Aug 23, 2023 Commissioners Court - Regular

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.

NOW WE WILL MOVE -- OH, ANY OTHER ONES? ANYONE WISHES TO TABLE ANY CONCERNS ON THE AGENDA? WE CAN ALWAYS TABLE IT WHEN WE GET TO IT IF NECESSARY, BUT I

[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.]

KNEW THOSE ARE WERE BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION.

AND ON THE CON SEASON SENT AGENDA.

ANY ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA YOU WISH TO PULL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION

TO PASS. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: SO MOVED.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND TO PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

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

WE MOVE ON A 3-A-1, THE REGULAR AGENDA.

[1. Discuss and consider proposal for 2023 Tax Rate for Nueces County, NC Farm to Market, and NC Hospital District; Commissioners Court must take a record vote and authorize publishing appropriate notices.]

CUSS AND CONSIDER PROPOSAL FOR 2023 TAX RATE FOR NUECES COUNTY, NOE HINOJOSA, ESTRADA HINOJOSA & COMPANY FARM-TO-MARKET AND NUECES COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT. COMMISSIONERS COURT MUST TAKE A

RECORD VOTE ON THIS. >>DALE ATCHLEY: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TAX CODE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROPOSE A TAX RATE.

THIS IS A PROPOSAL. NOT VOTING ON THE ACTUAL RATE.

THE ACTUAL RATE WILL BE DISCUSS AND ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 17, I BELIEVE, IF I AM CORRECT. IF NOT, AROUND THAT TIME.

THIS IS -- THIS IS JUST INVESTIGATE THE CEILING IF THE PROPOSED RATE IS ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX.

IT REQUIRES SPECIAL NOTIFICATION WITHIN THE PAPER AND DOES REQUIRE TO ADDRESS PUBLIC HEARINGS AND HAVE A PUBLIC NOTICE FOR THE BALANCES. SO AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO -- AS WE GOING THROUGH OUR BUDGET, AS YOUR BUDGET OFFICER -- I AM GOING TO PROPOSE A RATE FOR THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT.

AND WE ARE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

THEY HAD A BOARD MEETING HEARING AND PROPOSING A RATE OF 0.085242. AGAIN, 0.085242 PER $100 VALUATION. AND THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT.

JOHNNY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS ANYTHING FOR THAT? MY RATE FOR THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT.

WE WILL LEAVE THAT NOW. AND TAKE A VOTE FOR THAT AND

THEN COME BACK FOR THE COUNTY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YES, YOU WANT TO

ADDRESS THE COURT ON THAT. >> A BRIEF COMMENT.

GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS AND JUDGE.

THE RATE WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER IS THE VOTER APPROVED RATE. THAT IS THE PATTERN WE USE LAST YEAR. WE USED THE HIGHEST RATE POSSIBLE. AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE WILL COME BACK AND ASK FOR A RATE LATE THAN THAT.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: THE RATE I GIVE YOU IS NOT --

>> AS MUCH THE 0.80 5 -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS IS JUST SETTING THE CEILING THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY VOTE ON.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: REQUIRING PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.

>> JUDGE, MAYBE LET ME MAKE A CLARIFICATION.

[00:15:02]

OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS THE CEILING RATE TODAY FOR YOUR VOTE. THAT WILL BE THE 0.08527.

THE RATE THAT WOULD LIKELY COME BACK TO YOU WITH IN OUR BUDGET.

AND THE TAX RATE WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER PROBABLY IN SEPTEMBER. BUT WE ARE ASKING YOU TODAY TO GIVE US THE MOST FLEXIBILITY BY CONSIDERING THE CEILING RATE SO WE HAVE SOME ABILITY TO MANEUVER BENEATH THAT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THE CEILING RATE 8%.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: THE CEILING RATE IS 8%.

AND 0.08972. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU HAD ME AT FOUR, BUT I CAN'T GO EIGHT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU HAD A MEETING AND THOUGHT YOU WERE FINE WITH

THE FOUR. >> WE ARE, JUDGE, BUT THE REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR THE CEILING RATE.

A LOT IN FLUX. OUR BUDGET IS SET.

AND Y'ALL'S IS NOT. OUR EXPERIENCE SHOW US OVER THE TIME WE SET OUR BUDGET AND YOU SET YOURS, THERE ARE SOMETIMES SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT POP UP THAT NEED CONSIDERATION.

IF THE COURT FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THE 0.08542, WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAD ROOM TO MANEUVER WITH THE RATE. THAT IS WHY WE ARE BRINGING UP

THE HIGHEST RATE. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: TODAY'S

VOTE IS TO VOTE FOR THE CEILING. >>DALE ATCHLEY: THEY CAN NOT EXCEED THAT BUT THEY CAN -- WHEN YOU ADOPTED RATE, YOU CAN GET DOWN TO WHERE THEY WANT TO BE. MAYBE EVEN LOWER.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MY BAD. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: SO IF WE SET LOW, WE CAN'T GO HIGH, RIGHT.

SO BETTER TO CAP IT AND SAY WE WILL WORK IT DOWN.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: YOU HAVE TO SET A RATE AND A LOT OF RULES IN THE TAX CODE THAT YOU CAN NOT EXCEED THAT WITHOUT MULTIPLE HEARINGS AND MULTIPLE THIS. AND WE TRY TO SET A CEILING ABOVE WHAT WE BELIEVE WE NEED AND JOHNNY IS NOW SAYING THEY WANT TO DO THE VOTER APPROVED OF 0.859272.

WHICH BUDGET 4% WHICH IS A LOT LOWER.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I AM OKAY -- I AM SURE EVERYBODY WANTS TO WEIGH IN. FOR THE CAP AND HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY CAN WORK IT DOWN FURTHER.<

>> COMMISSIONERS, TO REMIND YOU THAT IS WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR.

YOU ADOPT A CEILING RATE AND WE CAME IN BETWEEN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. WE ARE ONLY ASKING OUTSIDE OF CAUTION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO COME UP AND AS DALE SAID AND THE COMMISSIONER HIGHLIGHTED, WE WOULD LIKE TO COME IN LOWER THAN THAT AND HAVE ROOM TO MANEUVER.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: STILL IT IS UP FOR US TO VOTE YES OR NO WHEN WE COME BACK. I KNOW, LAST YEAR A 9.2 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU WENT DOWN TO 8.1.

>> CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: NOW YOU ARE TOWN TO A 8.1. BUT BASICALLY, THE 4% IS STILL THERE. WE CAN STILL COME DOWN TO THE 4%, YOU KNOW, IF WE VOTE ON THAT -- TO SUPPORT THE 4%, RIGHT?

>> YES, COMMISSIONER. THE 4% -- JUST SO THE VOTERS KNOW, THAT RATE EVEN THOUGH WE ARE SEEING AND MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW SAYING IT IS 4% INCREASE ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. THAT 4% PUTS US BACK AT THE

REVENUE WE HAD LAST YEAR. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SURE.

DID DOESN'T RAISE IT. >> THE STRUCTURE CHANGED BUT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY WE HAD LAST YEAR.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: ABLE TO FIND THOSE NONPROFIT AGENCIES.

>> THE VERSION 2 BUDGET ON MONDAY, THE BOARD VOTED TO GO

WITH THAT BUDGET YESTERDAY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: COMMISSIONER

CHESNEY, YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THOUGHT I WAS FINALLY GOING TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING AND POPPING ME UP TO EIGHT -- I AM STRUGGLING WITH THAT.

BECAUSE I THOUGHT THIS VERSION TWO WHICH I ACTUALLY WAS LEANING TOWARD GIVING -- YOU KNOW HOW BIG A DEAL THAT IS FOR ME.

EVEN VOTE FOR THAT BUDGET WOULD BE HUGE FOR ME, YOU HAVE BEEN SUCH A GREAT PARTNER AND NOW YOU ARE ASKING FOR THE CEILING THAT IS MAKING ME A LITTLE MORE UNCOMFORTABLE.

IF YOUR BOARD AGREED TO THE BUDGET THAT INCLUDES ALL THE PROGRAMS THAT WE ALREADY HAD FUNDED, I AM KIND -- THAT'S -- I GET IT. I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

SAFETY VALVE, BUT -- ARE WE ASKING FOR ANYTHING ELSE UP HERE THAT WE KNOW OF THAT NEEDS TO BE FUNDED OR THAT YOU KNOW OF?

>> COMMISSIONER, I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.

BUT OUR EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST IS THAT USUALLY BETWEEN THE TIME WE SET A BUDGET AND WHEN THE FINAL BUDGET IS APPROVED AND THE ASSOCIATED TAX RATE IS ADOPTED, THERE ARE CHANGES.

ALL WE ARE DOING IS ASKING FOR FLEXIBILITY.

THE BOARD IS COMMITTED UNLESS SOMETHING GOES ALONG THAT WE DON'T KNOW, WHETHER YOU OR US, THE BOARD IS COMMITTED TO THE

[00:20:04]

4%. BUT WE WANT TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT THE NUMBERS BETWEEN NOW AND SEPTEMBER SO THAT WE HAVE ROOM

TO ADJUST, IF NEED BE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: IN CASE

YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A DO A

RECORD VOTE. >>DALE ATCHLEY: JOHNNY, I NEED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU ARE RECOMMENDING A TAX RATE AT THE VOTER CEILING AT 80% AT 0.089272.

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING -- THE PROPOSAL RATE, NOT THE VOTER RATE BUT THE PROPOSAL RATE.

THAT WILL NEED TO REQUIRE A MOTION AND A RECORD VOTE.

>> THAT IS OUR PROPOSAL FOR PURPOSES OF TODAY.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SO MOVED.

>> WE WILL BE BACK IN SEPTEMBER. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SO

MOVED. >> WITH LIKELY A LOWER RATE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.

I NEED A SECOND. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: ARE WE SAYING WE CAN BRING IT BACK DOWN?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: YES, YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE TO VOTE ON

IT. >>DALE ATCHLEY: YOU ARE SETTING IT SO YOU CAN HAVE PUBLIC HEA

HEARINGS. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHAT TAX RATING YOU SETTING. .

.89472 AND REQUIRE A RECORD VOTE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.

A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MAREZ. COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, HOW DO

YOU VOTE? >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: YES, I

AGREE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I AM

GOING TO ABSTAIN -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: ABSTAIN.

I WAS REALLY GOOD WITH 4 TOO, BUT I WILL VOTE JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND APPROVE THIS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: A RECORD VOTE, I CAN VOTE HOW I WANT.

THAT IS AS NICE AS I CAN DO ON THIS ONE.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ABSTAIN FOR A

RECORD VOTE? >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU CAN ABSTAIN FOR A RECORD VOTE. UNLESS WE NEED A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I HAVE DONE THIS A LONG TIME.

I CAN ABSTAIN ON A RECORD VOTE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I KNOW

YOU HAVE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WAS GOOD TOO.

WE DO HAVE TO COME BACK. NOT GIVING YOU LEEWAY.

WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT AGAIN. ANYONE LISTENING WHO WANTS TO START TEARING UP OUR PHONES. THE NEXT ITEM --

>>DALE ATCHLEY: JUST FOR CLARIFICATION 4-0 WITH ONE ABSTAINING FOR THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT 084792.

AND WE WILL WORK WITH JOHNNY FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

>> DALE, JUST TO CONFIRM, MAYBE I HEARD YOU .084927.

HER HERNANDEZ YOU SAID YOU ARE COMMITTED TO THE 4%?

>> WE ARE, COMMISSIONER. A CAUTIOUS MOVE.

YOUR BUDGET IS IN FLUX. OURS IS SET.

STUFF COMES UP OVER THE YEARS ALONG THE COMMITMENT TO KEEP IT AT THE 4% UNLESS SOMETHING DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I LIKE THAT COMMITMENT.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: THE NEXT ITEM, YOUR HONOR THE COUNTY WHICH INCLUDES THE GENERAL FUND, DEBT SERVICE FUNDS AND THE ROAD FUND FOR THE COUNTY. AS YOUR BUDGET OFFICER, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL BUDGET HEARINGS.

I WILL SET THE CEILING AT THE MAXIMUM 3.5% RATE, WHICH IS 0.252755. AGAIN 0.252755.

AND HOPEFULLY AFTER WE GET THROUGH THE CUTS AND COME AND PROPOSE A BUDGET TO YOU WE WILL BE LOWER THE RATE, BUT THAT IS THE RATE I AM SETTING AS A CEILING.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THAT?

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: CAN I MAKE A MOTION PERIOD? CAN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE VOTE ON THE NO NEW TAX RATE.

THAT IS MY MOTION. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: THE 3.5?

YOU ARE SAYING NO -- >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: NO NEW

-- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: IF YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION, I WILL

SECOND THAT. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: IS THAT JUST THE NUMBER THAT YOU ARE MENTIONING.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THEY ARE VOTING ON 0%.

THE NO NEW TAX. SO WE HAVE A BHOEGS AND A-- MOTION AND A SECOND AND A THIRD. NO MORE DISCUSSION.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: THE NO NEW TAX REVENUE RATE.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: THE CEILING.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: WE CAN'T GO HIGHER.

WE CAN'T GO LOWER EITHER. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I THINK WE NEED SOME DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: YES. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: IF WE DON'T SET A HIGH ENOUGH CEILING, THAT REALLY BINDS US.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: YES. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: AND TODAY

[00:25:01]

IS NOT THE FINAL VOTE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NO.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I GET WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE STATEMENTS HERE TODAY AND I MAY AA AGREE WITH YOU EVENTUALLY, BUT I DON'T WANT TO TIE OUR HANDS RIGHT NOW LETTING US STILL WORK THROUGHOUT BUDGET PROCESS. WOULD YOU SAY THE BUDGET PROCESS

IS COMPLETE AT THIS POINT? >>DALE ATCHLEY: NO.

WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF CUTS AT THAT VOTER -- AT THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE. WE FORESEE A SIGNIFICANCE ANT

REDUCTION IN RESERVES. >>JUDGE SCOTT: $3 MILLION MORE WE WILL NEED TO CUT AT THE NO NEW --

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I HOPE WE REALIZE AS A COURT WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY DOES NOT GIVE US ANY FLEXIBILITY AT ALL.

I GET MAKING A STATEMENTS, BUT THAT STATEMENT IS NEXT MONTH.

I MAY BY YOU NEXT MONTH, BUT YOU WANT TO TIE OUR HANDS TODAY FOR THE SAKE OF MAKING A STATEMENT NOW.

THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO DO IT. IF WE WANT TO WORK THROUGH THIS, LET'S WORK THROUGH THIS. BUT AT THIS POINT? NO ONE WANTS TO BE ON A VOICE RECORD OR RECORDED VOTE TO SAY I SUPPORT THE CEILING. BUT THAT IS WHAT PART OF OUR JOB IS, TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF -- WHERE DO WE WANT TO SOMEBODY IN I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE OURSELVES SOME FLEXIBILITY?

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: ARE YOU FINISHED, COMMISSIONER, SORRY.

IT IS NOT ABOUT MAKING STATEMENTS, YOU KNOW.

IT IS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING THROUGH ALREADY.

AND THE $3 MILLION, TO ME, IS VERY WORKABLE.

I MEAN, WE HAVE MONIES TO GET RID OF THOSE $3 MILLION IF YOU REALLY WANTED TO GO DOWN THE LINE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WITH THE AIR CONDITIONERS ON, CAN YOU TALK IN THE MICROPHONE. THEY ARE HAVING A HARD TIME

HEARING YOU. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE ARE NOT TRYING TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS HERE TODAY.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALREADY.

$3 MILLION -- IF WE ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE NINE YARDS AGAIN AND SAY I AM GOING TO GO BACK TO WHERE I WAS BEFORE.

NOW WE ARE GOING BACK TO SQUARE ONE? SO WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF SOMETIMES TELLING THE PEOPLE, HEY, WE ARE GOING TO DO ALL THIS STUFF AND THEN WE DON'T DO IT.

NOT ABOUT MAKING STATEMENTS. I THINK WHAT I HAVE SEEN AND WHAT I HAVE GONE THROUGH, I THINK THE BALANCE ON THIS WOULD BE THE $3 MILLION -- THE POINT WHATEVER IT IS WORKABLE.

THE MONEY IS THERE. I DON'T THINK WE ARE IN A BIND FOR THAT. WE MAY KICK THE CAN ONCE OR TWICE. MAYBE WE WON'T HAVE TO KICK THE CAN, I DON'T KNOW. BUT WE WILL WORK ON IT.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE. SO I THINK WE GOT WHAT WE HAV AND WHATEVER COMES UP, WE WILL HAVE TO LEARN TO DO WITH OR WITHOUT. THAT IS MY STATEMENTS.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: DALE, THIS IS BASED ON THE BUDGET ARE

PROPOSING? >>DALE ATCHLEY: YES.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: MY CONCERN IS -- I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE I TALKED TO OTHER DIRECTORS OF DEPARTMENTS.

AND WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION, THE DA'S OFFICE SAID THEY HAVEN'T REQUESTED ANY MONIES AT ALL.

AND THEY WERE SHOWN THAT THEY ASKED FOR SO MUCH.

AND MISS SANDS HAD CONCERNS OF HER BUDGET THAT THEY WERE INFLATED AND ONE DEPARTMENT HEAD SAID THEY ARE NOT GOING THROUGH

ANYTHING -- >>DALE ATCHLEY: COMMISSIONERS, LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT IS GOING ON. SOME ITEMS THAT THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE NOTHING TO HAVE CONTROL OVER, INSURANCE.

YOU ADOPTED A WINDSTORM INSURANCE THAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE. EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY FOR IT.

THE COPIES WENT UP IN PRICE. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.

OTHER ITEMS WITH POSTAGE AND REQUIRES AN INCREASE.

SO WE HAD TO PUT THOSE INCREASES IN WHETHER THEY WERE ASKED OR NOT. WE HAD TO PUT THEM.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: YOU HAVE TO SHOW WITH THE DEPARTMENTS THAT IS WHAT SHE REQUESTED.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: THAT OR WE CAN'T PAY FOR THE EQUIPMENT.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I AM SAYING THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AREN'T AWARE THAT THE MONEY WAS SUGGESTED --

>>DALE ATCHLEY: THIS HAPPENS EVERY YEAR BECAUSE YOU INCREASE THE INSURANCE AND COPIERS GO UP. SOME OF THESE ITEMS ARE A

REQUIRED INCREASE. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT RESPECTS YOU SUPPOSED TO LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU ARE GOING TO THAT MUCH -- SHOW THAT MUCH INTO --

>>DALE ATCHLEY: AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE DO.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: AT SOME POINT IN TIME YOU DO.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: YES. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I THINK IT IS MISLEADING TO THEM, TO US, TO ME, ANYWAY, BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART WHY YOU WERE DOING IT TO BALANCE FOR THE INSURANCE, OKAY.

AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY KNOW WHY THOSE MONIES

[00:30:04]

ARE -- ARE SHOWING THERE IN BUDGET.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: YES. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: AND IF

SHOULD BE TOLD. >>DALE ATCHLEY: THEY DO.

FOR THE PROPOSAL, WE DO LET THEM KNOW.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: OKAY. MISS SANDS SHOWED SOME INTEREST THAT HER BUDGET WASN'T -- KIND OF INFLATED.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COPIERS WENT UP AND INSURANCE. WE MODIFIED THAT BECAUSE IT WENT TO THE ELECTIONS AND NOT HER DEPARTMENT.

WE MADE THOSE CORRECTIONS AND THEY ARE CORRECTLY STATED.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THOSE DEPARTMENT HEADS SHOULD BE AWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE PUTTING ON THEIR BUDGET. THANK YOU.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DO THE NO

NEW REVENUE. >>DALE ATCHLEY: THE NO NEW 0.0240253. IF YOU PROPOSE THAT RATE THAT WILL NOT REQUIRE NOTIFICATION AND NO HEARING.

AND WE WILL PROPOSE A BUDGET, AND IT WILL BE ON YOUR SEPTEMBER 17 HEARING. THERE WILL BE NO MORE BUDGET

HEARINGS. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS IS A MOTION -- OH, LISA, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT?

>> IF I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT THE INSURANCE -- THAT IT IS STATED IN THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE PROVIDED TO THE DEPARTMENTS WHENEVER THEY PREPARE THEIR BUDGET REQUESTS, IT DOES STATE CERTAIN ITEMS THAT THE COUNTY AUDITOR PREPARES ON THEIR BEHALF AS THOSE ARE FIGURES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US THAT THE DEPARTMENTS DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

NUECES COUNTY IS SELF-INSURED, AND, THEREFORE, WHENEVER THE ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE PUBLIC OFFICIAL BONDS THAT ARE ISSUED WHENEVER THEY ARE REELECTED, THOSE COSTS ARE PAID OUT OF THE SELF-INSURANCE FUND. BECAUSE WE ARE SELF-INSURED, EVERYTHING THAT GOES OUT HAS TO REPLENISH THAT FUND.

THE FOLLOWING YEAR, THE ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE BILLED FOR THE COST OF THOSE BONDS. SHE IS THE TREASURER AS WELL THE DEPARTMENT HEAD FOR THE ELECTIONS AND COUNTY CLERK.

BECAUSE OF THAT REASON, MISS SAND'S BOND IS HIGHER THAN OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS BONDS. UNFORTUNATELY THAT RESULTS IN THE INCREASE OF THE BUDGET THAT SHE DID NOT REQUEST THAT WE PUT IN ON HER BEHALF IN ORDER TO FUND THOSE COSTS THAT WE KNOW SHE IS GOING TO HAVE THE FOLLOWING YEAR FOR INSURANCE.

WE PREPARE THE BUDGET FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE INSURANCE BASED ON THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE FOR CAR INSURANCE, BUILDING INSURANCE, AS THE RATES THAT YOU APPROVED IN COMMISSIONERS COURT ARE ADOPTED. THERE WAS NOTED SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN POLICIES THIS YEAR HAND THIS HAS TO BE PASSED ON TO THE DEPARTMENT TO FUND THE FOLLOWING YEARS AND ALL STATED IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO DEPARTMENTS WHEN THEY DO THEIR REQUESTS. WHICH LINE ITEM ITEMS THAT THE COUNTY AUDITOR WILL PREPARE ON THEIR BEHALF.

IT IS NOT SOMETHING HIDDEN. AS FAR AS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HER COLUMN SHOWED NO REQUESTED INCREASE.

IT WAS THE -- IT WAS THE AUDITOR'S REQUEST THAT WAS THE REQUESTED INCREASE. AND, AGAIN, THAT WAS FOR ITEMS THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF HER CONTROL BECAUSE SHE RECEIVED A LEASED VEHICLE SHE DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY HAD THAT HAD HER LEASED VEHICLE COSTS TO GO UP. SHE ALSO RECEIVED -- THEY ALSO HAD INSURANCE FOR THE MOTOR VEHICLE THAT WENT UP BECAUSE THEY GOT A LEASED VEHICLE. WHENEVER YOUR CAR INSURANCE GOES UP, WE HAVE TO INCREASE YOUR INSURANCE LINE ITEM.

AGAIN, IT WAS ALL IN THE BUDGET PACKET.

ALL EXPLAINED TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AT THE TIME THEY PREPARE

THEIR BUDGET PACKETS. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: PROBABLY WASN'T EXPLAINED BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL QUESTIONING IT. THEY DON'T KNOW HOW THEY GOT

THERE -- >> IF THEY CHOSE, I HAD -- I GAVE TWO DIFFERENT ZOOM TRAINS, ONE FOR NEW EMPLOYEES AND SEVERAL REOCCURRING ONES THAT ARE FOR RETURNING EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE ALREADY DONE THE BUDGET PACKETS AND THEY WOULD KNOW THIS. THERE IS A VIDEO YOU CAN WATCH AND WRITTEN MATERIAL PROVIDED THAT STATES ALL OF THIS.

AND THEN WHEN AND IF I MEET WITH THEM TO DISCUSS IT IS ALSO DISCUSSED AT THAT TIME IF THEY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT IT.

AGAIN, I GIVE IT TO THEM IN WRITING.

THERE IS A VIDEO -- A VIDEO LINK PROVIDED IN CASE THEY MISSED THE LIVE TRAINING WHERE I AM DOING THE ZOOM LIVE.

WE ARE RECORDING THE ZOOM TRAINING AND WATCH IT ANY TIME AT THEIR LEISURE TO GET THE SAME INFORMATION IF THEY ATTENDED THE

[00:35:03]

ZOOM TRAINING. THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS. I TAKE PHONE CALLS AND I AM FREQUENTLY HERE VERY LATE AT NIGHT TAKING PHONE CALLS AND

ANSWERING E-MAILS. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I KNOW WHEN I FIRST CAME IN, WE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE AND WE WERE TOLD HOW WE COULD AND COULDN'T USE THE P KAUSHD PARDON /* CARD. I NEVER RECALL WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT THE INSURANCE --

>>THE BUDGET TRAINING WOULD HAVE BEEN WITH MISS KING AS SHE IS THE ONE THAT PREPARES THE BUDGET REQUESTS ON YOUR BEHALF.

AND I GIVE HER THAT INFORMATION. I SEND IT TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONERS COURT AND THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS. ALL OF THEM GET IT.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I GUESS WE NEED TO READ WHAT YOU

SEND US. >> A LOT OF INFORMATION, BECAUSE I TRY TO COVER EVERYTHING. SO FREQUENTLY, I AM TOLD IT IS A LOT OF INFORMATION, BUT I TRY TO GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY -- PEOPLE LEARN IN DIFFERENT WAYS. AND SO I HAVE HANDS-ON TRAINING FOR PEOPLE THAT LEARN HANDS-ON. I HAVE VIDEO FOR PEOPLE THAT LEARN BY WATCHING SOMEONE ELSE DO IT.

AND THEN I HAVE WRITTEN INSTRUCTION FOR THOSE WHO LEARN

FROM WRITING. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THANK YOU FOR TAKING ALL THOSE STEPS MAKING SURE WE ARE INFORMED, BUT, AGAIN, IT JUST -- IT JUST CAUGHT MY ATTENTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT HEADS WEREN'T AWARE OF WHAT THAT ITEM WAS THERE FOR.

SO YOU HAVE GIVEN US THE EXPLANATION, THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. >> YOU ARE WELCOME, SIR.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: COMMISSIONER MAREZ HAS A QUESTION.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR DALE.

SO THIS PROPOSED RATE -- HOW DOES -- DOES THIS FACTOR INTO OUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING? OR DOES THIS GIVE US CUSHION FOR THAT? OR IS THAT A SEPARATE FUND? JUST SO I KNOW HOW MY VOTE SHOWS SUPPORT FOR THAT OR NOT.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: IF YOU REMEMBER, WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL HEARINGS AND WORKSHOPS AND I PROVIDED YOU A BUDGET ESTIMATE FOR THE VOTER APPROVED RATE AND THE NO NEW TAX RATE.

WHAT YOU ARE ASKING THE POSSIBLE VALUE OF A -- OF A COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT. PUT THE NUMBERS IN THERE.

THEY ARE IN THE BUDGET. THEY ARE A PART OF THAT.

AND THIS WILL MAKE PART OF THE REDUCTION -- THE REDUCTION OF RESERVES IF WE DO NO NEW REVENUE.

SO IT IS IN PART OF IT. YE

YES. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE MONEY IN

CONTINGENCY SET ASIDE FOR THAT. >>DALE ATCHLEY: YES.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: LET ME JUST SAY, WHILE I AM THE LAST PERSON WHO AGREES ON TAX INCREASES. I AM A DIE-HARD CONSERVATIVE.

I BELIEVE WE MAKE CUTS. GUYS, WE JUST VOTED TO ALLOW THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT. WHY -- I MEAN, IT IS NOT A VOTE YET. IT IS JUST OPENING IT UP FOR OUR DISCUSSIONS IN CASE WE NEED IT. IF WE AREN'T WILLING TO MAKE MORE CUTS THAT ARE NECESSARY, YOU ARE REALLY LOCKING OUR HANDS. WE JUST ALLOWED THEM TO HAVE THE CEILING TO WORK ON THIS. ARE THEY GOING TO GET IT? WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND VOTE AGAIN.

IT IS NOT SET IN STONE. THIS IS JUST OPENING UP FOR DISCUSSIONS SAYING WHAT OUR CEILING IS GOING TO BE.

AND IF WE VOTE NO RIGHT NOW, THAN WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND CUT A LOT MORE -- $3 MILLION. AND IT'S -- I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD VOTE YES FOR THIS BECAUSE I AM NOT SAYING THAT I AM GOING TO VOTE YES FOR THIS WHEN IT COMES UP, BUT WE ARE LOCKING OUR HANDS SAYING NO WHEN WE JUST TOLD ANOTHER DEPARTMENT THAT THEY CAN HAVE IT. IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR ME.

TO HAVE THAT AT LEAST LEEWAY. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: JUDGE, I WILL GO AHEAD AND WITHDRAW MY SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS IS NOT THE FINAL VOTE. THIS IS NOT VOTING FOR A TAX INCREASE. THIS IS LEAVING IT FOR US TO CONTINUE WORKING ON OUR BUDGET CUTS AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

I HOPE WE DON'T HAVE -- BELIEVE ME, I AM CONSERVATIVE.

I DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR ANY TAX INCREASE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WILL GIVE US THE LEEWAY UP AND DOWN.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I WILL WITHDRAW -- WITH THAT, I WITHDRAW MY MOTION AND RESTATE MY MOTION --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU. OKAY.

SO WE HAVE A NEW MOTION THAT JUST GIVES US -- HE IS CLANGING

HIS MOTION TO THE 3.5. >>DALE ATCHLEY: 3.5, THE VOTER APPROVED .252755. THAT IS WHAT YOUR MOTION WOULD

BE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: RIGHT.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ.

COMMISSIONER MAREZ. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: AYE.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NO -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL VOTE AYE JUST ON THE CEILING. AS I SAID BEFORE FOR ANYONE

[00:40:03]

LISTENING, THIS IS NOT VOTING TO RAISE YET.

THIS IS JUST ALLOWING US TO WORK ON OUR BUDGETS A LITTLE BIT

LONGER. >>DALE ATCHLEY: WE WILL WORK WITH TERESA AND COURT ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLISH NOTICE IN THE PAPER, PUBLISH NOTICE ON THE WEB SITE AS WELL

AS THE PUBLIC HEARING. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I WANT TO GO ON RECORD TOO THAT I AGREE WITH THE JUDGE.

I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS IT. I HEARD WHAT THE CONSENSUS OF THE COURT SAID AND I TOTALLY AGREE, LET'S BRING IT DOWN AS

MUCH AS THEY CAN. >>DALE ATCHLEY: THE RATE IS AS HIGH AS WE CAN GO AND DECREASE FROM THAT LEVEL.

MY HOPE WHEN WE CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND MY STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS COURT ADMINISTRATION AND THE COURT, FINDING OTHER ITEMS TO CUT, WE CAN TRY TO LOWER THIS.

AND I AM SEEING SOME AREAS WHERE WE POSSIBLY CAN.

RIGHT NOW I AM JUST SHARING THE CEILING --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THAT IS ALL WE WANTED TO DO.

ANY OTHER VOTES WE NEED TO TAKE ON THIS?

NO? >>DALE ATCHLEY: ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS AUTHORIZE THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICES.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DID WE DO -- DID WE -- WE NEED TO DO FARM-TO-MARKET. DO WE DO FARM-TO-MARKET

SEPARATELY? >>DALE ATCHLEY: ALL TOGETHER.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: MOTION TO AUTHORIZE TO PUBLICIZE

APPROPRIATE NOTICES -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION TO AUTHORIZE AND A SECOND. I THINK COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.

[2. Receive update on Capital Projects available balances; Allocate funds for pending capital projects.]

MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2. YOU ARE THREW, DALE?

>>DALE ATCHLEY: THAT IS ALL, YOUR HONOR.

>> RECEIVE UPDATE ON CAPITAL PROJECTS AVAILABLE BALANCES.

ALLOCATE FUND CAPITAL. TERESA HAS DONE THIS.

>> GOOD MORNING. SO THE DOCUMENT I JUST PASSED OUT IS JUST THE RECAP OF ALL THE ATTACHMENTS IN THE AGENDA FOR EACH SERIES OF CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE STARTING FROM GENERAL CAPITAL 1901 TO THE 1925 SERIES.

AT THE TOP OF THE SHEET, SHOWS THE BALANCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE COURT. BY EACH SERIES AND AT THE END THERE IS 12.6 MILLION AVAILABLE. AND THEN THE BOTTOM PORTION SHOW THE BALANCES THAT REMAIN IN THE PROJECTS WHERE WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOCATED FUNDS. THE TOTAL AVAILABLE 36,979,703

FOR USE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THE TOTAL UNALLOCATED FOR USE IS THE 12 UP THERE.

>> THE 12 IS JUST THE COURT MEMBERS.

YOUR PARTICULAR BALANCE IN YOUR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS.

AND THEN THE BOTTOM PART ARE THE BALANCES THAT REMAIN IN PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY MOVED FUNDS INTO.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: YES. >> YOU GO TO THE SECOND PAGE.

THE SECOND PAGE IS AN UPDATE FROM THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA, BECAUSE ON THE 2021 C.O.S, A NOTE AT THE BOTTOM WHERE I WAS TRYING TO SHOW -- AT THE TOP IT SHOWS THE UNALLOCATED BEING $20 MILLION. THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY WHAT IS AVAILABLE, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T MOVED OUT THE REMAINING FUN FOR THE BOB HALL PIER. THERE IS STILL $12 MILLION WE HAVE NOT MOVED INTO THAT PROJECT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SHOW THE RECAP TO SHOW THAT HILL TOP IS COMPLETELY FUNDED. WE CAME TO COURT.

WE PULLED ALL THE MONIES TOGETHER AND WE PUT THOSE DOLLARS INTO THE PROJECT. THE SAME WITH THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY. THOSE FUNDS ARE ACTUALLY WITHIN THE PROJECT. BUT WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT FOR BOB HALL PIER. I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT.

NOT REALLY $20 MILLION THAT IS UNALLOCATED AVAILABLE.

$12 MILLION STILL NEEDS TO BE PULLED OUT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN

ALLOCATED FOR THE PIER. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE HAVEN'T DONE IT BECAUSE WE VOTED TO DO IT.

>> WE HAVEN'T COME TO THE COURT -- WE HAVE ADDED MONIES LIKE HURRICANE HARVEY. MOVED THE MEDICAL EXAMINER FACILITY BUT WE HAVEN'T COME TO COURT AND STATED HERE IS BOB

[00:45:03]

HALL PIER. HERE IS OUR TOTAL FUND WHERE ALL THE MONIES CAN BE MOVED TO THE PROJECT.

WE HAVE BEEN KIND OF MOVING THE MONEY AS WE COME TO COURT, AND THEY GET SELECTED OR AWARDED CONSTRUCTION, THEN WE ALLOCATE

THE MONEY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HE ALLOCATED -- WE HAVE ALLOCATED EVERY DOLLAR TO BOB HALL PIER.

>> RIGHT, IT IS ALLOCATED, COMMISSIONER, BUT IT IS NOT IN THE PROJECT BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T STARTED CONSTRUCTION.

>> I KNOW. SAME FOR HILL TOP AND ANIMAL

CONTROL -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: ARE YOU SAYING WE SHOULD DO THAT FOR BOB HALL PIER TODAY SO WE GET IT OUT OF THE --

SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD? >> WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE TO MOVE

IT TO COURT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE VOTED TO ALLOCATE EVERY DOLLAR FROM C.O.S, INSURANCE PROCEEDS, ARPA. WE HAD COURT VOTES AND VOTED ON EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR ALLOCATED TO BOB HALL PIER.

SO I AM STILL NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BECAUSE OTHER THAN A VOTE, THAT IS ALL WE NORMALLY

DO. >> YEAH, BUT WE DON'T --

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: UNTIL THE PROJECT STARTS CONSTRUCTION.

>> WHAT I AM SAYING TO MOVE THOSE FUNDS ACTUALLY INTO THIS PROJECT. RIGHT NOW THEY ARE STILL SITTING

UP IN UNALLOCATED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: BUT WHY BECAUSE WE VOTED TO ALLOCATE THEM.

THAT IS WHAT I AM NOT ALLOCATING.

WE HAVE VOTED TO ALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS.

>> BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE A RECAP.

WE ONLY MOVE FUNDS WHEN THEY START CONSTRUCTION AND CONTRACTS ARE APPROVED IN COURT. WE PUT THE DOLLARS IN FOR THOSE

ENCUMBRANCES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DOESN'T

MAKE SENSE. >> DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

SHOULD BE EVERYTHING ALLOCATED TO THE PROJECT, COMMISSIONER.

I AGREE WITH YOU. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW SHOWING $20 MILLION. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT, THAT IS

RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THE $12 MILL IS NOT -- I CAN DO. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOW IT GETS MOVED OVER FOR ACCOUNTING PURPOSES, THAT IS -- SOMEBODY ELSE DOES. WE VOTE ON THINGS.

IT HAS ALL BEEN VOTED ON. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE TO VOTE ON ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE ALREADY VOTED ON.

I DON'T REMEMBER COMING BACK AND SAYING, OKAY, NOW WE ARE GOING TO VOTE TO MOVE THE MONEY INTO SOMETHING ELSE TOO.

WE VOTE TO ALLOCATE IT, AND IT IS ALLOCATED.

>> WE DON'T MOVE THE ACTUAL FUNDS INTO THE PROJECT UNTIL THE ITEMS COME TO COURT AND GETS APPROVED.

LIKE RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE $7 MILLION THAT IS ENCUMBERED OR OBLIGATED IN THAT PROJECT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOB HALL PIER PROJECT, AND THE BUDGET IS $7.3 MILLION.

THAT -- THE ONLY AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE MOVE, BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONLY CONTRACTS THAT HAVE COME TO COURT AND HAVE BEEN APPROVED. SO YOU ARE CORRECT, THE FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED BUT NOT SITTING IN THE PROJECT.

AND I CAN DO A BUDGET CHANGE ORDER TO MOVE THE ALL THE

MONIES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I GUESS WE NEED TO CHANGE THE WAY WE DO OUR ACCOUNTING THEN.

BECAUSE NOT UNALLOCATED. IT IS ALREADY ENCUMBERED.

>> IT IS NOT ENCUMBERED BUT IT IS ALLOCATED.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MISLEADING.

NOT ON PURPOSE, I GET IT. BUT MISLEADING TO SAY 50 MILLION OR A HUGE NUMBER THAT IS NOT -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE

SAYING. >> THE $20 MILLION AT THE TOP.

IT IS NOT UNALLOCATED. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I ASKED TERESA TO BRING AND DO THESE LISTS BECAUSE I HAVE GONE LOOKING FOR MONEY FOR THE ROOF, AND WE HAD ASKED WHAT WAS IN THE C.O. AND WHAT WAS LEFT. THERE WAS A TOTAL.

I SAID WE HAVE THAT MUCH IN THE C.O.

SHE SAID NO, NO, A LOT OF THIS IS TOO THINGS.

I SAID WE NEED A BETTER SYSTEM, BECAUSE IT IS -- I DON'T KNOW HOW SHE KEEPS IT IN HER HEAD HOW MUCH WE TRANSFER AND HOW MUCH WE SPENT. BECAUSE WE COME TO COURT AND VOTE ON SOMETHING AND NONE OF US HAVE A CLUE HOW MUCH HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED. WE BROUGHT THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION FOR THIS VERY REASON TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT BETTER SO WE ARE NOT ALL SCRAMBLING AROUND AND IT IS A VERY CLEAR ITEM ON THE LIST WHERE YOU KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH OFF THIS HAVEN'T BEEN ALLOCATED. HOW MUCH WE HAVE THAT WE CAN SPEND. BUT THIS CAME ABOUT WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING FOR SOMETHING AND IT IS REALLY CONFUSING.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT I AM SEEING, TERESA IS, PAGE 1. THE ONLY THING THAT IS REALLY UNALLOCATED AND MAYBE WE NEED DIFFERENT TERMINOLOGY.

THE ONLY THING UNALLOCATED IS THE $7.3 MILLION AT THE TOP.

BECAUSE THESE OTHER FUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED TO COMMISSIONERS, TO THE JUDGE FOR PRECINCT PROJECTS.

WHAT IS THE 7.3 -- 7.64227. WHAT IS THAT?

>> THE REMAINING AMOUNT THAT IS ON -- THE 1925 SERIES.

IT BACKS OUT THE $12 MILLION THAT I HAVE NOT MOVED FOR BOB HALL PIER. SO WHEN I BACK IT OUT, THAT IS THE TRUE AMOUNT. THAT IS UNALLOCATED THAT YOU CAN STILL CREATE PROJECTS FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.

[00:50:01]

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT IS FROM WHAT?

>> THAT IS BACKING OUT -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: FROM THE

25021 C.O. >> THE BALANCE THAT IS AVAILABLE IN THE 2021 C.O.S AFTER I REDUCE THE BALANCES THAT I HAVE NOT

REMOVED TO THE BOB HALL PIER. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOW HAVE WE -- HOW HAD WE -- HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? BECAUSE WE ALLOCATED -- I THOUGHT WE HAD ALLOCATED ALL OF THOSE 2021 C.O. TO COMMISSIONERS, JUDGE OR

PROJECTS. >> WE HAVE A CIP LIST, RIGHT.

WE DON'T MOVE THE FUNDS INTO THE PROJECTS UNTIL THE PROJECTS MOVE

FORWARD. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MEANING, I DIDN'T REALIZE WE HAVE ANY UNALLOCATED.

WHEN I AUNALLOCATED. I WILL SAY INVITED.

LET'S CHANGE THAT BECAUSE HAVING A CONFUSING CONVERSATION HERE.

YOU ARE TELLING -- YOU ARE TELLING THIS COURT $7.6 MILLION INVITED MONEY FROM THE 2 2021 C.O.S.

>> NOT INVITED BUT CIP PROJECTS THAT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HAS IT BEEN ASSIGNED TO SOMETHING ELSE?

>> WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WITH IT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MEANING IT HAS NOT BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE

A PROJECT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IT CAN BE VOTED

ON TODAY FOR ANOTHER PROJECT? >> I THINK SO.

YOU HAVE A CIP LIST, RIGHT. WHATEVER THAT LIST TOTAL.

IF -- WHEN WE DO THE CIP, IF WE GO IN AND MOVE THOSE FUNDS, THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOCATE AND CREATE A PROJECT AND MOVE THOSE DOLLARS THERE, THEN WHEN WE CREATE NEW PROJECTS, LIKE WITH THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. THE $4 MILLION FROM THE MEDICAL EXAMINER. THEN I CAN SHOW THE MEDICAL EXAMINER MONIES CAME OUT AND WENT HERE AND THERE.

WE DON'T MOVE ANY OF THE MONIES. ALL THE MONIES ARE SIT CAN IN UNALLOCATED UNTIL WE GET TO COURT AND I CAN DO OUR PRODUCT

CHANGE ORDER. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WILL TRY TO ASK THIS AGAIN. YOU KNOW I LOVE YOU, BUT YOU ARE CONFUSING THE HECK OUT OF MY TODAY.

WHAT I AM ASKING YOU IS, HAS THIS $7.6 MILLION BEEN ASSIGNED TO A PROJECT. LIKE ASSIGNED LIKE BOB HALL? ASSIGNED LIKE HILLTOP AND THE MEDICAL EXAMINER.

THOSE THINGS HAVE ALL BEEN ASSIGNED.

THAT MONEY IS NOT AVAILABLE. IS THIS UNASSIGNED MONEY OR NOT.

I AM TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE TERM --

>> OKAY. I WOULD SAY ASSIGNED ACCORDING

THE CIP LIST. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE HAVEN'T VOTED. WHAT HAS IT BEEN ASSIGNED TO.

>> THE CIP LIST. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: UNTIL WE VOTE TO ASSIGN, IT IS NOT ASSIGNED.

WE HAVE A $200 MILLION CIP. WE KNOW $7 MILLION WILL NOT COVER $200 MILLION. WE VOTED WITH OUR C.O. IN THE PAST, MEDICAL EXAMINER, HILLTOP, BOB HALL PIER.

ALL THOSE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN VOTED BY THIS COURT AND DECIDED.

THAT MONEY IS OFF THE TABLE. IS THIS MONEY OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED IN A SPECIFIC PROJECT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: IN THE CIP. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IF IT HAVEN'T -- IF IT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO SOMETHING ELSE, IT

ISN'T AVAILABLE MONEY. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: EXTREMELY, TERESA. WHAT I UNDERSTAND YOU LEAVE THIS MONEY UNASSIGNED. WHAT I HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST, THIS IS WHERE YOU MIGHT GET MONEY IN CASE YOU NEED MONEY FOR

SOMEWHERE? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

COMES FROM THIS POT RIGHT HERE. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: I THINK WITH A NEW PROCESS NEEDS TO BE, WHEN WE VOTE TO ALLOCATE SOMETHING, THE COURT APPROVES IT, THIS BUDGET CHANGE ORDER NEEDS TO GO INTO A FUND FOR THAT PROJECT. YOU SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFER THE FUNDS WHERE THEY ARE NOT SITTING THERE AND WE SEE WHAT -- I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE HOPE TO GET OUT OF THIS MEETING TODAY WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS CONFUSION.

IF THE COURT VOTES TO APPROVE A PROJECT WITH THESE FUNDS, THEN YOU SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY TRANSFER THOSE FUNDS INSTEAD OF COMING BACK. YOU CAN CREATE A --

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THINK WE ASSIGNED EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR.

WE HAD A $50 MILLION C.O. WHERE THIS STARTED.

WE HAVE -- I REMEMBER THIS. WE VOTED ON $50 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS, WHICH MEANS THERE BE NOT ONE DOLLAR UNASSIGNED FROM THAT CO. IF WE GO BACK -- I THINK THIS IS COMPLETELY NOT CORRECT, BECAUSE WE VOTED ON ALL THE PROJECTS.

WE WENT THROUGH IT. I REMEMBER GOING THROUGH IT.

AND WE ASSIGNED EVERY DOLLAR OF THE $50 UNTIL C.O. THAT WE PASSED AND WE ASSIGN IT ALL. I DON'T SEE HOW THERE ARE ANY

DOLLARS AVAILABLE. >> COMMISSIONER, WE ARE SAYING THE SAME THING. YOU ARE CORRECT, WE DID ASSIGN ACCORDING THE CIP LIST. YOU LOOK -- THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE ALLOCATED RIGHT NOW ARE NOT $50 MILLION OF ALL THE PROJECTS

THAT WE -- THAT WE HAVE DONE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DOESN'T MEAN IT HAVEN'T BEEN ASSIGNED. I MEAN THIS -- THIS -- IN OTHER WORDS -- IF WE TAKE THE $7.6 MILLION, WE ARE TAKING IT FROM

[00:55:04]

ANOTHER PROJECT WE ALREADY VOTED ON.

AND THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING THE WHOLE TIME, THIS IS NOT AVAILABLE MONEY. AVAILABLE ONLY IF WE PULL IT AWAY FROM OTHER PROJECTS. THAT IS NOT AVAILA.

THOSE MONIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THOSE MONIES ARE TIED TO A PROJECT. I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

>> YES, SIR. >> ON THE CACHE HILLTOP, $20 MILLION AND BROUGHT IT DOWN TO $14 MILLION.

I THOUGHT THE LAST NUMBER WE AGREED ON WAS $9 MILLION.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DAVID STARTED AT 20 MILLION.

THE COURT NEVER STARTED AT $20. DAVID STARTED AT 20.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I WAS IN AGREEANCE TO DO THAT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OKAY. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SO I AM SAYING NOW I SEE $8 MILLION. BUT I WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE AGREED ON $9 MILLION. IF I AM WRONG, CAN YOU SHOW ME DIFFERENT? WHY?

>>ER IN DIFFERENT SERIES. THEY ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE.

IT IS IN HURRICANE HARVEY MONIES, 2021 C.O.S.

MIGHT BE THE 2019. THIS IS YOUR PORTION COME FROM THE 2021 C.O.S. SO I CAN GIVE YOU THAT SHEET THAT SHOWS THE EXACT TOTAL AND I BELIEVE YOU ARE CORRECT, LIKE

NINE POINT SOMETHING. >>JUDGE SCOTT: BASICALLY WE SHOULD -- WHEN WE ALLOCATE MONEY FOR ANYTHING CREATE A PROJECT ACCOUNT AND THAT MONEY SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE TRANSFERRED OVER THERE BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING INTO THINGS LIKE THIS WHERE WE ARE LOOKING FOR MONEY AND NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IS STILL HOLDING OUTS THERE. SO WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE $50 MILLION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

SEE WHAT IS LEFT. SEE WHAT HAVEN'T BEEN DONE.

WHAT POSSIBLY GOT SCRAPPED OR IS BEING DONE.

BUT THAT IS THE REASON WE BROUGHT THIS HERE, BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A CRAZY MESS. WHEN I WENT LOOKING FOR MONEY WITH THIS, IT WAS LIKE -- WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL IT COMES BACK TO COURT AND WE VOTED ON THIS AND SHE HAS IT IN HER HEAD AND NOBODY CAN KEEP UP WITH WHAT WE DO IN HERE ON A REGULAR BASIS, VOTING AND CHANGING -- SORRY, GUYS, IT IS ON US TOO.

BUT ONCE WE VOTE TO MOVE A PROJECT FORWARD AND ALLOCATE THAT MONEY, IT SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY FROM THE -- FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE BE TRANSFERRED INTO A SEPARATE

ACCOUNT FOR THAT PROJECT. >> WHAT I CAN DO, THEN, JUDGE IS -- I WILL TAKE THE -- THIS LIST. AND I WILL GO THROUGHOUT CIP LIST FOR ALL THE PROJECTS WE HAVE AND ACTUALLY REALLOCATED THE FUNDS, MOVE THE BALANCE FROM BOB HALL PIER INTO THIS PROJECT AND THEN WE SHOULD HAVE ZERO UNALLOCATED.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, CORRECT.

WHEN WE GO OUT FOR THE BOND ISSUES, BONDING COMPANY TO PROVIDE A LIST WHAT WE USE THE FUNDS FOR.

WE DO THIS, THIS, AND THIS. IN EXCESS OF 50.

SOME OF THESE ITEMS THAT ARE PROCESS READY A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE EXPLAINED.

THAT IS WHERE THERE MIGHT BE LITTLE BIT DIFFERENCES.

AS THE COMMISSIONER IS SAYING, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED, WHICH ONES ARE THERE AND WHICH ONES ARE CHANGED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: IF WE ARE VOTING ON THIS WE NEED TO TRANSFER OVER

SO NOT DUPLICATING. >>DALE ATCHLEY: ALL OF THIS IS OUR OLD SYSTEM. COMMISSIONER SAYING $9 MILLION FOR THE HILLTOP AND YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT FOUR DIFFERENT SPOTS.

WHEN OUR NEW SYSTEM, EASIER TO TRACK.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: WHAT I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BY THE TIME YOU GET DONE, HILLTOP WILL REFLECT $9 MILLION ALLOCATED.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SAME FOR BOB HALL PIER.

THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT FUNDING. WE HAD TO SCRAPE AND CLAW TO

MAKE IT WORK. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: THERE

IS MONEY, COMMISSIONER. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU, TERESA. WE APPRECIATE IT.

VERY CONFUSING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT,

[3. Authorize escrow disbursement request #15 in the amount of $608,491.10 from Banc of America Public Capital Corp., Payable to "ABM Building Services LLC" for Nueces County Bundled Energy Solutions Project; Authorize payment of $371,250 to "ABM Building Services LLC" for Services provided under Change Order #5, approved CCT 5/24/23 for the County Jail Energy Savings Project. Project Services, May 1st, 2023 through July 31st, 2023 - $979,741.10 grand total.]

GUYS. SHE WILL COME BACK WITH THIS.

ITEM NUMBER 3 THEN, MOVING ON. AUTHORIZE ESCROW REQUEST NUMBER 15. THIS IS PAYMENTS 1, 22 AND 23 TO ABM. I KNOW WE HAVE ANOTHER NOTICE TO CURE. AND WE GOT WITH BOTH PRESIDENT ABM -- WITH BOTH ABM AND PUBLIC WORKS AND APPROVED BY JUAN AND MYSELF FOR PAYMENT. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: YEAH, I HAVE DISCUSSION.

I KNOW PUBLIC WORKS APPROVES THIS.

AND I HOPE WE ARE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WITH ABM.

WE HAD SO MANY PROBLEMS IN THE PAST.

[01:00:02]

AND THEN -- I WANT TO COME BACK DOWN AT THE END OF THE ROAD.

AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS WASN'T DONE RIGHT.

I MEAN, I JUST HOPE EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE DOING IS TO SPECS AND NOT GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, IT WASN'T DONE RIGHT. THAT IS WHAT WORRIES ME.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: AGREED. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE CAN'T DO IT AT THE END. WE HAVE TO DO IT NOW.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL TELL YOU ON THESE THREE INVOICES.

THE REASON THEY WERE HELD UP AT FIRST IN PUBLIC WORKS, THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH ONE OF THE THESE INVOICES.

IT HAD TO DO WITH ANOTHER JOB DONE AT THE ANNEX.

SO WHAT WAS CHARGED ON THESE THREE INVOICES WAS NOTHING ABOUT THEIR CONCERN IS THE REASON WHY THEY WERE OKAY MOVING FORWARD AND WE CHECKED WITH THE JAIL AND THE JAIL AND THE SHERIFF WAS VERY HAPPY WITH THE PROGRESS SO FAR.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: ALREADY GOT THROUGH WITH THE JUVENILE

HALL -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: ONE HERE.

CAN YOU SPEAK IN -- I AM NOT SURE IF THEY ARE FINISHED

TOTALLY WITH THE JUVENILE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: THING WAS PART OF THE LUMP SUM THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

AND THE PARKING LOT ON THE FRONT END AND THE BACK.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: NOT PART OF THESE THREE INVOICES.

ONE IS THE STEAM ROLLERS. AND IT SAYS PARKING FOR SOMETHING. AND THE AIR HANDLER UNITS ARE 22 AND 23. AND THOSE ARE IN THE JAIL, THE

OTHER INVOICES THAT ARE OUT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: THOSE

ARE OKAY, THE HER. >> RIFF SAID?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: YES. WE CONTACTED BEFORE WE MOVED

FORWARD. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: THE

PARKING. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: EXCUSE ME, JUDGE. DID SOMEBODY INSPECT THE WORK, LIKE THE AIR HANDLERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON THESE, BUT THEY -- I MEAN, THEY ARE STILL DOING MORE AIR HANDSLERS.

THEY ARE CHANGING TO A DOUBLE SHIFT NOW BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE AN OCTOBER DEADLINE THAT THEY HAVE TO BE FINISH ED TWO IS SHIFTS FROM PUBLIC TWO MEET THAT DEMAND.

JUAN, ON THE JUVENILE OFFICE OF PARKING.

IS THAT FINISHED YET? >> YES, MA'AM.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: FRONT AND BACK?

>> YES, IT IS COMPLETE. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: PART OF

THIS LIST? >> SHOULD BE UNDER JUVENILE.

I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. >>JUDGE SCOTT: INVOICE 21 STEAM

ROLLERS AND PARKING. >> THE PARKING IS PART OF THAT.

YES, MA'AM. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SO THIS IS PART

OF THAT. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU, JUAN.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

[4. Discuss and consider execution of Notification of $78,077.00 FY2022 Funding (Street Improvement Fund), as presented by the Regional Transportation Authority.]

AND THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER EXECUTION OF NOTIFICATION OF $78,077 FUNDING FOR STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND AS PRESENTED BY THE RTA.

ITEM NUMBER 4. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SO

MOVED. >>AIDEE: YES, JUDGE, FROM EACH

COMMISSIONER. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: SO

MOVED. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SECOND JUDGE JUDGE --

[5. 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. Robstown North Drainage Improvements]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 5, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER SELECTION OF INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ICE, FOR THE ROBSTOWN NORTH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

COMMISSIONER MAREZ, THIS IS YOURS.

JUST SELECTING ENGINEERING FROM YOUR CDBG.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: YES CDBG MOD AND BEGIN THE PROCESS FOR THE ROBSTOWN AREA. AND IT IS -- THE COMPANION ITEM

FOR ITEM 6 AS WELL. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL MAKE THE

MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ:

SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND A

[6. Discuss and consider selection of Ardurra Group, Inc., for Engineering Services under Master Services Contract No. 20230306-5/10 (RFQ 3222-22) for the following community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-funded project: 1. Clarkwood]

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. ITEM NUMBER 6 IS THE SAME, JUST COLLECTING ARDURRA FOR THE MASTER SERVICE CONTRACT WITH THE

CDBG, CLARKWOOD. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: YES, JUDGE AND COURT. TO HELP THE CLARKWOOD AREA.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: MAKING THE MOTION.

I WILL SECOND. A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 7 IS DISCUSS AND

[7. Discuss and consider allocating $275,000 from Precinct 4 ARPA designated funds to the London Drainage related to widening the existing drainage structure between South Prairie and Rabbit Run on CR 47; Discuss and consider the selection of Freese and Nichols for Engineering Services under Master Services Contract No. RFQ No. 3220-22 (3.D.3.) for ARPA funded projects on April 26, 2023. Project requirements would adhere under U.S. Department of Treasury Compliance Guidelines and Code of Federal Regulations.]

[01:05:06]

CONSIDER ALLOCATING $275,000 FROM PRECINCT 4 ARPA DESIGNATED FUND TO THE LONDON DRAINAGE RELATED TO WIDENING THE EXISTING DRAINAGE BETWEEN SOUTH PRAIRIE AND RABBIT RUN.

COMMISSIONER CHESNEY? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THANK YOU. THIS IS A PROJECT I HAVE VETTED WITH LULU AND INDICATED THIS DOES MEET THE ARPA RULES WITH REGARDS TO IMPROVING DRAINAGE IN THE LONDON AREA.

I ALLOCATED $1.5 MILLION OF THE PRECINCT 4 OF THE LONDON DRAINAGE MOVING 275,000 OF THAT $ $1.5 MILLION IN THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT WILL AND SET UP THIS.

HE SPECIFIC PROJECT. AND ALSO HAS CONSIDERATION AND SELECTION OF FREESE AND NICHOLS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES UNDER THE MASTER SERVICES CONTRACT FROM THAT $275,000.

SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS PASSES.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THAT A DUAL MOTION.

OR DO TWO SEPARATE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WILL MOVE THAT WE MOVE $275,000 FROM PRECINCT 4 ARPA FUNDS TO THE $1.5 MILLION PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AND FREESE AND NICHOLS BE CHOSEN FOR THE ENGINEERING SERVICES AS PER THE

RULE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN? THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 8,

[8. Discuss and consider the selection of Govind Development, LLC for Engineering Services under Master Service Contract No. 20230258-4/26 (RFQ No. 3232-23) with allocated County-Wide American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding, for the Hazel Bazemore Park Improvement Project.]

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE SELECTION OF GOVIND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR MASTER SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE HAZEL BAZEMORE PARK IMPROVEMENT CACHE PROJECT.

COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, THIS IS YOURS?

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: YES, JUDGE.

I WANT TO -- THE GOVIND DEVELOPMENT GROUP TO DO THE

ENGINEERING AT HAZEL. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THAT YOUR MOTION?

>> THAT IS MY MOTION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SECOND THAT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION IN ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

I HAVE TIM NUMBER 9 IS YOURS ALSO, RECEIVE UPDATED ARPA BALANCES FOR PRECINCTS AND COUNTYWIDE PROJECTS.

[9. Receive updated ARPA balances for precincts and county-wide projects; discuss and consider eligibility requirements for subawards to subrecipients under Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200; discuss and consider taking action regarding allocation plans/processes of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the following project: 1. Nueces County Water Control and Improvement District No. 5 (Banquete): $1,000,000 allocated]

MAYBE THAT IS EVERYBODY. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SUB AWARDS TO SUB-RECIPIENTS.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER TAKING ACTION REGARDING THE ALLOCATION PLANS, PROCESSES OF THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS FOR THE FOLLOWING PROJECT. THAT IS THE NUECES WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5, BANQUETE.

>> JUDGE, I AGREE WITH THIS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I THINK LULU NEEDS TO ENLIGHTEN US -- ARE WE UNALLOCATING THIS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.

>> YES, A RISK ASELLSMENT CONDUCTED FOR ITEM NUMBER 5.

AND SO WE ARE HERE TO PRESENT THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT MET. SO I AM REQUESTING FROM THE COURT -- FROM THE WILL OF THE COURT WHAT DECISION YOU WANT TO

MAKE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ TO UNALLOCATE.

IS THAT -- >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: NO, JUDGE, I WOULD STILL FOR LULU TO FIND THE TIME TO HELP THESE PEOPLE TO GET THIS PROJECT DONE. I THINK IT COULD BE ALLOCATED BACK TO -- THE COUNTY COULD BE DOING THE WORK.

COULD THAT BE DONE, LULU? >> REPEAT THAT AGAIN, THE AIR

CONDITIONER. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: IF THE

COUNTY IS DOING THE WORK. >> IN BANQUETE?

NO, NOT ALLOWED. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: NO?

I THOUGHT YOU TOLD ME IT WAS. >> FOR DRAINAGE ON COUNTY ROAD.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: OKAY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IF THIS DOESN'T QUALIFY. ONE OF MANY.

WE UNALLOCATED EVERY ONE ONE. >> THIS WAS DESIGNATED

SPECIFICALLY FOR BANQUETE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: OTHER ALLOCATED FOR OTHER ENTITIES' PROJECTS.

AND THE JUDGE'S ARGUMENT ON THIS.

IF THEY ARE SUB RE1I-- SUB-RECIPIENTS AND THEY DON'T QUALIFY. I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN KEEP $1 MILLION HANGING AROUND WHEN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR OUR ROOF. SO I -- I MEAN.

I -- I CAN'T SUPPORT CONTINUING TO -- TO -- TO JUST LEAVE THIS MILLION DOLLARS HANGING OUT THERE IF THEY DON'T QUALIFY.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: WHAT I AM ASKING, DO WE HAVE TO AGREE

[01:10:02]

RIGHT NOW TO PULL THAT MONEY AWAY OR HAVE TIME --

>> WE CAN UNALLOCATE IT RIGHT NOW BASED ON -- ON THEIR ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS THEY DO NOT MEET AT ALL.

DO NOT MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU ARE NOT THE LAWYER, BUT YOU ARE TELLING US AN ILLEGAL ALLOCATION

AT THIS POINT. >> IT WILL BE SITTING THERE FOR A WHILE. IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PAPERWORK, IT IS GOING TO SIT THERE AND WE WILL LOSE THE MONEY.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: HOW LONG DO WE HAVE BEFORE WE KNOW WE LOSE THE MONEY. WE STILL HAVE TIME, DON'T WE?

>> WE HAVE TO OBLIGATE A YOU WILL THE FUNDS DECEMBER 31, 2024 ON THE LAST COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR THAT MONTH.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL ALSO REMIND EVERYONE THAT SOME OF THE PROJECTS WE HAVE MOVED FORWARD ON AND ALLOCATED AND SELECTED ENGINEERS HAVE STILL NOT GONE OUT FOR BID FOR WORK TO START.

AND I AM -- I AM ALMOST INTO A YEAR OF MINE.

THIS IS A VERY SLOW PROJECT. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: LULU, ALL I AM SAYING IS I TRIED TO HELP THIS COMMUNITY.

>> I REACHED OUT TO THEM AS WELL.

THEY WERE NONRECEPTIVE. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I KNOW THEY NEED IT. I HAVE TO AGREE THAT IF THEY DON'T QUALIFY BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T GIVEN YOU THE INFORMATION YOU ASKED FOR, WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

AND THAT IS UNALLOCATE IT, I GUESS.

I HOPE WE PUT IT TO GOOD USE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: SO ARE YOU

AMENDING YOUR MOTION THEN? >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I AM GOING TO HAVE TO, JUDGE. YES, I AM --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: SO WE HAVE -- YOU -- AND YOU ARE WITHDRAWING YOUR MOTION. YOUR SECOND, COMMISSIONER MAREZ.

WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION TO UNALLOCATE FROM THE NUECES COUNTY WATER CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5, THE $1 MILLION AT THE ADVICE OF OUR LEGAL AND ARPA REPRESENTATIVE. SO ARE YOU SECONDING THE MOTION

THEN? >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I HAVE ONE -- THESE PEOPLE REALLY NEED THE HELP, OKAY, FOR THIS PROBLEM. WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM, YOU KNOW. I AM HOPE THAT IN THAT MEETING WE ARE GOING TO HAVE, THEY WILL GIVE US BETTER INFORMATION OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP QUALIFY.

I UNDERSTAND WE NEED THE MONEY AND I HAVE ALSO GIVEN SOME MONIES FOR THE ROOF. BUT I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ONE MORE MEETING WITH BANQUETE AND FIND OUT IF THEY REALLY YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE THE DESIRE OR CAN'T DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE -- SUPPOSED TO BE DOING TO GIVE US INFORMATION THAT WE NEED

TO HELP US. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU ARE TAKING BACK YOUR MOTION TO NOT UNALLOCATE --

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: JUDGE, I JUST WANT TO GIVE THESE PEOPLE

THE OPPORTUNITY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: BUT WHAT

IS -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: RIGHT, BUT WAIT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

BECAUSE IF YOU REACHED OUT TO THEM AND YOU TRIED AND DID EVERYTHING YOU COULD DO AND SHE TRIED EVERYTHING SHE CAN DO.

AND YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE THEM QUALIFY?

>> THEY DON'T HAVE A SAM.GOV. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT'S

THAT? >> A FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION

NUMBER. >>DALE ATCHLEY: FEDERAL

IDENTIFICATION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO WOULD $1 MILLION, EVEN IN THE PROJECT DID QUALIFY WHICH IT DOESN'T, IS THAT GOING TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING THIS WAS JUST A PARTIAL ALSO ON ALL

THESE ONES WE DID. >> EVEN IF WE ALLOCATE $1, THAT

SAM.GOV IS NECESSARY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LET'S SAY WE HAVE A SAM.GOV, DOES THIS $1 MILLION -- BECAUSE THAT IS THE OTHER THING WE HEARD ON THESE DISCUSSIONS, IT HAS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. IT HAS TO BE THE WHOLE PROJECT.

IS IT THE WHOLE PROJECT? OR JUST --

>> A PORTION OF THE PROJECT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT IS

THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT? >> THAT I AM NOT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MORE THAN $1 MILLION?

>> MORE THAN $1 MILLION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DO THEY

HAVE MONEY TO PUT INTO THIS? >> I WOULDN'T KNOW BECAUSE I HAVE NOT RECEIVED THEIR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PRESENT WITH THESE PROJECTS.

>> I DON'T HAVE THEIR NET POSITION.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THE ONLY REASON I AM ASKING IS BECAUSE IN BANQUETE, YOU ONLY HAVE TWO PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF THAT WATER DISTRICT. AND IT IS NOT A FULL-TIME JOB FOR THEM. THEY WORK OTHER JOBS, YOU KNOW.

AND THEY DO THIS, I GUESS, WHENEVER THEY CAN.

AND THEY DON'T MEET ON A REGULAR BASIS, BUT, AGAIN, IF THIS IS GOING TO BE THAT HARD FOR THEM TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT I WANT TO HELP THEM ACCOMPLISH, THEN I THINK WE HAVE GIVEN THEM ENOUGH TIME TO DO THIS. AGAIN, I REMOVE MY MOTION.

>> THIS ALLOCATION WAS DONE ON JULY 6, 2022.

SO IT HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR. AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED

[01:15:02]

DOCUMENTATION. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WILL MAKE THE MOTION THEN THAT WE UNALLOCATE THIS MONEY TO THE -- TO THE NUECES COUNTY WATER CONTROL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5 AND REALLOCATE IT TO NUECES COUNTY ARPA FUNDS REMAINING BALANCE BASED ON NONCOMPLIANCE AND BASED ON NOT

BEING A QUALIFIED PROJECT -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I

GUESS I WILL BE THE SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, WILL BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT SINCE -- SINCE IT IS -- TO REALLOCATE IT AT THIS POINT TO -- LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT THE ROOF PROJECT. WE TALKED ABOUT -- I MEAN THAT -- I MEAN, I AM -- I DON'T REMEMBER WHERE WE ARE ON THAT.

BUT I WOULD THINK WE NEED TO -- AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO -- WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO -- EVEN OUR ALLOCATIONS, WE HAVE GOT TO GET ENOUGH TO FINISH IT, RIGHT. $8 MILLION, $10 MILLION ROOF

PROJECT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: HOW MUCH IS LEFT -- THIS SAYS RECEIVE BALANCES. WITH THIS $1 MILLION, WHAT WILL THAT PUT US AT IN THE COUNTY WITH UNALLOCATED ARPA FUNDS.

>> IN ORDER FOR ME TO GET A FULL AMOUNT OF ITEM AGENDA 10 WILL

NEED TO BE DISCUSSED AS WELL. >>JUDGE SCOTT: 10?

>> YES. >>JUDGE SCOTT: OKAY.

SINCE IT IS ARPA, WE CAN DO ALL OF THAT AT THE SAME TIME AND BRING THAT UP. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN. REMAIN -- ALLOCATED FUNDS TO THE NONPROFIT FISCAL RECOVERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HANG ON. WHAT IS THE ANSWER ON THE ROOF? IF I REMEMBER WE HAD $2.5 MILLION LEFT THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS. AND THEN -- BECAUSE WE ALLOCATED ALL THE MONEY TO THE PLUMBING -- NOT ALL, BUT TO COMPLETE THE PLUMBING PROJECT. AND MY REMEMBRANCE THAT LEFT US ABOUT $2.5ISH MILLION OF ARPA FUNDS LEFT.

WOULDN'T THIS MAKE IT 3.5. IF WE WENT AHEAD AND ALLOCATED THIS AND WHAT WE HAVE REMAINING TO THE ROOF.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: DON'T FORGET MY SAVINGS WITH THE M.E.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET.

>> COUNTYWIDE REMAINING BALANCE WITH THE UNALLOCATION OF $1 MILLION. WE WILL HAVE $4 CURRENTLY.

FOR COUNTYWIDE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I HAD MY UNALLOCATED LESSON TODAY, THAT IS NOT INCLUDED -- THAT IS NOT INCLUSIVE OF -- OF FUNDS THAT COMMISSIONERS AND THE JUDGE HAVE, RIGHT? YOU ARE NOT COUNTING THAT AS

REMAINING. >> NO.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU ARE SAYING UNASSIGNED.

MY NEW WORD IS "UNASSIGNED." >> THE SHEET IN PINK OR WHATEVER COLOR YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THAT IS THE TOTAL AMOUNT FROM ALL THE

PRECINCTS AND COUNTY JUDGE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THE AMOUNT IS WHAT -- THIS REMAINING ARPA BALANCE IN THE BLUE FOR

COUNTYWIDE 3,032,365.86. >> PLUS A MILLION.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IF WE SAY TODAY WE WANT TO ALLOCATE THE REMAINING AMOUNT THAT WE HAVE NOW AND YOU MAY HAVE SOME LATER TO THE ROOF, WE CAN PUT ABOUT $4 MILLION TOWARD THAT ROOF PROJECT, AND HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN COMPLETE THE PROJECT WITH. IF NOT, WE HAVE GOT TO FIND MORE, I GET IT. BUT WE KNOW WE HAVE A LOT ON

THAT ROOF. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IF YOU DO A NEW ROOF, WE ARE TOLD BY PUBLIC WORKS IT WILL BE $12 MILLION.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: RIGHT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WORKING

ON SOMETHING ELSE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: MY UNDERSTANDING OTHER THINGS IN THE WORKS.

MY POINT IS -- LET'S GET THIS ALLOCATED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE CAN ALLOCATE THIS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ALLOCATE OR ASSIGN, BEHAVIOR YOU WANT TO CALL IT. MY MOTION ALLOCATE THE REMAINING ARPA BALANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF APPROXIMATELY $4,032,255.86 TOWARD THE NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE ROOF PROJECT.

>> IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE COURT.

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

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

THE REMAINING FUNDS, UNALLOCATED IN THE ARPA.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: RIGHT, NOW I KNOW --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: NONCOMMISSIONERS. NOT THEIR PRIVATE FUNDS.

JUST THE REMAINING BALANCE THAT IS UNALLOCATED.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I KNOW COMMISSIONER MAREZ IS GOING TO DO SOMETHING AT SOME POINT WITH -- SINCE WE ARE DOWN TO TWO M.E.S AND COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I THINK WE ALL HAVE OTHER THINGS WE ARE GOING

TO DO. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NOW A ZERO BALANCE ON COUNTY-WIDE REMAINING ARPA PROJECTS.

[10. Discuss and consider the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) remaining allocated funds to the Nonprofit Fiscal Recovery Assistance Program.]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: YES. ITEM NUMBER 10 WE BROUGHT UP, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER -- IS THIS YOUR ITEM ROAR LULU.

THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT REMAINING ALLOCATED FUNDING TO THE NONPROFIT FISCAL RECOVERY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

[01:20:01]

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WHAT IS THAT?

>> THOSE MONIES WERE FOR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS WHO MET

ALL THE QUALIFICATIONS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THESE WERE THE BENEFICIARIES OFF THE $48,000 BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY APPLICANTS AND WE WERE GETTING DOWN TO THE COUNTY NEEDED THE FUNDS OURSELVES TO TAKE CARE OF PROJECTS.

SO WE CLOSED OFF THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

WE DIDN'T TURN ANYBODY DOWN WHO STARTED THEIR APPLICATION, BUT DIDN'T ALLOW ANY NEW ONES. SO, YES.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOW MUCH IS LEFT?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: 265. >> 216.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS BALANCE SAYS 265 ON THIS PAPER.

SO I WILL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE ALSO MOVE THOSE FUNDS INTO OUR BALANCE ON OUR ROOF, THE COUNTYWIDE ARPA ALLOCATIONS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A A MOTION AND A SECOND AND IT I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THAT MOTION, RIGHT? THE REMAINING $ 16 FROM THE NONPROFIT.

>> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SAYS 265.

LET'S USE THE REMAINING AMOUNT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: REMAINING ARE,

AND NOT AN AMOUNT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY:

REMAINING NONPROFIT AMOUNT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: NONPROFIT AS OF TODAY AND THESE WERE THE BENEFICIARIES WE WERE GIVING THE $49,000 TOO EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY.

A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LULU, WE ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO KEEP TRACK WHERE THE ASSIGNMENTS ARE GOING.

YOU ARE GOING TO MOVE IT OVER AND SHOW IT IN A BUCKET

[11. Discuss and consider establishing the Early Voting Polling Locations for the November 7, 2023, Constitutional Election.]

SOMEWHERE. >> THAT IS RIGHT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: AT ITEM NUMBER 11, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ESTABLISHING THE EARLY VOTING POLLING LOCATIONS FOR THE NOVEMBER 7, 2023 CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION.

THAT WILL BE YOU, KARA. >>KARA SANDS: WE HAVE THE LOCATIONS. WE HAVE AN ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7 AND BRING YOU ALL THE INFORMATION, TIMES, DATES.

THE LOCATIONS ARE IN FRONT OF YOU.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO MOVED.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: S SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND A SECOND.

THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 12, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF ELECTION DAY VOTE CENTERS FOR THE NOVEMBER 7, 2023 CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION.

[12. Discuss and consider approval of Election Day Vote Centers for the November 7, 2023 Constitutional Election.]

WE WANT TO APPROVE THE ELECTION DAY VOTE CENTERS AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY CLERK TO LOCATE MORE LOCATIONS AS NEEDED AND ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE 32.002.

AND I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION. >> SO MOVED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE VOTE CENTERS AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY CLERK TO ADD MORE LOCATIONS AS NEEDED AND SECURE COMPLIANCE WHILE DOING THIS WITH THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE 2.002. AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

[14. Discuss and consider upcoming Commissioners Court meeting date(s), Budget Workshop date(s), and related matters.]

THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 14, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER UPCOMING COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETINGS, BUDGET WORKSHOP DATES AND RELATED MATTERS. I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANY MORE.

ADD BUDGET WORKSHOPS. >>DALE ATCHLEY: WE WILL HAVE TO ADD THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL WORK WITH TERESA WITH THE DAYS REQUIRED. BECAUSE CERTAIN DATES REQUIRED

BY LAW. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ARE WE GOING TO

HAVE ANY MEETINGS NEXT WEEK? >>DALE ATCHLEY: IF WE FIND ANOTHER -- WE MAY WANT TO HAVE ANOTHER BUDGET WORKSHOP BECAUSE STILL ITEMS THAT I NEEDED TO WORK WITH SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON. SOME ITEMS. DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE WHOLE COURT? PROBABLY NOT. WE CAN WORK THROUGH SEVERAL OF THE ITEMS THAT WE HAVE TO SHOW YOU HERE IS WHAT THE DEPARTMENTS REQUESTED. THIS IS THE PERCENTAGE OF CUTS THEY HAVE. HERE ARE ADDITIONAL ITEMS FOR POSSIBLE CUTS I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH A FEW OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON. JUDGE, I KNOW YOU AND I AND SOME OTHER ONE ALSO HAVE A MEETING ON FRIDAY TO DISCUSS THAT.

BUT ACTUALLY HAVING ANOTHER BUDGET WORKSHOP, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS NECESSARY. WE CAN WORK WITH EACH COMMISSIONER INDIVIDUALLY IF I NEED TO.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: EVEN WITH THE SOUNDS OF THE WILL OF THE COURT WITH THE OTHER VOTES WHY WE HAVE $3 MILLION MORE WE ARE LOOKING

AT NOW? >>DALE ATCHLEY: SINCE YOU ACTUALLY APPROVED THE POSTING OF THE VOTER APPROVED RATE, I CAN STILL WORK SOME CUTS IN AND GET A RATE BELOW THAT.

WE GO TO NO NEW REVENUE CUTS, THAT IS MORE SIGNIFICANT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: SOUNDED LIKE THE COURT WAS GOING FOR NO NEW REVENUE AND WHY WE NEED ANOTHER BUDGET WORK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: IF WE DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL CUTS, COULD BE FOR

RESERVES. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WHEN YOU SAY "CUTS." LET'S CLARIFY THIS.

CUTS CAN BE WHEN YOU MOVE MONEY AROUND FROM SEPARATE AREAS.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: WHERE WE ARE NOW, THE COSTS HAVE TO BE ACTUAL

COSTS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THAT ARE THE

[01:25:03]

POINT WE ARE IN NOW. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I WANT TO MAKE SURE AND CLEAR FOR THE PEOPLE OUT THERE, THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS AND EVERYBODY ELSE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND. WHEN WE SAY "CUT" DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CUTS, BUT MOVING MONEY AROUND THAT WE HAVE.

LIKE THE INTEREST AND WE HAVE -- WE HAVE THE 1150 WAIVER.

OTHER AREAS, CONTINGENCY. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE BEFORE WE LOOK AT CUTS. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY "CUTS." DO YOU MEAN CUT DEPARTMENTS? WE ARE NOT GOING FOR THAT, RIGHT.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO START FROM THE TOP.

AND USE WHAT WE HAVE FROM THE TOP.

SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR THIS THERE ARE MONIES WE CAN MOVE AROUND. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.

WE NEED TO MOVE THOSE MONEYS AROUND BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ELSE. TAKE CARE OF OUR PEOPLE AND EMPLOYEES. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SORRY, I HAD TO GO TO THE BATHROOM.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT PREDICATED THAT.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: TALKING ABOUT NEEDING ANOTHER BUDGET WORKSHOP WITH THE COURT. I CAN WORK WITH THE COMMISSIONERS INDIVIDUALLY. BUT SOUNDED LIKE THE WILL OF THE COURT TO DO NO NEW REVENUE. IF WE DO THAT, ADDITIONAL WORK WILL NEED TO BE DONE, BECAUSE JUST BY CHANGING THE BUDGET WILL NOT AFFECT THE LOSS OF REVENUE. WILL NOT -- THAT WOULD ACTUALLY

HAVE TO -- CUT ACTUAL NUMBERS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE ARE JUST ON THE DISCUSS UPCOMING MEETINGS?

WHAT AGENDA ITEM DID WE MISS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: IF WE NEED ANOTHER BUDGET WORKSHOP. [LAUGHTER]

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T SEE THIS ON THE AGENDA.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: WE NEED A PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK WITH TERESA ON THE CALENDAR WHEN THESE HAVE TO BE.

AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THOSE ARE DONE.

BUT WE DO WE NEED A BUDGET WORKSHOP BETWEEN THAT PERIOD OF TIME? DEPENDS ON IF WE DECIDE THAT IS WHERE WE ARE TRENDING I WOULD PROBABLY SAY WE NEED TO.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: HOW ABOUT MONDAY THE 28TH.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: LET'S HOLD ON FOR A SECOND.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH THAT.

AND I WILL TELL YOU WHY. AS OF YET, IN MY OPINION, WE HAVE REACHED NOT A LOT OF CONSENSUS AT THESE BUDGET WORKSHOPS. I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE FOR ANOTHER THREE OR FOUR HOURS AND NOD OUR HEADS AND LEAVE AND HAVEN'T HAD CONSENSUS. NOT GIVEN YOU MUCH DIRECTION.

NOT A CRITIQUE, BECAUSE THIS BUDGET A HARD TO FIGURE OUT AND WHAT TO DO. I GET IT, WE ARE ALL KIND OF LIKE -- NOBODY WANTS TO CUT PEOPLE.

I STILL THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF NONPEOPLE CUTS THAT CAN BE MADE.

VACANCIES AND CONSOLIDATION AND MOVING PEOPLE AROUND.

I HAVE THROWN THAT OUT SEVERAL TIMES AND NO ONE MASS RENDERED UP AN OPINION PRO AND CON AND I GET IT.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANOTHER BUDGET WORKSHOP.

WE NEED TO KNOW THAT ON SEPTEMBER 13, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A LOT OF HARD ASS DECISION ADVANTAGED GO IN AND MAKE THEM AND THAT -- EXCUSE MY FRENCH, BUT I USED WORDS I DON'T USUALLY USE A LOT OF TIMES BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN IS A HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE. I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANOTHER BUDGET WORKSHOP BECAUSE WE ARE ALL SO WORRIED ABOUT WHAT WE SAY AND WHAT -- AND I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T SAY SOME OF WHAT I SAY. I GET IT.

IT IS WHAT IT IS. I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO CHUNK OUT A TIME. A LONG DAY ON THE 13TH.

4RI789 OUR AGENDA TO NONESSENTIAL -- TO ONLY ESSENTIAL STUFF. AND JUST KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO A LONG TIME ON THE 13TH WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH IT LIKE I HAVEN'T DONE IN NINE YEARS SINCE I HAVE BEEN ON THIS COURT.

THAT IS OKAY BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THE BUDGET IN THE 16 I HAVE DONE BETWEEN HERE AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED ANOTHER ONE, I WILL BE HONEST.

OTHERS MAY FEEL DIFFERENTLY AND --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: IF YOU DON'T WANT ONE.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SPEND A TON OF TIME ON THE 13TH.

I GET THAT WILL BE HARD FOR YOU, DALE, BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE GIVING YOU STUFF ON THE FLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: ARE YOU SAYING, COMMISSIONER, WE GO THROUGH OUR BUDGET WORKSHOPS. SOMETIMES WE DON'T HAVE IS A CLEAR DIRECTION AND MY STAFF AND I WORKING WITH TERESA AND AIDEE AND WILL CONSIDER WHAT WE BELIEVE THE COURT'S DIRECTION WILL BE. PROVIDE YOU A CLOSED BUDGET AND ON THAT TIME THE 13TH OR IF THAT IS THE DAY FOR THE SELECTION.

AMEND IT TO HOWEVER YOU WANT TO GET TO THE FINAL NUMBER.

AS YOU KNOW THE LAW SAYS ONCE WE START, WE CAN'T STOP.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I GET IT.

HERE IS THE DEAL. I THINK ALL OF US HAVE SAID CLEARLY, WE DON'T WANT TO CUT PEOPLE.

WE ALL SAID CLEARLY, I THINK, WE WOULD RATHER LOOK AT VACANCIES.

WE WOULD RATHER LOOK AT CONSOLIDATION AND MOVING PEOPLE INTO POSITIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

WE ALL -- WE HAVE GIVEN YOU SOME DIRECTION.

[01:30:02]

>>DALE ATCHLEY: SOME OF THE ITEMS CUTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED ARE FREEZING A POSITION OR DELETING SOME POSITIONS. THE MAJORITY OF THOSE THAT ARE FROZEN AND DELETE READY VACA

VACANCIES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THINK THAT IS FAIR. DON'T WANT -- I AM HOPE NOTHING DEPARTMENT HEAD STARTED WITH A SUBMISSION OF PEOPLE THAT THEY STARTED WITH VACANCIES AND GUYS AND SUBSCRIPTION.

THINGS THAT ARE NONPEOPLE RELATED, RIGHT.

AND I DON'T KNOW. AND I HAVE GOT TO BREAK DOWN EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SENT. WHAT I STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS ALL THE BUDGET DEPARTMENTS AND A PERCENTAGE.

I ASKED DALE TO SEE WHAT BUDGET -- BECAUSE IT IS NOT FAIR IF TEN DEPARTMENTS SUBMITTED -- I GET IT.

APPLES TO APPLES. TEN HAD HUGE CUTS AND SOME DIDN'T. NONSTATUTORY.

WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AND BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TOO.

BUT STILL HAS TO BE DOUBTS THIS BUDGET.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY BE A LOT OF PEOPLE, I THINK, BECAUSE 201 VACANCIES. YOU LITERALLY COULD -- IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IS SIMPLE, CUT 100 -- FREEZE, DELETE.

WHATEVER TERM. 100 AND $5 MILLION BUCKS RIGHT THERE. I GET IT HAS SOME EFFECT DOWN THE ROAD, BUT I JUST DON'T -- YOU KNOW --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: MIGHT BE BEST TO MEET WITH YOU INDIVIDUALLY IF -- IF ANYONE WANTS TO MEET WITH YOU, WE WILL DO AN ADDITIONAL --

>>DALE ATCHLEY: THAT IS THE WEST.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THE 13TH, WE WILL GET TOGETHER.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: IF IT IS A VERY HOT TOPIC, I WILL WORK WITH A FEW OF YOU BUT I DON'T WANT TO VIOLATE ANY OPEN MEETINGS RULE.

THAT WILL DEFINITELY BE A CONSIDERATION.

BUT I WILL TRY TO PUT THE WILL OF THE COURT WHAT THE BUDGET PROPOSAL WILL BE WHEN I DRAFT THE PROPOSAL RATE REQUIRED ON

THE 7TH. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: EXECUTION ME, DALE. WHEN YOU TALK OF THE BUDGET, NOT INCLUDING THE $12 MILLION FOR THE ROOF OF THE COURT HOUSE.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: NO, THAT IS CAPITAL OUTLAY.

YOU DON'T BUDGET CAPITAL OUT. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: YOU

WILL GO -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT IS

GENERAL FUND. >>DALE ATCHLEY: JUDGE, MOST TIME YOUR GRANTS AND CAPITAL PROJECT ITEMS EXCEED BUDGET CYCLES.

YOU NEVER REALLY VOTE ON THESE BECAUSE YOU ALREADY ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR THE GRANTS. ALLOCATED FUNDS FOR THESE PROJECTS. THE CAPITAL PROJECTS AND GRANTS ARE NEVER AT THAT BUDGETED ITEMS TO DISCUSS.

JUST OPERATING FUNDS WHICH IS THE GENERAL FUND, YOUR FAIRGROUNDS, YOUR LIBRARY, YOUR AIRPORT, YOUR SPECIAL PARKS AND OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE OPERATIONAL FUNDS, YES.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SEVERAL TIMES I HEARD THE "ROOF" BEING MENTIONED HERE AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE IF WE GO THE OTHER ROUTE, IT WON'T BE AS EXPENSIVE AS FIXING THE TOTAL ROOF.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: THE ONLY WAY IN THE BUDGET IF YOU SPEND THE

GENERAL FUND FOR THE ROOF. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE DON'T.

WE WILL BE USING -- SO TERESA, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> C ARE IN 2018, '19 WHEN WE ADOPTED THE BUDGET.

SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS THAT REQUIRED APPROVAL FROM THE COURT TO KNOW WHAT WE NEEDED TO INCLUDE OR NOT.

LIKE IF IT IS A LIEN THAT DAY, IT WILL BE STRICTLY BASED ON THE BUDGET. IS THERE AN ORCS OF PUTTING -- SUBMITTING THAT AGENDA, LIKE SPECIFIC ITEMS, YOU KNOW THE ADDITIONAL CUTS AND THINGS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO DO, TO PUT THEM WHERE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO VOTE ON THEM SO WE KNOW IF THEY ARE IN AND OUT? KIND OF LIKE A DECISION LIST BUT

YOU COULDN'T VOTE ON IT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: YOU MEAN

ON THE 13TH? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST. >>DALE ATCHLEY: FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, THOSE ITEMS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CAN BE ON A LIST, BUT THEY WILL ALREADY BE IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET SAND ITEMS THAT YOU TAKE OUT TO ARE ADD.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: KIND OF LIKE A LINE ITEM.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: IF WE DON'T HAVE A LIST, WE MAY NOT REALIZE AND THE PUBLIC MAY NOT REALIZE UNTIL THE DUST SETTLED, YOU MAY SAY I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT MY VOTE MEANT THIS AND THAT. HAVING THAT LIST SO EVERYONE CAN CLEARLY UNDERSTAND. IF I CAN ASK THAT MAYBE ON THE DAY OF, WE DON'T NEED HIM UNTIL T THEN. I KNOW HE IS ON ZOOM AND HE IS BUSY, BUT IF WE DO GO AND WE HAVE TO TAP INTO, SAY, RESERVES OR ANYTHING. I ALWAYS REMEMBER HE SHOWS WHERE WE ARE AT AS FAR AS OUR RANKING IN THE STATE.

WE ARE 25TH AS FAR AS OUR CURRENT RESERVE BALANCE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ARE ALREADY BELOW WHERE HE WANTS US TO HAVE.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: WHERE HE WANTS US.

IF WE GO THAT ROUTE AND THAT THE MAJORITY OF COURT, OKAY.

JUST AS LONG AS WE ARE AWARE WHERE THAT STANDS.

EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE LISTED AND IF HE CAN BE THERE, THAT IS

GOOD FOR ME. >>DALE ATCHLEY: I WILL REACH OUT TO KNOW WE ARE ON THE SAME LEVEL WHAT WE CONSIDER OUR INSPECTION OF -- OF WHAT WE BELIEVE THE RESERVING WILL BE NEXT YEAR AND WHAT THE BUDGET WILL BE. WE WILL MAKE SURE HE IS AWARE OF

[01:35:04]

THAT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: A FAIR PROCESS SINCE WE HAVE NOT GIVEN A LOT OF CONSENSUS DIRECTION.

UNDERSTANDABLY SO. WHATEVER YOU MEET WITH US, YOU PUT IN EVERYTHING THAT ALL OF US SUGGEST AND TAKE IT OUT AS JOHN SAID. AS SOMEONE SAID.

MEANING THAT COULD CHANGE, RIGHT.

SO I GIVE YOU SIX THINGS AND JOE GIVES YOU SIX THINGS AND JOHN AND ROBERT AND CONNIE GIVES YOU SIX THINGS AND JOE GETS TO TAKE OUT THREE OF MINE AND WILL AFFECT IT.

BUT AT LEAST WE CAN START WITH SOMETHING AND WE CAN VOTE IT UP

AND DOWN. >>DALE ATCHLEY: THAT'S CORRECT.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IS THAT? EVERYBODY PUTS IN WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN ON SOL DAYS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A LIST THAT WE CAN VOTE UP AND FORWARD WHEN WE

MOVE FORWARD ON THE 13TH. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IN THE BUDGET. IF SOMEONE TAKES OFF SOMEONE OFF THE LIST, WE WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WITH WE'LL MAKE IT UP

WHERE WE HAVE TO. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WE WILL

KNOW BY THE NEXT MEETING. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE WON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING UNTIL OUR REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: WORK WITH TERESA FOR THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING.

WE ARE STILL REQUIRED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DO WE NEED TO DO THAT TODAY?

MICROPHONE. >>.

YOU HAVE -- -- >>KARA SANDS: WILL YOU ALSO GIVE ME AN ELECTRONIC COPY? BECAUSE IT HAS -- Y'ALL DON'T PUT IT ON THE WEB SITE. IT HAS TO GO ON THE WEB SITE IN A PROMINENT LOCATION. THE PROPOSED.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: YES, I DO. I GUARANTEE YOU I DO.

>>KARA SANDS: GOOD, I AM GLAD. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: MOVING ON TO THE

-- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, ARE WE GOING TO FIGURE THAT OUT TODAY WHEN WE ARE ON MEETINGS DATES. CAN WE FIGURE IT NOW? WE ARE TALKING OF MEETINGS DATES.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: KNOCKED IT OUT TODAY SO WE HAVE IT ON OUR CALENDARS. WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS ITEM IF WE WANT TO, JUDGE, BUT I WANTED TO GET THROUGH TODAY SO

EVERYBODY KNOWS. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MEETING ON THE 13TH. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN YOU

WANT TO DO SO. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I THINK SHE WENT TO GET THE CALENDAR JUDGE.

[1. Approve Contract Agreement No. 17 with Texas Health and Human Services Commission for Home Delivered Meals Contract No 000167600.]

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE WILL MOVE CONTINUE TO GRANTS AND COME BACK WITH THAT. ITEM B-1.

APPROVE CONTRACT NUMBER 17 WITH TEXAS HEALTH AND NUECES HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION FOR THE HOME DELIVERED MEALS CONTRACT.

A MOTION AND SECOND. POSED, SAME SIGN.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 172-HOUR NOTICE.

SO PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 6.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I ALREADY HAVE IT ON MY CALENDAR FOR SOME REASON.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: SEPTEMBER 6 IS WHAT THE CALENDAR SAYS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SEPTEMBER 6.

9:00. >>JUDGE SCOTT: FROM THE

PREAPPROVED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THE ONLY

[1. Discuss and consider action to approve a method of procurement (Competitive Sealed Proposals) for the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funded Medical Examiner New Facility & Renovation Project; authorize the Purchasing Agent to publish a notice; and adopt an order delegating evaluation authority to a selection committee.]

ONE WE HAVE TO HAVE, DALE -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU.

MOVING ON TO C, PUBLIC WORKS. C-1, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACTION TO APPROVE THE METHOD OF PROCUREMENT FOR AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT ARPA FUNDED MEDICAL EXAMINER NEW FACILITY.

AUTHORIZE THE AGENT TO PUBLISH A NOTICE AND ADOPT AN ORDER FOR THE AUTHORITY TO A SELECT COMMITTEE.

JASON ARE YOU ARE HERE TOO. DO YOU WANT TO LET US KNOW WHAT

THE PROCESS IS FOR THAT? >> SO THE RECOMMENDATION TO PROPOSE A METHOD OF PROCUREMENT FOR THE MEDICAL EXAMINER FACILITY AND RENOVATION PROJECT JUST LIKE WHAT YOU SAID, JUDGE.

THE ORDER HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND PUBLIC

WORKS RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MEDICAL EXAMINER'S OFFICE RFP OR METHOD OF PROCUREMENT.

SORRY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ANY OPPOSED. SAME SIGN.

CRIST CHEST WHO IS THIS SELECTION COMMITTEE ON THIS.

TO ADOPT ON ORDER 6.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION ON THE EVALUATING AUTHORITY? OR WHAT --

>> WE HAVE THE INTERIM CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER, COUNTY ENGINEER AND THE COURT ADMINISTRATION MANAGER.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: JUDGE, I AM GOING TO SAY AGAIN, I THINK WE ALL THE TO DO THIS ONE TOO. THIS IS A BIG DEAL.

[01:40:01]

I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO DESIGNATES OR DELEGATE OUR AUTHORITY ON THAT ONE. I MEAN THIS IS --

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: SOUNDS GOOD.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WILL MAKE THE MOTION THAT DOES NOT DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY AND THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT DOES IT.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE EVALUATION AUTHORITY TO BE THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AS THE WHOLE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN, THE MOTION PASSES. THAT IS ALL WE HAD ON THAT ONE

[2. Discuss and consider execution of ARPA Engineering Work Authorization No. 2 with Govind Development, LLC. for the Nueces County Courthouse and Jail Wastewater Line Replacement project.]

PROJECT? YES.

ARE YOU ITEM NUMBER 2, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER EXECUTION OF ARPA I THINK WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 2 WITH GOVIND DEVELOPMENT AND WITH THE WASTEWATER LINE. WE ALREADY APPROVED THIS MONEY.

A MOTION TO APPROVE. HERNANDEZ SECOND.

[3. Approve a method of procurement (Competitive Sealed Proposals) for the Hilltop Community Center Renovation; authorize the Purchasing Agent to publish a notice; and adopt an order delegating evaluation authority to a selection committee.]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 3, APPROVE A METHOD OF PROCUREMENT HILL COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION.

AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASING AGENT TO PUBLISH A NOTICE AND THEN THE EVALUATING AUTHORITY AS WELL. SO WE WILL SPLIT THEM UP INTO T TWO.

MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASING AGENT TO PUBLISH A NOTICE AND A METHOD OF PROCUREMENT.

AND THEN THE -- DID EVERYONE VOTE? I AM KIND OF GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF.

ADOPT ON ORDER FOR THE EVALUATION FOR THE HILLTOP COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATION. WHAT IS THE SUGGESTION ON THAT

ONE? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WOULD

MAKE A MOTION AS PROPOSED. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ:

SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ADOPT THE ORDER AS PROPOSED.

WHO DO YOU HAVE ON THERE SINCE YOU ARE UP AT THE MICROPHONE.

>> COMMUNITY SERVICE INLAND PARK DIRECTOR, COUNTY ENGINEER AND COMMISSIONERS COURT ADMINISTRATION MANAGER.

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

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I HAVE A QUESTION?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: GO A HHAHEAD. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: JUAN, WERE YOU GOING TO BE INVOLVED WITH THE HILLTOP?

>> YES, I WILL BE 37 -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: HE IS ON THERE.

YES, WAS YOUR VOTE AN AYE TOO? >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: YES,

[4. Discuss and consider selection of Urban Engineering, LLC for Engineering Services under Master Services Contract No. 20230304-5/10 (RFQ. 3222-22) for the following Community Development Block Grant – Mitigation- Method of Distribution (CDBG-MIT-MOD)-funded project: 1. Banquete wastewater improvement]

MA'AM. >>JUDGE SCOTT: MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 4, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER SELECTION OF URBAN ENGINEERING FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES UNDER MASTER SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE BANQUETE WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT ON THE CDBG MIT-MOD.

>> SO MOVED. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: DOING THE CDBG, DOING IT BEFORE WE GET THE FUNDS?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: TO GET THEM READY BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING SO LONG.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY YET.

I NEED TO DO THIS TO GET MONEY -- SINCE WE DON'T HAVE -- WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET THAT DANG MONEY, DOES ANYBODY KNOW?

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS SAY PROVING THEM.

THEY WILL NOT START WORK UNTIL WE GET THE FUNDING APPROVED FOR THIS. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE ON

SEVERAL OF THESE. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: IF NO ONE SECONDED. I WILL SECOND FOR DISCUSSION SAKE. ON THESE TWO ITEMS, ITEMS 4 AND 5. THEY ARE RELATED AND GOES BACK TO THE NUECES COUNTY WATER DRAINAGE DISTRICT NUMBER 5.

>> WHAT WAS THE COMMISSIONER. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: BOTH ITEMS 4 AND 5, TIED INTO THE AUTHORITY OF THE NUECES COUNTY WATER CONTROL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 5.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: THE GROUP EARLIER THAT DIDN'T QUALIFY BECAUSE OF THE SAM.GOV.

IS THAT NEEDED FOR MIT-MOD. YOU KNOW WHAT, COMMISSIONER.

I DIDN'T BRING UP THAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF ANA IS HERE.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: CAN LULU HELP US?

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: A PROJECT THAT WE CAN DO AND -- LIKE IT WILL GO THROUGH US AND NOT THROUGH THEM.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I AM JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY.

>> I QUESTIONED THE SAME, COMMISSIONER.

SO -- I GUESS WE ARE STILL WAITING -- WE ARE WAITING ON SOME TYPE OF -- OF APPROVAL, I GUESS, AM I CORRECT.

>>AIDEE: I BELIEVE CONTACT -- GLO TO CLARIFY IF THEY NEED

THAT SAM.GOV. >> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SHOULD WE DOING THIS IF WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: MY QUESTION THAT LULU MENTIONED EARLIER REACHED OUT TO WATER CONTROL DISTRICT 5 AND HAD NO RESPONSE. SO THAT -- THAT ARE MY WORRIES.

IF NOT RESPONDED ON PROVIDING THE SAM.GOVERNOR, -- SAM.GOV.

[01:45:14]

>> WHERE HE NEED TO GET THE ENGINEERS ON BOARD.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: NOTHING INVOLVED BUT PUT ON A LIST AND THE REST CAN BE WORKED ON IN THE BACKGROUND.

>> YES, SIR. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: THANK YOU.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: SO TO CLARIFY. IF WE VOTE TO I A PROVE THESE WITH THE MASTER SERVICES CONTRACT, NOTHING WILL MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THE -- THE APPROVAL FROM THE GLO.

AND THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO SAY WHETHER THE JOB CAN BE FINISHED OR WILL BE APPROVED AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

JUST LIKE OUR ARPA PEOPLE APPROVE OURS.

IT HAS TO COME FROM APPROVAL FROM THE DLO.

IF THEY DON'T APPROVE IT, IT GETS STOPPED ANYWAY.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HOLD ON. THAT IS A GOOD POINT, JUDGE.

WHY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE WANT TO DO THIS PROJECT, WHY NOT DO THE PROJECT THROUGH THE COUNTY AND NOT DO IT THROUGH -- I AM CURIOUS BECAUSE WE KNOW WE ARE QUALIFY.

WE KNOW WE ARE GOOD. I AM NOT SAYING ANYBODY IS BAD.

BUT DO WE -- YOU KNOW. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: TO ME, COMMISSIONER, MY UNDERSTANDING IN DEALING WITH CDBG, IT ALWAYS

GOES TO THE END USER. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: TO WH WHERE?

>> THE END USER. THE END USER OF THE MONIES.

THAT WAS MY QUESTION TO GRANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN HAVE THIS ANSWER, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN ASKING THAT QUESTION FOR A

COUPLE OF WEEKS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I AM NOT REAL COMFORTABLE APPROVING ANYTHING FOR ANYBODY THAT WON'T

EVEN RESPOND TO OUR INQUIRIES. >> YES, SIR.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS TODAY, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T SUPPORT DOING THIS. BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT, AND LOOK AT A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING IT MAYBE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I GET YOUR POINT AND DOING IT FOR NUECES COUNTY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO IT FOR THE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY ARE IN AN UNINCORPORATED AREA, RIGHT? NOT LIKE THAT IS INCORPORATED. SO THEY DON'T HAVE THE MEANS THAT WE DO. WE CAN GO IT AS NUECES COUNTY

DOING IT. >> EXCUSE ME, I AM SORRY.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: JUAN, I THOUGHT I DISCUSSED THIS AND I THOUGHT NUECES COUNTY WAS GOING TO BE IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECTS.

>> YES, SIR. MY QUESTION TO AN AA SINCE NUMBER 5 WILL BE THE END USER. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WILL RECEIVE THE PROJECT AT THE END, RIGHT.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE THE ONES TO DO THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THEIR PROPERTY AND NOT ON THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY.

AND SO GOING TO BELONG TO THE USERS AND MAINTENANCE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: PRIVATE LAND.

PRIVATE PROPERTY. >> SOME OF IT MIGHT BE ON OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY. BUT SOME OF IT.

STILL MAINTAINED BY NUMBER 5. I THINK THAT WAS QUESTION TO GRANT, SINCE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT WILL BE MAINTAINING IT, WHO

WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR -- >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I THOUGHT I SAW ANA COME IN EARLIER.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: TO WAS HERE EARLIER?

>> ANA. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THESE ARE PROJECTS THAT WE HAD TO TURN IN A LIST BY A CERTAIN TIME TO GET PREAPPROVED. WOULD THAT AFFECT IT IF WE

CHANGE IT? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE SHIFT IT TO US BEING THE ONES TO DO IT.

AS LONG AS WE DO THE PROJECT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: PREAPPROVAL.

MAYBE TABLE THESE AND GET MORE INFORMATION?

ANA IS HERE. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THERE IS ANA. GIVE US SOME CLARIFICATION.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: JUAN, YOU SURE LEFT FAST.

>> YES, HE DID. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SMART

MAN. >> OKAY.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ON THE BANQUETE WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENT. WATER CONTROL 5.

NUMBER ONE. THE QUESTION HAS BEEN ASKED IF THE HESITATIONS WITH -- IF THEY COULDN'T DO THE ARPA FUNDING AND CAN'T GET THE CLEARANCE AND THE SAM.GOV NUMBER FOR THAT.

IS THAT REQUIRED FOR THIS? IF THEY ARE NOT RESPONDING WITH PAPERWORK. WILL THEY DO THIS IN THE FUTURE? COMMISSIONER CHESNEY ASKED CAN WE DO IT AS NUECES AND NOT --

>> GREAT QUESTION. >>JUDGE SCOTT: LITTLE BY THE BIT

OF QUESTIONS. >> I WAS IN CONTACTED WITH THE WATER DISTRICTI.D. NUMBER 5 AND I TOLD HER WHAT DOCUMENTATIONS WE NEED. BASICALLY THEY DO NOT NEED THE SAM.GOV CDBG BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GIVING THEM THE MONEY.

WE ARE GOING TO DO A REPAIR FOR THEM, A PROJECT FOR THEM.

THAT IS WHY THEY DON'T NEED THAT SAM.GOV.

[01:50:01]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: GO THROUGH YOU? >> THEY WILL NEED AN AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE PROJECT IS, AND GUARANTEEING THAT THEY HAVE THE FINANCIAL STABILITY TO MAINTAIN THE PROJECT AFTER IT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. THAT IS SOMETHING WILL BE

REQUIRED BY CDBG, BY GLO -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: IN YOUR PERSONAL OPINION, THIS IS GOOD TO GO WITH THEM.

THIS PROJECT IS A GOOD PROJECT? >> WHAT IS IT --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THE BANQUETE WASTEWATER IM3R06789.

>> THE PROJECT IS STILL BEING REVIEWED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: HAVEN'T BEEN CLEARED.

>> SO WE HAVE TO -- WE HAVE TO GET ALL THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT THE PROJECT IS GOING TO BE. BECAUSE WITHOUT THE SPECIFICS, GLO CAN'T MAKE AN APPROVAL.

THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK ON. THAT IS WHY WE ARE SELECTING ENGINEERS TO HELP US WITH ALL THE BUDGETS, THE TABLES, THE

NARRATIVES OF THE -- AND -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: YOU ARE SAYING WE ARE SELECTING ENGINEERS. THAT WAS ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE. WE HAVEN'T BEEN APPROVED FOR FUNDING ON THIS. SO ARE WE SPENDING MONIES BEFORE

WE FIND OUT IF -- >> NO, THIS --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: -- THIS SELECTION ONCE WE GET THE APPROVAL TO

SPEED UP THE PROCESS. >> THE ENGINEER ALSO HELP -- BECAUSE WE NEED A CERTIFIED BUDGET -- CERTIFIED BY STAND ENGINEER AND THAT IS PART OF THE ARPA.

IT WASN'T SUBMITTED. SOME HAVE BUDGETS.

SOME HAD -- THIS IS HOW MUCH WE ARE GOING TO SPEND.

THEY WANT MORE SPECIFICS AND THAT IS IT WHERE THE ENGINEER

WILL COME INTO PLAY. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THEIR ENGINEERS ARE EXPECTED TO BE PAID FOR THE WORK THEY ARE DOING.

>>THE ENGINEERS ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH CDBG FUNDING THAT YOU HAVE TO WORK -- PROVIDE THE INFORMATION, BUT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE COMPLETED.

SAME THING THAT HAPPENED WITH THE -- WHEN WE DID THE PREVIOUS TIDAL BASIN. THEY DID SUBMISSIONS, MAYBE FIVE APPLICATIONS AND THEY NEVER DID GET PAID BECAUSE THE CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED YET. BASED ON THE CONTRACT, THAT IS WHEN THE START DATE COMES AND ALL THAT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: IF IT DOESN'T, THE COUNTY IS NOT ON THE HOOK

FOR ANY PAYMENTS THEY CAN'T. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK. THE ENGINEERS KNOW THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY WILL NOT GET PAID.

>> CORRECT. WE ARE OFFERING THIS AND ASSISTANCE AND THEY SHOULD BE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THE WAY

CDBG WORKS. >> I AM SURE IF THEY ARE AWARE AND WORKED A LOT IN THESE KIND OF CONTRACTS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE NEEDED TO HEAR.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SELECT URBAN ENGINEERING FOR THIS PROJECT IF IT DOES GO FORWARD SO THEY CAN HELP WITH THE PROCESS. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED SAME SIGN.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: ABSTAIN. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: I THOUGHT YOU

WERE THE SECOND. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: FOR

DISCUSSION -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: CAN YOU ABSTAIN.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: CAN I ABSTAIN --

>> MERELY BRING IT TO DISCUSSION.

[5. Discuss and consider selection of Adurra Group, Inc. for Engineering Services under Master Services Contract No. 20230306-5/10 (RFQ. 3222-22) for the following Community Development Block Grant – Mitigation- Method of Distribution (CDBG-MIT-MOD)-funded project: 1. Banquete water infrastructure improvement]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: HE IS THE SECOND. SO ITEM NUMBER 5, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER SELECTION OF ARDURRA GROUP FOR BANQUETE PROJECT.

DESCRIBE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WASTEWATER.

THOSE WERE CONFUSING TO ME AS WELL.

YOU ARE TALKING OF THE WATER. >> ONE IS BANQUETE WASTEWATER AND ONE IS BANQUETE INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> THE SAME, JUDGE. THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE WATER. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS FOR THE DISTRIBUTION LINES, FIRE HYDRANTS.

THE FIRST ONE FOR THE WASTEWATER PRETTY MUCH COVERS EVERYTHING.

BECAUSE WILL BE FOR UNDERGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE, MANHOLES, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, IMPROVEMENTS.

A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE FIRST ONE.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO I HAVE A SECOND TO APPROVE ARDURRA GROUP FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES UNDER WATER CONTROL? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: ABSTAIN.

[6. Discuss and consider selection of Urban Engineering, LLC for Engineering Services under Master Services Contract No. 20230304-5/10 (RFQ. 3222-22) for the following Community Development Block Grant – Mitigation- Method of Distribution (CDBG-MIT-MOD)-funded project: 1. Drainage improvements around the area of Farm to Market 624 and Farm to Mkt 70]

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: ANOTHER ABSTAIN. ON ITEM NUMBER 6, DISCUSS URBAN ENGINEERING FOR MASTER CONTRACT FOR THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AROUND THE AREA OF FARM-TO-MARKET 624 AND FARM-TO-MARKET 70. YES, WE ARE RECOMMENDING URBAN

FOR THIS PROJECT. >> SO MOVED.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES.

>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. >> ITEM 3-D-1, PURCHASING.

[01:55:03]

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: HOLD ON.

JUAN? ING ON THE M.E. DID WE GO AHEAD AND PROCESS -- DID YOU DO THE M.E. ALREADY TO GO FOR BIDS?

>> I THOUGHT WE HAD THAT ON THE AGENDA.

THAT WOULD BE ON ITEM NUMBER -- >>JUDGE SCOTT:C-1.

MEDICAL EXAMINER FUNDED. IT WAS JUST APPROVE A METHOD OF PROCUREMENT AND AUTHORIZE THEM TO PUBLISH A NOTICE AND

SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR IT. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WHEN WE

ARE READY TO LOOK AT THE DESIGN. >> SORRY, COMMISSIONER, WE CAN BRING IT BACK, JUDGE, FOR A PRESENTATION.

IS THAT OKAY? >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: NEXT

MEETING. >> YES, SIR, I APOLOGIZE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: OKAY. IF WE HAVE TO DO THAT, WE HAVE

TO DO THAT. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THAT WASN'T ON HERE FOR THIS LIST. PURCHASING, D-1.

[1. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement with AHI Facility Services, Inc. for Janitorial Services for the Nueces County Courthouse (RFP No. 3201-22).]

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING APPROVING AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH THE AHI FACILITIES FOR JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR THE NUECES COUNTY RFP AND THEY CAME BACK WITH ANOTHER BID FOR US BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION WE ARE IN.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE SERVICES.

>> YES, THIS AMENDMENT IS TO MEMORIALIZE DEESCALATION IN THE AGREEMENT AND APPROVE THE FIRST OF FOUR ONE-YEAR RENEWALS.

RECOMMENDATION IS TO AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH AHI. THE AMENDMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN AGREED TO BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR LEGAL SUFFICIENCY AND PUBLIC

WORKS RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: I HAVE

A QUESTION, CHASE. >> SURE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ON A DAILY BASIS.

>> HERE IN THE COURT HOUSE, CONTRACTING FIVE EMPLOYEES.

WITH THE DEESCALATION, REMOVE TWO, AND LEAVE THREE FOR THE COURT. HOUSE.

OUTLYING AREAS, THEY HAVE ONE PER BUILDING.

ONE AT THE CENTRAL GARAGE, FOUR YARDS.

AND ONE AT THE RECORDS WEB SITE AND REDUCE FOUR DAYS TO TWO DAYS

FOR THAT CONTRACT. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I REMEMBER BECAUSE I WORKED IN PURCHASING AND I REMEMBER THOSE OUTSIDE BUILDINGS. THE EMPLOYEES WOULD CLEAN UP THEIR OWN. AND RIGHT NOW, BASICALLY, ALL THEY ARE DOING IS DOING THE MINIMUM TAKE OUT TRASH AND WON'T SPEND MUCH TIME. MAYBE WE CAN DO WITHOUT EMPLOYEES IN THOSE AREAS AND LET OUR EMPLOYEES DO -- LIKE THEY USED TO IN THE PAST. AND MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A SAVINGS. YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER HAVING OUR OWN PEOPLE COME IN, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYED BY THE COUNTY. I KNOW IT IS ADDING, BUT ON A PART-TIME BASIS, MAYBE, TO SEE HOW IT GOES.

BECAUSE I HEARD COMPLAINTS OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT THEY ARE NOT -- THEY ARE NOT CLEANING LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO.

AND I KNOW OURSELVES IN OUR AREA, THE BATHROOM ESPECIALLY, THEY DON'T GO IN THERE EVERY DAY.

THEY MIGHT TAKE OUT THE TRASH, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS NOT BEING CLEANED. SO THAT IS MY QUESTION.

IF IT WAS -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: AND I WILL TELL YOU, WHEN WE TALKED TO JUAN, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT US, THE COUNTY, DOING THIS, HE WAS ALSO SAYING THE SAME THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE COMING INTO THE OFFICES EVERY DAY OR DOING IT EVERY DAY.

IT WAS MORE OF US CLEANING OUR OWN OFFICES.

AND THEM DOING, LIKE, A WEEKLY TRASH PICKUP OR SOMETHING.

MOPS AND WHAT ELSE DID THEY SAY. >> HAND TOWELS, HAND WASHING.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: EVERYTHING THAT GOES WITH THAT.

WHEN WE TALKED TO THE CONTRACTOR AHI, THEY CAME BACK WITH THIS BID, BECAUSE OF THE COUNTY AGENCIES SITUATION WITH A CHEAPER BID. THAT BEING SAID, EACH OF US IN OUR OFFICES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO STILL DO A LOT MORE WORK OF YOUR OWN COMPLAINING IN YOUR OWN OFFICE AND OUR BATHROOMS, KITCHENS, THINGS LIKE THAT. THE SERVICES ARE GOING TO BE LIMITED, BUT I -- I THINK IT IS NECESSARY.

I DON'T THINK IT IS A BAD THING FOR US AT ALL.

>> COAST AAL PARKS ALSO DECIDED TO PAUSE SERVICE FROM THEIR AREA FROM NOVEMBER TO FEBRUARY AND ECALLED A COST SAVINGS OF

$20,000 ANNUALLY. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: I STILL WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER THE OUTER BUILDINGS THAT EMPLOYEES -- YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO DO CLEANING ANYWAY.

DOKE IT. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: DO THEIR OWN.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: NOT LIKE THEY DO IT EVERY DAY EITHER. THEY BASICALLY TAKE OUT THE TRASH. AND WIPE DOWN THE BATHROOMS AND MAKE THEM CLEAN. SO THAT IS THE WAY --

[02:00:01]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: ANYBODY IN THE OUTER BUILDINGS HAVE -- JOHN,

YOU HAVE AN OFFICE OUT THERE. >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: WE ARE COVERED TYPICALLY BY PUBLIC WORKS IN MY OFFICE.

SO IT IS NOT SO MUCH OF AN ISSUE.

BUT DISH KIND OF MAYBE TOTAL -- WELL, I WORRY ABOUT REDUCTION OF SERVICES, BUT I DON'T MIND GRABBING THE TRASH AND DOING WHAT I DO AT HOME -- I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DOING IT HERE AT THE OFFICE AS WELL. BUT, LOOKING TO THE FUTURE, RIGHTS. I BELIEVE WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IT THROUGH THIS BUDGET PROCESS. BUT MAYBE FOR Y'ALL TO GET TOGETHER WITH COURT ADMINISTRATION, WITH DALE, AND LOOK AT ANY AND ALL CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE.

AND I AM GLAD THAT THE JUDGE IS ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THIS AND GET US A REDUCTION. AND TEST THE MARKET.

I KNOW SOME OF OUR BIDS OUT THERE GET ONE TO ZERO COMPANIES.

BUT I WOULD LIKE -- IF THERE IS FLEXIBILITY.

IF THERE IS A WAY TO WORK THAT CONTRACT, I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ALLOW THE JUDGE TO GO AND WORK THOSE CONTRACTS ON OUR BEHALF TO SEE A REDUCTION IN SAVINGS.

BUT SOMETHING TALK IDENTIFY TO HELP US LOOK INTO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET ESPECIALLY, THEN PLEASE DO SO.

AND BRING IT TO COURT OR AT LEAST BRING IT TO THE JUDGE TO VET IT AND DECIDE WHETHER TO BRING IT TO COURT.

JUST BECAUSE IF WE -- IF WE CAN CAPITALIZE ON THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE HERE, I THINK THAT IS GREAT.

THEIR WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US AND REDUCE THE COST AND OUR ABILITY TO DO IT. THIS IS A CATCH-ALL FOR ANY AND ALL YOU CAN THINK OF. I DON'T WANT TO PUT EXTRA WORK ON YOU, BUT REALLY GOING INTO YEAR TWO OF THIS BUDGET, THAT WE WILL BE INHERITING OR PROVIDING FOR OURSELVES COULD FIND SOME SAVINGS. MAYBE IT DOESN'T AT ALL.

BUT IF THE CONTRACTS ARE NOT WORDED IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THIS DISCRETION, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE SEE THEM PUT BACK UP. IF THEY ARE UP FOR RENEWALS, RIGHT. IF THEY ARE UP IN THE MIDDLE, MAY NOT WORTH IT. ONE-YEAR RENEWAL.

WHATEVER IT MAY BE. MAY BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

JUST A THOUGHT. REASSESSMENT.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: I AGREE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OUR OFFICE IS DOING IS GOING BACK THROUGH EVERY CONTRACT AND GETTING A COPY IN OUR OFFICE. AND THE THING THAT WE WERE MADE AWARE OF WHEN LOOKING FOR CONTRACTS.

WHEN WE DO AN AMENDMENT OR ANOTHER CONTRACT, IT JUST GETS VOTED ON BUT DOESN'T GET ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WHERE YOU CAN'T GO TO ONE PLACE AND GET THEM.

WE ARE HAVING TO SEARCH THROUGH THE MINUTES AND FIND FIND KEY WORDS THAT PERTAIN TO THAT CONTRACT AND WE WILL KEEP A FILE WITH AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES OR ANYTHING.

I ALSO AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, MAYBE THIS ON THIS CONTRACT, WE FOCUS ON THE PUBLIC SPACES IN THE COURT HOUSE THAT NEED TO BE CLEANED AND IF THE OUTER OFFICES ARE JUST MORE PRIVATE OFFICE. IF THEY ARE NOT A PUBLIC FACILITY, THEN WE REALLY SHOULD DIRECT THE SERVICE TO FOCUS ON THOSE AREAS AND WE ALL CLEAN UP AFTER OURSELVES AND WE WILL WORK ON THIS CONTRACT AND AGREE TO THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN VERY AGREEABLE IN WANTING TO WORK WITH US AND NOT LOSE THIS CONTRACT AND UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION WE ARE IN.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THE OUTER OFFICES ARE MORE OF A

SHOP-TYPE ENVIRONMENT. >> YES.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: IN THE PAST.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE WENT TO PROVIDING JANITORIAL FOR THEM, IN THE PAST THEY WERE DOING THEIR OWN CLEANING.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: MAKE TWO DAY AS WEEK FOR THE OUTER OFFICES TO THEY CAN REALLY CLEAN THE OFFICES.

AT ONE POINT -- I DON'T KNOW IF THE EMPLOYEES WILL BE MOPPING OR ANYTHING ELSE. BUT I AM JUST SAYING -- DO LIKE A -- ATTEMPTS -- DO THE OUTER OFFICE WITH PART-TIME PEOPLE TO BE -- TWICE A WEEK TO MAKE SURE THOSE OFFICES BELONG TO THE COUNTY AND CLEAN. AND STAFF TAKES OFF THE TRASH OR PUTS OUT THE TRASH BAGS OR WHATEVER.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THE CONTRACT WAS LIMITED SERVICES FOR ALL OF THEM. I THINK A SERVICE COMING IN AND CLEANING ONCE OR TWICE IS NOT A BAD IDEA.

CONTINUING WITH CONTRACT, IT WILL BE MY SUGGESTION.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS.

ALL OF US WILL HAVE TO DO THE OTHER OUTER THINGS ON A MORE --

EVEN IN THE COURTHOUSE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO CONTINUE WITH THIS AND MAYBE SOME MORE DISCUSSION WITH THE CONTRACTOR IN DETAIL. AND I PLAN TO DO THAT.

BUT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[02:05:04]

SAME SIGN? THE MOTION PASSES.

[2. Discuss and consider award and execution of an Agreement with Frontier K2, LLC dba Frontier Waste Solutions for Solid Waste Collection & Disposal Services for County Residents (RFP No. 3238-23).]

THIS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AWARD AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH ON FROM WASTE SOLUTIONS FOR THE NUECES COUNTY OUTER RESIDENTS AND PAID FOR BY THE RESIDENTS. I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

ALL THOSE -- >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: I JUST WANT TO THANK WILLIAM DAVIS FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE.

HIM AND HIS COMPANY DONE EXCELLENT WORK.

I KNEW WE DID A GOODBYE A FEW WEEKS BUT THE TRANSITION TO WORK WITH FRONTIER. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU HAVE DONE AND THANK YOU, GUYS, FOR TAKING OVER AND LOOK FORWARD TO A GREAT CONNECTION AND COOPERATION THAT WE HAD IN THE PAST.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE LIVED IN THE OUTER AND WE LOVE HAVING TRASH PICK-UP.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE DO NOT MIND PAYING FOR IT.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: THANK YOU, MR. DAVIS.

[3. Discuss and consider award and execution of an Agreement with Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC. for Aggregate, Type PB, Grade 3S, LRA (Limestone Rock Asphalt) (IFB No. 3237-23).]

>>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES.

EYE NUMBER 3, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AWARD AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH Q VULCAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS.

THESE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BACK UP. I THINK THESE ARE FORMAL VOTES ON THESE THINGS FOR THE CONTRACTS TO BE EXECUTED.

>>DALE ATCHLEY: CORRECT, JUDGE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: I WILL MAKE MOTION TO PASS. A MOTION AND SECOND.

[4. Discuss and consider award and execution of an Agreement with P Squared Emulsion Plants, LLC for AE-P Specialty Emulsion (IFB No. 3239-23).]

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. SAME SIGN.

ITEM NUMBER 4, DISCUSSION AGREEMENT WITH P SQUARED EMULSION PLANTS. PART OF JUANPIMENTAL AND HE WILL EULESS WHAT IS THIS IN HIS BUDGET UNTIL IT EXPIRES.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS, SORRY.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[5. Discuss and consider award and execution of an Agreement with Colorado Materials, LTD for Flexible Base, Type A, Grade 1 (IFB No. 3240-23).]

OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE NEXT ONE IS THE SAME, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AWARD AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH COLORADO MATERIALS, LTD FOR FLEXIBLE BASE THAT HE USES AS WELL. HE HAS A BUDGET.

HE ONLY USE IT IS WHEN HE NEEDS IT.

AND UNTIL HIS BUDGET RUNS OUT AND I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS

AS WELL. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ:

SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, SAY AYE.

[6. Discuss and consider award and execution of an Agreement with Ergon Asphalt & Emulsions, Inc. for HFRS-2 Emulsified Asphalt (IFB No. 3241-23).]

OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES.

ITEM NUMBER 6, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AWARD AND EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH ERGON ASPHALT AND EMULSIONS FOR

ASPHALT MOTION TO PASS. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ:

SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

ANY OEZ OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES.

[7. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Agreement with Grantworks, Inc. for Grant Administration & Project Management – Community Development Block Grant – Mitigation (CBDG-MIT) (RFP No. 3228-23) in the not to exceed amount of $1,156,300.00.]

THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 7, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH GRANT WORKS FOR GRANT ADMINISTRATION AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN THE A

AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,156,300. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SO

MOVED. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE AT THAT

MOTION. >> SECOND.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE JUST A QUESTION, WHY A SPECIFIC AMOUNT? IF PERCENTAGE OF THE FUNDS.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: FROM THE GLANTZ WE GET AND THE PERCENTAGE CAN GO TO IT. THANK YOU.

SUFFICIENT A WEIRD AMOUNT. >> WENT TO GRANTWORKS TO

NEGOTIATE THAT DOWN TO 3%. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: NEEDS TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY STATED. BECAUSE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY THE LAST GRANT FOR K57 GRANT ADMINISTRATION UP TO 10%. GRANT

ADMINISTRATION UP TO 10%. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: THANK YOU,

GRANTSWORK. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD SPEND $1.5 MILLION.

BUT THANK COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ GETTING THAT DOWN FROM A PERCENTAGE OF 9 TO 10 TO ABOUT 3 AND GRANTS DEPARTMENT AND ANYBODY ELSE WHO WORKED ON THIS. NOT JUST COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, BUT ALL THAT HELPED. I STILL DON'T LIKE THAT NUMBER BECAUSE THAT NUMBER MEANS WE WILL NOT SPEND IT ON PROJECT BUT SPENDING IT ON ADMINISTRATION. I AM APPROVING THIS -- VOTING TO APPROVE THIS, BUT I WILL LOOK REAL CLOSELY HOW THIS MONEY WILL BE SPENT. I DON'T THINK WE COULD SPEND MILLION ONE BUT GIVE IT TO OTHER PEOPLE.

BUT THAT IS WAY, WAY BETTER THAN WHERE WE STARTED WITH THIS.

>>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: GIVE IT TO THE GRANTS DEPARTMENT TO EXPAND

SO WE DON'T HAVE TO EXPAND IT. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: KICKING

THE CAN, BUDDY. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE MADE THAT

[8. Discuss and consider adopting an 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 Council of Governments - Method of Distribution (COG-MOD) allocating funding to Community Development Block Grant - Mitigation - Method of Distribution (CDBG-MIT-MOD) infrastructure projects; authorize Purchasing Agent to publish notice; and the Court shall not delegate its evaluation authority to a selection committee.]

MOTION AND SECOND AND VOTED ON THAT.

WE ARE GOOD. ITEM NUMBER 8, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDER TO AUTHORIZE AND APPROVE THE METHOD OF PROCUREMENT FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE SERVICES. AND I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, THIS IS YOURS FOR DRAINAGE DETENTION PONDS,

POSSIBLY. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I

THOUGHT WE ALREADY DID THIS. >>JUDGE SCOTT: ALLOCATING

[02:10:04]

FUNDING FROM THE CDBG MIT-MOD INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT AUTHORIZING A PURCHASING AGENT TO PUBLISH NOTICE.

AND THE COURT SHALL NOT DELEGATE ITS AUTHORITY.

SHALL NOT? >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I

THOUGHT WE ALREADY DID THIS. >> THE ARPA, REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE FOR ARPA. THIS IS FOR CDBG MIT-MOD.

THAT LONG SAYS NOT DELEGATE AN EVALUATION AUTHORITY.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: CAN WE USE THE SAME PERSON FOR BOTH?

>> I THINK SO. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH FOR TWO GROUPS TO DO ON THIS.

NOT THAT MANY. JUST GOING TO BE WEATHER -- LET'S SEE, MINE ARE BOTH COG. WHAT IS YOURS, ARPA? THIS FULFILLS THE PROCUREMENT AND THAT IS THE QUESTION BECAUSE WE ALREADY DID ONE FOR THE OTHER.

CAN THE TWO BE ONE? >> I WILL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT

AND GET BACK TO YOU. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I DON'T

WANT TO SEND OUT TWO RFP. >>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: USE THE

SAME PERSON. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SEND OUT

TWO RPP FOR THE SAME SERVICES? >>JUDGE SCOTT: LOOKS LIKE ANA

WANTS TO TELL US SOMETHING, YES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: COG WILL BE FINE WITH ARPA. ARPA HAS THE FEDERAL RULES.

I GET WHY WE HAVE TO DO ARPA, BUT I DON'T GET COG ACCEPT FRAT

FROM ARPA. >> THE LANGUAGE HAS TO BE SPECIFIC IN THE AGREEMENT IN THE CONTRACT.

THAT WE JUST DON'T SPECIFY ARPA FOR NUECES COUNTY AND USE THAT REALTOR FOR THAT. FOR BOTH.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT I AM SAYING THOUGH IS, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE TO DO ARPA, BECAUSE PROCUREMENT FEDERAL RULES. COG IS DIFFERENT.

WHY CAN'T WE PUT COG UNDER THE ARPA ONE.

>> WE HAVE TO DO THE PROC PROCUREMENT.

THAT IS FINE. LANGUAGE ON THE CONTRACT EXPECT SAY SPECIFIC FOR ARPA BECAUSE COG.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: USE ONE THAT SAYS ARPA AND COG? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE AROVING APPROVING ANOTHER RFP AND WE NEED TO BE CLEAR FOR PURCHASING. IF WE VOTE FOR THIS TODAY, WE

ARE SENDING TWO 10U9. >>DALE ATCHLEY: CORRECT.

>> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY:THAT IS SILLY.

REMOVE THE FIRST ONE. >> WE HAVE NATALIE WITH GRANTWORKS NOW THAT IT IS APPROVED CAN ASSIST WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT SHE IS MORE FAMILIAR WITH.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: TODAY'S VOTE IS SENDING OUT SOMETHING THAT I DON'T WE SHOULD BE DOING. INCLUDE COG IN THE ARPA ONE.

>> I AM SO SORRY. GOOD MORNING, NATALIE GONZALEZ WITH GRANTWORKS. NICE TO BE HERE AND SEE ALL OF YOU. I LIVE IN CORPUS CHRISTI, SO, YOU KNOW, IT IS NICE TO BE IN MY HOMETOWN COURT VISITING.

BUT ACTUALLY GLO LIKES TO SEE IT SEPARATE.

THEY DON'T LIKE TO SEE IT COMBINED WITH ANOTHER AGENCIES.

BECAUSE THEY ARE THEIR OWN AGENCY AND A SEPARATE BUCKET OF FUNDS. NOT RELATED TO ARPA AND HAS TO BE STREAMLINED. GLO IS VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT THAT. IN OTHER CASES WE CAN POTENTIALLY DO AND COMBINE ONE RFP.

I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, COMMISSIONER.

IT MAKES SENSE TO DO ONE. WHY POST TWICE? YOU CAN RUN IT ONCE AND COMBINE THESE PROGRAMS, BUT WITH GLO, IT IS A DIFFERENT BALL GAME. THAT IS THE REASON WE HAVE TO DO

TWO DIFFERENT ONES. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: GLO LIKES TO SEE AND DIFFERENT THAN A RULE.

A MANDATED RULE BY GLO. >> A DIFFERENT RULE FOR GLO.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: IF YOU CAN SHOW ME THAT RULE.

IF WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO. BUT KIND OF RIDICULOUS THAT WE HAVE TO, BUT WHATEVER. IF THAT IS A RULE.

I CAN LIVE WITH A RULE. >>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. SO WHAT -- WHAT ALL ARE WE

NEEDING A MOTION ON? >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SO MO MOVED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: REQUEST FOR APPR

APPROVALS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: FOR NUECES COUNTY IN THE ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FOR COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT METHOD OF DISTRIBUTION.

THE MOTION THAT THESE FINE GENTLEMEN ALREADY MADE.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

OPPOSED. I THINK YOU ARE DONE.

[1. Discuss and consider approval of quote from PerfectApps, Inc., for software for District Courts, County Courts, and Appointed Defense Attorneys, to automate the creation of, approval, routing and data export of Attorney Fee Vouchers. ]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVING ON TO E, AUDITORS.

ITEM NUMBER 1, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL FOR THE QUOTE FOR PERFECTAPPS FOR SOFTWARE DISTRICT COURTS, COUNTY COURTS, AND APPOINTED DEFENSE ATTORNEYS TO AUTOMATE THE CREATION,

[02:15:03]

APPROVAL AND ROUTING AND DATA EX-POVERTY OF ATTORNEY FEE

VOUCHERS. >>DALE ATCHLEY: WORKING WITH DISTRICT COURT FOR COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES.

A LOT OF ATTORNEYS ALWAYS COMPLAINING TAKES MONTHS TO GET PAID AND SOMETIMES THAT IS TRUE AND DELAYS CAN BE FOUND IN MULTIPLE PLACES. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THE DISTRICT COURT' AND OUR OFFICES TO TRY TO STREAMLINE THIS. WE HAVE SOMETHING WITH OUR CURRENT SOFTWARE WE ARE GOING THROUGH AND VERY EXPENSIVE.

WE DID FIND THIS PERFECTAPPS. WHERE THEY COMPUTERIZE FOR $42,000 ONE YEAR. THEY WAIVE THE MAINTENANCE FEE.

ONLY $6,000. IN 2024, '25, A SMALL $6,000 INCREASE FOR MAINTENANCE. WE MET WITH THE DISTRICT COURTS AND DISTRICT JUDGES AND SOMETHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO.

NOW JUST SO YOU KNOW, THIS SOFTWARE CAN BE USED IN MULTIPLE ASPECTS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, ANOTHER DEPARTMENT HAS FORM THEY USE TO SUBMIT OUT TO ANYBODY THAT HAS -- THAT COMES IN FOR A FEE, THIS CAN BE USED FOR THAT.

AND THAT WAY WE CAN INCENTIVIZE ITEMS WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PAPERWORK FOOD SRMS AND IF COURT APPROVES THE FUNDS, 1921 C.O.S EARNED INTEREST. INTEREST IS UNALLOCATED AND COVER $42,000. WITH THAT WE ARE SUBMITTING PER EFFECT APPS REQUEST FOR YOUR APPROVAL, IF YOU SO CHOOSE --

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THIS POINT -- THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU HAVE

TO HAVE FOR WORK DAY. >>DALE ATCHLEY: THIS WILL BELONG TO THE COUNTY. IT WILL BE MANAGED BY I.T. AND AT THE MOMENT THE COURT ADMINISTRATION ON THE -- ON THE FOURTH FLOOR; HOWEVER, IF WE DO HAVE SOMETHING -- WE HAVE SOME IDS THAT THE COURT-POI POINTED AND MANUALLY -- AND SOMETHING AUTOMATICALLY WE CAN WORK WITH ALL DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE THESE. HAND THIS CAN BE MANAGED WHERE BE THEY -- WHERE THE PERSON LOGS ON TO THE WEB SITE.

THEY GO TO THE SITE. THEY PUT AN INFORMATION.

GO THROUGH A WORKFLOW AND EVERYTHING THAT IS.

AND THEY PROCESS IT AND IT EITHER GETS TO US IN A -- IN A COMPUTER ACCESS WHERE WE CAN DOWNLOAD IT FROM THIS FILE AND PUT IT INTO WORK DAY AND IT IMMEDIATE PROCESSES.

WE GAVE A DEMO TO JUDGE STEPHANIE RAY.

LIKED WHAT WE SAW. TALKED TO THE COURT-APPOINTED ATTORNEYS AND THE MEETING WITH THE BOARD JUDGES, THEY WERE VERY EXCITED TO SEE THIS HAPPENING. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL TAKE ABOUT TWO MONTHS TO DEVELOP AND NOT REQUIRED THAT IT IS PART OF

OUR SYSTEM. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHAT IS

THE ONGOING -- AN ONGOING COST. >>DALE ATCHLEY: THE FIRST YEAR NO ONGOING COST AND AFTER THAT, $6,000.

THIS FUND ALSO BE COMING FROM -- AS TERESA SAID EARLIER, WE HAVE 21 CERTICERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATI YOU SAID MOST OF THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED AND TRUE, BUT THESE FUNDS IN EARNED INTEREST.

UNALLOCATE AND WE KNOW THERE IS ENOUGH INTEREST TO COVER THAT.

AND WE ARE ASKING FOR THAT TO BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: >>COMMISSIONER MAREZ: MOTION

HERNANDEZ SECOND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MAREZ. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

[2. Approve Budget Change Order No. 20 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023.]

THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 2, THE BUDGET CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 20 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023.

A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[3. Discuss and consider accepting Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) Salary Adjustment – Directed grant allocations for Biennium 2024-2025 administered in accordance with rider 40 of the General Appropriations Act to support and assist probation departments with staff recruitment and retention strategies.]

OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES.

MOVING ON TO F, HUMAN RESOURCES, ITEM NUMBER 3, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACCEPTING THE DIRECT GRANT FOR BI2025 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT.

YOU WANT TO TALK TO US ABOUT IT. >> I BRIEFED YOU.

BUT AS I MENTIONED A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION WAS UNPRECEDENTED FISCALLY, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO JUVENILE PROBATION. THIS HAS BEEN YEARS IN THE MAKING. AND THE LEGISLATURE IS RECOGNIZED THAT THE FIELD OF JUVENILE PROBATION DOES HANDLE MOST OF THE KIDS GOING THROUGH OUR SYSTEM AND WILL ALWAYS HANDLE MOST OF THE KIDS GOING THROUGH OUR SYSTEM.

I SAY THIS DESPITE THE ISSUES THAT THE STATE FACILITIES ARE HAVING. THE RESULT OF THESE YEARS OF TALKING TO THE LEGISLATURE, THEY AWARD TWO POTS OF MONEY

[02:20:02]

BASICALLY. ONE IS ABOUT A 30% INCREASE IN STATE AID. FOR NUECES COUNTY, THAT EQUATES TO $500,000. THE SECOND ONE IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY IS SPECIFICALLY FOR SALARY INCREASES FOR -- FOR CERTIFIED CHIEF A PROBATION OFFICERS, JUVENILE PROBATION OFFICERS, JUVENILE SUPERVISION OFFICERS, AND THOSE SUPERVISORS WHO MONITOR OR ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE.

OR SUPERVISING ANY OF THESE PEOPLE.

IT EQUATES TO A 5% THIS YEAR AND ANOTHER 5% NEXT YEAR.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ARE HAPPY FOR YOU ALL.

WE WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS. >>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ:

SECOND. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: IN THIS IS ALLOCATED BY THE LEGISLATURE. WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

FOR OUR EMPLOYEES THAT AREN'T GETTING SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

WE ARE VERY SORRY BUT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE ALLOCATES TO YOU CRIST CHEST THE GOOD THING,

JUDGE, FOR ONCE -- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THE GOOD THING IS JUDGE THEY FULLY. USUALLY WE GET UNFUNDED MANDATES AND IMPORTANT TO STATE THAT UNLESS SOMEONE HAS FULLY FUNDED STATE FUNDING WITH THIS BUDGET, I AM NOT SUPPORTING ANY RAISES THAT AREN'T -- PERIOD. THESE ARE ONES THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY MANDATED BY THE STATE AND FULLY FUNDED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS AND IS NOT COSTING OUR GENERAL FUND A DOLLAR.

CORRECT, DALE? >>DALE ATCHLEY: THEY ARE GIVING US SEMINAL PAY. INCREASE OF SEMINAL PAY BY THE STATE AID. DOES NOT EFFECT THE GENERAL

FUND. >>JUDGE SCOTT: HERNANDEZ ALREADY DID. I HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. SO LONG TOO.

[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.]

IF THERE IS NOTHING ELSE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO -- I WILL MOVE

INTO GO INTO EXECUTIVE. >> FIRST, IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE TWO ITEMS 4-E AND 4-C IN EXECUTIVE, THEY WILL HAVE TO BE AN UNANIMOUS VOTE IF THE COURT BELIEVES THAT DISCUSSING THESE MATTERS IN OPEN WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE POSITION OF

THE COUNTY. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: DO WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. ALL FIVE OF US.

CAN WE BE UNANIMOUS. >> COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: IF HE IS NOT IN THE ROOM, HE IS NOT IN THE ROOM.

WE CAN TRY TO GO GET HIM. THE OTHER THING, JUDGE.

HOW DO WE -- DO WE NEED TO MAKE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: THAT ONE HAS TO BE RECORDED? IF WE VOTE 5-0 OR 4-0 OR

WHATEVER. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: CHECK ON THAT.

>> AND THEN -- WAS THERE -- WAS THERE AN INTENTION TO NOT HAVE

-- >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT OTHER THAN THE ONES THAT HAVE TO BE RECORDED THAT WE DON'T RECORD THE REST OF THEM IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR

TODAY -- >>JUDGE SCOTT: DO A CERTIFIED AND A RECORDED AGENDA. AND I WAS TOLD WE CAN DO THAT

TOO. >> WAS THERE -- WAS THERE A VOTE

ON B-1 FOR GRANTS? >>COMMISSIONER CB-1?

>> THE TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION.

>>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE VOTED ON THAT.

YE YEAH.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: SO DO WE -- OKAY, I WILL MOVE THAT WE DON'T RECORD THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE TO BE RECORDED.

A, B, C. >>JUDGE SCOTT: A MOTION FOR A PARTIAL RECORDED AND MODIFIED AGENDA.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I GOT TO PUT THAT ON AS A -- I GOT TO PUT IT ON AS AN AGENDA ITEM AND IT IS NOT ON THERE.

NOT ON HERE. IT IS NOT POSTED.

SO THAT WAS MY MOTION. I DON'T KNOW IF I GOT A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

UNANIMOUS. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: HE IS

BACK. >>JUDGE SCOTT: HERE COMES COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ. ARE YOU A YES FOR THAT? HE IS. HE IS A YES.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: ON THE RECORDING OF THE NONRECORDED ONE. NOW VOTE FOR THE OTHER ONES.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: THE TWO THAT WE ARE GOING TO BRING UP.

YES, YES. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE ON ITEM C AND E IN ORDER TO TAKE THEM INTO EXECUTIVE.

THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IS TELLING US.

SO I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO BRING ITEM C AND E BOTH INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO DISCUSS IN PUBLIC ON --

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: I SECOND THE MOTION.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: C AND WHICH ONE?

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: AND E. >>JUDGE SCOTT: THOSE WILL HAVE TO BE RECORDED. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[02:25:04]

AYE. UNANIMOUS.

WE ARE GOOD. OKAY.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: C AND E. SHE IS SAYING WE NEEDED A VOTE TO TAKE THEM INTO EXECUTIVE AND JUST VOTED TO TAKE THEM TO

EXECUTIVE. >> THEY ARE ALREADY DOWN THERE.

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: WHAT DID WE DO WITH COUNTY ROAD 18.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WHICH ONE?

>>COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ: COUNTY ROAD 18.

>>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY: WE HAVE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: SHE HAS IT IN EXECUTIVE.

SHE HAS IT IN EXECUTIVE. >>COMMISSIONER CHESNEY:

LETTER F. >>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE ARE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. PUBLIC NOTICE GIVEN AT COMMISSIONERS COURT. 11:32.

LET ME STATE, PUBLIC NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY ELECT TO GO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ANY TIME DURING THE MEETING TO DISCUSS MATTERS LISTED ANYWHERE ON THE AGENDA WHEN AUFT RISED 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 FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT THE COURT IS DEPARTING FROM THAT PRACTICE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS ANY LEGAL AGENDA ITEM -- 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 VERNON TEXAS CODE 551.71, 72, 73, 74, 745, 76, 086, 087.

THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL HOLD A EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEYS INCLUDING MATTERS ARE RELATED TO LITIGATION, DELIBERATE REGARDING REAL PROPERTY, PRO SPECK.

>> I HAVE GIFTS, PERSONNEL MATTERS INCLUDING TERMINATION, SECURITY DEVICE AND OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS THAT BE DISCUSSED IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

UPON COMPLETION OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY IN AN OPEN SESSION TAKE ACTION AS APPROPRIATE ON ITEMS LISTED IN AN EXECUTIVE CESSION. ITEMA, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND OUTSIDE COUNSEL REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO THE CLAIM BY MONICA PEREZ DATED JUNE 30, 2023 AND RELATED MATTERS. TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071.

ITEM B, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO PERSONNEL NEEDS AT THE NUECES COUNTY MEDICAL EXAMINER OFFICE, FUNDING SOURCES FOR OFFICE PERSONNEL AND RELATED MATTERS. TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071.

ITEM C, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS REPLATING TO POTENTIAL CHIEF MEDICAL EXAMINER SEPARATION AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS. 551.071.

DELIBERATE BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL WITH SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND RELATED MATTERS. TEXAS GOD 551.

0725. ITEM D, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO THE POTENTIAL SALE OF 316.58 ACRE OF LAND ADJACENT TO RICHARD M. BORCHARD REGIONAL FAIRGROUNDS 1213 TERRY SHAMSIE BOULEVARD.

551.017. ITEM E, CUTS WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO THE STATUS OF THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS OF THE COUNTY BANK DEPOSITORY AGREEMENT AND COUNTY AND DISTRICT COURT REGISTRY FUNDS BANK DEPOSITORY AGREEMENT WITH FROST BANK WITH TEXAS LOCATION GOVERNMENT CODE 116.021 AND 117.021 AND 551.071 AND NEGOTIATE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS OF BANK DEPOSITORY AGREEMENTS, 551.0725.

ITEM F, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY PERSON TO REGARDING LEGAL MALTERS RASHEDING THE STAT CONSTITUTES OF THE NUECES DRAINAGE DISTRICT NUMBER 2 AND NUECES COUNTY FOR THE REPAILS ON COUNTY ROAD 18 BRIDGE LOCATED INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 18 AND 65 AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS.

TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071. ITEM G, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING LEGAL MATTERS RELATED TO THE SECURED COURTHOUSE PARKING GARAGE TEXAS CODE 55170 71.

DELIBERATE REGARDING SECURITY, TEXAS 551.076 AND A YOU WILL

[02:30:03]

RELATED MATTERS.

[A. Discuss and consider the settlement demand by Monica Perez for claim dated June 30, 2023; and related matters.]

. >>> 1:44 AND COMING BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE HAVE ITEM A.

I NEED A MOTION TO REJECT THE DEMAND ARE ON THE CLAIM FROM MONICA PEREZ AND ALLOW OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO CONTINUE WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS.

>>COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ: SO MOVED.

>>JUDGE SCOTT: WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ.

AND I WILL SECOND THAT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE, SAY AYE.