Jul 26, 2022 Commissioners Court

OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES ITEM EIGHT DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT 84 TO TRANSFER MONEY FROM BUILDING MAINTENANCE

[8. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #84 to transfer money from Building Maintenance 001-6520-3130 Operating Supplies to 001-6520-4510 Repairs and Maintenance for payment to Texas Star Fire Alarm Invoice.]

001-6520-3130. OPERATING AND SUPPLIES TO 001-6520-4510.

REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE TEXAS STAR FIRE ALARM INVOICE COST OF $3,000.

COMMISSIONERS DO WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM EIGHT? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

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

MOTION CARRIES. ITEM NINE DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,700 TO TEXAS STAR FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS LLC FOR ANNUAL INSPECTION COST $5,700.

[9. Discussion/Action to consider the approval of payment in the amount of $5,700.00 to Texas Star Fire Alarm Systems, LLC for Annual Inspections.]

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NINE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION CARRIES ITEM TEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT 85 TO TRANSFER OF MONEY FROM UNIT ROADS 002-

[10. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #85 to transfer money from Unit Road 002-1 103-3135 Operating Supplies to 002-1103-3190 Tires for additional funding in increase of tire expenses.]

1103-3135 OPERATING SUPPLIES TO 002-1103-3190 TIRES FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING INCREASE ENTIRE EXPENSE COST IS $2,638.

IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, DO WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM TEN? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION CARRIES ITEM ELEVEN DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER BUDGET AMENDMENT 86 TO TRANSFER MONEY FROM CONSTABLE PRECINCT 1 001-4321-2020. GROUP MEDICAL TO 001-6510-4860.

[11. Discussion/Action to consider Budget Amendment #86 to transfer money from Constable Pct. | 001-4321-2020 Group Medical to 001-6510-4860 Contingency to refund $2,000.00 back for tough book mounts.]

CONTINGENCY TO REFUND $2,000 BACK FOR TOUGH BOOK MOUNTS.

COMMISSIONERS DO WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE ELEVEN? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.

[12. Discussion/Action to consider the approval of REQ01783 in the amount of $96,098.54 for WJC Construction Services, LLC for Application Payment #1 CDBG-DR Witter Rd.]

ITEM 12 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF REQUISITION 01783 IN THE AMOUNT OF $96,098.54 FOR WJC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC FOR APPLICATION PAYMENT NUMBER ONE CDBG-DR WITTER ROAD .

COMMISSIONERS ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE REQUISITION 01783.

SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ITEM 13 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $96,098.54 TO WJC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES LLC FOR APPLICATION PAYMENT NUMBER ONE CDBG-DR WITTER ROAD COMMISSIONERS.

[13. Discussion/Action to consider the approval of payment in the amount of $96,098.54 to WJC Construction Services, LLC for Application Payment #1 CDBG-DR Witter Rd.]

MOTION CARRIES.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE 15? WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE, AYE.

QUICK QUESTION. IS THIS.

THIS IS THE SECOND PAYMENT RIGHT TO WJC THIS IS THE FIRST PAYMENT FOR WITTER ROAD.

OH, YEAH. OKAY. YEAH.

BUT THE SECOND PAYMENT, I THINK TO GET ALTOGETHER OK. THAT'S OK.

[14. Discussion/Action to approve Resolution 38-2022, authorizing the County Judge to negotiate and execute conveyance of a 10-foot wide public utility easement to Access Health Urgent Care in Lockhart.]

ITEM 14 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 38.2022 AUTHORIZING COUNTY JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE

[00:10:07]

CONVEYANCE OF A TEN FOOT WIDE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT TO ACCESS URGENT HEALTH CARE AND LOCKHART.

COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS THE ONE WE HAD LAST LAST TIME, AND WE HAD IT AS AN ACCESS TO 183.

AND IN FACT, IT'S A UTILITY EASEMENT TO GO TO THE THE CITY SEWER LINE BEHIND THE JUSTICE CENTER.

THEY NEED A TEN FOOT EASEMENT JUST ACROSS THE EDGE OF OUR PROPERTY LINE THERE TO TIE INTO THAT SEWER LINE.

CHASE, YOU HAVE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO THAT? I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS IN THE LAST BACKUP TO THE DESCRIPTION OF THAT TEN FOOT EASEMENT.

THERE IS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION ON THE EXHIBIT WHICH IS INCORPORATED INTO THE RESOLUTION AS FAR AS THE EASEMENT GRANT SPECIFICALLY THAT WOULD BE RECORDED.

THAT HASN'T BEEN DRAFTED YET BECAUSE THERE MAY NEED TO BE SOME SORT OF SALE OF THIS EASEMENT FOR JUST A MINIMAL AMOUNT JUST TO DOT I'S AND CROSS T'S. AND SO PART OF THE RESOLUTION IS TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE THAT AMOUNT.

SO ONCE WE GET THAT, THEN WE CAN FINISH DRAWING THAT UP.

BUT THAT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL NECESSARILY WANT TO HAVE COME BACK.

SO IT'S WRITTEN LIKE THIS.

WELL, JUST IT STILL JUST SAYS TEN FOOT WIDE EASEMENT ON THE PLAT WE IN THE RESOLUTION, IT'S DESCRIBED AS A PUBLIC UTILITY AS WELL.

AND SO AND COMMISSIONER, THAT THAT WAS DRAWN ON THE THAT THERE IS A PLAT OF IT WAS WITH THE LAST GO AROUND AND IT HAS NOT CHANGED SO IT'S STILL SHOWING ON THAT THAT PLAT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT I'LL READ THE RESOLUTION 38.2022.

RESOLUTION OF CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.

RESOLUTION GRANTING EASEMENT.

WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY IS POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.

WHEREAS ACCESS HEALTH URGENT CARE IS AN URGENT CARE PROVIDER THAT OFFERS HEALTH CARE AND MEDICAL SERVICES.

WHEREAS ACCESS HEALTH URGENT CARE IS OPENING AN URGENT CARE CLINIC AT 1701 SOUTH COLORADO ST, LOCKHART, TEXAS, BUT DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS TO LOCAL SEWAGE SYSTEM.

WHEREAS ACCESS URGENT HEALTH CARE HAS REQUESTED A TEN FOOT EASEMENT ACROSS COUNTY PROPERTY TO ACCESS LOCAL SEWAGE, LOCAL SEWAGE SYSTEM.

AND WHEREAS, ACCESS HEALTH, URGENT CARE, PROPERTY ABUTS COUNTY PROPERTY ON WHICH THE EASEMENT IS SOUGHT.

AND WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 272001B OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, CALDWELL COUNTY MAY CONVEY INTEREST IN REAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING NARROW STRIPS OF LAND TO ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, THAT COMMISSIONERS COURT AUTHORIZES THE COUNTY JUDGE TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE THE CONVEYANCE OF A TEN FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT ONE, TO ACCESS HEALTH AND URGENT CARE.

AND THAT WOULD BE TODAY ON THE DATE.

SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THE RESOLUTION COMMISSIONERS? IF NOT, I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 38.2022.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION CARRIES ITEM 15 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 39.2022 MODIFYING IN PART THE COURT'S JULY 12, 2022 CONSENT ORDER FROM APPROVING THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT ADOPTED 2023 APPRAISAL BUDGET TO DISAPPROVING SAID BUDGET.

[15. Discussion/Action to approve Resolution 39-2022, modifying, in part, the Court’s July 12, 2022, consent order from approving the Caldwell County appraisal District’s Adopted 2023 Appraisal District Budget to disapproving said Budget.]

COMMISSIONERS I JUST BROUGHT THIS AND THIS IS GOING TO BE 100% Y'ALL'S DECISION.

THIS GOT PUT ON CONSENT AND THEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT SOME OF THE RAISES, FOR INSTANCE, CHIEF APPRAISER HAD LOWER ACTUALLY LOWERED THE SALARY IN ONE PORTION OF THE BUDGET, BUT THEN INCREASED IT CONSIDERABLY IN ANOTHER PORTION RESULTING IN A 46% RAISE.

ALSO, THEY HAD DONE A STUDY AND IT'S A VERY GOOD STUDY AND IT SHOWS THAT THEIR EMPLOYEES NEED TO BE BROUGHT UP.

BUT WE'VE DONE SIMILAR THINGS AND HAVE SPREAD THOSE OVER MULTIPLE YEARS.

AND SO IN THIS MONEY, THESE RAISES THE SECOND GO AROUND AND RAISES FOR THEM IS BEING PAID FOR WITH LEFTOVER MONEY AT THE ENTITIES.

THERE'S 24 OF THEM HAVE HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT BY LAW, BUT IT'S LEFTOVER MONEY, SO THEY'RE USING THAT TO BRING THEIR EMPLOYEES UP TO WHERE THE STUDIES SHOW THEY SHOULD BE.

SO HAVING SAID ALL THAT, THERE'S SOME OF THE RAISES.

YOU KNOW, ON AVERAGE, THEY'RE PROBABLY 10%, BUT THERE ARE SOME AS HIGH AS 45% IN ADDITION TO THE 10% RAISES THE EMPLOYEES GOT IN

[00:15:03]

THE IN THE BUDGET.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU GUYS AWARE OF THAT AND SEE IF YOU WANTED TO CONTINUE TO APPROVE THEIR BUDGET OR IF YOU WANTED TO DENY.

I WILL TELL YOU, EVEN IF YOU DENY THERE ARE 24 TAXING ENTITIES, EACH HAS ONE VOTE AND THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST HALF OF THE ENTITIES THAT VOTE TO DENY FOR THIS APPROVAL, TO EVEN TAKE EFFECT JUST SO YOU KNOW.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK. SO WHAT DID YOU SAY, 24 ENTITIES.

YES. SO I GUESS THEY'RE ALL CONSIDERING SIMILAR.

YEAH. SO SO THEY'RE ALL AWARE OF IT.

AND LOCKHART HAS VOTED TO APPROVE LULING HAS VOTED NOT TO APPROVE THEIR BUDGET, APPARENTLY.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE OTHER SCHOOL DISTRICTS OR THE [INAUDIBLE] OR PLUM CREEK OR ANY OF THE OTHER ONES THAT ARE THAT HAVE A SMALL TAXING PORTION.

SO WHEN YOU SAY, LOCKHART, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE CITY OF LOCKHART AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ISD'S HAVE DONE OR ARE INTENDING TO DO AT THIS POINT.

SO THAT. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING? MAYBE WE COULD.

OR YOU COULD APPROACH THEM ON.

MAYBE THEY DID A SCALE THING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID.

WELL, THIS HAS GOT TO BE DONE BY THURSDAY.

THIS THURSDAY, TOO.

SO. SO WE'RE WE'RE KIND OF BEHIND THE EIGHT BALL ON A DECISION, YOU KNOW.

AND WHAT ARE THE ODDS OF 12 ENTITIES SAYING, NO, I HAVE NO IDEA.

THEY'RE ALL AWARE OF IT.

BUT YOU KNOW, THE ONE THE TWO THAT I AM AWARE OF THAT HAVE VOTED ON IT ONCE VOTED, VOTED AGAINST, ONE VOTED FOR AND CITY LOCKHART VOTED FOR BASED ON THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE.

AND I SPOKE TO SEVERAL OF THE ENTITIES ON THURSDAY AND FRIDAY LAST WEEK, AND SEVERAL OF THEM DID NOT SEEM TO POSITIVELY FAVOR THAT BUDGET CHANGE.

NOW, WHETHER OR NOT THEY'LL MAKE IT IN TIME IS BETWEEN THEM, THEIR AGENDA AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T SEEM TOO HAPPY ABOUT IT.

SO FOR WHAT THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WORTH.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS.

SO I GUESS WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE FACED WITH DECIDING IS TAKING NO ACTION, EITHER DOING THE RESOLUTION AND DISAPPROVING IT OR NO ACTION TAKEN.

I JUST WONDER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF SOMEONE GETTING A 45% RAISE.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE STUDY SHOWED THAT THAT THE CHIEF APPRAISER WAS THAT UNDERPAID, REALLY, COMPARED TO APPRAISAL DISTRICTS SIMILAR IN SIZE AND BUDGET.

SO I THINK THAT I MEAN, THE STUDY SHOWS THAT THAT THAT THAT IS INDEED THE GULF SIMILAR TO WHAT IT WAS FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN WE ALL STARTED DOING THAT SALARY STUDY.

AND I TEND TO AGREE THAT THEY'RE HAVING A HARD TIME KEEPING APPRAISERS THERE.

AND IT'S PAY YOU KNOW, THEY THEY LOSE THEM, THEY GET THEIR CERTIFICATIONS AND OFF THEY GO TO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

THAT PAYS TWICE AS MUCH.

SO. SO THEY'RE THEY'RE IN A SIMILAR BOAT THAT WE'VE BEEN IN.

WE'VE BEEN SLOWLY BUT SURELY DEPARTMENT BY DEPARTMENT OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY UP TO SPEED.

BUT IT'S A BIG, BIG BITE DOING IT ALL IN ONE YEAR, I GUESS.

I DON'T I DON'T NECESSARILY I MEAN, I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THE STUDY AND IT'S A VERY GOOD STUDY AND IT SHOWS THAT FOLKS ARE UNDERPAID FOR SURE.

I JUST THINK THAT'S KIND OF A BIG LIFT FOR ONE YEAR.

YEAH, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

BUT YEAH, I FULLY AGREE AND SAID IF THE STATS WHAT THE STUDY SHOWED AND THAT'S WHAT THEY I UNDERSTAND THEIR PHILOSOPHY TO TRY TO MEET IT ONE YEAR SEEMS TO BE A PRETTY RAPID TIMELINE TO TRY TO MAKE IT UP, SO TO SPEAK, ALL IN ONE FELL SWOOP.

THAT'S A THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD PRETTY GOOD MONEY THERE.

IT'S IT'S LEFTOVER MONEY FROM THE ENTITIES.

SO IT'S SITTING THERE.

BUT DO YOU HAVE 145 AND THE OTHERS.

MAYBE 5 TO 10.

THAT'S A YEAH.

AND THERE'S A COUPLE THAT ARE MORE THAN THAT AND THEN THERE'S SOME SITTING IN, THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT MAKING WHAT THEY SHOULD.

YEAH. I THINK, I THINK THE INTENT OF THE, OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS THAT THIS WILL BRING THEM UP TO WHERE THEY NEED TO BE, I HOPE.

BUT YOU KNOW, AND THEN NEXT YEAR THEY'LL HAVE RAISES AGAIN.

[00:20:01]

SO THIS THIS JUST NUMBER ONE, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IN ALL OF OUR MINDS THAT THIS IS SUSTAINABLE.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF TIME FOR DISCUSSION WITH THE APPRAISAL BOARD.

SO THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION IS IF THEY'RE USING LEFTOVER FUNDS AND HOW SUSTAINABLE IS THIS GOING FORWARD FOR THEM TO MAINTAIN? I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS NUMBER IS COMPLETELY ACCURATE, BUT IT'S IN THE BALLPARK.

I THINK THEY HAVE ABOUT $189,000 LEFT OVER.

AND I'LL SAY ANOTHER THING, TOO, THEY DON'T CARRY A HUGE FUND BALANCE.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY TAKE THIS MONEY AND ROLL IT OVER AND THEY'RE BUILDING UP THIS BIG.

THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT. SO I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT, BUT IT IS THAT.

SO I THINK THAT THEY'VE DONE THE STUDY, THEY'VE GOT $189,000 AND SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO KNOCK IT OUT IN ONE YEAR.

BUT AS YOU SEE, WE'RE SITTING OVER HERE TRANSFERRING MONEY ALL OVER THE PLACE JUST TO KEEP GASSING OUR CAR.

SO A LITTLE REFUND BACK WOULD WOULDN'T BE HATED RIGHT NOW.

SO IT'S JUST TOUGH TIMES THAT WE'RE ALL IN.

AND SO WE JUST HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THIS ITEM OR ADOPT THE RESOLUTION TO DISAPPROVE. I HATE PERSONALLY, I HATE TO TAKE AWAY FROM THOSE IN THE FRONT OFFICES AND THINGS THAT WERE PROBABLY UNDERPAID THAT WERE FINALLY GETTING UP TO A LIVING PAY.

BUT THEN THE 45% INCREASE ON A COUPLE BOTHERS ME.

YEAH, AND UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T SPLIT THEM UP.

SO, YEAH, I'M IN THE SAME BOAT AS YOU, COMMISSIONER.

I KIND OF AGREE WITH THAT.

AND I WISH THAT THAT 45% HAD BEEN SPREAD OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO. [INAUDIBLE] BUT SORRY.

SO COMMISSIONERS, THE EFFECT OF DISAPPROVING OF THE ADOPTED BUDGET BASICALLY JUST SENDS THEM BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.

THEY STILL HAVE TO ADOPT A BUDGET THAT IS APPROVED BY ALL OF THE LOCAL TAXING ENTITIES.

IT'S JUST THAT YOU HAVE EXPRESSED THAT YOU DON'T APPROVE OF THIS PARTICULAR ONE.

AND HOPEFULLY MAYBE THEY WATCH THE MINUTES AND THEY SEE HOW HOW YOU DID NOT APPROVE OF IT.

YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

THANK YOU. THEY HAVE TO HAVE 100% OF ALL THE ENTITY'S APPROVAL.

NO, I MEAN, YOU HAVE JUST A JUST A SIMPLE QUORUM OF THE ENTITIES TO APPROVE IT.

YEAH. JUST THEY HAVE TO HAVE 50, 51%.

IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG OR SMALL THE ENTITY IS, EACH ENTITY HAS ONE VOTE.

SO IF THERE'S 24 AND YOU SAY 24 [INAUDIBLE].

I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER. IF IT'S 12 AND 12, HOW DO THEY DO? THEY GET IT BY DEFAULT.

NO, I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT COMES UP WHEN WHEN IT COMES UP.

YEAH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS IF HALF THE ENTITIES VOTE AGAINST IT, THEN IT, THEN IT FAILS, THEY GO BACK.

BUT IF HALF THE ENTITIES DON'T VOTE AGAINST IT, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY APPROVED AND THAT BUDGET WILL PASS ANYWAY.

SO YEAH.

FUNDAMENTALLY, I DON'T JUST THIS THAT ONE, UH, PROPOSED INCREASE IS, IS PRETTY HEFTY, OBVIOUSLY.

UH, BUT I'M ALSO COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT WE MAY DISAPPROVE AND IT MAY NOT MATTER.

YEAH, AT THAT POINT, YEAH.

AND SO IT'S. AND WE CAN DISAPPROVE IT AND JUST WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE OTHER ENTITIES DO.

AND IT MAY NOT MATTER IF THEY ALL AS CHASE SAID IF HALF OF THEM DISAPPROVE IT, THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND MODIFY IT TO BE MORE PALATABLE TO THE ENTITIES. SO.

I THINK I'M MOST COMFORTABLE MAKING A MOTION THAT WE DON'T THAT WE DENY THEIR BUDGET WITH WITH THE STATEMENT THAT WE SUPPORT THE GOALS TO GET EVERYBODY UP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR SALARY STUDY.

HOWEVER, WE WOULD PREFER THAT THAT BE DONE THROUGH A STEP GRADUATED INCREASE.

YEAH, I MEAN, I'D ACTUALLY BE COMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE JUST THE SORT OF ALL THE APPRAISERS, YOU KNOW, A 10% RAISE.

WE'VE DONE THAT PERIODICALLY FOR OUR EMPLOYEES THAT WERE UNDERPAID, AND I'M REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

IT'S JUST THOSE THOSE RAISES THAT ARE GETTING UP THERE AROUND 25 OR 40% 40% IS HARD.

SO I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THAT SPLIT OVER AT LEAST TWO YEARS AND JUST SO THAT THE ENTITIES COULD GET A LITTLE BIT OF THAT MONEY BACK BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE ALL OUT HERE.

WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE DOING ALL THESE AMENDMENTS TO TRANSFER MONEY AROUND TO COVER THIS UNEXPECTED INFLATIONARY PERIOD THAT

[00:25:09]

WE'RE IN. SO AND IT'S IN OUR OUR CONSTITUENCY, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IS IN THE SAME BOAT.

EVERY SINGLE HOUSEHOLD IS GOING THROUGH THE SAME THING.

SO I'M KIND OF COMFORTABLE WITH THAT TOO COMMISSIONER, AND THAT I WOULDN'T MIND SEEING YOU KNOW, AN INCREASE TO BRING EVERYBODY UP TO.

I'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH 10% ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND THEN THOSE THAT HAVE LIKE THE CHIEF APPRAISER THAT ARE WOEFULLY UNDERPAID, I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM COME BACK WITH EVEN A TWO YEAR STEP GRADUATION TO GET THAT PERSON UP TO SPEED.

THAT'S I'LL MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION, THAT MOTION.

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND I'LL READ THE RESOLUTION AS SOON AS I FIND IT ON THE RIGHT ITEM HERE.

YEP. IN HERE SOMEWHERE.

I THINK IT'S IN THE VERY BACK.

WELL, I DIDN'T GET A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION IN MY PACKET.

I DON'T THINK WE DID. OKAY.

HERE WE GO. THANK YOU.

SO DON'T MAKE NOTES ON IT.

RESOLUTION 39.2022.

RESOLUTION CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT PARTIAL MODIFICATION OF JULY 12, 2022 CONSENT ORDER FROM FROM APPROVAL TO DISAPPROVAL CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT 2023.

WHEREAS THE TAXPAYERS OF CALDWELL COUNTY ARE EXPERIENCING RISING COSTS AND EXPENSES THAT CONSTITUTE AN INCREASING FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES.

AND WHEREAS, THE TAXPAYERS OF CALDWELL COUNTY ARE ENTITLED TO COST EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGETING BY LOCAL POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS.

AND WHEREAS, THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, CCAD, PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.06 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SET ITS OWN BUDGET SUBJECT TO THE DISAPPROVAL OF LOCAL TAXING ENTITIES, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS OF CALDWELL COUNTY.

WHEREAS ON JUNE 28, 2022, THE CCAD HAD ADOPTED A BUDGET THAT INCLUDED AMONG A SERIES OF OTHER SALARY INCREASES FOR CCAD PERSONNEL AND APPROXIMATELY 41% RAISE FOR THE CHIEF APPRAISER.

THESE RAISES CONSTITUTED AN AVERAGE INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY 16.6% AND A MEDIAN RAISE OF APPROXIMATELY 21.6%.

WHEREAS ON JULY 12, 2022, THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVED ITS CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH INCLUDED ITEM THREE TO APPROVE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT ADOPTED 2023 APPRAISAL DISTRICT BUDGET.

AND WHEREAS, ON FURTHER REVIEW, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT IDENTIFIED SEVERAL BUDGETED SALARY INCREASES BY THE CCAD THAT DID NOT APPEAR TO CONSIDER EXISTING FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND CALDWELL COUNTY.

AND WHEREAS, AS COMMISSIONERS COURT, IN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ITS LIMITED RESOURCES, HAS REFRAINED FROM SUCH SALARY INCREASES IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE COUNTY SERVICES TO TAXPAYERS TO CALDWELL COUNTY.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, THAT ONE COMMISSIONERS COURT PRIOR TO JULY 12, 2022, ORDER ADOPT ADOPTING THE CONSENT AGENDA IS HEREBY MODIFIED IN PART RESCINDING THE COURT'S APPROVAL OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT'S ADOPTED 2023 APPRAISAL DISTRICT BUDGET, AND THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HEREBY DISAPPROVES OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT'S ADOPTED 2023 APPRAISAL DISTRICT BUDGET PURSUANT TO SECTION 6.06B ORDERED 26TH DAY OF JULY 2022.

SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER, YOU MADE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 36.2022 DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

OPPOSED HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.

[16. Discussion/Action to approve the ratification of a consulting agreement between LocalLinux DBA Blue Layer and Caldwell County for IT Services.]

ITEM 16 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE THE RATIFICATION OF A CONSULTING AGREEMENT BETWEEN LOCALLINUX, DBA BLUE LAYER AND CALDWELL COUNTY FOR IT SERVICES COMMISSIONERS.

AS YOU MAY BE AWARE, WE HAD TO LET OUR IT DIRECTOR GO.

ONE OF THE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS HAS TURNED IN THEIR NOTICE AND SO WE WERE IN THE POSITION TO NEED TO LOCK DOWN OUR SYSTEM VERY QUICKLY. SO WE HIRED BLUE LAYER TO DO THAT AND WE HAD TO SIGN A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THEM.

AND THIS ITEM IS TO RATIFY THAT SERVICE AGREEMENT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 16.

I SO MOVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

MOTION CARRIES ITEM 17 DISCUSSION ONLY TO PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING A CITIZEN'S REQUEST THAT THE COUNTY APPROVE A PORTION OF PACKARD

[17. Discussion only to provide direction regarding a citizen’s request that the county improve a portion of Packard Drive and Front Street (an unopened road) in Dale.]

[00:30:05]

DRIVE IN FRONT STREET (AN UNOPENED ROAD) IN DALE.

COMMISSIONER ROLAND.

SO WE HAVE A CONSTITUENT I HAVE A CONSTITUENT THAT'S OWN PROPERTY ON OFF OF PACKARD.

PACKARD. AND HE'S BEEN TRYING TO GET THAT RECTIFIED FOR QUITE SOME TIME, PROBABLY TWO, TWO AND A HALF YEARS.

AND HAVEN'T HAD MUCH LUCK AT ALL WITH IT.

BUT I THINK HE IS NOT HERE THIS MORNING.

I DON'T THINK. ARE YOU HERE? ALL RIGHT, JOE, DID YOU WANT A [INAUDIBLE].

YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, RIGHT? THAT'S FINE. YOU DON'T HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.

OH, COME UP HERE AND TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

HELLO TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND EVERYONE IN THE ROOM.

I'M JOE CALDERA, THE OWNER OF PROPERTIES IN DALE [INAUDIBLE].

I HAVE. MAY I APPROACH THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? I HAVE SOME VISUALS SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

YES, SIR. WE ALSO HAVE A GOOGLE MAP HERE.

IF YOU LOOK ON YOUR DOCUMENT THAT I JUST PRESENTED TO YOU, MR. ROLAND. MR. CHASE I'LL GIVE THOSE TO YOU DIGITALLY, BUT THERE IS A GIN MILL BEFORE I GOT THIS PROPERTY [INAUDIBLE], THERE'S A COUNTY ROAD RIGHT THERE THAT'S CALLED FRONT STREET.

FRONT STREET WAS UNDEVELOPED.

ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS FOR THE PRIVILEGE FOR THE GRANTING OF THE EASEMENT TO INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM MY PROPERTY.

AND THAT'S ALL MY REQUEST IS.

IT'S IT HAS ALL LEGAL RIGHTS AS FAR AS IT'S A PROPERTY OF THE COUNTY.

AND ALL I ASK IS THE PERMISSION TO BE GRANTED.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

YES, SIR. SO IS THAT OR MAYBE THIS WOULD BE BETTER DIRECTED TO MR. CALDERA? IS THAT HOW YOU'RE GETTING IN AND OUT NOW? THIS. YES, THAT SMALL LITTLE PIECE RIGHT THERE.

[INAUDIBLE] SO HERE'S WHERE FRONT STREET ENDS.

AND I ASSUME THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET RIGHT.

MIC] AND ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION JUST SHOWS THAT IT'S GRANTING PEOPLE PERMISSION, BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY I'M SORRY. THANK YOU.

GO AHEAD. SO, YES, AS I WAS SAYING, ALL I'M LOOKING FOR IS NOW THE DOCUMENTATION ON RECORD JUST FOR THE EASEMENT TO INGRESS AND EGRESS, WHICH THE THE PRIVILEGE, FROM WHAT YOU SEE, I CAN ASSUME, SHOULD BE GRANTED. SO I'LL CHIME IN HERE.

I KNOW A LOT ABOUT THIS AREA.

GOOD. AND AS WHEN THE [INAUDIBLE] WAS LAID OUT, THAT WAS THE ACCESS TO GET TO YOUR PROPERTIES, ACTUALLY.

RIGHT. AND PART OF FRONT STREET HAS BEEN ABANDONED BY THE COUNTY.

AND AND THERE THERE ARE LOTS OF STREETS IN THE COUNTY AND LOTS OF ROADS THAT WE DO NOT MAINTAIN.

AND WE HAVE IN THE PAST ABANDONED THOSE STREETS AND GAVE THOSE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS BECAUSE WE HAD NO USE FOR THOSE. I CAN SEE THIS AS BEING A PRIME EXAMPLE OF AND JOE, THIS IS UP TO YOU AND THE REST OF THE COURT MEMBERS AS WELL.

AND CHASE CAN CHECK INTO THIS THAT POSSIBLY WE ABANDONED THAT PIECE FOR HIM SO THAT HE HAS HIS ACCESS OFF OF PACKARD ROAD BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEVELOP IT.

IT SERVES NOBODY ELSE.

I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY HOW MUCH OF FRONT STREET GOT ABANDONED, AND I THINK IT WAS ALL ON THE EAST SIDE AND NOT THIS WEST SIDE.

[00:35:08]

AND WHY THEY DIDN'T DO IT ALL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DEVELOP IT, I DON'T KNOW.

THAT WAS LONG, LONG TIME AGO.

UM, I'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

I DO KNOW THAT A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK THERE WAS AN ITEM TO ABANDON FRONT STREET, BUT IT LIKE THE ITEM WAS TABLED AND IT DOESN'T LOOK IT EVER CAME UP AGAIN.

SO IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED BUT NEVER ACTUALLY ACTED ON.

THAT BEING SAID, PART OF THE REASONS IS LISTED AS A DISCUSSION TODAY SO THAT YOU ALL CAN GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION.

AND WE CAN WE CAN DO WHATEVER THE COURT WANTS TO DO.

IT JUST THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE COURT.

I WOULD LIKE THAT IF YOU WOULD JUST RESEARCH THIS AND THEN WE CAN BRING IT BACK ON THE NEXT AGENDA WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE CAN'T TAKE ANY ACTION ANYWAY, BUT BUT I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO TO ACT ON ANYTHING AT THIS POINT.

SO I'D LIKE I'D LIKE TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE HISTORY AND WHETHER OR NOT WE, YOU KNOW, IT'S EVEN AVAILABLE FOR US TO ABANDON OR BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, I DON'T THINK WE WE KNOW THAT.

MAYBE WHEN IT COMES BACK, SET IT UP AS AN ITEM TO WHERE WE COULD TAKE THAT TYPE OF ACTION, DISCUSSION ACTION NEXT TIME.

BUT WE JUST NEED WE JUST NEED A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH DONE ON THIS, A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION.

AND IF IT DOES GET ABANDONED, THE LAW IS THAT YOU'LL GET HALF OF THAT.

AND THEN THE WHAT IS LOT SIX WOULD GET THE OTHER HALF.

OKAY. YOU WOULD OWN IT TO THE MIDDLE AND THE OTHER OWNER ONLY TO THE NORTHERN HALF OF THAT.

BUT THAT AT LEAST WOULD GIVE YOU THE ACCESS THAT YOU'RE USING ANYWAY.

RIGHT. AND, AND IT, IT'D BE UP TO YOU TO PUT GRAVEL ON IT.

YEAH. I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THE THE NEIGHBORS THERE THAT'S FOR SURE.

BUT YES, I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTATION.

AND I DO HAVE ALL THAT DOCUMENTATION TO GO AS FAR BACK AS I AM SEEING THAT I CAN GO BACK AS FAR AS SOMEONE YOU MAY KNOW, MS. BARBARA. MR. [INAUDIBLE] BUT THAT WAS HIS PROPERTY AND HE DONATED THAT OR HE GAVE [INAUDIBLE] AND THEN THE SCHOOL PART AND THEN THAT'S WHERE ALL THAT BEGIN.

BUT THAT'S GOING PRETTY FAR BACK IN HISTORY THAT I DO HAVE DOCUMENTATION.

I'M WILLING TO PROVIDE THAT TO MR. ROLAND AND MR. CHASE HERE DIGITALLY.

AND Y'ALL CAN MAKE THAT.

LOOK AT IT IN THE NEXT TIME WE MEET, HOPEFULLY I GET AN APPROVAL.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE IT.

AND WE'LL WE'LL WE'LL MOVE BEYOND THIS SINCE IT'S JUST A DISCUSSION ITEM AND WAIT TO GET OUR INFORMATION NEXT TIME.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. WELL, WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE OR ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S JUST DISCUSSION ONLY SO WE CAN JUST MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

ITEM 17 DISCUSSION [INAUDIBLE].

[18. Discussion/Action to approve a development agreement between PHAU-Lockhart 450, LLC and Caldwell County for the Juniper Springs Subdivision located at TX-142 and Borchert Loop.]

SORRY. ITEM 18 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PHAU LOCKHART 450 LLC AND CALDWELL COUNTY FOR THE JUNIPER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT TX-142 AND ORCHARD LOOP.

WE GOT SOMEBODY HERE TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

COME. COME ON UP, SIR.

GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS.

NICK MCINTYRE, NICK MCINTYRE, RICK PERRY HOLMES.

THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR OUR PROJECT OUT AT ORCHARD LOOP AND 142 THAT WE'VE PRESENTED TO THE COURT BEFORE.

WE'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF BACK AND FORTH ON UPDATES, BUT IN GENERAL ARE USING THE COUNTIES TEMPLATE AND WE'VE INCREASED THAT WITH A COUPLE MORE ITEMS IN THERE JUST TO PROVIDE A GOOD DEVELOPMENT THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN STAND BEHIND.

WE WANT TO CREATE SOMETHING NICE FOR EVERYBODY HERE AND OURSELVES AS WELL.

SO AND I THINK WE TABLED THIS LAST TIME BECAUSE WE HAD A NAME CHANGE.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

AND WE'VE WE'VE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL, UH, ITERATIONS BACK AND FORTH.

AND I THINK IT'S AT A POINT NOW THAT EVERYBODY IS MORE THAN MORE THAN COMFORTABLE WITH AT THIS POINT.

VERY GOOD COMMISSIONERS.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PHAU LOCKHART 450 LLC AND CALDWELL COUNTY FOR THE JUNIPER SPRINGS SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT TX-142 [INAUDIBLE].

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE, AYE.

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.[INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENT ITEM 19 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE CANCELLATION OF THE ESTATES AT

[19. Discussion/Action to consider the cancellation of The Estates at Hartland Ranch subdivision located off Borchert Loop (CR 108).]

HARTLAND RANCH SUBDIVISION LOCATED OFF ORCHARD LOOP COUNTY ROAD 108 [INAUDIBLE] IS SO [INAUDIBLE] YOU HERE? OH, THERE SHE IS.

[INAUDIBLE].

OH, IT'S BEEN A LONG WEEK.

I'VE ONLY BEEN BACK ONE DAY AND I'M ALREADY FEELING LIKE I WANT TO GO BACK.

[00:40:05]

SO WHAT? SO THEY'RE BANNING IT.

IS THIS LIKE GONE FOREVER OR THEY JUST MAKING SOME CHANGES GOING AWAY? WHAT IT HAPPENED WAS WE DID A PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF AGO TO CANCEL THIS BECAUSE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY JARED [INAUDIBLE] PROJECT AND IT WAS IN SOLD TO SOMEONE ELSE.

AND IF YOU REMEMBER, SCOTT MILLER CAME IN AND THEY DID A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE COURT.

SO THIS IS THE CANCELLATION OF MR. [INAUDIBLE] PROJECT BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER WANT TO GO WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT.

THERE WAS A YEAH THERE WAS A RECORDED PLAT ON LOTS FRONTING [INAUDIBLE] AND THAT IS NOW BEING DISSOLVED. THAT NEEDS TO BE DISSOLVED BEFORE THEY CAN GO FORWARD WITH AGREEMENT.

WHEN DID WE APPROVE THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? THAT WAS PROBABLY THREE MONTHS AGO.

AND WHAT WAS THE NAME OF SCOTT'S? IT'S GOING TO BE CALLED OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.

OF COURSE. OKAY.

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONSIDER THE CANCELLATION OF THE ESTATES OF PARKLAND RANCH SUBDIVISION LOCATED OFF ORCHARD COUNTY ROAD 108.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

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

OPPOSED HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.

JUDGE REAL QUICK I JUST WANT TO SAY [INAUDIBLE], THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON THAT.

I KNOW IT WAS NOT SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY DO.

IT TOOK A LOT OF HOOPS TO JUMP THROUGH.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THAT.

HEARTLAND RANCH HAS GONE FROM ONE EXTREME TO THE OTHER.

LET'S SEE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? WE DID. OH, THAT'S RIGHT.

YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. BJ JUST HAD SOME COMMENTS.

SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'M HAVING TROUBLE KEEPING UP TODAY.

[20. Discussion/Action to consider the approval of an Order authorizing the filing of a Final Plat (Short Form Procedure) for Fox Tail Estates located on Fox Lane.]

ITEM 20 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF FINAL PLAT SHORT FORM PROCEDURE OF FOX TRAIL. THAT SHOULD BE TRAIL I THINK.

IS IT FOX TAIL OR FOX TRAIL? [INAUDIBLE] LOCATED ON FOX LANE.

YES, SIR. AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE TABLED THIS AGENDA ITEM.

THERE'S A FEW MINOR ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE TWEAKED, AND I WILL BRING THIS BACK IN TWO WEEKS FOR APPROVAL.

OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM 20? SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

OPPOSED HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.

[21. Discussion/Action to consider the approval of the Preliminary Plat for Maxwell Farms consisting of 67 residential lots on approximately 80.355 acres located on Farmers Rd.]

ITEM 21 DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAXWELL FARMS, CONSISTING OF 67 RESIDENTIAL LOCKS ON APPROXIMATELY 80.355 ACRES LOCATED ON FARMERS ROAD.

AT THIS TIME, YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR BACKUP THAT EVERYTHING THAT IS REQUIRED FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT IS INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP.

ALL FEES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED.

THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY PLATFORM.

TRACY BRATTON AND AT THIS TIME I'M JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD TO FINAL COMMISSIONERS.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAXWELL FARMS? I'LL SO MOVE. WE HAVE A MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.