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, Lord. For this beautiful, beautiful spring weather. Thank you for the rain that we received this weekend. And I pray for your protection and blessings on the families that lost so much in the fires that were so widespread. I ask for your protection and blessing on our military that protects us. And as always always give our county commissioners and county judge wisdom as they make many decisions today. Guide us and direct us and teach us in all of your ways in Jesus' holy name we pray. Amen. I do leave this to the flag of United States America. And to the Republic for which stands, the United Nations are going on the individual, the liberty and justice of the throughout. Honourable Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas 113, under God one in indivisible. under one in the visible. Thank you ladies. Trying to be considered of people's time here. We're going to go first to item 14A, which is approval of agreement between Denton County and how do you pronounce that, Cindy? Brandicus. Brandicus. For streaming media software and services, I'm excited to get this going. This is great. This is great. Members, this is what we talked about some time ago where we'll be able to click on a particular agenda item and it'll go right to that in the video stream instead of us going forward and back trying to find what it is we're looking for. It's so wonderful. You know, I think the buzz word right now in government's transparency and, yeah, I don't want to claim transparency in government here. You know, it's a little farther outside of my office. But I will say that this tool will enable, not only our constituents, but countless hours of time for staff and personnel that are needing to find what action was taken, what the discussion was. Because what will happen is as commissioners court occurs, we will timestamp the video from the beginning of the gavel on an item to the end of the gavel on an item. And so it will index that portion of each video. And so when you need, when you look at Granicus, you'll see from when the judge started this, all of my comments, any comments that you have until the final vote is made. And so you won't have to, like the judge said earlier, start at the beginning and go, okay, well maybe that was it, you know, it's item 14 on the agenda. So you're pushing your fast forward, right? And then you go, oh, well they took it out of order. So you're back. And so it will be indexed. There's other benefits to this as well. And I've worked very closely with Kevin Carr and his staff to get the recommendation that's right for Denton County. So we will have media vaults and streaming replicators and all that stuff's getting really fancy. But there will be some neat benefits, I think. We can use it also internally for training. We can host taped training, not just on our intracite, but on our intracite, but we can actually house the storage of all the data out here. And so everybody would have access to it internally. We can turn that off so the public doesn't have access to it. As well as public service announcements. You know, when we're in burn band season, the judge or the fire marshal can tape a public service announcement for the public and it can be housed on this. So it doesn't eat up our bandwidth and I guess I'm a little over my head here, I know enough to get in trouble talking about all this, but it really does have some outstanding benefits. And like it says, and certainly in my email, I'm not on the bleeding edge of this, this technology. It is used in counties and cities all over the country. So I'm here for any questions that you may have. Oh, and the best news is it's paid for out of Rickips Management Fund. And so it's not going to impact the general fund. We have questions and members of the court. Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. Hearing no questions, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine. Motion to carry you now, Cine. Thank you. Judge, while I have the floor one minute, I'd like to put everybody on notice that the reason Adam is joining us. Adam is our newest member of our staff. He is the Assistant Department Supervisor in recording. I'll introduce him more officially later but we are double training right now to make sure he's got it under control because Aaron's leaving us on May 14th. What's your going? Really? Wisconsin. You know what part of Texas is this? Yeah, North Texas. Our North Texas. Fine North Texas. Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. Also, in an effort to be considered a people's time, I want to go to 13A, which is approval of a legislative policy statement for the 81st legislative session relating to the upgraded and kind of court of law number one to the district court. Before we get into it, I want to say that I want to say that I want to say that I want to say that I want to say that I want to say that I want to say that I want to say that same thing for the 81st legislative session relating to the upgraded and kind of court of law number one to district court. Before we get into all this, I want to let everybody know that last, what day was it? My days are running together. Wednesday? Wednesday. The jurisprudence committee in the Texas Senate net is one of those deals where it's posted at 130 or upon the German of the Senate will the meeting didn't start till 7 o'clock at night. So I will tell you that the very first words that came out of my mouth was to let everybody know that while I did oppose the creation of a new district court, this court as a body did pass a resolution in support of the creation of the district court. Those are the first words that I'm a mouth. So I can tell you that amongst all the things that I did talk about is the analysis or the study that the state did. I pointed out some issues that I had with that and while I understand it's a work in progress and I'm grateful for that, I felt that obviously it's good information to have the population increase and it's useful information to know caseloads. But while that's useful information, I didn't figure that I didn't think that it was enough information to base decisions on further analysis on that caseload needed to be deciphered. I also talked to them about the possibility of whether it's this session or another session, the eliminating specialty courts. I think it would be a very good thing to do that so that we can adjust. You know, everybody talks about local control, whether it's in the jurisprudence committee hearing or any other hearing you're down there on. The phrase local control continues to come up, but it is true and I think it would be a good idea to eliminate our specialty courts so that our judges can make the decision as to where the need is. I guess you call it specialization locally. So I was supportive of that idea. There was another senator requesting an upgrade for another court in another county and asked for that to be attached to this omnibus bill where they're creating the district courts. court and the chairman of the committee, a senator went, Jeff went without a sanitonio and since it was his bill and he said no that's not germane to the title of the bill it would not allow that senator to upgrade the court for another county so right then and there I knew that wasn't going to happen for our county court at law number one also. But I will tell you that I in talking to our owned and county legislators and staff people, they were asking our position on the possibility of upgrading county court at law number one with a full understanding that probably is not going to happen this session because it would take another bill and that bill has not been filed. So it's too late for this year. But they did want to know our courts position on it. Now if it's done in the next session, that can be done immediately. They can create it in conjunction with the next term or however they elect to do that. But I want you to fully understand that my resolution in support of upgrading county court at law number one, number one has nothing to do with the creation of the district court over my objections. That's a done deal. That's going to happen. They did not actually vote on it in the jurisprudence committee because they had pages of bills that they heard that night and they will vote on that later. But I can tell you that with certainly that's going to happen. So my intentions in bringing this to you today is I want you to fully understand it has nothing. It's not I'm not asking you to approve this in lieu of creation of another court. That's that's a separate deal. That's going to happen. This is a to respond to our didn't kind of delegation of legislators because there has been quite a bit of communication to them and to their offices on this issue. And I'm in support of it whether it is the current office holder or a future office holder I am in support of it. So are there questions on that issue and we have a couple judges here with us. Did you wish to address court on this issue? Either one of you. Good morning. Thank you for being here. Bruce McFarley, judge of the 360-second district court. I was just coming here to see what was what was going on with that and I guess right now our position is we want the didn't want it to be taken away from the current district court, so I understand that. With regards to doing that in the future, we really haven't talked about that. I think right now that it's, I'd like to hear the reasons that somebody's gonna come up and talk about why it is that it should be a district court. Right now the juvenile board has the authority to change, to assign basically any of the courts to be the juvenile court. They could right now have the juvenile board wanted to. They could assign it to a single district court, to all the district courts to where we share it. And so my concern is why is it that it's being asked for at this time? Is I'm not sure that it's being asked for so that it's handled by a district court but more so that another agenda can be met. And so that's my concern because if we really need it to be a district court, then we can make it that right now at the next juvenile board meeting, we can assign that. And so- So my understanding, well, obviously you all feel that the district's court's caseload is such that they don't need to be taken on other issues. The way it was put to me and the reason I'm supportive of it is well we all understand that unfortunately there are adults that either because of abuse and neglect they are in a district court and the juvenile is in county court at law number one and I've been presented information that substantiates that it's better for the entire family if they're all handled in the same court the adults and the child in front of the same judge so everybody knows what's going on with that whole family through one court And then there's serious juvenile offenders that County court at law number one does not have authority to handle and those do get transferred over I understand to Lee Gabriel's court at this point in time. So that's why I was supportive of it, whether it's the current judge or a future judge, that's irrelevant. It's strictly for better handling of the juvenile cases and the abuse and neglect cases. And like I said, having the adults and the children all in the same court, I thought was a good idea. And we've been provided information showing studies, not just here in Dayton County, but statewide, where this is kind of a trend. This is a movement that they're going towards, and I wanted to be supportive of that. So that's why I'm coming from on it. And that's fine. I mean, if we could make it so that it would be like a general jurisdiction court that could hear other things. And it would be a general jurisdiction court that could hear other things. There you go. And it would be. I'm back to the local control thing. And that's fine. Just so it's y'all will be aware, some of the problems being logistics right now in the fact that it's location. It's location. There is one thing is that adult prisoners and juvenile prisoners cannot be together. Exactly. Also, there'd be issues of files, district clerks, the district clerk is in the course building, where it is there over there. So it'd be something that probably a lot of people need to be involved in the process, district clerk, and county clerk, and everybody else involved. But in the future, that might be fine, but one of the things is, right now the where it's isolated, it might be a situation where what's gonna have to happen is that whoever does juvenile at the time will sit in that juvenile courtroom. But for the rest of the time to do another district cases it might be somewhere else and that's logistically because- We'd have to look at that at the time. Yeah, and- I just wanted everybody to understand that my purpose for putting on here is in no way shape or form connected to the request for a new district court for Denton County. This is a total separate issue. Number one, and number two, based on the conversation that I heard in the jurisprudence meeting, it's not gonna happen this session. I mean, it's just not gonna happen. But there's been enough conversation with our Denton County delegation that I thought it was important for them to know that our position on it. So that was totally my intent in putting this on here. Well, like I said, I haven't talked to all the other district judges on it, but if we wanted to do it so in the future, like next legislative session, we added another district court and made it so that it's general jurisdiction and could hear everything. I haven't talked to the other district judges, but if they thought we'd get another court that could help ease our caseload, we'd probably be, probably be okay with with that because for a lot of it, if you could just get a referee like Judge Parasund, they could go over to the juvenile center, do handle most of the stuff without incurring more expense. And that way that wouldn't allow another district judge to be handling other cases. And the district- We'll look at a couple of years to look at that. Do I know? We've got a couple of years to look at that? Do you want to know? We've got a couple of years to look at that. So if we do it that way, we're probably going to be all right. So. Judge Robinson, did you want to say anything? I think we would say I'm sorry. Okay. All right. Thank you. I appreciate your being here this morning. Members, Mr. Eans? Have a comment. I think that it's more concerned about the process that we're involved in. And I would just really like to ask all the parties involved, our judges, our district judges, all of us to try to work together. just to just read just all of us to try to work together. And we may not be in agreement on things, we could all be on the same page. And whether we have a work session about our judicial courts and the caseload that we have and so forth. I think I know that I would appreciate that we get a heads up about some legislative requests so that we would kind of know about it so that we could be briefed about it so we could be educated about it. You know, say not that we're going to be in agreement with y'all, you know, guarantee there. But I think that would just be good that we all, you know, before session starts or something, we all kind of maybe we develop a game plan, you know, hey, This is what we're going to need in this year and this year, just like we're talking this morning. I think it would be, and I support the judges' resolution this morning, because I think it is the trend from what I understand, the way things are going. And I think it makes sense. But I really think it would be nice to have a comprehensive approach to how we want to handle our caseloads as a county. And so, if we set up a committee of stakeholders or what, I don't have a exact solution to that today. But I just think- I think that's a judges decision. Sure, sure, but I think whether we had a, I'm not trying to dictate what they do. What I'm just saying is, as far as legislative requests and so forth and legislative agenda. And if we're trying to get resolutions out of us and supporting things and just think that all the parties we ought to try to work together instead of kind of a piece meal one thing after another. I think that would just, I think that's what my preference would be. Mr. Coleman. This is on. I was down there last week as well. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to stay till midnight like when the session went, but I also provided written testimony and actually went over and spoke to the staff person in charge of this bill. And the one question I I she asked me about this juvenile bill is who's going to pay for it and I said well you know basically we're trying it's going to be a cost that'll be then deferred to the state from the county and that was something she said we're not going to be going for that you know that's one of the things the state is in it unfortunately the state's usually used to you know throwing cost on the county is both the other. And when she asked me about that, she paced Louis said, look, that's probably a deal killer for here in the future. And the other point I wanted to make is, you know, I worked real hard along with the judges regarding getting this new district court. And I would really hate to have this muddy the waters. It's not going to muddy the waters. I mean, we can agree to disagree, but I think there's been such a discussion over this and this being brought up. I think things are fine as they are right now. I would not want to lend any confusion to the consideration of the new district court as I also talked to Judge Witten yesterday in the afternoon and told her that, I used to practice law in El Paso. I used to practice here and in El El Paso they had a juvenile district court with a magistrate. I thought the system worked fine. And I think that'd be a good idea as part of our legislative agenda in two years from now. But I don't think it would be good to pass a resolution this year when we're really working on it for two years from now. I think it would be appropriate to pass a resolution in support of social legislation in the next legislative session. I think this is a bit premature at this point. Well, I brought it forward simply because I was being asked by legislators and their staffers, the discussion always went back to place in jurisprudence. Like I said, another senator from another county wanting to upgrade a different court. And it was quickly explained to him that it was not germane to the title of bill. And a separate bill would have to be filed. In other words, it's not going to happen. Judge, as long as it's not in lieu of the district court that we met the resolution for a couple of weeks ago, I certainly do not have any problems with this resolution. Is there any further discussion or judgment from? Listen to the comments. Maybe if there was an amendment that made sure it stated in there that it's not in I'm going to ask you to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to ask the committee to I'm an ordinary person. Order me, can you? May I? Right. Can you please turn? I was going to say that the only way that I could support any resolution would make any sense to me to go for with any resolution is to clarify a position that we might have with our legislators in this session. That the priority in this session is not this court that we're talking about today. The priority is to the creation of a general jurisdiction district court. I don't want to get, I do not want it to get confused. Even in talking with Judge Witten yesterday, it was confusing. And if the people that are requesting, I mean, Judge Wittens the one that brought this forward to me, and if it's confusing to them, then it will be confusing. The direction they want to go, it's got to be confusing those people that we want to give direction to. So the only way that I would support the resolution is to specify in another session. However, we do that. Just like you said, that you're... If we simply put the language in there to specifically state that support is not to be confused with this body's prior support of the creation of a new district court or how are that can best be stated. But that's the first one. Not in lieu of the already requested district court, new district court. What we say is that we already passed a resolution on that. They don't have the budget anyway, so. Yeah yeah, they've already got a resolution on that. I echo what Commissioner Mitchell and Martin said, you know, I also port the concept of this, you know, and I'm okay with the timing, especially judge of people have been asking you for clarification of that. And I can support it as long as we stipulate that the first preference is for the other court, and this is not in lieu. All right, with that, I'm gonna make the motion to support the ordermaker with that amendment that it's not in lieu of the already requested new district court. I am for discussion. I'll second that for discussion only. Again, I do not want this to cloud the issue of the district court today. And if we pass the resolution, and if I'm for the resolution, I will vote on it with the understanding that the legislators know that because it's a legislator that are going to have to tack on any amendment to any bill and the only other bill that's out there that I'm familiar with that this could be attached to would be a bill 392 Senate Bill Senator Duncan's bill. That's the one that darling the Judge Whitten kept on referring to. And I read the entirety of the bill and could not find a place where it would go. So I want to make sure that if I support this, that it is understood that it is not, like you said in lieu of, because I do not want to send a message to the district court judges that we are, in any way, reneging on anything that we had promised in the past to them and art purported negotiations. And I don't want to give that appearance at all. But on the other hand, if it's something that, if we had the opportunity of a district court coming in the future, I'm wrestling with the idea of not supporting specific jurisdiction courts by making all courts general jurisdiction, that and then another question I asked Judge Witten had this been given, proposed been given to the juvenile board and she said no it had not and Judge McFarland makes specific that the only way a district court even gets jurisdiction over juvenile is that the juvenile board gives it that jurisdiction. So I'm wondering if the resolution itself should go to the juvenile board and if we want it to be at a district level. Those are the things that I'm conflicted on. Yes, sir, but has it ever been presented to the juvenile board. I mean so so we could even actually ask for this it be turned down by the juvenile board and given jurisdiction to all the courts. That's where I'm having conflict and not understanding exactly where a resolution would go. I believe me having worked with juveniles and at the level that I did for so many years, we need a specific court to address that and not scatter it all over the place. And whether that mechanism is through a county court at law, whether that mechanism is through a district court, as Andy said, Commissioner Ease said that we probably need to discuss that among ourselves and the judges on what best route that is. Again, by the resolution, I do not want the send a message to the, to our legislative body that there is another option other than the creation of a general jurisdiction. That's why the amendment was added to make it clear that this is not in lieu of the already supported creation of a new district court. And do you think it needs to go to the juvenile board? You said on that board. In some time in the next two years, we can certainly take that out. We're gliant to him. Oh. Commissioner Coleman. Thank you. Commissioner Mitchell and Commissioner Marsha, Thank you for making that point because that was something I was fixing to bring up as Regardless of our actions the juvenile board can do what they need to do and I think it we're over kind of overstepping our bounds with the least including them as a stakeholder in this and getting their input Like you said commission reads and I think it would be full-hearty for us to advance it Furthermore if somebody gets this resolution, it will not be difficult from what I understand for somebody to substitute a floor amendment or do something else while at the legislature. And regardless of our fine-tuned, you know, where we basically, you know, say, you know, we basically put in there some, you know, massaging of this resolution, just with a quick read, it could say it could be determined easily that we've changed our mind and now we need a district court and I really think by us approving this now for two years in the future and without consulting the Commissioner's Court I mean without consulting the juvenile board it's gonna I mean it's too fine a point to be made I mean it could very easily you know somebody on the floor the somebody, you know, change the bill to make this a juvenile court. And I just think we're muddy in the waters, particularly since we're talking about something two years in the future. So obviously I'm not going to vote for the resolution period. I think it muddies the waters and I just don't know why we're even addressing it at this point. I mean, this issue was decided. Commissioner Coleman will just have to agree to disagree on that point. The reason I put it on the agenda is because I was asked by legislators because there's been discussion about this. But from my conversation last week, it was pretty well understood that this is not going to happen this session, but they were asking our position. And I have absolutely no objection of putting the amendment on there that this is not in lieu of the creation of the new district court. I do not have a problem with doing that. But I also think it's an opportune time to let our legislators know how we feel about it so that when it does come up next session they already know. And we're always at risk of somebody adding the floor amendment on anything. I understand that, believe me. But I don't think we've mutted the waters as a matter of fact, I think we've clarified it. I just want to make sure I'm clear, it currently stands. It states that we're requesting the 81st legislature, the current legislature to upgrade this court. Do we need to change that wording to the next legislation? 80 seconds. Second. Yeah. But I think it's also fair to put underneath there, even besides saying 82nd of further clarification to make sure they understand that this is not in lieu of the already requested new district. What I have is didn't kind of request that the 82nd legislature upgrade the didn't kind of quarter law number one to district court. District request is not in lieu of didn't counties previous request for the creation of a new additional court and the current legislative session. District Court. All right, we have a motion. The second is the further clarification or discussion. Judge McFarland. My last point is this is I agree with Commissioner Eads. When we talked to our legislators about getting to do district court, we should have come and talked to y'all first. We should have, okay? I admit that. Thank you for making that point. You should have done that. Okay? But I think what we're doing now, if you pass this resolution without going to the juvenile board first to ask them what their recommendation is, we're making the same mistake again. I think it should be something that we all sit and talk about, plan if it's a dead deal. Then it shouldn't be real urgent to get to them right now. So I would think that if this is something, because I'm not sure how it works, but even if they created one, it may still be up to the juvenile board. And the juvenile board say it may say, no, we're not even gonna give it to that court. I'm not sure how that works. I don't know if that's something that the legislature wins at the juvenile board. I'm not sure how that works, but it's something that needs to be looked into before we start making any resolutions. But I think it's something like Commissioner Ead said. We all get together, talk with the district clerk, Gennie clerk, everybody who's going to be involved and then go from there, I think that would be a better plan. I'll be glad to have a discussion with this about this with the juvenile board for Some kind of future recommendation one way or another, but I still don't see that there's any damage done with this Resolution being passed at this time if they deny It done deal. I mean it'd be dead at that point All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we have a motion in a second, so you're no further discussion on favor or the resolution as amended. Please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, Sainé? Aye. Motion carries 3-2. Thank you for being here, gentlemen. Okay. We're all way up to item number one. Which 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. Also want to remind everyone to please turn off your cell phones and pagers. Under item two, which is a consent agenda, members, I need to pull to be. There are no intradropartmental transfers this week, and we also need to pull to E. Beth needs to repost that. There's some problems that need to be corrected. So, is there anything else that anybody needs to pull or have clarified, or do we have a motion for approval? Motion moved. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say aye. Motion this carry. The consent agenda today consists of approval of the order making appointment, which is 2A. We have a new hire in the courthouse on the square museum, a re-higher in the criminal district's attorney's office, two new hires in the county jail, a promotion in the county jail, and a new hire for WIC administration. To see is approval of the payroll. 2D is approval of Board of BID for FlexBase. Grade 1 type A, this is road and bridge west, bid number 0309-1955 to the Hanson Agriots. 2F is approval of the award of Connaca, Minolta, MS6000. This is a scanner, bid number 030309157 to the Wienwerd Group for the units and one year maintenance. 2G is approval of budget amendment crest 100910. For vehicle repairs of road and bridge precinct 1, an amount of $20,000. 2H is approval of budget amendment request 100920 for electric service and water service for election storage building and the colony annex in the amount of $12,300. 2-I is approval of budget amendment request 100930 for computer hardware maintenance for financial information system in the amount of $2,745.2J is approval building use requests for the use of the courthouse on the square lawn for a wedding ceremony for Sarah Kettle hut on Saturday, October 10, 2009 from 3 to 6 p.m. And lastly, approval 2K is approval of the reappointment of Mr. Jess coffee as director director at large position of the Board of Directors of Opportunity Regional Water District. 5A is approval of the bill report payments from CSCD, Community Corrections, T-A-I-P, Shares, Training Shares, Forfeiture, VIT Interest, DA Check-V, and DA Forfeiture Funds are presented for recording purposes only. We also have the auditors monthly financial report for the month February 2009 that is presented for recording purposes. Good morning James. Well, I'm Judge commissioners asked court to prove the bills as presented with the four deletions that are noted on separate page that are Have various problems in their processing that lead to be totally deleted or processed correctly later date there's also three additions that are One is for sheriff service one is for training expense and there is one to increase the change fund By $150 for the county clerk's office and their carolton including $150 for the County Clerk's office and their carolton including But it's actually would increase the Carrollton County Clerk's office change from 250 to Believe $400 One is an increase to 400 never was an increase to 300 Yeah, but actually increasing one the dent, the dent and change fund by 100 to 400. Fair often change one by 50 to 300. Got it. Just gives them adequate cash to work with Grincham. Other questions or comments? Or do we have a motion for approval? No, motion. Motion by Commissioner Coleman. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion to carry. 6A is approval of the rejection of bid for RFP 08081930 for sale, exchange of real property and flower mound. Approval. Motion by Commissioner Ead. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Motion to carry. 6B is approval of exemption from bidding for repairs to Hickory Creek Road. According to the provisions of section 262.024A2 of the local government code. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Marchant. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion to be d6c is approval of specifications and authority to advertise for sale of real property. Flare mound. This is RP 04091966. Hold off on that. Just for a second. Yeah, I'll pull that for just a little bit. You want to come back to it later today? Okay. We'll not take action on there right now. We'll come back. Let's go to item 7a, which is approval of budget and member request 100890 for computer software, including the transfer of funds from JP Technology Fund on appropriated contingency, with JP Technology Fund in the amount of $2,600. Chair will move for approval. Second and final, Commissioner Marchant. Are there questions? Hearing none all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the seat. Motion does carry. 7B is approval of Budget Amendment request 1-0-0-9-0-0 for buildings for capital replacement fund in the amount of $98,708. Chair will move for approval. Second and by the Commissioner Marchand other questions. Your none on favor please say aye. Aye opposed any. Motion does carry. 13B is approval of legislative policy statement for the 81st legislative session related to access to certain records and documents in the investigation to child abuse and neglect specifically stating didn't county support for Senate Bill 1064. You have information in your backup material here. This was brought to our attention actually after I find people on the Child Protective Services Board were here and I wanted it. I thought it was important that we indicated support. Other questions are comments on this issue. We have a motion by Commissioner Marchandnd and seconded by Commissioner Mitchell hearing no questions. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye opposed, sitting. Motion does carry. 13C is same type of action only. This is on Senate Bill 1411 and its House Bill 2816. This is on Senate Bill 1411 and its House Bill 2816. Relating financial assistance programs and connection with certain children and the conservatorship of the Department of Family and Protective Services on here again this I believe came up as a result of yes it did, our meeting with CPS. Other quick thank you. We have a motion for approval. Commissioner Mitchell second and by commission of Marchant. Other questions? Here none. Only favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Oppositing. Motion does carry. Next is Senate Bill 1877. And this is relating to the creation of the Texas Medical Child Abuse Resources and Education System Grant Program. I move approval. Thank you. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Mitchell. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. Are there questions? Any none? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, sitting sitting motion does carry and Then we have Senate bell 555. This is brought to attention. I believe by Beth Fleming. Was it not yes? It's relating to indentification provisions and construction contracts Yes, Judge This removes some of the indemnity provisions in our construction contracts, which exposes the county to some additional liability that we would not recommend. Mr. Merchant. This doesn't relate to this and I hope I can squeeze this in without Kim slapping me around. You know where we're at on the there is a bill filed isn't there to expand the amount of contract to where it's 25,000. Yeah, moving it to 50,000 and this court did already support that and as far as we know it all that's going through with no problems. This is totally about the indemnification provisions. I hope and I could move a position. Okay, we have motion for approval to oppose Senate Bill 585. I have a question. I'm sorry. I have a question. I have a question. Beth, so basically this removes the joint and several reliability provisions as I what it's for. That's the way I understand it, Kim may be able to assist me on that a little bit more, but it's on a certain construction contract only, but it's the third party liability that it's removing. Is that accurate? That's not specific to governmental entities or isn't? Or is it just for everyone in general? Commissioner, I don't know the answer to that. I know that it, I don't know if it includes everyone else in general. Our concern was the impact it would have for governments. We need it carved out as an exception for governments or if it's designed for governments then obviously we're going to oppose it. In its states, public or private in the language? Okay. or a private in the language. Okay. No, we're concerned. That's why it's tuned out here. We don't have a second. We have a motion by, can you make the motion, the commission Mitchell? And Commissioner Marche and second of the motion. That's okay, thank you. Okay, and this is to oppose Senate Bill 555 in House Bill 818. Is there further discussion or other questions? Very none on favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion is carried. Okay, 14b is approval of change order number one to the contract agreement between Dyncan and Texas and Reynolds asphalt and construction company. For the fish trap road improvement project from FM 1385 to Navajo Road in the amount of 1,215,050 cents but funding to come from Commissioner precinct one triple four funds the FM 423 auditor number 7673 58010 I'll move for approval. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Marchant. Are the questions? Any none? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed sitting. Motion carries 14-c as approval of court order to authorize payment by Dyncannie, Texas to Boliver Water Supply Corporation in the amount of $8980. Dyncannie funds instead of being reimbursed by Walmart as previously approved by the DIMC County Commissioners Court in a revised utility relocation agreement under Commissioners Court order 090182, regarding the relocation of approximately 1,890 linear feet of six inch waterline from Lowest Road East with funding now to come from Commissioner Prucinct 1. Contract road work funds auditor number 2052508510. Sure. What happened to Wal-Mart's agreement that they just decided? It was an interesting deal because you know like many of our contracts that we have, it's apparently we didn't have some follow through on this. And there was a discussion between who is responsible to remove this water line. And Walmart up until this point had pretty much paved or everything. But in the contract, although I think there was an oil agreement between the previous commissioner, there was no written agreement. And this is holding up the whole kitten kombucha. So what we are not doing is we are not paying Walmart to do it. We are paying Bolliver. They're requested price right now to move the waterline and then if they have a problem with Walmart, Bolliver water supply gets to deal with it. Is that a correct assessment, isn't it? Yes. Taking these head-yes for the record. I just wondered because I thought we had an agreement also with Wal-Mart. Yes, they were reimburses for everything. Yes, but it was not on this issue. Not on this issue. And it was I am, haggled with them. We haggled with them for weeks. It's been a long haggle. Yes, yes. Well, this pretty well ended. I, Lord, I hope so. I think so too. All right. We have a motion. We don't have a motion yet. I'll move for approval. Thank you. Commissioner Coleman makes a motion. Chair will second. Other further questions or comments? Any none on favor? Please say aye. Aye. Opposed to any? Motion does carry. 14D is approval of one real estate contract for purchase of right away through a Very none all in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. 14D is approval of one real estate contract for purchase of right away through a Central Wardie deed department at Dreny Gs. M. In a temporary construction easement by Dint County, Texas from Jean Christopher E. Spiria and wife Judy B. Spiria for the Wade Road Bridge replacement project to grant authorization to proceed with the closing and approval for the Wade Road Bridge replacement project two grant authorization to proceed with the closing and approval for the county judge to sign on necessary closing documents and three direct the county auditor to issue a award in the amount of the purchase price plus any fees. With funding to come from Commissioner Prisnick one contract labor bridge construction funds, this is auditor number 20522-851-0. I'll move for approval. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Questions? Here none on favor. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. 14 E is approval of 1 right away deed in memorandum of agreement for sale of parcel 42. This is part 1 and part 2 of real property for the FM 423 improvement project by Dyncannie Texas to the Texas Department of Transportation and two grant authorization to proceed with closing and approval for the county judge to sign on necessary closing documents to sell the real property. This is yours, Ron. Thank you. Motion by Commissioner Marchant, seconded by Commissioner Coleman. Other questions? Any none? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion carries. 14 F is approval of voice pilot agreement with Microsoft Corporation. Any other questions on this? Do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Coleman. Here are no questions. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Motion carries. 14G is approval of professional service agreement. And statement of work with the aspect software incorporated. Chair, I move for approval. I'll second. Commissioner Coleman makes the second other questions. Here none all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name? Motion does carry. Now we'll go back to 6C. 6C is approval of specifications and authority to advertise for sale of real property. This is Flower Mound. RFP 04091966. Move for approval. Thank you. We have a motion for approval by Commissioner Eads. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Are there questions? Here none on favor. Please say aye. Aye. Post-sini. Motion does carry. OK. We have no executive sessions. So with that, we have concluded our business. Everybody have a great day. I hope you had a great Easter. We're adjourned Thank you.