This morning, an invocation will be given by Dr. Bing Burton, who is Director of our Health Department, and our pledges will be led by Bennett Hall, our county engineer, where you please stand. Would you pray with me, please? Oh Lord, our Lord, if you kept a record of sins, who could stand, that you are gracious and merciful toward us, and so we ask you to bless upon this day and upon this commissioner's court meeting and all who appear before it, we pray you are blessing upon this nation and all who serve it both at home and abroad, and ask your special protection against those who stand in harm's way. We thank you for your steadfast love that extends to all generations. We praise you for the sacrifice of your son. It's in his name that we pray. We please don't in the play. The play begins to deflate the United States of America and to the Republic where we can stand, one nation under God, one in indivisible. Thank you, gentlemen. Item one is for public input. For items not listed on the agenda, if there's any member of the public back to address commissioners court, they ask that you please complete a public comment form available from the aid to the court. When I also remind everyone to please the committee for the support and the support and the support and the support and the support and the support and the support and the support and the support and the support and the support and the support and the In consideration of the time of some of our guests this morning we're going to first go to item 13A. 13A is a proloh contingency allowance authorization, inclusive of change order number six in the amount of $1,568 and change order number nine in the amount of $7,182 and change order number nine in the amount of $7182 and change order number 10 The posted the amount is $19,767 but I understand Danny's got a correction to that But it didn't kind of administrative complex phase one what Colin Danny Brumley morning Danny I'm in the judge's commissioners. I've asked for ten to be pulled for a small clarification from the contractor. Change order number six is on our storm bearing. The city asked us to make some changes to it. And they've asked us to do some concrete writ graph. And that amount is for 1568. Change order number nine is the some changes we had to make based off some as bills the way we brought the electrical into the transformers. And that amount is 7182. So we're just pulling change order number 10 and it'll be posted when we get additional clarification. Is that correct? That's correct. Which makes the total of both those change orders 8750? $1,750. Okay. Are there questions from any members of the court? Do we have a motion for approval? I'll move. Do we have a motion for approval? The motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Eans. Hearing no questions, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to say aye. Motion to scare you, thank you. Thank you. But not for Danny, but for budget. It says here in the financial impact that In straight complex contingency line on these changes were reduced it by 28,000 and a balance of 25,000 707 That's what We've eliminated and changed order of, it makes the balance of what the change order is for is 8750. Right. And it gives us a balance of 40,474. Okay. Well, my question is, is that the only amount of money that we have left for any other future change orders? Or is that just a one line item that has to do with during in your? There are the front standing handed out a budget with all the available funds. We did build into the contract 180,000 for contingencies. It was certainly not all the contingency allowance, but that was actually built in Burns contract. So the smaller change orders are being taken out of that allowance. If you'll remember we had a large change order for like $230,000, it didn't come out of that allowance. It came out just the additional funds. Okay. So we've already had change orders that equal to an amount with leaving the balance of $40,000. Right. leaving the balance of $40,000. Correct. And also, too, just for court's information, we will be getting back the alternate. That'll come to court next week. Also, I don't remember the number, but we had a change order for Lyme Stabilization for the parking lot. Once that was approved, our sales testing firm that we have contacted came back and showed some data to the city that we didn't need the lime stable ice so we should be getting that change order back also. Could you explain to me what happened with the drilling and the pears and the hit water and then we got a memo on that hit water and that was going to be maybe a maybe a large change order and then that went away. I was a confusion between us and the contractor and the architect about whether it was or was not in the contract and it was in the contract. Okay, thank you. But we did we hit water? Yes. And what are they having to do? I slave them. Thank you. Any other questions? Yeah, I'm Dan. Not a question for you. Yes, sir. Are you the person who's going to be our contact for reviewing these chain orders before they're brought to court? Yes. OK, so are you going through the contract to make sure that these aren't attributed through the contract when they're asking for additional funds? For the best amount of bill to you, sir. Do you need some assistance with that? Yes, sir. Well, I just wanted to know if you've been working with budget or the purchasing. Because, you know, generally, if we can get these projects going through, you know, we shouldn't be seeing very many change orders. We're additional ask for money, requests for money. And finally, if we can get these projects going through, we shouldn't be seeing very many change orders, or additional ask for money, request for money. And I'm just concerned, I mean, we're already at change order number 10. It's to pay a lot more coming through, or? I don't anticipate a lot of change orders coming through at this time. And they're both shaking their head. The only thing that's always unknown is just getting your project out of the ground. And I think that what complicated the matter here was the loot being widened and the changes that were made, the state made, moving lines, moving, you know, electrical lines, moving water lines. I don't know that those had time to get to us. So there was, there was a lot of unknowns based off all the construction that was going on out there, but it's always hard. You don't always know just because they got it marked on the set of drawings, and I always mean it's right there. And sometimes there's changes that have to be made, but once you get out of the ground, there shouldn't be a lot of change orders. And we're at that point. Thanks. Okay. Here are no further questions. We're going to move now to item 14b. 14B. 14B is approval of the agreement with the Southwest Securie for Professional Services as Denton County's financial advisor on long-term bond debt issues is recommended by the Denton County auditor and McCollum James Wells. The head and commissioners, anytime we are in the non or any kind of debt market, it's very important for us to have professional assistance with this. It's not a thing we do that often that we really would be totally adept at it or should we should be, but we have before you the renewal of the contract for financial advisors with Southwest Securities. How you recommend that, Giving you in the Aginna placement and memo some background. This would be The second renewal of the original three-year Contracts since we've been with South West Securities. We've We've Going to market with 11 different sales of debt instruments totaling several hundred million dollars now and actually four bond refinancing those bond refinancing saved us over six right at six million dollars in future debt service with those financings and Again their fee schedule compared to their predecessors saves us about 20 $30,000 each time we do go to market. So with that we've probably said we have definitely saved over half a million to $700,000 to do business with Southwest Securities. But just as important that is I hope you agree. I believe we get very good service. We've seen our bond rating increase a couple of times. And just the, to now, one of the five triple a rating counties in this state, probably seem to be just four, I guess would be. And also, just the results we get when we go to the market, our last big sale, this competitive sale, we beat the market on rates. So we're, it's been a very, in my opinion, a very advantageous partnership and I would give it my highest recommendation. We have John Martin here to answer questions. John is our primary contact with Southpe West Securities. Well, I don't take any convincing. I'm a fan. South West Securities has done a great job for us and I've always been very accessible and responsive to any questions I had and I appreciate your help on everything. Delighted about our increase in bond rating. Right for it and county grade for the taxpayers of the county for sure. Okay. Questions from the members of the council. I make a motion for the truth. I have a motion by Commissioner Marchand, seconded by Commissioner Eads. Hearing no questions, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed say aye. Motionless, carrying animes lay. Thank you for being here say aye. Aye. Opposed say aye. motion does carry an anusley. Thank you for being your Mr. Martin. Thank you James. Thank you. Let's go back to the beginning. Let's go to item two, which is a consent agenda. Excuse me, members of other items on the consent agenda that you need to. Prove for discussion or do we have a motion for approval? We have a motion by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Marchion. Hearing no questions, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, any? Motion is carried. A consent agenda today consists of 2A, which is the order making appointments. We have a new hire in the taxes office, a re-higher and a costable precinct six and a demotion in the county jail. 2B is approval of the Intra Departmental Transpers, 2C is approval of payroll, 2D is approval of specifications and authority to advertise for Robes ranch reconstruction project, this is bid number 06091982, 2E as approval of award for some in preparation, this is bid number 04091973 to quest mark information management, 2F as approval of removal for paper vision software license renewal, bid number 05081903 to precision products incorporated. 2G is approval of specifications and authority to advertise for laundry, laundry and dishwasher detergent, bid number 060919819802H is approval specifications of the 38 advertised for pharmaceutical services, Dent Luzfow, and this is bid number 0609193. The I is approval renewal for test statement preparation mailing service. This is RFP 05071835 with a NERIED system incorporated. 2J is approval for renewal of RFP 06081910, gen. Trial Services to James Enterprise. And 2K is approval budget amendment of Quest 101 440 for professional services for child protective services in the amount of $10,000. 5A is approval bill report payments from CSCD community corrections T.A.I.P shares, training shares, forfeiture of D.I.T. interest D.A. Check fee and D.A. forfeiture of the IT interest, DA check fee and DA forfeiture funds. Members, ended for recording purposes only. Good morning, James Wells, again. I got an echo in the hand out. They were good morning. The correction sheets, there are only two corrections. Thank you. And I actually want to go over one of them. One is some conference expense for the Sheriff's Office reserves. That's within budget. It just needs to be expedited. Our second one is a payment from our 2004 tax note fund. It is to the US Treasury. And that I just want to point out this is a payment of $34,333 is our 90% of our calculated arbitrage earnings rebate. We talk about this occasionally. I thought it would just point this out that when we borrow money in long-term bonds and we invest them, the US Treasury makes sure we don't we're doing that for the stated purposes. And one of the prohibited purposes is to invest, is to borrow the money and sit on it and hope to make money on it. That's what arbitrage is. I think many, many people in this world would love to be able to do, borrow it and invest it for more than they've wanted out. Because we keep money for a long time, occasionally the interest market's changed, and this does indeed happen to us. So when these 2004 bonds were issued, we had interest rates for extreme low. And in the next two or three years, we've held some of this money of the money on projects to come forth. We have indeed earned more money than we've paid on it. And this is the, and at five year anniversary, we have to do our, we have to do a report to the US, to the IRS. And this, since we still have the money, we've been advised by our, professionals that do our arbitrage report, which is first Southwest asset management, not Southwest security, it's a totally different firm. This is 90% of our liability. We're assuming that we will, with interest rates, so low the rest of that will actually go away in the next year. So this is just actually one of the very rare times we actually have had to do, make this payment. This is being paid out of the interest that's we've earned only 2004 notes and we have not spent, it's not having a budgetary impact, but it is an absolutely necessary and legally required payment. I just want to point that out. That's only two corrections I have. Any questions or comments from members of the court? Do we have a motion for approval? I'm going to motion by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Marchand. On favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does carry. Thank you, James. Six A is approval to declare Miss Laney's Computer Prena Equipment, furniture office supplies, equipment vehicles, road and bridge equipment, insurance forfeiture property, and surplus to place items on online auction. Number 06091978 to be held July 2009 and to advertise it. McCown Beth Lennon. Good morning. This is a routine auction. As you know, we've been trying to have about four years to keep our warehouse space clear and so we're asking for approval this morning. I've been a lot more successful for us than always doing things. Other questions or members of the court are doing a motion. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. I want to say aye. Aye. Opposed sitting. Motion carries. for Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. I'll enter the place, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed sitting? Motion carries. 8 a.m. is a pro-road change in the retirement recognition program. We'll call on Amy Phillips, I have an answer to post this and to take this up with the personal policy committee. Thank you, Judge and commissioners. As you know in October, we started Retirement Recognition Program here in Commissioner's Court and the resolutions for retirees have been very popular but the CAKE portion of the program has received kind of a lukewarm reception and so all these months later we're looking at it and asking that you continue the portion with the resolutions that's been going well and discontinued the portion with the cake that has been less popular. All these departments understandably so still have a little retirement party in their office and and they do. They do. At 9.15 in the morning not too many people are thinking about cakes. A few do, but. Yeah, and they can't bring their staff over here to enjoy the next day. Right, they've got things going on in the office, so they can't really close the office to come do that, and that's certainly understandable. But I do like doing the resolutions to honor these people that have served their county well, and we appreciate it. And that personnel policy committee felt the same way. Okay well I'm gonna make a motion for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Marchand other questions comments. I'm gonna make a phone up. I've got mixed feelings about it. Why? Because I think that it's important that we, as a commissioner of school, do something to recognize employees. And I know a cake is not a big deal, but I just have mixed feelings. And a resolution to me is nice to have, but I don't know. Well, you know, that sounds real good, commissioner, and I understand. And I couldn't agree with you more. That's why I certainly want to continue the resolutions and Some people are more tickled and happy about it than others and they bring the whole family and that that's wonderful And I'm glad they do But vast majority of the time the cake sits there and it's not touched Or if it is you know very little and then it is up in my office and I don't need it. Why don't we just ask the employees do you want a cake or not? If they say yes let's get them one if they say no let's not. I'm fine with that. We could do that. We probably have only had about 50% of the employees attend commissioners court for the presentation of the resolutions and it's been a little bit awkward because we haven't been able to break for cake in the morning and that kind of thing and so the ones that have been here and gone up to have cake have been pretty much having cake by themselves or maybe there's one member of my staff up there sometimes so that they're not completely by themselves, but usually there's one person from their department, maybe two, and that's about it. And so that's really why there didn't, there wasn't really a big interest in it, and it just wasn't really working very well. And that's why the committee recommended that we discontinued that portion. recommended that we discontinue that portion. We have a motion in a second for doing away with the cake and continuing with the resolution portion. We've already I own favor please say aye aye Posting There is I think foreign favor one opposed credit I'm sorry any here you okay That is Is it 350 dollars is not that another? It's not it's not the money. It's a fact that it goes unused It's not that it's not the money. It's a fact that it goes unused. You can always go to their department retirement party. And whether department's not able to come in. Well, and that's the opposite. I may not be. I understand that, but I just thank you for your $1,000. I think it's a logistic. I understand that but I just thank $350. I think it's a logistic so I think. It's not the money. You're right, it's logistics. Okay. We'll have our opinions. Moving right on, we'll go to item 12a which is Proof the Notice to Proceed for Grand Awards from the North Central Texas Council of Governance Grand Awards for the Clean Vehicle Fleet Grant and the admissions enforcement grant. I'll move for approval. The motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, other questions. You may now know and favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name. Motion does carry. We've already taken action on 13A. We'll vote at 13B. 13B is approval of one, the filing of an order. Per section 751.0051 of the health and safety code, naming Joe D. Gonzalez, D. and County Fire Marshal, is the county officer to hear applications for our permit, for mass gatherings, and allowing the set of pointee to revoke a permit under section 751.008 and number two, the setting of an inspection fee and what college Oedigan's islands. This is a section of statute that allows the, gives the authority of accounting to look at mass gatherings within the unincorporated area of accounting only. So simply mass gathering definition is those mass gatherings with a population of 2500 people or more. Additionally, the other issue is if the population is 500 or more when 51% is estimated to be under the age of 21 and is also estimated that alcoholic beverages will be sold. So the definitions really are 2500 if it's a general event, 500 if it's some type of event where alcoholic beverages are sold and the audience is probably going to be 21 years and under. Those are the types of mask gatherings that the law allows us to look into, require that a permit be issued prior to any promotion of that type of event. So before advertisements go in the paper, before pamphlets go out on telephone polls and throughout the community, they have to actually obtain a permit prior to that. And then it's something that is currently the law. Today we're not looking at something that commissioners for it authorizes us to issue the permit. Permits now have to be authorized for that purpose. A violation of not getting a permit for promoting a event of those type of populations as a class B misdemeanor. But is it what is the penalty if they actually have it, the same class B misdemeanor? It really simply says that it's promoting a event without a permit as a class B misdemeanor. So are we not in the process? that it's promoting a event without a permit as a Class B mischievous. So are we not in? But if the event is happening and they didn't get a permit, do you get a permit? Yeah, I would still say that they are promoting the event. And it would be a Class B, honestly. Do you agree with that? Well, when I'm asking the commission's court to do here today is rather than all this going through the county judges office, Jodi and or our health department are the ones that are going to be doing the inspections and monitoring all this. He's already got the computer software to issue the permits and the payment of the fees and all that sort of business. I asked Jody to consult with James Wells on an appropriate fee and in the wisdom of James Wells, he of course went to the law and says that basically we are able to set a fee that allows us to cover our expenses. After consultation with the James, it was determined that it would be a good idea to set a fee that would be proportionate to when they come in to make application. Are you planning a three hour event, a five hour event, whatever it is, and have a cost per hour? And it's my understanding that you determine that to be $60, is that correct? That is correct. James, not a discussion was around $66, $65 an hour and that would include an overtime salary rate and the use of a vehicle for that event. And what's required of Jody Inor, the health department, is to go out and do some preliminary inspections before the event takes place to make sure that they've done everything that they're supposed to do and then actually be there during the event also. So when they come in to make application for the permit that's when they tell Jody what's going to be a four-hour event or a five-hour event. E amount is based on a per hour and that's what they make application and pay Jody. Just second Jody and then we've got some questions here. I've got some questions. If you would, let me say something real quick. Additionally, the sheriff is the other entity in this. So the law specifically states the county health department, the county fire marshal and the county sheriff all three those agencies actually review these applications. The sheriff has a role in responsibility for public safety of that event, which means transportation traffic traffic enforcement, the public safety and the security of the event, you know, that to assure that the promoters of the event are actually taking the necessary measures to hire whether private security, off-duty officers, that they have hired enough people to do traffic control in that sort of event. And on the firemode, make sure that fire safeguards are put into place, that fire codes are being met. County Health Authority's authority is looking into the health and sanitation of food services, restrooms, that sort of thing, and that's what responsibilities are those folks are. So at any given time, there could be three different inspections to go on, either by the Sheriff's Department for those purposes, by my office, and then by the environmental health folks. I'm going to start at one end and go the other. Did you have questions? Yes. I don't think it's appropriate to appoint Jody as the hearing officer and I'll tell you why. To me, it's going to be a violation of separation of powers doctrine. Basically, you're asking him to judge and investigate the same application. Typically, when you have a county judge that gradually loses their judicial authority, that judicial authority is given to the county courts at law. If you look plainly at this stage, there's to be a hearing on the application where witnesses are to be presented to report upon their investigations. So we'll have the pharmacist who's out there investigating making a report to himself at a hearing that he has said to determine whether or not the permits should be issued. Can I ask, can I? So what you would be doing, I'm sorry Ron, but what you would be doing is you need to, in my opinion, assign like the liquor licenses and all the other items, you would probably want us in the, you know, the other things that are traditionally done in smaller counties where the county judges a judicial officer, you need to assign this or appoint the county court at law that we have to either hear these. I think probably the appropriate person would be Judge Barnes. It needs to be an official order, it needs to be put in the minutes of the court. A whole bunch of litany of things. I just don't think it's appropriate to have the far marshal investigating, setting the hearing and hearing his own report. Thank you, Martin. I would just want you're saying that then when the law refers to section 751.0055, the delegation of duties of the county judge, which I, that's assumed, that's what the action you're taking today. Are you saying that that section is in violation of what you just said or? Commissioner, what I'm saying is that typically when you have a county judge that, when we get into the population bracket where our judge is no longer a misdemeanor court, no longer here is probate matters, and is the chair of the commission's court rather than a judicial officer. The other county courts that law that assume these duties are the people who take these judicial authority. Okay. I just think that the the person if you assign it to the fire marshal right who's charged in the previous portion of the statute with investigating as the officer to hold the hearing and take the evidence. That's like when you were a JP, Ron, you'd be the police officer giving the ticket and then having covering the ticket that you gave to determine whether they were guiltier or not. Mr. Martin, did you have any further questions? Well, I mean, some of my questions were as far as the permit fee and the establishment of that permit fee, you're saying that in calculating that permit fee you would estimate the size of the crowd, you would estimate, I don't know if there are set ratios of attendees versus security officers, those type of things, and then would place, say, hourly amount per officer or whatever to assess that fee. How would, if you have to be there, if you have to be there, the event itself to make sure and enforce that law is being adhered to, I mean is that a duty that you're responsible for under this law, therefore we cannot try to get reimbursement for any time that your officers or the sheriff officers are there. Looking at this and discussing it with James as part of the discussion we came up with it would be reasonable to believe that if you had an event with 2,500 people, the inspector, and when we're talking about A inspector from the sheriff's department, that is there to charge with the public Safety that event and making sure that they that the promoter hired off duty people because we're not talking about this fee for hiring all a bunch of officers. These are only the inspector that's going to go out there to assure that based off the plan that they have submitted for the event is being adhered to as it was described and approved by the permit. So therefore, this inspector, whether it be a health inspector, my inspector or a sheriff's inspector, that they would be reimbursed adequately for the entire event. If you have 2,500 people, it is anticipation that you will probably need to be there during the entire duration of the event. And that's part of that, and my question is that's part of the application fee and the criminalization of where that fee comes from. And that was James and I was asking that that was his recommendation as well is that during the permit they are required to put in what the duration of the event is. And then we would charge that fee based off of the duration of the. Is there any requirement by this statute that those fees are posted in advance so that they're not arbitrary fees. I would think so. I think they would be the fee would need to be on the application based off the duration of the event. Yes sir. What is your response to Commissioner Coleman as far as the authority that you may or may not have. I have a response. My response that specifically the statute says that county officer acting on the delegation authority of the county judge in regard to a permit has the same authority as an order of the county judge and understand his, his, his, his, his, train of thought. But during the period in which the order is in effect the county judge may withdraw the authority delegated and ready to, in relation to the application the county judge may hear all applications of necessary. And that's, you know, so it's even though the judge appoints me at any time the judge still has the authority over everything in a revocation if you will. When it is, let's say that you assessed a fine, I mean, an offense, which is a class fee misdemeanor, that is adjudicated through what court? Any court law? Through? There would only be, it's a criminal fee. So a fine of $1,000 or $1,000 or 90 days in jail. And that's what classifies as a misdemeanor B. Specifically that misdemeanor B would go through just the regular process of filing a court case for the district attorney's office. But again, the only violations that you can actually do a fee to is promoting event without impairment. So that would be prior to a hearing or prior to a permit issue. But the investigation would be done by the three entities, my office, the Sheriff's Office and the Health Department, and then those investigation reports would come back for the most part to me, like Commissioner Coleman said, and then either or would be reviewed by the judge at that point. And the criteria as far as application and you reviewing that application is based upon certain criteria that it's set up by law by this commissioners court that you have to adhere to. So is there any, do you have any discretion other than what the law are that criteria is to grant a permit or not? In other words, is it a shall or a may? There's two words. There is specific, yeah, I understand. And there is specific legislation that describes what has to occur in order for you to deny a permit. You can't just deny it because you do not want to. And that's specifically, you know, it says the County Judge shall not deny a permit if it doesn't meet ABC, B, E, and F. If there's violations, ABC and D are F, then you cannot, you do not issue the permit. For example, not sufficient security, if you will. Not having a plan to limit the amount of attendees to the event. Those sort of things are specifically written out in the legislation that says the county judge it may only revoke or deny a permit if it meets ABCD. And in this legislation, and I apologize not for reading all of it, is it specific enough to say that with this amount of people, you have this amount of officers that would secure that location? And the reason I'm asking that, who sets up the criteria that you have to meet to get a permit? Well, specifically, if you talk to the security and those type of folks, that would be the sheriff. And it does not specifically say how many officers you need for a 25-hundred-person event. That would be based off of the sheriff's decision and his based off a location of amount of attendees you know there's a lot of factors that would go into it that I'm sure that the sheriff would need to to determine that factor it is you know it would be very well that we would probably after you know depending on the actions today the court means that the three agencies will come together and meet and discuss what would happen in the event that we receive a filing for a mass gathering permit and to come up with how that lays out. But I hope you understand my concern is that you basically set up this criteria that you place against any applicant that comes in so that you don't violate their rights and you treat everybody the same as you go through the process. And I would think it would be important that those are all unfortunate to the sheriff through years that those are in writing that everybody has to meet, that it's not just based upon a hunch, that it's not based upon a feeling that, you know, let's say that you had a rock concert, let's say that a promoter was promoting a rock concert out in an unincorporated area, and because of the type of people that it might draw versus a gospel scene. Exactly. That you laid down two different types of criteria of what kind of security that you would have in that same event. I would hope that there would be something that would be consistent no matter what the event was. And again, one of the reasons we're really bringing this to the court at this point is because we're seeing such a large unacorporated growth, if you will, there's a lot of venues coming into the unacorporated area of the county. We've had some of these where they've never actually permitted and a lot of them were actually firework shows and things like that. The unacorporated area of the county was drew at least probably 25,000,000 people, not just those, but the other events in some of our bigger neighborhoods. There's venues coming into the Antiquorporate Area and things like that that we do not share it for my office and the health probably doesn't have a role in making decisions to say you need to hire off-duty security for this event. You need to have traffic control. Tell me how you handle water supply districts and those types of neighborhood. Let me give you a scenario. What if Castle Hills down in Carrollton area says that it wants to have a fireworks display on July 4th and the estimated crowd in that is going to be over 2,500. Or do they have to come in and file for a permit? They would not, specifically, those type of situations in Castle Hills, Providence, Ploma Creek, those folks enjoy those firework shows on their own property. So that's kind of a different deal. The firework shows that I was talking about were in Sanger, at the S Sangam Arena and those places where it's generally one one large lot of property where they're promoting an event to bring in people to one specific area. But what if they are promoting in Castle Hills come to the in the in the are they like yes or that would be the have we're at a ten,000 fireworks display and they estimate the crowd going to be 2500 or better they would have to fall for a person. Yes sir. Yes sir. Okay. Let me say something I'm glad to call on you. Okay. First of all if I'm correct Kim and correct me if I'm wrong but I think the law states that the county judge has the authority to make this appointment. It's not really a commissioner's court decision. Number one, I could be incorrect about that. I would suggest that it would be good at the get go to establish a policy that, well, first of all, I think it's a good idea to go with Jody for several reasons. Warren, he's got the computer software already to be handling the permit process and tracking of the money and through the auditor and all that. He already coordinates with the health department because of environmental inspections and sort of business. And of course with the Sheriff's Department too. But I would like to have us establish right at the beginning that if this ends up contentious for some reason, the sheriff says no, you don't have enough officers for traffic control or the health department says aren't enough for restrooms or whatever. And the applicant says yes I do, give me my permit. If there's a point of contention there, that's when I think it needs to come to the county judge. But if it's routine handling and things go along and you're in agreement and and it proceeds right along I don't think there's a reason to slow the process down and bring another department into it But I think it should be established from the very beginning that if problems arise then yes, it comes back to the county judge for a decision Okay, Bobby will call a new first and then Andy you'll be next. I mean just say something judge I agree with you with the county judge making that decision. But if the commission is caught don't have any input in it then while we hear the vote on it. So for you to have that authority I think we have to vote on it. So for you to have that authority, I think we have to vote on it. You'd have that authority. Well, no, you really don't have to, but I think it's important for your judge to keep informed of what's going on in county. All of you have a certain amount of unincorporated land in your precincts. And so that's why it needed to be on the agenda. So everybody knows what's going on. And for this discussion about handling it all in the coordination between departments and stuff, and for clarification, like I said for... I don't know how much you have, and that's fine, but if I don't have any decision as to vote on this to hand it over to you, then I'm not voting for it. It's... The only thing you guys have to take action on is the fee. Yes, ma'am. Okay. That's fine. You do that. That's the... What are we doing now? We're not charging any... You're not issuing any permits? This is a new law as of this last legislative. It's older than that. The issue is that we've never set down and created the application and written the application procedures out and developed SOP, SOGs, if you will, on how to establish the procedures for this event. And we've really not had the situation arise where we've had unincorporated events of over 25-hundred people. And now we're starting to see these type of promotional events show up in the Antiquar Breed area of the county. Also, if you're saying we have to have inspectors and you need to go out and inspect and I agree that you're inspected, but why do you need to stay there through the whole event if the people, the promoters, have hired off duty security? Why do we as the county have to stay there and charge every hour to be there? Understand. Again, I don't know yet. We have to do that in my opinion. And I'm only giving you fine if you will, commissioners, that you have an event with over 2,500 people. The promoter may have in writing a good description of this public safety measures that they're going to take in order to perform the event. But at any given time, as the event grows, those measures seem to take second hand to making more money, if you will. And I believe that, you know, if you have a six hour event that the inspector probably needs to be there during the event to assure that all the way through the end of the event that the public safety measures are being taken place, the environmental they'll flow in or those type of situations that the food vendors are currently maintaining their level of, you know, sanitation if you will. Those are the types of things that the SMA hasn't removed, fire extinguishers and moved them over here and that sort of thing. So that's my concern with the size of the event that I believe that we would need inspectors. And each agency would make their own recommendation recommendation whether the inspector would need to be there during the entire event. I guess that's some of the concerns I have about this. I don't have a problem with us. I can need to be prepared. But I have a problem with us saying that we have to be there as inspectors through the whole event when they've hired all of duty security offices. And if we put in the permitting application what we require of those off duty security people then I don't think we as a county have to be there through the whole event. And the only issue with off duty officers is that it may not be county employees. So it could be private security, it could be a municipal police officer could be a state of So sort of things like that so it's like there might be a county person there at all that really be a surest decision if he considers that adequate if he To consider private and I mean in the application we should Save what we require them to have. And if they don't have that, then obviously we could step in. But I don't see us charge it as a county additional fees to citizens to us to just be there when they've got off duty security. If they meet the qualifications that we have put in place for them to me. One thing is that again the fee and inspections here are really contemplated in this statute the way I read it have nothing to do with actual security personnel there. That's a total separate thing. Again, these are, again, this just illuminates three different county officials that may, you know, that's a decision for the court and the officials, inspect the premises and the gather, the mass gathering during the time of it. And that's what that fee is for, it's for that inspection during the event. Begin that, I think you're totally right. That is a, that is a, it's also may, they're not required. The fees not required, it's a may also. So that is a commitment in county, commuters court and officials' decision to decide if you, if they are going to be there in that capacity during the event. But security is just a... I'm sorry, James, go ahead. I'm just going to say that the security... I've been here a lot of discussion of security during the event. And I believe that's a totally separate issue from this. The Jody's... The Gonzalez is well, Fire Marshall Gonzalez, or the Health Authority or the sheriff's office Under this statute is not it's not for providing security is to see compliance with county and state laws Regarding public health and safety I thought throw that in and so and into that if that is a case then we don't have to be there six hours And into that, if that is a case, then we don't have to be there six hours charging by the hour for that fee. We can come in and expect it. Maybe doing sometimes doing that time and then close, but we don't have to be there all day to expect it. And I mean, that's the third I have that we're charging fees. And again, you know, this to be charge and fees I plead to plead the fact that you know I've done this yet So I don't know what the situation is going to I've done a lot of you know major mass Mass gathering events, but I don't know with when you regard to this I think it's like anything else some people are gonna run a better Operation than others. Yeah, I can. And in time, we will learn. I can tell you that for mask gatherings, maybe not of 2,500 now, I have personnel there the entire event on county time. And that's that's the way we're doing business now for what? For events that may be a 500 or 1000, a motorcycle rally, a firework show, those type of things I have personnel there during the entire event. In the unacquired area of the count. What's happened? Did you know what you said you didn't have them? I thought you'd say. No, under, the ones under 2500, smaller events, whether it's a festival, a little town festival, something like that, or a singer-file work show, we've had those with up to 2,000 people somewhere around there. Firework shows and providence, you know those type of things that we maintain that there's fire trucks there. We coordinate with the fire departments to make sure that they're there. That's good. That's their EMS is there. There's a first aid station, that the first aid station is staff. That there's maintained egress and ingress to the facility throughout the entire event. Those are the type of things that we want to make sure that if there's structures on those or structures are continually checked to make sure that there's egress and ingress, there's not overpopulation in a specific structure on that property. Those are the sort of things that we maintain through the event. I know we're here to talk about the designating you. I don't have significant problem with that. But this is this new law or not? You said, you know, there's someone mentioned, there's a new law and someone says, well, it's not a new law. I mean, which is new? The fee component? What we're asking the court to do is to set the fee. I'm appointing Jody. By this thing. But setting the fee is the question and that's why I asked Jody to consolidate James on it and of course refer to the law what it said we shouldn't shouldn't do and it is based on covering our expenses. We can't go into this and with the idea of making money on it but I think we'll go to the taxpayers to cover our expenses. It specifically says that the fee may not exceed the amount necessary to defer the cost of reforming the inspection. Do you know what it was that determined to be 60 or 65? That would go to my colleague. We had 60 or 65 per hour. Was it a hub that come out on? Oh, three. We can calculate that. It really depends on exactly the level of personnel that we expect to be there. If the court won't client to set a fee, I think we get the number we're looking at yesterday was kind of old numbers and it was 60, it was one I had not updated. I'd say 65 would be a very, and that actually did not include any equipment charge. So 65 would be very fair of fee, cover our expenses and just the cost of the, certainly a person county employee would need to be transported there. So 65 would be a conservative per hour charge or any of our qualified officials or employees might be out there. Thank you for the clarification. We can take a look at it and, you know, well, the law does say that if I make the appointment the court does have to set the fee. So I think it would be appropriate to set a $65 fee at this point time. Take a look at it maybe six months a year down the road and you may need to adjust it. But I think that's a good fair place to start. We're not gouging people yet. We're covering our're covering our expenses. Andy, did you have something else I kind of interrupted you? Yeah. So someone is going to have an option on their farm and sell off a bunch of equipment. And they don't know how many people are going to, under this event, could be five, could be five thousand. How do you handle that? And how do we currently do that? And how would you propose to do that? Well, specifically, if, let me read it for a bit, I'll tell you. And then we'll talk about that. Well, how do you handle it now? It's more than an option. Some similar situation where there would be not really a start date if you will, but the people filtering in and out throughout the day over a six hour period that the population on that property may not ever exceed 2500 people at even given time. A concert or an event where the start time is seven o'clock and they're lining up at five o'clock in the afternoon would be, you know, to get in and standing in line in a pasture if you will, or field, then those are different concerns that I would think that an auction would be in this given population is at any one given time is 2,500 people. That's when we would be concerned. But even in an open field in a Saturday morning, we still create traffic control issues. At some point getting 2,500 people and 2,500 vehicles into a specific area. It may not be as much of a public safety concern as another type of event, say. But I think the traffic control may be an issue. And that may be the sheriff's sheriff's decision. What about if one of our first water supply districts was to have a neighborhood event, you know, they have 10,000 people living in the community and they're going to have a neighborhood, East Dreg Hunt. Does that mean Ditton County's going to have to charge them a fee and go out and make sure they're going to inspect it and we have people there. I mean, it's just the growth of government, just element just kind of worries me. Sir, I don't know. You know, it's going to be more employees next year because we have all these inspections we're doing and all this over top. You know, it's just I alluded to the country. I understand your concerns and I don't think that even for example, Lantana would have, unless they close the golf course, it would have the capabilities to bring in 2500 people in one. But you can't buy 10,000 people. So you don't know how, so it goes back to Commissioner Marche's hat, what's the discretion level here? How do we know you could invite a community of 10,000 people whether it be Castle Hills or whoever to some unacquired part of the county How do you know you know you're not we're not taking ours to peace on the Easter account? How many people are going to show up? So that's what they have so the event planner kind of have to do all this stuff If I Easter at lunch you're gonna have a start time in the meantime. You have an auction and somebody's fine I've never been the one that had 2500 people. And again let me let me clarify something real quick for you. I think we need to. Tracks are expected to attract 2500 or more and the event is more than five continuous hours or any amount of time during a period from 10 p.m. ending at 4 a.m. so it would have to be an Easter egg hunt with an anticipated crowd of 2,500 or more and it would have to last for five continuous hours. Unless the Easter egg hunt was in three and a half. Unless the Easter egg hunt was in three and a half. I'm not going to say that. Unless the Easter egg hunt was in three and a half. Unless the Easter egg hunt was in three and a half. Unless the Easter egg hunt was in three and a half. I'm not going to say that. Unless the Easter egg hunt was in three and a half. Unless the Easter egg hunt was in three and a half. Commissioner Marchin. On 6751.006 the hearing, that hearing would be administered through the county judges office with notification coming of the hearing from the county judges office in use service officer of that hearing or how is that going to work? That would be based off of kind of judge, the chief officer said the policy on this for us, I believe. So it would be at our direction at that I guess, yes sir. I only see those hearings taking place at this point of contention. No, it says that not later than the 10th day before the date on which a mask item will begin the county judge shall hold a hearing on the application. The county judge shall set the date and time of the hearing. I mean I'm just when I'm asking if you if you delegate that to another officer is it the responsibility of that officer now that sets that hearing time sets the date initially yes if I'm delegating it to Jody yes And on my point is I wanted to give that event planner whatever you want to call them a some recourse if call them a some recourse if there's a hearing and they don't come to a resolution of their differences. The one that's asking to me is just nothing that 7-5-1-0-0-5-5-B. 7-5-1-0-0-5, it says you shall inquire into the preparation of each department for the mass gathering, but it doesn't say you should stay there all day. No, ma'am. No, ma'am. It's nowhere it doesn't say that. That's something James and I was yesterday going well. You know, we don't know. He's going to require two hours is it going to require the entire event Those are some of the really the questions that the are unanswered if you will at this point Last question and I promise hey at a 65 dollars that's recommending is that a fee of flat fee of 65 dollars Or is that 65 dollars per hour during the duration of the event? so if per hour during the duration of the event. So if is it 300 and what are that with $15 or $25 for the permit fee is it $65 per hour for the duration that they're saying? However many hours they say the event is going to so it's not a flat fee. It's taken place at $65 per hour. So it's not a flat case. It's taken place at $65 per hour. If they're putting on an event of that magnitude, $65 an hour is not unreasonable. Which means? The only way I'm reading this is if it's 25, 100 people or more, it goes down here, or it could be the 5 and 5 contiguous. It's for and 5. So it's not just a 10 p.m. to 4 p.m. So you could have a community event as long as it's 5 or more hours. Right. Unless it goes after 10 o'clock and then it wouldn't matter how long it is. Right. Any commission or comment? Well, I have just two points going to make, or really three. I would propose we just charge a flat fee of $65 to get the permit. If you read the statute under 751.005, it does say, and I mean, I guess I don't want to contradict James, but it does say they will, it a shall make an investigation. It's not permissive. Yes, but the fee, I know the fee is permissive. The fee is, the fee is, the fee is for me to argue or miss, but the fee, you know, I agree with you, the fee is permission, but I think if you can, but also the fee is not for that investigation, it's for the inspection during the event, because the fee is specifically set 751-012. So it looks like the investigation is just to require duty that's not under the conflite under the fee. That's what I was coming from. I understand, but my point is, I think we should make it a flat fee. People couldn't say that it was subject to abuse or that we would be sending out there just for people to gain overtime or something. It would be a flat fee for everybody who applied. The statute is very clear that all three offices shall make an investigation. All right? And so if we're going to go with this process, I think we need to be, you know, it'd be fair and equitable to everybody instead of having to be, you know, it could claim it be arbitrary if you assess random amounts of money. It would have to be one flat fee of 65 bucks per permanent application. I think that would be fair. And I'll be honest with you, I'm very concerned because I think we're borrowing trouble if we allow the person who's investigating it to also be the hearing officer. And I will tell you that, I mean, this statute is modeled after those statutes where the county judge assigns her judicial adjudity to another judicial officer. And the clerk of the court would be the person who would be receiving the application. That would be the county clerk's office. The clerk would be the person who'd be setting the time and hearing. If you look into the provision for the hearings, it's not a permissive. It's not that you get a hearing if we disagree with you. It says you shall receive a hearing. Now, I know in practice that may be more difficult. I'm just saying if the time ever comes up where you deny a hearing, it'd be very easy for them to say that you denied them to do process for which they were entitled. Okay. I don't care really. I know that it's your right, Judge, that it does give you the appearance to point it. But you did put the item on the commission's fordagen as a two-port item which A is for the first part. Okay. We don't have to take action on the first part, but we do need to take action on setting the fee. And since I understand you're point about one set fee, but I think when we have three departments, the health department, the health department, and the fire marshal all out there doing inspections, $65 per hour of anticipated event, I think it's very fair and covers the expense of them, minimum of three people going out there to inspect $160.65 fee does not cover the salary of those three people going out to inspect the event. So that's how we kind of were thinking about $65 per hour of scheduled event. And I think that's very fair. My point is, it's been only the people who go to these events live in the county and and they're generally paying taxes, which generally should cover those officers who are out there. So, I mean, I think $65 is an appropriate flat fee to cover the administrative cost, but if we're going to have people covering the event, that should fall within their normal taxes that they generally cover. Those... A&N. We should... Talk about inspection of the event. Is that... Is that basically... Is it an on-site inspection or is that where they come in with the permit and we evaluate the site plan and what's going to happen. There's no fee that I mean as far as the initial planning phase and make sure it's to help with a lot of events and we do a lot of stuff working collaborative with the city or whatever and you plan an event that is necessarily mean that all branches of the county government are there through the whole event. There is no fee for application technically. There's no fee for the review that shall be reviewed by the sheriff if I'm on the health department. There's no fee for that. The only fee is inspection during the event and that's specific on the compliance fee. All the other processes prior to the event there's no fee that's associated with that. Okay, do anybody else want to speak to this issue or I'm going to remove number one from the question since that is my decision and not a court decision and I'm going to make a motion to set the fee is anticipated to take place. And that's my motion. Sir, second. Sounds like we've died for a lack of a second. Do we have a recommendation from the court members? I got a one. I got a question. Go over again. I'll do my best because I got a question. Go over again. I'll do my best because I've got a life that I'm just as fresh as this is. You guys are not Paul. You're saying we're not doing this now. We are or we are not going through this process now. Have we had the authority to do it? We just never have done it. That's what I suspect. Okay. So you envision that if we have an event, all three of those entities, the health department, you think they're going to be out there the whole time we have an event and someone has a rodeo out of those, so if someone has a rodeo out on a Friday night out in the country at their place. It's going to be from seven to ten. So obviously triggers the ten to four thing. And they may have twenty five hundred people, they don't know. These are going to the process will be there. They're going to come in and fill out this permit and then the county health department, the sheriff's office and the fire marshal in theory or in practice would be there through that event. I've worked at the logistics perhaps. Sir and that's the thing. I can't speak that the sheriff wouldn't spend one hour inspecting it and see that it's in compliance and leave. I don't know the sheriff would want to stay until an hour after it was over. And the same thing with the health department. But for my specific, my office I would look at, if we're really talking about 2,500 people or more, and we're talking about vendors and tents and structures, and that sort of safeguard the fire part won't have to be on standby would have to have EMS we looking at a first state station those type of things that we're looking at an emergency management plan as well that I would probably have one staff person there if it's an rodeo that they're anticipating over 2500 people I've a rodeo I've been to they've got EMS out there they make those arrangements Anyway, whether we take any action today or not. I'm with you All that is ensuring that public safety is being checked on I'm with you on that. I'm just saying in theory would you gonna have all three of these offices represented for the duration of the event? I think you didn't know yet. I do not know that I would not anticipate that all three agencies would be there through the entire event. No, sir. We sleep on this. Have something to add. I want to sleep on that Bobby you go first thing Commission comment okay let's set it permit fee depending on the amount of people you've got 500 people let's set a that fee up to $100 a month to cover that. I just don't see us charging a fee every hour. That's where I'm sticking, my sticking point is, is the every hour fee. Let's set, maybe not B 65, maybe we want to do a $200 fee. A $200 fee. Let's do that instead of setting it by the hour. Black fee. A black fee. 200 for all inspections. Maybe, you know, regardless of the, okay, I'm saying. But set it by, because 500 obviously you're going to need more, I mean less my Did they want a contract with the church farm to have more? Deputies out there they need more security and that would be that would be directly between the promoter That's not a flat feet and I would appreciate it the 65 was based off an hour Yeah, if I could get up to something that's Even number I mean I am agreement at 500 to below one feet is that what you're saying 500 above to to to May have said speed to two there would be no fee for under 500 to 100 That's that it though. Yeah, that's that's that's fine with me That's what I'm having to 500 people anticipated the timings. No, it was $24, $65. Nothing, at no 500. Under 500. Under 500. $6,500 to $25,000 would be one set. It started $5,500 to $2500. That's the three of $500. I mean, with 500 people, make it $100. But that's the flat fee. When you kick it up to $2,500 People me 25. Okay, zero to five hundred hundred dollars There's no permit for zero to 500. Okay, so zero to five hundred zero 500 to 2500 a hundred dollars and over 2500 $500 to $2500. And over $2500. Let's kick it up to $200. I didn't need to be more in that because if it's over $2500, that's big enough of them. They're going to have to have couple of people from the city or the parliament or whatever out there doing inspections, aren't they? Am I wrong, Johnny? I'll kick it up to $300. Okay. So, clarification. Zero to 500 zero. $500 to $2500. Over $2500 anticipated attendance. $300. Is that agreeable? You want to study those trees and make them, but let's, let's try that and enjoy the report back to us. Let us know how it's going. You just, I mean, you don't have to do it in the commission. It's quite Sunday and Sunday and all that. Six months to years. Some place in that time frame. And we don't really know what we may not have one. I'm talking about it. We may not have one in six months, but you know, with them. I can tell you that the State of Texas requests from us and their Homeland Security measures that every event that happens in this county with 500 or more people, and we have to report to the State of Texas. And that's a Homeland Security issue. And you know, it's kind of... And those are the type of things that we're looking at. And some of the things that the sheriff's going to want to look at, some of the things that we're looking at as well. Repeat that with any event over 500. Any event over 500 we report to the state. The state request, not requires if you will, that this goes back to the event. How do you know if it goes my- Only by- Only by- Only by advertisement or promotions, how we find out about a lot of these events. Or, or their permitting because of fire code. Okay with that. Like a tent or not the promoters permitting the individual person that's having a structure. A structure there maybe a very reckoned tent that this barren Bailey would apply for the tent permit. I think this is very fair. I think it has the controls that manage the intended purpose for public safety without being overly intrusive on people's prior to lies. No income. Okay, so that I'm going to start over with the motion then. The motion is for a setting fee of anticipated attendance of 0 to 500, no fee. 500 between anticipated attendance of 500 to $2,500 fee. Anticipated attendance over $2,500, $300 fee. I'm saying over $2,500. You're going to have to put in there 501 and above because 500 is the yeah yeah okay 501 the 2500 is 100 and 2501 and above is 300 clear? 300. Clear? Okay, that's my motion. Thank you. Any further discussion? Unless we have it worked and then heard may have to have the time. Any further discussion? Any none? All in favor of the motion please say aye. Aye. Opposed sitting. Motion carries. Thank you, Julie. We'll see how it goes. Let everybody know. Okay. Moving right along to 14A. 14A is approval of First Amendment to a agreement between Denton County and Granitas Inc. for streaming media software and services is recommended by the Denton County clerk. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Marchant, are there questions? On favor please say aye. Aye. Aye, opposed to the city name? Motion is caring. We've already taken care of 14b, we'll go to 14c, which is approval of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Denton County, Texas and the opportunity regional water district for the Navajo Road Project located entirely within the opportunity service area. They didn't kind of commissioner precinct one at a total estimated cost of $7,539 with $3,689 for asphalt to come from Roadbridge East asphalt product funds. This is Auditor Number 204611851.0. In $2,850 for FlexBase to come from Roadbridge East Flexible Base Funds Auditor Number 204625850. $500 for SAUR rental to come from Road Bridge East Equipment Rental Funds, Auditor Number 2067108510 and $500 for miscellaneous items to come from Road and Bridge East, Miscellaneous Road and Bridge Expense Funds, Auditor Number 2046608510. This is all in Commissioner Prisantwan. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner March and other questions. Very none. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, sitting. Motion is carried. 14D is approval of the lease agreement between Dick and County Texas and James Holmes at all on behalf and for the benefit of the Women, Infant and Children's WIC program of the State of Texas Health Services in Lewisville, Dayton County, Texas. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Marchand other questions. On favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to say aye. Motion does carry 14E. It is approval of the software license and professional service agreement and amendment to the maintenance agreement to indent county and tire technologies for the Odyssey record on appeal creator as recommended by the director of information services. Motion by Commissioner Marchant, second by Commissioner Cone, other questions? Hearing none, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, any motion is carried. 14 F is approval scheduling. It's public hearing for August 11th, 2009 at 9 a.m. to discuss abandoning the portion of TIFF's circle located in Nenkani Commissioner precisting for. Approval. Motion by Commissioner Eid, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, other questions. Aver, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion to carry. We'll go to Adema Item 16A. 16A is to approve the 2009 BJA Burn Grant Program application for grant funding in the amount of $77,524 on behalf of Denton County, the City of Denton, the City of Roseville. This is 2009, I believe that G stands for grant 9695 TX 3J. I had a question about that in that. Hardee, are you here to answer that question? Okay. I had a question about the county's percent. No, I know on the Sheriff's Department and none on the City of Louisville and 42% on the City of Denton. Could I clarify that? That's actually a mistake on our part. That is not the county's percentage. It's the entities percentage. Okay. So in that case we should have changed the title on our form. It's just a standard format. So that is the city of Denton's responsibility for that percentage. I apologize for that missed. Okay. So, it's not 42% that the county's family city of Dindes' family. That's correct. And we can get a corrected copy of this memo for the minutes, so it'll be recorded. Let's do that. Thank you. I should have asked. You've asked the sheriff to forward for their questions. I have a move approval. Okay. Thank you. We have a motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Coleman. Here are no questions. So I'm in favor. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposing. In motion carries 16 V is public notices here by giving that dent county as a designated applicant is preparing an application for grant under the Edward burn justice assistance grant to a G program for 77,524 dollars Yeah, we have to Do this in two different motions. The chair will move out. Prove them. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. On favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the motion does carry. All right. We have one executive session item that is 15A. We will be meeting the executive session under Texas Government Code 551.071A consultation with attorney in closed meeting when the government bodies seeks the advice of its attorney about contemplated litigation regarding participation as a third-party payer and a class action suit against McKesson, AWP for reimbursement of certain drugs that were allegedly published with inflated markup prices. With that we are an executive session. The commissioners' court is reconvened from executive session under 15A. Chair Moore for approval of Denton County to participate as a third party payer and a class action lawsuit against McKesson AWP for reimbursement of certain drugs that were allegedly published with inflated markup prices and authorization for the DIN County Judge to sign the appropriate claim documents for DIN County to participate in said class action lawsuit. Thank you. Seconded by Commissioner Eads, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, the name? Motion does carry unanimously with that. We are adjourned. Everybody have a great day.