[00:00:05]
ALRIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL MEETINGS IN ORDER.I BELIEVE WE HAVE A FORUM PRESENT.
THANKS TO EVERYBODY FOR BEING, UH, PRESENT TODAY.
WE HAVE, UH, A COUPLE OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA AND UH, THE FIRST ONE IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER A RESOLUTION, UH, CONSIDERING OPTIONS FOR THE A TS CAMERA SAFETY PROGRAM.
AND JUDGE WILEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION? I HAVE THREE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO LET THEM SPEAK FIRST? SURE.
UH, FIRST IS JOHN PUT YOU IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER, JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOW.
AND FIRST IS JOHN COOK AND HE WISHES TO TALK ON THE A TS CAMERAS.
I APPRECIATE BEING HERE TOO, JUST LIKE YOU GUYS PROBABLY DO.
UH, HERE WE'RE ONCE AGAIN DISCUSSING THE FINANCIAL CANCER TO OUR COUNTY, OUR, OUR CONTRACT WITH AMERICAN TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS.
SEVERAL PEOPLE APPEARED BEFORE THIS COURT, BEFORE THIS KELLY CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO AND PRACTICALLY BEGGED THE COURT NOT TO GO IN, NOT TO ENTER INTO THIS CONTRACT.
IN ALL FAIRNESS TO YOU COMMISSIONERS HERE TODAY, THERE WAS TWO, UH, THAT WERE HERE THAT ARE NOT HERE ANYMORE.
BUT ANYWAY, UM, JIMMY LIK, AND, AND KEN SHANE VOTED AGAINST HENRY TO THIS CONTRACT.
HOWEVER, JUDGE WOOD WITH THOSE TWO VOTED FOR IT.
JUDGE WOOD, YOU ARE, YOU AND A LADY REPRESENTING THE AT TS BOTH SAID THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY COST TO THE COUNTY.
WHAT HAS CHANGED AND WHY IS THERE NOW A COST? WE TOOK YOU AT YOUR WORK.
AS I RECALL, COMMISSIONER ZALE POINTED OUT THE SPECIFIC PARAGRAPHS WHICH DETAILED THE COST TO THIS COURT AS WELL AS TO COUNTY ATTORNEY JOHN LONG WAS COUNTY ATTORNEY JOHN LONG WORKING FOR BAKER STAFF LAW FIRM AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY AND THEN WAS BIGGER STAFF REPRESENTING A TS IN THIS CONTRACT.
I URGE YOU TO SEEK AN OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE ON THE LEGALITY OF THIS TYPE OF OPERATION AGAINST OUR CITIZENS.
IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH THE LEGALITY OF THIS CONTRACT, AND PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE A TS COLLECT THEIR TOYS OF DEBT AND PLAY SOMEWHERE ELSE WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY THEM ANY MORE THAN WE ARE ALREADY HAVE, PLEASE ASK FOR THE AG OPINION.
IF YOU DO NOT, IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HIDE ANYTHING, THEN I THINK YOU WILL IN OTHER APPRECIATE, UH, SOMEONE LOOKING AT THIS THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO REALLY, UH, KNOW THE LAW AS FAR AS THE STATE IS CONCERNED.
SO I THANK YOU GUYS, THE WORK YOU DO, AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US.
MAY WE HAVE A COPY OF YOUR COMMENTS? UH, I CAN, I CAN GET YOU A COPY.
EACH OF YOU? PARDON? EACH OF YOU.
AND IF YOU WANT TO GET IT TO ME, I'LL MAKE SURE EVERY COMMISSIONER GETS IT.
NEXT IS I BELIEVE MS. JOIE, UH, YOU CAN, YOU'RE NEXT IN OUT ORDER AND YOU, UH, DON'T, YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS ITEM NUMBER ONE ON THE JUDGE WOOD, THE COMMISSIONERS.
UH, WHEN COMMISSIONER LIK WHEN YOU SPOKE OUT AGAINST THIS PROGRAM, YOU WERE RIGHT ALL WRONG.
YOU POINTED OUT FROM THE BEGINNING THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE AN ENORMOUS COST TO THE TAXPAYERS AND APPEARS THAT THE DAY OF REVENUE IS HERE.
AND IT APPEARS THAT YOU LIED TO ALL OF THE
THE PROOF IS IN THE MEETING HERE TODAY.
GIVEN THE RECENT RULING OF THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT ON THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS IN RICHARDSON, I THINK IT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY APPROVED THING TO DO TO REQUEST AN OPINION FROM THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF THIS CONTRACT.
IF THEIR OPINION IS THAT IT IS NOT A LEGAL CONTRACT, THEN THE TAXPAYERS ARE SPARED FROM THE OUTRAGEOUS, AN EGREGIOUS PENALTY FOR GETTING OUT OF THIS CONTRACT.
IF THEY RULE IT TO BE A VALID CONTRACT, THEN DO YOU THEN DO WHAT? YOU MUST STOP TO STOP THE HEMORRHAGING OF OUR TAXPAYERS TAKEN OF OUR TAX DOLLARS, EXCUSE ME, TAKEN FROM US BY FORCE AS OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING FOR OUR BEST INTEREST, NOT THAT OF A TS.
IF THIS KEEPS JUST ONE CITIZEN
[00:05:01]
FROM LOSING THEIR PROPERTY DUE TO TAXES THEY CANNOT AFFORD, THEN IT'LL BE WORTH THE WAIT FOR AN OPINION.AND, UH, LIKEWISE, IF YOU WOULD PROVIDE, IF YOU DON'T MIND A COPY OF YOUR, UH, REMARKS, BUT WE CAN HAVE THEM FOR THE RECORD, THAT WOULD BE NICE AS WELL.
AND HE ALSO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE A TS UH, ISSUED.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS FOR, FOR YOUR TIME.
APPRECIATE THE INVITE TO COME OVER HERE AND SPEAK WHENEVER WE HAVE A CONCERN.
I WAS HERE IN THIS COURTROOM WHENEVER CO COUNTY COMMISSIONER SAID THAT IT WOULDN'T COST US A D FOR THIS A S WE FOUND OUT THAT IN, DOWN IN SMITH COUNTY, SMITH COUNTY SPENT $46,000 JUST IN LEGAL FEES JUST TO, TO, UH, TO GET THIS CONTRACT GOING AND, AND, AND GET IT THROUGH.
UH, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT, UH, WHAT WE HEARD THAT DAY.
NOW, JUDGE WOODS, THE COURTROOM WAS PACKED WHEN YOU TOLD THE CITIZENS THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY THAT IN HOUSTON.
AND I QUOTE FROM THIS NEWSPAPER ALREADY, A TS NO DOUBT WANTS THAT MONEY TO GO TO THE COURT AND GET IT.
THAT'S WHAT THE COMPANY DID IN HOUSTON.
AFTER THE VOTERS THEN BAN THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS, THEY, THEY VOTED TO BAN IT IN 2010, SUING FOR $25 MILLION IN DAMAGE.
IT ULTIMATELY SETTLED FOR THE, UH, WITH THE CITY FOR $4.8 MILLION.
UH, AND, AND THEY FINALLY HAD TO SETTLE FOR A MILLION DOLLARS.
THE PERCEPTION IS THE CONTRACT IS ILLEGAL TO START WITH AND WE BEG YOU NOT TO SIGN.
AS FOR ME, I DON'T WANNA SEE ONE PENNY OF THAT MONEY TO GO TO ANYBODY IN A TS I'D RATHER YOU TO SAY RIGHT HERE IN KAMAN COUNTY WHERE BELONG.
HOW MUCH MONEY IS THAT GONNA COST US? WE REALLY WANT TO KNOW, AT THE VERY LEAST, WE WANT THE A TF OPINION.
AND ALSO, IF YOU DON'T MIND GIVING US A COPY OF YOUR, UH, REMARKS.
WHEN YOU HAVE A CHANCE, RONNIE OLDFIELD, UH, WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE A TS CAMERA SAFETY CODE.
YOU KNOW, ASK FOR, UH, RELAYS THE STORY OF JOHN AND PAUL'S APPEARANCE BEFORE, BETWEEN, UH, BEFORE THE SANH AND THE PHARISEES TO GIVE AN ACCOUNT FOR THEIR HEALING OF A MAN WHO HAD BEEN CRIPPLED SINCE BIRTH FOR APPROXIMATELY 40 YEARS.
AFTER GIVING THEIR DEFENSE, PETER AND JOHN WENT BACK TO THEIR CHURCH, THE FIRST CHURCH AND THE CHURCH STARTED PRAYING.
AND PART OF THAT PRAYER IS REPORTED IN ACTS 4 29 AND 30.
AND NOW LORD, TAKE NOTE OF THEIR THREATS AND GRANT THAT YOUR BOND SERVICE MAY SPEAK YOUR WORD WITH ALL CONFIDENCE WHILE YOU EXTEND YOUR HAND TO HEAL AND SIGNS AND WONDERS TAKE PLACE THROUGH THE NAME OF YOUR HOLY JESUS.
YOU KNOW, PARAGRAPH 4.1 OF THE CONTRACT READS THAT A TS SHALL ESTABLISH A DEDICATED BANK ACCOUNT.
THE DEDICATED ACCOUNT INTO WHICH RECEIPTS FOR VIOLATIONS WILL BE DEPOSITED.
A TS SHALL WITHDRAW AND RETAIN ITS MONTHLY SERVICE FEES FROM THE ACCOUNT.
A TS SHALL PAY THE CUSTOMER NO LABOR THAN THE 20TH DAY OF EACH MONTH.
THE CUSTOMERS SHARE OF THE REVENUE FROM THE PRECEDING MONTH FROM THE DEDICATION COUNTY.
EACH MONTH ATFS WILL REVEAL TO THE CUSTOMER AND THE COUNTY OF THE PROCEEDING MONTHS COLLECTIONS AND SERVICE FEES.
IT'S NOT A DIRECT FULL CUSTODY PROCESS.
YOU KNOW THAT PROVISION OF THE CONTRACT VIOLATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
THESE FINES AND FEES WERE COLLECTED THROUGH LAW ENFORCEMENT OF KAUFMAN COUNTY.
THEY ARE FIRINGS AND FEES THAT ARE DUE TO KAUFMAN COUNTY ON A HUNDRED PERCENT BASIS.
I'VE CONSISTENTLY, GENTLY MADE THIS POINT TO THE COURT THAT THE COURT MUST RESOLVE ATSS FAILURE TO DEPOSIT 100% OF THE FEES COLLECTED WITH THE COUNTY TREASURER.
GRANTED, A TS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT AN INVOICE TO RECEIVE THAT MONEY BACK.
THIS IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THIS VIOLATES LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
IF IN THE SETTLEMENT PROVISIONS OF THE
[00:10:01]
CONTRACT, MY INTEREST IS TO MAKE SURE THAT A TS COMPLIES WITH THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE DEPOSIT WITH THE COUNTY TREASURER, THE FUNDS COLLECTED THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN DEPOSITED, SO THAT THIS PROCESS COULD BE FORCED TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT PAY.SINCE THIS HAS NOT OCCURRED TODAY.
AND AGAIN, ONCE AGAIN, IF THERE'S ANY DOUBT, UH, OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY CAN SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE COURT FOR AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS RESOLUTION MUST TAKE PLACE MONEY MUST.
LIKEWISE, IF YOU HAVE REMARKS YOU COULD GIVE US, THAT WOULD BE BE A GOOD THING TOO.
ALRIGHT, I BELIEVE NOW WE'LL GO TO JUDGE WHITELEY.
ARE YOU GOING BE THE FOLKS WE CAN TALK TOGETHER IF YOU MIND TWO.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP AND SURE.
THIS BE ON ITEM UH, ONE AND WE'RE DISCUSSING EVOLUTION OPTION FOR THE AT TS CAMERA.
LEMME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND.
WE HAVE ITEMS ONE AND TWO ON A TS, LEMME GET BACK IN A LITTLE ROOM UP HERE.
TWO, WE GOT ITEMS ONE AND TWO.
FRANKLY I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO ONE AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE PREPARED TO SPEAK TO TWO AND THAT IT'LL BECOME RELEVANT, ONE AS WE MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WE NEED TO NAIL DOWN SOME MORE SPECIFIC TERMS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO RUSH ANYTHING.
AFTER GOING THROUGH THREE WITH Y'ALL, Y'ALL WANT GO, IF YOU DON'T WANT THE OPTION OF FINALIZING MR SETTLEMENT, THEN I CAN QUIT THE TIME BETWEEN ME AND ATS.
SO I WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE THE LAST TIME WE TALKED YOU AS THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT SINCE IT'S NO LONGER ATTORNEY CLIENT BECAUSE IT WAS SAID IN EXECUTIVE ABOUT THE AMOUNT TO SETTLE.
'CAUSE I CAN HEAR THE CONCERN.
I THINK IT'S A RIGHTEOUS CONCERN.
I'M NOT TAKING ISSUE WITH THE COMMUNITY.
BUT THERE WAS, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSIONERS DID NOT WANT TO ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT THAT EXCEEDED ANYTHING THAT WOULD THAT S AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS I HAD TO DO WITH THE AUDITOR IS TO GET THAT NUMBER BECAUSE IT WAS A MOVING NUMBER IN.
I DIDN'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE NUMBER WAS BECAUSE I'VE REALLY NEVER LOOKED AT THAT ACCOUNT.
SO I WOULD SAY APPROXIMATELY THE NET PROCEEDS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED IS 200,000, 198 I THINK IS THE NUMBER I SAW AND THE SETTLEMENT THAT Y'ALL APPROVED.
THAT WAS THE MARCHING ORDERS I HAD AND I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHEN THAT WAS IT MAYBE TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO.
SO WITH THAT WAS WORKING OUT WHAT THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE AS Y'ALL POINTED OUT THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE MAY HERE IN COURT THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO PAY OVER.
YOU'VE GOT STORIES OF HOW OTHER PEOPLE PAY MILLIONS AND WE'VE ALL AGREED THAT POTENTIALLY THAT COULD HAPPEN.
I MEAN THAT, I MEAN ANYTHING'S POSSIBLE.
SO SETTLEMENT SEEM LIKE AN IDEA.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER OPTIONS THAT I'VE HEARD PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY TALK ABOUT.
AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND OF COURSE THE DECISION OF WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO GO FORWARD AND LEAVE IT TO THE LAWYERS TO FINISH UP THE TERMS. WE WILL TELL YOU THE PROS AND CONS WHERE WE THINK WE ARE WITH THE SETTLEMENT AND THEN TELL YOU THE PROS AND CONS OF THE OTHER IDEAS.
SO LET'S WALK THROUGH WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THREE OPTIONS.
ONE THING I WANT YOU TO DO THAT WAS SAID AND I I THINK IT'S WHY THE ATTORNEY JOURNAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS IS, UM, OUR LEAD, UH, LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE STATE AS FAR AS ATTORNEY.
AND SO I'M NOT PUTTING MY CREDENTIALS AGAINST THEIR OFFICE, BUT YOU KNOW, I, I THINK I CAN READ THE LAW AND UNDERSTAND IT.
SOME PEOPLE MAY TAKE ISSUES SINCE JOHN LONG DID WORK FOR ME AT THE TIME AND Y'ALL DISAGREE WITH THAT.
SO I'M JUST GONNA GIVE YOU WHAT I BELIEVE IS MY READING AND WITH REBECCA TO JOIN IN.
ALSO, WE HAVE HAD A CONTRACT THAT YOU GUYS HAD AGREED AND UNDER THAT CONTRACT WHEN AND WHEN, 'CAUSE THIS WAS SO IMPORTANT, I WENT BACK TO THEM TO GO OVER THE SETTLEMENT TERMS BECAUSE I WANTED ANOTHER SET OF HEADS ON IT.
'CAUSE I KNOW WITH THE BILL WE'LL SEE HOW THAT TURNS OUT TO GO BACK OVER AS TO THERE'S EVENING YOU MET.
SO I WANT TO KNOW YOU TO KNOW WAY OF WHICH WE'VE GIVEN CONSIDERATION AND THE OTHER PLAYERS BUT NOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO BE FAIR.
SO I THINK ONE OF THE OPTIONS, AND I BELIEVE UH, COMMISSIONER ROSALE HAD TALKED TO REBECCA, WHICH GAVE US THIS OPTION.
AND I ALSO BELIEVE HE EITHER RELAYED OR MS. SHANE RELATED TO REBECCA THE OPTION.
I WANNA MAKE SURE I SAY IT RIGHT.
[00:15:01]
AND I THINK I'VE HEARD SOME OF PERHAPS PEOPLE THAT SUPPORT THAT POSITION REQUEST AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE PROGRAM.SO, SO LET'S JUST SAY, AND WE HAVE SOME REASON I'M NOT COMMENTING WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WOULD DO AND I KNOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CANNOT COMMENT ON WHAT THEY WOULD DO BECAUSE IT WOULD BE UNSEEMLY TO COMMENT ON A DECISION BEFORE IT'S SUBMITTED.
NOBODY COULD TELL YOU THAT IF THEY DID, DON'T, IT'S, YOU CAN'T RELY ON IT.
WELL WHAT YOU CAN RELY ON LEGALLY IS PRECEDENT IN COURTS.
IT'S THE SAME PRINCIPLE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ISSUE WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
SO WE CAN ASSUME NOT BASED ON WHAT THEY SAID, BASED ON THE DECISION AND OPINION THAT THEY GAVE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION THAT I BELIEVE THAT I GOT THROUGH EMAIL FROM REBECCA REGARDING AN INSURANCE CAMERA THAT WAS SET UP.
AND IN THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERALS FOUND THAT TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
AND SO WE KNOW FROM THE HISTORY THAT THE COURT IS LEANING THAT WAY.
SO I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT ISSUE IS RIGHT AND COULD PERHAPS BE FAVORABLE.
BUT GOOD SENSE SAYS THAT'S NOT A BAD OPTION FOR THAT.
SO LET'S SAY YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT, YOU GET OR WHAT SOME WARRANT IS.
I'M, I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY, I'M JUST SAYING COLLECTIVELY IS ARGUMENT WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THAT? THAT DOESN'T TURN THE CAMERAS OFF? THAT DOESN'T STOP THE CONTRACT.
IN FACT, WHAT YOU DO WITH THAT IS YOU DO A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IN COURT.
OKAY? STATING WHAT THAT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THAT'S HOW WE WILL PROCEED.
AND WE HAVE TO HAVE A COURT MAKE THAT DECISION THROUGH THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT.
AND AS Y'ALL KNOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S NOT A COURT OF LAW, IT'S NOT THE LEGISLATURE AND WE DON'T MEAN TO BORE Y OFF WITH A HISTORY LETTER ABOUT THE THREE BRANCHES OF THE GOVERNMENT AND HOW THEY ALL CO-EXIST.
SO IT'S AN, IT'S FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND WE'VE BEEN GIVING AN OPINION THROUGH THEIR EXECUTIVE DECISION AND WE CAN RELY ON IT WHEN WE CAN USE IT FOR PERSUASION.
AND FRANKLY I THINK THAT FROM UH, THE PRIOR LEGISLATIVE ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE MOON.
I THINK OTHER PEOPLE ARE SEEING THIS AND IT'S ON THE MOON TO SEE THIS IN COUNTY, IT'S UNWORKABLE.
WE'VE GOT UM, ALL MR. OFIELD THAT SPOKE ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT I THINK THEY CANNOT RESOLVE.
I THINK HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
IT IS UNRESOLVED ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY ISSUE FOR AN EXAMPLE.
BUT WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO TAKE AN ACTION WITH THAT.
AND I JUST WANNA REMIND FOLKS, AS A LAWYER YOU CAN GET SOMETHING AS A LAY PERSON, WE GET THE ATTORNEY OPINION BUT WE GOTTA ACT ON IT.
NOW WE DID NOT ACT ON IT, BUT THEN WE'RE WAITING FOR THEM TO DO NOTHING.
ARE WE IN THE SAME POSTURE OR WE JUST WAITING AND WE EXPOSE OURSELVES.
WHAT I DON'T LIKE ABOUT THAT THE MOST IS NOT THE ATTORNEY
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
'CAUSE IF I WAS A BETTING WOMAN, I'M NOT BECAUSE I HAVE KIDS IN COLLEGE, I CAN'T AFFORD TO BET AND IT'S LEAVING IN TEXAS IS THAT, I WOULD SAY IT MIGHT BE FAVORABLE BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO ACT.
AND AS WE ACT, WE LOSE THE CLOAK OF SOVEREIGN UNION, IF YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING.
ARE WE GONNA PLAY OFFENSE? ARE WE GONNA PLAY DEFENSE? I LIKE TAKING THINGS OFFENSIVELY.
BUT WHEN YOU TAKE ON OFFENSE AND YOU DECLARE A DECK ACTION, WE DO LOSE OUR CLOAK OF COMMUNITIES BY THAT SUIT.
AND THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT I HAVE AND I CAN'T RECONCILE IT AND I'VE THOUGHT THROUGH IT.
UM, THE A TS WON'T FOLLOW THE TERRITORY JUDGMENT BECAUSE PRIVATE PARTIES CANNOT CIRCUMVENT THE STATE SORE BEAUTY FROM THE SUIT BY CHARACTERIZING THE SUIT FOR MONEY.
DAN, THAT IS SUCH AS A CONTRACT DISPUTE.
SO THEY'RE NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
WE GOT AN AG OPINION, WE'RE ARRIVED, WE WON THE MORAL HIGH GROUND.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS? OKAY, THAT'S JUST, AND SO I JUST THINK ABOUT THAT WALL THERE.
ANYTHING I'M MISSING UNDER THAT ONE OTHER THAN IF YOU WERE TO ACTUALLY FILE THE DEATH ACTION, THE CONTRACT IT AND IT'S TERRITORY.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE CLEAR, IT WOULD STILL EXIST.
SO IF THE COURT FOUND THAT A PIECE OF IT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IT WAS AN INTEGRAL PART AND WE, BUT IT WOULD BE THEN THE SUIT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE CONTRACT, THEY WOULD THEN BREAK IT APART.
BUT YOU'RE STILL OPEN TO DAMAGES AND YOU'RE STILL PAYING THEM LITIGATION EXPENSES AND BECAUSE IT'S SO INTEGRAL TO THEIR BUSINESS MODEL, WE BELIEVE THAT THE LITIGATION EXPENSES WOULD BE QUITE, UM, NUMEROUS AND THAT THEY WOULD BE REPETITIVE.
SO THEY, THEY'RE ENTITLED TO, IF THEY GOT
[00:20:01]
AN UNFAVORABLE DEBT ACTIONS WOULD BE GOOD FOR US.THEY WOULD HAVE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL WHICH THEY COULD THEN, THEN TAKE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS.
AND THEN IN SOME INSTANCES THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY GO TO THE SUPREME COURT.
SO YOU JUST HAVE TO BE ABLE TO UM, LOOK AT THE LITIGATION EXPENSES THAT WOULD GO ALONGSIDE THAT AND WE CAN RIDE THAT DIAGRAM.
BECAUSE THESE ARE YOUR DECISIONS BECAUSE I THINK SOMETIME IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOTTEN IN THE WAY OF SAYING Y'ALL DO THIS OR Y'ALL DO THAT.
OKAY, WE CAN'T THINK OF EVERY POSSIBILITY.
BUT BE CLEAR THAT BASED ON THE PRECEDENT WITH THE AG, I DON'T THINK WE'LL GET A BAD OUTCOME.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANNA BE CLEAR.
WE KNOW IT BASED ON A PRIOR DECISION.
THE RESULT OF WHICH WILL THAT HELP US? BECAUSE THEN WE HAVE TO ACT ON IT TO GET US WHAT WE WANT.
AND THE BIG PROBLEM, WHAT I BELIEVE MR. SHANE HAS POINTED OUT AND, AND WELL ALL OF YOU GUYS, ALL OF Y'ALL INCLUDING JUDGE HOOD, IS THE DAMAGES.
AND SO WE DON'T LOSE THE DAMAGE PROVISION IF WE GO THAT WAY POTENTIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA, THEY'RE GONNA BE DEFENDING THEIR BUSINESS MODEL AND THEY'RE GONNA DEFEND IT THE WHOLE WAY
AND WE CAN SEND THIS TO ANOTHER LAWYER WHO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY AND OF COURSE THE CONVERSE IS THEY MAY DO NOTHING.
THEY MAY SAY, OKAY, WE'VE GOT THIS, THINGS ARE SO BAD, WE'RE GONNA DO NOTHING.
I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST GIVING YOU ALL THE POTENTIALS.
ONE THING, ANOTHER THING, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE IN THERE ACTUALLY DAMAGE UNDER THE CONTRACT.
YEAH, IF YOU YEAH YOU DISSOLVE THE TERMS, YOU'D STILL BE SUBJECT TO SOME TYPE OF DAMAGES.
AND Y'ALL HAVE RUN THOSE DAMAGES NUMBER THROUGH.
'CAUSE I THINK THE WAY TO SAY IT SIMPLY IS YOU MIGHT WIN ON THE CONSTITUTION ISSUE BUT YOU STILL GOT ALL YOUR DAMAGES ISSUED.
YOU'VE ONLY GOT ONE PART OF THE CONTRACT THAT YOU WON ON, BUT YOU STILL GOT EVERYTHING ELSE TO OPEN.
THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER PROBLEM, UH, WITH THAT.
BUT THAT'S AGAIN, YOUR CHOICE AND WE'LL FIELD QUESTIONS AND YOU KNOW, REBECCA HAS WORKED CLOSELY WITH, WITH UH, TRYING TO GET THESE TERMS. ONCE WE GOT YOUR APPROVAL WITH THE AMOUNT, THEN WE WERE ABLE TO GO FORWARD.
WE GOT A FEW THINGS AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHICH ONE WOULD BE WAS POSITIVE THAT YOU WANT NAIL DOWN THE OTHER ONE.
AND IT WAS REALLY JUST A THOUGHT.
I THINK EITHER Y'ALL SAID IT OR WHEN WE TALKED TO THE ATTORNEYS, AND I'M SPEAKING OF WHEN AND WHEN THEY, THEIR OTHER OPTION AND THEY WENT WITH PROS AND CONS IS REALLY TURN IT OFF, IS TURN OFF THE CAMERA, DO NOTHING REALLY AND TURN OFF THE CAMERA.
ALL COLLECTION ACTIVITIES WOULD CEASE.
WHICH MEANS THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO LIMIT SOMEWHAT OUR STATUTE OF LIMITATION BECAUSE IT'D BE FROM THE POINT THAT WE STOPPED IT MAYBE.
UM, NOW US TURNING OFF THE CAMERAS WOULD CONSTITUTE A BREACH.
SO WE WOULD BE IN BREACH THE CONTRACT, UM, IF WE'RE IN BREACH THE COUNTY'S WAY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY IS A DEFENSE TO LIABILITY UNDER THE CONTRACT WITH ATS, BUT IT'S NOT WAY IMMUNITY FROM SUIT.
SO WE'VE GOT TWO THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THAT.
SO WHAT THEY WOULD TRY TO DO IS THEY ARGUE THAT WE'RE IN BREACH AND THEY TRY TO FORCE US UNDER THE CONTRACT EITHER INTO ARBITRATION OR TRY TO SUE US.
AND WE CONTINUOUSLY HAVE, HAVE TO TRY TO PLAY THE DEFENSIVE MOVE AND SAY IMMUNITY.
WE DID NOT WAIT THAT NO ONE GAVE, UH, WAY THROUGH THE LEGISLATURE.
SO BE KIND OF A WAITING GAME FOR A PERIOD OF TIME UNTIL UM, YOU HAVE TO WAIT OUT YOUR, YOUR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UM, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND YOUR BREACH OF CONTRACT'S GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UH, CONVERT, I MEAN WE'RE TALKING A FOUR YEAR ON BREACH OR STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
THE SAME LITIGATION PRICES WOULD BE, YOU NEED TO CONFIGURE THOSE IN THIS ONE AS WELL.
THEY'D BE ATTENUATED WITH THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALL KIND OF THINGS WE CAN IMAGINE THAT IN THE BREACH WHEN THEY SUE US, THEY'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT APPRECIATE EQUIPMENT VALUE AND MONEY AND ACTUAL DAMAGES WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
UM, AND THEY'LL PROBABLY KEEP THE FUNDS THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW IN OUR JOINT COUNTY.
WE WON'T GET ANYTHING BECAUSE IF WE'RE NOT PLAYING BALL WITH HIM AT ALL, DON'T SPEAK BETTER THAN GOD.
SO WE WON'T EVEN REALIZE WHERE WE ARE.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION AND THAT'S ANOTHER FUL OPTION AT AT LEAST WE'RE IN A DEFENSIVE POSTURE THERE INSTEAD AN OFFENSIVE POSTURE.
AND WE WOULD CONTINUE TO ARGUE, UH, IMMUNITY MAKE SOME PEOPLE NERVOUS JUST TO BE WAITING FOR SOMEBODY TO DO SOMETHING TO YOU.
BUT YOU GUYS CAN DO THAT NOW BY, WE'RE GOOD WITH TELLING YOU THE PROS AND THE CONS OF THAT.
EACH OPTION YOU TOOK AWAY THE PRICE.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE DAMAGES IN THE ACCOUNT PLUS ANY LITIGATION
[00:25:01]
EXPENSES ON ONE.AND THEN FINALLY, I THINK BECAUSE THIS ONE YOUR HEAD IS THE ONE THAT YOU KIND OF, AND TO BE CLEAR FOR THOSE EXISTENCE, UH, TO THE PUBLIC, TO BE CLEAR, YOU DIDN'T SAY Y'ALL, YOU SETTLED THIS, BUT I CAN'T COME UP WITH A NUMBER, I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COME UP WITH A NUMBER.
AND SO THEY CAME UP WITH A BIG OLD FAT NUMBER AND I'M LIKE, NO WAY.
SO THE NUMBER THAT THEY COUNTERED AND AGREED TO WAS HALF OF THE ORIGINAL NUMBER.
NOT THAT I THINK I'M NEGOTIATIONS.
I THINK THE REGULAR UNION, SO 175,000 IS WHERE IF WE GIVE 'EM 175,000 OR NOT YET, IT'S PART OF THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT PLUS 6,800 IN REMOVAL THAT WE AT LEAST CAME UP WITH A NUMBER.
AND THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT ON THE NUMBER.
BUT THERE'S OTHER PARTS OF IT THAT'S NOT FINAL THAT I, BUT I WAIT NOT COMING AND EXPLAINING IT AND KNOWING THAT PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC WANT TO HEAR THIS AND THERE'S NO REASON TO HIDE THIS.
IT'S ALL PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE'VE GOT.
WE GOTTA WIND DOWN PERIOD IN 90 DAYS, UM, FROM THE TERMINATION DAY MUTUAL RELEASES.
UM, WE'VE GOT INDEMNIFICATION AT THIS POINT UP UNTIL JANUARY 31ST, 2017.
UM, ONCE THE INDEMNIFICATION PERIOD ENDS, THERE'S A MUTUAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS TO BE SIGNED.
UM, THERE'S A SECOND FINAL LEASE ACCOUNT OF CLAIMS THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY SUPERVISING DOCUMENT.
TALK ABOUT THAT IN A LITTLE BIT.
THE YEAH, THE ONE PIECE THAT SURVIVES IS THAT WE CAN'T USE THEIR EQUIPMENT OR THEIR SOFTWARE.
THEY HAVE UM, BACK UHHUH AND WE, AND WE DID LITTLE THINGS LIKE WE UH, SO WE WERE DISCUSSING LIKE, OKAY, WE CAN'T RUN IT BACK AND FORTH WITH THESE PEOPLE.
I MEAN WE NEED TO MAKE SURE Y'ALL WANT TO GO THAT WAY JUST TO GIVE US THAT DIRECTION.
AND THEN WE'VE TO COME BACK AND TELL YOU IF THERE'S ANY PROS AND CONS OF THE CONTRACT.
THERE'S SOME UM, PRO IS WE'RE IN CONTROL, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST WE'RE IN CONTROL.
YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW YOUR NUMBER BUT LET'S BE HONEST JUDGE, YOU KNOW, I KNOW A LOT OF YOU GUYS HAVE SAID AND THEN I CAN HEAR PEOPLE, WE DON'T WANNA PAY ANYTHING AND I GET IT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE'RE NOT PAYING 'EM ANYTHING.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NET PROCEEDS, I WOULD REALLY PAY NOTHING.
BUT THAT'S NOT HOW BUSINESS WORKS OR THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE.
IF Y'ALL WANT TO CHANGE IT, THE MATRIX ON THAT WITH US WITH THE NUMBER, THAT'S YOUR CALL AND I DON'T KNOW HOW SUCCESSFUL WILL BE, BUT I THINK THE NUMBER'S FAIR 'CAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT OUR NET PROCEEDS ARE.
SO WHEN THEY CAME, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE GONNA TRY TO DOUBLE US.
NOW I'M POINT KAREN, SHE GAVE HIM THE NUMBER NOT BECAUSE SHE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT, BUT SHE DOESN'T KNOW WANNA FIX THE SAME.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT NUMBER, THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE GONNA DOUBLE IT ON US.
BUT WE, WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH WE ARE MADE WE'VE MADE IN IT.
SO YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVEN'T GOT WHATEVER PROCEEDS MAY STILL BE COMING IN.
UM, THERE'S NO AFFIRMATIVE FINDING MADE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONALITY, WHICH, WHICH HELPS US LATER REALLY AS A COUNTY THIRD PARTY, UH, LIABILITY THAT WE PROFESS UM, YOU KNOW, BEING HONEST WITH YOU, JUST HEARING THE SENATE AND, AND MAYBE THIS IS WORTH SOMETHING.
UH, SOME PEOPLE, IF IF, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT NEGATIVE, I MEAN MAYBE A TS GETS TO FEEL LIKE THEY GOT OFF THE HOOK, THEY PULLED THE FAST ENOUGH.
I MEAN I CAN SEE THAT BEING A CONCERN.
AND THIS IS, THEY'RE NOT PULLING ANYTHING.
THERE'S NO, AT THE END OF THIS, IN 10 YEARS THEY COME BACK, IT'S DONE, IT'S A MUTUAL RELEASE AT TS IS OUT, ARE THERE AND ONE IS AN OFFENSE POSITION.
AND THAT'S THE LONG REASON BECAUSE I HAD A COUPLE PEOPLE WHEN I WALKED IN GO, WELL WE JUST NEED TO GET THAT.
WE CAN GET IT, WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT? AND WE CAN GET IT AND SIT ON IT, KIND OF LIKE STILL GET IT SIT ON IT OR WE CAN DON'T DO ANYTHING AND TURN IT OFF.
COME COME
AND I WOULD SAY WE'RE 90% THERE, BUT IT'S NOT FAIR NOT TO LET Y'ALL KNOW WHERE WE ARE AND NOT TO MAKE A DECISION WHICH WAY.
THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE I FORGOT ABOUT I QUESTION ANYBODY HAVE QUESTION.
I GUESS THE ABOUT, I THINK EVERYBODY, EVERYBODY'S TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.
[00:30:02]
EVERYBODY HAS TO UNDERSTAND NONE OF US WANNA SPEND MONEY FOR THESE PEOPLE.IT'S NOT EVEN A QUESTION OF THAT.
WE'RE ALL THERE ON THAT SAME DATE.
WHAT EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE IS FOR THESE PEOPLE TO GO AWAY.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS WHAT IT ACTUALLY TAKES TO MAKE THESE PEOPLE GO AWAY.
YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM LINE IS HOW THEY GO AWAY.
IF WE, IF WE, IF WE, IF WE GIVE THEM MONEY OUT OF OUR NET PROCEEDS, INSTEAD OF MAKING 200,000 ON THIS DEAL OR NUMBER 1 98 WILL END UP MAKING 25,000, WHICH IS NOT, AS WE POINTED OUT BEFORE, DOES IT NEAR GET TO THE FIXED COST OF POLICE TIME, RIGHT.
BUT WE WORK ON THE NICKEL OR WHATEVER.
BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT JUST WHAT IS IN THAT LINE ITEM.
AND LISTEN, I'M NOT IN ANY WAY PING, YOU KNOW, THE TIME AND ENERGY THAT'S BEEN SPENT, THAT'S FIXED.
I I HAVEN'T CRUNCHED THAT NUMBER.
BUT SOME OF THOSE COSTS WOULD CONTINUE AS WE WEIGH ON THE DEFENSE ON ONE OR JUST WAIT WHILE WE'RE WAITING.
WHAT? WELL IT DEPENDS WHAT YOU DO.
BECAUSE ONE THING WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER WHICH WAY IT THEIR PAPER, IT STILL MAKES NO DIFFERENCE.
SO YOU STILL HAVE TO GO TO COURT, NO COURT, YOU GO ON SEPARATE ISSUES ON THE CONTRACT.
AND SO SOME OF THE CONTRACT CAN BE DEEMED OR YOU DO OWE THEM, YOU DO OWE DAMAGES AND YOU DO ALL THEM RIGHT THEN HAVE TO GO TO COURT.
THE A G OPINION OR THEY DOING NOTHING OPINION, WHICH ARE TWO VIABLE OPTIONS.
AND I MEAN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN COMING IN LEGISLATIVE.
SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AND WE MIGHT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW.
BUT ALL WE'RE DOING IS CONTROLLING WHAT WE CAN.
AND THE NUMBER Y'ALL SAID TO LOOK AT, YOU SAID THE ONLY NUMBER I COULD LOOK AT TO SETTLE 'CAUSE I WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE.
I'D BE SAYING, WELL HERE ARE OUR TWO OPTIONS IS IT HAS TO BE UNDER THE NET PROCEED.
SO I PULLED THE NET PROCEED NUMBER AND THEY CAME UNDER OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT AN ACCOUNT IN THEIR SPOT, THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'VE MADE OFF OF US.
SO SINCE, SINCE WE LAST TALKED ABOUT THIS, UH, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE HAYES COUNTY LAWSUIT? NO FILE? NO I WOULDN'T.
AND HAYES COUNTY IS, I GUESS THE THIRD COUNTY HAS PARTICIPATED IN THIS.
UM, AND WHO'S SUED? UH, I THINK THERE'S AN INDIVIDUAL.
THAT, THAT MAYBE IS FORM OR HAS FILED A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST HAYMAN.
I THINK THEY DID A TWO YEAR CONTRACT ON THIS.
WELL GOOD FOR HAYES BECAUSE THEY GOT IDENTIFICATION SO THAT THAT OPINION.
UH, I MEAN SURELY THAT OPINION WOULD BE RELEVANT ON OUR CASE IF THEY, IF THE JUDGE COMES BACK, JUST LIKE THE RULING THE JUDGE ON THE, ON THE RED LIGHT CAMERA THAT SHOULD HELP US LI AND US WE'RE CONTACT THAT'S YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING HAY IS IN A GOOD POSITION IF THEY GOT A THIRD PARTY THAT SUED THEM WHILE A TS IS INVOLVED.
THEY HAVE INDEMNIFICATION CONTRACT STANDARD AND ALL.
'CAUSE THEY WANNA DEFEND THEIR BUSINESS MODEL.
SO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I WANNA BE CAREFUL TO YES, IT COULD HELP.
I DON'T KNOW THE LIFE OF THAT CASE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT WOULD BE.
AND B HAYES COUNTY SITTING PRETTY GOOD BECAUSE ALL THEY CAN DO, IF I'M, IF THIS WAS COFFMAN, I'D STAY LIKE THIS STAND Y'ALL DO Y'ALL FIGURE IT OUT AND IF THE CITIZENS WIN, YAY.
SO, SO MY QUESTION IS SURELY THAT COULD IMPACT POSITION.
YEAH AND IT'S IT'S NO DIFFERENT THOUGH BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU ARE RIGHT.
LIKE I SAID, THE FIRST ONE I SAID WAS, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW THE TIMELINE ON THAT, BUT I DO KNOW HOW LAWYERS DO THINGS.
SO IF THEY'RE IN, THEY'RE GONNA BE FILING SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS TO KICK 'EM OUT OF THEIR CONTRACT.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO AND I'D BE JUST SPECULATING FOR THAT LIFE OF THAT CASE.
I MEAN I'M TALKING ABOUT A LEGAL CASE, THE LEGAL LAWSUIT.
I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ON THAT.
UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO, ANYTHING THAT PROBABLY IMPACTS OPTION THREE.
MM-HMM
HAYES MIGHT GET AN MAJOR OPINION.
IT MIGHT BE ONE SLOPE AROUND THERE.
UM, THE ONLY THING, YOU KNOW, THE AG OPINION DOESN'T TRIGGER ANYTHING FOR US ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I WE HAVE, YEAH, I JUST THINK THE PROBLEM THAT WE GET IT, THE, THE THING IS TOO, YOU REMEMBER TOO WHERE WE ARE UNDER, UM, UNDER OPTION THREE WHEN WE, IF WE BREACHED AND DID NOTHING, WE ARE,
[00:35:01]
WE ARE, WE WOULD BE IN COURT GOING WITHOUT ANJU.WE ARE RELYING ON THE, UH, INSURANCE CASE THAT YOU THAT THAT THE AG THAT KIND OF SIMPLIFIES, YOU KNOW, IF WE REQUEST THE AG MEANWHILE THIS HAYES COUNTY PLACE OUT, HOW DOES IT SIMPLIFY? WELL IT GIVES US ONE OPTION.
HOW, WHICH ONE, LIKE I SAID, IF WE ADD REQUEST AN AG, IT'S GONNA TAKE, WHAT IS THE NORMAL TIME? I HAVE NO IDEA.
FIVE, THREE TO SIX MONTHS DEPENDS ON, OKAY, WE REQUEST AG, WE MONITOR HAY COUNTY LAWSUIT.
MEANWHILE WE PUT THESE CAMERAS IN THE PARKING LOT AND SAY WE'RE NOT GONNA PARTICIPATE IN THIS EXTORTION PROGRAM ON OUR CITIZENS UNTIL WE HAVE A RULING AND, AND WE HAVE A COURT ACTION.
AND THEN WE GO RIGHT BACK TO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
OPTION TWO IS FOR US TO DO THAT EVEN WITH THE HAS COUNTY OPINION, EVEN WITH A FAVORABLE AG OPINION, IT MAKES IT EASY FOR YOU.
AND THAT'S GOOD BECAUSE FOR ME IT'S JUST ME GIVING YOU ADVICE AND Y'ALL DECIDE IS THAT WE HAVE TO ACT ON THOSE OPINIONS AND WE HAVE TO ACT ON STAR DECISIS, WHICH IS FORMER CASE LAW.
IF THEY MAKE THE CASE LAW AND THEY GET TO JUST LIKE WHAT REBECCA SAID, THEY GET TO EXHAUST ALL THEIR APPEALS AND THOSE KIND OF LOOSE STOCKING LAW FIRMS LOVE TO NOT BEING DONE IN COURT.
BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT I'M WHAT I'M SAYING, I'M SAYING ALL THAT, BUT I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
'CAUSE HAYES COUNTY MAY DECIDE TO SELL THEIR STUFF CONFIDENTIALLY FOR $20.
HOW DO I KNOW 500,000 OR 500,000? HOW DO I KNOW? I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN THAT COMMISSIONER'S COURT WITH THOSE PEOPLE AND, AND SINCE THAT'S ANOTHER BODY.
BUT I WILL SAY CONSIDERATION OF THIS THAT YES IT IS SOMETHING ELSE, IT'S ANOTHER PIECE JUST LIKE THE AGS PIECE, BUT THE INSURANCE, UM, UH, CASE THAT'S ADVISOR, IT'S ANOTHER PIECE.
AND IF THAT GIVES YOU, YOU KNOW, A GOOD FEELING, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING AS A LAWYER, THERE'S SO MANY STOPS ON THE ROAD OF A CASE AND I THINK THAT THE COMPLAINT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WE HAVEN'T GIVEN Y'ALL THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS ENOUGH INFORMATION.
SO I HAVE POURED EVERYTHING IN THINKING WHAT COULD HAPPEN.
ULTIMATELY Y'ALL DECIDE, I DON'T KNOW, I DUNNO, I'M A LITTLE OOC DI LIKE TO CONTROL BUT THAT'S NOT MY DECISION.
SHAW AND I, AND IT MAY BE A BAD ONE.
I MEAN IT MAY BE THE WRONG THING TO DO.
I CAN JUST BE DEFENSIVE, TURN OFF SOMETHING WITH STUFF AWAY.
IN THE MEANTIME, ALL THE, ALL THE FEES AND PLANS AND STUFF MAILED UP ALL THEIR DEBT CONTRACT, WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
WELL IF BUT THEY HAVEN'T RESPONDED.
WE HAVE, WE, NO, I MAYBE I MISSPOKE.
THERE'S NO WHATEVER'S GONNA HAPPEN.
THAT'S THE NUMBER, THAT'S THE MATH MUTUAL RELEASE.
THE ANY OF THOSE CLAIMS, ANY OF THOSE PLANS, THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE DO IT.
IF WE WERE GONNA GET CAUGHT, THERE'S NO WAY WE'D EVEN RESENT BECAUSE WE WOULD GET CAUGHT THEN WHAT, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THEY, WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR AS RETURN RIGHT NOW? WHY WE THIS? ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT MAKE SURE OF ONE OF THE, WELL ONE OF THE THINGS I REALLY WANT MAKE SURE OF IS THAT UH, LEMME GET THIS RIGHT HERE.
I'VE WRITTEN DOWN SOME NOTES THAT I WANT, YOU KNOW, JUST THAT KIND OF UH, LEGAL EASE THAT I DIDN'T LIKE.
THEY HAD A COMMENT IN THERE ON THE TERMINATION PAYMENT IN FULL SATISFACTION OF THESE REMOVAL COSTS.
AND THIS IS JUST SOME VERBIAGE AND I DIDN'T LIKE THAT.
UH, BECAUSE IT MADE IT SEEM LIKE THEY COULD JACK THOSE UP.
THE 6,800 IS THE REMOVAL COST.
I DIDN'T WANT THEM TO SHOW THE GENERAL NUMBER.
I WANT 'EM TO SAY NO, THAT 6,800 IS ALL REMOVAL COSTS.
I COME BACK LATER AND GO, OH, YOU ALSO KNOW 10,000.
AND WE JUST DIDN'T GET, YOU KNOW, THEY SENT US UP, WE RESPONDED.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN HERE AND THIS MORNING WE BACK GOING, YOU GOT ANYTHING? I AIN'T GOT ANYTHING.
SO WE HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH FAITH.
THE BIG TERM FOR ME WAS THE WAIVER FEES, MUTUAL RELEASES AND THE NUMBER UNDER WHAT YOU SAID.
THERE ARE SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT I THINK YOU HAVE TO COME BACK.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE, YOU MAY NOT CHOOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE.
SO WORKING OUT THE LITTLE DETAILS MAY BE JUST WASTING TIME.
I JUST NEED TO KNOW IF I NEED TO KEEP GOING THERE.
THE OTHER THING WAS, UM, ONE ANOTHER
[00:40:01]
THING TO LIMIT OUR STATUTE OF LIMITATION ON THIS.WE DON'T WANT, UH, WHEN WE DO THE WIND DOWN, WHATEVER FEES THAT ARE AT THE WIND DOWN FOR THESE CITIZENS, THAT MONEY NEEDS TO GO BACK.
IF THEY COLLECT A DIME AFTER THE WIND DOWN, THAT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE TAXPAYERS.
YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO PEOPLE.
'CAUSE THAT JUST, EXCUSE ME, KEEPS OPENING US UP ON OUR STATUTE OF LIMITATION.
AND YOU'RE ASKING, YOU ASKED ME ABOUT WHAT OTHER ISSUES, UM, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THIS? YEAH, WE ARE, WE, WE WOULD LIKE TO EITHER MAKE SURE ON IDENTIFICATION PART THEY WANNA NARROW THAT WINDOW, WE WANNA EXPAND THAT WINDOW.
THEY WANT TO NARROW HOW LONG THAT IDENTIFIES AND WE WANT TO EXPAND IT.
AND I'M, THIS IS REALLY EXECUTIVE STUFF, WHATEVER I YEAH, I THINK I'VE GOT A WORK AROUND THAT WOULD HELP US.
I THINK I'VE GOT A WORK AROUND LETTING CASE BUT IT, IT WOULDN'T LESSEN OPPOSITION ANY IF WE REQUEST REQUESTED.
YOU SAID IT'D TAKE SEVERAL MONTHS ANYWAY.
WELL THEY, THEY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT, IT, SO THEN THAT WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT EXITING THIS CONTRACT POSSIBLY, WELL YOU KNOW WHAT? WORKING A FAVOR.
I DON'T KNOW IF, IF I'M PUTTING MYSELF MY A TS HAT ON, WHY WOULD THEY THINK WE'RE NEGOTIATING GOOD FAITH IF WE'RE STILL KIND OF IN THEIR MIND, I THINK THIS BUSINESS MODEL DOESN'T WORK FOR COUNTY.
I'VE SAID THAT TO Y'ALL PUBLIC AND AN EXECUTIVE, IT DOESN'T WORK FOR COUNTIES SITTING HOME.
THAT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT THING.
THEY WOULD FEEL LIKE IF YOU'RE IN NEGOTIATIONS, PART OF IT IS NEGOTIATING TO SETTLE IT LIKE IT IS.
IF WE GO AROUND WE GET AN AG OPINION THAT'S GONNA GUT IT, THEN WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO SETTLE IT WITH THIS.
HOW WOULD THAT FIT? I MEAN THAT WOULD BETTER OUR POSITION.
NO, IT'S GONNA BETTER OUR POSITION.
BUT SINCE IT GOES DOWN THE VALIDATION FOR NUMBER UNDER OUR SENATE, YOUR HONOR, THEY STILL TO AGREE, THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO THOSE OTHER TERMS ON THAT VOCATION.
NO, IT STRENGTHENS OUR POSITION.
BUT WE DON'T WANNA ALLUDE WIN THE BATTLE, LOSE THE WAR.
'CAUSE THE WAR IS TO BE OUT OF THIS AND NOT HAVE DAMAGES THAT ARE UNTOLD.
THAT YOU POINTED OUT AND YOU POINTED OUT AND YOU POINTED OUT BEYOND THIS, THE MUTUAL RELEASE CUTS THE BELIEF.
SO THEY WOULD MAYBE SAY, WELL OKAY, YOU WEIGH ON YOUR AGE OPINION AND THEN YOU HAVE TO, WE'LL SEE WHAT Y'ALL DO IN COURT.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT PEOPLE, I THINK THERE'S SOME PEOPLE WANNA MINIMIZE WHATEVER'S GOING ON IN A TS IN THE BACK PRESS.
BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES OF THESE THAT WOULD LOVE LITIGATION.
SO I THINK THEY, THEY'RE KIND OF A HOUSE UNDER, BUT NOT MY FAULT.
SOMEBODY YOU HAVE TWO COMPETING TO FLIGHT.
THE A WOULD COME FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, RIGHT? SURE.
WELL A TS IS IN ANOTHER STATE.
THEY WOULDN'T EVEN PROBABLY MARYLAND STATE AG.
WELL WE'RE IN THIS BUT WE'RE VENUE AND JURISDICTION LINE HERE.
SO WE HAVE CONTROL HERE, CONTROL HERE.
THERE ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE NEED BE IN COURT TO ACTUALLY HAVE A, AND FRANKLY I THINK REBECCA SPUN IT OUT PRETTY GOOD WHEN WE'RE TALKING.
I, I, I CAN'T, THE JUDGE IS GONNA DO WHAT THEY WANT LOCALLY HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S A, I THINK WE'RE ON PRETTY GOOD FOOTING, BUT WE HAVE TO OFFENSIVELY FILE THE DECK.
WE HAVE TO DO ALL THE, THAT Y'ALL KNOW, Y'ALL BEEN IN LAWSUITS, ATTENUATED THINGS THAT GO WITH THAT.
AND THEN EVEN IF WE PREVAIL, YOU HAVE DON'T GET THE DAMAGE, THEN WE GET THE CASES THEN APPEALED.
THIS ISN'T GONNA GO AWAY, JUST DOESN'T DECIDE THAT WE GET AN AGENT OPINION THAT'S FAVORABLE THEN THEY'RE GONNA APPEAL IT.
IT'S THAT AMOUNT OBVIOUSLY THAT A LOT BECAUSE THEN YOU PREPARE THE OPTIONS TO SHARE FINANCIAL.
BUT THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE BENEFIT ABOUT THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT IS THAT YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S YEAH, AND I THINK WE SAID THAT AND THAT IT'S UNDER WHAT'S BEEN COLLECTED.
I BELIEVE CERTAIN, AND I BELIEVE IT'S STILL, I MEAN MY OPINION, IT'S UNDER WHAT YOU GAVE US AUTHORITY TO COMMUNICATE BACK TO THEM.
IT STILL MAY BE, UM, MORE THAN WHAT WE WANT, BUT THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SETTLEMENTS.
AND MOST OF THESE ARE DONE, YOU KNOW, CONFIDENTIAL.
BUT Y'ALL DECIDED TO DO MAKE A VOTE.
THEY ASKED US TO HOLD THAT AS A PROPRIETARY NUMBER AND SAY THAT WE'RE NOT AND HERE ISN'T.
WELL MY FEAR IS THAT THEY'RE DISJOINTED WITH US.
LIKE A BOBCAT PLAYING WITH WOOD WRAP BEFORE IT'S CONSUMED.
WELL WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS IT? LET'S MAKE SURE UNDERSTAND THIS.
[00:45:01]
I'VE GOT LIKE 90% AGREEMENT.SO, SO THEY DO THE HUNDRED PERCENT AGREEMENT.
Y'ALL SIGN IT, THEY SIGN IT, THEY DON'T SIGN IT.
NONE OF OUR OTHER TWO REMEDI GO AWAY.
WHAT HAPPENS? THEY CONTRACT HOW I THINK WE'VE GOT THE, THE UPPER HAND IN GETTING THEM TO SIGN IT.
AND IF THEY DON'T, WE STILL GOT THOSE OTHER OPTIONS.
IF WE, IF SCHOOL STARTS AND WE, AND WE, UH, TURN THE CAMERAS OFF, THEY KNOW OUR DEADLINE IS IS IS, UH, SCHOOL YEAR IS OUR BUDGET.
THEY DIDN'T REALLY KNOW 'CAUSE THIS WAS PUT ON LATE BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT, BUT IN THE ABSENCE GETTING A HUNDRED PERCENT, I SAID, BUT HEY, WITH IT, LET'S GO 90.
SO Y'ALL GET AN IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE AND UH, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I KNOW.
I I WANNA SAY SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS.
WE'VE GOT COUPLE OF SERIOUS ISSUES HERE TO LOOK AT WITH THIS.
WE DON'T HAVE THIS CONTRACT IN OUR P BUDGET.
AND WE'RE DOING BONDING AND UH, DEALING WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT ARE SERIOUS ABOUT BUYING BONDS AND THINGS OF THAT SORT.
WE'RE PUTTING OURSELF IN A SITUATION THAT'S NOT GOOD TO BE COUNTY BY SELLING BONDS AND NOT TELLING PEOPLE THE TRUTH.
AND WE HAVE A FINANCIAL OBLIGATION THAT WE'VE GOT THE COTTON COUNTY TRUTH.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SITTING HERE, PAINTING.
LET'S GIVE US THAT AGS OPINION SO THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE LEVERAGE FOR YOU WITH ANY PEOPLE AT A TI THINK GIVE YOU, GIVE ALL OF US SOME CLARITY ON WHAT'S GOING ON.
WE SPENT ONE TIME WHEN I WAS ON COMMISSIONER'S COURT BEFORE, I'LL TELL THIS LITTLE STORY.
THERE WAS A $25,000
AND WE WOUND UP SPENDING OVER $900,000 FIGHTING ABOUT COUNTY MONEY OUTTA COUNTY COSTS MONEY.
SO I DON'T SEE FIGHTING AN ISSUE BEING MUCH, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WE'LL CHALLENGE YOU IF WE HAVE TO TO DO OUR ATTORNEYS AND YOU ARE QUITE AWARE OF WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT A CASE AND WHAT WE'RE ON THERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER NOT TO PAY A 25,000 CASE THAT WE COULD HAVE GOT OUT JUST AND UH, I SAID WELL, I I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT AND, AND, AND IT'S YOUR CHOICE.
I MEAN IT'S, BUT, BUT I'LL, THE ONLY THING I WOULD DISAGREE ABOUT IS ONCE YOU HAVE A RELEASE, THERE'S NOTHING TO CARRY FORWARD.
BUT I, BUT I'M NOT AN ACCOUNTANT.
I'M NOT A CPA AND I DON'T DO AUDIT THIS.
SO THERE'S NOTHING TO BE REALIZED AS FAR AS THE FUTURE AND BONDING.
IF IT'S, IF IT'S DONE, OKAY, IF IT'S OVER NOW THE AG OPINION, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT, THAT'S 'CAUSE YOU WANT IT THEN YOU WANT IT.
I MEAN THERE'S NOTHING DO, DON'T ARGUE WITH ME ABOUT IT.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT IT IS STILL PUTS YOU IN A DEFENSIVE POSTURE.
ONCE YOU GET IT THEN WE DECIDE WE WANNA SIT ON IT OR NOT.
BUT WE HAVE TO WITH THAT OPINION, DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
AND WE ARE ON OFFENSE, NOT ON DEFENSE.
WHEN YOU'RE ON OFFENSE, WE WENT THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT, YOU LOSE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
IT IS WHAT IT IS AND WE MIGHT BE SUCCESSFUL YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THAT CASE IS PERHAPS HINDSIGHT'S 2020, THE 25,000 AND MAKING A PRINCIPLE AS OPPOSED TO THE HUNDREDS LATER.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BETTER.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BETTER THAT THAT'S UP FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL THAT INFORMATION AND YOU HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING THE DECISION MAKER HERE.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T WELL THAT'S A DECISION.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN, THAT THAT'S A DECISION.
AND, AND REALIZING THE PAYING THEM NOTHING MEANS THAT THAT MONEY THAT WE REALIZE IS NET PROCEEDS IS AN ARGUMENT OF PAYING NOTHING IF IT'S WITHIN THE PROCEED.
BUT YOUR ARGUMENT IS, I WANNA TAKE THAT 1 98 AND LEAVE IT IN, SIT OVER THERE IN A LINE ITEM AND PAY HIM MONEY.
DID YOU SEGREGATE ON THIS FUND MONEY AND SPECIFIC ACCOUNT? IS IT, YOU STILL HAVE IT OR IS? I DIDN'T HEAR THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION, SIR.
IS ALL THE MONEY THAT WE'VE COLLECTED FROM A TS IS IT IN A ACCOUNT? YEAH, WE'VE TRANSFERRED IT TO GENERAL FUND.
NO, I MEAN IT SO IT'S JUST NOT SPECIFICS, CONTRACT REVENUE.
I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT DO WE HAVE IT OR HAS IT BEEN SPENT FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS? UH, HASN'T BEEN SPENT.
WE'VE UH, SO WE GOT IT IN ONE LINE ITEM SAYS ATS REVENUE, WE HAVE RECORDED THE REVENUES AND THE EXPENDITURES AND THE NET WAS THE HUNDRED NINE, BUT IT'S NOT IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT LINE ITEM.
[00:50:01]
THE REVENUE IN A REVENUE AND THE EXPENDITURE IS IN AN EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT IN WITH THE GENERAL YES SIR.IT'S IN ITS ONLINE ITEMS. OKAY.
SO I'M TRYING TO, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S, WELL I I DON'T WANNA PAY HIM ANYTHING EITHER.
BUT ARE YOU SAYING THAT NO, HE'S THE OPPOSITE OF THAT OPPOSITE.
YEAH, HE'S IN THE OPPOSITE THAT ON PRINCIPLE.
SO THE, THE ITEM HERE THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION ARE THE OPTIONS FOR A TS.
RIGHT? DO WE NEED TO TAKE SOME SORT OF ACTION ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE ITEM TWO? WELL I DON'T THINK WE CAN MOVE ITEM TWO AND THE REASON I SAY THAT, BUT I DIDN'T WANNA PULL THE WHOLE PROCESS, RIGHT? IF YOU GUYS WANT US TO MOVE FORWARD, WE GOTTA MAKE THE TURN.
I THINK WE CAN NAIL THIS DOWN.
YEAH, ANYTHING HAPPENS AND PUT IT ON, LET 22ND, PUT IT ON THE 22ND WITH THE FINAL UH, AGREEMENT.
BUT IF YOU VOTE AND WANT THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS, THEN WE CAN QUIT GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THEM AND JUST SAY WE'RE GOING ANOTHER WAY.
I MEAN WE HAVE THE CALLS OR SOMETHING.
WE DON'T WANNA BE UNPROFESSIONAL, BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE WOULDN'T LET THEM KNOW THAT WE WORK IN THIS ARENA AT YOUR BEHEST AND IF IT'S NOT YOUR DESIRE, THERE'S NO REASON US JUST BEATING OUR HEAD.
I KEEP TALKING TO 'EM ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN THAT I THINK GETS US IN A, THAT'S WHAT WE LOOK LIKE.
WE'RE JUST PLAYING WITH THEM AND THAT WE ARE NOT BECAUSE THEY, THEY PROBABLY IN THEIR MIND FEEL LIKE THEY'RE OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH AND IT'S A GOOD BUSINESS MODEL.
WE'RE ALL WRONG HERE IN TEXAS.
THAT'LL BE RESOLVED SOME OTHER DAY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH WAY OF THE THREE OPTIONS THAT WE WERE PRESENT WITH.
'CAUSE I REALLY DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IN DETAIL THE OTHER TWO.
BUT ONCE YOU MENTIONED THROUGH REBECCA ABOUT GO AHEAD, GET THE AGENDA.
OKAY, SO LET'S PLAY THAT OUT THEN TALKING TO DO NOTHING.
SO, SO NOW IT'S NOT JUST THE ONE OPTION WE NEED TO KNOW ARE WE, WHICH ONE ARE WE MOVING FORWARD ON? 'CAUSE WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS.
WE CAN QUIT NEGOTIATING WITH THEM AND WORK ON SOME OF YOUR OTHER PROJECTS AND JUST WAIT.
SO BACK ON THE ISSUE OF THE HUNDRED 98,000 OR SO, KAREN SAYS, WE'VE TAKEN IN ON FINES AND FEES.
AND UH, I MEAN THAT'D BE EASY TO VERIFY.
SO, UH, THEY HAVE ASKED FOR 175,000 TO SETTLE.
IT WOULD BE 175,000 TO SETTLE IT PLUS 63 68 FOR REMOVAL OF THEIR, AND THAT GUARANTEES THERE'S NO OTHER, THEY'RE NOT GONNA COME BACK AND ASK US FOR ANYTHING IF WE APPROVE THAT SETTLEMENT, THEY CAN'T.
THAT'S THE EXACT REASON WHY WE ASKED FOR ANOTHER OPINION.
LOOK AT IT'S WHERE WE BELIEVE IT WAS AT AND THEN THEY VERIFY THAT, THAT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S SIGNED AND EXECUTED, THE ONLY TO ME THERE'S SOME WORK WE CAN DO.
THE BIG ISSUE WE'RE DONE IS IN IFICATION AGAINST WE WANT, I WANT TO PROTECT THE COUNTY.
AND I DON'T MEAN THAT INDIVIDUALS NOW SPEAKING TO THE COLLECTIVE BODIES, THE TAXPAYERS, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS PROTECT THE TAXPAYERS FROM A THIRD PARTY ACTION.
MUCH LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT CASE.
BECAUSE IF THEY ARE OUT, I DON'T GET THE ADVANTAGE OF STEPPING BACK AND GOING OUT.
I GOTTA STAND IN THERE BRIEF WHEN I'M TRYING TO STRETCH THAT OUT IF I CAN'T.
SO THERE IS NO CHANCE THEY CAN COME BACK AND SAY YOU OWE $500,000 CONTRACT.
RIGHT? AND THE SECOND OPTION IS, UH, THAT WIN AND WIN SAID JUST DO NOTHING AND JUST SIT THERE, WIN AND WIN, WENT THROUGH ALL OPTIONS.
NOBODY'S GONNA RECOMMEND Y'ALL TO DO WHAT WIN.
AND SAID, AND THEY COULD FROM HERE, BUT I DIDN'T.
RIGHT? IS THAT, I'M GLAD YOU DID.
[00:55:01]
THAT WE SAW IN THE SETTLEMENT UP TO THIS POINT WAS EXACTLY LIKE WHAT A COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE WAS SAYING.WELL MAYBE THEY'RE CAN GET US THE SIGN FROM THOUSAND LATER OR ALL YOU THOSE THINGS.
THEY SAID NO, IT IS WHAT IT PURPORTS TO BE.
HERE ARE SOME OTHER AREAS THAT WE THINK Y'ALL NEED TO, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, TIGHTEN DOWN, HONE DOWN.
AND I, WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME.
WE WANTED TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO YOU TODAY BECAUSE THIS ALL CAME UP AND WE CAN, BUT ONCE YOU TELL ME, I THINK REBECCA IS GET WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL THERE, I THINK A VOTE IN THAT DIRECTION LETS THEM KNOW THIS IS WHAT Y'ALL THINK ABOUT AND, AND THE FACT OF THE VOTE IN ANOTHER DIRECTION, WE JUST SAY, SORRY GUYS, IT'S NOT HAPPENING.
ON THE THIRD ONE, IS THAT THE ONE WHERE WE WOULD UH, UH, REQUEST AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION? YEAH, WELL THERE'S BRIEFS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING.
THAT WAS WHAT WIN-WIN AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION.
THE ONLY ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION.
AND I WAS SAYING BASED ON SOME OF THE CASES AND, AND I THINK UH, MR. ZA WAS KIND OF TALKING ABOUT, UM, MAYBE IT WAS HAPPENING AT THE COUNTIES AND KIND OF LOOKING AT ALL THESE PARTS AND HOW THEY COULD PLAY TOGETHER IS THAT WE GET THAT OPINION AND THEN WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT OPINION? AND WE HAVE TO ACT ON THAT OPINION.
IF, IF WE GET THAT OPINION AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT FIND THAT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL BASED ON THAT COMMITTEE, WHICH WOULD BE ADVISOR.
SO THAT MEANS IF WE'RE JUST GOING OFFENSIVE DEFENSE, OKAY, ONCE WE STEP UP AS AN OFFENSIVE PLAYER, YOU LOSE YOUR CLO TO SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.
OKAY? WE'RE NO LONGER AND YOU HAVE ALL THE DAMAGES.
AND IT'S KIND OF THOUGH I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER SHANE IS SAYING, EVEN THOUGH IT STOP ME IF I'M WRONG, EVEN THOUGH THE DAMAGES UPSIDE MIGHT BE HIGHER FOR YOU AND YOUR EXPERIENCE AS THE PRINCIPLE BECAUSE THEY WOULD FOUND IN CONSTITUTIONAL EVEN AS OPPOSED TO LIMITING THE WAY IT'S OTHER 'CAUSE IT'S THE PRINCIPLE.
AM I MISSTATING THAT? NOT YOU? NO, THAT'S WHY HE MADE THE ANALOGY WITH ANOTHER CASE YEARS AGO.
AND AGAIN, WITH THOSE OPTIONS, THAT'S FINE.
UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S ACTUAL DAMAGES AND THERE'S ALSO OTHER KIND OF DAMAGE.
I WE HAVE TO GO WITH THE TORTURE.
I MEAN HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? GO? SO ONE YOU'RE GETTING THIRD PARTY CLAIMS IT IT'S GONNA BE A LEGAL FREE FOR.
SO JUST ONE FINAL QUESTION THAT I HAVE, I'M SURE HAVE, BUT THE QUICKEST WAY TO EXIT THIS CONTRACT IS TO AGREE TO PAY THEM $175,000 PLUS 68,000, UH, FOR THEIR EQUIPMENT.
UH, AND THEN WE UH, UH, WILL HAVE SOMEWHERE AROUND $200,000.
SO THAT'S BEEN ACCUMULATED OVER THE, SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTRACT.
AND SO THAT'S THE QUICKEST WAY TO EXIT.
AND THERE'S SOME DETAILS THAT YOU AND REBECCA NEED TO WORK OUT LIKE YOU, YOU DISCUSSED WITH US, RIGHT? AND, AND THE DETAILS CAN BE BROUGHT BACK INTO THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT ON AUGUST 22ND TO WORKING OUT.
WE WON'T BE GOING BACKWARDS WITH ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT, NOW HOW ABOUT LIKE WHAT COMMISSIONER DOG SAID THEY'RE TOYING WITH US AND WE GO TO THEM AND WE HAVE EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS VITAL.
THEN WE WOULD COME BACK AND SAY THEY DIDN'T DO THIS AND WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
AND THEN IT WOULD KIND OF, THE SETTLEMENT WOULD GO AWAY.
I MEAN, OR YOU COULD DECIDE TO CONTINUE TO DO IT AND BALANCE THAT AGAINST THOSE CHOICES.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S DONE, BUT I THINK WE'RE PRETTY DARN CLOSE.
AND SO THAT IS INTO JUST, OH, WE TAKE SOMETHING FOR YOU TO SIGN OR YOU KNOW, WE CIRCLE LATER.
WE JUST BRING IT BACK TO COURT AND GO, OKAY, THEY AGREE TO EVERYTHING ELSE.
WE'VE GOT THIS CLAUSE IN HERE.
WE MIGHT DO A LITTLE EXECUTIVE.
IF IT'S SOMETHING I DON'T REALLY JUST GOING OUT THERE, THEN Y'ALL KNOW IT'S IN THE CONTRACT.
WE KNOW IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY THE TRIAL AND THEN YOU CAN VOTE ON IT.
BUT IF YOU DECIDE TO GO THE OTHER WAY, THEN WE CAN JUST, THEN Y'ALL JUST DECIDE WHICH WAY YOU WANT TO GO.
EVEN IF YOU DECIDE, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO, I MEAN JUST WANNA GO ANOTHER OPTION.
WHAT DOES IT SAY? OTHER OPTIONS ON THE AGENDA? WE HAVE TO PICK ONE RESOLUTION OPTIONS.
SO IT CAN JUST BE WE'LL DO THE RESOLUTION AND, AND RESOLVE THIS AS AN, UH, I'M SORRY.
WE CAN DO THE AGREEMENT OR WE CAN DO OTHER OPTIONS AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS AT SOME OTHER POINT LATER.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT HERE.
IF, IF, IF THIS AND IT'S ME, THIS, THIS COUNTY, IF WE CAN SELL IT NOW, I CAN'T.
SOMETIMES THE PRINCIPAL COMES INTO IT, BUT WE CAN'T LET 25,000 GO TO A MILLION ON THE BACK OF THE THAT'S EXACTLY WHEN WE CAN DO THIS.
IF WE GET, WE CAN'T LOSE OUR SOVETY AND WORRY ABOUT
[01:00:01]
OUR, WE GOTTA PROTECT THAT.AND IF WE CAN SELL IT EASILY WITHIN A WEEK OR TWO, THEN GET IT GONE.
I MEAN, I MEAN WE CAN KICK THIS CAN DOWN ROAD FOREVER AND IT WILL NEVER END BECAUSE THAT MORE MONEY.
WELL, AND AND AND AND THE DIRECTION THAT I GOT FROM YOU GUYS WAS AGAIN, THAT WE HAD, WE HAD BEEN DIRECTED AT SOME POINT BACK TO THE FUTURE MONTHS AGO.
AND EVER, IT'S NO SECRET, YOU KNOW, POPULARITY OF A TS IN OUR COUNTY.
SO IT'S LIKE WHAT CAN WE DO TO GET READY? IN FACT, IT WAS LIKE, WELL WHY DID YOU GET TO START WITH HER? I MEAN, WE'VE HAD THE WHOLE GAME.
SO NOW WE'RE BACK AT, HERE WE ARE.
HOW CAN WE SETTLE IT? AND THE ONLY THING I HAD TO GET FROM Y'ALL IS I DON'T MAKE, I DON'T REPRESENT THE COUNTY AS FAR AS NUMBERS.
Y'ALL ARE PURSE STRINGS OF BUDGET.
HERE'S THE NUMBER AND IT HAS TO BE UNDER WHAT WE GOT IN THAT PROCEEDS OR WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT.
'CAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO PAY OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WE MADE IN THIS PROGRAM, EXCLUDING THE FIXED COST.
THAT IS ALL COST US GOT THE MARCHING ORDERS, GOT TO WORKING ON IT, ACCOMPLISHED THAT.
THAT'S, THIS IS A RESPONSE TO THAT REQUEST.
BUT AS ANY CONTRACT NEGOTIATION OR SETTLEMENT OF A CONTRACT, THERE ARE MORE THAN MORE YOU READ OF TERMS. THAT'S WHY IT WAS WORTH GETTING ANOTHER SET OF HEADS IN.
SO WE WANNA FINISH IT AND WE HAVE TOLD THEM, YOU KNOW, REALLY WE'RE TRYING TO FINISH THIS BEFORE BUDGET BECAUSE OF SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT BONDS AND SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS.
UM, BONDING THINGS AND JUST SO WE'LL GET IT BEHIND US.
WE DON'T WANT IT TO GO FRONT AND WE DON'T WANT IT FROM WHAT I GOT FROM Y'ALL ON LET START ON IN SEPTEMBER.
DO THE NEGOTIATION IS THE QUICKEST, SIMPLEST RIGHT NOW.
NOW IN TWO WEEKS, IF WE DON'T HAVE IT DONE, THEN WE HAVE OTHER TWO OPTIONS.
AND I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT COMMISSIONER WAS IS SAYING IS THAT YOU CAN DO TOOTH IT, YOU CAN SETTLE INTO THE, AND I THINK THAT WHEN YOU'RE NEGOTIATING WITH SOMEBODY TO RESOLVE SOMETHING, WE NEED TO FINISH THAT.
AND IF WE CAN'T RESOLVE IT, BUT I THINK THESE OTHER ISSUES ARE STILL RELEVANT AND RIGHT.
I I WOULD JUST SAY IF I COULD PUT MYSELF IN THEIR SHOES, I DON'T THINK THAT'S HOW YOU NEGOTIATE WITH THEM GOING BEING MOW THE HEAD WITH SOME LEVERAGE.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATION'S DIFFERENT WHEN YOU GO TO COURT, IT'S ALL HOLD BARR.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO SETTLE SOMETHING, IT'S, LET'S WORK THIS OUT.
I MEAN, Y'ALL KNOW THAT YOU'VE, BEFORE KEVIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? GET THIS DONE WRONG.
WHEN DID WE, ANOTHER COUPLE WEEKS? WHAT WE'RE DOING? I'M SORRY, I I JUST CAN'T SEE WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY GOING DOWN THE ROAD SPENDING 500 OR 6,000 DOWN ROAD OR NEXT GENERATION TO DEAL WITH THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
LIKE, LIKE ADD SETTLE THE NEXT TWO WEEKS SAYING GET DONE.
I THINK IT IS ON THE, I BELIEVE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
IF YOU NEED FINALIZE IN THE NEXT TWO PAGE, NEXT TWO PAGES, NEXT TWO WEEKS, UH, BASED ON THE OPTION OF EXITING THE AGREEMENT AND GETTING ALL THE, THE LAWYER EASE STUFF STRAIGHT OUT IN YOUR OPINION.
SO WHAT YOU NEED FROM US IS A, A A, SOME SORT OF AN ACTION THAT SAYS RESOLUTION HERE, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION.
COULD YOU HELP US WITH THAT? RE THEY JUST CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE LIKE THEY'RE, AND GET THE WORDING THE WAY THEY WANT ALONG THE, THE RIGHT, HE SAID THE RIGHT TWO GIVE US THE AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE NEGOTIATING TERMINATION ALONG THE ITEMS OF OPTION ONE THAT WE DISCUSSED.
WELL I THINK IT SAYS WAS CLEAR ALONG THE ITEMS OF, OF SETTLEMENT OF TERMINATION, SETTLEMENT, TERMINATION.
TO BE CLEAR WHAT IT'S, AND THEN ON OUR OCTOBER, BUT NOT OCTOBER, BUT ON AUGUST
[01:05:01]
THE 22ND, UH, REGULAR MEETING, YOU THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE WRAPPED UP? WELL, I MEAN I THINK WE SHOULD, IF WE DON'T WE'LL TELL Y'ALL ANYTHING.IF WE'RE, YOU KNOW, COME BACK IN, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE THIS.
THEY SHOULD WANNA SETTLE IT TOO.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALL THE THINGS THAT Y'ALL DISCUSSED THAT ARE AT OUR DISPOSAL, EVEN THOUGH IT PUTS US IN A BAD POSITION, I THINK THEY'RE STILL AT OUR DISPOSAL AND WE WILL ACT ON THOSE THINGS IF THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO THE THING WE'VE GOT LEFT, THEY NEED TO COINCIDENTALLY, THAT'S THE FIRST THINK MOST SCHOOLS IN CANADA BELIEVE.
GENTLEMEN, DO I HAVE A MOTION? PROCEED? YEAH, WE CAN, IF YOU GET IT DONE EARLIER.
WE HAVE, IT'LL BE, WE WILL USE UH, AUGUST 15.
WE WE'RE HAVING A SPECIAL MEETING THEN.
UH, ANYWAY, SO IF YOU GET IT DONE BY THE END, WE CAN HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA FOR THAT, UH, ITEM.
THE ONLY REASON, BUT Y'ALL CAN DO THIS WITHOUT ME.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, PROCEED ALONG THE LINES? OH, YOU ALREADY MADE IT.
WE MADE COMMISSIONER ALLEN MADE THE MOTION.
COMMISSIONER, UH, PHILLIPS SECONDED THE MOTION.
DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? SHE SAID THAT HE SAID THERE CAME ON TO BE CONSIDERED A MOTION TO PROVE GIVING THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY THE AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATING, NEGOTIATE ANY DETERMINATION AGREEMENT.
ANY OTHER, ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO OVER? UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
NOW, I GUESS ITEM NUMBER TWO, WE DON'T NEED TO, WE DO NOT BECAUSE WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T TAKE AN ACTION ON A CONTRACT IS NOT THE, YOU'VE GOT WHAT YOU NEED RIGHT NOW.
OKAY, SUE, WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN FOR A SECOND.
COMMISSIONER ALLEN, ALL IN FAVOR SAY THANK YOU.