Ladies and gentlemen, Denton County Commission's Court for Tuesday, June 14th is now in session. This morning an invocation be given by Mr. Jim Heath and our pledges be led by Beth Fleming, our Director of Purchasing, will you please stand? Now you're here, please. I hear it, Father. We thank you of this day for our country, our state, our county, and Father. Please be with all the people in the country that are suffering the drought and the fires. Be with them in their times of need. Father, we ask you, be with this court today as they do the county's business. And be with all our service people throughout the world. They stand in harm's way. May they come home safe and sound. And that may pray, amen. Congratulations to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, individual, with liberty and justice for all. On of the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state undergar, one in the middle. Thank you. Item one is for public input for items not listed on the agenda. If there's any member of the public that would like to address commissioners court on the subject not listed on the agenda we ask that you please complete a public comment form or if there's something on the agenda that you'd like to address and we want to remind everyone to please turn off your cell phones and pages. Item 2 is the consent agenda. Members, are there items on the consent agenda that you need to pull for consideration or do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Yeeds. Seconded by Commissioner Marchion. On favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say name. Motion does carry. Consent agenda today consists of 2A, which is approval of the order making appointments. We have a new hire in the veteran services, a demotion and justice to the piece, pressing three, a new hire in criminal district attorney, office promotion in the county treasurer's office, and a new hire in public health. To be is approval of the intro departmental transfers to see is approval of the Intra-Departmental Transverse, 2C is approval of the renewal for tax statement preparation mailing services, RFP 05071835 with mirrored systems incorporated. 2D is approval of renewal for voice and data cabling, this is RFP 06081911 with superior fiber and data services. Two E is approval specifications and authority to advertise for lubricants and oils, bid number 05112086. And two F is approval specifications and authority to advertise for CMAP that's cold mix asphalt pavement, bid number 05112087. We have a long consent agenda today. 2G is a provol over new law of emulsified asphalt bid number 0 6 0 9 1 9 7 9 with Ergon asphalt and emulsions incorporated to H is a provol budget amendment request 1 1 0 3 0 for tuition reimbursement for non-departmental in the amount of $12,000 to IIS approval budget amendment quest 101-040 for surveys titles and titling. I'm sorry, in testing, the public works administration engineering in the amount of $5900 to J is approval budget amendment request 101-050 for tires and tubes for Sheriff's Department in the amount of $15,000. In 2K, is approval of the 2011 Ex officio road commissioner report for commission reprising 3 is required by the Texas Transportation Code. 3A is approval of one resolution opposing midpoint partners doing business as Dent and Terminal LLC, locating refined products, truck rack terminal at 8969 North FM 2064, saying your Texas grant authority for a county judge to request a Texas commission on environmental quality or T.C. Q hearing on permit by rural application from Denton Terminal LLC. Members we do have a public comment form here from Mr. Steven Center who is with midpoint partners who has asked to speak and he is against the site of Mr. Center if you would like before you do that. That resolution has been changed. It's not opposed and just requesting the hearing. That is correct. Mr. Center, good morning. Good morning. Again, my name is Steven Center, representing midpoint partners and cogent energy solutions. Collectively, we have formed a company that didn't terminal LLC for the purpose of constructing and operating a refined product truck direct terminal here in Dinn County. And I appreciate your allow me to have this time to speak this morning. First of all, I was surprised that this action is being taken and that this resolution was written. I only found out about this late Friday, so I'm glad I could change my schedule and be here to address it. As I've only been able to actually speak about this project to Judge Horne and Commissioner Coleman over the last 18 months or so. It's important to note that this is not a new project for us. We've been working on this for the better part of two years. I wanted to make sure that the other commissioners understand we didn't show up a month ago purchase property unknown and File some permit applications. That's not the way this this is worked. I do want to address a few inaccuracies in this resolution Just so you have a clear picture of what our facility is. You have a copy of the latest copy of the Okay, I just got one across the resolution. Okay, I just want to make sure. I just got one across the hallway. Okay, fine. Okay, first of all, I want to just point out a few things so you have a clear picture. It's 255,000 barrels, not 255,000 billion barrels, that may be an error based on the abbreviation for the word barrel in my presentation. I've previously made to the judge and the commissioner. In addition, it's 30,000 barrels a day of capacity. That's a nominal maximum capacity for the terminal. Not 30 million barrels a day of capacity. So those are important distinctions as there are gross overstatements of our actual capabilities. The truck traffic reference here, I want to make sure I point this out as well the number of 50 to 75 round truck trucks was something I made in a presentation to the county and it represents what we think is the volume of truck traffic today to fuel the needs of Denton These trucks today come up from Dallas and Fort Worth area terminals into your marketplace So that's approximately the volume that's based on on what we think is a low estimate of a gallon and a half per day per person. We believe numbers are closer to 2 and a half per day, but we want to use conservative numbers here. Our terminal actually will have a capability of loading up to 150 trucks a day, approximately. So our transits would be potentially twice what are listed here at 75. Now it's important to make sure you understand that we're not talking about new volumes. These are replacing volumes of fuel loaded at other terminals in the Dallas and Fort Worth area. So this is a play economically. I'm taking advantage of transit miles. Today these trucks drive up and down 35 and that road is already congested so this should actually be a slight benefit to the roadway between Danden and Dallas as it is today. So you say it wouldn't be 150 truck trips that would be 300 is it? Potentially at maximum capacity, at start up we expect about half that volume. Again we should talk about maximum capacities here since that's the potential for the facility. And yes, ma'am, it would be up to 150 loaded outbound trucks per day. So if you count that one truck up the road, one truck down the road, that's 300 transits per day. And it's been stated here in this resolution that that's, you know, too much truck traffic for the roadway, I want to make sure that you also understand that the roadway is not a tarred roadway. It's actually an asphalt flexible base roadway, similar to the type of surface that's on I-35 all the way through Denton. Now, the basing of the roadway is what needs to be reviewed by text. That's a text.issue, we're working with them on the roadway issues, including ingress and egress to the facility, moving the entrance to the facility south for safety reasons, building a turnout lane for accelerating trucks heading downhill south, as well as a passing lane as you head north. So safety is a great concern to us as well. In addition to those 300 truck transit today, I'm going to make sure to point out that the coordinated text dot, there are currently 5,000 transit today on that roadway. So we're talking about going from 5,000 transit to 5,300 text dots in for me that the roadway on F and 2164 wouldn't be eligible for an expansion until it reached about double the volume it has today or 10,000 transits. So I think we're some time off from that. Although given the expansion of Denton County and Denton as a whole, I don't know what that time frame would be, but that brings me to another point is the fuel is a necessary infrastructure part of the growth of an area like them. And so that's would be, but that brings me to another point is the fuel is a necessary infrastructure part of the growth of an area like them. And so that's an advantage and infrastructure advantage we're trying to bring to this marketplace. Saving on those truck transit's not only cuts down on trips up and down 35, but it actually is a reduction in emissions for CO2. The transit distances for trucks had to get a Dallas and Fort Worth to this marketplace versus loading these trucks here in Denton saves approximately thousand tons of CO2 emissions per year. The, all the air quality is not a large part of this resolution. I'm going to point that out. And also that we're talking about building a modern facility with very efficient loading controls. Our industry is heavily regulated as you know. And we're instead of putting in a flare which a lot of facilities use where they burn the vapors that come off of a truck. We're installing vapor recovery equipment that's highly efficient. Capture the vapors that come off of loaded tank trucks and reconstitutes those, the carbon bed absorbs should back into fuel and puts those back in the gasoline tank. So it not only saves on emissions but it saves on loss of value and fuel further enhancing the economics of this facility. As far as our facilities concern, there's a few things in here. We can address if you have questions. I don't know that I have time. But as far as the positive side of our facility, I want to make sure you understand we're talking about a capex of 18 to $20 million that represents a significant tax increase for the city of the county of Dinten, but more importantly for the school district and Sanger. I've noted recently they have some deficits as to the school districts where my children go. And so we're trying to bring some business to the county here that will benefit the school district and Sanger. In addition to that $18 to $20 million or poor portion of that $18-20 million capital would be local subcontracts, we estimate between $2.5 to $3 million for local companies to do things such as pay for work, electrical work inside our facility. So again, I appreciate your time here. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. I'm sorry we didn't have a chance to meet and go through this presentation before, as I've been able to do with Judge Horan and Commissioner Coleman. I have a couple questions, producer. I got my information here from the presentation that you did give to Commissioner Coleman myself. Okay, you are correct. It's asphalt road, not a tarred road. You're correct on that point. And for clarification, so instead of 50 to 75 round trip trucks, the equivalent of 150 truck trips is 150 round trips. The capacity is 300 trucks a day. Army, yes ma'am, the capacity is to load at maximum 150 trucks per day of fuel. 75 number is what we believe is loaded today in Dallas and transit to the area. One other clarification and that is on the, see, it anticipates having three truck bays, 255,000 billion barrels of tank storage that is not crypt. No, ma'am, it's just 255,000 barrels. Thousand barrels. I've tank storage capacities for ethanol, biodiesel, and butane blending. And a 30 million barrel a day capacity is, that is incorrect. No, ma'am, it's 30,000 barrels per day. Right. I'm just looking for an access. I may have used the abbreviation M to represent the Roman rule. I'm full. I got that off. OK. That's the only questions that I had. Are there questions from other members of court? Yeah. I have some questions. You know, we've had extensive discussions regarding this. You know, frankly, I'm very torn on this situation, but I'm... So you talked about the air quality? Yes, sir. Is that have to do with your TCEQ permit or is that what you're estimate on the traffic coming up from Dallas and I-35 on our roads to fill the gas stations. Well, both are issues. The one reference I made was to actual CO2 emissions that come from tractor trailers that drive these routes every day. And these trucks are already coming into your area. Sure you're aware the air quality of Denton County is largely a function of Dallas County, Terrent County, and other counties and the air blows up here. We have the same thing. I live in Galveston County, and Harris County is a non-attainment area. So every county around there is a non-attainment area. We all start for the same fate as the people breathing air in Houston. This facility being north of Denton should actually relieve that. And that's a small facility, so it's not a huge impact. But we believe modern technology moving the facility to the north side of Denton is actually an improvement to the air quality versus loading these volumes out of terminals in Dallas County and driving them up here. That's the TCU VOC emission issue. The CO2 issue that I raised is that if you evaluate truck transit distances, not even including wait time because the roadways are more congested between Dallas and Denton, but if you just look at the transit differences, it represents the savings on average of 15 to 17 miles per truck transit and that represents about a thousand tons a year of CO2 emissions reduction. Okay, so one of the things that I was interested in was, well this resulted in any like lessening of gas prices at the pump or anything like that. That's a good question. We only control our little part of this infrastructure. Right, okay. We don't take titles with the product nor do we own gas stations. So you'll look at gas stations, that's the price of fuel. What I can tell you is if you had to truck your fuel all the way from Houston, it would most certainly cost you more at the pump here in Denton. If you trucked it from Austin, it would most certainly cost you more at the pump here in Denton. If you trucked it from Austin, it would most certainly cost you more at the pump here in Denton and by that logic, we believe that as a whole, there's approximately $3 million a year in fuel cost supply cost savings to be recognized by somebody in this area. It certainly isn't us, but we expect that that fuel cost savings gets passed along to the general public. But we expect that that fuel cost savings gets passed along to the general public. Again, I stress we don't set fuel prices, but access to supply within close proximity is key to providing a effective supply and a cost effective supply. Because he had previously said it might drop about $0.3 per gallon, but you told me that wouldn't be to the retailer, but maybe to the wholesaler. Well, I can't dictate who that three cents per gallon goes to because that would represent that distance saving for driving. Okay, let me ask you this. I mean, it sounds, I mean, it's kind of a little confused. If we're not going to have any problems with the air quality, why do we need a TCU permit? Well, every business like this has to have a TCU permit. Now, your hot dog stand, that's the same thing that we're doing. You go to the TCU and you get a permit because I'm going to have a fryer and it has emissions. You know, local bakeries, restaurants, they all have permits. What they typically do, if they're small source emissions like we are, small source, you claim a permit by rule. So the state doesn't want to have to go through the process of providing a long drawn out process for issuing permits for every business that exists in Texas. So there are certain criteria that if you meet them, you simply claim that permit. It's sort of ministerial. Your calculations need to be reviewed, as ours are being reviewed now by the state. But as long as you meet those qualifications, then you can claim that permit by rule. In fact, when you qualify for a permit by rule like a restaurant or like a terminal, you can literally claim the permit, start construction the next day. We wouldn't do that because it wouldn't be conservative and we don't do those kind of things. But we're far away from convincing construction. But that's the way the process goes with TCU. We have to have that permit just like many other businesses. Don, Phil, are you familiar with that process? I'm not. OK. Because I remember I had vague memories of about, I guess, a year ago or March. I'd ask you for a legal opinion about our ability to regulate this stuff. And you basically, he was pretty clear. He said we couldn't regulate these type facilities tonight. I mean, unless it was in a floodplain, and I'm presuming it's not in a floodplain, is that correct? Was that familiar with the ice? I am familiar with what the cany-can regulate. I'm not familiar with all of the labyrinths of TCEQ regulations, but the county can't be clear. The county has a development permit that we issue when somebody wants to develop a piece of property and when it incorporated it in the county. And although it's called a development permit, essentially it determines whether or not the property where the development is based is in a floodplain or not because the county is the floodplain administrator for FEMA so development permit is a big word for floodplain permit essentially and it may correct me if I'm wrong but that's that is the extent of the regulation that the county is able to do on any type of development of this nature. Now the state regulation is stayed on. Well because that's kind of what I was one trying to figure out you know because a lot of times, you know I don't want to step off into something that we really don't have any business doing But I understand that this isn't asking us to regulate this right? We're just asking for a hearing which is right, you know, which is always you know That's where I'm a little bit what what is the effect of this? You you described the process that actually it was an administrative process up to this point unless the TCEQ deems it necessary to hold public hearings on the permitting itself. Is that correct? How the process works? Well, to my knowledge, and I'm not an environmental consultant, we hire that workout. There's not a public notice period or public hearing requirement for a permit by rule for the TCEQ. They evaluate the submission that you give them. They'll be gave them for accuracy and make sure that you've done your accounting on your emissions correctly. And they administer that process. It takes 30 to 45 days to receive your acknowledgement of your permit by rule back. But, Commissioner, in my conversations with TCQ, while it is not in the normal course of events you might say to have a hearing on a permit by rural application it's also not unheard of. Is that their discretion or the day? Is that their discretion and those are exactly the words that they used to me. Now I know we had talked earlier and you had mentioned that you might be willing to compensate the roads or the county for roads. Yes sir. What did the bad entail? Well I'll reiterate for everyone what I had previously mentioned to Judge Horne yourself and that is that there is a short portion of 2164 that currently list it has, listing as a weight restricted road, listed at 58,000 pounds, the trucks that we move load to a maximum of 80,000 pounds. And we've spoken with text.about that road weight issue. It's noted that in the past 10 years, both bridges along 2164 have been rebuilt substantially. And so we wanted to make sure that TechS.DOT took a look at the roadways to confirm that the road weight restriction shouldn't be lifted from its current 58,000 and change, I understand that the county has issued an engineering study or an opinion that the road weight should be something more like 40,000 pounds. I haven't seen that report. I just understand that from TechStyle. So they're going to do the work to test the roadway and actually come up with an official wait. It's been overlaying the last four years, I believe, text.se. On the dollar issue, what I'm getting to is that the options for us are to go alternate routes. Our preferences to turn out go do south, straight down the loop, and either deliver fuel into the Denton Marketplace or across the Rheati to North Dallas Marketplace as far as Frisco in those areas. And if we have to drive across a section of road that's weight restricted than the state issues for a price overweight permits, so you can drive on those roadways. If all the roads in your area are weight restricted then by state law you can utilize those roads you just pay for the permit. So our option is to go a different route which adds 2 to 4 miles per transit or to purchase overweight permits which we're willing to do at my calculation I think that's something in the range of $35 to $40,000 per year, which we can certainly absorb in overweight permits. And my recommendation was, instead, to give that money directly to Denton County to be accrued and utilized for road work. My understanding from text office that could, as could as a crew double up the overlay On the roadway, which is currently done once every 10 years So I'm suggesting that rather than give that money to the DOT and that money gets spread all over Every county in Texas. We spend that money right here at home with Denton County and to be used on a row wise text. okay with that? Well I don't have an official ruling from text dot on that but my conversations are positive with text dot along that line. They're not even sure that the roadway is correctly listed as a way restricted road that has to be reviewed. In fact, if you've driven up in that area, you may see there are road weight restriction signs on almost every county road up there every FM road. But if you go to the state website for text. You'll see that very only very few are actually where it restricted. And the only segment of that road is the section between the Luke 288 and FM-2132. We have the number is 31-32. John, can we legally hold him to that, that comment to that if they're meeting the qualifications that they're supposed to have specifications that they're supposed to meet? Can we legally hold them to give us money for the road? Mr. if midpoint wanted to make a donation to the county they can do that and no strings attached they make a donation to the county the commission's court formally accepts it but it's I would say it's a showing a good will on their part to do so I don't't believe that there's, it wouldn't be a gift if we had a contract with them to do it. So it's basically their, their work. But they decide they didn't want to that we couldn't force it. And we contract, though, for? They had me address that as well, man. I don't believe that I don't, I don't know of any mechanism where the county would contract with the private entity to give money to fix up county roads. I mean essentially it's just going to have to be donations, whatever they want to do it as they see fit. I think we've been through something similar with energy companies, I'm gonna ask you how that worked. Energy companies that were fixing up damage to county road during drilling activity, that's what it would be like as far as I'm concerned. We had some written agreements. I don't think they were necessarily enforceable, but we have done something like that in the past. Okay, is there anybody else that want to chime in? And then they said a couple of the things that they wanted to say. Commission. I have some comments, but no more questions. Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else you wanted to answer? No, that's it. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, there's a couple comments and then I want to read the resolution. First of all, he is correct. These trucks are coming through the area at the present time, but they are on interstate 35. They're not on a two-lane asphalt road. And the reason the resolution hasn't come before you until this time is because they just recently made application to TCQ. And verbally TCQ told me that until the application had been made, it was the purpose to contact them asking for a hearing. So that's why I'm putting this forth at this time. And I want to reiterate that the purpose of this resolution is strictly to not debate the issue but to ask for the hearing and let that discussion take place at TCQ, the people that do have authority to make the decision and I fully recognize that are planning and permitting requirements of nothing to do with it. This is a TCQ issue. So with that, I'd like to read the resolution as it's been revised with the latest information that was just applied to us today. And I hope this is correct now. The resolution of the Denton Commission's Court requesting TCQ hearing concerning the development and operation of refined products truck rack terminal at 8969 North FM 2164, Sanger Texas, whereas midpoint partners LLC and cogent energy solutions LLC have filed a permit by rural application to develop and operate as Denton Terminal LLC of Refined Products Truck Rack Terminal on FM 2164, 5.5 miles north of the city of Denton's Loop 288 in the city of Denton's Division 2 Extraterritorial Jurisdiction and whereas this terminal is supplied by Explorer pipeline anticipates having three truck bays, 255,000 barrels of tank storage that should be 1,000 barrels of tank storage capacities for ethanol, biodiesel, and butane blending, and a 30,000 barrels a day capacity. And whereas dent and terminal estimates proclosmentally, 150 round trip trucks, the equivalent of 300 truck trips being driven on FM 2164 in its feeder roads, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. And whereas FM 2164 is a tune lane asphalt road, the surface of which will not withstand the proposed heavy truck traffic, nor are there any funds available from the state of Texas or the county to perform necessary repairs or refurbishment of the road that would be necessary furthermore, approaching the proposed site from the north is dangerous because of the hill just prior to the entrance of the proposed site. And approaching the proposed site from the south, the entrance is just after a 90 degree turn, making very unsafe conditions for the trucks and any local traveling, locals traveling the road. And whereas the proposed site is not a designated industrial district of either city of Denon or the city of Sanger, and whereas the proposed site, the proposed area of safety concerns, not the least of which, is the fact that the site is on the bus road for both Denny and San er school districts. And whereas the proposed site is three quarters of a mile from the area of the Lakeery Roberts district, we acknowledge that the proposed site is not in the district, however, it is close enough to have a dramatic negative effect on the area, which is directly contradictory to the legislators, legislatures, stated purpose of creating the Lake River Roberts district in the first place. The legislation that created the Lake Roberts district states the purpose of promoting and protecting the public health, recreation, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community, particularly in the development of all lands in a matter which promotes these purposes and in encouraging the location and design of transportation routes which promote the free flow of traffic while discouraging the location of such facilities and routes which results in congestion or blight and whereas 2164 FN 2164 is a primary route for residents, school buses and people designed to use Lake Ray Roberts four recreational purposes, the truck traffic and lighting which would be on 24-7 would result in congestion, be unsightly, in nuisance and post-series safety concerns. And whereas Denton County is included in the non-attainment area, we believe that the operation of the facility would be counterproductive to our efforts of improving the equality of the region. It would negatively impact the great strides the region is made in that regard. And whereas Commissioners Court authorizes County Judge Mary Horne to officially submit to TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, a formal request for hearing on the permit by rural application number 96348 of Denton Terminal LLC for the Refined Products Truck Rack Terminal and whereas Commissioner's Court believes in an imperative to have an opportunity to present reasons to the TCQ Board as to why the proposed site is not a good location for the Denton Terminal. Now therefore, a great result. Dantt, kind of, commissioners, court, formally request the TCQ hearing, concerning the development and operation of refined products truck rack terminal at 89.69 North FM 2164, Sanger Texas, the chair was so moved. Here, I have some additional comments. Need a second. Thank you. We have a second to the motion, commission. Thank you. I didn't. I thought we were done talking to Mr. Center. I didn't know we were through debating the resolution. So first of all on the fourth whereas. Yes sir. You have 2164 is the service will not withstand the proposed heavy truck traffic nor any funds available from the state or county to perform necessary repairs or a fird version of the road that would be necessary. Yes, sir. We don't know whether that the road can support the heavy truck traffic. And I want to make sure, I'm in favor of us having a permit, but I don't want to make any misreferring concerns that we don't have that. For the hearing, is that what you're saying? Yeah, I'm in favor of it. But I want to make sure that when we do this, we're concrete facts. When we haven't got a report back. Okay. And there's only a little portion of this area that's, you know, weight limited. So we need to take that portion. Because if I'm in a half mile stretch from the proposed site to live 28, which is a stronger surface. So we can we articulate that to say we have concerns of weather. This will withstand instead of saying it will. I think that's an excellent suggestion. Let's let's let's phrase a valley. I mean the surface. Whereas didn't was didn't county has concerns that FM 21 is a and may not stand to propose. Which may. Yeah, I just want to make sure that we don't make any assertions that would come back. Are there. That's fine. Good point. Anything else? Yes. Go ahead. The third on the second page, the third, the first where is. Okay. I think we need to kind of strike that because these trucks are already being transported up here. Right? The first where is? On a statement. And not just talking about the trucks and talking about the terminal itself. Well, I mean, like again, I support the resolution. I just think that they haven't, I mean, I think that you have to concede. They have a valid argument that, lessening the amount of truck trips from Dallas to Denton would not, I mean, would help us with our non-entainment to me. And I don't want to make that representation that says this is going to be counter-contact. I mean would help us with our non-entainment to me. And I don't want to make that representation that says this is going to be counter-commod. Okay, but if we do the same thing here as we did on the other word as, you know, that we have serious concerns. I think that's okay. I mean, because I don't want us to- We don't want us to- We don't want us to- We don't want us to- And the state-to-state into this that we have to do. I'm not going to say that if they come and say look, the county says this is going to hurt our entainment and we say we shall look, we're reducing them out of truck traffic. We'll let TCU make that determination. I understand, but I don't want to make us look foolish. Anything else? That's it. Okay, if we make those two changes as proposed, Any other comments? We have a motion in a second. What my other comments are this is that, you know, we work with these fellas for a long time. And I am very conflicted on how we're going to deal with this. On one hand, I really think we need to support people who want to bring businesses and infrastructure and industry to Denton County and it enhances our tax base. And one of the things that I've been preaching to people is that you know I think we've done a big job of subsidizing residential development and we have not known as good a job as promoting commerce and jobs and infrastructure. I don't think a public hearing or public debate on anything is a bad idea but I still have mixed feelings about preventing this plant or this gas station from coming to Denton County. There could be better places for them to put it. You know my wife commutes to Sanger every day and goes up this road. But she's also told me she thinks there's another, there's a trucking company locating on it. I mean, I don't think it's black and white, but I don't think anything could be hurt by having a public hearing in which we engage in public discussion. And I'm glad that we're not opposing this at this time, but rather asking for the TCEQ to seek public comment. And I think that's a good fair compromise. Well, and I agree that it is a TCEQ question and that is my sole purpose here is to ask for the public hearing. Unfortunately, the way the system is designed, the residents that live out in that area, unless we had this discussion in Commissioner's Court and made the front page of the newspaper, they wouldn't even know that it was coming until it was built and then they'd be like, how in the world did this happen? Why didn't somebody let us know? Well, there's no requirement for midpoint or anybody else to let them know. So, you know, let the public hearing happen, let everybody have their say. And obviously it's TCQ's decision as to whether or not they grant the permit. But totally. It's interesting because when I sat down to talk about what the City of Sanger perhaps doing an E.T.J. swap with the City of Denton, they got out their calculator and just estimated that if this facility was brought within the City of Sanger, it would total 7% of their tax income. That's the decisions they have to make that's... They could just like... They couldn't do it. Just like... And it would have been good if you would have been in a city then they would have been they would have had to provide notices to the residents. So you would have gotten the both the best world. That's not the way to use. So the residents and the people living all up and down the road and especially those people that are directly across 2164 there's three streets there where those people, as I said until they read it in the front page of the newspaper, and they're not going to let anything about it. I still think if this goes through, we need to try and negotiate with the company and see if we can get some road funds or something like that. First things first. Hopefully they'll be hearing. And then we'll move forward from that point. We don't burn our bridges. Any other questions or comments on the resolution before you? Okay. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Opposed to say aye. Motion does scare unanimously. Thank you and thank you for being here this morning. Mr. Senchel. And hopefully we've got this revised for the final time. The revision to the revision to the revision. Okay. Item five is approval of the bill report. Payments from CSED, Community Corrections, TAI, PE Shores, Training Shores, Forfeiture, VIT, Interest, DHA, Check-P and DHA, Forfeiture Funds are all presented for recording purposes only. Good morning, James Wells. Where's the issue? Foreign Judge, Commiters, I'd ask approval to bills with one addition and one deletion noted on separate page. Members, do you have a question of our auditor or do we have a motion for approval? I move for approval. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does carry. Six A is consideration and approval of options for additional construction management services for planned building projects through additional consultant services that indoor additional staff as presented by ad hoc committee. Well, Michael. Good morning, Judge. Good morning, commissioners. In your backup member, there's just, we limited it to two options based on the feedback from last meeting, but there's really, you know, unlimited amount of different options that we have here. I'm recommending option one from, yeah, option one from a staffing standpoint. I think that's the best scenario for looking after the county projects. And that is to have, like I said, one employee started media, a second employee in addition to some additional architectural engineering oversight to these construction projects. I think there's still some funding questions, but. Thanks. Did you get an answer for some funding? No. He had speak to the Bon attorney, but did not have anything come back from me. Come back what? I didn't hear you last. I spoke to the Bon attorney, but did not get anything back from me. Oh, okay. I didn't hear that I'm sorry. Miss Stewart you're the you're the person I know James holds the purse strains but you have any suggestions I mean that might lend some clarity to our situation maybe some starting points for discussion or something. You're talking about funding options for option one or two. I think you, I think we have one option that has to do with the use of bond funds, which I wouldn't recommend until we do have a formal response from our bond council. The second was discussion last week on non-departmental contingency. I sent you all a report last week showing you what was available. The third option I mentioned last week was using our capital replacement fund. We do have contingency set aside and it seemed like a real viable option to consider using that in fiscal year 2012 to help us with that. We could reduce the unappropriated contingency level in there and have a zero impact if you choose to do that. The problem is for this fiscal year, we wouldn't be able to do that because the line-on-arms have never been set up in that fund to account for an employee in related benefits. And as you know, in order to set up new line-on line items, it has to be declared an emergency to do that. So I think our option with that could be when Bennett Hell was here a few weeks ago and asked to change a position to an EIT. There was about a $32,000 savings by that position being vacant for most of this fiscal year and is assuming that it's filled in the timeframe he said would still have a $32,000 surplus. So if you wanted to, you could fund the majority of that already existing in the planning budget. If we needed to fund a small remaining amount, we could do so at the end of the year and just monitor that. I met Donna. You said, with Bennett employee you still have a 32 dollars savings with her and Bennett, I mean, yes, we still have a 32 dollars savings. That's right. $13,000 savings. We're a family. It's a different one. We had a vacant position that was, remained vacant since October. Right. And then there is an impact in next year's budget by that action. However, there's surplus in this year's budget. But it's going to be impacted in next year's budget. If there won't be any savings. Unless it's correct. That's right. I'll put that position. Correct. OK. That's what I want to make sure. But we next year put it in the contingency or the VIP next year. Next year, I think we could establish the line items in the capital replacement fund in order for you to track that employee. It just seems like a logical place to pay for an employee just because it is for capital replacement projects. And that's all these employees are gonna be working on. And you think that's a fair and equitable way. And when that person is in that, when he's in that, when he, at the next fiscal year, we could have him track what his time was and stuff based on projects or something. I don't know that you would need to do that. If you want an accounting of it yourselves to know what exactly they're working on, you could certainly do that. But for the purposes of our record keeping, as far as their payroll and their paycheck is concerned, you would not have to do that. But we could require him to do that. Be sure to. Okay. The other option that we talked about, I've talked with James, is there's a small amount of money in what we call FEN76. That's permanent improvement bonds for building projects that were issued just for various facilities. However, without having a response from her bond council, I'm reluctant to recommend that today either. And I don't think we need to touch that fund anyway. We're building buildings and we don't know how much we're going to be over or what else. This one was not specifically designated. There was $2.5 million to begin with. We've used a majority of that on the Loop 288 project, but we do have about $130,000 balance in that account that could help if you choose to. I'm not sure it would not be my number one recommendation for you because it wouldn't fully fund it. I think my first recommendation would be what I would consider option three, which is the capital replacement fund pending a response from our council. Well, and I had a conversation with Michael just yesterday about all this and. just yesterday about all this and we've got so many things going and so many things that are getting going. You know at peak we could have like 14 projects I think it is the 13 or 14 projects and I think it just be a wise investment for us to go with option one and I do agree with Donna's assessment of initially using the $32,000 savings from the change in the planning position and then establishing the new line item with the new budget year to pay the remainder out of the capital replacement fund. So that would be my position, Commissioner Marchin. Yeah, let me... If we were to do this, this would be, as Michael T is under the... Yeah, under Bennett's supervision. Is that correct? Or a Michael. Well, and that is exactly where I'm going with it. It goes under Michael. And now, as far as what you're projecting the cost for those employees? Is that a how do you say a subordinate? salary to Michael? Or are we talking the same salary as that Michael receives? They are all on the same playing field. Or is it? That would be a piece. I think we need to. But that's the point of getting to is in other words, are we hiring them in the same salary that we hired Michael in? Are they going to be hired in less and then the chain of command will push it up with Michael being a supervisor over there? Michael is a grade 15 and these positions are grade 14. Some of that would depend on the level you hire them in at, whether it be minimum or 16% above as policy allows. Well what I want to make sure is that if I mean this is new supervisory job for Michael. I mean now not only does he do what he's doing now but he's going to have to supervise two other employees as well if we pick option one. I believe there there needs to be somewhat of an impact on Michael because of that added duties. He may look at it as a relief. I don't know. Did you guys talk about that last week at all? I don't remember. I believe we could handle that and the Michael's revision to a pay grade during the budget process if we don't do it now Well, I am I'm not even suggesting and doing now I if we did anything I would suggest do it in the budgeting process But that is that is the chain command that we're looking at. That's what I was concerned about. It's going to handle the administrative stuff right then. For these fellows, you can do the vacation and sick leave and all that. Well, if you remember when Michael was brought on board that there was a discussion of my role in managing him and the court was very specific and I was not having any responsibility for Michael, even though all the budgets coming out of everything is coming out of my budget. If you hire multiple people under Michael, it's coming out of my budget and I'm responsible for that budget. What I would recommend is put them under my department and Mike manage them. Say that again. Say that again. Put them under my department since it's coming out of my budget and you all put me responsible for my budget instead of other people pulling out of my budget. Or they can. And Michael manage them. That sounds fair. I'm good with that. Michael. Michael shaking his head. The Capitol, you could certainly designate that the Capitol replacement fund, salary and benefit portion of that would be the responsibility of Bennett. That would be separate. The expenses for that employee, though, we wouldn't be tracking there necessarily unless you search used to. All right. Well, I'll go ahead and make a motion to adopt the recommendation of staff. And Donna, is it safe for me to say a funding option three, which would be the EIT option with the capital replacement as of the beginning of the year. I thought we had to wait until the bond attorney. That's my recommendation pending on an opinion. It's if you all want to know the bond that's up to you but and what okay wait a minute wait a minute but if we okay well I would draw my motion but if we don't need the opinion of the bond attorney if you do it that way correct that's correct okay you want to arrange statement you'll re-instate his motion i'll second the motion with one comment and that is uh had some discussion with Michael yesterday concerning a vehicle for these people and i think we've uh come up with a couple of... Did have some throw downs, certainly. Sir, plus vehicles that we can use were not going out and buying cars for them. Just wanted to play the fire. We've come up with enough transportation that this is going to be OK. The last discussion I had with that would be to bring one out of of salvage, add one to the planning department, because the current extra one we have right now would be used for the IT and their jobs and everything else. Of course it'd be open to whoever needs it, but I see the positions that for these people, they're only vehicles all the time. Did you discuss that with the vehicle assessment committee? I've been not bringing one from somewhere. We're right in the middle of making recommendations and nobody has talked to me about it. No, I did not. Well, we need to address that certainly with the committee. And we have a multitude of, I shouldn't say a multitude, but we have several surplus vehicles, vehicles that go to surplus each year or so. No, it's in the report that we presented last week that we could find some in surplus. There's a lot of them, we just not turn them in for sale. And so we were waiting to see if the position is. Let's take the analysis of that, make a determination of what would be the right one and make sure the vehicle assessment committee is up to date with what's gone on there. Some available, it's just which ones. There's a motion, a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners? The motion is to pay for these employees out of the capital improvement. Well initially out of the the $32,000 savings from the move that we made from the position in planning last week or for the rest of this fiscal year but then in the new fiscal year, we've come out of the capital replacement fund that is correct. Any other questions? I'm not in favor of that funding source. If we don't always get our way, I just, I've, I think the fund mainly believe that since these are associated with these bond programs that they should be paid for out of that out of the bond proceeds just like we do our transportation consultant I think we should do the roads that way I believe it's we're and I'm very surprised that we have not heard back from our bond council I always get a call back the same day So I don't know what the delay is there. In my previous career and I worked for municipality, I did my on paper with all these fancy payroll systems that we spent a lot of money on, did, and without all the technology, did my time sheet, according to the different fund that I was operating out of. And that payroll department said you worked out of the utility fund, you worked out of this fund, you did this fund that week and they kept accurate accounting to that. Rodon Bridge does the same thing. We keep accurate time keeping for all our guys working out on the roads on every road. There's time keeping on every one of those roads and how many man hours on every one of those roads. And we do general fund activities, such as parking up payments and so forth. And that's paid out of different funds. And Donna does it. They keep good track of that so we can make sure that we're not over what is the general fund supplemental to the road and bridge. So I just have a fundamental belief that it can be done process wise. And we just wait here the legal opinion. I mean, I just have a fundamental, I've done it. I've done payroll reports. Or, I used to work work in HR office at a miss pounding help process all those time those time sheets manually and I just have a strong belief that it can be done we just need to have a weight on them the payroll. Commissioner I agree. I'm sympathetic to the fact that it is it is more cumbersome but I believe that you could I don't believe we need to have these construction personnel working on 10 different projects. I think they need to have a focus on two or three projects and you're working on several. And I think they could, I think they could keep accurate accounting. That's just my belief because I've done it before. Make sure I don't disagree that it can be done. I just don't believe that we should be using bonded indebtedness for that purpose. Well I would like to I would need a different way of transportation. I would like to wait and hear what the bond attorney says before I'd make. I really would. I thought we would have a report today so. I will wait for that. No, Commissioner Ead's I completely understand your rationale. I just or are we paying do we pay interest from the CIP money or is that money out of our advalor and that's put away for capital replacement? So it's CIP is borrowed money? Well, not on capital. Are you talking about the bond capital replacement fund? We do not. The actual bond proceeds that Commissioner Eads is suggesting we do. That's my point is that I am. I completely agree. I've done timekeeping and hourly stuff. I know. I ever. Yeah. Got time slips, tabs, very expensive time keeping software. It can be done. I just don't. I mean, so I agree with you in principle. I even think if we want to, we can have our employee do it. I just don't like paying an employee with money that we're paying interest on. Well, the capital improvement can be gone. It's just for that, not for paying employees. If you're going to hire the employees and you think that they're important in Harlem instead of using the capital improvement funds that can be used for Emergencies and things that we need that actually capital improvement. Don't hire them. Hi With the My recommendation, but I understand your your the courts viewpoint about about the interest and so forth on those funds what I'm concerned about is our tax rate and the general fund opportunity we're in a down market right now as far as our real estate values and so forth and so I'm just trying to look at, we need to currently explore all options. Is that something we're going to permanently do? I don't know, but I'm saying I think under our current budget environment and climate, I think we need to exhaust all options. That's all I'm advocating. Are we will we do that permanently? I don't know. When we have more, when a tax rolls are up and we have more flexibility, maybe move on with the general fund, that's maybe we have that opportunity in the future. So that's what I just think during these times we need to look at all options. Other valid concerns and I have no problem with drawing my motion, but one of the things I wish we would have had this and it's you know, I wouldn't say it's my fault It's I would say it's our collective probably problem. We should have had this discussion before we awarded The contract but you know, we needed to progress on with it and we had you know, we have made dollar savings But um, oh I don't think it has to do with the contract. I think we had time We had time to strengthen we're not on the award Okay, I don't want us to. So is the. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I really think we need to move forward and the you know it's good. The job market is such that anytime we post a position now we get a lot of applications in a big hurry so I think we're there is already interest in doing this work for the county I know from articles in the paper I've already received you know an email on telephone call from people that are interested in the job. So I think we're going to have quite a range of applicants to select from. But that takes time to go through that and do the interview process and make a decision. Things are progressing along that I really would like to keep going forward with this. So can we not post it? I'm sorry, Sagan. Go ahead and post it. We're going to work out this for the next week. I mean, so we can get it going. We don't have any downtime. Hi. We're not going to award the, we're not going to until we figure it out. Well, we've got. We know we have at least 32,000. I mean, if we're committed, if we're committed, we need to do it. We need to do it. We need to do it. We need to do it. We need to do it. We need to do it. We need to do it. We need to do it. We need to do it. We need to do it. that collectively within the court move forward and then the other issue would be the funding source. I feel more comfortable of exhausting all options and whether the, and I feel more comfortable waiting, more more week for the bonding attorney to give us because there may be some other issues that come up later on that we need that at least that opinion for it. And once we discuss this, I want to start another line of discussion today about one other thing that relates to this. in here then. In an effort to go forward, I believe we have consensus that we want to do this. What's not decided is how it's going to be paid for. We're going to pay for it. We're just not sure in which manner yet. So how about a motion to go with option one is presented here on Michael's handout and with the decision to which plot it basically it's going to be paid for out of. Hopefully we can get that decided quickly. But I do think it's important to get this process started. So my motion is going to be to go with option one and to ask HR to post positions with Michael's help and Venice help and get this process started. That's my motion. I will second that with the clarification that that's going to be under Bennett as and then it's budget in the people report to Michael. Okay. Any other clarifications or questions? Okay. I mean the motion commission you'd seconded it. Here you know other discussion on favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Senine. Hearing no other discussion on favor please say aye aye Posting motion carries foreign favor one opposed and Okay Commissioner mentioned in talking with Michael T and in understanding the impact of course this is not drastic, but it is trying to respond to currently what's on the ground and what's in the future. I think that we need to be as responsible as looking at criteria in the future contracts and address some of the shortfalls that maybe have created this need. And I understand the argument are the discussion of having our own people on the ground, our own boots on the ground, monitoring our own projects. But some of the shortfall that has happened on some of these other projects has been us kind of short-changing ourselves in our architectural or an engineering inspection and their involvement with the process as well. And I think that I'm in favor of giving direction that when we talk about future contracts that one of those things, and I understand that it's an expense. But I think that we need to look at follow-up expenses and monitoring expenses and when we negotiate these contracts with architects and the engineers to make sure they have adequate boots on the ground to cover our investment in them and our investment in those contracts. Commissioner, we totally agree with that. And also what's included in option one is to go back and renegotiate those contracts with all of our design firms now. And that's what we plan on doing as we discussed a couple of weeks ago. Nearly everything already is in design. So we'll take renegotiating all this list of projects but future ones will Yeah, and that's the direction I would like to give myself to you from my standpoint is I I want that to be a consideration Are we're gonna be looking at two years? We add more projects that we got out there two years to add more people on staff that we may be able to cover Through new contracts are cover through new contracts or renegotiating the old contracts. We totally agree with that. There are some projects that, for instance, the Carrollton Government Center, which is on the CIP plan, has not been awarded to an architect yet, so we can definitely address that with the contract. There's a couple projects that have been awarded face three of the admin complex and the law enforcement center two In those cases it's HDR, but we have not negotiated that contract yet so we can definitely implement that into the contract Most of these were done, you know several years past and it was one contract that we used For everybody, but they really need to look that we looked at per specific project to see what kind of oversight we need per project I need to contract the most per specific project to see what kind of oversight we need per project. I need to contract. The most you can incur with that commissioners or in the long voice in the world. I have just a good idea. By the only word. What I'm asking. We're too long. Okay. I'm asking that any future contract. Yeah, part and remember that part of this option is going back and renegotiating some minimal support from architects and engineering. What I'm putting forward is that I think there has been a belief that in putting together and negotiating contracts that we negotiate any follow-up or monitoring from the architect and engineering services to keep it not only minimal but to keep it non-existing. And I think that we have seen that by doing that we have put our projects in jeopardy, if you would, and I don't want to see that happen anymore. So I want to give direction to purchasing when they're negotiating and consideration the future projects that we add that in from the onset rather in reactionary. And I have a piece of mind about that in a green if you wholeheartedly and I spoke to Michael about that yesterday, that very issue. And because HG always going to be half a day and they're going to be bumping that up to a full day and one and a half days and so I agree and I think we're all on the same page. Okay. Anything else along those lines? We can move on. Right. Item 10A is approval. Change order number 10 for the courthouse. Fourth floor finish out project is recommended by the dink County construction manager. Item 10 A here is a change order to the fourth floor. It consists of four parts that you see there. The first two parts are really related. One's for electrical and data conduits and one's for irrigation but basically what that does is it allows us to do that Future phase of the parking lot that we haven't started designing yet So it stubs out that work and moves the irrigation out so it's not in the way of that future phase So this is kind of leaning towards the future I know that we haven't designed that yet, but we kind of have the layout of where that's gonna take place So those are what those two first items are. Item three, we will get reimbursed from freezing nickels on that item. That was an error on their part and they're going to reduce their design fee. But I think to keep the project going, we should pay for that and then come back and reimburses for that. That's item three. Item four there is a proposed break room for the Pro-Bate clerks area. Right now they just have a, basically, a refrigerator in a room and what we're asking for is that they can actually put a countertop of sink and a refrigerator in a location that's actually going to work for them. Right now there's no break room for them in that area. So I talked to Cynthia Mitchell and we figured while they're doing work over there, it's a logical time to do that sort of work. So those are the four items on that change order. Okay, well let's, while we're here, let's also take up 10B which is approval of a change order number eight for the Courthouse 4th floor finish out project is recommended by the dem kind of construction manager since you're up here we'll just take care of it all that's the same project what we re-evaluated the signage it was since it was done such a long time ago that design work and we made some changes based on what's being done over there we also made some changes based on what's being done over there. We also made some changes to some signage that initially cost a little bit more money but what it is is a signage with a room number and has a slip in there where you can put somebody's name in there. Instead of having a permanent name, you'd have to replace it every time something moves. It costs a little bit more up front but in the long run it's going to save a lot of money. That's basically the digested that change order. Good plan. Any questions from every's recorded? Do we have a motion for approval on both 10 and 10 being? Good approval. Second. Motion by Commissioner E. Seconded by Commissioner Marchant. Hearing no further questions or comments. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to say aye. Motion does carry. Okay. I, a post in E, motion does carry. Okay, 13A is approved 2009 Urban Area Security Initiative Program Grant Adjustment Notice, reducing the total grant award by $75,000. This is posted by emergency services. We talked about that a few weeks ago. Right. Do we have any questions? Do we have a motion? I'm Louis Verville. I'm motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Second. Second by Commissioner Marchion. I'll in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sen. Motion does carry. 13b is approval appointment of Mr. Roger Pike to the Denton County Child Protective Services Board. As a precinct three representative to replace Mr. Jeff, Mr. Min, pending board approval. Hello. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Eads. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the seat. Motion goes carry 13C as appointment to Mr. Guy Willis, Mr. Leo Miller, Mrs. Lisa Pulsar, Mrs. Judith Grimes, Mr. Kevin McCormick, as area representatives for a citizen committee to negotiate for municipal services associated with the City of Dentons annexation of an area identified as DH9 on the city's 2010 annexation plan. This is posted by Commissioner Coleman. Would you like to make a motion? I'm sorry, wrong one. He has to, you had one the city if you recall members these are Local area land owners that are potentially annexed by the city of Dayton So Andy did these are they actually residents are owners of the property? Yes That's kind of our problem is getting people a vacation village to take the we've been having a horrible problem to get any man out of that area of the owners of the property. These are owners and consider appointing people who may or may not be in the area to be on the committee because we can't get anybody to serve. We've got to take we're up to two people. These are long time residents of property owners and they're very excited about serving. Okay we we have a motion by Commissioner Eadnez. Second. Second by Commissioner Marchant for the comments. They're none all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye, opposed, Sinene. Motion carries. 13D is approval of appointments of Stephen Cure and Mary Moore to the Dink County Historical Commission. Motion by Commissioner Eadnez, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed Sainte motion is carried. 13D is discussion in approval of your district and within Dantin County based on 2010 U.S. Census figures. Members, we do have a meeting set up with the citizen committee on June 29th at 630. Send out an email and that's when the majority of the members could meet. And hopefully by then or before then we don't have a determination by the legislature on congressional lines. I think they're down to two proposed maps but to my knowledge if not voted on those yet. Is this going to be a posted meeting? Does it need to be posted meeting? It doesn't really have to be because they're not a governing body of some jurisdiction. Does anybody on the court plan on attending? Well, I'm going to be here. Well, I think it's a citizen meeting. If we're going to have a quorum of the members of the commissioners court, it should be posted to the commissioners court meeting. That's for sure. I don't think we're going to be there but if you're going to be there I'll be there if you if you would like to have the meeting to be an open meeting where members of the public can attend then that's fine but we need to make sure that we have adequate security precautions for the community here. I'll just work that can take place so people can attend. It has to be posted if we're going to be there. If there's a poor mother. But I don't think we need to be there. So I'll tell me. On the micro total purpose of being there is I thought the kind of judge should not only welcome them, but thank you for serving that type of thing. And only to be there for the first part of the meeting where they can elect a chairman of their citizen committee from, you know, within their own group. And then leave them and then do their thing. That's the extent of my involvement. I'll probably be there to thank them as well. Also in terms of if you want the meeting of the committee to be a public meeting and post it in accordance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, you could do that. I thought you did in the warm. Members involved. I don't want members involved. I don't think it's a good idea. I think it needs to be an independent citizen committee. I don't plan on providing any. I don't think it hurts the candidates to come in and welcome them and then leave. One thing I was going to do is help them elect a chairman from within their group and let them let them their party after that. All right. I think you need to be there, you know. It's really two different things. It's one that would be, if you think there's going to be, you know, three or more members of the commissioners court present, you would post it as a commissioners court meeting. That's one issue. The other issue would be, do we just want to post the meeting of the committee as an open meeting? And I don't think it ever hurts to do that. It's just that if we're going to, we need to make sure that we're working on things. I will tell you that we've had some concerns. First of all, with the meaning being at 630, security in this building will be gone. And quite honestly, what I was going to do is notify all committee members to enter through the same door. And have all the other doors the building locked up. Of course, the basement door is there to get out for emergency reasons. That's hard of stuff. Jody, please tell you, don't panic. Please tell you how it gets out in case of fire. But seriously, I was gonna make up a sign, and at 6.30, hopefully everybody's there, put a sign outside the door. If you were supposed to be at this meeting, and you're getting here a little bit late, give them my cell phone number, so they can call me to come open the door and let them in. But with the security issues and the graffiti and the, you know, things that have been going on around the courthouse at night. I was going to lock the doors and let them have their meeting and I'll let them all know if you need to go. You need to let me know so I can unlock the door and let you out either of that or you go out through the basement. I get some calls from skateboarders. Let's get out of here. Be there. So I don't see if there's a core on the issue. You know, I didn't want us to be holding the meeting in here and we've got kids running down the stairways and doing damage inside the building. So that's my purpose in being there. All right. Okay, I don't think there'll be any other action on that today and hopefully we'll get a legislature that will vote on our congressional lines pretty soon. That would be real nice. 14A under legal is approval of a Dendom D to the historical collection known agreement between Denton County museums the county and the University of North Texas UNT regarding the UNT Historical Collections. Motion by Commissioner Eads. Seconded by Commissioner Marchion. On favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Senaim. Motion carries. 14 V is approval of Termination. Excuse me. I've service agreement with Vital Check Network and Corporated for over the county credit debit card. Payment services at the Dayton County Tax office in approval of amendment number one to The service provider agreement was certified payments incorporated adding over the county credit debit card payment services to the Services already provided under that agreement as recommended by the DECK County tax successor collector Question yeah, not not necessarily question. Yeah, not necessarily. Let's go ahead and vote on it. Then I'll move approval. I'll second the motion. I'll favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Posts and in motion. Just carrying you had a question. And I yeah, in all last bath, I think Beth can help me with this. Does every entity that accepts credit cards are debit card payments within the county contracts separately with a different agency? We have the similar conversation in my office yesterday. I believe that they do. I think most of them are using one or two services. I don't think they're all individual, but those contracts are typically presented through Commissioner's Court through the Civil DA and courts have been approved. Well you know what I'm asking is there a reason why we, if, let's see the County Clerk's Office, let's say the District Clerk's Office, JP Courts, all those offices that are accepting credit cards, why are we not negotiating an entire contract for all of those rather than piecemeal one at a time? Is there some preclusion? I think we're getting left with the officers running their offices and they have a preference maybe who they do business with, I can only speculate on that. I do I don't know why we're negotiating all those separately unless we can't. I have the only thing I can speculate to is you know different people run their business in different ways. Maybe they do a great job for the tax office but for the purposes of the JP office. Maybe the procedure, I don't know, maybe their procedures won't help them as much. Quick conversation with James. The JP's were negotiated together and brought. There are some different requirements for the district clerk and county clerk. And I believe the tax office was kind of linked with their new software company, the firm that they're using, which we had used previously. I mean, it's a good question. The issue came up yesterday, because we did have a justice of the peace call and ask a question about their contract, and all of those don't go through me. And so it kind of put us on a spin trying to figure out where those contracts are. Well, I mean, is there... Maybe just the question needs to be asked from all the people that do that. Is there a way to... I've been led to research it more and... I would. ...have a better answer for you. I don't have a good answer. Now, maybe we get... You know, maybe there's a better rate to be negotiated. I don't know. Well, that, or I mean, what you would think someone as large as certified payment, what is it? Certified payments should have flexibility to adapt to just about anything that was put out there. I'm sure any of those companies would be glad to take on more. So we just need to see what would be our best value. I mean, but you could, couldn't you take an overall award of a contract and specifically negotiate terms for specific offices within the same contract? If those services are provided, whatever particular services they need if they're provided by that company. Cost obviously is a factor, but we have to make sure that they provide the service that that office needs. Well, I understand that. I think some of the things that I'm talking about, you may have one service that's charging the customers 5% of the total amount or our fee on top of every time they use it and then they go to another one and they're charging a different fee on that and they're going what in the world is going on and get charged $5 over here. I get charged $2 over here as a service fee. And this the same county. Why am I getting different fees that are charged to me? I've heard that complaint before. Perfectly good question that we need to figure out. Good suggestion Ron. Okay, that's good. Make sure, just one thing, you know, some of the online payments are through state contracts. I got it. Okay. He said, for instance, this one is over to counter transactions. And if you do your online vehicle registration, that's really an interesting thing. That's the portal and that's got a whole set of fees. Right. Right. As do property tax statements. And that came up. But that's our state wide system rather than a local system. Okay. C is approval of cable broadband commercial service right of entry agreement letter between time Warner New York cable LLC doing business as time warmer cable and then county to install. Okay, what is that? Curl soup. So I see you like a lot still cable system in the office of the state representative, Bert Solomon is located in the San Diego's government, Senator Carroll and Texas. Members, I'm going to move from approval on this. This is really a lot of headache, but in order for, you know, state representative, Bert Solomon is at leasing space in the San E. Jacobs government center and is chosen to contract with a cable company for cable services for TV. They had to have an agreement and they have to have a resolution from us to give them right to enter our property to put an underground line. That's what that, no, no. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Marchant, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. or property to put an underground line. That's what that, no, no. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Marchant, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Are there any questions? Any none? On favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Sainine? Motion does carry. A 14-D is approval of one. Acceptance of a donation deed from Rancho de la Rocana, L.P. to Denton County, Texas, right away for the Blackjack Road Bridge Improvement Project and two Grand Authorization to proceed with closing and approval for the Denton County Judge to sign on necessary closing documents. And this is in Commissioner Prisnington. I'm motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Eads. Questions? I'll in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed sitting. Motion to carry 14 E is approval of interlocal cooperation agreement between Dan Connie, Texas and Town of North Lake Texas for the Florence Road Improvement Project located in Italy within Dan Connie Commissioner Pristing for and partially within the municipal and women's of the Town of North Lake Texas. And this isn't Commissioner Pricing for. Members, this is a city road that we're going to be partnering with North Lake on because we're going to be repaying and for the first time actually, paving some gravel roads to be asphalt. We're going to tie the city road into our overall projects. So I'm glad we're going to be that. So with that, I'll move for approval. Motion be commissioned reads. Second. Second and by commission merchant questions. Here none on favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed sitting. Motion does carry 14F is approval of amendment to the OCD task force state and local travel agreement for the district attorney's office increasing the allotted amount for travel reimbursement by $6,000 for a total amount of $22,000. Second. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Marchant. Questions? Your none on favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Sen motion is carried 14G as approval of the performing agency contract between Denton County and the Texas Workforce Commission in the amount of 1 million five hundred I'm sorry $1,500 I bet they'd like a million $1,500 per year with funding to come from district attorney judicial purchases line item five nine three zero three five Chera move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Coleman. Did I hear that correctly? OK. All in favor, please say aye. I oppose an in motion carries 14-H as approval. Resolution to place the LOOT 288 Project West of Interstate Highway 35 from I-35 to I-35W on the State Highway system located in the Dantn County Commissioner precinct for motion by Commissioner Eads. Seconded by Commissioner Marchand, questions? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. Item 15 is executive session. 15 is executive session. Presented to Texas Government Code 551.0711A. Consultation with attorney in a closed meeting when the government will body seeks the advice of its attorney with regard to litigation pending in the 367th Judicial District Court of Denton County, Texas under cause number 2011 503 51-367. I'm sorry, in style Jack Roervers' justice to the piece court, precinct two in Joseph Holland with that were an executive session. Commissioners, court is reconvened from executive session. Actually, I have two court orders for item 15A. The first one is, and this will be my motion, to assign assistant district attorney Claire Yancey to represent the honorable James R. D. Piazza in cause number 2011, 503, 51, 367, style jackbrow versus justice of the Peace Court, precinct two and Joseph Holland pending in the 367th judicial court of Denton, County Texas, that's one motion. Need a second? Seconded by Commissioner Eads, All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the Senate? Motion carries and the second order is to assign assistant district attorney, Hardy Burke, to represent the honorable Joseph Holland in the same cause number or style, Jack Ruehler versus Justice of Peace Court, precinct two in Joseph Holland, pending in the 367th Judicial District Court of Denton, County, Texas. That's my motion. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the Cine? Motion does carry. OK. You all have a great day. Stay cool. We're adjourned.