you you you you Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, Denton County Commissioner's Court for Tuesday December 1 is now in session this morning our invocation of be given by Dr. Bing Burton, Director of our Health Department and our pledges will be led by Sherry Gross Commissioner precinct to administrative will you please stand. Pray with me. Lord we come today with thankful hearts. Thankful for all that you do for us. Thankful for this nation that still puts its trust in you. We pray that you would bless our commissioners court today, bless our state and nation and all those who serve it, both at home and abroad. Help us to keep our hearts thankful and to watch for those who serve it both at home and abroad. Help us to keep our hearts thankful and to watch for your grace among us for Jesus' sake. Amen. of the United States of America and to the Republic of which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Under the Texas flag. I'm going to use the same as one state under God, one indivisible. Thank you. Item 1 is for public input for items not posted on the agenda. There's any member of public would like to address commissioners court. The ask that you please complete a public comment formally be glad to hear from you. I want to remind you were one to please turn off your cell phones and pages. Item 2 is the Consent Agenda members are there items on the Consent Agenda that you need to have discussion on or do we have a motion for approval? Prove them. Motion by Commissioner Eans. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed sitting. Motion does carry. Consent Agenda today consists of 2A which is approval of the order-making appointments. We have a new hire in the Courthouse and the Square of Museum, new hire in the County Jail and a promotion within the Public Health Jail Health. 2B is approval of the Intro Departmental Transfers 2C is approval of Award of B bid 0909196 transportation of human remains to archangel funeral home in chapel. 2D is approval of the renewal of the contract for medical supplies bid number 10071859 to calliger in Henry Shine company. 2E is approval of specifications and authority to advertise for RFP 1009200, an employee service award event in appointment of Amy Phillips, Human Resources Director Gary Truitt, Adult Probation Supervisor and Beth Fleming, Director of Purchasing is the evaluation committee. 5A is approval of bill report payments from CSCD, Community Corrections, TEA, AIP, Shares, Training, Shares, Forfeiture, VIT, Interest, DA Check, VADA, Forfeiture, Funds are all presented for recording purposes only good morning, James Wells. Morning, Judge and commissioners, I ask approval of bill report with the six deletions of the general fund that are all listed on separate page with various processing problems will correct those of you have done correctly. In one addition from the other public health fund, these bills include over three million million in payments, a half a million from the general fund that includes another approximately $100,000 for the criminal justice computer upgrade. 420,000 road and bridge includes one new motor grader at 200,000. The point out we have a payment of about 48,000 of a juvenile probation for the JJ-AEP contract with Lil's wise, the, for program teachers this one month I'm in a home of about 48,000 of the juvenile probation for the JJEP contract with Lillse Wise D for program teachers just one month just to give you an idea of how big that contract is 48,000 of you know provides the teachers for the that special program. And here we're paying we do also have a million million some hundred thousand out of for the loop to 88 construction project with Thomas Byron that just point that brings us to as of October 31st 54 percent complete on that $16 million contract. That's all corrections that have. Commissioner Mitchell, did you question about one or did you get it? I got it straight in okay Are there any questions for members of court? Hearing the questions do have a motion for approval Motion by Commissioner Marchant Second the motion Seconded by Commissioner Coleman. Hearing no questions, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion does carry. In consideration of some of our guest time, I want to go to 6B, which is approval of ranking and selection of furnishings most qualified for a trip 08 on system projects. This is RFQ 0709-1989. It is recommended by the evaluation committee. We'll call on Beth Lening. Good morning, Judge and commissioners. Very excited this morning to bring this much awaited project to commissioners court. As you know, we did issue an RFQ for the TrupoA projects. And we did that by issuing specific projects for projects one through six. And then we listed the category as unspecified for projects seven for those projects that will be coming up in the near future. The committee did their initial evaluations from the 42 responses from the firms that we did receive. And we averaged those and ranked them and took the top three for projects one through six and interviewed six firms for those. The committee then rescored those three firms for each project and what's in your agenda packet is the ranking that we're recommending today. For the record I would like to read those into the record for project one which is the Justin North-like plan, Tignol and Perkins, incorporated as the number one firm, Project II, which is FM 455 from FM 2450 to Marion Road, Dan and Bob Engineering Company as the number one. Project III, FM 720 North, and the ATH Associates Incorporated, Project IV, US 377 from FM 455 to Grayson County Line, Bridge Farmer and Associates, Project 5, US 377 from FM 1830 to State Highway 170, Jacobs Engineering, Group Incorporated, Project 6, US 377 from Interstate 35V to FM 1830, Booker Willis and Rattliff Corporation. Then for Project 7, we selected the firms that scored 85 or higher and they're pre-qualified. So there is no order that I'm calling these off. They're just pre-qualified for future projects. We'll do a separate solicitation from those firms once those projects are ready to move forward. Those firms are half-associates, incorporated, Booker Willis and Ratliff Corporation, Tignol and Perkins Incorporated, CPNY and HNTB. That is the committee's recommendation. I would like to thank the committee members. This was a very long process that were very thorough and comprehensive and I do appreciate their time. Included Bennett Hall, our Director of Public Works for Engineering, John Feld, Assistant District Attorney, and Gary Bailey, Text.Denton area engineer. Now we'd like to thank them personally. This was a long process. Thank you. Are there any members of the court that have questions? Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Ead seconded by Commissioner Marchand hearing no questions. All in favor please say aye. Aye. If there was any motion this carried. Thank you. Let's see here. Let's see here. Let's go to item 6A, which is approval of the status report from purchasing regarding contract negotiations with RTS, incorporated for transportation consulting services. Commissioner Coleman, you placed this on the agenda, so we'll just call on you first. Okay. Well, this basically is precipitated by, I guess, you sent an email stating that you are going to be the lead negotiator for this contract. I don't know if lead negotiator be right but I wanted to be in part of it yes. Well anyway I wanted to get an update from purchasing to ask what was going on and I assumed and probably wrongfully that the committee that had selected them as most qualified would be negotiating the terms of the new agreement. And I wanted to have us all brief and ask Ms. Fleming to put it on the agenda so she could brief us on what was going on. From what I understand, Ms. Fleming had sent Mr. Postor some correspondence asking for a proposal, a scope of work and a attempt to prepare a cost of what was going to be in the agreement and he is yet to respond. So what's going on this Fleming? Mr. Scort ranks the firms and selects the most qualified. I typically send a letter within a few days, which I did here, asking them to send a cost proposal and a scope of work. I have communicated with Mr. Postor after that letter a couple of times, and I know he's working on that proposal, but I have not received it yet. Ace, we've contacted him since September. Yes, I have talked to him. How typically would we go on negotiating this type contacted him since September? Yes, I have talked to him. How typically would we go on negotiating this type of contract? It would be my recommendation that Commissioner Eads had talked about when I'm Roden Bridge East had gone out to select engineers. Commissioner Eads had said that he didn't think it was a good idea to have commissioners or people It was a good idea to have commissioners or people involved in that. So even though I originally responded thinking that I wanted to be on the negotiation team or I guess that may be an improper term, I really think we should have staff, particularly the same group of people who were on the evaluation team basically do the negotiations and get the cost prepared and then present that to the court. But anyway, my question is, how is it? I know we haven't done this much in the past, but what would be your recommendation, Beth? This contract is definitely different because I work directly for all members of Commissioner's Court. Typically, I and the valuation committee will negotiate RFPs, which RFPs are usually technology or service type contracts. For RFPs, which are for architects and engineers, I typically negotiate all those. Pretty much myself, I do use facilities in that process and of course the civil DA on contracts, terms and conditions. For engineering, I don't negotiate those. Those are done. If their county roads spin it how will work on the scope of work and get the proposed costs. And if they're on system projects, ITS has been doing those for us. So I'm typically not involved in the engineering. This is more of a project management contract than engineering. And I'll just follow the direction of commissioner's court. Thank you. Would you feel, I'm sorry, good. engineering and I'll just follow the direction of commissioner's court. Thank you. Would you feel I'm sorry, but do you feel uncomfortable negotiating this or do you you wouldn't see you think you're you have your capable and your office is capable of negotiating that? valuation committee was interviewing there was discussion that the valuation committee would be involved because there is scope of work that involves the civil DA, scope of work that involves the auditor's office. And there are those types of services because it's not just cost, we're also negotiating the scope that they want to make sure and be involved in those types of discussions, which I think is reasonable. With a contract such as this, I would expect that the committee would look at it and give some initial recommendations but then Commissioner's Court would want to finalize the final scope. I did ask for the proposal to be very itemized. First of all, by task, because as you know, we gave a very detailed scope in the RFQ and typically I do ask for itemized pricing from architects and engineers. Then I also ask for new services to be itemized because it's my understanding that the scope of work that we provided does include some new things. And in order for us to be able to negotiate those, we want to know what services are over and above what we're currently receiving. And so those things certainly Commissioner's Court will need to decide once you have a cost identified with a proposed scope you need to know you know what it is that you want. I'm gonna get a menu from you. Right okay well I think that'd be the way to go I think you know you all worked real hard in getting those book I know we all worked hard on getting the bid specs together. We all worked hard on, it was, I know, we had some long meetings regarding that. And I think that y'all would be the best people qualified. I guess you and maybe the auditor and John Felt and probably our engineering staff to give you good cost basis of what the services we would need. That would be my recommendation to the court, I think, is to have them negotiate it, bring us a menu list, and then we can decide what the scope of services are that we would want. And? Yes, ma'am. And it's not my intention to deviate from that. I fully expect the committee whether I'm on it or not to bring that to Commissioner's Court and ultimately it is Commissioner's Court decision. I just desired to be part of that discussion. If you would like to be there also I have no problem with that commission. Well, it's kind of like I mean I think think I had very views on it and I think that like when Ron Bridge East was going out to look for engineers for our projects, I think Commissioner Eads met excellent points about how he thought we should be behaving, you know, getting at least an arms link when selecting those engineers. And I think the same thing needs to be done with this. I really think we need to kind of have the basic negotiations done at arms length with the menu prepared by our staff and then us as the commission's court make the final decisions. My view on this is the selection of the firm has already been made. Now we're done to talking about everything that we want to put in this menu as you refer to it. And I simply have indicated desire to be part of that discussion. Not leading negotiator as you stated it just simply part of the discussion. And ultimately yes every bit of it comes to Commissioner's Court for your input, addition, deletion, whatever in final decision. So she did post this in any appropriate actions. So I want to make a motion that my name be added to the list of the names already on the committee. Is there a second to the motion? Thank you. I have a second from the Commissioner Eads. Is there further discussion on the item? Obviously, I would like for none of us to be on there, but I don't have a problem. If you want to serve, my preference would be that staff would do it. But I got overruled on it the last time. We talked about Commissioner Coveman's serving on one of the meetings. And I'm not, I don't have any heartburns with you doing it. That's what you want to do. And I don't have any heartburns with Commissioner Covement. And it still all comes back to court. As long as I have, I as a part of the Commissioners Code get to have the bottom line of what's going to be done and how it's going to be done. I'm not, you know, because I may not like what you say it or what Commissioner Coleman said is. And obviously, obviously I'm going to state my opinion about it. So, as long as I have that opportunity. Okay. Mr. Eans. I'm understanding the staff's already gone through the selection process of the firm. And that any court member working on on a committee would just be an initial representative on that committee as a working group to work out to recommendations that it would bring forward to the court. I understand you and also commissioning. Any for the discussion? Well, let me ask you this. I mean, is the actual committee going to be negotiating prices, scope of services? What prices for what services we're asking for? Are we going to know exactly what the services the committee is going to negotiate based on the proposal? Do we are going to know all the options that were done? I know that the- It's pretty well lined up in the- Well, I don't think so. I really don't think so. I mean, you know, the RFP was, I know, heavily, or the RFP was heavily negotiated, but, you know, just having had a lot of discussions with my constituents and frankly lots of discussions with Mr. Polster and I've talked to you about it and other members of the court. We still don't really know, is he a lobbyist, is he a consultant, is he an engineering services, does he provide project management, right? What portion of the list are we going to ask for there are things that I probably want to have provided that you all don't want to have provided you know I was in the minority I voted against us awarding it you know I'll be honest with you I really think we should bring these services in house I think we can do it more effectively I think it's a it's not a good policy to have all of our eggs in one basket with somebody who's outside the county. But I know the court is a body has decided to go with that and I know that you know we need to make and we think we've done a good job of making county government run smoother and more efficiently. But I think that if we have staff go out and negotiate a kind of a wide breadth of proposed services, then we can as a body decide what we want to get or not. I think that's when the commission's court should be involved because that will give all of us input at that point. I think it would be difficult for us to have people in the committee decide these are the services we want. So then we're gonna see pricing and then we present it to the commission's board. So that's why I think we should just leave the staff to it, bring us all the options with all the pricing and then we negotiate it from that point. We have a motion on the floor. Is there further discussion on this item? Let me just say one thing. Obviously, whatever the committee, who's on it or who not on it, whatever they bring to us, I think we as commissioners need to be thinking about what the service is that we as ourselves actually won't from the consultant or this contract. And so I think even if we're not on the committee, if you bring something to us that does not include everything that I need, I want to have the opportunity to suggest that maybe we change that and have what I need on there. And I think it's a court is agreeable with that. I think we'll be fine. I'll be okay with that. And Commissioner Coleman, would you like to serve on this committee? You know. Okay, and then we'll go. Okay. All right. I'm going to call us to about. I'll in favor of the motion. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Aye. And carries. 4-1. Commissioner Eads had asked to speak and then I'll go to Mr. Martin. I just want to restate kind of what Commissioner Mitchell was just saying. I think this Commissioner Coleman, if you want to serve on that, I have no problem with that. Obviously, we can't have a corp on there. But I have no problem with that. And you have experience in these matters. I don't have no problem with that at all. Or any member working on it. I think it's just basically a subcommittee working on some initial language and refining a proposal to bring to court and then I would expect each one of the members to evaluate that and see if that meets what each one of them, each one of the members needs are. And Mr. Coleman, you have certain needs and I do and each one of the members do. We have different precincts, different types of projects. And then we all, as a body, work through that just like we did last summer. I don't think he wants to be excluded by going through this process. I think it's just an initial working group. Thank you. Commissioner Marchin. Okay. Okay. Let's just take this. I will say Commissioner E to second in the motion of Commissioner March. And is there any further discussion? Okay. I have no problem with Commissioner Collin being on the committee. Commissioner Collin, do you want to be on the committee? You know, I really thought about it and, you know, I don't know how productive. I mean, I promise y'all will do a good job if I serve on it, but I mean you know I'm I'm I really am A big believer that I think eventually we need to bring this in house. I think it'd be much more effective and Commission are common the question is do you want to be on the community not whether or not we? Excuse me commission. I'm sorry. Not whether or not we bring this service in house You've mentioned that several times and I will just simply state that I think that is absolutely naive to think that that job can be done by in-house engineer. The in-house engineer does a good job working with all members of the court concerning county road projects and that's just fine. This is a different ball game completely and we've already I believe voted on that particular issue. So the question to you, sir, do you want to serve on this committee? I guess my response is I object to your ad hominem remark. I'm a white person. Like that, we're a bilge. Well, okay, let me put it plain and simple for you. I do not like you insulting me. By calling me naive, I was trying to be polite about it. but I don't think I'm naive in these matters, Mary. So, I think you are very disingenuous when you state stuff like that. I do not like your backhanded comments. Okay, we have a motion on this floor. I would not, I do not think that me serving on the committee would be productive. I would like to have a menu list. I don't think the commissioners should be on the committee would be productive. I would like to have a menu list. I don't think the commissioners can be on the committee. Although I respect and thank you, I would respectfully do the point. So you do not want to be on the committee. I don't think it would be productive. All right. Commissioner March and do retracts your motion and the second. And that concludes that agenda item. All right. We'll move on to item 7a, which is approval of budget amendment request 100230. During previous revenues and advocate expenditures for office supplies for courthouse on the Square Museum in the amount of $3,000. Motion by Commissioner Ead, second by Commissioner Marchant. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oppositing. Motion does carry. on the by commissioner marching. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion does carry. 7B is approval of budget amendment request 100240. T decrease revenues for TJPC. This is a grant commitment, actually. It's reduction in the amount of $12,000. Motion by commissioner marching. Second Motion by Commissioner Marchion. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. Other questions? You're none on favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cinean? Motion to carry. 7C is approval of Budget Amendment of Quest 100250. Her computer supplies, including the transfer of funds from District Clerk Records Management on appropriated contingency for District Clerk Records Management Fund in the amount of $117. Motion by Commissioner Ead, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye opposed, senene. Motion does carry. 14A is approval, ambulance service agreement between Dan County, Texas and the town of Lillian, fire department is recommended by the director emergency services. I'll move for approval. Motion by Commissioner Coleman. Seconded by Commissioner Marchandt. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Poussinine. Motion does carry and 14 B is approval of the fire protection service agreement between Denton County Texas and the town of L Lilliam Fire Department is recommended by the director emergency services. I'll move for approval. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does. Carried. We have concluded our business. Happy shopping everybody. We are adjourned. you you you