All right. Sorry for a little delay there. Uh, welcome to the meeting. Uh, call this meeting to order and would invite Dan Hall, deacon of First Baptist Church in Keller to lead us ination. Well, thank you. It's a privilege to be
here today and to lead you in prayer. Let's uh bow our heads. Our great creator God, thank you that you are merciful and gracious. You're slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity
and transgressions and sin, Lord. And we thank you that this forgiveness comes through your son uh Jesus Christ. It says in your word that all have sin. That your son, it's your son who provides justification. And we
only need to come to you with outstretched hands and empty pockets and by faith claim this grace. So we thank you for this and thank you for providing the way back to you. Now, as the board begins to meet, Lord, I
pray for Mr. Barnes, Chairman Barnes, that he would lead wisely. I pray for Miss Riggney, Mr. Morris, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Alfred, Mr. Blelock, Miss Burgess, Mr. Campos, and Ms. Miss Pena. Lord,
if those present here represent families that are like my families, Lord, we know that there are relationship difficulties. We know that there are prodal children. We know that there are physical problems. We know that there are parents that need to be cared for.
We know that in your word, it says that you are the great healer, Lord. And so, we ask for your healing on those relationships and relief of those types of stress. I ask you for physical protection on
these faithful public servants. Lord um that as they meet there would be unity that there would be camaraderie that they would work together that they would value uh each other's points of view and at the same time Lord they would
challenge each other when necessary and be good listeners uh so that the best decisions are made and u all the other ones are represented here Lord I pray that they would deal respectfully uh with each other and work
well together. God, you are sovereign and you are not. You hold wisdom and it says in the book of James, Lord, if anyone needs wisdom, let him ask
above and you give to all liberally, Lord. And so we ask for that wisdom this morning in the items that are to be discussed and the decisions that are to be made and that you would grant this to us,
Lord. And I pray that if there would be any threats on this body, I pray for protection on these leaders and the staff and the people present. And I pray for the hearts of those that would even make these threats, Lord. um that first
of all that there would no one would be hurt and second Lord that you would change their heart and ultimately they would find your peace. As the session begins today Lord I ask for your blessing and your peace and
that justice uh would reign and uh that you would be glorified by every action today by every word that is said in Jesus name. Amen. Let's start with our nation's pledge.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Now for our state pledge. Honor the
Texas flag. I aliance to the Texas one state and indivisible. Thank you. The only announcement for me is that we have a busy agenda and we have two board members that have to leave at a
particular time. So, please just stay on point so we can uh get through our agenda today. Uh first thing on the agenda is report from TLO officer uh Dr. Mine. Good morning everyone. Greetings and congratulations
uh chairman Barnes to distinguished board members and chief appraiser Bobbit. Uh I am u quite impressed with what I'm seeing at the end of the 2025 tax season concerning the interface of the
electronic informal and formal ARB hearing matrix that you all have involved our taxpayers with. My report concerns about 24 inquiries uh from this past uh season. many of them about
incidental needs of the status of exemptions and uh new applications also disability and exemptions of over 65 status uh as established by the exemption rulings. Also, there have been
about 10 what I call miscellaneous inquiries having to do with changes involving uh deed or trust adjustments uh that have caused a little different wave of information for our taxpayer. Um
many times the customer service desk did an admiral admirable job as did staff in my referrals to them for extra information or for clarification. Uh the resolution is a good one. At this time, I can report no uh returning or
continuing complaints uh from a review of pertinent surveys following the 2025 protest season. That is a compliment certainly to our taxpayers in pursuing their concerns in a logical manner, but
also to our staff uh and to the ARB uh network of of individuals. Um, congratulations to all involved. I know you have a crowded agenda, but we're starting off with very good news. Congratulations. Thank you.
And thank you to you for the work that you do and not bringing us complaints is good. Uh, Chief Appraiser Bob. Good morning. As a quick overview, um we've we've continued the staff have made continued
to make significant progress uh improving the taxpayer experience during throughout the ARB process and just in general. Um we have significantly reduced the amount of pending protest or still accounts that are still pending. At certification, we're the goal was uh
when we certify to have less that are hanging out there that are still pending to make sure that the totals are accurate and also as we go into conversion. We want to minimize how much stuff is still out there kind of in limbo. We did see an 8% increase in protest. I know originally the thought
was that we'd see a significant decrease in protest with the reappraisal plan, but we actually saw an 8% increase even on homeowners. We expected tax agents to file more or the same as much as they always have. Uh but we were kind of surprised actually to see that there was actually an increase in the number of owner protest. Also
uh we did maintain roughly a six minute average wait time uh since January. So we think that's a pretty good number for there were a 50% decrease in hearings. So even though we had more protests, we had 50% less actual hearings that went
before the ARB. That's usually where we get into the 45minute waits. Um but still this year has been quite quite a bit less than what we've seen in the past. Uh as of certification we have roughly a 3% average taxable increase across all
the entities and then we hit 95% so we're required to get it to 95% to be able to certify. We were able to do that on July 11th. So roughly two weeks ahead of what we're required to be be able to certify at where we we were able to certify. We
waited until July 17th before we really closed the ARB hearings and and started the process to to complete the certification. We we generated a updated mock property value study. And so what it is, we're trying to replicate the methodology that
the comproll uses mainly for residential properties. And so the last time we looked, we looked in January, we had sales through January. Now we have sales through June which would be the entire data set that the state controller is using. And so roughly our our total number of sales have have almost doubled
uh with additional five months. It the overall ratio across the county went down 1% but the amount of school districts that were failing uh has decreased. The castle is now at 91% instead of 82%.
Carol ISD actually went down 4%. uh some schools that were above 95 have dropped right at the the grace period mark. So overall there's really only Carol ISD that we're concerned about at this point. And granted this is the way this
is done is it's based on sales that we don't control and it's based on essentially 2024 values that were set before the reappraisal plan. So we don't the appraisal district doesn't have a lot of leverage to pull in determining these ratios. They're they're numbers
that were predetermined or determined by the market. So the next thing we can do is if any do actually fail because the controllers numbers may actually be different than ours. This is our best estimate. But if if the numbers are different, we can assist the schools in appealing these results and trying to get them back into
the grace period or we're out of grace if we can get them back intolerance completely. Here's a protest comparison. So we have 2023, 24, and 25. Uh the left column is residential only. The right column is all property types. And so and in 2023
for all properties we had 242,000 protest. Originally we had in 2024 we had 245,000 protest. And this year we had 264,000 protest. And then we have it broken up by owner and agent. So you can see even on owners the numbers are
increasing. This is a a more detailed report specifically on residential properties uh number of outstanding for 2025. So as of 2024 that was later in the year when we pulled this snapshot. So we have
less than we did as of certification last year but uh total number of informal last year we had 194 95,000 informal meetings. We had 214,000 this year. uh ARB decisions went from 3,000 last year like actual hearings down to 1300. In years past I think we had
closer to 20,000 actual hearings before the ARB. So overall we we went up from 29,000 residential to 228 total total protest. The totals for the entities like I said we had roughly an average 3% increase
for all entities. Uh the cities and county special districts average about a 5% increase. The school districts average about a 2% decrease, but that also includes um the new homestead exemption or the increase in the homestead exemption to 140,000. So that accounts for most of their loss.
For the county specifically, the net taxable went from 286 uh billion last year to 297 billion. So this is our monthly times since January. And so you can see in May we the red line is
wait time over seven minutes. So it spikes when we get into that. But at this point still less than half or under seven minutes. So seven minutes and greater it takes up about half. But the average wait time was right at six minutes. The average transaction actual being involved with my staff was eight
minutes. So a total time in the office was on average 14 minutes. On the next slide, I have a total monthly phone calls since January. And you can see in April and January, it's it peaks as tax bills in January. So
that usually peaks the number of phone calls we get. And then in April, as we send out appraisal notices, it it peaks the number of phone calls also and then it declines back to kind of a normal time period. For it, we've uh completed moving to convalts. We have a a backup system now
uh and basically a clean room. So we have a full backup of the system some offsite and so if we needed to we could fire up that system and operate at least 20% of the office and still function kind of normally for at least 20% of the office. So we could still um work with people at the front desk or answer phone calls. We have enabled our ticketing
system. So instead of just doing everything by word of mouth or by emails, we now have a system to track it. uh do all the multiffactor authentication has been enabled for the servers. We migrated the board of director's email from tadbod to tad.org. We're having to pay for additional
services and licenses for multiple cyber security measures. So, we're able to consolidate that and save some money. still in progress. We're still working on more multiffactor authentication for uh some other security systems. Retiring old printers,
additional security with uh Azure, which maintains our website and some other tools. We're starting our cabling preparations to replace some of the old cables in the building. And then we've been updating the training room. So, as you see, we now have TVs instead of the the projectors.
under development. We've completed uh our website data export for the improvements, integration with Quadant, automated testing of conversion data, and our conversion transparency page. We'll go more into that later. And then we process the joint motions, 115,000 joint motions, which are basically
agreements with with the staff that don't go to the ARB. We're still working on some more conversion scripting and the mineral import from our new vendor capital appraisal group for for mineral data. For business services, we have completed
uh July certification and the NCD or the export to the tax office and still in progress the entity audit request, our daily data entity data request, updating aimous verification and then confirming calculation changes.
Next, we have our investment report. And so we're earning interest on our our funds. We have CDs, we have savings accounts, money market accounts, and so we're earning some interest on these different accounts. Uh what we'll bring to y'all next meeting, we want to move
into text pool or something similar where we can uh keep the money in in a safe, but get a better return on some of the money. We want to make sure we're still liquid and safe, but we we think we can get a better better return with text pool
on camera conversion. this uh the top little square is actually about a week old. Um as of yesterday they're they're only well we have a query that runs uh right now close to 70 different validation queries
on our camera conversion and out of those 70 queries. A week ago we had six that were returning errors. Yesterday we had three that were returning errors. Uh the 204 number 40 scenic value discrepancies we know what the issue with that is and
there were two other small queries that had four and five properties each and so we've made significant progress in the last couple months. Still, there's some risk involved with this and there's still a lot of things that we need to work through, but we're at least uh hopeful at this point. Below
that we've done some real real rough uh total calculations from the data that we've exported and total total appraisal value is a little over 101% compared to what's actually in momentum but we don't have all the different valuations and
split entities um kind of calculated into it yet. So it's just a real rough uh total number of properties we're at 99.99%. So most of the properties are in there. Um, so at least at this point I was glad to
see that we're close to 100%. We're not there yet, but we're not missing 60% of the properties. So for uh transparency stars, uh we were recently awarded the debt obligation star. We have submitted economic development and uh we've
started on the last two stars for purchasing and financial transparency. We're the only appraisal district that has three stars currently. We're the only appraisal district with the debt obligation star. So, we're pleased to to be one of the first in that that area.
Gigum for all your stars. Yes, sir. The staff have done a great job. The website looks great. I don't know if y'all looked at it. If you'all look in the transparency star page, they've done an awesome job. U the admin department has done a great job providing the data. So, it's it looks neat if you go look at
it. Did you say giggle? It's August. We haven't lost. I might just say confirm what language we were speaking. I wasn't sure. I think that's it.
I have a question. What do I have to press anything? Automatic. If it's green, you're good. Okay. um on the quarterly investment schedule, why would a governmental entity have
investments and what is it used for? Yes, ma'am. We we have the board has dictated that we'll have a 90-day reserve. So, that's the 25% general reserve fund that we have. We also have committed specific accounts to litigation, CAMA. Uh there's like six or
seven that we'll talk about later that we have the board has committed funds to to keep for a future expense. And so it's in the interest of not having to go back to the entities at a future date and say we need more money if we already know that there's an expense and we have
excess from one year. it it seems easier to us or better just to keep that a smooth transition and not have to refund the money then turn around and ask for it all back or so this way we can kind of keep it in one spot and earn interest on it is tax it is uh property taxpayers money so we
want to make sure we're earning interest in the best interest that's safe as much as possible that way we we reduce how much we have to ask from the entities who get their funds from taxpayers I wanted the taxpayers to hear that yes ma'am but it has to be Any
other questions, comments? Couple from me. I um on the protest comparisons. I think it's worth highlighting that some of the very people that are out there talking about how wrong we were
with a freeze are doing very well with protest. lawyers and agents that are telling everybody how wrong the process was. Their protests have gone up from 146,000 to 23 to 170,000 in 2025 when we had a
freeze. So, they're doing very well despite a belief in front of us that we did something bad. Also in the Taran County net taxable uh 24 to 25 despite a freeze we went up 10 billion dollars in
taxable net and that's a 3.75% increase and it's worth noting that the reality is despite a freeze on pro on appraisals the values went up and that was the comment behind the desire for the freeze from day one and in fact what was
suggested would happen in fact happened and it's very important to not that that the folks that brought that to the body uh knew what they were talking about when they brought it forth. So, uh just a couple of comments about your report. Anything else before we move forward?
Thank you. Subcommittee. We have any subcommittee reports? I know we have sub any action later any reports. I don't have any particular report. I think Jodon covered very well. uh most of the IT and KMA conversion stuff we talked about the IT subcommittee
continues to uh pay close attention to to the KMA conversion in particular and uh we continue to work with staff to uh enable the best possible resources to make this successful.
For a point of information, the county has also uh we put together a review group um a number of weeks ago now and have been meeting with uh our staff, meeting with TAD staff uh and the through the CBER process to make sure it
was going to be ready to go. If it's not ready to go, it doesn't just affect TAD, it affects the county dramatically. And uh the county is not going to be affected dramatically in a negative way by anybody else, including Tad. And so we've been meetings to get prepared for
the the transition and frankly have been pretty frustrated with how it's gone so far. Uh but the we think that we're finally making progress as of yesterday and uh we'll hopefully move that along and be ready for for the complete conversion. So um the comm the county
has been involved in that as well. Thank you for anything from you guys uh from the ARB subcommittee um our chairman uh Mr. Moore his eligibility to is going to expire at the end of this year. So, we need to start the preparations for um gathering
applications. We've asked our capable TLO, Miss Betty Mane, Dr. Betty Mane to lead us on this effort uh with help from of course Tad Admin. And um so we're going to start gathering the applications in preparation for um
appointing a new chair. Just a quick comment. I along with our budget team and staff work diligently to fiscally conservative budget as we know it's important and priority to work for the best interest of our taxpayers. Thank you. And budget's on the agenda
for a little bit later. Anything else? Next on the agenda is the consent agenda. I want to run through the consent really quickly, but then we'll give a public comment on one of them. 6A is action regarding approval of board of directors meeting minutes from May 14th, 2025. 6B consider authorization of
contract purchase cost tables for use and valuation with TAD's uh KMA system. Uh 6 C consider authorization to renew annual subscription for Microsoft Office 365. 6D consider authorization to renew
annual subscription for Microsoft Azure agreement. And then 6E consider authorization of contract for retirey group medical supplemental insurance for 2026. And we do have a public comment on 6E Daniel Bennett. Morning, Chairman Barnes, trustees.
Within the documentation, it stated that this supplemental hadn't been increased since 2013. I think it needs to be indexed to not necessarily increase of health care cost because that's was pushed forward by Obamacare. We need to tie it to something. But $150
$150 for the last 12 years. We need to revisit that. Um I want to know Frost Bank used to do our insurance or be our third party vendor looking for insurance for the building.
It really doesn't say who is the uh guess the third party vendor who negotiated Blue Cross Blue Bruce Shield with the four different plans. Is that Frost Bank or was it somebody else? And I have a question. It was in the documentation it stated a plan similar
to the ones we used to have. Well, what are the differences? So, we're going up in price, right? And it's similar to what they had before. What are the dissimilar aspects of the plan I think the retirees need to know? There's only 81 of them. And this is something I thought we've always done
in house. We didn't have to have a third party vendor. So, I like to know who uh reached out to Blue Cross Blue Shield, got the four different plans, why we chose the plan we chose, how's it different from the past plan, and and we need to uh index the 150 per month to uh
some cost. Uh whether we tie it to um I I wouldn't do it to health insurance. I'd do it I don't want to do the CPI because that's a rig game anyway, but we could do better for the retirees. Um, and I know Vince Poente, this is one of his core issues when he was on the
board. He goes, "Well, in private sector, I don't do this for my employees." Well, a lot of these people that are rank and file at this place are underpaid. I won't go through the salary study that was done back in 2020. There's a there's a huge differential between the upper tier and the lower tier. Many of these employees once they
retired, they bet they're here for a number of years so they can get that benefit at the end of the game. and Vince tried to take it away and that was very unfair to those that were over 65 retired and earned that pay. So I want to make sure that ones that we're paying
for are getting the things that they anticipated upon retirement. I want to make sure that there's nothing out of their pocket in the future because we've not moved the price of 150. So I hope the board will uh entertain those thoughts. Thank you.
U Brad Brad you want to talk about the difference in the you're more involved in that. Uh yeah we have our our brokers here from hub but as far as the differences um to roll the plan over from what we
had currently. Uh it would have been an increase over that $150 mark. Uh the the minor changes are uh previously there was a there was no deductible. there's going to be a $100 annual deductible. Um, and for uh prescription, there was
no deductible. There's a $50 deductible. Um, am I missing any of the differences? Okay. Um, again, the reason that we opted for this plan rather than just renewing is the cost was was going to go over the 150. So, we would have had to charge the uh
uh retirees a monthly fee. Uh, with the proposed, uh, everything's going to stay the same other than the couple As I mentioned, um they did give us two other options, but that would have increased the total out of pocket for the year. Currently, it's 2500. What we're
proposing is still 2500. It would have raised it to either 3500 or 4,500 and there would have been that much of a savings. It would have been just pennies. Uh so that's where we're at and that's why we're recommending this. So this is under consent. Unless we'd like to pull it, put it under new
business, then we'll leave it under consent that you want to pull it. Nobody's giving me a nod. So, I would entertain a motion to approve consent agenda 6A through 6E. I'll move to approve agenda item 6 A through 6E.
It's been moved and seconded. Uh, all in favor of consent agenda. Motion carried this with our new fancy. I can't. Mine doesn't work. Daniel, you could just still be rolling.
Thank you for not pulling it off consent. It should not be pulled off consent. These are for future agenda items. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, are we voting on I can't There's two of us can't vote on here. If you guys will give your vote orally
and then I will for the second miss discussion item 7A public hearing on 2026 Taran County I mean Taran appraisal annual budget.
I mean, I can't see. I wonder if we lost internet. Oh, all of a sudden y'all can't see. Mine's spinning. It may be the website might have gone down. Diligent because I can get to our web page.
We can move forward manually. Okay. Well, um, overview of the budget. Um, gonna have to work off memory here, so forgive me. But look at there. Uh, we originally sent out our proposed budget. Uh, had a slight increase, like
a one and a half percent increase. Uh, we went back, we met with the the budget finance committee. Uh, we lowered it overall um 3% from our original proposal. So now we're looking at a one and a half% decrease to the entities um or 2.79% decrease overall. And so
we've we've reduced u a lot of different places we could pull from there. We have a summary of accounts that we have restricted a lot of it. Uh there's roughly one and a half percent that's being added into because there's $800,000 estimate for
the election this next year. And so last time I think it was 650,000, but right now we're expecting the county election office has told us it could be up to $800,000 for the next election. And it could be more than that if it goes into runoff. So,
the toal budget will be 33,95,759. Uh total payroll is 22,914,000 which is about 70% of our overall budget
which is a one total is a 1.4 1.46% decrease to the entities. We're using money out of our reserve accounts. So instead of going back and asking for additional money for the election, we're going to pull that out of our we're recommending that we pull it out of the reserve
funds. Uh which reduces the entity allocation down to 2.79% from the prior year. Um, do you want to have public comment? Okay. Discussion. Any discussion? Are you
We have power. Uh, any questions, comments from board? I'll just make one quick comment. I want to I want to really thank the budget committee uh for working so hard on this and staff for working so hard with us uh to to put together a budget that's uh
really fiscally responsible and and meets the needs of the entities and our organization. Thank you. the uh the what we were sidebar talking about was that that's the third time I've heard that cost of elections are going up and anytime you have an
election that's on either the November well on the November ballot so in the governor year or presidential year as Tarant County is continuing to grow as much as it's growing elections are getting more and more expensive and particularly given the number of sites that we have to have uh across the county and so all three times I've had
that conversation has been with people that are on the on the general ballot or on the general their election is on the general ballot. And so that's probably that's just the virtue of living in a very big very big metroplex area. Any other questions, comments? Motion to
approve. It's a discussion. Been moved that we approve uh by Mr. Blocklock. Is there a second? Right now on the agenda, we're just at the discuss. Oh, is this just discussion right now? Hold that motion. We'll he'll still be good in a minute and then we'll beg a
second. All right. Uh, other public um I mean other discussion item. Um, Mr. Ter, legislative update. Thank you, Chairman Barnes. Uh, in the materials, there is a approximately a 16page packet uh that our firm puts out
which is sort of a summary of all of the bills that we believe impacted the uh property tax industry that came out of the regular session of the 89th legislature. Uh, I'm not going to go over all of the bills, uh, that are in the packet, uh, but there are a handful of them that I think are going to be of
particular interest to the board and the public. So, I'll go over those very briefly, uh, for you all, go over them in the order that they're in the packet. Um, the first one I'm going to cover is House Bill 9. I thought this was probably the singular most significant
piece of uh, property tax legislation that came out of the last session. What this bill does is it now exempts up to $125,000 worth of taxable business personal property uh for any owner at any one
location across the state. Uh if you are somebody that has large business personal property accounts, uh this is a huge huge tax break for you. Uh I also think that this is actually going to be a significant enough tax break. This is going to ultimately impact the tax
rates. Uh because the old exemption was $2,500. Uh you got to have a pretty small business to have less than $2500 worth of business personal property. And $125,000 you have to have a pretty big business
uh to have $125,000 worth of personal property. either you've got a huge store with lots of inventory in it or you have got some kind of specialized equipment or multiple vehicles. Uh we're going to see an awful lot of businesses that have
historically paid a tax on their business personal property that beginning in 2026 uh those people are going to be exempt. Um next bill that was sort of interesting for Taran County was House Bill 21. Uh, House Bill 21 was
the Housing Finance Corporation bill. Uh, it was originally filed, I think, with the purposes of changing some of the requirements uh, and some of the ways that um, housing finance corporations got exemptions. Uh during the legislative session, there were a
bunch of taxing units that filed injunction lawsuits dealing with what's sort of colloally known as the traveling housing finance corporation. Uh which would be a city someplace far far away from Tarant County creates a housing
finance corporation. That housing finance corporation comes into Taran County. they end up building a or buying or refurbishing a high dollar apartment complex. And by doing so, because some other taxing unit not in Taran County
set up a housing finance corporation, that property ends up being taxexempt here in Taran County. and coming off the roles of the Taran County taxing jurisdictions even though no taxing authority in Taran County ever approved
that housing finance corporation. And unfortunately, I believe under prior law uh before May 28th of 2025, at least the concept of the traveling housing finance corporation was legal. I'm not sure whether any particular one qualify
because there are an awful lot of uh requirements that have to be met for a housing finance corporation uh to be exempt. But at least as of May 28th, 2025, uh if a housing finance corporation is going to come in to Taran
County and build and operate a taxexempt housing facility, uh it's going to require the consent of the Taran County taxing authorities, meaning that ultimately the voters of Taran County uh will have a say on that. Um next bill
really impacts more of the public. House Bill 2730. And uh what this bill says is two years ago or four years ago I guess the legislature required appraisal districts to do homestead audits on every property
receiving a homestead at least once every five years. Uh this board complied with it partially by contracting with a company called True Roll. Uh and then the staff went ahead and effectuated that. other appraisal districts across the state. What some of them did was
they went out and they actually made every single person in the county with a homestead exemption reapply. Uh that annoyed and angered an awful lot of property owners. And so the legislature has now passed House Bill 2730, which
will prohibit an appraisal district from asking somebody to reapply for a homestead exemption unless the appraisal district actually has a reason to believe that the person no longer qualifies for the homestead. Um the program that this board adopted with
True Roll actually does that already. So I believe that we are already in compliance with House Bill uh 2730. Uh but that is a change that's going to affect a lot of people across the state. Um moving over to I think it's page four, we got into the tax relief package
uh that the legislature uh passed. Senate Bill 4, Senate Joint Resolution 2. That's the bill that will increase the homestead exemption from a h 100,000 to $140,000. Uh assuming that it passes in November. Uh I put everything I own that that bill
is going to pass uh in November. Similarly, Senate Bill 23 and Senate Joint Resolution 85 increased the homestead exemption for people that are over 65 or disabled to $60,000.
And I think the big news on this one is if you are over 65 years of age or disabled, you are now entitled to a $200,000 exemption on your resident's homestead. And it is certainly possible to live in
a decent residence homestead in the state of Texas for under $200,000 worth of value. And so I think we are going to find that an awful lot of our over 65 and disabled people in the state uh are going to get uh not pay any taxes on
their homestead. And even those people who live in three, four, $500,000 houses or maybe even more expensive houses than that, a $200,000 exemption is pretty significant. Um, the other part of the tax relief package that the legislature
passed was a House Bill 8, uh, which further compressed school tax rates by another, I think it's 0.331%, which will be a significant tax savings for an awful lot of taxes. Um, Senate
Bill 973 was one. It was uh, passed. Um, the language in there that's probably relevant to this board is they added some langage tax code section 2301A that talks about how a reappraisal plan that is adopted by an appraisal district
cannot contradict 2301A. Uh probably the real impact of that bill is something we ought to take up in executive session at some point in time. Uh similar uh bill, House Bill 148, uh now mandates board of directors training
in counties that are big enough to have elected members on the board of directors. That will include all of you. Uh beginning with next year, you all are going to have to take a training course that is approved by the comprollers's office and offered by some sort of
institution of higher education. Uh probably VG Young. And uh so that is training that all of you are going to ultimately have to participate in. Uh moving on, there was House Bill 3575. Again, has to do with the elected
positions on the board of directors. Uh for those of you that ran for your positions a year ago in July, you filed your uh you filed uh your your paperwork to be on the ballot with the county judge. Um that's really not how we do
most elections. So, moving forward, uh, when you all refile a run, assuming that you do, you're going to file those with the county elections administrator, uh, which makes sense because that's where almost everybody else, uh, files their paperwork. Um,
another interesting bill, uh, 2073, Senate Bill 2073, changed the procedures by which an appraisal district can, uh, obtain a building to run their offices in. We now have express authorization to borrow money uh to build or construct a
building or buy a building. Additionally, the process of getting entity approval uh should we ever need to rec relocate this appraisal district is a lot easier uh than what it was before that bill ended up passing.
Um probably yeah the the last two bills that are some some import to this board. Uh, one of them is House Bill 1522, which made a very significant change to the Open Meetings Act. Uh, for the
entire time I've been practicing law, and I think for a long time before that, the rule has always been that an agenda for a public meeting had to be posted 72 hours before the meeting was held. which
meant if we are going to have a Monday meeting uh Monday at 9:00 that agenda needed to be posted Friday by 9:00 in the morning. And the legislature has now changed that rule to where it is no longer 72 hours. It is now three
business days. So we've got a meeting here. It's on Tuesday. You don't count Tuesday. Monday is a business day. Friday is a business day. Thursday is a business day. That means like the agenda for this meeting after September one
when the new law goes into effect would need to be posted by the midnight on Wednesday. So it's posted for all of Thursday, all of Friday, all of Monday, and then we can turn around and have a meeting on Tuesday. Uh it pushes the
deadlines for us doing things back. You all just need to be aware that that is a rule that has changed and so we have to post our meetings a little earlier than we used to. And the last bill I'm going to talk about is Senate Bill 2237.
Uh this bill actually has to do with chief appraiser contracts. Uh really all chief executive officers of governmental entities. The legislature has put some real restrictions on the severance pay that a chief executive officer uh can
receive. They are no longer allowed to have a contract that allows them to receive severance pay of more than 20 weeks. Uh it only applies to contracts that are entered into after September 1st of 2025. Um, and additionally, if
you do have a severance contract uh with a uh with one of your executive employees, uh that also needs to be posted on the website. So, that is my update on the legislation. Be happy to answer any questions about these bills or any other bills if I happen to know
what they say and how they actually work. Questions, comments? One thing we've been having conversations about in my office and relates and then with state reps relates to the whole particularly on the SG SJ85
which is the $200,000 one you talked about where people actually not pay taxes if you're living under the reality of that's pretty big and as as they continue to take care of 65 and olders in Austin uh the and that
but recognizing that that population is the fastest growing population in the state also that age group. And so the demographic is the lower age groups are also aren't buying homes like they used to. This was the first time in the history of Texas that on in a state Senate hearing, they actually stated
that it's cheaper to rent than it is to buy in the state of Texas right now because high property taxes. And so as we continue to see 65 and older growing and less buying at this level, we're going to we're going to see more and more people hitting the $200,000 mark. And they're going to continue to raise
the those uh homesteads. And so the concern is what's going to be it's not going to be immediate. It's going to be five five six years down the road, particularly for school funding as it relates to their wacky funding process. And so the challenge has been put back
out to state reps that it's time to go back and have a new conversation about that. They for years have done everything they can to take care of the taxpayers because when they run for office and they're out there stumping for votes, they're telling everybody, "We know property taxes are horrible. We got to get property taxes down. We get
property taxes down, but it's affecting schools more than it is cities and municipalities and the and so nobody's going back to say, but school funding is still very contingent upon this process." And so, uh, I think it's going to become a real reality as we go into
update future legislation sessions is that school funding is going to have to come back to the conversation whether they like it or not. They don't like it because nobody understands it, including school people don't understand. It's a it's like a 25page document to come up
with school funding. And so, um, it's been a challenge particularly at the tax assessor collector level of saying this is a serious serious issue that I don't think you guys are putting enough attention to and because you're taking care of taxpayers that voted you into office versus taking care of the school districts that you need to serve. And
so, it'll be it'll be a very interesting conversation to watch moving forward and particularly if they continue to announce that it's cheaper to rent than it is to buy. It was an interesting statement to put out. If you're in the mortgage business, I think I think that raised a lot of eyebrows whenever that
statement was made. Okay, thank you. Uh thank you, Mr. Temper, for your comments. Uh we're at the number eight, general public comments. We have one from Chad Crouch.
Good day, board. Chairman Barnes, thank you for uh allowing me the chance to speak. I've got two main topics here that I want to one is uh uh kind of an extension of the taxpayer leaison report. You're doing a great job by the way. Thank you. Um and just wanted to
acknowledge some interactions I've had. I didn't count up how many phone calls and that sort of thing I got. But um uh on in May, uh I'm just going to mention the person's name by the first letter of their name. Last time they uh somebody
asked me not to mention the staff's full name, but that's fine. uh somebody the name of V gave personal uh attention and was very responsive in getting ex exemption reinstatement for a client who didn't rent out her home and I've
actually got a story to I'll probably tell about that here a little bit on the next comment u uh R who manages uh the uh inbox aat.org and whoever else monitors that inbox.
They just did a great job being very responsive, fixing issues with AOAs and um there was an issue where the agent on the website and the agent list on the download thing, it wasn't syncing up. They did a great job being responsive
with that. Um V again suggested that a client apply for their uh the air uh apply as an air owner with a homestead exemption affidavit because the property was stuck in probate and the client was able to get the homestead and disabled
person's exemption as well as a deferral. Um she was about to be homeless and so that was a a innovative solution that she came up with and uh was very cool. are again uh in just the rest of the department as being very uh
responsive. I also want to mention uh Mr. Barnes reached out to me uh after I put out the video said, "Hey, let's let's look at Castleberry, see what we can do to help." Obviously, now they're within compliance. Now, I'm I am curious about South Lake Carol being out of compliance. They pay into recapture. So,
their problems are wildly different. Um I I would be curious. I just haven't researched it to see if there's going to be penalties and interest on clawback if they don't pay in. Uh they've got an entirely different reason to protest their findings, whatever that is. And I did not start the timer.
Okay. Dmit. All right. Here we go. Um the tech department D was very responsive whenever we noticed some issues on the website. A lot of the values for previous years were gone. Uh and then I also want to commend the other board members. I saw people just encouraging to uh go out and protest.
All right, the last big topic that I want to mention is an issue that I'm seeing with tax consultants. Mr. Barnes mentioned that uh some tax consultants earlier. There are great tax consultants and there are horrible ones. There are people there are tax consultants out there running literal scams that are
legal and then there's tax consultants out there doing the work of helping people save money and they're doing a great great thing. And so, uh, there there are some issues that are maybe more legislative, but still I just want to mention them. When you go on the tax
consultants website, sometimes you don't get to see the name of the tax consultant or their license number. That's an issue. When you look at the agent online, man. All right. Well, I've got several more comments on that. I'll save them
for later. U, we need to clean up the industry a little bit, though. Thank you for your time. Uh, Mr. B, I have you down also. I don't hear my name. I panic. So I say it when I sleep. My computer. You're still over 26 minutes. I could use it.
Uh started. Yes, sir. Okay. Daniel J. Bennett. Uh me again. Uh just a general comment. I really believe our exemption department needs auditing. This has been an issue since we went live with a momentum. A momentum is a disaster. I think as we get more into
it, you'll realize what a disaster it is on doing SQLs. I can bring you time and time again examples of people being harmed by a metum. There's not enough money in this county to rebate and make people whole. There's people that lost their houses on
the courthouse steps because of aum. I'll give you an example. I got a phone call. I get phone calls all the time by people say, "Can you help me?" Well, there's not enough time in a day to help people when it comes to our past history. Apparently, this woman went
down over here to file her 65 and over. What? You've had her on your account for 10 years since 2015 when we went live. What? I was only 55 that I didn't apply for it. Well, can you bring forward the documentation to prove that I applied
for it? Well, we don't have it. Now, she got a $7,000 bill from your office. Why? That's just one of many. And of course, I could go back to Donna Perllock's email. I see her in the budget getting a pay increase. What says
a tad? What happens to Tad stays a tad. Don't tell them we have computer issues. Don't tell him not not to pay that bill. Well, we have now in 2025, we have a lady that can't afford $7,000 who did everything right and now is
being punished by this entity. I wanted to send her to the TLLLO. We fixed that issue because the link wasn't working, but it's working now. Anyway, I want to go on to the uh HFC's.
I was at the July 15th meeting and we got some real problems in the ARB. I'm sorry, uh, M. Main, it's not your problem. One minute. I watched the whole thing. I think having Rick Armstrong in that meeting was a conflict of interest. I've already
tal spoke to Mr. Kraville, already spoke to Arlington people. I've spoken to the Ulis uh, HB people. You should not have had that attorney in the ARB. That guy is a teacher. He teaches the ARB. He has his own course for rooftops and he
teaches the rooftops. So here you have these people in this meeting who he's potentially taught. You have the teacher overseeing the students in a legal hearing. Now would you like that? Would you not like not to have that disclosed as an attorney that there's potential conflict of interest in the room and
you're in an official hearing from the counterparty and EECU Randy Armstrong is on that board of director. We have a CD. I want to discontinue doing business with EECU until he is off that board of directors. That too is a little scary when you when
you look at the overall structure of that bank. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Action items on number nine. 9A is consider adopting a resolution regarding policy to wave penalty and interest for late entity payments. This
has been on the agenda for a long long time. Um 9A and 9B are essentially the same. one was a table. So we had to bring it back like it was slowly rewarded or not. Um I I have some comments.
So 9B is the resolution correcting 9A. Correct. That was the proposed the newest proposed one to get on the agenda. I'm going to move that we approve 9B and then we will come back for discussion. I'd like to pull a on 9 A, 9B, and 9D
for separate consideration. We're on the action. We're on action item right now. So, you don't need to pull them. They're going to be discussed separately. I didn't want them to be approved as a whole. I move that we approve 9B as written and to put this on the agenda item. Is
there a second? I will second. It's not opening. Can we do discussion? It's not opening the details. There is a second. Now we know what we're talking about. Other otherwise we're just talking for the sake of talking. You got to have a motion on the floor to know what you're talking about. Uh go ahead.
Okay. I have a concern because if you look at um the items, this is something that continually comes back to this board. In November, uh, at our board meeting,
it was approved 8 to zero to deny the waiverss. In December, um, it was it failed to grant waivers to certain entities.
In December, again, at our next meeting, it failed uh the motion to give any relief. This board is continually and At the November meeting, the chief appraiser was reprimanded because
the the staff had been approving uh these waiverss on their own and independently and it was brought to our attention that we were not um being responsible for granting uh any of these waivers. We had no knowledge that the waivers were being
granted. All of that information was brought to us at the uh November meeting. So now we want to do a resolution that gives him back what we reprimanded him for. And I think that's wrong because again
we're going to throw him under the bus and then in the future we're going to say why did you do that without our permission. So I can't agree with this resolution since we've already reprimanded him once for doing it and now we're giving this to him again and then later on we're going to say well
why did you do that without our knowledge? This is something that continues to happen. Miss, yes. Uh, so I have a few things and unfortunately I used my technology and my notes were in here so I'll try to
remember them. But uh, the first item is on both the resolution 13 and resolution 9 in the title of the word sum. I think it's uh it's interesting, you know, that we're going to put in the title the word
we're going to allow him to wave some. Uh it it leaves some ambiguity in it, but uh the real issue that I have is um the we're making some grand assumptions in
these whereas uh and so I'll just take you down to uh the Sixth one. Uh whereas churn among public sector employees is an ongoing challenge that periodically results in brief brief
delays in payments being made. Grand assumption. Uh also the board believes additional effort should be made to give taxing units notice of delinquencies and provide an opportunity to cure without incurring penalties and
interest. And then in the next section is expressing its opinion that a delinquency of 30 days or less is likely resulted from an unanticipated staffing challenges. So, we're making
assumptions and stating that it is our expressed opinion that overall over all of the taxing entities that are making payments and some of many of them are making payments timely each time. Yet, we're
addressing the ones that will make payments late. and we're going to assume that they're going to make it late because of the churning of employees. Well, it might not be that. It might be something else, but we're putting down on a piece of paper that that's what
we're deciding that it's going to be and we're giving them their their excuse in advance. You know, I when we looked and when we heard from the entities when we had some late payments and we would looked at those individually on an
individualized basis, uh the entities gave us their reason and I think that if we're looking at them as an individualized uh basis based on what was the reason like we should be doing, you know, and and it comes to the board
and we go, okay, that's reasonable, you know, that's fine. Okay. But just to say that uh that the board is expressing the opinion that it was it likely resulted from unanticipated staffing challenges.
What's a staffing challenge? Well, the staffing challenge is they can't seem to pay their bills on time. So, I I have issues with us making these grand statements uh that are really based on the statements of some that
can't seem to pay their bills on time and it goes against the people that make sure that they pay bills on time. And that's a grand majority of the entities that we uh that we work with on a regular basis. So, I'm not going to come
up here and just say a bunch of words and say this is what I don't like about it. My proposal and suggestion would be, you know, because we're we're saying we should make great effort to uh help them not be delinquent. Uh well, we first of
all give it uh to them at the first of the year with their due dates and the amounts that are due on those due dates like a car payment. Uh but then if we want to burden our staff even more, uh send them a bill uh the month prior and
say, "Hey, don't forget your bill is due next month." Thank you. You're welcome. Uh I got us out of out of order a little bit. We do have public comment on this one. Uh first, uh Mr. Bennett
speak my three minutes. Uh thank you. Uh, Chairman Barnes, um, trustees, I agree with Miss Burgers. Uh, churning, uh, AC, set it up at the bank. It flows
seamlessly. You don't have to get a bill. I pay bill, I get the bill, and bill, I throw it in the trash if I don't need it for my records. AC or or, you know, automatic transfer of funds on a monthly basis. It's simple. So, all this
noise, it's just noise. Um I think these two resolutions are arbitrary and specious and it's conclusions. This is my opinion. This is the dynamics of our past history. This is how
political power was gained through gaming the system by letting someone be a 100 days late. That was the past administration. This is the new administration. M I agree with her. It's unfair to put you in that position. What's the definition of good cause exactly? We've already determined in
this building back in 2020 there is no definition of good cause. It's it's it's whatever you think it is. I'll give you a quick example. When I came off a campaign in 2016, I was six months as a volunteer. In Effingham, Illinois, my grandfather broke his hip. Five star, five gold,
five bronze stars. two different theaters of war in World War II. Cross Africa up Italy over to invade Japan. He didn't he didn't hurt assault. I came back late on June 3rd. That's how
I got started with this. I went to hearing. It was a hearing for my house. No, it's a it's a good cause hearing. Rick Armstrong wasn't available. Mr. Frasier wasn't available at the time the RV chair. So Randy Armstrong came to my hearing. I thought he could give the definition
of good cause because I really didn't know what it was. I asked the panel before we started, what's the definition of a good cause? They they whipped out the 991 pages looking for it. I was in that room for an hour and a half. One minute. Bottom line, they ruled against
me. In fact, we we had to transfer this band from Illinois to Ohio. Five Bronze Stars. one day late I was wasn't good enough for them. So what's the definition of good cause? I don't think you should put our chief appraiser
in that position. So I hope you'll vote this down and let them take care of their business. That's their job and transfer the money like I do monthly for my monthly bills. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Crouch, you have an A and
B. Can you just cover both? U so six minutes. We'll stick with three and see where it shows. Okay. Uh I have same sentiment. This thing's come up so many times. Why in the world is it coming up again? Is
there some kind of political pressure going on here? What's the deal? Is somebody greater than the law? Is somebody greater than who's getting the preferential treatment here? Like what's going on? This is Let me tell you. I've got an example trying to figure out what good cause is. There's a lady named Gloria. She's been in her house. little
like 800 square foot house. Okay. She's just been living there. She got her over 65 exemption about three years ago. And um then this year, the exemption department is doing what they should do. They found some evidence that
there was a potential that she could have been renting out her house. Well, she was renting out her house like back in 2017 before she had even applied for an exemption. But they took her over 65 exemption away from her. So, when you don't have an over 65 exemption, you
can't get the over 65 deferral. So, she has no legal protection whatsoever to not get taxed out of her house. The the appraisal district does their job. They send the information over to the tax assessor's office. Tax assessor, they they only know what they know, which is,
uhoh, this person doesn't have an exemption. So, now they've got to pay all the taxes that should have been paid if she wouldn't have had that over 65 exemption. All due 30 days. This lady is retired, doesn't have the money. 800
foot home paid off and she is like doing everything she can do to be a responsible person, but she didn't have the means to do it. She reached out to my office. We helped her out, but point is we went back to the appraisal district and said, "Hey, here's the issue. Here's all the documentation."
They said, "Oh, yeah. You you actually are right. So, we'll correct the records." But guess what? It takes a little bit of time to get that information back over to the tax assessor's office to show that actually that exemption was good. She still had to pay her bill by the end of the month or else she would have had penalties and interest. Is that good cause? This is an
issue. You can't let a government entity have an advantage in a situation like this above the taxpayer. It's like what are we the the you know who who's in charge here? Is it do the people have power? Are y'all representing us or is it are we serving the the almighty elected officials here? That's what it
feels like. All right. So, um, I've got a couple ideas. I thought the drafting idea was great. I'm sitting here thinking, look, it's a principal issue. That's all it is. Y'all are governments. Who's the person that's going to gain or lose? It all comes back
to the taxpayer. But we just can't put the government above the people. That's the problem. So, you put in the government, rewrite the rules. That's all they do for, you know, an ambulance can speed. Why? Because they broke the rules that way. All right. Let's write the rules so this can work. All you got
to do is change the due dates. Y'all are at the service of these other taxing entities. Why? If some taxing entity has a different uh economic need, they need a different due date. No reason why we can't give them a due date. That's what I would do if I was uh you know, if I
was treating a client, right? That's three minutes. I'm on to NB. I am on to NB. So this is this is or if you I also understand you you force a late fee on them, it falls down
to the taxpayer. That doesn't quite make sense. But yet we see that enforcing late fees has caused them to care. So it actually is working. But let's not let's just figure out how to um withhold services. Maybe you say next year you've
got a you've got a prepaid or or next year we won't withhold services or do something. I'm just coming up with ideas here. Um I was going to do it into another subject but out of respect to the time here. Appreciate it. Uh we just can't I
will absolutely lose my mind if this if this passes. It's just not okay. That's all I got. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Uh for that I would say it's not started in October or November last year. It was started back in April
when it was on the agenda. Uh it was city of forward and then uh somehow city of forward act really smartly. Uh I I don't know it's because of them looking at the agenda or because of Mr. Bllelock
they paid the whatever the outstanding dues back in April of last year and uh then we have seen in September this thing showed up again and again and again small entities paid like $400 late
fee penalty and interest they paid uh you guys are here either uh elected officials or the appointed one to to act like a bridge between taxing entity, taxpayers and taxpayers.
But somehow with this it looks like you are here you are not here to uh change the policies or mold the policies in favor of big elephant entities and not looking for the small ones. When a taxpayer has to pay penalty and
interest, taxing entity also also has to pay penalty and interest and they have those bills uh probably three months in advance, six months in advance or uh for the whole year they know how much they they have to pay and they can act
accordingly. Uh if they can collect the money, they can pay to the appraisal district. Uh please do not change it. And one more thing uh I would say Mr. is the one who bring it to the board. It's a board item. Please do not convert
him into a Mr. uh law. So uh keep him Mr. Bobbit as is the way he is. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. The last lines were special. Um any other discussion by the board? I
just want to be clear because my thing doesn't mine's not opening. The N 9A is when we discussed before you were on the board. I don't I have nothing to see details. Uh where we were to forgive the
penalties and interest and refund. No. Okay. Y'all y'all can go ahead. I'll read this real quick. I've got a point I'd like to make then while she's reading that. It seems to me we have heard all the
negative comments about this, but you know there are competing arguments with this proposal. One of the things that um jumps out at me is a potential arbitrariness of what is good cause. I think you raised that
in your public comment sir. Um and so how do we define it? Okay. And with this definition in place here, it seems that it would achieve more consistency. I mean, I look at this almost like a promisory note or a
contractual obligation. And almost every contract in a commercial setting has got a notice and opportunity to cure provision. In here, we it seems to me a competing argument would be that if you
define this 30-day period, then it's going to get really hard to show good cause on the 31st day because you've already had your grace period and you've exhausted it. And it does take or does have the potential to take the arbitrariness of what is good cause for
somebody who is one day late, two days late, or 10 days late and takes out the potential for inconsistent rulings on similar cases within that 30-day period. So just to provide kind of a competing
argument on that, this does have the potential to provide more consistency in how good does is handled. And really, if you get beyond that 31st day, I don't know how anybody can come in and not, you know, make make a good faith
argument that they do have good cause after they've already blown through that first grace period. So, just some observations I had about this proposal. I have one other comment. Sure. This was never reviewed by our board attorney.
Okay. Thank you for your comment. Anything else for anybody else? Yes. Uh Jod Don brought this problem to us. The problem was entities are paying late. That's the problem. And and it was
a significant problem. Um and this board made it clear multiple times that we decided late payments will not be waved anymore. There is effectively no good cause. We didn't hear any good cause in we hear plenty of uh wellthoughtout
uh uh inputs. Uh we strictly followed existing tax codes which is existing law. Uh we didn't do this because we delight in punishing entities. We did this to send an effective message to all. Stop paying late.
There is no good cause for a late payment. We heard it. We heard from multiple entities. there's just no good cause. Uh talking to John Joe Don Bett, it solved the problem. We're now a year later and late payments which were a problem and
which were chronic have eviscerated. Okay. So job well done. Bravo. I mean continue please. So, uh, now this, um, this in effect says
you can be late. We we're going from you can't be late to you can be late. You can be late. And then it we're going to burden our chief appraiser. Why would we take on this responsibility to have to give notice that you're late? The only
notice we need to be sending are you're late, pay your late fees. that that's what that's what we need to be sending out. Not, oh, we have to send to a mayor and a city manager a notice that you were late and and and time to cure. No,
that's that's a step towards the swamp right there. Let's get away from that and just stay consistent. Um, so, you know, and then item D, uh, to administratively wave penalty and
interest. That's that's owed. These are evidently there might be some entities that haven't paid. Uh this item D has been voted on multiple times and if there's entities that still haven't paid, let's follow tax code and we likely need to assign some acred
penalties. So let's not undo the solid work we've done on this matter. Yeah. Yes, sir. So obviously Vince asked me in the November meeting and called me out and my position on this has not
changed since then. And from that meeting I immediately drove and saw our CFO because I was very upset that we were on that list. I agree completely. We the entities
for good cause can come to this board and present it. Otherwise we have to hold strong on this. This has been decided a bunch of times and it's improved. I I agree. I think we've already decided
this a bunch and if there is good cause out there, they can come to us. Any further discussion? I you know I struggle with this one because I I have no problem with saying hey we have rules standards and procedures and we the reason we have
those we need to stick to them right the problem I had last year was that something was allowed for years and years and years almost 20 years and all of a sudden it's like hey you're late to work you're late to work and then after working somewhere for 20 years oh you're fired and so I think there was not the
communication with the entities uh that were used to people looking the other way or giving forgiveness to entities that didn't even apply for for that. Um, I wanted to make it right from that point backwards. Let's, hey, let's refund the people that have paid and
moving forward, we're going to be firm on this beyond time. And I'm not sure that this achieves that. So, I'm I'm a little confused on why we're going back to the it doesn't matter. I don't know. Is there any
clarification? The only thing I can tell you, the reason it keeps coming up is because there's still no policy. The policy is simply the code. We still have no policy within this organization as to how to handle anything other than what the code says on this issue. So, do we want to give our director a policy to follow or do we want to just say, well,
the code's the code and don't come forth with anything to us because the code doesn't allow that to happen. Because we keep I keep hearing from both ends of the dice that, well, if they have a problem, they can come talk to us about No, they can't. They the code's the code. And so if we're wanting to say that, let's say that, but that's not
what has continually been said by people up and down this dasis. I I don't believe that's the case. What do you not believe? I do not believe they cannot come to us and talk to us. I believe they can come to us and talk to us, but the choice
should be ours to make. The board as in ours to make. The code does give the board the authority to wave the late fees upon a showing of good And certainly the board would have the ability to delegate that to the chief appraiser if that's the the option that
the board wanted to do. Okay. Okay. So you're saying now we have that ability or do we need to to memorialize that document it? The tax code already puts the that the tax code states that
there is a fee if they pay late, but that that fee can be waved by the board of directors upon a showing of good cause and it's the public comment game. There's no good cause is whatever y'all believe is good cause or whoever you I wasn't here in November so I don't
know how many came to you. I do know that multiples of them have said, "Why in the world would we go to that organization?" Because they basically say, "Get out of here. Pay on time or else." Because by golly, that's how it's supposed to be done. The taxpayers don't get an extra 30
days. If they're if they're late a day, I understand that that have anything to do with what was just said. What was just said was that they do have the opportunity to come to the board and explain their situation. They were poo pooed on and said, "Get out of here. don't come back to us with that stuff and it continues to be repeated by
people on the board even right this minute. If that's the policy, let's stick with that policy and put that out as the policy. I I thought that's what we did on our last meetings and the people who did come forward had been repeat offenders and thus the desire not to give them
another um wave. There's a motion and a second on the table. Is there any further discussion? Would you repeat the motion, please? Yeah, the motion is approved this uh this polic this is our policy resolution 25. Well,
Mr. Chairman's on this one. Mr. Chairman, would it make sense for us to have a single line policy of we're going to follow the tax law and if there is an unusual circumstance, they can come to us. Just reiterate what's already there.
I think it's already in the code though. Okay. I think it would make sense to communicate to our tax entities who we serve how the policy is going to be utilized moving forward and they have not received such a thing. I don't care what you think you did in November.
They get the bill in January. They got to pay it. I understand. Write that. You spend a little time writing your own rule of your own policy and bring it forth. So here's my issue is at the end of the day I mean nothing is government funed. Everything taxpayer funded. So at the
end of the day, we're hurting the taxpayers by do by by billing. I mean, they need to be on time, but all you're saying is that there needs there could be a little grace given, but then people are going to not know. Um,
so I just don't know what the intent is. aside from the wall. So the reality is we charge a late fee. That money is accumulated
at the end of the year. We give it right back just like we're doing in this budget except it gets spread across all the entities. So this is not a revenue stream for the appraisal district. This is strictly kabuki theater with money.
It's all for the taxpayer. There's There's literally no impact with these dollars going back and forth. It's just work for each entity that could easily be resolved with a simple policy that allows it to be handled administratively or if it needs to come to the board, but
that creates different time frames. Uh because it's on board cadence versus administrative policy later. Correct. Okay. Again, This just keeps coming up over and over
again. We're beating a dead horse. Um, we have evidence though. If you ask Joe Don Bobbit, he'll tell you we have fixed it. We have fixed it. and he we don't need if someone is wrong
and paying late is wrong and so for someone to pay late and it cost us more work him having to notify a mayor and a city manager um why will we burden Joe Don and staff with something that could be
avoided by one thing on time pay on time any other entity Again, we're we're in the what triggers this is what is wrong. Wrongdoing is not paying your your bills on time. This is wrong.
This is a in the financial universe. It's across the whole spectrum. You don't make your payments on time, you're subject to illness. Yes, ma'am. I had a administrative question. he may be able to share and give us some
clarity on this. It's my understanding that when you enter the agreement with the entity, the terms and conditions are included in that agreement at the beginning. Their due dates, the amount due
it's all included. So there is something that is given to them. Is that correct? Or could you share with the group how that administrative function is given to the entity so they know the terms and conditions?
Yes ma'am. I believe it's in November we send out we send out the original budget letter and we ask them the entities to confirm what payment schedule they want whether annual quarterly or or monthly. So, by default, quarterly is the default option, but they can select a different
payment schedule if it works out better for for their financial situation, but we send that out in November. And so, basically, they have a couple months in advance and they have the entire year's payments laid out. So, like a car payment, they have the same exact they know the note payment
that they owe on which date. So, that's prior notice of this due this payment is due on this date. Do you have something on there that says if payment is not made by this state there is penalty we've added it since all this stuff has
come okay thank you any further discussion seeing none all in favor of the motion to approve 9B I I feel like we need to have a short recess tweak it a little bit
or do y'all not feel that way I I feel like administratively if we wait it's going to make them be more delinquent. I don't know if it'd be better or worse staffwise for him to have that discretion, but I want people to be on
time. My concern was last year when we allowed it, allowed it, allowed it, and then all of a sudden hit them with a bill like what Chandler was talking about earlier. You're not prepared for this. Um, which they should have been, but I wanted to make that right. And then moving forward, we were firm on this. And so,
I'm just making sure I completely understand. That's why I wanted to take a quick I don't know if anyone's supposed to that. We can't. What? We can't. You can't take a quick recess. Are you saying to go discuss it? Yes, it's possible. Well, we don't have a posting on this meeting that's going to allow us here executive session.
Okay. Well, hang on. Let me echo back just so I can understand, Cali, because we'll have it in discussion. I think I understand what you're saying. Your issue is it's not fair. We should forgive the past, but we should be firm going forward to separate those into two different
issues. they had done. It wasn't firm for so long, even though it should have been. I I was saying, "Let's forgive who had paid in and and forgive the people that that still owed us." And then moving forward, we're firm on this. Be on time. Lay your budgets according
accordingly. And that's where I like I'm not accomplishing that with this. I was hoping for it. We're not firm because we say you can be a month late now, 30 days. We're not firm. We're not firm at all. And I hear what you're saying and I
think I hear what Callie's saying. I think we should be very firm that you can't be a month late, but I think we probably should have discussion or even separated an amended motion that she brings up a good point in the fact that we haven't we've been wishy-washy
for a long time on the past of this. Forgive it here, but going forward, you can't be a day or an hour late is what I think you're hearing saying. Right. Right. I just I feel like I would want to make it right and because at the end the taxpayers pay there. I mean I just want to make it right for the past but
that's not in here and so seem to get fixed because everybody I'm not sure that this is going to make I don't I'm not sure I don't agree with that because we don't get forgiveness if we don't pay our taxes on time. So why can we give why would we give an
entity forgiveness for not paying their taxes on time or their payments on because I guess past administration had looked the other way and gave people forgiveness because they could get away with it. There was no motivation to pay on time because there was no penalty. People would wave at penalties and interest for entities that didn't even
ask for it and that's because it wasn't coming to the board and that's why we reprimanded the chief appraiser for that speak over each other. Why don't you talk it down? Yes, sir. Just want to make a comment about this
real quick for clarification because nobody's really mentioned this. We may have mentioned it in a previous meeting. The issue with me and I'm going to start off by giving you an example. Okay, imagine you're renting an apartment and your landlord in the lease agreement. It says rent is due at the first of each
month. Pretty typical. And imagine that same landlord sent you an email that said, you know, it's due rent is due first of each month, but if you pay me by the 15th, we're fine. It's an email. Okay. You keep doing that for a while
and then one day you get an eviction notice. You got to go to JP court because you've been paying on the 15th, not on the first. All of a sudden that just happened. And and my understanding, my le my understanding from what folks have told me is in a situation like that, if you
were to get evicted on those grounds, you could use that evidence against your landlord in court in JP court that I have emails from my landlord saying I can pay on the 15th even though the lease agreement says on the 1st. That's essentially what happened with these entities. From what some of them have
told me, they had email agreements, not from this board or or Jodon or this staff, but from previous leadership that told them if you pay by this date, you're fine or we can we'll do it. And that's in writing in email. So, this the
comment being made of forgiveness, my understanding is that's not really accurate because it wasn't really a forgiveness. Some of these entities had emails going back years basically telling them if you pay by this date or if you did do this, you're fine. You don't have to pay the penalty in interest.
Why haven't we seen any of these emails? I'd love to see those. I mean that's well it's there's that be something that would be interesting to review as a board if someone could cough up some of these emails which don't exist.
Yeah talk is cheap. Well I mean some of them my understanding is some of these uh entities do have it and probably needs to be an open records request to look into those. Um, but on top of that, there's also other entities who don't have it through email who did have an understanding with staff as
well. Um, so I mean that's I agree with you that's probably something that needs to be looked at those emails. But I mean there's a difference between that and just forgiveness. I mean if if my landlord tells me, hey, pay me by the 15th and all of a sudden I'm getting an eviction notice, I would have an issue with that.
Well, that's a legal agreement that he made with you. So it would be following that. Any further discussion? Yeah. Uh, from my perspective, the main I agree with what Miss Riggnney was saying that it's kind of fair to be play
Charlie and Lucy with the football with entities that had an expectation, right, wrong or indifferent, you know, at the time, but they had that expectation. Um, my main concern now, because I believe that occurred before I was in
this position, my main concern now is consistency. I want to have consistency so that it's known even if this does not pass. There needs to be a message stated that look, it's going to be really I I
just don't want to be in a situation where we have similar districts and similar positions with inconsistent results on what good cause would mean going forward. So that's my primary concern is that okay collectively as a board if even if if this does not pass
that we are consistent so that everybody has the same expectation going forward that if you're not on time you know what they say to to be early is to be on time to be on time is to be late to be late is you know what so we need we need to
have something that is reliable for all the districts to know going forward what the expectation is. So that's my main point of emphasis. Can Mr. Barnes can I offer a substitute motion please? Uh I would offer a
substitute motion that affirms that we will follow you know from pass point forward the tax code and and if they need to appeal it comes to the board. And then I
would also as part of the same motion recommend that those entities that were caught off guard by our new enforcement, they get made whole in their interest. And so that would be my motion and we forgo all of this stuff that's in front
of us. I'll second that. So was it aligned with the 30 day? I mean, no. No. So, so city that was two quarters late was going to get their money refunded. Um,
I don't think city of Fort Worth falls into this category. Okay. All right. So um I'm racking my procedural rubber's rules of order whether we want to accept his replacement motion.
Uh I second Allen's or I would accept I would accept that motion that the motion presented by Mr. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Who's going to Yeah. What I what I have is we will follow the tax code from now going forward and if
an entity needs to appeal to the board uh if previously we can forgive that motion that you're intending to make an appeal. What are
is there a time frame that I mean it's maybe I'm wrong but it's my understanding that what Allan suggested was going forward there will be no grace no 30 days or anything they have to pay on time but entities that were currently late would be refunded. Is that what
your intent was? We have any current or that were late. Is there a list within the identification of those taxing units that would be would get their uh their previous late fees waved because I think that just to make sure
there's clarity for staff if they're going if it passes and they end up refunding or not collecting late fees. Alan, are you suggesting a time frame of the previous year prior to the board's notification that
no appeals were accepted? But How far back does that go? Forever just no. When did we when did we come to the point where we communicated in November that there is not that only happened one time because this
board decided that one time we're all a sudden going to be tough people. November and twice in December. It's in the minutes. Listen listen to what I'm saying. Don't think what I'm saying. It only happened once. I don't care how many times you
talked about it. It only happened once. It happened whenever they missed the October. They were late with October. That's not true. But people were forgiven that didn't ask for forgiveness and then people had paid a fine. Do you see what I'm saying? So,
so later on I was trying to say, "Hey, let's if we're going to treat everybody if some people got forgiveness and other people didn't that were actually asking for it, let's make it right. like not collect on the people that were still haven't paid and refund just for the prior year, just for this current
year that's due. That way, we're treating everyone the same because some people got forgiveness that didn't even ask for it. Do you see what I'm saying? Treat everyone the same moving forward. Be on time. You know, I would like to see the list of who it is.
We had it in December, right? But, you know, we're being told it was only done once, but I know it was done three times. It was like So, I'd like to see the list. Put a date on it, Alan. I'll take a recommendation for a date. What would it be? January 1, 2020.
Yeah. So, we're not tight like a tiger on this. Let's Is this worded properly in the agenda? So we can Yeah, I think the substitute motion is okay because the overall motion that's there is to pass a policy
to wave the penalty and interest. And I think the policy is that in the past we're going to wave ones that have had to pay. Moving forward, we're going to do exactly what the tax code said. Did I state the intent of the motion? Correct. I'd like to have the list in front of me with I mean that's not a unreasonable
request is to have the list in front of us. How long would it take to pull that up? It was It was in our I think December meeting. I think it was 170,000 the first December meeting. Yeah, let's let's do that. Let's take a five if that's okay with the chair to
take a five 10 minute recess to get the list. 1050. We're going to start at 1055. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. It's my understanding that this is the list that was this is from December 13th and we're bringing you printed copies also for
your and it's also Mr. Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the list that's on the screen right now that is coming is the list of entities that had requested that they get a waiver, but I believe there were some additional entities who
paid the late fees but did not request the waiver. And my understanding, and Mr. Boba can correct me if I'm wrong on this, is somebody is gathering uh the board that list as well. So y'all can consider the motion as I understand it. The motion as I understand it is that we
are going to have our policy moving forward which is the code but we're going to go back to this list from December meeting and refund the fees the interest penalty the
PNI and um and then we'll have a policy moving forward. Well, but I think that the whole point is to treat everyone fairly and and and go back for those people that requested it and didn't ask for the forgiveness
and they got it anyway. I think that it's fair to I think it was $170,000 um for all the people that had paid the penalties and interest. Um and that's not on this. So, I'd like to include these this list, but also those with
2025, I guess. Is that correct? Are we assuming though that they, you know, maybe they're noble and and want to pay their late fees? Are we making an assumption? I I I would probably kind of cautious on what's considered noble, not call HBSD
unnoble. I call them very noble. They asked they asked for it. The ones that did. Let's see the list of who didn't ask for it. Is that coming? I believe that's coming. Somebody is working. That was my understanding. Are we giving bonuses to those who did
pay them on time? Uh yes, ma'am. I have a question. Uh have all of these entities uh paid the PNI uh to this point in time? Everyone has paid. I don't believe Saran County has.
Okay. So, they've held out and not paid. But every other entity on there has paid their BNI, I believe. So, that's the only one I'm aware of. Okay. Thank you. My concern is that we forgive this list and then we put a bunch of work on ourselves for future meetings that all
those people back from 2025 are going to come and say, "Hey, you did for them. You're gonna you should do it for me." And that would be the fair thing to do. So, I would like to take care of all of it, but that's just me. Cali, I think time frame of June of last
year to current. We cover your list. Okay. Is that what Julie just handed us? Okay. See, they did obviously did and they were denied. Yeah.
Okay. So, so it looks like there were four entities that did not request a waiver. Am I reading that right? That's correct. Okay. So, refund the ones that requested and were denied. So, then we're fair across
the board. Am I understanding that correct? The motion from M from the motion is only to refund those who requested a refund. I would second that. It's already been second.
So any further discussion, discussion, amendments, thoughts? Yes, ma'am. Excuse me. Not their payment, their interest. And did they pay
Did they pay the bill? They should pay their bill, not the penalty. I think they paid the bill. They just didn't pay penalty and interest. Okay. So, there's four that will not be included on this. Those that did not request the waiver.
So, isn't the natural chain event or reaction going to be once we take action for those who requested the waiver for them to they're going to make a request now? A good reaction could be possibly be an
amendment to the motion. So I would move to amend to treat everybody equally because it's going to save time and effort. Human nature being what it is. If others get a either a refund or a waiver, those who did not
ask for it will. And here we are. So I I would move to a minute to make the uh to make this motion apply to all the entities whether they requested a waiver or not. It's been moved uh to amend the motion
to include a waiver on every group that's on this list. So it's like a $12,000 difference. Correct. M that's it. I'll second that one. Yeah. The second is the furthest discussion now on the amendment. Um I don't think that you all to abain
uh uh because there's two reasons why. The first one is it's certainly not a personal interest for you. Uh neither one of you will will have a true conflict on this. It is entities that you sit on the board for. Additionally, your spots on this board uh are
particularly tied to your other uh elected positions and the tax code very specifically allows for you to be here. You are here in part to represent those entities that that you sit on the board. So I do not believe either you or Mr. Campos or Mr. Barnes for that matter
need to discussion on the amendment hearing none. All in favor of the amendment say I. I. All oppose. Wait. All in favor of the amendment raise your hand. Got Julie. Good.
All oppose. Motion carries. We're back to the main motion. The motion is to uh we're going to go back and excuse P and I on everybody on this list and then we're going to announced that our policy
moving forward will be this the tax code. So I'm sorry. Was the vote that you just took on the motion or was that just to accept the amendment? Okay. So now we're voting on the motion. All right, I will second.
You didn't understand that we're voting on amendment. I don't understand how people don't understand how Robert's rules works. No, you're good. You're good. Okay. Uh the motion before us now is the the main motion to approve that this we're going to excuse P and I on this list
only and that we are going to establish the policy moving forward as being the the Texas tax code. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of that, raise your hand, please. All oppose. Motion carries.
9 C. Consider amending or approval of the T appraisal district budget. Budget's been presented during discussion. Uh right here. Discussions on the budget. I got two questions on the budget for
Mr. Bobett. The Professional services other no I'll scratch that I figured that one out material supplies and services last year was budgeted one6 and now it's budgeted at 46 is that the new system yes sir that's the new canvas system
okay discussions on the budget I'll move that we approve the budget second oh sorry discussion is there a second second it discussion thank
Um, Jodon, uh, Cali, uh, where do you propose that we, uh, strip 180, uh, $187,000 from the Well, I don't have it in front of me, but we have Me either. Some reserves and things like that we can pull from
there. Yeah, there are reserves. Okay. uh which will there's legal room. I mean and everything but because I I know that you had taken you stripped $100,000 out because you didn't like that um and I don't have it in
front of me either. So which one you you called it? I don't know what's going on here, but let me ask a question. Are you talking about what we just did, the decision we just made? Why does that have to affect this budget at all that was done in the current fiscal year and that was money that was never in the budget in the first place?
It's income that we have and that we're going to have to pay out. Yeah. In the current fiscal year, not in this year. This is Will it be? Well, not for 26. Yeah, it'd be coming out the 25. It will. Okay. Thank you. So, you pay
your bills timely. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Any other legitimate discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion say I. All oppose. Motion carries. Budget's approved. There should be
a 7. Did you sign it? 7. Yes. 7. Yeah. Public hearing budget was seven earlier. 9 D. I'd like a m to make a motion to table
this item um so that the um committee that was set to review this policy can meet because we never met and also because the attorney that reviewed the last iteration had a recommendation for an insert which is not in this
iteration. So the this iteration was never reviewed by the attorneys. So I make a motion to table it. So all those things can be done. It's been moved that we had table 9 C. Is there a second? Second. 9D. 9D. I'm sorry. 9D. Is there a second? Table 9D.
It's been moved and seconded that table 9D. Uh all in favor say I. I. All opposed. I I'm opposed to that. Well, then say it now. All opposed say I. I. I Well, all all in favor of table in 9D,
raise your hand. No, sorry. Raise your hand. All opposed to table 9, raise your pass. Did it pass? Yes. Yes. Do you have are you want to make public
comments on these items? Okay, come on. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't even see you marked for 90. We got to get these forms where I understand. So, my bad. People like me who write should be a doctor because can't read my writing.
Uh, thank you for allowing me to speak on this particular item. I noticed in the director's manual there was a line stricken that not one board member outside of the boardroom can speak for the board and it's been stricken. So, I guess that's ubiquitous. Not one
board member here can speak for the board in the boardroom or outside of the boardroom. I guess that was the intent of of the stricken language. Okay. Well, he doesn't No, he hasn't reviewed it. Okay. Well, I read it. Um, that brings
me to today. Uh, many entities, matter of fact, Mr. Biders was here. He left. Uh, he did get the email, I guess, from the secretary that the meeting was today, but there were other entities that did not. They had it on their calendar for tomorrow. And I know school
starts and I don't know how many of you are impacted with with children going to school, maybe grandkids in some some instances, but it seems like that was made outside of the boardroom by less
than the entire board because I spoke to some of the board members that were not aware the day there was a meeting or some entities including Ter County College. So we need to be a little more consistent. We don't need to be putting these meetings out,
switching board members because at your last meeting it said August 13th. If I went to your last agenda, it said August 13th. And then on your website, it there was no calendar change. I went to the calendar, it was empty, but there was a
mock meeting that was postedly, right? It should. And what if somebody's showing up to that and say, "Well, where's the meeting?" So, I don't want this to be a folly of errors. I don't want to revert back the way it was under
Well, I'm not going to point people out, but somewhere in this room. How much time? One minute. So, let's behave judiciously going forward. Let's make sure that we communicate with
the public and with the taxi entities. my very first record of all of the people that be notified for the budget would have had 33% errors. So Chandler and I went through the entire thing, cleaned it up for Mr. Law and this staff and send him
that record since in 2017. So and I understand there's churning, right? It is up to the entities to alert you know this is our new contact person but 33% churning in in two years excuse me
now what I saw earlier was a folly of errors what you guys just did and you don't understand the history of this place because you only go from the time you're elected forward you haven't been here for the last 10 years and that's on you guys for not paying attention and
it's bad optics for the public too. Thank you. Thank you. Barnes, we did we did communicate with all of the entities and let them know that under this new system, they would need to subscribe proactively to receive the communication. So, just so you know,
774 of our closest friends did receive the point. Um where are we? 90 90. Yes sir. 90 is a resolution 2025
uh 202512 to rec to create any necessary commit uh sorry committed fund accounts and and comment or relocate committed funds commit or relocate committed funds as a board as board desires. Um
discussion or Can you elaborate on? Yes sir. So it's really two parts. One is uh excess funds from the prior year. Um and then we also have the general the 25% board mandated general reserve. U
a previous attorney that works with Matthew uh had always emphasized to me that it was very critical that we have everything committed to a specific purpose and not a slush fund or general reserve. he didn't like the term general reserve.
And so to to be more in line with, you know, previous guidance I'd received from attorneys, what I'd recommend is that we take the the 9.6 million and actually commit it to different things. We'll still be within the board's policy at 25% for for contingency, a 90-day
reserve if you want, um, but actually dedicated towards the KMA software u litigation, the other reserve funds that we have and even more that y'all may want to create. But we could we could take that 25% and actually give it a a specific purpose. It can't be spent
unless the board authorizes it. So if anything ever comes up, we need to move the money to a different purpose. That that is the board's prerogative. But that way it's not just out there as a whole lot of money sitting there and not really declared as far as what what the purpose of it is. Um otherw there's some
other districts that have had to give back all the reserve funds to the entities. Um yeah, because it wasn't allocated or it was unclear what it was for. So just to be more in line with uh current governor's Greg Abbott's opinion 1040,
he basically says it has to be committed towards something. So we can still keep the board's policy in place, but just you know put a purpose to it. Discussion. Then on the slide we have the current fund balances for the existing funds.
So KMA is currently at zero, building maintenance is at 404,000. Technology is committed at 395,961 and uh retirement unfunded liability is at zero and litigation fund is at 300,000. What we're recommending is to take the
the other money that's the 25%. Create an election committed fund at 1.7 1.7 million raise the CAM software up to 1.8 building maintenance fund we've moved 1.395 million technology committed 1.4 million the retirement fund un
unfunded liability at 1.8 and litigation fund 1.5 and it gets most of these up to about 1.8 8 million. Total the election committed fund would be at 1,717,000, but the rest of the committed funds would be at 1.8 million, which would
total 10,717,000 with everything committed. And you you may have said this uh Jon, but that doesn't mean it's locked in. We still have the authority to move the funds around if needed. Yes, ma'am. If you scroll up a little
bit more, it may have um the other direction. Go to the Yeah, the blue screen. If you go to that one, the next slide. Oh, there it is. Yeah, it was the slide.
Yeah. because this shows so there's 1.1 million that we have currently committed. There's 9.6 million that's not really committed. I mean the reserve is is committed for a 25% uh contingency but there's 1.5 million unassigned. And
so all told we have 10,717,000. And so what we end up being we have the current fund balance what we propose to move into it and then what the total balance would be after the fact. And so the election committed fund would
be up to $1.7 million. And so it evenly distributes that. So we can move that around to whatever y'all uh care to move it around to or we can move it around later. But that moves everything uh with with the election committed fund. The estimate was
800,000, but if it goes into a runoff, it could drastically increase. And so it's not a bad place for that amount of money also. So the resolution would be to the column on the right far right. Yes sir.
Okay. Any discussion? So Joe John just for clarification because I believe we do this actually in HBISTD as well. So each uh board meeting we have like a budget transfer request that moves money around occasionally as
needed and so that those funds wouldn't change until they came to the board. Right. Yes sir. Okay. The staff can't touch those those funds without boardoff approval. Has a motion been made? No motion. I make a motion to approve. Been moved to approve this resolution
with the column on the far right. I second. Is there a second? Second. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor raise your hand. Motion carries. Unanimous. 9F authorized consulting services XDR and
came conversion. We do have public comment on this. Uh can you introduce this? Yes, sir. Uh for this item, we're we're wanting to bring in XTR, who's an expert in converting off of Amentum. So, we have staff that are experts at Amentum,
but these guys are specialized in conversions. So, we want to bring them in to help make sure the system and the conversion is a smooth process. We don't repeat some of the mistakes in the past. And so it's roughly 100,000 up to $100,000. We think that would get us through the next
six months with them. Um really dedicating a lot of time to make sure this system goes well. I'm going to call on um Mr. Bennett. Sorry to say Daniel, Mr. Bennett. Uh public comment on this. I'll be quick
back when the original conversion happened in 2015. They were going to go live in 2014. They waited a year went live 2015 a million errors on the NCD in September that year they had a huge be so they had to go they had to comb
through a million errors on the NCD because of the conversion. Now I thought true prodigy was going to help us convert the data. Now we got this company XTR. What happened to True Prodigy helping us? I don't feel comfortable
with third party veteran coming in. But here's the difference though. In 2015, it was held in house. Law said, "We can do this. We don't need any help." Well, TR wasn't giving us the help anyway. And they bought that system for Manatron and they tried to convert the data.
You'll see how bad this stuff is when you try to convert this data. So, I don't want to repeat the mistakes of yonder years and rehash old stuff, but it's like PT PTSD, right? You know what that is?
So the people in Taran County suffered. So if we need to pay True Prodigy to hold their TXR's hand, XTR's hand, we got a contingency fund, right? 1.7 million. I said we spend the money. We don't need to go back and recreate the disaster we
had under Mr. Law. You know, in one meeting, and I'm going to paraphrase what he said, but I know people that were in that meeting, and I this is a third I'm third party source, but he's going to big chief red pen out and make it happen. Yeah, it did for 10 years. He made it
happen until you come along. Now we got something possible is going to work, right? I want to make sure this is a smooth migration of data. I know the SQLs in that system don't work. So
anyway, thank you for your time. Thank you. Uh the discussion on F 9 from the body or a motion. I move to approve. Been moved to approve 9. Is there a second?
Multiple seconds. Uh give it to Fred. Okay. Uh further discussion. Seeing none, all in favor of 9 say I. I. All oppose. Motion carries unanimous. 10. We are not going into executive session. Uh 11. We
are back. 12. Next meeting date. When's the next meeting date? September 10th. 9 a.m. for sure. 9:10. And if that changes, entities will be notified as well as board members. At what time? 9:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. I'd like to make a comment about that,
please. We have a board members of nine and it's dis it's anytime we have a quorum, we should have a meeting. It we shouldn't be changing our meeting because one person can't make it. I've never
personally requested that a change be made, but I scheduled my whole life around this meeting. And in this case, my husband had eye surgery and so I'm here. My husband had eye surgery.
I still didn't request that the meeting be changed again because there are nine of us. As long as we have a quorum, doesn't matter where the chair is here, whether the secretary is here, there is something in place so that we continue to have the meeting. And I think in fairness to the public and to the taxing
entities, we need to stay on task. We say the meeting is going to be here. Now, the exceptions would be weather or an emergency or the chief appraiser says we really don't need a meeting today. I have nothing to report. Those should be those exceptions. And so I'm just kind
of formally saying we need to set the date and stick to the date. I know September 10th to change it will be I wanted that one changed as well because I had plans re and realistically it can't be changed because we have to do something by the
10th am I correct well budget is the main thing we have to do so there is no fudge factor in this one so I just want to make it a point that I believe we should not be changing our meeting dates for anyone just because
they can't make it including myself. Thank you. Anything else for the good Lord?