[00:00:06]
>> HI, GOOD MORNING. IT IS 10:05. AND I LIKE TO CALL THE JANUARY 23RD, 2025 MEETING OF THE HARRIS, -- COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT TO ORDER. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE WHO'S BEEN HELPING US TO RESPOND TO THE WINTER STORM. FIRST OF ALL, MY COLLEAGUES AND THEIR STAFF, I KNOW THAT THEY ARE WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK TO MAINTAIN THOSE ROADS, WITH THE WARMING CENTERS IN THE OVERNIGHT SHELTERS AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH , ENOUGH MATERIALS THERE, SO THANK YOU GUYS AND THE STAFF. OBVIOUSLY EVERYONE FROM TXDOT TO THE CONSTABLES AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, PUBLIC HEALTH, EVERYBODY WHO WAS AT THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AS WELL AS MY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TEAM, AND OF COURSE THE RESIDENCE THAT HEEDED OUR WARNINGS AND WE'RE STILL HOPING THAT THEY CONTINUE TO DRIVE CAREFULLY, IN THE MORNING AS IT'S REALLY COLD, AND THEN LATER AT NIGHT TONIGHT. BUT, WE SHOULD BE OUT IN THE CLEAR, TOTALLY, BY TOMORROW. WE HAVE SEVERAL ITEMS ON TODAY'S AGENDA, IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE THIS EASY AS POSSIBLE ON ALL OF OUR COUNTY DEPARTMENT HEADS AND STAFF, WE'RE PLANNING TO APPROACH IT MORE AS A BUSINESS COURT. SO WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING UP ALL SPEAKERS TO BEGIN WITH. IS THAT OKAY, COLLEAGUES?
[Appearances before court]
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, WE'LL TAKE SPEAKERS.>> FIRST IS JACOB CLEMENT'S SPEAKING ON ITEM 90, GO AHEAD,
PLEASE. YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE. >> I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE ISSUE IN TRAFFICKING , 20TH, FROM 6:00 TO 7:30 P.M. AT CHRIST THE REDEEMER CATHOLIC CHURCH AUDITORIUM, OF AWARENESS . FOR ALL CATHOLIC DIOCESES IN THE UNITED STATES ARE CALLED TO OBSERVE THE DAY OF PRAYER FOR THE PROTECTION OF UNBORN CHILDREN, JANUARY 22ND . IT IS AN ANNIVERSARY LEGALIZED ABORTION THROUGHOUT OUR ENTIRE NATION. AND HUMAN LIFE IS VERY IMPORTANT, IT MUST BE CHERISHED, VALUED, AND
PROTECTED ABOVE ALL ELSE. >> THANK YOU, YOUR TIME IS UP.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> NEXT IS CLYDE FITZGERALD, SPEAKING ON ITEM 236. YOU HAVE ONE MINUTE.
>> MORNING, JUDGE, COMMISSIONERS. I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE REAPPOINTMENT FOR THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY. IF I GET APPOINTED, THIS WILL BE MY LAST TERM .
I'VE TURNED OUT, SO THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME YOU'LL SEE ME STANDING HERE. BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY A QUICK WORD, JUDGE.
FIRST OF ALL, Y'ALL HEARD LAST WEEK ALL THE BENEFITS THAT THE PORT HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO THE LAST FEW YEARS, WORKING TOGETHER. WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT. I DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK OVER IT AGAIN, Y'ALL HEARD IT LAST WEEK. I JUST WANTED TO SAY ONE THING. A LOT OF PEOPLE GET LEFT OUT OF THE EVERYDAY ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO WHAT THEY DO AT THE PORT, AND I WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT ALL THE PORT EMPLOYEES. WE'VE GOT ABOUT 500 OR SO THAT DO A TREMENDOUS JOB WHEN THEY'RE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY, LIKE WE DO A LOT OF COMMUNITY WORK, THEY HANDLE
THEIR SELVES. >> YOUR TIME IS UP.
>> SO I WANT TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE NOD TODAY, THANK YOU ALL
VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, CLYDE.
>> I SIT DOWN NOW, I HEARD THE BUZZER GO OFF.
>> DO YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT TO ADD, SIR? DO YOU HAVE JUST A
LITTLE BIT MORE TO ADD? >> I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU ALL FOR THE 12 YEARS THAT I'VE HAD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE APPOINTMENT. THANK YOU ALL.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU AND I KNOW THAT YOU'RE WORKING REALLY HARD, WORKED REALLY HARD IN NEGOTIATIONS, WORKING REALLY HARD TO REALLY CLOSE THAT OUT. AND CERTAINLY IS MY INTENTION TO REAPPOINT YOU TO BE ABLE TO FINISH THAT. WE'RE TRYING TO, AT LEAST FOR ME I'M TRYING TO IMPLEMENT AND ENFORCE THAT
[00:05:03]
EIGHT YEAR TERM LIMIT FOR FOLKS. BUT I THINK THESE ARE EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE OF THE OUTSIZED ROLE THAT YOU'VE PLAYED AND CONTINUE TO PLAY IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS. SO STILL WORK ON THAT, AND HOPEFULLY SOONER THAN LATER WE CAN PASS THE BATON TO SOMEBODY ELSE, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T APPRECIATE AND ADMIRE YOU, BUT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DOING WHAT I SAY AND SAYING WHAT I DO. BUT I THINK YOU'RE JUST FANTASTIC, AND THE WAY THAT THESE NEGOTIATIONS HAVE PLAYED OUT IS A TRUE TESTAMENT TO YOUR WORK, AND YOUR LIFE'SWORK . >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I
APPRECIATE IT. >> I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, COMMISSIONER. YOU CAN COME BACK EVEN WHEN YOU'RE NO LONGER THERE, YOU CAN COME , WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, CLYDE.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP.
>> DO I NEED TO STAY, OR? >> NO NEED. YOU'RE WELCOME TO, IF THIS IS VERY EXCITING AND INTERESTING TO YOU. I'M MAKING A JOKE, YOU DON'T NEED TO STAY.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKERS,
JUDGE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO, I THOUGHT WE SHOULD DISCUSS ITEM 269, AND THEN GET TO THE REST AND WHAT WE NEED TO MOVE TO THE NEXT COURT, OR IF THERE'S A QUICK NOTE TO BE TAKEN, BUT JUST BECAUSE THE SEVERE WEATHER EVENT IS STILL A LITTLE BIT GOING ON, I THOUGHT WE SHOULD JUST PRIORITIZE THAT ITEM, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU GUYS.
[Emergency/Supplemental items]
>> SURE. >> OKAY. SO, ITEM 269. AND, WHY DON'T I LET OCA OR BUDGET TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS, AND THEN
WE'LL GO FROM THERE? >> SO, ITEM 269, REGARDING COMPENSATION FOR THE TIME FOLKS WORKED WHO WERE ACTIVATED, DURING THE COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVED A BUYBACK OF THE COMP TIME, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE THINK WE CAN DO IN THIS INSTANCE AS WELL, BECAUSE THIS WASN'T A DECLARED DISASTER. SO WE LIKE TO COME BACK ON FEBRUARY 6TH WITH THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE, AND BY THAT TIME WE SHOULD HAVE A GOOD
ESTIMATE ON THE COST. >> COMMISSIONER ELLIS?
>> JUST WALK US THROUGH BRIEFLY, JUST SO WE ALL KNOW AND THE PUBLIC KNOWS, BOTH FEDERAL AND THE ONE THAT CAN BE
DONE HERE. >> I BELIEVE IT'S $25 MILLION
WORTH OF DAMAGE AND/OR LABOR. >> OKAY.
>> SO WE WILL FALL WAY SHORT OF THAT STANDARD.
>> THAT'S A GOOD THING. >> BECAUSE, ON THE BUYBACK , OMB IS SUPPORTIVE, MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE BUILT-IN OVERTIME POLICIES THAT WILL WORK , SUCH AS THE ONES WE'RE TRYING TO WORK TOWARDS, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COMPENSATING PEOPLE APPROPRIATELY, ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT ARE AT OR NEAR THE TOP OF THE CUT, AND IF WE DON'T DO THAT THEY MAY BE IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO WORK UNCOMPENSATED HOURS. WOULD NOT BE A GREAT INCENTIVE FOR THE NEXT EMERGENCY IN THE EMERGENCY AFTER THAT.
>> AND WE'D END UP PAYING THEM ON THE BACKSIDE ANYWAY. I SAW THE MOTION COMING FROM COMMISSIONER BROWN, I'M CERTAIN THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF IT, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF Y'ALL FOR WHAT YOU DID AND ALL OUR TEAMS, I WANT TO THANK THE RED FOX -- CROSS FOLKS IN PARTICULAR, I HADN'T WORKED WITH THEM BEFORE BUT THEY OPENED UP A WARMING CENTER. AND LET FOLKS TO OVERNIGHT. WE HAD 420 PEOPLE SHOW UP, WE JUST APPRECIATE WHAT EVERYBODY DID AND ALL MY COLLEAGUES.
>> JUDGE, COMMISSIONER MADE A POINT I WANTED TO REITERATE.
THE STANDARD, THE $25 MILLION THRESHOLD IS A FEDERAL STANDARD, THE DECLARATION ITSELF DOES NOT HINGE UPON POTENTIAL FINANCIAL LOSS. IT'S A JUDGMENT CALL THAT THE
OFFICERS HAVE TO MAKE. >> THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONER RAMSEY? >> DIRECTOR REYNOLDS, WHEN Y'ALL WORK ON IT AND CERTAINLY, WHEN YOU WORK ON THE POLICY, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE A DEFINITION , PEOPLE WORKING FROM HOME MAY NOT BE EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER WORKING OVERTIME. SO THERE SHOULD BE SOME CLEAR GUIDELINES. AND I'M PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO THE 120 PEOPLE THAT WERE OUT THERE AND BELOW FREEZING WEATHER WORKING ON THE ROADS. NOT THAT
[00:10:01]
OTHER FOLKS DOING SUPPORT WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE, BUT, I DO THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME PARAMETERS ON IT. YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THIS OVERTIME, WE'VE NOT EVEN PAID FOR THE THREE DECLARED DISASTERS LAST YEAR, MUCH LESS THE UNDECLARED ONE THIS YEAR. SO, WE PASS A POLICY AND WE SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO THESE THINGS, BUT, AND WE CERTAINLY SUPPORT IT FROM THE PRECINCT LEVEL, BUT THAT'S REAL MONEY AND, AGAIN, THE THREE DECLARED DISASTERS LAST YEAR , WE HAVE NOT BEEN, WE'VENOT BEEN COMPENSATED FOR. >> WE'LL CHECK IN ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE. I KNOW TETRA TECH AND THE RISK MANAGEMENT FOLKS ON MY TEAM HAVE BEEN WORKING DIRECTLY WITH YOUR STAFF TO ENSURE THAT ELIGIBILITY, BUT I'LL CHECK IN FOR EACH ONE OF YOU TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THESE ON THE FAST TRACK TO GET YOU ALL REIMBURSED FOR THE PREVIOUS EMERGENCIES.
ONE THING I WANT TO NOTE, FOR THE FIRST TIME UNDER MY TENURE, I'VE BEEN HERE THREE YEARS, WE'RE NOW $3 MILLION IN THE PICK WHICH IS APPROACHING CLOSER TO WHAT WE WERE PRE-COVID, AND THAT IS A SIGN OF THE FISCAL DISCIPLINE WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN THE GREAT WORK THAT THE RISK MANAGEMENT FOLKS DID. IN SUBMITTING THE FEMALE REIMBURSEMENTS SO WE CAN GET THOSE IN FROM COVID AND A BUNCH OF OTHER DISASTERS THAT
WE'VE HAD SINCE. >> I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION, BUT JUST WANTED, WHEN YOU BRING THAT BACK, IT SHOULD BE PRETTY COMPREHENSIVE IN TERMS OF WHAT IS AND --
>> UNDERSTOOD. WE'LL WORK WITH TETRA TECH, OUR RISK MANAGEMENT VENDOR IS VERY EXPERIENCED IN THIS, OUR FOLKS ARE EXPERIENCED, WE WILL USE SOMETHING AKIN TO THE FEMA STANDARD FOR ELIGIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO WORK HOURS.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER GARCIA, WE'RE ON TO 69. YES , COMMISSIONER BRIONES.
>> THANK YOU, I KNOW ALL OF OUR TEAMS WORKED LITERALLY AROUND THE CLOCK, AND I WANT TO THANK MY PRECINCT FOR MEMBERS AT 24 HOURS, THEY WERE OUT TREATING THE ROADS, RETREATING THE ROADS, WORKING WITH THE 44 FIRE STATIONS AND THE UNINCORPORATED SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE SURE THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE TRAPPED OR PUT IN DANGER AS THEY RESPOND TO OTHERS IN DANGER. I WANT TO THANK THE AMERICAN RED CROSS, THEY WERE A FANTASTIC PARTNER IN THE 24 HOUR SHELTERS, IT WAS AMAZING, AND THE COMMUNITY, THEY DONATED BLANKETS AND COATS, CARE PACKAGES, THE FOOD BANK DONATED OVER 400 MEALS, AND I'M JUST, IT REALLY IS AN ALL HANDS ON DECK, WE COME TOGETHER SO BEAUTIFULLY DURING DISASTERS, I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE IN THAT SPIRIT OF UNITY EVEN WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A SEVERE WEATHER EVENT. SO I'M JUST VERY THANKFUL TO MY TEAM FOR THEIR DEDICATION TO THE PEOPLE OF HARRIS COUNTY, AND WE HAVE THESE MOTIONS, ONE IS TO ADDRESS THIS JANUARY 2025 EVENT, AND THE OTHER IS MORE OF A SYSTEMIC ISSUE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A POLICY SO WE HAVE CLARITY ON GO FORWARD. SO HAPPY TO READ , THERE'S OTHER SPEAKERS, THANK YOU JUDGE FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND TO THE
TEAM IN THE COUNTY. >> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
>> GO AHEAD. >> REALLY QUICKLY, BECAUSE TIME SHEETS HAVE NOT BEEN CEMENTED FOR THIS PAY PERIOD YET, WE WON'T HAVE THE FINAL ESTIMATES UNTIL PEOPLE SUBMIT AND WE'RE ABLE TO PULL THE DATA FOR WHAT LABOR WAS CODED TO THIS WINTER STORM. BUT, WHEN WE LOOK BACK AT YURI, WHICH WAS SIGNIFICANTLY WORSE THAN THIS, AND ON OUR MOST EXPENSIVE DAY WAS A LITTLE OVER 1 MILLION, WE FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL BE UNDER 1 MILLION TOTAL FOR THIS, BUYBACK.
>> OKAY, SO I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. ONE IS, YOU MENTIONED, I HEARD COMMISSIONER RAMSEY SAY THAT THE FOLKS HAVE NOT BEEN PAID IN THE PAST, COMMISSIONER, DID I HEAR THAT
CORRECTLY? >> THE PRECINCT BEING REIMBURSED, THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PAID.
>> THE PRECINCT HAS NOT BEEN REINFORCED.
>> THE FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE PRECINCT BUDGET DURING EMERGENCY IS SIGNIFICANT. SO I LIKE THE POLICY, LIKE THE MOTION THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO VOTE ON, BUT, JUST KNOW THAT THOSE DOLLARS THAT WE HAD COMMITTED TO PAY , THE THREE DISASTERS LAST YEAR, WE HAD NONE OF THE PRECINCT , THIS PRECINCT HADN'T RECEIVED ANY.
>> WHY IS THAT, YOU GUYS? >> WE SET UP A PROCESS, THE POLICY SPECIFICALLY ONLY ALLOWS FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE PRECINCT FOR FEMA ELIGIBLE EXPENSES, WE'RE GOING TO THE EXERCISE OF DETERMINING WHAT IS
>> ELIGIBLE AND WHAT IS NOT, BUT I WILL HAVE AN UPDATE FOR YOU ALL ON THE NEXT COURT ON WHEN YOU CAN EXPECT THE
REIMBURSEMENTS. >> BECAUSE IT'S BEEN, AT THIS POINT, SIX MONTHS OR SO. MAYBE WE CAN, IN THE POLICY THAT YOU BRING BACK, I KNOW COMMISSIONERS CAN MAKE SOME MOTIONS, YOU GUYS CAN COME UP WITH A TIMETABLE , AND IF IT'S
[00:15:03]
A SIX MONTHS IT'S SIX MONTHS, BUT JUST SO THAT THERE IS CERTAINTY . AND SO THEN, MY SECOND QUESTION IS RELATED TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID WHEN YOU SAID THE FEMA ELIGIBLE/FEMA STANDARD FOR ELIGIBILITY. CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLEBIT, PLEASE? >> SO, SHANE, ARE YOU ON? I KNOW HE'S TEXTING ME. FEMA ONLY REIMBURSED DIRECT COSTS
RELATED. >> THERE HE IS. HI, GOOD
MORNING. >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION,
JUDGE? >> I MIGHT BE FORGETTING SOMETHING I ALREADY KNEW, BUT, THE PRECINCTS ARE REIMBURSED FOR FEMA ELIGIBLE EXPENSES AND DIRECTOR RAMOS MENTIONED THE FEMA STANDARD FOR ELIGIBILITY. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY
EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS. >> YEAH, SO IF WE'RE TALKING JUST LABOR, IT'S, FEMA DEFINES IT AS EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES OR ALSO DEBRIS REMOVAL. SO, FOR THIS WINTER EVENT IT WOULD MAINLY JUST BE EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES.
SOME OF Y'ALL MENTIONED IF YOU'RE STANDING IN THE ROADS, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS WOULD BE ELIGIBLE UNDER FEMA, NOT TO SAY THAT THIS EVENT WILL BE A FEMA ELIGIBLE EVENT, BUT, THAT'S KIND OF THE STANDARD THAT IS USED BY FEMA, IT'S CALLED EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE MEASURES.
>> THAT'S HOW YOU DETERMINE , YOU HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE, SO YOU GUYS ARE USING THAT, WHICH I THINK MAKES
SENSE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT, FEMA HAS A PUBLIC ASSISTANCE GUIDE, AND IT DEFINES CERTAIN ACTIVITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, SO THAT'S WHAT WE USE.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU, THAT'S REALLY HELPFUL. MY OTHER PIECE IS ON , BEING ABLE TO DO THIS WITHOUT A DISASTER DECLARATION, I THINK THAT'S GREAT. MY RETICENCE IN DECLARING A DISASTER IS, WE DIDN'T EVEN ACTIVATE TO LEVEL 1, WE STAYED AT LEVEL 2, AND REALLY THE DAMAGE HAS BEEN MINIMAL. SO I DON'T WANT TO CREATE THAT PRECEDENT AND , I JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE CALLING IT A DISASTER WHEN IT ISN'T ONE.
BUT, I DO THINK THAT THE EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE PAID, SO I THINK THIS IS A GREAT SOLUTION. ON THAT NOTE, THE LANGUAGE HERE THAT I'VE SEEN FROM THE MOTION THAT I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IS ON NON-DECLARED WEATHER EVENTS. SO I'M WONDERING IF WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE FIRES, FOR EXAMPLE, OR OTHER THINGS THAT MAY NOT BE WEATHER EVENTS, AND THEN I'M ALSO WONDERING IF WE COULD PLEASE, COMMISSIONER, MAYBE MENTION , I DON'T KNOW IF IT MAKES SENSE TO SAY EXTREME WEATHER EVENT OR JUST WEATHER EVENT, BUT WHAT I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO ADD IS REQUIRED THE COMPLETION OF ICS FORM 214 BY EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS POLICY, AND MY TEAM EXPLAINS THAT ICS FORM 214 IS AN ACTIVITY LOG USED BY EMPLOYEES IN AN ACTIVATION TO TRACK WORK ACTIVITIES , SO REQUIRING THOSE LOGS ARE GOING TO ALLOW US TO DO AFTER ACTION REPORTING INCLUDING ANALYSES OF HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WERE ACTIVATED IN THEIR MAIN JOB DUTIES RELEVANT TO THE DISASTER. OKAY, THAT WAS ALL I HAD. EXCUSE ME? GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.
>> FIRST OF ALL, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS THAT, I JUST WANT TO FIRST OF ALL THANK ALL THE CITIZENS FOR HEEDING THE CALL FROM ALL OF US, INCLUDING MAYOR WHITMIRE.
TO STAY OFF THE ROADS. YOU MADE OUR FIRST RESPONDERS JOBS A LOT EASIER, AND SO I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR DOING THEIR PART. ALSO, WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR LOOKING OUT FOR YOUR NEIGHBORS. I HEARD SO MANY STORIES OF FOLKS SHARING THEIR HOME, SHARING BLANKETS, SHARING HOT FOOD, SHARING ELECTRICITY.
SO, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. MOST IMPORTANTLY, IT'S THE POINT OF CONVERSATION, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF OUR BOYS, PRECINCT 2 IN PARTICULAR, COMMISSIONER BRIONES, THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THAT OUR FOLKS DID WORK 24/7, 24 HOURS, RATHER, ALMOST FEELS LIKE 24/7 UNDER THE CONDITIONS, I WANT TO THANK THEM BECAUSE OUR PRECINCT HANDLED SEVERAL FACILITIES TO HELP ANYONE, HOMELESS AND ANYONE WHO WAS TRYING TO ESCAPE THE WEATHER CONDITIONS. AND I JUST WANT TO THANK THEM. WENT BY AND CHECKED ON THEM OVERNIGHT, APPRECIATE EVERYONE JUST BEING READY TO DO A DIFFICULT JOB UNDER DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES. WHICH BRINGS ME TO THIS PARTICULAR POINT. I,
[00:20:04]
LOOK, IT'S ALMOST AS IF IT'S DOUBLE IT SHORT. WE RAMP UP, WE DO OUR OPERATIONS SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE DISASTER LEVEL DAMAGE , YET WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR THAT RAMP UP, AND THAT EFFORT ON OUR RESPECTIVE PARTS. SO MY MOTION WILL BE THAT WE SET A POLICY THAT WILL BE INDICATIVE OF THE WORK DONE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE DAMAGE ENOUGH TO DECLARE FOR STATE OR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE. SO, MY MOTION IS GOING TO READ, TO DIRECT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET HUMAN RESOURCES AND TALENT TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO RETURN ON THE FEBRUARY 6TH COURT WITH A PROPOSAL TO USE THE PUBLIC CONTINGENCY FUND TO COVER COUNTY EMPLOYEES COMPENSATORY TIME RELATED TO THE JANUARY 2025 SEVERE WEATHER EVENT. IT IS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE CALLED OUR EMPLOYEES AWAY FROM THEIR FAMILIES, SOME OF OUR EMPLOYEES PROBABLY DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO WEATHERIZE THEIR OWN HOMES BECAUSE WE WERE HAVING BEEN BUSY DOING THINGS ON BEHALF OF THE PRECINCT IN ADVANCE OF THE EVENT. AND SO I THINK IT'S A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE COME UP WITH A POLICY THAT ALLOWS US TO PAY IN CASH TO OUR EMPLOYEES THE WORK THAT THEY HAVE DONE , BECAUSE THEIR TIME, ATTENTION, AND ATTENTION TO DETAIL IS JUST CRITICAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES FOR DOING THAT, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MOTION THAT I HAVE, I KNOW COMMISSIONER BRIONES, YOU WILLHAVE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION. >> I WILL SECOND THAT AND I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH YOUR STATEMENTS. COMMISSIONER ELLIS?
>> YES. >> I DO HAVE ONE MORE THING. I DO WANT TO TAKE A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE AND JUST SAY, AS WE ALL KNOW, SATURDAY, JANUARY 18TH, WAS OUR HOUSTON TEXANS VERSUS THE KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, IN THE AFC DIVISIONAL ROUND GAME, AND THEIR SECOND CONSECUTIVE YEAR TO ADVANCE TO THIS LEVEL, UNDER CJ STROUD, THE TEXANS PLAYED A TOUGH GAME, AND UNFORTUNATELY LOST TO THE CHIEFS. JACKSON COUNTY LEGISLATURE CHAIR AND I AGREED BEFORE THE GAME THAT WHICHEVER TEAM DID NOT SECURE THE WIN, WE WOULD PRESENT A RESOLUTION TO THE WINNER. ALSO, THAT THE ONE WHO DIDN'T WIN WOULD WHERE THE RESPECTIVE TEAMS JERSEY. ALSO, THAT WE WOULD EXCHANGE BARBECUE. KANSAS CITY BARBECUE FOR TEXAS BARBECUE. SO, CHAIR, SINCE THIS IS NOT OUR TRUE COMMISSIONERS COURT, THIS IS A BUSINESS COURT, I AM NOT WEARING THE JERSEY, BUT I WILL.
AND YOU WILL HAVE YOUR TEXAS BARBECUE ON ITS WAY, AND MY TEAM WILL PRESENT A RESOLUTION AT THE SUBSEQUENT COURT .
CONGRATULATING , CONGRATULATING THE CHIEFS. THE ONLY SILVER LINING IN THIS IS THAT TEXAS STILL HAD A HAND IN THE GAME.
HOMES PLAYED COBBS BACK TO TEXAS. YOU ARE THE SOLE REASON THE CHIEFS WON. SO, WITH THAT, CONGRATULATIONS, CHIEFS, CHAIR MCGEE, TO YOUR NINE HUNGRY RESPECTIVE LEGISLATURE MEMBERS , YOUR BARBECUE IS ON ITS WAY. THANK YOU. I STILL HAVE A
MOTION ON THE TABLE. >> COMMISSIONER ELLIS?
>> WE WANT TO VOTE ON A MOTION NOW? YOU ROLLED IT ALL IN ONE?
>> I'LL SECOND THAT, AND I'M CURIOUS WHAT THE MOTION, WHAT DOES THAT DO THAT COMMISSIONER BRIONES'S MOTION DOESN'T
ALREADY DO? >> THERE'S TWO MOTIONS, HE READ THE FIRST ONE, BASICALLY.
>> OKAY. >> AND I'LL SECOND THAT,
WHENEVER IT'S TIME. >> YES, COMMISSIONER ELLIS.
>> I JUST WANT TO REVIEW, HOW MUCH IS IN THE PICK NOW, HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO THE BALANCES IN PREVIOUS YEARS?
>> WE'RE OVER 200 AND APPROACHING 300 WHEN YOU FACTOR IN ALL OF THE FEMA PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE.
>> HOW DOES THAT COMPARE IN TERMS OF BALANCE?
[00:25:01]
>> ABOUT 360 BEFORE COVID, AND WHEN I STARTED IN FEBRUARY, 22,
WE ARE DOWN TO 40. >> WHAT I DO LIKE ABOUT THE FIRST PART OF THIS MOTION IS, IT'S RELATED TO THIS EVENT. SO EVEN IF WE COME UP WITH AN OVERALL POLICY, WE WANT TO KEEP UP WITH HOW MUCH WE SPENT, WE DON'T WANT IT TO SLIP UP ON THIS, YOU KNOW? BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE MONEY AND
>> SO YOU'RE SAYING ANYTIME WE HAVE TO COME BACK AND TALK
ABOUT THE EVENT EACH TIME. >> WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF
MONEY. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, BY COMMISSIONER ELLIS, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BRIONES, EXCUSE ME, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRIONES. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY. >> MAKE SURE YOU SEND US A BREAKDOWN ON BY PRECINCT, WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING. JUST SO WE
KNOW. >> WE'LL TRANSMIT SOMETHING ABOUT EXPENSES FROM THIS EVENT.
>> THANK YOU. >> YES, COMMISSIONER BRIONES.
>> MAY I PLEASE READ THE SECOND MOTION, JUDGE?
>> MOTION TO DIRECT THE COUNTY OF ADMINISTRATION TO WORK WITH MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, HUMAN RESOURCES AND TALENT, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TO DRAFT AND RETURN TO COURT WITH THE POLICY FORMALIZING THE PROCESS OF COVERING COUNTY EMPLOYEES COMPENSATORY TIME DURING NON-DECLARED WEATHER EVENTS.
>> SECOND. >> AND IF YOU COULD PLEASE, IN THAT POLICY, ADDRESS THE FORM. AND SOME OF THOSE OTHER POINTS IN CRAFTING A POLICY THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED , THE VARIOUS
TYPES OF EVENTS. >> CAN I ADD , CAN I ADD, THEN, THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE. THE POLICY SHOULD INCLUDE , THE POLICY SHOULD INCLUDE WHAT CONSTITUTES A WEATHER EVENT FOR THESE ICS FORM 214 COVERED BY THIS POLICY. COMMISSIONER BRIONES, CONSIDER WHAT ABOUT THE FIRES AND NON-WEATHER ACTIVATIONS. AND IN THAT CASE, IT MAY NOT BE AS MUCH PRECINCTS, MAYBE COMMISSIONER GARCIA MOST LIKELY, ALTHOUGH I KNOW WE'VE HAD THESE EVENTS ELSEWHERE, BUT THERE'S OTHER EMPLOYEES AS WELL. FROM THE DEPARTMENTS. SO, ANYWAY, DOES
THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU GUYS? >> I WAS GOING TO ASK IF YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND READ THE WHOLE MOTION WITH THAT SENTENCE, FOR
CLARITY FOR THE RECORD. >> OKAY. IS IT OKAY IF I READ IT? SO, MOTION TO DIRECTLY OPPOSITE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION TO WORK WITH THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, HUMAN RESOURCES AND TALENT, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TO DRAFT AND RETURN TO COURT WITH A POLICY FORMALIZING THE PROCESS OF COVERING COUNTY EMPLOYEES COMPENSATORY TIME DURING NON-DECLARED WEATHER EVENTS. THE POLICY SHOULD INCLUDE WHAT CONSTITUTES A WEATHER EVENT FOR THESE PURPOSES, AND REQUIRE THE COMPLETION OF ICS FORM 214 BY EMPLOYEES COVERED BY THIS POLICY. SO, IT'S MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRIONES, DID WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA, ALL IN
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. GREAT, THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH. AND THEN I KNOW COMMISSIONER ELLIS, I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A MOTION ON A DONATION? YOU DON'T? OKAY. SO,
[Departments]
LET'S GO BACK TO THE REST OF THE AGENDA. SO, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION LIST ALREADY, BUT THAT DISCUSSION LIST DOES NOT INCLUDE OUT OF ORDER RESOLUTIONS OR EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. SO LET ME GO TO ANY CORRECTIONS, AND THEN I'LL GO OVER OUT OF ORDER RESOLUTIONS AND EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS TO SEE IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS. SO, I THINK WE'VE ESTABLISHED OUT OF ORDER RESOLUTIONS WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED AT THIS COURT, CORRECT? OKAY. SO ITEM ONE IS NO ACTION, UNTIL , ONE THROUGH NINE, ONE THROUGH 10 ARE NO ACTION. THOSE ARE THE OUT OF ORDER RESOLUTIONS.>> JUDGE? I HAVE TWO COMMISSIONER GARCIA'S ITEMS
WERE MOVED TO THE CONSENT. >> EXCUSE ME, WHICH ITEMS?
>> SEVEN AND EIGHT. RESOLUTIONS.
>> OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE SEVEN AND EIGHT TO THE CONSENT, AND THEN THE OTHER ONES ARE NO ACTION. IS THAT OKAY? LET ME JUST READ EACH OF THEM. ONE IS NO ACTION, TWO IS NO ACTION,
[00:30:02]
THREE IS NO ACTION, FOUR IS NO ACTION, FIVE IS NO ACTION, SIX IS NO ACTION, SEVEN IS PLACED BACK ON CONSENT. EIGHT IS BACK ON CONSENT. NINE IS NO ACTION, 10 IS NO ACTION. AND THEN WE HAVE ITEM, EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. AND LET'S SEE IF ANY OF THESE NEED TO BE DISCUSSED ON THE SIXTH OR IF THEY NEED TO GO BACK TO CONSENT. SO, EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM 232 , THAT IS, CHAIR OF THE GULF COAST REAL DISTRICT.>> CONSENT. >> CONSENT, 232 GOES ON CONSENT, 233 GOES ON CONSENT, 234, Hā OSPITAL DISTRICT.
>> CONSENT. >> GOES ON CONSENT. 235, HOSPITAL DISTRICT GOES ON CONSENT, 236, GOES ON CONSENT, I THINK MR. FITZGERALD MIGHT HAVE LEFT ALREADY AND WE APPRECIATE HIM, 237 CONSENT, 238 , HISPANIC CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMISSION, CONSENT. 239.
>> CONSENT. >> CONSENT. 240, FLOOD RESILIENCE TASK FORCE? I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE CONSENT AS WELL. AND 250, THAT IS A COUNTY ATTORNEY ITEM. DO YOU GUYS THINK WE NEED TO GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS
>> SO WE'LL PUT 250 ON CONSENT.
>> JUDGE, ITEMS 232 TO 240 WILL BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED.
>> 232 TO 240 WILL BE APPROVED AS PRESENTED. CORRECT.
>> AND 250 , ARE YOU CLEAR ON 250? SO NOW LET ME GO BACK TO ANY CORRECTIONS. SO, CORRECTION ON ITEM 34. WE CHANGE PRECINCT 3 TO PRECINCT 1, ET CETERA ET CETERA, PRECINCT 1 JUSTIFICATION FOR 0% PARTICIPATION GOAL 0% NONVISIBLE. ITEM 40 ON PAGE SIX, WE ARE GOING TO CORRECT, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE BRAUN INTEREC CORPORATION TO REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH BRAUN INTERTECH CORPORATION, ET CETERA. ITEM 83 ON PAGE 11, NO ACTION IS NEEDED ON THAT BROAD LEGISLATIVE DISCUSSION ITEM. 84, DE O HAS REQUESTED NO ACTION, 105 IS A CORRECTION, WE NEED TO ADD AND A SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION OF $150,000 AFTER CAPSTONE GRANT. SO, IT READS REQUEST BY THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION FOR APPROVAL TO ACCEPT FROM THE CARTER FOUNDATION GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF 100,000 WITH NO REQUIRED MATCH FOR THE SAFETY AND JUSTICE CHALLENGE CAPSTONE GRANT AND SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL FUND APPROPRIATION OF $150,000.
ITEM 16 DID YOU ON PAGE 22, WE NEED TO CHANGE 6,150,000 $954 TO $6,001,563.50. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AWARD ON THE BASIS OF LOW BID TO ENVIRONMENTAL ALLIES LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,001,563.50. ET CETERA. ITEM 179 ON PAGE 24, WE NEED TO ADD THE WORD DIVISIONS AFTER COMMUNICATIONS, SO IT READS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THREE POSITIONS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 25 2025 FOR THE SHARED SERVICES AND COMMUNICATIONS DIVISIONS. ITEM 180 ON PAGE 24, WE ARE REPLACING SERVICE WITH SERVICES. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF EIGHT POSITIONS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 25TH, 2025, FOR THE SHARED SERVICES DIVISION. ITEM 231, WE NEED TO REMOVE AND 20 AFTER THE WORDS JANUARY 13TH, BY THE PURCHASING AGENT FOR ADVERTISE JOBS THAT WERE OPEN JANUARY 13, 2025. ITEM 260 ON A SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA WHEN HE TO
[00:35:03]
CHANGE LONGVIEW INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED DBA LBI INCORPORATED WITH LONGVIEW INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INCORPORATED, DBA LTS. SO IT READS, REQUEST BY THE OFFICE OF PURCHASING AGENT FOR APPROVAL OF AN AWARD AND IT WILL NAME THE VARIOUS COMPANIES. AND AFTER GENESIS THINK IT WAS A LONGVIEW INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INC., DBA LTS.ADDITIONAL RESOURCES INC., ET CETERA. ALL RIGHT. SO THOSE ARE THE CORRECTIONS. DID I MISS ANY CORRECTION?
>> THE LIST THAT I HAVE HAS A FEW MORE ITEMS FOR NO ACTION.
OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
>> THANK YOU. >> ITEMS 14 THROUGH 17.
>> YES, THANK YOU. I WAS TRYING TO DO JUST THE CORRECTIONS AND I MAY HAVE INCLUDED A NO ACTION IN THERE ACCIDENTALLY. SO, ITEM 14, OCA REQUESTS NO ACTION. ITEM 15, HARRIS COUNTY EQUITY INITIATIVE, REQUESTS NO ACTION, ITEM 16 ON THE JAIL OCA REQUESTS NO ACTION. 18, CIP BUDGET CALENDAR, OMB REQUESTS NO ACTION. ITEM 18, SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS , OMB REQUESTS THAT THIS ITEM BE PLACED BACK ON CONSENT. ITEM 19, THE FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN OMB REQUESTS NO ACTION, 21, FIRST QUARTER BUDGET PROJECTIONS, OMB REQUESTS NO ACTION. ITEM 27, BUDGET TRANSFER, OMB HAS REQUESTED TO PLACE THIS ITEM BACK ON CONSENT. ITEM 46, AGREEMENT WITH CITY PARK REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY PRECINCT 4 REQUEST TO PLACE THIS ITEM BACK ON CONSENT. ITEM 190, PAGE 25, ON THE LUNAR NEW YEAR, RAISING FOUR REQUESTS NO ACTION. AM I MISSING ANYTHING ON THAT?
>> JUDGE, I'M SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT, YOU DID SAY ITEM 21, NO ACTION. MY APOLOGIES.
>> ITEM 21, LET ME SEE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> ITEM 21, NO ACTION. AND THEN, LET'S GO OVER THE DISCUSSION LIST. DO WE STILL NEED TO DISCUSS ITEM 11 THAT WAS LIKED BY COMMISSIONER RAMSEY?
>> YES. >> WHAT ABOUT ITEM 20, COMMISSIONER? THAT WAS FLAGGED, I'M NOT SURE HOOP LIKE THAT
ONE. >> WE JUST NEED, WE SET THE
MOTION. >> I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS. BEFORE WE APPROVE A MOTION. THIS IS ITEM 20.
>> CAN I FINISH READING THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION ITEMS?
OR IS THIS BRIEF? >> WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT, HE WAS GOING TO PUT A MOTION OUT, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.
>> ITEM 20 WILL STAY ON THE DISCUSSION LIST, WHAT ABOUT 131 COMMISSIONER RAMSEY? IT IS THE NEED TO STAY ON DISCUSSION?
>> ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE, I'M WILLING TO JUST VOTE ON THAT SO
WE DON'T DELAY IT. SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER GARCIA, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ELLIS, ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. >> MOTION CARRIES 4-1. WHAT ABOUT ITEM 191, COMMISSIONER RAMSEY? LEGAL SERVICES? SO PUT IT IN DISCUSSION. 241, COMMISSIONER RAMSEY? OKAY. 263 , COMMISSIONER RAMSEY? 266, COMMISSIONER RAMSEY. AND 267.
>> YES, AND ADD, JUDGE, 69. >> OKAY, JUST A MOMENT. PLEASE.
THIS TAKES ME JUST A MOMENT. SO 69 IS AN APPROVAL, A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH AMOS GLOBAL ENERGY, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT WAS SIMPLY MOVED TO THE NEXT COURT. ALL THE DISCUSSION ITEMS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WE'RE MOVING TO THE NEXT
COURT, RIGHT? >> YES. OKAY. SO 69, I'M ADDING, HERE, JUST, ALL RIGHT. WAS THERE ANOTHER ONE, COMMISSIONER, THAT YOU WANTED ME TO ADD? COMMISSIONER RAMSEY?
>> THAT WAS ALL. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, DO WE NEED CLARIFICATION ON ANY OTHER ITEMS?
>> MY APOLOGIES, I KNOW ITEM 18 WE MOVED IT TO THE CONSENT, WILL THAT BE APPROVED THAT CONSENT AS WELL?
[00:40:01]
>> YES. >> YES? OKAY. LET ME JUST CHECK WHAT IT WAS. YES. YES, YES, SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS. ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL TRY TO DO MY BEST HERE, YOU GUYS. SO, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, HERE, IS, HERE ARE THE DISCUSSION LIST ITEMS. WE HAVE ITEM 11, 20, 69, 191, 241, 263, 266, AND 267 . SO, THE QUESTION IS, COMMISSIONER GARCIA, DID YOU WANT TO DISCUSS YOUR ITEM TODAY, OR CAN WE MOVE
IT TO THE NEXT COURT? >> I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS
IT. >> OKAY, SO THAT ONE WAS, WHICH ITEM, COMMISSIONER? 20. LET'S DISCUSS THAT ONE AND THEN WE'LL DO THE BIT TO MOVE IT , THE REST ONTO THE NEXT COURT.
>> THANK YOU. ONE ITEM 20, I KNOW THAT WE WANT TO DISCUSS HOW TO ADJUST GRANT FUNDED EMPLOYEES REGARDING THE MOTION WE MADE OF THE PREVIOUS COURT. AND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT A MOTION TO MR. RAMOS, TO USE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS TO COVER THAT DIFFERENCE. I WOULD ASK THE FIRST OF ALL, THAT WE PULL THIS ITEM TILL THE NEXT COURT, BECAUSE IN MY PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE, YOU SUBMIT GRANT ADJUSTMENTS TO ADDRESS ISSUES LIKE THIS, SO I'D RATHER SUBMIT THOSE GRANT ADJUSTMENTS FIRST, TO SEE IF WE HAVE THOSE APPROVED, BECAUSE NORMALLY, IF WE KNEW WHAT THE SALARY RATES WERE, WE WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED THEM AS SUCH AND LIKELY WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THEM. SO I'D RATHER NOT PUT IN GENERAL FUND DOLLARS, I THINK THAT'S CREATING SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR A LOT OF US. SO I FIRST WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE , MAKE THE EFFORT TO SUBMIT GRANT ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR RESPECTIVE GRANTING
AUTHORITIES. >> WE CAN WORK WITH DEPARTMENTS ON THAT. MY ONLY QUESTION IS, IT'S MORE COMFORTABLE TO ALLOW IT AND DO HAVE THE CAPACITY MOVING FORWARD WITH THE
INCREASES. >> IF IT'S APPROVED BY THE GRANTING AUTHORITY, YEAH, THERE'S NO PROBLEM THERE. BUT I DON'T WANT TO PUT, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE US MAKE THE DECISION OF PUTTING GENERAL FUND DOLLARS BEHIND A GRANT.
WE'VE SUBMITTED MATCHES, AND AGAIN, IF WE HAD KNOWN WHAT OUR SALARY RATES WERE AT THE TIME WE WOULD HAVE SUBMITTED THE MASSIVE AND WE WOULD'VE LIKELY BEEN APPROVED. I DON'T WANT TO USE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS TO COVER THE GAP UNTIL WE HEAR FROM OUR GRANTING AUTHORITIES.
>> UNDERSTOOD. >> SO I JUST WANT TO ASK COMMISSIONER GARCIA, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH US MAKING A DECISION ON THAT LATER, BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE MADE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT EXECUTIVE PAY, AND WHEN THIS ITEM CAME UP WE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE DID THAT, PUT THOSE OTHER FOLKS ON THE LOWER END OF THE SCALE DIDN'T GET ANYTHING. I SIMPLE QUESTION IS TO ASK , IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH GOING AHEAD AND PASSING THE ITEM AND THEN POSTING SOMETHING BROAD ENOUGH TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE LATER? ON THE GRANT PART? I WANT TO MAKE SURE, I KNOW THEY'RE WAITING ON IT.
>> AGAIN, YEAH. LOOK, I THINK IT'S BAD PRECEDENT FOR US TO START COVERING GRANTS WITH GENERAL FUND DOLLARS. I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE SUBMIT THOSE ADJUSTMENTS, AND THEY GET IT, WE GET IT FROM THE GRANTING AUTHORITY VERSUS US PAYING IT BECAUSE I THINK ON SOME OTHER LEVELS THAT'S GOING TO SET A PRECEDENT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE.
>> IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION. SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE THINKING ALL OF US, BY THE WAY, I WAS HOPING TO GET IT FOR CHRISTMAS SO I'M NOT GETTING THAT ISSUE, I'M JUST ASKING, YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DIVIDING IT. SO THE OTHER PART CAN GO THROUGH AND WE CAN CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE MEET AGAIN.
>> IF IT'S HELPFUL, WE PUT OUT A CALL TO ALL DEPARTMENTS WITH A LIST OF POSITIONS THAT ARE GRANT FUNDED. FOR THE MOST PART, IT'S THE SMALLER GRANTS, THE FAMILY FOUNDATION GRANTS, IT'S THE HOUSTON ENDOWMENT, THOSE TYPES OF, WE PAID FOR ONE POSITION, WE CAN'T AFFORD THE 2500, AND SO WE CAN COME BACK WITH THAT LIST, SO YOU HAVE SPECIFICITY. JUST THINKING IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, THAT WE COULD GET THIS PREAPPROVAL, BUT WE CAN COME BACK WITH THE ACTUAL LIST . IT MAY NOT BE ON
THE EVERY SIX COURT. >> FOR ME THAT WOULD BE
HELPFUL. >> I SHOULD'VE ASKED FOR YOU ALL TO GO FORWARD WITH THE OTHER FOLKS. AND THEN CROSS THE
[00:45:01]
BRIDGE ON THE GRANT FUNDED LATER. I GUESS I SHOULD ASK YOU ALL, DOES IT PRESENT PROBLEMS.>> AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT MAKING THE DECISION ON GRANT FUNDED
POSITIONS. >> AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT USING GENERAL FUND DOLLARS, WE CAN WORK AROUND THAT.
>> COMMISSIONER RAMSEY? >> WE NEED TO CLEAN UP SEVERAL THINGS ON THIS ISSUE. WE CAN DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT SOME EMPLOYEES OF ALREADY GOTTEN THIS, SOME EMPLOYEES WILL GET IT IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S A QUESTION RELATED TO MOBILITY, EMPLOYEES AND THOSE, THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE. I'M ASSUMING THAT WE'LL BRING THAT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING, AND CLEAN THAT UP, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF CLEANUP NEEDED ON THIS
PARTICULAR. >> WE'LL HAVE AN ITEM ON THE
NEXT COURT. >> COMMISSIONER BRIONES?
>> THANK YOU, JUDGE HIDALGO. MY QUESTION WAS WITH REGARD TO THE SPECIAL REVENUE EMPLOYEES, PARTICULARLY THE MOBILITY .
WHEN WE PASS THIS DECEMBER 10TH, IT WAS CLEAR, AT LEAST TO ME, THAT WE WERE APPROVING $2500 RAISE FOR STAFF EARNING BELOW 75,000. AND WE SAID THIS WOULD HIT JANUARY 31ST. AGAIN, CREATING THE EXPECTATION AND RELIANCE FROM OUR TEAM MEMBERS.
IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE HRT TEAM DID NOT ASK QUESTIONS SOON ENOUGH OR SEEK CLARITY SOON ENOUGH, AND THAT THE MOBILITY FUND AND OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND TEAM MEMBERS THAT MAKE 75 AND BELOW, WILL NOT BE GETTING THE ADJUSTMENT AS OF 1/31, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> IF SO, COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED AND WHAT WE'VE LEARNED SO THAT THIS
WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN? >> ABSOLUTELY, ON DECEMBER 10 COURT AGAIN TO YOUR POINT, THE MOTION, WHAT DID NOT, WELL COURT DID APPROVE THE INCREASE FOR ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES UNDER 75,000, THE MOTION DID NOT PROVIDE A DEGREE OF CLARITY, SPECIFICALLY FOR GRANT FUNDED AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS. OUR INTENTION WAS ALWAYS TO COME BACK TO COURT SEEKING CLARITY.
WHAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IN THE INTERIM IS THAT THERE IS NOT COURT ACTION SPECIFICALLY FOR ARPA FUNDED POSITIONS AND FOR POSITIONS THAT ARE SPECIAL REVENUE. SO ON YESTERDAY, WHEN WE RECEIVED CLARITY THAT COURT ACTION SPECIFICALLY FOR THOSE PARTICULAR EMPLOYEES FUNDED IN THOSE FUNDS , WE MET WITH BOTH THE AUDITORS OFFICE AS WELL AS WITH U.S., WHO ARE ALL PART OF RUNNING PAYROLL, THE PAYROLL DEADLINE FOR THE JANUARY 31ST PAYCHECK 2:00 P.M. TOMORROW, THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 1700 EMPLOYEES THAT FALL IN THAT GROUP, AND CANDIDLY, WE JUST DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO BUILD THE FILES, TEST THEM, CHECK THEM FOR ERRORS IN TIME FOR THAT, 2:00 P.M. DEADLINE TOMORROW. SO THAT THEY COULD GET IT, SO OUR GOAL, WHAT WE ARE WORKING ON CURRENTLY IS ENSURING THAT THOSE EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THEIR INCREASES AS OF THEIR EVERY 14TH PAYCHECKS.
>> AND I'M PARTICULARLY DISAPPOINTED, BECAUSE MY CLEAR RECOLLECTION WAS THAT YOU WERE HERE DECEMBER 10TH, AND HAD THE ABILITY TO SEEK THE CLARITY, ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN NEEDED. ESPECIALLY COMING AFTER THIS WINTER STORM WHERE OUR ROAD AND BRIDGE CREWS WERE OUT LITERALLY 24 HOURS A DAY, THE FACT THAT NOW WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME, YOU AND THE TEAM WERE HERE DECEMBER 10TH, AND WE'VE HAD WELL OVER A MONTH, SO NOW TO TELL THEM, OH WELL, NO, SORRY, THERE WASN'T CLARITY, IS VERY DISAPPOINTING TO ME. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING WITH THE ACTION PLAN IS, SO THAT THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE MADE WHOLE. AS WE MADE A COMMITMENT HERE AT COURT, AND WE NEED TO HONOR IT IN THE MOST COMPLIANT WAY, AND I THINK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN DEEPLY INVOLVED, BUT THIS IS VERY DISAPPOINTING AND I EXPECT THAT THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN, BECAUSE IT IS THE LEAST PAID WHO ARE DOING SO MUCH DURING THIS STORM, AND THIS IS
VERY DISAPPOINTING TO ME. >> YES, COMMISSIONER ELLIS.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE INTENT WAS FOR IT TO COVER THEM, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WAS PICKED UP. I THINK THAT WAS A RARITY, IT WAS A RAMSEY ELLIS MOTION, IF I REMEMBER THAT RIGHT. IT WAS ELLIS RAMSEY OR RAMSEY ELLIS , MOTION, THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. BUT I WOULD SAY TO YOU THAT I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FIRST PART.
BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT GRANT FUNDED POSITIONS AND OTHER FOLKS, BUT I WANT TO STRESS A DECISION WAS MADE ON THE HIGHER LEVEL EMPLOYEES, I GET IT. BUT THE REQUEST WAS
[00:50:04]
MADE FOR EQUITY STUDY ON FOLKS ON THE BOTTOM END, FIRST, AND IS JUST AMAZING HOW THIS EQUITY STUFF CAN TURN INTO, I'M NOT BLAMING ANYBODY. TURN A CERTAIN GROUP, EVEN WITH THIS OTHER ITEM THAT WE'RE HOLDING, I THINK WE OUGHT TO, BUT IT'S JUST AMAZING. AND I KNOW THIS WAS NOT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS COMING FROM THE STAND. BUT AT LEAST I RESERVE THE RIGHT, IF THERE ARE THREE VOTES HERE, SOMETIMES I WIN IT, SOMETIMES I LOSE IT. IF SOMETHING WAS UNCLEAR, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE FOR SOMEBODY TO TELL ME, YOU KNOW, TO SAY IT. BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER RAMSEY, WAS THAT YOUR INTENT? I THOUGHT ITWAS COVERED. >> TO COMMISSIONER BRIONES'S POINT AND YOUR POINT, OUR EMPLOYEES, THE EXPECTATION THAT IF THEY MADE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, LESS THAN THAT, THEY WOULD GET A PAY RAISE. SO WE CREATED AN EXPECTATION THAT WE DID NOT LIVE UP TO. WE DON'T KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE POTS OF MONEY THAT, IF THEY'RE MOBILITY THEY DON'T APPLY, IF IT'S GRANT IT DOESN'T APPLY. WHAT WE VOTED ON WAS EVERYBODY THAT MADE LESS THAN $75,000 , THEY GET A $2500 INCREASE.
PERIOD. AND THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT HASN'T HAPPENED.
>> THE LANGUAGE, IF YOU GO BACK AND CHECK OUR DISCUSSION WAS BROAD, BUT IT WAS, EVERYBODY. MAYBE WE SAID EVERYONE.
>> TO THAT POINT, YOU GUYS, I THINK THAT, AND THANK YOU FOR BEING CANDID WITH US AND FOR DOING ALL THIS WORK, I KNOW YOU'RE DOING A LOT AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU CAME BACK AND ARE HELPING US OUT, AND EVERYBODY MAKES MISTAKES, I THINK ALL OF US INCLUDED. BUT, I THINK THAT, GIVEN THAT THAT WAS THE CASE, THAT ALL THESE FOLKS HAD THAT EXPECTATION, I WOULD RATHER , I WOULD PROPOSE, AND I THINK THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN WHAT COMMISSIONER ELLIS WAS SAYING, I DON'T KNOW, THAT WE DO GO AHEAD AND PAY THOSE GRANT EMPLOYEES AND THOSE MOBILITY EMPLOYEES AS YOU SAID, AND THEN WE CAN RETROACTIVELY DETERMINE IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THIS AGAIN IN THE FUTURE FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE'LL HAVE MORE, CHANGE THE GRANT REQUIREMENTS OR WHATNOT, BUT ALL THESE PEOPLE AS YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN SAYING, WERE EXPECTING THE PAY RAISE. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE IT TO YOU BECAUSE FIRST WE HAVE TO GO ASK THE GRANT WHETHER THEY'LL INCREASE YOUR GRANT PAY. SO, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ITEM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO MOVE FOR THE MOBILITY FOLKS TO ALSO BE PAID, BUT, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE DELAYED ANY LONGER.
>> JUDGE? I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE. I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THE GRANT PEOPLE I MUST ADMIT, WHEN I SAID EVERYBODY. I WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN KNOWN WE HAD THAT MANY FOLKS WHO WERE GRANT FUNDED. AND COMMISSIONER GARCIA, I DON'T KNOW HOW I'D VOTE ON THAT ITEM, I'D PROBABLY ASK HOW MUCH DOES IT COST. IF IT'S TO MINIMUS IT WOULDN'T MATTER TO ME, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH GRANT MONEY WE HAVE. I WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT GRANT FUNDED PEOPLE, IF SOMEBODY'S PAYING THEM OFF THE CAMPAIGN OR SOMEWHERE ELSE, THAT WAS NOT ON MY MIND. BUT I MEANT EVERYBODY WHO IS ON THE COUNTY PAYROLL.
WHEN I SAID EVERYBODY, EVERYONE, THAT'S WHO I MEANT.
THAT MEANT TRANSPORTATION OR WHATEVER, BUT IF YOU'RE GETTING YOUR CHECK FROM THE COUNTY, I DIDN'T, COMMISSIONER GARCIA, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHEN WE GET A GRANT, DO THEY GET BENEFITS, I DON'T EVEN KNOW.
THAT PART WAS NOT IN MY MIND. >> I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT CAME TOP OF MIND WHEN WE WERE APPROVING THIS, BUT TO COMMISSIONER BRIONES'S POINT, WE HAD TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT OF WHAT WE PUT IN MOTION AT THE LAST COURT, AND TO BE HERE AT THE LAST MINUTE, --
>> BUT WHAT'S THE SOLUTION, THOUGH? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE
KEEP COMPLAINING. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO HOLD US, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GRANT PART WOULD COME TO. I SAY APPROVE EVERYBODY , MOBILITY FUNDED FOLKS, JUDGE, I'D LEAVE
OUT THE GRANT FUNDED PEOPLE. >> THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
WHAT WE'RE HEARING TODAY IS THE LOGISTICS IN TERMS OF INCLUDING EVERYBODY. EVERYBODY'S BEEN APPROVED. WE
VOTED ON THAT, THAT'S HAPPENED. >> SO WE CAN APPROVE THIS ITEM AS IS? THE GRANT ISSUE STILL IS OFF THE TABLE, THOUGH.
>> THE GRANT ISSUE, I'M NOT READY TO VOTE ON TODAY. BUT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS ABLE, THAT WE'RE GIVING YOU THE ACCURATE LANGUAGE AS WELL AS MR. DOUGLAS, TO EXECUTE THIS WITHOUT US HAVING TO HAVE ANOTHER CONUNDRUM DOWN THE
LINE. >> WITH NO ACTION TODAY, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH EVERYBODY, INCLUDING GRANTS THAT HAVE THE CAPACITY AND HAVE THE AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO ALLOW
[00:55:07]
FOR PAY RAISES. SOME OF THEM DON'T, SOME OF THEM ARE EXPLICIT THAT COMPENSATION DOESN'T GO UP. THE ONLY ONES WE WOULD BE COMING BACK TO COURT WITH OUR GRANTS THAT DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO INCREASE IT, WHERE WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION OF HAVING TO USE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS TO IMPLEMENT THE RACE. THAT'S A VERY SMALL SUBSET.>> DANIEL, WHY WEREN'T MOBILITY EMPLOYEES INCLUDED? THAT WAS THE QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER BRIONES ASKED. WHY WEREN'T THEY INCLUDED? BECAUSE APPARENTLY THEY'RE PUSHED TO FEBRUARY.
>> AGAIN, I WOULD DEFER. >> COMMISSIONER, AGAIN, WE WANTED -- IT WAS NOT EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE MOTION AND WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE EXECUTING OPERATIONALIZING WHAT THE COURT HAD APPROVED, AND IT WAS NOT INCLUDED. SO THAT WAS OUR INTENT. I ALSO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO REITERATE THAT , FOR THE HUMAN RESOURCES AND TALENT TEAM, I THINK I SPEAK FOR OMB IN PARTICULAR WHICH IS, THIS IS A BIG DEAL. I WANT TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A SCENARIO WHERE COMING BACK TO COURT WAS TAKEN LIGHTLY. WE RECOGNIZED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A VERY PUBLIC COMMITMENT TO OUR EMPLOYEES, AND WE EQUALLY FEEL RESPONSIBLE FOR ACKNOWLEDGING OPERATIONALIZING AND ENSURING THAT THAT COMMITMENT IS MADE. BUT, WE ALSO WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE ACTING AND FOLLOWING THE EXPLICIT ORDERS OF THE COURT , THAT WAS A GAP, AND THAT WAS OUR INTENTION. AND AGAIN, THIS TEAM , IN CONCERT AGAIN WITH THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE, U.S., FROM A PAYROLL PERSPECTIVE, WE'VE BEEN WORKING AROUND THE CLOCK TO ENSURE THAT THIS GETS DONE.
THIS WAS SIMPLY A NECESSARY, IT WAS NECESSARY FOR US TO COME BACK TO COURT IN THIS SCENARIO, SPECIFIC TO GRANT FUNDED AND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS TO ENSURE THAT WE UNDERSTOOD WE WERE FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE COURT.
>> SO, JUDGE, IF I MIGHT. IF WE DO NOT PASS THIS ITEM TODAY, WHO WILL WE BE DELAYING THE INCREASE FOR? TRANSPORTATION
>> IT WOULD JUST BE THAT SUBSECTION. MOBILITY, THE FACILITY FUND, THE FLEET FUND, ALL OF THESE INTERNAL REVENUES
ARE ALREADY IN PROCESS. >> HOW DID YOU PUT THEM IN
PROCESS IF IT WASN'T CLEAR? >> EXACTLY.
>> HOW DID YOU PUT THEM IN PROCESS, THE TRANSPORTATION PEOPLE? I THOUGHT THEY WERE INCLUDED BUT YOU WERE SAYING YOU WEREN'T CLEAR THAT THEY WERE INCLUDED, HOW ARE THEY
INCLUDED NOW? >> I WAS INFORMED ON YESTERDAY, FROM OUR PARTNERS IN COURT OFFICES THAT COURT ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED , SPECIFICALLY FOR ARPA, AND FOR SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS. GRANT FUNDS, WE STILL NEEDED TO COME TO COURT.
>> SO WHEN WE SAY ARPA, TRANSPORTATION, YOU CAN DO IT
FOR THOSE. >> THAT IS CORRECT, THE
LANGUAGE ALLOWED FOR THAT. >> SO THE ONLY THING LEFT HERE
WOULD BE GRANT FUNDED PEOPLE. >> CORRECT.
>> SO, COMMISSIONER GARCIA, THAT'S YOUR CALL. I'M CURIOUS, WE'VE GONE ON LONGER THAN WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO LAST, DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE GRANT FUND IT?
>> IT'S A DIFFERENCE, COMMISSIONER ELLIS. WHAT DIRECTOR RAMOS IS SAYING IS, THERE IS NO COST TO US ON THE
MAJORITY. >> THAT MEANS THE GRANT WILL
AND A LITTLE SOONER, MAYBE. >> NOT NECESSARILY, YOU CAN'T PULL IT OUT OF THE GRANT UNLESS THE GRANT AUTHORIZES IT.
>> THERE'S GOING TO BE A SUBSECTION OF GRANT EMPLOYEES.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN $1 MILLION TOTAL.
>> BUT LET ME JUST FINISH WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY. IF WE PASS IT, COMMISSIONER ELLIS, THIS ITEM, WHICH I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE, WE'RE STILL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE PAYING OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, BECAUSE RAMOS IS GOING TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT COURT AND TELL US HOW MUCH WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO COVER THE GRANT FOLKS. SO, WE
NEED TO PASS THIS ITEM. >> NO. IF THE INTENTION IS TO HOLD, HOLD GRANT EMPLOYEES WHERE OUR GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY WOULD BE NECESSARY, WE DO NOT NEED TO PASS AN ITEM.
>> SO JUST NO ACTION. GREAT, THEN WE'RE ALL FINE.
>> WE'LL BRING THIS BACK WITH AN UPDATE FOR COURT SITUATIONAL AWARENESS, AND WE'LL BRING BACK WHEN WE GET THE LIST OF THE GRANTS , AND THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS REQUIRED TO DO A GENERAL FUND SUBSIDY AND CAN MAKE A DECISION ON THOSE FOLKS
THEN. >> AND YOU WILL INCREASE THE MOBILITY, THE ARPA AND THE GRANTS PAID FOR BY THE GRANTS.
>> CORRECT. >> SOME EMPLOYEES WILL NEED TO
>> BECAUSE THEIR INCREASE HAS BEEN DELAYED. FOR NO APPARENT
REASON. >> COMMISSIONER, WE, WE PUT FORWARD A MOTION WHICH WILL COVER EVERYBODY.
[01:00:03]
>> WE WORK WITH THE FOLKS AND WE HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THE FOLKS AND WHEN WE TELL THE FOLKS THE ALL PART, HEY, YOU ALL ARE GOING TO GET AN INCREASE, AND WHEN YOU SAY, DARN, JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT, IT'S GOING TO BE PUSHED, THAT'S JUST NOT RIGHT. THE PLAN HAS TO BE MAKING
EVERYBODY WHOLE. >> IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN COURT CAN TAKE ACTION ON THE MOTION THAT WE CIRCULATED, AND THAT WOULD PREVENT THE DELAYS. SO I WILL TELL YOU, WE DID DO A CALL TO ALL DEPARTMENTS TO GIVE US, WE SENT THEM THE LIST OF GRANTS, WE SENT THEM THE ASSOCIATED . NO, THE MOBILITY FUND , CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, CORRECT.
>> THEY'RE NOT GETTING IT WHEN ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE EMPLOYEES ARE GETTING IT. THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER BRIONES WAS ALLUDING TO EARLIER. YOU NEED TO MAKE THEM
WHOLE. >> WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING?
TEXAS LAW ON THAT. >> YES. SO, WHAT, WHAT IS THE
PROPOSAL, COMMISSIONER RAMSEY? >> COMING BACK WITH A PROPOSAL, WE JUST WANT CLARITY ON WHAT THEY'RE COMING BACK WITH, AND TO COMMISSIONER BRIONES'S POINT EARLIER, WHEN THEY COME BACK, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY WHOLE BECAUSE COMMISSIONER ELLIS AND I VOTED FOR EVERYBODY TO GET AN INCREASE THAT MADE LESS THAN 75,000.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN MAKE EVERYBODY WHOLE?
>> THAT WOULD MEAN MAKING UP THE MISSED PAY PERIOD, WHICH WE WILL WORK WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ON OPTIONS.
>> I'LL SAY IT AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT, THE VERY PEOPLE THAT WERE OUT THERE FREEZING , TENDING TO YOUR ROADS, THAT COMES OUT OF MOBILITY FUND.
>> I GET IT, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS TO MAKE EVERYBODY WHOLE, BECAUSE WE CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME, RIGHT? THEY ALREADY WERE NOT PAID, THAT'S NOT OKAY, WE ALL AGREE IT'S NOT OKAY, SO, RIGHT. WE WANT TO FIX IT BY PAYING THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. ARE USING TO PAY THEM
MORE THAN THE 2500? >> NO, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY, THEIR SALARY INCREASE IS BECOMING EFFECTIVE A PAY PERIOD LATER, SO THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE, WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK WITH SOLUTIONS AND OPTIONS TO PROVIDE THAT BACKPAY. FOR THAT
>> QUESTION, JUDGE. >> LET ME JUST HEAR AND THEN I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU COMMISSIONER. JOHN. WE CAN HEAR YOU. YOU NEED TO GET CLOSER TO YOUR MIKE. WE CAN HEAR YOU BUT YOU'RE REALLY FAR AWAY. THE CLOSER YOU CAN GET, THE MORE LOUDLY YOU CAN SPEAK, THE BETTER.
>> ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY IS, THERE ARE WAYS TO STRUCTURE IT SO THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE RETROACTIVE PAYMENTS, WHICH IS WHAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. WE WILL
WORK ON THAT. >> OKAY. GREAT. COMMISSIONER
ELLIS. >> BY THE WAY, YOU DON'T LOOK AS GOOD WHEN YOU GET TOO CLOSE AND YELL INTO THAT MIKE HIM AND NOT AS HANDSOME AS YOU NORMALLY ARE. BUT I AM CURIOUS, ASSUMING IT COMES BACK, WHAT IMPACT THIS WOULD HAVE ON SENATE BILL 23. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE NOTE THAT SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, BECAUSE IF THERE'S SOME GRANTS THAT COME IN, THAT IMPACT SENATE BILL 23, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND EVERYBODY OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT'S IT GOING TO COST US DOWN THE ROAD, THAT COULD BE MONEY THAT YOU NEVER GET OUT.
>> THE ONLY WAY SENATE BILL 23 WOULD BE IMPACTED IS THAT THIS CAUSES AN INCREASE IN ANY OF THE BUDGETS FOR THE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES. >> GET A LITTLE CLOSER, I CAN
HEAR YOU. >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE MICROPHONE. THE ONLY WAY THIS WILL BE IMPACTED BY SENATE BILL 23 IS IF THESE INCREASES CAUSE AN INCREASE IN THE BUDGETS FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT, SO WE HAVE TO GO BACK. I DON'T KNOW, DANIEL, IF YOU RUN THE NUMBERS.
IF THERE IS NO BUDGET INCREASE AND THERE WON'T BE AN SB 23
IMPACT. >> WE ARE INCREASING LAW ENFORCEMENT SALARIES FOR FOLKS MAKING UNDER 75,000. SO, THAT IS THE NEW BASELINE. ON THE GRANT FUNDS, THE POSITION WE'VE TAKEN IS SB 23 APPLIES TO ADOPTED GENERAL FUND, AND SO, SOME OF THE GRANTS THAT SUPPORT PERSONNEL OVER THERE WOULD NOT
BE ELIGIBLE FOR SB 23. >> IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF GRANT, DANIEL. IT'S ONLY FOR GRANT FUNDING THAT GOES
DIRECTLY TO THOSE AGENCIES. >> YOU NEED TO BE SURE. IT
WOULD JUST BE GOOD TO KNOW. >> ALL RIGHT, SO THIS ITEM WILL BE NO ACTION IS THE CONCLUSION. ALL RIGHT, GREAT. SO, THAT LEAVES US WITH , THE OTHER ITEMS ARE MOVED TO THE NEXT
COURT. IS THERE A MOTION -- >> THOSE ITEMS MOVED TO THE
[01:05:04]
NEXT COURT WILL BE CONSIDERED NO ACTION FOR TODAY.>> YES. >> YES. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION FOR ALL ITEMS, ONE THROUGH 270, WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF ITEMS ALREADY VOTED ON? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ELLIS. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRIONES. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL , JAY, DID I MISS ANYTHING?
>> I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING. >> I'M GOOD.
>> ALL RIGHT, THANKS GUYS FOR BEARING WITH ME, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH TO EVERYONE FOR YOUR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.