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

[00:21:27]

>> MOVING ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> GOOD MORNING. I LIVE ON 1889 IN TEXAS WE ALL KNOW THAT HEAVY INDUSTRIES ARE COMING INTO THIS COMMUNITY. AND THEY NEED LARGE VOLUMES OF WATER. IN SEPTEMBER, 2020 BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS, SEVERAL CITIZENS APPEARED AND PUBLICLY MADE COMMENT REGARDING THE TAX ABATEMENT. SPECIFICALLY THE COMMENTS AND LET ME READ THEM VERBATIM. AFTER EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH WITH DROUGHT RESTRICTIONS, THE NEED TO BRING THEIR OWN WATER.

OR WE NEED TO BE ASKING THESE QUESTIONS. WHERE IS THIS WATER COMING FROM? TODAY, WE ARE FACED WITH THE SAME SITUATION.

AND ALL THE OTHER INDUSTRIES THAT ARE COMING INTO OUR COMMUNITY. WE DO NOT OBJECT TO INDUSTRY GROWTH. BUT WHAT WE OBJECT TO IS WHEN INDUSTRIES TO BUILD RIGHT ON OUR BACK DOOR.

WE DO NOT OBJECT TO THE PLANT BEING BUILT BY INDUSTRIES. AND PAID FOR BY THE INDUSTRIES . BUT WE DO OBJECT TO THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI TELLING ITS COMMUNITY. NOT JUST THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI BUT IT IMPACTS EVERYBODY IN THE AREAS BECAUSE THEY PURCHASE THEIR WATER FROM CORPUS CHRISTI. WE OBJECT. AND ASKING US TO DISPROPORTIONALLY PAY FOR THIS PLANT. WE DID NOT HAVE A WATER ISSUE. NOT UNTIL THEY CAME IN AND PURCHASED EVERY LAST DROP OF OUR ALLOWED WATER RIGHTS . WITH THE ADDITION OF THREE THAT ARE DESIGNATED TO BE BUILT INTO THREE ADDITIONAL AMMONIA CONTRACTS UNDER AGREEMENT WITH A DEFICIENCY OF 40 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER. IN THE PROPOSED PLAN TO THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTIE PIPELINES SHOWS A DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTING 30 MILLION GALLONS INTO THE AREA.

DOMESTIC CITIZENS IN WATER DISTRICT 3 ONLY USE 2.1 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY. ALL THE OTHER INDUSTRIES APPROXIMATELY 10 MILLION PER DAY. SO IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS WHO THAT WATER IS FOR. COMMUNITIES DESERVE TO BE IN A SAFE SPACE FREE FROM INDUSTRY AND WASTE. IF WE HAVE NOT LEARNED ANYTHING, WE SHOULD REMEMBER WHAT THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE BUILDING OUR COMMUNITY IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS TO 15 YEARS. INDUSTRY NEEDS WATER . THEY NEED IT THEY WANT IT AND THEY PROFIT FROM IT AND THEY SHOULD PAY FOR IT. THEY SHOULD ALSO BUILD FAR AWAY FROM OUR COMMUNITIES. THERE SHOULD BE A BUFFER ZONE. IT SHOULD NOT BE IN OUR BACK DOOR. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO COMMENT ON ITEM 13 2, 3, $650,000 FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. THE $750,000 CLUB TO THE HISTORIC METHODIST CHURCH. WE HAVE HEARD YOUR PRESENTATION FOR THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. AT BEST IT SOUNDED EUPHORIC. WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANY PRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE FIRST METHOD IS CHURCH . BUT ON THE WEBSITE HE TALKS ABOUT HIS VISION IS TO ACQUIRE REAL ESTATE AND EXISTING BUSINESSES.

>> THANK YOU. >> MARIE LUCIO.

[00:25:15]

>> COUNTY ROAD 30. ITEM 13 DOES TALK ABOUT $650,000 THAT IS GOING TO GO TO THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. AND ANOTHER $750,000 IS GOING TO DISTORT FIRST METHODIST CHURCH. I LIKE THAT IT IS BEING FOCUSED ON ROB STONE. WE HAVE TO, AS A CITIZENS QUESTION WHY. THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB WILL NOT BE FREE TO THE ENTITY OR THE CHILDREN OF THE DIVINITY. THEY ARE STILL GOING TO HALF TO PAY. BUT WE ARE ALLOTTING $650,000 TO THEM.

THIS MONEY THAT WE ARE ALLOTTING TO THESE ENTITIES, ARE THEY GOING TO BE USED FOR SALARY? OR FOR IMPROVEMENT? OR ARE THEY GOING TO BE USED FOR RENOVATIONS? DO YOU MONITOR THIS AS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT . IF SO, WHAT PERCENTAGE IS GOING TO WANT. THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW. IF THIS MONEY IS BEING PUT INTO OUR COMMUNITY TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS GOING TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY. HOWEVER, HISTORIC FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH, $750,000 WE DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT IS HELPING OUR COMMUNITY. BUT WE WILL LEAVE IT TO YOU. AND ABATEMENTS. WE DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS A POLICY FOR ABATEMENTS. WE MONITOR THE COMPLIANCE ON THE POLICY? AND IF I HEARD CORRECTLY, MR. HERNANDEZ. I THANK YOU FOR THAT HE BROUGHT UP THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON THE POLICY WHICH WAS DISTANCE. WE KNOW THAT YOU CANNOT STOP THESE COMPANIES FROM COMING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANTING THEMSELVES. THIS POLICY IS SET TO DETER THEM AND IT COULD'VE HELPED TO DETER THEM FROM COMING INTO SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO US. WE COULD'VE HAD A BUFFER ZONE. IF YOU ARE NOT THIS FAR AWAY FROM AN EXISTING COMMUNITY, THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ABATEMENT. THAT WOULD'VE BEEN SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE SEEN ON THAT. ALSO. AS FAR AS WE KNOW IS IT TRUE THAT SOME INDUSTRIES IN THIS COUNTIES ARE NOT PLAYING TAXES? ARE THEY HELD UP TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS REGULAR CITIZENS IN PAYING THEIR TAXES. DO THEY SEE THE SAME THINGS THAT ARE DONE TO THEIR PROPERTY. WITH FORECLOSURES AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. YOU HOLD US TO THAT STANDARDS. INDUSTRIES SHOULD ALSO BE HELD TO THE STANDARD ALSO. THAT IS UNDER YOUR CONTROL. BECAUSE YOU ARE THE NUECES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT . THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> GREG SMITH.

>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. I AM GREG SMITH. IT HAS BEEN ONE YEAR AND A LOT OF WORK BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS PASSED A GAME ROOM ORDINANCE. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE EFFECT OF THAT ORDINANCE. IT WAS PERMITTED AND OPERATED FOR ONE YEAR. WE HAVE A FACILITY AT 390 MAPLE AIR STATION THAT IS BEEN THERE SINCE 2010 CALLED LEAPING LIZARD. WE COMPLIED TO THE ORDINANCE. WE HAVE ADDED ZERO ISSUE WITH THE ORDINANCE. WE FOLLOW THE RULES COMPLETELY.

THIS IS THE SLOT I WANT TO LOOK AT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT THAT THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PUT ON OUR BUSINESS. WE HAVE SPENT $260,000 IN THIS YEAR FOR SECURITY AS MANDATED BY THE ORDINANCE. WE SPENT 202,000 FOR A FOOD SERVICE THAT IS OVER AND ABOVE OUR REGULAR OPERATIONS.

[00:30:02]

THE ORDINANCE CALLS OUT TO THAT WE NEED TO BE OPEN WITH FOOD .

FROM WHEN THE FACILITY OPENS TO ONE IT CLOSES. 22 ITEMS OF COST US SIGNIFICANT MONEY BUT WE LOST 20 $50,000 IN OUR FIRST YEAR. IT COST US $37,000 PER MONTH TO STAY OPEN. WE ARE A COMMUNITY FOCUSED ENTERPRISE. WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMMUNITY. AND OVER THE YEARS WE HAVE INTERFACED WITH CORPUS CHRISTI POLICE OFFICERS AND WE DONATE. AND WE INTERFACE REGULARLY . IT IS TIME FOR US TO RENEW OUR PERMIT. I AM ASKING YOU THIS. HOSPITAL 234 GIVES THE COMMISSIONERS THE AUTHORITY TO MANDATE HOWEVER THEY WANT TO MANDATE. WE HAVE 25 GAME TONE THE MOST IN OUR FACILITY. PLEASE KEEP GOING WITH THOSE SLIDES. IT IS A COMMUNITY CENTER. WE HAVE DART AND POOL TOURNAMENTS AND A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES. WE HAVE LIVE MUSIC. AND WE HAVE 25 GAVE -- GAME TOURNAMENTS. WE CANNOT SUSTAIN. SO I AM ASKING THAT YOU DO A COUPLE OF THINGS. IF YOU WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR ARMED SECURITY. WE HAVE HAD ZERO SERVICE CALLS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN TWO YEARS. ONE WITH THE ARM SECURITY AND ONE WITHOUT PREVIOUSLY. I WOULD LIKE TO WAIVE THE FOOD SERVICE REQUIREMENT. JUST NORMAL FOOD SERVICE HOURS NOT AT AT 2:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING. LIMIT US TO 25 GAMES. THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MAY I HAVE A MOTION? I AM JUST ASKING. AND HOW DO I PROCEED?

>> THIS IS PUBLIC COMMENT. WE CANNOT COMMENT ON ANYTHING THAT WE CANNOT VOTE OR TALK ABOUT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA.

>> WE CAN REFER HIM TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND SHERIFF FOR SOME GUIDANCE AS WELL. THAT WOULD BE THE BEST ROUTE TO START WITH. PERHAPS JIMMY COULD GIVE HIM CONTACT.

>> WE CANNOT OFFER HIM ADVICE. THE REGULATIONS AND IF THE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE ON THE AGENDA, THAT

WOULD BE THE NEXT PROCEDURE. >> GET HIM TO THE RIGHT PLACE.

BUT THE SHERIFF COULD HELP THEM. THE SHERIFF IS THE ONE THAT IS LEADING THE CHARGE ON THIS.

>> IF YOU LIKE TO SPEAK TO HIM. THEY CAN DIRECT YOU FROM MY

OFFICE. >> THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WISHES TO DO SO AT THIS TIME.

[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.]

THAT IS THE CLOSING OF PUBLIC COMMENT. MOVING TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT ANY COMMISSIONERS WISH TO FURTHER DISCUSS? ITEM BE FOR JUST CLARIFICATION.

>> PERHAPS ITEM NUMBER SIX. >> WHICH ONE?

>> I AM NOT THERE YET. >> THIS IS A MOTION.

>> THERE ARE SEVERAL ON THERE.

>> A SPECIAL MOTION NUMBER SIX, NUMBER NINE, AND NUMBER SEVEN.

>> WHICH ITEM NUMBER IS IT ON THE AGENDA? THERE IS D, E, AND

[00:35:01]

F. >> I DO NOT SEE THAT.

>> JUST PULL ALL THREE SO WE CAN BE SAFE.

>> B, D, E AND F. >> MAKE A MOTION.

[B. Authorize payment of bills - regular bill and DSS summaries May 24, 2024; Received check registers for Exceptions List payments of Utilities dated May 1st & 8th, 2024; Payroll Garnishments dated May 10, 2024, and payments on the Vendors Exceptions List dated May 3rd & 10th, 2024; Receive check registers for previously authorized payments of bills for the Regular, DSS and Special Motions dated May 10, 2024.]

>> SECOND? >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? THIS MOTION PASSES. ON THE CHECK REGISTER EXCEPTIONS.

PAGE 13 AND PAGE 21. WE JUST NEED TO UPDATE TO THE DEPARTMENT. THEY ARE CHARGED TO 11210 THE COURT MANAGER. AND IT GOT CHANGED INTO THE COUNTY JUDGES OFFICE. WE DELETED THAT DEPARTMENT. THEY MOVED THEM INTO MY OFFICE. IT IS JUST A COATING ISSUE. -- CODING ISSUE.

>> IT IS THE PRINT DISTRIBUTION. THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE DIVIDES UP TO EVERY DEPARTMENT A CERTAIN AMOUNT.

THEY STILL OF THE COMMISSION COURT MANAGEMENT AND IT ALL GO TO THE JUDGE OFFICE. IT IS JUST A MINOR CHANGE BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THAT IN . I WILL MAKE A MOTION

TO PASS WITH THAT CORRECTION. >> A SECOND IT ALL IN FAVOR,

AYE.. >> IS THAT CLEAR WHAT THE CORRECTION NEEDS TO BE JUST SO THE MINUTES ARE GOOD? AND I

THINK THAT WAS NOT PART OF IT. >> C, D AND E. WITH 1 TO 19 .

THAT IS THE ONE YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

>> IF YOU WANT TO APPROVE THE OTHER ONES. WE COULD MOVE THE

RESULTS. >> I SECOND THAT. B AND F. ALL

[E. Authorize payment of bills - Special Motions List - American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dated May 22, 2024.]

[F. Authorize payment of bills - Special Motions list submitted by the County Attorney dated May 22, 2024.]

THOSE IN FAVOR TO APPROVE E AND F . AYE. AND THIS MOTION

[D. Authorize payment of bills - Special Motions Regular List dated May 22, 2024.]

PASSES. GOING BACK TO D. NUMBER SIX.

>> NUMBER SIX, NUMBER 9, NUMBER 15. THIS IS A LIGHT HOLDING

COMPANY. >> IT IS MORE LIKE SOFTWARE.

>> IT IS. >> THEY ARE NOT A SOFTWARE THEY ARE ASSISTING US WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SOFTWARE.

THEY ARE THE THIRD PARTY IMPLEMENT OR. AND THE AMS HOURS ARE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE THAT WE PURCHASED FOR AFTER IMPLEMENTATION FOR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND ASSISTANCE.

>> IT IS NOT SOFTWARE. IS IT THE MAINTENANCE?

>> IT IS A THIRD-PARTY COMPANY THAT IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AND RESOURCES TO THE STAFF . THEY WILL HELP US

FURTHER DEVELOP WORKDAY. >> AND THAT IS COMING FROM YOUR

ACCOUNT? >> YES. IT IS FROM THE COUNTY

AUDITORS DEPARTMENT. >> NUMBER 15.

>> NUMBER NINE IS SOFTWARE. CENTRAL SQUARE IS THE OLD ONE SOLUTION SOFTWARE. BECAUSE OF AN ONGOING MATTER , WE ARE KEEPING ONE SOLUTION DATABASE ACTIVE. THEREFORE WE HAD TO CONTINUE. WE BELIEVE IT WAS APPROVED OR WHAT IS GOING TO BE COMING TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR ADDITIONAL APPROVAL.

[00:40:02]

THIS IS PAYING FOR SERVICES THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.

>> THE EXTENSION WAS IN JANUARY TO JUNE.

>> YES . >> WE WILL NEED TO EXTEND

AGAIN. >> BUT WE ARE READY VOTED ON

THE EXTENSION UNTIL JUNE. >> THIS IS ISSUING THE PAYMENTS ON THE CONTRACT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE. UP

UNTIL THE MONTH OF JUNE. >> WE ARE GOING TO BRING IT BACK BECAUSE WE MIGHT NEED TO EXTEND. THAT WILL BE IN THE

JUNE MEETING. >> ITEM NUMBER 15.

>> THAT IS ALSO SOFTWARE FOR SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE THE VENDOR COULD HAVE BEEN INCORRECT. THE SUPPLIER SHOULD BE A S ACQUISITIONS . GS . I AM SORRY, I CANNOT READ MY HANDWRITING. GS ACQUISITIONS BUT IT IS FOR THE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE AS A SERVICE CONTENT. WE ARE GOING TO KEEP AND IT IS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. THAT WE ARE GOING TO KEEP COGNOS TO EXPEDITE THE REPORT CREATIONS IN VIA WORKDAY. AS WE HAVE ALL OF THE REPORTS CREATED.

>> THAT IS A LOT OF BACKUP. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EASY PROCESS. HOW LONG ARE WE GOING TO KEEP THAT ONE?

>> IT IS A REPORTING SOFTWARE. IT WILL HELP CREATE YOUR BUDGET WORKBOOKS. AND YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET AND YOUR MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS. AND IN YOUR ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORTS. IT WILL HELP US BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE YOU THE REPORTS YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECEIVING.

>> THIS IS ALSO COMING FROM THE COUNTY AUDITORS?

>> YES. THIS IS FROM THE COUNTY AUDITORS BUDGET. THAT IS

CORRECT. >> AND SO MOVED. BUT THE JUDGE, AND ALWAYS KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH. IF WE PURCHASE SOMETHING IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK AND IT DOES NOT WORK. WE ARE SPENDING THREE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE ARE SPENDING MONEY ON TO MAKE

SOMETHING WORK. >> ONE SOLUTION IS NOT FOR WORKDAY. THAT IS OUR OLD SOFTWARE.

>> AND TRANSITIONING TO THE NEW ONE.

>> YES. CONDITIONS OUTSIDE OF OUR CONTROL. ARE YOU GOING TO

KEEP IT FOREVER? >> NO. WE ARE KEEPING ONE SOLUTION BECAUSE OF SOMETHING ELSE. AND IT IS BECAUSE OF SOMETHING ELSE BUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.

>> I AM SORRY . GOOD HAVE TO TAKE IT BACK. BUT IT IS JUST A REMINDER OF SOMETHING. WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO PASS ITEM THE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR , AYE. THIS MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO THE

[1. Discuss and consider the authorization of premiums for a one-year policy term for Property and Liability Insurance Renewals, per Broker of Record, and any related matters.]

REGULAR AGENDA. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE AUTHORIZATION OF PREMIUMS FOR ONE YEAR POLICY TERM FOR PROPERTY AND CASUALTY.

YOU GUYS ARE UP. >> GOOD MORNING. HE IS GOING TO ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. AND WE ALL SAT DOWN AND HAD A COMMITTEE MEETING WITH REGARDS TO THE INSURANCE FOR THIS YEAR'S REVOLT. WE HAVE THE BUILDING ON IT AND I ALSO GAVE THE COMMISSIONER THE ESTIMATION FOR THE PROPERTY THAT WAS IN QUESTION. WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, LET ME TURN IT

OVER TO CHASE. >> GOOD MORNING. I ASSUME EVERYBODY HAS A COPY OF THE SPREADSHEET. LET ME JUST RUN THROUGH AND HIGHLIGHT A FEW ITEMS. THE TOP LEFT CORNER YOU WILL SEE THIS TOTAL INSURED VALUES. THAT IS THE NUMBER OF

[00:45:08]

THE COUNTY BUILDING AND CONTENT THAT WE ARE ENSURING. LAST YEAR IT WAS $389 MILLION. NOW WE ARE AT $392 MILLION. THAT WAS A $3.1 MILLION INCREASE BY ADDING THE MCGEE BUILDING. ITEM 1 ON THE SPREADSHEET IS OUR PROPERTY WINDSTORM INSURANCE. LAST YEAR, IF YOU RECALL YOU PURCHASED A $50 MILLION LOSS LIMIT. IT IS BEING RECOMMENDED THAT WE INCREASE THAT TO $75 MILLION LOSS ON IT THIS YEAR. THE PROPERTY MARKET HAS SOFTENED FROM WHAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. LAST YEAR WAS PART OF THE WORST THAT WE'VE SEEN IN FOUR YEARS. THIS YEAR, COMPARING TO THE $50 MILLION LIMIT OF LAST YEAR IS A 9% RATE DECREASE. WE HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE RATE DECREASE FOR 5 OR SEVEN YEARS . BUT SOME LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL AND THE RATES ARE COMING DOWN.

AGAIN THAT WAS AT THE $50 MILLION LOSS. BUT WE CAN PURCHASE THE $75 MILLION LOSS ON THIS YEAR FOR ONE HALF OF A PERCENTAGE INCREASE. THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE PURCHASING AT THE 50 MILLION LAST YEAR. THE INCREASE WOULD BE $35,000 MORE THAN WE BOUGHT LAST YEAR FOR THE $50 MILLION . THE FLOOD INSURANCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS STATUS QUO. THESE ARE SMALLER NUMBERS THAN THE. BUT THERE WAS A SLIGHT INCREASE.

THROUGH THE FEMA PROGRAM AND IN THE MARINES, THE SAME THING.

THE GENERAL LIABILITY, AND THE LIABILITY FOR THE AIRPORT AND A SLIGHT INCREASE OF $355 . AND WE STILL HAVE A 500 A DOLLAR INCREASE . THE CRIME POLICY FOR TRAVELERS WAS A FLAT RENEWAL.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS SAW A $7000 INCREASE. THAT IS 100% DRIVEN FROM THOSE PLANES THAT WE HAVE OPEN ON THE POLICY. THE VOLUNTEER INSURANCE WITH ANOTHER INCREASE. THE LIABILITY WAS ALSO $1600 INCREASE. SO A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN THE AUTO INDUSTRY AND THE AUTO MARKET. AND OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT LIABILITY. WITH A $13,000 INCREASE. OVERALL, IF WE WERE GOING TO PURCHASE WHAT WE BOUGHT LAST YEAR WHICH IS THE $50 MILLION LOSS LIMIT. THE REDUCTION OF THE INSURANCE WOULD BE WHAT IT IS $55,000. IF WE DECIDE TO INCREASE THE COVERAGE ON THE BUILDINGS FROM $50 MILLION-$75 MILLION IT WOULD BE AN INCREASE TO THE COUNTY. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> WE MET WITH THE INSURANCE COMMITTEE SUGGESTION AS WELL. JUST TO POINT OUT. LAST YEAR WE HAD $100 MILLION AND WE TROTTED DOWN TO $50 MILLION. THIS IS STILL UNDER OUR BUDGET FROM LAST YEAR. THIS WOULD GET US BACK TO 75. THAT WAS THE SUGGESTION FROM THE INSURANCE

COMPANY. >> WOULD BE AN INCREASE IN OUR BUDGET . I THOUGHT IT SAID THE 60,000.

>> YOU HAVE ADDED SINCE THE MEETING OF THE INCREASE OF 165.

>> AN INCREASE OF 25,000 AND THE INCREASE OF 16,000. OR A DECREASE OF 165,000. WHAT IS THE INSURANCE COMMISSION

RECOMMENDING? >> THEY COULD BE MISSING A VALUE IN OPTION ONE. WHERE WHERE THE PROPERTY AND WINDSTORM INSURANCE. I DO NOT THINK IT IS ACCURATE.

>> THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM OUR MEETING.

>> THERE IS NOTHING MISSING HERE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE FROM OUR MEETING AND TODAY IS ON THE LIABILITY. WE HAVE A BETTER QUOTE AND CAME DOWN. OPTION ONE. IT IS THE RESULTS IN AN INCREASE FROM WHAT YOU PAID LAST YEAR OF $60,000. BECAUSE AGAIN, WE ARE PURCHASING $75 MILLION.

>> $25,000 SPREADSHEET ON OUR OPTION.

>> JUST FOR CLARITY, THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS IS THE SAME ONE THAT WE HAVE NOW. IT IS NOT THROUGH TACT.

>> PERHAPS WE SHOULD GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THIS?

>> IT HELPS WE LOOK AT THE SAME SPREADSHEET.

>> TOSS THIS ONE. IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IS REQUESTING THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE WILL PULL THIS TO THE BACK.

[00:50:07]

THIS IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. >> YOU WILL SEE OPTION ONE IT MAKES MORE SENSE. THAT IS THE $75 MILLION OPTION. THE INCREASE OF $60,000 TO THE COUNTY. BUT THAT IS STILL BELOW WHAT YOU BUDGETED THIS YEAR FOR YOUR INSURANCE.

>> THAT IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THAT IS BELOW WHAT WE

HAD FROM LAST YEAR. >> I AM CONFUSED. IT IS A $60,000 INCREASE. HOW IS IT BELOW THE WE BUDGET LAST YEAR.

>> WE ALLOCATED . >> DID WE ALLOCATED LAST YEAR WITH THE ACTUAL PRICE WAS? THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME.

>> I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU BUDGETED A 10% TO 50% INCREASE BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SEEN FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

>> WE ONLY BUDGETED -- WE HAVE THIS MEETING ABOUT THIS TIME

EVERY YEAR. >> CORRECT. AND THIS IS BASED ON WHAT YOU TELL US WHAT IS GOING TO BE. I CANNOT IMAGINE LAST YEAR THAT WE BUDGETED 10% MORE. WE WERE SO TIGHT.

>> WE BASE THE BUDGET. WE ARE ONE YEAR BEHIND IN WHAT WE BUDGET. WHENEVER WE GET THE ALLOCATION, WE PAY IT IN THE CURRENT YEAR. FOR NEXT YEAR'S PREMIUM. AND WE WENT BUDGETED NEXT YEAR'S PREMIUM FOR WHAT WE HAVE PAID IN THE CURRENT TO

REIMBURSE. >> THIS IS LESS.

>> WHAT DID WE BUDGET LAST YEAR? WHAT DID WE BUDGET ?

WHENEVER WE ARE PAYING US. >> IN 2023 - 2024, THE BUDGET YEAR THAT WE ARE IN. WE ALLOCATED THE PREMIUMS TO ALL THE DEPARTMENTS FOR WHAT WE PAID IN 2022 - 2023 FOR THE 2023 - 2024 COVERAGE. YOU PAY IT BEFORE THE COVERAGE STARTS.

SO YOU'RE PAYING FOR WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GETTING IN THE BUDGET YEAR. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE TO DO IT NOW.

>> I UNDERSTAND BUT MY QUESTION IS THAT WHAT WE BUDGET FOR 2023 - 2024 WHICH WOULD BE THE PREMIUM THAT WE ARE PAYING

RIGHT NOW. >> WE BUDGET ENOUGH TO COVER

LAST YEAR'S PREMIUM. >> 2,000,900 AND 600,000 IS THE

CURRENT YEAR'S BUDGET. >> THAT IS WHAT WE PAID.

>> 2.966775 >> THAT IS THE CURRENT BUDGET NOW. FOR WHAT WE ARE GOING TO PAY FOR THIS PREMIUM. BUT WHAT

WE PAID LAST YEAR . >> THAT IS WHY THIS SPREADS SHEET SHOWS THAT IT IS $60,000 MORE THAN WHAT WE PAID LAST YEAR BUT LESS FOR WHAT WE BUDGETED.

>> YOU CAN GET AN EXTRA $25 MILLION OF WHEN COVERAGE BUT

STILL BE UNDER. >> THIS IS CONFUSING IF THIS GETS POSTED. IT IS NOT AN INCREASE IS A DECREASE OF WHAT WE BUDGETED. BUT IT INCREASE OF WHAT WE PAID LAST YEAR.

>> AN INCREASE OF WHAT WE ACTUALLY PAID.

>> I GUESS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A COLUMN FOR BOTH. I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THIS EITHER . I THOUGHT WE WERE LOOKING AT AN INCREASE . BUT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT AN INCREASE. A DECREASE OVER BUDGET.

>> CORRECT. >> THE MESSAGE THAT THE MARKET IS BETTER FOR EVERYBODY. WE ARE NOT THE ONLY GOVERNMENT ENTITY IN THIS AREA OR THE STATE THAT IS BEING ABLE TO PURCHASE TWO GET MORE FOR THEIR POLICY THAN BEFORE. BECAUSE THE PRICES HAVE

GONE DOWN IN THE COVERAGE. >> YES. WE HAVE MORE CAPACITY ON THE MARKET. IT IS CREATING A COMPETITIVE ATMOSPHERE . SO IT IS CRATING TO DRIVE THE RATES DOWN. SO THERE WAS NOT A

[00:55:04]

COMPETITIVE ATMOSPHERE ON THE MARKET. WE WERE THINKING OF

WHAT THEY CHARGED. >> WE BUDGETED $2,966,000 FOR

PREMIUMS THIS YEAR. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE INSURANCE RECOMMENDATION IS TO THE ADDITIONAL $25

MILLION IN OPTIONS. >> I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I WAS LOOKING AT THAT SAVINGS. AND I AM JUST CURIOUS. I GET IT.

HAVING MORE IS ALWAYS BETTER, FOR SURE. BUT JUST A $50

MILLION DEAL. >> THAT IS NOT A LOT OF INSURANCE FOR OUR BUILDINGS. SO I CAUTIONED YOU. WITH THE BUDGET AND BEING ABLE TO GET THAT MORE BACK. AND EVEN WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF HURRICANE SEASON. I DO NOT LIKE TO SAY

THAT IN FRONT OF CHASE. >> AND OTHER THAN THAT,

>> IT IS ABOUT ONE ITEM ON THE LIST, COMMISSIONER. THAT IS THE

COVERAGE FOR ELECTIVES. >> DO WE WANT TO WAIT? OR IT IS DUPLICATING SERVICES. WE DO NOT NEED IT.

>> SHE WANTS TO GO TO CLOSED SESSION.

>> THIS IS ABOUT CURRENT PENDING MATTERS.

>> DOESN'T HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS?

>> LET US BRING IT BACK. >> THANK YOU.

[2. Discuss and consider a License Agreement between Nueces County and AEP Texas for a Temporary Staging Area at the RMB Fairgrounds Field, and any related matters.]

TRANSITIONING ]

[3. Discuss and consider adopting Nueces County Commissioners Court Order Adopting Chapter 320 of the Texas Local Government Code related to the Nueces County Inland Park System.]

[4. Discuss, consider, and receive presentation from Coastal Bend Tidal Wave Softball Team and their request to utilize the RMB Ball fields and all related matters. ]

[5. Discuss and consider deselection of Govind Development, LLC for Engineering Services for Hazel Bazemore Park Improvement Project, Precinct 1; Discuss and consider selection of LJA Engineering, Inc. for Engineering Services under Master Service Contract No. 20230257-4/26 (RFQ No. 3232-23) for Hazel Bazemore Park Improvement Project, Precinct 1.]

[6. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving ARPA Engineering Master Services Contract Work Authorization No. 2 with LJA Engineering, Inc. for the Hazel Bazemore Park Improvements Project, in the amount of $87,540.00; and related matters.]

[7. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Work Authorization No. 1 between with Levy Dykema for Oscar Oritz Park Additions & Renovations in the amount of $150,000.00 from Pct. 3 ARPA funds.]

[8. Discuss and consider tearing down Hilltop Community Center (old Tuberculosis sanatorium), which is a county-wide project, and replacing it with a brand-new building to provide something special for all Nueces County residents, in particular those in Precinct 1. Any and all funds not needed for this project would remain in Precinct 1 to aid in other important projects in Precinct 1. All monies would remain in Precinct 1. Or in the alternative to re-bid the item to include a renovation of the entire building and not just a renovation of one third of the building. The people of Nueces County deserve the entire project to be re-done.]

[9. Discuss and consider authorizing Richter Architects to complete the design specifications and drawings for value engineering for Hilltop Community Renovation (IFB No. 3265-24) and related matters.]

[10. Discuss, consider and take action on Nueces County collecting plat application fees within the County's jurisdiction and related matters.]

[01:56:48]

RETURN THE COMMENTS BACK TO THE DEVELOPER OR THE CITY. WE MAKE

[01:56:52]

SURE THAT WE GIVE THOSE BACK. I KNOW SOME ARE IN A RUSH.

[01:56:58]

SOMEONE TO GET THESE PROPERTIES DEVELOPED. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE

[01:57:02]

SURE WE ARE NOT HOLDING THEM BACK.

[01:57:09]

>> ALL GOOD. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD, THEY

[01:57:14]

DID RESPOND BACK TO THE COUNTY ENGINEER, AND SAYING THEY WOULD

[01:57:18]

GET BACK TO THEM. IT WASN'T THAT THEY DIDN'T RESPOND. THEY

[01:57:21]

HAD A 75 YEAR GALA THEY WERE PLANNING LAST WEEK . WE STILL

[01:57:30]

DON'T HAVE THE ADVISORY FROM THE ATTORNEY ON THIS. I ASKED

[01:57:36]

FOR IT BEFORE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE GETTING SOME OF

[01:57:38]

THIS MONEY BACK FROM THE CITY. THEY ARE ALREADY COLLECTING FOR

[01:57:41]

SOME OF THESE THINGS. THAT WAS THE ISSUE, AS WELL. I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO. THAT WAS WHAT WAS THERE. I'M NOT AGAINST THE CONCEPT. I CAN ASSURE YOU, YOU MIGHT HAVE TALKED TO ONE DEVELOPER AREA I TALKED TO OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID. IF YOU WANT ME TO LINE THEM UP, I WILL. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THAT ONE DEVELOPER.

>> YES SIRE. I KNOW YOU DON'T CARE, BUT I'M TRYING.

>> THEY WILL ALWAYS ASK US. WE'VE GOT DEVELOPMENTS THAT WILL BE GOING ON 77. THEY HAVE ASKED US -- IS THEIR FEE? NO,

THERE'S NO FEE. >> I THINK OVERALL, IT HAS NO PART RIGHT NOW. I DON'T THINK THAT FOR US PUTTING A FEE THAT STARTS NOW THROUGH THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS. I THINK THE CITY HAS TO KNOW THAT WE ARE IN CHARGE OF THOSE FEE. I DON'T SEE HOW THE CITY WOULD EVEN CHARGE THOSE IN THE COUNTY AREA. I THINK IS A GOOD THING TO HAVE NOW. NOT A LOT OF MONEY, BUT IT MIGHT HELP WITH SOME OF THE EXPENSES. AT LEAST THE EXPENSES THAT YOU MIGHT INCUR. I KNOW HOW THE COUNTIES ARE DOING IT. YOU KNOW, SMALLER COUNTIES. I THINK THAT WHEN YOU ARE WILLING TO LOOK INTO IT, WE CAN MAKE A MOTION. ONE WAS THE DEVELOPERS. JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY NO. I DON'T THINK I HAD TO DO WHAT THEY SAY EITHER. THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO. NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT THEM TO TELL US WHAT TO DO. YOU KNOW, I

[02:00:02]

THINK WE ALWAYS COMPLAIN WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE ACCOUNT, WE ARE SHORT. HERE WE ARE TRYING TO GET SOME MONEY .

NOW WE ARE FIGHTING IT, AND WE DON'T WANT THE MONEY.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER. I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT BENEFITS THE COUNTY. NOT WITH BENEFITS OTHER

ORGANIZATIONS. >> YOU MEAN OUR CONSTITUENTS? YEAH. WE SHOULDN'T TAKE INPUT FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFECTED THE MOST? THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I SAID WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO FOR THE COUNTY.

>> RIGHT . BUT YOU ARE TELLING ME WE SHOULD HAVE A MEETING WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFECTED? BECAUSE THEY WERE

SPOTTED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO BRING THIS BACK FOR THE JUNE 18TH. COMMISSIONER CHESNEY'S MOTION.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE IN AGREEMENT, COMMISSIONER MAREZ, WITH BRINGING THE INFORMATION BACK. ARE YOU THE SECOND ON THAT? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO BRING THIS BACK. YOU CAN SET THEM DOWN AND SHORE UP A MEETING . THAT WILL BRING US MORE INFORMATION NEXT TIME. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> IF YOU BECOME A JUDGE, I'VE GOT SOMETHING I CAME TO READ.

>> JAN HAD BEEN -- WE HAD BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AND IF YOU REFER TO THE BACKUP, ONE OF THE BACKUPS, IT REFERS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE . 232.0021 . IT SAYS IT MAY IMPOSE AN APPLICATION FEE TO COVER THE COST OF THE COUNTY'S REVIEW OF A SUBDIVISION PLANT, AND INSPECTION OF STREET, ROAD, AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIBED BY THE PLAT . IT MAY BE VARIED BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION. THE ACREAGE DESCRIBED BY THE PLAT, THE TYPE, OR EXTENT OF THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, OR ANY OTHER REASONABLE CRITERIA AS DETERMINED THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. TO BE SUBDIVIDED, MUST PAY THE FEE AT THE TIME DIRECTED BY THE COUNTY. THE FEE IS SUBJECT TO REFUND THE DECISION 2.2.0 025. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ABOUT THIS. I BELIEVE THEY ARE OKAY WITH THIS LAW.

>> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY DISPUTES WE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT. BUT I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK WE ARE KIND OF IN AGREEMENT. I THINK IT JUST NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE TWEAKING. I'M SORRY TO SAY THAT. BUT I THINK WE ALL AGREE, THIS IS GOOD, AND IT NOT A PROBLEM FOR US.

>> I TOTALLY AGREE. THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR ON IT. THE FEES ARE ALREADY BEING COLLECTED. WE SHOULD BE ENTITLED A PORTION OF WHAT THE CITY , I THINK -- THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO PREPARE SOMETHING ON TO TELL US THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO COLLECT SOME OF THE MONEY FROM THE CITY THAT THEY ARE ALREADY

COLLECTING. >> A PORTION OF THE FEES THAT CORRECT ON THEIR OWN. THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS STRUCK BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY, IT WOULD COLLECT WHATEVER CITIES THEY ESTABLISH IN ADDITION TO WHAT THEY COLLECT

ON THEIR OWN BEHALF. >> WE NEVER SAID A FEE.

>> BUT THE QUESTION IS DIFFERENT. YOU DON'T GET A PORTION -- WE WOULD HAVE TO IMPOSE A FEE. THE M.O. YOU WE HAD WITH THEM THAT YOU PULLED UP ALONG TIME AGO, THEY HAD ALWAYS SAID THEY WOULD COLLECT OUR FEE. THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO COLLECT ANYTHING FOR US. SMITH LAST SUMMER ASKED THE QUESTION, YOU SAID YOU DIDN'T KNOW.

>> WHETHER WE CAN ASSERT THE CLAIM. OKAY. I MORE CLEAR NOW.

>> YEAH. NOBODY DISPUTES IF WE CAN DO IT. THAT WAS THE QUESTION OF WHY CAN'T WE GET A PORTION OF WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY COLLECTING -- IF WE ARE DOING WORK ON THEIR BEHALF? BECAUSE THEY ASK US TO DO THINGS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> WE EXPECT TO HAVE THIS BY

THE NEXT MEETING THEN? >> I DO SEE AN EMAIL, THEY HAVE

RESPONDED >> THEY WERE ASKING FOR THE MAY

28TH MEETING. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO BRING THIS BACK ON THE 18TH AFTER THE MEETING TO MOVE FORWARD . AND WITH THE CLARIFICATION HE WAS ASKING

[11. Discuss and consider approval of agreement with the City of Driscoll, Texas to accept donation of a 0.253-acre tract of land for the purpose of constructing a new Community Center Facility.]

[02:05:06]

FROM YOU, JENNY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 11, DISCUSSING THE APPROVAL TO ACCEPT A DONATION OF 0.253 ACRE TRACT OF LAND. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS THIS, HAS REVIEWED, AND IT IS ACCEPTABLE?

>> YES. >> SO MOVED, JUDGE.

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

[12. Accept final completion of Equipment Lease/Purchase Agreement with Banc of America Public Capital Corp for the Bundled Energy Solutions Projects and authorize release of final 10% retainage for the NC Jail Project, in the amount of $347,041.37 from Banc of America Public Capital Corp., Payable to "ABM Building Services LLC" as authorized through Pay Appication #29, disbursement request #22 approved October 25, 2023.]

THE MOTION PASSES . ITEM NUMBER 12, EXCEPT THE FINAL COMPLETION OF THIS. I WILL TAKE THIS IN A MINUTE. I WOULD LIKE FOR MR. --

YET? >>

>> ONE, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE BEEN HEARING MEETINGS. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM BEFORE WE GO BACK, IF YOU COULD PLEASE. TELL ME WHERE WE ARE, AND WHERE WE STAND. YES.

>> BASICALLY, YOU JUST WANTED TO STATE MY POSITION ON IT NOW?

>> WE ARE PREPARED TO DO A SUMMARY, SIGN OFF, AND HAVE THEM ON THE PROJECT. ALL OF THE PIPING AND SYSTEMS THAT WERE IN THE DOCUMENT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED. THAT AGREEMENT WOULD BE CONTINGENT. DOING A STUDY BY THE THIRD-PARTY. THE GENERAL CONTROL CURRENTLY. OTHER THAN THAT, ONE OUTLIER. I THINK EVERYTHING IS COMPLETE , WORKING THROUGH THE MAJORITY OF

THE ENTIRE PROJECT. >> IT MAY BE COMING UP LATER.

ONE, ARE YOU SAYING YOU AGREE WITH MR. WE WE CAN -- WHEATON?

>> I KNOW HE CAME UP HERE AND SAID IT WAS DONE. I SENT A LETTER OUT ABOUT 3-4 WEEKS AGO. THOSE ITEMS ARE STILL NOT COMPLETE. IN MY OPINION, AS A COUNTY ENGINEER, IT IS NOT

COMPLETE. >> DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO --

>> WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THE EQUIPMENT THAT IS INSTALLED, AND STATED BY RON WHEATON IS COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL. SOME HAS BEEN COMPLETE FOR OVER TWO YEARS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE LAST COMPONENT, WHICH HAD SOME CONCERN, WE BROUGHT IN A TAB CONSULTANT WHO CAME BACK TO DOUBLE CHECK THE SYSTEMS. EVERYTHING THAT IS ON THE SIDE IS OPERATIONAL. WE DID PULL UP SOME DEFICIENCIES THAT ARE COUNTY RELATED. AND IT HAS BEEN PROACTIVE OF GETTING THOSE ITEMS COMPLETE. I DISAGREE THERE IS WORK THAT IS NOT COMPLETE THAT WAS CONTRACTUALLY SET UP. THE LAST ITEM THAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT HAVING AN INDEPENDENT PARTY COME IN TO LOOK AT THE CONTROL SIDE . WE DO AGREE AND RECOMMEND THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD FLUSH OUT ANY CONCERNS AND THINGS THAT MAYBE THE SYSTEM IS NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. AND WITH RON WHEATON AS TO WHAT THAT INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE TESTING, CHECKING, AND VALIDATING.

>> DOES THE COUNTY DISAGREE WITH THAT ?

>> JUDGE, WE DO. THE REASON I SAY THAT, SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT DOESN'T WORK. THE CONTROLS AREN'T WORKING CORRECTLY.

>> I KNOW, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THE THINGS, YOU ARE SAYING THE LIST. BUT I MET WITH THE THIRD-PARTY PERSON

COMING IN. >> YES MA'AM. WE DISCUSSED

THAT. YES MA'AM, I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S WHAT I MEANT. I GUESS THEY COME OUT WITH THE THIRD PARTY. YES MA'AM.

>> OKAY. AND THIS IS GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE.

>> AND I JUST ATE ONE LAST PIECE? I DON'T WANT TO GET

[02:10:05]

INTO A TENNIS COURT MATCH YEAR GOING BACK AND FORTH. THERE ARE SOME EQUIPMENT THAT MAY NOT BE FUNCTIONING . THE EXAMPLE IS THE ONE UNIT, THERE IS A BLOWER UNIT THAT IS A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT IS PROBABLY TWO YEARS OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY. I'VE SHARED WITH THE COUNTY THAT WE ARE GETTING A PROPOSAL PUBLIC -- IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF WARRANTY. THERE WERE TWO SENSORS THAT WERE REVIEWED , THAT WERE INSTALLED OVER TWO YEARS AGO. THEY ARE OPERATIONAL CORRECTLY . THE READING THEY ARE SHOWING IS NOT CORRECT. WE ARE GOING TO REPLACING THOSE SENSORS, AS WELL. AND ON THE COUNTY SIDE. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE TALK ABOUT CERTAIN ITEMS THAT MAY NOT BE WORKING, WE SHOULD BE FAIR IN STATING WHAT IS MAY BE IN A WARRANTY STAGE? SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE OUT OF WARRANTY. BUT A LOT OF THIS EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN INSTALLED FOR A GOOD PERIOD OF TIME. AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A TENNIS MATCH GOING BACK AND FORTH. I JUST WANT TO CLARITY WITH PEOPLE LEAVING , GOING TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION THEY ARE. SOME OF THESE ISSUES.

THANK YOU. >> I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. WHEATON, ONE MORE TIME, WOULD YOU COME UP IN LIGHT OF EVERYTHING ? ARE YOU STILL IN AGREEMENT WITH MOVING FORWARD? YOU WILL BE SIGNING OFF ON THE FIRE CONTROLS AND THE AIR HANDLER. SMIT WE WILL PUT TOGETHER A SUMMARY OF SOME OF THE ORIGINAL CLOSEOUT DOCUMENTS.

>> SO YOU ARE PREPARED TO SIGN OFF ON THIS?

>> SOME OF THE AIR HANDLERS , IT IS A WARRANTY ISSUE. THERE ARE SOME WARRANTY ISSUES. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE ORIGINAL

PRODUCT IS AND INTACT. >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I NEEDED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ALL OF YOU. MOVING ON, I WILL TAKE THAT IN EXECUTIVE. I GUESS I ALREADY SAID THAT.

>> I WASN'T HERE WHEN Y'ALL DISCUSSED THE RENOVATION.

>> WE PULLED INTO EXECUTIVE. >> OKAY. I'VE GOT SOME VIDEO I

[13. Discuss and consider allocating Commissioner Pct 3, American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) un-allocated funds in the amount of $1,872,138.00 as follows and other related matters: $101,270 - CR44 Bridge $650,000 - Boys and Girls Club $750,000 - Historic First Methodist Church $370,868 - Keach Family Library Inclusive and Sensory Playgrounds $1,872,138 - Total Allocation]

WANTED TO SHOW. WILL I BE ABLE TO SHOW IT?

>> WHEN WE BRING IT BACK OUT TO TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN. OKAY?

>> THAT'S FINE. >> ITEM NUMBER 13. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ALLOCATING COMMISSIONER 3, AMERICAN RESCUE PLANT ACT, A TOTAL ALLOCATION OF 1.872138 . ARE YOU MAKING A

MOTION? >> YES. DEFINITELY, JUDGE. I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF ADDRESS THE ITEMS WE ARE WELL FAMILIAR WITH. THE REQUEST THAT WAS MADE IN DISTRICT NUMBER TWO ON REPAIRING THE BRIDGE. ITEM TWO WAS LISTED AS A BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. THAT IS KIND OF JUST ETERNALLY -- INTERNALLY WHAT WE USE. THAT ORGANIZATION DOESN'T HAVE ANY CONNECTION TO THE BUILDING AT ALL. WE JUST KIND OF USE IT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE EASIEST RECOGNIZABLE NAME PEOPLE KNOW. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE LISTED THERE, UNFORTUNATELY -- PEOPLE WERE KIND OF UNCERTAIN OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OUT THERE. THAT IS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING AND THE BUILDING ONLY. ALL OF THESE FUNDS ARE ALL ACTUAL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS, OR EQUIPMENT ADDITIONS THAT WILL BE NEEDED. NONE OF THIS GOES TO ANY ORGANIZATION AT ALL. ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, AND -- SAME THING WITH ITEM THREE. IN REALITY, IT IS NOT FIRST METHODIST CHURCH ANY LONGER. IT HAS THE HISTORICAL DESIGNATION THERE. IT IS OWNED BY A DIFFERENT GROUP, AND THERE'S A PARTNERSHIP BEING WORKED THROUGH THROUGH A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. AND THAT WILL ALSO BE FOR IMPROVEMENTS. OR FOR ANY PARTICULAR GROUP OTHER THAN TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND/OR ADULTS. AN ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THIS IS AN ITEM WE

[02:15:01]

MENTIONED ALSO PREVIOUSLY. THE INCLUSIVE AND SENSORY IMPROVEMENTS. THIS IS SOMETHING WE WANTED TO ADD ON TO THE TRAIL. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE TO HAVE THIS AS A SEPARATE ITEM. SO IT IS A STANDALONE ITEM. IT IS TO HELP CHILDREN OF ALL ABILITIES. IT WILL BE THE FIRST OF ITS KIND IN THIS AREA OF THE COUNTY. THAT IS THE BENEFIT. IT CAN BE CHILDREN OF FAMILIES WHO HAVE CHILDREN OF VARIOUS ABILITIES. THAT IS WHAT THAT IS. I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU MAY HAVE WONDERS. WHERE, OR WHY IS THIS BEING ALLOCATED. THIS IS REALLY ONE OF THE FIRST STEPS. IT IS NOT THE FIRST STEP TO GET THIS COMPLETE. INTERNALLY, TRYING TO DESIGNATE ALL FUNDING FOR NOW TO BE COMPLETE. BUT THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO BE WORKED ON TO GET PAPERWORK COMPLETE, OTHER CLARIFICATION COMPLETE. OUR COUNTY STAFF. OUR PARTNERS AT GRANT WORKS WHO HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WORKING ON THESE VARIOUS GROUPS, TRYING TO HELP US GET TO THE END GOAL, SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY WITH REHABBED BUILDINGS. AND THEN THE PROGRAMMING WILL BE DECIDED BY THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAD THOSE GROUPS. OF COURSE WITH A CITY, OR COMMUNITY PURPOSE AT MIND , IT IS NOT ABOUT A MEMBERSHIP OF HEARD EARLIER. IT IS NOT ABOUT ANYTHING WE ARE REQUIRING, OR EXPECT TO HAVE. THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THE FUNDING TO MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS. IT IS SOMETHING I WANT TO DO FOR THE COMMUNITY THERE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE COURT IF YOU HAVE ANY? IF NOT, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM

NUMBER 13. >> ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY

[14. Discuss and consider recently passed tax exemptions for qualifying daycare facilities in Tax Code 11.36, which took effect January 1, 2024; and all related matters.]

OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. GINNY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO IT. I JUST TEXTED HIM, HE IS ON A PHONE CALL. HE SAID HE MIGHT BE HERE. OH, HE'S HERE. OKAY. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE RECENTLY PASSED EXEMPTIONS FOR THE QUALIFYING DAY CARE FACILITIES. 11DOT36, TAKING AFFECT JANUARY 1ST, 2024. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS. IT'S AN OPTION BECAUSE THE LAW CHANGED THAT WE CAN GIVE THIS BREAK. KEVIN?

>> WHAT HAPPENS WITH ALL EXEMPTIONS, WHEN YOU HAVE ONE COME ON BOARD, YOU HAVE THE TAXATION NUMBERS. YOU ALSO HAVE THAT LEVY LOSS THAT COMES UP. IT INCREASES THE REVENUE RATE FOR THAT LOSS THAT IS IN THEIR ESSENTIALLY.

>> YOU ARE PASSING THE COST ONTO SOMEBODY ELSE.

>> YES. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH ALL EXEMPTIONS. THAT IS THE REASON WHY I'M TRYING TO FIX THE PROPERTY TAX SITUATION.

THOSE WHO DO NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT, IT IS BASICALLY ABSORBED BY EVERYONE ELSE AROUND. THE IDEA HE HAD BEHIND THIS WAS TO TRY TO REDUCE THE PROPERTY TAX ON THESE DAY CARE FACILITIES.

>> BUT THIS IS ON THE DAY CARE, NOT ON THE INDIVIDUALS COMING

IN. >> CORRECT. AND IT HAS HELPED STABILIZE, THAT WAS THE IDEA BEHIND IT. TO STABILIZE AND MAKE IT -- PASSING DOWN TO THE CONSUMERS.

>> OKAY, SO WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO IN THIS? I AM JUST A LITTLE

-- >> THAT'S UP TO Y'ALL.

>> HOW DO I ASK IT? IF WE PASS IT, IS THAT A NEGATIVE TAX IMPACT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?

>> THOSE THAT AREN'T PAID GET ABSORBED, BUT WILL BE PAID BY

OTHERS. >> SO THE INTENT OF THIS WAS FOR US TO DECIDE LOCALLY IF WE WANTED TO PASS THIS ON? IS THAT

-- >> THAT IS WITH ALL EXEMPTIONS.

[02:20:05]

THAT MONEY COMES OFF , COMES OUT OF THE CALCULATION, AND IT

BRINGS -- >> EVERYBODY ELSE'S ,?

>> IT IS THIS WAY WITH EVERY EXEMPTION OUT THERE. IS IT BAD? NO. I THINK THE IMPACT WILL BE FAIRLY MINIMUM . NUMBER ONE, THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT. THERE IS NO WAY FOR ME TO GO OUT THERE AND SAY, WELL, YOU ARE BRINGING THIS NUMBER OFF THE TABLE NOW. YOU WON'T KNOW IT, UNFORTUNATELY, UNTIL IT IS PASSED. BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE SUCH A GENTLEMAN'S NUMBER OF DAY CARE FACILITIES OUT THERE THAT IS GOING TO HAVE REALLY A NOTICEABLE IMPACT. BUT IT WILL INCREASE ITSELF. AND

THAT BASELINE WILL COME UP. >> I LOOK UP HERE, I REALIZE SOME HAD TO DEAL WITH THOSE WHEN I WAS A CASEWORKER AND SUPERVISOR WITH THE STATE. OF COURSE, COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ WHEN HE WAS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT KEEPING FAMILIES TOGETHER, FINDING THAT ONE PARENT, OR RELATIVE, TRYING TO DO ALL THE BEST THEY CAN FOR THE BIOLOGICAL PLACEMENTS. THEY ARE LOOKING FOR DAY CARES ALL HOURS OF THE DAY. I CAN REMEMBER CASES OF FAMILIES WHO COULD NOT MEET THEIR OBLIGATION OF WORK . BECAUSE THEY NEEDED SOMEONE TO WATCH THE KIDS BECAUSE THEY WORK THE GRAVEYARD SHIFT. I SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF THIS , IF WE CAN GET MAYBE A BREAKDOWN OF MONEY SO WE CAN NOW. SMITH UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO WAY.

>> NO WAY UNTIL WE HAVE THE APPLICATIONS.

>> AND THIS IS THE PERCENTAGE OF DAY CARE FACILITIES THAT ARE, WHAT IS IT? THE RISING STAR PROGRAM?

>> YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THAT THROUGH THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS KEYED IN.

>> UNTIL THEY APPLY FOR THE EXEMPTION, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS GOING TO BE. BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY IS, AND WITH THE

INDICATION WILL BE. >> WELL, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THERE ARE MORE OPTIONS FOR WORKING FAMILIES, SOME WHO ARE STRUGGLING , OR YOU CAN ARGUE ALL OF THEM ARE TRYING TO DO THAT AT SOME POINT. HECK, IF IT BECOMES A PROBLEM, I THINK IT IS A GOOD PROBLEM. AND I THINK THERE MAY BE A DATABASE. I JUST KIND OF WANT TO SEE WHAT THE

NUMBER IS NOW. >> AND ALSO, LET ME INTERJECT

THIS IS TIME SENSITIVE. >> IF YOU WANT IT FOR THIS YEAR, YOU'VE GOT TO DO IT NOW.

>> IF YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL 2025, YOU GOT TIME TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION. WHAT WE PUT OUT IN OCTOBER 2025 . THE IDEA IS TO HELP STABILIZE THE COST OF DAY CARE . WE'VE ALL SEEN OUR VALUES SHOOT TO THE ROOF. BUSINESSES WHO DON'T HAVE EXEMPTIONS OF ANY SOEVER. THEY IMMEDIATELY ON THAT.

>> IT WILL HELP A FEW WAYS. IT WILL LEGITIMIZE SOME. THERE ARE CHILDCARE FACILITIES THAT CALL THEMSELVES THAT, OPERATORS THAT, BUT TECHNICALLY DON'T NEED ANY MANDATE OPTIONS.

THAT'S THE KEY. WHEN THEY GO TO THE JUVENILE COURT, THAT IS WHEN THE -- WHEN THEY NEED IT THE MOST. ARE SEVEN TO EIGHT TIME FRAME THAT I WISH WE CAN INCLUDE. I WOULD SUPPORT IT IF WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO IT TODAY.

>> I THINK IT IS ALSO GOING TO HELP YOUR STANDARD TIMES. LOOK AT THE NUMBER. I'VE GOT A STAFF OF 68 PEOPLE. LET'S FACE

[02:25:07]

IT, IT'S NOT THAT GREAT. THEY COULD REALLY USE THE HELP AND THE STABILIZATION OF THAT. SO, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE THE OPTION . YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE THE OPTION TO STIPULATE THAT.

IT EITHER MEETS THE STATE STATUTE, OR DOESN'T. YOU EITHER ACCEPT IT, OR YOU DON'T. THE ONLY OPTIONS YOU HAVE IF YOU DO ACCEPT IT, YOU HAVE THIS CHOICE TO DECIDE HOW MUCH OF AN EXEMPTION YOU WANT TO GIVE. YOU CAN GO ALL THE WAY UP TO 100%.

THAT IS A DECISION YOU GUYS HAVE TO MAKE.

>> I THINK THEY ARE MAKING THE MOTION FOR THE DAY CARE FACILITIES FOR '24. WE LOOK AT IT AGAIN IN '25.

>> SECOND? >> BY HOW MUCH? WE WOULD NEED

AN AMOUNT. >> CAN YOU DO THAT?

>> YOU CAN REMOVE ANY EXEMPTION. THE POPULAR ONES, IT IS NOT REALLY HARD TO TAKE IT AWAY.

>> I'M NOT TAKING IT AWAY. >> TEXTURE CALL -- THAT IS YOUR

CALL. >> I WOULD SAY 100%.

>> I WOULD SAY 50%. >> WE WOULD CAPTURE IT.

>> YOU WILL HAVE A GOOD SNAPSHOT BEFORE CERTIFICATION, THE EARLIER IN THE PROCESS YOU DO IT THE BETTER BECAUSE YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ACCURATE ESTIMATE, GET YOUR NOTICE OF APPRAISED VALUE AND I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND IF YOU REVISIT THIS YOU LOOK AT IT IN FEBRUARY SO YOU CAN GET IT AGAIN AND THEN YOU HAVE YOUR NOTICE THE DISTRICT IN APRIL WITH SOME CAPTURE OF THAT AS WELL BASED ON WHAT YOU DECIDE TO DO.

>> THE ONLY THING I WORRY ABOUT. THEY WILL RAISE UP THE PRICE FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO CHARGE AND I WOULD SAY 80% OR

100% EITHER WAY TO ME. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DO 100% AND A SECOND. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A VOTE?

>> I AGREE STARTING HIGH AND IF WE NEED TO BACK DOWN IT'S HARDER TO PULL THAT AWAY. I WOULD RATHER START 50 THEN SAY 35 100 NEXT YEAR WE HONOR AND RECOGNIZE THIS. ALSO IT IS ONLY THOSE WHO QUALIFY TEXAS RISING STAR PROGRAM CORRECT? OWNER OR OPERATOR WHICH PARTICIPATES UNDER SECTION 1136 SECTION 2

SUB A ? >> I WOULD DEFER TO THE COUNTY

ATTORNEY. >> THERE ARE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS SO IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE ANY DAYCARE THAT

WANTS TO DO IT. >> TO YOUR POINT FROM THE BEGINNING. THERE IS NO STIPULATION ON THESE COSTS PASSED DOWN TO THE CHILDREN AND THE FAMILIES OR ANYTHING. IT IS

ON THE BUSINESS. YEAH. >> HOPEFULLY IT DOES STABILIZE

PROPERTY TAX SO THAT PIECE . >> HOW ABOUT 75? I WILL BE THE

MIDDLE GUY. >> A MIRACLE.

>> I AM IN THE MIDDLE FOR A CHANGE. HE SAID 75. I AM A

COMPROMISE. >> WE HAVE EMOTION AND A SECOND TO AGREE TO THIS FOR 75%. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED

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

SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 15 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER UPCOMING COMMISSIONER COURT MEETING DATES I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT ONE IN NOVEMBER POSSIBLY CHANGING THE DATE. I KNOW IT IS NOT ON HERE YET.

>> I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE AND WE HAVE TIME TO

[02:30:04]

DISCUSS . >> EARLY ENOUGH TO CHANGE.

>> THE FIFTH WILL BE A BUSY DAY FOR SEVERAL PEOPLE. SO WE JUST DO IT IN ONE MEETING. LIKE THE 13TH?

>> EITHER HAVE ONE ON THE 13TH OR BACK TO BACK THE 13TH AND

20TH. >> I LIKE THE 13TH BETTER IF EVERYONE IS OKAY. WITH THAT ONE.

>> LIKE I SAID JUST TO THROW IT OUT THERE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT

LATER. >> THE ELECTION IS A BIG DEAL

SO LET'S GO AHEAD. >> YOU WON'T WANT TO COME BUT

AFTER THE ELECTION. >> WE CHANGE THE ONE, WE HAVE ONE MEETING IN NOVEMBER ON THE 13TH.

>> YOU ARE GOING TO BE SUPER BUSY.

>> WHAT IS THE MOTION? >> CONSOLIDATE TO ONE MEETING

NOVEMBER 13. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. HE WANTS THREE MORE MEETINGS. OKAY. MOVING ON

[1. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Supplemental Agreement No. 3 with Hanson Professional Services Inc. to provide stormwater management services associated with the County's Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGPs) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit.]

PUBLIC WORKS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SHOULD BE NUMBER FOUR WITH HANSEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO PROVIDE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

THIS IS A ANNUAL REQUIREMENT I WILL MAKE MOTION TO PASS. WE HAVE EMOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED

[1. Discuss and consider conditional selection for Bob Hall Pier Reconstruction (IFB No. 3275-24); and related matters.]

SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON ITEMS C PURCHASING DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION AND RELATED MATTERS. CONDITIONAL SELECTION.

>> WE CONDUCTED A BID OPENING ON MAY 9 RECEIVED THREE BIDS.

THE RECOMMENDATION WENT TO THE PARKS BOARD ON THURSDAY OF LAST WEEK AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO SUPPORT THAT AND HAVE THE COURT SUPPORT CONDITIONAL SELECTION FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION. AS ENDORSED BY THE COUNCIL -- COUNTY BOARD OF PARKS I BELIEVE THE BID PRICE IS STILL A LITTLE ABOVE WHERE WE WANT IT. THIS WOULD AUTHORIZE THE TEAM TO WORK ON VALUE ENGINEERING AND BRING THAT BACK AT THE NEXT

COMMISSIONERS COURT. >> JUDGE I MAKE A MOTION TO CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT THE LOW BIDDER WITH INSTRUCTION TO GO BACK TO DEVALUE ENGINEERING WHICH RIVER MEETING SET UP

ALREADY TO START THE PROCESS. >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

>> DO WE HAVE TO REBID? >> IT IS CONDITIONAL.

>> WE ARE ON CONDITIONAL SELECTION SO THERE'S NOTHING FOR THE COURT TO CONSIDER UNTIL THEY COME BACK WITH VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL AND AT THAT TIME DEPENDING ON WHAT THINGS ARE BEING LOOKED AT THIS IS FOR ANY PROJECT ANYTIME WE GET INTO VALUE ENGINEERING DEPENDING ON WHAT PIECES ARE BEING MOVED CAN CHANGE MY OPINION OF WHAT WE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO. SO RIGHT NOW I HAVE NOTHING IN FRONT OF ME ON THIS OTHER THAN RECOMMENDATION OF THE LOW BIDDER WHICH I SUPPORT THE COURT MOVE FORWARD AT THIS POINT.

>> WE HAVE EMOTION AND SECOND?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. COURT-APPROVED 28 MILLION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE ARPA FUNDS? I THOUGHT IT WAS 26.

>> ARPA PLUS THE PORT MONEY THE ADDITIONAL ARPA. PLUS THE PORT

YES. >> FOR THE PIER RIGHT?

>> AND RESTAURANT SPACE. THAT IS THE TOTAL VALUE THE TOTAL PROJECT 28.2 MILLION WHICH INCLUDES ALLOCATION FOR THE THIRD-PARTY CONCESSIONARY RESTAURANT SPACE INCLUDING THE EXTRA 1 MILLION AND THE PORTED 500, THE JUDGE AND I GAVE 500 AND I HAD ANOTHER 1 MILLION FOR THE RESTAURANT SPACE, AS WELL

THAT WAS ARPA. >> DEMOLITION IS ALREADY DONE? AND THEN WE HAVE COMMITTED ALMOST 3 MILLION PROFESSIONAL

[02:35:02]

SERVICES? >> RIGHT AT 10% THE TOTAL PROJECT 28 MILLION AND IT IS , 2.7 OR TWO POINT SOMETHING RIGHT AT 10% AND THAT IS EVERYTHING, CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, THAT'S THE WHOLE

DEAL. >> REMAINING WAS 22 MILLION.

>> REMAINING FOR CONSTRUCTION YES.

>> IT IS ON THIS CHART. >> RIGHT AND I GAVE THAT AS BACKUP. THAT WAS INFORMATION PROVIDED.

>> OKAY ALREADY LIKE WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ACCEPT

IT HAD NOT GONE TO COURT YET. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WILL

DO UNTIL YOU VOTE ON IT. >> WHAT WE WILL DO ON WHAT?

>> AFTER REVIEWING I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE GONE TO THE PROCESS OF

SELECTION. >> ON THIS PARTICULAR.

>> THE PARKS BOARD LOOKS AT IT FIRST SO WHAT THEY DID, THEY MADE THE CHOICE BASED ON THAT NOW WE ARE RATIFYING OR APPROVING WHAT THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED. CONDITIONALLY, SORRY CONDITIONALLY BASED ON THE VALUE ENGINEERING STARTING

TOMORROW. >> THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THE PROJECTS CONSIDERED COUNTYWIDE? BECAUSE I HAVE SOME

CONSTITUENTS. >> SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.

>> SOME CONSTITUENTS WENT TO MY HOUSE AND TALK TO ME ABOUT IT AND THEY SAID IF IT'S CONSIDERED COUNTYWIDE WHY CAN'T WE, THOSE ARE NOT MEETS THEY ARE WANTS AND PEOPLE HERE REALLY NEED DRAINAGE AND TO FIX THE WATER LINES AND THE SEWAGE LINES. SO THEY WERE ASKING WHY CAN'T WE CONSIDER THEM ? THE ISLAND IS PROGRESSING REALLY GOOD , A LOT OF BUILDINGS AND RESTAURANTS GOING UP, BUT IT IS RURAL AREAS THAT ARE SUFFERING.

THAT'S WHAT MY CONSTITUENTS WERE TELLING ME. SO MAYBE YOU CAN RECONSIDER. PUTTING UP SOME MONEY . BECAUSE THOSE ARE

NEEDS, NOT WANTS. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE WILL TABLE THIS? >> THE MOTION MADE AND SECONDED TO APPROVE TO GO TO VALUE ENGINEERING AND IT WILL COME BACK WITH THAT AT THE JUNE MEETING FINAL APPROVAL. IT WILL COME BACK TO SHOW WITH THE VALUE ENGINEERING DID TO GET IT

INTO BUDGET. >> THAT'S 1.4 MILLION?

>> ALREADY CUT 935,000 BASED ON REDUNDANCIES . IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM IT INDICATES THAT. IF IT IS THE LETTER I PROVIDED THERE WAS A NUMBER OF 935,000, GOING TO THE BOTTOM ON THE BACK PAGE. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

>> 935,000. >> ALREADY FOUND REDUNDANCIES IN THE COST-SAVING . WE WILL BRING THE WHOLE THING BACK.

THEY JUST LOOK AND FOUND THAT AND TOMORROW WE WILL GO BACK TO THE VALUE ENGINEERING AND BRING IT BACK TO SHOW YOU WHERE WE

ARE. >> DOES THIS HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD AGAIN? THE PARKS BOARD?

[02:40:05]

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION. THAT COMES TO THE COURT AND WHEN THE COURT APPROVES THIS CONDITIONAL SELECTION MOVING FORWARD WE DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO GO

BACK TO THE PARKS BOARD ? >> THEY WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS. SO THEY WILL HAVE REPRESENTATIVES

THERE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR FOR THE CONDITIONAL SELECTION SAY AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ANY OPPOSED?

>> I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ARE HERE TODAY AS WELL, I APPRECIATE THEIR HELP AND THE PARKS BOARD

[2. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement with Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC for Aggregate, Type PB, Grade 3S, LRA (Limestone Rock Asphalt) (IFB No. 3237-23).]

EXPEDITING THIS, SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MOVING ON ITEM 2 DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE VULCAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS REGULAR USE THROUGHOUT THE

YEAR. >> THIS IS JUST RENEWAL ANYTIME EVER KNOW CONTAINS PRICE INCREASE WE BRING THAT IN THE REGULAR AGENDA WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THE PRICE IS GOING UP FROM $86.86 UP TO 88.86 ON THE ONES WITHIN 20 MILE RADIUS INCREASING FROM 89.06 INCREASING FROM 89.062 91.06 AS PERMITTED BY THE CONTRACT. RECOMMEND APPROVAL COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS REVIEWED FOR SUFFICIENCY AND PUBLIC

WORKS RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> SORRY. >> MOTION AND A SECOND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE

[3. Discuss and consider conditional selection of International Consulting Engineers (ICE) for Amistad Veterans Memorial Park Improvements (IFB No. 3268-24); and related matters.]

MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON ITEM NUMBER THREE DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF ICE FOR VETERANS MEMORIAL

PARK. >> PROPOSAL OPENING MAY 14 RECEIVING THREE PROPOSALS WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF INTERNATIONAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ICE FOR THE VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS.

ALSO RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CONDUCT VALUE ENGINEERING ON THIS PROJECT TO BRING THE COST WITHIN AVAILABLE FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR THE PROJECT. PARKS HAS REVIEWED AND RECOGNIZED APPROVAL OF CONDITION SELECTION AT THIS

TIME. AGAIN WE COME BACK. >> MOTION TO PASS.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU. MOVING ON AUDITOR OFFICE ITEM NUMBER ONE DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A TIME ONLY CHANGE ORDER NUMBER FIVE.

>> SORRY CAN I GO BACK NUMBER THREE WAS MINE . MEMORIALS PARK

? >> WE PASSED IT.

>> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? >> WHERE IS MICHAEL?

>> DID YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT?

>> CONDITIONAL SELECTION LIKE WE DID WITH PRECINCT 4. NUMBER THREE, YOU SAID WE HAVE TO DO VALUE ENGINEERING. SO, IT WAS UNDER WEATHER AND ALTERNATE? I NEVER KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME FROM PRECINCT 4.

>> SO THE COURT KNOWS, CONDITIONAL SELECTION IS DIFFERENT FROM CONDITION UPON VALUE ENGINEERING. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT IDEAS. CONDITIONAL SELECTION IS A STEP IN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS WHERE WE BASICALLY PRESELECT A VENDOR FOR PROJECT BASED ON BEING BELOW BITTER AND WE HAVE TO GO BUT THE CONTRACT TOGETHER AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COURT.

USUALLY, IF THEY BID UNDER THE BUDGET AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DO VALUE ENGINEERING THE RESULTING CONTRACT IS JUST GOING TO BE FOR PERHAPS THE BASE BID OR ADDITIVE IF THAT FITS WITHIN

THE BUDGET. >> WHAT WAS, IT WAS HIGHER THAN, WHAT WAS IT , WHAT PART WAS HIGHER? DO WE KNOW?

[02:45:08]

>> MY UNDERSTANDING . EDWARD LEFT ALREADY. UNDERSTANDING WAS THERE IS A BASE BID AMOUNT OF $1,012,317.35 WITH THE ADDITIVE NUMBER ONE NUMBER 160 5000 AND ADDITIVE NUMBER TWO 22,000 AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS THE AMOUNT COME I BELIEVE THAT'S HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT ALLOCATED.

>> THEY ARE ADDITIVE, NOT PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK RIGHT?

>> WHERE WE ARE NOW IS ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN DRAWN INTO THE PROJECT AND WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY IS NOT REQUIRING THE COURT TO SELECT JUST THE BASE BID OR FACING ADDITIVE ONE OR TWO. THAT WILL COME AFTER CONDITIONAL SELECTION WE WILL COME BACK AND FINALIZE EXACTLY WHAT ITEMS ARE

BEING PROPOSED. >> SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE DOING

THE SELECTION ? >> YOU ARE JUST SELECTING A

VENDOR SO WE CAN NEGOTIATE. >> OKAY.

>> THE COURT ALWAYS, WHEN WE COME BACK FOR THE AWARD THAT'S THE KEY POINT WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD WE WILL COME IN WITH CONTRACT AND WE LOVE EDWARD OR WHOEVER THE PROJECT MANAGER IS ON A PROJECT TO EXPLAIN TO THE COURT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE GETTING. YOU WILL GET THE BASE BID OR THE BASE

PLUS ADDITIVE . >> IT MIGHT NOT CHANGE.

>> THAT'S POSSIBLE. THE OTHER THING WOULD BE IF THE PROJECT COMES IN HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT, THE COURT HAS THE ABILITY IF THEY SEEK ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO ADD TO THE PROJECT WHERE WE CAN DO THE WHOLE BASE IT AND/OR OTHER ADDITIVES. YOU HAVE THAT OPTION AS WELL, RIGHT NOW ALL WE'RE DOING IS PICKING THE VENDOR TO START THE PROCESS.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU WANT TO PASS YOUR OWN

[1. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Time-Only Change Order #5 for the "Alight Extended Post-Implementation Support" project. This change addresses necessary adjustments to the project timeline and does not affect the project scope or budget. The scope of change includes the extension of the project timeline for Adaptive and Strategic Sourcing implementation support.]

THING? >> ADAM DUNN WINS AUDITOR OFFICE DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING APPROVING TIME ONLY CHANGE ORDER NUMBER FIVE FOR THE A LIGHT EXTENDED POST-IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT. I GUESS THIS IS EXTENDING THE DATES THAT ARE AVAILABLE OR SOMETHING?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. EXTENDING THE DATES FOR THE ADAPTIVE IMPLEMENTATION. AND I BELIEVE STRATEGIC WHICH IMPACTS MICHAEL ROBINSON THAT IS A PURCHASING FUNCTION. A TIME ONLY EXTENSION TO THE TIME ONLY EXTENSION BEING REQUESTED DUE TO UNFORESEEN FOR STANCES. EXTENDING TESTING REQUIREMENTS AND DELAYS ON OUR SIDE HONESTLY. THAT HAVE IMPACTED

THE PROJECT TIMELINE. >> NOT FINANCIAL, JUST TIME.

>> TIME ONLY BECAUSE THE HOURS WILL NOT INCREASE.

>> I MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS. I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ALL

[1. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving Amendment No. 1 to A Managed Prescription Drug Program Agreement Managed by Script Care, Ltd. to include changes to Schedule C Rebate Program for Nueces County; and related matters.]

THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM E 1 HUMAN RESOURCES DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE, TO THE MANAGE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM AGREEMENT MANAGED BY SCRIPT CARE LIMITED. THIS IS TIME SENSITIVE, AS WELL. IT WILL RESULT IN REBATES AND SAVINGS FOR THE COUNTY , THE INSURANCE COMMITTEE THAT WAS ON THE PHONE CALL SUGGESTS WE PASS

THIS. >> THE INSURANCE CONSULTANT SHOWING VALUE TO HAVE MONTHS OF CONTRACTING WITH US $256,000

INCOME. IT IS RECOMMENDED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED

[2. Discuss and consider reclassification of the Assistant Foreman and Foreman positions. Reclassification is to be funded by deleting one Roadway Technician position resulting in a cost savings.]

SAME SIGN. MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 2. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND FOREMAN POSITIONS. RECLASSIFICATION TO BE FUNDED BY DELETING ONE ROADWAY TECHNICIAN POSITION. RESULTING IN COST SAVINGS. I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH THIS ONE ON THE WAY WE GOT THE REPORT. WE USUALLY GET MORE DETAILED, THIS JUST LISTED A BUNCH OF PEOPLE, I VOTED ALL YOUR LONG, EVERYBODY I VOTED NO ON, SO NO OFFENSE. THE COST SAVINGS .

>> THIS IS PERMANENT COST SAVINGS RIGHT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO

[02:50:01]

RECLASSIFY THE ASSISTANT FOREMAN AND FOREMAN POSITIONS AND DELETE ONE ROADWAY TECHNICIAN MAKING THIS A

PERMANENT COST SAVINGS. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. SORRY I AM VOTING NO.

SORRY, SORRY. I HAVE TO VOTE NO. I VOTED ALL YEAR LONG.

>> HOPEFULLY THE NEW YEAR WILL BRING ABOUT A NEW ONE.

>> NO. I THINK THESE SHOULD BE DONE IN BUDGET. WE ARE A MONTH

AWAY FROM BUDGET PEOPLE. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO, WE ARE DOWN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE HAVE A LOT OF ITEMS COMING IN DID I MISS ANYTHING BEFORE WE START RATTLING OFF ALL OF THAT? NO NO, WE BROUGHT FOUR MORE IN. BEFORE WE GO IN I WANT TO TABLE ITEM B FROM EXECUTIVE, UNABLE TO BE HERE AND WE SEND CONDOLENCES OUT TO HER RIGHT NOW. WE TOLD HER THAT WE WOULD TABLE THIS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. SO, NOW I WILL , TO THE NEXT. WE MAY NOT EVEN NEED TO. UNTIL WE BRING IT BACK. WHOEVER.

>> EIGHT AND NINE? >> I AM FIXING TO LIST THEM OFF. 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. ITEM A IS CONSULT WITH COUNTY ATTORNEY REGARDING A CLAIM FOR KAREN MILLER COUNTY ROAD 52 AND ALL RELATED MATTERS, TAKE ACTION SAME OPEN SESSION IF NECESSARY.

ITEM A-1 IS DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION OF PREMIUMS PER ONE YOUR POLICY TERM PROPERTY AND LIABILITY INSURANCE PREMIUMS AND THAT WOULD BE 551.071? 551.071. ITEM A-8 AND NINE ARE IN CONJUNCTION. CAN WE DO THOSE TOGETHER? DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING RICHTER ARCHITECTS TO DISCUSS I GUESS I HAVE TO READ THEM ALL OUT? DISCUSS AND CONSIDER EVERYTHING ABOUT HILLTOP COMMUNITY PROJECT AND MOVING FORWARD ON ITEMS EIGHT AND NUMBER NINE AND COMING OUT IN OPEN SESSION AND TAKING ACTION IF NECESSARY. THAT WOULD BE 551.071, AS WELL. ITEM 3-A -12 ON THE FINAL COMPLETION OF THE EQUIPMENT LEASE PURCHASE FROM BANK OF AMERICA ON THE BUNDLED ENERGY SOLUTIONS PROJECT. THAT WOULD BE THE SAME 551.071. YES. I AM LOSING MY THOUGHTS. I THINK THAT IS EVERYTHING, YOU GUYS. THAT ONE, THAT IS THE ENERGY BUNDLES. 189

[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.]

AND 12. SO, IT IS 11:58 AND WE ARE GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

[02:55:07]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>> MAKE A MOTION TO AGREE TO THE CLAIMED SUBJECT ALL FUTURE

CLAIMS BEING SIGNED. >> THE AMOUNT?

>> I THINK IT WAS $680. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN THE MOTION PASSES.

>> DE TREASURY TO RELEASE THE PAYMENT.

>> AUTHORIZED TREASURY TO RELEASE.

>> RELEASE PAYMENT UPON OBTAINING THE PROPER

SIGNATURES. >> OKAY CAN YOU GO BACK AND ADD THAT TO MY MOTION? ANYBODY WANT TO DISAGREE?

>> EARLY RELEASE. >> AUTHORIZE EARLY RELEASE.

OKAY, SO THEN ON ITEM A-1 ON PROPERTY AND INSURANCE .