[K3. Discussion and possible action to authorize the execution of an agreement between Hays County and Milliman, Inc. for actuarial services related to retiree drug subsidy. INGALSBE/MILLER]

SMITH? YES.

BECERRAEST? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU AND HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY.

>> K3 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN HAYS COUNTY AND MILLIMAN INC. FOR SERVICES WITH RETIREE DRUG SUBSIDY.

>> SO MOVED. >> DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING

TO THIS? >> THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. SHERRY MILLER HAYS COUNTY HR DIRECTOR. ANNUALLY THE COUNTY APPLIES FOR SUBSIDIES FROM THE RETIREE DRUG SUBSIDY PROGRAM RAN BY MEDICARE TO ENSURE THAT OUR PHARMACY PROGRAM THAT WE HAVE RETIREES ON WITHIN OUR INSURANCE PROGRAM ARE COMPARABLE TO THE DRUG PROGRAM OF MEDICARE. THIS IS JUST ONE PIECE OF THAT PROCESS. THIS IS THE UP FRONT ACTUARIAL STUDY THAT WE ENGAGE WITH THEM TO CONDUCT TO LOOK AT OUR RETIREES AND OUR PLANS TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE APPROPRIATE PLANS AND THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT PEOPLE ENROLLED IN OUR RETIREE PLAN. SO THE SUBSIDY ACTUALLY COMES TO PLAN YEAR AFTER YOU APPLY FOR THE SUBSIDY AND IT'S AN AVERAGE OF AROUND 40 TO $50,000 THAT WE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR IF WE FOLLOW ALL OF THEIR SIGNIFICANT STEPS INCLUDING THIS STUDY.

[00:35:02]

>> ALL GOOD? >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU FOR DOING ALL THAT YOU DO.

I REALLY APPRECIATE IT AND I KNOW A LITTLE MORE OF THE THINGS YOU DO ON A REGULAR BECAUSE OF THOSE COMMITTEES THAT I'M PART OF SO IT'S QUITE A BIT. THANK YOU.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? >> COMMISSIONER SHELL?

>> YES. COHEN? YES. INCOMPLETE UPPING STRENGTH YES.

COMMISSIONER SMITH? YES.

[K4. Discussion and possible action to reinstate dates of employment during period of unemployment for Amanda Cowan. COHEN (Part 1 of 2)]

JUDGE BECERRA? >> YES.

>> K 4 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO REINSTATE DATES OF EMPLOYMENT FOR AMANDA AMANDA COWAN.

>> MOTION AND SECOND IN THAT YOU SAY YOU HAVE WHAT?

>> A PUBLIC COMMENT. >> ON THAT ITEM?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

LET'S READ IT. START THE TIMER.

>> THIS IS FROM MARRY DAVID BELL OF HOPES.

THIS IS A POOR USE OF THE COURT'S TIME.

THIS EMPLOYEE WAS JUSTIFIABLE IBLY TERMINATED AND YOU SHOULD NOT CLOSE THE GAP IN SERVICE. THE PEOPLE OF THE COUNTY SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO PAY FOR A BAD EMPLOYEES CHOICE OF UNSUBORDINATION. LET IT NOT BE FORGOTTEN THE REASON THE HAYS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OT WAS NOT PAID ON TIME.

AGREEING TO THIS WILL SURELY BRING OTHERS FORWARD WANTING THE

SAME TREATMENT. >> OKAY.

SO IT IS CUSTOMARY FOR US TO OPEN IT UP.

COMMISSIONER COHEN? >> THANK YOU JUDGE.

SHE CAME TO ME ABOUT THIS REQUEST AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND AMANDA COWAN WAS WORKING FOR THE COUNTY FOR 13 DAYS, WELL SHE WAS NOT WORKING FOR THE COUNTY FOR 13 DAYS BEFORE BEING REHIRED AT A DIFFERENT POSITION.

ALSO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND WE DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN THE POLICY THAT ADDRESSES ABSENCE FROM THE COUNTY AND REHIRE BY THE COUNTY AND WHETHER ONE LOSES THEIR SERVICES IN THIS CASE AMANDA COWAN HAS FIVE YEARS OF PRIOR HAYS COUNTY EXPERIENCE AND THIS AGENDA ITEM I AGREE TO SPONSOR IS ONLY ABOUT ADDRESSING HER SERVICE TIMES A WELL THE REIN STATEMENT OF VACATION AND LEAVE REIMBURSEMENT BACK TO LEE COUNTY PAID TO THE EMPLOYEE AT THE TIME OF TERMINATION THE REINSTATEMENT OF SICK LEAVE ON THE AMOUNT OF 1/25/23 AND PERIODS 1/26/23 WITH PAYMENTS BE PAID BACK THE EMPLOYEE FOR THIS TIME PERIOD.

I UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A COMMON REQUEST BUT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST. I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS THAT ANYONE MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THIS AGENDA ITEM. IF MRS. MILLER WANTS TO ADD

ANYTHING? >> BEFORE WE GO TO MRS. MILLER IF YOU DON'T BEHIND, I'D LIKE TO SURE UP AND GIVE A COURT MEMBERS PRIORITY. COMMISSIONER INGALSBE? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> I WAS JUST READING BACK THROUGH THE REQUESTS THAT WE'RE CONDITIONING. IT'S THE REINSTATEMENT OF VACATION AND COMP LEAVE BALANCES AND VACATION AND INSURANCE COVERAGE. I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, JUDGE. IF THERE'S NOTHING ADDRESSING THESE SITUATIONS IN OUR POLICY YOU KNOW I THINK IT MIGHT BE YOU KNOW BENEFICIAL FOR US TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD DO THAT TODAY, NECESSARILY, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT IS IT THAT WE WANT TO IMPLEMENT AND THEN AS WE, I DON'T KNOW SHERRY IF THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, I KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OUR POLICY, OUR PERSONNEL POLICY, SO IT MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO COMING TO AND LOOK AT ANY CHANGES THAT WE MAY BE WANTING TO MAKE, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS, I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO KNOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.

>> THERE IS LANGUAGE IN OUR POLICY AND DR. COHEN, THERE IS

LANGUAGE ABOUT - >> CAN I TROUBLE YOU TO GO TO THE MICROPHONE AND SAY EVERYTHING YOU SAID.

HERE'S HOW I SEE COURT. I SEE COURT AS SOMEONE 30, 50 YEARS FROM NOW CLICKING THIS ONE AGENDA ITEM AND THAT'S WHY THE INTRODUCTION OF WHO YOU ARE AND EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT THIS ITEM OR ANY ITEM BE RECORDED FOR THAT FUTURE RESEARCHER OR

WHOEVER IT MAY BE. >> SHERRY MILLER.

[00:40:03]

HAYS COUNTY HR DIRECTOR. SO THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT POLICY THAT REHIRED EMPLOYEES WILL EARN LEAVES IF THEY WERE A NEW HIRE, SO THE POLICY DOESN'T ALLOW FOR NECESSARILY THIS GAP OF SERVICE THEREFORE, WE ARE HERE ASKING FOR THAT PURSUANT TO THE EMPLOYEE'S REQUEST.

THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE PREVIOUS SERVICE IS COUNTED SO IF SOMEONE LEAVES THE COUNTY FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, THAT PERIOD OF SERVICE THAT THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY SERVEED IS COUNTED TOWARDS THEIR LONGEVITY PAY CALCULATION AND THEN WE GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR IT THAT SERVICE WHEN WE CALCULATE FOR THEIR SERVICE AWARDS. SO RETIREMENT COUNTS THAT SERVICE, AS WELL. OUR RETIREMENT SYSTEM.

BUT THERE IS NEVER A SITUATION WHERE THE POLICY ALLOWS THE GAPPING OF SERVICE AND SO THE POLICY IS UNDER REVIEW FOR CHANGES AND EDITS THAT HAVE COME ABOUT AS NEEDED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. WE ADOPTED THE POLICY IN 2019 SO WE'RE INTO OUR FOURTH YEAR WITH IT AND THAT WILL BE A PROJECT THAT WE'LL WORK ON IN A LINE MEANT WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE

SALARY STEP PLAN. >> I GIVE THAT A KNOW THAT IT'S

TRUE. >> SHERRY, SINCE THE TIME YOU HAVE BEEN HERE HOW MANY TIMES HAS THIS COME BEFORE US?

>> ONLY TWO OTHER TIMES THAT I'M AWARE OF OR EVEN WERE REMOTELY INVOLVED IN. BOTH IN 2009 AND WE HAD AN EMPLOYEE THAT LEFT THE COUNTY NOT OF HER OWN FREE WILL AND WAS REHIRED BY A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT WITHIN 18 DAYS AND THE COURT WAS ASKED AND APPROVED A GAPPING OF THAT UNEMPLOYMENT PERIOD OF TIME AND THEN ANOTHER INSTANCE THAT DIDN'T NECESSARILY INVOLVE A REHIRE BUT A RETIREE THAT HAD LEFT THE COUNTY AND THEN CAME BACK AND WORKED ANOTHER PERIOD OF TIME, AT THE TIME OF THEIR SECOND RETIREMENT FROM THE COUNTY, THEIR SERVICE WAS CONSIDERED CONTINUOUS FOR RETIREMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS.

>> HOW LONG WAS THAT GAP? >> THAT WAS, I DON'T KNOW.

HE WAS GONE A COUPLE OF YEARS. BUT WE DIDN'T GIVE CREDIT FOR PTHAT PERIOD OF TO TIME HE BECAUSE GONE SO THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THIS REQUEST THAT WOULD BE GIVING CREDIT FOR IT I THINK IT'S 13 DAYS THIS EMPLOYEE WAS UNEMPLOYED.

>> WE BRIDGED THOSE FOR THE RETIREE?

>> IN THE RETIREMENT WE COUNTED THOSE PERIODS OF TIME TOGETHER.

>> VERY GOOD. >> I'M OKAY.

>> COMMISSIONER SHELL AND THEN COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> I'M NOT SUPPORTIVE OF DOING THIS IN PROBABLY ALMOST ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. I'M SURE THERE COULD BE A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT I WOULD CONSIDER SUPPORTING SOMETHING LIKE THIS BUT YOU KNOW IN THE 13 YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE A COURT HAS NEVER CONSIDERED THIS. I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER COHEN AND COMMISSIONER INGALSBE, IF THE POLICY DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT I THINK IT'S BEST THAT IT DID.

IT'S ALWAYS BEEN IN PRACTICE SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE BUT IF IT'S NOT CLEARLY STATED IT SHOULD BE. WHAT IS THAT BREAK? 24-HOURS? IS THAT WHAT WE'VE SAID IF YOU ARE GONE FOR MORE THAN ONE DAY YOU HAVE A BREAK OF SERVE VICE SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE CLEARED UP, NOT TO GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THIS CASE. I WOULDN'T BE SUPPORTIVE OF ANY

CASE. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> MUCH TO THE POINT THAT LON SHELL JUST MADE.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS AND I THINK SHERRY WILL TELL YOU, I'VE PROBABLY HAD MORE QUESTIONS OVER THIS ITEM THAN MY COLLEAGUES AND I WANTED TO LOOK AT THE GAP OF SERVICE AND WHAT THE OVERALL LIABILITY WOULD LOOK LIKE BECAUSE WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WITH GAPS IN SERVICE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE MAGIC NUMBER IS A DAY, TWO WEEKS OR TWO YEARS, BUT ONE OF THE DETRIMENTS IS IT MAKES IT HARD FOR US TO GO BACK AND RECRUIT FORMER EMPLOYEES THAT DAVID GOOD JOB.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

[00:45:01]

TODAY I UNDERSTAND, BUT IT'S DICTATEED THE SAME.

WE HAVE EVEN DEPARTMENT HEADS THAT HAVE A GAP IN SERVICE AND COULD VERY WELL RETIRE TODAY IF WE ALLEVIATED THAT GAP IN SERVICE BUT THEY ARE NOT SIMPLY PAUSE THEY WANT INSURANCE COVERAGE. WE HAVE OTHERS WHO ARE WORKING AN ADDITIONAL FOUR TO FIVE YEARS WITHIN OUR COUNTY SPECIFICALLY SO THEY CAN GET THAT CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE SERVICE ONCE THEY LEAVE AT RETIREMENT AND I HAVE AN ISSUE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT THIS. PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS OVER EMPLOYEES ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN GET HEALTHCARE IF THEY CHOOSE TO STAY WITH US FOR CAREER BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A SET POLICY IN PLACE AND THAT'S THE BIGGEST CONCERN I HAVE.

LIKE I SAID I KNOW OUR HR DEPARTMENT WILL PROBABLY TELL YOU THAT I'VE HAD SOME CONCERNS BOTH OVER THIS AND A COUPLE OF THINGS WHEN IT COMES TO GAP IN SERVICE AND I'VE ASKED THEM TO LOOK INTO SOME STUFF AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER INGALSBE THAT I THINK AN OVERALL EVALUATION OF THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE GOOD BECAUSE, AND I'M NOT SPEAKING AT ALL TO THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE BECAUSE HONESTLY I'VE HAD CONTACT FROM BOTH EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS INTERNALLY TO THE COUNTY AND OUTSIDE IN SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM TODAY.

SO I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH PARTICULARS TO SAY IT'S GREAT OR BAD BUT WHAT I DO KNOW IS IT MAKES AN INCONSISTENT MESSAGE TO OUR OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT HAVE DECIDED TO COME BACK AND FULFILL THAT SERVICE, AND SO I'M PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTIVE TODAY BUT I WOULD LIKE ANY CLARIFICATION THAT HR OR ANYBODY CAN OFFER AS FAR AS, NUMBER UP WITH FIRST QUESTION IS, IF WE WERE TO SOLVE THAT GAP ISSUE, WHAT KIND OF INCREASED LIABILITY WOULD WE HAVE WITH THE COUNTY?

>> WELL IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GAPS AS FAR AS THIS.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE A LIABILITY AS OF THE END OF THE LAST FISCAL YEAR OF $40 MILLION FOR OUR LIABILITY SO WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT CLOSING GAPS NOT JUST IN THIS SITUATION WE'RE GOING TO SEE OUR LIABILITY INCREASE IN ORDER TO GET ACTUAL NUMBERS WE HAVE TO GET A CONTRACT WITH OUR ACTUARY STUDY AND SEND MILLIMAN THE DIFFERENT SQUARES THE COURT IS WILLING TO CONSIDER LIKE IF YOU ARE CLOSING GAPS FOR HEALTH OR OTHER ITEMS, AND THEN THEY WOULD DO THE STUDY AND GIVE YOU THE SQUARE SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE COST WILL BE. CAN SEE WHAT THE COST WILL BE.

SEE WHAT THE COST WILL BE. SO YE WHAT THE COST WILL BE.SO YOU CA WHAT THE COST WILL BE. IT'S NOT A CURRENT LIABILITY BUT IT'S ONE WE'RE PROMISING OUR EMPLOYEES THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE WHEN THEY RETIRE SO WE REQUIRE TO SHOW THAT ON OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SO THAT INVESTORS OF THE PUBLIC CAN SEE WHERE WE STAND COMPARED TO OTHER AGENCIES AND HOW WE'RE FUNDING OUR LIABILITY, SO IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO THESE GAPS YOU NEED TO GET STUDIES DONE IT'S HOW IT WILL AFFECT THE HEALTH IN ORDER TO

MAKE A GOOD DECISION. >> THINK WHAT YOU DESCRIBED IS REALLY SOUND AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT LOOKING GLASS BECAUSE IT CON RACE IS ENERGY. THIS IS WHAT I TOOK FROM WHAT SHE SAID. IT CON RACE IS PREDICTABILITY, CONTINUITY AND IT'S NECESSARY FOR FORECASTING.

SO RIGHT AND COMPLETE AND RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

SO - >> I STILL HAD ONE MORE THING.

>> YES, SIR. THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE AND THIS MAY BE A MOOT POINT BUT WHEN WE GO BACK TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND LOOK AT THE GAPS, THIS IS 12 TO 13 DAY, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE BUT NO MATTER WHAT THE TIME PERIOD IS, I HAVE A REAL CONCERN OVER INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY WHEN IT COMES TO OURSELF INSURED SIDE, WE ARE SELF-INSURED AND PAY ALL OF OUR COSTS AND NOT KNOWING OR NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT GAP IF WE GO BACK AND REINSTATE THOSE PERIODS, WE'RE PUTTING AN ADDITIONAL LIABILITY ON THE FUNDS IN AN OUR CURRENT

[00:50:01]

EMPLOYEES ARE PUTTING INTO THAT PROGRAM AND THAT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ILLUSTRATE. IF I'M OUT OF SERVICE FOR TWO MONTHS AND MY KID BREAKS THEIR ARM OR HAS SOMETHING HAPPEN IN THAT PERIOD, BECAUSE WE SELF INSURE WE PAY FOR THAT'S A COUNTY. NOT IN THIS COUNTY BUT I HAVE SPOKEN TO A COMMISSIONER IN ANOTHER COUNTY WHO THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN BECAUSE THEY HAVE A GAP IN SERVICE THAT THEY HAD TO ADDRESS WAS THAT THEY HAD AN EMPLOYEE THAT LOST THEIR JOB WITH THE COUNTY AND CAME BACK FOUR MONTHS LATER AND AFTER THAT FOUR MONTH GAP THEY HAD A SITUATION WHERE THEY HAD A SPOUSE THAT HAD BEEN IN A CAR WRECK AND THEN THE LIABILITY, WHENEVER THEY WENT BACK TO PAY FOR THE SERVICE THEY REINSTATED INSURANCE AND THEIR OVERALL PREMIUM FOR THE REST OF THE EMPLOYEES WENT UP A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT BECAUSE THEY WERE A SMALL COUNTY. WE'RE LARGER AND CAN EAT SOME COST BUT AS WE LOOK AT THIS AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OVERALL WAY TO ADDRESS THIS INSTEAD OF A ONE OFF FOR EACH EMPLOYEE THAT MAY HAVE A GAP IN SERVICE OVERTIME.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO MORE THAN A YEAR, NO MORE THAN THREE YEARS. WITH SOME TYPE OF ADDRESSING OF HOW WE CAN REINSTATE THOSE THINGS WITHOUT AN ACTUAL, WITHOUT THAT INCREASED LIABILITY UNTIL RETIREMENT FOR OUR EMPLOYEES. THERE'S NO COST ASSOCIATED WITH THIS BUT I'M WONDERING IS THERE A COST? I THINK THERE IS A COST TO WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY BUT IT'S NOT OUTLINED HERE. VICKI?

>> YES, SIR. VICKI DORSETT.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A COST TO THE COUNTY AND THE EMPLOYEE IN THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE. THE EMPLOYEE WAS PAID OUT VACATION AND COMP HOURS THAT WERE ACCRUED AND ON THE BOOKS.

THAT TOTAL IS JUST OVER $2300 THAT THE EMPLOYEE WOULD THEN OWE BACK IF WE'RE GAPPING THAT TIME. THAT VACATION AND COMP WOULD BE OWED BACK BUT THE HOURS COULD GO BACK ON THE BOOKS FOR THE EMPLOYEE. HEALTH INSURANCE, SHE DID LOSE COVERAGE FOR A LITTLE OVER TWO MONTHS THE.

COST FOR THE EMPLOYEE TO REINSTATE HER COVERAGE FOR INSURANCE BENEFITS WOULD BE JUST UNDER $190.

THE COUNTY'S PORTION OF INSURANCE WOULD BE A LITTLE OVER

$3100. >> YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT COVERING THE TIME IN THE PAST, ARE YOU?

>> THE GAP. >> I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE'S ONE FOR YOU TUCKER. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE CAN'T BUY INSURANCE IN THE PAST.

THAT TIME IS PAST AND GONE SO THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEED TO PAY

FOR THAT OR COVER IT? >> ONE OF THE REQUESTS IS TO

REINSTATE TO THAT PERIOD. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS TO TURN IT BACK ON BUT TO GO BACK AND COVER A DATE?

>> SHE WAS, SHE IS INSURED NOW. THE GAP, SHE WOULD THEN BE ELIGIBLE IF THERE WERE ANY DOCTOR VISITS DURING THAT TIME.

>> FOR REIMBURSEMENT? >> RIGHT.

SHE COULD SUBMIT CLAIMS. THE COUNTY WOULD OWE THOSE FUNDS IN ORDER FOR HER TO SUBMIT THOSE.

THOSE ARE THINGS TO CONSIDER. OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD WANT TO MEET WITH MRS. AMANDA COWAN AND MAKE SURE THAT THE COMP AND VACATION TIME ARE ALL PROPERLY ADDRESSED. THOSE GO BACK ON THE BACKS.

WE COULD DO A SALARY REDUCTION OR PAYROLL REDUCTION FOR AUTHORIZATION FORM WITH HER, AS WELL AS THE COURT HAS APPROVED IN THE PAST BUT THE EMPLOYEE WOULD OWE $2,500 AND THE COST TO THE COUNTY WOULD BE JUST OVER $4000.

>> COMMISSIONER ANYTHING ELSE? >> I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU EARLIER BUT I WANTED TO FINISH MY POINT.

THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN. IT'S DIFFERENT THAN PICKING UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF. IT'S THAT GAP THAT I THINK WE HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.

I KNOW EMPLOYEES IN ALMOST EVERY DEPARTMENT THAT HAVE SOME TYPE OF GAP WHO HAVE MOVED OR WE'VE BEEN BLESSED ENOUGH FOR THEM TO

[00:55:01]

COME BACK IF THEY WERE GOOD PLEASE AND I WANT TO ADDRESS IT IN A FAIR MANNER FOR ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

>> COMMISSIONER SMITH YOU HAVE HIGHLIGHTED ELOQUENTLY ON SEVERAL FRONTS AS TO WHY MRS. MILLER SHOULD BRING THIS TO THAT LITTLE GROUP THAT MEET, SO HAPPILY.

IT'S NOT RELUCTANTLY BUT SOMETHING THAT'S WORTHY OF ASSESSING AND FORMULATING AND DIALOGUING BACK AND FORTH BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED IN A HOLISTIC MANNER.

I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AND SOMETHING THAT, WELL I'VE BEEN JUDGE FOR FIVE YEARS NOW, IN SOME THINGS SINCE COVID-19 AND ANY OTHER EMERGENCY OR DISASTER WE'VE DEALT WITH, SOMETHING THAT I APPRECIATE MOST AS THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IS THE VERY THING THAT MONEY WAS HIGHLIGHTING OF THAT PREDICTABILITY AND CONSISTENCY AND CONTINUITY.

I ALWAYS TRY MY BEST ALTHOUGH I COULD FAIL IN CERTAIN INSTANCES TO BE PREDICTABLE. MY AIM IS TO SAY, COUNTY-WIDE THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING AND THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING AND THESE ARE THE THINGS GOING ON WHETHER IT BE WHATEVER. WITH COVID-19 MY MEMORY GOES BACK TO, I WANT TO WITH THE BEST OF MY ABILITIES SUPPORT THE GOVERNOR BECAUSE THAT CREATES CONTINUITY.

MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHERE HAYS COUNTY AND HARRIS COUNTY AND CALDWELL AND NO ONE KNOWS REALLY WHERE THOSE COUNTY LINES ARE IF YOU MISS THAT TINY GREEN SIGN SO THE CONTINUITY AND PREDICTABILITY OF THAT IS SO IMPORTANT SO I'M TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT AND PREDICTABLE GOING FORWARD AND WHAT I WAS TOLD ABOUT THIS INSTANCE I TOO FELT WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY AS A COUNTY BECAUSE WE'VE HAD VARIATIONS TAKING PLACE THROUGH COVID-19 AND ALL THE INFLUXES IN PAY AND INFLATION AND ALL THESE THINGS GOING ON REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY WITH THE ECONOMY.

IT IS A FAST CHANGING GOVERNMENT THAT WE'RE LEADING HERE AND WE HAVE JUST UNDER 1200 EMPLOYEES AND IT'S, I'M SAYING ALL THAT TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE THAT'S BEEN HERE FOR A WHILE THINKS FOR HALF A MOMENT THAT I'M SAYING, SHAME ON YOU FOR LETTING IT GO THIS FAR WITHOUT A POLICY. NO, NO, NO.

I'M SAYING WE HAVE EVOLVED IN AWAY AND TO A TIME AND PLACE WHERE WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS NOW IN A MORE WHOLISTIC WAY BECAUSE THIS A BIGGER VESSEL NOW AND I APPLAUD AND SUPPORT THE IDEA OF THIS COMING BACK AS A NEW AGENDA ITEM IN THE FUTURE FOR UNIVERSAL POLICY FOR THE COUNTY AND MY AIM IS TO CONTINUE TO STRIVE TO BE PREDICTABLE, CONSISTENT AND DEPEND TO BE ABLE OUR CO-WORKERS IN ALL INSTANCES BECAUSE WHAT ARE WE IF NOT OUR CO-WORKERS? WE'RE HERE TO HELP THEM AND AS YOU SAID IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A SIGNIFICANT THING IN THIS INSTANCE OF A FEW DAYS, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE BUT THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE SOMEONE COULD SAY I WAS GONE FOR X NUMBER OF DAYS AND I BELIEVE THAT BLAH BLAH.

SO WE OWE IT TO OUR COMMUNITY OF COUNTY EMPLOYEES TO CREATE THAT POLICY AND BECAUSE ONE OF THOSE BIG CHANGES THAT HAPPENED WAS TURNING OF OFFICES IN THIS ELECTION WAS A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE WE HAD A LOT OF OFFICES TURNING AND IT IS WHAT IS IT.

CHANGE IS INEVITABLE AND CERTAIN AND WILL HAPPEN BUT IT STILL DOES NOT STOP US FROM FEELING NERVOUS AND UNEASY ABOUT IT.

WE ALL GET NERVOUS ABOUT CHANGE AND I BELIEVE SOME OF THIS WAS A BY PRODUCT OR A RIPPLE OF THE THINGS GOING ON IN OUR COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT AND SO IF WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO BUTTON THIS DOWN AND THEN CREATE A POLICY IN THE FUTURE TO ADDRESS THIS UNIFORMLY I THINK WE'LL SAVE TIME AND BENEFIT FROM THAT

PREDICTABILITY BUT I KNOW. >> I AGREE AND I HOPE THAT MAYBE THEN IF COMMISSIONERS ARE WILLING THAT WE NOT TAKE ANY ACTION TODAY AND TRY TO COME BACK WITH SOME KIND OF REVISION OR POLICY CHANGE OR EDITS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I FEEL QUITE COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD TODAY.

ESPECIALLY AFTER HEARING THE FINANCIAL IMPACT THAT THIS WILL CAUSE ALSO. I WISH WE WOULD HAVE HAD SOME OF THESE NUMBERS YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS A LITTLE

[01:00:05]

MORE BUT IF WE CAN TAKE A LITTLE TIME.

I DON'T KNOW SHERRY HOW LONG YOU FEEL IT WOULD TAKE TO BRING

SOMETHING BACK TO THE COURT. >> SO FOR POLICY REVISIONS THERE ARE NOT ACTUALLY THAT MANY THAT NEED TO BE IMPLEMENTED.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE POLICY DOES ALREADY INDICATE.

>> I'M SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE GAP.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S AS CLEAR AS IT NEEDS TO BE.

I DON'T MIND REVISITING THIS ITEM BUT I REALLY WANT TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND MORE OF THE IMPLICATIONS ESPECIALLY THE FINANCIAL ONES AND THEN I REALLY WANT TO TIE DOWN THE GAP AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON WHAT THAT MEANS AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW IF WE WANT TO HAVE A TIMEFRAME THAT YOU KNOW, WE'RE WILLING TO COMMIT TO HAVING A GAP AND BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, I MEAN I'M OKAY WITH THAT BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THAT IS AND WHAT WE ALL FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHETHER THAT'S A DAY OR TWO DAYS OR FIVE OR A WEEK OR TWO. I JUST THINK WE NEED MORE CONSISTENCY AND CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

>> THERE ARE TWO OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO OUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT AND REHIRING FORMER EMPLOY PLAY AGREES.

ONE OF THOSE IS THAT IF YOU RETIRE AND YOU ACTUALLY TAKE YOUR RETIREMENT ANNUITY THE COUNTY HAS DESIGNATED A SIX MONTH PERIOD YOU MAY NOT RETURN TO WORK AND RETURNING TO WORK CANNOT BE PRE-PLANNED. THAT IN TURN JEOPARDIZES "THAT'S SO MEGA CHURCH" RETIREMENT WAS A QUALIFIED RETIREMENT EVENT.

SO THAT IS OUTLINED, ON THAT, AND THE POLICY ON THAT IS THREE MONTHS BUT THE COUNTY CHOSEN AND USED SIX MONTHS.

THAT QUALIFIER IS IF THE EMPLOYEE LEAVES THE COUNTY, THEY'RE NOT A RETIREE OR ELIGIBLE TO DRAWS AN ANNUITY BUT IF THEY CASH OUT THEIR RETIREMENT THEY MAY NOT RETURN FOR SIX WEEKS AND SO THAT PERIOD OF TIME IS OF OUR OWN CHOOSING, BUT IT'S GIVING US A DEFINITE SEPARATION FROM SOMEBODY THAT HAS LEFT AND INTENDS TO WITHDRAWAL THEIR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT IN IT'S ENTIRETY AND THEN COMES BACK.

WE'VE HAD EMPLOYEES IN THE PAST DO THAT IN TIMES WHERE THEY NEED IT. WE CAN'T TAKE A LOAN ON OUR RETIREMENT ACCOUNT IF THEY HAVE NOT DEFERRED SAVINGS SO THEN IT IS A POOL OF MONEY FOR PEOPLE TO USE IN TIMES OF NEED.

SO THOSE FOR OTHER TWO THAT I WANT YOU ALL TO BE AWARE OF CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE TO OPERATE UNDER.

NOW THE SIX MONTHS FOR REHIRING RETIREES? WE CAN ADJUST THAT DOWN TO THREE MONTHS IF WE CHOOSE.

THE SIX WEEKS EXAMPLE IS A GOOD SEPARATION FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE A TRUE SEPARATION. THERE COULD BE EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES OF PEOPLE LEAVING. I JUST HAVE TO GO AND WHATEVER THAT MIGHT RESOLVE AND THEN THEY COULD COME BACK AS LONG AS THEY DON'T WITHDRAWAL THEIR RETIREMENT AND I DON'T BELIEVE

THAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. >> I HAVE ONE AND THIS MIGHT AS YOUR COMMITTEE LOOKS AT THIS, THIS MIGHT BE ONE THING TO DO.

I THINK THAT THERE'S NOT, I'D MUCH RATHER HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF HOW MANY EMPLOYEES THIS IMPACTS BECAUSE I KNOW A HANDFUL ALREADY WHO HAVE THAT GAP AND THEY ARE LITERALLY STAYING WITH US FOR AT LEAST ONE CASE ANOTHER TWO OR THREE YEAR, SO THEY CAN MAKE UP

FOR THE GAP. >> ARE THEY LESS THAN TWO WEEKS?

>> NO THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING.

HAVING A UNIVERSE IF WE HAVE AN OVERALL POLICY LIKE ACTUALLY FINDING OUT HOW MANY EMPLOYEES FALL INTO THAT AREA AND IF WE MADE A POLICY CHANGE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE AS FAR AS HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WE WOULD WRAP INTO THAT.

IT MIGHT BE FIVE OR 50. I HAVE NO IDEA.

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL BUT THEN REVIEWING SOME TYPE OF POLICY

[01:05:03]

WHERE BY IF WE DO A REHIRE, PRIOR TO THE NEW PLACEMENT WE ADDRESS THIS. IN OTHER WORDS IF IT'S TWO WEEKS OR FIVE DAYS OR A DAY, IF WE HAVE A POLICY THAT SAYS, OKAY MAYBE IT HAS TO COME TO COURT FOR US TO ADDRESS THAT BEFORE THEY ARE REHIRED THEN WE'RE NOT COMING BACK TO FIX SOMETHING THAT HAS NOW MANIFESTED THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT BEFOREHAND.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE PURSUANT TO DEPARTMENT HEADS TO SAY LOOK WE'RE GOING TO REHIRE YOU BUT YOU KNOW AS A NEW HIRE YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN ORDER TO GET THAT REINSTATED. I'M NOT SAYING IT HAS TO COME TO THE COURT BUT THERE SHOULD BE A POLICY IN PLACE.

IT GIVES THEM AS THEY ARE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT TO COME TO THE COUNTY IT GIVES THEM PROBABLE EMPLOYEE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE DECISION OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S WORTH IT TO THEM OR NOT. IT ALSO GIVES A LEVEL OF CONTINUITY WITH THE DEPARTMENT HEADS WHENEVER THEY GO OUT TO TRY TO RECRUIT PEOPLE OR FORMER EMPLOYEES, IT GIVES THEM A CONSISTENCY THEY CAN SAY, THIS IS THE PROCESS AND HOW IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND YES, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH OR THE AMOUNT IN ORDER TO BRIDGE THAT GAP YOU ARE GOING TO OWE THE COUNTY AND THEY HAVE TO OWE YOU AND WHEN IT COMES TO COURT WE HAVE TO SAY YES WE'LL PAY THE 4,000 DOLLARS BUT YOU AS AN EMPLOYEE, HERE FOR ATTRIBUTES, YOU CASH THIS OUT AND OWE THIS MUCH IN PREMIUM IF YOU WANT TO BRIDGE THAT GAP THESE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE EMPLOYEE, AS WELL SO IT

MAKES IT CHEER ON BOTH SIDES. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IF YOU DON'T MIND IS INVITE AMANDA COWAN BECAUSE SHE IS HERE AND I WOULD PROBABLY FEEL POTENTIALLY FRUSTRATED WITH EVERYTHING BEING SAID ABOUT ME AND ME NOT SAYING A WORD SO IF YOU DON'T MIND I'D LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO PODIUM TO SAY A FEW WORDS ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT AND WILLING TO DO AND HOW

BEST WE CAN HELP MOVE THIS ON. >> GOOD MORNING.

MY NAME IS AMANDA COWAN. I'M HERE TODAY JUST TO GET MY SERVICE TO CLOSE IT WITH INSURANCE.

I HAVE ALREADY BEEN ON MY HUSBAND'S VANCE AND GOTTEN THAT TAKEN CARE OF. THERE'S REALLY NOTHING MONETARILY I WANT JUST MY CONTINUED SERVICE.

>> THAT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER. COMMISSIONER INGALSBE DOES THAT SUPPORT TAKING CARE OF THIS TODAY HEARING THAT?

>> IT SOUNDS SIMPLE AND I AND STAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, SO BY DOING THAT AND SAYING THAT YOU DON'T WANT ANYTHING MONETARILY,

IS IT THAT SIMPLE? >> JUST A CONTINUITY OF EMPLOYMENT SO IT DOESN'T SHOW A GAP IN EMPLOYMENT BUT NOTHING

MONETARILY. >> SO AS FAR AS COMP HOURS THAT WERE PAID OUT THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT? YOU ARE PAID OUT AND YOU JUST DON'T HAVE ANY COMP HOURS?

>> I'VE BEEN PAID OUT. I JUST WANT THE HOURS EARNED BACK TO WHAT IT WAS WHENEVER I WAS IN THE HR DEPARTMENT.

>> OKAY. >> SO THE COMP HOURS WERE PAID OUT AT TIME OF SEPARATION SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY COMP ON THE BOOKS UNLESS THEY WERE EARNED, RIGHT? WITH THE TREASURER'S OFFICE WHICH YOU WOULD STILL HAVE.

>> YOU WOULD KEEP THE HOURS. THE VACATION HOURS IS GOING BACK TO THE NOW VERSES 8 WHEN SEPARATED AND SHE'S WANTING TO GET BACK TO THAT EIGHT HOUR A CRUEL PERIOD SO IT'S FOUR HOURS SHE APPROVES NOW AND THEN SHE WANTS TO BE, THAT GAP COULD PUT HER BACK TO EIGHT HOUR, SO THEN THERE WOULD BE NO EXPECTATION FOR HER TO PAY BACK BECAUSE SHE WOULDN'T GET ANY HOURS ON THE BOOKS BECAUSE SHE WAS PAID OUT FOR THAT TIME.

SO IF YOUR GAPPING, THEN THAT WOULD BECOME YOUR POLICY. WE GOING TO SAY, IF WE GAP, YOU START NEW AND YOU WERE PAID OUT AND THAT'S THE HISTORY AND A RESET BUT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW

[01:10:03]

YOU TO ACCRUE SO THAT'S A BALANCE ON OUR BOOKS UNCOMPENSATED SO THAT'S LIABILITY GETTING HER BACK TO THE TIME AND SEPARATION GAP AND PUTTING HER EIGHT HOURS GOING

FORWARD. >> SO COMMISSIONER THE COST IS? I LIKE TO SUMMARIZE. SHE WANTS THE BREAK IN TIME OF EMPLOYMENT TO BE ERASED BUT NO BACK AND FORTH WITH THE INSURANCE COSTS OR NO BACK AND FORTH.

THAT SHE WAS GIVEN TO PAY IT BACK.

NONE OF THAT STUFF JUST CONTINUING OF THE CONTINUITY OF TIME ON THE JOB THAT WOULD PUT HER INSTEAD OF THE FOUR HOURS OF VACATION TO BACK TO THE EIGHT WHERE SHE WAS BEFORE THAT GAP.

>> HOW LONG DO YOU HAVE TO BE PLOYED TO HAVE EIGHT HOURS

EARNED OF VACATION? >> I BELIEVE IT'S AFTER FIVE YEAR, SO IT GOES FOUR HOURS A MONTH FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND THEN IT GOES TO 7 HOURS UNTIL YOU ARE FIVE YEARS AND THEN IT

GOES TO EIGHT. >> THE SECOND YEAR IS EVERYBODY

IS HOURS? >> YES.

>> OR SEVEN HOURS AND THEN IT GOES TO EIGHT HOURS.

>> IS THAT ACCEPTABLE MRS. AMANDA COWAN TO HAVE THAT START AFTER THAT AND AFTER A YEAR YOU WILL GAIN YOUR SEVEN HOURS?

>> NO, THAT'S NOT ACCEPT TO BE ABLE YOU.

>> SO THE AGENDA ITEMS WERE WRITTEN FOR REIN STATEMENT OF BENEFITS AT THE GAP SO IF THAT IS NOT NEEDED, IF THERE WERE NO BENEFIT COSTS SHE WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT SHE WOULD NOT OWE THE BENEFIT PORTION. THE COUNTY WOULD NOT OWE, SHE'S

COVERED AGAIN EFFECTIVE. >> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT

INSURANCE? >> IF YOU WANTED INSURANCE BENEFIT. SO THE ONLY COST WOULD BE THE ACCRUING BALANCE AT THIS POINT. LET ME JUST MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR.

YOU ARE STAYING ON YOUR HUSBAND'S INSURANCE AND NOT

ASKING TO BE PUT BACK? >> I'M CURRENTLY ON THE COUNTY INSURANCE SINCE I DID THE THREE MONTHS WAITING PERIOD.

>> SO THERE'S NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT THEN.

EVERYTHING ON THAT. DATE OF TERMINATION.

>> OKAY. >> BUT NO - JUST THE 900.

>> ONE QUESTION. IF WE DO THAT AND VACATION WAS PAID OUT, EXPLAIN TO ME THE REINSTATEMENT OF SICK LEAVE

BALANCE? >> THE SICK LEAVE IS NOT PAID OUT UPON TERMINATION. IT JUST GOES AWAY UNLESS YOU RETIRE WITH 20 YEARS OR MORE OF SERVICE IT DOES NOT PAY OUT SO THE SICK LEAVE BALANCE JUST GOES AWAY IF YOU START AND YOU ARE STARTING AGAIN YOU GET EIGHT HOURS NO MATTER WHAT YOUR TIME OF SERVICE IS. YOU GET EIGHT HOURS A MONTH.

SO THE REQUEST, I'D HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE WHAT HER SICK HOUR BALANCE WAS. BUT THAT'S THE LIABILITY UNCOMPENSATED ON THE BOOKS. NO COST.

A LIABILITY ON THE BOOKS. >> WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO SAY?

>> 154 HOURS. >> YOU DON'T TELL SICK DAYS IS

WHAT THAT TELLS ME. >> I'M A DEDICATED EMPLOYEE.

>> I SEE IT. >> THOSE HOURS WERE NOT PAID

OUT. >> THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDERS.

COMMISSIONER INGALSBE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I'M OKAY RIGHT NOW UNLESS OTHERS HAVE QUESTIONS?

>> COMMISSIONERS? ARE WE INTERESTED IN VOTING FOR IT? OKAY.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.

LET ME RESTATE WHAT WE'RE VOTING FOR.

YOU ALMOST BEAT ME. LET'S RESTATE WHAT WE ASK IS COMMISSIONER COHEN IF YOU COULD RESTATE THE INTENT.

>> MOTION TO REINSTATE AMANDA CO COWAN SERVICE. WE ARE GOING TO REINSTATE SICK

[01:15:05]

LEAVE BALANCE TO 125. >> IF YOU CAN SAY WE'LL REINSTATE AT THE DATE OF TERMINATION.

>> WE WILL REINSTATE BALANCE AT THE TIME OF TERMINATION.

>> AND REINSTATE VACATION ACCRUAL.

>> AND COMP LEAVE? >> NO.

JUST THE ACCRUALS GOING FORWARD. VACATION.

THOSE WERE LEAVING HER AT EIGHT HOURS PER MONTH.

>> DOES THAT COVER IT ACCURATELY? I DON'T WANT YOU TO WALK AWAY THINKING WE MESSED UP.

SO WE COVERED IT? >> FROM MY EXPERIENCE ON THIS

COURT THAT DID NOT COVER IT. >> I'M SORRY?

>> FROM MY EXPERIENCE OF 13 YEARS IN THIS COUNTY THAT DID NOT COVER IT. THERE WILL BE A HUNDRED QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THIS BASED ON THE DISCUSSION ON THIS TODAY.

>> CAN WE COME BACK TO IT WITH A MOTION THAT'S MORE CLEAR?

>> IF WE CAN TABLE IT? I CAN SEND YOU A MOTION THAT

WILL BE BETTER? >> BUT TODAY, RIGHT?

>> YES. >> SO SHE WILL CRAFT.

VICKI WILL TYPE UP DETAILED DESCRIPTION FOR THE COMMISSIONER TO READ SO IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR AS TO HOW IT'S UNFOLDING.

I WAS GOING TO REITERATE WHAT SHE STATED BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TYPE IT THAT WORKS FOR US AND WE UNDERSTAND FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC BECAUSE THERE ARE COURT MEMBERS THAT ARE ALWAYS REMINDED THAT OUR OWN COWORKERERS ARE WATCHING THESE VIDEOS ON THESE AGENDA ITEMS SPECIFICALLY SO IT IS TRUE WE'RE OPENING UP TO A LOT OF QUESTIONS BUT THAT'S WHY MRS. MILLER IS GOING TO HELP UPDATE THE POLICY ON THE SEPARATION SPACE AND SO THIS IS ADDRESSING A UNIQUE INSTANCE BUT THERE WILL BE A COUNTY-WIDE POLICY UPDATE THAT THIS WILL BE UPDATING THE COMMUNITY ON.

FOR NOW WE'LL TABLE THIS. >> IN THAT DIRECTION, THE ONE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT IF WE HAVE AND I'D LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THIS MAYBE IN TWO SEPARATE ITEMS. THE REIN STATEMENT OF THE SICK LEAVE BALANCE IS A CONCERN BECAUSE WE HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT MAY HAVE WORKED US FOR TEN YEARS AND HAD A GAP AND COME BACK AND WE HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT WE COULD VERY WELL BE LOOKING AT THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF SICK LEAVE THAT WE'RE LADIES BIBLE HAVING LIABILITY NOW. WE HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT MAY HAVE RETIRED WITH 20 YEARS OF SERVICE AND THEY MAY HAVE TWO YEARS OF

SICK LEAVE. >> BUT THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN

PAID FOR IT? >> NO.

SICK HEAVE UPON TERMINATION DISAPPEARS.

WE JUST LEARNED THAT. >> UPON NOT UPON RETIREMENT.

>> WE'LL ADDRESS THAT WITH THE POLICY WITH SHERRY.

>> SOME TYPE OF CAP ON THAT TO REDUCE THAT LIABILITY WOULD BE

HELPFUL. >> JUST TO SAY I WORKED THE STATE FOR 12 YEARS AND WHEN I WAS ELECTED I KNEW THAT ME LEAVING THAT POSITION I WOULD LOSE ALL MY SERVICE TIME WITH THE STATE. WITH THE STATE, IF YOU LEAVE ONE POSITION AND COME BACK WITH ANOTHER AGENCY WITHIN A MONTH THEN YOU CAN RETAIN YOUR SERVICE TIME SO ALL I'M ASKING, THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION WITH HER BEING A WAY 13 DAYS BUT DEDICATED FIVE YEARS OF HER LIFE WITH THE COUNTY AND WITH THE STEP PLAN THAT WILL BE CRUCIAL IN HER CAREER WITH THE COUNTY, KNOCK SO WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS NOT JUST A FREE FOR ALL FOR EVERYONE, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS HER ISSUE WITH THIS BEING THE 13 DAY, SO SHE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH US AND THE COUNTY.

THIS HAPPENED AT A TIME WITH A LOT OF CHANGE IN THE DEPARTMENT AND I THINK WE CAN DO THIS FOR HER WITH COMPASSIONATE ALLENS FOR AN EMPLOYEE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY DEDICATED TO STAYING HERE.

THIS OPENED UP THE CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE NOT INDICATEED IN POLICY WHICH IS WHY SOMETIMES THESE THINGS HAPPEN. THESE CONVERSATIONS NEED TO HAPPEN SO SHE'S GOING TO LOOK AT THAT POLICY AND LIKE I SAID, IF IT'S A MONTH THAT IT'S DECIDED I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

I'M JUST AFRAID IF WE GO DOWN THE ROAD TO DO A POLICY WE'LL SQUEEZE HER OUT OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN FRONT OF US TO HAVE THAT VOTE FOR HER. SO I JUST WANT TO JUST STATE THAT. I'M NOT LOOKING AT YOU KNOW JUST

[01:20:03]

OPENING UP THIS FOR EVERYONE BUT JUST ADDRESSING HER UP SITUATION WITH A COMPASSIONATE ALLENS FOR HER AND HER SERVICE TO THE

COUNTY. >> RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS FOR I DON'T KNOW TEN MINUTES AND VICKI ARTICULATE THE MOTION AND THEN COMMISSIONER COHEN CAN REOPEN IT AND WE'LL

[K5. Discussion and possible action to accept the resignation of Commissioner Debbie Ingalsbe from the Board of Directors of the Greater San Marcos Partnership (GSMP) and approve the appointment of Judge Ruben Becerra to the Board of Directors of Greater San Marcos Partnership to replace her after her term ends on October 19, 2023. INGALSBE]

CALL THE ROLL IN THE MEANTIME PLEASE OPEN NUMBER FIVE.

>> K 5. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION OF COMMISSIONER DEBBIE INGALSBE FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GREATER SAN MARCOS PARTNERSHIP AND APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE RUBEN BECERRA TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE GREATER SAN MARCOS PARTNERSHIP TO REPLACE HER AFTER HER TERM ENDS ON

OCTOBER 19TH, 2023. >> I'M GRATEFUL FOR YOUR WILLINGNESS AND THANK YOU SO MUCH COMMISSIONER INGALSBE.

>> SMITH? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER COHEN? >> YES.

>> SMELL SHELL? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER INGALSBE? >> YES.

[G. CONSENT ITEMS]

JUDGE BECERRA? >> YES.

>> WE'LL MOVE THROUGH CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. G-1 APPROVE COUNTY INVOICES. APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF CHECKS AND APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF THE UNITED HEALTHCARE CLAIMS. G5 APPROVE THE PAYMENT OF THE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2023 PAYROLL DISBURSE MEANTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2.8 MILLION EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2023 AND POST TOTALS FOR WAGES AND WITHHOLDINGS AND DEDUCTIONS ON G 6 AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONER PRECINCT ONES OF TO SUPPORT BOWIE ELEMENTARY IN SAN MARCOS.

G7 AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONERS PRECINCT ONE OFFICE TO SUPPORT DE ZAVALA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THE SAN MARCOS CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT WITH ACTIVITIES FOR SMC ISD STUDENTS, FAMILIES AND STAFF. ACCEPT ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE TEXAS, JUVENILE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT FOR SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR JUVENILE PRO DIKES OFFICERS.

G 9 APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AUTHORIZE CONVERSATION PREVIOUSLY GRANTED TO THE OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL TO THE CIVIL DIVISION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

G 10 AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF 1-A PC SMART UPS FOR THE COMBINED EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION CENTER AND AMEND ACCORDINGLY.

G-11 APPROVE THE UTILITY PERMIT. G 12 ACCEPT THE DELIVERY OF THE QUARTERLY AUDITOR REPORTS FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFF DUTY VEHICLE FEES AND SHERIFF FEES FOR DATE LISTED.

G 13 EXCEPT DELIVERY FOR CONSTABLE PRECINCT ONE OFFICE.

G 14 APPROVE THE INCREASE OF 200 IN THE TAX OFFICE CHANGE FUND AS RECOMMENDED. G 15, AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSIONERS PRECINCT ONE OFFICE TO SUPPORT OWEN GOODNIGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL IN THE SAN MARCOS CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR STUDENTS, FAMILY AND STAFF.

G 16 APPROVE THE PROPERTY'S POLICY INCORPORATING SLIGHT OVERSIGHTS IN THE CHANGES REQUEST BY THE COMMISSIONERS COURT ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2023. G 17.

PROVE THE SPECIFICATION OF RFP 2023 P-11 PROPERTY AND LIABILITY

VANCE. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU FOR REMINDING US ABOUT ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE NOT REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT. THEY ARE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AND WE SHOULD INCLUDE THEM IN THE POLICY AND GOOD JOB AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. ON THE 11, COMMISSIONER SMITH? TOP UTILITY PIECE? CAN YOU SAY WHAT THE INTENT IS

ON THAT PROJECT? >> THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC PROJECT. EVERY WEEK WE HAVE UTILITY PERMITS FOR COME IN FOR FOLKS TO USE OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY.

IT HAPPENS TO BE THEY FALL OR ONE OF THEM FALLS IN MY PRECINCT BUT GENERALLY IT'S IN EVERY PRECINCT BUT THE STATE MANDATES WE HAVE TO ALLOW CONTRACTORS TO USE OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PLACEMENT OF UTILITIES. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE IN IT.

GENERALLY IT'S ANYTHING FROM WATER LINES TO BROADBAND CABLES

[01:25:02]

TO PEC USING THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL

OVER THAT. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR EXPLANATION AND I HAVE THAT DOWN WELL AS YOU DO.

MY QUESTION WAS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THE SENSITIVITY OF FITS HUGH ROAD I WAS HOPING YOU SHOULD SHED LIGHT ON THAT ONE

SPECIFICALLY? >> WHETHER THIS WAS WATER? THE WEST TRAVIS COUNTYP UA IS PROVIDING ADDITIONAL WATER SERVICE IN NORTHERN HAYS COUNTY WITH A RUN DOWN FROM THE RANCH ROAD AND THEIR CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AS WELL AS EXPANDING THE CURRENT USE THEY HAVE THAT ENDS IN TRAVIS COUNTY WITH A LINEBRINKING THAT WITHIN HAYS COUNTY TO HOPEFULLY BRING ADDITIONAL FOLKS OFF WELL SERVICE AND EVENTUALLY TO PROVIDE A CONNECTION TO THE CITY OF SPRINGS.

I CAN ONLY ASSUME THIS IS FOR THAT ROAD SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT

PROJECT. >> OKAY.

GO GOOD.

IF NOTHING ELSE PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?

>> UPPING INGALSBE? YES.

COMMISSIONER SMITH? YES.

[I1. Discussion and possible action to consider the acceptance of road construction and surface drainage improvements, acceptance of the maintenance bond #2322927 in the amount of $207,976.09, and acceptance of the revegetation bond #2322927 in the amount of $11,784.00 for Prairie Lakes Phase 1, Section 1. COHEN/BORCHERDING]

COMMISSIONER COHEN? YES.

LON SHELL? >> YES.

>> DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO CONSIDER THE ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION AND SURFACE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE MAINTENANCE BOND AS LISTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $207976 AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE REVEGITATE TAX BOND 2322997 IN THE AMOUNT OF $11784 FOR SECTION ONE.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TOO ADD?

>> YEAH JUST ACCEPTANCE OF MAINTENANCE AND BOND AND REGENERATION OF THE VEGETATION BOND RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> LON SHELL? YES.

COMMISSIONER COHEN? YES.

COMMISSIONER SMITH? YES.

[I2. Discussion and possible action to consider the acceptance of road construction and surface drainage improvements, acceptance of the maintenance bond #602-201414-7 in the amount of $231,368.76, Headwaters at Barton Creek, Phase 3. SMITH/BORCHERDING]

COMMISSIONER INGALSBE? YES.

>> JUDGE BECERRA? >> YES.

>> I2? >> DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO CONSIDER THE ACCEPTANCE OF SURFACE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE MAINTENANCE BOND AS LISTED IN THE AMOUNT OF $231368 AND 76 CENTS, HEAD WATERS AT BARTON

CREEK PHASE THREE. >> SO MOVED.

>> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER SMITH?

>> YES. INCOMPLETE UPPING INCOMPLETE? YES. LON SHELL. YES.

[J1. PLN-1956-PC; Discussion and possible action regarding the 3-G Ranch Addition, Section 3, Lot 5, Replat. INGALSBE/PACHECO]

JUDGE BECERRA? YES.

>> J1. >>P WILL IN 196-PC.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION WITH THE 3 G RANCH ADDITION LOT FIVE

REPLANT. >> MOTION AND SECOND.

COMMISSIONER INGALSBE DO WE HAND IT OVER TO COLBY.