Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-04-12-9:00AM-REGULAR
• a. Gene Schiller • b. Phillip Knight • c. Stephen Simank BRAZOS COUNTY -, r- BRYAN,TEXAS NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY WILL MEET IN REGULAR SESSION ON APRIL 12, 2011 AT 9:00 AM IN THE COMMISSIONERS COURTROOM OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 200 SOUTH TEXAS AVE., SUITE 106, BRYAN, TX 77803 1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance - Chaplain G.H. Jones will lead the Invocation and Commissioner Cauley will lead the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Call for Citizen input and/or concerns. Consider and take action on agenda items 3 - 29: 3 Approval of Resolution 11-012 supporting House 81112558 designating a certain segment of the Navasota River as a river segment of unique ecological value. 4 Approval of the following Individuals as paid Deputy Constables In Pct. 2 pursuant to Section 86.011 (al of the Texas Local Government Code: • e. Christopher McDermott -Chief Deputy • b. Miguel Vasquez • c. Steven Emert • d. Ernest Ortiz • e. Agustin Rubio • f. Peter Glldeweil 5 Approval of the following individuals as non -pald Deputy Constables In Pct. 2 pursuant to Section 86.012 (a) of the Texas Local Government Code: Vol. 1 5 Pg it?) • d, C. Logan Winn • e. Van L. Boston • 1. Michael Z. Jones • g. Edger D. Peters • h. Ronald E. Pollard • I. Robert J. Olsen • J. Jeffery L. Hands 6 Approval the following appointments to the Homeland Security Advisory Committee (HSAC): • a. R.B. Alley, Fire Chief City of College Station • b. Jeff Capps, Police Chief City of College Station • c. Brandy Norris, Assistant Police Chief City of College Station • d. Brian Hilton, EMC City of College Station • e. Bart Humphreys, Public Information Officer City of College Station • 1. Michael Donoho,FIre Chief City of Bryan • p. Eric Ruske, Police Chief City of Bryan • h. Jerry Henry, EMC City of Bryan • 1. Betsy Godwin, Executive Director Brazos County 911 • I. Jim Barker, Deputy Fire Chief South Brazos County Fire Department • k. Leslie Lutz. Emergency Planning Supervisor Texas A &M University • I. Monica Weintraub, Emergency Planning supervisor Texas A &M University • m. Kenny Mallard. Commissioner Pct. 3 Brazos County • n. Mike Wilson, Chief Deputy Brazos County • o. Chuck Frazier, EMC Brazos County • p. Michele Meade. Deputy EMC Brazos County • q. BIII Jeanes, Director of Risk Management Brazos County 7 Reaffirmation of the following four Fair Executive Board Members effective April 12. 2011 for a term of five years ending Apri112. 2016. • a. Duane Peters • b. Jim McCord • c. Jim Mazurkiewicz • d. Barron Hobbs 8 Appointment of the following three additional Fair Executive Board Members effective April 12.2011 for a term of five years ending April 12, 2016. • a. Nora Thompson • b. James Deatherage • c. Don Renchle 9. Approval of the following individuals as non -paid Deputy Constables In Pct. 1 pursuant to Section 86.012 (a) of the Texas Local Government Code: • a. Eric Bales • b. Robert Huet • c. Gene Huff • d. Jay Sartain • e. Walter Sayers • 1. David Welch • p. James Taylor p Approval of Out -of -State Travel tor the Emergency Management Coordinator to attend the course Vol. 46 Pg. __ i l' 11 "Homeland Security Preparedness and Response" at the Emergency Management Institute In Emmitsbura. Maryland. Dates of training are August 22-25. 2011. Approval for out -of- state - travel for 361st District Judge to ABA Annual Meeting In Toronto on August 3- 8.2011 12 Approval of payment authorization In the amount of $19295 to Madison Construction for structural Improvements on the north wall of the Courthouse. 13 Payment Authorization for the reimbursement of $195.00 to Judge Smith for the ABA 2011 Annual Meeting registration. Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Toronto. Canada. 14 Approve Addendeum with G4S Justice Services. LLC. 15 Consider request from American Legion Earl Graham Post 159. a Non -profit organization, for use of an Inmate work crew to perform labor at 101 Waco Street in City of Bryan as a Public Service. 16 Aqreement with the Dispute Resolution Center to be funded at $7.500.00 for FY 2011. 17 Approval of permission to advertise bid # 2011 -28 Two Station ADA Combo Shower /Restroom 18' X 6' Trailers. 18 Request from Wickson Creek Special Utility District to construct a 34' road bore In the right of way of Elmo Weedon Road a 'proximately 600' from its Intersection with Hunters Way for placement of a 1" waterline with 1 1r2" encasement pipe: to provide service to address it 4747. Site Is located in Precinct 2. 19 Approval of change order to PO if 11001312 to MicroAtte In the amount of $1,760 for additional control panels In the Expo Exhibit Hall. 20 Approval of Treasurer Report for February. 2011. 21. Tax Refund Applications for the following: • a. Rosalind Bush- overpayment431.26 • b. AJ's Mobile Home - overpayment - $1617.81 • c. AJ's Mobile Home •overpayment - $348.08 • d. The Junk Gypsy Company - overpayment - $3506.90 • e. Mitchell Rob & Paula K McMillan - overpayment- $19.71 • f. John A Shellberq-overpayment- $2658.56 • q. Dwight & Sandra Caldwell - overpayment -$809 22. Commissioners Court minutes for the following dates: • a. March 1, 2011 - Workshop Session • b. March 1, 2011 - Regular Meeting • c. March 8, 2011 - Workshop Session • d. March 8, 2011 - Regular Meeting • e. March 15 2011 - Regular Meeting • 1. March 22, 2011 • Regular Meeting • p. March 29, 2011 - Regular Meeting 23. Budget Amendments. Budget Amendments FY10/11 26.1 - 262 24. Personnel Change of Status. Personnel Action Forms 25. Payment of Claims. 'Lip Presentation and discussion of Initial Assessment regarding the need to redistrict the County Vol. ___- 146 IS Pg' fl Commissioner Precincts based on recently Issued 2010 Census data 27 The Commissioners Court will ao Into executive session pursuant to Texas Government Code 551.071 to receive advise from counsel regarding the County's redistricting obligations. 28 Discussion of traditional redistricting criteria and possible adoption of criteria to be utilized by the County for the 2011 redistricting process 29 Discussion and possible action to adopt redistricting guidelines which control the process and schedule for the 2011 redistricting. 30 Acknowledaement of receipt of the Preliminary Compliance of Collections required by the Comptroller of Public Accounts submitted during the month of March 2011 31 Approval of the attached requisitions to CDW -G In the amount of $190,380 for VOIP equipment. 32. Announcement of interest items and possible future agenda topics. 33. Call for Citizen input and/or concerns. 34. Agency/ Board/ Committee reports by Court members. 35. Adjourn. Vol. s Pg. 11 1P PUBLIC COMMENTS Public Comment during the Commission Meeting may be for all matters, both on and o8 the agenda, and be limited to tour minutes per person. Persons are invited to submit comments in writing on the agenda items andror attend and make comment at the Commission meeting. Members of the public are reminded that the Brazos County Commissioners Court is a Constitutional Court, with both judicial and legislative powers, created under Article V, Section 1 and Section 18 of the Texas Constitution. As a Constitutional Court, the Brazos County Commissioners Court also possesses the power to issue a Contempt of Court Citation under Section 81.024 of the Texas Local Government Code. Accordingly, members of the public in attendance al any Regular, Special and /or Emergency meeting of the Court shag conduct themselves with proper respect and decorum In speaking to, and /or addressing the Court; in participating in public discussions before the Court; and in all actions in the presence al the Court. Those members of the public who are inappropriately attired and/or who do not conduct themselves in an orderly and appropriate manner will be ordered to leave the meeting. Refusal to abide by the Court's Order and /or continued disruption of the meeting may result in a Contempt of Court Citation. It is not the intention of the Brazos County Commissioners Court to provide a public forum for the demeaning of any individual or group. Neither is it the intention of the Court to allow a member (or members) of the public to insult the honesty and/or integrity of the Court, as a body, or any member or members of the Court, or County employees, individually or collectively. Accordingly, profane, insulting or threatening language directed toward the Court and/or any person in the Court's presence and/or racial, ethnic or 'gender slurs or epithets will not be tolerated. Violation of these rules may result in the following sanctions: • 1- cancellation of a speaker's time; 2. removal from the Commissioners Court: a. a Contempt Citation; and/or 4. such other and/or criminal sanctions as may be authorized under the Constitution, Statutes and Codes of the State of Texas. The County Commissioners Court can deliberate or take action only it a matter has been listed on an agenda properly posted prior to the meeting. During the public comment period, speakers may address matters not listed on the published agenda. The Open Meeting Law does not expressly prohibit responses to public comments by the Commissioners Court. However, responses from the County Judge or Commissioners to unlisted public comment topics could become deliberation on a matter without notice to the public. To ensure the public has notice of all matters the Commissioners Court will consider, the County Judge and/or Commissioners may choose not to respond to public comments, except to correct tactual inaccuracies. recite existing policy in response to an inquiry or to ask Mal a matter be listed on a future agenda. See Texas Open Meetings Ad ? 551.042. The Commissioners Courtroom of the County Administration Building, 200 South Texas Ave., suite 106, Bryan, TX 77803 is wheelchair accessiile. Handicap parking spaces are available. Any request for sign interpretive services must be made two working days before the meeting. To make arrangements, please call (979) 361 -4102. Vol. 1 6 Pg. I I / BRAZOS COUNTY BRYAN,TEXAS MINUTES April 12, 2011 BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT REGULAR MEETING A regular meeting of the Commissioners' Court of Brazos County, Texas was held in the Brazos County Commissioners Courtroom in the Administration Building, 200 South Texas Avenue, in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas, beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, April 12, 2010 with the following members of the Court present: Duane Peters, County Judge, Presiding; Lloyd Wassermann, Commissioner of Precinct 1; Sammy Catalena, Commissioner of Precinct 2; Kenny Mallard, Commissioner of Precinct 3; Irma Cauley, Commissioner of Precinct 4; Karen McQueen, County Clerk. The attached sheets contain the names of the citizens and officials that were in attendance. 1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance - Chaplain G.H. Jones will lead the Invocation and Commissioner Cauley will lead the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Call for Citizen input and /or concerns. Michele Meade Assistance Emergency Management Coordinator - thanked the Road and Bridge Department for their assistance and use of heavy equipment yesterday to help fight a fire out in the county. Consider and take action on agenda items 3 - 29: Vol.___ 5 — P re- 3. Approval of Resolution 11 -012 supporting House Bill 2558 designating a certain segment of the Navasota River as a river segment of unique ecological value. 9 Item 3 - Res. 11- 012.pdf A copy is attached. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Kenny Mallard, Seconded by Commissioner Irma Cauley. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 4. Approval of the following individuals as paid Deputy Constables in Pct. 2 pursuant to Section 86.011 (a) of the Texas Local Government Code:a. Christopher McDermott- Chief Deputy b. Miguel Vasquezc. Steven Emert d. Ernest Ortize. Agustin Rubio f. Peter Glidewell IS Item 4.odf Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Sammy Catalena, Seconded by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 5. Approval of the following individuals as non -paid Deputy Constables in Pct. 2 pursuant to Section 86.012 (a) of the Texas Local Government Code:a. Gene Schiller b. Phillip Knightc. Stephen Simank d. C. Logan Winne. Van L. Boston f. Michael Z. Jonesg. Edger D. Peters h. Ronald E. Pollardi. Robert J. Olsen j. Jeffery L. Harris 1 J' Item 5.odf Subject to appointments being within the allotted number of deputies. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Sammy Catalena, Seconded by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 6. Approval the following appointments to the Homeland Security Advisory Committee (HSAC):a. R.B. Alley, Fire Chief City of College Stationb. Jeff Capps, Police Chief City of College Stationc. Brandy Norris, Assistant Police Chief City of College Stationd. Brian Hilton, EMC City of College Statione. Bart Humphreys, Public Information Officer City of College Stationf. Michael Donoho,Fire Chief City of Bryang. Eric Buske, Police Chief City of Bryanh. Jerry Henry, EMC City of Bryani. Betsy Godwin, Executive Director Brazos County 911j. Jim Barker, Deputy Fire Chief South Brazos County Fire Departmentk. Leslie Lutz, Emergency Planning Supervisor Texas A &M University!. Monica Weintraub, Emergency Planning supervisor Texas A &M Universitym. Kenny Mallard, Commissioner Pct. 3 Brazos Countyn. Mike Wilson, Chief Deputy Brazos Countyo. Chuck Frazier, EMC Brazos Countyp. Michele Meade, Deputy EMC Brazos Countyq. Bill Jeanes, Director of Risk Management Brazos County 9 Item 6.pdf Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Irma Cauley, Seconded by County Judge Duane Peters. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 7. Reaffirmation of the following four Fair Executive Board Members effective April 12, 2011 for a term of five years ending April 12, 2016. a. Duane Peters b. Jim McCord c. Jim Mazurkiewicz d. Barron Hobbs Le Item 7.odf Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman, Seconded by Commissioner Sammy Catalena. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . Lq Vol. r 45 Pg. 8. Appointment of the following three additional Fair Executive Board Members effective April 12, 2011 for a term of five years ending April 12, 2016. a. Nora Thompsonb. James Deatherage c. Don Renchie 9 Item 8.pdf Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Sammy Catalena, Seconded by Commissioner Kenny Mallard. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 9. Approval of the following individuals as non -paid Deputy Constables in Pct. 1 pursuant to Section 86.012 (a) of the Texas Local Government Code:a. Eric Balesb. Robert Huetc. Gene Huffd. Jay Sartaine. Walter Sayersf. David Welchg. James Taylor 9 Item 9.pdf Subject to appointments being within the allotted number of deputies. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman, Seconded by Commissioner Sammy Catalena. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 10. Approval of Out -of -State Travel for the Emergency Management Coordinator to attend the course "Homeland Security Preparedness and Response" at the Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland. Dates of training are August 22 -25, 2011. 0 Item 18.pdf Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Irma Cauley, Seconded by Commissioner Kenny Mallard. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 11. .Approval for out -of- state - travel for 361st District Judge to ABA Annual Meeting in Toronto on August 3 -8, 2011. 0 Item 11.pdf Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Irma Cauley, Seconded by County Judge Duane Peters. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 12 Approval of payment authorization in the amount of $19,295 to Madison Construction for structural improvements on the north wall of the Courthouse. 9 Item 12.pdf Time and materials for structural modifications to north wall improvements. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Sammy Catalena, Seconded by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 13. Payment Authorization for the reimbursement of $195.00 to Judge Smith for the ABA 2011 Annual Meeting registration. Metro Toronto Convention Centre, Toronto, Canada. 0 Item 13.pdf Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Irma Cauley, Seconded by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 14. Approve Addendeum with G4S Justice Services, LLC. 1 � S' Item 14.pdf Vol. 1�5 Pg. a.Q A copy is attached. Motion: Approve , Moved by County Judge Duane Peters, Seconded by Commissioner Kenny Mallard. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 15. Consider request from American Legion Earl Graham Post 159, a Non - profit organization, for use of an inmate work crew to perform labor at 101 Waco Street in City of Bryan as a Public Service. Item 15.pdf This is for general outdoor grounds and building clean up of Post 159 on April 23, 2011. The County Judge asked that the Sheriff be sure Brazos County's business is taken care of first as there is a lot of work at the Expo Center and the Road and Bridge Department. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Irma Cauley, Seconded by Commissioner Kenny Mallard. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 16. Agreement with the Dispute Resolution Center to be funded at $7,500.00 for FY 2011. 9 Item 16.pdf The purpose of the agreement is to make the services of the Dispute Resolution Center available to the Commissioners Court and to the employees of Brazos County in such instances where the services may be of benefit to Brazos County, Texas or its employees. A copy is attached. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman, Seconded by Commissioner Irma Cauley. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 17. Approval of permission to advertise bid # 2011 -28 Two Station ADA Combo Shower /Restroom 18' X 6' Trailers. 0 Item 17.Ddt For Emergency Management. Motion Approve , Moved by County Judge Duane Peters, Seconded by Commissioner Sammy Catalena. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 18. Request from Wickson Creek Special Utility District to construct a 34' road bore in the right of way of Elmo Weedon Road approximately 600' from its intersection with Hunters Way for placement of a 1" waterline with 1 1/2" encasement pipe; to provide service to address # 4747. Site is located in Precinct 2. 0 Item 18.odf Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Sammy Catalena, Seconded by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 19. Approval of change order to PO # 11001312 to MicroAge in the amount of $1,760 for additional control panels in the Expo Exhibit Hall. al Item 19.odf A copy is attached. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Irma Cauley, Seconded by Commissioner Kenny Mallard. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Vol. P g . i a� Wasserman . 20. Approval of Treasurer Report for February, 2011. 1 I Item 20.ndf A copy is attached and made a part of these minutes. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Irma Cauley, Seconded by Commissioner Sammy Catalena. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 21. Tax Refund Applications for the following: a. Rosalind Bush - overpayment- $31.26b. AJ's Mobile Home - overpayment- $1617.81c. AJ's Mobile Home - overpayment- $348.08d. The Junk Gypsy Company- overpayment- $3506.90e. Mitchell Rob & Paula K McMillan-overpayment-$19.71f. John A Shellberg- overpayment-$2658.56g. Dwight & Sandra Caldwell - overpayment -$8.39 Item 21.pdf Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman, Seconded by Commissioner Irma Cauley. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 22. Commissioners Court minutes for the following dates: a. March 1, 2011 - Workshop Sessionb. March 1, 2011 - Regular Meetingc. March 8, 2011 - Workshop Sessiond. March 8, 2011 - Regular Meetinge. March 15, 2011 - Regular Meetingf. March 22, 2011 - Regular Meetingg. March 29, 2011 - Regular Meeting 9 Item 22.odf Approved as submitted. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Sammy Catalena, Seconded by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 23. Budget Amendments. Budget Amendments FY10 /11 26.1 - 26.3 9 Item 23.pdf 26.1 Reallocate funds for General Capital Improvement Fund: Courthouse Renovation Project. 26.2 Reallocate funds for Expo Expansion 26.3 Reallocate funds for Information Technology Department Motion: Approve , Moved by County Judge Duane Peters, Seconded by Commissioner Kenny Mallard. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 24. Personnel Change of Status. Personnel Action Forms 9 Item 24.odf A copy of the Personnel Change of Status Requests is attached. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman, Seconded by vol. 4 4 5 Pg . I a a Commissioner Kenny Mallard. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 25. Payment of Claims. 7085127 through 7085395 Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Kenny Mallard, Seconded by Commissioner Sammy Catalena. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . Claims Sheet.pdf 9 BILL LIST 4.12.11.pdf At this point the County Judge skipped down to item #31 on the agenda before hearing the Presenation. 26. Presentation and discussion of Initial Assessment regarding the need to redistrict the County Commissioner Precincts based on recently issued 2010 Census data. Syd Falk of Bickerstaff, Heath, Delgado, Acosta LLP was on hand to give a presentation and hold a discussion of the Initial Assessment concerning the need to redistrict the Precincts. He introduced Cindy Crosby who will be assisting with the redistricting. The gist of redistricting Mr. Falk said is to equalize the population in the four precincts so that there is no denying or abridging the right to vote of the populace, does not discriminate on the basis of race or language minority status, does not divide a geographically compact group of minority voters to fragment their voting power or concentrate a minority of voters in a single precinct when dividing them would permit the group to elect their candidates of choice in more than one precinct. 27. The Commissioners Court will go into executive session pursuant to Texas Government Code 551.071 to receive advise from counsel regarding the County's redistricting obligations. The County Judge then skipped ahead to item #33 to hear citizen input before convening into Executive Session. At 10:23 a.m. the County Judge announced the meeting closed to the public so that the Court could meet in Closed Executive Session to receive advise from counsel regarding the County's redistrcting obligations as allowed under Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code. The following were asked to stay for the meeting: Syd Falk, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta, LLP Cindy Crosby, Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta, LLP Karen McQueen, County Clerk Candy Gallego, Executive Assistant Ruth McLeod, Administrative Assistant Bill Ballard, Civil Counsel, Irene Jett, Budget Officer Gayle Bond, Administrative Assistant 28. Discussion of traditional redistricting criteria and possible adoption of criteria to be utilized by the County for the 2011 redistricting process. t' Item 28 -Order 1 1- 003.pdf Vol. I 4 pg. l a.a. p( At 11:14 a.m. the County Judge opened the Executive Session. The Court voted unanimously to adopt Order 11 -003 Adopting Criteria for Use in the 2011 Redistricting Process. A copy is attached. Motion: Approve , Moved by Commissioner Kenny Mallard, Seconded by County Judge Duane Peters. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 29. Discussion and possible action to adopt redistricting guidelines which control the process and schedule for the 2011 redistricting. Item 29 -Order 11- 004.pdf The Court adopted Order 11 -004 Settting the Guidelines for Persons Submitting Specific Resdistricting Proposals and Providing Comments. A copy is attached. Motion: Approve , Moved by County Judge Duane Peters, Seconded by Commissioner Kenny Mallard. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 30. Acknowledgement of receipt of the Preliminary Compliance of Collections required by the Comptroller of Public Accounts submitted during the month of March 2011. ! I Item 30.odf The Court acknowledged receipt of the report. 31. Approval of the attached requisitions to CDW -G in the amount of $190,380 for VOIP equipment. 21 Item 31.odf Copies attached. Motion: Approve , Moved by County Judge Duane Peters, Seconded by Commissioner Lloyd Wasserman. Passed. 5 -0. Members voting Aye: Catalena , Cauley , Mallard , Peters , Wasserman . 32. Announcement of interest items and possible future agenda topics. There were no annoucements. 33. Call for Citizen input and /or concerns. Chris Kirk, Sheriff reported there were 555 inmates in jail, 49 are on electronic monitors, and 53 are pending for electronic monitors. Irene Jett, Budget Officer introduced the new Budget Analyst Nina Means. 34. Agency/ Board/ Committee reports by Court members. There were no agency, board or committee reports. 35. Adjourn. a Vol. — Pg. I The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court meeting held April 12, 2011 have been examined and are approved in open Court this the 3 day of Pk / ,2011, in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. Duane Peters County Judge Sal Cat • ena Commiss'•ner, Precinct 2 I a C Commissioner, Pr Attest: aren McQueen County Clerk 4 iGC -2L� /✓ Vol 4 4 5 Page [ al,4 Lloyd W a Commissioner, Precinct 1 Kenny Malla Commissioner, Precinct 3 Name Organization / Department % 4 cue /�� /J 6 • C.-� k C:.,d, Gros 6, (11) € F f ac-r , t e S P r c c ,', e -r 1 (z , i Ll, < 0 m� i ti- ( C STP:✓J l c i Ate' !�rlvll A NN M ,,,, iren- &tg.ge,(— J nok Meo■h) 6 .1. - , Ao • i4 i ' I 3.0 AL M: G VAkei✓ SSV J;LV L A- nick_ ik�1r N%7h BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Meeting on ,20H® Vol. 14 6 p j as PAGE l of Z 1 e- Name / Department // / D �� J Organization / `�hi oi hm C(�.,if.e es- U,,`� n,: ),,I,Lxi, s. 0. -isi.,\ oN \ 0,x-\\ c.,A, CAL ll tflTa�d' ae L ..c -o R OAS W M . C4 r,� \14 n ci & L - 7,7,14 , 2 E,2► c-LD 6-- R t c.' A 4 0 2 of 1tL.L 3C/1/--LC* /� /� �. M• - 1 O1-ae-- �i'r'i -7 /� _� Q ( , C J z, !a z 41 , i ti .110 ._ ari.. 1- BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT Meeting on Vol. I LI 6 Pg• a(e PAGE a of RESOLUTION WHEREAS Brazos County recognizes the importance of the need to plan for future water requirements to meet the projected population growth throughout the State of Texas; and WHEREAS Region H initially considered a Water Plan that included a proposed reservoir along the Navasota River segment running through Brazos County and recommended it's designation as a unique reservoir site; and WHEREAS Each regional water planning group submits to the Texas Water Development Board a regional water plan that identifies river and stream segments of unique ecological value; and WHEREAS The results of a study conducted by Hicks and Company, Inc. in 2000 found that the Navasota River segment running through Brazos County displayed significant overall habitat value including both quantity and quality considering the degree of biodiversity, age; and uniqueness observed and including terrestrial, wetland, aquatic, or estuarine habitats; and WHEREAS The results of a study conducted by Hicks and Company, Inc. in 2000 found that the Navasota River segment muting through Brazos county was fringed by habitats that perform valuable hydrologic functions relating to water quality, flood attenuation, flow stabilization, or groundwater recharge and discharge; and WHEREAS The Region G Water Planning Group and the Texas Water Development Board would likely find that the Navasota River segment running through Brazos County is fringed by significant areas in public ownership including state and federal refuges, wildlife management areas, preserves, parks, mitigation areas, or other areas held by governmental organizations for conservation purposes, or stream segments which are fringed by other areas managed for conservation purposes under a governmentally approved conservation plan; and WHEREAS The Region G Water Planning Group and the Texas Water Development Board would likely find that the stream segments and spring resources of the Navasota River segment running through Brazos County are significant due to their unique or critical habitats and exceptional aquatic life uses dependent on or associated with high water quality; and WHEREAS The Region 0 Water Planning Group and the Texas Water Development Board would likely find that water development projects along the Navasota River segment running through Brazos County would have significant detrimental effects on state or federally listed threatened and endangered species, and sites along streams significant due to the presence of unique, exemplary, or unusually extensive natural communities; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by adoption of this resolution that the Commissioners Court of Brazos County, Texas supports the designation of the Navasota River segment running through Brazos County as a unique ecological value and as a result of this designation, no State Agency or political subdivision of the State may finance the actual construction of a reservoir along the Navasota River segment running through Brazos County. Resolved this 12 day of April, 2011 in Bryan, Brazos County, Texas. z Co is net Lloyd Wassermann 1 Commissione enny Mall Precinct 3 Duane Peters, County Judge Commis loner Sammy Catalena toner Precinct 4 Resolution 11 -012 Vol. 1 4. 5 p t d17 March 30, 2011 Honorable Judge Duane Peters Brazos County Judge County of Brazos 200 South Texas Ave Bryan, Texas 77802 • ■. T MADISON CONSTRUCTION, L.P. RE: TIME AND MATERIAL PROPOSAL ASSOCIATED WITH STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR THE BRAZOS COUNTY COURTHOUSE (NORTH FACADE IMPROVEMENTS) PROJECT LOCATED AT 300 EAST 26'" STREET, BRYAN, TEXAS DearJudge Peters: We appreciate the opportunity to submit a time and material proposal for the structural modifications, as shown on drawings and sketches received from Patterson Architects and Jaster - Quintanilla & Associates. The following are proposal clarifications with specific inclusions and exclusions: 1. In an effort to prevent delays to the north curtain wall frame installation, Madison Construction was asked to proceed on a time and material basis with certain structural steel modifications as detailed on drawings and sketches received from Patterson Architects and Jaster- Quintanilla & Associates. 2. Attached to this bid proposal are daily Additional Work Authorization tickets signed by Gary Arnold, as well as a labor cost summary, material invoices, subcontractor invoices and rental equipment charges. The cost to complete this scope of work is nineteen thousand two hundred and ninety five dollars ($19,295). Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, MADISON CONSTRUCTION, L.P. Project Manager HS Pg. 1 o Vol. — °I-1C in J BZB'LI BZB'll BZB tL ann.' $ f N x M N N N M H N M x N N N N M H w M N 0 < m O n. n. 4 r- 0 O0 U us 5 W 0 Q y u z a j a 0 n 2 9) Z N ecs ess Les VP ti C N 0 VP VP us U VP H PA co VP VD VP 4. so N VI 4. M r VI- u 1 F la u U u 0 5 4' .S 1 3 N Ca N 0 '. Vol. 1 4 6 Pg. 0 MADISON CONSTRUCTION. LP. DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK PARTICIPATING ADDENDUM TEXAS YOUTH COMMISSION Contract Number IT092 for "Electronic Monitoring" 1. Scope. Brazos County Juvenile Services EXHIBIT A 2. Chanpes: No Changes at Brazos County Juvenile Services are incorporated herein as Attachment 1. In the event of any conflict between the terms of the Brazos County Juvenile Services Standard Terms and Conditions and the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) contact terms, the Brazos County Juvenile Services Standard Terms and Conditions terms shall take precedence with regard to Brazos County Juvenile Services participation. No Participating Addendum or additional terms added via Participating Addendum shall have effect or modify the terms and provisions of the prime contract between TYC and Contractor. 3. Primary Contact: The primary government contact individual for this participating addendum is as follows: Name: Collin Coker Address: 1904 West SH 21 Bryan, TX 77803 Telephone: (979) 8234544 Fax: (979) 823 -4211 TYC contract number IT092, this Addendum and the Price Agreement together with its exhibits and furthermore incorporate by reference to set forth the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of all previous communications, representations or agreements, whether oral or written, with respect to the subject matter hereof. Terms and conditions inconsistent with, contrary or in addition to the terms and conditions of this Addendum and the Price Agreement, together with its exhibits, shall not be added to or incorporated into this Addendum or the Price Agreement and its exhibits, by any subsequent purchase order or otherwise, and any such attempts to add or incorporate such terms and conditions are hereby rejected. The terms and conditions of this Addendum and the Price Agreement and its exhibits shall prevail and govern in the case of any such inconsistent or additional terms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Addendum as of the date of execution by both parties below. Gov Entity . ad. eiC Ju eS cs Contractor: G4S Justice Services LLC By: \ lam / By: Name: Duane Peters Title: Brazos County Judge Date: 'y — 42 "77 Name: Title: Date: vol. 14 6 Pg. 150 G4S Justice Services, LLC Brazos County Juvenile Services ✓ Unlimited web -based access to all participant data ✓ Unlimited zones and buffer zones • 24x7x365 monitoring service in accordance with the notification protocol established with the agency ✓ Training and on-going support Please see the complete pricing information below: Pricing for GPS Location Based Equipment and Monitodng Equipment Description Daily Rate Per Active Unit Omnillnk 0M210 Passive GPS 53.32 Omnilink Hybrid GPS $4.08 0M210 Omnilink Active GPS $4.96 0M210 Omnilink GPS Shelf Rate 52.00 0M210 RF Patrol Land Line RF Patrol Horne Monitoring Device $1.74 RF Patrol Cellular RF Patrol Home Monitoring Device $4.48 Cellular Voice Patrol Voice Verification (includes up to 5 $1.85 contacts per day) Vi -Cap Supervised Alcohol Monitoring $3 50 Drive -By Drive By device cost per day $1.50 Included In daily Price of the units: ✓ Standard shipping for equipment is Ground. • One (1) replacement strap per year per unit at no charge ✓ The above rates include a 5% provision towards lost and damaged equipment RepaacemeM Cost for Excess, Loss, Damaged or Stolen Equipment o 0M210 unit $ 900.00 o Straps: $ 75.00 o Power Cord: $ 100.00 o RF Patrol Cell PHMU: $1,100.00 o RF Patrol PTX2: $ 500.00 Vol. 14 5 Pg. Non - Profit Organization Application for Brazos County Inmate Work Crew Labor ORGANIZATION American Legion Earl Graham Post 159 ADDRESS CITY 101 Waco St Bryan STATE ZIP TX 77803 CEO NAME John Hince, Commander PHONE 979 - 778 -1936 FAX CONTACT NAME Garrett Martin, Adjutant, 979-220-9976 I certify that the above named organization is a nonprofit organization that qualifies for a tax exemption under Section 501(s), Internal revenue Code of 1986, as an organization described by Section 501 (c)(3) of that code, and is organized as a nonprofit corporation under the Texas Non - Profit Corporation Act (Article 1396 -1.01 et seq., Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes. CEO SIGNATURE a ct -- `" 41(-44—t , ADJUTANT DATE 29 MAR 2011 Please provide a description of the type of work that will be assigned and equipment that will be used. General outdoor grounds and building clean up of Post 159 on 23 APF1 2011. Planned work will include pulling weeds, cleaning flower beds, spreading mulch. rake and sweep patio areas, clean outside of windows and other duties as needed. Equipment needed will be gloves, rakes, brooms, wheel burrows, shovels. **Note** The allocation of a work crew to provide labor for your organization is subject to availability. Revised 071405-ads Vol. Li 6 Pg. Brazos County Office of the Sheriff Request for Work Crew Assignment The Brazos County Office of the Sheriff has reviewed the application for assignment of a work crew. 2 / The type of labor and task requested is appropriate for work crew assignment. It is hereby requested that this application be placed on the agenda for the Brazos County Commissioners Court consideration of approval. Signature O The type of labor and task requested is not appropriate for work crew assignment. It is hereby requested that this application not be placed on the agenda for the Brazos County Commissioners Court consideration of approval. t , ") _c Tme StSgrga,r,. Date 3 1 act) ri Approve missioners urEr�n;� L/ - 7�C �} County Jud _ ■� ) � Dale T - 1/ Brazos County Commissioners Court Approval for Work Crew Assignment The Brazos County Commissioners Court has received the recommendation from the Brazos County Office of the Sheriff and has determined that the above non -profit organization provides a public service to the county or to a political subdivision located in whole or in part in the county. This approval for work crew assignment is valid effective from the date approved below through December 31 of the calendar year. Rcv(ud 0714054ds vot. I �I 5 Pg. 13 3 BRAZOS COUNTY By Duane Peters, Brazos County Judge AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this r g day of %i' l , 2011 by and between the DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER - CENTRAL BRAZO VALLEY, INC. hereafter referred to as "DRC" and the BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT, hereafter referred to as "the Commissioners Court," is made on the following terms and conditions: 1. This agreement is for one year and shall begin on the first day of October, 2010 and continue through the last day of September, 2011. 2. For and in consideration of the sum o? / 00 0a to be paid in one single payment of the DRC agrees to perform the following services: • The DRC agrees to provide a maximum of four (4) separate mediation sessions to the Commissioners or designated department or offices of Brazos County during the term of this agreement. A mediation session is defined as a session of not more than three (3) hours supervised by a trained mediator. In addition the DRC agrees to train (1) Brazos County employee in each regular or family law mediation training offered by the DRC, without cost to the County or the employee. • For each mediation session scheduled under the terms of this agreement, the DRC will provide a location to hold the mediation, preferably in its offices located at 3211 A South Texas Ave., Bryan, Texas, or at such other convenient location which might be available. For any such mediation session held away from the DRC offices, the DRC shall be reimbursed for any such costs or rental fees incurred in holding the mediation. The DRC may at its discretion, provide additional sessions without charge to the county on a limited basis. Except as other wise stated, any additional sessions that may be required, will be compensated for by the Commissioners Court at the regular rate for scheduled mediations as adopted by the DRC. 3. The purpose of this agreement is to make the services of the DRC available to the Commissioners Court and to the employees of Brazos County in such instances where the services may be of benefit to Brazos County, Texas, or its employees. 4. The DRC shall furnish to the County Auditor, at a minimum, documentation indicating the use of funds received from the County. The County Auditor may require the DRC to provide information necessary for the Auditor to properly account for all funds expended or received by the entity. 5. This agreement is executed in and performed in Brazos County, Texas. 6. This agreement is subject to the Public Information Act, TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN., Chapter 552. DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTER - CENTRAL BRAZOS V, LEY Vol. Lt5 Pg 13 BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COURT ACTION FORM DEPA RTMENT Road and Bridge NUMBER 56001000 DATE OF COURT MEETING: April 12, 2011 ITEM: Request from Wickson Creek Special Utility District to construct a 34' road bore in the right of way of Elmo Weedon Road approximately 600' from its intersection with Hunters Way for placement of a 1" waterline with 1' /z" encasement pipe; to provide service to address # 4747. Site is located in Precinct 2. SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A PRESENTATION: REQUIREMENTS: • No work will be permitted between front slope and /or back slope. • All installation(s) shall be constructed in designated utility easements, if applicable. If no utility easement exists, the installation(s) shall be I) within 3-5' of and parallel to the right -of -way line and/or 2) in the case of a road bore, perpendicular to the right -of -way line. • if clearing of brush, trees and other obstruction is necessary, it shall be the Applicants responsbility to do so and to remove all cleared brush, trees etc. from county right -of -way. • Ditch line shall be compacted to 90% standard density ASTM -Test Method No. D -698; test shall be conducted by an independent geotechnical testing firm; copies of all testresults shall be furnished to the office of the Brazos County Engineer. • Construction shall be in strict conformance to the IatestTexas Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, published by the Texas Department of Transportation, and all other State and Federal laws governing utility construction. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED �j , Richard F. Vance, P.E. er Sammy Cataiena County Engineer Precinct CC2011 -020 •ommt This Request iis,Approved 0, or Denied 0, by Commissioners' Court Date: 7 /i2 Duane Peters, County Judge APR - 05 - 2011 WED 09:13 AM WICK50N CREEK UTILITY FAX No. 979 589 3275 P 003 REQUEST FOR PROPOSED INSTALLATION IN COUNTY RIGHT -OF -WAY TO THE COMMISSIONERS' COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BRAZOS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BRYAN, TEXAS 77803 Formal notice is hereby given that (applicant) Wi rx con i creek sun proposes to place a (type) watorli re within across X the right -of-way o f Weedon Road in Brazos County, Texas as follows: The location or description of the proposed installation is more fully shown by 3 copies of the drawings attached to this notice. I understand and agree that: Ranscd 1122011 1. The County Engineer must be notified 72 hours prior to the beginning of construction in order that he, or his designated inspector, may inspect the actual installation; 2. All damage to the roadways and rights -of -way will be repaired to their original condition to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; 3. Brazos County reserves the right to require Applicant to relocate or lower any such line at no cost to Brazos County, should same become necessary due to widening or lowering, or other alteration of the roadway or right -of -way; 4. Brazos County will in no way be responsible for any damage which might occur to any existing utility lines in the right -of -way; 5. The line will be constructed and maintained on the County right -of -way in accordance with the Utility Accommodation Policy which was adopted by the Texas Department of Transportation on May 29, 1989; 6. The line or lines will be constructed no less than twenty-four inches (24 ") lower than the lowest part of the drainage or bar ditch and the drainage is to be considered at least two feet (2').below the center of the roadway; 7. All sites will be barricaded during the construction period. Construction of this line will begin on or after the day of AP r x 1 20 11 APPROVED BY COMMISSIONERS' COURT: Duane Peters, County Judge Brazos County, Texas Firm :Wic]Sa on Creek BUD, i..... By: `G At Title: General Manager Address: P.O. Box 4756 Bryan,TX. 77805 Phone: 979 -589 -3030 Vol. 1 46 p l 3 vol. Na p . j37 § ;2 2 2 689 E§ 3 yg G3 el a: gQS> R G 4!§» H 2 3E RV The State of Texas, County of BRAZOS We, the undersigned, as County Commissioners within and for Brazos County, and the Honorable Duane Peters, County Judge of Brazos County, constituting the entire Commissioners' Court of Brazos County, during a regular meeting of said Court have examined the foregoing report and have caused an order to be entered upon the Minutes of the Commissioners' Court of Brazos County approving said Report as presented and submitted as true and correct by Laura Taylor Davis, Treasurer of Brazos County, as provided for in the Revised Statutes of the State of Texas. (Texas Local Government Code, 114.026) Witness my hand this / day of I&7 tC£ ,'/l u e �e...� Karen McQueen County Clerk, County of BRAZOS, State of Texas Examined and approved in open Commissioners' Court this / day of gp 2011. Duane Peters, County Judge rm au ey, Commissio Treasurer's Report for the MONTH of FEBRUARY 2011 Vol. I 't5 Pg . 13 A.D. 2011 %% Lloy d Wassermann, Commissioner Precinct #1 e t At Amy Cat. -na, Commissioner Precinct #2 a & l I 1 Kenny Mallard issioner Pre ct #3 cmc[ #4 a cr 0 3 3 3 1) S 0 a cr a 0 Vol. 0+ 5 pg. 131 TOTAL 14100 - GEN.OBUG.DEBT SVC. 9700 - COMMUNITY SUPERVISION TTL.OFACCrSJN. POOLS @.' _. _. -, 6000 - PAYROLL 9100 - HEALTH DEPARTMENT 4800 - C.O. ISSUE 2003 5000 - HEALTH & LIFE INSURANCE 14600 - EXPOSITION CENTER FUND 14500 - GEN.PERMANENT IMPV. 14400 • JUDICIAL SOFTWARE FUND 14309 - I7(PO EXPANSION 2008 14308 - JAIL EXPANSION 7007 1 3400 - D/A CRIME FUND 3500- PRIMARY ELECTION SERVICES 13202 - BRAZOS COUNTY SIU 13100 - M.P.O. RAIL STUDY 13000 - COUNTY GRANTS 1 2801 - CHAPTER 19 - STATE FUNDS 2900 - VIT INTEREST FUND 12800 - VOTER REGISTRATION 12700. - BAIL BOND BOARD FEES 12600 - D/A HOT CHECK COLLECT FEES 2401 - C0.& DISTCOURT TECHNOLOGY FUND 2500 - SPECIAL FORFEITURE FUND 12400 - JUSTICE @ PEACE - TECHNOLOGY FUND 1 1 2300 - DISTRICT CLERK MANAGEMENT RIND 2301 - DISTRICT CLERK ARCHIVAL FUND 12201 - JUSTICE COURT SECURITY FUND 1 2001 - COUNTY CLERK ARCHIVAL FUND 2200 - COURTHOUSE SECURITY FUND 12000 - COUNTY CLERK MGMT.FUND 1800 - LE05E FUND 1900 - COUNTY RECORDS MANAGEMENT 11700 - ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 1 11500 - LAW LIBRARY 11300 - UNCLAIMED FUNDS 1 1100 - HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAY 1200 - STATE LATERAL ROAD 10200 - COUNTY HEALTH ENDOWMENT FUND 1 10100 - GENERAL FUND FUND NUMBER & NAME E6'011'908 [ 1 10,779,624.08 698,006.63 CB69;026;486.85 1 600,691.99 1,470,472.44 2,239,594.47 08'STS'Zbb'ZT 1 1,979,048.93 1 6,236,975.83 E1'S00'IL I E'869'99 54540 1 (21,755.32) 300.00 121,190.34 22,169.841 77,364.13 6,178.51 1 3,157.72 31,016.59 153,997.57 1 91,184.64 5,282.65 19,009.45 1 86,806.49 180,213.15 563,941.62 1 18,706.11 I 176,021.70 8,440.00 1 324,720.96 1 296,504.50 1 1,031,220.79 56,389.67 195,353.75 1 39,285,567.36 1 CASH BALANCE 1/31/2011 t' OLZ'SLO'E1 ( 1 1,287 272.43 330,940.46 11,787,998.05 1,687,853.23 248,050.34 700,965.96 702.94 _ 2,240.03 102.31 25.77 106,566.18 295.24 308.16 I 28.08 I 77241 548.81 11.23 4,335.23 I 1,636.20 406.92 1,071.64 1 60'551'1 IS'189'TT 12301.021 9,632.23 1 3,060.00 1 9,197.31 1 1,360.09 1 14,642.68 I 20.47 70.91 1 8,607,110.77 1 INCOMING [ 264.43 '264.43 264.43 1 INVESTED TEXPOOL INTEREST - FEB 1 92,881,645.84 1 12,066,896.51 1,028,947.09 80,814,74933 1 2,288,545.22 1,718 522.78 2,940 56� 0.43 1 12,992,515.80 1 1,974251.87 1 6,239,215.86 _ 56,750.62 71,030.90 1 545.10 1 84810.86 300.00 121,485.58 1 22,478.00 I 1 77,392.21 1 1 6,255.75 1 3,706.53 31,027.82 159,332.80 1 95,820.84 5,689.57 20,081.09_1 bZ'896'L81 00'99V96 576,292.64 1 18,706.11 185,653 93 11,500 328,918.27 1 797,869.59 1 1,075,863.47 56,410.14 195,424.66 1 47,892,942.56 1 SUB -TOTAL 14,306,834.91 1 4332;803.77 tI :2E0'026'6 ?1'80'0'991 1 1,690,432.40 165,09331 641,587.09 • 1 616,861.93 1 380,785.53 1 ' 65,866.25 1 111,020.64 300.00 80.00 4,138.57 I 05E09'bZ 00'515'6 79,876.66 1 1,969.28 9,069.54 5,310.00 1 7,097.19 1 629.36 1 75,073.21 35,000.00 1 5,783,676.96 1 DISBURSED [ 78,574,810.93 7,734,092.74 762,898.37 '' 70,640,718.19 598,112.82 1,553,429.47 2,298,973.34 12,325,653.87 1,593,965.34 6,173,349.61 56,750.62 71,030.90 595.10 1 (76,209 78)1 121,485.58 22,478.00 77,392.21 1 6,255.75 3,706.53 30,947.82 154 199.23 1 95,820.84 5,689.57 20,081.09 88,973.00 163,364.74 496,365.98 1 16,736.83 176,589.39 6,190.00 321,821.08 1 297,235.23 1 1,000,790.26 56,410.14 160,924.66 1 42,109,265.60 1 CASH BALANCE 02/028/2011 1 2,344,739.31 1 - ",72,344,73931' 2,344,739.31 1 INVESTED 1 76,230,071.62 1 1 VL7 762,898.37 '- '+ 68,495,978.88: L ' Z 'Z 11'865 2,298,973.34 1 12,325,653.87 1 1 1/C596'E65'1 6,173,349.61 1 1 0 6'OEO' 1L Z 9'OSL' 95 1 545.10 1 1 (76,209.78)1 1 1 .58 21 485 22,978.00 1 77,392.21 1 6,255.75 1 3,706.53 30,947.82 154,194.23 1 I L5'689'5 bQ'028'S6 20,081.09 1 6L'b9E'E9T 00'EL6'9O 996,365.98 1 16,736.83 176,589.39 6,190.00 1 321,821.08 1 297,235.23 1 F1'0 Tb'95 96'06('000'T 160,424.66 1 39,769,526.29 1 CK.ACCT.BAL 2/28/2011 e 0 Vol. _ _-- ---- -- P g . — —_ y _.: ) r S m � O O 3 C v O y D y 2 2 O am A { P Y ruuu - r1.1ADTF0 10 - CTATF R ming NULLVW-,LtIRCI °stun uurmi 1:,;;;,_:;:1;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; I ( r1; ri4Fry 7; 1; F F ;;nn - COFFIrAl MOPFTT11QF 1 4- mn ‘ : _ ;0 Q. IlICT rnl IOT TM-INC11 (VW RIND 1 2300 - DISTRI CT CLERKMA1.1AGEMENTFUND 2301 - DISTRICT CLERK ARCHIVAL FUND - 0Inn _ 11 iCF0 ei0 OFfsfr - TFCHNIli my RINID - ......__.._ 2000 - COUNTY CLERK MGMT.FUND 2001 - COUNTY CLERK ARCHIVAL FUND 2200 - COURTHOUSE SECURITY RIND n _ 11 ICQIIM MI IRT CFI PITY RIND _ i INTINY:NNVW UaUJ0 ALPO It/J - Quo naln .001:1 1200 - STATE LATERAL ROAD 1300 - UNCLAIMED F1JNDS 1500 - LAW LIBRARY - inn niTrOKIAThir 1 FIT aFcru t rrint4 r 10100 - GENERAL FUND _ rnhI,JTV IlOal 111 RNRWIINNIFNT n 180 FtISKUAKY LUll I FUND NUMBER & NAME .„, 79,806,11033 1,470,472.44 698,006.63 .:369,026,486.85 10.779,624.08 2.239.594.47 OfFETSYWZI 1. 71,005.13 6,236,975.83 1,974,048.93 595.10 56.64E131 U6'55[16 I'EOGT'ltt 300.00 22.169.84 77.364.13 6.178.51 1 31.016.59 1 1 3.157.72 I 94,189.641 5,287.65 153.997.57 563,941.62 86,605.49 180,213.15 19,009.45 • 176.021.70 18.706.11 56,389.67 296,509.50 329,720.96 8.440.00 1.031.220.79 39,285,567.36 195.353.75 81Y0LE'SLIPEI 246,050.34 330,940.46 11,787,998.05 1,287,272.43 1 1,687,853.23 700,965.96 25.77 2,240.03 702.94 102.31 EIC995'901 Z'56 I 308.16 28.08 77.24 1 11.23 1 548.811 1,636.20 406.92 9,335.23 12,301.02 11,681.51 7,755.09 1,071.64 9,632.23 I 20.47 1,360.09 4,197.31 3,060.00 41,612.68 6607,110.77 I 70.91 264.43 264.43 INVESTED TEXPOOL INTEREST - FEB • frirstlitsets 1,718,522.78 1,028,947.09 - 80,1314,74933 12,066,896.51 I 2,288,545.22 2,940,560.13 12,942,515.80 71,030.90 6,239,215.86 1,974,751.87 545.10 56,750.62 98018 85'SBN 300.00 1 22,478.00 1 77,392.21 1 6,255.75 1 31,027.82 1 3,706.53 1 95,820,84 5,689.57 158,332.80 576,242.64 98,488.00 187,968.24 20,081.09 185,653.93 I 18,706.11 I 56,410.14 297,869.59 328,918.27 11,500.00 1,075,863.47 I 47,892,942.56 195,424.66 SUB-TOTAL 14,306,834.91 165,093.31 266,048.72 , S 9,974,031:14 4,332,803.77 1,690,432.40 641,587.09 616,861.93 65,866.25 380,786.53 111,020.69 300.00 80.00 1 4,138.57 79,876.66 1 9,515.00 • 21,603.50 9,064.54 1 1,969.28 1 629.36 7,097.19 5,310.00 75,073.21 I 00000 1 96'969 DISBURSED fa:= 1,553,429.47 762,89837 70,840,718.19 7,734,092.79 1 598,112.82 2,298,973.34 1 12,325,653.87 71,030.90 6,173,349.61 1 593 965.34 545.10 56,750.62 (B2602 8558117T 1 22,978.00 77,392.21 1 6,255.75 30,997.82 3,706.53 1 95,820.89 1 5,689.57 154,194.23 60100 61 0001689 I 90596'966 176,589.39 I 16,736.83 I 00'061'9 solzela resEtzsz 1 1 1,000,790.26 42,109,265.60 160,924.66 CASH BALANCE 02/028/2011 11 : 11 1 1 91 9 1 2 : 344 9' : 1 3 ,3 1: 9.31 : 2,344,739.31 1C6Eet*Et INVESTED 76,230,071.62 1,553,119 762,898.37 . 68,495,978.8W 7,734,092.74 5 9 8 1 1 82A 2,298,973.34 14iLS,65.1 a/ I 3 /1,03U.W 6,173,349.61 1,593,965.34 5.9s.su 56,750.62 _ B3 ) ZL,II/tI.UU I / 7,911. .Z1 ; ; ; ;; 3,/Ub.bi 30,947.82 6,255.75 QQ,15L11.114 5,689.57 154,194.23 ;; 116,558_98 196,365.98 88,973.00 163,364.74 20,081.09 16,136.53 I 56,411/.14 297,235.23 321,821.08 6,190.00 1,001),(90./6 1 ` CKACCT.BAL_ 2/28/2011 4 Vol. 1 Pg . 1 ■ ro or o. re ra o. 3 3 3 N 0 0 cr cr ra Vol. u S Pg. 4800 - CO ISSUE 2003 [rim . MFAI rd R I IFF INn IRANCF ftm - RRA7nc Cnl INIV <R I 7801 - CHAPTER 19 - STATE FUNDS 2900 - VIT INTEREST FUND 3000 - COUNTY GRANTS a,m -M on RAII CTIInY NULLOIIUI'J]0 EiLVn WeOI I'17m - RAII MNn RnARf FFFS I9finn - NA lint CMFCK Fnl I FCT FFFS 2401 - C0.& DIST.000RT TECHNOLOGY FUND Icon. corrtel WIRFFIDIRF RIND 2300 - DISTRICT CLERK MANAGEMEN FUND 2301 - DISTRICT CLERK ARCHIVAL FUND aam - It ICTIrF AA oFeCF - TE HNIII OC,Y RIND IITnI - 1ncr ra fnl IRT CFCIIRTTY RIND 12000 - COUNTY CLERK Me MT.Fe ND o wn S Imnn - fM 'MTV RrniRnt MANAGFMENT 11570000 - LAW LIBRARY - ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION II lam - 1 FncF R INn I I 1200 - STATE LATERAL ROAD n on - uVn AIMFO R wnc 2 ...._... XV.L AJNVaT LA.`U 171U1 - UV I II UNIIi 1N1WMWN1 HI IT/J11 A./.1I IV^ - Wn^I S 1 0,M - f-FNFOAI Fl IND YtIKUAKT LULL RCM-!a FUND NUMBER & NAME 79,806,110.93 1 698,006.63 '.!69,026,486.85 10.779,624.08 1 1.470,472.94 600.691.99 2.239394.47 12.942.515.80 1 1.979,048.93 1 6.236,975.83 56,698.31 71.005.13 I 595.10 (ZE SSL'TZ) bE'061'TZT 00'00E I 22.16384 77.361.13 6,178.51 I 3,157.72 31.016.59 99 184.64 5782.65 153.997.57 19,009.45 1 563,941.62 86,806.99 180.213.15 176.021.70 1 324,720.96 8,440.00 Ir 18,706.11 56,389.67 1 296.504.50 1.031.220.79 I 195.353.75 I 39.285.567.36 13 075,27048 1 330,910.46 S 11,787,998.05 1,287,272.43 1 298,050.39 1,687,853.23 • 700,965 96 702.94 I 2,240.03 l 102 31 25.77 82'995'901 btS6Z I 308.16 I 28.08 I 77.24 I 548.81 11.23 1,636.20 406.92 9,335.23 1,071.64 12,301.02 11,681.51 7,755.09 9,632.23 I 9,197.31 3,060.00 IF r 20.47 1,360.09 44,642.68 I 70.91 1 8,607,110.77 1 264.43 264.43 INVESTED TEXPOOL INTEREST - FEB 92,881,545.84 1,028,947.09 ' 80,814,749.33 12,066,896.51 1,718,522.78 I 2,288,545.22 2,940,560.43 12,942,515.80 1 1,974,751.07 6,239,215.86 56,750.62 71,030.90 545.10 300.00 121,485.58 84,810.86 I 22,978.00 77,392.21 I 6,255.75 I 3,706.53 31,027.82 95,820.84 5,689.57 158,332.80 20,081.09 I 576,242-64 98,488.00 187,968.24 185,653.93 I 328,918.27 11,500.00 18,706.11 56,410.14. 297,864.59 1,075,863.47 1 195,424.66 97,892,942.56 I SUB -TOTAL I 14,306,834.91 266,048.72 ;.. 9,974,031.34 4,332,803.77 1 165,093.31 1 1,690,93240 641,587.09 616,861.93 1 380,786.53 1 65,866.25 300.00 111,020.64 80.00 4,138.57 79,876.66 9,515.00 24,603.50 9,064.54 7,097.19 5,310.00 1,969.28 629.36 75,073.21 I 35,000.00 5,783,676.96 DISBURSED 78,574,810.93 762,898.37 ; .70,840,718.19 7,734,092.74 1 1,553,429.47 I 598,112.82. 2,298,973.39 1 12,325,653.87 I 1,593,965.34 T366E'EL1'9 56,750.62 71,030.90 I 545.10 121,485.58 (26,209.78) 22,978.00 77,392.21 I 6,255.75 I 3,706.53 30,947.82 95,870.84 5,689.57 154,194.23 20,081.09 I 496,365.98 88,973.00 163,369.74 176,589.39 I 1 E9'9£L'91 00'061'9 B0'IZ9 TZ£ 56,410.14 297,235.23 1,000,790.26 I 160,424.66 I 42.109,265.60 I CASH BALANCE 02/028/2011 I 2,344,739 31 I . - 2,344,739.31' 2,344,739.31 I INVESTED t9TL0 0EZ'9C b1.' 601 12B'8L6'S61'89 - .:.' / rAI.R . 7R/ 1,553,429. I 598,112.82 I 2,298 973.34 12,325,653.87 1 1,593,965.34 1 I 6,173,349.61 1 56. /50.62 71,030.90 515.10 1 121,485.58 (26,209.78) 22,478.80 I 77,392.21 I I 6,255.75 I 3,706.53 30,947.82 95,820.84 5,689.57 • 154,199.23 20,051.89 I 496,365.98 88,973.00 163,369.79 176,589.39 I 321,821.08 6,190.00 16,736.83 EZ'SEZ'16Z bi '0Tb'95 1,000,790.26 I 160,424.66 I 39,764,526.29 I CKACCT.BAL. 2/28/2011 ro or o. re ra o. 3 3 3 N 0 0 cr cr ra Vol. u S Pg. Vol. 1 4 5 Pg. 143 uo kunop so 910; . HEAL THDEPARTMENT 9700 - COMMUNITY SUPERVISION ITL.OF ACCTS.1N POOL, T • , . • ' 41 00 -1 081 ic. BERT SVC. 1 . i4SOP. G.FN PFRMANFNT IMPV _ ....___ 144110 -1111111 SOFTWARF FUND 1 4109 - FYPCI FTPANSWIN 7008 CU& NU.E1NYcIXA IIV - PUL01 I 1'flfl. PRIMARY Fl K SFRV10ES .....___ 3202 - BRAZOS COUNTY SIU lonn nm. CRIMP FUND loinn _ m P0 RAU STUDY .......-.- 110r10 . rro ',Try GRANTS bonn _ WIT PIGTPFST FIND 17801 CHAPTFR RTATF RINDS . _ 1 . VOTFP PFGIGTRATION 771P1 - PAH RUUD MUM FFFS I C 2500 - SPECIAL FORFEITURE FUND 76nn unTI rnl 1 FCT FFFS 2300 - DISTRICT CLERK MANAGEMENT FUND 2301 - DISTRICT CLERK ARCHIVAL FUND 2400 - JUSTICE D1 PEACE - TECHNOLOGY FUND - rn racr MIIRT flflIWflI OGY RAID 2200 - COURTHOUSE SECURI FUND 7,01 - II IGTICF rroIRT qFnJRrrY P1180 11001 rro INTY n FRK ARCHWAI P1180 -• -- 1900 - COUNTY RECORDS MANAGEMENT wwln - rnl INTY CI FRK mamT nom Ann - FacF Fumn r NOLL111053a 3.1floSiu SALIVN84LIV - out Li - � • - h200 - STATE LATERAL ROAD 111M - I IN11 AIMFD RINDS 0100 - GENERAL FUND 1 f 0200 - COUNTY HEALTH ENDOWMENT FUND 1100- HOTFI CYCLWANCY TA% rc mmmmm AV J.). I IN.G., FUND NUMBER & NAME E6911 1,470,472.44 698,006.63 _ I 69,026,485.85 19779,524.06 66163009 /1/165 085T5'166'31 1 6.236.975.83 1 71.005.13 545.10 56.648.31 (21.755.32) 121,190.34 300.00 22.169.84 1 77.369.13 , 046.59l 6.178.51 94,184.69 5,282.65 153,99/.57 3.157.72 180,213.15 19.009.45 86.806,49 I 176,021.7 563.941.62 18,1 8.44(100 1 324,720.96 I 05'005'96Z /.968£'95 39,285,567.36 195 353.75 1.031.220.79 13,075,27948 . 1 298,050.39 330,990.96 t. 11,787,998.05 1,287,272.43 EVESII'L89'T 96'516'00Z r 702.99 1 2,240.03 1 25.77 1 10231 1 106,566.18 1 295.24 308.16 1 28.08 11.23 77.24 1,636.20 406.92 4,335.23 548.81 7,755.09 1,071.69 11,681.51 1 9,632.73 12,301.02 3,060.00 1 4,197.31 f 2097 1,360.09 8,607,110.77 70.91 44,642.68 INCOMING I 264.43 264.43 264.43 INVESTED TEXPOOL INTEREST - FEB 1 92, 1,718,522.78 1,028,947.09 F • 80914,74933 12,066,896.51 2,940,560.43 2,283,545.22 I 12,942,515.80 J 1,9/4,751.87 1 6,239,215.86 71,030.90 545.10 56,750.62 1 84,810.86 1 121,485.58 300.00 n 22,978.00 1 77,392.21 31,027.82 6,255.75 95,820.84 5,689.57 158,332130 3,706.53 187,968.24 20,081.09 98,488.00 j 185,653.93 576,292.64 18,706.11 j 11,500.00 t 328,918.27 56,410.14 297,864.59 Z5'098 991/81/56T 95'866 SUB-TOTAL 14,306,834.91 165,093.31 766,048 72 9,974,031.14 4,332,803.77 641,587.09 1,690,932.40 J 016,861.93 1 380,786.53 65,866.25 111,020.64 300.00 I 80.00 9,138.57 29,603.50 9,515.00 j 9,064.54 79,876 66 1,969.25 t 5,310 00 1 7,097.19 t 629.36 5,783,676.96 1 35,000.00 75,073.21 DISBURSED 78,574,810.93 1,553,429.47 762,898.37 '., 70,840,718.19 7,734,092.74 2,298,973.34 598,112.82 12,325,653.87 1,593,965.34 6,173,349.61 71,030.90 545.10 56,750.62 (76,709.78) 121,485.58 22,478.00 77,392.21 30,947.82 6,255.75 95,820.84 5,689.57 159,194.23 3,706.53 60160536 SLISD 88,973.00 j 176,589.39 496,365.98 16,736.83 1 6,190.00 1 321,821.08 56,410.14 297,235.23 42,109,265.60 160,424.66 1,000,790.26 CASH BALANCE 02/028/2011 2,344,739.31 2,344,739.31 2,391,739.31 INVESTED I 111111: 7 111 6 11 ,23 111 1 - 1:), 11. 0 11 7 1: 1 :111 1553,429.45 762,898.37 .68,495,978.88 7,/34,092.74 2,298,973.34 598,112.82 1 12,325,653.13/ 1 1 1,593,965.39 1 6,173,349.61 71,030.901 545.10 56,750.62 1 (26,209.75)1 11115591/121 1 22,475.00 I 1 77,392.21 30,947.82 6,255.75 95,820.54 5,689.57 159,194.23 3,706.53 163,364.741 20,081.09 88,973.00 I 8659E'966 61 16,736.53 I 6,190.00 1 321,821.08 I 56,410.14 297,235.23 39:67/6.79 160 424.66 1,000,790.26 790.26 CK.ACCT.BAL. 2/28/2011 Vol. 1 4 5 Pg. 143 uo kunop so Vol. l 1+5 Pg. 14 4 This report is submitted as true and correct to Commissioners Court 9100 - HEALTH DEPARTMENT 9700 - COMMUNI I Y SUPERVISION TTLOF ACCTS.IN POOL'_ a .. _ .. 4100 - GEN OBLIG.DEBT SVC. 5000 - HEALTH & LIFE INSURANCE 61X10 - PAYROI I CBOZ 311551 '0 3 -1/11841 467 00 - EXPOSTRON CENTER FUND 14510- CEN.PERMANENT IMP2. 144n0 - 111OICIAL SOFTWARE FUND _— 14109 - FXPO EXPANSION 2008 14108 - LAIL EXPANSION 2007 i '0n- PRIMARY ELECTION SERVICES 11400 - n/A CRIME FUND 3100 - M.P.O. RAIL STUDY 1707 - RRA7n5 COUNTY sIU S1NVN9 AINf10J - (mug 17900 - Vit INTEREST FUND 17801 - CNAPTFR 19 - STATE FUNDS 2700 - BAIL BOND BOARD FEES 7800 -VOTER REGISTRATION 17600 - ETM HOT L31ECK COLLECT FEES 12401 - CO& DIST.C TECHNOLOGY FUND un 230 - DISTRICT CLERK MANAGEMENT FUND 230 - DISTRICT CLERK ARCHIVAL FUND 7400 - JUSTICE a PEACE - TECHNOLOGY FUND 12201 - JUSTICE COURT SECURITY FUND 17700 - COIIRTHOIISE SECURI FUND 1900 - COUNTY RECORDS MANAGEMENT 2000 - COUNTY CLERK MGMT.FUND 7001 - CDtiNTY CI FRK ARCHIVAL FUND 11 500 - LEOSE FUND 1 11700- ALT ERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION 11500 - JAW LIBRARY 11100 - UNCLAIMED FUNDS 1100 - HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX 1700 - STATE LATERAL ROAD [ 0100 - GENERAL FUND 0200 - COUNTY HEALTH ENDOWMENT FUND [ FUND NUMBER & NAME 1 79,806,110.93 i 1,470,472.44 I: 6 026,486.85' 10,779,621.08 2,239,594.47 600,691.99 1 12.942,515.80 1 1,974,048.93 6,236,975.83 1 71,005.13 1 56,648.31 [ 545.10 (21.755.32) 1 121,190.34 300.00 77,364.13 22,169.84 6,178.51 I 3,157.72 '11 01fi 19 94,184.64 1 5,282.65 153,997.57 19,009.45 1 180,213.15 176,021.70 563,941.62 86,806.49 18,706.11 1 r 8,440.00 1 324,720.96 1 296,504.50 1 1,031,220.79 56,389.67 f 39,285,567.36 1 195,353.75 • CASH BALANCE 1/31/2011 1 13,075,270.48 248,050.34 330,940.46 • 11,787,998.05 1,287,272.43 700,965.96 1,687,853.23 1 702.94 1 2,240.03 1 25.77 1 102.31 1 1 295.24 28.08 I 308.16 77.24 1 548.81 11.73 1,636.20 906.92 4,335.23 1,071.64 7,755.09 1 9,632.23 12,301.02 11,681.51 3,060.00 1 9,197.31 1 1,360.09 44,642.68 20.47 8,607,110.7 70.91 INCOMING 1H15V9'IBB'6 1 E9'992 1 I ... - 1,718 5� 22.78 80, 1,028,947.09 - . - '264.43 " 814,749,33 12,066,896.51 r 2,940,560.43 2,288,545.22 .......... 264.41 INVESTED TEXPOOL INTEREST - FEB 1 12,942,515.80 1 1,974,751.87 1 6,239,215.86 1 71,030.90 1 56,750.62 595.10 r 84,810.86 r 121,485.58 300.00 77,392.21 22,478.00 6,255.75 3,706.53 31.027.82 95,820.84 5,689.57 158,332.80 20,081.09 187,968.24 185 653.93 576,242.64 98,488.00 18,706.11 1 11,500.00 1 328,918.27 1 297,864.59 1,071,863.47i 56,410.14 47,892,992.56 f 195,929.66 1 w101 1 14,306,834.91 165,093.31 266,098.72 „''. 9,974,031.14 4,332,803.77 641,587.09 1,690,932.90 1 • 616,861.93 380,786_53 1 65,866.25 111,020.69 300.00 I 4,138.57 24,60350 1 9,069.54 79,876.66 9,515.00 1,969.28 1 5,310.00 1 7,097.19 1 629.36 1 75,073.21 ` 5,783,676.96 35,000.00 DISBURSED 1 78,574,810.93 i 1,553,429.97 762,898.37 70,840,718.19 7,739,092.74 2,298,973.34 598,112.82 1 12,325,653.87 1 1,593,96534 1 6,173,349.61 1 71,030.90 1 56,750.62 [ 545.10 1 (26,209.78) 1 121,485.58 00'BL4'ZZ TZ'Z6E'LL 6,255.75 3,706.53 30,947.82 95,820.84 5,689.57 154,199.23 20,081.09 163,364,74 176,589.39 996,365.98 88,973.00 16,736.83 1 6,190.00 321,821.08 1 297,735.23 1 1 4T'O14 55 1 9706L'000'I 42,109,265.60 l 160,429.66 CASH BALANCE 02/028/2011 'I 1 Z344,739.31 1 . ; 1;: 2,344,739:31 2,341,73931 INVESTED 1 76,230,071.62 1,553,429.47 762,898.37 ' -' 68,495,978.88'. 7,734,092.74 2 290 3.34 598,11 1 12,325,653.87 1 1 1,593,965.34 1 1 6,173,349.61 1 71,030.90 1 1 56,750.62 1 515.10 1 (26,209.78)1 1 121,485.58 1 77,392.21 [ 22,478.00 - 6,255.75 1 3,706.53 30,947.82 95,820.84 5,689.57 154,194.23 20,081.09 1 163,36434 1 176,589.39 496,365.98 88,973.00 16,736.83 1 6,190.00 1 321,821.08 1 297,235.23 1 1,000,790.26 56,410.14 39,764,526.29 [ 160,424.66 CK.ACCT.BAL. 2/28/2011 Vol. l 1+5 Pg. 14 4 This report is submitted as true and correct to Commissioners Court cr o. cr • Vol.._L` Pg• ` BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BUDGET AMENDMENT(S) FOR THE 2010 -2011 BUDGET YEAR NO. 10 /11— 26.1 - 26.3 On this the 1 2th day of April 2011 at a regular meeting of the Commissioners' Court, the following members were present: A. Duane Peters, County Judge, Presiding B. Lloyd Wassermann, Commissioner, Precinct 1 C. Sammy Catalena, Commissioner, Precinct 2 D. Kenny Mallard, Commissioner, Precinct 3 E. Irma Cauley, Commissioner, Precinct 4 P. Karen McQueen, County Clerk The following proceedings were held: THAT WHEREAS, on 12" day of April 2011 the Court heard and approved a budget amendment for the 2010-201] budget year for Brazos County, Texas; and WHEREAS, expenditure is necessary due to the necessity to meet unusual and unforeseen conditions which could not be reasonably included in the original budget adopted 14 September 2010, the following amendment(s) to the original budget are hereby authorized, as described on the attached page(s). ADOPTED AND APPROVED this the 12 of April 2011. THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. By Duane Peters, County Judge Original: County Clerk's Office and Attached to the original budget Copies: County Auditor County Treasurer County Budget Officer Commissioners' Court Minutes Vol. 14 Pg. I 1 -1 p FUND DIV ACCT PROJ DRICR y ACCOUNT NAME Increase Decrease 4500 63000700 80101003 CR Bldg. Renov - Courthouse 190,380.00 63000700 60500000 DR Office Equipment 108,979.00 4500 4500 63000700 67205000 DR Network Costs 81,401.00 Capital Improvement Fund: Courthouse Renovation Project General Request to reallocate funds from the Courthouse Renovation Project for the replacement of the old telephone courthouse to the proper accounts. This represent the majority of the expenditure to replace the telephone be by the Information Technology Department. system located system. The within the installation will completed Prepared B Date,, 477/201 =1: BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BUDGET AMENDMENTS No. 10!11 - 26.1 County Judge;APprovall -; Vol. 146 Pg. i � Prepared By: =it BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BUDGET AMENDMENTS No. 10111 - 26.2 4112/2011 FUND 4309 4309 Expo Expansion Reallocation of funds for additional control panels needed in the Expo Exhibit Hall. DIV ACCT 63430900 80281000 63430900 80160000 PROJ DR/CR CR DR ACCOUNT NAME Building - Expo Expansion Equipment - Electronic Increase 1,760.00 Decrease 1,760.00 County Judge- Approva iH5 P._ vol. g Date FUND DIV ACCT PROJ DRICR _ ACCOUNT NAME Increase Decrease 0100 14000100 7)020000 CR Computer Contracts 1,150.00 0100 14000100 72155000 _ DR Computer Consulting 1,150.00 Information Technology Department Reallocation of funds to proper account. Funds will be used to upgrade Hirsch Velocity server software from version 3.0 to 3.1. BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS BUDGET AMENDMENTS No. 10/11 - 26.3 Pedosd?By County Judge App roval Vol. __ 1+5 — Pg. 141 Commissioner Court Date: April 12, 2011 Department Submitting Information: Human Resources Purpose of Submissions: Consider and Take Action on Change Requests Department Submitting Request(s) Expo IT JP Pct. 4 Juvenile Road & Bridge PERSONNEL CHANGE OF STATUS REQUESTS Employee Request Applies To Bengs, Marshall Bernal, Andrienne Bernal, Matthew Dorsey, Randrell Gonzalez, Jose Graham, Dylan Iselt, Ericka Nelson, Diana Ballard, David Benavidez, Heriberto Daily, Apollos Mable - Toliver, Kami Ramirez, Placinda Patranella, Loretta Ruemke, Curtis Vol. (� 1 50 5 Pg. Action Requested New Hire Resignation New Hire New Hire New Hire New Hire Cell Phone Allowance Reclassification Promotion Transfer w /in Dept. Promotion Transfer w /in Dept. Transfer w /in Dept. New Hire Declined Position SO — Jail Approved in Commissioners' Court: April 12, 2011: County Judge's or Commissioner's Signature: (This Copy to be attached to minutes) Vol. Benavides, Francisco Frasier, Bruce McKinney, Laketh 1 45 Pg. I51 New Hire New Hire New Hire THE STATE OF TEXAS THE COUNTY OF BRAZOS ORDER NO. I f - Do 3 BRAZOS COUNTY ORDER ADOPTING CRITERIA FOR USE IN REDISTRICTING 2011 PROCESS WHEREAS, this Commissioners Court has certain responsibilities for redistricting under federal and state law including but not limited to Amendments 14 and 15 to the United States Constitution, U.S.C.A. (West 2006) and the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 c (West 2010); Article 5, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (Vernon 2007); and Tex. Gov't Code Ann §§ 2058.001 and 2058.002 (Vernon 2008); and WHEREAS, on review of the 2010 Census data, it appears that a population imbalance exists requiring redistricting of the County's Commissioner Precincts; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the County to comply with the Voting Rights Act and with all other relevant law, including Shaw v. Reno jurisprudence; and WHEREAS, a set of established redistricting criteria will serve as a framework to guide the County in the consideration of districting plans; and WHEREAS, established criteria will provide the County a means by which to evaluate and measure proposed plans; and WHEREAS, redistricting criteria will assist the County in its efforts to comply with all applicable federal and state laws; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED, that the County, in its adoption of a redistricting plan for Commissioner Precincts, will adhere to the following criteria to the greatest extent possible when drawing district boundaries. 1. Where possible, easily identifiable geographic boundaries should be followed. 2. Communities of interest should be maintained in a single precinct, where possible, and attempts should be made to avoid splitting neighborhoods. 3. To the extent possible, commissioner precincts should be composed of whole election (voting) precincts. Where this is not possible or practicable, commissioner precincts should be drawn in a way that permits the creation of practical voting precincts and that ensures that adequate facilities for polling places exist in each voting precinct. 00512377;2' 00512377;1 Vol. 114 p i5 ti 4. Although it is recognized that existing commissioner precincts will have to be altered to reflect new population distribution, any districting plan should, to the extent possible, be based on existing commissioner precincts. 5. Commissioner precincts must be configured so that they are relatively equal in total population according to the 2010 federal census. In no event should the total deviation between the largest and the smallest commissioner precinct exceed ten percent. 6. Commissioner precincts should be compact and composed of contiguous territory. Compactness may contain a functional, as well as a geographical dimension. 7. Consideration may be given to the preservation of incumbent- constituency relations by recognition of the residence of incumbents and their history in representing certain areas. 8. The plan should be narrowly tailored to avoid retrogression in the position of racial minorities and language minorities as defined in the Voting Rights Act with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. 9. The plan should not fragment a geographically compact minority community or pack minority voters in the presence of polarized voting so as to create liability under section 2 of' the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. The Commissioners Court will review all plans in light of these criteria and will evaluate how well each plan conforms to the criteria. Any plan submitted by a citizen to the Commissioners Court for its consideration should be a complete plan —i.e., it should show the full number of commissioner precincts and should redistrict the entire county; must show all precinct boundaries in detail sufficient to permit the County to reproduce the proposed plan accurately; and also report the total population and voting age population for Hispanics, non- Hispanic Blacks, non - Hispanic Asians, and non - Hispanic Anglo /other for each proposed precinct, based on 2010 Census data. The County Commissioners Court may decline to consider any plan that is not a complete plan with sufficient geographic and population detail. All plans submitted by citizens, as well as plans submitted by staff, consultants, and members of the Commissioners Court, should conform to these criteria. 00512377;2 00512377;1 vo t 4 6 Pg. ti 53 BE IT SO ORDERED. Adopted on this /Zl day of4, 2011. BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS ATTEST: ix`` Karen McQueen, County Clerk 00512377;2 00512377;1 Duane Peters, County Judge Voi. ,l' Pg t-514 THE STATE OF TEXAS THE COUNTY OF BRAZOS ORDER NO. 11'004 GUIDELINES FOR PERSONS SUBMITTING SPECIFIC REDISTRICTING PROPOSALS AND PROVIDING COMMENTS WHEREAS, this Commissioners Court has certain responsibilities for redistricting under federal and state law including but not limited to Amendments 14 and 15 to the United States Constitution, U.S.C.A. (West 2006) and the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973e (West 2010); Article 5, Section 18 of the Texas Constitution (Vernon 2007); and Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 2058.001 and 2058.002 (Vernon 2008); and WHEREAS, it is necessary to provide for the orderly consideration and evaluation of redistricting plans which may come before the Court; and WHEREAS, these guidelines relate to persons who have specific redistricting plans they wish the Court to consider; and WHEREAS, the Court welcomes any comments relevant to the redistricting process; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to make sure that any plan that might be submitted is of maximum assistance to the Court in its decision making process, the Court hereby sets the following guidelines to be followed by each person submitting a redistricting plan for consideration: 1. Proposed plans must be submitted in writing and be legible. If a plan is submitted orally, there is significant opportunity for misunderstanding, and it is possible that errors may be made in analyzing it. The Court wants to be sure that all proposals are fully and accurately considered. 2. Any plan must show each proposed precinct boundary in sufficient detail to clearly identify all boundary elements of the precincts being proposed, and also state the total population and voting age population for each of these groups: Hispanics, non - Hispanic Blacks, non - Hispanic Asians, and non - Hispanic Anglo /other for each proposed precinct based on the 2010 Census data. If a plan is submitted without a population breakdown, the Court may not have sufficient information to give it hill consideration. 00512378;2 00512378;1 vot. t 45 p I 5,5 BE IT SO ORDERED. Adopted on this /Z- day of n , 2011. Al 1EST: 3. Plans should redistrict the entire county. The Court, of course, will be considering the effect of any plan on the entire County. The Court is also subject to the Voting Rights Act, which protects various racial and language minorities. Thus, as a matter of federal law, the Court will be required to consider the effect of any proposal on multiple racial and ethnic groups. If a plan does not redistrict the entire county, it may be impossible for the Court to assess its impact on one or more protected minority groups. 4. Plans should conform to the criteria the Court will be using in drawing the commissioner precincts. 5. Comments must be submitted in writing and be legible, even if the person also makes the comments orally at a public hearing. 6. Persons providing comments and those submitting proposed plans must identify themselves by full name and home address and provide a phone number and, if available, an email address. The Court may wish to follow up on such comments or obtain additional information about submitted plans. 7. All comments and proposed plans must be submitted to the Commissioners Court by no later than the close of the public hearing. Lloyd Duane Peters, County Ju.ge a / sse . ann, C ssioner, Precinct 1 ::ti* y Ca . a, Commissioner, Precinct 2 11 au Co ct 3 _cur Si*/ .: *! - _. ..� . � , .� .sio . ecinct 4 ey, 00512378;2 00512378;1 Vol. ('�'5 P I 6 aren McQueen, County Clerk 00512378;2 00512378;1 Vol. I 45 Pg. 157 OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION TO: Honorable Duane Peters County Judge, FROM: Jim Lehman Collections Pr DATE: March 7, 2011 205 WEST 14 STREET, SURE 500 • TOM C. CLARK B4ALDiNO • (512) 453.1625 • FAX (512)483 -1848 P. O. Box 12055, CAPrroL STATION • AUSn8, TEXAS 78711 -2055 � . sote.tx.us 5 Vol. I 5 Pg. CARL REYNOLDS Adminhtratle Dtrsdor RE: Collection Improvement Program Implementation Article 18.0033 Code of Criminal Procedure required your County to develop and Implement a Collection Improvement Program on or before April 1, 2006. The primary purpose of the program is to improve the collection of court costs, fees, and fines imposed in criminal cases. The law requires our agency to assist your County in implementing a program by providing training and consultation. Karolyn Williams, our regional collection specialist assigned to your County, reviewed your implementation plan, consulted with appropriate officials and staff made site visits, provided training, and answered questions to fulfill our agency's responsibilities. Article 103.0033 Code of Criminal Procedure also requires the Comptroller of Public Accounts (CPA) to conduct periodic audits to confirm that your County is conforming to the requirements relating to the program. In en audit d the CPA was found to be out of compliance. As part of our responsw rlity to assist yo co mpliance efforts, we have re- evaluated the status of the County's implementation. In our opinion, Brazos County should now meet the requirements of the Collection Improvement Program. A copy of our evaluation in t •,.a of an unofficial compliance walk- throu_h is enclosed indicating compliance or non -comp ance :r each of the eleven en r T7 •mponents o e program. It is our opinion that if the County continues to follows the recommendations outlined in the evaluation it should be in full compliance. Please note, only the CPA thmutth an audit can confinn compliance of the Collection Improvement Program. If your County is not in compliance, it could continue to forfeit certain fees it would ordinarily be able to retain. The CPA will require Brazos County to provide a detailed, monthly report fisting all adjudicated cases where the defendant does not pay in full on the date court costs, fees, and fines are assessed including those with payment plans. Your County should begin maintaining this report no later than the date of this notification and have it available for all periods prior to completion of the reinstatement compliance audit. OCA wants your program to succeed. Please contact Karolyn Williams at 713 - 755 -5397, email: [Carolyn. WilliamsQatxcourts.gov or me at 512- 936-0991, email: Jim.l.,ehman®txcourtA.gov if we can be of assistance. cc: Tanya Skinner, Collections Manager Julie Farney Walter, Audit Trainer, Comptroller of Public Accounts Component Compliant Comments 1. Dedicated Staff Yes ►II No 2. Pay Plan Compliance Monitor Yes 0 No 3. Seriously Delinquent Cases . Yes r No 4. Reporting Yes ► .I No 5. Application/Contact Info Yes ►5 Partial , No 6. Verification of Contact Info Yes ►a Partial No 7. Interview Yes ►0 Partial — No 8. Payment Terms Yes ►1 Partial a> , .■ No 9. Phone Contact Yes % Partial No 10. Mail Contact Yes ► ...A Partial . No 11. Capias Pro Fine Notice Yes 0 Partial ❑ No ❑ Report Date: 03/03/11 Region: Houston Regional Collections Specialist: Karolyn D. Williams Date of Walls- through: 02/25/11 Location: Bryan, Texas Court: 85th, 361st & 272nd District Courts; County Court at Law #1 and #2; JP 1, JP 2-1, JP 2-2, JP 3 & JP 4 Contact: Tanya Sldnner Other OCA Participants: Overview Your Regional Collections Specialist conducted a compliance walk- through on the date given above. The purpose of this unofficial compliance walk - through is to prepare you for the actual audit which will be conducted by the State Comptroller's Office at a future date in accordance with Criminal Code of Procedure Article 103.0033. Our findings and recommendations follow below. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us. Critical Component Review Compliance Walk - through Report Summary of Findings Brazos County has a centralized Collection Improvement Program that processes court collections from all of the criminal courts in the county. Based on data from cases sampled during the review period, the Department appears to be in compliance with all critical components of the Collections Improvement Program. Recommendations The program is encouraged to vigilantly continue monitoring and evaluating its processes to ensure acceptable compliance levels are achieved and maintained. OCA staff will continue to provide guidance and assistance as required. Compliance WT Program Report Poen Vol. i45 P 5 9 4/16/09 To the Comptroller Compliance Walk - through Report Population samples for this review were acquired randomly by report process from !PLOW. It is recommended the CPA acquire its sample population by report process from IT. Compliance WT Propan Report Fenn 4/16/09 Vol. 1 5 P I (go 1 COLLECTION PROGRAM SURVEY I Name of City or County: Brazos Taxpayer Number: Date of Survey: 2126/11 Auditor: Program, Department or Court: Brazos County Collections List all courts handled by a particular program or department 85 381e & 272 District Courts: County Court at Law #1 and #2: JP 1..1P 2 -1, JP 2 -2, JP 3 & JP 4 List any courts listed above that are not participating: Individual answering (Collections Supervising Official) Name(s) and Title(s): Tanya Skinner General Instructions 1. A separate "Collection Program Survey' Is needed for each collection department or court. A city will have only 1 survey. A county may have more than one survey form. For example, if a county has a separate collection department for all justice courts, another department for county courts, and another department for district courts, there will be 3 separate surveys. 2. Questions 1 - 4 relate to local program operations. For a city, all 4 requirements must be met to be In compliance. For a county, all 4 requirements must be met for either 90% of AR criminal courts in the county, or all courts except one court, whichever is greater. If the city or county does not meet these 4 critical components, the auditor will ask only the "a' part of the remaining questions 5 -11 and not pull any cases to examine. 3. Questions 5 -11 relate to defendant communications. If, and only if, the city or county has met compliance for the 4 components related to local program operations, the auditor will select, initially, 30 cases for each court or collection department to measure compliance for the 7 components related to defendant communications. The "a.' part of the survey will be completed by questioning the court/department administrator responsible for the program. Lithe factual evidence will be obtained for its completion. The .*:".00 will lnducletg Full text governing the Collection Improvement Program is 1 TAG §§ 175.1 through 175.7 and ArL 103.0033, Code of Criminal Procedure. Collection Program Survey 01/30/09 Page 1 of 7 Vol. l 4 5 Pg. ( l-e DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS: When the defendant cannot pay the court costs, fees, and fines in full at the time of assessment (sentencing or judgment imposed date), what happens? All defendants report to the collections department to schedule an installment 13 . Is the process the same for each court or judge? E4 Yes al No - Explain: Who is responsible for collection of court costs, fees, and fines? (Do not Include collection of paid-In-full payments.) Comments N Collection/ Compliance Dept. Receipts money for everyone fl CSCD County Clerk District Clerk ij Justice Court Municipal Court Comments: Dedicated Staff 1. Is there a minimum of one staff person in this court/department whose priority job function is collection activities? (The priority collections Job function may be concentrated in one individual employee or distributed among two or more employees. The collection function need not require 40 hours per week of FTE time, but must be a priority.) a. El Yes D No - Comment: Who is responsible or who is your collection person? Tanva Skinner What is his/her title? Collections Director • 61*re: 030$:0046 - SC' a1 • 1:1,:es;lior‘ JMO itkfl - ,t10: '• • "•.ortteiliiirterti 0140 Otta.Zetqtrli MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS: What Case Management software do you use? TSG What Collection Software do you use? I-Plow Collection Program Survey 01/30/09 Page 2 of 7 VOL 1 5 Pg. I 1.02N Payment Plan Compliance Monitor 2. Is collection/compliance staff person(s) assigned to monitor compliance with payment agreements? a. Z Yes ❑ No Who does this? The staff consists of 5 people Is it in their job description or can staff verbalize their collection tasks/duties? Z Yes ❑ No How is this done? Pally Report system in IPLOW How is it documented? in the system is tltielre all c,pdated pay nent date list tar a:rneiin et eiectrvn'c tickler system? (Auditor verified documentMion°o H. list tickler systtem, ar comptrta t' ritefl*. met? 121 ; ed aocumpntatl past due Seriously Delinquent Cases 3. Does the court/department have a component designed to improve collection of balances more than 60 days past due? a. Z Yes Describe the component(s): Capin Pro Fines are issued and delinquent cases are sent to MVBA private collection firm . Where is it documented? In TSG and in IPLOW. ❑ No b. le a documented process/component designed to improve; collection of ;`` balances more than BO days past 4,4017..: Y Criteria met? 2 Yes : [ 'No Cem neat; Collection Program Survey 01!30/19 Reportin g 4. Is this court/department reporting in the approved format to the Office of Court Administration updated information regarding the collection activity? a. ® Yes - Reporting Monthly by the 20 of the next month Li Reporting Annually Who does the entry? ❑ No Page 3 or 7 Vol I j+ 5 Pg. I (03 5. If a imposed contact a. defendant Is unable to pay in full on the day of assessment (sentencing or judgment date), is an application used to determine a defendant's ability to pay or is current information obtained? Yes ❑ No - Comment: Is the application/contact info taken: Does the application/contact information 0 Immediately ❑ 2 -5 days 6 days -1 mo. include? Item Yes No Q a 0_ — U 06 r •- O c Cw 0 00 c•• m c+- Home address ►�I Home phone number or primary contact phone number 0 Employer's or source of support's Name ►�� Address ►0 Phone number 0 10 Personal references (at least 2) ►1 Signature or acknowledgement and date ►�� Financial institutions and account balances ❑ N/A ►1 Creditors, debt balances and payment amounts ❑ N/A ►0 Stated Income • N/A ► 3 ti } rti ,� '� ti a R.7 f rrM r}''i.$ t'Sz "r "lr.. �. ? , ? f t v �, . sl�i� ,n,,N.,L.4.:..y, t izo:toi t ,JA:,,„:.::il r ul ®^ 014 A S' iB Ida(te mOTlth �$ Q ' fG) a n ;ct# ,i k y � x , <:• -.:: .4 A ach a Copy of ' � o // `t Criteria "me Yes , ? 0 N o! t omrnbbt., JP% t 1,q days tc report CoUecOon Program Survey 01190109 Appllcation!Contact Info Verification of Contact Information B. Is the contact information verified? a. ® Yes ❑ No - Comment: Is the verification generally done:® Immediately ❑ 2 -5 days ❑ More than 5 days Who conducts this verification? The clerk processlna the application completes this function. Is the home or contact phone verified? ® Yes ❑ No Is employment or source of support verified? ® Yes ❑ No How is it done? Phone call How is the verification documented? Clerk signs the application Ind'catino verification is complete. Vol. Page 4 of 7 I 45 pg. IIP y 7. Does the court/department defendant either to review or to review the terms of a. ►Z2 Yes ❑ No Review is done: ►■ Who conducts the review? conduct an In- person or telephone interview with the the application and determine an appropriate payment plan the judge - imposed payment plan? Immediately ❑ 2 -5 days ❑ 6-14 days The clerk processing the application completes this function. How is It done? Face to face Is each Interview /review documented? ■. Yes - Where? ❑ No b y�'i 8OAb y O to ►rt�j 50%10 79g -90.0... 3'fan 5D o • Is datte (within 1 iVit f cal t 'o f epp'1lbaticifi,) nd4 Warne of ii e . E._ # ' S f k z i .s C7 w4 S j 4 � } � U � . 4 Y+ I `' /� $p Vrt' � 's 'Sta - ; ..S7YS#A Y y ° L` Y e 5 Y p% iSvl�.l� i Ai,� � v�, ".� s� �S } a Qa' $. � ♦ ..; ' �F( - ' 1 h YY h �a" Collection Program Survey 01/303DS Vol. Interview Page 5 of 7 145 P 165 8. Payment plans should require the highest payment amounts in the shortest period of time that the defendant can successfully make, considering the amount owed, the defendant's ability to pay, and the defendants obligations for payment of any other court- mandated fees, including child support, victim restitution, and fees for drug testing, rehabilitation programs, or community supervision. a. Describe what happens if I were to go to court and am unable to pay in full: Probation cases are scheduled to be paid prior to termination. Most plans are set at 3100 a month. Who sets the payment terms? The clerk processing the application completes this function. How is the payment plan determined? The Judge approved departmental plan dictates the payment plans. Y : injudicI l`:discretit n tf: •judgedoes set:m terms ?tie tiine4requireme s are a follows: 1J iittuniclpal are Justice Court; Cases: Do the payment plans pr for ftili<payrrient within four (4) months of ttie assessment date? {2). bounty and District Court (a) Defend p he paynis „Anew regtiireM for paytnen . Tans set by a jud IiriF �; orll. Paynient Terms Criteria Mere g. Yes .❑ ❑ Flo oomthen ., Colkdbn Program suttsy 01/301D9 Payment Terms Phone Contact �l c �8esstfi*it.4atet 0.01 ayrflrrnt, ri3:t�.96rto 100% 9. Is a phone call made to the defendant when a payment is not paid on the due date? a. ® Yes - ❑ Immediately ® 2 -5 days ❑ 6 days - 1 month ❑ No Who does this? IPLOW How is it done? Via an automated dialer Is there a record made of these phone calls? ® Yes - Where? In the due diligence section of the case. ❑ No Phones oo tit Page 6 of7 Vol. I 4 5 pg. 1 to Le Mall Contact 10. Is a written delinquency notice sent to the defendant when a payment is not paid on the due date? a. ® Yes - ®1 -5 days ❑ 8-15 days ❑ 18 days - 1 month ❑ No Who does this? JPLOW How is it done? Postcard 1 is generated and maile4 Is there a record made of these notices? ® Yes - Where? In the due diligence section of the case. ❑ No Caplet' Pro Fine Notice 11.1s a capias pro fine sought? a. ❑ No - Justice Courts ❑ No - County Courts ❑ No - District Courts ® Yes - Is either a pre- or post - capias pro fine phone call made or written notice sent to the defendant In addition to the efforts as detailed in Items 9 and 10 when the defendant fails to respond to those efforts? Notice Sent - ® 1 -15 days ❑ 18 days - 1 month ❑ Over 1 month Who does this? (PLOW How is it done? postcard 2 advises defendant of possible issuance of a warrant and it js generated and mailed. Is there a record made of these notices? ® Yes - Where? in the due diligence section of the case. ❑ No CaPFBS prd e aorJe it past -due' pa yments yvlEhirl one' rrrprtt of hbn /frail notice in items ;9 and 10 (w haver is Ja Attach a copy of the notice ff a notice is sent CNterle`met ante., Partial : []filt► ppltfletlt ;,; Collection Program survey 01/30roe Page 7 of 7 Vol.. 14 5 pg. 11.1 1 1 Vol. i Lk 5 Pg. s 2 B 4 O 4 mantmettuiwu a q: a as 4S szt» r 36mvo a. - 2 1 34 ! i 11 it8 r 1 8MIij !! s P ! P4 I , 11111111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 00 O 0 90 O O 00 O O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 000 O O O O O in O O b ill O 18111111 .... 0 b 0 /1 0 o s 0 11 00 11 .0 1111 0000 g 0 00000 ill siiii 0 0 0 ..0 9 11 1 II 11 1/1 a it Mi ua404Itr 88 I me u4 ;ao. w atumm mm.l J% 888888 88 8 88 8s 8888 8 88$8 8g8i8if 1 Cams lina NA isms Pertenbrie f EMCEE! CC ! [[ CM !! ;i C [; ; ;L C ;C;;y 4 ' i Y• Mail !b 8 it sl 111 s Will W ' Y 0 $ O O a (444(((4 44 t 44 44 4444 4 44444 4444411 FSS.g 188coN OOZE 44444((4 44 4 44 44 4444 4 (4444 4444411; 1agbP8 44444444 44 4 44 K4 44(4 4 44444 444441/ � / 9 aaeea 44444444 44 4 44 (4 4444 4 44444 44444 i j pm VI 3 3^ MN RS3 S l4 0 0 43 44 eao g a g o 444 99999999 99 O 99 99 9999 V 99999 99999;y . BB 6 444(44(4 44 4 44 44 444( 4 44444 44444117 L ai � i fftttftt tt 4 44 44 4444 ( tfft4 4444 41 L SO: gi_ 1 18 Ym i i F ��`"' ffftfftt s XS1Q/, E - (p! $ sQ A i N ! 5 p pSp Nit 6 � sat. 9 ' 1 1 �ja 00 i �(j� Q O CO 0 tp 5 2 a t4 A Q$ Q 5 [ §� �p O N N $ a € a 4 a A e$( I GO � Ov 1 - ;'4 !! 51 !=i` 4Q$ 5 � Q$ I a N . et FI [ X y f 0 sA Q y p0O0Q ] 1111 NN[JN §! q . ! RT 4444 S C 6 .' �j � Q . Z r � Q �Q 4 t R ; 5 4 00���0 {y� O .4 $ 5 fffft � 1aYaR Q� S j a C � G .. � 5 NN E a �($rt qq d e f A' RRRR� a[i�f+ :b'�5 k p $,u' 1 R 5 r Ji s 1 ii 1 1 Vol. i Lk 5 Pg. s 2 B 4 O 4 Search - 19 Results - mill ican and corporate http: / /www.lexis.com/research/ retrieve ?_m= be6dba53db12e424f49b... • 2006 Tex. AG LEXIS 96, * OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Opinion No. GA -0483 2006 Tex. AG LEXIS 96 November 21, 2006 CORE TERMS: municipality, general -law, special law, vacant, special -law, incorporation, general law, dissolved, effective, municipal offices, municipal, charter, reincorporated, dissolve, nonuse, elect, municipal office, corporate status, special act, reincorporate, dissolution, inhabitants, election, inform, void, authorizes, See Act, visited SYLLABUS: [ *1] Whether the City of Millican has been dissolved (RQ- 0456 -GA) REQUESTBY: The Honorable Jim Kuboviak Brazos County Attorney Brazos County Courthouse 300 East 26th Street, Suite 325 Bryan, Texas 77803 OPINIONBY: GREG ABBOTT, Attorney General of Texas; KENT C. SULLIVAN, First Assistant Attorney General; ELLEN L. WITT, Deputy Attorney General for Legal Counsel; NANCY S. FULLER, Chair, Opinion Committee; Kymberly K. Oltrogge, Assistant Attorney General, Opinion Committee OPINION: You ask whether the City of Millican has been dissolved. n1 You indicate that Millican "has existed in Brazos County for many years by all accounts as a municipality. However, the question of Millican's corporate status has recently been raised," and you ask us to resolve the question. Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. Footnotes n1 See Letter from Honorable Jim Kuboviak, Brazos County Attorney, to Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas, at 1 (Feb. 22, 2006) (on file with the Opinion Committee, also available at http: / /www.oag.state.tx.us) [hereinafter Request Letter]. End Footnotes [ *21 Prior to 1897, article 397 of the Revised Civil Statutes provided for the filling of a vacant municipal office that could not be filled under the municipal charter or other law. In 1897 article 397 was amended to provide for the dissolution of certain municipalities with a vacant Vol. l 45 Pg. 10 1 of4 4/14/2011 3:25 PM Search - 19 Results - millican and corporate http: / /www.lexis.com/research/ retrieve ?_m= be6dba53db12e424f49b... 2 of 4 municipal office. That amendment (the "1897 Amendment ") provided as follows: [W]here [a town or city with a vacant municipal office] has been chartered by special act of the legislature and such town or city contains more than 200 and less than 5000 inhabitants and the offices of such town or city have been vacant for a period of ten years or more, such charter of said town or city shall become void and forfeited, and no election of officers in such town or city shall be had; but the inhabitants of such town or city may reincorporate under the general laws of this State relating to towns and cities in the manner as now or may hereafter be prescribed by the laws of this State. ' Act effective May 10, 1897, 25th Leg., R.S., ch. 114, § 1, 1897 Tex. Gen. Laws 1213, 1213; accord Request Letter, supra note 1, at 3 -4. The 1897 Amendment appears to have been deleted when the civil statutes were codified [ *3] in 1925. See TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. arts. 8307 -end, Final Title, § 2 (Vernon 1967) ( "Repealing clause "). Your letter suggests that Millican's inhabitants would like Brazos County to provide them with law enforcement, city street repair, and other public services, but the county is reluctant to provide county services "until the issue of the city's corporate status is determined." Request Letter, supra note 1, at 1. You therefore ask two questions: (1) Is Millican a general law municipality or a special law municipality[ ?] (2) If Millican is a special law municipality, what is the effect of the [1897 Amendment] on its corporate status[ ?] Id. at 5. We consider your questions in the order you ask them. The City of Millican, you inform us, was incorporated under general law by citizen election in 1866 with a population of 3,000. See id. at 3; CHRISTINA L. GRAY, "Millican, Texas," THE HANDBOOK OF TEXAS ONLINE, available at http: / /www.tsha.utexas.edu /handbook /online /articles /MM /h1m71.html (last visited Nov. 13, 2006). In 1871 Millican was incorporated again by a special act of the legislature. See Request [ *4] Letter, supra note 1, at 3; see Act approved Mar. 13, 1871, 12th Leg., R.S., ch. VI, 1871 Tex. Spec. Laws 1149, 1149 -52, reprinted in 6 H.P.N. GAMMEL, THE LAWS OF TEXAS 1822 -1897, at 11 -14. Several cases consider the circumstances in which a municipality that was originally incorporated under special law may reincorporate under general law. See, e.g., Largen v. State ex rel. Abney, 13 S.W. 161, 162 (Tex. 1890); Buford v. State, 10 S.W. 401, 401 -02 (Tex. 1888); Pence v. Cobb, 155 S.W. 608, 609 (Tex. Civ. App. - -EI Paso 1913, no writ). In those circumstances, the courts acknowledge that a special -law municipality may reincorporate as a general -law municipality only if the legislature allows it to; and if the legislature has not allowed it by either general or special law, the attempted general -law incorporation is ineffective. See Largen, 13 S.W. at 163; Buford, 10 S.W. at 403; Pence, 155 S.W. at 611. The converse case, where a municipality incorporated under general law is reincorporated [ *5] by special law, is rarer in judicial decisions, however. We found only a 1911 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that presented an analogous fact situation. See Ringling v. City of Hempstead, 193 F. 596 (5th Cir. 1911). In that case, the City of Hempstead had incorporated as a general -law municipality and was continued by a special act of the Legislature" in 1871. Id. at 598. The City of Hempstead subsequently, and in accordance with general law, reincorporated as a general -law municipality. Id. Unfortunately, the court did not discuss whether the special law preempted the City of Hempstead's prior general -law status. Vol. 14 5 P 170 4/14/2011 3:25 PM Search - 19 Results - mi I I ican and corporate ht tp:// www. lexis. com /research/retrieve ?_m=be6dba53db 12e424f49b... See id. Whether the City of Millican's original general -law incorporation and the subsequent special -law incorporation are irreconcilable (for example, by reason of boundaries or municipal powers), we believe the City's special -law status prevails over its general -law origins. n2 Courts recognize a reincorporation that occurs consistently with law. See Buford, 10 S.W. at 402; State v. Dunson, 9 S.W. 103, 105 (Tex. 1888). [ *6] Presuming that the special law incorporating the City of Millican was adopted in accordance with legal requirements, we must conclude that it replaced the 1866 general -law incorporation. Footnotes n2 We have not been informed whether the boundaries or powers described in the original general -law incorporation were the same as those described in the 1871 special law. See Act approved Mar. 13, 1871, 12th Leg., R.S., ch. VI, art. 1, 1871 Tex. Spec. Laws 1149, 1149 -52, reprinted in 6 H.P.N. GAMMEL, THE LAWS OF TEXAS 1822 -1897, at 11 -14. End Footnotes Because the City of Millican was a special -law municipality in 1897 when the legislature adopted the 1897 Amendment, we consider your second question: what effect the 1897 Amendment had on the City of Millican's status. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 5. A municipal corporation maybe created "only in the manner provided by law, and when created must continue until abolished in some legal method." Harness v. State, 13 S.W. 535, 537 (Tex. 1890); [ *7] see also Largen, 13 S.W. at 162 ( "The state creates [municipal] corporations for public ends, and they will and must continue until the legislature annuls or destroys them, or authorizes it to be done. ") (quoting 1 DILL. MUN. CORP. § 167). Mere "nonuse" of a municipality's corporate powers, including a failure to elect officers, is insufficient to dissolve the corporation unless some law authorizes dissolution upon nonuse. See also Dunson, 9 S.W. at 104 ( "under the great weight of authority," a failure to elect "proper officers ... does not operate a dissolution "); Pence, 155 S.W. at 611 ( "The state creates municipal corporations for public ends and purposes, and such a corporation cannot dissolve itself by nonuse of its corporate functions; mere failure or neglect to elect officers suspends the functions but does not dissolve the corporation ... [unless] dissolved by legislative enactment, or in some other mode provided by law. "). Under the 1897 Amendment, the city charter of a special -law municipality with a population of more than 200 but less than 5,000 is void if the municipal offices [ *8] have been vacant for a period of ten years or more. See Act effective May 10, 1897, 25th Leg., R.S., ch. 114, § 1, 1897 Tex. Gen. Laws 1213, 1213. The 1897 Amendment was written in such a way as to remain applicable beyond the date it first became applicable. See id. If, then, at any time while the 1897 Amendment was effective, Millican - -a special -law municipality - -had a population of more than 200 but less than 5,000 at the same time that the municipal offices had been vacant for at least ten years, Millican's charter became void and the city was dissolved. We are unable to determine whether Millican's charter was voided by operation of the 1897 Amendment prior to its deletion in 1925. You inform us that Millican's population in 1868 was 1,200, dwindling to 200 by 1940. See Request Letter, supra note 1, at 2; CHRISTINA L. GRAY, "Millican, Texas," THE HANDBOOK OF TEXAS ONLINE, available at http: / /www.tsha.utexas.edu / handbook /online /articles /MM /hIm7l.html (last visited Nov. 13, 2006). But you do not tell us what the population was at any time between 1897 and 1925, when the 1897 Amendment was effective. You also inform us that, since its initial incorporation [ *9] in 1866, Millican has elected only one mayor, although two governors subsequently appointed mayors and aldermen, Vol. ( 4 5 P ' 1 1 3 of4 4/14/2011 3:25 PM Search - 19 Results - millican and corporate htt p:// www. lexis. com/ research/retrieve ?_m= be6dba53db 12e424f49b... 4 0 4 the latest appointment apparently being made in 1871. Request Letter, supra note 1, at 3. "With these exceptions, Millican [has] had no local elections" since 1871. See id. You do not tell us, however, the date on which the municipal offices became vacant. Therefore, we cannot apply but can only state the law that if, between 1897 and 1925, the City of Millican's population was between 200 and 5,000 at the same time that the municipal offices had been vacant at least ten years, the city was dissolved under the 1897 Amendment. SUMMARY Legal Topics: For related research and practice materials, see the following legal topics: Governments > Legislation > Effect & Operation > Amendments Governments > Legislation > Special Acts Governments > Local Governments > Charters Source: Legal > States Legal - U.S. > Texas > Find Cases > TX Cases, Administrative Decisions & Attorney General Opinions, Combined W Terms: millican and corporate (Edit Search I Suggest Terms for My Search) View: Full Date/Time: Thursday, April 14, 2011 - 4:23 PM EDT In Where a municipality is incorporated under general law and then reincorporated by special law, the municipality becomes a special -law municipality. If, between 1897 and 1925, the special -law City of Millican's population was between 200 and 5,000 at the same time that the municipal offices had been vacant at least ten years, the city was dissolved under an amendment to article 397 of the Revised Civil Statutes that was effective during that same time period. About LexisNexis I Privacy Policy l Terms & Conditions I Contact Us Copyright © 2011 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. vot. 114 5 Pg. Id 4/14/2011 3:25 PM