[Call to Order] [00:00:14] MAC I'M GOING TO CALL THIS MEETING AT THE BARKER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ORDER ON THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. WE HAVE A QUORUM WITH THE COUNTY CLERK IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PRESENT. WE WILL BEGIN WITH AN INVOCATION READ BY JAMES, FROM DIVINE MERCY LUTHERAN CHURCH, FOLLOWED BY PLEDGE, PLEASE STAND. >> IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND THE SUN AND THE WHOLE-- THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. WE PRAY. HEAVENLY FATHER, WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR ALL THE WAYS HE WATCHED OVER AND BLESSED US IN THE SUMMER MONTHS. AS WE ENTER THE FALL WE ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO BLESS OUR COMMUNITY WITH GOOD AND SEASONABLE WEATHER, SO WE MAY PROSPER AS YOU SEE FIT. GUIDE OUR MEETING TODAY. OUR THOUGHTS, OUR WORDS, AND OUR ACTIONS, SO THAT ALL THAT WE DO IS IN-SERVICE TO YOU, AND TO THOSE UNDER OUR CARE. WE ASK FOR THESE BLESSINGS IN JESUS' NAME. AMEN. >> EVERYONE: I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO MY FLAG AND THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG; I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. [4. CONSENT] >> WE WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEM FOUR, UNDER ITEM EIGHT. TWO, PRECUT FOUR. UNDER ITEM A. TREASURER, UNDER ITEM B. AND UNDER COUNTY JUDGE,-- ITEM TWO AND THREE-- ALLOWS FOR A MOTION-- >> I MOVED TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS AS MOVE TODAY. >> ANY SECOND? >> ONE COMMENT UNDER AUDITOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS, SIMILAR TO PRIOR YEARS, WE WILL SUBMIT ONE AFTER THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR. AND THAT IS RELATED TO TID SEE, AS YOU RECALL. WE ASKED IN OUR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. WE BUDGET THEM IN CERTAIN LINES. AND THEN WE JUST-- IT'S NOT A CHANGE TO THE BUDGET. IT'S JUST MOVING THE FUNDS. AND WE WILL SUBMIT THOSE AFTER WE FINISH THE SEPTEMBER 30TH INVOICE PROCESSES. [6.A. Discussion/Update on Jim Wright House and take any action the court deems necessary.] >> OKAY. THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM SIX A, ON THE DISCUSSION AN UPDATE ON JIM WRIGHT HOUSE AND TAKE ANY ACTION THE COURT DEEMS NECESSARY. TERRY? >> THANK YOU, JUDGE, AND COMMISSIONERS. SINCE WE HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE WRIGHT HOUSE IN JAN JANUARY 2025, WE HAVE HONESTLY WORKED EARNESTLY AND DILIGENTLY TO MAKE THIS A PLACE THAT THE COUNTY WILL BE PROUD OF, AND WE CAN MEET AND HAVE MUSEUM ROOMS AND HOLD EVERYTHING THERE SAFELY AND SECURELY. I RECENTLY SENT YOU ALL A LETTER. AND I WILL READ IT FOR RECORD. PARKER COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING PLAN REGARDING THE RELOCATION OF IT'S DOWNTOWN OFFICE TO THE WRIGHT HOUSE. RELOCATION TIMELINE, THE COMMISSION REQUESTS THE ABILITY TO REMAIN IN IT'S CURRENT DOWNTOWN OFFICE THROUGH MARCH 31ST OF 2027, HOWEVER, WE MAYBE ABLE TO RELOCATE SOONER IF THE COUNTY IS ABLE TO COMPLETE NECESSARY PREPARATIONS AT THE WRIGHT HOUSE. BECAUSE OF THE COMMISSION'S INVOLVEMENT, THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION'S INVOLVEMENT, IN CHRISTMAS ON THE SQUARE, AND IN OTHER ACTIVITIES, WE PROPOSE THAT ANY OTHER RELOCATION OCCUR NO EARLIER THAN AFTER THE CHRISTMAS ON THE SQUARE EVENT. SECURITY. APPROPRIATE SECURITY MEASURES WILL BE NEEDED AT THE WRIGHT HOUSE, INCLUDING CAMERAS AND ALARMS ON EXTERIOR DOORS TO PROTECT THE BUILDING, COMMISSION RECORDS, HISTORICAL MATERIALS AND OTHER COUNTY PROPERTY. WE FOUND THIS KIND OF BY ACCIDENT. WE HAD-- FAMILY SAID BROUGHT PRECIOUS HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS FROM THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS, AND IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT WE HAVE NO WAY OF SECURING THE HOUSE WITH CAMERAS, SOMEBODY COULD HAVE BROKEN IN AND TAKEN VALUABLE STUFF. STORAGE. THE COMMISSION REQUESTS MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING LAUNDRY ROOM AREA TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE STORAGE FOR COMMISSION RECORDS SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS. [00:05:05] AND IN ADA ACCESSIBILITY. AND ADA COMPLIANT NEEDS OF ACCESS WILL BE NEEDED SO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION CAN-- SORRY. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE COMMISSION CAN ENTER THE WRIGHT HOUSE WITHOUT HAVING TO NAVIGATE THE EXISTING STEPS. IN ADDITION THE COMMISSION REQUESTS APPROXIMATELY 20 LARGE CHURCH STYLE CHAIRS, AND 20 ROLLING CHAIRS, CURRENTLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE OFFICE DOWNTOWN, BE TRANSPORT-- TRANSFERRED TO COUNTY SURPLUS, ONCE WE HAVE MOVED, RATHER THAN RELOCATE IT TO THE WRIGHT HOUSE. OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THIS TRANSITION THOUGHTFULLY PROTECT THE HISTORIC PROPERTY AND COUNTY ASSETS, AND ENSURE THAT THE WRIGHT HOUSE CAN FUNCTION SAFELY AND EFFECTIVELY AS A PUBLIC FACING HOME FOR THE PARKER COUNTY HISTORICAL COMMISSION. WE APPRECIATE YOUR ASSISTANCE, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO MAKE THIS TRANSITION. >> I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE PLAN AS PRESENTED BY THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALL. ANY DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? >> I WANT TO THANK THEM FOR THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE DONE TO BRING THIS TO US TODAY. I REALIZE IT IS NOT AN EASY TASK WHEN YOU START TRYING TO CORRAL THAT MANY FOLKS. I HAVE BEEN TO YOUR MEETINGS ACT SEVERAL TIMES. AT YOUR HOUSE I'VE BEEN TO THE MEETINGS, AND OVER HERE TOO. I RECOGNIZE THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO GET TO THIS POINT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. >> THANK YOU ALL. [6.B. Discuss/Take action on CCL and District Court Coordinator salaries for FY 2027. (Part 1 of 2)] >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM SIX. DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON CCL AND DISTRICT COURT COORDINATOR SALARIES FOR FY 2027. JUDGE JOHNSON IS ON HERE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO THIS? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED. >> I HATE TO MAKE YOU WAIT, BUT WE MIGHT HAVE TO DEFER THAT UNTIL JUDGE JOHNSON CAN GET HERE. I TRY TO ACCOMMODATE WHEN I SEE A JUDGE IN THE COURTROOM. >> CAN YOU TELL IF JUDGE JOHNSON IS SPEAKING OUT THERE? I THOUGHT I HEARD HER A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. WE ARE READY FOR HER, IF SHE IS READY. [6.C. Consider all matters incident and related to the issuance and sale of Parker County, Texas, Unlimited Tax Refunding Bonds in one or more series, including the adoption of an order authorizing the issuance of such bonds and establishing procedures and delegating authority for the sale and delivery of such bonds.] OKAY. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM SIX SEAM. CONSIDER ALL MANAGE-- ALL MATTERS INCIDENT AND RELATED TO THE ISSUANCE AND SALE PARKER COUNTY TEXAS EMINENT TAX REFUNDING BONDS IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH BONDS AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND DELEGATING AUTHORITY FOR THE SALE AND DELIVERY OF SUCH BONDS. ORGANICALLY THANK YOU FOR COMING. -- BREANNA? THANK YOU FOR COMING. >> GOOD MORNING. WE HAVE GEORGE WILLIFORD HERE, OUR SIGN-UP-- FINANCIAL AND VISOR. AND WE ARE BRINGING TO YOU A POTENTIAL REFUNDING OF SOME OF OUR OUTSTANDING BONDS. WE WILL GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OF WHAT THE PARAMETER ORDER WILL LOOK LIKE. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. IT IS GOOD TO BE BACK BEFORE THE COURT. FOR THE RECORD, GEORGE WILLIFORD, HILLTOP SECURITIES. AND I AM HERE TODAY-- WE HAD THOUGHT ONE MONTH AGO THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE IMMINENT, AS FAR AS ACTION, IF YOU HAVE BEEN KEEPING UP WITH THE INTEREST RATE MARKETS, AND SO ON, IT IS REALLY NOT, BUT IT IS STILL TIMELY. AND GOOD TO GET IN PLACE. SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE REFUNDING OF AT LEAST ONE OF THE COUNTIES BOND ISSUES, THE SERIES 2017. THE 2016, AS YOU WILL SEE IS ALSO A PROSPECT, AND SO ON. BUT, RIGHT NOW INTEREST RATES HAVE MOVED AGAINST BEING ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE SAVINGS THAT THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO GET EVERYTHING IN PLACE. SO HOPEFULLY THINGS CHANGE, AND YOU CAN ACT MORE QUICKLY. YOU WILL SEE HERE, AS I [00:10:01] MENTIONED, YOU HAVE THE SERIES, 2016 ISSUE. AND ACTUALLY IT HAS BEEN CALLABLE FOR ABOUT A YEAR. THE INTEREST PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, 38.125 MILLION. AND IT HAS SECURITIES 27 THROUGH 34. AND ALL OF THE-- ALL THOSE HAVE AN INTEREST RATE OF 4%. AND THEN THE SERIES 2017 HIS CALLABLE BEGINNING FEBRUARY 15TH OF THE UPCOMING YEAR OF 27, AND THAT IS WHY THE TIMING IS WHEN WE ARE COMING BEFORE YOU, RIGHT NOW. IT HAS 31.17 MILLION PRINCIPAL THAT IS CULPABLE, 28 THROUGH 42, AND FOUR OF THOSE, THE FROM FOR-- 4% REMAINING LEVEL IS AT 5%. AND THAT'S AN IMPORT THAT OFFERS THE REAL SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES. HAD WE BEEN ABLE TO WE WOULD COME BACK IN THE SUMMER AND SAY-- AND UNDERTAKE THIS, BUT YOU WILL SEE ON A FOOTNOTE AT THE BOTTOM UNDER IRS RULES, YOU CANNOT DO A TAX EXEMPT REFUNDING UNTIL IT CLOSES NO MORE THAN 90 DAYS IN ADVANCE ON-CALL DAY. THAT SET FEBRUARY 15TH DATE, MEANING AN ISSUE COULD NOT CLOSE ON THAT BASIS BEFORE MID-NOVEMBER. SO WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH BRIANNA FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THAT THE SEPTEMBER FALL TIME FRAME WAS GOOD TO COME TO THE COURT AND GET THIS IN ORDER. AGAIN, THIS LINES OUT THOSE MATURITIES FOR BOTH ISSUES. THE TOP IN THIS CASE IS 2017. AND YOU WILL SEE A NUMBER OF 5% INTEREST RATES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE, AND THE SIXTEENS ALL FOR-- 4 PERCENT, WHICH IS BELOW WHAT CURRENT RATES ARE. SO THE FOCUS IS ON 2017. THE ORDER THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS PREPARED BY MCCALL PARK. IT IS A DELEGATED AUTHORITY TYPE ORDER WHICH CONTAINS ESTABLISHED PARAMETERS. YOU HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST ON FINANCING AND FUNDING, AS WELL AS ON NEW MONEY, BECAUSE THE COUNTY IS LARGE ENOUGH OR HAS ENOUGH DEBT OUTSTANDING THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO DO THAT. WHAT THAT DOES IS DELEGATE TO THE JUDGE WITH THE ABILITY TO IF EVERYTHING IS IN ORDER TO MIX THE PARAMETERS AND OVERSEE PRICING AND APPROVE PRICING AND SALE AT A POINT IN TIME. WHAT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS OPENS A WINDOW. AND THAT IS WHY TODAY CONDITIONS ARE NOT REALLY CONDUCIVE TO DOING THE REFINANCING, BUT ACTING ON THE ORDER TODAY, IT OPENS IS WINDOW SO THAT IF OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR OR AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR RATES START COMING BACK DOWN SO THE SAVINGS CAN BE ACHIEVED, THEN THE JUDGE, AND BRIANNA, COULD MOVE FORWARD, WITHOUT HAVING TO WAIT AND COME BACK TO THE COURT. SO THE MOST IMPORTANT ITEM IS THE MINIMUM SAVINGS PARAMETER THAT IS RECOMMENDED AND IN THE ORDER, 3% PRESENT VALUE OF THE REFUNDED PRINCIPLE. SO WHAT I HAVE IS AN EXAMPLE HERE THAT SHOWS FOR JUST 2017 THAT 31.7 MILLION, IN ORDER TO LEAVE THE 3% MINIMUM THRESHOLD, YOU WILL SEE THE TOTAL SAVINGS WOULD NEED TO BE AROUND 341, SLIGHTLY UNDER $100,000 PER YEAR. AND TOWARDS THE BOTTOM, IT'S HARD FOR THE AUDIENCE TO READ, BUT THE 3% SAVINGS WOULD BE ABOUT 951,000 ON THE PRESENT VALUE BASIS. WHAT THAT 1.3 MILLION THROUGH 2043 IS WHAT IS CRITICAL, AS FAR AS THE DEBT SERVICE. SO AND LESS CONDITIONS RETURN, WHERE YOU CAN ACHIEVE THAT, NOTHING COULD HAPPEN. BUT IF INTEREST RATES COME BACK DOWN SO THAT LEVELS OF SAVINGS COULD BE MET, OR EVEN BEATEN, THEN IT WOULD ENABLE THE JUDGE AND BRIANNA TO MOVE FORWARD. I LOOKED AT THIS LAST NIGHT JUST TO FRESHEN UP. YOU WILL NOTICE IN BLUE IT SHOWS THE-- IN THIS CASE THE TRUE INTEREST COST OR EFFECTIVE RATE FOR THE REFINANCING TO MAKE THE 3% SAVINGS. IT'S 4.38%. AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WHICH WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH INTEREST RATES LITERALLY OVER THE LAST MONTH, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY-- ARE THE MOST DRAMATIC CHANGE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE ARE ABOUT 40 TO 45 BASIS POINTS, OR FOUR TENTHS OF A PERCENT ABOVE THAT RIGHT NOW. [00:15:07] SO A-- AROUND 480. RATES WOULD HAVE TO DROP BY THAT AMOUNT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THE REFUNDING. BUT THAT IS WHAT IS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN GIVEN WERE RATES ARE RIGHT NOW, BUT THIS WILL ESTABLISH AN ADOPTION OF THE ORDER AND ENABLES EVERYTHING TO BE MONITORED AND IF CONDITIONS IMPROVE YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD. BUT I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> THIS GIVES US THE RIGHT TO REFINANCE OUR DEBT IF INTEREST RATES ON THE MARKET DROP LOW ENOUGH THAT IT MAKES SENSE GIVEN THAT 3% NET PRESENT VALUE? >> LIKE I SAID, THE EXAMPLE WAS FOCUSED ON THE SERIES 2017, BECAUSE IT HAS THE HIGHER RATES. BUT THE ORDER OF SIZE IT WOULD ALLOW WOULD ENABLE RATES TO DROP SIGNIFICANTLY ENOUGH THAT YOU COULD REFUND THE 16 AND THE 17. BUT IT IS MOST LIKELY THE 17 WILL BE THE ONE THAT OFFERS SAVINGS. >> AND YOU SAID 932,000 PER YEAR IS WHAT THE SAVINGS WOULD BE IF IT WERE TO DROP? THAT WOULD BE MINIMUM THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SAVE? I HEARD 100,938. >> THE 3% BASED ON THE SERIES 17 WOULD BE SLIGHTLY UNDER 700,000 PER YEAR. WHICH TOTALS 1.3 MILLION. >> JUST TO REITERATE, WE HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE, AND WE LIKE IT BECAUSE IT GIVES THAT FLEXIBILITY TO BE ABLE TO BE-- DO THIS SALE WHEN IT IS MOST OPTIMAL FOR THE COUNTY. ONE THING IN ADDITION TO THOSE PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS, WHAT THOSE MINIMUMS ARE, THERE ARE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE REFUNDING. SO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CREDIT RATING AGENCY CALLS. WE HAVE THOSE, WE HAVE BOND COUNCIL. WE HAVE FINANCIAL ADVISOR FEES. AND WE HAVE TO PUT TOGETHER CERTAIN FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES AND PUT TOGETHER AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT. SO THERE IS A LOT OF TIMING INVOLVED IN GETTING THOSE PIECES TOGETHER, ALSO, TO DO THIS. SO WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS THAT SAVINGS, THAT THE PROCEEDS WOULD COVER ALL OF THOSE ADDITIONAL FEES THAT WE WOULD INCUR RELATED TO THE REFUNDING. >> AND THE SAVINGS ARE NOT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REFINANCING. SO THERE IS NOTHING OUT-OF-POCKET THAT IS NOT REFLECTED AND SOLVED. THE SAVINGS WOULD BE NET SAV SAVINGS. >> THE $1 MILLION SAVINGS YOU OUTLINED IN YOUR HAND OUT HERE FOR THE ONE BOND ISSUE. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER ONE THERE AS WELL. >> END IF RATES DROPPED ENOUGH, IT WOULD BOOST THE ANNUAL SAVINGS. >> AND I WOULD GUESS THAT USING YOUR EXPERIENCE IN THE MARKET, IF THE INTEREST RATE BEGINS TO TREND DOWN, THEN RATHER THAN JUST WAIT AT THE 3% LEVEL, YOU MIGHT WAIT? WE HAVE A YEAR'S WINDOW THERE. BUT WE ARE RELYING ON YOUR EXPERIENCE AND LOOKING AT THE JUDGE AND BRIANNA TO MAKE THAT CALL. IT COULD BE A SAVINGS GREATER THAN 1 MILLION THAT YOU HAVE FOR THIS. TRENDING WITHIN THAT ONE-YEAR FRAMEWORK. I THINK THAT WOULD PROVIDE US THE LANGUAGE FOR THE ORDER. >> THE JUDGE DOES HAVE THAT. AND I WILL COLLECT TODAY. THIS REQUIRES SIGNATURES SO THAT THAT WAY WE CAN GET THAT OVER AND GIVE A COPY TO OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR, AS WELL AS ON COUNCIL AND THROUGH THE MINUTES. >> MOVED BY COMMISSIONER HALE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WHICH ONE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WE ARE ON SIX, FIVE, EIGHT I HAVE NOT SEEN IT IN THERE. I DID NOT SEE THAT. RIGHT HERE. SO, COMMISSIONER HALE HAS MADE [00:20:07] THE MOTION ON THIS. COMMISSIONER HOLD HAS MADE THE SECOND. I WOULD ASK THEM TO RESCIND THAT SO I CAN MAKE THE MOTION ON THIS. >> IF YOU JUST READ THE ORDER I THINK IT WOULD ACCOMMODATE. >> IT SAYS SUGGESTION FOR THE MOAT-- ORDER, SO I MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDER ISSUED FOR SEVERAL PARKER COUNTY TEXAS UNLIMITED TAX REFUNDING BONDS AND WATER MORE SERIES. >> THAT WAS THE MOTION I MADE. >> OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. IT CARRIES 5-0. >> RIHANNA, ARE WE GOOD ON THAT, NOW? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR KEEPING AN EYE ON THIS FOR US. APPRECIATE YOU GEORGE, APPRECIATE YOU, RIHANNA. THANK YOU. -- APPRECIATE YOU, RIHANNA. THANK YOU. [6.B. Discuss/Take action on CCL and District Court Coordinator salaries for FY 2027. (Part 2 of 2)] WE WILL MOVE BACK TO ITEM 6B. ON THE DISTRICT COURT COORDINATOR SALLIES FOR FY 2027. JUDGE JOHNSON, YOU WANT TO COME UP? RIHANNA RIHANNA. >> WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. LAST WEEK, EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT WAS ASKED TO TURN IN THE CHANGE OF PERSONAL FORMS, WHICH WOULD INDICATE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY WOULD PAY THEIR SALARIED STAFF. I DIDN'T GET ALL THE FIGURES FROM THE COURT, BUT IT WOULD APPEAR THAT GORDON AIDERS WILL BE PAID THE 920-0903, AS OF NOW BRIANNA RIHANNA. THE REASON I'M HERE IS THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL MONIES IN THAT PARTICULAR LINE ITEM. THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE LAST TIME. THAT CAN BE USED TO ALED TO-- ELEVATE THE CORE COORDINATOR SALARY TO 97-- I DON'T THINK I WROTE IT DOWN. SO I ASKED ONE OF THE JUDGES WHAT THEY WOULD DO WITH REGARD TO RAISING THEIR CORE COORDINATOR SALARY ONCE YOU APPROVE THE BUDGET. THE ANSWER I GOT IS THAT A DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE. WHICH TELLS ME THAT THEY WILL WAIT FOR THE BUDGET TO BE DONE. AND WE WILL BE BACK HERE FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. THE WAY I UNDERSTAND BUDGET APPROVAL IS YOU SHOULD ESTIMATE WHAT IS TO BE EXPECTED. I WISH THEY WOULD MAKE A DECISION AND PUT IT IN THAT FORM THAT THEY TURNED IN THIS FRIDAY. BUT THEY DID NOT. ON NOT VERY GOOD AT POKER OR WHATEVER THIS IS. BUT WHAT I AM ASKING FOR, HIS IN MY LINE ITEM, THAT YOU INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO 92.64. I AM NOT GOING TO SPEND IT. I'M ONLY ASKING, IN THE EVENT THAT THE SALARIES ARE RAISED IN ONE OF THE OTHER COURTS, KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT PERSONAL CHANGE FORM COMES TO COMMISSIONERS COURT TO GET APPROVED. I HAVE NO INTENTION OF SUBMITTING ANOTHER ONE UNLESS THAT HAPPENS IN ONE OF THE OTHER COURTS WHERE THEY RAISE IT. SO THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING FOR. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK. I UNDERSTAND THAT FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR PLANNING AND COUNTY PLANNING, I WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE IN BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS DOWN THE ROAD. THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING FOR. AND I THINK THE JUDGE WILL WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT. I THINK HE WILL HAVE SOME REMARKS. AND I'D LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO HIS REMARKS ONCE HE TELLS ME I AM WRONG. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP, JUDGE? >> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT JUDGE JOHNSON WAS ASKING FOR. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE LAST-- FROM THE LAST MEETING, COMMISSIONERS APPROVED AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT GOES IN. THIS LINE ITEM TO PAY. IT WOULD BE UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COURT, THE INDIVIDUAL COURT. HOW MUCH MONEY TO PAY THEIR PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES UP TO I THINK IT IS 96,000. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> I THINK COMMISSIONER WALDEN, THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE, WE TALKED ABOUT STEPPING GRADE. IS THE STEPPING GRADE 96-- 96 AND CHANGE? [INDISCERNIBLE] [00:25:17] >> IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY I THINK JUDGE JOHNSON IS SAYING I WANT MORE MONEY FOR HER COURT, IN THE EVENT THAT ANY OF THE OTHER THREE COURTS WERE TO PAY THEIR COORDINATOR MORE MONEY THAN ONE OTHER PERSON THAT WAS MORE THAN THE 6% APPROVED PAY RAISE THAT THE COURT HAD APPROVED. AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW ONE COURT WOULD GET MORE MONEY FOR IT'S EMPLOYEES THAN THE OTHER THREE COURTS HERE IN PARKER COUNTY. IF YOU CAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND? >> I SHARE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT MYSELF. JUDGE, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? >> I DO NOT THINK THAT IS THE ISSUE. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> I'M GOING TO HAVE YOU LOOKED BACK. I LOOKED AT THE BUDGET FIGURES THAT WERE IN THE PARKER COUNTY TRANSPARENCY PAGE. IF YOU LOOK BACK IN 2014, THE 415TH HAD MORE LINE ITEMS THAN THE OTHER THREE COURTS. THAT CONTINUED FOR THOSE THREE YEARS. AND THEN IN 2017, THE JUDGES AGREED THAT MOST COURT COORDINATORS WOULD BE PAID THE SAME. THAT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY WOULD BE ALLOCATED TO LINE ITEMS, AND I AGAIN AT THE DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE, ADMINISTRATOR, THE SUPERVISOR, WE CAN DECIDE HOW TO ALLOCATE THAT AMOUNT. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, JUDGE TELSON HAS NEVER PAID HIS ASSISTANCE COORDINATOR THE SAME AS HIS COORDINATOR. BEGINNING IN 2017 HE HAS NEVER SPENT ALL THE MONEY IN HIS LINE ITEM. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FIGURES, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT JUDGE? 'S AND BARRY CONTINUE TO PAY HIS COORDINATOR AND ASSISTANT THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY, UNTIL SHE LEFT. JUDGE BUCKNER DID LIKEWISE. SO DID JUDGE MARTIN, UNTIL HE GOT RID OF BEVERLY. THEN HE REDUCE THAT LINE ITEM. AND SO, IF YOU LOOKED AT, IT HAS BEEN THAT WAY THROUGHOUT. RELATED TO THE 43RD, THEY NEVER SPENT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THEIR LINE ITEM. THERE WERE ALSO CATEGORIES WHERE THE 415TH HAD MORE MONEY IN IT'S LINE ITEM AS EVIDENCED BY WHAT WAS IN THE LINE ITEM. IN 2024 TO 2025. BUT I'M ASKING FOR IS THAT MY COURT COORDINATORS BE PAID THE SAME, AND IT MAYBE THAT THERE IS MORE MONEY IN THAT LINE ITEM. BUT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS THAT THEY DO THE SAME JOB, AND THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT, THAT THEY BE PAID THE SAME. AND IT'S UP TO THE JUDGE TO DECIDE IF THEY CHOOSE TO PAY THEM THE SAME. I WANT THAT SAME CHOICE. I WANT MIND TO BE PAID AS WELL, AND I WANT THEM TO BE PAID THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS THE OTHER COORDINATORS. I THINK THAT MICHELLE HAS BEEN WITH THIS COUNTY-- I THINK SHE WAS HIRED BY REPRESENTATIVE KANE WHEN HE WAS JP FOR PRECINCT FOR. SHE HAS BEEN IN A COURT FUNCTION AND CORDON IT OR FUNCTION FILE WELL OVER 20 YEARS. SUSAN HAS BEEN WITH MY OFFICE FOR TEN YEARS, AND HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING AS A CLERK FOR ALMOST 20 AS WELL. IT'S NOT AN ISSUE OF EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS, IT'S AN ISSUE OF WHAT DO WE PAY THEM. AND FOR ME NOT TO PAY THEM, IT MEANS THEY GET A DECREASE IN SALARY, OR HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE TO GIVE ONE A SALARY CUT AND THE OTHER ONE A SALARY INCREASE, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS FAIR EITHER. SO I WANT TO BE PAID THE SAME, AS WE AGREED BACK IN 2017. AND I THINK IT IS IRRELEVANT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT I PAY MIND THE SAME, OR THEY PAY THERE IS DIFFERENT. THAT IS A DECISION OF THE SUPERVISOR OF THAT PARTICULAR OFFICE. >> IF I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, YOUR ASKING FOR THERE TO BE ENOUGH MONEY BUDGETED SO THAT-- IN THE COORDINATOR LINE FOR YOUR COURT SO IT'S THE SAME AS WHAT IT IS FOR THE DISTRICT COURT'S? >> NO. >> NOT THE SAME SALARY, BUT THAT [00:30:01] AMOUNT OF MONEY, BE ALLOCATED. AT YOUR DISCRETION YOU CAN SET THOSE SALARIES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE SCALE THAT WE HAVE. >> RIGHT. RIGHT NOW THE LINE ITEM FOR THE COURT IS THE 92903 TIMES TWO. THAT SEAMOUNT THAT'S IN IN THE LINE ITEM. SO I'VE CHOSEN TO PAY BOTH OF MINE AT 92903. WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS AN ADDITIONAL APPROXIMATELY 6000-- $6200. SO I CAN PAY BOTH OF MY COURT COORDINATORS THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS THE COURT COORDINATORS SALARY IN CCL ONE, THE 43RD AND THE 415. I AM NOT GOING TO PAY THEM THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL A CHANGE IN PERSONAL FORM IS PRESENTED BY ONE OF THE OTHER JUDGES, THAT BUMPS THE SALARY FROM 92903 TO 96. IF THAT HAPPENS I WILL ASK FOR IT. I'M NOT ASKING FOR IT NOW. BUT I WANT THE MONEY IN THE LINE ITEM, IN THE EVENT THAT HAPPENS. SO YOU ALL CAN BUDGET ACCORDINGLY. IN TERMS OF TRANSPARENCY. I AM JUST TELLING YOU. AND YOU HAVE TO PROVE IT ANYWAY. BUT I AM NOT GOING TO DO IT. >> SO, THE QUESTION, FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, WE HAVE A PAY SCALE, AND YOU ARE ASKING THE PHOEBE BUDGETED THE MAXIMUM FOR BOTH THOSE POSITIONS. >> IT'S THE SAME POSITION, CORRECT. -- THE FEE BE BUDGETED. >> THEY CAN HAVE THE SAME, BUT THEY CANNOT GO PAST THE 96. IF THEY WANT TO PAY THEIR SECOND PERSON A 96, I DO NOT CARE. I DON'T CARE IF SOMEBODY IS PAID THE SAME. AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WANT MY STAFF PAID LESS. THAT'S WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY. >> SORRY. >> IT'S OKAY. IF THEY WERE TO RAISE THEIR COORDINATOR PAY, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO MATCH THAT? >> EXACTLY. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR. >> IF I CAN DRAW A COMPARISON, THE WAY UNDERSTAND THIS IS ALL THE COURTS HAVE TWO FOLKS. THE OTHER THREE COURTS HAVE A CHIEF AND A DEPUTY, SO TO SPEAK. JUST EASY TO UNDERSTAND. >> TRUE. >> HANG ON. HANG ON. SO EVERYBODY ELSE HAS A CHIEF AND A DEPUTY. JUST TO USE COMMON LANGUAGE. YOU HAVE TWO CHIEFS, EFFECTIVELY. BECAUSE YOU ARE SAYING THEY ARE THE SAME. >> THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TWO CHIEFS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PAID, AND THE WAY WE AGREED TO BE PAID, THEY WERE COORDINATORS. USUALLY YOU HAD ONE COORDINATOR THAT HAD A FEW MORE RESPONSIBILITIES, BUDGETARY. BUT THEY ARE BOTH COORDINATORS. IN ADDITION TO COURTS YOU HAVE A COORDINATOR AND A CRIMINAL COORDINATOR. THEY HANDLED THOSE TYPES OF CASES. AND THE CCL'S THEY DO BOTH. AND IT WASN'T UNTIL 2014, AND I THINK THERE WAS SHIFTS IN PERSONNEL AT LEAST, IN JUDGE TOWSON'S COURT. BUT THE OTHER TWO HAS AN EXPERIENCED PERSON LEAVE WHO WAS THE SECOND PERSON, AND THEY STARTED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THOSE LINE ITEMS. HENCE THE DIFFERENCE IN PAY AND WHY THERE WAS A SHIFT IN 2024. BUT IT IS NOT REALLY A CHEAP AND NOT CHEAP. -- CHIEF AND NOT CHIEF. THE WAY ORGANIZE MY OFFICE IS THAT I'M THE HEAD AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S THE TEAM AND WE WORKED TOGETHER. UP ONE PERSON NEEDS HELP THE OTHER PITCHES IN. SO THERE IS NOT A HIERARCHY WHERE YOU HAVE A CHIEF INDENT ASSISTANT AND THOSE PEOPLE THAT FALL BEHIND. WE ALL WORK TOGETHER. SO MY BAILIFF PICKS UP WHERE I NEED HELP, MY CLERK-- MY COURT REPORTER PICKS UP WHERE I NEED HELP, THAT'S HOW I FUNCTION AS A BOSS. AND IT'S EFFECTIVE. SO IN TERMS OF YOUR MISNOMER, IT'S THAT I HAVE TWO COORDINATORS. >> I'M USING LANGUAGE THAT FOLKS WHO ARE VIEWING OR SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE ARE GOING TO KNOW. I'M NOT TRYING TO CALL THEM SPECIFICALLY A CHEAPER A DEPUTY. BUT THE WAY THIS SEEMS TO WORK TO ME AS IF ONE CONSTABLE DECIDES THAT HE WANTS OR SHE WANTS TO PAY ALL OF THEIR DEPUTIES THE HIGHEST AMOUNT THEY HAVE TO ASK US FOR MORE MONEY. OR IF JP DECIDES TO PAY ALL THEIR CLERKS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK US FOR MORE MONEY. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE THREE COURTS OPERATING UNDER A TOTAL BUDGET OF X, YOU WANT YOUR COURT TO HAVE A BIGGER BUDGET THEN ASK. >> YES. JUST LIKE YOU AGREED LAST YEAR THAT I SHOULD DO. LIKE YOU PROVE LAST YEAR. [00:35:01] THAT'S WHAT YOU AGREED TO LAST YEAR, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU AGREED-- WELL YOU AGREED FOR THE 415. AND 17, 18, 19 GO ON, SO FORTH. SO YOU CAN PUT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE COURTS BUDGET. AND YOU CAN CHOOSE TO SPEND IT OR NOT. IT'S ALL THE SAME GRADE. AS FOR YOUR EXAMPLE, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STEPPING GRADE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DEPUTIES THAT HAVE TO BE ELEVATED UP TO A CHIEF DEPUTY STATUS FOR A DIFFERENT PLACE. THE COORDINATORS ARE ALL IN THE SAME STEPPING GRADE. THERE IS NOT A DIFFERENT STEPPING GRADE FOR YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. THEY ARE JUST PLAYING AT A MEDIUM LEVEL, RATHER THAN A HIGHER LEVEL. IT'S THE SAME STEPPING GRADE. >> OUR OBLIGATION IS TO LOOK OUT FOR THE TAX PLATE-- TAXPAYERS. OUR OBLIGATION IS TO LOOK OUT FOR THE TAXPAYER DOLLAR. SO THREE OF THE FOUR COURTS ARE GETTING PAID ASK, I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY WE WOULD PAY THE FOURTH COURT X PLUS 6000, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAY ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES MORE. OR THE SAME AS THE HIGHEST OF THE OTHER THREE. >> MY COURT COORDINATORS ARE DOING THE SAME JOB. AND THEY HAVE BEEN CROSSTRAINED TO DO THE SAME JOB. I DON'T KNOW HOW JUDGE TOWSON AND JUDGE QUISENBERRY ORGANIZE THEIR OFFICES NOW. I DON'T KNOW THE RELATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES BETWEEN THE PEOPLE. I WOULD ASSUME WE PAY THEM PURSUANT TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES. BUT MINE HAVE THE SAME JOB. AND MINOR SITTING IN THE SAME ROOM. AND I CAN'T TELL ONE THAT YOU GET PAID LESS THAN THE OTHER WHEN YOU DO THE SAME JOB. AND WHEN YOU DO THE SAME JOB AS BRANDY, JOLENE AND JOHN OF THE OTHER COURTS, AND WHEN THEY HAVE THE SAME RESPONSIBILITIES AND IT'S WITHIN THE SAME STEP AND GRADE, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S ABOUT PARITY AND EQUITY. AND IT IS ABOUT PAYING THE PERSON THAT WAS DOING THE JOB THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. WHETHER IT IS-- AND I HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT DO THE SAME JOB, AND IT WAS OUR AGREEMENT AS THE JUDGES TO DO SO BACK IN 2017. AND JUDGE QUISENBERRY DID THAT PRIOR TO 2017 WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR SEVERAL YEARS. PAYING BOTH OF HIS COORDINATORS THE SAME. SO THEY HAVE THE ELECTION TO PAY HIM THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY. BUT THEY MAY CHOOSE TO BUMP IT IN TO THE OTHER LINE ITEM TO PAY THEIR CORE COORDINATOR MORE MONEY. THE ADDITIONAL $4000. AND THAT IS WHAT I OBJECT TO. IF THEY KEEP IT AT THE 920-9903, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. I WILL GO BACK AND TAKE CARE OF MY NEXT DOCKET. BUT IF THERE GOING TO INCREASE THE SALARY, THEN I WANT THE SAME ABILITY. BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT YOU AGREED TO THIS YEAR. WE AGREED TO THE 93909. SO WE WILL COME BACK TO THE BUDGET TOMORROW AND ASK FOR 96, I WANT TO ASK FOR 96 AS WELL. I'M NOT MAD IF SOMEBODY MAKES A SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY IS MY CLERK'S. AND IT'S IRRELEVANT. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WITH WANTING MY FOLKS TO BE PAID LESS. DOTS WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND, FOR MAKING-- DOING THE SAME JOB. THAT IS HOW I RUN MY OFFICE. >> I THINK THE COURT SHOULD BE BUDGETED THE SAME AMOUNT FOR THE TOTAL MONEY. THERE DOING THE SAME JOB. >> THEN I ASK THAT YOU INCREASE THE LINE ITEMS FOR ALL FOUR COURTS UP TO THE 96 REGION. >> I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION JUST FOR THAT. >> WE ARE TALKING 24,000 INSTEAD OF 6000? >> I ASK FOR 61, BUT IF YOU ARE TALKING FAIRNESS, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> THAT SEEMS TO BE IMPORTANT TO YOU. I THINK IT'S A NONISSUE. BUT IT SEEMS TO BE IMPORTANT TO YOU. THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE IT FAIR UNDER YOUR UNDERSTANDING-- I THINK IT'S FAIR TO GIVE IT A 62. THAT'S WHAT YOU DID LAST YEAR AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS DONE IN YEARS PRIOR. BUT IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR, THEN I ASK THAT YOU PUT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN ALL THE BUDGETS AND LET THEM DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT TO PAY THAT SECOND PERSON WHAT THEY ARE WORTH. >> I DON'T WANT TO SPEND AN EXTRA 6000 OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEND ANOTHER 24 EITHER. >> I DON'T THINK THAT ONE SET OF COURT REPORTER SHOULD BE SAINT-- PAID MORE THAN MY COURT REPORTERS WHEN THEY DO THE SAME JOB. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> I THINK YOU DO, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU DO. WHEN YOU DO THE SAME JOB, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY SHOULD BE PENALIZED FOR DOING THE SAME JOB, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY SHOULD BE PAID LESS THEN THE OTHER COURT COORDINATORS IN THE OTHER POSITIONS. >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT. THIS QUESTION IS FOR VICKI. WHAT DOES THIS DUE TO SCALE? [00:40:07] ARE WE STILL WITHIN THE SCALE GREAT. >> 96,000 IS WITHIN THE SCALE. >> BUT WE HAVE NOT ALLOCATED THE MONEY? WE'VE ALLOCATED THE MONEY FOR THE DISTRICT? >> YOU ALLOCATED 185806 TO ALL COURTS. FROM JUDGE JOHNSON'S COURT THAT WOULD MAKE EACH COORDINATOR PAY 92903. THE OTHER THREE COURTS OPERATE A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY. THEY HAVE MORE OF A COORDINATOR AND AN ASSISTANT. SO THERE DESK DOES HAVE THE SALARY FLUFF IN THE LINE. THEY GET PAID THE SAME AS THE CORE COORDINATOR. SO THEY COULD GO BACK AND ALLOCATE THAT MONEY TO THE COORDINATOR. THAT IS JUDGE JOHNSON'S COMPLAINT. THEN THAT WILL PROHIBIT HER FROM BEING ABLE TO MAKE THE SAME MONEY. BUT IT IS JUDGE'S DISCRETION HOW THEY PAY THEIR DEPARTMENT AND WHAT WORKS BEST FOR THEM. >> SO WE ARE JUST LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD, CORRECT? >> I DON'T THINK WE ARE. IF WE HAD 6000 IN ALL FOUR AND THE OTHERS CAN GO ABOVE THE 96. >> THEY COULD. THEY COULD GO MAX. AND I DON'T HAVE THE MAX WITH ME. I THINK IT'S 975, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS COMPLETELY ACROSS THE BOARD WOULD BE TO BUDGET ALL FOUR APARTMENTS AT THE MAX SALARY-- DEPARTMENTS. >> ENDED IN THE BUDGET YOU CAN SEPARATE THE CORNERS, AND I DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE THIS OUT. YOU CAN GIVE X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS TO THESE LINE ITEMS? JUST FOR THOSE TWO POSITIONS, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO PLAY GAMES? SO THEY CAN LIST THEIR TWO CORDON EATERS AND HAVE THAT AMOUNT ALLOCATED, THE 92903, AND THEY CAN GIVE IT TO THEM OR NOT GIVE IT TO THEM? IF THEY CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND IT, THEY CHOOSE NOT TO SPEND IT. AND THAT MAKES IT A WHOLE LOT EASIER I THINK. IT FRUSTRATES ME TO NO END. >> IMAGINE SITTING HERE. MEETING AFTER MEETING AFTER MEETING. COMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR THE LAST THREE MONTHS. AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN. IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING, I WILL TELL YOU. >> AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU DO GIVE US THE TIME AND YOU GIVE US THE FORUM. THANK YOU. >> ARE WE PLAYING THE GAMES THAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. ARE YOU PLAYING GAMES? >> I DON'T THINK SO. >> THE 43RD DISTRICT COURT DOES NOT PLAY GAMES. >> I HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR HIM. HE IS MY FRIEND. AND ON MOST ISSUES WE ARE ALIGNED. ON THIS ONE WE ARE NOT. AND I ADMIRE HIM GREATLY, AND HIS ADVICE THAT HE HAS GIVEN ME OVER THE YEARS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THIS IS SIMILAR TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE COUNTY. IT IS THE SAME AS EVERY PRECINCT APPEAR. WE ALL RUN OUR DEPARTMENTS, AND EACH SESSION HAS A PAY SCALE. SO MY CONCERN IS HOW MANY DEPARTMENTS LINE UP HERE NEXT. IF WE SET A PRECEDENT OR CHANGE SOMETHING RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE, THE WAY I AM SEEING IT IS IF COMMISSIONER HOLT OR WALDEN, OR CONLEY DECIDE TO PAY A LEAD OPERATOR MORE THAN WHAT MY LEAD OPERATOR IS, MAYBE I HAVE MULTIPLE LEAD OPERATORS WITH DIFFERENT AMOUNTS OF EXPERIENCE, I UNDERSTAND YOUR PHILOSOPHY ON PAYING THE POSITION, I ALSO THINK THAT IT IS UP TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS DISCRETION. SO THE WAY I AM HEARING YOU IS EACH OF US WOULD NEED TO BUDGET AT THAT MAXIMUM AMOUNT FOR OPERATORS. SO POTENTIALLY WE MIGHT HAVE AN ISSUE HERE WITH OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS COMING UP HERE TO SAY I WANT THE BUDGET FOR EVERYTHING, BUT I'M STILL GOING TO USE MY DISCRETION ON WHAT TO PAY THEM. >> I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW YOU. WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS ENFORCE THE AGREEMENT THE JUDGES MADE IN 2017. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO. WE AGREED BACK IN 2017 THE COORDINATORS COULD BE PAID THE SAME. AND THAT IS WHAT I DID. THAT IS HOW I PAID MY PEOPLE. I HAVE NOT SWITCHED OR LOST ANY PERSONS. SO THEY RECEIVE THE SAME SALARY INCREASE EVERY YEAR. THE SAME 1 PERCENT, 3 PERCENT, WHATEVER. AND THEY HAVE BEEN PAID THE SAME AS THE OTHER COURT COORDINATORS. AND-- IN THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS. [00:45:06] SO THAT HAS BEEN WHAT HAPPENED HISTORICALLY UNTIL THE OTHER JUDGES HAD A CHANGE IN THEIR PERSONNEL AND MADE A DIFFERENT DECISION. WHICH IS OKAY. IT IS THEIR JOB. IT IS THERE COURT. BUT I HAVE MIND THAT HAVE BEEN PAID THE SAME AND DONE SO CONSISTENTLY. AS TO YOUR SITUATION, WHATEVER MY SOLUTION IS, AT LEAST WITH REGARDS TO THE AUDITOR BUDGETING, THE NEXT YEARS I WOULD SPLIT THE TWO ON THE BUDGET AND SPLIT THE COORDINATOR POSITIONS AND MAX THEM OUT, BUT WHATEVER SALARY YOU WANT, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT MONEY FLOWING TO THE TWO PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO IN THE FUTURE TO AVOID THE PROBLEM YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. BUT I'M NOT ASKING TO PAY THEM. UNMASKING FOR THAT MONEY IN THE SALARY. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO PAY THEM IN LESS THAT DECISION HAPPENS WITH THE OTHER COURTS. AND I AM JUST ASKING YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT BOTHERS ME ON THE COURTS THAT I WANT TO PAY THEM THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS THE OTHER COURT COORDINATORS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS AN ISSUE. IF YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE 6100, I CAN PULL IT FROM A DIFFERENT LINE ITEM. ALL TAKE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. >> DO WE HAVE A NUMBER FROM BECKY YET ON WHAT THE MAXIMUM IS IN THAT POSITION? >> IT WAS 96-- THE MAX WAS... >> IT DOESN'T SOLVE THE ISSUE, BECAUSE THE OTHERS... >> I THINK THAT'S WHY A WAS ASKING FOR 9264. WHAT I HIGHLIGHTED ON PAGE 2. WHICH WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM. AND NEXT YEAR I WOULD ASK YOU SPLIT THE POSITION SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND FORTH. >> IF WE APPROVE THE BUDGET TODAY DO THEY COME BACK TOMORROW? >> IF THEY DON'T THEY DON'T. >> DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT THEY ARE? >> WHEN I ASKED THE DIRECT QUESTION THE ANSWER WAS NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE. SO THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. WHAT DO YOU THINK? AND MAYBE YOU WILL TELL ME. MAYBE MARTIN WILL TELL ME. BUT I'M NOT GOING TO INCREASE IT UNLESS THEY DO. I'M NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING ANYBODY MAKE A DOLLAR MORE. I JUST DON'T WANT THEM TO MAKE A DOLLAR LESS. >> I THINK YOU ARTICULATED YOUR POSITION VERY WELL. >> YOU HAVE HEARD ENOUGH OF ME. [LAUGHTER] >> I'M NOT SHUTTING YOU DOWN. I JUST THINK THAT WE UNDERSTAND THIS. WITH WHAT YOU HAVE DESCRIBED. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SIDE BEFORE WE VOTE? >> YES. >> GO-AHEAD. >> IF WE APPROVE THIS MOTION, THE COST IS NOT THE $6000? IT'S THE $24,000? AM I CORRECT? WHAT IF WE SET A MOTION-- IF WE HAD A MOTION THAT APPROVED A SALARY FOR COURT COORDINATORS AT A LEVEL THAT IS ALL FOUR. I'M JUST ASKING THAT OUT LOUD. WHAT IS YOUR INPUT THEN? >> YOU GO BACK TO TAKING AWAY THE JUDGES DISCRETION IF THEY WANT TO PAY THE COORDINATOR DIFFERENT SALARY THAN THE ASSISTANT. AND AS DEPARTMENT HEADS AND COMMISSIONERS, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THOSE DYNAMICS AS WELL. >> TO CORRECT, THEY CAN PAY THEM LESS, THAT'S JUST THE BUDGETED AMOUNT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE LINE ITEMS FOR SALARIES, HE IS PAYING HIM LESS THAN WHAT IS IN THE LINE ITEM. >> I HAD A QUESTION FOR PRION A. HE HAD MENTIONED SOMETHING THAT HAD PIQUED MY INTEREST ABOUT PULLING MONEY FROM ANOTHER LINE ITEM TO SUBSIDIZE. >> GENUINELY WE CAN DO THAT, BUT WE WOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION. >> IS THAT DOABLE? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> IN ADDITION TO THAT, IF THE SCENARIO THAT HE DESCRIBED-- SHE DESCRIBED HER TO TAKE PLACE, IF THE OTHER KIRK-- COURTS WANTED TO USE INVESTED MONEY, IT JUST COMES THROUGH AS A LINE ITEM BUDGET NUMBER, CORRECT? [INDISCERNIBLE] [00:50:22] >> YES. THE OTHER THREE COURTS IT'S A PERSONAL CHANGE FORM BECAUSE THE MONEY HAS BEEN ALLOCATED IN THEIR BUDGET. IN JUDGE TOWSON'S CASE IT WOULD REQUIRE A LINE ITEM BUDGET ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE IT WOULD NEED TO LOWER ANOTHER LINE AND ADD ADMIN TO A SALARY LINE. >> SO THAT CHANGES US THEN FROM THE ADDITIONAL MONEY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED WOULD ONLY BE FOR THIS COURT? >> CORRECT. >> IN THAT CASE IT WOULD BE OFFSET, BECAUSE IF SHE'S LOWERING LINE SOMEWHERE ELSE IT WOULD MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. >> I CAN DO THAT. >> IT WOULD BE FOR JUST HER COURT, $7530 TOTAL. 6194 OF THAT WOULD BE SALARY. >> THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO ASK THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. WE ARE TALKING 6070-- >> 7530, TOTAL. 6194 IN SALARY. >> THAT IS IF OTHER THINGS CHANGED, BUT WE CAN DEAL WITH THIS AT THAT POINT IN TIME. >> CORRECT. >> IS THAT YOUR MOTION, JUDGE? >> IT IS. >> I WILL SECOND. >> DID WE CHANGE THE MOTION? >> NO. SAME MOTION. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? MOTION TO REFLECT EXACTLY THAT. >> TO ADD TO ALL FOUR COURTS? >> TO ADD 7000 TO DO YOUR LINE ITEM. >> SIXTY-ONE. >> WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS. AND YOU QUOTE THAT NUMBER AGAIN? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> THAT WOULD BE THE MOTION. >> YOU'RE MAKING THE MOTION TO ADD THE NUMBER NOW AND NOT TO A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT LATER ON. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WE JUST DISCUSSED YOU MAKING A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FROM ANOTHER LINE ITEM IF AND WHEN THE JUDGE HAS MADE THEIR CHANGE IN BRINGING IT TO THE COURT FOR APPROVAL AT THAT TIME. >> YOU DID. AND I'M ASKING IF I DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. >> LET ME ADDRESS THAT DIRECTLY. THIS IS SONAL PORTLAND. AND I THINK IT IS TO, TO HAVE PARITY ABOUT ALL FOUR COURTS. THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE A LINE ITEM THAT YOU MAY NEED IN THE FUTURE, WHICH COULD BE NEEDED, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE FLUFF IN OUR BUDGET. WE TRY NOT TO. SO YOU ARE WILLING TO SACRIFICE THAT, I'D, AS PART OF THE COURT, DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR. I THINK THESE ARE LINE ITEMS THAT REFLECT WHAT YOUR NEEDS A ARE, OUR WANTS AND NEEDS, AND THESE ARE NEEDS. I THINK WE NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND HAVE PARITY ABOUT WHAT THIS IS. AND LOTS OF MY MOST-- MOTION REFLECTS. THE INCREASE. >> THAT WILL BECOME BE-- COME BEFORE COURT IN THE FORM OF-- I'M ASKING. THAT COULD COME AS A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT? IT COULD COME AS A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. IT WILL COME THAT WAY IS A BUDGET ADJUSTMENT RATHER THAN-- BEFORE THE COURT. >> AND I'M ASKING THAT IT GOES IN THE BUDGET NOW IN THE EVENT THAT THEY INCREASE IT. >> THAT'S WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED. >> IS THAT YOUR MOTION? >> IT IS. >> TO YOUR SECOND? >> NO. AND HERE IS WHY. FROM A TRANSPARENCY STANDPOINT, I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW THIS SCENARIO COMES FORWARD. I BELIEVE THAT THE JUDGE HAS CHANGED THE MOTION TO A DIFFERENT MOTION FROM WHAT IT WAS ADDITIONAL-- INITIALLY. AND YOUR MOTION IS TO ALLOCATE THE 7000 ROUGHLY. >> IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHY DON'T WE REALLOCATE THE MONEY NOW, THAT 7200. AND WE ARE NOT INCREASING THE BUDGET. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE WILLING TO DO, CAN WE DO IT RIGHT NOW? >> IT IS NOT GOING TO INCREASE THE BUDGET EITHER WAY. THE BUDGET IS GOING TO BE ADOPTED TODAY. [00:55:04] >> MAXIMUM BUDGET, BUT IT HAS TO BE REALLOCATED? >> THE MOTION THE JUDGE HAS MADE IS TO INCREASE THE BUDGET. >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WITH THE COURTS THAT THAT'S WHAT WERE TRYING TO DO HERE. >> THAT'S NOT IN THE BUDGET LINE ITEM. >> IT IS. AND LESS WE SAY IT RIGHT NOW. FROM ANOTHER ITEM. >> WE CAN DO THAT. BEFORE THIS FAILS, TO GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO GO WITH THE QUALITY, THEN IF THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE AGREEABLE, WE CAN MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT, AND I WILL REFER BACK TO MY ORIGINAL MOTION. I JUST WANTED COURTS TO BE EQUAL. THAT'S ALL I CARE ABOUT. >> WE ALL DON'T HAVE EQUAL BUDGETS, YOU KNOW THAT, RIGHT? >> THE 43RD IS DIFFERENT. >> THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. OKAY. LET US SEE HERE. OKAY. YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH THIS? OKAY. >> WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR, JUDGE, IS IF YOU HAD OFFERED WITHIN YOUR BUDGET TO MOVE THE ONE LINE TO THE SALARY LINE TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. >> EXACTLY. THE EASY WAY TO DO IT IS TO TAKE IT OUT OF-- WE CAN TAKE SOME MODDED TRIAL COST, WE COULD TAKE SOME MONEY OUT OF-- HOW ABOUT I DO THIS. HOW ABOUT THIS IS THE WAY WE HANDLE IT. IF I AGREED TO TAKEOUT WHAT THAT FIGURE IS, THE 70S FIGURE, AND I GO BACK AND FIGURE WHAT THAT IS, AND I CAN GO THROUGH THE BUDGET THIS MORNING-- I'M SAYING I WILL DO THAT. BUT WILL YOU AGREE? >> I WOULD THEN CHANGE MY MOTION TO REFLECT THAT. >> AND I WILL SECOND IT. >> LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT I REFER BACK TO MY ORIGINAL MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? >> I WILL GET WITH BEYOND CAR RIGHT. >> ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FOUR TO ONE. >> WE WILL GO BACK UP TO ITEM FIVE A. DISCUSSANT TAKE ACTION REGARDING TBR FPPC 24-01, ON SYSTEMS PROJECT 1H-20 FRONTAGE ROAD PROJECT ADDENDUM NUMBER 1. ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION TO PARKHILL SMITH COOPER, THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO GRAHAM AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS ON JUNE 10TH, 2024. >> GOOD MORNING. TRANSPORTATION-- TRANSPORTATION MODEL ARE FPPC 24-01, ON SYSTEMS PROJECT ON FRONTAGE ROAD, IS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION TO PARKHILL SMITH COOPER, THE CONTRACT AWARDED TO GRAHAM AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS ON JUNE 10TH 2024. SO BASICALLY THEY ARE JUST ASSUMING ALL GRAHAM AND ASSOCIATES. >> WIDE? >> THAT I DO NOT KNOW. >> THAT IS INFORMATION WE NEED TO HAVE. IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU COULD RING THAT INFORMATION. >> GRAHAM AND ASSOCIATES WAS ACQUIRED BY PARKHILL SMITH AND COOPER. SO FOR KIM TO BE ABLE TO PAY THEIR INVOICES NOW, BECAUSE THEIR INVOICES NOW SAY "PARKHILL" THAT NEEDS TO MATCH THE CONTRACT. SO THEY HAVE SUBMITTED AN AMENDMENT TO MAKE THEIR CONTRACT BE UNDER PARKHILL, INSTEAD OF GRAHAM. >> SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS MAKING A CHANGE TO THE WORDING OF OUR CONTRACT TO WHO IT IS AWARDED TO. IT IS THE SAME FOLKS OPERATING AT A DIFFERENT COMPANY, BECAUSE THEY WERE ACQUIRED BY A DIFFERENT COMPANY. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. [01:00:02] ALL IN FAVOR? CARRIES 5-0. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> MOVE TO ITEM 5B. PRK 24111 JOHNSON BEND AND GREEN ACRES CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 3. >> GOOD MORNING. DUSTIN WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS. THIS IS A LEVEL OF CHANGE ORDER FOR THE JOHNSON BEND AND GREEN ACRES PROJECT. JUST TO GET IT CLOSED OUT AND WRAPPED UP. IT END SUPPING A NEGATIVE CHANGE ORDER. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALL'S, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? >> MAYBE WANT ME TO DOES-- EXPLAIN IT A BIT MORE. >> YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS. >> SURE. REALLY WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS ONE IS THERE IS SOME WORK IN THIS PROJECT THAT WAS PLANNED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE ELLIS CREEK SUBDIVISION THAT WAS GIVEN UP BY THIS CONTRACTOR. SO WE ARE CHANGING THAT OUT OF THIS CONTRACT AND PUTTING IT IN TO A DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS CONTRACT TO GET THAT WERE COMPLETED. SO IT IS KIND OF A TRANSFER OF COST, I GUESS. WE GOT THE PROJECT DONE UNDER BUDGET. AND THAT SAME WORK GOT MOVED OVER IN TWO ANOTHER CONTRACT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 60. SET ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET. I'M SORRY? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> OKAY. I WILL CALL ON YOU HERE IN A MOMENT. >> I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT TOO. WE HAVE BEEN HERE ABOUT AN HOUR. LET US TAKE A SHORT BREAK. >> WE WILL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BR >> WE WILL RECONVENE AT 10:13 A.M. WE ARE ON ITEM SIX D. IS THERE ANY ACTION ON THIS ITEM? WE HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM E ON ADOPTION OF THE 26-27 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. >> WE DID NOT DO D. [6.D. Set Elected Officials Salaries for Fiscal Year 2027 Budget. (Part 1 of 2)] >> OKAY. ON ITEM D, SET ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 27 BUDGET. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> I WILL GET TO YOU. JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND HERE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? I THINK WE COVERED IT ALREADY. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> YOU CAN COME ON UP AND SPEAK NOW. SORRY TO MAKE YOU WAIT. >> I AM CHRIS WOOD. I SUPPORT THAT ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARIES APPROPRIATELY MATCH COUNTY ACCOMPLISHMENTS. FOR INSTANCE, THIS COUNTY HAS SUCCESSFULLY MANAGED EXPLOSIVE POPULATION GROWTH, ALSO, THIS COUNTY HAS SECURED FUNDING FOR ROADS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. IN ADDITION, THIS COUNTY HAS DEMANDED SAFEGUARDS ON DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD MORE STRONGLY SUPPORT ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARIES IF NOT AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE ALLOWED AT THESE MEETINGS, SO ISSUES CAN BE CAUGHT EARLY, AND SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY IN THE LONG RUN. >> THANK YOU. COME ON UP. STATE YOUR NAME, PLEASE. >> LYNN BABER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I AM GOING TO READ THIS, THAT WAY I CAN KEEP IT AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. THIS IS REGARDING COMMISSIONER SALARIES, OF COURSE. EVERY PRECINCT IS UNIQUE. AT EVERY COMMISSIONER HAS THE SAME JOB, AND THE SAME VOTE. WHILE WE ARE PAID EQUALLY UNTIL THE TIERED SCALE APPEARED AROUND 2022, VANISHED A YEAR LATER, AND RETURNED LAST YEAR, BASED SOLELY ON LONGEVITY. [01:05:01] CITIZENS INCREASING'S TWO AND FOUR IN ESSENCE HAVE JUNIOR COMMISSIONERS. PAID LESS, ONLY BECAUSE THEY LACK TENURE IN OFFICE. THIS TEAR WAS BASED ON COUNTY AUDITORS AND PURCHASING AGENTS, WHICH CONFOUNDS ME, PERSONALLY. BECAUSE THOSE ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT JOB DESCRIPTIONS, BUT YOU ALL HAVE THE SAME JOB. SO LONGEVITY AND JOB DESCRIPTION DON'T SEEM TO EQUATE. SOME COMMISSIONERS DRAW HIGHER PAY BASED ON TENURE, WHICH IS THE TIERED SYSTEM. SEPARATE LONGEVITY PAY AND PENSIONS. LONGEVITY IS NOW REWARDED FROM THREE SEPARATE BUCKETS. IF PROPOSED INCREASES PASS, COMMISSIONERS EARN JUST 100-- UNDER-- EARNING JUST UNDER $100,000 SEVERAL YEARS AGO ARE NOW PUSHING $200,000, PLUS ADDITIONAL LONGEVITY PAY. RESEARCH INDICATES THAT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, OF ALL 254 COUNTIES, ONLY TWO HAVE COMMISSIONERS SALARIES HIGHER THAN PARKER COUNTY. ONE IS A BUDGET OF 11.4 TIMES HIGHER THAN PARKER COUNTY. AND MONTGOMERY COUNTY HAS A BUDGET 7.5 TIMES HIGHER THAN PARKER COUNTY. IN THE PAST, AND I'VE TALKED TO YOU ALL, GROWTH AND HANDS-ON ROADWORK HAVE BEEN THE PERENNIAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE UNUSUALLY HIGH COMMISSIONERS SALARIES. BUT THINGS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT. RECENTLY WE'VE ADDED A COUNTY MANAGER, SO WE HAVE A NEW COUNTY EXECUTIVE POSITION WHO HAS PULLED SOME OF THAT WORK AWAY FROM YOU ALL, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S NOT A GREAT IDEA, I AM JUST SAYING THAT THAT IS A CHANGE THAT HAS HAPPENED. AND THE TRANSPORTATION BIND, WHICH IS MANAGED BY FREESE AND NICHOLS, THE CONSULTANTS WHO REPORT MONTH. THEY DO THAT. IN AUGUST, AT A MEETING THAT COMMISSIONER WALDEN NOTICED, HE WAS GIVING CREDIT WHERE CREDIT WAS DUE. HE WAS THINKING THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE AND THOSE WHO DID THE WORK. AND HE SAID REGARDING TRANSPORTATION, THE CLERK MAINLY PASSES MOTIONS AND FUNDING. WHICH IS TRUE, YOU ALL HAVE BIG JOBS WITH BIG NUMBERS ATTACHED. ANOTHER ONE THAT SURPRISED ME, AT THESE MEETINGS, WHEN THE CONSULTANT COMES, HE GOES THROUGH EACH ITEM SEPARATELY. I BELIEVE IT WAS FEBRUARY. AND EVERY BUT HE HAD COMMENTS ON EVERY PROJECT UNTIL THEY GOT TO THE 730 EXTENSION. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE BUDGET OF THE TRANSPORTATION. A 130 MILLION-DOLLAR TRANSPORTATION FUND. THIS WAS $25 MILLION TO START WITH. AT THE MEETING, THE THING THAT WAS SAID ABOUT THAT PROJECT, WHICH HAD BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR TWO YEARS, HAD SHOWN PROGRESS, HAD BEEN ACTED ON, CHRIS SAID "BRIAN AND I HAVE DECIDED-- DECIDED TO SHOW THIS-- SHELVE THIS PROJECT AND USE THAT MONEY ELSEWHERE." $25 MILLION. AND THE COURT DID NOT HAVE ONE COMMENT OR QUESTION. THEY JUST WENT ON TO THE NEXT PROJECT. PARKER COUNTY STILL NEEDS MORE JAIL SPACE, A JUSTICE CENTER, AND A NEW DISTRICT COURT. HAS ANY PROGRESS BEEN MADE ON THAT? I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT'S ON YOUR AGENDA FOR TODAY. BUT AS SOMEONE IN THE PUBLIC, THERE WAS A CRITICAL NEED THAT WAS ADDRESSED. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BIG TIME NOW. WE HAVE TO DO IT. AND IT HAS BEEN CRICKETS EVER SINCE. TENURE IS NOT PERFORMANCE. THE LONGEST-SERVING NFL PLAYER DOESN'T NECESSARILY GET THE BIGGEST CONTRACT. I WOULD ASK YOU, I KNOW YOU ARE VOTING ON THIS TODAY. THE CHANCES ARE SLIM TO NONE. AFTER THE RECENT CONVERSATION REGARDING DISTRICT COURTS AND BUDGETING BY PERSONALITIES, OR BUDGETING BY ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IS THE JOB, IT JUST CREATES A LOT OF DIVISION, AND SOMETIMES GRIEVANCES. I WOULD ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER THE TIERED SYSTEM, JUST LIKE YOU DID A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. I JUST WANT TO SAY, ISA-- I GOT A LOT OF COMMENTS ON MY FACEBOOK PAGE FOR WEATHER DEVELOPMENT. AND SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT YOU DO. [01:10:03] BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE BIG JOBS. BUT YOU ALSO GET A PRETTY GOOD SIZED PAYCHECK. SO I ASK YOU TO FORGO THE NEXT ONE. I APPRECIATED JUDGE DEEN, WHEN YOU MADE THAT SUGGESTION AT THE BUDGET MEETING. THAT IS REALLY AT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ON TO ITEM HE-- >> WE HAVE AN EMOTION FOR AN ADOPTION TO REAFFIRM THE SALARIES, I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED. >> THE COMPARISONS, SOME COMMISSIONERS IN THIS OTHER COUNTY HAVE LESS THAN 20 MILES OF ROADWAY. WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS HERE THAT HAVE 400. RIGHT AT 400. >> 438. >> WHICH INCLUDES THE LOOP, AND SEVERAL THINGS YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. WE ARE QUICKLY GROWING. PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DO. PEOPLE DON'T RECOGNIZE, AND THEY WANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT A COMMISSIONER DOES. WE MANAGE THE BUDGET. I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY BUDGET MEAN IT-- BUDGET MEETINGS, BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS THAT FOLKS HAVE HAD TO TRY TO GET TO THE POINT WE ARE TODAY. I AM THE ONE THAT MADE THE MOTION FOR THE TIERED SALARIES. AND THAT WAS BASED ON SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT JUST FOR COMMISSIONERS, BUT FOR ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND THE REASON FOR THAT WAS TO DRAW A SPOTLIGHT ON THE SALARIES THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. CONTROL THAT IS GIVEN TO US BY EITHER THE DISTRICT JUDGES, SALARY COMMITTEE FOR THE AUDITOR, AND FOR ANOTHER SET OF FOLKS FOR THE PURCHASING AGENT. IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO BRING THAT SPOTLIGHT ONTO THAT, WE DO NOT GET TO CONTROL THOSE SALARIES. THAT WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE TIERED SYSTEM, SO WE CAN LET FOLKS KNOW, IF YOU WILL LOOK AT THOSE SALARIES, THOSE JOBS ARE NOT THE SAME. BUT THEY ARE WHAT DRIVES THINGS HERE. THAT WE CAN EXPERIENCE TODAY. AND THOSE SALARIES THAT WE ARE SUGGESTED FOR-- I'M NOT TALKING SUGGESTED SALARIES, I'M TALKING ABOUT WE GET AN ORDER THAT SAYS SALARIES WILL BE SET AT THIS AMOUNT. I THINK THIS IS AN ISSUE ALL OVER TEXAS AND IT'S SOMETHING I WAS TRYING TO DRAW A SPOTLIGHT ON SO IT COULD BE ADDRESSED. IN ADDITION TO THAT, ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE WORKED TOWARDS WITH THE SALARY SUBCOMMITTEE, THE BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE, RATHER, IS TO TRY TO BRING THINGS TO NORMALCY AND HAVE A SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY. WE ARE NOT DOING A GOOD JOB WITH THAT RIGHT NOW. BUT WITH ALL THAT SAID, I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT HAS GONE INTO GETTING US TO THAT POINT TODAY. AND I WILL MAKE THAT SPEECH AGAIN AS WE MOVE ON DOWN THE BUDGET ITEMS. >> COMMISSIONER, INDULGE ME, I WANT TO ADD TO WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. BECAUSE MY RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT COUNTY, HAVE BEEN IN THE COUNTY JUDGES OFFICE MANY TIMES. THE PREVIOUS COUNTY JUDGE, AND THE CURRENT JUDGE I HAVE BEEN THERE WITH. THERE IS A LOT THAT PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN I WALKED INTO THAT ROOM THERE IS A CHIEF OF STAFF, A COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND A BUNCH OF OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THERE THAT ARE DOING THAT. AND THEY HAVE WAY LESS ROAD MILES PER PRECINCT THAT THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH. BUT THEY ALSO HAVE PROFESSIONAL STAFF THAT THEY CAN AFFORD. THAT WE CANNOT. SO EACH OF YOU COMMISSIONERS, AND ONE BIG REASON WHY BRIAN IS HERE TODAY, IS TO-- THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT HE IS IN MY OFFICE. AND HE DID NOT DO HARDLY ANYTHING FOR ME. BUT HE WORKS FOR YOU ALL. AND THE REASON THAT HE IS HERE TODAY AS THEY ARE TRYING TO BUFFER THAT WITH ALL THE HAD TWO GUYS WHERE. AND YOU CAN'T DO ALL THAT WORK. AND WITHOUT BRIAN I CAN'T IMAGINE SOME OF THE THINGS WE ARE DEALING WITH, WITH WATER, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS WE ARE DEALING WITH, TRANSPORTATION, I HANDLED THAT ON THE RTC. BUT I CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT THE TEAMWORK OF THIS BOARD. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SALARIES AND IT GETS POLITICIZED, ALL THESE THINGS, I DON'T THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE [01:15:03] RESOURCES, BECAUSE WE DO THE SAME JOB. TARRANT COUNTY BECAUSE OF THEIR POPULATION GETS A LOT OF ATTENTION BECAUSE OF THAT. I THINK YOU GUYS WORK WITH MORE HATS THAN THE PRECINCT COMMISSIONERS IN TARRANT COUNTY. AND THAT'S NO REFLECTION TO THE RESPECT THEY HAVE, AND THE WORK THAT THEY DO, BUT THE HATS THAT YOU GUYS WHERE INDIVIDUALLY, MY OFFICE HAS BECOME MORE OF A HUB OF SUPPORT. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DO. AND I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A CLUE THE HAD TO WEAR IN THE COMMISSION TO MAKE THE ROADS SAFE. BUT ALSO TO HAVE A MORE VISUAL-- VISIONARY LEADERSHIP ROLE AS A TEAM WITHIN THIS COURT. AND I DON'T THINK PEOPLE HAVE A CLUE. YOU CAN TRY TO ADDRESS ALL THAT, BUT THEY SORT OF APPRECIATE THAT. >> DO WE VOTE ON THAT ONE? >> WE DO. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? >> I GUESS THIS IS JUST A CERTIFICATION OF WHAT WE DISCUSSED OVER SEVERAL MEETINGS? WE VOTED ON THIS MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE? >> THIS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE VOTE ON IT, NUMEROUS TIMES. THIS IS THE LAST TIME IN THE BUDGET PROCESS. >> WE WILL GO THROUGH THAT ON THE NEXT ITEM. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES. MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDER TO... >> WE NEED TO DO ITEM E, ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET AT THIS POINT. JUDGE, I THINK YOU SKIPPED OVER ONE RIGHT THERE. >> I THOUGHT WE JUST DID THAT. MY APOLOGIES. [6.E. Adoption of the 2026-2027 Fiscal Year Budget.] I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE ADJUSTED. ADOPTION OF THE 26-27 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. MY APOLOGIES. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE DID. >> GOOD MORNING. ABBOTT TO GIVE THE COURT AND UPDATE OF SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ROLLED OVER FROM THE 26 BUDGET THAT CAME IN SINCE THE LAST COURT. FOR THE FINANCIAL OFFICES, THE TYLER MUNIZ CONTRACT. WE NEED TO ROLL OVER $157,200. YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED 154799. AND THAT WORK HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED LIKE WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE. >> WE ARE ADJUSTING FROM 154 TO 157? >> YES. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? >> THIS MORNING IT BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE HVAC PARTS TO INSTALL THE UNIQUE-- NEW UNIT AT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THEY THOUGHT THE NEW UNIT WOULD BE DELIVERED THIS WEEKEND WE FIND OUT IT'S NOT DELIVERED TILL OCTOBER 29TH. SO WE NEED 35,000 FOR THAT. >> MOTION MADE, SECONDED. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? THAT CARRIES 5-0. >> PATROL HAS VARIOUS VEHICLES THAT ARE IN THE SHOP FOR REPAIRS AFTER ACCIDENTS AND OTHER MECHANICAL ISSUES. YOU ALL APPROVED 18,701 ALREADY, BUT THEY NEED A TOTAL OF 22,007.21. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HALE. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? >> ALSO FOR AMMO FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, THEY HAD-- WE APPROVED $2781 FOR A TOTAL OF $3616. >> TO CLARIFY THESE ARE ROLL OVERS? AND WE ANTICIPATED THAT WE WOULD BE SPENDING THIS FISCAL YEAR WITHOUT HAVING TO ROLL OVER. THEY WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET NUMBER AS WELL. SO, I WANT TO ASK WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, THE AMOUNT OF ROLL OVER THAT WE HAVE TOTAL, THIS IS SOMETHING YOU WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR US? WE WANT TO KNOW THE TOTAL FOR ROLL OVER. THAT'S NOT NEW MONEY BEING SPENT. THAT'S MONEY BEING SPENT. BUT FOR SOME REASON WE DID NOT GET TO IT. CONTINUE ON. I'M SORRY. >> FOR PATROL THEY HAD AN INSTALLMENT INSTALLATION MOBILE RADIO FOR A PARTICULAR UNIT OF $322,200. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ALL IN FAVOR? THAT CARRIES 50. >> THE PATROL WAS EXPECTING TO RECEIVE SECURITY EQUIPMENT, WHICH IS VORTEX BARKS, AR BRANDS, HANDHELD RADAR, GAS MASK AND HELMETS, VESTS AND BODY ARMOUR FOR A PARTICULAR DEPUTY. THAT TOTAL IS 2,702,095. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER [01:20:05] WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? 5-0. >> THE TOTAL ROLL OVER AMOUNT FROM 26 TO 27 FOR NONCAPITAL ITEMS FOR GENERAL FUND'S 423,266,384. >> THAT'S FOR CAP OR NONCAPITAL LEASE. >> THAT IS CAP. >> I'M SEEKING THE TOTAL ROLL OVER NUMBER WHEN WE GET TO IT. >> I HAVE ANOTHER UPDATE FOR PRECINCTS. PRECINCT FOUR. THEY WOULD LIKE TO ALLOCATE $36,000 FOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS. >> CAN WE MAKE A MOTION? >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. ALL IN FAVOR? >> JUST IN THIS DISCUSSION THIS IS NOT ADDITIONAL MONEY, THIS THE ALLOCATION OF MONEY THAT'S IN THE BUDGET? >> THAT CARRIES 5-0. >> IT'S NOT A ROLL OVER. >> IT'S NOT A ROLL OVER. BUT IT'S NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING. JUST ALLOCATING FUNDING WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT. >> DID YOU VOTE IN? >> WE DID. >> FOR PRECINCT FOUR THEY NEED TO SIDESTEP FOR VACANT LOTS FOR A VEHICLE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND ALLOCATED FOR $5000. WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL $1000 FOR THAT. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER... ANY DISCUSSION? THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT ITEM? OKAY. -- >> TO WE HAVE TO ADOPT THE ENTIRE BUDGET? >> WE HAVE TO ADOPT THE ENTIRE BUDGET. >> WE WERE JUST DOING THE ROLLOVERS THERE. >> I THOUGHT WE WERE THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE DID NOT HAVE A VOTE. >> THE OFFICE IS GOING TO COME FORWARD WITH THE NUMBERS. INCLUDING THE NEW ROLLOVER NUMBERS. >> I PROVIDED YOU A SUMMARY ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL ROLL OVERS-- ROLLOVERS. THE NEW TOTAL. DO YOU WANT ME TO GO LINE BY LINE TO-- TO SAY THE AMOUNTS FOR EACH? >> I THINK THE TIME WE HAVE SPENT IN WORKING WITH THE BUDGET, I THINK WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO GO LINE BY LINE. >> WE COULD JUST DO THE GENERAL FUND? >> THE GENERAL FUND TOTAL, CHANGES PROPOSED BUDGET WITH THE CURRENT ROLLOVERS IS $19,432,280, WITH A NET REVENUE ADJUSTMENT OF $502,071. THE TOTAL USE OF FUND BALANCE REQUIRED WOULD BE 15,212,346. WITH A TOTAL BUDGET OF 106,016,295. >> THOSE ARE CHANGES, I GUESS. FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT YOU ARE BRINGING FORWARD THERE, BIANCA? THE 19 MILLION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE CHANGES FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CHANGES FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET BUT THAT INCLUDES THE 3,000,717 IN THERE AS WELL. >> RIGHT. SO IS THAT THE TOTAL BUDGET NUMBER THAT YOU PROVIDED FOR US HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. >> THAT CHANGED WITH THE ROLLOVERS. >> WHAT IS IT NOW. >> IT'S 10,616,000 TO 95. -- >> 106-01-6295? >> YES, SIR. ANYTHING ELSE? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> THE FUND BALANCE USAGE AMOUNT WOULD BE 15,212,346. >> AND THAT IS-- THAT CHANGES AS WELL DUE TO ROLLOVERS? DOES NOT HAVE TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF THE ROLLOVERS? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> BUT THAT WILL GET FUNDED BACK ONCE WE CLOSE THE CURRENT YEAR? >> OF THAT AMOUNT, WHAT IS THE NUMBER THAT WE HAVE IN CONTINGENCY? >> THAT'S TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE 2 MILLION IN CONTINGENCY. [01:25:03] IN GENERAL CONTINGENCY. I DON'T THINK YOU VOTED ON NOT YET. IT WAS JUST PROPOSED. >> THAT'S WHY I ASKED. THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BUT WE WILL CODIFY THAT-- IF WE ADOPT THE BUDGET RIGHT NOW. >> 2 MILLION IS A GENERIC AMOUNT. BUT WE HAVE OTHER AMOUNTS AVAILABLE? >> SO, NO, THE TOTAL CONTINGENCY IS $5,811,027. AND THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE 3.7. SO THAT SUMMARY IS CORRECT. THE 9 MILLION IS BULK CONTINGENCY. >> WE HAVE A TOTAL CONTINGENCY OF $5,811,027 OF WHICH 2 MILLION FLAGGED IS GENERIC. >> CORRECT. AND WE HAVE THE LAND-USE I CAN'T GET IT ON THE SCREEN. >> DO YOU WANT IT ON THE SCREEN? >> I DON'T THINK I HAVE EIGHT. IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT. >> THOSE ARE THE ITEMS. >> THE 3 MILLION WAS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED. SO I HAVE A NOTE THERE. >> YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT KIND MILLION FIGURE THAT YOU GAVE US IN CONTINGENCY? >> YES, SIR. >> THE CONSTABLE SPOKE ABOUT THAT LAST TIME? CAN YOU TAKE THAT OUT IN LESSER ALLOCATING THAT ON CONTRACT SERVICES? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> AND THAT IS TOTALLY FINE. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFIED, YOU APPROVED THE POSITION AND THEN UNAPPROVED THE POSITION. WITHIN AMOUNTING CONTINGENCY NECESSARY TO COVER THE ADDITIONAL COSTS. >> THE 10,000 IS IN THE BUDGET FOR CONTRACT SERVICES. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> THAT IS FINE. THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE? QUESTIONS THANK YOU. >> HERE ARE THE AMOUNTS. THIS IS JUST THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BALANCE REQUIREMENTS AND ROLLOVERS. >> IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE CONTINGENCY AMOUNT IS EARMARKED FOR SOMETHING IN PARTICULAR. WE HAVE NOT BEEN DOING THAT IN THE PAST, THE OTHER THING IS USING THE FUND BALANCE WHICH WE HAVE DONE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AND WE HAVE NOT SPENT THAT AMOUNT EITHER. THE AMOUNT IS NOT SPENT BECAUSE EVERYBODY DOES NOT SPEND ALL THEIR BUDGET. WHICH IS A TESTAMENT TO THE MANY DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT WE HAVE HERE. WE BUDGET IT FOR THE MAXIMUM. AND THEN WE DON'T SPEND IT. THAT SAID, OUR MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE 26-27 BUDGET. $106,016,295. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. >> I HAVE SOME PREBUDGET-- COMMENTS ABOUT THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. A COUPLE YEARS AGO WE FORMED A BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WOULD LOOK INITIALLY AT ALL NEW PERSONAL REQUESTS. IT HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO ALL CAPITAL AND PERSONAL REQUESTS AS A WHOLE. AND IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A GROUP OF PEOPLE TO TAKE A LOOK [01:30:05] FROM A HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT WE ARE DOING AS FAR AS STAFFING ORGANIZATIONAL EFFICIENCY, ET CETERA. WE MET MANY TIMES LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR. AND IF YOU ARE ON THAT COMMITTEE, CAN I GET YOU TO STAND UP, PLEASE? BECKY, ON YOUR TIPTOES, PLEASE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE EACH OF THESE FOLKS. MR. RICHARD HEISER, WHO REPRESENTED THE PUBLIC AND DID A FANTASTIC JOB. MISSED-- OUR DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS NOT HERE, BUT HE IS A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE AND DID A FANTASTIC JOB. THANK YOU FOR THE WISDOM. BECKY, OUR DUAL ROLE TREASURER AND HR DIRECTOR IS ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL. PLEASE DON'T TELL HER EYE SAID THAT. I DON'T EAT OR HAVING ANY AMMO AGAINST ME. COMMISSIONER WALDEN. PER FOOT-- A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF LEADERSHIP THAT HE PROVIDES, AS WELL AS A COMMON SENSE CONSERVATIVE FISCAL APPROACH. SO, COMMISSIONERS COURT TOOK THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS BODY, AND I BELIEVE OVER 95% OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE WERE FOLLOWED BY THIS COURT. AND IT IS NO ACCIDENT HOW WE WERE ABLE TO USE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AGAIN, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT FORMALLY VOTED ON NOT YET, AND WHY ARE BUDGET I BELIEVE THIS YEAR IS ACTUALLY SMALLER, OR CLOSE TO SMALLER THAN OUR BUDGET LAST YEAR. SO I WANT TO COMMEND THE MEMBERS OF THAT COMMITTEE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK AND FOR YOUR STEWARDSHIP. THANK YOU AS WELL TO CAM REAVIS. RIHANNA FOWLER. THE STAFF'S ASSISTANCE WAS INVALUABLE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF I'M FORGETTING SOMEBODY I APOLOGIZE. >> I APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS AND YOUR LEADERSHIP. AND BRINGING THOSE NUMBERS IN. THIS COMMITTEE HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE HOLDING THE LINE. AND IT'S-- IT NEEDS TO BE NOTED HERE. I THINK THAT SOMETHING OVER 80% OF THIS BUDGET GOES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. I HAVEN'T CALCULATED IT OUT, BECAUSE WE WILL GET THE NUMBERS TOGETHER AND I WILL BRING THAT BACK. BUT WHERE DOES IT ALL GO? THAT'S WHERE IT ALL GOES. EVERYBODY ELSE GETS WHAT'S SWEPT UP. BUT I THINK THAT THAT SHOWS THE FOCUS THAT WE HAVE AS A COMMISSIONERS COURT, IN FUNDING THE-- THOSE FOLKS THAT PROTECT US, AND THOSE FOLKS THAT DO THE REALLY HARD JOBS. WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO AGAIN TAX RATE IS DOWN JUST A HAIR. THAT WILL BE PROPOSED AND VOTED ON IN A LITTLE BIT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE, EXCEPT THAT WE GOT A BIT OF A CURVEBALL BECAUSE THERE WAS AN APPROVAL AT THE STATE LEVEL TO REDUCE THE FOLKS THAT MADE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX FROM SMALL BUSINESSES. AND THAT IS GOOD. THAT IS A GOOD THING. HOWEVER, THAT LOWERS OUR AMOUNT OF TAXES COLLECTED. I DON'T KNOW BY HOW MUCH. BUT IT CHANGES IT CONSIDERABLY. AND THE THRESHOLD HAS BEEN RAISED, AND UNDER THAT THRESHOLD YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES. SO THAT CHANGES THINGS A LITTLE BIT. OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LOWER IT EVEN LESS THAN WHAT IT IS NOW. WHEN I STARTED HERE, I BELIEVE THE TAX RATE WAS 42 CENTS. SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE. AND THE ONE THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IS 1.28 CENTS. AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE HAD A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GROWTH. AND WE BEEN ABLE TO MANAGE THAT GROWTH AND STILL MAINTAIN THE KNOW YOUR REVENUE RATES. AND THAT IS COMMENDABLE. THAT IS NO SMALL TASK. EVERYBODY THAT COMES BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE HAS A NEED. A LEGITIMATE NEED. SO WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MANAGE THAT THROUGH COMMITTEE PROCESS, SCORE THOSE ITEMS, BRING THEM BACK TO COMMISSIONERS COURT, AND LIKE YOU SAID, 95% OR GREATER, THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED. SO I WANT TO ECHO THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE. BUT IT'S NO SMALL THING WHEN PEOPLE COME IN HERE WITH A NEED OUTSIDE OF THAT PROCESS. AND WE WORK TO SAY IT'S NOT HERE IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. SO JUST THE COMMITTEE PROCESS BY ITSELF IS LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF ASKED WE HAVE HAD AND CUT OUT THE BUSINESS WHERE I WILL ASK [01:35:04] FOR TWO AND MAYBE GET ONE. SO WE'VE LIMITED THAT AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT UPHOLDING THE LEVEL OF SPENDING AND KEEPING IT WHERE IT IS. IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. >> I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING. WE HAVE A LOT OF HERE, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF ASKS, 80 PERCENT, THE JUDICIAL SIDE. WHAT DOES THAT TRANSLATE TO THE TAX PAYER? WITH THE RESIDENTS OF PARKER COUNTY. I JUST FOUND THIS OUT, SEVEN YEARS CONSECUTIVELY WE HAVE CONTINUOUSLY LOWERED THE CROWN RATE. THAT'S A-- A TRIBUTE TO YOUR STAFF AND WHAT YOU ARE DOING IN WORKING WITH AGENCIES AND ON CALLS AND THESE OTHER THINGS. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT UNTIL RECENTLY. THE FUNDS THAT WE COMMIT TO WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT TO RESULT IN A SAFER ENVIRONMENT FOR US TO LIVE IN. THANK YOU. >> THERE IS ANOTHER FACTOR IN THERE. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER. BUT IT'S 254 COUNTIES IN TEXAS IN THE-- WE ARE IN THE BOTTOM 25% OF TAX RATES FOR COUNTIES. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I APPRECIATE YOU, EACH OF YOU THAT HAS SERVED ON THE COMMITTEE. BECAUSE IT'S A BIG JOB. I AM PROUD OF THE FACT THAT WE FOLLOWED THE LEAD AND CREATED EFFECTIVELY OUR OWN COUNTY DOGE COMMITTEE. AND IT IS A STRONG ONE WITH GOOD LEADERS AND THERE. I ALSO LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE MORE INVOLVED IN THAT COMMITTEE NEXT YEAR, OR AND 27. BUT I WANT TO VOICE THAT I APPRECIATE EVERYONE OF YOU. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY? >> KIND OF IMPROMPTU. I'VE BEEN DOING BUDGETS FOR THE BETTER PART OF ALMOST TWO DECADES. THIS IS BY FAR THE BEST STAFF I HAVE BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH. THANK YOU BRING ON A, KIM, BIANCA. ALL QUALITY, FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE. YOU COULD NOT GET A BETTER GROUP OF PEOPLE TO HANDILY BUDGET OF THIS SIZE. WITH AS MANY ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE UP TO AND INCLUDING TODAY'S MEETING. SO, I KNOW YOU GUYS KNOW THIS, BUT I WANT TO PUBLICLY SAY, YOU HAVE A GREAT TEAM HERE. AND I THINK THAT THE CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE IN 27 CAN BE MET WITH THE STAFF YOU HAVE IN PLACE. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THAT IS THE ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET FOR 26-27. OKAY. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM ITEM F, ADOPT ORDER TO SET TAX RATES FOR GENERAL FUND M&O LATERAL RODENT DEBT SERVICE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027. ON THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION RATE-- YOU HAVE SOME INTO SAY. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING LAST TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 22ND. WE DID NOT SET THAT RATE AT THAT PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS REQUIRED WITHIN SEVEN DAYS, WHICH WE WERE GOING TO DO AWAY WITH THE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS AND DO THE ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET. SO I PROVIDED YOU ALL WITH MOTION LANGUAGE BASED ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET. SO, CHAPTER 26 OF THE PROPERTY TAX CODE REQUIRES CERTAIN LANGUAGE BASED ON WHERE YOUR TAX RATE IS, SO I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THOSE ITEMS. SO WITH THE MOTION, SETTING THAT TOTAL TAX RATE, THAT IS WHAT THIS LANGUAGE REPRESENTS, AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IS THEN TO GO BACK AND SET EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES WITH A THAT TOTAL APPROVED-- SORRY, TOTAL APPROVED TAX RATES. >> SO WE ARE SETTING THE OVERALL TAX RATE. >> CORRECT. AND THE OVERALL TAX RATE. THAT'S BROKEN INTO THOSE THREE SEPARATE PIECES. >> I WILL READ THE PROPERTY TAX CODE, WHAT IT IS, WITH THE LANGUAGES BEFORE WE GO TO EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE. THERE ARE THREE SEPARATE VOTES ON THAT. ON THIS YEAR'S PROPOSED TAX TAX RATE, IT DOES NOT EXCEED THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE. [01:40:03] IT ENSURES THAT WE WILL RAISE MORE TAXES FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS IN LESTER'S TAX RATE. THE TAX RATE WILL EFFECTIVELY BE RAISED BY 1.64 PERCENT, IT WILL RAISE TAXES FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS ON A 100,000-DOLLAR HOME BY PROXIMALLY $6000.25. I WILL MOVE TO THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL M&O ON THE RATE OF 01.8568. I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. UBUNTU ITEM TWO. THE RATE IS 0.049859. THAT IS THE RATE THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL ON. I ASK FOR A MOTION. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT-- COMMISSIONER HOLT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. MOVE TO ITEM THREE. THE LATERAL ROAD RATE. THE PROPOSED RATE THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR APPROVAL ON HIS 0.049162. OKAY. I WILL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE. I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION. AGAIN, 0.049162. COMMISSIONER HALE HAS MADE THE MOTION. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? THE TOTAL TAX RATE AGAIN IS MENTIONED IS 0.284719, IS THE RATE THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND ADOPTED TODAY. AGAIN, THANK YOU GENTLEMEN FOR A GREAT TEAM EFFORT ON THIS. >> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IS THERE SHOULD BE THE TAX ORDER WITHIN THOSE DOCUMENTS, AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE SIGN THOSE PRIOR TO GOING IN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION, IT NEEDS TO BE ATTESTED BY THE COUNTY CLERK BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THIS TO BE THE LAST ONE SO THEY CAN GENERATE NOTICES MOVE TO ITEM G. VOTE TO RATIFY PROPERTY TAX RATES AS SET BY THE PARKER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR THE 2026-2027 FISCAL YEAR FOR THE GENERAL FUND, LATERAL ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND AND DEBT SERVICE. MOTION IS MADE AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? CARRIES 5-0. THANK YOU. [6.H. Consider/Approve 2026-2027 Willow Park Dispatching ILA addendum.] I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO ITEM AGE. CONSIDER AND APPROVE 2026-2027 WILLOW PART DISPATCHING ILA ADDENDUM. >> IT IS A CONTINUATION ILA CATCHES SOME VARIOUS CHANGES ANNUALLY BASED ON SALARIES AND THE PERCENTAGE. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. IT CARRIES 5-0. I'M GOING TO GO DOWN TO JAY. REAL QUICK. DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON APPROVING SPECTRUM BUSINESS SERVICE ORDERS TO INCREASE INTERNET SPEEDS AT THE MAIN ANNEX AND EEOC BUILDING LOCATIONS. >> THIS IS SEPARABLE TO GET THE JUDGE TO SIGN ON OCTOBER 1 WE CAN GET THE APPROVED INTERNET RATES FOR THE COUNTY. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. [6.D. Set Elected Officials Salaries for Fiscal Year 2027 Budget. (Part 2 of 2)] ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. WE WILL GO BACK TO ITEM D. TALKING ABOUT TRANSFERS AND EQUIPMENT BOARDS? ITEM TWO... BUY A 2027 CHEVROLET... >> NOW THAT WE'VE APPROVED THE ADOPTED BUDGET WE NEED TO DO THE PROCUREMENT SIDE OF THESE CAPITAL ASSETS. SO REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO BUY PC 27-032027 CHEVROLET TWO WHEEL DRIVE TRUCK FOR ANIMAL CONTROL THROUGH THE CO-OP CONTRACT, SIMS-- 702-3 FROM CALDWELL COUNTRY. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ALL IN FAVOR? THE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. ITEM THREE. APPROVED BY PC 27-022027 CHEVROLET TAHOE FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE COUNTY ATTORNEY INVESTIGATOR USING 287G FUNDS. THAT CARRIES 5-0. MOVE TO ITEM FOUR. APPROVED BY PC 27-032027 CHEVROLET TRAX FOR I.T. >> REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE BY PC 2027-032027 CHEVROLET TRAX FOR I.T. THROUGH THE CONTRACT FROM CALDWELL. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THAT CARRIES 5-0. [01:45:01] ITEM FIVE, APPROVE INTERLOCAL PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH DENTON COUNTY. >> DENTON COUNTY CONTACTED ME WANT TO DO YOU KNOW LIES THE PIGGYBACKING OF ONE OF OUR PETROLEUM ASPHALT VENDORS WHO HAS BEEN AWARDED. SO WE NEED TO DO AND INTERLOCAL PURCHASING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT. AND THIS IS JUST REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER IN TO THAT. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? THAT CARRIES. ON ITEM SIX, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT WILL BE ADDED TO THAT. [6.I. Discussion/Approval to Docusign Department of State Health Services Contract No. HHS00 1439300018 Amendment No. 6.] WE WILL MOVE DOWN TO ITEM SIX I. DISCUSSANT APPROVAL TO DOCK YOU SIGN THE STATE HEALTH SERVICES CONTRACT NUMBER HHS001439300018 AMENDMENT NUMBER 6. >> DYLAN HERE, ON BEHALF OF JASON LANE. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR. THIS INCREASE IN FUNDING THAT WE RECEIVED FROM TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR OUR GRANT PROGRAM WITHIN THE OFFICES OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. THERE IS INCREASED LOCAL MATCH. IT'S JUST 10% OF THE FULL AMOUNT. BUT WE COVER THAT WITH NO BECAUSE TO THE COUNTY THROUGH THE USE OF VOLUNTEERS. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY DISCUSSION? >> YOU HAVE THE GRANT, THE INCREASE? THE TOTAL AMOUNT? >> YES, SIR. OUR PREVIOUS ALLOTMENT THAT WE RECEIVED ON JULY 1ST THIS YEAR WAS $46,460. IT IS INCREASED TO 75,769, AND OUR LOCAL 10% MATCH INCREASE FROM 4446, WHICH WAS ALREADY ACQUIRED. THAT'S NOW $7577. AND WE WILL COVER THAT MASTER VOLUNTEER HOURS. >> VERY GOOD. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR? CARRIES 5-0. [6.K. Approve Certificate of Milestone Acceptance from Motorola Solutions for Project Number USTX26D122M.] MOVE TO ITEM K. APPROVED CERTIFICATE OF MILESTONE ACCEPTANCE FROM MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS FOR PROJECT NUMBER UST EX 26122M. JAMES? >> THIS IS ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONSOLE PROJECTS GOING ON AT THE SHERIFFS PROJECTS, HAS APPROVED THIS YEAR. WE HAD ALL THE INVENTORY SET UP FOR TESTING AND WE ARE READY FOR INSTALL IN MID-OCTOBER. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER [6.L. Update on establishing a Chapter 391 Sub-Regional Planning Commission.] HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. ITEM L, UPDATE ON ESTABLISHING A CHAPTER 391 SUB REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. >> SO, WHEN WE LAST DISCUSSED THIS BACK IN JUNE OR JULY, WE DISCUSSED ESTABLISHING A CHECK FOR 391. WE WERE UNDER DIRECTION TO TRY TO FIND A DANCE PARTNER, BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO WORK WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CURRENT 391 THAT WE ARE IN, WHICH IS A NORTH-CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE ROBUST DISCUSSIONS WITH COG. WE DEALT MAINLY WITH THEIR SAFETY DIRECTOR. HOWEVER, IN EARLY AUGUST HE WAS TERMINATED FROM HIS POSITION AS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THAT THROUGH HAS BACK TO SQUARE ONE WITH THAT ENDEAVOR. WE DO HAVE SOME INTEREST FROM THE CITY OF WEATHERFORD IF WE WANT TO PURSUE. THEY DO NOT NEED A 3912 STOP DATA CENTERS FROM COMING IN. THEY CAN SIMPLY ZONE THEM OUT. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE COURT IN PUBLIC THAT A 391 IS NOT A STOP MEASURE FOR A DEBT CENTER OR INDUSTRIAL FACILITY. IT SIMPLY A DELAY TACTIC THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT SHOULD THE COURT DECIDE TO GO THAT ROUTE. IN TERMS OF WHAT THE STATE HAS DONE, SINCE WE LAST MET, THEY HAVE PUT MEASURES ON CAUGHT RTW RTW BE FOR AUDITS. SO THAT WILL HAVE LOAD AND WATER AVAILABILITY BENCHMARKS. THEY HAVE ALSO RECENTLY MANDATED TC Q2 NOT ISSUE ANY PERMITS FOR DATA CENTERS IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE SOME DELAY TACTICS IN PLACE FROM THE STATE LEVEL. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY WILL START-- WE WILL START FILING IN 40 TODAYS. SO WE WILL SEE LEGISLATION HOPEFULLY THAT WILL GIVE SOME MEASURE OF CONTROL TO THIS BODY, OR BROADER LEGISLATURE. WITH THAT SAID, I HAD A MEETING WITH THE CITY OF ALITO ON THE FIFTH WHERE I BROUGHT UP A NUMBER OF TOPICS, ONE OF THOSE [01:50:03] WILL BE A PARTICIPATION IN 391. >> WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO INITIATE AND REESTABLISH THOSE DISCUSSIONS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE ON THE 391 OF THE BENEFITS, AND WHAT THE INTEREST IS IN THAT EXECUTIVE BOARD. YOU ARE RIGHT. IT DID GO BACK TO TODD LITTLE. JUDGE TODD LITTLE DID GET REMOVED. SO THAT SET US BACK A LITTLE B BIT. THE LEADERSHIP OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND COUNCIL GOVERNMENTS. SO WE CAME BACK TO RESET THE CLOCK AND REEVALUATE AND REASSESS. SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING HERE IS THAT WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS-- WHAT? >> FIRST OF ALL, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE WANT TO BRING THEM ALONG AND MAKE SURE THERE COMFORTABLE WITH ESTABLISHING A SUB REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. WE'VE LEVERAGE TAX DOLLARS AND TRANSPORTATION TO-- I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT AMOUNT, BUT I KNOW IT'S WELL WITHIN THE DOZENS OF MILLIONS. COMMISSIONER HILL HAS A PROJECT PUTTING $20 MILLION IN ON A PROJECT RIGHT NOW. SO WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO HINDER THOSE RELATIONSHIPS AND DAMAGE THAT FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIP THAT WE HAVE. AND WE ARE DOING SOME RESEARCH WITH BURNET COUNTY AND THE CITY OF BURNET. THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE CAP AREA COG HAD FOR FUNDING. SO WE NEED TO HAVE AT LEAST A CONVERSATION IN THE EXECUTIVE BOARD LEVEL WITH THE COG. I WOULD ALSO ARGUE, IT COULD BE ARGUED, THAT 391 ONLY REQUIRES STATE AGENCIES TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. WE HAVE HAD THE PUC AT OUR MEETING ON JUNE 9TH. THE GENTLEMAN THAT TESTIFIED IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TESTIFIED A WEEK LATER. WE ACTUALLY MET WITH HIM BEFORE HE MET WITH HIS BOSSES. DOUG SHAW HAS MET WITH HIS BODY A NUMBER OF TIMES, AND THE GOVERNOR JUST PUT A BIG DENT IN TWO-PIECE EQ'S PERMANENT PROCESS FOR DATA CENTERS. A LOT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED TO DELAY THESE REQUESTS. AND NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN-- THEY HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT A 391 IN PLACE. >> DO NOT LEAVE YET. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING IS-- I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS. >> MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS WITH WEATHERFORD AND POTENTIALLY ALITO. ON COST AND WE CONTINUE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. I THINK IF WE FORMED ONE WE WOULD PUT SOME SORT OF PARAMETERS ON IT. AND I THINK JOHN MAY HAVE SOME OPINIONS ON WHAT WE CAN DO TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF A 391. AND LIMIT THE LONGEVITY OF CHAPTER 391. >> I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THIS. I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S DECISION TO RECOGNIZE AND RESPECT INPUT OF COG BACK WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST TIME. IF I RECALL WE'VE LEVERAGE SOMETHING LIKE $1.8 BILLION FROM COG. >> OVER TWO. >> IT'S OVER TWO WE SO COG HAS HELPED FUND TRANSPORTATION AND PARKER COUNTY TO A TREMENDOUS DEGREE. THAT'S EARNED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT AND RESPECT AND POLITICAL CAPITAL, SO TO SPEAK,, FROM US. AT THE SAME TIME, GIVEN THE TURMOIL AND THE TURNOVER ON THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP SIDE AT C COG, AND ALSO GIVEN HOW CRITICAL THIS ISSUE IS TO OUR RESIDENTS, IN THE INTEREST OF TIMING AND THE INTEREST OF RESPECTING RESIDENT WISHES, I ENCOURAGE THIS COURT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH 391. WITH EITHER THE CITY OF WEATHERFORD OR A LOCAL DANCE PARTNER, SO TO SPEAK,, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I UNDERSTAND 391 DOESN'T GIVE US BLANKET AUTHORITY TO SAY NO, BUT IT'S A TOOL IN THE TOOL BELT, EVEN IF IT'S JUST A DELAY UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE CAN ENACT TOOLS THAT WILL BE IN EFFECT AT THE FIRST OF NEXT YEAR. THAT'S ONE WE EXPECTED TO TAKE EFFECT. >> TYPICALLY. IT COULD BE AS EARLY AS THE SIGN FROM THE GOVERNOR . >> THAT WOULD TAKE A BIT TO GO AS EARLY AS THAT. POSSIBLE BUT UNLIKELY. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS COURT TO [01:55:03] REFOCUS ON A LOCAL DANCE PARTNER AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP THIS VERY LIMITED IN SCOPE. WE DON'T WANT TO GROW THE POWER OF GOVERNMENT. LET'S KEEP IT LIMITED. IF WE HAVE THE TIME, FIND IT AND THAT'S FINE AS WELL. >> I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A CLEAR COMMUNICATION WITH COG ON WHAT OUR ACTIONS ARE, WITH THE BIGGER PICTURE. 391, WHICH THEY DO, ALREADY IN THEIR REPERTOIRE OF TOOLS. WE EVOLVE INTO THAT 391 AND MOVE TOWARDS THAT, THE MAIN THING IS COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, LETTING THEM KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING AND WHY WE ARE DOING IT. WITH WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE. >> JOHN, I WILL PUT YOU ON THE SPOT HERE. WHAT'S A REALISTIC TIME FRAME FOR ADOPTING BYLAWS TO GET THROUGH THE RESPECTIVE CITIES OR A RESOLUTION IN ORDER TO GET TO THE RESPECTIVE CITIES? [INDISCERNIBLE] >> SO WE CAN PULL THROUGH. >> WITH-- PRETTY QUICK. >> WHAT ABOUT BYLAWS. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> MY QUESTION IS-- WE HEAR THE NEWS THAT THE GOVERNMENT-- GOVERNOR HAS INSTITUTED A MORATORIUM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. DOES THAT MEAN FOR ANY NEW PERMITS FROM ANYONE? I ACTUALLY NEED SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT THE MEANING OF THAT IS FOR PARKER COUNTY TEXAS. SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO BRING THAT TO US AS WELL. REACH OUT AND FIND OUT WHAT THAT MEANS. BECAUSE WE HAVE ACTUALLY AN ENTITY, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, WHO HAS PERMITS FROM TC Q FROM GENERATORS. AND WE HAVE APPLICATION FROM UPPER TRINITY FOR WELLS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT AFFECTS THIS PROCESS THAT WE HAVE HERE. WHAT DOES THAT MORATORIUM MEAN? FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH UPPER TRINITY, I'M CONFIDENT THAT THEIR PROCESS FOR GETTING THOSE WELLS IS GOING TO BE A LENGTHY ONE. BUT, AGAIN, WE NEED SOME INFORMATION HERE THAT IS CLEAR, SO WE ARE NOT WORKING ON RUMORS. WE DID NOT KNOW THE FACTS. AND I HEARD THOSE, I THINK COURTNEY NEEDS TO HEAR THOSE FROM DUGGAN TRINITY TRINITY ABOUT HOW LONG THAT PROCESS COULD BE FOR SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO DRILL THOSE WELLS FOR THAT KIND OF FACILITY. >> WE CAN ASK DOUG TO SHOW UP ON THURSDAY NIGHT. THERE WAS A TOWN HALL THURSDAY OR TUESDAY. I CAN'T REMEMBER. >> TUESDAY. >> YES. I THINK IT WAS REPORTED TO THAT OTHER BODY THAT IT BE A ONE TO TWO YOUR PROCESS BEFORE THE PERMIT COULD GET ISSUED. >> THE 391 DISCUSSION, I KNOW THERE HAD BEEN A LOT OF HOMEWORK AND A WHOLE LOT OF ENERGY TO SEE WHAT KIND OF TEETH THAT HAVE-- HAS THAT A COUNTY LEVEL. I THINK THAT THEY WILL EITHER HAVE TO EXPAND THEIR CAPABILITY OR GIVE US THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS THIS AND THE CONCERNS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING WE DO THAT INVOLVES EXPANDING GOVERNMENT, ANOTHER-- OR ANOTHER LAYER OF GOVERNMENT OVER US AND OTHER PEOPLE, IS THOROUGHLY VETTED. AND I UNDERSTAND THE EXPEDIENCY AND URGENCY HERE, THE SAME TIME, I WOULD HATE FOR US TO STEP ON THE TOES OF OUR EXISTING COG WITH THE INVESTMENT AMOUNT THAT THEY HAVE INVESTED IN PARKER COUNTY. SO I WANT TO REITERATE THE COMMUNICATION, TWO A COMMUNICATION WITH THEM. I THINK THAT THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT. I HAVE A QUESTION. COULD WE POTENTIALLY ADD A 391 COMPONENT TO NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNTY IN GOVERNMENTS WE ARE ALREADY A PART OF? >> THAT IS ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE WERE HAVING WITH COMMISSIONER LITTLE UP UNTIL HIS REMOVAL. THE COG ITSELF IS A CHAPTER OF 391. THE STATUTE, THERE ARE CONFLICTING IDEAS THAT THEY CREATE A SUB REGIONAL COG INSIDE THE COG. AND I THINK THAT WAS A QUESTION FOR THEIR ATTORNEYS TO VET. I KNOW THAT JUDGE HUCKABEE WHO [02:00:06] IS ON THE EXECUTIVE BOARD CREATED A SIMILAR 391 TO HANDLE THE 765 TRANSMISSION LINES. THAT WAS ULTIMATELY UNSUC UNSUCCESSFUL-- UNSUCCESSFUL-- UNSUCCESSFUL. I WAS TRYING TO VISIT WITH JUDGE HUCKABEE IN JOHNSON COUNTY. THEY ARE BOTH ON EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE PURCHASE TO SEE WHAT THEIR TEMPERATURE IS. >> EXECUTIVE BOARD, YES. >> SORRY. SORRY. >> I MISSPOKE ABOUT GRADING AND OTHER 391. WE ARE ALREADY PART OF THE 391. I DIDN'T KNOW THE LEGAL ABILITY, IF THAT IS SOMETHING, OR AN OPTION HERE. I WOULD HOPE THAT IF IT'S EXPANDING GOVERNMENT AND ADDING MORE GOVERNMENT THAN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE IT FOR THE SOLE-SOURCE THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. AND I WOULD HOPE THE STATE GET SOME LEGISLATURE IN PLACE TO ADDRESS IT. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A END DATE OR AN EXPIRY DATE ON IT. MY CONCERN IS THE BOARD GET ELECTED AND START EXPANDING POWERS TO OTHER THINGS, MORE CONTROL. AND THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MORE LAWS THAN NECESSARILY WE WANTED TO. >> I THINK IT'S A KEY TO THIS ESTABLISHMENT, THE DURATION. WITH ANOTHER 391 OUTSIDE ON A LOCAL LEVEL. WE ALSO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH COG ON A LARGER LEVEL. BUT ALSO, I THINK THERE IS A CONCERN HERE. AS WE MOVE FORWARD IN ESTABLISHING 391, COUNCIL SAYS WE ARE PROGRESSING THAT ON THE BYLAWS. WE HAVE TO MANAGE THE EXPECTATIONS OF THIS. THIS IS NOT A SILVER BULLET. THIS IS NOT GOING TO STOP IT. IT IS A DELAY TACTIC. IT SOMETHING TO BRING UP TO THE TABLE TO NEGOTIATE, TO TALK WITH THEM, WORK WITH THEM. BUT WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO STOP THIS. IT'S A STATE ISSUE, A STATE PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE STATE. WE ARE TRYING TO SCRATCH AND CLAW AND USE EVERY TOOL WE CAN. WE HAVE TO MANAGE EXPECTATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T PUT INTO PEOPLE'S MIND THAT WE HAVE A 391 NOW AND WE HAVE TO STOP THESE THINGS. THAT'S VERY CLEAR. >> JOHN I WILL VISIT WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT THE BYLAWS. >> WE WILL TAKE NO ACTION ON THAT ITEM. >> YOU CAN. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> COME ON UP, IF YOU WOULD. I HATE TO DO THIS TO YOU. IF YOU COULD LIMIT IT TO THREE-MINUTE. >> I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. I'M JUST WONDERING IF SOME BUT HE COULD EXPLAIN TO ME, THESE ARE THE RUMORS I'M HEARING FROM PEOPLE, WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE DATACENTRE ISSUE. HOW DOES THE MONEY ALLOCATED FOR TRANSPORTATION, HOW DOES NOT IN CONFLICT, OF THIS COURT FORMING A 391, WITH ANOTHER ENTITY? >> I COULD PROBABLY ANSWER THAT. BE IT ON THE-- BEING ON THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, WE WERE INTIMATELY CLOSE TO COG. AND MY DISCUSSIONS WITH JUDGE BO DECKER, WITH THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, TODD LITTLE, THAT THERE IS SOME SENSITIVITY TO HOW TO WALK SOFTLY WITH THIS THING. BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR FRAMEWORK WITHIN COG AND WE ARE GOING TO BE GOING OUTSIDE OF THAT, OF AN ENTITY THAT IS THE CONDUIT TO THE FEDERAL FUNDING, THE LOCAL FUNDING, THAT MANAGES THAT FOR US, BRINGING THIS EXPANSION OF 20, THAT CONNECTIVITY AND ALL THESE THINGS WE HAVE GOING ON RIGHT NOW. IF WE ACCELERATED THESE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, WE HAVE TO WALK SOFTLY TO MAKE SURE WE ARE COMMUNICATING DIRECTLY WITH THEM, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN CLEAR WITH ME THAT WE ALREADY HAD THE FRAMEWORK FOR THIS. IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO OUTSIDE OF THIS, IT SENSITIVE TO THERE BOARD. WE NEED TO DO THIS POLITICALLY CORRECT WITH THE COG BOARD. >> WHEN YOU SAY GO OUTSIDE THE FRAMEWORK FOR THIS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT... >> A LOCALIZED LEVEL WITH A MARRIED PARTNER LOCALLY WITH IN PARKER COUNTY. >> OKAY. AND DOERS SAYING THAT THAT GOES OUTSIDE OF YOUR AGREEMENT? >> IT GOES OUTSIDE OF THE FRAMEWORK OF WHAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH COG. THIS IS A 391 AGREEMENT WE ARE A PART OF ALREADY. WE JUST NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO ESTABLISH WHAT THE BYLAWS WOULD BE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCILOR GOVERNMENTS. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK. IS THAT OKAY? I WANTED TO ASK WHAT YOUR POSITION IN MIKE ALCOTT'S OFFICES. DO YOU HAVE MUCH DISCUSSION WITH NORSE-- THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNTY GOVERNMENTS REGARDING THE 391? [02:05:01] >> ME PERSONALLY? >> OR YOUR OFFICE. >> I CANNOT ANSWER THAT. THERE COULD BE COMMUNICATION GOING ON THAT I AM NOT AWARE OF. >> I WANTED TO ASK IN CASE THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE. >> I AM NOT AWARE. >> I THINK I CAN ANSWER. THERE HAS NOT BEEN. COME ON UP IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK. WE JUST NEED TO GET IT ON THE RECORD. >> RICHARD SIMMONS, RESIDENT HERE AT PARKER COUNTY. I AGREE WITH YOU, IT IS A DELAY TACTIC. AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT COG, WITH NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS. BUT EVERY MINUTE THAT WE DO NOT DELAY AND USE THE ONLY TOOL WE HAVE AVAILABLE, WHICH IS THIS DELAY TACTIC, JUST HELP THE DATA CENTERS. WE DO NOT KNOW, TO COMMISSIONER WALDEN'S POINT, WHAT THAT MORATORIUM MEANS. AND UNTIL WE GET A DEFINITION ON THAT WE DON'T KNOW IF THE STATE IS GOING TO COME AND HELP US OR NOT. SO WHY DON'T WE HELP OURSELVES BY USING THE TOOL THAT WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL? >> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? >> I THINK AS A COURT WE MAKE PRETTY BOLD STATEMENTS, THAT THERE WILL BE NO TAX ABATEMENTS. THERE WILL BE NO TAX ABATEMENTS THAT NO ONE HERE HAS ENTERED INTO ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH ANY OF THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE CONSIDERING THIS. >> OR NDA'S. >> THERE ARE NONE. AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP. WE WILL MAKE SURE WE DO IT IN THE RIGHT WAY. AS WE MOVE FORWARD I WOULD EXPECT-- EXPECT THIS BACK AT THE NEXT COURT. SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. >> THANK YOU. [6.M. Approve adding "No Thrn Trncks" signs to each end of Newsome Mound Road in Precinct One.] WE ARE GOING-- NO ACTION ON THAT ITEM. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM N-- ITEM M. APPROVE ADDING NO THRU TRUCKS SIGNS TO EACH END OF NEWSOM MOUND ROAD IN PRECINCT ONE. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE THE AGENDA. BUT IF YOU LIKE TO START THE PROCESS I CAN GET THAT RENTED A. BUT TO DO PUBLIC HEARING LIKE WE DID WITH PRECINCT TWO, I WOULD NEED SOME TIME TO GET IT RIGHT FOR THE NEXT COURT. >> I WAS EXPECTING THAT TO BE ALREADY DONE. >> IT WAS ADDED TO THE AGENDA. WE HAD NOT TALKED ABOUT IT. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> NO ACTION ON ITEM M. [6.N. Consider/Approve Resolution #26-41 to join in the formation of the Parker County Public Utility Agency and authorize the County Judge to execute the agreement regarding the creation and initial funding of the Parker County Public Utility Agency.] WE MOVED TO ITEM N, CONSIDER APPROVE RESOLUTION 26-41 TO JOIN IN THE FORMATION OF THE PARKER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY, AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE CREATION AND INITIAL FUNDING OF THE PARKER COUNTY PUBLICLY THE AGENCY. THIS IS A FORMAL VOTE ON JOINING THAT ENTITY. AND AGAIN, I COMMEND-- I UNDERSTAND ALL THE MEETINGS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON, I COMMEND COMMISSIONER WALDEN FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND THAT. >> ABOUT A CULMINATION OF A THREE-YEAR PROCESS THAT WE HAVE HAD TO ESTABLISH ORDINANCES THAT REFLECT THE ENTITIES IN PARKER COUNTY THAT WILL BE WORKING TOGETHER TO SECURE AND, I THINK, BRAND ADDITIONAL WATER SOURCES IN THE COUNTY. WE HEARD FROM FREESE AND NICHOLS PREVIOUSLY. I JUST WANT TO VERY QUICKLY RUN DOWN THE 14 ENTITIES THAT HAVE AGREED PREVIOUSLY TO BECOME A PART OF THAT. HUDSON NOTES, MILLSAP, PARKER COUNTY, THE CITY OF SPRINGTOWN, OPPORTUNITY GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WALNUT CREEK, UTILITY DISTRICT, CITY OF WEATHERFORD, DENSITY OF WILLOW PARK. AND THOSE 14 ENTITIES ARE ALL ASKING FOR PUBLIC INPUT AND NOTIFYING THEM THAT THEY WILL BE PLACING THAT ITEM ON THEIR AGENDA. AND THEY WILL ALL ORGANIZE AND BEGIN THE PROCESS WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED. BUT FORMALIZE THE PROCESS. EACH OF THOSE ENTITIES WILL HAVE A BOARD MEMBER ON THE BOARD OF THE PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY. AND I HAVE CITED SEVERAL TIMES, I DON'T-- I RECOGNIZE THAT WE [02:10:03] ARE ESTABLISHING A LEVEL OF BUREAUCRACY HERE, BUT THAT REQUIREMENT THAT WE WORK TOGETHER FOR THE BETTERMENT OF SECURING WATER FOR THE COUNTY IS VERY IMPORTANT. IT GIVES US THE FOOTPRINT OF THE COUNTY. IT GIVES US THE STRENGTH OF NUMBERS WHEN WE ASK FOR SOMETHING FROM THE TEXAS WATER BOARD. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE ASK OUR CONGRESSMAN, OUR CENTERS FOR HELP IN FUNDING THESE THINGS. JOHN, YOU HAVE BEEN A PART OF THIS SINCE THE BEGINNING. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THOSE THINGS? >> I JUST COMMEND YOU FOR THE LEADERSHIP IN THIS AND ORGANIZING THIS. THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE STATE, AND WE ARE GOING OUT AND SEEKING THOSE FUNDS. >> IF YOU LOOK AROUND, WE NEED ADDITIONAL WATER RESOURCES HERE IN THE COUNTY THAT COME FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTY. AND THIS IS HONESTLY THE ONLY WAY IT WILL HAPPEN. THE MISSION OF THIS IS NOT TO HAVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS. I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE. WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. WE ARE NOT ORGANIZING THE COMMITTEE TO HAVE MEETINGS. WE ARE ORGANIZING THIS ENTITY TO GET SOMETHING DONE. SO WITH THE HELP OF OUR ENGINEERING FIRM, FREESE AND NICHOLS, WE WILL GET THAT DONE. AND WE WILL MAKE AN IMPACT VERY SOON ON THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER HERE IN PARKER COUNTY. THIS MIGHT BE THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT COMES FROM THIS. WITHOUT THIS, A DEVELOPMENT OF PARKER COUNTY WILL DRY UP, LITERALLY. I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 26-41. WHICH ESTABLISHES THE PARKER COUNTY-- ESTABLISHING PARKER COUNTY AS A MEMBER OF THE PARKER COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCY. >> THE SPEAKER: MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? CARRIES 5-0. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> WE WILL HAVE A SYMPOSIUM. AND I WILL GET THE INFORMATION TO THE COURT ON THAT. THIS GIVES EFTS-- THIS GIVES US THE FRAMEWORK TO MOVE FORWARD AND BEGIN THE PROCESS OF WORKING TO GET MORE WATER IN HERE. [6.O. Discuss/Approve the County Judge to sign TERP Agreement and accept grant funding for Precinct #4.] >> THANK YOU. MOVE TO ITEM OH. DISCUSS AND APPROVE THE COUNTY JUDGE TO SIGN A TRP AGREEMENT AND EXCEPT GRANT FUNDING FOR PRECINCT FOUR. >> WE HAD APPLIED DILIGENTLY FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS TO-- AND WE WERE FINALLY AWARDED THIS YEAR, TO A TERP PROGRAM FROM THE STATE. BASICALLY, WHAT THEY DO IS THEY GIVE YOU A PERCENTAGE OF THE REPLACEMENT VALUE OF THE DUMP TRUCKS, OR SOME OF THE OLDER VEHICLES THAT THEY DEEM TO BE OFFENDERS OF, WITH THE EMISSIONS. SO I BELIEVE WE GOT AWARDED THE BETTER PART OF A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF VEHICLES. SO I WAS LOOKING IN HERE AND I THOUGHT I HAD THE EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT. I BELIEVE IT WAS AN 80-20 SPLIT. SO I'M VERY FORTUNATE-- IT'S VERY FORTUNATE WE REWARDED THAT. >> JUST TO COMMENT. BECAUSE PARKER COUNTY IS IN AN AREA OF NINE CLAIM FOR EMISSIONS AND OZONE-- NAAN CLAIMANT WITH CLEAN AIR. AND WE ARE JUST BARELY ON THE EDGE OF IT, BY THE WAY. COULD COUNTY IS NOT IN, BUT WE ARE. THAT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS GRANT. WE CALL IT A GRANT, BUT IT IS NOT. IT'S MONEY WE SPEND EVERY TIME WE REGISTER A TRUCK. BECAUSE WE HAD THE TEXAS COMMISSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, WHERE THERE IS THIS PROGRAM TO GRANT YOUR MONEY BACK TO YOU. SO ALL WE ARE DOING IS GETTING OUR MONEY BACK. AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR PARTICIPATING, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE NEW TRUCKS THAT YOU GET ADDICTED REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE OLD TRUCKS NEED TO BE DESTROYED. WHAT THE MISSION IS IS TO GET THOSE OLD TRUCKS THAT ARE POLLUTING OFF THE ROAD AND REPLACE THEM WITH VEHICLES THAT POLLUTE MUCH LESS. THE EMISSIONS ARE MUCH LESS ON THOSE NEW VEHICLES COMPARED TO 20 YEAR OLD VEHICLES, FOR EXAMPLE. >> THE SPEAKER: MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. ALL IN FAVOR? [6.P. Approve and authorize the County Judge to execute the Open Gov Order Form to continue services through June 30, 2027.] [02:15:02] THAT CARRIES 5-0. MOVE TO ITEM P. APPROVE IT THE 27TH. >> THIS IS A CONTINUATION THROUGH JUNE OF 27, FOR SERVICES FOR STW. WE ARE IN THE TRANSITION STAGE FOR CHANGEOVER TO THE MUNICIPAL PROGRAM. AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS RECORDS AND INFORMATION. PLUS WE ARE DOING PAYROLL AND FIXED ASSETS TO STW. >> WE EXPECT THIS TO CONTINUE AFTER WE SWITCHED? >> WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT IT WILL NOT RENEW PAST JUNE 27TH. TOTAL OF $17,438.78. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? MOTION CARRIES. MOVE TO ITEM Q ON DISCUSS AND [6.Q. Discuss/Approve bond for Deputy Constable Precinct 1 James Ryan Speegle.] APPROVE BOND FOR THE DEPUTY CONSTABLE. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> I SIGNED IT THIS MORNING. MOTION MADE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. [6.R. Discuss/Approve bond for Deputy Constable Precinct 1 Corey Shane Harris.] ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, MOTION CARRIES. ITEM ARE, DISCUSS AND APPROVE BOND FOR DEPUTY CONSTABLE PRECINCT ONE COREY SHANE HARRIS. MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. [7. ACCEPT INTO THE MINUTES] ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. ITEM SEVEN, EXCEPT INTO THE MINUTES PARKER COUNTY BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS DEPARTMENT COURTLY REPORT. PARKER COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES QUARTERLY REPORT. ITEM C, PARKER COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL CORLEY REPORT. ITEM D, PARKER COUNTY ST-- ESD NUMBER 8 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT. ITEM E, EXCEPTED TO THE MINUTES EXECUTIVE MCC ONE ADDENDUM TO MSA FOR PERMITTING SOFTWARE. IMF, EXCEPT INTO THE MINUTES EXECUTED TYLER MUNIZ AMENDMENT NUMBER 5. G. [8. EXECUTIVE SESSION] EXCEPT INTO THE MINUTES EXECUTED TYLER MINNIS AMENDMENT NUMBER 6. MOVE TO ITEM EIGHT. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THOSE ARE ENTERED INTO THE MINUTES UNDER ITEM EIGHT. THE COURT SESSION-- IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 551.071, 551.072, AND 551.076 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT TILDE PARKER COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT WILL MEET IN CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS WIT CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY REAL ESTATE SECURITY, AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CLOSE SECTION THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL RECONVENE OPEN SUCH TO MAKE DECISIONS. IN CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY... REGARDING THE ACTIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF PARKER COUNTY. ITEM B, LAND VELVET REGULATION OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO TEXAS COUNTIES, AND ITEM C, ANY OTHER MADAM-- MATTER DISCUSSED WITHIN THIS AGENDA. ITEM B TO DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON THE CITY OF ALITO TEXAS, AND THE CITY OF FORT WORTH TEXAS, AND BUILDING BRANCH OF CB 26-0175. DISCUSS AND APPROVE SEDIMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT OR TAKE ANY OTHER ACTION THAT THE COURT DEEMS NECESSARY. ITEM D, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON THE 2026-0641-MSW-E AND APPROVE ANY RELATED ACTIONS FOR THIS MATTER. ITEM E, UPDATE AND DISCUSS PARKA OAST PARKER COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER IN JAIL AND TAKE ANY ACTION THE COURT DEEMS NECESSARY. ITEM S-- ITEM F DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION IT REGARDING ALLOCATION AND IMPROVEMENTS OF COUNTY REAL ESTATE. ITEM G, DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION REGARDING COUNTY WEBSITE SECURITY UPGRADE AND EXPANSION. AND WE ARE ADDING ITEM D TO THIS AGENDA. D6. TO DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION OF RFP CC POINT A6 BALLISTIC WINDSHIELDS. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT WE WILL MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 1135, AND TAK >> LET THE RECORD SHOW IT 1226, WE MOVE THROUGH THE ITEMS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. THERE ADDITIONAL ACTION ITEM B. JOHN, BEFORE YOU GET UP THERE AND GET READY FOR PLANTING, DID WE DO ANYTHING ON ITEM B? WE NEED A MOTION ON THAT. >> I MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE CITY OF ALITO TEXAS AND THE CITY OF FORT WORTH TEXAS IN THE CITY OF WILLOW PARK TEXAS, PARKER COUNTY TEXAS, AND BUILDING BRANCH FTD NUMBER CD 260175, FINAL SETTLEMENT AND AGREEMENT. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? CARRIES 5-0. [INDISCERNIBLE] [02:20:07] >> ITEM C, DISCUSS AND APPROVE SETTLEMENT FOR THE RELEASE AGREEMENT AND TAKE ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL ACTIONS. >> I MOVED THAT WE APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT WITH FREEZE AND NICKEL'S REGARDING THE RECONSTRUCTION ON JOHNSON BEND AND CREATE ANCHORS. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALTON. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THAT CARRIES 5-0. ITEM D, TO DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION ON THE 2026-0641-MSW-E AND APPROVE ANY RELATED ACTIONS ON THIS MATTER. >> I BUT WE TAKE ACTION ON THIS 2026-0641-MSW-E, AND TAKE ANY RELATED ACTION NECESSARY FOR THIS MATTER. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. IT CARRIES 5-0. MOVE TO ITEM E. UPDATE AND DISCUSS PARKER COUNTY JUSTICE CENTER IN JAIL AND TAKE ANY ACTION THE COURT DEEMS NECESSARY. >> ON THE LAST MOTION CAN WE ALSO PUT THE AMOUNT? >> THAT AMOUNT IS $6350. >> WE WILL MOVE ON ITEM D. THAT MOTION HAS BEEN AMENDED. DOES THE SECOND CONCUR? >> IF WE ARE NEEDING TO PROCESS THAT OUTSIDE OF COURT, IF YOU COULD PLEASE DO THE APPROVAL FOR US TO PROCESS THAT, AND BECAUSE IT IS A SETTLEMENT THAT RELATED TO THIS FISCAL YEAR, WE WILL PAY THAT OUT OF CURRENT FUNDS AND ACCRUE THAT LIABILITY. >> AND THE MOTION REFLECTS THAT? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM F. DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION REGARDING ALLOCATION AND IMPROVEMENTS TO COUNTY REAL ESTATE. NO ACTION? ITEM G. DISCUSS AND TAKE ACTION REGARDING COUNTY WEBSITE SECURITY UPGRADE AND EXPANSION. NO ACTION ON THAT. AND ON ITEM D6, THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA. IT WAS NOT TALKED ABOUT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND WE WILL TAKE NO ACTION ON ITEM D6. [9.A. PRECINCT 1] AND PUT THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. TAKES HIS TO ITEM A ON PRECINCT ONE. UNDER ONE. >> NO ACTION NUMBER 1, PLEASE. >> NO ACTION ON THE ONE. WE MOVE TO ITEM TWO. APPROVE THE WAIVER FOR GROUNDWATER STUDY FOR A REVISION OF A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS THE PRESERVE ON ASH CREEK, LOTS 91-R AND 93-2, CONSISTING OF 8.149 ACRES LOCATED OFF PRESERVE STREET, WITH WELL WATER IN PRECINCT ONE. >> THIS IS A LOT LINE MOVE. THERE ARE TWO EXISTING WELLS FOR EACH ONE OF THESE LOTS. ONE HAS 15 GALLONS PER MINUTE. THE OTHER ONE AT 35 GALLONS PER MINUTE. ONE AT A PUMP DEPTH OF 200 AND THE OTHER ONE AT 160 FEET. THOSE ARE PROVIDED BY WATER WELL SERVICE. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HALE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. [9.B. PRECINCT 2] CARRIES 5-0. MOVE TO ITEM B, PRECINCT TWO. ITEM ONE. DISCUSS AND APPROVE ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS TO CREATE A FOUR WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF LAMBKIN ROAD AND GRIMES ROAD. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12 3:00 PM. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD SPEAK ON THAT ITEM? HEARING NONE, WE WILL CLOSELY PUBLIC HEARING AT 1231, AND GO TO THE ITEM. >> THIS WAS PUBLISHED IN THE WEATHERFORD DEMO-- TO MAKE TWO TOTAL STOP SIGNS, CORRECT? >> THE ISSUE IS THAT ONE ROAD HAS STOP SIGNS THAT ARE SET VERY FAR BACK. WE LOOKED AT MULTIPLE DIFFERENT OPTIONS ON HOW TO IMPROVE THAT INTERSECTION. THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT ACCIDENT THERE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. SINCE THEN, MY STAFF HAS BEEN LOOKING AT IT AND HAS A STRONG FAMILIARITY WITH THE REGION. WE FEEL LIKE FOR NOW THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED IS TO CHANGE THAT TO A FOUR WAY STOP WAS STOPS ON IT'S EDGE BRANCH OF THE INTERSECTION. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ANY DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, THAT CARRIES 5-0. THANK YOU. ITEM TWO. APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT PERCENTAGE... LOT ONE, CONSISTING OF 2.008 ACRES. LOCATED OFF RED TOP ROAD BY KEVIN HUCKABEE AND KRISTIN WAY SOLLER WITH WELL WATER IN PRECINCT TWO. >> AND THAT WAS APPROVED ON AUGUST 24TH, THE GROUNDWATER. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALTON. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. IT CARRIES 5-0. ITEM THREE. APPROVE THE WAIVER FOR DRIVEWAY DISTANCES FOR A SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS OAK RIDGE ESTATES, LOTS 1-4, CONSISTING OF [02:25:06] 15.388 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF OAK RIDGE ESTATES, WITH WELL WATER INCREASING TWO. >> THERE IS ALREADY EXISTING DRIVEWAY. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WILL NOT BE ADDITIONAL ONES. BUT THESE ARE BASED UPON EXISTING DRIVEWAYS ON THIS ROAD. >> THAT IS THE INTENTION TO EFFECTIVELY ACKNOWLEDGE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAYS,-- THE EXISTING DRIVEWAYS DO NOT MEET THE NEW CRITERIA, BUT WE ARE WAITING FOR THE CRITERIA. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? THAT CARRIES 5-0. ITEM FOUR. APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR A SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS LEBLUE ESTATES, LOTS ONE THROUGH THREE, CONSISTING OF 5.393 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF OLD AGNES ROAD, BY JOHN DEE LEBLUE, STACEY LEN LEBLUE, AND STRONG TOWER, A LEBLUE COMPANY LLC, WITH WELL WATER INCREASING TWO. >> THE GROUNDWATER WAS PRESENTED AND APPROVED AT NINE SO 14. AND THE SERVICE AREA IS 1.76 TO 1.94. BUT THEY DO MAINTAIN 2 ACRES WITH THE GROUNDWATER RIGHTS, AND THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGNATION THAT THE SERVICE IS LESS THAN 2 ACRES. >> JOHN, EVERYTHING IN ORDER? >> THE DEVELOPER HAS PROMOTED TAX CERTIFICATES IN THE COUNTY WITH ZERO BALANCE. THE PERMITTING PERMITS APPROVED PREBLE WHAT-- PRIVATE WATER IN PRIVATE WASTE DISPOSAL AND THEY'VE MET ALL OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENT. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. IT MOVES-- CARRIES 5-0. ITEM FIVE, EXCEPT A SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY OFF OF OLD ANGUS ROPER A SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS LEBLUE ESTATES, LOTS ONE THROUGH THREE, CONSISTING OF 5.393 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF OLD AGNES ROAD WITH WELL WATER INCREASING TWO. >> THIS IS A RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PRECINCT OF THE PLAT THAT WAS JUST APPROVED. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIES 5-0. MOVE TO ITEM SIX. APPROVE THE WAIVER FOR THE GROUNDWATER STUDY BALI SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS WARREN BAGWELL ESTATES, LOTS ONE AND TWO, CONSISTING OF 9.983 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF ZION HILL ROAD, WITH WELL WATER INCREASING TWO. >> THERE IS ONE EXISTING ONE ON THAT REPORT THAT SHOWS A YIELD OF 10 GALLONS PER MINUTE, 180-FOOT PUMP DEPTH, DONE BY AN FIVE DRILLING SERVICES. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. IT CARRIES 5-0. MOVE TO ITEM SEVEN. APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR A SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS WARREN BAGWELL ESTATES, LOTS ONE AND TWO, CONSISTING OF BY .983 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF ZION HILL ROAD, BY DANIEL BAGWELL AND WILLIAM BATES, WITH WELL WATER INCREASING TWO. >> THOSE LOTS ARE 1.2 ACRES, AND 1.973 ACRES. >> THE DEVELOPER HAS PROVIDED A TEXT CERTIFICATE INDICATING ZERO BALANCE PERMITTING HAS APPROVED PRIVATE WATER AND PRIVATE WASTE DISPOSAL AND THEY'VE MET THEIR LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. [9.C. PRECINCT 3] >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? IT CARRIES 5-0. MOVE TO ITEM C. PRECINCT THREE. ITEM ON, UP AT THE WAIVER FOR THE GROUNDWATER STUDY FOR A REVISION OF A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS POWER ADDITION, LOTS ONE A-ARE, 1B-HOUR, ONESIE-ARE, ONE DEARE, CONSISTING OF 8.00 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF YOUNG BEND ROAD WITH WELL WATER INCREASING THREE. >> NO EXISTING WELLS, BUT NEARBY WHILE REPORTS HAVE YIELDED 15 GALS PER MINUTE AND 20 GALLONS PER MINUTE. AND BOTH HAD A PUMP DEPTH OF 14R WELL SERVICE AND... >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ALL IN FAVOR? THAT CARRIES 5-0. ITEM TWO, APPROVED THE WAIVER FOR-- FOR THE GROUNDWATER SITE FOR THE SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS KESSLER FARMS, PHASE TWO, LOTS 1C-1 AND 1C-2, CONSISTING OF 14.005 ACRES LOCATED OFF OF QUANAH HILL ROAD WITH WELL WATER INCREASING THREE. >> THERE IS AN EXISTING WELL WITH 116 FEET REVEALED... THERE ARE ADDITIONAL WARRANTS PROVIDED AS WELL WITH 180 FEET. WITH YIELD OF 10 GALLONS PER MINUTE, WITH A 45-FOOT DRAW DOWN AFTER ONE HOUR. THAT WAS DONE AS AN-- WITH AN FIVE DRILLING AND THE CLIENTS WATERMILL SERVICE. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THAT CARRIES 5-0. MOVE TO ITEM THREE, APPROVED THE FINAL PLAT FOR A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS KESSLER FARMS, PHASE TWO, LOTS 1C-1, AND ONCE E-TWO, CONSISTING OF 14.005 ACRES LOCATED OFF OF QUANAH HILL ROAD, BY DOC COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LLC, WITH A WELL WATER INCREASING THREE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL OPEN THAT AT 12:37 P.M. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM? HEARING ON, SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 12:37 P.M. AND GO TO THE ITEM. >> ONE THAT IS BEING SLID IN TO TWO. ONE IS 2.64 ACRES, AND ONE IS 11.959 ACRES. >> PROPER NOTICE WAS PLACED IN THE NEWSPAPER WITH THE DATE AND TIME AND LOCATION SPECIFIC TO TODAY'S HEARING. [02:30:04] THE DEVELOPER HAS PROVIDED A TEXT CERTIFICATE INDICATING ZERO BALANCE. PERMITTING HAS APPROVED PRIVATE WATER AND PRIVATE WASTE DISPOSAL AND THEY'VE MET LEGAL REQUIREMENT. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. THAT CARRIES 5-0. ITEM D. PRECINCT FOUR. ITEM ONE. RELEASE THE CONSTRUCTION BOND IN THE FORM OF A LETTER OF CREDIT FOR ALITO RIVER PHASE TWO AND EXCEPT MENAN'S BOND IN THE FORM OF A LETTER OF CREDIT. >> YOUR HONOR,, I THINK YOU SKIPPED OVER NUMBER 4 ON THE LAST ONE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHY. I SCRATCHED THROUGH THE, IT MESSED ME UP, I SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE TOP. SORRY ABOUT THAT. LETS ME BACK TO ITEM, PRECINCT THREE. ITEM FOUR, APPROVING THE WAIVER FOR THE GROUNDWATER STUDY FOR REVISION OF A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS-- LOCATED OFF DOS ROAD, CONSISTING OF 6.477 ACRES, LOCATED OFF OF DOS ROAD WITH WELL WATER INCREASING THREE. >> ONE EXISTING WATER WELL IN THAT REPORT SHOWS A 100-FOOT PUMP DEPTH WITH A YIELD OF FIVE TO 6 GALLONS PER MINUTE. NOT WAS DONE BY WARRANTS WATER WELL SERVICE. >> SO THIS IS A REVISION? >> YES. THIS IS A REVISION. THEY ARE SPLITTING-- HE HAS, THEY ARE SPLITTING 6.477 ACRES. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER WALDEN. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HOLT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. CARRIES 5-0. ITEM D. PRECINCT FOUR. ITEM ONE. RELEASE THE CONSTRUCTION BOND IN THE FORM OF A LETTER OF CREDIT FOR ALEDO RIVER PHASE TWO AND EXCEPT THE MAINTENANCE BOND IN THE FORM OF A LETTER OF CREDIT. >> I DID LOOK AT THE SUBDIVISION AND THE ROADS ARE READY TO MOVE TO MENAN'S PURPOSES PER A LETTER OF CREDIT FOR THE MENAN'S BOND OF 119,700, GOOD FOR TWO YEARS. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? IT CARRIES 5-0. ITEM TWO. DISCUSSANT APPROVED THE CITY OF WEATHERFORD ANNEXATION ON PART OF COSBY ROAD AND AIRPORT ROAD AND EXECUTE COMMISSIONERS COURT ORDERING CONSENTING TO ANNEXATION. >> THE COURT HAD DONE IN ORDER FOR A MUCH BIGGER ANNEXATION THAN THIS AND THIS WAS PART OF WHAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE COURT. BUT SINCE THEY ARE CHANGING IT, THE ORIGINAL ONE WAS NEVER APPROVED BY THE CITY OF WEATHERFORD. THEY SENT THAT TO US AND ASKED US TO APPROVE IT FOR THIS PART OF CAUSBIE ROAD AND AIRPORT ROAD. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? IT CARRIES 5-0. ITEM THREE, APPROVED THE WAIVER FOR THE GROUNDWATER STUDY FOR A REVISION OF A SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS LAKERIDGE RANCH, LOTS 1R1, 2R2, 3R1, 4R1, 4R2, 20R1, 21R1, 22R1, 22R2, 23R1, 24R1, CONSISTING OF 35.760 ACRES LOCATED OFF WHITE SETTLEMENT ROAD WITH WELL WATER IN PRECINCT FOUR. >> NONE OF THESE LOTS CURRENTLY HAVE WELLS. SO IT IS BASED UPON NEARBY WHILE REPORTS. WE HAVE ESTIMATED YIELDS FROM 15 TO 20 GALLONS PER MINUTE, WITH DIFFERENT PUMP DEPTH SUB 357 AND 360-FOOT IN-DEPTH. ONE WITH 15 GALLONS PER MINUTE HAD A 100-FOOT DRAWDOWN AFTER ONE HOUR. >> MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER HALE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONLEY. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIES, 5-0. ITEM TEN. I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION. AND A SECOND? >> QUICK QUESTION. QUICK QUESTION BUT DO WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE LINE ITEM... >> TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, EVERYTHING WAS HANDLED THERE. >> IT'S REALLY CLASSIFYING WHERE THINGS WERE, AND I BELIEVE THAT SHE GOT-- I WILL CONTINUE THAT. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. >> REC * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.