Sep 10, 2026 REGULAR SESSION AGENDA

[1. Call to Order.]

[00:01:13]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. CAN YOU HEAR ME, EVERYONE? GREAT TO SEE ALL OF YOU. TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2026.

IT IS NOW 1:00 P.M. I CALL FORWARD THIS MEETING OF FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT.

WELCOME TO OUR COURTROOM AND THANK YOU TO THOSE JOINING US LIVE STREAM. PLEASE LET'S HAVE THE PRESENCE OF DECORUM. STAND AS COMMISSIONER ANDY

MEYERS LEADS US IN PRAYER. >> MOST GRACIOUS HEAVENLY FATHER, JUST HERE TO GIVE YOU THANKS FOR THE BLESSINGS YOU BESTOW ON ALL OF US. WE ASK THAT YOU CONTINUE TO BLESS OUR STATE AND COMMUNITY OF COMMISSIONERS COURT.

WE ASK YOU FOR YOUR GUIDANCE THAT ALL THE DECISIONS WE MAKE ARE BENEFIT TO ALL CONCERN. AMEN.

JUDGE, MADE A PLEDGE TO THE U.S. FLAG BY THE PLEDGE OF THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL NOW TO THE TEXAS FLAG.

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE, TEXAS.

ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE PEOPLE APPEARED.

[3. Approve minutes of regular meeting held on August 27, 2026. ]

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, YOU MAY BE SEATED.

WE WILL NOW PROCEED TO AGENDA ITEM 3 CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE

MINUTES AS PRESENTED. >> APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND ALL IN FAVOR.

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR. ANY OPPOSED?

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

WE NOW LOOK AT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, MEMBER OF THE COURT DO YOU HAVE ANNOUNCEMENTS OR COMMENTS?

ANYONE? >> YES.

I HAVE BEEN AWAY FROM COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR A FEW MEETINGS. I WAS NOT SICK.

I WAS NOT ANGRY. I DID NOT TAKE VACATION.

I WAS AWAY BASED ON PRINCIPLE. AND THE PRINCIPLES THAT I FELT THAT THE INTERIM TERM OF DANIEL WONG HAD EXPIRED AND DID NOT HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO BE THERE. I MAINTAIN IN THAT FIRST MEETING AFTER THE JUNE 17TH NONSUIT IN THE CIVIL CASE ON K.P. GEORGE THAT FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT COULD HANDLE THE BUSINESS OF FORT BEND COUNTY WITHOUT QUESTION.

I STILL MAINTAIN THAT FOUR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT DULY ELECTED CAN HANDLE THE BUSINESS OF FORT BEND COUNTY WITHOUT QUESTION. I AM HERE TODAY BECAUSE THERE IS A CRITICAL VOTE ON A TAX RATE AND BUDGET.

DEPENDING ON HOW THINGS GO, WE CAN HAVE A CLEAN VOTE WITHOUT QUESTION, OR WE CAN HAVE ONE THAT WILL HAVE A CLOUD OF

[00:05:02]

I LOVE FORT BEND COUNTY AND I WANT TO SEE THE BEST FOR FORT BEND COUNTY. I HOPE EVERYONE HAS THE SAME FEELINGS AND ATTITUDE. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO DISCUSS VERY CLEARLY AND IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS WHY I AM HERE TODAY. I WANT TO BE CLEAR FROM THE START THAT TO MY BEING HERE IN NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM AFFIRMS THAT DANIEL WONG HAS ANY AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS AS AN ACTING COUNTY JUDGE. MY PRESENCE HERE TODAY IS TWO FOLD. ONE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE ENSURE THAT WE HAVE QUORUM AND FOUR LAWFUL VOTES TO PASS A COUNTY TAX RATE. IN AN IDEAL WORLD, DANIEL WONG WOULD DO THE HONORABLE THING AND RECUSE HIMSELF FROM VOTING ON THESE IMPORTANT ITEMS SO AS NOT TO THEM WITH HIS DISPUTED VOTE AS HE DID WHEN IT CAME TO A VOTE THAT WOULD BENEFIT HIM FINANCIALLY. AND TWO, TO SHED LIGHT AND FORCED DISCUSSION AS DANIEL WONG AND MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE SOUGHT TO USE THEIR POSITIONS AS RETALIATION AGAINST ELECTED OFFICIALS AND COUNTY STAFF.

NO COURT TO DATE HAS ISSUED ANY ORDER AFFIRMING THAT MR. WONG HAS ANY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE TO SIT IN THIS SEAT.

IN FACT, THE COURT THAT APPOINTED HIM DID THE OPPOSITE AND DENIED HIS REQUEST TO AFFIRM THAT HE STILL HAS LEGAL AUTHORITY. AND THE DELAYS ON A DECISION ON BLACK LETTER LAW BY PARTIZAN ACTORS ONLY LEADS OUR COUNTY IN A STATE OF CRISIS. THE CHAOS AND CORRUPTION WE WITNESSED THESE PAST FEW MONTHS NEEDS TO STOP.

AND WE ARE HERE TO USE WHATEVER POWER WE HAVE TO HOLD ANYONE WHO WOULD HURT FORT BEND COUNTY, OUR RESIDENTS, OUR OUR EMPLOYEES ACCOUNTABLE. PERIOD.

>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC MEMBERS OF THE COURT? HEARING NONE COME I WILL TAKE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> WE HAVE EIGHT PUBLIC SPEAKERS STARTING OFF WITH FRED BARNES HERE TO SPEAK ON 21E.

SPEAKER GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS, WELCOME BACK I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 21E ABOUT STAFFING.

I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO READ A LETTER FROM THE STATES REPRESENTATIVE MATT O'REGAN. IF YOU WILL BEAR WITH ME.

FORT COUNTY JUDICIAL STAFFING. ASSOCIATE JUDGE STAFFING WAS IN PART BY TEMPORARY FUNDING INCLUDING POSITIONS FUNDED ONLY THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2024. SINCE THEN, THE LEGISLATURE HAS CREATED THE 501ST AND 502ND DISTRICT COURTS INCREASING FORT BEND COUNTY FROM EIGHT TO TEN DISTRICT JUDGES.

DURING CONSIDERATION OF THE LEGISLATION, I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS REGARDING FORT BEND COUNTY'S JUDICIAL NEEDS.

OSHA'S WORKLOAD ANALYSIS AND THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES FOLLOWING THE CREATION OF TWO ADDITIONAL ELECTED COURTS.

THOSE DISCUSSIONS TOGETHER WITH THE DATA WERE IMPORTANT TO MY DECISION TO SUPPORT THAT LEGISLATION.

THE REDUCTION FROM EIGHT ASSOCIATE JUDGES TO FIVE WAS THEREFORE AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE DISCUSSION SURROUNDING MY SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATURE. UNDER OCA'S METHODOLOGY, ELIMINATING THREE ASSOCIATE JUDGES REDUCES JUDICIAL CAPACITY BY 2.25 FTES OFFSETTING THE 2.0 ADDED BY THE NEW ELECTED DISTRICT JUDGES. MY SUPPORT FOR THE 501ST AND 500 SECOND DISTRICT COURTS WAS BASED ON THAT UNDERSTANDING REACHED THROUGH DISCUSSION WITH COUNTY LEADERSHIP.

THAT FOCUS ON REMOVING TEMPORARY ASSOCIATE JUDGES WITH TWO NEW EFFECTIVE -- ELECTED JUDGES, SIGNED SINCERELY MATT ORGAN, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, HOUSE DISTRICT 26. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANKS SO MUCH. NEXT.

>> THE NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER IS THOMAS MCCAGUE HERE TO SPEAK ON

AGENDA ITEM 5A. >> YES, MY NAME IS THOMAS MCKAY OF FORT BEND COUNTY, HERE TO TALK ABOUT 5A.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW? I DON'T WANT TO BLAST EVERYBODY.

[00:10:04]

I SEE THAT THE TWO COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN ABSENT ARE NOW PRESENT. AND I'M SURE THEIR CONSTITUENTS ARE VERY HAPPY ABOUT THAT. IN THEIR ABSENCE A BUDGET HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY THE THREE REMAINING MEMBERS OF THE COURT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT COULD NOT BE APPROVED UNLESS FOUR OF THE FIVE MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. ALSO AS I UNDERSTAND IT IF THE PROPOSED BUDGET CANNOT BE APPROVED, IT WILL DEFAULT TO THE CURRENT BUDGET. I AM IN FAVOR OF IT FALLING TO THE CURRENT BUDGET SINCE IT WILL RESULT IN LOWER TAXES.

IN THAT REGARD, I WISH THEY HAD STAYED AWAY.

I DO THINK THE INTERIM COUNTY JUDGE HAS BROUGHT STABILITY, INTEGRITY, AND PROFESSIONALISM TO THE OFFICE.

I'M SURE THAT PLAYED A ROLE IN DEVELOPING THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

IN SPITE OF THAT I FIND IT CURIOUS THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CONTINUES TO TRY TO HAVE HIM REMOVED.

A DISTRICT JUDGE HAS ALLOWED MR. WONG TO STAND OFFICE, BUT ACCUSED THE JUDGE OF BEING PARTIZAN WHEN SHE SEEMS TO BE ACTING PARTIZAN. EVERYONE SHOULD BE WORKING TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH THE COUNTY'S BUSINESS, ESPECIALLY THE BUDGET. IT SEEMS THAT THEY WHO OPPOSE HIM ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE GOOD JOB THE COUNTY JUDGE IS DOING, AND HE SHOULD TAKE COMFORT IN THAT.

I HOPE THE PROPOSED BUDGET REFLECTS A GOOD BALANCE BETWEEN CONTROLLING SPENDING AND RAISING NECESSARY REVENUE.

IT WAS INTERESTING TO HEAR THE COMMENTS ABOUT CAN THE FOUR COMMISSIONERS CONDUCT THE COUNTY BUSINESS.

CONVERSELY I HEARD A COMMENT ABOUT HOPING THERE WOULD BE A CLEAN VOTE. WELL, IF YOU DON'T GET A CLEAN VOTE COME I DO QUESTION IF THE FOUR COMMISSIONERS COULD REALLY GET THINGS DONE, SINCE IT WOULD SEEM TO BE TWO VERSUS TWO.

SO I THINK THAT THE PATH WE ARE ON IS THE CORRECT ONE.

NOW I SUSPECT MOST FOLKS ARE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET, AND I MAY WELL BE IN THE MINORITY.

BUT I AM IN FAVOR OF DEFAULTING TO THE CURRENT BUDGET SINCE IT WILL RESULT IN LOWER TAXES. WHETHER THAT IS THE RESULT OF ONLY THREE BEING PRESENT OR IF IT IS ALL FIVE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING, NEXT.

>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS HEATHER BACHMAN HERE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM 21H. SPEAKER GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME

IS HEATHER BACHMAN. >> CAN YOU WALK UP TO THE

MICROPHONE? >> MY NAME IS HEATHER BACHMAN, I AM A BOARD CERTIFIED ATTORNEY THAT HAS PRACTICED FOR OVER 20 YEARS. THE REASON I AM HERE TODAY IS TO ALLOW THIS COUNCIL TO HEAR NOT ONLY FROM THE JUDGES THAT HAVE BEEN SPEAKING BEFORE YOU, BUT ALSO THE ATTORNEYS THAT ARE PRACTICING IN THEIR COURTS EVERY SINGLE DAY THAT BY CUTTING THE POSITIONS OF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND REDUCING THEM EVEN FROM THE EIGHT AS TO FIVE IS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE ACCESS TO EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF FORT BEND COUNTY.

WE ALREADY HAVE ISSUES OF THE AMOUNT OF LITIGATION THAT WE ARE HAVING IN THE FAMILY COURTS THAT CONTINUES TO INCREASE.

TEN YEARS AGO I COULD TELL YOU I WOULD MAYBE GO TO TRIAL 50% OF THE TIME. I CAN TELL YOU NOW TRIAL WAS PROBABLY 75% OF MY CASES. ALL OF MY CLIENTS ARE FRUSTRATED IN REGARDS TO HOW LONG IT IS TAKING TO GET IN FRONT OF A JUDGE TO HEAR A CASE AND THAT IS WITH TWO IN EACH OF THE FAMILY COURTS. IF WE REDUCE THAT DOWN, THAT IS GOING TO ALLOW AND SLOW DOWN THE ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN PURSUING THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN OF FORT BEND COUNTY.

WE HAVE CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THESE CASES EVERY SINGLE DAY IN REGARDS TO ONE PARENT MAY BE HOLDING THE OTHER CHILD AGAINST THE OTHER PARENT THAT INVOLVES LAW ENFORCEMENT COME A 911 CALLS, AND INCREASING THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF SERVICE THAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED BY THIS COUNTY. IN ADDITION, THEY HANDLE THE PROTECTIVE ORDER FORMS. WE NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO AND FILE THEM AND BE ABLE TO HAVE EMERGENCY HEARING VERY QUICKLY. IF WE HAVE A JUDGE THAT IS TIED UP IN A JURY TRIAL, OR HAS A LOT OF CASES ON THE DOCKET, ONE JUDGE CAN HEAR ONE CASE AT ONE TIME.

AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT EVERY SINGLE DAY THERE IS MORE THAN ONE CASE SET IN EACH OF THESE COURTS.

I KNOW THERE WAS AN OPEN REQUEST TO BE ABLE TO HAVE YOU GUYS ATTEND THE COURTS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF ANYONE ATTENDED THE COURT DOCKET TO SEE HOW MANY CASES EACH OF THESE JUDGES ARE HANDLING AND HOW YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT TO THE CITIZENS OF FORT BEND COUNTY. IF WE LOOK AT RECENT RELEASES

[00:15:03]

SO I WOULD ASK THE COURT TO DENY THE LEGISLATION -- THE BUDGET THAT IS BEING APPROVED AND KEEP ALL OF THE BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR IN REGARDS TO APPROVING AND KEEPING THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES THAT WAS DONE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE TWO MORE COURTS ADDED TO THAT.

I UNDERSTAND YOU ARE GOING TO LEGISLATION AGAIN THIS YEAR FOR TWO MORE COURTS, YOU CAN AVOID THAT BY KEEPING THE COURTS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM MOVING.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING, NEXT.

>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTIAN BECERRA HERE TO SPEAK ON 21H.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I STAND BEFORE YOU TODAY AS A LIFELONG PROUD CITIZEN OF FORT BEND COUNTY AND AS A PRACTITIONER IN THE JUSTICE CENTER FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS.

I ASK YOU TO HEAR ME TODAY. I STAND BEFORE YOU WITHOUT POLITICAL AGENDA. I AM ASKING YOU TO RECONSIDER THIS DECISION BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AND MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR THE CITIZENS OF FORT BEND COUNTY THE DATA BEING RELIED UPON DOES NOT PROVIDE A COMPLETE OR CURRENT PICTURE OF THE WORK BEING DONE IN OUR DISTRICT COURT'S. WE ALREADY HAVE BETTER INFORMATION COMING. TEXAS SENATE BILL 293 REQUIRES JUDICIAL ACTIVITY AND OUR ASSOCIATE JUDGES AS COUNTY EMPLOYEES SUBMIT MONTHLY TIME SHEETS, CURRENT DATA AVAILABLE THROUGH THE TEXAS OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION.

RATHER THAN MAKE A PERMANENT DECISION BASED ON OUTDATED INFORMATION, LET US PRESERVE WHAT WE HAVE AND FOLLOW THE CURRENT DATA TO DEMONSTRATE THE VALUE OF THESE JUDGES.

THIS IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT NUMBERS OR POSITIONS IT'S ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE TIMELY JUSTICE TO THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTY. REMOVING JUDICIAL CAPACITY DOES NOT REMOVE THE WORKLOAD, IT MOVES THAT WORK BACK ON TO THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES AND CREATES THE POTENTIAL FOR BACKLOG. THAT BACKLOG HAS CONSEQUENCES IN OUR FAMILY COURTS, IT CAN MEAN FAMILIES WAITING LONGER FOR DECISIONS INVOLVING CUSTODY AND THEIR CHILDREN, AND OUR CRIMINAL COURTS IT CAN MEAN DEFENDANTS WAITING LONGER FOR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO A TRIAL AND VICTIMS WAITING LONGER FOR JUSTICE. JUST THIS MORNING I SPOKE WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON VICTIMS, SHE UNDERSTANDS FIRSTHAND WHAT DELAY CAN MEAN FOR CHILDREN, VICTIMS, AND THEIR FAMILY. AND SHE STANDS WITH US IN OPPOSING ANY DECISION THAT WOULD REDUCE OUR CAPACITY TO SERVE IT.

WE SHOULD NOT CREATE BACKLOG SIMPLY TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL COURTS FROM AUSTIN.

THAT DOES NOT MOVE FORT BEND COUNTY FORWARD, WE CANNOT GO BACKWARDS. WE MUST PRESERVE THE JUDICIAL CAPACITY WE HAVE AND CONTINUE THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE THAT HAS SERVED THIS COUNTY SO WELL.

I HAVE NO DOUBT IF WE ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, THE CURRENT DATA WILL DEMONSTRATE TO THE HARD WORK OF OUR DISTRICT COURT JUDGES, OUR COURT STAFF AND THE VALUE THEY BRING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. LET US SHOW LEADERSHIP LET US SHOW THE LEADERSHIP OUR CITIZENS DESERVE LET US NOT ALLOW POLITICS TO DRIVE A NONPARTISAN DECISION.

LET US FIND COMMON GROUND AND COME TOGETHER AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR FORT BEND COUNTY. TODAY I ASK YOU TO STAND WITH US THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND THEIR FAMILIES, OUR DISTRICT COURTS, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, PRESERVE THE JUDICIAL CAPACITY WE HAVE, LET US PROVE ITS VALUE AND DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE WE ALL SERVE. DOING THE RIGHT THING IS NOT ALWAYS EASY, BUT IT IS ALWAYS, ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING.

NEXT. >> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS JUDY

PATEL HERE TO SPEAK ON 21H. >> THANK YOU COUNTY JUDGE AND

[00:20:10]

I WAS ABLE TO SPEAK WHEN THIS FIRST CAME TO A VOTE, BUT I HAD THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AGAIN AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THAT WITH Y'ALL. THIS TIME I DID NOT BRING REPORTS OR STATISTICS OR NUMBERS.

I BROUGHT ALL OF THAT LAST TIME, AND AS OFFERED BEFORE I AM HAPPY TO SHARE THAT AGAIN AND FORWARD IT TO YOU VIA EMAIL OR TO YOUR OFFICE IF YOU HAVE NEED. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT BEFORE. I AM RESPECTFULLY ASKING THAT YOU RETAIN THE CURRENT EMPLOYEES THAT YOU HAVE IN THE JUDICIARY, AND THAT IS BASED ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.

MY REQUEST TO YOU GENTLEMEN TODAY IS TO WAIT AND NOT MAKE THE DECISION THIS BUDGET CYCLE. I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT ALL OF YOU COME AND OBSERVE OUR COURTS. JUST THIS MORNING COME ADJUST ME. I AM JUST ONE OF THEM.

ALL OF OUR JUDGES WORK HARD. JUST THIS MORNING I HANDLED CASES INVOLVING A FIREARM AGAINST A POLICE OFFICER AND A NEW CASE THAT HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS.

I WON'T GO INTO THE NAMES INVOLVING A MOTHER AND HER CHILDREN. IT'S NOT PROPER FOR ME TO DISCUSS THOSE CASES, BUT I WANTED TO SHARE AT LEAST A SLIGHT PART OF THAT SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE SERIOUSNESS OF WHAT WE ARE DOING. THAT WAS JUST THIS MORNING COME ON TOP OF MY OTHER PLEAS AND BOND HEARINGS THAT I HANDLED.

THERE WERE SOME VERY SERIOUS CASES ON MY DOCKET.

AND WITHOUT YOU ALL COMING TO SEE WHAT WE ARE DOING, IT IS HARD FOR ME TO SHARE THAT AND EXPRESS THAT LEVEL OF SERIOUSNESS AND IMPORTANCE AND HARD WORK.

I ASK YOU ALL TO PAUSE ON THIS AND COME SEE WHAT WE ARE DOING.

REVIEW OUR MONTHLY OC REPORTS. AS YOU REMEMBER LAST TIME WHEN I SPOKE RECENTLY, I BROUGHT THAT AND SHOWED OUR CLEARANCE RATE.

MY COURT, I'M JUST SPEAKING MY EMPIRIC EVERYBODY WORKS HARD WAS FOUR CASES APART, MEANING THE NEW CASES FILED IN MY COURT AND THE ONES I CLEARED WAS A FOUR CASE DIFFERENCE.

THAT'S AN A PLUS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CLEARANCE RATES OF THE JUDICIARY. I INVITE YOU TO LOOK AT THOSE REPORTS ON A MONTHLY BASIS GET ANY REPORTS THAT YOU NEED FROM THE DISTRICT COURT'S OFFICE, WHICH ALSO CAN RUN REPORTS ON ANY OF OUR DOCKETS FOR Y'ALL. COME SPEND A DAY WITH ME.

SPEND AN HOUR WITH ME. COME SPEND A WEEK WITH ME.

SEE PROPERTY TAX DOCUMENTS, THE JUDGMENTS WE ARE COLLECTING IN FAVOR OF THIS COUNTY. THAT IS BRINGING MONEY IN, MONEY THAT IS OWED TO THE COUNTY. IT IS TAXES TO HELP US MOVE FORWARD. WITHOUT THAT FIRST HAND BIRD'S EYE VIEW. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION. I UNDERSTAND THAT A GENTLEMAN CAME UP HERE EARLIER AND SPOKE ABOUT SOME CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE IN AUSTIN AND RESPECTFULLY COME I GET THAT.

I DO, BUT THAT HAPPENED A LONG TIME AGO AND SINCE THEN THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES WERE MADE PERMANENT PARTS OF THIS COUNTY.

DESPITE THAT, THE LEGISLATURE DID GIVE TWO NEW COURTS.

SOMEONE STATED THEIR TWO NEW COURTS THAT ARE COMING.

THAT'S NOT ACCURATE. WE DON'T KNOW WHEN AND IF THEY WILL COME. IN THE MEANTIME, WHY WILL WE GO BACKWARD ON WHAT WE HAVE IN A GOOD SYSTEM THAT IS WORKING.

IT'S LIKE, WHAT DO THEY SAY, YOU ARE FIXING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT BROKEN? AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL MONETARY AMOUNT TO KEEP THESE THREE POSITIONS, IT IS VERY LITTLE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE OVERALL BUDGET TO.

THE MONEY WE ARE SPENDING ON OTHER THINGS LIKE PARKS AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY. IF YOU ASK ANY CITIZEN IN FORT BEND COUNTY DO YOU WANT THE JUDGES CUT? THE JUDGES THAT GET UP 24 HOURS A DAY.

I AM ON CALL NEXT WEEK. BLOOD WARRANTS ON DWI ALL NIGHT LONG, I PROMISE YOU. DO YOU WANT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE HANDLING THESE CASES CUT? OR DO YOU WANT I DON'T KNOW, ANOTHER PARK. AND I'M NOT PICKING ON PARKS, I'M SORRY. I'M TRYING TO FIND AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE DO IN THE BUDGET. I'M SO FOCUSED ON JUDICIARY.

APOLOGIES. BUT I DON'T KNOW, JUST SLIDE IN WHATEVER YOU WANT IN THAT EXAMPLE.

IF YOU ASK IF THEY WANT THAT CUT OR THE JUDICIARY CUT COME I PROMISE YOU IF THEY WERE EDUCATED AND CAME TO SEE THE WORK WE DO EVERY SINGLE DAY AND SOMETIMES EVERY SINGLE NIGHT AND EVERY SINGLE WEEKEND, THEY WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF NO, KEEP THIS INSTEAD. THANK YOU ALL.

>> THANK YOU FOR COMING. NEXT.

>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MONICA ROLLINS SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM

5A. >> OKAY GOOD AFTERNOON.

I WON'T BE BEFORE YOU LONG. I WON'T BELABOR THE ISSUE EVEN THOUGH IT'S VERY IMPORTANT. WE WERE HERE BEFORE AND AT LEAST THREE TIMES AT THIS POINT MAKING THE CASE REGARDING THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES AND THE NEED TO KEEP THEM HERE.

[00:25:03]

AND I WILL HAVE MY ASSOCIATE JUDGE COME UP AT THIS TIME.

SO SHE CAN MAKE HER PRESE PRESENTATION.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. AGAIN, MY NAME IS FELICIA YOUNG.

I AM THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE OF THE JUDICIAL COURT, THIS IS MY THIRD TIME SPEAKING WITH YOU ALL, BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT. I COME TO YOU AGAIN ASKING THAT YOU ALL RECONSIDER YOUR VOTE TO DEFUND THE THREE ASSOCIATE JUDGES. I STAND HERE TODAY ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHY YOU ALL ARE DOING THIS BECAUSE NONE OF YOU THAT VOTED YES TO DEFUND THE THREE ASSOCIATE JUDGES HAS STATED IN THIS FORM AS TO WHY YOU ARE DOING IT.

LAST YEAR WE WERE HERE ON THIS VERY ISSUE.

AT THE BEGINNING IT WAS STATED BY COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE, AND ALSO COMMISSIONER MCCOY THAT IT WAS SIMPLY NOT A BUDGET ISSUE. AND AFTER ROUNDS AND ROUNDS OF HAVING WORKSHOPS, PUBLIC FORUMS, AND DISCUSSIONS.

, YOU ALL CONCEDED THAT IT WAS NOT A BUDGET ISSUE. THE ISSUE BECAME THE OCA REPORT.

AND IT HAS BEEN STATED TO ALL OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT THE OCA REPORT THAT YOU ALL HOLD UP AND SAY THAT IT SAYS THAT FORT BEND HAS TOO MANY ASSOCIATE JUDGES, THAT IS NOT WHAT IT STATES. THAT WAS NOT THE INTENDED PURPOSE FOR THAT WORK LOAD STUDY.

THAT WORKLOAD STUDY WAS INTENDED TO IDENTIFY COUNTIES THAT DID NOT HAVE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF JUDICIARY.

IT WAS NEVER INTENDED AS THE OPTIMAL LEVEL.

THOSE ARE NOT MY WORDS, THAT'S THEIR WORDS.

SO IF ANYONE IS MISREADING THAT, DON'T TAKE MY STATEMENTS AS TRUE. GO READ THE REPORT.

I GAVE IT TO YOU ALL LAST TIME. I DID NOT SEE YOU ALL TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU TO READ IT BEFORE YOU ALL VOTED. AND I WOULD ASK THAT IF YOU STILL HAVE IT, THAT YOU AT LEAST DO THAT.

BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT. THESE ARE PEOPLE'S LIVES, NOT JUST ONES THAT ARE THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND ASSOCIATE JUDGES, BUT ALSO THE PEOPLE THEY SERVE. AND I AM ASKING YOU WHY, BECAUSE I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW WHY. IT WAS NOT A BUDGET ISSUE THEN.

IT IS NOT A BUDGET ISSUE NOW. ALL OF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES WERE IN THE PROPOSED BUDGETS IN JULY 2026.

AND THE EMAIL SHE SENT OUT SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE BUDGET CONVERSATION FOR 2027 IS NEARING COMPLETION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDED BUDGET AT THIS STAGE ONLY MINOR CHANGES ARE ANTICIPATED PRIOR TO ADOPTION.

FURTHER IN HER LETTER, SHE STATED IF YOU HAVE CONCERNS OR DISAGREEMENTS WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE CONTACT THE BUDGET OFFICE AND LATER ON IN THAT EMAIL, IF AFTER THE BUDGET MEETING YOU STILL HAVE UNRESOLVED DISAGREEMENTS COMING YOU MAY PRESENT THEM TO THE COURT DURING THE FINAL BUDGET HEARINGS TO BE HELD ON AUGUST THE FOURTH THROUGH AUGUST THE SIXTH OF 2026. ON AUGUST THE SIXTH OF 2026, EVERY LAST ASSOCIATE JUDGE WAS IN THE BUDGET FOR THEIR PROSPECTIVE COURTS. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH THE BUDGET OFFICE.

OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FROM AUGUST THE FOURTH-AUGUST THE SIXTH TO DISCUSS IT.

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU ALL HAVE CHOSEN TO IGNORE YOUR OWN PROTOCOL. THAT'S CONCERNING.

AND NOT ONLY THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES DESERVE AN ANSWER TO THAT, BUT FORT BEND COUNTY DESERVES AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. THERE WAS ZERO NOTICE TO EACH OF THE JUDGES THAT THERE WERE TO BE MAJOR CHANGES.

AND SPECIFICALLY, WHAT AND WHY? IT IS MAJOR TO TAKE AWAY THE ESSENTIAL NEEDS OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THE JUDICIARY THAT

[00:30:05]

YOU HEARD FOR OVER TWO PLUS HOURS PEOPLE FROM THE COMMUNITY, PEOPLE FROM THE JUDICIARY, PEOPLE WHO PRACTICE IN FRONT OF US TELL YOU ALL THAT THIS WAS A HORRIBLE IDEA.

TELL YOU AND PLEAD WITH YOU ALL AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE.

BUT I HAVE A QUESTION. WHY ARE WE HAVING TO TELL YOU ALL THAT WE ARE NEEDED WHEN THE VERY PEOPLE THAT YOU SERVE ARE TELLING YOU THAT. WHY? NO ONE HAS ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

AND I AM ASKING YOU ALL TO ANSWER IT.

WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, THAT VERY DAY AFTER YOU ALL TOOK THAT VOTE AT 5:01 THAT VERY DAY WE GOT NOTICE THAT ALL EIGHT OF US PRIOR TO YOU ALL VOTING TODAY HAD BEEN REMOVED OUT OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND INTO A POOL ALREADY.

WE ARE ALREADY IN THE POOL. HAVE YOU ALREADY MADE UP YOUR MIND AND WE ARE NOT JUST TALKING? ARE YOU NOT CONSIDERING THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING SAID AND CONSIDERING THE EFFECT THAT IT HAS.

THE BUDGET HAS NOT BEEN PASSED, BUT THE ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN, WHY? AND YOU HAVE SAID IT IN THIS FORUM YESTERDAY WHEN I CAME AND THE TIME BEFORE THAT COME I GAVE YOU ALL SOME INFORMATION. AGAIN COME ABOUT THIS OCA REPORT CLEARED THE OCA REPORT DOES NOT SAY THAT.

LIKE I TOLD YOU BEFORE COME IT WELCOMES MORE JUDICIARY, BECAUSE IT MAKES FOR A MORE EFFICIENT COURTS.

IT MAKES FOR A MORE A BETTER JUDICIARY THAT IS SERVING THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE, NOWHERE, NOWHERE OTHER THAN IN HERE IS IT BEING STATED THAT THAT'S WHAT THAT REPORT WAS FOR.

SO READ THE REPORT. DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT.

THEN I HEAR ABOUT OUR PRO FUNDED COURTS.

LET'S BE CLEAR, THERE ARE NO PRO FUNDED COURTS AS WE STAND HERE TODAY. THERE WERE TWO FUNDED COURTS, AND WHEN THOSE RAN OUT TO COME I BELIEVE IT WAS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. YOU ALL DECIDED TO MAKE THEM PERMANENT. SO THERE ARE NO PRO FUNDED COURTS AS WE STAND HERE TODAY. AND YOU ALL DECIDED TO DO THAT KNOWING THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE TWO MORE COURTS.

I HAVE HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT PROMISES MADE TO AUSTIN.

THERE IS A LETTER TO AUSTIN SAYING THERE WAS NO STRINGS ATTACHED TO THE CREATION OF THOSE COURTS.

THERE WERE NO STRINGS ATTACHED TO SAY COME AND GET RID OF ASSOCIATE JUDGES. NOTHING, BUT YET, YOU ALL CONTINUE TO STATE IT NOT HERE, BUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT A BUDGET ISSUE. I ASK YOU ALL THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE YESTERDAY. I SAID LOOK AT YOUR OWN BUDGET.

I SAW IN A LETTER THAT IT IS -- IT COSTS MORE TO HAVE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE THAN A DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

AND AS I EXPLAINED TO YOU, YES COME I WILL AGREE THAT THE STATE PAYS THE SALARY FOR THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

AND THAT THE COUNTY PAYS THE SALARY FOR THE ASSOCIATES.

HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE STORY.

LOOK IN YOUR BUDGET AND YOU WILL SEE THAT IT IS APPROXIMATELY $600,000 FOR A DISTRICT COURT. BUT THAT IS NOT THE WHOLE STORY, BECAUSE LAST YEAR WHEN YOU ALL WERE ARGUING THAT IT WAS PART OF THE BUDGET, WHEN YOU ALL WERE LOOKING AT THE CREATION OF COURTS. WHAT I WAS TOLD AND WE WERE ALL TOLD IS THAT WHEN THEY ARE CREATED COME IT COMES WITH POSITIONS FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS OFFICE AND POSITIONS FROM THE DA'S OFFICE AND COMES WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

IT'S JUST MORE PEOPLE ON TOP OF WHAT YOUR 2027 PROPOSED BUDGET SAYS. SO YOUR OWN NUMBERS DON'T BEAR OUT ON THAT. SO I AM GOING TO ASK YOU WHY? WHY? BECAUSE IF IT WAS A BUDGET ISSUE, WHY WEREN'T WE ASKED WHY WERE WE IN THE BUDGET INITIALLY? IF IT IS A BUDGET ISSUE, WHY DID YOU WAIT UNTIL AFTER AUGUST THE SIXTH TO TAKE THIS OUT? WHY? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT AN ANSWER.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES, WE WILL END OUR PRESENTATION WITH THIS. IT IS SAID THAT THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS HAS HELD THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT CANNOT

[00:35:03]

THE JUDICIARY IS A CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU FOR COMING.

NEXT. >> THE NEXT PUBLIC SPEAKER IS CHRISTINA NADER, AND IS HERE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM 16.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME MY NAME IS CHRISTINA NADER, THE REASON I AM VISITING IS I AM A PART OF A INITIATIVE TO CONNECT RESEARCHERS LIKE ME WITH LOCAL COUNTIES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES PERIOD COVERS ANY CHILD AND FAMILY POLICY YOU ARE FACING IN YOUR COUNTY, WHICH IS WHY I'M SPEAKING ON THIS SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM. HERE'S A BIT ABOUT HOW IT WORKS.

FIRST I'M VISITING TO INTRODUCE MYSELF.

AFTER THE MEETING I WILL SEND FOLLOW UP EMAILS DESCRIBING THE INITIATIVE AND INCLUDE A WAY TO SIGN UP TO MEET WITH ME.

I WILL ALSO ASK YOU TO FORWARD IT TO OTHERS WHO DO WORK-RELATED TO CHILDREN AND FAMILY ISSUES IN THE COUNTY.

FOR THOSE THAT RESPOND I WILL HAVE A SHORT MEETING TO LEARN ABOUT THE CHILD AND FAMILY POLICY CHALLENGES YOU ARE FOCUSED ON AND WHERE YOU SEE RESEARCH WOULD BE HELPFUL.

AND BASED ON THAT I WILL CREATE A TAILORED RESEARCH BRIEF WITH THE RELEVANT RESEARCH, SHARE IT WITH YOU AND THEN OFFER TO TALK THROUGH IT AND HOW YOU MIGHT APPLY IT IN YOUR WORK.

ALL OF THIS IS FOR FREE TO YOU. IT'S GRANTED BY THE FOUNDATION THAT SHARES THE COMMITMENT TO STRENGTHENING CONNECTIONS BETWEEN RESEARCH AND POLICY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW IT WORKS, WHAT TOPICS WE COVER AND SO ON EITHER NOW OR AFTER THE MEETING.

>> THANK YOU FOR COMING. APPRECIATE THAT.

NEXT, ANY MORE SPEAKERS. >> BEFORE WE MOVE AWAY FROM THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO AS A COURTESY -- ACKNOWLEDGE A VISITOR, STATE SENATOR MILES FROM SENATE 13 IS HERE VISITING TODAY. THANKS FOR COMING.

SENATOR MILES REPRESENTS A PART OF FORT BEND COUNTY OUT SINCE 2015. BEFORE THAT HE WAS A HOUSE MEMBER IN PARTS OF HARRIS COUNTY.

[5. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1:00 p.m.: Conduct Public Hearings and take all appropriate action on the following matters:]

>> THANK YOU, SENATOR FOR COMING.

IT IS NOW 1:36:00 P.M. WE WILL MOVE TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS TAKING ACTION ON THE FOREIGN MATTERS. THIS AFTERNOON WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION WITH AGENDA ITEM 5A AS PRESENTED AND PUBLICLY POSTED. DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING TODAY? I WILL ASK AGAIN, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TODAY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING? HEARING NONE I CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING, ACTION ON THIS ITEM WILL BE TAKEN LATER DURING TODAY'S MEETING.

NEXT WE WILL MOVE AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 5B AND 5C, SECTION A THROUGH F AS PRESENTED AND PROPERLY CLOSED.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLIC HEARINGS TODAY? I WILL ASK AGAIN, IS THERE ANYONE HERE TODAY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING? HEARING NONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT AGENDA ITEM 5B AND 5C SUBSECTION A THROUGH F ARE READY FOR ACTION. 5B AND 5C, WE WILL DO 5A LETTER.

WE DO NOT HAVE 5B HERE. WE WILL DO THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR 5D LATER. NOW IT IS 5B AND 5C.

>> I ACCEPT 5B AND C A THROUGH F.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTAIN? MOTION PASSES 3-0 AND TWO ABSTAINED.

ALL RIGHT. THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AGENDA ITEM IS 5B. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 5D AS POSTED?

[00:40:06]

ACTION ON THIS ITEM WILL BE TAKEN LATER IN TODAY'S MEETING.

[ CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: (6-18) ]

>> APPROVING 6-18 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTAIN? MOTION PASSES 3-0, TWO ABSTAIN.

[21. BUDGET & FINANCE:]

I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A GREAT PRESENTATION FOR US.

PLEASE PROCEED. >> YES, SIR.

THANK YOU. >> JUDGE, WHILE WE ARE LOADING CAN WE LAUNCH OBJECTION TO 21E AND H REMOVING ANY POSITIONS OUT OF OUR OFFICE AND REQUESTS THAT THE COURT KEEPS THOSE 11 PEOPLE IN OUR OFFICE. WE WANT TO NOTE THAT FOR THE

RECORD. >> THANK YOU.

PLEASE PROCEED, PAMELA. >> THERE YOU GO.

>> SORRY. THIS WAY.

AWESOME. ALL RIGHT.

GOOD AFTERNOON. SO WE HAVE PRESENTED A BUDGET FOR YOU TO LOOK AT TODAY. THE BUDGET WAS FILED ON AUGUST 31ST, THE PROPOSED BUDGET. AND WITH THAT BUDGET WERE SEVERAL ITEMS IN THERE. AND ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT TODAY COME OF COURSE IS THE TAX RATE.

EARLY IN JULY -- MID-JULY WE RECEIVED THE CERTIFIED TAXABLE VALUES. WE HAD THE 2026 PRELIMINARY THAT WAS GIVEN TO US IN APRIL. AND THAT IS -- THOSE ARE THE RATES, THE VALUES THAT WE USED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF THE BUDGET. IT AT THAT TIME IN APRIL, SHOWED THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE -- HAVE A DECREASE IN OUR REVENUES BY 1.08 PERCENT FOR FORT BEND COUNTY AND BY 4 PERCENT FOR THE DISTRICT JUDGE. FOR THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, EXCUSE ME. WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING WERE THOSE VALUES WERE CERTIFIED IN JULY AND CAME OUT TO 133.2 BILLION FOR FORT BEND COUNTY, AND 132 BILLION FOR THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT WHICH WAS AN ACTUAL INCREASE AND ENDED UP HELPING US GET TO THE BUDGETS REVENUE THAT WE HAD TODAY.

SO THE TAX RATE THAT YOU ALL PROPOSED ON AUGUST 11TH WAS 41.2 CENTS FOR FORT BEND COUNTY AND 1 CENT FOR THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

THAT WAS THE TAX RATE THAT WAS PROPOSED, WHICH GENERATED $13.1 MILLION PER CENT. N TRUTH IN TAXATION WITH THAT TAX RATE THAT WAS PROPOSED ON THE 11TH, THAT IS A 4.05% INCREASE OVER THE KNOWN NEW REVENUE RATE FOR FORT BEND COUNTY AND 4.07% OVER THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

[00:45:03]

SO THAT TAKES US TO THE 2027 PROPOSED BUDGET AND THE OVERALL BUDGET WITH FORT BEND COUNTY AND THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT IS 841 MILLION, 411,000, 889 WHICH IS A 10.7 INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR'S BUDGET. FORT BEND COUNTY ALONE IS 827.7 MILLION, WHICH IS THAT 10.8%.

NOW IF YOU RECALL WHAT WE DID LAST MEETING THAT YOU HAD YOU APPROVED A $52 MILLION TO ADD TO THE BUDGET, TO THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET FOR THE CONTINUATION OF BOND PROJECTS THROUGH DECEMBER.

THAT 52 MILLION ONCE THE BONDS ARE ISSUED LATER THIS YEAR OR EARLY NEXT YEAR WILL BE REIMBURSED TO THE FUND BALANCE AND BRING THAT ENDING BALANCE BACK UP.

SO IF WE HAD NOT ADDED THAT 52 MILLION, THAT'S GOING TO BE REIMBURSED, THAT IS A 3.8% INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR.

SO IT IS NOT NEARLY THE 10.7. THAT 52 MILLION IS A ONE TIME EXPENSE. SO THE FINANCE SUMMARY, WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR AS YOU RECALL, WE REQUIRE A 30% ENDING BALANCE AND THE GENERAL FUND IS GOING TO HAVE AN 18.9% ENDING FUND BALANCE WHERE THAT IS WITH 52 MILLION WITHOUT THE 52 MILLION IT IS A 31.8% ENDING BALANCE.

THE ROAD AND BRIDGE IS GOING TO END WITH A 37.8% ENDING BALANCE, DRAINAGE DISTRICT IS 71.9% BALANCE AND DEBT SERVICE AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT WITH 6.6 AND 31.0% RESPECTIVELY.

SO INCLUDED IN THE 2027 BUDGET ARE 82 NEW POSITIONS.

35 OF THESE POSITIONS ARE THE LAST OF THOSE SHERIFF POSITIONS THAT WE FROZE IN FISCAL YEAR 2025.

SO 35 OF THOSE 82 POSITIONS AREN'T NECESSARILY NEW POSITIONS, THEY ARE JUST NEWLY FUNDED.

WE DID NOT FUND THEM THIS YEAR, WE ARE FUNDING AGAIN THIS YEAR.

14 OF THOSE POSITIONS IN PARKS AND RECREATION ARE BEING FUNDED THROUGH OUR COUNTY ASSISTANCE DISTRICTS.

NUMBERS ONE, TWO, FOUR, AND 11 FOR NEW PARKS WE HAVE THIS YEAR IN THE BUDGET. SO WE WERE ABLE TO USE FORTUNATELY WE WERE ABLE TO USE THE CAD FUNDS TO SUPPORT THOSE 14 POSITIONS. AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL APPROVED EARLIER THIS SUMMER TO DO SO.

SO THOSE ARE INCLUDED AS WELL, WHICH LEAVES ABOUT 33 POSITIONS OF BRAND NEW POSITIONS TO THE BUDGET.

SO SOME BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS. THE BUDGET PROPOSED BEFORE YOU INCLUDES A 2.5% RELIEF FOR COUNTY EMPLOYEES HIRED BEFORE JULY 1ST, 2026. SOME PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDED ARE A COMPENSATION STUDY, THE LAST ONE, THE LAST COMPENSATION STUDY WAS DONE IN 2023.

SO IT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED THAT ONE BE DONE EVERY THREE YEARS SO IT IS INCLUDED IN THERE AS WELL, THE COMPENSATION STUDY.

LONG RANGE STRATEGIC PLAN. WE HAD THAT IN OUR BUDGET THIS YEAR. HOWEVER THAT CONTRACT WAS JUST RECENTLY EXECUTED AND SO THE ACTUAL WORK WILL BE TAKING PLACE IN 2027. SO THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE 27 BUDGET AS WELL. WE HAVE THE SPYGLASS MOBILITY CARE WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT IS HELPING US REDUCE EXPENDITURES IN OUR CELL PHONE BILLS AND WE HAVE SEEN APPROXIMATELY 170 SOMETHING THOUSAND DOLLAR SAVINGS THIS YEAR AND HOPE TO CONTINUE THOSE SAVINGS NEXT YEAR.

WE HAVE THE PURCHASING MANUAL INCLUDED AND THEN A MANAGED PRINT SERVICE THAT IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. SOME OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

[00:50:01]

WHICH IS A LARGE PROJECT THAT WILL BE STARTED SOON.

DISASTER RECOVERY LOAD BALANCERS FOR IT, FIRST RESPONDER BUNDLES THAT INCLUDES THE EQUIPMENT THAT GOES IN THOSE VEHICLES SUCH AS THE CAMERAS. AND GIS ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS PAROQUIA BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS THE LANDMARK COMMUNITY CENTER, S STORAGE, J LONG RENOVATIONS, TEXAS AGRILIFE EXPANSION, EXPANSION AND RENOVATIONS AND CAPITAL EQUIPMENT THAT INCLUDES 81 REPLACEMENT VEHICLES AND 31 ADDITIONS TO FLEET, ROAD, BRIDGE, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, AND ALSO SOME NETWORK PRINTER REPLACEMENT THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT MANAGED PRINT SERVICE. THOSE POSITIONS THAT I INCLUDED THAT I TALKED ABOUT BEFORE. TWO OF THEM ARE PARAMEDICS WHERE WE HAVE ADDED THREE TO MOSQUITO CONTROL COM I KNOW THAT THOSE WERE HOT TOPICS THIS SUMMER WITH MOSQUITO CONTROL ESPECIALLY, PARAMEDICS, THE VETERINARY TECHNICIAN THAT WE WANTED TO ADD A LICENSED MENTAL HEALTH CLINICIAN AND THEN FOR THE DAS OFFICE AND PARALEGAL AND THEN THOSE 35 SHERIFF DEPUTIES THAT WERE UNFROZEN. SO MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS, THE TAX OFFICE WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO ADD TWO SELF-SERVE KIOSKS THAT WILL HELP RENDER SERVICES TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.

AND ALSO THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN THE CENTRAL PASL DISTRICT ALLOCATION AND ALSO AN INCREASE IN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION GENERAL FUND ALLOCATION FROM THE GRANT. WHERE WE ARE STARTING TO MOVE SOME OF THE GRANT PORTION OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THAT HAS BEEN HERE FOR 20 YEARS AND IS GOING TO STAY.

I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING THE FINAL BUDGET HEARING AND ARE MOVING SOME OF THOSE FUNDS INTO THE GENERAL FUND AS WELL. AND ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

>> THAT'S WONDERFUL, ANY QUESTIONS MOVING THROUGH THE ITEMS WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS.

SO LET'S MOVE FORWARD WHERE YOU WILL READ 21A.

>> 21 A, TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ASSIGN VEHICLES TO FORT BEND COUNTY OFFICES AS PRESENTED IN THE FY 2027 FLEET MANAGEMENT.

>> DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

MOTION PASSES 5-0. CAN YOU READ AGENDA ITEM 21B.

>> TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE LIST OF TAKE HOME VEHICLES FOR FY 2027. PURSUANT TO THE COUNTY EMPLOYEE

INFORMATION MANUAL POLICY 612. >> APPROVAL OF 21B.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND

SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? >> I KNOW WE RECEIVED A CONCERN THAT THERE WERE CHANGES MADE TO THE TAKE HOME VEHICLE POLICY RECENTLY, HAVE WE EXPLORED THE LEGALITY OF THAT?

>> SO IT WAS NOT A CHANGE TO THE POLICY.

IT WAS MORE OF HOLDING THOSE OFFICES ACCOUNTABLE TO THE POLICY. SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE SENT OUT A FORM THAT HAD EACH INDIVIDUAL THAT HAD A TAKE HOME VEHICLE STATING THAT YES, IT IS DRIVEN TO MEETINGS, THIS MANY TIMES A WEEK. THEY ARE WITHIN THE COUNTY.

THEY ARE ON COMP. BASICALLY IT LISTED THE CRITERIA FOR HAVING A TAKE HOME VEHICLE. AND THEN IT WAS SIGNED.

WE JUST MADE SURE THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL THAT IS ON THIS LIST THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY COMPLETED ONE OF THOSE FORMS STATING THAT YES, THEY NEED THE CRITERIA.

>> JUST A NOTE TO, I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE WORTH IN THE FUTURE DOING SOME SORT OF AUDIT OF OUR TAKE HOME VEHICLES SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND FULL OVERALL IMPACT VERSUS THE COST TO THE

TAXPAYER FOR THAT. >> YES, SIR.

THIS WAS STEP ONE WAS GETTING THEM TO FILL OUT THE FORM.

THANK YOU. >> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES 5-0 PLEASE PROCEED

WITH 21C. >> TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ADOPT THE 2026 TAX RATE TO TAKE THE RECORD VOTE, PURSUANT TO TAX

CODE 26.05 AS OPPOSED. >> BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION

[00:55:01]

FORT BEND COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT TREND.

AFFORDABILITY IS NOT JUST AN INSTITUTION.

IT IS A ISSUE WHERE FAMILIES ARE PAYING MORE FOR GROCERY, INSURANCE, UTILITIES, AND HOUSING.

THAT'S WHY I'M PROPOSING THAT WE LOWER OUR COUNTY TAX RATE BY HALF A CENT TO $0.40.7. WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO LOWER OUR TAX BURDEN, NOT ADD TO IT.

I BELIEVE WE CAN DO BETTER FOR FORT BEND COUNTY TAXPAYERS.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE MEMBERS ON THE TAX RATE?

>> THIS IS NEWS TO ME. I HAD NOT CONSIDERED A REMOTE CONSIDERATION, HAVE WE DONE AN ANALYSIS ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT? IN ADOPTING THAT TAX RATE, DOES IT THEN CHANGE THE CALCULATION FOR ANY OF THE THINGS YOU HAVE

PROPOSED ON THE BUDGET? >> YES, SIR IT DOES OBVIOUSLY CHANGE THE REVENUES. AND THE REVENUES WILL BE REDUCED IF AT THE HALF CENT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED WOULD REDUCE THE

REVENUES BY $6.4 MILLION. >> IS THERE A REASON WHY THIS SEEMS LIKE AN 11TH HOUR PROPOSAL? I MEAN, DID THIS -- MAYBE YOU KNEW ABOUT IT BEFORE -- IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WAS YOU HAD ANALYZED IN THE PREVIOUS BUDGET HEARINGS?

>> NO, SIR. I DID NOT.

>> SO I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHY -- >> NOT IN PREVIOUS BUDGET

HEARINGS. >> BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WAS THIS PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET HEARING HELD LAST NIGHT?

>> WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT THE TAX RATE LAST NIGHT.

>> SO NOT THERE EITHER. SO I MEAN COME I HAVE WE FULLY ANALYZED THE IMPACT OF THAT IF WE HAVE NOT EVEN FOLLOWED THE TYPICAL PROCEDURES WE GO THROUGH FOR SETTING THE COUNTY TAX RATE.

>> THIS IS THE PROCEDURE TO ADOPT THE TAX RATE, THIS IS WHY

WE HAVE A DISCUSSION. >> IT IS ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT WE ARE REDUCING THE FUND BALANCE, BUT WE ARE KEEPING IT JUST ABOVE

THE 30%, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE ARE REDUCING THE REVENUE WHICH IS DROPPING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FUND BALANCE.

NONE OF THE OTHER BUDGETARY EXPENDITURES ARE AFFECTED AT ALL. SO WE ARE CHANGING THE REVENUE THAT IS AFFECTING THE FUND BALANCE, BUT IT IS NOT REDUCING

THE FUND BALANCE BELOW THE 30%. >> BELOW THE 30%, THAT IS CORRECT WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IS AFTER THE 52 MILLION.

>> BUT WE HAD THAT PROBLEM BEFORE WITH THE OTHER TAX RATE

TOO. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THAT 52 MILLION WE WERE ALREADY BELOW THE 30%.

AND WE ARE STILL -- OF COURSE WE ARE BELOW THE 30%.

ONCE THAT 52 MILLION IS REIMBURSED LATER THIS YEAR IF/1.

THEN IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BRING US BACK UP TO ABOVE THE 30%. SO YES, SIR, I HAVE LOOKED AT IT AND IT IS SUSTAINABLE AS IT GOES THROUGH THE 30%.

>> THAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT IN FUTURE YEARS AS IT PUTS US IN A PREDICAMENT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE REVENUES THAT WE HAVE HAD THIS PAST YEAR ON THE CERTIFIED VALUES.

SO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WOULD OF COURSE BE IMPACTED BY THE $6.4 MILLION, SO WE ARE TAKING $6.4 MILLION OUT OF THE REVENUE, AND THEN YOU ARE -- YOU HAVE YOUR REVENUE AT THE 3% AND STILL THOSE REVENUE CAPS OF 3.5%. SO IT AFFECTS DEPENDING ON THE TAXABLE VALUES WOULD BE NEXT YEAR, IT IS ALL DEPENDENT ON THAT AS WELL. BUT DEFINITELY THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE FOR NEXT YEAR WOULD BE -- WOULD BRING IN

$6.4 MILLION IN LESS REVENUE. >> SO WE TALK ABOUT $6.4 MILLION CUT IN THE COUNTY'S BUDGET. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT IS I WILL TERM OUR RAINY DAY FUND, OR BALANCE EMERGENCIES.

WHAT IS THE OVERALL IMPACT TO THE INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER.

>> FOR A MEDIAN HOMESTEAD, IT IS ABOUT $15.

>> SO A $15 CUT IN WHAT -- >> FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED TO

[01:00:05]

COMMISSION, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

IT IS A 2.5% COLA FOR EMPLOYEES ACROSS THE BOARD.

>> GOT IT. WHAT WAS THE BUDGETARY IMPACT OF WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION?

>> I DO NOT HAVE THAT AMOUNT. >> I GET IT, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S NOT IN CONSIDERATION.

BUT TO ME THAT WOULD HAVE MADE SENSE TO IF THIS WAS GOING TO BE A PROPOSAL AND WE ARE SAYING TO OUR EMPLOYEES AND GIVING THEIR ALL TO THIS COUNTY THAT NO, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET THE ADJUSTMENT COMMENSURATE WITH THE MARKET, THAT WE AT LEAST CONSIDER WHAT THAT IS IF ULTIMATELY EVERY DOLLAR COUNTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYER. AND I AM ABSOLUTELY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, BUT IT IMPACTS THEIR SERVICES, BECAUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, WE AREN'T ABLE TO RETAIN FIRST RESPONDERS OR CLERKS OR ROAD AND BRIDGE PERSONNEL, BECAUSE WE CAN'T PAY THEM, BUT NOW WE ARE GETTING SOMETHING THROWN ON US AT THE LAST MINUTE WHERE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS AN OPTION. I AM A BIT CONCERNED.

>> LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR, WHAT I AM PROPOSING IS VERY SIMPLE.

SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP WHAT PAMELA IS PROPOSING, THAT BUDGET. THE BUDGET WILL BE THE SAME ACTUALLY, BUT WE ARE TAKING THE SAVINGS WHICH WILL REALIZE IN JANUARY 1ST, WE HAVE THAT COMING INTO OUR FUND BALANCE, RIGHT TO, AND WE ARE TAKING $6.4 MILLION OUT TO GIVE IT BACK TO THE TAXPAYER, BASICALLY. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO.

SO WE ARE TAKING SOME SAVINGS AND GIVING IT BACK TO THE TAXPAYER. AT THE SAME TIME OUR PERCENTAGE OR FUND BALANCE IS STILL 30% MAINTAINING WHAT WE CALL FOR, THAT SAYS WE NEED TO HAVE THAT 30%.

AND THEN WE STILL ARE KEEPING THAT.

WE ARE NOT LOWERING THAT. SO EVERYTHING LIKE I SAID IT'S A

SIMPLE CALCULATION, EASY MATH. >> IS THERE A REASON WHY THIS IS A LAST MINUTE PROPOSAL AS OPPOSED TO IT BEING SOMETHING THAT COULD BE SCRUTINIZED AND ANALYZED FOR ALL OF --

>> I BELIEVE THE COMMISSIONER HAS BEEN TALKING PAMELA ABOUT MOVING THE BUDGET AROUND, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

I'M SURE YOU GUYS TALKED TO PAMELA ABOUT HAVING THIS DONE AND THAT DONE. SO IT'S NOT REALLY LAST MINUTE.

WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT, NOT THIS PARTICULAR

ITEM, BUT ABOUT BUDGET. >> BUT IF THERE IS A PROPOSAL, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE REPRESENTED WHEN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET HEARING HAD BEEN, NOT SPRUNG AT THE LAST MINUTE WHERE THERE IS NOW AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY OF US HERE TO BE ABLE TO ANALYZE WHAT WILL BE THE OVERALL BENEFIT TO OUR ORGANIZATION LONG TERM, BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED NOW -- WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ON AVERAGE $15 TO OUR TAXPAYER THAT MAY RESULT IN FUTURE YEARS TO A $6.4 MILLION HOLE IN OUR BUDGET WHERE WE MAY HAVE TO CONTINUE WITH LAYING PEOPLE OFF.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL THAT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE THIS IS A PROPOSAL THAT IS BEING MADE AT THE 11TH HOUR WITHOUT DUE

SCRUTINY. >> THERE'S NOTHING TO SCRUTINIZE. THE BUDGET WILL BE THE SAME.

>> NO, THERE IS SOMETHING TO SCRUTINIZE, BECAUSE YOU ARE CUTTING INTO THE RAINY DAY FUND FOR THE COUNTY.

>> WE HAVE 30% STILL. >> WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT NEXT YEAR WILL LOOK LIKE. WE CANNOT PREDICT THAT JUST LIKE WE CAN'T PREDICT WHAT THE PAST TWO YEARS WOULD LOOK LIKE BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT LIKE WHAT THE PREVIOUS THREE OR FOUR YEARS WERE IN TERMS OF THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH IN OUR CERTIFIED VALUES, SO WE DON'T KNOW. WE ACTUALLY DON'T.

THE QUESTION IS SIMPLY COME I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THE IDEA THAT WE FIGURE OUT WAYS THAT WE CAN GET MONEY BACK TO OUR TAXPAYERS, BUT IF THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTEND WITH NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR THEREAFTER WITH A HOLE AND WE ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION THAT TO KNOW, WE CANNOT OFFER PAY INCREASES NEXT YEAR BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HAVE A TALKING POINT OF GIVING MORE MONEY BACK THIS YEAR, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT LEAVES US.

AGAIN, THIS IS A POINT OF THIS IS AN 11TH HOUR PROPOSAL THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSION ON AND THAT THERE HAS NOT BEEN OPPORTUNITY FOR FULL ANALYSIS OVER ON OUR OPTIONS.

[01:05:07]

>> I REMEMBER CLEARLY PUBLICLY STATING THAT YOU FELT THAT THE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS COURTS MADE A SERIOUS ERROR IN REDUCING THE TAX RATE FROM $0.66 TO $0.42.

>> TO BE CLEAR I NEVER SAID THAT.

ACTUALLY NO, I NEVER SAID THAT. I ACTUALLY NEVER SAID THAT.

YOU CAN PULL THE RECORD. YOU CAN.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS COURT --

HOLD ON. >> LET HIM FINISH.

>> AS YOU JUMPED IN TO CLARIFY SOMETHING I WAS SAYING COME I'M DOING THAT BEFORE SO HE CAN SPEAK FROM A CLEARER

PERSPECTIVE. >> CAN WE PLEASE FOLLOW THE

ORDER. >> I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT THE COMMISSIONER -- PREVIOUS COMMISSIONER COURT ARE FOOLHARDY OR WRONG OR WHATEVER IN REDUCING THE TAX RATE FROM $0.66 TO $0.42. NEVER SAID THAT.

>> LET HIM TALK. >> , NOW.

>> WE HAVE A SITUATION IN TEXAS AT THE MOMENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU HAVE NOT NOTICED WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE LEGISLATURE, THEY HAVE BEEN CAPPING OUR REVENUE.

THEY LAST DASH IN THE LAST SESSION, THEY HAVE TWO BILLS TO CAP OUR DEBT. THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE OPERATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THEIR REACTION IS, WE DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON. OKAY, WE FOUND OUT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS THAT PIERCE COUNTY IS INCREASING THEIR TAX RATE. MONTGOMERY COUNTY IS INCREASING THEIR TAX RATE. MISSOURI COUNTY IS INCREASING THEIR TAX RATE. CITY OF SUGARLAND, THE CITY OF FULCHER IS INCREASING THEIR TAX RATE.

THAT IS NOT THE MESSAGE WE NEED TO SEND TO THE LEGISLATURE IS LOOKING AT FURTHER REDUCING OUR REVENUE BY CAPPING IT INSTEAD OF 3.5% AT 2.5%. THEY ARE GOING TO CAP OUR DEBT TO. IF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY PUT FORWARD.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE DREAMING.

THIS IS LEGISLATION THEY INTRODUCED LAST TIME.

THEY WILL INTRODUCE IT AGAIN, AND IT IS A MATTER OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY GET A MAJORITY OR WHETHER OR NOT IT PASSES.

THAT IS GOING TO SEVERELY RESTRICT COUNTY AND ALL OTHER COUNTIES IN MY OPINION TO THE ABILITY TO TRULY OPERATE AND HOPEFULLY CONTINUE TO GROW THE ECONOMY AND OUR STATE.

SO I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WOULD BEND COUNTY CAN DO AND LEAD THE WAY IN APPROACHING THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND SAYING, LOOK, WE ARE NOT ALL BAD ACTORS, WE ARE TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN AND MANAGING OUR EXPENDITURES AND BUDGET AND MANAGE OUR TAX RATE FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

SO I THINK THAT IT IS -- I THINK THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FORT BEND COUNTY TO TAKE LEADERSHIP IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION AND DEMONSTRATE TO THE LEGISLATORS THAT WE CAN DO THIS PLEASE DON'T RESTRICT US ANY MORE THAN YOU ALREADY HAVE. I THINK THE RESTRICTIONS ARE VERY OVERLY BURDENSOME, QUITE FRANKLY, AND ONE OF THE GUYS UP IN AUSTIN CONSTANTLY ESSENTIALLY FIGHTING AGAINST ANY MORE REDUCTION IN OUR ABILITY TO CONDUCT BUSINESS.

WE ARE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. MY POSITION IS WILL THE STATE PLEASE ALLOW US TO GOVERN LOCALLY.

LET US MAKE THE DECISIONS WE KNOW IS BEST.

BUT THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE THAT LEADERSHIP.

>> COMMISSIONER MYERS. I KNOW YOU PROPOSED THIS DEAL.

AND RESPECT TO YOU SAYING IT. YOU PROPOSED IT.

>> I DID NOT. HE DID.

>> YES YOU DID. LET ME ASK THE QUESTION.

>> YOU CAN TALK. >> QUICK BUTTING IN.

>> STOP. >> STOP.

OKAY, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS THE NUMBER OF COMPONENTS TO THE BUDGET ON THE RIGHT TO COME IN THE TAX RATE, EXCUSE ME.

WHICH ONE DO YOU PROPOSE -- SIT BACK.

WHICH ONE DO YOU PROPOSE BE THE HALF A CENT COME FROM FROM THESE

COMPONENTS? >> I'M SORRY?

>> WHICH COMPONENT OF THE TAX RATE DO YOU PROPOSE THE HALF

CENT COME FROM? >> MAY I?

>> I WILL LET MY BUDGET OFFICER DRAW THAT CONCLUSION.

>> IT WOULD COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> AND AGAIN, SO I WANT TO GO BACK TO THIS, BECAUSE WHAT THE BUDGET OFFICE HAS PROPOSED AND WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE TAX RATE FOR THIS YEAR DOES IT REPRESENT AN

[01:10:02]

>> IT IS, WELL, THIS 41.2 CENTS IS THE SAME TAX RATE.

>> SO IT IS THE SAME TAX RATE. AND WHAT I RECOGNIZED AS WHAT MY COLLEAGUE WAS SAYING ABOUT OUR COLLEAGUES IN OTHER COUNTIES WHO ARE HAVING TO INCREASE THEIR TAX RATE --

>> WHAT WE ARE DOING IS NOT -- WHAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED IS NOT

INCREASING THE TAX RATE, RIGHT? >> IT IS NOT THE TAX RATE YOU SEE UP HERE THAT WAS PRESENTED ON AUGUST 11TH WAS -- IS INCREASED EFFECTIVELY INCREASING THE TAX RATE BY 4.05, BECAUSE THAT IS THE RATE THAT IT IS ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. THAT IS BEING PRESENTED TODAY WITH THE HALF CENT REDUCTION THAT WOULD TAKE IT FROM THE 4.0.

SO IT WOULD JUST BE 2.78% OVER THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

IT IS STILL EFFECTIVELY A TAX INCREASE BY STATUTE, BY TAX 2605 THE WAY THAT IT NEEDS TO BE READ BECAUSE IT IS OVER THE NO NEW

REVENUE RATE. >> IF WE ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT CUTTING THE PROPOSED TAX RATE TO, THEN WHY NOT THEN JUST CUT INTO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE?

>> THAT WOULD BE A 1.6 CENT DECREASE.

>> SO WHY IS THAT NOT BEING PROPOSED IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

$0 INCREASE -- >> BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE BELOW THE 30% FUND BALANCE AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A REALLY GREAT

IDEA. >> WE WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE THE BUDGET IF WE WENT DOWN TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

>> GOT IT. >> SO AGAIN I GO BACK TO WHERE THAT LEAVES US IN FUTURE YEARS? AND AGAIN TO THE POINT THAT YOU'RE MISCONSTRUING THAT I HAVE MADE PREVIOUSLY IS IN WE CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS THAT IT SOUNDS GOOD RIGHT NOW, BUT THEN LEAVES FUTURE COURTS IN A POSITION WHERE THEY ARE FURTHER HAND STRINGED IN PROVIDING THE SAME LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT OUR COMMUNITY EXPECTS. AND WITH REGARD TO WHAT OUR RESIDENTS GET AS OPPOSED TO OTHER COUNTIES, SO MUCH OF FORT BEND COUNTY IS IN UNINCORPORATED PARTS -- SO MUCH OF OUR RESIDENTS LIVE IN UNINCORPORATED PARTS OF THE COUNTY. THEY ARE NOT SERVED BY CITIES.

THEY DON'T RECEIVE CITY SERVICES.

THEY RECEIVE SERVICES DIRECTLY FROM THE COUNTY.

AND THERE HAS BEEN COMPARISONS TO HOW OUR TAX RATE STACKS UP AGAINST OTHER COUNTY TAX RATES AND FOR MOST OTHER COUNTIES, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT I THINK HALF A PENNY HIGHER THAN OTHER COUNTIES IN THE STATE THAT DON'T HAVE NEAR AS LARGE THE UNINCORPORATED PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY THAT WE DO.

SO IN FACT IF YOU WERE TO DO AN ANALYSIS, WHICH NOW I THINK WE NEED TO DO AND PUT IT OUT THERE FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE THAT ROBUST CONVERSATION HAD THIS NOT BEEN PROPOSED AT THE 11TH HOUR, WE MIGHT ACTUALLY FIND THAT OUR RESIDENTS GET FAR MORE VALUE FROM THEIR -- WHAT THEY PAY IN TAXES HERE IN FORT BEND COUNTY THAN MOST OTHER RESIDENTS IN ANY OTHER COUNTY IN THE STATE GET BY VIRTUE OF THE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE. BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY TO SCRUTINIZE THIS AND AGAIN I CAN ONLY SURMISE THAT THIS IS FOR THE SAKE OF A TALKING POINT THAT NOW THIS IS BEING INTRODUCED AT THE 11TH HOUR THERE REALLY COULD HAVE SOME DETRIMENTAL IMPACT LONG TERM TO OUR RESIDENTS.

WHERE WE ARE IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND ASK THEM TO INCREASE OUR TAX RATE TO, BECAUSE WE CAN'T PAY THE BILLS THAT WE HAVE TODAY. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A SHORTSIGHTED DECISION AND I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAN --

WHY WE ARE EVEN DOING THIS. >> WE FACED THAT EXACT SAME QUESTION AND ISSUE AND PROBLEM WHEN WE STARTED AT $0.66 AND WENT FROM $0.66 TO $0.42. THAT WAS ALWAYS AN ISSUE THAT WE HAVE FACED. AND SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER, I GUESS THROUGH THE GRACE OF GOD, WE MANAGED TO SURVIVE AND WE MANAGED TO FLOURISH AND WE MANAGED TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT WERE NECESSARY TO EVERYBODY.

AND I AM CONFIDENT WE WILL DO THE SAME THING WITH THIS

TAX RATE. >> ANY FURTHER COMMENT.

>> WE ARE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IS BECAUSE OF OUR

[01:15:01]

AND THEY WENT UP MORE THAN WHAT WE EXPECTED COM IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THEY DID GO UP MORE THAN WE EXPECTED, HOWEVER THAT INCREASE WAS LESS THAN LAST YEAR'S INCREASE.

>> I UNDERSTAND. AND WE SEE MORE COMMERCIAL

DEVELOPMENT. >> YES.

>> ON ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANT TO REDUCE THE TAX RATE FRANKLY IS SO THAT WE COULD SEE MORE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF A ANOTHER COUNTY AND ANOTHER PART OF

TEXAS. >> SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO PULL THIS TOGETHER. AND AT LEAST FIND SOME WAY WE CAN ALL AGREE UPON THIS. I THINK WE AIRED IT OUT A BIT.

IT WAS LAST MINUTE AND IT CAME FROM YOU, I NO, IT'S ALL RIGHT.

YOU ARE GOOD, YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 28, 29 YEARS, SO I KNOW YOU. BUT WHAT I A CONCERNED ABOUT REALLY IS THE LEGITIMACY OF THIS VOTE.

YOU HAVE FIVE MEMBERS, YOU HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS PRESENT, AND THAT'S WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES FOR A TAX RATE VOTE.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US HAVING A 4-0 VOTE.

AS SUCH, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF SINCE YOU ARE THE AUTHOR OF THIS LOWER TAX RATE LAST MINUTE PROPOSAL THAT YOU MAKE THE MOTION, AND I WOULD ASK MR. WONG IF YOU WOULD ABSTAIN ON THIS

VOTE. >> THIS IS NOT REALLY AN 11TH HOUR DISCUSSION. YOU GUYS SHOW UP AS THE 11TH HOUR AS A MATTER OF FACT. BUT WHAT I WANT TO DO IS TO ENTERTAIN THE DISCUSSION. LET ME CALL FOR THE MOTION.

ANY MOTION WE CAN HAVE? >> I HAVE TO READ WHAT I STILL AGREE TO BE MISLEADING, BECAUSE IT CALLS FOR -- IT SAYS THAT WE ARE INCREASING THE TAX RATE WHEN WE ARE NOT.

BUT IN ANY EVENT, THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE LAW, SO I WILL READ IT AS REQUIRED BY THE LAW. I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.28936 FOR THE GENERAL FUND, 0.01 FOR THE RIDGE FUND AND 0.10776 FOR FOR THE INTEREST SINKING RATE FUND FOR A TOTAL FORT BEND COUNTY TAX RATE OF $0.40.7 0.40 $7 WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 2.78% INCREASE OF THE TAX RATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING OPERATING EXPENSES

AND SERVICING DEBT TO. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> LET ME JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS THAT THE REASON THAT THERE IS AN INCREASE SHOWING AN INCREASE COMING YOU HAVE TO SAY AN INCREASE BY STATE LAW IS BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING OUT TO THE NO REVENUE RATE WHICH WE HAVE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE APPRAISAL VALUES AND APPRAISAL VALUES ARE HIGHER.

SO WE ARE STILL USING SOME OF THE APPRAISAL VALUE MONEY TO FUND THIS BUDGET. AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE HAVING TO SAY THAT IT IS AN INCREASE. BUT WE ARE REDUCING THE RATE.

>> CORRECT. >> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> YES, I ASK AGAIN, ARE YOU GOING TO ABSTAIN ON THIS VOTE?

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER.

>> I WILL CALL AND THEN HE WILL SEE.

ALL RIGHT, I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

>> I DON'T SEE WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IN ANSWERING THE QUESTION SO WE CAN TAKE A VOTE AS REQUESTED AND --

I AM SO CONFUSED. >> I HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO

ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. >> ACTUALLY YOU DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO THE PUBLIC TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE YES. >> YOU DO HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS GAME YOU ARE PLAYING IN -- I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS GAME YOU ARE PLAYING AND JUST ANSWERING. IT'S AS SIMPLE WILL YOU OR WILL

YOU NOT ABSTAIN? >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE COMMENTS.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

[01:20:03]

>> NO, BECAUSE THIS IS A RECORD VOTE, I SEE THE GAME YOU WERE PLAYING HERE. NO, I WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN A SESSION IN WHICH WE ARE HAVING THIS SORT OF DISCUSSION IF THIS IS HOW WE ARE GOING TO PROCEED COME I WILL REMOVE MYSELF.

>> CALL THE ROLL? >> COMMISSIONER MORALES HOW DO

YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE? >> COMMISSIONER MEYERS HOW DO

YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> JUDGE WONG HOW DO YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> I'M GOING TO VOTE YES. >> THE MOTION PASSES 4-0.

LET'S GO TO 21D. PLEASE PROCEED.

>> 21D, TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO APPROVE THE CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS AND CAPITAL INCREMENT PROJECTS TO BE

FINANCED FOR FY 2027. >> BEFORE WE CONSIDER ACTION, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT THE CAPITAL ACQUISITION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE YOU CAN

SEND EARLIER TODAY? >> YES, THEY ARE.

>> ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONS THAT THE COURT SHOULD

BE AWARE OF TAKING INTO ACTION? >> THERE ARE NO CHANGES.

>> ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR DISCUSSION FROM MEMBERS OF THE COURT? DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR 21B AS

PRESENTED? >> AND GOES THROUGH.

ANY OPPOSED ANY ABSTAIN? SO THE MOTION PASSES 3-0, ONE ABSTAIN. NOW LET'S GO TO AGENDA ITEM

NUMBER 21, PLEASE PROCEED. >> I CHANGED MY VOTE TO YES.

>> LAST ACTION WE PASS 4-0. 21D, 4-0.

PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION, ADOPTING FY27 POSITIONS WITH FORT BEND COUNTY.

THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE. THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE.

>> LET US KNOW. >> FOR THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE THERE IS AN ADDITION OF ONE PART TIME POSITION AND ONE FULL TIME POSITION THAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE FOR THE RECORD SO I DON'T HAVE TO BRING THAT BACK. THOSE WERE LEFT OFF AND INACCURACIES. NOT ADDED.

THEY ARE NOT NEW POSITIONS. THEY WERE JUST DASHED IT WAS INCORRECT AND MISS RICHARD BROUGHT THAT TO MY ATTENTION.

IT WAS VERIFIED BY MY OFFICE THAT THAT WAS INCORRECT.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE PART TIME POSITION AND ONE FULL TIME

POSITION ADDED TO THAT LIST. >> AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE RENEWING THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OBJECTIONS TO THE ITEMS MENTIONED IN REFERENCING THE LETTER SHE SENT YOU ON AUGUST THE 28TH, WHICH IS WHAT I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THE FIRST TIME.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

21E AS PRESENTED? >> IT IS NOT AS PRESENTED.

I MOVE TO APPROVAL OF 21E AS CORRECTED BY OUR OFFICE.

>> I WILL GIVE YOU THE CORRECTED READ BACK.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> IS THIS CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH GUTTING THE OFFICE OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL.

>> YES, COMMISSIONER? CAN WE GET AN EXPLANATION OF

WHY? >> I COULD TELL YOU.

>> MY HEAD IS TURNED THIS WAY. CAN WE GET AN EXPLANATION OF WHY? I AM LOOKING AT YOU, MR. WONG.

CAN WE GET AN EXPLANATION OF WHY THERE IS THE GUTTING OF THE

OFFICE OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL? >> WHICH OFFICE?

[01:25:02]

>> THAT IS THE EXACT OFFICE. >> WE ARE KEEPING ALL POSITIONS

INTACT. >> DOES THIS REFLECT WHERE THOSE

POSITIONS LIE? >> IT MOVES 11 POSITIONS FROM COUNTY ATTORNEY INTO A NEW LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION ON WHY AN ELECTED OFFICIALS OFFICE IS BEING GUTTED?

>> IT IS BEING DISCUSSED IN THIS COUNCIL.

>> I AM ASKING YOU HERE. IT WAS NOT DISCUSSED.

IT WAS AFTER OVER TWO HOURS OF PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC, THERE WAS A MOTION, A SECOND, A VOTE, NO DISCUSSION.

SO CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION OF WHY AN OFFICE IS

BEING GUTTED? >> ANY ONE?

>> I AM ASKING YOU. >> I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I FEEL LIKE I MAKE IT MORE

EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT PURE. >> HOW?

>> YOU WILL SEE. >> HERE WE GO WITH THE YOU WILL SEE THING AGAIN. IT'S A VERY LOGICAL QUESTION.

IF YOU BELIEVE FIRMLY IN THE DECISION, PLEASE OFFER AN

EXPLANATION. >> IT WILL MAKE IT A MORE

EFFECTIVE DECISION. >> HOW?

>> THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

IT WILL MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE AND MORE EFFICIENT.

>> HOW? YOU ARE REPEATING THE SAME WORDS NOT EVEN OFFERING ANY AMENDMENT TO THOSE WORDS.

>> YOU WILL SEE. I AM NOT GOING TO DEBATE WITH

YOU ON THIS FORUM. >> AGAIN, YOU ARE TAKING FROM AN ELECTED OFFICIALS OFFICE, WHICH AGAIN I ASSERT IS NOT LEGAL AS WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WHEN THIS WAS BEING LITIGATED.

AND STILL IS NOT RESOLVED AS TO THE LEGALITY OF THAT.

BUT AGAIN HOW IS IT GOING TO MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO WORK ON ITEMS TOGETHER BE IN SEPARATE REPORT STRUCTURES ALTOGETHER? YOU ARE SAYING IT IS MORE EFFICIENT TO HAVE SOMEONE FROM A SEPARATE ENTITY ADVISE ON POLICY THEN ACTION BE TAKEN ON SET ADVICE AND THEN ANOTHER ENTITY HAS TO THEN DEFEND THAT IN THE COURT OF LAW?

HOW IS THAT EFFICIENT? >> FIRST OF ALL, THERE IS NO GUTTING OF ANY POSITION. WE ARE TRANSFERRING THOSE POSITIONS TO BE UNDER A NEW DEPARTMENT.

AND THEY WILL OPERATE IN THE SAME WAY, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION OF THAT I THINK THAT IT WILL BECOME MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE IN HANDLING ALL OF THE OTHER CASES.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LITIGATION.

WHICH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE LITIGATION MATTERS. FOR THIS NO DEPARTMENT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TAKING CARE OF ALL OF THOSE NON LITIGATION MATTERS AND I THINK IT WILL MAKE IT MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT.

>> AND I THINK DENNIS IS GIVING YOU NOTICE TO READ THE PAPER HE

GAVE YOU HERE. >> THIS IS WHAT I PUT TOGETHER.

>> PROPER CONCERNS OF COUNSEL ON PARTIZAN ACTIONS TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS REALLOCATED SOME OF THE COUNTY

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. >> IF YOU MOVE IT OVER HERE YOU CAN PUT IT ON TOP OF YOUR PAPERS.

>> I WILL START OVER A. >> CONCERNS OF COUNSEL AND COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS DECIDED TO REALLOCATE SOME OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S BUDGET. THIS IS ALSO MAKING SURE WE CAN TRUST THE LEGAL COUNSEL PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.

WE NEED SOUND, LEGALLY SOUND, UNBIASED, AND TRUSTWORTHY COUNSEL AS WE PROTECT THE COURT'S BUSINESS THE COURT'S CONCERNS WERE CONFIRMED WHEN OTHER LEGAL EXPERTS POINTED OUT INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF LAW DURING THE 2021 AND 2025 REDISTRICT IN OTHER INSTANCES DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

THESE INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION 504 AND INSTANCES WHERE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OWN CHIEF LITIGATOR GAVE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH THAT CONTRADICTED THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S CLAIM THAT CREATED TURMOIL.

SO I AM TRYING TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT WE HAVE NONPARTISAN UNBIASED LEGAL ADVICE. PERIOD.

>> I AM CONFUSED, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EFFICIENCY WE JUST HEARD FROM MR. WONG.

THAT SPEAKS TO SOMETHING A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

>> THAT IS HIS INTERPRETATION. >> SO AGAIN HOW IS THIS MAKING

ANYTHING MORE EFFICIENT? >> I THINK IT IS MAKING THINGS FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE COURT IT IS MAKING THINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE ACCURATE FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT WE HAVE GOTTEN INCORRECT LEGAL ADVICE. WE HAVE GOTTEN WHAT I CONSIDER AND I'M PRETTY SURE MOST PEOPLE CONSIDER THE SAME THING,

[01:30:01]

>> SO NO COURT HAS EVER SAID THAT ANY ADVICE THAT WAS GIVEN

BY -- >> I CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION MYSELF. I DON'T NEED A COURT TO TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT AN OPINION WITH REGARD TO WHETHER OR NOT A MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE ONE REDISTRICTING MAP FROM ANOTHER IS ILLEGAL OR PROPER OR NOT PROPER.

THAT IS CLEAR AS A BELL FOR ANYBODY WHO UNDERSTANDS THE BORDER, AND THAT IS WHAT OCCURRED WHICH ALLOWED YOU TO BRING FORWARD YOUR MAP THAT WAS DASHED THAT DID NOT COMPLY WITH ACCORDING TO THE REDISTRICTING EXPERTS THAT I TALKED TO DID NOT COMPLY WITH ALL THE STATE AND FEDERAL STATUTES.

>> YOU JUST ADMITTED TO RETALIATION ON THE RECORD IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY HERE. YOU ARE BIGGER THAN THAT ANDY.

WHY DON'T YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT IT IS A PERSONAL VOTE YOU ARE ABOUT TO MAKE RIGHT NOW. N YOU ARE CORRECT THAT YOU ARE MAKING A PARTIZAN OPINION FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

HOW DOES THAT SIT RIGHT? >> SO I SHOULD CONTINUE TAKING ADVICE FROM SOMEONE WHO GAVE ME WRONG ADVICE?

>> DOES THAT INCLUDE ME? >> PLEASE DO NOT GET INTO THE DISCUSSION. LIKE I SAID EVERYONE IS

ENTITLED -- >> THERE IS NO ANSWER TO THAT?

>> EVERYTHING IS ON THE RECORD. WE WILL FIX THIS RIGHT LATER ON.

>> EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO HIS OR HER OPINION.

I NEED TO CALL FOR A VOTE -- SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I DID HAVE A MOTION FOR 21E AS PRESENTED -- DO I HAVE A MOTION ON 21E AS

PRESENTED? >> AS PRESENTED -- AS CORRECTED BY THE BUDGET OFFICE WITH APPROVAL OF THE CORRECTION BY

THE BUDGET OFFICE. >> ANY SECOND?

>> I SECOND. >> ANY MOTION --

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THIS MOTION TO REPLACE THE POSITIONS TAKEN OUT AND PUT INTO A SEPARATE DEPARTMENT BACK INTO THE OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY AND ALSO TO RESTORE FUNDING FOR THE THREE ASSOCIATE COURT JUDGE POSITIONS THAT ARE NOT A PART OF THIS PAST THREE MONTHS.

>> THAT IS AN AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE.

ANY SECOND FOR THAT AMENDMENT. >> SECOND.

>> WE WILL GO FOR THE AMENDMENT FIRST.

>> A SECOND AND A MOTION IF THERE IS ANYTHING TO FURTHER EXPLAIN THE MOTION. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?

>> YES, I MEAN COME AGAIN COME IT IS WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

I DON'T -- I. WILL LEAVE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PIECE ALONE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE A LAW DEGREE HAS AN OPINION ABOUT WHAT HE NEEDS FROM COURTS.

THE OTHER PART I WILL SAY IS ABOUT ASSOCIATE JUDGES.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS STILL NOT FUNDING ALL EIGHT ASSOCIATE JUDGES THROUGH THE GOOD END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

>> THE CURRENT PROPOSED BUDGET IS FUNDING EIGHT POSITIONS THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST AND 5 POSITIONS FROM JANUARY THROUGH

SEPTEMBER 30TH OF '27. >> MY MOTION WAS TO RESTORE THE FUNDING FOR THOSE FIVE POSITIONS -- EIGHT POSITIONS THROUGHOUT THE BALANCE OF THE YEAR. SO NINE MONTHS OF FUNDING FOR

THREE OF THE ASSOCIATE JUDGES. >> I WOULD FURTHER ADD TO THAT IT IS ANOTHER QUESTION ON WHAT DATA ARE WE USING TO SAY THAT IT IS WARRANTED TO REDUCE THE CAPACITY OF OUR JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN A RAPIDLY GROWING COUNTY? AND THAT IS JUST THAT.

>> WE DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THE TABLE.

MOTION AND SECOND. I NEED TO CALL FOR A ROLL.

ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND? TWO.

ANY OPPOSED? THREE.

MOTION DEFEATED. LET'S GO BACK TO THE MOTION BY MEYERS AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORALES.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THREE, ANY OPPOSED? TWO, MOTION PASSES 3-2. LET'S GO TO AGENDA ITEM 21F.

PLEASE PROCEED. >> TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION

[01:35:02]

>> DO I HAVE A MOTION ON AGENDA ITEM 21F AS PRESENTED?

>> FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND?

>> I WAS NOT PAYING ATTENTION. >> WE ARE VOTING ON 21F.

>> ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? >> MOTION PASSES 5-0.

NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS 21G. >> TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO REVIEW TAXPAYER IMPACT STATEMENT PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 111067 AS PRESENTED.

>> PAMELA, BASED ON THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE COURT ON THE TAX RATE UNDER 21C ARE THERE ANY CHANGES REQUIRED?

>> YES, THERE ARE CHANGES. THAT IS NOT THE VOTE OR THE TAX RATE YOU JUST ADOPTED. DO YOU HAVE THE NEW --

>> WE DO HAVE IT IN THE OTHER FILE.

>> DO YOU HAVE THE COMPUTER, STEPHANIE.

>> IF YOU JUST GIVE US A FEW SECONDS.

>> PULL THE OTHER FILE, PLEASE. >> JUDGE, YOU CAN TAKE UP

ANOTHER ITEM. >> WE ARE READY, JUDGE.

IT IS UP THERE. >> PAGE TWO.

>> 1182. >> THAT ONE.

GO BACK. >> I HAD A SLIDE PREPARED AND

EVERYTHING. >> ALL DONE THIS MORNING.

>> BE PATIENT. >> WAS JUST THERE.

>> PAGE TWO. JUST GIVE IT A SECOND TO LOAD.

>> OKAY. >> WHAT YOU COULD DO ALSO.

WE ARE WORKING ON BRINGING IT UP FOR YOU FOR THE COURT TO.

IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR PACKETS THAT YOU WERE GIVEN WHEN YOU WALKED IN. THERE IS ONE THAT IS TABBED LOWER TAX RATE. AND THAT DOES HAVE THE TAX IMPACT STATEMENTS UPDATED BY PAMELA.

>> THANK YOU. >> THE PACKET THAT HAS THE BLUE

TAB. >> I AM SORRY.

ARE WE NOT -- >> IS THAT IT?

>> YES, THAT IS THE ONE ON THE SCREEN.

SO I DO NEED A MOTION FOR AGENDA 21G.

>> I WILL MOVE TO APPROVAL OF 21G WITH THE CORRECTION NOTED BY

THE OFFICE. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. >> IS OUT OF ORDER.

I THOUGHT THAT WE WERE TAKING ON THAT -- WAS THIS NOT THE LAST ITEM ON THE CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS LAST VOTE?

>> THE LAST VOTE WAS ELECTED OFFICIALS.

>> BUT WE DID NOT TAKE UP -- I. THOUGHT WE WERE VOTING ON

CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS. >> WE DID ALREADY.

>> THAT'S WHEN YOU WENT BACK. >> GOT IT.

IT IS OUT OF ORDER ON MY PAPER. THE LAST ITEM -- CAN I AMEND MY VOTE TO ABSTAINING AS WITH THE PREVIOUS ONE.

ON THE ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARIES.

[01:40:01]

>> YES. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY, SO I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND FOR 21G.

>> AS CORRECTED BY THE BUDGET OFFICER.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? ONE OPPOSED -- ABSTAIN. TWO ABSTAIN.

MOTION PASSES 3-0 WITH TWO ABSTAIN.

LET'S GO TO 21H. PLEASE PROCEED.

>> APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ADOPT THE FY 2027 BUDGET FOR FORT BEND COUNTY AND TAKE A RECORD VOTE PURSUANT TO TEXAS CODE SECTION

111.068. >> I NEED TO GO TO PAMELA AGAIN.

BEFORE WE CONSIDER ADOPTION, PLEASE CONFIRM THAT FY 2027 BUDGET REFLECTS THE ACTION TAKEN BY COMMISSIONERS COURT TODAY INCLUDING ANY NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS WITHHOLDING FROM THE TAX RATE ADOPTED BY THE COURT TO?

>> THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXPENSE BUDGET.

>> THANK YOU. >> I MOVE TO ADOPT THE FY 2027 POSED BUDGET FOR FORT BEND COUNTY AS FILED ON AUGUST 31ST, 2026 IN THE AMOUNT OF 827 MILLION, $702,847.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND

ANY DISCUSSION? >> I MOVE TO AMEND THE PROPOSED BUDGET BY FULLY FUNDING ALL ASSOCIATE JUDGES IN RELATED POSITIONS THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF FISCAL YEAR '27 AND THAT THERE IS NO LONGER A SEPARATE LEGAL DEPARTMENT THAT IS OVERSEEN BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.

I FURTHER MOVE THAT ALL RESOURCE AND POSITIONS AND OTHER BUDGETARY MATTERS FOR THE PROPOSED NEW CIVIL LEGAL DEPARTMENT BE SHIFTED BACK TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

>> SECOND. >> I DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT ON THAT. I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

FOR THE AMENDMENT. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION DEFEATED.

2-3. NOW GO BACK TO AGENDA ITEM 21H.

WE HAVE THE MOTION AND SECOND. I WILL CALL ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 3-2. -- I AM SO SORRY. GETTING USED TO THAT.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE RECORD.

>> YES, SIR. ONE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ANSWER, BUT I WILL ASK ANYWAY. ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE ON THE BUDGET? HAVE AN OUNCE OF INTEGRITY.

ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE? I STILL HAVE THE FLOOR --

>> SECOND QUESTION. >> AND THIS IS PROBABLY DIRECTED TOWARDS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE A PROBLEM IF -- HE CHIMES IN.

SO IF YOU APPROVE THIS BUDGET AND IT IS A 3-2 VOTE, WITH YOU VOTING IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, IT IS PROVEN LATER ON THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BE HERE, WHAT HAPPENS TO A 2-2 RECORD

VOTE? >> 2-2 RECORD VOTE FAILS.

>> LEGAL ADVICE, WHICH GENERALLY LAWYERS ARE NOT GOING TO DO

THAT -- >> HAS THE FLOOR.

>> PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.

>> THAT CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE.

AND WE WOULD MUCH RATHER NOT DISCUSS THIS IN AN OPEN FORUM.

BUT THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS THAT WOULD COME WITH THAT AND WE CAN EXPOUND FURTHER IF THAT SAME DISCUSSION WOULD LIKE TO BE TAKEN INTO A CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSION.

>> WE ARE NOT MAKING AN ASSESSMENT THAT THERE IS OR IS

NOT A 2-2 -- >> PLEASE, NOT IN THIS MEDIUM --

>> THE ATTORNEY ALSO A STATEMENT, THANK YOU.

>> THE QUESTION WAS FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

SO THAT'S WHY I ANSWERED. >> ALSO TO ANSWER THE QUESTION

AS WELL. >> I'M SORRY, HE IS NOT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. HE IS YOUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR.

[01:45:03]

>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU SO MUCH. PLEASE.

>> OKAY, COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE ASKED, SO I WILL ANSWER.

I WILL ANSWER WHAT THE STATE OF TEXAS AS REPRESENTED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ADMITTED IN THE 400TH COURT UNDER QUESTIONING OF JUDGE KRENIK, AND THEY HAD TO ADMIT ONE, THAT THE COUNTY JUDGE BEFORE THE COURT PROCEEDED IS THE COUNTY JUDGE, AND THAT ONLY THAT COURT CAN REMOVE THE COUNTY JUDGE, AND THAT UNTIL THAT -- IF THAT HAPPENS OR UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, THE COUNTY JUDGE HAS ALL THE POWERS OF A COUNTY JUDGE.

SO TO ANSWER -- THAT IS THE ANSWER TO THE

QUESTION. >> THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION.

MY QUESTION WAS IF IT IS RULED THAT -- OKAY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.

I AM NOT GOING WITHOUT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

AND MADAM COUNTY ATTORNEY -- >> EXCUSE ME, SIR.

THANK YOU. >> INSTEAD OF ASKING A QUESTION THAT REQUIRES A LEGAL ANSWER. I WILL TURN IT TO A STATEMENT.

>> SURE. >> THIS IS THE LAW ACCORDING TO

GRADY. >> IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE. LET ME CLARIFY THE STATEMENT GIVEN. MR. RANDALL HAS TAKEN A QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSION BY ONE OF MY LAWYERS IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE PRESIDING OVER THE WARRANTED ACTION AND PRESENTING AS A LEGAL CONCLUSION. THE KAWARAU UNTIL ACTION SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. ALL CLAIMS OF RELIEF ARE CLEARLY ARTICULATED. WE ALL SHARED THE FILED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. SO ANY REPRESENTATION BY MR. RANDALL THAT MY LAWYER HAS SAID THAT MR. WONG IS THE COUNTY JUDGE IS NOT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

LET'S BE CLEAR, KP GEORGE IS STILL THE COUNTY JUDGE.

HE IS SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY. BUT HE IS STILL THE LEGAL HOLDER OF THAT OFFICE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. NOW IF YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH A STATEMENT -- I. WILL GO AHEAD AND HAVE A SEAT.

>> THE BASIS FOR MY OBJECTION TO MR. PRESENCE HERE IS BASED ON MY INTERPRETATION FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH OF JUNE 17TH NONSUIT OF THE CIVIL CASE THAT LED TO THE APPOINTMENT.

THE SUSPENSION OF THE APPOINTMENT OF DANIEL WONG AS INTERIM COUNTY JUDGE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING.

THAT IS THE BASIS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO BE HERE BECAUSE THAT EXPIRED. OKAY? SO MY QUESTION IS BEST TO BE A STATEMENT THAT IF YOUR VOTE IS INVALID, AS ARE A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER ITEMS THAT POTENTIALLY WOULD BE INVALIDATED AND TAKEN WITH THIS THREE MEMBER AND A HALF -- TWO AND A HALF MEMBER VOTE -- AND THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT THIS WAS AN INVALID VOTE BY DANIEL WONG THAT MAKES IT 2-2 -- THAT MEANS THAT THE BUDGET DID NOT PASS.

MAKE SURE THAT THE TAX RATE PASSED, BUT THE BUDGET DID NOT PASS -- THIS IS IN RETROSPECT, OKAY AS IT'S FULLY ADJUDICATED.

BUT THAT SEEMS LIKE A BIG CONCERN.

THAT'S WHY I AM ASKING -- BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THE BUDGET VOTE THERE WILL BE A LEGITIMATE BUDGET PASSED WITHOUT QUESTION. DO THAT FOR THE PEOPLE OF FORT BEND COUNTY, OKAY? I MEAN, IT IS THE SOURCE OF THE CHAOS. IF YOU RECUSED YOURSELF FROM A BUDGET VOTE YOU CAN GET A CLEAN BUDGET -- VOTE ON THE BUDGET.

IF YOU DON'T IT IS A 32 VOTE THAT MAKES YOUR INVALIDATION THAT MAKES IT A 2-2 VOTE WHICH IS A "NO" VOTE ON THIS COUNTY BUDGET. BE A PATRIOT ONE TIME.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER MORALES, HOW DO

[01:50:02]

YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> NO. >> COMMISSIONER MEYERS HOW DO

YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCOY HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> NO. >> JUDGE WONG HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> YES. >> I WANT ONE CLEAR THAT COMES FROM THE NATURE OF THE SPIN OUT OF THIS ROOM -- I BELIEVE THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS COUNTY DESERVE TO BE COMPENSATED FOR THE WORK THAT THEY DO. I BELIEVE THAT THE HARD WORKING PEOPLE WHO SERVE THIS COMMUNITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED TO DO THEIR JOBS.

AND MY VOTE TODAY -- LET THE RECORD REFLECT IS A REFLECTION OF WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE UNLAWFUL ACTIONS BY THIS COURT IN REMOVING STAFF AND PERSONNEL FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS OFFICE IN THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND FROM ELECTED OFFICIALS IN OUR COURT SYSTEMS, WHICH DOES NOT REPRESENT THE BEST INTEREST OF THIS COUNTY. AND THAT IS WHY I HAVE VOTED AGAINST THIS BUDGET, AND I WISH -- WISH THAT WE WERE IN A DIFFERENT POSITION IN THIS COUNTY TODAY.

WHICH WE ARE NOT. >> MOVING ALONG, OUR FINAL AGENDA ITEM IN THE SESSION IS 21 I, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE

21 I AS PRESENTED? >> MOVEMENT OF 21I AS PRESENTED.

>> AND SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND? ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTAIN? MOTION PASSES 3-0 WITH TWO

[19. COUNTY JUDGE:]

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 19 AS PRESENTED?

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL AS PRESENTED.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. I WANT TO RECOGNIZE MR. CAMPBELL RIGHT HERE AND THANK HIM FOR HIS ASSISTANCE BRINGING US TO THE MOMENT, IN 1970, THE REMAINS OF 28 INDIVIDUALS WERE REMOVED FROM WHAT IS BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN AN ALL BLACK CEMETERY.

FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS, THERE HAS BEEN NO MARKER RECOGNIZING THE PEOPLE BURIED THERE. MR. CAMPBELL WAS INVOLVED IN MOVING THOSE REMAINS AND HIS WORK FOR YEARS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE NOT FORGOTTEN. THIS IS HOW GOVERNMENT CAN AND SHOULD WORK. LISTENING TO SOMEONE WHO CARES ENOUGH TO KEEP PUSHING AND COMING TOGETHER TO DO THE RIGHT THING. MR. CAMPBELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

CAN I INVITE YOU TO COME AND SAY A FEW WORDS.

>> WELL, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THANK YOU.

I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR -- IN A FEW DAYS IT WILL BE 53 YEARS. YOU KNOW, THAT THE REMAINS OF 28 SOULS WERE PLACED IN ONE CEMETERY PLOT.

WITH NO IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS ON IT, AND MY FRIEND HERE, DAVID GRACELY AND I AND CONGRESSMAN OLSON WENT OVER TO THE CEMETERY AND WE STARTED NARROWING THINGS DOWN, BECAUSE I REMEMBER THAT IT WAS OVER THERE OR OVER HERE, AND WHAT THEY HAD DONE OF ONE PLOT OVER HERE. SO USING THAT AS OUR EVIDENCE, 53 YEARS LATER, WE WERE ABLE TO BE 99.9% SURE THAT THE 28 REMAINS THAT ARE IN THAT PLOT BELONG TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THE REMAINS FROM SANFIELD CEMETERY WHICH WAS A CEMETERY LOCATED LIKE RIGHT IN THE HEART OF QUAIL VALUE SUBDIVISION.

IT CAME TO COURT AS THE COURT GAVE SPECIFIC ORDERS AS TO WHAT THE COURT WANTED DONE WITH THE REMAINS AND THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS TO BE CONDUCTED, BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.

I FOUND THAT OUT TO MYSELF 53 YEARS LATER THAT THE COURTS HAD APPOINTED ME TO DO A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION.

BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. I WANT TO THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE THAT.

[01:55:04]

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH -- >> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND

[20. AUDITOR:]

NEXT ITEM IS 28 A AND B PRESENTED BY THE AUDITOR.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO PRESENT 28 A AND B AS PRESENTED?

>> MOTION OF APPROVAL OF 28A AND B AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION PRESENTED IN SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTAIN? SO MOTION PASSES 3-0, TWO ABSTAIN.

AGENDA ITEM 21A PRESENTED BY -- WE ARE ALREADY BACK ON THAT --

[22. COUNTY ATTORNEY:]

LET'S GO TO 21A FIRST, PLEASE. >> CAN I READ THE MOTION?

>> YOU CAN DO THAT. >> I MOVE TO FORT BEND COUNTY BY VOTE TO ALL NEEDED RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE RIGHTS TO A VOTE OF SEGMENT ONE, PROJECT NUMBER 23222X PRECINCT 3.

PROPOSED TO BE SITUATED ON LAND GENERALLY PERTINENT TO RICE FIELD ROAD BEGINNING FROM ON THE MARKET 2977 TO BENT ROAD IN FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS, BY ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION ORDER TO THE PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY IN AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF THE PAYMENT COMPOSITION FOR THE LOCATION IMPROVEMENT ALIGNMENT CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE RICE FIELD ROAD SUBJECT NUMBER 23222X INCLUDING DRAINAGE IN RETAINMENT FOR SAID PROJECT THAT APPLIES TO ALL AND ANY PARCELS OF LAND OR IMPROVEMENTS THAT MUST BE CONDEMNED OR EXAMINED FOR THE CONDEMNATION ALONG RICE FIELD ROAD SEGMENT 1, PROJECT NUMBER 23222X.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION MADE AND SECOND ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND?

>> RECORD VOTE. >> PLEASE PROCEED.

>> COMMISSIONER MORALES, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE HOW DO

YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER MEYERS HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER MCCOY HOW DO

YOU VOTE? >> YES.

JUDGE WONG HOW DO YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> MOTION PASSES 5-0. >> I MOVE BY RECORD VOTE AUTHORIZE THE EMINENT DOMAIN TO REQUIRE THE ALL NEEDED RIGHT OF WAY OF THE RICE FIELD ROAD SEGMENT TWO, PROJECT NUMBER 232223X PRECINCT LET LETTER 3 PRECEDENT TO RICE FIELD ROAD BEGINNING FROM BENTON ROAD LIMITS TO FORT BEND COUNTY BY ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION IN ORDER TO DRAIN THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY TO BE A PUBLIC NECESSITY AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION AND PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF LOCATION IMPROVEMENT ALIGNMENT, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE RICE FIELD ROAD SEGMENT 2, PROJECT NUMBER 3X INCLUDING DRAINAGE AND RETENTION REQUIRED FOR SAID PROJECT THAT APPLIES TO ALL PARCEL LAND AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS THAT MUST BE CONDEMNED OR LOOKING AT CONDEMNATION FOR RICE FIELD ROAD 2 PROJECT NUMBER 23223X.

>> DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> YES.

>> AND SECOND. >> COMMISSIONER MORALES HOW DO

YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER PRESTAGE HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER MEYERS HOW DO

[23. DISTRICT ATTORNEY:]

YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER MCCOY HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> JUDGE WONG HOW DO YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> LET'S GO TO 23 A AND B PRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR A AND B?

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEMS 23 A AND B AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

[24. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:]

AGENDA ITEM 24? >> MOVE TO APPROVAL OF 24 AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR

[25. ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATION:]

[02:00:04]

>> APPROVAL OF 25 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO CHASE -- IS CHASE HERE?

>> NO, JUDGE. HE SENT A MESSAGE AND WAS NOT

ABLE TO COME IN TODAY. >> I WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS WORK. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> YES, PLEASE.

>> I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION, BUT I HAVE A CONCERN THAT THERE WAS A PLACE IN FRESNO.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT CORRECTED IN TIME ENOUGH FOR THERE TO BE A POLLING LOCATION OR EARLY VOTING LOCATION IN FRESNO. THERE ARE TWO THAT OCCASIONALLY HOST EARLY VOTING. I WOULD LIKE TO -- WHEN IS THE

DROP DEAD DATE FIRST >> IS CHASED --

>> HE IS NOT HERE. >> SO NOW WE WONDER WHAT WOULD CHASE DO. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

[26. ENGINEERING:]

>> APPROVED 26 A THROUGH E AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

[27. FIRE MARSHAL:]

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEMS 27 A AND B AS PRESENTED.

>> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

[28. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:]

AGENDA ITEM 28 A AND B PRESENTED BY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

>> I MOVE APPROVAL FOR ITEM 28 A AND B AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND

[29. LIBRARY:]

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AGENDA ITEM 29 PRESENTED BY THE LIBRARY. ANY MOTION?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE 29. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

[30. PARKS & RECREATION:]

>> I MOVE APPROVAL OF 30A AND B AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR

[31. PURCHASING:]

AGENDA ITEM 31 A AND B, PRESENTED BY PURCHASING.

>> JUDGE, BEFORE YOU CALL FOR A QUESTION ON THE MOTION ON THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR ITEM 31 A, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU ARE WILLING TO HAVE ANOTHER COURT ISSUE A DECREE ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.

>> COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY, I DID NOT HEAR YOU.

COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE? >> IT WAS A QUESTION FOR WHOEVER IS GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION. SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD AUTHORIZE ANOTHER MEMBER OF COMMISSIONERS COURT TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENT -- >> I WOULD GO SO FAR AS TO SAY I MOVE APPROVAL FOR ITEM 31A AND AUTHORIZE COMMISSIONER ANDY MEYERS TO ISSUE THAT ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY.

>> WITH THIS AMENDMENT -- LET'S PULL 31 A OUT.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. >> SO SOME AMENDMENTS, THAT IS THE SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? WE CAN CALL ON THE VOTE FOR THAT AMENDMENT FOR 31 A.

>> AND MY RATIONALE, IT AIN'T PERSONAL, IT IS THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE ON OCTOBER EIGHTH OF 2024.

2024. NOT 2026, NOT 2025, 2024.

[02:05:03]

>> THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECOND, CALL THE VOTE.

>> I'M SORRY, JUDGE -- >> THE AMENDMENT --

>> IT WAS AN AMENDMENT, IT WAS THE STRING OF MOTIONS.

>> IT IS A MOTION FOR 31 A. ONLY 31 A.

>> MAY I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MOTION IS? THE MOTION IS TO HAVE ME SIGN A DOCUMENT, RATHER THAN JUDGE,

CORRECT? >> YES.

>> SO LET'S CALL FOR THE VOTE. EVERYONE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION FAILS. LET'S GO BACK TO 31 A.

TAKE ALL ACTION -- >> WHAT I WANT TO DO, MR. WONG

IS USE THE VP. >> PRESENTED BY PURCHASING.

>> FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS 31 A THROUGH ITEM BB.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, DO I HAVE ANY?

>> I AM FOR BUT I AM AGAINST 31 A.

>> THAT IS WHY I SAID LET'S DO THE 31A SEPARATELY.

SO 31 A IS -- PASSES ONLY -- >> CAN WE DO 31A FIRST AND THEN

DO THE REST? >> LET'S DO IT ONE AT A TIME,

LET'S CLEAN IT UP. >> WE HAVE TO AGREE TO THE

WITHDRAWING OF MOTION. >> I WILL WITHDRAW THE MOTION.

>> LET'S DO 31 A. >> I MAKE THE MOTION OF 31A AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ON 31 A, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED?

MOTION PASSES 3-2. >> I MOVE APPROVAL OF 31D THROUGH B BE. AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[32. SHERIFF'S OFFICE:]

PRESENTED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION?

[33. TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR:]

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM 33 PRESENTED BY THE TAX

ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR. >> MOVE APPROVAL.

[34. Approve Bills.]

[35. Ratify the release of time-sensitive disbursements made on September 3, 2026.]

[36. Ratify the release of time-sensitive disbursements made on September 17, 2026, to be ratified by Commissioners Court on September 24, 2026. ]

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW I PRESENT AGENDA ITEM 34, 35, 36. APPROVAL OF THE BILLS AND OTHER TIME SENSITIVE DISBURSEMENTS. PLEASE PROCEED.

>> ALONG WITH THE TIME SENSITIVE BILLS TOTALING $11,378,649 SUBMIT FOR BILLS TOTALING 2 MILLION WITH ROUTINE DISBURSEMENTS OF 6,754,891 AND $0.83.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF 34, 35 AND 36.

>> SECOND. >> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NEXT, I PRESENT AGENDA ITEM 37 A ONE. PLEASE PROCEED.

>> MEET IN CLOSED SESSION TO DELIBERATE THE FOLLOWING MATTERS AS AUTHORIZED BY THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE A, SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY.

26-CC V.-079843. >> BEFORE WE PROCEED, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, CAN WE DO IT IN OPEN SESSION?

>> GENTLEMEN, WE HAVE HAIL FROM OUR OFFICE WHO IS PREPARED TO MOVE YOU SWIFTLY THROUGH THAT ITEM, IF YOU WERE OKAY WITH

THAT. >> THAT IS FANTASTIC, THANK YOU SO MUCH. DO I HAVE A MOTION AT THIS TIME?

WE CAN DO THAT, RIGHT? >> I'M SO SORRY, SIR, IT IS MARKED FROM OUR OFFICE THEY ARE ALSO GOOD, IT IS EASY JUST TO GET THE NAMES INTERCHANGED. GO AHEAD, MARK.

>> LET'S MOVE FORWARD, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON SIRS. I HAVE A MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING EXPENSES IN CAUSE NUMBER 26-CC V.-079843.

IT IS A CONDEMNATION MATTER, FORT BENDY -- FORT BEND COUNTY TEXAS VERSUS RESIDENTIAL A C AND HEATING ECILLC ET AL.

[02:10:01]

ONE. >> THANK YOU MARK.

>> I MOVE THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION REFERENCED IN AGENDA ITEM 37A, THAT 26-C CV-0798434 BEND COUNTY TEXAS VERSUS RESIDENTIAL A C AND HEATING ECI, LLC, ET AL, STREET PROJECT 2305, PARCEL NINE, PRECINCT ONE BE AUTHORIZED TO INCUR LITIGATION EXPENSES FOR ANY AND ALL COSTS OF PRETRIAL, TRIAL, APPEAL AND INCIDENTAL COSTS, INCLUDING POTENTIAL FEES, CITATION BY PUBLICATION FEES AND OTHER EXPENSES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20,000.

AND THAT MOBILITY BONDS BE DESIGNATED AS THE FUNDING

SOURCE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AT THIS TIME I DO NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS GENERAL SESSION OF FORT BEND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT. MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

NOW WE WILL TURN OUR ATTENTION TO THE FORT BEND COUNTY DISTRICT DIRECTORS MEETING. NOW IT IS 3:10 P.M. AND I CALL TO ORDER THIS MEETING OF FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS. TODAY IS THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER TENTH, 2026. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AGENDA ITEM THREE -- >> ABSTAINING.

>> ONE ABSTAIN. MOTION PASSES.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3, CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY 2027 BUDGET FOR THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 111.067.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING TODAY? I WILL ASK AGAIN.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TODAY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING? HEARING NONE, I WILL JUST CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING ACTION ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING WHICH WILL BE TAKEN LATER IN THIS AGENDA. LET'S GO TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4. PLEASE.

>> TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ASSIGN VEHICLES TO THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT DEPARTMENT AS PRESENTED IN THE FY 2027 DRAINAGE DISTRICT FLEET MANAGEMENT.

>> MOVE APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5, PLEASE READ THE ITEM.

>> TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE LIST OF TAKE HOME VEHICLES FOR THE DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT FOR FY 2027, PURSUANT TO COUNTY EMPLOYEE INFORMATION MANUAL, POLICY 612.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOVEMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6, PLEASE READ THE ITEM.

>> SIX, TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ADOPT THE 2026 TAX RATE FOR THE FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT AND TAKE A RECORD VOTE, PURSUANT TO PROPERTY TAX CODE 26.05, AS

PRESENTED. >> I NEED A MOTION ON THAT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> MOVE APPROVAL.

>> ANY SECOND? SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? I NEED A RECORD VOTE.

VICEROY? DO I NEED A RECORD VOTE?

YES? >> YES, YOU DO.

>> I HAVE A MOTION THAT I NEED TO READ IN DETAIL?

>> YOU HAVE A MOTION, IT IS IN YOUR PACKET.

>> I HAD MORE THAN ONE. >> IT IS PROBABLY PAPER CLIPPED.

>> I DID HAVE MORE THAN ONE, I APOLOGIZE.

IT WAS STUCK TO THE BACK PAGE, SORRY.

[02:15:02]

SO I WILL ADD THAT, IS THAT OKAY? FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUPPORTING OPERATING EXPENSES AND SERVICE

DEBT. >> WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 4.07%

INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE. >> WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY -- I'M

SORRY? >> 4.07.

>> 4.07% INCREASE. >> THERE'S THE MOTION.

SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? I DO NEED A RECORD VOTE. PLEASE PROCEED.

>> HOW DO YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> HOW DO YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> HOW DO YOU VOTE? >> YES.

>> COUNTY JUDGE, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> YES. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7. PLEASE READ NUMBER 7.

>> SEVEN, TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION TO APPROVE THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

TO BE FINANCED FOR FY 2027. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION HAS BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8. AGAIN, PLEASE.

>> TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ADOPT FY 2027 PROPOSED POSITIONS FOR THE FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

>> MOVE APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9. PLEASE READ THE NUMBER 9.

>> TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO REVIEW THE TAXPAYER IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE DRAINAGE FUND, PURSUANT TO TEXAS LOCAL

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 111.067. >> MOVE APPROVAL.

>> ANY SECOND? I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10. >> I MOVE TO ADOPT THE FY 2027 PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FORT BEND COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT AS FILED ON AUGUST 31ST, 2026, IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,708,742.

>> SECOND. >> I DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?

LET'S TAKE THE RECORD VOTE. >> COMMISSIONER MORALES, HOW DO YOU VOTE? COMMISSIONER PRESTIDGE, HOW DO YOU VOTE? COMMISSIONER MYERS, HOW DO YOU VOTE? COMMISSIONER MCCOY, HOW DO YOU VOTE? JUDGE WONG, HOW DO YOU VOTE?

>> MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AGENDA ITEM 11.

PLEASE READ THE ITEM. >> TAKE ALL APPROPRIATE ACTION ON FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO RFP 25-060 FOR RENEWAL OF AUDIT SERVICES FOR THE DRAINAGE DISTRICT, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $14,040, EFFECTIVE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2027, FUND DRAINAGE DISTRICT.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

I DO NEED A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING.

>> MOVE TO ADJOURN. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

MEETING ADJOURNED. DO WE HAVE A PLAQUE TO SIGN? YES, WE DO. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING, APPRECIATE THAT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.