* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. MORNING TO, [00:00:01] UH, MEETING OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TON COUNTY COMMISSIONER COURT. TODAY IS TUESDAY, DECEMBER 27TH, UH, 2016. UH, IT IS OUR REGULAR MEETING. UH, WE'LL BEGIN HERE. JUST A FEW MOMENTS IF YOU HAVE AN EYE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO UH, DISCUSS, UH, THAT'S ON THE AGENDA HERE. JUST A FEW MOMENTS. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND FILL OUT A SIGN IN SHEET, UH, OVER ON THE TABLE, UH, AND PASS THAT IN TO, UH, UH, THE SHERIFF AND, UH, THE COUNTY CLERK. WE WILL, UH, HEAR THAT JUST IN A FEW MOMENTS, AND WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN THIS MORNING WITH OUR, UH, INVOCATION AND I'LL ASK COMMISSIONER SHANE TO GIVE THAT AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO BOTH OF OUR FLAGS. SO IF YOU'LL JOIN ME TO STAND, I'M MOST FUL HEAVEN. ME. FATHER, WE JUST TELL YOU TODAY, AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR GIVING BLESSINGS. WE JUST THANK YOU FOR THE SEASON OF THE YEAR THAT YOU GIVE US EACH YEAR. WE JUST THANK, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR BLESSING ON THAT. WE ALSO ASK YOU TO BE WITH OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, OUR SOLDIERS THAT ARE IN HARM'S WAY, AND OUR, OUR POLICE OFFICERS THAT DO THEIR DILI DUE DILIGENCE EACH DAY IN OUR NATION. WE JUST ASK YOU NOW TO, THUS THIS COURT IS WE DO THE BUSINESS OF OUR COUNTY, SOMETHING WE ASK YOUR SON'S NAME, I CONCLUSIONS TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL ON I THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO BE TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE INDIVIDUAL. AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE AN ITEM THAT YOU WISH TO, UH, UH, SPEAK THAT'S ON THE AGENDA, BE SURE TO TURN THOSE IN JUST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO WE CAN GET THOSE SCHEDULED. UH, WE DO HAVE SOME ROUTINE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. AND TO DO THAT, I NEED TO ASK, UH, BOTH COMMISSIONER SHANE AND COMMISSIONER ROSA AND SHERIFF BURNS AND MRS. IFF TO COME TO THE FRONT OF THE, UH, MEETING AREA THERE SO WE CAN PRESENT SOMETHING TO YOU. ALRIGHT, Y'ALL KIND OF LINE UP HERE. BEEN SWORN IN AND SWORE A CAP DOWN ON . THIS IS, UH, THE TIME OF THE YEAR WHENEVER WE, UH, PRESENT THE OUTGOING, UH, OFFICE HOLDERS A UH, PLAQUE FOR THEIR SERVICE FOR COFFMAN COUNTY. AND FIRST ONE I'D LIKE TO PRESENT IS TO COMMISSIONER JIMMY JOE , UH, FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE COUNTY. THANK YOU, JUDGE. THANK YOU. PLEASURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UH, THE NEXT WOULD BE ANOTHER FLAG TO, UH, KENNETH SHANE, COMMISSIONER PRECINCT THREE. AND SIR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO KAMAN COUNTY. THEY A TOTAL OF EIGHT YEARS. EIGHT YEARS AND SIX MONTHS, EIGHT YEARS AND SIX MONTHS. I APPRECIATE WORKING FOR THE OF KAMAN COUNTY. THANK YOU. THE NEXT, UH, WOULD BE TO OUR TAX ASSESSOR COLLECTOR, UH, MRS. TANYA RATCLIFF. AND THANK YOU TANYA, FOR YOUR EFFORTS TO WORK IN THE, UH, KAMAN, UH, AS BEING OUR COFFMAN COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR. THANK YOU, JUDGE. I ENJOYED EVERY MINUTE OF IT. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND LAST AND CERTAINLY NOT LEAST IS TO, UH, KAMAN COUNTY SHERIFF, UH, DAVID BURNS FOR 16 YEARS OF SERVICE TO CITIZENS OF KATON COUNTY. UH, I HAVE A LITTLE FUN WITH THE SHERIFF. I CALL HIM THE, HE'S THE HI SHERIFF AND HE SAYS, WELL, I'M THE ONLY SHERIFF YOU GOT, SO I DON'T LET HIM HIRE LOW MENTIONS THAT. CONGRATULATIONS. LET'S GIVE THESE GUYS. [00:05:05] ALL RIGHT, STEVE, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS ON THERE, CONSENT AGENDA. I'LL READ THESE AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD, ADAM MAY IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING ATION OF KYLE BARNES AND MICHAEL R CHESELDINE OREL AS DEPUTY FOR THE KAUFMAN, UH, COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. ADAM B IS TO DISCUSS, CONSIDER REAPPOINTING MIKE SHARP AS A BOARD MEMBER FOR THE EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT. NUMBER FIVE FOR A TWO YEAR TERM, UH, C IS TO DISCUSS, CONSIDER REPOINTING DANNY BROCK AND ASHLEY ER FOR A ONE YEAR TERM AND STEPHANIE COLLINS FOR A TWO YEAR TERM TO THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT. NUMBER SEVEN. UH, ITEM D IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING THE REQUEST FROM THE FARMER'S ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INCORPORATED, UH, TO CONSTRUCT ELECTRICAL POWER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ACROSS VALLEY VIEW, WHICH IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 0.049 AND FOUR NINE MILES NORTHWEST OF SCENIC CIRCLE OF HOFFMAN COUNTY PRECINCT. TWO. ITEM E IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST FROM FARMERS ELECTRIC PROPERTY INCORPORATED TO CONSTRUCT AN ELECTRIC POWER DISTRIBUTION FACILITY ACROSS UNIVERSITY DRIVE, WHICH IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET NORTHWEST OF FM 5 48 IN COFFMAN COUNTY PRECINCT TWO. UH, OUT F IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING THE REQUEST OF CENTRALLY TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 1 4800 FEET OF BURIED FI FIBER OPTIC CABLE ALONG LAKESIDE DRIVE AND, AND THE COUNTY ROAD 40 20 IN KAMAN COUNTY PRECINCT 4G IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING THE REQUEST OF CENTURYLINK TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 3,100 FEET OF VARIED FIBER FIBER OPTIC CABLE ALONG COUNTY ROAD 40 59 AND VILLE BOULEVARD, ALSO IN COLTON COUNTY PRECINCT FOUR. UH, H IS JUST TO REVIEW THE STAR TRANSIT FIRST QUARTER REPORT FOR NOVEMBER, 2016 FOR MAN AND RIDERSHIP, UH, IN COLTON COUNTY TROLLEY RIDERSHIP REPORT AND AS WELL AS THE COMAN COUNTY ON CALL SHIP REPORT. AND I AS TO REVIEW THE, UH, AGRILIFE EXTENSION, UH, REPORT FOR KATIE PHILLIPS FOR NOVEMBER, 2016. UH, COMMERS, ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING THEY'D LIKE TO PULL OUT AND DISCUSS OR DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE, UH, CONSENT AGENDA? I MAKE A MOTION HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER SHANE TO APPROVE. I'M SORRY. UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? OPPOSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER THREE IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER RENEWING LEASE BETWEEN, UH, G SCHULER DEVELOPMENT AND PRECINCT POOLS FOR USE OF LAND LOCATED AT THE OF US 1 75 AND FM 7 41. UH, FOR A ONE YEAR TERM BEGINNING JANUARY ONE. COMMISSIONER HAVE A MOTION FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER ALLEN AND HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL NUMBER IS TO, I'M SORRY, MRS. RAT, PRESENT THE, UH, TAX ASSESSOR ELECTRIC REPORT NOVEMBER OF 2016. GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMEN. IN NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR, WE HAVE BROUGHT IN A TOTAL, UH, FOR THE MONTH RUN IN 1.7 MILLION FOR O AND 247,000 FOR IS AND 320,000 FOR ROAD AND BRIDGE. IN ADDITION, ALONG THE RIGHT SIDE NOTE THAT WE BROUGHT IN $151,713 IN DELINQUENT TAXES FOR M AND O AND 16,267 FOR ROAD BRIDGE. UH, OUR TOTAL COLLECTIONS YEAR TO DATE ARE, UH, $1,973,723 FOR M AND O AND 352,724 FOR, UH, ROAD AND BRIDGE. WE DID HAVE ONE ROLLBACK THIS MONTH. IT WAS IN THE FORNEY AREA. I'VE GOT, UM, A PICTURE OF IT HERE IF ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE EXACTLY WHERE THAT ROLLBACK WAS AND HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW, PARDON [00:10:01] ME. AND WE DID ONLY HAVE IN, IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER. SO FAR WE HAVE ONLY HAD ONE SMALLER MORTGAGE COMPANY PAY, WHICH IS A LITTLE OVER 5 MILLION, BUT IT WILL BE IN NEXT MONTH'S REPORT, BUT THAT'LL PROBABLY BE BEING DISTRIBUTED THIS WEEK. UH, NORMALLY THE MORTGAGE COMPANIES THAT PAY, YOU KNOW, THE BIGGEST PART OF OUR BILLS PAY THE LAST WEEK IN DECEMBER OR THE FIRST WEEK IN JANUARY. USUALLY IF THEY CAN THE LAST IN DECEMBER. 'CAUSE A LOT OF THEIR MORTGAGEES WANT THEIR, THEIR WRITE OFF IN DECEMBER. SO WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OF THOSE YET. SHOULD BE A BUSY WEEK THEN, PROBABLY YES. EXPECT SEVERAL SHORT WEEK TOO. SO ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF, UH, MS. RATLEY ON HER REPORT? I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT FROM COMMISSIONER SHANE AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALLEN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER THE TAX ASSESS OF THE LECTURES REPORT OR TRAINING HOURS AS REQUIRED BY LAW. YEAH, A HOSPITAL OR SENATE BILL, EXCUSE ME, 5 46 REQUIRES THAT AT THE END OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR, I REPORT TO YOU THAT I HAVE COMPLETED MY REQUIRED TRAINING HOURS. I HAVE COMPLETED THOSE HOURS. UM, WE HAD A COUPLE OF REALLY GOOD CONFERENCES THIS YEAR WHERE I GOT IN MOST OF MY HOURS. THE TAX COLLECTOR IS REQUIRED TO, UH, TAKE AT LEAST 20 HOURS OF TRAINING A YEAR AND 10 OF WHICH NEEDS TO BE IN TAX COLLECTING. AND I HAVE COMPLETED THAT ASSIGNMENT, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE I REPORT IT TO THE MEASURE COURT PROVIDE AND THE OTHER HOURS THAT I EARN MOSTLY AT CONFERENCE JUST HELP ME IN MAINTAINING MY PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTING COLLECTOR CERTIFICATION. CONGRATULATIONS. AND I, I GUESS WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER, UH, APPROVING THOSE AS WELL AS A MATTER OF BREAK. SO YES, THEY HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE THE TRAINING HOURS AS REPORTED BY MRS. IFF. SO COMMISSIONER ROSA MAKES THAT MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND COMMISSIONER ALLEN SECONDS. UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER SIX IS FROM OUR TREASURER MR. OLDFIELD TO PRESENT AND ACCEPT, UH, THE TREASURER'S MONTHLY REPORT. NOVEMBER, 2016. GOOD MORNING COMMISSIONERS. GOOD MORNING JUDGE. THE NOVEMBER 30TH TREASURER'S REPORT A GENERAL FUND CASH BALANCE. WE STARTED THE MONTH WITH 1,000,002 65 9 0 4 0.73. WE HAD RECEIPTS OF 2 MILLION 4 58, 6 54 96. WE MADE DISBURSEMENTS OF 2 MILLION 9 98, 639 54, UH, 3 MILLION FOR THE MONTH. WE'VE GOT A $36 MILLION APPROXIMATE BUDGET. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S JUST AN AVERAGE MONTH. WE HAVE AN ENDING BALANCE OF 725,900 2015 AND ALL OF THAT'S HELD AT AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK. UNDER THE TERMS OF OUR, UH, DEPOSITORY CONTRACT, UH, WE DID, AS YOU SEE DOWN THE LEFT HAND SIDE, WE DID CLOSE OUT OUR MONEY MARKET INVESTMENT ACCOUNT. UH, $47 OF RESIDUAL POSTED AT THE END OF THE MONTH WILL REMOVE THAT IN DECEMBER. UH, ANO. COUPLE MORE HIGHLIGHTS HERE ON THE FRONT PAGE. UH, FUND 1 28 OF THE ORIGINAL ROAD BOND ISSUE FROM 2014, UH, HAS 5 MILLION 360 6, 2 37 78 THAT HAD NOT BEEN SPENT AT THE END OF NOVEMBER. THE NEW ROAD BOND PROCEEDS ARE STORED AT TEXT POOL AS WE'VE DISCUSSED. AND, UH, THERE'S 26 MILLION 18 0 60 48 AT TEXT POOL. INTEREST ON THAT IS 15,008 28.02. UM, IT WAS, I THINK IT'S STILL AT 38 BASIS POINTS VERSUS 35 AT AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK. SO WE MADE AN EXTRA $1,500 BY HAVING A TEXT. OKAY. AND WHILE WE'RE THERE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED THAT AND WE'LL HAVE OUR JANUARY, WE'LL MAKE OUR INVESTMENT OFFICERS REPORT. WE HAVE OUR INVESTMENT POLICY IN PLACE. UM, WE DO NEED A, A MEMBER OF THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT TO CONSIDER [00:15:01] BEING ON THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE. AND, UM, I GOT INFORMATION THIS MORNING, UM, FOR SOME OF THE MONEY IN THE CURRENT VOTE ON PROCEEDS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE FOR TWO YEARS. I SAW A, UH, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD OFFER OPPORTUNITY TODAY THAT WAS NEARLY 1.29%. UH, I'VE SEEN, UH, LAST WEEK, UH, ONE YEAR OBLIGATIONS FOR A LITTLE BIT OVER 1%. SO AS WE GET INTO JANUARY, WE MAKE, UH, INVESTMENT OFFICERS REPORT IN JANUARY, WE'LL START SHOWING THE NEW COURT SOME OF THE POTENTIAL, UH, FOR THE COUNTY. ALRIGHT, QUICKLY WRAPPING UP. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. UH, THE INTEREST ON THE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, UH, PRODUCED 3 3839 64 IN INTEREST. AND YOU CAN SEE IN GENERAL HOW THAT WAS DISPERSED. UH, ALMOST EQUALLY SPLIT BETWEEN, UH, THE GENERAL FUND AND THE, UH, ROAD BOND FUND. UH, WE PROVIDED TO YOU ON THE NEXT TWO PAGES, OUR PLEDGE SECURITY LISTING. THAT'S THE COLLATERAL THAT AMERICAN NATIONAL PROVIDES FOR THE FUNDS ON DEPOSIT. AND, UM, WE HAD 1612.08 IN, UM, BANK CHARGES WAIVE BECAUSE OF THE FUNDS THAT WE HAD ON DEPOSIT. SO WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AS AN ADDITIONAL 1600 OF INTEREST INCOME, IF YOU WILL. UH, AND THEN, UH, WE'VE MONTHLY DEBT REPORT WITH THE NEW, UM, INTEREST IN PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS REQUIRED BY THE 2016 TAX ROAD BONDS. YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY, UM, AS OF NOVEMBER 30TH, OUR PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS DUE ON THE DEBTS LISTED ON THE PAGE BY THE COUNTY IS 98 MILLION 4 9 2 7 4 2 21. AND THEN THE LAST PAGES ARE THE, UH, UH, DETAILED FUND BALANCES AND ACCOUNT SUMMARIES. AND THEN EACH OF YOU HAVE YOUR APPRECIATE REPORTS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK Y'ALL FOR A WONDERFUL YEAR. IF YOU WANT, GET MY CALL TO MR TO COMMISSIONER, THANK SERVICE OF THE COUNTY. THANK YOU SIR. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER CHANGE APPROVE. DO WE HAVE MOTION THE DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THANK YOU JUDGE, VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, UH, IS TO DISCUSS, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANY AMENDMENT AND OR APPEAL OF ANY CURRENT STATUTES OR RULES THAT AUTHORIZE LOCAL CONTROL, UH, BY THE COMMISSION'S COURT, THE ADMINISTRATION OF OUR UNIONS, CONCERNING RECORDS SALE BY THE COUNTY AND DISTRICT CLERK, OR HOW THE COUNTY CHOOSES TO OFFLOAD RECORDS TO THE PUBLIC AND ANY DIVERSION OF COUNTY REVENUE TO ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY. CONCERN RECORDS UNDER LOCAL CONTROL BY STATUTE. I'M NOT SURE IF YOU GOT THIS INFORMATION FROM THE DISTRICT. I'LL MAKE IT AVAILABLE. GIVE BIT OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION. AND OUR ASSOCIATION HAS SENT A LETTER THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THE CLERKS TO READ AND RHONDA SAYS SHE'S HARD AS SHE COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY, BUT SHE IS IN, UH, FULL SUPPORT OF THIS RESOLUTION. SO I'M JUST GONNA READ YOU WHAT WAS SENATE OUR ASSOCIATION. UM, THEIR JUDGES AND COMMISSIONERS RUN THE QA AND I WILL RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE ATTACHED RESOLUTION FOR THE RESEARCH COL COUNTY RESEARCH, TEXAS RESOLUTION BE PLACED ON THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION. AND WE ARE HAPPY TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION, HONOR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE RESOLUTION'S BEEN ADOPTED BY THE COUNTY AND DISTRICT CLERKS ASSOCIATION OF TEXAS IN COORDINATION OF AND THE LEGAL COUNSEL OF THE COUNTY JUDGES AND COMMISSIONERS, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AND THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION HAVE BEEN COLLECTING DOCUMENTS FILED TO THE COUNTY AND DISTRICT COURTS VIA YOU FILED TEXAS. WHEN HE FILED BEGAN, CLERK'S, COURTS AND ATTORNEYS WERE ASSURED DOCUMENTS WOULD ONLY BE MAINTAINED ON THE STATE'S E-FILE SERVER FOR 30 DAYS. HOWEVER, BEGINNING IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR WITHOUT ANY NOTICE TO THE CLERK, COURTS AND THE JUDGES, THE SUPREME COURT BEGAN KEEPING ALL THE DOCUMENTS E-FILED WITH THE INTENT TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH THE SYSTEM, WHICH IS RESEARCH TEXAS TO PROVIDE COPIES OF THE RECORDS FROM ALL THE COURTS ACROSS THE STATE. THE CLERK'S ASSOCIATION HAS MET WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF OCA AND JCIT COMMITTEE TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS. THEY'VE BEEN DISCOUNTED AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH TEXAS IS MOVING FORWARD. THEY'VE OUTLINED SIX ITEMS THAT ARE CONCERNS. [00:20:01] THE FIRST ONE BEING THE CONSTITUTION AND STATE LAWS. THE CLERKS ARE THE CUSTODIAN OF ALL COURT RECORDS. THE SUPREME COURT AND OCA HAVE NO STATUTORY STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO CREATE A SYSTEM FOR PURCHASE OF THE COUNTY RECORDS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CUSTODIAN AND THE COUNTY TO WHOM THESE RECORDS BELONG. AND I BELIEVE THERE'S AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION IN THAT PACKAGE THAT DISCUSSES THIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE 180 1 OR 1 91 BEST AUTHORITY WITH THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT TO DECIDE HOW AND IF THE DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR PURCHASE VIA THE INTERNET BY THE AGS OPTION THAT, UH, GREG 5 66, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONFIRMED THE COMMISSIONERS HAD AND RETAINED THIS AUTHORITY. TEXAS STATUTE ALLOWS THE CLERKS TO CHARGE A DOLLAR FOR COPIES OF COURT RECORDS, WHICH IS DEPOSITED INTO THE GENERAL FUND, AND THE SUPREME COURT INTENDS TO OFFER THE DOCUMENTS FOR A SMALLER FEE AND SHARE THE PROCEEDS WITH THE COUNTY. NUMBER FOUR, THE SUPREME COURT INTENT FOR THE SYSTEM IS FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE PUBLIC CLERKS, MAKE ALL THE COURT RECORDS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS. WE'VE DECIDED SOME COUNTIES HAVE DECIDED TO PLACE ALL OR SOME OR NO RECORDS OR CASE INDICES ON THE INTERNET. THE CLERKS TAKE THE POSITION THAT THE DECISION SHOULD NOT BE LEFT TO THE COUNTIES, I'M SORRY, THE CLERKS TAKE THE POSITION THAT THE DECISION SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE COUNTIES AND THAT 24 HOUR CONVENIENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT REASON TO TAKE AWAY OR UNDERMINE THE AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS AT THIS TIME. THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS IN PLACE THAT THE SUPREME COURT OCH UTILIZING TO READ THAT CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IN THE COURT RECORDS. UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, CLERKS ARE CHARGED WITH RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT SEALED, CONFIDENTIAL OR EXPUNGED INFORMATION IS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. PURSUANT TO THE VARIOUS STATUTES AND COURT ORDERS FOR THE RECORDS THEY KEEP IN THE OFFICE, THE CLERKS FULFILL THEIR DUTIES BY ENSURING THAT THE PAPER CASE FILES AND THE ELECTRONIC FILES ARE SECURED. CURRENTLY, CLERKS MUST REMOVE ANY RECORD FROM RESEARCH TEXAS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDERS THAT MAKE FILING CONFIDENTIAL. IN ADDITION TO THE DATA ENTRY IN OUR OWN SYSTEM, THIS RAISES CONCERNS OF LIABILITY TO THE COUNTY AS WELL AS UTILIZING COUNTY STAFF TO MAINTAIN A STATE SYSTEM. NUMBER SIX, THE OCA HAS INDICATED THAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL SEEK TO AMEND AND CHANGE VARIOUS STATUTES REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. FOR EXAMPLE, INFORMATION SUCH AS CHILDREN'S NAMES AND BIRTH DATES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED IN DIVORCE AND CUSTODY PAPERS FOR THE FAMILY CODE. HOWEVER, UNDER THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURES, SUCH, SUCH INFORMATION MUST BE REDACTED BY THE CLERK. IF THE CLERK CHOOSES TO MAKE THE DOCUMENT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET. SUCH INFORMATION DOES NOT NEED TO BE REDACTED IF THE CLERK HAS THE DOCUMENT AND INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE OFFICE AS PART OF THE RECORD. SO THE COUNTY CLERK, COUNTY AND DISTRICT CLERK OPPOSES THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCH TEXAS FOR THESE STATED REASONS. AND WE'RE ASKING THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT AND WE'LL BE TALKING TO THE JUDGES TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE RESEARCH TEXAS SYSTEM AS WELL. THE IMPLEMENTATION HAS A, OF THIS SYSTEM HAS A DIRECT COMMISSIONER'S, UM, HAS A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE SPHERE OF AUTHORITY GRANTED TO ELECTED OFFICIAL. IT UNDERMINES THE AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT REGARDING THE DOCUMENT AND IT MAY CAUSE FUNDS TO BE DIVERTED TO THE, FROM THE COUNTY. AND IT'S, IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ASK THE COMMISSIONER'S SUPPORT IN, IN JOINING OUR ASSOCIATION IN OPPOSING THESE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE. YEAH, I THINK SO. AND COUNTY JUDGES AND COMMISSIONERS ASSOCIATION HAS, UH, ALSO, UH, AGREED THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING. HAS ANYBODY, JUST AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION, HAS ANYBODY AT THE LOCAL LEVEL PUSHED THIS? I MEAN, IS THIS ALL COMING FROM THE TOP DOWN? THEY SAY THAT THEY'VE DONE A WHOLE OF 3000 ATTORNEYS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND 98% OF THEM WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ACCESS TO, UH, A SYSTEM OF COURT DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THERE'S A FEDERAL SYSTEM CALLED THE PROGRAM AND WHERE ALL THE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE AND THEY WANT TEXAS TO FOLLOW THAT FEDERAL DATABASE. AND THEY CREATED E-FILE TEXAS AS THAT PORTAL SO THAT THEY SAY IT'S DRIVEN BY JUDGES AND ATTORNEYS, NOT NECESSARILY THE PUBLIC. SO THE FEE THAT WE HAVE BEEN COLLECTING FOR THAT, THAT YOU AND RHONDA COLLECT WOULD GO OVER THE STATE NOW? YES. UH, I KNOW THAT RHONDA'S NUMBER, RHONDA GAVE ME A NUMBER OF LIKE $40,000 THAT SHE COLLECTS FOR TAX FOR FOUR COPIES OF COURT RECORDS. THE STATEMENT ONLY CHARGE 50 AND THEY GIVE US 10. AND AND WE DON'T, WE WON'T HAVE A SAY I'M SAYING THEY COULD [00:25:01] A DOLLAR A PAGE, THEY MIGHT JUST CUT IT IN HALF. GIVE WELL THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE INFORMATION, THERE'S A LOT OF CASES THAT BECOME UNDISCLOSED. THEY, THEY GET EXPUNGED. UM, THERE'S SO MUCH PERSONAL INFORMATION IN THE COURT CASE THAT WE WILL HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OF WHO SEES IT, WHO'S GETTING IT AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. AND ALL THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ANSWERED. HOW DO YOU DETECT THE INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT, FOR PRIVACY AND, EXCUSE ME. GO AHEAD. THEIR, THEIR PERSONAL, THEIR PERSONAL, YOU KNOW, BUT THEY'RE ALREADY, THEY'VE ALREADY BEGUN THE PROCESS OF THIS. YES. THEY, THEY STARTED RATHER THAN KEEPING IT FOR THE 30 DAYS, WHICH IS WHAT THE CLERKS WERE TOLD JANUARY, THEY STARTED COLLECTING IT AND KEEPING IT PERMANENTLY. SO THE WAY TO CORRECT IT WOULD BE THROUGH LEGISLATION. THE WAY TO CORRECT IT WOULD BE THROUGH LEGISLATION TO, FOR ANYTHING FOR DOING THIS OR I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GONNA BE, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE BLOCKING LEGISLATION. OKAY. BECAUSE WHEN THEY GO TO TRY TO, THE STATUTES ARE CLEAR NOW THE CLERKS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REDACTION OF 'EM AND THE KEEPING OF THE DOCUMENTS. AND THEY AND THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT DECIDE WHERE THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE GONNA BE AVAILABLE, WHETHER IT'S GONNA BE IN-HOUSE, ONLY ON THE INTERNET AS INDICES OR ON THE INTERNET AS IMAGES. AND THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT THE, THE CLERK AND THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. WITH E-FILE TEXAS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE ALL THE STATUTES TO SAY THAT THE STATE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THINGS THAT THE CLERK AND THE COMMISSIONERS WERE LESS RESPONSIBLE FOR. SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WRITING THE LEGISLATION, IT'S BLOCKING EVERYTHING THAT COMES UP. OKAY. GENTLEMEN, WHAT'S YOUR, UH, COMMENTS? I LIKE, I LIKE WHAT, WHAT, UM, MS. HUGHES SAID IS CORRECT IN THE, THAT UM, THE CLERK, THE CLERKS AND THE COMMISSIONERS RIGHT NOW, ACCORDING TO TEXAS STATUTES ARE BASICALLY IN CONTROL OF THESE RECORDS. UM, AND SO IT'S RULING A LEGISLATIVE BY LEGISLATIVE, BUT BY ADOPTING THESE RESOLUTIONS, IT SHOWS THE LEGISLATION THAT THE, THE VARIOUS TEXAS COUNTIES AND COMMISSIONER'S COURTS APPROVE BLOCKING AND KEEPING THE LEGISLATION AS IT IS. HONESTLY, YOU'RE PROBABLY IN THE FUTURE, YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE. THERE PROBABLY WILL BE A MOVE TO A STATEWIDE SYSTEM. UM, BECAUSE ATTORNEYS, WHEN THEY PRACTICE IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES, EVERY COUNTY HAS A DIFFERENT SET UP, DIFFERENT ALLOWANCES ON RECORDS THAT, THAT THEY WILL ALLOW SOMEONE TO SEE OR NOT SEE ONLINE. AND SO YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS AT SOME TYPE OF STATEWIDE SYSTEM. BUT BY KEEPING THIS IN PLACE AND SUPPORTING THIS TO KEEP IT IN PLACE, IT ALLOWS, UM, THE LEGISLATORS TIME TO WORK OUT A BILL OR PASS LEGISLATION THAT STILL KEEPS THINGS IN THE LOCAL CONTROL LIKE THE CLERKS AND THE COMMISSIONERS THAT YET MAYBE ALLOWS FOR A STATEWIDE SYSTEM THAT, UM, PROVIDES BETTER PROTECTION AND ESPECIALLY, UM, PROVIDES SOME TYPE OF FEE SHARING AGREEMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. 'CAUSE IT KIND OF TAKES AWAY ALL OF THE MONIES. AND I KNOW THAT RHONDA, THEY ARE, THE COUNTY EARNS BETWEEN I THINK 38 AND $40,000 ON THESE FEES AND THAT'S A A LOT OF MONEY. AND SO I THINK THAT, THAT YOU WANT TO BLOCK THIS NOW? I THINK IT'S, I THINK THAT IT CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THE POLICY DECISION THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE, BUT UM, IT SUPPORTS THE CURRENT LEGISLATION AS IS IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO PREVENT, UM, THE STATEWIDE, UM, E-FILING SYSTEM FROM JUST KIND OF TAKING OVER AND TAKING REALLY CONTROL OF ALL THE RECORDS AND INFORMATION AND REALLY ALL THE MONIES AND FUNDS THAT COME FROM THOSE RECORDS. BUT, BUT YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT A COMPROMISE SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRIVACY THE DOCUMENT GONNA BE. SO MAKE CONSIDER THIS RESOLUTION. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM ACCEPT RESOLUTION SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ALLEN. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? NO. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED THE GENTLEMAN? I HAVE A COPY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [00:30:02] UH, ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS, UH, DISCUSSED AND CONSIDER RESENDING THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT RULES ORDER THAT WAS PASSED ON OCTOBER 28TH, 2015. I BELIEVE IT WAS ACTS OCTOBER 26TH, UH, THAT IT WAS PASSED. AND COMMISSIONER LIK ASK THIS, BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA. YEAH, JUDGE, AS AWELL PRESENT TO YOU, UH, I PUT THIS ON THE, I KNOW THAT YOU REALLY, UH, DIDN'T AGREE WITH THIS AND IT SEEMED TO BE REALLY, UH, GEARED YOUR AWAY WITH THESE AND I, I KNOW THAT YOU VOICE YOUR OPPOSITION INTO COURT TO THESE RULES AND, AND IN THE MEDIA SEVERAL TIMES, UM, HAD SEVERAL PRESS RELEASES AND, UH, FOUND GARY WROTE MULTIPLE ARTICLES ABOUT, UH, ABOUT THIS. AND, UM, THERE WAS, I MEAN, FROM OCTOBER, 2015, FEBRUARY, 2016, AND THEN IN MARCH ALSO. SO, UM, AND, AND COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS MADE A REMARK BEFORE THAT, UM, ONE COURT'S RULING CAMPAIGN NEXT. SO, UM, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RESCIND THIS AND IF THE NEW COURT WANTS TO ADOPT THE RULES, I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THEM BACK IN PLACE OR MAKE THEIR OWN RULES. SO, UH, AND I'LL GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A MOTION. I YOU PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, I'LL ACCEPT YOU. I BELIEVE YOU SAID YOU ALREADY MADE THE MOTION. WELL, I MAKE THE MOTION AND YOU SECOND COURT. I JUST SO YOU KNOW, MY OPINION IS STILL THE SAME. UH, I DO THINK IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PEOPLE TO SPEAK TO THE COURT AND, UH, NO, I'M NOT SECOND ON THE MOTION. UH, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SECOND WHAT MOTION I WISH TO DO SO. RIGHT. UH, SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? I'LL SECOND HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER. UH, SHANE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. IF YOU RAISE YOUR HANDS, SO CLERK VOTE, YOU'RE GOING VOTE NO ONE ON THAT. OKAY, SO WE HAVE ONE, UH, ALL THOSE AGAINST. OKAY, SO WE HAVE THREE AND YOU CAN COUNT ME IN. AND YOU'RE ALSO, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT BOARD COMMISSIONER. I JUST TOLD YOU I'M IN FAVOR OF WHAT WE IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC BEING ABLE TO SPEAK AT THE COURT, RIGHT? AND THATAND THESE RULES AND PUT YES. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THE NEW COURT THAT YOU SAID WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE UP FIRST YEAR. SO THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL GAME. I MEAN THIS IS SOMETHING, WELL, IT WAS TO USE FOR SEVERAL, IT WAS NOT A POLITICAL GAME, SIR. IT, WHY DID THE ARTICLE STOP AT THAT? I DIDN'T WRITE THE ARTICLE. YOU COULD NOT PRESS RELEASES SEVERAL. I DID. THAT WAS MY, I CAN SAY THIS IS MERIT. YOU'RE, YOU WERE AGAINST IT THEN, BUT YOU'RE NOT AGAINST IT. HAVE WE VOTED? YES. ANYBODY GOT ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? ALRIGHT, I BELIEVE YOU WANTED TO SKIP OUT TO ITEM NUMBER 10. NO, I WANTED DO NUMBER EIGHT. THAT WAS, I'M SORRY, NUMBER THAT, YEAH, NUMBER TWO. YOU WANTED TO GO TO NUMBER 10. OKAY. UH, SO NUMBER 10 IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER REVIEWING COUNTY PURCHASING POLICY ON PAGE 17 AND TAKING NECESSARY ACTION TO REQUEST QUOTES, UH, WITH SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTATIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE COUNTY JAIL DRAIN REPAIR PURCHASES ARE MADE WITHIN THE COUNTY'S MISSING. YEAH, AGAIN, THIS IS RELATED TO THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED A COUPLE OF TIMES. UM, I'VE GOT HERE AND I PROVIDED ALL Y'ALL COPY FROM THE TEXAS SUBSTATION COUNTY, UH, STATING THE COMMISSIONER'S DUTIES. AND ABOUT MIDWAY DOWN THE PAGE AND COMMISSIONER'S COURT, ONE OF THE DUTIES IS PROVIDES AND MAINTAINS ALL COUNTY BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. AND THIS IS TO DO WITH JAIL. WE HAVE, UH, DISCUSSED SEVERAL TIMES AND IN THERE IT IS, I PROVIDE Y'ALL INFORMATION ON THE, UM, THAT, AND ON THE FIRST PAGE, SUPERVISION OF EMPLOYEES SAYS THAT THE SHERIFF HAS AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE ALL EMPLOYEES PERTAINING THE SAFETY KEEPING OF THE PRISONERS AND OPERATION OF JAIL. AND IN THESE MULTIPLE AG OPINIONS, I HAVE FOUND NOTHING IN THERE THAT, UH, STATES THAT THE SHERIFF IS REQUIRED TO DO, UH, MAINTENANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION, UM, FOR THE, UH, ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF THE JAIL. ACCORDING TO EVERYTHING I READ HERE, IT SAYS IT'S THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT DUTY TO PROVIDE THE JAIL, UM, [00:35:01] AND THE, UH, SAFE KEEPING OF PRISONERS. AND SO SEVERAL WEEKS AGO, A CHECK WAS ISSUED FOR $22,028. SO REPAIRS DONE ON FOUR DRAINS IN THE JAIL. AND UPON DISCUSSION OF THE BILLS, UM, CHIEF DEPUTY BEAVER REPLIED THAT THE BID WERE RECEIVED AND THE VENDORS CHOSEN. AND HE RELAYED TO US THAT THE VENDOR CHOSEN WAS THE ONLY QUALIFIED VENDOR DUE TO JAIL STANDARDS AND DECIDED TO GO WITH THE, DECIDED THE 3D MECHANICAL. THEN WE LEARNED THAT WORK WASN'T ACTUALLY DONE. AND THE, IN THE DECEMBER 12TH MEETING, 52 MINUTES INTO THE MEETING, CHIEF BEAVER STATED THAT TWO DRAINS HAD BEEN FIXED. AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, 55 MINUTES AND 30, THE STATED THAT TWO 50 DRILLS COULD 56 MINUTES AND 18 SECONDS, THE STATED NO DRAIN BEEN FIXED, 50 MINUTES, 30 DISCUSS BID. THE CHIEF BEAVER STATED THAT LOW HITTERS, THAT LOW HITTERS WERE NOT QUALIFIED. 58 MINUTES, 45 SECONDS. IN THE MEETING, CHIEF BEAVER STATED THAT THE LACK OF SPECS ON THE BID WAS THE REASON THAT THE LOW HITTERS WERE NOT CHOSEN. CHIEF BEERS WAS, UH, ADAMANT ABOUT THE JAIL STANDARDS COMPLIANCE AND VERY CONDESCENDING WITH COMMISSION'S COURT. AFTER THAT MEETING, I BEGAN FOLLOWING UP WITH THE OTHER PLUMBING COMPANIES ON ELIGIBILITY AND QUALIFICATIONS AND QUESTION THEM ON THE WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN TO THEM BY WHICH THE BID CHIEF BEAVER AND LISA WERE PURCHASING, UM, DISCUSSED THE THE INFORMAL BID PROCESS. CHIEF, CAN YOU GUESS WHAT I FOUND OUT DIDN'T LIE IN THE COURT? SORRY. PARDON? DIDN'T LIE IN THE COURT. PARDON? DIDN'T LIE IN THE COURT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WELL, WHAT I FOUND OUT WAS THERE WAS NO WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PROCESS, FOR THE WORK TO BE DONE. I CONTACTED, UH, ALL THREE COMPANIES THAT WERE NOT CHOSEN AND SAID THEY WERE GIVEN A WALKTHROUGH THROUGH THE JAILER AND THAT THEY WERE TOLD THAT THE DRAINS, UH, WERE THREE TO FOUR FOOT DEEP. SO THAT'S, THAT'S HOW THEY FACED THEIR BID. AND THAT WAS WITH, UH, I SAY ALL THREE OF THE OTHER COMPANIES. AND MY FEAR IS THAT WITH, WITH THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR, THAT EVENTUALLY WORD'S GONNA SPREAD AND, AND WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO GET FAIR AND PITTED BIDDING BECAUSE WE'RE GOING, WE'RE GONNA GET A REPUTATION FOR NOT TAKING LOW BID, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE THEIR MEET REQUIREMENTS. AND ONE OF THE COMPANIES ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT WAS LOWEST BID, THEY ACTUALLY DO HENDERSON COUNTIES IN LAW, PLUMBING, OR A LOT OF THE PLUMBING IN HENDERSON COUNTY JAIL. SO THERE IS NO REASON THAT THEY COULDN'T WORK IN OUR JAIL. AND YOU, YOU WERE VERY ADAMANT ABOUT JAIL STANDARDS, NOT MEETING JAIL STANDARDS. SO I CONTACTED BRANDON WOOD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TCJS, ABOUT, UH, THE PLUMBING COMPANY'S AUTHORITY OR THE PLUMBING COMPANY'S ABILITY TO DO THE WORK. AND, UH, HIS, HIS, UH, REPLY WAS THAT THERE IS NO PROCESS THAT YOU GO THROUGH TO DO REPAIRS ON DRAINS. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT BY TCJS IS THE FASTER THAT HOLDS DRAIN PLATES DOWN. THEY HAVE TO BE TAMPER PROOF FASTENERS SO THAT THE PRISONERS CAN'T REMOVE EVERYTHING BELOW THAT. IT JUST HAS TO BE FORM CODE, WHICHEVER ONE OF THESE IS A LEGAL CERTIFIED PLUMBER. THEY HAVE A LICENSE OR A LICENSE PLUMBING CODE. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION WEBI THE JAIL DRAINING PROSPECT THROUGH THE PURCHASING AGENT WITH WRITTEN SPECIFICATIONS GIVEN BY AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE COUNTY FACILITIES ADMINISTRATOR. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE THAT IN FORMAL MOTION? YES, YOUR HONOR. EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE MOTION? YES. OKAY. AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER SHANE. UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR HAND. [00:40:01] TWO, UH, ALL AGAINST Y'ALL, ALL AGAINST VOTING RIGHT NOW, COMMISSIONER. ALL AGAINST. AND THE MOTION FAILED, UH, AS PRESENTED. ITEM NUMBER NINE IS, UH, THE NEXT ITEM THAT COMMISSIONER AND THAT IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER TRANSFERRING MULTIPLE EMPLOYEES TO THE COUNTY JAIL'S MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT, TO THE COUNTY MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT, UH, TO BE SUPERVISED BY THE MAINTENANCE DIRECTOR AND MAKE ANY NECESSARY CORRESPONDING LINE ITEM TRANSFERS. AGAIN, THIS, THIS CAME FROM OUR ATTENTION AFTER THIS, UM, BLATANT DISREGARD FOR TAXPAYER'S MONEY ON THIS PROJECT. AND, UH, I HAVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION OPH 1190. I THINK I SUPPLIED THAT TO EACH ONE OF Y'ALL. THE FIRST UH, SENTENCE THERE OF THE AG OPINION IS AGAIN THAT THE SHERIFF HAS A DIRECT OR CONTROL OVER THE ACTUALLY ACTUAL DAILY OPERATION OF THE COUNTY JAIL. YOU GO DOWN TO THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH AND IT SAYS THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS CLEAR THAT THE SHERIFF SHALL EXERCISE A SUPERVISION OF CONTROL AND THE NATURE OF THIS AUTHORITY AND SUCH THAT IT PRECLUDES THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT FROM SUCH AUTHORITY OVER THE JAIL. THE SHERIFF IS THE KEEPER OF THE JAIL. KEEP IS DEFINED AS CUSTODIAN MANAGER OR SUPERINTENDENT ONE WHO HAS A CARE, CUSTODY OR MANAGEMENT OF ANYTHING REPLACED. AND YOU GO DOWN TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH, IT SAYS, THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT SHALL PROVIDE SAFE AND SUPER JAIL FOR RESPECTIVE COUNTY AND SHALL CAUSE THE SAME TO BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD SANITARY CONDITION AT ALL TIMES. PROPERLY VENTILATED, HEATED, DELIGHTED, STRUCTURALLY SOUND FIRE RESISTANT. AND THAT'S THE KEY RIGHT THERE. COMMISSIONER'S COURT IS, IS ONE OF THEIR DUTIES IS TO PROVIDE A STRUCTURALLY SOUND JAIL, FIRE RESISTANT, KEPT IN GOOD REPAIR. SO CLEARLY THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT JAIL IS UNDER THE COMMISSIONER COURT AUTHORITY BY COURT ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION STATE STATUTE. NOW, I REQUESTED FROM THE CLOUD A, UH, PRINTOUT OF HOW MUCH WE HAVE SPENT ON THAT JAIL SINCE ITS INCEPTION. AND IT'S BEEN BETWEEN A HUNDRED AND UH, OR FROM 97,000 PER YEAR TO THE MAXIMUM OF 217,000 PER YEAR SINCE IT WAS OPEN. THAT'S A TOTAL OF $1.612 MILLION. AND KNOWING WHAT I KNOW NOW ABOUT THEIR BIDDING PROCESSES, LOOKS LIKE WE POSSIBLY COULD HAVE SAVED, IF NOTHING ELSE, MAYBE A THIRD OF THAT AMOUNT BY BEING A LITTLE MORE TENTATIVE TO OUR CONTRACTS AND MAINTENANCE. SO A THIRD OF THAT WOULD'VE BEEN 537,000. THAT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF REBUILDING 30 MILES A ROAD. SO OUR, OUR MAINTENANCE GUY, UM, IS, IS WORKED OUT SO GREAT. I'M PROPOSING THIS CHANGE IN DEPARTMENT STRUCTURE TO FULLY UTILIZE OUR NEWLY FORMED COUNTY MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT THAT HAS PROVEN IT'S WORTH THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATING EACH CHALLENGE THAT IT FACES SWIFTLY AND EFFICIENTLY FIXING THE PROBLEM OR SELECTING THE INVESTIGATORS, UH, IF IT IS BEYOND THEIR LIMIT. UM, LIMITED RESOURCES AND PROCURE. IF WE COULD CONSOLIDATE THE JAIL MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL INTO THE COUNTY MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF FACILITIES MAINTENANCE ADMINISTRATOR IS MY FIRM BELIEF THAT WE COULD HAVE MUCH BETTER AND BETTER LOOKING FACILITIES. WE COULD HEAD ALL EXPENSIVE REPAIRS BY BEING PROACTIVE IS STILL ACTIVE AND MOST IMPORTANTLY SAY THE TAXPAYER IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY. UH, WHAT DO I BASE THIS ON? THE RECORDS THAT I PREVIOUSLY STATED, UM, ABOUT THE COST OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE JAIL ON YEAR BASIS. SO I LIKE MOTION TO ACCEPT ITEM NUMBER TEN NINE NINE, TRANSFERRING MULTIPLE EMPLOYEES FROM THE COUNTY JAIL MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT TO THE COUNTY MAINTEN DEPARTMENT, SUPERVISED TO BY THE FACILITATE DIRECTOR AND MAKE ANY NECESSARY CORRESPONDING ITEM TRANSFER. I THINK THE TAXPAYERS WILL GET A LOT MORE FOR THE MONEY. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER OT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND. COMMISSIONER SHANE. SECOND THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? IF YOU'LL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. PARDON? THEY'RE ALREADY [00:45:01] UNDER FOR NEXT YEAR. I AGREE. LOT THINGS WORKED OUT. SO TO VERIFY THE THE VOTE, DID YOU VOTE? NO. NO I WOULDN'T. YES. SO 22 MOTION FAILED. MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 11. UH, ITEM NUMBER 11 IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVING A CHANGE IN THE LENGTH OF COUNTY ROAD 2 73 FROM 2,640 FEET TO 3141.6 AND COFFMAN COUNTY PRECINCT, UH, NUMBER THREE COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE YOU PUT THAT. YEAH. ALL HERE CLEAR UP AN ISSUE. UH, THIS IS THE ROAD THAT WE, UH, RECEIVED FROM PRECINCT ONE ALONG WITH THE ROADS WE RECEIVED FROM PRECINCT TWO THAT WAS ALSO WRONG. THIS JUST, UH, THE SEAWAY PIPELINE, WHICH ACROSS THIS ISSUES THAT AND SO I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSIONER SHANE TO APPROVE, UH, THIS, UH, INCREASE IN THE FEET FROM 2,640 FEET TO 3,100. UH, 31 41 0.6 FEET. HAVE A SECOND. I SECOND. I'M GONNA HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER ROSA. UH, DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE GO? YEAH. UH, TAKING ON NEW ROAD FOR MR. COMMISSIONER COME IN LAST MINUTE KIND OF DEAL. IS THIS CONCERN AND ALSO HAS WORK ALREADY BEEN FINISHED ON THIS ROOM? NO, BEFORE WE ACCEPTED, IT'S JUST BEEN CLEANED UP WITH, I FIXED UP THE SITUATION THAT WAS BAD ACTUALLY TO OUR ATTENTION. THE ROAD WAS WRONG AND UH, SAME BIG ROAD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD. FENCES HAVE NOT BEEN CHANGED. THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S A CHANGE ON THIS ROAD OTHER THAN US CLEANING UP THIS MESS RIGHT HERE. WERE THE UH, SEAWAY GOES ACROSS THE ROAD. SO, YOU KNOW, WE GOT THE LAWSUIT, STATE PROCESS HONOR, WERE THE PROPER PROCEDURES FOLLOWED AS DA'S OFFICE AGENDA BEFORE? YEAH, IT WAS ON AGENDA BEFORE MS. CASE WOULD'VE BEEN IN THAT OFFICE. I DEAL BACK THAT I FOUND MY PACKET THAT SAID IT WAS TO BE ABOUT PUT BACK ON THERE IN 20 DAYS. WELL I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVING ALL OUR BUDGET TALKS AND THIS AND THIS COME BACK IN BETWEEN THE PACKET THAT I GOT AND THE OTHER DAY WE HAD PUTS THINGS, WE PUT THINGS BACK BACK IF SOMETHING DAVID PUT BACK NEXT WEEK. YEAH. I BELIEVE IN RESPONSE TO THE, UH, AGENDA ITEM THAT YOU SENT PUT ON THE AGENDA EARLIER, I HAD RESPONDED TO YOU AND GAVE YOU A COPY OF THE LAW THAT SAID WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TO EXTEND THE ROAD PROPERLY. THERE WERE SOME PROCEDURES 20 DAYS. SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE CORRECTION OF THE ROAD REPORT, NOT RIGHT, EXACTLY. WELL CONTINUE MY REPORT. MY REQUEST IS, OR MY, JUST A QUESTION IS HAVE THE CORRECT PROCEDURES BEEN ADOPTED TO ADD THIS ROAD? WELL IT'S NOT ADDED. IT'S CORRECTLY LENGTHENING THE ROAD. I'M SORRY, LENGTHENING THE ROAD. IT WAS CORRECTLY, IT'S CORRECT. THE ROAD BEEN, IT WAS DEAD FROM THE GET GO. IT WAS JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER THINGS. WE PRECINCT ROAD, THAT'S BEEN THE ISSUES WITH OUR ROAD FOLKS. COUNTY. OKAY. BUT OFFICIALLY HAS THE ROAD GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT IS REQUIRED? YEAH, THAT HAS, IT HAS GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EXTENDING COUNTY ROAD 2 73 WHICH YOU SAW? SO I THINK FOR THE ROAD CEMETERY, UH, FORMERLY KNOWN AS BUT IT'S SUFFICIENT ON THIS COUNTY ROAD. MS, ARE YOU ASKING? YES MA'AM. WELL ADDRESS, WE DO NOT HAVE, UM, THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PROVIDED IS EITHER HAS TO BE AN IMPLIED DEDICATION OR A SPECIFIC DEDICATION AND NONE OF THOSE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO US. WE SENT THOSE OUT. SO NONE OF HAS BEEN, REBECCA CAN ADDRESS THIS MAYBE A LITTLE MORE, BUT NONE OF THOSE, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS. THE ONLY FINAL QUESTION I HAD WAS ABOUT THE PROPERTY OWNERS. [00:50:01] WE'RE GONNA DO AN IMPLIED DEDICATION FOR ACCEPTING PIECE OF THE ROAD. WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW THAT EACH OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT TOUCHES THAT PIECE OF ROAD WERE TAKING IN THAT THEY'VE SAID, YES, WE'RE OKAY WITH THIS AND THEY'VE MADE IT, YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY CLEAR BECAUSE IF NOT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE AN INJUNCTIVE RIGHT AGAINST US FOR UM, I GUESS TAKING OVER THAT PART OF THEIR, WHAT'S NOW THEIR PROPERTY IF IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD. WELL, DIDN'T WE DO THE SAME THING WITH UH, RAY CLARK WHEN HE WAS HERE WE TOOK IN 3,600 FEET AND NOTHING WAS EVER GONE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS. DID THEY DO THAT ON, ON THE, AND I KNOW YOU AND I HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT YOU TALKING TO ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT I, I LIKE ISSUE. I TALKED TO DANNY BUT I DIDN'T TALK TO THE SON. THE FATHER SAID, HEY, WE OWN BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD. DON'T EVER CHANGE. SEE, BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, IT APPEARS THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER. SO THAT'S WHY WELL, I WANTED TO BE AHEAD. WELL, BECAUSE IF, IF ANY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS TOUCHED THAT ROAD AND THAT'S THEIR RIGHT TO INGRESS INGRESS FROM THE PROPERTY, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE AN INJUNCTION. RIGHT. SO THAT, THAT'S THE ONLY THING. AND THEN IMPLIED, UH, DEDICATION IS ONE OF THE MOST SIMPLE ONES THAT YOU CAN GET. I MEAN WE JUST LITERALLY NEED THEM TO SAY, YES, I'M GOOD WITH THIS. I THINK IT'S A PUBLIC ROAD, IT SHOULD BE ONE. I'M OKAY WITH THE COUNTY DOING THAT. IF, IF NOT, IF YOU GUYS WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR I CAN GET IT SIGNED FOR WE CAN DO THE EXPRESS NO, YOU CAN SEND IT. THAT'S THE THING. IT DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPLIED, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SIGNED. WE CAN DO IT CLEANER AND DO AN EXPRESS CITATION. AND I'VE ALREADY SENT THOSE FORMS TO YOU. SO MY QUESTION BEFORE WE HAVE THE VOTE, THE WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE ON THIS ADDITIONAL YES I DID. OKAY. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY UH, SO WE PUT IT ON COURT FIRST. BATTERY? YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE WE EXTENDED THE UH, UH, THEY USE THE, UH, WE GIVE THEM PERMISSION TO CALL THAT TO. SO THAT'S ALL WE DONE. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE UH, VOTE? DO HAVE A MOTION? I MOTION DO HAVE A SECOND? I DO. I I'M NOT SURE THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S IS CLEAR ON THAT ROAD. THAT THAT ROAD IS A, IS A COUNTY ROAD THAT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER. UM, IT WAS KIND OF ABANDONED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY ON, ON ONE GUY ON EVERYTHING AT THE END OF IT. AND UH, IT'S SINCE BEEN, UH, THERE'S SOME HOUSES THAT BEEN BUILT DOWN THERE AND IT'S BASICALLY CORRECTING ROAD FOR, IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE CHANGING IN NEW FOOTAGE, THAT IT WAS BEING IMPAIRED SO THAT PEOPLE COULD USE IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS BEARING ON WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NEEDS TO BE SIGNED. WHAT WOULD HAVE BEARING IS IF DURING THE 2007, WHENEVER THE COURT ADOPTED THE COUNTY ROAD MAP, IF THE DISTANCE WAS LARGER THAN IT IS NOW SO THAT IT SHOWS THAT IT IS JUST A CORRECTING OF AN AMOUNT THAT WAS REPORTED INCORRECTLY, THAT WOULD CHANGE THE FACT SITUATION. BUT ALL WE'RE SAYING HERE TONIGHT IS THAT THERE MULTIPLE OPTIONS TO GET THIS THING FIXED AND WE'RE MORE THAN WILLING TO HELP DO IT. WE JUST REALLY NEED TO KNOW WHO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE, HAVE A SIT DOWN DISCUSSION AND SEE IF WE CAN DO THE IMPLIED ROUTE AND OR IF THEY WANT TO DO THE EXPRESS ROUTE AND ACTUALLY OWN A PROPERTY. WELL, I'VE CALLED MR. HOUSE AND HE GIVE YOU A CALL AND, AND THE ONLY THING IS, I THINK THERE'S ANOTHER ONE IN MR. HOUSE. SO THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S NOT WELL IT'S HIS SON JEFF. OH, THAT OWNS THE SIDE PROPERTY. YEAH. OKAY. SO FATHER SON. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO, WE JUST DON'T WANT GAUGES PUT THIS ON THE SOMEONE'S PROPERTY EXTENDED THE, THE COUNTY. AND I THINK IT'S A QUESTION OF IS IT A ROAD EXTENSION? IS IT, WAS IT INCORRECTLY REPORTED OR WAS IT NOT INCORRECTLY REPORTED AND THE ROAD MATERIAL OR THE ROAD THAT'S BEEN ADDED, YOU KNOW, ROAD, ROAD. SO THAT'S, IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER IT'S INCORRECTLY REPORTED INITIALLY OR WHETHER THE ROAD HAS BEEN EXTENDED AND, AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL GAGE IS HERE. YEAH. GAGE, CAN YOU UH, ELABORATE ON THIS HERE? THE MAPPING? UH, YEAH SO, UH, JUST A COUPLE MONTHS BACK TOGETHER A MAP SHOWING WHY DON'T YOU COME THEM UP HERE? YEAH. MAP. UM, AND SO I PUT TOGETHER A MAP SHOWING THE ORIGINAL DISTANCE THAT I HAD, UM, WHICH IS MORE THE LEGACY DISTANCE THAT I KIND OF INHERITED FROM MY PREDECESSORS THAT DID THE GISI REALLY LOOKED INTO THAT ROAD PARTICULARLY 'CAUSE IT'S NOT MY FAMILY. UM, BUT THEN I HEARD WORDS THERE ONCE TO EXTEND IT DOWN TO THE BRIDGE. SO, UH, TOGETHER A MAP SHOWING THE DISTANCE THAT I HAD BEFORE THAT AND THE DISTANCE THAT I CALCULATED FROM WHERE I HAD AN ENDING TO THE END OF THE BRIDGE. AND THEN I PUT THAT TOGETHER IN A MAP AND MAILED IT OUT, UH, TO KIND OF SHOW WHAT, WHAT WAS AND WHAT IT'S GONNA BE KIND OF A THING IF IT GOT ACCEPTED. BUT OTHER THAN THAT IT'S JUST MORE OF A PROPOSED CHANGE. CUT THE MAP. [00:55:01] HAVE YOU VISITED THE SITE? YEAH, I TOOK . WHERE, WHERE OLD FENCE IS STILL BACK FROM? IT WAS, WAS THE EASEMENT THERE FENCED OFF? WELL I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE TECH, THE EASEMENT. I'M NOT A SURVEYOR. WELL I FENCE DOWN IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, DOWN TO THE BRIDGE, IF NOT LITTLE BAR. UM, BUT AS FAR AS DISTANCE OF THAT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT, YOU KNOW, I DID HAVE A SURVEYOR TO ACTUALLY VERIFY THAT SORT OF THING, BUT THE RIGHT WAS HAS BEEN STANDARD. IT LOOKED LIKE THE FENCE THAT HIT WAS FOLLOWING THE ROAD DOWN THERE ON THE SIDE. WHAT THEY SOME PROPERTY? WELL IN THE ROAD, YEAH. KIND GOES DOWN AND THEN IT KEEPS GOING PAST THAT TOO. BUT IT'S STILL, IT WAS JUST TWO TIRE TRACKS DOWN THERE. ONE A ROADS, BUT THE BACK BENCH, HE'S FAMILIAR. HE'S A MATH GUY SO I, ALRIGHT, WE HAVE THANK YOU G WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND A SECOND. DO WE HAVE ANY THERE, ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS BEFORE WE CALL FOR A VOTE? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE UH, AND RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WOULD. SO THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING. UH, ALL AGAINST SAY AYE. AND RAISE YOUR HAND. THREE, TWO. DID YOU VOTE AGAIN? OH YEAH, NO, I CAN'T DO THAT. THAT'S, THAT'S THE NEXT CHANGE THE ROAD THE DAY BEFORE. ALRIGHT, SO THAT MOTION FAILS ON THREE, TWO VOTE. ITEM NUMBER 12 IS TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ARE ACCEPTING A DONATION OF $11,906 FORMS FOR REPAIRS COUNTY ROAD 41 16. THIS IS IN PRECINCT, UH, ACCIDENT ROAD FOR THE DAMAGE. MR. ROOF. OKAY, THAT'S IT. ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION TO SET THAT MOTION. UH, COMMISSIONER ALLEN A MOTION? WE HAVE A SECOND. UH, COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. I, I GOT ONE QUESTION. DO FEEL TO GET THE MONEY? NO. OKAY. UH, MOTION CARRIES AND UH, YOU VOTED IN FAVOR. OKAY, UH, NEXT ITEM OUT, NUMBER 13 FOR MS. MCCLOUD TO PRESENT OUR AUDITOR'S REPORT FOR, UH, NOVEMBER, 2016. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OVER YOUR, UM, AUDITOR'S REPORT? IT'S FOR THE, AS OF NOVEMBER 30TH, SO IT'S ONLY 60 DAYS INTO THE NEW BUDGET. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE, UH, AUDITOR'S REPORT FOR NOVEMBER OF 2016. A MOTION? UH, MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER ALLEN AND A SECOND. COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT, THE UH, ITEM NUMBER 15 IS TO DISCUSS MR. CONSIDER CLAIM FOR PAYMENT. UH, 14. 14. I'M SORRY. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER LINE ITEM TRANSFERS. UH, THERE WERE NONE ANNUAL BUDGETS WE HAD NEEDED TO TRANSFER. OKAY. NO LINE ITEM TRANSFERS. SO WE WILL JUST, UH, SKIP ALL OF THAT. THERE'S NOTHING TO DISCUSS. WE WILL TABLE IT. I THINK I HAVE A MOTION TO DO SO. MR. PHILLIPS SECOND FROM SOMEBODY. MR. ALLEN? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. BOTH. ALRIGHT, NEXT MEETING. NEXT. NUMBER 15, THOSE CONSIDER CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT. YOUR CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT TODAY ARE 1,000,450 2030 $1 AND 53. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE BILLS? A MOTION? HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER ALLEN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FOR COMMISSIONER PHILLIPS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY A, A, A, A. THOSE OPPOSED? ALL. ITEM NUMBER 16. AND WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK. WE ALREADY TO MOVE RIGHT ON INTO. ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 16, WE'RE GOING BE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND SO A MOTION TO EXIT DIRECTOR MEETING AND ENTER [01:00:02] MOTION. SECOND, YOUR HONOR. 10 0 1. 10 0 1. AND WHEN WE EXITED MOTION AND THERE WAS NO, UM, ACTION, THERE WAS NO ACTION COMING OUT OF THE, UM, EXECUTIVE SESSION. OUR, UM, MEDIATION DID NOT RESOLVE THE LAWSUIT BETWEEN POPWELL COUNTY AND SEAWAY. AND SO WE HAVE A TRIAL DATE SET FOR MARCH THE SIXTH, 2017. AND SO THE COUNTY WILL JUST CONTINUE TO AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE THAT LITIGATION SO THAT WE'RE PREPARED FOR OUR TRIAL DATE ON MARCH THE SIXTH. SO TAKES CARE OF ITEM 19. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. A MOTION. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.