[Call Meeting to Order]
[00:00:02]
>> [NOISE] GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
>> I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT AT 9:00 AM, THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021.
COMMISSIONER ROLAND, WOULD YOU BE SO KIND TO LEAD US IN THE INVOCATION.
>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. LET US PRAY.
OUR FATHER, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST.
FATHER HAS ONCE AGAIN THAT YOUR WEAKEN HUMBLE SERVANT IS STANDING HERE WITH MY MIND STAYED ON YOU.
THANK YOU, LORD, FOR ALL THE MANY BLESSINGS THAT YOU HAVE BESTOWED UPON US.
THANK YOU, LORD, FOR ALLOWING ALL OF THESE PEOPLE THAT'S HERE TODAY TO GET UP THIS MORNING AND BE ABLE TO GET HERE.
LORD, I JUST THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO IS FOR THE GOOD.
IT'S IN JESUS NAME THAT I PRAY, AMEN.
>> ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM STAFF? NONE? OKAY. COMMISSIONERS' ANNOUNCEMENTS.
[Announcements]
>> JUST LIKE TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT THIS WEEKEND, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CHISHOLM TRAIL ROUNDUP, AND IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD TO GET OUT, AND SEE EVERYBODY.
I THINK THEY'VE HAD RECORD NUMBERS OF SALES OF WRIST BANDS.
EVERYBODY'S ANXIOUS TO GET OUT AND ENJOY THE FESTIVITIES ONCE AGAIN. COME OUT AND JOIN US.
>> YES. I JUST WANT TO GIVE OUT KUDOS FOR THAT MEMORIAL DAY CELEBRATION THAT WE HAD.
I WAS REALLY SURPRISED THAT SO MANY PEOPLE CAME.
IT'S THE BEST ONE I THINK I'VE BEEN TO, EXCEPT WHEN JOHN SURIE WAS A COMMISSIONER.
HE HAD AN AIRPLANE AND HE TALKED ME INTO GOING UP IN THE AIR WITH HIM.
[LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND] HE JUST HAD A DOOR FLIP.
BUT ANYWAY, IT WAS REALLY GOOD. THAT'S IT.
I'LL JUST ECHO COMMISSIONER SHELTON AND COMMISSIONER ROLAND'S COMMENTS THAT CHISHOLM TRAIL ROUNDUP THIS WEEKEND AND THE MEMORIAL DAY SERVICE WAS EXCEPTIONAL AS WELL.
THANK YOU TO ALL THOSE WHO MADE THAT EVENT POSSIBLE.
[Citizens' Comments]
>> I JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE A FOUR-MINUTE TIME LIMIT.
I'LL START THE CLOCK AND I'LL GIVE YOU A 30-SECOND COUNTDOWN.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
SHOULD I JUST START AGAIN OR JUST FROM THERE?
>> I THINK THE MICROPHONE PROBABLY PICKED IT UP.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. THE COMMITTEE DID NOT REFLECT THE COUNTY'S POPULATION.
LESS THAN HALF OF THE COMMITTEE WAS HISPANIC.
ADDITIONALLY, IT SEEMS THAT WHILE THE CITY OF LOCKHART WAS REPRESENTED BY ITS CITY SECRETARY, OTHER MUNICIPALITIES LIKE LULING AND MARTINDALE DID NOT HAVE SUCH REPRESENTATION.
FINALLY, I CANNOT SUPPORT THE COUNTY'S PLAN TO GO TO COUNTYWIDE POLLING BECAUSE THERE WAS
[00:05:01]
NO DISCUSSION OF THE EFFECTS THAT COUNTYWIDE POLLING WILL HAVE ON VOTERS OF COLOR IN CALDWELL COUNTY.AT NO TIME DURING THE COMMITTEE MEETING WAS THERE ANY MENTION, CONSIDERATION, NOR ANALYSIS OF "MINORITY VOTERS" AND THE IMPACT THAT SUCH A CHANGE MAY HAVE ON MINORITY TURNOUT.
CALDWELL COUNTY HAS A LONG HISTORY OF VOTER SUPPRESSION AND DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MINORITY VOTERS, DATING BACK TO AT LEAST THE 1960S, THAT CONTINUES TO THIS DAY.
EVEN IN 2018, THE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATION, THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE EDUCATION FUND, HIGHLIGHTED CALDWELL COUNTY, DESCRIBING IT AS ONE OF SEVERAL TEXAS COUNTY'S "WITH ESTABLISHED RECORDS OF DISCRIMINATION AND RECENT VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT".
A REPORT ON VOTER DISENFRANCHISEMENT THAT ALSO FOUND THAT CALDWELL COUNTY WAS ONE OF THE TOP 15 COUNTIES TO CLOSE THE MOST POLLING LOCATIONS BY PERCENTAGE IN THE ENTIRE NATION.
GIVEN THIS LONG HISTORY AND THE CONTINUING ISSUES, THE COUNTY SHOULD BE INTENTIONAL IN ITS EFFORTS TO INCLUDE AND CONSIDER THE VOICES OF HISPANIC AND BLACK VOTERS.
BUT THE WAY THAT THE COUNTY WENT ABOUT THIS PROCESS FAILED TO ADEQUATELY DO SO.
FOR THESE REASONS, I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS EFFORT AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSIONERS TO NOT DO SO EITHER UNTIL THESE CONCERNS THAT HAD BEEN DETAILED HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ANY OTHER CITIZENS' COMMENTS?
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? IF NOT, I'LL SEEK A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT.>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES.
COMMISSIONERS, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR 9:30 AND IN RESPECT FOR THE POSTED TIME, WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM NUMBER 9,
[9. Discussion/Action regarding the burn ban. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Hector Rangel; Backup: 3; Cost: None]
DISCUSSION ACTION REGARDING THE BURN BAN, HECTOR.>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS, STAFF, AND GUESTS.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP ON KBDI NUMBERS FOR TODAY; THE MINIMUM IS 27, THE MAX IS 45, AVERAGE 36, WITH A CHANGE OF 16.
WE'VE HAD A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RAIN HERE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.
NOW WE'VE GOT TWO TROPICAL WAVES THAT ARE FORMING NEAR GUATEMALA AND HONDURAS WITH A 30 PERCENT CHANCE OF FORMING.
THOSE TROPICAL WAVES WILL PROBABLY BE MOVING OUR WAY AND PROBABLY BE TOUCHING THE GULF COAST SOMETIME BY NEXT WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY, WHICH WILL INCREASE OUR SHOWER AMOUNTS DURING THAT TIME.
I RECOMMEND THAT WE KEEP THE BURN BAN OFF, AND JUST KEEP MOVING WITH IT, IF IT GETS DRY, THEN WE CAN MAKE EMERGENCY ADJUSTMENTS TO IT.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE LEAVE THE BURN BAN OFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO LEAVE THE BURN BAN OFF. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO LEAVE THE BURN BAN OFF.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM 10, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER ADOPTING AND ORDER PERMITTING
[10. Discussion/Action to consider adopting an order permitting the sale of fireworks during the 4th of July fireworks period. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Hector Rangel; Backup: 3; Cost: None]
THE SALE OF FIREWORKS DURING THE 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS PERIOD. HECTOR.AGAIN, WE DO HAVE RAIN FORECASTED TO THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, BUT 4TH OF JULY IS STILL THREE WEEKS AWAY.
ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN RIGHT NOW, THE PROGNOSIS FOR THE WEATHER.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE HEAT INDEX IS GOING TO BE AROUND IN THE 106 AREA FOR THIS AREA AND THAT'S GOING TO MAKE THE GRASS DRY PRETTY QUICK.
HUMIDITY ISSUES WILL BE DOWN, NUMBERS WILL BE REALLY LOW.
SO I RECOMMEND THAT WE CAN HAVE STANDARD FIREWORKS, BUT NO STICKS AND NO FANS.
>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THIS ORDER SPECIFICALLY JUST TARGETS PROHIBITING STICKS AND FANS.
PERMISSIBLE SALES ARE STILL ALLOWED EVEN UNDER THIS ORDER.
COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. RANGEL?
>> YES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.
COMMISSIONERS, IN YOUR BACKUP, THE ITEM 4, IT HAS AN INCORRECT DATE, BUT IT HAS BEEN CORRECTED ON THE ORDER THAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME.
IT HAS BEEN CORRECTED TO SAY JULY 5TH, INSTEAD OF THE INCORRECT DATE THAT WAS POSTED IN THE BACKUP.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT REAPPROVE SELL FIREWORKS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDER PROHIBITING THE SALE OF CERTAIN FIREWORKS, BUT ALLOWING PERMISSIBLE FIREWORKS AS LISTED IN THE ORDER, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
[00:10:03]
>> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, HECTOR.
ITEM 11, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER
[11. Discussion/Action to consider the Texas Association of Counties Health and Employee Benefits Pool (TAC HEBP) and to determine the amount for county portions dependent coverage for FY 2021-2022. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Bob Bush; Backup: 5; Cost: None]
TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES HEALTH AND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS POOL TAC HEBP​, AND TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT FOR COUNTY PORTIONS DEPENDENT COVERAGE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021, 2022.>> GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS.
>> WE WERE FORTUNATE LAST YEAR NOT TO HAVE AN INCREASE IN OUR MEDICAL INSURANCE.
WE'RE ALL FELT IT HAPPEN AND BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC AND A LOT OF COSTS OVERALL AND I GUESS IN MEDICAL FIELD.
[NOISE] WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SEVEN PERCENT INCREASE THIS YEAR ACROSS THE BOARD.
WHICH IS NOT MUCH ACTUALLY EVEN IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS.
IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD ONE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS SOME MAKE SENSE NOT TOO BAD.
THIS MORNING, I THINK I'D LIKE TO COME TO YOU ALL AND SEE HOW MUCH WE WANT TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARD INDEPENDENT COVERAGE FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.
LAST YEAR WE CONTRIBUTED $15 ACROSS THE BOARD.
WHETHER IT WAS EMPLOYEE AND CHILD, EMPLOYEE AND SPOUSE, EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY THEY HAD $15 TOWARD THEIR DEPENDENT COVERAGE.
I PUT A PENCIL AND PAPER TO VARIOUS LEVELS, IN ORDER FOR THE EMPLOYEE NOT TO SEE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE COST.
WE'D HAVE TO PAY 27,22 I BELIEVE IT'S IS.
27, 22 AND THAT'S $12 UP FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN PAYING.
IT'S ONLY 44 EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE DEPENDENT COVERAGE.
BUT THAT WILL GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL COST OF ABOUT $14,000, REPAYING ABOUT 17,000 TOWARD DEPENDENT COVERAGE NOW AND THE NEXT, IF YOU GO 27,22 IT ERASE THE 31,000.
WE CAN DO ANYTHING IN BETWEEN THERE THE LAST WHATEVER YOU'D LIKE TO DO, BUT THAT'S THE FIGURES I HAVE FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.
>> OUR BARBARA AS THE JUDGE, AS PART OF THE BUDGETING PROCESS WE LOOKED AT THESE NUMBERS.
>> AS THE JUDGE, AS PART OF THE BUDGETING PROCESS LOOKED AT THESE NUMBERS AND ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT HE'S PLANNING ON BRINGING BACK TO THE COURT.
HE'S SEEN THE NUMBERS BEFORE WHAT IS GOING TO COST US, BUT WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DEPENDED COVERAGE.
>> HE'S AWARE WE HAD OUR UPDATE WITH TAC HEALTH BENEFITS POOL AND THEN THAT'S WHEN THEY TOLD US ABOUT THE UPDATE AND JUDGE HAYDEN WAS IN THAT MEETING.
HE IS AWARE OF THE SEVEN PERCENT INCREASE THAT WILL NEED TO BE BUDGETED IN ORDER TO COVER THAT INCREASE IN OUR BENEFITS POOL.
THE QUESTION IS THE DEPENDENT COVERAGE ON WHAT WE WANT TO DO GOING FORWARD AS FAR AS THAT IS CONCERNED.
WHETHER WE WANT TO INCREASE IT TO MATCH THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE IF THE COUNTY IS GOING TO SEE IN ORDER TO HAVE BASICALLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF COVERAGE FOR THOSE PERSONS, WHO ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE DEPENDENT PAY THAT WE ARE PROVIDING.
THEY DON'T SEE AN INCREASE OR A DECREASE IN THEIR CHECK BASICALLY BECAUSE OF THAT.
>> IF WE RAISE IT TO THE 27-22, IT WILL NOT BE ANY DECREASE OUT OF THE EMPLOYEE'S PAYCHECK EXCEPT FOR SEVEN PEOPLE.
THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMING OUT NOW TO THE EMPLOYEE AND SPOUSE AND EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY.
BUT THEY'RE ALREADY TAKE A LITTLE BIT OR LOOSE MORE THE WAY WE'RE SET UP NOW BECAUSE IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD.
>> IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER TEREO, SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE COMPLETING THE REVENUE PROJECTIONS AS WELL.
WE HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH ALL THE DEPARTMENTS JUST YET.
WE'RE TRYING TO COMPLETE ALL THE PROJECTIONS TO THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR,
[00:15:03]
AS WELL AS PUT ALL THE PROJECTIONS TOGETHER SO THAT JUDGE HAYDEN CAN HAVE OVERALL PICTURE OF THE BUDGET.AS WELL AS THE NUMBER SO THAT HE CAN HAVE A BETTER VIEW AS WELL AS YOU ALL, SO THAT YOU HAVE A BETTER PROJECTION FOR THE OVERALL BUDGET.
WE'LL PUT THESE NUMBERS IN THERE ALSO.
I UNDERSTAND, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO PROJECT ANYTHING WITHOUT THE REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES AND EVERYTHING THE OVERALL PROJECTIONS.
BUT HE HAS HAD OBVIOUSLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THESE NUMBERS.
>> YEAH, HE KNOWS ABOUT THE SEVEN PERCENT.
>> BOB, IF WE APPROVED THE EXTRA FUNDING TO AVOID AN INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION ON THE DEPENDENT SIDE.
DOES THE COURT HAVE THE OPTION TO RECONSIDER THAT ONCE OUR REVENUES COME IN OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S LOCKED IN FAIRLY QUICKLY WITH TAC?
>> DEPENDENT ON REVENUE COMING IN?
>> ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE DO, I'M SURE YOU CAN BUT WHAT TIME IS THE DEADLINE FOR US TO TURN THIS INFORMATION?
>> JULY 31ST, SO YOU DO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
>> I SEE ON THIS FORM MUST BE RECEIVED BY JUNE 30TH.
>> JUNE 30TH I'M SORRY. JUNE 30TH, SO WE HAVE THIS COURT [OVERLAPPING] THE NEXT COURT TO DECIDE.
>> YEAH, WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TABLE.
>> ONE OF THE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST ALSO IS WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE INDIVIDUALS THAT DON'T TAKE THE INSURANCE.
IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WE'VE HAD UP TO A COUPLE $100,000 OF MEDICAL CONTINGENCY AND THAT CAN OFFSET SOME OF THIS COST, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU MAY CONSIDER.
A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T END UP USING ANY OF THAT, THAT JUST SITS THERE AND THAT IS STAGNANT COSTS THAT SITS IN THE NON DEPARTMENTAL THAT NO ONE SPENDS.
>> IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHETHER YOU WANT AN EMPLOYEE NOT TO SEE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THEIR PAYCHECK OR NOT.
I THANK EVERYBODY THAT I'VE TALKED TO HAVE ALREADY TOLD THEM, BE PREPARED FOR SEVEN PERCENT INCREASE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS COMING.
>> THERE ARE OTHER SOURCES I JUST DON'T FEEL SO COMFORTABLE REVEALING THEM AT THIS TIME UNLESS JUDGE HAYDEN IS HERE.
WE HAVE SOME OTHER MONEY THAT HAS SAT IN AN HCSA ACCOUNT.
BUT I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE JUDGE HAYDEN WOULD EXPRESS THOSE INSTEAD OF MYSELF.
>> COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE A CONSENSUS THAT WE SHOULD POTENTIALLY TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL JUDGE HAYDEN.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE TABLE.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM 11 THEN.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE ITEM 11, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES.
>> ITEM 12 DISCUSSION ACTUALLY CONSIDER RENEWING THE HEALTHY COUNTY WELLNESS COORDINATOR.
[12. Discussion/Action to consider renewing the Healthy County Wellness Coordinator. Speaker: Judge Haden; Backup: 3; Cost: None]
COMMISSIONERS, WE AND AZZIE.CAN YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE SIGNED THIS LAST YEAR, CORRECT? OR RIGHT PRIOR COVID STARTING?
THIS IS A WELLNESS COORDINATOR BASICALLY, THEY GET INFORMATION FROM TAC AND THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT THEY ASSIST EMPLOYEES AND THEY HAVE A WEIGHT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS FOR PEOPLE THAT THEY KNOW THAT HAVE DIFFERENT AILMENTS LIKE DIABETES THAT ARE STRESS THAT HAVE HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE.
THE COUNTY HAS THESE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS AND THIS WELLNESS COORDINATOR CAN PUSH OUT THE INFORMATION TO EMPLOYEES.
LAST YEAR WE NAMED CHRISTIANA THE WELLNESS COORDINATOR, SO THIS IS JUST AN ANNUAL THING THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO RENEW TO KEEP HER AS A WELLNESS COORDINATOR.
>> THANK YOU, AZZIE. THE CHALLENGES OF 2020 OBVIOUSLY HAD [LAUGHTER] AN EFFECT ON IMPLEMENTING THIS PROGRAM.
BUT I KNOW CHRISTIANA HAD ATTENDED SOME TRAININGS AND WHAT NOT TO GET STARTED ON THIS.
I WOULD [NOISE] LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE CHRISTIANA
[00:20:02]
[INAUDIBLE] AS THE WELLNESS COORDINATOR FOR COLLIN COUNTY.>> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 13.
[13. Discussion/Action to consider the approval FY 2022 Clean Air Coalition Air Quality Program funding Request. Speaker: BJ Westmoreland; Backup: 11; Cost: None]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 2022, CLEAN AIR COALITION AIR QUALITY PROGRAM FUNDING REQUEST.COMMISSIONERS, WE'VE DONE THIS THE LAST TWO YEARS.
THIS IS THE CLEAN AIR COALITION THAT I REPRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.
THE PAST TWO YEARS WE HAVE [NOISE] CONTRIBUTED A PORTION OF THE NECESSARY FUNDS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE PROGRAMMING AND THE AIR QUALITY MONITORING THAT CAPCOG DOES ON OUR BEHALF.
WE DO HAVE AN AIR QUALITY MONITOR IN THE CITY OF LOCKHART.
YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE REQUEST THIS YEAR IS $2,422.
THE REQUEST TWO YEARS AGO WAS 3,450.
LAST YEAR'S REQUEST WAS 1,184, SO IT IS MORE THAN LAST YEAR, BUT LESS THAN TWO YEARS AGO.
>> THEN I READ IN THERE SOMEWHERE, IF THEY GOT OTHER FUNDING THAT THEY YOU WOULD ADJUST THAT AS WELL?
>> YES. AT THE TIME THAT THIS REQUEST WAS PUT OUT, IT'S UNCLEAR AS FAR AS HOW MUCH STATE FUNDING THERE WILL BE ALLOTTED THROUGH TCQ.
IF THAT FUNDING IS ALLOWED TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THE PROGRAMS THAT THIS DOES, THEN THE FUNDING REQUEST WILL BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY.
>> ALSO MOVE APPROVAL OF THE FUNDING REQUEST.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 CLEAN AIR COALITION PROGRAM FUNDING. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
COMMISSIONERS, KEEP AN EYE ON THE CLOCK.
I KNOW 14 IS IN RELATION TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING, AND 15 I DO KNOW THAT IT MIGHT TAKE BEYOND 9:30.
IF IT PLEASES THE COURT, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO ITEM 16.
ITEM 16, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER
[16. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #60 to transfer from Probate/Civil/Guardianship Clerk in the amount of $4,089.00 to distribute to 2 deputy Clerks taking on extra responsibilities. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales/ Teresa Rodriguez; Backup: 8; Cost: Net Zero]
60 TO TRANSFER FROM PROBATE CIVIL GUARDIANSHIP CLERK [NOISE] IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,089 TO DISTRIBUTE TO TWO DEPUTY CLERKS TAKING ON EXTRA RESPONSIBILITIES.>> DID YOU MEAN TO SKIP 15 ALSO?
>> BOB, DO YOU MIND JUST TOUCHING ON IT JUST A BIT?
>> THIS IS FOR THE DEPUTY CLERKS?
MY UNDERSTANDING, AND USUALLY WE DEFER THESE TO THOSE POSITIONS [OVERLAPPING] TO THE OFFICE.
[LAUGHTER] WE DID REVIEW THE POSITIONS AND WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SHE WANTED TO RECLASSIFY THESE POSITIONS.
I DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO TERESA IN REFERENCE TO THESE POSITIONS, BUT IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA, AND SHE DID FILL OUT THE JOB DESCRIPTION INFORMATION LIKE IT WAS REQUESTED AND SHE'S STAYING WITHIN THE BUDGETING THE APPROPRIATION, SO WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AND HUMAN RESOURCES DOES FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WAS FILLED OUT.
>> OKAY. WE ARE TAKING $4,089 OUT OF 001021501040, AND THEN WE WERE MOVING $1,732.37 TO DEPUTY CLERK, JUST RELINING THOSE TWO LINE ITEMS?
>> YES, SIR, SO THAT LINE ITEM STAYS THE SAME.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 60 FOR $4,089.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 60. DO I HEAR A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.
[00:25:01]
ITEM 17, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 61,[17. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #61 to move money from Contingency to Non-Departmental/ Professional Services for County Expenses. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Barbara Gonzales; Backup: 2; Cost: Net Zero]
TO MOVE MONEY FROM CONTINGENCY TO NON DEPARTMENTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR COUNTY EXPENSES.>> YES, SIR. IN THAT LINEUP, WE'RE REQUESTING TO MOVE MONEY OUT OF CONTINGENCY 00165104860 IN THE AMOUNT OF $84,894 INTO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 001605104110, [NOISE] IN THE AMOUNT OF $47,000 AND 00165104425 PACKS IN INTERNET, $35,000 AND 00165104845, INSURANCE, $2,884 AND THIS IS TO MEET FUNDING IN THESE PARTICULAR LINE ITEMS THROUGH THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 61.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 61. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.
WHAT'S THAT COMMISSIONER? [BACKGROUND] THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE.
[LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE ABOUT FOUR MINUTES AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT.
JJ, CAN I REQUEST IF WE START AT FOUR MINUTES EARLY, IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTION TO THAT OR DO WE JUST NEED TO WAIT? [LAUGHTER] THE NEXT ITEMS ARE LONGER THAN FOUR MINUTES.
>> I WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO YOU, COMMISSIONER.
IT IS NOTICE IS FOR 9:30, BUT I THINK PROBABLY OKAY TO START AT A COUPLE OF MINUTES EARLY.
>> [LAUGHTER] WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A THREE-MINUTE RECESS UNTIL 9:30.
[LAUGHTER] WE'RE GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING BACK TO ORDER AT 9:30.
AT THIS POINT, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING
[PUBLIC HEARING (a), 9:30]
AT 9:30 REGARDING CALDWELL COUNTY'S APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATION, THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACE PROGRAM.I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, THERE IS A FOUR MINUTE TIME LIMIT FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK AND ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, YOU CANNOT DONATE TIME TO ANY PERSON OUTSIDE OF YOURSELF.
WE WILL BEGIN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
THANK YOU FOR [NOISE] HAVING THIS PUBLIC HEARING THIS MORNING CONCERNING OUR COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACES.
I WANT TO START OUT BY SAYING THAT THE REASON THAT WE'RE PUSHING AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS, IS NOT TO DISENFRANCHISE OUR VOTERS, BUT TO BRING MORE VOTERS TO THE POLLS AND TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THEM THE CONVENIENCE OF GOING ANYWHERE AND VOTING IN CALDWELL COUNTY.
THAT WAS THE MAIN REASON THAT WE WANTED TO DO THIS, IS TO BRING MORE VOTERS IN AND MAKE IT MORE CONVENIENT FOR THEM TO VOTE.
WE ALREADY HAVE EVERYTHING IN PLACE TO BE A COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACE, EVERYTHING IS ALREADY THERE.
WE DO NOT INTEND ON, AT THIS POINT, CLOSING OR REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF POLLING PLACES THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
THAT MAY BE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, BUT NOT ANYWHERE SOON BECAUSE WE NEED THE DATA TO SEE WHERE OUR VOTERS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO VOTE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH THE COUNTYWIDE VOTING, IS OPENING ANOTHER EARLY VOTING CENTER IN MARTINDALE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE EASIER FOR THOSE THAT WE HAVE THAT WORK OUT OF COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO COME IN AFTER WORK AND BE ABLE TO GO TO ANY POLLING PLACE AND VOTE.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR OUR VOTERS TO GET THERE AND INCREASE OUR VOTERS.
IT'S ALSO GOING TO EVENTUALLY DECREASE THE COST OF WHAT IT COSTS US TO RUN AN ELECTION, WHICH WILL BE VERY HELPFUL RIGHT NOW WITH THE ECONOMY THE WAY IT IS AT THIS POINT.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY AND APPRECIATE YOU GUYS COMING AND DOING THAT FOR US TODAY.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
I'M FRED BUCHHOLZ, FORMER COUNTY COMMISSIONER, FORMER MAYOR OF [INAUDIBLE].
ALL OF US THAT HAVE WORKED VOTER LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN THERE WHEN PEOPLE SHOW UP AND THEY'RE IN THE WRONG LOCATION.
THEY HAVE TO BE INSTRUCTED WHERE TO GO IN ANOTHER PART OF THE TOWN OR WHATEVER.
WHAT THIS COUNTYWIDE VOTING MEANS, IS THAT THESE PEOPLE COULD VOTE WHEREVER THEY SHOWED UP WHATEVER POLLS.
[00:30:02]
I SEE ONLY ADVANTAGES, I DON'T SEE ANY NEGATIVE.PEOPLE CAN VOTE AT ANY POLL AND THEY WON'T BE TURNED AROUND AND SENT TO ANOTHER LOCATION.
I SEE THIS IS ONLY A PLUS FOR THE VOTER.
I DON'T SEE ANY NEGATIVE AND I'D RECOMMEND THAT Y'ALL RECOMMEND THAT WE DO THIS.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IMPRESSED ME WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING COUNTYWIDE VOTING WAS THE STATISTIC THAT 38 PERCENT, WHICH IS CLOSE TO 40 PERCENT, OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RESIDING IN OUR COUNTY WORK OUTSIDE OF OUR COUNTY.
THIS WOULD GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO COME IN AND VOTE.
OF COURSE, BY LAW THEY GET TO COME AND VOTE ON ELECTION DAY.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S REALLY CONVENIENT IS WE HAVE EARLY VOTE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A SITE IN LULING, WE'VE HAD A SITE HERE IN LOCKHART, AND WE VOTED DOWN IN LULING A COUPLE OF TIMES, DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM LIKE THAT.
THE LAST TIME THAT WE VOTED, WE HAD USED CURBSIDE VOTING WHICH IS STILL GOING TO BE AVAILABLE.
BUT WITH THIS OPTION ON ELECTION DAY, IT'LL BE LIKE EARLY VOTE AT ANY LOCATION.
I JUST DON'T SEE THE DISADVANTAGES OF THAT.
WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST, THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT COUNTIES AND GROUPS IN THIS AREA OF SIMILAR SIZE HAVE BEEN GOING TO.
I JUST DON'T SEE DISADVANTAGES, I SEE ADVANTAGES OF THIS PROPOSITION AND I HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER THAT. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS PHILIP REESE.
I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS AND LIKE TO OFFICIALLY REGISTER OPPOSITION TO CALDWELL COUNTY'S APPLICATION FOR COUNTYWIDE POLLING LOCATIONS.
I LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD TO YOU, JUDGE PRO TEM, A LETTER OF OUR OFFICIAL OPPOSITION.
THE LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS THANKS YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY A FEW WORDS AND SUBMIT EVIDENCE TO YOUR BENEFIT. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> MAY I BRING A HANDOUT TO YOU?
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M KATHY HAIGLER, I LIVE AT 430 SKYLINE ROAD IN DALE.
I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT SOME PROS AND CONS.
FIRST OF ALL, THE PROS, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A VOTER CAN GO TO ANY POLLING PLACE AND THEY WON'T BE TURNED AWAY.
IT WILL PROBABLY INCREASE THE VOTER TURNOUT BECAUSE IT'S MORE CONVENIENT.
HOPEFULLY, WE CAN ESTABLISH SOME CONSISTENT POLLING PLACES AND QUIT HAVING VOTERS MOVING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER FROM ELECTION TO ELECTION, SO THAT IT WILL BE MORE CONSISTENT BECAUSE VOTERS DO NOT LIKE CHANGE.
HOPEFULLY, THERE'LL BE A COST SAVINGS IF WE DECREASE THE NUMBER OF POLLING PLACES FROM WHAT WE DID IN THE GENERAL IN 2020.
INSTEAD OF EXPERIENCED WORKERS GOING AT ALL DIFFERENT LOCATIONS ALL THE TIME, HOPEFULLY WITH THE VOTE CENTERS, WE'LL HAVE A TEAM THAT NORMALLY WORKS EACH LOCATION.
THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME STANDBYS THAT CAN FILL IN WHERE NEEDED, AND WE'LL JUST HAVE MORE CONSISTENCY ALL THE WAY AROUND.
SOME OF THE CONS THAT I'M THINKING OF IS AT THE END OF THE NIGHT, THERE'S RESULTS TAPES.
IF YOU DO IT AS A SUMMARY, WHICH WOULD BE ONE BALLOT SAYING FOR ALL THE PRECINCTS COMBINED, HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTED FOR EACH PERSON, JUST ONE BALLOT.
THAT'S A SHORTER TIME TO PRINT, BUT THEN WE LOSE ALL THOSE DETAILS IN CASE WE NEED IT FOR BACKUP THAT NIGHT.
WHEREAS IF YOU DID INDIVIDUAL SUMMARIES SAY WE'VE GOT 31 PRECINCTS, YOU WOULD HAVE 31 DIFFERENT BALLOTS SHOWING HOW MANY VOTES EACH PERSON GOT IN EACH PRECINCT.
ACCORDING TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE, THEY TOLD ME IT WOULD UP TO THE LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIAL, WHETHER TO RUN A SUMMARY OR THE FULL TAPE.
[00:35:03]
IT WOULD BE OUR CHOICE HOW WE WANTED TO DO THAT.IF WE RUN THE FULL TAPE, THIS WILL TAKE A LOT LONGER IN THE EVENING TO RUN THAT TAPE.
BUT WE DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO RUN A SUMMARY TAPE.
THEN SOMETHING ELSE TO KEEP IN MIND IS WE CAN'T HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER PRECINCT HAVING TWO MORE LOCATIONS THAN ANY OTHER.
SO EVERYBODY WILL GET ONE, THEN EVERYBODY WOULD GET TWO, THEN THREE, THEN FOUR AND ONE PRECINCT WOULD HAVE FIVE, IF WE HAVE 17 POLLING PLACES.
WE CAN'T HAVE THEM IMBALANCED ACCORDING TO THE LAW.
SOME OF THE POLLING PLACES THAT WE'VE USED OVER THE YEARS WON'T BE NEEDED ANYMORE.
THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE A LITTLE BIT OF VOTER CONFUSION UNTIL WE GET CONSISTENT.
WE CAN EVENTUALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF POLLING PLACES RIGHT NOW.
I THINK SOME OF OUR POLLING PLACES HAVE HAD 35 OR 50 PEOPLE SHOW UP ON ELECTION DAY, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY PROBABLY BE COMBINED WITH ANOTHER PRECINCT.
JUST TELL ME WHEN MY TIME RUNS OUT.
SOME OF THE THINGS TO THINK ABOUT.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE TO DRIVE FURTHER, SOME LESS TIME TO DRIVE.
REDISTRICTING IS HAPPENING THIS YEAR AND I'M REALLY HOPING THAT INSTEAD OF US HAVING SOME PRECINCTS LIKE WE HAVE NOW WITH ZERO VOTERS OR EIGHT VOTERS OR 13 VOTERS IN IT, THAT WE'LL HAVE FEWER PRECINCTS AND WE'LL HAVE SMARTER REDISTRICTING SO THAT WILL HELP WHEN WE'RE DOING VOTE CENTERS.
WE MUST HAVE DEPENDABLE WI-FI OR HOTSPOTS IN EVERY VOTE CENTER.
EVERY LOCATION NEEDS TO AGREE IN ADVANCE THAT POLITICAL SOUNDS ARE LOUD FROM BOTH PARTIES, 100 FEET OUTSIDE THE DISTANCE MARKER.
I THINK WE SHOULD NOT CONTRACT WITH ANYBODY WHO'S GOING TO SAY, "WE CAN PUT ONE PARTY SIGNS THERE BUT NOT THE OTHER PARTY." WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S HAPPENING IN ADVANCE.
I THINK, THIS ISN'T THE LAW, THAT ANY PLACE THAT WE USE FOR EARLY VOTING SHOULD ALSO BE AN ELECTION DAY LOCATION.
THE REASON I SAY THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE LOCKHART AND LULING AS EARLY VOTING.
>> OKAY. EVERY ELECTION DAY THEY HAVE DOZENS OF PEOPLE COMING IN TO VOTE THERE.
HOPEFULLY, YOU'LL READ OVER THIS AND FEEL FREE TO ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THIS MORNING.
I JUST CAME UP OFF A OVERNIGHT SHIFT AND STAYED AWAKE TO ATTEND THIS MORNING'S MEETING.
PLEASE FORGIVE THE CAP AND WHATNOT AS I'M NOT MADE IT TO MY BARBER AS OF YET, EITHER.
JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO THE POLLING PLACE COMMITTEE THAT I'VE BEEN ASSIGNED TO YOU BY JUDGE HAYDEN.
AFTER RECEIVING SOME OF THE DATA THAT WAS GIVEN TO US ON THIS COMMITTEE MEETING IN ITS INITIAL MEETING, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE PREVIOUS ELECTION THAT WE HAD LAST YEAR, THERE WAS JUST A DISMAL TURNOUT.
THE PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE PUTTING FORTH AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE BEEN SECURED SO FAR AS TO QUALIFY FOR THIS PROGRAM.
NOW, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC TO BE PATIENT WITH ANY NEW PROGRAM.
YOU'RE GOING TO ENCOUNTER OBSTACLES, YOU'RE GOING TO ENCOUNTER CHANGES, THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE.
SOME OF THE REGISTERS ARE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH NEW PAPERWORK.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT SYSTEM INVOLVED.
I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU PLEASE BE PATIENT.
THE MAIN GOAL OF THIS IS TO INCREASE VOTER TURNOUT AND TO INCREASE THE ACCESSIBILITY FOR OUR VOTERS HERE IN CALDWELL COUNTY.
ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT I SAW THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US WAS THE DEMOGRAPHIC FROM AGE 19-29.
THESE VOTERS WERE IN A SHARP DECLINE FROM THE PREVIOUS ELECTION, MAINLY STATING THE FACT THAT MOST OF THESE INDIVIDUALS WORK IN ANOTHER COUNTY.
WHETHER IT BE HAYS, WHETHER IT BE TRAVIS, WHETHER IT BE COMAL, SURROUNDING COUNTIES AND THEY'RE NOT CLEARLY ACCESSIBLE TO THE 8:00-5:00 TIME FRAME TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET TO THEIR POLLING LOCATIONS.
THIS JUST INCREASES ACCESSIBILITY COUNTYWIDE FOR ANYBODY TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE AT THE CLOSEST PRECINCT AVAILABLE.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE AN UPTURN IN THE ELECTION NUMBERS.
I THINK IT'S UNDERAPPRECIATED.
YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THAT VOTE REALLY MEANS.
I'VE DONE A LOT OF GROWING UP IN JUST THE PAST FEW YEARS.
BUT EVER SINCE I WAS 18, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN INVOLVED WITH COMMUNITY AND GIVING BACK.
BUT NOW BEING THE CURRENT CHAIRMAN FOR THE GREATER CALDWELL COUNTY HISPANIC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, I'VE LEARNED QUITE A BIT.
I SIT ON VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES FOR NON-PROFITS.
HERE IN THE TOWN, I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER BUT
[00:40:02]
I DID NOT VOTE IN ANY OTHER MAJOR ELECTIONS.I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY AN UNAPPRECIATED PRIVILEGE.
I'D LIKE TO SEE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO INCREASE THOSE NUMBERS WOULD BE A POSITIVE THING FOR CALDWELL COUNTY. THANK YOU.
>> THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS.
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING? IF NOT, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:43 AM.
ALL RIGHT. RETURNING TO THE AGENDA, COMMISSIONERS, WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 14.
[14. Discussion/Action to consider Resolution 30-2021, authorizing the election administrator to apply for participation in the Countywide Polling Place Program. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Kimber Daniel; Backup: 2; Cost: None]
DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION 30-2021, AUTHORIZING THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR TO APPLY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACE PROGRAM.>> WELL, I MYSELF AS WELL, DON'T SEE ANYTHING BUT POSITIVE COMING OUT OF THIS.
WE DO NEED TO GET OUR YOUNG KIDS OUT THERE AND GET THEM VOTING, A CALL OF YOUNGER PEOPLE THAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> KIM, WOULD YOU APPROACH THIS? [NOISE]
>> THIS TAKES ME A MINUTE. YES, SIR.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS JUST TO APPLY FOR THE PROGRAM.
>> THIS DOES NOT GUARANTEE ANYTHING. WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT.
>> YES, SIR. IT'S JUST TO BE ABLE TO FILE THE APPLICATION WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
>> CORRECT. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR KIM?
>> NOT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING ALSO, COST NOTHING, IT'S PERFECT, BUT I LIKE THE WAY YOU ALL GOT IT SET UP.
I LIKE THE WAY IT IS. IT GIVES MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE PEOPLE TO GO INTO THE POLL.
>> I JUST WANT YOU TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR OUR PEOPLE TO GET OUT AND VOTE. THAT'S THE POINT.
I THINK WE REPRESENTED ACROSS A COMMITTEE THE ETHNICITY AND THE WIDE RANGE OF PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR COUNTIES.
EACH OF YOU PICKED A PERSON TO BE ON THAT COMMITTEE THAT WAS FROM YOUR PRECINCT.
ALL THE PRECINCTS WERE ON THAT COMMITTEE.
IT DOESN'T MAKE IT EASIER ON MY OFFICE TO GO COUNTYWIDE.
IN FACT, IT MAKES IT HARDER FOR US TO DO THAT.
THE WHOLE POINT IS TO MAKE IT CONVENIENT AND EASY FOR THE VOTER TO GET OUT AND VOTE.
>> COMMISSIONERS, I'LL READ THE RESOLUTION, RESOLUTION 30-2021, RESOLUTION OF CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.
WHEREAS UNDER SECTION 43.007, I OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS IMPLEMENTED THE COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACE PROGRAM, WHICH AUTHORIZES THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ESTABLISH COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACES IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHEREAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACE PROGRAM, A COUNTY MUST MEET CERTAIN ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS AND SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
WHEREAS ON JUNE 8, 2021, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO INFORM AND SOLICIT OPINIONS FROM VOTERS, MINORITY ORGANIZATIONS, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT CALDWELL COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATORS AUTHORIZE TO APPLY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE COUNTYWIDE POLLING PLACE PROGRAM.
COMMISSIONERS, DO I HEAR A MOTION?
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 30-2021, DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.
>> ITEM 15. DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER
[15. Discussion/Action to consider Resolution 31 -2021 in support of the City of Lockhart, Texas submission of an application of the Texas Department of Transportation for the 2021 Transportation Alternatives Grant to partially fund public improvements in the 100 block East San Antonio Street (SH 142). Speaker: Judge Haden/ Dan Gibson; Backup: 8; Cost: None]
RESOLUTION 31-2021 IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF LOCKHART, TEXAS.SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 2021 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES GRANT TO PARTIALLY FUND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND THE 100 BLOCK EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SH 142.
I BELIEVE MR. DAN GIBSON, CITY PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF LOCKHART, HAS A PRESENTATION.
>> MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M DAN GIBSON, THE CITY PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF LOCKHART.
[00:45:29]
>> ALL RIGHT. THIS SHOULD [INAUDIBLE]
>> ALL RIGHT. MR. GIBSON. [LAUGHTER]
>> [LAUGHTER] MY DEPARTMENT IS WORKING ON A GRANT PROPOSAL.
THIS IS ACTUALLY THE THIRD TIME TRYING FOR THIS PARTICULAR GRANT.
THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES THIS TIME WHEN WE THINK OUR CHANCES OF APPROVAL ARE MUCH BETTER, MUCH GREATER.
MOST OF YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAN ANTONIO STREET HERE, ADJACENT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE COURTHOUSE. IT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION FROM THE SUSTAINABLE PLACES PROJECT.
IT'S ACTUALLY NOT WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT IT WAS, I GUESS, AT THAT TIME.
THIS SHOWS PARALLEL PARKING AND BECAUSE OF INPUT FROM BUSINESSES, IT'S CHANGED TO ANGLE PARKING, MORE LIKE WHAT'S THERE NOW, BUT WIDEN THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET.
THE PROJECT IS [NOISE] TO REALIGN SAN ANTONIO STREET, ELIMINATE THAT MEDIAN OUT THERE THAT HAS THE STREET LIGHTS ON IT, AND THAT ALLOWS YOU TO SWING THE TRAFFIC FURTHER DOWN TO THE SOUTH.
AS YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE ENTERING THE INTERSECTION FROM THE WEST HEADING EAST, IF HE GOES STRAIGHT, YOU END UP ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE MEDIAN, IF YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION AND SWERVE OVER TO THE RIGHT, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY.
THIS WILL [INAUDIBLE] MORE GRADUALLY AROUND AND HAD THE BENEFIT OF WIDENING THE SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE.
THIS WILL BE CONSIDERED A PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENT.
IT'S ALONGSIDE DOING PEDESTRIAN BUMP OUTS, BASICALLY EXTENDING THE SIDEWALKS OUT TO MAKE THE WALKING DISTANCE ACROSS THE STREET INTERSECTIONS SHORTER [NOISE] WITH PEDESTRIANS IN THEM.
THE CITY IS PLANNING TO DO SIMILAR IMPROVEMENTS ON ALL OF THE INTERSECTIONS INCLUDING THE SOUTH SIDE FOR THE BUMP OUTS.
BUT THE SIDEWALK WIDENING, CREATING A PLAZA IS ONLY ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THAT'S WHAT THIS GRANT IS FOR.
THIS IS THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND YOU CAN SEE THE MEDIAN IS THAT DOUBLE LINES THAT ARE AT THE TOP WITH NORTH BEING UP.
THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SLIDES THAT WE SHOWED TWO YEARS AGO.
THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW IT COULD CHANGE AND IT'S HARD FOR ME TO POINT WITHOUT A POINTER, BUT IT SHOWS THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS.
IF YOU LOOK, THERE'S DOUBLE LINES ACROSS WHERE THERE ARE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AREAS THAT [NOISE] WILL CONNECT FROM THE BUMP OUTS.
ON THE SOUTH INTERSECTIONS ACTUALLY, THERE WILL BE PEDESTRIAN REFUGES AT THE END IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MIDDLE ROW PARKING SPACES AND THE TREE ISLANDS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE.
[NOISE] BUT ON THE NORTH SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE CURVATURE DOWN THAT WOULD PROVIDE MORE OF A PLAZA ON THE NORTH SIDE.
THIS WAS AGAIN, FROM THE SUSTAINABLE PLACES PROJECT I BELIEVE IN 2013. IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
FOCUSING ON THE NORTH SIDE, THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE RETAINING THE ANGLE PARKING SPACES, WHICH WHAT WE'VE COMMITTED TO DO.
THE ONES ON THE SOUTH SIDE ARE CURRENTLY ON COUNTY PROPERTY, AND THEN GO BACK.
HERE, YOU CAN SEE THE RED LINE, THE RED SQUARE AROUND THE COURTHOUSE.
THAT'S THE COUNTY PROPERTY LINE.
YOU SEE ALL THE PARKING [NOISE] SPACES ON THE INSIDE OF THAT.
THE PARKING SPACES ALONG THE CURB ADJACENT TO THE COURTHOUSE LAWN, ARE IN COUNTY PROPERTY.
WHEN YOU'RE OUTSIDE, YOU THINK IT'S PART OF THE STREET AND THERE'S PARKING ON STREET.
IT'S ACTUALLY COUNTY PROPERTY.
WE WILL BE ALTERING THE PARKING SPACE IN THE NORTH SIDE, SO IT'S MORE OF A CURVED INSTEAD OF STRAIGHT.
IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS,
[00:50:03]
[INAUDIBLE] LOVES THIS IDEA, BUT THEY WANT THE COUNTY TO GIVE THE RIGHT OF WAY.IT'S COUNTY PROPERTY, BUT IT'S CURRENTLY USED FOR PARKING AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR PARKING, THE SAME PURPOSE BUT IT WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SH142 RIGHT OF WAY.
THEN WE'D BE GAINING SOME ON THE NORTH SIDE FOR THE WIDER SIDEWALK AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THE BUMP OUTS ARE AT THE CORNERS TO REDUCE THE WALKING DISTANCE ACROSS.
[NOISE] THE TOTAL COST OF EVERYTHING, THIS IS MORE THAN WE PRESENTED LAST TIME BECAUSE WE'RE INCLUDING SOME THINGS THAT WE UNDERSTAND WILL BE COVERED THIS TIME THAT WEREN'T LAST TIME, AND ALSO NO LOCAL MATCH IS REQUIRED.
AGAIN, WE'RE GOING ON THE ADVICE WE'VE BEEN GIVEN, WE CALL BACK AND SAY, ARE YOU SURE? [LAUGHTER] IT HAS TO DO WITH THE POPULATION OF THE COUNTY, AS WELL AS THE ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION OF THE COUNTY THAT WE WON'T HAVE TO PAY THE LOCAL MATCH.
IT WON'T COST THE COUNTY ANYTHING, IT WON'T COST THE CITY ANYTHING.
THE APPLICATION'S DEADLINE IS ABOUT ONE WEEK FROM NOW AND THEY WILL BE ANNOUNCING THE SELECTIONS IN OCTOBER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IT'S IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME THING WE WERE HERE FOR TWO YEARS AGO. [OVERLAPPING]
>> TWO YEARS AGO, YES. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS TO MR. GIBSON?
>> NO. I'VE BEEN OVER IT ALREADY.
>> THEN YOU ALL DID CHANGE FROM PARALLEL PARKING TO PUT IT BACK TO WHERE WE LOSE NO PARKING.
[NOISE] THE OTHER VERSION BACK IN 2019, WE LOST ALL THE PARKING ON THE SIDE.
IT WAS THE ONE BEFORE THAT, THIS IS THE THIRD TIME.
WE HAD SOME INPUT FROM SOME BUSINESS FOLKS AND I'M NOT SURE, MAYBE FROM THE COUNTY TOO, BUT OVERALL, TRYING TO KEEP AS MANY PARKING SPACES AS WE CAN AND THE PARALLEL PARKING, OF COURSE, WOULD HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF SPACES QUITE A BIT.
THE PLANS ON THE NORTH SIDE WON'T BE AS LARGE AS ANTICIPATED BY THE SUSTAINABLE PLACES PROJECT, BUT IT'LL STILL BE LARGER.
IT'LL BE NICE FOR SOME LANDSCAPING, MAYBE SIDEWALK CAFES, PUBLIC ART, AND SIDEWALK FURNITURE, BENCHES, AND SO FORTH.
>> DAN, THE COUNTY PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON THE EXHIBIT, EXTENDS, I THINK I REMEMBER, 9-12 FEET PAST THE CURRENT [OVERLAPPING]
>> PROBABLY MORE LIKE 12. [LAUGHTER]
>> YEAH. THAT AREA IS PAVED RIGHT NOW WITH PARKING ON IT.
AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION THAT THE CITY OF LOCKHART IS GOING THROUGH, ARE YOU SAYING WE WOULD NEED TO DEDICATE THAT LAND TO THE PUBLIC FOR RIGHT OF WAY?
>> TXDOT WOULD WANT IT TO BE DEDICATED, YES.
YOU'RE NOT DEDICATING IT NOW, BUT THE RESOLUTION I THINK STATES THAT IF WE'RE AWARDED THE GRANT, THEN THE COUNTY WOULD PROCEED WITH THE DEDICATION AT THAT TIME.
>> I GUESS JJ, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'D PROBABLY NEED TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING ON.
>> IF THE COURT APPROVES THE DEDICATION IN RELATION TO THIS PROJECT, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S DONE IN COORDINATION WITH BOTH TXDOT AND THE CITY TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AS LONG AS IT'S APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.
>> I HAD ONE CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH JUDGE HAY AND I KNOW TWO YEARS AGO, THIS DISCUSSION CAME UP ABOUT THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY.
I THINK AT THAT TIME, WE AMENDED THE RESOLUTION FROM THAT CURRENT ONE TO SAY WE WOULD ALLOW AN EASEMENT.
HOWEVER, A PERMANENT EASEMENT OR DEDICATION, EITHER WAY, I KNOW WE WERE ACTUALLY TRANSFERRING PROPERTY IN THE DEDICATION, BUT THE EFFECT WILL BE THE SAME AT THAT POINT.
I THINK THAT THIS TIME IT SEEMS THAT TXDOT IS NEEDING THAT WE DEDICATE IT.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY EXPECT.
WE CAN ASK. IT DOESN'T MATTER, I DON'T THINK, TO THE CITY.
>> EITHER WAY, IT'S TXDOT'S CALL THOUGH.
>> IF THEY'RE WILLING TO DO IT AS AN EASEMENT, THAT'S FINE.
WE'LL NEED TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.
BUT AGAIN, IT WOULDN'T OCCUR TO REASSURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MONEY AND THE COST OF CURVING THE PARKING SPACES AND THE ROAD AND DOING THE BUMP, THAT'S ALL WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE GRANT.
THE COUNTY WON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR ANY OF THAT.
>> OTHER THAN GIVING UP THE PIECE OF LAND.
[00:55:01]
>> I THINK JUDGE HAYDEN'S THOUGHT ON THAT WAS ABOUT THE HISTORICAL SIDE.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO CHECK INTO THAT AS WELL.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING [NOISE] TO ALSO.
>> THAT WAS A DISCUSSION I REMEMBER FROM TWO YEARS AGO WAS BECAUSE OF THE DESIGNATION OF THE GROUNDS.
>> I THINK THOSE ARE REASONABLE CONCERNS, COMMISSIONERS.
IT MAY DEPEND ON EXACTLY WHAT TXDOT WILL REQUIRE OF US.
JUST FROM HEARING THE PRESENTATION, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO GO ABOUT IT, WHETHER IT IS AN EASEMENT OR IT IS AN OUTRIGHT GRANT.
POTENTIALLY, A LICENSE SITUATION COULD BE USABLE HERE.
AGAIN, I THINK IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON WHAT EXACTLY TXDOT'S GOING TO REQUIRE FOR THE PROJECT, AND THEN THE COUNTY'S ABLE TO WORK WITHIN THOSE CONDITIONS, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN.
I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE IF SITTING HERE WITHOUT LOOKING MORE INTO IT, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO IMPLICATE ANYTHING WITH THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION WITH REGARD TO PROTECTION OF THE COURTHOUSE OR THE COURTHOUSE SQUARE.
BUT IT IS TRUE THAT THE COURTHOUSE IN THAT AREA IS PART OF THE HISTORIC BUSINESS DISTRICT THERE AS PART OF THE COURTHOUSE, SO SOME CHANGES PROBABLY WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED.
I THINK THAT THE LARGER CONCERN IS GOING TO BE THE ACTUAL WORK THAT'S BEING DONE TO MODIFY THE SPACE RATHER THAN THE DEDICATION OF THAT PROPERTY ITSELF.
AGAIN, WITHOUT HAVING LOOKED INTO IT, I PRESUME THAT IF THE WORK ITSELF IS APPROVED BY ANY RELEVANT HISTORICAL OVERSIGHT, THEN WHATEVER GOES ALONG WITH THAT WITH REGARD TO THE DEDICATIONS OR EASEMENTS, WILL PROBABLY BE A COMPONENT OF THAT APPROVAL.
BUT AGAIN, THAT'S WITHOUT HAVING ANY SOLID INFORMATION ON THAT.
>> OKAY. DAN, WHAT IS YOUR APPLICATION DEADLINE FOR THIS?
>> WELL, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT AND I WOULD LIKE THE COUNTY TO FORMALLY SUPPORT IT BY THE RESOLUTION.
I'M JUST READING BACK THROUGH THE RESOLUTION TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING SPECIFIC AS TO WHAT OUR FUTURE ACTION WOULD BE REGARDING THAT LAND.
>> I THINK THAT IT STATES ANTICIPATE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT AWAY [OVERLAPPING] AT THAT POINT.
>> IT MAY BE WORTH NOTING THAT THAT LANGUAGE AS WRITTEN THERE DOESN'T NECESSARILY OBLIGATE THE COUNTY [OVERLAPPING] IN ANY DIRECTION THERE.
>> GIVEN THAT THAT'S JUST PARKING, I DON'T SEE WHY AN EASEMENT WOULDN'T WORK [OVERLAPPING] ITSELF, BUT I'M NOT TXDOT. [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT WAS A DISCUSSION FROM TWO YEARS AGO FROM WHAT I REMEMBER THAT WOULD THEY ACCEPT AN EASEMENT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> ACTUALLY, THE WAY IT'S BEEN CURVED, PART OF THE PARKING WILL BE IN WHAT'S EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY.
BUT IF THE REST OF IT IS DEDICATED, IT'D BE PARKING SPACES ARE PARTIALLY IN THE EASEMENT, PARTIALLY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY MAY WANT ALL OF IT TO BE THE SAME. I DON'T KNOW.
>> DO WE HAVE A CONTACT FOR SOMEBODY AT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO GIVE US AN IDEAL TO GUIDE US ABOUT THAT PART OF IT? I DON'T WANT STEP IN THOSE WATERS.
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE IDEA, I LIKE IT BUT THAT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER BALLPARK.
>> I DO HAVE A CONTACT AT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION WHO I THINK DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH HISTORIC COURTHOUSES IN THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND I CAN TRY TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM THERE TO SEE IF THAT WOULD BE A PART OF IT.
AGAIN, PURE CONJECTURE, BUT DUE TO THE FACT THAT TXDOT IS REALLY GOING TO BE TAKING THE LEAD AND GOING THROUGH THE PROJECT AND HANDLING IT, IT MAY BE THAT THEY [NOISE] WILL TAKE THE LEAD ON ALSO WRANGLING WHATEVER APPROVAL IS NECESSARY FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES.
BUT I WILL GET IN TOUCH WITH MY CONTACT AT THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION TO TRY TO GET SOME CLARITY ON THAT.
>> BECAUSE THEY MAY BE OKAY WITH AN EASEMENT AND IT STILL STAND IN THE HISTORICAL GROUNDS.
BUT IF TXDOT COMES UP AND WANTS IT TO BE DEDICATED TO THEM, THERE MIGHT BE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
I KNOW NOBODY LIKES SPECIAL MEETINGS, BUT [NOISE] REPOST AND BRING THIS BACK A FEW DAYS BEFORE WE SUBMIT?
>> WHEN WAS YOUR SUBMITTAL DEADLINE?
>> WE'RE NOT MEETING AGAIN BEFORE THEN.
>> YEAH. TODAY'S THE 8TH. THAT'S NEXT MONDAY.
>> COULD THE COURT CONSIDER A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO FUTURE DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO HANDLE THE RIGHT OF WAY NEEDS OF THE PROJECT?
>> WE NEED A RESOLUTION TO SUBMIT WITH THE APPLICATION FORM.
>> BUT I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU HOW TO WORD IT.
IF YOU WANT TO PUT SOME PROVISION IN THERE AND AMEND IT, YOU CAN.
WE JUST NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN THAT PACKET AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR A COMMITMENT THAT THE COUNTY IS COOPERATING WITH THE PROJECT IN WHATEVER WAY.
>> I MIGHT BE MISSING IT HERE,
[01:00:02]
BUT DOES IT SAY THAT THE COUNTY ISN'T JUST DEDICATING THE RIGHT OF WAY? I'M NOT FINDING THAT.>> IT DOES. COMMISSIONER, IS YOUR RESOLUTION COMPLETE OR NOT?
>> LET ME PASS YOU THE COMPLETED ONE.
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. [LAUGHTER]
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR MR. GIBSON IS, [OVERLAPPING] IS THE GRANT ITSELF CONTINGENT AND ENTIRELY CONDITIONAL UPON EITHER [NOISE] A DEDICATION OR AN EASEMENT OR SOMETHING? IS THAT TO SAY THAT IT WON'T HAPPEN UNLESS THE COUNTY'S ON BOARD WITH SOME SOLID COMMITMENT THERE?
BUT IT'LL BE EITHER RIGHT-OF-WAY OR EVEN NOT, FOR SURE BECAUSE OTHERWISE, IT'S COUNTY PROPERTY.
TXDOT WILL FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE NO RIGHT OF ACCESS EVEN ON IT, SAY YOU DO THE WORD.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO SAY AT THIS POINT THERE'S GOING TO BE RIGHT-OF-WAY OR AN EASEMENT JUST AS SUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT, AND THE DEDICATION OF COUNTY PROPERTY TO BE DETERMINED AT SUCH TIME AT THE GRAND [INAUDIBLE].
>> JUST THE PART THAT YOU READ EARLIER, COMMISSIONER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THAT DEDICATION MAY BE NECESSARY IN THE FUTURE IF THE GRANT GOES THROUGH.
BUT AGAIN, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY OBLIGATE US [NOISE] TO TAKE ANY ACTION TO THAT EFFECT NOW UNTIL THE GRANT IS EITHER APPROVED OR MOVES FORWARD.
>> CORRECT. IT STATES ANTICIPATES, IT DOESN'T STATE THAT IT'S A CERTAINTY GOING FORWARD. CORRECT.
>> THAT'S A GOOD WORD, ANTICIPATE.
>> COMMISSIONERS, I WILL READ THE RESOLUTION AND THEN WE WILL MAKE DETERMINATION.
BEAR WITH ME, IT'S SOMEWHAT LENGTHY.
[LAUGHTER] RESOLUTION 30-2021, A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT TO THE CITY OF LOCKHART, TEXAS SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 2021 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES TO PARTIALLY FUND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE 100 BLOCK OF EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SH 142.
WHEREAS THE CITY OF LOCKHART DESIRES TO WIDEN THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 100 BLOCK OF EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SH 142, CONSTRUCT CORNER EXTENSIONS TO PROVIDE FOR SHORTER PEDESTRIAN STREET CROSSINGS AND ELIMINATE THE EXISTING MEDIAN AND REALIGN THE TRAVEL LANES OF THE STREET, AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE WITHIN THE EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SH 142, RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND PARTIALLY OCCUPY PROPERTY CURRENTLY OWNED BY CABOOL COUNTY, WHICH IS USED AS VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET, AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL PROVIDE FOR IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC SAFETY, AS WELL AS COMPLEMENT THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE LOCKHART CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND WHEREAS THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A PRIMARY ELEMENT OF COURTHOUSE SQUARE IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED IN THE LOCKHART SUSTAINABLE PLACES PROJECT PLAN ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 17TH, 2013, AND AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE LOCKHART 2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WHEREAS THERE IS CURRENTLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR A GRANT FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF [NOISE] TRANSPORTATION, TXDOT THAT WOULD HELP FUND THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
WHEREAS THE CITY OF LOCKHART CITY COUNCIL HAS ACKNOWLEDGED A COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED GRANT PROJECT, AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF LOCKHART CITY COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED THAT IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO APPLY FOR A 2021 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES TO PARTIALLY FUND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LOCKHART CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WITH THE PRIMARY GRANT EXPENDITURE BEING FOR PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE 100 BLOCK OF EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SH 142.
WHEREAS FUNDING OF THE APPLICATION WILL REQUIRE THAT THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT AREA BE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SH 142, RIGHT-OF-WAY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
WHEREAS THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY ANTICIPATES DEDICATION OF THE AREA OF CALDWELL COUNTY'S PROPERTY CURRENTLY USED FOR VEHICLE PARKING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SH 142 TO THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SH 142 HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY, IF THE GRANT IS APPROVED.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CABOOL COUNTY, TEXAS THAT CALDWELL COUNTY IS IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF LOCKHART, SUBMISSION OF AN APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 2021 TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES GRANT TO PARTIALLY FUND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE 100 BLOCK OF EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SH 142. COMMISSIONERS.
>> YOU DID READ THE DEDICATE THE PROPERTY IF IT WAS APPROVED, IS THAT WHAT I HEARD?
>> THE WAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THIS RESOLUTION, COMMISSIONERS IS THAT IT IS PUTTING OUR SUPPORT BEHIND THE CITY'S APPLICATION FOR THIS GRANT.
THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE DEDICATION IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE COUNTY THAT SUCH A DEDICATION OR EASEMENT MAY
[01:05:01]
BE NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE ACTUAL COMPLETION OF THE GRANT ITSELF AND THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S ANTICIPATED.IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY OBLIGATE US TO ANYTHING, BUT IT IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT THAT SUCH A DEDICATION WILL BE POSSIBLE IN THE FUTURE.
BY APPROVING THE RESOLUTION I THINK IS PUTTING THE COURT ON NOTICE THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN AS PART OF THE PROJECT EVENTUALLY, OR IS AT LEAST SUBSTANTIALLY LIKELY.
>> DAN, DID THIS LANGUAGE COME FROM TXDOT?
>> NO. WELL, WE'RE BASICALLY REDOING SOMETHING [NOISE] WE CREATED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AND I'M A LITTLE FUZZY ON HOW WE CAME UP WITH EVERYTHING.
IT COULD BE THAT I WROTE SOME OF IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> COULD WE JUST INSERT OR EASEMENT RIGHT AWAY OR EASEMENT INTO THAT LAST WHEREAS?
>> AS LONG AS THAT IS WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE RESOLUTION.
>> I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS ARE FREE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE RESOLUTION THAT'S IN THE BACKUP. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT OR CAN THAT BE ALL PART OF A SINGLE MOTION?
>> I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION, YOU DO SO ON THE CONDITION THAT THE AMENDMENT IS INCLUDED.
>> WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION OF A SUPPORT FOR THE CITY OF LOCKHART PROJECT WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAST WHEREAS TO ADD OR EASEMENT BEHIND, OR RIGHT AWAY.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH AN AMENDMENT.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY, AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
>> ITEM 18, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE CDBG,
[18. Discussion/Action to consider the Texas General Land Office CDBG-MIT Grant of $17,618,764.00 for the construction of a multi-purpose Evacuation Shelter for Caldwell County; including a 1% local match of $176,187.64. Speaker: Judge Haden/Dennis Engelke; Backup: 2; Cost: $176,187.64]
MIT GRANT OF $17,618,764 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-PURPOSE EVACUATION SHELTER FOR CALDWELL COUNTY, INCLUDING A ONE PERCENT, [NOISE] LOCAL MATCH OF $176,187.64. DENNIS.>> AS WAS ANNOUNCED AT THE LAST COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING, CALDWELL COUNTY HAS BEEN AWARDED A $17,618,764-CDBG MITIGATION GRANT FROM THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE.
BEFORE YOU IS A COPY OF THE AWARD LETTER.
THE GRANT REQUIRES ONE PERCENT LOCAL MATCH OF $176,187.64, WHICH CAN BE PRO-RATED OUT FOR OVER THREE YEARS.
WHEN THE GLO DEEMS IT APPROPRIATE, A KICKOFF MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED AMONG COUNTY, AND GLO STAFF, AND REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR GRANT CONSULTANTS, LANGFORD COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES [INAUDIBLE] ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, TO EXPLAIN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF THE GRANT.
TODAY, I'M ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL IN ACCEPTING THE GRANT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS? IF NONE, I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 18.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 18. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM 19, [OVERLAPPING] DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER
[19. Discussion/Action to consider the Texas Water Development Board Contract in execution of the $975,000.00 "Caldwell County Flood Protection Planning Study" grant; including local match of $234,750.00. Speaker: Judge Haden/ Dennis Engelke; Backup: 49; Cost: $234,750.00]
THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONTRACT AND EXECUTION OF THE $975,000-CALDWELL COUNTY FLOOD PROTECTION PLANNING STUDY GRANT INCLUDING LOCAL MATCH OF $234,750. DENNIS.>> THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THE AWARDING OF THIS $740,250-TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD GRANT FOR CONDUCTING THE CALDWELL ACCOUNTING FLOOD PROTECTION PLANNING STUDY.
THE GRANT ALSO INCLUDES A LOCAL MATCH OF $234,750, MAKING THE TOTAL GRANT PACKAGE OF $975,000.
WHAT YOU HAD BEFORE YOU FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSPARENCY WAS THAT THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD HAS MADE SOME FINAL AMENDMENTS TO THE GRANT, WHICH IS REPRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENT BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THE AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED OF OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY AND OUR ENGINEER.
I WOULD ALSO REMIND YOU THAT THE LOCAL MATCH REQUIREMENT CAN ALSO BE PRORATED OUT OVER TWO YEARS, POSSIBLY THREE YEARS, BECAUSE WHAT'S BECOME PRACTICE WITH TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD IS YOU ASK FOR AN EXTENSION ON THESE PROJECTS.
TODAY, I ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS FINAL GRANT DOCUMENT AND IF IT IS APPROVED, THEN JUDGE HAYDEN AS OUR AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL,
[01:10:03]
WILL SIGN THE AGREEMENT.COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 19.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 19.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 19.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.
DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. DO I HAVE A SECOND?
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.
>> WE ARE ADJOURNED AT [NOISE] 10:13.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.