[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.]

>> WE ARE GOING TO GOING TO ITEM F, PUBLIC COMMENT. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A COUPLE ON THE LINE THAT WANT TO COMMENT DURING THIS PERIOD AFTER I FINISH THERE'S ONLY THREE ON THIS LIST IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR VIRTUAL HAND I WILL CALL UPON YOU IN JUST A MOMENT. NUMBER ONE WE HAVE HERE IS THOMAS HILL. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK FIRST. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES . PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND WE CANNOT COMMENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

>> MY NAME IS THOMAS HILL. I'M A RESIDENT OF 102 BEACH VIEW DRIVE ON THE ISLAND AND PRECINCT 19. I AM COMMENTING -- DID I MISS ANYTHING? OKAY. I'M TRYING TO COMMENT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM A1 COMPENSATION ON AUTHORIZED ACTIONS TO LIFT A C&D. I WANT TO POINT OUT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT THERE IS ONE KEY DOCUMENT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY PAGE 28 OF THE APPLICATION DEALING WITH DOING MITIGATION AND SECTION VIEW.

THIS ILLUSTRATES THE INTENT OF THE APPLICANT TO LEVEL AS MUCH

[00:30:02]

AS THEY CAN. THERE IS NO INTENT TO REBUILD THE DUNES. IT'S NOT BUILDING A DUNE, IT'S LEVELING THEM FOR FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OF POOL LAWN PARKING. YOU'LL HEAR ABOUT THAT IN THE FUTURE WHEN THEY APPLY. IT GOES FLAT ONCE IT REACHES 10 FEET OF ELEVATION AND IT IS ALL SPREAD OUT. I BUILT A DUNE IN 2008 WITH URBAN ENGINEERING AND HAVE BEEN TO SEVERAL BEACH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY MEETINGS AND LISTENING TO PRESENTATION ON DUNE REQUIREMENTS, FILED FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS WITH NUECES COUNTY AND THE GL OH. MY COMMENT IS YOU NEED MORE THAN THE ALLEGED DISCUSSION WITH T.L.O. YOU CAN ONLY RELY ON APRIL 19TH 2023 MEETING ON THE SCOPE OF THE DAMAGE WAS DETERMINED NO LONGER ALLEGED INCLUDING THE CITY. THAT'S WHY I RELY ON THAT MEETING. WHERE IS THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FROM THE GL OH S.A.N.E. THIS IS THE BEST DESIGN? WHY WAS THE COMMITTEE NOT UPDATED ON THESE MEETINGS THAT WERE OCCURRING IN APRIL OF 24 AND FORCE-FED AN ANSWER IN JULY 17TH OF THIS YEAR? THREE MONTHS LATER. I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THAT IN A LITTLE BIT. THERE IS NO WRITTEN SUPPORT FROM THE GL OH THIS IS THE BEST TO CORRECT THE EXTENSIVE DAMAGE DONE TO THE DUNES. JUST ALLEGED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT AND MR. CROSS. I WILL GET TO MY PROBLEM IN ANOTHER MINUTE. THEY CHOOSE WHEN THEY WANT TO USE FLAT IN THE DUNES, NOT THE BEST SOLUTION. THE SEPTEMBER 17 2024 GLO LETTER HAS NO COMMENT ON DESIGN. IT HAS 15 POINTS. EIGHT OF THEM DO IT RIGHT SINCE HE DID IT SO BAD THE FIRST TIME. IF NOT WE WILL EXERCISE ENFORCEMENT. NEED A CITY PERMIT, PROOF OF COMPLIANCE BY THE COUNTY, REQUIRED NOTICE TO THE NEIGHBORS. SO WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON BECAUSE OF THESE ACTIVITIES. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE GLO TO ASK FOR WRITTEN STATEMENT ON WHAT WOULD BE BEST PRACTICE GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THE SITUATION.

THERE ARE 12 SITES IN THE GLO LETTER TO SUPPORT THE REQUIREMENTS . IN THE AUGUST 15TH 2024 MEMO HE REFERENCES THE NUECES COUNTY BEACH MANAGEMENT PLAN , THE DUNE PROTECTION ACT AND THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATION CODE. HE'S JUST WAVING A WAND THAT THIS IS HIS INTERPRETATION AS GOSPEL.

>> I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT BUT YOUR TIME HAS RUN OUT. FOR ANYONE WHO IS SPEAKING ON THESE PERMITS WE ARE GOING TO BE ADDRESSING THEM AS AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA IF YOU WANT TO STAY WE WILL BE TAKING UP THAT VOTE WHEN YOU CAN POSSIBLY GET UP AND SAY YOUR COMMENTS OR WE CAN ASK YOU TO SPEAK. SORRY TO

INTERRUPT. >> IT ALLOWS US TO HAVE DIALOGUE. WE CAN'T HAVE IT NOW SO THAT'S WHY WANTED TO MAKE SURE I KNOW THERE'S SOME PEOPLE ONLINE IF THAT'S OKAY I WOULD WAIT UNTIL THE ITEM BECAUSE THEN WE CAN HAVE DIALOGUE WHICH WE CAN'T HAVE NOW.

>> THE PEOPLE ONLINE ARE ON TWO. I WANT TO HAVE SOME

DISCUSSION FIRST. >> JUDY WALLACE YOUR NEXT.

THREE MINUTES AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> JUDY WALLACE , 101 MUSTANG ISLAND . I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE HOMEOWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS ON MUSTANG ISLAND ESTATE . WE ARE DIRECTLY NORTH AND ADJACENT TO THIS PROPOSED NEW MOVEMENT OF THE ACCESS ROAD ON MUSTANG ISLAND. I'M HERE WITH SOME QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS. NO ONE EVER RECEIVED A NOTIFICATION OF HEARING TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD TO THIS CURRENT PROPOSED LOCATION. WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR IT BEING MOVED? WAS THERE NO DUTY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE NOTICE TO ALL LAND OWNERS WHO COULD BE AFFECTED? WE'VE BEEN KEPT OUT OF THE LOOP. WHAT FINALLY TRIGGERED THE NOTICES OF THIS MEETING? WE ARE SURPRISED WE WERE NEVER REQUIRED OR ASKED IF WE WANTED TO PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS BEING MADE GIVING ANY KIND OF INFORMATION. THE NOTICE WAS DATED FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 20TH AND RECEIVED BY ONLY THE LINEBACKERS VIA CERTIFIED MAIL ON SEPTEMBER 23RD MONDAY NINE

[00:35:04]

DAYS BEFORE THIS MEETING AND NOT THE AT LEAST 10 DAYS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. EVEN IF WE HAVE THE REQUIRED 10 DAYS THAT AMOUNT OF TIME IS HOPELESSLY INADEQUATE TO STUDY AND INVESTIGATE SUCH A COMPLEX ISSUE. WE REQUEST YOU TABLE THIS AND RESET IT. IT WILL GIVE US TIME TO LOOK INTO IT TO FURTHER STUDY THE PLANS AND CONDITIONS BECAUSE THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR MONTHS AND YEARS TO PUT TOGETHER THEIR STUDIES AND PERMITS WHILE WE WERE GIVEN A MERE HANDFUL OF DAYS. THE PROXIMITY OF THIS ROAD TO OUR PROPERTIES. THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY APPEARS TO BE 10 FEET FROM OUR SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINES WHERE WE HAVE HIGH DUNES THAT HAVE TAKEN EONS TO FORM. HE CANNOT FORGET THIS IS ONE BIG SANDBAR OUT THERE. IT SEEMS THE PLAN TO MITIGATE REMOVAL IS TO SUPPLY NEW STAND BECAUSE OF ALBERTO FX IN JUNE AND THE MITIGATION SEEN SO IT WON'T WASH AWAY. IT SEEMS A BIT MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST OF SAND RATHER THAN THE EROSION THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE. THAT EROSION WOULD BE ON OUR PROPERTIES. WE ARE TOLD THEY ARE GOING TO DO WHATEVER THEY CAN WHICH MEANS EROSION, LOSS OF BUILDABLE SPACE. WE DON'T WANT THE IMPACT MINIMIZED . IF THE ROAD MUST BE BUILT WE WANT IT FURTHER SOUTH CLOSER TO WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED AND THEY WOULD BE LESS IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREAS. WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY I BOUGHT IT BECAUSE IT WAS ONE-OF-A-KIND WHERE I COULD ENJOY THE BEACH. I GREW UP COMING TO MUSTANG ISLAND ON THE WEEKENDS AND I LOVE SO MUCH OF IT IS STILL PRISTINE AND PROTECTED. NOW THAT THE DESIGNATION NO LONGER APPLIES SOME DECIDED IS THE PERFECT PLACE FOR A 12 FOOT

HIGH ACCESS -- >> YOUR TIME HAS RUN OUT AS WELL. I'M SORRY. I GAVE HIM A LITTLE MORE SO I GAVE YOU MORE TOO. THE TIME HAS RUN OUT. RON WOLF. I'LL GIVE YOU AS MUCH AS

I GAVE THEM. >> I WILL TRY TO BE QUICK. I LIVE AT 105 BEACH VIEW DRIVE ON MUSTANG ISLAND. I'M THE SECRETARY AND TREASURER OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION . I'M ALSO A RESIDENT . THE HLA DID SEND A LETTER TO YOU GUYS AND I HAVE COPIES OF THAT HANDED OUT. A FEW COMMENTS . PERSONALLY I GREW UP IN AUSTIN. MY WIFE AND I CAME DOWN HERE TO THE BEACH TO PORT ARANSAS OUR ENTIRE LIVES. WE BOUGHT OUR LAND AND BUILT OUR HOUSE IN 2007 AS OUR RETIREMENT HOME AND WE LIVE HERE FULL-TIME . BEACH VIEW ESTATES IF YOU GET ON MUSTANG ISLAND AND DRIVE TOWARDS PORT A IS HALFWAY DOWN . PERFECT LOCATION AND ACCESS ROADS ARE WAY OVER HERE. IT IS A CUL-DE-SAC WITH 28 LOTS. FOUR OF THEM ARE OCEANFRONT. MINE IS THE ONE ON THE RIGHT SIDE NEXT TO THE PARCEL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. ONE THING WE LOVED WAS OBVIOUSLY THE OCEAN VIEW. THE DUNES ARE 22 FEET TALL AND HIGHEST ON THE ISLAND RIGHT NEXT TO US ON THIS PARCEL THEY DROP OFF VERY LOW AND THE PARCEL NEXT TO US IS VACANT AND IT IS THE EPISCOPAL RETREAT NEXT TO THAT. WE HAVE LOVED LOOKING AT THIS WETLAND.

DUTIFUL BIRDS AND WILDLIFE. BEAUTIFUL VEGETATION AND SO FORTH. WE HAVE REALLY LOVED IT. THAT LAND WAS OWNED BY THE FOUNDATION FOR MANY YEARS AND THEN SOLD TO THE CURRENT OWNERS. BULLDOZERS HAVE SHOWN UP AND STARTED PUSHING DIRT AROUND. THE FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED I REMEMBER TALKING TO THE DRIVER AND HE SHOWED ME A PLAN THAT WAS NEVER PERMITTED.

THAT GOT STOPPED . THEY WENT AWAY. THEY SHOWED UP LAST TIME AND STAYED FOR TWO WEEKS. THEY BROUGHT IN DOZENS OF DUMP TRUCKS OF SAND AND LEVELED THE ENTIRE THING. MY HOUSE IS AT THE 350 FOOT SETBACK. THEY WENT BEYOND MY HOUSE TOWARDS THE OCEAN. THEY WERE SHUT DOWN AND TOLD TO STOP AND HERE WE ARE TODAY. THE BEACH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED THEY

[00:40:01]

DON'T LIKE THIS MITIGATION PLAN. THEY PREFER THEY RESTORE IT BACK TO WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE. THIS MITIGATION IS ALL THE 350 FOOT SETBACK. IT HAS BEEN LEVELED WHICH I HAVE NO DOUBT IS THE INTENT. ASK FOR FORGIVENESS. I CAN TELL YOU DURING HARVEY WHEN THE WATER CAME UP FROM THE BAY OUR ENTIRE SUBDIVISION WAS PROTECTED. THE WATER GOT TO THE STREET LEVEL BUT NONE GOT FLOODED BECAUSE BELOW AND NEXT TO US THAT WETLANDS WAS FULL OF WATER DOING ITS JOB AND THAT IS GONE.

NOW I'M LOOKING AT DEAD SUNFLOWERS AND A FLAT DAMAGED PIECE OF PROPERTY. I ASK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALIGNMENT WITH THE BEACH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE WITH THIS PLAN. I KNOW WHEN I BUILT MY HOUSE AFTER THE FACT THEY TOLD ME I ENTOMBED A DUNE. THERE WAS A DUNE UNDER MY HOUSE. I SPENT $10,000 DUMPING SAND IN A WHOLE AND THEY MADE ME WATER IT FOR THREE YEARS AND THEY CAME OUT AND SAID WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ONE MORE CACTUS HERE ONE MORE PLANT HERE. I THOUGHT IT WAS RIDICULOUS. IT WORKED. IT'S BEAUTIFUL. I SEE IN THIS PLAN THERE IS NOT A PLAN TO WATER. THEY SAID THERE IS NONE AVAILABLE. I HAD TO RUN 350 FOOT PIPE AND WATER THAT THING EVERY DAY FOR THREE YEARS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT IN THERE

AS WELL, THANK YOU >> THANK YOU . ONLINE IF YOU

WISH TO SPEAK NEXT. >> THANK YOU. MY ADDRESS IS 109 MUSTANG ISLAND ESTATES DRIVE. I AM THE OWNER OF THAT LOT BUT ALSO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD WITH THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION ON MUSTANG ISLAND ESTATES. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND OTHER MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND. JUDY WALLACE WHO SPOKE EARLIER IS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE ARE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THIS MOVE OF THE ACCESS ROAD THAT WAS FURTHER SOUTH. NOW IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO DIRECTLY SOUTH OF OUR SOUTHERN BORDER. THE FIRST CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT APPARENTLY THE ACCESS ROAD WAS MOVED AND APPROVED AT SOME EARLIER MEETING THAT WE WERE NOT GIVEN NOTICE. I BELIEVE THERE IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE PEOPLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ARE GIVEN NOTICE. EVERYBODY THAT HAS A LOT NOW HAS A ROAD RIGHT NEXT TO IT AND WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY WE DID NOT HAVE , THAT ROAD WAS NOT THERE THAT WAS A CONSIDERATION FOR ME WHEN I BOUGHT IT AS TO WHAT WAS DIRECTLY SOUTH OF ME. NOW THEY HAVE MOVED WITHOUT NOTICE WHICH I AM CONCERNED THAT'S NOT MEETING THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS BUT IT'S BEEN MOVED AND NOW WE DID GET NOTICE OF THIS MEETING ON THE DUNE PERMIT. THE CONCERN I HAVE HERE IS FIRST OF ALL WHY WAS IT MOVED? MY UNDERSTANDING FROM PREVIOUS HISTORY IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH OF US HAD THE ROAD RUNNING THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT AND THE ROAD WAS STILL THERE AND THEY WANT IT MOVE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING THEIR PROPERTY SO THEY HAVE BEEN PUSHING FOR THIS AND THAT IS FINE. I'M ALL FOR DEVELOPMENT BUT YOU CANNOT BE MOVED ARBITRARILY UNLESS THERE IS REALLY A JUSTIFIED REASON. THEY THROUGHOUT THINGS THAT SOUND GOOD AS THE REASONS WHY THE WETLANDS AND SAFETY AND THINGS LIKE THAT BUT I THINK IF WE HAD BEEN GIVEN NOTICE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT MOST ARGUMENTS FOR EXAMPLE THE DUNES THEY ARE NOW PROPOSING TO PUT THE ROAD ARE 20 FEET HIGH CUTTING THROUGH SOME HUGE DUNES WHERE THE ROAD WAS ORIGINALLY PLACED THEY ARE MUCH LOWER LIKE 5 TO 9 FEET. THE REASON THE ROAD WAS PUT WHERE IT WAS ORIGINALLY WAS BECAUSE IT WAS THE BEST LOCATION NOW THEY WANT TO MOVE IT AND SAY WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE WETLANDS. THERE IS PROTECTION NEEDED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF OUR BORDER. THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS PREFERRED THEY ALREADY IS ABOUT A 10 SECOND CHANGE IN AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. THE IDEA THAT 10 SECONDS IS A GREAT ENHANCEMENT TO SAFETY WAS THE REASON IT WAS GIVEN. YOU CAN ALWAYS COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE IT'S BETTER WHEN IN REALITY IT'S NOT. IT WAS PUT IN THE CORRECT LOCATION WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANTED. THIS GOT

[00:45:02]

MOVED. HERE WE ARE, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS AUTHORIZED WITHOUT NOTICE BUT I'M TURNING TO SOLUTIONS. WE JUST HAVE THESE PEOPLE COME IN AND TALK ABOUT SOME READINESS BUT WE ARE CUTTING THROUGH 20 FOOT DUNES OR DISTURBING HUGE DUNES RIGHT NEXT TO OUR BORDER NOW. THEY HAVE REMEDIATION MATTERS AND TALK ABOUT RINGING SAND AND WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO REMEDIATE THIS. WE DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESEARCH WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS REALLY GOING TO PROTECT US.

>> SORRY, YOUR TIME HAS RUN OUT AS WELL. I LET EVERYONE GO OVER BUT WE ARE GOING TO BRING THIS UP IN THE MEETING AND JUST A MINUTE. THANK YOU. JEFF LEINBERGER.

>> GOOD MORNING. MY ADDRESS IS 109 MUSTANG ISLAND ESTATES. I OWN NOT FOR LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF MUSTANG ISLAND ESTATES SUBDIVISION. IT'LL BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED.

THIS IS ITEM 382 ON THE AGENDA. I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING COMMISSIONER SUPPORT CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF THIS LARGE SCALE DUNE PROTECTION PERMIT EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. FIRST AND FOREMOST WE NEED ADDITIONAL TIME. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY COMPLEX ISSUE, SUBSTANTIAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL CONSULTANT TO GET TO THIS STAGE OF THE CONSIDERATION . AS A LICENSED ENGINEER MYSELF I KNOW THE AMOUNT OF ENGINEERING THAT GOES INTO THIS. THE TIME IT TAKES TO FOCUS ON THESE PERMITS. WE ARE REQUESTING TIME TO COMPLETE OUR DILIGENCE AND EVALUATE ANY ADVERSE THAT MAY AFFECT OUR SAFETY. WE RECEIVED THE NOTICE EXEMPTION ON THE 23RD OF SEPTEMBER JUST NINE DAYS AGO. SECOND THE PROPOSED BEACH ACCESS ROAD IMPACTS ARE DUNES. THE LINE JUST SOUTH OF OUR PROPERTY WAS RELOCATED EACH ACCESS HAS AN AVERAGE PEAK ELEVATION IN THE 20 FOOT RANGE. THE CURRENTLY PLATTED BEACH ACCESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH IS 900 FEET SOUTH TERMINATES INTO THE DUNES AT SUBSTANTIALLY LOWER ELEVATIONS IN THE NINE FOOT RANGE. ALLOWING BEACH ROADS TO PENETRATE INSTEAD OF NINE FOOT DUNES REQUIRES MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ON A SCALE FAR EXCEEDING ANY REALISTIC SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC AND LIKELY INCREASES THE RISK OF ADVERSE STORM IMPACTS TO WETLAND AREAS ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND GENERAL PUBLIC. RELOCATING CURRENT BEACH ACCESS FOR 900 FEET NORTHWARD DOES NOT APPEAR TO SIGNIFICANTLY AVOID IMPACTS AND WETLAND AREAS. NEW DEVELOPMENT MAY INCORPORATE NATURAL WETLANDS AND VEGETATION TO PARTIALLY SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS WHERE SUCH FEATURES MEET THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION SCREENING PERFORMANCE CRITERIA. SIMPLY PUSHING BEACH ACCESS ROAD 900 FEET AS A QUICK SOLUTION TO AVOID THE ADVERSE IMPACTS CONTINUOUSLY CHANGING WETLAND AREAS IS NOT INNOVATIVE AND RUNS COUNTER TO THE STATED GOALS. FOR CURRENTLY PLATTED BEACH ACCESS ROADWAY 900 FEET NORTHRIDGE PRESENT PLATTED POSITIONS DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE BEACH ACCESS RATE SPACING INTERVALS.

THE STATED GOAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE PLAN IS TO ALLOW QUICKER ACCESS TO ON BEACH EMERGENCIES . UNDER CURRENT CITY CONDITIONS DECREASING INTERVAL SPACING BY A MERE 900 FEET WILL NOT GET VEHICLES ON THE BEACH ACCESS ROAD DOES NOT MATERIALLY IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THE

GENERAL PUBLIC. THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE

[00:50:06]

WHO DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN UP FOR

[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.]

PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WISHES TO DO SO NOW? IF NOT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, COMMISSIONERS, OUR CONSENT AGENDA. IS THERE ANY ITEM IN THE CONSENT AGENDA ANY COMMISSIONER WISHES TO PULL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION TO PASS.

>> SO MOVED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO PASS THE CONSENT AGENDA. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ONTO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

[1. Discuss and consider approval of the Exemption Request for Dune Impact Compensation for Violations for 426 cubic yards (CY) of dunes and 10,117 square feet (SF) of dune vegetation impacted without authorization - Mustang Island Section 2 Block 1 Lot 52 11.82 acres - DPP-04062023-na.]

THREE A1. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR DUNE IMPACT COMPENSATION FOR VIOLATIONS FOR 426 CUBIC YARDS OF DUNES AND DUNE VEGETATION IMPACTED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION MUSTANG ISLAND SECTION 2 BLOCK ONE LOT

52. IT IS 11 POINT 82 ACRES . >> I WILL JUMP IN IF YOU DON'T MIND. THESE ARE DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS CLEAR ON THE DIFFERENCES ON THESE. THREE A1 I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH ALL THE FOLKS THAT SHOWED UP AND SPOKE. IT IS A MESS OF EPIC PROPORTIONS, A MESS THAT SHOULD'VE NEVER BEEN DONE AND I DEFINITELY CONCUR ON THIS ONE WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND I THINK WE NEED TO SEND THIS ONE BACK FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. I WOULD LIKE TO GET OUT AND LOOK AT IT MYSELF. I AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, I DON'T THINK THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE PLAN IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM AND I THINK IT SHOULD'VE BEEN SENT BACK AND YOU HAVE TO BE PUT BACK THE WAY IT WAS. PUT THAT THING BACK THE WAY IT WAS. IF YOU WANT TO DO IT WE CAN DENY IT TODAY OR TABLE IT TO SEND IT BACK WITH DIRECTION TO BRING IT BACK WITH A BETTER PLAN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BEST PROCEDURE IS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO START OVER BUT I DON'T LIKE THIS PLAN. I KNOW YOU DID THE BEST YOU CAN TO FIGURE OUT WHAT

TO DO BUT TO ME -- >> THE MITIGATION THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IS FOR A VIOLATION. THEY ORIGINALLY HAD APPROVAL THROUGH AN ARMY CORPS ENGINEER PERMIT AND THEY WERE DIRECTED THEY COULD DO THAT BUT THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DISTURB ANY OTHER DUNE VEGETATION OR DUNES AND THEIR CONTRACTOR OF WHOEVER WAS OUT THERE WERE NOT SUPERVISED WELL AND DID THAT. IT IMPACTED THE DUNE AND VEGETATION SO THEY CAME UP WITH THAT PLAN TO FIX THAT. WE MET WITH THE GLO AND CITY AND PART OF THAT MITIGATION PLAN WAS TO RESTORE THAT BETWEEN TWO DUNES INSIDE THE 350. THEY CAN DO THAT. THAT IS WHAT WE BROUGHT BEFORE Y'ALL TODAY TO GET APPROVED BUT THE REASON WHY I RECOMMENDED TABLING IS THE ADDRESS IT WAS SENT OUT FOR THE PROPERTY ITSELF WAS INCORRECT AND THE APPLICANT CONTACTED ME AND I SAID LET'S DO IT BY THE BOOK.

AS FAR AS CHRISTINE AND MYSELF HAVING AN OPINION ABOUT ANY OF THESE WE DON'T. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY FOLLOW PROTOCOL.

IT IS NOT SUBJECTIVE. WE CAN GO BACK TO THE APPLICANT AND THEIR ENGINEER AND SAY IT'S FIND A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS MITIGATION SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE ONLY THING THAT WILL HAPPEN IF THEY DO THE MITIGATION FOR THE VIOLATION IN THE AREA WHERE THE VIOLATION TOOK PLACE THEN ONCE THEY DO THAT THEY CAN NEVER TOUCH THAT SITE AGAIN. IF THEY WANT TO DEVELOP AND THEY DO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE THEN THEY HAVE TO AVOID

THAT AREA. >> RIGHT. LIKE I SAID, PROCEDURALLY I GUESS IS WHAT I'M ASKING BECAUSE I DON'T SUPPORT THIS PLAN. WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PUSH IT BACK TO WHOEVER I NEED TO PUSH IT BACK TO WHERE WE CAN BE BACK INVOLVED AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN BE BACK INVOLVED?

>> TABLE IT BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A DUNE MITIGATION PLAN BACK AND GET THEIR RECOMMENDATION. THEY ARE ADVISORY ONLY. THEN GET BACK WITH THE GLO AND SAY WE ARE MENDING THE MITIGATION PLAN . I WOULD TABLE IT INDEFINITELY FOR RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE READY BY OCTOBER

16TH. >> WE NEED TO TABLE IT -- IN OTHER WORDS, TO SOLVE CONCERNS OF

[00:55:04]

>> AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE TABLE DOESN'T HURT THEM. IT ALLOWS Y'ALL TO GO BACK AND COME UP WITH THE MITIGATION PLAN . I THINK THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND AND SIT DOWN AND EXPLAIN HOW THE PROCESS WORKS AND KNOW HOW MUCH WE CAN AND CAN'T DO. THEY NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND AND HEAR IT. IF WE ARE GOING TO TABLE IT I WOULD SAY UNTIL NOVEMBER BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY -- YEAH.

THERE'S NO WAY IT'LL GET DONE IN TWO WEEKS. TABLE IT TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING BUT BRING US BACK WITH DIRECTION OF A NEW MITIGATION PLAN THAT IS BETTER THAN THIS ONE. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THAT BETTER THAN THAT.

>> IF THEY DO HAVE TO REVISE IT MAY NOT BE BACK UNTIL DECEMBER BECAUSE THE DEADLINE IS YESTERDAY.

>> YOU CAN OPEN THE AGENDA. OPEN THE AGENDA DEADLINE ARE NOT THEY CAN GET IT BACK SOMEHOW.

>> I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR IT MAY NOT BE NOVEMBER.

CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ] GET WILL BE PROBLEMS THAT OCCUR AS WE HEAD INTO RAINY SEASON SO PLEASE FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET BACK ON THE BMAX AGENDA. BUT I WANT THE BMAX SIGNING OFF ON THIS AS BEST AS THEY CAN. I WANT A MOTION. AND I WANTED EVERYBODY TO BE HEARD BECAUSE THEY CAME ALL THE WAY DOWN HERE. JUST LIKE WE MAY OR MAY NOT DO THAT ON THE NEXT ONE FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE IT BECAUSE OUR NOVEMBER MEETING --

>> NOVEMBER 13TH. >> NOVEMBER 13TH MEETING. I AT LEAST WANT TO GET SOME TIMELINE AND DEADLINE SO WE CAN GET IT.

>> A CALL FROM THE GL OH IS WHERE THEY ARE PLACING THE REINFORCEMENTS ON THE FRONT LINE DUNE. SO GETTING YOUR MOST BEACHFRONT DUNE REINFORCEMENT. SOME DISCUSSION WENT INTO PUTTING IT THERE VERSUS SOMEWHERE ELSE ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THE DUNE SYSTEM THE MOST RESILIENT. BUT I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE VIEWPOINT. AND IT WAS TOTALLY DISCUSSED.

>> SOME OF THE BEST THEY MADE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE FIXED IS WHAT I AM HEARING TO KIND OF SAY BECAUSE THEY HAD A CORPS OF ENGINEER PERMIT. ALL WE CAN DO IS ALL WE CAN DO. HOLD ON. HOLD ON. I JUST WANT ALL THE NEIGHBORS TO HEAR THAT, TOO. IF IT IS A CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT, I HAVE NO AUTHORITY ON ANY OF THAT. ALL WE CAN FIX IS WHAT WE CAN FIX. I DON'T WANT TO PUT THE EXPECTATIONS TOO HIGH FOR ANY OF THESE NICE PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP. BUT THE BMAX DOES NOT LIKE IT . THAT CONCERNS ME. ADVISORY OR NOT, I TAKE GREAT HE'D IN WHAT THE BMAX SAYS. THAT MEANS THEY DON'T LIKE OUR PLAN FOR WHAT WE CAN FIX AND I WOULD AT LEAST LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN OFF ON THIS AT SOME POINT.

>> THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT HAPPENED WITH THIS PROPERTY WAY BEFORE THE COUNTY EVEN GOT INVOLVED WITH THAT. I HAVE HEARD SOME PEOPLE SPEAK ABOUT IT WHEN EDGAR SHALL FOUNDATION OWNED IT AND STUFF. I AM LOOKING WHAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. NOT DEALING WITH ANY KIND OF HISTORY. JUST LIKE THE ROAD. I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THE HISTORY.

>> LIKE I SAID, THESE ARE REASONABLE PEOPLE AND LET THEM ALL BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS AND HEAR IT AND I WILL DRIVE OUT THERE MYSELF AND LOOK AGAIN. I MEAN, I HAVE GONE OUT THERE BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN TO THAT SPECIFIC SITE IN A WHILE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THE NOVEMBER MEETING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO

[2. Discuss and consider approval of the large-scale request and exemption request for dune protection permit for construction of a new beach access road seaward of the 350’ dune protection line (DPP-20231209). Dune Protection Permit Application (DPP-20231209) for the construction of a new beach access road on Mustang Island was submitted on behalf of the City of Corpus Christi Engineering Services. ]

ITEM 2. 3A2. EXEMPTION REQUEST FOR DUNE CONSTRUCTION OF THE

NEW BEACH ACCESS ROAD. >> JEB JUST WENT TO THE RESTROOM. HE WILL BE RIGHT BACK. AGAIN, WE FOLLOWED ALL THE PROTOCOLS. WE SAT DOWN. IT WENT THROUGH BMAX. WE HAD A FOLLOW-UP MEETING WITH CITY STAFF. THE GLO. WE WORKED HARD

[01:00:08]

ON A COMPENSATION PLAN THAT WOULD WORK FOR THIS PROJECT. IF ALL AND ALL THE PROTOCOLS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DO NOT FEEL LIKE THEY GOT ENOUGH ADVANCED NOTICE. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH TABLING IT SO PEOPLE HAVE TIME TO DIGEST IT AT ALL BUT I WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW WE FOLLOWED THE PROPER PROCEDURES. AS FAR AS THE OPINION ON THE ACCESS ROAD, WE DON'T HAVE ONE. WE JUST LOOK AT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US AND REVIEW IT OBJECTIVELY.

>> I THINK THAT KEY IS THE SAME THING. WE MAY OR MAY NOT DO THAT. I WANT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY TO BE HAD. I GOT THIS EMAIL THAT SAID THESE PROCEDURES WEREN'T FOLLOWED. I AT LEAST WANT TO HEAR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY. WE MAY TABLE IT, BUT I WANT JEFF TO BE IN THE ROOM. I GUESS IF YOU GOT TO GO, YOU GOT TO GO. I MAY WANT TO PUSH THIS BACK BECAUSE I DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE ON THIS.

AND REMIND ME. ISN'T THIS A COUNTY ACCESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY

OR WHAT IS IT? >> IT WAS A COUNTY EASEMENT.

AND NOW IT HAS BEEN HANDED TO THE CITY SO IT IS THE CITY'S

EASEMENT. >> WELL, JEFF WAS ON THE OTHER

END OF IT. >> I HAVE GOT QUESTIONS.

>> WE WILL COME BACK. I KNOW THE LINEBERGER'S ONLINE ARE

WANTING TO SPEAK AS WELL. >> I NEED THE CITY -- BECAUSE I NEED TO GET HISTORICAL ON THIS. I THINK THERE IS SOME SORT OF ACCESS THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A ROAD AT SOME POINT. I THINK.

I DON'T WANT TO MISS STATE THAT. I THINK I HAVE STALLED LONG ENOUGH. SO, JEFF, IF -- IN THIS -- I AM SORRY. STATE YOUR NAME AND WHO YOU ARE FOR THE RECORD SO EVERYONE KNOWS.

>> MY NAME IS JEFF EDMAN AND MY TITLE IS DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH THE CITY AND WHAT WE DO IS WE ARE LIKE THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE FOR DELIVERING THE CITY'S CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS OF WHICH THIS IS ONE.

AND SO OUR JOB IS BASICALLY JUST TO GET THIS PROJECT BUILT.

>> AND GIVE THE HISTORY ON THIS EASEMENT. WAS IT INTENDED TO BE -- WAS IT A ROAD EASEMENT TO BEGIN WITH?

>> CORRECT. SO THERE HAS BEEN AN EASEMENT DATED BACK TO 1972 TO CONSTRUCT THIS BEACH ACCESS ROAD. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE IS INTEREST FROM EMERGENCY RESPONSE. THEY NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER BEACH ACCESS. OF COURSE, IT WILL ALSO SERVE PEOPLE WHO USE THE BEACH AND ENJOY THE BEACH. THIS HAS BEEN A PROJECT THAT WAS ADDED TO THE CITY'S BOND PROGRAM IN 2020.

THEY NEEDED UP FRONT MONEY TO DO THE DESIGN WORK, AND THEN THEY PUT THE CONSTRUCTION MONEY IN ON LINE 22. WE STARTED HAVING A LOT OF INTERACTION WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY FOR THIS TO BE LOCATED, AND HE WANTED TO SHIFT THE ALIGNMENT. THIS EASEMENT THAT EXISTS IN 72, IT IS STATED IN THE NAME OF THE COUNTY. TYPICALLY, WHEN THE CITY ANNEXES ANY TURNED STREET, IT IS HANDED BACK OVER TO BE MAINTAINED. THIS STREET WAS NOT DEVELOPED AND REMAINED WITH ENTITLED TO THE COUNTY. SO WE REACHED AN AGREEMENT WITH COUNTY TWO YEARS AGO THAT WOULD EASE THAT PROVIDED THE CITY WOULD BUILD THE BEACH ACCESS ROAD WITHIN 1000 FEET OF THE

FORMER ALIGNMENT. >> RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE. THIS HAS BEEN AN EASEMENT FOR ALL THESE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND, AGAIN, I'M NOT AGAINST A SHORT DELAY AGAINST THIS, BUT IF ANYONE THINKS THEY ARE GOING TO STOP THIS FROM BEING A ROAD, WE HAVE TO HAVE A BEACH ACCESS ROAD. WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. OUR BEACH HAS INCREASED. THERE IS NO WAY WHEN THESE PROPERTIES WERE BOUGHT THAT THIS ACCESS ROAD DID NOT SHOW UP. SO THIS HAS BEEN AN ACCESS ROAD AND IT HAS BEEN A POTENTIAL ROAD SINCE

WHEN DID YOU SAY? >> 1972.

>> '72. BUT WHAT I SAID EARLIER IS THEY DID NOT GIVE PROPER NOTICE. TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WERE THE PROCEDURES FOLLOWED AS FAR AS NOTIFICATION AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE PROCESSES NOT BEING FOLLOWED. SCOTT SAYS THEY WERE. DO YOU HAVE A TAKE ON THAT? I ASSUME YOU ALL WERE INVOLVED ON THAT BECAUSE I CERTAINLY WASN'T.

[01:05:04]

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CERTIFIED MAILING HAVE TO GO OUT 10 DAYS PRIOR TO IT APPEARING ON THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AGENDA. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANOTHER NOTIFICATION LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE WITH A REZONING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR SHIFTING THAT ALIGNMENT. BUT, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE PROCESS AND GET ALL OF THE

RECORD APPROVALS FOR THIS. >> RIGHT. SO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THERE IS LEGITIMATE NEED TO DELAY TO GO TALK TO EVERYBODY, BUT YOU SAID YOU HAVE GONE AND TALK TO THE

LINEBERGERS. OR HAVE YOU NOT? >> I DID CONTACT MS. WALLACE

AND MR. LINEBERGER. >> IF THE DELAY IS TO TRY TO MOVE THE ROAD, I WANT TO BE SUPER TRANSPARENT. I DO NOT SUPPORT THAT. IF THE DELAY IS TO TRY TO MAKE THE ROAD BETTER AND IF THERE IS A WAY TO DO THAT THAT DOESN'T HURT THE DUNES WHERE THE MITIGATION IS NOT PROPER, EVEN THOUGH YOU SAY THAT HAS ALL BEEN DONE, THAT IS OKAY. BUT THIS IS A BEACH ACCESS ROAD THAT HAS BEEN AN ACCESS ROAD UNDEVELOPED SINCE THE '70S. IT'S NEEDED. WE NEED A BEACH ACCESS ROAD. SO I WILL HAPPILY SUPPORT A SHORT DELAY TO MAKE IT BETTER, BUT

NOT TO KILL IT. >> WE WOULD NOT OPPOSE THAT. WE WANT TO DO IT CORRECTLY. WE WANT TO ASSURE ANY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED IN THE DESIGN. SO ACTUALLY IF THERE IS ANY COMMENTS THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADD --

>> I GET IT. THERE IS NOT A ROAD TO THE PROPERTY, BUT THAT HAS BEEN A ROAD THROUGH THE PROPERTY SINCE THIS. SO THE CITY WHEN THEY ANNEXED IT, IT DID NOT GET TRANSFERRED OVER PROPERLY LIKE YOU SHOULD HAVE. SO ADMINISTRATIVELY WHENEVER THAT GOT TRANSFERRED OVER IN ONE WAS IT? 2020 OR SOMETHING? IT HAS NOT BEEN A ROAD FOR A LONG --

>> I THINK IT WAS PART OF THE '80 ANNEXATION.

>> A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. >> OH. THE TRANSFER. THAT WAS

TWO YEARS AGO. >> OKAY. SO I WILL MAKE A

MOTION TO TABLE TO THE -- >> OCTOBER. THE NEXT OCTOBER IS

THE 23RD. RIGHT? >> 16TH.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE TO SOBER TO OCTOBER 16TH TO MAKE SURE THE PROCESS IS DONE RIGHT AND THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS HAVE EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS AS GOOD AS IT CAN BE. BUT, AGAIN, I AM NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT BECAUSE I SUPPORT THIS BEING A BEACH ACCESS ROAD, BUT IF IT NEEDS TO BE BETTER THAT IS FINE.

>> I SECOND THAT MOTION TO TABLE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. AND THE LINEBERGERS, YOU CAN PUT YOUR HANDS DOWN. I AM SURE SOMEONE WILL BE GETTING IN CONTACT WITH YOU.

>> AND I APOLOGIZE. AND WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THERE IMMEDIATELY BE A MEETING SET UP WITH THESE HOMEOWNERS IN THE CITY BECAUSE YOU'RE RUNNING THE SHOW AND IT IS YOUR ROAD.

ALL WE ARE DOING NOW IS APPROVING WHATEVER WE NEED TO APPROVE. BEFORE WE LEAVE, SHE IS HERE. SO PLEASE GET A MEETING SET UP IMMEDIATELY WITH THEM AND GET THIS THING SET UP STEP-BY-STEP. HELP OF THE DUNES. PROTECT THE DUNES.

WHATEVER IT IS, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

[3. Discuss and consider rescinding court action regarding outside entity, Nueces County Drainage District No. 2, wishing to continue participation in Nueces County's Employee Self-Funded Group Health programs and ancillary services plan for FY2024-2025 and all related matters.]

>> SURE. WE WILL ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

>> MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3. DISCUSSING CONSIDER RESENDING THE ACTION REGARDING NUECES COUNTY DRAINAGE NUMBER 2.

CONTINUE PARTICIPATION IN THE NUECES COUNTY EMPLOYEE SELF-FUNDED GROUP HEALTH PROGRAM FOR THE YEAR '24-25.

AND, COMMISSIONER, YOU ADDED THIS.

>> YES. THIS HAS BEEN AN ITEM WE HAVE HAD FOR DISCUSSION FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WAS GIVEN WAS JUST REALLY QUICK TURNAROUND FOR THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT TO BE ABLE TO SEEK OUT THEIR OWN INSURANCE. I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS FOR ONE YEAR. ONE YEAR ONLY THAT I WILL NOT BE REQUESTING OR ASKING FOR ANY ADDITIONS.

AND THAT GIVES THEM PLENTY OF TIME TO GO OUT AND SEEK THEIR OWN COVERAGE. THEY DO PAY THEIR FULL AMOUNT INTO THE PLAN. THE QUESTION OF COURSE IS LIABILITY. THAT IS THE STICKING

[01:10:04]

POINT, OBVIOUSLY. BUT THEY DO PAY FOR EVERYTHING. SO IT IS NOT LIKE THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THAT. BUT THE LIABILITY IS WHAT OPEN THIS UP , AND THAT IS A CONCERN FOR ME AND FOR EVERYONE. AND IF WE CONTINUE FOR ONE MORE YEAR, THEN THIS GIVES THEM PLENTY OF TIME TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT.

>> THEY SAY THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE. ALSO LET ME VERY MUCH CLARIFY, WE WERE GIVEN THE WRONG EMAIL ADDRESS FOR THEM. SO, NO, THEY DID NOT RECEIVE IT. THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THE NOTICE. IT WAS INCORRECT. THEY ABSOLUTELY DID NOT GET THE NOTICE WHEN EVERYONE ELSE DID.

>> OKAY. 90 DAYS ARE SOMETHING. THAT IS A LONG TIME.

>> SO, JUDGE, THIS IS ONE THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING AND JENNY CONFIRMED WE CAN GIVE NOTICE THAT DAY. THAT WAS LAST WEEK. I GET IT. BUT WE DIRECTED STAFF LAST WEEK TO GIVE THE NOTICE AND STOP SIGNING THEM UP BASED ON COUNSEL'S ADVICE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS ABOUT

20 -- >> 20.

>> -- 20 PEOPLE THAT WE ENSURE THAT ARE EXPOSED PLUS THEIR FAMILIES. SO BY MY CALCULATIONS, IF WE LEAVE THEM ON, THEN WE ARE ASKED HOUSING THIS COUNTY OVER THE YEAR TO A MINIMUM OF $9 MILLION OF EXPOSURE. AND THAT IS IF EVERY ONE OF THEM GETS SICK AND THEIR FAMILIES. SO BEFORE PEOPLE VOTE ON THIS BECAUSE, SORRY, NO OFFENSE, MS. HERNANDEZ, BUT WE HAVE TRIED EVERYTHING WE CAN TO CLEAN THE COUNTY UP AND ONLY DO STATUTORY THINGS THE BEST WE COULD . TWO ONLY IN SHORT COUNTY EMPLOYEES. WE JUST WENT INTO A HORRIBLE BUDGET WHERE WE WENT TO A MINIMUM OF $3 MILLION. AND I UNDERSTAND THE SPOT THIS PUTS THEM IN, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO COVER THEIR STOPLOSS AT $475,000 A PERSON. PLUS THEIR FAMILIES. SO $9 MILLION IS LIGHT. I AM NOT SAYING EVERYONE IS GOING TO GET SICK, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING. 20+ THEIR FAMILIES. IT COULD BE ANYWHERE FROM $9 MILLION-$20 MILLION. IF THEY ARE NOT COUNTING EMPLOYEES AND WE ARE SELF-INSURED ON THE STOPLOSS, THEN I AM SORRY. AGAIN, AS I GET OUTVOTED I GET OUTVOTED, BUT I CANNOT PUT COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND OUR RESERVES AT RISK BECAUSE IF WE GET POPPED WITH SOME OF THIS IT IS COMING OUT OF OUR RESERVES. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF IT. IF ONLY ONE PERSON, THAT IS $475,000 THAT WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. AND IT MAY BE ZERO. BUT I AM NOT WILLING TO ROLL THE DICE. I AM SORRY, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSIONER'S CONCERNS. AND I FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, WE AS A COURT AND PREVIOUS COURTS HAVE MADE DECISIONS TO INCLUDE THIS.

THIS HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR YEARS NOW WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS. AND IT HAS BEEN EITHER A PRIORITY OR IT HAS BEEN SUPPORTED. I GET THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CUT ALL WE CAN. EVERY EMPLOYEE THAT WE HAVE IS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY.

SO I GET THE CONCERN THAT IS THERE. I THINK THAT ASKING FOR MORE TIME IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO WITH OUR PARTNERS THAT HAVE BEEN PART OF OUR PLAN AND PROGRAM FOR SO MANY YEARS. I STATED BEFORE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT INSURANCE, YES, YOU TAKE ON LIABILITY. IT CAN HAPPEN FOR ONE. YOU CAN HAVE AN EMPLOYEE POOL OF 10 PEOPLE AND IT ONLY HAPPENS TO ONE AND IT CAN GET YOU IN TROUBLE. BUT WHEN YOU GO OUT AND BID OUT FOR INSURANCE AND HAVE MORE PEOPLE PARTICIPATING IN THE INSURANCE PLAN, IT IS BETTER FOR THE COLLECTIVE BECAUSE YOU ARE BRINGING DOWN THE RATES FOR THOSE WHO ARE PARTICIPATING, AND THE COUNTY DOES COVER A PORTION, WHICH COVERS THE EMPLOYEES. THAT IS THE BIGGEST CONCERN WHEN I SAY, LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE WHICH IS A PARTNERSHIP THAT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR MANY YEARS NOW, AND THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE COMMITTED TO. THE TURNAROUND, I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION IN GETTING THE INFORMATION TO THEM. THEN IT CAME UP AND THEY WERE QUICKLY SCRAMBLING TO TRY TO FIND SOMETHING. I HEARD COMMISSIONER JOE MAYBE MENTIONED 90 DAYS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS LEGAL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS ALLOWED.

[01:15:01]

AND I LOOKED TO OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY AND HR AND OUR INSURANCE REPS TO BETTER DESCRIBE IT. THAT IS AN OPTION THERE. WE JUST WANT SOMETHING REASONABLE. SOMETHING FORMAL.

SO THAT THIS GROUP, THEY ARE BASICALLY, BECAUSE OF OUR DECISION, AND I UNDERSTOOD THAT WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THIS GROUP TO STAY ON FOR ONE MORE YEAR. AND THIS DISCUSSION DID NOT GET INCLUDED INTO A MOTION, AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TO CORRECT IT. THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAPPENED ON MONDAY.

WE ARE NOW ON WEDNESDAY. SO THIS GROUP, THEY ARE A LIABILITY THEMSELVES BY NOT HAVING ANY COVERAGE. SO I WOULD ASK FOR THE YEAR IF IT IS ALLOWED TO DO A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME. MS. DORSEY, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS ON THIS. AND IF IT IS EASIER FOR THE COURT TO ACCEPT THEN SO BE IT. BUT I AM ASKING NOT JUST TO SHUT THIS DOWN IMMEDIATELY. AT LEAST GIVE THIS GROUP TIME TO GO OUT INTO THE MARKET AND FIND A PLAN THAT THEY CAN HELP SECURE FOR

THEMSELVES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES. >> I BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE LAST MEETING AND NO ONE TALKED ABOUT IT, TOO. BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER JOE, IT MAY BE A GOOD CONCESSION TO GIVE THEM 90 DAYS OR UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR SO YOU ARE NOT JUST CUTTING PEOPLE OFF OVERNIGHT. THEY HAVE BEEN ON HERE FOR A WHILE. I DO HAVE THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF THEIR PREMIUMS AND WHAT THEY HAVE PAID. MY ONLY CONCERN HERE IN LOOKING AT THIS IS, I AM NOT SURE IF THIS COVERS THEIR PRESCRIPTION CLAIMS. I BELIEVE I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO GO WITH COMMISSIONER JOE IS SUGGESTION. IT GIVES THEM TIME, TOO. WE WORK WITH OUR PARTNERS. I DON'T THINK THAT WE WANT TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO ANY OF THEM. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE SHAPE THE

COUNTY IS IN AS WELL. >> I OBJECT TO THE WORD PARTNERS. THAT COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT IS NOT LIKE THE

HOSPITAL DISTRICT. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> WE DO NOT DO ANYTHING WITH THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT. NOT ONE THING. A LONG TIME AGO, WE DID NOT HAVE THE POLITICAL WILL TO DO THE KIND OF CLEANUP WE DO NOW. I ACKNOWLEDGE I COULD NEVER GET ANYBODY TO EVEN CONSIDER THIS BEFORE. AND -- AND SO I HEAR YOU. BUT BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF THE COUNTY WE ARE IN, I JUST -- I JUST THINK IT IS VERY, VERY DANGEROUS. AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THESE ARE NOT COUNTY EMPLOYEES. AND I BELIEVE, JUDGE, YOU HAVE MENTIONED THEY AGREED TO PAY THEIR PORTION OF THE STOPLOSS AS WELL.

>> THEY ARE PAYING WELL. >> THEY ARE PAYING EVERYTHING.

>> THIS COMPANY IS PAYING THEIR PORTION OF THE STOCK LOSS

PREMIUMS. >> RIGHT. BUT THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT IS GOING A STEP FURTHER AND THEY ARE ALSO SAYING THEY WILL PAY THE STOCK LOSS WE WOULD --

>> I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. HAD WE NOT SEND IT TO THE WRONG ADDRESS I WOULD BE AGREEING WITH YOU 100%. BUT I THINK GIVING THEM THE CONCESSION AND WORKING TOGETHER AND GIVING THEM THE 90 DAYS AS COMMISSIONER GONZALEZ SAID, IF IT IS LEGAL AND ALLOWABLE, I THINK IT WOULD BE A BETTER OPTION THAN JUST CUTTING THEM OFF.

>> I REQUESTED THE PHONE CONVERSATION WITH MCGRIFF HAPPENED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE MEETING. SEE IF THAT IS EVEN SOMETHING THEY ARE WILLING TO ASSIST WITH.

>> WHY WOULD THEY NEED TO ASSIST WITH THAT THEY JUST GET

OFF WITH -- >> WELL, IT MAY NOT BE THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE WILLING TO CONTRACT FOR A THREE-MONTH

PERIOD. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMEBODY. I MEAN, YOU JUST DROP

THEM OFF. >> IS IT ILLEGAL. IS IT ALLOWABLE. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS. I WOULD SUGGEST WE WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND COME BACK TO

THIS. >> IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE POTENTIALLY NOT COVERED. WE CAN LIVE WITH THE FACT THAT ONE DAY THERE WAS A GAP, BUT TODAY IS ALREADY DAY TWO AND THEY ARE IN ESSENCE WITHOUT INSURANCE. AND THERE WAS A MIXUP. THERE WAS A MISTAKE. THE POLITICAL ISSUES WE HAD DISCUSSED AND GONE BACK AND FORTH ON I TOTALLY GET, BUT WE HAVE TO AT LEAST MAKE CONCESSIONS SO THIS GROUP IS COVERED IN THE MEANTIME. NOW, THE ONLY ISSUE TO ME IS IF IT

[01:20:01]

IS NOT THE FLAVOR OF THE COURT TO SAY LET'S DO A YEAR. THEN CAN WE DO 60 TO 90 DAYS. IS THAT REASONABLE? THAT IS THE ONLY ISSUE TO ME. BUT IF WE CANNOT GET THAT RESOLVED, WE WILL TO TABLE THIS MEETING, BEFORE WE RECESS INTO OUR MEETING, COME BACK AND VOTE ON IT. WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE A

DECISION TODAY. >> COULD IT BE A CONTRACT OF 90 DAYS INSTEAD OF JUST A EXTENSION OF 90 DAYS?

>> WE KIND OF NEED MCGRIFF TO BE HERE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. GET THEM ON THE PHONE. CAN SOMEONE CALL THEM AND WE CAN GET THEM ON THE LINE?

>> YOU CAN GO CALL THEM, TOO. >> ARE THEY ON NOW? I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. ARE THEY ON OR HOLDING OVER? I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE COVERED OR NOT

COVERED. DO YOU? >> THERE MUST BE A GRACE

PERIOD. >> NO, SIR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS AS OF 9/30, THEIR COVERAGE TERMINATED.

>> IS THAT FOR SURE? LET'S DO THAT.

>> WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS IF YOU WILL GO GET US AN ANSWER, AND MAYBE HE WILL HOP ON HER SOMETHING. AND IF YOU COME BACK, I WILL GO BACK AND BRING HIM BACK ON IF HE WANTS TO

ANSWER OUR QUESTION. >> I WILL ALSO VERIFY THE

STATUS OF THE COVERAGE. >> WE WILL COME BACK TO ITEM

[4. Discuss and consider allocating economic development contracts with Special Revenue, Capital Credits Administration, Department #1379 and related matters. Fiscal Year 2024/2025 funds available are $198,069.]

NUMBER 3. ITEM NUMBER 4. WE ARE DOING A LOT OF THIS TODAY.

DISCUSSED ALLOCATING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTS.

I AM GOING TO ASK FOR THIS TO BE TABLED. I THINK WE WILL JUST PUT IT BACK ON. IT IS OUR ADMINISTRATION, AND I TALKED TO ONE ENTITY AND THEY ASKED. SO I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION TO TABLE AND WE WILL BRING IT BACK EITHER DECEMBER OR JANUARY.

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

>> AYE. >> ALL THOSE OPPOSED?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. TO BE TABLE IT AS IT IS? WILL IT

REMAIN THE SAME AMOUNT? >> WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOCATED

SOME OF OUR BUDGET TO THESE. >> I JUST THOUGHT THE COMMISSIONER ADVOCATED SOME OF HIS MONEY, TOO.

>> YEAH. WE ARE GOING TO BRING IT BACK IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

>> TO WHAT? >> TO I AM ASSUMING MAYBE DECEMBER OR JANUARY, WE WILL JUST PUT IT BACK ON. LET ME BE CLEAR, ANY OF YOU FOR TABLING ITEMS, WE DON'T AUTOMATICALLY PUT THEM BACK ON. THAT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. TO ALSO PLAY YOUR ITEM BACK ON SO YOU ARE NOT HOLDING OUR OFFICE BACK UP

[5. Discuss and consider authorizing and approving execution of Job Order Authorization No. NCCP-007 in the amount of $97,263.74 under Job Order Contracting (JOC) Agreement No. 20240167-4/10 (RFP 3256-23) with Grace Paving and Construction, Inc. for the Amistad Park Useful Life Extension; and related matters. County Attorney has reviewed for legal sufficiency as to form. ]

TO WHATEVER DATE WE DECIDED TO PUT SOMETHING ON AND WE ACCIDENTALLY FORGET IT. IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PLACE IT BACK ON. YES. MOVING ON TO NUMBER 5. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF JOB ORDER AUTHORIZATION NUMBER NCCP-007 IN THE AMOUNT OF $97,263.74 UNDER JOB ORDER CONTRACTING AGREEMENT NUMBER 20240167-4/10, WITH GRACE PAVING AND CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE AMISTAD PARK USEFUL LIFEEXTENSION; AND RELATED

[6. Discuss and consider approving the following Diabetes Contract with Texas A&M University System Health Science Center for FY 2024-2025 in the amount of $1,500.00 from Commissioner Pct 2 Diabetes Funds and all related matters. ]

MATTERS. >> SECOND.

>> THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER SIX. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING THE FOLLOWING DIABETES CONTRACT WITH TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITYSYSTEM HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER FOR 2024-2025 N THE AMOUNT OF $1,500.00 FROM COMMISSIONER PCT2 DIABETES FUND.

[7. Discuss and consider approving 2025 Holiday Calendar, and related matters.]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ITEM NUMBER 7. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING THE 2025 HOLIDAY CALENDAR, AND RELATED MATTERS. I BELIEVE WE HAVE QUITE A FEW HOLIDAYS. I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS POSSIBLY ADDING OR IF THERE IS SOMETHING WE CAN REMOVE TO ADD. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT HAVING WEDNESDAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING. I KNOW SOME OF YOU GUYS PROBABLY DON'T THINK THAT IMPORTANT, BUT FOR WOMEN WHO HAVE TO SHOP OR COOK OR FOR

[01:25:03]

ANYONE TRAVELING, IT IS AN IMPORTANT DAY FOR US. SOME OF YOU DO. YES. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF US SPEND QUITE A BIT OF THE DAY BEFORE AND IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN HERE THE DAY BEFORE AND THE COURTHOUSE, IT IS PRETTY BARE ANYWAY. SO I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO ADD THE WEDNESDAY TO THIS.

>> WHAT IS OFF FOR THANKSGIVING NOW?

>> THURSDAY AND FRIDAY. YES. >> MONDAY OFF? NO. JUST THURSDAY AND FRIDAY. BUT PEOPLE TRAVELING USUALLY GO THE DAY

BEFORE. SHOPPING AND COOKING. >> OKAY. SO WE ARE GOING TO SHUT A WHOLE ANOTHER DAY THE ENTIRE COUNTY? I MEAN, I THINK

WE HAVE THAT -- >> I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO COME IN THE DAY BEFORE THIS. ON THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE A HOLIDAY OR SOMETHING. SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HERE. YEAH. IT IS VERY SKELETON CREW. AND THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE RULES ARE PENALIZED BECAUSE THE OTHER PEOPLE JUST DO. YES.

>> BUT THEY ARE TAKING PTO. IF PEOPLE ARE TAKING PTO AND THEIR DEPARTMENT HEADS OR LETTING THEM TAKE PTO, THEN I THINK WE HAVE THE MOST AGGRESSIVE HOLIDAY SCHEDULE.

>> I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. I EVEN ASKED IF THERE WAS ONE WE COULD TAKE OFF THAT WAS NOT QUITE AS UTILIZED. BUT I WOULDN'T EVEN SUGGEST WHAT DAY THAT WOULD BE.

>> MAYBE YOU GO AT NOON. AT OR SOMETHING.

>> WEDNESDAY BEFORE -- HE SAID THURSDAY.

>> NO. NOON. >> THE DAY BEFORE. YES. BUT YOU CAN ALL VOTE AGAINST IT AND TAKE YOUR OWN TIME. ALL ELECTEDS CAN LET THEIR OWN PEOPLE TAKE OFF ANYTIME THEY WANT TO. I WILL ASK YOU ALL TO COME UP HERE AND LOOK AT

SOMETIME. >> THREE. FOUR. FIVE. SIX.

>> WELL, NOBODY IS GOING TO ARGUE WITH US IF WE GIVE A HOLIDAY FOR SURE. NOBODY IS GOING TO ARGUE IF WE GIVE THEM

OFF. >> THE DAY AFTER THE SUPER BOWL. THEN IF THERE IS NO OTHER DISCUSSION OR WILL TO DO THAT, THEN I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO PASS THE HOLIDAY CALENDAR AS IS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. SORRY. I

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

TRIED, GUYS. I ASKED. ITEM NUMBER 8. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE UPCOMING COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING DATES AND WORKSHOP DATES. AND THIS IS NOT NEXT YEAR'S CALENDAR YET. THIS

IS JUST THE REST OF THE YEAR. >> MONDAY.

[1. Accept a grant award from the Office of the Governor, Public Safety Office, Criminal Justice Division for the Monitoring Offenders Against Women Project under the Violence Against Women Justice and Training Program, FY2025 (Cash Match).]

>> IF THERE IS NO CHANGES, THERE IS NO MOTION THERE, MOVING ON TO B 1. GRANTS. ACCEPT A GRANT AWARD FROM THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE, CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION, FOR THE MONITORING OFFENDERS AGAINST WOMEN PROJECT UNDER THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN'S JUSTICE AND TRAINING PROGRAM. THERE IS A GENERAL FUND CASH MATCH OF $12,348.83.

THIS WAS A REGULAR ONE WE DO EVERY YEAR. SO I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. YOU ARE

[1. Discuss and consider conditional selection of Progressive Structures, Inc. for Calderon Clinic Upgrades (IFB No. 3290-24); and related matters. Expense to be paid with Commissioner Pct. 2 ARPA funds.]

GOOD. SORRY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM C 1. PURCHASING. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF PROGRESSIVE STRUCTURES FOR CALDERON CLINICUPGRADES. AND, MR. ROBINSON, YOU HAVE THE PODIUM. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO DISCUSS?

>> NO. >> AND THIS IS PAID FOR WITH THE ARPA FUNDS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME

[2. Discuss and consider conditional selection of Vulcan Construction Materials, LLC for Aggregate Type PB, Grade 4S, LRA (IFB No. 3286-24); and related matters.]

SIGN. THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 2. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF VULCAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FOR AGGREGATETYPE PB, GRADE 4A. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE.

[3. Discuss and consider conditional selection of Charter Communications Operating, LLC for Internet Service Provider for Nueces County (IFB No. 3288-24); and related matters.]

ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 3. DISCUSS AND

[01:30:02]

CONSIDER THE CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS OPERATING, LLC FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER FOR NUECES COUNTY. THIS IS NOT A NEW THING.

>> YES. WE RECEIVED EIGHT BIDS.

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

[4. Discuss and consider conditional selection of Leinneweber Concrete Construction for Hazel Bazemore Culvert Replacement (IFB No. 3296-24); and related matters. Expense to be paid with Inland Parks ARPA funds.]

THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES.

ITEM NUMBER 4. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER CONDITIONAL SELECTION OF LEINNEWEBER CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION FOR HAZEL BAZEMORE

CULVERT REPLACEMENT. >> SECOND.

[5. Discuss and consider approving execution of annual service agreement with American Integrated Solutions for security alarm monitoring, fire alarm monitoring, and inspection services for Coastal Bend State Veterans Cemetery for FY 24/25 in the total amount of $1,350, and related matters.]

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHERS IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 5. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING EXECUTION OF ANNUAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS FOR SECURITY ALARM MONITORING, FIRE ALARM MONITORING, AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR COASTAL

BEND STATE VETERANS CEMETERY. >> SECOND.

[1. Discuss and consider approving the removal of fixed assets from the Nueces County inventory system for departments that replaced their IT equipment due to expired warranty or non-operational and for assets not located during inventory. ]

>> C'EST AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO ITEM D. THE AUDITOR. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF FIXED ASSETS FROM THE NUECES COUNTY INVENTORYSYSTEM FOR DEPARTMENTS THAT REPLACED THEIR I.T.

EQUIPMENT DUE TO EXPIRED WARRANTY OR NON-OPERATIONALAND FOR ASSETS NOT LOCATED DURING INVENTORY.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WORK WITH I.T. I.T. IS IN THE PROCESS OF WIPING THE DRIVES, AND IF THEY CAN BE SOLD AND AUCTIONED, THEY WILL BE. OTHERWISE, THEY NEED TO BE SOLD. THERE IS A LONG LIST OF EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAVE BUT THIS

IS THE POLICY. >> YES. I MAKE THE MOTION TO

PASS. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> WHEN YOU SAY THEY WILL BE DISPOSED, YOU MEAN THEY MAY END

UP BEING DISPOSED? >> UNFORTUNATELY, YES.

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

[2. Approve Budget Amendment No. 15 for Fiscal Year 2023-2024.]

COMMISSIONER MAREZ WAS THE SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 2.

APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 15 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024.

>> YES, YOUR HONOR. THERE'S ONLY ONE DEPARTMENT THAT REQUESTED A BUDGET CHANGE FOR THIS PARTICULAR EVENT AND THAT IS A PIECE OF PRECINCT 52. THEY WERE A LITTLE BIT SHORT OF SUPPLIES. THEY HAVE MATERIALS THAT THEY CAN TRANSFER THE FUNDS. WE REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND SUBMIT IT FOR APPROVAL.

>> SO MOVED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND WITH COMMISSIONER CHESNEY AND

[3. Approve the Monthly Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2023-2024 for the eleven months ending August 31, 2024.]

HERNANDEZ. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. ITEM NUMBER 3. APPROVE THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 FOR THE ELEVEN MONTHS

ENDING AUGUST 31, 2024. >> YES. WE WENT TO MY STAFF AND WENT TO THE PROCESS OF FIXING THOSE AREAS THAT WE KNOW OF, BUT THERE COULD BE OTHER AREAS WHERE WE CONTINUE MONITORING AND WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE DONE. THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN HAVE BEEN MODIFIED. WE SHOW ABOUT $108 MILLION WORTH OF REVENUE.

ABOUT $5 MILLION WORTH OF EXPENSE. SO WE KIND OF FIGURE THIS IS A VERY, VERY, VERY TIGHT YEAR. ABOUT ONE WE GET TO THE PROCESS OF THE ACTUAL NUMBERS, WE ARE SENDING ABOUT 25% UNUSED FUNDS FOR THE MOMENT AND WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 9% OF THE YEAR. HOPEFULLY WE WILL COME BACK WITH 95-96% OF OUR EXPENDITURE USE. THROUGH SEPTEMBER WE TRY TO GET THOSE PROCESSES PAID FOR THROUGH THE YEAR AS WELL AS THE INVOICES THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS. WE SUBMIT THE REQUEST OF THIS MONTHLY REPORT FOR YOU FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST AND THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER VERY SOON. OTHERWISE, SEPTEMBER WILL BE NOT FULL BECAUSE THEY STILL NEED TO BE AUDITED.

>> DOES THIS -- AND DID AND I ASKED THIS THE OTHER DAY. DOES

[01:35:03]

DISCLOSE OFFICIALLY AT THE END OF NOVEMBER?

>> SOMETIMES, WE GET INVOICES A LATE PROVIDED EVEN THOUGH THE GOODS AND SERVICES WERE DONE IN SEPTEMBER. WE TRY TO GET AS MUCH AS WE CAN. BECAUSE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE AUDITORS.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE RECORD ALIVE EXPENSES IN THE PROPER MONTH AND NEED TO WAIT UNTIL THE END OF SEPTEMBER OR NOVEMBER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CATCH AS MUCH AS WE CAN. IT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, BUT THAT IS USUALLY AS FAR AS WE

GO. >> THIS WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO REMIND OUR DEPARTMENT ELECTEDS, AS WELL AS DEPARTMENT HEADS, IF YOU HAVE ANY INVOICES TO GET WITH YOUR VENDORS OR WHATEVER, PLEASE ASK THEM TO SUBMIT THOSE. WE REALLY NEED TO CLOSE THOSE OUT AND SURPRISES LATER ON DO NOT HELP US. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY OUTSTANDING INVOICES WITH YOU ARE A ELECTED INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENT HEAD, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE CONTACT THEM AND GET THOSE SUBMITTED AS SOON AS

POSSIBLE. >> SO THE ITEMS YOU EITHER TALK SERVICES FOR OUR PURCHASING THINGS FROM. MAKE SURE YOU WORK

WITH YOUR VENDORS. >> YES. ABSOLUTELY. AND I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO PASS THEM. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> DISCUSSION. >> YES. GO AHEAD.

>> I AM AT THE POINT WHERE I AM NOT APPROVING THIS. I HAVE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE BUDGET ALL YEAR LONG. CHANGES AND CHANGES AND CHANGES. WE WENT TO THE LAST-MINUTE. THERE WERE SOME ERRORS HERE THAT WE HAVE GOT TO CORRECT. NOW, I HAVE ALWAYS DIDN'T AGREE WITH THE NUMBERS OR WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US AND THE OUTCOMES AND THE REVENUES AND A LOT OF THINGS HERE THAT I AM JUST NOT REALLY CLEAR WITH AND I AM NOT HAPPY WITH THE BUDGET FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. AND I AM NOT GIVING IT TODAY. IT IS TOTALLY ALL OVER THE PLACE WHERE THE MONEY HAS CAME FROM OR WHEN. FOR SOME REASON, I THINK THE BUDGET THE WHOLE YEAR HAS BEEN VERY, VERY UNSTABLE. AND IT WAS NOT CORRECTLY PRESENTED TO US, SO I AM GOING TO GO WITH NO.

>> COMMISSIONER CHESNEY, YOU HAD A COMMENT AS WELL?

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING, BASICALLY. IT IS UNADJUSTED AND I SHARE THE CAN SEEM CONCERNS. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO MAYBE TABLED THIS AND GET IT BACK WITH A LITTLE MORE. BUT I MEAN THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

>> AND I DEFINITELY WILL RETRACT MY MOTION. THERE IS NO NECESSARY REASON WHY WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE INFORMATION AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN TO APPROVE. IS THERE A -- WOULD YOU CARE TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE, DALE, ABOUT WHY THIS IS? MARCH 2025. I THINK THAT WAS THE ALARMING PART FOR A LOT WHEN

THEY SAW THIS. >> EXCUSE ME, JUDGE.

>> YES? >> IF WE WERE TO TABLE THIS, THAT WOULD GIVE THE DEPARTMENT HEADS A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO BRING IN ALL THE OTHER INVOICES.

>> THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE DEADLINE FOR THE DEPARTMENT HAD. THEY STILL HAVE UNTIL NOVEMBER BUT WE ARE ASKING THEM TO REACH OUT. WE ARE HOPING THEY DO THAT RIGHT NOW AS IT IS. THAT IS THE REASON I MADE THE COMMENT. THAT IS THE REASON WE WILL HAVE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS IF WE GET THOSE ACTUAL INVOICES IN SO THEY CAN BE RECONCILED. A LONGER, EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE GOT THEIR PEACOCK NOTICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT THAT THOSE NEED TO BE RECONCILED. ALL OF THAT STUFF COINCIDES WITH THE END OF THE YEAR AND THE ACTUAL BALANCES MOVING FORWARD. SO YOU SHOULD HAVE ALL RECEIVED AN EMAIL. I HOPE YOU PAID ATTENTION. BECAUSE IF THEY ARE NOT RECONCILED IN THE FUTURE, YOUR P-CARDS WILL BE TURNED OFF. AND, DALE, I KNOW YOU HAVE A QUESTION. YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT?

>> I KNOW WE DO THE AUDIT ONCE A YEAR. NOW, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THERE IS ALWAYS A CHANCE FOR ERRORS BECAUSE WHEN SOMEONE CODES AN INVOICE, THEY MAY HAVE CODED FOR SOMETHING ELSE. MAYBE IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THIS PARTICULAR CATEGORY. MAYBE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THIS CATEGORY. MAYBE POSTED THROUGH PAYROLL WRONG. MAYBE THE BALANCE BUT SOMETHING WITH THE PAYROLL OR

[01:40:02]

HR OR OUR DEPARTMENT. SO THERE IS ALWAYS A CHANCE OF ERRORS.

THE REPORT IS, IF WE RAN THIS TOMORROW THE NUMBERS COULD BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A FINALIZED REPORT.

>> AND I THINK THE CONCERN IS LEGITIMATE WITH WHAT WE WENT THROUGH THIS PAST MONTH. SO I WOULD REMOVE MY MOTION. AND, ACTUALLY, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO TABLE THEN.

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

>> AYE. >> AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES. GOING BACK TO ITEM 3. A. 3. DID YOU SPEAK TO MCGRIFF

ABOUT OUR ISSUE? >> I DID. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO GIVE THEM UNTIL 11:30 AND THEY WILL BE ON THE CALL FOR

US. >> WHAT TIME IS IT? 10:30. I GUESS WE WILL GO TO EXECUTIVE AND THEN BRING IT BACK.

>> I WILL ALSO VERIFY THAT THE DISTRICT INSURANCE IS NOT

DISCONTINUED. >> THEY ARE CURRENT. THEY ARE

STILL CURRENT RIGHT NOW. >> I HAVE INSTRUCTED MY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE EXTERNAL AGENCIES THAT WERE DIRECTED TO BE REMOVED IN THE PLAN ARE DONE TO THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT WILL STAY ON THE PLAN. AS PER YOUR INSTRUCTIONS, WE ARE AWAITING YOUR DECISION ON THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

>> THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO. OKAY. I GUESS WE WILL BRING THIS BACK AFTER EXECUTIVE. WE WILL GO ON IN TO EXECUTIVE NOW.

[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.]