[00:00:23]
          COMMISSIONER HAMMER, IF YOU WILL, PLEASE. ALL RISE. HEAVENLY FATHER,
WE COME BEFORE YOU 
          [A. CALL TO ORDER]
TODAY ASKING FOR WISDOM, GUIDANCE AND DISCERNMENT AS WE SERVE THE PEOPLE OF HAYS COUNTY. 
          GIVE OUR COMMISSIONERS COURT AND THE COUNTY STAFF THE COURAGE TO MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS
WITH INTEGRITY, FAIRNESS AND HUMILITY. 
          HELP US LISTEN TO ONE ANOTHER. RESPECTFULLY PUT THE NEEDS OF OUR RESIDENTS ABOVE PERSONAL
INTERESTS AND REMEMBER RESPONSIBILITY ENTRUSTED TO US. 
          MAY OUR WORDS BE THOUGHTFUL, ACTIONS, HONORABLE,
AND DECISIONS FOCUSED ON WHAT'S BEST FOR HAYS COUNTY AND ITS FUTURE. 
          BLESS THIS MEETING IN OUR COUNTY AND THOSE THAT WE SERVE. IN JESUS NAME,
AMEN. 
          AMEN. AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE
REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. 
          ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE. 
          TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. 
          ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. HERE. COMMISSIONER COHEN HERE. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMMER HERE. COMMISSIONER SMITH HERE. 
          JUDGE BECERRA HERE AND IN PUBLIC COMMENTS. YOU SAID THIS CATEGORY. 
          [E. PUBLIC COMMENTS]
YOU HAVE. I HAVE ONE TO READ FROM EMAIL AND ONE IN PERSON,
ONE EMAIL, ONE IN PERSON. 
          LET'S DO IN-PERSON FIRST IF YOU WILL CALL THEM AND START A TIMER. 
          AMY CAMP. HELLO, MY NAME IS AMY CAMP AND I LIVE IN SAN MARCOS. GOOD MORNING,
JUDGE BECERRA, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. 
          I'M HERE TODAY BECAUSE I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ALL. 
          OR I WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU ALL NOT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT,
INTO A CONTRACT WITH AXON FOR FURTHER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. 
          I KNOW EVERYONE ON THIS DAIS IS CONCERNED WITH MAKING SURE WE'RE PROVIDING EVERYONE IN THE
COUNTY WITH THE SERVICES THEY NEED TO THRIVE. 
          FROM JUDGE BECERRA PROPOSING TO CREATE A HEALTH CARE DISTRICT,
TO COMMISSIONER COHEN CREATING A HAZE. 
          LATINOS UNITED TO SUPPORT COVID RELIEF. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COURT TO FUND THOSE NEEDED
SERVICES AND TO LIMIT YOUR INVESTMENT IN AXON AND OTHER SURVEILLANCE TECH. 
          I KNOW THAT FLOCK SAFETY HAS BEEN IN THE HOT SEAT HERE. 
          DESERVEDLY SO FOR THE PAST YEAR. THIS COURT AND VOTING TO CANCEL HAYS COUNTY'S CONTRACT
WITH FLOC BRAVELY MADE HASTE. 
          THE FIRST COUNTY IN TEXAS TO DO SO. BUT WHILE FLOC HAS GOTTEN A LOT OF THE HEAT AND AGAIN, DESERVEDLY SO, I WOULD ARGUE THAT AXNE IN MANY WAYS IS WORSE THAN FLOC WHEN IT COMES TO
PRIVACY VIOLATIONS. 
          AND DANGERS TO THE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY OVER CRIMINALIZED. 
          YOU KNOW, AXNE ORIGINALLY WAS NAMED TASER. AND THE REASON THAT THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME TO
AXNE WAS BECAUSE OF THE PR PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH TASER. WHEN AXNE WAS TASER, THEY INVENTED AN ILLNESS CALLED EXCITED
DELIRIUM TO EXPLAIN WHY SO MANY PEOPLE WERE DYING FROM BEING TASED. 
          IN ADDITION, I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS COURT IS CONSIDERING IS DRAFT ONE. 
          DRAFT ONE IS A GENERATIVE AI REPORTING TOOL. I BELIEVE THAT DRAFT ONE LIMITS OVERSIGHT AND
ACCOUNTABILITY. 
          AXON SAYS IT'S A FORCE MULTIPLIER FOR OFFICERS LEVERAGING GENERATIVE AI AND BODY WORN
CAMERA AUDIO TO PRODUCE HIGH QUALITY DRAFT REPORT NARRATIVES AND SECONDS. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL SAW LAST YEAR THAT THERE WAS A STORY WHERE DRAFT ONE HALLUCINATED
AND REPORTED THAT AN OFFICER WAS A FROG, AND ITS SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE DRAFT ONE GENERATES POLICE REPORTS BASED ON AUDIO FROM
POLICE OFFICERS BODY WORN CAMERAS. 
          IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL WHICH PART OF THE DOCUMENTATION HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY A PERSON OR
BY AN ALGORITHM. 
          THIS MEANS THE TOOL'S ACCURACY, TRUTHFULNESS AND ABILITY TO COMPLETE A REPORT SUCCESSFULLY
CANNOT BE AUDITED. 
          THIS MEANS THAT THE PRESENCE OF BIAS, LANGUAGE MISINTERPRETATIONS,
AND FLAT OUT LIES CANNOT BE RELIABLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE ALGORITHM OR THE POLICE OFFICER, WHICH I THINK IS NOT SOMETHING THAT OUR HAYS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WANTS EITHER. 
          CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, Y'ALL DON'T WANT US AI INSERTING MISTAKES INTO YOUR REPORTS. 
          [00:05:11]
SO I WOULD JUST REALLY URGE YOU ALL TO, I KNOW THAT THE COUNTY ALREADY USES AXON A LOT. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING ALSO TO RECONSIDER,
BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY URGE YOU ALL NOT TO INCREASE AXON'S SERVICES WITHOUT A LOT OF RESEARCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THESE EXCUSE ME. 
          THESE FOLLOWING PEOPLE SUBMITTED A COPY AND PASTE EMAIL LINDA A RODRIGUEZ,
MINDY W FROM WIMBERLEY AND JENNIFER B FROM SAN MARCOS. 
          COMMISSIONERS I PLEDGE I MADE A HAYS COUNTY AT READ THE RECORD.ORG AND I'M SUBMITTING THIS
REQUEST BOTH AS A HAYS COUNTY RESIDENT AND AS A PART OF MY ONGOING REPORTING ON COUNTY HEALTH CARE POLICY, I'M ASKING COMMISSIONERS COURT TO PUBLICLY
EVALUATE EXPANDING HAYS COUNTY EXISTING COUNTY INDIGENT HEALTH CARE PROGRAM AS A PART OF THE CURRENT HEALTH CARE AND BUDGET DISCUSSION BEFORE HAYS COUNTY ASKS VOTERS
TO CREATE A HOSPITAL DISTRICT WITH ITS OWN DEDICATED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE, RESIDENTS DESERVE A MEANINGFUL COMPARISON OF WHAT THE COUNTY CAN ACCOMPLISH USING THE
HEALTH CARE AUTHORITY AND FUNDING STRUCTURE IT ALREADY HAS, VERSUS WHAT WOULD BECOME POSSIBLE THROUGH THE PROPOSED DISTRICT. 
          PLEASE ASK COUNTY STAFF TO RUN TWO SETS OF NUMBERS. 
          FIRST, ESTIMATE THE ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COST PROJECTED ENROLLMENT AND SERVICES AVAILABLE IF
HAYS COUNTY EXPANDED ELIGIBILITY FOR ITS EXISTING PROGRAM TO 50%, 100%, 138% AND 200% FPL. 
          SECOND, INSTEAD OF STARTING WITH AN ELIGIBILITY THRESHOLD,
START WITH THE MONEY. 
          SHOW US WHAT AN ADDITIONAL 4 MILLION, 8 MILLION,
12 MILLION IN COUNTY FUNDING COULD BUY UNDER THE COUNTY'S EXISTING CHAPTER 61 AUTHORITY FOR EACH FUNDING LEVEL. TELL RESIDENTS APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY ADDITIONAL PEOPLE COULD BE
SERVED. 
          WHAT ELIGIBILITY LEVEL COULD BE REASONABLE, REASONABLY SUPPORTED. 
          WHAT SERVICES COULD BE OFFERED? WHAT PROVIDER ARRANGEMENTS COULD BE MADE,
AND WHAT STATE, FEDERAL OR OTHER OUTSIDE FUNDING COULD POTENTIALLY BE LEVERAGED. 
          THEN SHOW US THE PROPOSED TWO CENT HOSPITAL DISTRICT BUYS. 
          USE THE SAME MEASUREMENT SO RESIDENTS CAN MAKE AN ACTUAL COMPARISON. 
          LOCAL PUBLIC DOLLARS REQUIRED. PROJECTED ENROLLMENT. 
          INCOME. ELIGIBILITY. HEALTH CARE SERVICES PROVIDER ACCESS,
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, OUTSIDE FUNDING OR MATCHING FUNDS, AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES. 
          I'M NOT ASKING COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ASSUME THAT ONE APPROACH IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER. 
          I'M ASKING YOU TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AN ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THAT FOR OURSELVES. 
          SIMPLY MULTIPLYING THE COUNTY'S CURRENT HEALTH CARE SPENDING BY HIGHER FPL PERCENTAGES
COULD NOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION. 
          THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN EACH INCOME BRACKET EXPECTED ENROLLMENT,
HEALTH CARE UTILIZATION, UTILIZATION, COST PER PATIENT WILL NOT NECESSARILY INCREASE PROPORTIONATELY. 
          THOSE ARE PRECISELY THE NUMBERS COUNTY STAFF SHOULD ANALYZE. 
          IF THE PROPOSED HOSPITAL DISTRICT CAN PROVIDE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE HEALTH CARE PER LOCAL TAX
DOLLAR BECAUSE OF DEDICATED FUNDING, FEDERAL MATCHING OPPORTUNITIES, PROVIDER CONTRACTING,
OR SOME OTHER STRUCTURAL ADVANTAGES. 
          SHOW US IF EXPANDING THE EXISTING COUNTY'S PROGRAM CAN PROVIDE COMPARABLE ACCESS WITHOUT
CREATING ANOTHER TAX ENTITY. 
          SHOW US THAT TWO HAYS COUNTY RESIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN COMPETING
POLITICAL CLAIMS WHEN THE UNDERLYING QUESTION IS MEASURABLE AND THE TOOLS FOR THE SOLUTION ARE ALREADY IN YOUR TOOLBOX. PRICE. BOTH OPTIONS. 
          MEASURE WHAT EACH ONE BUYS. PUBLISH THE COMPARISON. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND NOW WE WILL GO TO F1F1. 
          [F.1. Presentation from the Budget Officer regarding the Fiscal Year 2027 Budget. Possible action may follow.  BECERRA/WOODLAND (Part 1 of 2)]
PRESENTATION FROM THE BUDGET OFFICER REGARDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET. 
          POSSIBLE ACTION MAY FOLLOW. SCOTT WOODLAND BUDGET OFFICER REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO GO OVER
WAS THE HANDOUT THAT I HANDED OUT TO YOU. THIS WOULD BE THE PROPOSAL ON GOING UP A PENNY IF IF YOU LOOK AT THE
TOP OF THE SHEET IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOP OF THE SHEET IN GRAY, THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WERE AGREED UPON AT LAST COURT BY THE MEMBERS. 
          AND THEN BELOW THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT WOULD GET US TO THAT. 
          PENNY. REALLY I'D LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON ESSENTIALLY WHAT,
WHAT WE'D LIKE TO KEEP OUT THERE AND MAYBE WHAT CHANGES WOULD BE WARRANTED. 
          THAT WAY I CAN WORK THAT INTO OUR PROPOSED BUDGET PRESENTED AT 1:00 TODAY. 
          DO YOU HAVE A PAGE WITH NO INCREASE, WITH NO INCREASE? ALL THIS WOULD JUST NOT BE THERE ESSENTIALLY. 
          BUT IN THE NOT ALL THIS ALL BEING IN THERE OF THE THINGS WE AGREED ON AS A COURT,
I HAD ASKED YOU TO DO A PULLING BACK OF OTHER ITEMS SINCE THE COURT 
          [00:10:07]
AGREED ON THE GRAYED OUT PORTION. AND SO I WAS HOPING YOU CAN GIVE US THAT AS WELL FOR A
COMPARISON. 
          SO WE COULD FEEL MOST COMPLETELY THE IMPACT OF ELECTED OFFICIALS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS AND
WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF OUR DECISIONS. 
          AND BECAUSE I STILL DON'T WANT TO GO UP ON THE TAXES,
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SEE THAT. 
          BUT JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE CAN MAYBE DISCUSS? IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING? WHAT I'M CONSIDERING IS TO HAVE OUR BUDGET
OFFICER, LIKE I ASKED HIM LAST COURT TO BRING IT BECAUSE HE WAS MOST INTIMATELY INFORMED AND
INVOLVED WITH ALL THE INTRICACIES OF EVERY DEPARTMENT, AND I DON'T WANT TO HURT A DEPARTMENT'S OPERATIONAL CAPACITY. 
          I WANT TO GIVE PEOPLE THE THINGS THEY ARE USED TO HAVE COME TO EXPECT OUT OF THEIR COUNTY
GOVERNMENT. 
          AND SO I WASN'T IN THESE FEW DAYS BETWEEN COURT,
I WASN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH EACH DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET AND THEN RECREATE THE MEETINGS THAT WERE DONE TO PRIORITIZE THE TASKS. 
          THAT'S WHY MY HOPE IS, AS I HAD ASKED OF YOU AND NOTHING WRONG. 
          YOU'VE BEEN SO SUPER BUSY. NOT A NOT A DIG ON YOU AT ALL. 
          BUT MY HOPE IS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE BROUGHT ONE JUST LIKE THIS WITHOUT THE PENNY INCREASE. 
          I CAN, I, CAN I ELABORATE BECAUSE I DID MEET TO SCOTT TO TRY TO,
TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. 
          I MEAN, AND IT WAS IT'S PRETTY BARE BONES. IT WAS REALLY DIFFICULT TO TRY TO INCORPORATE
NOT EVEN LIKE HALF OF THESE THINGS, RIGHT. WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO INCREASE THE TAXES. 
          I MEAN, WE GOT TO THE POINT WHERE I WAS LIKE,
WHAT ELSE CAN WE CUT? AND IT WAS TO TO VEHICLES LIKE CUTTING ALL THE VEHICLES. 
          AND THAT STILL WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN US THERE. I MEAN,
IT WAS WE WE DID GO THROUGH IT IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE I, I, I DON'T WANT TO RAISE TAXES. THAT'S I HAVE SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO PROPOSE,
BUT ALSO WANTED TO, TO LET YOU ALL HAVE A MOMENT TO. COMMISSIONER. 
          JUDGE, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT WE HAVE 12 PUBLIC COMMENTS. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO HEAR THOSE FIRST BEFORE YOU DO THE DISCUSSION OR
AFTERWARDS. 
          THANKS FOR THE REMINDER. WOULD YOU AND JUST SCOTT ON THE OTHER PART. 
          THE BOTTOM PART. SORRY, COMMISSIONERS. OF COURSE. 
          I'LL OPEN IT UP TO YOU GUYS IN JUST A SECOND. THE BOTTOM PART ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WHAT WE
AGREED UPON. 
          AND SO WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPOSED INCREASE WITH JUST THE GRAY SECTION THAT WE'VE ALREADY
AGREED ON. 
          GIVE ME A SECOND, JUDGE. I CAN GET IT FOR YOU REALLY QUICKLY. 
          YES, SIR. AND THANK YOU. AND IN THE MEANTIME,
I'LL GIVE YOU MORE THAN A SECOND. WE'LL READ THOSE COMMENTS NOW. 
          I FOUND A GOOD PAUSE AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS FROM CASEY AND JIM
CRAIG. 
          DEAR COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE OPPOSED TO ANY TAX RATE INCREASE OF ANY KIND. 
          THIS INCLUDES CREATING A HOSPITAL DISTRICT WHICH REQUIRES MUCH MORE PUBLIC INPUT AND
CONSIDERATION. 
          WE ARE AGAINST ITEMS I, ONE, TWO AND THREE WHICH RELATE CREATING A HOSPITAL DISTRICT. 
          INCREASING THE TAX TAX RATE. THE COURT SHOULD FOCUS ON ALLEVIATING OUR TAX BURDENS AND NOT
INCREASING THEM. 
          THANK YOU. THIS IS FROM ALFONSO SALAZAR. DEAR COMMISSIONERS AND JUDGE,
MY NAME IS ALFONSO SALAZAR AND I AM THE NOMINATED CANDIDATE FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY. 
          I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO BE PRESENT IN THIS THIS IN PERSON. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COURT IS CONSIDERING MOVING THE JUVENILE DIVERSION COORDINATOR
POSITION. 
          I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS TRANSITION TO UNDER THE DA'S OFFICE OR JUVENILE PROBATION
PROBATION. 
          WHILE I INTEND TO SPEAK WITH ALL OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE FIRST,
OUT OF RESPECT FOR THEIR WORK, I BELIEVE THIS MOVE WILL PROVIDE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE OVERVIEW OF THE YOUTH IN OUR
COMMUNITY WHO NEED SUPPORT. 
          THIS TRANSITION SHOULD HAPPEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          THOSE OF US TASKED WITH HELPING OUR YOUTH HAVE BEEN WORKING IN SILOS,
AND THE KIDS ARE FALLING THROUGH THE CRACKS SHOWN BY THE INCREASE OF HIGH LEVEL CRIMES BEING COMMITTED BY JUVENILES. HOWEVER, FOR THIS TRANSITION TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND
EFFECTIVELY HELP OUR YOUTH, THE POSITION REQUIRES ADEQUATE RESOURCES. TO ACHIEVE THIS,
THE COUNTY NEEDS AT LEAST TWO JUVENILE DIVERSION COORDINATORS AND AN ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION, ALL OFFERED AT COMPETITIVE SALARIES. 
          THE INDIVIDUALS IN THESE ROLES ENSURE THAT THE CHILDREN OF HAYS COUNTY GET BACK ON TRACK
AND AVOID ENTERING THE ADULT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. 
          THE LONG TERM SAVINGS FROM BREAKING THE CYCLE OF JUVENILE TO ADULT INCARCERATION WILL FAR
OUTWEIGH THIS INITIAL INVESTMENT. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THE DA'S OFFICE AND THE JUVENILE DIVERSION EMPLOYEES REQUIRE A SUFFICIENT
SUFFICIENT TRAINING BUDGET. 
          OUR SENIOR ATTORNEYS AND STAFF, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE OFFICE,
WHERE THE OFFICE CANNOT PROVIDE EXCELLENT LEGAL AND DIVERSION GUIDANCE WITHOUT BEING FULLY INFORMED OF NEW LEGISLATIVE CHANGES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION OF THIS
MATTER. 
          BEST REGARDS. TARA BECK OUT OF DRIPPING SPRINGS. 
          COMMENT REGARDING F1 AGENDA ITEM RAISING. PROPERTY TAX RATE 1 TO $0.02. 
          [00:15:03]
BEFORE ASKING HAYS RESIDENTS TO PAY MORE IN TAXES,
THE COUNTY NEEDS TO REDUCE WASTE AND SPENDING AND WORK TO BALANCE THE BUDGET ON THE ALREADY ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TAXES THEY COLLECT FROM COUNTY RESIDENTS. 
          EVERYONE IS LIVING WITH WAGES THAT ARE NOT KEPT ON PACE WITH INFLATION AND RISING COSTS OF
GOODS AND SERVICES. 
          COUNTY RESIDENTS PAY SO MUCH IN PROPERTY TAXES. 
          MANY ARE LOSING THEIR HOMES AND HOMESTEADS, EVEN WHEN THE PROPERTY IS PAID OFF. 
          TO KEEP INCREASING THESE TAXES AND ASKING FOR MORE,
RATHER THAN WORKING WITH THE INCREDIBLY LARGE BUDGET IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 
          THE COUNTY NEEDS TO DO WHAT THE REST OF US ARE DOING. 
          CUTTING WASTE. FINDING WAYS TO STAY ON BUDGET WITHOUT RAISING THE TAX BURDEN. 
          I AM STRONGLY AGAINST ANY KIND OF RATE INCREASE. 
          BALANCE YOUR BUDGET AND LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS LIKE THE REST OF US DO ON A DAILY BASIS. 
          THIS IS FROM ARLETA HELLAMS. I DO NOT AGREE WITH PROPERTY TAXES ON HARD WORKING FAMILIES
AND BUSINESSES. 
          IF THE COUNTY NEEDS MORE TO COVER ITS BUDGET,
THEN IT NEEDS TO DO WHAT FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES ARE EXPECTED TO DO, GO BACK TO THE BUDGET AND MAKE NECESSARY CUTS BEFORE TAKING ANOTHER DOLLAR FROM TAXPAYERS. 
          I BELIEVE THE COUNTY SHOULD THOROUGHLY REVIEW ITS SPENDING,
CUT REDUNDANT AND INEFFECTIVE SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY EXPENSES. 
          REVIEW PAYROLL AND EXCESSIVE SALARIES, AND ADJUST WASTE AND INEFFICIENCY. 
          MAKE THE MONEY YOU ALREADY HAVE FOR WORK BEFORE ASKING TAXPAYERS FOR MORE. 
          HARD WORKING PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING. TOO MANY PEOPLE AREN'T RECEIVING RAISES. 
          YET THEY ARE BEING EXPECTED TO ABSORB HIGHER PROPERTY TAX AND HIGHER RENTS. 
          WHEN PROPERTY TAXES INCREASE, THOSE COSTS DON'T JUST DISAPPEAR. 
          PROPERTY OWNERS OFTEN HAVE TO PASS THOSE INCREASES ON TO RENTERS,
MAKING HOUSING EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE. 
          INSTEAD OF CONTINUALLY TAKING MORE MONEY FROM PEOPLE WHO WORK HARD FOR IT,
LET THEM KEEP MORE OF THEIR OWN MONEY. 
          WHEN PEOPLE HAVE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS, THEY SPEND IT. 
          THEY SHOP AT LOCAL BUSINESSES, HIRE SERVICES,
AND PUT THE MONEY BACK INTO THE LOCAL ECONOMY, WHICH GENERATES TAX REVENUE NATURALLY. GOVERNMENT NEEDS. 
          GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO OPERATE WITH ITS WITHIN ITS MEANS,
JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. 
          DON'T TAX A PROBLEM. WE FIX THE PROBLEM. REVIEW THE BUDGET. 
          CUT THE WASTE. ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY SPENDING,
PROTECT THE RESERVES, PRIORITIZE WHAT IS ACTUALLY NEEDED. 
          MORE MONEY FROM HARD WORKING TAXPAYERS IS NOT THE ANSWER. 
          BETTER MANAGEMENT OF THE MONEY YOU ALREADY HAVE IS. 
          SINCE 2020. THE AMOUNT I PAID TO HAYS COUNTY FOR MY HOMES PROPERTY TAXES HAS GONE UP 9%
YEAR OVER YEAR. 
          EVERY YEAR TO DATE, MY EARNINGS HAVE NOT GONE UP ANNUALLY TO KEEP UP WITH HAYS COUNTY
GOVERNMENT SPENDING. 
          NOW, THE HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT IS CONSIDERING PROPOSING ANOTHER PROPERTY TAX
INCREASE. 
          UNACCEPTABLE. INSTEAD, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAYS COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO LIVE WITH TO
LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS. 
          IT'S ABOUT GOVERNMENT WORKING FOR THE PEOPLE,
NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. RESPECTIVELY. 
          RESPECTIVELY. DISGRUNTLED TAXPAYER. JAMES MIKE BREWINGTON. 
          AT THIS TIME, THE PUBLIC IS BEING ASKED TO SPEND MORE OF OUR HARD EARNED MONEY. 
          EVERY WAY WE TURN, WE HAVE TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON FUEL,
GROCERIES, AND GENERAL ITEMS THAT ARE NEEDED IN OUR DAY TO DAY LIVES TO BE CONSIDERING RAISING OUR PROPERTY TAX BY APPROXIMATELY 1 TO $0.02 WHILE ADDING ABOUT FOUR POINT MILLION
MILLION IN NEW RECURRING EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION COSTS IS TOTALLY IT. WHAT WE THE VOTERS NEED RIGHT NOW. COUNTY LEADERS SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON CONTROLLING
SPENDING, PROTECTING OUR RESERVES, AND MAKING THE MOST OF TAX DOLLARS THEY ALREADY RECEIVE. 
          BEFORE ASKING HAYS COUNTY FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES TO PAY MORE UNTIL THE CURRENT ELECTION
CYCLE IS OVER AND NEW PERSONS ARE IN THEIR ELECTED POSITIONS. 
          THE CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE COURT SHOULD TABLE ANY NEW TAX PROPOSALS. 
          THIS IS FROM RISHI NURU. I AM PAYING A LOT OF MONEY PROPERTY TAX EVERY YEAR AND DON'T WISH
TO SEE PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASE. 
          I LOVE IT. JOHN S CARTER TO THE COURT. I WISH TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST ANY TAX INCREASE. 
          PLEASE DO NOT INCREASE THE TAX RATE. PLEASE DO NOT REDUCE THE RESERVE ACCOUNT. 
          PLEASE DO NOT ADD ANY NET INCREASE TO THE BUDGET. 
          PLEASE LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN THE BUDGET AND REDUCE ANY AND ALL DEFICIENT SPENDING. 
          THIS IS FROM JEFFREY CHIHUAHUA, JUDGE BECERRA AND MEMBERS OF THE HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COURT. 
          I'M WRITING TO YOU AS A MEMBER OF THE DRIPPING SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PROPOSED
HAYS COUNTY BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX RATE. 
          THE RESIDENTS I REPRESENT AT CITY HALL ARE ALSO HAYS COUNTY TAXPAYERS,
AND I AM INCREASINGLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CUMULATIVE BURDEN BEING PLACED ON THEM BY YEAR LAYER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. I UNDERSTAND FIRSTHAND THE CHALLENGES CHALLENGES OF
DEVELOPING A LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGET IN A RAPIDLY GROWING COMMUNITY. 
          [00:20:07]
GROWTH CREATES LEGITIMATE DEMANDS ON INFRASTRUCTURE,
EMPLOYEES, FACILITIES AND SERVICES. 
          IT ALSO REQUIRES US, AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, TO MAKE PUBLIC,
TO MAKE DIFFICULT CHOICES ABOUT WHAT GOVERNMENT CAN AFFORD AND JUST AS IMPORTANTLY, WHAT OUR TAXPAYERS CAN AFFORD IN DRIPPING SPRINGS. 
          WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING THROUGH THOSE SAME CHALLENGES. 
          AS A PART OF OUR BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE THE NEED FOR THIS TO BE A
BELT TIGHTENING YEAR. 
          OUR PROPOSED COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR EMPLOYEES IS 3%. 
          THAT IS NOT AN INSIGNIFICANT, INSIGNIFICANT COMMITMENT,
BUT I VIEW IT PRIMARILY AS A REASONABLE EFFORT TO HELP OUR EXISTING EMPLOYEES KEEP PACE WITH INFLATION. MY CONCERN WITH THE COUNTY'S PROPOSED BUDGET IS THAT IS WHAT APPEARS TO GO
WELL BEYOND THAT. 
          THE PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN REOCCURRING EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
COSTS. 
          AT THE SAME TIME, COMMISSIONERS COURT IS BEING CONSIDERING INCREASING THE PROPERTY TAX
RATE. 
          ONCE THOSE EXPENSES ARE ADDED TO THE BUDGET,
THEY DO NOT DISAPPEAR. 
          NEXT YEAR. THEY BECOME A PART OF THE COUNTY'S REOCCURRING EXPONENTIAL BASE AND WILL
COMPOUND WITH FUTURE RAISES, BENEFITS, RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS AND ADDITIONAL STAFFING NEEDS. 
          I FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT HAYS COUNTY NEEDS TALENT,
EMPLOYEES, TALENTED EMPLOYEES AND THAT OUR RAPID GROWTH CREATES LEGITIMATE STAFFING NEEDS. 
          THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST COUNTY EMPLOYEES OR AGAINST APPROPRIATE,
APPROPRIATELY COMPENSATING THEM. 
          IT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR PRIORITIES. FROM MY OBSERVATION,
IT IS DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY IDENTIFY A CLEAR STRUCTURE OF PRIORITIES DRIVING THE COUNTY'S PROPOSED SPENDING. HAYS COUNTY IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING COUNTIES IN TEXAS,
AND THERE IS NO SHORTAGE OF LEGITIMATE NEEDS COMPETING FOR TAXPAYING DOLLARS. 
          THAT MAKES PRIORITIZATION MORE IMPORTANT, NOT LESS. 
          A BUDGET SHOULD CLEARLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT GOVERNMENT MUST DO,
WHAT IT SHOULD DO, AND WHAT IT WHAT IT WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO DO. 
          OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE ALREADY MAKING THOSE DISTINCTIONS EVERY DAY. 
          FAMILIES THROUGHOUT HAYS COUNTY ARE DEALING WITH HIGHER HOUSING COSTS,
INSURANCE PREMIUMS, UTILITIES, GROCERIES, AND THE EVERYDAY EXPENSES OF RAISING A FAMILY. 
          SMALL BUSINESSES ARE FACING MANY OF THOSE SAME PRESSURES. 
          WHEN THEIR EXPENSES INCREASE, THEY CANNOT SIMPLY INCREASE THEIR INCOME TO COMPENSATE. 
          THEY MAKE TRADE OFFS. THEY POSTPONE PURCHASES. 
          THEY RECONSIDER HIRING, THEY FIND EFFICIENCIES,
AND SOMETIMES THEY DECIDE THAT SOMETHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO SIMPLY HAS TO WAIT. 
          NOW, SINCE HE'S USING HIS TITLE, SAYING HE'S COMING TO COURT AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL,
IS THERE SOME CONNECTION CONFIRMING THAT HE'S SPEAKING FOR THE BODY HE IS ON THE COUNCIL FOR OR IS? I WAS JUST SAYING WHAT HE DOES. 
          HE HAS A LETTERHEAD THAT SAYS DRIPPING SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. SO I TAKE THAT AS VOICE
OF THE COUNCIL. 
          COMMISSIONERS. JUST SO YOU KNOW. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          THIS IS FROM CHRISTOPHER TOBY BAKER. I'M COMMENTING AGAINST RAISING PROPERTY TAXES TO
INCREASE REVENUE FOR THE COUNTY. 
          NUMBER ONE, AFFORDABILITY IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE FOR VOTERS RIGHT NOW,
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE POWER TO DO SOMETHING HELPFUL FOR YOUR VOTERS SLASH CITIZENS. 
          MAINTAINING THE CURRENT TAX RATE OR LOWERING TAXES IS THE QUICKEST AND EASIEST WAY TO
POSITIVELY IMPACT POCKETBOOKS. 
          TWO. PROPERTY VALUES ARE DROPPING AND REAL ESTATE IS STAGNANT WITH HIGH INTEREST RATES,
THE MARKET HAS STALLED. 
          FOR THOSE ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT MOVING, SMALL MARGINS CAN MAKE A BREAK,
CAN MAKE OR BREAK A DEAL. 
          RAISING TAXES RIGHT NOW IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE REAL ESTATE MARKET. 
          YOU WILL FURTHER CAUSE THE SLOWING OF REAL ESTATE. 
          THREE. YOU ARE WIPING OUT THE SAVINGS THE LEGISLATURE AND GOVERNOR GAVE US. 
          THROUGH RATE BUY DOWNS AND INCREASING HOMESTEAD EXEMPTIONS. 
          INFLATION RATES HAVE COME DOWN, BUT WE ARE STILL REELING FROM YEARS OF OF RECORD
INFLATION. 
          WHY WOULD YOU WIPE OUT SOME OF THE ONLY RELIEF WE HAVE? WHY WOULD YOU GO DIRECTLY AGAINST THE DECISIONS MADE BY OUR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS IN
AUSTIN? WHY INTENTIONALLY HARM YOUR OWN CONSTITUENTS? YOU ARE THE ENTRUSTED WITH A. YOU ARE ENTRUSTED WITH A DUTY TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS. 
          SOMETIMES THOSE DECISIONS REQUIRE GIVING UP WANTS OR NEEDS. 
          SOMETIMES LEADERS NEED TO STEP BACK AND REALIZE THAT BALANCING A BUDGET DOESN'T ALWAYS
INVOLVE COLLECTING MORE. 
          SOMETIMES IT MEANS LIVING WITHIN YOUR MEANS. WITH THE BUDGET YOU HAVE,
JUST LIKE YOUR CONSTITUENTS ON A DAILY BASIS. 
          IMAGINE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION AROUND YOUR DINNER TABLE AND NOT BEHIND A DAIS. 
          I TRUST YOU WILL MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION. THANK YOU. 
          THIS IS FROM THOMAS GORDON. THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. 
          YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING. YOU WANT TO RAISE TAXES TO PAY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES MORE? THIS IS A JOKE, RIGHT? HOW REMOVED ARE YOU FROM REALITY? MY TAXES ARE FROZEN. BUT I OFTEN WONDER HOW YOUNG FAMILIES CAN AFFORD THE PROPERTY TAXES
AROUND HERE. 
          [00:25:05]
THEY JUST KEEP GOING UP AND UP. IF PRICES ARE RISING,
MOST FAMILIES CUT BACK. 
          NOT HAYS COUNTY. IT'S SPEND, SPEND, SPEND AND NEXT A HOSPITAL DISTRICT. 
          I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A HOSPITAL DISTRICT EVEN IS OR WHY WE NEED ONE. 
          THE HAYS COUNTY GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT MUST LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN ITS MEANS. 
          LET'S SEE SOME CUTS. HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED THAT? PLEASE OPPOSE AGENDA ITEM ONE. LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE OF HAYS COUNTY. 
          THIS IS FROM KAREN STARKEY. I OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED 1 TO 2 CENT TAX INCREASE. 
          THIS IS FROM COLIN LANCE. THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMENT AGAINST A PROPOSED FY 2027 BUDGET. 
          AND LAST WE HAVE NOAH SUTHERLAND. HELLO. MY NAME IS NOAH SUTHERLAND. 
          FROM BUDA, TEXAS. I AM COMMENTING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE INCREASE. 
          I OWN BUSINESSES IN BUDA, TEXAS. MY HUSBAND AND I ARE RAISING TWO CHILDREN,
TWO CHILDREN HERE. 
          I'M ASKING YOU DO NOT RAISE TAXES. WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. 
          THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING MY REQUEST. PLEASE DO NOT PASS THE PROPOSED TAX RATE. 
          THANK YOU. SCOTT. WHAT DO YOU THINK? YES, SIR. 
          I CAN RETURN TO YOUR QUESTION NOW. AND SO THE TOTAL,
INCLUDING THE SEVEN DELETED CEOS, COMES OUT TO 2.99 MILLION, WHICH WOULD EQUAL 0.69% OF A PENNY. SO 0.69 WITH WHAT'S HIGHLIGHTED WITH WHAT'S
HIGHLIGHTED. 
          GREG? YES, SIR. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER INGALSBE,
YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? JUDGE. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AFTER TALKING WITH SCOTT AND MEETING WITH HIM,
I MEAN, WE'VE ALSO TRIED. 
          WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A VERY LEAN BUDGET. I'D REALLY LIKE TO HEAR SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          IF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHERE TO CUT TO SEE IF WE AGREE WITH THOSE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GET TO A NO TAX RATE INCREASE. 
          I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO LISTEN. BUT I KNOW THAT,
YOU KNOW, AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW THE SERVICES THAT OUR RESIDENTS NEED WARRANT ADDITIONAL POSITIONS. AND YOU KNOW, AS I LOOK AT THE POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING
PROPOSED IT'S REALLY HARD TO NOT SUPPORT WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED. 
          AND OF THESE, OF THE LIST THAT SCOTT HAS PROVIDED,
THERE ARE MANY OTHERS THAT WEREN'T INCLUDED, YOU KNOW, ON THIS LIST THAT WE ARE DELAYING FOR SOME FUTURE TIME. 
          BUT I'M CERTAINLY OPEN, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IF WE COULD DO,
I SAID LAST WEEK, IF WE COULD DO ALL OF THIS WITHOUT A TAX RATE INCREASE, I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHERE ELSE WE CAN CUT TO TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER COHEN. I MEAN, I'VE BEEN PRETTY OPEN ABOUT KIND OF WHERE I FELT
YOU KNOW, THE APPETITE FOR A $0.01 TAX INCREASE. AND THIS IS WHAT SCOTT HAS PROVIDED US. 
          I THINK OUR EMPLOYEES OVER SEVERAL YEARS HAVE BEEN JUST UNDERPAID. 
          AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CATCH THEM UP BECAUSE WE KNOW WHO DOES THE BULK OF THE WORK
HERE AND THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THEM. 
          YOU KNOW, HAYS COUNTY IS GROWING, AND I THINK THIS COURT JUST HISTORICALLY HAS REALLY
TRIED TO BE LEAN IN THEIR TAX RATE. 
          THEY'VE GONE DOWN SEVERAL PENNIES, YOU KNOW,
IN THE LAST SIX, SEVEN YEARS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, BUT IT'S FINALLY CATCHING UP TO US. 
          WE ARE GROWING AS A COUNTY AND WE HAVE TO MAKE ACCOMMODATIONS. 
          I MEAN, THIS WHEN, WHEN SCOTT DID THE FIRST PRESENTATION ABOUT WHAT A NO TAX RATE LOOKED
LIKE, THAT WAS THE BARE BONES. THAT MEANT NO POSITIONS,
NO SALARY ADJUSTMENTS, NO SOCIAL, YOU KNOW, ALL OF IT WAS WAS NOT INCLUDED. AND I THINK THAT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ALL OF US TO SEE. 
          AND LIKE, I'M STILL COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT SCOTT HAS GIVEN. 
          AS I UNDERSTAND IT TODAY, WE ARE SETTING THE CEILING,
RIGHT? SO IF WE SAY THAT THE CEILING, YOU KNOW, IS THE ONE PENNY THAT THIS COURT STILL HAS THE
ABILITY TO GO DOWN FROM THAT. 
          [00:30:05]
RIGHT. AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. 
          I MEAN, LOOKING AT THE LIST OF ANYTHING PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE WOULD BE REMOVED THAT I WOULD
CONSIDER IS, YOU KNOW, THE RE GRADES. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT SOME OF THIS WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF
THROUGH THE STUDY, RIGHT. SO MAYBE WE NOT DO THOSE GRADES RIGHT NOW. 
          THE, THE, THE SPANISH SPEAKING. I MEAN THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU SUGGESTED,
JUDGE. 
          YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO GET TAKEN CARE OF EVENTUALLY AS WE,
WE KEEP MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BEST STRUCTURE FOR OUR SALVATION, RIGHT? AND SO MAYBE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T NEED TO INCLUDE. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M CERTAINLY WILLING, JUST LIKE COMMISSIONER INGALSBE TO,
TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING, BUT I KNOW WHERE WE'RE HEADED AS A COUNTY. 
          YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BUILD A STRONG INTERNAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND BUT I'M STILL WILLING TO
LISTEN TO EVERYONE'S INPUT. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMMER, JUST TO GO OFF OF THAT A LITTLE BIT. 
          WHENEVER SCOTT DID PROPOSE THE NO TAX INCREASE,
THERE WAS STILL AN INCREASE OF SALARIES. 
          I MEAN, THAT WAS STILL PROPOSED IN THERE. I DIDN'T I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T
THINK THAT NO ONE WAS GOING TO GET AN INCREASE ACROSS THE BOARD IF WE DIDN'T RAISE TAXES. 
          WE'RE IN AN INTERESTING PREDICAMENT WHEN YES,
WE ARE GROWING. 
          WE'RE NOT GROWING AT THE SAME RATE THAT WE USED TO,
WHICH. 
          SO WE WERE SPOILED FOR A LITTLE WHILE. RIGHT. WE GOT A LOT OF INCOME COMING IN. 
          OR REVENUE COMING IN. NOW WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT BOAT. 
          WHEN PROPERTY TAXES WE'RE NOT GROWING AS MUCH. 
          OUR PROPERTY VALUATIONS ARE NOT RISING LIKE THEY USED TO. 
          THEY'RE ACTUALLY COMING DOWN. AND WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF THIS ARPA FUNDING. 
          RIGHT. SO WE'RE IT'S LIKE A TRIPLE THREAT RIGHT NOW TO,
TO WHAT WE'RE DOING, DEALING WITH WHEN IT COMES TO REVENUES VERSUS EXPENDITURES. 
          I TRULY, I DON'T SUPPORT A TAX INCREASE. I'VE BEEN PRETTY VOCAL ABOUT THAT. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I DO WANT TO ALWAYS HEAR OUT EVERYONE SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT TO
EVERYTHING. 
          THE SALARY STUDY. SO WE DID A SALARY STUDY BACK IN WHAT 2023 IMPLEMENTED 2024. 
          STARTED FY 2024. WE DID A SALARY STUDY TWO YEARS AGO TO GET EVERYONE TO MARKET. 
          SO AND THEN LAST YEAR WE DID A 6% INCREASE. I JUST I DON'T SEE THE SALARY STUDY,
IN MY OPINION, TRULY MAKING A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE. WE'VE GOT SOME POSITIONS THAT ARE INCREASING BY OVER
25% WITH THE MOST AT 31%. 
          I THINK IF YOU GO OUT AND YOU ASK YOUR CONSTITUENT BASE,
DO YOU SUPPORT A 25% INCREASE TO SOME OF THESE POSITIONS THAT YOU PAY FOR THROUGH YOUR TAXES? THEY WOULD SAY, ABSOLUTELY NOT. I DON'T KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD SAY THAT
THEY WOULD AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE DO HAVE TO TIGHTEN OUR BELT. IT'S, IT'S, THAT'S THE,
THAT'S THE PREDICAMENT WE'RE, WE'RE IN. 
          WE'RE ASKING OUR, THE FAMILIES OUT THERE THAT JUST GO TO WORK AND THEY LIVE NORMAL LIVES. 
          THEY ARE TIGHTENING THEIR BELT. WE'RE IN THIS ECONOMIC SITUATION WHERE THEY FEEL IT,
WE FEEL IT. 
          SO I THINK WE NEED TO DO WHAT'S BEST AND MOST FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE.
COMMISSIONER SMITH. 
          I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, LOOK, WE'VE HAD WHAT THIS IS OUR FOURTH BUDGET WORKSHOP NOW OR WILL
BE TODAY. 
          I THINK THAT I'VE BEEN PRETTY CLEAR ON THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE. 
          AND THE FIRST AND FOREMOST ARE THE UNFUNDED STATE MANDATES THAT WE HAVE. 
          I MEAN, MOST PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT BEFORE WE EVER START OUR BUDGET,
OVER 64% OF OUR BUDGET GOES TO PAY FOR FOR JUDICIAL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT BEFORE WE LOOK AT ANYTHING ELSE. AND THAT DOESN'T COUNT THE OVER 690 OTHER MANDATES THAT WE GET FROM THE
STATE. 
          I APPRECIATE AND I'VE BEEN ONE OF THE ONES ON THIS COURT,
YOU KNOW, OUT OF THIS WILL BE MY EIGHTH FISCAL YEAR AND THIS WILL BE OUT OF THE EIGHT WE'VE HAD TO INCREASE TAXES. THIS WOULD BE THE THIRD TIME IF WE CHOOSE TO INCREASE THE TAX
RATE. 
          WE WENT FROM A HIGH OF 48.6% DOWN TO $0.30, WHICH IS,
OR 48 POINT $0.06 TO $0.30, WHICH IS ALMOST A I MEAN, IT'S A MASSIVE DECREASE IN TAXES FOR OUR TAXPAYERS HERE. 
          HOWEVER, WE HAVE MEALS THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR. 
          AND I SAY THAT I USE THAT ANALOGY PRETTY OFTEN. 
          Y'ALL PROBABLY GET TIRED OF IT. THE ONE THING,
THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS WHEN IT COMES TO, AND MY COLLEAGUE MADE GREAT, EXCELLENT POINTS ON THE SALARY SURVEY,
THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE ARE THOSE OF US WHO ARE ON THE COURT AT THAT TIME. 
          I BELIEVE THE SURVEY ACTUALLY STARTED IN FY 22 AND MOST OF THE DATA WAS COLLECTED THEN IT
TOOK 18 MONTHS TO GET THAT SURVEY DONE. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW OF A SINGLE DEPARTMENT HEAD WHO WAS JOYOUS OVER WHAT THE OUTCOME WAS. 
          THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS WERE NEVER UPDATED. A LOT OF THOSE POSITIONS I DON'T THINK WERE GIVEN
THE. 
          [00:35:01]
I DON'T THINK THE DATA WAS USED OR COLLECTED IN A WAY THAT WAS USABLE. 
          WHEN WE GOT IT, I MEAN, THAT YEAR IN COURT, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ADOPTION OF THE
STEP SYSTEM AND THE USE OF THE, OF THE DATA, I WAS PRETTY VOCAL ABOUT THE FACT I THOUGHT IT WAS BAD DATA AND THAT WE HAD
NOT WE HAD PAID FOR SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T THINK WAS WAS WORTHWHILE. AND SO MANY OF THESE POSITIONS THAT YOU,
THAT YOU REFERENCE PROBABLY WEREN'T LOOKED AT CORRECTLY BACK IN 2022 TO 2024, DURING THE 18 MONTH PERIOD. THAT'S JUST MY VIEW. 
          AND IT'S NOT THERE MAY BE COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT ON THAT,
BUT SO THAT BEING THE CASE, SOME OF THESE POSITIONS HAVEN'T REALLY HAD A STRONG LOOK AT THEM FOR QUITE SOME TIME. JUDGE, TO YOUR POINT ABOUT ASKING OUR BUDGET OFFICER TO TO
PUT TOGETHER SOMETHING TO CUT EVERYTHING OUT OF THE BUDGET. HE SPENT MONTHS PUTTING TOGETHER A BUDGET THAT WAS A NO NEW
REVENUE BUDGET. 
          IT'S OUR JOB. ONCE THAT'S PUT TOGETHER TO GO THROUGH THERE LINE BY LINE,
FIND THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO CUT OR OFFSET, OR IF WE CAN'T FIND THEM, FIND THREE VOTES ON THIS COURT TO APPROVE WHATEVER THAT INCREASE
WOULD BE FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL ITEM. 
          AND SO THAT'S LAST WEEK WHEN I DID THE BUDGET AMENDMENT,
WE WENT THROUGH EACH ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALLY. 
          AND IF I WOULD HAVE LOST ANY OF THOSE, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE. 
          I IT WAS UP FOR DISCUSSION, BUT I TOOK THE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE BUDGET AND FIND THOSE
ITEMS AND I, I DIDN'T RECREATE MEETINGS THAT THE BUDGET OFFICER DID WITH OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS,
BUT I DID SIT DOWN WITH OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS, AND I SAT DOWN WITH OUR JUDGES AND OUR CONSTABLES AND OTHERS TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS,
THOSE THOSE HARD CONVERSATIONS. 
          AND I THINK IT'S PURSUANT TO ME AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL,
NOT TO AVOID THOSE HARD CONVERSATIONS, TO SIT DOWN WITH THOSE OFFICIALS AND HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND THEN LOOK THEM IN THE
EYE AND SAY, YES, I CAN HELP YOU. OR, NO, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. 
          HERE'S HOW WE SHOULD ADDRESS THAT. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY,
WE GET A SUGGESTION FROM SCOTT. 
          WE DON'T GET A MANDATE, WE GET A SUGGESTION,
AND WE'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. 
          IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS OR IF YOU HAVE INDIVIDUAL CUTS THAT YOU WANT TO SEE MADE,
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO REVIEW THOSE JUST LIKE WE DID THE ONES LAST WEEK. 
          AND I THINK YOU HAD MENTIONED IN THE PAST HERE IN COURT THAT YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A
BUDGET AMENDMENT. 
          I'M HAPPY TO LOOK AT THOSE AND GO THROUGH THEM AND GO THROUGH THOSE INDIVIDUALLY. 
          AND I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THE THE LEGWORK ON THEM AND THE RESEARCH,
BUT I THINK IT'S PURSUANT TO US, IF WE WANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT,
THAT IS A LIVING DOCUMENT THAT WE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO RAISE FOR THE LAST FOUR WEEKS WE NEED TO DO THE WORK. 
          SCOTT, ANYTHING NEW TO CONTRIBUTE? NO, SIR. IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS ANY SPECIFIC ITEMS,
I'M MORE THAN UP FOR IT. 
          WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU FIRST IS WE KNOW WE HAVE GROWTH. 
          WE KNOW WE CONTINUE TO GROW. NOT AT THE MAGNIFICENT RATE FASTEST GROWING COUNTY IN THE
NATION. 
          I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT. BUT WE STILL HAVE GROWTH. 
          DO YOU HAVE A NUMBER THAT YOU CAN READ OUT LOUD? OF? WHAT NEW REVENUE THAT HAS THE CAPACITY TO PROVIDE FOR US? AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, IT WOULD STILL BE MILLIONS MORE. 
          I WANT YOU TO SAY THAT NUMBER OUT LOUD. IT'S ROUGHLY 6.5 MILLION. 
          BASED OFF THE NEW ADDITIONS, I CAN GET THAT EXACT NUMBER. 
          THIS IS GOOD ENOUGH. HONESTLY, THIS IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE CONVERSATION POINT. AND SO WHAT
I'M HOPING FOR IS THAT WE FIND WAYS TO SQUEEZE ON THIS AS EVERYONE'S SAYING AND, AND LET THAT GROWTH MAYBE FIT INTO THAT 6.5
MILLION SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE THE SAME RATE AND NOT HAVE ALL THE AGGRESSIVE PIECES LIKE SORRY, JENNIFER,
BUT I JUST MADE EYE CONTACT WITH YOU ON ACCIDENT, FOR EXAMPLE, I'M, I'M NOT SUPPORTING $1 MILLION BRAND NEW ELECTION EQUIPMENT THAT WE'RE
NOT EVEN TOLD WE NEED. 
          SO THERE'S, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE USEFUL AND THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE NEED AND
THERE'S SOME I ALWAYS WANT TO HELP SUPPORT OUR COWORKERS. 
          THAT'S WHY THE SALARY INCREASE IS, IS A NO BRAINER TO ME. 
          I WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR COWORKERS ARE FAIRLY COMPENSATED. 
          AND ALTHOUGH 25% INCREASE SOUNDS HIGH, IF IT'S FOR A SIX FIGURE COWORKER,
YEAH, IT DOES. 
          IT IS. BUT IF IT'S FOR SOMEONE MAKING $20,000 A YEAR,
IT DOESN'T SOUND AS HIGH. 
          AND SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE HIT THOSE PERCENTAGES,
BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE MAKING AS LOW AS. 
          AND PEOPLE MAKING AS HIGH AS. AND SO IF YOU HAVE IT NOT TO CORNER YOU AND IT'S,
YOU KNOW, I KNOW YOU FEEL THE ENERGY THAT IT'S NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT,
BUT IF YOU HAVE THAT SALARY, 
          [00:40:02]
CAN YOU SAY IT OUT LOUD WITHOUT A POSITION, JUST A SALARY? SO I OBVIOUSLY I DON'T LIKE, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUALLY CALLING OUT CERTAIN DEPARTMENTS OR
CERTAIN SALARIES, BUT I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU, LET ME GO TO IT REALLY QUICK. 
          SO, I MEAN, YOU HAVE THREE POSITIONS THAT ARE THERE'S ONE PERSON IN EACH OF THOSE
POSITIONS THAT ARE IN INCREASE, SUGGESTING AN INCREASE OF 31%, YOU SEE. 
          AND WHAT'S THE BASE PAY OF THOSE POSITIONS OR THE TYPICAL PAY? I'D HAVE TO GO. SO I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU THE POSITIONS AND THEN NO,
NO, NO, I'M TRYING TO KEEP IT VAGUE TOO, BUT JUST THE BALLPARK PAY. DO YOU KNOW THAT ABOUT THE SCREEN? LET ME GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
BALLPARK IS PLENTY GOOD. 
          I'M TRYING TO MAKE A POINT, AND I WILL GO TO IT AS SOON AS YOU CALL THAT NUMBER OUT. OKAY.
GIVE ME ONE SECOND. I CAN DO THAT. MARISOL, I THINK YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING. I'LL GO TO YOU NEXT. SHE WANTS TO TELL ME. WE'RE TRYING
TO AVOID THAT OUT LOUD. 
          YEAH. SO ONE OF THEM OVER 100 GRAND. OKAY. SO PERFECT. 
          AND THANK YOU. I HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST,
COMMISSIONER INGALSBE, I KNOW YOU REMEMBER, WE CAN EASILY START THREADING THIS NEEDLE BY SIMPLY SAYING EVERYONE IN THIS MOMENT WHILE PEOPLE ARE PAYING. 
          518 A GALLON, 547 A GALLON OF DIESEL. DURING THIS TOUGH TIME OF BELT TIGHTENING,
WE HEARD IT ALL THROUGHOUT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. 
          WE CAN SAY EVERYONE OVER 80 K KNOW EVERYONE UNDER 80 K YES FOR NOW. 
          AS AN EXAMPLE, WE CAN DO THIS 12 DIFFERENT WAYS IS ALL I'M SAYING. 
          SO WHAT I SUGGESTED LAST TIME, AND IF YOU COMPARE SALARIES FROM LAST YEAR AND WHAT IS
SUGGESTED WITH WHAT WITH ADDING THAT FOUR POINT, I BELIEVE TWO EIGHT WAS WHAT IT WAS. 
          SCOTT. RIGHT. 4.28 ROUGHLY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE THE DIFFERENCE THERE,
I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN ALMOST 8% INCREASE ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          LIKE JUST SAYING FROM AN AVERAGE PERSPECTIVE,
COMPARING THE TWO NUMBERS. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S SO MANY OF MY FRIENDS THAT AREN'T GETTING ANY INCREASES IN THEIR SALARIES
AND THEY'RE HARD WORKING PEOPLE. 
          EXACTLY. SO THAT'S, I JUST, I HAVE REAL I'VE HEARTACHE WITH THIS,
WITH THIS SURVEY OR THIS SALARY STUDY. 
          AND ERIC, I JUST WANT TO SAY YOU, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING ALL THE TIME AND THE WORK INTO IT. 
          I DON'T WANT TO DISCREDIT YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM,
I PROMISE YOU THAT. 
          BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT HE JUST CAN'T,
HE CAN'T COMPARE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT COMPARABLES. 
          SO IF YOU GO THROUGH AND YOU SEE THIS, THIS DATA,
YOU'LL SEE THAT SOME POSITIONS HAVE FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES WITHIN THE MARKET THAT MAKE SENSE IN THEIR EQUIVALENT. AND THEN YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN THE TROUBLE. SOME POSITIONS THAT
HAVE. YEAH, EXACTLY. LIKE THERE, THERE, THERE'S COMPARISONS FOR CERTAIN POSITIONS TO CITY POSITIONS THAT DON'T REALLY,
THEY DON'T REALLY RELATE A WHOLE LOT. 
          IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, I MEAN, PEOPLE CAN THINK OTHERWISE,
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I MEAN, THREE, THREE, 31% INCREASES. YOU'VE GOT 228% A 27,
2422. 
          I MEAN, THESE ARE BIG INCREASES. AND SO YOU SEE,
MY SUGGESTION CAN EASILY BE ADDRESSING YOUR CONCERN AND ALSO THE COMPARISON OF CITIES TO COUNTIES. IF YOU HAVE A SIMILAR OVERALL CITIES ARE ALWAYS GOING TO PAY MORE. 
          JUST LOOK AT THE TAXING RATES. COUNTY IS THE SMALLEST OF YOUR TAXING RATE. 
          AND THEN IT'S CITY AND THEN IT'S ISD TAKING THE BIGGEST CHUNK. 
          I BELIEVE IN MOST INSTANCES, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE ESDS AND MUDS AND PIGS AND OTHER ITEMS. BUT JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, ISD IS ALWAYS NUMBER ONE. 
          THAT'S WHAT I SAID. THAT'S WHAT I SAID, BUT I'M BEING POLITE. 
          AND LET'S TALK ABOUT ISDS. ISDS PUT THEMSELVES IN A POSITION IN HAYS COUNTY. 
          THERE ARE SOME ISDS THAT PUT THEMSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE THEY INCREASE THEIR SALARIES,
SO MUCH SO THAT YOU CAN'T REALLY GO BACK. 
          RIGHT? ONCE YOU ONCE YOU PUT THAT INTO MOTION. 
          SO THERE INSTEAD OF REDUCING SALARIES, THEY'RE HAVING TO THINK ABOUT ACTUALLY JUST CUTTING
POSITIONS. 
          WHAT'S MORE IS AND THIS IS VERY ALARMING, ACTUALLY VERY,
VERY FINANCIALLY VULNERABLE FAMILIES HAVING TO PAY FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S SERVICES, ATHLETICS, WHATEVER. WHERE BEFORE IT WAS INCLUDED. 
          SO I'M WITH YOU 100%. I'M WITH YOU 100%. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE BEING SUSTAINABLE
BECAUSE ALSO DO YOU KNOW THE NUMBER EXACTLY, OF HOW MUCH IN THIS BUDGET THIS WOULD CREATE FOR US TO HAVE LIKE A SHORTFALL? LIKE HOW MUCH WOULD WE HAVE TO MAKE UP NEXT YEAR TO BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN WHAT WE'RE DOING
THIS YEAR? YES. COMMISSIONER. ONE THING IS BECAUSE WE ARE STAGGERING THE SALARIES WE WOULD HAVE TO
COME UP WITH PROBABLY ABOUT ANOTHER TWO, 2.5 MILLION NEXT YEAR IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THOSE SALARIES,
DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE BEING STAGGERED AND SPLIT OVER THE YEAR AND NOT STARTED RIGHT AT TEN ONE. SO TO MY POINT EXACTLY, YOU'RE TAKING THAT 4.28 MILLION,
YOU'RE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL $2 MILLION. 
          WE'RE DOING AN INCREASE OVERALL THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE IT FOR NEXT YEAR OF OVER $6 MILLION. 
          EXACTLY. AND SO WE CAN ALSO ANOTHER EASY THING WE CAN DO. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN DO. ANOTHER THING WE CAN DO,
COMMISSIONER, IS YOU TALKED ABOUT ARPA FUNDS. 
          I THINK THAT WAS YOU THAT BROUGHT UP ARPA FUNDS DIMINISHING OR ELIMINATED. WE CAN ALWAYS
SAY, OKAY, 
          [00:45:03]
ARPA FUNDS POSITIONS. LET'S PUT THEM IN ANOTHER POSITION IN THE COUNTY. 
          I'M NOT SAYING TERMINATE ANYBODY. NEVER, EVER,
EVER AM I SAYING THAT, BUT RELOCATE THAT WAY WE CAN STAY LEAN AND TIDY BECAUSE THAT WAS A GOOD SUPPORT FEDERAL DOLLARS. BUT NOW LET'S JUST PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE AND HAVE THEM HELP
IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT. 
          CROSS TRAINING OF SORTS. JUDGE, DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS OF ANY OF THOSE POSITIONS AND
WHERE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT THEM? YES, I HAVE THEM ALL MEMORIZED. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          THAT'S MY POINT. I THINK WE IT WOULD TAKE IT WOULD TAKE FIVE MINUTES THOUGH. 
          SO IF YOU REALLY WANT THAT ANSWER, GIVE ME FIVE MINUTES AND I CAN DO IT. MY POINT IS THIS
IF WE HAVE ARPA POSITIONS, SAY HEALTH CARE POSITIONS IN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
AND WE ELIMINATE THOSE POSITIONS, WE HAVE VERY WE HAVE SPECIALISTS IN GIVEN AREAS. IT'S NOT A BROAD ACROSS THE BOARD. YOU CAN'T DO THAT WHEN YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY WHO'S
CERTIFIED, SAY, IN MENTAL HEALTH. I KNOW OUR MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALISTS ARE PAID OR WERE ORIGINALLY
PAID FROM ARPA FUNDS. 
          WE CAN'T TAKE THEM AND PUT THEM IN TRANSPORTATION OR IN ANY OTHER,
ANY OTHER REALM WHERE WE'VE SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT OUT EXPERTISE TO BENEFIT OUR PUBLIC AND OUR CITIZENS FOR WITH THE BEST POSSIBLE EMPLOYEES AND STAFF THAT WE CAN TO DELIVER WHAT WE
NEED TO DO FOR THEM. 
          WE CAN'T JUST ASSUME THAT THEY CAN GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND I'M NOT,
I, I AGREE SOME OF THOSE POSITIONS COULD BE ELIMINATED REALLOCATED, REALLOCATED. BUT YOU ALSO WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IMPACT. 
          OKAY. THE OTHER OPTION IS INSTEAD OF, YOU KNOW,
ELIMINATING THAT POSITION OR REALLOCATING THAT POSITION, SAY, OKAY, WELL, IF WE WANT TO KEEP THAT PERSON IN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
WHERE DO WE FIND A JOB WITH THE SAME GRADE AND SALARY IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT? AND LET'S GO HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH THAT OTHER DEPARTMENT HEAD ABOUT LOSING THAT
POSITION. 
          AND NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN DONE. I DON'T I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CUT ANY POSITION. 
          I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD EITHER. I'M JUST GIVING AN EXAMPLE OF THE LITANY OF VARIABLES THAT
WE CAN CHOOSE FROM. 
          COMMISSIONER. I'M NOT. I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY. 
          AND THERE'S A THERE ARE A THOUSAND THAT WE HAVEN'T CONSIDERED YET,
BUT WE ALSO HAVE HAD A MONTH AND A HALF, ACTUALLY AN ENTIRE FISCAL YEAR TO LOOK AT THE IMPACTS OF THESE. 
          AND IF THERE ARE SUGGESTIONS, I'M I'M UP FOR THEM. 
          I THINK THE THINGS ON THE LIST THAT ARE IN GRAY WE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK,
WE ALREADY AGREED TO ALL OF THOSE ITEMS. AND SO I DON'T NECESSARILY, IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE BUDGET
TODAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT REHASHING ONE OF THESE THAT WE'VE ALREADY WE HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT SOLVES OUR PROBLEM. AND,
AND POSTING AN OVERALL HIGHEST TAX RATE TODAY. 
          AND I THINK IF YOU'RE I MEAN, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE WE SEE THREE THAT ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT
AND WE MOVE FORWARD. 
          RIGHT. CORRECT. AND I'M NOT DISCOUNTING THAT IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM. 
          BUT IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE IN THE GRAY,
I FEEL LIKE YOU HAVE TO FIRST COME UP WITH A, A TAX RATE THAT THREE AGREE ON AND THEN MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. 
          SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, $0.69, I MEAN, 0.69 OF A PENNY IS THE GRAY THAT'S AGREED UPON. 
          DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED WITH THAT AS A CEILING? NO. I ACTUALLY HAD A BUDGET AMENDMENT LAST WEEK TO ADD $0.01 TO THE TAX RATE. 
          AND SO I'M VERY I AM VERY I'M OKAY WITH $0.01 TO THE TAX RATE BECAUSE AS WE MENTIONED,
WITH DEPRECIATED INCOME OR DEPRECIATED PROPERTY TAX VALUES, THAT WOULD STILL IN REAL DOLLARS, SAVE EACH ONE OF OUR TAXPAYERS. 
          ON THE AVERAGE HOME IN HAYS COUNTY ABOUT SEVEN AND A HALF DOLLARS. 
          NOW, I WOULD WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING YOU SAID,
JUDGE, THAT IF WE LEFT THE TAX RATE THE SAME. 
          I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION WHEN YOU SAID THIS A MINUTE AGO. 
          YOU SAID AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. THAT IS NOT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. 
          I MEANT THE TAX RATE. SORRY. YOU'RE RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO JUST TO CLARIFY FOR
ANYBODY WHO WHO IS OUT THERE IN THE AUDIENCE. 
          YEAH. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. KEEPING THE SAME RATE,
THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WOULD ACTUALLY NOT ALLOW US TO TO CAPTURE ANY NEW REVENUE FROM ANY NEW HOMES OR ANY INCREASES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE SPECIFICALLY SAYS YOU WON'T GET ONE ADDITIONAL DOLLAR IN TAXES
FROM LAST YEAR. 
          WITH RAISING THAT, WE ARE KEEPING THE SAME TAX RATE. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. OR THE OTHER PROPOSAL IS KEEPING THE SAME TAX RATE,
WHICH IS 0.3999 FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR, WHICH IS WHAT TWO OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE ADVOCATED FOR AND I'VE,
I HAVE SAID THAT I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A $0.01 INCREASE. 
          SO I HEAR I CAN TURN THAT INTO A MOTION. IF YOU GUYS FEEL LIKE YOU'VE SAID ENOUGH. 
          WELL, JUDGE, I WANTED TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME JUST BECAUSE SALARIES HAVE COME UP. 
          TO ASK ERIC IF HE WOULD COME UP BECAUSE I KNOW THAT,
YOU KNOW, WE ARE AWARE OF PEOPLE WHO AREN'T PAID A LIVING WAGE 
          [00:50:02]
AND I DON'T. ERIC, CAN YOU KIND OF JUST GIVE ME GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE,
YOU KNOW, IN THAT SITUATION? I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OUR MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT,
BUT CAN YOU JUST KIND OF SHARE SOME OF THOSE AND NOT NAMES OR ANYTHING, OF COURSE, BUT JUST KIND OF GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT WE'RE HOPING TO BRING UP TO BRING
THEM TO A LIVING WAGE. 
          GOOD MORNING ERIC. HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR. YES. 
          COMMISSIONER. SO THOSE ARE MAINLY GOING TO FALL UNDER PAY GRADES 114 AND LESS SO. 
          REALLY ACROSS THE BOARD ELECTIONS FACILITIES,
PARKS, RECYCLING, VETERANS SERVICES, FOOD SERVICE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, COUNTY CLERK. SO IT'S REALLY ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          SO WHAT IS OUR LOWEST GRADE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW? IT'S GOING TO BE GRADE 110, WHICH IS 33, 949 PER YEAR. 
          IT'S ABOUT $16 PER HOUR FOR $33,000 ANNUALLY IS OUR LOWEST GRADE. 
          YES. IT'S LIKE 1530 SOMETHING AN HOUR. HOW MUCH DID YOU SAY? I WAS WRITING A LOT. HOW MUCH AN HOUR? 16. WELL,
LET ME GET YOU THE EXACT ONE HERE. 
          ABOUT 16. SO IT'S ON HERE. COMMISSIONER YOU STARTING TO LEAN TOWARDS? 1632 THANK YOU. 32 AND YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE AND I YOU KNOW,
I DON'T MEAN ANY KIND OF DISRESPECT TO ANYBODY. 
          YOU KNOW, WHEN I MAKE THIS STATEMENT. BUT, YOU KNOW,
RIGHT NOW BUCKY'S RIGHT IS ADVERTISING AT 20 TO 25. 
          25 AN HOUR, YOU KNOW, AND FOR OUR EMPLOYEES TO BE YOU KNOW,
I MEAN, THIS IS TOUGH. 
          YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW. I'M SURE THEY MAKE IT,
YOU KNOW, AND I AND I APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, THEIR WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE TO STAY WITH HAYS COUNTY. 
          BUT YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S A TOUGH AND JUDGE. COMMISSIONERS,
I DON'T RECOMMEND DOING SOME FOR SOME AND NOT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE OVER 80 OR OVER 70. IT'S, IT'S NOT GOOD PRACTICE TO ASSUME THAT THOSE THAT
ARE MAKING MORE ARE GOOD OFF. 
          THEY COULD VERY MUCH BE HAVING MORE EXPENSIVE,
MORE CHILDREN. 
          MAYBE THERE ARE SINGLE PARENTS, MAYBE THEY HAVE STUDENT LOANS. 
          WE ARE ASSUMING THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING MORE THAT THEY'RE WELL OFF. BUT YOU COULD HAVE
SOMEONE MAKING LESS THAT HAS A SPOUSE THAT'S MAKING GOOD MONEY. 
          MAYBE THEY'RE WELL OFF. SO IT'S IT'S ALWAYS GOOD NOT TO ASSUME BASED ON SALARIES MADE THAT
THAT WINDOW FOR CLARIFICATION. 
          AND I WILL SAY THAT I WAS FOLLOWING THE IDEA THAT COMMISSIONER INGALSBE ACTUALLY
ARTICULATED PERFECTLY THE LIVING WAGE THOUGHT PROCESS. 
          THAT'S THE CONCERN. THE IDEA THAT WE ARE GOING TO HELP THEM FIRST IS WHAT I WAS REFERRING
TO. 
          THAT WAS MY GOAL. IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO ANYONE'S ABILITIES OR CAPACITIES OR RANGE OF
EXPENDABLE INCOME. 
          NEVER THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE TRIED THAT. 
          WHEN WAS THAT? 2022? 2023? IT DIDN'T PASS AND THEN IT PASSED. 
          AND THEN TWO WEEKS LATER WE CAME BACK AND WE HAD TO DO IT FOR ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES,
A 10% INCREASE FOR ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE COULD NOT. AND WE WERE AT A POINT AT THAT POINT,
WE WERE AT A POINT WHERE WE WERE HAVING TO DO WE DID ONE TIME SALARY BONUSES FOR EVERY TRANSPORTATION EMPLOYEE BECAUSE WE WERE LOSING EMPLOYEES AT SUCH A RATE THAT WE WENT FROM
100 FTES DOWN TO LESS THAN 45. 
          AND WE WE CAN'T WE HAVE TO BASE OUR SALARIES OFF OF WHAT WHAT THE JOB ENTAILS,
OFF THE SKILLS THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAVE FOR THAT JOB AND WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN MAINTAIN THOSE THOSE,
THOSE EMPLOYEES FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. 
          NOW, I WILL BE THE FIRST TO SAY, IF YOU COME TO WORK FOR HAYS COUNTY AND YOU TAKE THE
WRONG JOB, AND THIS SOUNDS PROBABLY SOUNDS PRETTY COLD,
BUT I KNEW HOW MANY KIDS I HAD. 
          I KNEW WHAT MY EXPENSES WERE. I WAS WILLING TO TAKE THE JOB WITH HAYS COUNTY,
AND I'VE HAD TO MAKE THAT DECISION IN EVERY JOB I'VE EVER BEEN IN. 
          IF THERE ARE FOLKS WHO FEEL AS THOUGH THEY'RE UNDEREMPLOYED FOR WHAT COMES OUT IN THE
MARKET SURVEY, THEN PERHAPS THEY ARE FOR THEIR SPECIFIC SITUATION. 
          BUT WE HAVE TO BASE IT OFF OF DATA. AND THE DATA THAT WE HAVE IS THE SALARY SURVEY THAT
ERIC PUT TOGETHER. 
          ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION ON THAT. ON YOUR RECOMMENDATION YESTERDAY,
I SAID THAT I MEANT NOT SPECIFICALLY THAT, BUT THE WHOLE CONVERSATION OF YOUR AMENDMENTS. 
          DID WE SETTLE ON BECAUSE A COUPLE OF THOSE ITEMS DIDN'T PASS. 
          ARE YOU LETTING THEM GO? AND THEY'RE DONE. FOR EXAMPLE,
WE HAD A SPEAKER ABOUT THE TRANSLATION CAMERA SYSTEM. 
          THOSE ARE EVERYTHING IS STILL WITHIN THIS ONE SENATE,
AND IT'S ACTUALLY LISTED HERE ON THE ON THE LIST THAT. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE HOW YOU WERE FEELING BECAUSE IF THAT SENATE WAS ENCAPSULATED
IN $178,442 AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS LIST, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW YOU WERE FRAMING THE NARRATIVE. 
          TO SAY EVERYTHING ON THIS LIST IS WHAT I'M PUSHING WITH MY MOTION,
OR IF IT'S JUST A MONETARY MOTION, 
          [00:55:06]
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK. SO YOU YOUR PLAN IS,
IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO CALL IT TO HAVE A CEILING FOR INCLUDING ALL OF THESE ITEMS,
WHICH ARE THOSE CAMERAS? AND HOW ABOUT DID I MISS IT? THIS IS 8.5 AGAIN. 
          DID I MISS THE ELECTIONS EQUIPMENT? YEAH, SO I IT'S NOT IN HERE. 
          THIS IS NOT MY AMENDMENT. THIS IS WHAT I CAME UP WITH. 
          BUT YOUR AMENDMENT HAD IT IN THE REFERENCE. BUT I'M LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN GET THERE WITH
THE $0.01 AND WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, TO INCLUDE THE ELECTION EQUIPMENT,
THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER 1.226. 
          CAN I'M ASKING IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 2.6 MILLION. 
          IT PAID PAID AT ONCE. IT PAID OVER THREE YEARS. 
          IT'S 979,000. AND SO THAT'S ON YOUR ORIGINAL AMENDMENT. 
          AND THAT'S WHY I WAS REFERENCING IT. BUT IT'S NOT ON THIS. THEN I WOULD I WOULD GO UP TO
THAT THAT PERCENTAGE. 
          SO 1.26 YEAH. SO ARE YOU. THAT WOULD BE MY FINAL. 
          ARE YOU READY TO MAKE THAT A MOTION OR. I'D LIKE TO I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO TO TALK
JUST BECAUSE WE WERE GIVEN THIS THE SALARY STUDY A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO TO ANALYZE AND INTERPRET. 
          AND I KNOW I'VE TALKED TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS. 
          AND WHAT DO WE WHAT ARE WE CONSIDERING A LIVABLE WAGE BECAUSE WE KEEP I KEEP HEARING WE
HAVE TO GET EVERYONE UP TO A LIVABLE WAGE, WHICH I AM TOTALLY AGREE WITH. BUT WHAT'S THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT? SO PER MIT COMMISSIONER THE LIVING WAGE RECOMMENDED IS 2593 PER HOUR FOR TWO WORKING
ADULTS WITH TWO CHILDREN, SO AROUND 53,054. I'M NOT, I'M NOT GOOD AT MATHS BECAUSE 2080 TIMES 25. 
          YEAH. SO AROUND 55. RIGHT. SO THEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT AN AVERAGE AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE
AVERAGE. 
          THE AVERAGE COUNTY EMPLOYEE RIGHT NOW IS AT $71,400 IN TERMS OF IF YOU ADDED UP ALL THE
EMPLOYEES AND DIVIDED BY THE AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES. 
          SO AVERAGE, WE'RE AT THE LIVABLE WAGE. IT'S THOSE LOWER GRADES THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE
OF. 
          AND I'M COMPLETELY AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR DON'T TAKE CARE OF THEM AND NOT TAKE CARE. 
          I GET IT ALL, BUT I FEEL LIKE IF WE PUT IN THERE A NOT TO EXCEED CAVEAT,
THAT WOULD REALLY HELP. 
          BECAUSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT SOMEONE THAT'S MAKING OVER 150 GRAND,
THEY'RE GETTING A 20% INCREASE. 
          THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. SO, I MEAN, OUR CONSTITUENTS ARE NOT GETTING THESE RAISES. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT. WE CAN'T TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN WHENEVER WE'RE NOT
TAKING CARE OF THEM. YEAH. 
          AND I ALSO WANTED TO ASK COMMISSIONER INGALSBE. FOR EXAMPLE,
WE HAD A SPEAKER ABOUT THAT EXXON CAMERA SYSTEM, WHATEVER IT IS, WHICH IS IT'S A GOOD CHUNK. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF $179,000,
I DON'T SUPPORT THAT ITEM. 
          AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO PARSE THAT OUT,
PULL IT SEPARATE AND CALL A VOTE FOR THAT SEPARATELY AND THEN GIVE YOU GUYS MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH THE REST. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT IDEA? YOU KNOW, I JUST SAW THE SHERIFF, THE SHERIFF AND THE CHIEF HERE. 
          I WAS REALLY GOING TO ASK THEM IF THEY COULD EXPAND ON IF. 
          ARE THEY HERE? MY CONCERN, BECAUSE, I MEAN, YOU KNOW WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP. 
          I'D LIKE TO KNOW. YOU KNOW WHAT. AND WHILE HE GETS THEM,
MY CONCERN WHEN THEY SENT ME THE INFORMATION WHEN I REACHED OUT, I KNOW IT WAS GENERALIZED THAT I WASN'T REACHING OUT,
BUT IT'S NOT TRUE. WHEN I REACHED OUT, MY INTERPRETATION OF THE INFORMATION I RECEIVED FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE WAS THAT SUBJECT
TO CHANGE. 
          EVERYTHING THEY'RE DOING ON AXON SITE IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK TO
US. 
          AND THAT'S THAT'S ALARMING TO ME. SO, SHERIFF,
YOU WERE HERE WHEN THE SPEAKER GOT UP AND GAVE ALL THESE CONCERNS ABOUT AXON. CAN YOU PLEASE SPEAK TO THOSE? I MEAN,
BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW. 
          I MEAN, IT IS CONCERNING WHAT WAS SAID. SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO ANY OF THAT OR CHIEF. 
          SINCE YOU MET WITH JACKSON PERSONALLY, ANTHONY IPPOLITO,
SHERIFF HAYS COUNTY. I DON'T RECALL WHAT MISS KEMP SPECIFICALLY WHAT POINT SHE WAS MAKING, BUT I CAN DO MY BEST IF SHE CAN HELP ME OUT. WITH WHAT POINTS,
EXACTLY? THAT WAY I CAN MAKE SURE THEY'RE ADDRESSED CORRECTLY. WELL,
I MAY HAVE FURTHER POINTS. 
          YOU KNOW, MY ONLY CONCERN IS. SORRY. AS THE CHAIR OF THIS MEETING,
IS THERE A CHANCE. 
          I HATE TO DO THIS. IT'S A LITTLE OFF, BUT I'LL DO IT. 
          IF YOU DON'T MIND. COMING UP TO THE PODIUM, MISS KEMP,
STATE YOUR YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. 
          STATE YOUR NAME AND THEN SPEAK YOUR POINTS AND THEN BACK UP SO THE SHERIFF CAN ANSWER
THEM. 
          PLEASE. I HAVE TO CAPTURE THE CONTENT. OKAY. SORRY. 
          LET ME LOAD MY DOC. SORRY. NO, I APPRECIATE IT. 
          [01:00:03]
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME. SO MY NAME IS AMY CAMP. 
          I'M A RESIDENT OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS. SO YEAH,
SO I MENTIONED DRAFT ONE. 
          AND SOME CONCERNS ABOUT DRAFT ONE. BECAUSE IT IT GENERATES POLICE REPORTS FROM WHAT IT
HEARS ON THE BODY CAMERAS. AND WE KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW,
THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES OF AI MAKING MISTAKES. 
          YOU KNOW, WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT AI TO BE ADDING MISTAKES INTO THE OFFICER'S REPORTS. 
          AND THEN THERE'S ALSO THE ISSUE OF AI AND BIAS. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF STUDIES THAT SHOW THAT AI,
BECAUSE THE LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS ARE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION THAT WE FEED INTO THEM. 
          AND IT'S JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE CAN GET. 
          AND UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS A LOT OF BIAS IN OUR SOCIETY TOWARDS CERTAIN GROUPS AND,
YOU KNOW, RACISM, RACIAL BIAS, BIAS AGAINST IMMIGRANTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          AI CAN REFLECT THAT BIAS, UNFORTUNATELY. AND THAT'S BEEN PROVEN SCIENTIFICALLY. 
          YEAH. SO THAT'S A REAL ISSUE. I WOULD SAY WITH LIKE THAT SPECIFIC ONE I WOULD SAY THAT YOU
KNOW, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY LIKE WHAT ALL Y'ALL ARE CONTEMPLATING ADDING WHEN IT COMES TO AXON
SERVICES, BUT I DO KNOW THAT AXON AND OTHER TECH COMPANIES ARE REALLY RAMPING UP THE USE OF AI. 
          AND SO I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S A HIGH LIKELIHOOD THAT WITH,
YOU KNOW, ANY SERVICE WHERE AXON IS SAYING, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE USING AI, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE ISSUES. 
          AND I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY WANTS TO
DO, LIKE MAYBE THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR IT, YOU KNOW,
LIKE MAYBE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME MORE RESEARCH. 
          YOU KNOW, LIKE WE DON'T NEED TO BE THE GUINEA PIGS. 
          WHEN THESE COMPANIES ARE RAPIDLY EXPANDING THEIR USE OF AI AND THEIR SERVICES. 
          AND SO THAT WOULD BE, I THINK LIKE ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES IS JUST LIKE THE USE OF AI. 
          BUT OF COURSE, LIKE WITH FLOCK SAFETY, WE'VE SEEN THE CONCERNS ABOUT DATA SHARING. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WITH AXON, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS WITH DATA SHARING WHERE
IT'S JUST VERY HARD TO SECURE OUR DATA AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SHARING IT WITH OTHER AGENCIES, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN HAYS COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO SHARE ITS DATA WITH
CERTAIN AGENCIES. 
          SO THOSE WOULD BE, I THINK, SOME OF THE MAIN ISSUES. 
          THANK YOU, MISS KEMP. ANTHONY IPPOLITO. I'M GOING TO HAVE CHIEF BAILEY COME UP. 
          HE HE HAS SPECIFICALLY HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH AXON AND DID ATTEND AN AXON EVENT
LAST WEEK HERE IN AUSTIN. 
          SO HE CAN SPEAK DIRECTLY TO A CERTAIN A COUPLE OF THOSE POINTS. 
          THANK YOU SIR. CHIEF. BRETT BAILEY, CHIEF DEPUTY,
HAYS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE THANK YOU, JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS. I DO WANT TO SAY I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND MISS CAMP'S POINT. 
          IN FACT, THE DA'S OFFICE HAS SOME OF THOSE SAME CONCERNS REGARDING DRAFT ONE. 
          I THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED THAT LAST WEEK THAT WE ARE NOT INTENDING TO IMPLEMENT DRAFT ONE AT
THIS TIME. 
          I BELIEVE I ALSO EXPRESSED TO EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY OVER THE LAST WEEK THAT I
UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT MASS SURVEILLANCE AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. AND I,
ALL I CAN DO IS COMMIT TO YOU VERBALLY RIGHT NOW. 
          I'M HAPPY TO PUT MY NAME ON IT, MY SIGNATURE ON IT,
IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT FOR THINGS LIKE DRAFT ONE, BECAUSE THERE ARE CONCERNS AND I DO WANT TO SAY REAL QUICK THAT EXXON HAS DONE MAJOR PUT
MAJOR GUARDRAILS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T PUT SOMETHING INTO,
INTO ORDER OR INTO ACTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY REVIEWED BY THE DEPUTY. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE ARE INTENTIONAL MISTAKES PUT INTO THE REPORT AND
UNLESS THOSE ARE CORRECTED, THEY'RE NOT EVEN ABLE TO BE EXPORTED, EXPORTED TO A REPORT. 
          SO. YES SIR. THANK YOU SIR. I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO GET TOO FAR AND I WANTED TO JUST WEAVE
IN. 
          I LOVE AND APPRECIATE YOUR PUTTING YOUR NAME ON THE LINE. 
          OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE JUST DONE RIGHT NOW. AND I,
I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THAT. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT ADDS A FINER, GRANULAR LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY TO THIS THING. 
          BECAUSE WE KNOW, AND I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, YOU KNOW,
PEACEFULLY, WE KNOW AND LOVE OUR LOCAL GUYS. 
          IT'S THE CONCERN OF, WELL, THEY GOT HACKED. WELL,
YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, INTERNATIONAL, WHATEVER. 
          AND SO, CANDACE, MY ASK IS IF YOU CAN CREATE AN AGENDA ITEM ON WHAT HE JUST SAID FOR NEXT
COURT WHERE WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT AND VOTE ON IT, SIMPLY TO SAY THAT OUR INTENTION AS A COURT,
AS A POLICY OF THIS COUNTY, IS NEVER TO SURVEIL OUR COMMUNITIES AND MAKE SURE THAT THESE 
          [01:05:09]
THINGS WE END UP GETTING INTO CONTRACTS WITH EVENTUALLY DON'T ACCIDENTALLY SLIP UNDER THE
RADAR, AND WE END UP IN A SURVEILLANCE MODE THAT WE'VE ALL PUBLICLY STATED WE DON'T SUPPORT. 
          THAT'S ANOTHER WAY TO SAY WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT,
CANDACE. WELL, IF I MAY FINISH MY THOUGHT, WHAT I WAS WHAT I WAS SAYING IS,
IS THAT I WOULD NOT, AS THE DEPARTMENT HEAD UNDER SHERIFF AND AT HIS DIRECTION, WOULD NOT IMPLEMENT DRAFT ONE WITHOUT COMING BACK TO COURT WITH THE SUPPORT OF
THE DA'S OFFICE AFTER THOROUGH TESTING. 
          AND UNTIL THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. SO AND I DO WANT TO SPEAK TO THE SHARING THAT
THIS IS ALL INTERNAL USE. 
          THERE IS NO SHARING SUCH AS FLOC DOES. THIS IS FOR OUR INTERNAL USE ONLY. 
          IT'S OUR DATA AND IT'S NOT SHARED WITH OTHER AGENCIES. 
          THAT'S GOOD UNLESS IT'S ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS WHERE WE VET THEIR REASON AND SO FORTH. 
          LIKE, IN OTHER WORDS, IF SAN MARCOS PD CALLED AND SAID DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THIS
PARTICULAR SUSPECT OR VEHICLE, WE COULD LOOK, HAVE A PERSON LOOK INDIVIDUALLY TO SEE. 
          AND THEN IF WE DO AN AGENCY TO AGENCY SHARE THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS,
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THAT MIGHT HAPPEN. 
          BUT THERE'S NO AUTOMATIC SHARING. THERE'S NO EVEN AGREEMENT FOR AUTOMATIC SHARING. 
          THIS IS INTERNAL USE ONLY. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT ARTICULATION AND MY AIM IN CAPTURING
WHAT WAS JUST SAID HERE, NOT VERBATIM, IS TO MEMORIALIZE IT IN A WAY THAT IS LONG STANDING AS A POLICY FOR OUR
FUTURE DISCUSSION AS A COURT. 
          THANK YOU. YES. AND THEN THE NEXT COMMENTS SHE MADE. 
          SHE HAD A FEW BULLETS. SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT DRAFT ONE AND SHE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT
DRAFTING. 
          THAT WAS THE ONLY TWO SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS I HEARD. 
          IF I MISSED SOMETHING, PLEASE PLEASE FEEL FREE. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE DRAFTING, RIGHT? WITH HAVING A POLICE OFFICER BE A FROG. 
          THAT WAS PART OF THE DRAFTING THING YOU'RE DESCRIBING IN THE REPORT,
LIKE A POLICE OFFICER WAS IDENTIFIED AS A FROG ON ACCIDENT. 
          YEAH. I'M SORRY. I'M ACTUALLY DURING HER PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING,
I MISSED THE VERY FIRST PORTION OF IT. 
          JUST NOW I READ HER. I, I DO SAY I WILL SAY THAT THE DRAFT ONE WILL NOT BE UTILIZED. 
          IT WON'T EVEN BE TURNED ON. SO I'M NOT I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT THE FROG COMMENT WAS ABOUT. 
          OKAY. I THINK IT WAS AN AI MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE THAT WENT AND GOT SUBMITTED,
WHICH IS WHY I'M GLAD YOU'VE SAID THE DA'S OFFICE HAS CONCERNS. 
          YEAH, I'M REALLY GLAD YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE,
YOU KNOW, AI IS STILL LEARNING. 
          YEAH. COMMISSIONER INGALSBE, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE CHIEF? HOW MANY OTHER
COUNTIES OR AGENCIES ARE USING THIS SOFTWARE? I MEAN, ARE WE THE FIRST TO KNOW? KYLE PD HAS AI ERA,
THE PACKAGE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY. THERE ARE MANY OTHERS THAT HAVE IT. 
          KYLE PD ALSO DOES NOT USE DRAFT ONE. THEY WENT THROUGH A PILOT PROGRAM AGREED UPON BY THE
DA'S OFFICE. 
          THEY HAD SOME MISTAKES. AND THIS IS WHY I'M NOT PUSHING FOR THAT SPECIFIC PORTION OF IT. 
          I THINK IT'S IN ITS INFANCY. AND I THINK WE NEED A LOT MORE STUDY. 
          AND YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE DRAFT ONE. 
          SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT PLANNING TO USE THAT. BUT KYLE PD LOCALLY DOES HAVE THE SAME,
THE SAME PACKAGE. 
          AND SO THE DEMONSTRATION THAT WAS DONE LAST WEEK IN COURT IS THAT THAT IS A FEATURE THOUGH
THAT IS BEING USED, RIGHT. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO CAN YOU SPECIFICALLY TALK ABOUT COUNTY HAS THE
TRANSLATION SERVICES. 
          OKAY. BUT SO THE DRAFT ONE THOUGH. IS IT CAN WE JUST,
I GUESS, GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT, WHAT EXACTLY IS THE DRAFT ONE? OKAY. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO WHAT WHAT HAPPENS IS THE BODY WORN CAMERA CAPTURES THE SCENE
VISUALLY AND THE AUDIO OF A DEPUTY GOING TO TO TAKE A REPORT FROM SOMEONE BECAUSE THEIR CAR WAS BURGLARIZED
OR BECAUSE THEIR CAR WAS STOLEN. 
          AND AI CAPTURES ALL OF THE SCENE AND THE AUDIO AND AT THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPUTY. 
          IT WILL, IT WILL PRODUCE THE FIRST DRAFT OF A REPORT THAT CAPTURES ALL OF THE PERTINENT
INFORMATION, THE LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, ALL OF THAT STUFF,
AND IT PUTS IT INTO A REPORT. 
          AND THEN THE DEPUTY'S JOB IS TO GO THROUGH AND READ THAT REPORT TO MAKE AND CHECK FOR
ACCURACY. 
          THE PROGRAM ACTUALLY INSERTS CERTAIN INTENTIONAL ERRORS. 
          IT PUTS IN STUFF THAT THE DEPUTY IS REQUIRED TO CHANGE BEFORE THEY CAN EXPORT IT,
EXPORT IT TO THEIR, TO THEIR TO OUR MS. BASICALLY. SO AGAIN, IT'S A,
IT IS A TOOL. 
          WE TESTED IT, WE TESTED IT FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS. 
          [01:10:02]
WE HAD AN AVERAGE SAVING OF SAVINGS OF APPROXIMATELY 36 MINUTES PER REPORT. 
          AND WE GOT A DRASTIC INCREASE IN THE QUALITY OF THE REPORT. 
          BUT I CAN'T STAND HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY AND SAY THERE WON'T BE MISTAKES. 
          AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE WE'RE WANTING TO HOLD OFF ON DRAFT ONE,
TURNING IT ON, WHICH IS AN OPTION. 
          SO THE DRAFT. OKAY, REASON FOR THE NAME DRAFT ONE. 
          OKAY. CORRECT. THEY DO THE FIRST DRAFT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. 
          OKAY. WELL, I THINK IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU SAID THAT THEY ACTUALLY INSERT INTENTIONAL
ERRORS INTO IT SO THAT THE OFFICER HAS TO IDENTIFY THOSE BEFORE IT CAN EVEN BE EXPORTED. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. I THINK THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO START LOOKING AT CREATING AI
POLICY AROUND JOB. I MEAN, SEPARATE FROM, YOU KNOW,
WHAT Y'ALL DO, BUT BECAUSE I THINK MORE EMPLOYEES ARE STARTING TO USE AI IN THEIR JOBS AND. AND SO THIS MAY BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE EXPLORE AND SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS,
SEE WHAT BEXAR COUNTY, IF THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF POLICY THAT THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH. 
          BECAUSE I SEE THE VALUE IN, IN THAT TECHNOLOGY I,
I WISH MAYBE WE EVEN HAD THAT KIND OF TECHNOLOGY IN COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE OR TAX OFFICE WHERE A LOT OF THOSE, YOU KNOW,
BILINGUAL CONVERSATIONS HAVE OR DON'T HAVE. 
          RIGHT. AND IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT. I THINK MY ONLY CONCERNS HAVE HAS JUST BEEN WHAT
YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT, CHIEF, JUST, YOU KNOW, MISS MISUNDERSTANDINGS,
LOST IN TRANSLATION CONVERSATIONS, YOU KNOW BEING, YOU KNOW, THOSE CONVERSATIONS BEING SUBPOENAED AND,
YOU KNOW, JUST LIKE THOSE KIND OF CONCERNS I WORRY ABOUT, BUT I'M HOPING THAT THE TECHNOLOGY CAN FLUSH THOSE THINGS OUT,
BUT ALSO HAVING AN AI POLICY FOR COUNTY WIDE WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR US. 
          BUT I AGREE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE DA'S OFFICE HAVING CONCERNS RIGHT NOW AND Y'ALL
UNDERSTANDING THAT AND WAITING TO SEE HOW WE CAN WORK THOSE THINGS OUT IS IS IMPORTANT. AND, CHIEF, I WANTED TO GIVE SAM A CHANCE TO SAY SOMETHING. 
          SHE ALWAYS SPEAKS ON THIS ITEM. AND I THINK SHE GOT HERE LATE AND COULDN'T SAY ANYTHING. I
WANTED TO SEE IF SHE HAD SOMETHING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS CONVERSATION. THANK YOU CHIEF. 
          SURE. AND IF YOU'LL JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE,
IF YOU HAVE ONE. 
          HI, MY NAME IS SAM BENAVIDES. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU TODAY. 
          I JUST HAD REALLY ONE MAIN THING TO ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION. 
          FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK IT'S REALLY COMMENDABLE THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO
FOREGO DRAFT ONE IN THIS, CONSIDERING ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW CONCERNS THAT ARE AROUND THAT. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT THERE'S A LOT THAT WE'RE STILL LEARNING
ABOUT ACTS ON AI. 
          I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE SEEN VERY CLEARLY OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HOW OUR
COMMUNITY FEELS ABOUT AI, ABOUT SURVEILLANCE. AND IF OUR COMMUNITY IS ABOUT TO PAY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO
ENTER INTO YOU KNOW, FURTHER AGREEMENTS AND COLLABORATION WITH THIS COMPANY THAT WE'RE LEARNING A LOT ABOUT YOU
KNOW, I THINK THAT OUR COMMUNITY WOULD DEFINITELY FEEL A TYPE OF WAY ABOUT HAVING AI IN
SURVEILLANCE. 
          AND IT IS SURVEILLANCE, RIGHT? WE MIGHT NOT WANT TO CALL IT MASS SURVEILLANCE BECAUSE
THAT'S A SCARY WORD, BUT IT IS SURVEILLANCE. I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS IS A REALLY BIG CONVERSATION AND I THINK
THAT IT DESERVES MORE CONSIDERATION AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. 
          I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT THIS ISN'T, YOU KNOW,
ABOUT OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
          THIS IS ABOUT THE BUILDING OF THIS MASSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE NATIONWIDE. 
          WE JUST SAW MONTHS AGO THAT PEOPLE WERE SENTENCED TO DECADES FOR TRANSPORTING ZINES. 
          WE ARE SEEING THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS PERFECTLY LEGAL TWO WEEKS AGO IS NOW A FELONY. 
          IT'S REALLY SCARY TIMES THAT WE'RE CAREENING TOWARDS,
AND I THINK THAT THE ISSUE IS JUST THIS MASSIVE BUILDOUT OF MASS SURVEILLANCE. 
          IT'S NOT ANY ONE COMPANY. IT'S NOT ANY ONE PROGRAM. 
          IT'S NOT ANY ONE POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT'S ALL OF IT AS A WHOLE. 
          THAT IS REALLY CONCERNING. AND I'M NOT SURE IF THE FIRST YEAR IS 97,000 OR 187,000. 
          I THINK I HEARD BOTH BUT IT IS THE FIRST YEAR OF A TEN YEAR CONTRACT. 
          AND SO I JUST THINK THAT THAT DESERVES SERIOUS COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. 
          AND ALL THAT TO SAY, WE'RE PLANNING ON HOSTING A FORUM TO DISCUSS ACTS ON AND A COUPLE OF
WEEKS, I THINK PROBABLY THE WEEKEND OF THE 13TH AROUND THERE. 
          I WOULD LOVE TO SEE EVERYONE THERE. AND YEAH,
JUST REALLY GIVE THIS CONSIDERABLE THOUGHT AND, AND FEEDBACK. SO GOOD POINT THAT AS A TEN YEAR CONTRACT COMMISSIONERS. 
          THANK YOU. FOR THIS IS MORE FOR FOR CHIEF BAILEY. 
          THANK YOU. WOULD YOU CONSIDER THIS CONTRACT SURVEILLANCE OR MASS SURVEILLANCE? BECAUSE SURVEILLANCE IS A VERY PARTICULAR I MEAN,
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE WHAT THIS CONTRACT IS ABOUT. 
          [01:15:04]
SURE. I RESPECTFULLY, I WHEN WHEN SAM MENTIONED THAT AND I APOLOGIZE,
SAM, I DON'T WOULD YOU REMIND ME YOUR LAST NAME? MISS BENAVIDES WHEN SHE SAID THAT I. I DON'T THINK I CAN ARGUE THAT THIS IS NOT
SURVEILLANCE IN THE SENSE THAT OUR BODY WORN CAMERAS ARE ALREADY CAPTURING THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON. SO IF YOU HAVE IT AT THE MOST BROAD SENSE OF THE WORD, OUR CAMERAS, WHICH WE ALREADY USE IN THE JAIL AND WITH PATROL ON THE STREET IN THAT SENSE, I GUESS IT IS SURVEILLANCE. THERE ARE NO, THERE'S,
WE'RE NOT ADDING ANY KIND OF CAMERAS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          AND I WOULD SAY WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN RELATION TO WHAT FLOCK DOES OR ANY ALPR SYSTEM
WHERE YOU HAVE STATIONARY SITES OR EVEN MOBILE SITES THAT ARE CAPTURING EVERY SINGLE THING AND THEN USED AT A LATER TIME. 
          I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE I WOULD CLASSIFY THIS AS SURVEILLANCE. 
          I THINK IT'S JUST TAKING A TOOL THAT WE ALREADY USE AND ALLOWING AI TO MAKE IT MORE
EFFICIENT SO THAT WE CAN WORK FASTER AND, AND, AND GET MORE DONE WITH LESS AI INTEGRATION AND WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. 
          CORRECT. GOTCHA. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER SMITH. 
          I JUST I WAS A CONGRESSIONAL STAFFER. WHENEVER WE I SHERIFF,
YOU CAN PROBABLY TELL OR YOU CAN PROBABLY TELL BETTER THAN I WAS. BUT EARLY 2000,
WHENEVER BODY WORN CAMERAS. 
          THERE WAS A PUSH FOR THE MANDATE OF BODY WORN CAMERAS. 
          AND AT THE TIME, I PROMISE YOU, WE WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN TWO OF OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS
STANDING UP HERE ADVOCATING FOR IT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE THE WORST THING ON EARTH. BUT WHAT YOU DID SEE WAS COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS AND CIVIL CIVIL ACTIVISTS AT THE
ACLU AT THAT TIME ASKING FOR THE USE OF BODY WORN CAMERAS. AND BY GOSH, WE NEED YOUTH AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FOUGHT IT FOR A LONG TIME,
OR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FOUGHT IT. 
          AND WHEN THEY DID, LO AND BEHOLD YOU KNOW, IT BECAME MANDATED PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE IN
THE US. 
          AND NOW THE BIGGEST ADVOCATES FOR IT ARE OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT SHOWS
OUR AVERAGE CITIZEN ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS WHAT THEY DO AND HOW THEY CONDUCT THEMSELVES. IT SHOWED,
YOU KNOW, WHEN PEOPLE WERE SAYING 90% OF OUR OFFICERS WERE DOING SOMETHING BAD, IT SHOWED THAT 95% OF OUR OFFICERS OUT THERE ARE ACTUALLY WORKING WITHIN THE LAW AND DOING
THEIR BEST TO PROTECT AND SERVE OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AND SO THAT BEING THE CASE, I AGAIN, WHEN WE GO BACK TO THINGS LIKE AND I'M,
YOU KNOW, IF THIS WAS 50 YEARS AGO AND THESE GUYS, I MEAN, TRADED IN THEIR REVOLVER FOR A,
YOU KNOW, TRADED IN A REVOLVER FOR AN AUTOMATIC PISTOL OR THEY TRADED IN A, YOU KNOW, A CERTAIN MOTORCYCLE FOR A DIFFERENT KIND OF MOTORCYCLE
BECAUSE WE MANDATED THAT WE HAD TO HAVE MOTOR OFFICERS. 
          BUT WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT THE TOOLS THEY CAN USE TO DO IT AS THERE'S IMPROVEMENTS IN THEM.
I DON'T THINK WE'D BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION NOW. THAT'S AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION OF IT. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. BUT THE FACT IS, THIS IS A TOOL THAT'S GETTING BETTER EVERY YEAR. 
          AND TO LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE ACCESS TO,
TO IMPROVEMENTS IN, IN TECHNOLOGY, I THINK IS JUST IT WOULD BE SHORTSIGHTED. 
          THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. I LIKE WHAT YOU SAID. IT'S A TOOL THAT'S GETTING BETTER. I LIKE
THAT BECAUSE EVERYONE'S CONFIRMING THAT IT'S NOT EXACTLY WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. MY CONCERN, COMMISSIONERS, IS WHEN I REACHED OUT TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THEY SENT ME THE
MATERIALS THEY HAD AVAILABLE, I READ IN THERE SOMEWHERE. I COULD BE WRONG BECAUSE THEY SAID THERE'S NO CONTRACT TO
ACTUALLY PUT OUR HANDS ON. 
          BUT FROM THE CONTENT THAT I WAS SENT, IT SAID THAT I'M PARAPHRASING,
THAT THE CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT THEIR DISCRETION. 
          AND IT SEEMED LIKE IT DIDN'T HAVE TO COME TO COURT,
LIKE THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE UPDATES OR THEY WERE GOING TO DO THINGS. AND SO AGAIN, IT'S NOT ABOUT OUR LOCAL FOLKS AND IT'S NOT ABOUT YOUR USE OF THE TECHNOLOGY TODAY,
THE WAY IT'S BEING PRESENTED. 
          BUT MY, MY OPEN ENDED CONCERN IS THE FUTURE CONTRACT CONVERSATION THAT WE ARE LEAVING
OURSELVES AT THE MERCY OF WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO AND WHATEVER THEY DECIDE THEIR LEADERSHIP AGREES TO AT A BROADER STROKE LEVEL. 
          SO I'D LIKE TO PULL THIS ITEM OUT AND VOTE ON IT INDEPENDENTLY,
BECAUSE I WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD NOT SUPPORTING IT. 
          WELL, CAN ONE OF YOU ALL ADDRESS THAT? I OBVIOUSLY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT VERBIAGE IN THE
IN THE MATERIAL THAT I SENT YOU, YOU'RE REFERRING TO,
BUT I DO KNOW THAT EVERYTHING I SENT YOU IS STRONGLY SUGGESTING THAT AS AXON MAKES IMPROVEMENT OR COMES OUT WITH NEW AI SOFTWARE THAT WILL BE PUT ADDED TO THE BUNDLE AT NO
ADDITIONAL CHARGE. 
          [01:20:01]
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE ANY INTENT TO CHANGE THE CONTRACT. 
          I DON'T I DON'T REMEMBER, I DIDN'T I DIDN'T READ THAT THAT WAY AT ALL. 
          I DO, I WOULD OFFER AS A, YOU KNOW, AS A COMPROMISE THAT IF AI SOFTWARE IS ADDED, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO COME BACK BEFORE WE PUT IT INTO IMPLEMENTATION AND TELL YOU
WHAT IT IS. 
          AND GET THE COURT SUPPORT FOR THAT BEFORE WE PUT IT INTO ACTION. 
          AND CHIEF, THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN WONDERFUL FROM THE MOMENT THE SHERIFF
GOT ELECTED. 
          WE'VE ALWAYS GOTTEN ALONG BEAUTIFULLY WITH NEGOTIATIONS,
WHETHER IT BE 911 OR ANYTHING ELSE GOING ON. 
          YOU'VE ALWAYS HAD THAT GREAT LET'S WORK TOGETHER ATTITUDE. THANK YOU ONE MORE TIME FOR
SHOWING IT PUBLICLY. AND THAT'S WHY THE AGENDA ITEM FOR NEXT WEEK, I THOUGHT WAS A GREAT IDEA BECAUSE I CAN GET BEHIND IT. 
          IF WE CAN CREATE A STATEMENT POLICY AS A COURT ABOUT THE SURVEILLANCE CONCERNS. 
          IF WE CAN GET IF WE CAN GET THAT BUTTONED OUT,
BUTTONED DOWN NEXT WEEK, THEN I CAN CONSIDER GETTING BEHIND IT. 
          BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I'M LIKE, NO WAY. IT'S OPEN ENDED. 
          I'M AFRAID OF IT. JUST SO YOU KNOW. AND JUDGE,
MAY I ASK STEPHANIE, YOU KNOW, WERE YOU ABLE TO READ THAT CONTRACT? AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT SUBJECT TO CHANGE MIGHT BE? REFERRING TO? STEPHANIE. STEPHANIE HUNT, PURCHASING AGENT. 
          SO IT WASN'T A CONTRACT THAT WAS SENT. IT'S JUST A QUOTE FROM AXON. 
          AND IT'S NOT ON THEIR TYPICAL LIKE QUOTE DOCUMENT THAT USUALLY HAS ALL THE TERMS,
TERMS AND CONDITIONS. 
          IT'S JUST AN EXCEL DOCUMENT THAT HAS THE DIFFERENT SERVICES THAT THEY ARE OFFERING AND
JUST KIND OF A BREAKDOWN OF THE PRICING. 
          AND THEN THEY DID SEND JUST ALMOST LIKE A FLIER,
ALMOST LIKE A SALES FLIER THAT THEY WOULD SEND OUT. 
          LIKE HERE ARE THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY OFFER. 
          I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THERE AS FAR AS LIKE THEM BEING ABLE TO CHANGE THE CONTRACT,
BUT I WOULD ASSUME ON LIKE THE AI FEATURES, LIKE AS THEY GET BETTER AND DEVELOP THAT THEY ARE GOING TO JUST OFFER THOSE TO
US UNDER THAT AGREEMENT. 
          BUT I WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY SEE AN OFFICIAL QUOTE FROM EXXON WITH ALL OF THAT
INFORMATION. 
          I HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH ON IT, AND THERE ARE QUITE A FEW COUNTIES AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS
THAT ARE IMPLEMENTING THE AI TRANSLATION PIECE OF IT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR OFFICERS BE ABLE TO TALK LIKE THE
DEMONSTRATION THAT THEY DID IN COURT FOR US, AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE BIG ONE THAT MOST OF THEM ARE STARTING OFF WITH IN THAT PACKAGE. 
          BUT I HAVEN'T DOVE INTO THE ACTUAL REPORT WRITING ONE. 
          THANK YOU. STARTING OFF. ANYTHING ELSE TO DISCUSS? COMMISSIONERS. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I AND THIS IS NOT LIGHTLY BECAUSE I'VE DEVELOPED
RELATIONSHIPS AND TRUST WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, BUT I TRULY DO BELIEVE THAT IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN SOFTWARE THAT THEY WILL COME. 
          AND IF YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN WRITING AND, AND VOTE ON IT THAT WAY,
THAT'S FINE. BUT THEY WILL COME AND THEY WILL KEEP US UPDATED AND THEY WILL LET US KNOW WHENEVER THINGS DO CHANGE. I LOVE THAT. I LOVE THAT COMMISSIONER BECAUSE TOMORROW SHERIFF
IPPOLITO WON'T BE HERE. 
          AND SO IF WE CREATE THAT AS A MEMORIALIZED DOCUMENT,
THEN WE HAVE A POLICY AS A COUNTY. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE,
AS SHE JUST POINTED OUT, AS THINGS UNFOLD AND EVOLVE, THEY'RE GOING TO DROP THEM INTO OUR CONTRACT. WELL,
WHO'S TO SAY WE DON'T WANT SOME OF THAT? THAT'S THAT'S A GREAT AGENDA ITEM FOR NEXT WEEK THAT CAN BUTTON IT UP. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? CAN WE LEAVE THIS OUT AND YOU VOTE ON THE REST? OR HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED? VOTE ON CEILING,
RIGHT? I MEAN, LAST WEEK MY PROPOSAL WAS $0.01. I MY MY CONCERN IS I STILL HAVE WHATEVER WE VOTE
ON TODAY, WE CAN ALWAYS GO UNDER THAT. AND SO IF, IF IT'S GOING TO BE ONE,
TWO, SIX FOR FOR ELECTIONS, INCLUDING ELECTIONS EQUIPMENT, I WOULD PROBABLY GO FOR AT LEAST ONE,
TWO, SIX, ONE, THREE AND WE CAN DROP DOWN FROM THERE FOR CLARIFICATION. 
          COMMISSIONER. SCOTT WOODLAND BUDGET OFFICER THAT WOULD BE THE ANNUAL PAYMENT,
THE $979,000 A YEAR. 
          YES, SIR. THREE YEARS. AND IF WE BUY IT IN THREE YEARS,
IT'LL BE 6,000,000 IN 1 YEAR, OR AT LEAST FIVE. 
          JENNIFER CHANCELLOR. TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT. 
          LET'S SEE IF WE'RE THERE. HOLD ON A SECOND FOR ME. JENNIFER COMMISSIONERS. ANYTHING ELSE
ON THE STUFF THAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS SAID SO FAR? ARE YOU READY TO HEAR FROM SOMEONE ELSE? I AM,
BUT WE ALSO ASK THAT. 
          OH, MAYBE IT WAS SENT TO US. WE SAID THAT WE WANTED TO SEE HOW MUCH IT GENERATED ALSO. 
          I KNOW THAT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE A LARGE AMOUNT,
BUT DID WE GET THOSE NUMBERS? YES, COMMISSIONER INGALSBE. MARISOL, THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND I WORKED ON THAT. 
          SHE ACTUALLY HAS SOME HANDOUTS TO BE ABLE TO GIVE TO YOU. 
          [01:25:02]
I WILL SAY THAT THE THAT THE MAX THAT WE COULD CHARGE RIGHT NOW,
WE'RE CHARGING PER UNIT, I BELIEVE. AND JENNIFER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG,
BUT I BELIEVE WE'RE CHARGING 175 AND I THINK THAT IT COULD GO UP TO ABOUT 400 OR SO, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO A DRASTIC RAISE LIKE THAT ON OUR PARTNERS. 
          BUT THAT WAS KIND OF SOME DISCUSSION THAT THAT ELECTIONS IN US HAD COMMISSIONER. 
          IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL ASK JENNIFER TO COME UP. YES,
PLEASE. OKAY. JENNIFER, WOULD YOU MIND, SINCE YOU'RE HERE GIVING US SOME MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT ELECTIONS EQUIPMENT? GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. JENNIFER DOYLE OF HAYS COUNTY ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR. 
          SO I'VE HEARD A FEW TIMES NOBODY'S TELLING US WE NEED IT,
I REQUESTED IT. 
          THAT WAS MY INDICATION THAT WE NEED A NEW UPGRADED SYSTEM. 
          EXCUSE ME. AND PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE AT THE END OF LIFE. 
          SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WERE HERE WHEN WE PURCHASED THE LAST SYSTEM,
WE KNEW FULL WELL THEN THAT BY THE TIME WE GET TO THE 10TH YEAR, WHICH IS GOING TO BE OUR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR,
WE'RE GOING TO NEED NEW EQUIPMENT. 
          AND AND OF COURSE, NEW EQUIPMENT ISN'T SOMETHING YOU PURCHASE AND ROLL OUT THE DAY YOU BUY
IT. 
          IT TAKES TIME. YOU GET THE EQUIPMENT IN. THERE HAS TO BE CERTAIN THINGS UNDER THE LAW THAT
YOU HAVE TO DO ACCEPTANCE TESTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          AND THEN YOU HAVE TO TRAIN AND IT TAKES A WHILE TO TRAIN. 
          AND SO WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO ROLL OUT EQUIPMENT IN A PRIMARY ELECTION ON A
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR. 
          BECAUSE THAT'S JUST NEVER THE TIME THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES. 
          SO I DID TALK WITH SOME COURT MEMBERS INFORMALLY IN THE LAST BUDGET SESSION TO LET THEM
KNOW THAT THIS WOULD BE COMING. 
          SO THIS IS NOT A SURPRISE TO ANYBODY OR ANYTHING NEW. 
          THE NEW EQUIPMENT I GAVE YOU ALL AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT OR IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON IT,
BUT WE DO CHARGE FOR THE EQUIPMENT IN EVERY ELECTION. 
          THOSE FEES ARE SET BY THE COURT, THE COURT'S CURRENT FEE FOR THAT EQUIPMENT IS 175 PER
COMPONENT. 
          SORRY, I'VE GOT A FROG. MAYBE IT'S AI. SORRY. 
          SORRY. OKAY. HALLUCINATION. SO SO WE DO HAVE DISCRETION ON WHERE THOSE FEES GO. 
          AND, AND IT CAN BE UP TO 10% OF THE COMPONENT OF EQUIPMENT AGAIN. 
          I DID EXPRESS, YOU KNOW, CONCERN WITH THAT KIND OF A RAISE BECAUSE OUR LOCAL ENTITIES,
THEY'RE ALSO WORKING IN THEIR BUDGET PROCESS RIGHT NOW BASED ON WHAT OUR CURRENT RATES ARE. SO THAT WOULD INCREASE THE COST QUITE A BIT TO THOSE AGENCIES TO GO UP THAT
HIGH. 
          BUT I THINK WE TALKED MAYBE ABOUT 252, 75, PERHAPS TO GO UP THAT AMOUNT FOR THE EQUIPMENT. 
          AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE. OF COURSE,
THAT IS PASSED THROUGH TO OUR JURISDICTIONS. 
          SO THEY WOULD BE PAYING, BUT NOTHING'S GOING DOWN AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS
MORNING. 
          SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS,
AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT AN INCREASE. 
          I MEAN, HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN AT 175? OH GOSH,
I DON'T THINK I THINK WE DID FEES WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE. 
          WE RAISED THEM WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE, AND THEN WE DID AGAIN,
A FEE FOR POLL WORKERS MORE RECENTLY, RIGHT. SO, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF WE CAN GET AN AGENDA ITEM TOGETHER TO DISCUSS THAT THE
NEXT TIME WE MEET, I'M SURE HAPPY TO THAT'LL BE THE FIRST TO CONSIDER THAT. 
          YEAH. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR HER? I THINK AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IS LIKE, YES,
NO ONE IS TELLING US THAT WE NEED THIS TODAY. 
          RIGHT. BUT OUR ELECTION EQUIPMENT, BECAUSE JENNIFER IS ALWAYS SO AMAZING AT HER JOB. SHE
ALWAYS GETS US OUR ELECTION EQUIPMENT BEFORE ANYONE ELSE DOES. SO THE OLD EQUIPMENT IS END OF LIFE, PRETTY MUCH. SO JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A MANDATE TO GET THIS EQUIPMENT
DOESN'T MEAN THAT OUR EQUIPMENT CURRENTLY DOESN'T NEED TO BE UPGRADED. 
          SURE. AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. WE DON'T HAVE A MANDATE,
BUT ALWAYS IN ELECTIONS, YOU WANT TO HAVE THE LATEST AND GREATEST TECHNOLOGY,
SECURITY AND ALL THE THINGS THAT COME WITH THAT. 
          AND OUR ELECTION EQUIPMENT IS PHASING OUT. IT'S NOT THE LATEST AND GREATEST TECHNOLOGY. 
          AND ACTUALLY I WORKED WITH CHRIS ON ALL OF THIS TALKING ABOUT,
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T USE YOUR 15 YEAR OLD CELL PHONE OR COMPUTER OR ANYTHING ELSE. SO WHY WOULD WE EXPECT THAT TO BE OKAY FOR OUR ELECTION EQUIPMENT? WHEN DID WE PURCHASE THIS? WE PURCHASED IT IN 2018. 
          BUT THE SYSTEM ITSELF, THE TECHNOLOGY IS 2015. 
          [01:30:03]
COMMISSIONER COHEN I SUPPORT ADDING ELECTION EQUIPMENT TO THIS LIST. 
          AND AND THAT BE OUR CEILING, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD. 
          DOES THAT COINCIDE, COMMISSIONER INGALSBE? WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID AS AN AGENDA ITEM FOR
NEXT WEEK ON THE FIRST. 
          OR IS THAT SEPARATE? WELL, I THINK, YOU KNOW,
I THINK IT COINCIDES WITH THAT. 
          OKAY. I'D LIKE TO. ALL RIGHT. JUST JUST FOR DISTINCTION,
THOUGH. 
          COMMISSIONER COHEN, ARE YOU SAYING ADDING IT TO THE TOTALITY OF BOTH OF OF BOTH THE ADDED
TO THE CEILING? OKAY. SO I WOULD PROPOSE A YOU KNOW, A CEILING BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SET A I WOULD PROPOSE AN
UPPER CEILING OF 1.2 $0.06. THAT'S THE MOTION. I'M LOOKING FOR A SECOND. 
          SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. JUST TO MAKE SURE,
BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF SOFT. 
          COMMISSIONER SMITH MADE THE MOTION TO GO TO THAT CEILING. 
          AND COMMISSIONER COHEN SECONDED IT. NOW, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          COMMISSIONER INGALSBE. YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN. YES. COMMISSIONER. HAMMER. 
          NO. JUDGE BECERRA. NO. ALL RIGHT. SO THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. 
          MOST DEFINITELY. AWESOME. WE CAN KNOCK THESE THINGS OUT IN ORDER. 
          LET'S OPEN. I MOVE THAT WE OPEN ALL CONSENT ITEMS SECOND. 
          JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IS THAT THE ONLY MOTION THAT YOU NEED? I THINK WE HAVE ADDITIONAL ITEMS RELATED TO THAT. 
          SO THAT WILL ACTUALLY BE DURING OUR PUBLIC HEARING. 
          01:00 BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO SET THE ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES,
AS WELL AS ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU ALL MAKE TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET. 
          SO THREE SEPARATE MOTIONS. PERFECT. YOU GOT IT. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR ALL AGENDA ITEMS. 
          [G. CONSENT ITEMS ]
IN CONSENT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THEM? NO. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER SMITH. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN. YES. COMMISSIONER. HAMMER. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. YES. JUDGE. BECERRA? YES. I WON, PLEASE. I WON DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE PRESENTATION OF A
VOTER PETITION TO THE COUNTY JUDGE FOR THE CREATION 
          [I.1. Discussion and possible action to acknowledge presentation of a voter petition to the County Judge for the creation of a Hays County Hospital District under Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 281.  BECERRA (Part 1 of 2)]
OF A HAYS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT UNDER TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE,
CHAPTER 281. 
          SO MOVED. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          AND OUR JOB CHASE. IF YOU TURN ON YOUR MIC. OUR JOB AT THIS POINT IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE
ACCORDING TO THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN. 
          ACKNOWLEDGE THE PETITIONS. CORRECT. THAT'S THIS MOTION. 
          I WANT TO TAKE THIS ONE AT A TIME AND SLOWLY. 
          GOOD MORNING, COURT CHASE YOUNG ASSISTANT CRIMINAL. DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
HAYS COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. YES, THAT WOULD BE OKAY FOR THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND FOR THE VERIFICATION. 
          THANK YOU SIR. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? DO WE GET TO SEE A COPY OF THE
PETITION? WE'D HAVE TO SEE THE PETITION. PETITION OF THE SIGNED ACKNOWLEDGING OF THE SIGNATURES IS
WHAT THIS IS EXACTLY, BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING. IT WAS SENT IN TO THE CLERK. 
          IT'S A PAGE OF SIGNATURES. IF YOU GUYS WANT TO SEE IT. 
          YES. AND HAVE THEY BEEN VERIFIED? YES. NO. 
          THE CLERK'S OFFICE VERIFIED THESE. NO ELECTIONS. 
          VERIFIED THEM THROUGH REGISTERED VOTERS. AND THEN THEY WENT THROUGH THE TAX ROLLS TO MAKE
SURE THEY'RE TAXPAYERS. 
          AND THEN IT WAS SECONDLY VERIFIED THROUGH OUR TAX OFFICE TO CONFIRM THE WORK. 
          I'D LIKE TO I'D LIKE TO HAVE OUR ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR COME UP FOR SOME QUESTIONS,
IF POSSIBLE, ONCE WE GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT. BUT WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT YET. 
          COME ON UP. JUDGE, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE CAN GET COPIES OF IT INSTEAD OF JUST HAVING
ONE COPY TO PASS A PAGE OF SIGNATURES. 
          SURE. AND IF YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC. 
          JENNIFER DAWN OF HAYS COUNTY ELECTION ADMINISTRATOR. 
          SO THERE'S I KNOW UNDER STATUTE, THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST 100 VERIFIED SIGNATURES WITH. 
          AND THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THERE AS WELL. 
          THEY HAVE TO BE DATED OR THERE. THERE HAS TO BE EITHER THEIR DATE OF BIRTH OR THEIR VOTER
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ON THERE. 
          RIGHT. OR WAS THERE DID YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT AND REVIEW
WHETHER OR NOT THOSE WERE SET? I DID REVIEW SEVERAL DOCUMENTS AND DID VERIFY THAT THOSE SIGNERS WERE BOTH ON THE VOTER
REGISTRATION LIST AND ON THE PROPERTY TAX LIST. AND THEN THE TAX ASSESSOR DID VERIFY THAT AS WELL. 
          [01:35:01]
I THEN SENT IT TO THE CIVIL DIVISION FOR CONTENT TO VERIFY CONTENT. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE SOME THAT DIDN'T HAVE DATES THAT WERE KNOCKED OFF FOR NOT
HAVING THAT REQUIRED COMPONENT. 
          AND THEN ON A COUPLE OF SUBSEQUENT LISTS, THERE WAS SOME OTHER INFORMATION THAT WAS
MISSING THAT IS ALSO REQUIRED EITHER THE DOB, THE DATE OF BIRTH OR THE NUMBER HAS TO BE ON THERE. 
          AND THERE WERE SOME THAT WERE MISSING BOTH. SO I'M NOT SURE AT THIS POINT BETWEEN ALL OF
THE CHECKS WHERE WE ARE ON THE PETITION, BUT YES, I DID LOOK AT THE PAPERWORK THAT WAS SENT TO ME OVER 100 THAT YOU CONSIDERED
VALID. 
          SO THERE WERE THERE WERE OVER 100 ON BOTH LISTS. 
          BUT AGAIN, WHEN IT WAS SENT TO THE CIVIL DIVISION TO CHECK THE CONTENT OF THE PETITION,
THERE WAS SOME MISSING INFORMATION. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SIGNATURES WERE DETERMINED TO BE INELIGIBLE DUE TO THAT. 
          AND I THINK IT WAS THE DATE SPECIFICALLY, WE DID HAVE TO CONTACT THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S
OFFICE, AND THEY DID IN FACT STATE THAT THE DATE IS REQUIRED. 
          SO DOES ANYBODY CAN ANYBODY SPEAK TO HOW MANY ARE VERIFIED? HOW MANY SIGNATURES ARE VERIFIED WITHIN THE PETITION? I'M SORRY. 
          CAN SOMEONE SPEAK TO HOW MANY SIGNATURES WERE VERIFIED WITHIN THE PETITION IN THE
ORIGINAL? IF YOU'LL IF YOU'LL APPROACH THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE. 
          SURE. KATHERINE HOWARD, ASSISTANT CRIMINAL. DISTRICT ATTORNEY,
CIVIL DIVISION. 
          I KNOW THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND, MORE THAN 100 SIGNATURES WITH THEIR DATES OF BIRTH,
ETC. 
          WERE VERIFIED. THERE ARE QUESTIONS AS TO OTHER PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT SOME OF THEM HAD
DATES. 
          SOME OF THEM DIDN'T. SOME OF THE NEWER BATCHES DIDN'T HAVE DATES OF BIRTH. 
          SOME OF THEM DID. SO IN THE ORIGINAL ROUND, THERE WERE 100 SIGNATURES VERIFIED IN THE
ORIGINAL ROUND. 
          YEAH, BECAUSE FOR SAFETY WE WENT AHEAD AND GOT A FEW EXTRAS BECAUSE THE DATE OR SOMETHING
WAS MISSING ON SOME OF THEM. 
          AND SO WE WENT AHEAD AND GOT A FEW EXTRA SIGNATURES JUST TO MAKE SURE WE WOULD MAKE THE
100 THRESHOLD. 
          AND THE COMMISSIONERS ARE ALMOST DONE LOOKING. 
          PASS THEM OVER TO YOU UNTIL YOU GET A COPY. OKAY,
SO I HAVE SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS THOUGH, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING DATES WERE THERE AND THEN THEY WERE THEY WEREN'T THERE AND THEN THEY
WERE THERE. SO. 
          NO. WELL, HOLD ON ONE SECOND. EXPLAIN THAT, GO INTO DETAIL MORE. 
          TALK MORE ABOUT THAT. HERE WE GO. SURE. SO OUR ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR DID REVIEW THE
DATES OF BIRTH, ETC., ETC.. COLLECTION OF SIGNATURES AND A PETITION CYCLE CAN HAPPEN PIECEMEAL. 
          IT'S NOT LIKE HERE'S ONE DOCUMENT THAT COMES IN. 
          IT'S SOLIDIFIED. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR PETITION CYCLE THAT HAPPENED,
IT'S COME IN PIECEMEAL. 
          I PERSONALLY CAN'T VERIFY IF THERE'S 100 ON THERE TODAY. 
          THAT'S IT. BUT THERE WERE OVER 100 THAT HAD DATES OF BIRTH,
BUICKS, ETC.. 
          THERE WERE DATES MISSING. WE SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND OUT DATES ARE REQUIRED. 
          I, I'M SO CONFUSED BECAUSE I'M SEEING NEW BRAUNFELS,
TEXAS LISTED FOUR TIMES HERE AND THEY PROBABLY HAD AN X WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WERE THROWN OUT. OKAY. IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE ANY X OR ANYTHING. 
          ALL THOSE THAT ARE IN YOUR HAND HAVE GONE THROUGH ANOTHER DEPARTMENT,
EITHER ELECTIONS. 
          AND AND SO I KNOW THAT JENNIFER, IN THE FIRST BATCH SHE WAS SENT,
I THINK YOU'RE PUTTING X'S NEXT TO THE ONES THAT DIDN'T QUALIFY. SO LET ME JUST ANSWER TO THE ONE IN NEW BRAUNFELS. 
          IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED BECAUSE WE DO HAVE HAYS COUNTY RESIDENTS THAT ARE
REGISTERED VOTERS AND PAY TAXES HERE THAT ARE IN NEW BRAUNFELS ADDRESS. LIKE AUSTIN? YES. GOOD POINT. SO I CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. 
          BUT WE DID MAKE NOTES ON THE PETITIONS WE DID THAT HAD THE PROPERTY TAX NUMBERS AND THE
NUMBERS OF THE VOTER. 
          THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINED IF THEY WERE ELIGIBLE. 
          AND WE MADE THOSE NOTES ON THERE. BUT I DON'T KNOW. 
          I CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. SO WE HAVE SOME THAT THERE ARE SOME PAGES HERE THAT
HAVE BEEN CHECKED. 
          IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THERE'S NAMES THAT HAVE BEEN KNOCKED OFF OF THEM. 
          THERE'S OTHER THINGS. AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL TWO PAGES THAT HAVE NO NOTATIONS
WHATSOEVER. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU'VE SEEN THESE EITHER ONE OF Y'ALL'S OFFICES. HAVE YOU ALL SEEN
THESE? DO I KNOW YOU CAN'T LOOK AT THEM? I WOULD FEEL MUCH BETTER HAVING THESE OFFICES US,
WE CAN HAVE OUR CONVERSATION AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS, BUT WE NEED TO GIVE THIS INFORMATION TO THEM AND HAVE THEM REVIEW THEM AND GIVE US A A
TRUE. 
          HERE'S ONE PAGE THAT EVERY SINGLE NAME WAS INVALID. 
          I MEAN, I JUST THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. I AGREE. 
          [01:40:03]
I'VE HAD TO COLLECT SIGNATURES BEFORE AS WELL. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BEFORE WE CONSIDER HAVING TO PUT A TAX RATE ON OUR CITIZENS, THAT THESE ARE ALL VALID DOCUMENTS. HAVING WHAT YOU I DIDN'T HEAR THE LAST THING. 
          YOU HAD TO PUT A NEW TAX RATE ON OUR CITIZENS OR ESTABLISHING AN ENTITY THAT WOULD HAVE
THE ABILITY TO TO ESTABLISH A TAX RATE. 
          I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO HIT WHAT THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IS BEFORE WE ORDER AN
ELECTION. 
          THAT IS GOOD, COMMISSIONER, BUT I WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION. BOTH THINGS YOU SAID ARE
INACCURATE. THIS WOULD ONLY BE TO LET THE VOTERS DECIDE IF THEY WANT IT. WE WOULDN'T ESTABLISH IT. WE DON'T HAVE THAT AUTHORITY AT THIS MOMENT. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONVERSATION OR QUESTION IS. THAT'S WHY I CLARIFIED AND SAID TO CALL
FOR AN ELECTION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ACTUALLY DIDN'T. JUST SO YOU KNOW, AT THE END I SAID, BEFORE WE CALL FOR AN ELECTION, I WANT TO MAKE SURE. 
          AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHERE THIS TO PASS WITH OUR CITIZENS. 
          WE WOULD APPOINT THE BOARD BY STATUTE. THE COUNTY WOULD APPOINT OR THE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COURT WOULD APPOINT THE BOARD. 
          HOWEVER, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT WOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR ACTUALLY THE BE
DESIGNATED AS THE ENTITY WHO WOULD SET THE TAX RATE ON IT. 
          AND SO BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD INTO A PROCESS TO START DOWN THAT ROAD,
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE ARE VALID SIGNATURES. 
          AND IF THERE'S OVER 100, STATE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE HAVE TO CALL FOR IT. 
          BUT LET'S JUST MAKE SURE AND DO OUR HOMEWORK BEFORE WE DO THAT. 
          HOLD ON. LEGAL QUICK QUESTION, CAN WE CAN YOU TURN IN SIGNATURE. 
          CAN YOU TURN IN PETITIONS IN BATCHES SO YOU CAN COLLECT SIGNATURES IN BATCHES ONCE
COMPILED THAT'S WHEN YOU GO THROUGH VERIFICATION AND THEN PRESENTMENT. OKAY. AND I DO JUST FOR THE COURT'S COLLECTIVE. 
          MAKE SURE WE'RE ON PAGE HERE. THIS IS A 281 PETITION. 
          SO UNLIKE A 286 PETITION, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO CALL THE ELECTION AT THE NEXT REGULARLY
AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. 
          IF THE PETITION HAS 100 VALID SIGNATURES. YOU ARE NOW ITS MANDATORY MINISTERIAL DUTY TO
CALL THE ELECTION, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AT THIS MEETING. THE NEXT MEETING WE HAVE TIME TO DO DUE
DILIGENCE. 
          OKAY. SO YOU'RE TELLING ME FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE,
THERE'S 100 VERIFIED SIGNATURES FROM EXACTLY WHAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS ASKING. I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT THE QUESTION IS. 
          IT'S PRETTY EASY TO UNDERSTAND. SECRETARY OF STATE HAS CERTAIN QUALIFICATIONS TO CONSIDER
A PETITION. 
          VALID, CORRECT. THERE'S 100 VERIFIED SIGNATURES WITH WHAT THEY DEEM AS QUALIFIED IN THIS
PETITION. 
          STANDING HERE TODAY AT THIS PODIUM, I CANNOT VERIFY THAT. 
          SO THE ANSWER IS YOU DON'T KNOW. I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE 100 QUALIFIED SIGNATURES ON
THAT DOCUMENT. 
          THE NUMBERS RIGHT NOW THERE'S A NUMBER OF THESE THAT THE IT'S OBVIOUS THEY HAVEN'T BEEN
REVIEWED BECAUSE THERE'S NO THERE'S NO NOTATION. 
          THERE'S NO WELL, THEY WERE SENT COPIES TO ELECTIONS. 
          AND I THINK THOSE ARE WHAT WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN BACK. 
          BUT THEY HAVEN'T MARKED IT. THE ONES THAT WERE REVIEWED ON THIS DOCUMENT THEY MADE
NOTATION AT THE BOTTOM OF HOW MANY VALID SIGNATURES THERE WERE. 
          AND AT THIS POINT I'M JUST TRYING TO ADD THEM UP ON THE ONES THAT WE THAT HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED. 
          AND IF THAT'S 100, THEN THAT'S 100 ALREADY. IF IT'S NOT,
IT'S NOT. 
          AND THEY NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ADDITIONAL PAGES THAT WERE ADDED AND DO A REVIEW
OF THOSE ADDITIONAL PAGES. 
          JENNIFER. EVERY, EVERY SINGLE ONE THAT WE REVIEWED HAS A MARKING ON IT BECAUSE IT HAS
EITHER IT HAS A VOID AND A R NUMBER FROM THE PROPERTY TAX CODE AND JENNIFER, WHATEVER MAY NOT HAVE A MARKING FROM YOUR OFFICE. 
          WOULD YOU MIND IF WE HANDED IT TO YOU SO YOU CAN MAKE THE FINAL,
LAST MINUTE PAGES THAT WERE SUBMITTED AND NOT MARKED? MAYBE. I MEAN, WE MARKED ALL THE PAGES, SO WE DON'T MIND IF THERE'S EXTRAS,
RIGHT? RIGHT. LOOK AT THAT. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THESE RIGHT NOW,
BUT THERE MIGHT BE SOME IN THERE THAT THEY'RE SAYING MAY NOT HAVE A MARK. AND SO I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU'D BE OKAY WITH HAVING YOUR TEAM REVIEW THAT LAST BIT OF WHATEVER
JUST CAME THROUGH. 
          THAT HE'S SAYING DOESN'T SHOW TO HAVE MARK. I HAVE A SERIOUS ISSUE HERE WHERE OUR LEGAL IS
UP HERE AND SAYS THAT THEY CAN'T DETERMINE THAT THERE'S 100 VERIFIED SIGNATURES, BUT THEY CAN'T TELL US IF THERE'S 100 VERIFIED SIGNATURES. THAT MAKES ABSOLUTELY ZERO
SENSE TO ME. 
          IF ANYBODY WANTS TO GIVE ME SOME CLARITY ON THAT,
THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SO, COMMISSIONER, WHAT KATHERINE'S SAYING IS THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SIGNATURES THAT ARE ON THE PETITION. RIGHT. 
          BUT IN ORDER TO QUALIFY AS A VERIFIED SIGNATURE VERIFIED AREA,
THERE'S X NUMBER OF PIECES OF INFORMATION THAT HAVE TO BE DETERMINED. 
          RIGHT? SO PART OF WHAT JENNIFER IS DOING IS VERIFYING IF THEY'RE ON THE VOTER ROLL,
IF THEY'RE TAXPAYERS OF THE COUNTIES OR THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          BUT THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUALIFICATIONS THAT ARE NEEDED,
SUCH AS POTENTIALLY CERTAIN DATES AND DATES OF BIRTH AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          [01:45:02]
THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS LAID OUT FOR GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO ALL THE PETITIONS.
AND SO SHE'S SAYING SHE CAN'T SAY WHETHER OR NOT AND CATHERINE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, RIGHT. BUT I BELIEVE WHAT SHE'S SAYING IS THAT IF SHE CAN'T SAY
WHETHER OR NOT EVERY SIGNATURE IN THE PETITION IN FRONT OF YOU HAS ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS. 
          SO WHO CAN? AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO GIVE IT BACK TO ELECTIONS. AND I'M GOING TO TELL
YOU FROM MY VIEWPOINT, I DID THE INITIAL ANALYSIS OF THE PETITION. AND THEN THERE WERE THEN IT WAS DETERMINED
THOSE WITH DATES DIDN'T COUNT. 
          SO I DIDN'T HAVE THE PETITION AT THAT POINT IN TIME TO. 
          TAKE OFF THOSE NAMES. SO I KNOW WHAT I DID WAS 129. 
          BUT THERE WERE SOME AFTER THE FACT THAT WERE DETERMINED INELIGIBLE,
I HAVEN'T RECEIVED THOSE BACK, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE HAVE BEEN CORRECTED. 
          I DON'T KNOW YOU KNOW, WHERE WE ARE IN THAT STATUS. 
          BUT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT IF THIS AGENDA ITEM IS COMING TO COURT,
THAT WE HAVE THE 100 CERTIFIED VERIFIED SIGNATURES THAT ARE NEEDED, ARE WE SAYING THAT THAT ISN'T CORRECT HERE? COMMISSIONER WE DO HAVE THEM, BUT THERE IS A SLIGHT OVERLAP THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO
DESCRIBE. 
          AND THAT'S WHY I OFFERED TO HAND TO JENNIFER FOR A FINAL PASS OF. 
          YES, WE DID THESE. YES, WE DID THESE. OKAY. THESE ARE THE LEFT. LET'S DOUBLE CHECK THESE
AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE THEIR ANSWER MOST COMPLETE. 
          THAT WAS WHY I ASKED FOR THIS TO JUST TO HAND BACK TO YOU FOR A FINAL VERIFICATION OF
WHATEVER MAY HAVE BEEN LAST MINUTE BROUGHT IN. 
          I CAN TABLE THIS UNTIL WE GET THAT VERIFIED,
IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU. YEAH. 
          YES, PLEASE. DO YOU HAVE IT IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT SO I CAN SEND IT TO YOU? I BELIEVE HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO TELL YOU. I BELIEVE MY OFFICE ALREADY SENT IT TO YOURS,
BUT I'M NOT GOING TO PUT ANYBODY ON THE SPOT. AND SO COMMISSIONER. DO YOU MIND? I GUESS WE'LL GIVE IT BACK TO A COUNTY CLERK. 
          I WILL. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE IT BACK IF YOU HAVE AN ELECTRONIC COPY. 
          BUT THE DISCONNECT HERE ISN'T WITH HER. AND SHE JUST SAID THIS ISN'T WITH HER REVIEWING
IT, I SHE CAN. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU REVIEWING THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVEN'T HAD
A CHANCE TO. 
          BUT AS SOON AS THAT IS DONE, GIVEN THE DIRECTION FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE,
WE NEED THAT INFORMATION OUT OF OUR OFFICE. 
          GENERAL COUNSEL, AS TO DETERMINING VALIDITY. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU DID ON THE PREVIOUS ONES. 
          I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO I MEAN, IT'S IT WAS VERY CLOSE. 
          I JUST I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WE DO THIS CORRECTLY. 
          THE LAST THING THAT WE WANT IS TO CALL FOR A BALLOT ELECTION AND IT NOT BE A VALID
ELECTION. 
          THANK YOU AND APPRECIATE IT. WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL TABLE THIS FOR NOW. 
          JUST GET A FINAL CONFIRMATION, ALTHOUGH MY TEAM SAID THEY EMAILED IT,
BUT STILL, WE'LL GET THAT FINAL CONFIRMATION AND WE CAN MOVE TO LET'S GO TO NUMBER FOUR I FOR DISCUSSION. POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADD ONE NEW FULL TIME JUDICIAL SERVICE OFFICER,
POSITION ONE ONE POSITION GRADE 117 AND THE 
          [I.4. Discussion and possible action to add one new full-time Judicial Services Officer I position, grade 117, in the Judicial Services Office, effective September 1, 2026, and amend the budget accordingly.  INGALSBE/GRANJENO/WOODLAND]
JUDICIAL SERVICES OFFICE, EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST,
2026, AND AMEND THE BUDGET ACCORDINGLY. 
          SO MOVED. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          JUDGE. SO JUDICIAL SERVICE. OH GO AHEAD SCOTT,
PLEASE. 
          SCOTT WOODLAND, BUDGET OFFICER. AND I'LL HAVE MR. FACUNDO COME UP HERE AFTERWARDS. BUT I WANTED TO EXPLAIN SOME OF SOME OF THE REASONING
BEHIND THIS POSITION, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IT WAS ALSO PART OF THE POSITIONS I'M SUGGESTING NEXT YEAR. 
          AND REALLY THE PURPOSE BEHIND THIS IS THAT OUR VETERANS COURT GOT THEIR FUNDING
SIGNIFICANTLY SLASHED. 
          IT WENT FROM $350,000 DOWN TO $200,000. AND THEY DON'T WANT TO THEY DON'T WANT TO LOWER
THEIR CONTRACT SERVICES. THEY WANT TO PROVIDE THE SAME LEVEL OF CARE,
BUT WITH LESS FUNDING. 
          IT MEANS THAT WE HAD TO MOVE SOME OF OUR POSITIONS INTO THE GENERAL FUND ONE. 
          AND THE OTHER THING IS, IN THE PAST YEARS FOR THIS PROGRAM,
WE HAVE WE'VE ACTUALLY PAID ADULT PROBATION, ROUGHLY 80, 80 TO $85,000, WHICH IS ACTUALLY MORE THAN WHAT THE EMPLOYEE WOULD END UP
COSTING US. 
          SO THERE'S A SAVINGS THERE. PLUS WE GET THE ADDITIONAL TIME FROM THAT EMPLOYEE AS WELL. 
          SO THEY AREN'T GOING TO BE CHARGED TO THE GRANT. 
          THEY WOULD BE HELPING WITH THE GRANTS DOING THE SAME THING ADULT PROBATION DID IN PRIOR
YEARS. 
          BUT THEN THEY'RE ALSO GOING TO BE AVAILABLE WHEN THEY'RE NOT ON THE GRANT. 
          THEY'RE NOT HANDCUFFED TO THE GRANT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GETTING FUNDED OUT OF IT. 
          BUT THAT'S THEIR SPECIFIC PURPOSE IS TO HELP WITH THE VETERANS COURT. 
          AND I HAVE A VISION OF THIS POTENTIALLY EXPANDING TO OUR OTHER SPECIALTY COURTS,
SUCH AS MENTAL HEALTH COURT OR DRUG COURT OR DWI COURT. 
          AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALWAYS PAID ADULT PROBATION TO DO. 
          BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD START TO SPECIALIZE IN OURSELVES AND PRODUCE SOME
SAVINGS THERE. 
          AND JASON, DO YOU WANT TO FURTHER SPEAK ON THE ITEM? 
          [01:50:04]
JASON HAYS, COUNTY JUDICIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR SCOTT MENTIONED WE WERE APPROACHED DUE TO
THE GRANT BEING CUT THROUGH THE VETERANS PROGRAM. 
          AND AS SCOTT MENTIONED, THEIR MAIN FOCUS WOULD BE TO THE VETERANS TREATMENT COURT,
BUT IT WOULD ALSO HELP OUR OFFICE OUT. 
          WE'RE LOOKING TO EXPAND THE CRITERIA OF INTERVIEWS AT THE JAIL. 
          SO, AS SCOTT MENTIONED, THE OTHER DUTIES THAT THEY'D BE ABLE TO DO IS HELPING OUR OFFICE
OUT COMPLETING JAIL INTERVIEWS, IN THE HOPES THAT THOSE INTERVIEWS WOULD GRANT EITHER RELEASE TO OUR OFFICE OR PR BOND SO
AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE. 
          SOUNDS GREAT. YEAH. COMMISSIONERS. NO, I APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO WORK THIS THROUGH THE
BUDGET PROCESS AND GETTING HIT. 
          I KNOW I'VE SPOKEN TO OUR SPECIALTY COURTS AND GETTING HIT WITH THE THAT MASSIVE REDUCTION
IN GRANT FUNDING, BUT I TRULY BELIEVE THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THAT WE DO. 
          AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE A DROP IN SERVICES THERE,
SO I'M SUPPORTIVE. 
          ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER. 
          HAMMER. YES, COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. YES. COMMISSIONER. 
          SMITH. YES. COMMISSIONER. COHEN. YES. JUDGE BECERRA. 
          YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, SIR. HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE K1K1 EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION FIVE FIVE,
1.071 
          [K. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ]
TO THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE CONSULTATION WITH COUNSEL REGARDING CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION
INVOLVING UNAUTHORIZED ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION BY THIRD PARTIES WITHIN AND OR SURROUNDING THE SUN FIELD AND OR SUN CREEK SUBDIVISIONS IN PRECINCT TWO POSSIBLE
DISCUSSION AND OR ACTION MAY FOLLOW IN OPEN COURT. 
          MOTION. EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO MOVED. THANK YOU. 
          SECOND, IF YOU'RE NOT DIRECTLY TIED TO THIS AGENDA ITEM JUST TO HAVE IT OPEN. 
          IF YOU'RE NOT DIRECTLY TIED TO THIS EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM,
PLEASE CLEAR THE COURTROOM. 
          NO. ONLY TO TELL YOU THAT WE WILL WE WILL BE BACK AT ABOUT 1255 FOR OUR BUDGET WORKSHOP SCHEDULED AT 1:00. 
          SO SET AN ALARM. 1255 WE'RE GOING FOR RECESS. 
          ALL RIGHT. WE'RE BACK FROM A RECESS. WE ARE GOING TO SNEAK A COUPLE ITEMS REAL QUICK AND
GO STRAIGHT TO OUR WORKSHOP. 
          PLEASE OPEN I1I1 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE TO ACKNOWLEDGE PRESENTATION
OF A VOTER PETITION TO THE COUNTY JUDGE FOR THE CREATION OF A 
          [I.1. Discussion and possible action to acknowledge presentation of a voter petition to the County Judge for the creation of a Hays County Hospital District under Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 281.  BECERRA (Part 2 of 2)]
HAYS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT UNDER TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE,
CHAPTER 281. 
          SO MOVED. SECOND. THANK YOU. SO I HAD A CHANCE DURING UNEXPECTED. 
          COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED. BUT DURING THIS BREAK,
I HAD A CHANCE TO VISIT WITH JENNIFER DOENHOFF IN THE CIVIL DIVISION'S OFFICE. 
          WHILE THOSE SIX LAST MINUTE VERIFIED FROM YESTERDAY MORNING AND THIS MORNING WERE WRAPPED
UP AND DONE. 
          AND SO THEY HAVE THE HEAD COUNT WAS ALL IN ALL,
142 VERIFIED SIGNATURES. 
          I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER HAMER HAS SOME QUESTIONS,
AS DO I. 
          SO AGAIN, WE'RE WAITING FOR. I KNOW, I KNOW ADMINISTRATOR DWAYNE IS ON HER WAY UP,
BUT MY QUESTION IS, AND I. I KNOW THE ANSWER BEFORE I ASK THIS, AND I KNOW THAT YOUR STAFFS HEAR OF THOSE
SIGNATURES. 
          HOW MANY OF THOSE DID Y'ALL HAVE TO GO BACK AND ADD INFORMATION TO AFTER IT WAS SIGNED? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT Y'ALL ARE SEARCHING FOR DATES OF BIRTH AND VOTER IDS. 
          SO HOW MANY OF THOSE DID Y'ALL HAVE TO GO BACK AND ADD THAT INFORMATION TO? COMMISSIONER JACOB LOWMAN, CHIEF OF STAFF I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER. 
          I CAN GET YOU THE EXACT NUMBER, THE INFORMATION THAT WAS ADDED IN OUR,
IN OUR COORDINATION WITH CIVIL DIVISION AND WITH ELECTIONS, IF WE HAD A DATE OF BIRTH,
WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY NEED THE VU ID ON SITE AND VICE VERSA. 
          SO WITH DATE OF BIRTH OR WITH VERIFICATIONS,
THE ONLY THING THAT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, AND I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT TO SOMEBODY WITH A LAW DEGREE, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THE THING THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY WE WEREN'T TO ADD TO WAS JUST
THE, THE SIGNATURE WAS THE MAIN THING. WE COULD HELP SOMEBODY FILL OUT THEIR ADDRESS. 
          THERE WAS DIFFERENT COMPONENTS, BUT OF THOSE I DON'T,
WE CAN FIND OUT THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT WAS PROBABLY, IT WAS PROBABLY 30 OR SO THAT WE NEEDED TO FINISH. 
          EVEN IF WE, WE AT SOME POINT, WE KIND OF LOOKED AT THOSE. 
          EVEN WITH REMOVING THOSE, WE WERE STILL ABOVE 100. 
          I CAN OKAY, I KNOW WE'RE WAITING ON COPIES AND I KNOW THAT EITHER CIVIL OR MISS JOYNER IS
BRINGING THOSE UP. 
          [01:55:09]
I'D LIKE TO HAVE A LOOK AT THIS, BUT THE INFORMATION THAT WAS ADDED WAS MORE AKIN TO
HAVING NOT HAVING A VIEW ID OR NOT HAVING CORRECT THAT KIND OF STUFF. 
          AND SO. WELL, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO WAIT TILL OUR CIVIL DIVISION GETS BACK. 
          OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I SAID, I KNEW THAT YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS AND I HAD SOME ADDITIONAL
QUESTIONS, BUT I WANTED THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF US TO MAKE SOME OF THOSE. 
          YOU MIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET TO SIGNATURES. SO.
YEAH. 
          I MEAN, MY QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO BE PROBABLY WHAT SIMILAR TO TO THOSE QUESTIONS IS WHO IS
GOING TO LET US KNOW OR WHICH ENTITY OR WHICH BODY IS GOING TO LET US KNOW IF THESE ARE VERIFIED OR NOT. 
          I ASKED THAT QUESTION TO GET THAT FINER POINT ANSWER AND ELECTIONS VERIFIED VOTER ID AND THE TAX ROLLS TAX ASSESSOR COLLECTOR CONFIRMED ALL THOSE INFORMATION. 
          AND SO THEY HAVE DONE THE VERIFICATION. THAT'S THEIR DUTY. 
          AND THAT WAS DONE. MISS ANDERSON, DO YOU HAVE THOSE COPIES? NO, WE ARE STILL WORKING ON IT. AND WE HAVE I HAVE VERIFIED 123 PLUS 19. 
          SO THERE WERE SEVERAL PAGES THAT WE HAD NOT VERIFIED. 
          THEY ARE VERIFIED NOW, BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME TO GET COPIES TO GET THEM OUT TO Y'ALL. 
          BUT THEY EMAILED THEM TO CHASE BECAUSE THEY GOT THEM BACK FROM ELECTIONS AND CHASE WAS
GOING TO PRINT SOME COPIES. 
          SORRY. YES, AND WE HAVE NOT COMPLETED THAT YET. 
          THAT WAS JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO. SO MY QUESTION TO THE LEGAL IS THIS IS THE SIGNATURE
VALID? IF THAT INFORMATION WAS NOT INPUT INTO THE AT THE TIME OF THE SIGNING OR IF IT WAS INPUT
LATER, WOULD IT BE CONSIDERED ADULTERATED OR INVALID? OKAY. FOR. DID YOU JUST SAY DATES OF BIRTH OR ANY FOR THE DATES? IF THE SIGNATURES WERE SUBMITTED INITIALLY AND THEY WERE INVALIDATED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T
HAVE A VPN OR THEY DIDN'T HAVE A DATE OF BIRTH, AND THEN THE JUDGE'S STAFF WENT BACK IN AND INSERTED ALL THAT INFORMATION AFTER IT WAS
SIGNED. 
          ARE THOSE SIGNATURES VALID? THERE'S NO CASE LAW DIRECTLY ON POINT. 
          PARDON? THERE IS NO CASE LAW DIRECTLY ON POINT. 
          THERE IS CASE LAW IN EXISTENCE. THAT SAID, ABSENCE OF A ZIP CODE,
FOR EXAMPLE. 
          IT'S DULL. OVERLOOK IT. AND IF YOU CAN VERIFY THE IDENTITY OF THE VOTER,
THE SIGNATURE, THAT WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. 
          OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE THOSE COPIES? COMMISSIONER INGALSBE, WHILE HE WAITS FOR THOSE. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. AND I WOULD BE GOING OFF JUST A LITTLE BIT,
SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN JUST THE SIGNATURES. 
          BUT JUST, I GUESS, JUDGE, I'D LIKE TO VERIFY BECAUSE IT SAYS TO ACKNOWLEDGE PRESENTATION
OF THE VOTER PETITION OF THE COUNTY JUDGE OR TO THE COUNTY JUDGE FOR THE CREATION OF A HAYS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT UNDER TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE,
CHAPTER 281. 
          YOU KNOW, DURING THE PRESENTATION ON JUNE THE 6TH,
THE PRESENTATION THAT MR. LEHMAN GAVE, WE TALKED ABOUT CHAPTER 286 AND 287. 
          NOW THE AGENDA ITEM READS 281. I JUST, YOU KNOW,
I GUESS I'M LOOKING FOR MAYBE WHY THE CHANGE? AND THEN WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE THREE OPTIONS? WHY ARE WE NOW GOING TO 281 INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT 286 OR 287. 
          SO AS YOU KNOW, 286287 IS MORE ROBUST AND GIVES A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF AUTHORITY THAT
281 DOESN'T WITH WHAT PROGRAMS THEY CAN GET INVOLVED IN, WITH WHICH REIMBURSEMENTS THEY'RE ALLOWED TO,
TO DO. 
          I THINK THERE WAS DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMUNITY,
WITH SOME OF THE HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS THAT 281 WOULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT TO BEGIN TO DO FEASIBILITY STUDIES TO BEGIN TO SEE THE NATURE OF WHAT'S INVOLVED
WITH TAKING OVER THE INDIGENT CARE AS OPPOSED TO STARTING RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE. AND WITH MY EXPERIENCE WITH MOST PEOPLE WHO DO THIS EXPERIENCE ONCE YOU HAVE A
HOSPITAL OR HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, 
          [02:00:09]
EVEN A RUDIMENTARY OR BASIC SETUP LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS ARE MUCH MORE PALATABLE. 
          YOU KIND OF IT'S A STARTING POINT. IT'S A KICKOFF POINT. 
          .287 HAS BEEN USED FOR SOME MORE MATURE HOSPITAL DISTRICTS SUCH AS NOLAN COUNTY,
FOR EXAMPLE. 
          THEY WERE ONE HOSPITAL. THEY HAD THE HOSPITAL. THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS ALREADY SET UP. SO
IT WAS MORE JUST RETROACTIVELY MEMORIALIZING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          WHEREAS 281, SOMETIMES IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT EASIER JUMPING OFF POINT TO START THE
ENTITY AND THEN IN THE FUTURE EXPAND ITS POWERS AND AUTHORITIES. 
          OKAY. AND SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT STEPS FROM JUNE WERE TO AUTHORIZE A FORMAL
FEASIBILITY STUDY. SO THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE YET, I GUESS WITH TWO ANYONE. 
          SO UNDER TWO ANYONE WE YOU CALL FOR THE ELECTION ONCE THE ONCE THE ELECTIONS AS VERIFIED,
WE HAVE THE NUMBER. 
          YOU CALL FOR THE ELECTIONS. WE SET UP A GROUP. 
          AND THEN IN THIS INSTANCE, THE. THE BOARD WOULD START INITIATING ALL OF THE STEPS THAT ARE NECESSARY PRIOR TO SETTING THE TAX RATE OR WHATEVER NEW RATE
THAT THEY WOULD BE. 
          BUT THERE'S NOTHING THERE'S NO ORDER THAT HAS TO GO UP. 
          IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S NO FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR BEFORE YOU ALL ARE BEFORE
THE COURT CALLS FOR THE ELECTION. 
          BUT IT IS A STEP THAT NEEDS TO BE OCCURRED. IT DOES NEED TO BE TAKEN BEFORE THE TAX RATE
OR ANY RATE CAN BE ESTABLISHED. 
          ALL RIGHT. AND SO I GUESS THE REASON FOR THESE NEXT STEPS WAS BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING
ABOUT 286 AND 287 AND OR 287 AND NOT NECESSARILY 81. SO IT'S WE'RE NOT. NO, I THINK THEY'RE INTERCHANGEABLE. 
          THE NEXT STEPS MAYBE WASN'T MEANT TO BE A, A. 
          HOLDING ALL EFFORTS UNTIL THE NEXT STEP HAS OCCURRED. 
          THERE ARE STEPS THAT NEED TO OCCUR BEFORE THE TAXING OCCURS. 
          YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IN SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD IN THAT PRESENTATION, I MEAN, THAT THIS HAS BEEN A YEARS, A YEAR LONG CONVERSATION THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING. 
          SO I GUESS Y'ALL HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS OR I MEAN,
FOR YEARS I HAVE BEEN OKAY, BUT I GUESS MY POINT IS THAT THAT EVEN THOUGH WE'VE HAD,
YOU KNOW, WE HAD THIS PRESENTATION AND I'M TRYING TO THINK OF OTHERS THAT HAVE COME TO COURT SO THAT WE CAN GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS,
OUR OPTIONS. 
          AND SO IT I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO NOW. 
          I MEAN, IF WE HAVE THE VERIFIED SIGNATURES, YOU KNOW,
BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GOING ABOUT THIS BACKWARDS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY THE COURT,
BUT THEN TAKING THAT OUT TO OUR CONSTITUENTS AND OUR VOTERS AND. 
          WITH GOOD COMMISSIONER, IF I MAY IF I MAY, JUST FOR A SECOND. 
          WE RECEIVED THE VERIFIED SIGNATURES AS A COURT,
AND THEN IT'S NOW, FROM NOW UNTIL MAY, CONVERSATION, EDUCATION, ALL THE MASSAGING THAT IS NECESSARY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN MAKE AN
EDUCATED DECISION. 
          I WANT THIS NO, I DON'T WANT THIS. JUST VOTE ACCORDINGLY. 
          I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT, JUDGE, I REALLY DO. 
          NO, NO, NO, IT'S JUST THAT I WISH THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS HERE, YOU KNOW, IN COURT, BRINGING IN THOSE EXPERTS HERE TO THE COURTROOM SO THAT WE COULD,
YOU KNOW, ALSO HEAR THE MESSAGE, HEAR THE OPTIONS. YOU KNOW,
THE ASSESSMENT, I THINK, WOULD HAVE GIVEN US AN OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHICH IS THE BETTER OPTION TO GO WITH, YOU KNOW. I'LL, YOU KNOW,
TAKE SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBILITY OF MAYBE NOT GETTING WITH MATTHEW SOON ENOUGH, SOON ENOUGH TO LOOK AT CHAPTER 621. 
          AND SHOULD WE BE EXPANDING THAT? YOU KNOW, I MEAN,
THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS ALSO. 
          YOU KNOW, AND WE'VE BEEN HERE TOGETHER FOR EIGHT YEARS AND,
YOU KNOW, NONE OF US HAVE TAKEN THAT INITIATIVE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE COULD HAVE DONE BETTER,
I GUESS. 
          THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER COHEN. I MEAN,
I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I, I DON'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING AT ALL. YOU KNOW,
I DID GO BACK AND WATCH THE, THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS DONE ON JUNE 9TH. 
          YOU CALLED IT A HEALTH DISTRICT, BUT IT'S A HOSPITAL DISTRICT. 
          BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          AND WHAT COMMISSIONER INGALSBE SAID, I MEAN,
AS A COURT, WE HAVE NOT BEEN TRULY INFORMED ON WHAT IS THE BEST OPTION FOR US. 
          [02:05:09]
WHAT MAKES SENSE? YOU KNOW, LISTENING TO ANALYSIS,
MAYBE FROM MATTHEW OR EVEN THE PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITY BOARD, WHICH I AM A CHAIR OF, THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO US AT ALL. 
          AND I FEAR THAT THE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE SIGNED THAT PETITION HAVE SIGNED IT WITHOUT ALL
THE FACTS. 
          AND I KNOW I DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS EITHER. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, JUST READING THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION,
I MEAN, THE LAST PAGE IS LET'S DO WE'RE GOING TO DO A FEASIBILITY STUDY. 
          OKAY, GREAT. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET STAKEHOLDERS. OKAY,
AWESOME. 
          BUT THIS IS A LOT FROM WHAT I KNOW, THIS IS A LONG,
COMPLEX ISSUE. 
          LIKE THIS IS THIS TAKES A DECADE PROBABLY TO DO. 
          AND SO I DON'T FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE PETITION. I DON'T FEEL GOOD THAT IT'S IT SEEMS LIKE
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE PETITION NOW AS A COURT, WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR THIS. WITH ALL THIS MISSING INFORMATION,
WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR IT. 
          AND I FEEL THAT THE PETITIONERS THAT SIGNED THIS WERE MISINFORMED AND WE WE DID THIS
BACKWARDS. 
          THIS IS NOT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO. WE NEED TO EVALUATE,
FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE BEST OPTIONS FOR US. 
          LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT IN. 
          WHO ARE THE STAKEHOLDERS? WHEN DID THESE MEETINGS HAPPEN? WHAT WAS DISCUSSED? HOW COME WE WERE JUST NOW GETTING BROUGHT INTO THIS CONVERSATION? AND TO ME, THAT'S VERY UNACCEPTABLE. AND I HATE THE FACT THAT WE ARE IN THIS BIND NOW
WHERE WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THESE PETITION SIGNATURES NOW. 
          AND I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN GOING FORWARD FROM HERE WITH THIS. 
          BUT I I'M JUST VERY DISAPPOINTED IN, IN HOW THIS WAS HANDLED. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMMER SO WHAT, SO WE CURRENTLY WITHIN OUR BUDGET,
WE PAY FOR INDIGENT HEALTH CARE AND IT CAPS AT $30,000 PER INDIGENT. CORRECT. WHAT IS CURRENTLY IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH OUR INDIGENT PROGRAM
CURRENTLY? I MEAN, WHAT WHAT ARE THE FALLACIES THERE? I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT THERE'S ANY TRUE ISSUE
WITH OUR CURRENT INDIGENT PROGRAM. 
          IF ANYTHING, I THINK IT'S A GREAT DEAL THAT WE HAVE WITH CHRISTUS. THAT'S FOR ME. 
          IT'S FOR. I MEAN, THIS WOULD. SO THIS 281 IS ONLY TO TAKE CARE OF INDIGENT AND NEEDY. 
          I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE INDIGENT IS DEFINED STATUTORILY NEEDY IS NOT WHAT
IS NEEDY. 
          WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO NEEDY IS INTENTIONALLY BROAD SO THAT IT CAN CATCH PEOPLE WHO ARE
NOT NECESSARILY IN THAT POVERTY LEVEL WHERE WE KNOW THEY'RE, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY QUALIFY FOR MEDICAID. 
          AND ONE OF THE SLIDES THAT WE SHOWED WAS THIS LARGE MEDICAID GAP WHEN THE BOARD ASSEMBLES
AND WITH THE DIRECTION, BECAUSE THE COUNTY WILL STILL HAVE INPUT INTO BUDGETING AND THINGS LIKE THAT,
IT'S KIND OF A SLIDING SCALE. 
          AT WHAT POINT DOES THE BOARD SAY THIS IS NEEDY? 100% OF POVERTY, 200% OF POVERTY, 400% OF POVERTY. 
          IT'S A SLIDE. THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT SO CLEARLY DEFINED. 
          AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL OCCUR WHEN THE BOARD GETS TOGETHER AND STARTS MAKING THEIR
FIRST RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FIRST RATES. 
          SO IT PASSES IF IT PASSES. YES, SIR. OKAY. SO. 
          THIS AS SOON AS WE LET'S SAY THIS PASSES AND IT'S ON US. 
          THEN YOU LOOK AT SECTION 281.046. THE DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITY FOR MEDICAL AID AND HOSPITAL
CARE, BEGINNING ON THE DATE ON WHICH TAXES ARE COLLECTED FOR THIS DISTRICT. 
          THIS DISTRICT ASSUMES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR FURNISHING MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE FOR
INDIGENT AND NEEDY PERSONS RESIDING IN THE DISTRICT. 
          THAT IS A LIABILITY THAT I DON'T THINK ANY TAXPAYER AT THIS CURRENT STATE WANTS FULL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR FURNISHING MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE. 
          NO OFFENSE, BUT WE CAN'T RUN A SHELTER AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE. 
          I THINK YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE OVERLAP IN OUR CURRENT PROGRAMS. I WOULD DEFER TO
MATTHEW ON OUR INDIGENT CARE PROGRAMS ON JUST HOW MUCH IT OVERLAPS. 
          BUT THERE WILL BE THERE IS THERE IS A LIABILITY THERE ALREADY. 
          THERE'S A LIABILITY, BUT NOT FULL RESPONSIBILITY OF MEDICAL. YOU UNDERSTAND,
BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS OR WE HAVEN'T HAD BUY IN FROM THE CURRENT PROVIDERS OR THE CARE NETWORKS THAT ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN HAYS COUNTY. 
          THEY COULD SAY, Y'ALL COLLECT A TAX ON THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TO CONTRACT WITH YOU GUYS. AND THEN WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THE MEDICAL
CARE FOR THESE INDIGENT AND NEEDY POPULATIONS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CREATE A HOSPITAL. WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO
CREATE A HOSPITAL. YOU KNOW, HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE IN THE HOSPITAL SYSTEM IN HAYS COUNTY? 114,000. WE HAVE NO BUSINESS GETTING INTO A HOSPITAL DISTRICT WITHOUT DOING ALL OF THE
HOMEWORK AROUND IT. 
          I MEAN, AM I, I FEEL LIKE I'M CRAZY FOR I FEEL LIKE THIS IS THIS IS INSANE TO ME,
TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST. 
          AND I THINK IT'S I MEAN, WE THE WAY THAT IT'S POSTED IS,
IS IT OKAY, OKAY TO CALL AN ELECTION CHASE. 
          [02:10:06]
GIVEN THE LANGUAGE OF THE DIFFERENT ITEMS FOR ITEM. 
          TWO YES, IT WOULD BE BROAD ENOUGH TO CALL FOR AN ELECTION. 
          THAT WAS ALSO SAID ABOUT THE ROBOT AND WE GOT SUED FOR THAT. THAT'S TRUE. 
          SO I DON'T I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TIE OUR HANDS AND YOU'RE GOING TO FIND A LOOPHOLE IN
THE SYSTEM, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S THAT. BUT I WOULD I'M NOT SAYING A HOSPITAL DISTRICT OR SOME TYPE
OF CARE IS NOT NEEDED AND NOT ABLE TO HAPPEN IN HAYS COUNTY. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS IS NOT FOR ALL. THIS IS FOR INDIGENT AND NEEDY. 
          AND IT NEEDS TO BE REALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS PRESENTS AND OPENS US UP TO A HUGE
LIABILITY WITHIN THE COUNTY. 
          COMMISSIONER SMITH. YES, I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. 
          SOME OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS THAT I HAVE, NUMBER ONE. 
          FOR US TO TALK ABOUT A PUBLIC PROCESS. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE PUBLIC PROCESS RELATED
TO THIS, OTHER THAN ONE PRESENTATION WHICH REVIEWED MULTIPLE OPTIONS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. 
          I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SCARES ME IS,
AND I'M JUST GOING TO ASK YOU, JUDGE, HAVE YOU MET WITH OUR MUNICIPAL PARTNERS? AND DO YOU KNOW IF THEY HAVE ANY INDEBTEDNESS RELATED TO HEALTH CARE RIGHT NOW? I'M TRYING TO STAY AS THE AGENDA ITEM WAS WRITTEN,
AND IT IS ACTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE PRESENTATION OF A VOTER PETITION TO THE COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE OR TO NOT THE COUNTY JUDGE'S OFFICE. 
          AND WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO ASSESS WHETHER THESE INDIVIDUALS ACTUALLY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE
SIGNING OR UNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS. 
          YOU COULD SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT ELECTIONS. WHEN PEOPLE GET ELECTED,
YOU COULD ALWAYS SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT ANYONE THAT GOES VOTE OR ANYTHING. ABSOLUTELY. 
          I'M GLAD WE'RE HAVING A CONVERSATION 100%. SO USE IT ANYWAY. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS THIS. DO YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT ANY INDEBTEDNESS THAT ANY OF OUR
MUNICIPALITIES HAVE RELATED TO HEALTH CARE UNDER THIS PROVISION. IF IT'S BONDED MONEY OR BORROWED MONEY,
WE ASSUME THAT INDEBTEDNESS THIS HOSPITAL DISTRICT DOES IMMEDIATELY. 
          WERE YOU AWARE THAT UPON COLLECTING TAXES. BUT THIS AGENDA ITEM IS ACTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE PRESENTATION? I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS WORDED. 
          DID YOU DID YOU KNOW THAT I YOU KNOW, THE WAY IT'S WORDED IS UPON A BOARD BEING APPOINTED. 
          AND IF YOU SAY NO, THEN YOU JUST CAN SAY NO. BUT PLEASE DON'T AVOID MY QUESTION. 
          WERE YOU SAYING. I'M SAYING WITH THE AGENDA ITEM. 
          CHASE, ARE WE ALLOWED TO SPEAK ON WHAT WE'RE SPEAKING ON? IT'S IT'S GETTING ACTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE PRESENTATION. 
          OKAY. PRESENTATION OF IT. THAT'S WHAT IT'S WRITTEN AS. 
          WE ARE TO TAKE IT LIKE WE TAKE AUDITS FROM THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE,
FROM THE JP OR FROM CONSTABLE'S OFFICES. 
          OUR JOB IS TO ACCEPT THE AUDIT. I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS OVER THE VALIDITY OF A NUMBER OF
THESE SIGNATURES, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SIGNED THEM DID NOT PROVIDE EITHER THEIR
BIRTH DATE OR THEIR VOTER ID NUMBER, AND IT WAS INCLUDED, PERHAPS. AND I MEAN, I KNOW IF IT WAS TURNED IN AS A FORMAL DOCUMENT, I DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT A DOCUMENT THAT WAS ADULTERATED AFTER WE GOT IT. 
          AND I HAVE A CONCERN OVER THAT NOW. HOW MANY OF THESE SIGNATURES YOUR OFFICE ADDED OR NOT
SIGNATURES, RATHER, BUT VOTER ID NUMBERS OR DATES OF BIRTH WHEN THERE ARE LITERALLY,
I MEAN, DOZENS THAT ARE ALL WRITTEN IN THE EXACT SAME HANDWRITING. I KNOW THAT WHEN THESE WERE TURNED IN,
THESE PEOPLE WEREN'T HELPED WHENEVER THEY SIGNED THEIR SIGNATURE. 
          THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN HELPING SOMEONE FILL OUT THE FORM,
AND THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN FILLING IT OUT AFTER YOU GOT IT. 
          AND SO I, I HAVE A TRUE CONCERN OVER THE VALIDITY OF THIS,
OF, OF THIS PETITION. 
          OKAY. SO AGAIN, I'LL ASK HOW MANY OF THESE SIGNATURES DID YOU ALL FILL IN THE DATA FOR? BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT I KNOW YOU DID IT. YOU,
YOU REQUESTED FROM OUR FROM OUR EMPLOYEES THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE IT WASN'T ON THE FORMS. SO PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE THAT YOU ALL FILLED OUT THE INFORMATION FOR AFTER
THE SIGNATURE WAS COLLECTED AND IT WAS, IT WAS RECEIVED BY YOUR OFFICE. AND HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED THAT,
RIGHT? YEAH. WE I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER. THE, THE INFORMATION WAS LIMITED TO EITHER THE ID
OR THE DATE OF BIRTH, BUT NOT BOTH. CAN YOU CAN YOU PROVIDE US THOSE,
THOSE ORIGINALS SO WE CAN GO THROUGH REAL QUICK AND SEE HOW MANY OF THOSE WERE. 
          I DON'T HONESTLY, I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE ORIGINALS IN MY POSSESSION RIGHT NOW. SO WHO HAS
THE ORIGINAL SIGNATURES THAT Y'ALL COLLECTED? YOU HAVE COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL. WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD THAT BE? WE DON'T BECAUSE THEY'VE
BEEN ADULTERATED. NO THEY HAVEN'T. 
          [02:15:04]
YOU CAN, WHEN THEY WERE TURNED INTO YOUR OFFICE,
SIGNATURES WERE MISSING INFORMATION. 
          WERE THEY NOT? WHEN THE. IT'S A VERY CLEAR ANSWER. 
          YOU COULD CHOOSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR NOT ACKNOWLEDGE THEM. 
          YOU COULD VOTE ACCORDINGLY. I WOULD LOVE TO. I WOULD ABSOLUTELY LOVE TO,
BUT I NEED. 
          I WANT TO SEE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT BEFORE YOUR OFFICE ALTERED IT,
AND THEN WE CAN FIGURE THAT OUT. 
          DOES THAT SEEM LIKE AN UNNECESSARY REQUEST? WELL,
YOU'RE SAYING ALTERED AND THEY DIDN'T ALTER. 
          NO ONE ALTERED ANYTHING. VIRTUALLY. THERE'S ALMOST NOBODY THAT HAS,
FOR EXAMPLE, THEIR VU ID, BUT THEY DEFINITELY KNOW THEIR THEIR DATE OF BIRTH,
DON'T THEY? THEY DEFINITELY KNOW THEIR DATE OF BIRTH. EXACTLY. THEY SHOULD. BUT SOME PEOPLE HAVE. 
          IF IT IS ALLOWABLE TO EITHER DO THE ID OR DATE OF BIRTH. 
          OBVIOUSLY, THE VIEW IDS ARE THE ONES THAT WERE DONE IN THE VAST,
VAST, VAST MAJORITY OF THE CASE. 
          HOW MANY DID YOU RECEIVE THAT DIDN'T DID NOT EXACTLY FILL. 
          THAT GAVE YOU AS CLOSE AS I CAN RIGHT NOW? HE'S ALREADY ANSWERED IT THREE TIMES. 
          HE HASN'T? YES. HE TOLD YOU HE WASN'T SURE? EXACTLY. 
          THREE TIMES. I GAVE YOU THE BEST ESTIMATE NOT HAVING YOU IN FRONT OF ME. 
          CAN YOU GIVE US THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, THEN? I,
I DON'T HAVE IT IN MY POSSESSION. 
          I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW. I DON'T KNOW WHOSE. 
          THEN WHO WOULD HAVE THAT DOCUMENT IN YOUR OFFICE SO THAT WE CAN VERIFY THESE. 
          IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THAT OFFICE. OKAY. WOULD YOU MIND GOING AND GETTING IT? NOT RIGHT NOW. WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD THAT MAKE? IT MAY MAKE THE DIFFERENCE ON WHETHER OR NOT OUR JOB IS TO ACCEPT THESE OR NOT. 
          SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THEM, DON'T ACCEPT THEM. HEY,
CAN CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SO IF ALL ENTITIES ARE TELLING US THAT THESE SIGNATURES ARE VERIFIED AND THERE'S 100 OF
THEM THAT ARE TAXPAYING CITIZENS IN HAYS COUNTY. 
          AND IT'S VERIFIED. I KNOW I'VE SAID VERIFIED TWICE,
BUT WHERE DO WE STAND AS A COURT? MEANING LIKE WHENEVER WE CALL THE VOTE, WE'RE MANDATED TO SAY YES. 
          YES. SO CHASE YOUNG, HAYS COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE,
CIVIL DIVISION 281 IS FAIRLY CLEAR THAT UNDER I THINK IT'S OH THREE B, WHERE IT SAYS THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY TWO DIFFERENT PATHS THAT HAPPEN. 
          THE COMMISSIONERS COURT CAN VOLUNTARILY ELECT TO HAVE THIS REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF
SIGNATURES ON THE PETITION OR OPTION B, IF THEY'RE, IF THE JUDGE WAS PRESENTED WITH A VALID 100,
VALID AND VERIFIED 100 SIGNATURES OR MORE THAT HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AS TAXPAYING RESIDENTS OF HAYS COUNTY AND REGISTERED VOTERS, AND THE PETITION MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT
ARE NECESSARY FOR A PETITION. 
          RIGHT. THEN IT WOULD BE MANDATORY. IT WOULD BECOME A MINISTERIAL DUTY OF THE COURT TO PUT
IT ON THE THE NEXT UPCOMING ELECTION THAT IS ABLE TO. 
          SO IN THIS INSTANCE, THE ONE NEXT YEAR IN NEXT YEAR'S ELECTION. 
          BUT EVEN IF THE VOTE FAILED, IT WOULD STILL GO TO THE VOTERS. 
          IF SO, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IF THE COURT VOTED IT DOWN FOR WHATEVER REASON. 
          NOW IS THAT IS THAT YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER? THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY EXPOSE THE COURT
TO SOME LIABILITY IF YOU IT'S IT IS. 
          YEAH. SO FAILING TO PERFORM A MINISTERIAL DUTY IS JUST LIKE IF YOU RECEIVED A PLAT THAT
MET ALL OF ITS REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT AT THAT POINT, THE COURT'S JOB IS TO SAY,
OKAY. 
          YES. AND SO I CAN, IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN WALK YOU THROUGH PARTICULAR LIABILITIES. 
          BUT A MINISTERIAL DUTY IS A POSITIVE LEGAL OBLIGATION UPON THE COURT. 
          THANK YOU. THERE'S TWO TWO NAMES ON HERE THAT ARE IN HERE TWICE IN THIS LIST. 
          DO THEY BOTH HAVE CHECKBOOKS? YEAH. JENNIFER CAUGHT THAT ONE,
TOO. 
          RIGHT THERE. RIGHT THERE. SO YOU'RE SAYING .0285 7% OF HAYS COUNTY'S POPULATION CAN POTENTIALLY PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO TAX US UP TO $0.75 PER $100 VALUATION. 
          I AM SAYING THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DECIDED TO WRITE INTO LAW,
AND THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED. 
          STILL AN ELECTION THAT COULD STILL FAIL MISERABLY. 
          IT'S AN ELECTION. IT IS PURELY TO CALL IT. IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE,
I'M GOING TO CALL THE ROLL. 
          PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER COHEN? YES, COMMISSIONER. OKAY. OKAY. 
          SURE. AND JUST JUST TO MAKE SURE I BELIEVE THE COURT IS AWARE OF THIS,
BUT IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, 
          [02:20:01]
THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT BELIEVES THAT AND I'M NOT ALLEGING THAT IT IS OR ISN'T IN THIS
CASE, THAT'S NOT MY, NOT MY LANE. BUT IF THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOMEHOW
A DEFICIENCY IN THE PETITION. 
          SO, FOR INSTANCE, HE DIDN'T GET THE 100 SIGNATURES OR IT DOESN'T COMPORT WITH THE WITH THE
BALLOT FACE. 
          THEN AT THAT POINT, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PRESENTED POTENTIALLY THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE
BEEN PRESENTED THAT, THAT TRIGGER THAT WOULD MAKE IT BECOME A MINISTERIAL DUTY. 
          SO THE DISCUSSION OVER WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE TO IS SURROUNDING WHETHER OR NOT THE
PETITIONS WERE THE SIGNATURES WERE PROPERLY VERIFIED BY THE JENNIFER ESCOBAR AND BY THE THERE AND BY THE BY LEGAL OR WHOMEVER IS THE ONE TO VERIFY WHETHER THE PETITION IS
LIKE CONFORMS WITH 277 OF THE ELECTION CODE. 
          MORE THAN 200 WERE PUT IN, BUT THEY DELETED IT DOWN TO 142. 
          YEAH. AND SO, I MEAN, JENNIFER GOING OFF AND I BELIEVE JENNIFER ESCOBAR ARE CERTIFYING
THEM, RIGHT? YEAH. THEY'RE VERIFYING. OKAY. CONTINUE THE CALL. 
          SO HOLD ON ONE SECOND REALLY QUICK. SO WE'RE SAYING FROM THE ENTITY THAT'S BASICALLY. 
          WE ARE OUR HANDS ARE TIED BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THAT BOTH JENNIFER AND THEN ALSO THE CIVIL
DIVISION HAVE VERIFIED THESE SIGNATURES, NOT CIVIL DIVISION. JENNIFER AND JENNIFER, ELECTIONS AND TAX ASSESSOR. 
          OKAY. JENNIFER AND JENNIFER. YES. IF IF YES. SO IF THE IT IS PROPERLY VERIFIED,
IF IT CONFORMS TO PETITION AND THE ELECTIONS OFFICER AND THE THE TAX ASSESSOR IN THIS INSTANCE WOULD BE ARE THE ONES SAYING LIKE,
YES, THIS IS PROPERLY VERIFIED. AT THAT POINT IT BECOMES MECHANICAL. 
          IF YOU CAN ARTICULATE OR POINT TO SOMETHING THAT SAYS THIS SIGNATURE. 
          THAT IS THE. BUT FOR SIGNATURE BETWEEN GOING THROUGH THE THRESHOLD FROM 99 TO 100,
RIGHT, YOU CAN SAY THAT ONE IS INVALID. WELL, THEN IT'S NO LONGER A VALID PETITION THAT'S BEEN
BROUGHT FORWARD THAT MEETS THE STATUTORY CRITERIA. 
          OR IF THE PETITION IS DEFICIENT IN SOME OTHER WAY,
THEN THAT WOULD BE A WAY TO SHOOT IT DOWN THEORETICALLY. 
          BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THAT. I WAS GOING TO SAY. 
          AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE FOUND. NO,
NO. 
          SO ADDITIONAL QUESTION. SO. AFTER WE TAKE THIS VOTE TODAY,
SHOULD WE GET DIRECTION FROM EITHER THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE OR ANOTHER ENTITY THAT THOSE
SIGNATURES, IF THEY DID NOT INCLUDE A DATE OF BIRTH OR A VALID VIN NUMBER AND IT WAS ADDED AFTER THE
SIGNATURE WAS WAS RECEIVED, IF WE GET DIRECTION FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE OR OTHER ENTITY THAT THOSE ARE NOT VALID,
WOULD WE THEN HAVE TO GO BACK AND SAY, LOOK, WE'VE BEEN INFORMED THAT THESE ARE INVALID AND THEREFORE THE ELECTION COULD NOT MOVE
FORWARD? OR IS THERE A CURE TIME? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. 
          OR IN THE PETITIONS NULL AND VOID. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO START OVER. 
          I THINK YOU HAVE TO START OVER ONCE IT'S BEEN PRESENTED. THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. I
THAT IS A THAT IS A THAT IS A GOOD QUESTION. 
          I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER RIGHT NOW. IF YOU I'M GOING TO SAY THAT I CAN CALL THE SECRETARY
OF STATE AND ASK QUESTIONS. 
          BUT IF IT COMES DOWN TO THAT, THEY'RE GOING TO POINT RIGHT BACK TO OUR CIVIL DIVISION FOR
THOSE ANSWERS. 
          ONE SECOND PLEASE. THANK. 
          WOULD YOU GIVE ME ONE SECOND? I THINK WE NEED A FEW MORE ATTORNEYS IN THE ROOM. 
          [02:25:04]
DOLLY PARTON JUST PASSED AWAY. YEAH, I GOT THAT TEXT EARLIER. 
          MY WIFE. OH MY GOSH. OH, MY DAUGHTERS ARE GOING TO BE DEVASTATED. 
          I'M SERIOUSLY. 
          ALL RIGHT. APOLOGIES FOR THAT. ELECTIONS IS ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT IS A PARTICULARLY
COMPLICATED AREA OF LAW. SO RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ARTICULATE A SPECIFIC CONCERN OF WHAT IS FACIALLY VALID,
YOU CAN DO SO. 
          AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE ADDRESSED AT THIS POINT THEN THIS ITEM WOULD HAVE TO
BE LIKE THAT COULD BE CHALLENGED RIGHT NOW TO SAY THIS IS INVALID. BUT IF RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU CHECKED THESE AND FACIALLY FROM THE
PETITION, IT'S FINE. SO YOU HAVE A VERIFICATION OF THE PETITION. 
          AS FAR AS THE RESIDENCY GOES, AS A TAXPAYER SACHSE GOES AND LEGAL HAS LOOKED AT THE
PETITION ITSELF REQUIREMENTS. 
          AND SO IT LOOKS AS IF FACIALLY RIGHT NOW THIS IS VALID TO COMMISSIONER SMITH'S POINT OR
QUESTION, IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE'RE LIVING IN A WORLD WHERE THE COURT PASSES IT RIGHT NOW AND
THEN TWO MONTHS LATER, OR HOWEVER LONG PERIOD OF TIME IT'S DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING DEFICIENT WITH
THIS PROCESS. 
          SAY AGAIN, NOT ALLEGING, BUT SAY THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS WERE ADULTERATED OR SOMETHING
ALONG THOSE LINES. A CITIZEN SUIT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY OVERCOME IT. 
          SAY THIS IS IMPROPERLY CALLED AS FAR AS THE COURT BEING ABLE TO DO IT ON ITS OWN MOTION,
THAT MIGHT BE KIND OF THAT WOULD BE DIFFICULT THOUGH. 
          EACH MEMBER OF THE COURT IS ALSO A CITIZEN OF THE COUNTY,
AND THEY'D BE ABLE TO FILE THAT AS WELL, THEORETICALLY. BUT RIGHT NOW IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS A VERIFIED PETITION IN BOTH PORTIONS
OF STATUTE AND MY OFFICES OR THE CIVIL DIVISIONS OFFICES. BELIEVES THAT IT HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER 277 FOR THE
PETITION. 
          SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S IN THAT SECONDARY LINE OF IT BEING A MINISTERIAL DUTY. 
          SO IT IS A MINISTERIAL DUTY. YES. YES. AND NOT DOING SO COULD BE AGAINST THE LAW. 
          YEAH IT IS. YEAH. PLEASE FINISH CALLING THE ROLL. 
          COMMISSIONER. HAMMER. YES, COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS OVER THE VALIDITY OF THIS. AND I WANT THE COURT TO HAVE AN OPTION TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT THIS
UNDER STATUTE. 
          AND I KNOW THAT TODAY IT SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO PASS IT. 
          IT'S GOING TO PASS. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS. 
          AND I'M GOING TO ASK HERE IN COURT. I WANT I KNOW THAT JUDGE,
YOU OPERATE AS THE UNLIKE EVERY SINGLE OFFICE IN THE COUNTY. 
          YOU OPERATE AS THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FOR YOUR OFFICE. 
          I'M GOING TO FORMALLY ASK AN OPEN COURT THAT YOU PROVIDE ME ALL OF THOSE ORIGINALS THAT
YOU JUST SAID YOU HAD IN YOUR OFFICE. 
          I WOULD LIKE A COPY OF EVERY ONE OF THOSE AS YOU RECEIVE THEM,
UNADULTERATED OR UNEDITED BY YOUR STAFF. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE THAT WITHIN THE TEN DAY PERIOD. 
          AND I'M GOING TO VOTE NO. JUDGE BECERRA. YES. 
          PLEASE OPEN EYE TO EYE TO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ORDER A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE FIRST SATURDAY IN MAY 2027 FOR THE 
          [I.2. Discussion and possible action to order a countywide special election to be held on the first Saturday in May, 2027 for the creation of a Hays County Hospital District pursuant to Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 281. The ballot for an election under this chapter shall be printed to provide for voting for or against the proposition: "The creation of a hospital district and the levy of a tax not to exceed 75 cents on each $100 of the taxable value of property taxable by the district."   BECERRA (Part 1 of 2)]
CREATION OF A HAYS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE,
CHAPTER 281. 
          THE BALLOT FOR AN ELECTION UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE PRINTED TO PROVIDE FOR VOTING,
FOR, VOTING FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSITION, THE CREATION OF A HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND THE LEVY OF
A TAX. 
          NOT TO EXCEED $0.75 ON EACH $100 OF TAXABLE VALUE OF PROPERTY TAXABLE BY THE DISTRICT. 
          SO MOVED. SECOND. THANK YOU. 
          ON THIS ITEM. DOES THE ELECTION HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATELY CALLED? GIVEN THAT IT'S IN MAY? OR DO YOU CALL FOR THE ELECTION? CAN IT BE DONE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME AS THE REGULAR ELECTION IS CALLED? WHILE IT DOES HAVE TO BE CALLED, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO. 
          IT CAN BE CALLED AT A LATER DATE IF YOU WANT IT TO BE CALLED AT A LATER DATE. SO IT GOES
IN LINE WITH THE REST. SO SAY THAT AGAIN SO THAT IT WILL GO IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE NORMAL BUSINESS OF ELECTIONS. BUT IT COULD BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME AS THE OTHER ELECTIONS
FOR THE MAY ELECTION. 
          YES, I BELIEVE SO, YES, YES, YES. I WOULD MOVE TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE REST OF THE
ELECTION ORDER FOR THE MAY ELECTION IS MOVING FORWARD. 
          [02:30:09]
SECOND, HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM BEING TABLED? AND THE FIRST ITEM. I'M SORRY, COULD YOU HOW DOES IT WORK TABLING THIS ITEM VERSUS PASSING
THE PREVIOUS ONE? SO THE PREVIOUS ONE PUTS YOU INTO THE LANE,
SO TO SPEAK, THAT YOU HAVE TO CALL THE ELECTION. 
          BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY NECESSARILY SAY LIKE YOU HAVE TO CALL IT AT THIS DATE. 
          THAT'S ONE OF THE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. SO YOU CAN TABLE THIS NOW WITH NO
ISSUE, NO ISSUE. 
          PERFECTLY GOOD. OKAY, PERFECT. CALL THE ROLL. 
          COMMISSIONER INGALSBE. ARE WE CALLING TO TABLE? JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS CALLING TO TABLE. A MOTION IS TO TABLE. 
          OKAY. YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER. HAMMER. YES. JUDGE BECERRA. 
          NO. I THREE. I. THREE. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION FORMING THE
HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT. 
          [I.3. Discussion and possible action to adopt a Resolution formalizing the Hays County Commissioners Court’s intent to establish a target operating tax rate for the proposed Hays County Hospital District of $0.01 to $0.02 per $100 of taxable valuation, substantially below the statutory maximum of $0.75 per $100 valuation; recognizing that the County currently expends approximately $4 million annually on healthcare-related costs; and expressing the Court’s intent that the proposed District offset existing County healthcare expenditures, maximize available federal matching funds and fiscal efficiencies, and provide for a corresponding reduction in the County tax burden, with the projected annual District tax on a $400,000 taxable value not to exceed $80 at the stated target rate.  BECERRA (Part 1 of 2)]
INTENT TO ESTABLISH A TARGET OPERATING TAX RATE FOR THE PROPOSED HAYS COUNTY HOSPITAL
DISTRICT OF 0.01 TO 0.0 $0.02 PER $100 OF TAXABLE VALUATION. SUSTAINABILITY BELOW THE STATUTORY MAXIMUM OF 0.7 $0.05 PER $100 VALUATION. RECOGNIZING THAT THE COUNTY'S CURRENTLY EXPENDED. 
          EXPENDS APPROXIMATELY 4 MILLION ANNUALLY ON THE HEALTH CARE RELATED COSTS. 
          AND EXPRESSING THE COURT'S INTENT TO THE PROPOSED DISTRICT'S OFFSET. 
          EXISTING COUNTY. HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES. MAXIMUM AVAILABLE. 
          AVAILABLE. FEDERAL MATCHING FUNDS AND FISCAL. 
          EFFICIENCIES AND PROVIDE FOR A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN THE COUNTY TAX BURDEN. 
          WITH A PROJECTED ANNUAL DISTRICT TAX ON A $400,000 TAXABLE VALUE NOT TO EXCEED $80. 
          AT THE STATED TARGET RATE. SO MOVED. AND THIS IS PURELY STATING AN INTENT OF NOT TO DO A
75 CENT, JUST AN INTENT. BUT BUT CAN WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT? I THOUGHT WE HAD TO HAVE THE CREATION OF. THE THIS ITEM. 
          THIS THIS IS NOT A BINDING ITEM FROM THIS. THIS IS JUST A LIKE IT'S JUST TO SAY WE DON'T
PLAN ON TRYING TO ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO RAISE ANYTHING AS HIGH AS THE LEGAL CEILING, RIGHT? BECAUSE MECHANICALLY YOU CAN'T DO THAT UNTIL AFTER THE ACTUAL THING HAS
BEEN CREATED, WHICH WOULD BE MAY. 
          BUT THIS IS JUST A RESOLUTION, JUST A SIGNPOST FOR,
FOR PEOPLE TO SAY WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF DOING ANYTHING. 
          THAT IS A DESCRIPTION OF THE LEGAL CEILING. ONCE AGAIN,
JUDGE, I THINK THE THE CURRENT CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH THIS IS SINCE THE WORK HASN'T BEEN PUT IN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER INDEBTEDNESS THIS ORGANIZATION UNDER CHAPTER 281 WOULD
HAVE TO INCUR FROM OUR MUNICIPAL PARTNERS. 
          WE DON'T KNOW IF WE MOVE FROM THAT $30,000 PER INDIGENT HEALTH CARE INDIVIDUAL CAP. 
          WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THAT WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE. 
          I GUARANTEE IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN THE $2 MILLION THAT WE SPEND RIGHT NOW ON INDIGENT, AND I ASSUME IN THE $4 MILLION NUMBER THAT YOU'RE USING. 
          IT WASN'T JUST A DOUBLING. IT'S ALL HEALTH CARE NEEDS AND ALL HEALTH CARE,
HEALTH CARE SERVICES THAT WE CURRENTLY PROVIDE. 
          AND SO THAT BEING THE CASE, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN,
WITH ANY LEVEL OF HONESTY, TELL THE, TELL THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT IT IS GOING TO BE SET AT THAT RATE OR LOWER. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, IT WASN'T TO BE SET ANYTHING. IT WAS JUST AN INTENT.
AND BUT I'LL TABLE IT. 
          I HAVE NO PROBLEM TABLING IT. WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY,
AND I APPRECIATE THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE IF AND IF AND WHEN THIS WERE TO PASS IN MAY,
THEN THE COMMISSIONERS COURT AT THAT POINT, I HOPE, WOULD HAVE DONE A QUITE A BIT OF OF RESEARCH INTO THAT. 
          I THINK THAT WHAT IS INTERESTING ABOUT THE WAY THESE ARE ESTABLISHED IS WHILE THE COURT
APPOINTS A BOARD UNLIKE ANY OTHER ENTITY, THE COURT WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO SET THE TAX RATE FOR A SEPARATE TAXING AUTHORITY,
WHICH WE DON'T DO AT ALL AT THIS POINT. 
          WE DON'T SET THE TAX RATE, AS FAR AS I KNOW OF FOR ANY ADDITIONAL TAXING AUTHORITY. 
          THEY ALL HAVE THEIR OWN THEIR OWN ABILITY TO DO THAT. 
          AND SENTENCING THE FUTURE COURT TO YOU MAY NOT SET THIS TAX RATE ABOVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OR
OUR INTENT IS TO NOT DO THAT. 
          I JUST THINK IT'S DISINGENUOUS BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE TO DO WAY MORE THAN THAT. 
          NO PROBLEM. AND CAN YOU OPEN I TWO AGAIN, I WANT TO CHANGE MY VOTE TO A YES I. 
          [I.2. Discussion and possible action to order a countywide special election to be held on the first Saturday in May, 2027 for the creation of a Hays County Hospital District pursuant to Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 281. The ballot for an election under this chapter shall be printed to provide for voting for or against the proposition: "The creation of a hospital district and the levy of a tax not to exceed 75 cents on each $100 of the taxable value of property taxable by the district."   BECERRA (Part 2 of 2)]
TWO DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ORDER A COUNTYWIDE SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
THE FIRST SATURDAY IN MAY 2027 FOR THE CREATION OF A HAYS COUNTY HOSPITAL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO TEXAS AND HEALTH, TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE,
CHAPTER 281. 
          THE BALLOT FOR AN ELECTION UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE PRINTED TO PROVIDE FOR VOTING FOR
OR AGAINST THE PROPOSITION, 
          [02:35:05]
THE CREATION OF A HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND THE LEVY OF A TAX NOT TO EXCEED $0.75 ON EACH $100
OF TAXABLE VALUE OF PROPERTY TAXABLE BY THE DISTRICT, AND THE MOTION WAS TO TABLE AND SOMEONE SECONDED. 
          CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL ONE MORE TIME? COMMISSIONER COHEN YES. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMMER. YES. COMMISSIONER KENT,
TO REOPEN THIS VOTE. 
          I DIDN'T GET A SECOND. OH, I, I JUST GOT YES. 
          SO MOVED TO RECALL THE VOTE, RIGHT. NOBODY. YOU MOVED TO DO SO,
BUT NOBODY SECONDED IT. 
          CAN I GET A SECOND TO OPEN THIS, COMMISSIONER INGLESBY? SECOND. THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL ON TABLING. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO. IF WE HAVE TO DO THIS RIGHT,
LET'S DO IT SO THAT WE DON'T. 
          COMMISSIONER COHEN YES. COMMISSIONER. HAMMER. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. YES. COMMISSIONER. 
          SMITH. YES. JUDGE BECERRA YES. THANK YOU. AND NOW,
IF EVERYONE'S READY, WE WILL GO TO I FIVE. 
          TABLE THREE. MOVE TO TABLE. SURE. DID I THINK WE WE'LL DO WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO
TABLE. 
          PLEASE CALL THE ROLE FOR TABLING THREE. COMMISSIONER. 
          [I.3. Discussion and possible action to adopt a Resolution formalizing the Hays County Commissioners Court’s intent to establish a target operating tax rate for the proposed Hays County Hospital District of $0.01 to $0.02 per $100 of taxable valuation, substantially below the statutory maximum of $0.75 per $100 valuation; recognizing that the County currently expends approximately $4 million annually on healthcare-related costs; and expressing the Court’s intent that the proposed District offset existing County healthcare expenditures, maximize available federal matching funds and fiscal efficiencies, and provide for a corresponding reduction in the County tax burden, with the projected annual District tax on a $400,000 taxable value not to exceed $80 at the stated target rate.  BECERRA (Part 2 of 2)]
HAMMER. YES. COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN. YES. JUDGE BECERRA. YES. 
          AND WE ARE ACTUALLY ON THE 1:00. I 5:01 P.M. HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
2026 
          [I.5. 1:00 P.M. - Hold a Public Hearing for the Fiscal Year 2026 Hays County Proposed Budget.  BECERRA/WOODLAND (Part 1 of 2)]
HAYS COUNTY PROPOSED BUDGET. AND THERE IT IS. 
          PUBLIC HEARING. ALL YOURS. 
          SCOTT WOODLAND, BUDGET OFFICER. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND PASS AROUND THE UPDATED
FOLDERS. 
          I APOLOGIZE FOR THE WAIT. LOOKS TO CARRY. 
          OKAY, COURT IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU HAVE THE UPDATED BINDERS AND THAT WE UPDATED THE PROPOSED
TO INCLUDE THAT INCREASE IN TAX RATE, AS WELL AS THOSE ITEMS THAT WERE MAKING UP THAT TAX RATE. 
          SO RIGHT NOW THE PROPOSED HAS THE ELECTION EQUIPMENT IN THERE. 
          IT HAS THAT ADDITION OF THE OF THE 1.2 $0.06 TO THE M AND O. 
          AND THEN IT ALSO HAS ALL THE OTHER INFORMATION WHICH WE HAD ENTERED THE GRAY THIS WEEKEND. 
          BUT THEN JUST WITH THE GUIDANCE TODAY WE WE DID THE TAX RATE AS WELL AS AS WELL AS ADDING
THE ELECTION EQUIPMENT AS WELL. 
          DO YOU AS, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION TODAY OR. 
          NO, WE WERE JUST GOING TO GO. I WAS JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THE BINDER WITH YOU ALL AND
TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN OBVIOUSLY ADDRESS PROBABLY GO BACK TO THE SPREADSHEET FROM BEFORE AND ADDRESS THOSE ITEMS AS WE CAN. 
          THEY'RE IN THERE NOW. WE'RE ESTABLISHING OUR MAXIMUM. 
          WE WILL WE WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF WE WANT TO TAKE ANY OF THOSE OFF. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. YES, SIR. 
          THE FIRST THE FIRST ITEM IN YOUR BINDER. THAT'S THAT'S THE PROPOSED BUDGET. 
          IT'S IT'S SHOWING THAT WITH THE INCREASE IN THE TAXES IT'S GOING TO RAISE 11,486,187 MORE
DOLLARS, OR 5.81 CENTS, OR 5.81% INCREASE FROM LAST YEAR'S BUDGET. 
          AND THEN THE NEW PROPERTY ADDED TO THE ROLL IN THE CURRENT YEAR AT THE NEW TAX RATE,
THAT PERCENTAGE WOULD BE $6,441,280. SO YOU'RE JUST SAYING 11 MILLION. 
          POINT. THE 11.4 IS THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE INCREASE AND THE PROPERTY TAXES. 
          SO SO IT'S A COMBINATION OF ANY INCREASES IN VALUES PLUS ANY ADDITIONAL PLUS THE INCREASE
IN THE PROPERTY TAX RATE. 
          GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND THEN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. 
          WE WE JUST UPDATED THIS TO INCLUDE THE THE 1.2 $0.06. 
          AND YOU'LL SEE THE HAYS COUNTY ITEMIZED TAX RATE. 
          AND THERE AT THE TOP YOU SEE THE M AND O IS NOW AT 27.2 CENTS. 
          THE INS IS AT 10.2 $0.09. AND THEN THE ROAD AND BRIDGE IS AT 3.7 $0.06,
WHICH BRINGS OUR TOTAL OUR TOTAL TAX RATE TO 41.2 $0.05 PER $100 VALUATION. 41.25 AND THEN THEY'RE IN THE 
          [02:40:08]
MIDDLE YOU WILL SEE THE NO NEW REVENUE NUMBERS. 
          YOU'LL SEE THAT THE THE NO NO NEW REVENUE WAS 0.3291. 
          THE NO. NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, WHICH IS THE TOTAL,
INCLUDING EVERYTHING WOULD BE 0.3714. 
          YOU SEE WE'RE SITTING AT THE 0.4125. THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE IS ACTUALLY 0.4926. 
          AND THAT'S A RESULT OF MANY, MANY YEARS OF US NOT TAKING THE FULL RATE. 
          SO THEY CARRIED THE PRIOR THREE YEARS AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE UP. 
          THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER IS SO HIGH. 
          IS THIS PROPOSED BUDGET HAVE THE ELECTIONS EQUIPMENT IN IT? IT IT DOES. IT HAS THE ELECTIONS EQUIPMENT FOR THE ONE YEAR. 
          SO I FIGURED WE WANT TO PUT EVERYTHING IN HERE AND THEN WE CAN GO IN AND TAKE IT OUT. 
          I FIGURE IF WE GOT EVERYTHING IN THERE FIRST,
IT WOULD BE EASIER TO TAKE OUT THAN TO ADD. 
          TALKING ABOUT THE. CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS? YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH. 
          TALKING ABOUT THE HAYS COUNTY INS RATE. DO YOU THINK BECAUSE CURRENTLY WE'RE IN,
YOU KNOW, LITIGATION OVER THE BOND, IF WE WERE TO GET THAT BOND BACK,
DO WE HAVE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT BUDGETED TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE WITH THOSE PROJECTS AND NOT HAVE ANYTHING SLOW DOWN? AS FAR AS LET ME CLARIFY THE QUESTION. 
          I BELIEVE YOU'RE ASKING IF WE HAVE A SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO BE ABLE TO ISSUE NEW DEBT IF
NEEDED. 
          IS THAT IS THAT THE QUESTION? YES. YES, COMMISSIONER. 
          AND THIS THAT RATE, THAT 10.29. THAT WAS WE DISCUSSED THAT WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR. 
          AND THAT IS A, THAT'S A RATE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO BUILD CAPACITY WITHOUT INCREASING THAT
RATE TOO MUCH TO WHERE WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO UP ON IT DUE TO A NO NEW REVENUE. SO IT'S A, IT'S KIND OF DESCRIBED AS THE SWEET SPOT THAT WE WANT TO KEEP IT THERE
TO ALLOW US TO BUILD CAPACITY. 
          AND IF WE CHOOSE TO ISSUE NEW DEBT IN THE FUTURE. 
          OKAY. BECAUSE FROM THE CEO PERSPECTIVE, I WAS TOLD THAT SOME OF MY PROJECTS WON'T BE ABLE
TO CONTINUE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE IF WE DO GET THAT BACK, THAT I CAN CONTINUE. BECAUSE ONCE WE STOP THESE PROJECTS,
IT JUST COST US A WHOLE LOT MORE. 
          THE LONGER YOU WAIT, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT GETS. 
          ABSOLUTELY. YES WE SHOULD. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY
TO BE ABLE TO ISSUE THOSE. 
          OKAY. BUT ONCE AGAIN, IT WILL BE UP TO THE COURTS. 
          APPETITE AS FAR AS WHAT WE WANT TO TAKE ON HOW MUCH. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALSO AT THE HANDS OF LITIGATION ON THIS THIS MATTER AS WELL. 
          SO CORRECT. SO AS WE START TO WALK DOWN THIS LIST,
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANT TO TALK THROUGH THAT WE DID LAST WEEK AND THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IN THE IN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT FROM THIS MORNING AND THE RATE THAT WE
PULLED THROUGH. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS THE JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM AND THE POSSIBLE NEW JUVENILE DIVERSION
COORDINATOR. 
          I THINK THAT THERE'S A THERE'S AN APPETITE ON THE COURT AND I COULD BE WRONG. 
          WE CAN VOTE ON IT. TO ESTABLISH THAT NEW POSITION. 
          BUT IN DOING SO, I'VE ALSO HAD CONVERSATIONS DIRECTLY WITH OUR CURRENT JUVENILE
COORDINATOR. 
          SEVERAL OF THE, OF THE JPS ALONG WITH THE DA'S OFFICE. 
          AND THEY ALL BELIEVE THE ONES THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY INCREASE
CAPACITY IN THE JPS OFFICE. 
          IF WE MOVED THOSE INTO THOSE TWO POSITIONS INTO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 
          MR. COX IS HERE FROM THE DA'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS OUR CURRENT JUVENILE COORDINATOR. 
          AND IF THEY HAVE ANY ANYTHING TO ADD, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR IT. 
          BUT IN DOING SO, THOSE THOSE CASES WOULD NOT GO DIRECTLY TO THE JP UNLESS THEY FAILED IN
THE IN THE DIVERSION PROCESS. 
          AND SO IT COULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE OVERALL NUMBER OF CASES IN THOSE JP
OFFICES. 
          MR. COX, OR. HOLD ON. HOLD ON. I JUST WANTED TO SAY,
BEFORE WE START TALKING ABOUT POSITIONS AND EVERYTHING, IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF TIMES. SOME PEOPLE HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME EMPLOYEES JUST
SAYING LIKE, HEY, I'M IN A STORAGE CLOSET. HEY, I'M IN THIS. 
          HEY, I DON'T HAVE ANY SPACE. I DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO GO. 
          WHENEVER WE IS SPACE IN IT. I MEAN, ARE WE MAKING SURE THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE SPACE? LIKE, I THINK THE PERSON THAT PROBABLY WOULD KNOW THAT WOULD BE TAMMY,
TOO. ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND TAMMY, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON IT, I CAN SPEAK TO THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THAT
WAS THE FIRST QUESTION I ASKED. 
          AND RIGHT NOW THE JUVENILE, THE JUVENILE COORDINATOR IS OPERATING OUT OF THE JUDGE'S
CHAMBERS IN TWO TWO, AND THE JUDGE IS HAVING TO OPERATE IN THE COURTROOM IF HE'S THERE OR HE DOES HIS WORK FROM
HOME. 
          THIS ACTUALLY FREES UP SPACE FOR THAT FACILITY. 
          AND SINCE THE DA'S OFFICE HAS NOW MOVED INTO THE OLD AUDITOR'S OFFICE,
THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE DESK SPACE AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS FOR IT. 
          THAT WAS BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD FROM THE DA'S OFFICE FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW THAT THEY HAD NO
ROOM. 
          [02:45:04]
AND SO THAT WAS THE FIRST QUESTION I ASKED. HEY,
IF YOU ALL DO TAKE ON THIS, THESE TWO ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES AS THEIR SPACE FOR THEM. 
          BUT THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. AND IF WE GRANT THAT GREAT POSITION TO CREATE INSTEAD OF
A 0.5, CREATE A FULL POSITION FOR HELP IN THAT LANE,
THAT'S CURRENTLY GOING TO BE UNDER JP22 MOVING PROPOSED UNDER DAS OFFICE. WHAT ADDITIONAL STAFF WILL THE DA NEED? NONE. NONE. NONE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THE TWO POSITIONS IN THEMSELVES ARE THE STAFF
NEEDED. 
          AND THAT WAS THE CONVERSATION. ANOTHER CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH MR. COX AND WITH OUR WITH OUR JUVENILE COORDINATOR AS WELL. 
          ARE YOU READY TO SWITCH TABLE SEATS? MR. COX,
IF YOU DON'T MIND APPROACHING THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE. 
          THANK YOU. SCOTT. YES, SIR. SO THE FIRST QUESTION. 
          SORRY, SORRY. GREG COX, FIRST ASSISTANT FROM THE DA'S OFFICE. 
          THANK YOU SIR. MY HEAD IS SPINNING WITH A BUNCH OF IDEAS AND QUESTIONS. 
          AND I TOO, HAVE HAD LOTS OF COMMUNICATIONS WITH PEOPLE BECAUSE EVERY TIME SOMEONE TOUCHES
SOMETHING IN THAT SPACE. 
          I'M ALSO GETTING THE COMMUNICATION. AND I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT HAVING THESE TWO
POSITIONS GOING INTO THE DA'S OFFICE, AS FAVORABLE AS IT MAY BE TO EVERYONE. I JUST FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD GO
OVER THERE AND HAVE NO ADDITIONAL STAFFING REQUESTS. 
          I'M JUST FINDING THAT A LITTLE LIKE UNIQUE. SO I HAVE BEEN HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. AYALA ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT HE DOES, HOW IT WORKS,
WHAT ALL WOULD BE INVOLVED. 
          AND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS. THERE IS A STATE BAR SERIES OF ETHICS RULES THAT TALK
ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN A PROSECUTOR AND UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANTS, 99.8% OF THE PEOPLE THAT MR. AYALA INTERACTS WITH ARE UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANTS. 
          SO IF WE WERE TO BRING HIM AND ANOTHER PERSON PERFORMING THE SAME ROLE INTO OUR OFFICE,
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A LOT OF SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WAY HE IS INTERACTING WITH UNREPRESENTED DEFENDANTS, INFORMATION,
HE'S GATHERING FROM THOSE INTERACTIONS WITH THOSE FOLKS. 
          AND THE PROCESS IS NOT RUNNING AFOUL OF THOSE ETHICS RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE EVEN A
NON-ATTORNEY PERSON PERFORMING FUNCTIONS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A LAWYER,
IF THEY VIOLATE THE ETHICS RULES, THE LAWYER IS DEEMED TO HAVE VIOLATED THOSE ETHICS RULES. 
          SO WHILE I THINK WE COULD DO IT, WHILE I THINK WE CAN BUILD A PROCESS THAT BRINGS THEM
INSIDE THE OFFICE, THERE WILL BE SOME SUPERVISION HURDLES RELATED TO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. 
          WE HAVE A DIVERSION PROGRAM WHERE WE VERY, VERY SUPERFICIALLY INTERACT WITH UNREPRESENTED
DEFENDANTS TO GET THEM AN APPLICATION AND TO ANSWER THEIR THERE QUESTIONS TO GET THEM INTO THAT? AND THAT'S FOR ADULT OFFENDERS. IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT MR. AYALA DOES. SO I HAVE SUGGESTED TO HIM THAT MAYBE THE JUVENILE PROBATION DEPARTMENT MIGHT
BE A BETTER FIT BECAUSE THEY HAVE DIVERSION PROGRAMS WHERE THEY'RE INTERACTING WITH UNREPRESENTED PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. BUT IF IT DOES COME IN OUR OFFICE,
I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE COULD DEVISE A SCHEME THAT ALLOWS THAT. I THINK BASED ON MY INTERACTIONS WITH HIM,
WE WOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THEM WITHOUT HAVING TO ASK FOR ANY ADDITIONAL POSITIONS. 
          AND I WAS ASSUMING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SPACE IN OUR OFFICE,
WHICH WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE SPACE NOW THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MOVE DOWN SOME OF OUR FOLKS DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR. BUT HE'S TELLING ME HE WOULD PREFER TO CONTINUE OPERATING OUT OF
KYLE AND NOT COME TO THE GOVERNMENT CENTER. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS ALL OF THE QUESTIONS,
BUT THERE'S SEVERAL. IT DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS. 
          I REALLY DO APPRECIATE MOST COMPLETELY THE ARTICULATION ABOUT 99.8% OF THE PEOPLE THEY SEE ARE GOING TO BE A POTENTIAL PROBLEM IN YOUR OFFICE. 
          AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING WHY THE MOVE AT ALL. 
          I'M JUST WONDERING WHY YOU HAVE TO CREATE ANY HURDLES IN THOSE OVERLAPPING CONVERSATIONS
OR ANY VISITS OR ANYTHING ELSE. 
          WHAT'S THE BENEFIT IN MOVING HIM VERSUS LEAVING HIM RIGHT WHERE HE'S AT UNDER THE JUDGE? WELL, I THINK RIGHT NOW HE'S ANSWERING TO SEVEN JUDGES,
SO HE'S GOT SEVEN BOSSES, AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS SEE EYE TO EYE ON HOW THINGS NEED TO BE. 
          OH, WE KNOW THERE'S FIVE OF US HERE, RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          I COULDN'T IMAGINE HAVING TO ANSWER TO MULTIPLE BOSSES,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE ELECTED OFFICIALS. YEAH. 
          NO OFFENSE, BUT YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF SUPERVISORY STRUCTURE TO
WHERE WE ARE AS A SERVICE TO ALL 7JPS OFFERING THAT SERVICE JUST LIKE WE DO WITH OUR GENERAL COUNSEL SECTION. 
          I THINK WE CAN ACCOMPLISH A LOT OF IRONING OUT THE ROUGH SPOTS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT
ELECTED OFFICIALS. 
          THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. THAT'S A REALLY GOOD REASON. 
          HONESTLY, MOST DEFINITELY A REALLY GOOD REASON. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMMER. I CALLED HIM UP IN PART BECAUSE YOU WANTED TO TALK. 
          SORRY. WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO ASK HIM? NO, MY MY QUESTION WAS,
AT THE END OF THE DAY MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT, 
          [02:50:08]
AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE CHILI OF HOW OUR JP'S WORK. 
          THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN SPECIAL RECIPE, RIGHT? THEY EACH DO THINGS VERY DIFFERENTLY. AT THE END OF THE DAY,
IT MAKES FOR A VERY INEFFICIENT PROCESS ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          THERE'S NO PRIDE IN OWNERSHIP AS TO WHERE IT SHOULD GO,
BUT THERE SHOULD BE SUPERVISION OF THAT ROLE. 
          AND AND OUR INITIAL CONVERSATIONS, YOU SAID,
YOU KNOW, WE DO THIS ON THE ADULT SIDE, I THINK THAT WE CAN PUT THOSE, THOSE BARRICADES IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THOSE ISSUES DON'T ARISE. 
          I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. WE WOULDN'T CONSIDER IT OTHERWISE. 
          BUT AGAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I WORRY ABOUT I TRULY WORRY ABOUT HOW THOSE KIDS ARE
GOING TO BE INTERACTED WITH AND GIVING THEM A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WHERE EACH ONE WILL BE INTERACTED WITH IN THE EXACT SAME WAY,
AND THEN PUT INTO THAT SYSTEM IF AND ONLY IF THEY FAIL IN THEIR DIVERSION PROCESS. 
          RIGHT NOW THOSE CASES ARE DIRECTLY OR DIRECTLY GIVEN TO INDIVIDUAL JUDGES WHERE IF THEY
WENT THROUGH THE DIVERSION PROCESS, THEN THEY WOULD NEVER SEE THOSE, THOSE OFFENDERS,
THOSE JUVENILE OFFENDERS, UNTIL AFTER THE PROCESS WAS OVER, IF THEY FAILED TO COMPLETE WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS WERE. 
          AND SO IT WOULD HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE OVERALL. 
          WE CONTINUE TO HEAR ABOUT THE INCREASE IN CASELOAD FOR OUR GPS. 
          IT WOULD HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT IN LOWERING THAT CASELOAD,
BUT IT WOULD NOT AFFECT JUDGE SMITH'S CASELOAD BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T SEE DIVERSION CASES. 
          THAT'S THAT'S TRUE FOR PRECINCT ONE ONE 1 OR 1 TWO TWO AT THIS POINT HAVE NOT ASKED FOR
ANY ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL. 
          BUT WE'RE JUST BEING COMPLETE WITH THE THOUGHT COMMUNICATION. CORRECT. 
          COMMISSIONER INGALSBE. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR ASK? NOT REALLY. I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP HERE AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE
MOVE. 
          COMMISSIONER. YEAH. I MEAN, I'M ALL ABOUT MAKING THINGS EFFICIENT AND PLACING FUNCTIONS
WHERE THEY MAKE THE MOST SENSE. 
          AND I GUESS, YOU KNOW, IF UNLESS THE JOBS THAT ARE IN THE COURTROOM HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO
IT, I MEAN, I, I'M OKAY WITH IT AS WELL, BUT I DO HAVE ONE COMMENT. 
          IT DOESN'T LOOK PERFECT. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. 
          SO. COMMISSIONER WALTER. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE REMINDER. 
          JUDGE SANDRA BRYANT, HAYS COUNTY. JP FIVE IN BUDA. 
          YOU MENTIONED THAT THE THAT WE WOULD NEVER SEE THE THE JP KIDS WHEN THEY IF THEY GO
THROUGH THE PROGRAM, THERE ARE TIMES WHERE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL KIDS. 
          DANIEL, CAN I GET A HOLD OF SO HE'LL KICK HIM BACK TO THE COURT? AND THAT'S THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH PERCENTAGE THAT COME BACK TO THE COURT WITHOUT HIM. 
          LIKE HE CAN CALL A PARENT AND THEY WILL. HE CAN'T GET A HOLD OF THEM. 
          SO IF HE CAN'T GET AHOLD OF HIM AFTER THE SECOND OR THIRD TIME,
HE KICKS HIM BACK AUTOMATICALLY TO THE JP AND THEN AFTER, THEN THE DATE, THEN THEY COME IN, THEN WE HAVE TO CALL THEM. 
          THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE HAS TO CALL THEM OR THE CLERK'S CALL THEM. 
          AND THEN AFTER THEY CALL THEM, THEY HAVE THEM COME IN AND THEY HAVE TO SEE THE JUDGE. 
          AND AFTER THEY SEE THE JUDGE, WE CAN REFER THEM BACK TO,
TO THE DIVERSION PROGRAM. 
          OR WE CAN THEY CAN SAY, NO, WE DON'T WANT THE PROGRAM. 
          AND THEY CAN. THEN IT COMES TO THE JUDGE ALSO BOTH PARTIES HAVE TO AGREE FOR THE JUVENILE
DIVERSION, THE PARENT AND THE CHILD. IF THE PARENT DOES NOT AGREE AND THE CHILD AGREES OR VICE VERSA, THEN THAT THAT CASE COMES AUTOMATICALLY BACK TO US. 
          SO WE DO HAVE A PROBABLY ABOUT 15 TO 20% THAT COMES BACK TO THE COURT. 
          I MEAN, COMES BACK TO THE JP AUTOMATICALLY. CORRECT. 
          AND I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOUR FIRST POINT AGAIN. 
          WHENEVER THEY'RE NOT RESPONDING TO OUR JUVENILE COORDINATOR,
THAT'S THEM FAILING SOME PORTION OF THEIR DIVERSION PROCESS. 
          AND SO THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT I WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING TO YOUR POINT. 
          15 TO 20% AT TIMES. AND THEN WELL, THERE'S, THERE'S TWO POINTS,
RIGHT? SO IF THEY GO TO THE JUVENILE DIVERSION, THEY GO TO THE PROGRAM. 
          THEY DON'T COMPLETE THE PROGRAM THAT'S FAILING. 
          IF THEY GO, IF HE CAN'T GET A HOLD OF THEM, THEN THEY COME BACK TO US. 
          SO WE HAVE TWO SETS OF PEOPLE COMING BACK TO US UNDER THE THE HOUSE BILL 3180. 
          I FORGOT IT NOW, 38116 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          I FORGET THE HOUSE BILL NOW, BUT WE HAVE TWO TIMES THAT THE INDIVIDUALS CAN COME BACK TO
US. 
          THE FIRST TIME IS FELL IN THE PROGRAM, WHICH MEANS THEY DON'T COMPLETE THE PROGRAM. AND
THEN THE SECOND TIME IS HE IF HE CAN'T GET IN CONTACT WITH HIM, WHICH HE MENTIONED, THAT WAS TAKING A PERIOD OF TIME FOR HIM TO REACH BACK OUT,
REACH BACK OUT. 
          THEN THOSE PEOPLE, THOSE KIDS COME BACK TO THE JUDGE,
THEY HAVE TO SEE THE JUDGE TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY SHOULD BE WHY THEY DIDN'T RESPOND TO THE JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM. THEN THE JUDGE HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER TO SEND THEM BACK INTO
THE JUVENILE DIVERSION PROGRAM. 
          OR ARE WE RETAIN THEM. AND IF THE PARENTS SAY WE WANT TO,
WE JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH Y'ALL, THEN WE DO PROCESS THAT CASE. SO IT'S TWO TIMES,
TWO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL TIMES THAT THAT PROCESS TAKES PLACE. 
          [02:55:01]
CORRECT. AND THE OVERALL PERCENTAGE OF THOSE,
WHAT WE LEARNED LAST WEEK ON THOSE THAT GO THROUGH THE PROGRAM AND THEN DON'T FINISH. 
          DANIEL, WHAT'S THE OVERALL NUMBER OF THOSE KIDS THAT GO THROUGH THE PROGRAM? AND THEY DON'T BECAUSE I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE YOUR PRESENTATION IN FRONT OF ME. 
          THERE'S ABOUT AS OF THIS YEAR, THERE'S ABOUT 60 KIDS OUT OF 307 THAT. 
          PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE. SO YES, DANIEL AYALA,
JUVENILE DIVERSION COORDINATOR 60 KIDS WERE ON ABOUT UNSUCCESSFUL IN THAT PROGRAM FROM THE 365 THAT WERE. AND DOES THAT COUNT THOSE THAT I GUESS SO THE QUESTION WOULD BE OVERALL,
OUT OF THOSE 305 CASES THOSE THAT WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO BACK TO COURT. 
          THOSE 60 WOULD HAVE. YEAH. WHAT, WHAT OTHER PERCENTAGE OR WAS THAT IT? IT KIND OF DIFFERS. SO EARLIER WHEN JUDGE WAS SPEAKING ABOUT THE KIDS THAT I'M NOT ABLE TO
CONTACT. 
          THE MAIN REASON IS BECAUSE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION A LOT OF TIMES IS OUT OF DATE. 
          WHETHER IT'S PHONE OR SOMETIMES THEY DON'T PROVIDE EMAILS. 
          SO WHAT THE COURT CAN DO THAT I CAN'T DO IS TO SUMMON THEM TO COURT. 
          THEY MAIL OUT THE INFORMATION, THEY RECEIVE A COURT SUMMONS,
THEY SEE THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE MATTER, THEY APPEAR. AND THEN AT THAT POINT, THEY SHOULD BE OFFERED DIVERSION BEFORE THEY EVEN
ENTER A HEARING. 
          BECAUSE THEY'VE APPEARED, THAT IS THE PROPER PROCEDURE FOR THAT,
WHICH ALLOWS ME TO AT THAT POINT IN MANY COURTS, THEY HAVE CREATED A FORM THAT ALLOWS THEM TO UPDATE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION. 
          SO THEN I CAN PROCEED WITH, WITH, WITH MEETING THEM. 
          SO BUT EVEN AT THAT CASE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY A 70%,
70 TO 80% OF THOSE CASES WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THE JP. 
          RIGHT. THAT CURRENTLY DO RIGHT. IF IF IF THE PROCEDURE IS FOLLOWED IN THAT MANNER. 
          YES. OKAY. SO THAT I MEAN, THAT'S A I THINK THAT'S A MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT ON WHAT OUR
DOCKETS WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE JP OFFICES. 
          AND IF I COULD ALSO ADD SOMETHING THAT IS DONE DIFFERENTLY IN MANY OF THE SURROUNDING
COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES IS THAT RIGHT NOW, THE LAW STATES THAT ANY CHILD 17 AND UP IS CONSIDERED AN ADULT,
BUT IF IT'S A SCHOOL REFERRAL, THEN THEY ARE CONSIDERED MINORS IN THE FACT THAT THEY ATTEND SCHOOL. 
          SO WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE SURROUNDING COURT OR IN THE SURROUNDING COUNTIES IS THEY
ALLOW FOR DIVERSION TO HAPPEN AFTER TEN AND BELOW 18 TO STILL CAPTURE. SO TO BE HONEST WITH YOU,
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CHANGE WITHIN THIS PROGRAM, THEN THAT WOULD REMOVE THE MAJORITY OF CASES THAT GO TO THE JUDGES FOR MINORS,
AND THEN THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF JUVENILE DIVERSION SO THAT THERE'S NOT THAT TECHNICALITY. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT WHILE SAN MARCOS IS NOT REFERRING CASES RIGHT
NOW, IT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COUNTY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE WE'RE
HOLDING KIDS TO DO TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS. 
          IF YOU GO TO SAN MARCOS ISD AND YOU COMMIT AN OFFENSE,
THEY'RE GOING TO HANDLE THAT INTERNALLY. 
          BUT IF IN SAN MARCOS, IF YOU STEAL FROM WALMART,
THEN YOU WILL BE TREATED WITH THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW AS IT PERTAINS TO THAT CASE. 
          SO IT IS BETTER THAT WE SUPPORT THE PROGRAM IN A MANNER IN WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR GROWTH. 
          BECAUSE IF IF SAN MARCOS STARTS REFERRING, THIS WON'T BE THE LAST TIME YOU HEAR FROM ME. 
          THERE WILL BE MANY MORE CASES COMPARATIVE TO WHAT'S COMING OUT OF KYLE,
AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE JUDGE IF HE'D LIKE TO COME UP ALSO AND HEAR FROM YOU, SEE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS IDEA. WE CAN SUPPORT IT,
BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HARM, THAT IT HELPS. GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE MENDOZA OR J. 
          R MENDOZA, JUST AS THE PEACE PRECINCT 2-2. I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF IT GOING OVER NOT JUST TO
GET RID OF IT, BUT BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO OVERSEE IT. BECAUSE IT'S COMING FROM OUR COURTS. 
          ONE OF THE REASONS IS BECAUSE THESE OTHER LOCATIONS,
WHETHER IT'S THE DA'S OFFICE OR THE JUVENILE DETENTION, THEY HAVE MORE RESOURCES OR HAVE BEEN USING A LOT OF DIFFERENT RESOURCES ALREADY FOR THE
KIDS OR THE ADULTS IN, IN THEIR DEPARTMENTS. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP THEM OUT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT
TO DUPLICATE EFFORTS WHEN THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY PRESENT, BUT WE DO THINK THAT IT CAN HELP ALSO WITH THE NUMBER OF CASES THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING
DOWN THE PIPE AND WITH YOU LITERALLY JUST SAYING, NOT WANTING TO DUPLICATE EFFORTS, IT SOUNDS LIKE I DON'T KNOW. 
          JUVENILE DETENTION MIGHT BE THE BETTER ROADMAP BECAUSE OF THE YOUTH AND THE 98,
99.8% OF THE PEOPLE NOT BEING REPRESENTED, ETC.. WITHOUT GETTING THEM MAD? MAYBE. MAYBE. 
          I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT HERE. YEAH. DIVERSION AND ATTENTION ARE WAY DIFFERENT THINGS. 
          THE WHOLE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM. AND I SEE OUR STAFF NODDING OUT THERE. 
          THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM IS TO AVOID THEM GOING INTO THE JUVENILE DETENTION
SYSTEM. 
          AND SO I WOULD I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT RATHER THAN GO TO A GOVERNMENT CENTER VERSUS A
HOLDING CENTER. 
          [03:00:07]
EXACTLY. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AT THAT LOCATION. RIGHT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THERE. YES.
EVEN, EVEN EVEN HAVING IT AT THE DA'S OFFICE, I THINK THERE MAY HAVE TO BE A A NAME OR SOMETHING. 
          SO IT, IT WOULDN'T BE WHERE THEY HAVE TO BE AT THE DISTRICT,
GO TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE BECAUSE THAT SOUNDS BAD TOO. 
          THAT SOUNDS BAD TOO. SO THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMETHING. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. SOMETHING ROSY. YEAH, I GET IT. 
          100%. ASK MR. CAMPBELL. I KNOW HE STOOD UP TO SPEAK. 
          JUDGE COMMISSIONERS LANDON CAMPBELL AND THE MISDEMEANOR AND SPECIAL PROJECTS DIVISION
CHIEF OF THE DA'S OFFICE. 
          I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE JUVENILE PROBATION DEPARTMENT THIS MORNING. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT EXACTLY THEY WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH. 
          THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH TAKING THIS ROLE ON IF THE COURT WOULD DECIDE IT WANTS TO GO
THERE RATHER THAN THE DA'S OFFICE. 
          IT'S REALLY JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE WHO HAS THE SPACE,
THE RESOURCES. 
          OUR JUVENILE PROBATION DEPARTMENT, JUST FOR THE COURT'S EDIFICATION,
HANDLES CLASS B AND A MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY JUVENILE REFERRALS. 
          SO THIS IS CLASS C'S. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY NORMALLY DO,
BUT THEY ARE ABLE TO TAKE ON THAT ROLE SO THAT EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE A CONTINUITY OF INFORMATION. IF A DEFENDANT, IF A JUVENILE, EXCUSE ME,
GETS A CLASS C MAYBE DRUG CHARGE THING, COULD THC VAPE IN A HIGH SCHOOL THAT JUVENILE DEFENDANT IS VERY LIKELY TO GO FURTHER IN
THE SYSTEM IF SOMETHING ISN'T ADDRESSED. 
          AND SO THERE IS A CONTINUITY OF INFORMATION THAT CAN BE HELPFUL IN EITHER JUVENILE
PROBATION OR THE DA'S OFFICE. 
          WE WORK VERY HAND IN HAND WITH THEM. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE COURT. 
          SO THAT YOU DO KNOW THERE'S KIND OF THOSE TWO DIFFERENT OFFICES THAT BOTH HAVE SPACE. 
          NO. COMMISSIONER HAMMER ASKED ABOUT THAT. BOTH OFFICES HAVE SPACE,
BOTH HAVE BANDWIDTH TO TAKE IT ON. 
          IT'S JUST WHAT THE BEST OPTION IS. SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS,
BECAUSE YOU KNOW MORE THAN I EVER WILL. 
          WHERE WOULD YOU PLACE THAT? IN THIS LANE, OF COURSE. 
          WHERE WOULD YOU PLACE THEM TODAY, JUDGE, I BELIEVE THAT THE DA'S OFFICE. 
          I HATE TO THROW IT BACK ON Y'ALL, BUT I'M AN ATTORNEY. IT'S WHAT I DO. BOTH HAVE BENEFITS. 
          THE DA'S OFFICE HAS THE BANDWIDTH OF DEALING WITH THE JP COURTS,
WHICH JUVENILE PROBATION ALMOST NEVER DOES. 
          WE HAVE GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIPS WITH ALL THE JUDGES,
AND WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO BE ABLE TO ONBOARD THE CITATIONS. 
          THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING. JUVENILE PROBATION IS NEVER DONE,
BUT WE DON'T EXACTLY HAVE A LOT OF THE INHERENT RESOURCES FOR THE JUVENILE RELATED COUNSELING AND THINGS THAT JUVENILE PROBATION HAS. 
          HONESTLY, I COULD SEE BOTH OPTIONS BEING FEASIBLE. 
          COMMISSIONER COHEN. I THINK I, I'M FEELING MOST COMFORTABLE WITH IT BEING IN THE DAS
OFFICE JUST BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S STRUCTURE THERE THAT COULD SUPPORT. 
          I MEAN, AND THEN IF IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S NOT WORKING AND MAYBE WE COULD REEVALUATE THAT
FURTHER DOWN THE LINE. 
          BUT JUST WHAT I'M THINKING RIGHT NOW, THAT MIGHT BE,
I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE TAKING IT. 
          JUST, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY OCTOBER 1ST, BUT WE'RE COMFORTABLE TAKING IT RIGHT NOW. 
          I THINK THE JUVENILE PROBATION, THEY WOULD NEED TO IRON OUT SOME STUFF,
BUT WE COULD RE-APPROACH THE COURT IF YOU GOT IT. 
          YOU GOT IT. COMMISSIONER HAMMER, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER COHEN,
I THINK THAT THAT'S A THE BEST ROUTE TO GO CURRENTLY. 
          ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE GOOD STRUCTURE OVER THERE. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT JP MENDOZA
DOESN'T. 
          BUT I KNOW THAT THEY'RE ALSO THE. JP ARE ALSO WORKED. 
          YOU BET, YOU BET. OKAY, SO I THINK WE GOT THIS ROADMAP TO THE DA'S OFFICE. 
          GOOD. IS THERE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL YOU NEED FOR THAT? IF EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT, THEN. THEN I'LL BE MOVED NATURALLY. 
          IT SHALL BE DONE. GOD BLESS YOU. NATURALLY, IT WAS PUT IN THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE. 
          TWO, TWO. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE ORIGINAL WAS LOCATED. 
          BUT WE'LL MOVE IT WITHIN FOR THE ADOPTED TO THE TO THE DA'S OFFICE. 
          DONE. WHO WILL BE THE DIRECT REPORT FOR FOR THAT POSITION. 
          JUST LANDON WILL BE OKAY. LANDON SUPERVISOR IS OUR JUVENILE PROSECUTION UNIT. 
          SO IT WOULD FALL UNDER STAY THE COURSE. PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU, MR. COX, FOR ARTICULATING THAT QUESTION PERFECTLY. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS ANY COMMENTS FROM DANIEL. 
          DANIEL, IS ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD? I AM SO SORRY,
DANIEL. 
          AS LONG AS YOU SAY IT ONCE WHEN WE OPEN THE AGENDA,
THAT'S ALL. I THINK WHAT I ALSO WANTED TO ADD WAS THE LOCATION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, MY VISION OF THIS AND HOW IT SHOULD BE AND HOW IT'S BEEN HANDLED IS TO MEET FAMILIES WHERE
THEY'RE AT. 
          RIGHT? SO WHILE THERE MAY BE SPACE WITHIN THE DA'S OFFICE,
AND I'LL DEFINITELY, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I KIND OF HAVE A SPACE IN EVERY PRECINCT IN WHICH I CAN OPERATE OF BECAUSE I'M GOING TO
NEED TO PRINT AND I'M GOING TO NEED TO LOOK FILES OVER, BUT IT WOULD BE MORE OF A ROVING. BUT THE HOME CAN BE THE DA'S OFFICE. 
          [03:05:02]
THAT'S. I'M FINE WITH THAT. I JUST KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF MY CASES,
AS IT STANDS, WOULD BE THAT I'D SPEND A LOT OF TIME IN. 
          KYLE. RIGHT. UNTIL THAT'S FIXED. AND THEN AFTER THAT,
I CAN KIND OF MEET WITH PARENTS ON ONE OFFS. 
          AND ADA IS NODDING YES. WHILE YOU'RE TALKING. 
          SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE SQUARED AWAY. OKAY. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. ALL YOURS SCOTT. THANK YOU. OH, ONE MORE ONE MORE COMMENT. 
          YES, SIR. JUDGE. GIVE HIM THE JUST FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD. 
          CAN WE DO JANUARY 1ST? JANUARY 1ST. OKAY. I,
I DON'T KNOW, IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE WHO WE JUST TALKED TO? YEAH. I SAW THEIR BODY LANGUAGE REAL QUICK. 
          THEY NODDED. FINE. OKAY. WELL THEN THAT WILL THAT CAUSES ANOTHER QUESTION FOR ME. 
          I ACTUALLY THINK IT NEEDS TO BE OCTOBER 1ST OR THE TRANSITION NEEDS TO START OCTOBER 1ST. 
          AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE IF WE HAVE WE BRING ON THIS NEW EMPLOYEE,
HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO. 
          OR THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ASSIGNED SOMEWHERE AND HAVE A PLACE. 
          AND SO THAT BEING THE CASE, IF WE CAN START THE TRANSITION AND DO LIKE A 90 OR 60 OR 90
DAY TRANSITION, BUT THAT NEW EMPLOYEE WILL NEED TO START OVER THERE. YEAH. MY APOLOGIES. IT'LL BE DONE BY
TRANSITION STARTS EARLY, BUT IT'LL BE DONE BY JANUARY 1ST BY JANUARY 1ST. 
          OKAY. COMPLETION. VERY GOOD. VERY GOOD. I JUST BUT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY I HAVE THAT
QUESTION. 
          ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT? WE'RE GOOD. WHAT ELSE? SCOTT. SORRY FOR THAT LENGTHY DIALOG, BUT IT WAS USEFUL. 
          YEAH. NO PROBLEM. I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD OPERATIONAL DISCUSSION. 
          I AM MORE THAN WELCOME TO HAVE MORE OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS AS WE GO ALONG. 
          I THINK IT'S I THINK IT'S HEALTHY FOR THE. I'D LIKE TO ASK,
SINCE THE SHERIFF IS HERE, IF WE COULD ADDRESS WHATEVER HE'S HERE FOR. 
          SO THAT'S JUST MY NATURE TO JUST GET IT MOVING. 
          YEAH. NO, THAT SOUNDS GREAT, SHERIFF. YOU WANT TO COME ON UP? SO WHATEVER HIS ITEM IS OR CONVERSATION POINT IS,
SO THAT WE CAN LET HIM KEEP MOVING. 
          I THINK WE ALREADY DISCUSSED HIS ITEM EARLIER. 
          HE'S WAITING TO SEE IF WE HAVE AN OUTCOME TODAY. 
          OKAY. SO SO SO HERE'S THE QUESTION I WOULD ASK. 
          WE'VE GOT THE PROVISIONS IN HERE THAT ARE IN THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET. 
          THERE'S ONE OTHER THING THAT I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT WE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK,
AND I THINK WE HAD A GENERAL AGREEMENT LAST WEEK ON THE EVALUATION OF CONSTABLES AND OF JP'S OFFICES AND DOING IT. LOOKING AT A REAL BREAKDOWN OF A MATRIX ON WHAT THOSE LOOK
LIKE. 
          I'VE GOTTEN DIFFERENT SETS OF NUMBERS FROM THREE SEPARATE JP'S TODAY. 
          JUST TODAY AND I GOT ANOTHER SET ON FRIDAY FROM A DIFFERENT JP WHO ALL LOOK AT THIS VERY
DIFFERENTLY. 
          AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DO SEE THAT THERE ARE NEEDS IN THE JP OFFICES. 
          LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. THERE ARE NEEDS IN THE JP OFFICES,
BUT I DON'T FEEL REAL COMFORTABLE ON THE NUMBERS THAT EACH ONE OF THEM HAVE GIVEN ME THAT ARE DIFFERENT. AND I WANT THEM TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE THAT EVALUATION WITH WITH OUR
ADMINISTRATORS STAFF TO REALLY GO THROUGH WHAT THOSE NEEDS ARE. 
          THE OTHER THING IS, IS ONCE WE MADE THE CHANGE THAT WE JUST MADE,
WHAT IMPACT WILL THAT HAVE ON THOSE NUMBERS OVER LIKE A 30, 60, 90 DAY PERIOD? BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THOSE CASE REFERRALS WILL BE DIFFERENT. 
          I ALSO SPOKE TO TO AT LEAST ONE JP WHO IS COMPLETELY OVERBURDENED RIGHT NOW. 
          AND THE CURRENT COMPUTER SYSTEM DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE ROTATION OF OF CASES WITHIN A JP PRECINCT LIKE TWO TWO AND TWO ONE LIKE OUR,
OUR LIKE AT OUR COUNTY COURT SYSTEM OR AT OUR DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE A TRUE WHEEL LIKE WE HAVE IN THOSE. 
          AND SO THAT BEING THE CASE, I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH,
WITH JP TWO ONE, BETH SMITH ABOUT HOW WHAT HER CASELOAD LOOKS LIKE AND HOW THAT WORKS. THEY CAN DO DIRECT ATTRIBUTION OR CASE REFERRAL SO THEY CAN
REFER A CASE TO ANOTHER. 
          JP AND SO WHAT I'VE ASKED HER TO DO IS LOOK INTO THE STEPS AND SHE'S BEEN TALKING WITH
THE, WITH ODYSSEY WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES AND HOW THEY CAN,
HOW THEY CAN HAVE THEIR CURRENT SOFTWARE ADAPT TO DO THOSE REFERRALS INTERNALLY. 
          UNTIL THAT TIME, AS THOSE CASES START TO COME IN. 
          NOW, SHE HAS SAID THAT SHE CAN DO THE DIRECT REFERRALS,
GO INTO THE SYSTEM AND REFER A CASE BECAUSE ALL OF OUR GPS HAVE MUTUAL MUTUAL AGREEMENTS WHERE THEY CAN REFER CASES TO EACH OTHER. 
          SHE CAN REFER THOSE CASES TO TWO TWO, AND IT WOULD INCREASE THAT CASELOAD AND MORE
EQUALIZE THE CASELOAD BETWEEN THOSE TWO OFFICES. 
          HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS A CONCERN RAISED AS TO THERE WERE SO MANY CASES. 
          AND ON EACH FILE CASE I BELIEVE THE FEE IS 70 OR PARDON ME,
$65 PER CASE. 
          AND HOW COULD THAT BE TRACKED? I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MARISOL AND THE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE, AND SHE'S TOLD ME THAT THEY CAN TRACK THOSE AND THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE ON THOSE
DIRECT REFERRALS, 
          [03:10:07]
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CREDIT THOSE TO THE CORRECT COURTS THAT HEAR THOSE CASES. THAT BEING
THE CASE, WE HAD A CONVERSATION LAST WEEK ABOUT DOING AN OVERALL EVALUATION. 
          I BELIEVE THAT IN THE OUT OF THE FUNDS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS IN THIS DOCUMENT TODAY I WANT
TO SEE THAT EVALUATION BEFORE I RECOMMEND ANY OF THEM. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO SET FUNDS ASIDE TO LOOK AT
BOTH THE CONSTABLES OFFICES AND THE JP'S OFFICES IN ANTICIPATION OF WHATEVER THAT OUTCOME IS, THAT INDEPENDENT OUTCOME AS FAR AS WHAT THE NEEDS ARE. 
          AND AGAIN, AS WE DISCUSSED LAST WEEK, THOSE WOULD BE REFERRED OR THOSE WOULD BE
RECOMMENDED TO US AS A COURT PRIOR TO THAT MID-YEAR. SO THOSE POSITIONS WOULD ACTUALLY START AT THE MID-YEAR. 
          BUT WE WOULD SET ASIDE PERHAPS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE REFERENCED FOR JP AND,
AND NEW DEPUTY CONSTABLE REQUESTS IN THE BUDGET. AND SET THOSE ASIDE, ASKING THAT THE BUDGET DEPARTMENT DELAY BOTH BUDGET
AND AND THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE DELAY ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE GOT UNTIL THEY WERE ABLE TO DO
THAT EVALUATION. 
          SO IT IS IN THE BUDGET. SO YOU'RE SAYING DELAY THE THE POSITIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE
BUDGET. 
          WELL, THESE ARE DELAYED. IF YOU LOOK AT THESE AND SCOTT,
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THESE ARE CURRENTLY DELAYED UNTIL JANUARY 1ST. 
          AM I WRONG IN ORDER TO GET THEM IN THERE. SO SO WE WERE ABLE TO GET THEM ON ON A ONE ON
ONE DATE. 
          OKAY. BUT BUT I BELIEVE THAT YOUR IDEA DOES HAVE MERIT DEPENDING ON WHAT WHAT THE COURT
THINKS, IF IF WE WANT IT, IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR ME TO SET ASIDE THOSE FUNDS IN A SEPARATE
ACCOUNT THAT THE DEPARTMENTS WOULDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO AND THEN RELEASE THEM UPON UPON EVALUATION UPON THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE? IS THERE ANY CONVERSATION OR DISCUSSION ON THAT? I KNOW WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST WEEK,
WE, JP JUSTICE CLERKS AND NEW CONSTABLE POSITIONS ARE SOME OF THE HARDEST FOR US TO LOOK AT,
I THINK, OR THEY HAVE BEEN TRADITIONALLY IN THE PAST. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THOSE JUSTICE
CLERKS DO 100 DIFFERENT THINGS IN EACH OFFICE AND IN EACH ONE OF THOSE OFFICES THEY MAY BE DOING. ONE OF THOSE CLERKS MAY BE DOING 100% OF ONE JOB DUTY AND IN A
DIFFERENT JP OFFICE. 
          THEY MAY NOT DO ANY OF THOSE JOB DUTIES. AND SO HAVING AN OVERALL EVALUATION,
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT IS OVERALL CASE NUMBERS, THE TYPE OF CASES, HOW MUCH TIME YOU SPEND ON A ON AN EVICTION VERSUS A FILE. 
          BUT THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT I THINK NOT JUST THIS COURT,
BUT ALL, ALL FUTURE COURTS PROBABLY NEED THE ANSWERS TO. 
          I HAD ASKED SCOTT TO TAKE A LOOK AT DELAYING SOME POSITIONS ANYWAY. 
          AND IF WE NEED A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO MAKE THAT EVALUATION,
I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BRING OUR TAX RATE DOWN TO. 
          ALWAYS WHAT ELSE WE CAN KEEP MOVING. YEAH. LET ME CLARIFY. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE COURT IS IN FAVOR OF DELAYING THOSE POSITIONS FOR
EVALUATION FOR ONE. 
          THAT'S OUR KIND OF OUR MID-YEAR REGRADES. OR WOULD ONE ONE BE A BETTER SPOT. 
          WELL HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE TO DO AN EVALUATION OF THAT? CAN WE GET IT DONE BEFORE THE 1ST OF JANUARY? THAT'S MY QUESTION, BECAUSE IF WE CAN, I'M ALL FOR ONE ONE. 
          SO I WOULD PREFER IF WE DID THE JANUARY 1ST DATE HAD THE FUNDING AVAILABLE. 
          WE WILL DEFINITELY WORK WITH THE CONSTABLES AND THE JPS,
BUT WE MAY NEED ADDITIONAL TIME TO DO THE ANALYSIS THAT'S REQUIRED. 
          BUT IF WE CAN HAVE THE FUNDING AS OF JANUARY 1ST,
THAT THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO I'M CURIOUS. SO WHAT IS YOUR. BECAUSE LET'S SAY NO MATTER WHAT,
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE THREE POSITIONS SLOTTED FOR. 
          SO WHAT IS THE GOAL OF DELAYING THEM? I JUST WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE I THEY WOULDN'T BE
SPECIFICALLY SLOTTED FOR THESE POSITIONS. 
          WE WOULD HAVE. CAN'T WE ADJUST THAT AFTER TO. 
          I MEAN SO THEN I MEAN, BECAUSE IT TAKES A WHILE TO TRAIN AND ALL THOSE THINGS I DON'T I
JUST DON'T WANT TO. 
          IF Y'ALL ARE ON BOARD AND SUPPORTIVE OF THIS,
I JUST DON'T SEE I'M TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE DELAY IS JUST A LESS EXPENSE. 
          WELL, NO, THE DELAY IS TO ACTUALLY DO AN EVALUATION. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LESS EXPENSIVE. I MEAN,
AT THE END OF THE DAY, HIRED. 
          I'M THINKING IF SOMEONE'S NOT HIRED, YOU'RE GOING TO START PAYING THEM LATER,
RIGHT? I DON'T THINK MONEY IS THE KEY FOR ME. MONEY ISN'T THE KEY COMPONENT ON THIS. 
          YEAH. BUT ARE YOU ALSO SAYING THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED THREE JP OFFICES? AND WITH THE EVALUATION, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THOSE THREE JP OFFICES. 
          [03:15:02]
I MEAN, THOSE POSITIONS MAY BE MOVED AROUND. I. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'VE HEARD FROM I'VE HEARD FROM JUSTICES OF THE PEACE THAT THEY BELIEVE
AFTER LOOKING AT THE AT THE NUMBERS OF THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION NUMBERS, THAT THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY IN AGREEMENT THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE OFFICES NEEDS A
NEW CLERK, GIVEN THE CASE, THE CASELOAD THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE. 
          AND SO HAVING AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THAT DATA AND HAVING A SIT DOWN WITH EACH
INDIVIDUAL. 
          JP AND LEARNING WHAT THOSE NEEDS ARE, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE WE AWARD ANY OF
THEM. 
          AND MY JP S ARE GOING TO HATE ME BECAUSE I SAID THAT. 
          BUT I THINK THAT IT'S A IT SETS IN PLACE AN EVALUATION PROCESS THAT NEXT YEAR WHEN THEY
COME IN AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL, THEY KNOW THE BAR THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SET THERE AND THEY CAN THEY CAN MEET THAT BAR OR
NOT MEET THAT BAR, BUT THEY KNOW IT ALSO GIVES OUR BUDGET OFFICE FOR THE FUTURE AN IDEA OF WHERE THEY NEED TO
BUDGET WITHIN THAT PROCESS. 
          IT'S JUST NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE. I MEAN, COMMISSIONER,
YOU CAN PROBABLY SAY THAT WITH EVERY OFFICE IN THE COUNTY AND IT SEEMS VERY I WON'T SAY TARGETED TO JP, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO SEND US DATA TO,
TO ADVOCATE, YOU KNOW, FOR THESE POSITIONS AND. I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN,
I'M FOR THE EVALUATION. 
          IF THAT'S IF THAT'S WHAT THE COURT WANTS TO DO. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY'RE THE ONES WORKING IN THAT OFFICE EVERY DAY. 
          THEY KNOW WHAT THE WORKLOAD IS. THEY KNOW HOW BUSY THEIR OFFICES ARE. 
          YOU KNOW, I, THE DATA WILL PROBABLY LEAN TOWARDS WHATEVER THEY'RE,
THEY'RE JUSTIFYING FOR THESE POSITIONS, BUT I DON'T KNOW. IT DOES. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. 
          I'VE LOOKED AT DATA FROM FOUR DIFFERENT GPS AND IT IT LEANS IN FOUR DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. 
          SO WHAT SHOULD WE DO? WE GOT TO KEEP MOVING. OKAY. 
          I WAS GONNA SAY, CAN WE JUST SLOT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUNDS,
THE SAME AMOUNT OF FUNDS FOR THREE DIFFERENT JUSTICE CLERKS AND THEN HAVE THEM, I MEAN, BE ARTICULATED LATER AFTER WORK IS DONE AND HAVE THEM ALL START ON OCTOBER 1ST AND
THEY TAKE A MONTH TO FIGURE IT OUT. 
          I MEAN, IT'LL BE 7 P.M. AND WE WON'T BE GONE. 
          WELL, I MEAN, I'M OKAY WITH THE EVALUATION. LET'S GET THAT DONE. 
          AND THEN WE'LL EVALUATE. EVALUATE ONE ONE. YES. 
          AND ONE ONE IS FINE. SORRY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I CAPTURED WHAT YOU GUYS WANT. NO,
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE LIKE. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE THAT LONG FOR THE JP TO COME TOGETHER AND FIGURE IT OUT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I THINK THAT THEY CAN COME
TOGETHER IN A MEETING AND FIGURE IT OUT IN A WEEK. 
          YEAH, I AGREE. I BELIEVE THAT THE EVALUATION WAS GOING TO BE DONE BY THE COUNTY ON THEM
BASED OFF THOSE EVALUATION RESULTS INTERNALLY THROUGH ERIC. 
          WELL, THROUGH ERIC AND THE BUDGET OFFICE. BUT I'M YOU KNOW,
WE'RE SAYING JANUARY 1ST, WE WOULD HAVE THOSE THOSE POSITIONS SLOTTED JANUARY 1ST, BUT THAT WOULD GIVE CANDACE'S OFFICE TIME TO WORK WITH EACH ONE OF THE JP
OFFICES, BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU, IF YOU MEET WITH THEM AS A GROUP,
IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. AND I HAVEN'T DONE IT IN PROBABLY FOUR YEARS. BUT IF YOU MEET WITH THEM AS A GROUP, IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION THAN IF YOU HAVE
INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS WITH EACH ONE OF THOSE OFFICES. AND THE DATA THAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM INDIVIDUAL OFFICES, EVEN DURING PRESENTATIONS THAT THAT WE'VE HAD JP GIVE HERE IN COURT. 
          I'VE HAD OTHER JP EMAILING ME GOING, THE DATA DOESN'T SHOW THAT OR MY DATA IS BETTER
BECAUSE OF THIS. 
          I WANT SOMEBODY TO LOOK AT IT AND TELL ME, NO,
THIS IS GOOD OR THIS IS BAD, OR THIS IS WHAT YOU SHOULD DO. 
          YES, IN A, IN A SENSE WHERE THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT PITCHING SPECIFICALLY FOR THEIR JP OR
FOR THEIR FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL COURTROOM. 
          THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE SYSTEM AS A WHOLE, TRULY AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION. 
          YES. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD. AND CHIEF BAILEY, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE? DID YOU WANT TO CONTRIBUTE ANYTHING? I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. SORRY,
SCOTT. 
          A LITTLE BACK AND FORTH. I WOULD ASK. SORRY. BRETT BAILEY,
CHIEF DEPUTY, HAYS COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE I WOULD ASK THAT THE CIVIL DIVISION PERK THEIR EARS UP BECAUSE I DON'T I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T TALK ABOUT. 
          THERE WAS A DISCUSSION UNDER AN EARLIER AGENDA ITEM REGARDING MY COMMITMENT TO NOT
IMPLEMENT DRAFT ONE WITHOUT COMING BACK TO THE COURT WITH THE DA'S SUPPORT, AND TO NOT IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL SOFTWARE AI RELATED THAT WE RECEIVE FROM AXON. 
          AND I BELIEVE YOU INSTRUCTED US TO TRY TO COME BACK WITH AN AGENDA ITEM NEXT WEEK TO TO DO
THAT. 
          YES, I BELIEVE I HAVE THAT WRITTEN. AND IF POSSIBLE,
I BELIEVE PRIOR TO WITHIN THE NEXT 30 MINUTES OR AN HOUR, I COULD HAVE THAT TO THE CIVIL DIVISION TO MAKE SURE,
SO WE COULD READ IT. 
          SO YOU CAN READ IT AND WE CAN DO IT TODAY. I WILL SIGN IT,
HAVE IT FULLY EXECUTED AND WE COULD GO AHEAD AND GET THAT. 
          AND SO I JUST WANT TO RESTATE THE BOOKS. SORRY I ACCIDENTALLY CUT YOU OFF. 
          [03:20:02]
SO I'M GOING TO RESTATE YOUR YOU'RE COMMITTING TO AS A SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR SUPPORT FOR
THE AXON TO NOT PUSH YOUR FIRST. 
          I'M RESTATING THIS IN A TERRIBLE WAY. I'M SORRY,
BUT NOT TO PUSH YOUR FIRST VERSION OF THE REPORT WRITING AND NOT TO ALLOW AXON TO DOWNLOAD AUTOMATICALLY ANY UPDATES THAT THEY MAY DO WITH AI THAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE ALREADY OR COME
TO COURT TO APPROVE, AGREE ON, TO USE. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN OPEN SWINGING DOOR TO JUST
WALK THROUGH WITH IMPROVEMENTS. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO GET THEM APPROVED THROUGH COURT. ANY IMPROVEMENTS? YES. 
          IF I WOULD STATE IT ONE ONE STEP FURTHER. YES. 
          WE WON'T FLIP THE SWITCH ON ANYTHING UNTIL Y'ALL SAY OKAY,
UNTIL THE COURT SAYS OKAY, AND WE'LL HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM TO STATE CAPTURE THE SPIRIT OF THAT ESSENCE. THAT'S THE AIM. BECAUSE MY HOPE IS,
LISTEN, I GOT, I DON'T KNOW, THREE MONTHS LEFT. 
          I LOVE MY LIFE, OKAY? I LOVE THE JOB I'VE HAD AS COUNTY JUDGE. 
          BUT WHEN I'M GONE, I'M GONE. AND I WANT TO KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE LEANED ON ME
HARD WITH VALID REASONS AND YOU CAN'T. 
          I KNOW YOU WON'T. I'M NOT SAYING YOU, BUT GENERALIZING LIBERTARIANS. 
          I MEAN, EVERYBODY REACHES OUT TO ME BECAUSE I'M OUT FRONT AND THAT'S,
THAT'S THE GIG. 
          BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I COULD SAY, HEY, I DID THIS FOR WHEN I'M GONE. 
          THERE'S A CONTINUITY OF THOUGHT AND SPIRIT. SURE. 
          THANK YOU. AND WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING SPEAKING TO CHASE? WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT IF I SENT YOU RIGHT AWAY,
YOU COULD PUT INTO A FORMAT THAT COULD BE EXECUTED TODAY? IS THAT IS THAT POSSIBLE TODAY? OH, WE TALK ABOUT PUTTING ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. 
          OKAY. OKAY. I WAS THEN WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANY OF THAT BECAUSE I WAS JUST HOPING TO AVOID
COMING BACK NEXT WEEK. 
          AND YOU DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AND SEE US. I WILL BE HERE. 
          THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. BLESS YOU. BLESS YOU. 
          OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU CHIEF. WHATEVER. WHATEVER UNFOLDS,
WE'RE HERE FOR YOU. THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, SCOTT, BACK TO THE LEG EXERCISE. WHAT ELSE,
BUDDY? IF. IF WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANY OTHER POSITIONS. 
          WHAT I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT REAL QUICK WOULD BE THE THIRD ITEM IN YOUR BINDER,
WHICH IT'S THE IT'S GOING TO BE THE ESTIMATED REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND FUND BALANCE. AND THIS IS JUST QUICKLY GOING DOWN. 
          GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER SMITH, I APOLOGIZE. WE'RE GOING TO,
IF Y'ALL DON'T MIND, LET'S COME BACK TO THE POSITIONS REAL QUICK. 
          SO WE'VE OF THE POSITIONS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED IN COURT AND THAT HAD BEEN RECOMMENDED,
WE'VE GIVEN DIRECTION ON THE JUVENILE DIVERSION COORDINATOR DEPUTY CONSTABLE'S AND AND JP COURT'S HOLD ON ONE SECOND. 
          JP COURTS. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN APPETITE FOR IT,
BUT JUST SO WE CAN GET TO EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE, THE RECOMMENDED THE INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDED POSITIONS THAT ARE IN HERE THAT
WOULD STILL REMAIN UNDERNEATH THAT TAX RATE THAT WE, THAT WE MENTIONED. 
          I WOULD PROBABLY MOVE TO GO AHEAD AND ADOPT THESE INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS LEAVING OUT AGAIN,
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT POSITIONS. 
          IT'S IT'S EQUIPMENT, BUT THE REMAINDER OF ELECTIONS AND THE SHERIFF,
BECAUSE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT NEXT WEEK. 
          ONCE WE GET THE DATA THAT WE'VE REQUESTED. I HAVE A QUESTION FROM AXON. 
          I THOUGHT THE LOW THE LOW PAYMENT WAS AROUND 97,000. 
          I'M SEEING 178. IT WAS. BUT AND CORRECT ME, IS CHIEF BAILEY STILL HERE. 
          AND YOU MAY KNOW AS WELL, SHERIFF. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING I TALKED WITH THEIR SALES PERSON
AND WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT LOW PAYMENTS JUST KIND OF AS LOW AS THEY'RE WILLING TO GO. 
          BUT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER PAYMENT WE WANT AND IT WILL REDUCE
OUR FUTURE COMMITMENTS. 
          SO IN MY MIND, WE HAD A LITTLE EXTRA OVER FROM THE PENNY. 
          SO I ADDED THAT IN THERE IN THE THOUGHT THAT THAT WILL REDUCE OUR FUTURE YEARS AND
COMMISSIONER JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD YOU, YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT EXXON AND ELECTIONS ON THE FIRST. 
          THAT'S WHAT YOUR AIM IS. WELL, BECAUSE WE'VE ASKED FOR IT,
WE'VE ASKED FOR INFORMATION. 
          I WOULD BE AND FORGIVE ME. I KNOW SOMEONE DOWN THERE. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS COMMISSIONER COHEN OR COMMISSIONER INGALSBE ASKED FOR AN AGENDA
ITEM TO FOR THE FEES ON THE FEES FOR ELECTIONS. 
          YES. SO WE CAN GET THAT NEXT WEEK AND DISCUSS ELECTIONS. 
          WE CAN GET THE THE DOCUMENT FROM FROM CHIEF BAILEY FOR NEXT WEEK AND HAVE IT PREPARED BY
THE CIVIL DIVISION. 
          WITH THAT, I THINK WE COULD CONSIDER THE REST OF THESE AND BE DONE WITH THEM AND KNOW
WHERE WE'RE AT GOING INTO NEXT WEEK. 
          IS THERE AN APPETITE FOR THAT? YEAH. MAKE A MOTION. 
          I MOVE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL POSITIONS AS LISTED IN THE BUDGET AMENDMENT
DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO US FOR THE 
          [03:25:05]
FOR BY THE BUDGET OFFICE, INCLUDING ONE PARK SUPERVISOR,
ONE NEW ASSISTANT AUDITOR, ONE NEW JUDICIAL SERVICES OFFICER, ONE NEW MANAGEMENT ANALYST, ONE NEW ASSISTANT HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR. 
          ONE NEW PROPERTY TAX APPLICATION SPECIALIST,
ONE NEW ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH TECHNICIAN. 
          AND YOU KNOW WHAT? I DIDN'T SEE THE AUDITOR. I T NEW WORLD ERP CLOUD. 
          SINCE THAT IS ALSO A SINCE THAT'S ALSO AN EQUIPMENT. 
          LET'S WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT AS PART OF THIS THIS AMENDMENT IF NO ONE WANTS TO DISCUSS
THAT, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CONVERSATION ON IT. SO I WOULD MOVE FOR THE ADOPTION OF THOSE LISTED
POSITIONS. 
          AND THOSE INCLUDE THE HIGHLIGHTED ONES THAT YOU DIDN'T MENTION. CORRECT. THOSE WERE ALL
AGREED TO LAST WEEK. 
          YEAH. OH THE TOP GRAYED OUT SECTION. YES. OKAY. 
          SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER. HAMMER. 
          NO. COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN. YES. JUDGE BECERRA. NO. 
          OKAY. NEXT. COMMISSIONER SMITH, REAL QUICK, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. 
          SO THAT WOULD ON THOSE POSITIONS, WE WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE THE JUSTICE CLERKS OR THE
DEPUTY CONSTABLE UNTIL WE DO THAT EVALUATION. 
          IS THAT THOSE WOULD THOSE PER OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION WOULD BE BUDGETED TO START JANUARY
1ST. 
          PERFECT. POST EVALUATION. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAD IT CLEAR. 
          AND THANK YOU SCOTT. I ALSO WANTED TO CLARIFY AT THE END,
AFTER WE'VE HAD ALL THE DISCUSSIONS, WE WILL TAKE A VOTE TO ACTUALLY APPROVE WHAT YOU ALL HAVE AMENDED DURING YOUR
CONVERSATIONS TODAY. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE'S AWARE. 
          YES. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TOWARDS THE END. THAT'S GOOD. 
          NICE AND TIDY. WHAT ELSE? WHAT ABOUT ELECTED OFFICIALS? WE CAN WE CAN SKIP FORWARD TO ELECTED OFFICIALS IF YOU WILL KEEP IT MOVING. 
          YEP. HEY, IF YOU IF YOU OPEN YOUR IF YOU OPEN YOUR FOLDERS TOWARDS THE BACK. 
          I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE LAST DOCUMENTS. 
          YEP. OKAY. YOU SHOULD SEE A NICE COLORED PAPER LIKE THIS. 
          FLIP IT ALL THE WAY UP. TO THE RESERVES. I DON'T HAVE IT. 
          THE LAST PAGE. LET ME GIVE YOU MINE. SORRY. 
          YEAH, THAT SHOULD BE THE LAST TEAM WORK. MIGHTY SORRY. 
          OKAY. DISCUSSING. DISCUSSING THE ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARIES. 
          I DO WANT TO GO AHEAD AND JUST GO OVER IT REAL QUICK. 
          IN THE METHODOLOGY. I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED IT A LITTLE BIT LAST LAST WEEK WITH
COMMISSIONER SMITH'S ITEM. 
          SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS EITHER A 3% OR MARKET,
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT IS GOING TO BE 1% ABOVE THE HIGHEST EMPLOYEE IN THEIR AGENCY. 
          SO, SO FOR THE CONSTABLES, IT'S THEIR INDIVIDUAL CONSTABLE PRECINCT FOR THE SHERIFF'S
OFFICE. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE THE CHIEF BAILEY. YES, SIR. YEP. 
          AND YOU WILL SEE HERE FROM THIS CHART THAT THAT THERE ARE SOME FAIRLY FAIRLY BIG ADVANCES, LEE, ESPECIALLY THAT YOU'LL SEE A A GOOD JUMP THERE,
WHICH I THINK IS BASED OFF THE ZBA. 
          I THINK IT'S MAKES SENSE. COMMISSIONER SMITH ARE YOU STILL OF THE BELIEF THAT THIS WAS THE
PAY? I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT A RAISE. ARE YOU STILL IN THAT LANE FOR THE ELECTEDS? WELL, I THINK THE OVERALL IS FOR MARKET. IT'S 3%. 
          BUT WE ENDED UP WITH AN INDIVIDUAL SAVINGS IF WE WENT WITH THAT FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT
THERE'S GOING TO BE SO MUCH TURNOVER AT THE ELECTED OFFICIAL LEVEL, FOR EXAMPLE, MYSELF, YOURSELF, THE CARDENAS COUNTY CLERK. 
          RIGHT. THERE WAS ABOUT AN $11,000 SAVINGS IF YOU REMEMBER THE ORIGINAL NUMBERS. 
          HOWEVER, IN MAKING THE CHANGE TO THE TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT,
THAT'S WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL INCREASE WAS. 
          BUT I STILL BELIEVE. I MEAN, WE VOTED ON IT LAST WEEK. 
          I STILL THINK IT'S VALID. I'M GOOD WITH IT. I HEAR GOOD WITH IT. 
          LET'S MOVE ON. WE HAVE TO. I KNOW WE HAVE TO VOTE ON AN ACTUAL MOTION ON THAT. 
          CAN YOU, I ASSUME ARE WE GOING TO WAIT UNTIL WE'RE DONE? CAN WE WAIT? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. WE'RE GOING TO WAIT UNTIL WE'RE DONE. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU SCOTT. COMMISSIONER SMITH, I HAVE A I HAVE A MOTION FOR IT. WE'LL DO WE'LL 
          [03:30:02]
DO THEM ALL. WE'LL HIT IT AT THE END. THANK YOU. 
          NEXT. ANYTHING ELSE? I THINK I THINK FOR THE MOST PART FOR ME,
IT'S REALLY JUST ANY QUESTIONS THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF EQUIPMENT THAT WAS ADDED. 
          AS YOU ALL CAN SEE FROM OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE KIND OF KNOW WHAT'S BEEN ADDED AND WE KNOW
WHERE WE STARTED. 
          SO REALLY, REALLY, IT'S OPENING UP TO QUESTIONS AND DIRECTION ABOUT THE AUDITOR SOFTWARE. 
          AND MAYBE, MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE NEXT WEEK AS WELL. 
          I KNOW, I KNOW THAT IT CAME UP WITH A GOOD ANALYSIS. 
          AND REALLY THEIR ANALYSIS IS SHOWING THAT IT'S NOT JUST CHEAPER IN THE SHORT RUN,
WHICH WE ALL THOUGHT IT WOULD BE, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUY A SERVER AND THAT'S GOING TO BE EXPENSIVE,
BUT THAT SERVER SHOULD LAST. WELL, THAT SERVER IS $150,000 COMPARED TO THE $40,000 ANNUAL COST OF GOING TO THE CLOUD. 
          AND HOW LONG WILL THAT SERVER LAST? THREE YEARS? FIVE YEARS, I BELIEVE IT'S I BELIEVE IT'S EITHER 3 OR 5 YEARS. 
          IT'S PART OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE IT DIRECTOR HAD. 
          BUT IN HIS EVALUATION, THERE'S ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO BE MAINTENANCE BOTH BY A NEW WORLD OR
I SAY NEW WORLD, BUT IT'S REALLY. TYLER. YES, BOTH BY TYLER AS WELL AS OUR STAFF WILL HAVE TO SERVICE THAT
SERVER AS WELL. 
          SO, SO IT DOES ADD DOLLARS TO THAT. SO YOU'RE,
YOU'RE PROMOTING THE CLOUD COMMISSIONERS ON THIS SIDE. 
          ANYTHING TO CONTRIBUTE? I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU GAVE A REALLY GOOD EXPLANATION,
SCOTT, TO ME EVEN PRIOR TO THIS. 
          AND SO I'M GOOD WITH THAT. I'M GOOD TOO. THANK YOU. 
          I SERIOUSLY, I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MARISOL. MARISOL. 
          GABRIELA ALONSO, HAYS COUNTY AUDITOR. JUST FOR THE PUBLIC,
OUR SYSTEM IS CALLED NEW WORLD ERP AND IT IS A TODDLER PRODUCT. 
          AND THAT PRODUCT BASICALLY IS OUR GENERAL LEDGER. 
          BUT NOT EVEN WITH OUR GENERAL LEDGER. IT'S ALSO OUR PURCHASING OFFICE. 
          OUR TREASURER DOES HER RECEIPTING WITH THE SYSTEM. 
          OUR BUDGET OFFICE DOES THEIR BUDGETING WITH THE SYSTEM,
AND WE ALSO TRACK OUR GRANTS AND PROJECT ACCOUNTING WITHIN THAT SYSTEM. 
          THE SYSTEM ALSO ASSISTS ME IN THE PREPARATION OF OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
          AND SO BY STATUTE, THE COUNTY AUDITOR HAS TO MAINTAIN THE GENERAL LEDGER FOR THE COUNTY. 
          AND SO THAT IS THE SYSTEM THAT WE'VE BEEN USING FOR A WHILE. 
          WE HAVE, STARTED TALKING ABOUT A NEW ERP SYSTEM,
WHICH WILL BE VERY COSTLY TO THE COUNTY. 
          AND SO BY CONTINUING WITH NEW WORLD, WITH THIS SYSTEM AND THEN GOING TO THE CLOUD,
WHICH I BELIEVE SECURITY WISE IS SAFER WE DO HOLD EMPLOYEE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND BANKING INFORMATION WITHIN THE
SYSTEM. 
          SO I DID SPEAK TO THE IT DIRECTOR AND, YOU KNOW,
TELL HIM THAT I HAVE NIGHTMARES ABOUT BEING HACKED. 
          AND SO THIS WAS ONE OF HIS SOLUTIONS AS WELL,
IS HAVING THE INFORMATION SECURED THROUGH THE CLOUD. 
          AND HE DID DO HIS ANALYSIS. AND, YOU KNOW, IT IS MORE COST EFFICIENT TO GO TO THE CLOUD A
NEW SYSTEM. 
          WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT IT, IT, WE LOOKED AT OTHER COUNTIES SIMILAR TO OUR SIZE AND
THERE FOR A NEW SYSTEM, IT'S ABOUT $6 MILLION. AND SO WE'RE NOT READY OBVIOUSLY TO GO TO A NEW SYSTEM. 
          AND SO WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT THE COURT WILL CONSIDER THE CLOUD AS A GOOD SECURITY FOR NEW
WORLD, AND WILL CONTINUE WITH NEW WORLD FOR A COUPLE MORE YEARS. 
          WHEN WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOFTWARE AND THIS,
I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO PERTAIN TO YOURS EXACTLY, BUT I'D LIKE TO INSTRUCT AND COURT LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU ALL THINK. 
          BUT THE GOODNESS GRACIOUS, THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S OFFICE TO LOOK AT ALL OF OUR
SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTIONS, ALL OF OUR CONTRACTS, AND SEE WHERE WE STAND WITH ALL OF THEM,
BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT IS WAY OVERDUE. 
          AND WE NEED TO SEE HOW MANY SUBSCRIPTIONS WE HAVE. 
          AND IF WE'RE OVERSUBSCRIBING AND WE COULD JUST HAVE A LICENSURE. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT EACH DEPARTMENT PROBABLY WANTS TO CONTROL THEIR OWN SYSTEM,
BUT FROM THE BENEFIT OF THE COUNTY, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO DO LICENSURE RATHER THAN AGREED. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. I KNOW, I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME DUPLICATION DUPLICATION
BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS. 
          I FEEL LIKE THERE'S MAYBE EVEN SOMETIMES DUPLICATION WITHIN DEPARTMENTS. 
          SO I THINK THAT A HOLISTIC APPROACH AT LOOKING AT SOME OF THAT WOULD BE VERY GOOD. 
          THAT'S ACTUALLY WORKING WITH CHRIS. WHENEVER WE BROUGHT CHRIS ON BOARD AND HE CAME IN AND
SAT DOWN AND DID ONE ON ONES WITH EACH OF US, THAT WAS ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS CONVERSATIONS. CAN WE MAKE THAT? CAN WE ARE WE ALL IN FAVOR OF CONSTRUCTING CANDICE'S OFFICE? YES, MA'AM. CHRIS, I CAN BRING RECOMMENDATIONS BACK. 
          ONE OTHER QUESTION. I KNOW THAT AS PART OF OUR MANAGEMENT OF OF INDIVIDUAL TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS, 
          [03:35:04]
WE NOW HAVE THE ABILITY ON A DASHBOARD TO GO IN AND DO ALMOST REAL TIME LOOKS AT WHAT
THOSE BUDGETS LOOK LIKE AND HOW, HOW THEY CAN BE ADJUSTED. IF YOU NEED MORE MONEY IN RIGHT AWAY OR YOU SPENT LESS ON
UTILITY RELOCATION, HOW WE CAN REALLOCATE THAT INTO THE INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF THAT PROJECT. 
          I KNOW THAT OUR SYSTEM CURRENTLY DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY SUPPORT THAT. 
          I KNOW THERE'S SOME FIREWALLS THERE. MY QUESTION IS,
WITH THIS UPGRADE, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO GET THAT IN REAL TIME, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'VE EVEN CONSIDERED? SO WHAT WE DO IN ORDER TO GET THE
INFORMATION TO THE DASHBOARD IS WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE TUESDAY WHEN THE COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVES THE INVOICES AND THE DISBURSEMENTS. AND THEN WE SEND A REPORT
TO THE COMPANY SO THAT THEY CAN UPLOAD THE DASHBOARD. 
          THE DASHBOARD, IT DOES NOT EXTRACT THE DATA BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT IT TO EXTRACT THE DATA
UNTIL IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS COURT. 
          SO WE LIKE TO CONTROL WHAT THE DATA, WHEN IT LEAVES THE DATE,
WHEN IT LEAVES, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GIVE DATA OUT IF IT'S APPROVED BY COURT. 
          AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST A REMINDER THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF SELECTING THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM WITH THE COUNTY AUDITOR. 
          AND SO I'VE BEEN TALKING TO CANDACE ABOUT WHEN IT'S TIME TO START LOOKING AT A NEW SYSTEM
AND, YOU KNOW, SETTING UP A COMMITTEE BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE STAKEHOLDERS THAN JUST THE AUDITOR'S
OFFICE WHO IS USING THIS SOFTWARE. 
          AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE START LOOKING AT NEW SOFTWARE,
THAT ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS ARE INVOLVED AS WELL. 
          THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. ANYTHING ELSE SCOTT? GUYS, I DO WANT TO COVER ONE THING WITH THE COURT. 
          IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED UP UNTIL THIS POINT. 
          AND THAT WOULD BE THE SOCIAL SERVICE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING AND
THAT HAVE NOW BEEN PROPOSED THROUGH THE BUDGET. 
          I DO WANT TO SAY, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A TOUGH YEAR AND THE THE BUDGET WAS TIGHT THIS YEAR,
WE WE DID WHAT WE COULD TO STICK TO $1 MILLION, WHICH IS TRADITIONALLY WHAT WE HAVE GIVEN OUT,
AND WE GAVE IT OUT TO, I BELIEVE, APPROXIMATELY 33. 
          I BELIEVE DIFFERENT ENTITIES GAVE VARYING AMOUNTS. 
          WE DID DO A FULL EVALUATION IN THE SENSE THAT WE HAD THREE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS SCORING
THE THE DIFFERENT NON-PROFITS. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO WENT THROUGH AND WE LOOKED AT TRADITIONALLY WHAT'S BEEN RECEIVED AND
WHAT'S BEEN GIVEN AND DID AN ANALYSIS BASED OFF THAT. 
          SO, AND THAT SCHEDULE IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE SECOND TO LAST SCHEDULES IN THE BINDER. 
          AND FEEL FREE TO PERUSE AT YOUR WILL AND ASK ANY QUESTIONS. 
          BUT IN SUMMARY, IT'S AS PREVIOUS YEARS. YES,
SIR. 
          THAT'S GOOD. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THAT,
MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE THOUGH, WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE REPORTS FROM THEM, BOTH FINANCIAL AS WELL AS AS WELL AS FUNCTIONAL,
SEEING WHAT THEY'RE DOING, SEEING IF THEY'RE STICKING TO THEIR PURPOSE AND WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO USE OUR MONEY FOR. AND THEN THAT WILL BE HEAVILY WEIGHED INTO FUTURE
EVALUATIONS. 
          OKAY. QUESTIONS ON THOSE COMMISSIONER. THAT'S FANTASTIC. 
          I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN NEEDING FOR A WHILE. 
          THAT OVERSIGHT AND MAKING SURE THAT THE WORK AND THE DOLLARS ALIGN WITH OUR IDENTIFIED
NEEDS AS A COUNTY. 
          RIGHT. SO YEAH, EXACTLY. I THINK SO TOO. AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY STICKING WITH OUR
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES TO HELP AND BENEFIT THE COUNTY. 
          YEAH. COMMISSIONER SMITH ANYTHING TO ADD? NO,
I JUST I WANTED TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TONS OF WE GET TONS OF APPLICATIONS FOR THIS FUNDING AND THERE ARE NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT,
THERE ARE ORGANIZATIONS THAT JUST ARE NOT GOING TO BE FUNDED EITHER FOR REASONS OF, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T HAVE A HISTORY. 
          MAYBE THEY'RE BRAND NEW. MAYBE THEY HAVE OTHER CONCERNS. 
          BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT THE COMMITTEE THAT DID THIS DID A REALLY GOOD JOB OF EVALUATING
THEM. 
          AND I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM NOW AND A PROCESS WHERE WE CAN COLLECT THAT DATA. 
          I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WON'T BE ME BECAUSE I WON'T BE HERE. 
          BUT WHENEVER THOSE APPLICATIONS COME IN NEXT YEAR. 
          REALLY HAVING A GOOD SYSTEM OF WHATEVER THAT DATA THAT WAS COLLECTED OVER THE PREVIOUS
YEAR WAS UP, AND POSSIBLY PUTTING SOMEONE FROM THE COURT ON THERE TO,
TO OFFER, YOU KNOW, OFFER SOME GUIDANCE WITH INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE ON WHO THESE, WHO THESE ORGANIZATIONS ARE AND WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST. 
          YEAH, GREAT POINT, COMMISSIONER SMITH. AND I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT AS WELL,
THAT EVERYBODY THAT SUBMITTED HAD A GREAT NONPROFIT, HAD A GREAT PURPOSE FOR THEIR ORGANIZATION. UNFORTUNATELY,
THERE'S ONLY SO MANY DOLLARS AND WE COULD ONLY AWARD SO MANY. 
          [03:40:03]
YEAH. OKAY. SO IF YOU HAVE NOTHING ELSE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN
GRAB YOUR MOTIONS. 
          WELL, ONE SECOND, I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THE LAST PAGES. 
          OKAY. WE THIS WAS KIND OF PUT TOGETHER ON THE FLY. 
          I KNOW THIS BY HEART. LET ME GIVE YOU MY FOLDER. 
          THANK YOU. SO IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU? I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING,
AND THEN YOU SHARE THE MOTIONS. 
          YES, JUDGE. THAT'S PERFECT. OKAY, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE. 
          COMMISSIONERS. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT,
THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF THAT AND ALL WE HAVE LEFT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, WHILE WE GET THESE MOTIONS CIRCULATED,
IF YOU CAN OPEN, LET ME MAKE SURE I PUT MY HANDS ON IT. 
          YES. EXCUSE ME. JUDGE. YES, SIR. IF YOU COULD OPEN THE SHERIFF'S REPORT,
THEY TAKE THE TIME TO GIVE IT TO ME. 
          I'M GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TO READ IT. L ONE DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE HAYS COUNTY INMATE
POPULATION TO INCLUDE CURRENT POPULATION COUNTS AND COSTS. 
          [L. STANDING AGENDA ITEMS ]
THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE SENDS MY OFFICE OUR JAIL CAPACITY REPORT. 
          OUR CURRENT MAXIMUM JAIL CAPACITY IS 464 INMATES. 
          JAIL STANDARDS RECOMMENDS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY 10% OF THAT OPEN,
WHICH LOWERS OUR ACTUAL CAPACITY TO 417. 
          THE JAIL'S DAILY AVERAGE WAS, HOWEVER, 519, AND PEAK WAS 530 ON AUGUST 20TH. 
          THE ESTIMATED COST FOR OUTSOURCING INMATES THIS WEEK IS $68,060. 
          THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF OUTSOURCED MALES IS 96 AND FEMALES ARE ZERO. 
          THIS WEEK'S INMATES ARE ALL HOUSED IN HASKELL. 
          WE HAVE 43 PAPER READY INMATES, WHICH ARE THOSE THAT HAVE HAD THEIR DAY IN COURT,
BEEN FOUND GUILTY AND ARE NOW STATE INMATES, WHICH SHOULD BE STATE FUNDED, NOT COUNTY FUNDED. 
          THANK YOU. DID YOU GUYS HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO PASS IT ON YOUR NOTES? YES, SIR. OKAY, WE'RE READY TO GO FIRST. COMMISSIONER INGALSBE,
WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THE MOTIONS FOR THE BUDGET PROCESS? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. LET'S SEE. SO, JUDGE,
THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT THE FY 2027 BUDGET AND LEVY THE TAXES WILL BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2026 AT 11:00 IN THE HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT ROOM,
111 EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SAN MARCOS. SAN MARCOS, TEXAS 78666. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          I MOTION THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO THE FY 2027 PROPOSED BUDGET
AND SET THE FY 2027 ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES AS PRESENTED BY THE COUNTY BUDGET OFFICER. 
          SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN. YES. COMMISSIONER. HAMMER. 
          NO. JUDGE BECERRA. NO. WHAT ELSE? SORRY. I HAVE ONE MORE MOTION I'D LIKE TO MAKE. 
          WAS THERE SOMETHING LEFT OUT OF THE MOTION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? THIS IS FOR. 
          WHAT ITEM ARE WE ENTERING? THE JUDGE. I DID CLOSE THE HEARING. 
          OKAY, SO WE'LL SAY THIS IS ALL FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. 
          DO I NEED TO REOPEN IT? I THINK YOU NEED TO REOPEN IT. CHASE,
MAKE IT COMFORTABLE. 
          I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. NO NEED TO READ IT. I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING TO
NEATLY TUCK AWAY THESE MOTIONS WITHIN IT. 
          DO WE NEED A MOTION TO REOPEN THE HEARING? IF SO,
I MOVE TO REOPEN HEARING AND A SECOND. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. 
          ONE MORE TIME. COMMISSIONER, CAN YOU JUST READ THAT AGAIN JUST TO BE TIDY? 
          [I.5. 1:00 P.M. - Hold a Public Hearing for the Fiscal Year 2026 Hays County Proposed Budget.  BECERRA/WOODLAND (Part 2 of 2)]
SO THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT THE FY 2027 BUDGET AND LEVY THE TAXES WILL BE HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2026 AT 11 A.M. IN THE HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT ROOM,
111 EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SAN MARCOS, TEXAS, 78666. I MOTION THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO THE FY
2027 PROPOSED BUDGET AND SET THE FY 2027 ELECTED OFFICIAL SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES AS PRESENTED BY THE COUNTY BUDGET
OFFICER. 
          SECOND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER. SMITH. COMMISSIONER COHEN. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER HAMER. NO. JUDGE BECERRA. NO. 
          COMMISSIONER AND I MOTION THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT TO SET THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 TAX RATE AT
0.4125 AS FOLLOWS 0.272 GENERAL RATE 0.1029 DEBT RATE AND 0.376 ROAD AND BRIDGE RATE. SO MOVE OR SECOND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          COMMISSIONER SMITH. YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN. YES. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMER. NO. COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. 
          YES. JUDGE. BECERRA. NO. WHAT ELSE? COMMISSIONER COHEN ARE FROM EXECUTIVE. 
          DO YOU NEED A. YES, WE ALREADY DID. EXECUTIVE WE HAVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. 
          OH THAT'S TRUE. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS? TIDE. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. WERE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS TIED TO THE BUDGET? I DON'T THINK SO. I
THINK WE'RE DONE. OKAY. NOW I'M GOING TO CLOSE. AND I KNEW THERE WERE A LOT OF MOVING 
          [03:45:07]
PARTS. I ALMOST COULDN'T KEEP TRACK OF THEM ALL. 
          ALMOST. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING WHEN WE'RE DONE,
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A MOTION FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN GO EAT LUNCH. 
          HOW ABOUT NOW? WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO STATE THEM ALL OVER AGAIN. 
          HOW ABOUT NOW? WE'RE READY. SO, JUDGE, IF YOU COULD. 
          JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE OUTLET. CHASE MAKE HIS COMMENTS. 
          SORRY. SO THERE'S AN IDIOSYNCRASY OF THE THING. 
          ITEM I5 DOES SAY HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY POSSIBLE ACTION MAY
FOLLOW. 
          WHICH MEANS THAT I KNOW THIS IS ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER HOLDING US HOSTAGE,
RIGHT? YEAH. SO ALL THOSE MOTIONS ARE NULL AND VOID. 
          I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE CAN DO THIS ONE. 
          GOT YOU, BROTHER. WE CAN DO IT UNDER F ONE, BUT WE CAN DO THAT. WE NEED YOU TO REOPEN THE
PRESENTATION. 
          THE F ONE. I KNOW THIS IS. YOU'RE GOING TO READ THAT. 
          MOVE TO OPEN THE BUDGET PRESENTATION ITEM ONE. 
          NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. HOLD ON A SECOND. HOLD ON. 
          THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. NO PROBLEM. 
          LISTEN, THESE ARE THE TIDY PIECES, CHASE, THAT WE NEED YOU FOR. 
          MOVE TO OPEN. SO NOW PLEASE OPEN F1F1. PRESENTATION FROM THE BUDGET OFFICER REGARDING THE
FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET. 
          [F.1. Presentation from the Budget Officer regarding the Fiscal Year 2027 Budget. Possible action may follow.  BECERRA/WOODLAND (Part 2 of 2)]
POSSIBLE ACTION MAY FOLLOW. SECOND COMMISSIONER INGALSBE. 
          HOW ABOUT A THIRD TIME? OKAY, HERE WE GO. SO THE FINAL. 
          GOOD CATCH. WHOEVER DID THAT. HEARING ONE SECOND. 
          COMMISSIONER, I HAVE A. I HAVE A QUICK UPDATE. 
          OH, THERE YOU ARE. I KNOW I HEARD IT, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE IT WAS COMING FROM. 
          ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER INGALSBE, LET IT GO. OKAY. 
          SO, JUDGE, THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT THE FY 2027 BUDGET AND LEVY THE TAXES WILL BE
HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2026 AT 11:00 IN THE HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT. 
          111 COURTROOM 111 EAST SAN ANTONIO STREET, SAN MARCOS,
TEXAS 78666. 
          I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO THE FY 2027
PROPOSED BUDGET AND SET THE FY 2027 ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES AS PRESENTED BY THE COUNTY
BUDGET OFFICER. 
          SECOND, FOR THE THIRD TIME, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER COHEN. YES. COMMISSIONER. HAMMER. 
          NO. JUDGE BECERRA. NO. OKAY. AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT TO
SET THE FISCAL RATE FISCAL. OH MY GOODNESS. LET ME START ALL OVER. 
          I MOTION THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT TO SET THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 TAX RATE AT 0.4125 AS FOLLOWS 0.272 GENERAL RATE 0.1029 DEBT RATE AND 0.0376 ROAD AND BRIDGE RATE. SECOND, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          COMMISSIONER SMITH. YES. COMMISSIONER. COHEN. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER HAMER. NO. COMMISSIONER INGALSBE. 
          YES. JUDGE. BOCCHETTA. NO. COMMISSIONER COHEN THANK YOU. 
          JUDGE, I HAVE TWO MOTIONS. I'M GOING TO JUST READ THEM. 
          YOU BET. PERFECT. THIS IS REGARDS TO K ONE MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE HAYS COUNTY CRIMINAL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S CIVIL DIVISION TO TERMINATE THE INTERLOCAL 
          [Additional Item]
COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN HAYS COUNTY AND THE SUNFIELD MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS ONE,
THREE AND FOUR, TITLED INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN HAYS COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL DISTRICT. 
          NUMBER FOUR REGARDING MAINTENANCE OF ROADS WITHIN SUNFIELD EXECUTED ON APRIL 27TH,
2021, BY THE HAYS COUNTY JUDGE AND EXECUTED ON MAY 12TH, 2021, BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SUNFIELD MUNICIPAL DISTRICT NUMBER
FOUR. 
          MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE HAYS COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CIVIL DIVISION TO
INITIATE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTIES. 
          TO ENJOIN UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION BY THIRD PARTIES OR PARTIES WITHIN AND OR SURROUNDING
THE SUNFIELD OR SUN CREEK SUBDIVISION IN PRECINCT TWO. 
          SECOND, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE WERE TWO MOTIONS READ,
AND THAT SECOND WILL CARRY FOR BOTH. 
          PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. COMMISSIONER COHEN. YES. 
          COMMISSIONER HAMER. YES. COMMISSIONER. INGALSBE. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER. SMITH. YES. JUDGE BECERRA. 
          YES. COMMISSIONER SMITH. MOVE TO ADJOURN. ENJOY THE REST OF YOUR DAY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.