I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. you I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. I'm going to do it. you you you Good morning ladies and gentlemen, Dillon County Commission's Court for Tuesday, September 14th is now in session. This morning, your invocation will be given by Mr. Jim Heath and our pledges to be led by Cynthia Mitchell, our county clerk will you please stand. Now your heads please. Heavenly Father, we thank you for this day, for this country, this state, this court, and Father, may the actions of this court be in your pleasure and all those things. And Father, please be with all the people who are suffering throughout the world from natural calamities and whatnot, and be with all of our service people throughout the world, and bring them home safe and sound. Now name you pray amen. Please join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation of God invisible with liberty and justice for all. Honour the Texas flag, our pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one and indivisible. Thank you. Item one on the agenda is for public input. For items not posted on the agenda. If we have any member of the public that would like to address Commissioner's Court, we ask that you please complete a public comment form. We'd be glad to hear from you. I want to remind everyone to please turn off your cell phones and pages. I have three public comment forms. The first one is from Patsy, Missouri. Good morning and for the record if you would state your name and address. Good morning, Patsy, Missouri, 1821 Castle Court, Flower Mound, Texas. Excuse me, on Monday, September 7th, Flower Mound Town Council members, Al Faladoro, Tom Hayden, and Steven Leida voted to use transportation funds funded by Denton County Voters in the Trip 08 Bond election to construct private fences on private residential property. Originally the fences were to be constructed as part of phase one of the Morris-Gerot widening but at Mondays Flower Mound Town Council meeting our three council members kept the fences as part of phase one but pushed back the widening of phase two to 2020. For those who might not understand, these three flower mound councilmen are giving private fences to private residences, but not widening a road that was approved by the voters in a Denton County bond election. And they're doing it with Denton County Transportation funds. Morris Road is in precinct three, so I called precinct three Commissioner Bobby Mitchell, as well as precinct four commissioners and the Eats with my concerns two weeks ago. They both preside over areas of flower mound. Both relate to me that the town manager, Harlan Jefferson assured them that the road would be widened by 2014. Well, I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so. This road is now slated to be widened by 2020, 2020, falls outside the parameters of the guidelines, set forth in the Trip-O-8 bond election, and honestly, I want to know, first is this illegal, and second, what are you all gonna do about this? As Denton County commissioners, you were the storage of this bond money. The buck stops with you. As one of your constituents and as a voter who voted in that bond election, specifically for Moore's Road, I want to know, what is my recourse? What about all those other residents of Denton County? I don't think they'd be happy to know the transportation funds they approved went for fences instead of road projects. Maybe this money could be or should be used in another part of the county. I truly believe once 2499 opens to Corinth, Flower Mound will be in dire need of another North South corridor, but our three councilmen who are not, by the way, traffic engineers, they don't think so. And are we setting a precedent? Maybe if other Denton County residents find out about the free fences in Flower Mound, they too will want to use Denton County residents find out about the free fences in Flower Mound, they too will want to use Denton County Transportation funds for fencing instead of roads. By the time 2020 rolls around, the fences will be 10 years old. How is that beautification of the corridor? And how long is our financial duty as taxpayers to maintain these fences? The bottom line, these three Flower Mound Councilmen have hijacked the best interests of all Denton County voters who voted for improved infrastructure throughout the county. No matter how you slice it, this is a misappropriation of taxpayer dollars. And I want to know what you're going to do about it. The voters of Denton County deserve better. Give it to us. Thank you. Thank you. We have a copy of that. Thank you. We have, you know, we have a copy of that. You. Okay. What's in the voting special? Civil. Sylvia, in voting. Good morning, Judge, commissioners. My name is Sylvia Inbaugh, and I live at 2017, Brookville Lane, and Flar Mount Texas. I'm sorry to be redundant in here, but the voters of Denton County approved a bond, which included the widening of Morris Road. The President Town Council has delayed this work until 2020, which is one year after the bond expires, yet they have approved the building of fences, private fences, for those who live along the corridor. I want to know if this falls under something that may be considered illegal, and I would like this Commissioner's Court to do something about it. If the town of Flower Mound is permitted to spend bond monies in this manner, how will future bonds be affected? Will voters be willing to approve bonds only to have the monies spent on other items other than what was included in the bond. Will they lose faith with the bond process? I believe it's a trust issue with the voters. When we go to those polls and we vote to approve those bonds, we trust that that money is going to be spent for what that bond specifically states. And you know, several of you appear are dear friends to me. And I certainly don't mean to disparage you in any way. But you're kind of our last resource to go to, to protect us. And I know there's a lot of voters out there that are just in law land. They're not paying attention to this. But if they were someone more than knock on their door and say, how do you feel about this, they're going to be livid. And it will affect future bonds, I believe. Thank you and good morning. Thank you. Just to clarify, since this is not a posted agenda item, we are prohibited by law from responding to your remarks, but I assure you this will be looked into. We have one last public comment form. It's from Jean Levinit. Good morning and again for the record please state your name in the address. Absolutely. My name is Jean Levinit 2716, gentle drive in Flower Mound. Good morning commissioners. As a former Flower Mound Council member, I was dismayed and quite frankly shocked by a recent item in the Flower Mound Council that Flower Mound Council approved. On September 7, 2010, the Flower Mound Council voted 3-2 to quote, approve a resolution amending and superseding resolution 2-0-09 regarding the design and implementation of the Morris Jiro Capacity Improvement Project to modify the trigger for initiating phase 2 of the Morris Jiro Capacity Improvement Project with the earliest possible date to initiate construction beginning January 1, 2020. Partial funding for this project stems from the Denton County Trip 08 funding, which was voted on by almost 70% of Denton County voters. The restrictions of the funding for this bond state that the entire project needs to be completed within 10 years of the funding agreement or in this case May 2019. However, as you have heard from the above motion, the Flower Mound Council has voted at the earliest possible date for construction to begin the widening of the corridor is January 1, 2020, almost a year after the deadline to use the funds has passed. The town of Laramont has pages and pages of information on its website regarding the Morris Jero project. One of the town statements is, quote, if the change in scope included eliminating the capacity improvements, additional lanes, to Morris or Jero, the town would be required to cancel the RTR and County Bonn project and return the funds to the RTC and request the county to reallocate the funds to other projects." The flower amount assistant town manager has stated that if the funds are not used on the capacity improvement to the Morris Jero corridor, the town could move the funds to another project. So which is it? Without the widening of the Morse Road, are the Denton County funds returned to Denton County to reallocate within the county, or does far amount use the funds for another project? I spoke briefly with you, Commissioner Eads, that I believe the expansion of the corridor was in jeopardy. I conveyed my apprehension that a phase two of the project was put on hold. The private residential fences included in phase one of the project, but within the phase two corridor would still be completed. You assured me that would not happen. I am here today asking for clarification from you, my county commissioners, on the facts regarding the allocation of the Denton County Trip 08 funds. The town of Flourmont is continuing with the beautification of the entire corridor, including new fences, sidewalks, and landscaping, however, without the expansion of the corridor. I believe the funds are being used inappropriately. The residents of Denton County has spoken with their votes. They desire the expansion of the Morris Truro Road from FM 2499 to FM 407. I respectfully ask that you take action on this item. Thank you. expansion of the Morris Truro Road from FM 2499 to FM 407. I respectfully ask that you take action on this item. Thank you. Thank you all for being here this morning. We appreciate you. I mean, Judge, can I ask John if he would again investigate this and see in what, if anything that we can do. I know we don't allocate the fines until we get the invoice from the town of Flower Mound, saying what they've done, and then we allocate the fines, even though we've got an interlocal agreement that says that we're going to give them that $5.5 million, and that's in my precinct, and so can you start investigating their fourth place? and that's in my precinct and so can you start investigating that for us please? I'll certainly look at it and get in contact with our transportation consultant and come up with a good idea of what's really going on here. Okay. That's all we can do this morning ladies but we thank you all for coming. Okay let's go to item two on the agenda which is a consent agenda members are there items on the consent agenda that you need to pull for further consideration or discussion or do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Eanes. Seconded by Commissioner Marchant. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Sennene? Motion does carry. Consenda agenda today consists of approval of the order making appointments, which is 2A. We have a new hire in the county clerk's office, new hire and technology services, a lateral transfer in the civil division. Two promotions within the civil division. Two new hires in the county jail. One, re-hires in the county jail, one re-higher in the county jail, promotion of road bridge east, new hire in juvenile probation services and a re-higher in juvenile probation services. 2B is approval of the Intra Department of Transfers, 2C is approval of payroll, 2D is approval of the budget amendment request, 102210 for ammunition, taser, supplies and operandies, supplies for ammunition, taser, supplies, and operating supplies for a Constable Precinct III, any amount of $1325. To E is approval of the Budget Amendment request 1022050 for various line items for Commissioner Precinct IV, any amount of $2,190. To EF is approval of the Budget Amendment-260 for various line-in-lines for shares department in the amount of $107,591.2G is approval of Budget Amendment Quest 102-270 for various line-in-lines for various technology services budgets in the amount of $38,180.2H is approval of building usage requests from the Christ community church of Denton to use the courthouse on the square lawn in basement restroom on Sunday September 19, 2010 from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. for the purpose of a church gathering baptism in picnic to I is a provol building usage request from Denton Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to use the courthouse on the square Line for the purpose of Fiesta on the Square on Friday, September 24, 2010, from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. and 2J as approval of the building use request from Denton Hispanic Chamber of Commerce to use the Courtaus on the Square Line for the purpose of World Fest on the Square on Saturday, September 25, 2010 from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Diana is not here yet so we'll move on to 5 a.m. which is approval of the bill report payments from CSCD, Community Corrections, T.A.I.P. shares, Training Shares, Profeature, V.I.T., Interest, D.H.E. Check V. in D.A. forfeiture funds are presented for recording purposes only. Good morning, James Welth. Good morning, Judge and commissioners. I'd ask approval bills with the nine deletions that are detailed on separate page. It all had various processing problems. We'll correct those and process them correct right next week. There are two additions for earnest money for road contracts that have been previously approved by the court. That's all corrections I have. Thank you. Are the questions that we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Eans. Seconded by Commissioner Marchion. Hearing no questions on favor, please say aye. Aye. Post-Sanine. Motion does carry. 6A is approval of award of RFP 05102033, Pharmaceutical Jail Health to accept. Excellent. Next, correctional pharmacy services. And we'll call on Beth Lening. Good morning. We did have five firms respond to this RFP and through the valuation process it was determined that Maxor provided the best overall proposal based on the evaluation criteria. They are our current provider and have provided satisfactory service. The estimated value of this contract is about $360,000 a year and it is used by Jill help for their inmates. The contract requires that makes or give Dint and Candoloas possible between three established processing structures and that is a new processing structure for us that we believe will allow us to control costs better and it will also be easier to audit. So we're recommending approval this morning, both Bing Burton and Doug Sanders assisted in this process and we appreciate their help. Thank you, I have a question to move the court. Thank you, we have a motion by Commissioner Marchin. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, hearing no questions on favor please say aye. Aye. Post-Cinney. Motion is carried. Members, I'd like to jump to item 13D. 13D is approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Denton and Harris counties for the loan of voting equipment. Good morning. Frank, how are you? Good morning. I can August 27th, Harris County had a warehouse fire that was stored in large portion of their voting equipment. So they've made an appeal to counties that use a light system, the hard-intercept system, and we have 25 extra judges' booth controllers, KBCs that we can loan to them. You'll notice in my backup, I recommended that we not charge them, but after talking with a civil division in some neighboring counties that are also long in equipment, we think it's probably best that we charge our normal rental rate, which is $105 a piece. Probably my recommendation. Or what period of time? Well, the time period that they need it, it's not per day, it's for one time. They want time, $105 a piece charge. For one election, and then you get your half or in them again, or return it right? Correct. Correct. They will, I talked to Brian yesterday, for one election and we get your half-around them again or return it right correct they will I talked to Brian yesterday down in Harris County they're going to use the the shipper that they normally use to send out their equipment they're going to come up here and hit Tarrant County down County so we don't have to ship it or anything they'll come get it or excess or our backup correct we have 38 extra based on our allocation for November. So we feel comfortable and loaning them 25. That'll leave us 13 spares. Questions, please. No, actually. No. No, actually, no. They did a very good job in their interlocal at taking on all the liability for any equipment that didn't function. Thank you, are there any other questions? Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Chair, we'll second hearing no questions on favor. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed to need. Motion is carried. God forbid it ever happens to us. Okay, let's go now to item 8c. I'm trying to be considered as some people's time here 8c is approval of the request from the County Park Cinque Mitchell for a salary adjustment for the courts manager Good morning. Good morning As you probably remember I made a presentation to the court about reorganizing the court's section on a trial basis. This was last year, November sometime. And while we didn't take formal action, it was put out there for your support in advance as I didn't want to go and step off into something that I didn't know a you knew about and be that you would support should it work out. Bless you. What we were trying to accomplish was manage the courts in the most effective manner so that we streamline, we're efficient, and the courts operate both the civil side, probate side, and the criminal side, both operate as similarly as possible, which has really been a successful project. As you know, we put Andrea Kinney, who was the chief of criminal, above all courts. And what we were asking at the time was the vacant position for the department supervisor in civil. Should this work, we were asking for Andreas to be reclassified through the reclassification process. And the department supervisor in the civil department to be downgraded to another assistant department supervisor. It would have been pretty close to a zero budget impact at that point in time. We weren't exactly sure how the reclassification process would go to make a really long story, try not to make it longer. What I'm asking for is to go ahead and do this with a zero budget impact. for is to go ahead and do this with a zero budget impact. It was not communicated through the budget process in the manner that I had hoped. However, whether that was my fault, I'm certainly not blaming Amy because it's one of those kind of, in my opinion, it's a weird reclassification request. It's not typical because it was contingent upon a the trial period working out and b downgrading the other position to increase, I never ever intended this request to have an impact on the budget. Not at all. So it, for me, the one request of our quest of Andriel was contingent upon this working out to downgrade the other department supervisor. And so Donna was kind enough to say that because this was going to be a zero impact, we could look at this after the budget process concluded last week, but not before because when I was notified of the reclassification request, it was too late in the budget process to come before you again to do it during the budget process. I do have other reclassification requests that I consider very typical reclassification requests. People's jobs are not congruent with their responsibilities, their pay was not congruent with their responsibilities, and those reclassification requests were approved in the budget process as other reclases, and we're not funded, and I am certainly not, although I'm not thrilled, I can't say that I am. I respect what you guys have to do during the budget process, and I'm not complaining, I'm not asking for any of those to be addressed this in my opinion is an atypical request And so that's why I'm here outside of a budget typical budget process Although it's close Other questions Members of court I mean were you just having problems with it because we were not able to Give the other employees who were reclassified a court. So Amy, were you just having problems with it because we were not able to give the other employees who were reclassified a salary adjustment and this one is then adjusted? I can't recommend it for that reason. Yeah, there were about 94 positions in the last two years that have been recommended and approved for reclassification and the only ones that received a pay adjustment were those below minimum. This one's not below minimum. So in the United States, I disagree that it's different than the others. And so I see it as the same as the others and that's why I didn't recommend it. Okay, it's not below minimum, Cindy. So why would you think this one needed to be? The increase of responsibility going from a department supervisor of the criminal section to the courts manager over all courts is a huge leap in responsibility. And even during the reclassification process, it was discussed of how much more, and I think that there was some support for readjusting her salary to quite a bit higher than what it ended up. But because of equity and other issues, I think they correctly reclassified it, but there's not really another position in our administrative realm that I know of that has as much responsibility and required knowledge base. I mean, to understand civil law is very complex. To understand the criminal case flow is complex and all of the nuance and laws and fees and when things apply and when things don't and when other departments have it incorrectly brought forward or transferred. And then to understand probate. And to have a real working knowledge of all of those areas of law is something that we don't ask our attorneys to do. It's not something that's done and I really, I cannot support having her in this position for any length of time outside of our trial period and not be compensated for all that she's had to step up to do. It's not an amine I disagree and this is not personal amine I know this is this is not weird we're not our hearts aren't in this but but by God I cannot sit there and ask someone to continue a job that is that far above what they are currently supposed to be doing and paid to do. I just can't do it. It is promotion. It is a promotion. It is a promotion. Commissioner, I feel like I agree with Cindy that it's a big leap in responsibility that there were several positions that were huge leaps in responsibility that were recommended to go up two, three, four pay grades because it was such a big leap in responsibility. And I guess that's where you know, we see it differently. I saw all the reclass requests. I heard a lot of the discussion. Cindy was involved with her reclass request. I heard a lot of the discussion. Cindy was involved with her reclass request and her discussion. And so we don't look at it the same way. And I also feel like it's not really relevant whether there's a budget impact or not because none of the rest of us had the opportunity. None of the department other departments had an opportunity to go back and look for money in their own budget that could have been reallocated so that they had no budget in them. Now I totally disagree with that Amy. First of all, each elected official has a responsibility to bring forth responsible requests regardless of whether you know, however they want to staff their office or look at jobs and look at responsibilities. The difference is, I did this ahead of time. I brought this up in advance before I ever started the trial period. I did it as a responsible elected official. I offered a funding solution. The fact that it didn't get through the budget process in the manner that I had originally requested, you know, if that's my responsibility, I'll take full responsibility for it. But I do believe that I brought forth a responsible request with a funding mechanism. And that's why I think it's a very different request. Is it necessarily different from other elected officials? You know, I do have a member of my staff that sits on the Reclassification Committee. And so I do hear about other reclassification requests and some are big and some aren't. And like I said, I've got other reclassification requests and some are big and some aren't. And like I said, I've got other reclassification requests. This is not a typical reclassification request because A, it was brought to you ahead of time. B, I offered a funding solution before and just because other elected officials either can't or haven't, that's outside of the request that I've got before you right now. I have a question. That's outside of the request that I've got before you right now. I have a question now Amy. I talked to you about some other salary inequities last week. Isn't that correct? That's correct. That wasn't related to this. You know, I've been approached by other employees, maybe some patrol deputies who have been working, you know, six, seven, eight years longer than recent hires who who are making upwards of four, five, six thousand dollars less. And I told them, you know, really, I think it was a tremendous amount of inequity, but it really needs to be addressed during the budget process. And as far as I'm concerned, the book is closed for the year. I'm all four, for our employees with additional responsibility gaining additional income. I just, you know, I'm torn because, whereas I'd like to see us, you know, pair employees more, I just think at some point we kind of need to draw the line. So I'm not real sure what I would do. I'd have to. Donna, so can you explain to me how this perculated well as far as the reclassification equity request there were two positions I believe that the original committee recommended approving one of them was taking a position from a department supervisor grade 13 to an assistant department supervisor grade 13 to an assistant department supervisor grade 10. That reclassification was approved during the budget process when you all made a motion to approve what you did along with the upgrade for the department, the court's manager position. Cindy's solution to that would be to take the assistant department supervisor that is vacant at this time and we do the salary accordingly to pay for this. Is that correct? What happens when we hire that person? They can spot the department supervisor. They can hire at the lower level. But if they're recommended, what if we find, what if we find super employee who qualifies for a lot bigger in salary? What do we do at this point? Yeah, this is by policy. Well, typically actually, it's our discretion because we set the salary reason. We set the slots for certain to our policy policy which is interpreted through Amy. Well, I mean, we can fund it through salary attrition. We can do all sorts of stuff. I certainly wouldn't be able to do that. I'm not saying I'm not forward. I'm just seeing where this could be problematic. Yeah, it is. I have a question. This is not about saying. Have a vacancy and it's filled. And we've had those where it's a budget impact. Is there higher than at a higher level than the previous? Don't need to have a budget impact. You know, who went down that path? We've had a position open at the department supervisor level in my office for almost an entire budget year. With the turnover that I have just naturally, there is always attrition in the county clerks. So, I mean, there are large departments do have a lot. We're not talking, squeezing That's what I'm saying. That's not about yours, but we do have positions come in that do impact the budget. To me, I know there's no budget impact. I just, it makes me feel, it makes me feel queasy when we are shifting money from one position to another, because there's a reason we spend all that time setting you know the budget for those employees. You just did with minimal information. I think it seemed to think we work hard on the budget. I don't have a problem her switching the positions you know I think that served her right to do. The problem that I'm keep hearing is that the other employees that were reclassified did not get the salary increase. You know, I think it's a right if she wants to downgrade that position and, you know, and switch those positions as long as she has the money to pay for it. I'm not my question. Right. And the reason this was a package deal was because if it didn't work out as the courts and switch those positions as long as she has the money. Pay for it. I'm not my question. Right, Erin. And the reason this was a package deal was because if it didn't work out as the courts manager, I can't put Andrea back as a department supervisor and not have a department supervisor over criminal or civil probate. So now that action's been taken to downgrade that position, that's why it wasn't two separate requests, it was a package deal. So if Andrea didn't get the reclass and get the promoted position, then I'm kind of left with one person who really... So did we in the budget downgrade the other position? Yes. You remove the money from? Remind me when you first brought this to the court's attention November before we actually started the trial period which was gonna be January through You know May June before we had to get our actual budget request put in You know I put in, you know, our budget process kind of makes being creative and efficient sometimes difficult. You know, you've got to think enough far in advance to actually try something but still do it early enough to actually make it through the budget request process. So thank you. Are there any other questions or members of the court? Do we have a motion? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. There are no further questions. Comments. On a favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to say aye. I'm going to say aye, but I'm going to reluctantly say aye. Because I think it does cause problems with me. I'm going to say aye. I'm going to say aye, but I'm going to look to at least say aye. Because I think it does cause problems with me. Otherwise, because I also have other. Right. I also have other reclassifications in my office that are not going to be funded this year. I understand this in my mind is very different. Post-Sainee and I believe we have a unanimous vote. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go to item 8 on the agenda. I have a guest with us this morning and I'm trying to be considered of everyone's time. Oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry, not item eight, nine to three. Item three, A, is a presentation from Diana Congevack, executive director of the PBC, the public employees benefits cooperative in regard to the changes to the Denton County Benefit Plan, effective January 1, 2011. Good morning, Diana. Good morning, Judge. I was traffic this morning. Little adventurous. We're glad you made it safe and sound. Well, for long. Thank you. All right, please. Thank you. Okay. Sorry for the delay. Okay. Okay. Sorry for the delay. Okay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. Sorry for the delay. and I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to add some salt. I'm going to put it on the back side. Well, they're working on that. Let's go ahead with some of these budget amendments. 7A is approval of budget amendment quest 102-2004. Court appointed attorneys and court appointed attorney family, including the transfer of funds from non-departmental and appropriated court order contingency for 367th District Court in the amount of $67,000. Chair, I move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Marchion. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Sen. Motion carries. 7B is approval budget amendment quest 102-230 for court appointed attorneys. In court appointed attorneys family, including the transfer of $35,000 from non-departmental and appropriate court order contingency for $73,910 from regular contingency for 158th District Court for a total amendment of $129,000. Motion by Commissioner Marchand. Seconded by Commissioner Coleman. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Seneen. Motion does carry. 7C is approval. Budget amendment quest 102240. To increase revenues and allocate expenditures for salary assistance, benefits and various operating line items for shared governance, communication and dispatch service system for shares, communication division, any amount of $158,312. Chair, I move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. Questions? On favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sen. Motion thus carried. Seven D is approval. Budget amendment quest 102-280. For salary assistance benefits, including the transfer of $41,025 from non-departmental personnel. Contingency in various line items within departmental budgets for salary assistance and 66,878 dollars for a total amendment of 107,903 dollars Motion by Commissioner Mitchell Seconded by Commissioner Marchand on favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Sen. On as that the example I would you? I'm sorry person for Is this for Trishin or the life there of this is a variety of reasons some of it is due to the extra day of pay that we had in the county this year that we don't specifically budget for. Typically it's covered by attrition. There is I think one instance maybe where the district clerk hard. Several positions above budget and we're having to fund that on this amendment so that may be. That's that's your question. There are a few on here that and it's a smaller department. They don't have that much turnover So it's harder for them to fund when they're hired a bad budget whereas other departments large departments can be that The court's always given them the flexibility to hire based on based on the qualifications of the individual applicant And then we have to come up with the money to pay for it? Yes, ma'am. It's not operating within the budget. That's correct. And in that specific department, that's correct. We they hire, can pursue, into the policy we set. That's true. We need to change that policy. Well, that's not really fair to advance any further in a large department or small department. The large department has that flexibility of attrition to work with and a small department just doesn't. This for example is that you can bring hands from behind the most qualified person they feel they should be in their office. I have a question. Just for example, is the district clerk bigger or smaller than the county clerk? It's quite a bit smaller. The district clerk is smaller than the county clerk. It's quite a bit smaller. The district clerk is smaller than the county clerk. It's for us, number of employees just are. Yeah. And let me also flare a fire. For whenever new hires are approved during the budget process, we typically budget those at minimum. Very rarely or thus filled at minimum. But we choose to budget the lower amount, hoping that they'll be made, you know, it'll be made up for with the tradition. This year, as you all know, we just don't have turnover and departments weren't able to do that. Now you'll see on this amendment, several of the sheriff's budgets, we were able to amend from their county jail attrition to cover their other shortages in their other budgets. So when we can, we certainly try to tap into their attrition funds to cover any of their departments in the district clerk's office, for example. I don't have that flexibility. That's awesome. That they can keep the position anybody could. I'm not just not about the district clerk, but need to keep that position open an extra week and have a situation. I mean, I think we need to know when we're going through those new hires, whether this is a budget impact or not. If all things were considered for the rest of the year. And each iron. I feel we're going to take a look at that policy. And on the order making appointment forms at all, it does stay if they're going about budget or not. But they also could be if somebody left and they had a lot of vacation and constantly. Absolutely. That happens too. This is all a combination of cleanup for the end of the year. It just so happened that in her case and I'm not picking on her but that is an example of where sometimes we do have to come up with funding. I want to take a look at the policy. Okay. They're still working. So we didn't have any unanimous vote on 7B just for the record. Him. Let's keep going. 7E is approval budget member quest 102 290. To increase revenues and advocate expenditures for overtime OCD, task force, DEA benefits for sheriff's office, organized crime drug task force, in the amount of 1313,873. I move for approval. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to say aye. Motion carries. 7-F is approval of Budget Member Quest 102-30-00. Increased revenues now, accate expenditures for overtime. OCD, that's ETF, task force benefits for sheriff's service, organized crime, drug task force, any amount of $62,913. How many for approval? Mr. McKenzie, Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Marchand. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, sitting. Motion does carry, 7G is approval of Budget Member Quest 102-3 102 310 for transfer to DCEA insurance fund including the transfer of funds from non-departmental and appropriated health insurance contingency. The transfer of funds in the amount All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to say aye. Motion carries. And 7-H is approval. Budget member request 102-320 for outside council including the transfer of funds from non-departmental and appropriated regular contingency for non-departmental and the amount of $58,685. So moved. I have a couple of questions on that. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell Mitchell the chair will second commission colon. I'm Donna Can you can you elicit what? Where are these matters that have taken up and gone over our budgeted expenses on these outside? I'm sorry. Could you repeat your question? I was trying to get my computer to them. So they can what's what are the specific items that have caused this to be gone over budget? This amendment is necessary to cover a current $11,000 shortage in the line item. But there are mainly three individual firms that have been hired by the court to represent cases such as correctional health issues, the DAEEOC lawsuit, the Lamar advertising suit, and I think some condemnation of suits. So these are, I tried to spell out how much we had paid to each one. Right. Pretty to help if I tell you which case is tied to... Yeah, I was trying to figure that out. Which case was... I was trying to figure that out. Which case was, because I was trying to figure out which, whoop. I was trying to figure out what, which is the case that we are handling with Strasbourg in price? It's Lamar. That's Lamar advertising. The Matthew Stein. That being handled by Ryder Scott and he's a bigger staff in Slyling. No, he's, that's not his farm. Oh, he's left. He's better than the crossbar. In their long time. I haven't done business with bigger staff in years and years. Oh, okay. All right. And answer your question. So the Matthew Stein shields, that's the DA case. That's a correctional health lawsuit. Okay, so fanning Harper. That's the one. That's the DA EEOC suit. That's the one that's $70,000. Yeah, $39.110 has been spent today. And the DA's office estimated an additional $30,000 is needed before the end of September. Based on building, a lot of the bills are only in through July or June or July, so we're anticipating a couple of more minutes of building on those. And I received the estimates from all the people in the DA civil division or estimated some on my own for stress, for stress, for the stress worker. We have a motion in the second on the floor. Any further questions? No, I might talk to John Felt, but I'm going to abstain on this. I need to. John, my sister-in-law didn't realize that we were playing, you know, my sister-in-law is a partner at Strasper. Okay. On favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sitting. I'm sitting. I'm sitting. Yeah. Foreign favor, none opposed. One abstention. Are we still having technical difficulties? I think they're going to bring you some hard copies in just a moment. Okay. Let's take a five minute break here while they regroup. Okay. Commission's quarters. We can be and of course since we've been waiting, got copies made and now the PowerPoint is working, right? Right. Well, working there, I don't have it here, but I don't need it. We can see it, so. Can you hear me all right? Yeah. Okay. Good morning, judging commissioners. I'm glad to be here this morning to tell you a little bit about changes that we have to the PBC, EPO and PPO medical plans effective 2011. Some of these changes are precipitated by a change in one of our vendors and some are precipitated by health care reform and some are a combination of both. By regardless, this is just to give you kind of a bird's eye view of what's happening, so you know what's going to happen in January 1. First of all, we sell the same health plan, the EPA on the PPO plan, except that United Healthcare will be replacing health smart as the network for both the EPA and the PPO plan. They will also be the claims payer for 2011. And in some cases, there are some additional services that we will have beginning in 2011 as a result of our new relationship. I just want to make you aware that our prescription drug manager or PBM as we refer to it express scripts is still intact for 2011 as is MHN for our mental health programs connected to EAP and the self-unded plans. At the same time, we're making this change, of course, as in the news every day, healthcare reform is happening concurrently. And the unfortunate thing there is that we continue to get guidance on some of the changes, much has been done, much we are aware of but there's really not going to stand in our way to do what we need to be doing for 2011. Just to tell you a little bit about the timing of a request for proposals that we did this summer at the P.A.B.C., our P.A.C. Board approved self-funded medical plan RFP in April. Towers Watson, who's our project consultant for the P.B.C. was engaged to assist us in that endeavor. We timely advertised and released the R.F.P. in early March proposals were due June 2nd. We received proposals from Etna, Blue Cross Blue Shield, SIGNA, United Health Care, and our incumbent health smart. And on July 28th, the PBC Board unanimously approved United Health Care is our vendor for 2011. And so our implementation, which is quite extensive, at our end, to you and to your members, you feel very little, other than being made aware of things. But we have an enormous amount of work we do in short order and we started that immediately once our board approved the new vendor. We have just to tell you a little bit about our process. We have a very thorough RFP process at the PBC. I'm housed at North Central Texas Council of Governments and in conjunction with their RFP rules, we run our RFP processes there. Each proposal was received, summarized, discussed with multiple meetings with Towers Watson over the information provided to us. Their actuaries and other staff helped us review the financial information. Of course, we base our findings on our PEDC utilization, not so much regional, national, whatever. We know what our utilization is among the participating groups. And so we measure the impact of such a change with our utilization. We had follow up with a written Q&A process with our vendors. Again, we used Towers Watson resources to help us analyze the information. We do have a combination of administrative fees and potential savings or what we refer to as provider discounts that we review and naturally we check references. With this RFP, because it's a large RFP, I asked that we have an RFP committee made up of participation from each of our member groups, which we did. We had great participation in that committee. It was, they donated their time over the summer. Of course, Denton County was well represented in that group. And we actually identified three vendors for presentation purposes, Etna's Sagan and United Healthcare. And in those presentations, we were specifically asking two things. One, we wanted a to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the public sector to ask the what they have in the queue right now, what's coming, how we might benefit from that. That was the purpose of the presentation. And then following all of the various meetings, we met four times with the committee, United Health Care, DIDS for high-sovereign with additional opportunity for future savings and cost control. Just to tell you a little bit about our expectations, we believe that based on the data that we reviewed that we will have better network discounts or savings in some areas, not all areas. But when we combine it with the administrative fees, we pay, even though those administrative fees will be higher than we're paying today when you combine it. We still believe there's potential savings over and above what we would have next year if we did not make the change. And if you combine all the PBC groups together, we estimated 7.1 million, which is about 5 to 9 percent depending on what we're looking at. Strictly for medical, not pharmacy, not mental health, or any other benefits, strictly for medical. And of course, that's always dependent on how the plan is utilized. We kind of used the approach that if we took the same population, the same exact age went to the same exact doctors for the same exact purpose and just lift it and transition it forward with trend changes and things that we know would change how much with that impact us so we can kind of get an apples to apples comparison. To make sure that we are absolutely making an investment in every member of the PBC Health Plans. We are now going to be having above and beyond the extensive care management that the United Health Care performs. We're going to have targeted disease-managed programs in three specific areas. These are not the only three areas forever, but this is where we're going to start. And we're going to look at asthma with air quality in North Texas being what it is. It's highly utilized situation. We're looking at asthma, diabetes, and coronary heart disease. We know with United Health Care, we will have additional online resources, very user friendly. We also know that we will be targeting with written communications as well and I'm going to speak to that in a moment. And additional telephonic resources, so if folks have questions they can get information or if they don't have access to a computer. We do know that information will be forwarding to you and your employees starting this month that comes from my group and we're working with United Health Care from the medical perspective to make sure everybody is aware of what's changing. Much of that, by the way, there is no change. The biggest change of all is that there'll be a new ID card with the name United Healthcare on it. In many cases the networks are identical. They're such a close match. It's uncanny. I think we're in the 98% range or they're about. So the plan is the same, different network, different claims payer. Now, I wanted to talk a little bit about health care reform. And this is not the only components of health care reform, or they're not the only components. But they're the key ones that typically people are asking about. This information will be coming even before annual enrollment begins in November so that folks will know how it's going to affect their plan, their EPR or PPO medical plan. First of all, beginning January 1, a dependent covered up to age 26 can enroll in our medical plan. The PDC board elected to have that applied to the dental plan and the vision plan as well. So that means if we have a 25-year-old dependent that came off the plan this year, they can get back on in January if the employee enrolls them. It also means that even if they were never on the plan before, they can enroll, provided the employees and one of your employees. And also, they can be married. Now when I say they can be married that means the dependence can be married. So if you have a 26 year old child, I hate to say 26 year old is a child. 26 year old dependent. The children, the men who is married, the spouse and their children cannot enroll. It's for your employees adult child only. There are going to be additional preventive services as a result of health care reform. When I actually reviewed this with all the preventive services we supplied today, there's really very little change. But regardless, we're going to explain what those items are so that people don't get confused or think that they're entitled to more than what we already provide. There will be a new appeals process which will allow for an external review for a medical review. Not, I believe I should be eligible on talking about a medical condition. One thing you may or may not be aware of is that beginning in 2011, flexible spending accounts cannot be used for over-the-counter medications unless you have a prescription. Now the key word here is medications because other things you can still use it for. For example, if you wear contacts, if you need reading glasses, I'll pass mine to any indication you'd buy somewhere. But those things are still allowable contact lens solution bandages and we'll absolutely define that for folks so that they're aware. But in 2011 what's going to happen is that, unless you have a prescription, you cannot use your flexible spending account to reimburse, let's say, for a bottle of aspirin or cold meditation. That does not mean the prescription drug client covers it, just because you need a prescription. It just means that you can use your flexible to reimburse if you have a prescription. So we'll have lots of information about that this year. And also another thing you need to know is that there is going to be a change in W2 reporting. This is probably the piece of information that I've seen the most false information about. I've had people forward me emails from many resources that believe that because it's on the W2 form, it's a taxable benefit with income tax withheld or Social Security tax withheld. That is not true. It's a reporting mechanism only. It gets the aggregate value of medical information. We have a list of what's included in that. And that reporting value, we even provide to each of our groups today. So we'll make sure it's clarified for each of our participating member groups. But it is not a taxable benefit on your W2 form. However, it's still a pre-tax benefit when it comes to you don't have to have it on your W2 form and have tax taken out. I hope I didn't confuse anybody. The key word is it is still not a taxable benefit. It's a reporting mechanism only. And yes ma'am. I would just as remarked to the last part say yes. Pardon me? As a remark to the reporting on the W.A.2 not taxable yet. Well that is certainly a component that people are thinking about I'm no different in that regard. The one is to get our ducks on the road so they know how much money they can get from it. They tell us now again. Yeah. That one other question though, that is on the over the counter medications needing a prescription. What are we supposed to do with that prescription? You don't give it to the pharmacy to buy cough medicine. You will send it in for reimbursement with your reimbursement information. Right. Which you can in our world, you can do that online with pay-plex and get reimbursed the next day. There is another component to this. I don't know if you remember, but there was about two years ago quite an impact to every retailer and pharmacy in the nation, because they had to install through the use of debit cards. They had to install an IRS approved, inventory approval system, which basically meant when they swiped the debit card, the only things that were allowable to be charged on that were items that were truly reimbursable. We do not have the final guidance yet on how this is going to work with a debit card come January 1. I can tell you this. The government has already said they're not going to make any big waves of anything until January 15th or later, that there's lots of debate going on as to how are all these retailers and pharmacies supposed to now handle the prescription with a debit card. We, when we send out information this year, in fact it's one of the first pieces I'm going to send out so people are aware in the end of September, early October, what's coming. One of the things that I would recommend is that in January, if you do bind over the counter and you do get the prescription, if you can go online and file the claim online and get reimbursed, there'll be no issue because you will have to fax in the prescription with it. So there'll be no issue that way. The dilemma today is how does a retailer know there's a prescription? And that we don't have the answer yet. Hasn't been finalized yet. It's one of those interim final categories. Okay, thank you. I can tell you, when I was comment on the W2, the initial intent, not the only intent, I can't speak for anyone else, the initial intent of the reporting on the W2 has to do with the federal government wanting to know, needing to know how many employers provide health plans and how much does it cost in total. It's a lead up to 2014 when there will be significant changes in health care. So what can we do in the interim? And this is a piece. Every place I go, I'm asking people to really emphasize this to every department, every meeting, anything connected with health care benefits. Employees really need to read the enrollment communications. There will be numbers provided if there's questions. Your HR department has an enormous amount of information and it's a great resource. We mail those packets to everyone's home. The information will be available on the PEBC website. We give information about that. We use email pliers. We use manual information, telephonic. But the bottom line is that it's sort of like, on topic of the IRS, it's sort of like a tax time. There's so much information, but nobody reads it from cover to cover. However, we give a real brief look, look in there that tells people what the key changes are and where you can get more information so that they will understand what's happening. And all I can tell you is this is not a massive, everything's changed approach for 2011 is a change in our network, is a change in our claims pair, our medical claims. And at the same time, with the report that we have health care reform going on, which does have some change to us, but it's not anything that people are going to be horribly impacted over, significantly impacted over. Some people will feel absolutely no difference of the band that could be a greater benefit than they've had before. So that's why I was here to tell you a little about that and if you have any questions, happy to answer them or... Are there questions to remember support? Amy, did you have anything you wanted to add? We appreciate you making your way up here today. Thank you for the time. I apologize for technical difficulty. That's right. We needed a break. We got there. Thank you. Thank you very much, Dan. Okay, let's go to 8 a. 8 a. Is approval of a contribution rate of 10.04% for the 2011 T. We're doing other issues. Thank you, Judge and commissioners. We discussed during the budget process that we wouldn't make any changes to our employer contribution this year that we would not be able to include a COLA in our plan and that we would not change anything really in the TCDR's plan except that this would be the first year in probably 13 years that we've not been able to include a COLA in our plan for retirees. The rate that you see in front of you that we're asking you to approve today is a 10.4% contribution rate. And those funds were included in the budget process, so it's in the adopted budget. So we're just asking for approval of that today. Other questions from Mayors the Court? Do we have a motion? Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Coleman. Hearing no questions, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion is carried. HB is approval of recommended revisions to policy 6.7, didn't kind of benefit plan again, McCollan Amy. We've had a lot of discussion about this topic in the past that has to do with the retiree insurance. And last time we visited about this, I think the court expressed some concern about the length of time. We expressed some concern about the length of time, notice that was given, would be given to employees. And also there was some discussion about whether it was appropriate to require employees who were retiring to have eight years of experience or 10 years of experience with the county, specifically with Denton County, before the county would contribute to their retiree premiums. And so we brought you two options today. One of them being to approve a change in our plan that would say that we would, that the county would contribute to plan contributions, retiree, premium contributions. If an employee had at least eight years of service with the county and retired after January 1, 2012, and the other one to say exactly the same thing, except to require 10 years of experience of Service to Denton County. I'll move to approve option two Emotion in a second to approve option two under discussion Amy was it not brought out the last time we talked about this that It's probably not all, but a considerable number of other counties are at the 10 year option counties and cities. Yes, Dallas County and Tearant County were at the 10 year option as were ERS and TRS. Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? Any other questions? or so ago was that for anybody currently working for the county that planned on retiree next year, didn't give enough notice so to speak so that's why I believe some of the others discussed and made the recommendation of making the January 1, 2011 effective date, so they essentially would have 15 months notice to make those plans. So I'm sorry at 2012. I said that wrong. But anyway, I will not be supporting the motion for that reason. I think 10 years is what we should do with an effective date of January 1, 2012. Any other discussion, commissioners? What is the criteria now, Amy for employees, to receive that? Right now, the criteria is that the employee be eligible for retirement from TCDRS and also being enrolled in our plans, which would stay the same at the time of retirement. Eight years. Eight years with TCDRS, but there's no requirement for service with more than a month at Denton County. They could come to work for us in a month later, retired. But I thought you were going to fix this. I mean, that was that separate from this, isn this fixes it. This fixes it. This prevents someone working at Colin County for seven years and coming here for a year and then we in retire and I thought we were doing that separate. That take this policy takes care of it. For instance, if you had worked in El Paso County for four years and three months and you you moved to Denton. You'd be able to retire with your Denton benefits if you worked here for eight years. If you worked here for eight years. No, no, no. I'm saying if you've worked in other counties, right now as long as you have eight years in TDCRS, credit system, you can retire. Do you have to work here for eight years? Now we're changing it to where you have to work here at least eight years. In order to receive the county's contribution for the insurance premium and I know that's what you meant. Commissioner Coleman, but I want to make sure anybody that was listening understood. I thought the options were fairly clear. Eight years. So those who can see them. All right. Yeah. Well, that's what I was gonna say. If you're eligible to retire. Right. Yes. We'll retire eight years of service with down county. Yes. And but Amy, all the examples you brought us last time were not all ten years. Were they? Not all the examples you brought us last time were not all 10 years. Were they? Or me? Not all the examples you brought us last year were 10 years correct? All right. Did not hear you again. Not all the examples you brought us last week were 10 years. Were they? No, they were not all 10 years. Thank you. So it is not standard across the board that everybody have 10 years. There is several different options by different governmental entities. And that correct? Each entity or retirement system makes their own decision. Okay, but there's not some boilerplate industry practice of ten years. There's a common number of ten years, but there's not a rule of ten years. And we would not be the only entity that did not have 10 years if you were to approve eight years. My point is, if you work here for eight years, you qualify to get a pension. I think in my opinion, you get full benefits if you do it eight years. I think we would all have to deal with the inequities that would handle and people making the personal pleas that we get regarding salaries and other things that we allow people to retire after eight years but they'll only give them benefits after 10 because there's going to be that window of people that work here for eight years but don't get full benefits I just think you would solve problems we would have to face in the future if we want to go to 10 years for retiree benefits maybe we should go to 10 years to qualify for retirement. But I think we can do that. So right now we can. I think the way that the committee felt about it, in comparison, I guess, to the way that it was just stated was that people who retire with only eight years of service don't get the same financial benefit as people who retire with 20 years experience or 15 years experience. And so while it may be full retirement, it doesn't mean the same thing to everybody. And the feeling was that people who worked for Denton County where the plan is funded. And it's a little bit different than ERS and TRS because those plans come from the retirement system themselves. So that in those groups in ERS and TRS, every entity has the same rule because it comes from the retirement system. In TMRS and TCBRS each entity makes its own decision because the entities are funding their own plans. And the examples that I gave were the counties and organizations that were part of the PEC because we're all in the same plan and also Collin County because Judge Horn asked for Collin County and the other major State benefit plans so it wasn't a you know there weren't 30 or 40 examples, but that's why I gave the examples that I did I think if we don't do the eight- policy, we should change our policies to say you get partial retirement at eight years and full retirement at 10. Don't think we have that option. I think that's good for us. They can. Well, we only get partial retirement because you don't get health insurance if you only retire after eight. So we should change our policies to say you only get partial retirement at eight and then full retirement at 10. That would violate state laws. Why? You don't get the full benefits if we go with your recommendation. I mean, it's standard nomocletron. What we would have is a bunch of employees who say, look, I did 8 years, it says I get full benefits, but I'm not really getting full benefits. Because I'm not eligible for the employee retirement system through the insurance. There are two different things. There are two different funding pools, there are two different things and you can have different qualifications for them as lots of entities do. I guess my point was, Amy, you'd stated that you didn't think there would be any differentiation. This was probably less than there would be any difference. I think it would lend itself to confusion if we do not have them line up linearly by having it eight years for the retirement health insurance benefits in eight years to retire with service. That you didn't understand why. And now I'm explaining why I think what I said was that I shared that concern and then I contacted some other entities that have been through this transition already and they told us it was not a problem. That new employees actually when they come what's explained to them is the retirement system benefit. We don't really talk to employees much about retiree benefits until they come to the retiree workshop when they're very close to retirement. And then we have a big presentation on it and we always have a disclaimer that these are the benefits this year, just like we do with our regular health insurance plan. These are the benefits this year, just like we do with our regular health insurance plan. These are the benefits this year. Next year, the benefits may be more, they may be less. We can't promise we'll have benefits forever. What we're trying to do is to try to adjust our plans so that we can afford them so that we will be able to in the future still offer retiree benefits to everybody. And I'm not saying that if we elect one of these choices and not the other, we won't have them. I'm saying that that's the base that we're coming from when we bring the recommendation is to try to keep the county in a position to continue to offer those benefits for as long as possible, to as many as possible, and especially to those who have been at the county a long time and given a lot to the county during that time. That's where we're coming from. That doesn't mean there's not more than one way to do that. I know it changes from year to year, but roughly how many retirees do we have on a currently that are receiving this? Total retirees is somewhere around 135 to 150, I think. And growing fast. Also something else to consider too is turnover, at the county, certainly with economic time is being what they are. We haven't seen the turnover in the last year that we had in prior years. But if I could, we have a magic wand and change our number of years that it takes to be vested, I would do so to recommend it for sure to go to 10 years. But has been discussed, we can't just do that. Once you go down, you can't, right, stay at law, go back up. And we had this discussion during budget budget that I've mentioned that fact to a few of our legislators and they were surprised to learn that. I don't know if that's going to get changed or not. I think it'd be a great idea. It certainly seems to me if Mr. Cored has the authority to lower the number of years, we should also have the authority to raise it. I wouldn't have a problem if they put a qualifier on there that you can't make changes, but maybe every five years or something like that so it doesn't get to be a bookkeeping nightmare. But I would like to see them change that. But I also feel that this gives, going to ten years years gives employees ample time to plan Since we're essentially giving them a minimum 15 months notice So any further to put a discussion or questions on this item commission or ease did you hear anything else that you want to Dan Commissioner Mitchell Nope Okay, we have a motion in the second on the floor. I'll in favor of the motion, which is for the eight-year option, option number two. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed to name. Name. Motion fails. The chair is going to make a motion for option number one, which is the ten-year option. Seconded by Commissioner Marchant for the discussion. Very none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed, seni. Okay, that option failed, also. That's cute. Okay. Sounds like we need some more discussion on this, but we need a decision pretty soon, doing not aiming. Well, if we're not gonna make any changes until January 1, 2012, we don't need a decision right away. We needed it if we were gonna make a decision by this January. Okay. I think somehow we need to. You don't think 15 months now, this minimum is enough. Recon. Okay, I totally remove the benefit that we've, I know things change. I think we could grant other people who are in the system that are current employees that came on. Well, I'd be willing to make a motion to grandfather, to go with option two and grandfather or other present employees under the old policy. What would that do to HR? We wouldn't see any benefit in our plan or in our gas be reporting for about eight or ten years for that so it wouldn't be much benefit. It's not going to save us much money for a very, very long time. All right. Let's let them think about it and don't repost it until hopefully we're ready to take some action. Okay, moving around long. I mean, I have a kind of commentary about that. I just don't want to break an implied covenant that we have with the boys. When people come on and they hire on and they're obviously towards it into their career, career eight years of retirement age and I think people look at a retirement package. I don't think, I'm wrong but I don't think anyone would, and maybe Amy has different anecdotal evidence but I don't think the first time someone thinks about retiring is the year before they retire. I don't know if I'm just saying people have made plans. I think that's an excellent point. That's a good point Andy. Not everybody who retires from our system chooses to go with our health and should work in our system. Right. I mean, there's several in our county. I'm fine with that. We have several employees who work for other governmental entities and may choose to use their health insurance retirement benefits as opposed to that county. But it's good for I think it's good to have a choice. Well, think about it some more. Okay. Moving around along. 10 a. Let's see, somebody told me we needed to pull this. It didn't put you into that. Not ready to take action on 10 a today You pardon me. I was I thought I heard the pigeons. Yes. Yes 12 a is approval of 2010 burned grant program Award for grant funding in the amount of $72,640 on behalf of Denton County, the City of Denton, the City of Louisville. I move for approval. Motion by Commissioner Coleman. Seconded by Commissioner Marchand other questions. Your none on favor please say aye. Aye opposed, aye. Motion does carry. 13A is approval of one. The donation deed received from SLF to cold property LP for the underwood road bridge replacement project located in precinct for in two grant authorization to proceed with closing and approval for the dent and kind of just to sign on necessary closing paperwork or documents for approval second motion by commissioner Eid seconded by commissioner Coleman other questions approval. Second motion by Commissioner Ead seconded by Commissioner Coleman other questions. Here none on favor please say aye aye opposed Cine motion carries 13b is approval of appointment of Reagan how do you pronounce that? Through, Groud, to the Denton County Historical Commission. Chair on move for approval seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion carries. 13C is discussion in approval of disaster declaration associated with flooding event from Tropical Storm. I mean, Chair, I'll let you finish. I'll let you finish. Chair, I'll let you finish. I'll let you finish. I'll let you finish. Chair, I'll let you finish. Chair, Judy. It was a little crazy. Most of my brain we've received a long time in a short period of time. So that's because we did a burn band. That's correct. So at all this works in hand and hand. Just a real quick brief. I know you guys are running along here, but just a real quick brief. The majority of our damage occurred in Lewisville, Hollin Village, and Flower Mound. We've done a research countywide asking all municipalities to reporting the damage and those are the three main entities that have reported to us. There are a few other ones with isolated incidents. But with that, we have already scheduled the FEMA folks and the Small Business Administration, the SBA, on a tour for this Thursday. So the public assistance teams will be working Thursday morning at 9. Those are the teams that will look at public infrastructure damage, roads and bridges and culverts and that sort of issues, which we do have some sites in precinct 1 and precinct 4 that we will be visiting. There's some major damage issues. And then also with the high-leveling to some of the other flower mound streets, facilities and Lewisville streets and facilities. That afternoon, same afternoon, this individual assistance teams will be here from one to five to look at those homes in flower mound and Lewisville that did receive significant damage. In which cases we had about 30 homes with water inside the house, with about 8 of those with major damage to destroyed and the rest were minor damage and minor damage, meaning less than 18 inches of water in the home. Major damage is 18 inches to 4 feet. So in some of those cases we did have over 4 feet of water. Yes, ma'am. Let the city managers know that theme room is coming. That was this morning. It was kind of why I was late. So we will definitely send. I have sent them a, I sent them an email letting them know that on Friday that we were looking at Wednesday or Thursday so that has been set this morning. As soon as I get back to office, we'll definitely let them know. The county is actually responsible for taking the FEMA teams throughout the county wherever the damage may be and we try to meet up with those municipal managers, the EM, emergency managers or whoever may need to be there to represent the city, road and bridge, folks and things like that to let them know that we're headed out to the site at least 30 minutes before we get there. So they can either join us on the survey and go through and explain what maybe have occurred to their city. With that, I do believe that we need to continue this disaster declaration for the intent of these teams and anticipation of possible FEMA and a federal presidential declared disaster. Denton County's threshold for the amount of damage that needs to reach is 1.9 million, and that is based on a population. Every county is different based on population. The county's threshold for public damage is 1.9 million uninsured. Therefore, and with that being said, the state has a threshold of a minimum amount of damage. But with her mean coming ashore through the South Texas all the way up the I-35 corridor, the state threshold will more than likely be met counting from Brownsville through San Antonio Austin, Waco, Hill County, Travis County, and Didenton County in and out through Cook County. So all those counties being included in that survey will probably reach the minimum state threshold in order to be requesting your presidential disaster declaration. No promises here, but there is an opportunity to look at possible presidential disaster declaration funding. Less than that would be the small business administration allowing residential small interest loans for houses. So that does not require a presidential disaster declaration to be issued. That can be issued by the SBA administrator to directly allow those small interest loans to the citizens or businesses itself for damage. So with that being said, we're to to move forward for another week seven days to allow this disaster declaration that county judge Mary Horn put in place last week to allow this to continue for another week. Questions? Okay, we need motion for approval. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, second and back commissioner Eans. Here are no questions. All in favor please say aye. Opposed to the name. Motion is carried. Thank you, Jenny. Also 14A is kind of similar and associated with that. Yes. We want to move to that. Let's do that too. 14A is a pro of the exemption from bidding according to the provisions of Section 262.024A1 and 2 of the local government code to reconstruct the Highland Village Road Bridge project due to extensive storm damage to the road causing it to be closed and where expeditious construction is necessary to preserve and protect the safety of the residents of the county. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, second and back Commissioner Eads. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. I'm Potsan E. Motion just carry. Thank you. Thank you. say aye. I am Potsinine. Motion to carry. Thank you. Thank you. 13 E is approval of one. The contract for purchase of right away in conveyance of a general warranty deed to Denton County, Texas from Lawrence Ray down Beverly, June piston. Bobby Lee down. Gloria Sue down and from the James H and Judy F down living trust for the George Owens Road and Wolf Branch Creek Bridge replacement project to grant authorization to proceed with closing in approval for the Dintn County Judge signed on necessary closing documents and three directed Dintn County auditor to issue a warrant in the amount of the purchase price of $6,738.18 plus any applicable fees. The funding to come from Dintn County Road and Bridge, West Commissioner Pursing Four, surveys, titles, and testing, auditor number 2053958540. Motion by Commissioner Eans. Okay. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name. Motion to this carry in 13F is approval of one contract for purchase for right away in the advance of General War say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion is carried. 13F is approval of one contract for purchase for right away in the conveyance of General Warney deed. Did it in County from WRR Properties Incorporated Trustee for the John Day Road Bridge Replacement Project 2? Grant authorization to proceed with closing in approval for the didn't kind of judge to sign on necessary closing documents in three, directed to didn't kind issue a warrant in the amount of purchase price of $7,700 plus apple couple fees With funding to come from Denk County Road Bridge West Commissioner for Service titles and testing auditor number 2053958540 How by these items were getting ready to build a bridge up there you you go. I move for approval. Motion by Commissioner Eads. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Sunine. Motion is carried. And lastly, is item 15 executive session under Texas government code 551.072. Deliberation regarding real property close meaning to deliberate the purchase of real property or deliberation in an open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the position of the governmental body and negotiations with a third person regarding the purchase of real property for county facilities located in Denk County, Kronister, Pristinkton 1. With that we're an executive session. Thank you. It's quite as reconvened from executive session. Under item 15, there'll be no action today and let that work. We're adjourned, everybody. Have a great day.