[3. Approve the minutes of Commissioners Court as presented: 1. Minutes for Special Meeting held on July 7, 2025; 2. Amended Minutes for the Regular Meeting held on July 8, 2025; and 3. Minutes of the Regular Meeting held on July 22, 2025.]

ITEM 31 MINUTES FOR SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON JULY 7TH, 2025.

TWO AMENDED MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 8TH, 2025 AND THREE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 22ND, 2025. SECOND, AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW IS AGENDA ITEM, PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING AGENDA ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENT.

[4. Public Comments regarding the Agenda and Announcements.]

AND DO WE HAVE. YEAH. DON'T FORGET ME. SO WHAT I WILL DO IS THERE IS A PRESENTATION THEY HAVE TO MAKE.

SO CAN I WAIT FOR THAT? FINISH IT AND COME BACK.

OKAY. I WILL COME BACK TO YOU FIRST. YEAH. SO YOU HAVE OLGA.

TAKE IT, TAKE IT. WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM OEM. AND IF YOU CAN COME UP GREG INTRODUCE. ALL RIGHT.

GO AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. JUDGE. COMMISSIONERS.

AT THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, WE OBVIOUSLY GET SOME URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANT FUNDING, WHICH WAS UNDER SOME HIGHLIGHT THIS YEAR. WE ALMOST DIDN'T GET IT.

WE'RE ABLE TO GET THAT AS I PROVIDED TO THE TO THE COURT DURING OUR LAST BUDGET MEETING.

BUT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE STUFF THAT WE DO. AND ONE OF THOSE IS AN INTERN. WE GET A SUMMER INTERN PROGRAM FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

WE BRING THEM IN, SHOW THEM THE ROPES, THEY SHOW US WHAT IS NEW AND COMING FROM ALL THE ACCREDITATION AND, AND SCHOOLING OUT THERE. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO HAVE DYLAN LOTT, WHO'S BEEN OUR INTERN THIS SUMMER GIVE A PRESENTATION ON EVERYTHING THAT HE DID IN OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY.

JUDGES. COMMISSIONERS. SO AS GREG SAID, I'M DYLAN MOTT.

[00:05:02]

QUICK, PLEASE. SO I'M A RECENT GRADUATE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA.

I GOT MY BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN REAL TIME. I GOT MY BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE.

I HAD A MINOR IN CYBER, CYBER, CRIMINOLOGY AND A MINOR IN GERMAN AS WELL.

I HAD A STRONG EMPHASIS ON COUNTERTERRORISM, CYBER LAW AND POLICY, INTELLIGENCE ANALYSIS AND DATA ANALYSIS.

SO I'VE LISTED THE CERTIFICATIONS THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN DURING MY TIME AT OEM.

THESE CERTIFICATIONS ENSURE UNDERSTANDING OF THE INCIDENT COMMAND STRUCTURE, MULTI-AGENCY COORDINATION, AND NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS FRAMEWORKS, WHICH ARE ALL CORE UAC FOCUS AREAS.

MY PARTICIPATION IN THE SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM INTRODUCED EMERGING THREATS AND NATIONAL TRENDS IN INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY, WHICH TIES INTO UAC EMPHASIS ON PROTECTING CRITICAL ASSETS.

SO I'VE ALSO LISTED A COUPLE OF THINGS I'VE DONE IN THE OFFICE THIS SUMMER.

THESE INTERNAL TOOLS FEED INTO BROADER REGIONAL CAPABILITY TRACKING, WHICH ALSO SUPPORTS THE OSCE MISSION TO BUILD AND SUSTAIN CORE CAPABILITIES ACROSS AGENCIES. AND LASTLY, ULYSSES MISSION IS TO ENHANCE THE CAPACITY OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS TO PREVENT, PROTECT AGAINST, RESPOND TO, AND RECOVER FROM THREATS AND HAZARDS.

MY INTERNSHIP ALIGNED WITH THOSE GOALS BY HELPING IMPROVE PLANNING, COMMUNICATIONS, COORDINATION AND TRAINING, WHICH ARE ALL ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS LISTED IN THE FEMA CORE CAPABILITIES AS WELL. FOR STAFF OR ELECTED OFFICIALS, THIS INTERNSHIP IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW UAC FUNDING BUILDS LONG TERM CAPABILITY, INVEST IN ANTI-TERRORISM INITIATIVES AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, AND SUPPORTS CURRENT COUNTY AND REGIONAL OPERATIONS.

AND THAT IS ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU. AND ALSO I HEAR THAT THERE ARE PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

YES, WE WE DO. OKAY, COMMISSIONER. YOU CAN YOU WAIT TO FINISH THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS? NO, CAN I JUST. IT'S VERY BRIEF. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. GO AHEAD. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE AND RECOGNIZE ED THE AUDITOR ON HIS SILVER ANNIVERSARY.

25 YEARS OF EXCELLENCE FOR FORT BEND COUNTY, WHICH WE.

WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL FOR, ARE VERY APPRECIATIVE. AND HERE'S TO ANOTHER 25 YEARS.

SO. DEFINITELY. CONGRATULATIONS. CONGRATULATIONS.

AND NOW WE WILL MOVE REAL QUICK. I HAD TWO QUICK THINGS.

ONE WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THE THE RICHMOND ALL STAR LITTLE LEAGUE TEAM.

THEY HAVE SUCCESSFULLY MADE IT TO THE LITTLE LEAGUE WORLD SERIES IN WILLIAMSPORT.

SOMETHING FOR US TO BE SUPER PROUD OF. YOU WILL RECALL THE MEADVILLE BLUE JAYS MADE IT TO THE WORLD SERIES LAST YEAR BEFORE LAST.

AND NOW THIS YEAR, WE HAVE THIS TEAM. BUT ALSO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONGRATULATE.

THE MEADVILLE JUNIORS, YEAH, THE MEADVILLE JUNIORS LITTLE LEAGUE TEAM, AS THEY DID MAKE IT TO THE JUNIOR WORLD SERIES.

UNFORTUNATELY THEY LOST AND ARE HEADED BACK HOME.

BUT WE ARE SUPER PROUD OF THEIR DEDICATION. AND SO DEFINITELY WANT TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT AND CELEBRATE THEM.

OKAY. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS JANICE BUKOWSKI ON AGENDA ITEM 19.

BE OKAY. IT APPEARS THIS COURT IS NOT TRULY HEARING THE PEOPLE IT SERVES. FOR MONTHS NOW, THERE HAS BEEN AN OVERWHELMING PUBLIC RESPONSE TO THIS COURT'S ACTIONS.

SESSION AFTER SESSION. CITIZENS HAVE STOOD HERE RESPECTFULLY AND IN GOOD FAITH, ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER CONCERNS.

HE HAD TIME AND AGAIN THE DECISIONS MADE DO NOT REFLECT THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY.

EACH OF YOU WAS ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE ENTRUSTED TO REPRESENT US BASED ON THE COMMITMENTS YOU MADE.

THAT TRUST IS NOT A FORMALITY. IT IS THE FOUNDATION OF PUBLIC SERVICE.

WE KNOW THE LAW REQUIRES THESE HEARINGS, BUT THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO LISTEN.

LISTENING IS A CHOICE. A CHOICE TO VALUE THE VOICES IN THIS ROOM, TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF YOUR DECISIONS ON THOSE YOU SERVE WITHOUT LISTENING.

THESE HEARINGS ARE REDUCED TO PROCEDURE, NOT PARTICIPATION.

AND IN THAT SAME SPIRIT OF TRUTH AND FAIRNESS, I MUST NOTE THAT PARAGRAPH THREE OF THE DRAFT RESOLUTION ATTACHED TO TODAY'S AGENDA, ITEM NUMBER 19 B, CONTAINS A SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATION.

IT SUGGESTS, INCORRECTLY, THAT THE 2021 COMMISSIONERS MAPS WERE DRAWN BY RACE IN VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY FACT.

SUCH STATEMENTS MISLEAD THE PUBLIC AND UNDERMINE TRUST IN THIS COURT'S WORK.

SUCH STATEMENT IF WE ARE TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT STAND UP TO BOTH THE LAW AND PUBLIC SCRUTINY, THEY MUST BE BASED ON ACCURACY, NOT UNFOUNDED CLAIMS.

[00:10:01]

WE ARE ASKING YOU PLAINLY AND RESPECTFULLY TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED YOU TO ENSURE DECISIONS ARE MADE FAIRLY, TRANSPARENTLY AND IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE VOICES YOU HEAR IN THIS ROOM.

OUR REQUEST IS SIMPLE. LET TODAY MARK A TURNING POINT.

SHOW US THAT OUR INPUT MATTERS. SHOW US THAT THIS COURT VALUES PUBLIC TRUST.

WE WILL REMEMBER THOSE WHO LISTEN, AND WE WILL REMEMBER THOSE WHO DO NOT.

AND SO I URGE YOU, BEFORE ANOTHER DECISION IS MADE, PAUSE, REFLECT AND ACT IN A WAY THAT SERVES PEOPLE FIRST.

THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY YOU ACCEPTED AND THAT IS THE LEGACY YOU WILL LEAVE.

THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS VICKI KAUFMAN.

ALSO AN AGENDA ITEM. 19 B.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. HELLO AGAIN.

I'M VICKI KAUFMAN, A RESIDENT OF UNINCORPORATED FORT BEND COUNTY FROM 1957 TO 1961 AND 1999 TO THE PRESENT.

OTHER THAN THAT, I'M NOBODY IN PARTICULAR EXCEPT SOMEBODY WHO OBJECTS TO THINGS THAT I CONSIDER WRONG.

SO APPARENTLY THIS MID CENSUS REDISTRICTING FOR WHICH THERE IS NO GOOD REASON, ALTHOUGH IN MY OPINION THERE ARE BAD REASONS COMING FROM BOTH THE LOCAL AND NATIONAL LEVELS IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE. SO MY FIRST STATEMENT IS TO REITERATE THAT IT SHOULDN'T.

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY GIVEN MY REASONS TO THIS COURT, SINCE APPARENTLY IT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE UNLESS SOME FORTUITOUS EVENT INTERVENES, AND I HOPE IT DOES. I'M JUST HERE TO BE A WARM BODY, TO CONTRIBUTE TO A DEMONSTRATION THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE STILL PAYING ATTENTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I OBJECT TO THE INSINUATION IN THE ATTACHMENT TO 19 BE NO.

MAKE THAT THE BALD FACED STATEMENT IN THE ATTACHMENT TO 19.

BE THAT OUR CURRENT MAPS VIOLATE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, NOBODY IS ASSERTING THAT EXCEPT SOME MEMBERS OF THIS COURT.

AND EVEN IN THAT CASE, IT'S JUST AN ASSERTION.

IF THAT STATEMENT IN THE DRAFT IS GOING TO REMAIN, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE BACKED UP WITH ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

IF IT CAN BE. JUST SKIMMING THROUGH THE DRAFT PLAN ATTACHED TO 19 BE, IT SEEMS TO ME THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY SHOULDS AND MAYS AND WAY TOO FEW MUSTS AND SHELLS ABOUT THE WAY THE PROCESS WILL BE HANDLED.

NOT TO REPEAT MYSELF THAT I WANT THE PROCESS TO TAKE PLACE AT ALL.

THIS HAS BEEN AN OPINION FROM NOBODY IN PARTICULAR.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MELISSA BLANCHETT.

ALSO IN 19 BE. HELLO, MY NAME IS MELISSA BLANCHETT.

I'M A RESIDENT OF WESTON LAKES PRECINCT ONE. I'M THE PRECINCT CHAIR FOR 1149.

AND I'M THE PRECINCT CAPTAIN FOR PRECINCT ONE.

I AM SPEAKING TONIGHT. TODAY IN SUPPORT OF 19 BE.

I AM THRILLED THAT YOU ALL HAVE LISTENED TO THE CITIZENS THAT BELIEVE IN THE RESIDENTS, AND THE VOTERS THAT BELIEVE THAT LAWS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. AND I'M VERY THANKFUL THAT YOU VOTED IN THE PAST FOR THE CITIZENRY DISTRICT GRAND COMMITTEE, AND I'M PLEASED TO SEE THAT WORK IS UNDERWAY AND THAT YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU SO THAT THE EVALUATION PROCESS CAN BE DONE IN AN ORDERLY MANNER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE LAW IS ADHERED TO.

THE PEOPLE FEEL REPRESENTED, AND I FEEL THAT THIS RESOLUTION ACTUALLY ADDRESSES THOSE POINTS.

ONE OF THE SECTIONS CLEARLY OUTLINES THE CRITERIA THAT APPEARS TO BE BEST PRACTICE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, AND IT ALSO GIVES A THOUGHTFUL AND ORDERLY AND TIMELY PROCESS THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE THAT HAVE PLANS THAT THEY WANT TO PROPOSE BEFORE THE COURTS TO SUBMIT THOSE, AND FOR THE COURTS TO GIVE DUE CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY AND THANK YOU.

AND I ASK YOU TO VOTE FOR 19 BE. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JANET DAWSON, ALSO 19 BE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. WHEN I LOOK AT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, I SEE DIVERSITY IN ETHNICITY, FACE EDUCATION, EXPERIENCES. SO MANY THINGS. YOUR

[00:15:08]

COURT IS MADE OUT OF DIVERSITY BECAUSE THE CONSTITUENTS WHO VOTED FOR YOU SAW THOSE THINGS IN YOU AND LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAD TO SAY AND AGREED WITH IT.

WE MUST NOT LOSE THAT IN FORT BEND COUNTY. I LIVED IN FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA BEFORE I MOVED HERE, WHICH IS JUST ACROSS THE POTOMAC FROM D.C. THAT COUNTY IS VERY DIVERSE.

IN THE LITTLE STREET THAT I LIVED ON, WE HAD 18 TOWNHOUSES.

HALF OF THEM WERE OWNED BY FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION IMMIGRANTS.

I LOVE THAT IT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO ME TO LOOK FOR ANOTHER COMMUNITY THAT REFLECTED THAT DIVERSITY.

AND I FOUND IT HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY. A COLLEGE PROFESSOR ONE TIME SAID THAT EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN THIS COUNTRY HAS AN IMMIGRANT IN THEIR BACKGROUND.

HE HAD A LITTLE SENSE OF HUMOR, AND HE SAID, EVEN ON A COLD DAY IN JANUARY, THEY CROSSED THE BERING STRAIT CAME DOWN THROUGH WHAT IS NOW NORTH AMERICA AND SETTLED IN WHAT IS NOW THE UNITED STATES.

EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN THIS COUNTRY HAS AN IMMIGRANT IN THEIR BACKGROUND.

ANOTHER COLLEGE PROFESSOR USED TO SAY, WE TALK ABOUT OUR UNITED STATES AS BEING A MELTING POT.

IT'S NOT. IT IS A SALAD BECAUSE WE ENCOURAGE OUR RESIDENTS, OUR CITIZENS, TO CELEBRATE THE FESTIVALS FROM THEIR NATIVE LAND, THEIR FACE, FROM THEIR NATIVE LAND, THEIR CUSTOMS, THEIR CONNECTIONS FROM THEIR NATIVE LAND. WE DO NOT WANT TO LOSE THAT IN FORT BEND COUNTY.

THE NEXT SPEAKER IS LINDA MIXON, ALSO ON 19 BE.

HELLO. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR BEING PUBLIC SERVANTS, BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S NOT AN EASY JOB.

HALF THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LIKE YOU. HALF THE PEOPLE AREN'T.

YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE HALF THE PEOPLE HAPPY. HALF THE PEOPLE MAD.

COMMISSIONER MCCOY, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES OF NOT LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID.

SOMETIMES I'VE KIND OF MADE ME MAD, BUT I MUST ADMIT, YOU LISTEN TO ME, AND YOU IMPRESSED ME.

AND IF YOU'RE MY SON, YOU'D MAKE ME A HAPPY MOTHER.

BECAUSE YOU LISTEN TO ME. AND YOU CAME OUT. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET SOMEONE TO COME OUT AND FIX MY POTHOLES.

COMMISSIONER MERCHANT WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME. BUT YOU CAME OUT AND YOU IMPRESSED ME.

NOW WHAT A VOTE FOR YOU. YOU'RE A DEMOCRAT THAT YOU GOT TO SAY.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU KNOW TOO MANY THINGS. TWO GENDERS.

I BELIEVE IN TWO GENDERS. JUST TWO. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES I GET UPSET THE WAY YOU TALK TO MY FRIEND ANDY, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ON HIM SINCE 1980. BUT GOT TO SAY, YOUR PERSONABLE, HANDSOME YOUNG MAN.

I GOT TO ADMIRE YOU FOR WHAT YOU DID, WHAT YOU CAME OUT, WHAT YOU'VE DONE.

BUT I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE REDISTRICTING WAS DONE IN 2020.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE REMEDIED.

I LIKE TO THINK OF THINGS IN BIBLICAL, YOU KNOW, SCENARIOS.

AND I JUST I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS. I WAS THINKING ABOUT BEING ON THE ISLE OF PATMOS.

I THOUGHT ABOUT THESE THINGS I HOLD AGAINST YOU.

WHAT YOU DID WITH THE REDISTRICTING WAS WRONG.

BUT, YOU KNOW, HE SAID, YOU'VE GOT TO RIGHT THE WRONGS THAT WERE DONE.

AND I SEE AS HAVING THE COMMITTEE AND FIXING THE RIGHTS THAT WERE DONE WRONG.

AND WHEN I LOOK AT 19, BE AND I LOOK AT THE WAY YOU'RE GOING TO BE HOLDING THIS COMMITTEE, I SEE THOSE WRONGS AS BEING RIGHTED. I SERVED ON THE 2010 REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE.

[00:20:08]

IT WAS VERY COLLEGIAL. WE LOOKED AT THE MAPS.

THEY DID. THE DEMOGRAPHERS, YOU KNOW, DID THEIR JOB.

THEY LOOKED AT ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW, BOUNDARIES.

AND THEY TRIED TO DO A GOOD JOB FOR THE COUNTY.

WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT GOOD FOR EVERYBODY IN THIS COUNTY AND THEN LET THE VOTERS DECIDE.

LET THE VOTERS GO TO THE VOTING BOOTH AND PICK THEIR COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE JOB THAT YOU DO.

YOU YOU, YOU YOU AND YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MARGARET DANIEL.

ALSO ON 19 BE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. JUDGE. COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS MARGARET DANIEL.

I'M A FORT BEND COUNTY RESIDENT AND A GOP CHAIR FOR THE PRECINCT.

141144. I'M NEW. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.

I APPRECIATE JUST TO REITERATE WHAT YOU SAID.

I KNOW THIS IS A HARD JOB, AND I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, 50% OF THE PEOPLE ARE HAPPY, 50 AREN'T.

AND IN THE WORK THAT YOU DO HERE IS VERY IMPORTANT.

WE COUNT ON YOU. WE RELY ON YOU. AND FIRST I, I WAS VERY HAPPY ABOUT THE COURT'S VOTE TO CREATE THE CITIZENS REDISTRICTING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. AND ESTABLISHING THE COMMITTEE, I FELT THAT THE COURT MOVED TO BRING TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS AND FAIR REPRESENTATION BACK TO THE FORT BEND COUNTY RESIDENTS. AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT FOR FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS.

I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO SEPARATE US BY RACE. I THINK WE HAVE A LOT MORE IN COMMON.

IN READING THE RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE ADOPTING CRITERIA FOR USE OF THE 2025 REDISTRICTING PROCESS, I FIND THAT GUIDELINES THE COMMITTEE THAT AGREED UPON TO BE FAIR AND THOROUGH.

I HOPE THAT YOU'LL CONSIDER VOTING FOR THEM TO ADOPT THEM.

AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ANNA LEGATUS, ALSO ON 19 B.

EXCUSE ME. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY ATTORNEY.

COUNTY CLERK. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. I'M HERE TODAY AGAINST COUNTY JUDGES.

I T ITEM 19 B SPECIFICALLY, AGAIN REITERATING THAT THE 2021 MAPS, NO MATTER HOW SOME PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT THEM, ARE LEGAL MAPS. THEY WERE NOT DRAWN BASED ON RACE, THEY WERE DRAWN BASED ON PARTIZANSHIP.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID THAT THAT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL.

WHAT IS NOT LEGAL IS DRAWING THE MAPS BASED ON RACE.

THE RECORD IS VERY CLEAR THAT OUR COUNTY JUDGE HAS STATED IN 2021 THAT THOSE MAPS WERE ILLEGALLY DRAWN AND NOT BASED ON RACE, AND NOW, IN RECENT MONTHS, THE OPPOSITE IS HAPPENING WHERE THE STATEMENTS ARE THAT THESE MAPS ARE NOW ILLEGAL BECAUSE OF RACE, AND THIS IS DEMONSTRATED IN THE ATTACHMENT OF 19 B, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH, WHICH MAKES AN ATTEMPT FOR A LEGAL DECLARATION BASICALLY GOING IN THROUGH THE BACK DOOR.

WHAT IS NOT REAL THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR? THE COUNTY ATTORNEY HAS NEVER DECLARED THAT OUR 2021 MAPS ARE ILLEGAL OR BASED ON RACE. NO COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION HAS DECLARED THAT OUR 2021 MAPS ARE ILLEGAL BASED ON RACE, IN VIOLATION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT EXCEPT FOR STATEMENTS, FEELINGS AND LAWYERS HIRED OUTSIDE OF THIS BODY.

AND THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT BRINGS ME TO THE POINT OF TODAY BEING THE FIRST DAY OF SCHOOL.

OUR GOVERNOR HAS APPROVED THAT THE TEN COMMANDMENTS BE IN THE CLASSROOM.

ONE OF THOSE TEN COMMANDMENTS IS NOT TO BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR.

IN OTHER WORDS, DO NOT LIE. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I'M VERY CONFUSED HOW WE CAN ALLOW FOR OUR OWN COUNTY JUDGE WHO HAS MADE STATEMENTS OF FACT ON THE DAIS AND NOW HAS MADE OPPOSITE STATEMENTS OF FACT ON THE DAIS.

[00:25:01]

AND I'M REALLY CONFUSED IF THIS IS AN ISSUE OF PERJURY, AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD CONSIDER RECUSING YOURSELF FROM ANY DECISIONS BASED ON THESE MAPS, BASED ON REDISTRICTING AND BASED ON THE PARTIZAN COMMITTEE THAT YOU ALL HAVE PUT TOGETHER, WHICH INCLUDES THE SECRETARY FROM THE FORT BEND COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY DECIDING OUR MAPS, ALL THESE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN IN FAVOR OF FAIRNESS.

NONE OF THIS IS FAIR. NONE OF THIS REPRESENTS THE LAW.

THIS IS ALL SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE, AND I STILL GET TO HEAR HOW MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE GOING TO BE SPENT ON THIS UNNECESSARY, UNTRUE BASED REDISTRICTING. HOW MANY MILLIONS HAVE WE EVER FOUND OUT? OUR OUR CONSTITUENCY DOES NOT DESERVE THIS. WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THE PROBLEMS AT HAND.

WE SHOULD BE LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS. AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM THIS ROOM, THERE'S PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM.

NOBODY WANTS PARTIZAN MAPS, PEOPLE WANT FAIR MAPS.

AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT AS A REALISTIC RESPONSE TO THIS.

BUT AFTER THE CENSUS, AT THIS POINT, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR RECUSAL FROM ANY DECISIONS INVOLVING OUR REDISTRICTING AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS SUMITA GHOSH, 19 B.

HELLO, I'M SUMITA GHOSH. I LIVE IN. I LIVE IN SUGARLAND, TEXAS.

LIVED AND ONCE AGAIN HERE ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE ALL WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME.

IT'S TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. IT'S A WASTE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS.

AND PERSONALLY, I FEEL LIKE I AM BEING VIOLATED BECAUSE IT IS AN ISSUE OF MY RIGHTS.

AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE FOLKS WHO SPOKE FOR THIS THEY WERE FINE WITH THE PROCESS.

THEY WERE FINE WITH THE MAPS FOR THE 30 YEARS WHEN IT WAS SPECIFICALLY DENYING MY RIGHTS.

THE ONLY REASON THERE'S A FUROR IS BECAUSE NOW THEY GET TO FEEL WHAT I'VE BEEN FEELING FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS LIVING IN FORT BEND COUNTY.

AND FRANKLY. BOO HOO. I DON'T CARE. I THINK THAT THESE, AS JUDGE KP GEORGE STATED ON THE RECORD AND AS PERJURY IS A CRIME AS A AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL.

SO I THINK YOU ALL KNOW I AM GETTING THE ACLU INVOLVED.

YOU SHOULD BE HEARING YOU ALREADY SHOULD HAVE ALREADY HEARD FROM THE ACLU.

THEY ARE WATCHING THIS VERY CAREFULLY. THERE WILL BE LAWSUITS.

SO IN ADDITION TO THE PAYMENTS FOR THIS PROCESS, THERE WILL BE MASSIVE LAWSUITS BECAUSE IT IS ALL BASED ON LIES AND PERJURY ON THE BENCH.

AND YOU KNOW LET ME JUST SAY SOME THINGS. THE, THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT ON THE AGENDA ITEM HAS A TROUBLESOME PARAGRAPH THREE, WHICH ATTEMPTS TO CAST THE 2021 COMMISSIONERS MAP AS BEING ILLEGAL, FALSELY CLAIMING THEY WERE DRAWN BY RACE AND VIOLATE THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

THIS KANGAROO COURT, MADE UP OF THREE REPUBLICANS WHO, LIKE THE LADY, SAID, I CAN'T VOTE FOR RAPISTS, PEDOPHILES AND FELONS. SO I'M SORRY I CAN'T VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS.

ARE TRYING TO GET LEGITIMIZED THROUGH THE BACK DOOR.

WHAT A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION OR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WOULD NOT PERMIT THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR.

SO WE DO HAVE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT, I THINK, YOU KNOW, SHADES OF RACISM AND MISOGYNY HERE, WHERE HER WORDS ARE NEVER TAKEN AS CORRECT. YOU HAVE TO HIRE SOMEONE OFF THE STREET WHO KNOWS HOW MANY YOU HAD TO LOOK FOR TO GET THE ANSWER YOU WANTED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THESE MAPS WERE LEGAL. WHEN OUR OWN COUNTY ATTORNEY, WHO HAS AN OATH OF OFFICE TO UPHOLD, HAS SAID THESE MAPS ARE LEGAL.

AND NO COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION HAS RULED THE MAPS ARE ILLEGAL.

COMMISSIONER MYERS HAS EVEN ADMITTED THERE ARE NO LEGAL PROCEEDINGS QUESTIONING THE LEGALITY OF THESE MAPS.

THIS IS WHY YOU GUYS ARE WASTING OUR TIME AND MONEY WITH THIS BS RESOLUTION.

AND I RECALL THAT MYERS SAID THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SAYS THE MAP COULD BE LEGAL.

THE WORD COULD IS CRUCIAL HERE. I'M WAITING FOR THE DOJ.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME BECAUSE THE ACLU IS GOING TO COME HERE FIRST.

MY. AND SO THANK YOU AGAIN. AND I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HERE WASTING OUR TIME.

THE NEXT SPEAKER IS RICK GARCIA. ALSO ON 19 BE.

HELLO. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. MY NAME IS RICK GARCIA.

I AM A ALMOST 30 YEAR FORT BEND COUNTY RESIDENT.

[00:30:03]

I LIVE IN PRECINCT FOUR, AND FIRST AND FOREMOST, I WANT TO WELCOME BACK OUR 80,000 STUDENTS IN FORT BEND ISD AND OVER 12,000 STAFF MEMBERS IN FORT BEND ISD. AND I LIKE TO WISH DOCTOR SMITH AND HIS TEAM A VERY SUCCESSFUL SCHOOL YEAR.

SO I'M HERE REALLY TO TALK ABOUT A ROUNDABOUT, BUT SINCE I CAN'T TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA I GOT TO TALK ABOUT, I FIGURE 18 B BE A GOOD ONE TO TALK ABOUT, SO I'LL BE BRIEF.

REDISTRICTING IS NOT JUST A TECHNICAL PROCESS, IT'S A MORAL ONE.

IT DETERMINES HOW FAIRLY COMMUNITIES ARE REPRESENTED, HOW RESOURCES ARE DISTRIBUTED, AND HOW TRUST IS BUILT BETWEEN CITIZENS AND OUR GOVERNMENT.

AND THAT TRUST BEGINS WITH TRANSPARENCY, CONSISTENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA THAT WE HIRE OUTSIDE LAW FIRM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.

I WILL REMIND FOLKS THAT OVER FOUR YEARS AGO, FORMER COMMISSIONER KEN MERCHANT PROPOSED A MAP OF THE PRECINCTS THAT PARTICULARLY PRECINCT FOUR WOULD HAVE BEEN A MORE FAIR AND BALANCED 5050 PRECINCT DEMOGRAPHIC POLITICALLY.

CURRENT COMMISSIONER MCCOY, AND AT THE TIME CHIEF OF STAFF TO JUDGE GEORGE, PROVIDED A DIFFERENT MAP, A MAP THAT ACTUALLY ALTERED PRECINCT FOUR TO MAKE IT A LOT MORE DEMOCRAT, A LOT MORE BLUE.

AND COINCIDENTALLY, A FEW WEEKS, A FEW MONTHS LATER, HE'S ANNOUNCING HE'S RUNNING FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER.

THAT WAS SO WEIRD. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS.

I AM IN FAVOR OF ADOPTING RULES THAT ARE BASED ON LAW, BASED ON PRECEDENT, THAT WE CAN FINALLY COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON WHAT IS FAIR, WHAT IS BALANCED. I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT IN AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED BACK IN 2021, MCCOY STATES, I AND I QUOTE, I SAID FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THAT I DIDN'T CARE HOW IT HAPPENED, BUT IN THE END WANTED TO SEE A PROGRESSIVE MAJORITY ON FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT. COURT. CLOSE QUOTE.

AND IF YOU GO BACK AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT FORT BEND COUNTY PRECINCT FOUR LOOKS LIKE TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE A VERY GERRYMANDERED PRECINCT.

SO THANK YOU FOR DOING YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AS ELECTED OFFICIALS.

THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE. AND I'VE GOT 30S.

BUT IF I COULD GET SOMEBODY FROM COMMISSIONER FROM THE OFFICE TO AT LEAST CALL ME, WE'RE GOING AND DOING A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH ON SOME ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH THE HOA AND THE ROUNDABOUT, AND HE SAID SHE SAID, SO IF WE COULD JUST GET A MEETING OR SOMETHING TOGETHER TO KIND OF DISCUSS, BECAUSE I'M GETTING A LOT OF WELLS, THE COUNTY RIGHT AWAY, IT'S OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY.

WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS. WE DON'T CARE IF WE DAMAGE THIS.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THIS ANYWAY. SO WE TORE UP A SIDEWALK.

WE DIDN'T TELL YOU WE'RE GOING TO TEAR UP A SIDEWALK. BUT GUESS WHAT? YOU'VE GOT TO FIX IT. SO NOW THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. IF WE COULD AT LEAST GET SOME COMMUNICATION THERE. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THE NEXT SPEAKER IS EVELYN MONTALVO, ALSO ON 19TH.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS EVELYN MONTALVO. I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF FORT BEND COUNTY SINCE 1990.

I'M ALSO HERE TO SPEAK ON 19 BE. I READ THE SUBMISSION THAT ACCOMPANIED THIS ITEM.

I FOUND THE RESOLUTION TO BE EXTREMELY THOUGHTFUL, VERY CONSIDERATE OF ALL THE DIVERSE VIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED IN THIS COURT.

PARTICULARLY, THE GOALS CITED WERE TO AVOID SPLITTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES, TO CREATE PRECINCTS COMPACT AND COMPOSED OF CONTINUOUS TERRITORY. CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO INCUMBENCY, CONSTITUENCY AND THEIR HISTORY WITH THE AREA, AND ABOVE ALL, TO COMPLY WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

MANY PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED HERE ABOUT THE CENSUS ARTICLE.

ARTICLE ONE. SECTION TWO STATES THE CENSUS MUST BE DONE EVERY TEN YEARS.

NOWHERE IS THERE A PROHIBITION AGAINST IT BEING DONE ANY MORE FREQUENTLY.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE CURRENT MAPS ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

PRECINCT FORM LOOKS EXTREMELY GERRYMANDERED. IT'S GOT A VERY BIZARRE CONFIGURATION TO IT.

THE COMMITTEE IN THIS REPORT CITED SHAW VERSUS RENO, WHICH I LOOKED UP.

IT WAS FROM 1993, THE US SUPREME COURT, WITH SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR WRITING THE MAJORITY OPINION, STATED THAT THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT RACE CAN BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN REDISTRICTING, BUT IT CANNOT BE THE SOLE FACTOR AS IT WOULD VIOLATE THE 14TH AMENDMENT'S EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE.

THE PETTWAY VERSUS GALVESTON 2024 DECISION. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT FORT BEND COUNTY IS GOING THROUGH NOW.

THE PETTWAY PLAINTIFFS WERE FIGHTING AGAINST THE ELIMINATION OF A DEMOCRAT COMMISSIONERS PRECINCT THAT HAD BEEN VERY MUCH GERRYMANDERED.

THE FIFTH FULL CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULED THAT COMBINING COALITIONS OF DIFFERENT MINORITY GROUPS TO CREATE A MAJORITY MINORITY DISTRICT FOR POLITICAL

[00:35:07]

PURPOSES IS NOT PROTECTED BY THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, TARRANT COUNTY PREVAILED IN LITIGATION CHALLENGING THE REDRAWING OF THEIR MAPS, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REDRAWN SINCE 2011. TARRANT COUNTY RELIED ON THE PRECEDENT SET IN PETTWAY VERSUS GALVESTON COUNTY, PER LEGAL EXPERTS. THE JURISPRUDENTIAL LANDSCAPE CHANGED PROFOUNDLY AFTER PETTWAY.

FORT BEND COUNTY IS EXPLODING. I READ AN ARTICLE BETWEEN THE THREE NEW SUBDIVISIONS COMING IN WEST OF ROSENBERG.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COMBINED 16,000 NEW HOMES IN THE FUTURE.

THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO BE ONGOING. BY 2050, THIS COUNTY IS PROJECTED TO HAVE 1.8 MILLION PEOPLE.

YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TO MOVE. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A LEG UP OR AN ADVANTAGE.

WE JUST NEED MAPS THAT ARE LEGAL AND FAIR. LEGAL AND FAIR TO EVERYONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND THE LAST SPEAKER IS RAY TWO.

ALSO ON AGENDA 19. BE. HI, EVERYONE. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AND TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS MATTER. SO I FIRST WANT TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER ANDY MEYER.

WHEN I FIRST GOT TO KATY TWO DECADES AGO, I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH YOU.

I REALLY WAS, AND BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

THINGS SINCE THEN. SO AND ALSO IN RESPONSE TO ANOTHER SPEAKER THAT I THINK HIS NAME WAS GARCIA. ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I MEAN, PARTIZAN GERRYMANDERING IS ALLOWED IS LEGAL.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS ISSUE IS IF LEGALITY IS WHAT HE'S CONCERNED.

AND MANY SPEAKERS ALSO BROUGHT UP COURT DECISIONS BY VARIOUS COURTS AND OPINIONS BY SUPREME COURT JUSTICES. SO MY QUESTION IS FOR THE FORT BANK, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONERS COURT TO PUSH THIS REDISTRICTING MID-DECADE, WHICH BY LAW WE DO IT EVERY TEN YEARS AFTER CENSUS.

RIGHT. SO THIS IS I DON'T KNOW HOW I'M I'M A LAYPERSON.

I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW LEGAL THIS IS. BUT MY QUESTION IS IS THERE ANY JUDGE OR MAYBE OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY SAYING THAT THE MAP THAT WAS MADE IN 2021 IS ILLEGAL? CAN I THAT'S A QUESTION. I MEAN, CAN I CAN I ASK THIS QUESTION RIGHT NOW? CAN ANY ONE OF YOU ANSWER ME? I GUESS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER ME.

IT'S OKAY. IT'S OKAY. I HOPE YOU WILL ADDRESS THAT LATER.

AND SO ANOTHER THING IS, I BELIEVE WANTING OUR TAX DOLLARS SPENT ON THINGS THAT REALLY MATTERS, THAT MEANS THINGS TO US IS A NONPARTISAN ISSUE.

LIKE, WHETHER YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN OR A DEMOCRAT OR NO PARTY AT ALL.

EVERYBODY WANTS THAT. SO WHY? AND LAST I WAS HERE LAST TIME WHEN THE COUNTY CLAIMS THAT WE'RE LOW ON BUDGET, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE MONEY, SO WE'VE GOT TO CUT ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

OKAY, I GIVE YOU THAT. THEN WHY ARE WE SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS GOING THROUGH THIS? THIS UNNECESSARY POSSIBLY NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES.

MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING WHEN NO COURT IS ASKING US TO DO THIS.

AND AND IT'S WHERE RISKING. WE'RE RISKING SPENDING MILLIONS MORE DEFENDING THE COUNTY'S THE COMMISSIONER COURT'S DECISION OF GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. SO, FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE SPENDING MILLIONS ON OUTSIDE COUNSEL WHEN WE HAVE A COUNTY ATTORNEY WHO'S PERFECTLY, I MEAN, HISTORICALLY BEEN DOING THIS JOB.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THE TIME. AND I JUST LAST THING, JUST I'D RATHER MY TAX MONEY SPEND ON FIXING POTHOLES AND HELPING SMALL BUSINESS THAN OUR FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS AND UNNECESSARY REDISTRICTING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO.

THAT'S THE LAST SPEAKER. OKAY. WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM FIVE.

JUDGE, ONE MOMENT. I WANT TO TAKE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.

BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD IN CONDUCTING ANY FURTHER BUSINESS, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT.

FIRST, YOU KNOW, THANKS SO MUCH TO THE SPEAKERS WHO CAME AND SPOKE TODAY ON EITHER SIDE OF THESE ISSUES.

[00:40:05]

I THINK COMPARED TO PREVIOUS COURTS, IT'S BEEN A MUCH MORE CIVIL DISCUSSION, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE NEIGHBORS. AND, YOU KNOW, NO MATTER WHAT OUR VIEWS, OUR BELIEFS, BELIEFS ARE, I BELIEVE AT THE CORE, EVERYONE WANTS TO DO WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS IS BEST FOR OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THERE HAVE BEEN OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST SEVERAL MEETINGS ANY NUMBER OF ACCUSATIONS UNFOUNDED ACCUSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN LODGED AGAINST MYSELF, AGAINST OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY THAT I FIND TO BE COMPLETELY UNFAIR.

WE START ON THAT, TOO, BECAUSE THE AGENDA ITEM IS COMING.

NO NO, NO. SO THIS IS NOT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT AGENDA ITEM. I'M JUST ASKING FOR A GENERAL ESSENCE OF DECORUM FROM MEMBERS OF COURT.

YOU KNOW, I WANT TO JUST REMIND US THAT WE HAVE A DUTY TO CANDOR, WHETHER IT'S ON ANY MATTER THAT COMES BEFORE THE COURT.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE APPROACH THIS WORK HONESTLY.

AND NOT CONTINUING TO TO TRAFFIC AND ACCUSATIONS THAT JUST AREN'T BASED.

IN FACT, IT'S NOT PRODUCTIVE. IT'S NOT WHAT OUR STAFF EXPECTS OF US.

IT'S NOT WHAT OUR RESIDENTS EXPECT OF US. AND I DO WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO OUR STAFF, WHO I KNOW HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN AND ANXIETY.

YOU'RE GETTING QUESTIONS ALL THE TIME NOW ABOUT THE CIRCUS THAT HAS BECOME FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.

AND I GREATLY REGRET THAT BECAUSE WE WERE HIRED TO DO A JOB.

AND WHAT'S MORE, WE'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE OUR DISAGREEMENTS.

THAT IS, I THINK, THE SIGN OF A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY, THAT WE DISAGREE AND WE FIND COMMON GROUND AND THEN WE MOVE ON.

BUT I DO NOT FIND THE COMMENTS AGAINST OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BE FAIR.

I DO NOT FIND THEM TO BE JUSTIFIED. THERE THERE HAVE BEEN ACCUSATIONS LODGED AGAINST HER ABOUT PARTIZANSHIP.

SHE KEPT MANY OF THE REPUBLICANS THAT WORKED IN HER OFFICE WHEN SHE FIRST CAME INTO OFFICE, AND GOT A LOT OF FLAK FROM DEMOCRATS ABOUT THAT, BUT SHE WANTED THE BEST PEOPLE TO DO THE JOB.

AND JUST BECAUSE NOW WE MAY DISAGREE WITH HER ON CERTAIN OPINIONS, DOES NOT MEAN THAT HER EXPERTISE OR PARTIAL IMPARTIALITY IS ANY LESS VALID. AND SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND US THAT AS WE GO INTO THIS BUSINESS, WE NEED TO DO SO HONESTLY AND HONESTLY REPRESENTING OUR CONSTITUENTS AND THE TRUTH, BUT DO SO WITH THE SENSE OF DECORUM THAT OUR STAFF AND OUR RESIDENTS WOULD BE PROUD OF.

SO THAT'S JUST MY PETITION BEFORE THIS COURT.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 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 THE FOLLOWING MATTERS.

FIVE A ENGINEERING HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE FOLLOWING TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS FIVE AA HARVEST HOME DRIVE S T D SECTION TWO, PRISON ONE AND B CHURCH COLONY IN SINGLE RANCH MEADOW PLACE. SECTION FIVE PRISON ONE B ENGINEERING.

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REQUEST TO MODIFY THE FORT BEND COUNTY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY VICKSBURG BOULEVARD, WITHIN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTIONS OF MINNESOTA CITY AND CITY OF HOUSTON PRISON TWO.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS? IT'S TIME TO STEP FORWARD. HEARING. SEEING NO ONE COME FORWARD.

AND WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY REQUEST ANY REQUEST TO SPEAK.

I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

AND I'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT AGENDA ITEM FIVE A WITHIN THAT, A AND B AND FIVE B ARE READY FOR ACTION.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES, JUDGE, I MOVED THAT WE ACCEPT.

FIVE A AND B, PLEASE. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY, AND NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO CONSENT.

[ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (6-18) ]

AGENDA ITEM SIX THROUGH 18. I DON'T I, I SIX THROUGH 18.

ALL ARE ALL. GOOD. THERE IS NO CHANGES. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SIX THROUGH 18. MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM SIX THROUGH 18, 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 AGENDA ITEMS. SECTION THREE WHICH IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.

[19. COUNTY JUDGE: ]

AGENDA ITEM 19 PRESENTED BY COUNTY JUDGES OFFICE, WHERE APPROVAL OF ITEM A IS PRESENTED.

SECOND, AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?

[00:45:05]

HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE WILL TAKE SEPARATELY. AGENDA ITEM 19. BE ALSO PRESENTED BY COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE.

APPROVAL OF 19. BE AS PRESENTED. SECOND. AND ANY DISCUSSION.

CAN I ASK FOR A BRIEF RECESS TO FOR US TO CONFER WITH OUR RECEIVE ADVICE FROM OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY? THERE HAVE BEEN SOME LEGAL ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED ON THIS ITEM IN PARTICULAR THAT I THINK WE JUST NEED TO TAKE A BRIEF PAUSE TO TO DISCUSS RELEASES ON YEAH, JUST A BRIEF RECESS. OKAY. IT'S 145, AND WE WILL REACH FOR A QUICK CLOSED SESSION SESSION SECTION 55107 FOR CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY.

JUST CLARIFYING FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. SURE.

CHAIR. IT'S TIME. 228 WE ARE BACK IN OPEN SESSION.

AND COMMISSIONER MYERS. YES, WE I WILL FIRST I WANT TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION ON 1980.

AND I'LL MAKE ANOTHER MOTION. AND YOU WITHDRAW YOUR SECOND 1919 BE.

I'M SORRY. I'LL TAKE BACK THE SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

AND I WILL MAKE THIS MOTION. I MOVED TO UNDER 19.

BE I MOVED TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO STRIKE THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RECITALS OF THE RESOLUTION.

I NEED A SECOND. OKAY. I NEED A VOTE. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? LET ME IN FULL TRANSPARENCY IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME.

I'M GOING TO READ THE RESOLUTION AND THE ATTACHMENT.

RESOLUTION. ADOPTING THE CRITERIA FOR USE AND 2025 REDISTRICTING PROCESS AND ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES FOR PERSONS SUBMITTING SPECIFIC REDISTRICTING PROPOSALS AND PROVIDING COMMENTS. WHEREAS FORT BEND COUNTY HAS CERTAIN RESPONSIBILITIES FOR REDISTRICTING UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, AMENDMENTS 14 AND 15 TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

U.S.C. SECTION TWO OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, 52 U.S.C.

TEN 301 TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 518 BE AND THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 2058001 AND 205802. AND WHEREAS IT IS IN THE TOWN OF COMMISSIONERS COURT TO COMPLY WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND ALL OTHER RELEVANT LAWS, INCLUDING TEXAS ELECTION CODE 4201. AND WHEREAS TEXAS, THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS CREATED A CITIZEN'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO MAKE REDISTRICTING RECOMMENDATIONS TO COMMISSIONERS COURT.

AND WHEREAS, A SET OF ESTABLISHED REDISTRICTING CRITERIA WILL SERVE AS A FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE COUNTY AND THE FORMATION AND CONSIDERATION OF REDISTRICTING PLANS. AND WHEREAS, REDISTRICTING CRITERIA WILL PROVIDE THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE COMMISSIONERS COURT A MEANS BY WHICH TO EVALUATE PROPOSED PLANS, AND WHEREAS REDISTRICTING CRITERIA WILL ASSIST THE COUNTY IN ITS EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS, AND WHEREAS IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FOR THE ORDERLY CONSIDERATION AND EVALUATION OF REDISTRICTING PLANS WHICH MAY COME BEFORE THE COUNTY, AND WHEREAS THESE GUIDELINES RELATE TO PERSONS WHO HAVE SPECIFIC REDISTRICTING PLANS, THEY WISH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO CONSIDER NOW. THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT BY THE COUNTY OF FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, SECTION ONE, THAT THE COUNTY AND ITS ADOPTION OF REDISTRICTING PLAN FOR THE COMMISSIONERS PRECINCTS WILL ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA WHEN ESTABLISHING NEW CRITERIA. PRECINCT BOUNDARIES. TO THE EXTENT PRACTICAL ONE.

ESTABLISH IDENTIFIABLE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.

COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST SHOULD BE MAINTAINED IN A SINGLE PRECINCT TO AVOID SPLITTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS SHOULD BE COMPOSED OF WHOLE VOTING PRECINCTS.

AVOID SPLITTING CENSUS BLOCKS UNLESS NECESSARY.

COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS SHOULD BE CONFINED CONFIGURED SO THAT THEY ARE RELATIVELY EQUAL IN TOTAL POPULATION ACCORDING TO THE 2020 FEDERAL CENSUS DATA.

AND IN NO EVENT, SHOULD THE TOTAL POPULATION DEVIATION DEVIATION BE THE LARGEST OR THE SMALLEST PRECINCTS EXCEED 10% AS COMPARED TO THE IDEAL PRECINCT SIZE.

COMMISSIONERS PRECINCT FIVE PRECINCT COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS THINK SHOULD BE COMPACT AND COMPOSED OF CONTIGUOUS TERRITORIES.

COMPACTNESS. MAY BE. MAY CONTAIN A FUNCTIONAL AS WELL AS A GEOGRAPHICAL DIMENSION.

SIX CONSIDERATION MAY BE GIVEN TO THE PRESERVATION OF INCUMBENCY.

CONSTITUENCY RELATIONS BY RECOGNIZING RECOGNITION OF THE RESIDENCE OF INCUMBENTS IN THEIR HISTORY AND REPRESENTING CERTAIN AREAS.

SEVEN THE PLAN SHOULD BE NARROWLY TAILORED TO AVOID RACIAL GERRYMANDERING AND VIOLATION OF SHAW VERSUS RENO.

EIGHT THE PLAN SHOULD NOT FRAGMENT A GEOGRAPHICAL, COMPACT MINORITY COMMUNITY OR PACK MINORITY VOTERS IN THE IN THE PRESENCE OF POLARIZED

[00:50:01]

VOTING OR OTHERWISE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PROTECTED GROUPS SO AS TO CREATE POLITICAL LIABILITY UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

SECTION THREE. THE COMMISSIONERS COURT SHALL REVIEW ALL PLANS CONSIDERING THESE CRITERIA, AND WILL EVALUATE HOW WELL EACH PLAN CONFORMS TO THE CRITERIA.

SECTION FOUR CITIZENS MAY SUBMIT PROPOSED PLANS TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

ANY PLAN SUBMITTED TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY A CITIZEN FOR THE ADVISORY COMMITTEES COMMITTEE'S CONSIDERATION SHALL BE A COMPLETE PLAN.

IT SHOULD INCLUDE ALL FOUR COMMISSIONER PRECINCTS.

REDISTRICT THE ENTIRE COUNTY AND OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THIS RESOLUTION.

THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SHALL DECLINE TO CONSIDER ANY PLAN.

THAT IS NOT A COMPLETE PLAN. SECTION FIVE. ALL PLANS SUBMITTED BY CITIZENS, AS WELL AS PLANS SUBMITTED BY STAFF, CONSULTANTS AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, SHALL ALSO CONFORM TO THE CRITERIA ADOPTED IN THIS RESOLUTION.

SECTION SIX. IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS AND ANY REDISTRICTING PLAN THAT MIGHT BE SUBMITTED ARE MAXIMUM ASSISTANCE TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, IT IS A DECISION MAKING PROCESS. THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HEREBY SETS THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES TO BE THE FOLLOWING.

GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED BY EACH PERSON SUBMITTING A COMMENT OR REDISTRICTING PLAN FOR CONSIDERATION.

ONE. THE COMMISSIONERS COURT SHALL BE WANTS TO BE SURE THAT ALL PROPOSALS ARE FULLY AND ACCURATELY CONSIDERED.

THEREFORE, CITIZEN PROPOSED PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING AND BE LEGIBLE.

IF A PLAN IS SUBMITTED ORALLY. THEN THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT OPPORTUNITY FOR MISREPRESENTATION.

MISUNDERSTANDING, AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT ERRORS MAY BE MADE IN ANALYZING IT.

TWO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MAY WISH TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT SUBMITTED PLANS.

THEREFORE, PERSONS SUBMITTING PROPOSED PLANS MUST IDENTIFY THEMSELVES BY FULL NAME AND HOME ADDRESS AND PROVIDE A PHONE NUMBER AND, IF AVAILABLE, AN EMAIL ADDRESS. THREE PLANS FOR EACH PROPOSED COMMISSIONER PRECINCT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE 2020 CENSUS DATA AND CONFORM TO THE REDISTRICT CRITERIA OF THIS PROPOSAL. THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE SHALL ESTABLISH PROCEDURES GOVERNING SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS CONSISTENT WITH THIS RESOLUTION.

SECTION SEVEN. THE PLAN SHALL AWARD INCUMBENT OFFICE HOLDERS WITH THE ASSURANCE THAT THEY WILL CONTINUE TO REPRESENT THE MAJORITY OF INDIVIDUALS WHO ELECTED THESE INCUMBENTS AND ALL INCUMBENTS. RESIDENT RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THEIR REFORM PRECINCTS TO ENSURE CONTINUING CONTINUING CONTINUITY IN LEADERSHIP DURING THE REMAINING TERMS OF THE COMMENTS.

SECTION EIGHT. THE RESOLUTION SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE AND BE IN FULL FORCE IN EFFECT ON ITS EXECUTION OF THE COUNTY JUDGE.

THAT'S THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO SECOND.

I DO. OKAY. ASSUMING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? I HAVE ANOTHER. SO IT PASSED THREE, TWO.

CORRECT. BUT THIS HAD TO. I GOT ANOTHER MOTION.

YEAH. OKAY. SO THIS CURRENT MOTION PASSES. THREE, TWO.

OKAY. HOLD ON, HOLD ON. WHAT IS THAT? ANOTHER MOTION.

THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE RESOLUTION? NO. YOU WITHDREW YOUR RESOLUTION, SO YOU READ A NEW RESOLUTION.

I HAVE SAID I WILL HAVE TWO RESOLUTIONS. TWO MOTIONS.

ONE IS TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION AND THE TWO IS TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED.

GOT IT. GOT IT. OKAY. WE ARE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT.

AND SO DID YOU WITHDREW YOUR MOTION ON THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION.

SO THERE WAS NO RESOLUTION. YOU JUST READ. THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU TO READ IT.

I ASK THAT YOU READ THE RESOLUTION. INNOCENT.

I ASKED THE ATTORNEY FOR THIS. THIS IS THE INSTRUCTIONS I WAS GIVEN.

YEAH. OKAY. AS MAURICE. NO, YOU CAN'T JUST. CAN YOU PLEASE COME TO THE.

JUST REAL QUICK AS I THINK THE THE RECOMMENDATION WAS AS PER PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE, SINCE THERE'S BEEN A DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON THE AGENDA. FIRST, THERE HAD TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT ITEM THAT'S ON THE AGENDA, WHICH HE JUST READ, AND THERE HAS TO BE AGREEMENT TO AMEND IT. AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND MOTION TO APPROVE THE ACTUAL ITEM.

THAT'S THE FIRST AS AMENDED. AS AMENDED. THE FIRST THE FIRST MOTION WE JUST PASSED THREE TWO TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION.

AMEND THE RESOLUTION. ALLOW ME TO MAKE MY MOTION.

YEAH. I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 19 B AS AMENDED.

YEAH. SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS. I JUST THINK SO.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT REDISTRICTING.

AND WE'VE GONE ROUND AND ROUND ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'RE EVEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.

I THINK WHAT I CAN APPRECIATE ABOUT EACH OF THE COMMENTERS WHO COMMENTED PUBLICLY AND WHAT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS HAS BEEN REGARDING

[00:55:03]

REDISTRICTING HAS BEEN THAT OVERALL, RESIDENTS WANT TO HAVE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO SELECT THEIR REPRESENTATIVES.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT EVERY PERSON WHO PARTICIPATES IN A DEMOCRACY ONCE.

AND I THINK THAT'S FAIR. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COMMENT ABOUT AND CONJECTURE UP HERE ABOUT THE LEVEL OF CITIZEN'S PARTICIPATION IN THIS LAST REDISTRICTING EFFORT THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2021 AS COMPARED TO PREVIOUS REDISTRICTING EFFORTS.

YOU KNOW, WE HAD A LAWYER THAT THIS COURT EMPLOYED SINCE 1990 TO DO REDISTRICTING.

HE DID IT IN 1990. HE DID IT AGAIN AND IN TWO 2000, I BELIEVE, AND THEN AGAIN IN 2020 AND WITH WITH EACH OF THOSE HE WAS THE HE'S THE PREEMINENT PERSON THAT A LOT OF COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS RELY ON FOR REDISTRICTING.

AND HE STILL SERVES AS THE GENERAL COUNSEL, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, FOR THE TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, OR DID UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. SO I THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT HIM AND WHY THIS COURT, HAS NOT ENGAGED HIS SERVICES.

I HAD A LONG, EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION WITH HIM AFTER THIS RESOLUTION CAME OUT ON FRIDAY.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE EXPLAINED TO ME, WELL, ONE, ACTUALLY, LET ME JUST READ IN IN FULL WHAT HE SHARED IN, IN AN EMAIL HE, HE, HE SENT ABOUT THE, THE 2020 REDISTRICTING.

HE SAYS MY FIRM SERVED AS LEGAL COUNSEL FOR REDISTRICTING PURPOSES IN FORT BEND COUNTY IN 1990 THROUGH 2020.

WE WERE RETAINED FOR THE 2020 REDISTRICTING EFFORT PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 45.179 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

IN EACH PRIOR CYCLE, THE REDISTRICTING PROCESS INVOLVED THE FORMATION OF A CITIZENS COMMITTEE WITH ATTENDANT PUBLIC COMMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN 2020 DUE TO CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND OUR CONTROL. THE 2020 CENSUS WAS DELAYED AND THE TIME BETWEEN RELEASE OF THE OFFICIAL DATA AND DEADLINES UNDER STATE LAW FOR THE UPCOMING 20 UPCOMING ELECTION IN 2020 WERE SUCH THAT THE FORMATION AND DIRECT PARTICIPATION BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE COUNTY WERE NECESSARILY SOMEWHAT CURTAILED. HOWEVER, EVERY EFFORT WAS MADE TO COMPLY WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AND EACH PROPOSED PLAN WAS GIVEN CAREFUL REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT.

I HAVE TRIED TO RELOCATE ANY SPECIFIC EMAIL TRAFFIC BETWEEN MYSELF AND FORT BEND, WHICH MIGHT PERTAIN TO THE REDISTRICTING PLAN ADOPTED BY THE FULL COMMISSIONERS COURT ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 5TH, 2021, WITHOUT SUCCESS.

I AM, HOWEVER, ATTACHING A COPY OF BOTH A MAP AND THE RESPECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THIS OFFICIAL ACTION.

I WOULD URGE THE COURT TO CAREFULLY EXAMINE PARAGRAPH THREE OF THE ORDER.

THE ORDER READS IN THE RELEVANT PART. AFTER CONVENING IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR COMMENT UPON ANY AND ALL PROPOSED PLANS, AND AFTER MEETING AN OPEN SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO THE COUNTY FOR MODIFICATION OF EXISTING POLITICAL BOUNDARIES IN A MANNER DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE BOTH ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF NUMERICAL BALANCE BETWEEN THE FOUR COMMISSIONERS COURT PRECINCTS, AND TO PROTECT THE VOTING RIGHTS OF ALL RESIDENTS OF FORT BEND COUNTY.

THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS DETERMINED TO ADOPT THE REDISTRICTING PLAN ATTACHED TO THIS ORDER IN MAP AND DATA FORM.

EXHIBIT THREE. PROPOSAL KP GEORGE THREE. I ASSUME THAT THE ORDER HE CONTINUES TO GO ON AND SAY.

I ASSUME THAT THE ORDER OF NOVEMBER 5TH, 2021 WAS ADOPTED IN GOOD FAITH BY ALL VOTING MEMBERS OF THE COURT AT THAT TIME.

ANY SUGGESTION MADE MORE RECENTLY THAT THE FINAL PLAN, I.E.

PROPOSAL KP GEORGE THREE, WAS ADOPTED WITHOUT PROPER SCRUTINY, IS CONTRARY TO MY RECALL OF THE FACTS OF THIS MATTER.

THE DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ATTACHED TO THAT PLAN REFLECTS POPULATION BALANCE WITHIN APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES, WITH SUFFICIENT ATTENTION TO RACIAL REPRESENTATION TO MOST LIKELY WITHSTAND ANY POSSIBLE JUDICIAL SCRUTINY.

THAT BEING SAID, I AM AWARE OF THE CONTROVERSIES IN THE FAIRLY RECENT TIME FRAME AND THE UNCERTAINTIES RELATED TO THESE MATTERS.

AS A CONSEQUENCE, I AM ALSO AWARE OF INTEREST PRESENTLY ON THE TOPIC OF MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING.

I HAVE CAUTIONED AGAINST SUCH EFFORTS PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE UNAVAILABILITY OF OFFICIAL CENSUS DATA AT THE CENSUS BLOCK LEVEL, WHICH IS NECESSARY TO PROPERLY REDISTRICT. THE CENSUS IS CONDUCTED EVERY TEN YEARS, AND THIS DATA IS THE ONLY DATA THAT IS GIVEN OFFICIAL RECOGNITION BY THE COURTS WHEN THAT DATA IS RELEASED, TYPICALLY THE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ACTUAL CENSUS COUNT.

IT MAY ALREADY BE IN REALITY SOMEWHAT OUT OF DATE DUE TO POPULATION INFLUX OR DEPARTURE DURING THE INTERVENING MONTHS SINCE THE OFFICIAL COUNT IN APRIL OF EACH

[01:00:06]

EVEN NUMBERED 10TH YEAR. THE PROBLEM I.E. OR THIS PROBLEM, I.E.

ATTEMPTING TO FAIRLY ACCURATELY COUNT A NATIONWIDE POPULATION GROWING RAPIDLY BEYOND 340 MILLION PERSONS IS COMPOUNDED EACH YEAR FOLLOWING THE 2020 CENSUS COUNT. ALTHOUGH THE CENSUS BUREAU RELEASED PERIODIC ESTIMATES OF COUNTY LEVEL POPULATION, THESE ESTIMATES ARE NOT BROKEN DOWN DEMOGRAPHICALLY TO THE CENSUS BLOCK.

I AM AWARE I AM AWARE OF COUNTIES ELSEWHERE UNDERTAKING MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING, BUT TYPICALLY THIS HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED UNDER 1 OR 2 CIRCUMSTANCES. IN ONE CASE WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, A LARGE POPULATION INFLUX INFLUX CAN BE RATHER SPECIFICALLY LOCATED TO A GEOGRAPHIC AREA WITH CORRESPONDING EFFORT BY THE COUNTY TO CONDUCT WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED A WINDSHIELD SURVEY, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A DETERMINATION OF SEPARATE HOUSEHOLDS AND APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD UTILIZED IN THE LAST CENSUS.

THIS SORT OF EFFORT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO INITIALLY PROVE UP.

IT IS VERY COSTLY AND IT IS INHERENTLY SUBJECT TO CHALLENGE ON THE BASIS OF ACCURACY, INTEGRITY OF THE PROCEDURES USED AND OTHERWISE SUSPECT AS NOTHING MORE THAN A BEST ESTIMATE OF POPULATION. THE OTHER CIRCUMSTANCE WOULD OCCUR WHEN A CIVIL LAWSUIT UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IS FILED ALLEGING A GROSS IMBALANCE OF POPULATION, LEADING TO A DILUTION OF A QUALIFIED POPULATION OF VOTERS.

RIGHTS UNDER THE UNDER THAT ACT LEADS A FEDERAL COURT TO ORDER REDISTRICT.

THIS TYPE OF SUIT IS MOST OFTEN FILED SOON AFTER ADOPTION OF A PLAN BY THE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT, WHEN THE MOST RECENT CENSUS DATA IS STILL RELATIVELY FRESH.

WHILE I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SEVERAL SUITS BROUGHT UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, IN AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE CASES, WHICH WAS FILED SEVERAL YEARS INTO THE DECADE.

THE COURT. THE COURT DETERMINED THAT MID-DECADE WAS TOO LATE FOR JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, AND THAT THE PLAN ADOPTED BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, WHILE NOT PERHAPS A THING OF BEAUTY, WAS SUFFICIENTLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND ENTERED AN ORDER TO STRICTLY ABIDE BY THE PROVISION OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT IN THE NEXT CENSUS AND TO SUBMIT ANY PROPOSED PLAN FOR COURT SCRUTINY BEFORE ADOPTION.

I DO NOT PERCEIVE AT THIS TIME ANY SIGNIFICANT REASON TO UNDERTAKE MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING.

I HOPE THESE COMMENTS ARE HELPFUL. ROBERT T, BOB BASS.

I THINK IT'S HELPFUL TO NOTE. SO THE OUR CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD ON FRIDAY WAS QUITE ROBUST.

ONE THING, AS HE NOTED HERE IS THAT WHEN IS IS THAT REDISTRICTING RELIES ON POPULATION DATA.

YOU COUNT EVERY PERSON, NOT JUST VOTERS. I KNOW I'VE SHARED THAT BEFORE.

AND HE SAID IN OUR CONVERSATION THAT IF WE WERE TO UNDERTAKE A MID-DECADE REDISTRICTING IT OPENS THE COUNTY UP TO LEGAL LIABILITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT ACCURATELY TAKEN ACCOUNT OF EVERY PERSON.

HE FURTHERMORE, TO THAT FACT, I DID ASK YOU KNOW, SINCE WE DID SINCE THE 2020 CENSUS WAS DONE HOW MANY NEW SUBDIVISIONS HAVE WE PLATTED? PLATS FOR DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF OF A COMMUNITY.

THERE ARE OVER 500 PLUS PLATS THAT THIS COURT HAS SIGNED.

SINCE THAT TIME, SINCE THE LAST CENSUS WAS EVEN CONDUCTED.

AND SO THERE ARE INNUMERABLE COMMUNITIES THAT DID NOT EXIST THEN THAT EXISTS TODAY.

ACCORDING TO BOB BASS, WHICH I DON'T THINK ANY MEMBER OF THIS COURT WOULD IMPUGN HIS OR HIS LEGAL EXPERTISE.

AGAIN, MANY OF THE 254 COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS HAVE HAVE EMPLOYED HIM FOR DECADES TO AS THE PREEMINENT EXPERT ON THIS AND OTHER MATTERS.

AND HE SAID THAT IF YOU WERE TO UNDERTAKE THIS, A WINDSHIELD SURVEYING WOULD IS THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO START, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE POPULATION DATA. I'VE HEARD NO SORT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT COLLECTING THAT POPULATION DATA BECAUSE, AGAIN, ABSENT THAT, WE ARE DISENFRANCHIZING PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT TO BE APPROPRIATELY REPRESENTED.

THAT ONE MAN, ONE VOTE. AND WE HAVE NOT ENSURED THAT WE HAVE JUST RELIABLE DATA ABOUT WHERE PEOPLE ARE.

SO THAT'S ONE. THERE HAVE ALSO YOU KNOW, BEEN ASSERTIONS ABOUT HIS EXPERTISE AND OTHERS YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT. THIS IS THE LAWYER WHO THE THIS COURT APPROVED TO HIRE.

[01:05:03]

I THINK 3 OR 4 TIMES OVER, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

AND SO, AGAIN, IF HIS OPINION WAS FINE. ALL OF THOSE OTHER TIMES, WHY NOW? IS IT NOT OKAY? THE THING THAT I DID LEARN, IT WAS SAID SEVERAL TIMES BUT ONE IN PARTICULAR OF NOTE THAT ATTORNEY BASS AND HIS FIRM NO LONGER DO ANY REDISTRICTING WORK.

I ASKED HIM ABOUT THAT, AND HE SAID THAT THAT WAS NOT TRUE, THAT INDEED, HE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE MEMBER OF THIS COURT AND DECLINED TO TAKE THIS ON BECAUSE HE DID NOT FEEL LIKE THERE WAS A JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH AN ACTION AND DID NOT WANT TO GET HIS FIRM INVOLVED IN SUCH AN ACTION.

AND SO WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT SHOPPING FOR SOMEONE WHO GIVES US THE OPINION WE WANT, AND RATHER WE HAVE TO BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW WE ARE OBTAINING COUNSEL.

THAT GIVES US THE CLEAR INFORMATION THAT PROTECTS OUR TAXPAYER'S BEST INTEREST, BECAUSE WE ARE IN A VERY DANGEROUS TERRITORY.

AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO UNDERSCORE THAT HE SAID SO IT WAS SAID THAT NO LAWYER EVER REVIEWED THE MAP THAT WAS ULTIMATELY PASSED BY THIS COURT, AND INDEED ALSO BEFORE IT WAS PASSED.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HE EXPRESSED IN THIS MEMO, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HE EXPRESSED TO AT LEAST ONE OTHER MEMBER OF THIS COURT IN RECENT DAYS WAS NOT TRUE, THAT INDEED, HE HAD REVIEWED THE MAP THAT WAS ULTIMATELY PASSED BY THIS COURT.

HE WENT FURTHER TO SAY HE WAS IN THE COURT FOR MULTIPLE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND AFFIRMED THAT THIS MAP DOES COMPLY WITH THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT AND HIS HIS EXPERTISE, AND AS HE SAID IN THE MEMO AND SAID IN OUR CONVERSATION, WOULD WITHSTAND ANY CHALLENGES BROUGHT FORTH ON THE BASIS OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT.

LOOK, WE CAN NO LONGER CONTINUE TO BEND THE TRUTH TO SERVE OUR ULTIMATE POLITICAL GOALS.

IF YOUR EFFORT IS TO REDISTRICT THE COUNTY BECAUSE THE COUNTY JUDGE HAS SWITCHED PARTIES AND YOU'VE MADE A DEAL TO DO THAT.

SAY THAT, BUT DON'T MISREPRESENT FACTS HERE THAT ARE NOT TRUE, THAT THERE'S WE DON'T MISREPRESENT FACTS HERE TO SAY THAT THERE WAS SOME SORT OF BASIS IN LEGALITY. THAT IS NOT TRUE, THAT HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THIS LAWYER AND EVERY OTHER LAWYER THAT I'VE TALKED TO THAT HAS ANY EXPERTISE IN REDISTRICTING LAW. THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO TO SAY HERE THAT IS VERY DANGEROUS, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HIGHLIGHTED AND STAR FOR YOU THAT AGAIN, BY PROCEEDING WITH SUCH AN ACTION, WE ARE IN GRAVE LEGAL RISK OF BEING OF BEING SUED.

THE OTHER THING THAT I WILL JUST ADD HERE IS THAT THERE'S THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT WHY WE HAVE TO WHY WE'RE UNDERTAKING A MID-CYCLE REDISTRICTING.

AND I HAVE TO ASK THAT WHY THERE'S NO LEGAL BASIS FOR IT.

INDEED, THERE'S ALL THE MANNER IN THE WORLD THAT THIS WOULD OPEN THIS.

THIS WILL CONTINUE TO OPEN US UP TO LEGAL LIABILITY.

AND THE QUESTION COMES BACK TO WHY? AND AGAIN, I WOULD URGE MY COLLEAGUES, I'M LOOKING AT EACH ONE OF YOU TO HONESTLY CONSIDER THE POSITION YOU'RE PUTTING THIS COUNTY IN LEGALLY.

BY BASING THIS ON A FALSE PREMISE, YOU GET THAT? I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? IN YOUR POSTS, THE MOTION CARRIES THREE TWO.

AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 20. PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER PRECINCT THREE.

[20. COMMISSIONER, PCT. 3:]

YES. I MOVE APPROVAL OF. AND WITH THAT WITH. THERE IS A CORRECTION.

COMMISSIONER OLGA, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ IT? YES.

THE AGENDA ITEM 20 SHOULD READ. TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION ON FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.

LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR APPLIED OPTOELECTRONICS, INCORPORATED.

TEXAS SEMICONDUCTOR INNOVATION FUND, CIF. GRANT APPLICATION.

I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF THE MOTION AS CORRECTED.

SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 20.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

AND NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 21, PRESENTED BY AUDITOR AND WE WILL TAKE IT SEPARATELY.

[21. AUDITOR:]

AGENDA ITEM 21 A MOVE. APPROVAL OF 21 A IS PRESENTED.

SECOND, AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ANY DISCUSSION.

[01:10:01]

YEAH. I I JUST HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. I AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I'VE BEEN SO ONE.

I I DON'T WHOLLY DISAGREE WITH THE MERITS OF THIS EFFORT.

BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH EMPLOYER EMPLOYMENT LAW HERE.

I THINK WE HAVE A CLOSED SESSION ITEM ON THIS.

DO WE, MR. AUDITOR? THE HR DIRECTOR ASKED FOR THIS ITEM TO BE PULLED.

BASED ON REPRESENTATIONS FROM OUR CONSULTANT WEAVER, STATING THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL LEGAL REVISIONS THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THIS POLICY.

THERE WAS A COMMUNICATION SENT. I'M SURPRISED THAT THIS ITEM IS STILL MOVING FORWARD.

CONSIDERING THERE ARE SO MANY IDENTIFIED REVISIONS THAT ARE NEEDED.

WELL, MIGHT I SUGGEST THIS? WE DISCUSS THIS. GET THAT UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT LEGAL REVIEW WAS AND PERHAPS TAKE IT BACK UP AFTER A CLOSED SESSION.

I'M GOING TO ASK THE AUDITOR TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS IS IMPACTED BY WHAT WEAVER IS DOING.

IS IT IMPACTING THAT AT ALL? IT IS NOT OKAY. THE THE ACTION.

THAT'S THE END OF THE DISCUSSION. YEAH. THAT'S IT.

SORRY. CAN YOU FINISH YOUR CAN YOU FINISH YOUR STATEMENT? YOU SAID IT'S NOT. THE THE RECOMMENDATIONS COMING FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR ARE BASED ON A COMPREHENSIVE AUDIT OF THE LEAVE UTILIZATION DURING CALENDAR 2024, WHICH IDENTIFIED NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICY AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN.

THE FINDINGS THAT I REPORTED TO EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY.

I SHARED WITH YOU THE BASIS OF THOSE FINDINGS.

MADE SURE THAT THERE WAS CLARITY IN WHAT I WAS RECOMMENDING, AND REINFORCED THAT THE ONLY THINGS I'M SUGGESTING IN THE POLICY REVISIONS IS TO ADD CLARITY AND REMOVE THE SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION.

IF WEAVER, OUR CONSULTANT, WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE FURTHER CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, I AM HAPPY TO MEET WITH THEM. THEY HAVE NOT MET WITH ME PERSONALLY YET.

THEY'VE MET WITH A FEW MEMBERS OF MY STAFF, BUT DID NOT GET INTO AN IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF THIS.

I AM WILLING TO MEET EXPEDITIOUSLY WITH THEM, BUT THE ACTION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY WILL ALLOW ME, THE TREASURER'S OFFICE, TO DO OUR JOBS TO CONFORM TO THE COMPLIANCE.

THAT'S THE WILL OF THIS COURT. BUT IF THE COURT ENGAGED A WEAVER AND WE ASKED FOR A CERTAIN WORD PRODUCT.

THEY HAVE NOT COMPLETED THAT WORK PROGRESS PRODUCT BECAUSE THERE'S SOME LEGAL ISSUES THAT THAT THEY FEEL.

AND OUR H.R. DIRECTOR FEELS HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED.

WHY ARE WE RUSHING TO DO SOMETHING NOW? AND WE CAN'T JUST TAKE THIS UNDER ADVISEMENT, WORK OUT THOSE DETAILS AND BRING US SOMETHING FRESH AND NEW, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO HAVE TO GO BACK OVER AND OVER AND GET IT DONE.

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME RIGHT NOW. I'M GONNA VOTE AGAINST THIS. AND BUT I THINK THAT IT'S BEEN THIS COURT'S PRACTICE FOR YEARS TO GET IT RIGHT.

SO LET'S JUST SLOW DOWN AND WE CAN MEET WHERE IT'S NOT GOING TO END BECAUSE OF THIS ACTION.

IT'S NOT I PROMISE YOU, IT'S NOT GOING TO END.

OKAY. IF SO, I JUST THINK IF NO ACTION IS TAKEN TODAY OR IF IT FAILS.

OKAY. SO I WILL. IT DOESN'T NEED TO FAIL. I MEAN, EVERYTHING THAT YOU RECOMMEND MAY BE MATERIALLY INCLUDED IN THE ACTION, BUT TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND BACKTRACK WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE.

LET'S JUST LOOK AT IT AND SEE. YOU HAVEN'T TALKED TO THE CONSULTANT.

WHY DON'T YOU TALK TO THE CONSULTANT? I'VE TRIED.

I'VE TRIED. THEY REFUSE. I WILL ARRANGE FOR YOU TO TALK TO YOU.

OKAY. SHALL WE HEAR FROM THE ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO HAS THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE ON HIS SHOULDERS? BECAUSE HE IS. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PAYROLL.

THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE COUNTY TREASURERS DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

SO WOULD YOU CLARIFY THINGS FOR US? HOLD ON. HOLD ON.

REAL QUICK. SORRY. YOU HAD MENTIONED YOU. HAVE YOU TRIED TO MEET WITH THE CONSULTANT AND THEY'VE REFUSED? THEY HAVE NOT MADE TIME TO MEET WITH ME PERSONALLY.

NO. AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING. YOU REQUESTED THAT FOR TEN MONTHS.

AND YOU'VE REQUESTED THAT TIME? I'VE REQUESTED IT THROUGH HR.

YES. SORRY. BEFORE WE GET TO NICOLE. SORRY. IS OUR DIRECTOR HERE? YES, SHE'S HERE BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S A CONCERN.

IF IF OUR AUDITORS ASK FOR TIME AND HASN'T BEEN GRANTED THAT.

AND WHILE SHE'S COMING UP, WE'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST 30 POLICIES THAT NEED A LEGAL REVIEW.

MY OFFICE HAS INITIATED THE PROCESS OF STARTING THE REVIEW, BUT WE ARE NOT DONE.

WE'VE RECEIVED THIS NOTICE TWO WEEKS AGO, SO OUR OFFICE AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AS WELL WOULD NEED TO BE IN CONSIDERATION IN THIS VOTE.

[01:15:06]

WHY DON'T YOU JUST WITHDRAW THE MOTION RIGHT NOW? CONSIDER IT WHEN THEY GET A CHANCE TO VOTE. WELL, IN FAIRNESS AND FAIRNESS TO EDITOR, I THINK IN FAIRNESS TO EDITOR, I THINK THAT'S A FAIR POINT.

WHY HAS THE CONSULTANT NOT MADE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE TO HIM? WHAT? GOOD AFTERNOON TO THE COURT. WE ARE CONSULTING WAS HIRED BY THE COURT TO PERFORM A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS AND REVIEW OF ALL COUNTY POLICIES AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUBSEQUENTLY TO PREPARE A COMPLIANCE CALENDAR TO PRESENT TO THE COURT. THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE HIRED TO DO.

OUR OFFICE HAS SENT OUT AND DID SEND OUT. THE OFFICE OF HUMAN RESOURCES TO ALL COUNTY DEPARTMENTS AND OFFICES INITIATING. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, INTRODUCING WEAVER TO THOSE OFFICES AND ALSO ASKING THOSE OFFICES TO PROVIDE WEAVER WITH A POINT OF CONTACT FOR TO REPRESENT THAT OFFICE, TO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION RELATIVE TO INTERNAL POLICIES THAT THAT PARTICULAR OFFICE OR DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE HAD. NOW, THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE PROVIDED MR. BROWN AS THEIR POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE INFORMATION, WHATEVER INFORMATION MR. BROWN PROVIDED TO WEAVER. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE IT IN HAND.

HOWEVER, POST SINCE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM WAS PUT ON THE AGENDA.

OUR OFFICE HUMAN RESOURCES HAS MET WITH YOU, EDITOR, AND WE ENGAGE AND OFFER TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH WEAVER, YOUR OFFICE. WE ASK YOU TO PROVIDE WHOMEVER YOU WOULD LIKE.

CHRIS. BREAUX. MELISSA. ESTHER. MR. KELLY MCNALLY REPRESENTED YOUR OFFICE AT THAT MEETING.

WE WERE PRESENTED AT THAT MEETING. ALL OF THEIR REVIEW IN PHASE ONE INTO INCLUDE THEIR ANALYSIS OF THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE OR TREASURER OR PAYROLL OR WHOMEVER IS PUTTING THIS FORWARD IS MAKING TO THE POLICIES.

I HAVE PROVIDED THE COURT WITH THAT INFORMATION THAT WEAVER HAS PRESENTED.

SO AT THIS PARTICULAR JUNCTURE, WE KNOW THAT WEAVER HAS STATED IN THEIR GAP ANALYSIS THAT THERE ARE OVER 30 POLICIES THAT DON'T THAT NEED NEED.

I'M EMPHASIZING THE WORD NEED A LEGAL UPDATE.

AND AS I HAVE SHARED WITH THE COURT, FOUR OF THE FIVE POLICIES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT BEFORE THIS COURT FOR REVISION.

WEAVER HAS SAID THOSE THINGS NEED A LEGAL UPDATE.

WELL, BUT SO WHAT I WANT TO SAY, I'M JUST SINCE I'M HERE.

RIGHT. THE POLICIES THAT THE HONORS OFFICE HAS PUT FORWARD FOR REVISION. DO HAVE AN IMPACT. IF YOU ARE TAKING AWAY SOMEONE'S ABILITY TO HAVE PAID PARENTAL LEAVE, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT AWAY FROM OUR PART TIME EMPLOYEES.

THEN THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COURT TO UNDERSTAND FURTHER AS TO WHY THE TREASURER OR THE AUDITOR OR WHOMEVER WANT TO TAKE AWAY LEAVE PAID PARENTAL LEAVE FROM OUR PART TIME EMPLOYEES.

WHY IS IT THAT WE WANT TO TAKE AWAY OR CHANGE THE MANNER IN WHICH WE DO BEREAVEMENT? WHY IS IT THAT WE WANT TO DO THESE THINGS, THOSE REQUIRES SO THERE IS MATERIAL CHANGES TO THE POLICIES, SIR. SO AND WE HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT YOU HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE WITH.

ON JULY 30TH YOUR TEAM MET. THEY CONFIRMED THEY WERE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO ASK QUESTIONS, AND THEY WERE GIVEN THE ABILITY TO READ TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION. SO AT THIS JUNCTURE, WHAT I SIMPLY ASK THE COURT TO DO, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS BEING THROWN AROUND ABOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY, ETC. ETC. I'M ASKING THE COURT TO TABLE THIS MATTER.

LET'S HAVE THE RELATIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS IT THAT THE TREASURER WANTS TO DO? WHY IS IT THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE CHANGES? IF YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS AN OUTCRY, WHETHER IT'S A MENTAL HEALTH OUTCRY OR A PHYSICAL OUTCRY, HAS TO RECEIVE AN ASSESSMENT BY THE RISK MANAGEMENT OFFICE THAT ARE

[01:20:03]

NOT CERTIFIED MENTAL HEALTH PRACTITIONERS, THEN WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

YEAH. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. YEAH. YOU SEE, I HEAR YOU.

AND WOULD YOU PLEASE GIVE SOMEBODY BEHIND? LET HIM ALSO EXPLAIN WHY.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO HAS THIS ON HIS SHOULDERS.

SO JUST JUST TO BE CLEAR HERE. THANK YOU. GENTLEMEN, IS, YOU KNOW, THIS NOVEMBER WE WILL BE GOING ON A YEAR THAT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS. I BROUGHT THIS WITH MY TEAM TO ATTENTION TO HR AND THEN ON TO COMMISSIONERS COURT, WHERE THERE WAS GROWING EXPANDED USE OF LEAVE.

THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE POLICY IN THAT PROCESS.

THE POLICY IS NOT EXACTLY AS IT SHOULD BE. AND I AGREE, ALL THE POLICIES WITHIN THE COUNTY HAVE TO BE REVIEWED AND NEED NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. BUT TIME IS TICKING AND WE HAVE TAKEN THIS HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN THE MEETING WHERE WE HAD THE AUDIT COME OUT, YOU KNOW, WE WERE LOOKING AT RESOLUTION IN JANUARY TO DEAL WITH THIS.

AND HERE WE ARE NOW. IT'S AUGUST. IT'S MY JOB AS TREASURER TO ENSURE THAT WE ALL THE FUNDS THAT LEAVE THE TREASURY ARE, AS PER CLEARLY APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS COURT.

THE POLICIES ARE BASICALLY OUR CONTRACT. AS WITH OUR VENDORS, WE HAVE CONTRACTS THAT SAY THIS IS THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WE'RE PAYING, RIGHT. AND THEN WE ONCE AGAIN APPROVE THOSE PAYMENTS.

RIGHT. AND THOSE PAYMENTS NEED TO ALIGN WITH WHAT THOSE CONTRACTS SAY.

RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. AND ACTUALLY AFTER THE MEETING ON JULY 22ND, WE HAVE INSTITUTED A FEW CHECKS AND BALANCES.

AND I'VE YOU KNOW, THE THING I WAS AVOIDING IS I DID NOT WANT IT TO BE ME OR THE AUDITOR THAT ARE SAYING NO.

RIGHT. IT SHOULD HAPPEN LONG BEFORE THAT, RIGHT? IF IT DOESN'T MATCH POLICY, THEN IT SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THINGS WERE HAPPENING.

AND IF THAT YOU KNOW, THAT MONEY GOING OUT THE DOOR.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, MY BASIC CORE DUTY TO ENSURE IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY YOU GUYS.

AND I DON'T CARE WHAT THESE POLICIES SAY, AS LONG AS THEY'RE CLEAR SO WE CAN ACTUALLY DO IT, DO THE JOB RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO SAY EVERY SUPERVISOR, EVERY THE HR DIRECTOR CAN DECIDE WHO GETS PAID, WHAT, WHEN AND WHERE AND USES, YOU KNOW, GETS HOW MUCH BENEFIT.

THAT'S FINE. BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A POLICY IN PLACE THAT WE CAN ENSURE THE FUNDS GOING OUT THE DOOR MATCH THE POLICY.

ARE YOU WILLING TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR AN ILLEGAL ACT DONE OR IMPROPER ACT DONE THAT'S NOT VETTED BY OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT? ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY? AS FAR AS I KNOW, THESE POLICIES.

YES OR NO? YES OR NO? YEAH. OKAY. WELL, I'M NOT EVEN.

SO LET'S LET'S JUST GO AHEAD. TABLE THIS AND WE CAN DEAL WITH IT.

WE HAVE TO FINISH LINE. YEAH, BUT BASICALLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN, WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, WE DON'T PUSH SOMETHING RIGHT NOW.

WE SHOULD REVISIT IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. YEAH.

LET'S GO. IT'S A SENSE OF URGENCY. NOW, WE DO UNDERSTAND.

BUT WE ALWAYS TRY TO GET IT RIGHT. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS AND THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT YET. WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS THE PRACTICAL? WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF US NOT TAKING ANY ACTION RIGHT NOW? WHAT IS THAT IMPACT? I MEAN, ALL THE THE ACT, THE. DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED ARE AN ILLEGAL ACT.

RIGHT. YOU SAY ILLEGAL ACT. ILLEGAL ACT. RIGHT.

THAT THAT AREN'T APPROVED. WE'RE BREAKING THE LAW.

IF YOU LOOKED AT IT IN AND YOU SAID THAT'S PER THE AUDIT.

OKAY. WE'RE NOT. WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING. WELL, I GUESS IT'S BEEN APPROVED.

RIGHT. THAT HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED. HAD BEEN ADJUDICATED RESPONSIBLE. I PERSONALLY LOOK AT THIS AS, YOU KNOW, A STOPGAP TO WELL, FIRST, YOU DON'T GET INTO THIS SITUATION.

YOU DON'T HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THE PAYROLL. YOU DON'T KNOW.

BUT BEFORE THAT, TO YOU, BUT I DO. BUT I GIVE YOU SOMETHING TO DO.

I'M SAYING BUT BUT. SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST BACK THAT UP AND QUIT MAKING THOSE KIND OF STATEMENTS ON THE RECORD IN PUBLIC? THIS IS NOT ABOUT PAYROLL. THIS IS ABOUT FUNDS.

YOU SAID WE'RE BREAKING THE LAW. YOU SAID WE'RE BREAKING THE LAW IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM.

THAT'S IRRESPONSIBLE. IT APPEARS. IT APPEARS WHEN IT COULD BE REVIEWED TO KNOW WHETHER IT'S ILLEGAL OR NOT.

LET'S GO AND HAVE THIS LEGAL REVIEW. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T TAKE THE ACTION TO CLARIFY THINGS NOW.

IF WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, THAT'S FINE.

NOW, THE FACT THAT YOU SAY WE REVISIT THIS OVER AND OVER.

[01:25:04]

WE'VE BEEN REVISITING THIS THING NOW FOR A YEAR OR NINE MONTHS.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF IF THE BOTTOM LINE IS, WHAT ARE YOU NOT GOING TO MAKE? ARE YOU NOT GOING TO AGREE THAT THE PAYMENTS CAN BE MADE SINCE THEY DON'T, RIGHT? RIGHT NOW WE ARE SCRUTINIZING DOING THE CHECKS THAT SHOULD BE DONE BEFOREHAND TO ENSURE THAT WHEN THE TREASURER'S DISBURSING THIS MONEY, THAT IT MATCHES THE CURRENT POLICY. RIGHT.

WHICH DOES NOT IS NOT CLEAR AS THIS. OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS CLARIFICATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, ETC., WHO ARE ACTUALLY PREPARING THE INFORMATION FOR YOU TO TO CLARIFICATION FOR EVERYBODY.

YEAH. TO KNOW WHAT THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. OKAY.

SO AT THE AT THE PRESENT TIME IF THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH THE STATUTE OR LET ME REPHRASE THAT, IF IT DOESN'T, IF, IF IF IT IF THE REQUEST FOR PAYMENT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS COURT'S POLICY GUIDELINES THAT WE APPROVED, WHAT ACTION DO YOU TAKE DONE.

YOU DON'T PAY IT, RIGHT. WE QUESTION IT AND AND TAKE THAT.

DON'T PAY THAT SECTION OF THAT LEAD. SO RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE OF CONFUSION, WE HAVE EMPLOYEES.

BECAUSE IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY IS SPENT ACCORDING TO THE TO THE, TO THE PROVISIONS AND POLICY PASSED BY THIS COMMISSIONERS COURT.

YOU NOT AS A PAYROLL HAD, BUT YOU AS A COUNTY TREASURER, INDEPENDENT ELECTED OFFICIAL WHO SAYS I CAN'T PAY THAT? CORRECT. CORRECT. AND BASICALLY, YOU'RE MAKING ME THE BAD GUY BY NOT TAKING ACTION.

WELL, BUT WHAT I SEE IT FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

WE'RE TALKING A LOT OF LEGAL ISSUES. CAN WE JUDGE, PLEASE, SIR? SO ONE QUESTION I HAVE. AFTER THAT, I WILL COME BACK TO YOU.

AND THIS IS MY QUESTION. IF THIS POLICY, IF WE APPROVED TODAY AND OF COURSE, A CONSULTANT IS ENGAGED IN THIS CONVERSATION AND WHEN THEY COME AND MAKE CHANGES. I HEARD THIS ALREADY, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BE ON THE RECORD AND THEY SAY, OKAY IT'S A SECTION MANUAL, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYEE INFORMATION MANUAL, SECTION 702.

WE ARE GOING TO REVISE IT. IS THERE ANYTHING STOPPING THEM FROM DOING THAT? NO, BUT YOU ARE TRYING TO YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WHICH IS BEING HAPPENING.

WE NEED TO PUT AN END TO IT. AND SO WE WILL, YOU KNOW, IF THEY COME BACK AND ADDRESS IT IN A BETTER WAY, THEY CAN. CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM HERE? I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM. YES, MA'AM I WILL GO TO I WILL GO TO YOU.

THE ISSUE THAT OUR OFFICE HAS IS THAT WE'VE BEEN PUT ON NOTICE OF ALL OF THE LEGAL REVIEW THAT'S NEEDED.

WEAVER I BELIEVE THEY ENTERED THEIR CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY LAST OCTOBER.

UPON ENTERING THE CONTRACT AS A CONSULTANT, THEY HAD TO REACH OUT TO ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS, ELECTED OFFICIALS, ETCETERA TO POPULATE THE BODY OF INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE REGARDING THEIR POLICIES.

WE'RE COMING UP ON A YEARS, MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM OUR GENERAL COUNSEL CHIEF, THAT ABOUT 2 OR 3 MONTHS THEY SHOULD BE FINISHED.

IF THE COURT ADOPTS WHATEVER REVISIONS TODAY, WE COULD BE DUPLICATING EFFORTS HERE IN ABOUT 2 OR 3 MONTHS BECAUSE, AGAIN, THE LEGAL REVIEW WOULD STILL NEED TO BE DONE.

WE WERE INFORMED OF THE LEGAL REVIEW OF ABOUT 30 PROVISIONS.

I BELIEVE IT IS TWO WEEKS AGO. SOME HAVE BEEN DONE.

THERE'S STILL A WEALTH OF OTHERS THAT NEED TO BE REVIEWED.

SO TO THAT, I JUST WOULD ADD THAT INFORMATION TO THE COURT FOR THE CONSIDERATION ABOUT ITS DECISION ON THE POLICY TODAY.

UNDERSTANDING WE'LL HAVE TO VISIT THIS AGAIN. YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION.

HOW IT IS DUPLICATING IT IS THEY'RE DOING THEIR WORK ANYWAY.

YES, THEY'RE DOING THEIR WORK. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT OUR WORK IN TERMS OF A LEGAL REVIEW WOULD HAVE TO CATCH UP AFTERWARDS, WE COULD BE AMENDING POLICIES AGAIN. I'M NOT CERTAIN AS TO ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT ED AND BILL HAVE PUT FORTH.

WE OBVIOUSLY WILL WORK TOGETHER WITH THEM. BUT AGAIN, TWO WEEKS NOTICE OF LEGAL REVIEW OF OVER 30 POLICIES.

IT'S NOT DONE FROM OUR OFFICE AND WEAVER'S WORK IS STILL NOT DONE.

AND THAT'S THE MORE IMPORTANT FACTOR. CAN WE ASK WEAVER TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY, SINCE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS A HOT TOPIC? WE CAN WE WILL. THIS THIS CONSULTANT, I BELIEVE THERE ARE MAIN POINT OF CONTACT IS WITH HR.

SO I WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO NICOLE, BUT OUR OFFICE WOULD DEFINITELY SUPPORT EXPEDITING ANY REQUESTS THAT THE COURT WOULD HAVE FOR REVIEW.

YES. AND I THINK IS THIS SOMETHING DONE FOR THE THAT WE COULD DEFINITELY TAKE ACTION ON AT THE NEXT COURT MEETING? THAT'S TWO WEEKS, SIR. I'M NOT SURE. NICOLE, I WOULD OFFER HER AND I WOULD OFFER MY GENERAL COUNSEL CHIEF, WHOSE TEAM IS REVISING THE POLICIES. GOOD MORNING.

OR GOOD AFTERNOON? I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.

WE HAVE MADE THIS A PRIORITY. IN FACT, THEY'VE MOVED.

[01:30:02]

WE HAVE 80 COUNTING POLICIES. THIS IS A HUGE OVERHAUL.

WE ARE OVERHAULING THE WHOLE EMPLOYEE INFORMATION MANUAL SO WE CAN MOVE.

WE HAVE MOVED THIS UP. THIS IS A PRIORITY. THAT'S.

THEY JUST GAVE IT TO US FOR LEGAL REVIEW. THEY HAVE DONE THE CONSULTANT WORK.

WE'RE DOING THE LEGAL WORK. I'M NOT SURE IF IF BILL WANTED TO STATE WHICH POLICIES WE ARE VIOLATING OR WHAT'S THE.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH POLICY IT IS THAT SPECIFICALLY, BUT THE SECTION 700 POLICIES ARE BEING REVIEWED BY OUR OFFICE RIGHT NOW.

IF I COULD JUST REAL QUICK BEFORE THAT, IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD.

CAN I ADD SOMETHING? I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD TO THAT WEAVER HAS ALREADY PROVIDED A DRAFT REVIEW A DRAFT. THEY'VE ALREADY REDRAFTED ALL OF SECTION 700, AND THEY'VE ALREADY PROVIDED US WITH THAT INFORMATION AS A DRAFT TO COINCIDE WITH THEIR GAP ANALYSIS. SO THEY'VE ALREADY WRITTEN SECTION SEVEN.

THE QUESTION WAS, WE ASKED THAT THE COURT ASKED THEM TO EXPEDITE THAT ON THE FRONT END.

COMMISSIONER WAS ASKING IF THIS IS GOING TO BE READY IN THE NEXT MEETING.

I MEAN, CAN WE. CAN THEY HAVE IT READY? THEY HAVE WE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH THE DRAFT REWRITE OF SECTION 700.

AND THEY HAVEN'T CONSULTED WITH ME ON THOSE DRAFTS.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE EFFORT THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE.

I MEAN THEY'VE BEEN ENGAGED FOR TEN MONTHS. THEY WERE FIRST SCHEDULED TO BE DONE IN FEBRUARY.

IT WAS THEN EXTENDED TO SEPTEMBER. IF THIS KEEPS MOVING FORWARD, AS BILL STATED, WE'RE AT RISK OF CONTINUING NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICY OF THIS COURT.

IF ANYTHING COMES UP, THAT'S A LEGAL MATTER. IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THESE POLICY REVISIONS TODAY, ANY LEGAL QUESTION, WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE THAT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

BUT THE PRIMARY PART OF THIS IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICY, WHICH IS OUT OF SCOPE OF WEAVER'S ENGAGEMENT.

THEY ARE NOT DOING ANY WORK TO REVIEW, WHETHER WE'RE FOLLOWING OUR POLICY.

THAT'S WHAT MY TEAM DID. LOOKING BACK AT A FULL YEARS OF LEAVE UTILIZATION, THAT'S WHERE THE GAP EXISTS.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER TODAY.

IF YOU APPROVE THIS TODAY AND YOU REINFORCE THAT THIS IS A TOP PRIORITY, I'M HERE EVERY DAY.

NO QUESTION THAT I WON'T BE ABLE TO BE AVAILABLE ON DEMAND.

YEAH. AND SORRY, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS IF I COULD.

THANK YOU. EDITOR. THE THE I THINK AT THE ONSET, WHAT WAS I KNOW I HAD A MEETING WITH THE AUDITOR AND A COUPLE OF MEMBERS OF THE PAYROLL TEAM. ON THE BASIS, I THINK WHAT THE ATTEMPT IS, IS FOR CLARITY.

AND I THINK IF I RECALL, THERE WASN'T ANY FINDING THAT PEOPLE WERE DOING ANYTHING MALICIOUSLY.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. SO THEN MR. TREASURER, I HAVE CONCERN WITH YOUR COMMENT THEN, BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT THERE ARE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE INCORRECT WORD.

IN THE PAST, I'VE ALWAYS USED THE TERM, YOU KNOW, AND AS I STARTED OUT WITH.

RIGHT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST BEEN A GROWING, YOU KNOW, INTERPRETATION OVER TIME.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS ILLEGAL, THOUGH, IS IF I ALLOW MONEY TO GO OUT THE DOOR, THAT'S NOT APPROVED BY YOU GUYS.

RIGHT. FAIR. I HEAR YOUR LINE OF THINKING THERE, BUT I THINK THE CHALLENGE HERE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SEEKING CLARITY WHERE THE COURT HASN'T PROVIDED ONE.

BUT THERE ARE INTERPRETATIONS BEING MADE ABOUT WHAT THAT POLICY IS, AND WE HAVEN'T OPINED ON THAT OFFICIALLY AND SET IN WRITING WHAT THAT IS. AND SO YOU ARE IN THE CLEAR TO CERTIFY FUNDS, BECAUSE AT THIS PRESENT MOMENT, BASED ON WHAT THE POLICY SAYS, AND THAT IS WHAT DEPARTMENT HEADS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE INTERPRETED WHERE WE'VE SEEN THAT THERE IS SOME INCONSISTENCY, WHICH IS WHAT I BELIEVE, THAT THERE IS THE ATTEMPT BY WEAVER TO BRING CLARITY.

AND LIKE, I DON'T AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS A FAIR EFFORT.

WE DO NEED TO BRING CLARITY BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW.

I HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT LEAVE POLICY BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW.

RIGHT. THAT'S NOT AN EXTENSIVE PART OF OUR ONBOARDING AND ORIENTATION AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS. IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED, BUT I THINK WE JUST NEED TO CAUTION OURSELVES AGAINST MAKING STATEMENTS ABOUT SOME SORT OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY WHEN THERE HASN'T BEEN REALLY IT'S THAT THIS COUNTY OUR POLICIES ARE ARCHAIC, RIGHT? AND WE HAVEN'T DONE A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS COURT INITIATED. AND AND IN THAT LINE.

RIGHT. I MEAN, IF IF YOU GUYS OUT HERE AND VOTED TODAY THAT, YOU KNOW, DURING THIS PERIOD, YOU KNOW, ANY AMBIGUITY IS AT THE DISCRETION OF WHOEVER TA TA TA.

[01:35:02]

GO AHEAD AND PAY. RIGHT. BUT, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT AUDIT ON THE TABLE.

OKAY. IT'S HARD TO JUST, YOU KNOW, TURN A BLIND EYE, RIGHT, AND SAY, WELL, WE'RE ALL OKAY.

YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T THINK ANY MEMBER OF COURT IS TRYING TO TURN A BLIND EYE. HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO OFFER AS A SOLUTION, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE LIKE I DON'T WANT THE WARRING BETWEEN OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS. LIKE THAT STUFF NEEDS TO STOP, RIGHT? WE NEED TO COLLABORATE BECAUSE IT'S ULTIMATELY TRYING TO SERVE OUR EMPLOYEES AND OUR RESIDENTS.

MIGHT I SUGGEST, AS THIS COURT HAS DONE BEFORE, TO GET US OVER THE FINISH LINE, TO ENSURE THAT WHOMEVER IS SUPPOSED TO BE MEETING WITH WHOM HAPPENS, THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF COMMITTEE.

IF COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE AND MYERS WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT, OR WHOMEVER ELSE, TO MAKE SURE HIMSELF THE TO TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS HAPPENS. I AIN'T READ THE DOGGONE THING. OKAY.

AND I TOLD BILL WHEN HE ASKED ME ABOUT IT MONTHS AGO, NOT ME.

I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FLIP. OKAY, BUT I'M SAYING.

BUT. BUT I THINK THAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO FINISH THEIR REVIEW.

I THINK WE HAVE TO FINISH LINE. WE'RE AT THE FINISH LINE. JUST JUST HOLD OFF FOR ANOTHER MONTH.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO KILL US FOR TWO WEEKS. MIGHT.

MIGHT BE UNREASONABLE. OKAY. BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW THE COMPLEXITY OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

I THINK WE'RE THERE, I THINK. LET ME, LET ME, LET ME HAVE LET ME ASK THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE IMPLICATION OF WAITING? WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE? WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE OF WAITING? THAT I'VE MADE MY REPORT TO COURT, AND WE'VE KICKED THIS DOWN THE ROAD FOR THE PAST NINE MONTHS.

AND IF THE CONSULTANT CONTINUES TO MOVE THE COMPLETION DATE, THEN WE'RE CONTINUING TO BE NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE WILL OF THIS COURT.

OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW, BASED ON YOUR SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT JUST I JUST IT'S THE INTERPRETATION OF THE WILL, RIGHT. THAT'S STRONG. FINISH YOUR STRONG. SORRY.

THEY BASED ON BASED ON YOUR AUDIT. THERE IS CURRENTLY NON-COMPLIANT WITH THIS.

THIS THIS COURT'S POLICY, AM I CORRECT? WITHOUT A DOUBT.

OKAY. SO THIS EFFORT IS TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT EVERYBODY HAS AN UNDERSTANDING AND HOPEFULLY BECOME COMPLIANT WITH THE GUIDELINES, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CLARIFY THE GUIDELINES TO WHERE HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THEY ARE.

CORRECT. CORRECT. OKAY. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DOWNSIDE OF TAKING THE ACTION TODAY TO CLARIFY THOSE THINGS SO THAT THAT PEOPLE WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO WAIT. I THINK THE DOWNSIDE IS, AND I'VE USED THIS PHRASE OVER AND OVER AGAIN SERVING A HALF BAKED CAKE.

WHY DON'T WE JUST GET THIS REVIEW DONE? WHY DON'T WE? AND AND AND THEY CAME UP. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH A LARIAT LETTER DEAL.

IT COULD BE SOME CONFLICTING POLICIES THAT WE APPROVE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LEGALLY REVIEWED LEGALLY.

BUT IF I UNDERSTAND FROM OUR AUDITOR, BASICALLY THEY'RE NOT OPINING ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE COMPLYING WITH THE WAY THAT THERE'S A COMPLIANCE WITH THE COUNTY'S POLICY OR NOT. CORRECT. THEY'RE NOT. OKAY. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED THEIR INPUT IF THEY'RE NOT ON POINT ON THIS ISSUE.

I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE WAS SAYING IS THAT THE LEGAL REVIEW THIS IS NOT WEAVER THE CONSULTANT, THIS IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AS IT PERTAINS TO EMPLOYMENT LAW AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE'VE GOTTEN SOME INITIAL FEEDBACK THAT PERHAPS THERE MIGHT BE SOME CHALLENGES AND IT'S JUST SEEKING CLARITY.

I DON'T I DON'T THINK THERE'S A CHALLENGE WITH THAT.

AND AGAIN, IF THAT'S TWO WEEKS OR WHATEVER, I THINK AGAIN, I WILL UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE, THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SENSE OF URGENCY IF WE WAS WATCHING ON VIDEO.

THIS SCRAMBLING AROUND TRYING TO GET THAT STUFF TOGETHER. COMMISSIONER, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SAID ARE THEY GOING TO GET SOME RATHER HIGH THEIR PRIORITY? TOP OF THE PRIORITY LIST THEY WANTED TO FOLLOW ALL THE WAY UP FORT BEND COUNTY TO DO IS TO COMPLY.

TO COMPLY. GET IT RIGHT. DO IT RIGHT. DO IT CORRECTLY.

THAT THAT'S ALL. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S ALL I'M LOOKING FOR.

AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T TAKE ACTION TO MAKE IT WORK.

NOW, IF THERE'S CORRECTIONS IN THE FUTURE, SO BE IT.

BUT LET'S JUST LET'S LET'S MAKE CERTAIN THAT EVERYBODY'S COMPLYING WITH COUNTY POLICY RIGHT NOW.

SINCE AN AUDIT HAS DEMONSTRATED CONCLUSIVELY THAT THERE IS NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE POLICY, AND WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT THAT.

SO I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY WE WANT TO DELAY THAT.

I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE. I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.

THE REASON WE GOT INVOLVED IS BECAUSE WE WERE PRESENTED WITH ACTUAL POLICIES, AND I DON'T HAVE THOSE POLICIES IN FRONT OF ME, BUT WE WERE PRESENTED WITH POLICIES FROM OUR OFFICE.

AND SO WE'RE REVIEWING THOSE POLICIES AND THEY NEED LEGAL UPDATES.

IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T NEED THOSE POLICIES, YOU JUST WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION BASED ON YOUR AUDIT.

[01:40:02]

WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT. BUT WE RECEIVED ACTUAL POLICIES FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH WEAVER'S POLICIES.

AND WEAVER REWROTE THOSE POLICIES, AND NOW WE'RE REVIEWING THEM LEGALLY.

SO THAT IS HOW WE ARE INVOLVED, BECAUSE THERE WAS ACTUALLY POLICIES PRESENTED TO THE COURT TO BE APPROVED.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT THERE'S AND SO YOU WANT THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN YOUR POLICIES TO BE APPROVED.

AND THAT'S FINE. IF THE COURT APPROVES US TODAY AND THEN WEAVER COMES BACK AND WE DO A LEGAL REVIEW, JUST KNOW THAT WE'LL BE PRESENTING THOSE AGAIN TO THE COURT.

OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. WE'RE FINE. THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

WITH THAT. WITH THAT, WE COULD TAKE A VOTE ON IT AND MOVE ON.

LET'S MOVE ON. AND ALL IN FAVOR ON THIS ITEM, DOES THAT SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM, BILL? YEAH. OKAY. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTAIN. OKAY. THE MOTION PASSES.

THREE FOR IT. ONE AGAINST AND ONE ABSTAIN. MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 21.

BE. PRESENTED BY AUDITOR'S OFFICE. DO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND? I MOVE APPROVAL OF 21 B AS PRESENTED. SECOND.

AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 21 B. JUST JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE'RE GETTING TWO COURTS TWO NEW DISTRICT COURTS CREATED.

THIS PROVISION IS TO HAVE ONE OF THOSE 2BA FAMILY COURT.

YES I HAVE PREFERENCE TO FAMILY LAW MATTERS. FAMILY LAW MATTERS.

OKAY. WELL, IT'S STILL A GENERAL JURISDICTION COURT WITH PREFERENCE TO FAMILY LAW MATTERS. OKAY.

I THINK I THINK YOU NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT THE WORDING HERE BECAUSE IT SAYS EIGHTH, NINTH, FIRST SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC.

THAT ADJOURNS ON THE 14TH. RIGHT? AND IT'S NOT LIKELY TO TAKE THIS, THIS BILL UP.

SO ONCE YOU COME UP WITH SOME WORDING THAT'S THAT YOU GOT A GOOD POINT.

COMMISSIONER WE APPLY TO WHATEVER THE NEXT, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE OR THE NEXT ONE OR THE NEXT ONE OR THE NEXT ONE.

RIGHT. JUST ABOUT ACTUALLY, BASED ON THE 89TH SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS.

OKAY. WHICH INCLUDES ANY SUCCESSIVE CALLINGS OF SESSIONS WHICH WE ALL EXPECT TO HAPPEN.

OKAY. SO FIRST IT SAYS FIRST SPECIAL SESSION SO WE CAN TAKE OUT FIRST IN THE MOTION OBVIOUSLY FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AND THEN PLURAL MAKE SESSION PLURAL. AND THEN IT ACCOMMODATES ANY 89TH SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS TO INCLUDE AND THE THE RESOLUTION CAN BE AMENDED AS WELL. OKAY. SO WE'LL EXCLUDE 89TH FIRST.

CORRECT. NO FIRST. FIRST, JUST TAKE OUT THE FIRST.

FIRST. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. ANY OF THE SPECIAL SECTIONS? WELL, AND IN THE. I WOULD CAUTION US AGAINST PUTTING A NUMBER HERE.

AS THAT COULD ALSO CHANGE IF THEY REORDER OR.

RIGHT. WELL, I'M SAYING THE NUMBER FIVE. OH. FIRST, THE NUMBER OF THE COURT, BECAUSE THAT NUMBER COULD CHANGE IF ANY OTHER COUNTY GETS ADDED TO THE LIST AHEAD OF US OR AFTER US. THAT COULD.

I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE, BUT LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. THE COURT NUMBER IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. THE NUMBER IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. RIGHT. RIGHT. THE COURT.

THE COURT NUMBER'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. SO NO COURTS OR POTENTIAL TO BE ADDED OR SUBTRACTED FROM THAT BILL.

THEY'LL BE APPENDED. NOT AT THIS TIME, BUT EVEN IF THEY ARE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT NUMBER.

LIKE IF AN AUTHOR, IT'S GOING TO. WES, ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE US SOME INSIGHT? GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD AND PROCEED. YES. THE COURT NUMBERS WILL NOT CHANGE, BUT THE BUILD NUMBERS WILL CHANGE ALMOST ASSUREDLY.

SO. TAKE OUT THE FIRST SPECIAL SESSION, TAKE OUT THE BUILD NUMBERS AND YOU SHOULD BE OKAY.

BUT WE ARE THE FIVE ZERO FIRST AND FIVE ZERO SECOND. THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. SO EVEN IF SOME OF THE OTHER COUNTIES THAT WERE INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL BILL AND DECLINED TO ADD A DISTRICT COURT, WE WOULD KEEP 501 IN 502. YES, SIR.

OKAY. YEAH. EVERYBODY ELSE ALREADY HAS THEIR NUMBERS AS WELL.

IF THEY HAVE, THERE IS THAT DESIGNATED BY STATUTE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? THAT IT IS. SO IN THE FUTURE WE ALREADY KNOW WHAT OUR FUTURE COURT NUMBERS MIGHT BE.

NO, NOT UNTIL THEY'RE ASKED FOR. THERE'S NOT A LIST THAT WE PULL FROM SPECIFICALLY.

GOT IT. BUT THE COURT NUMBERS SHOULD NOT CHANGE.

THE COURT NUMBERS SHOULD NOT CHANGE. SO. BUT THE BILL NUMBERS. IF WE DON'T CREATE A 400 OR 5 HUNDREDTH COURT SOMEWHERE, THAT WILL STILL WE AGAIN, WE'RE HAVING A WHOLE DEBATE ABOUT COURTS UP HERE.

IF WE TAKE OUT OR IF THE THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL SAYS, YOU KNOW, COMO COUNTY CAME TO ME AND SAID THAT THEY DON'T WANT AN ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, AND THEY'RE AHEAD OF US IN THE ORDER OF COURTS, THEN THAT WON'T CHANGE THE NUMBER.

THEY'LL JUST TAKE OUT COMO COUNTY WHEN THEY INTRODUCE THE BILL IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND JUST GET 500 AND THEN GO 501 AND 502.

I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. LET'S MOVE ON.

[01:45:02]

OKAY. LET ME LET'S CLARIFY THE MOTION. THANK YOU.

NOW WE JUST TAKE OUT JUST TAKE THE MEETING APPROPRIATE HERE.

LET ME TRY THIS. TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION.

A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AMENDING SENATE BILLS AND HOUSE BILLS DURING THE SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE.

THE 2025 SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS. CREATING DISTRICT COURTS TO INCLUDE A PREFERENCE FOR FAMILY LAW MATTERS IN THE CREATION OF THE 501ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

IS THAT CLARIFY ENOUGH? THE ONLY SUGGESTION COMMISSIONER INSTEAD OF 2025, SAY 89TH FOR THE 89TH LEGISLATURE.

SPECIAL LEGISLATURE. SPECIAL SESSION. ALL RIGHT, I'LL READ IT AGAIN.

THEN TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION AND RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT OF AMENDING SENATE BILLS AND HOUSE BILLS DURING THE 89TH SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSION, CREATING DISTRICT COURTS TO INCLUDE A PREFERENCE FOR FAMILY LAW MATTERS IN THE CREATION OF THE 501ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

IS THAT GOOD? THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? I WOULD PUT THE WORD PERTINENT BEFORE SENATE AND HOUSE BILLS.

NO. SERIOUSLY PERTINENT. JUST PUT THAT IN. OKAY.

PERMANENT WEAR? YEAH. YOU GOT A DANGLING PARTICIPLE HERE.

JUST REAL QUICK. JUST QUIT PERTINENT SENATE HOUSE BILL.

OH. THAT'S TRUE. THAT IS A GOOD POINT. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? IS AD AMENDING PERTINENT SENATE AND HOUSE BILLS DURING THE 89TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION? DO YOU NEED TO READ ANY OTHER AUTHORS OF THIS MOTION HERE? OKAY, I WILL READ IT ONE MORE TIME. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION. A RESOLUTION SUPPORT OF AMENDING PERTINENT SENATE BILLS AND HOUSE BILLS DURING THE 89TH SPECIAL LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT ARE CREATING DISTRICT COURTS TO TO INCLUDE A PREFERENCE FOR FAMILY LAW MATTERS IN THE CREATION OF THE 501ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT.

IS THAT YOUR MOTION? THAT IS MY MOTION. 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 22, PRESENTED BY CONSTABLE.

[22. CONSTABLE, PCT. 4:]

PRESENT FOR. MOVE FOR APPROVAL. 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 AGENDA ITEM 23, PRESENTED BY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

[23. DISTRICT ATTORNEY:]

MOVE FOR APPROVAL 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 ITEM 24. ELECTIONS. ADMINISTRATION.

[24. ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION:]

MOVE. APPROVAL OF 24 IS PRESENTED. SECOND MOTION.

ONE LITTLE ON READINESS. AND I KNOW JOHN'S NOT HERE.

BUT ONE OF THE ELECTIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CALL FINISHED CALLING IN THIS MEETING HAS TO DO WITH AN AREA. 521 SOUTH OF ARCOLA. AND AND I THINK FOR A LOW TURNOUT ELECTION, IT KIND OF HELPS TO HAVE THE MOST CONVENIENT POLLING PLACE.

AND THERE THERE'S A HIGH SCHOOL. AND A COUPLE OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THAT COMMUNITY THAT AREN'T EARLY VOTING LOCATIONS.

THE PARTICIPATION WOULD BE GREATLY ENHANCED IF ONE OF THOSE SCHOOLS COULD BE AN EARLY VOTING LOCATION.

HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY TALKED TO JOHN ABOUT THE VOTING LOCATIONS, AND HE SAID HIS PROBLEM IS THAT MOST OF THE SCHOOLS ARE NO LONGER ALLOWING HIM TO HAVE AN EARLY VOTING SITE THERE.

SO. WELL, I GUESS THAT IS THE PROBLEM, THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM I HAVE NOT.

I JUST REALIZED WHEN I LOOK AT THE LIST NOW THAT THERE'S NOTHING DOWN THERE AND BUT THERE'S NO SITE DOWN THERE.

AND I WANTED TO JUST IF WE CAN ADD TO THIS LIST LATER ON BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.

YEAH, WE CAN ADD THIS UP. UP UNTIL WE STARTED.

I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I'M WITH THE COMMISSIONER.

I'VE TALKED TO SOME OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THEY DON'T LIKE HAVING EARLY VOTING.

YEAH, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S WORTH ASKING. YEAH.

AND I DO KNOW WHEN HE'S MENTIONED THAT BEFORE.

THE MAIN CULPRIT IS KATY ISD, WHO'S HAD SOME CHALLENGES WITH THE THE EARLY VOTING.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD AN OVERWHELMING PUSHBACK FROM FORT BEND ISD FOR ALL OF THEIR CAMPUSES.

MAYBE THE I THINK IT'S ELEMENTARY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE.

BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR ALL OF THEM. BUT I, I THINK IT'S A FAIR POINT.

MAYBE WE APPROVE TODAY. AND THEN IF WE ARE ABLE TO SECURE A LOCATION LATER, WE COME BACK.

CRAWFORD HIGH SCHOOL HAS A HUGE FISCAL PLAN. THEY GOT EVERYTHING THERE.

IT COULD BE IN THE VAN HALL OR COULD BE IN THE ATHLETIC COMPLEX.

IT COULD BE SOMEWHERE THAT'S ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

[01:50:03]

NOT NECESSARILY A LOCATION THAT WILL DISRUPT SCHOOL LIFE.

AMENDMENT TO THIS MOTION? NO, I WANT TO APPROVE THIS ONE.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THIS IS IT.

YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WE CAN COME BACK IN A MINUTE.

WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK. I'M ALL IN FAVOR COMING BACK.

IF WE IF WE CAN CONVINCE THE SCHOOLS TO DO IT, THAT'S THE BEST THING, IN MY OPINION.

BUT SO FAR, THEY SAID NO. OKAY. WITH THAT, WITH THAT DISCUSSION, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AND I WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 25 A THROUGH A A PRESENTED

[25. ENGINEERING:]

BY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE A POOL OF 25 A THROUGH AA.

SECOND AS PRESENTED YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO 26. PRESENTED BY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING.

[26. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT & PLANNING:]

MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 26 AS PRESENTED. SECOND, AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL IN FAVOR.

MOTION CARRIES. ARE YOU GUYS VOTING? YEAH, WE SAID YES.

YEAH. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 27 A AND BE PRESENTED BY FIRE MARSHAL APPROVAL.

[27. FIRE MARSHAL:]

ITEM 27 A AND B IS PRESENTED. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 28, EIGHT A THROUGH D PRESENTED BY GRANTS ADMINISTRATION.

[28. GRANTS ADMINISTRATION:]

THE APPROVAL OF 28 A, B, C, AND D AS PRESENTED.

SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 29 PRESENTED BY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

[29. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:]

MOVE. APPROVAL OF 29 IS PRESENTED. SECOND MOTION 29.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 30, PRESENTED BY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT.

[30. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY:]

MOVE. APPROVAL OF 30 IS PRESENTED. SECOND. SECOND.

AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 30.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 31 PRESENTED BY MEDICAL EXAMINERS MEDICAL EXAMINER OF FORT BEND COUNTY.

[31. MEDICAL EXAMINER:]

MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM 31 AS PRESENTED. SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO HERE.

I STILL DON'T HAVE A CLARIFICATION OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO FUND THE OPERATIONS THE PERSONNEL, ETC.. I KNOW WE HAVE SOME GENERAL OUTLINE OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING.

BUT I, YOU KNOW. I'M A NUMBERS GUY, SO WE'RE LACKING NUMBERS.

DOC. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY ISSUE. SO THIS THIS IS I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT SINCE AUGUST, SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED FOR OPERATION LONE STAR.

OPERATION LONE STAR. PROVIDED. SORRY. PREVIOUS TO THIS YEAR.

THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THEY PROVIDED FOR FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION BUILD OUT AND PERSONNEL AND SALARIES.

SO WE ARE. WE ARE SO PERSONAL. ONLY FOR THE FIRST YEAR, AS I UNDERSTAND THOUGH.

WELL, YES, IT'S ONE YEAR AND YOU CAN CONTINUE APPLYING FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS FOR CONTINUING THE PROJECT.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WROTE FOR. AND THIS YEAR THEY DID NOT DECIDE IT.

THEY FUNDED IT THE SAME THIS YEAR, 50 MILLION AS THEY DID THE PREVIOUS SEVERAL YEARS AS WELL.

BUT THIS YEAR THEY SAID NO CONSTRUCTION. SO WHEN I TALKED WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ABOUT IT, THEY SAID, WELL, WELL, YOU CAN BUILD OUT WHATEVER YOU WANT.

YOU JUST NEED TO SHOW US YOU HAVE A PLACE TO PUT ALL THIS STUFF.

OKAY, SO A TEN PERSON, A TEN BODY MORGUE AND 400 BODIES, COOLERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE A PLACE FOR THAT. I CAME TO YOU FOLKS ASKING, DO WE HAVE A LITTLE SLUSH FUND OF ABOUT 23 MILLION? AND OF COURSE WE DON'T. BUT THE SO NOW IN THE SPECIAL SESSION, I HAVE THE SAME THINGS IN THERE FOR SALARY SUPPORT FOR THE, THE THE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL ARE TWO PEOPLE, TWO FIREARMS EXAMINERS.

SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD WRITE A GRANT FOR CONTINUOUSLY OR THE COURT CAN SEEM TO.

CAN DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO FUND IT IN IN THE FUTURE.

BUT IT DOES. AT LEAST FOR THE FIRST YEAR. HAVE SALARY IN THERE.

OKAY. HOW MUCH? I UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET THE MONEY TO BUILD THIS.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR A GRANT 100% SPECIAL APPROPRIATION FROM THE STATE BUILDING AND BUILD OUT AND PERSONNEL.

I KNOW IT'S BASED ON YOU GETTING THE GRANT. EXACTLY.

FACILITY IS BUILT. CORRECT. OKAY. WE ARE SAYING WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. THAT'S ALL I WANT YOU TO DO IS.

[01:55:01]

SENATOR MILES'S OFFICE IS ASKED FOR A COURT RESOLUTION SO THEY CAN HELP PUSH IT ON OUR BEHALF.

THANK YOU. SIR. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. AND ANY.

ASSUMING THERE IS NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I'M JUST. AGAIN, I GOT HEARTBURN OVER FUTURE CALLS.

WE SEEM TO TO GET OURSELVES INTO THIS, AND THEN SUDDENLY WE FIND OURSELVES WITH A COST WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE.

AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTING THIS ON THAT BASIS.

YOU HAD YOU HAD A COST QUESTION FOR ME. CORRECT.

I'M SORRY. YOU HAD A COST QUESTION FOR ME, FOR THE PERSONNEL? YES. MY, MY, YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION EARLIER WHEN YOU AND I MET.

RIGHT. SO I YOU KNOW, I STILL HAVE A CONCERN THAT LONG TERM FORT BEND COUNTY IS GOING TO HAVE COSTS THAT IT DOESN'T.

WE'VE GOT THIS MASSIVE FACILITY 30, 40,000FT² IS I RECALL SOMETHING AT 43, 43.

OKAY, 43,000 SQUARE FOOT. THAT'S A BIG BUILDING WITH A WHOLE LOT OF SPACE TO PUT A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.

CORRECT. SO I'VE GOT A WHOLE LOT OF CONCERN. WHEN WE BUILD BIG SPACES THAT HAVE SPACE FOR ADDITIONAL PEOPLE, WE SEEM TO BE FILLING UP SPACES WITH PEOPLE. AND SO I'M GOING TO BE RELUCTANT TO DO THAT.

CAN WE GET A FREE LOOK AT THIS? THERE'S NO FISCAL NOTE TIED TO THIS ACTION RIGHT NOW.

CORRECT. CORRECT. IT'S A FREE LOOK. AND SO. SO IS A RESOLUTION ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR YOU TO HAVE THIS FREE? LOOK. TELL ME WHAT A FREE LOOK IS. NO, I'M. I'M SAYING WHAT I DON'T WANT THIS THING IS.

IS TO BE REJECTED. I DON'T WANT COMMISSIONER MYERS TO VOTE AGAINST IT.

OKAY. IF IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO HOLD IT BACK.

HAVE A FREE LOOK AND REPRESENT IT ANOTHER TIME.

I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO GET THIS IN FOR THE SPECIAL SESSION. CORRECT? CORRECT.

WELL, OKAY. THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER SPECIAL SESSION. OKAY.

YEAH. OKAY. IT DEPENDS, BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE CALL IS FOR THE SPECIAL SESSION.

BECAUSE THIS IS PRESENTED UNDER THE CALL FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS IDENTIFICATION.

BUT NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN TILL THE 14TH. IT MAY HAPPEN NEXT 30 DAYS, I'M SAYING, BUT YOU GET ANOTHER BITE AT THE APPLE.

I HOPE SO. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FROM COMMISSIONERS COURT.

OKAY, WELL, IT HAS TO BE IN ORDER FOR OUR CONSULTANTS TO WORK ON IT.

SO. YEAH. YEAH. SO, SO SO IF I LOOK DOWN AT MAYA'S, I GOT HEART.

WE AIN'T GOT IT. YOU GOT HEARTBURN. I'VE BEEN DOWN THIS ROAD MANY TIMES.

I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN. IF HEARTBURN GETS TOO BAD, YOU CAN GO SEE THIS MAN RIGHT HERE.

I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO GO SEE HIM. SO YOU COULD.

I GOT THE DOCTOR I WANT TO SEE. I DO NOT RESUSCITATE, I ONLY EVISCERATE.

OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

SO MAYBE YOU'RE SAYING TABLE IS A TABLE. OKAY, THIS ITEM, WE WILL TABLE IT.

BRING IT BACK SOME OTHER DAY. WHAT IS THE. WHAT IS COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE? WHAT DID YOU WANT ME TO DO? PRESENT. PUT IT ON.

PUT IT BACK ON IN TWO WEEKS. RIGHT. BUT YOU ASKED ME TO DO SOMETHING, A FREE LOOK. WHAT IS A FISCAL NOTE OF SOME SORT? WELL, BASICALLY, IT WILL BE HELPFUL TO COMMISSIONER MYERS POINT FOR US TO HAVE A FULL UNDERSTANDING OF THE POTENTIAL FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE COUNTY.

I WILL ASK, AS I'VE ASKED FOR OTHER FACILITIES BEFORE THAT YOU GET.

WITH FACILITIES AS WELL. TO LOOK AT WHAT MIGHT BE POTENTIAL ELECTRICITY.

WATER. YOU KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO NEED HAVE ADDITIONAL CLEANING REQUIREMENTS, WHAT THEIR STAFFING LOOKS LIKE.

WHAT WHAT IS THE FULL PICTURE IF WE WERE TO HAVE THIS FACILITY.

GRANTED, THIS ONLY DEPENDS ON US GETTING GRANT FUNDS TO OPERATE THIS ON AN ONGOING BASIS.

I THINK IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO ADD TO THAT.

IF THERE ARE ANY REIMBURSEMENTS WE WOULD LIKELY RECEIVE FOR ANY STAFF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BE IT FROM. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE RECEIVE ANYTHING FROM FEMA ANYMORE, BUT WHEN THERE IS AN ACTIVATION WHERE THAT IS STAFFED, THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. JUST TO NOTE AS AN ASTERISK FOR ANY OF THOSE PART.

PART OF THE PART OF THE PROJECT IS ALSO WITH THE FIREARMS EXAMINERS, IS TO TAKE IN MORE WORK FROM OUTSIDE COUNTIES, SO WE COULD BILL OUTSIDE COUNTIES FOR SERVICES THAT ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE HERE IN THIS STATE. SO JUST JUST OUTLINE THAT.

AND I THINK THAT'D BE HELPFUL FOR US TO SEE IN CONSIDERING THIS.

OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. VIA TABLING.

31 MOVING ON TO ITEM 32, PRESENTED BY UNDER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS.

[32. MISCELLANEOUS:]

MOVE. APPROVAL 32. AS PRESENTED. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING. NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY, AND I WILL MOVE ON TO 33.

[33. PARKS & RECREATION:]

PRESENTED BY PARKS AND RECREATION. MOVE! APPROVAL OF 33 AND B IS PRESENTED.

SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ASSUMING THERE IS NO DISCUSSION.

YES. JUST JUST HOLD ON. JUST ON. 30 3BI JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT WHEN I CAME INTO OFFICE AND I THINK FOR MY PREDECESSORS AS WELL, WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE HAD A COUNTY PARK BEHIND OUR OFFICE.

WE ASSUMED THAT THE CITY OF RICHMOND OWNED AND MAINTAINED THAT PARK.

[02:00:01]

THEY ASSUMED THAT SOMEBODY ELSE DID. AND SO WE HAVE FIGURED ALL REQUISITE OWNERSHIP OUT.

AND I'M SO GLAD OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN MAINTAINING THAT FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

AND THIS IS JUST A AN EFFORT TO FORMALIZE THAT IN AN AGREEMENT FOR US.

SO JUST SO FOLKS KNOW AND I UNDERSTAND PREVIOUSLY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE BASICALLY.

THAT'S RIGHT. I SHOULD I BE I SHOULD I BE MORE SPECIFIC? IT IS 33 A AND B, I'M SORRY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION FURTHER HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 30 FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

[34. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION:]

MOVE FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MISS PERRY HERE.

JUST REAL QUICK. CAN YOU JUST TELL US ABOUT THE NEW STOPS AND THE BENEFIT OF THIS ROUTE? AND HOW CAN THE PUBLIC ACCESS THIS? WITH PLEASURE.

CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? OKAY. THROUGH MY MASK. COVID IS BACK, GUYS.

I HATE TO TELL YOU. WE HAVE BEEN PARTNERING WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON FOR MANY YEARS NOW.

AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OUR PARK AND RIDE THERE.

ONE OF OUR PARK AND RIDES. AND IN DOING OUR DOWNTOWN SERVICE THAT WE STARTED JUST OVER A YEAR AGO, YOU CAME TO US AND SAID, SO ANYWAY, WE COULD GET YOU TO ADD SOME STOPS SO THAT YOU GO ALL THE WAY TO YOUR MAIN CAMPUS.

THIS WOULD PROVIDE SOME EXTRA ASSISTANCE TO THEIR STUDENTS AND THEIR PROFESSORS AND PEOPLE THAT ARE ACCESSING BOTH AND GOING BACK AND FORTH.

AND THEY WERE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY FOR THE EXTRA SERVICE HOURS THAT THAT ENCOMPASSED.

SO THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF OUR AGREEMENT WITH THEM THAT IT'S CURRENTLY EXISTING, PLUS ADDING A FEW MORE STOPS.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FEW MOMS AND DAUGHTERS AND AND KIDS THAT GO, THEIR KIDS ARE GOING TO YOU OF AGE TO GO TO SCHOOL, BUT THEIR PARENTS ARE GOING TO WORK DOWNTOWN AND THEY RIDE TOGETHER IN THE MORNING. SO IT'S BEEN A REALLY NICE LITTLE TOUCH TO IT.

BUT IT'S A LITTLE LESS THAN I BELIEVE. LET'S SEE.

I CAN'T READ MY OWN HANDWRITING. A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN 68,000, I BELIEVE.

AND WHAT IT DOES, THOUGH, IS IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF A HOOK ON THE END AND A HOOK ON THE BEGINNING, AND IT ADDED SO MUCH MORE HELP. WE NOW HAVE OVER 9000 RIDES ON AVERAGE EVERY MONTH GOING TO DOWNTOWN, AND A LOT OF THAT IS DUE TO THE U OF H. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE GUYS SAY YES OVER HERE AS WELL.

I HAVE A CHANCE FOR SOME LITTLE KIND OF A PSA ABOUT WHAT A GREAT PARTNER UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON HAS BEEN.

GO AHEAD, INTRODUCE YOURSELF. OKAY. YEAH. JOSH GALASSO, DIRECTOR OF PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON.

JAY NEIL WAS NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY, BUT JOSH CAME ON HIS BEHALF AND THEY HAVE BEEN A WONDERFUL PARTNER, HELPING US OUT BOTH AT THEIR END AND IN DOWNTOWN AND AT OUR INN IN SUGARLAND AND WORKING TOGETHER WITH US TO PROVIDE SAFE AND AFFORDABLE RIDES TO FOLKS THAT NEED THEM THE MOST.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THAT.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS ACCOMPLISHES TODAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 35.

[35. PURCHASING:]

A THROUGH ARE PRESENTED BY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.

MOVE APPROVAL BY 35 A THROUGH R AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. GOT IT. I HAVE AN I HAVE A QUESTION ON.

OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ANY DISCUSSION? YES. I HAVE A QUESTION ON B I'VE I PROVIDED YOU GUYS WITH INFORMATION THAT WAS PREPARED BY OUR COUNTY AUDITOR AT MY REQUEST.

I WAS LOOKING TO SEE I WAS LOOKING TO SEE HOW THINGS ARE FUNDED.

I GOT A GREAT RELUCTANCE TO CONTINUE TO ADD MORE DEBT.

WE HAVE A BILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS IN DEBT.

NOW. WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE. THIS ADDS TO THAT DEBT.

MY. I ASKED FOR A BREAKDOWN OF THE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHERE THE FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE ACTUALLY COMING FROM.

ALL THE FUNDS ARE EXACTLY COMING FROM IT, SAYS PART BONDS, ITS OBLIGATIONS, ITS TYPICAL OBLIGATION DOESN'T IDENTIFY THE FUNDING SOURCE.

AND I WAS TOLD THAT THE FUNDING SOURCE IS CAD FOUR IS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S GREAT, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT YOU'VE ALREADY COMMITTED THE FUNDS FOR CAD FOUR.

COMMISSIONER, I HAVE NOT. YES YOU HAVE. BASED ON THIS ANALYSIS THAT OUR AUDITOR HAS PREPARED AND ONE THAT I BELIEVE HE SENT TO ALL OF YOU, YOU'VE GOT $13.6 MILLION, ALMOST $14 MILLION, THAT IS CURRENTLY ALLOCATED TO BE FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAXES SOLELY AND THAT'S BASED ON THAT $13.6 MILLION IS THE LIST OF ALL PARK PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT PART OF THE PARK BOND.

THESE ARE PARK PROJECTS THAT ARE FUNDED WITH OTHER REVENUE SOURCES.

[02:05:05]

THOSE THAT WAS FROM TIPPING FEES. OKAY. THE TIPPING FEES.

TIP FEES AND TAX NOTES. THE CADDY FOR HAS SUFFICIENT REVENUE TO PAY.

DEBT SERVICE ON ON THE BOND INDEBTEDNESS. NOW ON THAT THERE'S PROBABLY $5 MILLION IN THE FUND BALANCE.

AND VOTERS APPROVED ADDING ROOFTOPS IN MAY, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY GENERATE, YOU KNOW, HALF 1 MILLION TO $700,000 MORE A YEAR JUST BASED ON THAT.

AND SO I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE A POINT, BUT BUT CAD $4 HAVE NOT BEEN COMMITTED TO A LONG TERM DEBT OBLIGATION. COMMISSIONER, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR SALES TAXES. I UNDERSTAND YOUR PARTICULAR POINT.

MY POINT BEING THAT BASED ON THE ANALYSIS FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE, YOU HAVE $13.6 MILLION THAT IS NOT FUNDED BY ANY OTHER. OTHER THAN OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAXES YOU HAVE.

THAT IS NOT BEING FUNDED BY EITHER TIPPING FEES OR SALES TAXES FROM THE KIDS.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THAT FROM.

I GOT IT FROM HIM. NO. THAT KID FOR. IS NOT OBLIGATED TO SPEND ANYTHING.

IT'S. IT'S YOU YOU REPRESENTED TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS COURT.

AND AT LEAST YOU REPRESENTED TO ME THAT WHENEVER WE APPROVED ALL OF THESE EXPENDITURES THAT YOU HAD THE REVENUE SOURCES TO FUND IT OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY TAXES, THAT'S WHAT YOU REPRESENTED. THE ONLY REASON I VOTED FOR IT IS BECAUSE THAT WAS YOUR REPRESENTATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU TALKED ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES.

I'M NOT TALKING TO APPLES. YOU ARE TALKING APPLES AND ORANGES. THE LIST OF PRICES YOU HAVE.

AND I JUST GOT THAT WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT HERE, BUT I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT.

THAT WAS FUNDED FROM TAX NOTE. TAX NOTE WAS BACKED BY TIPPING FEES.

THE TIPPING FEES WEREN'T SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE IT. THAT WAS RESTRUCTURED.

AND YOU'VE GOT TO PLAN RIGHT HERE ON HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE REPAID BACK.

THAT WAS NOT CAD FOR NUMBERS. IT WAS NOT OKAY.

IT WAS. AND THOSE PROJECTS YOU LIST WERE ALREADY BUILT.

THEY'RE ALREADY BUILT. AND SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BACK IN A SCIENCE, SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY BUILT. SOME OF THESE WERE BUILT BEFORE WE EVEN HAD PARKS BONDS.

OKAY. THE 23 PARKS BONDS. THIS WAS DONE IN 2022.

OKAY. SO CAD $4 HAVE NOT BEEN OBLIGATED. IT'S IN BLACK AND WHITE.

THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED. I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'VE NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED MY.

WELL, IT'S NOT MY MY NOT IT'S NOT MR. COMMISSIONER.

OKAY. YOU MADE A REPRESENTATION TO ME. I'M ASSUMING YOU MADE IT TO THE REST OF THE COURT THAT YOU HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS FROM TIPPING FEES AND CAD.

I DIDN'T SAY CAD FOUR. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T SAY CAD FOUR.

YOU SAID YOU HAD. RIGHT? RIGHT NOW. YOU HAD THIS.

THIS ITEM HAS. YOU HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS. THE ONLY REASON THAT I VOTED FOR IT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REASON THE OTHER GUYS DID, BUT THE ONLY REASON I VOTED FOR YOUR PROPOSALS AND YOUR PROJECTS WAS BECAUSE YOU REPRESENTED TO ME THAT YOU HAD THE FUNDS OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAXES.

THOSE PROJECTS WERE BEFORE WE HAD PARKS BOND COMMISSIONER.

THOSE ARE PROJECTS THAT WERE FUNDED BY TAX NOTE.

THIS IS CAD FOUR. AND BUT YOU REPRESENTED YOU HAD THE FUNDS TO COVER OTHER THAN PROPERTY.

RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE $13.8 MILLION WITH THE PROJECTS THAT ARE FUNDED THAT CAN ONLY BE FUNDED WITH PROPERTY TAXES BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO MORE FUNDS.

NOW, THIS THIS PROJECT THAT'S ON THE, ON, ON, ON THE ITEM RIGHT NOW HAS AS A SOURCE $14 MILLION FROM SEED CDS CO. EXCUSE ME COS BACKED BY CAD $4. OKAY.

YOU EITHER OKAY ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU AGREE TO THAT? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE OTHER POINT? THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE ALLOCATED.

THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE ALLOCATED THERE. THIS THIS PARTICULAR ALLOCATION IS $14 MILLION FROM CEOS THAT WE'RE SELLING THIS MONTH.

OKAY. IT'S WRAPPED UP IN THE BOND PACKAGE. MORE DEBT.

YEAH. OKAY. THE FUN AT BUILDING ELECTIONS. BUILDING.

OKAY. SO YEAH, IT'S IT'S ROLLING THERE, BUT IT IS UNLIKE THOSE ITEMS, IT'S BACKED BY SALES TAXES FROM CAD FOR THE BALANCE OF IT IS FROM PARKS, BONDS, VOTER APPROVED PARK BONDS. YES. AND THAT WAS A PROJECT.

OKAY. SO GET IT RIGHT BEFORE YOU MAKE A PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, DECLARATION LIKE THAT CAD $4.

WE'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO ANY OF THE LONG TERM DEBT SERVICE OR NOT.

THEY ARE NOW. AND IT'S NOT ALL OF IT. IT'S JUST THAT SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO MEET THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS ON CDS THESE SEALS.

MY, WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FUND THE $13.6 MILLION?

[02:10:01]

I'M NOT. THOSE THINGS WERE FUNDED ELSEWHERE. OTHERWISE YOU REPRESENTED TO US THAT YOU WOULD FUND IT WITH OTHER THAN PROPERTY.

THOSE WERE PROJECTS THAT WERE DONE BEFORE WE HAD PARKS, BONDS AND THAT WAS PAID FOR.

YOU SEE THE ACCOUNTING THERE? THIS IS ANOTHER PROJECT.

COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER, AGAIN, THE ONLY REASON I VOTED FOR ALL OF THESE, ALL OF THESE PROJECTS IS BECAUSE YOU REPRESENTED YOU THE VOTERS VOTED FOR THESE PROJECTS, THE VOTERS IN CAD FOUR AND THE VOTERS IN, IN IN THE PARKS BOND ELECTION VOTED FOR THIS.

YEAH. UNFORTUNATELY, IT IS ALSO THE TAXPAYERS IN PRECINCT ONE, THREE AND FOUR THAT ARE ALSO PAYING THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT ARE NOW FUNDING YOUR $13.8 MILLION. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S ON THE TABLE, COMMISSIONER.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A NEW PROJECT, A NEW PROJECT THAT WAS PART OF THE PARKS BOND.

I AUGMENTED THE FUNDING WITH CAD FOUR OF THEM.

YOU AGREED TO FUND THOSE? I DID NOT. I DIDN'T, OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAXES.

NOT WITH CAD $4. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT DOES MATTER IF IT'S THAT SPECIFIC FUNDING SOURCE RIGHT HERE.

YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION. YOU REPRESENTED THAT YOU HAD THE FUNDING TO TO FUND THAT AND YOU DON'T.

WE HAVE THE FUNDING BECAUSE THIS COURT APPROVED TELLING SEALS TO FUND ALL THESE PROJECTS.

AND THERE WAS A PORTION OF THAT 25 MILLION WAS IN THERE BACKED BY CAD, $4, 14 OF WHICH 14 MILLION OF WHICH WOULD GO TO A MUSTANG PARK.

TEN WOULD GO TOWARDS KITTY HOLLOW PARK. YOU STILL ARE NOT COVERING THE 13 POINT.

I'M NOT COVERING THOSE 13 BECAUSE THOSE WERE FUNDED IN A DIFFERENT FASHION.

THEY WERE FUNDING. I UNDERSTAND THEY WERE FUNDED IN A DIFFERENT FASHION, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT NOW IT'S BEING FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAXES THAT ARE BEING PAID BY PRECINCT ONE THREE AND BEING PAID BACK BY. BY THE BY THE THE REBATE OF THE RETURN OF THE $10 MILLION IN TAX DOLLARS TO PAY OFF THE PRINCIPAL OR GO TO THE COUNTY DEBT SERVICE. THE BALANCE, THE BALANCE FROM THE TIPPING FEES, AND THEN RESCHEDULE THAT DEBT TO TO PAY OUT THE BALANCE OF THE OF THE TAX.

NOTE FROM TIPPING FEES AND THE TIPPING FEES CURRENTLY ARE GENERATING WILL GENERATE NEXT YEAR ONE $1.5 MILLION MORE THAN THAT.

THAT'S A PROJECTION FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT HE'S GOING TO USE FOR DEBT SERVICE.

IT'S ONE. THE CURRENT REVENUE IS 1.5. IT WILL GROW TO GROW AS IT GROWS.

OKAY. SO I LET ME FINISH. BUT THAT IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

OKAY. I UNDERSTAND IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE, BUT IT'S AN ISSUE THAT I'M GOING TO MAKE A POINT ON AND THAT IS THAT WE ARE WE'RE GETTING $1.5 MILLION IN TIPPING FEES.

HOWEVER, THE DEBT SERVICE ON THE FUNDING FOR THE PROJECTS THAT YOU HAD IS $5.5 MILLION A YEAR WERE $4 MILLION SHORT. YEAH, WE GOT TO RESCHEDULE THAT. THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

I'M NOT OKAY, BUT WHAT WHAT WHAT IS OCCURRING RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE'RE FUNDING THAT $4 MILLION OUT OF PROPERTY TAXES AGAIN.

BUT BUT EVERY CENT THAT'S GOING TO BE PAID BACK WITH TIPPING FEES.

YEAH. IN 20 YEARS 20. THAT'S WHERE DEBT WORKS.

OH, GOD. BUT I UNDERSTAND HOW DEBT WORKS. BUT THE PROBLEM.

THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS WE CURRENTLY HAVE A DEFICIT OF $4 MILLION IN CASH FLOW THAT IS BEING FUNDED BY OUR PROPERTY TAXES, WHICH WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE A FUNDED YOUR ANNEX BUILDING.

HOW WAS JONES CREEK RANCH PARK FUNDED? HOW WAS THAT? I'M SORRY. HOW WAS THE JONES CREEK GRANT FUNDED? WHICH CAN CAN I ASK US TO JUST. CAN I HAVE A SUGGESTION? CAN WE VOTE, TAKE THE BE OUT AND CAN WE VOTE ON.

WELL, BUT THAT WHAT HE'S BRINGING UP IS NOT PERTINENT TO THIS ITEM, THOUGH.

I MEAN, IT'S POINTS HE WANTS TO MAKE FOR THE RECORD, BUT IT'S NOT PERTINENT TO THIS ITEM. THIS ITEM IS IS REGARDING THE 2023 PARKS BOND FUND AND. WELL, BUT BUT THIS ITEM, THIS ITEM IS REGARDING PAYING FOR THE MUSTANG COMMUNITY CENTER USING 23 PARKS BOND.

AND IT SOUNDS LIKE CAD FOR REVENUE. THAT'S WHAT I HEARD.

IS THAT THE WAY THAT'S BEEN STRUCTURED ED SO THAT'S ALL THIS ITEM PERTAINS TO IS THOSE TWO IS THAT THE REPRESENTATION WAS MADE THAT ALL OF THESE PROJECTS WOULD BE FUNDED WITH OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAXES, AND THEY'RE NOT.

BUT THAT'S NOT 13 POINT IN THE TABLE. 13 POINT PLUS MILLION DOLLARS IS BEING FUNDED WITH PROPERTY TAXES.

COMMISSIONER, YOU YOU MADE A POINT. OKAY, OKAY.

SO SO DO WE. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. ED, WHAT HE'S DOING IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT HE HAS FUNDED YOU, FUNDED THIS ADVANCE, FUNDED IT, BUT HE'S PAYING IT BACK THROUGH THE CAD FOR MONEY.

THAT IS JUST THIS PROJECT AND THE KITTY HOLLOW PROJECT.

WHAT COMMISSIONER MYERS IS REFERRING TO ARE THE PARKS PROJECTS.

[02:15:02]

SINCE 2019, SINCE OUR FIRST, IT WAS ONLY 38.4 MILLION.

OUR FIRST PARKS BOND OVER THE PAST SINCE THE THE OR THE REVENUE CAP LEGISLATION, WHICH IS WHAT PUSHED US IN TO CLOSE THE PROJECTS THAT ENSUED AFTER THAT THAT WERE FUNDED FROM CONGRESS, NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER REVENUE BASED ON ACTION OF THE COURT.

THOSE ARE WHAT COMMISSIONER MYERS IS REFERRING TO AND THE PRIMARY PROJECTS COMMISSIONER LANDMARK.

I BELIEVE THERE'S ANOTHER THE THE POST OAK BALL FIELDS, RIGHT? THOSE ARE THE BIG TICKET ITEMS THAT HAPPENED IN 2019.

RIGHT BEFORE WE HAD PARKS BOMBED, THE SAME YEAR THAT WE HAD THE FIRST PARKS BOND AUTHORIZATION SINCE THE IMPOSITION OF REVENUE CAP LEGISLATION.

AND THAT WAS THE BASIS OF COMMISSIONER MEYER'S REQUEST OF ME TO GIVE AN ACCOUNTING OF ALL THOSE PROJECTS THAT WERE FUNDED FROM OTHER THAN PROPERTY, OTHER THAN VOTED AUTHORIZATION. SINCE WE'VE BEEN ISSUING CEOS ON A REGULAR BASIS, THAT'S WHAT THIS REPRESENTS.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING, THE ONLY WAY THAT THE ONLY REASON I VOTED FOR IT, BECAUSE THE REPRESENTATION WAS MADE THAT WE HAD, OTHER THAN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR THEM.

AND MY POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE, AND I'VE BEEN TRYING TO MAKE IT NOW FOR AN HOUR LONG, IS THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE WHERE IT IS NOW.

WE'RE NOW FUNDING IN PRECINCT TWO. 20, EXCUSE ME, $13.6 MILLION FROM PROPERTY TAXES, WHICH WAS NOT THE AGREEMENT THAT I AGREED TO. AND THAT'S MY OBJECTION.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER, YOU WANTED TO TAKE THAT ITEM AND VOTE SEPARATELY.

I'M GOING TO BE VOTING AGAINST IT. SO, YEAH, BUT WE HAVE A STACK OF ITEMS. SO YOU WANTED TO PULL THAT OUT OF THAT? HEY, I MADE THE MOTION.

I'LL PULL ME OUT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE. OKAY.

SO I'LL AGREE TO THAT. OKAY. SO WE WILL VOTE ON ITEM 35.

HE HE HE RETRACTED BACK IN THERE. HE RETRACTED HIS.

OKAY. OKAY. SO YOU AMENDED YOUR AMENDING THE MOTION.

I'M ON. IF ANDY DOESN'T WANT TO VOTE FOR B, BUT VOTE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, I'LL PULL IT OUT.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO SAY. THAT'S WHAT I SAID. I'LL MAKE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION. I'M ACTUALLY PRESENTING AGAIN.

BECAUSE YOU. YEAH. YEAH. PRESENTING TO THE COURT.

CAN YOU JUST. SORRY. I NEED SOME CLARITY ON THE MOTION. I MADE A MOTION FOR.

IS 35 A THROUGH R. YES. ANDY HAS TAKEN EXCEPTION WITH B.

YES, SIR. HE SAID HE'S GOING TO VOTE AGAINST EVERYTHING BECAUSE B IS IN THERE.

I WILL REMOVE B YES, SIR, AND RECONSIDER IT AFTER WE TAKE THIS VOTE.

THANK YOU. AND NOW THE NEW. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW THE NEW MOTION IS I PRESENTED THE CODE.

AGENDA ITEM 35 A THROUGH R, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF B, DO I DO I HAVE A MOTION ON IT? YEAH, I MADE A MOTION. YEAH. YEAH. SECOND. SECOND.

OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON AGENDA ITEM 35 A THROUGH R, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM B.

ALL IN FAVOR ON THAT? I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON ITEM B.

ON ALL THE ON EVERYTHING OTHER THAN THAT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S CAST THAT VOTE AND WE'LL GET TO IT IN A SECOND.

GOT IT. VOTING ACCEPT B GOT IT. OKAY. ON ITEM PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AND NOW I WILL COME BACK TO ITEM NUMBER 3530 5BB AS LONG AS PRESENTED.

AND I WANT TO OFFER, ANSWERS TO ANY QUESTIONS.

YOU HAVE A SECOND. SECOND. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO YOU WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION FIRST. MIKE. MIKE, I NEED CLARIFICATION.

WE GET THAT WE VOTED TO BASICALLY ADVANCE FUND THIS THROUGH CEOS.

RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY, SO EXACTLY THE WAY IS THE MONEY BEING PAID BACK THROUGH CAD FOUR? YES. CAN WE ADD THAT SPECIFICATION TO THE MOTION? YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. IT'S IN THERE ALREADY.

IT SAYS TYPICAL OBLIGATION BACKED BY CAD FOR YOU SAY THAT.

IS THAT LEGAL? I'LL LET COUNTY ATTORNEY ADVISE ON LEGAL.

THAT HELPS ME DO MY JOB BECAUSE WE CAN'T ACCOUNTING.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN ISSUE DEBT AGAINST. WE CAN USE THE DEBT.

WE CAN'T ISSUE 2025 CAD BONDS. WE CAN'T DO THAT.

CORRECT. THESE CEOS ARE ISSUED BY THE COUNTY WITH THE DEBT SERVICE SUPPORTED BY CAD FOUR.

JUST LIKE WE DID, WE SEE CAD SIX THAT BUILT. MISSION BEND.

FOUR CORNERS LIBRARY, FOUR CORNERS COMMUNITY CENTER, AND MISSION BEND.

BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB. YES. YEAH, EXACTLY THE SAME.

SINCE WE VOTED ON THIS, I WOULD AGREE TO IT AS LONG AS THERE'S CLARIFICATION THAT IT IS BEING PAID BACK.

WELL, I MADE A MOTION AS PRESENTED, BUT I'LL MODIFY THAT TO SAY PARKS 2023 PARKS BONDS.

[02:20:08]

IN FACT, I'LL SAY 2020 AND 2023 PARKS BONDS AND CERTIFICATES OBLIGATIONS BACKED BY COUNTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR REVENUES AS ACCEPTABLE. IS THAT GOOD? OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I HAVE I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH DISCUSSION ON IT.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES FOR ONE.

AND NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO. I WANT TO THANK THE COURT FOR THIS.

I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT A DIFFERENCE IS GOING TO MAKE IN THE LIVES OF SOME OF THESE CHILDREN.

THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC POOL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FRESNO THAT KIDS CAN LEARN HOW TO SWIM.

THEY DON'T COME FROM AFFLUENT FAMILIES. OKAY? THERE WILL BE ALL KINDS OF ACTIVITIES. AN EXPANDED COMMUNITY CENTER AND AN AUDITORIUM.

IT WILL CHANGE THAT COMMUNITY. AND I APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT OF THE COURT COLLECTIVELY.

EVEN YOU, COMMISSIONER MORRIS. I THANK YOU, TOO.

OKAY. AND NOW I WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 36 A, PRESENTED BY SHERIFF.

SO IF I MAY JUDGE, IF WE COULD JUST HAVE THAT ITEM SINCE IT RELATES TO A COUNTY ASSISTANCE DISTRICT, IF IT COULD BE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY ASSISTANCE DISTRICT SO THAT WE DID THAT ALREADY.

YOU DID IT ALREADY. OKAY. WELL, WE WE WE HAVE ITEMS. WE HAVE TWO CURRENCIES AND DIFFERENT ITEMS OKAY TODAY, BUT THIS ONE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE.

AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY STATED, WE STILL NEED A COUNTY ASSISTANCE DISTRICT BOARD ACTION APPROVING THE FUNDING.

OKAY, WE DO IT ON 26. OKAY. SO JUST MAKE NOTE OF THAT.

OKAY. WE'RE AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HELP WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER.

AND NOW WE WILL THERE'LL BE SOME VALUE ENGINEERING ON THIS DEAL TO THIS PRICE HERE.

THERE'S SOME THINGS WE'RE GOING TO WORK OUR WAY DOWN ON.

[36. SHERIFF'S OFFICE:]

WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 36 A PRESENTED BY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

36 A PRECINCT THREE. RIGHT. NO, A OH, I'M SORRY.

36 THIS IS SHERIFF'S OFFICE. IT'S FROM SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

36 A. FOR APPROVAL. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ANY DISCUSSION. HEARING YOU, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SHARE WITH US? NO, THAT IS ACTION. HE'S THERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

SEE? WELL, SEE? YEAH. YEAH. AND SO. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, AND THE ITEM B, WE WILL BRING IT BACK NEXT WEEK AND MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 37

[37. TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR:]

A AND B, PRESENTED BY TAXES AS A COLLECTIVE MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 37 A AND B, SECOND ITEM 37 A AND B HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING.

NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 38 3940. APPROVAL OF BILLS.

[38. Approve Bills.]

[39. Ratify the release of time-sensitive disbursements made on July 31, 2025, and August 7, 2025.]

[40. Authorize County auditor to pay and release the time-sensitive disbursements on August 21, 2025, to be ratified by Commissioners Court on August 26, 2025.]

SIR. GO AHEAD. ALONG WITH THE TIMES OF SET OF BILLS TOTALING 35,177,376 AND 43 SUBMIT FOR COURT APPROVAL BILLS TOTALING 24,420,019 AND 26, WHICH INCLUDES ROUTINE DISBURSEMENTS OF $20,344,001.72.

LOOK FOR APPROVAL. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE A WORKSHOP. RIGHT? YES.

[41. WORKSHOP:]

AGENDA ITEM 41. NO. OH, YEAH. WORKSHOP. CONDUCT WORKSHOP TO RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM FORT BEND COUNTY SHERIFF ERIC FAGAN REGARDING THE OPERATIONAL AND BUDGETARY IMPACTS OF SENATE BILL NINE, 88TH LEGISLATURE, FOURTH CALL SESSION EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025, ON THE FORT BEND COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, INCLUDING IMPACTS ON JAIL CAPACITY, PRETRIAL DETENTION, BONDING PROCEDURES, AND COORDINATION WITH THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION AND TAKE ANY AND ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION NECESSARY.

I'M SORRY IF I CAN. I BELIEVE THAT SHOULD BE 89TH LEGISLATURE.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE CURRENT LEGISLATURE, CORRECT? I THINK IT WAS A FOURTH SESSION OF THE 48TH. IT WAS THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE 88TH.

YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. MY REASON FOR APPEARING HERE TODAY TO INFORM THE COURT ABOUT THE NEW BAIL REFORM LEGISLATION, WHICH WILL IMPACT THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

WE MUST HAVE A PLAN AND BE PREPARED FOR THE INCREASE OF INMATE POPULATION AS ANTICIPATE THE NEEDS OF ADDITIONAL STAFFING.

[02:25:08]

THE LEGISLATION, THE BAIL REFORM ADDRESSES RELEASE OF DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE AND CONVICTIONS.