>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYBODY. WE'RE GOING TO CALL [00:00:03] THE MEETING OF CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ORDER. [A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER] IT'S TUESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2025 AT 9:00 AM. IS PASTOR FRITZ WILLIAMS HERE YET? >> NO. >> NO? OKAY. PASTOR JODI, WOULD YOU MIND COMING UP DOING THE INVOCATION THEN? >> LET'S PRAY TOGETHER. HEAVENLY FATHER, AS WE GATHER FOR THIS MEETING, UNITE OUR HEARTS AND MINDS IN COMMON PURPOSE. GRANT US THE WISDOM TO WORK TOGETHER EFFECTIVELY AND THE HUMILITY TO VALUE EACH PERSON'S PERSPECTIVE. GUIDE OUR DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS THAT THEY MAY HONOR YOU AND SERVE OUR SHARED GOALS. IN JESUS' NAME, WE PRAY. AMEN. >> AMEN. >> >> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANNOUNCEMENTS THIS MORNING? [D. ANNOUNCEMENTS] >> JUST A COUPLE OF JUDGE, AND I KNOW I'LL PROBABLY STEAL EVERYBODY'S THUNDER. I JUST WANT TO WISH ALL OF OUR KIDDOS IN THE COUNTY A GOOD START TO THE SCHOOL YEAR. HOPE Y'ALL HAVE A YEAR THAT'S WORTH ENJOYING AND A YEAR THAT LEADS TO A LOT OF GROWTH FOR A LOT OF KIDDOS HERE. I JUST ALSO WANT TO REMIND ALL THE MOTORISTS TO PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS AND RESPECTFUL OF ALL THE SCHOOL ZONES BECAUSE I'M SURE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS ACROSS THE COUNTY WILL BE OUT KEEPING AN EYE ON EVERYBODY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU. >> NONE FOR ME, JUDGE. >> COMMISSIONER THERIOT. >> NONE FOR ME, JUDGE. >> COMMISSIONER THOMAS? >> NONE AT THIS TIME. >> NONE FOR ME. STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS. >> HI, GUYS. I JUST WANT TO FINALLY CONGRATULATE EVERYBODY THAT HAS COMPLETED THEIR CYBERSECURITY. WE'RE AT 100% COMPLIANCE. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, AND LOOK FORWARD TO DOING IT AGAIN NEXT YEAR. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS? IF NOT, WE'LL GO TO CITIZENS COMMENTS. [E. CITIZENS' COMMENTS] >> DONNA VOTI. >> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. >> MS. VOTI, I'M SORRY I FORGOT A LITTLE PIECE OF HOUSEKEEPING. JUST TO STATE YOUR NAME, WHERE YOU'RE FROM, AND YOU HAVE FOUR MINUTES. >> YES, SIR. MY NAME IS DONNA VOTI. I AM IN LOCKHART AT 517 EAST LIVE OAK. I DONNA VOTI, HEREBY COUNTERCLAIM AGENDA ITEM G8 TO DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO MUA ALLOWING INSTALLATION OF LICENSE PLATE READER CAMERAS WITHIN THE HIGHWAY RIGHT OF WAY. I ALSO COUNTER CLAIM THE FOLLOWING; RESOLUTION 25-2024, WHEREAS THE COUNTY HAS ENTERED INTO THAT CERTAIN ORDER DATED MAY 31, 2024 WITH FLOCK GROUP INCORPORATED FOR THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH REGARDS TO AUTOMATED LICENSE PLATE READER CAMERAS, WHICH ASSIST COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN VIEW IN LAW ENFORCEMENT DATA ACQUISITION, AND MANAGEMENT, THE FLOCK SYSTEM. THESE COUNTERCLAIMS ARE BASED ON THE ORGANIC LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE STATE OF TEXAS. THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, AMENDMENT 4 REQUIRES THAT ALL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ARE REASONABLE. THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1 BILL OF RIGHTS SECTION 9, AGREES WITH THIS FEDERAL PROTECTION AGAINST INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT ACTION. THE PEOPLE SHALL BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PAPERS, AND POSSESSIONS FROM ALL UNREASONABLE SEIZURES AND SEARCHES, AND NO WARRANT TO SEARCH ANY PLACE OR TO SEIZE ANY PERSON OR THING SHALL ISSUE WITHOUT DESCRIBING THEM AS NEAR AS MAY BE OR WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE SUPPORTED BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION. ALL ELECTED AND OATH-BOUND PERSONS, THAT'S ALL YOU, WHO HAVE ENTERED INTO THESE AGREEMENTS ARE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR OATHS AND COMMIT PERJURY AGAINST SAYING COLLECTION OF DATA WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE IS CALLED SPYING. A GOVERNMENT THAT SPIES UPON ITS PEOPLE IS "REDUCING THEM UNDER ABSOLUTE DESPOTISM" AND IS "DESTRUCTIVE TO THE ENDS OF LIFE, [00:05:01] LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS". ELECTED PERSONS CANNOT CANCEL OUT UNALIENABLE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE WITH A FIAT AGREEMENT IN THE NAME OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. FOR IN DOING SO, THEY HAVE BROKEN THE LAW THEMSELVES. THIS IS CALLED A BILL OF ATTAINDER, PRESUME GUILT WITHOUT TRIAL FOR EVERY DRIVER WHO ENCOUNTERS THE SPYING EYE OF THE CAMERAS. NOW, I DON'T LIKE THE CARTELS ANY MORE THAN YOU DO. I KNOW THAT THESE CAMERAS ARE MOSTLY IN DALE AND THEY'RE PROBABLY BEING SET UP TO BUST THE DRUG PEOPLE, THE CARTELS, BUT I LOVE LIBERTY MORE. YOU CAN'T HAVE LIBERTY WHEN YOU HAVE SPYING, WHEN YOU HAVE THINGS LIKE THIS GOING ON. YOU JUST CAN'T. I HAVE MADE COPIES. I AM MAKING A COUNTERCLAIM AND SERVING YOU WITH THIS INFORMATION, WHICH WILL BE RECORDED AT THE COUNTY OFFICE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANDREW MCCLISH. >> GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ANDREW MCCLISH. I LIVE IN PRAIRIE LEA. I WANT TO THANK THOSE WHO SPOKEN IN SUPPORT OF KEEPING THE ALWAYS STOP SIGNS AT THE LAST MEETING. I HEARD ONE MENTION THAT THEY MAKE THE STREETS FEEL SAFER AND ANOTHER SHARE HOW IT AFFECTS HER TEENAGE SON LEARNING TO DRIVE. THESE ARE HEARTFELT AND VALID CONCERNS, AND I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THEY ARE THE SAME CONCERNS WE HAVE ON THIS ISSUE. WE ALL WANT THE SAME THING. SAFETY. WE ALL WANT TO REDUCE THE RISK OF CRASHES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. THE DIFFERENCE LIES IN HOW WE GET THERE. SUPPORTERS OF THE ALWAYS STOP SIGNS ARE RELYING ON INTUITION ON HOW IT FEELS BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE STOP SIGNS SLOW DOWN TRAFFIC, AND SLOWER TRAFFIC MEANS FEWER CRASHES. TO THEM, IT SEEMS LIKE COMMON SENSE. BUT TO THOSE ASKING FOR THE SIGNS TO BE REMOVED, LIKE ME, ARE BASING THEIR POSITION ON THE SCIENCE OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING. WE'RE CITING THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT SHOWS THESE INTERSECTIONS DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA OR THE WARRANTS FOR ALWAYS STOPS. THIS BRINGS ME TO WHAT TRAFFIC ENGINEERS CALL THE POLITICAL WARRANT OR THE POLITICAL ALWAYS STOP. THAT'S WHEN STOP SIGNS GET INSTALLED, NOT BECAUSE THEY MEET ENGINEERING STANDARDS, BUT BECAUSE OF POLITICAL PRESSURE FROM CITIZENS OR LOCAL OFFICIALS. FOUR-WAY STOPS AND STOP SIGNS IN GENERAL SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLED AS A SPEED CONTROL DEVICE. THIS IS A LONG ESTABLISHED TRAFFIC ENGINEERING PRINCIPLE, YET THEY ARE INSTALLED FOR JUST THIS REASON. THIS IS LARGELY DUE TO A MISCONCEPTION BY THE AVERAGE COMMUNITY RESIDENT. THE TYPICAL CITIZEN OR THE ONES REQUESTING SIGNS SEEM TO BELIEVE THAT INSTALLING A STOP SIGN WILL REDUCE THE SPEED ON THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS. IT'S CRUCIAL TO RELY ON DATA AND ENGINEERING STUDIES WHEN MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES. THIS ENSURES THAT THEY ARE EFFECTIVE AND DO NOT CREATE MORE PROBLEMS. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ENGINEERS TO CONVINCE THESE PEOPLE THAT STOP SIGNS SHOULD NOT BE INSTALLED FOR SPEED CONTROL. WHEN STOP SIGN REQUESTS ARE DENIED, PEOPLE GO TO THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS, THAT PRESSURE CAN LEAD TO DECISIONS THAT ARE MORE ABOUT PUBLIC PERCEPTION AND LESS ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY. THIS IS WHERE WE ARE WITH THE PRAIRIE LEA POLITICAL ALWAYS STOPS. MANY CITIES HAVE RESPONDED TO THE POLITICAL PRESSURE WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION, VIDEOS, BROCHURES, CAMPAIGNS TO EXPLAIN THE RULES AND SCIENCE BEHIND THE WARRANTY OF STOP SIGNS. SOME HAVE EVEN PASSED LOCAL ORDINANCES REQUIRING THAT STOP SIGN DECISIONS FOLLOW THE MUTCD, WHICH IS ALREADY A STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARD. THIS HELPS TAKES THE POLITICS OUT OF TRAFFIC CONTROL AND PUTS THE DECISION BACK IN THE HANDS OF EXPERTS. EVERY COURT MEETING SEEMS TO BRING ANOTHER SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH MANY NEW ROADS AND INTERSECTIONS. WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE FOR THIS COURT TO BE READY AND CONSISTENT IN HOW WE HANDLE FUTURE REQUESTS? I HAVE HERE FOR YOU BULLETINS THAT A CITY USES TO INFORM ITS CITIZENS ABOUT THE PROPER USE OF STOP SIGNS, AND I'LL BE HANDING THEM OUT TO YOU. LET'S FIX THE SITUATION IN PRAIRIE LEA. [00:10:03] LET'S LEARN FROM IT FOR THE SAKE OF SAFETY. LET'S QUIT DEFENDING A MISUNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, ANDREW. >> THERE ARE NO OTHER CITIZEN COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, [F. CONSENT AGENDA] WE WILL GO TO CONSENT. COMMISSIONERS, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ABOUT CONSENT, I'D LOOK FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOVE TO APPROVE, JUDGE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G1, DISCUSSION ACTION ITEMS. [G.1 To discuss and take possible action regarding the approval of the Minutes for the July 22, 2025, regular meeting and budget workshop. Speaker: Judge Haden/Teresa Rodriguez; Backup: 16; Cost: $0.00] DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE JULY 22, 2025 REGULAR MEETING AND BUDGET WORKSHOP. COMMISSIONERS. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G2, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING FINAL PLAT [G.2 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Final Plat for Mineral Springs Vinklarek Subdivision consisting of 18 lots on approximately 166.184 acres located at Mineral Springs Road. Speaker: Commissioner Horne/Kasi Miles; Backup: 4; Cost: $0.00] FOR MINERAL SPRINGS. HOW DO YOU SAY THAT? >> VINCLAIRE. >> VINCLAIRE SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 18 LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 166.184 ACRES LOCATED ON MINERAL SPRINGS ROAD? >> I'M SORRY. THE NAME WAS CHANGED RIGHT AT THE END BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAD A MINERAL SPRINGS SUBDIVISION. THIS WAS ACTUALLY BROUGHT BEFORE COURT JULY 21 JUST LAST MONTH FOR APPROVAL, WHICH THE COURT DID APPROVE AND EVERYTHING. A COUPLE OF SMALL CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PLAT SO I'M BRINGING IT BEFORE THE COURT FOR ANOTHER FINAL APPROVAL SO THEY COULD ACTUALLY RECORD THE PLAT. >> COMMISSIONERS. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE. GO AHEAD. >> NO. GO AHEAD. >> WHAT'S THE CHANGES? >> LET ME SEE. COME ON UP, CALEB. >> LET'S HEAR IT AND MAY NOT WANT TO. >> HOWDY Y'ALL. BASICALLY, WE HAD TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF A PORTION OF THE REMAINDER. WE HAVE BEEN GRANTED AN EXEMPTION BY THE COUNTY FOR SOME 10.1 PLUS ACRE LOTS PREVIOUSLY. THE WAY WE HAD IT WORDED ON THE FINAL PLOT THEY GOT APPROVED ON THE 21ST, IT WOULD HAVE FORCED US TO REPLAT EVERY TIME WE SOLD OFF A 10 ACRE LOT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN EXEMPT. KLINEFELTER AND THE ENGINEERS RECOMMENDED WE CHANGED IT SLIGHTLY. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT WE CHANGED IT TO SAY. IT WAS LIKE A FUTURE PHASE IS WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED US TO SAY. THAT WILL ALLOW US TO KEEP SELLING THOSE WITH THE EXEMPTION RATHER THAN REPLATTING A 10 ACRE LOT EVERY TIME WE SELL ONE. >> THANK YOU. STILL MOVE APPROVAL? >> MOVE TO APPROVAL. >> COMMISSIONER HORNE MOVES APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G3, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING [G.3 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Right-of-Way License Agreement to allow Centex Drainage District to construct an entrance monument and flag poles in County right-of-way on Lytton Lane for the Luna Rosa Subdivision. Speaker: Judge Haden/Commissioner Thomas/Donald Leclerc; Backup: 6; Cost: $0.00] RIGHT AWAY LICENSE AGREEMENT TO ALLOW SYNTAX DRAINAGE DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT AN ENTRANCE MONUMENT AND FLAGPOLES IN COUNTY RIGHT AWAY ON LITTON LANE FOR THE LUNA ROSA SUBDIVISION. >> JUDGE. >> YES. >> JUDGE, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE COURT TO TABLE THIS AT THIS TIME. I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS MONUMENT. I KNOW ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY. I TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY. NOBODY HAS CAME FORWARD AND SAID ANYTHING TO ME, SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE PARTIES THAT'D BE ABOUT THIS. I ASKED THAT IT BE TABLED AT THIS TIME. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE G3 BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G4. [G.4 To discuss and take possible action regarding Order 09-2025 creating a School Zone on Borchert Loop in the vicinity of Borchert Loop Elementary. Speaker: Judge Haden/Commissioner Westmoreland; Backup: 1; Cost: $0.00] DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ORDER 09-2025, CREATING A SCHOOL ZONE ON BORCHERT LOOP IN THE VICINITY OF BORCHERT LOOP ELEMENTARY. COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. >> I HAD A FEELING YOU'D DEFER. >> BY READING THE ORDER? >> YEAH. YOU'LL LET ME READ THE ORDER. >> SURE. >> THAT'S GREAT. ORDER 09-2025, ORDER OF THE CALDWELL COUNT COMMISSIONERS COURT, ESTABLISHING A SCHOOL ZONE AND MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT FOR BORCHERT LOOP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WHEREAS THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS DESIRES TO PROMOTE PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE COUNTY, [00:15:03] AND WHEREAS SECTION 251.151 OF THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION CODE PROVIDES THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF A COUNTY BY ORDER THEY REGULATE TRAFFIC ON COUNTY ROADS, AND WHEREAS THE RECENTLY COMPLETED BORCHERT LOOP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WILL BEGIN ITS FIRST CLASSES ON AUGUST 13TH, 2025, AND WHEREAS BORCHET LOOP IS A COUNTY ROAD, AND WHEREAS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS DESIRE TO ESTABLISH A SCHOOL ZONE, "THE SCHOOL ZONE ON A PORTION OF BORCHERT LOOP FOR THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF THE STUDENTS, FACULTY, AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TRAVELING ON BORCHERT LOOP IN AND AROUND BORCHERT LOOP ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WHILE SCHOOL IS IN SESSION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT ONE, THE COMMISSIONER FOR PRECINCT 1 B J WESTMORELAND, THE PRECINCT 1 COMMISSIONER IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY ENGINEER TO DETERMINE AND SET A, THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SCHOOL ZONE, B, THE MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT IN THE SCHOOL ZONE, AND C, THE TIMES OF APPLICABILITY OF SUCH SPEED LIMIT FOR THE SCHOOL ZONE. TWO, ONCE THE FOREGOING ITEMS ARE DETERMINED, THE PRECINCT 1 COMMISSIONER SHALL DIRECT THE UNIT ROAD ADMINISTRATOR FOR CALDWELL COUNTY TO IMMEDIATELY INSTALL ALL NECESSARY SIGNAGE IDENTIFYING THE SCHOOL ZONE AS SUCH, STATING THE MAXIMUM SPEED LIMIT THEREIN AND THE TIMES OF APPLICABILITY OF SUCH SPEED LIMIT IN THE LOCATION DETERMINED BY THE PRECINCT 1 COMMISSIONER AND THE COUNTY ENGINEER, PROCLAIM THIS 12TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025. TO ALLOW FOR DISCUSSION, I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ORDER 09-2025. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. >> ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE THING, COMMISSIONER. WE SET THIS UP THIS WAY BECAUSE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE SINCE SCHOOL STARTS TOMORROW SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND HAD TO GO AND ESTABLISH THE PARAMETERS OF THE SCHOOL ZONE AND THEN COME BACK. WE WANT TO GET THIS ZONE SET UP AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND THAT'S WHY WE GET IT THIS WAY. >> WE HAD A PRE MEETING LAST FRIDAY WITH DONALD, AS WELL AS THE ENGINEERING FIRM FROM KLEINFELDER, TO DO AN ON SITE ASSESSMENT OF THE SCHOOL ZONE HAS TO BE KIND OF TAILORED TO WHAT THE ONSITE ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION IS IN ACOMPANS WITH THE EXISTING SPEED THAT'S POSTED ON BOCHERT LOOP, WHICH IS 35 MILES AN HOUR, ALONG WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTED JUNIPER SPRINGS ROAD THAT INTERSECTS IT AT THE SCHOOL. THEY HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT THEY NEEDED FROM ON THE GROUND SURVEY, SO TO SPEAK, AND ONCE THEY HAVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION BACK TO ME, WE WILL WORK WITH DONALD TO GET THE APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE AND POSTING IN PLACE. >> PERFECT. THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION IN SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G5 DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION [G.5 To discuss and take possible action regarding the Interlocal Agreement for the 2025-2026 Constable Security Program with Lockhart ISD. Speaker: Commissioner Westmoreland; Backup: 8; Cost: TBD] REGARDING THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE 2025, 2026 CONSTABLE SECURITY PROGRAM WITH LOCKHART ISD. COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE. ANOTHER SCHOOL RELATED ITEM FOR US TO CONSIDER TODAY. IN ADDITION TO BORCHERT LOOP ELEMENTARY BEING OPENED THIS CALENDAR YEAR FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THAT NECESSITATED SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR INTERCAL AGREEMENT WITH LOCKHART ISD TO OFFICIALLY ADD THAT SCHOOL INTO THE LIST OF COVERED ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS UNDER THE CONSTABLE PROGRAM. AFTER SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AS WELL AS CONSTABLE VILL REAL'S OFFICE. THERE WAS ALSO A DESIRE TO ADDRESS SOME OTHER CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE IN THE DOCUMENT. THE WHOLESALE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING COVERED ARE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS AGREED TO INCREASE THE COMPENSATION TO $27 AN HOUR FOR THE CONSTABLE DEPUTIES THAT WORK IN THE PROGRAM. THIS AGREEMENT ALSO OUTLINES A FULL TIME POSITION THAT IS FULLY REIMBURSED BY LISD TO CALDWELL COUNTY FOR A POSITION TO BE POSTED AT THE LOCKHART JUNIOR HIGH CAMPUS. THAT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE DISTRICT TO ASSIST THEM WITH COVERAGE JUST TO AUGMENT LOCKHART PD'S COVERAGE AT THE HIGH SCHOOL AT THIS POINT. IT'S ALSO THAT ADDITION. THE OTHER ADDITION THAT WAS ADDED AS FAR AS THE CAMPUS IS IN ADDITION TO BARCHERT LOOP, IT DOES STATE THAT THE CONSTABLES CAN COVER THE HIGH SCHOOL AS REQUESTED BY THE DISTRICT. IT'S NOT COVERED AUTOMATICALLY, BUT IF THERE BECOMES A SITUATION WHERE THAT IS NEEDED AS WELL, AT LEAST THE DOCUMENT ALLOWS FOR THAT REIMBURSEMENT AS SUCH. WITH THAT, I WILL ASK CONSTABLE BILL AL IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD. BUT I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW THAT THAT'S THE CHANGES THAT ARE IN IT. [00:20:03] >> MORNING, EVERYONE. JUST ADD TO WHAT COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND SAID, THAT FOR BORCHERT LOOP, WE ARE READY FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL BETWEEN PRECINCT 1 AND PRECINCT 4 DEPUTIES, WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING TRAFFIC CONTROL SO MAKE SURE THE KIDS WILL BE SAFE GOING INTO THE SCHOOL. THAT'S INCLUDING ALL THE SCHOOLS. WE'LL BE DOING TRAFFIC THE FIRST DAY AND ALSO THROUGH THE FIRST WEEK AND SEE HOW IT CONTROLS. IF IT CONTROLS BETTER BY ITSELF, WE'LL LET IT GO. THE JUNIOR HIGH, STILL TAKING APPLICATIONS FOR THAT FULL TIME POSITION, AND ONCE WE DECIDE WHO WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN THERE, WE'LL HAVE THAT SET FOR ALL. BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT IF I CAN GO BACK TO THE G4. IS THAT POSSIBLE BOUT THE SPEED LIMIT? >> TO DISCUSS IT, BUT WE'VE ALREADY VOTED. >> YEAH I'M NOT CHANGING ANYTHING. JUST LET YOU KNOW. I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG THE SIGN SPEED LIMIT SIGNS WILL BE UP, BUT WE WILL HAVE SOMEBODY OUT THERE BETWEEN PRECINCT 1 AND PRECINCT 4 TO MAKE SURE NOBODY'S GOING OVER THE SPEED LIMIT POSTED RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU, GOSPEL. WITH THAT, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM G5. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G5 BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G6. [G.6 To discuss and take possible action regarding Resolution 23-2025 opposing the prohibition of taxpayer funded lobbying by county government. Speaker: Judge Haden; Backup: 1; Cost: $0.00] DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION 23 2025, OPPOSING THE PROHIBITION OF TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING BY COUNTY GOVERNMENT. I'LL GO AHEAD AND READ THIS. IT ORDERED 09225 ORDER OF CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISIONER COURT. THAT'S THE WRONG 123 2025. RESOLUTION BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF CALDWELL COUNTY, TEXAS, THE COUNTY OPPOSING THE PROHIBITION OF TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING BY COUNTY GOVERNMENT, WHEREAS PROPOSED LEGISLATION SEEKS TO PROHIBIT COUNTIES FROM USING TAXPAYER FUNDS TO JOIN AND SUPPORT NONPROFIT COUNTY ORGANIZATIONS THAT PROVIDE COLLECTIVE COMMUNICATION TO STATE LEGISLATURES, AND WHEREAS SUCH A PROHIBITION WOULD SEVERELY LIMIT THE ABILITY OF COUNTIES, ESPECIALLY RURAL COUNTIES TO EFFECTIVELY CONVERSE, EDUCATE, AND INFORM LEGISLATURES IN AUSTIN ABOUT THE UNIQUE NEEDS AND CHALLENGES FACED BY LOCAL COMMUNITIES, AND WHEREAS NONPROFIT COUNTY ASSOCIATIONS PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN HELPING COUNTIES FORM A UNIFIED VOICE ON ISSUES IMPORTANT TO THEIR RESIDENTS, ENSURING THAT LEGISLATORS RECEIVE ACCURATE AND COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION. WHEREAS SMALLER COUNTIES, IN PARTICULAR, RELY ON THE ABILITY TO POOL RESOURCES THROUGH THESE ASSOCIATIONS TO MONITOR THOUSANDS OF BILLS FILED EACH LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND ADVOCATE FOR THEIR INTERESTS. WHEREAS PROHIBITING TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING WOULD PLACE COUNTIES AT A DISADVANTAGE IN SECURING STATE AND FEDERAL PROJECTS, ADDRESSING UNFUNDED MANDATES AND PROTECTING LOCAL TAXPAYERS FROM INCREASED FINANCIAL BURDENS, AND WHEREAS OPEN AND ROBUST COMMUNICATION BETWEEN COUNTIES AND LEGISLATURES IS ESSENTIAL TO MAINTAINING A BALANCED AND FAIR LEGISLATIVE PROCESS THAT REPRESENTS THE INTERESTS OF ALL TEXANS. WHEREAS DENYING COUNTIES THE ABILITY TO JOIN FORCES AND SHARE COSTS FOR LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY WOULD SILENCE THE VOICES OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT DOMINATED BY CORPORATE AND SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBYING. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, THAT THE CALDWELL COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT DOES HEREBY EXPRESS THEIR OPPOSITION TO ANY LEGISLATION THAT SEEKS TO PROHIBIT TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING, AND ITS ATTEMPT TO RESTRICT COUNTIES FROM EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATING WITH STATE LEGISLATORS AND JOINING WITH OTHER COUNTIES FOR THIS PURPOSE. I THINK THAT SAYS THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS. OUR ASSOCIATION IS THE ONLY WAY THAT SOME OF THE SMALLER WEST TEXAS COUNTIES HAVE TO APPROACH THE LEGISLATURE AND ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF COUNTIES. THIS BILL WOULD MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR US TO HAVE REPRESENTATION BY OUR ASSOCIATION GO IN AND ADVOCATE ON OUR BEHALF. WE WOULD HAVE NO VOICE. THIS BILL PASSES. THIS ISN'T ADVOCATING FOR JUST GOING OUT AND HIRING A REGULAR LOBBYIST OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THIS SIMPLY TALKS ABOUT THE ASSOCIATIONS DOING IT. I CHALLENGED A LEGISLATOR RECENTLY. I SAID, LET'S DON'T TALK ABOUT ALL THE BILLS. LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE BILLS THAT YOU FILED. I SAID, IF YOU CAN NAME ME ONE BILL [00:25:01] OUT OF THE 26 BILLS THAT YOU FILED THAT WASN'T TOUCHED BY A LOBBYIST, I'LL BE QUIET RIGHT NOW, AND HE COULD NOT DO IT. TACH HAD BEEN IN HIS OFFICE, CORPORATIONS HAD BEEN IN HIS OFFICE, ALL WITH LOBBYISTS. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY, AT LEAST YOUR ASSOCIATION TO WALK INTO A LEGISLATURE'S OFFICE AND THEY WILL SAY, WELL, YOU CAN TALK TO ME. I'M YOUR REPRESENTATIVE. WELL, IF YOU'RE A REPRESENTATIVE OF ANOTHER DISTRICT THAT'S NOT IN OUR COUNTY, AND I'M FROM AMARILLO. I'M SUPPOSED TO DRIVE DOWN HERE AND SIT IN THE CAPITAL FOR THREE WEEKS OR SO. WAITING FOR THEIR FINALLY TO BE A COMMITTING HEARING, WHICH MIGHT BE ANNOUNCED AT 8:00 A.M. THAT MORNING TO HAPPEN AT 9:00 A.M. GO IN THERE AND TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF MY COUNTY. THAT'S THE POSITION THAT WOULD PUT WEST TEXAS COUNTIES IN PARTICULAR IN. THE COUNTY JUDGE GOT TO LEAVE FOR TWO WEEKS, STAY IN A HOTEL, EAT MEALS, ALL THE THINGS THAT TAXPAYERS EXPENSE ANYWAY, SO THAT HE CAN SIT THERE OR SHE CAN SIT THERE FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS WHILE THIS BILL IS WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS. IT JUST PUTS COUNTIES AT A TERRIBLE DISADVANTAGE. THAT'S MY OPINION. I'LL GET OFF THE SOAPBOX ON IT, BUT IT'S BEFORE YOU FOR A VOTE COMMISSIONERS. >> GO AHEAD. I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL ON RESOLUTION 23-2025. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> YOU HAVE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G7. [G.7 To discuss and take possible action regarding selling a portion of Caldwell County land between the jail and Scott Annex to ESD #5. Speaker: Judge Haden; Backup: 3; Cost: $0.00] DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SELLING A PORTION OF CALDWELL COUNTY LAND BETWEEN THE JAIL AND SCOTT ANNE ESD 5. COMMISSIONERS, I'VE BEEN APPROACHED. WE HAVE A CHUNK OF LAND IN THERE THAT WE OWN ESD 5 WOULD LIKE TO POSSIBLY PURCHASE SOME OF THAT LAND AND PUT A AMBULANCE THERE AND A AMBULANCE HOUSE THERE ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. I TOLD THEM I HAD TO COME TO YOU GUYS GET PERMISSION TO NEGOTIATE AND DISCUSS THAT BEFORE, YOU KNOW, WE COULD EVEN MOVE ANY FURTHER. THIS IS JUST REALLY GIVING ME PERMISSION TO LOOK AT WHAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE AVAILABLE, IF WE HAVE SOMETHING AVAILABLE TO WORK WITH ESD5 TO SEE IF IF THERE'S A DEAL TO BE STRUCK FOR THAT LAND, AND IF THERE IS BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS FOR A VOTE. >> WHERE'S IT AT IN RELATION TO THE SHOW BARN AND THE SCOTT IN? >> THE SHOW BARN HAS ABOUT I CAN'T REMEMBER. I I'VE GOT A PLATE IN MY OFFICE. I THINK IT MIGHT BE IN THE BACKUP. >> I THINK IT'S ABOUT SEVEN ACRES. >> THERE'S ALTOGETHER THAT TRACT OF LAND FROM FM 20 ALL THE WAY BACK PAST THE JAIL IS 20 SOME ODD ACRES. THERE'S A RADIO TOWER SITTING THERE, TOO. THERE IS A PIECE OF LAND STILL LAB THAT WOULDN'T GET INTO THE SHOW BARNS PORTION. BUT I NEED PERMISSION TO GET THAT SURVEYED AND FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW BIG IT IS AND IF THAT WILL MEET THEIR NEEDS. BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A CLUE RIGHT NOW. WE JUST HAVE A PLATE OF THE WHOLE THING AND IT'S NOT IT'S NOT DIVIDED THE SEVEN ACRES IS JUST CALLED OUT IN OUR LEASE AGREEMENT WITH A COUNTY [OVERLAPPING]. >> FAIR ASSOCIATION. >> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] FAIR ASSOCIATION. I DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THE EXACT BOUNDARIES OF THAT EVEN ARE. THERE'S A MEET AND BOUNDS CALLED OUT, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN MUCH WITHOUT A SURVEY. MOVE APPROVAL, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE G7 BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G8, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION, [G.8 To discuss and take possible action authorizing the County Judge to execute a Supplemental Agreement to MUA allowing installation of LPR cameras within the highway right of way. Speaker: Judge Haden/Mike Lane/Jon Craigmile/Juan Villarreal; Backup: 40; Cost: $0.00] AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT TO MUA ALLOWING INSTALLATION OF LPR CAMERAS WITHIN THE HIGHWAY RIGHT AWAY. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE. >> GOOD MORNING. GO AHEAD. >> I DO HAVE SOME INFORMATION BY FLOCK THAT ADDRESSES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUES ON THE SECOND PAGE. IT WAS E-MAIL TO YOU GUYS, BUT I DO HAVE A PAPER COPY IF YOU WOULD LIKE. >> IS THIS RIGHT HERE? >> I SHOULD SAY. >> I HAVE A COPY. [00:30:02] THE COMMISSIONERS MAY NOT GO. >> I RECEIVED EMAIL. >> DO YOU HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER TOMMY? >> NO. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, GALLERY. I'D LIKE TO QUICKLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE EARLIER. I KNOW THERE'S EXTREME CONCERN ABOUT THIS IN OVERREACH. WE HAVE TO BE REMINDED THAT THIS DATABASE, THIS INFORMATION THAT'S ACQUIRED IS ALSO REQUIRED TO HAVE A CRIMINAL CASE NUMBER ATTACHED TO IT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT A LIVE DATABASE WHERE WE'RE SITTING LIKE A BIGGER AGENT TO THE NORTH THAT WAS FOR THAT PRIME CAMERAS, ACTIVELY WATCHING FROM A COMMAND CENTER. LET'S SAY SOMEONE COMMITS A THEFT IN HARWOOD, TEXAS. WE GET A LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, I ENTER THAT INTO A DATABASE USING ONE OF OUR GENERATED CASE NUMBERS. THAT DATABASE THEN SEARCHES WHEREVER THAT VEHICLE HITS ON IT. WE'RE NOT JUST ENTERING JUDGE HOPPY HADEN'S BECAUSE I SAW YOU DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD. THERE IS A LEGAL CAUSE TO DO THAT, IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT WE SIT THERE AND SEARCH. WE DON'T USE AND WE CANNOT USE THIS FOR JUST OPEN SEARCHES FOR NO REASON. THERE HAS TO BE A LEGITIMATE AND LEGAL UNLAWFUL REASON. I'LL SUBMIT TO YOU THAT I SAT THROUGH DEBRIEFING THE OTHER DAY., THEY CAN GET MORE INFORMATION OUT OF A WALMART CAMERA WITH THEIR LOSS PREVENTION THAN WE CAN OUT OF FLOCK. I DON'T GET PICTURES OF WHO'S INSIDE THE VEHICLE. I GET A LICENSE PLATE, IT DOESN'T TELL ME WHO'S OPERATING THAT VEHICLE. IT JUST TELLS ME THAT VEHICLE PASSED THAT CAMERA AT THIS TIME. IS THAT VEHICLE WANTED? IS THAT VEHICLE RELATED TO A CRIME? THAT'S ALL WE'RE GETTING OFF OF THIS. IT'S NOT A INTRUSIVE TOOL. THEY TALK ABOUT ILLEGAL SEIZURES. WE ALL DRIVE THE TOLL ROADS. THEY TAKE JUST AS MANY PICTURES OF OUR CARS, BOTH FRONT AND BACK, EVERY DAY. I AGAIN SUBMIT TO YOU, WE'RE IN A PUBLIC ROADWAY, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD LOOKING FOR YOU. CERTAIN COP CARS, CERTAIN POLICE CARS HAVE FLOCK CAMERAS BUILT IN. CERTAIN WRECKERS WITHIN OUR COUNTY HAVE FLOCK CAMERAS BUILT IN, PAID FOR PRIVATELY. WHEN THESE GUYS ARE DRIVING AROUND, IT'S GATHERING THAT DATA, THAT'S A PRIVATE DEAL. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR REPO CARS, THAT THING. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO HERE. I HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER TALKING POINTS. YOU GOT TO HAVE ASSIGNED CASE NUMBER TO IT. SHE TALKED ABOUT WHERE THE CAMERAS WERE BEING PLACED. THOSE CAMERAS ARE BEING PLACED AT THE AREAS THAT INDICATE A HIGHER CRIME FREQUENCY BASED ON OUR CRIME STATISTICS, SO IT WAS NOT JUST A WILLY-NILLY PLACEMENT OF CAMERAS. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE JUST WENT, HEY, THIS LOOKS LIKE A GREAT PLACE FOR IT. WE TALKED ABOUT THE ASSIGNED CASE NUMBER. JUST RECENTLY TALKING TO A DETECTIVE IN A NEIGHBORING COUNTY, THEY WERE ABLE TO APPREHEND A FELON THAT HAD COMMITTED AN EGREGIOUS FELONY WITH A WEAPON IN LESS THAN 16 HOURS BASED ON THEIR FLOCK SEARCH. DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS IN THE CAR, THE CAMERA HIT IN SKIDMORE, TEXAS. THEY CHASED IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO CORPUS CHRISTI WHERE THAT FELON WAS APPREHENDED AND POSED NO FURTHER THREAT. THERE'S A LOT OF DISINFORMATION OUT THERE ABOUT WHAT THESE CAMERAS CAN AND CAN'T DO. IT DOESN'T EVEN GIVE ME WHO OWNS THE VEHICLE. IT JUST GIVES ME A LICENSE PLATE NUMBER THAT'S PASSED THERE. I CAN'T TRACK CAPTAIN DEL RIO JUST BASED ON HIS NAME. IT HAS TO BE HIS VEHICLE AND IT HAS TO BE RELATED TO A CRIME. AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE A FLOCK REPRESENTATIVE HERE IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS. >> I GOT A QUESTION. >> YES, SIR. >> HOW LONG DID THAT DATA STAY INSIDE THE CAMERA? >> THIRTY DAYS. >> HOW LONG? >> THIRTY DAYS. >> THEN AFTER THAT, WHAT'S DONE WITH IT? >> THEN IT IS DELETED AND GOES AWAY. NOW IF IT'S A CRIMINAL CASE WHERE WE'RE DEVELOPING A CRIMINAL ACTION, OBVIOUSLY THAT WILL BE RETAINED FURTHER BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT FOR COURT. BUT LET'S SAY I PASS FLOCK CAMERAS ALL THE TIME. GUYS, THERE'S PRIVATE FLOCK CAMERAS THAT COMPANIES HAVE IN OUR COUNTY. I KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, I PASS THEM ALL THE TIME. I KNOW THAT DATA [NOISE] IS GOING TO BE GONE IN 30 DAYS. IT'S NOT RETAINED FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL LENGTH OF TIME. >> YOU SAY YOU PLACED THE CAMERAS IN HIGH CRIMES AREAS, SO I SEE RIGHT HERE IN PRECINCT 4, YOU GOT THREE CAMERAS THAT YOU WANT TO PLACE ON 1185, 1854, 672. IS THAT YOUR INTENTION BECAUSE OF THE CRIME OR WHY SO MANY CAMERAS IN PRECINCT 4? >> WE SUBMITTED OUR CRIME INFORMATION TO FLOCK, AND THEY DID A DATABASE SEARCH OF THAT AND SAID, HEY, THESE ARE THE RECOMMENDED AREAS BASED ON THE REPORTED CRIMES THAT WE'RE SEEING COMING IN THROUGH 911 THROUGH OUR CENTER. YES, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S WHERE OUR VAST MAJORITY OF OUR REPORT IN. >> YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION ALREADY DOWN WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S THE CRIME AREAS OUT THERE IN THAT AREAS? [00:35:04] >> YES. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOCUSING AT, LIKE INTELLIGENCE-LED POLICING IN NEW YORK. IF THEY HAVE A HIGHER CRIME AREA, THEY SHIFT THE COPS OVER THERE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. COULD THAT CHANGE? ABSOLUTELY. IN ADJOINING COUNTY, WE'RE SEEING FLOCK RESULTS, WE'RE SEEING A REDUCTION IN CRIME IN THAT AREA. THEY'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT MOVING THAT CAMERA TO ANOTHER HOT SPOT, SO THESE ARE NOT FIXED. >> YOU BASICALLY COULD MOVE IT TO ANOTHER CRIME AREA ONCE? >> YES. IF THAT CRIME STARTS POPPING UP, SAY, IN HARWOOD, WE COULD MOVE A CAMERA TO HARWOOD. NOW THERE'D BE ADDITIONAL COSTS BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING FIXED CAMERAS UP, BUT THAT CERTAINLY WHAT OUR INTENTION WOULD BE. >> COMMISSIONERS, OTHER QUESTIONS? >> HOW WIDELY USED ARE THE FLOCK CAMERAS IN CENTRAL TEXAS? WHAT OTHER ENTITIES ARE UTILIZING THOSE? >> I AM ONLY FAMILIAR WITH HAYS, AUSTIN, AND SOUTH IN COMAL COUNTY. I'M NOT SURE IF OUR FLOCK REPRESENTATIVE CAN ADDRESS THAT FOR YOU MORE SPECIFICALLY AS HOW PROLIFERATED THEY ARE. I KNOW IN THE MAJOR CITIES, THERE ARE QUITE. >> I COULDN'T HEAR AT THE BACK. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> I'M SORRY? >> I COULDN'T HEAR BACK THERE. WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? >> I WAS ASKING HOW WIDELY USED ARE THE FLOCK CAMERAS IN CENTRAL TEXAS? WHAT OTHER ENTITIES ARE USING THOSE? >> BORDERING CALDWELL COUNTY, WE HAYS COUNTY, MULTIPLE CITIES INSIDE HAYS COUNTY, TRAVIS COUNTY, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, MULTIPLE CITIES INSIDE BOTH OF THOSE COUNTIES, ALL THE WAY UP TO KILLEEN-TEMPLE, BELL COUNTY, AND THEN I CAN GO SOUTH IF YOU NEED TO. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT IN SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR COUNTY. THEN GOING EVEN FARTHER SOUTH ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE BORDER, THERE'S A COUPLE OF COUNTIES WITH CITIES INSIDE THOSE COUNTIES AS WELL, AND EAST AND WEST AND ALL THE WAY UP TO OKLAHOMA. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? >> [OVERLAPPING] YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? >> PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND IS LPR SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A VERY LONG TIME. I HELPED SET UP THE HOUSTON HIGH LPR SYSTEM ON IH- 10. IN ORDER TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE PLATE IN THE FRONT, PLAIN VIEW, AND AT THE REAR, PLAIN VIEW. ALL OF THE COURTS THROUGHOUT THE LAND, INCLUDING THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THERE IS NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN PUBLIC. WE'RE NOT GOING ON FISHING EXPEDITIONS. WE'RE NOT DRIVING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR NOTHING LIKE THAT. THESE ARE MOTOR VEHICLES THAT ARE DRIVING ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY. THEIR PLATES ARE BEING CAPTURED JUST LIKE THE TOLL ROW. THE CHIEF DEPUTY MENTIONED, YOU GO INTO HEB, YOU GOING TO WALMART, YOU GO INTO CIRCLE K, YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE THE QUALITY OF IMAGING THAT HAS TAKEN PLACE, AND THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH IN THE WAY OF SAFEGUARDS. THERE ARE BUILT IN SAFEGUARDS IN THE SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ABUSE, AND THAT'S PARAMOUNT. I'VE BEEN USING THE SYSTEM FOR A VERY LONG TIME. I'VE HAD ELDERLY JUST REAL QUICK, I MADE A TRAFFIC STOP TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING ON IH- 10. I CAME BACK TO MY CAR AND ALARM WAS GOING OFF AND IT WAS A MISSING ELDERLY WOMAN. SHE HAD BEEN TRAVELING FOR THREE DAYS FROM SAN ANTONIO, TO HOUSTON, TO MARBLE FALLS. SHE HAD DEMENTIA. INSIDE OF HER CAR, THE PASSENGER SEAT WAS FULL OF STYROFOAM CUPS AND CHIP BAGS. SHE'S MAKING THIS ROUND. I WASN'T EVEN IN THE CAR, BUT SINCE MY THE READER READ THAT PLATE, I WAS ABLE TO REUNITE THIS ELDERLY WOMAN WITH HER FAMILY AND GET HER HOME SAFE. >> THANK YOU. >> CHIEF AGAIN, ONE MORE THING. I JUST REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SO MANY CAMERAS OUT ON THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF TOWN. I COULD SEE THAT THEY'D BE DISTRIBUTED IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY, MAYBE FOR A PILOT PROGRAM. BUT TO ME RIGHT NOW, THAT'S SEEMED LIKE A A LARGE AMOUNT OF CAMERAS FOR THAT ONE AREA. I JUST WANT TO PUT IT ON RECORD. >> AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER, LIKE YOU SAID, IF WE COULD ALLOCATE CAMERAS TO I LIVE OFF HIGHWAY 304 RIGHT AT THE COUNTY LINE. THAT WOULD BE A WASTED ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR ME TO PUT A CAMERA OUT THERE. AGAIN, I HAVE TO LOOK AT WHERE THE FACTS LIKE ANY INVESTIGATION LEADS ME. IT LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT'S THE CORRECT PLACEMENT AND NOT ONLY THAT TO MOVE THEM RIGHT NOW WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. I DON'T THINK WE'RE PREPARED TO DO THAT AT THIS POINT. I THINK THAT'D BE SOMETHING WE COULD REVISIT WITH THE COURT WHEN THOSE NUMBERS FALL DOWN AND THEY WILL BECAUSE WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THOSE SERIAL CRIME COMMITTERS OFF THE STREET, AND THEN WE COULD CONSIDER MOVING THEM SOMEWHERE ELSE. BUT I THINK IT'D BE A WASTE OF RESOURCES TO PUT THEM IN CERTAIN LOW CRIME AREAS THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY USE FOR. [00:40:01] THESE GUYS WOULDN'T SEARCH THOSE DATABASES BECAUSE THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY USE FOR IT. THE LIKELIHOOD OF GETTING A CRIME OFF 304 IS PRETTY LOW AT THIS POINT. COULD IT HAVE HAPPENED? ABSOLUTELY. THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS TO SAY IT COULD NEVER HAPPEN. BUT I THINK WE WOULD BE REMISS IF WE DIDN'T FOLLOW OUR DATA TRAIL AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO STATISTICALLY PROVE. >> COMMISSIONERS? >> I HAD JUST ONE MORE QUESTION. I KNOW WE VOTED ON THIS SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR. THIS SPECIFIC AGREEMENT THAT'S ON THE AGENDA DATED TEXT, I REQUESTS THIS ADDENDUM TO THE AGREEMENT. THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE. >>THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION. I LOOK FOR A MOTION. >> I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL ITEM G8. >> MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G8 BY COMMISSIONER, WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO? FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> I'LL BE A NO VOTE. >> I'LL CALL THE VOTE JUST A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOTE; ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSE. >> I OPPOSE. >> COMMISSIONER THOMAS OPPOSED, 4-1, MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. >> ITEM G9, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING AN ORDER OF [G.9 To discuss and take possible action regarding an Order of Special Election for State Constitutional Amendments (Secs. 4.004, 83.010, 85.004, and 85.007, Texas Election Code). Speaker: Judge Haden/Devante Coe; Backup: 4; Cost: $0.00] SPECIAL ELECTION FOR STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, SECTIONS 4.004, 83.010, 85.004 AND 85.007 TEXAS ELECTION CODE. IS DEVANTE HERE? >> HE IS AT THE CONFERENCE. >> COMMISSIONERS, IT IS EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS. THIS IS ORDER ASKING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. >> JUDGE, I MOVE TO IT. >> IT'S A VERY LONG ORDER. IT'S PAGES AND PAGES LONG SO I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT, BUT WE'LL SUBMIT IT IN THE RECORD. MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HORN? >> YES, SIR. >> SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER, WESTMORELAND. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G10, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A CALDWELL COUNTY BURN BAN. [G.10 To discuss and take possible action regarding a Caldwell County Burn Ban. Speaker: Judge Haden/Hector Rangel; Backup: 2; Cost: $0.00] >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE. COMMISSIONER STAFF AND GALLERY. IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE'VE HAD A FEW FIRES, MOSTLY BEEN UNDER TWO ACRES. A COUPLE OF STRUCTURE FIRES. THE GRASSES ARE VERY DRY. WE HAVEN'T HAD A GOOD AMOUNT OF RAIN IN A WHILE. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF STORMS OUT IN THE GULF, THAT MIGHT BRING US A LITTLE RAIN, BUT VERY LOW. CURRENTLY THE KBDI NUMBERS, THE MINIMUM IS 460, MAX IS 636, WITH THE AVERAGE OF 529 WITH A CHANGE OF PLUS 10. THOSE NUMBERS ON THE AVERAGE HAVE BEEN GOING UP AND SO IS THE MAX. I'M GOING TO REQUEST TO COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT WE PUT THE BURN BAN ON. >> COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO PUT THE BURN BAN ON BY COMMISSIONER HORN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED, HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, HECTOR. >> ITEM G11, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF [G.11 To discuss and take possible action regarding the transfer of General Obligation Bond Series 2025 proceeds from Texpool to Texas Class, an approved investment vehicle under our county’s investment policy. Speaker: Judge Haden/Gloria Garcia/Travis Zander; Backup: 19 ; Cost: $0.00] GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2025 PROCEEDS FROM TEXTS POLL TO TEXAS CLASS, AND APPROVED INVESTMENT VEHICLE UNDER THE COUNTY'S INVESTMENT POLICY. >> GOOD MORNING, HONORABLE JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING YOUR APPROVAL TO TRANSFER THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND SERIES 2025, 55 MILLION PROCEEDS CURRENTLY HELD IN TEXT POLL TO TEXAS CLASS, WHICH IS AN APPROVAL INVESTMENT VEHICLE UNDER THE COUNTY INVESTMENT POLICY. FOLLOWING THE REVIEW OF OUR FOUR INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, WE CONCLUDED THAT TEXAS CLASS IS BETTER SUITED TO MANAGING THESE FUNDS. THE KEY ADVANTAGE INCLUDES ENHANCED REPORTING, STRONG COMPLIANCE WITH THE IRS, AND NO ADDITIONAL COSTS, THE PMA PROCEEDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, AND ALSO IT SUPPORTS AND REPORTS THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE BOND. AS YOUR COUNTY INVESTMENT OFFICER, MY FOCUS REMAINS ON YIELD, LIQUIDITY, AND RISK. MANAGING THESE PRIORITIES EFFECTIVELY [00:45:03] ENSURES THE SAFETY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE COUNTY FUNDS. I WILL CONTINUE TO PROVIDE REGULAR PERFORMANCE UPDATES ON THE BOND TO THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, ENSURING ONGOING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. >> I HAVE TRAVIS ZANDER, CPA DIRECTOR, HERE TODAY, REPRESENTING TEXAS CLASS, AND IS AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. >> I'LL SO MOVE APPROVAL. >> MOVE APPROVAL BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSIONS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE TREASURER? >> NO. >> IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [G.12 To discuss and take possible action to approve the selection of engineering consultants for the Caldwell County 2024 Road Bond Program projects, as outlined in Attachment A. Approval includes authorizing staff and legal counsel to initiate contract negotiations with the designated firms for future consideration. Speaker: Hoppy Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 1; Cost: $0.00] >> ITEM G12, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE THE SELECTION OF ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS FOR CALDWELL COUNTY 2024 ROAD BOND PROGRAM PROJECTS AS OUTLINED IN ATTACHMENT A. APPROVAL INCLUDES AUTHORIZING STAFF AND LEGAL COUNSEL TO INITIATE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DESIGNATED FIRMS FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION. >> I CAN GO THROUGH THIS REAL QUICKLY, IF YOU WANT, JUDGE. >> THAT'D BE GREAT. I APPRECIATE IT. >> PUT THAT IN LAYMAN'S TERMS FOR EVERYBODY. ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED FOR THE ROAD BOND, WE HAVE SELECTED THE ENGINEER FIRMS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ON EACH PROJECT. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH IT REALLY QUICK. WE HAVE AMERICAN STRUCTUREPOINT ON BORCHERT DRIVE LOOP, LGA ENGINEERING FOR CITY LINE ROAD, AMERICAN STRUCTUREPOINT FOR SH 142 EAST, RODRIGUEZ TRANSPORTATION GROUP FOR FM 20 REALIGNMENT, PAPE-DAWSON CONSULTING FOR CR 205, QUIDDITY ENGINEERING FOR US 183 TURN LANE, PAPE-DAWSON FOR COUNTY ROAD 140, HALFF ASSOCIATES FOR COUNTY ROAD 133, PAPE-DAWSON FOR CREEKSIDE DRIVE AT PLUM CREEK, DOUCET FOR BRIDLE PATH, RODRIGUEZ TRANSPORTATION GROUP FOR NORTH HACKBERRY AVENUE TRUCK ROUTE, QUIDDITY ENGINEERING FOR THE NORTH MAGNOLIA AVENUE TURN LANE ADDITION, HDR ENGINEERING FOR LULING TRANSPORTATION PLAN, KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES FOR COUNTY ROAD 183 AT DRY CREEK, AMERICAN STRUCTUREPOINT FOR SH 142 WEST, CP&Y, INC., ALSO KNOWN AS STV INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ROCKY ROAD AT BRUSHY CREEK, AND SEALER LINKS GROUP FOR POLONIA ROAD AT PLUM CREEK, GARVER FOR SOUTHEAST RIVER ROAD AT MORRISON, HDR FOR THE FOLLOWING, WHICH IS FM 2720, ROCKY ROAD REALIGNMENT, SCHUELKE ROAD REALIGNMENT, COLT LANE REALIGNMENT, FREELAND TURK ENGINEERING GROUP FOR NORTHWEST RIVER ROAD, RS&H, INC., FOR THE FOLLOWING, COUNTY ROAD 179, 182, 174, 179 AT BARTH ROAD, THE OTHER 179 WAS HOMEVILLE, AND THEN THE 182S ARE THE DRY CREEK, BOTH OF THEM ARE DRY CREEK, AND THEN CAMPOS FOR NETA WALL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, WEST SAN ANTONIO, AND SH 80 CORRIDOR STUDY. >> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE OR TO ACCEPT. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE 2024 ROAD BOND PROGRAMS FOR APPROVAL AS OUTLINED BY STAFF AND LEGAL COUNSEL. >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. I WANT TO THANK STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS AND HNTB AND EVERYBODY THAT RESPONDED TO OUR REQUEST. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY LONG PROCESS, BEEN GOING ON FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW. IT'S A MAJOR MILESTONE. I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S WORK AND EFFORT GETTING US TO THE POINT THAT WE'RE AT NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM G13, DISCUSS THE TAX RATE FOR FY 2026, [G.13 To discuss the tax rate for FY 2026 and take possible action regarding public hearing to approve tax rate. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 24; Cost: $0.00] TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE TAX RATE IN THE FUTURE. >> RIGHT NOW, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS, WE RECEIVE THE TAX RATE CALCULATIONS FOR THE POTENTIAL NO NEW REVENUE, THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE, AND THE VOTER APPROVAL ADJUSTMENT FOR UNUSED INCREMENT RATE AND THE DE MINIMIS TAX RATE. YOUR CURRENT TAX RATE IS 0.4391. THE NO NEW REVENUE WE'RE PROJECTING IS 0.4299. [00:50:03] THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE IS 0.5006. THE VOTER APPROVAL ADJUSTMENT FOR UNUSED INCREMENT RATE IS 0.5326. THE DE MINIMIS TAX RATE IS 0.4888. THEN OUR DEBT, OF COURSE, WITH THE ROAD BOND HITTING THIS YEAR WENT UP FROM 0.03796. THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG CHANGES THERE, BUT RIGHT NOW, THE NO NEW REVENUE COMPARED TO CURRENT IS 0.4391, AND THEN POSSIBLE NEXT YEAR FOR 0.4299. >> THE 4391, THAT'S THE TAX RATE WE ADOPTED, CORRECT? WE DID GO UP TO THE CAP ON THAT. THAT WASN'T THE NO NEW REVENUE. THAT WAS THE ACTUAL. BUT THE NO NEW REVENUE THIS COMING YEAR WOULD BE 0.4299? >> YES, SIR. >> YOU MAY ASK, 0.5006 SOUNDS LIKE MORE THAN 3.5%. IT IS, BUT IT'S DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF DEBT THAT WE TOOK ON. YOUR DEBT ENTERS INTO THAT CALCULATION. TO GO TO THE CAP, WE CAN GO AS HIGH AS 0.5326. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS TO DO THAT. CERTAINLY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADOPT THE RATE TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO SET HEARING ON THE TAX RATE COMING UP. JUST WANT TO MAKE YOU GUYS AWARE WHAT THE NUMBERS WERE SO YOU COULD BE THINKING ABOUT IT. >> NO ACTION TODAY. JUST MORE INFORMATION AND THEN SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> ANYBODY UNCLEAR ABOUT THE RATES AND HOW WE GOT THERE? [OVERLAPPING] >> WAIT. WE GOT TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> THAT'S RIGHT. SORRY. GO AHEAD. WHEN DO YOU WANT TO SET IT? >> WE DECIDED THE 9TH. I'M MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO SET THE APPROVAL FOR THE TAX RATE FOR SEPTEMBER 9TH COMMISSIONERS COURT. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 9TH? >> SO MOVED. >> THIS ALLOWS FOR ONE MORE COMMISSIONERS COURT IN THERE, JUST IN CASE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO SET THE HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 9TH. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> WHO SECONDED? >> COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ITEM G14, [G.14 To discuss and take possible action regarding the composition of the Caldwell County Salary Grievance Committee pursuant to Section 152.014 of the Texas Local Government Code. Speaker: Judge Haden/Richard Sitton/Danie Teltow; Backup: 0; Cost: $0.00] DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE COMPENSATION OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY SALARY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO SECTION 152.014, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH 152.0141. THAT COMMITTEE WOULD CONSIST OF THE SHERIFF, THE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR, COLLECTOR, COUNTY TREASURER, COUNTY CLERK, DISTRICT CLERK, COUNTY ATTORNEY OR CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AND THE NUMBER OF PUBLIC MEMBERS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE NINE VOTING MEMBERS. WE WILL NEED TO DRAW THREE MEMBERS FROM A POOL THAT TERESA HAS, AND THEN THREE ALTERNATES. WE'LL DRAW THOSE AND READ THEM OUT LOUD. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. >> THE ITEM IS BROKEN DOWN INTO TWO AGENDA LISTS. IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO G14 AND G15. >> WE ARE DECIDING WHICH ONE YOU GUYS ARE GOING WITH FOR 14 AND THEN DON'T DRAW YET UNTIL ITEM 15. SORRY. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONERS, WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT TO GO WITH? THE ONE THAT HAS ALL THE PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND THREE MEMBERS OR THE COUNTY JUDGE AND NINE MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC? >> I'LL MOVE TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SIX MEMBERS FROM THE COUNTY ELECTED POSITIONS AND THREE FROM THE PUBLIC. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR ONE FROM COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HORNE. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. [00:55:01] SORRY. IT'S FIRST ONE THESE WE'VE HAD. I'M WORKING THROUGH IT WITH THE REST OF YOU. ITEM G15, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SELECTION OF PUBLIC MEMBERS FOR [G.15 To discuss and take possible action regarding the selection of public members for the Caldwell County Salary Grievance Committee pursuant to Section 152.014(a) and Section 152.015 of the Texas Local Government Code. Speaker: Judge Haden/Richard Sitton/Danie Teltow/Teresa Rodriguez; Backup: 0; Cost: $0.00] CALDWELL COUNTY SALARY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO SECTION 152.014A AND SECTION 152.015, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. NOW WE CAN DRAW. I GOT IT. YOU GOT TO PUT THEM ALL IN THERE FIRST? GO AHEAD. IS THAT ALL OF THEM? FIRST JUROR IS MELISSA GONZALEZ. SECOND JUROR IS THOMAS KRENS. THIRD JUROR IS ALIYAH ANDERSON. FIRST ALTERNATE IS ARIC CASTILLO. SECOND ALTERNATE IS TIFFANY HARGETT. THIRD ALTERNATE IS HAL PARKER. DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO SELECT THOSE JURORS? WE DON'T. NO ACTION ON G15. WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM G16, [G.16 To discuss and take possible action regarding Budget Transfer 11-2025 moving $5,000.00 from Bridge Repair/Replacement (002-1101-3205) to Fleet Operating Supplies (002-1103-3135). Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 1; Cost: $5,000.00] DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUDGET TRANSFER 11-2025, MOVING $5,000 FROM BRIDGE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT, 002-110-3205, TO FLEET OPERATING SUPPLIES, 002-1103-3135. >> THIS ONE'S PRETTY SIMPLE. THIS IS JUST AN INTERNAL TRANSFER. THE UNIT ROAD JUST NEEDS A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR IN THEIR OPERATING SUPPLIES. >> COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G17, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT 15-2025, [G.17 To discuss and take possible action regarding Budget Amendment 15-2025 moving $24,500.00 from Contingency, and $24,500.00 from Medical Contingency to Professional Services 001-6510- 4110 for first installment of CCCSF Agreement. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 2; Cost: $0.00] MOVING 24,500 FROM CONTINGENCY AND 24,500 FROM MEDICAL CONTINGENCY TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, 001-6510-4410, FOR FIRST INSTALLATION OF CCCSF AGREEMENT. >> BACK A FEW QUARTS AGO, THIS WAS JUST THE MATCH FOR THE SALARY ON THE CCCSF ADMINISTRATOR. THIS IS JUST MOVING THE MONEY SO WE CAN GET MS. SALLY PAID. >> COMMISSIONERS. >> SO MOVED. >> IS THAT A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> YES, SIR. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THERIOT. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED? HEARING NONE. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G18, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT 16-2025, [G.18 To discuss and take possible action regarding Budget Amendment 16-2025 moving $64,250.00 from Contingency, and $64,250.00 from Medical Contingency to Professional Services 001-6510- 4110 for the remainder of the FY Doucet invoices. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 1; Cost: $0.00] MOVING $64,250 FROM CONTINGENCY AND $64,250 FROM MEDICAL CONTINGENCY TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, 001-6510-4110, FOR THE REMAINDER OF FY DOUCET INVOICES. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT? >> YEAH. ARE THESE INVOICES? [01:00:06] >> THESE ARE JUST FOR ENGINEERING SUBDIVISION. >> THANK YOU. BECAUSE WE HAD A LITTLE CONFUSION THERE, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS ADDRESSING THE RIGHT PART. WHEN WE BUDGET FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, WE TAKE A GUESS EVERY YEAR ABOUT HOW MANY SUBDIVISIONS WE'RE GOING TO GET AND HOW MANY REVIEWS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO. >> IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY YEAR WE GUESS A LITTLE LOW. WE'RE AT THE END OF THE YEAR AND WE'RE HAVING TO MOVE SOME MONEY IN THERE TO COVER THESE AND INVOICES. THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR SPECIFIC CHANGE ORDERS, GOING FORWARD IF THEY NEED MORE MONEY TO JUSTIFY IT SO THAT WE DON'T JUST HAVE A SITUATION, WE JUST HAVE A BLANK CHECK. WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO SEE CHANGE ORDERS FOR THESE THINGS. >> YEAH. I WOULD DEFINITELY RECOMMEND WHEN WE REDO OR DO AN AMENDMENT ON THEIR CONTRACT THAT WHATEVER NUMBER WE DECIDE TO CHOOSE THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT THEY HONOR THAT. >> YEAH. >> THAT'S PART OF IT. >> YEAH. IT MUST HAVE A CHANGE ORDER TO GO ABOVE IT. >> STATUTORILY, THERE IS ONLY A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE THEY CAN GO UP ON A CHANGE ORDER. >> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS. >> JUDGE, WE'LL ALSO BE COMING FORWARD WITH SOME FEE AMENDMENTS TO OUR DEVELOPMENT FEES AND CREATING FEES FOR SOME PROCESSES THAT HAVE BEEN INCREASING THAT WE PREVIOUSLY DIDN'T HAVE FEES FAR BEFORE. >> YEAH. THAT WILL BE PART OF THE DEAL WHEN WE GET THERE TO RENEGOTIATING THIS. >> YEAH. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON G18? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE G18 BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G19, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING BUDGET AMENDMENT 172025. [G.19 To discuss and take possible action regarding Budget Amendment 17-2025 moving $14,000.00 from 001-6510-4864 Medical Contingency to Professional Services 001-6510-4110 for BidNet invoices. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 1; Cost: $0.00] MOVING 14,000 FROM 0016-510-4864, MEDICAL CONTINGENCY TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0016-510-4110 FOR BIDNET INVOICES. >> WE RECEIVED AN INVOICE FROM BIDNET. THIS IS THE ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF ALL SOLICITATIONS FOR THE COUNTY, ANYTHING THAT GOES OUT FOR RFP, RFQ, WE CAN USE THIS SOFTWARE TO PUT IT OUT THERE ACROSS THE NATION FOR SUBMITTALS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CONTRACT WAS SIGNED THIS PHYSICAL YEAR, BUT NO MONEY WAS THERE. THIS IS JUST A REQUEST TO MOVE MONEY FROM MEDICAL CONTINGENCY TO GET THAT PAID. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. >> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE G19 BY COMMISSIONER HORN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G20, DISCUSS AND POSSIBLY APPROVE THE I3 PUBLIC SECTOR MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT, [G.20 To discuss and approve The i3 Public Sector Master Agreement (formerly known as NetData) for all Justice of The Peace Departments. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow; Backup: 15; Cost: $45,355.00] FORMERLY KNOWN AS NET DATA FOR ALL JUSTICES OF THE PEACE. WE HAD ENTERTAINED HAVING [INAUDIBLE] DO THE COLLECTION PORTION OF THIS. IT'S GONE ON FOR A YEAR. >> LINEBARGER >> LINEBARGER, SORRY. IT'S GONE ON FOR A YEAR OR SO LINEBARGER FINALLY AGREED TO PAY THE $12,000, AND THAT DATA WAS ASKING TO GET OUR DATA OUT OF THE SYSTEM AND GIVE IT TO LINEBARGER FOR COLLECTIONS. THAT DATA HAS SINCE COME BACK AND OFFERED TO LOWER THEIR FEES THE SAME AMOUNT IN ORDER TO DO THE COLLECTIONS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THEY DO DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS OF THIS MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT. IF WE APPROVE IT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE ASKED FOR, IS THAT THEY DO WE WANT MONTHLY REPORTING OF COLLECTIONS BECAUSE ONE OF THE ISSUES WAS THAT THEY WERE WRITING OFF DEBT AFTER ONE YEAR WITHOUT COLLECTING IT. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM CONTINUE TO GO AFTER THAT MONEY. SO THAT'S ONE CHANGE THAT WE ASKED FOR. SO THIS WOULD PUT IT ALL BACK WITH I3 IF WE VOTE TO DO THIS. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU'VE LISTED, JUDGE THAT THAT BE ENCUMBERED INTO THE AGREEMENT. >> YEAH. I JUST WANTED SOME REPORTING MECHANISM THERE SO THAT WE KNOW THAT DEBT THAT HAS GONE PAST ONE YEAR THERE'S STILL BEING AN ATTEMPT TO COLLECT IT. [01:05:06] >> SECOND. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. DO I NEED TO ADD THAT TO THE MOTION? >> THERE'S A 90 DAY TERMINATION IN THERE. SO I HAVE THE ABILITY TO RUN ANY REPORTING ON THE COLLECTION SITE. SO I CAN CHECK IT MONTHLY AND JUST MAKE SURE THAT'S BEING DONE. >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM G20 THEN. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE G20 BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORN IN DISCUSSION. NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> POSED HERE AND NON MOTION CARRIES. ITEM G21, DISCUSS AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION [G.21 To discuss and take possible action regarding Amendment No. 1 of the Caldwell County Purchasing Policy. Speaker: Judge Haden/Danie Teltow/Dominique Esquivel; Backup: 1; Cost: $0.00] REGARDING AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 OF THE CALDWELL COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A QUICK NOTE BEFORE DOMINICK COMES UP HERE. THIS IS ACTUALLY AMENDMENT NUMBER 4. SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THE MINUTES. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE THREE PARTS TO THIS AMENDMENT. THE FIRST ONE IS TO INCREASE THE PURCHASE ORDER THRESHOLD, AND PLEASE NOTE THE EXCEPTION FOR UNIT ROAD IN THAT. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WOULD BE TO UPDATE THE IMMEDIATE CHECK REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY PURCHASE. AND THE THIRD IS FOR AMAZON AND OFFICE DEPOT ORDERS. WE WILL ACCEPT THOSE ORDERS THROUGHOUT THE WEEK, BUT TO ELIMINATE EXCESS SHIPPING COSTS AND PACKAGE ARRIVALS, WE WILL EXECUTE THOSE ORDERS ON EVERY FRIDAY. >> IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? >> IN THE AMENDMENT CPO AMOUNT. HOW MUCH IS THE AMOUNT? >> YOU CAN LET THEM KNOW HOW MUCH THE CHANGES ON THE? >> SURE. THE CURRENT PURCHASE ORDER IS 500. WE WANT TO INCREASE IT TO 1,000. AND THEN UNIT ROAD IT WOULD BE INCREASED TO 5,000. >> WHAT WAS THE OTHER ONE? THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT HAD. >> THE IMMEDIATE CHECK REQUEST? >> YES. >> TWO SIGNATURE INSTEAD OF THREE. YES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS? >> SO MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ITEM G22. [G.22 To approve final draft and solicitation of RFB 25CCP01B Unit Road Materials. Speaker: Judge Haden/Dulce Arellano; Backup: 39; Cost: $0.00] DISCUSS AND POSSIBLY APPROVE FINAL DRAFT AND SOLICITATION OF RFB 25 CCP O1B UNIT ROAD MATERIALS. >> EVERY YEAR. THIS IS JUST OUR NORMAL UNIT ROAD MATERIAL RFP. WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT AS SOON AS IT IS APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS COURT. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS RFP? >> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER HORN, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WESTMORELAND. ANY DISCUSSION? >> NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE. >> AYE. [G.23 To discuss and take possible action on accepting an award from the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority (MVCPA) for the FY 2026 SB 224 Catalytic Converter Grant. Speaker: Judge Haden/Amber Quinley/Constable Easterling; Backup: 9; Cost: $3,701.00] >> OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, MOTION CARRIES. >> THANK YOU. >> ITEM G23, DISCUSSING TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON ACCEPTING AN AWARD FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES MOTOR VEHICLE CRIME PREVENTION AUTHORITY, MVCPA FOR THE FY 26 SV 224 CALYTIC CONVERTER GRANT. >> GOOD MORNING. SO BACK IN MAY, WE REQUESTED PERMISSION TO APPLY FOR THIS GRANT. AND IN JULY, CONSTABLE EASTERLING, ATTENDED THE REQUIRED CONFERENCE AND BOARD MEETING WHERE HE PROPOSED HIS PROJECT, AND WE HAVE BEEN AWARDED. SO WE JUST ARE ASKING TO ACCEPT THE AWARD SO THAT CONSTABLE CAN PROCEED ON HIS PROJECT. >> OKAY. COMMISSIONERS? >> MOVE TO ACCEPT. >> MOTION TO ACCEPT BY COMMISSIONER HORN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TERRIO. ANY DISCUSSION. NOT ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED HEARING THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU ALL FOR DOING THAT. ITEM H, DISCUSSION ONLY DISCUSS [H.1 To discuss House Bill 1522 and possible impact on designating the day of the week on which court will convene in a regular term during the next fiscal year, per TEX. LOC. GOV'T. CODE 81.005(a). Speaker: Judge Haden/Richard Sitton; Cost: $0.00] HOUSE BILL 1522 AND POSSIBLE IMPACT ON DESIGNATING THE DAY OF THE WEEK ON WHICH COURT WILL CONVENE IN A REGULAR TERM DURING THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR PER TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 8105A. WE HAD A BILL PASSED IN THE LAST SESSION THAT SAYS, INSTEAD OF 72 HOURS NOTICE ON POSTING OF PUBLIC MEETINGS, IT NOW HAS TO BE 72 BUSINESS DAYS. SO WE'VE GOT BEFORE YOU, YOU HAVE A CALENDAR. THIS WILL GO INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST, THIS LAW. SO AUGUST WILL BE BUSINESS AS USUAL UNTIL WHERE DID MY CALENDAR GO? SO AUGUST WE'LL STILL HAVE COMMISSIONERS COURTS ON TUESDAYS. AGENDA CUTOFF WILL BE THE TUESDAY PRIOR AND FILED AND POSTED ON THE FRIDAY PRIOR. [01:10:08] EXCEPT THE LAST WEEK OF AUGUST WE'LL STILL HAVE COMMISSIONERS COURT TUESDAY, BUT AGENDA CUTOFF WILL MOVE TO THURSDAY THE 28TH. AND POST AGENDA WEDNESDAY THE 3RD, COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL BE ON TUESDAY STILL. AGENDA CUTOFF WILL BE THE 11TH OF SEPTEMBER. THE AGENDA WILL BE POSTED ON THE 17TH. COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL BE TUESDAY 23RD. THEN AGENDA CUTOFF WILL BE ON TUESDAY, THE 30TH, THE FOLLOWING WEEK. AND THEN WE WILL GO TO FILE AND POST FRIDAY THE 3RD AND COMMISSIONERS COURTS FROM THERE ON IN OCTOBER WILL BE ON THURSDAYS. SO WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE YOU PLENTY OF NOTICE SO THAT YOU CAN ADJUST YOUR CALENDARS. I HAVE TWO REGULAR CALLS EVERY THURSDAY MORNING THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ADJUST TO A DIFFERENT TIME. BUT WE NEED TO DO THIS IN ORDER TO BE COMPLIANT OR WE LOSE DAYS TO WORK ON AGENDAS. >> SO IF AGENDA IS POSTED ON FRIDAY, THAT COUNTS AS A BUSINESS DAY OR? >> IF IT GETS POSTED AT SAY 4:00 ON FRIDAY. THEN IT'S 4:00 ON MONDAY, 04:00 ON TUESDAY, 4:00 ON WEDNESDAY. SO IF WE DON'T MOVE THE COURT DATE, WE LOSE DAYS TO GET ITEMS ON. ALL THIS BILL REALLY SUCCESSFULLY DID WAS FORCE COMMISSIONERS COURTS TO MOVE TWO DAYS FURTHER INTO THE WEEK. SO IT'S A CRAZY BILL, BUT IT PASSED. THAT WAS DISCUSSION JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION. SO START LOOKING AT YOUR CALENDARS IN OCTOBER AND ADJUST YOUR TIME ACCORDINGLY. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, [I. EXECUTIVE SESSION] WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE HAVE THREE OF THEM. LITTLE PIECE OF HOUSEKEEPING EXECUTIVE SESSIONS IS NOW GOING TO BE IN MY OFFICE BECAUSE THE FORMER JURY ROOM IS NOW THE PURCHASING OFFICE, WHICH COMPLETELY FREAKED ME OUT THIS MORNING WHEN I WALKED IN THERE BECAUSE I FORGOT. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE EXECUTIVE SESSIONS TO ORDER AT 10:12. EXECUTIVE SESSION I1, DISCUSSION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL OF ALLISON BASS AND MCGEE LLP REGARDING TEXAS TRIBUNE, MONO OMEGA AND CALDWELL HAYES EXAMINER VERSUS CALDWELL COUNTY CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 123 CV 910, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, AUSTIN DIVISION AND ANY POTENTIAL ACTION NEEDED. EXECUTIVE SESSION IS REQUESTED PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TITLE 5, SUB-CHAPTER D, SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, ITEM I2, PURSUANT TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551087, DISCUSSION DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT IGNITION POINT. POSSIBLE ACTION MAY FOLLOW IN OPEN COURT AND ITEM 3, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551087, DISCUSSION DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT TANGLED WEB. POSSIBLE ACTION MAY FOLLOW IN OPEN COURT. ITEM I1 IF YOU'RE HERE FOR I2 AND I3 WE'LL COME GET YOU WHEN WE'RE DONE WITH ITEM I1. THANK YOU. HEY, WE ARE BACK. WE'RE GOING TO EXIT EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FOLLOWING I1. [I.1 Discussion with legal counsel of Allison, Bass & Magee, L.L.P. regarding Texas Tribune, Mano Amiga, and Caldwell/Hays Examiner v. Caldwell County, Civil Action No. 1:23-CV-910; United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division and any potential action needed. [Executive Session is requested pursuant to Texas Government Code, Title 5, Subchapter D, Section 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney)].] DISCUSSION ACTION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL OF ALLISON VS MCGEE, LLP REGARDING TEXAS TRIBUNE MON OMEGA, MICALO COUNTY EXAMINER VS CALDWELL COUNTY CIVIL ACTION NUMBER 123 CV 910, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. AUSTIN DIVISION AND ANY POTENTIAL ACTION NEEDED. THERE WILL BE NO ACTION ON THIS. WE WERE UNDER EXECUTIVE SESSION, PURSUANT TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE TITLE 5, SUB-CHAPTER D 551071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY. ITEM I2 AND I3 WILL ALSO HAVE NO ACTION PURSUANT TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551087, DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT INITIATION POINT. PURSUANT TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551087, DISCUSSION DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROJECT TANGLED WEB. AND WE ARE BACK IN SESSION. [01:15:02] COMMISSIONER, WHAT TIME YOU GOT? >> MY PHONE DIED. >> ELEVEN O NINE. >> AT 11:09. CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION TO ADJOURN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THOMAS. MOTION WAS BY COMMISSIONER HORN. ALL IN FAVOR SAY, AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED HEARING NONE MOTION CARRIES. WE'RE GOING TO GO RIGHT INTO. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.