Good morning ladies and gentlemen, again, the County Commissioner's Court for Tuesday, September 22nd is now in session. This morning, our invocations will be given by James Wells, a county auditor and our pledges will be led by Amy Phillips the director of human resources will you please stand? I'd have really thought that we come this day thanking you on this first day of fall for Your majesty in power the fact that you control the changing of the seasons and you provide that for us for our benefit. And then after the hot summer, thank you for the change in the weather. We ask you to bless each one here and give the commissioners court and county judge your guidance and lead them to make good decisions and bear with what your will is. We also ask you to thank, we thank you especially for the birth of two new baby girls to the County family that we ask you to bless. Zoe and Maya Reglement and their mother Natalie and watch over those children and that mother and keep them healthy and let them grow to be fine young ladies. As Washi watch over each one of us, protect us from sin and bring us back next week and cross name. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it sends one nation on our own, individual with liberty and justice for all. Honor and text aside, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state and by one, and indivisible. Thank you. Commissioner Marchin is on his way. He got held up on Interstate 35, but he's eating close. So we're going to go ahead and get started. Item one is for 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 available from the aid to the court on the side table over here. We'd be glad to hear from you. We want to also remind everyone please turn off your cell phones and your pages. We're going to go now to item 4A, which is the Public Caring for Dent County Commissioner's Court to consider whether to discontinue and close Jackson Road at its intersection with the BNSF Railway Company, Railway, Railroad Crossing, located at Railroad Mile post 382.29 in designation of Nail Road FM LaBon 56 North in US 380 West as the alternate route for traffic. We need a motion to go in our public hearing I'm moved for approval Motion by Commissioner Ead seconded by Commissioner Mitchell all in favor. Please say aye I post an aid motion does carry first. We're gonna call on Commissioner Eads, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed to an aye. Motion does carry. First, we're going to call on Commissioner Eads. Thank you, Judge. This morning is the beginning of a public involvement process, regarding the potential closing of the railroad cross-nary Jackson Road. This is a project that was on the schedule, the request of the BNSF Railroad, even before I took office two years ago. And so we've been working with our county engineers over the last couple of years in evaluating this intersection and this railroad crossing. And this morning, Robin Davis with Road and Bridge West, our project coordinator is going to walk through a slideshow to kind of brief the court and the public about the intersection itself of the potential detour routes. Morning commissioner, Judge. You'll go to the first picture there. That's an overall area and you'll see that the crossing is in a more rural area of crime to south. And the next one is a close-up of the crossing. It's just the intersection right there. It's actually not a four-way. You actually turn off of 156 and go east onto Jackson, or you can turn and go back south on Nail Road. The next picture is of the actual crossing. If you're on the east side headed west toward 156, you can see the grade is very steep. The next picture is going west over the tracks, and this is actually taken from a vehicle. So your side is a little impaired to the other side. The crossing does actually narrow to a one lane. The next picture is the east side of the tracks and the next one is the west side of the tracks from 156. The grade is not quite as steep on that side. The next picture is headed east. This is where you can either turn right to go on nail or go straight ahead on Jackson. There's some things that Denton County has to do before being asked and close the crossing. Of course one was to have a public hearing. We had to get the petition to have the public hearing. We have to complete the appropriate alternative vehicle or accessory, which is the detour. And didn't county will also need to install the appropriate end of road treatments or permanent barricades at each side of the road. If didn't county does these things, there will be an expense. Excuse me. VNSF will reimburse didnint and County $42,500. Once the permanent barricades are installed, and TechStyle will reimburse Dint and County monthly for all the actual costs up to the TechStyle Maximum authorized funding amount of $170,000. And this will be to pay our D-tour, which would be mail-road all the way to 380. And we have our cost estimates to do those things. The first cost estimate is for the bearcaids and the second cost estimate is to pay nail road all the way down to 380. It's actually a gravel road right now. The mileage detour that people would actually be taking on if we closed the rubber crossing for them to take Nail Road to 380 and then take 380 back up to 156 and 156 back up to Jackson. If that's where they would normally come out on Jackson on 156, this 1.79 miles total. And the map of that is on the next page. So you can see where the X is as the railroad they would normally just shoot straight across to 156. Now they would have to go south, down Nail Road, come out on 380 and then go back up on 156 and that's a total of 1.79 miles. The next detour, if they were wanting to come out on 1173, possibly and come into the town of Crumb, they could take a radiki road. And it's a total of 2.9 miles of the, is the detour route and the map of that is also attached. So you can see where the crossing is, where the exit is, they would actually, if they were even more eastern, they could take Bratiki and go north and come out on 1173 on the Cart Street and then down to FM 156. And that's all I have. And that's all I have. Yes and in a week. Again? Yes. Your next, Tim. Next is Tim from BNSF Railroad. I'm not. That slide right there. Where? Mass where the EMS is located is that probably in the upper left corner. Fire Department, ambulance. Actually the city's here if they can address that as well. I'm just looking for the location. I'm not familiar with it. Okay. So if the crossing were closed for the folks of Unradic, you'd go 1173 east and south. I'm not going to keep going. And then the option is going down to 380 for the overpass and coming back now. Okay. I just want to make sure I understood whether you mess with us. I guess what I'm here just kind of give you a recap on this process or this, the closure proposal how text.binus approach communities. This crossing Jackson Road came up on a program a few years ago for lights and gates. When it comes up on that federal signal program, text out schedules the on-site meeting with the railroad and the local roadway authority. At that time, I believe it was Commissioner Carter before. Andy. And met out there in text.explain that in order to put the lights and gates in, there are certain things that need to be done either on the railroad track and on the roadway. The railroad prepared the work estimate and scope of work for what we could do, and they identified that the roadway approaches needed to be built up. And then the question was raised as every inspection, if the agency, the roadway authority is willing to consider closure, the state can take the same federal funding, the 170,000, and offer that to the community for all to an access construction. The railroads are asked then to provide some kind of monetary consideration to the agencies as well. And being a SEP offered initially 35,000 and the latest offer is $42,500. There's an ours as a donation. It's not strings of taxes. Text dot has specifications. There ours is a donation. It's not strings of taxes. Text.has specifications. There's not a donation. It is a force account work reimbursement. You do the work, you build them, they'll reimburse you. The crossing here at the time, when we had the diagnostic a few years ago with Commissioner Carter, we had three incidents that same year where vehicles were hung up on the crossing. Did not have an incident with impact with the Carter, we had three incidents that same year where vehicles were hung up on the crossing. Did not have an incident with impact with the train, but that was made aware at that time. And this year at least there hasn't been anything reported as a high rail or hung up vehicle on the crossing. I confirmed with the maintenance folks this morning to make sure. So there was at one point in time some type of vehicle low profile that utilized the crossing may not be using it now. Perhaps the lesson was learned. The consideration should be given that whatever you do, I think if it stays open, text dot asking that the roadway approaches be built up so that you have more level approach in some way shape or form to get across the crossing before you put the lights and gates in. To put the lights and gates in and existing condition of the roadway, what that does is allow motor, it doesn't take away the safety concern of the geometry of the road itself. So it does not seem to be a prudent use of $200,000 in signal funds, but gates out across them where the safety still hasn't been enhanced. It just merely gave you an indication to get out of your car when you're stuck on the crossing because the trains come in. So from the railroad's perspective, we're supportive of closing any crossing if you could take them to a grade separated crossing. In 1.79 miles, I believe, to go around to 380 with a grade separation is not a concern for change blocking that crossing as it is a separated grade. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Let me make sure Eans did do something else you wanted to say or start calling. I think we just welcomed the input from the residents. Sure. I have several public comment forms here. If there's anybody else that wants to speak that hasn't filled one of these out, you need to get one from the county aid to the court at the side table here. I'm going to just take these in the order that I received them. Mr. Jim Doyle asked to speak. I want to thank everybody for being here this morning. Truly does help to have the public input. We appreciate your time. Good morning, Mr. Doyle. Good morning. My name is Jim Doyle. My wife, Mary Nell and I live in Jackson Road, one in two tenths miles west of the proposed closing, I own JEMD farms. I'm also speaking on behalf of Philip Patek, of Patek farms and Jerry Bagley farms. If the crossing is closed, any farm equipment needing to be moved to the south of 380 and east of 156 will have to go down highway 380 reporting reported as being one of the most dangerous highways in state of Texas. Our travel through Crumb east on 1173 and then south on Raddicky Road east of Jackson to Egan Road and cross 380 at a very dangerous intersection. It has been pointed out that it is 2.7 miles from the crossing to this 380 and radically crossing. The 2.7 miles double it for farm equipment that is very detrimental to the equipment on tires on the highway. It is very costly. Bagley farms and paddock or paddock farms will be asking the deputy sheriff for escort if we have to go to highway 380 to be moved up and down the highway with our equipment. If the proposed closing happens, the people living on Jackson Road could possibly have their insurance premiums increased or cannot obtain insurance at all because of accessibility. If the closing happens and a train is blocking 11-7-3 and crump, which happens quite often, there is no access to the schools or any homes on Jackson Road, west of Raddike Road. Fire trucks will have to travel twice as far to reach these homes. Also closing this site will create a dump at this intersection of Nail Injection Jackson which already is a problem. A lot of people using this road to get this road to get their children to school on time on 1173 as blocked by the train. The Jackson Road crossing has been in existence for as long as I have lived on Jackson Road which has approximately 30 years. There has never been a major accident at this crossing. There has been one incident of an 18-willer being hung up on the tracks and this is due to the fact that a DPS trooper detoured him from highway 380 as a result of a wreck on the highway. Jackson Road crossing is not an unsafe crossing as the rail road has reported. I use this rail crossing quite often and I've had no problems. I've watched many cars daily go over this crossing with no problems. Ladies and gentlemen, let's not forget that the roads of Denton County are owned by the taxpayers. And if the crossing is thought to be unsafe and the taxpayers should be asking the railroad to put up more signs, no trucks allowed, or put across armed barrier. No trucks allowed or put across arm barrier. Please do not close this crossing as it will be a hardship on many people and the farmers living west and east of Jackson Road. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you for being here this morning. The next person that I have here is Lieutenant Dennis. Is that passenger? Good morning. here is Lieutenant Dennis is that passenger? Desmonie. And it's passenger Lieutenant Crown Police Department. I'm here to represent Margis Yiservices of the City of Crown. Also been a resident of Denton County for 58 years. First of all, addressing the issue of closing this crossing, County's been aware of this roadway far too long. It has done way too little to do anything to improve the conditions of that roadway. I don't know if it's been pushed around by the railroad, the railroad that won't spend anybody on it. First Court Administration of City of Crumb, which is the, herself has been there approximately six years. We know nothing of any offer of money, retribution or anything offered by the railroad. Had I not seen the signs as of most people here, nobody would even know that this was on the agenda. I'm offended by the commissioners court, especially by our commissioner, for not contacting somebody in the city or some of the figures, figureheads of the city of Crom and let them know what was that issue. The only thing that issue is the county apparently still does not want to spend any money on that roadway. The railroad definitely doesn't want to spend any money on that roadway. The only issue we have with traffic or traffic problems on that railway crossing are these large, bed flat hull trucks. We've had a few hang up on it. In the past few years, I can probably remember three or four. It has never caused an accident. It has delayed the railroad. I understand it costs the railroad. Lots of money for every minute they're delayed. As far as traffic accidents, I can only remember three. They're all single car accidents. They were all alcohol related and they all ended up in the big ditch on the west side, which I don't know if that's the county's, the maintenance responsibility of the railroads. Yes, it is a narrow crossing, approaching from the west, traveling east across the railway. You can't pass two cars because one of them is going to slip off in the ditch. That's somebody's fault either on this board or at the railroad. I don't know who maintains the roadway there at the railroad easement But it's been disregarded for many years If you close that roadway we have no alternate route for emergency services We're Having problems as it is with the growth with the traffic on of having 73. Especially at school time of the morning and of the afternoon. It is hard to get even on emergency vehicle out onto 1173 or McCart Street through the traffic. Even if there's emergency run, traffic stacks up that bad. If you haven't been through there at 7.30 in the morning or 3 to 3.30 in the afternoon, you don't realize what traffic does come down that roadway. There is no alternative route for us at WC. If the train is coming through and blocking the cart and there's a emergency call on the other side of town that they said our only alternative is just to go a couple of miles north, come down Hopkins which is partially city maintained, partially county maintained. It's a terrible road most of the time. The other alternative is to go down to Jackson Road crossing, our emergency equipment, has no problem getting across that intersection. There are a lot of people on Jackson Road, a lot of people in the southwest part of that area, even the southeast part of that area, that use that road both ways going to work. He was a Dallas-4-Worth area. It would affect them greatly if they were not allowed to use that crossing. I noticed on the previous slide it showed the red line on the west side coming down to 156. That's not a true representation because he didn't take into consideration the loop around and then sitting at that intersection of 156 service road in Highway 380. We have numerous accidents at that intersection that intersection monthly. That is the most dangerous road in Denton County, if not the state. It can't take any more pressure on it. Same way with Nell Road, becoming off of a gravel road, trying to gain speed if you're going west, going up the arge overpass. Nobody yields to you. You're taking a risk getting on that roadway. As far as the city of Crumb, we're opposed to closing this roadway. It will affect us tremendously just on the impact that it will put on the roads in our city that are already overcrowded. We get no cooperation from the state of Texas, Texas, as far as any improvements to 1173. They take speed and percentage into account when they do traffic surveys. We've done several. We're not allowed to do any surveys during heavy traffic. It has to be in the middle of the day. Well, in the middle of the day there's not that much traffic on there, but you take morning school time, morning work trial time, afternoon traffic, and then you start putting it, dumping people out of the side roads onto the one main road and most of them on the A-Sider jumping out into a 60 mile an hour speed limit coming off of the curve. We're having our own problems. Please don't put any more on us simply because the Commissioner's Court won't ignore the fact that it should have done something this roadway many years ago. Is that in the railroad pushing them around? I understand the railroad. They're a powerful position, powerful entity. But we need to take a stand here in Denton County and tell Berley to the Northern something needs to be done for our citizens, just road long-strike citizens, and y'all have neglected it for too many years. Again, I wish that someone from the Commissioner's Court would have a little more, excuse me, a little more contact with the official of the city of Crown. I was like, had I not travel through there myself, it's all the signs. And I had to go back a second time, make sure I read the signs right. They're not very big signs and they're stuck over in the bar ditch in the bushes. So had I not done that and others done that. They would not have even known this here even taken place. Perhaps City of Criber, I think. The next public comment from I have is from Mr. Joe Bale. Didn't Mark whether or not you wanted to speak. Did you want to speak, sir? Did you want to speak? Okay, I wasn't marked on here. Good morning. I'm the mayor pro-tium, Chrome. We do have a bad congestion problem with traffic coming through there. If they close this crossing, we will have one crossing in 4.1 miles across Verletra. That's 2 miles north and 2.1 south. If you go to 380, if you, if you, there's a large overpass there, either way that you come out, whether you're coming out from 156 or you're coming out from Nale Road, you have a tremendous amount of gravel trucks coming down through there. And I have nothing against gravel trucks, but I've driven them and they can't stop. If you pull out, going east, you're going to cross a a bus, or a farm vehicle or something of that nature, you're not going to be able to accelerate fast enough to stay out of the way of the gravel trucks. I did a quick survey this morning like see if you close close that one it's two miles north to the next crossing to go across the railroad track. It's 2.1 to 380 to get across the railroad track. In Ponder, we have 1,1979 people on the Cedal Limit sign. In Ponder, they have 710 people on the Cedal Limit sign. In a mile and a half, they have five crossings across the railroad track. Well, when I was on the city council back in the mid 80s, we tried to get the railroad to let us put across the railroad track. We have roads that go up to the railroad track and stop from the east and the west. And we tried to get them to let us put across the across there. At that time, and I can't tell you the people's names because it's like Mr. Bashinger said, we found out about this at the City Council meeting last night. I didn't have time to bring up all the people's names. We talked to a man in Port Worth and he said that it would cost the city of Chrome $1 million in the mid-80s to put across and across the railroad track. And we don't have that kind of money. So we ask you, I could go into the details of how far the traffic backs up every morning, all three ways coming into crumb, going to the school and eight o'clock business every morning. There's small towns, Slide Hill, Greenwood, Bolliver. They all come to Crom to go to Denton. Now then we have a gravel pit that is open to rock crusher out by Slide Hill. by slide L. And so with the, with the, dim diverting the traffic to Luke 288 for the gravel trucks, if they're, if they're going to McKinney or somewhere on the east side of Denton, then they come down Luke 288 and cut right through the crop. and we've had problems with the speed, rack, scepter with the gravel trucks. So we're asking as a city council that you not close the railroad crossing, if it needs to be repaired, upgraded, then yes we we would like for it to be upgraded to where it is two lanes instead of one lane. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Kim Whitman. Good morning and thank you for being here. First off, I'm a resident of the road. I live approximately three quarters a mile east of the tracks. There's not much more I can add that hasn't already been said, but we are definitely opposed to this because taking that traffic and putting it on on the Nail Road and getting back on the 380 is just a heck of a lot more dangerous than crossing that railroad track. It's just like everybody stated, they drive, you got this gravel hauler, and everything going up and down that road and you're kind in a blind spot when you're coming out there exiting on the 380 out of Nail Road and we're adamantly opposed to it. And again I would like to well I've got the forum here to thank Commissioner Eads for what he has done in the last two years out there in Vection Road. He's done tons more than his predecessor, and we do appreciate what you've done. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you for being here this morning. Mary Finley. Good morning, and thank you for being here. I'm Mary Finley and I also live on Jackson Road and I've talked to Mr. Eads about this particular situation. Everything that's been said is true about the danger of either putting more people out on 380 or routing them down Raddkey road which is only going to increase the traffic in a very residential area that's got lots of children and animals. The traffic already backs up so you can't get out on 1173 in the morning when there's school traffic. I don't want to see anything done that's going to put more traffic where there are children. We've always had a problem because people don't pay attention to speed in the country. I've lived on this road almost 21 years. My daughter learned to drive her standard car up that incline. She also learned some very good cuss words trying to drive her standard up that incline. She also learned some very good cuss words trying to drive her standard up that incline. But all of us that live on that road, we come and go that way into town all the time. I probably go that direction once or twice a day. And we know to slow down, it's an incline. You slow down, you honk. You look to see if somebody's coming. In all the years that I've been there, I've never seen an accident and I go and come that way at least twice a day. However, I've had two personal friends that have been killed on 380, pulling out from my side of town onto 380 and have been killed over the course of the last two years. I think it would just, it would take all of the residents that live in that area and would create more of an inconvenience, it would increase the traffic onto roads that are already dangerous roads. We've had other problems on that road. Someone mentioned the dumping problem earlier. I really think if there's easier access off of creating, the dumping is going to end up being a bigger problem. I think that I've probably made all of my points along with everyone else and I thank you for listening to me. Thank you for being here this morning. Jan Bradley. Good morning. I am a resident of Nell Road. There is only two actually on Nell Road, one that backs up, March Ramp. So there's three of us on Nell Road. Is there any way that I can ask that you go back to the slide just previous to this one? That right there. Okay. If you'll see Nell Road is the one that zig-zags. All that proper in the zig-zag off to the right. That is me. I have already lost a front gate, I have lost fences and everything else from people being diverted down my road to come over there. Now when they come down this road and they take those curves too fast so we don't need to increase traffic there to go down, then they get down to the end. And as everyone has already mentioned when there is a fatality or just major accident which is quite often on 380 right there either at Nail Road or just on the other side of the bridge which we have a lot of fatalities there, a lot of major accidents. Everyone gets diverted there. Why not put up a no truck route? The officers that come out and they're working those accidents, they have never been down those roads. They have not a clue that those trucks cannot get through. And let's say if they diverted the vehicles, the large trucks, let's say the opposite direction towards Jim Crystal and then those trucks try to turn to go towards Decayter. They can't do it there either because the train trussel is so low you can't get through. So once you get to 380 and there is a any kind of a major accident, the road shut down, there is no diverting 18 weir at that point in time. They all need to be set aside and every time we have another accident you can have a different officer. So each one of them, how do you teach each one of them that you cannot divert on these roads? It needs to be a no truck route. That will tell everybody no trucks can make it. And let's say you go down there I I'm on the road and you shut down the railroad crossing and we have a flood. Gee it's a rainy season. The only bridge we have down there is on top of culverts and it goes underwater. There is flood gates to prevent you. So what you are forcing me to do is my only exit from my property that I've owned since 93 is to go out on 380. And as everyone has already stated, extremely dangerous trying to jump out there. Now right now, yes, that's exactly what I'm doing when I have to go to work. But in the other time, I go through the back, over the railroad crossing where it's safe. Now I try to jump out on 380. I have two lanes to deal with. For the moment, I understand 380 is going to be widened. Oh, I'll have a lot of fun trying to jump out over what four lanes are traffic. It's not going to be possible. We cannot shut down the river crossing. Now let's say in two years my grandson will be going to crumb schools. I don't think anyone is going to really like the idea of a school bus loaded with children trying to get to Nell Road and back out on 380 just to pick up my grandson. That is not a very good image of having these school kids being the one that is hit by that 18-wheeler and it's going to happen. Also if you put up a no truck route there, that's one of the simplest things you can do, the most inexpensive things you can do to prevent any other railroad damage. Because once I get there they look at that bridge and I think, well I can't go with that culvert. So they try the railroad crossing. It's just not a passable place for a truck. Plus I would like to see the pits in the road that they're causing on a non-maintained road stopped. I don't need the extra traffic, especially with the curves. It's just a bad situation altogether. It is not you're having me commit suicide to what you're doing by throwing me on 380 and my family. And I would like to see Lee Jackson Road crossing open. It is the only exit I have. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. The last public comment from that I have is from Lee and Meadwell. Good morning. I'm also a resident of Jackson Road. I live just about a mile east of this crossing and have been there for 21 years. And again, thank you for the paving or whatever that is that's much better than it was. There are, well, we talked about, they talked about not having lots and arms. There are no arms, but there are lots at that railroad crossing. And basically, I don't have anything new to add other than what everybody has said just to reiterate. reiterate, when you're approaching that crossing, you see that it's not, that you don't have good visibility, and so most people are extremely cautious about how they go across that. Again, just like they've said, I'm not aware of any accidents where people have like run into each other or whatever. And my concern, one of my biggest concerns is entering an X-ing 380. Anytime you're entering or exiting a major thoroughfare, your likelihood of having an accident is greater than when you're just driving along it. And again, that's a hard place to enter off of Nell Road if you go in straight up because you're immediately going up a large incline to go over and overpass and then you come down the other side so I'm on your brakes to get to exit and the same coming from the 156 little turnaround thing to get on the 380 you're going across traffic both ways going 60 miles an hour one coming over the overpass that you see just shortly before it would hit you and then routing things on more people on 1173 is a very bad idea with the school zones and the way that they are and it has more traffic than it can handle. And putting more people on it is an extremely bad idea. And we've talked about the distances, that the routes rerouting traffic is. It's not a very long distance, it doesn't sound like. I'm relatively speaking. But the detours that you have to take and the 90s and the 45s and then getting on high traffic areas and makes it more than just I mean it's mileage wise it's only a short distance time wise it's much more. So those are basically just reiterating what has already been said I'm against closing that. Thank you. Is there any words and attendance that would like to address commissioners for this issue that has not filled out a public comment form? Did you wish to reiterate something? Go right ahead. The difficult questions. The decision to close a public street in the state of Texas is responsibility of the roadway authority. The railroad can't dictate a mandate a public aggregate closure. And with the comments that are said, there hadn't been a positive one in favor of closing it. And of the three options, if that goes away, the options are leave it open and do nothing by the county or leave it open and improve the roadway approaches to have more level approaches. Text on being a CF would go forward with a federal signal project to put lights and gates there and if necessary a longer crossing surface if your choice is to widen your roadway to accommodate that. So there's some considerations of your seems like the two choices that are left to keep it open. Thank you for the clarification. OK, if you've already spoken, please don't do it again. We need to move on the stone in here. I don't believe you. Fill that up, public. Come in front of you. Yes, please. Well, I don't want to cut people off, but we do need to move on, too. I came in late. That's my fault. I appreciate it. For the record, would you please state your name? I'm Swindle. I'm the fire chief at Crom. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of you. I'll keep it very short. I'm losing my voice. That's to your advantage. But some of the things that I've heard, and I know, luckily I know a lot of you people, I look at you on the board, I know a lot of you, and you know how important it is for a small department or small city to be able to be heard. A lot of times we're not heard whenever we have things that need to be talked about. Sometimes we're scared to come and talk when we shouldn't be, because we had you representing us. And so I'm gonna ask you to represent us today. In some of the things that everyone has said, I reiterate all those things, but I also wanna add the thing about the fire department, it does put a hardship on us, EMS and fire wise, if we get a train that gets stopped, which does happen to us, which does happen to ponder on a daily basis. I want you to consider those things for us, please, for EMS, Fire and Police, and for all the individuals that have spoken before me. The other thing I want to consider, you to consider, sitting at the back or sitting close to the back, which I always try to do, I have an opportunity to watch some of the individuals that are intertwined in this talk. It kind of upsets me a little bit from the railroad standpoint. I can tell exactly who's here from the railroad because every time one of the individuals would speak they would start chuckling to each other and they would start looking at each other. That concerns me. Do they think that we don't have a say here? Do they think that we can't be heard? I'll leave it with you because I believe in the five of you. I believe you will hear us. Thank you very much. I just want to say that I appreciate everybody being here this morning. I really do. The purpose of public hearings is just exactly what we've done here this morning and that is to hear from the public. I know that Commissioner Eadson's been working on this and a lot of other issues diligently trying to address them. We can't do everything at once. Be nice if we could. But the, like I said, the purpose of public hearing is just exactly what we're here this morning. I'm not chuckling, sir. It's a very serious issue. And I don't believe any other members the court are chuckling either. We do appreciate it. Once again, everybody being here at Commissioner Eads, did you want to close the sound? I'll just make a couple quick comments. To the fire chief, I appreciate your comments. Public safety is, as an elected official, one of our number one concerns. And I'm the son of a fireman, uncles of firemen, but I've been around the public safety environment for my whole life. And coming into office, this was an issue brought up to us by the railroad. And we're put on note as that we have an unsafe crossing. And so how do we respond to that? And so that's what we've done is we've taken the measures over the last couple years as evaluating the different options. This was an option. Not that we're advocating closing this railroad crossing, but this is an option. As the gentleman from the railroad said, there's three options. One is to close it, one is to leave it open with no changes, and one is to leave it open with modifications. And in evaluating those modifications with our engineers, there could be potentials for flooding the way you align the road and so forth. Because it is a low area all of y'all who live out there, you know that. I mean, that's why the road has never paid before and I went ahead and paid the road as some people have addressed so the neighborhood I have paid attention to the neighborhood. And so I think what we need to evaluate is and you know I've been talking to people for two weeks about this since the signs went up. I've talked to so many people who were not here today who raised very legitimate concerns just as all of y'all did today. And so I think what we need to do is table the actual potential for the closing and go back and visit our engineers in more detail, look and see what some other modifications we can make with some more input from either residents. Because in visiting with people on the telephone, so many of them said Commissioner, absolutely that's not a safe crossing but we live out there. We know what it's like for Mary, we grew up out there. And so that's exactly, but the people on the phone I've talked to in many of y'all today say admit it's unsafe crossing. What we need to evaluate is by putting people out on 380, with it being unsafe road, or without the modifications that the county's funding up on 1173, which the county's going to be doing. Without those being in place, are we moving unsafe problems to other areas in town? And so I think that's what that's the point we need to do. But with those comments, I'll be, I want to thank all of y'all for coming out. As a judge said quite plainly, this is a process. It's not an event, this is a public input process. I didn't anticipate us taking action today. We needed to receive input from y'all, the residents, to your elected officials. When we look at that, it's part of the mix. And then we move forward. So now I want to thank all of y'all for being here today and all the people who may be watching who called and talked to me on the phone. I appreciate your comments as well. And with that, I'll close the public hearing. We have a motion to close the public hearing in a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion to this carry. We will not be taking action on this item today. It was like you stated just to get the public hearing and get the input and we appreciate that. We're gonna take about a one minute break here if people want to stretch your legs and leave quietly. 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. . The motion is convened. Court is reconvened. I'm now going to item 4B, which is also public hearing. This is approval of the reply of lot 33R block C, upon the roast of alley phase 3, precinct 4. We need a motion to go into public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell Seconded by Commissioner Eads on favor please say aye. I Posting motion does carry will start with Benatow with morning. Thank you judge. Thank you, commissioners this replat Was approved by the DSE on July 30th We sent out 57 notices. Did not receive any four or a gants, and we had 11 return. DSE approved unanimously. We have not received any calls. Basically, the owner wants to combine two lots into one. Thank you. Is anyone in attendance who would like to address Commissioner's Court on this issue? Either in favor of or opposed? Anyone in attendance who would like to address commissioners court on this issue? Either in favor of or opposed. Anyone in attendance who would like to address commissioners court on this issue? Hearing none, do we have a motion to close the public hearing? Motion by commissioner Ead, seconded by commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye opposed, and aye. Motion does carry. Need a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Eans. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Any comments? Any none? On favor, please say aye. I oppose in a motion to this carry. Thank you. Okay, we're all the way up to item two. Item two is the consent agenda. Members, are there any items on the consent agenda that you need to pull for consideration or discussion? Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Ead. So I'll in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. Consent agenda today consists of approval of the order making appointments. We have promotion to the elections department, the promotion criminal district's attorneys office, and a new hire and WIC administration. To be is approval of the Intra Departmental Transfers, to see is approval of award a bid for South County Line Road Bridge replacement. This has been number 0809193 to set 2L construction LLC for $212,880. $180 to D as approval renewal of general liability, auto liability and auto physical damage insurance policies with Texas Association of Counties. To E is to schedule a 9 a.m. public hearing consideration discussion in the indoor approval of October 13th, 2009, 9 a.m. as the date and time to conduct a public hearing to consider and approve amendment to the Lake River Roberts land use ordinance for zoning change to a minimum of 15 lots of zone five I'm seeing our five residential state district with a restriction that lots of eight nine and 12 block a of timber lake trail subdivisions shall be zoned our five residential state district and all remaining lots shall be zoned our two single family meeting density This is in precinct one and two F is approval October 27, 2009 9 am is the date and time to conduct a public hearing to consider and approve the replat of lot for our five in five hour block a of timber lakes trails subdivision precinct one 3a is approval of a proclamation, and I will read this. Proclamation, whereas the use of illegal prescription drugs and the abuse of alcohol and nicotine constitute the greatest threats to the well-being of America's childrens. Children, whereas 14 years of surveys conducted by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University have consistently found that the more often children and teenagers eat dinner with their families, less likely they are to smoke, drink, and use illegal drugs. Whereas frequent family dining is associated with lower rates of teen smoking, drinking, and illegal drug use, and prescription drug abuse, whereas the correlation between frequent family dinners and reduced risk routine substance abuse is well documented, whereas parents who are engaged with their children's lives through such activities as frequent family dinners are less likely to have children who abuse substances, whereas family dinners have long constituted a substantial color of the family life in America. Now therefore, it resolved that the County Commissioners Court does hear by proclaim September 28, 2009. It's family day, a day to eat dinner with your children and urge us all citizens to recognize and participate in its observance. It sure will move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Posting. Motion does carry. 5A is approval of the bill report payments from CSCD, Community Corrections T.A.I.P. shares, training shares, forfeiture of the IT interest, D.A. Check V, and D.A. forfeiture funds are presented for reporting purposes. Only and we also have the auditor's monthly financial report for the month of July 2009 that is presented for recording purposes. Good morning, James Wells. Good morning, Judge. Commissioners, I ask the court to approve the bill report with the three deletions and two additions that are noted on the separate page. Thank you. Are there any questions? Members of the Court, do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Marchand. On favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Sen. motion does carry. 6A is approval of revisions to purchasing policy 1.2. This is purchasing authority in general guidelines. We'll call on Beth Lening. Morning. 20. I have a series of policies that I am providing for you today to consider. Most of them are changes that are very minor that are just kind of clean up, changing the word from bid to procurement to follow the House Bill's 987. But it also changed the statutory bid amount from 25,000 to 50,000 that was also approved in that same statute. Policy 1.2 also has a couple of other changes. Just to clean up on the professional and personal services, instead of they are exempted, we're changing that to may be exempted, which is the process that we follow here at Denton County, but it meets the statute requirements. And then we're also deleting the certified information system purchases that programs no longer available. It's just a cleanup on that. The main change or one of the biggest changes in this policy is to include the services under the statutory bit amount are delegated to the Director of Purchasing. I've been working with Kim Gillis and her staff on the policy and the language in the statute that is not clear that those services that are under that statutory bit amount can be processed by purchasing. The reason for this change is really inefficiency. We have lots of little contracts that come through Commissioner's Court that are $2,000, $3,000, $10,000, whatever. That could be processed more efficiently through purchase orders and through the purchasing department. The way that the wording currently is, it does not allow that. And so we are recommending that that be changed. And also want to assure commissioners court that any contracts that have some language that may be contrary to what we typically approve or any other concerns that I may have, I will work with Kim Gillis on those and involve her in those decisions. What you just stated also belong applies to 6B, C, D, and E correct. So we could actually take 6 ABC and D and E all in one vote if that is the members' choice. So are there any questions on any of those five postings? Policy 1.2, 2.1, 4.1, 5.1, and 8.1. Are there any questions, remembers the clerk concerning those purchasing issues? I beg your pardon? Okay. Okay. Okay. Let's have a motion for approval of the 6A, B, C, D, and E. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Once again, I'll ask if there's any questions on any of these five. Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed, senine. Motion to scary, thank you, Beth. Sixth F is approval of selecting the innovative transportation solutions and appropriated as the most qualified firm for our Q0709195 for transportation strategic planning. is the most qualified firm for our Q-0709-195 or Transportation Strategic Planning, funding and project management services is recommended by the evaluation committee, and again, will calm Beth learning. Yeah, little summary of the information that I've provided to you, as you know, Commissioner's Court did issue an RFQ or request for qualifications for these services. We did receive one response from the current provider, innovative transportation solutions, and they also proposed in teaming with freeze and nickels. We were concerned that there was only one response, so we did verify in our records that the through BIDSync, which is our online bidding service, that it was sent to 1,170 engineering firms who are listed with our service. 134 firms downloaded the documents and reviewed them, and we had nine firms attending the pre-bid conference. In the effort to assess why we only had one, I did contact eight large firms, just randomly asked some questions. I had four of those firms respond back to me and I've listed some of their reasons for not responding in the briefing memo that's before you today. Some of the things that they said is that the duties identified in the RFC are primarily project management and their firms are not, that's not the strength in that arena. Their firm strength are providing plans and specifications, design work for road construction and they tend to focus on their core competencies. And they were also concerned about being eliminated from the design work for the Denton County projects where they want to participate as prime contractors for those design services. The evaluation committee did meet, go through the response, came up with a list paid is from contractors for those design services. The evaluation committee did meet, go through the response, came up with a list of questions and things that needed to be clarified. We scheduled an interview with the firm and freezing nickels came as well. We went through those items and I provided you that backup information in your packet. I also sent you by email the full proposal from ITS that was too large to post in this agenda packet. So I want to make sure all of you had seen that. The committee is recommending approval today. It does meet the selection process, set out in the statutes in the Professional Procurement Act, which is chapter 2254, the government code. There's been some misconception in the media recently about why we didn't accept bids on this versus an RFQ, and I would like to just clarify that if I could. The statute does not allow us to take bids or proposals on a service such as this. Because it is engineering services, we must select the most qualified firm before we can ever discuss processing. So I just would like to clarify that for the record on why we went through the process we did. We're meeting statutory requirements. And I'll be quite to answer any questions that you have. Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the court? I have some. First of all, I'd like to thank you for all your hard work on this process. I know it was a interesting enterprise from the very beginning, but I would like to know because there was only one bidder. Is this truly a recommendation? Or is this y'all saying that this is the only vendor we asked for an RFQ, so then you're recommending you're going ahead and pushing it forward to the court. I mean, is this? It's a recommendation. Even though there was only one. I'll have to do a recommendation. Okay, all right. I can speak. I received everybody's scores. You have the average scores. I will say it is a recommendation if one of the committee members wants to say something different than they can, that's certainly can, but I believe it is a recommendation from the committee to award them. They are qualified. We had some concerns. We addressed those in the interview process, and we would like to be involved in the negotiation of a contract as well, just because we would like to tighten up a few of those things. But it is a recommendation. What were some of the concerns that you all had during the bidding process? In my letter starting on page 96, we were concerned about the collaboration with Freason Nichols. We wanted it to be clearly explained to us who would be providing those services. What services each firm would be providing and why it was necessary to bring Freyzen Nichols on. And they addressed that in the interview and gave us a detailed task list with who would be providing each of those services. We also wanted them to discuss with us how they will provide the assurance that our interest or priority and they responded with a lengthy discussion on that issue as well. The other is how they can improve services relative to the administrative side of the contract that is working with purchasing with legal with the auditor and reporting, taking care of all those things. And we also ask them to address any opportunities or challenge that the county may have. So we had a very long interview with them. We had, for example, NICLs came as well. We had four gentlemen come and we addressed these issues and discussed them at length. Well, I'll tell you, I'm very disappointed. We only had one better. I really wish that the committee would have had more than one bidder to choose from. I think that's difficult to make a good decision without having people to compare among. This contract is for a tremendous amount of money. And let me ask you this. What do you think we could have done to encourage other people to a bid? I mean it's a thousand dollars a day, it seems to me that we would have had a tremendous amount of firms interested, would it be to remove the spec that prohibits them from bidding on other county business or what other their items other than you've listed. I think there's two components that Commissioner's Court included in the specifications that may have limited interest in the RFQ. The first one being the requirement for it being an engineering firm. It was a desire of the court that the engineering firm be required in this contract. There are other project management firms that may have been interested, but because that component was in there, and then because that component was in there, there was another requirement in the specifications that it was necessary to build protections in the specs so they could not do design work. So we didn't have the same firm managing the contract that was also doing design work. So those two things combined, which I believe, if one was in there, the other one was necessary as well, may have limited interest. It was not restrictive, however. That was our first concern, is that it was restrictive that no one could respond. But the example of Frees and Nichols actually joining the contract is an example that they made the business decision that they would not seek design work with Denton County for road construction. Just to clarify for the public we do have a building construction contract with Freese and Nichols but this is strictly road construction that was in the RFQ. and nickel, but this is strictly road construction that was in the RFQ. If those were the requirements that Commissioner's Court felt were necessary for this contract, I don't know that we would have had any other competition. When I talk to the firms, anytime we have one bid, we look at several things. We look at whether or not we feel it's a good value. We cannot consider that in this case because we can't ask for pricing. We also make sure that we had adequate publication of the RFP, RFQ, or bid, and that adequate people looked at it. And in this case that is certainly the case. We also investigate why other firms did not respond. And then we also believe that an RFQ in this instance, another RFQ would not generate any additional responses. If we felt like if we had gone back out and we would have been able to get some more responses, then we may not have recommended, we may have recommended going through another solicitation process just to obtain additional responses. We do not feel that that's the case based on our investigation after receiving only one response. Are there any other questions from members of the point? Well, James Wells, I know you were on the selection committee. Were all of your concerns adequately addressed by the current vendor regarding, I know we've had from my own experience when I was with the VA. There were times that there were problems getting contracts through getting response, having a counting up of the funds, stuff like that of all those concerns, been addressed. Pistor as you would expect in a meeting with a potential vendor and evaluation committee, of course they were. I mean, I can't imagine any more vendor, not do that. You know, again, there are things I would love to see addressed in the contract. I think there are situations that have had a detrimental effect on the finances of the county or a potential detrimental effect. I would like to see those addressed in the contract to hold the whole contractor more accountable for doing the services. Of course, they say they will do them. They acknowledge them in problems and say they would be, definitely say they'd be corrected. But that's all within the confines of the contract, of the interview. Well, I don't have any further questions, but I'd like to thank you all for your hard work. I want to know that I thought about this very hard, and I don't know. I was one of the things I thought when I was an employee, I really didn't think that I would ever find myself trying to basically reject the recommendations of a committee. But Judge, I'd move that we reject the RFP and or the RFQ and relet it for additional beds and loosen up the bed specs on it. I really think it's a bad idea that we only had one vendor respond. Yeah, the motion is there a second to the motion? No second, it's a discussion, but I'm not going to be in favor of the rejection. I can't wait for discussion, but I'm not going to be in favor of the rejection. All right, we have a second for purposes discussion under further discussion. Is there any further discussion on the issue? Under under discussion, I will just say that the RFQ was written the way it was for a specific reason that being the job that was being done I wanted to continue to see in the future. And if I remember correctly Commissioner Coleman it was you that made the motion to approve the RFQ. I do go back and look. I can tell you right move to do have to the floor right now, Commissioner. I'll be glad to call you in a minute. But with that, I would just like to say that I give great credit. Not everybody does, but I give great credit to ITS being responsible for the development of 121. And we all know that story without going through the whole process again. I want to remind everybody that the North Texas region, and Dent County specifically, has more money to be spent on road projects than the entire text that does and the entire rest of the state. So for me to ensure that that innovative thinking, that hard work, that dedication to improving transportation in Denton County and all of North Texas is something that I really, really want to see continue. And I just had the specifications on the IQ were written way that they were for me because I want to see that process continue. And I am totally opposed to starting the process over again. So now, under discussion, is there any other member court that would like to chime in there? Yes, you may, since nobody else is asked to go ahead ahead. The reason I voted in the Assermings for the motion is under the rules of Parliamentary procedure. If I would have voted against it, I would have not been able to bring up the matter again. So I voted for it. Now I am bringing up the matter under the rules of Parliament, Terry Miss procedure to say that I think we should reject the bids. I think that motion is on the floor. That is the sole reason I voted for it. We have a motion as your second still staying with the commission. Is there any further discussion? Here in no discussion we'll call for the vote. All in favor of rejecting the recommendation, going out for a bit again, please say aye. Post and aye. Aye. Motion fails. One in favor for a post. Chair is going to move for approval of the recommendation of selecting innovative transportation solutions and corporate is the most qualified firm for these RFQ. Seconded by Commissioner Marchin. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion carries three in favor two opposed. We'll go to item 7a which is approval of budget amendment request 102 230, 289, and allocate expenditures for vehicle emissions compliance program for non-departmental in the amount of $1,959,124. Basically, a housekeeping action isn't not done. Yes, ma'am. As you'll see, this was submitted by the county auditor. This is to allocate funding for the TNRCC emissions project. As you all know, we have a contract with North Central Texas Council of Governments to administer the program for us. And once we receive the revenue we are required by a contract to forward that onto COG. So that's why you see it as a last minute budget amendment. I prior to the end of the fiscal year. Post your proof. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Ease. Any questions? Any none on favor please say aye. Aye opposed any motion to carry seven V is approval budget amendment class 102 340 for operating equipment for vehicle maintenance any amount of $7,041 to sure remove for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Ease. Of course, discussion. Commissioner, commission. So. Come on. Any song? I'm sorry. You said this this was working to budget sessions so you didn't have a chance to you didn't need to as for. for you have any indication that it may stop working okay okay you have a motion in the second is there any further discussion or any further questions you're none all in favor please say aye aye opposed to name motion to scary thank you so Aye. Aye. Opposed to the Senate. Motion to scare you. Thank you, sir. 12A is to approve a denim number one to the food service contractor between Den County, Texas and Eric Mark correctional services LLC. I'm here for approval. Motion by Commissioner Coleman. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Other questions? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the Senate. Motion to scare you. 12V isosed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Aye. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the seat. Opposed to the county judges' office to process the juvenile impact program online grant acceptance to activate the grant funding award. I'm here for approval. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Coleman. Secondly, by Commissioner Marchand other questions? Your none on favor, please say aye. Aye opposed, sen. Motion does carry 12D as approved. The revised 2009 memorandum of understanding between Denton County and the U.S. Marshall Service fugitive apprehension test force. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Marchand other questions. Your none on favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed any? Motion does carry 12e is approved the 2009 Jag Grant Award. This is 2009, DJBX1387. Chair, I'll move for approval. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Coleman, other questions. On favor please say aye. Aye, opposed any? Motion does carry 13 a is approval of a creation of a demonstration garden located at the Ditten County Courts building. We actually have someone here that would like to do a real short presentation on this. Come on up. This is Janet. Is it lemon? Laminate. I said it right. OK. And she, Judge Warren and commissioners for letting us come here today. I'm Janet Lamenak. The Denton County Extension Horticulture Agent with Texas AgriLife Extension. I have with me today Linda Williams, who's the president of the Denton County Master Gardener Association. And we also have Danny Bromley here with the director of the Denton County Master Gardener Association. And we also have Danny Bromley here with the director of the Denton County Master Gardener Horticulture Agent with Texas AgriLife Extension. I have with me today Linda Williams, who's the president of the Denton County Master Gardener Association. And we also have Danny Brumley here with us, a director of facilities in support of us as well. What we'd like to talk to you today about is the master gardeners we'd like to put in a display garden on county property. I'll went back up and tell you a little bit about the master gardeners to begin with. Their mission statement is to support AgriLife Extension here in the county and we are an education agency and their mission statement is here to educate residents about safe effective sustainable horticultural practices that promote development of healthy gardens, landscapes and communities. The master gardeners are celebrating their 20th year here in Dintin County that got an outstanding track record. They are a volunteer organization. They've won the Outstanding Association of the Year. Most recently last year, also in 2001, and a lot of other state awards. Annually, they contribute about 8,384 hours reaching their community about 9,000 people every year. They're one of the most effective and ambitious associations in the state. I'm just a little bit biased, but they're a really great program here in the state. I'm going to turn it over to Linda to tell you a little bit more about what they would like to do. Good morning. thank you. We would like to put in a demonstration garden or a display garden. What we want to do is to demonstrate varietal types of plantings, be they vegetables, perennials, annuals, whatever is good for this part of the state. The gardens would be open to the public. They would allow for some education time to the public. We would have some narrative information available for the public. We would also like to demonstrate best practices, and that would be bed preparation, soil preparation, all of the things that make us a little bit more, um, earth kind and friendly to the environment and hopefully would be a many saving opportunity for the residents of Denton County as well. We would like to put this demonstration garden in front of the courthouse on McKinney. This is a vacant property that I believe used to have a house on it. We know that this is a temporary location that eventually this property would be used for additional parking for the courthouse. We are interested in this for a number of reasons, one because it has a lot of public opportunity to be seen. Also because it is a temporary position, it gives us an opportunity to possibly make some mistakes and make sure that we have the commitment for a long term project like this. So it fits our needs as well. After this opportunity, we're hoping that we would be able to move into the new properties that are going on over to loop 288 and do something there And I'm going to give it back to Jim So we hope that this garden would be a real benefit for the county a real asset for you Many master gardener programs throughout the state have display demonstration gardens and they become somewhat of a tourist attraction gardener programs throughout the state have, display, demonstration gardens, and they become somewhat of a tourist attraction, maybe just for the plant nerds, but depending on how beautiful we can make it, it's also a great opportunity in a place for us to really do education classes, have a nice little break area for the people of the courthouse. And it would really help the master gardeners and the horticulture extension program make our mission statement come alive and really showcase the best things that you can do because that's the best way to show people how to garden and landscape is to really give them a place that they can go out and look at it and see it and realize that when we're saying conserve water that it's still very attractive and beautiful spot. So that's all I know you might probably have some questions for us. Maybe? Yes, mission merchant. Yeah, I just know a question. Maybe a question to Commissioner Eason and Judge Horn. But there are in the new facility on 2A8. There was discussion about this type of thing. And will it be when we bring on the first phase? Or is it, do you know what phase it's in? I don't really know what phase it's in commissioner but you know we don't want to three. The last one? Yeah I thought so. I don't want to go through a whole lot of work and have it destroyed because of construction trucks and things like that. So these ladies came and visited with me on this subject and I of course wanted the entire court to have input on this but I also wanted you to know about it and it gives them an opportunity to kind of a test site, a beta site you might say even within the Master Gardner's group there's different people who think oh we should plant all vegetables or we should plant all flowers and you. And it gives them an opportunity to try to think, sounds, see what's going to work well. And like she said, it's going to take a certain level of commitment from the master gardeners to keep all this up. So it's kind of a good test site, so to speak, to see what works and who's going to work, things like that. But I also wanted to make the information available to all members of the court, commissioners. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Master Gardener for their efforts with the didn't county historical park, the Bayless Silby House, and they've been years of work over there and it's kind of tough because we're bringing buildings in and out. So, you know, the flower beds and the overall plan of the park is changing, but I appreciate their patience with us as we do that. And they do work over there at the Bayless Shelby House and thing. And yes, we will be incorporating them in the later phases of the building, not so much on phase one, but in the remaining after for the big building. Commissioner Marching. Yeah, and I'd just like to say in the environment, environment, admit environment. Yeah, committee, I have not shared exactly what's called now. In that committee, we had discussions and these ladies came down and spoke with us. And in fact, they worked in cooperation with Danny Brumley on the Cole Juvenile facility and with their direction took out all the old shrubbery that was there and with their again direction planning some new things in there through the facilities department help with that. What my hope would be, would be working in cooperation with the Ag extension as well as the master gardeners of Denton County, not only of Denton, but also of other municipalities within the county to look at all our facilities and look at the landscaping eventually in a progressive kind of time frame to look at them, what we can do to make them more healthier, more stockier if you would to our climate and our environment here to where less maintenance, but more beauty. And hopefully in the future we'll be working more with that and this is a good start to start and I'm very very encouraged. Thank you. All right. We need a motion to move. Motion by commission march and second and back commission rings. Hearing no further discussion unless you wanted to chime in. Okay. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to name. Motion to carry. Thank you ladies. Moving to item 13b, which is approval of the agreement between the city of Denton, Denton, County, Texas, providing for payment and use of hotel tax funds for the Denton County Museums. This is Courthouse on the Square, Bayless, Selby House, Denton County, African American Museum, and Old at number 14 Firehouse, Elm Ridge Church Welcome Center, and Outhouse Museums in the amount of $104,420. Motion by Commissioner Eid, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. 14A is approval of the first of image of the interlocal corporation agreement between Dick and County Texas in the city of Frisco, Texas for the FM 423 Road Improvement Project located entirely within the City of Frisco, Texas. And then kind of Commissioner Prisink I with Dantin County, Green to contribute an additional amount not to exceed $1,703,926, which will increase Dantin County's total contribution toward the project of a total of $3,653,926 funds to be transferred from Commissioner precinct 1, triple four FM720 North South Funds Auditor Line Item 7673959010, in the amount of $1,548, Did Commissioner precinct 1, 3PO4, FM423 funds, this is auditor, line item 70735890, which currently has a balance of $155,688.90. I'll move for approval. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Coleman. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. A lot of the questions. You're not on favor please say aye. I Opposed singing motion does carry 14 v is approval of amendment number one and we know number one to the agreement for professional service employment for didn't county mental health Courts between Dr. James G. Schupe didn't county, Texas as recommended by the probate court of Denton County and we have Paula Flowerday here with us this morning. We would like to address this on this issue. Good morning. Thank you, Judge. Thank you, commissioners, for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I just want to say a few words of thanks for your support in considering and approving portions of the probate courts budget request. One of those items was to increase the amount of this particular contract for Dr. Schute who provides psychiatric services for the mental health patients who come before the probate court and but ask your approval of this contract. Does it have a close? Commissioner Mitchell. Can you tell me how much the increase was probably? How much the increase was? Was a thousand dollars seven. Okay. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners. commissioners I oppose the name. Motion to carry. Thank you. 14C is approval of the 2009, 2010 social service agreements between Denton County and one, Kasa of Denton County, two, Children's Advocacy Center for Denton County, three, Denton County friends of the family, four, Denton County, MHA Mar Center, five, PD place, six, the Peoples Clinic of Denton County, Texas is recommended by the director of the Denton County Health Department. The motion by Commissioner Ead, seconded by Commissioner Coleman, other questions? Any none? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Say name. Motion does carry. 14 D is approved of the renewal of a Dendom to the master service agreement between Denton County and Unlinked systems and corporate it for GPS monitoring of truancy cases is recommended by the justice of the peace courts Had a course for the best make sure they had insurance and I think this page page 292 addresses that. No, no, not that page. Excuse me. I think it's the last page I think addresses that. I don't have a problem with it, but I wanted to make sure that they did have insurance. And I think page 304 dresses that. I do know that was an issue last year when the contract was approved. Apparently the box wasn't checked but it's my understanding the company agreed that and with us that that should have been included and it's my understanding that we do have that coverage but can they need to clarify that. I would move for approval with that caveat to make sure, well, how do you do that? You can't do it. I can move. I don't know how we do that either. I don't know what the timeline is on this. If we need to call it, answer that question we can. Or if we want to move on and wait and see if we hear something back. What type of insurance would that be? I mean liability. If the unit was lost, the GPS, you know, I got it. Okay. I'm not sure. I can replace that insurance. Yes. Let me return to replace one of those units could be as much as $1,500 or so if my memory serves me correctly. Look on case real full. Look how faithful is it? Does it cover? Well, it's not checked. What about warranties? We can we go on to the next item and let me, I mean, I've got an email in on it right now. And let's go on and see if you didn't answer to that question. And then, Judge, I need to tell you as well, pardon me for interrupting. On the next Judge, I need to tell you as well, pardon me for interrupting. On the next one, I need a clarification in a minute, too, from the dawn on an item there. Thank you. Okay, welcome back to 14D on 14E. Donna, this is the one that she needed some clarification on. This is approval of the 2009-2010 service agreement that she didn't kind of, County and Denton County soil and water conservation district as recommended by the director of the Denton County Health Department. I think just to clarify for the record this is not a contract that goes through our social service agency committee which is headed up by Dr. Burton. This is something that goes through the normal budget process. It was approved and recommended with our adoption. So that's just incorrect on the briefing memo. So in the future it should say as recommended or approved by Commissioner's Court during the adoption process. Or you could say approved by as recommended by the Director. But it's not a part of the process for social service agencies. Thank you for the clarifications. Are there any other questions? Remember the court? Do we have a motion for approval? Sure, move. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Marchen. Hearing no further questions, I'll in favor, please say aye. Aye, opposed, aye. Motion does carry. There'll be no action on 14 F that was tied to our public hearing that we had earlier 14G is approval of the interlocal cooperation agreement between Denton County, Texas and City of Denton, Texas for the C Wolf Road Improvement Project located entirely within the City of Denton, Texas and Denton County Commissioner Pricing for it didn't kind of agree to contribute an amount not to exceed $100,000 of funding to come from commissioner pretty sweet for triple for hilltop road funds So this is ordered or line item 7673 979010 Working motion by commissioner E second and by commissioner Coleman other questions You're none on favor please say aye I opposed to name motion is carry 14 H is approval of the interlocal cooperation agreement between Denton County, Texas and the City of Frisco, Texas for the Stonebrook Parkway Road Improvement Project located entirely within the City of Frisco, Texas with Denton County Commissioner, precinct one with Denton County Green to contribute and amount not to exceed $2,838,337.50. So it's funding to compound Commissioner Prism's one, triple eight Stonebrook Parkway Project Funds. This is auditor line item 61, 73529060. I'm for approval, check it. Pushing by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Marchandt. Are there questions? Your none all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed in any motion does carry. 14 aye is approval of the analytical cooperation agreement between Denton County Texas and the City of Sanger Texas for the you wrote improvement project located in Italy within the City of Sanger Texas and Denton County Commissioner precinct one with Denton County green to an amount, not to exceed $300,000. Does funding to come from the general, non-departmental lawsuit sellments fund? This is Auditor line out of the zero, one, five, three, four, five, one, zero, four, zero. Per approval. Motion by Commissioner Cullen. Second. Second by Commissioner Mitchell, other questions? What is the lawsuit settlement fund? I mean, is that a line-in? Just what the name is lies. If money had a my budget and we threw it into the lawsuit settlement, this is a lawsuit? I got it. Oh, word. OK. Just a word as you go. Yay, we're getting it done. Apparently. Yeah. OK, we have a motion. And the second is a further discussion or other questions? Any none? In favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, say nayne. Motion does carry. 14J is adoption of a resolution to approve a tax exempt, lease transaction among La Vernia, higher education, finance, corporation, cost-most, foundation, incorporated,ions Equipment, Finance Corporation, to finance the cost of educational facilities in Ditton County, Texas with respect to a public hearing. And McCollum Kim, I think your back of the trail is pretty good in this. I would really like to know, I mean, other than checking to make sure they did do the public hearing. Right. And they did. Not a whole lot, you will they did. Not a whole lot. There's not a whole lot we can do. Right. It's just a requirement. And it doesn't buy in the county. And you know, I don't understand why they make them jump through this hoop. I guess it's just to ensure the public is aware. Where? And that you all are aware. Right. Move to adopt. Thank you. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Marchins. What's the second? I'll second. Seconded by Commissioner Coleman. Hearing no questions. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the knee. Motion to this carry. We're going to go back now to item 14D. And it has been confirmed that there is insurance on the equipment by motion stands. Okay, motion by Commissioner Marchant, sign in by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion is carried. And with that, we have completed all of of this. We are adjourned. Everybody have a great day