[00:00:01] THANK YOU OFFICER. IT IS TIME 1 P.M.. [1. Call to Order.] I CALL TO ORDER THIS REGULAR MEETING OF FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT. TODAY IS TODAY'S TUESDAY, JULY 8TH, 2025. AND WELCOME TO OUR COURTROOM. AND THANK YOU FOR THOSE WHO ARE JOINING US VIA LIVE STREAM. THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS MEETING. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT WE HAVE A PRESENCE OF A QUORUM. AND ADDITIONALLY, THIS NOTICE OF COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING HAS BEEN POSTED ONLINE UNDER LEGAL NOTICES FOR AT LEAST 72 HOURS PURSUANT TO TEXAS OPEN MEETING ACT, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551. AND PLEASE STAND AS COMMISSIONER ANDY MEYERS LEAD US IN PRAYER, FOLLOWED BY INVOCATION TO OUR FLAGS. COMMISSION REPORT. YES. I'D LIKE TO CALL ON THE REVEREND DOCTOR VICTOR ELLIS FROM THE MASTER'S CHURCH FOR THE INVOCATION. THANK YOU. SHALL WE BOW OUR HEADS DOWN IN PRAYER? ALMIGHTY, STRONG, DEPENDABLE AND GREAT GOD, WE WORSHIP YOU TODAY. WE THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT COUNTRY OF THE UNITED STATES. WE THANK YOU FOR THIS GREAT STATE OF TEXAS. WE THANK YOU FOR THIS CITY AND THIS COUNTY. WE THANK YOU FOR THIS GATHERING. WE THANK YOU FOR THE JUDGE, THE COMMISSIONERS AND EVERY OFFICIALS THAT ARE HERE. WE THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE. LORD, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO COMPLAIN, BUT WE ARE SAD THAT WE HAVE THIS GREAT CATASTROPHE THAT HAPPENED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, THIS FLOODING. LORD, WE ASK YOU PLEASE TO STEP IN INTO THIS. GRIEVING EVEN FAMILIES TAKE OVER. OH, GOD. AND HEAL THEIR HEARTS. THOSE WHO ARE STILL ALIVE. FATHER, PLEASE RESUSCITATE THEM. THOSE WHO HAVE LOST FAMILIES AND LOST PEOPLE. PLEASE COMFORT THEM. IN FACT, I PUT IN PLACE. OH, GOD. GREAT ABILITY FOR THIS NOT TO HAPPEN AGAIN. WE HAND OVER. OH, GOD. EVERY OFFICIAL HERE THAT ARE GOING TO BE ARE, THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONSECRATED, THAT ARE GOING TO BE RELEASED INTO OFFICE. WE ASK THAT YOUR HAND SHALL BE UPON THEM. WE HAND OVER THIS ASSEMBLY INTO YOUR HANDS. OH, GOD. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOUR PRESENCE SHALL BE HERE. TAKE OVER, OH GOD, AND GRANT THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE DONE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR WILL. THE PEOPLE OH GOD HERE WANT TO DO RIGHTEOUSNESS, DO RIGHTLY. AND SO GOD GRANT NOW THAT YOUR GRACE WILL COME UPON THIS CITY, THAT PROSPERITY WILL COME UPON THIS CITY, THAT HISTORY WILL GO FORTH BIGGER, BETTER THAN OTHER CITIES. THANK YOU GOD, FOR IN JESUS MIGHTY NAME WE HAVE PRAYED. AMEN. AMEN. NOW, WILL YOU JOIN ME IN PLEDGE TO OUR US FLAG FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE, OUR TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. NOW THE TEXAS FLAG, HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. [3. Approve minutes of regular meeting held on June 24, 2025.] ITEM NUMBER THREE. APPROVAL. MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 24TH, 2025. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. SECOND. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NUMBER FOUR. PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING AGENDA AND ANNOUNCEMENT. [4. Public Comments regarding the Agenda and Announcements.] I WILL START WITH THE. I WILL ASK EVERYBODY TO STAND FOR A MOMENT OF SILENCE TO RECOGNIZE THE TRAGEDY HAPPENED IN KERR COUNTY. PLEASE STAND UP FOR HIM. LET'S REMEMBER THEM IN PRAYERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE BE SEATED. AND WE HAVE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A LOT OF RAIN COMING DOWN. WE HAVE AN OEM UPDATE. IS GREG HERE? GREG POPS. HE'S SITTING NEXT DOOR. HE'S COMING. OH, YEAH. HE'S GOING TO. SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GET HIM. YES! [00:05:02] HE'S COMING. WHILE GREG COMING, I COULD OKAY. LET'S START. THERE'S ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT. NEXT ONE. OKAY. CAN YOU MOVE IT TO THE. DO WE HAVE A PICTURE OF BELLA? YES. OKAY, PUT IT UP. TODAY WE HONOR THE LIFE AND LEGACY OF K-9 ARSON OFFICER BELLA, A DEDICATED PARTNER, PROTECTOR, TRAILBLAZER. BELLA BECOME FORT BEND COUNTY'S FIRST ACCELERANT DETECTION DOG IN 2016. SHE SERVED WITH UNMATCHED SKILL, HELPING SOLVE COUNTLESS ARSON CASES ALONGSIDE HER HANDLER, NOW ASSISTANT CHIEF STEVEN STEPHEN MCDONALD RETIRED IN 2021, BUT REMAINED A BELOVED MEMBER OF THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE. FAMILY. KNOWN FOR HER PRECISION, PRECISION ON JOB AND HER LOVE OF TENNIS BALLS OF IT, BELLA BROUGHT BOTH EXCELLENCE AND JOY TO EVERY MOMENT. ON JULY 7TH, 2025, BELLA'S WATCH ENTERED. SHE, HER SERVICE AND SPIRIT WILL NEVER BE FORGOTTEN. REST IN PEACE OFFICER BELLA AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE WEATHER. GREG, PLEASE COME FORWARD. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONERS COURT AND JUDGE. AGAIN, EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER CONTINUES TO MONITOR EVERYTHING IN THE COUNTY. SIGNIFICANTLY, SOME WEATHER, AS WE'VE SEEN OVER IN THE HILL COUNTRY WITH SOME MASS FLOODING THAT'S GOING OVER THERE. IN SUPPORT OF WE'VE SENT RESOURCES OVER THERE FROM THE COUNTY TO SUPPORT THOSE EFFORTS AND THE RESPONSE. AND THEN WE ARE CONTINUALLY MONITORING THE STATE AND ANY FEDERAL GUIDANCE THAT'S NEEDED FOR RESOURCES THAT ARE NEEDED. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THOSE EFFORTS THAT ARE NEEDED OVER THERE WITH THE WATCH OF FORT BEND COUNTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, FOR THIS NEXT COUPLE DAYS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME SOME HEAVY RAIN IN THE MID AFTERNOON. I'M ACTUALLY ON NWS CHAT RIGHT NOW OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE ASKING WHY WE HAVEN'T HAD A FLOOD WARNING OR FLASH FLOOD WARNING ALERT RIGHT NOW. IF THAT GOES OUT, YOU'LL SEE THAT ON OUR APP AND OUR ALERT. I WILL NOTE THIS, AND IT'S IMPERATIVE RIGHT NOW THAT THE COUNTY UNDERSTANDS THE ALERT SYSTEMS AND KNOWING HOW THOSE ALERTS WORK. PLEASE, IF YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED UP, SIGN UP FOR ALERTS AT FBC ALERT. AND THAT IS 888777 FB ALERT. ALL ONE WORD AND YOU CAN SIGN UP FOR ALERTS. THAT IS OUR MASS NOTIFICATION AND HOW YOU GET THOSE WEATHER ALERTS. NOTE THAT IF THERE IS AN EXTREME EVENT, SUCH AS FLOODING OR A FLASH FLOOD WARNING IN THE COUNTY, THAT WOULD BE PREVALENT TO EVACUATIONS. YOU WILL GET THAT ALERT REGARDLESS IF YOU'RE SIGNED UP OR NOT. THAT'S THE INFORMATION FROM THE EMERGENCY OPERATION. THANK YOU. WE BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND ONE MORE TIME. LAST COUPLE OF SESSIONS, WE EXPERIENCED SEVERAL OUTBURSTS THAT DISRUPTED OUR PROCEEDINGS AND CREATED CONFUSION. IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE MAINTAIN PROPER DECORUM SO THAT OUR DISCUSSIONS REMAIN CLEAR, FOCUSED, AND PRODUCTIVE. THERE ARE NUMEROUS PEOPLE WHO WORK BEHIND THE SCENES. WE HAVE TO BE RESPECTFUL TO THEY TAKE MINUTES MANAGING AGENDA, MULTIMEDIA, PRESENTATION, MANAGEMENT, ETC. INCLUDING THE INCLUDING IT WILL DISRUPT THE LIVE STREAMING AND IT GETS VERY NOISY FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING ONLINE. IF THIS PROBLEM ARISES TODAY AND I WILL RECESS THE MEETING TO PROVIDE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COLLECT THEMSELVES. MOVING FORWARD, WE MUST ASK THAT THERE IS NO CLAPPING, NO SHOUTING, OR ANY OTHER FORM OF LOUD, DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR DURING THE COURT PROCEEDING IS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. I JUST WANTED TO BE VERY CLEAR. WHILE WE CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH MEMBERS OF THE COURT OR OTHERS, CONVERSATION MUST BE RESPECTFUL MAN IN A RESPECTFUL MANNER AND NO ONE WILL BE ALLOWED TO DISRUPT THE COURT MEMBER WHILE THEY ARE MAKING THEIR POINT. AND EVERYBODY ELSE, PLEASE BE WAITED TO BE CALLED THEIR NAME TO SPEAK. SUCH ACTIONS INTERFERE WITH THE COURT'S ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS WITH CLARITY, EFFICIENCY AND RESPECT. AS THE PRESIDING OFFICER, I'M ASKING EVERYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COURT ON A SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM, WHICH WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS SPEAKERS. THEN WAIT TILL THEY NAME CALLED AND RECOGNIZED BEFORE THEY ARE SPEAKING. ENSURE THAT ONLY ONE PERSON SPEAK AT A TIME AND PROMOTING RESPECT, RESPECTFUL AND ORGANIZED DISCUSSION. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. [00:10:02] AND ALSO THE COURT MEMBERS IF A COMMISSIONER WISHES TO CHALLENGE A RULING OR RAISE A POINT OF ORDER, SEEK CLARIFICATION OR PARLIAMENTARY ON PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES, PLEASE DO ASK RESPECTFULLY. AND SO WE ALL CAN KEEP SANITY AND WE CAN CONDUCT OUR BUSINESS, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR LIFE. AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK EVERYBODY'S COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER SO THAT WE COULD WE COULD KEEP THE DECORUM WHICH FORT BEND COUNTY RESIDENTS EXPECT US TO HAVE WHILE WE ARE CONDUCTING THIS BUSINESS. AND I JUST WANTED TO CONCLUDE BY SAYING THAT BY WORKING TOGETHER WITH PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY, WE CAN CONDUCT OUR FUTURE MEETINGS MORE, INCLUDING TODAY, MORE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. WITH THAT, I SEE THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS SPEAKERS, RIGHT? OKAY. I HAD AN ANNOUNCEMENT. OH. I'M SORRY. JUST AS EVERYONE HAS ALREADY NOTICED, FRONT STREET IS NOW OPEN TO TWO WAY TRAFFIC. WE DID OPEN THAT FINALLY LAST WEEK. I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. PLEASE REALIZE AND YOU KNOW, PRECINCT FOUR IS NOT UNIQUE IN THIS SITUATION. AND HAVING PROJECTS THAT HAVE EXPERIENCED DELAYS BECAUSE OF WEATHER AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY ISSUES. BUT WE DID PUSH AND WE GOT THE WORK DONE FOR TWO WAY TRAFFIC ON FRONT STREET. IT IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO BE A FOUR LANE ROAD. SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE REMOVING ALL OF THE OLD PAVEMENT. WE'VE GOT MORE RAIN TODAY. REMEMBER THAT ONE DAY OF RAIN MEANS AT LEAST THREE, 2 TO 3 DAYS OF DELAY FOR THAT GROUND TO DRY UP. BUT THEY WILL BE POURING THE PAVEMENT FOR THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT ROAD. AND WE HOPE THAT THEY'RE DONE IN, IN THE EARLY PART OF THIS FALL WITH THAT PROJECT AND SET UP AND READY TO GO. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR ALL COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND ALL FOLKS WHO ARE DRIVING IN THIS AREA. THANK YOU. OH, YEAH, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. THAT'S A GOOD POINT, COMMISSIONER. THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT ROADWAY. HENCE THE ANNOUNCEMENT ON THAT ONE. BECAUSE THAT IS THE ROAD THAT MANY, MANY RESIDENTS TRAVEL TO GET TO OUR JUSTICE CENTER AND TO PAY PAY YOUR TAXES AND THE TAX OFFICE AND A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER ISSUES. I MEAN, I'VE HAD TO DRIVE AROUND FOR QUITE A WHILE WITH THAT DETOUR MYSELF, BUT VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PROGRESS. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENT? OKAY. GO AHEAD. OLGA, PLEASE CALL. THERE ARE TWO FOLD OF PUBLIC SPEAKING. ONE, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. AND ONCE THAT PUBLIC HEARING IS STARTED, I WILL ASK ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WANTED TO COME OUT AND SPEAK. YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT. BUT NOW WE WILL TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS. RIGHT. GO AHEAD. AND JUST TO CONFIRM, YOU WANT US TO CALL THE THE PARTICIPANTS THAT ARE SIGNED UP FOR THE DISCUSSION ITEMS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS? ARE YOU DEFERRING PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS TO THAT SECTION? WE COULD JUST DO BOTH BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME, SAME ISSUES. THEY WILL BE TALKING. AND SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO INVITE TWICE THEM. TWICE, PLEASE. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. THANK YOU. SO THE FIRST SPEAKER IS ELIZABETH WOOD HERE DISCUSSING AGENDA ITEM FIVE A AND 20 A. MA'AM, PLEASE BE RECOGNIZED AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. OKAY. MY NAME IS ELIZABETH WOOD AND I LIVE IN SUGAR LAND, TEXAS. I'D LIKE TO BEGIN BY SAYING THAT I DON'T AFFILIATE AFFILIATE MYSELF WITH EITHER PARTY. I FIND THAT WE DEBATE ACROSS EACH OTHER RATHER THAN WITH EACH OTHER. LOGIC ISN'T RULING THE DAY. CORRUPTION IS BECOMING THE NORM. AND RATHER THAN COMPETITIVE POSTURING AND TRYING TO OUTDO EACH OTHER, WE SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER IN FINDING BALANCED SOLUTIONS. THE MAP AS PRESENTED IN FIVET HAS BEEN CORRECTED TO MEET STATE LAW AND WAS DRAWN BY THE NONPARTIZAN FORT BEND COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR. THIS IS THE MAP OUR TAXPAYERS HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR. IF MAPS ARE DRASTICALLY REDRAWN AT THIS POINT, IT WILL COST TAXPAYERS MONEY AND WE CITIZENS WILL END UP IN NEW DISTRICTS IN WHICH WE DIDN'T ORIGINALLY VOTE. AND AS A RESULT, WE WILL NO LONGER BE REPRESENTED BY THE PEOPLE WE VOTED FOR. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. HAVING SAID THAT, I BELIEVE IF WE AS A COUNTY ARE APPROXIMATELY HALF REPUBLICAN AND HALF DEMOCRAT. IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE THAT AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MADE UP OF CITIZENS WORK TOGETHER TO REDRAW THE MAPS. I AGREE WITH THAT CONCEPT. WHAT I DISAGREE WITH IN ITEM 20 A IS THAT IF EACH MEMBER APPOINTS TWO ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, THEN WE WON'T HAVE A BALANCED COMMITTEE. THERE WILL BE SIX REPUBLICANS AND FOUR DEMOCRATS. WHEN WE ARE IN APPROXIMATELY 5050 COUNTY, THE CITIZENS REDISTRICTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE [00:15:04] SHOULD HAVE EQUAL NUMBER OF REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS. THE FOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHOULD EACH PUT IN TWO MEMBERS. THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT PLEASE DO THE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE THING AND VOTE TO CONFIRM THE MAP AS PRESENTED IN FIVE A, AND CREATE A CITIZENS REDISTRICTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH AN EQUAL NUMBER OF DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS TO WORK TOGETHER AFTER THE NEXT CENSUS. WHEN THE TEXAS THIS CONSTITUTION REQUIRES US TO DO SO. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SUMITA GHOSH. ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A. HI, I'M SUMITA GHOSH AND I LIVE IN SUGAR LAND, TEXAS. THERE SEEMS TO BE ALTERNATIVE FACTS ABOUT WHY THE ISSUE OF CHANGING PRECINCT LINES WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND SOMEONE NEEDS TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN SAID THERE WERE PRECINCTS BIGGER THAN 5000, SO AS FEASIBLE, THE MORE THAN CAPABLE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR OLDHAM HAS DONE EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS ASKED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THIS ESTEEMED BODY. WHY SPEND WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH ON UNNECESSARY, ILLEGAL FURTHER ACTIONS? PLEASE VOTE YES ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE. OUR COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE UNDERPAID AND UNDERSTAFFED, AND SOME OF YOU WANT TO SPEND $2 MILLION. LET'S END THIS BY VOTING YES ON THE ALREADY DONE REPRESENTING FROM ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR OLDHAM. IT'S JUST THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I DID ALSO WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD ON THE LIES PUT FORTH FROM THIS DAIS. THE REVISED MAP COMPLIES WITH ALL LEGALITIES. THEY DIDN'T BECOME ILLEGAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE WAS INDICTED. IT'S JUST A SHAME AND EMBARRASSING HOW SOMEONE WHO I RESPECTED AND HAD FAITH IN TO BRING US THROUGH THE DARK COVID TIMES HAS STOOPED FOR WHAT AN INDICTMENT WHICH UNTIL RECENTLY I BELIEVED WAS UNFOUNDED. SHAME ON YOU, JUDGE GEORGE, FOR BETRAYING ALL OF OUR TRUST, ESPECIALLY. EXCUSE ME. OH, SORRY. YOU'RE NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT ANY MEMBERS HERE. OKAY, SO IF YOU WANTED TO CONTINUE SPEAKING. OKAY. PLEASE CONTINUE SPEAKING. YOU CANNOT ATTACK ANY SITTING COMMISSIONERS, COURT MEMBERS, PERIOD. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. JUST REMEMBER THAT BACKSTABBERS DON'T CHANGE. WE STARTED WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THE WEATHER. WE KNOW FEMA WILL BE GONE AND ARE LOSING HURRICANE WEATHER SATELLITE DATA THIS MONTH. WE HAVE ACTUAL CONCERNS THAT REQUIRE PROACTIVE ACTION. LET'S JOIN TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THEM RATHER THAN TRUMPED UP POLITICAL LIES. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MELISSA BLANCHETTE. ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A 20 A AND 20 B. HELLO, MY NAME IS MELISSA BLANSETT. I LIVE IN WESTON LAKES IN PRECINCT 1149. I AM THE GOP PRECINCT CHAIR AND THE OVERALL GOP PRECINCT ONE CAPTAIN. I'M AGAINST AGENDA ITEM FIVE A IN 20 AND FOR 20 A AND 20 B IN PRECINCT ONE. 100,000 OF THE 148,000 REGISTERED VOTERS ARE IN ELECTION PRECINCTS, WHICH ARE OVER THE SIZE LIMIT OF 5000 PEOPLE. THAT'S TWO THIRDS OF OUR VOTERS. VOTERS ARE UNDERSERVED BY A SHORTAGE OF PRECINCT CHAIRS. TOO FEW POLLING PLACES AND COMPLEX BALLOTS IN THE FOUR PRECINCTS AROUND THE CITY OF FULSHEAR ALONE, THERE ARE OVER 50,000 VOTERS, WITH THE LARGEST PRECINCT, 1006, HAVING ALMOST 20,000 VOTERS. THIS IS OUTSIDE THE LAW. SECTION 42 007 MANDATES THAT INCORPORATED MUNICIPALITIES OVER 10,000 POPULATION AND UNINCORPORATED AREAS ARE NOT MIXED IN A PRECINCT. THIS IS CURRENTLY A VIOLATION IN PRECINCTS IN BOTH CITY OF FULSHEAR AND THE CITY OF KATY. AREAS OF PRECINCT ONE. THESE WEREN'T CORRECTED FULLY WITH THE MAPS CREATED BY COMMISSIONER MCCOY. CURRENTLY, COMMISSIONERS PRECINCT ONE HAS ONLY 29 PRECINCTS COMPARED TO 38, 51, AND 55 IN THE OTHER THREE COMMISSIONERS PRECINCTS. BECAUSE POLLING LOCATIONS ARE DRIVEN OFF OF THE PRECINCT COUNTS, PRECINCT ONE HAS HAD TOO FEW POLLING LOCATIONS, ESPECIALLY IN THE FAST GROWING WILSHIRE AREA. RECENT REMAPPING PROPOSALS INCREASED THE PRECINCT COUNT SOMEWHAT, BUT NOT ENOUGH TO ACHIEVE PARITY WITH THE OTHER PRECINCTS. CLEARLY, THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE THE 2021 REDISTRICTING AND THROUGHOUT A NUMBER OF ELECTIONS. IT IS DISTURBING THAT MORE THAN A THIRD OF THE CURRENTLY UNLAWFUL PRECINCTS, 12 OUT OF 33, ARE IN THE COMMISSIONER'S PRECINCT WITH THE MOST REPUBLICAN VOTERS. I AM AGAINST AGENDA ITEM FIVE AND THE MCCOY MAP PROPOSAL. THE MAP HAS MORE VIOLATIONS THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE. [00:20:04] THEY'RE NOT CORRECTED, INCLUDING THE ITEMS THAT I MENTIONED ABOVE. WE NEED A MORE TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTING PROCESS. ACCOUNTABLE PROCESS TO PUT THE COUNTY BACK IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. AND THIS INCLUDES THE VOTERS NEEDS TO INCLUDE THE VOTERS IN THE PROCESS. I SUPPORT AGENDA 20 A AND 20 B BE ESTABLISHING A CITIZENS REDISTRICTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ENGAGING ROGERS, MORRIS AND GROVER FOR LEGAL ADVICE. THIS APPROACH WILL RESTORE VOTER CONFIDENCE, ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY, LEGALITY AND FAIRNESS. VOTERS ARE COUNTING ON YOU TO VOTE FOR THEIR EQUITABLE ACCESS TO THE BALLOT, AND I PRAY FOR YOUR DISCERNMENT AND YOUR WISDOM AS YOU VOTE. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS PAULA HANSEN ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A. HI, MY NAME IS PAULA HANSEN. I LIVE IN SUGARLAND AND I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1995. SO I'M HERE TO SAY THAT I'M FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PRECINCT. THE PRECINCT MAPS PROVIDED BY ELECTIONS ADMIN JOHN OLDHAM AND PROVIDED TO THIS COURT. SO CHANGING THE LINES AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, I BELIEVE, IS A WASTE OF A LOT OF MONEY AND A LOT OF TIME. I WANT THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT TO FOCUS, TO SPEND YOUR COUNTY DOLLARS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOUR FOCUS, ENERGY AND PRIORITY ON WHAT DOES THE MOST GOOD FOR FORT BEND. HERE'S THE THING. AND IT'S A VERY FRESH IN MY MIND. MY FRIEND AND MOST OF HER FAMILY DIED IN THE GUADALUPE FLOOD IN KERRVILLE LAST WEEKEND. SO WE KNOW THAT WE'RE COMING UP TO HURRICANE SEASON, AND WE KNOW THAT OUR CURRENT PRESIDENT HAS SAID THAT FEMA IS DEAD OR UNRELIABLE OR REVOKED OR WHATEVER. I WANT YOU, EACH ONE OF YOU ON THIS COURT, TO FOCUS ON FORT BEND DURING THIS HURRICANE SEASON AND NOT WASTING A BUNCH OF MONEY AND ENERGY ON BEING ON COMMITTEES AND REDRAWING LINES. AND LASTLY AND IT'S KIND OF PERSONAL FOR ME TOO. I WANTED TO LOOK AT MR. GEORGE AND SAY THAT I AM ONE OF THOSE CORRUPT DEMOCRATS THAT VOTED FOR YOU LAST TIME. EXCUSE ME, MA'AM, I UNDERSTAND. YEAH, BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IT'S A TRUST ISSUE. CLARIFY SOMETHING HERE. IT'S. I'M NOT. I'M NOT CRITICIZING YOU, SIR. AGENDA ITEM. YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT A MEMBER SITTING HERE, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH TRUST, OKAY? IT HAS TO DO WITH TRUST. YOU CANNOT. YOU CANNOT DO THAT. IF THAT'S THE CASE, I WILL ASK YOU TO FINISH AND MOVE ON WITH THE NEXT SPEAKER. YOU COULD TALK ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM. THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE. BUT TO ME THIS IS RELATED TO THE AGENDA ITEM. OKAY. KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE AGENDA ITEM. YOU AGREE DISAGREE. WHATEVER. OKAY. YEAH. I JUST I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE IS SOME TRUST LOST HERE. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS DIANA WATERS ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A. GOOD AFTERNOON TO EVERYONE. I'M GOING TO READ THIS BECAUSE MOST OF YOU THAT KNOW ME KNOW ME, THAT I'M VERY LONG WINDED. SO I'M GOING TO JUST READ THIS SO I CAN STAY CLOSER TO THREE MINUTES. MY NAME IS DIANA WATERS. MANY OF YOU KNOW ME PERSONALLY, AND I KNOW EACH OF YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK YOU'VE DONE IN YOUR RESPECTIVE PRECINCTS AND FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE PEOPLE OF FORT BEND COUNTY. I AM HERE THIS AFTERNOON AS A COMMUNITY ACTIVIST, A PRECINCT CHAIR, AND SOMEONE WHO DEEPLY CARES ABOUT THE WELL-BEING OF OUR COUNTY EMPLOYEES ACROSS ALL DEPARTMENTS. IT IS EXTREMELY CONCERNING TO HEAR THAT MILLIONS OF TAXPAYERS DOLLARS ARE BEING CONSIDERED FOR REDISTRICTING AT THIS TIME. REDISTRICTING IS TYPICALLY DONE EVERY TEN YEARS FOLLOWING THE US CENSUS. SO WHY NOW? WHY THE URGENCY? TO MANY OF US, THIS FEELS UNNECESSARY, POORLY TIMED, AND QUITE FRANKLY, DISCONNECTED FROM THE CURRENT REALITIES FACED BY THE PEOPLE WHO KEEP THIS COUNTRY RUNNING DAY IN AND DAY OUT. WE HAVE DEDICATED COUNTY EMPLOYEES STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET. SOME ARE CHOOSING BETWEEN PAYING THEIR BILLS OR BUYING THEIR MEDICATION. MANY ARE LIVING FROM PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK WHILE TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE RISING COST OF LIVING. THESE ARE HARD WORKING INDIVIDUALS WHO SHOW UP EVERY DAY TO SERVE THIS COMMUNITY WITH PRIDE AND PROFESSIONALISM. AND THEY ARE HURTING. THAT MONEY SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE OVERWORKED, [00:25:05] UNDERSTAFFED AND UNDERPAID. FOR EXAMPLE, THE TAX OFFICE IS A PRIMARY EXAMPLE. MANY OF YOU HAVE VISITED THESE OFFICES. YOU HAVE SEEN THE LONG LINES, SOME WITH WAIT TIMES EXCEEDING TWO HOURS. YOU'VE SEEN THE INCREDIBLE WORKLOAD THE STAFF HANDLES DAILY, YET EMPLOYEES ARE OFTEN REDUCED TO BEING SEEN AS JUST CASHIERS, WHICH IS FAR FROM THE TRUTH. THE TAX OFFICE EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED TO MASTER A COMPLEX BODY OF KNOWLEDGE COVERING PROPERTY TAX LAWS, AUTO TAX LAWS, ESCROW ACCOUNTS, BOAT REGISTRATIONS, WEB DEALER TRANSACTIONS, AND SO MUCH MORE. THE TRAINING MANUAL ALONE IS OVER A THOUSAND PAGES. THIS IS NOT AN ENTRY LEVEL RELATED JOB OR RETAIL JOB. THESE ARE SKILLED PUBLIC SERVANTS AND THEY DESERVE TO BE TREATED AND COMPENSATED AS SUCH. ADD TO THAT THE BLACKOUT PERIOD DURING THE HOLIDAYS, EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO REMAIN AVAILABLE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC AND PROCESS PROPERTY TAX PAYMENTS, OFTEN AT THE EXPENSE OF TIME WITH THEIR OWN FAMILIES. AND YET, THERE IS NO ADDED COMPENSATION OR INCENTIVE FOR THEIR SACRIFICE. MEANWHILE, COMMISSIONERS VOTE TO APPROVE THEIR OWN RAISES, OFTEN IN THE RANGE OF 10% ON TOP OF THE SUBSTANTIAL SALARIES. AND YOU'RE OKAY WITH US? YOUR EMPLOYEES BARELY MAKING ENDS MEET. YOU'RE OKAY WITH US HAVING TO DECIDE HOW TO PAY BILLS, OR GOING WITHOUT LIFE SAVING MEDICATION BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD THEM. THE TAX OFFICE BRINGS IN ALMOST A HALF $1 BILLION A YEAR, AND MOST OF US, AND MOST OF THIS ARE FROM THE HARD WORK OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THE SACRIFICES THAT WE MAKE. THE TAX OFFICE BRINGS IN CLOSE TO HALF $1 BILLION A YEAR. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. BUT I'M GOING TO CUT IT SHORT BECAUSE I WANT TO BE OBEDIENT. BUT I'LL SAY THIS. WE DON'T WANT ACCOLADES. THEY DON'T PAY BILLS. INFLATION IS RISING ACROSS THE BOARD, GAS, ETC., RENT, HEALTH CARE, BUT OUR PAYCHECKS REMAIN THE SAME. PLEASE DON'T DO THIS TO US. PLEASE ALLOCATE THOSE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT IS BEING FOUND TO DO THIS REDISTRICTING TO THE PAYCHECKS, EMPLOYEES WHO WORK HARD AND BRING YOU THE MOST REVENUE FOR THIS COUNTY. WE NEED POLITICAL. WE DON'T NEED POLITICAL RESHUFFLING. WE NEED COMPENSATION AND INVESTMENTS IN THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LEADERSHIP THAT REFLECTS IN THE TIME THAT WE ARE IN. PLEASE, COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU NOT TO WASTE TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON THIS UNNECESSARY REDISTRICTING. WAIT UNTIL THE PROPER TIME WHEN THE CENSUS IS DONE, AND AS IT'S ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND I PRAY THAT YOU WOULD MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS AND HONOR THE PEOPLE WHO WORK. WORK FAITHFULLY TO MAKE FORT BEND COUNTY WHAT IT IS TODAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS EDWARD HARVEY ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A, 20 A AND 20 B. OKAY. ARE THEY COMING? THEY'RE IN THE OTHER THE OTHER ROOM. THEY SHOULD BE COMING. OKAY. OTHERWISE WE COULD MOVE IT TO THE NEXT PERSON BY THE TIME THEY COME BACK. THEY'RE COMING. OKAY. AND I ALSO RESPECTFULLY ASK. PLEASE STAY WITHIN THREE MINUTES SO THAT EVERYBODY GETS A CHANCE. THANK YOU. AND MR. CARVEY HAS SOME INFORMATION, IF I MAY APPROACH AND HAND THIS TO YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK HERE. MY NAME IS ED CARVEY. I'M FROM NEEDVILLE IN PRECINCT 2068. I'M HERE TO FULLY SUPPORT AGENDA ITEMS 20 A AND 20 B. AND I'M IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM FIVE. A, I DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME WITH A BUNCH OF PARTIZAN RHETORIC OR HYPERBOLE ON ON WHETHER WE SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T DO ANYTHING. THINK WHAT I WANTED TO OFFER YOU WAS A WELL RESEARCHED LAUNDRY LIST OF. HERE'S EXACTLY WHAT A COUNTY REDISTRICTING PROCESS SHOULD INCLUDE. AND THERE'S YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE'S A I DON'T I COULD READ IT FOR EVERYONE THAT'S HERE, BUT I THINK WE CAN MAKE IT AVAILABLE SOME SOME OTHER WAY. I WANT TO TAKE UP LESS TIME. THE FIRST FOUR ITEMS ARE WRITTEN AS SHALL ITEMS, BECAUSE THESE ARE TO OBEY TEXAS LAW OR FEDERAL LAWS LIKE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND THE ISSUES OF WHETHER YOU'RE DIVIDING PRECINCTS UP IN A WAY THAT INFLUENCES OR DIMINISHES RACIAL ETHNIC, LANGUAGE CENTERED GROUPS. THE OTHER ITEMS ARE PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY CROSSING BOUNDARIES WITH FEDERAL [00:30:01] REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATORIAL DISTRICTS AND TEXAS STATE HOUSE AND REPRESENT SENATORIAL DISTRICTS. ITEMS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT. THERE'S ONLY EIGHT. ITEMS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT ARE THE SHOULDS. THEY'RE VERY STRONG SHOULDS. AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE THE EXAMPLES OUT THERE IN THE WORLD OF WHERE LAWSUITS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT, AND ESPECIALLY RECENTLY, GALVESTON HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH QUITE A BIT WITH GALVESTON COUNTY. AND THEY'RE THEY'RE MAPS THAT WERE DRAWN IN 2021. IT JUST SHOWS THAT IF YOU GOT TO TRY TO ASPIRE TO MEET ALL EIGHT OF THESE ITEMS, IF YOU IF YOU STOP AT FIVE AND DON'T EVEN WORRY ABOUT OTHERS YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ANGRY AND UPSET. SO I JUST WANTED TO OFFER YOU SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS A PRODUCT THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY APPLY FOR A CITIZENS COMMITTEE THAT WOULD WORK ON REDISTRICTING EFFORT. I WOULD ALSO MAYBE ENCOURAGE A POSSIBILITY OF FOR ITEMS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT, SINCE THEY'RE JUST THE SHALL ITEMS, THE ORDER THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU FIVE, SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT IS JUST MY RANDOMIZED ORDER. IT'S NOT THAT CRITICAL, BUT YOU KNOW, AS MANY THINGS PEOPLE WILL WORK ON THIS DOWN ONE THROUGH EIGHT. SO IT MIGHT BE A SOMETHING THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE COMMISSION AND, AND THE COUNTY IF IN SOME WAY WE COULD GET THE PUBLIC INVOLVED, BESIDES THE CITIZEN COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE, TO ACTUALLY GIVE YOU A PRIORITIZED ORDER, IN THEIR OPINION, OF FIVE THROUGH EIGHT. WHAT DO THEY THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT? IF WE HAD A SURVEY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT HAD, YOU KNOW, 1000 OR 2000 PEOPLE RANKED THOSE ITEMS, THEN AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO WORK FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, AND EIGHT IN ORDER AS BEST YOU CAN AND TRY TO GET THEM ALL DONE. BUT THAT'S THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAD TO SAY. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BRAD MOON. SIR. EXCUSE ME, SIR, YOUR HAT. THANK YOU. SORRY. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BRAD MOON. ON AGENDA ITEM 5A6A, EIGHT AND 20 A. GOOD MORNING, BRAD MOON. I LIVE IN UNINCORPORATED PART OF THE COUNTY, NOT IN A CITY. GOT A WHOLE LIST THERE, SO I'LL GO QUICKLY. ON THE DISTRICTING, JUST AS A TEST THIS MORNING, I DROVE. IT TOOK ME 45 MINUTES TO DRIVE FROM CHRISTIAN BROTHERS UP IN MISSOURI CITY, DOWN HIGHWAY SIX, GOING THROUGH PRECINCT THREE. AND THEN YOU GET ON 69 AND YOU'RE YOU GO THROUGH A PIECE OF PRECINCT TWO, THEN YOU GO BACK TO THE PRECINCT FOUR, AND THEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH A PIECE OF PRECINCT ONE BEFORE YOU GET DOWN TO BEASLEY BACK IN PRECINCT FOUR. AND THAT'S STAYING ON 69. AND IT TOOK 45 MINUTES. AND I'M SITTING HERE ENVISIONING ALL THE OTHER COUNTY SERVICES THAT KIND OF HAVE TO GET FROM ONE PART OF THIS PRECINCT, FOUR FROM ALL OVER THE PLACES. AND SO WE TALKED ABOUT WASTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT FIGURE, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT HOW WE SHOULD RUN EFFICIENTLY, THAT DOESN'T SEEM VERY EFFICIENT. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE OUR DISTRICT SHOULD BE A LOT MORE CONTIGUOUS RATHER THAN THIS MESS, GERRYMANDERED MESS THAT WE HAVE. SO IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO MAKE THE COUNTY MORE EFFICIENT WITH OUR SERVICES AND, AND MAKE THOSE DRIVE TIMES FOR CONSTABLES AND ALL THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, SERVICES THAT WE HAVE, WE HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY, WE SHOULD TAKE IT. AND I ALSO SAW THAT WE WERE TRYING TO EMPLOY THE SAME LAWYER FIRM THAT DIDN'T IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM WITH THE PRECINCT NUMBERS HERE AGAIN. AND I KIND OF GOING WELL, THEY DIDN'T IDENTIFY IT THE FIRST TIME. WHAT MISTAKES DID THEY MAKE AGAIN? SO THAT'S KIND OF IN REDISTRICTING COMMENTS THERE. I WANTED TO ASK YOU ON THE WHAT WAS IT? NOT EIGHT. THERE WAS A SECTION IN YOUR REPORT ON PAGE NINE, IF YOU COULD TELL ME WHAT LET'S SEE. LOOKS LIKE OVER $1 TRILLION IN DEBT. AND, AND I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR TOTAL EMPLOYMENT OBLIGATION DEBT WAS. WHEN YOU GET TO YOUR PART, WOULD YOU KIND OF ADDRESS THAT ON PAGE NINE IN YOUR REPORT? AND THEN IT SEEMS LIKE OUT OF STATE TRAVEL HAS COME UP IN A LOT OF AREAS. WE'RE AND I'M KIND OF SURPRISED THAT HERE IN THE STATE WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF IT EXPERTISE THAT WE'RE SENDING PEOPLE TO, TO FLORIDA FOR IT ADVICE. AND, AND IT'S SUCH A DIVERSE COUNTY. WE KNOW WHAT GOES ON IN IN OUR RACE RELATIONS. I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE SENDING PEOPLE TO ALABAMA AGAIN. OUT OF STATE. WHAT KIND OF LEARNINGS ARE WE REALLY GETTING FROM SENDING PEOPLE TO CHICAGO [00:35:02] FOR A CONFERENCE? THAT WAS TUESDAY TO THURSDAY AND ENDS AT 11:00 ON THURSDAY, BUT I SAW THAT THE AGENDA WAS BEING APPROVED TO GO ALL THE WAY THROUGH FRIDAY. I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE NOT REALLY BEING EFFICIENT. SO THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CYNTHIA VINEYARD ON AGENDA ITEM 20 A AND 20 B. GOOD AFTERNOON, COURT MEMBERS. IF WE SHOULD DO A COMMITTEE FOR REDISTRICTING, IT SHOULD BE WORKING TOWARDS 2030. WHATEVER YOU DO RIGHT NOW WILL NOT TAKE PLACE FOR THE 26TH ELECTION. MAYBE THE 28, IF APPROVED, ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THE BOARD. AND GUESS WHAT? IT'S TIME FOR REDISTRICTING, WHICH WE HAVE TO DO. AND OF COURSE, IT IS DONE AT THE STATE LEVEL WITH THE HOUSES, THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE. AND WE HAVE NO CHOICE ABOUT THAT. SO WHY ARE WE DOING THIS NOW? YOU TALKING ABOUT TAXPAYER MONEY? I HEAR THAT ALL THE TIME. AND WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY IN 2025 MIDSTREAM AS I WORK WITH ALL PRECINCTS. DO YOU KNOW MY BRAIN HAS NOT BEEN REBRANDED TOTALLY YET? I'M JUST 60% FOR THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE IN 22. AND HERE WE ARE. WE'RE READY TO MAKE CHANGES MIDSTREAM. NOW I WANT US TO CHECK OUR MORAL COMPASS JUDGE IN COURT. ARE WE DOING THIS FOR THE RIGHT REASON OR IS IT EMBEDDED IN SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS WRONG ON TOP OF WRONG FROM THE BEGINNING? SO WE SHOULD FALL IN LINE AND MAKE FURTHER BAD DECISIONS BECAUSE IT'S ROOTED AND GROUNDED IN RECALCITRANCE. OH NO. I LIKE YOU ALL COLLECTIVELY, AND I'M PROUD OF YOU COLLECTIVELY, AND I WANT IT TO STAY THAT WAY. THE CENSUS WILL BE DONE IN 2030. WHY ARE WE MAKING CHANGES TO OUR COUNTY WITHOUT NEW DATA? NOW, THAT IS NOT GOOD DECISION MAKING, NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY. AND I THINK WELL, OF WHAT YOU DO. YOU KNOW, I DON'T COME DOWN HERE JUST EVERY NOW AND THEN, BUT WHEN I FEEL THAT WE HAVE MISSED THE BOAT AND WE'RE GOING DOWN THE WRONG DIRECTION. THAT'S WHEN I SHOW UP. SO LET US NOT HOLD OUR COUNTY RESPONSIBLE BY CHANGING ITS DYNAMICS BASED ON ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL NEEDS. I DON'T THINK SO. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT WE ARE SO FAR BEYOND THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT YES, WE CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS. BUT AS LEADERS AND ADMINISTRATORS, WE KNOW THAT WE DON'T DO EVERYTHING WE CAN DO. JUST BECAUSE WE CAN DO IT. SO HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST? I KNOW YOU CAN'T ANSWER THAT, BUT I BET YOU IT'S NOT $5,000. I YIELD. CYNTHIA GINYARD, PRECINCT THREE. THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER IS JONATHAN MARCANTEL ON AGENDA ITEM 20 A 20 B, 22 A AND 22 B. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M JONATHAN MARCANTEL FROM MEADOWS PLACE, TEXAS. JUDGE GEORGE COMMISSIONERS. I RISE TO SPEAK AGAINST ITEMS 28 AND 20 B AND 422 A AND 22 B. I HAVE A LOT TO COVER, SO I SHALL ENDEAVOR TO KEEP TO TIME. I AM THE SECRETARY OF THE FORT BEND COUNTY DEMOCRATIC PARTY. HOWEVER, TODAY I SPEAK ON MY OWN BEHALF, NOT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY. WHEN WE WERE REDISTRICTED LAST TIME, WE JUST SEEN THE DISASTROUS EFFECT OF THE WORST THAT MACHINE MODELING COULD DO. AT THE TIME, DESTROYING ANY DISTRICT IN TEXAS THAT WAS TRENDING DEMOCRATIC, CRACKING THOSE DISTRICTS TO MAKE THEM MUCH MORE RED, AND PACKING THOSE DEMOCRATS INTO ALREADY SAFE DEMOCRATIC DISTRICTS. AS YOU KNOW, JUDGE GEORGE, I WAS INVOLVED IN THE MEETINGS CREATING THE FORT BEND MAPS THAT YOU AND I BOTH ATTENDED. WE CRAFTED THESE MAPS TO BE TWO DEMOCRATIC, WHICH ARE PRECINCTS TWO AND FOUR, ONE REPUBLICAN, WHICH IS PRECINCT ONE AND ONE LEAN DEMOCRATIC. [00:40:04] TOSS UP PRECINCT THREE. WE HAD JUST SEEN THE SURGICAL DESTRUCTION OF DISTRICTS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO GIVE AS GOOD AS WE GOT, AT LEAST HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY. RACE WAS NEVER A CONSIDERATION. SO THAT RED HERRING SHOULD BE PUT TO BED. TURNING TO THE TAXPAYERS FRIEND, I PUT TO YOU THAT THE HANDPICKED LAW FIRM IN 20 BE IS ATTEMPTING TO PICK OUR POCKETS, WHICH IS NOT VERY FRIENDLY TO THE TAXPAYERS. I HAVE A LOT OF LAWYER FRIENDS AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLACES IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN TEXAS, AND THEY WERE ALL SHOCKED WHEN I BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT SOMEONE WANTED TO CHARGE BY THE QUARTER HOUR. THIS INDUSTRY STANDARD IS ABOUT A SIXTH OF AN HOUR OR TEN MINUTES, AND QUITE A FEW OF THEM CHARGE BY THE SIX MINUTE INCREMENT IN SUCH AN OPEN ENDED ENGAGEMENT LETTERS THEY HAVE SUBMITTED. THIS COULD BE A SURCHARGE TO THE COUNTY OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. AND WHY ARE WE EVEN LOOKING AT A MID CYCLE REDISTRICTING BEFORE THE STATE DECIDES IF THIS IS ALL FOR NAUGHT? WE DON'T EVEN PAY OUR EMPLOYEES AT PARITY WITH SIMILARLY SITUATED COUNTIES IN THE IN THE STATE. COUNTY EMPLOYEES ARE GETTING PRICED OUT OF OUR COUNTY, UNABLE TO LIVE IN ONE OF THE GREATEST COUNTIES IN TEXAS. I PERSONALLY KNOW SEVERAL THAT HAVE WORKED FOR AT LEAST FIVE YEARS TO COMMUTE IN FROM OTHER COUNTIES BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIND AFFORDABLE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN FORT BEND COUNTY. THE COUNTY THEY WORK FOR, THE COUNTY THAT DURING EMERGENCIES, ASKS THEM TO BE AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES, AWAY FROM TAKING CARE OF THEIR DAMAGED PROPERTIES, TO TAKE CARE OF THE REST OF US. EVERY PUBLIC FACING OFFICE IN THIS COUNTY HAS A LINE THAT CAN BE HOURS LONG. NOT BECAUSE OUR ELECTED HEADS OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS HAVE REFUSED TO PROPERLY STAFF, BUT BECAUSE THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT PREFERRED TO WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY ON REDISTRICTING. I'VE HEARD ESTIMATES OF $2 MILLION, AND THAT CAN GO A LONG WAY TO HIRING GOOD, QUALIFIED PEOPLE TO FILL THESE POSITIONS WITHIN THE TAX OFFICE, WITHIN THE CLERK'S OFFICE, AND WITHIN OTHER PUBLIC FACING OFFICES. I, I ASK YOU TO ACCEPT THE ALREADY PAID FOR MAPS IN 22 A AND B AND SAVE TAXPAYER MONEY BY VOTING NO ON 20 A AND B. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARIA PUENTE ON AGENDA ITEMS 20 A, 20 B AND FIVE A. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARIA PUENTE. I HAVE LIVED IN SUGARLAND FOR OVER TEN YEARS. TODAY I AM SPEAKING FOR AGENDA ITEM FIVE A AND AGAINST AGENDA ITEM 20 A AND 20 B REGARDING AGENDA ITEM FIVE A. I APPRECIATE THE STRENUOUS WORK THE ELECTION OFFICE HAS DONE TO ENSURE PRECINCTS ARE MORE BALANCED AND CLOSER TO MEETING THE DO NOT EXCEED 5000 REGISTERED VOTER VOTER LAW. THESE MINOR MODIFICATIONS IS WHAT WE ALL KNOW AS REPRESENTING AND IS ACCEPTABLE BY LAW. ON THE CONTRARY, AGENDA ITEMS 28 AND 20 B FOCUSES ON LARGER MODIFICATIONS TO OUR ELECTION MAPS. THIS ONLY RAISES MORE QUESTIONS SUCH AS WHAT ARE THE INTENTIONS HERE? WHAT HAS CHANGED? IS THIS PROCESS BENEFITING THE VOTERS OF FORT BEND COUNTY? IS THIS A CONTINUATION OF THE MAPS THAT WERE FAST TRACKED? THEY WERE TRYING TO BE FAST TRACKED DURING MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND. AND COINCIDENTALLY, NOW WE HAVE THIS AGENDA ITEMS RIGHT AFTER ANOTHER HOLIDAY WEEKEND. AGENDA ITEM 28 CALLS FOR THE CREATION OF A CITIZENS REDISTRICTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ADVISE MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONERS COURTS ON REDISTRICTING. IN AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THIS TOPIC, I DID A QUICK GOOGLE SEARCH WHICH TOOK ME TO THE REDISTRICTING TEXAS GOV WEBSITE. IN THAT WEBSITE, IT CLEARLY DELINEATES THE FACT THAT REDISTRICTING IS CONDUCTED EVERY TEN YEARS. WHEN THE WHEN THE CENSUS IS UPDATED, WE HAVE FIVE MORE YEARS BEFORE REDISTRICTING IS REQUIRED. THIS AGENDA ITEMS ARE PREMATURE AND LACK TRANSPARENCY. WE NEED TO KNOW WE NEED MORE TRANSPARENCY. DO WE EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST? DOES THE VOTERS OF FORT BEND COUNTY KNOW THESE VALUES? I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING EVERYBODY IN FORT BEND WOULD BE EXTREMELY INTERESTED ON. IN ADDITION, THE AGENDA ITEM ALSO STATES THAT EACH MEMBER CAN CAN APPOINT TWO ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WHOSE IDEA IS THIS? ARE WE FOLLOWING A CERTAIN COMMITTEE? COMMITTEE RULES? THAT IS. THAT'S GREAT INFORMATION. THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO KNOW. TRANSPARENCY. CAN WE ALSO GET SOME TRANSPARENCY ON THE IDEA OF COMMITTEE [00:45:05] ALLOCATION? FAIRNESS SHOULD BE AT THE FOREFRONT DURING ANY PROCESS. AND SO FAR I DO NOT SEE TRANSPARENCY, TRANSPARENCY NOR FAIRNESS. HAVE WE DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY BE COMPROMISED? I WOULD ONLY I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT IF THERE'S ALTERNATIVE MOTIVES HERE, THOSE PERSONS COULD BE RECUSING FROM EVEN TAKING PART IN ALLOCATING HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOULD BE IN THIS REDISTRICTING GROUP ACTION ITEM 20 B IS ALSO PREMATURE AND COSTLY. THANK YOU FOR THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. YOUR THREE MINUTES IS OVER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JANICE PASHKOVSKY ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A 20 A AND 20 B. OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JAN PASHKOVSKY, AND I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF FORT BEND COUNTY FOR OVER 40 YEARS. I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK AGAINST THE FORMATION OF A CITIZENS REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE, AND AGAINST THE UNNECESSARY HIRING OF AN OUTSIDE LAW FIRM TO ADVISE ON SUCH A COMMITTEE. LET'S BE CLEAR, REDISTRICTING IS A SERIOUS PROCESS, BUT WE ARE NOT IN A REDISTRICTING YEAR. THERE IS NO MANDATE, NO CRISIS, AND NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO OUR POPULATION DISTRIBUTION THAT CALLS FOR A COMPLETE OVERHAUL. THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR HAS RECOMMENDED THAT TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENT A SINGLE PRECINCT TWEAK IN AGENDA ITEM FIVE A THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY RIGHT HERE BY THIS COURT BY APPROVING IT. INSTEAD, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CREATING AN ENTIRE NEW COMMITTEE. THAT MEANS SELECTING MEMBERS, HOLDING MULTIPLE PUBLIC MEETINGS, SCHEDULING STAFF TIME, LEGAL CONSULTATIONS, AND SPENDING TAXPAYER MONEY ALL TO CONSIDER A PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T EXIST. PERFORMING A REDISTRICTING MID-DECADE WOULD COST FORT BEND TAXPAYERS CLOSE TO $2 MILLION, YET WOULD BE BASED ON IMPERFECT DATA, NOT THE GOLD STANDARD CENSUS. IT'S FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND LEGALLY RISKY WHEN THERE'S NO PRESSING NEED TO ACT. THE COST IS NOT JUST FINANCIAL. IT'S TIME, ENERGY, AND COMMUNITY TRUST. THIS COURT HAS REAL ISSUES TO DEAL WITH FLOOD CONTROL, PUBLIC SAFETY, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND MANAGING GROWTH. SHIFTING ATTENTION TO SOMETHING AS CONVOLUTED AND UNNECESSARY AS A CITIZEN'S REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE FEELS LIKE A DISTRACTION FROM YOUR CORE RESPONSIBILITIES. IS. LET'S ALSO NOT PRETEND THAT BRINGING IN A LAW FIRM WILL PROTECT US IN REALITY, IS AN EXPENSIVE LEGAL EXERCISE IN SEARCH OF A JUSTIFICATION. WE HAVE IN-HOUSE LEGAL STAFF, WE HAVE AN EXPERIENCED ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR, AND WE ALREADY HAVE MAPS DRAWN. AFTER EXTENSIVE WORK IN 2021. MAPS THAT MEET LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS. CREATING A COMMITTEE. NOW NOT ONLY WASTES MONEY, BUT RISKS REOPENING WOUNDS FROM THE LAST REDISTRICTING PROCESS. IT INVITES UNNECESSARY DIVISION, POLITICIZATION, POLITICIZATION AND CONFUSION, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ARE SO CLOSE TO MAJOR UPCOMING ELECTIONS. IN SHORT, THIS IS NOT THE TIME. IT IS NOT THE ISSUE AND IT IS NOT THE PRIORITY. PLEASE RESPECT THE WORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. ACCEPT THE CORRECTIONS FROM THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR, AND LET'S KEEP OUR FOCUS AND OUR TAX DOLLARS ON THE NEEDS OF FORT BEND COUNTY. VOTE FOR FIVE A AND AGAINST 20 A AND 20 B. BE. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CARA MASHARANI. ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A 20 A AND 20 B. OKAY. YES. CARA MASHARANI. I LIVE IN SUGAR LAND. I'VE BEEN THERE ABOUT 11 YEARS. SEVEN. SEVEN. SEVEN FOUR. SEVEN, EIGHT. THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO SAY IS THE LIVE STREAM DOES NOT HAVE ANY AUDIO. SO EVERYONE OUTSIDE OF THIS COURTROOM IS NOT WHO'S TRYING TO TUNE IN, CANNOT HEAR ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. IS CONFIRMED IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION TO 20 A AND 20 B IN SUPPORT OF FIVE A. IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO WASTE TAX DOLLARS TAX DOLLARS ON REDISTRICTING THIS YEAR. WE'LL DO THIS IN FIVE YEARS AFTER THE CENSUS AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME WHEN WE HAVE ACCURATE DEMOGRAPHIC NUMBERS. I SUPPORT FIVE A FIVET THE REPRESENTING THAT OUR ELECTIONS OFFICE IS CHARGED WITH. ALSO, I'M HERE REPRESENTING MYSELF AND THREE FRIENDS WHO COULD NOT BE HERE, WHO COULDN'T FIND A WAY TO COMMENT ON THE AGENDA ITEMS ONLINE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTY HAVE THREE DAYS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ISSUES ARE BEFORE YOUR COURT, AND FIND A WAY TO SHOW UP IN PERSON FOR OUR VOICES TO BE HEARD. I JUST WANTED TO ASK THAT QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT IS, CAN WE HAVE A VOICE OR DO WE HAVE TO SHOW UP HERE IN PERSON? [00:50:02] IS THERE A WAY TO ONLINE COMMENT AND HAVE OUR THOUGHTS, OUR OUR OPINIONS ON WHAT'S BEING DONE WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS PUT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD SOME OTHER WAY THAN TAKING TIME OUT OF OUR WORKDAY, TIME AWAY FROM OUR FAMILIES TO BE HERE AND SIT IN THIS COURTROOM. GO AHEAD WITH YOUR COMMENT, MA'AM. FINISH UP WITH YOUR CAMERA. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. I HAVE THAT QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT. THANK YOU. PLEASE ANSWER THAT. THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ANTONIO LAXAMANA ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A. GREETINGS COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY JUDGE. THANKS FOR THE TIME TO COMMENT. I AM A 25 YEAR CITIZEN OF FORT BEND COUNTY. I AM IN MR. MYERS DISTRICT AND EVERY DAY AS I'M DRIVING, I'M GRATEFUL THAT I CAN GO DOWN LEXINGTON BOULEVARD AND NOT DRIVING MY CAR AND FEEL LIKE A FIVE YEAR OLD ON A TRAMPOLINE. THAT WORK IS BEING DONE THERE. THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS I LIKE SEEING DONE IN MY DISTRICT. YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD DIFFERENT COMMISSIONERS REPRESENTING ME. I'M GRATEFUL WHEN I SEE THAT SIGN THAT HAS MR. MYERS NAME ON IT AS I DRIVE THROUGH. THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS, AS A VOTER, I WANT TO SEE HAPPENING IN THIS COUNTY. I'M GLAD THAT THE GRIEVANCE IN REGARDS TO THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. I THINK THAT IS A NECESSARY THING THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE. HOWEVER, I THINK WE'RE TAKING THINGS A LITTLE FAR NOW. AND YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I ADMIRED ABOUT THIS COUNTY WAS THAT WE WERE ABOVE THE POLITICS THAT WE SEE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., AND EVEN IN THE STATE. WE WERE ABOVE THAT, AND WE HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST. BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ATMOSPHERE IS CHANGING HERE, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE RESPECTING THAT. I'M SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO 20 A AND B AND IN FAVOR OF 22 A AND B. THE COUNTY IS GROWING AND WE HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. I MEAN, WE HAVE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH ON THE OUTSKIRTS HERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DISTRIBUTION ISSUES IN REGARDS TO WHERE THE VOTERS ARE AT. AND AS FAR AS PEOPLE NOT HAVING ENOUGH REPRESENTATION WITH PRECINCT CHAIRS, I THINK THAT'S A RESULT OF PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO BE INVOLVED IN POLITICS AND GETTING INTO THE MESS. NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT IT'S AN EFFECT OF THE REDISTRICTING. THE THE OTHER THING I WOULD MENTION IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE CONFRONTING THESE PROBLEMS REPEATEDLY. SO ARE WE OPENING THE DOOR AND GOING TO BE COSTING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY TIME WE WE GROW A COMMUNITY LIKE THE ONE GROWING IN NEEDVILLE OR OUT IN FULSHEAR. YOU KNOW, THAT PROBLEM IS GOING TO PRESENT ITSELF. IT'S ALREADY BAD ENOUGH THAT WE GO THROUGH THIS EVERY TEN YEARS, AND THAT THE LINES ARE REDISTRIBUTED IN THAT GERRYMANDERING THAT ONE OF MY THE OTHER SPEAKERS TALKED ABOUT. THE GERRYMANDERING IS UNAVOIDABLE, BUT WE NEED TO DO WE NEED TO BE BETTER THAN THAT. IN FORT BEND COUNTY, REDISTRICTING WILL BE EXPENSIVE TO TAXPAYERS. THE NEW BOUNDARIES ARE GOING TO NEED TO BE CHANGED VERY SOON. WE'RE AT WE'RE APPROACHING THAT THAT MARK WHERE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. AND WE'LL HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN IN FIVE YEARS ANYWAYS. AND IT'S UNREALISTIC FOR NEW CHANGES TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN TIME FOR ELECTIONS OF NEXT YEAR. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO SERVE ANY PURPOSE, PRACTICAL PURPOSE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT, AND THAT IS THAT THE ACTIONS OF THIS COURT WILL BE JUDGED BY THE VOTERS AND NOT BECAUSE OF POLITICAL. AND IT SHOULDN'T BE DONE BECAUSE OF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY. OKAY. YOUR SEATS ARE THERE BECAUSE YOU EARN THEM. AND WHEN SOMETHING BAD HAPPENS, IF SOMEBODY DOES SOMETHING, THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO REDEEM THEMSELVES. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, ALSO THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO BRING PEOPLE OUT WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THAT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE AT RISK AT RIGHT NOW. WE NEED TO HAVE COMMON SENSE IN THIS COUNTY. YOU ALL NEED TO BE GOOD, GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS. AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME. THANK YOU ALL. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANNA LICORICE AT AGENDA ITEM FIVE A, 20 A AND 20 B. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS AND COUNTY JUDGE. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. ANNA IS NEW TERRITORY RESIDENT, SUGARLAND, TEXAS TODAY I WANT TO, I WAS REMINDED I HAVEN'T WRITTEN A SPEECH, BUT I WAS REMINDED OF SOME VERY IMPORTANT WORDS FROM OUR US CONSTITUTION. WE THE PEOPLE, WE THE PEOPLE CAME TOGETHER AND VOTED FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU. SOME WON BY A MAJORITY OF A CERTAIN GROUP AND SOME WON BY A MAJORITY OF ANOTHER. I WILL NOT ACCEPT OUR COUNTY JUDGE TO TELL CITIZENS THAT WE CANNOT EXPRESS OUR FRUSTRATIONS. I'M NOT SAYING ANY NAMES, BUT WE THE PEOPLE TOOK TIME TO VOTE FOR EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, AND YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO WHERE WE'RE COMING [00:55:02] FROM. PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION. IT IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF OUR CONSTITUTION, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. TWO COMMISSIONERS HAVE PUT UP FIVE A MR. MCCOY, WHICH I AM IN FAVOR OF FIVE A THE PRECINCT, AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THE MAPS DONE BY ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR OLDHAM, AS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND COMMON SENSE AND HIS EXPERTISE. NOW, AS TO 20 A AND 20 B, RESPECTFULLY. COUNTY JUDGE KP GEORGE, YOU HAVE PUT UP THESE ITEMS AND TO TELL US RESIDENTS THAT WE CANNOT SAY THAT WE ARE DISAPPOINTED IN YOU IS AN OFFENSE TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, IT IS. IT IS OUR ENTITLEMENT. EXCUSE ME, MA'AM, YOU WANTED TO CONTINUE SPEAKING ON THE AGENDA ITEM? YES. YOU PROPOSED THE AGENDA ITEM. AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHY I'M DISAPPOINTED. AND THIS IS BECAUSE AS A CITIZEN HERE, I EXPECTED OUR COUNTY JUDGE TO FOLLOW THE LAW. AND WHEN YOU'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE AND REDISTRICT AND COME UP WITH CONCOCTED COMMITTEES AND, AND PARTIZAN LAW FIRMS ON OUR TAXPAYER DIMES AND TELLING US WE CANNOT CRITICIZE ANYONE HERE BY NAME IS AN OFFENSE. IF WE ARE THE TAXPAYERS BEST FRIEND, IF WE ARE THE VOTERS BEST FRIEND, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT CENSUS IS HAPPEN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVERY TEN YEARS, AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE SPENT FOR THAT DATA. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT DATA RIGHT NOW TO REDISTRICT ANYTHING. AND I DON'T CARE WHAT COMMITTEE YOU PUT TOGETHER. IT'S A FARCE. IT'S FAKE. AND IT'S ACTUALLY INSTEAD OF DRAINING THE SWAMP, WE ARE CREATING A SWAMP. AND WE TAXPAYERS IN FORT BEND COUNTY ARE NOT GOING TO STAND FOR IT. AND I DON'T CARE IF YOU HAVE AN R AFTER YOUR NAME, OR A NEW R OR A NEW D OR WHATEVER YOU ARE. THAT'S OFFENSIVE. AND THEN TO HEAR PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT HOW COUNTY EMPLOYEES CAN'T EVEN AFFORD THEIR MEDICATION AND THEIR BILLS AND THEY HAVE TO MOVE OUT OF THE COUNTY. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PAYING SOME LAW FIRM BY THE QUARTER HOUR. SHAME. THIS IS A SHAME. AND YOU CANNOT TELL US. WE CANNOT SAY THAT WE VOTED FOR YOU. WE VOTED FOR EACH OF YOU TO BE THE COMMON SENSE PEOPLE THAT WE NEED YOU TO BE. PEOPLE ARE DYING BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE DIDN'T WANT TO AFFORD EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS. THIS IS A SHAME. AND WE'RE SITTING HERE FIGHTING ABOUT MAPS THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY LAW EVERY TEN YEARS. THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT OUR MAPS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. NEXT PERSON. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SARAH ROBERTS ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A, 20 A AND 20 B. OKAY. HELLO, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS SARAH ROBERTS, AND I'VE PROUDLY LIVED IN FORT BEND COUNTY FOR 40 YEARS NOW. I'M HERE TO STATE MY SUPPORT FOR AGENDA ITEM FIVE A THE MAP PREPARED BY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR JOHN OLDHAM. THIS MAP BRINGS VOTER PRECINCTS INTO LEGAL COMPLIANCE WITH POPULATION LIMITS AND SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT CONTROVERSY. HOWEVER, I STRONGLY OPPOSE AGENDA ITEMS 20 A AND 20 B REDRAWING DISTRICT DISTRICT MAPS JUST FIVE YEARS AFTER OUR LAST REDISTRICTING IS UNNECESSARY AND COSTLY. OUR COUNTY IS ALREADY STRETCHED THIN. OUR STAFF ARE UNDERPAID. DEPARTMENTS ARE SHORTHANDED, AND YET UP TO $20 MILLION COULD BE DIVERTED TO THIS EFFORT. THAT'S A MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS. I ALSO QUESTIONED THE TIMING OF THE MOTIVATION AND MOTIVATION. WHILE OUR COUNTY JUDGE PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED THE CURRENT DISTRICT MAPS. AND AS A PUBLIC AS PUBLIC RECORDS INDICATE, THEY'RE FACING MULTIPLE FELONY INDICTMENTS AND SUDDENLY ABDICATING. EXCUSE ME, I HAVE A FIRST AMENDMENT. NOT HERE TO ATTACK A SITTING MEMBER STATING PUBLIC IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE STATING PUBLIC FACTS, IT RAISES SERIOUS RED FLAGS ABOUT POLITICAL SELF-PRESERVATION OVER PUBLIC SERVICE. I ASK HIM TO RECUSE HIMSELF. SIR. SIR, SHE CANNOT SPEAK. WHY NOT? BECAUSE. BECAUSE YOU. THAT'S RIGHT. BUT I SAID IT TIES INTO THE WHOLE AGENDA. OKAY. PLEASE. NEXT PERSON. NEXT SPEAKER IS JANET DAWSON ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE. OKAY. THE NEXT PERSON, PLEASE. [01:00:03] COMMISSIONER AND JUDGES, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE REDISTRICTING IN JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TERMS, BOTH FINANCIALLY AND ON OUR PERSONNEL. THE ELECTIONS OFFICE IS EQUIPPED TO DO A VERY GOOD, EFFICIENT, KNOWLEDGEABLE DATA ENTRY FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE AND DO VOTE HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY. I KNOW THIS ON A PERSONAL LEVEL BECAUSE I WAS ON THE BALLOT BOARD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. TEXAS AND NOT TEXAS, BUT FORT BEND COUNTY HAS ONE OF THE BEST VOTING RECORDS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS REGARDING BALLOTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCARDED OR NOT COUNTED FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. WE HAVE THE LOWEST PERCENTAGE, ONE OF THE LOWEST PERCENTAGES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE PERSONNEL THAT ARE IN THE ELECTIONS OFFICE. THERE. THEY ENTERED THE DATA VERY ACCURATELY, AND THEY DO IT EVERY SINGLE DAY. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REDISTRICTING REDRAWING LINES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ENTERING DATA THAT'S ALREADY THERE FOR JUST SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS. BUT THOSE THAT DATA THAT HAS TO BE ALTERED BECAUSE THE REDRAWING OF LINES ALSO MEANS NEW VOTER REGISTRATION CARDS MUST BE GENERATED TO ADDRESS THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE AFFECTED. THEY ALSO HAVE TO BE MAILED. THIS IS COSTLY TO THE TO OUR COUNTY. THEN QUESTIONS START COMING INTO THE ELECTIONS OFFICE ABOUT WHY THIS HAPPENED. WHY AM I NOW IN A DIFFERENT PRECINCT. THAT MEANS I MIGHT HAVE TO VOTE IN A DIFFERENT AREA. SO THE RESULT OF THIS FINANCIALLY IS THAT PROGRAMS WHO HAVE THAT HELPS A LOT OF RESIDENTS IN FORT BEND COUNTY WILL EITHER BE CUT OR SERIOUSLY LOOKED AT THEIR REQUEST ON BUDGET ITEMS. SO WHY DO WE WANT TO TRY TO FIND A PROBLEM THAT ISN'T THERE? AND WHY WOULD WE WANT TO FIX SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY WORKING? THANKS. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARGARET DANIEL ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A 20 A AND 20 B. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARGARET DANIEL. I'M A FORT BEND COUNTY RESIDENT AND A GOP PRECINCT CHAIR FOR PRECINCT ONE. 144 I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK AGAINST AGENDA ITEM FIVE A AND IN FAVOR OF ITEM AGENDA ITEMS 20 A AND 20 B. IT'S A FACT THAT FORT BEND COUNTY IS IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW AND ITS NEGLECT OF PRESCRIBED REDISTRICTING OF ITS VOTER PRECINCTS. THIS MUST BE REMEDIED. UNFORTUNATELY, THEIR PRESENTATION OF A NEW MAP WITH NO DOCUMENTATION AS TO ONE ITS ADHERENTS, ITS ADHERENCE TO STATE LAW, TO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IT AND THE CURRENT VOTER PRECINCT BOUNDARIES, AND THREE, THE ABSENCE OF ANY PUBLIC DISCOURSE ON THE CHANGES IS DECEPTIVE AND UNACCEPTABLE. IN FACT, IT'S REMINISCENT OF OUR 2021 REDISTRICTING DEBACLE THAT SAW 80% OF FORT BEND COUNTY RESIDENTS WITH NEW PRECINCT OFFICIALS AND A GERRYMANDERING THAT AIMED TO TURN A ROUGHLY 5050 VOTING COUNTY INTO A 3 TO 1 COUNTY COMMISSIONER MAJORITY FOR DEMOCRATS. WHAT'S NEEDED, WHEN I HOPE FOR, IS A MORE TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE PROCESS TO PUT THE COUNTY BACK INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND GIVE THE VOTERS OF FORT BEND COUNTY A SAY IN THE PROCESS. FOR THAT REASON, I SUPPORT PROPOSALS OF AGENDA ITEMS 20 A AND 20 B, ESTABLISHING A CITIZENS REDISTRICTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND ENGAGING ROGERS, MORRIS AND GROVER TO PROVIDE LEGAL ADVICE TO COMMISSIONERS, COURT AND ITS MEMBERS REGARDING REDISTRICTING MATTERS. THIS APPROACH WOULD ENSURE ACCOUNTABILITY, LEGALITY, FAIRNESS, AND ULTIMATELY EQUAL ACCESS TO THE BALLOT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. NEXT QUESTION. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID, AND HE'S HERE FOR AGENDA ITEM FIVE A 20 A AND 20 B. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DAVID. I LIVE IN DEL WEBB. SWEETGRASS. EXCUSE ME, HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY. AND OF COURSE, NUMBER ONE, I WOULD THANK YOU FOR CALLING ME BECAUSE I IT APPEARS THAT I'M NUMBER FOUR TO OPPOSE FIVE A AND TO BE IN FAVOR OF 20 A AND 20 B. EVERYONE IN THE ROOM KNOWS ALL THE ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT, [01:05:03] SO I'LL BE BRIEF. WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED THE RULING BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS IN THE PETWAY VERSUS GALVESTON COUNTY CASE, AND THAT ALSO APPLIES TO FORT BEND COUNTY. SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE MAP FOR FIVE A, I'M SURE THAT IT ALSO VIOLATES THE SAME ISSUE WITH PETWAY. SO THAT RULING MEANS THAT THE FORT BEND COUNTY PRECINCTS MUST BE REDRAWN BASED ON THAT DECISION. I OPPOSE THE MAP PROPOSED BY COMMISSIONER MCCOY AND I BELIEVE JOHN OLDHAM ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE. A AND I SUPPORT THE PROPOSALS ON ITEM 20 TO HIRE OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND TO CREATE A CITIZENS COMMITTEE WITH COMMISSIONER MORALES APPROVAL AND PERMISSION, I'D LIKE TO USE HIS CAMPAIGN SLOGAN TO REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS AND JUDGE GEORGE WHY THEY WERE ELECTED. AND HIS SUGGESTION AND HIS SLOGAN IS PEOPLE OVER POLITICS. THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO GO WITH THIS PEOPLE OVER POLITICS. THERE'S BEEN TOO MUCH GERRYMANDERING AND TOO MANY OTHER PROBLEMS CREATED SINCE 2021. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANKS, CHRIS. NEXT SPEAKER IS GREG BARNES ON AGENDA ITEM FIVE A 20 A AND 20 B. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS GREG BARNES AND I AM A RESIDENT OF FORT BEND COUNTY AND OF PRECINCT FOUR. COMMISSIONER MCCOY. I AM HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM FIVE, A THE REVISED MAP SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER MCCOY. I APPRECIATE THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT WAS PUT INTO BY YOU, COMMISSIONER MCCOY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT EFFORT. BUT AS I'VE STATED PREVIOUSLY BEFORE, THIS BODY, WE NEED TO GET THIS RIGHT THIS TIME, BOTH LEGALLY AND WITH AS LITTLE FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE COUNTY AS POSSIBLE. THIS PROPOSED MAP MRS THE BASIC LEGAL CHALLENGES ON 37 DIFFERENT POINTS. THAT'S MORE THAN THE 34 POINTS THAT OUR CURRENT MAP HAS A PROBLEM WITH. WE'RE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. THIS MAP WILL NOT WITHSTAND BASIC LEGAL CHALLENGES AND COULD RESULT IN SOME HEFTY FINES FOR OUR CITIZENS TO BEAR. AND THE REMEDY? WE GO TO COURT. WE GET FINED OR TOLD TO DO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TODAY PROPERLY. REDISTRICT. RESPECTFULLY, COMMISSIONER MCCOY, I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO THE HONORABLE THING, JUST AS COMMISSIONER MYERS DID. WITHDRAW THIS MAP AND LET'S GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF PROPERLY ACCOMPLISHING THIS TASK BOTH FAIRLY AND FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE. I SUPPORT 28 AND 20 B TO ACCOMPLISH THIS TASK FOR OUR SOUND FUTURE FOR OUR COUNTY. IT'S TIME TO PUT OUR POLITICS ASIDE. AS I'VE SAID BEFORE, I AM A RETIRED CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTY. I ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT MY POCKETBOOK. AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO TRY TO DO THE THINGS THAT ARE THAT ARE FISCALLY SOUND FOR THIS COUNTY. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT SOME OF THIS MONEY COULD BE BETTER SPENT FOR OUR EMPLOYEES OF THIS COUNTY. I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THEM ON THAT. BUT GOING THE DIRECTION OF TRYING TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO END UP IN COURT AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT ANYWAY IS NOT THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS VICKY KAUFMAN. ON AGENDA ITEM 20 A AND 20 B. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK. I'M VICKY KAUFMAN. I'M A RESIDENT OF UNINCORPORATED FORT BEND COUNTY SINCE 1999. AND I JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS THIS MORNING AND JUST GOT HERE RIGHT AFTER A MEDICAL APPOINTMENT, SO I DON'T HAVE NOTES. I'M TEMPTED TO POINT AT THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN AGAINST 20 A AND 20 B AND JUST SAY WHAT THEY SAID. BUT ONE ISSUE THAT I HAVE WITH IT IS THAT IT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN TWO CENSUSES. A CENSUS AFTER A CENSUS IS THE TIME TO DO THIS. IF IT'S DONE NOW, IT WON'T EVEN TAKE EFFECT UNTIL NEARLY BEFORE THE NEXT CENSUS. IT'S ALSO, AS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID, GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY. AND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST MY PERSONAL IMPRESSION OF THE THING, BUT I'VE BEEN PAYING SOME ATTENTION TO THIS BEFORE I ACTUALLY CAME AND ATTENDED TODAY. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS IS KIND OF THERE'S BEEN KIND OF AN ATTEMPT TO FLY THIS [01:10:01] UNDER THE RADAR SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T NOTICE. AND THAT JUST THAT'S ONLY MY IMPRESSION. BUT IT JUST KIND OF GETS MY BACK UP. AND AS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SAID, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE QUITE A BIT OF MONEY AND IT'S GOING TO THROW CONFUSION WITH THE VOTERS. SO I WOULD URGE THAT IT BE DONE AT THE RIGHT TIME, WHICH IS AFTER THE CENSUS. THANK YOU. NEXT QUESTION. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BOBBY EBERLE ON FIVE MAY 20TH A AND 20 B. THANK YOU, JUDGE GEORGE. AND MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONERS COURT. MY NAME IS BOBBY EBERLE AND I AM A RESIDENT OF MISSOURI CITY AND PRECINCT TWO. I SPEAK AGAINST FIVE A AND 420 A AND 20 B, IN PARTICULAR, THE MAPS THAT WERE PROPOSED TODAY FOR FIVET VIOLATE SECTION 40 2.0 06A OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, WHICH REQUIRES PRECINCTS TO BE OF CERTAIN SIZE. THE PROPOSED MAP VIOLATES SECTION 42 .007, WHICH PROHIBITS DRAWING NEW PRECINCTS THAT COMBINE PORTIONS OF LARGE CITIES WITH UNINCORPORATED AREAS. AND THIRD, IT APPEARS TO VIOLATE SECTION 40 3.0 07F BY COMBINING PRECINCTS IN WAYS NOT ALLOWED UNDER TEXAS LAW. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSED MAPS FAIL TO ADDRESS CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS SIMILAR TO LARIOS VERSUS COX, WHERE DISTRICTS WERE DRAWN TO SPLIT COMMUNITIES AND MANIPULATE MANIPULATE ELECTORAL OUTCOMES. THIS, OF COURSE, IS ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT IT WAS PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGED IN COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT RACE WAS USED TO DRAW THE LINES THAT WERE IMPOSED ON THIS COUNTY BACK IN 2021. FURTHER, SOME CITIES ARE SPLIT AMONG MULTIPLE COMMISSIONERS. WHICH LEADS TO CONFUSION AND DELAYS IN ADDRESSING INFRASTRUCTURE AND PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES. MUDS, LIDS ESDS OFTEN MUST COORDINATE WITH MULTIPLE COMMISSIONERS, LEADING TO INEFFICIENCY AND HARMING RESIDENTS WHO RELY ON THESE SERVICES. TODAY'S PROPOSED MAP FAILS TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE LEGAL AND STRUCTURAL SHORTCOMINGS, AND THUS COMMISSIONERS COURT SHOULD REJECT THIS EFFORT WITHOUT HESITATION. THE ONLY REMEDY TO FIXING THESE PARTIZAN MESS THAT WAS THRUST UPON THE COUNTY IN 2021 IS TO HIRE OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL AND CREATE NEW MAPS. TEXAS LAW AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS FROM 1989, 1998 AND 2025, JUST LAST MONTH, MAKE CLEAR THAT COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO HIRE OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL FOR REDISTRICTING. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO SUPPORT ITEMS 28 AND 20 BE TO HIRE OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL AND TO CREATE A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST TO GIVE THE PEOPLE OF FORT BEND COUNTY A DIRECT VOICE IN THIS PROCESS. ONE THING WAS MADE CLEAR IN THE 2024 ELECTION CYCLE, FORT BEND COUNTY RESIDENTS REJECT POLITICS AS USUAL AND DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY. COMMISSIONERS COURT CAN DELIVER BY REJECTING THE RACIALLY INFLUENCED, GERRYMANDERED ILLEGAL MAP AND HIRING OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND SOLICITING PUBLIC INPUT TO DESIGN A MAP THAT IS FAIR, REPRESENTATIVE AND LEGAL. THANK YOU. NEXT. OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RICK GARCIA ON FIVE A, 20 A AND 20 B. HELLO. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. THANK YOU FOR EACH. FOR YOUR SERVICE. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON FIVE A, 20 A AND 20 B. I AM OPPOSED TO THE PASSAGE OF AGENDA ITEM FIVE A, AND I AM IN FAVOR OF ITEMS 20 A AND 20 B APPOINTING OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND ALSO CREATING A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY I'M IN PRECINCT FOUR CURRENT PRESIDENT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, FORMER MUD 165 DIRECTOR, FORMER BOARD MEMBER, BOARD VICE PRESIDENT, FORT BEND ISD SCHOOL BOARD. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT I WILL TELL THIS COURT IS THAT WHEN WE MAKE A MISTAKE, IT'S UP TO US TO FIX IT. I AGREE WITH WHAT A LOT OF FOLKS ARE SAYING TODAY. AND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAXPAYER DOLLARS, I DON'T LIKE OUR TAXPAYER, MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS BEING SPENT FRIVOLOUSLY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE MAKE A MISTAKE. WE OWE IT TO THE TAXPAYERS TO CORRECT THAT IN A PROCESS WHERE 4 OR 5 YEARS AGO, WHEN WE ORIGINALLY DID REDISTRICTING, THIS PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PROCESS WHERE WE WERE BRINGING IN OUTSIDE HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. I'VE HEARD A LOT OF FOLKS SPEAK TONIGHT IN REGARDS TO HOW IT'S ILLEGAL ONE [01:15:01] WAY OR THE OTHER, OR IT'S LEGAL THE OTHER WAY. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LAW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ELECTION CODE SECTION 42.006, SUBSECTION A42 .007 AND SECTION 43.007, SUBSECTION F. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VIOLATING ELECTION LAW EVERY TEN YEARS. WE DO HAVE TO REDISTRICT, BUT CONGRESS AND OUR SENSES, WE REDISTRICT OUR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, WE DRAW OUR PRECINCT LINES. AND SO IF WE'RE DRAWING PRECINCT LINES IN A WAY THAT IS IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING THAT. AND I STRONGLY SUPPORT ROGERS GROVER, MORRIS AND GROVER BRINGING IN OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE. WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE. I HAVE EXPERIENCE WORKING WITH THAT FIRM, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL SAY ABOUT THEM IS THEY HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY OUT OF LITIGATION, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAXPAYER DOLLARS. IF WE PASS FIVET, YOU'LL END UP BEING IN A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE IN LITIGATION, COSTING THE TAXPAYERS EVEN MORE MONEY THAN IF WE DO IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD HAVE DONE 4 OR 5 YEARS AGO WHEN THIS WAS REALLY ORIGINALLY DONE. SO. AND FOR THOSE REASONS, I AM OPPOSED TO FIVET AND I'M IN FAVOR OF 20 A AND 20 B, AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SANDRA PARKER ON FIVE A, 20 A AND 20 B. GOOD AFTERNOON. THE MIC DOWN. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. THANKS FOR BEING HERE AND ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS SANDRA PARKER. I'M LIVE IN PRECINCT 347 COMMISSIONER MYERS ADMIRES AREA. I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST FIVE A AND 420 A AND 20 B. I DON'T HAVE TO REMIND YOU GUYS THAT FORT BEND COUNTY IS THE EIGHTH LARGEST COUNTY IN THE STATE. WE SHOULD BE HELD UP AS A SHINING EXAMPLE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT RIGHT AND WHO ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW. WE ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW CURRENTLY. AND I WOULD REFER YOU TO SOME OF THE STATUTES THAT HAVE BEEN THAT WERE JUST CITED BY THE LAST TWO SPEAKERS IN CHAPTER 42 OF THE CODE. IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT WE FOLLOW THE LAW IN TERMS OF OUR SIZES OF PRECINCTS AND THE WAY THEY'RE MADE UP THE VOTING PRECINCTS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR ELECTIONS ARE FAIR, TRANSPARENT AND ACCURATE, AND THAT THEY THAT WE HAVE THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF POLLING LOCATIONS FOR EACH PRECINCT. THE LAW DOES SAY THAT IN EVERY ODD NUMBERED YEAR, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT SHALL SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER IT COMPLIES WITH THE POPULATION REQUIREMENTS 4206 OF THE CODE. AND WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE POPULATION REQUIREMENTS. IN FACT, WE'RE WAY OUT OF COMPLIANCE AS YOU AS YOU WELL KNOW. SO I DON'T WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION TODAY, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CHOICE HERE. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW, TEXAS LAW, THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS TOLD US WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, AND NOW WE HAVE TO DO IT. THIS IS THE 42.032 SAYS THAT THE REVISE, THE REVISIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FINISHED BY OCTOBER 1ST OF THE YEAR OF THE ODD NUMBERED YEAR. SO THE MAP IN QUESTION THAT IT'S BEEN PROPOSED DOES NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ISSUES. SO WE DEFINITELY NEED TO PROCEED. DEFEAT FIVE A AND PROCEED WITH THE WITH THE HIRING OF THE LAW FIRM. AND I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF ESTABLISHING A CITIZENS CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE. SINCE ELECTIONS BELONG TO THE PEOPLE. THEY ARE OUR ELECTIONS, AND SO IT'S THOROUGHLY APPROPRIATE THAT WE HAVE CITIZEN REPRESENTATION TO ASSIST WITH THIS PROCESS. AND I THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, THE LAST SPEAKER IS MUHAMMAD IJAZ ON FIVE MAY 28TH, 2022, EIGHT AND 22. BE. COOL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MUHAMMAD AJAZ. I LIVE IN PRECINCT THREE, PRECINCT 3016. I AM A FORMER PRECINCT CHAIR OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HERE. AND I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THESE MAPS. THESE MAPS WE MADE BACK IN 2021. IT WAS A PERSONAL PASSION OF MINE WHEN WE MADE THESE. AND AGAIN, COMMISSIONER MYERS, I DO APOLOGIZE FOR DRAWING YOU OUT OF YOUR PRECINCT. IT WAS NEVER MY INTENTION. I JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE DATA AT THE TIME. BUT THESE MAPS, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE MADE THEM, I WAS GIVEN THREE SPECIFIC THINGS I NEEDED NEED TO THINK ABOUT. ONE IS HOW CAN WE MAKE THREE DEMOCRATIC PRECINCTS? THE SECOND THING WAS MAKING SURE THAT THE DEMOCRATIC COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS THAT WERE ALREADY LEANING DEMOCRAT WERE SAFE. AND THE LAST THING WAS ALL THE THE COMMISSIONERS SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING EQUAL. SO THE MAP THAT WE MADE WAS BASED ON THAT. I WAS WORKING WITH THEN COMMISSIONER KEN DEMERCHANT, AND AT THE 11TH HOUR THIS MAP WAS STRUCK. [01:20:03] IT WAS STRICTLY A PARTIZAN MAP AT THE TIME. ANY OF THE RACIAL THINGS THAT CAME ABOUT THAT WAS JUST SHEER COINCIDENCE. AND IN FACT, IF IT ACTUALLY REALLY HAD ANY WATER. COMMISSIONER MYERS AND COMMISSIONER MCCOY, YOU YOU BOTH ARE IN COMMISSIONER OR PRECINCTS THAT ARE NOT EXACTLY REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR OF YOUR RACE YOURSELF. SO THESE WERE PARTIZAN MAPS. MY BIGGEST POINT HERE IS THAT WE DREW THEM TO BE PARTIZAN MAPS. COMMISSIONER DEMERCHANT, YOU KNOW, WORKED HARD WITH ME TILL LIKE THE 11TH HOUR, OUR. AND I KNOW IT WAS COUNTY JUDGE GEORGE WHO INTRODUCED THE MAP, BUT I ACTUALLY REMEMBER TALKING TO THEN CHIEF OF STAFF MCCOY BECAUSE HE HAD TO UPLOAD IT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS KIND OF MERCHANTS MAP. WE WERE ACTUALLY RIGHT THERE IN THE ROTUNDA. BUT YES, THESE WERE PARTIZAN MAPS. I JUST WANT TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. I DO APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU. YOU ARE ALL WONDERFUL. HOPE YOU ALL HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S THE END. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDE THAT SESSION, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. PUBLIC HEARING. [5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1:00 p.m.: Conduct Public Hearings and take all appropriate action on the following matters:] CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION ON FOLLOWING MATTERS. A COMMISSIONER PRISON FOR CONDUCT. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE BOUNDARIES OF FORT BEND COUNTY. VOTING PRESENTS. USUALLY WE ASK ANYBODY TO SPEAK, BUT YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY ALREADY SPOKE, AND WE WILL MOVE ON THAT ITEM. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THE ACTION WILL BE FOLLOWED IN THE OPEN SESSION OF OUR AGENDA ITEM. ITEM. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. B ENGINEERING. HOLD PUBLIC HEARING FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOLLOWING TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS. FIVE B TRILLIUM. SECTION SEVEN PRECINCT FOUR B TRILLIUM SECTION NINE, PRECINCT FOUR AND C BISSONNET STREET AND TRILLIUM STREET. DEDICATION AND RESERVE SECTION TWO, PRECINCT FOUR. DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THIS THREE ITEM I JUST PRESENTED? IF YOU DO, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. OKAY. SEEING NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY REQUEST TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS. AND SO NOW I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT AGENDA ITEM 5BA THROUGH C SHE IS READY FOR ACTION. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF 5BA THROUGH C AS PRESENTED. SECOND. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO CONSENT. [ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (6-19) ] AGENDA ITEM I PRESENTED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM SIX THROUGH 19. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CHANGES. MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM SIX THROUGH 19 AS PRESENTED. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AGENDA ITEM SIX THROUGH 19. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO SECTION THREE OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. [20. COUNTY JUDGE:] THE OPEN SESSIONS. THE FIRST ITEM 20 A PRESENTED BY COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE. DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? MOVE. APPROVAL. SECOND. AND IF YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING? YES. YES, I DO ACTUALLY. SO FIRST, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ON THIS ITEM TODAY, AND WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ON THESE ITEMS OVER THE PAST MONTH OR SO SINCE THIS WAS FIRST PRESENTED BACK IN MAY. YOU KNOW, I, I WILL GET TO ADDRESSING SOME OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COURT. BUT I WANT TO MAKE VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR A MID CENSUS REDISTRICTING, WHICH IS WHAT IS THE EFFORT BEING PROPOSED HERE AND THESE ITEMS TODAY? THE THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT A CENSUS MUST BE CONDUCTED EVERY TEN YEARS, AND IT'S THE EVIDENCE FROM THAT CENSUS. THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IF THERE IS ANY SORT OF POPULATION DEVIATION BETWEEN DISTRICTS, THAT A REDISTRICTING EFFORT MUST BE UNDERTAKEN. AND THIS THIS MAKES SENSE IN OUR DEMOCRACY, IN THIS IDEA OF ONE MAN, ONE VOTE, EQUAL REPRESENTATION. AND THAT IS THE EFFORT THAT THE REDISTRICTING IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT. [01:25:04] SO ABSENT ANY DATA ON TELLING US WHERE PEOPLE ARE, ANY EFFORT TO REDISTRICT IS A CENSUS WITHOUT ANY CENSUS DATA IS INHERENTLY NOT A IT'S NOT YOU HAVE NO DATA. AND THAT ABSOLUTELY IS GOING TO OPEN UP THIS COURT AND THIS COMMUNITY TO VERY COSTLY LEGAL CHALLENGES. WHAT DATA DO WE HAVE? WE HAVE VOTER DATA, AND NOT EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN OUR COMMUNITY HAS REGISTERED TO VOTE. TAKING THE TIME TO GO REGISTER TO VOTE WHEN THEY MOVE INTO THIS COMMUNITY. COMMUNITY. NOT EVERY PERSON WHO LIVES IN THIS COMMUNITY HAS THE ABILITY TO VOTE. BUT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS IN TERMS OF THE DRAWING OF OUR POLITICAL BOUNDARIES IS THAT IT IS ABOUT REPRESENTATION OF PERSONS, NOT VOTERS. AND ANY EFFORT TO REDISTRICT WITHOUT CENSUS DATA. SEVERAL SPEAKERS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN TO THAT POINT. AND THIS ACTION DOES EXACTLY THAT. YOU KNOW, THE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT AND JUDGE, YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WAS NOT FACTUAL ON THE MAY 27TH COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING MEANING ABOUT THE ESSENCE OF THE MAP THAT WE CURRENTLY OPERATE UNDER, AND THAT IT WAS RACIALLY DRAWN. YOU KNOW, I KNOW, AND EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COURT KNOWS THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE. I WILL AGAIN POINT RESIDENTS AND MY COLLEAGUES BACK TO WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT IN OUR PUBLIC SESSIONS HELD OCTOBER 26TH, 2021. WHERE YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IN THAT SESSION, IT'S THE FIRST PUBLIC SESSION OF TWO THAT HAPPENED ON THAT DAY. AND AT MINUTE 4826, COMMISSIONER MYERS IN TALKING ABOUT THE MAPS, HE SAYS, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT TO SAY, JUDGE, YOUR MAP IS AN INTERESTING MAP, AND I UNDERSTAND WHENEVER YOU LOOK AT THIS, I'M SORRY. THE ONLY POSSIBLE OBJECTIVE OF YOUR MAP IS TO CREATE THREE DEMOCRAT PRECINCTS TO WHICH JUDGE YOU RESPONDED. IT IS CLEAR I DON'T HAVE TO DENY THAT FACT. THE COMMISSIONER MYERS IN THE SECOND SESSION THAT DAY AT MINUTE 2912, SAYS YOUR COUNTY PRECINCT CHAIR MADE IT CLEAR AS TO WHAT YOUR PLAN DOES. IT MAKES THREE DEMOCRAT PRECINCTS. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THE OTHER THINGS, BUT THAT IS, IN ESSENCE, THE BOTTOM LINE. THE IDEA THAT NOW WE ARE GOING TO MISREPRESENT FACTS TO THE PUBLIC, TO LIE, TO ACHIEVE WHATEVER POLITICAL AIM IS BEING ATTEMPTED HERE, THAT IS WRONG. IT IS WRONG. REDISTRICTING DID HAPPEN. REDISTRICTING HAPPENED IN 21. IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN BY LAW IN 2031, ONCE WE HAVE CENSUS DATA. AND TO SUGGEST NOW THAT WHAT'S NOT TRUE IS TRUE, IT'S DISINGENUOUS. IT'S A LIE. AND IT IS THE BASIS OF WHAT WILL BE THE BASIS FOR FUTURE LEGAL CHALLENGES. THE OTHER PART OF THIS IS THAT THIS IS UNDOUBTEDLY GOING TO BE COSTLY TO OUR TAXPAYERS, TREMENDOUSLY COSTLY TO OUR TAXPAYERS. WE WENT THROUGH REDISTRICTING IN 2021. IT COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, IF NOT YOU KNOW, OVER $1 MILLION FOR FOR THAT REDISTRICTING EFFORT. AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT MID CENSUS, ONLY TO HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN IN 2031. WHAT DOES THAT COST OUR TAXPAYERS WHEN ALL WE ARE ACTUALLY SEVERAL STATUTES WERE MENTIONED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALL WERE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO DO. AND WHAT WE'RE CHARGED TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT OUR VOTER PRECINCTS, WHICH, TO BE CLEAR, ARE DIFFERENT THAN COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS ARE APPROPRIATELY APPORTIONED IN OUR PRECINCTS AND OUR COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS, AND THAT IS THE EFFORT THAT THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR WAS CHARGED WITH AND THAT HE HAS DONE. WE'VE ALREADY SEEN IN TARRANT COUNTY THEY MADE AN ATTEMPT AT THIS SAME SORT OF EFFORT, AND THEY'VE ALREADY COMMITTED A QUARTER OF $1 MILLION TO THEIR LEGAL DEFENSE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY BEING SUED. THE MOMENT THAT THEY PASSED THAT MAP, THERE WAS A LAWSUIT FILED IN GALVESTON COUNTY. THEY'RE STILL DEFENDING THEIR MAP IN COURT, AND THEY'VE ALREADY SPENT OVER $2 MILLION ON THAT. AND SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT AS WE'RE CONSIDERING OUR COUNTY'S BUDGET, INSTEAD OF ALLOCATING FUNDS TO FUND CRITICAL SERVICES THAT OUR RESIDENTS EXPECT, [01:30:03] INSTEAD OF US ACTUALLY SPENDING OUR TIME HERE TAKING CARE OF THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS. THE PAST HOUR AND A HALF, WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON ON THIS POLITICAL MANEUVERING TO ACHIEVE AN ULTIMATE AIM AT OUR TAXPAYER'S TAXPAYERS EXPENSE. IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN FORT BEND COUNTY TODAY THAN IT HAS EVER BEEN. WHAT ARE WE DOING ABOUT THAT? WE ARE SAYING NO WORRIES, WE'RE GOING TO WASTE TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO SETTLE A POLITICAL SCORE. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING. WE'RE SAYING IT'S OKAY. I KNOW I'M GOING TO BE SUED, BUT THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE. I'M GOING TO ACCEPT THAT, AND I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO PUT OUR TAXPAYERS AT RISK OF THAT, AND THAT JUST ISN'T RIGHT. AND THEN THE THE LAST THING YOU KNOW, AND I'LL ADD TO THAT COST, LOOK, WE'VE HAVE ISSUES RIGHT NOW WE'RE HAVING TO CONTEND WITH IN USING COUNTY FUNDS FOR, WITH OUR LIBRARIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET OPENED AGAIN. I JUST LEARNED THIS MORNING AFTER ONE OF MY TEAM MEMBERS CAME BACK FROM A LEVY COALITION MEETING, AND THEN THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT DIRECTOR CAME TO MY OFFICE. WE'RE FACING AND I'M GOING TO PUT THIS ITEM ON THE NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT AGENDA, A POTENTIAL $8 MILLION PROJECT TO PROTECT THE JUSTICE CENTER COMPLEX, BECAUSE WE'VE NOW LEARNED THAT THE THE EROSION PROTECTION WORK THAT WAS DONE BY SOMEONE WHO THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW IT'S DETERIORATING, AND IT'S A PRESSING CONCERN THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTEND WITH AND ADDRESS RIGHT NOW. $8 MILLION, AT LEAST. THAT'S BY OUR DRAINAGE DISTRICT DIRECTOR'S ESTIMATE. AND INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO CONSERVE OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS FOR THAT, INSTEAD WE'RE SAYING WE'RE OKAY WASTING THIS MONEY ON THIS EFFORT. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY POPULATION DEVIATION IN THE MAPS THAT WERE PASSED FROM 2021. THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE'S A NEED TO REBALANCE BETWEEN COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS. ABSENT THAT INFORMATION SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS POPULATION DEVIATION TO DO A REDISTRICTING AT THIS POINT WOULD OPEN US UP TO LEGAL CHALLENGES. I WOULD ALSO SAY, BECAUSE WHEN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SUPREME COURT CASES THAT HAVE COME REGARDING COUNTY REDISTRICTING SINCE THAT. YOU KNOW, THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU REDISTRICT, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE WHO COULD POTENTIALLY BE DISENFRANCHIZED IN VOTING BECAUSE YOU CHANGE A DISTRICT LINE IN A YEAR WHERE THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR THEIR COUNTY COMMISSIONER. WHEN YOU CHANGE THAT DISTRICT LINE YOU ARE IN EFFECT DISENFRANCHIZING VOTERS, POTENTIALLY DISENFRANCHIZING VOTERS. THE SUPREME COURT SAID THAT THAT IS NECESSARY EVERY TEN YEARS BECAUSE OF CENSUS DATA. AND THEY HAVE UPHELD THAT IN, IN MULTIPLE CASES. BUT THE BUT WHAT HAS NOT BEEN HELD TO BE LEGAL IS CHANGING A LINE BASED ON THE CHANGING POLITICAL DYNAMICS OF, OF A BODY LIKE THIS. BECAUSE IN ESSENCE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE REDISTRICT NOW WITH NO LEGAL BASIS. AND THEN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WILL NOT BE ABLE TO VOTE FOR THEIR COMMISSIONER, INCLUDING MYSELF. I'M UP ON ON THE NEXT ELECTION. COMMISSIONER PRESTIGE IS UP IN THE NEXT ELECTION. THESE VOTERS MAY NOT GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR THEIR COMMISSIONER FOR SIX PLUS YEARS. BUT THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS COURT WERE TO SWITCH POLITICALLY AND ANOTHER GROUP CAME AND DECIDED TO MAKE ANOTHER CHANGE TO PRECINCT BOUNDARIES? WE'RE SAYING THAT THOSE PEOPLE'S VOTES DON'T MATTER, BECAUSE THIS IS ALL A GAME TO SETTLE WHATEVER. AGAIN, POLITICAL SCORE HAS NOW BEEN BROUGHT UP AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ASK, WHAT IS THE POINT IN THIS? AND ALL WE HAVE TO GO OFF OF IS WHAT WAS A PROTEST THAT WAS MADE ORIGINALLY WHEN THE MAPS WERE MADE WHERE COMMISSIONER MYERS COMPLAINED ABOUT DEVELOPABLE LAND IN HIS PRECINCT. I THINK THE FIGURE HE USED WAS IT CUTTING HIS THE UNDEVELOPED AREAS BY 60 OR 70%? THIS IS ABOUT TOYS THAT FOR US TO PLAY WITH. AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT. OUR TAXPAYERS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL ON THAT. AND I THINK IT IS A FAIR POINT THAT IT'S MAGICALLY WE'RE REINVENTING HISTORY AT A TIME IN OUR COUNTY IS BEING TAKEN ON A POLITICAL DRAMA, THE LIKES OF WHICH YOU MIGHT SEE ON BRAVO TV IN THE REAL HOUSEWIVES OVER A, YOU KNOW, A DISTRACTION. AND I GET JUDGE. YOU NEED THE DISTRACTION RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT SHOULDN'T COME AT OPENING OUR COUNTY UP TO LEGAL RISK AND HUGE FINANCIAL BURDEN. SO, AGAIN, I WILL SAY WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR THIS ACTION. [01:35:01] NOT TO MENTION THAT AGAIN. THIS LAW FIRM, I DON'T KNOW THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH POLITICAL REDISTRICTING. I THINK WE GOT A MEMO FROM OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. HAS THIS LAW FIRM BEEN VETTED? COUNTY ATTORNEY? NO, I HAVE NO RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION I REQUESTED IN MY MEMO YESTERDAY. SO I HAVE NO VERIFIED PROOF OF THEIR SKILL AND ABILITY IN REDISTRICTING. COUNTIES. THERE ARE EXCELLENT SCHOOL LAWYERS, NO DOUBT, BUT REPRESENTING A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY SUCH AS THE COUNTY. I HAVE NO PROOF OF THAT. AND IF ANYONE HAS THAT, PLEASE OFFER IT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO IS THIS A LAW FIRM THAT YOU ARE PREPARED TO CERTIFY? I STATED MY OBJECTION. I UNDERSTAND THE COURT WANTS TO TAKE ACTION OVER MY OBJECTION. AND SO I THINK ALSO THE LAST TIME IT WAS ATTEMPTED TO ENLIST OUTSIDE LEGAL LEGAL COUNSEL IN THIS MATTER, YOU POSED SOME OBJECTIONS TO THAT. AND THE OPINION OF MY OFFICE IS, OF COURSE WE DON'T HAVE A VOTE ON REDISTRICTING. I'VE NEVER MADE THAT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IS THAT IF THE COURT IS GOING TO TAKE THIS UNDERTAKING, THAT THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED LAWYERS WHO HAVE DONE REDISTRICTING OF COUNTIES AND HAVE HANDLED COUNTIES OF THIS SIZE, PREVIOUS REDISTRICTING EFFORTS, WE HAD ALLISON, BASS, MAGEE AND DUNN AND BRAZIL. WE HAD QUALIFIED LAWYERS. THEIR CREDENTIALS ARE THEY SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES. I'M NOT CERTAIN AS TO THIS SELECTION. AGAIN, NO OFFENSE. GREAT SCHOOL LAWYERS. THEY KNOW HOW TO REPRESENT ALL OF THE DISTRICTS AND EVERYTHING FROM EDUCATION TO SCHOOL LAW. THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. I'M JUST NOT SURE. AND NO ONE HAS PROVIDED ME ANY PROOF OF THEIR QUALIFICATIONS IN REPRESENTING A COUNTY AND IN NAVIGATING REDISTRICTING AND APPORTIONMENT LAW, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM REDISTRICTING IN A SCHOOL CONTEXT. AND SO AM I. AGAIN, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION. THE AUDITOR HAS TO CERTIFY PAYMENT OF THESE LEGAL SERVICES. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD CERTIFY TODAY? MY OBJECTION STILL STANDS. SO THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS THE ENTIRE BASIS FOR REDISTRICTING. I BELIEVE YOU CITED THE BACK IN THE MAY 27TH MEETING, COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN 2021 BY ALISON BASS AND MCGEE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HIRED TO DO REDISTRICTING THAT HE WARNED AGAINST MID CENSUS REDISTRICTING OR MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IS THIS SOMETHING, AN ACTION THAT IS AT THAT POINT THEN ADVISABLE OR DEFENSIBLE? THE ADVICE THAT MR. BASS GAVE, I BELIEVE, IS ON OCTOBER 9TH, 2021, IN AN OPEN PUBLIC MEETING, STILL STANDS FOR ITSELF. I DON'T KNOW WHAT, IF ANY, CONTACT ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE MADE WITH MR. BOB BASS. HE SEEMED VERY QUALIFIED AT THE TIME. I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE'S A HARD PIVOT FROM IT NOW. ONE SAID ONE THING I WANTED TO ASK HERE, COMMISSIONER. RESPECTFULLY. SORRY. NO, NO, NO. THIS ITEM YOU'RE DISCUSSING IS NOT HERE. HE HAS THE FLOOR. YOU'RE BEING. HE HAS THE FLOOR. NO, NO, NO, HE HAS THE FLOOR. WHAT I'M SAYING IS HE HAS THE FLOOR, COMMISSIONER. HE HAS. WE ARE DISCUSSING ABOUT AN ITEM COMING. HE IS DISCUSSING ITEM B IN. HIS COMMENTS ARE WELL WITHIN THE SCOPE AND AUTHORITY OF THE DISCUSSION FOR THAT ITEM AS STATED. SO WE ARE DISCUSSING ABOUT AN ITEM A, AND WHEN YOU COME TO BE WE WILL DISCUSS THAT. HE HAS THE FLOOR. OKAY, CONTINUE. I WILL YIELD THOSE FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE LAW FIRM FOR ITEM B, BUT AGAIN I'LL JUST SAY AGAIN, I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO DEFEND US I'M DOING A MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING, AND I HAVE SEEN NO PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT ANY SORT OF POPULATION CENSUS. THAT GIVES US DATA AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT. COMMISSIONER, IF I MAY, TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION BOB BASS WARNED OF A MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING AT MINUTE 3935 BECAUSE OF THE COST AND THAT IT WAS STRENUOUS, INCLUDING THE NEED OF NEED TO CONDUCT SURVEYS AND GATHER DATA TO HAVE THE SAME STATISTICALLY ACCEPTABLE METHODOLOGY THAT THE CENSUS USED. AND YOU CAN FIND THAT INFORMATION ON THAT PUBLIC MEETING WHICH IS RECORDED ONLINE. OKAY. I JUST LIKE TO REMIND, IF I MAY. YEAH. PLEASE, SIR. YEAH. I'D JUST LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE MAP THAT WAS APPROVED WAS NEVER REVIEWED BY ANYBODY EXCEPT THE PEOPLE WHO PREPARED THE MAP. IT WAS PRESENTED AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE. I DID NOT. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC INPUT FROM IT AT ALL BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DIDN'T HAVE AN [01:40:05] OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. NOBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. IT'S BEEN CITED THAT I MADE STATEMENTS ON THE THING. I OPPOSED IT, AS DID COMMISSIONER MORALES. IT WAS A32 VOTE. THE REASON I OPPOSED IT IS BECAUSE I HAD NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT AT ALL, PERIOD. IT WAS VOTED ON AT THE LAST MINUTE. THERE WAS NO INPUT AND TO SAY, WELL, YOU DIDN'T RAISE ANY OBJECTION AT THE TIME. I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, NOR DID ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COURT EXCEPT THE ONES THAT PREPARED IT TO ACTUALLY REVIEW A MAP THAT WAS APPROVED ON A32 VOTE THAT HAD NO REVIEW BY ANYBODY, INCLUDING OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. OKAY. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND. WE APPROVED A MAP THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. AND ACCORDING TO EVERY ATTORNEY THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO, EXCEPT FOR OUR OWN COUNTY ATTORNEY, TELLS ME THAT THE EVIDENCE AND THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE WITH REGARD TO THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN AT THE TIME. PARTICULARLY THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY OUR COUNTY JUDGE WHOSE OFFICE PREPARED THE THING, INDICATES THAT THIS MAP DOES NOT COMPLY. THE CURRENT MAP DOES NOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW. SO THE REASON THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS IS BECAUSE WE DEFINITELY FACE LEGAL ACTION FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO ISSUE A MANDAMUS TO THIS COURT, REQUIRING US TO ACTUALLY TAKE THE ACTION THAT WE'RE TAKING NOW. THANK YOU. AND I THINK THAT'S THE KEY THING THAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT HERE. WE'RE AVOIDING A LAWSUIT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. I THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD BY ATTORNEYS THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THE WHOLE GAMUT OF THINGS. AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. WE NEED TO DO THE RIGHT THING. IF WE'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH THE LAW, WE NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, PERIOD. POLITICS ASIDE, LET'S COMPLY WITH WHAT THE STATUTES THE FEDERAL AND THE STATE STATUTES SAY. LET'S GIVE PEOPLE AN OPPORTUNITY ACTUALLY TO PROVIDE THEIR INPUT WITH REGARD TO REDISTRICTING, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE MAPS THAT WERE APPROVED IN 21, WHEN NOBODY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AT ALL TO REVIEW THE MAPS, PROVIDE ANY INPUT OR ANYTHING, AND WITH REGARD TO THE COST THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, THE REASON THAT THE COSTS WERE SO EXTREME IS BECAUSE THREE PRECINCTS WERE TOTALLY CHANGED. WE TALK ABOUT NOT HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR YOUR. COMMISSIONER. WELL, I WAS IN THE KATY AREA FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, AND I GOT REDISTRICTED TOTALLY OUT OF THAT AREA. SO THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR ME FOR 20 YEARS DIDN'T GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR ME IN 20 YOU KNOW, FOR. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID A LAWSUIT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT TO CORRECT WHAT, IN ESSENCE, IS, MAPS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL OR STATE LAW. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, I DON'T LIKE DOING IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CENTURY ANYWAY. BUT WE DO NEED TO COMPLY WITH WITH THE LAW. AND EVERY ATTORNEY, EVERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ATTORNEY THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO HAS INDICATED TO ME THAT THAT IS GOING TO BE THE CASE. SO WE CAN DEBATE THIS FOREVER, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON AND PROCEED WITH THE PROCESS OF HAVING A MAP THAT ACTUALLY COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL AND STATE LAW. JUDGE, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AND I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU AND ANYBODY ON THIS COURT. DON'T CUT ME OFF. I WANT THE FLOOR. AND I DEMAND THE KIND OF RESPECT I GIVE YOU ALL FOR ME. YOU ALWAYS DID, OKAY? ALWAYS DID. THE ONLY THING. STOP TALKING. STOP TALKING. SO IN 1998, THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT DIFFERENT MEMBERS ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE. VOTED TO DO A MID CENSUS REDISTRICTING. I SIT IN THE COURTROOM WHEN IT HAPPENED. OKAY. THE PRECINCT COMMISSIONER TO AVOID. VARIOUS OPPONENTS. CERTAIN OPPONENTS SOUGHT TO CHANGE THE LINES A YEAR BEFORE THE ELECTION. THE COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVED IT. AND JUDGE KAVANAUGH, WHO NORMALLY ONLY VOTED IN CASE OF A TIE, CAST A DISSENTING VOTE. AND HE WON THE COURT AT THAT TIME THAT THIS IS A BAD PRECEDENT FOR FORT BEND COUNTY, THAT WE WILL RUIN THIS COUNTY BY TAKING THIS KIND OF ACTION. THE REDISTRICTING PLAN WENT TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE GEORGE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. THEY QUESTIONED IT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COUNTY HAD TO WITHDRAW THAT PROPOSAL, AND THE LINE STAYED AS THEY WERE AND WEREN'T REDISTRICTED AGAIN UNTIL THE 1991 CYCLE, WHEN IT SHOULD BE REDISTRICTING. THAT ACTION WOULD HAVE DONE A LOT OF DAMAGE TO PEOPLE IN FORT BEND COUNTY AND A LOT OF OTHER CANDIDATES. I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I WAS ONE OF THEM. [01:45:06] BUT FOR THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND THIS ACTION BEING WITHDRAWN, I WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE. SO I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. THIS IS A COUNTY THAT WE'RE ALL PROUD OF. WE LOVE FORT BEND COUNTY. YOU DON'T HEAR ANYBODY BRAGGING ABOUT LIVING IN HARRIS COUNTY. OKAY. BUT PEOPLE ARE PROUD TO LIVE IN FORT BEND COUNTY. THEY WEAR IT AS A BADGE OF HONOR. I DO TOO. I WANT TO BE BURIED IN FORT BEND COUNTY. OKAY. WHAT ARE WE DOING RIGHT NOW? I SAID DON'T CUT ME OFF. AIN'T NOTHING FUNNY. AIN'T NOTHING FUNNY ABOUT THIS. OKAY. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO DO GREAT DAMAGE TO THIS COUNTY BY TAKING THIS ACTION. GREAT DAMAGE. I TRY TO BE RESPECTFUL TO EVERY MEMBER OF THE COURT ALL THE TIME. I THINK AS A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT, IT'S MY DUTY AND MY RESPONSIBILITY TO TRY TO RAISE AND KEEP THE LEVEL OF DISCORD HERE AT A HIGH LEVEL. I TRIED MY BEST TO DO THAT, BUT I'M EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED THAT WE'RE DOING THIS. EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED. EXTREMELY. AND THIS IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG. OKAY. I DIDN'T CALL A SINGLE SOUL TO COME DOWN HERE, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU THAT THIS PROCESS IS NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH WITHOUT A WHOLE LOT OF BAD VIBES IN FORT BEND COUNTY. YOU WILL RUIN THIS COUNTY RIGHT NOW WITH THIS ACTION. TRUST ME. TRUST ME. AND ALL THE THE SETTING UP FOR A LAWSUIT, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. WE GOT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. OKAY. THIS IS A MAP THAT WE'VE WORKED ON, WORKED WITH FOR FIVE YEARS, AND IT NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS AND IN 2031 WHEN THE PROCESS SHOULD TAKE PLACE. I WELCOME EVERYBODY TO BE INVOLVED WITH THAT PROCESS AND TRY TO PERFECT THE MAP THE NEXT TIME. BUT NOT NOW. NOT NOW. WE SHOULDN'T DO THIS, AND I'M GONNA DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN ON MY WATCH. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE WILL. WELL, HOLD ON, I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER MYERS. YOU MENTIONED LEGAL CHALLENGES. AS COMMISSIONER PRESTON JUST NOTED, WE'VE BEEN UNDER THIS MAP FOR NOW, ALMOST FIVE YEARS, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE. AND THAT WAS IN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. AND THERE HAS BEEN NOT ONE LAWSUIT CLAIMING ANY OF WHAT YOU'RE NOW CONCOCTING. SO WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS BASIS THAT NOW THERE'S GOING TO BE THERE ARE SOME NEW LEGAL OBJECTION TO A MAP THAT THERE HAS NEVER IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS, FIVE YEARS BEEN A LEGAL OBJECTION TO. I DIDN'T FIND I DID NOT FIND OUT ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WERE IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW UNTIL THE ATTORNEY I HIRED BACK JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO SENT A MEMORANDUM TO ME AND I SHARED IT WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT THAT SAID, BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN 21 DURING THE REDISTRICTING EFFORTS, THAT THE MAP WAS DRAWN TO CREATE SPECIFIC RACIAL PRECINCTS. AND THAT COMMENT WAS MADE THAT YOU CANNOT BASE A BECAUSE FORT BEND COUNTY IS NO LONGER UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT. AS SUCH, YOU CANNOT USE RACE AS A BASIS FOR REDISTRICTING. PRECINCTS? I DIDN'T FIND THAT OUT UNTIL RECENTLY, SO I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ELSE YOU KNOW, PAID ATTENTION TO IT EITHER. SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT ACTION HADN'T BEEN TAKEN. BUT NOW THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF IT I ANTICIPATE BASED ON LEGAL COUNSEL THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO THAT THERE WILL BE A CHALLENGE TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THIS COURT COMPLIES WITH FEDERAL LAW AND THEIR OPINION. IT MOST LIKELY DOES NOT. I THINK THAT IT'S ADVISABLE FOR US TO AVOID THAT LEGAL ACTION. SO THE FACT THAT I DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THIS I DIDN'T HAVE $750,000 BACK IN 21 TO FILE A LAWSUIT OR WOULD HAVE BECAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE THE PLAN. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS REFLECTED FAIRLY ON THE VOTERS OF FORT BEND COUNTY. YOU CHANGED 80% OF THE OF THE VOTERS IN FORT BEND COUNTY WITH THAT REDISTRICTING PLAN. 80%. WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT PRECINCT. CHANGED PRECINCT ONE, PRECINCT THREE, AND PRECINCT FOUR. DRAMATICALLY. TOTALLY. THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE PEOPLE AND THOSE PRECINCTS DID NOT GET TO VOTE FOR THEIR [01:50:03] COMMISSIONERS THAT THEY VOTED FOR. FOR MANY YEARS, PRECINCT TWO WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WAS LEFT ALONE. SO I MY ONLY OBJECTIVE IS TO TRY TO HAVE A A MAP THAT IS FAIR TO THE VOTERS OF FORT BEND COUNTY. THE ONE WE HAVE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL STATUTES. WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH TWO ELECTIONS WITH A MAP THAT IS NOT FAIR TO THE VOTERS. AND I HEAR TWO MEMBERS OF THE COURT INSISTING THAT WE GO THROUGH A THIRD ELECTION WITH MAPS THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH FEDERAL LAW, AND THAT IS UNFAIR TO THE VOTERS. SO THE JUST SO I UNDERSTAND YOU HIRED A LAWYER WHO GAVE YOU AN OPINION. NOT ANY SORT OF JUDGMENT FROM A COURT. YOU HIRED A LAWYER WHO GAVE YOU AN OPINION ABOUT. I CALL A QUESTION AT THIS POINT. AND SO, LIKE AT THIS POINT. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ACTION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ACTION BASED ON THE OPINION FROM A LAWYER THAT'S HIRED BY A MEMBER OF THIS COURT. THAT TO ME IS NOT A THAT'S NOT A LEGAL THAT'S NOT A JUDGMENT FROM A LAWYER TO SAY THAT ANYTHING ABOUT OUR MAPS IS ILLEGAL. IT IS DANGEROUS TO SIT UP HERE AND LIE AND SAY THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO YOU CALLING ME A LIAR. I DIDN'T CALL YOU A LIAR. I SAID THAT IT IS DANGEROUS TO LIE AND SAY THAT TODAY. AND I STAND BY. I CALL THE. IT IS TRUE AT THIS POINT. I STAND BY THAT. ARE YOU AFRAID OF? IF YOU WON'T DEBATE? IF THEY'RE. HE'S CALLING ME A LIAR. I OBJECT TO IT. NO, I'M NOT TALKING. I'M TALKING TO JUDGE GEORGE. HE'S TRYING TO CUT OFF THE DISCUSSION. AGAIN. I JUST POINTED TO HE'S A HE'S A GROWN MAN. LET HIM TALK. I AGAIN, I JUST POINTED TO THE OCTOBER 26TH PUBLIC HEARING WHERE IT WAS VERY CLEAR AND YOUR WORDS ARE IN TWO SEPARATE INSTANCES, THAT THE MOTIVATION OF THE COUNTY JUDGE WAS TO DRAW MAPS THAT WERE BASED ON POLITICS. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED. YOU HAVE SAID THAT. YOU SAID THAT. OKAY. AND AND WHAT I'M SAYING, WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT TO NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF WHAT YOU PARTICIPATED IN THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE MAPS. I SAT RIGHT OVER THERE WHERE BOBBY EBERLE IS SITTING RIGHT, RIGHT NOW. I HAD ZERO IT WAS VERY THE ACTUALLY, I RECALL THIS COURT RECESSED AFTER THE JUDGE PRESENTED THE MAP TO GIVE EVERYONE TIME TO REVIEW THE MAPS BEFORE FOLKS CAME BACK. AND IN THAT TIME, ALLISON, BASS AND MCGEE DID TAKE A CURSORY LOOK AT THAT MAP AND SAID THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE WITHIN POPULATION DEVIATION FROM WHAT HE COULD TELL. AND SO THIS WHOLE NOTION THAT FOLKS DIDN'T GET A CHANCE, YOU WERE PROVIDED LAPTOPS BY OUR IT DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW THE MAPS PROVIDED IN OUR COURT OF REDISTRICTING MAP. I'M SORRY. IT'S GROSSLY UNFAIR THAT YOU HAD SAID YOU HAD NO CHANCE, AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING YOU HAD AN HOUR TO REVIEW THEM. GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT. GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS COUNTY. WE DID NOT GIVE ANYBODY ASKING. YOU ARE NOW CHANGING YOUR STORY. AGAIN, I'M NOT CHANGING MY STORY. YOU ARE CHANGING YOUR STORY. I'M NOT. AND YOU ARE ASKING THE TAXPAYERS TO BELIEVE THAT I WILL READ THE BILL FOR THAT COMMISSIONER I. WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE? YOU GAVE ME. WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I HAD NO REASON TO SEE YOU LIKE THAT ONE PERSON SHOULD I BELIEVE THAT? I WAS TALKING AND HE STARTED TALKING OVER ME. SO LET US BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. WE ARE ONLY. LET HIM SPEAK. 253. ONE. SECOND 255. WE ARE BACK IN OPEN SESSION. WE COME BACK FROM RECESS AND MAKE YOUR COMMENT AND LET'S MOVE ON. I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, SIR. AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, THE MAP THAT WE VOTED ON THAT WAS VOTED ON ON A 3 TO 2 VOTE WAS PRESENTED AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE. THERE WAS REALLY NOT ANY AMPLE TIME TO REVIEW THE MAP. THERE WAS NO AMPLE TIME FOR ANY OF US TO GET TOGETHER WITH LEGAL COUNSEL OR OTHER EXPERTS TO REVIEW THE MAP IN ANY KIND OF DETAIL AT ALL. IT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST MINUTE AND IT WAS VOTED ON. THERE WAS OBJECTIONS THAT WERE MADE, PARTICULARLY, AS I RECALL, BY COMMISSIONER MORALES STRONG OBJECTIONS TO A LAST MINUTE PRESENTATION OF THE MAP. AGAIN, YOU YOU SAY THAT THERE'S NO LEGAL BASIS. THE LEGAL BASIS IS WAS LAID OUT IN A MEMORANDUM FROM A VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE ATTORNEY. I GUESS YOU'RE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE MAKING THE CLAIM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LEGAL ATTORNEY IS PREPARED A LEGAL OPINION SIMPLY BASED ON THE WISHES OF HIS CLIENT OR WHETHER OR NOT HE PREPARED LEGAL OPINION BASED ON THE LAW. I BELIEVE HE PREPARED A LEGAL OPINION ON THE BASIS OF THE LAW. [01:55:01] AND AS SUCH, WE ARE FACING THE PROSPECTS, THE VERY GOOD REAL PROSPECTS OF BEING SUED TO REQUIRE THE COURT TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL STATUTES. AND THAT'S BEEN MY POSITION ALL ALONG. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CURRENT MAP IS FAIR TO THE VOTERS OF FORT BEND COUNTY. IT WAS BASED ON RACE ACCORDING TO THE OFFICE THAT PRESENTED IT. AND THAT IS NOT ALLOWED UNDER FEDERAL STATUTES. SO ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS MAKE CERTAIN WE HAVE A REDISTRICTING MAP REDISTRICTING PLAN THAT COMPLIES WITH BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, AND BASED ON INFORMATION AND COUNSEL FROM KNOWLEDGEABLE LEGAL COUNSEL. IT DOES NOT. OKAY. COMMISSIONER AT THIS TIME? YES. YES, SIR. I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT FROM THE HEART HERE TODAY. I SAW TWO INDIVIDUALS UP HERE TALK ABOUT THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE MAP THAT WE USE TODAY. DISHEARTENING. OKAY. JUDGE, FORMER JUDGE HEBERT STOOD UP HERE AT THAT PODIUM A FEW WEEKS AGO AND SAID IN 2011, THEY HAD A COMMITTEE. I WISH WE'D HAD DONE WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED TODAY IN 21. I THINK WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE TODAY TALKING ABOUT THIS IF WE HAD DONE SOME TYPE OF PROCESS LIKE THIS. AS FAR AS I VOTED AGAINST MOVING FORWARD A FEW WEEKS AGO BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TWO WRONGS, TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE WE DO STUDIES. WE FORM COMMITTEES ALL THE TIME FOR PROJECTS. THIS IS A PROJECT. LET'S FIND OUT WHERE IT STANDS. NOW BACK TO THE LEGALITY. I WILL TELL YOU, THE STATE LEGISLATORS, OUR STATE REPS ARE WATCHING. NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING. NO ONE HAS ATTEMPTED TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE WILLING TO DO GO THROUGH A PROCESS. SO IF WE'D HAVE DONE THIS IN 21, WHICH IS WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE. WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. WE'VE GOT TO GET THIS RIGHT. WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE IT IS WITHIN THE LEGAL BOUNDS OR OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO GET SUED ANYWAY. SO I SUPPORT THE EFFORT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PROCESS. AS JUDGE ABBOTT BROUGHT FORWARD, PER THE BUSINESS COALITION. THIS IS WHAT THE COUNTY NEEDS TO LOOK AT RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IF YOU ALL RECALL THE CENSUS DATA, THE 2020 CENSUS DATA. 2020 CENSUS DATA WAS EXTREMELY LATE BECAUSE OF COVID, AND BY THE TIME WE GOT THE DATA WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE DEAL, BUT WE DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WE DID BEFORE BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE WAS AVAILABLE. WE OFFERED MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT PLANS. THERE'S CONSIDERABLE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC. AND THAT WAS A PROCESS THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH. WE ALL MADE ADJUSTMENTS DURING COVID. DURING COVID, WE HAD BIG PETITIONS. GLASS HERE. OKAY. WE ALL MADE PROVISIONS. EVERYTHING WE DID IN LIFE CHANGED DURING THAT STRETCH OF TIME. SO YEAH, IN HINDSIGHT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE HAND WE WERE DEALT. WE WERE DEALT A LATE CENSUS, AND SOME OF IT WAS EVEN LIMITED IN THE BREADTH OF THE CENSUS DATA. IT WAS ENOUGH TO GET REAPPORTIONMENT DONE IN THE STATES AND REDISTRICTING DONE IN LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, AND WE MADE THE BEST WE COULD OUT OF IT BECAUSE WE HAD AN ELECTION TO RUN JUST A FEW MONTHS LATER. OKAY, SO SO IT WASN'T ANY ATTEMPT TO AVOID PUBLIC INPUT. WE JUST HAD TO TAKE WHAT WE HAD AND MAKE THE BEST OF IT. SO I JUST WANT TO KIND OF REVISE THAT. IT WASN'T LIKE THERE WAS A MALICE. IT WAS JUST A SITUATION WE HAD TO DEAL WITH. [02:00:01] COMMISSIONER. YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN ON A WHOLE LOT OF PRESSURE. OKAY. I KNOW YOU HAVE, AND IT AIN'T COME FROM ME. OKAY. BUT I STILL THINK THAT THIS IS A A A A BAD DEAL FOR US TO OPEN THIS CAN OF WORMS. OKAY. AND AND I'M SAYING, I THINK JUST MARK MY WORD RIGHT NOW. WE'RE GOING TO REGRET THIS. THIS THING IS IS NOT WITHDRAWN. AND IF IT'S PASSED INSTEAD. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES THREE, TWO. WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 20. B, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND. AND ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. YES. COUNTY ATTORNEY AS I WAS TRYING TO ASK ABOUT EARLIER THERE THERE WAS THERE WERE SOME STATUTES AND AG OPINIONS THAT WERE MENTIONED BEFORE. I UNDERSTAND AND FROM YOUR COMMUNICATION WITH THIS COURT THAT THERE'S BEEN MORE UP TO DATE AG OPINION REGARDING YOUR ABILITY TO CERTIFY LEGAL COUNSEL. YES. CAN YOU EXPOUND UPON THAT, PLEASE? YES. COMMISSIONER. AS OF JUNE THE 25TH, 2025, THERE WAS AN OPINION ISSUED BY THE AG'S OFFICE, WHICH I'VE SHARED WITH THE COURT THAT TRACKS THE ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM A COUNTY WHERE A COUNTY ATTORNEY OR DISTRICT ATTORNEY DOES NOT HAVE A STANDALONE STATUTE ENABLING IT WITH THE ABILITY TO REPRESENT THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT, DEPARTMENT HEADS, ELECTED OFFICIALS, ETC.. SO THE AG HAS NOT ISSUED A DIRECT OPINION ON THE REQUEST THAT COMMISSIONER MYERS SUBMITTED CHALLENGING MY OFFICE THROUGH ONE OF THE STATE REPRESENTATIVES. I IMAGINE THAT THAT OPINION ON THAT EXACT QUESTION WILL NOT COME UNTIL PROBABLY NEXT YEAR, AS THE OPINION THAT WE JUST RECEIVED DATED JUNE 20TH. EXCUSE ME, JUNE 25TH, 2025 WAS FROM AN OPINION REQUEST FROM LAST AUGUST. SO BUT AS COMMISSIONER MYERS HAS SAID HE HAS RECEIVED A MEMO FROM A LAWYER. I HAVE SENT ALL FIVE OF YOU ALL A VERY STRONG AND WELL WRITTEN MEMO ANALYZING THE LAW AND THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THIS OFFICE, AND MY OBJECTION STILL STANDS. IF THIS COURT CHOOSES TO IGNORE IT, THAT'S FINE. WE'LL TAKE THAT UP WITH THE LEGAL ACTION LATER ON. BUT I WILL PUT THE FINANCIAL TEAM ON NOTICE OF THE OPINIONS THAT I'VE SHARED WITH YOU PREVIOUSLY REGARDING THE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OF THIS OFFICE AND THE OBJECTION. AND AS COMMISSIONER PRESTON JUST SAID, WE ARE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS, AND I AM GOING TO LEAVE THAT AT THAT. THANK YOU. SO IF THIS IS PASSED BY THIS COURT WITH ADVICE AGAINST THE ADVICE OF OUR AGAINST THE AUTHORITY OF THIS OFFICE, AUTHORITY, MY APOLOGIES. AUTHORITY OF OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY. MR. AUDITOR, I BELIEVE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO HAS TO CERTIFY ALL PAYMENTS. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL THEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO CERTIFY? I'LL REVIEW MY OPTIONS AT THAT TIME. OKAY. SO I DON'T HEAR A DEFINITIVE. YES. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE NEED FURTHER, NEITHER YES NOR NO. AND I WOULD WARN US FROM GOING THROUGH THE PRACTICE OF IGNORING THE STATUTORY AUTHORITIES OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. THAT RUNS FROM THE CLERK TO THE SHERIFF TO THE CONSTABLES TO THE JP. ET CETERA. ALL OF US HAVE A STATUTE THAT ENABLE US AND ENABLE US, ENABLES OUR OFFICE TO ACT IN A CERTAIN WAY. AND OUR OFFICE HAS A STATUTE WHICH CLEARLY STATES THE REPRESENTATION AUTHORITY OF THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT AND ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, DEPARTMENT HEADS AND COUNTY BUSINESS IN GENERAL. AND I AM AMAZED AT THIS NOW, NEW SHARP TURN IN IGNORING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WHEN NOTHING OF THE SUCH HAS BEEN DONE WITH THE PREDECESSORS TO THIS OFFICE. SO I WILL SAY WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT TO AVERAGE RESIDENT? IT COULD SEEM LIKE, OH WELL, YOU KNOW WHO HAS POWER OVER WHAT AND FOR WHOM. RIGHT. BUT I WILL REMIND US ALL THAT OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS RESPONSIBLE, VOTED BY THE VOTERS OF THIS COMMUNITY, RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING OUR OUR COUNTY AND OUR RESIDENTS BEST INTERESTS. AND SHE HAS SHARED WITH THIS COURT SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LAW FIRM THAT AND THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE LAW FIRM THAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE BY THE COUNTY JUDGE. AND SO MY QUESTION GOES BACK TO, YOU KNOW, IS THIS A FIRM THAT HAS BEEN VETTED [02:05:04] BY YOUR OFFICE, COUNTY ATTORNEY? YOU'VE SAID NO, I'VE ASKED IF THIS IS YOU KNOW, WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO VET THAT. WE HAVE LEARNED THAT IT IS YOUR OFFICE. AND SO THIS IS, AGAIN, ANOTHER EFFORT THAT'S GOING TO PUT OUR COMMUNITY AT SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL AND LEGAL RISK. AND I WILL SAY WE JUST WENT THROUGH A PROCESS HERE RECENTLY OF YOU KNOW INTERVIEWING FOLKS FOR A NEW COUNTY DEPARTMENT. AND ONE THING THAT WAS INTERESTING THAT ONE OF THEM SAID IS THAT WHEN AND THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, WHEN THEY ARE CONSIDERING ANY SORT OF FUNDING GRANTS THAT THEY GIVE TO A COMMUNITY, THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT NEGATIVE PRESS AND ANY LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST THE, THE ENTITY. AND THIS SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP TO TO, TO TO MISS OUT ON SOME VERY IMPORTANT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE SOME OF OUR MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR COMMUNITY ARE NEED AND ARE ASKING AND REQUIRING OF US TO TO BE ABLE TO, TO PROVIDE THEM. NOT TO MENTION A SITUATION LIKE THIS OPENS US UP TO WHAT OUR WHAT I UNDERSTAND IN TALKING WITH FINANCIAL ADVISORS ABOUT THE SCOPE OF OUR WHEN WE GO OUT TO THE BOND MARKET, WHEN WE'RE IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO PUT THAT AT RISK WITH THE CREDIT AGENCIES. THAT MEANS THAT IT'S MORE COSTLY FOR US TO BORROW MONEY WHEN WE NEED TO DO OUR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS. ALL FOR WHAT? I THINK WE HAD ALLISON, BASS AND MCGEE BEFORE JUDGE. I WOULD ASK, WHY HAVE WE NOT ENGAGED THEM? I THINK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY SUGGESTED BRAZIL AND DONE. WHY HAVE WE NOT SOUGHT A PROPOSAL FROM THEM? AND WHERE DID THIS RECOMMENDATION COME FROM? AND THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT I THAT THAT I HAVE COMMISSIONER MCCOY, IF I MAY ADD, ALL I RECEIVED WAS A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT. I HAVE NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH ANY OF THE LAWYERS FROM THAT LAW FIRM. I'VE ASKED FOR SOMEONE TO PROVIDE ALL FIVE OF Y'ALL TO PROVIDE ME ANY, ANY PROMPT CONFIRMATION OR PROOF OF THEIR CREDENTIALS EXPERIENCE IN APPORTIONMENT, REDISTRICTING LAW. I'M STILL WAITING ON THAT INFORMATION. I HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT. AGAIN, GREAT LAW FIRM FOR WHAT THEY DO, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THEIR EXPERTISE IN THIS FIELD. THERE WAS ANOTHER POINT BY PUBLIC COMMENTER ABOUT THE CHARGES. I THINK IT WAS STATED THAT THIS CONTRACT INCLUDES CHARGING BY THE QUARTER OF AN HOUR, AND NOT THE 10TH OF AN HOUR. THAT IS INDUSTRY STANDARD, THAT THAT'S A PRETTY IMPORTANT POINT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR OFFICE CAUGHT THAT, BUT WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT WHEN SOMEONE EFFORTS ANY WORK, IF IT TAKES THEM FIVE MINUTES TO DO IT, THEY DON'T BILL FOR FIVE MINUTES. THEY BILL FOR, YOU KNOW, 10 MINUTES OR 25 MINUTES. AND SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THE COST TO THE TAXPAYER AT THAT POINT IS, IS FAR GREATER FOR THE EFFORT THAT IS PUT IN. AND TO ME, THAT SEEMS LIKE A MAJOR CONCERN. HAVE YOU SEEN CONTRACTS LIKE THIS FOR LEGAL SERVICES THAT HAVE SUCH A HIGH COST FOR THEIR OR HOW THE STRUCTURE THAT THEY USE TO BILL. NOT FOR THE COUNTY. THE ONLY ISSUE WELL, I'LL SAY THE ISSUE THAT WE NOTICED IN MY OFFICE, NOT JUST MYSELF MY OTHER LAWYERS WE FOUND THAT THE SERVICES HAD NO CAP THAT THERE WAS NO WAY TO DETERMINE HOW LONG THE ENGAGEMENT WAS. SO ESSENTIALLY, WE ARE SIGNING UP FOR SERVICES THAT ARE COST UNKNOWN, UNPREDICTABLE AND UNVERIFIABLE. THIRD PARTIES THAT COULD BE ENGAGED WITH AN UNSPECIFIED END. THAT'S A LOT FOR THE TAXPAYER DOLLARS. AGAIN, ALL I HAVE IS THE LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT. I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH THIS LAW FIRM. THEY COULD REACH OUT TO ME AND THEY HAVE NOT. I'M SURE THEY ARE AWARE OF MY POSITION. AND OF COURSE, IF THE COURT HAS ANY DOCUMENTS. JUDGE GEORGE, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING, PLEASE SHARE WITH ME. AND SO AND I THINK ON THAT POINT THAT YOU'RE REMINDING ME THAT TYPICALLY WHEN WE APPROVE ANY SORT OF SERVICES LIKE THIS, WE DO MOVE TO APPROVE CERTAIN WE HAVE SPECIFIED AMOUNTS SUCH AND SUCH SPECIFIED CAPS. AND THAT'S WHY WE REGULARLY COME TO COURT TO ASK FOR AMENDMENTS TO CONTRACTS, TO ASK FOR MORE FUNDING FOR CERTAIN AGREEMENTS. IT IS NOT OUR CUSTOM IN PRACTICE TO SIGN AGREEMENTS WITH UNSPECIFIED DOLLAR AMOUNTS, UNSPECIFIED ENDINGS, AND UNSPECIFIED OR UNVERIFIED THIRD PARTY VENDORS THAT COULD BE INVOLVED. GOT IT. SO, JUDGE, IF YOU COULD JUST PROVIDE US A BIT [02:10:01] MORE BACKGROUND, HOW DID YOU COME ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR FIRM AND AND WHY AGAIN, LIKE AS I POSED BEFORE, WEREN'T THE OTHER AT THIS POINT YOU HAD AGED. NO. YES. COMMISSIONER. HOLD ON, LET ME. I WAS GOING TO ANSWER. LET ME ANSWER PART OF IT. YEAH. SO SO I'M NOT ANSWERING ANYTHING BECAUSE THIS IS A THE COURT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HIRE A OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. NO YOU DON'T. NOT IN VIOLATION OF OUR STATUTE. THAT'S YOUR OPINION. THAT'S FINE. THAT IS MY LEGAL OPINION. AND THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS. THANK YOU MA'AM. THANK YOU FOR THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW THE FIRM THAT I KNOW NOW HAVE SPOKEN TO HIM, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW HIM BEFOREHAND. BUT I DID SPEAK WITH ALLISON BASS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE FIRM THAT I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY. I DID SPEAK TO ALLISON BASS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE FIRM WE'VE HIRED PAST FEW TIMES, SO I FIGURED THAT THEY NO LONGER DO THAT WORK. BOB BASS RETIRED, AND THEY'RE KIND OF REBUILDING THAT ASPECT OF THEIR PRACTICE. SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING CONSIDERED. NOW, THE OTHERS WERE COME UP I KNOW THAT THEY THE FIRM WAS INVOLVED IN REDISTRICTING FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY. SO THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY FAMILIAR WITH FORT BEND COUNTY TO THAT EXTENT. SO THANK YOU. WHO DOESN'T HAVE REDISTRICTING? THEY DON'T HAVE DISTRICTS. I'M SORRY. SCHOOL DISTRICT OR LAMAR. LAMAR. OKAY, OKAY. WITH THAT, WE WILL CONCLUDE. ALL IN ALL, IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. ALL IN FAVOR ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES THREE, TWO, AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO 21. [21. COMMISSIONER, PCT. 2:] WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 21, PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER. PRECINCT TWO. EXCUSE ME. PRESENTED SECOND. OH, BAILIFF, PLEASE, CAN YOU PLEASE MOVE THESE PEOPLE OUT OF THE. STAIRS. ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL. OKAY, FOR ITEM 21, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? JUDGE, I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE OF THE NOISE. I DID NOT SEE THAT SIGN OF THE PROBLEM. AND SO WE HAVE ITEM 21 MOTION AND SECOND. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. [22. COMMISSIONER, PCT. 4: ] NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 22. PRESENTED 22 A AND B PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER PRECINCT FOUR. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THEM BOTH? DO YOU WANT TO TAKE ONE AT A TIME? WHICHEVER THE WAY. OKAY. MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEMS 24 A AND B AS PRESENTED. SECOND. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? IS JOHN HERE? YEAH. I WAS GOING TO ASK FOR JOHN TO COME UP. IS JOHN HERE? COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. CAN YOU'RE MOTION I THINK YOU SAID 24 INSTEAD OF 22. THANK YOU FOR THE CATCH. MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 22 A AND B AS PRESENTED. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. JOHN, COULD YOU APPROACH, PLEASE? JOHN, THERE'S BEEN THERE WERE A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ITEM. AND BECAUSE IT APPEARS UNDER MY PRECINCT CAN YOU JUST SHARE WITH US WHY THIS IS UNDER MY PRECINCT AND NOT YOUR OFFICE? EXCUSE ME? I HAD IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE LAST MEETING IN JUNE, AND PULLED IT BECAUSE OF CONCERN THAT THE GOVERNOR WAS GOING TO ADD REDISTRICTING TO THE SPECIAL SESSION AGENDA. AND IT WOULD BE KIND OF POINTLESS TO DO THIS AND THEN REDO IT A COUPLE MONTHS LATER. THEN IF I PUT IT ON FOR THIS MEETING AND JUDGE GEORGE ASKED ME TO PULL IT, I DID NOT DO SO, BUT HE PULLED IT. YOU CALLED ME AND ASKED ME, WHY IS IT PULLED? I TOLD YOU I DIDN'T PULL IT. YOU PUT IT ON. SO THAT'S JOHN. THAT IS NOT TRUE. I LEFT YOU A MESSAGE SAYING THAT YOU. WELL, YOU YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY. OKAY. YOU LEFT ME A MESSAGE ASKING ME. I SEND YOU A MESSAGE, AND I LEFT A VOICEMAIL AND SAID, JOHN, THERE IS OTHER REDISTRICTING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING? BECAUSE IT IS. THERE'S NO POINT IN TALKING ABOUT TWO ANGLES OF THE SAME ISSUE. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT I JUST SAID. YOU ASKED ME TO PULL IT. [02:15:02] I DID NOT HAVE. I DID NOT HEAR THAT. YOU SAID I PULLED IT. WELL, I WAS TOLD YOU PULLED IT. NO, I SAID, I SAID, I'M LETTING YOU KNOW THIS. WE WILL NOT PULLED. MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. THAT IS, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THAT I'M A VERY, VERY FINE SEMANTICS THERE. I'M SORRY YOU MOVED IT TO THE NEXT AGENDA. SO THAT'S HOW COME WHEN COMMISSIONER MCCOY CALLED ME AND SAID, WHY DID YOU TAKE IT OFF? I SAID, I DID NOT TAKE IT OFF. AND YOU SAID, I WILL CALL THE JUDGE'S OFFICE, AND THE NEXT THING I KNOW, IT'S ON. IN FACT, WHEN WE HAD AGENDA BRIEFING LAST WEEK, I WAS KIND OF SURPRISED ME BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS BACK ON UNDER ELECTIONS, NOT UNDER COMMISSIONER FOUR. AND I DID SEND A NOTE TO THE JUDGE'S OFFICE ASKING THAT IT BE PUT ON UNDER YOUR OFFICE. SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY IT WAS PUT ON UNDER MINE. BUT THAT THAT I JUST WANT THAT POINT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT HOW THAT TRANSPIRED. THE OTHER POINT, YOU MADE AN EFFORT AND WE HAD CONVERSATIONS. I THINK IT WAS THE MAY 27TH MEETING WHERE YOU BROUGHT UP. WE HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ALL OF THE REBALANCING THAT YOU DID OF THE VOTER PRECINCTS. CAN YOU JUST WALK US THROUGH WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE NOW? AND IN PARTICULAR, IF YOU COULD POINT TO THERE ARE A FEW VOTER PRECINCTS THAT STILL HAVE SOME CHALLENGES. THE DOCUMENT, I'M SORRY, THE DOCUMENT I ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA LISTING NUMBERS PRECINCT 35. 35. I DID NOT UPDATE THOSE NUMBERS. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, EVERY PRECINCT THAT WE HAVE ON THIS MAP IS BELOW 5000 ACTIVE VOTERS, WHICH IS THE CRITERIA USED STATUTORILY TO DETERMINE IT'S NOT TOTAL VOTERS, IT'S THOSE WITH AN ACTIVE STATUS. AND ACTUALLY, AS OF LAST THURSDAY, THIRSTY. WE DECREASED OUR ACTIVE VOTERS BY ABOUT 15,500, BECAUSE WE DID AN NCO PURGE AND MOVED THAT MANY TO SUSPEND STATUS. SO ALL THOSE NUMBERS WILL FALL SLIGHTLY. SO YOUR REPORTING HERE TO THE COURT THAT THERE IS NO PRECINCT THAT HAS VOTER PRECINCT THAT HAS MORE THAN 5000 VOTERS? I DO NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE NOW. BY JANUARY THERE WILL BE, I'M SURE, BUT AS OF TODAY, I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE ARE. OKAY. AND THERE ARE A COUPLE OF PRECINCTS AGAIN THAT HAVE FEWER THAN 100 VOTERS. WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE UNDER STATUTE, YOU CANNOT HAVE A PRECINCT THAT HAS MORE THAN ONE CONGRESSIONAL, MORE THAN ONE STATE SENATE, MORE THAN ONE STATE REP, OR MORE THAN ONE HIGHER ED DISTRICT EDUCATION DISTRICT. AND WHEN THE LEGISLATURE DREW THESE MAPS, THEY WERE NOT COTERMINOUS. IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE SOME PRECINCTS. WE HAVE NOT PRECINCTS. WE HAVE SOME LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS THAT ARE DIFFERENT. THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE SAME LINE. SO THEREFORE THEY SORT OF ORPHAN OFF SMALL PORTIONS OF LAND. AND THEREFORE WE HAVE TO HAVE THESE SMALL PRECINCTS. SO I MEAN, IS THERE ANY WAY FOR YOU TO RECTIFY THAT? I YOU KNOW, IN RESEARCHING THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO, I THINK THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A WAY IF WE ASKED THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PERMISSION TO DO SO, BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A LENGTHY PROCESS. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD THIS. THIS IS NOTHING NEW. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD SOME TINY PRECINCTS AND ARE THERE. SO. SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M HEARING YOU RIGHT AND THAT THE PUBLIC IS HEARING YOU. RIGHT. THAT BECAUSE OF THE STATE'S REDISTRICTING OF HOUSE AND SENATE AND HIGHER EDUCATION DISTRICTS THAT THEY PARTOOK IN THAT MADE THIS THAT MUCH MORE IMPOSSIBLE TO GET PRECINCTS THAT ARE OVER THE 100 THRESHOLD. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT IS NOT ANY DOING. DOES DOES THIS HAVE ANY RELATION TO THE COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS? ABSOLUTELY. COMMISSIONER PRECINCT CHANGE. WOULD IT BRING THOSE SMALL VOTER PRECINCTS INTO COMPLIANCE? I THINK WE WERE ABLE TO COMBINE ONE. I THINK THAT'S LISTED THERE. BUT AGAIN, WE STILL HAVE ONE ZERO VOTER PRECINCT. THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT THAT. WE HAVE ONE, I BELIEVE, WITH 3 OR 4. THAT'S AN EAST SIDE OF THE COUNTY, AND THERE'S REALLY NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. SO I APPRECIATE THAT THE THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE THAT FIRST THIS STARTED OUR DISTRICT CLERK HAD SOME COMMENTS ABOUT THE VOTER PRECINCTS SOME TIME AGO. THEN OUR, OUR THEN STATE REP, MATT MORGAN SENT A LETTER TO THIS COURT ABOUT VOTER PRECINCTS. AND THEN SOMEHOW THAT MORPHED INTO A CONVERSATION ABOUT REDISTRICTING. I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO, YOU KNOW, GET INTO CONJECTURE ABOUT THAT. BUT THE INSINUATION IS THAT AND I THINK THERE'S BEEN CONFLATING OF THESE TWO SEPARATE TOPICS, THAT THERE ARE VOTER PRECINCTS THAT ARE OUT OF COMPLIANCE, [02:20:05] THEN BECAME THAT WE HAVE SOME THAT OUR MAP DOES NOT COMPORT WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW AS A RESULT OF THAT. BUT WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY, GIVEN THE CONUNDRUM WE'RE IN WITH THE STATE, THAT IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT WE HAVE COMPORTED WITH OUR STATE LAW AS BEST AS WE POSSIBLY CAN TO, WITH ONE EXCEPTION, AND THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP. THERE IS A PORTION OF THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE, IN CERTAIN SIZED MUNICIPALITIES, VOTERS IN A PRECINCT WITHIN THE CITY IN ONE PRECINCT SHOULD NOT DIVIDE PRECINCT LINES. I MEAN, EXCUSE I HERNIATED A DISC LAST WEEK AND I'M ON SOME MEDICINE THAT HAS ME A LITTLE SCREWED UP, BUT THE. WE HAVE SOME AREAS IN SUGAR LAND AND FULSHEAR THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN A PRECINCT THAT ARE IN THE CITY AND OUTSIDE THE CITY. WE HAVE NEVER WE THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE THAT AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT'S BEEN THE CASE GOING BACK TO AT LEAST THE TIME THIS OFFICE WAS CREATED. WE'VE NEVER REALLY DEALT WITH THAT. AND IN SOME EXTENT IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. WE HAVE MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE CONSTANTLY DOING ANNEXATIONS, SO YOU'RE ALMOST CONSTANTLY HAVE TO RE REDRAW THESE LINES. NONE OF OUR MUNICIPALITIES HAVE EVER OBJECTED TO THIS. AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS IF YOU GET DOWN TO THE REASON YOU WOULD HAVE THIS, IT'S BECAUSE THE IDEA IS IN TEXAS THAT EVERY UNIT OF GOVERNMENT RUNS THEIR OWN ELECTION. SO EACH CITY WOULD RUN THEIR OWN ELECTION, EACH MUD WOULD RUN THEIR OWN ELECTION. EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT, HOWEVER, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CONTRACT WITH A COUNTY IN OUR COUNTY. I'VE ALWAYS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT'S ONE OF OUR JOBS IS TO PROVIDE ELECTION SERVICES TO ANY DISTRICT THAT WANTS IT. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER TO THEM WHETHER THEY'RE IN OR OUT. IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE ABILITY OF THEIR ABILITY TO OR ABILITY TO CONDUCT AN ELECTION, SO LONG AS THEY PROVIDE US WITH UP TO DATE INFORMATION. OKAY. AND SO THERE WAS ALSO A POINT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY ONE OF OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF VOTER PRECINCTS IN ONE PRECINCT VERSUS ONE COMMISSIONER PRECINCT VERSUS ANOTHER COMMISSIONER PRECINCT. COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT? WELL, I THAT WAS CERTAINLY AN IMBALANCE IN THE EXISTING MAP. I THINK THAT'S BEEN LARGELY RECTIFIED IN THIS ONE. WE'VE MOST OF THE INCREASES IN PRECINCTS THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING ARE IN PRECINCT ONE. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE TOOK A PRECINCT AND DIVIDED IT FIVE WAYS. SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THOSE NUMBERS. SO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT POINT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED WITH THIS PROPOSAL? MY PERSONAL FEELING IS YES, WE WERE ASKED TO DO IS TO TRY TO TAKE THE EXISTING MAP AND MAKE THE VOTING PRECINCTS BRING THEM DOWN WITHIN 5000. I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE DONE THAT. NOW THIS AGENDA ITEM 20 2AI WAS ASKED BY FOUR MEMBERS OF THIS COURT TO, WHILE YOU'RE DOING THIS, LET'S FIX THIS, THIS THING THAT WE DID FIVE YEARS AGO AND MOVE COMMISSIONER MYERS HOME BACK INTO HIS PRECINCT. AND I SAID, THAT'S FINE. THAT'S YOUR CHOICE. THAT'S YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN DO IT OR NOT DO IT. OR YOU COULD DO THE MAP OR NOT DO IT. YEP. AND AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD AS WELL, BEYOND THAT CHANGE, HAS THERE BEEN ANY REQUESTS FROM ME OR MY OFFICE TO MAKE ANY OTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THESE MAPS? NO, NOT FROM ANYBODY'S OFFICE, FOR THAT MATTER. THANK YOU. OKAY. DO I HAVE A YEAH, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS IN YOUR POST FOR THIS THIS MAP, THIS AGENDA ITEM 22 A AND B, I'M NOT OPPOSED. 22. CAN I SAY SOMETHING? YEAH. THESE TWO ITEMS REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY MERIT. YEAH, BECAUSE WE JUST APPROVED A COMMITTEE TO REVIEW ALL THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO START WITH THE VOTER PRECINCTS. IT DOES HAVE MERIT. COMMISSIONER IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES. THERE IS NO THERE IS THERE IS MERIT TO IT. OKAY. WELL, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO DO? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO DO? DO YOU KNOW EXACTLY THE WHOLE POINT? DO YOU KNOW EXACTLY DO YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT RECOMMENDATION THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH? NO, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T. SO SO SO THIS IS ON POINT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED. IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED ABOUT THE SIZE OF VOTING PRECINCTS THAT THIS SOLVES TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. IF AND ON ITEM A IF YOU DON'T WANT TO MOVE IT DON'T MOVE IT. BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS A CONSENSUS THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT. [02:25:03] AND SO SO IT DOES HAVE MERIT. THIS IS AN ISSUE. HONESTLY, THERE IS NO MERIT. BUT I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. I BELIEVE AGAIN, IT'S UP TO THE IT DOESN'T HAVE MERIT, DOESN'T HAVE MERIT UP TO THIS POINT. AT THIS POINT, IF IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO WHATEVER WE APPROVED, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO CARRY OUT OR SOMETHING AT THAT POINT, MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK INTO IT. OTHERWISE THERE IS NO POINT IN LOOKING INTO IT. SO BECAUSE IT'S BEEN STATED THAT WE'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. YEAH. AND THE SOLUTION IS RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF US AND WE JUST VOTED ON IT. OKAY. SO I'M SAYING TO SAY IT DOESN'T HAVE MERIT. THERE IS NO MERIT. COMMISSIONER BECAUSE WE APPROVED A BIGGER. WE DIDN'T APPROVE ANYTHING. WE VOTED TO AUTHORIZE A COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THINGS. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE. YEAH. OKAY. SO WE DON'T KNOW. THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE TO TRUST THE COMMITTEE AND THEY WILL COME BACK. AND AT THAT POINT, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION. IS THERE ANY QUESTION FOR JOHN? NO. AND I HONESTLY BELIEVE THIS ITEM SHOULD BE TABLED UNTIL THEN. THAT IS MY THOUGHT. WELL, WE COULD CALL FOR A MOTION. THERE WAS A MOTION AND A SECOND AND WE VOTED. WE VOTED YES. NO, WE HAVEN'T CALLED IT YET. WE DID CALL THE VOTE. WE DID. LET ME, LET ME COMMISSIONER THEN HE ASKED YOU THREE TIMES IF YOU'RE VOTING YES FOR IT AND I'LL ABSTAIN IF. OKAY. IT JUST BAFFLES ME. OKAY. SO NO, NO, NO, THAT THERE IS NO POINT BAFFLES ME THAT SOMEHOW WE RAISE ARMS AT, OH MY GOSH, WE'VE GOT TO TAKE THIS ACTION. WE'VE GOT TO TAKE THIS ACTION BECAUSE WE'RE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. AND THEN IT'S LIKE, OH, WELL, NO, ACTUALLY NO, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS NOW. OKAY. MADAM. MADAM CLERK THIS IS TO CLARIFY THE VOTE, PLEASE. YES, THE THERE IS WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR IT, TO VOTE AGAINST IT. AND ONE ABSTAINED AGAINST IT. YEAH. I DIDN'T HEAR THE VOTE. I WOULD ABSTAIN FROM IT BECAUSE I, I HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT IT. OKAY. SO I HAVE TWO ABSTENTIONS AND. NO. BUT YOU THE COURT UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE. WE'RE TAKING A VOTE. OKAY, OKAY. JUST CALL THE QUESTION AGAIN BACK ALL THE WAY UP AND THANK YOU. LET'S UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT BECAUSE I'M. I ADMIT THAT I'M SOMEWHAT LOST, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE TOTAL VOTE. SO LET'S. OKAY. SO THIS IS YOU UNDERSTAND THE ITEM. COMMISSIONER. SAY SOMETHING. OKAY. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US. YEAH. COMMISSIONER. THESE ITEMS ARE ON THE ON THE SCREEN, RIGHT. YOU SEE IT? THIS IS FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING WE CONDUCTED ITEM NUMBER FIVE. RIGHT. AND WE ARE. THIS IS FROM PRECINCT FOUR. COMMISSIONER RIGHT ABOUT THIS ITEM. SO NO. AND LET'S BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT FROM PRECINCT FOUR, COMMISSIONER. THIS IS FROM THE ELECTIONS OFFICE. THE ELECTIONS OFFICE, OKAY. WHERE WE'RE AT IS WE'RE VOTING ON THE CHANGES TO THE VOTER PRECINCTS TO REDUCE THEM TO LESS THAN 5000. CORRECT. WHAT I SEE IS JUST TO MOVE 200 9 TO 309. THAT'S ON THE SCREEN. THAT'S AN A HIS, HIS. BUT HE DID BOTH A AND B JOHN. THAT'S THE REDISTRICTING. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. WE CAN WE CAN I KNOW WE'VE TAKEN IT UP A AND B TOGETHER. NO, WE SHOULD GO SEPARATELY IF THAT'S THE CASE. I'VE ALREADY MADE THE MOTION. OKAY. CAN YOU RETRACT THAT MOTION? WE CAN DO IT. RETRACT THE MOTION. OKAY, WELL, LET'S I AND WHAT IS THE POINT IN RETRACTING THE MOTION? BECAUSE TAKE IT SEPARATELY. IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO APPROVE A AND OBJECTED TO B, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO. WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO OBJECT TO IT, YOU'RE OBJECTING TO THE ENTIRE ACTION. ONE IS, ONE IS ADMINISTRATIVE, THE OTHER ONE IS REDISTRICTING. THAT IS NOT REDISTRICTING. IT'S A MINIMAL CHANGE THAT WAS PRESENTED BY OKAY, JOHN, CAN YOU REFRESH THAT? WE DO MAY 27TH. WE DO GET TO VOTE OUR WAY. AND I WOULD VOTE FOR A AND AGAINST B. CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. YES I WOULD THAT THAT IS OKAY. SO YOU WANT YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. COMMISSIONER. THAT'S FINE. YEAH. SO WE GET TO ALSO. OKAY, WELL, I'VE MADE A MOTION. IT'S BEEN SECONDED FOR ITEMS FIVE OR. SORRY, 22 A AND B, IT WAS CLARIFIED AFTER I SAID THE WRONG NUMBER. AND JUDGE, THAT IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US. OKAY, WELL, I'LL HAVE TO VOTE AGAINST IT AS IT'S PRESENTED. OKAY. SO AGAIN I YEAH, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AS FAR AS THE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO DO, WE'LL TAKE ALL THIS IN. YEAH. WHAT WE SHOULD WE SHOULD TABLE THIS ITEM IN MY OPINION. [02:30:05] RATHER QUESTIONING THE QUESTION HAS BEEN CALLED AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TAKING A VOTE. OKAY. THEN IT IS MOVED AND SECONDED. SO NOW YOU SHOULD ASK ALL FOUR AGAIN. LET ME CALL AGAIN IF THAT'S THE CASE. ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED? ABSTAIN AND I VOTE AGAINST THE MOTION. OKAY. CAN I MAKE A MOTION? YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION. WE'VE ALREADY TAKEN ACTION ON THIS ITEM. ALREADY TAKEN. I WAS, AS I WAS REMINDED IN A PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK UP FOR ACTION AT A LATER DATE. OKAY, WE'LL DO THAT. THAT'S FINE. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM. [23. AUDITOR:] WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 23 PRESENTED BY AUDITOR. SORRY, I THOUGHT WE WERE TABLING THIS ITEM. SO I WAS GOING TO LEAVE THAT UP TO THE COURT BECAUSE THERE WAS A OKAY, THIS ITEM I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR OUR TREASURER. TREASURER. YEAH. BILL, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SERIOUSLY CONSIDER TAKING ACTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GENTLEMEN. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR SOME TIME NOW FOR TEN MONTHS. AND IT IS YOU KNOW, WHILE COMMISSIONERS COURT AND THE COUNTY HERE, YOU KNOW, TAKING A LOOK AT ALL THE PLACES I'VE EVER WORKED, WE HAVE A VERY GENEROUS PAID LEAVE PROGRAM IN HERE. BUT WE ALSO HAVE HAD, YOU KNOW A CHALLENGE WITH I WOULD SAY BROADENING, BROADENING USE OF WHAT WE CALL ADMINISTRATIVE PAID LEAVE OVER THE YEARS, THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. AND WE RECENTLY HAD THE AUDIT PRESENTED ON THAT. AND IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT WE HAVE SOME CHALLENGES WE NEED TO DEAL WITH. AND, YOU KNOW, AS COUNTY TREASURER, YOU KNOW, MY OBLIGATION IS TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO FUNDS BEING PAID, COUNTY FUNDS BEING PAID THAT HAVEN'T SPECIFICALLY BEEN AUTHORIZED BY COMMISSIONERS, COURT AND OUR CURRENT POLICIES DO NOT SUPPORT WHAT WE'RE SEEING BEING DONE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY IT IS BEING YOU'RE SAYING THIS PARTICULAR ADMINISTRATIVE PAID LEAVE, THAT PROVISION IS BEING ABUSED? WHAT WHAT ARE YOUR WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? I WOULD SAY I MEAN, IT'S THE KIND OF THING WHERE OVER TIME, IF THERE'S YOU KNOW, AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND, YOU KNOW, IT TENDS TO GROW, RIGHT? AND IF YOU LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE POLICY ITSELF, IT'S VERY SPECIFIC. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE BEING USED UNDER THAT CODE OR POLICY THAT ARE NOT THOSE THINGS. SO WHAT THIS DOES HERE IS IT EXPANDS TO COVER THOSE THINGS UNDER DIFFERENT CODES. RIGHT? AND ALLOWS US TO BE ABLE TO TRACK. NOW KEEP STRAIGHT HERE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S TWO ROLES I'M SITTING HERE. ONE IS, YOU KNOW, PAYROLL. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE EXECUTING WHAT IS YOU KNOW, ALL THE CHANGES AND WHATEVER IS OWED TO TO EMPLOYEES. BUT FROM A TREASURY PERSPECTIVE, I'M AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL LOOKING AT YOU KNOW, HAS THIS MONEY BEEN AUTHORIZED? RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THE POLICY LIKE A VENDOR CONTRACT, RIGHT? OUR POLICY WITH AN EMPLOYEE IS LIKE OUR VENDOR CONTRACT. AND YOU, YOU APPROVE THOSE VENDOR CONTRACTS, YOU APPROVE THE POLICY, RIGHT? AND THEN YOU APPROVE THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS, RIGHT. AND TRANSACTIONS. AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE AT HERE IS WE HAVE A POLICY THAT DOESN'T MATCH IN PLACE NOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY OCCURRING. SO THIS ALLOWS US TO ENABLE THE TRACKING AND TO BE ABLE TO TO YOU KNOW, ALLOW ACTUALLY BOTH MYSELF AND THE AUDITOR TO FULFILL OUR FIDUCIARY DUTIES TO THE COUNTY AND ENSURE. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHEN YOU DON'T REALIZE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. IT'S ONE THING. BUT WHEN IT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED, CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN AN AUDIT THAT WE HAVE AN ISSUE, WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION. AND THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE WITH THE FIRM THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT OVERARCHING POLICIES, AND THAT DELIVERABLE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN FEBRUARY. BUT IT ALSO IN THAT AGREEMENT, IT DOES NOT COVER THE PART ABOUT DO WE ALIGN WITH COUNTY POLICY AND WHAT WE'RE DOING. RIGHT. SO SO LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION HERE. [02:35:02] IF WE PASS THIS, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO INTERFERE WITH A BIGGER PICTURE. NO, NO, I MEAN, I MAKE NO CLAIM TO WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE PAY AND WHAT WE, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS BENEFITS. AND THAT IS THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS. ALL I'M SAYING RIGHT NOW IS WHAT LOOKS LIKE WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST, DOES NOT MATCH WHAT IS BEING DONE. OKAY. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE HAVE NOT APPROVED THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS NOT APPROVED THE ACTION THAT IS BEING TAKEN TODAY IN PAYMENT TO PEOPLE WITH REGARD TO OVERTIME, ETC. NOT CORRECT IN REGARD TO SPECIFICALLY ADMINISTRATIVE PAY, USING ADMINISTRATIVE PAID LEAVE FOR OTHER THINGS OTHER THAN WHAT THAT WAS WRITTEN FOR. OKAY. SO. THIS COURT CAN, IF IT SO CHOOSES, CHANGE THE POLICY. CORRECT. BUT AT THE CURRENT TIME, THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT'S POLICY. YEAH. FROM FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF THERE'S NO ACTION TODAY, I SHOULD NOT ALLOW ANY OF THOSE PAYMENTS TO HAPPEN ANYMORE. OKAY. I'M SORRY. SO SO YOUR YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL STATUTORY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY WOULD SAY THAT YOU'RE NOT AUTHORIZED TO PAY SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS NOT APPROVED. CORRECT. OKAY. SO THAT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE I DON'T THINK. DO YOU HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR PAYROLL? I THOUGHT PAYROLL WAS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT THAT'S EXECUTING A PAYROLL, THAT THE DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS, PERIOD. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS, PERIOD. YEAH. WHETHER IT'S WHETHER IT'S EMPLOYEES OR VENDORS OR WHOEVER. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PAYROLL IS NOT STATUTORY AUTHORITY OR TREASURER. IT'S NOT. NO IT'S NOT. I MEAN, IT'S TYPICALLY IN TREASURY, BUT IT'S NOT A STATUTORY AUTHORITY. SO, SO BASICALLY I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO IF WE APPROVE THIS BECAUSE WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION IN CLOSED SESSION, I BELIEVE WE APPROVED THIS. YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO YOUR JOB, BUT STILL IS HR NICOLE'S TEAM IF THEY ARE WORKING ON A BIGGER, MORE A A. DISCUSSION OF LARGER SCOPE. YEAH. THERE THIS CAN BE INCORPORATED. AND WHEN WE ORIGINALLY HAD THIS DISCUSSION BACK IN OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER, YOU KNOW, THE THOUGHT WAS SOMETHING WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE BY JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. AND NOW HERE WE ARE HALFWAY THROUGH THE YEAR, AND I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE. THAT'S WHY WE YOU KNOW LOOKING AT THE AUDIT AND WORKING WITH THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, YOU KNOW, TRIED TO PREPARE SOMETHING THAT DOES THE MINIMAL CHANGES TO ACTUALLY CLARIFY WHAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND TRACK THOSE THINGS. OKAY. IS THERE A REASON WHY HR WAS LEFT OUT OF THIS PROCESS? HR HAS BEEN IN THE PROCESS FROM THE BEGINNING. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY HAD NOT REVIEWED THESE THESE THESE ITEMS. AND FROM WHAT I RECALL LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT IT IN CLOSED SESSION, HR WAS NOT A PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. WELL, I WAS I WAS NOT PART OF THE ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION, BUT I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, FROM LAST OCTOBER OR EARLIER, THEY'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATIONS ALL ALONG. AND LIKE I SAID, THE PLAN WAS TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE INITIAL COMFORTING FACTOR TO ME WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE FOR JANUARY EARLY YEAR, AND IT DIDN'T HAPPEN, SO IT HAD TO HAPPEN. AND ONCE THE AUDITOR'S REPORT CAME OUT, THERE'S THERE'S GOT TO BE ACTION. SO IT'S HELPFUL. YOU KNOW, I'VE MET WITH THE AUDITOR AND I'VE MET WITH SOME FOLKS FROM THE PAYROLL TEAM. AND, YOU KNOW, I AGREE WITH THE MERITS. I THINK WE NEED TO BRING CLARITY BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SAY THAT YOU WOULD STOP MAKING PEOPLE WOULD STOP GETTING PAID BECAUSE OF NO ACTION FROM THIS COURT. WE ARE CLEAR. CLEAR. WELL, TO BE CLEAR, IT'S NOT. PEOPLE WOULD STOP GETTING PAID. THEY WOULD STOP GETTING THE USE OF THOSE TYPE LEAVES THAT AREN'T APPROVED. BUT THIS COURT HAS NOT GIVEN YOU THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, OR PASSED A POLICY THAT SAYS THAT YOU NEED TO DO THAT, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS BRINGING CLARITY, RIGHT? IF YOU HAVE CLARITY, YEAH, WE ABSOLUTELY NEED CLARITY. PEOPLE AS THE AUDIT, YOU KNOW, RIGHTLY DEMONSTRATED THERE, PEOPLE ARE USING THIS PARTICULAR TIME CODE BECAUSE AND I THINK THESE POLICIES GO BEYOND JUST APL. BUT PEOPLE NEED CLARITY. THAT'S WHAT TRAINING I THINK YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT THERE WILL BE. YEAH. AND THAT'S IF YOU DON'T MIND I DON'T INTERRUPT. BUT BUT YOU KNOW, PLANNING WISE, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE TRAINING TO DEPLOY THIS. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OCTOBER 1ST TO ACTUALLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, FULL COMPLIANCE IN PLACE. SO THAT'S THE PLAN TO, YOU KNOW, THE REALITY OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE [02:40:04] THIS IS YOU CAN'T JUST FLIP A SWITCH AND EXPECT EVERYBODY TO KNOW WHAT TO DO, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, A LINE IN THE SAND TO MOVE FORWARD AND GET US IN YOU KNOW LET'S SAY COMPLIANCE. BUT, YOU KNOW, TO A POINT WHERE IT'S CLEAR WHAT IS APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS COURT. AGREED? AGREED. AND I THINK THIS, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE EFFORT. AGAIN, I THINK IT'S THE PROCESS THING WE HAD, YOU KNOW, A DEPARTMENT CAME AND PRESENTED SOME YOU KNOW, CHANGES TO OUR POLICY REGARDING SICK TIME. AND THEY WANTED THEY WERE GOING FORWARD TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, BUT THERE THEY WERE NOT HR IT WAS JUVENILE PROBATION. RIGHT. IT'S NOT WITHIN THEIR AUTHORITY TO, TO AMEND HR POLICY. AND SO WE SAID HR IS THE ONE WHO NEEDS TO REVIEW, PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN I CALLED YOU LAST WEEK, WHEN WE LEARNED THAT THIS WAS ON THE AGENDA AND LEARNED THEN THAT IT HADN'T BEEN REVIEWED BY HR, I ASKED, HEY, CAN WE TABLE THIS, GIVE THEM AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO REVIEW IT? BECAUSE MY OTHER UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT YOU ALSO JUST SAID IS THAT HR DOES HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT THIS COURT ASKED TO DO THE WHOLE SHEBANG, REVIEW ALL OF OUR POLICIES. AND I UNDERSTAND THE ELEMENT OF TIMELINESS. RIGHT. I GET THAT, BUT IS THAT A CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP TO THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THAT'S I MEAN, WE HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, TIMELY RESOLUTION. WE SHOULDN'T BE WAITING TO, AS WE USED TO SAY, IN THE OLD INDUSTRY, YOU KNOW, DON'T SIT AROUND AND WAIT TO BOIL THE OCEAN. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO YOU KNOW, FIND A WAY TO GET THINGS DONE. AND, AND WE NEED TO AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING, AS YOU SAY, GETTING THINGS DONE. RIGHT. BUT MY CONCERN IS ABOUT THE PROCESS IF HR IS HOUR IS IN CHARGE OF THESE POLICIES, I GET THAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING THOSE OUT. WHY THEN, WEREN'T THEY A PART OF REVIEWING THIS FINAL PROPOSAL THAT'S COME BEFORE COURT. I WOULDN'T KNOW WHY OR NOT. I MEAN, ALL WE WERE DOING IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE EFFORT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN KEEP, YOU KNOW, PROCESSING THE TYPES OF LEAVES PEOPLE WERE UTILIZING. IT IS TRUE. HR OWNS THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE EMPLOYEE INFORMATION MANUAL, WHICH WE'RE CALLING POLICIES. THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR AS SET OUT BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, 151 903, IS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THE AUDITOR'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRESCRIBING THE PERSONNEL DATA SYSTEM AND HOW THAT ACCOMPLISHES DOCUMENTING INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYEES AND HOW THEY'RE DOCUMENTED THAT THEY'RE PAID. THAT WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHERE MY TEAM STAYED, AND WHICH IS WHY ON DECEMBER 17TH. WHEN WE SAT AND WE DISCUSSED THIS, IT WAS THE DIRECTION OF THE COURT THAT I SHOULD DO AN OBJECTIVE AUDIT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE COUNTY AUDITOR. WE COMPLETED THAT. WE STAYED WITHIN THE LEAVE CODE UTILIZATION CRITERIA, WHICH FALLS WITHIN MY STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY. WHAT I WILL SAY WE'VE HAD ENOUGH CONTENTION TODAY IF IF THERE CAN BE AN AGREEMENT THAT WE WILL. AND I GAVE NICOLE, OUR HR DIRECTOR, MONDAY MORNING EARLY, ALL THE DOCUMENTATION AND ASKED FOR HER RESPONSE BACK TO ME BY THE 18TH SO THAT WE COULD AT LEAST ADDRESS THIS NO LATER THAN THE 22ND. IF THAT'S AGREEABLE, WE CAN JUST STEP BACK, LET HR PROVIDE THEIR INPUT TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR. BASED ON MY FINDINGS AND MY RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE POLICY AS IT RELATES TO LEAF CODE UTILIZATION AND WE CAN AVOID ANY ADDITIONAL CONTENTION IF THAT'S AGREEABLE. BILL. YEAH. I MEAN, AND AND WITH RESPECT TO THE THE CODE UTILIZATION IN THE INTERIM, I THINK WITH HR TREASURER AND COUNTY AUDITOR WORKING TOGETHER OVER THE NEXT TWO PLUS WEEKS, WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE AS COMPLIANT AS POSSIBLE WITH THE USE OF THOSE CODES. AND THAT'S CERTAINLY, IN MY OPINION, IS SOLELY FAIR FOR HR DIRECTOR. SO I THINK WE SHOULD TABLE. AND I'LL ALSO ASK BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN WE WERE DOING THE PAID PARENTAL LEAVE POLICY AND SOME OF THE, A LOT OF THESE OTHER POLICIES, COUNTY ATTORNEY WAS KEY PERSON, A PART OF THAT REVIEW PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING COMPORTS WITH WHATEVER. IF YOU COULD JUST MAKE SURE TO SHARE IT WITH THAT OFFICE. WE HAVE EVERYTHING I SENT TO ALL OF YOU. I INCLUDED BRIDGET ON THAT. SO IF IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. I DIDN'T APPEAL TO OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR INPUT, [02:45:03] BUT PLEASE WITH OUR GOAL TO HAVE THIS ON THE 22ND AGENDA, IF YOU NEED US TO RESUBMIT ANYTHING. HAPPY TO DO SO. YES. THAT'S WHAT YOUR EMAIL TO NICOLE SAID WAS TO POSTPONE THIS TO THE 22ND. AND WE WERE PLANNING TO SUPPORT FOR THAT DATE AS OPPOSED TO TODAY. SO WE WILL. THANK YOU. BE HELPFUL FOR OUR HR DIRECTOR IS HERE. MA'AM, YOU'VE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? BRINGING BACK NEXT. NEXT COMMISSIONERS COURT. YEAH. LET'S DO THAT. YEAH. NO THAT'S FINE AS LONG AS YOU KNOW IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. RIGHT? OKAY. RIGHT. YEAH, YEAH. LET'S DO IT THAT WAY. BECAUSE IT IS. I DON'T WANT HR DIRECTOR FEELING SHE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. SO LET'S COME TOGETHER SO THAT SO THAT NEXT MEETING WE WILL TAKE IT UP. SO THIS ITEM ITEM 23 WE TABLE FOR NEXT. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. BILL. 24 COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THIS IS I BELIEVE RECORD VOTE. [24. COUNTY ATTORNEY:] RIGHT. SO, OLGA, GO AHEAD AND READ THESE ITEMS. 24 A TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION AND ORDER, DECREEING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION BY RECORD. VOTE FOR THE CALIFORNIA STREET PROJECT NUMBER. SORRY, THAT WAS CALIFORNIA STREET PROJECT NUMBER 20226X PRECINCT TWO FUND MOBILITY BONDS MOVE APPROVAL SECOND. AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION HEARING NONE. OF COURSE THIS IS RECORD. RECORD VOTE. YES SIR. COMMISSIONER MORALES HOW DO YOU VOTE. YES, COMMISSIONER PRESTIDGE HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES, COMMISSIONER MEYERS, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES, COMMISSIONER MCCOY, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES, JUDGE GEORGE, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES. MOTION PASSES. YEAH. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM B 24 B. TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION AND ORDER, DECREEING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION BY RECORD. VOTE FOR THE ASSIGNMENT AND PINCH POINT PROJECT. PRECINCT ONE FUND CDBG DASH MIT UNDER CONTRACT NUMBER 24. DASH 065. DASH 060E570. ALRIGHT, BEAR WITH ME. THIS IS A LONG MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE FORT BEND COUNTY BY RECORD VOTE AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE ALL NEEDED RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE SIMONTON PINCH POINT PROJECT. PRECINCT ONE AND EROSION CONTROL PROJECT PROPOSED TO BE SITUATED ON THE BANKS OF THE BRAZOS RIVER NEAR THE CITY OF SIMONTON, WITH THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT, BEGINNING AT AN UPSTREAM LOCATION ON THE SOUTH BANK OF THE BRAZOS RIVER, COMMENCING APPROXIMATELY 450FT WEST OF BUCKSKIN ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1000FT FROM THE CORNER OF HORSESHOE AND BUCKSKIN ROAD, AND ENDING AT A DOWNSTREAM LOCATION APPROXIMATELY 600FT NORTH OF THE CORNER OF BUCKSKIN AND HACKAMORE ROAD, AND WITH THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT BEGINNING AT AN UPSTREAM LOCATION ON THE NORTH BANK OF THE BRAZOS RIVER, APPROXIMATELY 700FT SOUTH OF WEST BOOT HILL ROAD, AND ENDING AT A DOWNSTREAM LOCATION APPROXIMATELY 550FT SOUTH OF FM 1093 BRIDGE OVER THE BRAZOS RIVER IN FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS. BY ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION, AN ORDER DECREEING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF LOCATION IMPROVEMENT, ALIGNMENT, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE SIMONTON PINCH POINT PROJECT. PRECINCT ONE, INCLUDING APPURTENANT, DRAINAGE, DETENTION AND EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR THE SAID PROJECT. THIS MOTION APPLIES TO ANY AND ALL PARCELS OF LAND AND OR ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS THAT MUST BE CONDEMNED ALONG THE SIMONTON PINCH POINT PROJECT. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. YOU GET THE KEWPIE DOLL FOR THE LONGEST MOTION TODAY, AND I WAS TOLD IT NEEDED TO BE EXACTLY THIS WAY. AND SO ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE RECORD. [02:50:02] COMMISSIONER MORALES, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES. COMMISSIONER PRESTIDGE, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES. COMMISSIONER MEYERS, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES, COMMISSIONER MCCOY. HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES. JUDGE GEORGE, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES. MOTION PASSES. OKAY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 25, PRESENTED BY 387, [25. DISTRICT JUDGE(s):] THE DISTRICT CHURCH MOVE APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 25. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 26 A THROUGH E, [26. ENGINEERING:] PRESENTED BY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. APPROVAL OF 26 A THROUGH E AS PRESENTED. SECOND. AND IF YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AGENDA ITEM 26 A THROUGH E. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT 27 PRESENTED. [27. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT & PLANNING:] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER IS 27 A, B AND C. MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEMS 27 A THROUGH C AS PRESENTED. SECOND. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM AGENDA ITEM 27 A, B AND C. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM. [28. GRANTS ADMINISTRATION:] 28 A THROUGH F PRESENTED BY GRANT ADMINISTRATION WITH AN EXCEPTION 28 E WHICH I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT HAS BEEN PULLED. APPROVAL OF ITEMS 28 A, B, C, D E F AS PRESENTED BY MICHAEL. SECOND. CAN YOU HEAR ME? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. IS THIS MIKE ON CHAT? YEAH. SHAUN. I GUESS IT'S ON. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. TALK A LITTLE CLOSER. AND SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AGENDA ITEM 28 A THROUGH F, WITH AN EXCEPTION 28 E. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 29, PRESENTED BY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [29. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:] DEPARTMENT. MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 29 AS PRESENTED. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 29. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 30, PRESENTED BY HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY [30. HOMELAND SECURITY & EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT:] MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. MOVE APPROVAL ITEM 30 AS PRESENTED. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AGENDA ITEM 30. ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT. GO AHEAD. THERE'S A SPECIAL MOTION THAT HAS TO BE DONE. OH, THAT'S THE WRONG AGENDA ITEM NUMBER. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY HAVE 30 HERE, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FAIRGROUNDS ON 30 ON THE AGENDA. I THINK THIS PERTAINS TO THE NEXT ONE. 31. RIGHT. YES. IT SHOULD BE 31 COMMISSIONER. YEAH. OKAY. MY APOLOGIES. SO THIS IS THIS IS STRAIGHTFORWARD, RIGHT? YEAH. WE HAVE A MOTION. I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT NOTE THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT UPGRADE. FAIRGROUNDS IS OFTEN USED IN TIMES OF EMERGENCY. IF YOU'VE BEEN OUT THERE, YOU KNOW THAT CELL SERVICE AND WIFI COVERAGE IS OFTEN TERRIBLE. AND WE'RE THANKFUL FOR BEING ABLE TO UPGRADE THAT. AND IT HAS THE ADDED BENEFIT OF WHEN WE HAVE OUR COUNTY FAIR THERE AT THE FAIRGROUNDS. WE WON'T HAVE THE ISSUE WE HAD LAST YEAR WITH THE POINT OF SALE SYSTEMS NOT BEING ABLE TO CONNECT FOR TICKETS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PARKS AND HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ON THIS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IT'S BEEN LONG NEEDED. YEAH, YEAH. HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 31, PRESENTED BY HUMAN RESOURCES. [31. HUMAN RESOURCES:] YOU WERE SO ANXIOUS. GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT, I'LL DO IT. I MOVE THAT THE THAT FOR 2026 TC PLAN YEAR. COMMISSIONERS COURT MAKES NO CHANGE TO THE PLAN PROVISIONS. ADOPTS NO COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT COLA TO BE PAID TO RETIREES OR THEIR BENEFICIARIES, ELECTS TO PAY THE TOTAL REQUIRED EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION RATE OF 12.35%. AUTHORIZES THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE THE PLAN AUTHORIZATION FORM TO FORMALLY [02:55:04] COMMUNICATE THESE DECISIONS TO THE SECOND. AND IF YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON AGENDA ITEM 31, ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 32, PRESENTED BY IT DEPARTMENT APPROVAL OF 32 AS [32. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY:] PRESENTED. WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. IS ROBIN HERE? I'M SORRY. ROBIN IS HERE. SHE'S COMING IN. ROBIN, CAN YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE? THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M PRESENTING TO YOU THE 2025 IT STRATEGIC PLAN AND ANNUAL REPORT. THE ONLY CHANGE THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT IN THERE ON PAGE SIX, IF I MAY LEE POWELL, I'D LIKE TO UPDATE HIS TITLE TO INCLUDE OR HIS NAME TO INCLUDE DOCTOR LEE POWELL TO REFLECT THAT. BUT THIS IS OUR 2025 ANNUAL REPORT STRATEGIC PLAN. IT OUTLINES OUR MISSION, OUR VISION, THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, THE INITIATIVES THAT WE ARE TAKING, THE ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT WE'VE HAD THIS THE LAST 12 MONTHS. ANY QUESTIONS? NO. ANY QUESTIONS? ARE THERE ANY NEW INITIATIVES YOU'RE PROPOSING TO TO TAKE THAT PERHAPS Y'ALL HAVEN'T BEEN DOING BEFORE? ON PAGE 16, IT LISTS OUT THE DIVISION OBJECTIVES AND SOME KEY INITIATIVES. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? NO. HEARING NONE. THANK YOU. ROBIN. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR IS COMMISSIONER IS GOING TO COME BACK. OKAY. WE WILL VOTE FOUR ZERO. MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 33, PRESENTED UNDER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS. [33. MISCELLANEOUS:] MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 33 AS PRESENTED. SECOND. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 34 A THROUGH T, [34. PURCHASING:] WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS. ONE IS 34. Q IS PULLED AND I LIKE TO TAKE 30 4K SEPARATELY OUT. SO THAT MEANS AGENDA ITEM 34 A THROUGH T 34 Q IS PULLED 30 4K. WE TAKE IT OUT TAKE ACTION SEPARATELY. AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 34 A THROUGH T, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF Q AND K. SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND MA'AM. IT'S CLEAR. RIGHT. OKAY OKAY. AND MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION I JUST LIKE TO POINT SOMETHING OUT. AND IT'S SOMETHING I'LL CONTINUE TO DO. WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS HERE THAT ARE BEING FUNDED THROUGH THREE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION. YOU KNOW, WE WE HAVE GROWN OUR CO DEBT FROM ABOUT 75,000,000 IN 2020 TO OVER $300 MILLION TODAY. THE THAT'S A OBVIOUSLY A 400% INCREASE. IT'S 80% A YEAR OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME. I JUST AGAIN A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT US TO CONTINUE TO BUILD OUR DEBT, WHICH IS NOW $1.5 BILLION. AND OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS, WE'VE HAD OUR NON TAXPAYER FUNDED DEBT HAS INCREASED FROM 80 MILLION TO 676 MILLION. THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO WELL ALMOST 50%. WELL 40 PLUS PERCENT OF OUR TOTAL DEBT. SO, AGAIN OUR DEBT COSTS ARE GOING UP RATHER DRAMATICALLY. IN 2020, IT WAS 50, $54 MILLION TO TODAY, OUR DEBT SERVICE IS $139 MILLION. SO A WORD OF CAUTION ABOUT CONTINUING TO INCREASE OUR DEBT. BUT THESE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE MAINTENANCE FACILITIES. [03:00:04] WE EITHER PAY CASH FOR THEM. I'M JUST. OKAY. I'M OKAY. YEAH. MY POINT IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO ADD TO DEBT AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE. YES. WE CAN ADD OR NECESSARY, BUT THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME ITEMS THAT ARE, IN MY OPINION, ARE QUESTIONABLE. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL. IT WASN'T ON POINT FOR THIS RIGHT THERE OKAY. YEAH. SO OKAY. ANY FURTHER ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL COME BACK AND TAKE 30 4K. DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 30 4K AS PRESENTED. SECOND. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. IF SIR, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SO WHAT IS THIS FREEDOM TO REMAINS? CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXPLANATION WHAT IT IS? YES, SIR. THE THE FREEDOM TOUR IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE YMCA. THIS IS THE THIRD TRIP THAT'S BEEN MADE THROUGH EAP AND YMCA, WHERE STUDENTS ARE FULLY FUNDED TO TAKE A TRIP THROUGH THE SOUTH AND FOCUS ON CIVIL RIGHTS. AND THEY LEARN A LOT OF HISTORY. THEY TOUR HISTORIC SITES AND MUSEUMS, AND THEN THEY SIT AFTER THAT AND DECONSTRUCT AND DISCUSS FOR AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY FUNDED UNDER ARPA DURING THE WITH THE ARPA FUNDS AND, YOU KNOW, MET WITH APPROVAL FROM THE CONSULTANTS AT THAT TIME. AND THEN WE'RE ABLE TO CONTINUE AT LEAST TO THIS YEAR. THE FUNDING FOR THIS TRIP HAS BEEN APPROVED ALREADY IN THE BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR. AND I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER MYERS FOR BEING INSTRUMENTAL IN KEEPING IT FUNDED THIS YEAR. OKAY. CAN THIS BE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE THAT COULD BE SPONSORED? YES, SIR, I UNDERSTAND. YEAH, WE WE HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH THE BUDGET THIS YEAR AS EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF. AND THESE KINDS OF PROGRAMS ARE GOOD PROGRAMS, AND IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I SUPPORT THEM. YES, SIR. BUT SOMETIMES GOOD PROGRAMS ARE NOT NECESSARY PROGRAMS. AND WE FIRST MUST ADDRESS OUR NECESSARY NEEDS BEFORE WE GET TO THE THINGS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, ARE HELPFUL. YES, SIR. OKAY. WITH THAT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? THE MOTION CARRIES FOUR ONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO OH 35. FINISH WITH ONE SECOND. [35. TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR:] ITEM. AGENDA ITEM 35 PRESENTED BY TAX ASSESSOR. COLLECTOR MR.. PRECINCT ONE. DEAL. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? MOVE. APPROVAL. 35 MR.. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW, AT THIS TIME, I WILL PRESENT YOU THE AGENDA. [36. Approve Bills.] [37. Ratify the release of time-sensitive disbursements made on July 3, 2025.] [38. Authorize County auditor to pay and release the time-sensitive disbursements on July 17, 2025, to be ratified by Commissioners Court on July 22, 2025.] ITEMS 36, 37 AND 38, APPROVAL OF BILLS AND OTHER TIME SENSITIVE DISBURSEMENT HERE, ALONG WITH THE TIME SENSITIVE BILLS TOTALING 17,273,104 AND 58 SUBMIT FOR COURT APPROVAL BILLS TOTALING 16,671,047 AND SIX, WHICH INCLUDES ROUTINE DISBURSEMENTS OF 13,618,566 AND FOUR. MOVE FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS THREE ITEM 36 3738. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL MOVE ON TO CLOSED SESSION ITEM. [39. Meet in Closed Session to deliberate the following matters as authorized by the Texas Government Code:] RIGHT? YES. YEAH. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND READ. 39 MEETING CLOSED SESSION TO DELIBERATE THE FOLLOWING MATTERS AS AUTHORIZED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE A SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY. AGENDA ITEM 30 9A1 HAS BEEN PULLED. 30 9A2. NON-STATUTORY CHANGES TO GRANT REQUIREMENTS B SECTION 551.072 DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY. DISCUSS AND TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO A COUNTY PARK LOCATED IN FRESNO. C SECTION 551.074. PERSONNEL MATTERS ONE. EXECUTIVE MANAGER PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS ONE. MARK VOGLER, GENERAL MANAGER, CHIEF ENGINEER, DRAINAGE AND TO GOOGLE'S DIRECTOR OF FINANCE INVESTMENTS. HOLD ON. OLGA, I NEED TO ASK THE COURT ONE QUICK. I HAVE A REQUEST. ACTUALLY I BELIEVE WE ARE DOING THIS. EXECUTIVE MANAGERS EVALUATION STAGGERED ALL THE WAY TO NOVEMBER. SO, RIGHT LONG AFTER WE APPROVE OUR BUDGET, YOU KNOW, EVEN INCLUDING THE SALARY. AND ALSO, I HAVE A SUGGESTION. WE WILL CALL TWO SPECIAL MEETINGS TO DO ALL EXECUTIVE MANAGERS EVALUATION, [03:05:07] TWO MEETINGS SO THAT WE COULD GET IT OVER WITH NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS TO POSTPONE THIS. RIGHT NOW, DIFFERENT ANNIVERSARY TIMES. WE ARE GOING TO WE ARE GOING TO POSTPONE ALL OF IT. AND WE CALL TWO MEETINGS SO WE COULD. OKAY, I JUST CLARIFY. YEAH. OKAY. SO IS THAT OKAY WITH DIFFERENT ANNIVERSARY TIMES? THEY HAVE DIFFERENT ANNIVERSARY TIMES, RIGHT? NO, BUT BUT OF COURSE, BEFORE THE BUDGET, YOU KNOW, WE APPROVE AND IT IS MUCH MORE APPROPRIATE. AND THAT IS IF THAT IS OKAY MEETINGS BEFORE WE FINALIZE THE BUDGET. YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH I'M TALKING ABOUT MAYBE END OF THIS MONTH OR OR AUGUST. SO OLGA WILL COORDINATE WITH ALL BOARD MEMBERS BASED ON THEIR AVAILABILITY. IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU. AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE US A TIMELINE ON HOW LONG? YES, COMMISSIONER. I'LL REFER THIS TO HR BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIFFERENT ANNIVERSARY TIMES AND DIFFERENT TIMES THEY PREPARE THINGS. YEAH, BUT STAGGERED FOR A REASON. BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION, LET'S CONSULT WITH HR. NICOLE, DO YOU HAVE. IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? IT. IF WE DID ALL THE EVALUATIONS IN TWO MEETINGS, IT IS ACTUALLY MUCH EASIER FOR YOU AND WE WILL WORK WITH YOUR APPROVAL. NO, IT'S NOT SO. SO GO AHEAD, BRING THE MIC DOWN. THIS TIME. IT IS TIRED. THE MICROPHONE IS TIRED. THAT'S WHY IT'S FALLING DOWN. WITH RESPECT TO HAVING ALL OF THE EXECUTIVE MANAGERS EVALUATIONS DONE IN ONE LUMP SUM. TWO. WELL, YEAH. AND THAT IS NOT NEXT WEEK, OR WE OUR OFFICE WILL WORK WITH YOU SCHEDULING WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS. AND BASED ON YOUR COMFORT AND DATE, WE WILL DECIDE LATER. YEAH, WE CAN DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO. SO IT DOESN'T GO SO FAR INTO THE YEAR. WE CAN WE CAN WORK IT OUT. WITH RESPECT TO THE ANNIVERSARY DATE FOR EACH EXECUTIVE LEADER, I MEAN IT IF IT'S NOT ON THE ANNIVERSARY DATE OF SOME OF THEM NOW ANYWAY. SO WE CAN WE CAN WORK WITH THE JUDGE'S OFFICE AND AND MAKE A CONSOLIDATED PLAN FOR THAT. SO THE ONLY THING I SEE IS THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO GET GET THEM ALL IN. YEAH. AND THAT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFORT IN TERMS OF THE SCHEDULING FOR, FOR YOU ALL TO, TO PUSH THEM THROUGH. ACTUALLY, I TALKED TO A COUPLE OF SO MANAGERS, THEY LIKE THE IDEA AS LONG AS THEY KNOW IN ADVANCE WHICH DATE IS GOING TO BE THEY JUST BECAUSE SOMETIMES SOME PEOPLE COME AND SIT HERE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND WE COULD FINISH THIS EVALUATION 30 MINUTES, 40 MINUTES, THE MOST AND WE COULD GET IT DONE. AND AGAIN, I, I HOPE EVERYBODY AGREE WITH IT AND THEN WE COULD MOVE ON. I CAN CERTAINLY WORK EVALUATION. I HATE HIM. AT WHAT TIME? 1220. TODAY? YES. YEAH. YOU DID. AND AND SO. IN A NEW FORM NOW YOU HAVE TO COMMENT OR ACT LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO COMMENT ON SOMETHING. YEAH, I, I HEAR CONTROL V ANY OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. WELL YOU KNOW, SO WE CERTAINLY TWO TIMES, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT THERE'S A LOT OF THEM. IT'S ABOUT 20 OF THEM. THERE'S A TOTAL OF 18, 18 TWO, TWO MEETINGS. WE COULD NINE AND NINE I'M TALKING ABOUT THERE ARE 18 COMMENT BOXES. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. OH 20 COMMENTS. NO THAT INFORMATION YOU WANT SEND IT TO THE COURT IN ADVANCE. AND YOU KNOW WE WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT. YOU WANT TO DO IN TWO MEETINGS WE CAN WORK WITH YOUR WORK WITH YOUR OFFICE. I FELT LIKE THAT MAKE MORE SENSE FOR EVERYBODY. AND, YOU KNOW, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM, MAYBE IF THEY COULD ALL THE DIRECTORS GET THEM IN BY. YEAH. AND THE WELL I DON'T KNOW, THE MIDDLE OF AUGUST OR END OF JULY, FIRST PART OF AUGUST, AND THEN WE HAVE A COUPLE OF MEETINGS. I DON'T KNOW. YEAH. OKAY. I'M. I'M OPEN TO IT. I'M FINE WITH WHATEVER THE COURT WANTS TO DO IT. YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENED IS WHEN IT COMES TO BUDGET HEARING, THEY WILL COME, YOU KNOW. SO IT'S SIMILAR, SIMILAR THING. SO IF EVERYBODY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM, THEN WE WILL, YOU KNOW, PLEASE ALL AND OTHERS WORK WITH I WILL WORK WITH AND TAKE CARE OF YOUR SCHEDULES. OKAY. THAT ITEM IS GOING TO BE TABLED. YES. ITEM 55104074 PERSONAL MATTERS. AND NOW. AND IF IF I MAY JUDGE, I JUST GOT A TEXT FROM A COUNTY ATTORNEY, AND SHE HAS ADVISED THAT THE ITEM THAT WAS BEING PULLED UNDER SECTION 551.071 SHOULD [03:10:07] HAVE BEEN AGENDA ITEM 30 982, NOT 30 9A1. IT'S BOTH. OH OH, OKAY. I WAS ONLY INFORMED OF ONE. EXCUSE ME. YEAH OKAY. OKAY. THAT IS THE 551.071 YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YES. SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY. AGENDA ITEMS 30 9A1 AND TWO HAVE BOTH BEEN PULLED. BOTH? YES, ACCORDING TO COUNTY ATTORNEY. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT. SO WE ARE 55108087. WE ARE IN SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL MATTERS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS. OH YEAH D SECTION 551.087 DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS. GRAND PARKWAY SEGMENTS C1 AND C2. E SECTION 551.089 DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES OR SECURITY AUDITS. PROVISION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES TO SUPPORT COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICES. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL STAND IN RECESS AND WE TURN OUR ATTENTION TO FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT. BOARD OF DIRECTORS. MEETING TIME IS 412. I CALL TO ORDER FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING. TODAY IS TUESDAY, JULY 8TH, 2025 AND MOVE IT TO AGENDA ITEM TWO. APPROVE MINUTES. FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. SECOND, AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM TWO. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM THREE FROM DRAINAGE. APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE AS PRESENTED. SECOND. AND WE. GOT IT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY WITH THAT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? ADJOURNED. WITH NO OBJECTION. THIS FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL MOVE ON TO FORT BEND COUNTY. ASSISTANT DISTRICT NUMBER TWO. AND I CALL TO THE TIME FOR 13. I CALL TO ORDER FORT BEND COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING. TODAY IS TUESDAY, JULY 8TH, 2025, AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM TWO. APPROVE. MINUTES. MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES. SECOND, AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM THREE. MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE AS PRESENTED. SECOND, AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION. THIS IS TO PAY DEBT OR. YEAH. SO WE HAVE AND SO THE SCOPE FOR THE MISSION BEND SENIOR CENTER HAS EXPANDED. IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS A 18,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY, SORRY, 20,000 SQUARE FOOT FACILITY AND FOUR ADDITIONAL THOUSAND SQUARE FEET WAS ADDED FOR A CLINIC IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ACCESS HEALTH. WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED SUPPORT FROM CONGRESSWOMAN FLETCHER FOR CONGRESSIONAL FUNDING. AND SO THIS IS TO MOVE THAT FROM OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND DEBT TO RELIEVE OUR CAPACITY FOR THAT AND OVER TO USE COUNTY ASSISTANCE DISTRICT NUMBER TWO FUNDS. HOW MUCH FUNDS ARE WE GETTING FROM THE FED? SO WE THEY HAVE PUT IN A REQUEST FOR US TO RECEIVE $5 MILLION ON THIS PROJECT. SO THAT SHOULD COVER THE ENTIRE ADDITIONAL. WELL, THE ADDITIONAL SCOPE I THINK WAS A COUPLE MILLION, BUT THIS SHOULD COVER THE ENTIRE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. YEP. SO THIS WOULD REPLENISH THAT. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT ASSUMING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ANY ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY WITH THAT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOVE TO ADJOURN. WITH NO OBJECTION, THIS FORT BEND COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT NUMBER TWO, BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO. OH, NO. THAT WILL CONCLUDE OUR MEETING SESSION. AND COMMISSIONERS COURT WILL STAND IN RECESS FOR CLOSED SESSION. AND WE ARE ON CLOSED SESSION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS. TIME IS CHECK. TIME IS 615. [40. Reconvene Open Session and consider taking action on the following matters:] WE ARE BACK IN OPEN SESSION. RECONVENE, OPEN SESSION AND CONSIDER TAKING ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING MATTERS A SECTION 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY. AGENDA ITEM 48 ONE AND TWO WERE PULLED BE SECTION 551.072 DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL [03:15:01] PROPERTY. DISCUSS AND TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO TO A COUNTY PARK LOCATED IN FRESNO, SO. COMMISSIONER? YES. AUTHORIZED. I MOVE TO BE AUTHORIZED THE NEGOTIATED PURCHASE OF 2.8 ACRES OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO A COUNTY PARK LOCATED IN FRESNO. FUNDING. COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT NUMBER FIVE. SECOND. YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS ITEM. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO. SEE SECTION 551.07 FOR PERSONNEL MATTERS. AGENDA ITEM ONE WAS PULLED. TWO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR INTERVIEWS. I MOVE TO AUTHORIZE HUMAN RESOURCES TO NEGOTIATE AN EMPLOYMENT OFFER IN TERMS FOR THE DIRECTOR OF FORT BEND COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS ITEM. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO. THE SECTION 551.087. DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS. GRANT PARKWAY SEGMENTS C1 AND C2. I MOVE TO AUTHORIZE NEGOTIATION WITH TEXDOT FOR WAIVER OF PRIMACY FOR GRANT PARKWAY SEGMENT C. TUCKER. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES FOUR ZERO. SECTION 551.089. DELIBERATION REGARDING REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES OR SECURITY AUDITS. PROVISION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES TO SUPPORT COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICES. AND THIS WAS ONLY FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES. THERE IS NO ACTION WITH THAT. DO I. MOTION TO ADJOURN. ADJOURN? YEAH. WITH NO OBJECTION. THIS FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT REGULAR MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED. IT IS 617. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.