Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:03]

9:51. I WOULD LIKE THE CALL THE DECEMBER 9, SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S

[Item 1 (Part 1 of 2)]

COURT TO ORDER. ON THIS AGENDA, THE FIRST ITEM HAS TO DO WITH THE DISTRICT B RACE CITY COUNCIL RACE.

>> I WOULD SUGGEST WE HOLD IT UNTIL THE END OF THE DAY.

I KNOW THAT THE PARTIES ARE IN COURT MAYBE AS WE SPEAK ONLY BECAUSE I WAS SHOOTING OVER HERE WITH MR. SWORD ABOUT IT.

AND SEE IF THERE IS AN UPDATE. I WOULD HAVE MADE THE REQUEST TO POST IT FOR TUESDAY IF I HAD KNOWN THEY WERE GOING TO BE IN COURT THIS MORNING. WE CAN'T POST IT TUESDAY SINCE THIS IS A TWO OR THREE DAY MEETING.

>> TWO DAYS AN A THIRD. >> MAYBE AT THE END OF THE DAY UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME UPDATE. WE MAY KNOW SOMETHING BEFORE WE

GET OUT OF HERE. >> AT THIS MOMENT I DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE. THERE WAS A HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 8:00 THIS MORNING AND WE HAVE NOT HEARD THE RESULTS OF

THE HEARING YET. >> ONE QUESTION, LAST WEEK AT COMMISSIONER'S COURT PART OF THE DISCUSSION WAS WHERE THE CITY OF HOUSTON ON THIS. WE AGREED YOU GUYS WOULD SEND A REQUEST WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO US DO.

WHAT IS THE UPDATE ON THAT? >> ON THAT WE'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.

WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORGE ON IT.

WE DIDN'T SEE THE POINT OR NEED FOR A LETTER BECAUSE ULTIMATEICALLY TRIREMEDY WILL BE IN REVISING THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AND FRANKLY BOTH SIDES HAVE SOME CHANGES TO BE MADE. ON THIS CURRENT ELECTION, THIS CURRENT SITUATION THERE IS REALLY NOTHING TO BE GAINED AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHO IS TO BLAME.

WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE CITY TO ACHIEVE A RESULT SO THIS

WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. >> I THINK DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN IS IMPORTANTFUL WE WERE PRETTY CLEAR THAT ON THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE THE QUESTION IS WHOSE DECISION IS IT AND ULTIMATELY WE ARE THEIR VENDOR. OF COURSE WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE LAW. WE NEED TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT THE FOLKS THAT ARE CONTRACTING WITH US WANT.

AND SO THAT IS THE DIRECTION. CHECK IN THE OTHER CONTRACTS JUST GO CHECK THEM ALL. THESE CONTRACTS ARE WITH THE COUNTY CLERK. THEY ARE NOT WITH HARRIS COUNTY.

THERE IS SOME TENSION THERE. WE ARE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE COUNTY CLERK TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY MEET HER NEEDS AND MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. THAT IS PART OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IN THIS SITUATION. WHEN PEOPLE GET ANGRY THEY WILL COME OVER HERE. SO THE FINGERS DON'T END UP POINTED AT HER AS WELL. I'D HATE FOR US TO BE IN THIS DEBACLE ON A REGULAR BASIS. IS THERE ANY UPDATE FROM THE COURT? HAVE THEY DONE SOMETHING?

>> >> I'M FROM THE HARRIS COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE HEARING STARTED AT 8:00.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY UPDATE FROM MR. SCHMIDT WHO IS REPRESENTING THE COUNTY IN THAT CASE. BASED ON ALL THE MOTIONS THAT WERE FILED OVER THE WEEKEND, I IMAGINE THAT THE COURT WILL PROBABLY TAKE SEVERAL HOURS TO UNWRAP ALL OF THAT STUFF AND MAKE A DECISION. WE'RE HOPEFUL THEY CAN COME TIE FINAL RESOLUTION TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO KNOW TODAY TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT ON JANUARY 28.

THAT REALLY IS UP TO THE COURT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.

AND IT'S NOT SOLELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY OR THE

COUNTY. >> I'D ASK THAT IT COME BACK UP IF WE KNOW SOMETHING. MAYBE THE COURT WILL DECIDE IT

BY LUNCH OR AFTER. >> IF WE DON'T RESOLVE IT TODAY, WE CAN CONTINUE THAT ITEM UNTIL TOMORROW.

>> CAN WE? >> I'D BE RELUCTANT BECAUSE OF

THE WAY IT WAS POSTED. >>DOWN IF THEY HAVE A COURT REPORTER OVER THERE IN THE COURTROOM?

>> I DON'T KNOW. BUT I IMAGINE THEY DO.

>> AND TO CLARIFY, IT'S AN ITEM THAT SEEKS A REPORT THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEYS CAN MAKE A REPORT AT ANY TIME, SO WE CAN CERTAINLY LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON AS SOON AS WE

RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION. >> IF WE GET AN UPDATE BY THIS AFTERNOON, I'LL TELL WHAT YOU HAPPENED.

[00:05:01]

>> YOU COULD REPORT ON IT. WE'D LIKE TO KNOW.

>> PROBABLY NOT. >> IF THEY DO SOMETHING WE CAN TALK. IF NOT YOU CAN TELL US TOMORROW.

>> THE BEST IS PUT IT ON JANUARY.

THE NOT, THEN AGAIN, WHO END UP AT THE CENTER OF THIS?

MY EXPERIENCE THAT'S NOT -- >> YOU HAVE TWO SITUATIONS.

IT'S UP TO THE JUDGE TO ORDER TER ELECTION IF HE DETERMINES THERE IS AN ELECTION CONTEST. IF HE DOES NOT, THEN IT'S UP TO THE CITY OF HOUSTON TO DETERMINE THE DATE OF THE ELECTION.

>> THAT'S WHAT NEED TO BE MADE CLEAR.

>> THE CITY UNDERSTANDS THAT. >> I THINK WHAT HE SAID IS CORRECT F. THE CONTEST IS SUSTAINED, THEN IT'S UP TO THE COURT TO SET THE NEW ELECTION DATE.

IF IT'S JUST DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY DETERMINED IT WAS NOT PROPERLY BROUGHT, THEN ATHROWS IT BACK TO THE PARTY WHO IS KNEAD ORIGINAL AGREEMENT. THEN THE CITY WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF ODORRING WHEN THAT ELECTION WOULD TAKE PLACE.

WE'RE PRESENTLY UNDER THE TIMETABLE THAT IT'S DISMISSED TODAY WE CAN PUT IT ON THE 28TH OF JANUARY BALLOT.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

[Item 2]

SO THE NEXT ITEM IS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC THAT A STATE OF TEXAS GLO PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD SEPTEMBER 11.

THIS IS SO A FAIR HEARING ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS CAN SHOW UP.

WE'RE POSTING THIS AS A PUBLIC MEETING.

DOES THERE NEED TO BE A MOTION ON THIS.

>> >> NO.

NOT REALLY. IT WILL NEED TO BE POSTED AND

WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT. >> OK.

>> IS IT BROAD ENOUGH TO HAVE A DISCUSSION? I'M HOPING FOR THOSE OF US WHO CAN GO IF THEY CAN SCHEDULE IT SO WE CAN HAVE A BIPARTISAN SHOWING AT THE SAME TIME.

I THINK IT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT. I GUESS WE AGREED ON LANGUAGE, DID WE? WAS THERE THIS BROADOFF ENOUGH FOR A RESOLUTION? I QUANTITY TO ENCOURAGE.

>> THAT IS ITEM FOUR. >>

[Item 4]

>> WE CAN TAKE UP ITEM FOUR IF YOU'D LIKE.

WHY DON'T DOE THAT? >> I THINK THEY SENT TO YOU ALL OF US. YOU NEED A MOTION ON IT?

>> YES. AND THIS IS THE ONE WHERE I WONDER IF IT MAKES SENSE TO REACH OUT TO THE REPS AND WHATNOT? I THINK LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS IS DOING THAT. WHAT IS THE UPDATE ON THIS?

>> THANK YOU JUDGE AND COMMISSIONERS.

GOOD MORNING. BEFORE YOU THE COURT ASKED TO US BRING RESOLUTION REGARDING FUNDING.

FOR CLARIFICATION THERE WAS A LOT OF LETTERS IN THERE.

THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING THE COUNTY FROM FUTURE FLOODING ISSUES. THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT TIME.

I THINK AS Y'ALL KNOW THIS IS A TOUGH TIME TO GET ATTENTION FOR LEGISLATORS, PEOPLE ARE IN CHRISTMAS MODE.

PEOPLE ARE IN THANKSGIVING MODE. WE GOT NEW YEAR COMING UP.

THAT DEADLINE IS JANUARY 6. WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING DOOR TO DOOR TALKING TO EVERYBODY MAKING SURE THEY KNOW WE NEED THEIR

SUPPORT ON THIS ISSUE. >> SO AFTER JANUARY 6, IT'S --

THAT'S IT, THEY GO INTO EFFECT. >> THAT'S THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF THE COMMENTS AND THEY'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE COMMENTS AND CONTINUING TO ENGAGE THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO INCLUDE WHAT FLOOD CONTROL THEY ARE ASKING FOR TO HAVE THE CORRECT FUNDING ALLOCATION AND A

[00:10:03]

SPEEDY PROCESS. >> AT LAST LAST WEEK WHEN WE WERE TALKING, MAYBE I ASKED OR SOMEBODY SAID YOU ALL WERE GOING TO MAKE SURE YOU LET COMMISSIONER BUSH'S STAFF KNOW WHAT OUR CONCERNS WERE. I THINK I TREAD FOUR POINTS THAT I HAD GOTTEN FROM MATT AND MR. POPPY.

AND THEN I THINK MRS. HAD A FIFTH ONE.

YOU ARE GOING GIVE THEM HEADS UP.

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE BOTH THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE TODAY. WE'RE GOING TO BE SUBMITTING FLOOD CONTROL IS SUBMITTING THEIR ITEMS AND THAT WILL BE ALL IN THE PUBLIC RECORD AND SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THAT DRAFT ACTION PLAN SO WE CAN GATE EQUITABLE ALLOCATION.

>> YOU ARE TRYING TO WORK IT OUT IF IT WORK IFSER OUR SCHEDULE SOS YOU GET HOWEVER MANY OF US CAN GO IF THEY'LL GIVE US A TIME TO GO. YOU WILL ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE PROBABLY ALL WE CAN DO IS READ THE RESOLUTION WHICH

THEY CAN READ ON THEIR OWN. >> EVERYONE CAN ATTEND.

WE'VE SPOKE ON THE THEM. >> IT'S JUST BETTER TO GO.

IF WE CAN SHOW UP, IF THEY GIVE US A TIME.

>> RIGHT. >> WHOEVER IS HERE, WE CAN GO AT

THE SAME TIME. >> AND WE'RE WORKING WITH THEM

TO GET A GOOD ORDER ORE THAN. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I HOPE OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE STATE HOUSE AND SENATE SHOW UP.

AND I DO WANT TO COVER SOME OF THIS WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTING HURRICANE HARVEY IMPACTED APPROXIMATELY 160,000 HOMES IN HARRIS COUNTY. HARRIS COUNTY HAS CONCERNS MULTIPLE ASPECTS OF THE ACTION PLAN RELATED TO THE FUNNING ALLOCATION AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE PROCESS PREVENTS PEOPLE FROM HARRIS COUNTY LEADERS FRIDAY RECEIVING THE PROTECTION THEY DESERVE. IF REVISIONS ARE NOT MADE TO THE STATE ACTION PLAN BEFORE IT'S SUBMITTED, THEN STATE ACTION PLAN COULD DRASTICALLY HARM THE FUTURE OF FLOOD RESILIENCY IN HARRIS COUNTY. THANK YOU.

>> I MOVE. >> ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

>> COLLECTIVE AFFAIRS TUCK TO OUR CONGRESSIONAL PEOPLE AS WELL. THE AGREEMENT WAS THEY FOUGHT IN A BIPARTISAN WAY FOR TO US GET THE MONEY.

THAT WAS AN ASSUMPTION. A BILLION WOULD GO TO THE CITY, A BILLION WOULD GO TO THE COUNTY.

>> WE STARTED THAT. WE HAVE THAT WE'LL DO A JOINT

[Item 3]

ALERT AS TESTIMONY. >> THANK YOU.

>> LET'S MOVE BACK UP TO ITEM 3. AND THAT IS YOUR ITEM.

>> THE SHORT SO IT THIS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT HARRIS COUNTY PUT IN. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT THERE.

THIS IS ON THE 4% LITTER. >> YES COMMISSIONER.

>> HOW LONG HAS THAT BEEN THE POLICY AND WHERE DID IT COME

FROM? >> WE ESTABLISHED THE POLICY ON JUNE 25. WE PRESENT AID POLICY THAT ALLOWED TO US ADOPT CRITERIA BY WHICH WE COULD REVIEW 4% AND 9% PROJECTS FOR RESOLUTIONS. COURT APPROVED THAT POLICY

EFFECTIVE JUNE 25. >> IT WAS NOT THE POLICY BEFORE?

>> NO. THE ONLY POLICY WE HAD ON THE BOOKS WAS RASHING CONCENTRATION OF PROJECTS BY THE COUNTY FOR

WHICH WE REVIEWED PROJECTS. >> DOWN IF THE CITY OF HOUSTON

FLIERS THANKSGIVING? >> I'M NOT AWARE.

THEY NEEDED TO US ADOPT CRITERIA BY WHICH THEY COULD REVIEW.

THEY WERE UNDER A CONCILIATION DECREE.

>> WE NEVER HAD A POLICY BEFORE? >> WAS AT THIS TIME PRACTICE?

>> WE WOULD REVIEW PROJECTS AND WORK WITH THE COURT TO

PREVENT -- >> THE LETTERS FROM A STATE REP, THAT WAS THE PRACTICE, IT WAS NOT A POLL ANY.

>> YES, ACTUALLY STATE REP LETTER WAS ALWAYS REQUIRED BASEND TO PREVIOUS CITE Y. WE DEFERRED TO THE 9% OR QAP THAT WAS IN PLACE WHICH HAS ALWAYS REQUIRED A STATE REP'S LETTER.

>> WE DID IT FOR 4% THOUGH IT WAS NOT REQUIRED?

>> EXACTLY. >> AND IT WAS POLICY IN THE PAST

[00:15:02]

IT WOULD NOT GET ON THE AJAPAN UNLESS THE COMMISSIONER SAID YOU

CAN GET ON BOARD THIS. >> IT'S HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR ABILITY TO GIVE PEOPLE WHO NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING THE SAME OPTION THAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO GO WHEREVER THEY WANT TO LIVE AND DEVELOPERS WILL NOT CHOOSE TO GO IN PRECINCTS THREE, TWO AND FOUR. IT IS LINKED TO A PRECINCT.

>> THAT'S MY MOTION. >> I FIRST OF ALL WANT CLARIFICATION. WE WENT THROUGH A BIG PONY SHOW IN LAST COMMISSIONER'S COURT WHEN I WAS WANTING TO ADDRESS ISSUES WITH OUR VETERINARIANS BECAUSE I HAD BEEN ENGAGED.

HERE WE HAVE COMMISSIONER'S FROM PRECINCT ONE BRINGING MOTIONS FOR MEL'S DEPARTMENT. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RULES. TO B DISCUSSED.- THE DEPARTMENT OF THE COUNTY, I JUST THINK THAT IS UNJUST AND WE SHOULD NOT HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD POLICY.

I THINK PERSONALLY THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT COMMISSIONER ELLIS PUT THIS ON OR COMMISSIONER GARCIA PUT IT ON.

I DON'T WANT TO BE THE ONLY ONE THAT THIS BODY GOING TO REQUIRE THE ALWAYS HAVE TO GO THROUGH DEPARTMENT IF I WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING DISSED. DISCUSSED.I WANT CLARIFICATION.

I THINK WE NEED TO RESET THIS AND HAVE MS. LA MEL BRING IT TO US AS A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING TO DISCUSS IT.

EVEN IF IT'S SOMETHING I MIGHT AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH.

I'LL GET TO THE MERITS IN A MOMENT.

I FIRST WANT TO GET THE CLARIFICATION.

IS IT ONLY PRECINCT FOUR THAT HAS DO TO GO THROUGH THE

DEPARTMENT. >> IF I MIGHT RESPOND I. DON'T WANT YOU IN ANY WAY TO TAKE IT PERSON.

>> I DO. >> I'M SORRY IF I DO.

IF YOU'D HAD THREE VOTES ON YOUR ITEM WHEN WE LAST MET, IT WOULD HAVE PASSED. UNLIKE WHEN I WAS ON THE CITY COUNCIL OR WHEN I WAS IN THE LEGISLATURE, IT WAS INTERESTING WHEN I CAME TO COUNTY GOVERNMENT THAT ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD, ANY DEPARTMENT HEAD HAS ABILITY TO PUT ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA.

AND I REALLY MEAN THE SINCERELY WHEN I SAY THAT I HOPE THAT DURING THE TWO YEARS THAT YOU AND I SERVED TOGETHER BEFORE THE JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER GARCIA CAME, I WAS RESTRAINED WHEN THINGS WOULD HAPPEN LIKE I REMEMBER MAKING A MOTION ONCE TO LET ARCHBISHOP SPEAK AND THE RECIDER OF THE JUDGE AT THE TIME REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THE MOTION. I KNOW RULES OF ORDER.

I'VE DONE THIS ALL MY LIFE. 65 YEARS OLD.

35 OF THEM HAVE BEEN IN POLITICS.

I KNOW I HAD THE OPTION OF CHALLENGING THE RULING OF A CHAIR. AND THEN REQUESTING THAT THE CHAIR GET OUT OF THE CHAIR. ALL THE CHAIR HAD TO DO WAS NOT LET ME GET A MOTION AND IT WOULD HAVE DIED.

I THOUGHT IT WAS A PERSONAL AFRONT.

IING IF YOU'RED FOR THE GOOD OF THE BODY I WOULDN'T GO NUCLEAR HERE. I REMEMBER WHEN YOU WENT TO MAKE A POINT ON SOME I'M INVOLVING MINORITY WOMEN'S PARTICIPATION.

WHEN YOU BROUGHT AN ITEM UP THAT I HAD APPROVED, RECOMMENDED TWO WEEKS EARLIER, YOU BROUGHT IT BACK UP AND SAID COMMISSIONER ELLIS DIDN'T HAVE ANY MINORITY OF WOMEN IN HIS PACKAGE.

I THOUGHT IT WAS RATHER PERSONAL ATTAK.

BUT I'VE BEEN AT THIS A LONG TIME.

I DIDN'T LOSE MY COOL. A MADE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION SINCE YOU WANTED TO HELP THE MINORITY WOMEN SO MUCH PLUGGING IN THE

[00:20:04]

SAME TWO FOR EVERY CONTRACT THAT CAME UP FOR A MINORITY VOTE.

WHAT I'M RESPECTFULLY SAYING TO YOU IS THE BEAUTY OF WHAT THE STATE DID FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT WAS GIVE ANYBODY THE ABILITY TO PUT ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA. CAN BE KAY INCOMPETENT, IT CAN BE TIME CONSUMING, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY D. IT WORKS FOR YOU.

WHETHER YOU ARE IN THE MAJORITY OR THE MINORITY AS A PERSON OF THIS WHEN I TALK TO OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND OTHER COUNTIES. IT'S FAIRLY INTERESTING WE HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF CIVILITY THINK IN ORDER FOR TO US WORK F. YOU HAVE THREE VOTES, I WON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY.

I'M GOING TO CONGRATULATE YOU. IF YOU HAD HAD THREE VOTES YOU WOULD HAVE IT. IF YOU ASK ME AS A COURTESY WILL I HOLD THIS AND WILL I DO IT WHEN WE MEET AGAINST NEXT WEEK, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

OR IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE MERITS OF IT NOW.

WITHTON SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE, I KNOW IT VIOLATES FAIR HOUSING ISSUES. AND I DON'T WANT TO US END UP UNDER A CONSENT DECREE WHERE THE CITY OF HOUSTON IS.

IT'S LIKE THE COURT REPORTERS. I WOULD FROWSIER HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHEREVER IT IS THAN NOT HAVE IT.

BUT SOMETHING IS WRONG IN THIS SYSTEM WHERE SUCH A DISPROPORTIONATE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO COME IN AND ASK FOR FEDERAL TAX DRESS GIVE OUR CONSTITUENTS ALL OF THEM SOMEWHERE TO GO. WHEN WE LOST 160,000 HOMES THERE, IS A SEVERE PROBLEM HERE IN TERMS OF THE SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WAIT I'LL DO IT, IF NOT I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND THERE HAS BEEN A SECOND.

>> I DO WANT TO ADDRESS A FALSE NARRATIVE IN THE NIX OF THIS.

WE'VE APPROVED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN PRECINCT FOUR.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE THEM BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T ASK. BUT THERE ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN PRECINCT FOUR THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BODY AND YOU VOTED FOR A FEW OF THEM IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW IT'S NOT ALL IN PRECINCT ONE.

THIS IS MONEY THAT'S BEING FUNNELED THROUGH THE STATE.

SO I DO THINK ON THE POLICY MERITS IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE STATE TO DO IT. WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT YOU ARE PUSHING ME INTO THIS CORNER WAS ONLY BECAUSE I DIDN'T

HAVE THREE VOTES. >> I CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY.

THAT'S STATE LAW. >> YOU HAVE THE ABILITY AS ONE OF THE FIVE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD OF THIS COUNTY TO PUT ANYTHING ON THE AJAPAN ANYTIME YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON THERE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> ARE WE DISCUSSING THIS TODAY

OR NEXT COURT? >> I'D LIKE TO PUT I ON NOW.

>> I WANT TO COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE MERITS.

ONE PIECE THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE BROUGHT UP.

HER POINTS ARE POSITIVE POINTS. BUT THEN MY UNDERSTANDING AND I THINK IT'S TO THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING COMMISSIONER ELLIS DEFACTO THE LACK OF STATE REPRESENTATIVES LETTER IS A VETO FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE THEN FOR EXAMPLE THE COMMUNITIES IN PRECINCT ONE, THEY GET THE POINTS AND SO THEN BY COMPARISON THE OTHERS DON'T. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IS WHY PART OF THE REASON WHY WE NEED TO GET RID OF THIS.

IT'S NOT FOR ANY OTHER RAN THAN TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE SI S AFFORDABLE HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.

SO FOR HA REASON I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS MOTION.

>> AS I MENTIONED AND I'M GOING TO CALL HER LATER ON TODAY OR TOMORROW. WE COULD PUT ANYWAY REQUIREMENT THAT SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER YOU CAN'T DO IT UNLESS A SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER OR PRESIXTH CHAIR OR NATE SENATOR.

BACK WHEN THAT ISSUE CAME UP, I HAD TO PLEAD WITH A NUMBER OF MY COLLEAGUES. IT WAS A BIPARTISAN BILL.

AS I MENTIONED THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EARS ETHICAL LAPSES ON THE STATE LEVEL WITH THE OTHER PROGRAMS WHICH IS FOR 8% OR 9%.

>> THE 9% TAX CREDIT AS WELL. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> DID YOU EVER RECALL.

>> YOU'VE BEEN DEALING WITH LONG TERM HOUSING A LONG TIME.

>> YOU EVER RECALL WHEN Y'ALL RECOMMENDED LOW INCOME HOUSING, YOU EVER RECALL ME BEING OPPOSED?

>> NO. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT.

[00:25:03]

>> BASICALLY WITH THIS MOTION DOES, IT BASICALLY IS RESCINDING WHAT THIS COURT APPROVED FIVE MONTHS AGO?

>> IT'S MAKING A MODIFICATION YES.

>> CHANGES IT TOTALLY? >> IT DOES, YES.

ON THE STATE REP LETTER YES. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT IS GOING ON. THANK YOU.

>> WHERE ARE MOST OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY THE

HARRIS COUNTY,. >> PRECINCT ONE.

>> WHWHAT PERCENTAGE OF THEM? >> 40 OR 50% OF THEM.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS CLOSER TO 60.

I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> IN THE PROGRAM DID WE CHANGE FROM -- I WAS TOLD BY YOUR PREDECESSOR IT WAS THE TRADITION AND I'VE BEEN TOLD BY A NUMBER OF DEVELOPERS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING THEY WON'T GO TO APPLY IN A PRECINCT WHAT A COMMISSIONER HAS A PROBLEM WITH IT IN THE PAST. YOU HAVE EVER HEARD THAT

THANKSGIVING? >> THERE COULD HAVE BEEN A PRACTICE. I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THOSE

NEGOTIATIONS. >> AND DO I WANT TO SAY FROM PRECINCT ONE, WE ARE HAPPY TO HAVE PEOPLE WHO -- FOLKS TO HAVE DECENT QUALITY HOUSING. THAT'S WHY HAD YOU HAD WAS CREATED. I'M GOING TO ALWAYS SUPPORT IT EVEN WHEN IT'S TO MY POLITICAL PEARL.

I THINK THAT BY REMOVING MAKING IT CLEAR THIS COURT WILL DECIDE NO TRADITION, NO PRACTICE, NO POINTS, ANY OF THAT STUFF RELATED TO ANY COMMISSIONER HAVING APHETER WHETHER IT'S ME OR ANYBODY ELSE COME TO THIS TABLE AND FIGHT IT OUT.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PUT ADDITIONAL STRING ON FOR THE 4% CREDITS. WITH THE SHORTAGE WE HAVE WE NEED TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO HELP PEOPLE WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

>> HARRIS COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH LOW INCOME HOUSING GOING ON IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON.

>> DOE NOT. >> THEREFORE LOW INCOME HOUSING THAT'S BEEN PLACED IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON HAS BEEN PLACED THERE

BY THE CITY OF HOUSTON. >> CORRECT.

IT FOLLOWS THE SAME PROCESS MEANING THE LETTERS OF

RESOLUTION THAT ARE REQUIRED. >> IF WE WENT IN AND STUDIED HOW MUCH LOW INCOME HOUSING IS IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA, WOULD YOU AGREE THE BULL SOUTHBOUND IN PRECINCT THREE AND FOUR?

>> VEILED TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

I THINK WE DID AN ANALYSIS. WEAN PHENE WE LOOK AT THAT A LOT IS IN PRECINCT ONE STILL. WE COULD LOOK AT THAT.

>> WE ONLY DEAL TON INCORPORATED AREA.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> TO CONFIRM THE MOTION IS AS

WRITTEN EXCELLENT. >> YES.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED?

>> OPPOSED TAKING THE STATE REP COMPONENT AWAY.

I'M A NO. >> THANK YOU.

[Item 5]

NOW THE FINAL ITEM ON HERE IS THE REQUEST BY PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES FOR ITEMS RELATED TO VETERINARY SERVICES.

IF DR. SHAW HERE. GREAT.

THANK YOU. DR. SHAW COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THIS? THERE HAS BEEN SLIGHT CHANGES FROM THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT IT

IS THEY WANT. >> THANK YOU AND THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE COURT FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY.

I'M DR. SHAW. I'M JOINED BY MY DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ED ANDERSON WHO IS OUR HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGER. I WANT TO START BY SAYING THERE WAS A REQUEST AS YOU ALL KNOW BECAUSE YOU MADE IT TO HAVE ME APPEAR AT LAST WEEK'S COMMISSIONER'S COURT APPEAR TO DESCRIBE AND DISCUSS THE ANIMAL SHELTER RELATED VETERINARIAN POSITIONS. AND IT IS A BIT CONFUSING.

I'M HERE THE HOPEFULLY PROVIDE AS MUCH CLARITY AS I CAN.

DR. WHITE ON VACATION. HE REMAINS UNAVAILABLE.

WE'VE DONE THE BEST WE CAN TO GET THE INFORMATION AS WE CAN.

I WANT TO START FIRST BY THANKING ALL OF YOU.

EACH MEMBER OF COURT FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE SHELTER IN THE PAST. YOUR CURRENT SUPPORT OF THE SHELTER AND CERTAINLY WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO NEED SHELTER SUPPORT IN THE FUTURE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE TO EMPHASIZE

[00:30:01]

THE REAL IMPORTANCE OF ALL FIVE OF YOU PROVIDING THAT SUPPORT TO US FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER. TED OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT THE SHOULDN'T FRIDAY. HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TALK ABOUT OPERATIONAL ISSUES HAPPENING, BUDGETARY ISSUES AND ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT THE NEW FACILITY THAT THE GOOD NEWS IS YOU SEE IT, IT'S BEING BUILT. THE NOT SO GOOD NEWS IS YOU SEE IT, IT'S BEING BUILT. WE WANT TO SEE THAT COMPLETED AND IN THE TIME FRAME WE'VE BEEN TOLD IS BY MARCH OF THIS COMING YEAR. AT LEAST THE FIRST PHASE OF IT, THE MEDICAL PHASE WILL BE UP OR SHOULD BE UP.

THE ANIMAL SHELTER HAS NOT INCLUDING THE 25 NEW POSITIONS THAT WERE APPROVED RECENTLY HAS 71 POSITIONS.

THAT'S 63 NON-VETERINARIAN POSITIONS.

AND 8 VETERINARIAN POSITIONS. AND I'M GOING TO DESCRIBE THE 8 BAUDS THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION OF.

OF THE 63 NON-VETERINARIAN POSITIONS, THESE ARE KENNEL TECHNICIANS, ANIMAL TECHNICIAN, AND OTHER SUPPORT STAFF.

FOR THE MOST PART WE'RE CLOSE TO 100% FILLED THERE.

THAT'S GREAT AND A TEST MEANT TO OUR TEAM.

FOR THE 8 VETERINARIAN POSITIONS.

THIS IS WHERE IT BECOMES CONFUSING JUDGE.

WE HAVE ONE POSITION THAT IS DR. HE'S THE DIRECTOR.

THERE IS A CHIEF VETERINARIAN POSITION.

THERE ARE FIVE VETERINARIANS POSITIONS.

AND THERE IS ONE ZOO NOS SIS VETERINARIAN POSITION WHICH IS A GRANT FUNDED POSITION FROM THE FEDS COMING FROM THE STATE TO US FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PURPOSES. DR. WHITE'S POSITION IS OBVIOUSLY FILLED. THE CHIEF VETERINARIAN POSITION

IS NOT FILLED. >>> WE HAVE A ZOO NOS SIS, THAT IS FILLED. AND THEN OF THE FIVE VETERINARIAN POSITIONS. THIS IS NOT INCLUDING ANY NEW ONES. THIS IS THE FIVE WE HAVE EXISTING, TWO ARE FILLED. WE HAVE THREE VACANCIES.

ONE OF THOSE FOUR DESCRIBED ONE HAS BEEN FILLED AS OF THIS MORNING. TWO THAT ARE FILLED, THREE THAT ARE NOT FILLED PLUS A CHIEF VETERINARIAN POSITION THAT IS ALSO NOT FILLED. FOR THE MATH, THAT MEANS THERE ARE 8 TOTAL VETERINARIAN POSITIONS.

DR. WHITE, CHIEF VET, ZOO NOS SIS BUZZ E PLUS ADDITIONAL FIVE VETERINARIAN POSITIONS. FOUR ARE FILLED, FOUR ARE VACANT. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE POSITIONS THAT WERE DID NOT INCLUDE A VETERINARIAN POSITION.

THOSE POSITIONS WERE VET TECHS, ANIMAL TECH, OUTREACH, THOSE KINDS OF WORK. THAT WAS REALLY ANTICIPATION OF REALLY PRIMARILY THE SHELTER. AS YOU KNOW THERE IS SOME CROSS OVER BETWEEN WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE SHELTER AND SOME OUT IN THE COMMUNITY. WE STILL HAVE VACANCY TONS VETERINARIAN SIDE WE NEED TO FILL.

THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE WE ARE NOT GETTING A LOT OF APPLICANTS.

WE DON'T HAVE GOOD PROSPECTS. THE POSITION THAT WAS FILLED TODAY WHICH IS FANTASTIC. ONE OF TWO APPLICANTS EVERY THREE TO FOUR MONTHS. IT'S TAKING US SEVERAL MONTHS TO GET ONE OR TWO APPLICANTS. THAT'S ED'S TEAM GOING OUT AND ALL SORTS OF SITES TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE GET THE CANDIDATES TO APPLY. DR. WHITE BELIEVES PAY FOR VETERINARIANS IS A MAJOR ISSUE. IT'S NOT THE ONLY ISSUE.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS. I CAN GO INTO THOSE IF YOU WANT ME TO DESCRIBE THESE. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS, IS THERE I LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM OR DIFFERENCE OF WHAT DR. WHITE BELIEVES IS THE MAIN ISSUE AND WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THAT IT IS AN ISSUE. WE JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF AN ISSUE IT IS. WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS IN

[00:35:04]

THIS NEXT BUDGET YEAR, WE DID ASK FORKING A NEW VETERINARIAN POSITION. THAT NEW VETERINARIAN POSITION WAS PRIMARILY FOR REMOTE SPAY AND NEUTER, LOCAL SPAY AND NEUTER AND FOR COMMUNITY RELATED WORK.

WHAT THIS DOES ACCELERATES AN ADDITIONAL VETERINARIAN.

WE'RE APPRECIATIVE OF THAT. LET ME WALK THROUGH REQUEST WE HAVE PUT ON FOR TODAY. ONE IS PERMISSION TO SELECT AND HIRE AN EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM TO ASSIST IN RECRUITMENT OF QUALIFIED VETERINARIANS. I THINK YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT. ALL OF THESE WE'RE ASKING FOR NOT JUST PERMISSION BUT THE FUNDING.

BELIEVE IT'S NOT JUST GIVING US THE PERMISSION, BUT WE NEED THE DOLLARS TO BE ABLE TO SELECT THAT.

AND HIRE THAT EXECUTIVE SEARCH FIRM.

IN ADDITION, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE CREATION OF ONE NEW VETERINARIAN POSITION FOR ADDITIONAL HOURS TO SUPPORT ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE SHELTER AND THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND AGAIN THE MONEYS FOR THAT, NOT JUST THE VETERINARIAN BUT THE DOLLARS FOR THAT AND WE'RE ALSO WE'VE INCLUDED IN OUR LETTER HOW MUCH THE FISCAL IMPACT WILL BE IN THE NEXT YEAR.

FINALLY WE ARE ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION AND WE'RE GOING TO BRING THIS TO YOU, THERE ARE TWO OPTIONS HERE.

ONE IS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED LAST TIME WHICH WAS TO RAISE THE POSITION MAXIMUM SALARIES FOR ALL VETERINARIANS TO $145,000 ANNUALLY AND IMMEDIATELY RAISE THE CURRENT PAY FOR VETERINARIANS TO 125 $20,000. THERE IS A FISCAL IMPACT OF.

THAT THERE IS ALSO AN ADDITIONAL OPTION WHICH IS BASED ON ED AND HIS GROUP HAS BEEN WORKING WITH HR FOR A COMPENSATION SURVEY.

THAT HAS BEEN SEVERAL MONTHS IN THE MAKING.

BASENED THAT, THERE IS A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS TO INCREASE THE SALARY MAX AND IT'S WRITTEN IN THE LET HEAR THE SALARY MAXES ARE AND TO INCREASE THE SALARIES AT LEAST FOR CONSIDERATION TO $120,000. I HOPE THAT HELPS PROVIDE AT LEAST THE CONTEXT. IT IS CONFUSING.

AND IF THERE IS SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THOSE THREE SPECIFIC ITEMS, SEARCH FIRM, CREATION OF THE NEW POSITION OR THE TWO OPTIONS IN TERMS OF THE SALARY MAXINE CREASE OR THE ACTUAL SALARY INCREASE FOR THE VETERINARIANS, HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE F. THEREAD TO THIS,.

>> YOU HAVE EVER USED A SEARCH FIRM IN YOUR DEPARTMENT BEFORE?

>> WE HAVE NOT. WE'VE DONE MONSER AND LINKED IN AND INDEED.COM. I DON'T MEAN TO THROW OUT ONE.

>> I'M ONLY ASKING BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP, I JUST THINK THE IDEA OF LINKED IN.

I DON'T GET IN THERE BECAUSE YOU GET SO MUCH STUFF.

MAYBE IF I'M IN THERE MY STAFF IS CHECKING IT.

YOU GET ALL KIND OF INQUIRIES ON EVERYTHING.

GOD FORBID YOU PUT YOUR CELL PHONE IN THERE WHEN NEW POLITICS AND EVERYBODY GETS YOU. I'M CURIOUS, HAVE WE BEEN USING

SEARCH FIRMS IN THE PAST? >> WE HAVE IN THE ENGINEERING

AREA. >> BUT IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS

WE'VE NOT? >> NOT NECESSARILY IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS. ENGINEERING HAS A SPECIFIC ONE FOR MILITARY RECRUITS BETWEEN O'BRIEN AND BRADLEY MORRIS.

USUALLY THE COST ARE 20% OF THE FIRST YEAR'S SALARY.

I'M SURE Y'ALL GOT SOMETHING CLOSE TO THAT.

THAT'S INDUSTRY STANDARD BETWEEN 20-30% OF THE FIRST YEAR SALARY AS LONG AS THEY STAY ON FOR 90 DAYS OR LONGER.

>> OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS 30%. >> I KNOW IT COST MONEY.

THIS THIRD LARGEST COUNTY IN THE COUNTRY, I JUST THINK IT'S A GOOD PRACTICE. WE HAVE SUCH GREAT DEPARTMENT HEADS. HOW DID WE FIND YOU ALL? WHERE DID ALL THIS TALENT COME FROM HOW DID THE COUNTY FIND YOU

DR. SHAW? >> I WAS AT GAVELSTON AND I WAS RECRUITED IN. I WAS CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICE THEY ARE AND I WAS RECRUITED IN THERE FROM THERE.

>> DID THEY REACH OUT TO YOU. >> REACHED OUT ON THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND EVENTUALLY MET WITH DR. PA LOSS

[00:40:03]

SO. THE INITIAL MEETING AND THEN THERE WAS A SEARCH PROCESS AND RECRUITMENT PROCESS I COMPLETED.

>> I KNOW IT COST MONEY. MY PRIVATE LIVE I'VE ALWAYS DONE IT. PEOPLE HAVE FOUND ME THROUGH SEARCH FIRMS AND A COUPLE OF HAVE GOTTEN RID OF SEARCH FIRMS AFTER THEY GOT ME. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO DO. ON THIS PAY ISSUE FOR VETERINARIANS. WAS THIS IN THE WORKS? THERE WAS SOME PROCESS. WAS THIS ON THE HORIZON ANYWAY?

>> IT WAS. AGAIN WE WERE WORKING WITH HR AND I KNOW BILL IS AWARE OF THIS, WE WERE WORKING WITH HR AND TO DEVELOP THIS PROCESS. IT TAKES A WHILE.

OBVIOUSLY THEY WANT TO BE VERY METHODICAL AND CAREFUL IN ENSURING THEY GET ALL THE INFORMATION.

WHAT THEY DO IS LOOK AT A COMBINATION.

THEY LOOK AT A COMBINATION OF WHAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR PACE AND WHAT THE PUBLIC SECTOR PAYS. WHAT OTHER LIKE AGENCIES ACROSS ESPECIALLY IN THE REGION. ACROSS TEXAS AND NATIONALLY WHO COULD BE POTENTIAL WOULD BE COMPETITION IF YOU WILL.

WHAT THEY ARE PAYING. WHAT IS GOING THE MEAN TO LOOK AT THESE POSITIONS. YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THERE ARE NOT A TON OF THESE POSITIONS OUT THERE.

THIS IS NOT A PRIVATE SECTOR VETERINARIAN POSITION.

THESE ARE CHALLENGING POSITIONS. >> GOING THROUGH A PROCESS.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR TIMETABLE? >> IT WAS ABOUT THIS TIME.

>> DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES FOR PUBLIC HEALTH.

I WAS WORKING WITH AMANDA PORTER FOR THE LAST YEAR WE'VE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF SALARY SURVEYS. WE'VE COME ONE A NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT WE THOUGHT WERE GOING TO FIT AND GOING BACK AND FORTH DURING THAT TIME PERIOD. THERE WAS A COURT LETTER THAT WAS IN PROCESS TO COME TO THE 17TH COURT WHICH IS WHERE THE

NUMBER. >> THIS IS COMING UP.

IS THAT NOT NEXT WEEK. >> IT'S COMING UP AT OUR NEXT

MEETING ANY WAY. >> EITHER OPTION A OR B UNDERNEATH THE PROPOSITION OF SALARIES WOULD BE LESS THAN WE'RE PAYING NOW. CORRECT.

I'M SEEING A IF MOD OF THE HEAD YES.

>> I WANT TO RECALL THAT. >> I'M GOOD WITH YES.

DO YOU PREFER OPTION A OR B? WE WANT TO PUT IT BACK TO SAY HERE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS. HERE ARE THE FISCAL IMPACT OF THOSE TWO OPTION TO LET COURT DECIDE.

HOWEVER -- THE ADVANTAGE OF THE SECOND OPTION IS IT GIVES US INCREASED FLEXIBILITY. I'M GOING TO ANSWER IT.

WHAT OPTION B ALLOWS TO US RAISE C. WHITE'S SALARY OPTION YES.

>> YOU PREFER OPTION B? >> YES.

>> THIRD QUESTION. THE FIFTH VET THAT YOU HAVE IN HERE ARE ALLOW TO US BE OPEN ON SUNDAY AFTERNOONS.

EVEN WITHOUT THAT VETERINARIAN, WE MAY STILL BE ABLE TO.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CLEAR.

>> I MOVE THE ADOPTION OF THE REQUEST WITH OPTION B.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU DR. SHAW.

[00:45:06]

I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED THAT YOU INDICATED YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH HUMAN RESOURCES ON THIS ALREADY.

WERE YOU AWARE COMMISSIONER CAGLE WOULD PUT THIS ON THE

AJAPAN? >> I WAS NOT.

YOU COULD HAVE LET US KNOW THERE WAS ALREADY WORK ON THIS.

WHY DIDN'T YOU GIVE US INSIGHT INTO THE FACT THAT DR. SHAW WAS

ALREADY WORKING ON THIS? >> WHETHER THIS CAME UP ON THE AGENDA LAST TIME WE DID LET FOLKS KNOW.

I THINK THIS IS WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO TALK TO THE DIRECTORS AND MAKE SURE THERE IS CLARITY AND WAYS TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. I UNDERSTAND VERY WELL THAT THE GIVEN PROCESS WE USE IF WE HAD REAL LEADERSHIP THERE WE COULD BE A ROBUST SYSTEM FINDING TALENT OUT THERE THAT WOULD COME TO HARRIS COUNTY FOR THE MOST PART OF SALARY ISSUES.

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE TALENTED BUT YOU WOULD CONSIDER A PUBLIC SECTOR OPPORTUNITY TO HELP A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO IMPLEMENT POLICY AND CREATE COMMUNITY CHANGE MORE THAN THEY WANT TO MOVE UP THE CORPORATE LADDER.

I'M SURPRISED YOUR OFFICE, YOU IN PARTICULAR WERE NOT NOTIFIED THIS WOULD GO ON TO THE AGENDAFUL AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THERE WAS ALREADY SOME ENGAGEMENT ON THIS.

I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THAT.

BUT I WOULD ALSO LOOK TO YOUR YOUR REQUEST TO SEE US CONSIDER WOULD BE. I FOLLOW YOUR LEAD ON THIS.

YOU PIT IT ON THE AJAPAN. >> YES.

>> AWE PROVED IT? >> YES.

>> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS YOU RECOMMEND END IN.

>> THE PERMISSION TO ACTION PERSPECTIVE THAT IS UNIVERSAL , THE CREATING OF THE NEW VETERINARIAN POSITION IS UNIVERSAL. THE TWO OPTIONS ARE OPTION A AND B. OPTION A IS TO RAISE THE POSITION MAXIMUM SALARIES FOR ALL VETERINARIAN POSITIONS TO $145,000. AND TO IMMEDIATELY RAISE ALL CURRENT VETERINARIAN PAY TO $120,000 ANNUALLY.

OPTION B TO INCREASE ALL POSITION SALARIES BASED ON HRM SURVEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND IN THAT ONE WE LISTED THE POSITIONS , THE CHIEF VETERINARIAN OPERATIONS AT 145,000.

THE VIEW ZOO NOS SIS AT 127 AND FIVE VETERINARIAN AT 128,918.

THERE THE TIER ADD APPROACH IS TO GIVE US PERMISSION TO RAISE SALARY MAXES. THEN DEPARTMENT IS ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION ON RAISING THE SALARIES IN ACCORDING TO WHAT HRM HAS WORKED WITH US ON WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY $120,000 A YEAR. THE MOTION WAS FOR OPTION B IS THAT CORRECT? IS HE MOVING THE RECOMMENDATION

[00:50:03]

OF THE DEPARTMENT. WHY CAN'T YOU COVER THE SEARCH FIRM FROM EXISTING FUND AND THE VETERINARIAN POSITION.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE MOVED OVER TO THE VETERINARIAN PUBLIC HEALTH BUDGET.

IT'S NOT JUST THE GENERAL FUND BUT IT'S SPECIAL REVENUE.

DON'T HAVE A NUMBER BUT I BELIEVE IT'S 1 POINT -- THE TOTAL REVENUE WAS 1.7, WE'VE GONE TO 3.5.

THE BUDGET HAS DOUBLED IN THAT FIVE TO SIX YEAR PERIOD.

THE ANSWER FOR THE SEARCH FIRM IS WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT OUR NEXT YEAR BUDGET LOOKS LIKE. WE WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR WE DON'T HAVE $160,000 PROGRAMMED IN TO COVER THE SEARCH FIRM COST AS JOSH INDICATED. IT'S ABOUT 20% OF THE SALARY OF THAT VET FOR THE YEAR BASED ON HOW LONG THEY STAY.

WE WANTED TO PUT THAT IN DEPENDING ON OUR BUDGET NUMBER, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A FISCAL IMPACT FOR US.

WOULD YOU AGREE MAYBE DR. WHITE IS RIGHT.

IF YOU PAID MORE MONEY YOU MIGHT NOT NEED A SEARCH FIRM? WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF PEOPLE. IT'S BETTER THAN CONTRACT PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU GET CONSISTENCY. WE DID TRY HAD AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET ANY CANDIDATES THROUGH HA PROCESS.

JUST BECAUSE THE ITEM DOESN'T NELL OUT.

WE'RE VOTING TO IMPROVE THE SEARCH FIRM , THE NEW VET AND BASED ON HR RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM.

[Item 6]

THIS ITEM WAS ONGOING. TRYING TO RECRUIT DIRECTOR FOR VETERANS SERVICES. THE QUESTION CAME UP WE DO THE

SAME THING. >> MOTION, SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. >> MOTION CARRIES.

>> SO THAT'S IT FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING.

>> WE GOT THAT ITEM ONE PENDING OUT THERE.

WE SHOULD RECESS THE SPECIAL MEETING FOR THE BUDGET HEARING AND WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF COMING BACK TO THE SPECIAL.

THEY ARE DONE WITH THE HEARING. >> WE'LL RECESS THE SPECIAL MEETING. LET'S TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE COME BACK AND RESUME THE BUDGET HEARINGS.

THANK GO. WAER DONE WITH BUDGET HEARING.

I'LL ADJOURN THE BUDGET HEARINGS AND LET'S GO BACK TO THE WE WERE ON RECESS FROM THE POSTING.

>> JUDGE TO BE QUICK. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW.

[Item 1 (Part 2 of 2)]

THEY ARE WAITING TO TAKE ORDER AND HE HAVE CALLING AND I WAS CALLING.

WE DON'T KNOW. THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CAN GIVE US AN UPDATE TOMORROW.

WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS BUT THEY CAN GIVE AN UPDATE.

WE FIND SOMETHING BROAD ENOUGH. THERE MAY BE SOME ITEM UP TOMORROW IN TERMS OF FUNDING.

[00:55:07]

WE'LL ASK THEM. THANK YOU. >>>SO THERE'S NO ACTION FOR ITEM ONE, CORRECT? REQUEST FOR REPORTING POSSIBLE ACTION CONCERNING THE CONTESTED

RAISE. >> I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO VOTE.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR THEM TO FIND. MAYBE THAT'S WHY I SAID ACTION.

FIND SOME WAY TO BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION SO WE DON'T END UP IN THIS POSITION AGAIN.

I GUESS THAT'S WORKING ON ALL OF THE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE. >> THERE WAS A MOTION FOR

THE LAST WEEK. >> WAS THAT ALL RIGHT WHEN I DID THE MOTION LAST WEEK? A MOTION TO FIND A WAY WE DON'T END UP IN THIS POSITION AGAIN?

>> YES, SIR. >> I KNOW YOU WOULDN'T WANT IT ON MINE BECAUSE I COULD BE HERE FOREVER. WITH THAT IT'S 5:25 AND THIS SPECIAL MEETING OF COMMISSIONER COURT IS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.