I'm going to do it. you you you you Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, that was kind of commissioners court for Tuesday, January 26th, this now in session. This morning, an invocation of the given by Mr. Jim Heath and our pledges will be led by Amy Phillips, director of human resources. Will you please stay? Hi you, head please. I have a new father. We thank you for this day. We thank people of this country, this state and this county. And father, we ask you please be of these commissioners. They do the counties bid us today. May all their decisions be of your pleasure. And father, we ask you please look after all of our service throughout the world. They stand in the harms way. May they all come home, save and sound. And the enemy will pray. Amen? Please join me in the pledges to the flags. I pledge to you. May the deliverance through the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic which it stands. Formation under God, in the middle of the green, in just a drop. On the text flag, at quite a few days to the city. That's the front state under God. One, and in the middle of the blue. Thank you, gentlemen. Item one is for a public input for items not listed on the agenda. There's any member of the public that would like to address commissioners court. We ask that you please complete a public comment form. We'd like to hear from you. One tour guide. Everyone, please turn off your cell phones and pages. I have a couple guests with us this morning in consideration of their time. I'd like to go first to item 6A. 6A is approved of specifications and authority to advertise for a property tax collection and disbursement system, RSP 12092011, appointment of the evaluation committee to include Steve Mossman, Michelle French, Kevin Carr, and Beth Fleming, and we'll call him Beth. Good morning, judging commissioners. We would ask that we review item 13A first, 13A is the report from the CIP committee, and action really should be taken on that item before we move to the specific. Great. And sorry I should have done that. 13A is what will handle first then. 13A is approval requests from the taxes as a collector to have the purchasing department proceed with the development of an RFP for the replacement of the property tax software and hardware and discussion and approval of the capital improvement committee recommendation for funding options. Now we'll call them back. I prepared on this one. As you all know, on January the 12th, the Texas Assessor Collector addressed the court and requested funding be identified for a new property tax software program. The Commissioner's Court also referred this to our Capital Improvement Committee to review in detail and come back to the court with recommendation. I think everyone is in agreement that we wish this had happened a little differently. We wish this had gone through the Capital Improvement Program process and or the budget process. Unfortunately that didn't occur. The meeting was called and held that same week that the commissioners court discussed the item, where most members of the committee were available and present for the presentation. Steve Mossman and Michelle French were present and presented various information, including a matrix, which is a comparison of what our program does versus what other software programs on the market provide. We are about far the largest vendor of this company we are currently with and we really feel like the county has outgrown that system. They expressed to us that the reason they did not put this in the budget request last year was based on the economic conditions. They were trying to comply with the court's request to keep budget requests down to a minimum. They had met with the software vendor and thought they had worked out all of their problems. And to make a long story short, they are still continuing to have major problems with the software. The committee discussed and had concerns about the time frame that we're looking at as far as being able to implement this RFP and award a bid in the manner in which is being presented. After hearing lots of information, in fact our meeting was probably a couple hours long, a lot of hard-to-tough questions asked, a lot of detailed information provided by the Texas SSR collector. The committee unanimously voted to recommend to the Commissioner's Court that you go ahead and proceed with an RFP. And to include in that RFP funding options, that could be where we could finance the system. That would include $100,000 down payment from the vehicle interest tax fund, as well as making payments for a period of time. The committee also recommended that before the project is awarded that we call another capital improvement committee meeting and discuss and make a recommendation to the commissioners court at that time about how we should fund it, whether we finance it or try to find funds. With that, we also had asked legal department the D.I. civil division to review the current contract with the vendor as Commissioner Coleman had requested and I believe Kim is prepared to address those concerns and issues today. concerns and issues today. OK. You all should have received an email yesterday for Moira who did research and worked with Commissioner Coleman on the review of the initial contract, which was a number of years ago in the maintenance agreements. And the bottom line is, we don't feel like there's been any breach of contract terms. Any questions from members of commissioners Cory? I'd like to talk to Mr. Mossman if he's available. That's commissioners, Mr. Holman. Morning, then. First of all, I'd like to commend you for all the hard work that you've done on this Thank you. Mr. Holman. Good morning. First of all, I'd like to commend you for all the hard work that you've done on this project. I really appreciate it. I just have a few questions that I'd like to address to you. I went through and looked at the January 12th video of our commissioners court just to make sure that I had the facts right. And one of the reasons I asked for the legal department to review this is that you stated in response to Commissioner Mershant that we had 18 month delays and $10,000 expenditures or proposed expenditures regarding this contract, which is what made me wonder why we had a maintenance agreement. Those things weren't covered under that. Well, in the response from the DA's office that we received, I think the commission's court received from more of this morning and I received late yesterday afternoon, it states that none of those expenditures have been made and that everything that has been done has been fixed relatively quickly and it's all been covered under the maintenance agreement. I haven't talked to the auditor in the budget office and they said yes we do have roughly a $50,000 more or less maintenance agreement. And we spend about $97 more or less on this contract a year. I guess my question is, and I understand why you would want, I mean, why we would like to create a sense of urgency to get this pushed through. But I really think it's important that we don't rush into stuff like this. I have a lot of questions that I would like pass a bath on the subsequent item regarding the RFQ and the stuff. This is very important software and I commend you for bringing it to our attention but I feel like we're being hurried into something with a sense of urgency. When now that we've identified the problem, we should be taking baby steps and making sure that because it's so important, we really plan it out. I guess my question to you is since everything that's at least according to the DA's office, since everything's been fixed relatively quickly under our current maintenance agreement and there has been no additional fees as provided for under the contract, could we wait on this until the next budget? Mainly, I have concerns that I think we need to be consulting with the CAD to see if we can develop some sort of seamless program with the Central Appraisal District. I read through the Bidspects and I don't think that was mentioned in there. I may have missed it. But I think there's a lot of little things that we need to look at. What's your opinion on that, Mr. Mossman? Well, apparently there's, I'm miscommunicated. Everything that's covered in the warranty is handled sometimes quickly, sometimes not so quickly. Those things that we spend money on are things that we ask them to develop specifically for us. That are unique. Things that, from what I hear from other people in the software industry, could be developed in a matter of months. That is two or three, going for 18 months. And they're charged typically, they're in the area of $70,000 to $10,000. Now the maintenance items when there's a problem and they fix them, that's great. The question is what issue are we going to look at next? We have had one in the last few weeks where we were not able to ACH funds out to the entities because of a glitch in the ACH program. Now that's not affecting my office, but it's affecting 70 jurisdictions around the county. It's a software issue. It took them a day to solve. That's one day of overnight interest that those entities did not receive. And that's not an uncommon thing. My fear and the reason we brought this forward is that the situations we face are occurring at an increasing rate of speed and that we're going to hit with yet hit with something that greatly impacts the ability to either collect or disperse funds where they should be done. Oh, I can tell you this Mr. Mossman, you've convinced me that we need, I've spoken it links to our auditor, I've spoken it link to the budget office, I've looked through all the different stuff, I've talked to various city managers and you know, you've pretty much convinced me that we probably need to revamp our system. But I generally don't think was something this important that we should hurry and rush into it. I think that was a point made when I reviewed the video on January 12 by our purchasing department. And I've only been a commissioner for a year, but my experience as a county employee, kind of on the sidelines I've seen us do rush jobs and see how in the past sometimes things didn't work out as well as they should. And I think you've done a good job of I mean maybe on some of the other things we disagree but I think you've made a good job pointing out that we need the software. I just think we may disagree on timing and how we procure it. So I just I just don't think it's a good time right now. I'd really like to have misforming the fullest amount of time. Have us examine it a little further and maybe not even wait until the budget. But I just don't think we should do it right now. I still think we need to refine some of the things that we have. So that's all I have to say. I still think we need to refine some of the things that we have. That's all I have to say. Okay, Commissioner Mitchell's got something to say. I don't know. Anybody else? Mr. Mossman, even though we took this to the capital improvement committee, and I see Donna has set out, as usual, when we have a large item, the years that takes to pay for this. And even though Beth, when you do the RFQ, it's going to take a while. Can you tell me about how long it's going to take? We outlined in the RFP a schedule of trying to have a contract approved which is different than the award because we have to negotiate it by April 13th with an install date of August 10th or August 1st and we have asked the vendors to give us their schedule of how they will make that happen. So we do have time. We're not going to be rushing into it. We have time and we set out a time where we're going to spend the money. And so I'm comfortable with the fact that it's going to the CIP where it should have been in the beginning because it's a big ticket item. I'm comfortable that we will have enough time doing that time to even more so investigate the system that we have to be sure that all the system that we have, to be sure that all the things that we're asking for in the new system that will complement what we really need. I feel like we've outgrown the system. I really do with the information I've been given. So I'm comfortable in going forward with the schedule that the CIP committee has recommended as far as the budget in the years, the out years, 150 and 20,000, 115, 2011 and 12 and 13. So I'm comfortable and I think we have enough time so we can vet that system to make sure that we don't have the same problems with the new system that we have with the old system if we've got to August, at least, people will get it done. So I'm comfortable with that. And I don't think it's Russian at two more, since we've got to August, if we're going to do it tomorrow, then I think we'd have to look at it. But since we've got that time, I think we can take advantage of that time to make sure that we have a system that can carry us for the next 20 years at least. So I'm looking forward to us doing that. I think I mentioned this the last time this subject is before the court and that is the tax here doesn't coincide well with our budget year, and they have certain responsibilities to get certain things done at certain times of the year. So for tax office purposes, it's really necessary if we're gonna make the change to get this process going pretty quickly. If we wait, and I understand your point commissioner in an enormous circumstances, I'm right there with you. But in this particular situation, if we wait till budget time, it would be another full year, at least, before this could be implemented. I mean, we could award the contract in December, and the change still wouldn't take place until the new tax year records came in. So, and that's too long to be asking Michelle Steve to sit on the edge of their chair and worry about, okay, what problem is going to pop up next? Because that's really what's going on here. And I think this can be done. These other companies, first of all, they're used to folks not being able to bite off that kind of expense in one budget year. They're going to come up with funding options. They're going to come up with different plans, whether it's lease payment or pay it out over a year or so. That's their business. They're used to presenting those options to different governmental bodies. I don't believe our problem is with the PRAZEL district. Is it Michelle and Steve? Whenever we get the information for the new tax year, there's a conversion that goes through, that everything goes through, but that the Praisal district is not really our issue. May I? This software, that's the issue. May I respond to that? Yes, certainly. The idea of having a direct interface with the appraisal district is not a workable option. We've had appraisal district personnel at Centus manual supplements and we find out that they have not been approved by the ARB, which they have to be approved before we can implement them. They send us a batch every month of those things that are approved. Most of those, and this is one of the issues, those that we get the current year, we can download electronically. For our years, we have to work manually. current year, we can download electronically. For our years, we have to work manually. But that's, but the thing is that we are, we can't have a direct link with the appraisal district. I didn't hear you what you said. Pardon me? Sorry, I didn't hear you. You didn't hear the last thing that you said. We cannot have an effective direct link with the appraisal district. We have that we have an access to their records now, but we can't have them or downloading stuff to us or us to them except at certain points. That's that's that's the statutory. That's tax code. But bottom line the presidential district's not a problem. It's not a problem. Commissioner Marchand. Just a few questions. Run through, if we do this today, run through the timeline about when the RFQ said, right, not RFP, but RFQ will be. Oh, it's an RFP request for proposals. I said RFQ. Yeah, and the RFQ goes forward. It has a certain time frame that it's within. And part of those discussions, this is my concern. I'm on the committee for our CIJS system, which is the conversion of the judicial system for the JP office, his Const Constable's Office and all that. And we've been working on this a long time, several years. And we're now starting to implement it into the office. In fact, the judicial civil side of that is going live the first week of February of this year. And knowing how much time that the employees and knowing how much time are the IT people have put into this conversion from the old Odyssey legacy to the new system. It just boggles my mind how within that short time frame if we get to software and how we are going to transition from our old system into the new software by the time that our tax starts gearing up. So is there going to be a requirement within that RFP, that that training, or have you talked to enough people if you had a feel on what that transition and how many months that's going to take? It's not going to be a week. I'm glad you asked the question, because I do want to clarify for the record that both Kevin Carr and Express to the CIP committee our concerns about the risk involved in doing a project this quick. We did eventually vote to approve it, but we also want to make it real clear there are risk involved because it is a very, very short time period for this type of project. Proposals won't come in until February 22nd. The committee will have to evaluate those set up demonstrations, which are usually half a day or a full day demonstration for each firm. We may want to do on-site visits to other entities. All of that will take us substantial amount of time to evaluate, including the value of all the hardware that's being recommended. to evaluate, including the value of all the hardware that's been recommended. Once we get ready to prepare recommendation for court, we have to award the contract first, then we go into negotiations on the final details, which includes a lot of items. Our target date to have that done, which is our drop dead date, is April 13th, and we've indicated that in the contract. So that gives us two months to accomplish all that, which would typically take four, five, six months to do that. The time period, once we award to hit that August 1st date, is 90 days. It's a little over 90 days. That time period is given to us by Steve and Michelle where they have talked to vendors and they're telling them the typical install time is 90 days. So that means that we have to be on board staff wise to do everything that they say, the day that they say it, and that there's no hiccups in the process. So there are some risk in that as well. Some of the other risks that we emphasize to court is that there may be a cost risk. If we do it too quick and there's some unknowns, the vendors may build in some contingencies in their proposal to make sure that they cover all their costs because once we sign a contract, we sign a contract. I'm not saying that will happen but that is a potential anytime that you do something where it's done too quickly and there are some unknowns. Saying that, I believe it can be done. It means that everybody has to move quickly. We plan on if court approves this today we plan on setting schedules and meetings so that all of our counters already have the dates on them on when we would plan demos and those kind of things so if there's no question. The hardest part about any of this is getting all of us on the same page with the schedule so we would start on that today and we would be committed to make it happen as well as I know Michelle and Steve would in their office to make it happen. But I want to make it real clear that there is a risk involved because it may not happen. Another question. Will has the IT, Kevin, you guys looked at the system that's currently in place with all the computers, with all the monitors that hang on the system, all those with what software packages are out there. Is there any anticipation that we're going to have to come in and either get new computer equipment or retrofit the computer equipment that's currently there to give it more memory. So are there some hardware costs that are going to be associated with this contract? As part of the contract are other expenses outside of the contract for new software. Steve has, I'm sorry, Kevin Carr has looked at that very extensively. He does recommend new hardware. We are on an AS400 platform system. With a tax office now and he does recommend new server. That doesn't mean that every computer on every desk has to be changed. It's the server hardware in the operating software that goes along with that. So he has looked at that. There's a lot of information in the RFP about what his technical requirements are. And we did ask them to press that out to us. And we also have a statement that we reserve the right to purchase it somewhere else once they tell us what their requirements are. So that's definitely built into it. He estimates new hardware could be anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000. But that's built into the total cost that we've told you that we anticipate. There's an opportunity rather than putting that into a contract that may be financed over a four year period to use the $100,000 of his fund that he currently has for you, that hardware cost are you anticipating. We're going to have to use that as a down payment on any kind of financing that we might do. The goal on the financing is that, and I do need to clarify that as well, even though the CIP report had four years, James Wells has recommended two. So what we've asked for in the RFP, and I did send each of you a draft yesterday with changes in it, is a down payment of $100,000 and then payment in a rears for two years past that. Now that doesn't mean if the budget came in, or the project came in way more than what we anticipated that we couldn't negotiate different financing. But for consistency, we asked for two years instead of the four. So regardless, yeah, but regardless, we would be able to, if we buy the hardware from the vendor, it won't matter if we use that 100,000 Ford or not. If we decide to buy it separately, we would just have to negotiate that because we are telling them we'd give them 100,000 down. Okay. So say it was 100,000 and we decide to buy it from a state contract vendor because we get a better deal. If we decide to use that 100,000 for that, we would just have to read and negotiate financing. And that's not a problem. I understand about the timing and that bothers me a lot. But I'm putting that aside as Commissioner Coleman and Commissioner Mitchell, I said there is a need for it. I mean, as we go into it, as we look at the proposals, I mean there's a lot of things that are ifs that have the moon has to be in the right orbit around the earth in order for certain things to happen. I just my experience and frustration with bringing new things in as far as software and I've lived through three of them And I've lived through three of them through the judicial system and knowing that in an ideal world, even the dates and the time they give you is not even true or correct. And so my fear is that we hurry through all of this and get to the point to where the implementation is, six month implementation. And because of the new tax share coming up, and you put that in because of the new tax year coming up, that we can put that in because of the fear of not having it up and ready to go when it needs to be. So I think that we could probably slow this down if we had to because of what is committed to contracts. That correct? I mean, we have to award it. Don't we? And that takes a vote of this. And so there's conditions within that RFP or that proposal of contract that it's going to take. Excuse me. It's going to take this long. The commitment from the tax office that I don't know. Have you ever been through a conversion of a software? Steve, other than the JPR office? Only in the DRAPY office. There's a schedule required. They do have to give us a very detailed schedule of all the steps that it will take once we award a contract to implement, to go live. And in there, they will have to ask about training, about conversion, about hardware lead time, you know, that's an issue too, or it could be. And then if we looked at that, and we're thinking that it can be done August 1st, and it's doubtful by looking at it, then certainly we would know that before Commissioner's Court made an award. Okay. I think that's the important thing is that we see the need that we have to have it and we've got an avenue where we can pay for it. And I think that this morning is what's important and I know we have to worry about implementing, but if we can implement it at the time frame that it's been allowed, we can certainly slip the time frame, but all we, the commissioners Commissioners Code interested in purchasing the software and I think that's the question for me. Are we interested in it? Do we need it and how do we do it? And I think we haven't avenue that how we can do it and yes we're interested in purchasing and I think that's what we have to go forward with this morning. All right are there any other comments questions? I have some additional questions. I'm going. You said you're going to be basically squeezing a four to five most perfect into two. What's going to happen to the other projects on your plate? Like Andy's projects that we have with Roman Bridge and my project with Roman Bridge. Oh, do them. No. No. No. Now our goal will be to continue. There will be two on our staff working on this. Got our leg in myself. So between the two of us and handling the, our play is full, but we're committed to doing it. We'll take care of it. You're going to have seconds. Your play is full, but you're asking for seconds basically. All right. And I just wanted to stay that. I know we may just disagree on this, guys, but I'm. We are looking for software that will hopefully take us 20 years into the future. I don't feel comfortable doing that in this process when the purchasing agent is saying she's going to be pushing it, compressing it. I agree with you, Commissioner Mitchell, that we've decided, yes, probably we need to do it. I probably disagree with you all regarding the process. I just think we need to really, closely look at the Simber Parrot before we go forward. Mr. Mossman, in response to your comments about the CAD and other stuff, I'll tell you very frankly, I think one of the criticisms of you that I've received from my constituents is that your office is not in a vacuum. You do not operate alone. You're not operating in a vacuum. You touch 70 other taxing jurisdictions and you work with the Central O'Praiseal District. I will tell you there's probably lots of people who have problems with the central or price will disagree. But regardless, you're still going to have to work with them and you're still going to have to work with the other taxing entities. I find it difficult when you say that it needs to be done your way this way right now and you say it doesn't matter what happens with the CAD or anything like that, because they're your partners, and you're going to have to work with them regardless. And I think it's tremendous that, you know, you're an independently elected official. We control the budget. You get to decide how you run your office. My point to you is I wish during this process, and other process, sees that you would listen to other entities in our community who seek to have input on how things go. I hope that happens during this process. I would be interested to hear specifics on that. But I talk about that. I'll be glad to talk to you about that. I'm not understanding how that relates to a software program. But I'll be glad to hear from you. I can tell you how it relates is I asked them that have you consulted with the CAD and other things. We said it doesn't really matter. He's correct. I think it does matter. I think it really would help us to work and have a seamless system with the CAED regardless of whatever statutory, I know you're talking about when deadlines are met, but I think it's something that we need to consider. It's not a bad thing to do. I think we're talking about two different things here, and I'll be glad to discuss that with you. Commissioner. That was my question. I'm not a computer expert, but how does the tax office interface with the DCAD and the minister components functionality that the systems talk to each other? I mean, are they separate standalone systems? If that is, do we need to, if they do communicate, do we need to make sure that's part of these specs? Really don't. The only offices that I know of where the collection and appraisal are together, are where the county has assigned collection to the appraisal district. Now, I don't see how that works since the tax assessor who is elected has no control over a collection, but they're still responsible for the money. The appraisal district has a different function. They do have a standalone package. We receive an electronic file at least monthly, which is converted and downloaded into our system. The primary responsibility of the Prysla District is once the tax roll or any changes to the tax roll that come to us monthly on a computer tape, being able to convert that to our system, that's ACE number one importance. And that goes on now and it will go on in the future regardless what system we go to. That's why I think I'm not understanding Commissioner Coleman's concern. The Praise the District, when they make a change to one or multiple records, that change has to be approved by the board, not the board of directors, but the appraisal review board. And once that certification takes place, then it comes to us on a computer tape and that computer tape is converted to slip into our system. It's not a matter of okay the president is just making the change in their computer and with a click you know you send it to the tax office by law it cannot happen that way I guess that's what I'm trying to say. I guess my point. I guess we're wandering far afield. But if we have another entity that we are exchanging data with on a monthly basis, I think we should touch base with them and see how we can streamline in that process. It's my point. And I think that's an ongoing project. And believe me, it's gotten better in part of the, what was it the software group that the Priscilla district used to have? And that system didn't speak well to our net data system. We had all kinds of conversion problems. But then the Priscilla district went to different software. So that communication has gotten a lot better over the years. We need to make sure that that's somehow a technical spec into process. That's my point. I think that we deal with entities like that, and I think that's why we should have included in the BIDs back, and that's why I was a little disconcerted when I heard. I see what you're saying. It was not in the BIDs back. I don't really care how what the CAD does. I'm gonna do it my way, and I really don't need to talk to them about any data conversion. I think that's what he was saying. Oh, I'm summarizing it. And mine. I'm sorry. I'm just following up on Commissioner Coleman's concern that their ability, any software glow to, needs to be able to communicate well with the software at the Presley District. I think that's Commissioner Coleman's point here. We were consulting with Michelle French. She says, yes, it's in there. We're trying to find where it is in there that it must be able to convert the data from there. I looked through there. I didn't see it. But I may have missed it. I looked through it last night. Looking, if not, it definitely needs to be in there. We'll make sure it's incredibly right on that point. If it was omitted strictly because it's a standard practice in the industry, the tax software company provides conversion information or does the conversion themselves from the appraisal district to the tax office. Like Judge Horn said, in the past there's been problems. And I think as partners we need to work on improving those relationships. Get your point, you're right. I'm going to go ahead and do that. item comes up if that will speed things up. I don't have anything else to say. Let's see what Donna has here. Did you find something though? Well, they're discussing that. Let's us Commissioner Coleman is correct. The issue before us on 13A is approval. The request from the tax assessor collector to have the purchasing department proceed with the development of the RFP, which is what's being discussed here. So let's take that question first. The chair is gonna move for approval of item 13A, the request to have the purchasing department proceed with the development of the RFP. Is there a seconded by Commissioner Mitchell? Are there further comments or questions on this point? I just want to say I think we should be taking a little more time. And I agree with y'all on the neat necessity. I'm just concerned about the us acting so quickly so I'll be voting now. I think we can take time. I've gone forward with the RFP and the plan for it to pay for it doesn't mean that you actually have to do it today. And you're exactly right. I have the exact same concern. I don't know that by, but I'm going to vote yes on this because I think we won't even know what that is until we get into it to find out what the timeframe. It may be, I think there's a lot of opportunities to vote along the way to slow this thing down if we have to. And that's why I was making the point about the implementation and reality you know it may be not a three 90 day implementation it may be a six month implementation that may have to do with with the tax department itself. So I will vote yes to get it going with the understanding that I have the opportunity to vote no to slow it down in the future. Last and most exactly. All right. Are there any other comments on 13A? An emotion in second? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. No. Motion carries four in favor, one opposed. Now we'll go to 6A, which is approval of the specifications and authority to advertise for property tax collection and disbursement system. RFP12092011, appointment of the evaluation committee to include Steve Mossman, Michelle French, Ken and Karen Beth Fleming. What did you ladies find? I will ask that Michelle correct me if I say this wrong but if let's look on page page 144 Items number 33 and 34 Michelle suggest that we do we do add some language in here about the appraisal district and multiple jurisdictions is that correct and clarify that that functionality will take care of that but we probably ought to be more specific So if it's okay, I will work with them and strengthen that language in those two items right there To cover that so that's a good point Thank you Commissioner mentioned as part of that also, I mean, I really am concerned about implementation and the time allotment that it will take from the current clerk's duties that they're doing going into training. So that is a big ish hot button with me about a schedule and what that schedule looks like. And then I would be interested, you know, once we get to that, how the tax department will respond to that and doing the work they currently are doing and then putting the implementation and having close go into training. Okay. We'll address that in the evaluation. Sorry, Ms. Fleming, you said in between 34 or 3334 and 35? Is- Uh, rewrote 33 and 34. And- Okay, I'll just- That electronic adjustments and supplemental bets where we get the tape from the principal district for that has to be converted to our system that's specifically is what you're talking about. I want to mention conversion and specifically the locations where that data is coming from and that's in the respond us on that. If you have enough time to get this through. Okay. Chair's going to move for approval of 6A with the amendments that best provided. May I have a second by Commissioner Marchand? Are there further questions or comments on this point? You're no on favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to see me? Motion does carry an animously, thank you. Okay. Item two is the consented, I'm sorry, go ahead. Item two is the consented. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Item 2 is the consent agenda. Are there items on the consent agenda that you need to vote for discussion or consideration? Or do we have a motion for approval? Second motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed sitting. Motion does carry unanimously. Consent agenda today consists of 2A, which is approval of the order making appointments. We have a new hire and information services in the telephone department. We have a new hire in public health, jail health, and two lateral transfers in the sheriff's department. 2B is approval of the intro departmental transfers to see as approval specifications and authority to advertise for the Morse Road Project, bid number 11092006. 2D is approval of budget amendment request 1004304, psychiatric services for 16th District Court in the amount of $5,000. 2E is approval of budget amendment request 1004404, for vehicle equipment for county judge in the amount of $1,738 I think I don't like the way that's written it kind of sounds like you're giving me $1,700 a clarification that's for the Dwayne that picks up the Deposits thank you To F is approval of the request from Janet and LorReto for use of the Commissioners Court Room. Conference room in the 1896 room on Friday, April 16, 2010 from 8 a.m. to 4 30 p.m. for critical voices conference. And oh, that was sponsored by the Graduate Students and English Association of the University of North Texas. and the Graduate Students and English Association of the University of North Texas. 5A is approval of the bill report, payments from CSCD, Community Corrections, TAAIP, Shares Training, Shares, Porfature, VIT, Intress, DHA, Check Vee, and DAA forfature funds are all presented for recording purposes only. Morning, Judge and Commissioner. Good morning. I have five deletions. They're all from General Fund, just various processing errors, duplicate payment. And I have three additions to the General Fund, one state comptroller for state sales tax, one to Dallas County Constable for service, and one to the Productivity Center for Sheriff's Office renewal, one from supervision to the state comptroller for sexual assault fees and one from the 2009 PI bond fund For robes and ranch road and all five of those are to expedite payment Those are all the corrections I have. Thank you. Are there any questions and members of court? Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Yeeves second and by by Commissioner Mitchell. On favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Sen. motion is carried. 7A is approval of request to revise the membership of the Capitol Improvement Committee and add the construction manager and delete the transportation consultant. We'll call them down the street. Thank you, Judge. The Capitol Improvement Committee also discussed the membership and we feel with the addition of our new construction manager at its vital that he be a part of this committee. Also we had requested that we eliminate the transportation consultant from the membership. Based on the fact that this is an overall capital improvement Committee not just for roads of course John would still be required To submit information to us in a timely manner Although he sent an email to me earlier that he's crushed that he's being Revealed for the committee but With that we're recommending we add Mike to the committee as the construction manager and to delete the transportation consultant You know where he he doesn't know that he's he still reports I'm Louis approval thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Mitchell seconded by Commissioner Ed's questions or comments You're none on favor please say aye aye I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. I have been operational for at least a 12-minute period prior to requesting county funds. I did run this by the Library Advisory Board. They had a meeting last week of all the librarians throughout the county and they all agreed with this proposal. Thank you. Other questions from members of the Court? Do we have a motion? I'd like to take this for one week, Your Honor. questions from members of the court or do we have a motion? I'd like to table this for one week, Your Honor. You there? We'll table this and have it on the agenda next week, please. Certainly. What motivated the change in the policy, Donna? We currently have, we had a request from the City of Argonne for Library funding. Apparently they were in the process of acquiring property for a library that has not taken place so far this year. So they have no libraries. But as long as last year were they not? They pardon me? Were they not on the list last year? They they requested county funding. I need for the current budget year. Yes. So far those funds have not been dispersed to the library based on the fact that it's not operational. They're still in the process from what I'm told of looking for a site for the location. Did they currently have a library? No. That's why the funds haven't been expended. Okay, we'll put this on the agenda for next week, too, please. 8A is approval of changing slot number 013 from assistant breastfeeding coordinator to nutritionist as recommended by Rand Jones, director of WIC. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Mitchell. and Jones Director of WIC. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. Questions? You're none all in favor. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The name? Motion does carry. 10A is approval of a resolution applying sub-chapter F chapter 233 Texas local government code to certain residential construction and unincorporated areas of Denton County. Begone after February 1, 2010. Morning, Bennett. Morning, Judge. Morning, Court. What this resolution does is a couple of things. One in the 80th regular session, which was 2007, the legislature directed the Texas Residential Construction Commission to basically oversee the builders and the unincorporated portions of the county to make sure residential homes were being built to some kind of standards. That didn't work out real well, so the 81st session was just ended, basically eliminated that commission and gave the opportunities to the counties to direct that management of that. So what this resolution does is basically say ask the builders to submit the inspection records to the county for file storage. The builders were already supposed to be inspecting the homes and providing these inspections to the home buyers, but we don't ever know as a county whether or not it's happened or not. So this way they have to notify us that they are going to build a home and then they have to submit the three different inspection results. We'll not put any more burden on the builders because they've already supposed to be doing this and we are not charging the fee. The state law does not allow us to charge the fee for collecting these inspection boards. It will be incorporated into our development permit and my staff's already aware of how it would be implemented if this court agrees with this resolution. Other counties are doing it this way too. Are they not? Yes, this particular resolution was modeled after Tarrer counties. I shall move if there's not any court schemes. I'll be motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Eads. Are there further questions or comments? I'm going to move first. I'm going to move first. Not any questions. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, second and by Commissioner Eads. Are there further questions or comments? Well, the comment I have to say, if I've asked a bunch of builders, and particularly, I know Andy and I have the great majority of the rural areas, but I actually was but an whole that the conference, which one was it, that you were the president of Bobbi? Okay. That's association. No, at least. Yes, at that meeting, actually, I met with the lobbyist came up and asked me about this and I was surprised, but they were for it. And then I've spoken to various builders in our community and they think they're for it. So I think it's a good idea. The business practice, I think. Yes. Not an additional fragilatory control. It's a good idea. The business practice I think. Yes. Not an additional credit control. It's already being required. It's strictly processing and just turning in paperwork. And we're the cause. Correct. I'm going to restore to Stodian or that. Correct. I'll see you apply. Correct. All right. We have a motion to second on the floor here. No further comments? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to any motion is carried. The other good thing about it is it's not really other than some paperwork for your office. It's not really requiring, um, Trotie and his staff to be going out physically doing inspections and, and, um, problem I think in the past was there was no way to recoup the county's expense for the services that are employees for we're providing is a better way to handle it. Provide some accountability. Alright 13v is a prologue contract with the Texas Department of State Health Services for additional TV services. They have been burdened with us this morning are there questions of Dr. Burton or is this self explanatory? I move approval. They have motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Marchant on favor please say aye. Aye opposed the same. Motion to scary. That was easy wasn't it? Okay 14A is approval of an interlocal cooperation agreement between Denton County, Texas and the City of Kruegerville, Texas for the 2010 road improvement project located entirely within the City of Kruegerville, Texas and Denton County Commissioner Prusink 1. I'm here for approval. We have a motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Are there questions? I've got a page 209 down in the financial impact. It says the county and the city of Sanger. Instead of approval. Any other questions or comments, corrections? Okay, we'll with that change. I'll interfere with the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. Right. We've taken care of a business. Everybody have a great day. We're adjourned. you