[00:00:01]
[Call Meeting to Order]
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO COMMISSIONERS COURT THIS MORNING.WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14TH, 2023, AT 9:00 AM.
COMMISSIONER THOMAS, WOULD YOU MIND DOING THE INVOCATION THIS MORNING?
>> THE GREAT SUBORDINATE FATHER WE COME THIS MOMENT, THIS MINUTE, THIS HOUR.
WE ASK YOU TO GUIDE US AND DIRECT US THE WAY YOU WOULD HAVE US GO.
DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, MAY ALL THESE PROCEEDINGS BE HELD IN PEACE AND IN ORDER.
ALL OF THESE THINGS WE ASK YOU GOD IN YOUR PRECIOUS SON JESUS CHRIST'S NAME. AMEN.
>> COMMISSIONERS ANNOUNCEMENTS?
[Announcements]
>> NO ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM ME, JUDGE.
>> I LIKE TO INFORM EVERYONE THAT WE'RE HAVING A PUBLIC FORUM THIS SATURDAY FROM 2:00 PM-4:00 PM AT THE CONNECTION CENTER.
IT'S GOING TO BE AN OPEN DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME CONCERNS AND ISSUES IN PRECINCT-BORN SURROUNDING AREAS.
SO IF YOU WANT TO DROP BY, FOOD WILL BE SERVED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU. EVEN I DON'T HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO CONSENT.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT CONSENT, WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G1, REGARDING THE BURN BAN. HECTOR.
[G.1 Regarding the burn ban.]
>> GOOD MORNING JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS WE PRESENT [INAUDIBLE]
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO KEEP THE BURN BAN OFF?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, HECTOR.
>> ITEM G2, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 052023,
[G.2 To approve Resolution 05-2023, approving the Caldwell County appraisal roll.]
APPROVING THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL ROW.>> COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT IN YOUR BACKUP? THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.
WE CAN GO AHEAD AND READ THE RESOLUTION.
>> ONE SECOND JUDGE, TRYING TO PULL IT UP.
>> IF YOU WANT, CHASE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THIS ONE. IT'S SHORT.
>> THANK YOU, JUDGE. I'LL GET THE NEXT ONE, I SHOULD HAVE IT UP BY THEN.
>> RESOLUTION 05202 FOR RESOLUTION APPROVING TAX ROW FOR TAX YEAR 2023, WHEREAS SECTION 26.009, TEXAS PROPERTY CODE REQUIRES APPROVAL BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL ROW WITH TAX AMOUNT ENTERED BY THE ASSESSOR FOR THE TAX YEAR 2023.
WHEREAS SUCH ROW WAS PRESENTED TO COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 14TH, 2023, AND APPEARS IN ALL THINGS, CORRECT AS UNDER THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF TEXAS, AND WHEREAS SAY COMMISSIONERS COURT VOTED IN OPEN SESSION TO APPROVE THIS SAID ROW.
NOW THEREFORE BE RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT RESOLUTION RESOLVE THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023.
HEY COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ROW? IF NOT, I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 052023.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
[00:05:02]
ANY DISCUSSION? NOW ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G3, RESOLUTION 06202 FOR DISTRIBUTING VOTES FOR
[G.3 Resolution 06-2024, distributing votes for candidates to positions on the Caldwell County Appraisal District Board of Directors.]
CANDIDATES TO POSITIONS ON THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE I THINK SIX POSSIBLE PEOPLE THAT WE CAN DISTRIBUTE THESE VOTES TO.
THERE'S 1,614. TRADITIONALLY, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS DIVIDE THAT BY 5, AND THEN FOUR OF THEM GET 322, AND ONE GETS 321.
AND SO WE NEED TO DECIDE WHICH OF THOSE FIVE WE ARE GOING TO DISTRIBUTE THOSE TO AND IF WE WANTED TO DO THEM EVENLY AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST.
AND SO IF YOU'LL LOOK AT YOUR BACKUP, YOU HAVE A COPY OF THOSE I GIVE YOU A TWO.
>> THE ONES ON THE LIST RIGHT NOW ARE ALL THE ONES THAT ARE ON THERE?
>> YES. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR SOME OF THOSE VOTES.
>> ARE THEY ALL CURRENT MEMBERS?
>> THEY ARE ALL CURRENT MEMBERS AND ONE IS NOT IF I REMEMBER THAT RIGHT.
>> SO WE HAVE CURRENT MEMBER KAYLINE CABE, CURRENT MEMBER SALLY DANIEL, CURRENT MEMBER KATHY HAIGLER, CURRENT MEMBER LINDA HINKLE, NOT CURRENTLY A MEMBER MATTHEW MCGOVERN, AND CURRENT MEMBER ALFREDO MUNOZ.
SO WE CAN DISTRIBUTE THOSE VOTES ANY WAY YOU LIKE.
HISTORICALLY, WE'VE GIVEN EACH ONE 322 VOTES.
>> FIVE OF THEM. YEAH, 1,321 TO MAKE THE 1,614 THAT WE HAVE.
THE OTHER ENTITIES ALSO HAVE TO DO THIS AND THEN THEY'LL TALLY THAT UP AND SEE WHAT THE BOARD IS.
I MAY JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE PLEASURE OF THE COURT IS.
DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE FIVE THAT WE HAVE AND DISTRIBUTE THOSE VOTES EVENLY AMONG THOSE FIVE, OR DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER MR. MCGOVERN AND NOT SOMEONE OF THE OTHERS? IT'S UP TO YOU ALL.
>> IS MR. MCGOVERN, IS THAT A NOMINATION FROM ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SURE HOW MR. MCGOVERN GOT ON THIS LIST.
SO I COULDN'T TELL YOU. I DIDN'T NOMINATE HIM.
>> I NOMINATED TWO. THEY WOULDN'T APPROVE.
>> I CAN CLARIFY JUST THE PROCEDURE OF THAT A LITTLE BIT.
EACH TAXING ENTITY WILL NOMINATE TWO.
LAST TIME WHEN WE HAD DONE THIS, I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE RESOLUTION WAS. I'M SORRY.
>> SORRY. THE COURT HAD, I THINK SEVEN NAMES, TWO BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS AND THEN FIVE JUST AS THE CURRENT BOARD.
THAT COURT NOMINATED FIVE PEOPLE FROM THAT.
IT WAS THE CURRENT BOARD, SO YOUR TWO NOMINATED NAMES FELL OFF AT THAT POINT.
THE COUNTY SENT ITS NAMES IN AND ALL THE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES SENT IN NAMES ALSO.
SO MR. MCGOVERN WAS NOMINATED BY SOME OTHER ENTITY AND HAS MADE IT TO THE CANDIDATE LIST HERE.
AND THEN BECAUSE THERE ARE ONLY FIVE POSITIONS, THAT JUST MEANS THAT FIVE OF THE SIX WILL MAKE IT AND ONE WILL NOT.
AND THAT'S BASED ON A PLURALITY VOTE BY ALL THE ENTITIES.
ALL THE ENTITIES WILL ALSO BE VOTING ON THIS LIST AND TOP FIVE WIN.
>> SO COMMISSIONERS, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THIS? DO YOU WANT TO KEEP THE ONES THAT WE HAVE, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE MR. MCGOVERN SOME VOTES? YOU CAN DISTRIBUTE THOSE 1,614 ANY WAY YOU LIKE.
>> MY THOUGHT ON THE MATTER, AND I'LL PROPOSE A MOTION TO THIS EFFECT TO ALLOW FOR MORE DISCUSSION.
>> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPLY 322 VOTES TO KAYLINE CABE, SALLY DANIEL, KATHY HAIGLER, AND LINDA HINKLE, AND 321 VOTES TO ALFREDO MUNOZ FOR THE CALDWELL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE.
NOW, IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G4 TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 072024,
[G.4 To approve Resolution 07-2024, repealing approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between the County and the Regional Public Defender's Office and annulling the County Judge's authorization to execute the same.]
REPEALING APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND[00:10:03]
THE REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE AND UNKNOWING THE COUNTY JUDGE'S AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE THE SAME.COMMISSIONERS, JUST HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH CHASE TO GET CLEAR ON THIS, I WAS GOING TO TABLE IT, BUT HE CLEARED IT UP FOR ME OR ASKED TO HAVE IT TABLE.
WE PAY $18,000 AND SOME WHAT DOLLARS A YEAR SO WE HAVE A CAPITAL MURDER CASE, HAVE A REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDER.
I THINK THEY COME OUT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY BUT THAT ONLY PAYS FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER.
THEY'LL COME IN AND THEY'LL START ASKING FOR PSYCH EVALUATIONS THAT TALLY UP TO CLOSE TO 100,000 AND THEY'LL START ASKING FOR ALL THESE THINGS.
IT REALLY DOESN'T BUY US ANYTHING.
WE'VE DONE THIS FOR YEARS BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T BUY US ANYTHING SO IT'S BEEN SUGGESTED TO ME BY THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE AND THE DA THAT WE NOT DO THIS REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDER PROGRAM ANY LONGER SO I'LL THROW THAT OUT TO YOU ALL.
I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ONCE WE READ IT OR NOT SO GO AHEAD. CHASE DO YOU HAVE THAT.
>> YES, RESOLUTION 072024, REPEALING APPROVAL OF AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE AND UNROLLING THE COUNTY JUDGES AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE THE SAME.
WHEREAS THE REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE, THE RPDO, IS A PUBLIC NON-PROFIT CORPORATION THAT OVERSEES AND PROVIDES DEFENSE SERVICES TO INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND COUNTIES WHICH ENTER INTO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE RPDO TO PROVIDE DEFENSE SERVICES.
WHEREAS THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, THE COUNTY, HAS HISTORICALLY ENTERED INTO INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENTS WITH THE RPDO TO PROVIDE DEFENSE SERVICES TO INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND CALDWELL COUNTY WHEN LOCAL COUNCIL ARE ENABLED TO PROVIDE DEFENSE SERVICES TO SET INDIGENT DEFENDANTS.
WHEREAS ON JULY 11TH, 2023, ITEM 11, THE COUNTY APPROVED AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE RPDO FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024 AND FISCAL YEAR 2025.
WHEREAS THE COUNTY, AFTER FURTHER CONSIDERING THE COUNTY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NEED FOR THE RPDO SERVICES, THE AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL DEFENSE COUNSEL, AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF CALDWELL COUNTY AND THE DISTRICT JUDGE WITH 421ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT THE COUNTY NOW SEEKS TO TERMINATE THE PREVIOUSLY ENTERED INTO LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO ANY REPRESENTATION CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE RPDO, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT TO THE FULLEST EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, THE REPEALS PROVOKES AND THEN CALLS ITS PRIOR ACTION ON ITEM 11 AT THE JULY 11, 2023 REGULAR MEETING, THEREBY ENABLING THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY, AND THE RPDO, AND THE COUNTY JUDGES AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE THE SAME RESOLVE THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REPEAL OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO REPEAL TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 072024. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS.
>> ONE QUESTION. ALL THIS IS PAYING FOR IS JUST THE PROSECUTION AND NOTHING ELSE.
>> ONLY THE ATTORNEY AND THEN ALSO TO, I MEAN, IS THERE GOING TO BE EVIDENTLY PASS THIS IN JULY SO WAS THERE A CONTRACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY OUT?
>> NO, WE'LL REPEAL IT AND THAT'LL BE THAT.
>> WE'VE DISCUSSED IT WITH THE REGIONAL PUBLIC DEFENDERS OFFICE AND THEY'VE INDICATED WITH THIS RESOLUTION THEY WILL ALLOW US OUT.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL CALL THE VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 072024 INDICATE BY SAYING AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G5 TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 03,
[G.5 To approve budget amendment #03 moving $72,817.90 from Contingency to 001-6520-4510 Repairs & Maintenance for elevator upgrade.]
MOVING $72,817.90 FROM CONTINGENCY TO 00165204510 REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE ON THE ELEVATOR UPGRADES, DANIE.>> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.
RIGHT NOW, JUST BEING IN THIS BUILDING, WE HAVE FIGURED OUT THROUGH THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT AND WITH JUDGE HADEN THAT THE ELEVATOR HERE, THE PARTS AND MECHANICS OF IT ARE AT END OF LIFE.
RIGHT NOW, IT'S REQUIRED THAT WE GET A MODERNIZATION UPGRADE FOR THE ELEVATOR.
THAT WAY IF SOMETHING DOES HAPPEN AND IT DOES BECAUSE THE ELEVATOR HERE GOES DOWN ALL THE TIME.
>> THAT WE WILL NEED TO GO AHEAD AND GET THIS UPGRADE DONE ON THE ELEVATOR.
[00:15:01]
>> PART OF THE ISSUES WE CANNOT GET PARTS ANYMORE AND SO IF IT BREAKS DOWN AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE COMPLIANT WITH AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH CHOICE, BUT I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 3.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT AND A SECOND BY.
>> COMMISSIONER HORNE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED. THERE'S NONE MOTION CARRIES.
>> ITEM G3 TO APPROVE TKEPO NUMBER 02782,
[G.6 To approve TKE PO #02782 in the amount of $72,817.20 for courthouse elevator modernization.]
IN THE AMOUNT OF $72,817.20 FOR COURTHOUSE ELEVATOR MODERNIZATION.>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE PO
>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF CAROLYN HAD ANYTHING TO ADD.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE TKEPO 02782. DO WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> MOTION HAS A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? NOW ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
>> ITEM G7. REQUEST TO APPROVE BLUE LAYER PO NUMBER 02766 IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,402
[G.7 Request to approve Blue Layer PO #02766 in the amount of $74,402.00 and PO #02772 in the amount of $154,357.00 for respective camera upgrade projects.]
AND PO NUMBER 02772 IN THE AMOUNT OF $154,357 FOR RESPECTIVE CAMERA UPGRADE PROJECTS, CAROLYN?>> YES, SO THE COUNTY IS WORKING ON UPGRADING OUR CAMERA SYSTEM AND SEVERAL OF OUR BUILDINGS.
WE WANT IT TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE PURCHASE ORDER APPROVED FOR THE CAMERA PROJECT FOR THE JUSTICE CENTER AND FOR THE JAIL SO THAT WE CAN PROCEED WITH GETTING EVERYTHING ORDERED AND START SCHEDULING THAT PROJECT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE PO 02766 AND PO 02772.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
>> ITEM G8 TO IMPROVE A CITY OF LA CARTE BLANKET PO NUMBER 02769 IN
[G.8 To approve City of Lockhart Blanket PO #02769 in the amount of $350,000.00 and pay October and November EMS invoices.]
THE AMOUNT OF $350,000 AND PAY OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER EMS INVOICES.>> COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE.
IT'S OUR PORTION OF THE INVOICES FOR EMS SERVICES.
ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BLANKET PO 402769.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G9 TO APPROVE DEL PO NUMBER 02706 IN
[G.9 To approve Dell PO #02706 in the amount of $54,295.00 for annual Office 365 License renewal.]
THE AMOUNT OF $54,295 FOR ANNUAL OPPOSITES 365 LICENSE RENEWAL?>> YES, SO EVERY YEAR WE HAVE TO RENEW OUR OFFICE 365 LICENSES.
LAST YEAR WE WERE ABLE TO CUT THAT DOWN FROM, I THINK IT WAS 300 LICENSES TO 250 THIS YEAR.
IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT SAME AMOUNT, ABOUT 250 LICENSES.
>> COMMISSIONERS, MOTION TO APPROVE PO NUMBER 02706.
>> MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOW, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES.
>> ITEM G10, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS BLANKET
[G.10 To approve Motorola Solutions Blanket PO #02776 in the amount of $112,770.00 and payment of $56,385.12 for ILA costs.]
PO NUMBER 02776 IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,770, AND PAYMENT OF $56,385.12 FOR AIR LOCAL COSTS, CAROLYN?>> YES, SO THE COUNTY HAS ENTERED INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MOTOROLA TO HELP US WITH OUR TOWERS.
WE JUST WANT TO GO AHEAD, AND GET THIS PURCHASE ORDER APPROVED, AND GET THE INVOICE PAID.
I BELIEVE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO INVOICE US MONTHLY, AND I THINK THE FIRST COUPLE OF MONTHS THEY FORGOT TO SEND US THAT INVOICE.
>> ACTUALLY, THEY DIDN'T FORGET.
THIS IS ACS SYSTEM THAT MODEMS THAT THEY PUT ON ONE TOWER INTO THE DISPATCH SYSTEMS TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEM WITH THE TRUNCATING THAT WE WERE HAVING,
[00:20:01]
PARTICULARLY IN PRECINCT 2.THEY THEY CAME IN HERE REPEATEDLY AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR GETTING THIS ALL SET UP FOR YOU.
WHAT THEY NEVER TOLD US WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ALSO SEND US A BILL FOR $125,000, WHICH THEY BID AND WE'RE OBLIGATED TO PAY IT.
WHAT I DID WAS I NEGOTIATED WITH THEM AND TOLD THEM WE WILL PAY MONTHLY UNTIL WE SWITCH OVER TO LCRA AND THEN WE WILL DISCONTINUE PAYMENT ON 125,000.
THEY WANTED THE WHOLE AMOUNT UP FRONT, I SAID NO WAY WE'RE DOING THAT BECAUSE WE'RE PLANNING ON SWITCHING OVER HOPEFULLY IN APRIL.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEND YOU A YEAR'S WORTH OF MONEY FOR NOT A YEAR'S WORTH OF SERVICE, SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, BLANKET PO 02776.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> OPPOSED HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G11, TO RATIFY APPROVAL OF AN ELECTION SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND
[G.11 To ratify approval of an election services contract between the County and Gonzales ISD for the November 2023 uniform election.]
GONZALES ISD FOR NOVEMBER 2023, UNIFORM ELECTION.I DON'T SEE DUVANTE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT, CHASE?
>> YES, JUDGE. I EXPECT DUVANTE IS PROBABLY FINISHING UP ALL THE ELECTION RESPONSIBILITIES HE'S STILL GOT AFTER LAST WEEK.
THIS SITUATION IS ONE WHERE ISD CONTACTED US AFTER MANY DEADLINES HAD PASSED ABOUT A WEEK INTO EARLY VOTING, ASKING THAT WE CONDUCT AN ELECTION FOR THEM, BECAUSE THE TIMELINE WE HAD NEGOTIATED WITH THEM.
COMMISSIONER HORNE WAS PRESENT FOR THAT, SO WE WANT TO KEEP THE COMMISSIONER HORNE INFORMED.
[INAUDIBLE] SIGNED OFF ON IT, THIS IS JUST RATIFICATION OF THAT AGREEMENT.
IT'S A STANDARD ELECTION SERVICES AGREEMENT THAT WE DO FOR EVERY OTHER ONE, IT'S JUST THAT THEY ADD TO ENTER IT INDEPENDENTLY.
BY THE TIME THEY HAD ASKED FOR IT, ALL THE OTHER ELECTIONS WERE ALREADY GOING ON AND SO THEY HAD TO DO THEIR OWN ELECTION EFFECTIVELY.
THEY COULDN'T JUST SIGN ON TO THE EXISTING AGREEMENT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
>> CAN I GET A MOTION AND A SECOND AND THEN WE HAVE DISCUSSION WE'LL GO FOR IT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE RATIFICATION OF ELECTION SERVICES TO CALDWELL COUNTY AND GONZALES ISD, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION, QUESTIONS FOR CHASE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, CHASE.
[G.12 To approve a fee schedule for EMS ambulance services in the unincorporated portions of Caldwell County.]
I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO TABLE THIS ITEM IF YOU'RE WILLING.THIS IS TO APPROVE THE FEE SCHEDULES FOR THE EMS, AMBULANCE SERVICES, THEY'RE THE SAME FOR BOTH LOCKHART AND LOOMING.
WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS AND THOSE ARE ABOUT TO BE UPDATED AND NO DOUBT WILL GET MORE EXTENSIVE.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET A CURRENT COPY OF THE FEES.
WE WERE HOPEFUL THAT WE'LL HAVE IT BACK BY THE NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT, BUT FOR NOW WE'D LIKE TO TABLE UNTIL WE CAN GET THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE FEES TO APPROVE.
>> I'LL MOVE THAT WE TABLE ITEM G12.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM G12. DO WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G13, DISCUSSION AND ACTION TO
[G.13 To approve an Order authorizing the filing of a Final Plat (Short Form Procedure) for Chuckwagon Ranches located on Chuckwagon Road.]
APPROVE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF FINAL PLAT SHORT-FORM PROCEDURE, PROTECT WAGON RANCHES LOCATED ON CHUCK WAGON ROAD.>> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS JUST A SIMPLE FOR LOTS OF SHORT FORM PLAT.
ALL COMMENTS HAD BEEN ADDRESSED AND CLEARED.
AT THIS TIME WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL FOR THE SHORT FORM PLAT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G13.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE G13, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G14, DISCUSSION ACTION TO APPROVE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF
[G.14 To approve an Order authorizing the filing of a Final Plat (Short Form Procedure) for Johnson One Subdivision located at US Highway 183 and FM 1185.]
A FINAL PLAT SHORT FORM PROCEDURE FOR JOHNSON 1 SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT US HIGHWAY 183 AND FM 1185.>> SAME THING, THIS IS JUST A VERY SIMPLE TOOL LOT SUBDIVISION.
IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM 1185 RIGHT OFF FROM 183.
ALL COMMENTS HAD BEEN CLEARED AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR APPROVAL.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE G14?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
[00:25:02]
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G15, TO APPROVE AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE FILING
[G.15 To approve an Order authorizing the filing of a Final Plat (Short Form Procedure) for Johnson Two Subdivision located at US Highway 183 and FM 1185.]
A FINAL PLAT SHORT FORM PROCEDURE FOR JOHNSON 2 SUBDIVISION LOCATED A US HIGHWAY 183 AND 1185.>> THIS IS THE ADJOINING TRACK RIGHT NEXT TO JOHNSON 1.
ALL COMMENTS HAVE BEEN CLEARED AND LOOKING FOR APPROVAL.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G15.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES.
ITEM G16, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR [INAUDIBLE] DIVISION CONSISTING OF
[G.16 To approve the Preliminary Plat for Dale Subdivision consisting of 12 residential lots on approximately 23.885 acres located at Tumbleweed Trail and Witter Road.]
12 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 23.885 ACRES LOCATED AT TUMBLEWEED TRAIL AND [INAUDIBLE] ROAD.>> IF YOU'LL LOOK INTO YOUR BACKUP, YOU'LL SEE THAT THIS IS A VERY SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD PRELIMINARY PLAT.
THERE'S FRONTAGE ON BOTH SIDES OF TWO COUNTY ROADS.
THERE IS ONE 135TH FLAG IN THE PROPERTY.
ALL FEES ARE BEING COLLECTED, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN CLEARED AT THIS TIME AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL TO MOVE TO FINAL PLAT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G16?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, CASEY.
>> WE'RE GOING TO GO UP TO ITEM H1,
[H.1 To consider any remaining steps required to create Caldwell County Emergency Services District No. 5.]
WHICH IS DISCUSSION ONLY, TO CONSIDER REMAINING STEPS REQUIRED TO CREATE CALDWELL COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NUMBER 5, WHICH PASSED AND LOOKED AT THE RESULTS.I'M GOING TO BASICALLY APPROVE THEM, BUT IT PASSED IN EVERY SINGLE PRECINCT OF THE COUNTY.
THANK YOU TO PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR THAT, THIS CAN BE VERY HELPFUL.
>> AS FAR AS THE NEXT STEPS ON THIS PROCESS, FIRST, OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE LOCAL CANVAS, WHICH WILL HAPPEN HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.
IT'LL BE A SPECIAL MEETING BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE ELECTIONS CODES DEADLINES.
WE WON'T MAKE IT TO OUR NEXT ACTUAL REGULAR MEETINGS, SO THERE'LL BE A SPECIAL MEETING CALLED FOR THAT.
IF THE COURT WOULD LIKE, IT CAN COMBINE THAT MEETING WITH THE CREATION OF THE ELECTION SERVICES DISTRICT OR WE CAN DO THAT AT A LATER TIME, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF YOU GUYS WOULD DISCUSS AND THERE'S NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN, BUT JUST SO THAT I CAN PREPARE THE DOCUMENTS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT.
BUT FIRST, THE COURT WILL HAVE TO ACTUALLY CREATE THE DISTRICT, IT'S DONE BY ORDER.
THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE ACTUALLY HAS THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS TO BE DONE, SO I WOULD JUST TAKE THAT AND PUT IT ONTO PAPER.
THE THIRD THING THAT WILL NEED TO BE DONE WILL BE THAT THE COURT WILL HAVE TO APPOINT BOARD MEMBERS.
THEY'LL BE USE FOR STAGGERED TERMS FOR THIS INITIAL ROUND, AND THEN AFTER THAT THEY'LL JUST FOLLOW NORMAL APPOINTMENT TO TYPE STUFF.
BUT IF YOU'D ALSO PLEASE CONSIDER WHO YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND FOR APPOINTMENTS SO THE COURT CAN TAKE ACTION ON THAT.
THEN AS SOON AS THE DISTRICT IS CREATED AND THE DIRECTORS ARE APPOINTED, THEN IT WILL BECOME ITS OWN ENTITY AND IT HAS A LIFE OF ITS OWN.
>> COMMISSIONERS, I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL FULL OF QUESTIONS.
>> CHASE, COULD YOU PROVIDE TO US A OUTLINE OF THE COMMITMENTS AND DUTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE BOARD MEMBERS? WHAT ARE THE DUTIES THAT THEY WOULD BE TASKED WITH PERFORMING? THEN THE TIME COMMITMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE DUTIES JUST FROM A STANDPOINT OF MEETINGS, UNUSUAL MEETINGS, AND THEN SOMETHING ON LIABILITIES AND THE PROTECTIONS ASSOCIATED TO THOSE LIABILITIES.
>> I COULD SPEAK GENERALLY ABOUT IT BECAUSE TO SOME EXTENT, IT'S JUST A LITTLE BEYOND WHAT I CAN TALK ABOUT.
I CAN GO THROUGH THE STATUTE, THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SAY I WANT TO GET INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY DETAILS OF WHAT THEY CAN DO, WHAT THEY CAN'T DO, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ULTIMATELY THEIR ATTORNEY WILL TELL YOU THAT.
>> I THINK IT COULD BE FAIRLY GENERAL.
>> THERE'LL BE TASKED WITH ADMINISTERING THE FUNDS GENERATED THROUGH THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT OR THE PURPOSE OF X.
JUST SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT BE AS SPECIFIC AS YOU'RE ABLE TO BY READING THE STATUTE.
>> SURE. GENERALLY, AS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, IT'S OPENED BY TEXAS LAW.
THOSE POWERS AND DUTIES ARE GENERALLY CONTAINED WITHIN SECTION 775.036 AT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.
THOSE DUTIES INCLUDE HOLDING REGULAR MONTHLY MEETINGS AND ANY OTHER MEETINGS AS NECESSARY.
IT'S LIKE ANY OTHER BODY. THEY HAVE TO KEEP MINUTES AND RECORDS OF ITS ACTS AND ANY MEETINGS THAT IT HOLDS.
[00:30:01]
THEY HAVE TO GIVE REPORTS TO THE STATE FIRE MARSHAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH, AND OTHER FOLKS THAT THEY HAD TO GIVE REPORTS TO.THIS COURT CAN REQUEST FOR THEM THAT THEY PROVIDE INFORMATION REGARDING THE ESD BUDGET WHICH THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE TO THE COURT.
THERE ARE SOME TECHNICAL THINGS TO THAT, BUT JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF A GENERAL DISCUSSION, MOVE ON.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO ADMINISTRATE THE DISTRICT AS THEY SEE FIT.
AS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, THEY HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AS ANY OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION EXCEPT FOR THE ONES THEY DON'T.
THEY CAN CONTRACT INTERLOCALLY WITH OTHER GOVERNMENTS.
THEY CAN ISSUE DEBT AND BONDS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY THEIR OWN LITTLE MINI GOVERNMENT AND ALL OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF GOVERNMENT.
AS FAR AS LIABILITIES GO, THEY ARE PROTECTED BY THE SAME THING THAT OTHER GOVERNMENTS ARE, WHICH IS CALLED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
IT'S THE IDEA THAT A GOVERNMENT ACTS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE IMMUNE FROM ANY TYPES OF SUITS.
OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT ALWAYS 100% ALL THE TIME.
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS TO THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST FOR THE DEGENERATE DISCUSSION.
>> CAN YOU ROUGHLY RESTATE WHAT YOU JUST SAID IN AN EMAIL OR WHITE PAPER OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES?
>> WHEN THE COMMISSIONERS AND I ARE TALKING TO PEOPLE AND THEY ASK WHAT I HAVE TO DO. WE CAN SAY THIS? [LAUGHTER]
I THOUGHT THE QUESTION WAS BEING ASKED FOR THE MEETING AS OPPOSED TO PASSING IT OUT.
>> TIME COMMITMENT QUESTION IS LITERALLY THE FIRST QUESTION I GET IN TRYING TO FIND A POTENTIAL AT POINT D.
>> YES. THEY ARE FORTUNATELY ONLINE OR THERE ARE MANY OTHER RESOURCES I CAN PROVIDE LINKS TO, FOR THEM TO READ AT THEIR LEISURE.
>> ANYTHING YOU CAN PULL TOGETHER.
>> THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU, COMMISSIONER.
>> ANYTHING YOU CAN PULL TOGETHER WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
>> OF COURSE. SORRY. LIKE I SAID, I MISUNDERSTOOD.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING ME RIGHT NOW AS OPPOSED TO DOING THE PAPER.
>> NO. IT SEEMS HE CAN GET US THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE TOSSING THEIR HAT IN THE RING TENTATIVELY.
THEY WANT TO BE CONSIDERED BUT THEY'RE NOT SURE WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, SO THAT WILL HELP A LOT. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.
>> EXPLAIN TO ME STAGGERED TERMS.
>> GENERALLY EVERY COMMISSIONER WILL HAVE A TERM OF TWO YEARS.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST STARTING OUT AND THE IDEA IS THAT YOU STAGGER ELECTIONS SO THAT YOU DON'T GET A WHOLE NEW BOARD WHO HAS NO IDEA WHAT WHAT'S GOING ON.
THERE'S SOME CONTINUITY. SOME COMMISSIONERS WILL HAVE A TWO-YEAR TERM, SOME WILL ONLY HAVE A ONE YEAR TERM AND THEN SUBJECT TO REAPPOINTMENT, WILL THEN HAVE THEIR FULL TWO-YEAR TERM.
IT JUST STAGGERS SO THAT NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING AT THE SAME TIME.
>> IT'S STAGGERED. SIMILARLY, THE WAY THAT OUR ELECTION SCHEDULE A STAGGERED FOR THE COURT. CHASE, JUST ONE QUESTION.
IT'S PROBABLY FOR JUDGE HADEN AS WELL.
YOU MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY POTENTIALLY CREATING THE DISTRICT IN THE SAME MEETING AS I'M ASSUMING THE VOTE CANVASS.
IS THERE ANY DOWNSIDE TO THAT? IS THAT THE PREFERRED METHOD OR DO WE WANT TO WAIT? SINCE YOU SAID THAT, I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE IF THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT TO SEE IF THAT WAS THE GOAL OR IF THAT TIMELINE WOULD BE PUSHED BACK.
>> UP FOR MY PART, I'D RATHER PUSH IT A LITTLE.
HERE'S WHY. WHEN YOU WANT US ALL TO HAVE TIME TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER WHO WE APPOINT.
THERE'S NO REAL REST TO DO THIS BECAUSE UNTIL THEY START GATHERING TAXES, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO REALLY DO ANYTHING.
THEY WON'T HAVE ANY MONEY. WE'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH THAT WE'RE ON RIGHT NOW WITH LOCKHART AND LULING.
WE'RE PROVIDING ANNUAL SERVICE.
I PREFER TO AT LEAST WAIT UNTIL OUR NEXT SCHEDULED OR IF NOT, EVEN TO THE FIRST COURT IN DECEMBER TO GIVE YOU GUYS TIME TO TALK TO PEOPLE, TO MAKE THOSE THAT ARE INTERESTED UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THEIR DUTIES ARE.
SO THAT WE DON'T GIVE THEM A SITUATION WHERE WE APPOINT SOMEBODY AND THEN THEY FIND OUT THAT THEY HAVE TO BE BONDED AND COULD BE SUBJECT TO A LAWSUIT JUST LIKE WE ALL ARE, BUT YOUR BOND WILL COVER IT.
I'VE HAD A LOT OF INDIVIDUALS APPROACH ME ABOUT THIS AND BECAUSE IN MY OPINION IS PROVIDING A VERY CRITICAL SERVICE, I WOULD LIKE TO BE PRUDENT ON THE APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATION THAT I MADE TO THE REST OF THE COURT.
THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.
>> I MIGHT RECOMMEND IT AT THE EARLIEST OF THE FIRST COMMISSIONERS COURT IN DECEMBER.
[00:35:02]
I'M NOT SURE THE DAY IT WOULD BE.>> I SEE NO REQUIREMENT THAT IT HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY.
IT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD THING TO DO IT SOONER THAN LATER.
YOU DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY WAIT TWO YEARS TO DO.
>> NO WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
>> THE ELECTION DATE WAS JUST AN IDEA.
THIS IS THE EARLIEST YOU COULD DO IT BECAUSE THE ELECTION HAS TO BE CANVASSED AND THEREFORE, FINAL.
>> YEAH, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE IT FOR DOING THAT.
THE 20TH, THAT'S THE LAST DAY.
I SENT DEVANTE AN EMAIL ASKING HIM THE LAST DAY OF THE CANVAS.
>> THAT'S GOING BE ON THE 20TH, SO WE'LL HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING.
GIVE DEVANTE PLENTY OF TIME TO GET READY FOR THAT.
DECEMBER THE 12TH, WOULD BE PROBABLY A GOOD TARGET DATE FOR US TO HAVE OUR APPOINTMENTS READY AND THEN CREATE THE DISTRICT.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TIMELINE AND AN UNKNOWN DATE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING, APPOINTMENT BROUGHT TO COURT BY A CERTAIN DATE.
>> WHEN I DROPPED THE PAPERWORK FOR THAT MEETING, IF YOU COULD JUST SEND ME WHO YOU INTEND TO NOMINATE, THEN WE CAN DO ANOTHER LITTLE VOTE RESOLUTION AND FINALIZE WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE.
JUST LIKE I SAID, THIS WAY, I CAN HAVE IT ALL PREPARED AND WE DON'T HAVE TO SCROUNGE AROUND AND THEN DRAFT SOMETHING.
>> THAT'S FAIR. COMMISSIONER, YOU ALL HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CHASE?
>> I HAVE NOT AT THIS TIME, THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE I HAD.
>> GOOD. WELL WE'RE GOOD, THAT WAS THE QUESTION ONLY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:37.
[I. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WE'RE GOING TO ENTER TWO OF THEM.EXECUTIVE SESSION I1, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071.
CONSULTATION WITH COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT OFFERS RESULTING FROM A REVISED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE.
ITEM I2, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.87, DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROJECT MURAL, PROJECT BLUE STAR, PROJECT UPFRONT, AND PROJECT DEMETER.
WERE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 9:37.
IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:09, I WANT PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT OFFERS RESULTING FROM REVISED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE FEE SCHEDULE.
ITEM I2, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.87, DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT MURAL, PROJECT BLUE STAR, PROJECT UPFRONT, AND PROJECT DEMETER, AND NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN.
WE WILL GO AHEAD AND GO TO ITEM GERMAN.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COMMISSIONER, THOMAS.
>> PROPOSED HERE. MOTION CARRIES.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.