[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:17] IF YOU STAFFED FOR THE INVOCATION. THE PASTOR AND THE PLEDGE AS WELL. >> I WANT TO SAY WHAT AN HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO BE BEFORE YOU. IT IS A JOY. REALLY, IT IS A JOY. I BELIEVE -- I HAVE THE BELIEF THAT EVERYTHING THAT AMERICA SHOULD BE RESIDES HERE IN OUR COUNTY. AND I BELIEVE IT IS BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK FOR THE BEST WELFARE OF OUR COUNTY. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. POW YOUR HEADS. LET'S PRAY. FATHER GOD, YOU ARE SO GOOD AND FAITHFUL AND THANK YOU FOR THIS WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW US TO GET TOGETHER. THE BIBLE TELLS US WISDOM AND COUNSEL OF MANY. FATHER, I PRAY TODAY THAT IN THIS ASSEMBLY THAT WISDOM -- THAT WISDOM MAY BE BEFORE US. WE PRAY THE SAME THING THAT MOSES PRAYS. WE DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT YOUR PRESENCE GOING BEFORE US. FATHER, I PRAY TODAY THAT YOU GIVE THEM STRENGTH AND YOU GIVE THEM ENDURANCE AND THE CAPACITY TO MAKE WISE DECISIONS TODAY FOR THE FUTURE OF NUECES COUNTY. LORD, I PRAY TODAY, I SPEAK CONTINUED SUCCESS TO EVERYTHING THAT IS TO COME TO OUR COUNTRY AND EVERYTHING THAT IS TO COME TO OUR COUNTY. GOD, I PRAY THAT YOU -- THAT YOUR WISDOM, YOUR MERCY AND YOUR GRACE DWELL WITH US TODAY, FATHER. WE THANK YOU. YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE GLORY FROM WHAT HAPPENS HERE TODAY. WE LOVE YOU. IN THE NAME OF JESUS WE PRAY, AM AMEN. JU . >> HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BE THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IT IS 9:07 NOW AND WE ARE WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 9, 091 LEOPARD, THE NUECES COUNTY COURT ROOM AND WE HAVE A QUORUM OF MEMBERS PRESENT. PLEASE SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ STEPPED OUT AND HE IS [D. ANNOUNCEMENT ON DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Any Conflicts of Interest or Appearance of a Conflict of Interest with items on this agenda shall be declared at this time. Members with conflicts will refrain from voting and are asked to refrain from discussion on such items. Conflicts discovered later in the meeting shall be disclosed at that time.] PRESENT HE WILL BE BACK IN I AM CERTAIN. ANNOUNCEMENTS OF DISCLOSURES OR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. AND IF ANYONE HAS LATER, YOU CAN ALSO DISCLOSE IT AT THAT TIME. [E. BUDGET WORKSHOP WILL BEGIN AT 9:00 A.M. The Court will discuss matters related to the 2023-2024 Budget. CLOSE BUDGET WORKSHOP AND CONVENE REGULAR MEETING AT 11:00 A.M.] WE WILL GO RIGHT INTO OUR BUDGET WORKSHOP. AND I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO LI LISA. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. GOOD MORNING, JUDGE. I PLACED ON EVERYONE'S DESK -- THERE WAS A LAST MINUTE REVISION WE RECEIVED FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON FRIDAY AT 11:15 A.M. I WAS IN A RAP BID HURRY TO GET THOSE CALCULATIONS RECALCULATED WITH THOSE REVISIONS. AND I HAD A TYPO. IT'S ON ME. AND I OWN THAT. I HAD A TYPO IN MY HAYES TO RECALCULATE. AND SO WHAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA HAD A MINOR -- AND I DO MEAN MINOR, A VERY SMALL CHANGE, BUT I DID GIVE YOU THE REVISED, AND THEY ARE ALL IN FRONT OF YO YOU. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT'S THIS? >> YES, SIR, THAT IS THAT. OKAY. SO FIRST, WE ARE GOING TO DISCUSS THE -- AND THEY WERE IN THE CORRECT ORDER FOR YOU TOO. THE COMPARISON OF NET TAXABLE VALUE. CAN YOU SEE THAT ON THE SCREEN? DO YOU NEED TO ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SO WE GET THE WHOLE SCREEN. YES, WE HAVE IT IN FRONT OF US AS WELL. >> GOING THROUGHOUT COMPARISON OF THE NET TAXABLE VALUE. THE VERY TOP CALCULATION THAT YOU WILL SEE IS THE GENERAL FUND, M&O AND DEBT SERVICE --M ANDO IS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION AND THE DEBT CALCULATION RATE AND THOSE TWO ARE COMBINED TOGETHER. WHENEVER YOU ARE CALCULATING FOR THE GENERAL FUND. YOU WILL SEE THE COMPARISON OF THE 2022 TO THE 2023 TAX YEAR. AS YOU CAN SEE, OUR TAXABLE VALUE THAT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT HAS INCREASED BY 21.14%. THAT IS -- THAT IS THE [00:05:05] REFINERIES. IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. THE MAJORITY OF THAT $8.1 BILLION INCREASE ARE THE REFINERIES THAT WILL -- THAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING TO BE DISPUTED VIA LAWSUIT. I DON'T KNOW THE STATUS OF THAT CURRENTLY, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS OUR ANTICIPATION. AND IT IS AN EDUCATED ANTICI ANTICIPATION. CHEST COMMITTEES LISA, THE NEW DMM WHERE IT AGE INCALLY WENT FROM $6.2 MILLION TO $5.5 BILLION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AFTER EVALUATION TO RE-EVALUATE THEIR ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THEY ORIGINALLY ASSESS AND THE THEY CERTIFIED BOTH REFINERIES AT ABOUT 6.5 -- OVER $6.5 BILLION AND PREVIOUSLY ABOUT $1 BILLION TO $172 BILLION. AN INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 500%. THEY THEN CAME BACK AND LOWERED THOSE APPRAISED VALUES DOWN TO 2.5. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THOSE NUMBERS ARE REFLECTED IN HERE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. WITH THE REDUCED VALUES. HAD THEY REMAINED AT THE 6, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN HIGHER. AND THE WAY THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE IS CALCULATED, VERY SIMPLY PUT, I MEAN THERE IS A LOT OF -- A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS BUT WHENEVER YOUR APPRAISED VALUE GOES UP, YOUR TAX RATE GOES DOWN, BECAUSE THE NO NEW -- THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE CALCULATES THE -- ESSENTIALLY THE SAME REVENUES. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY IN ONE TAX YEAR AND LOOK AT THOSE EXACT SAME PROPERTIES IN THE FOLLOWING TAX YEAR EXCLUDING VALUE, THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. IF THOSE PROPERTIES GO UP, YOUR TAX RATE WILL GO DOWN SO YOU GET ESSENTIALLY THE SAME REVENUES FOR THE SAME PROPERTIES YEAR-OVER-YEAR. AND YOUR VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE ISN'T ACTUALLY A TAX RATE THAT INCLUDES VOTER APPROVAL. AND A TAX RATE, IF YOU EXCEED IT, IT REQUIRES VOTER APPROVAL. SO A LIMIT WITHOUT INITIATING THAT ELECTION. GOING BACK TO THE -- WE WILL GET TO ALL THAT GOING FURTHER BACK. THE ROLLING RAILROAD IT WENT UP BY $1.2 MILLION. THE VALUES OF PROPERTY UNDER PROTEST. THE REFINERIES ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THAT NUMBER. THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO CERTIFY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE AND THEY WANT BE ABLE TO CERTIFY THAT PERCENTAGE IF THE REFINERIES WERE IN THAT AMOUNT -- JUST A SECOND. LET ME GET A DRINK. AND THEN YOUR TAX BILLING ARE THOSE PROPERTIES IN WHICH THEY SET THE CEILING FOR YOUR -- FOR YOUR OVER 65. YOUR DISABLED VETERANS. THOSE PROPERTIES IN WHICH YOU CAN'T EXCEED A KNOWN THRESHOLD AND THAT THRESHOLD LIMIT. AND SO YOU ARE SUBTRACTING THAT EXCESS THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COLLECT PAUSE OF THOSE THRESHOLDS. YOUR TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE WITH THE REFINERY'S EVALUATION, IS INCREASED BY 20.05%. THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE TO SAY THE LEAST. YOUR FARM-TO-MARKET. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR FARM-TO-MARKET AND YOUR GENERAL FUND IS THAT THE GENERAL FUND. IT IS NOT REFLECTED IN THIS NUMBER, BUT THE GENERAL FUND DEBT HAS TIFS THAT THE BOARD ASSERTS THAT THE FARM-TO-MARKET DOES NOT HAVE SO THOSE VALUES ARE GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. THERE IS ALSO ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE TO ADD TO THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE THAT YOU CAN FOR THE GENERAL FUND RATES THAT YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO USE FOR THE FARM-TO-MARKET. THEN THE THIRD -- THE THIRD TAXABLE VALUE. IT IS FOR THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT. COMPARING YOUR 2022 TO YOUR 2023 YEAR AN INCREASE OF 19.85%. THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY -- THEY DON'T HAVE ANY TAX BILLING. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY FROZEN PROPERTIES. THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE ANY CERTS OR TIFS. AS RETURNING MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL REMEMBER, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ADOPT UP TO THE 8% OVER THE NO [00:10:04] NEW REVENUE RATE WHEREAS THE COUNTY CAN ONLY ADOPT 3.5. YES, SIR? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: QUESTION BACK ON THE CERTIFIED APPRAISAL ROLE, IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THESE REFINERIES SOMEHOW RESOLVE THE 23 -- RESOLVE FIVE YEARS, 18 TO 22. BOLERO HAS SOME BIG MEDIATION TODAY. IF THEY WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE IT, IS IT TOO FAR PAST THE CERTIFIED TAX ROLL TO WHERE WE -- WE COULD GO BACK AND FIX THINGS IF THEY ARE NOT GOING TO DISPUTE THINGS? OR WHAT IS THE LAW ON THAT. OR DO YOU -- >> I WOULD DEFER TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING ANY LAWS. I BELIEVE THAT AS FAR AS IF WE WERE TO GET NEW CERTIFIED NUMBERS WHICH IS CONSIDERED SUPPLEMENT FROM THE APPRAISAL DISSTWRAKT JUST LIKE I DID ON FRIDAY. IF YOU GET ANY SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION, YOU CAN GO BACK AND RECALCULATE THE TAX RATES. YOU DO HAVE TO START OVER. I WOULD THEN HAVE TO RESUBMIT THE TAX RATES TO COMMISSIONERS COURT. AND IT ALL DEPENDS ON FAR ALONG IN THE PROCESS YOU ARE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LIKE TODAY -- TODAY, WE ARE VOTING ON THIS TAX -- >> NO, NO VOTE TODAY. YOU ARE JUST RECEIVING THE CALCULATIONS OF THE NEW NEW REVENUE RATE. ON THE 23RD, YOU WILL BE VOTING ON A PROPOSED TAX RATE FOR THE -- FOR NUECES COUNTY FARM-TO-MARKET AND HOSPITAL DISTRICT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: BETWEEN NOW AND THE 23RD, WE CAN CERTAINLY MAKE ADJUSTMENTS AND A HASSELL AND COME FOR ANOTHER MEETING AND SO FORTH BECAUSE WE HAVE LEGAL GUIDELINES WE HAVE TO MAKE THE VOTES BY AND THE 23[L]R[L]D IS ONE OF THEM. AND I DON'T KNOW -- I THINK THERE IS A HIGH -- CERTAINLY A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT THESE MAGICALLY COME DOWN FROM 6.5 BILLION TO $5.25 BILLION. THERE COULD BE VERY SOLVE THE GAP. WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON THE 23RD AND RESUBMIT AND START OVER. >> I WOULD BE ABLE TO IF WE COULD SCHEDULE -- WE HAVE WORKSHOPS, I BELIEVE, SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY AND THURSDAY. I DON'T KNOW -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: 14TH AND 17TH. >> SPILL HAVE TO DEFER TO COUNTY ATTORNEY TO SEE IF THERE WAS A REQUIRED TIME PERIOD BETWEEN THOSE. I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MISTAKE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SOMEONE NEEDS TO HAVE THIS READY TO GO AND THE WHOLE HANDLING OF THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT WILL HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT CAREFULLY BY THE INDEPENDENT BOARD. BACK AND FORTH, ALL AROUND, GOING FROM $2 BILLION TO $6 BILLION HAS BEEN RIDICULOUS THE AMOUNT OF WORK IT HAS PUT ALL THESE ENTITIES TOO, ALL THE PAIN AND SUFFERING AND TO GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH THAT THINKING WE WILL GO ONE THING 6.2 MILLION TO 557 CERTAINLY SMELLS A LITTLE FUNNY AND HOPEFULLY THAT APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD WILL LOOK CLOSELY AT THAT. THE AMOUNT OF AGONY AND WORK THAT IT PUT NOT JUST NUECES COUNTY BUT THE DEL MAR AND THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND EVERYONE ELSE HAS BEEN A JOKE. AN ABSOLUTE JOKE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. WITH THAT SAID, WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THIS PROCESS DOWN. BECAUSE IF BY SOME MIRACLE THEY DO RESOLVE THIS AND SETTLE AND THESE NUMBERS COME BACK AND WE ARE ON AN EVEN TIGHTER TIME FRAME. WE HAVE TO SHOVE THIS INTO A BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME BECAUSE OF ALL THIS UNCERTAINTY CREATED BY THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. SO I JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT THIS DOWN SO WE KNOW WHAT WE HAVE GOT TO DO IF BY SOME MAGICAL THING IT SETTLES. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CHESNEY. EVEN FROM THE BEGINNING, YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS SAID -- OR WE SAID, YOU KNOW, THE SPREAD IS WAY -- FROM ONE EXTREME TO THE OTHER EXTREME AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CHIME UP WITH THAT. WE HAVE ACTUALLY TWO OPTIONS. THE NO NEW REVENUE TEXT AND THE VOTER APPROVED 3.5 -- >> YOU ARE JUMPING WAY AHEAD. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SHE WILL GET TO THAT IN A MOMENT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: LET ME JUST MAKE MY CASE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF $1 MILLION FROM BOTH OF THOSE. >> YES, SIR, I WILL GO OVER EXACTLY WHAT THAT DIFFERENCE IS, BUT YES, SIR. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU ARE CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU ARE GOING TO GET TO -- WE GOT AHEAD OF YOU. [00:15:03] IT IS WHAT I DO AND JOHN POINTS IT OUT TO ME ALL THE TIME. I APPRECIATE THAT. NO, I AM BEING FUNNY. YOU WILL TELL US AT THE END OF THIS SOMEWHERE BECAUSE I COULDN'T READ IT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT, HOW MUCH OF A BUDGET DEFICIT WE ARE LOOKING AT BASED ON THE NUMBERS AS THEY ARE TODAY. >> THE NUMBERS AS THEY ARE TODAY, YES. WE ARE -- BUDGET IS EXTREMELY IN THE VERY -- LET'S SAY PRIMITIVE STATE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SURE. >> WE ARE STILL GATHERING BUDGET INFO. WHEN LOOKING OVER THE BUDGET YESTERDAY, I FOUND THAT THERE WERE SOME ITEMS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR THAT ARE CONTRACTUAL RATE INCREASES SO WE HAVE TO ADD THOSE TO THE BUDGET. SO LIKE I SAID, THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW IS VERY FLUID. VERY -- IT'S -- IT IS -- FOR EXPENSE PURPOSES, FOR REVENUE PURPOSES FOR THAT MATTER. IT IS VERY, VERY FLUID UNTIL WE GET THAT PROPOSED, UNTIL WE GET SOME DIRECTION FROM COMMISSIONERS COURT, IT IS GOING TO STAY EXTREMELY FLUID. UNTIL WE ARE ABLE TO GET ALL THE DATA INPUT INTO THE BUDGET. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WHAT YOU SAID WAS CONTRACTUAL THAT WE HAVE TO. >> YES, WE HAVE TO. FOR INSTANCE, THE -- THE RICO C COPIERS. IT WAS -- IT IS IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING ENTERED INTO RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE A FEW OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. I AM GOING TO HAVE A LIST FOR YOU FROM EVERY ADJUST THAT WE ARE GOING -- THAT WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO MAKE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL -- FROM THE ORIGINAL WORKSHOP NOTEBOOKS THAT YOU WILL BE GETTING. I AM HOPING TOMORROW OR FRIDAY, BUT I AM TRYING TO BE REALISTIC HERE, BUT FROM THE ORIGINAL WORKSHOP NOTEBOOKS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE GIVING YOU FOR MONDAY'S MEETING ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROPOSED -- I AM GOING TO KEEP A LISTING OF ANYTHING THAT IS ADDED OR SUBTRACTED AT THE DIRECTION OF COMMISSIONERS COURT. WE WOULD REALLY LOVE TO GET THAT FEEDBACK FROM YOU SO WE CAN HAVE A REALLY GOOD PROPOSED GOING IN. AND WE CAN SEE WHERE -- WHERE WE REALLY ARE AT THE PROPOSED AND THEN MAKE THE FINAL CHANGES NECESSARY AT THE VERY END AND HAVE A GOOD BASE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IF WE DON'T HAVE IT, HARD FOR US -- HAVE A HARD TIME BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN TOLD FIVE DIFFERENT NUMBERS IN MY MEANINGS IN THE WEEKENDS AND PLANS FOR TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE. >> CONSTANTLY CHANGING, YES. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY RAPID CHANGE WHEN WE DO HAVE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS SO WE NEED THE CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT WE ARE BEING PRESENTED IS GOING TO BE ACTUAL. THIS HAS BEEN A CRAZY YEAR. I KNOW IT HAS BEEN FOR Y'ALL TOO. IT HAS BEEN MY FIRST TIME, BUT THERE IS NO WAY FOR ME -- EVERY TIME I MOVE FORWARD, I THINK THIS IS THIS. AND IT IS NOT AND THEN A CHANGE AND AN ADJUSTMENT. >> WHICH IS WHY I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW FIRST THING GOING FORWARD THAT WHILE REVIEWING THE NUMBERS JUST YESTERDAY, WE REALIZED, OH, WE ARE MISSING THIS. OH, WE ARE MISSING -- THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE STILL TRYING TO GET THOSE NOTEBOOKS TOGETHER. WHENEVER WE GET THEM TO YOU, WE WANT TO GIVE GOOD NUMBERS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I DON'T KNOW IF I AM CONNECT AND IF I MIGHT BE WRONG OR SOMETHING, BUT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO GET THE MONTHLY REPORTS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THE END OF THE YEAR WOULD BE FIGURED OUT A LOT SOONER WHERE WE KNOW THIS YEAR -- NEXT YEAR WILL BE CRAZY AND PART OF THE PROBLEM NOT GETTING ALL THE INFORMATION ON LAST YEAR'S STUFF. >> THE CURRENT YEAR. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SIX MONTHS LATER. I KNOW THE WORKDAY IS GOING ON. A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON. THAT IS A REQUIREMENT AND THAT SHOULD BE CORRECTED, YES. >> YES, MA'AM. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LET ME FOLLOW UP ON THAT. TODAY, I THOUGHT WHAT THIS WAS GOING TO PRODUCE -- YOU PRODUCED A TON OF GOOD DATA. I APPRECIATE IT. YOU HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB ON THIS. A LOT OF OPTIONAL STUFF ON THIS BLUE LIST. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO IT YET, BUT HARD TO UNDERSTAND IN A NICE SUCCINCT PACKAGE BECAUSE IT IS SO GIVE AS WE GO THROUGH THIS STUFF. AND MY QUESTION IS FOR TODAY. AND I UNDERSTAND IT CAN CHANGE, BUT MY QUESTION IS FOR TODAY IS, EVERYTHING THAT IS CONTRACTUAL OR -- WE ARE OBLIGATED TO -- NOT THAT WE VOTED ON YET OR THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN HERE THAT -- I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE INCREASING ANYTHING AT ALL THIS YEAR UNTIL I SEE NUMBERS THAT AREN'T SHOWING US IN A HUGE HOLE. SO I NEED TO KNOW TODAY WHERE YOU PROJECT THE BUDGET TO BE. MEANING, IS IT -- TODAY. AND WE NEED TO PREFACE THAT BY [00:20:01] SAYING IT CAN CHANGE TOMORROW. AND IT HAS. BUT TODAY IS TODAY. WE ARE IN AUGUST. WE ARE NORMALLY WAY FARTHER THAN WE ARE. NOT AT YOUR FAULT. AGAIN, POINTING BACK TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND HOW THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN HANDLED AND WHATEVER ROLE -- NOT JUST PICKING ON THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT ONLY. ALWAYS DISPUTE BETWEEN THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE TWO REFINERIES ON THIS. THAT IS OKAY. THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DISPUTE. WE ARE HERE NOW. WE ARE GETTING REAL CLOSE WHEN WE NEED TO MAKE VOTES. I NEED FOR YOU TO TELL US IN THIS PRESENTATION WHAT THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE PROJECT OUR BUDGET TO LOOK LIKE. ARE WE IN THE HOLE OR NOT? I HEARD ALL KIND OF NUMBERS. >> THERE IS -- THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE WILL NOT BE IN THE HOLE. THAT IS A GIVEN. UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTION TO EXCEED THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE, NUECES COUNTY IS GOING TO BE IN THE HOLE. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THAT. 37. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AS OF TODAY, BECAUSE I AM GOING TO LISTEN TO EVERYTHING THAT YOU PRESENT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO, BECAUSE I AM GOING TO LOOK AT WHERE -- AND THIS COURT DOES. IF WE HAVE TO MAKE CUTS, WE GOT TO BE ABLE TO WORK ON WHERE THOSE CUTS ARE. WE HAVE GOT TO GO BACK TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS AND SAY WE ARE LOOKING AT A BLANK MILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. YOU NEED TO HELP US DEPARTMENT HEADS, ELECTED OFFICIALS. YOU NEED TO HELP US BY SEEING WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT THINGS. I DON'T DON'T WANT TO TELL CAROL OR KEVIN WHAT TO DO. I WANT TO LOOK AT THEM AS A PARTNER AND SAY WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER. THEY ALL RUN THEIR OFFICES VERY EFFICIENTLY, RIGHT. I KNOW THAT. AS DO WE, BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO BE FIVE, SIX, EIGHT, WHATEVER IT MILLION IN THE HOLE, WE NEED TO KNOW THIS. WHAT IS THAT NUMBER, BEST CASE FROM JENKS. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WILL HAVE TO START WITH US TOO. WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT WE NEED -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: PROJECTS AND WHATEVER. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: NOT JUST DEPARTMENT HEADS. WE HAVE TO BE -- OURSELVES, YOU KNOW, BE ABLE TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE TABLE AND SAY. WHY ARE WE ASKING DEPARTMENT HEADS FOR EVERYTHING. THE EMPLOYEES -- I WOULD NEVER CONSIDER EMPLOYEE REDUCTION. THAT WILL BE THE LAST THING I WOULD EVEN CONSIDER. I AM JUST SAYING, WE NEED TO START WITH US. BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GIVE THOSE MONIES FROM CERTAIN PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE WHETHER WE WANT TO OR NOT. I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO START. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THAT BUT I NEED TO KNOW. IF IT IS $1 MILLION, WE CAN DO THAT IN 15 MINUTES. $10 MILLION, THAT IS GOING TO BE ROUGH. AS TODAY -- I AM GOING TO ASK TODAY, BASE AND WHAT YOU SEE ONLY ON WHAT WE ARE OBLIGATED TO DO. WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY COMMISSIONER OR JUDGE INPUT WHAT IS THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE IS LOOKING FOR THE DEFICIT AS OF AUGUST 9, 2023. >> IT IS EXTREME HARD TO TELL YOU WHAT THE BUDGET IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE WITHOUT ANY FEEDBACK AS TO WHAT YOU WANT FOR EXPENSES. WE KNOW WHAT CONTRACT -- WHAT CONTRACTUALLY YOU ARE REQUIRED; HOWEVER, JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A CONTRACT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE COULD NOT CHOOSE TO GET OUT OF SAID CONTRACT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT IS NOT MY QUESTION. >> AND GO A DIFFERENT WAY. COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS A LOT OF CHOICE THIS HE GET TO MAKE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU NEED TO TELL US WHERE WE ARE TODAY. >> THAT IS WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON GETTING FOR YOU. IF. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YESTERDAY WE ARE UNDER A CONTRACT -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT IS A VOTE FOR A LATER DAY. I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE AUDITOR IS PROJECTING AS OF TODAY, NO CUTS, NO CONTRACTUAL GET OUTS. >> WE ARE A LITTLE OUT TOPIC. >> MAY WANT TO SHOW K-2 WITH 100% EXPENSES WHAT THE PROJECTION. >> LIKE I SAID, WE ARE GOING TO GET THERE. BUT I AM -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE WILL LET YOU DO YOUR PRESENTATION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WANT TO KNOW -- THIS IS THE ONLY THING I WANT TO KNOW TODAY. THIS IS MY NUMBER ONE QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS RIGHT NOW. I'M GET THERE WILL NOW. YOU CAN GO THROUGH AURAL THE PRESENTATION, BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE ARE STARTING AT. WE GOT TO START LOOKING AT THIS STUFF. WHAT DO YOU PROJECT -- DALE AT ONE POINT SAID THREE TO SEVEN. I HEARD 10, 14. A HUGE DIFFERENT. >> VARIED A LOT -- WHENEVER YOU ARE TALKING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN A VALUE OF THE REFINERIES AT 6.5. THAT GOES DOWN TO 2.5, THAT IS $4 BILLION IN VALUE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE WERE TALKING ABOUT $25 MILLION OR $30 MILLION. >> EXACTLY. THE REASON THE RANGE KEEPS CHANGING IS BECAUSE WE ARE -- WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET A BULLS EYE ON A MOVING TARGET. AND IT IS AN EXTREMELY CHALLENGING -- [00:25:03] >>JUDGE SCOTT: ASKING FOR PAGE 6 AND PAGE 7. >> IF YOU WERE WANTING JUST A REVENUE PROJECTION, YOU WILL WANT TO GO -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE ANTICIPATED LOSS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DEFICIT PROJECTION. IF YOU WERE SAYING WE ARE IN A DEFICIT WITH NO INPUT, NO CUTS, WITH WHAT WE KNOW TODAY, NOT 2.5, NOT 6.2. WHAT DO YOU PROJECT TODAY, CHANGES TOMORROW, CHANGES THE NEXT DAY. BUT WHAT DO YOU PROJECT TODAY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AS A DEFICIT. >> EXCLUDING EXPENSES, JUST LOOKING AT REVENUE, BECAUSE REVENUE VARIES BASED UPON WHAT A YOU ADOPT. GOING TO PAGE 6 THAT SAYS. THERE YOU GO. THAT'S IT. OKAY, SO GOING TO PAGE 6, IT IS ON THE SCREEN. YOUR NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE. WITH THE ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE ESTIMATED UNCOLLECTED LAWSUIT REFINERIES -- AND, AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY ARE GOING TO PAY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS IS ANTICIPATED. JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY THE NUMBER. >> WE ARE DOWN $6.694 MILLION ASSUMING THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. THAT IS BEFORE ANYBODY REQUESTS ANYTHING. BEFORE THERE IS ANY CONTRACTUAL INCREASES, BEFORE THERE ARE ANY EXPENSES LOOKED AT. JUST A PROPERTY TAX TO PROPERTY TAX, YOU ARE DOWN 6.9694 MILLION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE DO HAVE CONTRACTUAL THINGS THAT WE MADE NO INPUT ON AND THAT NUMBER HAS TO BE THROWN IN TOO. >> THAT NUMBER HAS TO BE THROWN IN TOO AND FURTHER BACK. HOLD ON, BEFORE WE GO FURTHER BACK SINCE WE ARE ALREADY RIGHT THERE, PAGE 7, THE FACING PAGE IS GOING TO BE THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE. SO I AM GIVING YOU THE MINIMUM AND THE MAXIMUM BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT I AM SUPPOSED TO BE SUBMITTING IN THIS WORK AUTHORIZATION AND COMMISSIONERS COURT TODAY. THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM. THE MAXIMUM, WHICH WOULD BE YOUR VOTER-APPROVED TAX RATE THAT YOU CAN ADOPT WITHOUT AN ELECTION IS GOING -- WOULD RESULT IN A DEFICIT OF $1.702 MILLION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IF WE RAISE THE 3.5. >> IF WE GO TO THE 3.5 VOTER-APPROVED TAX RATE. AGAIN BEFORE THERE IS ANY ADJUSTMENT FOR ANY EXPENSES FOR KNOWN EXPENSES, FOR CHANGES YOU ALREADY MADE IN THE EXISTING BUDGET YEAR. IT IS GOING TO IMPACT NEXT BUDGET YEAR BEFORE ANYTHING. I AM LOOKING AT ONE REVENUE NUMBER OF PROPERTY TAX TO THE OTHER NUMBER OF REVENUE PROPERTY TAX. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: FOR EXAMPLE, THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: TO CONTRACTUAL RESPONSIBILITIES. THOSE NUMBERS SUPER LOW IS WHAT YOU ARE TELLING US. >> THEY ARE SUPER LOW. THERE IS NO WAY UNLESS YOU EXCEED THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO START OFF ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LIKE ALL THESE THINGS ON THE BLUE SHEET. >> THAT IS A BELIEF FOR MONDAY'S WORKSHOP. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WILL LEAVE THAT ONE OUT THEN. SO WHAT -- WHAT YOU HAVE DONE HERE IS NO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING -- WHEN YOU SAYS THERE NO CONTRACTUAL -- >> JUST THAT ONE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE NUMBER. THAT IS THE MAJORITY OF YOUR REVENUE THAT YOU GET FOR THE GENERAL FUND. IT IS JUST THAT ONE NUMBER, YEAR-OVER-YEAR CHANGE. NO WAY THAT NUMBER IS NOT GOING TO GO DOWN $1.7 MILLION UNLESS YOU HAVE AN LEGISLATURE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: INCLUDES NO ADDS. THE EXPENSES. THE SAME EXPENSES FROM LAST YEAR. >> NOT LOOKING FOR ANYTHING FOR EXPENSES. JUST LOOKING AT THAT ONE REVENUE NUMBER, WHICH IS 90% OF YOUR REVENUE THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE GENERAL FUND. JUST LOOKING AT THAT ONE REVENUE NUMBER. IT IS GOING DOWN BY $177 MILLION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU ARE SAYING -- THIS IS NOT OUR DEFICIT. THIS IS JUST THE LESS REVENUE NUMBER. >> THAT IS JUST THE LESS REVENUE NUMBER. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WILL BE WAY HIGHER THAN THIS. THAT IS THE NUMBER I AM LOOKING FOR. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THEY DON'T HAVE THAT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU ARE GOING TO GET ME THAT. >> OOPS, I AM DROPPING STUFF OVER HERE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I NEED THAT NUMBER SHOWN WITH THE EXPENSES IN THERE. BECAUSE I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE HUGE. >> COMING ON THE K. OOPS. I AM COMING ON -- WHENEVER WE GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BACK. WE WILL KEEP GOING FURTHER BACK. DO YOU WANT TO GET THE ESTIMATED ACTUAL FUND BALANCES? BECAUSE THAT ALSO -- KEEP GOING FURTHER BACK. [00:30:02] >>JUDGE SCOTT: OH, NO -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WANT THAT NUMBER OUT THERE SO WE START ON AUGUST 9. >> THERE WE ARE. AFTER PAGE 13, A BLANK PAGE IN FRONT OF YOU AND YOU OPEN IT UP BECAUSE THEY ARE FACING PAGES. IT WILL BE IN THE NEXT ATTACHMENT, CONNIE, SORRY. WE ARE DOING A WHOLE LOT OF JUMPS HERE. FOR THE NUMBERS ON COMMISSIONERS COURT. YOU OPEN IT UP AND FACING FOR THE TWO ITEMS THAT GO TOGETHER WITHOUT HAVING TO FLIP BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH. THE NUMBER -- THE PAGE NUMBER IS K-1 AT THE BOTTOM IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT IT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP, THE ESTIMATED BEGINNING FUND WALL 10/1/23 WHAT YOU ALL JUST REQUESTED IS $28,30 6,935 WHAT THE DALE'S ACTUAL FUND BALANCE FOR A GENERAL FUND. YOUR REVENUES ESTIMATE WITH NO INCREASE FOR TAX REVENUE WILL BE $110 MILLION. YOUR TRANSFERS IN WILL BE 2.2 MILLION. TOTAL OF REVENUES AND TRANSFERS IN EXCLUDING PROPERTY TAX OF -- OR AT LAST YEAR'S RATE AT $1123,632,672. THEN YOU HAVE TO ADD IN THE QUOTE, UNQUOTE, INCREASE IN TAXES AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE FOR THE NEW PROPERTY ONLY. THAT BRINGS YOU DOWN TO THAT 1.9 MILLION. THAT TIES TO PAGE 6 OF OUR CALCULATIONS THAT WE FLEW RIGHT THROUGH. THERE IS SOMETHING FOR DISCUSSION THAT WILL COME UP IN A FEW MINUTES WHENEVER WE COME BACK TO IT OF THE 140. SO YOU ARE LOOKING A AT NET CHANGE IN REVENUE OF $1.7 MILLION. BRINGS YOU DOWN TO $110 MILLION. YOUR TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS IS $139 MILLION, THAT INCLUDES YOUR FUND BALANCE. YOU HAVE PROPOSED EXPENSES OF $115,410,880. THAT MOVING TARGET WE ARE WORKING ON FINALIZING FOR YOU. AS I SAID THERE WILL BE SOME MINOR CHANGES. WE ARE STILL -- WE ARE STILL GETTING THOSE WORKED OUT. AND THEY ARE GOING TO CHANGE WHENEVER WE GET THOSE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND IMPACT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU HAVE EXPLAINED YOURSELF ALL DAY. KEEP GOING. IT IS OKAY. IT IS ON THE RECORD. >> I AM JUST DISCLOSING BECAUSE I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY TO COME BACK -- BUT LISA SAID BACK ON THIS DATE, THIS AMOUNT. AND IT IS SO -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: FLUID. WE GET IT. KEEP GOING. >> EXPENSES AND TRANSFERS OUT. BEFORE ANYTHING THAT WE ALREADY KNOW AT $126,776,981. THEN WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THOSE ITEMS THAT COMMISSIONERS COURT KNOWS THAT ARE UPCOMING. IT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THOSE ABOVE. SO YOU HAVE GOT CONTINUANCE PAY FOR THREE ELECTED OFFICIALS, ONE DEPARTMENT HEAD, AND 153 EMPLOYEES. IT'S APPROXIMATELY $219 MILLION. AND I AM DOING THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. WE PUT IN SOMETHING FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING THAT HAS NOT BEEN PRESENTED TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND NOT APPROVED BY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. IT IS JUST A NUMBER THAT IS -- TO GIVE COMMISSIONERS COURT SOME IDEA IF YOU DID THIS, THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD COST. IF YOU DID A 2% INCREASE IN SALARY FOR THE 305 EMPLOYEES CURRENTLY IN THE NUECES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND CONSTABLE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. THAT WILL BE AN INCREASE OF $340,000. THE MIDYEAR PERSONNEL, THESE ARE THOSE PRIOR YEAR POSITION CHANGES THAT HAPPEN DURING THE 2022-'23 BUDGET YEAR. AFTER THE BUDGET WAS ADOPTED BUT BEFORE WE MADE IT TO THIS BUDGET YEAR REQUEST, ALL THOSE CHANGES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS COURT TOTAL UP TO $158,399. YOUR RETIREMENT, THE NEW RATE WILL BE 12.64% WHICH IS AN INCREASE OF $156 156,000. YOUR BONK. I DIDN'T NAME IT BONK OF MARK [00:35:03] DEBT SERVICE, THAT WILL BE AN INCREASE. THE ENERGY SAVINGS WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING BUT UNTIL ALL OF THE -- UNTIL THE PROJECTS ARE FINISHED, THE BRIDGES THAT DO HAVE ENERGY SAVINGS START GENERATING THOSE ENERGY SAVINGS. SHOULD WE ACTUALLY RECOGNIZE THOSE ENERGY SAVINGS, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO OFFSET THAT. AND FORTUNATELY, THERE IS OTHER INFORMATION TIED TO THAT THAT WILL NEED BE DISCUSSED AGAIN. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DISCLAIM, DISCLAIM. TELL ME WHAT THE BOTTOM LINE. >> BOTTOM LINE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, BALANCED BUDGET 30, 24. ALL OF THE EXPENSES DISCUSSED LISTED ON THE PAGE RIGHT THERE ON THE SCREEN -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: PLUS THE OTHER EXPENSES ALREADY THERE AND ONGOING. >> PLUS THE OTHER EXPENSES THAT ARE, WILL. END THE YEAR WITH A BUDGETED $2,549,000, WHICH IS A DECREASE AND THE LOSS IN YOUR FUND BALANCE OF $25 NOW, 755,503. 37 $25 MILLION DECREASE IN FUND BALANCE IF YOU DO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OKAY. LET'S SAY IF YOU GO TO THE. >> VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE. GOING TO K-3. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DEFICIT COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM $25 MILLION TO -- >> LET'S GO A LITTLE ABOVE $25 MILLION BECAUSE THERE ARE A FEW THINGS WE ARE STILL ADDING ON. $26.5 MILLION. >> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY:THAT COULD BE THE HIGH OF BECAUSE WOULD REDUCE OUR FUND BALANCE WHICH ARE RESERVES. $28 MILLION IS OUR RESERVES, RIGHT? >> THE $28 MILLION IS THE RESERVES, OUR FUND BALANCE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: REPRESENT -- >>THE 225 IS WHAT YOUR ENDING FUND BALANCE WILL BE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHICH WILL BE CATASTROPHIC. >> EXTREMELY CATASTROPHIC, WILL DESTROY -- WE CAN'T DO THAT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SOME OF THAT MONEYED IN FUND BALANCE IS DEDICATED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE EXPECT DO THAT. I AM NOT ADVOCATING THAT. I AM SAYING, WHAT IS THE RANGE IF THE COURT DECIDED TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE 3.5. GIVE ME THE NUMBER WITHOUT GOING THROUGHOUT EXPENSES. >> THE EXACT SAME RANGE. BUT NOW YOU ARE DOWN TO A DECREASE IN FUND BALANCE OF 20,765,764. AND BOTTOM OF K-3. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: K-3 OR K-2. >> WE SKIPPED OVER K-2. K-2 IS WHAT IS FORMALLY KNOWN AS STEVE'S MAGICAL WORKSHEET. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM NOT MISSTATING. WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME, WITH THE CURRENT EXPENSES AND JUST THE THINGS THAT -- >> YOU ARE LOOKING AT A DECREASE BETWEEN 20 -- LET'S GO $26 MILLION, $27 MILLION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: $26 MILLION WE HAVE -- TO BASICALLY MAINTAIN OUR RESERVES AT A BALANCE THAT IS CURRENTLY $5 MILLION SHORT IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN BASED ON WHAT OUR FINANCIAL PLANNER BROUGHT TO US LAST MEANING. $5 MILLION BELOW OUR RESERVES THAT WE SHOULD BE, WE WILL HAVE TO BASICALLY CUT. >> $30 MILLION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: $25 MILLION TO $30 MILLION JUST TO SAY EVEN WITH OUR RESERVES. A CORRECT STATEMENT? >> A CORRECT STATEMENT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AS OF AUGUST 9, ALL THE DISCLAIMERS. THIS COURT NEEDS TO HEAR THAT NUMBER. THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO HEAR THAT NUMBER. THIS IS NOT $1 MILLION TO $7 MILLION, THIS IS POTENTIALLY $20 MILLION TO $25 MILLION AS WE SIT TODAY. >> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THERE IS NO -- THERE IS NO FAT THAT CAN BE IN THIS BUDGET. THIS IS GOING TO BE -- >> CUTTING THE BUDGET FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. BUT THE FAT IS GONE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE MEAT TO IT. COULD BE 20, 25. BUT HE END OF THE DAY, IT COULD BE $8 OR $9 MILLION, OR $10 MILLION. >> YOU GO BACK TO K-2. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE WILL FIND $25 MILLION IN CUTS MUCH LESS $10 MILLION. >> GO TOBACCO TO K-2 -- I KNOW YOU SAID LISA WITH ALL YOUR DISCLOSURES. THAT IS BUDGET. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU ANSWERED ME GOOD ENOUGH. NOW YOU CAN GO BACK. >> I CAN AVERAGE ONE THING BUT BASED ON HOW I ACTUALLY RECEIVE AND SPEND MONEY, YOUR VALUES CHANGE. AND THAT IS WHAT STEVE'S MANAGE RICK WORKSHEET. STEVE'S MAGICAL WORKSHEET THAT THEY CREATED ALL THOSE YEARS AGO AND CONTINUED TO CARRY FORWARD BECAUSE IT IS A WONDERFUL WORKSHEET AND HAS WONDERFUL [00:40:03] DATA. AS YOU CAN SEE WE DO NOT SPEND 100% OF EXPENSES NOR DO WE SO -- HISTORICALLY WE WILL COLLECT OVER 100% OF THE REVENUES BECAUSE A PRUDENT GOVERNING BODY UNDER BUDGETS REVENUES AND OVERBUDGETS EXPENSES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR IT AS NECESSARY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS ARE STAGGERING. >> IF THE NUMBERS COULD NUMBER AT 80%, YOU ARE LOOKING AT A DECREASE -- ON K-2, SORRY, FOR THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. YOU WILL BE LOOKING AT A DECREASE OF THE ESTIMATED ACTUAL THAT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE FOR THE '23-'24 YEAR OF THE $16 MILLION AND AT THAT 86%, WHICH AGAIN WOULD GIVE YOU. IF WE ARE ONLY SPENDING -- IF DEPARTMENT HEADS ARE ABLE TO -- IT IS ONE THING TO BE ABLE TO BUDGET CUTS. IT IS ANOTHER THING TO ACTUALLY CUT THE MONEY. I CAN BUDGET WHATEVER I WANT TO BUDGET. THAT IS A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION. IF YOU DO NOT CHANGE YOUR ACTUAL SPENDING. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: IT'S REAL. >> BUDGET IS REAL. >>JUDGE SCOTT: OPEN POSITIONS ARE ONE THING THAT THEY ARE BUDGETED IN THERE, BUT HOW MANY OF THEM ARE NOT FILLED. THAT IS A TOTAL NUMBER THAT CAN COME RIGHT QUICK. VACANCIES. >> COMMISSIONERS COURT ALLOWS DEPARTMENTS TO USE THEIR SALARY SAVINGS FROM THOSE VACANCIES. SO YOU LOSE IT. BUDGET IS A -- IS A FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: DEPENDS ON HOW MANY OPENINGS YOU HAVE. >> I CAN BUDGET TO RECEIVE $1 MILLION REVENUE, BUT UNLESS I WIN THE LOTTERY, IT IS NOT HAPPENING. YOU CAN BUDGET WHATEVER WANT TO BUDGET FOR REVENUES. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN ACCURATE BUDGET REVENUE OR ACCURATE BUDGET EXPENSES. I CAN BUDGET REVENUES OF $1 MILLION. IF I DON'T GET IT, I CAN'T SPEND IT. RIGHT. SAME THING FOR EXPENSES. I CAN BUDGET EXPENSES OF A MILLION DOLLARS. IF EVERYBODY SAYS I AM GOING TO CUT MY BUDGET AND THEY DON'T CHANGE THEIR SPENDING, THEY CONTINUE TO SPEND THE SAME WAY THEY HAVE ALREADY SPENT. THEY -- EVERYBODY STAFFED AT 100%. PEOPLE CONTINUE TO USE THEIR SALARY SAVINGS FREQUENTLY TO COVER OPERATING EXECUTIVE SESSION PENCES. IF YOU DO NOT CHANGE THE WAY YOU ACTUAL SPEND MONEY, YOU ARE GOING TO STILL HAVE AN ACTUAL ISSUE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ABSOLUTELY. AND THE SALARY SAVINGS NEEDS TO BE -- WE NEED TO BRING THAT UP AS A POLICY BECAUSE WE HAVE IN THE PAST INFORMALLY NOT ALLOW IT AND STARTED TO ALLOW IT AND NEED TO COME UP WITH A POLICY THAT IS CONSISTENT. WE NEED TO ALLOW OR NOT ALLOW IT AND FOR ANOTHER DAY AND THAT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE A COURT POLICY WE NEED TO DECIDE. IF IT IS AVAILABLE FOR SOME, IT NEEDS TO BE AVAILABLE FOR TOMORROW. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IT IS ALREADY A POLICY AND WE DID IT AND IF WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR ONE, IT IS HARD TO DO. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T KNOW IT IS A POLICY. >> IT STARTED OFF AS POLICY. AND I WOULDN'T LET -- BACK WHEN I WAS -- WHEN I WAS BUDGET ACCOUNTANT, I WOULD SAY, NOPE, YOU CAN'T USE YOUR SALARY SAVINGS. NOPE, YOU CAN'T USE YOUR SALARY SAVINGS. AND THEN, AGAIN, ONE OF THOSE THINGS IT WAS BOTH ME, COMMISSIONERS COURT -- I SAY ME, BUT OUR OFFICE, COMMISSIONERS COURT ADMIN. WE BOTH SATED YOU COULDN'T USE SALARY SAVINGS AND ADDED THE EXCEPTION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT. THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR SALARY SAVINGS TO COVER THEIR OVERTIME WHENEVER THEY HAVE SALARY SAVINGS. THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR SALARY SAVINGS TO RECLASSIFY POSITIONS AND COVER THAT OVER TIME. THEN THEY WERE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR SALARY SAVINGS TO HAVE OPERATING EXPENSES AND OVERTIME. THE AMOUNT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE FOR OVERTIME DECREASING BECAUSE WE KEPT USING SALARY SAVINGS FOR OTHER THINGS. AFTER IT HAPPENED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. WE ADDED IN DISTRICT ATTORNEY. THEN WE ADDED IN MEDICAL EXAMINER. THEN WE ADDED IN JUVENILE. THEN WE ADDED IN -- I CAN'T EVEN START TO TELL YOU. THE FLOODGATE OPENS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T BELIEVE THE COURT HAS VOTED ON THAT. >> NEVER HAVE BEEN A FORMAL POLICY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE NEED TO ADOPT -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: I THOUGHT IT WAS A BUDGETING POLICY. >> IT WAS A BUDGET POLICY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU CAN'T BY LAW CHANGE AFTER A BUDGET WAS ADOPTED. WE DON'T NEED A -- >> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY:THAT IS DIFFERENT. YOU CAN'T INCREASE THE BUDGET. BUT USING SALARY SAVINGS, YOU ARE WITHIN THE LAW AS JENNY HAS TOLD US. [00:45:02] WE NEED A POLICY MORE FORMAL. WHATEVER THE COURT DECIDES ON THAT. BECAUSE IT IS -- IT IS FINE IF IT IS AN AUDITOR POLICY, BUT THAT -- IF THEY ARE GOING TO COME TO US TO ASK US FOR IT AND WE NEED TO SAY IF WE ARE GOING TO DO IT OR NOT DO IT TO STOP ASKING OR THEY CAN ASK AND KNOW IT CAN HAPPEN TO A CERTAIN LEVEL. MAYBE A PERCENTAGE. MAYBE THE POLICY IS YOU CAN ONLY TAKE HALF OF YOUR SALARY SAVINGS OR 30%, SOMETHING, BUT WHERE HE NEED SOMETHING IN PLACE TO GIVE THE AUDITORS SOME BACKING WHEN THEY SAY THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT AND PUT IT ON THE COURT'S AGENDA AND LET THEM DECIDE. A HARD THING FOR US. BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP DEPARTMENTS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS AND WE DON'T WANT TO SAY NO PRUDENT WITH THEIR SALARY SAVINGS BUT DOES EFFECT -- AS SHE SAY RADARS LONG-TERM EFFECT AND WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT. >> THERE ARE EXPENSES THAT YOU CAN CUT THE BUDGET AND YOU -- I MEAN -- IF IT IS NOT FEASIBLE IF THE SHERIFF WAS TO RUN OF OF MONEY, YOU WOULD KICK EVERYBODY OUT OF THE JAIL. SORRY, WE DON'T HAVE MONEY TO OPERATE THE JAIL GO OUT INTO THE PUBLIC. BE GOOD. THAT IS NOT -- THAT IS NOT A POSSIBILITY. SO IF THE COST TO OPERATE SAID JAIL, YOUR ELECTRICITY, YOUR WATER, YOUR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR IN ORDER TO KEEP THE JAIL FUNCTIONS AND HOUSING INMATES GOES UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR, WHETHER YOU BUDGETED IT OR NOT, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND THAT ACTUAL MONEY. SO THE -- STATUTORILY THE BUDGET STATES -- AND I AM PARAPHRASING BASE ON WHAT I REMEMBER FROM YEARS AGO AND IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE VERBATIM CHANGED. BUT ESPECIALLY ESSENTIALLY -- ONCE YOU ADOPT THE BUDGET -- THIS IS WHAT THE JUDGE WAS STATING. ONCE YOU ADOPT A BUDGET, YOU CAN NOT EXCEED YOUR ACTUAL AMOUNT IN THE EXPENSES UNLESS TWO THINGS OCCUR. THERE IS A STATE OF FINANCIAL -- A STATE OF DISASTER DECLARED BY COMMISSIONERS COURT. AND THEN TO WHICH PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLAN ASKING NOT FORESEE. COVID WAS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THIS. PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLANNING COULD NOT PROJECT A PANDEMIC IN YEAR ONE. ONCE WE WERE IN THAT PANDEMIC, PRUDENT FINANCE COULD HAVE FORESEEN THAT THE PANDEMIC WAS GOING TO CONTINUE. SEEING HOW WE WERE IN THE BUDGET WE WERE STILL IN THE PANDEMIC. AND SO YOU COULD HAVE DECLARED THAT STATE OF DISASTER YEAR ONE AND HAVE BEEN BEEN ABLE TO INCREASE YOUR BUDGET BECAUSE OF STATE OF DISASTER IN YEAR ONE. PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLANNING COULD NOT FORESEE AND A STATE OF DISASTER, RIGHT. BUT AFTER YEAR ONE, WHICH COVID, PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLANNING COULD HAVE SEEN THAT IT WOULD HAVE CONTINUED. SO WOULD YOU NO LONGER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FILE AN EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO INCREASE YOUR BUDGET. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I AM TRYING TO PUT REAL-LIFE SCENARIOS IN WITH THE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. SO WITH THAT SAID, ONCE ADOPT THE BUDGET, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A FIGMENT. IT IS A LEGAL LIMIT. YOU CAN'T EXCEED THAT. SO UNLESS PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLANNING COULD NOT HAVE FORESEEN JAIL EXPENSES TO INCREASE. IF YOU CUT THAT -- IF YOU CUT THE BUDGET WHERE THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY EXPENSE TO VARY BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE CUT FROM THE BUDGET. YOU ARE GOING TO BE -- YOU ARE GOING TO PUT YOURSELF IN A PICKLE. A LEGAL PICKLE, THAT THEN WE HAVE CAUSED NOT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT BECAUSE PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLANNING COULD BE DISCUSSING ALL THE ISSUES WE ARE HAVING RIGHT NOW WHERE THE THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLANNING IS IT WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT? >> PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLANNING GIVEN THAT WE HAVE SIX YEARS WORTH OF LAWSUIT WITH VALERO. IT IS -- IT IS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT THERE COULD AND MOST LIKELY BE A SEVENTH YEAR. IF WE BUDGET -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NOT AT THESE RANGES. NOT AT THESE RANGES. NOT AT $6 BILLION WHEN YOU GO FROM $1 BILLION TO $6 BILLION. >>THE REASON WHY PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLANNING -- YOU CAN'T COME -- WHENEVER WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF '23 AND '24. WE CAN'T COME MIDYEAR AND SAY STATE OF REFINERY BECAUSE THE REFINERIES DIDN'T PAY THEIR TANKSES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU ARE SAYING MIDYEAR. >> ONCE THE BUDGET IS ADOPTED, YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: UNLESS SOMETHING NEW HAPPENS. >> A STATE OF DISASTER HAS BEEN DECLARED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SURE. >> AND SOMETHING YOU COULD NOT [00:50:01] FORESEEN GIVEN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE WHEN YOU ADOPTED THE BUDGET. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ALREADY KNOW THIS. >> WE KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN FILING LAWSUITS. CAN HE WANT SAY WE BUDGET THIS REVENUE AND WE STAY SUMD THEY TWO PAY EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVEN'T PAID AND TRY TO INCREASE -- OR MAKE BUDGET CHANGES MIDYEAR BECAUSE OF IT. SAME THING WITH EXPENSES. YOU CUT THE BUDGET SO DRASTICALLY THAT YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHIN THE BUDGET THAT YOU CREATED, IT'S A -- IT IS A SELF-IMPOSED DISASTER. SO YOU ARE CAUSING FEW ISSUES. THEREFORE, I WOULD RECOMMEND -- WHENEVER YOU DO MAKE CUTS, WE MAKE THOSE CUTS, BUT WE PUT FUNDS IN CONTINGENCY IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR -- YES, WE DRASTICALLY CUT OUR BUDGET, LET'S SAY $10 MILLION. WE DRASTICALLY CUT OUR BUDGET $10 MILLION. WE ARE GOING TO PUT SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING OF THAT $10 MILLION INTO CONTINGENCY IN CASE SOMETHING HAPPENS THAT WE HAD NOT PLANNED. BUT IT WAS A FEASIBLE -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU SAVE SOME OF THAT CONTINGENCY. WHY IT DOESN'T GET BUDGETED IN EACH DEPARTMENT. >> WOULD NOT GO INTO EACH BUDGET. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU WOULDN'T REALLY SAVE ANYTHING. >> WE GO TO 1285. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU ARE TALKING OVER. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I THINK WHAT SHE WAS TRYING TO SAY. IF WE BUDGET FOR ADDS 10 MILLION LOSS, WE STILL DON'T PUT THIS IN EVERY DEPARTMENT IN HERE. WE HAVE A CONTINGENCY DEPARTMENT. IF WE PUT IT INTO EACH PERSON'S BUDGET, DEPEND ON YOU TO NOT SPEND IT AND YOU TO NOT SPEND IT AND YOU TO NOT SPEND IT. PEOPLE HAVE MONEY IN THEIR ACCOUNT, IF THEY HAVE MONEY, THEY WILL SPEND IT. PEOPLE ARE USED TO SPENDING. WE HAVE TO SET IT ASIDE IN CASE WE NEED IT BUT LET'S NOT GIVE IT TO AN INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE TO TAKE CONTROL OF THAT. >> AND WE -- THE COURT -- THERE IS A HISTORIC PRECEDENCE FOR THAT. WE CURRENTLY HAVE CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATION IN 1285. NOBODY CAN SUCH 1258 -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOW CAN YOU SET ASIDE MONEY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE. YOU HAVE TO SET ASIDE SOMETHING. >> BUDGET IS BUDGET. BUT ACTUAL IS DIFFERENT. AND SO IF THE EXPENSES TO -- LET'S SEE THAT WE LITERALLY CUT BUDGET TO THE BARE MINIMUM. AND THE ELEVATORS GO DOWN. AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT JUAN BUDGETED FOR. IN ORDER TO BE IN ADA COMPLIANCE, WE HAVE TO HAVE FOUR ELEVATORS. IF ALL FOUR OF THEM GO DOWN, WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE ELEVATORS OTHERWISE YOU CAN'T HAVE THE COURTS RUNNING AND BACK YOU UP -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOW DO YOU -- YOU ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO DO A COMBINATION. YOU HAVE TO CUT -- >> YOU HAVE TO CUT AND PUT MONEY IN CONTINGENCY. A COMBINATION. IF YOU DON'T USE IT, THEN YOU HAVE THAT SAVINGS. IT IS ONLY THERE IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY. AGAIN, PRUDENT FINANCIAL PLANNING CAN SAY IF YOU ARE GOING TO CUT 20 MILLION FROM A BUDGET, YOU SHOULD PUT SOME MONEY ASIDE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHERE DO YOU GET THE MONEY. WHERE DO YOU GET THE MONEY? >> YOU ARE CUTTING BUDGET. YOU ARE NOT CUTTING ACTUAL. YOU ARE PUTTING A BUDGETED FIGURE ASIDE. ANY MONEY THAT IS NOT -- GOES TO YOUR FUND BALANCE, THE END. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY OR SAYING IS, WE SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON OUR NEEDS AND NOT OUR WANTS. >> THAT IS 100%, COMMISSIONER. THE BEST ANALYSIS IN ONE SENTENCE. WHAT YOU NEED VERSUS WHAT DO YOU WANT. PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NEED AND A WANT. I NEED ELECTRICITY. I NEED INMATES IN A JAIL. I WANT -- >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I WANT AN EXPENSIVE PEN. I WANT A -- >> I WANT A -- I WANT TO RESO A BASEBALL FIELD NOT GETTING USED BY EVERYONE. THAT IS NOT A -- NOT DIRECTED AT ANYBODY. I WAS TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING FRIVOLOUS. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: LISA, PAY 100 ODD SOME NUMBERS TO GET SIX INCHES INSIDE THE COURT ROOM. I KNOW IT IS ADA, BUT HAVE GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY TO WORK THIS. THAT IS THE WAY I SEE THINGS. >> I WANT TO REPAINT MY WALLS. I DON'T NEED TO. I AM NOT TRYING TO PICK ON ANYBODY -- >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: CAN WE MOVE THIS ALONG. A LONG MEETING TO TALK IF I LOLLAPALOOZA LOSS FEE. [00:55:02] GET TO THE BREAD AND BUTTER OF THIS. >> KEVIN WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING TOO. >> IS THIS ON? TEST TESTING. >> I THINK I GET WHERE YOU ARE GOING AND I WANT TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN TALKING OF CONTINGENCY GUYS. WITH THESE LOSSES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CURRENTLY -- LET ME BACK UP A SECOND AND I WILL HAVE A REAL NUMBER FOR YOU GUYS HOPEFULLY BY TOMORROW AND I WILL REACH OUT TO BOTH REFINERIES AND ASK US TO GET WHAT THEIR UNCONTESTED VALUE PAYMENT WILL BE, AND WE WILL END THIS PING-PONG GAME OF GOING BACK AND FORTH AND THINK IT IS GOING TO BE THIS AND THAT. WE ARE GOING TO KNOW. I REACHED OUT TO BOTH OF THEM AND TOLD THEM I AM GOING TO DO THIS. THE REASON I DON'T WANT TO WAIT TO DO THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONVERSATION ONE OF THE REFINERIES WITH THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. I WANT TO FORMALLY REACH OUT TO THEM WHAT THE UNCONTESTED AMOUNT WILL BE SO WE CAN GET AN ACCURATE BUDGETING AMOUNT FOR THE TAXING JURISDICTIONS AFFECTED BY THIS. NUMBER TWO, WHAT IS THE OTHER THING WE WILL BE LOOKING AT IN THIS CONTINGENCY SEE. LEVY PRESENTATION IS WHAT THIS IS. IF YOU CUT YOUR BUDGET, YOU WILL TAKE THOSE LOSSES FROM THE BUDGET CUTS. YOU HAVE GOT TO PUT THOSE MONIES INTO THE ANTICIPATED LOSS INTO SOME SPOTS FOR -- WHAT WAS THE NUMBER YOU USED TO -- TO -- CONTINGENCY FUND NOT GOING TO GET FUNDED AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET IT. IF YOU DON'T PUT IT THERE, YOU LOST THAT LEVY AND TAKE THAT WHAT YOU ADOPTED BEFORE HAND. >> NOT SETTING ASIDE REAL MONEY BUT CON I THINK IT AGAIN MONEY IN CASE YOU GET IT. >> IN CASE YOU GET IT AND PRESERVING THE LEVY YOU ADOPT. IF YOU DO NOT PUT IT IN THERE TAKE $5.1 MILLION -- I GUESS THAT IS WHAT THE NUMBER IS, $5.1 MILLION LOSS ON TOP OF WHAT YOU JUST BUDGETED AND INTRODUCING THAT EVEN FURTHER. RATHER THAN ADOPT A FAKE BUDGET PUTTING STUFF IN THERE THAT YOU KNOW YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET. YOU ADOPT WHAT YOU REALISTICALLY -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET. >> THINK YOU ARE GOING TO GET. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: PLUS THE CONTINGENCY. DOES THAT MAKE MORE SENSE? HOPEFULLY THAT CLEAR IT IS OUT AND PUTS IT IN ENGLISH AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT IS GOING ON. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU, KEVIN. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THANKS, SIR. >> SO THERE IS A CONTINGENT REVENUE AND A CONTINGENT EXPENSE THAT OFFSET EACH OTHER. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NOW THAT WE TOTALLIER. >> RUPTED YOU ARE IN PRESENTATION. DO YOU WANT TO GO. >> WHERE ARE WE AT. WE STILL HAVE AN HOUR. GO TO PAGE 2 WHERE I CAN SHOW YOU THE CALCULATIONS OR POSTPONE THAT UNTIL WE ACTUALLY DO THE AGENDA ITEM LATER ON. I AM -- I AM OPEN. >>JUDGE SCOTT: DEFER TO ANY OF YOU GUYS. >> I CAN GO OVER IT REAL QUICK. HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS. OKAY, ON PAGE 2 OF THE INITIAL -- YES. THAT ONE. SO PAGE 2 IS YOUR GENERAL FUND TAX RATE CALCULATION. AGAIN, YOU ARE TAKING THAT TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE AS CERTIFIED BY THE ARB BOARD, AND I CROSS REFERENCED EACH LINE ON THE PROPERTY TAX CALCULATION WORKSHEETS SO SHOULD SOMEONE WANT TO COME IN AND VERIFY THAT BOTH CALCULATIONS TIE, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO. YOU TAKE THAT CERTIFIED APPRAISED VALUE OF $46,735,626. TAKE 85% OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS UNDER PROTEST WITH THE ARB BOARD. THAT 85% NUMBER IS 1,061,917, 256. ADD IN THAT ROLLING RAILROAD OF $14 MILLION,108,016. SUBTRACT THE TAX FREEZE WHICH IS -- WHICH IS THE TAX, REFERRED TO AS BOTH, 2,THE 96,025,691 TO GET A NET TAXABLE VALUE OF $44 BILLION 816,244. THEN YOU HAVE TO FACTOR IN THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING OR TAX INCREMENT INVESTMENT ZO [01:00:06] ZONE, TIF, TIRS. YOU HAVE TO SUBTRACT OUT THAT VALUE YOU ARE LOSING AND RECONTRIBUTING IT TO THE REINVESTMENT ZONES. WE ARE LOSING 953,444,565 FOR THAT. TO GET YOUR TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE OF $43,862,181,697. THEN WE HAD NEW IMPROVEMENTS, NEW PROPERTY WITHIN THAT NEW PROPERTY NUMBER, I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE HAD AN ABATEMENT THAT ROLLED OFF, SO THE ABATEMENT THAT ENDED GETS ROLLED INTO THAT NEW PROPERTY WHICH IS WHY IT IS SO HIGH. AND THAT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF NUECES COUNTY. AND IT'S -- IT IS A GOOD THING THAT IT HAPPENED THIS YEAR STILL WE HAD NEW VALUE AND NEW IMPROVEMENT OF 963,058,337 FOR ADJUSTED 42,899,143,322. LAST YEAR'S LEVY GETS ADJUSTED FOR THE PROPERTY THAT IS UNDER LAWSUIT FOR THE SETTLEMENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED THAT IS $101,847,339. AGAIN RATES A NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE OF.237411. NOW IT SHOULD BE NOTED FOR ANYONE LISTENING TO THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, THAT THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE PROPERTY TAX CALCULATION IS FOR BOTH YOUR GENERAL FUND M&O AND YOUR DEBT SERVICE. THAT ONE RATE IS CALCULATED TOGETHER. IT THEN WHENEVER YOU GO TO APPROVE YOUR VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE, IT SEPARATES OUT YOUR M &O FROM YOUR DEBT SERVICE. YOU GET ADDITIONAL ADD-INS FOR YOUR M&O, AND THE PROPERTY TAX CALCULATIONS AYOU TO ALWAYS FULLY FUND YOUR DEBT, NO MATTER -- THAT IS ON TOP OF THE 3.5%. NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, IF YOU HAVE A HUGE BALLOON PAYMENT, THE PROPERTY TAX CALCULATION WILL ALLOW YOU TO FULL LEGAL FUND THAT DEBT. SO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ADJUST THAT DEBT RATE INDEPENDENTLY OF YOUR M&O FOR THE VOTER APPROVED CALCULATION. THE GENERAL FUND VOTER APPROVED IS .212160. YOUR DEBT SERVICE RATE, FULLY FUNDED RATE IS .037 -- EXCUSE ME .037676. NO UNUSED INCREMENT. WE USE IT ALL LAST YEAR. VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE WITH ANY ADJUSTMENT THAT IS BOTH Y YOUR MVMM AND O IS .249836. THERE IS THE SAME CALCULATION ON PAGE 3 FOR YOUR FARM TO MARKET. THERE ARE VARIANCES THERE AS THERE ARE SOME ABATED PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON YOUR GENERAL FUND THAT ARE ON YOUR FARM-TO-MARKET. THERE ARE TIFS AS YOU CAN SEE. THE TIF NUMBER IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR GENERAL FUND AND YOUR FARM-TO-MARKET. THOSE TWO VARIANCES HAVE TO DO WITH THE PEDRO ISLAND TIF. THE FARM-TO-MARKET AND HOSPITAL DISTRICT RULED OFF THE PADRE ISLAND TIF AND APPROVED FOR ANOTHER 20 YEARS. SO WITHOUT READING ALL THE NUMBERS FOR THE FARM-TO-MARKET, YOUR NET TAXABLE VALUE IS $345,062,085, 037. YOUR ADJUSTED STACKSABLE VALUE THAT ADJUSTS FOR THAT NEW PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE $43,796,216,231. FARM-TO-MARKET IS .002482. NO DEBT SERVICE. TO YOUR VOTER APPROVED RATE IS .002819. FOR PAGE 4, WITH THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT RATE, AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR TAX FREEZE AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY TIF OR TIRS, SO YOUR NET TAXABLE VALUE IT [01:05:13] $48,156,760,931. YOUR NEW IMPROVEMENTS IS $962,382,962 FOR ADJUSTED TAXABLE OF $47,194,377,969. YOUR NO NEW REVENUE RATE FOR THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT IS .081936. VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE I IS .08972. THEY CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE ANY DEBT SERVICE AT THIS TIME AND NO SEPARATE DEBT SERVICE TAX RATE. GOING TO PAGE 5, YOU ARE ABLE TO COMPARE LAST YEAR'S ADOPTED TAX RATE TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATES AND THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE. I LEFT THE DEBT SERVICE FULLY FUNDED FOR ALL OF YOUR OPTIONS FOR '23-'24. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO. WE HAVE GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW FOR THE REFINERIES. WE CAN NOT FULLY FUND OUR DEBT FOR -- WE NEED EVERY PENNY WE CAN HAVE. NO FUND BALANCE FOR UNFUNDED SHORT AND IN THE DEBT SERVICE RATE. THE PROPERTY TAX RATE CALCULATION ADJUSTS FOR ANY FUND BALANCE. SO YOU -- THERE IS NOT ANY SIGNIFICANT FUND BALANCE THAT YOU CAN OFFSET THAT DEBT SERVICE RATE BY, DUE TO THE CHANGES IN LEGISLATION THAT HAPPENED A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL, JUST NUECES COUNTY, RIGHT, YOUR GENERAL FUND, YOUR DEBT SERVICE AND YOUR FARM-TO-MARKET, LAST YEAR'S RATE WAS .291659. YOU CAN'T COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT RATE WITH THESE CALCULATIONS WITHOUT GOING ABOVE THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE. YOUR MAX VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE WITH A 3.5 IS STILL GOING TO BE $.04 LESS THAN THE CURRENT TAX RATE THAN THEY ARE PAYING. THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS ONE PENNY LESS THAN THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE. YOUR COLLECTED NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS.240253 PER $100 EVALUATION. AND YOUR VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE IS .252755, YOUR MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM. YOU CAN ALWAYS EXCEED THAT WITH AN ELECTION. NO UNUSED INCREMENT SO THE FOURTH CALCULATION IS JUST JUST A REPEAT OF YOUR THIRD. GOING DOWN TO THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT, THEY SUFFERED A HUGE VARIANCE. THEIR '22-'23 ADOPTED TAX RATE IS .098466. THEIR NO NEW REVENUE RATE DROPS -- $.17, NO, .17 CENTS. .09863. VOTER APPROVED .08897 WITH THE 8%. REMEMBER THEY GET 8%. WHEREAS WE GET THREE AND A HALF BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE TEXAS LEGISLATION WORKS. WE USED TO GET THE 8% TOO. BUT FOUR OR SO YEARS AGO, THEY CHANGED THAT. SO THAT 8% FOR THEM STILL GIVES QUITE A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE FROM THE CURRENT YEARS TAX RATE. AGAIN, YOU CAN'T GET THIS YEAR'S TAX RATES WITHOUT ELECTIONS FOR ANY OF OUR ENTITIES. AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TAX RATES WILL BE GOING DOWN THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN LEGISLATION. SO NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS BY THIS COURT, THE TAXPAYER WILL PAY LESS PROPERTY TAXES ASSESSED BY NUECES -- UNLESS WE GO OUT FOR ELECTION, NUECES COUNTY PROPERTY TAXES YEAR-OVER-YEAR, TAKING OUT THEIR ASSESSED VALUE ARE GOING DOWN. THEIR TOTAL PROPERTY TAXES THAT -- I MEAN, I GUESS THE CITY COULD GO OUT FOR ELECTION AND THEY CAN RAISE IS REALLY HIGH THAT WAY TOO, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S CHANGES IN LEGISLATION, THEIR TAX RATES ARE GOING TO DROP DRASTICALLY. IT IS WONDERFUL NEWS FOR THE PROPERTY TAXPAYER. SCHOOL DISTRICTS WILL BE FUNDED MORE FROM STATE DOLLARS AND LESS FROM PROPERTY TAX, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT I AM NOT A LAWYER, SO I WILL LEAVE THAT TO THEM. [01:10:05] >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE CAN PAY LESS. >> NO MATTER WHAT COMMISSIONERS COURT DOES BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN LEGISLATION -- AND KEVIN CAN COME IN AND DISCUSS THIS, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES OF LEGISLATION FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THE -- THE PROPERTY TAXPAYER, BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, WILL BE PAYING LESS PROPERTY TAXES YEAR-OVER-YEAR BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN LEGISLATION WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. BECAUSE THAT IS THE HIGH -- THAT IS THE LARGEST PIECE OF THE PROPERTY TAX RATE PIE. WHENEVER YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY PROPERTY TAXES, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS BY FAR THE LARGEST PORTION OF THE TAXPAYERS PROPERTY TAX BILL. FOR THE GENERAL FUND, NO NEW REVENUE RATE, I GAVE THE HIGHLIGHTS BEFORE. AND IF YOU FULLY FUND YOUR DEBT SERVICE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS CALCULATED, TO FULLY FUND THE DEBT SERVICE MEANS YOU ARE DECREASING YOUR GENERAL FUND M&O. WE HAVE TO FULLY FUND OUR DEBT. THERE IS NO WAY AROUND IT. SO WITH THAT SAID, IT WOULD DECREASE THE GENERAL FUND TAX RATE TO .199735. THAT GIVES YOU AT A 95% COLLECTION RATE, 2023-2024 GENERAL FUND REVENUE OF $89,185,707. BECAUSE THAT IS THAT HUGE CUT. WE WOULD -- BEFORE WE ADJUST FOR THE REFINERIES, WE ARE ACTUALLY LOSING MONEY. 1.9 MILLION OF NO NEW REVENUE RATE AGAIN HOW THE NEW PROPERTY RATES ARE CALCULATED. OUR NEW REVENUE DID NOT OFFSET THE HUGE JUMP IN. WE HAD ALMOST ONE BILLION IN NEW VALUE BUT WE HAD 20% INCREASE IN -- WE HAD 20% INCREASE IN TAXABLE VALUE AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT HUGE JUMP IN YOUR TAXABLE VALUE, OUR NO NEW REVENUE RATES. IT IS A NO NEW REVENUE RATE. IT IS A NO NEW REVENUE LOSS OF $1.9 MILLION. IF YOU ADJUST FOR THE ANTICIPATED AND COLLECTED DUE TO THE LAWSUITS, YOU ARE DOWN THAT 6.96720. SO 6.694 MILLION, ALMOST $7 MILLION. AND THAT IS JUST REVENUE PROPERTY TAX CURRENT COLLECTIONS REVENUE OVER PROPERTY TAX CURRENT COLLECTION REVENUE. SO THAT IS YOU'RE 22-'23 -- TO '23 TO '24 CHANGE IT S A LOSS OF 6.694 MILLION. GOING TO THE NEXT PAGE, IF YOU USED THE VOTER APPROVED RATE SINCE THERE IS NO UNUSED INCREMENT. THAT IS THE MAXIMUM THAT YOU CAN ADOPT. WE WILL ONLY HAVE A GENERAL FUND -- ASSUMING THAT THE REFINERIES PAY EVERY PENNY OF THEIR ASSESSED VALUE. WE WILL HAVE AN INCREASE OF 3.387 MILLION YEAR-OVER-YEAR INCREASE; HOWEVER, WE ANTICIPATE THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PAY THAT. THERE WILL BE THAT DISPUTED VALUE. AND THAT DISPUTED VALUE EXCEEDS THE $3.5% ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE PLUS THE LOSS WE ALREADY HAVE IN NO NEW REVENUE. SO YOUR ANTICIPATED LOSS, AGAIN, JUST LOOKING AT THE TAX RATE -- THE TAX REVENUE IS $1,702,893. THAT IS BEFORE ANY EXPENSES. THAT IS BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAPPENS TO THE BUDGET. FOR THE DEBT SERVICE ON PAGE 8. THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS RED -- THERE YOU GO. I WANTED TO ABLE TO TELL THAT YOU THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES TO BE RECEIVED BASED ON THIS TAX RATE. FOR DEBT SERVICE, YOU ARE TRYING TO FUND A REQUIREMENT -- OH, THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SOMETHING OVER HERE THAT IS NOT THERE. YOU ARE TRYING TO FUND A REQUIREMENT VERSUS TRYING TO FUND A -- A -- A BUDGETED NUMBER. WE KNOW HOW MUCH WE HAVE TO PAY FOR OUR DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS LET ME SEE IF I [01:15:02] HAVE THAT BACK HERE. THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES RECEIVED $15,926,845. AND I AM LOOKING FOR NO NEW REVENUE. OH, MY GOODNESS. THE DEBT SERVICE -- IT IS NOT ON THAT ONE EITHER. OKAY, THE DEBT SERVICE REVENUS -- THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ARE AT $15,900 -- I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT NUMBER. I KNOW THAT IT IS A BUDGETED SHORTFALL OF -- OF $9973 ASSUMING, AGAIN, THAT THE REFINERIES PAY THE SAME AMOUNT AS LAST YEAR. I CAN GET YOU THAT DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT AMOUNT. ACTUALLY I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE. MAYBE I HAVE TO RIGHT HERE. OKAY. THE TOTAL DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT FOR THE '23, '24 YEAR IS GOING TO BE $15,937,621. AND, AGAIN, WE WILL BE COLLECTING $15,926,845, ASSUMING THAT EVERYBODY -- THAT WE HAVE THE SAME COLLECTION RATE AS LAST YEAR OF THE 95%. AND THAT THE REFINERIES PAY THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT THAT THEY PAID LAST YEAR. GOING FORWARD TO THE FARM-TO-MARKET NO NEW REVENUE RATE. THE FARM TO MARKET NO NEW REVENUE RATE OF .002842. AFTER YOU ADJUST FOR THE ANTICIPATED LAWSUITS, A SHORTFALL OF $19,149. THE INCREASE -- THE YEAR-OVER-YEAR INCREASE WOULD HAVE GENERATED THE -- THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WOULD HAVE GENERATED IF NOT THE REFINERIES DISPUTE AND A NO NEW REVENUE OF $49,036. BUT WE HAVE TO ADJUST $168,000 FOR THAT ANTICIPATED LOSS. ON PAGE 10, THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE, THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE WILL GENERATE AN INCREASE IN FARM-TO-MARKET REVENUE YEAR-OVER-YEAR OF $81,999 WHENEVER YOU ADJUST FOR THE ANTICIPATED AND COLLECT FOR THE REFINERIES LAWSUIT WHICH WILL BE A SHORTFALL OF $70,032. YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO END THAT -- THAT RATE WILL HAVE A POSITIVE ENDING YEAR-OVER-YEAR OF $11,967. FOR THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT ON PAGE 11, YOU ARE TAKING THE TAXABLE VALUE OF $48,156,9 -- EXCUSE ME $760,931. MULTIPLYING IT BY THE -- BY THE TAX RATE. DIVIDED BY 100. TO GENERATE YOUR LEVY. TOTAL LEV FOR THE '23-'24 YEAR FOR THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE WOULD BE $39,470,726 WITH A COLLECTION RATE OF 95% WILL GIVE YOU A '23-'24 BUDGETED REVENUE OF $37,497,190. THAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE A DECREASE YEAR-OVER-YEAR IN THEIR BUDGETED REVENUES OF $233,720. YOU ADD TO THAT THE ANTICIPATED UNCOLLECTED DUE TO THE REFINERIES LAWSUIT OF $1.9 MILLION. YOU ARE NOW AT AN ANTICIPATED SHORTFALL OF 2,2,151. AGAIN THAT IS REVENUE OVER REVENUE. [01:20:03] FOR THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE, THEY GET 8%, WHEREAS WE GET 3.5%. SO THEIR VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE GIVES THEM A POSITIVE. THEY ARE ABLE TO WITH THAT 8% HAVE A YEAR-OVER-YEAR INCREASE OF $3,110,068 WITH THAT ESTIMATED AND COLLECTED OF $2,141,786. THAT STILL LEAVES POSITIVE $968,282. ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT SAID, ON PAGE 13, WE ARE GOING TO YOUR ESTIMATED ACTUAL FUND BALANCES, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE JUST ASKING ME FOR. WHERE ARE WE AT IN THE CURRENT YEAR. WHAT WE ANTICIPATE TO HAVE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. CURRENTLY WE BEGAN THE '22-'23 FISCAL YEAR FOR A FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND OF $25,765 NOW, 044. WE ARE ANTICIPATING AN INCREASE OF $2,541,891. FOR AN ANTICIPATED ENDING GENERAL FUND BALANCE OF $28,306,935. AND THAT INCREASE CAN PRETTY MUCH BE SUMMED UP AS FUND RATES WENT UP, AND WE EARNED MORE INTEREST. THAT OFFSET ALL THE OTHER EXPENSESES THAT WE HAD THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THAT EXCEEDED OUR ORIGINAL ANTICIPATED. WE HAVE BEEN AT SUCH LOW INTEREST RATES FOR SO LONG. WHENEVER WE STARTED GETTING INTEREST, IT WAS BENEFICIAL, PLUS THE -- THE -- THE STATUTES PROVIDE THAT THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE ARPA FUNDS DOESN'T HAVE TO STAY IN THE ARPA FUNDS. THIS THEY ARE ABLE TO BE MOVED OVER TO THE GENERAL FUNDS. NOT ONLY ARE YOU EARNING THE INTEREST ON YOUR GENERAL FUND INVESTMENTS, BUT YOU ARE ALSO EARNING INTEREST ON YOUR ARPA INVESTMENTS. SO THAT INTEREST RATE IS GOING TO DECREASE DRASTICALLY AS THE ARPA FUNDS CONTINUE TO BE SPENT, BUT WHILE WE HAVE IT, WE ARE BENEFITING VERY FAVORABLY FROM THE ARPA FUNDS INTEREST EARNINGS. BECAUSE WE GO TO THE GENERAL F FUND, WE HAVE BEEN MOVING IT TO THE GENERAL FUND AS IS ALLOWABLE BY LAW. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: A 40 INTEREST RATE? >> THE INTEREST RATE VARIES PACED UPON THE INVESTMENTS AND THE BANK DEPOSITOR TEE AGREEMENT. CONTRACTUAL RATES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AS WE SPEND IT, IT GOES AWAY. OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T HAVE IT. MY QUESTION ON THE FLOATING IS, DO WE HAVE IT IN SOME SORT OF CD WHERE IT IS FIXED FOR TWO YEARS OR A RATE THAT GOES UP AND DOWN. IS KIND OF A ONE-TIME THING, RIGHT? >> NO, IT IS NOT A ONE-TIME THING. BUT AS YOU SPEND DOWN THE ARPA FUNDS, YOUR INTEREST EARNINGS WILL DRESS AT THISCALLY DECREASE. WE HAVE FUNDS THAT ARE IN -- QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT THAT COMES BEFORE COURT. IT IS PREPARED TOGETHER WITH THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE. SOME COUNTY CLERK, TREASURER AND OUR OFFICE TOGETHER PREPARE WITH THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, THE INVESTMENT FUNDS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I AM SAYING DOES IT FLOAT OR IS IT FIXED? THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING. >> DIFFERENT COMPONENTS FOR EACH. >> IN THE BANK RIGHT NOW FOR ARPA, ABOUT $5 MILLION -- IT IS ALL OF IT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WAIT, STAY WITH US. >> ALL OF US TOGETHER RIGHT NOW -- WE ARE TALKING OF ALL THE FUND, THE ARPA, EVERYTHING, $5 MILLION INTEREST TOTAL SO FAR, BUT JUST THE INVESTMENT FUND, LIKE OUR INVESTMENT, ASIDE FROM WHAT IS IN THE BANKS ARE FOR ARPA AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SPECIAL FUNDS A LITTLE OVER 800,000, I BELIEVE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MY POINT IS THIS IS HERE THIS YEAR. THIS IS ALL GOING AWAY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU NEED THE TH >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AND SO -- WE -- YOU SAY YOU HAVE BEEN PUTTING IN THE GENERAL FUND AS APPLICABLE MEANING THE GENERAL -- LIKE THE RESERVES? HOW DOES THAT -- >> GETS CALCULATED AS REVENUES FOR THE GENERAL FUND. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOW DID THAT GET DECIDED. DIDN'T VOTE ON THAT. I WOULD HAVE SAID -- I WOULD HAVE SAID, HEY, PUT SOME IN RESERVES BECAUSE WE ARE $5 MILLION DOWN ON RESERVES. >>JUDGE SCOTT: EVERYTHING IS [01:25:08] RESERVES. THAT BUILT UP THE FUND BALANCE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NOT IF WE ARE SPENDING IT THOUGH. IF WE WERE TO SAY SPECIFIC LIKE THAT NEEDS TO GO IN THE GENERAL FUND RESERVES, WOULDN'T THAT EVEN BE MORE OF A DESIGNATION? >> IT IS GOING -- THE RESERVES ARE CALCULATED. THE FUND BALANCE IS CALCULATED BY TAKING THE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE, PLUS REVENUES MINUS EXPENSES. WHEN YOU ADD IT IN THE REVENUE, YOU ARE PUTTING IT IN THE RESERVES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: UNLESS WE ARE SPENDING IT. UNLESS WE ARE USING FOR OTHER THINGS. >> AGAIN, WE ARE NOT EXCEEDING THE ADOPTED '23-'24 -- OH MY GOSH -- '22-'23 BUDGET. WE ARE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE '22-'23 BUDGET. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NOT SPENDING MONEY THAT, IS THE BEEN AUTHORIZED. >> WE ARE NOT SPENDING MONEY THAT HAVEN'T BEEN AUTHORIZED. >> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDERBUDGET -- SORRY, OVERBUDGET, BECAUSE YOU ARE SPENDING MONEY -- >> YOU NEED TO GET ON THE MICROPHONE. >> SPENDING MONEY THAT WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE WERE GETTING. OH, THANK YOU FOR THE BONUS $4 MILLION. OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN OVER OVERBUDGET. >> OTHERWISE WE WOULD BE IN A DEFICIT BECAUSE WHENEVER WE GO TO K. WHENEVER -- >> IT IS COVERING ALL THE OVERSPENDING. >> IT IS COULD COVERING -- SO IS THE EXPENSES EXCEEDED REVENUES LAST -- BUDGETED EXPENSES EXCEEDED BUDGETED REVENUES LAST YEAR AND WHENEVER PEOPLE ARE SPENDING BUDGETED FUNDS, THEN -- THEN THEY ARE STILL WITHIN THE PARAMETERS SET BY COMMISSIONERS COURT, BUT IT IS DECREASING YOUR FUND BALANCE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THE FACT I DON'T REMEMBER A YEAR WHERE WE OVERSPENT ON EXPENSES COMPARED TO WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO THAT IS A PROBLEM, RIGHT. THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE TO ADJUST THAT FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT ON SALARY SAVINGS AND OTHER THINGS WE NEED TO LOOK AT. >> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS, SIR. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LAST YEAR WASN'T -- IT WASN'T A GOOD YEAR. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: EXECUTION ME, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE FINDING BUCKETS OF MONEY THAT WE THOUGHT WE DIDN'T HAVE IN? >> YES. >> THEY ARE THE BUCKETS THAT YOU HAD THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: EXACTLY. >> AND Y'ALL DID A BUDGET BASED ON EMPTY BUCKETS. SO WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER MULTIPLE YEARS OF COMMISSIONERS COURT'S ACTION IS WE CUT ALL THE FAT IN THE BUDGET. BUT SPENDING HAVEN'T CHANGED. SO THE DEPARTMENTS ARE STILL SPENDING THE WAY THEY PREVIOUSLY HAVE SPENT AND THEIR BUDGETS BECAME CLOSER TO THEIR ACTUALS. IT IS A COLLECTIVE WHOLE. I AM NOT SAYING ANYBODY IN PARTICULAR. IT IS A COLLECTIVE WHOLE. FOR INSTANCE -- >> FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE WHAT YOU VISIT COURT. YOU ARE TRYING TO LAY BLAME ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY, BUT WE WERE SPEND WHAT WE WERE BUDGETED. >>JUDGE SCOTT: COME ON, GUYS, LET'S MOVE FORWARD. WE ARE NOT HERE -- CONTINUE, LET'S JUST MOVE ON. THIS ISN'T THE TIME -- >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: ANOTHER TIME. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE WILL ADDRESS THAT, ABSOLUTELY LATER, YEAH. WE ARE ALMOST DONE WITH THIS PRESENTATION. AND SHE HAS ANOTHER PAGE TO GO TLUP, SO LET'S JUST MOVE ON. THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF TIME FOR THIS KIND OF DISCUSSION. IT IS WHAT IT IS. IT IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF THE ANTICIPATED CONVERSATIONS JUST LIKE THIS. YES. >> THE ROAD AND BRIDGE IS HAVING A SLIGHT INCREASE TO THEIR FUND BALANCE THE -- THE FAIRGROUNDS -- ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS ARE HAVING A POTENTIALLY SLIGHT INCREASE. THE LAW LIBRARY ENDED 9/20/22 IN A DEFICIT AND CONTINUES TO HAVE A DEFICIT; HOWEVER, THAT DEFICIT IS $725 LESS THAN IT WAS THE PREVIOUS YEAR. AGAIN, YOU CAN'T CONTINUE TO OPERATE ON A DEFICIT. SO WE ARE GOING TO -- EITHER THE GENERAL FUND WILL NEED TO FUND THE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS OR ADDITIONAL CUTS WILL BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO OFFSET THAT KNOWN ANTICIPATED DEFICIT IN THE LAW LIBRARY OF 64,127. THE COASTAL PARK ALSO HAVE A SLIGHTLY LARGER INCREASE IN ENDING FUND BALANCE OF $235,090. [01:30:03] DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ESTIMATED ACTUAL ENDING FUND BALANCES FOR 9/30/23? WITH THAT SAID, WE ARE MOVING OVER TO THE K-1, THE K-2, THE SEPARATE ASSESSMENT, CONNIE, THANK YOU SO MUCH. HOW ARE WE DOING ON TIME. >>JUDGE SCOTT: 10:35. >> YOU LOOK AT THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE CARING FOR THAT ESTIMATED BEGINNING FUND BALANCE OF $28 MILLION, 306,935. AND THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES WITH THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE OF A TOTAL OF $110,869,932. THAT GIVES YOU THE TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS, REVENUES PLUS YOUR BEGINNING FUND BALANCE OF $139,176,867. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU KIND OF ALREADY WENT THROUGH THIS PAGE SO WE CAN SKIP IT. >> IF WE GO OVER TO K-2, WHICH IS AGAIN -- AGAIN I AM GOING TO CALL IT STEVE'S MAGICAL WORKSHEET. THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. IT SHOWS YOU WHAT -- STARTING AT THE BOTTOM OF K-2, YOU CAN SEE THE 1920, WE BUDGET REVENUES OF -- WE BUDGETED REVENUES OF $99 MILLION. BE ACTUALLY HAD REVENUES OF $97 MILLION, WHICH IS 98.1% OF BUDGETED REVENUES. SO REVENUES CAME IN AT 98.1. EXPENDITURES -- BUDGETED EX- INTURES CAME IN AT 91.9. TRANSFERS OUT WENT OUT AT 93. SO THE BUDGET ANTICIPATED AS SHORTFALL OF 4.497 MILLION IN ACTUALITY BECAUSE WE SPENT LESS THAN WE BUDGETED AS WE ALWAYS DO, BECAUSE WE ARE BEING PRUDENT WITH THOSE FUNDS. THE ACTUAL -- THERE WAS A YEAR-OVER-YEAR INCREASE IN YOUR FUND BALANCE OF $2.3 MILLION. THEN IN 2020, 2021, A YEAR-OVER-YEAR INCREASE OF $939,000. '21-'22, THAT WAS THE YEAR THAT COMMISSIONERS COURT DECIDED TO MAKE CHANGES WITH -- WITH BUDGET. AND IT WAS COVID. THERE WERE DIFFERENT THINGS COMING IN. WE CAME IN UNDER. SO WE BUDGETED A DECREASE, $9.2 MILLION. AND WE ACTUALLY CAME IN WITH AN ACTUAL DECREASED FUND BALANCE OF $17 $175,523. THIS YEAR WITH OUR ESTIMATED ACTUALS, 101% OF BUDGETED REVENUES COME IN. WE ARE OPENING THAT EXPENSES ARE GOING TO BE AT 89.2% OF BUDGETED EXPEN EXPENDITURES. WHICH WILL GENERATE A POSITIVE INCREASE IN YOUR FUND BALANCE OF 2.541 MILLION ESTIMATED ACTUAL INCREASE. WE HAVE BUDGETED A DECREASE OF $10 MILLION. SO, AGAIN, FAVORABLE TO THE COUNTY. AND AS I STATED BEFORE, YOU WANT YOUR BUDGET TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ABSORB THINGS THAT YOU CAN FINANCIALLY PLAN FOR. YOU WANT TO OVERBUDGET YOUR EXPENSES AND YOU WANT TO UNDER BUDGET YOUR REVENUE IN ORDER TO IT BE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE. SO FOR USING THAT NO NEW REVENUE BASE AND THE ESTIMATED ACTUAL BEGINNING FUND BALANCE IN 9 SLR/30/23. IF WE BUDGET $1 08,669,000. THERE IS A NUMBER THAT IS CUT OFF THERE. IF WE BUDGET THE REVENUES THERE IS AND ANTICIPATING THAT WE RECEIVE -- BECAUSE IT AS VERY -- THE BUDGETED REVENUES ARE PRETTY RIGHT ON. IF WE RECEIVE 99% OF THOSE, WE WOULD HAVE A COLLECTION OF $107,528, 4020 SOMETHING. THAT LINE IS CUT OFF. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. YOUR AVAILABLE RESOURCES BETWEEN BUDGET AND ESTIMATED ACTUAL WOOP [01:35:06] BE FAVORABLE. YOU WOULD BE BUDGETING TO HAVE. YOU WOULD BE BUDGETING MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE COMING IN BECAUSE OF THE REFINERIES. WE ARE GOING TO FULLY BUDGET THE REVENUE. IT WILL JUST BE IN CONTINGENCY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ANSWER A QUESTION FOR ME REAL QUICK. BUDGET AND ACTUALS IF YOU WENT BACK ALL YOU HAVE THESE YEARS, OUR FUND BALANCE IS OUR GENERAL FUND AFTER EVERYTHING. THIS SAYS THE AMOUNT WE ANTICIPATED, THE AMOUNT WE ACTUALLY COLLECTED, THE AMOUNT WE ANTICIPATED SPEND, THE AMOUNT THAT WE COLLECTED. IF YOU WENT WANT TO ALL OF THE FUND BALANCE, OUR GENERAL FUND AND 19 THIS IS THE AMOUNT AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET OUR GENERAL FUND BALANCE MOVING FORWARD. >> THAT'S CORRECT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL LINE WHERE IT IS 22,694 SIX ZERO SOMETHING. THE LAST LINE IS CUT OFF. YOUR BEGINNING FUND BALANCE. THE $25 MILLION. THAT IS YOUR ACTUAL. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A CHECK AND BALANCE IN WHAT WE HAVE EVERY YEAR AND IF WE INCREASE OUR FUND BALANCE OR WHEN. >> THAT IS WHAT THIS IS SHOWING -- THIS IS WHAT YOU BUDGETED. THIS IS WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. THIS IS WHAT YOU BUDGETED -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU GO BACK ALL THESE YEARS AND START BACK IN 2019, WE HAD $24 MILLION IN OUR FUND BALANCE. THEN GOING INTO 2020, WE SHOULD HAVE $26 MILLION, IF WE ADDED IN PRESIDENT END OF THE YEAR THE $ MILLION. THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING SMP. >> NO, IF YOU WERE LOOKING AT THE ACTUALS FOR 9/30/21. T >>JUDGE SCOTT: IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PAGE? >> IF YOU GO TO -- ON 2020-2021, THE -- THE $939,463 INCREASE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BEGINNING FUND BALANCE AND THE ENDING FUND BALANCE. YOU ARE NOT ADDING THAT ON TOP OF THAT NUMBER. >>JUDGE SCOTT: JUST THE FINAL NUMBER. >> THAT IS YOUR NET CHANGE. YOUR YEAR-OVER-YEAR INCREASE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WAS THINKING A WAY TO CHECK BACK FOR ACTUAL NUMBERS. SOME WAY FOR US TO FEEL THIS IS INFORMATION GIVEN US TO OR SOMETHING. >> YES, THESE ALL TIE TO OUR AUDITED FINANCIALS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SOMETHING SIMPLE TO LOOK AT TO KNOW -- I KNOW YOU WERE ASKING. >> LIKE BANK STATES STATES. I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE. NEVER MIND. >> SO THESE ARE YOUR ACTUAL -- YOUR ACTUAL FUND BALANCES. AGAIN, IF WE -- ASSUMING THAT WE REDUCE OUR EXPENDITURES, THAT -- OF THE BUDGETED EXPENDITURES THAT WE HAVE, ACTUAL SPENDING IS CURTAILED -- WE NOT ONLY CUT BUDGET, BUT THEN WE ACTUALLY REDUCE SPENDING ON TOP OF THOSE C CUTS. THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE ESTIMATE -- THE 86%. SO WE -- OF THE BUDGETED REVENUE WE ONLY SPEND 86 OF WHAT WE BUDGET AND COME IN AT EXPENSES OF -- FOR THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE OF $103,612,244. THAT WOULD GIVE US, AGAIN, THAT DEFICIT -- BUDGETED DEFICIT OF $20,965,522. WE HAVE NEVER PREVIOUSLY AS YOU CAN LOOK AT THE PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS HIT 86% OF BUDGETED EXPENDITURES. 86 IS EXTREMELY -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LOW. >> -- LOW. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHY PROJECT IT LIKE THAT? I AM JUST CURIOUS. WHY NOT PROJECT IT AS THE AVERAGE OF THE FOUR YEARS. >> BECAUSE DALE IS ASSUMING THAT GIVEN THE STATE OF THE NUECES COUNTY, THAT ACTUAL EXPENDITURES WILL REDUCE WITH ACTUAL BUDGET CUTS. REFINERIES. >> THE REFINERIES ARE IN THAT NUMBER, THAT'S CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IF WE ARE -- IF YOU -- IF YOU BUDGETED -- IF YOU BUDGETED YOUR EXPENDITURES AT THE AVERAGE PERCENTAGE, LET'S JUST SAY, OF [01:40:02] THE LAST FOUR YEARS, THEN THAT DEFICIT WILL BE EVEN HIGHER. >> THAT'S CORRECT, SIR. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THIS IS CONSERVATIVE. >> YOUR ESTIMATED ACTUAL. WHAT YOU THINK YOU MAY BE ABLE TO COME IN AT NEXT YEAR WOULD CHANGE. LET ME GET THAT FOR YOU. >> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY:THAT REAL LEGAL IS. >> THE ESTIMATED ACTUAL NUMBER THAT WILL CHANGE BASED ON THE TWO YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED NUMBERS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AGAIN, IF YOU JUST -- I AM NOT -- IF I -- IF I JUST TOOK THE FOUR-YEAR AVERAGE, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR OF THE OTHER TWO BUDGETED YEARS AND SAID INSTEAD OF 86%. IT WAS 89%, WHICH IS -- MAYBE 90, WE ARE LOOKING AT MORE. WE ARE LOOKING AT A HIGHER BUDGET DEFICIT. THE 86 -- >> THE BUDGET DEFICIT WILL BE THE ACTUAL SAME. THE ACTUAL DEFICIT WILL BE DIFFERENT. THE STIRMENTED ACTUAL. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: RIGHT. IT WOULD GO UP. >> INSTEAD OF IT BEING THE 5.185104. IT WILL BE A -- IT WOULD BE HIGHER I CAN -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IN OTHER WORDS, I HAVEN'T SEEN AN 86 NUMBER. THAT IS WHAT I AM GETTING TO. SO IF WE PUT IN THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF THE AVERAGE OF THE LAST FOUR YEARS, OUR PROJECTED DEFICIT WILL BE EVEN BIGGER, RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT 103 NUMBER WILL DOWN. AND AGAIN THIS IS WHERE THE COURT IS GOING TO DIG INTO THAT. WHAT KEVIN'S NUMBER IS LOST REVENUE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE LOSS REVENUE PLUS, PLUS, PLUS. AUGUST 9 AT 86% WHICH IS TOO LOW FOR MME WHICH IS TOO LOW FOR ME I GET IT. DALE HAS REASONING HERE. THAT IS FINE LOOKING AT A POTENTIAL DEFICIT OF 20 MILLION PLUS. NOT FIVE OR SEVEN OR TEN. 20. IF WE DO NOTHING AND WE DO EVERYTHING WE ARE ABLE GATED RIGHT NOW AS WE SIT WE ARE LOOK CAN AT 20 TO 25 MILLION ON A DEFICIT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I JUST -- THAT IS A BIG, BIG NUMBER. AND IT IS NOT JUST THE LOSS IN REVENUE, BUT ALSO THE INCREASE IN EXPENSES AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT YOU HAVE TO FACTOR IN. SO ALL WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN PREVIOUS -- AND TOOK ME A WHILE FOR THIS TO CLICK. ALL THE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN LOST REVENUE POTENTIAL. WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT INCREASED EXPENSES THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT HAPPENS WHERE THIS NUMBER IS -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD HAVE DONE IF THAT $6 MILLION WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE. WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT 50 MILLION. WOULD HAVE BEEN UNREAL. NOT JUST THE LOST REVENUE. AND EVERYBODY HALVES GOT TO GET THIS. 20 TO 25 MILLION AS WE GET HERE TOD TODAY. >> AND I HAVE THE SPREADSHEET CHANGE THAT 86 TO 91. LOOKING AT BUDGETING AT THE 19% OF THE $121 MILLION BUDGET BRING YOU IN AN ESTIMATED ACTUAL OF $1 09 MILLION,636,211 WHICH WILL BE AN INCREASE IN YOUR FUND BA BALANCE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IT IS WHAT IT IS. AND AS WE SIT YOUR NUMBER IS AND CAN CHANGE IN 15 MINUTES, I GET IT. IF WE DO EVERYTHING ON YOUR LIST 20, 25 MILLION WE WILL COME UP WITH MAGIC WILL HERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOING FORWARD TO THE K-4 REALLY QUICK. WHENEVER YOU CHANGE TO THE VOTER APPROVED, THE REVENUES GO UP AND THE LOST DUE TO THE REFIVE FINERY ALSO GO UP. SO NOT JUST -- NOT THE BUDGETED REVENUE. BUT BUDGETED EXPENSETURE ISSUE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE YOU ARE STILL AT A BUDGET DEFICIT BECAUSE YOUR EXPENSE IS NOT [01:45:05] GOING TO EXPLAIN. AND YOU WILL ADD A BUDGET ED BU BUDGETED SHORTFALL YOU WILL HAVE AN ACTUAL DECREASE OF 4,325 USING THAT SAME WORKSHEET FOR THE PROJECTIONS IF I USED 91% OF THOSE EXPENSES. OOPS. DEFICIT OF 10,064,016 FOR THE ESTIMATED ACTUAL. YOUR BUDGET WILL BE CORRECT AS IT IS SHOWN ON THE SHEET BASED UPON WHAT WE WILL ACTUALLY SPEND. THE BUDGET WE ADOPT AND HOW ACTUAL SPENDING COMES IN BASED ON THAT BUDGET THIS IS MORE OF A REVENUE AND WE WILL GET INTO THE NITTY GREATY. BRAINSTORMED FOR COMMISSIONERS COURT CONSIDERATION AND THAT THAT LIST YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IN ALL I SEE IS INCLUDE AND INCLUDE AND INCLUDE. >> WE SHOULD HAVE TIGHTENED OUR BELTS BEFORE WE GET TO THIS POINT. AND THE REST OF US COULD NOT ANTICIPATED. AND AS COMMISSIONER CHESNEY STATED IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH WORSE AT THE 6.5 BILLION AND CATASTROPHICALLY WORSE. THE APPRAISED DISTRICT DID NOT DISCLOSE THOSE TO THE ENTITIES EFFECTED AND WE COULD HAVE A POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE FIX I DON'T AGREE THAT THERE WAS SPENDING DONE IN PREVIOUS THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL OVER. YOU WOULD THINK WE WOULD HAVE. AND -- THIS IS THE IMPERFECT STORM. THIS IS DEFINITELY. >> OH, NO, THE PERFECT STORM. ALL THE HURRICANES OUT IN THE OCEAN AND WITH GEORGE CLOONEY. THEY ALL MERGED PLUS A COUPLE OF EXTRA THAT WEREN'T IN THE MOVIE. THEY ALL MERGED TOGETHER HERE IN NUECES COUNTY. THE PERFECT STORM OF. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: EMPER EMPERFECTION. >> OF BUDGET DISASTERS. >> WELCOME TO NUECES COUNTY, JUDGE SCOTT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU, LISA, AND WE WILL BE HAVING MORE OF THIS. DOES ANYONE NEED FOR US TO TAKE A BREAK BEFORE WE GO INTO REGULAR -- 10:54. FIVE MINUTES IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK. 10:54. LET'S DO TEN MINUTES . [01:50:11] >>JUDGE SCOTT: IT IS 11:10, AND COMING BACK FROM APPEAR SHORT [1. Recognizing the Calallen Lady Cats Softball Team as the 2023 3A State Champions!] RECESS. ITEM F, ADOPT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: MAKE THE MOTION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL SECOND THAT. THAT IS MY AREA AS WELL. MISS KING READ ON OUR CALALLEN SOFTBALL TEAM. GLAD TO HAVE YOU LADIES HERE TODAY. >> YES, JUDGE COMMISSIONERS COURT REPRESENTING CALALLEN HIGH SCHOOL, LADY CATS SOFT BALL TEAM AS 2023 STATE CHAMPIONS. WHEREAS, THE CALALLEN LADY CATS IS HEAD BY HEAD COACH TERESA LENZ, ASSISTANT COACH LAMAR LOPEZ, J.V. HEAD COACH MARK BRASEL. AND ANJELICA. AND MANAGER AND STUDENT COACH. WHEREAS, THE CALALLEN LADY CATS SOFTBALL TEAM CONSISTS OF MEGAN GEAR AND ANGELINA VILA, CAITLYN TAGLEY, MIRA FLOREZ, JORDAN THIBODEAU, GABBY CADERON, MAGEE HERERA, BRAYLON BAILEY, BROOKLYN MADOR. I AM SORRY IF I BUTCHER ANY OF Y'ALL'S NAMES. I APOLOGIZE. LADY CATS SOFT BALL TEAM FINISHED THE YEAR WITH 31-6-2 OVERALL RECORD AND AMAZING 10-0 RECORD IN THE STATE PLAYOFFS. CATS OPENLY DEFEATED TWO-TIME CHAMPION LIBERTY IN THE STATE FINAL BY A SCORE OF 9-7. THE CHAMPIONSHIP THE FIRST CALALLEN HISTORY. THE FIRST CHAMPIONSHIP IN SOFTBALL TO BE WON BY A TEAM FROM CORPUS CHRISTI. SOME OF THE LADY CATS STATE CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM MEMBERS RECEIVED ACCOLADES FROM NATIONAL AND STATE ORGANIZATIONS WHICH INCLUDE NFCA THCA TGCA SCORE BOARD LIVE, TSWA, CALLER TIMES AND RIO SPORTS LIVE. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE NUECES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT THE COURT HEARBY RECOGNIZES THE CALALLEN LADY CATS SOFTBALL AS THE 2023 STATE CHAMPIONS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU, MISS KING. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALWAYS THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. I KNOW COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, YOU PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: YES, I DID, JUDGE. I WANT TO THANK THIS GROUP OF YOUNG LADIES FOR TACKING THE TIME THE FIRST-EVER SOFTBALL TEAM FROM CORPUS CHRISTI TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY HAVE DONE. YOU PUT CORPUS CHRISTI ON THE MAP NOT THAT IT HAVEN'T BEEN PUT ON BEFORE, BUT TO BE THE FIRST WILD CATS SOFTBALL TEAM TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. THANK YOU ALL FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. AND FIRST THINGS FIRST, KEEP YOUR SCHOOL ACADEMICS HIGH. SO THANK YOU, COACHES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JUDGE SCOTT: AND I JUST WANT TO ALSO SAY THE SAME. THIS IS MY AREA, MY CHILDREN AND MY GRANDCHILDREN HAVE GONE AND DO GO TO THIS SCHOOL. WE ARE SUPER, SUPER PROUD OF YOU GUYS. SORRY WE HAD TO POSTPONE THIS A LITTLE BIT. I THINK SCHEDULES -- GOT US HARD TO GET IN HERE AT THE SAME TIME. BUT WE ARE EXTREMELY PROUD OF YOU AND EXTREMELY GRATEFUL AND I KNOW YOUR ACADEMICS ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT. YOU WOULDN'T BE PLAYING IF THEY WEREN'T. WE LOOK FORWARD TO NEXT YEAR. LET'S DO THIS AGAIN. WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION FOR YOU. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: CONGRATULATIONS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING YOU UP AND TAKE A PHOTO WITH US IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO. WE WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WOULD THE COACH LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? >>JUDGE SCOTT: YES, WOULD YOU [01:55:03] LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING, COACH. THANK YOU. >> GOOD MORNING. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE. I KNOW IT MEANS A LOT TO THESE YOUNG LADIES. I AM THANKFUL THAT WE WERE FINALLY ABLE TO GET HERE. AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL'S SUPPORT. YOU APPRECIATE THE LOVE THE COMMUNITY HAS GIVEN US. YOU KNOW TO DO SOMETHING THAT THESE YOUNG LEADERS ACCOMPLISHED WAS -- WAS VERY, VERY, VERY DIFFICULT AND THEY PUT A LOT OF BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS INTO MAKING SURE THAT THEY ACCOMPLISHED THAT GOAL 37 AND NOBODY WAS GOING TO STOP THEM FROM DOING THAT. AND I THINK WE DESPERATELY WANT TO TRY TO DO IT THIS YEAR. BUT THESE YOUNG LADIES THEY LOVE. THEY LOVE TO BATTLE. THEY LOVE COMPETITION. AND I AM EXCITED. WE ARE EXCITED. HOPEFULLY THE COMMUNITY IS EXCITED TO SEE WHAT THEY WILL DO THIS YEAR. THE EXPERIENCE THEY TOOK THIS PAST SEASON IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE THEM THAT MUCH BETTER. NOW THEY KNOW THEY CAN DO IT -- NOT THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY DID BEFORE, BUT THEY REALLY HAVE THAT BEHIND THEM, NOTHING SHOULD BE STOPPING THEM. IT IS THEIRS IF THEY WANT IT. I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYONE. WE REALLY APPRECIATE THIS. MEANS A LOT TO THEM AND A LOT TO US. AND THANK YOU. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THANK YOU, COACH. >> YOU WANT A PICTURE. . >>JUDGE SCOTT: PUBLIC COMMENT. MOVING ON TO ITEM G. PUBLIC COMMENT. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP. SORRY. [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.] SORRY. MOVING ON TO ITEM G, PUBLIC COMMENT. WE ONLY REALLY HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE SIGNED UP. LET ME REMIND YOU WHEN YOU GO UP TO THE MICROPHONE TO SPEAK, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. JOE ORTIZ. COME UP FIRST. HOW ARE YOU THIS MORNING. YES, AND WE CAN NOT RESPOND. [02:00:06] >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME OVER OR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK PUBLICLY HERE I LIVE AT 3718 MENDENHALL, CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I'M HERE BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS THAT YOU HAD ON THE ORDINANCE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS AN ORDINANCE ON THE GAME ROOMS. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PROCESSES IS THAT YOU MUST MAINTAIN A C.O. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FROM THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. AND, OF COURSE, IN THE PROCESS, WE DO THAT. AND WE DO THAT COMPLYING WITH EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY GIVES YOU. BUT WHEN WE COME TO THE -- WHEN WE COME TO THE NUECES, I THINK WE GOT A PROBLEM THERE. BECAUSE THIS -- BUSINESS OWNERS WHILE THEY ARE GETTING THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR THEIR BUSINESS, LICENSE, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY. BUT -- BUT THEY SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. WELL, AS SOME OF YOU KNOW, YOU ARE IN BUSINESS. COST A LOT OF MONEY. BUT WHEN YOU COME TO APPLY FOR A COUNTY PERMIT, IT BREAKS DOWN BAUER THEY ARE NOT QUALIFYING OR THE PROCESS IS NOT EXPLAINED TO THEM HOW THE PROCESS SHOULD BE I THINK THERE IS A BREAKDOWN IN THE WAY THAT THE PERSON WHO IS HANDLING THE PERMITS. I DON'T THINK SHE HAS GOT THE EXPERIENCE TO RUN THIS -- THIS PRO PROCESS. YOU ARE BREAKING PEOPLE'S DREAMS BY NOT EXPLAINING TO THEM BEFORE THEY SPEND HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AS TO HOW YOU SHOULD, YOU KNOW, COMPLY WITH -- WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES. IF IT IS AN ORDINANCE. WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT AN ORDINANCE. IT IS A PROCESS THAT THE COUNTY ADOPTED. AND I WILL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. I WENT TO GET A PERMIT FROM THE COUNTY. FOR THREE DAYS I COULDN'T GET NOBODY BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T ACCEPT THE $1D,000 FEE THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE OUT TO THE COUNTY TO START THE PROCESS OF LOOKING INTO THE COUNTY PERMIT. THREE DAYS. AND SOME OF YOU ARE BUSINESS OWNERS. TIME IS MONEY FOR THESE PEOPLE. WELL, WE HAD TO WAIT THREE DAYS. COULDN'T GET ANYBODY. THEY WOULDN'T ACCEPT OUR CHECK -- OUR $1,000 CHECK. NOBODY WOULD CHECK WHAT WE WERE BRINGING TO THE COUNTY TO GET THE PERMIT. BUT THEN WHEN SHE GETS THERE AFTER SPENDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES, NO PERMIT. NOTHING. IT JUST. IT IS SAD. IT IS REALLY SAD THAT THE PROCESS IS LIKE THIS. AND I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME IMPROVEMENT OR CHANGE THAT SOMEBODY KNOWS HOW TO GIVE OUT PERMITS. NOW THIS PERSON, DOES SHE KNOW WHEN TO GET A FIRE WALL. NO, I DON'T THINK SO. DOES SHE KNOW HOW TO CALCULATE OCCUPANT LOAD? I DON'T THINK SO. HOW DO YOU GIVE THIS PERSON TO GIVE OUT PERMITS WHEN SHE DOESN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PERMITTING. I THINK ALL SHE KNOW KNOWS IS HOW TO COLLECT THE MONEY. AND HAS ALL THE GALL TO SAY, NO, YOU ARE NOT QUALIFIED. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SORRY, MR. ORTIZ, YOUR TIME IS UP. IF YOU WANT TO WRAP IT UP. THANK YOU. SORRY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU CAN SIGN IN ON THE LIST. >> WHENEVER YOU. >> CHRISTOPHER BRYANT. >> I AM ON ITEM 6. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THEN GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NAME AND ADDRESS AS WELL. >> 2517 GOLIAD. KIND OF UNPRECEDENTED FOR ME TO BE HERE. NUMBER TWO, SPEAKING BEFORE YOU. NORMALLY WHEN I TALK ON THE SHOW I NEVER TALK ABOUT THE COUNTY BECAUSE ALWAYS RUN A GOOD BUDGET AND TIGHT SHIP, AND I NEVER HAD ANY ISSUES I WOULD SAY FOR ABOUT 17 YEARS, BECAUSE THEY HANDLED -- THIS COURT HAS BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THE ABILITY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY JUDGES TO RESOLVE ISSUES. I WAS ASKED TODAY TO COME [02:05:04] FOLLOW-UP BECAUSE I CAME FOR A PERMIT. AND I -- AND I DO FEEL BAD THAT YOU GUYS WERE LEFT WITH NO MONEY TO BALANCE YOUR BUDGET. THERE IS A WHY TO THAT. I THINK THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BUILD A "WHY." I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER CHESNEY FOR COMING ON THE SHOW. HE WAS OPEN AND TRANSPARENT INFORMING OUR LATINO COMMUNITY, 70% LATINO IN THE COUNTY, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ AND MAREZ AND WE ARE WAITING FOR THE HONORABLE COUNTY JUDGE TO COME ON THE SHOW WHEN SHE HAS TIME. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP. THE CITY -- WHEN WE TALK OF REVENUE STREAMS, JOHN, ARE YOU CAPITALIZING WITH ALL THE DEVELOPERS THAT COME FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WITH HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING INTO THE CITY? YOU KNOW, OUTSIDE THE COUNTY PERIMETER -- THE CITY PERIMETER, THERE SHOULD BE A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILT INTO YOUR SYSTEM TO WHERE YOU OVERSEE PROJECTS AND YOU COLLECT THOSE REVENUES. THAT REVENUE STREAM IS NOT BEING TAPPED INTO. AND I FEEL THAT IS SOMETHING YOU SHOULD LOOK AT. I DON'T THINK YOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OF -- DOESN'T HAVE -- AS JOE SAID I AM NOT HERE TO INSULT ANYBODY. WHAT I'M HERE TO SAY IS THAT YOU SHOULD TAP INTO THAT MONEY. FIND SOMEONE WITH EXPERIENCE TO CREATE THE DEPARTMENT. LOOK AT THE STREAM OF MONEY. THEY ARE SPENDING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BUYING LAND IN THE COUNTY AREA AND WE ARE NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY BUILD LAND IN THE COUNTY, CHESNEY, IT CREATES REVENUE AND TAXES. I LEARNED THAT FROM THIS GUYS RIGHT HERE, FROM THIS COMMISSIONER. IT CREATES A LOT OF REVENUE AND THE PERMITTING PROCESS. HERE WE GO AGAIN, GOES TO CITY. MAYBE A -- MAYBE -- WHEN YOU DO A COOP IS NOT NECESSARY BUT A VEIN OF MONEY -- WHAT THEY ARE BUILDING IN THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW, COMMISSIONER MAREZ. TAKING ADVANTAGE WE DON'T NEED A PERMIT OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS. THE DEVELOPERS ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE COUNTY. I AM NOT SAYING BAD THING FOR THE DEVELOPER BUT EVERYBODY PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. IF YOU BUILD IN THE CITY, YOU HAVE TO PAY TO BUILD IN THE COUNTY LINE. NUMBER TWO, LET ME FINISH -- JOE -- LET ME HAVE AN EXTRA 10 SECONDS. WHEN JOE EXPRESSES -- I CAME WITH HIM TO GET THE PERMIT. THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO ACCEPT THE CASH. THEY HAD TO ASK FOUR PEOPLE AND WAIT 20 MINUTES. AND I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING BAD. DO WE TAKE CASH. CASHIER'S CHECK, DEBIT CARD OR MONEY ORDER. THEY HAD TO GO FIND OUT FROM THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT SOURCES. I FELT BAD FOR THEM BECAUSE MAYBE YOU HAVEN'T TWEAKED THE SYSTEM YET AND MAYBE YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IT COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY JUDGE, RELOOK AT IT AND TWEAK IT. WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY ASSIGNED WITH NO EXPERIENCE WITH THE BUILDING OUTCOME AND WAITING FOR THE CITY. THE COUNTY IS DEPENDING ON THE CITY TO MAKE SURE IT IS BILLED RIGHT AND NO OVERSIGHT BY THE COUNTY. THIS IS WHAT THEY ALSO SAID, WE WANT EVERY EMPLOYEE'S BACKGROUND CHECK, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER. I BUILT NINE HOUSES -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: I AM GOING TO HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT YOUR TIME HAS RUN OUT AS WELL. >> I WILL CLOSE WITH THIS. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE JOB YOU ARE DOING AND THE SERVICE THAT YOU ARE PROVIDING FOR US AND LOOK FORWARD FOR MORE OF YOU TO COME ON TO MY SHOW, OUR SHOW, EDDIE FLOREZ AND WILLIE GARZA WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY AND FRIDAY AND EXPRESS AND SHARE GOVERNMENT AND BE TRANSPARENT. WE APPRECIATE IT AND LOOK FORWARD TO THE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU FOR THE JOB YOU ARE DOING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU. SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. [1. Receive a presentation from the Texas General Land Office on innovative, low-cost ways to manage storm water and flood control.] I AM GOING TO MOVE AHEAD TO THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM A-1 BECAUSE WE HAVE FOLKS FROM AUSTIN WHO WILL BE TRAVELING BACK WHO WANTS TO GET BACK ON THE ROAD. TO RECEIVE PRESENTATION FROM THE GLO ON INNOVATIVE, LOW COST WAYS TO MANAGE STORMWATER AND FLOOD CONTROL. I WILL REMIND YOU TO KEEP IT -- I APPRECIATE THIS, BUT FOR TIME CONSTRAINTS, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT UNDER TEN MINUS. >> THANKS, I WILL MOVE REAL FAST. THANKS, JUDGE. AND THANKS FOR ALLOWING THIS. I WILL INTRODUCE JASON PITCHBACK. I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH JASON TEN, 12 YEARS AT VARIOUS ROLES WITH THE GLO. ACCOMPLISHED A LOT OF SUCCESS. THIS IS AN INITIATIVE THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM AND WE WILL TRY TO INCORPORATE. I WANT TO BRING THE INFORMATION FOR YOU ALL THROUGH THEM TO SEE NEAT ALTERNATIVES FOR MANAGING STORMWATER AND FLOOD CONTROL THAT ARE PRETTY COST EFFECTIVE. I WILL STOP RIGHT THERE. JASON. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE SCOTT AND COMMISSIONERS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. >> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. I AM JASON PINCHBACK, THE WATER [02:10:02] MANAGER AT THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE UNDER LAND COMMISSIONER. I AM JOINED TODAY WITH OUR PARTNERS WITH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRILIFE, CHRISTINA LOPEZ. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK SCOTT CROSS WITH THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE AND SHINING EXAMPLE OF HOW TO DELIVER MUCH-NEEDED PROJECTS. HE IS A TRUE HAM AS I AM SURE YOU ARE WELL AWARE. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING US A FEW MINUTES ON YOUR AGENDA AND YOU ARE MOVING QUICKLY AND ALLOWING US TO SHARE INFORMATION OF THE FUTURE OF WATER QUALITY AND HOW WE ARE MANAGING OUR LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AS AREAS CONTINUE TO GROW. THE G.L.O. LAST YEAR LAUNCHED A PROGRAM CLEAN COAST TEXAS AND WO AND WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES AROUND THE COAST TO EXPLORES WAYS OF ENHANCEMENT OF STORM WATER QUART AND NONPOINT SOLUTION. AND WE ARE HERE TO SHARE A SNAPSHOT OF THAT INFORMATION. IN ADDITION TO LOOKING AT TRADITIONAL METHODS OF MANAGING STORMWATER AND WATER QUALITY, WE ARE HERE TODAY TO SHARE INFORMATION OF COST EFFECTIVE, NATURE-BASED APPROACHES THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF LESSONS LEARNED. SPECIFICALLY OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND IMPACTED DEVELOPMENT IN WAYS THAT ARE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND SUSTAINABLE FOR THE FUTURE AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW AND PROTECT OUR WATER RESOURCES. WE ASKED OUR PARTNER IN A LEADING EXPERT TO PRESENT THE BULK. SHARA SHORT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> GOOD MORNING. AS JASON MENTIONED, I WORK WITH THE AGRILIFE EXTENSIVE SERVICE. YOU SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH MY CO-WORKER HASSER IN NUECES COUNTY, NORMA AND HER CREW. I AM ACTUALLY BASED OUT OF HOUSTON, BUT I RUN A STATEWIDE PROGRAM. THAT IS HOW I AM ABLE TO COME HERE AND SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. THERE ARE A LOT OF SLIDES AND I AM NOT GOING TO TRY TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THEM TODAY. DON'T WORRY, BUT YOU HAVE THEM THERE AS A RESOURCE MOVING FORWARD. IF YOU WANT TO GO ONE MORE IS THAT RIGHT THIS ONE, THE TEXAS COMMISSION OF WATER QUALITY AND SOIL CONSERVATION BOARD TO KEEP TRACK OF THE QUALITY OF OUR SURFACE WATERS. NOT DRINKING BAUER BUT STREAMS, RIVERS AND CREEKS. WHAT THIS MAP SHOWS THE RED AND BLUE LINES REPRESENT BODIES OF WATER IN TEXAS AND THE RED INDICATE ONES THAT ARE NOT MEETING THEIR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. THEY ARE CONSIDERED IMPAIRED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS. THERE IS A LOT OF RED ON THAT MAP. SO NEXT SLIDE. SO WHEN WE SAY IMPAIRED. WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WE ARE TALKING OF THINGS LIKE PATHOGENS AND BACTERIA. AND FECAL COLIFORM BACTERIA. BASED ON THE TERM FECAL, YOU CAN GET WHERE THAT COMES FROM. EXCESS AMOUNTS OF NUTRIENTS. EXCESS NITROGEN AND PHOSPHOROUS. EROSION ON OUR CONSTRUCTION SITES AND DEBRIS. SIMPLE TRASH THAT GETS INTO OUR WATERWAYS. NEXT SLIDE. WHAT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON AND WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO ASSIST YOU GUYS WITH CLUE THE CLEAN COAST TEXAS PROGRAM IS TO LOOK AT GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE OR NATURE-BASED SOLUTIONS TO ABSORB AND FILTER STORMWATER. THERE IS A LOT OF BENEFITS THAT COME FROM THIS APPROACH. WE LIVE ON THE COAST. WE HAVE A LOT OF GREAT INFRASTRUCTURE. WE ARE FLAT. WE ARE WET. WE ARE NEVER GOING TO GET AWAY FROM THE GRAY. WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT WE WILL REPLACE THE GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE WITH GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE, WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT THERE ARE WAYS TO MARRY THOSE PRACTICES TOGETHER AND CREATE A SYSTEM TO GET THESE MULTIBENEFIT SITES, MITIGATING FLOODING, IMPROVING WATER QUALITY, INCREASING HABITAT AND PROVIDING RESOURCE FOR HUMAN CONSTITUENTS AS WELL AS THE WILDLIFE. NEXT. I AM GOING TO SPEND THE REST OF THE TIME GIVING YOU A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THE TWO PROJECT TOS ON THE UPPER COAST WHICH ARE TYPE OF THIS THINGS COULD HAPPEN IN YOUR COUNTY AS WELL. WE WILL SKIP THAT ONE FOR NOW SHELDON LAKE STATE PARK. IN HARRIS COUNTY AND OUTSIDE OF THE BELTWAY. NOT IN HOUSTON, BUT OUTSIDE OF HARRIS COUNTY. SHELDON LAKE STATE PARK, A LARGE PORTION USED TO BE AGRICULTURE PRODUCTION BEFORE IT WAS PURCHASED BY THE STATE AND PUT INTO THE PARK. MOST RECENTLY, IT WAS USED AS A TURF GRASS FARM. EVEN AFTER IT WAS PURCHASED BY THE STATE, IT CONTINUES TO BE USED FOR THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION PURPOSES. BUT WE WANTED TO TAKE THAT LAND BACK TO ITS NATURAL COASTAL PRAIRIE WETLAND ECOSYSTEM FOR THE SERVICES IT PROVIDES. UPSTREAM AND HOLD A LOT OF PEOPLE AND FILTER THAT WATER AND PROTECT THE DOWNSTREAM COMMUNITIES. SO WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO IS ACTUALLY TO LOOK BACK AT THE HISTORIC AERIAL PHOTOS OF THE 1930S. THIS WAS BEFORE YOU COULD USE THE SLIGHTER BAR ON GOOGLE EARTH TO LOOK BACK AT THE PICTURES AND A LOT EASIER NOW. WE ARE ABLE TO LOOK AT WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE WE WENT TO AG PRODUCTION TO USE THOSE IMAGES [02:15:01] TO FIND THE WETLAND PONDS THAT EXIST. WE TOOK SOIL CORES. AND THE EXISTING WETLAND SOILS WERE STILL THERE AND WE REEXCAVATED BACK TO WHERE THOSE PONDS USED TO BE. NEXT SLIDE. UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER AND WORK YOUR WAY CLOCKWISE AROUND THE SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE WHEN WE REEXCAVATED THE POND, IT LOOKED LIKE A BARREN WASTE LAND. AS TIME PROGRESSED WE WERE ABLE TO CAPTURE THAT NATIVE WETLAND ECOSYSTEM. WE HAVE AN AREA TO HOLD WATER SAFELY AND NOT PUTTING HOMES AND BUSINESSES IN DANGER. WE HAVE WATER QUALITY THAT COMES WITH THAT. HABITAT FOR THE WILDFIRE AND NOW WE HAVE THE GREAT AMENITY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY TO GO VISIT AND EXPERIENCE THESE THINGS. SO THIS IS THE TYPE OF STRATEGY THAT WE COULD TAKE INTO YOUR COUNTY, TO LOOK AT AREAS WHERE IS MAYBE THEY HAVE BEEN IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION. IS THERE A WAY TO TAKE THEM BACK TO THE WAY IT USED TO BE. A WAY TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE THESE LARGE AREAS OF LAND UPSTREAMED OR OUTSIDE WHERE YOUR POPULATION CENTERS ARE WHERE WE COULD USE THAT NATURAL RESOURCES TO PROTECT WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIVING. N NEXT. SO ANOTHER EXAMPLE -- I WANT TO GIVE YOU -- I KNOW WE ARE MOVING FAST BUT I WANT TO STAY ON TIME. CLICK NEXT. THIS IS IN HOUSTON NEAR JOHNSON SPACE CENTER. WHEN JOHNSTON SPACE CENTER WAS DEVELOPED IN THE 1960S OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. NO HOMES, NO BUSINESSES, AND THERE WERE LAND AVAILABLE. YOU MAY THINK OF AREAS THAT ARE WAY OUT THERE AND YOU SEE DEVELOPMENT. AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENED. AND WHAT WE SAW IN CLEAR LAKE. NOW HOMES AND BUSINESSES EVERYWHERE. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND WORKED AT JOHNSON SPACE CENTER NEEDED PLACES TO LIVE AND STARTED DEVELOPING. DEVELOPED WITHOUT RETENTION REQUIREMENTS. THEY WEREN'T CONCERNED AROUND THAT. IN THE BOONIES. IT'S FINE. OVER TIME WITH MORE AND MORE PEOPLE CAME, WE SAW A MAJOR FLOODING ISSUE. IT IS THE COAST, FLAT AND WET AND A LOT OF WATER THAT HAS TO BE DEALT WITH. THE CLEAR LAKE WATER AUTHORITY LOOKED IN THE AREA WHAT CLEAN SPACES STILL EXISTED AND FOUND AN OLD GOLF COURSE. IN THE 1960S, LIVE ON THE GOLF COURSE. RIGHT NOW NOT SO INTERESTING TO PEOPLE. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY WANT. WAS ABLE TO TAKE THAT GOLF COURSE AND CONVERT IT INTO WHAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN. NEXT SLIDE. SO IT WAS A FIVE-PHASED PROJECT. PHASE ONE STARTED IN EARLY 2017. YOU GUYS PROBABLY REMEMBER AUGUST OF 2017. THAT IS WHEN HURRICANE HARVEY CAME THROUGH. YOU GOT A FULL-ON HURRICANE WITH HURRICANE-FORCED WINDS. UPPER COAST GOT EXTREME AMOUNT OF RAINFALL. NEXT, THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS WHAT THIS AREA LOOKS LIKE ON A REGULAR DAY. THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE IN AUGUST OF 17. PHASE ONE WAS 80% COMPLETED WHEN HURRICANE HARVEY CAME THROUGH AND DUMPED 50 INCHES OF RAINFALL. YOU CAN SEE IT FILLED UP, BUT THOSE HOMES IN THE BACKGROUND DID NOT FLOOD. OVER 150 HOMES AND BUSINESSES FLOODING IN SMALLER STORMS THAT DID NOT FLOOD DURING HURRICANE HARVEY. THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED WAS CONSTRUCTION OF THAT PROJECT. SINCE THEN, THEY HAVE COMPLETED ALL -- PHASE FIVE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED THIS MONTH. THE WETLAND AND THE PLANTING PORTION STILL NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND THE ALL FIVE PHASE HAVE HAPPENED, RETENTION, STORMWATER, WETLANDS AND PARK SPACE. WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OF THE TROPICAL THUNDERSTORMS OR HURRICANES THAT COME THROUGH SINCE HAVE COME ANYWHERE NEAR THE RAINFALL TOTALS OF HURRICANE HARVEY AND WE ARE SEEING LESS AND LESS FLOODING. NEXT. WE ARE GOING TO SKIP THROUGH THESE GUYS, I THINK. AND KEEP GOING. KEEP GOING. LISTEN, THERE ARE SMALLER SITE SCALE PROJECTS THAT WE CAN THINK ABOUT AT AN INDIVIDUAL HOME OR BUSINESS USING THINGS LIKE A RAIN GARDEN OR RAIN HARVESTING TANK TO CAPTURE SOME OF THAT EVEN ON A SMALL SCALE. KEEP GOING. KEEP GOING. AND SO I WANT TO LEAVE YOU GUYS WITH SOME OF THE THOUGHTS OF CLEAN COAST TEXAS. HOW WE ARE ABLE TO SUPPORT YOU AS A COUNTY AND THE IDEAS AND PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE. WE ARE ABLE TO BRING RESOURCES TO THE TABLE TO HELP UNDERSTAND ISSUES AND HELP YOU FIND HOW GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIT WITH THOSE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE BARRIERS THAT YOU HAVE. THIS IS OF INTEREST. WE ASK YOU GUYS TO HELP DESIGNATE A POINT OF CONTACT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OR WITHIN THE COUNTY WHO WE CAN WORK WITH TO HAVE SOME MORE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HOW THIS FITS WITH YOUR GUYS' GOALS AND PRIORITIES AND HOW WE CAN HELP YOU GUYS BE A MORE RESILIENT COMMUNITY AND A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CONTINUE TO WANT TO COME TO LIVE AND TO WORK FOR A VERY LONG TIME. [02:20:07] >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU, THAT WAS GOOD. >> SEVERAL OF THE TIME OF ASSISTANCE WE CAN PROVIDE IS ASSISTING IN WRITING GRANTS TO HELP FUND THESE PROJECTS THROUGH DESIGN THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION. AND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PARTNERS WHO IS WITH ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FIRMS TO HELP US COMPLETE THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, WE ARE PARTNERING WITH THE CITY OF ROCKPORT RIGHT NOW AND SEVERAL OF THOSE SITE SCALE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN PROCESS OF BEING DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED AT NO COST TO THE CITY BECAUSE WE ARE ABLE TO BRING IN THE GRANT DOLLARS TO PAY FOR THOSE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER -- THERE ARE PROJECTS ONGOING RIGHT NOW THAT WE ARE WAITING ON APPROVAL FROM THE GLO FOR DRAINAGE ISSUES AND HAVE MITIGATION AND STUFF, BUT THIS IS TOTALLY SEPARATE. THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE IN ADDITION TO THAT THAT WE CAN POSSIBLY MOVE FORWARD TO HELP WITH THESE ISSUES. >> DEFINITELY, IN ADDITION TO THESE PROJECTS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: INTERESTING. SOUNDS INTERESTING. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> GOT IT UNDER TWO MINUTES. >>JUDGE SCOTT: AWESOME. YOU DID GOOD. GOING BACK. >> JUDGE, WE ARE GOOD. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YES. BOARD APPOINTMENTS. BUT I WANT TO ASK -- I AM SORRY, MR.BRANDT. I KNOW YOU WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL ITEM CAME UP BUT AFTER CONSENT AND BOARD APPOINTMENTS, WE ARE GOING TO DO EXECUTIVE, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME THINGS TO HANDLE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD. SO DO YOU STILL WANT TO WAIT TO DO YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> IT WAS A PUBLIC COMMENT. IT WAS JUST TO SPEAK. IF YOU BRING IT FORWARD. >>JUDGE SCOTT: AND IT WAS ITEM SIX? LET ME GO AHEAD SINCE YOU HAVE BEEN HERE ALL MORNING. ITEM 6. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, MOU, BETWEEN NUECES COUNTY AND COASTAL BEND RECOVERY GROUP AND ANY RELATED MATTERS. YES, SIR, MR. BRANDT. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS BECAUSE YOU ARE ON MY LIST TOO. >> MY NAME IS CHRISSER BRANDT. >> DON'T TELL ME I CAN TALK FOREVER, JUDGE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THREE MINUTES. >> I AM JUST KIDDING. THANK YOU. >> COASTAL BEND DISASTER RECOVERY GROUP PRESENTED TO YOU LAST YEAR, NOVEMBER IN THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO TALK OF THE WORK WE HAVE DONE IN THE COMMUNITY, HELPING THE COMMUNITY RECOVER FROM DISASTERS. WE STARTED OFF 2015 WITH THE FLOOD IN NUECES AND JIM NUECES WELLS WHERE THAT ORGANIZATION WAS STARTED. WE MOVED DIRECTLY INTO HURRICANE HARVEY AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAD THE WINTER STORM OF -- WHAT WAS IT, 2021, I BELIEVE. AND RIGHT NOW, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF FORMALIZING OUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE DIFFERENT COUNTIES OF THE 11 COUNTIES THAT WE OPERATE IN THE COASTAL BEND. I WORKED WITH THE EMERGENCY MANAGER WITH THE MOU. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SHE IS GOING TO SPEAK NEXT ON THIS. >> YES. AND WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO HAVE A FORMAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY FOR OUR ORGANIZATION. AND -- WE -- AS YOU KNOW, WE WORK WELL WITH THE COMMUNITIES. WE ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY. WE ARE THE FIRST HERE WHEN THERE IS A DISASTER AND WE ARE ALWAYS THE LAST ONE OUT. AND THE ESSENTIAL THING THAT WE DO IS WE HELP COORDINATE THE DIFFERENT NATIONAL GROUPS THAT COME IN TO HELP. AND WE HELP PRESENT -- WE HELP CREATE AN UNMETS NEEDS ROUNDTABLE TO HELP COORDINATE AND HELP THE VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE THE HARDEST TIME RECOVERING FROM THE DISASTER. >>JUDGE SCOTT: LET ME JUST ADD WHAT A BENEFIT YOU ARE TO NUECES COUNTY, TOO, WITH OUR LIMITED RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL AS WELL WHEN WE DO HAVE A DISASTER AND EMERGENCY. WE HAVE A GROUP THAT WE CAN SEND TO FOCUS ON SO WE ARE NOT SITTING THERE WITH TRAILERS OR ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN DONATED THAT WE ARE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH AND SEND OUT TO OUR COMMUNITY WHERE WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED THE MOST. WITH OUR LIMITED RESOURCES, YOU SEEM TO BE A GREAT ADDITION TO OUR RESOURCES ON THIS END IN AN EMERGENCY AS WELL. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE TIME TO LOOK AT THE ACCOMPLISHMENT WE HAD WITH THE HURRICANE HARVEY RESPONSE. AND, AGAIN, WE COULDN'T DO IT WITH ALL OF OUR PARTNERS. AND I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE MORE THING. EVERY TIME WE HAVE A NATIONAL GROUP COME IN, THEY ARE ALWAYS AMAZED AT HOW WELL PEOPLE IN THE COASTAL BEND WORK TOGETHER AND DON'T FIGHT AND COMPETE. [02:25:02] AND I THINK OUR COMMUNITY SHOULD BE REALLY PROUD OF HOW WELL WE WORK TOGETHER. SET OUR EGOS ASIDE AND FOCUS ON THE TASK AT HAND. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE COMMUNITY AND LEADERS LIKE YOURSELF. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR ARE WE GOOD. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE MOU BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. IT HAS BEEN VETTED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I HAVE ONE, JUDGE. HAS MR. LOUIE BEEN REPLACED BY US? >>JUDGE SCOTT: D IS LOUIE'S POSITION. THAT IS WHY SHE IS HERE. SORRY. IT WILL BE A WHILE BEFORE PEOPLE DON'T RECOGNIZE HER AS MY CHIEF OF STAFF. >> I HIGHLY RECOMMEND US DOING THIS. WHEN YOU HAVE A DISASTER, A LOT OF STUFF THAT GOES ON, BUT RECOVERY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ARE PART OF A DISASTER. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THIS GROUP DOES -- PROVIDES US THOSE ABILITIES TO GET THINGS DONE THAT WE DON'T DO ON OUR OWN AND NO COST TO THE COUNTY. SO I RECOMMEND THAT I DO IT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AS WE WELL. >> WE WILL BE BACK. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MOVING ON TO [1. Nueces County Library Advisory Board] ITEM H. NUECES COUNTY LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD. WE HAD AN INDIVIDUAL RESIGN AND WE DID GET AN APPLICATION TO APPOINT SHANNAN COPELAND. SHE APPLIED FOR THIS POSITION. IT IS IN YOUR MINUTES. HER INFORMATION IS THERE. BUT MISS LONGORIA RESIGNED FROM THIS BOARD. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO MOVED. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. [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.] ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOVING ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE ANY ITEMS THEY WISH TO PULL FOR MORE DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I WANT TO POINT OUT ON -- PULL ITEM D JUST TO POINT OUT SOME SOMETHING. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: B AS IN BOY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WAS CALLED TO MY ATTENTION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NOTION PASS OTHER ITEMS OTHER THAN ITEM D ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND TO PASS ALL OF THE OTHER ITEMS EXCEPT FOR ITEM D ON THE [D. Authorize payment of bills - Special Motions List dated August 9, 2023.] CONSENT AGENDA. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. ITEM D, I WAS INFORMED THAT THE FEE FOR ITEM NUMBER 8 ON THAT LIST, ON THE SPECIAL MOTIONS CHECK REGISTER DEAL, THE FEE HAS CHANGED. AND WE HAVE NOT APPROVED THAT FEE FORMALLY. I BELIEVE THE DATE. WHERE IS MY PAPERWORK. HERE IT IS. THE -- THE MAY 1, 2021 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2022. OUR GUYS WERE THERE. THEIR GUYS CHANGED FROM APPLICANT APRIL ON. I AM NOT SURE IF WE WANT TO GO BACK OR HOW WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH THIS ONE PAYMENT. ACCESS IS WHO IT IS. >> THAT'S CORRECT, JUDGE. WHEN THE COURT APPROVED THIS BACK IN JANUARY '22, IT WAS PRESENTED AS THE GUYS. IT STATES THE DOCUMENT THAT IT IS GOING TO CHANGE AFTER APRIL 2022, BUT THE COURT WAS NOT AWARE OF THOSE CHANGES OR THE NEW GUYS SET AFTER THAT DATE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS IS FOR -- SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. HE -- DR.FAGAN IS AWARE AND WORKING WITH MICHAEL TO BRING THE GUYS BEFORE THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT SHOULD WE DO TODAY? >>JUDGE SCOTT: HOLD OFF ON THE GUYS AND BRING THEM BACK WHEN THE FEES ARE APPROVED? HOW DO WE PAY -- OR RENEWED. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GUYS ARE -- HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. I HAD NO IDEA. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LET ME FIND IT. IT IS WHICH ONE ON THE SHEET? >>JUDGE SCOTT: ITEM NUMBER 8 ON THE LIST BUT THE VERY -- >> AND SPECIAL MOTIONS, [02:30:04] COMMISSIONER. >>JUDGE SCOTT: LIKE THE SECOND PAGE IN THERE ON THE BACK. ACCESS, EXACTLY. >> ARE THE RATES NOT THE SAME AS REFLECTED ON ONE, EIGHT AND 13? THEY ARE ALL THE SAME VENDOR. >> THE SAME VENDOR. THE RATES WERE APPROVED. THEY ARE HIGHER RIGHT NOW. THEY ARE PAYING A HIGHER RATE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WHY DID WE ONLY PULL 8. >> SORRY, SHOULD BE 8 AND THE 13, COMMISSIONER. >> AND 1. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 AND 13. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THOUGHT -- WE PULLED ALL OF THREE. >> YES, YOU PULLED EVERYTHING. >>JUDGE SCOTT: OH, YES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AND 1 AND 13 IS IN D. >> NOTHING HAS BEEN APPROVED. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ITEM 8, BUT ONLY PULLED ALL OF D, YES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO WHAT -- >> THE GUYS -- DR. FAIG SUNSHINE WORKING WITH PURCHASING TO BRING IT BEFORE THE COURT THE FEES TO REFLECT THE RIGHT GRADE THAT WE PLAN. UP TO THE COURT TO CONTINUE PAYING. WE HAVE DONE IT SINCE AFTER APRIL 2022. DIFFERENT GUYS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE CONTRACT THEIR IS GIVING HIS GUYS HAVE INCREASED. WE APPROVED HIS GUYS THROUGH APRIL OF 2022. SO WHY DID WE NOT GET THIS BACK IN APRIL TO APPROVE THEIR NEXT YEAR'S GUYS? >> WE ARE AWARE WE HAD TO TAKE IT THROUGH THE COURTS. SO THAT IS OUR -- OUR MISTAKE. AND WE ARE WORKING WITH PURCHASING TO GET THAT RECTIFIED AND HAVE THAT READY TO GO TO THE COURT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: GUYS FOR WHAT? >> TOXICOLOGY, SIR. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOW MUCH WERE THEY AND HOW MUCH ARE THEY? >> THE TOXICOLOGY GUYS I WOULD HAVE TO PULL UP ON THE E-MAIL BUT THEY HAVE INCREASED. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SIGNIFICANTLY, MINIMALLY? >> MA'AM, I WILL HAVE TO GET THE EXACT FIGURES. I DON'T HAVE THEM. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: TABLE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. >>JUDGE SCOTT: PULL OF THE INVOICES AND BRING THEM TO THE NEXT MEETING AND GET THEM THROUGH PURCHASING TO APPROVE THEIR RATES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MOTION TO TABLE FLORENCEHENRICO. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE NEED A MOTION TO TABLE THAT. AND THEN WE WILL MOTION TO PASS THE REST. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AND HOLD PAYMENT SINCE WE ARE NOT APPROVING PAYMENT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IS A MOTION AND SECOND -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ALL THE ACCESS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ONE, EIGHT AND 13 ON THE SPECIAL MOTIONS LIST FROM ACCESS AND MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING ON THE 23RD. WHEN IS THAT? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE, ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN, THE MOTION PASSES. NOW WE NEED A MOTION TO PASS THE REST OF ITEM D WITHOUT THOSE. I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS THE REMAINING ITEMS ON D ON THE SPECIAL MOTIONS CHECKLIST. >> SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH DO WE HAVE A TIME WE ARE SUPPOSED TO SET THERE -- [2. Receive update on Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) Street Improvement Fund available balance as of August 9th, 2023.] >> AROUND NOON, JUDGE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE WILL GO A LITTLE FURTHER. REGULAR ITEM NUMBER 2, RECEIVE AN UPDATE ON CORPUS CHRISTI TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TREATMENT IMPROVEMENT FUND AVAILABLE BALANCE AS OF AUGUST 9, 2023. ARE YOU DOING THIS OR TERESA? AIDEE. >> COMMISSIONERS, IT WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE BALANCES FOR EACH COMMISSIONER INCLUDING THE JUDGE. THAT IS WHAT WE DID. THE REASON I WORK TOGETHER WITH RTA AND WE DID THE ANALYSIS AND WE HAVE THE SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT. I BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU EACH BUDGET AMOUNT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO IF LOOKING AT THIS RIGHT. I HAVE FORGOTTEN THE FUNDS. IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT I HAVE IN MIND IS $92,000. >> THAT ARE THE BOOKS -- NO, THAT IS INCORRECT. I AM WORKING WITH THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE BECAUSE THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT BALANCES. THEY ARE MISSING THAT TRANSACTION. THEY ARE AWARE OF IT -- I POINTED IT OUT TO MISS LISA TO [02:35:01] MAKE THAT CORRECTION. THAT'S CORRECT, LISA? >> YES, WE DID HAVE A MEETING TO DISCUSS THIS FOR -- REGARDING THE RTA AND I DID DISCUSS WITH DALE YESTERDAY. AND HE IS IN AGREEMENT WE NEED TO REVISE HOW WE CURRENTLY ACCOUNT FOR THOSE IN ORDER TO REFLECT THE CARRY-FORWARD BALANCE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SOMEONE NEEDS TO TELL ME WHAT WE HAVE GOT. >> TOTAL FOR BUDGET COMMISSIONER AS OF 2022 BALANCES IS $68,658. THAT'S CORRECT. 68,658. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OKAY. AND REMIND ME, THOSE ARE FOR STREET PROJECTS THAT SOMEHOW WHERE THE BUS LINES RUN. >> THAT'S CORRECT. I CAN SEND YOU THE CORRECT STATUTE THAT SPECIFIES THAT. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: EXCUSE ME, AIDEE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD YOU RIGHT FOR STREET PROJECTS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: RTA IS ALLOWING US -- >> EVERY YEAR THEY ALLOCATE FOR THE COUNTY. WE RECEIVED RECENTLY I BELIEVE ON JULY 12, ONE. AND 880 -- I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY A DOLLAR AMOUNT. BUT EVERY YEAR, THE COURT RECEIVES FUND FOR RTA FOR THE PARTICULAR IMPROVEMENTS. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: THE FUNDS FOR THE OUTSIDE AGENCY WHICH IS $18,000 OR 20,000. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: OUTSIDE AGENCIES? >> STREET IMPROVEMENTS, COMMISSIONERS. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SIDEWALKS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. WHATEVER THE TRANSPORTATION CODE ALLOWS YOU TO DO WITH THE FUNDS IS HOW YOU CAN SPEND THE FUNDS. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: DO YOU HAVE -- CAN YOU TELL WHAT IS IN MY SUNDAY IN. >> THAT'S CORRECT, YES, COMMISSIONER. PRECINCT 1 -- AS OF 2022. SEPTEMBER 30, 2022, $232,555. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: HAVEN'T BEEN USED IN AT THAT WHILE, HAVEN'T IT? >> NO IT HAVEN'T. THE LAST TIME THE COURT APPROVED THE PROJECT WAS '18-'19. NEXT COURT -- THE REASON WE WILL WORK WITH EACH OF YOU SO YOU CAN PROVIDE THE PROJECTS AND IT CAN BE APPROVED. WE ARE MISSING '21, '22, AND '23. AND WE HAD TO AMEND '18 AND '19 PROJECTS TO REQUEST REIMBURSEMENT. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THANK YOU. >>JUDGE SCOTT: HOW LONG WILL THEY LET US GO WITH THIS ROLLING OVER. >> WE HAVE -- WE HAVE AN OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF $854,000. THAT IS ALL THE COMMISSIONERS. THAT IS THE MONEY THAT NEEDS TO BE SPENT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OKAY. I SPENT THE MOST. NOT NECESSARILY GOOD. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ANY OTHER [3. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving a sole source purchase and service agreement with Data Business Equipment, Inc. for one (1) CCR-1600 Cash Drawer Automation and Management System for the Nueces County Tax Assessor/Collector’s Office in the amount of $53,805.] COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THAT VOTE. NO COMMENTS NECESSARY. ITEM NUMBER 3, DISCUSS AND APPROVE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF DATA BUSINESS EQUIPMENT, INC. FOR ONE CCR CASH DRAWER AUTOMATIC SYSTEM FOR THE TAX. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ALREADY BUDGETED. >> SPECIAL REVENUES. >> SO MOVED. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSS. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER. [5. Discuss and consider approval of Emergency Service District (ESD) #2 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Fire Calls in Unincorporated Areas of Nueces County, and any related matters.] 4. DO YOU WANT TO BRING THAT UP AFTER WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE. MOVING ON TO ITEM 5 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT NUMBER 2, MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR FIRE CALLS IN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF NUECES COUNTY AND ANY RELATED MATTERS. AND MISS HAWKINS, OUR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS IS HERE. >> YES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THIS. I AM NOT TRYING TO STOP HER. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NOT MUCH DISCUSSION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO PASS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ANY QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. [7. Discuss and consider approval of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between People Assisting Animal Control (PAAC) and Nueces County, and any related matters.] ITEM NUMBER 7, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THEM DUMB OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN PEOPLE ASSISTING ANIMAL CONTROL PAC. >> THAT IS THE ONE WE SHOULD HOLD UNTIL MRS. MARTINEZ COMES HERE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I DON'T THINK IT IS NECESSARY. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS COMMITTEES CHEST THIS IS STRAIGH [02:40:03] STRAIGHTFORWARD. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A GREAT BEN WHERE NUECES COUNTY AND THEY DON'T DO IT WITH OTHER SURROUNDING COUNTIES. WE HAVE MET WITH THEM AND SHE HAS BEEN NO TO THE COURTHOUSE. >> I NEED TO MAKE SURE IT GETS RENEWED IN OCTOBER. BECAUSE THIS IS ONLY INTO THIS FISCAL YEAR AND WHY THIS CONTRACT IS SO SHORT. IF THEY GET THE $1 25,000 AGAIN NEXT YEAR. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WELL HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO APPROVE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: GOOD POINT. I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS THIS AND RENEW IT IN OCTOBER AS WELL. I ASSUME THIS HAS BEEN VETTED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MOTION TO PASS IT NOW AND RENEW IT AUTOMATICALLY IN OCTOBER UNDER THE SAME TERMS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND TO PASS IN AND RENEW AUTOMATICALLY IN OCTOBER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL NOSE FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. [8. Discuss and consider selection of LJA Engineering, Inc., for Engineering Services under (RFQ3232-23) for the ARPA-funded Project, Amistad Veterans Memorial Park improvements.] ITEM NUMBER 8, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER SELECTION OF LIA ENGINEERING FOR THE ARPA FUNDED PROJECT AMISTAD VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MAKE A MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SO MOVED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, MOTION PASSES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ALL THESE HAVE BEEN VETTED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. IF THEY HAVEN'T, PLEASE STOP ME. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SENDING EVERYTHING TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. >> I WANT TO INTERJECT. ALL YOU DID TODAY WAS SELECT. WE WILL COME BACK WITH THE FULLY [9. Discuss and consider selection of International Consulting Engineers (ICE) for Engineering Services under Master Services Contract No. 20230307-5/10 (RFQ 3222-22) for the following Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-funded project: 1. Golden Acres Drainage] VETTED WORK AUTHORIZATION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THE NEXT ONE COMING UP. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NUMBER 9, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ICE ENGINEERING SERVICES UNDER 20230307 FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT, GOLDEN ACRES DRAINAGE. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND TO PASS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. [10. Discuss and consider selection of Ardurra Group, Inc for Engineering Services under Master Services Contract No. 20230306-5/10 (RFQ No. 3222-22) for the following Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-funded project: 1. Belk Lane] OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 10, SIMILAR DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ARDURRA FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES UNDER MASTER SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE BELK LANE COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT. >> SO MOVED. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. [11. Discuss and consider upcoming Commissioners Court meeting date(s), Budget Workshop date(s), and related matters.] ITEM NUMBER 11, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE UPCOMING COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETINGS AND BUDGET WORKSHOPS AND RELATED MATTERS. ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS, ANY CHANGES, ANYBODY? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUST A QUESTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE -- WE HAVE THE BUDGET WORKSHOP ON THE 17TH, THE NAMED TIME WE HAD THAT ONE QUICK AGENDA ITEM AS WELL. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YES. WE PUT THAT ON THERE. YES. TEN DAYS IS THE 16TH. AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING WHEN WE ADD IT TO THE BUDGET WORKSHOP. JUST THE ONE AGENDA ITEM WE WILL BE WITH OUR MEETING, YES. [1. Discuss and consider approval of a Supplemental Agreement No. 3 between Nueces County and CLK Architects & Associates, Inc. for the Nueces County ADA Modifications Project.] THEN MOVING ON TO TO PUBLIC WOR ITEM NUMBER 1, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT NUMBER 3 BETWEEN NUECES COUNTY AND CLK ARCHITECTS AND ASSOCIATES FOR NUECES ADA MODIFICATION PROJECTS. >> PUBLIC WORKS IS RECOMMENDING SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER 3 BETWEEN NUECES COUNTY AND CLK FOR THE ADA PROJECTS. ONE IS THE COURTHOUSE AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE STILL OUTSTANDING. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I REITERATE I MET WITH THEM AND I HAD SOME QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WAS MISLED OR MISUNDERSTOOD ABOUT THE FUNDING FOR THIS AND THE STOP DEBIT CARD -- THE REST OF THE ADD PROJECTS. I WAS CORRECTED. DID YOU GET IN TOUCH WITH STODDARD, EVERYBODY IS STILL ON TO GO. I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS. IT HAS ALL BEEN CLEARED OUT PAID WITH C.O.S AND THEY HAVE REMAIN FROM THE 1.4 THAT WE ORIGINALLY ALLOTTED THEM. YES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. [2. Discuss and consider options for the relocation of the Social Services and Veterans Services offices to the Nueces County Courthouse, and related matters.] THE MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 2, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR SOCIAL SERVICES AND VETERAN SERVICES MOVING THEM BACK TO THE COURTHOUSE AND SEVERAL DIFFERENT PLANS. JUAN. >> YES, MA'AM, SOME EXHIBITS THAT WERE PUT TOGETHER FOR RELOCATION. I KNOW WE ARE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY THE FIRST FLOOR. AND ALSO THE THIRD FLOOR AND [02:45:01] THEN PROBABLY LOOKING INTO THE GRANT. CONNIE, DO YOU HAVE THAT? >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE FIRST FLOOR BEING THE VETERAN SERVICES REMODEL AS YOU COME IN. >> RIGHT NOW THE TRAINING ROOM. IT IS TOO THE RIGHT. THERE IS ABOUT A 20 X 30-FOOT AREA. >>JUDGE SCOTT: TRAINING ROOM WHEN YOU WALK THROUGH THE MAIN DOORS, ROOM TO THE RIGHT BEFORE YOU GET TO THE JURY ROOM. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE DON'T USE THAT. THAT IS A GOOD SPACE TOO. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE SECURITY? WHEN PEOPLE ARE WELL INTO THE COURTHOUSE. INTEREST WILL BE RIGHT AT THE ENTR ENTRANCE. >> RIGHT NOW SECURITY STATIONED ONCE AND A WHILE IN FRONT. THERE IS A CUBICLE RIGHT THERE IN THE FRONT THAT YOU HAVE SOMEBODY SITTING THERE FROM SECURITY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DO THESE -- THOSE ARE GREAT LOCATIONS. DO THESE MEET THE NEEDS OF THE TWO ORGANIZATION. YES, SIR, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE MAP. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A QUESTION ON THE ONE ON THE SOCIAL SERVICES. IF YOU MOVE THEM TO THE THIRD FLOOR, THEY WON'T BE CLOSE TO THE VETERAN SERVICES AND THEY BOTH UTILIZE A LOT OF THE SAME PEOPLE AND GO BACK AND FORTH. THOSE WERE THE ONLY COMMENTS I I GOT AWAY FROM COURT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THEY WENT TOGETHER BEFORE. NICELY DONE AND PUT IT ON THE RTA AND SPENT A LOT OF MONEY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE THIRD FLOOR IS RIGHT HERE WHERE THE PUBLIC DEFENDERS ARE TEMPORARILY RIGHT NOW. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHICH IS WHERE THEY WERE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WASN'T HERE THEN. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. >> JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS JUST A LAYOUT OF THE ENTRY. WHERE THE ENTRIES ARE. 110, WHERE YOU COME IN. AND THEN -- THE -- THE RIGHT YELLOW AREA WHERE IT SAYS -- I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. THE SPACE RIGHT THERE TO THE BOTTOM PART -- THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD RECOMMEND FOR SOCIAL -- VETERANS OFFICE, CREATES AN OFFICE SPACE IN THE FRONT. AND THEN YOU HAVE YOUR OFFICE SPACE FOR -- FOR JJ AND YOU HAVE A STORAGE ROOM FOR THE SUPPLIERS WHEN THEY COME IN. AND THEY NEED SOME STORAGE. THE ONE TO THE RIGHT WOULD BE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES. HAND THIS IS GOING THROUGH THE HALLWAY INTO THE DOORS. IT WILL CREATE A WAITING AREA, A RECEPTIONIST AREA. AND PUFF. >>JUDGE SCOTT: TAKE UP THE CENTRAL JURY ROOM AND CUT THAT OFF CUT OFF THE JURY ROOM. TWO DIFFERENT PLANS. >> LAYOUTS OF EXHIBITS OF WHAT CAN BE DONE WITHIN THE SPACE. MY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT WAITING ROOM COULD BE MULTIUSE BETWEEN VETERAN SERVICES AND WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN, THEY CAN BE WAITING FOR THE SPACE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE JUDGES. >> WE HAVEN'T TALKED TO THE JUDGES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HAVE A LITTLE VISIT WITH THEM. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT ROOM, BRING THEM IN ON. >> THAT'S FINE, JUDGE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NO, THAT IS OKAY. WILL CREATE 11 OFFICE SPACES AND REQUESTED BY SOCIAL SERVICES AND WHERE THE RECEPTION AREA. AND, AGAIN, THE WAITING ROOM. THAT WILL BE TIED TOGETHER. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE OTHER EXHIBITS THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. THAT WILL BE THE -- THE -- WE CALL IT THE I.T. AREA BECAUSE WHERE I.T. WAS BEFORE. BUT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE A RECEPTIONIST AREA. THIS IS THIRD FLOOR. WOULD YOU HAVE A RECEPTION AREA, WAITING ROOM. THIS LAYOUT WAS DONE WHEN WE WERE KIND OF DOING THE -- THE DEFENDER'S OFFICE. AND THIS IS KIND OF LIKE THE LAYOUT WHERE WE HAVE BEFORE. AND THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT ALSO CREATED -- EXISTING OFFICERS THAT CREATE ABOUT 11 OR 12 OFFICE SPACES IN THERE. BUT IN THIS AREA YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE FROM HR. BUT THERE ARE STILL OFFICES IN THERE WITH SPACE AVAILABLE. AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO JUST PUT IN NEW DOORS AND THAT IS AN OPTION ALSO. GO DOWN TO THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS THE FIFTH FLOOR. I THINK THERE IS ANOTHER ONE. THAT ONE. THIS WOULD BE THE FIFTH FLOOR. THE GRANTS AREA. I CALL IT THE GRANTS AREA, THE GRANTS SPACE. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE TWO OFFICE SPACES AND A SPACE THAT WILL BE TIED -- THIS ONE WILL COST MORE MONEY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SCRAP THAT ONE. [LAUGHTER] WE WILL JUST TAKE THAT ONE OUT. THIS WILL COST MORE MONEY. SO I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND. [02:50:01] WE ARE JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT SPACE THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE. BUT, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, I GUESS WHAT SPACE YOU WANT -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: I THINK WE NEED TO COME BACK AND TALK TO THE JUDGES ABOUT THAT OTHER SPACE BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION ON WHICH SPACE WE COULD USE. >> TWO SPACE ALSO KEEP US WITHIN THE BUDGET. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I THOUGHT ALL WE HAD TO DO WAS PUT A DOOR OR SOMETHING ON THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. >> COST EFFECTIVE WILL BE THE I.T. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: THIRD FLOOR DOWN AND I DON'T THINK YOU CAN PUT THEM IN THE TOWER. >> ON THE THIRD FLOOR, PUT IN SOLID DOORS. IT IS PROBABLY THE LEAST COST EFFECTIVE BY A LOT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THE LEAST COST EFFECTIVE. >> THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE. SORRY, THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: PUTTING VETERAN SERVICES IN ONE SPOT DOWN THERE AND THE OTHER UP THERE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I AM GOING TO THROW SOMETHING OUT THAT IS REALLY CONTROVERSIAL, BUT THAT IS OKAY. IT IS WHAT I DO. SOCIAL SERVICES IS NOT A STATUTORY DEPARTMENT. AND I THINK A LOT OF -- WHAT GOES ON IN THE CITY GOES ON IN THE COUNTY. A LOT OF DUPLICATION. IF WE ARE REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE DOING SOCIAL SERVICES FOR THOSE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS AND DOING FOR THOSE AREN'T SERVICED BY THE CITY DOING THE SAME SERVICES BECAUSE THEY HAVE SOCIAL SERVICES, SHOULD WE POSSIBLY BE LOOKING AT SOCIAL SERVICES BEING IN AN AREA LIKE THE CALDERON BUILDING WHICH WILL BE CLOSER TO OUR OUTLYING COUNTY AREAS LIKE BISHOP AND AGUA DULCE AND BANQUETE TEE. IT IS JUST A THROW OUT. I GET THERE IS SIMPATICO BETWEEN VETERANS AND SOCIAL SERVICES. I KNOW SOMETIMES YOU ARE HELPING BOTH WITH BOTH. IF WE ARE GOING TO MOVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE AROUND IN THE COURTHOUSE AND DO ALL THIS AND MOVE DOORS AND CUT INTO HR AND THE CENTRAL JURY ROOM. THE EASY ONE ARE THE VETERANS ON THE FIRST FLOOR BECAUSE THAT IS, ONE, A STATUTORY OFFICE AND ONE WE ARE DEFINITELY 100% COMMITTED TO FULFILLING OUR OBLIGATIONS AND THEN SOME AND MORE. BUT I THINK AS WE ARE LOOKING AT EVERYTHING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT GOING FORWARD WITH THIS BUDGET THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, WE HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS OF EVERYTHING. AGAIN, I GET THAT THAT HURTS FEELINGS AND CAUSES ISSUES, BUT, I MEAN, THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO PLAY, YOU KNOW -- TO PLACATE. THIS IS A TIME THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE SOL DAIRY THING IF LISA'S NUMBERS. WE HAVE TO BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS. I AM CURIOUS IF PUT THIS SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN THE COURTHOUSE WOULD ALSO BE GOOD. BECAUSE WE HAVE ROOM IN THE CALDERON BUILDING, I WOULD THINK. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I SPOKE TO REBECCA IN ANOTHER MEETING AS WELL, AND THEY ALSO HAVE A BUILDING OUT IN ROBSTOWN. >> WE HAVE OUR OWN OFFICE IN ROBSTOWN. I HAVE HALF MY STAFF OUT THERE AND HALF MY STAFF HERE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHY WOULDN'T -- IF WE HAVE ROOM AT THE CALDERON BUILDING, AND -- I AM JUST -- >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: YOU CAN PUT SOME IN THE CALDERON BUILDING. NOT THE WHOLE STAFF. BUT SHE -- THE BUILDING ALREADY IN ROBSTOWN AND DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU HAVE HERE AT THE RTA. AND IT MIGHT BE FEASIBLE TO BE ABLE TO USE IT. >> I HAVE 11 STAFF IN THIS OFFICE AND NINE STAFF IN THAT OFFICE. WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH A LITTLE BIT BUT I -- MY OFFICES ARE FULL IN MY ROBSTOWN OFFICE. BUT GOING BACK TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WE ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE CARE OF INDIGENT BURIALS AND THEY COME FROM ANYWHERE, CORPUS AND THE OUTLYING AREA. AND WE ALSO TAKE CARE -- THE REASON WE WORK SO WELL WITH JJ'S OFFICE AND NOT THAT WE HAVE TO BE NEXT DOOR TO THEM. I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. WE SERVE THE TIME CLIENTS BUT WE ARE THE ONES THAT SPEND THE MONEY FOR THAT GRANT. OUR VETERAN ALSO GO TO -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU SPEND THE MONEY FOR THE VETERANS GRANT? >> YES. WE WORK TOGETHER WITH THAT. BUT MY STAFF IS THE ONE THAT IS SPENDING THAT MONEY. SO WE ALSO HAVE A CPS WORKER THAT ONE WE TALK OF STATUTORILY REQUIRED. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. WE WILL HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT. RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE MONEY WE SPEND WITH THAT. SHE IS HERE IN THIS OFFICE BECAUSE SHE WORKS WITH THE CHILD WELFARE BOARD AND THROUGH CPS. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: MY [02:55:02] QUESTION -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHEN YOU AIR IS YOU ARE SPENDING THAT VETERANS GRANT. WHY WOULDN'T JJ A WILL BE SPENDING THE VETERANS GRANT. >> BECAUSE WE DO THE CASE MANAGEMENT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WHAT WOULD BE THE ISSUE IF YOUR PEOPLE WERE ASSIGN TO JJ OFFICE. >> WHAT WOULD BE THE ISSUE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IF YOUR PEOPLE WORKED OUT OF JJ'S OFFICES. >> PEOPLE ASSIGN TO HANDLE THOSE GRANTS TO JJ'S VETERAN OFFICE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM WOULD BE WITH THAT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: HOW MUCH IS THAT GRANT. >> 1 $150,000. >>JUDGE SCOTT: $150,000 ANNUALLY. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WON'T BE AN ISSUE, OF TWO OUR STAFF WILL WORK -- HOUSED WITH VETERANSES. >> HOUSED WITH THEM. DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO PUT THEM. BUT -- >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I AM JUST ASKING A QUESTION BECAUSE -- >> SO WHEN -- WHEN MY CASEWORKERS -- WHEN THEY SEE SOMEBODY, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, HE IS A VETERAN, MAYBE WE CAN USE THE VETERAN GRANT BUT MAYBE THE VETERAN DOESN'T WALL FEE FOR THAT PARTICULAR GRANT, SO WE HAVE TO USE A DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCE. SO I -- THAT IS A WHOLE PROCESS WE WILL HAVE TO WORK OUT WITH -- WITH THAT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WOULD YOU HAVE MORE ROOM IN YOUR ROBS TOWN BUILDING. >> NO, ALL OF OUR FUNDING IS NOT GRANTS FUNDING. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DIDN'T HEAR YOU JUDGE BECAUSE YOU WERE TALKING. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IF THE SERVICES THEY PROVIDE IF ALL ARE GRANT-FUNDED AND IT IS NOT. >> OUR GENERAL FUND BALANCE FOR THEM IS WHAT, A COUPLE OF MILLION. >> $500,000 AND DIRECT CLIENT SERVICES WHICH IS RENT, UTILITIES, FOOD, TRANSPORTATION, INDIGENT BURIALS. AND I HAVE MULTIPLE GRANT FUNDS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: BUDGE PERSONNEL IS $2 MILLION FOR THE THREE DIFFERENT DEPS HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ WHERE IS YOUR BUILDING ON ROBSTOWN LOCATED. >> CORNER OF AVENUE B AND 5TH STREET WHERE THE OLD FOOD STAMP. WE ARE NEXT TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THEY ARE OUR NEIGHBOR. WE HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE 2005. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MY OTHER QUESTION. MORE ROOM FOR STAFF IN CASE -- I DON'T MIND FIGURING OUT A WAY -- I WANT TO GET EVERYBODY BACK IN COUNTY BUILDINGS, BUT I AM JUST KIND OF WONDERING. >> I MIGHT BE ABLE TO -- WE HAVE A SMALL CONFERENCE ROOM THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE MADE INTO A COUPLE OF OFFICE SPACES AND WE HAVE A GARAGE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IF YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T. I AM JUST ASKING. I DON'T KNOW IF THE CALDERON BUILDING WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE FOR -- YOU SAID SOME, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ? >>JUDGE SCOTT: OR IF YOU HAVE A GARAGE, IS THE BUILDING WORTH RENOVATING TO PUT THE REST OF YOU IN? >> THE PROBLEM IS THE AIR CONDITIONING WITH THE GARAGE PORTION. I DON'T KNOW, WE HAVEN'T REALLY CHECKED INTO THAT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THING NEEDS TO COME BACK. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AGAIN, WE NEED TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX ON THIS ONE. I AM WITH COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, I DON'T THINK GOING TO THE FIFTH FLOOR IS A GOOD IDEA. TO GET EVERYBODY THROUGH THERE. AND I THINK WE NEED TO MAYBE LOOK AT OTHER FACILITIES IF WE HAVE TO CUT TOO MUCH INTO OTHER TH THINGS. WHEN JUAN WENT OVER THE PLANS AND I LOOKED AT THE THIRD-FLOOR OFFICES AND LOOKED AT IT. WE WOULD NEED A FEW DOORS IN THERE WHEN WE ARE INTERVIEWING CLIENTS WE ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, VIOLATING CONFIDENTIALITY AND PRIVACY AND WE ARE ABLE TO FIT IN THERE WITH A FEW MODIFI MODIFICATIONS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T WANT THE JUDGES INVOLVED IN THE CENTRAL JURY ROOM. NOT APPEALING TO ME. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT GETS USED A LOT. SO IF WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT. WORKS ON THE THIRD FLOOR. THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT WILL COME WITHIN THE BUDGET WE ARE ALLOCATED FOR BUDGETED FUNDS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I THINK WE CAN BRING IT BACK. >> YES, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE DOORS -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU HAVE A BUDGET. WE ALLOCATED $400,000 OF ARPA FUNDS FOR WHATEVER NEEDS FOR BOTH ORGANIZATIONS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: 400 TOTAL. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: INCLUDING GUYS AND EVERYTHING. FOR ME IF THOSE TWO AREAS WORK AND THE REST OF THE COURT AGREES WITH THAT, GET NUMBERS. YOU ARE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION, I THINK, TODAY. >> YES, SIR. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ANYBODY HAVE A -- >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: LISTENING TO ALL THIS. AND HAVING WORKED NORTHBOUND SOCIAL SERVICES FOR A NUMBER OF [03:00:02] YEARS BEFORE I CAME HERE TO THE COUNTY AS A COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW, I SEE THE IMPORTANCE OF -- OF TEAMWORK, TEAM BUILDING. IT IS NOT JUST YOUR CASEWORKERS ARE ASSIGNED A HANDFUL OF CASE WILLING. I MEAN THEY ARE COVERING FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ON LEAVE, FOR VACANCIES. I MEAN, YOU NEED THAT POINT OF SYNERGY WHERE EVERYONE IS CONNECTED. I KNOW THAT YOU ARE ARE GOING TO TRY TO WORK WITH WHAT IS GIVEN. THAT IS WHAT OUR COUNTY STAFF DOES. ISSUE COME UP. AND THEY TRY TO BEND WITH IT. MY CONCERN WOULD BE IF -- I THINK FIRST FLOOR MAKES THE MOST SENSE. NOW IF IT GOES INTO OFFICE SPACE, THEN PERHAPS THAT IS SOMETHING IF THE OFFICES -- IF YOU CAN HAVE SEVERAL KIND OF PRIVATE OFFICES AND MAYBE SOME COMMON AREA WHERE YOU CAN WORK, PROVIDE WORKERS, MAYBE NOT WITH A DEDICATED OFFICE OR CUBICLE BUT SOME PLACE WHERE YOU CAN GO AND CONNECT AND NOWADAYS PEOPLE ARE MORE MOBILE AND NEED TO BE. THAT IS IS A WAY TO WORK AROUND THE OFFICE SPACE. BUT FOR ME PERSONALLY AND THE ACCESS OF GETTING OUR VETERANS IN AND GETTING THOSE THAT NEED THE SOCIAL SERVICES, THE FIRST FLOOR MAKES THE MOST SENSE. EASY LEASE TO ACCESS. IN THROUGH THE MAIN DOORS. TAKE YOUR RIGHT IMMEDIATELY DOWN THE HALLWAY AND GET EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED. AND JUST BECAUSE PUBLIC WORKS AND -- SORRY, SOCIAL SERVICES AND VETERAN SERVICES HAVEN'T BEEN JOINED TOGETHER, MARRIED PRIOR, I THINK THAT IT HAD WORKED, RIGHT. I THINK THE ONLY REASON WE EVEN LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE OR AT LEAST WHY I SUPPORTED THIS WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THE PAY THAT WE WERE PUTTING INTO RENT WHEN WE FELT WE HAD OFFICE SPACE HERE. SO THAT IS WHY I SUPPORTED IT. MY MIND-SET WAS ALWAYS TO HAVE YOU WORK TOGETHER AND COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER AND ABLE TO UTILIZE STAFF TO KIND OF COVER FOR THOSE NEEDS. THAT WOULD BE MY GREATEST CONCERN IS, ONE, WE DON'T SEPARATE YOU ALL AT ALL BY ANY FLOORS. THAT WE FIND A FIRST-FLOOR PLAN THAT BEST WORKS OUT. SO WE HAVE TO CUT INTO THE JURY ROOM. I HAVEN'T -- KNOCK ON WOOD. I AM MILLION TO SAYING TO EVERYBODY DON'T -- I KNOW NEXT MONDAY I WILL LOOK IN THE MAIL AND GET A JURY SERVICE SUMMONS, BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN CALLED IN QUITE A WHILE, BUT MY RECOLLECTIONS HAVE BEEN PRIOR CODE. I HAVEN'T -- I WALKED BY AND I SEE PEOPLE OUTSIDE, BUT IT IS NOT THE SAME AMOUNT IN MY OPINION. JUDGES WILL KNOW BETTER HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE UTILIZING THE ENTIRE CENTRAL JURY ROOM. LIKE, HOW MUCH ARE WE TALKING ABOUT.A SMALL SECTION. ARE WE FILLING UP THE DAYS PRIOR TO OUR NEW NOTIFICATION SYSTEM HEY, WHEN I GET THAT THING, I CALL UP AND I KNOW WHERE TO GO TO, WHEN TO GO TO. AND IMMEDIATELY. NOT LIKE EVERYBODY SHOWS UP ON MONDAYS AND WEDNESDAYS AND WHATEVER. WITH ALL THAT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION, I WOULD WAIT AND WANT TO THE FIND OUT WHAT THE JUDGES HAVE TO SAY. IF THERE IS A SMALL SPACE. BUT, REBECCA, I WOULD ASK IF THERE IS AS WAY TO DESIGN THAT AND COME UP WITH A DESIGN WITH JUAN TO SAY WE CAN DO THE SAME WITH LESS SPACE, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST TO TAKE THAT. I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY THE BEST MOVE. NOW Y'ALL MAY SAY NO, THIRD FLOOR WORKS BEST FOR A US. I THINK GETTING PEOPLE IN AND OUT. HE WILL VATORS, THANKFULLY, KNOCK ON WOOD. YOU DID GREAT WORK ON THAT, JUAN, GETTING US TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE COMPARED TO PREVIOUS YEARS. TO GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT. I AM THINKING FIRST FLOOR IS THE BEST SPOT. IN MY OPINION. WHAT I DO KNOW. I GET A CHANCE TO VOICE MY OPINION BECAUSE THAT IS WHY I AM SHARING IT. IF YOU THINK THIS WORKS. THAT FIRST FLOOR IS THE BEST AND DO COMMON AREAS WITHOUT ANYBODY HAVING ADDITIONAL OFFICE, TAKE THAT QUICK WIN AND BE DONE WITH IT OTHER THAN TRY TO FIND THE BEST FIT FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE AN OFFICE. >> I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR JJ WITH THIS TOO. WE WOULD IDEALLY LIKE TO BE ON THE FIRST FLOOR BECAUSE THAT WE WORK TOGETHER AND CAN SERVE OUR CLIENTS RIGHT THERE ON THE FIRST FLOOR. I WILL SAY THAT I HAVE BEEN IN THIS SITUATION BEFORE, RIGHT. SO I HAVE BEEN HERE WHEN WE DID. SO YOU WILL HAVE MORE JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE, MORE TRAFFIC ON THE THIRD FLOOR. OUR LOBBY AT THE TIME WHEN WE WERE HERE DIDN'T ACCOMMODATE OUR CLIENTS WAITING AND WE HAD THAT RAILING OUT THERE SO OUR CLIENTS WAIT IN THE AREA OUT HERE. JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT. WE WILL LOVE TO WORK SOMETHING OUT ON THE FIRST FLOOR. I THINK IT WILL COME DOWN TO COST. AND THAT DECISION WILL BE UP TO Y'ALL. >>JUDGE SCOTT: COST AND APPROVAL BY THE JUDGES. [03:05:02] WORKING TOGETHER WITH EVERYONE. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO CUT INTO THE SPACE WHERE THE JUDGES NEED TO WEIGH IN AND HELPS REDUCE COST, BECAUSE I CAN IMAGINE IT WILL REDUCE SOME PRICE OF CONSTRUCTION AND LACK OF CONSTRUCTION. COME UP WITH A PLAN OF A HYBRID OF THE FIRST-FLOOR DESIGN AND SAVES MONEY. KEEPS YOU ALL TOGETHER AND FOR THE CLIENT BASE THAT YOU SERVE. THAT IS ALL I AM SUGGESTING. IF NOT, YOU HAVE HEARD THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT WEIGH IN ON WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE, AND I THINK FROM A SERVICE PERSPECTIVE, ACCESS, FIRST FLOOR IN AND OUT IS MUCH BETTER. >> COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, THERE IS A WALL RIGHT THERE IN THAT PLAN. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE SECTION SECTIONAL. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: CENTRAL JURY ROOM. YOU DO A WALL ACROSS THE DOOR WHERE YOU COME IN. THE BACK CORNER -- NOBODY USES THE BACK CORNER WHERE YOU ARE RIGHT NOW. AS YOU COME INTO THE CENTRAL JURY ROOM FROM THE BACK DOOR, THERE CAN BE A WALL. >> THAT IS WHAT THE PLAN HAS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT JOHN SAID. IF YOU CAN MAKE IT WORK. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WITHOUT INCLUDING THE JUDGE. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: EXCUSE ME, JUAN, A WHILE BACK WE DISCUSSED OF UTILIZING THE SPACE TOWARD THE SNACK AREA BY THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. >> WE LOOKED INTO THAT ONE, COMMISSIONER, AND NOT ENOUGH SPACE FOR 11 OFFICES. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NO VOTE. JUST A DIRECTION TO YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU BOTH. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT IT IS WORTH, I DON'T -- JOHN -- I THINK JOHN IS RIGHT. IF YOU CAN GET THEM ALL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND NOT KILL THE CENTRAL JURY ROOM AND THE JUDGES ARE OKAY WITH IT AND COMES IN THE BUDGETS. >> WILL TALK TO THE JUDGES. >> WE WILL TALK TO THE JUDGES TO SEE IF THEY WILL AGREE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OR -- LIKE WHAT JOHN SUGGESTED. COME UP WITH A HYBRID, I DON'T KNOW. BE CREATIVE AND SHOW THE JUDGES SOMETHING THAT IS NOT GOING TO TICK THEM OFF. BUT I THINK THE FIRST FLOOR IS DEFINITELY BETTER FOR THEM, NO QUESTION. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I AGREE WITH THAT TOO. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: GREAT TO KEEP THEM TOGETHER. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE [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.] COMMISSIONERS. >>JUDGE CANALES: I THINK IT IS 12:30. AND I WAS GOING TO BREAK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT I NEED TO HAVE AN UNANIMOUS VOTE FIRST THAT WE CAN DISCUSS IN CLOSED SESSION ON ITEM A, TO DELIBERATE BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL ISSUE RELATED TO THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT. IF I CAN GET A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT WE CAN DISCUSS THAT AS PER OUR ATTORNEY. I NEED AN UNANIMOUS VOTE. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. THAT WAS UNANIMOUS. THAT IS ALL I NEEDED TO DO ON THAT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. A LETTER THAT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED, JUDGE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: BEFORE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE OR CAN WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION NOW. >> YOU CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE BUT THAT LETTER NEEDS TO BE SIGNED BEFORE YOU HAVE YOUR DISCUSSION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: DOES ANYBODY HAVE A LETTER FOR ME TO SIGN? I HAVEN'T SEEN IT -- I DO JUST SIGN -- DOESN'T HAVE A SIGNATURE LINE. JUST SIGN ON THIS? >> I THINKING IT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED -- HANG ON A SECOND. SAYS AT THE RECOMMEND A UNANIMOUS VOTE. >> JUST TO RECEIVE AN OPINION FROM THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL SIGN ON THIS. I DON'T HAVE A SIGNATURE LINE BUT I CAN SIGN JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE. A UNANIMOUS VOTE. OKAY, THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT THIS? A DATE AND MY NAME ON THE TOP. OKAY. SO THEN, IT IS 12:30. AND EXECUTIVE SESSION PUBLIC NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY ELECT TO GO INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ANY TIME DURING THE MEETING TO DISCUSS MATTERS LISTED ANYWHERE ON THE AGENDA WHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO THE EXTENT THERE HAS BEEN AT THAT PAST PRACTICE OF DISTINGUISHING ITEMS FOR PUBLIC DELIBERATION AND [03:10:01] THOSE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT THE COURT IS DEPARTING FROM THAT A 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 AND SECTIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION MAY BE PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED BY THE RESIDING OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0717, 072, 07, 07 076, 086 AND 087. THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL HOLD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEYS INCLUDING MATTERS LITIGATION, DELIBERATE REGARDING REAL PROPERTY, PRO SECRETARY I HAVE IT GIFTS, PERSONNEL MATTERS, INCLUDING TERMINATION, COUNTY ADVISORY BODIES, SECURITY DEVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS. THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY IN AN OPEN SESSION TAKE SUCH ACTION AS APPROPRIATE ON ITEMS DISCUSSED IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ITEM A, CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.0725, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TO DELIBERATE BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL ISSUE RELATED TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONTRACT BEING NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE NUECES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION. AND TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE AND RELATED MATTERS. ITEM B, DISCUSSION LEGALITIES OF THE NUECES MEDICAL EXAMINER'S CONTRACT AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS. 551.071. ITEM C, CONSULT WITH LEGAL IN REGARDS PERSONNEL HAS BADGE ACCESSES TO COMMISSIONERS COURT OFFICE AND COUNTY JUDGES OFFICE. TEXAS CODE 551.076. CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY LEGAL MATTERS OF COUNTY BANK DEPOSITORY AGREEMENT AND COUNTY AND DISTRICT COURT REGISTRY FUND BANK DEPOSITORY WITH FROST BANK PURSUANT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 116.021 AND 117.021. TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. 551.017 AND DELIBERATE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS OF THE BANK DEPOSITORY AGREEMENT. TEXAS CODE 551.0725. HOW I GOT THROUGH THAT, I DON'T KNOW. SO IT IS 12:33. AND WE ARE NOW IN EXECUTIVE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: BACK IN OPEN SESSION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. [B. Discuss legalities of Nueces County Medical Examiner's contract, and related matters (Tex. Gov't Code § 551.071).] WHILE WE WERE OUT, I DID BRING OUT FROM EXECUTIVE ITEM B AND WHILE WE WERE OUT, WE DID RECEIVE A RESIGNATION FROM DR. FAGAN ON HIS POSITION. I THINK -- DO WE HAVE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION BY DR. FAGAN. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF DR. FAGAN. SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I BELIEVE THAT WAS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. SO I NEED TO AMEND THAT MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: AND A SECOND. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUST TO BE CLEAR. THE MOTION AND SECOND WAS AMENDED TO BE CLEAR THAT WAS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, BASED ON THAT ACTION TOO, I WILL MAKE A MOTION PENDING THE ACCEPTANCE THAT DR. CANNON BE APPOINTED AS TEMPORARY MEDICAL EXAMINER SO THE OFFICE DOESN'T GO WITHOUT. AND THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE TOM TOMORROW. >>. >>. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ARE AWAIT FOR A RESPONSE FROM HIM. A MOTION AND A SECOND APPOINT DR. CANNON AS THE INTERIM DIRECTOR -- THE INTERIM MEDICAL EXAMINER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. [C. Consult with legal in regards to what personnel has badge access to Commissioners Court offices and County Judges Offices (Tex. Gov't Code § 551.076).] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND ANOTHER APPLICATION ITEM FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION IS C ON THE PERSONAL BADGE ACCESS TO COMMISSIONERS COURT AND THE COUNTY JUDGE ACE OFFICE. AND COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, YOU HAD A MOTION. [03:15:04] >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: MAKE MOTION TO ELIMINATE ALL ACCESS TO COMMISSIONERS COURT AREA EXCEPT FOR THE OFFICIALS THAT ARE HOUSED IN THE COURT HOUSE AND COMMISSIONERS COURT STAFF. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU MEAN BADGE ACCESS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: BAD ACCESS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OBVIOUSLY THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE JUDGE, SECOND. >> DISCUSSION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND A SECOND. DISCUSSION. YES, COMMISSIONER MAREZ. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: MY CONCERN WITH THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, LEAVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS UP TO THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF SECURITY FOR THE COURTHOUSE. I WOULD RATHER THE SHERIFF LOOK AT THAT FIRST. AND IF THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION, BUT I HAVE CONCERN OF US COMING UP WITH A LIST. SO MANY PEOPLE WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN HAVING ACCESS AND I THINK WE ARE GOING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AS FAR AS HAVING ACCESS TO OUR OFFICES. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME REASONABLE ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROTECT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS IN VARIOUS OFFICES. THEY CAN'T JUST TOTALLY BE OPEN AND I WANT THE SHERIFF TO WEIGH IN ON THAT IF THAT COULD BE INCLUDED, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT OR IS THERE A REASON NOT TO. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T I HE WEIGHS ANY CAN'T GET INTO THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AND OTHER PEOPLE'S OFFICES. I DON'T THINK WE NEEDED TO MAKE A MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I WOULD RATHER WORK IT OUT. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION THEN. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE PERSON WHO ISSUES THE BADGES. AND THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: CALL FOR THE QUESTION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I AM GOOD WITH MY MOTION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: HE DOESN'T WANT TO AMEND HIS MOTION AND HE HAS A SECOND ON IT. AS PER DISCUSSION AS WELL, I AM OPPOSED TO BADGES PERIOD. I THINK WE ARE IN A PUBLIC BUILDING AND SHOULD BE PUBLIC ACCESS. WHEN I WAS IN AUSTIN AT THE CAPITOL, PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE BATCHES. IT IS THEIR BUILDING, NOT OUR BUILDING. IT IS THE PEOPLE'S BUILDING. WITH THAT BEING SAID, MY STAFF IS BETTER WITH THE DOOR LOCKED AND WE WILL VOTE ON IT BECAUSE OF THAT. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT POLICY AFTER ALL. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, JUST FOUR THE RECORD, THE CAPITOL HAS SECURITY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU CAN WALK IN THE CAPITOL WHEREVER, EVERYWHERE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU CAN'T GO IN WITHOUT GOING THROUGH SECURITY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU CAN HAVE A CHM WALK WITH IN THE GUN. WE HAVE IT IN THIS COURT ROOM. IT IS TOTAL ACCESS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE DON'T HAVE SECURITY ON THE FIRST THREE FLOORS. EVERYBODY ELSE DOES. WE DON'T HAVE ANY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL AGREE TO DISAGREE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT IS FINE, BUT I CAN'T GO INTO THE CAPITOL WITHOUT GOING THROUGH SEC SECURITY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WALK IN THE CAPITOL WITH A GUN. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I CAN'T GO INTO SOMEBODY'S OFFICE AND WALK IN. I HAVE TO SIGN IN. IF THEY TELL ME I WAIT, I WILL WAIT 30 MINUTES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT IS FINE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: ANYWAY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: AS I SAID I AM GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS TODAY MY STAFF FEELS BETTER WITH IT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: CALL FOR THE QUESTION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: NO. >>JUDGE SCOTT: FOUR AYES AND ONE NO. YES, THANK YOU. I AM GOING BACK EVERYTHING WE HAVE SKIPPED -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, I HAVE ANOTHER MOTION ON THAT. THE OTHER MOTION IS THAT THE GARAGE. THE GARAGE PARKING WOULD ALSO HAVE LIMITED ACCESS TO THOSE WHO HAVE WORKING SPOTS IN THE GARAGE AND ONE DESIGNEE FROM EACH OF THEIR STAFFS. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND TO LIMIT ACCESS TO THE PARKING GARAGE FOR ONLY THOSE WITH PARKING SPACES AND ONE DESIGNEE FOR THAT PERSON THAT HAS A PARKING SPACE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. [4. Discuss and consider out-of-county autopsies, and any related matters.] NOW GOING BACK. ARE WE CLEAR. ITEM NUMBER 4, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER OUT OF COUNTY AUTOPSIES -- OH, IT IS 3-A-4, REGULAR AGENDA. DISCUSS OUT-OF-COUNTY AUTOPSIES AND ANY RELATED MATTERS. LET ME GET BACK TO THERE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I PUT IT ON. AS WE SEE WITH THE FINANCIAL [03:20:02] ANALYSIS THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED. WE AS A COUNTY ARE NOT CURRENTLY MAKING MONEY ON THAT. WE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF EXPOSURE AS WE DO AUTOPSIES ADVISED BY OUR COME. IF ONE OF THOSE GOES AWRY, WE CERTAINLY AS NUECES COUNTY WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT. OUR STATUTORY DUTY IS ONLY TO NUECES. THAT IS THE LAW. CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO LEAVE ANYBODY HANGING AND I WANT TO GIVE PROPER NOTICE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WITH THE FACT WE DON'T CURRENTLY MAKE MONEY ON THIS AND WITH THE LIABILITY EXPOSURE IT TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE DO THAT. FORCES US BASED ON THE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS THAT WE SAW TO HAVE A THIRD MEDICAL EXAMINER BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF OUT-OF-COUNTIES THAT WE DO. THE CURRENT SITUATION BASED ON THE RESIGNATION TENDERED BY DR. FAGAN AND WE HAVE TWO OUTSTANDING DOCTOR THERE IS NOW. IF WE ELIMINATE THE OUT-OF-COUNTY AUTOPSIES, THEN WE WILL BE LIMITING OUR EXPOSURE. WE WILL NOT FORCED TO HIRE A THIRD DOCTOR AND HE WILL BE SERVING NUECES RESIDENTS IN A STATUTORY MANNER THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. THAT IS KIND OF WHERE I AM STARTING THE DISCUSSION. IF ANYONE AGREES OR DISAGREES, LET US KNOW AND HASH IT OUT. I THINK IT IS TIME TO KIND OF MAKE DECISION ON THAT ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT JUST A OCCURRED A FEW MINUTES AGO, WE DEFINITELY WANT TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I AGREE WITH YOU WITH THE COST AND THE LIABLE, I THINK IT NEEDS TO STOP. 90 DAYS NOTICE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: ELIMINATE 60 -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ELIMINATE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE DON'T DO OUT OF COUNTY. THE MOTION WILL BE TO ELIMINATE THAT AND 90-DAY CLAUSE THAT WE ARE ELIMINATING NOSE MOUS AND ELIMINATING OUT-OF-COUNTY AUTOPSIES. THAT WOULD BE A MOTION. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY COUNTIES GIVE THEM. IT IS 18. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU TELL US WHATEVER THE CONTRACT SAYS, WE WILL GIVE OUR 90-DAY NOTICE TO LET THEM KNOW WE WOULDN'T BE CONTINUING. AND I THINK GIVEN THE FINANCIAL SITUATION THAT THE COUNTY IS IN. AND UNDERSTANDING FROM THE PREVIOUS REPORT THAT WE GOT AT THE LAST COMMISSIONERS COURT AND THE COST TO THE COUNTY, I THINK THIS IS BENEFICIAL FOR US RIGHT NOW. IT IS PRUDENT FOR US TO BE VERY RESPONSIBLE IN THIS SITUATION. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: THE PROBLEM WITH THIS WAS JUST THE PAY SCALE AND THE STRUCTURE WE HAVE CREATED FOR YEARS IF NOT DECADES, AND IT WAS TO SUPPLEMENT THE MEDICAL EXAMINER -- TWO PRIOR MEDICAL EXAMINERS NOW. AND THAT IS WHY THAT SPLIT WAS PUT IN THERE. I ALWAYS HOPED WE COULD RESTRUCTURE THAT. I LIKED WHAT WAS PRESENTED BY -- BY FOREST TO US. AND I THINK IT WAS THE LAST COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING WHERE OTHER COUNTIES LOOK AT -- ANY -- CALL IT PROFIT, BUT ANYTHING ABOVE OPERATING COSTS BACK IN THE OPERATING EXPENSES. AND I UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU ARE IN A BUDGET CRUNCH AND I DO WANT US TO EXPLORE THIS IN THE FUTURE. MAYBE AS WE GET BETTER FOOTING, BUT I THINK NOW AS WE HAVE DONE THIS, POTENTIALLY SENT 18 COUNTIES SCRAM BRING AND I AM SURE THE PRIVATE SECTOR WILL COME IN AND COVER THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THE LARGER COUNTIES IN OUR REGION WILL COVER THIS. BECAUSE THAT IS WHY WE HAVE BEEN APPROACHED BY SO MANY DIFFERENT COUNTIES. BUT -- AND I AGREE, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE [03:25:01] ON NOW. BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO EXPLORE IN THE FUTURE IF THERE IS STILL A DEMAND FOR IT. THAT WE LOOK AT CHANGING ANY KIND OF CONTRACT STRUCTURE LIKE THAT TO ROLL BACK INTO THE OPERATING EXPENSELESS SO WE CAN KIND OF HAVE A RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND YOU ARE REREPLENISHING WHAT IS PUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE BIGGEST STRUGGLE THAT WE HAD THAT NUECES COUNTY WAS NOT REALLY MAKING MUCH TO COVER THOSE EXPENSES. AND THAT IS WHAT WAS REALLY HURTING OUR BUDGET. HAVE WE BEEN ABLE TO CAPITALIZE THAT MONEY BACK INTO GENERAL FUND OR EVEN A SPECIFIC FUND, THEN THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE ITSELF WOULD PAY FOR ITSELF OR A GOOD CHUNK OF IT AND A PROBLEM WHERE WE ARE AT. I TOTALLY SUPPORT THAT MEASURE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I AGREE WITH YOUR THOUGHTS OF BRINGING IT BACK UP. IN THE FUTURE I WOULD LIKE TO READDRESS THIS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: WITH EVERYTHING THAT IS SAID. I ALSO AGREE WITH OUR DECISION. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR BACK THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON WHERE THE 60-40. HOW FAR BACK IT GOES. AND I ALSO THINK THAT IT WAS DONE TO GIVE THE MEDICAL EXAMINER OF THAT TIME OF HELP THEIR PAY. SO IF WE CAN DO WITHOUT IT -- BECAUSE AT THIS TIME IT WASN'T BEING BENEFICIAL TO TAXPAYERS AND THE COUNTY. AND I SUPPORT THIS DECISION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING IN ANY EMERGENCY AS WITH OUR SURROUNDING COUNTIES, WE WOULD ALL HELP EACH OTHER OUT IN THOSE KIND OF TIMES WHETHER WE HAVE THESE OR NOT. YES. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SUSPEND OUT OF COUNTY AUTOPSIES GIVING NOTICE TO THOSE COUNTIES AND PLENTY OF TIME. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED. I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT TO THE COURT ALSO THAT DR. CANNON HAS ACCEPTED THE TEMPORARY POSITION. I HAVE GOTTEN NOTICE THAT HE HAS SAID HE WOULD TAKE THAT. THERE IS ANOTHER REQUEST FROM DR. FAGAN AND I WILL ASK OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING IT UP. CAN WE DO THAT NOW? OR DO WE NEED TO NEGOTIATE THAT LATER. >> ACTUALLY THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. >> IT IS ON THE EXECUTIVE ITEM ON HIS CONTRACT. THAT WE ARE ALREADY VOTED ON TO ACCEPT HIS RESIGNATION. >> ANYTHING YOU TALK ABOUT IN EXECUTIVE YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THAT BUT NOT ON NUMBER FOUR. >> MADE A MOTION THAT TIME. BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO HIS THEN. HE IS ASKING FOR SOMETHING. CAN I BRING THAT UP OR DO WE NEED TO GO BACK. WE ACCEPTED HIS RESIGNATION. DO WE HAVE TO BRING IT BACK UP? OR CAN WE DISCUSS ANY MORE OUT HERE? >> I THINK -- YOU CAN PROBABLY BRING IT UP SINCE THAT AREA WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ALREADY ACCEPTED IT. HE IS ASKING OF THE ABILITY SINCE HE HAS RESIGNED AS OF TODAY, BUT NOW HE IS ASKING IF HE COULD FINISH THE AUTOPSIES THAT HE HAS STARTED HIS OUTSTANDING CASES. DO WE WANT TO DISCUSS THAT OR DO WE WANT TO SUGGEST THAT. AND ANY CONVERSATIONS, GGUYS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: UP TO YOU, JUDGE, HE SAID YOU CAN BRING IT UP. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I AM ASKING US. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: JUDGE, IF YOU LOOK BACK AT OUR PREVIOUS -- A LITTLE OVER A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF AGO AND PRIOR TO THAT. EVERY TIME THAT YOU HAVE A TRANSITION FOR MEDICAL EXAMINERS YOU ALWAYS HEAR THEM WANTING TO FINISH THEIR WORK BECAUSE MANY DON'T WANT TO COME IN AND TAKE OVER. NOW WE DID FIND SOME IN THAT RARE CIRCUMSTANCE THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE WHICH WAS YOU HAVE TO PAY A PRETTY HEFTY AMOUNT TO COME AND CLEAN UP. NOW OUR CURRENT AND ACTING INTERIM MAY DO THAT, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE INDUSTRY. NOW THAT WAS A LITTLE MORE COMPLEX BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF ALLEGATIONS THAT ENDED UP GOING TO COURT AND THAT WAS WHY. THAT IS MY BIGGEST WORRY. THIS DOESN'T SEEM. THIS IS NOT ADVERSARIAL. I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MUCH -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT IS HE -- >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: HE IS ASKING THE CASES THAT HE HAS DONE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH MY OUTSTANDING CASES WITH THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THINK WE CAN PUT THAT ON -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: LET DR. CANNON [03:30:01] DECIDE ON THAT MAYBE. COME TO US -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IT IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I AGREE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU ARE RIGHT. WE JUST APPOINTED THE INTERIM AND PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA AND LET HIM COME FORWARD WITH A PLAN TO DO THAT. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW -- >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PUT THIS -- I KNOW WE HAVE BUDGET WORKSHOP BUT CAN WE HAVE THIS ONE ITEM ON MONDAY THE 14TH. NO, THAT IS THE 17TH. IT IS A SUGGESTION. THE NEXT BEST DATE FOR MME. >> COPROBABLY COME BACK ON A CONTRACT BASIS TO FINISH IT UP W WITH. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: DO WE KNOW HOW MANY CASES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WOULD 2 JOHN'S MOTION TO PUT THIS ON AS A ONE AGENDA ITEM FOR THE BUDGET WORKSHOP ON MONDAY TO LET DR. CANNON COME BACK TO TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO DO. IS THAT OKAY, JOHN? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, JOHN JOHNSON. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND -- I GUESS YOU HAVE THAT DOWN. ALL THAT IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: PUTTING IT ON THE 14TH. A BUDGET WORKSHOP ON THE 14 ST. JOHN'S MOTION AND I AM SECONDING IT. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DOING ON THE 17TH ALSO. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVEN'T POST IT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE HAVEN'T POSTED IT YET, KARA. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ADD ITEMS EVERY DAY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ONLY BUDGET WORK SHOP. AND ADD AS AN ACTION ITEM. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A ONE-ITEM AGENDA. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING. >> NOT TEN. [1. Discuss and consider adopting Order to authorize and approve the method of procurement (request for proposals) for Real Estate Brokerage Services to assist Nueces County in the acquisition of real property for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funded infrastructure projects; authorize Purchasing Agent to publish notice; and delegate evaluation authority to a selection committee.] >>JUDGE SCOTT: NOT TEN, ONE. MOVING ON TO PURCHASING. ITEM NUMBER 1. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ADOPTING ORDER TO AUTHORIZE THE METHOD OF PRO KIERMENT AND MICHAEL, YOU ARE THERE FOR REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE SERVICES. YES, SIR. >> MY UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE SOME PROJECTS IN THE ARPA DRAINAGE THAT REQUIRE A PROCUREMENT OF LAND TO COMPLETE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THAT. AND RFP TO HIRE THAT REAL ESTATE PERSON TO HELP US WITH THAT LAND PROCUREMENT AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: SECOND. DISCUSSION, JUDGE. IS THIS ALL ENCOMPASSING OR ON SPECIFIC PROJECTS. >> I AM NOT AWARE WHAT THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS. BUT YOU CAN AUTHORIZE THIS PERSON ON WHATEVER SPECIFIC THAT YOU NEED TO DO. >> STARTED WITH MY PROJECT, COMMISSIONER. WE ARE GOING -- >> THAT IS PERFECT. >>. I WAS JUST WONDER GOING WE HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK EVERY TIME. THANK YOU. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: QUESTION ON C-1. CORRECT? I AM STILL FINISHING UP C-1 ON REAL ESTATE. NOT HAVE A COMMITTEE AND LET THE K57 COURT PICK THAT ONE AND LET THE COURT BE THE DESIGNEE AND NOT A COMMITTEE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: MOTION -- WHO SECONDED IT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WHO MADE A SECOND. ARE YOU ACCEPTING THE AMENDMENT. A MOTION AND A SECOND TO AMEND. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: GO AHEAD, MY BAD. SOMEBODY ALREADY MADE A MOTION? >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I MADE THE MOTION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: HERNANDEZ DID BUT HE NEEDS TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION. THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ME TOO. MY ERROR. >> YOU ARE STILL SECONDING, RIGHT, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. OR YOU, SECONDED, COMMISSIONER MAREZ. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ -- GONZALEZ. AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAREZ. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THINK THAT IS WHAT I HAD TO DO. AS AMENDED. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ACCEPTED YOURS AS AMENDED. I ASKED HIM BEFORE WE MOVED FORW FORWARD. >> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND LIKE THE OTHER PROJECT WHICH YOU ARE NOT DELEGATING THE SELECTION AUTHORITY. JUST RETAINING IT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ALWAYS THOSE IN FAVOR. SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. >> FOR THE COUNTY CLERK, WE WILL HAVE TO REWRITE THAT ORDER. [2. Discuss and consider recommendation to reject all bids for RFP No. 3225-23 Administration of Nueces County Colonia Self-Help Program; and authorize the Purchasing Agent to obtain competitive quotes pursuant to Texas Local Government Code 262.0245 and the adopted procedures for the purchase of an item for which the county receives no responsive bid.] WE WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU GOT IT. THAT IS GOOD. ITEM, 2, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER [03:35:04] REJECT ALL WINDS FOR RFP 225 OF NUECES COLONIA SELF-HELP. >> WE OPENED IT ON THE 6TH AND DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY INTEREST. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO MOVED. >> LOOKING FOR ALTERNATIVES WHEN WE RECEIVED NO BID. I WILL WORK WITH EDWARD ON TRYING TO FIND A SUITABLE PERSON. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THAT IS WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A BID. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: QUESTION PLEASE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YES, PLEASE. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: THAT RECOMMENDATION, MICHAEL. IS IT REQUIRED FOR A NONPROFIT TO HAVE BID AND THEY -- NO ONE DID AND NOW WHAT IS -- IS IT STILL REQUIRED FOR A NONPROFIT? OR SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PUT INHO INHOUSE. >> IT'S UP TO THE COURT OF HOW Y'ALL WANT TO DO IT. I BELIEVE THIS PROGRAM CAN BE DONE INTERNAL TO THE COUNTY IF THERE WERE PEOPLE DESIGNATED TO PERFORM THAT WORK. >> TO ME, I MEAN A LOT OF THE SERVICES THAT WE DO WITH COLONIAS. ANY WORK FOR COLONIAS, SELF-HELP CENTERS AND SELF-HELP PROGRAMS. WE HAVE SOCIAL SERVICES AND I KNEW THEY HAD A LOT OF STAFF AND I DON'T WANT TO THROW IT ON REBECCA BECAUSE SHE IS NOT HERE. FOR CONSIDERATION WHAT THE WORKLOADS ARE LIKE. I DON'T WANT TO START NAMING DEPARTMENTS, BUT I AM SURE WE CAN FIND SOMEONE THAT MIGHT BE WILLING TO DO THAT. NOT JUST WORRY, BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A GREAT PROGRAM AND TOOK US SO LONG TO GET THAT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ALLOCATED AND IT DOESN'T GO WELL FOR US THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO APPLY AND TO -- TO SPEND MORE ON THIS. I WOULD RATHER PUSH IT THROUGH AND EVERYONE'S PLATE IS FULL, BUT MAYBE THEY ARE THE PERSONS WE ASK INTERNALLY. IF NOT, MAYBE WE GET CREATIVE ON WHATEVER ELSE YOUR PROVISIONS ARE. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON THIS. >> IF I WAS TO GIVE A CLARIFICATION, RECOMMEND THAT YOU GIVE AUTHORITY TO DO ALTERNATE PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES. IF WE FIND OUT THEY CAN BE SATISFIED IN OTHER MEANS, DON'T BRING BACK ANYTHING TO CONSIDER ON THIS PATH. BUT AT LEAST YOU GIVE ME THIS PATH. AND INTERNAL ROMP IS MATERIALIZED WE CAN REVERT BACK TO THIS AND WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO COURT. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: ALL RIGHT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: NEED A MOTION FOR THAT? >> I THINK YOU ALL -- I DON'T. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: JUST MORE CLARIFICATION, CHAIR. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. [3. Discuss and consider conditional selection of Patillo, Brown, & Hill L.L.P. for Auditing Services (RFP No. 3242-23).] AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. ITEM NUMBER 3, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF PATILLLO, BROWN AND HILL FOR AWING SERVICES. THAT IS WHO WE HAD BEFORE. >> YES, THIS IS OUR CURRENT PROVIDER. THE SELECTION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS PATILLO, BROWN AND HILL. COUNTY AUDITOR RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. UPON SELECTION OF APPROVAL, WILL NEGOTIATE FOR AGREEMENT IN PRICE IN TERMS AND RETURN TO COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT. RIGHT NOW WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE COURT AUTH AUTHORIZE PATILLO, BROWN AND HILL. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: MIKE, ARE YOU SAYING SELECTION OF THIS FIRM HERE? >>JUDGE SCOTT: YES. >> YES. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MAYBE NOT. >> SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED -- TIME SORRY, DID YOU SAY NO? [4. Discuss and consider authorizing entry of a purchase order in the amount of $519,279.00, to be paid utilizing ARPA funds, and to be made out to the licensed dealer of chassis, Longhorn International Trucks, LTD, for (1) new Hydro Vac Truck with Tanks and Hoses (RFP 3212-22 C) that Commissioners Court awarded to Texas Pack and Load ER Sales, Inc. on May 24, 2023 (Agenda Item 3.C.1.) in order to comply with Texas Occupations Code Sec. 2301.252.] SORRY? ITEM NUMBER 4, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING ENTRY OF A PURCHASE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $ $519,279 TO BE PAID BY ARPA FUNDS -- THIS IS JUST CHANGE WHO THE CHECK IT MADE OUT TO BECAUSE APPARENTLY THE CONTRACTOR WHO WE PURCHASED THIS WITH -- THE CHECK CAN ONLY BE MADE OUT TO A PERSON WHO BUILDS THE CHASSISES OR SOMETHING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: JUST CHANGING THE NAME. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED IN A PREVIOUS ORDER. >> THIS WAS MADE AT THE ASK OF THE ARPA MANAGER TO BE FULLY TRANSPARENT. WHEN THE COURT ORIGINALLY APPROVED IT, FOR TEXAS PACK AND LOAD SALES INC. WHEN WE INTENDED TO PLACE THE P.O. THEY SAID WE COULDN'T ORDER FROM HIM. HAD TO BE FROM THE CHASSIS [03:40:01] MANUFACTURER LONGHORN AND A PARTY OF THE THREE PARTY AGREEMENT AND SO WE ARE BRINGING THIS TO COURT TO HAVE A FULL TRANSPARENCY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: BECAUSE THE LAW REQUIRES CHASSIS. I WILL MAKE THE NOTION APPROVE THIS. >> JUST SO THE COURT KNOWS, THE MINUTES ARE BORN BECAUSE THE BACK-UP THAT WE WILL NEED FOR TREASURY TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED HERE. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CHANGE AND WHO THE CHECK WILL BE MADE OUT TO. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU D. [1. Receive calculations of the no-new revenue tax rate, the voter-approval tax rate and the fund balances for Nueces County, Nueces County Farm to Market, and Nueces County Hospital District for 2023.] RECEIVING WHAT WE RECEIVED EARLIER, THE NO NEW TAX RATE, THE VOTER TAX RATE AND THE FUND BALANCE FOR NUECES COUNTY. GO AHEAD, LISA. >> GOOD AFTER, COURT, I DO -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH EVERYTHING, ALL THE NUMBERS. >> I DON'T EVER REMEMBER DOING IT AS A WORKSHOP AND THEN HAVING THE AGENDA ITEM AGAIN. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE ARE DIFFERENT AND SPECIAL. >> DO WE NEED TO RESTATE ANYTHING? WHY DON'T WE JUST SKIP TO THE ACTUAL RATES AND I WILL READ THOSE RATES AGAIN AND I WILL GIVE THE COUNTY CLERK THE REVISED INFORMATION SO SHE WILL HAVE THE CORRECT TO ATTACH TO THE AGENDA. DOES THAT SOUND GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO LAST YEAR'S -- THE CURRENT YEAR'S EXCUSE ME 2022-'23 ADOPTED TAX RATE FOR THE GENERAL FUND .246159. THE DEBT SERVICE RATE .042069 ROAD FUND 06131. 291659. THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE GIVEN THE TAXABLE VALUES APPROVED AND STILL UNDER DISPUTE CALCULATED THE GENERAL FUND AT .199735. THE DEBT SERVICE FULLY FUNDED AT .03776. AND ROAD FUND .02422. .24025337 SORRY, CONNIE, I AM ON PAGE FIVE OF THE FIRST ATTACHMENT THAT I GAVE YOU THIS MORNING. I APOLOGIZE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ALREADY WENT THROUGH IT. >> AND VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE FOR NUECES COUNTY GENERAL FUND -- PAGE SIX. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THAT IS PAGE 13. THERE WE GO. >> OH, PAGE FIVE, I AM SORRY. ALL RIGHT, THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE WHICH IS A 3.5% INCREASE OVER THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE, GENERAL FUND IS .21.00. AND THE ROAD FUND IS .002919 FOR A TOTAL APPROVED .252755. ANY RATE EXCEEDING THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE WOULD REQUIRE AN ELECTION. THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT'S CALCULATIONS LAST YEAR'S ADOPTED RATE IS .098846. NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS .018963. THE VOTER APPROVED RATE HAND THIS IS 8% IS .089272. 8% ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. AND THAT IS THE TAX CEILING FOR WHICH YOU CAN'T ADOPT A HIGHER RATE WITHOUT AN ELECTION. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TAX RATE CALCULATIONS AS PREPARED AND SUBMITTED DURING WORKSHOP THIS MORNING AND REDISCUSSED JUST NOW? >>JUDGE SCOTT: NO. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON ANYTHING. WE ARE JUST ACCEPTING IT. >> JUST A FORMAL RECEIVING OF THOSE TAX RATE CALCULATIONS. [2. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving a Letter of Engagement Renewal Amendment No. 2 with Collier, Johnson & Woods, P.C. for RFQ No. 3175-21 Certified Public Accountant for Assisting with Administration of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds and related matters.] >>JUDGE SCOTT: FINE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AGAIN, LISA. ITEM D-2. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT RENEWAL OF AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO OF COLLIER, JOHNSON AND WOODS. PART OF THE CONTRACT WE USED WITH THE ARPA RELATED FUNDS AND JEFF, ARE YOU THE ONES GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS? ARE THEY NECESSARY? ARE YOU ASKING FOR US TO CONTINUE? [03:45:02] >> THE CURRENT AGREEMENT IS SET TO EXPIRE ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2023. THIS RENEWAL IS THE SECOND OF THE LAST ONE. A ONE-YEAR RENEWAL UNDER THIS CONTRACT EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE TO SEPTEMBER 30 OF 2024. THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE THE RENEWAL LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT, RENEWAL AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO WITH COLLIERS, JOHN ON-WOODS CP WITH ASSISTANCE WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT, ARPA FUNDS, EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE OF 9/30/24. EXPENSE NOT TO EXCEED THE $250,000. HAND THIS REMAINS ENTRENCHED FOR THE RENEWAL AND REVIEWED BY COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL EFFICIENCY AND OUR OFFICE RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: AND ALSO REVIEWING ONE FOR GRANT WORKS. AND THEY ARE GOING BACK AND FORTH ON THE -- ON THE AGREEMENT ON THE PERCENTAGE. WHAT -- WHAT -- WHAT -- WHAT IS THE AGREEMENT ON THIS ONE HERE. WHAT PERCENTAGE ARE THEY LOOKING AT. >> THEY HAVE A FEE THEY CHARGE AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE JUST PAID LIKE A MINIMAL $1 30 OR SO FEE NOT TOO LONG AGO. I ACTUALLY AM NOT SURE. >> WE JUST HAD ONE ON THE AGENDA FOR -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: -- AND WE DIDN'T EVEN USE ONE FOR A WHILE. >> WE JUST HAD ONE ON THE AGENDA FOR COMMISSIONERS COURT IN THE SPECIAL MOTIONS THIS MORNING. IT WAS $137.50. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WHAT DO THEY DO. WHY ARE YOU SAYING YOU NEED THEM STILL? >> THAT WAS FOR A HALF HOUR OF CONSULTING. THEY REVIEW AND PROVIDE CONSULTING AND ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I KNOW WE ARE GETTING DOWN TO THE ARPA FUNDS AND WE HAVE TAKEN THESE >> JUDGE SCOTT: BUT, WHEN AN INVOICE OF $137 AND WE'RE ALMOST ALLOCATED ALL OF OUR FUNDS TO ANYTHING, THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE DOING IS RETRACTING ANY HIGH-RISK ONES. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE REALLY NEED TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON A THIRD PERSON LOOKING OVER SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE LOOKING OVER ALREADY. >> WELL, WE'RE LOSING, UNFORTUNATELY, OUR ATTORNEY ON THIS. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I'M LOOKING AT JEFF WHEN SAYING THIS. >> I'M LIKE, THANKS A LOT, JEFF, LEAVE US HANGING, BUDDY. >> JUDGE SCOTT: BUT, HE'S LEAVING GOOD NOTES AND WE'LL HAVE SOMEBODY REPLACING HIM. >> SO, THEY'RE REVIEWING OUR FINANCIAL REPORTING FOR COMPLIANCE TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE IN FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE, THEY'RE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AS NECESSARY FOR THE -- >> JUDGE SCOTT: SO, YOU ANTICIPATE THESE FEES TO BE A LOT HIGHER IN THE FUTURE ONCE THESE PROJECTS START AND HAVE THE REPORTS THAT WE HAVE TO DO. >> RIGHT NOW, THE FINANCIAL REPORTS. >> JUDGE SCOTT: RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS RIDICULOUS, WHY ARE WE RENEWING A CONTRACT THAT WE'RE PAYING FOR NOW. >> DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM, JUDGE. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I'M NOT. >> THEY'RE BILLING US FOR THEIR TIMEND A RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT TIME CONTRIBUTION. >> I THINK WE OUGHT TO RENEW IT AS A MATTER OF PRECAUTION. >> I AGREE. >> AS LONG AS NOBODY THINKS THEY'RE DUPLICATING, THAT'S FINE. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I JUST DIDN'T THINK THAT WE HAD ANY SERVICES THEY WERE DOING. >> I MEAN, I DON'T THINK, I MEAN WHATEVER YOU WANT DO. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT POINT AND GIVEN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT IT'S MORE NOW FOR THE REPORTING AND SINCE WE ARE STARTING SO MANY JOBS IN SO MANY THINGS ARE GOING TO BE GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME, AND THERE ARE SO MANY REPORTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DUE, THIS IS PROBABLY WHEN WE REALLY NEED THEM, AND WE REALLY NEED TO START UTILIZING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT BEING SAID, I, I, I THINK THEY'RE ALREADY FAMILIAR WITH THIS AND USING IT, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO CONTINUE. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I NEED A SECOND, THOUGH. >> THERE'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CBDG? >> JUDGE SCOTT: NO, THIS IS THE ARPA THAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING. >> SECOND. >> JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> (CHORUS OF AYES). >> JUDGE SCOTT: ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. [3. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Change Order No. 2 to the contract with Alight Solutions for Enterprise Resource Planning Software and Replacement of Timeclocks (RFP No. 3193-22) in order to add Check Layout / Electronic Payment Remittance to Nueces County’s current subscription.] THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> JUDGE SCOTT: ITEM NUMBER 3, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE APPROVALING CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO TO THE CONTRACT WITH ALIGHT SOLUTIONS WITH ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SOFTWARE. >> THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO TO THE CONTRACT WITH ALIGHT SOLUTIONS FOR THE ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING [03:50:01] SOFTWARE AND REPLACEMENT OF TIMECLOCKS IN ORDER TO ADD AUTO MATTED WORKDAY SUPPORTED SOFTWARE SERVICE TOSS EXECUTE THE TESTING PHASES OF WORKDAY DEPLOYMENT. THE CHANGE ORDER HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THE REQUEST IS FOR A $400,000 ALIGHT SOLUTIONS CHANGE ORDER VIA THE UNALLOCATED INTEREST REVENUES IN 19210000, THE 2016, CO OATHS A THE COUNTY AUDIT TORE RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL FOR THIS REQUEST. >> JUDGE SCOTT: AND THIS WOULD BE -- >> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> JUDGE SCOTT: AND THIS WOULD BE $19,000 FOR NINE YEARS? >> THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THIS, THERE'S THE CONTRACT, CURRENTLY, WELL, AND BOTH ARE ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA. THERE'S THE ALIGHT SOLUTIONS CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO. THAT'S GOING TO HAVE, UM, ON, IT THERE IS THE BANKING AND SETTLEMENTS FOR A CHECK CUSTOMIZATION THAT'S A ONE-TIME FEE OF $36,000. THE IT WAS ON OUR STATEMENT OF WORKDAY DELIVERED PRODUCT PROVIDES A ONE-SIDED CHECK. WE CURRENTLY ARE UTILIZING A TWO-SIDED CHECK THAT USES OUR EXISTING FOLDS CHECK STOCK IN ORDER TO SWITCH TO USE THEIR OUT OF THE BOX FORM, WE WOULD HAVE TO BUY AN ADDITIONAL PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT COST APPROXIMATELY $75,000, THE COST TO DEVELOP THE TWO-SIDED CHECK TO UTILIZE THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE IS, WHAT DID I JUST SAY? $36,000 ONE-TIME ONLY FEE. AND SO, IT WAS PRETTY MUCH A NO BRAINER TO KEEP THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAVE AND DEVELOP THE SOFTWARE. >> JUDGE SCOTT: OKAY. >> AND THEN, THE RECRUITING, THERE'S AN E-VERIFICATION SYSTEM AND THAT'S A ONE TIME COST OF $5,000. THAT'S GOING TO BE UTILIZING, UM, TIM IS HERE, IF YOU WANTED TO HEAR FROM HIM, BECAUSE, IT IS FOR RECRUITING. IT'S, AN INTEGRATION THAT VERIFIES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT E-VERIFY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER MATCHES THE NAME ON THE SOCIAL SECURITY CARD AND THE CARD IS NOT FRAUDULENT. THE SMS MESSAGES WOULD BE THE WORD WITH WORK DAY. THAT'S THE REOCCURRING COST WHICH SENDS OUT TEXT MESSAGES WHICH WAS REQUESTED BY HR, AND THIS OPTION WAS DESIRED, BECAUSE, EVEN WITH THE PREVALENCE OF SMART PHONES, TEXT MESSAGES TENDS TO BE SEEN AND RESPONDED TO BY CANDIDATES MORE RAPIDLY THAN EMAILS AND ALSO FUTURE CANDIDATES WILL NEED TO HAVE AN E-MAIL ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO APPLY FOR JOBS AND NOT ALL CANDIDATES CURRENT WILL I HAVE EMAILS ON THEIR PHONES AND SO THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE THE APPLICATION AVAILABLE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITION QUESTIONS? AND THAT PORTION, THE $19,118 IS ON THE SEPARATE ATTACHMENT THROUGH WORKDAY. AND FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES WE WANTED YOU TO SEE THERE'S AN ALIGHT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND A WORKDAY PROGRAM FOR EACH ITEM AND THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS ON THE ALALIGHT CHANGE ORDER THAT E FREE OF CHARGE BUT GET CAN ADDED INTO OUR STATEMENT OF WORK. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS. >> SECOND. >> JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> (CHORUS OF AYES). >> JUDGE SCOTT: ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. [4. Approve Budget Change Order No. 19 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.] >> JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION PASSES. MOVING ONTO APPROVING BUDGET CHANGE ORDER 19. >> THANK YOU, I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT BUDGET CHANGE ORDER 19 FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. ALL ITEMS ARE OF A ROUTINE BUDGETARY NATURE. SEIBELLY, THEY'RE MOVING FUNDS BETWEEN COMMUNITY SERVICES MUCH THE HILLTOP COMMUNITY SERVICE, AND THE BUILDING ITSELF, UM, LAW LIBRARY'S REALLOCATING FUNDS TO COVER AND NEW CONTRACT THAT WAS RECENTLY IMPLEMENTED AND THE INLAND PARK SUNSHS IS IT REALLO FUNDS. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE HILHILLT >> YOU HAVE THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE 1590 AND THEN YOU HAVE THE SERVICES PROVIDED AT [03:55:06] THAT BUILDING, THAT'S THE HILLTOP COMMUNITY CENTER, THEY'RE REALLOCATING MONEY FROM THE SERVICES TO THE BUILDING FOR EQUIPMENT VEHICLE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS AND THEY'RE REALLOCATING FUNDING AS NECESSARY WITHIN THE COMMUNITY SERVICES BUILDING. AND ON THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. THERE'S A JUSTIFICATION FROM EDWARD FOR ALL OF THOSE CHANGES WHICH ARE REQUESTED. >> OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> JUDGE SCOTT: COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ HAS A QUESTION. >> TELL US ABOUT THE LIBRARY? >> THE LIBRARY, THEY'RE BALANCING THE KEY CODE FOR THE WEST LOG INTERNET, THE TLC SUBSCRIPTION AND THE CONFERENCE CHARGE. SO, THEY'RE REALLOCATING FUNDS FROM OTHER SERVICES DOWN TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO COVER THOSE ITEMS. >> THEY'VE BEEN IN THE RED FOR A LONG TIME. >> THEY ARE IN THE RED. >> WHY DO WE KEEP CARRYING THEM, IF THEY'RE ALWAYS IN THE RED? DO WE FUND THEM? >> SO, FOR, UM, LAW LIBRARY, I WILL ATTEMPT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MS. IDA GARZA, THE REVENUES DURING COVID HAD REDUCED. UM, IT'S, I, I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE FEWER CASES BEING FILED WITH THE DISTRICT CLERK THAT THAT WAS A FEE THAT'S BEING CHARGED BY THE -- THE MAJORITY OF THE REVENUE FOR THE LAW LIBRARY IS OBTAINED VIA A FEE WHICH IS COLLECTED WHENEVER CASE ARE FILED WITH THE DISTRICT CLERK. IT'S ONE OF THE COURT COSTS THAT'S COLLECTED. >> I'M NOT GOING TO BLAME COVID FOR A LOT OF STUFF, BUT, YOU KNOW. >> THE EXPENSES EXCEED THE REVENUE. >> I'M JUST SAYING, AT ONE POINT WE NEED TO MAKE UP OUR MINDS ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, ARE WE GOING TO CARRY THEM OR ARE WE GOING TO TAKE IT OFF. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A LIBRARY BEFORE AND WE WEREN'T PAYING NOTHING FOR IT AND ANYBODY CAN USE IT. LISA? >> COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ? >> I THINK THAT, JUDGE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT. >> THAT'S SOMETHING WHICH WILL BE BROUGHT UP IN OUR BUDGET MEETING? >> YES. >> JUDGE SCOTT: IS THIS A TRANSFER PAYING FOR SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE OR USED? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I JUST WANT TO ASK, WERE THEY IN THE RED BEFORE COVID? >> THEY'RE EXPENSES EXCEEDED THEIR REVENUES, HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT THAT THE EXPENSES EXCEEDED THE REVENUES HAVE GROWN. AND I CAN PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS FOR THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE. A MULTI-YEAR REVIEW OF THE -- >> JUDGE SCOTT: I WOULD ASSUME THIS IS GOING TO BE BROUGHT UP IN THE BUDGETING MEETINGS, GIVEN THE SITUATION THAT THE COUNTY'S IN. I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS THIS WITH TRANSFERS HERE TODAY. >> SECOND. >> JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> (CHORUS OF AYES). >> JUDGE SCOTT: AND ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. >> NAY. >> JUDGE SCOTT: ONE OPPOSED AND THE MOTION PASSES. [1. Discuss and consider approval of HireRight background services contract, and related matters.] >> THANK YOU. >> JUDGE SCOTT: YES, THANK YOU. HUMAN RESOURCES, ONE, IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY STILL ASKING THAT TO BE MOVED TO THE NEXT MEETING? SDM I BELIEVE WE ARE, YOUR HONOR. >> JUDGE SCOTT: YOU'RE NOT READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT? >> NOT FORWARD, ACTUALLY THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THIS THAT WE THINK NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE BEING BROUGHT TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL. >> JUDGE SCOTT: AND I THINK WE CHECKED THAT IT IS OKAY FOR US TO DO IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA, THE 23RD, THE DEADLINE WILL NOT HURT YOU? >> IT DELAYS IMPLEMENTATION. IT WAS DUE ON JULY 31ST. SO, EVERYDAY THAT GOES BY PUTS US AT RISK OF ADDITIONAL COSTS. >> JUDGE SCOTT: THIS IS ON WORKDAY DELAYS? >> THIS IS A VENDOR BACKGROUND CHECK. >> JUDGE SCOTT: FOR WORKDAYS? >> YES. >> JUDGE SCOTT: WILL THIS COST US, LISA, IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? WILL THIS PUT US IN A MAJOR MIND? >> I KNOW THAT ADDITIONAL DELAYSES RISK FURTHER DELAYING THE PROJECT IN AFFECTING YOUR ABILITY TO GO LIVE WITH ALL FUNCTIONALITY. >> JUDGE SCOTT: AND THE COUNTY IS SAYING YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE CONTRACT AS IS, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE CONTRACT? [04:00:02] >> FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IN THERE, AND WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNTY PARTICIPATE IN ARBITRATION AS A MEANS OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION. THAT'S ONE THING. THE OTHER IS THERE'S AING CLAUSE IN THERE ABOUT INTEREST ON LATE PAYMENTS. WE DON'T LIKE THAT EITHER. AND ANOTHER IS THEY ARE DESIGNATING IN THIS AGREEMENT THAT DELAWARE IS THE STATE, OR THE LAW THAT WOULD BE APPLIED. >> WE DEFINITELY DON'T LIKE THAT. >> NO, WE DON'T LIKE THAT AT ALL, CORRECT. AND THE FOURTH THING IS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN INDEMNITY AND LIABILITY ISSUES BUILT INTO THIS THING THAT WE DO NOT LIKE THE WORDING OF. >> GOOD ANSWERS AND I WOULD RESPECT THOSE CONCERNS, THIS IS A STANDARD CONTRACT FROM THESE TYPES OF VENDORS, THE LATE PENALTIES WE'RE LOOKING AT LESS THAN $300 AT 1.1% ANNUALLY, SO, I WOULDN'T WANT TO DELAY RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT CONCERN. I CAN UNDERSTAND THERE'S CONCERN WITH ARBITRATION, THIS IS A COMMON PRACTICE, AGAIN, WITH THIS TYPES OF VENDORS, I DON'T THINK THE VERBIAGE WOULD CHANGE IN ANY OTHER CONTRACT WHICH IS PRESENTED FOR US. I WANT TO SCOTTIE C ASK THE COURT TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I'LL GO WITH OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY'S ADVICE AND TABLE THIS TO THE 23 MEETING AND HOPEFULLY, WE CAN GET IT IRONED OUT. I MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL THE 23RDMENT >> SECOND. >> JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. (CHORUS OF AYES). >> JUDGE SCOTT: THAT MOTION IS [1. Discuss and consider authorizing the Chief Information Officer to submit a Letter of Termination to Televon for the Telecom Management Services Agreement, and authorize the County Judge to sign the Letter of Termination, and related matters.] TABLED TO THE 23RD. >>> MOVING ONTO INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY, ITEM ONE, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF TERMINATION TO TELLVON FOR THE TELECOMMANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ON THIS, WE'VE BEEN USING THEM FOR AWHILE, TELEVON IS A SERVICE, THEY MANAGE YOUR TELECOM SERVICE TOSS LOOK FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE PAYING FOR, AND IF THEY FIND IT, YOU OWE THEM A THIRD OF THAT SAVING FOR THREE YEARS. IT HAS TAKEN OVER THAT TELECOM MANAGEMENT NOW. >> JUDGE SCOTT: HAVE YOU FOUND ANYTHING? >> NO. >> JUDGE SCOTT: SINCE YOU TOOK IT OVER, ARE YOU LOOKING? >> THEY DID, SOMETIMES IT GETS KIND OF HARD TO ASSESS THEM, BUT, IT HAS TAKEN US OVER NOW. IT WAS AT, UM, THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE IN PURCHASES AND WE'RE HANDLING MOST OF THIS. >> JUDGE SCOTT: YOU'RE WILL TO GO TAKE THIS ON, SO, I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO ALLOW YOU TO JUST CONTINUE THE TELECOM. >> SECOND. >> JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY R SAY AYE. >> [2. Discuss and consider authorizing the Chief Information Officer to submit a Letter of Termination to Shred-It for the Customer Service Agreement – Regular Service, and authorize the County Judge to sign the Letter of Termination, and related matters.] (CHORUS OF AYES). >> JUDGE SCOTT: ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. >> ITEM TWO, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF TERMIOF TERMINATION T SHRED-IT FOR THE CUSTOMER SERVICE AGREEMENT. >> AGAIN, SHRED-IT IS OUR RECYCLING COMPANY WHERE THE BINS THROUGHOUT THE DEPARTMENT WHICH ARE PICKED UP BY THEM AND TAKEN TO BE SHREDDED. THIS IS A SERVICE THAT WE USED TO DO OURSELVES OUT OF THE RECORD'S WAREHOUSE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO RETURN TO THAT AND SAVE THE COUNTY BETWEEN 30 AND $40,000 A YEAR. ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS APPLY A FEW MORE BINS. WE HAVE SEVERAL. IT'S A, IT'S A STANDARD PICK-UP THAT THEY DO, AND THAT STANDARD PICK-UP STILL RUNS ABOUT $2,500 A MONTH. SOMETIMES WE DO PURGES, AND WHEN THAT IS DONE, THEIR PRICE SKYROCKETS, AND WHEN THERE'S A SUPER PURGE, JUST SAY, IT'S KIND OF A BUDGETING NIGHTMARE, BECAUSE, THE PRICE FLUCTUATES, AND WE HAVE THE SHREDDER AND WE JUST NEED TO ADD A FEW MORE BINS IN SOME LOCATIONS AND WE CAN HANDLE THIS ALL OURSELVES. >> JUDGE SCOTT: THE SAME CONSIDERATION, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS RESPONSIBILITY AND THIS JOB AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU CAN HANDLE IT AND YOU ARE WILLING TO DO THIS, THEN, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS. >> SECOND. >> YES, MA'AM. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? BARRING, I GUESS, THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONTRACT, WHATEVER WE HAVE IN THE ENDING DATES OF THOSE. >> YES, BOTH OF THEM HAVE 30-DAY NOTICES AND I HAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS COMMENTS AS WELL. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I SHOULD HAVE ADDED THAT. THANK YOU. >> WE ALSO WILL BE TAKING ALL OF THE SHREDDING MATERIAL TO DOLPHIN RECYCLING. >> JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> (CHORUS OF AYES). >> JUDGE SCOTT: ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. AND, STILL THERE ANYTHING THAT WE FAILED TO COVER, GUYS, DID I [04:05:03] MISS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GO BACK TO. I DON'T LIKE TO [ Adjournment in Memory (upon request)] JUMP AROUND BUT IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING IS DONE. DO WE HAVE ANY ADJOURNMENTS IN MEMORY? >> I DO, JUDGE. >> JUDGE SCOTT: PLEASE, COMMISSIONER. >> I HAVE TWO TODAY, AND, I MEANT TO DO THIS AT THE LAST MEETING BUT DID NOT HAVE THE OBITUARY, AND THAT'S FOR THE HONORABLE JAMES EDWARD CLAGGER. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAD THE HONOR OF KNOWING JUDGE CLAGGER, HE WAS A GREAT GUY AND I REALLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO KNOW HIM EVEN BETTER WHEN I WAS A JUDGE AND HE WAS A GREAT HELP TO ME ON MANY MANY THINGS AND HE WAS JUST, A GOOD GUY, QUITE THE CHARACTER, AND YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ALWAYS SAY, SOMETIMES YOU DON'T, WHY DO YOU NAME STUFF AFTER PEOPLE UNTIL THEY'RE, WHILE THEY'RE STILL ALIVE AND MY AS SOON AS IS, BECAUSE, HE GOT GREAT JOY AND HIS FAMILY GOT GREAT JOY THAT WE NAMED THAT CENTRAL JURY ROOM AFTER HIM WHEN HE WAS STILL WITH US, AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT THING THAT THIS COURT DID. HE WAS A LOVING HUSBAND, FATHER, AND GRAND FATHER AND HE ENTERED INTO INTERNAL REST ON JULY 18TH, 2023. HE WAS A BELOVED PUBLIC SERVANT KNOWN FOR HIS BRILLIANT MIND AND HIS OPENNESS TO HELP ANYONE THAT CAME TO HIM WITH A PROBLEM. JUDGE CLAGGER WAS BORN TO EDWARD ADAM CLAGGER, AND MABLE MARIE BRAD FORD AND THEY MOVED TO CORPUS CHRISTI WHEN JUDGE CLAGGER WAS 4 YEARS-OLD. HE WAS AWARDED THREE BATTLE STARS. AFTER THE WAR, JAMES STUDIED RUSSIAN AND WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SERVICE TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE. RETURNING TO CIVILIAN LIFE, JAMES SERVED TWO TERMS IN THE TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN 1962 AND 1964 WHERE HE HELPED DRAFT MODERNIZED VERSIONS OF MANY TEX HE IS RAHS LAWS AND CODES STILL USED TODAY. AND HE DRAFTED LEGISLATION TO CREATE THE SEA SHORE, AND THE FISH PASS. AND THE CORPUS CHRISTI. JAMES CLAGGER WAS DIAGNOSED WITH TERMINAL CANCER IN 1968 BUT BEAT CANCER ENROLLING INTO A TRIAL. JAMES CLAGGER WENT ON TO BE THE LONGEST SERVING JUDGE IN NUECES COUNTY. HE SURVIVED BY HIS WIFE OF 58 YEARS, GENE, LYDIA CLAGGER, TWO SONS, ADAM CLAGGER, AND WIFE, AND SIX GRANDCHILDREN. SISTER-IN-LAW, AND NIECES AND NEPHEWS, GREG MAX WELL, CHERYL AND STEWART MAX WELL. HIS WIFE AND SONS WERE AT HIS SIDE WHEN HE PEACEFULLY WENT TO HEAVEN ON JULY 18TH, 2023. CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY. QUITE THE GUY. QUITE THE JUDGE AND QUITE THE LOSS TO THIS COMMUNITY. THE SECOND ONE TODAY IS LEONA MAY SEVOY WHO PASSED AWAY AT THE AGE OF 87 AFTER A LONG BATTLE WITH DEMENTIA. SHE'S JOINED NOW IN HEAVEN BY HER PARENTS, HER SIBLING AND HER SON, JAMES SEVOY. LEFT AT REST, LEFT TO CHERISH HER MEMORY ARE HER HUSBAND, EDDIE SEVOY, DAUGHTER NANCY, AND GRANDCHILDREN, PAMELA, CLINT, AND TWO GREAT GRAND DAUGHTERS AND TWO GREAT GRANDSONS ALONG WITH A HOST OF EXTENDED FAMILY WHOM SHE LOVED DEARLY. CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY FOR THEIR LOSS. THANK YOU. >> JUDGE SCOTT: ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? OUR CONDOLENCES TO EACH OF THOSE FAMILIES AND I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> JUDGE SCOTT: I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> (CHORUS OF AYES). >> JUDGE SCOTT: ANY OPPOSED? >> NONE OPPOSED AND MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.