELATED TO TRUANCY PREVENTION AND ANNA IS OUT SHE HAD A DEATH IN THE FAMILY.

I'M VERY SORRY SHE IS NOT HERE FOR THIS IS THE TRUANCY PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION PROGRAM DESIGNED TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR JUVENILE CASE MANAGERS AND TRUANCY PREVENTION INCLUDING EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND/OR RELATED SERVICES DESIGNED TO PREVENT TRUANCY INCLUDING FOR CHILDREN AT RISK OR ENTERING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM. THEY WILL RUN PROGRAMS HERE NUECES COUNTY WITH THE $32581.46 OF GRANT FUNDING.

EACH PROGRAM WILL SERVE UP TO 15 YOUTH AND PROVIDE THEM WITH HANDS-ON LIFE SKILLS. EACH LESSON GOES BACK TO THE

[01:45:03]

PERSONAL LIFE AS A GRANT FUNDING IS NO MATCH AND NO COST TO THE COUNTY. I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS GRANT FUNDING FOR THE YOUTH ODYSSEY PROGRAM.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN, THE MOTION PASSES.

>> WAS IT COMMISSIONER CHESNEY AND I?

>> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY YOU WERE AYE RIGHT?

>> YES THAT LOOKED LIKE A AYE TO ME.

>> PUBLIC WORKS ITEM C1, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR YOUR OTHER

[15. Discuss and consider funding sources for the Hilltop Community Center Renovations for minimum LEED Certification and related matters.]

PERSON SO WERE NOT GOING BACK. >> HE IS ON.

>> LET'S GO BACK TO THAT FIRST AND FINISH ITEM NUMBER 15, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE FUNDING SOURCES FOR THE HILLTOP

COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION. >> DAVID IS ONLINE.

DAVID ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE OVER FOR THIS ONE AND TALK ABOUT

THIS? >> YES, CAN YOU HEAR ME JUDGE?

>> YES, CLEARLY. >> THANK YOU AND FIRST I WANTED TO THANK AND CREDIT ANGIE FLOREZ FOR LETTING ME BE HER OFFICE OF THE STATE CAPITAL. I FOUND A NICE QUIET PLACE TO JOIN YOU AND SEND MY GREETINGS FROM A.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE THE PROJECT OR JUST BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE PACKET THAT YOU HAVE BUT I GUESS I WILL SAY WE ARE NEARING COMPLETION ON OUR DOCUMENTS SO WE ARE KIND OF ANXIOUS TO WRAP EVERYTHING UP.

THE MINIMUM LEED STANDARDS IS A HIGH BAR OF PERFORMANCE.

IN THE BUILDING HAS A LOT OF GREAT SUSTAINABLE AND ENVIRONMENTAL FUTURES THAT A BEEN A PART OF THE CONTENT FROM THE BEGINNING AND THOSE ARE NOT COMPROMISED, SOME ARE BEING BID AS ALTERNATE SO WE CAN TRY TO GET THE FINAL PRICE BETWEEN AFFORDABLE AUDIBLE SO WE HAVE A SEVERAL BID ALTERNATIVES BUILT INTO THE PLAN. WHAT RIGHT NOW IS APPROVAL OF A CHANGE TO ENABLE THE COMPLETION OF HER PLANS.

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME WHEN YOU WERE HERE.

>> YES JUDGE, I THINK THE MAIN POINT IS THE BASE BID APPROXIMATED TO BE ABOUT $9.196 MILLION IN ARCHITECTURAL FEES THIS IS A FISCAL IMPACT OF THE ADDITIONAL 627,000 TO GET THE PROJECT TO FINAL COMPLETION FOR DD'S DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.

>> THAT VALUE TAKES IT TO COMPLETION OF DOCUMENTS.

>> IT CDS IS BASICALLY THE COMPLETED TECHNICAL PLANS THAT IS NECESSARY TO BID AND BUILD THE PROJECT.

>> MEETING WITH THE COMMISSIONER IN ORDER TO HAVE A TOTAL AMOUNTS TO COVER THE ADDITIONAL COST I KNOW WERE REALLOCATING SOME OF THE MONEY FROM THE 2015 AND 2016 AND 2021 MONEY IN ORDER TO HAVE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF MONEY TO COMPLETE THIS PROJECT AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO REALLOCATE THOSE MONEY FOR $9.9 MILLION THAT WE ARE NEEDING. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WE HAVE 6.2 MILLION AVAI AVAILABLE.

WHAT THE COURT NEEDS TO DISCUSS IS FOR COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ HE HAS AN AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN FUNDS AVAILABLE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RELOCATE 3.5 MILLION FOR THIS PROJECT.

>> YES I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT.

>> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY HAS A QUESTION ALSO.

>> THANK YOU, THE QUESTIONING WAS IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ IS DOING, I'M ASSUMING BECAUSE HE IS USING, I DON'T MEAN TO ASSUME BUT I ASSUME HE'S USING THESE FUNDS, PUTTING SOME OF THE OTHER FUNDS TOWARDS DRAINAGE AND PUTTING THE ARPA TOWARDS THIS IS THAT HOW I'M READING THIS RIGHT

COMMISSIONER? >> IT IS COMMISSIONER.

HAVE WE CHECKED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WOULD QUALIFY FOR A

[01:50:08]

ARPA, HAS LOU SIGNED OFF ON THIS, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE QUALIFY AND WE DON'T GET YOU DOWN THE WRONG PATH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT WAS REALLY ALL I HAD FOR

LOU OR WHOEVER THAT DAY. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

TO MAKE SURE COMPLIES WITH THE MACON RESCUE PLAN ACT.

>> WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS

AND GET IT OUT. >> THE NEXT IS TO DO THE CFR TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICAN

RESCUE PLAN. >> GOTCHA, SO THIS WILL GET US TO THE AMOUNT NEEDED TO FULLY FUND THE BASE BID AND ARCHITECT

FEE? >> THIS IS 9.8 MILLION I BELIEVE WE WILL STILL NEED SOME FUND FOR THE ARCHITECT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT I THINK THIS WILL GET US TO BIDDING OUT THE PROJECT BUT THERE IS STILL GOOD TO BE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS FOR THE ARCHITECT IF THEY DO THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AS

PART OF THE PROJECT. >> WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?

>> I THINK WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS GET THE PROJECT OUT FOR BID GET THE PROJECT COMPLETED SO WE CAN GO OUT FOR BIDS AND GET THE BIDS FOR THE PROJECT. IN KNOWING THAT WE HAVE THE MONEY FOR CONSTRUCTION HOWEVER, THE DESIGN AND THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE DESIGN OF THE ARCHITECT IS ALREADY INCLUDED INTO THIS TO GET IT TO THAT POINT TO THE BIDDING

PROCESS. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> ARE WE PAYING ADDITIONAL MR. RICHTER RIGHT NOW, HE'S

DOING ARCHITECT RIGHT NOW? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

IS THERE ADDITIONAL FUNDS? >> IT GOES OUT FOR BIDS IN DAVID RICHTER IS A CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATOR ON THE PROJECT, THERE IS A FEE IN THEIR THAT HAS BEEN ALLOCATED AS PART OF HIS

ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. >> THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION'S BACK 627,000.

>> FOR THE ARCHITECT? >> HE GETS US TO GETTING THE

PROJECT DESIGN AND BID IT OUT. >> TERESA ON THE LINE WANTS TO

CLARIFY SOMETHING. >> IS A SEPARATE THING THAT HE'S

GOING TO MANAGE? >> THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADMINISTRATION IS A SEPARATE OR AN ADDITIONAL FEE.

>> MISSED TACKLE MORE. >> YOU SAID TERESA IS ON THE

LINE? >> HERE SHE IS.

>> TERESA USUALLY CLEARS THAT UP FOR ME.

>> THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT IS TO BE DETERMINED IS THE BIDDING, NEGOTIATION, CONSTRUCTION AND CLOSEOUT FOR DAVID RICHTER WHICH IS ESTIMATED AT AN ADDITIONAL $600,000 THAT THOSE FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN DETERMINED YET. WHAT WE CHANGED OUR POLICY TO IF WE REMEMBER WE WOULD NOT GO OUT FOR BIDS ON THINGS WITHOUT HAVING FULLY FUNDED THEM. IS THIS A VIOLATION OF OUR POLICY AND WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT NOW AND MAYBE I MISSED INTERPRETING THE POLICY BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS A POLICY IN THE PAST WHEN WE WENT OUT FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DID HAVE FUNDING WE SAID WE WOULD GO UP FOR ANYTHING ELSE UNLESS WE HAD ALL THE FUNDS. AM I MISSING THAT?

OR IS THAT WRONG. >> COMMISSIONER YOU ARE CORRECT WE ASKED ABOUT THE TOTAL AMOUNT. IT WAS GIVEN TO US 9.8 MILLION I BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT 10 MILLION ALSO.

WE DON'T HAVE THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT IS TO BE DETERMINED WE WERE ASKING WE DIDN'T GET IT DO LIKE TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THE COURT?

>> THE ADDITIONAL PART ALLOCATED TO BE DETERMINED IS THE BIDDING IN THE NEGOTIATING PART OF THE ARCHITECT.

AND ALSO THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION IN THE CLOSEOUT OF THE PROJECT. THAT IS WHAT'S INCLUDED TO DATE

ON THIS TOTAL AMOUNT. >> WHAT I HAVE IN HERE SAYS BASE BID 9.196 AND THE ARCHITECT FEES 627479 WHICH LOOKS LIKE, I NEED TO DO QUICK MATH THAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT TOTALS THE TWO NUMBERS BELOW SO WITH THE EXTRA COMING IN.

I NEED TO DO THE MATH BUT IT LOOKS TO ME ON HERE WE HAVE A

[01:55:07]

COVER BUT YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S SOME EXTRA THAT IS NOT IN HERE.

>> FROM THE ARCHITECT IT'S GOING TO BE FOR THEM TO ASSIST US WITH THE BIDDING IN THE NEGOTIATING PART OF THE PROJECT AND THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION AND THE CLOSEOUT DOCUMENTS WHICH IS THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION LETTERS AND ALL THE FORMS THAT

NEED TO BE DONE IN THE PROJECT. >> 600,000 FOR THAT?

>> THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADMINISTRATION THAT IS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADMINISTRATION.

THEY ARE ESTIMATING THIS PROJECT TO BE ABOUT A YEAR END HALF OR SO IF I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THAT.

A YEAR END A HALF LONG PROJECT. >> TERESA WANTS TO CLARIFY

SOMETHING AS WELL. >> GO AHEAD.

>> TERESA? >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> COMMISSIONER YOU ARE CORRECT. BUT RIGHT NOW THE AMOUNT THAT IS ALLOCATED ON THE AGENDA ITEM JUST COVERS THE BASE BID AND ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT WE NEED FOR THE ARCHITECT FEED FOR THIS PORTION. THE $9.8 MILLION BUT ONCE THEY GO OUT FOR BID AND THEY AWARD INTO CONSTRUCTION WERE CANADIAN AND ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL DOLLARS FOR RICHTER TO DO THE BIDDING NEGOTIATION, THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE CLOSEOUT TO BE THE CONSTRUCTION PERSON FOR THE PROJECT.

SO THAT PEACE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS NUMBER.

>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. 9.8 MILLION I'M TRYING TO DO MY MATTHEW, 627,479 DIVIDED BY THE BASE BID OF 91196863.

THAT'S ABOUT 7% OR SOMETHING. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE EXTRA WHAT THE EXTRA CALL FOR, THE CONTRACT, THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE THAT THE CONTRACT CALLS FOR FOR THE ARCHITECT.

>> AND ONE NEEDS TO TALK ABOUT THAT IS 14% WITHIN THE RICHTER'S CONTRACT. BUT WE ARE BASING IT RIGHT NOW

ON THE TOTAL. >> YES TERESA I ADDRESS THAT.

ON THE CONTRACT COMMISSIONER IT WAS 14% OF THE TOTAL

CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACT. >> ARCHITECTURAL PIECE ALONE IS 14% OF THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.

SO 14%, ORIGINALLY 14 MILLION THAT'S WHAT IT WAS ESTIMATED AT THE TIME WHEN THEY WE'RE GOING TO DO THE FULL DESIGN OF THE WHOLE FACILITY 14% OF 14 MILLION OR 15 MILLION.

>> IT WAS 12.8. 12.8, THAT WAS ESTIMATED WITH 14%, WERE AT 9.92 MILLION. ONE THING THAT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER TALKING TO DAVID. THE ORIGINAL SCOPE WHICH IS THE CDS IN THE CONSTRUCTION PART CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT WAS TO REQUEST THAT THE TIME AND GO OUT AND DO THE FULL DESIGN OF EVERYTHING. SO INITIALLY THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICE AT 14% WAS HIGHER BECAUSE HE WAS DESIGNING FOR 12-POINT SOMETHING MILLION BUT NOW THAT HE'S IN THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT IT CAN BE A LESSER AMOUNT SO THE 14% IS GOING TO BE LESS THAN WHAT THE ORIGINAL COST SHOULD HAVE BEEN.

ONE THING THAT WE GOTTA REMEMBER JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS THE $9.2 MILLION IS AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT IS NOT AN ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION DOLLAR AMOUNT IT GOES OUT FOR BIDS TO THE TRUE COST OF THE PROJECT SO THE PROJECT MIGHT COME IN LOWER, HOPEFULLY WE ARE CROSSING OUR FINGERS OR DEPENDING ON WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THIS PROJECT IT OUT AND THE LONGER WE WAIT THE MORE IT'S GOING TO COST US.

>> IS NOT JUST 14% FOR ARCH ARCHITECT.

>> YES, SIR COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.

UNDER THE 14% THE WAY IS BROKEN DOWN YOU HAVE YOUR ARCHITECTURAL FEE AND THE ARCHITECT GOES ON HIRES THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, THEY HIRE THE MECHANICAL, THE MEP, THE LANDSCAPE. ALL OF THOSE BRANCHES OF ENGINEERING ARE INCLUDED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL FEE.

>> IF I MAY. >> HOLD ON ONE SECOND.

[02:00:05]

YOU ARE THE NUMBERS PERSON ON THIS.

THIS IS NOT ADDING UP TO ME RIGHT CAN YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON THIS AND TELL ME WHAT YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS ON THIS AND WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING ON THIS TODAY.

>> YES COMMISSIONER I WILL RECOMMEND TO GO BACK AND LOOK INTO THE CONTRACT IN THE PERCENTAGES THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED IT'S A 14% BASED ON CONSTRUCTION COSTS I ASKED THIS QUESTION WHY EVERY TIME OF CONSTRUCTION COST IS CHANGING THAT WOULD CHANGE AGAIN TO 14%. THAT'S MY QUESTION AS WELL I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE TOTAL AMOUNT RIGHT NOW, THE CONTRACT ESTABLISHED IS 14% BASED ON THE CONSTRUCTION COST AND THIS IS THE THIRD TIME WERE CHANGING THE CONSTRUCTION COST.

AT THE BEGINNING 14 MILLION AND THEN WE CHANGE TO 12 MILLION.

SO THE CHANGE THAT FEE FOR THE ARCHITECT, THE FIRST ONE AND WE PAY 606,000 AND IT WAS BASED ON 14 MILLION COMMISSIONER.

AND AGAIN, THERE CHANGING INTO 12 MILLION.

IT IS NOT CONSISTENT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WITH ONE AND LOOK INTO THE PERCENTAGES TO LOOK INTO THE NUMBER JUST TO MAKE SENSE FOR THE COURT IF THAT IS OKAY.

>> WE HAVE TWO ISSUES IT SOUNDS LIKE TODAY, ONE COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ NEEDS TO REALLOCATE SOME FUNDS WHICH WE COULD DO TODAY AND GET HIM TO CONTINUED TO MOVE ALONG BECAUSE HIS WORKED HARD TO GET THIS THING DONE IN THE SECOND ISSUE WOULD SEEM TO BE BIFURCATED WITH TWO, I DON'T HOW TO ADDRESS THAT, A DAY TO GO BACK AND BRING BACK THE COURT ON THIS COST BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT WERE DOING IS FOLLOWING OUR POLICY WHICH IS SENDING SOMETHING OUT WITH FULLY FUNDING BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS WERE NOT THAT IS MY CONCERN THERE'S GOING TO BE EXTRA COSTS WERE NOT ALLOCATING FOR SOME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT I WOULD BE TOTALLY COMFORTABLE REALLOCATING THE FUND THAT COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ WANTS TO DO BUT HOW DO WE SET SOMETHING UP IF IT'S NOT FULLY FUNDED RIGHT NOW. I BASE THAT ON QUESTIONS I'M CONFUSED ON THE PERCENTAGES AND WHY IT'S GOING TO BE MORE AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF. I WANT TO BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING DONE FOR COMMISSIONER INDIANA DOES BUT THIS IS NOT

ADDING UP FOR ME. >> COMMISSIONER I JUST WILL MAKE SURE AT THIS TIME WERE NOT REQUESTING FOR THE PROJECT TO GO OUT FOR BIDS WERE JUST REQUESTING FOR IT TO GET UP TO THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT SO WE ACTUALLY KNOW THE FINAL

COST OF THE PROJECT. >> TODAY ALL WERE ASKING FOR IS

A REALLOCATION OF THE FUNDS? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY, I WOULD HAPPILY SUPPORT COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ REALLOCATION OF FUNDS BUT I NEED SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THIS PERCENTAGES AND WHY THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE, I DON'T HOW TO DO IT. I'VE ASKED MY QUESTIONS, SOMEBODY CAN GIVE ME SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD

I'LL BE HAPPY TO LISTEN. >> THAT'S ALL IT EVER DONE COMMISSIONER IS SEEK GUIDANCE FROM THE PERSONS THAT DO THIS ALL THE TIME. THIS IS ALL I ASK FOR IS PROPER GUIDANCE AND I'VE BEEN TOLD IT'S WORKABLE OR IT WILL WORK.

>> BASICALLY THE MOTION WE NEED FOR TODAY IS ALLOCATING YOUR FUNDS FROM THE 2015, 16, THE CEOS THE MONEY TO GET YOU TO THIS, YOU'RE NOT GOING OUT FOR BID WORD IS GOING TO GET YOU TO

THE POINT IN THE PROCESS. >> 21, 19 INTO HURRICANE HARVEY FUNDS. ALSO IN THE BOTTOM IT SAYS REALLOCATE ARPA FUNDS 660. THIS CAN BE REALLOCATED TO THE

PROJECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT IS A COMMISSIONER IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED TO THE PARTICULAR DRAINAGE PROJECTS AND NOW COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ WISHES TO REALLOCATED. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AYE WOULD NEED TO LOOK ALSO BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY POINTED OUT THE CONTRACT WITH RICHARD TO MAKE SURE IT WAS TO CFR.

I NEED TO PULL THAT ONE AS WELL. ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION QUALIFIES ON ARPA BUT I NEED TO LOOK INTO THE CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE WITH ARCHITECT TO MAKE SURE WE DID FOLLOWING ARPA AS WELL.

>> IT WAS WAY BEFORE ARPA. >> I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE TWO CFR. WHERE DO WE CONTINUE.

>> THE MOTION TODAY. >> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE

[02:05:03]

WHOLE PROJECT? ONE WING, TWO WINGS.

>> IF I'M NOT MISTAKING IT'S FOR WINGS.

IN THE NEW FACILITY IN FRONT. >> IS NOT THE WHOLE PROJECT WILL

BE LOOKING AT ABOUT 60 MILLION. >> YOU'RE ASKING FOR A MOTION TODAY TO REALLOCATE YOUR ARPA FUNDS TO GO TO THIS PROJECT IS

TO MAKE. >> SAM.

>> I'M SORRY LISA WE WILL NEED A SEPARATE CAPITAL PROJECT FOR A CHANGE ORDER TO REALLOCATE THE FUNDS AS WELL AS THE BUDGET CHANGE ORDER FOR THE HURRICANE HARVEY SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS.

>> SO MOVED TO. >> SECOND.

>> REGARDING WHETHER THE PROJECT WILL QUALIFY FOR ARPA THAT WE WERE NOT ASKED TO EVALUATE THAT IN OUR OFFICE BUT I CAN SAY ON OTHER PROJECTS FOR INSTANCE THE. WHEN THERE WAS A CHANGE ALONG THE WAY AT THE BUILDING BLOCKS CFR WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THAT PREVENTED THE ARPA FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD AND WE WOULD OFFER IF YOU COULD GIVE US A CHANCE TO HELP DO THE ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT RIGHT NOW THE PROJECT AS IT STANDS WILL QUALIFY FOR

THE CHUNK OF ARPA FUNDING. >> THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD.

>> I THINK MR. RICHTER WANTED TO SPEAK EARLIER.

>> I WISHES CAN OFFER TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE PERCENTAGE FEE. I RECOGNIZE THAT YOU ALL MAY WANT TO DO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION.

AND NOT JUST LET ME CLARIFY BUT IF YOU LIKE I CAN ACTUALLY SHED A LITTLE BIT A LIGHT ON THE ARITHMETIC QUESTIONS.

SHOULD I GO AHEAD? >> AND TODAY WERE NOT DEALING WITH A LESS PUBLIC CONVERSATION THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE WITH SHE RAISED THE QUESTION I AGREE I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS BUT IF TODAY'S SIMPLE MOTION WERE REALLOCATING THE MONEY FROM COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ ARPA FUNDS ABROAD ABOUT THE QUESTIONS. WHATEVER THE JUDGE WANTS TO DO.

>> WE WILL ASK FOR A VOTE ON THEM.

WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND ALREADY FOR THE REALLOCATION OF HIS ARPA FUNDS WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT THEY WILL BE

APPROVED. >> WITH THE CLARIFICATION THAT

THEY QUALIFY TO NOT BE APPROVED. >> QUALIFY AND ALLOWABLE.

>> I WOULD ACCEPT AS PART OF MY MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND, THEY ACCEPTED THAT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. >> CHORIZO WOULD YOU LIKE TO

SPEAK TO US. >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WE APPROVE THE REALLOCATION OF THE ARPA MONEY, ARE WE ALSO OKAY WITH REALLOCATION OF ALL THE C-UPPERCASE-LETTER OWES.

>> NOW WE ARE. >> THE REST ARE NOT REALLOCATION A PISTOL REALLOCATION OF THE MANAGEMENT SERVICES BUT THE REST OF ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED, RIGHT.

>> NO THE ONES ON THE BOTTOM FOR COMMISSIONER PRECINCT THE 3.5 HE'S REALLOCATING THAT TOTAL BUT IT CONSISTS OF THE CEOS AS WELL

AS THE 2.9 ARPA MONEY. >> IT'S WHATEVER HE REALLOCATED ALL OF ARPA IN THE PRECINCT FUNDS OF THE 3.5 MILLION.

>> IF THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

>> YES, SIR, THANK YOU. >> A CLARIFICATION.

GREAT JOB, THIS IS GOOD BE A PHENOMENAL PROJECT,

CONGRATULATIONS. >> I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S HELP AND COOPERATION IT WILL BE A GOOD THING FOR THE COMMUNITY.

[1. Receive update from ABM regarding the Nueces County Courthouse & Jail Boiler System; Discuss and consider action related to project completion; and related matters.]

THANK YOU ALL. >> THANK YOU.

>> C1 PUBLIC WORKS RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM IBM REGARDING THE NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE JAIL BOILER SYSTEM, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION RELATED TO PROJECT COMPLETION AND RELATED

MATTERS. >> WE CAN HAVE IBM UPDATE THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, I THINK THEY ARE OUTSIDE.

>> YES. >> CAN YOU UPDATE THE

COMMISSIONERS. >> SURE, HOW ARE YOU DOING.

ANY TOPIC YOU WANT TO START FIRST WITH, THE BOILERS OR THE

MECHANICAL ARE THE TWO TOPICS? >> I WOULD START WITH THE JAIL

[02:10:01]

BOILERS. THAT'S A HOT TOPIC RIGHT NOW.

>> ON THE BOILERS I HAVE BEEN PERSONALLY BACK IN THIS WEEK, WE MET WITH THE TEAM WITH JUAN AND HIS GROUP YESTERDAY AND WE ALSO HAD ANOTHER WORK SESSION IN THE AFTERNOON.

I HAD A HIGH LEVEL WITH THE BOILERS, THE ITEM WITH THAT IS THE CHANGE OUT OF THE RELIEF VALVES THAT WOULD BE CHANGING THE RELIEVE VALVES FROM 30. AT THIS TIME WE PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION FROM THE BOILER MANUFACTURER THIRD-PARTY ENGINEER AND ALSO ATTENDED THE DAY WE PROVIDED ANOTHER LETTER TO HELP STREAMLINE AND SIMPLIFY WHAT THE REQUEST IS SEPARATING THE RELIEF VALVES FROM ADDITIONAL ITEMS. THAT LETTER WAS ISSUED AT THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY.

I'M NOT SURE IF THE COUNTY HAS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE LAST LETTERS FROM THE ENGINEER OF RECORD.

SO AT THIS POINT WE ARE ON STAND BY WAITING TO GET CONFIRMATION THAT WE CAN GET THAT COMPLETED. WE COULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TDL ARE TO PREVENT ANY FUTURE ACTIONS WHICH ULTIMATELY WILL BECOME DOWN TO RED TAGGED OR SHUTTING THE BOILERS DOWN.

>> I WAS IN WITH A MEETING WITH YOU GUYS YESTERDAY AFTERNOON TWO. I THINK BEFOREHAND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION. I THINK MOVING FORWARD AFTER THE MEETING THAT WE HAD YESTERDAY I THINK THE COMMUNICATION IS A BIG ISSUE WITH OUR JAIL, WE CANNOT GO FORWARD AND MAKE PLANS TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT COMMUNICATING WITH THE JAIL AND MEETING, I BELIEVE YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GO THERE AFTER YOU LEFT MY OFFICE AND MEET WITH THEM. I HOPE THAT WAS ENLIGHTENING AND HELPED YOU OUT SOME. I WISH ALL OF THAT STUFF WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY. I DID SPEAK TO ONE AGAIN THIS MORNING AND WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE JOB IN THE PERFORMANCE AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE ALLOW YOU TO GO AHEAD AND CHANGE OUT THE PSI FROM THE 32 THE 15 A LONG WITH THE REQUEST THAT THIS BE A REGULAR COMMUNICATION AND UPDATE WITH THE SAME GROUP WITH PUBLIC WORKS, WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND WITH EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THAT ROOM. ANYTHING GOING FORWARD, I THINK WE CAN BETTER WORK TOGETHER TO GET THIS JOB FINISHED.

I KNOW WERE AT THE LAST PLAY AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE IN A HURRY AND ANTSY BUT WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH COMMUNICATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT SHUTTING DOWN OUR JAIL, MOVING 70 OF OUR INMATES IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND NOT GOING TO WORK.

I KNOW WE TALKED YESTERDAY IN ONE OF THE COMMENTS, IF THEY RED TAGGED THE BOILERS IT WAS GOING TO BE $5000 A DAY MOVING 70 INMATES IS A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN $5000 A DAY.

THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. I HOPE THAT YOU ALL WORKED WITH HER PEOPLE AT THE JAIL AND YOU CAME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN.

AFTER THE LENGTHY MEETING AND TALKS THAT'S WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND FOR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO DO TODAY.

IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS, THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION TO ALLOW YOU TO GO AHEAD WITH THE STIPULATIONS OF THE COMMUNICATION BE BETTER, THAT YOU WORK TOGETHER.

>> IT JUST SAYS TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION THAT'S IT.

>> AND IT SAYS RELATED ACTION TO PROJECT COMPLETION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS EVER PROVIDED UNTIL L.A. AND IN THE PAST. I KNOW MR. PIMENTEL SAID HE ASKED FOR THAN PREVIOUSLY AND HE NEVER RECEIVED THEM.

PLEASE LET'S WORK ON BETTER COMMUNICATION AND BETTER RESULTS AND WHEN WE ASK FOR SOMETHING WE NEEDED FOR A REASON JUST LIKE YESTERDAY SHERIFF BEING THERE IS NOT A LIGHT MATTER IT'S A VERY

MAJOR MATTER. >> UNDERSTOOD.

JUST FOR CLARITY SO THE VALVES WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH CHANGE OUT OF THE VALVES AND WE DO KNOW WHAT THE SECOND REQUEST AND THAT HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER. AS FAR AS THE COMMUNICATION I AGREE 100% WITH YOU, FROM PASS PROGRAM MANAGER TO NOW WE HAVE A TEAM ASSEMBLED THERE WHICH WAS GREAT.

SO MOVING FORWARD I DID SPEAK WITH JUAN YESTERDAY WITH OUR VICE PRESIDENT OF ATS OF THE PMO GROUP SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIRECTION IN THE COMMUNICATION LINE AND WORKING WITH THE COUNTY BUT AT THE JAIL WE ALSO KNOW ON THE JAIL SIDE AS WELL WE DID

[02:15:04]

HAVE A PRODUCTIVE MEETING AND A WALK-THROUGH AFTERWARDS WE UNDERSTOOD SOME OF THE CONSTRAINTS THAT HE IS UNDER THEIR. THE DOWNTIME WE ACTUALLY HAD INITIAL DISCUSSION WITH THE PROJECT TEAM THIS MORNING TALKING ABOUT THE TEMPORARY MEASURES AND ALSO SOME OTHER MAJORS EV REMOVING EQUIPMENT TO ENGAGE THE PROS AND CONS OF EVERYTHING AND WHAT IS TEMPORARY MEASURE MEAN WITH DOWNTIME SURROUNDED BEING DOWN 12 DAYS HOW DO WE LIMIT THAT WE ARE MAY BE TWO HOURS FOR TRANSITION. WE WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH THE JAIL FROM THIS POINT MOVING FORWARD.

WE DO KNOW WHAT THE ACTION IS SO WE WILL BE COMPLIANT WITH THAT.

>> TWO QUESTIONS. DOWNTIME FOR US IS NOT DAYS.

>> WE UNDERSTOOD THAT YESTERDAY. >> THE OTHER THING IS DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE OF WHEN WERE GOING TO REPLACE THE VALVES FROM THE 32

THE 50. >> THE VALVES I WILL CHECK WITH HER TEAM NOW WITH THE GREEN LIGHT.

IF THEY ARE ABLE TO START TOMORROW, IF NOT TOMORROW PROBABLY BE MONDAY, THERE IS A TOTAL OF THREE BOILERS.

WERE STARTING WITH NUMBER BOILER 31ST, THAT ONE IS DOWN AT THE MOMENT. IT'S APPROXIMATELY THREE DAYS TO COMPLETE EACH BOILER WITH THE METHOD THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE

NOW. >> SO TWO WEEKS QUESTIONING.

>> CORRECT. >> THAT IS CHANGING THE RELIEF VALVES AND THEN WE WILL ALSO BE CHANGING THE STAMPS, THE STEELS THAT ARE POSTED ON THE BOILERS SO WERE ALL IN COMPLIANCE THAT WE CAN GET TDL ARE BACK IN, DO THEIR FINAL INSPECTION, SIGN OFF

AND WE CAN MOVE ON. >> SO WE DON'T NEED A VOTE ON

THE ACTION OR ANYTHING? >> I DON'T THINK WE DID A

MOTION. >> IS JUST AN UPDATE.

>> ONE LAST QUESTION TO ONE. PRETTY MUCH WOULD YOU ALL AGREE ON? HE SAID TWO WEEKS SHOULD DO 3250 AND REPLACE THE VALVES IN THE SEALS.

>> DO WE HAVE THAT IN WRITING SOMEWHERE.

>> I'M GOING TO REQUEST THAT FROM ROBERT.

WE RECEIVED A LETTER THIS MORNING REGARDING THIS MATTER.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE THREE DAYS THREE DAYS FOR ONE AND THREE DAYS FOR ANOTHER ONE. HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE LETTERHEAD.

ONE THING I DO REQUEST FROM ABM THAT THEY CONTINUOUSLY WORK DAYS ON THE RELIEF VALVES, CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF CONTINUOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE RELIEF VALVES, THAT'S ONE THING I DO REQUEST WHEN THEY'RE PERFORMING THIS TASK THAT THEY CONTINUOUSLY ARE WORKING ON THE PROJECT AND NOT OFTEN ON.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY?

>> NOT ABOUT THE BOILERS. >> I WILL ADD WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THE COMMUNICATION GOING FORWARD WE ARE DOING THREE, TWO, ONE. IT'S A SEQUENCE.

WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST ONE WHEN WE COMPLETE, NOT TO CREATE DOWNTIME BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS COMPLETE THREE AND MAKE SURE YOUR GROUP RATHER THAN TAKING BOILER NUMBER TWO OUT, THREE IS UP AND MAYBE SOME PEOPLE PROVE IT.

TO JUST GO THROUGH CLEAR SEQUENCE I WOULD LIKE TO DO THREE, HAVE IT REVIEWED AS HER GETTING READY TO START AT NUMBER TWO SO THERE IS NO MISCOMMUNICATION OR UNDERSTANDING. I JUST LIKE TO WORK ON BOTH

SIDES. >> LET'S MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE ONE WORK WITH ABM WITH AN AGREEMENT AND A TIMELINE AND

EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU DO. >> I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO MAKE A VOTE ON THAT IF THE COURT HAD TAKEN SOME OTHER ACTION THEN THAT WOULD NEED A VOTE. BUT AS IT STANDS, I BELIEVE THE

COURT IS GOOD. >> JUAN JUST MAKE SURE YOU GET

THIS IN WRITING. >> YES ARE WE JUST TALKED TO

ROBERT ABOUT IT. >> EXCUSE ME LAT JUAN.

WILL YOU BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSPECTING THE BOILERS?

>> YES IT'LL BE OUR STAFF AND ALSO HAVE THE GOVERNOR TO ASSIST

US WITH APART. >> IN THE MEETING YESTERDAY WE DISCUSSED EVERYONE IN THERE, THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WAS THERE, PUBLIC WORKS WAS THERE, MY OFFICE WAS THERE AND ABM. THAT COMMUNICATION NEEDS TO STAY ON EVERYTHING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[2. Receive update from ABM regarding the Nueces County Jail Air Handling Units (AHU) and Smoke Purge System; Discuss and consider action related to project schedule related to logistics within the Nueces County Jail; and related matters.]

[02:20:03]

BUT IF THAT'S ALL WE HAVE OF THE BOILERS DO WE WANT TO MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO IT IS STILL ABM, RECEIVE AN UPDATE REGARDING THE NUECES COUNTY JAIL AIR HANDLING UNITS AND SMOKE PURGE SYSTEM.

>> IS HIGH-LEVEL BECAUSE THINGS, THE DYNAMIC CHANGED YESTERDAY.

HIGH-LEVEL THE EQUIPMENT WAS RECEIVED AROUND THE LAST WEEK OF JANUARY SO WE DID HAVE A TEAM MEETING THAT INCLUDED THE SHERIFF AND CAPTAIN SO WE DISCUSSED THAT WAS SOME OF THE PARAMETERS ON WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T WORK AND ALSO WHAT WON'T WORK ON THEIR SIDE WITH THE INMATES.

WE ARE REEVALUATING THE SCHEDULE BASED ON A TEAM MEETING AHEAD THIS MORNING. HOPEFULLY IN A WEEKS DURATION I COME BACK AND SCHEDULE ANOTHER MEETING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS WE COULD BE DOING WITH TEMPORARY MEASURES JUST TO GAIN SOME INSIGHT AND ACCEPTANCE AND WE WILL UPDATE THE ACCORDINGLY. IT WAS OFFERED FROM THE CAPTAIN SIDE ESCORTS INITIALLY WE UNDERSTOOD WE WILL BE DOING ACCOMMODATION OF ESCORTS FROM THE JAIL AND PUBLIC WORKS AND AS WE DISCUSSED THAT YESTERDAY THEY OFFERED THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE THE ESCORTING TO ALLOW US TO WORK MORE THAN JUST THE FIRST SHIFT SO WE HAVE THAT IN CONSIDERATION AS WELL TO DO MULTIPLE SHIFTS WITH THE ESCORTS UNDERSIDE.

>> SHERIFF DID YOU WANT TO, ABOUT THIS ONE.

>> ARE CONCERNED WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CONTAIN COMPLIANCE AND THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN ADVISED AND WE HAVE CLARIFICATION FROM THEM THAT THIS IS A MAINTENANCE ONLY PROJECT OR IN FACT NOT A MAINTENANCE PROJECT BUT WE NEED TO BE IMPROVED BY THEM AND THIS COULD REQUIRE SUBMISSIONS ON THEIR PART.

>> JUDGING COMMISSION WHAT I WANTED TO ADD ON THAT SENSE IT'S GOING TO BE PROVIDING THE MANPOWER TO ASSIST WITH THIS PROJECT AND THEIR GOING OUT OF THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE 24 HOUR CONSTRUCTION FROM ABM TO GET THE FULL, SHOULD BETWEEN 47.

>> WERE VERY CLEAR WE CAN DO ALL THREE AT ONCE WE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ONE AND GO TO THE OTHER SIDE.

>> THAT'S WHAT WAS DISCUSSED YESTERDAY CONTRACTUALLY FOR IT WAS OUTLINED DIFFERENTLY BUT WHAT I DISCUSSED YESTERDAY WILL BRING THAT BACK AS TO WHAT WERE UP AGAINST.

I DID NOT SEE THE SHERIFF HERE BUT I THOUGHT GOOD INITIAL KICKOFF YESTERDAY AND KNOWING WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE MOVING FORWARD. IN REFERENCE TO THE JAIL STANDARDS. WHAT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY WE WILL WORK AS A TEAM FROM THE VOTE AND THE SHERIFF AND THE CAPTAIN AND NOT DOING SURPRISES WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THE SUBMITTALS OF OUR EQUIPMENTS AND THE IMPACT OR THE INTENT AND GAIN THE RIGHT APPROVAL.

WHETHER IT'S A MAINTENANCE REVIEW OR ANOTHER TYPE OF REVIEW PROCESS. WE WILL GAIN THE UNDERSTANDING IT OF WHAT THAT IS SO IT MINIMIZES THE IMPACT ON THEIR

STAFF WITH THEIR INMATES. >> AND ALYSSA BETWEEN 47.

>> IT WAS DISCUSSED I AGREE WE WILL WORK MULTIPLE SHIFTS.

THE ONLY THING I'M TRIED TO GET BACK FROM OUR VENDORS IS THE MANPOWER THAT IS OUT THERE. THE EMPLOYEES, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WORKING THREE SHIFTS. TWO SHIFTS IS A DEFINITE DAY YOU CAN PULL OFF BUT I NEED CONFIRMATION FROM THEM THAT THE MANPOWER IN THE INDIVIDUALS THAT THEY HAVE WILL WORK A THIRD

SHIFT. >> ORGAN HAVE TO.

>> SOME TRAJECTORY EIGHT HOUR SHIFTS AND SOMETIMES YOU CAN WORK THAT YOU HAVE 10 HOUR SHIFTS.

IT'S A PLAN AND PROGRESS UNDER PROCESS THAT HUNG THE FULL UPDATE JUST WITH THE DYNAMIC OF WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING YESTERDAY HOW SOON CAN YOU GET THE PLAN.

>> ALL BE BACK AGAIN I HAVE IT SCHEDULED IN TWO WEEKS BUT WERE LOOKING TO BE DOING ACTIONS GOING INTO NEXT WEEK TO GO INTO THE SECOND WEEK WITH MORE DETAILED INFORMATION.

[02:25:01]

THIS CAN BE MOVING STARTING FROM YESTERDAY AS WE STARTED WITH THE CONVERSATIONS OF THE PROJECT TEAM.

IS NOT GOING TO BE SITTING I IDLE.A LOT OF VISIBILITY FROM OR

TEAM. >> MAKE SURE YOU GET THAT READY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMISSIONERS?

>> I'M GOOD. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE IN THE UPDATE WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE COOPERATION

[3. Discuss and consider approval of the Certificate of Substantial Completion for the Calderon Building Roof Replacement Project.]

MOVING FORWARD, THANK YOU. >> MOVING ON ITEM THREE DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION TO THE CALLER ON BUILDING ROOF REPLACEMENT.

>> COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC WORKS IS RECOMMENDED THAT APPROVAL OF THE STATISTIC IT OF THE COMPLETION FROM THE BUILDING ROOF AND THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE AND THE SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. C4 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL

[4. Discuss and consider approval of the Certificate of Substantial Completion for the Calderon Building Clinic Renovation.]

OF THE CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION FOR THE CALL AROUND BUILDING CLINIC RE-NOVATION.

>> JUDGING COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC WORKS IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE COMPLETION LETTER FOR THE CLINIC RENOVATION UNTIL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN, THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

>> THE OTHER ONE I WANT TO BE WITH YOU LATER IS AWNING EVERYTHING IS COMPLETED BUT WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE

[5. Discuss and consider selection of Turner Ramirez Architects for Architectural Services for the Precinct 5 Constable Renovations; Discuss and consider approval of an Architectural Service Contract with Turner Ramirez Architects for the Precinct 5 Constable Renovations project.]

AWNING. >> ITEM NUMBER FIVE, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER SELECTION OF ATTORNEY RAMIREZ ARCHITECTS FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR THE PRECINCT FIVE.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[1. Discuss and consider conditional selection for RFQ No. 3222-22 Engineering Services for Community Development Block Grant – Mitigation (CBDG-MIT) Method of Distribution (MOD) with the Texas General Land Office (GLO).]

>> TAKE YOU COMMISSIONERS. >> I APPRECIATE IT MOVING ON TO D-1 PURCHASING DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION FOR RFQ NUMBER 3222-22 ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT.

>> SO MOVED. >> WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE IN THE SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE SAME SIGN?

[2. Discuss and consider conditional selection for RFQ No. 3223-22 Architectural Services for Community Development Block Grant - Mitigation (CBDG-MIT) Method of Distribution (MOD) with the Texas General Land Office (GLO).]

ITEM NUMBER DEED TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION FOR RFQ 3223 DASHED DUE TO ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR

COMMUNITY DEVELOP A BLOCK GRANT. >> SO MOVE.

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE COME ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU.

>> SORRY I NEED TO BE ON VIDEO TO REGISTER MY AYE, MY APOLOGY.

[3. Discuss and consider making a finding for the method of procurement (request for proposals) for Grant Management Services for Disaster Recovery (ARPA, COVID, & FEMA Public Assistance Program funds), authorize the Purchasing Agent to publish a notice, and adopt an order delegating evaluation authority to a selection committee.]

>> THE MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS CHESNEY.

>> CONSIDER A FINDING OF METHOD OF PROCUREMENT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR GRANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR DISASTER RECOVERY ARE BOTH COVID AND FEMA ASSISTANCE IN PUBLIC FUNDS.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN, THE MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU, YOU GOT AWAY LIGHTLY.

>> THANK YOU FOR MY STAFF. >> VERY GOOD JOB.

[1. Approve Capital Project Change Order No. 118.]

FOR THE AUDITOR, ITEM E1 APPROVE CAPITAL CHANGE ORDER 118.

>> I REQUEST THE DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF CAPITAL PROJECT 18 VIA REALLOCATING FUNDING FOR THE HVAC THAT IS APPROVED IN REALLOCATING COURTHOUSE SHIELD GENERATOR AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS COURT IN THE SHERIFF'S LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL SECURITY EQUIPMENT IN THE LAST FOUR AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED THEY WOULD USE FOR THE PORTION THE FUNDS FROM 2022, IT IS ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

[02:30:01]

SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

[2. Approve Budget Change Order No. 08 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.]

>> AYE. ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN.

ITEM NUMBER TWO APPROVED BUDGET CHANGE ORDER 0 EIGHT FOR FISCAL

YEAR '20 TWO -- 23. >> I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CHANGE ORDER NUMBER EIGHT WE ARE REALLOCATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE DISTRICT COURT TO COVER THE TEMPORARY COST DUE TO TRANSITIONAL PERSONNEL AS WELL AS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE 85000 AVAILABLE IN SALARY SAVINGS DUE TO VACANCIES AS THE STAFF PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED EARLIER TODAY AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO REALLOCATE SOME OF THOSE FUNDS FOR THE COST OF THE TEMPORARY AS WELL AS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE.

THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WILL NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE BUDGET FOR THE FOLLOWING BUDGET YEAR SO IT IS BUDGETED.

>> INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH TRANSPORTS?

>> I BELIEVE IT IS WITH POOR ARANSAS.

>> IT IS NOT WITH THE TRANSPORT IT'S AN ONGOING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND WHATEVER THE BUDGET WAS REVISED FOR THE NEW METRO CALM. IT WAS ALLOCATED IT HAD BEEN ADDED TO THE AGENDA BUT METRO CALM WAS ONLY BUDGETED FOR METRO CALM AND THEY FORGOT THERE IS ANOTHER IN A LOCAL AGREEMENT

WITH SAM PATRIZIO COUNTY. >> HAVE A MOTION.

>> SECOND COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ.

A MOTION IN THE SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

[1. Discuss and consider the approval to use of salary savings generated by a current vacancy to cover the cost of reclassifications for the remainder of Fiscal Year 22/23 and reduce Social Services (4110) operating budget for Fiscal Year 23/24 by $550 to offset the reclassification costs.]

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN.

MOVING ONTO F, HUMAN RESOURCES, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL FOR SALARY SAVINGS GENERATED BY CURRENT VACANCY FOR RECLASSIFICATION FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2022 -- 23 TO REDUCE SOCIAL SERVICES 411 0 OPERATING BUDGET.

>> THAT IS MY DEPARTMENT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION, I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU

[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.]

REBECCA FOR STAYING. ITEM EE I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE WE DID NOT GET TO DISCUSS.

I SAID EE. F2 WE WILL DISCUSS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO NOW WERE GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. I BELIEVE WE ARE READY TO DO

THAT AT 1137. >> TIMEOUT, HOLD ON.

>> SORRY. >> CLARIFICATION ON THE DISCUSS DELIVERY AND SELECTION OF HUMAN RESOURCES MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO GOING TO THE SAME RULES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION IT CAN BE A DELIBERATION AND A PERSONAL MATTER AND WOULD FALL DIFFERENTLY AND WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE UNDER THE SAME VEIN OF RECORDING BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGES THIS IS A PERSONNEL AND THAT THE DIFFERENT CATEGORY.

I NEED A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THAT BECAUSE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT WE DID OUR INTERVIEWS IT WASN'T RECORDED AND WE DIDN'T NEED TO DISCUSS. YOU ARE RIGHT.

>> I COULD DISCUSS THIS WITH THE COURT DURING EXECUTIVE JUST SESSION, THE LAW ARE RELATED TO THIS.

IF THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. >> THE LAW APPROPRIATE SHOULD KNOW BEFORE WE CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION WE DEAL NO FIT NEEDS TO BE CALLED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN THE WHOLE REAL LITANY OF IT.

>> I DON'T WANT TO DO IT TWICE AND CALL BACK.

>> INTO RECORD THIS THIS IS THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DELIBERATING ON WITH NEVER HAD THAT BEFORE BUT WE HAD TO DELIBERATE THE ATTORNEY IN THE ROOM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT SO IT SHOULDN'T BE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BUT I DON'T KNOW.

>> IN SUMMARY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WE COULD USE A CERTIFIED AGENDA WHICH IS WHAT THE COURT PREVIOUSLY USED OR WE COULD RECORD IT. INSTEAD OF RECORDING WE COULD

USE A CERTIFIED AGENDA. >> THE CERTIFIED AGENDA IS WHAT THE COURT TRADITIONALLY USES FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WHERE THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT THE EXCEPTIONS ARE LISTED IN BEING APPLIED AND IT GETS KEPT BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY THAT USED TO USE THEM. THAT'S ALTERNATIVE TO RECORDING.

>> OKAY CERTIFIED AGENDA, SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.

>> THE ALTERNATIVE TO RECORDING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO USE A CERTIFIED AGENDA WHICH IS A 1 - 2 PAGE DOCUMENT THAT

[02:35:01]

EXPLAINS THE EXCEPTION THAT IS USED IN EXECUTIVE.

>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS EVEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

>> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE OUT IN PUBLIC, YES IT CAN

BE DONE OUT IN PUBLIC. >> IF IT GOES TO DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERED EXECUTIVE SESSION IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS WE CAN CHOOSE TO HAVE OR NOT HAVE RECORDING OR NOT HAVE THE ATTORNEY IN THERE BECAUSE THIS IS A IN ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE KIND OF THING IN THE DELIBERATION ON A PERSONNEL MATTER.

YOU'RE SAYING WE WOULD MAKE A MOTION NOW IF WE CHOSE TO DO A CERTIFIED AGENDA ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

I WOULD PUT THAT TO THE COURT'S CONSIDERATION.

THIS IS DIFFERENT THIS IS A PERSONNEL MATTER.

>> WE COULD STILL COME BACK OUT AND IF THERE IS A DECISION-MAKING DECISION OR ANNOUNCE SOMETHING ON IT IF WE

GO IN AND DELIVERING. >> WERE NOT DISCUSSING WITH ANYBODY WERE JUST DISCUSSING THE APPLICATION.

>> WERE DELIBERATING. >> AND ASSESSED POSSIBLY MAKE A

SELECTION. >> I THINK WE SHOULD GO BEHIND

DOORS. >> AND USE A CERTIFIED AGENDA ON

THAT PROJECT THE ITEM. >> AND NOT RECORD.

>> THAT WOULD BE UNDER 551.103 CERTIFIED AGENDA OR RECORDING REQUIRED. SO THERE THE COURT WOULD USE A

CERTIFIED AGENDA. >> RIGHT I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO DO THE DELIBERATION AND SELECTION OR THE DELIBERATION OF DIRECTOR SERVICES AS A CERTIFIED AGENDA NOT A RECORDED EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND THE SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.

ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN, THE MOTION PASSES.

NOW WE ARE READY, DO WE DO THIS AND COME BACK TO EXECUTIVE OR

CAN WE DO EXECUTIVE NOW TO. >> IT'S ALL EXECUTIVE IS JUST A DIFFERENT KIND OF EXECUTIVE. FRANCISCO IS THAT RIGHT?

>> IT IS 11:42 A.M. I AM CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. PUBLIC NOTICE GIVEN THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY ELECT TO GO INTO 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'S BEEN A PAST PRACTICE OF DISTINGUISHING ITEMS FOR PUBLIC DELIBERATION AND THOSE WERE EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT THE COURT IS DEPARTING FROM THE 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 THIS SECTION OR SECTIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED BY THE RESIDING OFFICER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT CODE BURNING STICKS SECTION 551 07 1551.0 07 TWO, 551.07 FOUR, 551.07 45. 551.07 46, 551.0 86, 551.0 87, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL HOLD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH THE ATTORNEYS INCLUDING MATTERS RELATED TO LITIGATION DELIBERATE REGARDING REAL PROPERTY, PERSPECTIVE GIFTS, PERSONNEL MATTERS INCLUDING DETERMINATION, SECURITY DEVICES AND OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS THAT MAY BE DISCUSSED IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. UPON COMPLETING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY END OPEN SECTION INTAKE ACTION ON THE ITEMS DISCUSSED IN THE EXEC EXECUTIVE SESSION.

ITEM A WE WILL CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO CODE 551.07 ONE REGARDING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF MARY ALEXANDRA MEDINA'S EMPLOYMENT GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE RESULTING FROM THIS MEDINA'S TERMINATION ON AUG AUGUST 12, 2022. ITEM B CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WITH LEGAL MATTERS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT IN CASE 2021 DE CV 4839-EIGHT THE IS STILL SENIOR DECEASED WITH NO OASIS COUNTY TEXAS AND ABM BUILDING SERVICES INC.

AUTHORIZED EXPEDITED THE ISSUANCE OF RELATED MATTERS IN TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.07 ONE.

>> YOUR HONOR I BELIEVE THE COURT IS ALSO GOING TO DELIBERATE THE SELECTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND

[02:40:02]

THAT WOULD BE UNDER 551-POINT 07 FOUR.

>> I THOUGHT WE JUST SAID WERE GOING TO DO THAT CERTIFIED.

IS THAT DIFFERENT NOW. >> IT WOULD BE IN EXECUTIVE AS WELL IN THE CERTIFIED AGENDA IS USED IN THE COURT WANTS THE

CERTIFIED AGENDA. >> OF HUMAN RESOURCES AS PER 551.07

[A. Discuss and take necessary action to finalize settlement agreement of Mary Alexandra Medina's termination on August 2, 2022.]

>> MOTION TO EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF MARY ALEXANDRIA MEDINA AS A RECOMMENDATION BY THE COUNTY

ATTORNEY. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE PAID ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN,

[B. Discuss and consider authorizing settlement in Case No. 2021DCV 4839-H; The Estate Of William R. Durrill, Sr., Deceased vs. Nueces County, Texas and ABM Building Services, Inc.; authorize expedited issuance of settlement check, and related matters.]

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUS. ITEM FIVE AB COAKLEY DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT IN CASE OF 21 PCV 4839-H THE ESTATE OF WILLIAM R SENIOR DECEASED VERSUS NUECES COUNTY TEXAS AND ABM WELDING SERVICES ISSUANCE OF A SETTLEMENT CHECK

>> YES YOU ARE GOOD. >> IN THE AMOUNT OF $18000 WITH PREJUDICE AND THE CHECK BE WRITTEN AND DELIVERED IN 14 D

DAYS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO THE SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE, SAME SIGN.

>> THE PAYMENT IS APPROVED EARLY RELEASE BY THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE SO THE PAYMENT CAN BE RELEASED UPON ISSUANCE, IS THAT

CORRECT. >> SO MOVED.

>> TO WE DID HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND?

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

>> GOING BACK FIRST RIFF TUMOR ITEMS ON THE REGULAR AGENDA 3C1.

THERE IS ALSO AN EXTENSION THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING FROM BANK OF AMERICA THE EXTENSION FOR THE JOB COMPLETION.

EXTENSION WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR IN APRIL AND THE COURT DID APPROVE THIS. EXTENSION GOES THROUGH MARCH 31 I THINK OF THIS YEAR. THE NEW REQUEST IS FOR AN EXTENSION OF 120 DAYS. THE FINAL LETTER OF EXTENSION WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THEY DO NOT HAVE A FINALIZED NUMBER ASKING FOR YOUR PERMISSION WHEN THEY PRESENTED.

>> THE ISSUE WE DON'T SIGN THE EXTENSION THEN WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD THE MONEY LEFT OVER WILL GO BACK INTO PAY ON THE PRINCIPAL AND WERE DOWN TO $7 MILLION LEFT ON THE $32 MILLION JOB AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FINISH THE JOB.