[00:00:04] ARE WE LIVE. WE ARE ON. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO COMMISSIONERS COURT BUDGET WORK SESSION ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2026. TODAY WE'LL BE CONSIDERING THE CHANGE MEMO, WHICH WOULD PROPOSE POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE COUNTIES FY 26-27 OPERATING CAPITAL BUDGET THAT WAS FIRST PRESENTED ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 18TH. TOMORROW, SEPTEMBER 15TH, WE WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND INVITE PUBLIC INPUT ON THE FULL PROPOSED BUDGET. THEN WE WILL DELIBERATE ON THE FULL ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET. [1. Communications, including citizens who signed the register to speak, and reports.] WE WILL BEGIN TODAY WITH PUBLIC COMMENT AND THE FIRST PERSON WHO SIGNED UP THE HONORABLE LUZ ELENA CHAPA. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. I'M THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE FOR BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY. I'M HERE TODAY TO MAKE A RECORD TO ADDRESS THIS COURT'S PROPOSED OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. ON AUGUST 18TH, 2026, THIS COURT FIRST REFERRED TO THIS PROPOSAL AS A NEW COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THEN SHIFTED TO OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS AND NOW OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THE COURT HAS CREATED A LIST OF DUTIES THE ELECTED DA WOULD THEN BE ABLE TO DO AND NOT DO. INITIALLY, IT APPEARED THAT AT LEAST TWO MEMBERS OF THIS BODY WERE SURPRISED BY THIS PROPOSAL. THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS OF GREAT CONCERN TO ME BECAUSE THIS ATTEMPTED CHANGE WOULD DISRUPT COUNTY BUSINESS, VIOLATE THE LAW, AND DESTROY THIS COUNTY'S CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ESTABLISHED IN 1876. AS STATED IN ARTICLE FIVE, SECTION 21 OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. THE LEGISLATURE IS THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY THAT REGULATES THE DUTIES OF AN ELECTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY. NOWHERE IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION OR GOVERNMENT CODE DOES THE BEXAR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO STRIP ITS ELECTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THEIR EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED, EXPRESSED AND IMPLIED CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY DUTIES ON BEHALF OF THE BEXAR COUNTY COMMUNITY, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THIS BODY WITHDRAW ITS PROPOSAL FOR AT LEAST THREE REASONS. THE NEXT DA WILL INHERIT A BROKEN, UNDERFUNDED AND UNDERSTAFFED OFFICE. THE COUNTY IS FACING A BUDGET CRISIS. ALL MONIES ALLOCATED TO THE DA'S OFFICE. A NUMBER OF STAFF SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE, AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE CHANGE WOULD POTENTIALLY SUBJECT THE ELECTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND COMMISSIONERS COURT TO A FUTURE LIABILITY. THIS NUMBER TWO, THIS CHANGE WOULD ERADICATE ANY CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT THE LAW CURRENTLY PROVIDES. AND NUMBER THREE, THIS CHANGE WOULD PLACE COUNTY BUSINESS AT RISK OF BECOMING NULL AND VOID BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST. BECAUSE THIS COURT WOULD THEN HAVE ACTED WITHOUT THE LEGAL AUTHORITY. I SURMISE THE ONLY WAY TO UNDO THIS ILLEGAL CONDUCT WOULD BE TO ENGAGE IN LITIGATION IN JANUARY. LITIGATION WOULD BE COSTLY, AND THE COUNTY TAXPAYERS WOULD BE FORCED TO FOOT THE BILL. THAT SAID, TO PREVENT FURTHER DISRUPTION AND UNNECESSARY COST AND WASTE THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING A COMPLETE WITHDRAWAL OF THE PROPOSED OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. JUDGE ALICIA PEREZ. GOOD MORNING COURT. GOOD AFTERNOON, AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. I SENT YOU ALL AN EMAIL LAST WEEK WITH SOME OF THE RESEARCH I'VE BEEN DOING ABOUT JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN COMBATING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. AND I WANT TO RE-URGE TO YOU TODAY THAT AS BEST AS THIS BUDGET CAN KEEP THE ADVOCATES, THE LIAISONS AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CONNECTING WITH OUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS, THAT THAT IS WHERE THE REAL CHANGE TAKES PLACE IN COMMUNITIES THAT WARM HANDOVER FROM A VICTIM TO THE SUPPORT TEAM AND THE FUNDING THAT HELPS VICTIMS MOVE ON IN THEIR LIVES. SO THOSE ARE THE KIND OF LINE ITEMS THAT WILL PUSH THE NEEDLE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN BEXAR COUNTY. AND WHATEVER TODAY'S BUDGET CANNOT DO, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER MY SUPPORT TO HELP YOU WORK ON THE SUCCESSES WE'VE HAD WITH OUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMMISSION, AND CREATE A FUTURE THAT'S NOT GRANT DEPENDENT, WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS QUESTION EVERY SO OFTEN, BUT WE CREATE A FUTURE WHERE WE ARE REALLY FOCUSED ON TARGETED PROSECUTION OF THE MOST VIOLENT OFFENDERS. LETHALITY ASSESSMENTS THAT REALLY TARGET WHO WE NEED TO SPEND TIME ON. SO THAT WE'RE CREATING A SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE AT MOST RISK ARE GETTING THE MOST ATTENTION AND WE'RE NOT HAVING THIS COVER EVERYONE [00:05:08] EQUALLY WHERE THAT'S LOSING THE PEOPLE MOST AT RISK IN OUR SYSTEM. SO AS WE GO FORWARD, WHATEVER DIFFICULT STEPS WE HAVE TO TAKE TODAY, AND I WISH WE DID IT. AND I WISH YOU COULD KEEP THE CRIME ADVOCATES WE HAVE THAT ARE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. I WISH WE COULD KEEP ALL OF THAT, BUT IF WE CAN'T, LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND ESTABLISH A NEW SYSTEM WHERE WE HAVE AN ONGOING, WELL-FUNDED SYSTEM TO TARGET HIGHEST RISK PEOPLE GIVE THOSE VICTIMS THE SUPPORT. AND REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THE COURTHOUSE, MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A SAFER FUTURE FOR EVERYONE IN BEXAR COUNTY. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NO OTHER FURTHER CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. YOU HAVE TO SIGN UP. HEARING NO FURTHER CITIZENS TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. [2. Presentation, discussion and appropriate action regarding the potential changes to the proposed Bexar County Fiscal Year 2026-27 Operating and Capital Budget documented in the memorandum from the Budget Officer dated September 14, 2026.] PRESENTATION. DISCUSSION. APPROPRIATE ACTION REGARDING POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED BEXAR COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 26-27 OPERATING CAPITAL BUDGET DOCUMENTED IN THE MEMORANDUM FROM THE BUDGET OFFICE DATED FEBRUARY 14TH, 2026. I WILL ASK THAT MISS TANYA GAITAN PRESENT UNINTERRUPTED. SO THE MEMBERS OF THE COURT AND GENERAL PUBLIC CAN HEAR TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE PROPOSED POTENTIAL CHANGES FROM THE BUDGET. THEN I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION. SO AT THIS TIME I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BUDGET OFFICE HAS WORKED HARD AND THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT WOULD REDUCE THE PROPOSED BUDGET BY ROUGHLY $2 MILLION, IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. SO, MISS GAITAN, PLEASE PUT THE CHANGE MEMO ON THE RECORD. THANK YOU, JUDGE SAKAI. FOR THE RECORD. TANYA GAITAN THE BUDGET AND FINANCE DIRECTOR, YOU SHOULD HAVE A COPY OF THE DRAFT CHANGE ORDER THAT I'LL BE BE PRESENTING TODAY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THE FIRST PAGE IS THE DESCRIPTION, WHAT WE CALL A NARRATIVE OF THE CHANGE ORDER. AND I WILL BE GOING ONLY IN DETAIL FOR ATTACHMENT ONE. AND THEN AT A HIGH LEVEL, GO THROUGH THE OTHER ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE CHANGE ORDER. SO THE FIRST SECTION, THE FIRST COUPLE PAGES AGAIN DESCRIBE JUST ACCOUNTING THE POSITIONS, HOW THEY SHOULD BE UPLOADED IN THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM AND TO OUR HR SYSTEM. AND THIS IS A STANDARD DOCUMENT THAT WE PROVIDE FOR THE CHANGE ORDER. ATTACHMENT ONE IS THE CHANGE MEMORANDUM. AND I WILL BE GOING IN DETAIL OVER THIS DOCUMENT. THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME STRUCTURE ON HOW THE CHANGE MEMO IS PRESENTED. WE WILL START WITH THE GENERAL FUND. AND THEN WE HAVE OTHER FUNDS AS WELL ON THIS DOCUMENT. THE GENERAL FUND IS BROKEN OUT BY OFFICE OF COUNTY MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN THE COMMISSIONERS COURT'S RECOMMENDATIONS AS WE'VE BEEN DIRECTED. STARTING WITH THE GENERAL FUND, OUR ENDING BALANCE, AS PROPOSED IN AUGUST, WAS $234.4 MILLION. WE WILL BE MAKING CHANGES AT A NET AMOUNT OF 1.6 IN ESTIMATES, AND I'LL DESCRIBE WHAT THAT IS FURTHER INTO THE DOCUMENT. AND A NET DECREASE TO OUR PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 27 FOR $203,000 TODAY AS THE CHANGE MEMO STANDS OUR ENDING BALANCE WILL INCREASE TO $236.2 MILLION. STARTING WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE, THE BUDGET AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT WILL BE AUTHORIZING OR RETAINING RATHER ONE BUDGET ANALYST POSITION FOR $62,903. THIS IS A NET DECREASE AS WE ARE DELETING POSITIONS FOR THAT DEPARTMENT AS WELL TO PAY FOR THIS POSITION. THE NEXT ONE IS CONSTABLE PRECINCT TWO. THIS IS A BASELINE INCREASE OF $600 FOR SHREDDING SERVICES FOR THE OFFICE. THE NEXT ONE IS CONSTABLE THREE. WE'RE INCREASING VARIOUS ACCOUNTS. THIS WAS PRESENTED AS PART OF THE WORK SESSION A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. THIS INCLUDES OPERATIONAL EXPENSES FOR COPIER RENTAL AT $1,454. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES AT $40,000. REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT FOR STAMP MAINTENANCE AT $800. SUPPLIES AND MATERIALS FOR POSTAGE FOR $2,000 AND AN INCREASE OF $19,000 FOR FUEL. THE NEXT OFFICE IS THE COUNTY AUDITOR. WE'RE DECREASING THE FUNDING FOR DECREASING THE FUNDING BY $43,558. THIS IS TO MATCH THE APPROVED COURT ORDER FOR THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S BUDGET. IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ARE CHANGING A RECOMMENDED POSITION OF A TIME AND ATTENDANCE ADMINISTRATOR THAT WAS RECOMMENDED AT E SIX IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. THIS WILL BE INCREASED TO AN E SEVEN TO MATCH THE ORDER. THE NEXT OFFICE IS THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THIS IS A POST POSITION SO EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST. AND JUST TO PREFACE THIS AS A REMINDER TO THE COURT, THREE MONTHS HAS BEEN FUNDED IN POST ARPA FOR ALL POST ARPA POSITIONS, WHICH INCLUDE 91 POSITIONS. THESE CHANGES WILL BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST FOR ALL THE OTHER POST ARPA FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR FOR POST ARPA POSITIONS. [00:10:04] SO THE FIRST ONE, THE SECOND ONE ACTUALLY, SINCE I TALKED ABOUT THE BUDGET AND FINANCES, THE DA'S OFFICE, WE'RE RETAINING TWO COORDINATORS FOR THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HIGH RISK PROGRAM AND ONE FIRST CHAIR PROSECUTOR, FIVE FOR THE PRE-INDICTMENT COURT. THIS IS A TOTAL COST INCREASE OF $230,946. THE NEXT OFFICE IS A CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS ALSO RELATED TO POST ARPA. THIS RETAINS A DISTRICT COURT COORDINATOR POSITION FOR $66,865. THIS IS ALSO FOR THE PRE-INDICTMENT COURT. THE NEXT OFFICE IS THE DISTRICT CLERK'S OFFICE. THIS IS ALSO A POST ARPA POSITION THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST FOR $45,047. THIS IS FOR A CIVIL COURT CLERK TO MAINTAIN THE PROTECTIVE ORDERS FOR THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER PROCESS. THE NEXT OFFICE IS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO RETAIN THE FAST TRACK POSITIONS ONE ADMINISTRATOR, ONE SPECIALIST OF WORKFORCE SUPPORT SERVICES, AND ONE SPECIALIST OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT. THE TOTAL INCREASE WOULD BE $203,993. MANAGE ASSIGNED COUNSEL THIS WAS A GRANT FUNDED POSITION NOT RELATED TO POST ARPA. WE ARE REALLOCATING FUNDING FROM CONTINGENCIES TO AUTHORIZE THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY GRANT FUNDED, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, FOR A TOTAL COST OF $1,206,317. THIS INCLUDES A MANAGED ASSIGNED COUNSEL DIRECTOR, ONE EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, ONE MANAGE ASSIGNED COUNSEL TRIAL DIVISION DIRECTOR, ONE MANAGED ASSIGNED COUNSEL PROGRAM MANAGER. ONE MANAGED ASSIGNED COUNSEL SENIOR RESEARCH DATA ANALYST, A LAW AND TRIAL RESOURCE ATTORNEY, AN IMMIGRATION ATTORNEY, A PROGRAM COORDINATOR, AND A JUVENILE RESOURCE ATTORNEY. THIS ALSO REALLOCATES FUNDING FOR THEIR OPERATIONS, AS WELL AS TWO OFFICE ASSISTANTS. THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO RETAIN ALL THE POSITIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY IN THE GRANT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE THE STRUCTURE FOR THAT OFFICE. THE NEXT OFFICE IS THE MEDICAL EXAMINER, WHERE INCREASING BASELINES TO INCLUDE TRAINING FOR $6,000, AS WELL AS TO FUND A MEDICAL SUPPLIES, INCREASING IT BY $28,581. NON-DEPARTMENTAL. WE ARE INCREASING THE OPERATIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR $50,000 FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, RECENTLY APPROVED CONTRACT FOR THE CHISCANO HOSSA & CALVE PLLC, WE'RE INCREASING CONTINGENCIES FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO MONTHS, PENDING APPROVAL FROM COMMISSIONERS COURT FOR A LEASE AGREEMENT FOR THE BIBLIOTECH LERMA’S LERMA FOR $10,789. WE'RE INCREASING CONTINGENCIES TO FUND AND PURCHASE A PENDING NEGOTIATION FOR A FIXED ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS FOR $82,635. WE'RE INCREASING CONTINGENCIES FOR PRINTING AND MAILING SERVICES FOR THE TAX OFFICE PENDING THE UPDATE. TAX NOTICE AND STATEMENTS FOR THE VOTER POTENTIAL VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE ELECTIONS FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THIS COST IS $100,000. THERE'S AN INCREASE TO CONTINGENCIES PENDING WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE JUVENILE DISTRICT COURTS TO INCREASE A 10% FEE OR INCREASE THE COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEYS BY 10% FOR $101,410. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS APPROVED FOR THEIR COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES. WE ARE DECREASING THE POST ARPA POSITIONS AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE FUNDED NINE MONTHS, WHICH IS ABOUT $5.9 MILLION. AND WHAT THIS DOES IS REDUCES THAT AMOUNT. AND THE MIX OF THAT IS EITHER THE POSITIONS ARE BEING DELETED OR THEY'RE BEING REALLOCATED TO THE APPROPRIATE OFFICES. SO THIS IS THE FULL AMOUNT BEING REALLOCATED OR DELETED. IT'S $5,908,139 IN CONTINGENCIES. WE'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR JAIL DIVERSION AGREEMENTS AS REQUESTED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SPECIFICALLY BEHAVIORAL HEALTH. THESE ARE PENDING CONTRACTS THAT WILL BE UP TO EXCUSE ME. BE IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL. THE COST OF THAT IS $344,837. AND ONCE THESE CONTRACTS ARE APPROVED, WE WILL ALLOCATE THE MONEY IN THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE. THE NEXT OFFICE IS THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER. THIS IS RELATED TO THE PREVENTATIVE HEALTH DIVISION. WE ARE RETAINING ONE ASSISTANT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER FOR $69,371. OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. WE ARE PROPOSING OR WE ARE DELETING EXCUSE ME, DELETING AND REMOVING FUNDING FOR VACANT POSITIONS AT THE COST OF $140,274 AND RETAINING POST POSITIONS FOR THEIR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND GPS UNITS WHICH INCLUDE TWO PRETRIAL SUPERVISORS AND FIVE PRETRIAL BOND OFFICER LEVEL THREE'S FOR $413,782. WE'RE ALSO INCREASING A BASELINE FOR $5,000 FOR THEIR REENTRY CENTER LUNCH AND LEARN FOR THE WHO HIRES JUSTICE INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS. [00:15:06] THE NEXT ONE IS RELATED STRICTLY FOR A POST ARPA PROJECT. THERE'S NO NET INCREASE TO THIS, AS WE ARE REDUCING THE ESTIMATE FOR THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AND SIMPLY REALLOCATING IT TO FISCAL YEAR 27. SO THIS IS A NET ZERO COST, BUT WE WILL BE REALLOCATING $1,647,672 PENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE AGREEMENT EXTENDING THE TERM PAST THE DECEMBER ORIGINAL TERM. THE NEXT OFFICE IS PUBLIC HEALTH. THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER IS RECOMMENDING TO FUND AND AUTHORIZE ONE MANAGER OF BUSINESS SERVICES, ONE PUBLIC HEALTH DIRECTOR AND ONE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS, DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIAL PROJECTS PROJECTS MANAGER FOR A COST OF $339,306. AND WE'RE FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING, RECOMMENDING ONE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION CASE MANAGEMENT SUPERVISOR AND ONE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAM MANAGER, AS WELL AS FIVE CASE MANAGERS FOR THE STAR PROGRAM FOR A TOTAL COST OF $469,718. MOVING ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. THAT'S THE CASE MANAGER THAT I MENTIONED ALONG WITH THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION. THAT IS THE COMPLETE LIST FOR THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER. NOW WE'LL BE MOVING ON TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS COURT. AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, THE FIRST OFFICE IS BIBLIOTECH. WE ARE RESTORING THREE FULL TIME BIBLIOTECH DIGITAL NAVIGATORS FOR $136,916. FOR CIVIL DISTRICT COURTS, WE ARE DELETING A VACANT FAMILY SUPPORT MONITOR AND FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING THE ONE PEARLS EAGLES COURT MANAGER, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY FUNDED ON A GRANT FOR A NET COST OF $33,093. WE'RE FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING A PREVIOUSLY FUNDED GRANT POSITION FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD COURT MANAGER FOR $102,414. COMMUNITY RESOURCES. WE ARE RETAINING TWO FULL TIME PROGRAM ASSISTANT SPECIALISTS. THIS REPRESENTS THE 25% ALLOCATION THAT WAS IN POST ARPA. THE REMAINING FUNDING IS WITHIN COMMUNITY RESOURCES. THIS COST IS $25,037. CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THIS ALSO IS A NET CHANGE. WE ARE TRANSFERRING 16 POSITIONS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE FOR $1,746,866. THIS WILL BE REALLOCATED FROM THE PROPOSED OFFICE. SO THERE'S A NET ZERO COST FOR THIS RECOMMENDATION. ELECTIONS. WE ARE FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING FOUR VOTER REGISTRATION PROCESSOR POSITIONS AND REDUCING THE TEMP ELECTION WORKER WAGES FOR THE SAME AMOUNT AT A NET COST OF ZERO. GENERAL COUNSEL AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS THE TRANSFER OF THE FUNDING. IT'S REDUCING GENERAL COUNSEL TO BE TRANSFERRED BACK INTO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND THAT INCLUDES 16 POSITIONS AND REMAINS TEN POSITIONS WITHIN THE NEWLY CREATED OFFICE FOR GENERAL COUNSEL. NON-DEPARTMENTAL WERE INCREASING TO FUND FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSULTING SERVICES FOR AN ADDITIONAL $210,000. WE ARE ADJUSTING THE INTERFUND TRANSFERS APPROPRIATIONS FOR THREE MONTHS AS REQUIRED FOR THE GRANT. FOR THE MAC, THE MANAGED ASSIGNED COUNSEL CASH MATCH FOR $402,106. WE'RE DECREASING CONTINGENCIES THAT ARE BEING TRANSFERRED. SIMILAR TO THE POST ARPA. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY FUNDED IN CONTINGENCIES AS SIMPLY REDUCED AS CONTINGENCIES AND REALLOCATED TO THE APPROPRIATE BUDGET. SO IT'S A NET COST FOR THE GENERAL FUND. WE'RE ALSO INCREASING CONTINGENCIES TO FUND A JAIL OVERTIME STUDY FOR $125,000. WE'RE INCREASING CONTINGENCIES FOR A PILOT JAIL DIVERSION CENTER FOR $638,370, AND WE ARE DECREASING THE APPROPRIATION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED FOR COUNTYWIDE OUTSIDE AGENCIES BY $500,000. AND WE ARE REALLOCATING IT TO SPECIFIC EVENTS. AND WE ARE. THE REMAINING BALANCE WILL BE REALLOCATED TO EACH OF THE JUDGE AND FOUR COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR OUTSIDE AGENCIES. THE EVENTS INCLUDE THE MARTIN LUTHER KING MARCH FOR $40,000, DÍA DE LOS MUERTOS FOR $30,000, DIWALI FOR $30,000 AND JUNETEENTH FOR $100,000, AND THE REMAINING BALANCE WILL BE OF $60,000, WILL BE REDISTRIBUTED TO EACH OFFICE FOR OUTSIDE AGENCIES, GIVING EACH OFFICE $360,000 FOR OUTSIDE AGENCIES. FOR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO THE COMMISSIONERS COURT IS RECOMMENDING TO DELETE ONE SENIOR PROGRAM ANALYST, WHICH IS VACANT FOR COST SAVINGS OF $90,200 AND AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COURT. [00:20:01] THIS IS THE SECOND PART OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH POST ARPA POSITIONS, IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE COUNTY MANAGER'S OFFICE IS RECOMMENDING, WE'RE FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING ONE DIVISION DIRECTOR OF PREVENTATIVE HEALTH, AS WELL AS ONE HEALTH POPULATION COORDINATOR, AND WE'RE RETITLING THAT POSITION FROM MANAGER TO COORDINATOR AND DOWNGRADING IT TO AN E-7, WHICH IS COMPARABLE TO OTHER OFFICES AND DEPARTMENTS WITH THAT SAME RESPONSIBILITY. THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED AS AN E9. THAT IS A TOTAL COST OF $176,248. AND THE LAST PROGRAM CHANGE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS COURT IS FUNDING AND AUTHORIZING AN ADDITIONAL THREE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION CASE MANAGER, BRINGING THE TOTAL AMOUNT TO EIGHT CASE MANAGERS FOR THE STAR PROGRAM. AND THE COST OF THAT IS $188,901. THAT IS THE COMPLETION OF THE GENERAL FUND, AND I'LL MOVE ON TO OTHER FUNDS FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. WE ARE REALLOCATING TO FUND THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS EQUIPMENT FOR $76,010, AND WE'RE REDUCING A CRIME LAB PROJECT TO REALLOCATE. THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED AND CLOSED. SO THERE'S NO NET COST TO THE CIP FUND. THE NEXT FUND THAT I'LL BE DISCUSSING IS COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND, WHICH IS ALSO KNOWN AS THE SEED FUND. THIS ONE IS SIMPLY A REALLOCATION FROM THE FISCAL YEAR 26 TO FISCAL YEAR 27 IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE PROJECT ICEBERG TOYOTA AGREEMENT. SO THERE'S NO NET INCREASE TO THE SEED FUND. THE NEXT FUND IS THE COUNTY CLERK RECORDS MANAGEMENT FUND. THERE'S VARIOUS BASELINES HERE THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO INCREASE AND DECREASE. ONE OF THEM INCLUDES A TRANSFER TO THE RECORDS MANAGEMENT FUND FOR $10,000. AND I'LL GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THAT LATER ON IN THE MEMO. WE'RE INCREASING TRAVEL FOR $37,287. WE'RE INCREASING SPECIAL SERVICES FOR ONGOING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FOR $1,500. WE'RE INCREASING THE SUPPORT AND STORAGE AND SECURITY CONDITIONS FOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS FOR $50,000. AND WE'RE ALSO INCREASING $75,000 FOR OFFICE FURNITURE TO RENOVATE AND REPLACE DAMAGED FURNITURE. AND BASED ON THE NEW APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT FOR TRI DATA, WE ARE DECREASING THE CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR $37,925. THIS FUND IS PRETTY HEALTHY, SO IT'S ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT INCREASE. THE NEXT TWO ARE RELATED TO EACH OTHER. THE FIRST FUND IS THE COUNTY ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND. WE ARE INCREASING THE OPERATIONAL EXPENSES BY $250,000. THIS WILL FUND A SUBDIVISION REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE FOR A TEN YEAR FORECAST. AND THE SAME THING IS BEING ALLOCATED FOR THE FLOOD AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS. BUT THIS WILL BE AN ASSESSMENT NEEDS FOR COUNTY WIDE FLOOD CONTROL FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF $250,000. IF YOU RECALL, DURING OUR PRESENTATION FOR PROPOSED, THE COUNTY MANAGER RECOMMENDED THIS AS A MEANS TO FIGURE OUT A FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR ROAD PROJECTS, AS WELL AS OUR FLOOD PROJECTS. IN ADDITION TO THAT, FOR THE FLOOD CONTROL, WE ARE INCREASING THEIR FUEL BY $2,000. BOTH OF THESE FUNDS ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THESE INCREASES. THE NEXT ONE IS DELETING A GRANT POSITION REFLEJO THE COURT MANAGER. THE STATE CRISIS INTERVENTION GRANT WILL EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 30TH. THERE IS NO COST TO THIS BECAUSE THE FUNDING HAS ENDED, SO WE WILL NOT BE DECREASING ANY BUDGET, BUT THE POSITION WILL BE DELETED. THE NEXT ONE IS THE OPIOID FUND. THESE ARE POTENTIAL EXECUTED CONTRACTS THAT WILL BE UP FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE COURT. WE ARE SIMPLY REALLOCATING FUNDING WITHIN THE OPIOID SETTLEMENT FUND FOR TO REALLOCATE FOR CROSSPOINT: FOR $270,084. ROSETTA KEY $90,000. CORAZÓN MINISTRIES FOR $100,000. PAY IT FORWARD $74,340. AND CORAZÓN MINISTRIES HOUSING FOR $24,150. THIS WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE OVERALL ENDING BALANCE FOR OPIOID AS WE REALLOCATE MONEY. THE NEXT ONE IS RECORDS MANAGEMENT. WE ARE INCREASING THE TRANSFERS IN, AS I MENTIONED IN THE COUNTY CLERK RECORDS FUND. THERE'S $10,000 FOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS. THIS IS TRANSFERRING FROM THAT FUND INTO THIS ONE. TO SUPPORT THE FUND. AND THEN WE WILL ALLOCATE THE $10,000 FOR THOSE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS. THERE IS NO NET COST TO THIS FUND WITH THAT CHANGE. AND THE FINAL ONE IS THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT FUND. WE ARE INCREASING THE FUNDING FOR THE JURY OPERATIONS TO FUND TEN IPAD REPLACEMENTS. THESE ARE THE DEVICES THAT THE JURY OPERATIONS USES FOR EMPLOYEES OR FOR JURORS TO SIGN IN AND ALSO DO SURVEYS. THIS IS A COST OF $14,729. WE'RE ALSO ADJUSTING THE SUPPLIES AND APPROPRIATION FOR THE COUNTY AUDITORS. BOARD APPROVED ORDER TO MATCH THE ORDER FOR A DECREASE OF $2,731, AND THAT WILL ADJUST THE ENDING BALANCE TO [00:25:02] $294,000. I WILL BRIEFLY GO OVER THE REMAINING ATTACHMENTS. THE SECOND ATTACHMENT ARE JUST ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES IS AS NO IMPACT TO THE BUDGET. THESE ARE SIMPLY CORRECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE DOCUMENT IS ACCURATE. SO WE HAVE THIS DOCUMENT AVAILABLE EVERY SINGLE YEAR. AND SO THERE'S DETAILS HERE ON THAT. ATTACHMENT THREE IS THE CERTIFICATION OF THE COUNTY REVENUE FROM THE COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE REVENUE. ATTACHMENT FOUR IS FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THIS IS THE VEHICLE REPLACEMENT COMMITTEE LIST AND INCLUDES ALL THE VEHICLES RATHER THAT WILL BE REPLACED. AND THESE ARE FUNDED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. THE NEXT ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT FIVE. THIS IS THE LIST OF TAKE HOME VEHICLES ACCORDING TO AND APPROVED BY OUR POLICY FROM THE FINANCE STAFF. THIS INCLUDES THE LIST OF ALL THOSE POSITIONS. EMPLOYEES THAT WILL BE APPROVED FOR TAKE HOME VEHICLES. ATTACHMENT SIX IS OUR BEXAR COUNTY HOLIDAYS FOR 2027. ATTACHMENT SEVEN IS ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES. THIS IS JUST FOR A RECORD. WE ARE NOT INCREASING OUR BUDGETING. ANY INCREASES FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS AS IT WAS APPROVED A FEW WEEKS AGO. ATTACHMENT EIGHT IS A LIST OF ALL OF BEXAR COUNTY STEP PLANS AND CAREER PATHS AS APPROVED BY COURT. THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THESE SINCE LAST YEAR. AND FINALLY, ATTACHMENT NINE IS THE RECORD OF THE PURCHASING BOARD'S APPROVAL AND THEIR ORDER SIGNED OFF BY THE COMMITTEE, BY THE JUDGES AND APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE. THAT'S THE END OF THE PRESENTATION FOR THE CHANGE ORDER, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE. COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU JUDGE. I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT LET ME GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED BEXAR COUNTY FISCAL YEAR 26-27 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET CHANGE MEMO AS PRESENTED BY BUDGET STAFF. SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CLAY-FLORES. COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. THANK YOU JUDGE. TANYA, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU AND THE BUDGET TEAM DID, THOMAS AS WELL. I KNOW WE SPENT A NUMBER OF HOURS LATE LAST WEEK AND OVER THE WEEKEND. BUT IT PALES IN COMPARISON TO WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. A COUPLE OF JUST CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. TANYA, THE. LET ME GET TO IT. THERE WERE TWO THINGS RELATED TO THE JAIL DIVERSION. ONE WAS THE ITEM THAT WE ADVOCATED FOR, FOR THE PILOT PROGRAM THAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE CITY AND HOPEFULLY UNIVERSITY HEALTH AS A PARTNER. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT FOR A FEW MONTHS ON THAT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND COMMISSIONER MOODY AS WELL. SO THAT I SAW ON PAGE THREE OF THE MEMO, AND THEN YOU HAD SOMETHING EARLIER THAT WAS, I THINK, RELATED TO SOME BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CONTRACTS AGREEMENTS. IS THAT RIGHT? SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE UNRELATED. CAN YOU TELL ME AGAIN WHAT THOSE AGREEMENTS ARE IN REFERENCE TO? SO IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, WE HAD INCLUDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH DIVISION JAIL DIVERSION CONTRACTS. AND IF I CAN REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, ONE WAS FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE EXISTING UNIVERSITY HEALTH ONE FOR BARE NECESSITIES, ONE FOR TRUE MENTAL HEALTH, AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS ONE FOR UTSA, THE HEALTH SCIENCE PORTION. SO WHAT THIS IS THESE ARE EXISTING CONTINGENCIES. THESE AREN'T BRAND NEW TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET. THEY SIMPLY NEEDED INCREASES ONCE THEY COMPLETED THE NEGOTIATIONS OF THE CONTRACTS THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION APPROVAL. SO WE JUST PLACED THEM IN CONTINGENCIES. ONCE THEY GET APPROVED, WE WILL TRANSFER THE FUNDING TO THE APPROPRIATE OFFICE, WHICH WILL BE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT AS A DISTINCTION. BY THE WAY, I THINK THE THE PILOT PROGRAM ON JAIL DIVERSION, I KNOW THE CITY I BELIEVE HAS APPROVED THEIR CONTRIBUTION. I SPOKE WITH ED BANOS THIS MORNING. THEY'RE WORKING ON, I THINK THEIR AGREEMENT AS WELL OR THEIR AMOUNT. AND I THINK THERE'S HOPE THAT BY THE END OF THE YEAR, THAT WILL BE THE CALENDAR YEAR THAT WILL BE IN PLACE. AND I UNDERSTAND, I THINK I'M MEETING WITH ERIC EPLEY TOMORROW, I BELIEVE STRAC IS GOING TO BE THE CONVENER ON THAT PILOT PROGRAM. SO WE'RE READY TO GO AND WANTED TO KEEP YOU GUYS POSTED ON THAT. I THINK SINCE THE LAST UPDATE WE GAVE WAS A FEW MONTHS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THAT. THE I KNOW DAVID, YOU HAD BROUGHT UP AND WE, WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION, I GUESS, DURING ONE OF THE WORK SESSIONS ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. AND I THINK THAT IT'S WISE THAT WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT BOTH NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDIVISION AS WELL AS FLOOD CONTROL, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK MY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A SECRET. I THINK MY PRECINCT GEOGRAPHICALLY HAS THE SMALLEST AREA GEOGRAPHICALLY OF UNINCORPORATED. BUT FLOOD CONTROL IS A SIGNIFICANT PART OF, OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE NEEDS. AND SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN GET THAT GOING IN THE 2027 AND COME BACK WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. [00:30:07] WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY A JARRING NUMBER THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT FOR MAINTENANCE AND FUTURE GROWTH, BUT IT'S A NECESSARY EXERCISE, AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD INVESTMENT IN GETTING AN ACCURATE ASSESSMENT. SO THANK YOU FOR FOR DOING THAT AS WELL. THE OTHER QUESTION TANYA, IS RELATED TO I KNOW THERE ARE SOME TOUGH DECISIONS GOING FORWARD ON THIS. I KNOW WE'RE FINALIZING THE BUDGET TOMORROW, BUT THIS HAS BEEN TOUGH IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE KNEW THE ARPA DOLLARS WERE ROLLING OFF AND CREATED A NUMBER OF JOBS, BUT WE ALSO KNEW THEY WERE DEFINITIVE TIME FRAMES. AND SO IN THE END, IF THIS BUDGET IS ADOPTED WITH THE MEMO TOMORROW HOW MANY JOB VACANCIES ARE BEING, ARE BEING IMPACTED, HOW MANY JOBS ARE BEING IMPACTED? I GUESS 50. YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, COMMISSIONER. BUT I THINK WE'VE CHIPPED AWAY AT THAT. WE'VE CHIPPED AWAY A COUPLE OF THEM. JUST BECAUSE SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS RELATED TO, YOU KNOW, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THE NAVIGATORS THAT ARE HELPING FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT GOING INTO NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE EVEN PROBABLY TOUGHER DECISIONS. AND I DON'T THINK IN ANY WAY BY MOVING FORWARD, WE'RE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, AS FOLKS LIKE TO SAY, THIS IS GOING TO BE A MULTIYEAR PROCESS WHERE WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT FLATTER REVENUES AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RIGHT-SIZE, IN A SENSE, AND OPERATE A LITTLE BIT MORE LEAN AS AN ORGANIZATION. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE NOT JUST FOR YOU GUYS, BUT FOR ALL OF US AS POLICY MAKERS TO PRIORITIZE. BUT, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE WORK ON THIS AND LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING THE BUDGET TOMORROW. THANK YOU JUDGE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JUDGE. THIS HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK FOR THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS, LOTS OF LONG MEETINGS. BUT I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR MEETING WITH ME AND MY STAFF AND GOING BACK AND FORTH. A LOT OF GOING BACK AND FORTH THE LAST WEEK, EVEN OVER THE WEEKEND. AND LIKE COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ WAS SAYING I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET SOME THINGS DONE FOR A LOT OF THE POSITIONS THAT ARE ARPA FUNDED. I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THE WORK AND LOOKING FOR MORE GRANTS TO CONTINUE TO DO THE WORK. BUT I JUST REALLY WANT TO THANK YOUR TEAM AND THOMAS AND DAVID YOURSELF FOR JUST GOING BACK AND FORTH IN SO MUCH OF THE INTERESTING THINGS THAT ARE IN AND OUT OF THE BUDGET. IT'S A HUGE BUDGET. AND TO KNOW THAT YOU REMEMBER THE SMALL DETAILS THAT I TALK ABOUT, THAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS TALK ABOUT, THAT STAFF TALK ABOUT MEANS A LOT AND MEANS THAT YOU GUYS, YOU'RE NOT JUST CRUNCHING NUMBERS. YOU'RE REALLY BEING DILIGENT ABOUT THE LIVELIHOODS OF OUR COUNTY EMPLOYEES. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO FINISHING OFF TOMORROW. COMMISSIONER MOODY. THANK YOU JUDGE. AND THANK YOU STAFF. I KNOW I'VE CALLED YOU 3 OR 4 TIMES TODAY, BUT I'M SURE YOU'RE GETTING HIT FROM ALL SIDES. AND I'M SURE YOUR ENTIRE TEAM HAS PUT IN A LOT OF WORK ON THIS. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. A FEW THINGS TO TOUCH ON HERE THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT, AS WE THINK ABOUT THE, THIS CHANGE MEMO AND THEN MORE BROADLY, THE BUDGET, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, I JUST WANT TO COME BACK TO A COUPLE POSITIVES. I THINK THAT THAT ARE IN THIS CHANGE MEMO. SOME ADDITIONS THAT ARE NECESSARY IN MY OPINION, THE. AND COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ, I THINK YOU TOOK THE LEAD ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT, THE 250K FOR THE FLOOD AND FOR THE ROAD STUDIES. I THINK THAT'S A NECESSARY INVESTMENT AS WE TRY TO PLAN FOR THE COMING YEARS, THE COMING DECADE REALLY, IN TERMS OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE IN ORDER TO MEET OUR NEEDS OF A GROWING COUNTY. SO I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT. I DO SUPPORT THAT. I ALSO WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER CALVERT AND COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ FOR SUPPORTING THE JAIL OVERTIME STUDY. I THINK THIS IS NEEDED. I THINK IT'S A REAL OPPORTUNITY. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR YEARS. IN THIS IN THIS COURTHOUSE. AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE HAD SOME FRANK CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SHERIFF. I KNOW HE WANTS TO TRY TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION AS WELL, AND TRY TO FIND COST SAVINGS, AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO FIND BEST PRACTICES THAT COULD BE IMPLEMENTED THERE AND REDUCE THE JAIL OVERTIME COSTS. SO AGAIN, I'M NOT A BIG ONE FOR ADDITIONS, RIGHT. THE REST OF MY COMMENTS ARE GOING TO BE ON THINGS WE NEED TO STILL CUT OR WE SHOULD HAVE CUT. [00:35:02] BUT IN THIS CASE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPENDING $125,000 AGAINST A $13 MILLION ANNUAL SPEND THAT EVEN IF WE WERE ABLE TO TRIM THAT 10%, THAT MEANS WE WOULD HAVE A TEN X RETURN ON THAT INVESTMENT FROM THAT STUDY. AND SO I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUES SUPPORT ON THAT ITEM. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING THAT IT'S IN THE BUDGET. I WOULD ENCOURAGE STAFF TO TRY TO WORK QUICKLY ON THAT. AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE REAL OPPORTUNITY THAT WE HAVE, WE TRY TO GET THAT STUDY COMPLETED SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. SO ON A MORE ANTAGONIST TONE, I GUESS, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY I UNDERSTAND THESE CONVERSATIONS ARE SENSITIVE AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POSITIONS, ARPA POSITIONS, NON ARPA POSITIONS, THESE ARE EMPLOYEES. THEY'RE REAL PEOPLE. THEY HAVE REAL FAMILIES. BUT WE ALSO NEED TO BE HONEST THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CITIZENS OF BEXAR COUNTY TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS. AND I THINK WE HAVE A LOT MORE TOUGH DECISIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE, AS WE CAN SEE WITH THIS EVEN WITH THIS CHANGE MEMO, WE STILL HAVE 67 MILLION THAT WILL COME OUT OF RESERVES. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. $67 MILLION. AND I THINK EARLIER YOU WERE SAYING THAT BASED ON OUR CURRENT TRAJECTORY WITH CURRENT ASSUMPTIONS, WE WOULD STILL NEED TO CUT ANOTHER 25 TO 30 MILLION. THAT'S CORRECT COMMISSIONER. SO THAT'S A LOT OF TOUGH DECISIONS THAT THIS COURT IS GOING TO HAVE TO FACE. AND IF WE DON'T FACE THEM THIS YEAR, WE WILL FACE THEM NEXT YEAR AND THE YEAR AFTER THAT. SO AND THE SOONER WE MAKE THOSE TOUGH DECISIONS, THE EASIER THEY WILL BE. I'M JUST GOING TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE TOPICS THAT I MENTIONED IN MY MEMO THAT I SHARED WITH MY COLLEAGUES AND WITH COUNTY STAFF THAT I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS. ONE WAS WITH THE BIBLIOTECH NAVIGATORS. THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNTY STAFF TO REDUCE THOSE TO PART TIME. I SEE WE HAVE THREE FULL TIME BACK IN THE BUDGET. ELECTIONS. I KNOW THIS IS COST NEUTRAL, BUT WE ARE AGAIN CREATING FULL TIME EMPLOYEES VERSUS TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES. I ASSUME THERE'S GOING TO BE A LONG TERM COST WITH THAT WHEN IT COMES TO BENEFITS, POTENTIAL RETIREMENT. AND THERE WILL LIKELY STILL BE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THOSE TEMPORARY WORKERS. SO DISAGREE WITH THAT, THAT DECISION AND THIS CHANGE MEMO. THE OUTSIDE AGENCY FUNDS. A LOT HAS CHANGED HERE. I WANTED TO SEE ADDITIONAL CUTS. I ALSO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT PRIORITIZING AND SINGLING OUT CERTAIN NONPROFITS, CERTAIN EVENTS VERSUS OTHERS. CLEARLY WE'RE STILL HIGHLIGHTING ITEMIZING SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO EARMARK MONEY TO. PUBLIC HEALTH. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION, MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE HERE. I KNOW COUNTY STAFF ADVOCATED FOR SOME POSITIONS TO BE TAKEN OUT OF CONTINGENCIES AND ADDED BACK IN NOT JUST SOME, I'LL SAY TEN. CORRECT. CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER? PUBLIC HEALTH. TEN EMPLOYEES. WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNTY STAFF. I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT IT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. YEP. BUT BASED ON OTHER ASKS, WE'RE ADDING ANOTHER FIVE EMPLOYEES BACK INTO PUBLIC HEALTH AT AN ADDITIONAL COST OF $360,000. IT IS TEN COMMISSIONER. YOU'RE CORRECT. OKAY. I WAS LOOKING AT YOUR MEMO. THANK YOU FOR REMINDING ME. [LAUGHTER] I THINK I COVERED THE HIGHLIGHTS. THE LAST THING I'LL MENTION IS, AND I KNOW IT'S IN HERE KIND OF IN REVERSE FASHION, BUT THE OFFICE OF CIVIL LEGAL AFFAIRS, BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD FROM THE DEMOCRAT NOMINEE FOR D.A., I HAVE SERIOUS RESERVATIONS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF THIS MOVE, AND ALSO WHAT THE IMPACTS OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS WILL BE ON BEXAR COUNTY. I WILL SAY FROM, MY OWN PERSONAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE. SHE AGREES. SHE HAS THE SAME CONCERNS. AND I FEEL LIKE THIS AT LEAST NEEDS MORE TIME TO EVALUATE OR GET AN OPINION FROM THE AG ON. THERE'S CLEARLY DIFFERING OPINIONS HERE, AND I THINK IT'S A RISK TO THE COUNTY. I THINK IT'S A RISK OF LITIGATION. I THINK IT'S A RISK OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSE IN TRYING TO DEFEND THE DECISION AND POTENTIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTRACTS THAT GET [00:40:01] COMPLETED BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY 1ST. SO OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF ISSUES THERE TO UNPACK, BUT WITHOUT CLEAR KIND OF LEGAL CONSENSUS ON THE RISKS ASSOCIATED THERE, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND I DON'T SUPPORT THAT MOVE. LISTEN, JUST A COUPLE CLOSING COMMENTS. I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO THINK ABOUT TRADE OFFS. AND BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN SUCH A TIGHT BUDGET, I HAVEN'T REALLY MADE A LOT OF PUSH FOR ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN PLACES THAT I THINK WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE. WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY, WHEN IT COMES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHEN IT COMES TO OUR CONSTABLES. BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS NEXT YEAR AND THE YEAR AFTER. WE ARE GROWING COUNTY. WE CAN'T CONTINUE TO SHORTCHANGE THOSE REQUIRED INVESTMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY. SO ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET, AGAIN, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GLEAN AS MANY COST SAVINGS AS WE CAN BECAUSE WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS COMING FORWARD WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC WORKS, AND WHEN IT COMES TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY IN FUTURE BUDGETS. ANYWAY, I WILL LEAVE IT THERE. BUT AGAIN, APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE ON THIS. I THINK WE MADE SOME GOOD, TOUGH DECISIONS, BUT THERE WAS MORE WORK THAN NEEDED TO BE DONE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE. I'M DISAPPOINTED IT WASN'T DONE. AND FOR THAT REASON, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE CHANGE MEMO HERE. ACTUALLY, LET ME MAKE ONE MORE POINT. SORRY. GOING BACK TO THE NUMBERS, I'M A NUMBERS GUY. SO WE GET 1.8 MILLION BACK IN THIS CHANGE MEMO, CORRECT? YES, COMMISSIONER. OKAY. BUT JUST ELIMINATING THE ARPA POSITIONS WAS 5.9 MILLION. YES. REMOVING IT FROM CONTINGENCIES. SO THERE'S REALLY 4 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL SPENDING GOING INTO THE CHANGE MEMO. CORRECT. SO IF I THINK OF IT CORRECTLY, COMMISSIONER WE ARE FUNDING 2.2 MILLION IN POST ARPA POSITIONS. PERSONNEL. AND PERSONNEL. AND SO I THINK OUR BASELINES WERE ABOUT, I WANT TO SAY LIKE ONE, 1.5 MILLION ACROSS BOTH THE COUNTY MANAGERS AS WELL AS OURS. ANYWAY, THE POINT BEING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SAYING WE'RE MAKING GAINS HERE. ADDITIONAL RESERVES ARE GOING BACK, BUT WE ACTUALLY HAD 6 MILLION IN SAVINGS WITH THE CONTINGENCIES FOR ARPA POSITIONS. AND, YOU KNOW, TWO THIRDS OF THAT HAS BEEN EATEN UP WITH ADDITIONAL REQUESTS AND ADDITIONAL SPEND. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CALVERT. THANK YOU, JUDGE. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, TANYA, VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ, I WAS WONDERING, IS THERE ANY QUESTION THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITIES INTERSECT WITH ALL OF THE PROPOSED GENERAL COUNSEL ASSIGNED DUTIES? YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE DELINEATION IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I THINK WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT COMMISSIONER. IN FACT, I'VE OFFERED. I KNOW JUSTICE CHAPA IS HERE. I OFFERED AS RECENT AS THIS MORNING TO VISIT WITH HER. SHOULD SHE WIN? I THINK I FELT PRETTY GOOD ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. AND TO WORK THROUGH ANY ISSUES. I MEAN, I THINK THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE COURT HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE A GENERAL COUNSEL. THAT'S UNDISPUTED. AND SO I'M HAPPY TO VISIT WITH WHOEVER IS COMING IN, IN JANUARY. BUT BEFORE THAT, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE ELECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO ISSUES. AND THAT OFFER STANDS NOT JUST FOR JUSTICE CHAPA, BUT FOR WHOEVER MAY WIN IN NOVEMBER. OKAY. SO A LITTLE CLOUDY THERE, BUT IT WAS OVERALL, YOU WORK TO FIGURE THAT OUT, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY YOU DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE LAW WITH RESPECT TO THE WAY THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITIES. RIGHT. INTERSECT WITH THE GENERAL COUNSEL. AND I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS PROPOSAL THAT REMOVES ANY OF THAT STATUTORY AUTHORITY. OKAY. AND COMMISSIONER, DO YOU STILL AGREE THAT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS STILL THE FINAL WORD ON PROCUREMENT, LEGAL REVIEW, COMPLIANCE AND ETHICS PROGRAMS, EMPLOYMENT LAW, HUMAN RESOURCES, AND THE OTHER CIVIL MATTERS. THE OTHER WHAT, SORRY? OTHER CIVIL MATTERS? CAN YOU GO THROUGH THAT LIST AGAIN? [00:45:07] SURE. IT'S BASICALLY I HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS PROPOSAL WORKS BECAUSE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IS STILL THE FINAL WORD ON CIVIL MATTERS. YOU STILL AGREE THAT THAT'S STILL THE CASE? ABSOLUTELY. COMMISSIONER DO YOU WANT ME TO WEIGH IN ON THE ACTUAL LAW? NO. NO. YEAH. NO. I'D LIKE TO FINISH MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY. WELL, COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ, IF YOU'D LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THE LAW. CAN I HAVE ORDER, PLEASE? CAN I PLEASE HAVE ORDER? GO AHEAD. STOP! HOLD ON. IT'S MY TIME. LARRY, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER. I KNOW, JUDGE, I WAS JUST OFFERING. IF WE WANT TO. YOU ARE OUT OF ORDER. THE STATUTE. YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER! STOP! COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ, COMMISSIONER CALVERT HAS THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. SO KNOWING THAT DOES THE PROPOSED DO THE PROPOSED POSITIONS PROVIDE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH CIVIL LAWYERS WHO CAN REVIEW THE MATTERS OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL? I GUESS LAST MONTH THAT IS, WAS, IS NOT ACCURATE. INITIALLY IT WAS MOVING ALL OF THE POSITIONS FROM CIVIL TO THIS NEW GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED IN THE CHANGE MEMO SO THAT THERE ARE I THINK 20 OR 30 POSITIONS STILL IN THE CIVIL DIVISION OF THE DA'S OFFICE. YEAH. I THINK IT'S 19 AS OF THE LAST COPY I GOT AND 11 ON THE GENERAL COUNSEL SIDE. CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT. I THOUGHT IT WAS MORE THAN THAT. YES, COMMISSIONER IT'S THE ACCORDING TO THE CHANGE MEMO WOULD BE TEN REMAINING IN GENERAL COUNCIL AND 16 WERE BEING REMOVED, MOVED BACK INTO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S CIVIL DIVISION. OKAY. SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT COMMISSIONER IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS DELINEATED IN THE BRIEFING THAT, AND I CAN BE SPECIFIC SO THAT I CAN REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY. SO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CIVIL DIVISION WOULD DO ALL CIVIL LITIGATION IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURTS, PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE OF CIVIL LAWSUITS AND OTHER JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, CIVIL TRIAL AND APPELLATE REPRESENTATION, CHILD PROTECTION, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY PROTECTIVE SERVICE PROCEEDINGS, FAMILY JUSTICE, THAT WHOLE LIST. OKAY. SO THAT LIST BUT IS THERE A POSITION THAT PERTAINS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE PROCUREMENT GENERAL COUNSEL. IS THERE A POSITION ASSOCIATED IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN THIS PROPOSAL? IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR IN THE GENERAL COUNSEL OFFICE? IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. SO SO LET ME JUST SAY THIS, COMMISSIONER YOU'RE GETTING INTO THE SPECIFICS. THIS IS A LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET, AND THIS IS WHY I OFFERED TO WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, THE INCOMING DA TO SPECIFY SOME OF THOSE POSITIONS. AND SO YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT IN FACT, GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST, EVEN THOUGH THE FISCAL YEAR GOES INTO OCTOBER, STARTS OCTOBER 1ST. BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A GENERAL COUNSEL UNDER CONTRACT YET. SO THOSE DETAILS, WE CAN STILL WORK OUT. I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF, IF THE DA HAS THE FINAL WORD OVER THE CIVIL MATTERS, INCLUDING THAT WHICH THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE WOULD HAVE PURVIEW OVER, THEY NEED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, WHOEVER THAT MAY BE. ATTORNEYS WHO CAN REVIEW THOSE MATTERS. AND I'M CONCERNED THAT I DO NOT SPECIFICALLY SEE AS OF THIS SECOND, THE SPECIFIC ATTORNEYS, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER PROSECUTORS IN THE CIVIL SIDE. AND THERE'S THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THERE'S THE CHIEF. BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS THE FINAL WORD. IF THEY DON'T HAVE ATTORNEYS TO ACTUALLY REVIEW THE THINGS TO BE THE FINAL WORD THAT ARE GOING TO REVIEW THOSE CIVIL MATTERS. SO THEREFORE, IT BASICALLY NEUTERS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BECAUSE WE CAN'T EXPECT THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO DO IT THEMSELVES. THEY HAVE TO HAVE LEGAL HELP. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN CONCLUDE THAT, THOUGH, WHEN THERE ARE STILL SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES, ALL OF THE RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED TO OPERATE A CIVIL SECTION OF THE DA'S OFFICE. I WOULD THINK IT'S UP TO THE ELECTED DA TO PRESCRIBE THOSE POSITIONS FOR WHO'S GOING TO DO WHAT. I MEAN, THAT'S NOT CHANGED. THAT'S A FAIR YOU KNOW STATEMENT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN ENOUGH BACK AND FORTH OTHER THAN ASKING THE CANDIDATE TO COME IN HERE, BUT THE CANDIDATE HAS NOT SEEN THE DETAILS OF THIS. [00:50:06] SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THEM EITHER. SO I'LL MOVE ON TO ANOTHER ISSUE. I JUST BELIEVE THAT FUNDAMENTALLY WE DON'T HAMSTRING THE NEXT PEOPLE COMING IN. I REMEMBER JUDGE WOLFF CALLING ME WHEN MY PREDECESSOR MADE APPOINTMENTS FOR ALL THE PRECINCT FOUR APPOINTEES, AND THE JUDGE ASKED ME, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? ARE YOU OKAY WITH COMMISSIONER ATKINSON'S APPOINTEES? AND I HAD TO, YOU KNOW, THINK ABOUT IT. I LOOKED AT WHO THEY WERE, AND THEN I SAID, YEAH, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. AND THAT'S KIND OF BEEN THE PROTOCOL THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THE YEARS IS TO RESPECT THE INCOMING AND BE CAREFUL ABOUT LONG TERM MAJOR DECISIONS THAT WILL IMPACT. WELL, WE CAN ARGUE THAT IT HASN'T BEEN MADE. IN ESSENCE, THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE IN THE MINDS OF BOTH DISTRICT ATTORNEYS CANDIDATES. THAT'S WHY THEY'VE MADE STATEMENTS TO THAT EFFECT. AND WE CONTINUE TO GET A LOT OF EYEBALLS ON THIS PARTICULAR THING. PEOPLE ALL OVER THE STATE ARE CONTACTING US ABOUT WHAT ARE YOU ALL DOING OVER THERE? AND I CAN'T EXPLAIN TO THEM WHY. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING URGENT ABOUT WAITING, YOU KNOW, UNTIL JANUARY TO SORT THIS OUT. BUT THIS ARRANGEMENT, THIS FRAMEWORK DOESN'T WORK FOR PRECINCT FOUR. I'VE EXPLAINED SOME OF THE ISSUES REGARDING, YOU KNOW, VR AND SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO RIGHT NOW. BUT THIS FRAMEWORK JUST I CANNOT SUPPORT. SO I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO TAKE THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL POSITIONS BACK UNDER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY UNTIL THE NEW DA CAN COLLABORATE ON THE POSITIONS SO THAT, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE OUR CONTRACTS BECOME DEFUNCT OR THAT WE GET INTO LITIGATION. I MAKE THAT THE MOTION. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON YOUR. I MAKE IT AS AN AMENDMENT. I APOLOGIZE AS AN AMENDMENT. DO YOU WISH TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT? IT'S NOT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. MOTION DENIED. THERE IS A MOTION, A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. CONTINUE YOUR DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER CALVERT, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. I DON'T WISH TO TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL TIME. OTHER THAN JUST TO SAY THAT YOU KNOW, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN WORK COLLABORATIVELY TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE NEXT DISTRICT ATTORNEY CAN WORK. I WILL BE HONEST. I HAVE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT THE COMMISSIONERS NEED A LAWYER. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, PART OF MY FRUSTRATION WITH US NEEDING OR MY RATIONALE FOR NEEDING A LAWYER IS BECAUSE I FELT LIKE I HAD MY PRECINCT HAS NOT BEEN REPRESENTED. AND I FELT THAT THIS PRECINCT NEEDED, YOU KNOW, LEGAL COUNSEL. WE WILL HAVE THAT GOING FORWARD. WE'RE NOT GOING TO OPERATE IN THE WAY WE'VE DONE FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. THERE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS. BUT I JUST FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S FAIR TO WANT LEGAL ASSISTANCE. MANY OF THE OTHER COUNTIES HAVE THAT, BUT THEY HAVE IT UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE PURVIEW. THE FACTS OF THE CASES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINIONS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE FACTS HERE. THEY EITHER INVOLVE THE LEGISLATURE OR OUR COURT. NEITHER OF WHICH ARE INVOLVED IN THIS. SO I DO NOT WANT ALL OF OUR CONTRACTS TO BECOME NULL AND VOID BECAUSE OF A SYSTEM THAT MAY NOT WORK. AND THAT'S WHY I OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO WORK THROUGH THIS. AND THANK YOU, JUDGE, FOR THE TIME. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ? YEAH. IF I COULD JUST JUST RESPOND. COMMISSIONER CALVERT. LIKE I MENTIONED, I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD YOUR CONCERNS BECAUSE I HEARD TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I HEARD A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LEGALITY, THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK, BUT YOU ALSO CONCLUDED THAT YOU BELIEVE WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND WE SHOULD HIRE COUNSEL. SO IS YOUR CONTENTION TODAY THAT YOU YOU'RE OKAY WITH US DOING THIS AT SOME POINT? YOU JUST DON'T WANT YOU WANT MORE OF A SAY, WHICH WE WILL HAVE AND WHO THAT PERSON IS. I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION. IN MY MIND, THE COUNSEL DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNDER A DEPARTMENT LIKE THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL. THAT MIGHT MEAN THAT I COULD HIRE COUNSEL WITH AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT AWARD, AS WE CAN, THAT WE CAN HIRE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS THROUGH OUR OFFICE BUDGETS. IT MAY ALSO MEAN THAT I SIMPLY HAVE A PRECINCT FOR COUNSEL. I DON'T FEEL I NEEDED AN ENTIRE OFFICE TO DO THAT. [00:55:04] I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD AN ATTORNEY WHO COULD LIAISE WITH OTHER ATTORNEYS ON CONTRACTUAL MATTERS AND OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE PRECINCT FOUR. AND AS LONG AS I, YOU KNOW, HAD THAT COUNSEL DIDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE IN A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT. SO, MY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT IS JUST BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF ALL THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT WE FACE, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THOSE LEGAL COUNSELS, BUT I'VE NEVER REALLY FELT REPRESENTED BY OUR EXISTING LEGAL COUNSEL. AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT I NEEDED A LEGAL COUNSEL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER MOODY. COMMISSIONER. CLAY-FLORES. YOU'RE ASKING FOR A DISCUSSION ON THE WHOLE MEMO IN GENERAL. THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEMO. OKAY. AND THE SECOND BY YOU. OKAY. IS ON THE FLOOR. SO I SECONDED THIS MOTION MEANING THAT I AM SUPPORTING EVERYTHING ON HERE. SO. COMMISSIONER MOODY YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE NOT SUPPORTING THIS? COMMISSIONER MOODY JUST TO REITERATE, I SECOND THIS. THAT MEANS I'M SUPPORTING EVERYTHING ON HERE. SO ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE NOT SUPPORTING THE CHANGE MEMO? DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE NOT SUPPORTING SOME OF THE THINGS YOU PUSHED FOR? AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, MY CONSTITUENTS, MY PRECINCT HAS BEEN LEFT BEHIND FOR FAR TOO LONG. THAT'S WHY I CAME IN HERE AND WORKED LIKE MAD TO GET ALL THE THINGS DONE THAT I'VE BEEN GETTING DONE FOR THE LAST SIX YEARS, SO I AM MORE THAN HAPPY TO TAKE YOUR DISCRETIONARY FUNDS AND ADD IT TO MY PRECINCT SO THAT I CAN CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR MY CONSTITUENTS. COMMISSIONER MOODY. I THINK COMMISSIONER CALVERT HAD A CLARIFYING QUESTION. COMMISSIONER CALVERT. I'M SORRY, I ASKED THE QUESTION TO POINT OF ORDER. NO, YOU DON'T HAVE A POINT OF ORDER IN BEING ABLE TO ASK A QUESTION OF A COLLEAGUE. YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER. WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION? I ASKED THE QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER MOODY. WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? COMMISSIONER MOODY DID YOU HEAR MY QUESTION? DO YOU NEED ME TO REPEAT IT? WE DON'T TYPICALLY ASK QUESTIONS OR TRY TO INTERROGATE COLLEAGUES ON THE DAIS. THAT'S WHAT WE JUST DID. BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. WE DON'T TYPICALLY DO THAT TO EACH OTHER. CAN WE CALL FOR THE QUESTION? NO. I'M GOING TO LET EVERYBODY HAVE THEIR SAY. COMMISSIONER CLAY-FLORES, HAVE YOU YIELDED THE FLOOR? NO, I'M WAITING FOR AN ANSWER. IS THERE ANY ANSWER, COMMISSIONER MOODT IF THERE'S NO ANSWER, I'LL PASS TO COMMISSIONER CALVERT. OKAY, WELL, THEN, FOR THE RECORD, LET ME JUST FINISH TALKING. FOR THE RECORD I MADE THE SECOND MEANING I'M SUPPORTING EVERYTHING ON THIS MEMO. SO IF SOMEONE DOESN'T SUPPORT IT, IT MEANS THAT THEY'RE NOT SUPPORTING WHAT'S ON THIS MEMO, INCLUDING THINGS THAT THEY PUSHED FOR. SO I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO MOVE THOSE DISCRETIONARY FUNDS INTO MY PRECINCT, BECAUSE I CONTINUE TO FIGHT LIKE MAD FOR MY CONSTITUENTS WHO HAVE BEEN LEFT BEHIND UNTIL I CAME INTO OFFICE. SECONDLY, I'M NOT DONE YET. I'D LIKE TO ASK LARRY. LARRY, CAN YOU CLARIFY SOME OF THE THINGS? I KNOW YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY. SO I'D LIKE TO CALL ON YOU SINCE IT'S MY TIME STILL TO CLARIFY. THANK YOU. JUDGE. THANK YOU, JUDGE SAKAI. YOU NEED THE MIC. I'M NOT SURE WHERE TO START BECAUSE THIS CONVERSATION HAS, LIKE COMMISSIONER CALVERT SAID, BLOWN UP INTO PROBABLY A BIT OF RIDICULOUSNESS BECAUSE NO ONE STOPPED TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE LAW OR THE ACTUAL BEXAR COUNTY STATUTE THAT GIVES THE BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY THEIR AUTHORITY, THE GOVERNMENT CODE 44.115, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SETS OUT THOSE DUTIES. THEY DO NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN LITIGATION IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. BUT I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S OPINIONS AND RESPECT THAT. I THINK ESPECIALLY COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ AND THE DA WHO RECOGNIZES THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PART OF THIS THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT AS THAT COMMISSIONERS COURT IS A CLIENT, A STATUTORY CLIENT, AND THE DA IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE ADVISOR TO THE CLIENT. THE DA DOESN'T TELL THE COURT WHAT TO DO. IT ONLY TRIES TO PROVIDE THE BEST ADVICE THAT IT POSSIBLY CAN. IT DOESN'T SERVE AS A CHECK OR A BALANCE. JUST LIKE ANY LAWYER IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, MERELY THERE TO ADVISE. BUT THE COURT IS A BODY MADE UP OF FIVE INDIVIDUALS, ALL HAVING DIFFERENT INTERESTS. AND GUESS WHAT? EACH ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WANTS THE SAME ATTORNEY TO REPRESENT THOSE INTERESTS AGAINST THE FOUR OTHER CLIENTS, WHICH IS A DIFFICULT PROPOSITION. AND SO I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THIS, IS THAT FOR THE PAST EIGHT YEARS, [01:00:06] IT HAS BEEN TRULY DIFFICULT TO TRY TO MAINTAIN A BALANCE FOR THE DA. AND I THINK WE'VE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB. AND I WANT TO SAY THIS ABOVE ALL ELSE, THE PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE, I DON'T WANT THIS CONVERSATION TO CAST ANY PALL OVER WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND WHAT THEY'VE MANAGED TO DO, THE BRILLIANT WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE. FORGET ABOUT ME, THE BRILLIANT WORK THEY'VE DONE. AND THEY ARE THE REASON THAT THIS COURT IS EVEN CONSIDERING THIS. I THINK REGARDLESS OF ME, WHICH I DIDN'T KNOW, THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE ISSUE IT'S TURNED OUT TO BE THEY ARE TRULY BRILLIANT LAWYERS, AND I THINK THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THE VALUE OF KEEPING THOSE LAWYERS THERE BECAUSE OF THEIR INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, THEIR SHEER BRILLIANCE, AND THAT YOU CANNOT REPLACE THOSE LAWYERS WITH JUST REGULAR LAWYERS OFF THE STREET. SO TO THEM, I SAY THANK YOU AND I APPRECIATE ALL THEIR HARD WORK, AND I HOPE THEY AREN'T LISTENING TO THIS CONVERSATION. SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER FOR LETTING ME HAVE THAT SAY, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO GO LOOK AT THE LAW, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WHO HAS LOOKED AT THIS PRECISE ISSUE, CASCOS V. CAMERON COUNTY. WHEN CAMERON COUNTY DID THE EXACT SAME THING, SEVERAL COUNTIES WHO ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING NOW IN FORT BEND, WHO JUST DID THE SAME THING JUST SEVERAL WEEKS AGO FOR THEIR OWN REASONS. DIFFERENT REASONS. BUT THIS IS SETTLED LAW. I MEAN, CAMERON COUNTY DID THIS IN 2010, AND THE AG REVIEWED THIS IN 2025 AND REVIEWED ALL OF THESE OPINIONS. THE LAW IS THERE FOR EVERYONE TO SEE. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PICK IT UP. I MEAN, EVEN SOME OF THE COMMENTERS WHO HAVE BEEN RIDICULOUSLY VOCAL ABOUT THIS AGREE THAT, YES, COMMISSIONERS COURT CAN DO THIS, BUT I MEAN, THE LAW IS LITTLE SOLACE FOR THE PERSONAL ATTACKS THAT THIS HAS BECOME. AND I THINK THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. BUT, COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ, THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THE WISDOM OF THIS. I THINK YOU AS A LAWYER UNDERSTAND THIS. JUDGE SAKAI I THINK YOU AS A LAWYER UNDERSTAND THIS. AND COMMISSIONER CLAY-FLORES, THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THE WISDOM OF THIS. SO I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY SOMETHING. SURE. COMMISSIONER MOODY. I THINK COMMISSIONER MOODY WAS YIELDING TO ME ABOUT COMMISSIONER CALVERT. SO WE JUST WERE CLARIFYING THERE WAS A MOTION A SECOND AS AN AMENDMENT, WE'LL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. NO. OUT OF ORDER. SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU. OUT OF ORDER. WE GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGE ORDER AS IS. AND THERE'S A SECOND. AND THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AND I INTEND TO CALL A VOTE AS SOON AS ALL THE DISCUSSION IS HAD. JUDGE. HOLD ON, COMMISSIONER MOODY. WE PASSED COMMISSIONER CALVERT HAS THE FLOOR. COMMISSIONER CALVERT. ARE YOU DONE? WELL, JUDGE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS PROPER PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. BUT I'M PREPARED TO VOTE EITHER WAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MOODY. BACK TO YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE SAME POINT. AN AMENDMENT IS AN INTERJECTING MOTION AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED A SECOND TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR. IT'S OUT OF ORDER. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, I WILL. COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ. I INTEND TO VOTE FOR THE CHANGE AMENDMENT. THERE'S BEEN A VERY INTERESTING CONVERSATION IN REGARDS TO ONE SPECIFIC PART OF IT, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE STUCK AT THIS TIME, AND WE'RE ONLY GOING TO MOVE FORWARD UNLESS WE HAVE A VOTE. AFTER THAT VOTE, THEN WE WILL CONSIDER ANY OTHER MOTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ENTERTAINED. I WILL TELL YOU THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE LAW THAT THE CHIEF OF THE CIVIL SECTION OF THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS PROVIDED. I'VE ALSO DONE MY RESEARCH IN REGARDS TO OTHER COUNTIES HAVE DONE THE SAME. AND WHAT I'M STRUCK WITH TODAY, COLLEAGUES, IS THE DISCUSSION WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW AFFIRMS IN MY MIND WHY THIS COURT NEEDS A GENERAL COUNSEL. MR. ROBERSON HAS PUT OUT, AND THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES THAT I, AS A FORMER JURIST AND AS AN ATTORNEY, HAVE TO INQUIRE OF MR. ROBERSON WHETHER HE REPRESENTS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OR DOES HE REPRESENT COMMISSIONERS COURT? THERE HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE HE HAS HAD TO CANDIDLY ADMIT TO ME, AS A MATTER OF ETHICS, [01:05:03] THAT HE REPRESENTS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THERE HAVE BEEN SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE I'VE HAD TO ASK FOR PRIVATE COUNSEL, AND WE HAVE HIRED PRIVATE COUNSEL WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. AND SO FROM A JURIST, AND I'M STILL A JURIST, MAINTAINING HIGH STANDARDS OF ETHICS I UNDERSTAND THIS IS WHO'S THE LAWYER? I HAVE NEVER WANTED TO COMPROMISE MR. ROBERSON OR HIS ATTORNEYS FOR THE ETHICS, AND HE'S BEEN VERY CANDID, AND HIS ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN VERY CANDID. SO I WANT TO REMIND THIS COURT THAT IT'S NOT ABOUT THE AUTHORITY AND POWER FOR WHO THIS COUNSEL REPRESENTS, BUT THAT THE COUNSEL GETS THE BEST EFFECTIVE, REPRESENTATION AND THAT WE MUST, AT ALL TIMES, LAWYERS AND JUDGES HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF ETHICS. SO OCCASIONALLY THE TRANSACTIONAL NATURE OF THIS COURT COMES INTO CONFLICT WITH THE ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT. SO I UNDERSTAND WE MAY HAVE TO AGREE TO DISAGREE. I UNDERSTAND THAT LAWSUITS MAYBE HAVE TO BE FILED. AND THAT'S EXACTLY THE REASON WHY THIS COURT NEEDS GENERAL COUNSEL. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, I INTEND TO CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NO. MOTION CARRIES. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? I'M SORRY, ELIZABETH, FOR THE RECORD. SHE DIDN'T GET CLARIFICATION. OKAY. ELIZABETH, DO YOU NEED A VOICE VOTE? WE WILL HAVE A VOICE VOTE ON THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER CLAY-FLORES. AYE. COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ. AYE. COMMISSIONER MOODY. NO. COMMISSIONER CALVERT. NAY. COUNTY JUDGE VOTES AYE. MOTION CARRIES. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CALVERT. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RODRIGUEZ. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTION? MOTION CARRIES. Y'ALL HAVE A BLESSED DAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.