Oct 10, 2023 Commissioners Court

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> THOSE HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 10, DISCUSSION ACTION THAT CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN

[10. Discussion/Action to consider an agreement between the County and Futurity IT, Inc., for the use of Orion disaster mitigation software. Speaker: Judge Haden/Hector Rangel/Hank Alex]

THE COUNTY AND FUTURITY IT INK FOR THE USE OF VARIETY DISASTER MITIGATION SOFTWARE.

COMMISSIONERS, WE TABLE THIS LAST TIME TILL WE COULD GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION.

COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND AND I MET WITH HECTOR AND WATCHED THE PRESENTATION, FROM MY POINT AND I'M STRICTLY SPEAKING FROM MYSELF HERE, AND I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE AGREEMENT.

I WOULD LIKE US TO GET MORE PROFICIENT WITH WEB EOC BEFORE WE MOVE TO THIS NEW PLATFORM, WE HAVE WHERE BOC, AND A LOT OF OUR PARTNERS ARE USING THAT.

I DID TAKE A LITTLE BIT TO VISIT WITH MARTIN RITCHIE AND MARTIN SHARED WITH ME THAT PRIOR TO HIS ACCIDENT, THEY WERE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT SOFTWARE THAT'S SIMILAR TO THIS THAT THE COG IS PLANNING ON POTENTIALLY ROLLING OUT, WHICH WOULD BE IN THE FORM OF A GRANT JUST LIKE WEB EOC WAS.

I'M JUST GIVING THAT OUT AS INFORMATIONAL AND I'LL JUST TURN IT OVER TO YOU ALL.

IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

BUT WE FIRSTLY, NEED TO HAVE A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THIS.

[00:10:06]

>> WELL, I WOULD MOVE AT THIS POINT TO DENY THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND FUTURITY IT INCORPORATED.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, NOW WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONERS.

>> I'LL ADD. IT WAS A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION.

I WANT TO SAY THAT HECTOR, HE WAS A VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF ON THEIR SIDE.

IT'S A NICE SOFTWARE.

THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT.

IT DOES A LOT FOR YOU.

I THINK AT THIS POINT FOR ME OR JUST NOT IN A POSITION THAT I THINK IT WOULD PROVIDE MORE THAN WHAT WE COULD GET WITHOUT PAYING THROUGH THE COMPLIMENTARY SOFTWARE AT THE COG AT THIS POINT.

>> I'LL ECHO THAT AND I THINK IT COULD BE BENEFICIAL TO US AT SOME POINT.

FRANKLY, THOUGH WE'RE JUST SO STRAPPED FOR CASH THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH PAYING THIS AND THEN IT HAS A RENEWAL FEE EVERY YEAR AFTER.

FOR SOME SOFTWARE THAT WE WOULD USE DURING AN EMERGENCY EVENT.

I'M TALKING CATASTROPHIC TYPE OF MANNER.

THIS DOES HAVE WARRANT SOME PROBABLY A REVISITATION IF WE DO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME FUNDING BECAUSE IT DOES GIVE YOU SOME OPPORTUNITY TO PRE-POPULATE IT SO THAT YOU CAN GO OUT AND TAKE PICTURES OF ROADS, AND BRIDGES, AND THINGS LIKE THAT SO THAT YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE BEFORE AND THEN WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE AFTER DAMAGE FROM AN EVENT.

RIGHT NOW, I'LL JUST BE HONEST, IT'S REALLY TOUGH FOR US.

WE'RE STRUGGLING ALREADY WITH FINDING AND JUST HAVING SOMETHING THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY SIT ON THE SHELF UNTIL WE NEEDED IT WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE SOMETHING TOUGH FOR ME.

SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS I WOULD AGREE THAT I WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO REVISIT IT AT A LATER DATE IF THE NECESSITY WAS MAPPED.

>> SHOULD WE GET SOME GRANT FUNDING OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THAT ALLOWS US TO HAVE SOME FUNDING.

AM I MIGHT BE A LOT MORE OPEN TO IT BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE SUPER TIGHT ON MONEY.

>> I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THAT NEW SOFTWARE'S COMING OUT [OVERLAPPING] FROM THE COG BEFORE AND THEN REVISIT.

>> SAYING THEY HAVEN'T OFFICIALLY ADOPTED THAT YET.

BUT MARTIN SAID THEY WERE LOOKING PRETTY HARD AT IT, AND I SUSPECT THAT WHEN MARTIN GOES BACK TO WORK, THAT WILL CONTINUE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NOW WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY THE FUNDING.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 11.

[11. Discussion/Action to approve a Proclamation from the Central Texas Dispute Resolution Center designating October 2023 as Mediation Month. Speakers: Judge Haden/Martha Joyce]

DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION FROM THE CENTRAL TEXAS DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER DESIGNATED OCTOBER 2023 AS MEDIATION MONTH, I WANTED TO SAY, MEDITATION MONTH.

>> PROCLAMATION, RECOGNIZING OCTOBER AS MEDIATION AWARENESS MONTH, STATE OF TEXAS, CALDWELL COUNTY.

WHEREAS HAYS COUNTY DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER WAS CONCEIVED IN 2009, IT RENAMED CENTRAL TEXAS DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER IN 2015, AND WHEREAS THE CENTRAL TEXAS DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER SERVES CALDWELL, COMAL, HAYS, GUADALUPE, COUNTIES IN AREAS OF COMMUNITY, CIVIL, FAMILY, DIVORCE, AND CHILD CUSTODY DISPUTES, AND OFFER SERVICES TO OVER HALF A MILLION PEOPLE IN ITS SERVICE AND ANCILLARY AREAS, AND WHEREAS 180 PLUS CASES ARE MEDIATED ANNUALLY AND EACH COURT CASE THAT IS SETTLED BY THE CENTRAL TEXAS DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER SAVES THE COUNTY APPROXIMATELY $5,000 A DAY IN COURT TIME.

WHEREAS CENTRAL TEXAS DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER HOSTS MINIMUM CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION FOR ATTORNEYS AND MEDIATORS ALIKE AND SURROUNDING COUNTIES, AND CONDUCTS PEER MEDIATION TRAINING THAT TEACHES LOCAL STUDENTS LIFE-LONG CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS, AND NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT DOES HEREBY PROCLAIM OCTOBER 2023 AS MEDIATION AWARENESS MONTH, ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023.

>> MARTHA JOYCE IS HERE AND LET'S SAY FEW WORDS.

>> YES. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO INTRODUCE A COUPLE OF BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE WITH ME.

I THINK MOST OF YOU ALL KNOW LYDIA CERNER.

SHE'S BEEN ON OUR BOARD FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR, AND ALSO MARGIE VEILAPANDO AND THEN PROBABLY A VERY ESSENTIAL PERSON IN OUR OFFICE IS BAILEY ROZAS.

BAILEY IS OUR MEDIATION COORDINATOR, AND WITHOUT HER, [LAUGHTER] WE WOULDN'T GET ANYTHING DONE.

BUT ANYWAY, WE WANT TO THANK CALDWELL COUNTY, FOR ALL OF YOUR SUPPORT AND EVERYTHING THAT Y'ALL DONE TO HELP US TO SERVE THE FOLKS IN YOUR COUNTY.

[00:15:07]

WE APPRECIATE IT AND WE HOPE TO HAVE A BETTER INFLUENCE AS TIME GOES ON AND A MORE ACTIVE INFLUENCE AS TIME GOES ON IT AS WE GROW.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROCLAMATION FOR CENTRAL TEXAS DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER DESIGNATING OCTOBER 2023 AS MEDIATION MODEL?

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

ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.

>> CAN WE GET A PICTURE?

>> SURE.

[NOISE] [BACKGROUND] WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO ITEM 11, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 01202 FOR NOMINATING UP TO FIVE CANDIDATES TO BE INCLUDED ON A BALLOT FOR THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS?

>> I CAN READ, JUDGE, IF YOU'D LIKE THAT.

[12. Discussion/Action to approve Resolution 01-2024, nominating up to 5 candidates to be included on a ballot for the Caldwell County Appraisal District Board of Directors. Speaker: Judge Haden/Chase Goetz]

COMMISSIONER HORNS SAYS I SAID 11.

I BELIEVE HIM. [LAUGHTER] I'LL DO IT ALL THE TIME. GO AHEAD.

>> YES, JUDGE. RESOLUTION 01-2O2, RESOLUTION NOMINATING CANDIDATES TO POSITIONS ON THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, WHEREAS THE COWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT IS GOVERNED BY A BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSISTING OF FIVE MEMBERS THAT MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THE COUNTY AND HAVE RESIDED IN THE COUNTY FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE THE INDIVIDUAL TAKES OFFICE.

WHEREAS CANDIDATES FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ARE NOMINATED BY EACH GOVERNING BODIES OF TAXING ENTITIES WITHIN THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND OUR ELECTED BY A PLURALITY VOTE TO SET COLLECTIVE TAXING ENTITIES.

WHEREAS EACH TAXING ENTITY MAY NOMINATE UP TO FIVE CANDIDATES TO SERVE ON THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND WHEREAS CANDIDATES MUST BE NOMINATED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF A TAXING ENTITY AND THEIR NAMES FORWARDED TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT NO LATER THAN OCTOBER 15 FOR INCLUSION ON THE BALLOT.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT THE FOLLOWING CANDIDATES ARE NOMINATED BY THE COURT FOR INCLUSION ON A BALLOT FOR OPEN POSITIONS ON THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

I'M GOING TO DEVIATE JUST FROM THE RESOLUTION JUST A LITTLE BIT TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS LIST IS SET UP.

THE FIRST FIVE NAMES OR THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

THEN THE LAST TWO NAMES WERE SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS IS A POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR NOMINATION.

COMMISSIONER THERIOT SENT IN NAMES ALSO, BUT THEY WERE ALREADY ON THE BOARD, SO THEY WERE JUST INCLUDED IN THAT.

THERE ARE ALSO BLANKS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL PERSONS THAT MAY BE BROUGHT UP TODAY AND CONSIDER TODAY.

ULTIMATELY, THE COURT MAY CHOOSE NO MORE THAN FIVE.

IT MAY CHOOSE LESS THAN FIVE.

BUT AT THIS POINT, IT'S ALL Y'ALL.

>> COMMISSIONERS. I'M OKAY WITH THE SLAVE THAT WE HAD BEFORE.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR NOMINEES?

>> [INAUDIBLE] SHE SAW REALTOR HERE IN [INAUDIBLE].

SHE'S BEEN A RESIDENT OF 25 YEARS.

JACQUELINE JOHNSON, SHE'S THE MANAGER.

>> COMMISSIONER IS JUST DIFFICULT TO HEAR YOU.

WOULD YOU MIND SPEAKING INTO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE?

>> I AM OKAY. JACQUELINE JOHNSON, SHE'S THE MANAGER AND OPERATE AT THE STATE FARM ALLSTATE HERE IN CALDWELL COUNTY RIGHT UP ON THE STREET.

SHE'S BEEN A RESIDENT HERE FOR OVER 10 YEARS.

>> ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS.

>> WELL, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION WITH THE FIVE CURRENT MEMBERS THAT WE HAVE NOMINATED TO THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

[00:20:01]

>> THAT WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE SALY DANIEL, KATY HAGLAR, ALFREDO MUNOZ, LINDA HENKEL, AND KAELYN.

HOW TO SAY KAELYN'S LAST NAME? CAIN? I THINK CAIN.

I APOLOGIZE IF I SAID IT WRONG.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THOSE FIVE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOW ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> AYE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE.

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

I THINK WE GOT THAT ONE KNOCKED OUT. WHAT TIME IS IT? ITEM 13,

[13. Discussion/Action to approve an interlocal cooperation agreement between the County and the City of Lockhart for the provision of emergency medical services and emergency ambulance services in the county. Speaker: Judge Haden/Chase Goetz]

DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE AN INTERNAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND CITY OF LOCKHART FOR PROVISION OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICES IN CALDWELL COUNTY.

COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS IN YOUR BACKUP.

WE'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH THE CITY, TWO OR THREE WEEKS NOW AND HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT WHEREBY WE ARE GOING TO FUND $350,000 FOR ANY POTENTIAL LOSSES WITH THE EMS SERVICE THAT THEY ARE MANAGING.

AND THEN WE HAVE 200,000 ALLOCATED TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURE SUCH AS AN AMBULANCE.

AND THERE'S A PROVISION WITHIN THIS AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL GET TOGETHER WITH THE SAME GROUP THAT NEGOTIATED THIS AT MAYBE YEAR 2 TO SEE WHERE WE'RE SITTING.

IF THIS 350,000 IS NOT ENOUGH FOR SOME REASON, THEN WE WOULD BRING THAT BACK TO THE COURT AND VISIT THAT AT THIS TIME.

BUT FOR NOW, THAT'S A FIXED COST

>> ONE THING TO NOTE, JUST ON THE $200,000 CAPITAL INVESTMENT COST OR LINE ITEM IN THIS CONTRACT, THAT IS A CAP IF IN THE EVENT THAT IT'S NOT MET, IT'S NOT SPENT.

SO IT'S NOT JUST A ONE-AND-DONE TRANSFER.

IT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WILL COME AND TALK TO US ABOUT.

ONE ADDITIONAL THING THAT'S CONTRACT DOES, IT IS ALSO VERY FORWARD-LOOKING IN THAT IT ASKED THE CITY TO COLLECT DATA SO THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY CAN BETTER RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES IN THE FUTURE AND LOOK TO SEE WHERE HOTSPOTS ARE AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

SO HOPEFULLY GOING FORWARD, IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY AND THE COUNTY MUST CONTINUE TO PROVIDE EMS SERVICES, IT HOPEFULLY WILL BE REALLY GOOD FOR THE COUNTY.

>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE INTER-LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT?

>> ALSO MOVE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> THE MOTION IS SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> THAT ONE THING JUDGE, THAT 200,000 THAT'S NOT A RE-OCCURRING RIGHT? IT'S JUST A ONE TIME.

>> WELL, NO. SO EACH YEAR WHEN WE REVISIT DURING THE MID-YEAR CYCLE, THAT'LL GO ON AND ON.

SO THAT'S A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FOR AMBULANCES AND WE PUT APPROXIMATELY 250,000 MILES A YEAR ON OUR AMBULANCES.

SO EVERY YEAR WE WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY HAVE TO EITHER PURCHASE A RE-MOUNT WHICH IS TAKING THE BOX AND PUTTING IT ON A NEW CHASSIS OR A NEW AMBULANCE.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A RECURRING COST TO US EVERY YEAR, ALONG WITH THESE LOSSES.

>> RIGHT.

>> AND IT MAY GO UP, IT MAY GO DOWN DEPENDING ON WHAT WE'RE WE'RE PURCHASING.

BUT THIS YEAR WE KNEW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE NEEDING ANOTHER AMBULANCE AND THAT'S OUR HALF.

AND WE MAY WIND UP HAVING TO PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 200,000 BECAUSE A FULLY EQUIPPED AMBULANCE, YOU CAN BUY THE AMBULANCE AND THE BOX NOT EQUIPPED FOR $320,000- $330,000.

BY THE TIME YOU PUT ALL THE EQUIPMENT ON IT, IT TURNS INTO ABOUT 450,000.

I THINK IS WHAT WE SAID DURING OUR NEGOTIATIONS.

>> SO IS LOCKHART GOING TO COME UP WITH ANY OF THIS?

>> HALF.

>> HALF OF THE PROVISIONS ONLY?

>> YEAH AND THE LOSSES.

>> IT'S NOT IT'S NOT CHEAP.

I MEAN, WE'RE ANTICIPATING AND YOU CAN DO THE MATH, A LITTLE OVER $1 MILLION IN LOSSES TO OFFER THE LOCKHART EMS SERVICE AND IT'S THE SAME THING IN LULING.

>> CHASE, CAN YOU JUST SPEAK TO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IN THE BACKUP OR NOT, IT IS, JUST THE COVERAGE MAP, HOW IT'S BROKEN OUT BETWEEN LOCKHART AND LULING AND HOW THAT IS DIFFERENTIATED.

>> YES, COMMISSIONER. SORRY. IF YOU HAVE YOUR BACKUP, IT'S PAGE 184,

[00:25:01]

IT'S EXHIBIT A IN THE CONTRACT ITSELF.

THE COUNTY IS DIVIDED INTO WHAT IS EFFECTIVELY THREE DIFFERENT COVERAGE AREAS.

THERE'S A FOURTH ONE WHICH IS THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS EMS, BUT THAT'S JUST A SMALL LITTLE GROUPS, SO I'M NOT GOING TO REALLY TALK ABOUT IT.

THE FIRST TWO AREAS WHICH COMPROMISES ABOUT THE NORTHERN TWO-THIRDS OF THE COUNTY ARE DONE BY LOCKHART.

I COULDN'T TELL YOU THE HISTORY BEHIND WHY IT'S LOCKHART 1 AND LOCKHART 2 AS OPPOSED TO JUST LOCKHART.

BUT THOSE ARE TWO COVERAGE AREAS, THEY COVER ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE COUNTY.

I DON'T HAVE THE POPULATION UP RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT IS HISTORICALLY THE MOST POPULOUS PART OF THE COUNTY.

LULING COVERS THAT FINAL THIRD.

>> I THINK I WANT TO POINT ONE THING OUT THOUGH, JUST SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS.

IF BOTH LOCKHART AMBULANCES ARE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED, LULING WILL SERVICE THE CALL FOR LOCKHART AND VICE VERSA.

SO WHILE THOSE ARE A GO-BY, BY NO MEANS DOES THAT MEAN THAT ONE SERVICE DOESN'T GO AND COVER OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY.

>> YES. AND TO THAT EXTENT THERE ARE ALSO ALWAYS MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS AND A NUMBER OF OTHER AGREEMENTS THAT WILL KEEP AMBULANCES RUNNING REGARDLESS OF NECESSARILY THE AREA THAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IN.

>> I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] AYE.

>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO ITEM 14.

[14. Discussion/Action to authorize the County Judge to sign and execute FCC Form 601 applications to the federal government for 700/800 MHz frequencies. Speaker: Judge Haden]

DISCUSSION ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE TO SIGN AND EXECUTE FCC FORM 601 APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR 700 AND 800 MEGAHERTZ FREQUENCIES.

COMMISSIONER, THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO DO FOR THOSE FREQUENCIES FOR OUR EMERGENCY RADIO TOWERS.

>> AND AS FAR AS THE LETTERS GO, THEY ARE ATTACHED IN THE BACKUP, THAT'S WHAT THE JUDGE WILL BE SIGNING LETTING THEM KNOW THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED BY THE COUNTY TO EXECUTE THOSE APPLICATIONS.

>> WE ALREADY OWN ALL THESE FREQUENCIES.

CITY OF LOCKHART OWNS THEIR FREQUENCIES.

THIS IS JUST A FORMALITY TO KEEP ALL THAT GOING.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AUTHORIZING COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE FCC FORM 601?

>> SECONDED, JUDGE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HORNE. SECOND?

>> COMMISSIONER THOMAS.

>> YES.

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] AYE.

WE WILL SKIP ITEM 15 UNTIL AFTER THE HEARING.

ITEM 16, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-2024,

[16. Discussion/Action to approve Resolution 02-2024, authorizing the filing of an application to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) requesting a 20-year loan for road improvements; authorizing the County Judge to execute related documents; and ratifying previous action. Speaker: Judge Haden/Will Conley]

AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TXDOT, STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK REQUESTING A 20-YEAR LOAN FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENT, AUTHORIZING COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE RELATED DOCUMENTS AND RATIFYING PREVIOUS ACTION.

COMMISSIONERS, THIS LOAN IS VERY LOW-INTEREST LOAN, IT'S FOR $2,106,617.50.

AND IT WILL BE USED TO PUT IN A LEFT-HAND TURN LANE ON THE SECTION OF 1A3 THAT BEGINS AT THE LULING INDUSTRIAL PARK AND ENDS JUST NORTH OF WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING THE EVACUATION CENTER IN.

BOTH OF THOSE PROJECTS HAVE TRIGGERED A NEED FOR A LEFT-HAND TURN LANE.

AND THIS IS A FAIRLY INEXPENSIVE WAY FOR US TO ACQUIRE THE FUNDING FOR THAT, TO GET THAT PROJECT DESIGNED AND UNDERWAY.

>> RESOLUTION 02-2024 AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK AND AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY JUDGE TO ACT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY IN ALL MATTERS RELATING TO THE APPLICATION.

WHEREAS THE STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANK, SIB, OPERATED BY THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, IS A REVOLVING LOAN FUND, WHEREAS CALDWELL COUNTY, THE COUNTY, DEEMS ARE PROPER AND IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTY TO APPLY FOR A LOAN FROM THE SIB IN AMOUNT UP TO $2,106,617.50 TO BE USED FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON US 183 IN LULING.

AND WHEREAS THE COUNTY IS QUALIFIED TO APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE SIB FOR THIS PURPOSE.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT ONE, THE COURT BELIEVES THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE COUNTY TO APPLY FOR A LOAN FROM THE SIB AND AN AMOUNT UP TO $2,106,617.50 TO FINANCE SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS ON US 183 IN LULING.

TWO, THE COURT HEREBY AUTHORIZES THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE AN APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE SIB AND

[00:30:01]

TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION TOGETHER WITH ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION TO TXDOT FOR CONSIDERATION.

THREE, THE APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED AS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION AS EXHIBIT A, AND MADE PART HERE FOR ALL PURPOSES AND FOR ACTION TAKEN BY THE COUNTY JUDGES ACTIONS RELATING TO THE EXECUTION SUBMITTAL OF EXHIBIT A PRIOR TO OCTOBER 10, 2023 ARE RATIFIED BY THE COURT.

RESOLVE THIS 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023.

>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 02-2024?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> [OVERLAPPING] AYE.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING

[PUBLIC HEARING (a). 9:30 A.M]

AT 09:31 AM REGARDING AMENDING THE CALDWELL COUNTY CITING ORDINATES, DESIGNATING AN AREA OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IS PROHIBITED AND I'LL OPEN THE MICROPHONE TO ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK.

WE'LL LEAVE THAT OPEN FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 09:33 REGARDING AMENDING THE CALDWELL COUNTY, CITING ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AN AREA IN THE COUNTY IN WHICH MUNICIPAL OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL IS PROHIBITED.

WE WILL GO AHEAD AND NOW MOVE THE ITEM.

[15. Discussion/Action to approve Order 01-2024, prohibiting solid waste disposal and processing in certain areas of Caldwell County. Speaker: Judge Haden/Commissioner Theriot]

WE BELIEVE IT WAS 15 DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE ORDER 01-2024 PROHIBITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF CALDWELL COUNTY.

ONE SECOND, JUDGE, JUST GOT TO GET BACK TO IT.

SORRY. I JUST GOT TO GET BACK TO IT. LET'S SEE.

ORDER 01-2024, ORDER OF CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT PROHIBITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF CALDWELL COUNTY.

WHEREAS SECTION 363.112 OF THE TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AUTHORIZES A COUNTY TO PROHIBIT THE DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTES IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE COUNTY.

WHEREAS SECTION 364.012 OF THE TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE AUTHORIZES A COUNTY TO PROHIBIT THE DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE IN THE COUNTY IF THE DISPOSAL OF THE MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE IS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.

WHEREAS THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, THE COUNTY HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY, AND WELFARE.

WHEREAS THE COUNTY RECOGNIZES THAT THE SAN MARCUS RIVER AND OTHER WATERWAYS AND FLOODPLAIN SERVE AS AN IMPORTANT RESOURCE OF GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER AND CALDWELL COUNTY AND PROVIDE BENEFITS TO RESIDENTS, AGRICULTURE AND WILDLIFE.

WHEREAS THE COUNTY UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING THESE GROUNDWATER AND SURFACE WATER RESOURCES FROM LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT AND CONTAMINATION IN ORDER TO HELP ENSURE THAT THESE RESOURCES MAY CONTINUE TO SUPPORT CALDWELL COUNTY RESIDENTS, AGRICULTURE AND WILDLIFE, IN ADDITION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE.

WHEREAS ON DECEMBER 9TH, 2013, THE COUNTY ADOPTED IT'S CALDWELL COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE, DESIGNATING AN APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRE AREA AS THE ONLY AREA IN CALDWELL COUNTY IN WHICH THE PROCESSING OR DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE IS NOT PROHIBITED.

WHEREAS SINCE THE 2013 ORDINANCE,

[00:35:01]

THE COUNTY HAS DETERMINED THAT A MORE SUITABLE LOCATION FOR THE DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL OR SOLID WASTE EXIST WITHIN CALDWELL COUNTY IDENTIFIED AS THE TCEQ PERMITTED FACILITY BOUNDARY AT 130 ENVIRONMENTAL PART, APPROXIMATELY 520 ACRES AT 5,200 NORTH HIGHWAY 183, LOCKHART, TEXAS 78644.

WHEREAS THE 130 ENVIRONMENTAL PARK IS CURRENTLY OPERATING AS THE SOLE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY IN CALDWELL COUNTY.

WHEREAS PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES REGARDING THE PROPOSED ORDER WERE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE COUNTY FOR TWO CONSECUTIVE WEEKS BEFORE THE COUNTY CONSIDERED THIS ORDER, AND WHEREAS A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON OCTOBER 10, 2023 BEFORE THE ORDER WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COUNTY AND ANY INTERESTED PERSON WAS ALLOWED TO TESTIFY AT THE HEARING.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT ONE, THE COUNTY FINDS THE DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE IN THE COUNTY IS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND THE GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THIS THREAT SHOULD BE MINIMIZED.

TWO, THE COUNTY, ADOPTS THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF CALDWELL COUNTY ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 1 AND THREE, THE CALDWELL COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ORDINANCE DATED DECEMBER 9, 2013 IS SUPERSEDED IN ITS ENTIRETY ORDER TO THIS TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023.

JUDGE, I CAN READ THE ORDINANCE IF YOU'D LIKE.

SURE.

ORDINANCE, PROHIBITING SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF CALDWELL COUNTY, CHAPTER 1, GENERALLY, SECTION 1.01 PURPOSE.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS THROUGH THE DESIGNATION OF AREAS IN WHICH THE PROCESSING OR DISPOSAL OF SOLID WASTE IS NOT PROHIBITED IN THOSE AREAS IN WHICH SUCH ACTIVITIES ARE PROHIBITED.

SECTION 1.02 AUTHORITY, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS AUTHORIZED TO ENACT THIS ORDINANCE BY CHAPTER 363 AND 364 OF THE TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE, SECTION 1.03 SCOPE.

THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT RECOGNIZES THAT IT IS NOT TASKED WITH PERMITTING SOLID WASTE FACILITIES, AND THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT TO APPROVE THE SITING OF ANY SPECIFIC SOLID WASTE FACILITY WITHIN CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS.

THUS, THE DESIGNATION OF AREAS WHERE SOLID WASTE FACILITIES ARE NOT PROHIBITED SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS A FINDING THAT THE SITING OF A SOLID WASTE FACILITY IN AN AREA AS APPROPRIATE, RECOMMENDED, OR OTHERWISE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USES PURSUANT TO TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SECTION 330.61.

CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS.

SECTION 2.01, DISPOSAL.

DISPOSAL MEANS THE DISCHARGE DEPOSIT, INJECTION, DUMPING, SPILLING, LEAKING, OR PLACING OF SOLID WASTES OR HAZARDOUS WASTE WHETHER CONTAINERIZED OR UNCONTAINARIZED INTO OR ANY LAND OR WATER SO THAT THE SOLID WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WATER OR ANY CONSTITUENT THEREOF MAY BE EMITTED INTO THE AIR, DISCHARGED INTO SURFACE WATER OR GROUNDWATER OR INTRODUCED INTO THE ENVIRONMENT IN ANY OTHER MANNER.

SECTION 2.02, INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE.

INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE MEANS WASTE RESULTING FROM OR INCIDENTAL TO ANY PROCESS OF INDUSTRY OR MANUFACTURING, OR MINING, OR AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.

SECTION 2.03, MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE MEANS SOLID WASTE RESULTING FROM OR INCIDENTAL TO MUNICIPAL COMMUNITY, COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL OR RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING GARBAGE, RUBBISH, ASHES, STREET CLEANINGS, DEAD ANIMALS, ABANDONED AUTOMOBILES, AND OTHER FORMS OF SOLID WASTE OTHER THAN INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE? SECTION 2.04, PROCESSING.

PROCESSING MEANS ACTIVITIES INCLUDING EXTRACTION OF MATERIALS, TRANSPORT OR VOLUME REDUCTION, CONVERSION TO ENERGY OR OTHER SEPARATION AND PREPARATION OF SOLID WASTE FOR REUSE OR DISPOSAL, INCLUDING THE TREATMENT OR NEUTRALIZATION OF WASTE DESIGNED TO CHANGE THE PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL CHARACTER OR COMPOSITION OF ANY WAYS TO NEUTRALIZE SUCH WASTES OR TO RECOVER ENERGY OR MATERIAL FROM THE WASTE OR RENDER THE WAY SAFER FOR TRANSPORT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF, OR TO MAKE IT AMENABLE FOR RECOVERY, AMENABLE FOR STORAGE OR REDUCED IN VOLUME.

SECTION 2.05, SOLID WASTE.

SOLID WASTE MEANS GARBAGE, RUBBISH, REFUGE, SLUDGE FROM A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, WATER TREATMENT SUPPLY PLANT, OR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY OR OTHER DISCARDED MATERIAL INCLUDING SOLID LIQUID, SEMISOLID OR CONTAIN GASEOUS MATERIAL RESULTING FROM INDUSTRIAL, MUNICIPAL, COMMERCIAL MINING AND AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, AND FROM COMMUNITY AND INSTITUTIONAL ACTIVITIES.

SECTION 2.06, SOLID WASTE FACILITIES.

SOLID WASTE FACILITY MEANS ALL CONTIGUOUS LAND INCLUDING STRUCTURES, APPURTENANCES, AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LAND USED FOR PROCESSING, STORING, OR DISPOSING OF SOLID WASTES.

THE TERM INCLUDES PUBLICLY OR PRIVATELY OWNED SOLID WASTE FACILITY CONSISTING OF SEVERAL PROCESSING, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL OPERATION UNITS SUCH AS ONE OR MORE LANDFILLS, SURFACE, AND TERMINANCE OR ACCOMMODATION OF UNITS IN ADDITION TO AN INCINERATOR, LANDFILL, OR TRANSFER STATION, MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY, LAND APPLICATION, BENEFICIAL USE OR COMPOSTING SITE.

CHAPTER 3, AREA DESIGNATED FOR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND PROCESSING.

SECTION 3.01, AREA IS NOT PROHIBITED.

THE PROCESSING OR DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE OR THE OPERATION OF A SOLID WASTE FACILITY IS NOT PROHIBITED IN THE AREA OF CALDWELL COUNTY IDENTIFIED AS THE TCEQ PERMANENT FACILITY BOUNDARY AT 130 ENVIRONMENTAL PARK OR OTHER DEPICTED ON EXHIBITS A AND B, ATTACHED HERE TOO, AND INCORPORATED HEAR IN.

APPROXIMATELY 520 ACRES, 5200 NORTH HIGHWAY, 183 LOCKHART, TEXAS 78644.

SECTION 3.02, AREAS PROHIBITED.

EXCEPT IT'S PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION 3.01, THE PROCESS OF YOUR DISPOSAL OF MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE FOR THE OPERATION OF A SOLID WASTE FACILITY IS PROHIBITED IN ALL PORTIONS OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS.

CHAPTER 4 APPLICABILITY.

SECTION 4.01, TCEQ PERMANENT APPLICATIONS.

THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN AREA OF THE COUNTY FOR WHICH AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION UNDER HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CHAPTER 361 HAS BEEN FILED WITH AND IT'S PENDING BEFORE THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, TCEQ, AS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE IS EFFECTIVE.

[00:40:02]

SECTION 4.02, TCEQ ISSUED PERMITS.

THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN AREA OF THE COUNTY FOR WHICH A PERMANENT OR OTHER AUTHORIZATION UNDER HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CHAPTER 361 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY TCEQ AS OF THE DATE THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EFFECTIVE.

SECTION 4.03, MUNICIPAL CORPORATE LIMITS.

THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY.

SECTION 4.04, CERTAIN INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL.

THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN AREA TO WHICH SECTION 361.090 OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE APPLIES.

CHAPTER 5, ENFORCEMENT, SECTION 5.01, CRIMINAL PENALTIES.

VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PENALTIES TO THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY STATE LAW.

SECTION 5.02, INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES.

THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT MAY BRING LEGAL ACTION TO ENJOIN VIOLATIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND SEEK JUDGMENT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES.

CHAPTER 6, CONFLICTING LAWS, CUMULATIVE EFFECT.

SECTION 6.01, MORE STRINGENT LAW PREVAILS.

IF ANY PROVISION OF PROVISIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE ARE FOUND TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH ANY OTHER PROVISION OF LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL LAW, THE MORE STRINGENT CONFLICTING THE RULE OR LAW SHALL CONTROL.

SECTION 6.02, CUMULATIVE WITH OTHER LAWS.

THE AUTHORITY INTO THIS ORDINANCE IS CUMULATIVE OF OTHER LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY THAT CALDWELL COUNTY MAY HAVE TO REGULATE MUNICIPAL OR SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION.

SECTION 6.03, SEPARABILITY.

IF ANY PROVISION OR PROVISIONS CONTAINED WITH THIS ORDINANCE SHALL FOR ANY REASON BE HELD BY A COURT AT A COMPETENT JURISDICTION TO BE INVALID, ILLEGAL, OR UNENFORCEABLE, IN ANY RESPECT SUCH AS INVALIDITY, ILLEGALITY OR UNENFORCED ABILITY, SHALL NOT AFFECT ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE AND THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS IF THE INVALID, ILLEGAL, OR UNENFORCEABLE PROVISION HAD NEVER BEEN INCLUDED.

CHAPTER 7, EFFECTIVE DATE, SECTION 7.01, EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT OCTOBER 10TH, 2023.

THANK YOU, CHASE.

OF COURSE.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO READ THAT OUT LOUD AND GET IT ON THE RECORD.

[NOISE] APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT.

COMMISSIONERS, WE'RE GOING TO NEED A MOTION EITHER TO APPROVE OR DENY IN A SECOND, THEN WE CAN HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDER 01-2024. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. [NOISE] THUS HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES [NOISE]. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. ITEM 17,

[17. Discussion/Action to accept ratification of budget amendment #01 to properly split the Senate Bill 22 stipend between the District Attorney's Office and Environmental Task Force in the amount of $13,511.00. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow]

DISCUSSION ACTION TO ACCEPT RATIFICATION OF BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 01, TO PROPERLY SPLIT THE SENATE BILL 2022 STIPEND BETWEEN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE AND THE AMOUNT OF $13,511, DAMIAN.

>> YES. JUDGING COMMISSIONERS SO WITH THIS ONE, THE SENATE BILL 22, STIPEND OR MONEY THAT WAS RECEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TOOK EFFECT OCTOBER 1 IN-BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS COURTS SO I HAD TO MOVE THAT MONEY OUT OF THE SINGLE LINE ITEM THAT WE PUT IT INTO DURING BUDGET CYCLE, AND SPLIT IT BETWEEN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN THE DA'S OFFICE.

I HAD TO GET THAT DONE IN-BETWEEN COMMISSIONERS COURT BECAUSE IT DID TAKE EFFECT OCTOBER 1 IN THIS LAST PAY PERIOD THAT WILL BE GETTING PAID AT THIS FRIDAY, HIT BOTH LAST FISCAL YEAR AND THIS FISCAL YEAR AND TO GET PEOPLE PAID CORRECTLY DURING THIS NEXT PIECE I GO I NEEDED TO DO THAT BEFORE THE NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURTS OR SO.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE MOTION TO ACCEPT RATIFICATION OF BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 01? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES.

[18. Discussion/Action request to approve 17 Blanket POs for FY 2023-2024. Speaker: Judge Haden/Carolyn Caro]

ITEM 18, DISCUSSION ACTION REQUESTS TO PROVE 17 BLANKET POS FOR FY 2023, 2024, CAROLYN?

>> YES. EVERY YEAR AT THE START OF THE NEW BUDGET CYCLE, THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT DOES CREATE BLANKET PURCHASE ORDERS TO COVER EXPENSES THAT WE GET THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

THE ONES THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY INCLUDE UNIT ROAD DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR FUEL AND THE ROAD MATERIALS, AND ALSO A FEW FOR NON DEPARTMENTAL THAT COVER OUR XEROX LEASE, OUR QUADRANT POSTAGE LEASE, AND A COUPLE FOR TAC INSURANCE.

>> COMMISSIONERS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE POS?

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

>> WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> THANK YOU. ITEM 19 DISCUSSION ACTION TO

>> THANK YOU.

[19. Discussion/Action to approve the appointment of David Childress to the ESD#2 Board. Speaker: Commissioner Theriot]

APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF DAVID CHILDREN'S TO ESD.

NUMBER 2, BOARD COMMISSIONER TERRYO.

>> DAVID'S ACTIVATING THE MAXIMAL FIRE DEPARTMENT AND LONGTIME RESIDENT OF MAXWELL AREAS.

[00:45:03]

I RECOMMEND HIS APPROVAL AND APPOINTMENT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE DAVID CHILDREN'S TO ESD TO BOARD. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.

ITEM 20, DISCUSSION ACTION CONCERNING THE APPROVAL OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF

[20. Discussion/Action concerning approval of an Order authorizing the filing of a Final Plat (Short Form Procedure) for Upper Pool Hollow Ranches located at FM 1854 and FM 672. Speaker: Commissioner Thomas/Kasi Miles]

FINAL PLAT SHORT-FORM PROCEDURE FOR UPPER POOL HOLLOW RANCHES LOCATED AT EPM 1854 AND 672.

>> GOOD MORNING.

THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE SHORT FORM PLAT TWO LOTS.

IF YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR BACKUP, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN COLLECTED AND REVIEWED AND APPROVED.

I'VE COLLECTED ALL THE FEES THAT WERE OWED AND I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

>> COMMISSIONERS.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 20. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND,.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND?

>> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ITEM 21, DISCUSSION ACTION TO CONSIDER APPROVAL

[21. Discussion/Action to consider approval of the Preliminary Plat for Casa Subdivision consisting of 14 residential lots on approximately 17.283 acres located on FM 1854. Speaker: Commissioner Thomas/Kasi Miles]

OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CASA SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 14 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 17.283 ACRES LOCATED ON FM 18TH.

>> AS SAME DEAL, JUST A VERY SIMPLE ALL THE LOTS HEAD FRONTAGE.

WE HAD NO ISSUES WITH THIS ONE.

I'VE COLLECTED ALL THE FEES THAT WERE OWED AT THIS POINT, AND JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL.

>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 21?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ONTARIO.

ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

ITEM 22, DISCUSSION ACTION CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF

[22. Discussion/Action concerning approval of an Order authorizing the filing of a Final Plat (Short Form Procedure) for Alcala Family Subdivision located on Old Lockhart Road. Speaker: Commissioner Theriot/Kasi Miles]

A PLAT SHORT FORM PROCEDURE FOR ALCALA FAMILY SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON OLD LOCKHART ROAD.

>> THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE TWO LOTS SPLIT.

WE DID TALK TO THEM ABOUT THE FAMILY A LAND GRANT PROVISION, BUT ONE OF THEM HAD STATED THAT THEY MAY POSSIBLY SELL THE SOONER THAN LATER, SO THEY DECIDED TO DO THE SHORT FORM PLAT.

FEES HAVE BEEN COLLECTED, IT'S BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED AND READY FOR APPROVAL.

>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDER AUTHORIZING THE FINAL PLAT SHORT-FORM PROCEDURE FOR ALCALA FAMILY SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON OLD LOCKHART ROAD?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TERRYO. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMOREN, ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.