[00:00:06]
CALL TO ORDER THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE ELLIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM QUORUM PRESENT. NOTICES OF THE MEETING HAVE BEEN LEGALLY POSTED PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WHICH IS TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 551. I WAS WAITING ON THE BELL TOWER, BUT IT DIDN'T STRIKE IN. MY PHONE SAYS IT'S 201. SO SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS WITH 130 YEAR OLD CLOCK. SO UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION, I WILL GO AHEAD AND DECLARE THE MEETING OPEN. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ON ELLIS COUNTY COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT ONE, RANDY STINSON, TO LEAD US IN THE INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. SO PLEASE STAND.
HEAVENLY FATHER, LORD, WE DO BEFORE YOU TODAY. LORD, HUMBLY FOR THIS PAYMENT. WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN US THIS YEAR, LORD, EACH YEAR, GOD, WE JUST STRUGGLE THROUGH THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN OUR WORLD, LORD. YOU KNOW, GOD THAT YOU'RE IN CONTROL. I THANK YOU FOR IT. I KNOW SOMETIMES WE THINK WE CONTROL THINGS, BUT AS I SAID BEFORE, I'D RATHER NOT BE IN CONTROL. LORD, I THANK YOU EACH AND EVERY DAY FOR WHAT YOU DO FOR US. LORD, I PRAY FOR THIS QUARTER. I PRAY, LORD, FOR OUR COUNTY. I PRAY FOR EACH AND EVERY PERSON THAT WORKS HERE. I PRAY FOR THOSE THAT PAY THE BILLS. LORD, I THANK YOU FOR OUR TAX PAYERS. LORD, I KNOW THAT A LOT OF TIMES WE DON'T AGREE WITH GOD. WE ASK THAT YOU ABOUT. WE TELL US ABOUT THAT.
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL. LORD, I PRAY FOR OUR COUNTRY. WE PRAY FOR OUR LEADERS THAT YOU, OH LORD, YOU GIVE US ALL WISDOM, LORD, NOT OUR WILL WITH YOUR. WE PRAY.
LORD, I THANK YOU FOR THIS DAY. THANK YOU FOR EACH AND EVERY PERSON HERE. THANKFUL THE TWO YEARS WE'VE BEEN HERE AND OUR LORD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST. AMEN. AMEN, AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE, UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. OKAY.
THANK YOU ALL AGAIN AND WELCOME. IF YOU'RE JOINING US ONLINE, WELCOME AS WELL, COMMISSIONER PONDER IS JOINING US REMOTELY TODAY. HE IS OUT OF TOWN ON AN IMPORTANT FAMILY OBLIGATION. SO HE CARVED SOME TIME OUT OF THAT TO ATTEND THE MEETING. AND WE APPRECIATE HIS EFFORTS, BUT HE IS ATTENDING AND WILL BE VOTING AND LISTENING AND PARTICIPATING. ALL RIGHT. SO I'D LIKE TO FIRST REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT PROCESS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TODAY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE FILL OUT OUR PUBLIC COMMENT FORM. IT IS AVAILABLE OUT IN THE LOBBY BEHIND THE DOORWAY TO MY RIGHT, THE ONE TO YOUR LEFT. AND IF YOU'D FILL THAT FORM OUT AND THEN GIVE IT TO OUR COUNTY CLERK, CRYSTAL VALDEZ, SHE WILL TRANSMIT IT TO ME, AND WE WILL BE SURE TO CALL UPON YOU WHEN YOUR AGENDA ITEM IS UP FOR CONSIDERATION. SO WE
[CONSENT AGENDA ]
WILL NOW MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH CONSISTS OF ITEMS A1 THROUGH A30. I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST POINT OUT THAT ON ITEM A13, IT REFERENCES ACCEPTANCE OF THE ANNUAL COMPILATION REPORT FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NUMBER FOUR. IT SHOULD REALLY READ OR SHOULD PROPERLY READ ACCEPTANCE OF THE ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT. THAT IS THE TITLE OF THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PUBLISHED AS PART OF THE AGENDA. WITH THAT NOTE ON AGENDA ITEM A13, I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER.I DO WANT TO FIRST NOTE THAT ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. HOWEVER, ANY COMMISSIONER CAN REQUEST TO PULL AN AGENDA ITEM FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION. IF THERE IS NO SUCH REQUEST, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS A1 THROUGH A30 WITH THE ONE MODIFICATION TO A13 AS NOTED. MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED BY YOUR REFERENCE. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA FROM COMMISSIONER GREYSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER STINSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION, THE CONSENT AGENDA PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND, COMMISSIONER STINSON, I DID HEAR YOUR SECOND ON THAT ONE. I KNOW I'VE MISSED.
I'VE MISSED A FEW OF THOSE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST IGNORING ME. NO, NOT AT ALL. NOT AT ALL. OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO THE
[1.1 Discussion, consideration, and action on a variance request to Volume I, Section IV (A) regarding the minimum paved public road frontage requirements for Parcel ID 191053. This 1 56.407-acre site is located 1 400 feet east of the intersection of E Meadow Lane and Lazy Spring Drive, in the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) of the City of Red Oak, Road and Bridge Precinct No. 4.]
REGULAR AGENDA, AND WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP ITEMS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT. AND I WOULD ASK OUR DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, ALBERTO MARQUEZ, TO PLEASE JOIN US AND SPEAK ON ON THIS ONE ITEM THAT WE HAVE FOR CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS ITEM 1.1, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON A VARIANCE REQUEST TO VOLUME ONE. SECTION FOUR A REGARDING THE[00:05:04]
MINIMUM PAVED PUBLIC ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARCEL ID 191053. THIS IS AN APPROXIMATELY 56.407 ACRE SITE THAT IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 400FT EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF EAST MEADOW LANE AND LAZY SPRING DRIVE, AND THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF RED OAK ROAD AND BRIDGE PRECINCT NUMBER FOUR. AND MARIO, COULD YOU COULD YOU STEP BACK JUST A LITTLE BIT FROM THE MICROPHONE? WE'VE DISCOVERED THAT COMMISSIONER PONDER CAN HEAR BETTER IF YOU DON'T LEAN DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. THANK YOU. ALBERTO.ALL RIGHT. CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. OKAY? YEAH, YEAH, I THINK HE CAN HEAR. OKAY.
PLEASE, PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD. YES. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO OUR 150 FOOT PAVED ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT. THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY HAS THREE ACCESS, I GUESS, TO THE PROPERTY, EACH VIA THE END OF A CERTAIN ROAD. EAST MEADOW LANE, VIEW DRIVE AND SPRING BRANCH DRIVE. RECENT SURVEY SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY FALLS SIX FEET SHORT OF CONNECTING TO MEADOW LANE. YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THE ON THE SCREEN THERE, AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO BUILD ONE ADDITIONAL HOUSE. AND RIGHT NOW, I GUESS THAT ADDITIONAL HOUSE WOULD MEET OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. SO THEREFORE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE. THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR ACTION LAST MONTH WHEN WE DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS AN ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN PLACE, WHICH AT THAT POINT WE PAUSED IT. WE CONTACTED RED OAK, AND SINCE IT WAS THEIR AGREEMENT, WE WANTED THEM TO KIND OF INTERPRET THEIR OWN AGREEMENTS. ONCE WE GOT THE RESPONSE FROM THEM, THEY SAID, I GUESS THIS REQUEST WOULDN'T VIOLATE THAT AGREEMENT. TYPICALLY, ON THESE TYPES OF AGREEMENTS, ANY KIND OF PERMIT, VARIANCE, ETC. WILL TYPICALLY TRIGGER AN AUTOMATIC ANNEXATION REQUEST. THE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED IN 2011, BUT ONCE RED OAK SAID THAT IT WASN'T, IT DIDN'T TRIGGER THAT, THEN THEY COULD PROCEED WITH THE VARIANCE REQUEST. AND WE DID SEND OUT 34 LETTERS WITHIN 200FT. TO DATE, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY ANY COMMENTS BACK. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE THREE CONDITIONS THAT THE PROPERTY BE EXCLUSIVELY ACCESSED FROM EAST MEADOW LANE.
ANY OTHER ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF THAT PRECINCT. ANY FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY WILL REQUIRE PLAT MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS. IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF PLOTTING AND APPROVAL. THIS VARIANT DOES NOT EXTEND TO MULTI-TENANT, MULTI-UNIT OR COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES WITHOUT MEETING THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THEY'RE BASICALLY OUR STANDARD CONDITIONS EXCEPT FOR THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS UNIQUE TO THIS ONE. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU.
ALBERTO. I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. THE IF THEY HAD WAITED A COUPLE OF MONTHS, YOU WOULD HAVE NEEDED A VARIANCE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE REDOING ALL THE ROADS ANYWAY.
AND IT'S WHAT IT IS, IS THE THE END OF THE ASPHALT IS BROKE OFF BECAUSE IT TIES RIGHT INTO THE DRIVE. WELL, EVEN EVEN THEN, I GUESS BECAUSE, BECAUSE IT ONLY HAS AT THAT POINT, IT ONLY HAD 60FT. THEY STILL WOULD HAVE NEEDED A. YEAH, YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S A DEAD END. YEAH. CORRECT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION WITH THE CONDITIONS YOU GOT. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER. AND I HEARD A SECOND, I BELIEVE, FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. ITEM 1.1 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO OUR
[2.1 Discussion, consideration, and action to grant a sole-source exemption under Local Government Code Section 262.024 (a) (7) for the purchase of proprietary Earthlok Soil Stabilizer Chemical from New Earthlok, LLC.]
PURCHASING PORTION OF OUR AGENDA. AND I WOULD ASK OUR DIRECTOR OF PURCHASING, AJAY HARBIN, TO PLEASE JOIN US TO SPEAK ON THESE ITEMS, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS ITEM 2.1, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO GRANT A SOLE SOURCE EXEMPTION UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 262 .02 FOUR A7 FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPRIETARY EARTH LOCK SOIL STABILIZATION STABILIZER CHEMICAL FROM NEW EARTH LOCK, LLC, EJ. PURCHASING REVIEWED.GOOD AFTERNOON, JUDGE COMMISSIONERS. CAN I JUMP RIGHT INTO IT? PURCHASING REVIEW THE REQUEST AND DETERMINED THAT THE MATERIALS FROM NEW EARTH LOCK TO BE AVAILABLE ONLY FROM THE MANUFACTURER. THEY ARE PROPRIETARY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SOLE SOURCE.
COMMISSIONERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EJ ON THIS ITEM? MOTION. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2.1 FROM COMMISSIONER STEVENSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GREYSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. ITEM 2.1 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, EJ, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 2.2, WHICH IS
[2.2 Discussion, consideration, and action to purchase Earthlok Soil Stabilizer Chemical on an as-needed basis from New Earthlok, LLC utilizing the sole-source exemption granted under chapter 262.024 (a) (7) of the Local Government Code.]
DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO PURCHASE EARTH LIKE SOIL STABILIZER CHEMICAL ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS FROM NEW EARTH LOCK LLC USING THE SOLE SOURCE EXEMPTION GRANTED UNDER CHAPTER 262 .02 4A7 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE EJ. WITH YOUR APPROVAL OF ITEM 2.2, WE WILL SEND OUT THE NEW BID BOOK SHEETS TO THE DEPARTMENTS, TO THE ROAD AND BRIDGE, AND THEN[00:10:01]
FOR THEIR IMMEDIATE USE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTION ON THIS ITEM? NO COMMENTS. MOTION. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2.2 FROM COMMISSIONER STENSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GREYSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. ITEM 2.2 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.[2.3 Discussion, consideration, and action to award Informal RFP 2026-001 Behavioral Health Assessments to TrueCare24, Inc. and authorization for the County Judge to execute the contract upon final legal review.]
OKAY. WE WILL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 2.3, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO AWARD INFORMAL RFP 2020 6-001 BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS TO TRUE CARE 24, INC. AND AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT UPON FINAL LEGAL REVIEW. EJ, RFP 2026 IS DASH 001 WAS RELEASED ON DECEMBER 5TH, 2025 AND ADVERTISED TWICE IN THE NEWSPAPER AS REQUIRED. THE PROPOSALS WERE OPENED ON FEBRUARY 18TH, 2026, AND SEVEN RESPONSIVE SUBMISSIONS WERE RECEIVED AFTER INITIAL EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS BY A FOUR MEMBER EVALUATION TEAM CONSISTING OF BRANT BUREAU, HALEY VALLEY, CAITLIN WILKINSON AND VERONICA RAYFIELD, STERLING STAFFING SOLUTIONS AND TRU CARE. 24, WERE INVITED TO PROVIDE IN-PERSON PRESENTATION TO THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE. TRU CARE, 24, WAS THE HIGHEST RATED.FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION, STAFF REQUESTED APPROVAL OF THE AWARD TO TRU CARE 24 AND APPROVAL FOR THE COUNTY JUDGE TO EXECUTE EXECUTE THE CONTRACT UPON FINAL LEGAL REVIEW.
CAITLIN WILKINSON IS AVAILABLE AND IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
STAFF IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE ITEM COMMISSIONERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EJ OR CAITLIN REGARDING ITEM 2.3? I DO NOT KNOW, SIR. OKAY. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2.3 FROM COMMISSIONER GRAYSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. ITEM 2.3 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY, EJ, WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 2.4,
[2.4 Discussion, consideration and action to grant a sole-source exemption under Local Government Code Section 262.024 (a) (7) for Lightweight Aggregate, Type L, Grades 3, 4, and 5 from Arcosa Lightweight.]
WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO GRANT A SOLE SOURCE EXEMPTION UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 262 .02 4A7 FOR LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE TYPE L GRADES THREE, FOUR AND FIVE FROM R.COSTA. LIGHTWEIGHT EJ. AFTER REVIEW AND FURTHER RESEARCH, R.COSTA AGGREGATE IS STILL BEING RECOMMENDED AS THE SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER FOR LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE AGGREGATES USING PROPRIETARY 2000 DEGREE ROTARY KILN PRODUCTION PROCESS, STAFF REQUESTED APPROVAL OF THE SOLE SOURCE. OKAY, IT'S JUST A STANDARD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION SECOND. SECOND MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2.4 FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GREYSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I, I I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. ITEM 2.4 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE[2.5 Discussion, consideration, and action to purchase lightweight aggregate, Type L, Grades 3,4, and S from Arcosa Lightweight for a one-year period using the approved Sole Source Exemption.]
WILL NOW TAKE UP AND CONSIDER. ITEM 2.5 DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO PURCHASE LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATE TYPE L GRADES THREE, FOUR AND FIVE FROM R.COSTA. LIGHTWEIGHT FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD USING THE APPROVED SOLE SOURCE EXEMPTION EJ AND WITH YOUR APPROVAL OF ITEM 2.5, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND UPDATE, DISTRIBUTE THE NEW BID BOOK PRICING AND GET THAT OUT TO THE ROAD AND BRIDGES SO THAT THAT WAY YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND START USING THE MATERIALS QUICKLY. SO MOVE. OKAY, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2.5 FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GREYSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I, I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. ITEM 3.1. I'M SORRY. ITEM 2.5 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU EJ. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PORTION OF[3.1 Discussion, consideration, and action of the FY202S Annual Comprehensive Financial Report and Single Audit by Patillo, Brown and Hill, LLP — County Auditor Staci Parr]
OUR AGENDA. AND OUR FIRST ITEM IS ITEM 3.1, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT AND SINGLE AUDIT BY PATILLO BROWN AND HILL LLP. AND OUR COUNTY AUDITOR, STACEY PA IS GOING TO SPEAK TO US ON THIS ITEM. I HAVE KENT WILLIS FROM PATILLO, BROWN AND HILL HERE TO PRESENT THE FY 25 AUDIT REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING OR GOOD AFTERNOON. HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING THIS AFTERNOON? DOING WELL. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR HAVING ME HERE. MY NAME IS KENT WILLIS. I'M A PARTNER AT PATILLO BROWN AND HILL. WE'RE JUST DOWN THE ROAD IN WACO, TEXAS. HAPPY TO BE HERE TO PRESENT THE RESULTS OF THE FY 25 AUDIT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, I BELIEVE A COPY OF THE BLUE THING AND THE WHITE[00:15:01]
THING. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE JUST A FEW PAGES. I INTEND TO KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET. THAT'S THE USUAL DIRECTIVE I GET FOR THESE PRESENTATIONS. SHORT AND SWEET.IF YOU'VE GOT A QUESTION YOU WANT TO DRILL DOWN INTO THE DETAILS, STOP ME AT ANY POINT.
I DON'T MIND AT ALL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I WANT TO START OFF AND SAY THANKS TO YOUR COUNTY AUDITOR'S STAFF. A SUCCESSFUL AUDIT HAPPENS BECAUSE EVERYONE AT THE COUNTY FOLLOWS THE RULES AND FOLLOWS THE PROCEDURES AND DOES THE RIGHT THING EVERY DAY. BUT YOUR COUNTY AUDITOR STAFF, THEY DEAL WITH US THE MOST. THEY ARE PROBABLY GLAD TO BE DONE WITH US FOR A LITTLE WHILE. THE AUDIT PROCESS IS NOT A LOT OF FUN, BUT YOUR TEAM IS TRANSPARENT, FORTHCOMING. EVERYTHING WE ASK FOR, THEY GIVE IT TO US AS QUICKLY AS THEY CAN. THEY'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER AND MAKE THINGS THE PROCESSES BETTER.
AND WE AS AN AUDITOR, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO WORK WITH. SO THANK YOU, PATRICIA AND STACIE, FOR FOR ALL YOUR HELP THROUGH THE PROCESS. OKAY. AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S TWO DOCUMENTS WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE WHITE ONE. FIRST, JUST FOLLOW ME ALONG IF YOU WOULD, TO PAGE ONE. A GOOD PLACE TO START. PAGE ONE OF THE WHITE DOCUMENT. THIS IS THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT. THIS PART OF THE AUDIT THAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THE PROBABLY THE PART OF THE AUDIT YOU THINK ABOUT MOST WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT AN AUDIT, IT'S THE BALANCE SHEETS, THE INCOME STATEMENTS, STUFF LIKE THAT. THIS PROCESS IS LENGTHY. IT'S ABOUT FIVE WEEKS OF DEDICATED TIME PLUS MORE WRAP UP TIME. AFTER THAT. IT IS A LOT OF WORK TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN GIVE AN OPINION ON THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS YOUR AUDITOR. SO PAGES ONE, TWO, AND THREE ARE NOT EXACTLY AN EXCITING READ, BUT THEY'RE VERY DESCRIPTIVE AND DENSE DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE AUDIT WENT AND WHAT WE CONCLUDED RIGHT AT THE TOP ON PAGE ONE, YOU'LL FIND A PARAGRAPH CALLED OPINIONS, AND THAT LAYS OUT HOW WE CONCLUDED WITH YOUR AUDIT. AND BASICALLY WE'VE. PRESENTING A CLEAN OPINION OR AN UNMODIFIED OPINION ON THE FY 25 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. SO UNMODIFIED JUST MEANS AS GOOD AS IT GETS. IT'S THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ASSURANCE AN AUDITOR CAN PROVIDE ON A SET OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. SO REALLY HAPPY TO REPORT THAT TO YOU GUYS. REPORT A CLEAN OPINION.
I'M SURE YOU EXPECTED IT, BUT JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCESS IS OF THE AUDIT IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NUMBERS IN THIS DOCUMENT ARE MATERIALLY CORRECT. SO IF YOU FLIP THROUGH THIS THING AND LOOK FOR VARIOUS NUMBERS AND DISCLOSURES, WE HAVE PORED OVER ALMOST EVERY NUMBER YOU SEE IN THIS DOCUMENT AND DONE SOMETHING, SOME PROCEDURE THAT AN AUDITOR HAS IN OUR TOOL BELTS TO MAKE SURE THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE RELIED UPON AND IS MATERIALLY CORRECT. SO HAPPY TO REPORT A CLEAN OPINION ON THE FINANCIALS. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT PART OF THE AUDIT BEFORE AUDIT? BEFORE I MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PART, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. AT THIS TIME, COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? ALL GOOD. THANK YOU.
OKAY. PLEASE CONTINUE. LET'S SWITCH GEARS TO THE BLUE THING. IT'S CALLED THE SINGLE AUDIT REPORT. SO THIS IS SORT OF A SEPARATE AUDIT THAT WE PERFORM IN CONJUNCTION WITH. THE LAST AUDIT I JUST TALKED ABOUT. IT'S NOTHING NEW. YOU GUYS HAVE HAD THIS FOR YEARS AND WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE IT FOREVER. PAGE SIX. IF YOU'LL FOLLOW ME THERE. WE'LL GO. WE'LL START WITH PAGE SIX. SO PAGE SIX IS A LISTING OF THE FEDERAL DOLLARS SPENT BY THE COUNTY DURING FISCAL YEAR 25. SO IF YOU SEE THERE'S ABOUT 3 OR 4 LINES, THERE'S A CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THE BIG ONE, THE CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUND, OR THE ARPA, AS WE ALL CALL IT, LISTING OF FEDERAL DOLLARS SPENT DURING THE YEAR. AS YOUR AUDITOR, I'M REQUIRED TO COME IN AND SELECT ONE OR MORE OF THESE PROGRAMS AND DRILL DOWN INTO THE DETAILS. DID YOU FOLLOW THE RULES THAT THE FEDS SET FORTH? THESE DOLLARS HAVE STRINGS ATTACHED AND THEY WANT US TO CHECK THAT. SO WE TESTED THE ARPA PROGRAM OR THE CORONAVIRUS PROGRAM, HAVE NO FINDINGS TO REPORT ON THAT PROCESS, AND ALSO HAVE ISSUED A CLEAN OPINION ON YOUR YOUR ARPA PROGRAM. SO ALL GOOD TO REPORT THERE. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT PART? OKAY. I DO WANT TO DISCLOSE TO YOU GUYS. WE DID HAVE AN ERROR IN THE FISCAL YEAR 25 AUDIT. YOU'LL SEE THAT ON PAGE NINE. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT FOR JUST A SECOND. IS THAT BACK ON THE WHITE. NO SIR. IT'S SAME SAME DOCUMENT. THE BLUE DOCUMENT, PAGE NINE. THANK YOU.
YES, SIR. SO THIS IS AN ERROR THAT WAS FOUND DURING THE 25 AUDIT. IT HAPPENED IN 24. WAS DISCOVERED IN 25. NOT THAT UNCOMMON TO HAVE ERRORS FROM TIME TO TIME DURING AN AUDIT.
IT HAPPENS. THIS PARTICULAR ERROR WILL REALLY HAVE NO REPERCUSSIONS AS FAR AS I KNOW, FOR BOND RATING, FOR GRANTING AGENCIES ALL IT IS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, YOUR STAFF BECAME AWARE OF IT. THEY CORRECTED IT IMMEDIATELY AND HAVE ADJUSTED THEIR PROCESSES AT YEAR END TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. AND I CAN'T ASK FOR MORE THAN THAT AS YOUR AUDITOR. SO IT WAS A PAYROLL ERROR IN FY 24. THE ERROR WAS DISCOVERED IN 25. WE FIXED IT, YOUR STAFF FIXED IT, AND WE'VE WE'RE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT YEAR AND NOT WON'T HAVE THAT SAME ISSUE IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. OKAY. SO CAN I EXPLAIN THAT BETTER OR DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I'D BE
[00:20:01]
HAPPY TO, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ERROR WE FOUND. GOOD. AS LONG AS YOU CAUGHT IT. YEAH.THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS, RIGHT? YEAH. WE CAN CATCH IT. LET'S FIX IT. LET'S FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. AND YOUR STAFF IMMEDIATELY UPDATED THEIR YEAR END PROCEDURES TO TRY TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. CAN'T ASK FOR MUCH MORE THAN THAT. VERY GOOD, VERY GOOD. SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I WANT TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR YOUR TIME.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. OR IF YOU WANT TO DRILL DOWN FURTHER INTO ANY OTHER DETAILS, BE HAPPY TO DO THAT AT THIS TIME. YEAH. THANK YOU, KENT, FOR THE REPORT.
CERTAINLY STACEY AND PATRICIA, THANK YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR THE GOOD WORK AND COMMISSIONERS, ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY. THANK THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH Y'ALL. HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON. APPRECIATE IT. COMMISSIONERS. I DO BELIEVE WE NEED A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE AUDIT REPORT AND SINGLE SINGLE AUDIT ITEM 3.1. SO MOVED. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT ITEM 3.1 FROM COMMISSIONER GREYSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING NO OPPOSITION. ITEM 3.1 PASSES AND IS ACCEPTED.
[3.2 Discussion, consideration, and action to amend Minute Order 361.25, originally passed on August 5, 2025, from $101,574 to not exceed S125,000 for services rendered by Capital Construction for the renovations required to meet the certification guidelines for the Ellis County Long Term Detention Facility. — County Auditor Staci Parr]
OKAY. AND WE WILL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 3.2 WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO AMEND MINUTE ORDER. 361 .25 ORIGINALLY PASSED ON AUGUST 5TH, 2025 FROM 101 $574,000 TO NOT EXCEED $125,000 FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION. FOR THE RENOVATIONS REQUIRED TO MEET THE CERTIFICATION GUIDELINES FOR THE ELLIS COUNTY LONG TERM DETENTION FACILITY. AND WE ALSO HAVE OUR AUDITOR, STACEY PARR, TO TALK TO US ON THAT. AND I BELIEVE THIS RELATES TO THE JUVENILE FACILITY. IT DOES. AND AS THEIR FISCAL OFFICER, I. SO BACK IN AUGUST OF 2025, THIS COURT HAD APPROVED A. CONTRACT WITH CAPITAL FOR CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION TO DO THE RENOVATIONS OVER AT THE JUVENILE FACILITY TO. BECAUSE THEY'RE WORKING ON GETTING CERTIFIED AS A LONG TERM JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY. SO THEY HAD FINISHED ALL THE WORK AND THEN THEY HAD A WALK THROUGH, AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE DOORS WERE NOT UP TO STANDARD FOR A SECURE FACILITY. SO THEY HAD TO GO IN AND UPDATE THOSE DOORS AND THEN OF COURSE, PAINT THOSE DOORS. SO IT INCREASED THE AMOUNT THAT THE THAT CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SERVICES THAT THEY RENDERED THE, THE PROJECT IS ACTUALLY NOW COMPLETE. SO WITH THIS, IT'LL BE COMPLETED. AND COMMISSIONERS, I'LL JUST ADD THAT THE END GOAL HERE IS TO HAVE AN EIGHT BED LONG TERM DETENTION FACILITY THAT'S CERTIFIED BY, I BELIEVE, TJ. TJ YES, AND THAT WILL IN THE LONG RUN SAVE THE COUNTY MONEY BECAUSE CURRENTLY WHEN WE NEED TO DO LONG TERM DETENTIONS, WE HAVE TO PAY. WE'RE SENDING THEM OUT TO FACILITIES BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE OUR OWN. AND WE'RE SPENDING UPWARDS OF $300 A DAY FOR JUVENILES TO BE IN LONG TERM FACILITIES. SO IF WE HAVE OUR OWN, WE CAN HOUSE OUR OWN, AND THEN WE CAN ALSO CONTRACT WITH OTHER COUNTIES TO TAKE THEIR JUVENILES AND KIND OF RECOUP OUR COST. SO IS THAT ADDITIONAL SINCE IT'S COMPLETE NOW, IS IT LESS THAN 24,000? IT'S RIGHT UNDER 125. SO IT'S LIKE 120 ISH I BELIEVE. RIGHT, RIGHT. YEAH. I JUST DIDN'T WANT IT TO GO OVER ONE THE AMOUNT THAT Y'ALL APPROVED. SO I THAT'S WHY I SET IT AT 125 SO THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND DO THIS AGAIN. SO THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS TO GET THIS CERTIFICATION. SO IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A MOVING TARGET. BUT WE'RE WE'RE FINALLY AT THE GOAL. THIS HAS BEEN LIKE A THREE YEAR COMING THREE YEARS IN THE MAKING. SO AND THEY'RE REALLY, REALLY CLOSE TO GETTING IT COMPLETED. NOW THAT WE HAVE ALL OF THE RENOVATIONS COMPLETE, IT JUST HAS TO BE CERTIFIED BY THE JUDGES. THE JUVENILE BOARD MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT ORDER. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 3.2 FROM COMMISSIONER GREYSON AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED HEARING? NO. OPPOSITION. ITEM 3.2 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. STACEY.[3.3 Discussion, consideration, and approval of a contract with Texas Materials Group, Inc. for the rehabilitation of Baucum Road and Oak Branch, Road and Bridge Precinct 3 in the amount of $1,051,361.96. Costs will be split evenly between Precinct 3 and the Road Improvement project expense line item. — County Commissioner Precinct 3 Louis Ponder]
STACEY. OKAY. WE WILL NOW TAKE UP AND CONSIDER ITEM 3.3, WHICH IS DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH TEXAS MATERIALS GROUP INCORPORATED FOR THE REHABILITATION OF BARKHAM ROAD AND OAK BRANCH ROAD THAT'S IN ROAD AND BRIDGE PRECINCT THREE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,051,361.96. THE COST WILL BE SPLIT EVENLY BETWEEN PRECINCT THREE AND THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT EXPENSE LINE ITEM. COMMISSIONER PONDER, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO US ON THIS? YEAH, I'LL EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ON THIS. SO WE DID SOME SOME CARD COUNTING FOR THE[00:25:06]
COUNTER OUT THERE. AND NORTH OAK BRANCH IS GETTING ABOUT 13,000 VEHICLES A WEEK. AND BALCOMBE ROAD IS DOING ABOUT THE SAME AS WELL. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO A FULL REHAB ON NORTH OAK BRANCH. MY CREW, MY CREW WILL DO THE DITCHING AND PREP UP TO THE POINT OF THE THE REHAB PART. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO DO AN OVERLAY ON TOP OF THE EXISTING SURFACE THAT'S THERE. IT'S IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE. BUT AGAIN, MY CREW WILL GO OUT THERE AND DO THE DITCHING AND PREP UP TO THAT POINT. SO THE TOTAL COST IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN THAT, BUT THE CONTRACT WILL ONLY BE 1 MILLION OH FIVE. SO I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE MAKE THAT ROAD BETTER ROAD THAN WHAT IT'S BEEN. SO WE CAN GET THOSE CARS THROUGH THERE. THEY'RE, THEY'RE USING THAT ONE A LOT AND IT'LL ALL BE TIED TOGETHER IN, IN ONE SINGLE PATH OF, OF A HOT MIX.TYING IN TO WHERE MIDLOTHIAN DID THEIRS LAST YEAR, RIGHT UP TO THE CITY LIMITS LINE ON BUNCOMBE ROAD. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PONDER. AND I THINK EVERYONE WAS ABLE TO HEAR YOU QUITE WELL, JUST TO ECHO A FEW SENTIMENTS THAT COMMISSIONER PONDER MENTIONED.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW A LOT OF FOLKS ARE TRAVELING BETWEEN FM 1446 AND FM 875 BY USING NORTH OAK BRANCH ROAD AND BARKER ROAD. AND THEN I THINK EVENTUALLY TYING INTO SINGLETON ROAD RIGHT THERE. AND YES, A LOT OF YOU, IF YOU'RE IF YOU LIVE IN THAT AREA, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA, YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS OR SO, TARRANT REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT BUILT THAT LARGE PUMP STATION, WHICH DAMAGED THE ROAD CONSIDERABLY. AND IT NEEDS A LOT OF RESURFACING. SO GIVEN THAT, YOU KNOW, 13,000 CARS A DAY ARE TRAVELING THROUGH THAT AREA A WEEK, A WEEK, A WEEK, A WEEK, THAT IS THE IMPETUS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. SO WITH THAT, COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IF THERE'S NOT ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 3.3. MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. WE WE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE FIRST FROM COMMISSIONER. WE'LL TAKE IT FROM COMMISSIONER PONDER AND THEN A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I. I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. ITEM 3.3 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP AND
[3.4 Discussion, consideration, and action to approve the replacement of two rooftop chillers at the Ellis County Jail using Texas Air Systems TIPS-USA Contract #25010501 and #2501502 in an amount not to exceed $625,000. — County Judge John Wray]
CONSIDER OUR LAST ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA, WHICH IS ITEM 3.4. THAT'S DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO APPROVE THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO ROOFTOP CHILLERS AT THE ELLIS COUNTY JAIL USING TEXAS AIR SYSTEMS TIPS. USA CONTRACT NUMBER 25010501 AND 2501502 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $625,000. I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. WE DO HAVE OUR FACILITIES DIRECTOR, LUKE MEACHAM, WHO CAN SUPPLEMENT ME IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS.BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, COMMISSIONERS, IS THAT AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IS.
DURING THE RECENT FREEZE EVENTS THIS SPRING, WE HAD SOME PIPING ON THE CHILLERS THAT SERVICED THE JAIL. THAT PIPING FROZE. IT BURST. IT ALLOWED THE WATER LINES OF THE CHILLER TO. THOSE WERE BREACHED AS WELL AS THE THE FREON OR COOLING FLUID TO TO BREACH AS WELL. WATER ENTERED THE FREON LINES. IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT AIR CONDITIONING, THAT'S KIND OF A BIG NO NO, HARD IN THAT PRETTY MUCH DESTROYS THE MACHINE. SO BOTH OF THOSE CHILLERS THAT SERVICE THE JAIL HAVE NOW FAILED. WE HAVE SUBMITTED AN INSURANCE CLAIM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS A FREEZE AND AN ACCIDENT OF THAT NATURE. SO WE ARE THAT THAT INSURANCE CLAIM IS PENDING. WE HOPE TO RECEIVE THE REIMBURSEMENT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE OBVIOUSLY NEED AIR CONDITIONING AT THE JAIL AND WE ARE RENTING TEMPORARY CHILLERS. IN THE MEANTIME, WE ALSO HOPE TO RECOVER THAT RENTAL FEE FROM OUR INSURANCE CARRIER AS WELL. BUT THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE ITEM. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D PROBABLY DEFER ANY OTHER THOUGHTS TO LUKE, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONERS TOTAL IT ALL RIGHT THERE. OKAY.
IF THERE'S NOT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 3.4. MOTION TO APPROVE. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 3.4 FROM COMMISSIONER GREYSON. I BELIEVE COMMISSIONER PONDER. SECONDED. YES, YES. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY I, I. IS ANYONE OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION. ITEM 3.4 PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. OKAY. THAT IS THE END OF OUR REGULAR SESSION
[00:30:06]
AGENDA. AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY ITEMS POSTED TODAY FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED. WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN FROM COMMISSIONER BUTLER AND A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER GREYSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. I IS ANYONE