VS 01-10-2023 Transcript Travis County Commissioners Court Voting Session January 10, 2023 9:00 a.m. CT ****DISCLAIMER!!!**** THE FOLLOWING IS AN UNEDITED ROUGH DRAFT TRANSLATION FROM THE CART PROVIDER'S OUTPUT FILE. THIS TRANSCRIPT IS NOT VERBATIM AND HAS NOT BEEN PROOFREAD. THIS IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. THIS FILE MAY CONTAIN ERRORS. THIS TRANSCRIPT MAY NOT BE COPIED OR DISSEMINATED TO ANYONE UNLESS PERMISSION IS OBTAINED FROM THE HIRING PARTY. SOME INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN MAY BE WORK PRODUCT OF THE SPEAKERS AND/OR PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS AMONG PARTICIPANTS. HIRING PARTY ASSUMES ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SECURING PERMISSION FOR DISSEMINATION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT AND HOLDS HARMLESS TEXAS CLOSED CAPTIONING/CAPTIONSOURCE, LLC FOR ANY ERRORS IN THE TRANSCRIPT AND ANY RELEASE OF INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN. ***DISCLAIMER!!!** >> Judge Brown: GOOD MORNING, THIS IS TRAVIS COUNTY JUDGE ANDY BROWN CALLING TO ORDER THE MEETING OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT. TODAY IS JANUARY 10th, 2022. IT IS 9:13 A.M. WE'RE HERE AT 700 LAVACA WITH COMMISSIONERS GÓMEZ, COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION, COMMISSIONER HOWARD AND MYSELF. COMMISSIONER SHEA WILL BE SHORTLY. AND WE'LL START WITH PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE FOR EARLY PUBLIC COMMENT, JUDGE. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. THANKS. >> THERE IS A SPEAKER SIGNED UP. >> Judge Brown: YEAH, IS THAT FOR STONE? >> YES. >> Judge Brown: OKAY, COME ON UP, ZEPHYR, WE HAVE A JOB FAIR ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE COUNTY. >> GOOD MORNING. >> Judge Brown: GOOD MORNING. >> MY NAME IS ZEPHYR STONE, I'M THE TALENT, PLANNING AND ENGAGEMENT MANAGER. AND I'M JOINED BY OUR LEAD RECRUITER. WE ARE EXCITED TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE'RE HOSTING A JOB FAIR ON JANUARY 18TH, FROM 10:00 A.M. TO 2:00 P.M. HERE AT 700 LAVACA. TO HELP TO FILL A VARIETY OF POSITIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS, ACROSS THE COUNTY. AND THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR APPLICANTS TO MEET DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES, GET MORE INFORMATION ON AVAILABLE POSITIONS, COUNTY BENEFITS, AND A FEEL FOR WHAT WORKS FOR THE COUNTY IS REALLY LIKE. WE WILL HAVE COMPUTERS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST APPLICANTS WITH THEIR ONLINE APPLICATIONS AND GARAGE PARKING WILL BE VALIDATED FOR PARTICIPANTS. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ENCOURAGED TO REVIEW POSITIONS POSTED AND REGISTER FOR THE JOB FAIR THROUGH THE JOB APPLICATION PAGE, ON TRAVISCOUNTYTX.GOV BUT REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE FAIR. IF ANYONE OUT THERE IS LOOKING FOR A NEW POSITION, OR KNOW SOMEONE WHO IS LOOKING FOR A CHANGE, WE INVITE THEM TO JOIN US AT THE JOB FAIR ON THE 18TH AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING ALL OF OUR NEW TEAM MEMBERS FOR TRAVIS COUNTY. THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: THANKS. >> Gómez: THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: UP NEXT IS THE AIR CONDITIONER IS NOT WORKING TO FULL CAPACITY TODAY IN HERE AND WE'RE WAITING ON A PART. SO I'M GOING TO ORDER THAT THERE BE NO HOT AIR EXPELLED TODAY. [LAUGHTER] BUT, SERIOUSLY, IF IT GETS HOT, FEEL FREE TO TAKE OFF JACKETS OR WHATEVER. >> Travillion: I AM SHOCKED -- >> Shea: WHATEVER. >> Travillion: I'M JUST SAYING. >> Judge Brown: WE COULD ALSO MOVE IT OUTSIDE, I GUESS. ALL RIGHT, SO NO ACTION TODAY ON ITEM 3, WHICH IS OUTDOOR BURNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE. AND NO ACTION ITEM 4, RESPONSE TO AND RECOVERY FROM COVID-19. NO ACTION ON ITEM 11, SMALL BUSINESS GRANT PROGRAM AND NO ACTION ON ITEM 29, TEXAS v BECERRA SIGNATORY REQUEST. AND UP NEXT IS CONSENT ITEMS, C1, C2, C3. >> Gómez: MOVE APPROVAL. >> Travillion: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ FOR APPROVAL AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION. ANY DISCUSSION? I DON'T SEE ANY CALLERS. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND THEN WE'VE GOT ITEM -- THE NEXT CONSENT ITEMS 5, ITEM 6, ITEM 10, ITEM 14, ITEM 15, ITEM 16, ITEM 19, ITEM 20, ITEM 22, ITEM 23 -- >> Shea: JUDGE, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEM 23. >> Judge Brown: SO SCRATCH ITEM 23. ITEM 25. AND ITEM 26. >> Gómez: MOVE APPROVAL OF CONSENT ITEMS. >> Travillion: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: SO APPROVAL FOR ALL CONSENT ITEMS EXCEPT FOR 23, WE'LL PULL THAT FOR DISCUSSION. ANY DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS? THERE'S NO CALLERS. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND LET'S SEE, PUBLIC HEARINGS, WE'LL START WITH THAT AND CALL UP THE HEARING AND THE ASSOCIATED ITEM AT THE SAME TIME. AND GOT ITEM 1 AND ITEM 17. ITEM 1 IS RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOLLOWING DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION REQUESTS ASSOCIATED WITH LONGVIEW PHASE 2 SUBDIVISION IN PRECINCT FOUR: PART A, AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF AN INSTRUMENT TO VACATE AN DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WITH REQUIRED MAINTENANCE, DEDICATED PER DOCUMENT #2021153086 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF TRAVIS COUNTY. AND PART B, AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF AN INSTRUMENT TO VACATE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WITH REQUIRED MAINTENANCE, DEDICATED PER DOCUMENT #2021153076 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF TRAVIS COUNTY. >> Gomez: OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> Judge Brown: ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND THE ACTION ITEM 17, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT VACATION REQUESTS WITH LONGVIEW PHASE 2, SUBDIVISION IN PRECINCT FOUR. THE EASEMENT TO VACATE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WITH REQUIRED MAINTENANCE, DEDICATED PER DOCUMENT #2021153086 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF TRAVIS COUNTY. AND PART B, AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF AN INSTRUMENT TO VACATE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION WITH REQUIRED MAINTENANCE, DEDICATED PER DOCUMENT #2021153076 OF THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF TRAVIS COUNTY. AND I RECOGNIZE ANNA BOWLIN FOR A BRIEFING. >> GOOD MORNING, ANNA BOWLIN, TRAVIS COUNTY TNR. THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS REQUEST IS TO VACATE THESE TWO DRAINAGE EASEMENTS THAT WERE TEMPORARILY NEEDED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SUBDIVISION TO CONVEY STORM WATER FROM THE EDGE OF ONE SECTION INTO THE POND. NOW THAT BOTH OF THESE SECTIONS ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THESE ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, AND WE RECOMMEND THE VACATION OF THESE TWO EASEMENTS. >> Judge Brown: ANY DISCUSSION? I DON'T SEE ANY CALLERS ON THIS ITEM. IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> Gómez: I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> Howard: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NO CALLERS. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THE HEARING IS CLOSED. A MOTION FOR THE ACTION ITEM 17? >> Gómez: MOVE APPROVAL ON ITEM 17. >> Howard: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD FOR APPROVAL. WE HAVE NO CALLERS. ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THANKS, ANNA. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. LET'S SEE, PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER 2, RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING A PROPOSED LICENSE AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THALLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CONTRACTOR FOR THE -- IS THAT RIGHT -- THALLE? THALLE -- SORRY. RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING A PROPOSED LICENSE AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THALLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CONTRACTOR FOR THE BRUSHY CREEK REGIONAL UTILITY AUTHORITY, TO STAGE A TEMPORARY LAY-DOWN YARD WITH MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING A READY MIX BATCH PLANT AND RELATED FIELD OFFICE AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES AT SANDY CREEK PARK. A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. THE HEARING IS OPEN. AND THE ACTION ITEM IS 18, RECEIVE COMMENTS REGARDING A PROPOSED LICENSE AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THALLE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, A CONTRACTOR FOR THE BRUSHY CREEK REGIONAL UTILITY AUTHORITY, TO STAGE A TEMPORARY LAY-DOWN YARD WITH MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING A READY MIX BATCH PLANT AND RELATED FIELD OFFICE AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES, AT SANDY CREEK PARK. AND WE'VE GOT ROBERT ARMISTEAD, THE PARKS DIRECTOR AND ANDREW PICKLE HERE TO BRIEF US. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS. THIS REQUEST IS WITH BRUSHY CREEK REGIONAL UTILITY AUTHORITY TO DO THE LAY-DOWN YARD IN THE PARK. THE PARK WILL REMAIN OPEN DURING THIS TIME, AND THE BOAT RAMP WILL REMAIN OPEN. CAMPING IS THE ONLY THING THAT IS IMPACTING THE PARK WITH THE CONSTRUCTION NEXT DOOR. THIS IS AN LCRA PARK, SANDY CREEK PARK, AND THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING SEVERAL YEARS AGO WITH ALL OF THE REGIONAL CITIES IN THAT AREA TO APPROVE THIS -- THIS CONSTRUCTION GOING ON. >> Judge Brown: THANKS. ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS, COURT MEMBERS? >> Shea: HOW MUCH CAMPING ARE WE LOSING, OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW MANY CAMPING SPOTS ARE WE LOSING WITH CONSTRUCTION? >> IT GENERATES AROUND 75,000 A YEAR AND WE'RE ABOUT 15 SLOTS. >> Shea: AND WE HAVE OTHER PARKS -- >> YES, MA'AM. >> Shea: YEAH -- CLOSE BY. >> THE SAME TEAM THAT RUNS ARKANSAS BEND RUNS SANDY SO THEY'LL DO DIRECTING INTERESTED PARTIES FOR CAMPING TO GO TO ARKANSAS BEND. >> Shea: AND WE HAVE EXPANDED SOME FACILITIES AT ARKANSAS BEND AS WELL. >> HOPING TO FINISH PHASE TWO. >> Shea: IT'S A GREAT PARK. OKAY, THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: I DON'T SEE ANY CALLERS OR COMMENTERS ON THIS. IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> Shea: SO MOVED. >> Travillion: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: AND THEN FOR THE ACTION ITEM 18, IS THERE A MOTION? >> Howard: JUDGE, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS AGREEMENT. >> Judge Brown: ALL RIGHT. >> Gómez: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA FOR APPROVAL. WE HAVE NO CALLERS. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU ALL. >> Shea: THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: UP NEXT IS ITEM 7, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS OFFICE DURING THE 88TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION. AND WE HAVE JULIE WHEELER JOINING US REMOTELY. GO AHEAD, JULIE. >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS, JULIE WHEELER, WITH TRAVIS COUNTY. THE ITEM TODAY IS A STANDARD ITEM THAT WE USUALLY BRING AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH SESSION. IT IS REALLY THE POLICIES AND THE PROCEDURES THAT WILL GOVERN OUR OFFICE AND THE PROCESSES THAT WE USE GOING FORWARD. THERE ARE NOT REALLY ANY MAJOR CHANGES TO IT, OTHER THAN TO THE DATES. IN CASE YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW, HAPPY FIRST DAY OF SESSION, IT IS BEGINNING TODAY, AND IT WILL RUN THROUGH -- SORRY -- I CANNOT SPEAK THIS MORNING, I'M SO EXCITED ABOUT SESSION. EXCUSE ME. AND WE'LL RUN THROUGH FOR 140 DAYS. SO REALLY WHAT THIS DOCUMENT SAYS IS THAT THE OVERRIDING -- THE MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR ME IS THAT IT REAFFIRMS THAT IT WILL REQUIRE A SUPER MAJORITY OF COURT MEMBERS TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON LEGISLATIVE ITEMS. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT AT LEAST FOUR OF YOU HAVE TO AGREE ON ANYTHING THAT WE DO. THE FIRST MAJOR STEP THAT YOU ALL TOOK IN THAT WAS THE ADOPTION OF OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, THAT WAS ADOPTED BACK IN OCTOBER. THIS DOCUMENT MAKES MENTION OF THAT DOCUMENT AS WELL, AS FAR AS WHAT THAT STRUCTURE WILL LOOK LIKE, AND ALSO REAFFIRMS THE IDEA THAT IS A LIVING DOCUMENT. THIS PROCESS IS A LIVING PROCESS. IT WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE SESSION. ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE DID MAKE TO THIS DOCUMENT IS REMOVE THE STATEMENT THAT WE WOULD COME WEEKLY FOR COURT UPDATES. DUE TO THE COURT'S CALENDAR, THE LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR, IT'S NOT ALWAYS FEASIBLE, BUT WHAT WE WILL BE DOING IS MAKING REGULAR WRITTEN UPDATES TO THE COURT. THAT BEING SAID, WE WILL KEEP YOU UP-TO-DATE IN REAL-TIME AS THINGS HAPPEN. WE'LL HAVE COURT PRESENTATIONS, THEY MAY JUST NOT BE ON A WEEKLY ONGOING BASIS. THE OTHER THING THEY WANTED TO MENTION THAT IS A CHANGE TO THIS DOCUMENT IS THE CLARIFICATION THAT THIS DOCUMENT ACTUALLY COVERS THE ENTIRETY OF THIS SESSION. SO WE THINK OF THIS SESSION AS 140 DAYS, BUT, REALLY, THIS IS THE 88TH LEGISLATURE AND IT WILL RUN THROUGH UNTIL THE NEXT OPENING DAY OF THE 89TH SESSION. SO THIS DOCUMENT WILL COVER THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WE'LL USE FOR THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. IF THERE SHOULD BE ANY SPECIAL SESSIONS, HOPEFULLY THERE WILL NOT BE, AS WELL AS THE ITERATIVE PROCESS AS WELL. AND LASTLY THIS DOCUMENT HIGHLIGHTS AND ENCOURAGES ALL ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH OUR OFFICE. WE WORK WITH EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS UNDERNEATH THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, AS WELL AS ALL OF THE OTHER ELECTED OFFICIAL OFFICES. OUR OFFICE IS AN OPEN DOOR, IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS, I ENCOURAGE THEM TO REACH OUT TO US AND TO WORK WITH US. WE WILL BE GETTING THE LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP MEETINGS THIS FRIDAY. THOSE MEETINGS ARE WHERE WE DISCUSS THE POLICY INITIATIVES I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE PART OF THE PROCESS. AND ALL OF YOU ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND AND YOUR STAFF IS WELCOME TO ATTEND. THEY ARE ROBUST CONVERSATIONS THAT REALLY DO HELP TO SERVE TO GUIDE ME THROUGH THIS LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. SO THAT BEING SAID, AGAIN, THIS IS PRO FORMA BUT WE GO AHEAD AND GET IT APPROVED EACH SESSION TO SET THOSE GUIDELINES IN PLACE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DOCUMENT OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO ASK ABOUT THE SESSION. >> Judge Brown: THANKS, COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ, ANY QUESTION? >> Gómez: NO, I DON'T HAVE ANY. >> Judge Brown: COMMISSIONER SHEA? >> Shea: NO, JUST WISHING YOU WELL THIS SESSION. AND I'M GLAD FOR YOU AND OUR TEAM. I THINK THAT Y'ALL DO A GREAT JOB REPRESENTING THE COUNTY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: COMMISSIONER? >> Travillion: I JUST APPRECIATE YOUR WORK. THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT SESSION, WE KNOW THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE AVAILABLE, I'M AVAILABLE, TO TESTIFY ON THE ISSUES, TO IDENTIFY THINGS THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE COURT. SO, THIS WILL BE A BUMPY RIDE, BUT WE'RE HAPPY THAT YOU ARE THE PILOT. >> THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: COMMISSIONER -- HEY, JULIE, ONE THING, ON PART B OF THE PROCESS, IT SAYS INCLUDING FISCAL IMPACTS ON COUNTY OPERATIONS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. SO THAT MEANS FOR THE ITEM LATER TODAY, LIKE, ON ADDING A PROBATE COURT OR WHATEVER, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THE LEGISLATURE IS DOING THAT IS GOING TO MAKE US SPEND MONEY, THAT WOULD BE PART OF WHAT YOU PUT IN THE BACKUP, I GUESS? >> YES, SO THAT ALSO HOLDS FOR OUR LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS PROCESS. WHENEVER WE SEEK FEEDBACK FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT WE ASK. SO WE ASK WHATEVER IS FILED IN LEGISLATION, WHAT IS IT CHANGING IN CURRENT LAW, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY WHAT FISCAL IMPACT WILL THAT HAVE ON THE COURT? IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO WATCH THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND IT'S NO SECRET THAT THE STATE SEES US AS THEIR CHECK DIAGNOSE BOOK AT TIMES SO ANY LEGISLATION THAT WE BRING FORWARD TO THE COURT TO TAKE ACTION ON, WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A FISCAL NOTE ATTACHED TO THAT. >> Judge Brown: GREAT, THANK YOU. AND I DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTERS OR CALLERS ON THIS. IS THERE A MOTION -- >> Travillion: MOVE APPROVAL. >> Howard: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: SO COMMISSIONER -- MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION AND SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 7. ANY DISCUSSION, COURT MEMBERS? ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANKS, JULIE. >> THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: LET'S SEE, IS THIS -- ITEM 8 IS CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON A PUBLIC NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE LEGISLATION FOR THE PASSAGE OF A LOCAL LAW. GO AHEAD, JULIE. >> SO SORRY, THAT IS A MOUTHFUL. SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE COURT TO DO TODAY IS TO APPROVE FILING A PUBLIC NOTICE IN THE PAPER THAT WOULD SAY THAT WE INTEND TO FILE LEGISLATION SEEKING THE CREATION OF A NEW PROBATE COURT. SO LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. IN THE CONSTITUTION, THERE ARE A SET OF BILLS THAT ARE CONSIDERED LOCAL LAWS. THE CREATION OF A NEW COURT IS ONE OF THOSE. BEFORE YOU CAN CREATE A NEW COURT, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO PUT A NOTICE IN THE PAPER, 30 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME, THAT SAYS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO THIS BEFORE YOU CAN ACTUALLY FILE THE BILL. SO THIS IS REALLY A PROCEDURAL PART OF FILING THAT BILL. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT FOR MOST BILLS. IT REALLY IS JUST THOSE BILLS THAT ARE CONSIDERED A LOCAL LAW. YOU WILL BE HEARING ON THE 24TH FROM JUDGE HERMAN IN DEPTH TO ACTUALLY ASK FOR PERMISSION TO FILE THE BILL ITSELF. THIS IS REALLY JUST HELPING US TO GET A JUMP ON THAT PROCESS. SO FILING THE NOTICE WILL NOT BIND THE COURT TO THAT ACTION, IF WE FILE THE NOTICE AND YOU ULTIMATELY DECIDE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO GO SEEK LEGISLATIVE ACTION TO CREATE A NEW COURT, THAT NOTICE WILL HAVE BEEN POSTED, IT WOULD HAVE NO FORCE OF EFFECT. HOWEVER, IF YOU ALL DO DECIDE THAT YOU WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE, IT WILL GIVE US A JUMP ON THE PROCESS. SO IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING. I'M NOT ASKING FOR YOU ALL TO APPROVE ACTUALLY CREATING A NEW PROBATE COURT TODAY, IT'S JUST APPROVAL OF GETTING THAT PROCESS STARTED IN CASE YOU GO THAT ROUTE. SO IF YOU ALL APPROVE THIS, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THE NOTICE POSTED IN THE PAPER BEFORE THE END OF THIS WEEK. THAT WOULD START THAT 30-DAY COUNTDOWN CLOCK SO IF YOU DO GO FORWARD THAT WE'LL ALREADY HAVE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AHEAD OF THE SCHEDULE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THIS ITEM WILL COME BACK ON THE 24TH WITH ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, INCLUDING WHAT THE COST IS PROJECTED FOR THAT NEW COURT. >> Judge Brown: THANKS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONERS? >> Gómez: TODAY WE WANT TO GIVE NOTICE THAT THERE'S AN INTENT TO DO THAT? >> Judge Brown: YEAH, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET, LIKE, THE COSTS YET WHICH MAKES ME CONCERNED. >> IT'S ALLOWING US TO PUBLISH A NOTICE IN THE PAPER SAYING THAT WE INTEND TO FILE LEGISLATION TO CREATE A NEW COURT. IT'S JUST A PUBLIC NOTICE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO IT, BUT IF Y'ALL DO DECIDE TO CREATE A NEW COURT THAT IS A REQUIREMENT OF FILING THE BILL AHEAD OF TIME. >> Gómez: SO THE PUBLIC NOTICE IS -- YEAH -- I MOVE APPROVAL. >> Shea: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION -- I MEAN COMMISSIONER SHEA. I'M SORRY. >> Shea: WE LOOK SO MUCH ALIKE. [CHUCKLE] >> Judge Brown: ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS ITEM? >> Howard: IT WAS HER BIRTHDAY YESTERDAY, SHE MIGHT BE SASSY TODAY. [LAUGHTER] >> Judge Brown: HAPPY BIRTHDAY. >> Shea: JUST A LITTLE. >> HAPPY BIRTHDAY. >> Travillion: I DON'T THINK THAT BIRTHDAYS IMPACT HER SASSY. [LAUGHTER] >> Shea: SLIGHT INCREASE. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. YEAH, JUST AS LONG AS WE'RE CLEAR THAT -- LIKE, I MEAN, IF THERE'S A NEED FOR THIS, OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. BUT KNOWING WHAT THE COST IS, LIKE, TO THE COUNTY. DOESN'T THE STATE PAY FOR SOME -- LIKE, THE SALARY OF THE NEW JUDGE OR SOMETHING? BUT DO THEY PAY FOR THE STAFF, DO WE KNOW ANY DETAILS LIKE THAT? >> [INDISCERNIBLE] AND THE REST IS ON THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE. THE COURT STAFF, AND THE FACILITY AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES WITH RUNNING THE COURT. >> Renteria: BUT THERE'S ROOM IN THE PROBATE COURTHOUSE, RIGHT? OKAY. >> Shea: AND Y'ALL WILL MAKE THIS CASE TO US, CORRECT? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> Shea: AND ALL OF THE RATIONALE. I HAVE BEEN HEARING FOR A WHILE NOW THAT THE PROBATE, UM, NEEDS ARE VERY LARGE. AND THE PROCESS HAS SLOWED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY. I HAVE BEEN HEARING THAT FOR SEVERAL YEARS. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. >> Travillion: THIS IS SIMPLY LAYING THE PREDICATE FOR IT AND YOU CAN'T ADD WITHOUT THIS PROCEDURAL ACTIVITY. SO IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S DONE, IT MEANS THAT IT CAN BE DONE. AND WE'LL PUT THE INFORMATION TOGETHER AND COME BACK AND MAKE A CASE WHEN APPROPRIATE. >> Judge Brown: GREAT. >> EXACTLY. IT WILL NOT BIND YOU TO FILING A BILL ON THE COURT IF Y'ALL DECIDE THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. JUST BECAUSE WE DID THE NOTICE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO DO THAT. >> Judge Brown: AWESOME. A MOTION AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA. A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO CALLERS. ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU SO MUCH, JULIE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> Judge Brown: ITEM 12, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE PRIORITIES TO ALLOCATE THE BALANCE OF TRAVIS COUNTY'S LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND ALLOCATION AND WE HAVE JESSICA RIO AND JOSHUA DANIELS AND MAYBE TRAVIS. >> GOOD MORNING. >> JESSICA RIO PLANNING EXECUTIVE. AND WE TODAY HAVE A SOMEWHAT ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM BUT A VERY IMPORTANT ITEM. YOU WILL RECALL THAT WE WERE BEFORE THE COURT A FEW WEEKS AGO AND -- MAYBE -- I GUESS, LAST YEAR -- LAST MONTH. AND WE PROVIDED THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WITH SOME INFORMATION AND A FORM THAT THE COURT MEMBERS THEN USED TO PROVIDE US WITH INITIAL PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T MISSING ANYTHING. SO THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE JUDGE'S OFFICE AND TO US AND UPLOADED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ONLINE MESSAGE BOARD ON JANUARY 3RD. AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT TODAY. WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT WE WANTED TO GO THROUGH. AND I'D LIKE TO START THERE IF IT'S OKAY TO, UM, MAKE SURE THAT THIS LIST IS PARED DOWN AS BEST AS POSSIBLE AND THAT IT IS AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. SO, AGAIN, THE PURPOSE TODAY IS TO TALK ABOUT LFRF FUNDS AND WE HAVE ABOUT $45.5 MILLION THAT THE COURT HAS NOT YET ALLOCATED, AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON TODAY. SO DASHIELL IS GOING TO HELP ME OUT. HE HAS THE SPREADSHEET THAT WE HAVE IN THE BACKUP ON THE SCREEN. AND I WILL START AT THE TOP. SO REFERENCE NO. 1, JUST -- AND JUST FOR SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY, I AM DOING THIS IN A PUBLIC FORMAT, SO, AGAIN, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE AND A LITTLE BORING BUT BEAR WITH ME AND I'LL TRY TO GET THROUGH IT QUICKLY. REFERENCE NO. 1, ON THE SHEET, COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION, YOU MARKED REFERENCE NO. 16, BUT WE NOTED THAT IT WAS THE SAME AS REFERENCE NO. 1 SO WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSOLIDATE THAT AND WE DON'T THINK THAT YOU'D MIND THAT -- >> Travillion: NOT AT ALL. >> SO WE'LL DO THAT. AND UNDER SOME OF THE OTHER INTERNALLY REQUESTED ITEMS WE WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THE COURT MEMBERS ASKED FOR A LOT OF INFORMATION AND WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE ADMINISTERING THESE PROGRAMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ACCESS THAT INFORMATION. SO I'LL GO THROUGH SOME ADMINISTRATIVE, BUT WE'LL COME BACK TO THAT, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT ROI, THE COST PER INDIVIDUAL SERVED, ETC. SO I'M GOING TO SKIP OVER SOME OF THAT RIGHT NOW AND GO DIRECTLY TO ANOTHER EASY ONE WHICH IS REFERENCE NO. 4, AGAIN, THE SAME QUESTION, COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION. IF WE COULD FOLD IN 15 TO 4, THAT WOULD HELP US OUT. AND SO WE WILL DO THAT. >> Travillion: THAT WILL BE FINE. >> UNDER REFERENCE NO. 10, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS COURT WHEN WE COME BACK AND PROVIDE YOU WITH WHAT WE CALL A MINI BLACK BOOK OR ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THESE REQUESTS WE'LL DO A WRITE-UP AND I WOULD LIKE TO GROUP THOSE THAT INCLUDE INFORMATION THERE WITH REFERENCE NO. 2 1 AND REFERENCE NEW H3. SO JUST GIVING YOU A HEADS UP. WE DO THAT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, WE CONSOLIDATE LIKE REQUESTS AND YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND READ THROUGH THE ANALYSIS WITH THE INFORMATION GATHERED TOGETHER. NOW I HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN AND REACHED OUT TO COMMISSIONER SHEA'S OFFICE BUT REFERENCE 12, 13, AND 14 ARE ALREADY FULLY FUNDED AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. WE KNOW THAT THE REST OF THE COURT IS ALSO SUPPORTIVE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO DELETE THOSE, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. THOSE ARE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING INVESTMENTS AND SO THEY'RE FULLY FUNDED. NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO SOME OF THE NEW REQUESTS THAT WERE ADDED. I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER HOWARD AND THE JUDGE ADDED THE DIVERSION CENTER. SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO FOR THE PROCESS OF FURTHER CONSOLIDATING THIS LIST AND HONING IN IS TO MERGE THOSE TWO TOGETHER. AND IF WE COULD DEFAULT TO ONE OF THE TITLES, I THINK THAT, JUDGE, YOUR STAFF SAID THAT IT WAS OKAY TO DEFAULT TO COMMISSIONER HOWARD'S, IF THAT'S OKAY. >> Judge Brown: YEP. >> WE WILL SHOW THAT ON THE NEXT -- ON THE NEXT ITERATION. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS ALSO A NEW ONE. AND IT IS THE ABATEMENT OF NEW CENSUS AND I DID REACH OUT TO COMMISSIONER HOWARD. WHILE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE COUNTY AND I'M SURE THAT THERE WILL BE MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, I'M NOT SURE, GIVEN THE COMMENTS THAT ARE ON HERE, THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ON THIS LIST. INSTEAD WE'D LIKE TO FORWARD TO TNR, COUNTY ATTORNEY, ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS TO LOOK INTO AND TO FOLD IT INTO THE REGULAR BUDGET PROCESS. AND SO WOULD THAT BE OKAY, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, FOR US TO DO THAT? >> Howard: SURE. >> AND THEN FINALLY WE CAN KEEP THE SUB-STANDARD ROADS ITEM ON HERE. IT IS ELIGIBLE. WE HAD THAT CONVERSATION AS WELL. WE DO BELIEVE THAT IT WILL PROBABLY BE CONSIDERED EITHER IN THE BOND PROGRAM OR -- I THINK THAT THERE'S A RESOLUTION AND IT COULD BE IN THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET PROCESS. IT'S REALLY UP TO YOU, COMMISSIONER, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT HERE. WE'RE HAPPY TO LEAVE IT ON. >> Howard: WHY DON'T WE LEAVE IT ON FOR NOW AND SEE HOW FAR WE GET. >> THAT IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXERCISE. I WAS QUICK. GOING BACK REAL QUICK, JUST TO SOME OF THE PERFORMANCE METRICS THAT WERE REQUESTED, UM, JUST MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS -- THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GATHER EVERYTHING. LIKE I SAID, I THINK THAT PBO'S INTENT IS TO DO WRITE-UPS ON EACH OF THESE REQUESTS AND WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH HHS, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE'S ANYTHING, PILAR OR LAWRENCE THAT YOU WANT ME TO ADD -- BUT I KNOW THAT WE'LL BE WORKING TOGETHER. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO GET PERFECT INFORMATION AS REQUESTED. I DON'T KNOW -- SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN IN PROGRAM IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE SUCCESS IN THE WAY THAT THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED. BUT I DO WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING HARD OVER THE NEXT MONTH, MONTH AND A HALF, TO GET THAT INFORMATION. JUST LEAVE IT TO LAWRENCE, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD. >> MOST OF THE BASICS ARE PART OF OUR QUARTERLY PERFORMANCE REPORTING AND OUR NEXT QUARTERS ARE DUE FROM CONTRACTORS ON THE 17TH BECAUSE THE REGULAR DATE IS THE 15TH AND THAT'S A HOLIDAY. SO WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF THOSE NUMBERS SERVED, THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WILL COME IN FOR PROGRAMMING. WE SHOULD HAVE EXPENDITURE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN LOOK AT MONTHLY. AS Y'ALL HAVE PROBABLY HEARD US -- MANY OF US TALK ABOUT, THERE'S BEEN SOME CHALLENGES IN THE BILLING SO THERE MAY BE SOME EXTRA WORK TO BE DONE WITH OUR PARTNERS TO GET THEIR ESTIMATES OF WHAT HAS BEEN EXPENDED. IN ADDITION TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY BILLED THROUGH US. BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, EVEN MORE ADMINISTRATIVE DETAIL THAN WHAT JESSICA HAS HAD TO GET INTO. AND THE REST WE WILL TRY TO BREAK DOWN FOR Y'ALL AS WE GO, WHAT THINGS WE CAN GET THROUGH ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OF OUR PARTNERS AND THERE MAY BE SOME PIECES THAT WE'LL JUST HAVE TO GET AS CLOSE AS WE CAN AND HOPEFULLY GET ENOUGH THAT Y'ALL CAN WORK WITH. SO, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE THINGS FOR YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT, AGAIN, AS JESSICA SAID, WE WORK WITH PBO TO FILL IN AS MANY GAPS AS WE CAN. >> AGAIN, WHEN WE CAME IN DECEMBER, WE WERE SHOWING YOU LISTS AND LISTS AND LISTS OF PROJECTS. I THINK THAT THEY TOTALED ABOUT 40 DIFFERENT REFERENCE NUMBERS THAT THE COURT HAD STARTED WITH. EVEN WITH THE CHANGES MADE TODAY WE'RE DOWN IN THE LOW 30s. SO I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS IS STILL GOING TO BE AN ENORMOUS TASK FOR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AS WE CONTINUE TO HONE IN ON PRIORITIZING -- YOU KNOW IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF MONEY, IT IS A LOT OF MONEY, BUT THERE IS A LOT OF NEED, SO THEY ARE SCARCE RESOURCES. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE QUICKLY -- PERFECT -- TO THE CALENDAR, JUST TO REMIND THE COURT WHERE WE ARE TODAY AND WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS ARE. >> Howard: JUDGE, CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? >> Judge Brown: YES, COMMISSIONER HOWARD. >> Howard: JESSICA, I WANT TO CALL ATTENTION THAT WE TOOK AN ITEM OFF OF TODAY'S AGENDA ABOUT THE SMALL BUSINESS WORK. WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST TODAY HAD THAT STAYED ON THE AGENDA WAS THAT WE PAUSE ON WHAT HAS JUST COME TO LIGHT AS BEING PLANNED FOR THE MONEY THAT WE'D ALREADY ALLOCATED AND CONSIDER -- JUST SORT OF KNOW THAT THAT WORK HAS BEEN DONE, BUT ALSO CONSIDER THAT THAT IS $8 MILLION THAT WE HAVEN'T SPENT. AND HOW MIGHT WE USE THAT MONEY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE $43 MILLION, AND SO EITHER LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR SMALL BUSINESS, OR NOT. YOU KNOW, BUT TO JUST PAUSE ON GETTING THAT MONEY OUT THE DOOR NOW SO THAT WE COULD HAVE A FULLER CONVERSATION -- SINCE IT'S NOT OUT THE DOOR, WE MIGHT WANT TO ADD MONEY TO IT AND GET ALL OF THAT MONEY OUT IN SOME FASHION. SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY RECOMMENDATION TODAY. SO JUST FOR WHATEVER THAT IS WORTH. >> SO I THINK THAT THE MOST DIRECT ANSWER IS THAT THAT ITEM WILL BE BACK ON THE 24TH AND IF THE COURT WISHES TO DISCUSS THAT ITEM IN-DEPTH AND HOW THAT PROGRAM IS TO BE LAID OUT AS, YOU KNOW, AS EDSI HAS SUGGESTED AND YOU CAN MAKE THOSE MOTIONS OR HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ON THE 24TH THOUGH IT'S NOT ON FOR TODAY. I DO SEE THAT CHRISTY IS ON AND SO I'D LIKE TO GIVE HER THE OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST RESPOND, CHRISTY? >> YEAH, THANKS. SO NOTED, COMMISSIONER HOWARD. I AM HAPPY FOR US TO SET UP A BRIEFING MEETING TO TALK ABOUT IT IN ADVANCE OF THE 24TH. WE ALSO HAVE A MEETING WITH SOME -- WITH THE DIVERSITY AND MINORITY CHAMBERS TOMORROW. AND SO WE'RE CONTINUING TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION AND TO HAVE THAT ROBUST DISCUSSION ON THE 24TH. BUT ALSO HAPPY TO TALK WITH YOUR OFFICE IN ADVANCE. >> Howard: OKAY, THANK YOU. >> GREAT. SO MOVING TO THE CALENDAR, TODAY IS THE 10th. ANYTHING IN GRAY HAS ALREADY PASSED, OBVIOUSLY. SO WE'VE RECONCILED THE INFORMATION THAT WE SAID THAT WE'D DO IN A TRANSPARENT FASHION BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. WE ARE PREPARED TO SEEK DIRECTION, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE US ON THIS LIST OR ANY OTHER REQUESTS THAT YOU HAVE FOR INFORMATION. I HAVE ALREADY LAID OUT THAT OUR PLAN IS TO WORK OVER THE NEXT FOUR TO SIX WEEKS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH WHAT I CALLED A MINI BLACK BOOK BECAUSE THOSE ARE JUST THE TERMS THAT WE'RE USED TO AT THE COUNTY. BUT BASICALLY IT'S AN ANALYSIS OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EACH OF THESE REQUESTS. KEEP IN MIND THAT SOME OF THESE REQUESTS WE MAY NOT HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION IN OUR OFFICE. WE WILL DO OUR BEST BUT THERE MIGHT BE GAPING STILL THAT THE COURT WILL NEED TO BE AWARE OF IN THE END OF FEBRUARY. WE'LL ALSO WORK WITH GUIDEHOUSE, OUR CONSULTANTS, TO ENSURE ELIGIBILITY, WHERE WE DO THAT TYPE OF DUE DILIGENCE AS WELL, SO THAT WE ARE EVERY STEP OF THE WAY KEEPING THE COURT INFORMED. AND LETTING YOU KNOW WHAT -- YOU KNOW, WHAT INFORMATION WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ASCERTAIN. SO GIVEN THAT THERE WERE SOME CALENDAR CHANGES, WE DID RECOMMEND THAT THE NEXT DATE THAT WE COME BACK IS THE 28TH OF FEBRUARY. AND I SEE THAT YOU HAVE THE CLEAN VERSION, SEEING IF YOU COULD DO THE LEGISLATIVE VERSION SO THAT THE COURT CAN SEE HOW IT'S CHANGED. PERFECT. SO I BELIEVE THAT WE WERE GOING TO COME BACK IN MID-FEBRUARY. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE THAT IS GOING TO BE A SKIP DAY. AND SO WE -- THE NEXT WEEK IS A CONSENT DAY. AND, QUITE FRANKLY, WE NEED THE TIME. SO EVEN IF IT WASN'T A SKIP DAY AND A CONSENT DAY, WE WOULD PROBABLY SAY TO THE COURT, PLEASE -- GIVEN THAT THERE'S 30 PLUS REQUESTS WE REALLY DO NEED THE TIME TO -- TO WRITE UP THESE ANALYSES. SO WE WILL BE GETTING THAT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT BY THE END OF FEBRUARY. THIS CALENDAR, OF COURSE, CAN BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME BY ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. SO IF WE COME AT THE END OF FEBRUARY AND YOU WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT THEN. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET US TO THE NEXT COURT DATE. SO THE PLAN THOUGH IS THAT WE PROVIDE YOU THAT INFORMATION. YOU WILL NEED SOME TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT INFORMATION. YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE US TO ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME UP AT THAT POINT. AND THEN SOMETIME HOPEFULLY BY APRIL WE CAN SCHEDULE SOME SORT OF VOTING SESSION THAT THEN YOU COULD PERHAPS GO AHEAD AND ALLOCATE THE REMAINING FUNDS. KEEPING IN MIND ALSO THAT WE HAVE SOME DEADLINES. WE'RE NOW IN 2023, HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT WE CERTAINLY WANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND ALSO THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LAID OUT SOME PARTICULAR DEADLINES ON WHEN WE NEED TO GET THESE FUNDS SPENT. I WILL PAUSE THERE. >> Judge Brown: THANKS, JESSICA. ANY QUESTIONS, COURT MEMBERS? COMMISSIONER SHEA? >> Shea: FIRST OF ALL, THANKS. I KNOW THIS IS AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF WORK. IT'S SORT OF A BLESSING AND A CURSE THAT WE GOT ALL OF THIS MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND IT'S OBVIOUSLY A HUGE BLESSING FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT THERE'S ALSO A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK FOR US TO FOLLOW ALL OF THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO WHILE WE HAD A BUSINESS -- A SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THE NEW FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS REQUIRE THAT WE RE-BID. SO WE GO BACK THROUGH A PROCESS. BUT, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THOSE RULES. THERE ARE -- I THINK THAT THERE'S A NUMBER OF US ASKED FOR SIMILAR KINDS OF DATA ON THE PROPOSAL TO CONTINUE SOME OF THESE EXISTING PROGRAMS. SO IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY IMPORTANT TO, AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN GATHER THIS, KNOWING THAT YOU'RE ALSO PREPARING FOR OUR NEXT BUDGET CYCLE. BUT I THINK THAT FOR -- FOR BOTH US AND FOR THE PUBLIC IT WILL BE VALUABLE TO KNOW SORT WHAT IS THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT FROM THE PROGRAMS THAT WE DO HAVE IN EXISTENCE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE. AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE LARGEST TICKET ITEMS. SO WHAT -- YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE GETTING FOR THIS INVESTMENT. AND WHAT KINDS OF, UM, LONG-TERM BENEFITS ARE WE SEEING. AND YOU HAVE SEEN THOSE QUESTIONS IN THE THING HERE. ON THE TRAUMA RECOVERY CENTER, SEVERAL OF US NOTED THAT ITEM. WE DID DIRECT STAFF I THINK IN OCTOBER -- NOT REMEMBERING THE EXACT DATE -- BUT WE DID DIRECT STAFF TO PURSUE A SUSTAINABLE FUNDING PLAN. SO THAT WILL BE AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION TO CHECK IN WITH, I THINK BOTH HHS IS HEADING THAT UP. MAYBE ANNA IF I'M RIGHT ON THIS, IS THAT CORRECT? SO IT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO CHECK IN ON THAT AS THEY MAY HAVE GATHERED MORE INFORMATION FROM THE CITY. THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDING SOURCES, BUT THAT'S ONE WHERE -- AND I HAVE BEEN REALLY CLEAR THAT I'M HUGELY SUPPORTIVE. I THINK THIS IS A KIND OF A PREVENTATIVE MEASURE THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT IN A HOLISTIC WAY, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT AUTHORIZING FUNDING FOR TWO YEARS IF WE DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S FUNDING TO CONTINUE IT. AND SO THAT WILL BE AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THAT ITEM TO JUST CHECK IN WITH OUR STAFF TO FIND OUT WHAT'S THE STATUS. BECAUSE WE GAVE THEM I THINK SIX MONTHS TO COME BACK TO COURT. AND FEBRUARY SHOULD BE AROUND THAT TIME. AND THIN I THINK THAT IT WILL ALSO BE VALUABLE FOR US TO KIND OF GET A RANGE WHEN WE'RE ASKING ABOUT THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT, BECAUSE IT WILL GIVE US SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR FIGURING OUT IF WE CAN FREE UP SOME MONEY FROM ONE CATEGORY -- LET'S JUST SAY WORKFORCE. JUST HAVING A RANGE, SORT OF A MINIMUM AMOUNT, YOU KNOW, SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE, IF YOU WILL, SO WE HAVE SOME CHOICES ABOUT ANY FLEXIBILITY AND POTENTIALLY MOVING AROUND SOME OF THAT FUNDING. I KNOW THAT CREATES MORE WORK FOR YOU, BUT -- >> I THINK THAT IT'S GOOD ADVICE AND I THINK THAT THE RANGES ARE PROBABLY THE BEST OPTION THAT WE'LL GET. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE EXACT PINPOINT NUMBERS SO LOOKING AT THEM IN TERM OF SMALL/MEDIUM/LARGE ARE A BETTER WAY TO LOOK AT IT. >> Shea: AND THANKS TO MY STAFF FOR ALL OF THIS ANALYSIS AND SUGGESTIONS, BUT THANK YOU FOR THIS WORK, AND I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING MORE DETAILS FROM YOU IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. >> Gómez: I JUST HAVE SOMETHING TO POINT OUT ON THE WATER ISSUES. I KNOW THAT VERY EARLY ON WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE -- THE, UM-- THE GOALS THAT EACH ONE OF US HAD, IT WAS FOR ME IT WAS THE FUNDING OF THAT FLOOD STUDY THAT WAS DONE IN SOUTHEAST AFTER THE FLOODS. AND, UM, I KNOW THAT THE, UM, THE FOLKS WHO DID THE STUDY WENT OUT AND MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS OUT THERE. AND THEY -- THEY LOOKED AT SOME DESIGNS FOR -- FOR ADDRESSING THE -- LESSENING THE FLOODING. SO WHERE IS THAT? >> SO THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT ARE ON HERE ARE THE ONES THAT WE WILL BE FOCUSING IN ON, BUT LIKE I SAID EARLIER I THINK THAT IF WE'RE ABLE TO GATHER ALL OF THE REMARKS THAT ARE ON THE SHEET ABOUT THE GARFIELD WATER REQUEST AND THE TNR WATER REQUEST AND I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER HOWARD HAD A COMMENT ABOUT WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND FEDERAL FUNDING. WE WILL WORK CLOSELY WITH TNR TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE HOLISTICALLY FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. WITH REGARD TO THE FLOODING STUDY -- >> I WOULD ADD COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ THAT YOU MADE A MOTION DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS THAT WE ADD A MILLION DOLLARS EACH YEAR FOR FLOOD STUDIES. I KNOW THAT ERIN IS WORKING WITH TNR ON THAT, TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION AND HOW MUCH WE HAVE, WHAT WE SPENT IT FOR AND HOW MUCH IS LEFT, SO THAT COULD BE USED TO PRIORITIZE SOME OF THESE THINGS AS WELL. >> Gómez: I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE -- I DIDN'T WANT IT TO GET LOST. >> IT'S NOT. >> Gómez: I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO STAY FOCUSED ON THAT FOR A GOOD WHILE. >> WE'LL PUT THAT OUT AS A TO-DO. >> Howard: JUDGE? >> Judge Brown: YEAH. >> Howard: I WANTED TO JUST COMMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE PARTNERS INVOLVED WITH THIS, I REALLY WOULD EXPECT THEM TO BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO GET YOU THE DATA THAT WE'VE REQUESTED. YOU KNOW, SO THIS IS A LOT OF WORK FOR YOU, BUT OUR PARTNERS NEED TO STEP UP IN A TIMELY FASHION, PROVIDE YOU THE INFO THAT WE NEED, YOU KNOW, OR MAYBE THEY DON'T NEED THE MONEY SO BADLY. >> FOR THE EXTERNAL REQUESTS WE HAVE TO RELY ON THOSE, BUT YOU ARE RIGHT WE WILL NEED ASSISTANCE. >> Howard: I WANT TO UNDERSCORE TO MY COLLEAGUE COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ THAT I'M BY NO WAY DISCOUNTING THE NEED FOR WATER IN EASTERN TRAVIS COUNTY, ESPECIALLY OUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE TO DRIVE UP WITH BUCKETS TO GET WATER. WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT AS FAST AS WE CAN. >> Gómez: YES. >> Howard: I HAVE JUST BECOME MORE AND MORE AWARE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS ALL OVER THE COUNTY. >> Gómez: SURE. >> Howard: SO I JUST WANT US TO LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY, BUT GETTING WATER TO PEOPLE IS UTMOST NEED. >> Judge Brown: THANKS. COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION, ANY THOUGHTS? >> Travillion: WELL, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THAT WE GIVE YOU THE TIME THAT YOU NEED, YOU KNOW, FOR ME THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IS REALLY IMPORTANT FROM A FLOODING STANDPOINT. BUT ALSO BECAUSE WE'VE GOT 13 CCNs IN THE NORTHEASTERN REGION. AND I THINK THAT WE DO HAVE AQUIFERS THAT ARE NOT THE EDWARDS AQUIFER THAT ARE ACCESSIBLE TO US AND THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA AND WE EXPECT IT TO CONTINUE AS WE GO FORWARD. SO EXTENDING -- EXTENDING THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE OUT INTO THE COUNTY, OUT FURTHER TOWARDS I-95 I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK THAT WE'LL ALSO HAVE PARTNERS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THAT. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT. IT DOESN'T SEEM REASONABLE TO ME THAT WE BUILD $400,000 IN MANOR AND BROWN WATER COMES OUT OF THE PIPES, WHEN WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO WORK WITH OUR PARTNERS AND TO WORK WITH THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND TO SOLIDIFY WHAT WILL BE A NECESSITY FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY. SO THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT I'LL BE INTERESTED IN, AND I'M INTERESTED IN CAPACITY AND EXPANSION, PARTICULARLY IN OUR WATERWAYS AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE. >> IF I COULD JUST SAY, I THINK THAT BRINGS UP A REALLY GOOD POINT AND A BROADER POINT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS -- THIS WINDFALL OF MONEY THAT THE COURT IS ABLE TO DO MANY GOOD THINGS FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT A LOT OF THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE BROADER AND LONGER TERM IN NATURE. AT SOME POINT WE'LL NEED TO FIGURE OUT THE -- THE LONG-TERM RESOURCE COMMITMENT ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE THROUGH OUR BUDGET PROCESS. ON A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS AS WE COME OUT OF THIS $250 MILLION PROGRAM. >> Travillion: I'LL JUST SAY TO PUT IT IN THE RECORD, UM, I WAS -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A DISCUSSION FOR OVER A YEAR ABOUT, YOU KNOW, INVESTING $30 MILLION IN THE POTENTIAL TIRZ OF THE PARK, THAT DISCUSSION. I THINK THAT HOPEFULLY THAT IS BEHIND US. BUT FOR EXPANDING OUR WATER CAPACITY OUT INTO THE COUNTY -- THAT IS MORE OF AN INVESTMENT THAT I THINK THAT WOULD HELP THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST ONE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE ENTIRE REGION. SO, THAT IS -- THAT'S WHY IF WE -- IF WE EVER LOOKED AT A TAX INCREMENT PROCESS, IF WE EVER LOOKED AT PUTTING -- PUTTING AN INVESTMENT TOGETHER THAT WE MIGHT GET OTHERS, THE CITY, OTHER CITIES, TO INVEST IN AS WELL -- I THINK THIS MIGHT BE THE TIME AND THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THE PLACES THAT IS IMPORTANT TO DO. >> Judge Brown: COMMISSIONER SHEA? >> Shea: JUST A QUICK NOTE ON THAT BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE GROWING. THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOW LARGELY LIMITED THE ABILITY OF CITIES TO ANNEX GROWING AREAS. SO MORE AND MORE BURDEN OF NEW GROWTH WILL FALL ON COUNTIES. AND WE -- WE HAVE VERY FEW TOOLS. AND WE HAVE EXTREMELY LIMITED RESOURCES. PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE CITIES HAVE SALES TAX, PROPERTY TAX, FRANCHISE TAX, IN THE CASE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN THEY HAVE THE REVENUE FROM THE TRANSFER FROM THE CITY-OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY AND WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITY. WE'VE GOT THIS SKINNY LITTLE COLUMN OF PROPERTY TAXES, BY AND LARGE, AND THERE'S A FEW SMALL OTHER BASKETS. BUT WE HAVE TO BE REALLY CLEAR WITH SETTING EXPECTATIONS WITH PEOPLE ON WHAT WE CAN DO, BECAUSE ALL OF -- ALL OF THE CLIMATE SCENARIOS INDICATE THAT THIS REGION WILL BE MUCH HOTTER AND MUCH DRYER. AND WE SIMPLY WILL NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PROVIDE WATER FOR EVERYONE. SO PART OF WHAT WE HAVE TO INCORPORATE IN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ARE REALLY THOUGHTFUL RESILIENCE MEASURES. WE CAN'T KEEP BUILDING THE WAY THAT WE HAVE AND WE CAN'T KEEP WASTING WATER THE WAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN. SO, YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS IS A LONG AND THOUGHTFUL CONVERSATION. I HOPE THAT WE WILL SCHEDULE WORK SESSIONS TO HAVE SOME OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, BECAUSE, UM, HOW WE SPEND OUR MONEY GOING FORWARD WILL HAVE HUGE IMPLICATIONS FOR WHETHER OR NOT OUR COMMUNITY WILL BE SUSTAINABLE. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU. OKAY. >> I THINK THAT'S ALL THAT WE NEEDED TODAY. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO RECALIBRATE THAT LIST. WE'LL PROBABLY GO AHEAD AND JUST PUT IT ON THE ONLINE MESSAGE BOARD SINCE IT WILL BE A WHILE BEFORE WE COME BACK TO YOU. IF ANY MEMBER EFFORT COURT SEES THAT AND THINKS THAT WE HAVE THIS WRONG, LET US KNOW AND WE CAN COME BACK AND CLARIFY. >> Judge Brown: YOU DON'T NEED A VOTE? >> I DON'T THINK THAT I NEED A VOTE. >> Howard: CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION, ON FEBRUARY 28TH, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT THAT HAPPENS ON THAT DAY, LIKE THE NEXT TIME THAT Y'ALL COME BACK? >> SO THE NEXT TIME THAT WE COME BACK, IT WILL MAINLY BE US PROVIDING THE COURT A LOT OF INFORMATION. SO -- WE WOULD BRING BACK THAT LIST THAT WE WILL HOPEFULLY PUT ON THE ONLINE MESSAGE BOARD THIS WEEK AND THEN WE WOULD BRING BACK A KIND OF A PDF, MUCH LIKE WE DO BLACK BOOKS, THAT THE COURT CAN ACCESS AND READ INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS. NOW, FEBRUARY 28TH IS VERY AGGRESSIVE. SO, PLEASE KNOW THAT -- IF WE CAN'T MAKE THAT DATE, WE'LL BE UPFRONT WITH THE COURT AND SAY, HEY, WE NEED TO MOVE THIS A WEEK OR WHATEVER, AS FAR AS DEADLINES FOR BACKUP, ETC. THIS IS OVER 30 REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A TEMPLATE AND DO PERFORMANCE MEASURE AND LOOK AT SPEND PATTERNS -- AND THERE'S A LOT THAT IS GOING TO GO ON AS WE ALSO DO GUIDELINES FOR FY 2024, ETC. >> BUT I THINK THAT THE SPIN PATTERN IS PROBABLY THE FIRST PRIORITY SO WE CAN LOOK AT THE INTERNAL REQUESTS THAT YOU HAVE ALREADY APPROVED AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN SPENDING, IF THERE'S ANY RESOURCES THAT YOU MAY WANT TO REALLOCATE TOWARDS THE $45 MILLION AND THAT'S THE GOOD STARTING POINT. AND THE DATA TO REACH OUT TO THE EXTERNAL, THAT IS THE HARDEST ONE TO DO. >> SO, AGAIN, THAT DATE IS REALLY US GIVING YOU INFORMATION. I THINK THAT YOU'LL NEED SOME TIME TO DIGEST THAT INFORMATION. THERE MIGHT BE REQUESTS THAT COME OUT OF THAT DISCUSSION THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO GET YOU ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. BUT HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE AT LEAST A GOOD FEEL FOR WHAT THE REQUESTS ARE, WHAT -- WE'LL START TALKING AMOUNTS AT THAT POINT AS WELL, OR RANGES, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER -- HOWEVER IT MAKES SENSE TO DISCUSS IT. BUT THAT'S THE TOUCHPOINT OF HERE IS OUR ANALYSIS. THEY RECOMMENDED X, BUT WE THINK BASED ON SPEND PATTERNS AND NUMBER OF PEOPLE SERVED THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER A RANGE OF Y TO Z. >> Howard: SO THIS TAKES US INTO APRIL. WHAT'S THE DEADLINE FOR GETTING THE MONEY OUT THE DOOR? >> THE END OF 2024. AND THEN ALL OF IT -- OBLIGATED BY THE END OF 2024, GO AHEAD. >> OBLIGATED BY DECEMBER 31st, 2024 AND EXPENDED BY DECEMBER 31st, 2026, OUT THE DOOR. >> Howard: OKAY. >> Shea: JUST TO SET EXPECTATIONS, WE HAVE 45 MILLION PLUS, DEPENDING ON WHAT WE DO WITH THE $8 MILLION PREVIOUSLY SET ASIDE FOR SMALL BUSINESS BUT HASN'T BEEN EXPENDED IN THE MIX THERE SOMEWHERE -- >> ONLY IF THE COURT SAYS IT IS ON THE 24TH. RIGHT NOW IT IS NOT. IT HAS BEEN ALLOCATED. THERE HAS BEEN A VOTE BY COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR THAT. WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS THAT. BUT IF ON THE 24TH -- I'M SORRY? >> Howard: 18 MONTHS AGO. >> YES, CORRECT. >> Judge Brown: I THINK -- >> THE COURT CAN MAKE CHANGES TO ANY OF THEIR ALLOCATIONS, BUT WE DO GO BY COURT DIRECTION. SO UNTIL IT CHANGES, IS ALL I'M SAYING. >> Shea: GOT IT. >> IT'S CURRENTLY ALLOCATED. >> Shea: GIVE OR TAKE $45 MILLION. AND THE LIST OF REQUESTS AND THE POTENTIAL DOLLAR AMOUNTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM IS VASTLY LARGER THAN $45 MILLION, JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME SERIOUS CHOOSING AND PAIRING. >> AND JUST TO MENTION, YOU'VE KIND OF TOUCHED ON IT, BUT FEBRUARY 28TH IS ABOUT THE TIME WE'LL BE BRINGING THE BUDGET GUIDELINES, 1.1 PLUS BILLION-DOLLAR BUDGET. WE'RE WORKING ON PRIORITIES FOR THAT, JUGGLING TWO BIG THINGS OVER THE NEXT MONTH TO TWO MONTHS AS WE GET READY FOR ALLOCATING THESE FUNDS, BUT ALSO GETTING YOUR PRIORITIES FOR NEXT YEAR'S 2024 BUDGET. >> Howard: I WONDER IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO LOOK AT THE LIST -- US LOOK AT THE LIST AND DO A STRAW VOTE OR SOMETHING WHERE -- >> Judge Brown: NO STRAW VOTES. I MEAN -- >> Howard: BUT -- >> Judge Brown: YEAH, SURE. >> Shea: THE EQUIVALENT OF A BUDGET -- >> Howard: TO SEE IF THERE'S THINGS WE WANT TO SAY, WE'RE DOING THIS, AND REQUIRE A DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF WORK ON YOUR PART. >> WE WERE HOPING THAT'S WHAT TODAY WOULD BE, COMMISSIONER. AND THERE'S STILL A LOT ON THIS LIST. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY I SAY DO YOU REALLY WANT US TO DO A WRITE-UP ON SUBSTANDARD ROADS? IS THIS REALLY THE POT OF MONEY YOU WANT FOR THAT, AS AN EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THAT'S A NEW ONE ADDED. WE WERE HOPING TO HONE DOWN THE LIST, BECAUSE WE KNEW 46 WAS TOO MUCH. I WOULD HAVE LIKED FOR IT TO BE IN THE 20s. I DON'T KNOW IF IT REALLY MATTERS, NECESSARILY. BUT THE SMALLER, MORE CONCENTRATED LIST THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT HAS, THE EASIER THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING TO BE AT THE NEXT LEVEL. >> Howard: YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DID THE BUDGETING PROCESS, WE USUALLY SORT OF -- WHEN WE'RE STARTING AT THE TOP AND SEE WHERE THERE'S THE MOST CONSENSUS, FIVE OF US PICKED IT OR FOUR OF US PICKED IT AND START GOING THROUGH THAT. AND WE OFTEN DON'T GET TO THE BOTTOM. >> CORRECT. >> Howard: SO, I WONDER IF YOU GUYS COULD NOW LOOK AT THE LIST -- BEFORE YOU START ALL THIS IN-DEPTH WORK -- AND -- BECAUSE LIKE THE DIVERSION CENTER, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT MANY TIMES. AND EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT SURE IF THE JUDGE AND I ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT NOTED IT. IT COULD BE THAT WE COULD HAVE A CONVERSATION AND SEE IF THAT'S ONE WE KNOW WE WANT TO COMMIT FUNDING TO. I'M JUST SAYING IT MIGHT BE. OR -- YOU KNOW. >> I WILL SAY WE PURPOSEFULLY DID NOT ORDER THE LIST IN NUMBER OF MARKS, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE WE DO FOR MARKUP, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AT THAT STAGE. RIGHT NOW WE'RE TRYING TO HONE DOWN THE LIST TO WHAT INFORMATION-GATHERING YOU WANTED US TO HAVE AND WE WEREN'T SURE WE WANTED TO INTERPRET IF SOMEONE MARKED IT BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT IT FOR FUNDING OR IF THEY MARKED IT BECAUSE THEY WANTED US TO LOOK AT OTHER FEDERAL FUNDING, FOR EXAMPLE. >> Howard: RIGHT. >> SO WE DIDN'T FEEL THAT THIS LIST -- AND TODAY'S ITEM -- WAS FOR THAT PURPOSE. WE DO FEEL THAT THE SECOND ITERATION, THAT IS ONE WAY THE COURT HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN ABLE TO PRIORITIZE DISCUSSIONS SO THAT YOU CAN USE YOUR TIME WISELY DURING WHATEVER MINI MARKUP WE MIGHT CONSIDER. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, AT THAT POINT, TO KNOW THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING, THAT THE COURT IS CONSIDERING, BECAUSE IF THE NUMBER 1 PROJECT IS -- AND I'M EXAGGERATING AND THERE'S NO NUMBER 1 PROJECT. IF IT WAS $45 MILLION IN ONE-TIME FUNDING YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION IF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE COURT ARE LIKE, THIS IS WHERE WE WANT TO PUT THE DOLLARS. SO, I DO FORESEE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT TIME THAT THE COURT PRIORITIZES WHEN THEY HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FROM US. WE WOULD LIKELY ORDER IT AND GIVE YOU INSTRUCTIONS LIKE WE DO AT MARKUP TO SAY PLEASE DON'T MARK SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS IT FOR FUNDING, BECAUSE THAT ALLOWS THE COURT TO HAVE THAT TOOL TO PRIORITIZE TIME. THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT'S PRIORITIZING IS TIME, BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER, THERE GETS TO A POINT -- I SHOULD SAY TIME AND RESOURCES, BECAUSE FROM GETS TO A POINT WHERE THE RESOURCES ARE GONE AND THERE'S NO USE CONTINUING ON WITH DISCUSSION. THAT'S HOW IT HAS WORKED IN THE PAST. >> AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LIST IS IN THE 30s. SHOULD YOU DECIDE SOME OF THESE PROJECTS MAY NEED TO BE LOOKED AT DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS OR OUTSIDE OF THE LFRF PROCESS, YOU COULD REMOVE IT FROM THE LIST, DIRECT THE DEPARTMENT MOST APPROPRIATE TO SUBMIT IT DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS. RIGHT NOW WE'RE TARGETING SOMETIME IN APRIL BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR FINAL ALLOCATIONS. BUDGETS ARE DUE IN LATE APRIL. IN THE EVENT -- SAY WE COME BACK ON THE 28TH AND YOU REMOVE TEN PROJECTS AND MAYBE 5 OF THE 10 ARE REALLY IMPORTANT. YOU COULD DIRECT THAT THOSE DEPARTMENTS SUBMIT THOSE WITH YOUR BUDGET REQUESTS AND THEN THOSE KEEP GOING. AND THEN THOSE FINAL DECISIONS AREN'T MADE UNTIL SEPTEMBER WHEN WE KNOW THE FINAL REVENUE ESTIMATES. SO THAT'S ONE IDEA. SO JUST -- WE WANT TO GET THIS LIST AS SMALL AS WE CAN SO WE CAN FOCUS ON THE INFORMATION. SOME THINGS, IF THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER PROCESS, WE CAN INCORPORATE THOSE INTO THE BUDGET PROCESS IF YOU WANT TO LOOK -- CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THEM. >> Shea: I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE -- I MEAN, YOU ALL HAVE HAD A CLEAR, I THINK, LARGER VISION FOR A DIVERSION CENTER. I THINK THERE'S BROAD SUPPORT FOR THAT CONCEPT, BUT IT'S A HUGE UNDERTAKING. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE. AND IT WOULD HAVE REALLY SIGNIFICANT ONGOING COST. SO IT'S NOT JUST A ONE-TIME BUILD A BUILDING AND WE SOLVE THE PROBLEM. AND THE PROCESS I WOULD COMPARE THIS TO AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK AT IS THE ONE THAT WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE PUBLIC DEFENDER OFFICE. THERE WAS A FIVE-YEAR PROCESS, AND A COMMITMENT FOR 50% FUNDING FROM THE STATE. SO, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WAVE A MAGIC WAND OR SNAP OUR FINGERS AND CREATE IT. WE REALLY HAVE TO PUT IN SERIOUS TIME. AND I KNOW THAT'S INCREDIBLY FRUSTRATING. WE ARE ALL FRUSTRATED THAT THINGS TAKE SO LONG, BUT THIS IS ONE WHERE I CAN'T RESPONSIBLY SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IN EMERGENCY RENT ASSISTANCE OR FOOD ASSISTANCE, WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT INTO A BUILDING, ONE-TIME FUNDS FOR A BUILDING WHERE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT WILL COST US TO OPERATE OR WHAT IMPACT IT WILL HAVE ON OUR OVERALL PROCESSES. HOPEFULLY, THIS KIND OF EFFORT WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SHIFT THE FOCUS FOR OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE FROM MOSTLY INCARCERATION, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE GOOD PROGRAMS THAT EXIST NOW. BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT A REALLY SERIOUS PLANNING EFFORT. AND IT TAKES TIME. AND WE HAVEN'T BEGUN THAT. >> Judge Brown: I AGREE. ANY AMOUNT THAT WE GET FROM ARPA WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR THE ONGOING FUNDING AND PROGRAMMING, DIVERSION CENTER, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. >> WHAT WE DID -- THE PLAN -- THERE WASN'T A FIVE-YEAR PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE, BUT THERE WAS A FIVE-YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS. SO THAT ALLOWED US TO TRY TO GET FROM 0 TO $15 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS AND WE DID THAT BY BUDGETING $3 MILLION A YEAR. >> Shea: BEFORE THAT IMPLEMENTATION -- >> THERE WAS A LOT OF PLANNING, YOU'RE RIGHT. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE WAY WE MADE IT WORK WAS DOING IT SLOWLY OVER TIME, BECAUSE IT'S EASIER FOR US TO FIND 2 OR $3 MILLION THAN $15 MILLION IN ONE YEAR. SO THAT'S JUST ONE STRATEGY. THERE'S OTHER STRATEGIES, BUT FOR BIG PROJECTS, THAT'S ONE WAY TO DO IT. >> Travillion: BUT THAT'S A CRITICAL POINT. THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED ACROSS THE BOARD. THE QUESTION, HOW DO WE OPERATIONALIZE THOSE IDEAS. AND MOST PROJECTS, YOU CAN'T COMPLETE COMPREHENSIVELY IN A YEAR. WHAT ARE THE PRIORITIES FOR SETTING PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND LOOKING AT WHAT -- INCREMENTS GO FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD. SO, SETTING PRIORITIES FOR WHAT WILL BE DONE FIRST, OPERATIONALIZING THOSE PLANS, AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT BY THE TIME WE WORK THROUGH THAT OPERATIONAL PROCESS WE'VE PLANNED FOR AND FIGURED OUT A WAY TO FUND THE FOLLOWING. >> Judge Brown: THAT MAKES GREAT SENSE. THAT'S ONE REASON WHY SOME COURT MEMBERS HAVE BEEN VISITING OTHER DIVERSION CENTERS TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT ASPECTS OF EACH MODEL MIGHT WORK HERE. >> Shea: THAT'S A GREAT PROCESS, BUT IT'S A LONG PROCESS. >> Judge Brown: AS LONG AS WE'RE THROWING THINGS OUT, ON THE $8 MILLION FROM LFRF, I KNOW -- FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT -- NOT IN THE LFRF, MAYBE WE NEED TO LUMP IT IN WITH THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I, TOO, THINK IT WAS SORT OF SOMETHING MADE LONGER AGO THAT WE MAY NEED TO RELOOK AT LEAST PART OF IT TO HELP WITH THESE EXPENSES. ALL RIGHT, COURT MEMBERS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ANYTHING ELSE? WE'VE GIVEN DIRECTION ON SEVERAL THINGS. >> WE DO HAVE A CALLER ON THIS ITEM WHENEVER YOU ARE READY. >> Judge Brown: YEAH. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO TO CALLERS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SHELBY, GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU. WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM ZENOBIA JOSEPH. ZENOBIA, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, I'M ZENOBIA JOSEPH. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS ON ITEM 12, THE INITIAL PRIORITIES TO ALLOCATE THE REMAINING $45 MILLION. I DIDN'T HEAR ANYWHERE IN YOUR DISCUSSION COMMUNITY PRIORITIES AND WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHICH OF THESE PRIORITIES RECEIVED PUBLIC INPUT. I'M SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT EVICTION PREVENTION. YOU HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IT. I DO REALIZE YOU MENTIONED THAT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IS FULLY FUNDED. I WOULD LIKE FOR STAFF TO TALK TO VOLUNTEER LEGAL SERVICES HOUSING ATTORNEY CARL GUTHRIE, AND NELSON FROM TEXAS RIO GRANDE LEGAL AID TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY STAFF ATTORNEYS IN THE COURT BEFORE THE INDIVIDUAL FIND HIM OR HERSELF ON APPEAL. I WOULD ALSO ASK YOU TO REVISIT, WHICH YOU'VE NEVER DISCUSSED, PAYING THE RENT INTO THE COURT REGISTRY. I TOLD YOU ABOUT THE EMAIL I GOT FROM YOUR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY. AND I ASKED FOR CHAPTER 272 OF YOUR BASIC NEEDS ASSISTANCE POLICY TO BE REVISED. I WOULD CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION SPECIFICALLY LAST WEEK YOU TALKED ABOUT ITEM 5, WHICH GAVE $80,000 FOR 23 FAMILIES AT RISK OF EVICTION. YOU'RE USING THE FEDERAL FUNDING THROUGH THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT AND I JUST WANT TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FROM THE TREASURY, WHICH SPECIFIES THAT IF A LANDLORD DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM, THE ONLY WAY TO ACHIEVE THE STATUTORY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE DIRECTLY TO THE HOUSEHOLD. AND IT SPECIFIES THAT DIRECT PAYMENT TO TENANTS IS REQUIRED. SO I'M ASKING YOU TO AMEND YOUR RULES. I WILL ADDRESS MY CONCERNS TO DIRECTOR SCHNEIDER-PAGE WITH THE CIVIL RIGHTS OFFICE. AND IT'S crcomplaints@treasury.gov. I ASK THE COURT TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND CONSIDER TRANSPORTATION, AND CONSIDER GETTING A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS TO RUN TRANSPORTATION FROM THE EXPO CENTER TO MANOR AND THEN EAST-WEST ON PALMER LANE WITH A STOP AT THE PARKING LOT. THAT WOULD EXPAND TRANSPORTATION. AND I JUST WANT YOU TO RECOGNIZE YOU GAVE $400,000 TO THE ASIAN CENTER WITHOUT ANY KIND OF COMPETITION. THAT WAS A NO-BID CONTRACT, BUT YOU HAVE DATA THAT TELLS YOU AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE SIX TIMES MORE LIKELY TO BECOME HOMELESS IN AUSTIN AND YOU HAVE YET TO DIVERT ANY MONEY TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF BLACK PEOPLE, WHO ARE ON THE STREETS. AND SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO USE THE DATA FROM E.C.H.O., JULY 1ST, 2022, THEIR REPORT, AND ALSO THE JULY 17TH, 2015, AUSTIN CHRONICLE COLLATERAL DAMAGE ASSESSING THE COST OF MINORITY VETERANS, WHICH TALKS ABOUT BLACK VETERANS BEING DISPROPORTIONATELY HOMELESS AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL GLADLY ANSWER THEM, BUT JUST WANT YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT TEXAS RIO GRANDE LEGAL AID, ELIGIBILITY IS $24,000, IN 2022 -- >> THAT IS THREE MINUTES. >> YOU'RE LEAVING OUT A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME -- >> Judge Brown: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER CALLERS, SHELBY? >> NOT AT THIS TIME, JUDGE. >> Shea: JUST FOR A POINT OF INFORMATION, WE HAVE FUNDED ATTORNEYS WITH TEXAS RIO GRANDE LEGAL AID SPECIFICALLY TO DO WHAT MS. JOSEPH MENTIONED, TO PROVIDE LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN THE JP COURTS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE FACING EVICTION. SO WE HAVE FUNDED THAT AND THAT PROGRAM IS UNDER WAY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STAFFED AS FULLY AS IT NEEDS TO BE, BUT IT IS UNDER WAY. >> Judge Brown: ALL RIGHT. Y'ALL GOOD? OKAY. >> APPRECIATE IT. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. UP NEXT IS ITEM 21, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON BUDGET SHORTFALLS IN TNR'S CENTRAL FLEET SERVICES RELATED TO NEW VEHICLE PURCHASES. WE'VE GOT CHUCK GREER AND CHUCK SCHOENFELD FOR A BRIEFING. >> GOOD MORNING, I'M DAVID GREEAR, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, TNR. AND CHUCK IS OUR FLEET DIRECTOR. AND WE ARE HERE TO DISCUSS A BUDGET SHORTFALL WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IN OUR FLEET. AS YOU KNOW, NEW VEHICLE PRICES HAVE INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE LAST YEAR. THERE'S A LOT OF INCREASES IN RAW MATERIALS, CHIP SUPPLY SHORTAGES, THERE'S -- DELIVERY CHARGES HAVE GONE UP. THERE'S ALSO BEEN A LOT OF DEMAND FOR NEW VEHICLES AND A LOW SUPPLY, AS WELL AS JUST GENERAL INFLATION FACTORS THAT WE'VE ENCOUNTERED. WHEN WE DO THE BUDGET FOR A FLEET, WE TYPICALLY ANTICIPATE -- WE GET COSTS FOR VEHICLES -- WE ANTICIPATE A 6% INCREASE OVER THE YEAR JUST IN CASE THE PRICES DO GO UP. WE BUDGETED NUMBERS BASED ON THAT CRITERIA. WE HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE MORE THAN HALFWAY THROUGH OUR BUDGET, I GUESS OUR FLEET PURCHASING. AND WE'VE NOTICED -- WE HAVE IDENTIFIED TRENDS AND INCREASED COSTS ALREADY. WE'VE ALSO GOT INCREASED COST ANTICIPATED FOR THE REST OF THE FLEET THAT WE HAVE TO PURCHASE. WE ARE SEEING ON AVERAGE ABOUT A 15% INCREASE IN COST COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED. AND SO WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE $1.7 MILLION TRANSFER FROM C.A.R. TO COVER THE SHORTFALL TO CONTINUE PURCHASING THE REST OF THE VEHICLES THAT WE NEED TO. >> I WOULD ADD, WE HAVE A BUDGET [ INDISCERNIBLE ] THAT'S RELATED TO THIS. >> Judge Brown: THANKS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER GOMEZ, COMMISSIONER SHEA? >> Shea: I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS ITEM, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT USED CAR VALUES HAVE INCREASED PRETTY DRAMATICALLY BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY WITH GETTING NEW CARS. ARE WE GETTING ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM THE SALES OR LEASE BACK OR WHATEVER IT IS WE'RE DOING WITH THE EXISTING CARS WE HAVE THAT WE WOULD BE SELLING OR RETURNING FROM LEASING? ARE WE SEEING ANY REVENUE? >> I COULD ASK CHUCK. >> I WILL SAY THAT WE'RE AUCTIONING THEM OFF, SO THE RETURN, ESPECIALLY ON TAHOES, SUVs, HAS INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY COMPARED TO WHAT IT WAS TWO YEARS AGO OR A YEAR AGO. THE TAHOE IS A VERY HIGH-DEMAND VEHICLE, SO WE'RE GETTING GOOD AUCTION MONEY ON THOSE. SO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES. TO GIVE YOU A PERCENTAGE, I WASN'T READY FOR THAT. >> Shea: I'LL SUPPORT THIS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME ACCOUNTING FOR INCREASED REVENUE FROM THE SALES OF THE VEHICLES AND IF THAT CAN HELP OFFSET THESE FUTURE COSTS, BECAUSE I PRESUME THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW. >> TRAVIS GATLIN. WE DISCUSSED, MAYBE WE SHOULD DELAY PURCHASES. WE DECIDED ON IF WE DELAY THEM THERE'S MORE MILEAGE ON THE VEHICLES, MORE COST, MORE MAINTENANCE, WE GET LESS IN RETURN WHEN WE SELL THEM. IF WE BUY THESE NEXT YEAR, THEY'LL LIKELY BE EVEN MORE. BUT WE CAN WORK WITH TNR AND THE PURCHASING OFFICE AND HIGHLIGHT, MAYBE DO A COMPARISON OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE SELLING ON AVERAGE WITH THIS MUCH MILEAGE COMPARED TO A YEAR OR TWO AGO. WE CAN WORK WITH -- >> Shea: I'M SPECIFICALLY INTERESTED IN THE INCREASED REVENUE WE'RE GETTING FROM THE SALE OF THE USED -- >> I GET YOU. I UNDERSTAND. YEAH. >> Shea: THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION. >> Travillion: YOU KNOW, AT ONE TIME WE ASKED FOR AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN TO THE OPERATION IF WE LEASED VEHICLES INSTEAD OF PURCHASED VEHICLES. I'M WONDERING, GIVEN THE RELATIVE COST INCREASES, SHOULD WE LOOK AT THAT ANALYSIS AGAIN TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT MIGHT CREATE SAVINGS, NEWER VEHICLES, LESS MAINTENANCE COST FOR US, ETC. JUST WANT TO DO THE ANALYSIS TO MAKE SURE THAT PURCHASING AND MAINTAINING IS GOING TO BE BETTER FOR OUR BUDGET THAN LEASING AND NOT HAVING TO TAKE THE MAINTENANCE FEES AND THEN NOT HAVE TO SELL VEHICLES LATER, BECAUSE WE'RE SWITCHING OUT FOR NEW VEHICLES PERIODICALLY. >> WE CAN DUST THAT OFF. I THINK OUR CHALLENGE WAS A COUPLE THINGS. ONE, RIGHT NOW IF WE NEEDED TO ISSUE, YOU KNOW, TAX-EXEMPT DEBT FOR VEHICLES, WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT, WHERE LEASE VEHICLES FALL UNDER THE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS BUDGET. THAT WOULD BE LESS MONEY FOR THE PROGRAMS. WHAT WE DO IS USE ONE-TIME EXCESS CASH AND FUND THE VEHICLES THAT WAY RATHER THAN LEASING THEM. SO THERE'S -- FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE, IT'S BEEN BETTER TO DO WHAT WE DO, BECAUSE WE TYPICALLY CASH FUND THEM. WE DON'T PAY INTEREST ON THAT. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTROL OVER IT. BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO DUST IT OFF AGAIN. AND IF AT SOME POINT IT MAKES SENSE OR MAKES SENSE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THEN LET'S CONTINUE TO EXPLORE IT. THE REVENUE CAPS HAVE CHALLENGED US TO PUSH CAPITAL ITEMS TO USE ONE-TIME CASH TO PRESERVE THE 3.5% GROWTH THAT WE HAVE ON THE MAINTENANCE SIDE. LET'S LOOK AT IT. >> Travillion: WE DO THE THINGS THAT ARE BEST FOR THE COUNTY AND WE CONTINUE THE ANALYSIS. THERE IS A TIPPING POINT WHERE ANOTHER STRATEGY MAKES SENSE -- >> LET'S KEEP CHALLENGING OUR ASSUMPTIONS. >> Gomez: DO WE APPROVE THIS HERE, OR ON NUMBER 9? >> YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE BUDGET FOR THIS UNDER NUMBER 9. IF YOU WANT TO GIVE US DIRECTION UNDER THIS THAT YOU'RE OKAY WITH THIS PLAN AND NOT TO DELAY THE VEHICLE PURCHASES, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. BUT I DON'T THINK ANY ACTION -- THE ACTION REALLY IS GOING TO BE PART OF NUMBER 9. >> Judge Brown: COMMISSIONER HOWARD, ANY QUESTIONS? I HAD ONE. I KNOW COMMISSIONER SHEA AND I -- I'M SURE EVERYBODY ARE SUPPORTERS OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN THE FLEET. I THINK I HAD A CONVERSATION ONE TIME WITH CYNTHIA ABOUT HOW WE HAD A CONTRACT FOR SOME THINGS, AND THEN THE PRICE INCREASED FOR SOME ELECTRIC -- HOW DOES THAT WORK? HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM IF I WALK INTO A DEALERSHIP, MAKE A CONTRACT TO BUY IT, I DON'T THINK THEY CAN INCREASE IT. HOW CAN THEY INCREASE OUR COSTS? >> I CAN TALK TO THAT, YES. SO, WE BUDGET IN MARCH. WE HAVE OUR NUMBERS IN MARCH. UP UNTIL THIS YEAR, THE MANUFACTURERS HAVE TRIED TO STAY WITHIN THAT PRICE, GIVE OR TAKE A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE OF THE CHIP SHORTAGE, THEY'VE TOLD US WE'RE GOING TO CANCEL YOUR 2022 F1S, WE'LL BUILD THEM IN 2023, BUT IT'S AN $8,000 PRICE INCREASE. SO THEY BROKE THE CONTRACT. THEY CANCELLED IT. WE CAN'T BUILD YOUR VEHICLES, WE HAVE NO CONTRACT NO MORE, BUT WE'LL BE GLAD TO BUILD YOUR VEHICLES IN 2023. WE'LL PUT THEM IN FIRST. WE WANT YOU TO HAVE THEM. BUT IT'S GOING TO COST YOU 8,000 MORE. ALONG WITH THE PRICE INCREASES, AS TIME HAS GONE OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, PROBABLY SINCE COVID I GUESS WOULD BE A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT, THEY JUST KEEP CONTINUING. IT'S GOING UP. SO I GOT A PHONE CALL YESTERDAY FOR SOME QUOTES I GOT ON DECEMBER 1ST, PRICE QUOTE. SO IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A DEAL IN PLACE, WHICH SOME VEHICLES THEY DON'T BECAUSE WE WERE WAITING TO SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT, WE WILL HAVE A SMALL PRICE INCREASE IN THE QUOTES. I HAVE TO GET NEW QUOTES BEFORE I BUY THE VEHICLES. BUT GENERALLY THE MANUFACTURERS HAVE ALWAYS DONE THAT DECEMBER 1ST, THEY'VE ALWAYS GONE UP. SO THEY'VE GONE UP 15% PLUS NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER PRICE INCREASE TO DEAL WITH. RIGHT NOW, THAT'S THE BUSINESS. THEY KNOW THAT YOU NEED THEM. THEY KNOW THERE'S NOT MANY OUT THERE. AND BASICALLY, IF WE WANT THEM, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THEM. >> THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE THINGS THAT MAY HELP US. COMMISSIONER SHEA TALKED ABOUT WAYS WE CAN OFFSET THIS. ONE, THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT WILL PROVIDE RESOURCES THAT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE FOR PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES. WE PURCHASE THEM IN THAT TIMELINE, WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET REIMBURSEMENT FOR THOSE. THERE'S A SMALL GRANT THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET AUTOMATICALLY. I THINK IT'S FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FOR ABOUT $300,000. AND YOU CAN EITHER PUT IT TOWARDS FUTURE ENERGY COST SAVING MEASURES -- I THINK YOU CAN REIMBURSE YOURSELF FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES. SO, AGAIN, $1.7 MILLION, WE CAN'T BRIDGE THAT GAP. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- EVERYTHING COSTS MORE. BUT THERE'S SOME SMALL THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO GRAB SOME SAVINGS. >> Judge Brown: WHAT YOU MENTIONED WITH THE INFLATION REDUCTION ACT, I THINK THE CITY IS ALREADY -- MAYBE IT'S THAT THEY'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF TO HELP ELECTRIFY THEIR FLEET. WE'RE ALSO DOING THAT? >> WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THAT. THAT'S JUST GETTING IMPLEMENTED AND IT PROVIDES INCENTIVES FOR ELIGIBLE VEHICLES AND PFM IS OUR FINANCIAL ADVISER AND THEY HAVE A TEAM LOOKING AT THIS. WE'VE HAD SOME CONSULTING WITH THEM ALREADY ON THIS, SO WE'LL BE WORKING -- AND THERE'S OTHER ENERGY PROJECTS THAT MAY OFFER SOME SAVINGS. THE ACT IS PRETTY COMPLICATED, BUT I THINK THE SIMPLEST ONE IS WE'LL GET SOME HELP FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES. >> Judge Brown: CAN YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE ON HOW THE ELECTRIC FORD TRUCK, THE LIGHTNING IS WORKING? IT SEEMS AMAZING AND SEEMS LIKE IT'S A GOOD THING THAT WE SHOULD SWITCH OVER TO. >> WE'VE HAD SOME EVENTS, IF YOU WILL. EVERYBODY THAT'S DRIVEN IT HAS BEEN LIKE, WOW, THIS THING IS COOL. SO THAT'S A POSITIVE BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT BUYING THEM, EVERYBODY WAS LIKE, I DON'T WANT AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE. THAT'S WORKED OUT WELL FOR US. WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH TO SIX WEEKS WE'RE GOING TO START LOANING IT OUT TO DIFFERENT DIVISIONS, LET THEM DRIVE IT FOR A MONTH OR SO. AND SO FAR, EVERYBODY THAT'S USED IT HAS RAVED ABOUT HOW GREAT IT IS. MEANWHILE, WE'RE BUILDING CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE AT LOCATIONS SO WE CAN KEEP THEM CHARGED AS WE GET THEM, AND WE ALSO HAVE PUT A PURCHASE ORDER IN FOR CHARGE POINT CARDS. SO THEY'LL HAVE CHARGE CARDS, SO IF THEY NEED TO CHARGE ON A PUBLIC CHARGER, THEY CAN. BUT I EXPECT ONCE PEOPLE START DRIVING THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO ALL WANT THEM. YOU DROVE IT. >> Judge Brown: YEAH, IT'S AMAZING. >> DRIVES GOOD. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU. >> Shea: YEAH. >> Judge Brown: ALL RIGHT. SO WE WON'T TAKE ACTION NOW, WE'LL TAKE THAT UP NEXT, ITEM 9. >> Shea: CAN I JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID, CHUCK THIS DID YOU SAY ON THE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE ARE EXPANDING AT THE COUNTY WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE AS MUCH PUBLIC CHARGING OPTIONS WITH THAT? >> WE'RE DOING BOTH, COMMISSIONER SHEA, BEHIND THE FENCE -- AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LARGE FLEET. >> Shea: WE'LL HAVE MORE NEED. >> WE STARTED AT SOUTHEAST METRO THREE WEEKS AGO AND TALKED ABOUT PUTTING PUBLIC CHARGING STATIONS BY THE SOCCER FIELDS ALONG WITH THEIR BEHIND THE FENCE CHARGER. IT'S A SLOW PROCESS, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON IT. >> Travillion: JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION -- SO, NOW, THE 21 IS THE WHAT, AND 9 IS THE NOW. SO ARE WE NOW VOTING ON 21? >> Judge Brown: I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO, JUST GENERAL GUIDANCE THAT WE'RE ON BOARD WITH IT, I GUESS. AND THEN 9 WE'LL VOTE TO -- >> Gomez: 9 IS FOR THE GRANTS. >> Travillion: THAT'S FINE, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT SAYING DON'T DO -- WE WERE NOT TELLING THEM NOT TO GO FORWARD. >> Judge Brown: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. OKAY. SO THANK Y'ALL VERY MUCH. THANKS FOR YOUR WORK. ITEM 9, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON BUDGET AMENDMENTS, TRANSFERS, AND DISCUSSION ITEMS. >> GOOD MORNING JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, AGAIN, THERE ARE SEVERAL ITEMS. LET ME JUST BRIEFLY WALK THEM THROUGH. THE FIRST ONE IS ITEM A1, THE $1.7 MILLION WE JUST TALKED ABOUT COMING FROM THE C.A.R. RESERVE TO INCREASE THE EXISTING BUDGET SO TNR CAN PURCHASE THE VEHICLES AS THEY JUST DISCUSSED WITH YOU. ITEM A2, $64,131 FOR A VEHICLE THAT WAS DECLARED A TOTAL LOSS LAST YEAR. WE SET THE BUDGET UP, BUT AS A PART OF THE END OF YEAR PROCESS THERE WAS A MIXUP AND THE FUNDS DIDN'T GET CARRIED FORWARD. THEY FELL TO THE ENDING FUND BALANCE. WE'RE REQUESTING TO ESSENTIALLY RE-BUDGET THOSE FUNDS AGAIN AND TAKE THAT FROM THE C.A.R. ALLOCATED RESERVE. ITEM A3 IS FOR $8,805 FROM THE JUSTICE COURT TECHNOLOGY FUND THAT'S SET UP SPECIFICALLY FOR TECHNOLOGY NEEDS OF THE JP COURTS. AND IT'S FOR THEM TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH PCI, WHICH IS CREDIT CARD TECHNOLOGY, MAKING SURE THAT THE DATA BEING SHARED IS SECURE. ITEM A4 IS FOR . . . LET'S SEE HERE, $1,779,228. THIS IS UNFORTUNATELY A BUDGETING ERROR RELATED TO THE INTERLOCAL WITH THE CITY EMS. LAST YEAR TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR AFTER WE HAD GIVEN EMS THEIR BASE BUDGETS, THE COURT APPROVED THE 2020 EMS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND IT REQUIRED THAT $1.8 MILLION. THOSE FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE INTERLOCAL RESERVE TO DEPARTMENTS AND THAT AGREEMENT WAS FULLY BUDGETED. WHAT WE DIDN'T DO WAS MAKE THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS TO THIS YEAR'S BUDGET TO BUDGET THOSE FUNDS. SO THEY ARE SHORT. I APOLOGIZE. WE'RE WORKING ON STRATEGIES SO THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. THAT INCLUDES WHENEVER WE MEET AND WE TALK ABOUT TODAY'S BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT IMPLICATIONS FOR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AND MAKING THOSE CHANGES THERE. SO FOR THAT I APOLOGIZE, BUT THAT IS NEEDED SO WE CAN PAY THE AGREEMENT THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. AND FUND TRANSFER 8, THAT'S JUST BUDGETING PARK FEE REVENUE FOR TRAVIS COUNTY PARKS THAT ARE PARTNERED WITH THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY LCA PARKS. AND WE DO THAT ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, SO YOU'VE SEEN THAT MANY TIMES. LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE $80,000 COMMITMENT THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT MADE TO HELP THOSE 23 FAMILIES. THAT WAS DISCUSSED BRIEFLY LAST WEEK. WE WANTED TO FOLLOW UP AND SAY WE CAN USE THE LFRF. THERE'S NO ISSUES. AND WE'RE JUST APPROVING THE BUDGET. AND WE'RE TAKING THOSE FUNDS FROM A LITTLE BIT OF SAVINGS WITHIN THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE BUDGET. AGAIN, YOU'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE CONCEPT, THIS IS JUST MAKING IT OFFICIAL THAT WE CAN ALLOCATE THE FUNDS AS YOU WANTED AND AS WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. >> Gomez: AND LET ME RAISE AN ISSUE HERE. AND IT'S NOT THAT I OBJECT TO THE FAMILIES BEING SUPPORTED AND HELPED. HOWEVER, THE CITY OF AUSTIN IS NOT THE ONLY CITY IN TRAVIS COUNTY. THERE ARE 20 OTHER CITIES. AND WHAT IF THEY COME TO US TO HELP WITH THEIR FAMILIES? I THINK WE WOULD BE KIND OF OBLIGATED TO DO THAT AS WELL. AND WE'VE BEEN DOWN THAT ROAD BEFORE. >> Shea: AND ACTUALLY, WE HAVE BEEN HELPING THEM ALL THROUGHOUT THE PANDEMIC WITH THE FEDERAL RELIEF. AND STAFF HAS A MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE A LOT OF THOSE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS WERE PROVIDED. BUT I'VE ASKED OUR BUDGET STAFF TO COMPILE THE RENTAL ASSISTANCE, THE FOOD ASSISTANCE, THE UTILITY ASSISTANCE, THE SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE, AND DO IT BY ADDRESS PER EACH OF THE 19 SMALL CITIES WITHIN TRAVIS COUNTY SO WE CAN GIVE THEM AN ACCOUNTING OF HOW MUCH THE COUNTY HAS HELPED THEIR RESIDENTS. WE'VE DONE A LOT OF HELP. AND I THINK WE MAY NOT FULLY APPRECIATE HOW MUCH WE'VE HELPED THOSE SMALL CITIES. >> Gomez: SURE, BUT I WANT TO SAY THERE'S MORE THAN ONE CITY IN TRAVIS COUNTY. AND THEY'RE ALL OUR CONSTITUENTS. >> Travillion: THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE WHEN WE USE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DOLLARS THAT WE KNOW THE ZIP CODE AREA THAT THE PERSON LIVES IN, THAT THE PERSON WORKS IN, THAT WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE INVESTING AND COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY. SO I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CONTINUE, TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN, TO KNOW WHERE WE'RE INVESTING AND WHAT WE'RE INVESTING THERE SO THAT WE CAN ULTIMATELY GET TO OUTCOMES. >> Gomez: I MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM 9. >> Travillion: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GOMEZ, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION FOR APPROVAL. ANY DISCUSSION? AND WE HAVE NO CALLERS ON IT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANKS, TRAVIS. ITEM 24, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS REGARDING THE 2023 BOND REFERENDUM, PART A. APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZENS BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 2023 TRAVIS COUNTY BOND REFERENDUM, B. PROVIDE CHARGE TO CITIZENS BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE. >> GOOD MORNING, CYNTHIA McDONALD, TRAVIS COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES. WE'RE HERE FOR TWO THINGS WITH REGARD TO THE 2023 BOND. THAT IS TO ASK THE COURT TO MAKE A SELECTION ON THEIR CITIZENS BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH WE REFER TO AS THE CBAC, AND THEN ALSO TO APPROVE THE CHARTER, WHICH IS BASICALLY YOUR CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABOUT WHAT THEIR DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES WILL BE WITH REGARD TO THE 2023 BOND. AND THAT IS REALLY THE SELECTION -- OR AT LEAST THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE FOR PROJECTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE BOND REFERENDUM. THERE ARE SOME THINGS I BELIEVE WE NEED TO CLARIFY, JUDGE. >> Judge Brown: LET'S DO THAT FIRST. >> MHMM. >> Judge Brown: 24B, WHEN WE TOOK THIS UP LAST TIME, I THINK MY MEMORY -- AND I BELIEVE WHAT WE DID WAS WE STATED THAT EACH MEMBER OF COURT WOULD NOMINATE TWO OR THREE MEMBERS TO THE CBAC. I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT JUST SO THAT EACH MEMBER CAN NOMINATE TWO OR THREE MEMBERS. I GUESS IT WAS TWO TO THREE? >> I RECALL TWO TO THREE MEMBERS AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE DISTRIBUTED AND WHO'S -- >> Judge Brown: CAN WE JUST SAY THREE MEMBERS EACH? >> HISTORICALLY YOU'VE DONE THREE MEMBERS PER COURT MEMBER, YES. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. SO THAT'S ONE CLARIFICATION, IS LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY EACH COURT MEMBER CAN APPOINT THREE MEMBERS. AND THEN WE ALSO SAID THAT -- LET'S SEE. WE WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAY 16TH, 2023, WHICH IS A LITTLE TOO AGGRESSIVE, I GUESS, AND SO WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT TO SAY THAT THE CBAC BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS SOMETIME BETWEEN MAY AND JULY OF 2023. SO THAT WOULD BE LIKELY JUNE. >> NO LATER THAN MID-JULY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE OUR STAFF DEADLINES FOR POSTING AND GET ALL OUR WORDING THROUGH WITH THE BOND COUNCIL AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. SO NO LATER THAN MID-JULY. ANYTIME BEFORE THEN, IF THEY ARE READY TO COME, THEY ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO COURT. AND THEN ALSO WITH REGARD TO THE CHAIR. >> Judge Brown: YEAH, AND THEN, SO THAT, I THINK THE FIRST MOTION WAS THAT THE JUDGE WOULD SELECT THE CHAIR, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM SOME FOLKS WHO WERE INVOLVED LAST TIME. >> Howard: I MADE THAT MOTION. >> Judge Brown: BUT WE ADOPTED THE CBAC WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THAT, IN THE SECOND VOTE OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW, THERE WAS SOME CONFLICT IN A VOTE WE TOOK AFTER THAT. >> Shea: IN THE PAST, WE'VE LET THE ADVISORY CHOOSE THEIR OWN LEADERSHIP. >> Judge Brown: THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. >> Shea: HOW DO YOU KNOW? WE HAVEN'T EVEN PICKED THE MEMBERS YET. >> Judge Brown: THE MOTION WE APPROVED WAS I WOULD SELECT THE CHAIR. AND THAT WAS -- >> Shea: I OFFERED A SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT WHICH I THOUGHT PASSED, WHICH RECOMMENDED WE FOLLOW THE PREVIOUS -- >> Judge Brown: THEY BOTH PASSED BECAUSE IT WAS A MOTION THAT PASSED FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD, AND THEN YOUR MOTION ALSO PASSED. >> Shea: I THOUGHT MINE WAS A SUBSTITUTE. >> Judge Brown: AND SO -- >> Howard: I -- TODAY, CAN WE MAKE A NEW MOTION TODAY AND CLARIFY? MY MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE ALLOW THE JUDGE TO APPOINT THE CHAIR TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS FOR THE CBAC. AND THEN THEY CAN SELECT IF THEY NEED ONE, A VICE CHAIR. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S -- >> Shea: WHO DO YOU WANT TO PICK AS CHAIR? >> Judge Brown: CLAYMORE. >> Shea: HE DID A GREAT JOB. >> Howard: HE WASN'T THE CHAIR LAST TIME. >> Shea: HE WAS A CO-CHAIR, I THOUGHT, WITH RON. >> Howard: NO, HE WAS THE VICE CHAIR. >> Judge Brown: SO THAT WAS THE REQUEST WE RECEIVED, SO IS THERE A SECOND TO COMMISSIONER HOWARD'S -- >> Gomez: WANTS TO BE CHAIR? >> Judge Brown: JOHN LANGMORE. >> Gomez: OH, OKAY. YEAH. >> Shea: I'M FINE WITH THAT. I'LL SECOND. >> Judge Brown: SO A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD, A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA FOR THAT TO SAY THAT THE JUDGE WILL SELECT THE CHAIR, AND WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION THAT THAT WILL BE JOHN LANGMORE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? >> Shea: AND IT WILL BE THREE PER -- >> Judge Brown: THREE PER COMMISSIONER, SO I THINK -- I'M APPOINTING THREE, PLUS THE CHAIR. >> SO, TYPICALLY YOU GUYS HAVE HAD AN ODD NUMBER TO, YOU KNOW, HELP WITH -- >> Shea: IF YOU GET FOUR, THAT MAKES IT AN EVEN NUMBER. >> WHATEVER YOU DECIDE. I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER WITH AN ODD NUMBER. >> Judge Brown: I AGREE. I NEED TWO PLUS THE CHAIR AND EVERYONE ELSE WOULD DO THREE. SO IS THAT FRIENDLY TO YOUR MOTION, WE INCORPORATE ALL OF THAT IN THERE? >> IT IS. >> Judge Brown: JUNE OF 2023 -- JULY OF 2023 AS THE VERY LAST POSSIBLE DATE THEY CAN COME BACK TO US WITH A PREFERENCE THAT THEY COME IN JUNE, AND FINALLY EACH COURT MEMBER APPOINTS THREE. >> Shea: AND THAT WILL COME BACK TO THE COURT FOR US TO FINALIZE THE SELECTION OF OUR PEOPLE? >> Judge Brown: I THINK THAT'S NEXT. >> Howard: WE'RE DOING THAT TODAY. >> WE'RE DOING THE SELECTION TODAY. >> Shea: SO THAT'S PART OF THIS MOTION? >> Judge Brown: NO. THIS MOTION DEALS WITH JUST THOSE QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S FOLKS HAD, BASICALLY. THIS CLARIFIES THOSE PAST THINGS, AND THEN NEXT WE CAN DO THE ACTUAL MEMBERS OF IT. >> Shea: SO THIS IS A? OR THIS IS B? >> Judge Brown: THIS IS B. >> I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT, IN B, THAT THERE WERE CHANGES THAT I MADE AND I THINK I HIGHLIGHTED THOSE CHANGES FOR YOU WITH REGARD TO THE CHARTER, ONE MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT MORE GENERIC IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS AND ALSO OMITTING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE SELECTION OF THE CHAIR BY THE COMMITTEE, SIMPLY BECAUSE ADMINISTRATIVELY THE COURT HAS ALWAYS WANTED TO DELIBERATE THAT. AND SO I THINK FROM A DOCUMENT STANDPOINT IT CAPTURES WHAT YOUR CHARGE IS. AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CHARTER. AND THEN THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT I ALSO WANTED YOU GUYS TO BE AWARE OF. I ADDED THE LANGUAGE ABOUT BEING OPEN -- SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. WE DO -- IN THE LAST ONE WE RECORDED AND WE ALSO POSTED ON THE WEBSITE THE MEETINGS. ALSO, GETTING THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ATTEND REGULARLY AND PARTICIPATE IN THE PUBLIC MEETINGS. THEY HAVE BEEN, JUST NOT SPELLED OUT EXPLICITLY IN THE CHARTER, SO I ADDED THAT LANGUAGE. AND THEN FURTHER DOWN UNDER ITEM 6 IS TO DO THE SPECIFIC OUTREACH TO THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY'RE MAKING. AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT STAFF DOING THAT. WE CAN CERTAINLY ASSIST WITH THOSE. BUT I THINK BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION IS COMING FROM THE COMMITTEE, THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD BE THE ONES TO HEAR AND CONSIDER THE FEEDBACK FROM THOSE PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOODS IN ADDITION TO WHAT STAFF IS PROVIDING THEM WITH. >> Judge Brown: COMMISSIONER SHEA. >> Shea: JUDGE, THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD I'D SAY UNFORTUNATE PUSHBACK FROM COMMUNITIES WHERE THE BOND PROJECTS WERE LITERALLY INTENDED AS PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY MEASURES, ADDING ADDITIONAL EVACUATION ROUTES SO THAT COMMUNITIES WEREN'T BASICALLY CAUGHT IN BOTTLENECKS AS A RESULT OF OLD SUBDIVISION DESIGN CONCEPTS. SO, THAT PIECE OF IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. HOW WILL WE STAFF THE COMMITTEE? BECAUSE VOLUNTEERS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF THIS WORK IN THE COMMUNITY BY THEMSELVES. >> OH, THIS WOULD BE IN CONJUNCTION WITH STAFF, BUT THEY ARE THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE -- YOU KNOW, THE WAY THE COMMITTEE OPERATES, I THINK THEY'RE THE ONES THAT SHOULD BE TALKING TO THE COMMITTEE. SINCE THEY'RE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATIONS BEFORE THEY MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE SHOULD HAVE THEM VISIT WITH THOSE SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY BRING TO YOU AS A RECOMMENDATION, THAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH AND WE AS STAFF CAN -- >> Shea: I AGREE. >> Gomez: THAT WAS DONE LAST TIME. THE COMMITTEE WENT TO THE DIFFERENT PRECINCTS TO HAVE A HEARING. THEY KIND OF HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONVERSE WITH PEOPLE AND TELL THEM WHERE THEY WERE COMING FROM ON THESE BOND PROJECTS. SO THERE WAS AN EXCHANGE THERE BETWEEN THE -- >> Shea: THERE WAS, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE MORE ROBUST, BECAUSE WE HAD FIVE PROJECTS THAT FAILED BECAUSE ONCE THE COMMUNITY HAD A BETTER UNDERSTANDING, THEY WENT ON THE WARPATH AGAINST IT. >> WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING -- RIGHT. WE DID HAVE SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES THAT CAME BACK AFTER THOSE PUBLIC MEETINGS. AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THE SAME -- GOING OUT TO EACH OF THE AREAS AND DOING THOSE GENERAL PUBLIC MEETINGS, BUT THEN AS THEY NARROW DOWN THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, TO REACH OUT AGAIN TO THOSE SPECIFIC COMMUNITIES TO SAY WE REALLY WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, AND WHAT IS YOUR FEEDBACK BEFORE THEY GET TO THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION. >> Shea: YES. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE PARAMOUNT. >> THAT WOULD BE THE POINT THAT WE REALLY WANT TO CONSIDER THAT. IF IT GETS ONTO THE BOND REFERENDUM AND STAFF HAS TO DEAL WITH THAT, IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BY THE VOTERS SO IT BECOMES A BIT MORE DIFFICULT. AND THEN THE LAST THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT I DID ADD SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT CONTINUING TO SERVE BEYOND THE JULY TIMEFRAME AS POINTS OF CONTACT REGARDING THE BOND REFERENDUM SO THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN STILL REACH OUT TO THEM, THEY CAN STILL HAVE THEIR OWN DISCUSSIONS WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THEY REPRESENT ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON WITH A POTENTIAL BOND REFERENDUM AND WHAT PROJECTS ARE ON THERE. AND WE -- STAFF WILL CERTAINLY BE OF ASSISTANCE THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS, BUT THEY ARE THE LIAISON TO THE COMMUNITY, BASICALLY. >> Shea: WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN ABOUT PROVIDING SOME, I GUESS, CENTRALIZED PLACE WHERE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK COULD BE GATHERED. I THINK IF WE'RE ASKING OUR -- AGAIN, VOLUNTEERS -- TO MANAGE ALL OF THE COMMUNITY INPUT ON PROJECTS WITHOUT HAVING A REALLY CLEAR PUBLIC PROCESS. BECAUSE IT WASN'T CLEAR TO US EXACTLY HOW THIS WOULD FUNCTION. I THINK WE NEED TO SET UP A STREAMLINED MECHANISM FOR COMMUNITY INPUT SO WE'RE NOT RELYING ON PEOPLE JUST CHECKING THEIR PERSONAL EMAIL TO SEE IF SOMEBODY GOT BACK TO THEM. BECAUSE IT WASN'T SPELLED OUT SO IT WASN'T CLEAR TO US HOW THAT WOULD BE MANAGED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T CREATE AN UNMANAGEABLE BURDEN FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE'RE ASKING TO SERVE ON THIS COMMITTEE. >> ABSOLUTELY. NO, THE LAST BOND PROCESS -- I THINK BEFORE THAT AS WELL -- WE HAVE A CENTRALIZED EMAIL. WE'VE CREATED ONE FOR THE BOND COMMITTEE. AND THEN WE'VE ALSO GIVEN THEM TEMPORARY COUNTY EMAILS. I BELIEVE THAT WE DID THAT JUST FOR THAT PURPOSE, SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE USING THEIR PERSONAL EMAILS FOR ANY OF THE COUNTY BUSINESS. THIS IS STILL COUNTY BUSINESS. >> Shea: SO MAYBE WE SHOULD INCLUDE IN THAT A TEMPLATE THAT HAS PEOPLE IDENTIFY WHAT AREA THEY'RE FROM AND WHAT PROJECT THEY'RE SPECIFICALLY COMMENTING ON? >> WE CAN DO THAT. >> Shea: I THINK THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL, BECAUSE IT HELPS SORT SO IT'S CLEAR WHO'S WEIGHING IN ON WHAT PROJECT. >> YEAH. >> Shea: AND THEN I THINK THERE REALLY NEEDS TO BE BOTH GEOGRAPHIC AND RACIAL DIVERSITY. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR BOND COMMITTEE IS TRULY REPRESENTATIVE. AND IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME HOW WE ACHIEVE THAT IN THIS PROCESS. >> Judge Brown: YEAH, THAT WOULD BE A -- I GUESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT AND WHO IS ON IT. >> WHICHEVER ONE YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH, JUDGE. >> Judge Brown: SO JUST ON THE GENERAL LOGISTICAL PARTS TO IT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. SO THAT WOULD BE THE CHANGES THAT YOU JUST OUTLINED, UP TO THREE MEMBERS EACH. RIGHT? AND THEN THE JUDGE APPOINTS WITHIN THOSE THREE MEMBERS THE CHAIR. >> AND THEN THE TIMELINE. >> Judge Brown: AND THEN THE TIMELINE. SO CAN THAT INCORPORATE INTO YOUR MOTION, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, COMMISSIONER SHEA, THOSE FOUR THINGS? >> Shea: AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I'D SAY IN TERMS OF A CHARGE IS THAT WE JUST WENT THROUGH AN EXERCISE WHERE WE'RE CLEAR OUR WISHES AND OUR DESIRES ARE VASTLY LARGER THAN THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS AVAILABLE. THIS HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE WITH EVERY BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE I THINK THAT WE'VE EVER HAD. SO I THINK PART OF THE CHARGE TO OUR VOLUNTEERS NEEDS TO BE THAT WE HAVE VERY SERIOUS LIMITATIONS ON WHAT WE CAN AFFORD TO DO AND TO KIND OF OBSERVE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT THEY CAN POSSIBLE THE FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS ON US. BECAUSE WE GENERALLY GIVE EACH BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE A BUDGET. I THINK THEY'VE EXCEEDED IT IN THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS VIRTUALLY EVERY TIME. SO I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS -- THIS IS PART OF THE CHARGE THAT WE SHOULD INCLUDE TO OUR VOLUNTEERS. >> Travillion: AND, JUDGE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE -- WE LEARNED A LOT THROUGH THE PANDEMIC'S PROCESS IN TERMS OF REACHING OUT TO COMMUNITIES WHERE WE GO, WHO WE CAN TALK TO. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT PARTICULARLY AS THE PROCESS MATURES AND WE START TALKING ABOUT PROJECTS, THAT WE ARE SURE THAT WE'RE MOVING INTO COMMUNITIES, THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS, AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AS -- FOR EXAMPLE, OUR CHURCHES, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS. OUR SOCIAL GROUPS AS WELL. I THINK THAT PIO PUT TOGETHER A GOOD PROCESS FOR US AND THAT WE PUT THE SAME TYPE OF PROCESS TOGETHER AT CAPITAL METRO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE REACHING OUT TO FOLKS NOT JUST INSIDE OF TRAVIS COUNTY POLITICS, THAT FOLKS THAT ARE COMMUNITY FOLKS WHO NEED TO KNOW. I THINK THAT IT WAS A GOOD EDUCATION PROCESS THAT WE USED BECAUSE WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER A HEALTH AND SAFETY BOND LAST TIME. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE IDENTIFYING THE THEME SO THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING AND THEN WE ARE COMMUNICATING EFFECTIVELY WITH THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, NOT JUST THE FOLKS WHO NORMALLY COME DOWN HERE AND TO PRESENT TO US. >> Judge Brown: IT'S A GOOD POINT. OKAY, SO DO WE -- AND THIS -- WHY DON'T WE VOTE ON THOSE FOUR THINGS, AND THEN IF WE WANT -- I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER SHEA, WE NEED TO PROVIDE SOME SCOPE OR LIMITATIONS OR SOMETHING ON THE AMOUNT. >> Shea: AND JUST REINFORCE THAT IS A KEY PART OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS THAT WE'VE GOT TO LIVE WITHIN OUR BUDGET. >> Judge Brown: TRAVIS, WE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT THIS, I THINK. SHOULD WE LIMIT -- SAY A DOLLAR AMOUNT AS A LIMIT? WAIT UNTIL THEY COME BACK AND THEN NARROW IT? >> I WAS JUST TALKING TO TRAVIS. I THINK WHAT WOULD BE BEST, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME WORK TO DO INTERNALLY AS WELL ON MAKING SURE THAT OUR DEBT MODEL IS UP TO DATE. SO THAT WE BRING THAT TO COMMISSIONERS COURT SO YOU SEE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE WE DO A PRESENTATION EACH TIME. >> AND TALK NOT JUST NOT ABOUT CAPACITY OR WHAT PROJECTS ARE DOABLE, BUT MAYBE WHAT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT IS, SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND IF YOU SAY THE PARAMETERS OR THIS, THIS IS WHAT THE TAX IMPACT WILL BE. THAT'S ALWAYS INCLUDED IN THE PRESENTATION. >> Judge Brown: WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BEFORE VOTING ON ANY FINAL -- >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE BEST. I THINK THAT THE COURT SHOULD SEE WHAT WE SHOULD BE PRESENTING TO SEE BACK. >> Judge Brown: COMMISSIONER SHEA, DOES THAT SOUND -- >> Shea: YEAH, I THINK THAT IS A GOOD PROCESS AND I JUST WANT TO HAVE A CLEAR KIND OF DIRECTION TO OUR APPOINTEES THAT WE ALL HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN A BUDGET. AND THAT IS ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT ON OUR BOND PROJECTS. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. >> Shea: IT DETERMINES OUR TAX RATE AND THE COST BURDEN FOR ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS. >> Howard: JUDGE, I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME OTHER CONCEPTS THAT AS I'VE LISTENED TO STAFF ABOUT THIS THAT WILL BE IMPORTANT TO DISCUSS WITH THE COMMITTEE. YOU KNOW, SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT BIGGER PROJECTS ARE EASIER FOR THE COUNTY TO COMPLETE THAN A WHOLE BUNCH OF TINY PROJECTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT, YOU KNOW, ACROSS THE COUNTY, SORT OF REGIONAL IN NATURE THAT WE HAVE TALKED HERE ABOUT FOCUSING SOMEWHAT, YOU KNOW, ON LAND AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR ROAD PROJECTS. LIKE, I THINK THAT THE STAFF IS PREPARED TO REALLY HELP INFORM THE CBAC ON SORT OF THE POSITIONING OF THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW AND SO, YOU KNOW, I TRUST THE STAFF, THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE KNOW THE CBAC UNDERSTANDS THAT WORKING WITH OUR COUNTY STAFF IS IMPORTANT AND THAT THERE ARE SORT OF PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THEY'LL WORK. >> I WILL SAY THAT TYPICALLY, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE DO IS THAT WE HAVE THEM TO MEET WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS AND WITH PLANNING AND BUDGET TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PUBLIC MEETINGS ARE ABOUT AND HOW THEY SHOULD BE CONDUCTED AND, THEN OBVIOUSLY PBO DOES THE FISCAL DISCUSSION WITH THEM. AND THEN WE ALSO RUN THROUGH WITH THE COMMITTEE KINDS OF THE THINGS THAT WE USE TO EVALUATE PROJECTS -- SAFETY CRITERIA, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS REGIONALLY BENEFICIAL, THOSE KIND OF THINGS. WHETHER WE ARE MANDATORILY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THEM, LIKE, RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TxDOT PROJECTS. THOUGH KIND OF THINGS. WE DO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND WE CAN CERTAINLY CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT AS THE BACKBONE, IF YOU WILL, OF THE DISCUSSIONS FOR THEM. SO IT KEEPS THEM, YOU KNOW, IN THE FRONT OF THEIR MIND AS THEY -- AS THEY START EVALUATING PROJECTS. THEY ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THEIR OWN CRITERIA AS WELL, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED AMONGST THEM. BUT IT WILL USUALLY -- THEY'VE DONE REALLY WELL IN INCORPORATING WHAT WE WANT TO DO AS A TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OR AS A PARKS DEPARTMENT. THEY HAVE BEEN A BIT CHALLENGED ON THE FISCAL SIDE, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CERTAINLY -- THAT IS -- YOU KNOW, THAT'S AT THE COURT'S DISCRETION WHERE TO DRAW THE LINE IN THE END. >> Judge Brown: SOUNDS GOOD. >> Howard: GREAT. >> Judge Brown: OKAY, SO THAT MOTION INCLUDES THOSE FOUR THINGS. THE TIME BEING NO LATER THAN MID-JULY 2023. UP TO THREE MEMBERS EACH WITH A JUDGE APPOINTING CHAIR. CYNTHIA'S ADDITIONS. ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS FIRST MOTION? JUST SO THAT WE CAN GET THE LOGISTICAL PART OUT OF THE WAY. >> Shea: THE DIRECTION ON STAYING WITHIN THE BUDGET. >> Judge Brown: OKAY, AND THE DIRECTION FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA. OKAY, ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTERS ON THIS APPARENTLY, SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT PART PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND THEN THE NEXT PART IS THE MEMBERS. >> UM-HMM. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO LEAD US ON THAT OR DO YOU -- >> WELL, YOU RECEIVED A PACKET FROM JULIE WHEELER. THERE WERE I BELIEVE 26 APPLICANTS. I'M PULLING THAT UP FOR MY REFERENCE. THEY ARE LISTED IN THE PACKET, YOU KNOW, BY THE PRECINCT IN WHICH THEY LIVE, BUT IN PAST COMMITTEES, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE LIMITED YOURSELF TO ANY PARTICULAR PRECINCT. SO, REALLY, IT'S UP TO YOU HOW YOU WANT TO CONDUCT THIS. >> Judge Brown: SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE THAT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> Shea: YEAH, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHO IS ON WHICH LIST AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO PICK FROM THE VARIOUS PRECINCTS, SO, YEAH, THAT WOULD BE A BETTER DISCUSSION -- >> Judge Brown: SO LET'S PAUSE ON THAT AND WE'LL TAKE THAT WHEN WE GET TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS PART, CYNTHIA? >> NO. >> Judge Brown: AWESOME. WELL, THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK ON THIS, CYNTHIA, AND THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, TOO. OKAY, WE WILL NOW TAKE ITEM 13, WHICH IS PROVIDE UPDATE TO RFS NO. 2209-014-BB, INDEPENDENT PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF TRAVIS COUNTY HEALTH CARE DISTRICT D/B/A CENTRAL HEALTH, AND RECEIVE DIRECTION ON NEXT STEPS. I THINK WE HAVE BONNIE FLOYD HERE. >> I'M HERE. >> Judge Brown: AND DAVID JUNGERMAN FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE. IF YOU WANT TO GIVE US YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AS WELL. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE. I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE SOLICITATION AND THEN I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DAVID. I THINK THAT MICHELLE FROM PBO, TO TALK ABOUT THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES. SEPTEMBER 24TH, THE COURT APPROVED A RESOLUTION TO ASK FOR THIS INDEPENDENT PERFORMANCE AUDIT. WE ISSUED A SOLICITATION ON OCTOBER 14TH. IT WAS SCHEDULED ON OPEN ON NOVEMBER 15TH, WHICH IS ALREADY ABOUT TWO WEEKS LONGER THAN SOMETHING NORMALLY STAYS OUT ON THE STREETS. AT THAT TIME, WE RECEIVED ZERO RESPONSES SO WE TALKED WITH THE COMMITTEE AND EXTENDED IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO WEEKS TO GIVE PEOPLE A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL TIME. AT THE END OF THAT TWO WEEKS, WHICH WAS NOVEMBER 29TH, IT APPEARED -- WE DO EVERYTHING THAT WE ISSUE ON BID SYNC, AND WE APPEARED TO HAVE TWO RESPONSES. AND WE LET IT CLOSE. WHEN WE SAW THOSE THEY WERE EFFECTIVELY NO BIDS SO WE EFFECTIVELY HAVE NOTHING FOR THIS. I'LL LET DAVID AND MICHELLE TALK THROUGH THE PROPOSED CHANGES, THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SCOPE AND TO THE TIMELINE. I WILL ASK FOR DIRECTION. IN ORDER TO MEET THE TIMELINE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES IF THE COURT WANTS US TO DO THIS, WE WILL NEED DIRECTION TO ISSUE A NEW SOLICITATION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO MEET THE NEW TIMELINE. SO, I'LL TURN MY VOICE OFF AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE TAKE OVER. >> Shea: BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES, I KNOW THAT WE, UM, FREQUENTLY WHEN THERE IS NO BID ON A GIVEN RFP OR PROPOSAL, WE REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE BE LIKELY BE BIDDERS. HAS THAT HAPPENED? >> YES, WE DID THAT. I FORGOT TO ALSO TELL YOU THAT DAVID JUNGERMAN PROVIDED A LIST OF 30 OR 40 ADDITIONAL VENDORS, ADDITIONAL TO THE ONES THAT ARE ALREADY REGISTERED ON BID SYNC. AND WE INCLUDED ALL OF THOSE. WHEN WE GOT NO -- OR WE GOT TWO NO-BIDS WE REACHED OUT TO THOSE TWO PLUS SOME OF THE OTHERS AND BASICALLY WHAT WE HEARD IS THAT IT'S A BAD TIME OF THE YEAR FOR THEM AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO COMPLETE IT IN THE TIME REQUIRED BY THE SOLICITATION. SO WE'RE HOPING THAT CHANGE -- >> Shea: THAT IS VERY HELPFUL INFORMATION. >> WE HOPE THAT THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES WILL HELP TO FIX THAT ISSUE. >> Shea: THANK YOU. THAT'S HELPFUL CONTEXT AND I HAD NOT HEARD THAT FROM OUR FOLKS ABOUT THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD, DAVID. >> ACTUALLY, MICHELLE I THINK WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH. >> Judge Brown: OH, OKAY. >> HELLO, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS, AND I'M A MEMBER OF THE SOLICITATION TEAM. CAN YOU SEE THE WORD DOCUMENT ON YOUR SCREEN THERE? >> Judge Brown: YES. >> GREAT. THESE ARE THE F3, THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS THE THREE MAIN CHANGES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR THE NEXT SOLICITATION OF THIS RFS. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SOLICITATION LANGUAGE. THIS IS OUR PROPOSED UPDATE. AND THEN SOME NOTES WHICH I'LL JUST GO THROUGH. SO, FIRST, THE ORIGINAL SOLICITATION HAS INCLUDED LANGUAGE STATING THAT A RESPONDENT MUST DEMONSTRATE AT LEAST FIVE YEARS OF SERVICE FOCUSING ON SPECIFICALLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HEALTHCARE TAX, AND WE FELT THAT THIS LANGUAGE MIGHT BE TOO LIMITING AND NARROW AND WE PROPOSE TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO STATE THAT THE FIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OF PERFORMANCE AUDIT SERVICES SHOULD BE ON A FOCUS, BUT WITH A FOCUS ON THE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY, PARTICULARLY HEALTHCARE TAXING DISTRICTS. SO THIS ALLOWS THE RESPONDENTS WHO HAVE AUDITED ANY KIND OF HEALTHCARE TO APPLY, BUT STILL ALLOWS US TO PREFER RESPONDENTS WITH HEALTHCARE INDUSTRIES. AND SO BROADENING THE RANGE OF RESPONDENTS THAT WE MIGHT GET FOR THIS. SECONDLY, THE ORIGINAL RFS STATES THAT RESPONDENTS MUST HAVE EXPERTISE IN EVALUATING APPROPRIATE PAYER FINANCIAL CONTROLS OVER THIRD-PARTY PROVIDERS. AGAIN, WE FELT THAT THIS WAS TOO NARROW AND LIMITING FOR RESPONDENTS AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO CHANGING THIS TO MAKE SPECIFICALLY THIS TYPE OF EXPERTISE A PREFERRED EXPERIENCE, RATHER THAN MANDATORY. AGAIN, THIS STILL ALLOWS US TO PREFER RESPONDENTS BUT OPENS UP THE NUMBER OF BIDDERS. THIRD AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IS THE TIMELINE AS YOU CAN SEE HERE. AS BONNIE MENTIONED TWO BIDDERS DID NOT SUBMIT A BID WITH THE PROBLEMS WITH THE TIMELINE THAT WE HAVE LAID OUT. WE HAD TO OBVIOUSLY CHANGE THE TIMELINE BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING TO POST THE SOLICITATION AGAIN. SO THE ORIGINAL RFS TIMELINE WAS TO HAVE THE PROJECT BEGIN IN MARCH 2023, HAVE IT BE COMPLETED FIVE MONTHS LATER, JULY 2023. AND THEN PROVIDE A PRESENTATION TO COMMISSIONERS COURT THE FOLLOWING MONTH, AUGUST 2023. AFTER DISCUSSION, WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER AN UPDATED TIMELINE. SO THIS TIMELINE WORKS BETTER WE BELIEVE IN PART BECAUSE MOST ACCOUNTING FIRMS HAVE BUSY PERIODS IN THE STRING AND SLOWER PERIODS IN THE SUMMER. SO CORRESPONDINGLY THIS ALLOWS FOR A SUMMER START DATE AND FOR MOST OF THE WORK TO HAPPEN OVER THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER. SO THIS PROJECT BEGINS IN MAY 2023, BE COMPLETED SEVEN MONTHS LATER IN NOVEMBER 2023. WITH A PRESENTATION TO COMMISSIONERS COURT IN JANUARY 2024. WE HAVE ALSO INCORPORATED LANGUAGE THAT STATES WHILE THIS IS A PREFERRED TIMELINE WE ENCOURAGE THE BIDDERS TO SUBMIT ALTERNATIVE TIMELINES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IF THE PREFERRED TIMELINE DOES NOT WORK FOR THEM. AGAIN, THIS IS ADDRESSING THAT ISSUE THAT BONNIE BROUGHT UP WHERE WE HAD TWO BIDDERS WHO SUBMITTED, STATING THEY CAN'T DO IT PARTLY BECAUSE OF TIMELINE REASONS. SO THESE ARE THE THREE MAIN CHANGES THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DAVID FOR ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT HE MAY PROVIDE AND THEN WE'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU. >> YEAH, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I THINK THAT SETTING THINGS TOWARDS SUMMER WHEN A LOT OF THESE FIRMS HAVE DOWNTIME WILL HOPEFULLY HELP. WE ALSO RE-VISITED TAKING A LOOK AT WHO PERFORMS THE AUDITS FOR THE LARGER HEALTHCARE DISTRICTS IN TEXAS AND WE FOUND ONE ADDITIONAL PARTY THAT IS IN WACO THAT WE HAVE ADDED TO THE LIST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE FLAGGED TO RECEIVE THIS. SO HOPEFULLY THAT MAY HELP AS WELL. >> Judge Brown: HOW DOES IT WORK IF THERE'S SOMEONE THAT IS LISTENING THAT KNOWS OF A COMPANY THAT THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO APPLY TO IT, DO THEY HAVE TO BE ON A LIST THAT Y'ALL COME UP WITH INDEPENDENTLY, OR COULD SOMEONE EMAIL YOU AND SAY CAN I -- CAN I GET ON THIS LIST OR CAN I RECEIVE THEIR RFP OR SOMETHING? >> I CAN ANSWER THAT. IF ANYBODY CONTACTS ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT, JUST REFER THEM TO ME AND WE WILL POINT THEM TO WHERE THE SOLICITATION IS. >> Judge Brown: OKAY, SO IT'S NOT LIMITED TO WHATEVER LIST THAT Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW -- >> OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. ANYBODY CAN -- ANYBODY WITH RESPOND. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT ONE COMMENTER HERE, BUT, COURT MEMBERS -- >> Gómez: I FELT THIS WAS A REASONABLE APPROACH, AND CERTAINLY I THINK THAT WE HAVE SOME FOLKS VERY FAMILIAR AND VERY EXPERIENCED IN THIS AREA OF WORKING WITH DIFFERENT FIRMS AND DIFFERENT RFPs, RFIs, AND SO I THOUGHT THAT THESE WERE VERY REASONABLE SUGGESTIONS. >> Judge Brown: YEP, THANKS. OKAY. >> Howard: JUDGE, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THE ONLY OTHER DISCUSSION THAT I REMEMBER IS THE CONCEPT THAT THE APPLICANT SHOULD KNOW THAT THEY CAN HAVE SUBS IN THE WORK, IF THEY DON'T DO ALL OF WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING, BUT THEY COULD HIRE -- YOU KNOW, HAVE A SUB-CONTRACTOR TO DO OTHER PIECES OF IT. IS THAT JUST A KNOWN THING, OR IS THAT ACTUALLY WRITTEN? >> THAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN EVERY SOLICITATION THAT WE ISSUE. >> Howard: OKAY, PERFECT. >> EVEN BETTER IF IT ENDS UP BEING A HUB SUB, THAT IS INCLUDED IN EVERYTHING. >> AND OUR MAIN HOPE HERE IS TO NOT REALLY MESS WITH THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT YOU HAD ALL DESIRED AND FIND WAYS AROUND THAT AND TO STILL BROADEN THINGS SO THAT MORE FOLKS WOULD RESPOND. >> Judge Brown: THANKS, DAVID. I HAVE PECK YOUNG FOR THREE MINUTES OF COMMENTS. >> I'M PECK YOUNG, REPRESENTING THE COALITION THAT INCLUDES THE NAACP AND LULAC. WE'RE NOT DEEPLY CONCERNED WITH THE CHANGES. WE AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ THAT WE THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN A GOOD-FAITH EFFORT TO CHANGE THEIR RFP, ESPECIALLY BY ADDING THE POTENTIAL FOR SUBCONTRACTING WITH PEOPLE TO SPREAD THE THING OUT. AND WE HAVE PROVIDED STAFF AS OF YESTERDAY WITH 20 ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE INDICATED TO OUR TEAM THAT THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS -- IN THIS BIDDING, THIS PROCESS. I APPRECIATE THEM SAYING THAT IF THESE ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT NOW EXIST ON THEIR LIST, THEY WILL REACH OUT TO THEM. WE WOULD BE WILLING TO ASSIST IN THAT PROCESS IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE OURSELVES. OUR TEAM AND IF YOU CONTACT ME I'LL BE HAPPY TO GET THEM IN TOUCH WITH OUR TEAM TO ASSIST AND BEING SURE THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO BID THIS PROCESS. WHAT WE FOUND OUT IN TALKING TO FIRMS IS THAT OUR TIMING AS A COUNTY WAS BAD BECAUSE THESE FIRMS WERE AT THE TIME THAT THEY RECEIVED THIS BID REQUEST, WERE CLOSING DEALS FOR NOVEMBER -- OR DOING PROPOSALS FOR THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. AT A TIME DURING THE HOLIDAYS WHEN THEY HAD STAFF IN AND OUT OF THEIR OFFICES. AND I WAS SPECIFICALLY TOLD BY ONE PERSON THAT THEIR FIRM WAS NOT DISINTERESTED, IT WAS JUST A LOUSY TIME TO PREPARE A RESPONSE TO SUCH A LARGE RFP. AND IF IT WAS RE-ISSUED AS WE'RE GOING TO DO, THAT THAT WOULD BE MORE INTERESTED IN RESPONDING, AND THEN ACTUALLY EXECUTING IT IN THE SPRING AND LATER. AND WE THINK THAT WE CAN GET A RESPONSE. AND AS I SAID, WE HAVE A LIST OF FIRMS WHICH HAVE INDICATED TO OUR TEAM THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN RESPONDING. THERE'S NO GUARANTEE, BUT THEY TOLD US THAT NOW THAT THEY'RE THROUGH THE FIRST OF THE YEAR CRUNCH, THAT THEY'D BE INTERESTED IN THIS. AND WE'VE SENT THIS LIST I BELIEVE ALREADY TO STAFF. MY TEAM LEADER TOLD ME THAT HE SENT IT TO THEM. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, JUST TELL ME AND WE WILL DO IT. WE DON'T -- OUR CONCERN WAS HAVING SOME INPUT INTO THE RESPONSE AND NOT CHANGING THE SCOPE OF WORK. THEY'VE INDICATED THAT THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE SCOPE OF WORK AND WE'RE SATISFIED WITH WHAT THEY'RE PRESENTING AS THE CHANGES. SO I APPRECIATE THEIR HELP AND THEIR COOPERATION. AND OUR COALITION STANDS BY TO ASSIST IN ANY WAY THAT IS POSITIVE. AND MOVING THIS FORWARD -- THIS PROCESS FORWARD. >> Judge Brown: GREAT, THANK YOU, PECK, SOUNDS GOOD. JUST TO CLARIFY, BONNIE, IF HE HAS A LIST OF PEOPLE THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED, SHOULD HE SEND IT TO YOU OR SEND THEIR RFP TO THEM? >> SEND TO ME AND I WILL THROW ON MY HAT HERE AND RECOMMEND THAT ALL CONTACT FROM -- WITH VENDORS NEEDS TO COME THROUGH MY OFFICE. IF IT DOESN'T, WE RUN THE RISK OF SOME VENDOR LEARNING SOMETHING THAT SOME OTHER VENDOR DOESN'T KNOW, SO, PLEASE, SEND EVERYTHING TO ME. >> Judge Brown: SO THAT'S BONNIE FLOYD AND HER EMAIL IS JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE'S. >> I'M SORRY, MARGARET? >> Judge Brown: THAT IS BONNIE FLOYD? >> WHAT? >> Judge Brown: BONNIE FLOYD. >> BONNIE FLOYD? BONNIE, I THINK THAT THE LIST WAS ACTUALLY FORWARDED TO YOU YESTERDAY BY THE TEAM LEADER, BUT IF NOT, I WILL SEE THAT IT'S DONE TODAY. >> THANK YOU. >> THAT WAS JUST A MISTAKE. AND I WILL ALSO LEAVE COPIES OF THE LIST WITH STAFF SO THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS HAVE A COPY TOO. WE MADE HARD COPIES TODAY. >> Shea: THERE'S A SORT OF A CONE OF SILENCE AROUND BIDS FOR PROJECTS LIKE THIS. WE DON'T GET INVOLVED -- >> Howard: I DON'T WANT THE LIST. >> Shea: I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT EITHER AND BE INVOLVED WITH IT. >> AND THERE'S COUNCILS THAT WANT A COPY OF EVERYTHING, INCLUDING MY NOTES. >> Shea: YEAH, WE'RE DIFFERENT. >> Judge Brown: YEAH, SO JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE BONNIE -- >> WE WILL SEE TO IT THAT IT'S DONE TODAY. >> Judge Brown: HER EMAIL IS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE'S -- >> DIFFERENT PROCEDURE, DIFFERENT BODIES. >> Travillion: IF YOU HAVE GIVEN IT TO HER, YOU HAVE GIVEN IT TO US. >> Judge Brown: YOU NEED A VOTE, RIGHT, ON THE CHANGES. OKAY, IS THERE A MOTION -- >> YES, WE NEED DIRECTION TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES AND ISSUE A NEW SOLICITATION. >> Judge Brown: OKAY, SO WE HAVE I THINK A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ. SOUNDS LIKE IT. >> Gómez: YES. >> Judge Brown: AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION. ANY DISCUSSION, COURT MEMBERS? WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CALLERS ON THIS. OKAY, ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, WELL, THANKS, EVERYBODY -- MICHELLE, BONNIE AND DAVID, THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. >> Gómez: THANKS TO EVERYBODY. >> Judge Brown: OKAY, SO, WELL, IT'S 11:00 AND OUR PLAN IS TO GO TO LUNCH NOW, BUT I GUESS DO Y'ALL TO SEE WHAT WE CAN GET BEFORE NOON. >> Howard: YEP. >> Judge Brown: WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION, LET ME SEE WHAT ELSE -- IS EVERYTHING ELSE -- >> Howard: WE HAVE THE CAMERA ISSUE WHICH IS ITEM -- >> Shea: I PULLED THAT ONE BECAUSE I WANTED TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION. >> Judge Brown: I SEE MAJOR -- >> Shea: OUR TNR STAFF -- >> Judge Brown: IS THAT GOING TO CATCH ANYONE OFF-GUARD IF WE DO THERE NOW? >> Howard: LET'S DO IT. >> Judge Brown: AND THAT WAS 23, I BELIEVE. >> Shea: ITEM 23, YES. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. OKAY, SO -- >> Shea: ITEM 23. >> Judge Brown: WHO ARE YOU WITH? >> [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> Judge Brown: YOU CAN HAVE A SEAT THERE AND AFTER WE DO THIS PART WE'LL CALL YOU UP FOR COMMENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Shea: AND, JUDGE, I CAN LET YOU KNOW WHAT MY CONCERNS ARE UNLESS -- >> Judge Brown: LET ME CALL IT UP AND YOU CAN DO THAT. SO ITEM 23 IS CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON A PROPOSED LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ROB ROY ON THE CREEK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, FOR AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READING CAMERAS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN ROB ROY ON THE CREEK SECTIONS 2, 3, AND 5 SUBDIVISIONS IN PRECINCT THREE. AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO COMMISSIONER SHEA. >> Shea: YEAH, I AM -- I AM VERY SYMPATHETIC TO THE NEED FOR GREATER SAFETY IN OUR COMMUNITY. I'M SYMPATHETIC TO PEOPLE'S CONCERNS ABOUT CRIME, PARTICULARLY CRIME AGAINST THEIR HOME OR THEIR PROPERTY. AND I ESPECIALLY WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE COMMISSIONER HOWARD, BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN SUPER, YOU KNOW, ACTIVE IN OUR PRECINCT AND VERY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT REPRESENTING THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY. MY MAIN ISSUE HERE IS AS I UNDERSTAND IT WHAT WE'RE POSTED FOR TODAY IS TO APPROVE THE USE OF A PRIVATE SURVEILLANCE DEVICE ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, ON COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THIS WOULD SET A PRECEDENT. WE HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. THESE SYSTEMS ARE IN PLACE ALREADY IN A NUMBER OF THESE COMMUNITIES, AND THEY ARE -- I THINK LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO THAT. THAT'S AN OPTION THEY HAVE FOR INCREASING THEIR SENSE OF SECURITY AND ALL OF THAT KIND OF THING. MY ISSUE IS WITH BREAKING A PRECEDENT, AND CREATING SOMETHING WHERE I SUSPECT THAT WE WOULD HAVE LOTS OF REQUESTS TO PUT THESE PRIVATE SURVEILLANCE DEVICES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO THAT'S REALLY MY MAIN ISSUE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ROB ROY OR OTHER COMMUNITIES IF THEY CHOOSE TO PUT UP THESE DEVICES ON THEIR PRIVATE PUBLIC. I DON'T WANT TO USE THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THESE THINGS, THAT'S REALLY MY ISSUE. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. DAVID? >> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY, AND THIS ITEM IS FOR THE LICENSE AGREEMENT TO PLACE THESE DEVICES IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. TNR ONLY HAS THE CHARGE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LOCATION OF THOSE DEVICES IS IN A SAFE LOCATION THAT DOES NOT BLOCK SIGHT, DISTANCE, OR OTHER SIGNAGE AND MAKE SURE THAT THE POSTS ARE BREAK AWAY FOR SAFETY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE EVALUATED THIS REQUEST FOR AND THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR. WE DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OTHER ISSUES SUCH AS PRIVACY OR THINGS LIKE THAT. >> Shea: AND I DID SUBMIT A LIST OF QUESTIONS, MANY OF WHICH HAVE TO DO WITH HOW THE VENDOR GATHERS THE DATA TO DETERMINE WHO IS ON THE HOT LIST, AND DO THEY CLEAR THE HOT LIST QUICKLY, TIMELY, IF THE CHARGES ARE DROPPED OR SOMEONE IS CLEARED? DOES THE HOT LIST INCLUDE CARS BELONGING TO FAMILY MEMBERS OF PEOPLE -- SO THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER ISSUES. BUT THOSE ARE WITH THE VENDOR. AND WE'RE PUTTING A BURDEN ON OUR STAFF TO TRY TO RUN THIS DOWN. WHEN WE MET YESTERDAY, SOME OF THE ANSWERS WEREN'T CLEAR. I THINK THAT'S A SEPARATE CONVERSATION AND I'M -- I'M FINE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION SEPARATELY. TO ME, THE ITEM THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO VOTE ON TODAY IS TO CREATE A NEW PRECEDENT OF ALLOWING A PRIVATE SURVEILLANCE DEVICE IN OUR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT. >> Judge Brown: THANKS. AND I KNOW MAJOR POOL, WE SPOKE BRIEFLY ABOUT THIS AND I THINK THAT ONE QUESTION THAT WE ASKED IS IF THERE'S BEEN AN INCREASE IN CRIME IN THIS ONE PARTICULAR AREA, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT OR OTHER THING? >> GOOD MORNING, JUDGE, BILLY POOL. AND WE DID LOOK, AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE THREE SPECIFIC STREETS IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THIS AND AT LEAST ONE OF THEM I'VE ALREADY GOTTEN RESULTS BACK AND, NO, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL OR VISIBLE INCREASE IN EITHER DIRECTION WITH THE TYPES OF CRIME, THEY WERE VERY LOW LEVEL AND MINIMAL. >> Judge Brown: GREAT. AND COMMISSIONER SHEA I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. >> Howard: I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WHY I SUPPORT MY CONSTITUENTS IN USING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS THAT THE TECHNOLOGY OF THE LICENSE PLATE READER, WHICH IN MY UNDERSTANDING FROM VISITING WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, IS A TOOL THAT THEY USE OFTEN AROUND THE COUNTY TO, UM, TO INITIATE THEIR OWN INVESTIGATIONS OF CRIME, BUT ALSO TO RECEIVE THE ALERT FROM THE HOT LIST THAT THERE IS -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S A VEHICLE WITH A LICENSE PLATE THAT'S ON THE STOLEN CAR, YOU KNOW, LIST. AND THE -- THE LOCATION OF THE CAMERA MATTERS. YOU ARE TRYING TO CAP -- YOU KNOW, HAVE A STRAIGHT LINE VIEW TO THE CARS COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY'VE RECOMMENDED WHERE THEY NEED TO PLACE THE CAMERAS AND WHY TNR HAS BEEN OUT THERE TO TWEAK THE LOCATION, TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS A SAFE PLACE TO PUT THEM THAT DOESN'T BLOCK ANY VIEW. WHEN I VISITED WITH THE SHERIFF, YOU KNOW, SHE UNDERSCORED THAT WE'RE USING THESE IN COMMUNITIES EAST AND WEST OF I-35, THAT THIS IS NEIGHBORHOODS ASKING FOR THIS, AND THEN THEY DON'T -- THEY DON'T ACCESS THE TECHNOLOGY. AND SO IT'S NOT A PRIVACY ISSUE IT'S AN ISSUE WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT THEN IS ABLE TO USE THE TOOL TO HELP SOLVE CRIMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMMITTED. THE HOT LIST IS RUN BY THE FBI. IT'S UPDATED EVERY DAY. IT'S NOT THE WHIM OF THE CAMERA CORPORATION. IT'S A LINK TO THE FBI'S MATERIAL. AND SO YES, IT'S A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION WHERE THE COUNTY HASN'T BEEN ASKED TO DO THIS BEFORE, BUT IN VISITING WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, IT'S A BENEFIT TO THE COUNTY, BECAUSE THE LOCAL COMMUNITY IS PAYING FOR IT. THEIR MEMBERS ARE SUPPORTING IT. AND IT'S INCREASING OUR ABILITY TO HELP KEEP PEOPLE SAFE AND ADDRESS CRIME. I HAVE LOTS OF COMMUNITIES IN LOTS OF NEIGHBORHOODS CALLING ME ABOUT CAR THEFT, ABOUT VANDALISM, ABOUT CARS BEING BROKEN INTO. AND I JUST FULLY SUPPORT MY CONSTITUENTS. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE LAST SPRING, A LOT OF WORK DONE THIS SUMMER, AND HERE WE ARE TODAY BRINGING THIS BEFORE THE COURT. AND WORKING WITH COUNTY STAFF, VISITING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS. I KNOW THERE WAS AN ISSUE AT THE CITY. THIS IS DIFFERENT. THIS IS NOT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT PICKING AND CHOOSING WHERE TO PUT CAMERAS. THIS IS US SUPPORTING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ASKING FOR THIS ADDITIONAL HELP. SO, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY REASON NOT TO SUPPORT IT. THERE'S NO INFORMATION ABOUT FAMILIES BEING DRAGGED INTO IT. YOU KNOW, IT'S THE LICENSE PLATE. AND IT HAS TO BE INVESTIGATED. YOU CAN'T JUST ASSUME THAT THAT LICENSE PLATE BELONGS ON THAT CAR. IT REQUIRES AN INVESTIGATION. SO, THAT'S WHERE I AM TODAY. >> Travillion: JUDGE. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION. >> Travillion: I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE GATED COMMUNITIES. I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME COMMUNITIES ARE GOING TO REQUEST AND REQUIRE PERSONAL SECURITY. AND WHEN PEOPLE DO THAT, AND THEY USE THEIR PRIVATE LAND TO EXECUTE THE DEPLOYMENT OF CAMERAS, I THINK THAT'S OKAY. BUT THIS FOR ME IS A PRIVATE RISK AND RESPONSIBILITY ISSUE. AND RACE IN THE SOUTH, AND RACE IN THE CITY HAVE NOT BEEN HANDLED VERY WELL. AND OFTENTIMES, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THIS HAPPEN TO BE PEOPLE OF COLOR. AND I AM CONCERNED. WHEN WE LOOK ON OUR TV EVERY DAY WE SEE THINGS. AND ONE ITEM THAT COMES TO MIND -- TO ME OFTEN IS THE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN CASE, WHERE, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY WAS WALKING HOME TO HIS HOUSE WITH SOME SKITTLES AND DIED. I KNOW THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS COURT HAVE NOT BEEN PULLED OVER BY PRETEXT STOPS, PULLED OVER BECAUSE I WAS IN A CAR THAT I LOOKED LIKE MAYBE I SHOULDN'T BE IN. I KNOW EVERYBODY HERE HASN'T HAD A GUN PUT TO THEIR HEAD BY AN OFFICER. I HAVE. AND WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS A LOT OF THINGS THAT SEEM INNOCUOUS ON THEIR FACES HAVE OMINOUS CONSEQUENCES. AND WE CAN'T PROTECT FOR EVERYTHING, BUT I TELL YOU, AS IT RELATES TO WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, I AM STANDING AGAINST AND VOTING AGAINST THIS ITEM, BECAUSE WE DON'T DO THINGS AS WELL AS WE SHOULD. THERE IS AN OPEN QUESTION TODAY ABOUT HOW WE DEAL WITH POPULATIONS OF COLOR AND POPULATIONS OF LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS. AND SOMETIMES WHEN PEOPLE USE THEIR GUT RESPONSE, WE PUT PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG IN AN AREA IN HARM'S WAY. AND THAT'S NOT OKAY FOR ME. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND GATED COMMUNITIES. I UNDERSTAND PERSONAL SECURITY. I UNDERSTAND PUTTING A CAMERA ON YOUR PROPERTY. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS SET THIS PRECEDENT FOR TRAVIS COUNTY. >> Howard: JUDGE. >> Judge Brown: YEAH, COMMISSIONER HOWARD. >> Howard: COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION, I RESPECT YOUR OPINION AND COMMENT. I SAW THIS AS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE, PARTLY AFTER TALKING TO THE SHERIFF ABOUT THIS ALSO HELPS PROVE WHERE A CAR WAS NOT. AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT SOMEONE STOPPING AND CAPTURING THE LICENSE PLATE IN A PROFILING SITUATION. THIS CAPTURES EVERY LICENSE PLATE. AND SO I SAW THAT AS, YOU KNOW, AS USING TECHNOLOGY TO GET AWAY FROM SOME OF THESE BAD PRACTICES. BUT, YOU KNOW, I RESPECT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I SEE SOMETIMES TECHNOLOGY AS TOOLS TO HELP US REMOVE THAT, YOU KNOW, PREJUDICED OPINION OF A HUMAN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, WE CAN VOTE, BUT I JUST SEE IT AS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE. >> Travillion: AND I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT WE STILL HAVE OFFICERS OF COLOR THAT ARE STOPPED BY OFFICERS AND ACCOSTED WAY TOO MUCH TODAY. NOT IN 1919. >> Howard: THIS IS A CAMERA CAPTURING A LICENSE PLATE. >> Travillion: NOT IN 19 -- TODAY. AND THAT'S NOT OKAY FOR ME. BUT I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. >> Howard: AND IT'S NOT THE TOOL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CAMERA CAPTURING A LICENSE PLATE, SO . . . >> Travillion: I APPRECIATE THE POINT OF VIEW. >> Howard: ALL RIGHT. >> Travillion: WE'LL HONESTLY AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THIS ONE. >> Howard: OKAY. >> Shea: AND JUDGE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. ACCORDING TO THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THERE ARE ALREADY THESE KINDS OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS IN ROB ROY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY -- MAYBE NOT IN THIS ROB ROY. THERE'S SEVERAL ROB ROY SUBDIVISIONS. SO, THE RESIDENTS CAN PLACE THESE CAMERAS ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. I HAVE QUESTIONS. I GOT DIFFERENT ANSWERS FROM THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ABOUT WHERE THE HOT LIST INFORMATION COMES FROM, AND THEY WEREN'T CERTAIN HOW QUICKLY THEY'RE CLEARED. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT FAMILY MEMBERS OF SOMEONE WHO MIGHT HAVE A FELONY WARRANT OUT THAT'S NOT -- THERE WERE QUESTIONS WE COULDN'T ANSWER YESTERDAY WHEN WE MET ON THE HOT LIST STUFF. TO ME, THAT'S A SEPARATE CONVERSATION. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT EITHER THIS SUBDIVISION OR OTHER ROB ROY SUBDIVISIONS HAVE THESE KINDS OF SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS ALREADY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. >> Howard: EVERYBODY WITH A RING DOORBELL, YOU KNOW, HAS THE ABILITY TO CAPTURE A LICENSE PLATE. >> Shea: EXACTLY. I'M NOT SAYING BAN THAT, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE IT ALREADY. MY ISSUE IS I DON'T WANT TO START THE PRECEDENT OF PUTTING THESE SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT THE COUNTY OWNS, SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE I'M DRAWING THE LINE. I'M NOT SAYING AT ALL TO ROB ROY YOU CAN'T DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO BE MORE SECURE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL CAN DO AND HAVE DONE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, SO I'M NOT SAYING DON'T DO THAT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO BEGIN THIS PRECEDENT OF USING PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY TO DO IT. >> Judge Brown: MAJOR POOL, I MAY HAVE PUT YOU ON THE SPOT A LITTLE BIT. I'M REREADING THE EMAIL. YOU SAID YOU WERE STILL LOOKING AT WHETHER CRIME AS GONE UP OR DOWN. I WANT TO CLARIFY I'M NOT STATING SOMETHING THAT YOU DIDN'T TELL ME. OKAY. SO, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? I KNOW WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT HERE. DO YOU WANT TO GO TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT? >> SURE. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. JUST HAVE A SEAT RIGHT THERE. >> I HAVE [ INDISCERNIBLE ]. >> Judge Brown: OH. DID YOU ALREADY GET THAT SET UP? THEN I GUESS IT'S AT THAT COMPUTER. I DON'T KNOW. >> Howard: WITHIN THREE MINUTES. >> Judge Brown: NO, THAT'S FINE. DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT IS THERE? >> Shea: WE COULD ASK OUR STAFF TO PULL IT UP IF THEY PUT IT ON THE SYSTEM. >> Judge Brown: THERE YOU GO. >> Howard: SHE'S AN LBJ SCHOOL GRAD. [ LAUGHING ] >> Howard: POWERPOINT. >> OKAY. >> Judge Brown: WHAT'S YOUR NAME? >> DIANE, HOA PRESIDENT OF ROB ROY ON THE CREEK. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WISH I HAD MORE, BUT I'LL TRY TO ADDRESS A FEW OF THE POINTS YOU'VE MADE. MAYBE STATISTICALLY THERE ISN'T AN INCREASE IN CRIME, BUT WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE SAFETY AND SECURITY CONCERNS AND THAT THIS IS THE BEST OPTION FOR US AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY. WE HAD TWO HOME BREAK-INS FROM THE LAST YEAR, HAD THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF ITEMS STOLEN FROM CARS AND TRUCKS, WE'VE HAD A SUSPICIOUS VAN GOING BACK AND FORTH IN FRONT OF A NEIGHBOR'S YARD WHILE CHILDREN WERE PLAYING. PEOPLE DON'T FEEL SAFE. THAT'S A FACT. THIS IMAGE THAT YOU SEE IS A STILL SHOT FROM A VIDEO SURVEILLANCE CAMERA AT A HOMEOWNER'S PRIVATE PROPERTY WITNESSING A CRIME. THIS CAR PULLED UP. THEY STOLE LANDSCAPING EQUIPMENT OUT IN THE TRUCK, RAN TO THE CAR AND DROVE OFF. THIS CAMERA, AN EXPENSIVE SYSTEM, COULD NOT CAPTURE THE LICENSE PLATE. I'D LIKE TO SHOW THAT HOMEOWNERS ARE TRYING TO DO THIS PRIVATELY, BUT THEY CAN'T DO EVERYTHING. THERE'S LIMITATIONS WITH THESE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS. SORRY. SO, WE GATHERED A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT OUR OPTIONS ARE. [ CHUCKLING ] I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO INTO THOSE, BUT WE GAVE HOMES TO HOMEOWNERS, PUT OUT A SURVEY IN APRIL OF 2022. WE HAD A 74% RESPONSE RATE ON THAT SURVEY. AND WHAT WE FOUND -- TWO GRAPHS TO SHOW, PEOPLE FELT LIKE PATROLS WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH. THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH BANG FOR THE BUCK. IT'S EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. IT'S OVER A THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR PER HOMEOWNER TO FUND THAT. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CAMERA SYSTEM, THOSE ARE NOT CHEAP. WE'LL PAY $100 PER HOMEOWNER IN A COMMUNITY OF 140 PEOPLE TO FUND THIS TO HAVE TWO CAMERAS IN EACH ENTRANCE, ONE GOING IN, ONE GOING OUT, CAPTURING THE REAR LICENSE PLATE. WE HAD TWO-THIRDS OF OUR COMMUNITY SAY WE WANT AT LEAST ONE CAMERA. OVER HALF SAID WE WOULD LIKE TWO CAMERAS. WHY ARE PEOPLE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS? I HEAR THE CONCERNS. I'M GLAD WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. WHY DID WE FEEL OKAY WITH THIS? BECAUSE I'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS. IT CAPTURES THE REAR LICENSE PLATE. IT DOES NOT CAPTURE A DRIVER, OR A PASSENGER, OR ANY INDIVIDUAL IN THE VEHICLE. IT UPLOADS DATA TO A SECURE CLOUD. IT UPLOADS IT IMMEDIATELY. THIS DATA IS LINKED TO -- LAW ENFORCEMENT IS LINKED TO THAT NATIONAL CRIME INFORMATION CENTER DATABASE. IT'S ONLY LICENSE PLATE NUMBERS. SO IF THAT LICENSE PLATE IS IN THERE FOR SOME REASON, THERE'S A GOOD REASON IT'S IN THERE. AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S MATCHING. THE LAW ENFORCEMENT GETS AN ALERT ON THEIR DESKTOP OR IN THEIR VEHICLE. THEY VERIFY WITH DISPATCH BEFORE THEY GO OUT. SO IT'S REALLY DATA-DRIVEN IS WHAT I WANT TO SAY HERE. THE DATA IS DELETED AUTOMATICALLY, PERMANENTLY, WITHIN 30 DAYS. IT'S A ROLLING PROCESS. THAT WAS A CONCERN FOR OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M AT WITH MY TIMING. >> THAT IS THREE MINUTES. >> OKAY. PERFECT. I FORGOT TO MENTION, WE HAVE A FLOCK REPRESENTATIVE MUTED CALLED IN RIGHT NOW WHO WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TODAY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SAY AS WELL. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO UNMUTE HIM AND ASK HIM QUESTIONS, HE'S THERE. >> Judge Brown: GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS, COURT MEMBERS, OR MORE DISCUSSION? I KNOW THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS I HAD THAT I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO YET, SO I'M NOT PREPARED -- TENDING TO VOTE NO REGARDLESS, BUT THERE ARE A FEW QUESTIONS WE'VE ASKED THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO FIND OUT FROM FLOCK, Y'ALL, AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE THAT I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO YET. I'M NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT IT TODAY. >> Howard: THERE'S A REP FROM FLOCK ON THE PHONE IF YOU WANT TO ASK THEM. >> Judge Brown: THINGS I WANT TO BE IN WRITING BEFORE I WOULD VOTE FOR THIS, SO THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER SHEA OR COMMISSIONER HOWARD? >> I HAVE SOME ANSWERS IN WRITING FROM FLOCK. I DIDN'T REALIZE THERE WAS A PROCESS TO FORWARD THESE ON. I'M VERY UNFAMILIAR WITH THIS PROCESS. I WOULD LOVE FOR -- WE'VE BEEN WAITING. WE FILED THIS IN JUNE. I APPRECIATE THAT THERE'S SO MANY QUESTIONS BEING ANSWERED. I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO LEAVE TODAY AND TELL MY COMMUNITY WHAT IS THE TIMING IN WHICH WE COULD EXPECT TO HAVE AN ANSWER, BECAUSE PUTTING IT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IS CHALLENGING. WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME ENTRANCES OTHER ROB ROY COMMUNITIES DO. WE'RE NOT GATED. IF WE WANT TO PUT IT IN THE MIDDLE OF A PLANT SO IT'S ON A 12-FOOT POLE -- THAT'S NOT OUR DESIRE TO GO TO A HOMEOWNER WHO HAPPENS TO LIVE AT THE ENTRANCE AND SAY CAN WE PUT THIS ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY. IT'S A HUGE ASK. SO THERE'S REASONS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMISSION INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE'RE UNIQUE FROM THE OTHER ROB ROY COMMUNITIES THAT DO HAVE THESE. AND WE'VE JUST -- WE'D LIKE TO GET THIS DECIDED SOMETIME SOON, PLEASE. [ CHUCKLING ] >> Judge Brown: OKAY. >> Shea: I'VE STATED MY CONCERNS, BECAUSE YOU WILL BE THE BEGINNING OF A VERY LONG LIST OF COMMUNITIES THAT WILL COME TO US AND WANT TO USE THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND THEN WE HAVE A MUCH DIFFERENT DISCUSSION IN THE COMMUNITY. THE QUESTIONS I HAVE ABOUT THE VENDOR PROCESS, ACCORDING TO THE SHERIFF THE LIST COMES FROM A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SOURCES. I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM THE ISSUE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. I DON'T WANT TO CREATE THIS PRECEDENT AND THEN HAVE WHO KNOWS HOW MANY MORE CASES COMING BEFORE US FROM HOW MANY OTHER COMMUNITIES? I THINK YOU HAVE OPTIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND I'VE MADE CLEAR, I CAN'T SUPPORT USING THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR IT, SO THAT'S WHERE I COME DOWN. >> Judge Brown: WE DO HAVE A PERSON FROM FLOCK JUST AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF Y'ALL HAVE QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ANY ACTION ON THIS ITEM? >> Howard: YEAH, JUDGE, I'D LIKE US TO VOTE ON THE AGENDA ITEM. AND SO I MOVE THAT WE ALLOW THIS LICENSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND ROB ROY ON THE CREEK TO BE ABLE TO INSTALL THE FLOCK CAMERA IN THE COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD IN SUPPORT OF ITEM 23. IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, IT FAILS FOR LACK OF GETTING A SECOND, I GUESS? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT'S IT FOR TODAY. >> Shea: THANK Y'ALL. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Howard: THANK YOU, DIANE. >> Judge Brown: UP NEXT IS ITEM -- HOLD UP, WHERE ARE WE? OKAY. SO IS THAT EVERYTHING THAT'S NOT EXECUTIVE SESSION? OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND SEE WHAT WE CAN -- IF WE CAN FINISH THIS IN 30 MINUTES IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. OTHERWISE WE CAN COME BACK AND BREAK FOR LUNCH. SO, WE'LL GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION NOW TO DISCUSS ITEMS 27, 28, AND 30, AND 24A. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO ITEM 27 IS RECEIVE BRIEFING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING TRAVIS COUNTY INFORMATION SECURITY ISSUES, CONSULT WITH ATTORNEY AND I.T. SECURITY. ITEM 28, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF APPROXIMATELY 19 ACRES OF LAND IN CONNECTION WITH THE BALCONES CANYONLANDS CONSERVATION PLAN IN PRECINCT THREE, UNDER THE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY AND REAL PROPERTY EXCEPTIONS. ITEM 30, RECEIVE BRIEFING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON A REQUEST THAT TRAVIS COUNTY JOIN AS A SIGNATORY TO A COMMENT TO BE FILED IN SUPPORT OF A PROPOSED FINDING THAT LEADED AVIATION GASOLINE CAUSES OR CONTRIBUTES TO AIR POLLUTION THAT ENDANGERS HUMAN HEALTH OR WELFARE UNDER SECTION 231 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. UNDER CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY EXCEPTION. AND THEN ITEM 24A, WHICH IS CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS REGARDING THE 2023 BOND REFERENDUM -- PART A, APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZEN BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 2023 TRAVIS COUNTY BOND REFERENDUM. WE'LL DO THAT UNDER THE PERSONNEL EXCEPTION. >> [ OFF MIC ] ABOUT A COUNTY ADVISORY BODY. >> Judge Brown: OKAY. WE'LL DO IT UNDER THE COUNTY ADVISORY BODY EXCEPTION AND WE'LL ALSO DO IT UNDER THE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY EXCEPTION. DO I NEED TO READ -- NO. OKAY. AND SO WE'LL COME BACK HERE BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION. THANK YOU. >> Judge Brown: WE'RE BACK, AND WE WILL NOT TAKE ACTION ON 27. 28, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF 19 ACRES OF LAND IN CONNECTION WITH THE BALCONES CANYONLANDS CONSERVATION, COMMISSIONER HOWARD, A MOTION. >> Howard: THANK YOU, JUDGE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE LAND ACQUISITION AS DISCUSSED FOR THE PRICE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> SECOND. >> Judge Brown: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HOWARD, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA IN FAVOR OF ITEM 28. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? WE DON'T HAVE ANY CALLERS ON THAT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO WE'RE GOING TO RECESS FOR LUNCH NOW AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND DISCUSS THE REMAINING ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE'LL COME BACK HERE AT 1:30 TODAY. [ RECESS ] >> Judge Brown: ALL RIGHT, WE ARE BACK FROM OUR RECESS. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND TAKE UP ITEM 24A, WHICH IS CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS REGARDING THE 2023 BOND REFERENDUM, SUBPART A, APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZENS BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE 2023 TRAVIS COUNTY BOND REFERENDUM. DO YOU HAVE THAT -- >> THE COUNTY ADVISORY BODY, PERSONNEL EXCEPTION OF 551.0745 GOVERNMENT CODE. >> Judge Brown: SO UNDER THE PERSONNEL EXCEPTION AND THE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY EXCEPTION. AND WE ALSO -- WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 30, RECEIVE BRIEFING AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON A REQUEST THAT TRAVIS COUNTY JOIN AS A SIGNATORY TO A COMMENT TO BE FILED IN SUPPORT OF A PROPOSED FINDING THAT LEADED AVIATION GASOLINE CAUSES OR CONTRIBUTES TO AIR POLLUTION THAT ENDANGERS HUMAN HEALTH OR WELFARE UNDER SECTION 231 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. UNDER THE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY EXCEPTION. AND, UM, IS THAT THE LAST -- THAT'S IT. OKAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION HERE NOW AND WE'LL COME BACK HERE BEFORE TAKING ANY ACTION. >> Howard: JUDGE, YOU MENTIONED -- WHILE COMMISSIONER SHEA ISN'T HERE, WOULD WE WANT TO DO THE -- THE -- WHATEVER THIS NEXT STUFF IS ABOUT CONVENING AS THE BEE CAVE ROAD DISTRICT. >> Judge Brown: ARE WE STILL ON? SEEMS LIKE WE'RE ON. BECAUSE I SEE THE -- I DON'T SEE THE SEAL, I SEE MYSELF. MEDIA, ARE WE STILL ON? I THINK THAT WE ARE. >> YEP, YEP. >> Judge Brown: OKAY, THANK YOU. SO, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. YOU WANT TO DO THAT? CLEAR OUT THE -- >> Howard: WE COULD. >> Judge Brown: SO THAT COMMISSIONER SHEA IS BACK HERE FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. IS -- DO WE HAVE MONIQUE THOUGH? AND LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE -- WE'LL NEED MONIQUE COLEMAN FOR THAT. >> Howard: FOR THE BEE CAVE ROAD DISTRICT. >> Judge Brown: YES, FOR ONE OF THEM, I THINK. LET ME SEE... >> Howard: I THOUGHT THAT WE MIGHT NEED ANN EVERETT. WELL, HERE'S COMMISSIONER SHEA. >> Judge Brown: DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN? >> IF YOU DON'T RECESS FOR THE BEE CAVE ROAD, YOU CAN GO BACK AND ANNOUNCE YOUR EXCEPTIONS. >> Judge Brown: ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER, WE ANNOUNCED THE THINGS THAT WE'LL DO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE'LL GO DO THAT. SO HERE WE GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. [EXECUTIVE SESSION] >> Judge Brown: ALL RIGHT, WE ARE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE DISCUSSED ITEM 30, ON A REQUEST THAT TRAVIS COUNTY JOIN AS A SIGNATORY TO A COMMENT TO BE FILED IN SUPPORT OF A PROPOSED FINDING THAT LEADED AVIATION GASOLINE CAUSES OR CONTRIBUTES TO AIR POLLUTION THAT ENDANGERS HUMAN HEALTH OR WELFARE UNDER SECTION 231 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. AND I'LL RECOGNIZE COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ FOR A MOTION. >> Gómez: THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE TRAVIS COUNTY JOINING US AS A SIGNATORY TO A COMMENT TO BE FILED IN SUPPORT OF A PROPOSED FINDING THAT LEADED AVIATION GASOLINE CAUSES OR CONTRIBUTES TO AIR POLLUTION THAT ENDANGERS HUMAN HEALTH, OR WELFARE UNDER SECTION 231 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AND DELEGATING SIGNATORY AUTHORITY TO COUNTY ATTORNEY DELIA GARZA. >> Judge Brown: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA. ANY DISCUSSION? NO COMMENTERS. ALL IN FAVOR? THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND NEXT I'LL CALL UP ITEM 24A, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS REGARDING THE 2023 BOND REFERENDUM: PART A, APPOINTMENTS TO THE CITIZENS BOND ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR 2023 TRAVIS COUNTY BOND REFERENDUM. AND I'LL READ OUT WHO THE APPOINTEES ARE AND I'LL START WITH PRECINCT ONE. COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION, IT'S LARRY WALLACE JUNIOR AND ELIZABETH MONTOYA, AND PRECINCT 2, COMMISSIONER SHEA IS WENDY SCAPARATA, GARY MERIT AND ANDREW WEBBER. >> Shea: REBER WITH AN R. >> Judge Brown: AND SO WENDY SCALPARATA, AND GARY MERIT AND ANDREW REBBER. AND COMMISSIONER HOWARD, AND ROB STROUP, AND COMMISSIONER -- OR COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ, PRECINCT FOUR IS CHRISTOPHER BROWN, PATRICK LÓPEZ AND JAMES VALADEZ. AND THEN JUDGE BROWN IS JENNIFER BRISTOL, RAIF JANE AND JOHN LANGMORE, AND SO I HAVE APPOINTED YOU AS CHAIR, JOHN, YOU ARE HERE. [APPLAUSE]        >> Shea: HE SHOWED UP. >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS, JOHN, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH EVERYONE ON THIS COMMITTEE. >> Travillion: WE APPOINTED YOU WHILE YOU WERE GONE. >> Shea: AND WE GAVE YOU A LOT OF ASSIGNMENTS. REALLY, WE HAD TERRIFIC APPLICANTS AND WE HAD A GREAT LIST OF PEOPLE TO CHOOSE FROM. AND THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME AT THESE MEETINGS AND SO ANYONE WHO HAS AN ONGOING INTEREST AND WOULD LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, PARTICIPATE AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, PLEASE ENCOURAGED TO DO SO. >> Judge Brown: GREAT. THANK YOU. AND THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM FOR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AND -- >> Shea: WE NEED TO VOTE ON IT. >> Judge Brown: YEAH, AND WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON IT BECAUSE WE ALREADY VOTED THAT EACH COMMISSIONER HAS THE POWER TO APPOINT INDIVIDUALS AND SINCE WE READ IT OFF. ARE YOU TRYING TO LEAVE, JOHN? >> [INDISCERNIBLE] >> Judge Brown: NO, YOU CAN LEAVE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] >> Shea: WE WERE GOING TO GIVE YOU MORE ASSIGNMENTS. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR CONFIDENCE. LOOKING FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL, STAFF... [INDISCERNIBLE] >> Judge Brown: THANK YOU, JOHN. >> THANK YOU, JUDGE BROWN. >> Judge Brown: ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO WE WILL ADJOURN THE MEETING OF THE TRAVIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT VOTING SESSION AT 2:11 P.M. AND THEN WE'LL CONVENE THE BEE CAVE ROAD DISTRICT NO. 1 VOTING SECTION AT 2:11 P.M. AND ITEM 1, AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY TREASURER TO INVEST COUNTY FUNDS. >> Shea: SO MOVED. >> Travillion: SECOND. >> Judge Brown: A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER TRAVILLION. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND NO CALLERS ON THAT. ITEM 2, APPROVE MINUTES FOR THE BEE CAVE ROAD DISTRICT NO. 1 VOTING SESSION OF DECEMBER 20, 2022. A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER GÓMEZ AND SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHEA FOR APPROVAL. NO CALLERS. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND NEXT IS ADJOURN THE BEE CAVE ROAD DISTRICT NO. 1 VOTING SESSION AND -- SORRY -- I HAVE SOMETHING HERE FOR ITEM 6 AND I CAN'T QUITE TELL -- IS THAT -- DO WE HAVE AN ITEM 6? >> ITEM 6 IS MOVED TO THE CONSENT MOTION. >> Judge Brown: OKAY SO THAT WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE UP. OKAY, SO THAT IS EVERYTHING. SO I THINK -- DIDN'T I JUST ADJOURN IT? >> Shea: YOU ADJOURNED BEE CAVE. >> Judge Brown: THAT'S IT THEN. WE'RE ALL DONE. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. >> Shea: THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. HAVE A GOOD ONE. >> Travillion: DO YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU A LIST OF PLACES WHERE IT IS 5:00? >> Judge Brown: YES. [LAUGHTER] [ END OF SESSION, 2:12 P.M. CT ]