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

>> MOVING ON TO ITEM F , PUBLIC COMMENT, AND WE HAVE ONLY ONE PERSON SIGNED UP. CAN HE PRONOUNCE THE NAME FOR ME?

>> THE RIGHT WAY OR THE WRONG WAY?

>> WE ARE KNOWN AS PEREZ. MY NAME IS TRUDY PEREZ. I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN. I COME AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN, NOT WANTING AGENDA ITEMS, BUT IT IS WITHIN THE COUNTY, AND OF COURSE, THIS IS REGARDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE AVENA PLANT OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY WHERE I RESIDE WITHIN A RADIUS -- AND SO, I HAVE CONCERNS THAT, YOU KNOW, I KNOW BUSINESSES AND THINKS -- YOU NEED GROWTH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK LOCATION IS IMPORTANT. I THINK THIS IS THE WRONG LOCATION FOR THIS. IT IS A BUSINESS. I DISAGREE WITH THEM WANTING ALL OF THE TAX ABATEMENTS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED BACK-AND-FORTH AT DIFFERENT TIMES IN MEETINGS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS. SO, TO ME, THAT SPEAKS -- WE WANT PROFITABLE THINGS, BUT WE ALSO -- IT IS NOT A PAY FOR IT THING. IT IS A MONEY THING.

[00:45:02]

THEIR PROFIT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN COMMUNITY AREAS. WATER IS A CONCERN. WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER WATER RESTRICTIONS. WE ARE A RURAL FARMING COMMUNITY, AND YES, WE HAVE GROWN IN AREAS FROM A LONG TIME AGO. I HAVE LIVED IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR OVER 40 YEARS. WE HAVE HAD GROWTH, BUT THIS INDUSTRIAL APPROACH DOES NOT SEEM LIKE THE RIGHT LACE FOR IT. I WONDER WHERE OUR POLICIES AND GUIDELINES REGARDING ZONING -- HOW CAN YOU -- YOU HAVE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS THAT WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO THINGS IN CERTAIN AREAS. WHY IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT THEY SAY WE DON'T BELONG HERE , WE DON'T BELONG THERE. WE ARE OUT THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS -- IT IS JUST WHAT YOU ARE LEARNING. THE TRANSPARENCY HAS NOT BEEN THERE. IT IS WHAT YOU READ AND HEAR AND IT IS YOUR GUT FEELINGS. IT IS ALL OF THESE THINGS. WHAT ARE YOUR VALUES? WHAT ARE THE JUDGMENTS YOU MAKE ON THAT? IT IS LIKE, WHERE ARE THE ZONING RESTRICTIONS? HOW CAN WE PROTECT OUR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES, OUR CHILDREN, OUR SCHOOLS, OUR HOMES, WITH THIS BEING IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO US? I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ALL LIVE, BUT I CAN ONLY IMAGINE IF THIS WAS COMING WITHIN A MILE OF YOUR BACKYARD, YOU MIGHT NOT BE HAPPY. DO YOU WANT AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT RIGHT THERE? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THERE ARE BETTER AREAS TO BE CONSIDERED. DO I HAVE THAT ANSWER? NO. I DON'T. BUT I THINK THAT IS A CONCERN. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IT ALWAYS SEEMS LIKE SOMETIMES, MAYBE THE POPULATION IS NOT HEARD. IT IS NOT TRULY UNDERSTOOD. LOOK FOR THAT VALUE. IS THIS TRULY A VALUABLE AREA FOR FAMILIES TO GROW THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOREVER AND THINGS LIKE THAT? SO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS. ALL OF THE INFORMATION ON YOUR PROCLAMATIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT FORTH, WE DON'T SEEM TO BE AS HEALTHY A SOCIETY ANYMORE ANYWHERE AS WE USED TO BE AND STUFF SO HERE YOU HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT THAT IS COMING. IS THAT BRINGING SAFETY INTO OUR AREA? IS THERE GOING TO BE HEALTH CONCERNS WITH YOUR CHILDREN, YOUR SCHOOLS, YOUR ELDERLY, OR NURSING HOMES. YOUR WHATEVER THAT IS THERE. I SEE A CONCERN THERE. I HOPE THAT WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS, THAT YOU'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT THE DOLLARS. LOOK DEEPER AT STUFF. I KNOW MONEY IS WHAT DRIVES US ALL, BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE THE ONLY THING THAT DRIVES US. WE SHOULD LOOK AT, IS THIS REALLY A GOOD PLACE ? IS IT PROFITABLE FOR ALL CONCERNED, NOT JUST A BUSINESS THAT IS BASICALLY A FOREIGN BUSINESS, IS MY UNDERSTANDING, REEVALUATED TO COME IN FOR PROFIT. AND WE KNOW THAT THEY WOULDN'T GO TO THIS AREA IF IT WASN'T PROFITABLE TOO. SO

PLEASE CONSIDER THOSE THINGS. >> THANK YOU. THE TIMER HAS RUN

OUT. >> THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WISHES TO DO SO? OH, MISS CRANFORD. HIS HER HAND RAISED? CAN YOU CLICK ON MISS CRANFORD IF SHE WANTS TO SPEAK? YES MA'AM. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. I THINK YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO UNMUTE.

>> GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE Y'ALL? MY NAME IS BETTY CRANFORD. I'M IN CORPUS CHRISTI. FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO START OUT BY APOLOGIZING FOR MY COMMENTS. I THOUGHT AT MY LAST APPEARANCE -- I THOUGHT YOU ALL WERE AWARE OF THE RIDC ISSUES -- THE ISSUES THEY WERE HAVING. I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF THE SITUATION. AND SO, MOVING ON, AGAIN, WE ARE ASKING FOR NO ABATEMENT. FEMA IS APPLYING FOR INCENTIVES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT , AND THEY ARE PROBABLY GOING TO GET IT BECAUSE IT IS NEW, AND THEY ARE VERY HIGH COST, HIGH DOLLAR TYPE INCENTIVES, AND SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, ALL WE CAN DO IS REQUEST THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES, THAT Y'ALL NOT ISSUE AN ABATEMENT TO THEM. THEY ARE GETTING ENOUGH OF OUR TAXPAYER MONEY WITHOUT PAYING TAXES, AND SO ANYTHING Y'ALL CAN DO TO ASSIST OUR CAUSE, WHICH IS THE CONCERN , I'D APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THAT IS BASICALLY

ALL I HAVE TO SAY RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU. IF THERE IS NO

[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.]

[00:50:03]

OTHER, THEN I WILL MOVE ON. TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER THAT HAS ANY ITEM THEY HAVE ON THE CONSENT

AGENDA THEY WOULD LIKE TO PULL? >> K.

>> K? >> K AS IN KANGAROO.

>> ALSO J. ALSO I . >> ANY OTHERS?

>> I NEED TO PULL ITEM D. >> D.

>> JUDGE, I MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA BESIDES D, I, K, AND J..

[D. Authorize payment of bills - Special Motions List - American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dated May 8, 2024.]

>> I SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM D. >> THE AMOUNT IS SHOWN AS 185 IS INCORRECT. IT IS 133 104.91. IT IS A REDUCTION FROM THAT BALANCE. THE TOTAL IS 229 720 .54. WITH THAT, I SUBMIT ITEM D FOR YOUR APPROVAL WITH AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND AS REQUESTED BY THE AUDITOR AND

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

>> AYE. >> THAT WAS 229 7054 , JUST FOR

[I. Receive Personnel Actions-New Hire Report and Personnel Actions-Separation Report for April 1, 2024, through April 30, 2024. 1. New Hires Report 2. View Recent Manager Position Changes Report 3. Workers on Leave Report 4. Terminations/Resignations Report]

THE MINUTES. >> MOVING ON TO ITEM I, COMMISSIONER GONZALES, I BELIEVE THAT WAS YOURS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. CAN YOU GET WITH ME AFTER THE MEETING? I STILL THINK WE ARE MISSING SOME INFORMATION HERE THAT EDDIE -- I NEED. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYONE ELSE. CAN YOU MEET WITH ME AFTER THE MEETING TO GO AFTER IT AND GET A COPY OF THE PREVIOUS ONE THAT WE USED TO HAVE? OTHER THAN THAT, THANK YOU FOR SUBMITTING SOMETHING. I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE. ALL THOSE IN

[J. Approve award and execution of a Construction Contractor Agreement with RXDX, LLC for construction of the Nueces County Sunrise Pond Nature & Storytime Walking Trail (IFB No. 3273-24), in the amount of $748,424.00; and related matters.]

FAVOR, SAY I. -- AYE. >> AYE. THE MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. ITEM J. APPROVE AWARD AND EXECUTION OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT. IT HAS ALREADY COME

UP. >> COMMISSIONER, OUR NORMAL PROCESS IS WE BRING THE ITEMS TO THE COURT WHEN WE ARE AWARDING A LOW BIDDER. AT THAT TIME, BIDDER,WE INFORM THE COURT OF THE AMOUNT AT THAT TIME. SO WHEN THE COURT APPROVES CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF THAT BITTER, -- WE BRING IT

ONTO THE AGENDA. >> WE ALREADY APPROVE IT.

>> IT DOESN'T SAY WE HAD DONE IT BEFORE. BUT ANYWAY, WHEN I

SAW THAT -- >> SO IN THAT TOP SENTENCE OF THE BACKGROUND STATEMENT, ON APRIL 24TH, WE HAVE AGENDA ITEM 3. IT HAS RXDX, LLC AS THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE NUECES COUNTY SUNRISE POND NATURE & STORYTIME WALKING TRAIL. THIS IS TO APPROVE THAT AGREEMENT. IF THERE IS EVER A CHANGE OR IF THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME ENGINEERING GOING ON, THEN I BRING THAT BACK IN THE REGULAR AGENDA SO WE CAN HAVE THAT

[K. Authorize Nueces County Sheriff and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, to hold and post a public auction beginning June 4, 2024 and continuing monthly until all tax resale properties are sold and restored to the tax rolls.]

DISCUSSION. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

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

>> THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM K, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, I BELIEVE

THAT WAS YOURS. >> IF YOU COULD JUST PUT IN YOUR LETTER THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE A TITLE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, IT WOULD HELP ME. I WOULD NOT HAVE TO PUT ANYMORE.

THAT'S IT. THERE'S NO TITLE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THESE

DEALS. CORRECT? >> NO. THOSE ARE MADE AS IS.

THERE'S NO GUARANTEE OF ANYTHING -- TITLE WORK -- ANY

[00:55:07]

OF THAT STUFF. >> I KNOW THE ANSWER. IF YOU CAN JUST PUT IT IN THE BACKGROUND SO I DON'T HAVE TO PULL IT. JUST BUT THERE IS NO TITLE WORK ASSOCIATED, THEN I DON'T HAVE TO PUT ANYMORE. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU

VERY MUCH. >> AND WE HAVE 60 PROPERTIES IN THIS GROUP. THE SALES ARE GOING WELL SINCE YOU AUTHORIZED THIS PERIOD -- AND PRICES ARE UP. SALES NUMBERS ARE UP. WE ARE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES. OVER THE SUMMER, WE

WILL PRETTY MUCH BE OUT. >> I WOULD MOVE TO PASS THIS BASED ON THE ARTICULATION BY MR. LEARY.

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU COME ON THE PRICING, DID YOU HAVE A PERCENTAGE OR GENERAL AMOUNT OF HOW MUCH YOU FEEL THEY ARE GOING UP NOW THAT THEY ARE ONLINE COMPARED TO THE ONES

THAT ARE DONE HERE? >> BALLPARK, SURE. IT IS PROBABLY UP BY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30 AND 50%. LOTS THAT WE USED TO BRING TO Y'ALL , WE CAN SELL FIVE TO $600,000. WE HAVE $20,000. THEY AVERAGE 24,000 PER -- A PIECE. THE REAL ESTATE MARKET HAS BEEN ON FIRE FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, BUT WITH THE CAVEATS INVOLVED WITH TEXAS, NO GUARANTEED CLEAR TITLE, SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION UNDER TEXAS LAW, YOU ALWAYS EXPECT TO GET LESS FOR THAT. IT IS STILL STRONG. VERY STRONG. WE HAVE THREE RESALES YESTERDAY. THE DEPUTY HAD ANOTHER TEXT -- TAX . IT IS GOING WELL. I KNOW WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK AT SOME POINT IN THE YEAR AND WE WILL HAVE ALL

THAT STUFF IN THERE. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION

AND A SECOND. >> THOSE THAT ARE BY THE LOTS THAT ARE OVERGROWN AND HAVE BUILDINGS GOING DOWN, ARE WE

REQUIRING THEM TO CLEAN THAT? >> WE CANNOT PUT THAT IN THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SALE, BUT WHEN I MAILED THE DEEDS OUT TO THE BUYERS, I ALSO EMAIL A COPY OF THE DEEDS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENTS IN THE COUNTY, IN THE CITY. AND IF IT IS IN THE COUNTY, I SEND IT OUT TO THE COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT GUYS SO THEY CAN SEND A LETTER. THEY HAVE SOME TEETH. WE MAKE THAT POINT. WE ARE GETTING A LOT OUT OF THE STATE BUYERS. I ASKED SOMEBODY IF THEY ARE GOING TO DRAG THEIR LAWNMOWER HERE FROM NEW JERSEY, AND THEY SAY NO, AND I SAY COMMUNITY TO FIND SOMEBODY. GET THIS CLEANED UP.

>> THANKS. THAT IS GOOD. THAT HELPS.

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

>> AYE. >> THE MOTION PASSES.

>> MOVING ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA, DO ANY OF YOU HAVE ITEMS TO TABLE? I HAVE 3 LETTER 818. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO

THE SECOND AGENDA. >> WE HAVE TO DO EACH ONE BY

THEMSELVES. >> I'M MOVING IT TO THE 22ND.

I MADE A MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AND THEN 3A17 IS YOUR ITEM.

>> THAT IS FINE, JUDGE. I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. PUT IT BACK ON WHENEVER. WHENEVER COMMISSIONER DENNIS WANTS TO PUT IT BACK ON. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.

>> MOTION TO TABLE IT UNTIL THE 22ND.

>> WHY DO WE NEED THAT? >> THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION.

>> WHY DO WE NEED IT? >> WE HAD MEETINGS WITH HIM AND HE WAS GOING BACK TO GET HIS NUMBERS AND STUFF. HE DOESN'T

HAVE THOSE NUMBERS. >> WE HAD A MEETING WITH HIM?

>> WE HAD A MEETING WITH ALL THE INDIVIDUALS.

>> OKAY. THE MOTION IS TO TABLE UNTIL THE 22ND.

>> THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> OKAY. >> LET'S MOVE IT TO THE 22ND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> THE MOTION PASSES. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF OR WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF?

>> I THINK YOU HAD THREE, JUDGE.

>> I KNOW. I AM NOT SEEING IT.

[01:00:05]

>> WE CAN ALWAYS DO THAT LATER.

>> IT IS UP FOR DISCUSSION, BUT IT IS NOT MINE.

[1. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving a cooperative contract purchase under Sourcewell Contract No. 040319-CEC with Bobcat of Corpus Christi for two (2) Bobcat UV34 Gas Utility Vehicles for Nueces County Coastal Parks in the amount of $35,317.33, and related matters.]

>> IT IS NOT MY ITEM TO TABLE.

>> MOVING ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA, 3A1. 04039 WITH BOBCAT OF CORPUS CHRISTI FOR TWO BOBCAT UTILITY VEHICLES. THESE

ARE FUNDED . >> IT IS ALREADY BUDGETED.

[2. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Work Authorization No. 4 in the amount of $35,550.71 with International Consulting Inc. (ICE) under Master Service Contract No. 20230259-4/26 (RFQ 3232-23) for Engineering Services for Hazel Bazemore Park Culvert Replacement, and related matters.]

>> SO MOVED, JUDGE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. . ALL THOSE OPPOSED, THE MOTION PASSES.

AUTHORIZATION NUMBER FOUR IN THE AMOUNT OF $31,461 WITH ICE, INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING INC., UNDER MASTER SERVICE CONTRACT.

I KNOW I.C.E. IS NOT HERE , BUT THESE WORK AUTHORIZATIONS -- WHERE THEY JUST PULLED THE NEXT WORK AUTHORIZATION, THIS IS NOT THE FOURTH AUTHORIZATION JUST TO THE PARK.

>> THIS IS WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 4. IT IS VERY CONFUSING.

I WAS LIKE, WHAT DO WE DO? >> WELL, JUDGE, THAT WAS THE ISSUE. THE AUTHORIZATIONS, THEY ARE GOING BY THEIR OFFICE.

>> WE NEED TO AMEND IT TO WHATEVER OURS IS.

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO SET SOMETHING UP WHERE IT IS THE JOB AND IT GOES WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, IF WE COULD. I WENT LOOKING LIKE, WHAT IN THE WORLD HAVE WE DONE THREE OTHER WORK ORDERS ON THIS. IT WOULD BE MUCH EASIER ON US IF WE COULD GET IT DONE THAT WAY.

>> IT SAYS NUMBER FIVE ON MY BACKUP. I WAS GOING TO ASK WHERE THE FUNDING SOURCE WAS PRETTY DIDN'T SAY THAT. OKAY.

I APOLOGIZE. >> WHEN WE SET UP THE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENTS FOR ALL THE ENGINEERS, IT WAS SET UP WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN A WAY THAT EACH WORTH AUTHORIZATION WOULD BE FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER FOUR FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, AND THEN IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT COME TO THAT, THOSE WOULD BE AMENDMENTS TO THAT

SAME WORK AUTHORIZATION. >> IT WOULD BE WORK

AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENT 2 4. >> CORRECT.

>> RIGHT. IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER IN THE COUNTY, IT WILL HAVE ITS OWN WORK AUTHORIZATION. WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE ARE A LITTLE MORE CLEAR IN THE DISCUSSION SECTION TO SHOW THE ORIGINAL MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT, AND WITH THE NAME NEXT TO THE NUMBER. SO YOU CAN ASSOCIATE IT TOGETHER.

>> ON MY SHEET, IT'S US A 4. ON THE BACK OF COMETS IS 5.

WHICH ONE IS IT? >> I BELIEVE IT IS 5.

>> OKAY. >> SO THE AGENDA ITEMS -- IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL. THIS WOULD BE WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 5 .

HOW ARE WE GOING TO CLASSIFY THAT? THE JUDGE IS RIGHT.

SOMETIMES I CAN'T REMEMBER FOUR OTHER WORK AUTHORIZATIONS.

>> THE ONE THING I'VE BEEN DOING IS LOGGING THESE, AND SO WHAT I CAN PROVIDE TO THE COURT IS A LIST OF ALL THE WORK AUTHORIZATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE COURT WITH THEIR DIVISIONAL PROJECT NAMES NEXT TO THOSE NUMBERS. WE CAN

INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP. >> THAT WOULD BE BETTER. I WILL LOSE THAT LIST OR WHATEVER. IF YOU CAN DO IT AS EACH AGENDA ITEM COMES UP AND MAKE IT CLEAR, THAT IS ALL I NEED. JUST

THAT AGENDA ITEM. >> OKAY. SO I THINK WE DID TOO

[3. Discuss and consider acceptance of a portion of Santa Clara Drive located in the South Rim Subdivision and Precinct 1 into the Nueces County roadway inventory for maintenance.]

MUCH DISCUSSION BEFORE THE MOTION. THIS IS YOUR ITEM, COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION?

>> YES MA'AM. I MAKE THE MOTION.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER THREE, DISCUSS AND ACCEPT PORTION OF SANTA CLARA DRIVE AND PRECINCT 1 AND 2 IN THE NUECES COUNTY INVENTORY. I BELIEVE YOU ARE HERE TO TELL US ABOUT THAT.

>> YES MA'AM. GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. THEY ARE RECOMMENDING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SANTA CLARA DRIVE. IN THE PAST FEW MONTHS, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER AND ALSO THE HOA TO HAVE THIS PROJECT BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE PLANS THAT THE ENGINEERS HAVE DESIGNED A WHILE BACK. THE DEVELOPER AND HOA HAVE GOTTEN TOGETHER, AND THEY HIRED A

[01:05:01]

CONTRACTOR, AND THEY CONSTRUCTED THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE OF A ROAD, AND THEY SPENT ABOUT $80,000 OSHA LITTLE BIT OVER $80,000 TO DO THIS. WE WENT OUT THERE AND INSPECTED THE PROJECT DURING THE PROCESS, AND THEY MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE ORIGINAL ENGINEER HAD DESIGNED. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE COMMISSIONERS TO ACCEPT IT.

>> HAVE WE MET, OR HAS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY UP WITH ANYTHING? THIS IS ALL GONE THROUGH AND BEEN APPROVED AND

EVERYTHING? >> YES MA'AM. BASED ON DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD AND EMAILS GOING BACK AND FORTH, YES MA'AM. THIS IS WHERE THE DEVELOPER OR HOMEOWNERS GOT TOGETHER AND SPENT MONEY TO CONSTRUCT THE COVERTS, FOR THE DESIGN OF THE ENGINEER. THIS IS THE SAME SITUATION.

>> EXCUSE ME. SO YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH SATISFIED WITH THE WAY THE

ROAD HAS BEEN DONE. >> YES SIR. I HAVE A FEW PHOTOS TO SHOW Y'ALL OF THE FINAL PRODUCT. BUT THEY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB. THEY HAD THE CONTRACTOR. THEY DID A GREAT

JOB OUT THERE. >> AS LONG AS HE LOOKED AT IT AND APPROVED IT IN YOUR WILLING TO TAKE CARE OF IT.

>> YES MA'AM. THEY MADE ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. THEY DID COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS ON THE BASE MATERIAL. THEY DID A SERVICE RIM ON THE ROAD, AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS. SO WE ARE

RECOMMENDING IT. >> I RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE

THIS ITEM. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COMMISSIONER MAREZ HAS A COMMENT.

>> JUST AN OBSERVATION. IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE A MORE THOROUGH PROCESS AND DOING THIS NOW. I REMEMBER -- WELL, I'M JUMPING AHEAD, BUT IN LOOKING AT THESE PROJECTS, WE HAVE SEEN OVER THE YEARS, US TAKE ON MORE RESPONSIBILITY, BUT WE HAVE A GOOD DEVELOPER WHO GAVE US A GOOD BASE TO STAND ON, AND THEN MOVE FORWARD. THAT IS HOW WE ARE ABLE TO DO THESE IMPROVEMENTS. THAT IS HOW THE COUNTY IS ABLE TO TAKE ON THESE EXTRA TASKS . THIS IS TO HELP DEVELOP THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THE WAY THAT THEY SHOULD. I GET IT. PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, OR REALLY BOTHER AND UNDERSTAND WHY THAT HAPPENS. SOMETIMES, I WILL BUY A HOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT DOESN'T HAVE THIS COMMITMENT FROM THE DEVELOPER, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE DONE IT RIGHT, AND YOU HAVE A GOOD DEVELOPER TO SET THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE, THEN WE AS A COUNTY CAN TAKE THESE KINDS OF ACTIONS. I MEAN, I KNOW I'M PREACHING TO THE CHOIR. YOU SEE IT BECAUSE YOU'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THESE REQUESTS WE ARE GIVING YOU, BUT I CAN'T IMPLORE OUR DEVELOPERS -- SOMETIMES, IT IS JUST PEOPLE WHO BUY LAND AND THEN TURN AROUND TO SAY, OKAY. HERE WE GO. WE HAVE LOTS TO START SELLING THEM. THEY ARE NOT DEVELOPED RIGHT. WE ARE GETTING AWAY FROM THAT, I THINK BECAUSE WE WERE DEALING WITH THAT IN THE 80S, 90S, AND EARLY 2000'S. I WANTED TO COMMENT ONCE AGAIN, THAT THIS IS THE WAY TO DO IT. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD TAKE PLACE, AND HOW THE COUNTY CAN TURN AROUND AND RESPOND TO HELP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES. GO AHEAD.

>> I WANT TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT. WE WANT TO BRING BACK A POLICY THAT WE CAN PASS AS A COURT SO WE CAN DO THIS GOING FORWARD AS THE COURTS CHANGE AND PEOPLE GO OFF AND ON, WE FORGET THAT THIS HAS VERY MUCH BEEN A GREAT WAY OF DOING THIS. AND WHAT IT HELPS IS WHEN HER CONSTITUENTS REACH OUT TO US, WE CAN SAY, THIS IS HOW YOU HAVE TO DO IT. THIS IS THE COURTS POLICY, AND WE ARE NOT SHOWING FAVORITISM. WE ARE NOT BLOWING YOU OFF. WE ARE DOING WITH THE COURT HAS PASSED. IF YOU COULD GET WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND BRING US BACK SOMETHING TO LOOK AT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE I THINK -- I MEAN, IT WORKED REALLY WELL WITH HOW WE DID IT AND HAD IT RUN. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE ARE WORKING ON, AS WELL, AND WE SAID THE SAME THING TO THEM. IT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED WITH MY SUBDIVISIONS, BUT IF YOU COULD LET US PASS SOMETHING, -- SPOKE HOW DO WE ACCEPT THE ROAD FROM

THE DEVELOPER? >> WE DON'T. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. WE DO, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THIS BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENS IS THESE PEOPLE COME IN AFTER THE DEVELOPER HAS MOVED ON DOWN THE ROAD, IF YOU WILL, AND THEY ARE KIND OF SITTING IN

[01:10:05]

THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, STUCK. THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE THIS BECAUSE IT IS NOT DEVELOPERS. THIS IS UNIQUE. IT IS THE NEIGHBORHOODS COMING TO US, OR ANY JOY COMING TO US, OR

WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. >> WE WANT TO DEVELOP IT MORE

FOR THE RESIDENCE. >> IT HASN'T BEEN ACCEPTED.

THERE ARE A LOT OF ROADS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET OUR STANDARDS. AND THEN THEY COME TO US AFTER THE DEVELOPER IS LONG GONE, AND THEY SAY, HOW DO WE GET IN THERE? WE DO NOW BECAUSE WE CREATED IT, BUT WE WANTED IN WRITING. IT IS AN EXTRA STEP.

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

[4. Discuss and consider allowing the Nueces County Attorney's Office to speak with the Homeowners' Association and the developer of Stonegate Subdivision 2 to either sell or donate land for a detention pond]

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

THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING I -- ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ALLOWING THE NUECES COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO SPEAK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE DEVELOPER OF STONE AGE SUBDIVISION 2 TO EITHER SELL OR DONATE LAND FOR

A DETENTION POND. >>

>> DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE TROUBLE WITH THIS PROPERTY?

>> YES. IF I MAKE. IN THIS PROPERTY, THE COURT AUTHORIZED THE OFFICE TO TALK WITH THE COMPANY RELATED TO THE PROPERTY . IT TURNS OUT IN THE DEED, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, AND NOT THE PERSON THAT THE COURT HAD -- THIS IS CLARIFICATION. THIS IS A CLARIFICATION ITEM.

>> I DIDN'T GET THAT FROM WHAT I SAW IN THE BOOK. THAT IS FINE. THAT MAKES MORE SENSE. SECOND.

[5. Discuss and consider Nueces County collecting plat application fees within the County's jurisdiction and related matters]

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

AYE. >> AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY -- SAME SIGN. NUMBER 5. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER NUECES COUNTY COLLECTING PLAT APPLICATION FEES WITHIN THE COUNTY'S JURISDICTION AND RELATED MATTERS. 220, YOU ARE UP AGAIN.

>> WE HAVE BEEN REVIEWING PLANS FOR THE PAST -- EVER SINCE WE HAVE BEEN HERE AS A COUNTY, BUT I THINK THIS IS MORE OF

COLLECTING FEES , JUDGE. >> THEY SAID THE POLICY HAS NOT BEEN REVISED SINCE 2009 THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO UPDATE OUR POLICY ON THIS AND HAVE THAT. I WOULD ASSUME WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE THAT BEFORE WE WOULD START ENFORCING FEES.

>> YES MA'AM. SHE HAD RECOMMENDED WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND MODIFY THE SUBDIVISIONS. THAT IS WHAT SHE

HAD MENTIONED. >> I'M GOING TO ASK AGAIN.

>> IF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS IT.

>> I'M GOING TO ASK IF WE MET WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ON THIS. HAS THERE BEEN ANY REACH OUT TO ANY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE -- BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL FEES ON THEM. THEY THINK THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR EVERYTHING AT THE CITY. THIS IS THE SAME THING I'VE ASKED. SO. WHAT IS

THE ANSWER? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO ASK

THEM. >> THEY ARE DEVELOPERS THAT WANT TO DEVELOP. THEY HAVE TO PAY THE FEES.

>> THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING THEM, COMMISSIONER.

>> THEY HAVE TO PAY MORE TAXES. >> I WOULD LIKE A QUESTION TO MY ANSWER -- ANSWER TO MY QUESTION FIRST. I HAVE ASKED FOR THAT REPEATEDLY, IF IT HAS BEEN DONE. THE ISSUE HERE IS THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS THROUGH THE CITY. THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL FEE, AND IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ADVISED OF IT, TO HAVE DISCUSSION ON IT, THEN THAT IS ABSOLUTELY -- WE

DO THAT ALL THE TIME. >> WEIGHT.

>> WEIGHT. >> WHY?

>> THIS IS THE THIRD OR FOURTH OR FIFTH TIME WE HAVE BEEN

HERE. >>

>> I DON'T KNOW WHY -- YOU DO THING FOR OTHER COMMISSIONERS.

>> THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT. THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT GOING ON BECAUSE I'VE ASKED REPEATEDLY THAT THEY BE REACHED OUT TO . I TRY TO LET THEM KNOW, BUT I FIGURE SOMEONE WILL REACH OUT. I HAVE ASKED FOR SOME TO REACH OUT TO THEM. THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE FIXING TO CHARGE -- THEY ARE

[01:15:01]

PAYING ALL THIS MONEY AT THE CITY BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE GETTING PART OF WHAT THE CITY IS DOING. WHY AREN'T WE GETTING SOME OF WHAT THE CITY IS CHARGING INSTEAD OF CHARGING MONEY ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE. IF YOU WANT THEM TO COME TO COURT, THEY WILL COME TO COURT.

>> IT SOUND LIKE, ALSO, THAT MAYBE THIS NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK AFTER WE UPDATE OUR POLICY, AFTER THE COUNTY ATTORNEY 'S OFFICE IS WAITING ON AN ENGINEER TO GO THROUGH THE POLICY TO UPDATE THAT. IT WOULD REQUIRE AN ENGINEER, NOT AN ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT IT, IS WHAT I WAS TOLD.

>> YES MA'AM. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION RULES .

WE GAVE THE ATOMS TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. I KNOW JENNY IS NOT HERE.

AN MOU SINCE 2005 WITH THE CITY. JENNY ASKED THE CITY, HOW DO THEY CONTRIBUTE? THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO GIVE US ALL OF THE PLATTING MONEY. THE CITY SAYS THEY NEVER HAVE AND THEY NEVER WILL. WE NEED TO IMPOSE OUR FEES. OKAY. SO THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON. THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD AT IT.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE COME TO. IN ORDER FOR US TO GENERATE NEW REVENUE, SINCE WE ARE IN A BIND WITH IT , WITH OUR MONIES, THIS IS A NEW WAY TO DO IT, JUDGE. THERE SHOULD BE OTHERS , TO WHERE THE COUNTY CAN GENERATE NEW REVENUE. ONE, I APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS. WE THOUGHT THIS WAS DONE. IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO NOTIFY THE DEVELOPERS, I DON'T KNOW HOW HE WOULD DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMISSIONER NEEDS TO LET THEM

KNOW. >> ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CONTACT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. IT IS ONE GROUP.

IT IS VERY EASY. IT IS THE SAME GROUP I HAVE MENTIONED FOR THE FIFTH OR SIXTH TIME DURING THAT PROCESS. I THINK THEY NEED TO HAVE SOME INPUT ON THIS.

>> I THINK WE ALL AGREE , THE COMPANY FEES ARE IMPORTANT. I LOVE THE IDEA. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT, BUT I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO PAUSE UNTIL WE GET THAT ENGAGEMENT BECAUSE WE CAN CHARGE ADDITIONAL FEES DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE SHOULD. WE NEED TO FIGURE THAT OUT BECAUSE THAT IS AN EXTRA COST ON TOP OF THE DEVELOPER WHEN THEY FEEL THAT THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING THEIR AMOUNT. I DON'T THINK THEY CARE AT THE END. I DON'T THINK THEY CARE WHERE IT GOES TO. I THINK THEY JUST DON'T WANT EXTRA COSTS GOING ON. I DO SUPPORT WHAT COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ IS TRYING TO DO HERE. LET'S GET THAT DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY ENGAGED. ONCE WE GET SOMETHING BACK FROM LEGAL, AND I DON'T DOUBT WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS SAYING AS FAR AS THE CITY'S RESPONSE. LET'S SEE. IS THAT IN WRITING SOMEWHERE, OR IS THAT A PHONE CALL CONVERSATION? CAN WE GET IT IN WRITING SO THAT WE CAN SHOW THAT THIS IS THE OFFICIAL STANCE OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, AND THEN WE KNOW HOW TO ACT. I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA. I SENSE THE URGENCY BECAUSE WE SEE, WHAT ARE THE WAYS TO BRING INCOME IN OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY? I WOULD ALSO JUST SUGGEST TO PAUSE -- NOT THAT THIS IS BAD, NOT THAT WE DON'T SUPPORT IT, BUT JUST SO YOU CAN FIGURE OUT ALL THESE QUESTIONS. WE CAN GET IT DONE BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

THE SOONER, THE BETTER. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON A WHILE.

COMMISSIONER MAREZ HAS WANTED TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON THIS TO GET IT GOING. WE WANT THE DEVELOPERS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE. I WILL NOT SUPPORT ADDING ON EXTRA COST FOR DEVELOPERS JUST BECAUSE WE CAN. THERE IS A FINITE AMOUNT , AND THAT SPLIT GOES BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY EVENLY OR SOME PORTION OF IT, THEN LET'S JUST WORK THAT OUT BEHIND THE SCENES AND BRING IT TO COURT. I'M INTERESTED TO SEE, IS THAT AN OFFICIAL STANCE OR IS THAT SOMEBODY DURING THE MEETING I MENTIONED TO THE COMMISSIONER OR SOMEONE ELSE, THAT THAT WAS THE OFFICIAL POLICY OR THE BELIEF THAT THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI HAS ON THE SHARING OF THE PLAT FEES.

>> I WAS ON ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS, COMMISSIONER. I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ TOLD US THAT WE HAD NEVER GIVEN

[01:20:06]

THEM OUR FEES. THEY WERE WILLING TO COLLECT THEM WITH THE MO YOU, BUT WE NEVER POST THE FEE. IT'S NOT THAT WE SAID NO WAY, WE HAD NEVER DONE THAT. IT IS PART OF THE MOU.

>> IT CAN BE DONE, JUDGE, BECAUSE I LEARNED ABOUT THIS IN THE CONFERENCE WE WENT TO, AND THIS WAS DISCUSSED , THE PLANNING AND THE FEES. WE NEED TO FIND NEW WAYS TO MAKE THE

REVENUE THAT WE NEED. >> YOU SAID IMPOSE AN ADDITIONAL FEE TO THE DEVELOPERS. I DON'T THINK WE ARE DOING THE ADDITIONAL FEE. THEY WANT TO PAY THE FEE. THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE CITY. BUT IF THEY LIVE IN THE COUNTY, HOW WILL THEY PAY THE CITY IF THEY ARE PAYING OUR FEES? THEY CAN COLLECT IN THE COUNTY AREA BECAUSE NOW THEY ARE GOING TO BE CHARGING THEM DOUBLE. NOT US.

>> THAT WILL REQUIRE LOOKING AT THE MOU. I DON'T THINK THIS IS READY TO MOVE FORWARD IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

>> YEAH, BUT THIS IS FOR ALL OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. THE

CITY DOES COLLECT, RIGHT? >> IT WOULD BE DOUBLE. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE THAT I HAVE ALSO ASKED FOR IS A LEGAL ADVISORY OF WHETHER THE CITY CAN TELL US KNOW. BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE -- AND YOU CLARIFIED THEY ARE NOT SAYING NO WAY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, LEGALLY, WHY WE CAN'T GET A PORTION OF WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY COLLECTING. JUST BECAUSE THEY TELL US KNOW DOESN'T MEAN THEY ARE RIGHT, AS WE HAVE LEARNED MANY, MANY, MANY TIMES WITH THEM. SO WE NEED LEGAL ADVISORY TO SAY, IF THEY ARE CHARGING FOR ALL THESE THINGS THAT ARE IN THERE, WE SHOULD GET A PIECE OF THEIRS FOR THE WORK WE ARE DOING. TELL ME WHY WE CAN'T LEGALLY. NOT BECAUSE THE CITY SAYS WE ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU ANY. THAT WAS AGAIN, PART OF THE REQUEST I HAVE MADE ON THIS, SO, THAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED, TOO, BECAUSE IF WE CAN GET A PORTION FROM THE CITY LEGALLY BECAUSE JUAN AND HIS STAFF ARE DOING WORKGHT NOT HAVE TO CHARGE EXTRA MONEY TO PEOPLE. THIS IS EXTRA. THAT IS WHERE I THOUGHT WE WERE HEADED WITH THIS BEFORE WE CAME OUT WITH THE FEES. SO THIS IS THE SAME THING I HAVE SAID BEFORE. SO I NEEDED FROM LEGAL, AND I NEEDED FROM YOU, JUAN. I AGREED WITH THE CONCEPT THAT COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ IS ESPOUSING, BUT I DON'T AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT OF ADDING FEES TO PEOPLE AND ADDING EXTRA COST TO THE DEVELOPERS THAT WILL BE PASSED THROUGH TO THE HOMEOWNERS, BY THE WAY, AND WE COULD POTENTIALLY GET IT FROM THE CITY. PLEASE BRING ALL THAT BACK BY THE NEXT MEETING. THAT'S FINE. PLEASE BRING IT

BACK IN A FULL PACKAGE. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE IT UNTIL ALL OF THIS IS BROUGHT BACK, WHICH IS THE LEGAL ADVISORY AND NUECES COUNTY --

[6. Authorize the submission to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Economically Distressed Areas Program (EDAP) to assist homes in colonies with existing septic systems that do not meet minimum county compliance or regulatory standards and authorize County Judge as the authorized designated representative for the abridged application.]

JUAN MEETING WITH THEM. >> I SAY WE TABLE THIS.

>> UNTIL JUAN GETS ALL THE INFORMATION AND BRINGS IT BACK.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE >> AYE.

>> AYE . >> ITEMS 6. AUTHORIZED THE SUBMISSION TO THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD ECONOMICALLY DISTRESSED AREA PROGRAM TO ASSIST HOMES IN COLONIES WITH EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEMS THAT DO NOT MEET MINIMUM COUNTY COMPLIANCE OR REGULATORY STANDARDS AND AUTHORIZE COUNTY JUDGE AS THE AUTHORIZED DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE.

EDWARD, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS. MY ONLY QUESTION WAS POINTING OUT THAT THIS IS A 7030 ON THE COUNTY .

THE GRANT IS A MATCH. >> THIS IS JUST AN ABRIDGED APPLICATION. THIS IS TO GET US INTO THE GAME.

>> IF WE GET IT, WE HAVE TO PAY 30%.

>> WE CAN TURN IT DOWN. >> AND IS THIS FOR ONLY

PRECINCT 2? COUNTYWIDE? >> COUNTYWIDE.

>> WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT SINCE THE COMMISSIONERS PROGRAM HAS TAKEN OFF, WE HAVE GOTTEN CALLS FROM EVERYWHERE.

WE'VE GOTTEN CALLS FROM THERE. IT IS A VERY BIG NEED. THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THE ONES RIGHT ON THE RIVER. SO THAT THEY CONTROL THE CREEKS.

[01:25:01]

>> MY HESITATION IS THE 30% MATCH, WHETHER WE HAVE IT.

IT'S LIKE, ARE WE REALLY GOING TO GO AFTER SOMETHING?

>> WE HAVE REJECTED EVERY APPLICATION THUS FAR THAT WE HAVE DONE WITH ANY MATCHES ON IT. ALL WE HAVE DONE IN THE LAST YEAR HAS BEEN MATCHES -- GRANTS WITH NO MATCHES. SO, AGAIN, IF WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE DIRECTION, THEN EVERYONE IS GOING TO START LOOKING FOR GRANTS WITH MATCHES, AS THEY SHOULD, OR WE ARE GOING TO STAY ON THIS COURSE.

>> THAT IS THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. THAT IS THE STANDARD. 70/30. IF WE CAN STILL GET 70% , IT MAY BE WORTH IT. BUT LIKE WE WERE SAYING, THIS IS STEP ONE. THERE ARE TYPICALLY TWO STEPS WITH ANY APPLICATION WITH TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. THIS IS A SMALLER, MORE ABRIDGED VERSION.

THIS IS TO SEE IF WE QUALIFY. THEN WE WILL BE INVITED TO STEP TWO. SO THIS IS NOT THE END. THIS IS REALLY JUST THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS, AND SO, BY SAYING YES, WE ARE JUST SAYING, LET'S PEEK UNDER THE HOOD AND SEE WHAT WE'VE GOT THERE. AND THEN, AT STEP TWO, WE CAN ALWAYS SAY NO. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WORTH DOING, OR EVEN AT THE END, EVEN IF WE ARE ACCEPTED, WE CAN STILL REJECT THE MONEY. THEREFORE, WHEN THEY SAY, IF THE STATE SAYS, HERE WE GO. WE HAVE THIS MANY DOLLARS FOR YOU, DO YOU WANT IT OR NOT? SOME COMMITTEES SAY IT IS NOT WORTH IT. WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. THERE ARE MANY PLACES ALONG THE WAY THAT THIS COURT COULD SAY, IT'S NOT WORTH IT. IT DOESN'T MEET OUR MODEL, OUR BUDGET. BUT I WOULD JUST WARN AGAINST IT.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE WHY NOT? IT'S PART OF

THE PROCESS. >> AND I AGREE. IT SOUNDS GREAT. IF WE CAN, IT IS A GREAT THING TO HELP, BUT I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CHESNEY. WE ARE SETTING A PRECEDENT. NO CASH MATCH. WE ARE OPENING THE DOOR TO ANYONE ELSE THAT COMES. THEY ARE GREAT PROGRAMS, AS WELL, AND THEY ARE ASKING IF WE CAN AFFORD AND WHAT WE CAN DO.

>> WE HAVEN'T ACCEPTED THAT, JUDGE.

>> BUT WE ARE ALLOWING THEM TO GO OUT FOR IT.

>> THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO FOR IT. IF IT COMES BACK TO US AND WE SAY WE CAN'T AFFORD IT, WE CAN'T AFFORD IT. WE SHOULDN'T BE SHUTTING THE DOORS TO EVERYBODY.

>> YEAH. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE HAD DONE FOR GRANTS WITH ANY CASH MATCH IN THE PAST YEAR, BUT THAT'S MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH IT. I BELIEVE IN THE CONCEPT, BUT I HAVE A HARD TIME

WITH THIS. >> IT COULD BE IN THE FORM OF A 0% LOAN. IT IS TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THAT TO THE COUNTY.

>> IN-KIND OR LOAN? >> TO THE COUNTY.

>> YES. >> I HAVE HAD SEVERAL PHONE CALLS FROM PEOPLE. FROM THE DRISCOLL AREA. I APPLAUD COMMISSIONER GONZALES FOR TAKING THIS ON. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO, FIND OUT IF IT CAN BE DONE TO HELP THESE FOLKS.

THANK YOU. >> SO MOVED.

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

[7. Discuss and consider unallocating Commissioner Pct 2, American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Attorney II position in the amount of $170,000.00; and other matters.]

>> AYE. >> NO.

>> AND THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.

DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ON ALLOCATING COMMISSIONER PRECINCT 2, AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT ATTORNEY 2 POSITION IN THE AMOUNT OF $170,000. THAT IS YOURS, COMMISSIONER GONZALES.

>> WE ARE GOING TO ON ALLOCATE THE FUNDS. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE

IT BACK. >> I WILL SECOND YOUR MOTION.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> YES. I WAS ACTUALLY TALKING TO TERESA LAST WEEK ABOUT DOING THE OPPOSITE AND DOING WHAT YOU HAD -- POINTING TO THE EXAMPLE. THERE IS SO MUCH WORK TO BE DONE IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE

OUR PUP. -- ARPA. >> BUT I THINK -- MY MEETING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, I THOUGHT AFTER WE GET THE CONTRACTS DONE, WHICH WE HAD TO HAVE DONE BY DECEMBER 2024, THE

LAWYERS PART IS DONE. >> WE CAN PUT IT UNDER

CONTRACT. >> WHY DON'T YOU PUT IT UNDER CONTRACT OF SOME SORT? I THOUGHT THIS MONEY WAS BEING

RELIED ON FOR THIS POSITION. >> THIS IS THE REQUEST OF

[01:30:01]

JENNY. THEY CAN CALL AND SAY, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH

IT? >> THIS IS HIS PRECINCT THAT HE IS TAKING BACK. IT HAD NOT BEEN UTILIZED.

>> I BELIEVE THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS ON THIS THAT CONTINUE

THAT ADDRESS THAT QUESTION . >> CAN WE HEAR THEM ALTOGETHER THEN? MAYBE IT WILL BE LESS CONFUSING. HOW ARE WE DOING ALL

OF THIS? >> WE WERE JUST GIVING HIM HIS MONEY BACK THAT HE REQUESTED. THAT'S IT. IT IS HIS MONEY AND HE WANTS IT BACK NO MATTER WHAT. THAT IS ONLY HIS ITEM.

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

>> I GET THAT BUT IF I GIVE MY MONEY AND IT HAS BEEN OBLIGATED, I CAN'T TAKE IT BACK. IF YOU ARE SAYING IT IS

NO LONGER OBLIGATED -- >> WE KNOW WE NEED TO WORK, SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY, CINDY SAID THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS RELATED.

>> ONE ITEM, FOR EXAMPLE HIS ITEM OF 1, RELATED TO HUMAN RESOURCES, WHERE, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REQUEST WAS THE ATTORNEY 1 OR ATTORNEY 3 EDITION WAS REMOVED, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WAS HOPING TO HAVE THAT POSITION RECLASSIFIED .

ONE OF THEM TO ATTORNEY 4 OR ATTORNEY 5 TO TRY TO ATTRACT SOMEBODY TO COME IN TO DO THE WORK BECAUSE THERE IS A NEED TO DO THE WORK. IT'S BEEN UNFILLED AT LEAST SINCE -- BOTH POSITIONS HAVE BEEN UNFILLED FOR SIX MONTHS. OUR OFFICE BELIEVES THAT IF A POSITION WERE TO BE REMOVED AND IF IT WERE TO BE RECLASSIFIED AS A 4 OR 5, IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY EASIER TO FILL THAT POSITION AND BECAUSE THE WORK DOES NEED

TO BE DONE. >> WITH WHAT MONEY ARE YOU

DOING THAT? >> SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THE 3

DOSE >> THE COUNTYWIDE MONEY THAT IS DEDICATED TO THIS, AS WELL, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE

POSITIONS. >> THERE IS THE TWO THAT COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ IS FUNDING. THERE IS COUNTYWIDE FUNDING. 370,000 FOR AN ATTORNEY 3 POSITION.

>> WHERE IS THAT COMING FROM TO GO FROM A 3 TO A 5?

>> IT'S WITHIN THE PRINTER TO BE THOUSAND DOLLARS THAT IS ALREADY BUDGETED FOR THE ATTORNEY 3. SHE WANTS TO CLASSIFY IT TO A ATTORNEY 5. THERE WILL BE SAVINGS EVEN IF THEY MOVE IT UP TO THE ATTORNEY 5 BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN

FILLED. >> THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM. YOU ARE COVERED WITH WHAT YOU NEED BY GOING FROM 3 TO 5 , AND THIS ISN'T GOING TO HURT WHAT YOU THOUGHT

YOU WERE GOING TO DO. >> YES. THAT IS THE ACCURATE

SUMMARY. >> THAT IS IT.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE NOW. >> I DO HAVE A HANDOUT I COULD

PROVIDE. >> IS THAT ON THIS ONE? THIS IS

THE RECLASSIFICATION. >> WE WILL DO THAT ONE. THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD A HOLE THAT NEEDED TO BE FILLED. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RETURN HIS MONEY BACK TO HIS

[8. Discuss and consider allocating Commissioner Pct 2, American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) unallocated funds of $280,507.00 as follows and other related matters: $15,000 – Mission of Mercy $17,000 – American Legion Post 364 $10,000 – Nueces County Animal Control Department $25,000 - County Attorney Office – Attorney V Position (thru FYE 2026) $103,507.00 – Inland Parks Department – Truck Drive I Position (thru FYE 2026) $105,000 – Calderon Health and Wellness Center $5,000.00 – Amistad Veterans Memorial Park Restoration Project]

ARPA MONEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 8. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ALLOCATING YOUR MONEY NOW AND YOUR UNALLOCATED FUNDS, 280,000, BUT I THINK SOME OF THESE ARE READY TO GO. SOME OF THESE ARE NOT, FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. ARE THEY READY TO GO? HAVE WE REVIEWED THESE? THERE WAS A CHANGE AND THEN WE WENT BACK?

>> WE HAVE AN ALLOCATION. >> EVEN NUMBER 4, SINCE IT

WASN'T NECESSARY, I THOUGHT? >> ON NUMBER 8.

>> THAT IS NOT NECESSARY. >> WE HAD PLENTY OF FUNDS. I KNOW YOU ARE GIVING THE OFFICE SOME BACK. THERE WERE PLENTY OF FUNDS IN THE COUNTYWIDE FUNDS. SO IF YOU WANT TO PULL OUT

NUMBER 4. >> I THINK WITH THE COUNTYWIDE ALLOCATION, THEY HAD PLENTY OF FUNDS TO TAKE CARE OF IT.

>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE EXCEPT FOR NUMBER 4.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE, EXCLUDING NUMBER 4 TO PULL OUT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[9. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving the selection of International Consulting Engineers (I.C.E.) for the County Road 44 Bridge Replacement Project, Commissioner Pct. 3 ARPA Allocation.]

>> AYE. >> THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 9 POINT DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING --

>> LET ME -- I DIDN'T --

[01:35:06]

INAUDIBLE ] WE NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE EXPENSES , VERSUS THE REMAINING ALLOCATION, BECAUSE I KNOW I HAVE EXPENSES. THEY ARE NOT RECORDED. WHEN THEY ARE NOT RECORDED, I THINK I HAVE THAT MONEY TO USE FOR WHATEVER ELSE.

I'VE GONE AROUND. I MET TERESA. IT IS HARD TO TELL HOW MUCH MONEY I WILL HAVE TO BALANCE. I THINK I SENT YOU A MEMO THAT I NEEDED TO -- OR AN EMAIL DOSE THAT I NEEDED TO HAVE ALL THESE EXPENSES FILLED IN THAT NEEDED TO BE FILLED IN AND REVIEW THE AMOUNT OF THE ALLOCATION AS WE LIST EXPENSES SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE FOR CONSTRUCTION.

>> WE ASKED FOR THAT EXTRA COLUMN. WE HAD A MEETING IN THERE, AS WELL BECAUSE HONOR COUNTYWIDE PROJECTS, AS WELL, OR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS WORK ALLOCATING FUNDS OR ASSIGNING CONTRACTS THAT WE STILL HAVE ENGINEERING FEES. IF WE SET ASIDE AN AMOUNT FOR THIS IN THE BEGINNING, THAT NEEDS TO BE EXPENSES TO DATE AND EXPENSES ALLOCATED MAYBE. JUST ANOTHER COLUMN OBLIGATED OR SOMETHING AND THE BALANCE BE THE TRUE BALANCE, AS I'M AFRAID AT THE END OF ALL OF THIS, JUST LIKE WE MET WITH COMMISSIONER GONZALES, WE MAY BE IN A BIND WITH A LOT OF OUR PROJECTS OVERSPENDING AND NOT HAVE A LOT

OF FUNDS LEFT IN THE BALANCES. >> WE HAVE TO COMMIT.

>> NEXT MEETING, IF YOU COULD BRING THAT, WE WOULD APPRECIATE

IT. >> I'M GOING TO REQUEST SOME GRANTS, I GUESS. WHERE DO THEY TAKE OVER? I FEEL LIKE I'M HAVING TO GO THROUGH EVERYBODY.

>> THAT IS HOW I FEEL, AS WELL.

>> THE GRANT NEEDS TO GO WHERE IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE. THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PICK UP WHERE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PICK UP. SO WE KNOW WHO WE ARE RESPONDING TO. SOMETIMES, THEY SAY NO.

>> WE NEED THAT FOR ANOTHER REASON, AS WELL. IF WE ARE PUSHING THIS WORK, THAT THEY HAD INITIALLY SAID THEY WOULD TAKE, THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL COST. THOSE FUNDS NEED TO BE ALLOCATED TO THAT, AS WELL. WE CAN'T JUST SAY THE GRANTS DEPARTMENT IS NOT GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT. THERE WILL BE A FEE AND A COST. WE HAVE SEPARATE LINES OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING, WHAT THEY ARE DOING, AND WHO WE REPORT TO INTO WE GO TO TO GET

THOSE REPORTS, I GUESS. YES. >> JUDGE, WE REQUESTED THAT SEPARATE REPORT FOR GRANT WORKS.

>> I THINK IT WAS MORE OFFICIAL. IF Y'ALL COULD GIVE US A TRUE ACCOUNTING OF PROJECTS AND HOW MUCH FUNDS ARE IN THERE AND HOW MANY EXPENSES ARE PENDING. AND SEPARATE THE

JOBS. >> THAT'S A LOT OF ZEROS.

>> YOU CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER. YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL.

>> JUDGE, HAVE A QUESTION.

THE BALANCE. SHOULDN'T THEY HAVE THE SAME AMOUNTS AT THE SAME TIME? DO Y'ALL TALK TO EACH OTHER? YOU KNOW.

>> I DON'T KNOW. TERESA CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> SOMETIMES, YOU TELL US ONE THING, AND THEN TERESA HAS ANOTHER BALANCE. JUST OF THE MINDSET THAT BOTH OF YOU --

>> SO COMMISSIONER, I DON'T HANDLE THE ARPA FUNDS, BUT WHAT I HANDLE ARE THE COUNTYWIDE PROJECTS, BUT THEN I GET CALLED IN FROM THE COMMISSIONERS ON THEIR BALANCES. SO THE THINGS THAT I KNOW OR THAT I SEE AS FAR AS THE OBLIGATIONS ARE NOT INCLUDED ON THE BALANCES. I TALKED TO LULU AND I TALKED TO ANNA. THOSE ARE JUST THINGS IN REVIEWING IT. IT WAS LIKE WITH THE JUDGES PROJECT -- IT WAS COMING UP FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THE BALANCE ON THE REPORT WAS NOT THE BALANCE SHE HAD AVAILABLE. WE HAVE TO MOVE MONIES AROUND. I EXPLAINED THAT TO BOTH OF THEM. WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND REQUESTED THAT COLUMN. WE SEPARATED THE REPORTS OUT. IT JUST HADN'T

BEEN DONE YET. >> THIS REQUEST WILL PUT US ALL ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE SAME NUMBERS. EVERYONE WILL HAVE THE

SAME NUMBERS. >> THESE ARE COUNTYWIDE PROJECTS. THEY DO TAKE ARPA FUNDS.

>> EXACTLY. WE HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THE NUMBERS.

[01:40:10]

WHEN I ASKED LOU, SHE SAID IT IS TERESA STILL. WHEN I ASK YOU, IT TURNS OUT TO BE A DIFFERENT NUMBER. I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. I KNOW IT IS NOT EASY WHEN WE DO THINGS DIFFERENTLY. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO STRESS ON THE POSITIONS -- I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER GONZALES AND CHESNEY DID ALLOCATE MONIES TOWARDS POSITIONS . I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN IS IT MIGHT BE A SET AMOUNT THAT IS YEARLY, THAT IS NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OVER TIME OR ANY SICK OR OVER 96 HOURS THAT WE HAVE TO DISPERSE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. DALE CAN EXPLAIN THIS. AS FAR AS PAYROLL IS CONCERNED.

>> THE AMOUNTS GIVEN FOR ANY POSITION DON'T INCLUDE BENEFITS AND THE SECOND ALL OF THAT.

>> IT DOES NOT INCLUDE -- I DID NOT CALCULATE OVERTIME . WE

NEED TO PAY THOSE OUT. >> THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL COST.

WE ALSO NEED THOSE NUMBERS FOR OUR COUNTYWIDE ALLOCATION BECAUSE WE AREN'T GETTING TRUE AMOUNTS OF WHAT WE HAVE

AVAILABLE. >> AND WORKDAY, I DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORIZATION. I KNOW THAT THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE IS CONSUMED WITH THE PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE CURRENTLY. I HAVE REACHED OUT TO HR AND I DON'T GET THAT INFORMATION.

>> HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO WE STILL HAVE ON ARPA?

>> WE CURRENTLY HAVE THREE. >> AND TWO OF THEM ARE CONSTABLES THAT ARE WORKING ALL KINDS OF HOURS THAT ARE VERY

DIFFERENT. >> THEY CAN WORK OVERTIME.

>> BUT THE BENEFIT ON THE ACCUMULATED BENEFITS --

>> AND WE PAY THAT OUT WHEN THIS JOB ENDS -- THE ARPA

POSITION. >> YEAH. SO WE NEED TO QUICKLY THAT INTO THE COST, IF WE ARE NOT ALLOWING OVERTIME, WE CAN CALCULATE THE BENEFITS, THE CUMULATIVE.

>> IT IS HARD TO PIN DOWN AN EXACT AMOUNT, BUT WE CAN GET AN ESTIMATE. A 40 HOUR WEEK. SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN HAVING

- - THERE.A ZERO IN THEIR. >> I DID PUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT

FOR IT IN CASE. >> WELL, LET ME BE CLEAR, TOO.

ONCE THAT MONEY RUNS OUT IN THAT COLUMN, THEY ARE OUT. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ARPA POSITION ALLOCATED BY A CERTAIN

AMOUNT. >> AND I HAVE EMAILED HR TO START TELLING ALL OF THESE EMPLOYEES THAT TIME IS COMING UP, AND THERE IS A CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION THAT I NEED AS

FAR AS ARPA IS CONCERNED. >> 8. OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT, MAY 22ND, WE NEED THOSE TWO DIFFERENT REPORTS. THE OBLIGATED EXPENSES AND THE SEPARATION FROM GRANT WORKS AND THE GRANT DEPARTMENT AND COUNTY DEPARTMENT.

>> OKAY. I BELIEVE I HAVE SENT THAT THIS MORNING. THANK YOU.

>> ITEM NUMBER 9. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING THE SELECTION OF I.C.E. ENGINEERS FOR COUNTY 44 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT PROJECT, COMMISSION PRECINCT 3 ARPA ALLOCATION.

>> THIS IS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE COUNTY , THE NUECES COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NUMBER 2 AND THE CITY OF ROCKS DOWN.

[10. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Work Authorization No.6 in the amount $31,461.00 with International Consulting Inc. (ICE) under Master Service Contract No. 20230259-4/26 (RFQ 3232-23) for Engineering Services for County Road 44 Bridge Replacement Project and all related matters.]

>> EVERYONE HAS APPROVED IT. I WILL MAKE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED, SIMPSON. THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 10, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 6. AGAIN, WE HAVE THAT. IT IS A DIFFERENT PRODUCT, I GUESS, FOR 31,000 WITH I.C.E. UNDER MASTER SERVICE CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR COUNTY ROAD 44 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT.

>> MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ SECONDED THAT. ALL THOSE IN

FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE.

>> ALTHOUGH SUPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

>> WE ARE WORKING WITH I.C.E. ON THESE PROJECTS.

[01:45:01]

>> I.C.E. IS OUR MASTER SERVICE CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH WHOEVER THEY WORK WITH . WHATEVER THEY WORK WITH IS ALLOWED. CORRECT?

>> YES POINT >> MAY I ASK THE COURT TO SHOW

[11. Discuss and consider Allocating $300,000 to (ARPA) Oscar Ortiz Park Additions & Renovations Project from Commissioner Precinct 3 Un-Allocated ARPA funds.]

ME VOTING AYE ON ITEM 10? >> YES.

>> ITEM 11. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ALLOCATING 300,000 OF ARPA FUNDS FOR OSCAR ORTIZ PARK ADDITIONS AND RENOVATIONS PROJECT FROM COMMISSIONERS PRECINCT 3 ON A ALLOCATED ARPA

FUNDS. >> MOTION.

[12. Discuss and consider Un-allocating additional $984,029 of original $1,000,000 ARPA funds allocated for the Sunrise Pond Nature & Storytime Walking Trail ARPA Project Precinct 3; Re-allocate $237,600 to County Judge Un-allocated and $746,429 County Wide Un-allocated. Engineering and Construction cost combined are $15,971 short from $1,000,000 ARPA budgeted allocation for Precinct. 3.]

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ITEM NUMBER 12. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AN ALLOCATING THEY DID THE CONTRACT. WE ARE TAKING BACK THE COUNTYWIDE PORTION AND THE OTHER PORTION OF THOSE FUNDS, PUTTING THEM BACK IN

BOTH OF THOSE COLUMNS. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE

[13. Discuss and consider reallocating County-Wide ARPA funds in the amount of $209,132 for an Inclusive and Sensory Playground at the Keach Library that connects to the Sunrise Pond Nature & Storytime Walking Trail.]

. >> AYE.

>> THE MOTION PASSES. THE NEXT ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 13. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER REALLOCATING COUNTYWIDE ARPA FUNDS THAT WE JUST TOOK BACK IN THE AMOUNT OF $209,000 FOR AN INCLUSIVE AND SENSORY PLAYGROUND AT THE KEACH LIBRARY THAT CONNECTS TO THE SUNRISE POND NATURE & STORYTIME WALKING TRAIL.

>> SO MOVED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. AND DISCUSSION. >> FOR DISCUSSION, I MENTIONED THIS TO TERESA. DOES THIS ALLOW US TO GO TO THE COUNTYWIDE ARPA

FUNDS TO GET MONEY BACK? >> THIS IS WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON RIGHT HERE. THE ONLY HESITATION I WOULD HAVE IN THIS IS JUST WHAT WE FOUND OUT, AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE BETTER NUMBERS NEXT WEEK. I'M AFRAID WE HAVE OVEREXTENDED OURSELVES ALREADY, BUT, YES. THIS IS A COUNTYWIDE FUND THAT WE ALL VOTED ON. THIS ONE CAME BACK TO THE COUNTY, AND NOW HE IS ASKING US TO VOTE AGAIN TO GET $209,000.

>> YES. YES. YOU JUST HAVE TO BRING HIM TO COURT.

>> MAY I REQUEST THAT TERESA CONTACT ME IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES IN NUMBERS? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I AM BLINDSIDED WITH

SOME OF THIS. >> I'M SURE SHE WILL.

>> HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO REALLOCATE $209,000 OF THE COUNTYWIDE FUNDS TO HELP WITH THIS EXTENSION ON THE KEACH LIBRARY WALKING TRAIL POND PRINT ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY

[14. Discuss and consider Re-allocating $156,632.39 to (ARPA) Oil Belt Park Improvements Project from County Judge Un-Allocated ARPA funds.]

AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. HERE IS ITEM 14 POINT DISCUSS AND RECONSIDER REALLOCATING $156,632.39 TO OIL BUILT PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FROM UNALLOCATED FUNDS. THIS IS A SCENARIO OF WHAT OUR PROBLEM WAS BECAUSE WE WENT OUT FOR BIDS AND WE HAD THESE

ENGINEERING FEES. >> SHE JUST GOT SOME BACK AND

SHE IS ALREADY SPENDING IT. >> SECOND.

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

AYE. >> MY PROJECT CAME UNDER. I KNOW MY PROJECT IS UNIQUE, BUT EDWARD OR JUAN, IS THE MARKET OUT THERE A LITTLE BIT MORE FAVORABLE TO US WITH THE CONTRACTORS, OR DOES IT JUST DEPEND?

>> IN THE CASE OF THE TRAILS PROGRAM, WE HAD A SMALLER SCALE PROJECT. IT IS OUTSIDE THE STADIUM. WE CHOSE NOT TO DO

[01:50:05]

THAT. >> THAT IS HOW WE BROUGHT IT

DOWN. >> IT IS NOT NECESSARILY MARKET 1. OR DO YOU SEE THAT IN SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS WE ARE DOING? NOT OFFER RELATED BUT IN GENERAL?

>> WE SEE THAT THE COSTS ARE GOING UP.

>> SO IF WE WANT TO BRING IT DOWN, WE HAVE TO SCALE DOWN?

>> YES OR POINT >> THAT IS GOOD FOR ME TO KNOW, AND I THINK FOR THE COURT TO KNOW IN THE PUBLIC TO KNOW. WE CAN'T MAKE SAVINGS IF WE DO TRY TO READJUSTED. THAT IS MY COMMITMENT. THAT IS WHY I WAS EXCITED TO SEE THAT COST SAVINGS IN THE TRAIL. BUT, YEAH. WE HAVE OTHER NEEDS.

OBVIOUSLY, I SUPPORTED THE 300,000 FOR ORTIZ PARK TO COVER IT. WE WANT IT TO MEET THOSE PROJECTIONS THAT WE ORIGINALLY BUDGETED FOR. OBVIOUSLY, THE MARKET IS GOING UP.

>> AND I CAN'T EXPRESS ENOUGH THAT THESE CONTRACTS ARE GOING TO BE MOVING SO QUICKLY BECAUSE OF OUR DEADLINE. WE HAVE HAVE ACTUAL NUMBERS GOING FORWARD. WE NEED THOSE COLUMNS DONE WITH THE FACTS IN THERE. SO PLEASE WORK ON THAT BEFORE THE 22ND.

BUT WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THAT IS TO ALLOCATE THE 156,000 OF MONEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. THE MOTION

[15. Approve award and execution of a Construction Contractor Agreement with International Consulting Engineering (ICE) for construction of the Oil Belt Park Improvements project (IFB No. 3267-24), in the amount of $3,083,547.39; and related matters.]

PASSES. AND NUMBER 15. APPROVAL WORD AND EXECUTION OF A

[16. Discuss and consider allocation for the Animal Care Facility Project, and all other matters.]

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT. THIS WAS IN THE CONSENT AGENDA. WE PULLED IT HERE BECAUSE OF THE FUNDING CHANGE. I DIDN'T WANT TO AWARD SOMETHING BEFORE WE HAD THE FUNDING FOR IT. IT NORMALLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE CONSENT WITH THE REST OF THOSE. WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED THE CONTRACT.

WE ARE AWARDING AND NOTHING HAS CHANGED. NO PRICES OR ANYTHING.

I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

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

THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 16. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ALLOCATION FOR THE ANIMAL CARE FACILITY PROJECT AND ALL OTHER MATTERS. COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ, YOU PUT THIS ON.

>> I PUT IT . I DON'T KNOW. WE NEVER DECIDED WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE HAVE TO SPEND FOR ANIMAL CONTROL. I KNOW AT ONE POINT, WE HAD IT AT 4.2. I THINK ONE OF THOSE WAS THE COMMISSIONER AND MYSELF. WE MADE A MOTION .

IS A GOOD CLARIFICATION. FOR JUNE 21ST, THERE WAS A MOTION.

THE COUNCIL PAUSED ALL WORK WITH THE FACILITY PROJECT TO BRING IT BACK OCTOBER 11TH. AT THAT TIME, WE TABLED THE DISCUSSION REDUCING ALLOCATIONS FOR THE ANIMAL. UNTIL OCTOBER 25TH. IT WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER MAREZ .

IT BACK ON OCTOBER 25TH, AND SO IT SITS THERE. RIGHT? THAT IS WHY WE POINTED BACK. IT IS STILL IN MOTION. WE HAVEN'T DECIDED ON THE AMOUNT. BUT I WENT BACK AND LOOKED. I DON'T KNOW WHERE. AT ONE POINT, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GOT TO 3,000,048 372. THIS WAS MARCH 23RD. SO I DON'T KNOW . I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING WHERE WE GOT TO 3,000,048. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE AT. THE PEOPLE HERE THE FIRST TIME, THEY NEVER CAME BACK, EITHER, WITH THE DIAPHRAGM -- DIAGRAM. SO I DON'T KNOW. WHO ARE WE GOING TO GO WITH?

>> JUAN, CAN YOU COME UP TO THE PODIUM?

>> THIS IS WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO --

[01:55:01]

>> YOU ARE THE ONE THAT CAME TO THE OFFICE WITH THE PLANS, AND THAT IS WHEN WE LOOKED AT GETTING RID OF THE PARKING LOT

OR SOMETHING. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> WE ARE LOOKING AT OPTIONS TO DETERMINE THAT.

>> I THOUGHT WOULD CUT OUT THE BACK PARKING LOT. THAT IS HOW WE GOT IT THERE. IT WAS 300,000 OR SOMETHING.

>> THERE WERE PORTIONS IN FRONT OF THE PARKING LOT. THE ENTRANCE GOT CUT OUT. SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES GOT CUT OUT OR DELETED. ALSO, SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES IN THE BACK.

>> YES. >> IT WAS MOSTLY CIVIL WORK.

>> AND WE DID THAT BECAUSE OF NOT HAVING TO PAY THE ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING PRICES . WE COULD DELETE THOSE THINGS EASILY TO BRING THE PRICE DOWN. BUT WE NEVER

BROUGHT THAT TO COURT. >> NO, JUDGE. NOT THAT I

REMEMBER, JUDGE. >> I RECALLED THE CONVERSATION WAS THAT MY COMMITMENT WAS TO GO AND CUTBACK COSTS. THAT WAS WITH THE COURT'S KNOWLEDGE.

WITH THE MINUTES. I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SEE THOSE MEETINGS. THERE WERE TWO OR THREE CUTS AT ITS ALREADY. IF WE DIDN'T VOTE ON IT OR WE DIDN'T GET A FINAL VOTE, OR IF THERE WAS NOT A MOTION IN THEIR ALLOWED TO GO , THEN I GUESS THAT IS LEGAL -- PROCUREMENT SHOULD DIRECT US ON HOW TO APPROACH THIS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DID. THE JUDGE AND I MET WITH JUAN AND WE FOUND THAT, HEY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WILL NOT IMPACT THE PROJECT OVERALL, BUT IT CAN HAVE A BIG REDUCTION IN THE PRICE. THAT IS WHAT WE WANT WITH, IN KEEPING WITH THE COURTS OVERALL CONCERN OF COST

FOR THE PROJECT. >> OKAY. SO FROM PURCHASING PERSPECTIVE, NORMALLY, WHATEVER DECISIONS THE COURT NEEDS TO MAKE ON THE SIZE OF A PARTICULAR PROJECT, WHATEVER ADJUSTMENTS NEED TO HAPPEN, AND WHATEVER FUNDING SOURCES, TO BEAR TO MOVE THAT PROJECT FORWARD, ONCE THAT HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE COURT, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT PORTION OF IT. AT THE POINT IN TIME WHEN THE COURT APPROVES THE PROJECT, THEN JUAN, WORKING WITH THE ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT WORKING WITH THOSE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS COME TO ME, AND I WILL COME TO THE COURT AND ASK FOR PERMISSION TO BID.

SOMETIMES, QUITE FREQUENTLY, WE GET PERMISSION TO BID BEFORE THOSE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, BUT YOU HAVE A GENERAL IDEA OF WHAT THE FUNDING WILL BE FOR THE PROJECT. THAT IS NOT NORMALLY A BIG FORMALITY FOR ME ON THE BOARD. AND ACTUALLY, ON THIS PROJECT, ON APRIL 24TH, ITEM 3 D 2, THE COURT GAVE ME PERMISSION TO BID THIS PROJECT OUT. BUT I HAVE NOT CONSTRUCTED THAT BID DOCUMENT YET, SO WE ARE IN A HOLDING PATTERN. IF YOU NEED TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS, YOU'RE FREE TO DO THAT, MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE PROJECT.

YOU ARE FREE TO DO THAT. ONCE THOSE ARE FINALIZED, JUAN WILL GET WITH THE ENGINEER ARCHITECT AND GIVE YOU THE FINAL PLANS AND SPECS AND WE WILL ADVERTISE IT AT THAT TIME. I WON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO GET PERMISSION AGAIN TO BID OUT.

>> YOU MADE THE CHANGES FOR US WITH THE DESIGN PHASE WHEN HE MET WITH US ON THE PARKING LOT. RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WE NEVER DISCUSSED THE

PARKING LOT. >> WE TALKED PRICE,

COMMISSIONER. >> WE TALKED PRICE.

>> ALL I REMEMBER IS WE TALKED ABOUT GETTING IT UNDER 4 MILLION ON THE PRICE. I DON'T REMEMBER TALKING TO YOU MAY BE RIGHT. I'M NOT SAYING YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT I REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDING. I REMEMBER SAYING, WE ARE GOING TO GET UNDER 4 MILLION. THAT IS ALL I RECOLLECT. I COULD BE WRONG. IF THIS OPCC IS RIGHT, WE ARE WAY UNDER 4 MILLION.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE GOT THAT.

>> I GOT IT FROM -- >> YOU GOT IT FROM ME.

>> I GOT IT FROM JUAN. >> YES SIR.

>> I DON'T HAVE IT. >> IT'S LIKE, I'M SORRY. I

DON'T HAVE IT. >> I WENT AND ASKED FOR IT.

YEAH. EMILY ASKED FOR IT FOR ME BECAUSE I WANTED TO SEE WHERE

WE WERE AT ON THIS. >> AND THIS IS FROM DECEMBER OF 2022. AND HOW IS THIS, AT 3 MILLION, AND WE WERE AT 4.2 IN APRIL. IN THE JUNE MEETING. THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. DESPITE THE SPIRIT OF THE COURT WAS TO GET IT UNDER 4 MILLION, AND WE HAVE DONE THAT. BY ELIMINATING THE PARKING LOT ACCORDING TO JUAN'S BEST GUEST ESTIMATE, WE HAVE APPROVED IT TO GO OUT FOR BIDS. WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO?

>> WE CAN CLARIFY WHATEVER WE NEED TO.

[02:00:07]

>> JUST SEND IT OUT AND SEE IF WE GET A GOOD PRICE.

>> WE SEND IT OUT FOR BIDS WITH THIS. OR THE BID PACKAGE WOULD INCLUDE THIS, MINUS THE PARKING LOT, AND WITH THE OLD OPCC, WHICH IS PROBABLY HIGHER NOW BECAUSE PRICES HAVE GONE UP, BUT YOUR BEST GUESS AT THIS POINT IS WE SHOULD BE UNDER 4

MILLION, RIGHT? >> YES OR. BASED ON WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT. BASED ON THE MODIFICATIONS BUT I THINK WE

ESTIMATED 2.2, 2.3. >> WE CAN GO FORWARD AND SEE

WHAT WE GET. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GO WITH 3 MILLION IN EXPENDITURES FOR THE PROJECT. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, TOO, BUT STILL.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO LIMIT IT TO $3 MILLION. AND A SECOND

FROM COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ. >> TO ME, I'M THE FIRST TO TELL YOU THAT WHEN THIS STARTED -- AND WHEN IT STARTED, LET'S REMEMBER WHERE IT CAME FROM. IT WAS 8, 10, $12 MILLION. IT WAS

A HUGE NUMBER. >> NO. I'M NOT SAYING THAT NEGATIVELY. I'M SAYING THAT POSITIVELY. WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT DISH WE HAVE SHOWN THAT WE ARE A FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE COURT BY MAKING CHANGES ALREADY. WE HAVE REDUCED THIS SIGNIFICANTLY FROM WHERE WE STARTED. AND SO, THEREFORE, IT WAS KIND OF A COMPROMISE, AS I REMEMBER, BACK WHEN WE DID IT, TO GET ABOUT 3.8 OR 3.9. I DIDN'T LOVE IT BACK THEN. I'M NOT GOING TO GO AGAINST WHAT WE DID THEN, JUST, EVEN THOUGH I MIGHT THINK WE SHOULD, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL AGREED ON THAT GETTING IT UNDER 4 MILLION. ABOUT 3.8, JOHN. I CAN'T REMEMBER.

>> 3.8, 3.9. I THINK IT WAS 300,000.

>> JUAN TOLD US THAT WE WOULD GET RID OF THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT.

>> IT WAS $5.4 MILLION. YOU DID DOWNSIZE TO THE PROJECT BUDGET.

IT WAS 4.2. THE 200,000 CAME FROM COMMISSIONER MAREZ. IT WAS $4 MILLION. AND SO WHEN YOU BACK OUT OF WHAT IS ALREADY OBLIGATED ON IT, THERE IS $3.4 MILLION AVAILABLE. I KNOW YOU ARE SAYING $3 MILLION, BUT IT IT IS NOT LIKE A HUGE GAP.

>> IT IS 3.4 MILLION LESS AFTER ALL OF THAT.

>> WHEN YOU TAKE IT OUT. >> WE ARE ALREADY -- IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE PAID FOR HIM TO DESIGN IT. RIGHT. AND SO HE CAME UP WITH -- Y'ALL CAME UP WITH WHATEVER HE FELT WAS GOING TO GET US IN AT 3.8 RANGE, OR WHATEVER THEY DECIDED TO REDUCE IT BY. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER. THEN THEY WENT DOWN

AGAIN. >> YES.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE VOTED ON IT. BUT WE HAVE CUT OUT THE PARKING LOT, WHICH WAS GOING TO GET IT UNDER 4 MILLION, RIGHT? I THINK WE OUGHT TO LEAVE IT ALONE.

>> THAT WILL BE MORE MONEY. THAT IS GOING TO TAKE MORE TIME TO ACTUALLY REWORK THE DESIGN AND SHRINK IT OR MODIFY THE BUILDING ITSELF. WE WENT WITH THE LOWEST PAYING IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS THE PARK AREA. THAT CAME FROM JUAN'S SUGGESTION.

WITHOUT TOUCHING THE DESIGN -- I WANT TO HONOR THE COURTS REQUEST, WHICH WE HAVE DONE ALREADY AT LEAST TWICE, TO BRING THE PRICE DOWN DRAMATICALLY. AND WE DID THAT AND WITH JUAN'S HELP, HE SAID, HERE IS A PARKING LOT IN THE BACK THAT WE DON'T REALLY NEED. I AGREE. WE DON'T NEED THAT MUCH PARKING FOR THAT AREA. IT WAS PRETTY SIMPLE EXPLANATION AND SUGGESTION THAT HE GAVE. AND ONCE AGAIN, IT HONORED THE COURTS REQUEST TO DRAW DOWN THE PRICE BELOW THE $4 MILLION THRESHOLD. SO, I HAVE KEPT WITH THE COURTS REQUEST. I HAVE NEVER PUSHED BACK OR FOUGHT BACK ON THIS PROJECT AT ALL. I AGREE WITH EVERYONE THAT WE NEED TO TIGHTEN OUR BELTS ON EVERY PROJECT, AND NOT SPEND AS MUCH AS WE CAN OR SHOULD. IT CAME WITH JUAN'S RECOMMENDATION. I THOUGHT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE AN EASY FIX, AND EASY COMPROMISE, AND ONCE AGAIN, I WORRY THAT WE TOUCH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING COACH -- IT CAN THROW ANYTHING UP IN THE AIR.

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR THREE YEARS NOW, AT LEAST. IF NOT MORE. IT HAS BEEN QUITE A WILD. WE HAVE ALL THE DISCUSSIONS AND PLANNING PRESENTATIONS. WHEN I HAVE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION ON THIS FROM THE MEDIA AND OTHERS MONITORING THIS ISSUE, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO EMAILS FROM 2021 AND 2022. IT HAS BEEN QUITE A WHILE THAT WE HAVE BEEN ON THIS. WE ARE ALMOST THERE. WE ARE MONITORING THE REQUEST TO MAKE A MORE CONSERVATIVE BUDGET. WE HAVE DONE THAT. WE

[02:05:01]

NEED YOUR APPROVAL TO ACCEPT THIS. IT IS A PRETTY ACCURATE

ESTIMATE. WHAT IS THE AMOUNT? >> I KNOW IT IS 3.2. I WOULD SAY IT IS 3.3. JUST AROUND IT OUT.

>> WHAT TERESA IS SAYING WE'VE ONLY GOT 3.4 LEFT. THAT IS WHAT TERESA IS SAYING. I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO OUT FOR BIDS. THE WAY IT IS, AND HOPE IT COMES IN UNDER 3.4.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ, I KNOW HOW YOU FEEL, AND I AGREE. I SYMPATHIZE WITH YOU.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN A SECOND.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW,

>> THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE.

>> THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE . >> WHATEVER THE EXACT AMOUNT

AVAILABLE. >> THAT IS ALL WE CAN SPEND, ANYWAY. LET'S JUST MOVE FORWARD. WE WILL HAVE TO BRING IT BACK OR NOT APPROVE IT. I DON'T THINK WE NEED A LIMITED

AMOUNT ON IT. >> DID THE MOTION CHANGE?

>> >> COMMISSIONER GONZALES IS

STILL TALKING. >> IT IS NOT EVEN 3.

>> IT IS 4. >> WE DON'T SET 6. ESPECIALLY UNTIL WE GET BACK NEXT WEEK WITH TRUE ACTION -- ENABLE THAT UP RIGHT THERE. THAT IS A QUICK NUMBER. WE HAVE ABOUT THAT MUCH. I HATE TO SET EXACT NUMBERS BECAUSE WE ARE GOING OUT FOR BID. I MEAN, LET'S COME BACK IF IT IS MORE THAN THAT, WE VOTE AGAINST IT. WE CHANGE IT UP SOME. WE VALUE THE ENGINEER. WHATEVER WE DO THE READING ELSE.

>> SO LET ME SEE. GO OUT FOR BIDS ON THE HILLTOP THERE AND

SEE WHAT WE GET. >> YEAH. WHAT IS THE

DIFFERENCE? >> WE DID. WE DIDN'T HAVE

ENOUGH MONEY. >> WE DID GO OUT FOR BIDS FOR

THEM. >> IT WAS TOO MUCH.

>> YES. >> NOT THE WAY IT IS. I DON'T

SUPPORT THAT. >> WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT WITH THE ITEM RIGHT HERE. IT IS THE ANNUAL CARE FACILITY.

DO YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOUR MOTION? YOU HAVE THE MOTION. ARE YOU SICKENING? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. >> NO.

>> YOU ARE A NO? >> OKAY. THE MOTION FAILS. SO NOW, WE DON'T NEED A MOTION BECAUSE WE HAVE APPROVED TO GO OUT TO BID FROM LAST TIME. THERE IS NO MOTION NECESSARY.

>> RIGHT. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL NEED FROM THE COURT TO MOVE FORWARD. WE WILL BRING BACK WHATEVER THE BIDS ARE.

>> WE HAVE THE SET AMOUNT THAT WE CAN SPEND. THE 3.4 OR

WHATEVER EXACT AMOUNT IT IS. >> RIGHT. I WOULD OFFER SOME ADVICE, MAYBE. WHEN WE ARE SPEAKING ABOUT PROJECTS AND ALLOCATING MONIES, I LIKE ROUND NUMBERS IS FINE. WHEN YOU GET REAL SPECIFIC AND START TALKING ABOUT OPC SEE , I DON'T LIKE TALKING ABOUT THAT BEFORE PUTTING A BIT UP. WE ARE GOING TO ISOLATE THE NUMBERS WE ARE GOING TO GET.

>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT. >> IT IS PUBLIC RECORD, THOUGH.

ANY DOCUMENT HE PRODUCES IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.

>> REALLY, YOU ARE LIMITED TO SPEND WHAT IS AVAILABLE. YOU GUYS WILL MAKE THAT DECISION WHEN THE TIME COMES. THEN SEND IT BACK FOR ENGINEERING IF WE NEED TO BRING IT DOWN OR BRING

[19. Discuss and consider the following clarification on existing court policy and all related matters. All agenda items that are submitted by any member of the commissioners court must have back up and proper wording to properly notify the public of the substance of the agenda item to be discussed. The County Judge or acting County Judge shall have the authority to take the agenda item off the agenda if, after asking for the back-up, none is provided. This policy is clearly articulated by anyone else that submits an agenda item.]

IT BACK FOR BIDS. YOU HAVE ALL OF THAT AFFORDED TO EACH TIME WE BRING OUT A BIT, SO THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> ITEM NUMBER 19, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING CLARIFICATION ON EXISTING COURT POLICY AND ALL RELATED MATTERS. THE AGENDA ITEMS, COMMISSIONER

CHESNEY, THIS IS YOUR ITEM. >> IT IS PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATOR Y. IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER, PROVIDED THE BACKUP INDICATED THE COURT DESIGNATED THE AGENDA CLERK RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPILING THE ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA. IT IS A SIMPLE THING. I THOUGHT IT WAS ALREADY OUT THERE, HONESTLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS OUT THERE FOR

SOMEONE POINT >> WE HAVE SOMEONE -- INTO MY OFFICE TAKES CARE OF THAT AND CONTACTS EVERYONE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE BACKUP. WE TRY TO GET BACK UP CALLED CONSISTENTLY TO GET BACK UP. LET ME BE CLEAR. I'M WORRIED ABOUT THIS ONE, AND EVEN IF IT MOVES FORWARD, IF WE CREATE A POLICY, THE TEXAS STATUTE SAYS THAT ANYONE OF THESE COMMISSIONERS AND MYSELF HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

IF YOU ALL VOTE, I WOULD LIKE FOR THIS TO BE UNANIMOUS, AND I STILL HAVE INSTRUCTED MY STAFF, IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, WE ARE

[02:10:03]

CALLING THE COMMISSIONER TO REMOVE THAT ITEM. WE WILL NOT REMOVE COMMISSIONER ITEMS FROM OUR AGENDA.

>> THERE IS NO POINT IN DOING IT IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT.

>> THE TEXAS LAW SAYS WE HAVE TO POST IT CLEARLY, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE BACKUP FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE. IF WE ARE VIOLATING TEXAS LAW BY NOT DOING THAT, ALL THIS POLICY DOES IS BRING US INTO CONJUNCTION WITH TEXAS LAW BECAUSE WE ARE VIOLATING IT BY NOT POSTING IT PROPERLY. THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

>> WE USUALLY TABLE IT. >> WE ARE VIOLATING THE LAW.

>> OKAY. >> BUT LET'S SEE.

>> LET PEOPLE VOTE ON THAT. IF THE POLICY FAILS, WE CAN VIOLATE THE LAW. WE ARE NOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS.

THIS ISN'T RIGHT, WHAT WE ARE DOING.

>> I DO UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT ON WHAT WE POST,

LEGALLY. I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> THAT IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

>> WHERE DOES THE LINE GET DRAWN? HOW DO WE DO THAT?

>> UNDER TEXAS LAW, EACH MEMBER OF THE COURT MUST BE PERMITTED TO PLACE ON THE AGENDA ANY ITEM OF ITS CHOOSING. THAT IS GOING FROM THE SUPREME COURT CASE. THE COURT COULD ADOPT POLICIES . THAT IS WHAT THE TEXAS LAW REQUIRES.

>> WHAT DOES THE TEXAS THOUGHT REQUIRED IN REGARDS TO POSTING? EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO IT. THERE IS A LAW THAT SAYS

YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT. >> REGARDING POSTING YOUR OBLIGATIONS UNDER 551, UNDER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT RELATED TO A BACKUP UNDER 551 , BUT 551 REQUIRES THAT THERE BE SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC SO THE NOTICE CAN HAVE A REASONABLE UNDERSTANDING OF

WHAT ITEM WILL BE DISCUSSED. >> SO WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. WE ARE POSTING THINGS -- THERE ARE THINGS ON HERE THAT DON'T HAVE BACKUP. IT IS NOT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC. HOW DO WE OVERCOME THAT? IF THIS ISN'T THE WAY, TELL ME HOW THE WAY IS. I'M TIRED OF GETTING ITEMS WITH NO BACKUP, AND THEN EVERYONE GETS MAD BECAUSE I ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM. WE HAVE NO BACKUP.

AND THEN WE END UP TABLING THEM. WE ARE NOT SHOWING THE PUBLIC WHAT WE ARE DOING. WE ARE NOT DOING THIS RIGHT. THIS ISN'T TRANSPARENT. THIS ISN'T OPEN POINT WE ARE DOING IT REGULARLY. WE GRIPED ABOUT IT WITH THE PRIOR JUDGE WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE BUT WE ALL CORRECT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THAT IS WITH THE PRIOR JUDGE DID ALL THE TIME, AND NOW WE ARE DOING IT AGAIN OURSELVES WHEN WE GRIPED ABOUT THE FACT THAT -- SO HOW DO WE NOT PASS THE POLICY THAT WE ALL COMPLAINED ABOUT IN THE PAST WHEN IT WAS A PRIOR JUDGE DOING IT? AND NOW WE ARE DOING IT SOME, AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT, AND YOU KNOW WHAT? I MESSED UP A COUPLE OF TIMES. I TABLED MY OWN BECAUSE I INADVERTENTLY DIDN'T GET MY BACKUP IN. IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL, BUT I TABLED IT BECAUSE IT WAS THE WRONG THING TO HAVE ON THERE I'M JUST TRYING TO GET SUMMING ON HERE THAT SAYS WE CAN'T DO IT, AND THE JUDGE CAN PULL IT OFF IF IT IS NOT DONE CORRECTLY.

>> MY BIGGEST PROBLEM IS WE CONTACT AROUND TO TRY TO GET THIS DONE. WE ARE CONTACTING PEOPLE. THIS HAS TO BE POSTED FRIDAY BY 4:00. WE ARE CONTACTING PEOPLE FRIDAY AT 3:00. WE ARE WAITING ON THIS STUFF ALL THE TIME.

>> AND YOU'RE HERE AT 8:00 AT NIGHT TO GET THE AGENDA OUT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT BACKUP. I'M TIRED OF NOT GETTING MY BACKUP TILL SATURDAY OR SUNDAY BECAUSE I'M NOT TELLING MY ASSISTANCE TO SIT HERE WAITING FOR THE AGENDA TO GET DONE BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T GETTING BACKUP IN RIGHT.

THAT'S NOT RIGHT. LET'S JUST DO IT RIGHT.

>> WHAT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? DO WE POLICE OURSELVES? SHOULD YOU ALL HAVE SOME PART OF THE PROCESS? I KNOW THE JUDGE DOES EVERYTHING NEEDED. I AM CONCERNED WITH THE SPIRIT THAT THIS TAKES US INTO. THAT MAKES IT SEEM ARBITRARY. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE SHOULD FOLLOW WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES , BUT ALSO, I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT TO WHERE IT IS NITPICKING OR BECAUSE I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT PARTICULAR ITEM THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE IT REMOVED. BUT I DO THINK WE DO -- NOT THAT WE DO -- WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE BACKUP SO THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS.

>> THE OFFICE COMES INTO PLAY WITH THE JUDGE. SHOULD WE RELY

ON THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE? >> UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, IT SEEMS TO REMEDY WHEN THERE IS INSUFFICIENT NOTICE. WHEN THERE IS INSUFFICIENT NOTICE, YOU WILL VOTE ON THE ITEM OR YOU WILL TABLE THE ITEM SO THE ITEM DOESN'T GET DISCUSSED. THE WORDING GETS READJUSTED AND RE-CENTERED ANOTHER DAY. THERE IS A PROCEDURE IN 551 TO DISCUSS THE SETTING OF AN ITEM.

THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL DO. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. THAT IS WHAT EVERYONE HERE HAS BEEN SAYING DURING THIS DISCUSSION. THAT REMEDIES THAT SITUATION REGARDING THE

[02:15:01]

PLACEMENT OF AN ITEM. THAT IS THE PLACEMENT OF THE BACKUP.

THAT IS A POLICY THAT THE COURT HAS, BUT THAT ISN'T REQUIRED UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. IT SEEMS LIKE GENERALLY, THE ITEMS ARE BEING POSTED ON MOST OF THE ITEMS.

>> IT CAN BE BACKGROUND. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE 14 PAGES OF BACKUP. IT CAN BE A BACKHAND THAT CLEARLY ARTICULATES IT.

>> POLICING YOURSELF. YOUR STAFF SHOULD BE POLICING YOU. IN THE FUTURE, YOU ALL KNOW THE RULES. WE KNOW THE RULES BUT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO CONTACT YOU IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE IT, JUST GETS MOVED TO THE NEXT MEETING.

>> I AGREE. >> OKAY.

>> SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CALL ANYBODY ANYMORE. WE ARE JUST GOING TO TABLE IT, RIGHT? THAT IS THE PROBLEM. WE ARE WAITING.

I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO GET MY AGENDA. I READ MY AGENDA OVER THE WEEKEND. IF I DON'T GET MY AGENDA TILL SATURDAY OR SUNDAY BECAUSE DOLLAR APPEAR UNTIL 8:00 AT NIGHT AND I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE MY ASSISTANT SIT HERE, AND YOU SHOULDN'T

EITHER, JUDGE. >> THE BIGGER ISSUE FOR ME WITH THAT IS WE HAVE DEPARTMENTS THAT TURN THEIRS IN THAT I HAVE TO APPROVE. THEY HAVE EIGHT DAYS OUT. 5 P.M. YOU ALL HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TIME TO TURN YOURS IN. WE LIMIT THAT TO ONCE THEY

AT 5:00. >>

SPEAKERS ] >> PEOPLE STILL PUT THEM IN AT 3:00 AND 4:00. WE ARE STILL THERE AT THE LAST MINUTE. I WOULD SAY, IT NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, THURSDAY AT 5:00.

THURSDAY. IT NEEDS TO BE TIME SO THAT WE -- AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU HAVE OTHER MEETINGS AND YOU HAVE PLACES TO GO, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE HAVE MEETINGS AND MY OFFICE, AS WELL. I HAVE OTHER OBLIGATIONS THAT I HAVE TO LEAVE FOR, TOO.

IT IS VERY DIFFICULT WITH THIS TO TRY TO BE FAIR TO EVERYBODY,

SO I WOULD LIKE SOME -- >> WHEN IS THE DEADLINE FOR DEPARTMENT HEADS? TUESDAY AT 5:00.

>> AND WHEN DO YOU DO AGENDA REVIEW?

>> WHENEVER WE CAN FIT IT IN. >> AND HOW CAN THE DEADLINE BE THURSDAY AT 5:00 IF YOU'RE DOING AGENDA REVIEW?

>> IT NEEDS TO BE THURSDAY AT NOON THEN.

>> THURSDAY AT NOON, WE CAN DO AGENDA REVIEW THURSDAY AFTERNOON IF WE HAVE ANY BACKUPS OR THINGS THAT WE NEED TO REVIEW BEFORE WE CAN DO IT ON THURSDAY. THURSDAY AFTERNOON

I CAN LIVE WITH. >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT THE DEADLINE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO SUBMIT THEIR ITEMS WITH THEIR BACKGROUND OR BACKUP WOULD BE

THURSDAY AT NOON . >> JUDGE, IF I MAY SAY

SOMETHING. >> YES.

>> I SECOND THAT FOR DISCUSSION.

>> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. THE VOTERS PUT US HERE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COUNTY. AND WE, AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, SHOULD ACT RESPONSIBLE AND GET EVERYTHING THAT THE COURT NEEDS TO MAKE THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT HAPPEN. IF WE DON'T, THEN IT'S OUR FAULT. WHEN IT COMES UP, IT NEEDS TO BE

TABLED. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND FOR COMMISSIONERS TO TURN IN ITEMS FOR OUR POLICIES BY THURSDAY, NOON, BEFORE THE POSTING ON

FRIDAY. >> YES. I GUESS, IS THAT FOUR DAYS OUT? FIVE DAYS OUT? I GUESS THE OTHER IS EIGHT DAYS OUT. HOW MANY DAYS IS THAT? SOMETIMES WE HAVE SPECIAL MEETINGS. WE HAVE TO DO IT BY NUMBER OF DAYS. WEDNESDAY IS

THE MEETING. TUESDAY. >> WHAT ARE YOU ASKING?

>> IT IS EIGHT DAYS ON TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY. THAT IS

SIX DAYS. >> WE SAID THURSDAY BY NOON?

>> IF THE OTHER IS EIGHT DAYS.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE WANT THIS AT NOON.

[02:20:04]

IF THERE IS A BILL THAT HAS TO BE PAID OR A CONTRACT WE ARE GOING TO LOSE, IT WILL COST THE COUNTY MONEY THAT SOMEONE DID

NOT GET APPROVED. >> EXCUSE ME, JUDGE. ONE MORE QUESTION. SOMETIMES, WE GET REQUESTS FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ASKING US TO, LIKE WE DID THIS MORNING, BUT A PRESENTATION FOR THEIR SPA, FOOTBALL TEAM , THAT HAS EXCELLED. IT DOESN'T MEAN EXACTLY WHEN WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IT. CAN WE TELL THEM, WELL, IT'S GOT TO BE FOR THE

FOLLOWING WEEK? >> FOR THE NEXT MEETING, YES.

WE TELL PEOPLE THAT ALL THE TIME WHEN IT'S TOO LATE. WE SAY WE CAN GET YOU ON THE AGENDA. WE WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE YOUR ORGANIZATION BECAUSE IT'S A GREAT THING, BUT WE CAN'T GET IT ON THIS WEEK'S AGENDA. IT WILL HAVE TO BE THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING. AND THEN WE HAVE TRIED, AS COMMISSIONERS HAVE ASKED ME TO KEEP THAT DOWN, I KNOW IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT WITH A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP OUR MEETINGS FROM BEING

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

[20. Discuss and consider discussions with the City of Corpus Christi regarding use of the 1/8 cents sales tax and consider moving forward to request an election and to receive public input, such as various public meetings in different parts throughout Nueces County, for the appropriate use of that sales tax with the city or without the city if the city rejects the county’s request to partner with the city and all related matters.]

VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 20. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI REGARDING THE USE OF 1/8 CENT SALES TAX . COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, I KNOW THIS IS YOUR ITEM AGENDA AND I KNOW YOU'RE JUST WANTING --

>> JUDGE, I THINK YOU AND COMMISSIONER MAREZ MET WITH THE CITY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION OR HOW YOU WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE, AND I ACTUALLY READ SOMETHING TODAY THAT I THINK THE COURT NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF BECAUSE WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT -- WHAT IS THAT?

>> I GOT THIS TODAY THAT I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING AND I NEED TO FIND IT, BUT THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THAT THIS POTENTIALLY GENERATES FOR WHOEVER GETS IT BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO 1/8 CENT SALES TAX -- IT IS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD NOT LOOK AT PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE IN THE VEIN OF WHAT COMMISSIONER HERNANDEZ WAS SAYING EARLIER ABOUT TRYING TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL REVENUE, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT , AND I'M TRYING TO SAY THIS AS NICE AS I CAN. I FAILED MISERABLY BEFORE. I DON'T THINK IT INCLUDED PEOPLE ALL OVER THE COUNTY. THERE WASN'T PUBLIC INPUT. THERE WASN'T SAY ON WHAT WE HAD. HAD CAUSED SAYING THAT THE COUNTY SHOULD TRY TO GRAB THIS AND USE THIS FOR DRAINAGE FOR ROADS FOR DIFFERENT THINGS THAT I THINK COULD BE A POSITIVE FOR THIS COUNTY, AND CERTAINLY, I WOULD PREFER TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY AND NOT HAVE A COMPETING BALLOT INITIATIVE ON THE AGENDA WERE ON THE BALLOT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF THEY SAY, NO, THEY DON'T WANT TO PARTNER, THEN TO ME, AT LEAST, IT IS A NO LOSE PROPOSITION FOR THIS COUNTY TO AT LEAST TRY BECAUSE IF THERE'S FAILS AND OURS PASSES, WE GET IT. THAT'S BILLIONS OF DOLLARS POTENTIALLY THAT THESE TWO 1/8 CENTS SALES TAX PROPOSALS REPRESENT. AND AT THE CITY KEEPS PUTTING PREPOSITIONS -- I DON'T MEAN THIS RUDELY, BUT IF THEY KEEP OUT -- PUTTING OUT PROPOSITIONS THAT THE CITIZENS DON'T PASS, WHY WOULDN'T WE WANT TO PUT SOMETHING THAT THE CITIZENS THINK IS A GOOD IDEA. I WILL PUT THAT OUT THERE FOREVER WANT

TO SPEAK ON. >> OUR FIRST MEETING WE ATTENDED, THEY WERE NOT VERY HAPPY WITH US BECAUSE WE DIDN'T CALL THEM AND ASK FOR A MEETING OR SET IT UP. WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, AND I THINK THEY WERE KIND OF BLINDSIDED BY IT.

SO UNDERSTANDABLY, THEY WERE A LITTLE FRUSTRATED. THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE ALREADY GONE FORWARD. THEY ARE INVESTING MONEY. THEY HAVE PLANS AND DEADLINES AND THINGS TO MEET. THEY HAVE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. IMPORTANT ITEMS THAT THEY FEEL LIKE WILL PASS. TO ME, I THINK IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT IT FEELS BEFORE. MY ARGUMENT TO THEM POSSIBLY AND NEGOTIATIONS WOULD'VE BEEN MORE LIKE, LET'S TRY IT AGAIN IF IT FAILS. MAYBE WE COME IN AND DO IT OUR WAY OR SOMETHING. DID YOU GET ANYTHING DIFFERENT OUT OF THAT, COMMISSIONER MAREZ, AND THE MEETING WE WANT

[02:25:06]

TO? THEY WOULD'VE PREFERRED A SITDOWN BEFORE IT WAS ON OUR

AGENDA. >> THEY MADE IT VERY CLEAR.

>> THAT WAS EXPLAINED, BUT I MEAN, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE THERE THAT I DON'T THINK GOT RESOLVED. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED CLARIFICATION. THEY MAY HAVE LEGAL QUESTIONS ON THAT. YOU WERE THERE.

NUECES COUNTY. SO I HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION ON THIS.

>> YES POINT REGARDING THE LEGAL QUESTIONS, WE WOULD, REQUESTED THAT THOSE BE ASKED DURING X ACTIVE SESSION ON THIS

ITEM. >> IT WON'T TAKE LONG.

>> AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY SOUNDED LIKE THEY WANTED TO WORK WITH US ON SOME OTHER THINGS, OR WORK IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK THEY FELT LIKE THEY WERE TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD ON

THIS PROJECT. >> AND THAT IS WHAT MY QUESTION

TIES INTO. >> SORRY. OKAY. I WILL PULL

[21. Discuss and consider upcoming Commissioners Court meeting date(s), workshop date(s), and related matters.]

3A20 INTO EXECUTIVE AND WE WILL COME BACK AND DISCUSS IT IF WE NEED TO. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO SAY?

>> NO. >> 21 POINT DISCUSS AND CONSIDER UPCOMING COMMISSIONER COURT MEETING DATES, WORKSHOP DATES, AND RELATED MATTERS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ?

[1. Ratify the submission of a no-match grant application to the Texas Book Festival.]

THERE IS NOTHING NECESSARY. ITEM B 1. RATIFY THE SUBMISSION

[2. Accept a grant award from the United Way of the Coastal Bend’s, Emergency Food and Shelter Program, Phase 41, for Nueces County Social Services.]

OF A NO MUCH GRANT APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS BOOK FESTIVAL.

>> I MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

ITEM B 2. EXCEPT A GRANT AWARD FROM THE UNITED WAY OF THE

[1. Discuss and consider execution of Work Authorization No. 3 with Turner Ramirez Architects for the Calderon Health and Wellness Center Renovation project.]

COASTAL BEND'S EMERGENCY FOOD AND SHELTER PROGRAM, PHASE 41, FOR NUECES COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES.

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

>> AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

>> DISCUSS AND CONSIDER EXECUTION OF WORK AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 3 WITH TURNER RAMIREZ ARCHITECTS FOR THE CALDER ON HEALTH AND WELLNESS CENTER RENOVATION PROJECT. THIS IS YOURS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY

[2. Approve method of procurement (request for proposals), under Local Government Code 262.0295, for Janitorial Services; authorize Purchasing Agent to publish a notice; and adopt an Order delegating selection to an Evaluation Committee.]

AYE. >> AYE.

>> IT IS IN THE NOTES. IT IS OUT OF PRECINCT 2. WE VOTED,

RIGHT? >> SORRY.

>> C 2. APPROVED METHOD OF PROCUREMENT. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 262.35.

MICHAEL, DESPERATE >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION THAT SHOULD BE 262 POINT 30. IT IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. IT IS OUR NORMAL PRACTICE FOR RFPS. DISCUSSED IT

WITH JENNY AND FRANCISCO. >> LAST YEAR, WE CUT THIS BACK BECAUSE OF OUR BUDGET. IS THIS THE SAME THING? IS THIS A CHANGE OR ANYTHING TO THIS? THE CONTRACT?

>> I THINK JUAN WANTED US TO GO OUT TO THE MARKET AND SEE WHAT

WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US. >> OPEN IT UP.

>> THE CONTRACT WAS COMING TO US, AND IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNTY TO OPT OUT. WE ARE TRYING TO DOSE

>> ARE WE GOING TO ADD IN MORE OF THAT WITH OUR PROPOSAL WHEN WE GO OUT ? WOULD WE GO BACK TO MORE SERVICES THAT WE HAD BEFORE? I KNOW IT WAS A BAD TIME, WHAT WE DID, BUT I KNOW IT IS THE CLEANING SERVICES HERE. THEY NEED HELP. IT IS

WHAT WE HAVE TO DO LAST YEAR. >> THAT IS CORRECT. SO I WILL

MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> DO I HAVE A MOTION AT A SECOND?

>> CAN I MAKE A REQUEST ON 3 C 1?

>> LET'S FINISH THIS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. AND YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT C DIG ONE -- 1.

MICROPHONE POINT >> I'M SORRY.

>> AS IT CHANGES IN THE AMOUNT. >> AS IT CHANGES IN DESIGN?

>> THE AMOUNT STAYS THE SAME. >> AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS ALREADY APPROVED THAT?

>> YES MA'AM. >> I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE.

INAUDIBLE ] >> ARE YOU STAYING OKAY?

>> WHICH ITEM IS THIS? >> SEE DIG -- C 1.

[1. Discuss and consider conditional selection of Keith Skoruppa for Farmland Lease for County Airport (IFB No. 3274-24); and related matters.]

[02:30:12]

>> WE DON'T NEED TO BRING IT BACK.

>> SORRY, JUDGE. >> THAT'S OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ITEM D 1. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF KEITH'S SCORE ABOVE FOR FARM LAND LEASE.

[2. Discuss and consider conditional selection of ARGIO Roofing & Construction, LLC for the Courthouse Roof Improvement Project (IFB No. 3264-24); and related matters.]

>> I WILL MOVE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

THERE ARE ONLY THREE OF US IN HERE.

>> I'M GOOD. >> OKAY. ITEM D 2. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF ARGIO ROOFING AND CONSTRUCTION FOR THE COURTHOUSE ROOF IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. I THINK YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT, DON'T YOU, MICHAEL?

>> YES. WE RECEIVED FOUR BIDS ON THIS PROJECT, AND WE RECEIVED THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ARGIO ROOFING. THEIR BID IS WITHIN THE PROJECT BUDGET, I UNDERSTAND. WE HAD ONE BITTER -- BIDDER THAT DID NOT SIGN THEIR BID. THEY ALSO DID NOT SIGN THE BID RESPONSE. WE HAD ONE OTHER BIDDER THAT WAS IN BETWEEN WHICH WAS RGT ROOFING. THEY DID NOT SPECIFY SKYLIGHTS IN THEIR BID, AND THAT IS A PORTION OF THIS PROJECT. THE ONLY ONE THEY COULD FEEL COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING WAS ARGIO. THE MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY HAVE BEEN ON SAM.GOV FOR 15 YEARS. BUT WE HAVE $1 MILLION WORTH OF SKYLIGHTS BECAUSE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARGIO AND THEM IS $1 MILLION.

IF IT'S $1 MILLION, WE NEED TO CAN THE SKYLIGHTS. WHAT THE

HECK? >> ON THAT, COMMISSIONER, THE RBT SUBMITTAL DID NOT HAVE AN ALLOWANCE IN THEIR SCHEDULE OF

VALUES. >> THEY DIDN'T HAVE WHAT?

>> AN ALLOWANCE. THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE THAT IS PART OF THE

BID. >> ALLOWANCE FOR WHAT?

>> THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR --

>> EVEN A CONTINGENCY? >> YES SIR. THERE IS A

CONTINUANCE IN THERE. >> AND HOW MUCH DID THEY HAVE?

>> WHAT THE ENGINEER DID WAS THEY INCLUDED APPROXIMATELY $800,000 CONTINGENCY IN THE CONTRACT. THERE IS ALSO ANOTHER ITEM THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED, AND THE LIGHTING PROTECTION WAS NOT INCLUDED, ALSO, IN THE PROPOSAL. IN THE SCHEDULE OF VALUES. THERE WERE TWO ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE.

SO THE ONLY ONE THAT HEADED COMPLETE WAS ARGIO.

>> WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE OTHER TWO? NOT THE HIGH ONE,

THE LOW ONE? >> THE FIRST ONE, THE DESIGNER BID AND THE BID BOND -- THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT THE BID BOND.

>> SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO POTENTIALLY DO AWAY WITH A $2 MILLION DIFFERENCE BECAUSE NOT SIGNING A BIT, AND NOT PROVIDING A BID BOND IS CONSIDERED INCOMPLETE? SO WE COULDN'T REACH OUT AND SAY, WHERE IS YOUR BID BOND AND

SIGN YOUR BID? >> NO, WE CAN'T. NOT SIGNING YOUR BID IS A NONRESPONSIVE BID.

>> WE SHOULD REJECT THIS. THIS IS $2 MILLION OF DIFFERENCE.

2.4 MILLION. IT MAY BE A TERRIBLE BID, BUT HOW DO YOU EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR A $2.4 MILLION DIFFERENCE BECAUSE SOMEONE DID SOME AT MINISTERIAL THINGS WRONG? IT DOESN'T MAKE

ANY SENSE. >> WITHOUT A SIGNED BID, COMMISSIONER, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WE DON'T HAVE A VALID

OFFER FROM THAT COMPANY. >> WE CAN REJECT ALL BIDS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MICHAEL. THIS IS NOT A NEW RULE.

>> I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS. >> I DIDN'T SAY IT WAS A NEW RULE. BUT WE CAN REJECT BIDS IS ONE OF HER OPTIONS.

>> CERTAINLY POINT >> THAT'S ALL I ASKED.

>> I MEAN, >> WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, WE TRY TO EXPLAIN AND BE TRANSPARENT AS TO HOW THE BIDS CAME TO US AND WHAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO EVALUATE, AND SO BASED ON WHAT WE ARE SEEING AND WHAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO EVALUATE ON, THE RECOMMENDATION IS ONLY GOING TO BE FOR ARGIO. THAT IS THE ONE THAT FILLED THE BLANKS INCORRECTLY AND HAD ALL THE NUMBERS AND IT STILL FIT WITHIN THE BUDGET, AND THAT IS WHY I

[02:35:02]

BELIEVE JUAN IS SUPPORTING THE RECOMMENDATION THEY HAD FOR

THIS, AS WELL. >> I THINK TECHNICALLY YOU ARE CORRECT. I THINK YOU HAVE TECHNICALLY DON'T EDITING TECHNICALLY CORRECT. AS STEWARDS OF THE MONEY THAT WE PROTECT, A $2.4 MILLION DIFFERENCE -- IT IS A LITTLE STAGGERING NOT TO MAYBE REJECT THESE BIDS AND GO BACK OUT.

>> OR THIS SECOND ONE, THE RBT, ROOFING, IF THEY DIDN'T DO A CONTINGENCY OF 200,000, OR IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT IN THERE, IS THAT WHY YOU'RE SAYING YOU REJECTED THEM?

>> I DIDN'T MAKE THAT REJECTION.

>> I WAS TALKING TO JUAN BEHIND YOU. HE IS LOOKING AT ME.

>> I DID THE REJECTION. WE ARE JUST SAYING THAT.

>> IN OTHER WORDS, THE OTHER CONTRACTOR SUBMITTED IT. ARGIO SUBMITTED IT. BUT THIS CONTRACTOR DID NOT SUBMIT THIS AS PART OF THE BID. I LOOK AT IT AS AN INCOMPLETE PROPOSAL.

SO THAT IS THE ONLY REASON, JUDGE. IF NOT, I MEAN, IF THEY WOULD'VE SUBMITTED IT, IT WOULD'VE BEEN OKAY. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION REGARDING THE SKYLIGHTS, ON THE SKYLIGHTS, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE REPORT WHEN I GOT HERE. THE SKYLIGHTS -- THE ARCHITECT ESTIMATED FOR US TO REPLACE THE SKYLIGHT -- IT WAS ABOUT CLOSE TO 2 MILLION. THE ESTIMATED COST WAS ALSO CLOSE TO 2 MILLION. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSALS -- I DON'T KNOW IF I SHOULD SAY THIS OR NOT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSALS, JUST ITSELF, IT'S $2 MILLION TO DO THE

SKYLIGHTS. JUST TO DO THAT. >> DID SOUTH TEXAS METAL ROOFING HAVE SKYLIGHTS IN THEIRS?

>> THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT. SO THEN IT WOULD BE RBT REBIDDING.

>> I GUESS -- AND AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING -- I'M NOT SAYING -- I WISH I COULD CATCH EVERYTHING TIMELY BUT, AGAIN, AND I GET THAT WE ARE DOWN THE ROAD ON THIS, BUT MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DESIGNED THIS ROOF WITH $2 MILLION WORTH OF SKYLIGHTS BUT I GET NATURAL LIGHTING IS IMPORTANT, BUT HOLY CRAP. AGAIN, I MISSED THIS. I MAKE MISTAKES. TO THROW GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD IS NOT SOMETHING I LIKE HIM EITHER.

>> TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FIRST YEAR THAT I GOT HERE, THERE IS A REPORT BY THE ARCHITECT BUT I'M NOT GOING TO LIE TO YOU.

THERE IS A REPORT FOR THE ARCHITECT. THE SKYLIGHTS HAVE MET THEIR LIFESPAN. THEY HAVE MET THEIR LIFESPAN. THE LIFESPAN OF THE STRUCTURE. THE STRUCTURE IS NOT -- IT HAS MET ITS LIFESPAN. IT IS NOT MEETING THE NEW CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO THAT IS THE REASON WHY I WOULD RECOMMEND REPLACING THE SKYLIGHTS. BECAUSE THE SKYLIGHTS AREN'T MEETING THE

NEW WINDSTORM. >> I'M SAYING, WHY WOULDN'T YOU REPLACE THE SKYLIGHTS WITH ROOF OR SOME OF THEM? IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S AN EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSE TO ADD SKYLIGHTS

INSTEAD OF JUST A ROOF? >> IT'S NOT JUST REPLACING THE GLASS. IT IS ALSO REHABBING THE STRUCTURE, THE BEAM STRUCTURE FOR THE SKYLIGHTS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED. THERE IS STUFF IN

THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. >> AND I'M NOT ASKING IT RIGHT. MY FAULT. IF WE WOULD'VE DESIGNED THIS WITHOUT THE SKYLIGHTS, WITH THAT HAVE BEEN ACING OF CAN SAVINGS IF ALL WE

DID WAS PUT BACK A ROOF? >> YOU WOULD HAVE A SAVINGS, BUT HE WOULD HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE ROOF TO FIX THE SKYLIGHTS.

>> HE'S TALKING ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH THE SKYLIGHTS. JUST PRETENDING LIKE WE NEVER HAD THEM. CLOSE IT UP.

>> JUST CLOSE OUT THE SKYLIGHTS? YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DESIGN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOW TO DO THE ROOF CLOSURE.

>> I'M ASKING YOU, IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, IF YOU BELIEVE, HAD WE DONE IT THAT WAY, WITH NO SKYLIGHTS TO BEGIN WITH, WOULD IT HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY LESS EXPENSIVE TO

PUT A ROOF ON? >> YES.

>> HOW MUCH HAVE WE PAID FOR DESIGN ALREADY ON THIS?

>> I THINK IT IS CLOSE TO 700, 800. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> SO SHAME ON US AGAIN. >> SO, AGAIN, ONCE WE DETECT SOMETHING, DO WE JUST GO FORWARD AND SAY, OOPS , OUR BAD. WE DESIGNED IT WRONG. LET'S SPEND ANOTHER 2 MILLION ON SKYLIGHTS, OR DO WE SPEND $100,000 TO REDESIGN, AND DO A

ROOF THAT SAVES US MONEY? >>

SPEAKERS ] >> HOW LONG WAS THIS EVER BID?

>> I THINK IT WAS 60 DAYS. IT WAS OUT FOR 60 DAYS.

>> IT CAME DOWN TO THE WIRE ON THAT. JUST FYI.

>> I GET IT. FYI. I KNOW. $2.4 MILLION IS A BIG FYI.

>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE MONEY IS WORTH.

[02:40:08]

>> I THINK THIS WAS ALL ARPA. >> 100% ARPA.

>> OKAY. >> EVEN THOUGH THERE IS SOME DISPARITY IN THE TWO, THE NUMBERS THAT CAME IN WITH THIS THIRD BIDDER IS STILL WITH THE MONIES ALLOCATED FOR THIS

PROJECT. >> WHAT DID YOU SAY?

>> EVEN THOUGH THE PRICES APPEARED DIFFERENTLY FROM THE OTHER BIDDERS, THE OTHER BIDDERS ARE MISSING SOME ITEMS WHICH MIGHT ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THAT DIFFERENCE, AND THAT PRICE IS WITHIN THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED BY THE COURT FOR THIS PROJECT.

YOU ARE NOT GOING ABOVE WHAT YOU ALLOCATED FOR THIS PROJECT.

>> WHAT IS ALTERNATE ONE AND TWO?

>> THAT WAS FOR THE JAIL BUILDINGS. WE WANTED TO GET A PRICE. THE COURT WANTED TO FIND OUT WHAT THE PRICING MIGHT BE

TO INCLUDE THOSE. >> SO, SO IF WE DID -- THAT IS THE OTHER THING, TOO. IF WE ENDED UP COMING BACK WITH A LOWER BID ON THE BASE BIDS, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TO -- DO

SECTIONS 1 AND TWO. >> THERE IS A SECTION OF THE ROOF THAT IS FOR HIGH WINDS. THE URGENCY ON THIS ROOF --

>> ON THIS ROOF. >> ON THAT ONE.

>> IT IS NOT THE JAIL ROOF. >> YES.

>> EXCUSE ME, JUAN. THE COURT DIDN'T GIVE YOU ANY KIND OF DIRECTIONS ON WHAT TO BID ON TO DO WITHOUT THE SKYLIGHTS?

>> NO SIR. >> NO SIR.

>> WE COULD START LOOKING INTO THAT NOW.

>> THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW. WE HAVE GIVEN YOU DIRECTIONS TO DO IT OR NOT TO DO IT.

>> JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER, JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT RE-BIDDING THIS PROJECT. I THINK THE NUMBERS ARE OUT THERE. THE PRICES MIGHT GO UP. SO JUST MENTIONING THAT.

>> I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE Y'ALL ARE AWARE, WHEN IT BECAME APPARENT TO ME THAT THEY WERE GOING TO RECOMMEND NOT THE LOW BIDDER, RBT ROOFING, I SENT THEM A LETTER ADVISING THEM THE COURT WAS GOING TO HAVE IT TODAY AND THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF IF THEY WANTED TO. I GUESS THEY HAVE NOT CHOSEN TO COME.

>> I STILL DON'T -- I WOULD STILL LIKE A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION ON WHY WE DIDN'T CHOOSE THEM SINCE THEY ARE THE LOW BIDDER. IT DOESN'T MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE SYSTEM. THAT IS A BIG PART OF THE PROJECT. WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHETHER THAT WAS IN OR OUT, BECAUSE IT IS A LUMP SUM BID -- WE DIDN'T SEE HOW THEY HAD IT BROKEN DOWN.

>> AND WE CONTACTED THEM TO SEE IF IT WAS INCLUDED, AND IT WAS

NOT INCLUDED. >> CORRECT.

>> WE ARE GOING BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY PROVIDE TO

US. >> IT IS THAT PORTION -- DOES THAT MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE FOR GOING WITH THIS ONE? THAT

PRICE? >> AGAIN, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

>> MAYBE LEGAL WOULD ADVISE THE COURT ON THIS IN EXECUTIVE, PERHAPS, BUT CONSIDERATIONS TO MAKE. YOU HAVE A BIDDER THAT HAS FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES AND HAS SUBMITTED A VALID BID. YOU HAVE A BITTER -- THE LOWEST BIDDER IS IN THE CASE WHERE THEY DID NOT PROVIDE US EVERY THING WE NEED. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NONRESPONSIVE. THE SECOND BIDDER PROVIDED THE DOCUMENTS CORRECTLY , BUT THEY ARE MISSING SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT IN THEIR SCHEDULE OF VALUES. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED NONRESPONSIVE, BUT THEY GAVE US AN INCOMPLETE BID. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT.

>> GIVEN THE INFORMATION AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK ALREADY GONE INTO THIS AND THE URGENCY FOR THIS AND THE ROOF, I WOULD SAY TO GO WITH YOUR SUGGESTION AND AWARD THE CONTRACT. I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS THE WILL TO DO THAT, BUT I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION.

>> SECOND. TO GO WITH THE ARGIO ROOFING FOR 4,000,658.

>> THIS IS CONDITIONAL SELECTION, AGAIN, SO, IF THE COURT SUPPORTS IT, JUAN WILL WORK WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND COME BACK WITH THE FINAL AGREEMENT, AND IF THERE ARE ANY

[02:45:03]

CHANGES , JUDGE, IF YOU WOULD PROVIDE THAT, AT THAT TIME.

>> WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF 400,000? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOUTH TEXAS AND RBT IS 20,000?

>> BUT SOUTH TEXAS DIDN'T PUT ANY OF THE -- SIGNED THEIR CONTRACT OR ANY OF THAT. I THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT ONE. AND THIS IS STILL WELL UNDER. THERE IS GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT -- THIS IS UNDER THE MONEY THEY

HAD ALLOCATED. >> OKAY. WELL, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

>> NO. >> THREE AYES AND TWO NOS, SO

[1. Discuss and consider giving the County Judge or the Judge Pro Tem, the authority to approve Early Release Forms, due to the Commissioners Court Meetings being on May 22nd, June 18th, and July 17th, in order to stay in compliance with the Prompt Pay Act.]

THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO THE AUDITORS, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER GIVING THE COUNTY JUDGE OR THE JUDGE PRO TEM -- I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD IN OUR DESIGNEE BECAUSE I BELIEVE WHILE I'M AWAY, COMMISSIONER CHESNEY IS GOING TO BE AWAY , AND THEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE EARLY RELEASE FORMS DUE TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETINGS.

WE WILL HAVE ONE MEETING IN JUNE ON THE 18TH AND THE NEXT ONE AFTER THAT IS JULY 17TH. IT IS MORE THAN THREE WEEKS BETWEEN THOSE PERIODS. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE CAN DO THIS.

YOU CAN STILL RATIFY IT. >>

>> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

[2. Discuss and consider Final Budget Change Order No. 23 for Fiscal Year 2022-2023, and other related matters.]

HIGH. JAKE 12 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF FINAL BUDGET CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 23. THEY NEED IT NOW?

THIS IS ITEM E 2. >> I THINK MINE WAS NUMBER 4,

RIGHT? >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NUMBER

4? >> NUMBER 3.

>> WHERE ARE YOU LOOKING AT? >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW. WHY DO

I NEED IT? >> WE SUBMIT OUR FINAL REPORT TO THE EXTERNAL AUDITORS. IT IS THE BUDGET ORDERS FOR REFERENCE ONLY.

NEED TO MAKE SURE THE AUDITORS HAVE IT FOR THEIR REVIEW SO THEY CAN ISSUE THEIR FINAL AUDIT REPORTS.

>> OKAY. LISA WAS UP HERE. THE MOTION SAID COME BACK WITH DOSE GIVE US MORE EXPLANATION, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE TABLED IT OR NOT. I DON'T REMEMBER. THEN AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND YOU WENT AHEAD AND SUBMITTED ANYWAY. SO THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING NOW. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED. I THINK WE ASKED THE AUDITOR TO COME BACK AND GIVE US AN EXPEDITION ON THIS PAGE THAT THEY HAD GIVEN US, WHERE IT SAYS , SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AFFECTING THE BUDGET HERE IN 2022, 2023, BECAUSE THERE WERE THINGS THAT WERE NOT MAKING SENSE. SO I STILL HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THAT. IF YOU SUBMIT IT, IT IS WHAT YOU ARE

SAYING. WE CAN'T GO BACK. >> IF YOU APPROVE THIS, WE CAN RESUBMIT THE EXTERNAL AUDITORS WHICH MIGHT EXTEND THE TIME ON WHAT THEY NEED TO DO THE REPORTS POINT WE HAVE UNTIL THE END OF THIS MONTH TO FINISH OUR AUDIT AND SEND IT TO THE GFOA.

ME , IT'S JUST GOING TO SHOW SOME NEGATIVE BALANCES, AND -- IN SOME OF THE COLUMNS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T TRANSFER THE MONEY

OVER. >> THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME NEGATIVES. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS OF AUDITING

STANDARDS. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH NEGATIVE BALANCES. I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW. THIS IS NOT TRUE INFORMATION. WE ARE CLEANING ANYTHING UP.

[02:50:02]

>> I'M COMING BACK. THERE'S A LOT OF TRANSFERS BEING MADE. I KNOW SOMETIMES, WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT, BUT IT IS NOT TRANSPARENT WITH WHERE IT IS GOING TO.

>> I THINK IT WOULD HELP US, AND I KNOW I LOOKED THIS UP, IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, 114.025. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE COUNTY AUDITORS MONTHLY AND ANNUAL REPORTS TO THE

COMMISSIONERS BOARD. >> WE ARE WORKING ON THAT.

>> I KNOW WORKDAY HAS BEEN A PAIN, SO I HATE TO BRING THIS UP, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION.

>> WE AGREE. >> IT IS REQUIRED BY LAW. WE CAN'T JUST SAY WORKDAY ANYMORE BUT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY

TO GET THIS INFORMATION. >> YOU SAID WORKDAY. IT WILL

TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING. >> WE ARE ONLY THREE MONTHS IN

POINT >> IT IS A BUTTON AND YOU GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT. MY QUESTION ALSO WOULD BE ON THIS.

I LOOK AT THE REVENUES. I KNOW WE MADE $7 MILLION ON REVENUE FROM THE TAXES. SOME WILL MAKE 5 MILLION FROM INVESTMENTS.

WHAT INVESTMENTS ARE THOSE? >> IT IS THE MONEY WE HAVE FROM ARPA ACCOUNTS AND OTHERS WE HAVE IN THERE. ALL WITH

INTEREST. >> THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. MONIES FROM WHERE?? INVESTED MONEY?

>> YES. >> WHERE?

>> IT IS THE TEXAS POINT WE HAVE RESERVES AND WE WERE ABLE TO HAVE THIS WE HAVE 45 MILLION . WE INVESTED 20 MILLION AND WE

EARN INTEREST ON IT. >> IF WE INVEST MONEY, WHERE ARE WE INVESTING MONEY? WHERE IS IT COMING FROM?

>> IT IS ALSO REQUIRED. WE WILL HAVE THAT TO YOU SOON.

>> WHEN I SEE THAT THERE, TO MAKE $5 MILLION, WITH REVENUE INCOME, WITH INVESTMENTS, I'M GOING TO SAY, THAT IS ALMOST

$100 MILLION. >> WE DON'T EARN $100 MILLION.

>> DID WE JUST GET THAT IN 2022? IS THAT WHY IT ONLY SHOWS UP IN 23 AND 24? WHAT DID WE DO WITH THAT ARPA MONEY BEFORE?

>> THAT MONEY HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE. WE INVESTED IN SHORT-TERM ACCOUNTS BECAUSE OF THE SPEED OF HOW WE NEEDED TO SPEND THE FUNDS COME EITHER DEPOSIT OR TEXAS CLASS, ARE INVESTMENT FUNDS EARNING 5.4% INTEREST. LAST YEAR, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN EXACT LIST OF EVERY INTEREST WE HAD AND HOW

MUCH WE HAVE. >> ALSO, LOOKING AT EXPENDITURES, 22 , 23, 109 MILLION. THAT IS 13 MILLION.

WHERE DO WE SPEND 13 MILLION? >> MOST OF IT IS PAYROLL.

>> IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. IT DOESN'T SAY PAYROLL.

>> 85 MILLION OF OUR EXPENSES IS PAYROLL.

>> THAT IS RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE 13 MILLION WENT TO. YOU CAN SAY 8 MILLION, PAYROLL.

>> NOT 8 MILLION. 80 MILLION. >> DON'T GET MAD. DON'T GET UPSET. I JUST WANT YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION. THAT'S IT.

>> I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHERE OUR MONEY IS GOING TO. WHEN HE IS THIS ITEM HERE, THIS BUDGET, WHATEVER IT IS, OR THE BUDGETS, YOU REMOVED 100 MILLION FROM THE DEPARTMENT.

>> CAN YOU SHOW ME WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 1 MILLION FOR

THE TREASURER'S OFFICE? >> YEAR MOVED A LOT OF MONEY

FROM A LOT OF PLACES. >> IS THAT ON THIS?

>> YOU MOVED A LOT OF THINGS TO A LOT OF PLACES.

>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

>> WE MOVE THE BUDGET AROUND. OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T NEED IT.

>> THIS IS NUMBER 3. >> IT IS THE SALARIES. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU PUT IT. I JUST WANT A CLEAR REPORT OF WHERE I CAN TELL WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING TO.

I'LL FIND IT IN A MINUTE. BELIEVE ME.

TRANSITIONING ] IT AWAY. WE DO' STANDS AT THIS POINT. MOST OF

[02:55:53]

IT GOES TO THE COURTS. I THINK WE NEED TO, I JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION. I JUST DON'T, I MEAN, I'VE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANSWERS TO. I'M SORRY, BUT I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING, ESPECIALLY, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE INVESTMENTS. WE MUST HAVE

SOMETHING SOMEWHERE. >> IT IS IN RESERVES. LAST YEAR WE ONLY MADE $71,000 IN RESERVES. INCREASE.

>> THAT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO $5 MILLION.

>> WE CONTROL THE BUDGETS. WE ALL SET THE BUDGET.

>> WHAT IS THE ACTUAL FUND BALANCE RIGHT NOW? YOU PUT 21, BUT IT IS NOT REALLY THAT. IT'S NOT REALLY 28 OR 25.

>> SOME OF THAT MONEY IS OBLIGATED. IT'S NOT LIKE WE

HAVE ACCESS. >> THAT'S RIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE ACCESS, SO YOU NEED TO SHOW US. NOW I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE 45 MILLION, OR 20, OR WHATEVER IT IS. WE NEED MORE CLARIFICATION.

MAYBE NO ONE ELSE WANTS IT, BUT I DO.

>> I THINK THAT THESE REPORTS THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN GETTING BECAUSE OF WORKDAY AND THE NEW PROGRAM SHOULD SIGNIFICANTLY HELP US, BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND A LOT, TOO. IF WE WERE GETTING THOSE MONTHLY REPORTS, IT WOULD MAKE A LOT HER SENSE TO US. I CAN'T URGE YOU ENOUGH THAT WE NEED THOSE

COMING AGAIN. >> WE ARE GETTING STARTED.

>> HERE IT IS. THIS IS ONLY MY SECOND YEAR, A YEAR AND A HALF AND IT IS KIND OF HARD FOR ME TO WORK ON BUDGET OR ANYTHING ELSE WE ARE GOING INTO WHEN I HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA. WE GET THIS, AND THAT IS IT. SO, PLEASE, I URGE YOU AND THE AUDITORS DEPARTMENT TO FIND A WAY ON WORKDAY TO GET THAT DONE, WHATEVER WE NEED. WE NEED THOSE REPORTS COMING IN.

>> WE TRY TO BUY SOME MORE SOFTWARE, ARE YOU BUYING MORE SOFTWARE? I THOUGHT THIS WORKDAY WAS IT.

>> BECAUSE OF THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, THEY DON'T HAVE A REPORTING MODULE IN THEIR SOFTWARE, THIS IS ALREADY A BUDGET ITEM. IT IS IN THE AUTHORITY OF THE BUDGET TO

COVER THESE COSTS. >> THAT IS FURTHER DOWN, A DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE ITEM. WHERE ARE YOU LOOKING AT BOTH? OKAY. IT IS IN THE AUDITORS DEPARTMENT BUT WE HAVE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS. IF YOU ARE THROUGH WITH THIS ONE, WE WILL GO TO THAT ONE IF YOU WANT TO. DID YOU WANT TO SKIP FORWARD?

[3. Approve Budget Amendment No. 07 for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.]

SO THERE IS NO ACTION ON THIS, YOU HAVE ALREADY TURNED IN YOUR REPORTS. WE CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING ITEM NUMBER THREE, BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024.

>> THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FROM THE JAIL TO PUT SOME MONEY, EITHER BUYING ANOTHER PIECE OF EQUIPMENT, TRANSFERRING THE FUNDS, THE LARGEST ONE, FROM THE BEACH IMPROVEMENTS WHICH IS THE OTHER FUND THAT THEY HAVE AND THIS IS SO THEY HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DO THE NECESSARY REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE.

FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE REQUEST.

[03:00:01]

>> SO MOVED. >> THIS IS COMING OUT OF THE COASTAL PARKS BUDGET. THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. WHEN YOU SAY THEY ARE AVAILABLE, THEY ARE NOT COMING OUT OF THE GENERAL

[4. Accept and approve Project Budget Amendment #003.]

FUND. MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME. MOTION PASSES ITEM 3.8.4.

>> THAT IS THE INTERIOR PERMANENT FUNCTIONS REQUIRING A NEW PROJECT AND WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE THE $13,000. THERE IS ONLY ONE REQUEST FOR YOUR ACCEPTANCE.

>> SO MOVED. >> EMOTION AND A SECOND. ALL

[5. Discuss and consider reallocation of $150,000 from General Special Revenue Fund, Department #01300 to Courthuse Security Fund, Department #13050 to cover pending expenditures and overages in the current FY 23/24 budget.]

THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. DISCUSSING AND CONSIDERING REALLOCATING 150,000 FROM THE GENERAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUND TO THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY FUND. TO COVER PENDING EXPENDITURES AND OVERAGES AND IT'S FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL 2023-2024 BUDGET. WE CHECKED INTO THIS.

IT WAS REQUESTED AND THEY KNEW THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE THESE FEES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AND WE DID NOT PUT IT IN THEIR BUDGET. WE SAID WE WOULD DO THIS AT THE END. I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT DIFFERENTLY IN THE FUTURE AND ALLOCATE IT IN THEIR BUDGET. THEY REQUESTED THAT WE KNEW THIS FUND WOULD BE NECESSARY AND WE DID NOT PUT IT IN THERE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THE

COURTHOUSE SECURITY FUND. >> 150,000 IS COMING FROM THE GENERAL SPECIAL FUND, WHAT DEPARTMENT IS THAT?

>> IT IS A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, AND THAT IT GENERAL

REVENUE FUND. >> IS THAT THE FUNDS THAT THE

JP SECURITY FUNDS GO TO? >> NO.

>> WHAT DOES THAT GO TO? >> THEY GO TO THE 1305. WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE MONEY TO. BUT IT IS NOT COMING FROM ANOTHER FUND. THAT IS WHERE THERE IS THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE AND THEY APPLY THEIR REVENUE.

>> ANY MONEY COMING OUT OF THE JP FOR ANYTHING?

>> THIS COVERS ALL OF THE SECURITIES FOR THE COURTHOUSE.

THEY ARE SHORT AT LEAST $140,000. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS BROUGHT UP DURING BUDGET TIME. THEY ADDED CAMERAS AND SECURITY DEVICES WHETHER FUNDED HERE OR THROUGH THE FUND.

SOMEONE HAS TO BE ABLE TO FIND THE ADDITIONAL COST. AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO ASK FOR SOME SORT OF ADDITIONAL INCREASE AND IT WOULD MOST LIKELY BE A FUND TRANSFER.

>> THIS IS THE ANNUAL SERVICE PLAN WITH THEIR ADDITIONAL CAMERAS AND REQUESTS THROUGHOUT THE COURTHOUSE TO PUT IN

CONTROL PANELS. >> CAN YOU GIVE ME A REPORT ON

THE JP SECURITY FUNDS? >> I AM WORKING ON IT NOW.

>> ANY MONEY THAT HAS COME OUT OF THAT FUND.

>> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS TRANSFER. FOR THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE

[6. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving execution of a 3-year agreement for $147,603.29 with Insight Public Sector, under Omnia Partners Cooperative Contract No. 23-6692-03, for the purchase of Cognos Disclosure Management (CDM) SaaS Base and User Licenses with annual cost of $45,436.53 YR 1 (FY23/24); $49,837.48 YR 2 (FY24/25); $52,329.28 YR 3 (FY25/26) and related matters.]

IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER SIX, TALKING ABOUT THE THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT FOR THE

INSIDE PUBLIC SECTOR. >> THIS IS CURRENTLY WHAT WE USE WITH THE OLD PROVIDER. IT IS A REPORTING MODULE TO PREPARE THE ANNUAL FUNDS REPORT, BUDGET REPORTS, TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW WORKDAY HAS A REPORTING MODULE BUT IT IS MORE OF AN ONLINE SITE. WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT INSIDE THE PUBLIC SERVICES. WE ALREADY HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO COVER THE COST SO WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEXT TWO FISCAL YEARS APART OF THE BUDGET. AND NEXT YEAR WE WILL BE REDUCING THE BUDGET SIGNIFICANTLY.

>> HOW CAN WE APPROVE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE AND YET FOR OUR BUDGET GOING FORWARD? HOW DO WE DO THAT? NORMALLY WE WOULD HAVE A FUNDING MECHANISM THAT SAYS WE WILL REDUCE THIS AMOUNT TO COVER THIS. ISN'T THAT HOW WE WOULD DO IT? I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN DO THIS. UNLESS YOU HAVE YOUR COST

[03:05:03]

SAVINGS NOW THAT YOU CAN REDUCE AND MAKE PART OF THE MOTION THAT YOU WILL REDUCE THE BUDGET BY THOSE AMOUNTS.

>> WE WILL DEFINITELY BE HAVING A REDUCTION NEXT YEAR BY AT

LEAST FOR THOUSAND DOLLARS. >> ARE YOU MAKING THEM PART OF THIS MOTION THAT WE WOULD APPROVE THAT SUBJECT TO THE

UPCOMING BUDGET? >> YES.

>> OKAY SO BASICALLY I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AGREEMENT WITH THE FUNDING ALREADY IN PLACE FOR YEAR ONE AND FOR THE YEAR TWO AND THREE FUNDING THAT WILL BE A PERMANENT COST SAVINGS AT THE AUDITORS OFFICE WILL COME UP WITH FOR THOSE TWO YEARS SO THAT THIS IS AWASH IN REGARDS TO THE COUNTY BUDGET. A NET ZERO EFFECT. LET'S USE THAT TERM. THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION.

>> I SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL THOSE

[1. Discuss, consider, and take action to reclassify the ARPA-funded Attorney III position within the County Attorney’s Office to be an ARPA-funded Attorney V position; and related matters.]

IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. ITEM F1, DISCUSS, CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION TO RECLASSIFY THE COUNTYWIDE AND ATTORNEY FIVE POSITION AND YOU HAVE THE

INFORMATION FOR US? >> MAY I APPROACH?

>> YES. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO PASS OUT? WE HAVE SOMETHING ON IT.

IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS IN THE PACKET? OKAY. THIS LOOKS LIKE THE SAME THING. COST TO RECLASSIFY THE POSITION.

>> IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE COUNTY.

>> SO WHAT ARE WE DOING? CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN?

>> DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THIS FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S

OFFICE? >> YES. THERE IS A CLARIFICATION, I BELIEVE THAT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE IS REQUESTING THAT THE ARPA POSITION BE RECLASSIFIED AS A ARPA FUNDED ATTORNEY FOR POSITION AND NOT FIVE. WE ARE REQUESTING THE RECLASSIFICATION BE DONE UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 2026. THIS POSITION, WE ARE HOPING THAT IT WILL CONTINUE THE BACKLOG OF CPS CASES THAT THE OFFICE HAS IN ADDITION TO THE REMAINING AND TO ASSIST WITH ARPA CONTRACTS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR. BUT IT WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE THE BACKLOG OF CASES IN CPS. WE CURRENTLY ONLY HAVE TWO ATTORNEYS DOING THE CPS EXCLUSIVELY AND THEY DEFINITELY NEED MORE ASSISTANCE WITH THE BACKLOG OF CASES.

>> SO THIS IS USING ALL OF THE ARPA FUNDS?

>> YES. >> IT ENDS IN 2026.

>> IS THIS CONSIDERED UNDER CONTRACT BY ARPA RULES TO MAKE SURE THAT , LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO HAVE EVERYTHING UNDER CONTRACT, WILL DISQUALIFY? IF NOT. WE CAN LITERALLY DO A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR SOMETHING. BUT LET'S MAKE SURE WE DO IT RIGHT.

>> WE WOULD LIKELY NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF ORDER DESIGNATING OR OBLIGATING THE FUNDS BY THE END OF THE YEAR FOR THIS POSITION. AND WE HAVE NOT BROUGHT FORTH THAT.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PASS THIS CONTINGENT UPON THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PROVIDING THE COURT ORDER OR EITHER LOCAL AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT THAT ACCURATELY TAKES CARE OF THIS IN REGARDS TO THE ARPA REGULATIONS THAT THIS IS ALL UNDER CONTRACT BY THE END OF 2024. THAT IS VERY WORDY.

>> I WILL ALSO ADD IN THAT WE ARE VERY CLEAR THAT THIS POSITION ENDS IN DECEMBER OF 2026, OR WHATEVER YOUR DATE

WAS. >> IT IS WRITTEN AS SEPTEMBER

30TH, 2026. >> THAT IS FINE. BUT WHEN WE HAVE THESE POSITIONS THAT WE FILL, WE GET INTO TROUBLE AT

[03:10:01]

THE END. I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR.

>> THAT IS PART OF MY MOTION. THIS POSITION ENDS SEPTEMBER

30TH, 2026. >> I NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE ITEM. WE ARE POSITIONED FOR A TRUCK DRIVER AND PARTS OF ARPA.

>> WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT ONE. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS VOTE. YOU ARE GOOD WITH MIKE, I ADDED THE

CLARIFICATION ON THE DATE. >> YOU'VE GOT TO CHANGE IT

FROM FOUR TO FIVE. >> YES, THAT IS THE REQUEST.

>> AS AMENDED TO ATTORNEY FOUR.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE ATTORNEY FIVE.

>> IT WAS, BUT THEY ARE CHANGING IT.

>> THERE WILL BE SAVINGS FROM THE 370 IF WE GO TO ATTORNEY FOUR. THERE WAS SAVINGS WITH ATTORNEY FIVE BUT THERE WILL BE MORE SAVINGS IF THEY GO TO FOUR.

>> LIKE LULU MENTIONED THIS MORNING WHEN YOU TAKE OUT THE VACATION AND HOURS AND ALL THAT STUFF THAT HAS ACCRUED, WE NEED MORE DEFINITIVE NUMBERS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THANK YOU. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN.

MOTION PASSES. IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE READY TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. OH, SORRY. ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. YES, SORRY.

>> IF IT IS ARPA FUNDS IT MUST ALSO HAVE THE SAME

REQUIREMENTS. >> RATE.

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT. >> NUMBER FIVE, THE 103,000. IT SAYS IT IS STILL FUNDED THROUGH ARPA AND THERE ARE STILL REQUIREMENTS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS.

>> WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IT ENDS, IT IS A ARPA FUNDED POSITION AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO TERMINATE AFTER THAT. PERFECT.

[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.]

MOVING ON TO EXECUTIVE SESSION, PUBLIC NOTICE IS GIVEN THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY ELECT TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION ANYTIME DURING THE MEETING TO DISCUSS MATTERS ON THE AGENDA.

WHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT CHAPTER 5.51. 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 THE PRACTICE AND RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DISCUSS ANY LISTED AGENDA ITEMS AND EXECUTIVE SESSION WHEN AUTHORIZED BY LAW TO DO SO. IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSIONER 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 GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.001, 551.073, 551 ZERO 54. 551 .0076, 551.087, THERE WILL BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY INCLUDING MATTERS RELATING TO LITIGATION, DELIBERATE REGARDING REAL PROPERTY, RESPECTED GIFTS, PERSONNEL MATTERS INCLUDING TERMINATION, COUNTY ADVISORY BODIES, SECURITY DEVICES AND/OR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS THAT MAY BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. UPON COMPLETION, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT DATE IN AN OPEN SESSION TAKE SUCH ACTION AS APPROPRIATE ON ITEMS DISCUSSED IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. ITEM EIGHT IS CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL SERVANTS GRIEVANCE CASE AND ALL CLAIMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GRIEVANCE. I ASSUME THAT IS 551.071. AND ITEM B, CONSULT WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE COUNTY LIBRARY AND POSITION AND ALL RELATED MATTERS, TAKE ACTION IN OPEN SESSION IF NECESSARY. THE SAME