Sep 01, 2026 Commissioners Court Budget Agenda

SO, UH, I DID SPEAK WITH, UH, JUDGE GRISSOM LAST NIGHT.

HE DOES HAVE COURT RESPONSIBILITIES THIS MORNING AND WILL NOT ATTEND, AND WE WILL MOVE TO THE, UH, INDIVIDUAL ONES.

UH, ON J LET'S SEE, JP TWO, THAT WOULD BE, UH, JUDGE GREEN.

UH, WHEN YOU SAY EIGHT VOTES, THAT'S IN FAVOR? IN FAVOR OF, YES, SIR.

OF THE INCREASE OF 1 36 500.

SO THAT, THAT WAS A VOTE OF EIGHT TO ONE ON THAT.

AND THE ASK ON THAT IS THE ONE 30 REQUEST THAT HE HAD PLUS IN ADDITION TO THE COLA, WHICH WAS 6,500 FOR A TOTAL OF 136,500.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU HERE.

JUST FOR REFERENCE, WHAT'S THE CURRENT SALARY FOR THAT POSITION? OH, I HAVE THAT ONE 15, CORRECT.

WAS, WELL, THE PROPOSED WAS ABOUT 1 21 20 BETWEEN 1 21 22.

DOES THAT INCLUDE, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE, THE COLA THAT WAS COLA INCREASE? MM-HMM .

OH, IT DOES.

ALRIGHT.

SO THE CURRENT SALARY IS 115,000, CORRECT? THE CURRENT, YEAH, THE ONE 15 DOES, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE MAKING AS OF THIS MOMENT WITHOUT THAT COLA, CORRECT.

ROUGH AROUND.

1 14, 1 14, 1 14, 1 14, 1 50.

YEP.

THE COLA ONE 20.

SO THE SALARY GRIEVANCE REQUEST WAS 1 36? YES, MA'AM.

PLUS A KOHLER.

NO, THAT IS INCLUDING, INCLUDING THE 1 36 500 IS THE TOTAL SALARY.

I'M GONNA MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE REQUEST AS RECOMMENDED BY EIGHT MEMBERS OF THE SALARY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.

HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOLT.

I'M GONNA SECOND THAT JUST TO GET THROUGH THE DISCUSSION PHASE.

UH, IT, IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT THAT, UH, THE FOUR NON COUNTY EMPLOYEES, UH, VOTED YES ON THIS PARTICULAR VOTE AND LAST NIGHT.

SO, UH, THOSE FOUR, IT SHOULD BE NOTED AGAIN THAT THO THAT WE HAD, UM, THOSE VOTES THAT WERE JUST NOT PART OF THE COUNTY.

SO THAT NEEDS TO BE POINTED OUT, I THINK.

AND SO, UH, IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE ALSO, I THINK, UM, THERE WAS GOOD DISCUSSION ON THAT, AND I THINK THAT BOTH, UH, JP TWO AND JP THREE, UH, HAD GOOD COMPELLING ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT.

AND SO, UM, THAT'S THE ONLY THE COMMENTS THAT I HAD ABOUT THAT.

UH, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? THE SIGN EMPLOYEE VOTE? YES.

UM, IS IT THE COURT'S DISCRETION TO SET THE SALARY WHEREVER, OR IS IT, OR IS IT GOING TO BE THIS SALARY PROPOSED HERE OR NOTHING? I'M, I BELIEVE THE COURT HAS TAKEN CONSIDERATION WHAT WAS ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED

[00:05:01]

BY THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.

I DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

DOES THE COURT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EITHER CONFIRM OR DENY OR IS IT, CAN THE COURT SET THE SALARY AT A DIFFERENT, AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL? I BELIEVE THEY COUNSELOR, I BELIEVE Y'ALL SAID IT SAID IT.

WHERE Y'ALL, IT'S UP TO YOU.

WE COULD WHAT WAS YOUR, WHAT'D YOU SAY? Y'ALL CAN SET IT DIFFERENT RATE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE REQUESTED OR THE ORIGINAL.

IT COULD, RIGHT? I I DIDN'T HEAR THAT.

WHAT WAS IT? I THINK YOU EITHER ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OR, OR YOU DON'T.

IT IT COULD BE, YEAH, IT COULD BE DENIED THAT THEY COULD, THE BUDGET HADN'T BEEN ADOPTED, SO THEY COULD STILL SET SALARIES.

REALLY? NO.

OH, IT'S, IT WOULD START.

NO, WE CAN'T.

SO WE'RE EITHER, IT'S EITHER THE REQUESTED THE AMOUNT OR WHAT THE AMOUNT WAS SET AT PREVIOUSLY.

IT'S JUST ONE OR THE OTHER PROPOSED MM-HMM .

SO WE CAN'T CHANGE IT.

THAT, THAT WAS MY POINT.

IT EITHER HAS TO BE WHAT WAS REQUESTED HERE.

BY THE SALARY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE.

WE EITHER HAVE TO APPROVE THAT OR WE DENY IT.

AND IT GOES BACK TO WHATEVER WE HAD SET IT AT PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED.

WHICH WAS THE 1 24 63 HOW MUCH? 1 24 6300 20,463.

BUT THAT'S WITH THE COLA.

THAT'S THE CURRENT AMOUNT.

BUT AT SIX WITH THE COLA, THAT'S WHAT WE HAD.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAD SET IT AT PREVIOUS, CORRECT.

WITH THE 5% COLA.

WITH THE COLA.

ANY OTHER, SO IN THIS PARTICULAR ONE, THE, THE REQUESTED AMOUNT WAS 130,000 EVEN.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JP TWO, ARE WE NOT? YES, I'M, I'M, WE ARE COMMISSIONER, BUT IF I MAY, AP TWO IS 1 36 500.

SO OUR, OUR OPTIONS ARE EITHER TO SET IT AT THE REQUESTED AMOUNT, RIGHT, 1 36 500 OR AT THE AMOUNT, THE PREVIOUS SALARY, PLUS THE 5%, WHICH IS 120,000.

SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE.

AND THE WAY IT WENT LAST NIGHT THAT EACH OF THE THREE GRIEVANCE, UM, PARTICIPANTS THAT WERE CONTESTING THEIR SALARIES HAD THE OPTION OF ADDING THAT, UM, COLA TO IT OR MAINTAINING IT.

AND, AND JP THREE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CHOSE NOT TO.

AND HAD THE, HAD THE COMMITTEE VOTE ON THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE, VOTE ON THE SALARY WITHOUT THE COLA INCLUDED.

THE OTHER TWO, UH, ASKED FOR CONSIDERATION TO INCLUDE THE ONE 30 ALONG WITH THE 6,500 COLA TO BE INCLUDED.

SO WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON HERE TODAY IS THE REQUESTED AMOUNT OF ONE 30 PLUS PER EACH OF THE, UM, GRIEVANCE, UH, PARTICIPANTS REQUESTED THAT, THAT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE CALL WILL BE INCLUDED AND JP TWO IS ONE OF 'EM.

SO YOU'RE VOTING ON 1 36 500 A.

ACTUALLY, THE, THE SHEET THAT I HAVE HERE HAS JP TWO REQUESTING 1 36, 500.

BUT JP THREE REQUEST ONE 30, HE, HE DECLINED THE CALL.

NO, THAT'S, THAT'S ACCURATE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

HE DECLINED THE COLA.

HE'S THE ONLY ONE THAT DECLINED THE COLA.

WHICH, WHICH JP DECLINED THE COLA.

JP THREE.

THREE.

SO THE, THE SHEET THAT I, WE GOT TODAY HERE, THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AND HAS ON HERE THAT JP TWO IS REQUESTING A SALARY OF 136,500.

AND THAT'S, UH, A YES VOTE WOULD GRANT THAT SALARY A NO VOTE, WOULD HAVE IT GO BACK TO LAST YEAR'S SALARY PLUS THE COLA, 6% COLA, OR WAS IT ACTUALLY 5%? 5% SHOULD BE 5%.

5%, 5%.

VERIFICATION OF 1 36 5 INCLUDES THE COLA OR DOES NOT, INCLUDES A 5% COLA.

THAT WOULD BE THE SET SALARY INCLUDES A 5% COLA WHO ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

THE 6% THINKS WE'RE A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION.

6% IS FOR THE NON-ELECTED OFFICIALS.

SO WHAT THE VOTE IS THEN IS EITHER TO GRANT A SALARY OF 136,500 AS IS BEING REQUESTED AND WAS REQUESTED TO THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE OR A SALARY OF LAST YEAR'S SALARY PLUS 5%, WHICH IS 120,000 404 63.

IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE VOTE? ACTUALLY, THE, ACTUALLY THE MOTION IS TO GRANT THE 1 36 5, CORRECT? YES.

MY MOTION IS THAT FOR JP TWO, WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE AND SET THE COMPENSATION OF JP TWO

[00:10:01]

AT 1 36 500.

THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

ANY OF THE DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR.

MOTION PASSES FOUR TO ONE.

MOVE TO ITEM ON JP THREE.

UH, THE SAME, UH, FACTS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN JP TWO THAT APPLY TO THAT.

UH, THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS, IS THAT, UH, JUDGE GRISSOM DECLINED THE COLA TO BE INCLUDED, BUT TAKE THE RECOMMENDED AMOUNT, UH, THAT, UH, WAS PRESENTED LAST NIGHT WITH AN EIGHT ONE VOTE.

AND THAT MO AND THAT WOULD MOTION WOULD BE FOR THE 1 31 30, NOT THE 1 36 5 100 $30,000, NOT THE COLA MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.

DO YOU HAVE A SECOND ON THAT ITEM? COMMISSIONER CONLEY'S MADE THE SECOND.

IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM BEFORE WE VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR.

MOTION PASSES FIVE VOTE.

MOVE TO ITEM ON JP FOUR.

THIS IS ONE THAT JUST AGAIN, FOLLOWING PROTOCOL HERE, UH, THIS WAS ONE THAT DIDN'T, IT DIDN'T HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT, BUT YOU HAVE PUT IT ON THE COURT ON THIS SHEET, CORRECT? BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

SO, UH, IT IS IN FRONT OF YOU.

I WILL ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE, UH, THE FOUR PEOPLE THAT WERE CIVILIANS, IF YOU WILL, THERE WERE NON COUNTY EMPLOYEES DID VOTE YES ON ALL THREE FOR, TO RECEIVE THE RAISE.

THIS ONE HERE, IF YOU CHOOSE FOR A MOTION TO BE MADE, THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE COLA ALONG WITH THAT, UH, AS IT DID WITH JP TWO, WHICH WOULD BRING A TOTAL AMOUNT JUST AS JP TWO, THE 1 36 5.

BUT THIS WOULD, THIS, I DON'T THINK IT GOT ENOUGH VOTES TODAY.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN CONSIDER THAT, RIGHT? YEAH.

CAN'T CONSIDER THAT ONE.

IT, IT ONLY, IT ONLY THE, THE FOUR VOTES.

IT'S, IT DOESN'T, DOESN'T, NO, IT SHOULDN'T.

IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T JUSTIFY BRINGING TO THE COURT.

IT DOESN'T COME TO COURT.

IT IS, IT IS ONLY ON HERE.

AND, AND BIANCA, IF I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DID THIS, IS THIS FOR ANY CONSIDERATION FOR THAT TO BE LOOKED AT? UH, IT WAS JUST A, OR IS IT DISQUALIFIED? IT CAN BE LOOKED AT.

IT'S DISQUALIFIED.

YOU CANNOT UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE IT'S A FOUR.

I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE FULL RESULTS OF THE WHAT.

WE'LL

[II. Discuss/Vote on Proposed Tax Rate for FY2027. (Bianca Lord / Judge Deen)]

MOVE ON TO ITEM TWO.

DISCUSS VOTE ON PROPOSED TAX RATE FOR FY 27.

GOOD MORNING.

I'VE PROVIDED EACH OF YOU, UM, SOME TAX RATE SCENARIOS I ALSO PROVIDED TO YOU LAST YEAR OR LAST WEEK.

UM, SO THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCUSSED IS THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

UM, AGAIN, I'VE JUST PROVIDED IT FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.

IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS ANY CONSIDERATION BEYOND THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, UM, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL JUST TO UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT THE COUNTY CAN DO WITH THE TAX RATE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES OR IF ANYONE'S LISTENING.

UM, SO AS WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE, THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS THE RATE THAT GENERATES THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE FROM THE PRIOR YEAR.

SO IT'S LOOKING AT THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE TAX ROLL LAST YEAR AS WELL AS THIS YEAR TO GENERATE THAT SAME AMOUNT.

UM, OUR TAX RATE IS BROKEN INTO THREE DIFFERENT, UM, BREAKDOWNS.

SO WE HAVE OUR M AND O AND THAT'S OUR, UM, GENERAL OPERATIONS.

THAT'S WHAT FUNDS THE GENERAL FUND.

WE HAVE OUR INS, WHICH IS OUR DEBT SERVICE.

AND SO FOR THAT VOTER APPROVED DEBT, THAT'S THE RATE THAT IS NECESSARY TO PAY THAT DEBT SERVICE, THOSE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE ROAD AND BRIDGE, UM, SPECIAL TAX.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WHEN WE LOOK AT, UM, THE GENERAL FUND, AGAIN, IT'S YOUR M AND O AND YOUR INS.

AND SO IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY SORT OF CHANGE IN YOUR DEBT SERVICE.

AND SO AS WE'VE SEEN, UM, PREVIOUSLY, UM, YOU KNOW, IF OUR DEBT SERVICE INCREASES, IF YOU'RE STILL AT THAT SAME, NO NEW REVENUE RATE, IT TAKES IT FROM THE GENERAL FUND UNLESS YOU ADJUST TO COVER THAT DEBT SERVICE.

UM, FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, I'VE PROVIDED YOU WHAT THE DEBT SERVICE IS THIS YEAR, WHICH IS ABOUT 16.7 MILLION.

AND THEN FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, IT'S ABOUT 15.4 MILLION.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE SEE, UM, A DECREASE FOR DEBT SERVICE.

AND THEN A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCREASE FOR, UM, THE GENERAL FUND, UM, WHICH INCLUDES, AGAIN THAT NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND THEN AS WELL AS THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PROVIDING A PORTION OF THAT.

UM, SO A, THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN A SPECIAL TAXING ENTITY LIKE A COUNTY, UM, YOU TAKE YOUR NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND THEN YOU ADJUST THAT BY 3.5%

[00:15:01]

GROWTH.

UM, WE ALSO ADD OUR DEBT SERVICE ON TOP OF THAT.

AND THEN, UM, WE COLLECT SALES TAX.

AND SO WE ACTUALLY TAKE A PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION BECAUSE OF THAT SALES TAX GENERATION.

UM, SO YOU'LL SEE ON THIS SHEET I HAVE AN VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE, AND THEN WE HAVE A VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE USING THE UNUSED INCREMENTAL RATE.

WHAT THAT UNUSED INCREMENTAL RATE IS, UM, IF A COUNTY IS SETTING YOUR TAX RATE NOT AT THE HIGHEST AMOUNT, WHICH IS YOUR VOTER APPROVAL RATE, UM, THE LEGISLATURE LETS YOU BASICALLY, UM, SAVE A PORTION OF THAT REVENUE ON A ROLLING THREE YEAR AVERAGE TO BE USED AT A LATER DATE.

SHOULD YOU NEED TO, UM, BEFORE USED TO BE THAT YOU SAVED A PORTION OF THE ACTUAL TAX RATE.

UM, BUT AS WE SEE AS YOUR TAXABLE VALUE GROWS, UM, THAT PENNY CAN BE WORTH MORE THAN IT WAS.

AND SO A COUPLE YEARS AGO THEY CHANGED IT WHERE NOW WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO CALCULATE WHAT THE FOREGONE REVENUE IS, AND THEN WE LOOK AT THAT AND THEN WE ADJUST THAT FOR THIS YEAR'S AND TAXABLE VALUE.

AND SO THE UM, SPREADSHEET THAT I PROVIDED YOU BREAKS OUT AGAIN, THAT M AND O RATE SETTING OUR DEBT RATE, UM, IS WHAT WE NEED TO PAY THAT DEBT SERVICE.

UM, FOR FISCAL YEAR 27, WE WERE ACTUALLY USING 600,000 OF FUND BALANCE TO REDUCE THAT DEBT RATE.

AND THEN OF COURSE WE HAVE OUR ROAD AND BRIDGE.

AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE LOOK AT TAX RATE IS TO WHAT DOES THAT GENERATE IN REVENUE FOR THE COUNTY? AND THEN PROBABLY JUST AS IMPORTANT IS HOW DOES THAT IMPACT OUR TAX PAYERS? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? AND SO I PUT TOGETHER, UM, THE SPREADSHEET SHOULD BE FAMILIAR FROM PRIOR YEARS, BUT UM, LOOKING AT IT AS PER A HUNDRED THOUSAND, SO AS YOU GO UP ON THAT TAX RATE, UM, WHAT'S THE TAX IMPACT? AND THEN PER A HUNDRED THOUSAND, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? AND THEN IF WE LOOK AT OUR AVERAGE TAXABLE HOMESTEAD, WHICH FOR PARKER COUNTY THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT IS 373,278.

AND SO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME METRICS.

SO IF YOU WERE AT THE HIGHEST RATE, UM, BEFORE YOU WOULD TRIGGER ELECTION, WHICH IS THAT VOTER APPROVAL RATE, USING THE UNUSED INCREMENTAL, UM, IT WOULD INCREASE PER A HUNDRED THOUSAND, UM, AN OVERALL INCREASE OVER THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE OF 125.

SO AGAIN, YOU CAN JUST SEE AT EACH LEVEL IF WE GO, YOU KNOW, 0.0, ZERO FIVE, 0.0, ZERO SEVEN AND SO ON, AND THEN THE SAME THING FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE, UM, SEE THOSE TOTALS.

AND SO WHAT TODAY IS IT'S SETTING THE CEILING ON A PROPOSED RATE.

CAN WE PAUSE FOR JUST ONE SECOND? SO ON THIS SPREADSHEET, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE BETWEEN THE M AND O, THE INS AND THE ROAD AND BRIDGE.

SO OUR GENERAL OPERATIONS, OUR DEBT SERVICE, AND OUR ROAD AND BRIDGE.

AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, THAT'S A AMOUNT OF 1060 $3 FOR THE AVERAGE HOMESTEAD IN PARKER COUNTY, WHICH IS $373,000 ISH.

SO WHEN FOLKS GET THEIR PROPERTY TAX BILL AND IT SAYS EIGHT OR $9,000, THE COUNTY'S PORTION IS 1063 FOR THE AVERAGE HOMESTEAD AT $373,000.

THE REMAINDER OF THAT WOULD BE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES SUCH AS THE SCHOOL, ESD, HOSPITAL DISTRICT, ET CETERA.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

AND ONE THING THAT I ACTUALLY MADE ME THINK ABOUT IT THAT I WANTED TO MENTION HERE TODAY, UM, IF YOU GO TO, UM, YOU CAN GET FROM IT FROM OUR WEBSITE OR IF YOU GO TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND EVERY TAXPAYER WAS, UM, SENT A NOTIFICATION ABOUT THE TRUTH AND TAXATION, THE T AND T WEBSITE, AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY LOOK UP YOUR HOME AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT EACH TAXING ENTITY, WHERE THEIR RATE IS, WHERE THEIR PROPOSED RATE IS, AND THEN WE'RE REQUIRED TO PUT ON THERE WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THOSE TAX RATES ARE GONNA BE HELD.

AND SO THAT WAY, IF YOU CAN SEE IF SOMEONE'S GOING UP TO THE, YOU KNOW, VOTER APPROVAL RATE AND YOU WANT TO ATTEND THAT MEETING, YOU CAN GO TO THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT IS AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT IMPACTS, UM, YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY.

AND SO JUST LIKE I DO WHEN I CALCULATE, UM, THE REVENUE AT THE BEGINNING WHEN I GET THOSE CERTIFIED VALUES, I JUST WENT AND, UM, SELECTED A HOME OUT ON THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON THAT WEBSITE.

I USED MY SPREADSHEET, I PUT THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THAT HOME ON THERE AND I AGREED TO EXACTLY WHAT WAS ON, UM, ON THE WEBSITE.

AND SO JUST KIND OF SHOW YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT.

BUT YES, FOR ANYONE LISTENING, YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO

[00:20:01]

TO YOUR OWN PROPERTY.

SO YOU CAN SEE HERE, DOWN HERE IS JUST THE TOTALS.

AGAIN, THE BREAKOUT IS ON THE TOP.

UM, FOR THIS PROPERTY, THE, UM, EXAMPLE PROPERTY, UM, THE TAXABLE VALUE IS 636,000.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, UM, IT'S 1,811.

YOU CAN SEE HERE, UM, RIGHT HERE YOU COULD SEE THAT'S IT'S WHAT IT IS.

AND THEN I CALCULATED THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE USING THE UNUSED INCREMENTAL RATE.

AND YOU COULD SEE HERE, THAT'S WHAT IT SHOWS ON THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT'S WEBSITE.

AND SO I ALWAYS LIKE JUST TO PROOF THAT OUT JUST TO ENSURE, YOU KNOW, THAT MY SPREADSHEET'S CALCULATING CORRECTLY AS YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS AND USING THIS INFORMATION.

BRIANNA, FOR ANYONE WHO'S FOLLOWING ALONG, THE REASON THAT AMOUNT THERE IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE IS YOU USED A HOUSE THAT HAS A VALUE OR A HOMESTEAD THAT HAS A VALUE THAT'S HIGHER, CORRECT? AVERAGE, YES.

SO THE AVERAGE BEING 3 73, AND FOR THIS EXAMPLE, UM, IT WAS 636,000.

I JUST KIND OF RANDOMLY PICKED ONE.

AND AGAIN, I JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE.

AND SO, UM, YOU CAN SEE HERE, OF COURSE, THIS IS PARKER COUNTY'S AND WE HAVEN'T PROPOSED A TAX RATE YET.

AND SO AFTER TODAY'S VOTE, WE WILL PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

THEY WILL LOAD THAT IN THIS WEBSITE, AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS FROM THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE TO THE PROPOSED TAX RATE AND KIND OF WHERE THAT IS IN RELATION TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE.

AND SO THAT'S FOR EVERY TAXING ENTITY.

AND AGAIN, THEN IT'LL HAVE THAT INFORMATION AS TO WHEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE.

UM, THERE'S ALSO REQUIRED, UM, PUBLICATIONS IN THE NEWSPAPER.

AND SO SAME THING, AFTER YOU ALL VOTE ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE TODAY, WE'LL PROVIDE THAT TO PCAD.

UM, THEY WILL GENERATE THAT NOTICE.

WE WILL HAVE THAT PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER AS WELL AS PROVIDING THAT ON OUR WEBSITE TO LET, UM, PARKER COUNTY RESIDENTS KNOW WHEN THE, UM, MEETING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE WILL BE.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, IMPORTANT TO TELL FOLKS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING A TAX RATE TODAY.

AND IT IS, THAT IS A PROPOSED TAX RATE, CORRECT.

SO, BUT AFTER TODAY'S VOTE, IT CAN BE NO HIGHER THAN THE PROPOSED RATE, BUT IT COULD BE LOWER, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.

SO IT SETS THAT CEILING OF WHAT IT IS.

AND THEN, UM, ON BIANCA, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I BELIEVE, UM, THE PROPOSED, UM MM-HMM OR THE HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE WILL BE, UH, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22ND.

UM, IF YOU DON'T ADOPT A TAX RATE AT THAT PUBLIC MEETING, YOU HAVE TO ADOPT THAT WITHIN SEVEN DAYS.

AND FOR PARKER COUNTY, WE WILL BE, YOU ALL WILL BE ACTUALLY SETTING THAT RATE, UM, WITH THE ADOPTION, UM, PROCEEDINGS OF THE BUDGET, WHICH WILL BE MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28TH.

AND SO AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING, UM, SINCE IT WON'T BE SET, UM, WE WILL NEED TO SAY THE TIME, PLACE AND LOCATION OF WHEN THAT, UM, RATE WILL ACTUALLY BE SET, WHICH WILL BE SEPTEMBER 28TH AT THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.

LOOKING AT THE, UH, SHEET THAT YOU'VE PROVIDED US, THE PROPOSED NO NEAR REVENUE RATE IS A LOWER RATE THAN LAST YEAR'S RATE, CORRECT? IT IS, YES.

AND SO AND SO ON THIS, AND THAT'S WHY I PROVIDED THIS ONE AGAIN, JUST 'CAUSE I THINK IT'S HELPFUL JUST TO SEE, UM, WHERE WE ARE WITH OUR CURRENT RATE, UM, VERSUS WHAT THE PROPOSED RATE USED IN THE BUDGET WAS, WHICH IS THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, UM, WHAT DIFFERENCE THAT IS ON THE ACTUAL TAX RATE AND THEN WHAT THAT REVENUE GENERATION IS.

AND SO THAT'S THE SMALLER ONE.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST PROVIDED TO YOU.

SHOULD THERE BE ANY CONSIDERATION ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, UM, AGAIN, HOW WE INCREMENTALLY INCREASE IT, HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT RAISES FOR THE COUNTY, AND THEN HOW THAT IMPACTS THE TAX PAYERS.

BUT, BUT TAX TAXING ENTITIES OTHER THAN THE COUNTY, BUT OTHER TAXING ENTITIES THAT ADVERTISE THAT THEY'RE USING THE SAME RATE AS LAST YEAR IN EFFECT ARE RAISING THE TAX RATE.

THEY, YES, THEY COULD BE ABOVE THE, NO, THEY LIKELY ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE GIVEN, UM, TAXABLE VALUE INCREASES.

AND SO I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT AS WELL.

AND SO OURS DIDN'T DECREASE AS MUCH AS WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN PREVIOUS YEARS, EVEN BEING AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

AND, UM, WE DISCUSSED THAT, THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF LOST VALUE, UM, THIS YEAR.

AND THAT WAS WITH THAT, UM, BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY CHANGE IN THAT EXEMPTION RATE MM-HMM .

OR AMOUNT.

AND THAT IS THAT, UH, BUSINESSES WITH PERSONAL PROPERTY UNDER A CERTAIN LEVEL, UH, AS VOTED ON AND APPROVED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND UH, ARE ARE NO LONGER TAXED ON THAT PROPERTY.

BECAUSE IT WAS BELOW THAT THRESHOLD.

AND SO IT MADE IT WHERE THERE WAS A LOT OF, UM, BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT IS NOW EXEMPT

[00:25:01]

AND SO JUST AS WE'VE SEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, INCREASE IN HOMESTEAD EXEMP EXEMPTIONS, UM, ON SAY YOUR SCHOOL ISD TAXES, THIS IS KIND OF LOOKING AT IT FROM A BUSINESS, UM, STANDPOINT WITH THE LEGISLATURE OF TAX RELIEF IN THAT AREA.

ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK IT'S, THIS IS THE POINT WHERE WE, UH, VOTE ON THE PROPOSED, UH, CORRECT PROPERTY TAX RATE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT, UH, UH, I'LL, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION AND, UM, HOPE THAT I GET THESE CORRECT FOR A, UH, GENERAL FUND MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION TAX RATE OF 0.1 8 5 6 9 8, INTEREST IN SINKING TAX RATE OF 0.0 4 9 8 5 9 AND LATERAL ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND TAX RATE OF 0.0 4 9 1 6 2 CORRECT.

WITH A COMBINED TOTAL TAX RATE OF 0.2 8 4 7 1 9, MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALE, ANY DISCUSSION AND THAT BEING THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

THREE ON DISCUSSED TAKE ACTION REGARDING THE EXTENSION OF ARPA BENEFICIARY, MOU AGREEMENTS.

ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIES BY LEVEL.

THANK YOU FOR THIS.

THIS WAS YOU'RE WELCOME.

AND SO AGAIN, JUST WE WILL GET THAT, UM, OVER TO PCAD, SO THAT WAY WE COULD GENERATE THE NOTICE.

WE'LL GET THAT PUBLICATION IN THE NEWSPAPER POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE, AND THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE SEPTEMBER 22ND AT 9:00 AM AND, AND THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY WE WOULD HAVE TO SET THE RATE TODAY IS JUST A PROPOSED TAX RATE, CORRECT? YEAH.

THANK, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

ON THE NEXT ONE, MOVE TO ITEM

[III. Discuss and take action regarding extension of ARPA Beneficiary MOU agreements. (Brianna Fowler / Judge Deen)]

UM, SO I MENTIONED THIS LAST WEEK WHENEVER I GAVE YOU ALL AN UPDATE ON THE ARPA PROJECTS, UM, AND WHERE WE ARE AT WITH OUR BENEFICIARIES.

AND I HAD MENTIONED THAT, UM, WE WOULD HAVE, UM, SOME THAT WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST, UM, AN EXTENSION.

AND SO, UM, THE COURT HAD MADE THE PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE, UM, UNDER THESE MOUS TO END SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026.

UM, AND SO THE, UH, CITY OF MILLSAP AND MILLSAP WASTEWATER CORPORATION WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION.

AND SO WE HAVE, UM, THE ENGINEER REPRESENTATIVE THAT IS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT THAT WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A STATUS UPDATE ON THE PROJECT, KIND OF WHERE IT'S AT AND WHY THIS EXTENSION IS BEING, UM, REQUESTED.

AND I HAD ALSO MENTIONED TO YOU ALL THAT THERE WAS, UM, SOME SMALL AMOUNTS THAT THE CITY OF BROCK STILL HAD OUTSTANDING FOR THEIR TWO PROJECTS.

AND SO THEY DID CONFIRM TO US THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THOSE, UM, COMPLETED AND EVERYTHING TO US BY THAT DEADLINE IS SEPTEMBER 30TH.

HOWEVER, IF SOMETHING COMES UP, YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO, THEN WE WILL GET THAT ON THE AGENDA TO ENSURE THAT, UM, ALL OF THOSE FUNDS ARE UTILIZED.

THAT PROJECT DECONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE.

COME ON UP IF YOU WOULD TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE.

MY NAME IS CRUZ TRUJILLO.

I'M WITH JACOB AND MARTIN ENGINEERS HERE ON IN WITHERFORD, TEXAS.

AND WE WORK FOR BOTH THE CITY OF MILLSAP AND THE AND MILLSAP WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION.

AND THEY BOTH HAVE PROJECTS ONGOING, UH, ARPA COUNTY ARPA PROJECTS, UH, PROJECT NUMBER NINE FOR MILLSAP WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION FOR WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS.

AND PROJECT NUMBER FIVE FOR THE CITY OF MILLSAP FOR THE DESIGN OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM ON MILLSAP WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION.

THAT ONE, SPECIFICALLY THE CONSTRUCTION IS ONGOING AND THERE WAS SIX DIFFERENT CONTRACTS ISSUED, UH, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS ISSUED ON THAT PROJECT.

DESIGN IS COMPLETE AND, UH, OUT OF THOSE SIX CONTRACTS, FOUR ARE 100% COMPLETE.

AND THAT INCLUDES SCADA SYSTEM, IMPR, INITIAL SCADA SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, NEW WATER METERS, UH, VALVES, AND A NEW AIR COMPRESSOR SYSTEM FOR MILLSAP WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION.

THE TWO OUTSTANDING PROJECTS ARE THE WATERLINE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE INCLUDED NEW WATER LINES AND REPLACEMENTS ALONG FRONT STREET, GOLDSON ROAD, DAVENPORT STREET, AND ADDITIONAL PIPING IMPROVEMENTS AT PUMP STATION THREE.

THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE HAS BEEN HELD, BUT WE ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF CLOSING THAT THE CONTRACT OUT AND THAT PROJECT WILL LIKELY BE CLOSER TO THAT SEPTEMBER 30TH DEADLINE.

UH, BUT IN ORDER TO GIVE US SOME MORE TIME, WE'RE, WE ARE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THAT ONE AS WELL AS FOR CONTRACT SIX, WHICH IS, THERE WAS SOME REMAINING FUNDS ONCE WE EXECUTED THE FIRST FIVE CONTRACTS THAT WE FELT, UH, WARRANTED THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SCADA

[00:30:01]

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT WERE CUT BACK IN THE INITIAL SCADA PROJECT BECAUSE WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH FUNDS TO, TO, TO INCLUDE ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED AT MILLSAP WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION.

THAT SCADA CON CONTRACT IS CURRENTLY UNDERGOING CONSTRUCTION IS UNDERGOING, SORRY.

AND THAT PROJECT SLATED TO BE COMPLETED AT THE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER.

SO THAT'S THE OTHER REASON WE WERE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION FOR THAT ONE.

AND THAT SHOULD ESSENTIALLY SPEND THESE FUNDS, UH, UH, ALL FOR WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FOR MILLSAP WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION.

AS FOR THE CITY OF MILLSAP, PROJECT NUMBER FIVE, THAT PROJECT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR DESIGN OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM WHERE THE CITY OF MILLSAP HAS NO CURRENT WASTEWATER SYSTEM.

SO THEY, THEY ACQUIRED FUNDING FOR, UH, THE DESIGN OF A WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND IN THE HOPES OF FUTURE CONSTRUCTION FUNDS.

WE, THE REASON FOR THE DELAY, ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS FOR THE DELAY ON THIS PROJECT WAS THE PROPERTY.

THE CITY HAD SIX DIFFERENT PROPERTIES IN MIND FOR THIS WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM THAT IN ORDER FOR US TO ACCURATELY DESIGN THAT SYSTEM, WE NEEDED TO KNOW KIND OF WHERE THAT, WHERE THE WASTEWATER WAS GOING TO GO TO.

SO IT TOOK A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN EXPECTED.

AND OUT OF THOSE SIX PROPERTIES, ACTUALLY NONE OF THEM ENDED UP BEING THE PROPERTY THAT WAS REQUESTED.

THE SCHOOL WAS APPROACHED, MILLSAP, ISD WAS APPROACHED AND THEY ACTUALLY HAD A LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO, UH, TRANSFER OVER TO THE CITY OF MILLSAP AND WE'RE CURRENTLY CLOSING ON THAT PROPERTY.

BUT, BUT ONCE WE KNEW THAT THAT PROPERTY WAS KIND OF GETTING CLOSER TO BEING IN HAND, WE ACTUALLY BEGAN DESIGN AND THEREFORE WE, IT TOOK US A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO GET STARTED, BUT, AND, AND WE DON'T EX I MEAN, THE SEPTEMBER 30TH DEADLINE WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT TIGHT, BUT WE'LL BE, WE'LL BE, I WOULD EXPECT TO BE DONE BEGINNING, BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER TO MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER ON THAT PROJECT.

AND INCLUDED WITH THAT WAS ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE UTILITY LOCATE FUNDS THAT WERE, UH, THAT WERE ADDED TO THE PROJECT IN LATE 2025.

AND SAME THING, WE COULDN'T GET STARTED ON THE SUBSURFACE LOCATES UNTIL WE KNEW WHERE THE PROPERTY WAS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T JUST WANT TO GO OUT AND LOCATE EVERYTHING.

'CAUSE UH, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULDN'T BE COST EFFECTIVE.

SO THEY HAVE BEEN MOBILIZED AND THEY'RE ALSO WORKING ON THEIR END AND THEY WILL BE DONE, UH, SOMETIME EARLY OCTOBER.

SO, UH, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT AND WHY WE'RE REQUESTING, UH, AN EXTENSION OF THAT SEPTEMBER 30TH DEADLINE FOR IN THE EX IN THE MOUS FOR THE CITY OF MILLSAP, PROJECT NUMBER FIVE AND MILLSAP WATER SUPPLY CORPORATION, PROJECT NUMBER NINE.

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MOTION MADE BY MR. WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.

HOLD.

SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, SIR.

FINE.

ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE? UH, GOOD EXPLANATION, GOOD REASONING AND, UH, GOOD CAREFUL USE OF, OF FUNDING.

AND SO I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND AS I'M SURE YOU'RE WELL AWARE, THERE WILL BE NO MORE EXTENSIONS.

WE WE'RE OUT OF EXTENSIONS, SO, BUT, UH, APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY TO EXPLAIN ALL THOSE IN DETAIL.

SO THANK YOU.

WE, WE DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXTEND ANYMORE, IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

GET IT DONE.

SO WE DID HAVE THE, UM, CONVERSATION KIND OF BACK AND FORTH TO LOOK AT WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE DATE BASED OFF OF GETTING THE WORK COMPLETED, AS WELL AS GETTING THAT INFORMATION TO US SO THAT WAY WE CAN RE YOU KNOW, GET ALL THE AUDIT DOCUMENTATION, EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO PROCESS THOSE REIMBURSEMENTS, UM, THAT WE WOULD NEED THEN WHEN WE, UM, ARE AUDITED.

AND SO WE DECIDED THAT, UM, NOVEMBER 30TH WOULD BE, UM, THE EXTENSION DATE, AND THAT IS TO ACTUALLY HAVE THAT INFORMATION AND THOSE FINAL REQUEST REIMBURSEMENTS TO PARKER COUNTY.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, UH, THESE PROJECTS AND, AND THIS PROJECT MANAGER HAS BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE.

ABSOLUTELY, YES.

WITH EVERY, YES, EVERY QUESTION THAT'S BEEN ASKED, EVERY VERY RESPONSIVE AND WITH, UH, VERY PROFESSIONAL AND, AND EVERY ASPECT OF WHAT HE HAS DONE, SO, CORRECT.

AND, AND THAT IS SOMETHING, AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THOSE REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTS, ANYTIME WE NEED ADDITIONAL BACKUP SUPPORT, CLARIFICATION, UM, HE'S BEEN VERY TIMELY IN PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION AND, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, WHATEVER WE NEED TO PROCESS THOSE.

UM, IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN GOOD WORKING WITH TRAVIS.

I'LL TELL YOU, YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB.

CONTINUE ON.

SO THANK YOU.

UM, SO WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO THEN, UM, IS IF THIS IS, UM, EXTENDED WOULD BE TO HAVE, UM, JOHN, DR.

DRAFT THAT AMENDMENT.

IT COULD BE VERY SIMILAR TO BEFORE, WHICH IS PRETTY EASY.

UM, AND THEN HAVING THE JUDGE FINE AS WELL AS THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH OF THESE ENTITIES WITH A, UM, A PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE THROUGH NOVEMBER 30TH, 2026.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL IN FAVOR CARRIES.

FIVE.

MOVE TO ITEM FOUR AND APPROVE TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE TO

[IV. Aprove and authorize the County Judge to execute the Mcci Master Services Agreement Addendum 1 adding integration services. (Kim Rivas / Judge Deen)]

[00:35:01]

EXECUTE THE MCCI MASTER SERVICES AGREEMENT.

ADDENDUM ONE, AND ADDING INTEGRATION SERVICES, KIM.

SO THE PERMITTING OFFICE HAS REQUESTED THIS ADDENDUM TO THEIR MCCI MASTER.

M-C-C-C-I IS THE COMPANY THAT TAKES THEIR PAYMENTS AND, UM, THIS IS ADDING INTEGRATION SERVICES THAT WOULD INTEGRATE THE SEPTIC PERMIT RECORDS FROM THE SAFE DATABASE INTO THE MCCI COMMUNITY PLATFORM.

AND THE TOTAL EXPENSE OF THAT WOULD BE $2,500.

DOES IT COME FROM THEIR BUDGET? I'M SURE, YES, SIR.

MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALE IN DISCUSSION.

ALL FAVOR.

CARRIE FIVE.

[V. Waive 10-day posting for Legal Secretary position in the County Attorney's Office. (John Forrest / Judge Deen)]

ITEM FIVE.

WAIVE 10 DAY POSTING FOR LEGAL SECRETARY POSITION IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

JOHN, AND WE HIT, WE HAD A VACANCY AND WE TOOK A LOT OF RESUMES IN, HAD OFFERED A ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT DID NOT WORK OUT.

SO WE WANTED TO GO TO THE SECOND CANDIDATE MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HA SECOND BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR CARRIES VO.

ITEM SIX ORDER 26 DASH 38 FOR THE DISPOSITION BY CREMATION OF A POPPER AND AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF $849 TO BRANDING FUNERAL HOME FOR DISPOSITION OF AN INDIGENT PERSON.

[VI. Order 26-38 for the disposition by cremation of a pauper and authorize payment of $849 to Browning Funeral Home for disposition of an indigent person. (John Forrest/ VII. Judge Deen)]

JOHN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT? THAT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD? UH, WE, WE'VE CHECKED TO ENSURE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL WAS INDIGENT AND OUR RECORDS INDICATE THEY WERE, I MOVE TO APPROVE THAT ITEM.

SECOND.

PETER'S NOT WORKING THAT.

YEAH, IT'S, UH, OKAY.

IS THERE ANY OTHER, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, CI.

AYE.

OPPOSED? CARRIED FIVE VOTE.

ITEM SEVEN, ORDER NUMBER 26 DASH 39 FOR THE DISPOSITION BY CREMATION OF A POPPER AND AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF 850 TO BERT PICKARD FUNERAL CHAPEL AND CREM MAIN SERVICES FOR DISPOSITION OF AN INJURED PERSON.

[VII. Order 26-39 for the disposition by cremation of a pauper and authorize payment of $850 to Galbreaith Pickard Funeral Chapel & Cremation Services for disposition of an indigent person. (John Forrest / Judge Deen)]

MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHY, WHY IS IT A DOLLAR DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE ABOVE? THEY SUBMITTED THEIR, FOR THE CONTRACT.

THEY, THEY DID A 49.

AND WHAT GONNA DO WITH THAT EXTRA DOLLAR? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, YOU CALL JAMES AND ASK HIM WHY HE'S RIPPING US OFF WITH THAT DOLLAR.

MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

ALL IN FAVOR CARRIES FIVE.

OH, REALLY? WRITE A EIGHT.

[VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

THE COURTS WITH SECTION 5 5 1 0 7 4 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, UH, RESERVING THE RIGHT TO MEET AND CLOSE SESSION TO DISCUSS UNDER ITEM A TEXAS TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION ON EVALUATIONS OF THE FOLLOWING DEPARTMENTS UNDER, UH, NUMBER ONE, UH, THE STRATEGIC PROJECTS.

AND UNDER ITEM TWO, MEDICAL INVESTIGATION, LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT WE WILL MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION NINE 30.

AND DO WE NEED A BREAK? ANYBODY RETURN FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 1114? WE'RE GONNA

[VIII.A.1. County Judge (Strategic Projects)]

MOVE TO THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.

THE, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM ONE ON THE COUNTY JUDGE STRATEGIC PROJECTS, UH, WHERE THAT CURRENT, THAT POSITION CURRENTLY HAS A STRATEGIC PROJECTS, UH, DIRECTOR, UH, CURRENTLY DOES NOT.

I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO, UH, CHANGE THE NAME OF THAT TO A COUNTY MANAGER BASED ON THE NEW RESPONSIBILITIES, THE SCOPE OF THOSE RESPONSIBILITIES TO MORE FIT THAT POSITION AND FIT THAT TITLE.

UH, ALSO WITH THAT MOTION TO INCLUDE INCREASE IN THE SALARY TO ONE SIXTY FIVE, A HUNDRED SIXTY 5,000 ANNUALLY WITH A 20,000 A YEAR CAR ALLOWANCE.

I WOULD ASK FOR A SECOND.

WELL, YOU GOTTA HIT THE MOTION FOR, OH, SORRY.

COMMISSIONER HALE HAS MADE THE SECOND WE'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PHASE.

ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS ITEM? ALL IN FAVOR? UH, COULD, I'D LIKE TO SAY A COUPLE THINGS IF, IF YOU GOT A MINUTE, I KNOW WE JUST HAD A LONG SESSION, BUT I, FOR THOSE OF Y'ALL THAT DON'T KNOW, LAST WEEK TAC HAD THEIR LEGISLATIVE, UH, CONFERENCE DOWN IN AUSTIN AND UH, I WAS DOWN THERE AND, UH, WE HAD A LOT OF STATE SENATORS AND REPS AND UH, STATE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND, UH, MR. GRIMES ATTENDED.

HE WAS ABLE TO ATTEND FOR ONE DAY.

BUT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I WANNA TAKE THE, THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL YOU HOW IMPRESSED I WAS WITH YOU AND I HAD NO IDEA HOW MANY REALLY, I DIDN'T

[00:40:01]

KNOW YOU'D BEEN IN THIS REALM FOR DECADES, BUT, UH, I THOUGHT FOR SURE I COULDN'T WAIT TO TELL COMMISSIONER WALDEN WHEN I WALKED UP AND YOU WERE STANDING THERE TALKING TO, UM, TO, UH, PERRY, WHO'S OVER THE WATER COMMITTEE IN AUSTIN AND THEY'RE CUTTING UP AND, AND HE SAID, LET ME INTRODUCE YOU TO COMMISSIONER HALE.

AND PERRY SAYS, I'VE KNOWN THIS GENTLEMAN FOR 20 YEARS OR SO AND YOU'VE GOT YOU A GOOD HIRE.

BUT ALSO THE MEETINGS, THE CALLBACKS AND THINGS THAT I HAD STRUGGLED TO GET FROM AUSTIN AND WITH ALL THE GROWING PAINS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE AND THE HELP AND THE COMMUNICATION WE'RE DEALING WITH IN AUSTIN, I JUST WANTED TO GO ON THE RECORD AND SAY HOW VALUABLE, UH, JUST EVEN ONE DAY IN AUSTIN WITH YOU WAS LAST WEEK.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT AND THANK YOU FOR OPENING DOORS FOR ME THAT I HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET OPEN.

SO THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WAS PART OF THE MOTION, UH, TRANSITIONING THE POSITION OVER TO UNDER THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT INSTEAD OF REPORTING? JUDGE? GOOD QUESTION.

THE JUDGE.

AND, AND I KNOW WE'VE ALREADY BEEN MOTION, Y'ALL HAVE ALREADY, UH, MOTIONED EXCEPT FOR ONE.

I BELIEVE THERE'S NOT, UH, I VOTED MADE A VOTED, I VOTED ON THAT TO INCLUDE IN THAT MOTION ALSO, UH, IS TO, AND WHAT WAS THAT AGAIN? SO I THINK THE INTENT, AND WE PROBABLY NEED TO DO ANOTHER MOTION, WAS TO MOVE THAT POSITION.

4 0 1 REPORTING TO COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

FROM REPORTING TO THE JUDGE TO MOVING IT OVER TO I BELIEVE YEAH.

THE CURRENT LINE ITEM THAT GOES UNDER THE COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE, THIS WILL BE EXPANDED TO GO UNDER THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT.

AND WE HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND.

WE HAVE, UH, ASKED FOR THE VOTE AND JUST DO THAT AGAIN.

ALL IN FAVOR? SO THIS VOTE CARRIES PABLO.

THE PRESENT DISCUSS APPROVED GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FY 26 27, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PRESENT, DISCUSS APPROVED GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FY 26 27, UH, BIANCA.

OKAY, WE WILL MOVE NEXT TO

[IX.A. Present/Discuss/Approve General Fund Budget for FY2026-2027. (Bianca Lord / Judge Deen)]

SO, UM, THAT'S ON EIGHT WITH THE APPROVALS FROM LAST WEEK.

I'M NOT INCLUDING THAT.

NONE I'M SORRY'S BEEN APPROVED THIS WEEK.

IT'S THE SUMMARY PAGE, THE SALARY ADJUSTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED AS OF AUGUST 25TH OR $4,080,425.

THE OPERATING IS 4 0 1 400 1,282.

THE CAP, NON CAP AND IT ADJUSTMENTS APPROVED ARE 1,443,655.

THE NEW EMPLOYEE CAP NON CAP IN IT IS 142,742 FOR A TOTAL OF 6,000,006 $8,104 HAVE BEEN APPROVED THIS FAR.

AND KIM WILL GO INTO DETAIL ON THE CAP, NON CAP LATER.

WAS THERE ANYTHING I NEEDED TO, I NEED TO PRESENT ON THE GENERAL BUDGET? WE'RE GOOD.

GOOD.

AND I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE GENERAL BUDGET UPDATES.

MOVE TO ITEM ME ON DISCUSS TAKE ACTION ON FY 27, 20 27 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

SO THAT WAS IT.

AND NOTHING ON PUBLIC SERVICES EITHER.

I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION ON THAT OR ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.

I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT REQUIRES A MOTION AT THIS TIME, JUDGE.

THANKS JOHN.

MOVE TO ITEM B ON GENERAL BUDGET UPDATES.

BIANCA, I IT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

I MOVED OUT.

C PUBLIC SERVICE BUDGET REQUEST.

ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE NOT COVERED? NO, THANK YOU.

[IX.E. Discuss/Take action on FY 2027 Capital Improvement Projects. (Mark Long/ Judge Deen) (Part 1 of 2)]

UH, KIM, YOU ALREADY UP THERE SKIPPED ONE.

I THINK WE'RE ON CAP, NON CAP, AREN'T WE? YEAH, I'M REGULAR CAPTAIN, YES, ON ME.

SO, UM, THE THING, THE ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS TODAY ARE THE VEHICLES, UM, THAT WERE REQUESTED IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.

UM, THE COMMITTEE MET YESTERDAY AND LAST WEEK TO DISCUSS THOSE.

UM, I DON'T HAVE HAVE THE FULL RANKINGS AVERAGED COMMISSIONER HOLT, BUT WE CAN START WITH THE, THE TWO VEHICLES THAT BUILDING AND GROUNDS REQUESTED, UM, TO CHEVROLET.

2,500 CREW CAB VEHICLES AT 47,950 EACH.

THOSE ARE REPLACING A 2013 CHEVROLET WITH 121,384 MILES AND A 2003 F-150

[00:45:01]

WITH 79,886 MILES FOR A TOTAL OF $95,900.

AND I'LL LET COMMISSIONER HOLT DISCUSS THE COMMITTEE'S RE RECOMMENDATION.

I'M, I'M TRYING TO GET TO IT RIGHT HERE.

AND THAT THIS, I'M SORRY, THIS SHEET RIGHT HERE IS, IS WHAT THE VEHICLES ARE.

IT'S KIND OF BREAKOUT.

SO FOR THE CONSTABLE TO VEHICLES, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW, CORRECT? OH, THIS IS BUILDING GROUNDS.

I'M SORRY? BUILDING, BUILDING GROUNDS.

WE GET TO THAT PART.

SO ON THE, UH, REPLACING OF THE VEHICLE ON THE CREW CAB, THE CHEVY 2,500 PENDING THE VEHICLE AUDIT, I HAVE OUR SCORE.

I STILL HAVE THAT AS A 1.0 ON THE COMMITTEE SCORE.

SO DO YOU ALL WANNA DO A MOTION FOR THOSE OR YOU JUST WAIT FOR, FOR IF YOU DON'T MAKE A MOTION, IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH.

I DON'T, SO I GO ON.

I DON'T THINK THAT ACTION IS NEEDED UNLESS, OKAY.

YES, SIR.

SO FOR CONSTABLE TWO THEY ARE, IF YOU PULLED YOURS OR YOU STILL WANT ONE, SO THERE'S, THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON CONSTABLE TWO.

OH, OKAY.

SORRY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT EARLIER.

IT TOOK ME A SECOND TO GET THE BUILDING ON THE GROUNDS.

SO WE MAY NEED TO JUDGE, GO TO A DIFFERENT ACTION ITEM TO HANDLE THE EMPLOYEE ASPECT OF THE CONSTABLE TWO REQUEST.

SO CAN WE GO TO NEW PERSONNEL PLEASE? WELL, TIM, WE JUST BYPASS THIS AND IF WE NEED TO, WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS.

SO NO ACTION IS NEEDED, KIM, ON THE CONSTABLE TWO VEHICLE FOR NOW.

SO WE'RE, WE'RE WE'RE STILL ON THE SAME, WE'RE STILL ON CAP.

NON CAP, RIGHT? AND VEHICLE REQUESTS? YES.

SO WE'LL JUMP DOWN TO ANIMAL CONTROL VEHICLES AND OUTFITTING.

UM, THEY'VE REQUESTED A CHEVROLET 2,502 WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE FOR 47,950, WHICH ALSO WOULD INCLUDE, UM, THE, THE EQUIPMENT AND SO FORTH THAT WOULD GO INTO THAT VEHICLE.

AND I HAD THAT SCORED AS A FIVE ORIGINALLY, I BELIEVE.

AND THE TOTAL OVERALL, HANG ON.

AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE, UH, THE ENTIRE LIST OF OUTFITTING THE VEHICLE, I MEAN THE VEHICLE OUTFITTING.

I BELIEVE IT'S LIKE $881,000 TOTAL.

FOR, FOR THE, AND WE APPROVE THE, UH, ANIMAL CONTROL VEHICLE REQUEST AND THE, UH, ACCOMPANYING, UH, OUTFITTING.

KIM, CAN YOU REPEAT HOW MUCH YOU SAID THAT WAS FOR, I BELIEVE IT'S 8 81 8.

DO YOU HAVE A TOTAL? 8 8 1 7 180 8 1 71.

I WAS ABOUT TO SAY, I I DON'T THINK IT'S 800,000.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

THERE, THERE'S THINGS IN ADDITION TO IT.

THERE'S A, THERE'S A DOG TRANSPORT TRAILER.

YES, SIR.

THAT'S, THAT'S EVOLVED THERE.

THAT'S, THAT'S 18,500.

AND THEN, UH, THE, UH, THE OUTFITTING DROPPING, THE, THE AN ANTENNAS AND STUFF, ALL THOSE KINDS, TYPES OF THINGS, THE VEHICLE ITSELF COSTS 47,009 50.

AND IT'S A TWO WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE? YES, SIR.

MOTION MAY BUCK COMMISSIONER WALDEN SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HOL IN THE DISCUSSION.

DOES THAT INCLUDE THE TRAILER? YES.

GOT IT.

AND KIM, FOR THE RECORD, CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THAT TOTAL PLEASE? 88 1 71 88 1 71.

AND THE LAST VEHICLE, UM, IS AG EXTENSION.

THE RE REQUESTED A 2026 FORD EXPLORER, UM, VEHICLE FOR 37,450.

THE COMMITTEE SCORED THAT AT 1.5.

JUDGE, I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THAT NOW, NEXT ITEM.

THE CONSTABLE TOO THING BEFORE I FORGET.

UM, I BELIEVE THAT COVERS EVERYTHING ON THE CAP, NON CAP ITEMS. SO JUDGE, IF WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT, CAN WE NOW GO TO THE NEW PERSONNEL REQUESTS TO ADDRESS

[00:50:01]

OKAY, WHAT ITEM IS THAT? UM, YOU HAVE THE AGENDA HANDY.

IT'D BE ITEM L WOULDN'T IT? UH, L OKAY,

[IX.L. Additional Employee Salary Requests and/or New Positions. (Becky McCullough/ Judge Deen)]

WE'RE ON ITEM L.

JUDGE, I'M GONNA MOVE THAT WE REVERSE OUR DECISION ON THE ADDING THE POSITION TO THE CONSTABLE TWO AND INSTEAD WE ASSIGN THAT NEW POSITION TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IN DISCUSSING THIS WITH THE SHERIFF AND WITH THE CONSTABLE IS THAT THE SHERIFF HAS THE PEOPLE AND THE, THE PERSONNEL IN PLACE WHERE THEY CAN SATISFY THE FEMALE DEPUTY TRANSPORT REQUIREMENT THAT CONSTABLE TWO HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.

UM, CONSTABLE TWO DOES NOT HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S DOING THAT FULL-TIME RIGHT NOW.

SO PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT CONSTABLE TWO CONTINUES DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON THEIR OTHER DUTIES, BUT DOES NOT GIVE UP A PERSON.

INSTEAD, WE ADD THAT PERSON TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE SINCE HE'S TAKING ON THE TRANSPORT ROLE'S.

GONNA BE MY MOTION AFTER RETHINKING THAT OVER THE NIGHT I ORIGINALLY MADE THIS TO, SO TO TRY TO SHRINK GOVERNMENT, UM, AND APPEARS THAT'S NOT GOING TO TO HAPPEN.

SO, UM, IF WE COULD JUST GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WHERE, UH, CONSTABLE TWO ASKED FOR THE OTHER FEMALE PERSON AND Y'ALL JUST GIVE IT TO HIM AND HE JUST CARRIES ON LIKE, LIKE ORIGINALLY.

WELL THAT CHANGES A LOT OF STUFF.

I HAD ANOTHER PROPOSAL THAT IF WE COULD TAKE ONE OF HIS PEOPLE, PUT IT IN MINE IN ANYONE, AND THEN TAKE THE NEW FEMALE AND GIVE IT TO HIM, HE WOULD STILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE SAYING, DOING THE SAME DUTIES, BUT IT WOULD FULFILL THE FEMALE.

THAT'S ACTUALLY REQUIREMENT, THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT QUITE ACCURATE, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T HAVE 40 HOURS A WEEK RIGHT NOW OF TRANSPORT DUTIES.

SO IF WE TAKE AWAY ONE OF HIS EXISTING PEOPLE, HIS REMAINING DUTIES WILL HAVE HOURS EATEN INTO THOSE.

SO, AND THEN A NEW FEMALE WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE IN AND DO ALL EVERYTHING HE'S DOING RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE DISCUSSED IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE.

NO, I THOUGHT I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS AFTER THE MEETING LAST NIGHT.

SO, SO IF PART OF THE, PART OF THE APPEAL TO YOUR ORIGINAL SUGGESTION WAS THAT IF WE WERE TO GIVE YOU A NEW POSITION DUE TO YOUR VEHICLE SITUATION AND THE 2 87 G GRANT AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL VEHICLE THROUGH THAT APPROACH THAT'S OUTFITTED AND ALL OF THAT.

IF CONSTABLE TWO KEEPS THE MENTAL HEALTH TRANSPORT, WE WILL HAVE TO PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL VEHICLE.

SO UNLESS I'M MIS, UNLESS I'M LOOKING AT IT WRONG, IF MENTAL HEALTH TRANSPORT STAYS WITH CONSTABLE TWO, IT'S A NEW POSITION PLUS A VEHICLE IF IT TRANSFERS TO THE, SO IT'S A NEW POSITION ONLY.

THAT'S HOW I'M KIND OF SEEING IT IN MY HEAD UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING.

NOW THE THE PARTS YOU HAVE RIGHT THERE IS CORRECT OTHER THAN WE GET MORE DUTIES WITH THE ONE PERSON AND HE ENDS UP WITH LESS DUTIES WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

SO AGAIN, I WAS TRYING TO SHRINK GOVERNMENT BY MOVING THE ONE POSITION OVER, LET'S JUST COME BACK TO THIS ANOTHER TIME.

I, I, I SUGGEST THAT WE TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO EVALUATE.

I THINK THAT'S, WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER SESSION WHERE WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.

SO YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD, IT CHANGED JUST A LITTLE BIT SO WE'RE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT.

SO MY MOTION IS WITHDRAWN, DISCUSS, WE RECOGNIZE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER, ANOTHER, YEAH.

ANOTHER COURT TO DISCUSS IT.

DO WE, WE WANT

[IX.E. Discuss/Take action on FY 2027 Capital Improvement Projects. (Mark Long/ Judge Deen) (Part 2 of 2)]

TO GO BACK TO IE WE WERE AT, UH YEP, HE IS WHERE WE'RE GOING DISCUSS, TAKE ACTION ON FY 27 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

MARK IS NOT HERE.

I THINK HE'S GOT A PERSONAL MATTER.

DID WE NOT APPROVE ALL OF THOSE FOR EDUCATION? I THOUGHT WE HAD GOTTEN THE LIST WITH THE RANKING AND THEN WE WENT THROUGH, BUT WE NEVER ACTUALLY APPROVED THOSE AFTER THAT.

NO, AND ALSO ON THAT LIST AT THE BOTTOM, IT SAID WHAT THEY NEEDED IN ADDITION TO THE BUILDING, LIKE 500,000, BUT A PORTION OF WHAT THEY STILL HAD IN THAT LIST WAS COMPARABLE TO THE MODULAR BUILDING AND ALL OF THAT, WHICH WOULD GO AWAY WITH THE OTHER APPROVAL.

UH, WE DIDN'T APPROVE THAT EXPENDITURE FOR THAT, DID WE? WE DID.

SO WHAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE, THE NEW AUTO REGISTRATION FACILITY AT SPRINGTOWN ADJACENT TO THE THE SPRINGTOWN ANNEX.

[00:55:01]

WE APPROVED AN AMOUNT, WE'D HAVE MOVED AN AMOUNT, BUT IN CONTINGENCY FOR THAT.

WHAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DO WE NEED TO ALLOCATE THERE? I THINK THERE, WAS THERE SHERIFF'S OFFICE 25,000 FOR COUNTER? NO, I MEAN I'M SPECIFICALLY AT SPRINGTOWN ANNEX THAT, THAT, THAT IS ALL TAKEN CARE OF.

THINK QUOTE, THAT'S ALL TAKEN CARE OF THERE.

WE SET THAT, WE SET THAT FUNDING ASIDE.

IT NEEDS TO BE IN CONTINGENCY.

AND WE'LL ADDRESS THAT AS WE GET BIDS FOR THAT PROJECT.

NOW IN ADDITION TO THAT, NOW ARE OTHER ITEMS SUCH AS THE BULLETPROOF GLASS THAT WAS REQUESTED? RIGHT? AND BRIANNA, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS SHEET RIGHT HERE? CORRECT.

OH, SORRY KIM, YOU PUT THAT TOGETHER.

OKAY, I'LL, THAT'S THAT'S THE ONE.

THIS, IT SAYS 2027 CAPITAL PROJECTS.

THIS IS THE SHEET THAT SHE GAVE YOU AND I LAST, UM, COURT AND WITH THE RANKINGS ON THE SIDE THAT THEY HAD RANKED THEM RIGHT FOR THAT PRIORITIZED THEM, UM, ON THE DATE.

8 8 31.

WELL, OKAY.

NO SHE DIDN'T, THIS IS MY SHEET, MY DATE.

I JUST UPDATED THE WHOLE THING.

SO KIM, I'M I'M LOOKING ON HERE JUST VERY QUICKLY I'M SEEING THAT WE APPROVED 25, I'M LOOKING, LOOKING AT THE RIGHT HAND COLUMN WHERE IT SAYS APPROVED.

IT SAYS ON 8 25 WE APPROVED THE INSTALLATION OF BULLETPROOF WINDOWS FOR JP TWO.

AND THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 AND FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THEN 500,000 TO GO INTO CONTINGENCY FOR THE SPRINGTOWN ANNEX.

THEN THAT OTHER 25, LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION, BUT THESE OTHER ITEMS WE HAVE NOT APPROVED.

IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT.

AND THE NET TO, I MEAN THE, THE, THE TOTAL OF THOSE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT ARE ON THE LIST THAT HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED IS FOR DESK, DESK AND CHAIRS.

IF THE ANNEX IS REMODELED, SEE YOU HAVE FOR OUR REGISTRATION.

SO I THINK SHE'S TAKEN ALL THOSE ITEMS THERE AND PUT IT INTO, INTO HER LUMP SUM AMOUNT.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S 875,500.

THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I CAME UP WITH.

THIS IS AMOUNT THAT WE HAVE, BUT THAT AMOUNT'S GONNA BE INCLUDING THE AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED, BUT 500,000.

BUT THERE'S STILL SOME ITEMS ON THERE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED THAT NEED TO BE IN BILLING GROUNDS CONTINGENCY OR IN THEIR ACTUAL BUDGET SO THAT THEY CAN DO THOSE ITEMS WHICH WE HAVE NOT APPROVED.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 30 OR $325,500 OF NOT YET APPROVED STUFF.

THAT'S THAT 8 75, 500 MINUS THE FIVE 50.

BUT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY LIKE UN UNREQUESTED ITEMS FOR MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS THAT OCCURS DURING THE YEAR.

SO RIGHT.

JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS LIST ONLY.

COMING BACK ON OR BEFORE THE NEW FISCAL YEAR TO GIVE US THE ORDER OF OPERATIONS AND SUBJECT TO THOSE AMOUNTS NOT BEING EXCEEDED.

IF I'M NOT TERRIBLY OFF BASE HERE, I THINK WHAT WE'VE DONE THE PAST IS, IS APPROVED, UH, AN AMOUNT AND THEN THEY WORK OFF OF THAT AS FAR AS THAT GOES.

AND THEN IF, IF ANYTHING EXTRA COME UP, THEN CONTINGENCIES WHERE THEY'RE GONNA EXCEED THAT AND THEY'RE GONNA COME BACK TO US AND, AND HAVE CONTINGENCY.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE FOR HVAC STUFF OR WHATEVER.

BUT I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT DOESN'T DO THE DEPARTMENT HAS ASKING WHETHER THEIR APPROVAL HAS BEEN OR WHETHER THEIR REQUEST HAS BEEN APPROVED.

IT'S JUST BASICALLY ASKED WELL, I MEAN I GUESS IF IT'S GOING OFF OF HERE'S WHAT THE PRIORITY AND THEY CAN GET WITH BUILDING AND GROUND, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THEM TO, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THEM TO RANK THEIR, UH, REQUESTS FROM ONE TO THE END OF THEM SO THAT WE WOULD START ON NUMBER ONE.

NOT THAT ALL OF THEM WERE WERE THE HIGHEST PRIORITIES, BUT THAT THEY WOULD GO IN ORDER AND THAT'S THE ORDER THAT THEY WOULD BE PERFORMED IN.

SO CAN THEY, THESE ALL OF THESE DEPARTMENTS EXPECT THAT THESE ITEMS OCCURRED? I DON'T KNOW.

IT, IT DEPENDS ON HOW LONG IT TAKES TO DO THE, THE NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO, NUMBER THREE FOR ONE THING IF THAT'S, BUT THEY NEED TO COME BACK TO US TO, TO DISCUSS THOSE THINGS.

SO I I CAN'T ADDRESS THAT.

WELL I HAVE A SUGGESTION THAT I THINK MAY HANDLE BOTH ISSUES.

I UNDERSTAND BUILDING AND GROUNDS.

UM, THERE'S BEEN A, UH, A DEATH IN THE FAMILY.

I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S REASONABLE AT THIS TIME TO ASK THEM TO COME BACK AND RANK THE ORDER OF OPERATION OF THESE MM-HMM MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE APPROVE THESE AMOUNTS SUBJECT TO AT SOME POINT BUILDING AND GROUNDS COMING BACK, GIVING US THE ORDER OF OPERATION OF THESE AND IF ANY OF THESE OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING TO GO ABOVE THE AMOUNT PROPOSED, THAT HAS TO COME BACK THROUGH COURT AS WELL.

THAT'S MY MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE REMAINING $325,500 FOR THE PROJECTS AS LISTED SUBJECT TO BUILDING AND GROUNDS

[01:00:01]

WELL HOW DOES THAT ALIGN WITH WHAT WE'VE HISTORICALLY SPENT IN THAT LINE ITEM FOR BUILDING AND GROUNDS? WELL, THERE WAS FUNDS THAT WERE APPROVED THIS YEAR AND THOSE PROJECTS WENT OVER, THEY WEREN'T LINE.

SO WE'RE GONNA NEED TO, UM, WE'RE GONNA NEED TO VISIT WITH BUILDING GROUNDS.

UM, I JUST WANNA ENSURE WHEN IN PO WE'RE PROCESSING INVOICES ALL BUDGET WE HAVE CLEAR WE'RE NOT TRACKING AND MANAGING.

THE ONLY REASON SOME OF THAT IS BECAUSE I HAD A QUESTION FROM ANOTHER DEPARTMENT AND SELECTED GO THROUGH THOSE LINE ITEMS TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT.

THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON WHY I'D ASK TO THOSE, FOR THOSE TO BE RANKED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY WOULD BE PERFORMED IN SO THAT WE COULD HAVE A EASIER WAY OF TRACKING THE EXPENDITURE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED SOME MORE WORK ON BEFORE WE GET THERE.

YEAH, DEFINITELY.

DEFINITELY THAT, THAT RANKING NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED BEFORE ANY OF THESE PROJECTS WILL START, BUT I THINK THAT RANKING CAN COME IN SEPTEMBER.

THAT'S PART OF THE MOTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOLT.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THIS MOTION? I JUST, THE THE, I'M GONNA SECOND THE MOTION BUT I HAVE A QUESTION.

I, AGAIN, I, AGAIN, I'M ASKING HOW MUCH WAS THE ALLOCATED, UH, NUMBER FOR PROJECTS OF THIS NATURE IN PRIOR YEARS? LAST, LAST YEAR? OR IS THIS IN LINE WITH THAT OR IS IT OUTTA LINE WITH IT? I'M SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I'M, I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE IF WE, HOW MUCH WE ALLOCATED HERE IN IN OKAY.

AND I'M, I'M NOT SAYING THAT NONE OF THESE NEED TO BE DONE OR THAT ANYTHING REGARDING THAT.

I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE, IF WE HAD $300,000 IN THERE LAST YEAR THAT WE ARE MAINTAINING THEY BIG THINK THE YEAR LARGER PROJECTS WITH THE, UM, BUILDING WELL SIM SIMILAR.

YEAH, YEAH, NO, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

SO I HAVE A, I HAVE A SIMILAR, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION.

SO SUPPOSE WE DO APPROVE THIS 3 25, 500 A DAY ADDITIONAL AND THEN WE COME BACK IN SEPTEMBER OR EVEN IN THE NEW FISCAL, WE CAN ALWAYS TAKE SOME OF THOSE OFF THE LIST AND REDUCE THAT AMOUNT.

WE CAN MOVE THE BUDGET.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE LOOK AT THIS AND UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, THERE'S FIVE OR SIX PROJECTS ON HERE THAT NEED TO WAIT UNTIL NEXT YEAR, WE CAN PULL THE FUNDING FOR THOSE CAN WE NOT? WELL, OR AGAIN, YOU CAN PUT, AND THEN ONCE THEY KIND OF PRIORITIZE ADDITIONAL ONE THEY ASK AND APPROVE THAT.

COPY.

AND THEN IT'S NOT, ALRIGHT.

G, HEALTH INSURANCE, RETIREES, ANYTHING? I REACHED OUT THIS MORNING TO SEE IF WE HAD AN UPDATED RATE AND I STILL DON'T HAVE IT AGAIN, IT'S NOT A CHANGE TO THE POLICY.

SO I'M COMFORTABLE THEN WITH APPROVING THIS AMOUNT FOR NOW.

YEAH, I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, WITH UH, APPROVING THIS AMOUNT FOR NOW KNOWING THAT WE MAY HAVE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS MOVING FORWARD.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR.

CURIOUS IF WILL, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON ITEM E? LET'S MOVE TO ITEM METH ON ACTIVE EMPLOYEE INSURANCE RIGHTS.

BECKY? NONE, ITEM

[IX.G. Health Insurance for Retirees. (Becky McCullough / Judge Deen)]

IT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE BUDGETARY OTHER THAN JUST Y'ALL APPROVING THE RATES.

SO I'LL BRING THOSE AS SOON AS I CAN.

ITEM H, DISCUSS VOTING, PROPOSAL, ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES.

THAT'S ALREADY DONE AND THAT'S ALREADY DONE.

SO WE MOVE TO ITEM I, SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR PRECINCTS ALREADY DONE.

OR STAY AT THE CURRENT COLA.

ITEM J SALARIES AND BENEFITS WERE PARKER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ALREADY DONE ITEM

[IX.K. Salaries and Benefits for Non-Elected Employees. (Becky McCullough / Judge Deen)]

SO, AND BENEFITS WERE NON-ELECTED EMPLOYEES ALREADY DONE.

UM, THERE IS STILL THE, UH, SUBJECT OF THE CONSTABLES WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO STAY ON THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE STEPPING GRADE

[01:05:01]

THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME OF THAT.

WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THAT.

YEAH, THAT'S, WE'RE GONNA DELAY THAT.

NO ACTION ON THAT.

I DO HAVE SOME, UH, CLEANUP KIND OF CLARIFICATIONS.

JUST SO I'M CLEAR AS I'M INPUTTING INTO THE BUDGET.

UM, THE IT DIRECTOR AND ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR RECEIVED RAISES.

IS THAT INCLUDING THE 6% OR DO THEY RECEIVE THE 6% ON TOP OF IT? IT WAS INCLUSIVE TO MY RECOLLECTION.

SO THE SALARIES THAT WERE APPROVED WERE APPROVED TO BE THOSE SALARIES.

FOR THE NEW BUDGET YEAR.

UM, ALSO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S RESTRUCTURE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED, UM, I BELIEVE THE INTENT WAS FOR THEM TO RECEIVE 6% ON TOP OF THAT RESTRUCTURE.

SO I NEED CLARIFICATION ON THAT AS WELL.

NO, I THINK THAT WAS THE, BE FROM, FROM THE BEGINNING.

THAT WAS THE REQUEST.

IF THERE WAS, WAS TO PUT 6%, IF THERE WAS A COST OF LIVING INCREASE, THAT WOULD BE ON TOP OF THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S WHAT I RECALL THAT WELL, UM, WE STILL HAVE THE ITEM OF, UH, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S BUDGET, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY BUDGET FOR SUPPLEMENTS INCREASES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I STILL HAVE TO DO SOME WORK WITH THEM.

WE HAVE SOME WORK TO DO IN THAT AREA AS WELL.

WE'D LIKE TO BRING THAT BACK LATER.

YES, WE DO.

UM, AND I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

MOVED ITEM MAIL ON ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES.

SHERIFF ON THE P UH, PARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE SALARIES.

THERE WAS STILL THAT ISSUE.

UH, SOME OF THE BAILIFFS WERE APPARENTLY RAISED OR TENTATIVELY RAISED, WHICH WOULD AFFECT THE COURTHOUSE SECURITY, UH, SALARY STRUCTURE.

'CAUSE THEY WERE PAID ON THAT.

SO IT'S, IF THEY GET MOVED UP, IT'S GONNA CHANGE MY REQUEST FOR THE COURTHOUSE.

WE'RE ON J ON THAT.

I KNOW A LOT OF THINGS ARE GONNA GET ADJUSTED, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT.

WE CALL IT CLEANUP.

AND WHAT I'D ASK YOU TO DO IS, IS SUBMIT THAT I, WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT YOUR PREFERENCE IS AND, AND WE'LL, UH, I GAVE ONE TO, UH, MRS. MCCO YESTERDAY.

WE'LL TAKE IT UP LATER.

THANK YOU, SHERIFF.

WE'LL TAKE NO ACTION ON THAT.

MOVE BACK TO ITEM MAIL ON ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE SALARY REQUESTS OR NEW POSITIONS.

BECKY, ANYTHING THANK YOU.

MOVE TO ITEM MAIL ON SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS PROJECTS.

WE ADDED NONE UNDER 10 UNDER MAY.

PUR PRESENT.

DISCUSS APPROVED PRECINCT FUND 50 AND FUND FOUR ONE THROUGH FOUR PER BUDGET OF APPLY 26 27.

ANYTHING ON THAT? BIANCA, THAT WAS A NO.

MOVE TO ITEM B.

TAKE NO ACTION ON ITEM A MOVED.

ITEM B, CAPITAL NON CAP BUDGET REQUEST.

KIM, ANYTHING ON THAT? THANK YOU.

NO.

ACTION.

ITEM C, ROAD AND BRIDGE ALLOCATION.

[X.C. Road & Bridge Allocation. (Bianca Lord / Judge Deen)]

ANYTHING ELSE LEFT ON THAT THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED TODAY? THAT'S A NO AS WELL.

WE'LL TAKE NO ACTION ON THAT.

EXCUSE ME.

NO, I THINK BEFORE AJOUR, I THINK WE NEED NEXT BUDGET MEETING BECAUSE THE NEXT SCHEDULE ONE ISN'T UNTIL THE 22ND AND WE NEED ONE IN BETWEEN.

MY QUESTION, UM, WE NEED THREE BUSINESS DAYS TO POST IT, THE AGENDA.

SO, UM, IT WOULD BE, I THINK WEDNESDAY WOULD BE THE EARLIEST WE COULD DO ONE NEXT WEDNESDAY, MONDAY, TUESDAY IS THE EARLIEST.

TUESDAY.

TUESDAY AT NINE.

THE EIGHTH IS THE EARLIEST.

UM, WE CAN HAVE ANYTHING FROM THE WEEK OF THE SEVENTH OR THE WEEK OF THE 14TH.

WHAT, WHAT WOULD YOU PREFER? SO, UM, I'M NOT AVAILABLE ON THE 14TH.

HOWEVER, UH, WE DO NEED, WE NEED DO, NEED TIME TO, UH, WE NEED TIME TO WORK ON THESE THINGS THAT WE JUST SAID WE NEED TO WORK ON.

AND SO, UH, UM, WHAT ABOUT THE 10TH OR THE 11TH? 10TH.

10TH WOULD BE A GOOD DAY.

10TH? NO, WE CAN DO THE A I CAN DO THE AFTERNOON AND THE 10TH.

WE HAVE A THOROUGHFARE PLAN FROM 11 TO ONE.

SO I GUESS IF WE DID AN 8:00 AM WE'D HAVE TO BE DONE BY 11.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE 11TH IS THE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE? YES, SIR.

11TH.

11TH IS BETTER FOR ME.

10TH IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE.

I'M, I'M TIRED.

YEAH, BECAUSE YOU NEED TO, YOU NEED TO BE AT THAT TRANSPORTATION DO AS WELL.

EVERYTHING AT ALL POSSIBLE.

ELEVENTH'S GOOD FOR ME.

CAN WE DO THE MORNING PLEASE? ON THE 11TH INSTEAD OF THE AFTERNOON? NINE O'CLOCK AT 11 ON THE 11TH.

EITHER THAT OR, OR ABOUT TO THE 16TH.

I I WOULD, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THIS MEETING, WE, WE NEED TO GET EVERYTHING DONE AT THIS MEETING.

YEP.

[01:10:02]

SO THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT IF WE HAVE TO STAY HERE LONGER, THAT WE, WE DON'T NEED TO BE LIMITING OURSELVES ON TIME ON THIS PARTICULAR MEETING.

COMM COMMISSIONER, DO YOU WANNA DO THAT ON THE 11TH OR THE 16TH? 16TH.

16TH.

PRETTY GOOD.

THAT SHOULD GIVE APPLE TIME TO WORK OUT ALL THESE ISSUES THAT WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT WE IDENTIFY EARLIER IN, EARLIER IN THE DAY.

SO WE HAVE MORE HOURS.

FOR NINE O'CLOCK.

NINE O WELL THAT'S WHAT WE SCHEDULE BACK.

NINE O'CLOCK.

NOT, NOT 10.

NINE O'CLOCK.

NINE O'CLOCK ON THE 16TH IT IS.