I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Ladies and gentlemen, Denton County Commissioner's Court and it is friday. It's kind of strange to be meeting on friday, isn't it? But, uh, obviously needed this year. It is unlike the agenda says January 27th. It's really the third year. Just thought I'd make that clarification. This morning I am vacation is going to be given by Sherry Gross, whose administrator Ron Marchand, Commissioner Prism, two in our pledges will be led by Barbara Loper. They aid to the court. Will you please stand? Heavenly Father, thank you for this day and the beautiful weather and sunshine outside. Thank you for keeping it safe and bringing it together. Thank you for protecting our loved ones this week as we had several of the Denton County family who gave birth to healthy babies. We ask that you would bless those in our Denton County family who this week also lost loved ones. I pray for safety of our military. Bring them home safe to us. Bless our county court, our commissioners court with wisdom as they make their many decisions today. We joined in the pledges. Applied to leave to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of Egypt's hands, one nation under one and indivisible. Item one is for public input for items not listed on the agenda. There's any member of the public that would like to address commissioners court. We ask that you please complete a public comment form available from the aid to the court at the side table over here. And we'd be glad to hearers court. We ask that you please complete a public comment form available from the aid to the court at the side table over here. And we'd be glad to hear from you. We'll also want to remind everyone to please turn off your cell phones and pages. Under item one, I'd like to make a couple comments. One is, I'm glad everybody Tuesday is safe and sound. I won't extend thanks to Rowan from emergency management and of course Frank, these people make sure that they get the best information we can get early in the morning to make a decision about whether or not we're going to be open or open late on bad weather days. The projection at about four o'clock in the morning, Tuesday morning, was that the ice was going to hit much earlier and that's why we had the decision to close that day. I didn't want all of our employees. I didn't want the ice to hit about eight o'clock in the morning. We had employees driving to work on ice and then turn right around and go home on ice. So you know about noon when the ice hadn't hit yet you feel kind foolish, but at the same time I'm real glad everybody's safe. So, that worked out well. Yeah, it's hard, you know, Texas weather, it's hard to guess, but I'd rather err on the side of caution and safety and so that's what we did. The other announcement is, Jody Gonzalez had a beautiful little baby boy a couple days ago and Mom baby are doing fine. We congratulate them on that One other point I want to make and I know this has been in the paper, but it needs to be stressed put on my old tax Assessor had here with today being the 30th of January and Bystate law taxes are due by the 31st. However, there is a clause in there that says when the 31st falls on the weekend, you have until the next business day, which would be Monday, February, 2nd. So with that, I want to tell everybody that you can have your Pax's postmarked January, I'm sorry, February 2nd, and they're still on time, but I will caution you to mail early enough in the day that the post office does, in fact, put a February 2nd postmark on it. Some post offices late in the day will put the postmark for the next day, and then you will be paying a penalty in interest. So just thought I'd make that clarification. Okay, item two is the consent agenda. Members are there items on the consent agenda that you need to pull for discussion or do we have a motion for approval? Motion by Commissioner Ead, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Hearing no comments, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, any name name motion does carry to a of the Consent agenda is a provost of order making appointments we have a new hire in GIS new hire in the budget office to promotions within the county jail new hire in the county jail a lateral transfer and juvenile probation services and then new hire in the health department. 2V is approval of the Intra Departmental Transfers to see as approval of Budget Amendment request 100520 for vehicle equipment for shares department in the amount of $2,000. 2D is approval of Budget Amendment request3-0 for vehicle equipment for shares, for-freture fund, in the amount of $18,250 for recording purposes only. 2-E is approval of budget amendment request 1-0-0-5-6-0 for office machines for tax assessor collector in the amount of $600. 2-F is approval of Tuesday, February 17th at 9-10am is date and time to conduct a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Lake Rare Roberts Land Use Ordinance for a special use permit. This is 10.05 acres in the RVB survey abstract 29 track 40 precinct one is recommended by the Lake Rare Roberts Planning and Zoning Commission and the Public Works Planning Department. Works Planning Department. 2G is to approve Tuesday, February 17th at 9.05 a.m. is the date and time to conduct a public hearing to consider an amendment to the Lake River Roberts Land Use Ordinance for a zoning change from residential estates R1 to residential medium density. This is an R2 for the J-Brant Survey Abstract 106, Track 6 precinct 1 is recommended by the Lake River Roberts Planning and Zoning Commission and the Public Works Planning Department. Two H is approval of the request to use the parking lot of the Stephen Copeland Government Center to conduct a collection event for household hazardous waste on Saturday, March 21, 2009 from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. by the Opportunity Regional Water District. Two I is Main Street Denton has requested the use of the courthouse on the square lawn every Thursday for twilight tunes on the square in May and June from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. to J as approval of the request by Dent Main Street Association to use the courthouse on the square and lawn for arts, antiques, auto and motorcycle, extravaganza on Saturday, September 12, 2009, from 8 a.m. to 430 p.m. to K is approval of reappointment and Mr. Kim Carson to the Lakebury Roberts Planning and Zoning Committee to L is approval of the reappointment of Mr. Brett Koon to the Lakebury Roberts Planning and Zoning Committee. Three A is approval of a resolution regarding legislative position on the Rell-North Texas initiative. And let me just say that, gosh, this has been going on for about four years. I think it's probably not an exaggeration to say that I've attended about 100 meetings on this subject in that four-year period of time for this idea to evolve into what it has. I'm going to read the resolution and then I want to make a point very clear. The resolution is whereas the North Central Texas Council of Governments is designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for the DFW, or I should say, Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan area by the Governor of Texas and accordance with federal law. And whereas the Regional Transportation Council comprised primarily of local elected officials, is the Regional Transportation Policy Body associated with the North Central Texas Council of Governments and has been and continues to be the regional forum for cooperative decisions. Whereas the Regional Transportation Council has advocated for additional transportation funding and flexibility over 10 years, with a special focus on identifying additional funding to construct and operate a seamless regional rail system for the past five years. And whereas the regional, I'm sorry, whereas the Rail North Texas effort has been a bottom up process to include local elected officials, business leaders and public and state legislators and has resulted in a specific legislative proposal. And now therefore, it resolved by the commissioners Court of Denton County, Texas, Section 1, and County commissioners Court approves the regional transportation councils and intention to seek legislative authority to create a transportation funding area for the purpose of levy taxes or fees in order to generate revenue to fund rail and supplemental roadway improvements. Section 2, then kind of commissioners Court continues to support the principles contained in the three transportation authorities. Join recommendation for regional rail and or central Texas. This rail initiative will be constructed by existing transportation providers. Just for clarification, we're talking about the DART, the CTA and the T. Section three, DENT and County Commission report does not support the creation of any new transportation authorities or transportation providers within the Dallas-4th region. Section 4, this resolution will be transmitted to the North Central Texas Council of Governments, state legislators, local governments, partner organizations, and other interested parties with a request to support transportation as the region's highest legislative priority for the 81st Texas legislature, and a request to endorse this resolution. Section 5, this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The backup material in your agenda book gives the specifics and I won't read all of this but in a nutshell I will tell you why I am supporting this and this is first of all it's all about local control. When we first started having conversations about the Railnor Texas initiative there were people that wanted a regional vote in in other words, everybody in our MPO, multi-county regional vote to create a transportation district and choose from a list of multiple ways to raise money to fund transportation. And I was very much opposed to that because I didn't think it was right that Dallas, Terrent, all these other counties Be deciding how Denton County was gonna spend our money and on what? So once that evolved to a point where each county can decide if they want to do this or not So it's a county vote if we elect to have one which I'm not advocating. I want to make that particular I'm not advocating that we do it. But I like the idea of each county having the authority, you have local control, you can do it if you want to. And each county has the authority, if they decide to do it, to decide how they want to raise the funds. And in the backup material, you'll see that there's a home menu of options there. One of them being creating a new property tax, which I don't think is going to be very popular with anybody. So if you did that, you'd not only have a tax on your city county school on your property tax bill, but you'd have a transportation tax too. Yeah. Over in County, they have a hospital tax that's gonna be a long list, isn't it? Another option was to increase the motor vehicle registration fees and another option is to increase the fees for a new Texas resident, which just a few years back, they raised the $250 and this proposal suggests raising it up to another $250. So it's not exactly encouraging people to move to Texas isn't. But there's a whole menu of options there if a county elects that that's what they want to do. I like it too because it's very transparent to John Coo's citizen voter out there. The only way a county could do this is to elect to have an election and put out to the public, okay, we want to do these three projects, four projects, whatever they select. And this is how we propose funding it and then have a countywide vote. Yes or no, citizens do you want to do this? And if you do, those fees would be imposed. The money could only be spent on the projects identified in the vote. And once those projects are complete, the other projects can be added unless they go back to the citizens and call another county wide election. So that's why I think it's very transparent to the citizens and there's local control on why I'm supporting the option be available. Now this started out to be just like the name implies, Royal North Texas, but it's generated interest statewide in the other metropolitan planning organizations. So as we go forward with this legislatively, instead of just making it applicable to the North Texas region, I believe it's going to be applicable statewide. Now in the Senate, it's Senator Corona that's going to be carrying the bill. And in the House of Representatives, it's going to be representative Vicki Truitt. That's going to be carrying the bill and in the House of Representatives it's going to be representative Vicki Truett that's going to be carrying the bill. Members I gave you a copy this morning of what I have the latest edition of the proposed legislation. I'm not about to tell you that that's exactly how it's going to go through but that's what we've got at this time. The main thing that I want to make abundantly clear when we pass this resolution, which I hope we will do, is I'm going to send it to the RTC, in particular, to through Michael Morris, and to all of our legislators with a cover letter, specifically stipulating that at some point in time, as we go through the pro-legislator process, if there is a move on to change this from a county-wide vote to a regional vote, we're out. We are absolutely out. This absolutely has to be a county-by-county decision, and at no point in time would we be interested if it was a regional vote. So with that caveat I will move for approval and we have a second by Commissioner Marchand and we'll open a spring discussion. Judge with the stipulations that you have put in there I can support this I had some questions and problems with supporting it overall because I would like for it to be a county by county vote. Not some other county deciding what didn't county needs to do. We already have an opportunity for rail hearing in didn county that the citizens of didn't county has approved. And so I certainly don't want some county that decided at the last minute that they need to have rail in their county transportation issues that they would circumvent the vote that our citizens have taken. So with the stipulations that have been put in this resolution and the the backup information on the questions that have been worked out I have no problem with supporting it. Thank you, Commissioner Eans. It's Judge, I'd like to thank you for those comments and thank you for your efforts in this project. Just the public will know, Judge Horne and I both worked with the Real North Texas group to revise their initial plan of action. And it was not good. It was not good. And I'm glad that Ditton County stood up to the region for local control for one of my main questions. As was the judge, it was $1 in, $1 out, that D't county dollars, staying didn't county. And there was a desire amongst adjacent counties since its regional scope, didn't county dollars would leave didn't county and help other mobility issues, although they're with connectivity to other counties. And so I personally was strongly opposed to that as was the judge and we made our voices very clear to the group and I'm glad that we helped steer the process away from a regional district where it's a menu of options that a county can elect if they so choose to utilize. And so local control was very important combined with the spirit of regionalism because we're not alone here in North Texas but I personally spoke up to the at the Terrent Regional Transportation Council about provisions in this I know the judge you probably did at DRMC which you're on and I know we both did at COG. So moving forward on this with these caveats as the judge is going to stipulate in her letter, in which the region knows as well that we will, if there's a movement away from this that we will work against it, very publicly. So with that, I just wanted to thank the judge for efforts on a regional level Thank you. Anybody else wish to comment? Okay, I will keep you advised design advised of any changes in this proposed legislation I will as well. Thank you. All right. We have a motion to second hearing no further comments all in favor please say aye I opposed to me motion this carry thank you we got our 9 a.m. timed public hearing down here on the item five this should be an item four but anyway we are now an item four a which is a public hearing to approval of the changes to the didn't kind of subdivision rules regulations is approved by the recommended by the subdivision review committee. Mitch Horn had some preliminary questions I'd like to address with Ms. Gillis. I noticed in the briefing materials, you state that this was going to be published in a local newspaper yet I didn't see what date that was published. And then the other question I had for you is you have this item under public hearings. Okay, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have an agenda item opening and closing the public hearing and then an action item to either take action approving or disapproving it rather than all wrapped up in one? Well, generally, you know, it lets the public know that they're out here to receive input, right? Instead of just having item under the public hearing that says we're going to approve it. I mean, I would like to have an item that would invite the public to be able to come in and testify and give their opinion. I don't have a problem with that. Well, thank you as to agenda items. a problem. Thank you. I think what you should really have, Ms. Gillis, is you should have an agenda item that says we're calling a public hearing and we're seeking input from the public regarding our new subdivision rules and regulations. And then we should have a second agenda item that allows the court to take action on the input that was taken from the public. All I can tell you is we've been requested to post it that way because of our new system that the order comes from how we post it and when we were doing discussion of before, we were requested to delete that language. And Frank, I can work with Frank and Barbara on that, but that's part of our problem. And if we just need to do it as two separate things to solve that problem, we certainly will. And I'll talk to John Felt about that as well. I just thought that would be a better way to publish it in the paper saying, look, we're having a public hearing The public is invited and then well, I think it's additional. I do have an additional action item on a separate hearing on a separate item. Makes it cleaner. I don't think our pub our notice in paper says that approval of changes. I think we do exactly what you've just said in our actual notice And I could be wrong, but I'll look at it. Well I didn't have seen it that's why I asked about it. Barbara bring it to you. Okay. So I have a motion to go into our public hearing. I agree. We have a motion by Commissioner Mitchell, second and by Commissioner Eads. All in favor please say aye. Aye opposed any? Okay. Motion to pay you. We have four in favor. One opposed. Kim, do you have the clarification there as to when it was published? I'm going to do the explanation of the explanation of the question about the multiple properties of the property of the property of the property. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Do you have the actual copy of what you sent to them, the wording? Kim, would you or do you have it with you right now or would you read what it actually says? Absolutely. Notice is here by given that Denton County will hold a public hearing on the approval of changes to the Denton County subdivision rules and regulations. The public hearing will be held by the Denton County Commissioner's Court on Tuesday, January 27, 2009 at 9 a.m. at the Denton County Courthouse on the Square, Commissioner's Court Room, 110 West Hickory, Second Floor, Denton Texas 7-6-201. Okay, and then with the bad weather that was Tuesday and we appropriately posted the change of the meeting from Tuesday to Friday does that mess up our public hearing notification? I posted what we need to repost it. Readvertise it. Yeah I think we should go ahead conservatively and repost, I mean re-advertise. I hate for us to have to do that. I was afraid that might trip us up. Who's D and we're not doing it to, is D? Yeah, I think that even though we were supposed to our commission's court agenda, it's probably prudent to just cross our teeth and daughter eyes. Let me first ask, do we have anybody in attendance that wanted to speak to commissioners court on this issue? Either you gentlemen. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that somebody made the effort to be here today that they had an opportunity to speak, but that not being the case. Let's close this public hearing. that not being the case. Let's close this public hearing. Motion by Commissioner Ead seconded by Commissioner Mitchell and instructor legal to repost. We also need to let's go ahead and pick a date and time to do that. The earliest that we can do it. Week after didn't count any day. But it be yeah be the week after didn't count days. 17th. Which would be the 17th. 17th. I think that's true. That's true. That's true. That's true. Okay. So it'll be the approval of it will be on the 17th and then we'll go forward from that point. It's your right commissioner calling this clear that way. Give everybody an opportunity. Be pardoned? No, no, no. We have posted on the 17th that we are calling the public hearing am I correct? All the public hearing on the 6th and then have it on the 5th. Is that work time wise? Yeah, no, I'm just this saying. Hey, I'm who's on first. Help me out here. What you're asking me? What's the plan? OK, my point is this. Today is Friday, the day of my count for 30th. It is late for a posting for the third. We have a deadline, a posting deadline for, we have court on the sixth. And the deadline for the postings on the sixth is Monday. And the deadline for the postings for the sixth is Monday. So Monday's on Monday, as long going to have a report on the next month. So, we're going to have a report on the next month. So, we're going to have a report on the next month. So, we're going to have a report on the next month. So, we're going to have a report on the next month. So, we're going to have a report on the next month. So,. And then we'll have it on the 17th. Okay. Commissioner Coleman did you want anything else? No ma'am I didn't. Okay. All right. Trying to get my thing done. Well you're right it needs to be done right. Prosso T's, not our eyes and give anybody the opportunity to speak that needs to speak on the issue. I'll see you on 17. Exactly. You're going to get it done one day. Well, we need to make sure we do it right. All right, so let's go to item 5A, which is approval. Oh, I'm sorry, we didn't vote to close the public hearing. No, in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the name. Motion carried unanimously. Thank you for Oh, I'm sorry. We didn't vote to close the public hearing non favorably say aye aye opposed any Motion carried unanimously. Thank you for the reminder. All right five a is approval of the bill report payments from CSCB community The corrections T.A.I.P shares training shares for for sure VIT interest D.A. Check fee and D.A. Forfeiture funds are presented for recording purposes only good morning James Wells William Johnson commissioners that ask court to prove the bills with the four deletions that are noted on separate page all ahead some sort of error or error or problem with the processing or the approval of the bills. There's also eight additions. One is to increase the change fund for the district clerk's office in Ginton. Her Ginton office is a $100 increase from $200 to $350 so that they can get through the day without a quick change. Most of these others are, there is one large payment, I-R-O-R-O-R-O-Bot, I guess that is. I-R-O- I-I robot, I guess that is. I robot? I-I be robot or something, isn't it? Robo-I robot. This is a, I first responder kit from the Homeland Security Grant, that large payment needs to be expedited, and I'd add if the two, two payments for travel from the district attorneys for for sure, if I don't want to bottom or would just be for recording purposes only. That's all the corrections I have. The questions from members of the court are do we have a motion for approval? So motion by Commissioner Mitchell, second and by Commissioner Marchant. All in favor, please say aye. In the post, any motion does carry. Six A is approval of selecting Quo Harbor and Associate LLP is the most qualified firm for RFQ 08081935 Geotechnical Services is recommended by the Advocate Evaluation Committee. We'll call them Beth Fleming. Good morning, Judge and Commissioners. Didn't County did issue an RFQ for geotechnical services and material testing services. We had 14 firms respond to that RFQ. The evaluation committee included myself, John Feld, Assistant District Attorney, and Bennett Hall, our Director of Public Works Engineering. I want to first thank them for their work. It is a very arduous task to go through these proposals and develop criteria to, in the specifications and in the evaluation process. On the initial review, we did prepare a short list. We interviewed three firms on January 8th. And in your packet, you have the recommendation for the ranking of those three firms. We rank Cloud Harbor and Associates as number one, alpha testing as number two, and CMJ engineering as number three. Cloud Harbor prepared the best understanding of the project and provided a clear methodology on how those services would be provided. Jeff Isbell with Cloud Harbor is here this morning if there are any questions This was is a project that we will obtain quotes on an individual basis as the projects come up So they will be our selected firm for a period of up to five years for those services We have any questions from members of quote for those services. We have any questions from members of court? Hearing none, on favor of approval of selecting Chloe Harbor and associates. Oh, amen. We have to have a motion. I'm sorry. I got a cold and it's affecting my brain. We have a motion by Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner March. And hearing no comments, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. Named. Motion does carry. 7A is approval of Budget Amendment request 100510. Two increased revenues now with the expenditures for training education and computer software for the Courthouse on the Square Museum in the amount of $2,700. Motion by Commissioner Marchand, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Other questions? Any none? On favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Cine? Motion carries. 7B is. Approval of Budget Amendment, request 100540 to increase revenues. Now, allocating expenditures. For the law enforcement block grant to ammunition for criminal district attorney in the amount is $474. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Second and second by Commissioner Mitchell. Questions or comments? On favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sen. Motion carries. 7C is approval of budget amendment plus 100550 for repairs and maintenance probation building for Charlie Cole building in the amount of $9,806. Motion by Commissioner Marchant. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. Questions or comments? Hearing none, no in favor, to the aye. Motion carries. 7D is approval of budget amendment quest 100570 for crumb ambulance service, including the transfer of funds from non-departmental and appropriated reg rec contingency for fire and ambulance service in the amount of $8,896. Chair, I'll move for approval. Second. Seconded by Commissioner Eads, other questions? Very none on favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to the aye? Motion does carry. Commissioner Coleman, I understand you still want to pull 8A. Yes ma'am, thank you. There'll be no action on 8A today. 9A is a approval of the preliminary acceptance of the OD Neil Bridge replacement project. This is in commission precinct 4. Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board of Board acceptance of the O'Dneill Bridge Replacement Project. It is open. It's a nice looking bridge. Residents in the area are very happy. And what this acceptance is is the preliminary acceptance of the project. And then the two-year maintenance bond will start. And after the end of the two-year maintenance bond, I will come back before you ask for final acceptance. I'm coming. I you ask for final acceptance. I'm coming. I'm moved for approval. Motion by Commissioner E. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does carry. Thank you. Well, they has approved the 2008-2009 joint and a local cooperation agreement for law enforcement patrol services between Denton County Denton County fresh water supply districts 8 a 8 b 8 c 9 10 11 a and 11 Carrow moved for approval seconded by Commissioner Marchand other questions You're none on favor please say aye aye Posting a questions? Your none. On favor please say aye. Aye. Post-Sanee. Motion carries. 12v is approved application for and resolution supporting the Denton County Sheriff's Office application for the juvenile accountability block grant. Motion to approve by Commissioner Marchant. This is already in the budget. We need a second before discussion. I'll second the motion. Go ahead, Commissioner Mitchell. Sorry to anybody. This particular grant is this request is for funding for next year. Okay, but it's it's being requested a little bit above the current level. A little bit about what at the current level of funding for this grant is 24,548. This request is for 26,484. So that helps our portion of it. I'm six. the current level of funding for this grant is $24,548. This request is for $26,484. So that helps our portion of it? I'm 69 to 74. I'm 40 to 47. I'm 40 to 47. You're exactly right. And again, this is an estimate based on the budget impact statement that's been included. That could vary depending on what happens this next year for our increases. So the that's all. Are there any other questions or comments? Very none we have a motion in a second on favor please, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Motion is carried. 12C is except the change in funding amount from 20,000 to 10,000 for the SWTXE. That's 0186. This is the overtime agreement between Debt and County in the US Department of Justice. I think we need a little explanation on this so people know what we're doing. Donna do you want that to do that or give it a shot? Back in October the court approved this grant. This is something we've had for four years that approved at a $20,000 level per investigation. This is an overtime grant. The federal government has come back and reduced that to $10,000 per occurrence. So we felt like it was important to bring a revised contract back to the court showing that reduction in funding. So is it going to affect your budget? I mean, this is money that we do not budget during the process. Once the funding is awarded, we process budget amendments and put funds in specific line items for these grants. They'll just use the $10,000 and when it's gone, it's gone. That's, it's $10,000 per investigation. So that there could be two or three in a year. We just never know how to project the number, but that's the limit per investigation. Okay. That's correct. Thank you. I just thought that took a little clarification. Do we have a motion for approval? No. Motion by Commissioner Mitchell, second by Commissioner Marchand here. No further comments. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye opposed, Cine. Motion does carry. And then we have to go one more step to approve the agreement and that is 12D. This is over time funding agreements between Denton County and the U.S. Department of Justice. The chair will move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. Any further comments or questions? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does carry. And then 12 E is to. Very confusing. There are two funding sources. Yeah, there's two different numbers. And we have to have it listed on the agenda because there are two separate funding sources. So this is a new, the second and third funding sources you see is item D and E. Right. This is the first time you're seeing this hit the agenda. But it gives them additional sources of funding if needed. We are approving the overtime funding agreement but it's a different number agreement. The different grant clarification. Do we have a motion to approve 12e? Motion by Commissioner Marchandt. Second. You can't. Second. Second. Second by Commissioner Coleman. Come on, favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to name. Press. Motion does carry. OK, 13A is approval disaster declaration and executive order as a mitigation effort to reduce the threat of wildfires due to drought conditions. Well, we had enough ice and water to eliminate our situation, Rowan. The amount of ice and water that was measured by the National Weather Service came to a whole whopping two tents of an inch. Two tents of a one inch? Two tents of one inch. And exactly in the ground. No, not enough. One thing that I wanted to do, bring to Commissioner's Court. Hold it up here. Is some information from the National Weather Service that is built for Denton County. This is information that can be pulled up for a down and the down-sport-worth area, but they specifically will pull this information forward in County as you can see. One of the things that we're having to deal with is as you can see as each day goes by on the I was hoping it would pull up here. That area won't. On the far right hand side you actually can see friday Saturday, Sunday Monday. And as these colors depict on a non drought time, you will normally see green graph bars across the bottom that go up from low to moderate. And that's the dangers that we have on a regular basis when we're not in a drought situation. Because we are in a mild to moderate drought situation as listed by the National Weather Service, any amount of drop in relative humidity and any amount of wind has a dramatic increase on what happens to how fire can start, how rapidly it can start and how large it can grow. And all of those factors taken into place give us the ability to predict what the potential is. For today we are at an extreme level. Where departments are gearing up, they're putting people, they're bringing people in and actually paying overtime. Money is spent throughout the county and preparation based off of these calculations that the Weather Service predicts and they're pretty dead on. I can tell you that it's been dry enough that Sanger was out on a grass fire yesterday and Sanger was actually out on a grass fire day before yesterday. or yesterday, that's how dry it is to kind of give you an idea of where Denton County is. Denton County is in the same boat as 153 other counties in the state of Texas that currently have burn bands in place. It is because of this that the Emergency Management Chief is forwarding on to a recommendation to the Governor's office and we've been informed that is being forwarded to the President's office for request for a state declaration and it is that severe. And because of that, it is our request that the Commissioner's Court for Denton County continue with the Burn Band in Denton County. We're aware that it creates a great hardship. And we know that citizens in the unacorporated areas have to deal with not being able to burn, but the situation is critical. And it's not information that we base on just simply driving around and, you know, does it look dry? That's not what we do. We base it on scientific information that is brought in from the Texas Forest Service, the National Weather Service, and all of us work together to make an informed decision so that we can bring to you our leaders and individuals that are making decisions on what our counties are doing. We appreciate that, everyone. Are there questions from members of the court? Do we need a motion to continue the burn van, Kim? I would say let's go ahead and just do that. I mean, we haven't taken off the last burn van officially, but we have not taken it off. We've just left it in place. We've left it in place. We've been in definite. I think, well, I think they have to address this weekly. If we extend it one more week. Okay. We have a motion by Commissioner Ead seconded by Commissioner Marchant to continue the burn van another week at least Hearing no questions all in favor please say aye aye Opposed any motion is carried thank you Rowan 14 a is approval the district office lease contract between Dink County Texas and the Committee on House Administration for the House of Representatives at the State of Texas for the benefit of State Representative Burt Solens, a member of the House of Representatives of the State of Texas. The chair will move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Coleman. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed to name. Motionless carry. 14b is approval of a denim number one to the engineering contract between Dinten County, Texas and Chining Chang Patel and Yurrie incorporated for the Luke 288 West Project in the city of Denton, Texas in the amount of $315,331 with funding to come from Commissioner Prissing for Triple Four Funds. This is auditor number 76740. Sorry. 746-0910 and Commissioner Eads moves to approval. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell. On favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed to name. Motion is carried. 14C is approval of one. Transfer of funds in the amount of $1,990.48. From three Commissioner Prissing for a better safer roads program projects to Commissioner Prissing Forward did I say three the first time? I'm not giving them any of that. And from three Commissioner for projects, okay, this for clarification. The end to Commissioner Prissing for New Litsy Road, better safer roads program. This is the BSRP, Project 7455, as follows. 31,657 dollars is 16 cents from the State Highway 114 West BSRP. This is $7475, $16,400 from the Cleveland Gibbs Road BSRP. This is number 7380 and $33,933.32 from the Commission of Chrissing for Discretionary Funds to establishing a new auditor account for the Litzie Road Project in 3.03 transferring funds in the amount of $1,205,674 from 7.04 triple four projects to the new,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 156 triple four account in $102,300, $2,238 from the Macon Road Triple Four account, $149,459 from the Fought Road Triple Four account, $50,000 from the Metro Corbin Triple Four account, and $200,000 from the Copper Canyon Triple Four account. I second that coming from precinct full was into precinct full. Add a question for James Wells. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner E. Seconded by Commissioner Mitchell and Commissioner Coleman. You have a question. Mr. Wells, who audits all these funds? Is there is there any kind of an audit trail regarding all the transfer of funds that they've been used in the matter for which the contract is done that they're led for? That's actually our office and that's actually one of the reasons that any transfer of funds goes through Commissioner's Court. We have a extremely detailed and extremely now on one project like this now, a very complex set of work papers on all bond funds we do a very, we track the use of the funds from the beginning to the funds, the do a very, we track the use of the funds from the beginning to the funds, the projects completed. On our road bond funds what we have is that we really have, when we get, when we issue money, we set up an overall summary sheet for every project that's going to be funded, money, you know, the money that's allocated and then we add to it as the money is brought under contract or in convert and then as this expended so we are always trying to have a free you know the measure of the free balance for every project and also for the fund at any time. Then we do and we do ask and require both by procedure and actually by adopted county policy on use of bond funds that the that they're getting its only use for the projects they're allowed for anytime we you know and depending on how along in these road bonds depending on how them the actual election and the issue is done. Sometimes we can move money again for project to project with commissioners court action. Sometimes it takes a little more formalized project of finding that we don't, that the money is indeed excess and not needed for the regional project. Depending on how the wording is done, we get the direction on that from our bond attorneys. But we do, our office does accounting on these. And that's why these projects, the contracts that these transfers are funding, why those were pulled a couple of weeks ago, because there was not money for them in there. But it's a very much an ongoing process. And we really do, for us to be successful in doing this, which again is required by the Covenant, Svissing the Bonds, we do ask that any movement of money from one project other is done only on the commissioners' court action because otherwise we would not be able to keep it straight. When we go into election on these bonds, generally the public is given, the public is let know, they're informed of what projects these are supposed to be going for but these funds can be shifted to other projects as they go on further. It depends on exactly how the bond election and the bond documents are styled. Our original road bond election that the county had, which goes all the way back to 1991, the projects were listed very specifically and the funding for those projects was listed very specifically. So we found out again, because the the situation changes on these, some of the projects, again, some of them are going to be more costly, some of them are not going to be deemed not even practical anymore once we got the money, there always is a way to re-ease, there's limited re-euses for the money once or not for the original project. On TRIPO 4 it's a more general, we have a general list of roads but the bonds are approved and voted down for roads and bridges, improvements repair and construction. So this money again is a little easier to move from project to project. We can't obviously use T use tripo for road money for anything but roads are bridges. Right? Do not do, excuse me. Or that's the general use of roads. So if we reprioritize projects within that bond election, it's easier to do. That would be my assumption. Since we have not issued any of those bonds and actually had to go through the process of trying to count for them and track them, I don't know that for sure, but the BSRP, which was the 99 election in triple four, were both done that way, partly because we found out how hard it was to manage incomplete projects under the more restrictive issues. But let's give an example, like I had part of the bond election, I had Frankford Road in City of Carrollton. Let's say the City of Carrollton decided they didn't want participation from the county for whatever reason. Are they re-prioritized their construction projects and they put that on the back burner for 10 years down the road and I want to take the money that I committed to that and that bond and reallocate it to another project. Is it the bond issuers that put the, I mean, are they the ones that place the restrictions on that money or is it the actual election itself? In the best of my understanding, we really rely on our bond attorneys, Wilbur Walsky, who draw up the actual bond documents. We are the issuers. We actually call the election, but again, Wilbur Gerorski generates a very large amount of legal documentation. That legal documentation is really how and the actual wording of the election, the actual way, the proposition that the people bow down all comes into play here. But our bond elections, particularly for roads, have been styled the last two. And I will assume almost surely this one is two, to allow for exactly what you've said. And we always, and we always will be looking to achieve both my policy and my law, a balance between using the money as intended and as the people voted it on, balanced against the fact that we know situations change, dollar amounts change, and not having our hands so tied that the situation you described would leave us with money we couldn't use it all. I can't elaborate a little bit on that. Judge was the chair of the bond committee and Bob Bencefield is our bond council with full-biased divorce committee. He drafted the same type of bond covenants for trip OA as were used in trip O4 because of the flexibility needed in the bond program. If I could just quickly go over some of these things so you'll see what kind of issues we're talking about. The reason we're moving these funds around is we're trying to clean up what's left of BSRP and what's left in TRIP for precinct 4. Essentially, once these actions are taken today, Andy for all intents and purposes is out of money for BSRP and TRIP. So just for some examples, the 114 money coming from 114 West, 74 54, that $31,657, that's the money left out of BSRP after we finalized our contracts with half-associated on that project. 114 West was subsequently funded in Judge Horns, funding for Trip O'Lake, for the 5.3 million that we owe for a ride away. So there's no more obligations by Ditton County on 114. If you look down at the list where it says Marshall Creek Road, there was $250,000 that was put into the previous bond package for the City of Marshall Creek for Project in that city. Well, there is no longer a Marshall Creek City's gone and so that project is not viable as a Road project. So and all of these projects that were were reallocating funds, there are reasons why we're either cleaning it up and or the projects that were funded in either the Regional Tel Revenue Initiative or the trip away. This project, let's see road project, is something that my predecessor commissioner Carter inherited. And this project's been going on since 1999. It's 2009, cost of inflated. And so, you know, you've got to respond to the necessities of the day and move the project along. So, that's what we're doing. And essentially the order, I'm sorry. The order that these are in, the court has to act on 14C before we can, I can request you to do F and G. Because currently there is no money in, let's see, for F and G. Don't say that too fast. That's interesting, because you know know like the 720 project that's it's been expanding almost 18 years five commissioners. Pretty frustrating. I don't have to move the money. Well like like John Polster says there's human years there's dog years there's text. My comments were not directed at how these were being spent it's just a general information to me. Sure. Clarification. Yes it is the the triple eight covenant was exactly identical to 04 because we learned as we did these that these projects never cooperate with what you think when you do the bond program. I invite so I say 2020 and then. Okay, good questions. Any other comments or questions? Here none of, we have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye opposed, aye. Motion does carry. 14D is approval of the Amulance Service Agreements between Denton County, Texas and one, the city the city of Denton to the city of Louisville and three the city of Rono as recommended by the director of emergency services approval motion by commissioner Eid second and by commissioner Mitchell all in favor please say aye aye opposed Cine motion does carry 14E is approval of the fire protection service agreements between Dentk County, Texas and one the city of Denton to the city of Willisville and three the city of Rona because recommended by the director of emergency services Motion by Commissioner Mitchell seconded by Commissioner merchant. Oh, in favor please say aye aye opposed city motion does carry the Senate, motion does carry. 14F is approval of one, the Memorandum of Agreement for Purchase for Right Away by Denton County, Texas from Chadwick Farms Limited for parcel five of phase two of the Litzie Road Project, two grant authorization to proceed with closing and approval for the Denton County Judge to sign on necessary closing documents to purchase the right away and three, direct the Denton County Auditor to issue a warrant in the amount of $36. We will be going to the process of the process to start the process of the process. We will be going to the process of the process to start the process of the process. We will be going to the process of the process to start the process of the process. We will be going to the process of the process. We will be going to the process of the process. We will be going to the process of the process. We will be going to the process of the process. Approval motion by Commissioner Eads second and back Commissioner Mitchell are there any further questions Commissioner Marchant Hey, yeah, it is I just don't there you go Hey, I would just like to go back for further discussion. Okay, let's After we okay, I'll in favor of moving forward on 14 E. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed, aye. No, motion does carry unanimously. And now, Commissioner Marching. Yeah, when John, when you were describing on the last just for clarification on 14C and you said that in essence, Andy, but this triple four and the better safer roads program that he has zeroed out that all his projects that were funded in those bonds. I mean, they're either they're either expended or they are currently encumbered but not expended. Now this is going to be sounding not weird, but maybe weird just because of territorial disputes. Our territorial issues. Is it feasible for me to have bond money that was allocated for a specific project in my precinct. That because of that is part of a bond program like TRIPO 4 or now TRIPO 8 or Better Safeer Road Program that is no longer a project that's feasible within my own precinct. Is there any restrictions on that money to be used cross-precinct lines? I'm going to always advise you to first talk to full-brought-and-juorce key, Bob Grant was your bond council, but doing this for 17 years, that I don't think there's anything in the bond covenants that even recognizes the precinct lines. So the same flexibility, I would assume, that you have within a precinct, you have between projects. Because there have been situations where, when previous county judges had projects, individual projects that at the end of their tenure, they chose to divest themselves in those projects and move those projects into other precincts. And that was a... Yeah. I mean, you know, we're all on this together. And dollars today are cheaper than dollars tomorrow. Exactly. dollars today are cheaper than dollars tomorrow. And I don't, I mean, I don't foresee a time that we would never go to the public again for any bond election of some project that might reoccur, or if that's projects taken over 100% financing through another source. So if within my precinct alone I have projects that have gone away because of... Let me give you a great example. I'll show my cards here but the Colony Causeway. The Colony Causeway was a project that was put on triple four with the idea of taking money and making a ferry or a bridge. It was gonna be a bridge that actually had to cross over Lake Lewisville, Lake Lewisville's dam and subsequent to the passage in TRIPO IV, the Corps of Engineers, essentially said, you will never, ever, ever, ever cross our bridge. Right, so there's money there. And so I've used that To fund new projects that may not have been part of the bond initially, but if because of my road mileage And being limited there's no reason There's no reason that if I wanted to say to Commissioner Coleman or Commissioner Eads or Commissioner Mitchell, you know that they're short or they have another project that they can't fund because of escalated cost or whatever, I can help fund that. Is that correct? And my official answer is you need to talk to your bond council. But the unofficial answer based on what I've seen in the past is as long as the court goes through this process that the auditor explained where you document the transfer. My unofficial answer is I think probably that's possible. You want to give me some money? What? I'm going to get in line now. I'm officially in line. You know, I get in. I think we better hear from James Welles. I just would always, in any discussion like this, and it doesn't apply out of the situation you were describing because you said the project is, you cannot fund the project originally intended. It is vitally important for us in all bond funds, though, to make every effort to use the money exactly as a original project. Sure, I understand that. If it's impossible to do, then we generally leave a way to not have her hand tied, but it always should be the very first intention throughout the project. I agree wholeheartedly. Exactly, as that goes. Yeah, and I would not say take it out of one project that is a viable project to fund another project. I mean, other than if circumstances change, but as I described here where it went totally away and it would never ever happen and the feasibility of that, you either don't spend the money or you, that is the... Which is an option. There are probably, there's kind of probably a recommendation come to you at some point about some of these old stuff that you know don't even test this time. Just like this litsy bridge that's a closed bridge closed and we's off of 114 and Speedway weekends not pretty. So we just had a meeting last night at Fort Worth John and all of us went to. And the timing on that is the City of Fort Worth is our partner and there'll be another agenda item coming to the court where we've entered into an interlocal with Fort Worth last year sometime where they're agreeing to contribute funds to the project and to Let the project and constructed in partnership with the county. We owe them our share on that and that project is been I guess awarded or has been a firm has been selected as most qualified in the lowest bidder and they won awarded February and so that's the reason we're having to do these cleanups. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? I was hoping that would lead to Commissioner Moshant saying that he was going to give me some of his discretionary funds. I predecessor left none. I mean, the sign of mine, she's spent it all. Okay. 14G is a approval of one. I beg your pardon. Okay. 14G is approval. One memorandum of agreement for purchase for right away by Dintn County, Texas from Chadwick Holdings Limited for parcel 7a of phase two of the Litzie Road Project, two grant authorization to proceed with closing and approval for the Dyncanne just to sign on this to start closing documents to purchase the right away. And three, direct the Dyncanne Auditor to issue a warrant in the amount of $287,960. Plus, send the applicable fees for the purchase of the right away with funding to come from Commissioner Prisning for Litzie Road, Better Safer Road's program funds, other than their number to be determined. Approval. Motion by Commissioner Eads. Seconded by Commissioner Marchant. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, sen. Motion carries. 14-H is approval of the memorandum of donation between Denton County, Texas and raised a ranch L.P. for the construction of improvements to FM 407 in an unincorporated part of Denton County This is in Commissioner Pristint 4. Move for approval. Motion by Commissioner Eid, seconded by Commissioner Marchant, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed to name. Motion does carry a 14 aye. As approval of the renewal of interlocal cooperation agreement between Denton County Texas and Wise County for road maintenance, this is Commissioner Prisinkton. Motion by Commissioner Coleman, seconded by Commissioner Marchand, I will just tell you Commissioner Coleman, you will believe what we went through to get this agreement the first time. I am so glad this caused so much trouble out there for residents long that roadway We have wise county commissioners going well, Denton County is always taking care of it. Oh, oh boy Anyway, I'm glad to see we're renewing this all in favor of the motion. Please say aye Posting motion does carry 14 J is approval the 2008 2009 interlocal agreements for motor vehicle license point is sale equipment lease between Denton County and 15 motor vehicle dealerships. I'm not going to read all of these. We had sufficient backup material in your agenda. Are there any questions? If not, the chair will move for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Eads. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, C to name. Motion does carry. Let's go to the agenda item before we go to executive session which is 16A. This is approval of supplemental agreement number three in the amount of 175,406 dollars in supplemental agreement number four in the amount of 236,370 dollars. To the contract between Denton County, Texas and Bishop Willis and Rattle of Corporation for additional professional services for the FM 407 reconstruction and widening project from Razor Road to Lantana Trail for a total revised contract amount of $2,290,580 with funding to come with funding in the amount of 200,000 to be transferred to the Commissioner of Pristening for triple four, Loop 28 West Funds. Auditor number 7674609010 to Commissioner of Pristening for triple four FM 407 Funds. Auditor number 7624. I'll say it right. I'm sorry. Auditor number 76724, I'll say it right. I'm sorry. Auditor number 7674249010. In funding to come in the amount of $211,776 to be transferred from Commissioner Prisnick to 4, triple four, FM 407 funds. Auditor number 7674249010. Commissioner Eames, do you wish to make motion for approval? Yes. I move for approval. Did you have a question? We have a motion for approval of that commissioner Eames, the chair will, okay, Commissioner Marchant will second. Commissioner Coleman. I wanted to ask Beth, Ms. Fleming, on these contracts, it seems we have a lot of change orders that almost double the cost of the price sometimes. And I was wondering them who reviews the change orders to ensure that they're necessary and reviews the bills or estimates from the engineers. I'm sure I can answer that question. Mr. Polster. On consulting contracts I'm not involved in the negotiation of those or the change orders. I do know that they go through civil DA and Kim might be able to better answer that question. So, John, is it John here? John, do you negotiate these contracts? Typically, the way these supplemental come about is changing the scope of contract is determined by either project itself. In this case you have two change orders. One is engineering modifications that Commissioner Eads wanted to have Ed Bell do so they could open Landtannin Trail up sooner. The original way the project was designed is that the phasing of the project where Land Tannet Trail up sooner. And the original way the project was designed, it had the phasing of the project where Land Tannet Trail would be closed for a longer period of time. The contractor came in and said, look, if I don't have to do this alternate route, and you can redesign where the opportunity, not the opportunity, the freshwater supply district waterline is, I can save you two months and X amount of dollars on the contract And so that's what that is and so what we do it is a project like this is And I've been reviewing contracts for a long time if they're on system projects, which this is not per se we send those change orders to the Texas Department of Transportation usually the district office and they review the change order and They agreed that it's that we're paying because typically we're there advocate of their agent Department of Transportation usually the district office and they review the change order and they agree that it's that we're paying because typically we're there advocate of their agent. They review those plans and those cost estimates and they say these are with unacceptable norms. There's a guideline that you can use on engineering that everybody uses but on system projects I have the Texas Department Transportation always review the costs. On this particular case, we didn't do that because it's not on system project, but they were well within the confines of what is typical for these types of projects. Do you have an engineering your firm review it? Well, I think if it was a appropriate amounts in the change orders. Well, these are just bid items. These are not bid items. These are items listed in the contract, the original contract, where they're adding additional services. And they apply the fee schedule that's associated with the original contract. So all you really argue about is the amount of time it takes to do it. And yes, my firm reviewed it. I do that. Now, on the second amendment, what we found out is there are significant amount of utilities in the corridor on 407. Since this project expanded the utility coordination on this project outside of Lantana Trail, the utility coordination contract for the $236,000 was in fact reviewed by the Texas Department of Transportation and they verified they actually ended up lowering BWR's original proposal. And I didn't even look at it the first time. What I do is when I get it, since it's on system, I ship it to the district and they do the review and they send it back, which is something they don't do for just any county. So the second one was, first one was just applied the hourly rates and we were arguing about the time. Any further questions? I'm sorry, they. Well my only concern was that these are you know these are large sums of money. They seem to be large change orders and supplemental agreements. And I was concerned that we needed to have somebody overseeing to make sure that the county was getting good, bang for their buck. I think that's determined with the original contract with the amount that they're going to charge for supplemental work in the original contract. And then it's up to the individual commissioner to determine if the time that you're gaining for a particular project is worth it to them and we all know time is money. Just as an example on the previous modification for Chang Patel, Y Urby, the reason that change order is coming before the court is that we had to go significantly west of the City of Denton in our original alignment. But when the City of Denton decided not to expand their runway for a second runway, 5,000 feet west of the original runway, obviously they put the runway where the best place is and that was the best place for the road as well. So once the runway went away, all the work that Chang Patel had done prior to that had to be redone. And we decided as a group, textile, commission or aids that the money that we're going to spend, we're going to save on construction costs because we're having to go through a lot of floodplains further to the west. So for each one of these, there's reasons. And we try to stipulate that in the back up. But if they're on system projects, they are reviewed by the contract section for textile. And if they're off Ralph system we apply the hourly rates that were in the original contract and we argue about the time. Can you are selected by textile or are they gone through the RFQ process here at DIN County? They go through the RFQ process here at the county if the county is the one hiring the services and typically what we do before we even go out for an RFQ which is what we'll be doing on TripOlaid on all these on-system projects will have textite because we're essentially acting as their agent. They'll set the scope of services they want for individual projects and then we work with Bath to get the RFQ set and then the, which is I think Beth, John, and Bennett, and if it's a TechStyle project, usually we have a TechStyle area engineer fellow there. Reviews those and makes the recommendations to the commissioners court. Once the court approves the most qualified, then it falls back to me to negotiate the contract. But on on-system projects, I work with TechStyle and they actually do the negotiations. TechStyle pretty much audited, it's a on system project. Because typically what happens is we have money involved in engineering and construction and they try to squeeze every penny out of what we spend on engineering because they want the rest of it to go to construction. On an off-system project, how does that work? It's over there squeezing. Well that's me and what I do is once the contract is set with the hourly rates and you can judge because the on-systems are a little different but not that much, you just use the hourly rates once they're set and then you argue about the time. That's generally what it is. That's just interesting because I was reviewing the county purchasing policy regarding the selecting and basically when I talked about it with Beth, she said anytime you spent more than $25,000 you needed to go out for an RFK. On engineering? That is what we're doing. Yeah. So then again? Well for the RFK, we're doing. Yeah. Well, for the R. Oh, okay. I think you're, I may be confusing it. We're talking about a supplemental, not new. But if it's a change order or a supplement to the original agreement that would have already been established, what we do is determine the most qualified through the R.F.Q. process. And that's evolved over time. Early on, what we would do is the state asked us to do the environmental assessment and control schematic on a project like 2021-81. That's all we contracted for. And then later on, oh, by the way, we need you to do the design. Well, our original contract with Hewazala was like $700,000 and the design was going to be about a million. So we had to back up into a half step and do that, since you and Zahler knew most about the project, they were deemed most qualified before we could actually amend the contract. Now what we do now is we can only get tricked once on that. And so whenever we're getting stuck with the starting of a project, we assume we're gonna have to do all of it. So all of the contract scopes will be environmental assessment, controls, schematic, construction documents, and construction engineering. And they don't get to start on any one of those without the court or the county, giving them notice to proceed on those future job requirements. So that they've vetted all up at front. Thank you for explaining that. Any other questions? Okay, I believe we have a motion and a second. Here are no further questions. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, Cine? Motion does carry. A vote item 15, now, which is executive session under government code 551.0711b, consultation with attorney attorney, closed meeting with the governmental body, 60 advice of its attorney about the settlement offer regarding LZ Baker and Yolanda Baker versus Angelina Forman in Denton County, quiet at law number two with that learning executive session. And so with that we are adjourned everybody have a great day. Oh, today's Friday. Thank you.