HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/03/19 REGULAR SESSION 10:00 AM p"t 8 Op .VO` Off'
.G°
rY OF`-10r .
BRAZOS COUNTY `'4
Y±640teik,...__.
BRYAN, TEXAS
NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA
BRAZOS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF BRAZOS COUNTY WILL MEET
IN REGULAR SESSION ON MARCH 19, 2024AT 10:00AM IN THE
COMMISSIONERS COURTROOM OF THE BRAZOS COUNTY
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 200 S. TEXAS AVENUE, SUITE 106,
BRYAN, TX 77803, THE PUBLIC MAY WATCH THE MEETING LIVE
AT FACEBOOK.COM/BRAZOSCOUNTYTX
1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance
• U.S. and Texas Flag - Commissioner Konderla
2. Call for Citizen input and/or concerns
3. Presentations and/or Discussions
• Presentation of the building envelope report performed on the Brazos County
Administration Building, by Ken Burch, Managing Principal, PlanNorth Architectural
Co.
Consider and take action on agenda items: 4 -16
4. Approval of the Grant Agreement with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts for the
Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program Award IA-0000000470 -County
Attorney. This grant is the result of Senate Bill 22 during the 2023 legislative session
and is for$275,000.
5. Approval of the Grant Agreement with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts for the
Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program Award IA-0000000167 - District
Attorney. This grant is the result of Senate Bill 22 during the 2023 legislative session
and is for$275,000.
6. Approval of the Grant Agreement with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts for the
Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program Award IA-0000000100 - Sheriff's
Office. This grant is the result of Senate Bill 22 during the 2023 legislative session and
is for$500,000.
7. Approval of the Brazos County Tax Incentives Application.
8. Approval of Assignment for vendor name change from Gendron and Thibodeaux to
Gendron and Flanigan.
9. Approval of Amendment#2 and #3 to CI P#23-601 Architect Design Contract for
Brazos County Administration Building for additional design services.
• a. Amendment#2 is in the amount of$58,147.00. This amendment adds design
services for the 2nd floor buildout of the sanctuary area and chiller replacement and
deducts the remainder of consulting services for envelope consultant.ARPA revenue
replacement funds are to be used for this amendment.
• b. Amendment#3 is in the amount of$500,980.00. This amendment adds design
services for additional exterior envelope of the entire building. General capital funds
are to be used for this amendment.
Both amendments are valued at$559,127.00 and will bring the total of the design contract to
$1,426,874.00.
10. Approval of Service Contract#24-102 Cementitious Slurry with Southern Cement
Slurry, LLC.
11. Tax Refund Applications for the following:
Overpayments
• a. A&M Super Storage, Inc. -$1,115.26
• b. John & Elizabeth Raney-$5.91
12. Budget Amendments.
• FY 23/24 Budget Amendments 23.01 -23.05
13. Personnel Change of Status.
• a. Employment& Separations
• b. Personnel Action Forms
14. Payment of Claims.
15. Convene into Executive Session pursuant to Texas Government Code §551.087 for
deliberation regarding economic development negotiations.
16. Consider and possible action on Executive Session.
17. Acknowledgement of FY 2023-2024 Budget to Actuals by Fund as of March 13, 2024.
Acknowledgement of FY 2023-2024 Contingency Budget to Actuals by Fund as of
March 13, 2024.
18. Juvenile director's report on detention population.
19. Sheriff's report on inmate population.
20. Announcement of interest items and possible future agenda topics.
21. Adjourn.
PUBIC COMMENTS
Public Comment during the Commission Meeting may be for all matters,both on and off the agenda,and be limited to four
minutes per person. Persons are invited to submit comments in writing on the agenda items and/or 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 at any Regular,
Special and/or Emergency meeting of the Court shall 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 of 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;
3.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 if 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 factual inaccuracies,recite existing
policy in response to an inquiry or to ask that a matter be listed on a future agenda.See Texas Open Meetings Act Section
551.042.
INVOCATION
Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Court meeting shall be to and for the benefit of the Court.The
views or beliefs expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the Court and do not
necessarily represent the religious beliefs or views of the Court in part or as a whole.No member of the community is required to
attend or participate in the invocation and such decision will have no impact on their right to actively participate in the business
of the Court.
The Commissioners Courtroom of the Brazos County Administration Building,200 S.Texas Avenue,Suite 106, Bryan,TX 77803,
THE PUBLIC MAY WATCH THE MEETING LIVE AT FACEBOOK.COM/BRAZOS000NTYTX is wheelchair accessible. 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.
•.•. r. E o f` •.
t•,
:•* f�� *i
•
4 !
4
Y OF gSL
MINUTES
MARCH 19, 2024
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 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday,
March 19, 2024 with the following members of the Court present:
Duane Peters, County Judge, Presiding;
Steve Aldrich, Commissioner of Precinct 1;
Chuck Konderla, Commissioner of Precinct 2;
Nancy Berry, Commissioner of Precinct 3;
Wanda J. Watson, 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
• U.S. and Texas Flag - Commissioner Konderla
2. Call for Citizen input and/or concerns
There was no citizen's input.
3. Presentations and/or Discussions
• Presentation of the building envelope report performed on the Brazos County
Administration Building, by Ken Burch, Managing Principal, PlanNorth Architectural
Co.
Ken Burch with PlanNorth Architectural Company presented the Exterior Envelope
Assessment report for the Brazos County Administration building. Mr. Burch said they
focused on the North Wing and Sanctuary areas of the building and preformed two tests.
One test was a water test on the windows to see if they were failing and the other test
was a visual inspection behind the masonry. Most areas showed there is little to no
weatherproofing barrier and there is signs of deterioration. Mr. Burch stated his
recommendation is to replace the windows, gaskets, frames, add weatherproofing, and
add insulation. Commissioner Aldrich asked what the longevity of the building will be
once the remediation is complete. Mr. Burch answered a thirty to fifty year life
extension. Commissioner Aldrich then asked if there are any structural issues. Mr.
Burch stated they found some moisture issues with the slab but no foundation issues.
Commissioner Konderla asked if there is any problems with the roof. Mr. Burch said the
roof was not addressed in this scope of work but will be included in another inspection.
Commissioner Aldrich suggested that all county buildings have a similar facade going
forward. Judge Peters noted that we are fortunate to have fund balance that will allow us
to fund the project. Commissioner Aldrich then suggested using Certificates of
Obligation, Referendum debt or Debt Service as funding. Judge Peters said that Debt
Service may not be possible with the timeline restraints on the ARPA funding that will be
used for part of this project. He said it would not be prudent to switch midstream. A copy
of the report is attached.
Consider and take action on agenda items: 4 - 16
4. Approval of the Grant Agreement with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts for the
Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program Award IA-0000000470 - County
Attorney. This grant is the result of Senate Bill 22 during the 2023 legislative session
and is for$275,000.
Commissioner Aldrich commented he would like to hear from the County Attorney,
District Attorney and the Sheriff on how the funds from the grants were utilized.A copy is
attached.
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Chuck Konderla. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
5. Approval of the Grant Agreement with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts for the
Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program Award IA-0000000167 - District
Attorney. This grant is the result of Senate Bill 22 during the 2023 legislative session
and is for$275,000.
A copy is attached.
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Wanda J. Watson. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
6. Approval of the Grant Agreement with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts for the
Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program Award IA-0000000100 - Sheriff's
Office. This grant is the result of Senate Bill 22 during the 2023 legislative session and
is for$500,000.
A copy is attached.
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Chuck Konderla. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
7. Approval of the Brazos County Tax Incentives Application.
Commissioner Berry thanked Kimberly Roach for her thorough work on the application.
A copy of the Brazos County Tax Incentives Application is attached.
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Wanda J. Watson. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
8. Approval of Assignment for vendor name change from Gendron and Thibodeaux to
Gendron and Flanigan.
Attorney Lane Thibodeaux announced he is retiring from active trial work at the end of
March 2024 and has plans to provide appellate work for the Brazos County Public
Defender's Office. Mr. Thibodeaux thanked the Court for trusting him in representing
juveniles for the past 24 years. He said it has been an honor and a privilege to work with
indigent juveniles and the Juvenile Services staff. Mr. Thibodeaux then introduced
Shannon Flanigan, who will be working along side Patrick Gendron to provide
representation to juveniles. The Court expressed their thanks and appreciation to Mr.
Thibodeaux for the outstanding work he has done.
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Wanda J. Watson. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
9. Approval of Amendment#2 and #3 to CI P#23-601 Architect Design Contract for
Brazos County Administration Building for additional design services.
• a. Amendment#2 is in the amount of$58,147.00. This amendment adds design
services for the 2nd floor buildout of the sanctuary area and chiller replacement and
deducts the remainder of consulting services for envelope consultant.ARPA revenue
replacement funds are to be used for this amendment.
• b. Amendment#3 is in the amount of$500,980.00. This amendment adds design
services for additional exterior envelope of the entire building. General capital funds
are to be used for this amendment.
Both amendments are valued at$559,127.00 and will bring the total of the design contract to
$1,426,874.00.
Judge Peters noted that this item refers back to the presentation given by Mr. Burch.A
copy of the amended agreement is attached.
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Chuck Konderla. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
10. Approval of Service Contract#24-102 Cementitious Slurry with Southern Cement
Slurry, LLC.
A copy of the service contract is attached.
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Chuck Konderla. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
11. Tax Refund Applications for the following:
Overpayments
• a. A&M Super Storage, Inc. -$1,115.26
• b. John & Elizabeth Raney-$5.91
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Chuck Konderla. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
12. Budget Amendments.
• FY 23/24 Budget Amendments 23.01 -23.05
23.01 Transfer funds from Contingency to 472nd District Court.
23.02 Transfer funds from Contingency to Community Support.
23.03 Transfer funds from Contingency to Exposition Complex.
23.04 Transfer funds from Contingency to 472nd District Court.
23.05 To recognize a revenue loss to American Rescue Plan Revenue Replacement
funds.
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Chuck Konderla. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
13. Personnel Change of Status.
• a. Employment& Separations
• b. Personnel Action Forms
A copy of the Personnel Change of Status requests is attached.
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Chuck Konderla. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
14. Payment of Claims.
Claims
8201478 -8201638
9200601 -9200655
Motion:Approve, Moved by Commissioner Nancy Berry, Seconded by Commissioner
Chuck Konderla. Passed. 5-0. Ayes:Aldrich, Berry, Konderla, Peters, Watson.
15. Convene into Executive Session pursuant to Texas Government Code §551.087 for
deliberation regarding economic development negotiations.
The County Judge stated the Court would consider item 17 through 20 and then
convene into Executive Session.
Having considered the previously noted agenda items, at 10:32 a.m. the County Judge
stated that the Court would convene into Executive Session to deliberate pursuant to
Texas Government Code 551.087 as stated above.
The following individuals were asked to stay for the meeting:
Cheryl Coffman, Executive Assistant
Bruce Erratt, General Counsel
Allison Lindblade,Assistant General Counsel
Katie Conner,County Auditor
Nina Payne, Budget Officer
Kimberly Roach, Intergovernmental Liaison
16. Consider and possible action on Executive Session.
At 11:00 a.m. the County Judge announced the meeting open to the public and no action
would be taken on the Closed Executive Session.
17. Acknowledgement of FY 2023-2024 Budget to Actuals by Fund as of March 13, 2024.
Acknowledgement of FY 2023-2024 Contingency Budget to Actuals by Fund as of
March 13, 2024.
The Court acknowledged receipt of the 2023-2024 Budget to Actuals by Fund and
Contingency Fund Budget to Actuals as of March 13, 2024.
18. Juvenile director's report on detention population.
Juvenile Director Linda Ricketson reported there are 36 juveniles in the detention center,
26 are male and 10 are female, and 44 have electronic monitors.
19. Sheriff's report on inmate population.
Sheriff Wayne Dicky stated there are 785 inmates in jail, 658 are male and 126 are
female, and 43 have electronic monitors. Sheriff Dicky explained that is the normal
population increase as we approach summer. Commissioner Aldrich asked if there is
enough staff to handle the increase. Sheriff Dicky answered they currently have staff for
a population of 672, but will need to address increasing staff during budget meetings.
20. Announcement of interest items and possible future agenda topics.
Commissioner Berry asked for prayers for the families of General Joe Ramirez and
Glenn Brewer for their loss of loved ones. Commissioner Konderla expressed his
condolences to the families of Karen Meekma and former Mayor Mark Conlee on their
passing. Commissioner Watson also shared her condolences on the passing of Judge
Morris Overstreet, who was the first African American elected to a statewide office in
Texas and a former classmate at Angelo State University.
21. Adjourn.
•
*Y r I#
The foregoing minutes of the Commissioners Court Meeting held March 19, 2024, have been
examined and are approved in open Court this 9th day of April 2024, in Bryan,Brazos County,
Texas.
Duane Peters Steve Aldrich
County Judge Commissioner, Precinct 1
Chuck Konderla Nancy Ber
Commissioner, Precinct 2 Commissioner, Precinct 3
igc
Wanda J. Watson
Commissioner, Precinct 4
Attest:
TA(11
Karen McQueen
County Clerk
Pg of g
BRAZOS COUNTY
COMMISSIONER' S COURT
\01 DAY OF (0) , 20 9 -
ID : 00 A /PM, Uc\.Rc&x man
Name Organization
(PLEASE PRINT) (PLEASE PRINT)
& cr \ C hThyckfl Lvur'r
koosc . C,00vm
Iiok-ri o, .4 la iy rn . Coon--
Lakt, ( i��cr� J� -1%,
J1UCiLc -,'-i
glsti -Bobo max& .
/7-;°12- 4f/SOOW" Cowv
re-,t1 V'-(, Are, +i l-c c'v✓A� �o,
v4/\ J'c ct
/4% 2/?IY(
Li ?ci-A
ii(Nek u SS/d
IFIrrffro CP4 juq()-Q
" 1 �,� A ti e_p
Pgg- of 2
BRAZOS COUNTY
COMMISSIONER' S COURT
DAY OF f '\avch , 20
I Q : 00 lA /PM, ge3ti
Name Organization
(PLEAS PRINT (PLEASE PRINT)
CU . sititto
LA. vr.
pRs,(u,k) -olkRc_vtiksa
\<c1 Viviicti a Si vAl
P)*CIAoI �� V
/t/ q 14 St ? e-`I''
KATh-e, Moj 8;
(f71A. 1AC4\ (--1
Pg 3 of -3
BRAZOS COUNTY
COMMISSIONER' S COURT
DAY OF u-ct\ , 20 c
*PM,O! DO L) I al-
Name Name Organization
(PLE• NT) (PLEASE PRINT)
rik
6-,0+icAn Vilta-tre.ca TRAS
._
0
Exterior Envelope .
0
Assessment 4.
of the
--
i.
Brazos County — �' t �
administration 4. �`
Building .rr' "� if
200.youth 'evasAve, �.-
Bryan TX
.rv#J M
ANAL REPORT
2.19.2024 •
,,.°
d ■1
00
. : a ,
-- - -**: 6y „sr- ,:4111i . 4 ,.,, ,.iri
r ...
I , i
. ,,
_ •
4
xry
ZERO / SIX : Ilk 4
Ilik
Envelope Architecturek , i .*... .m.m.
"""""■
Zero/Six Consulting, LLC
1027 Tremont St. Galveston TX 77550 r
z6consulting.com ,rr ,. r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
ABBREVIATIONS 3
REPORT DEFINITIONS 3
PROJECT DATA 4
HISTORY 5
SITE PLAN 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8
OBSERVATIONS 9
RECOMMENDATIONS 12
PHOTOS 15
EXHIBIT A 36
EXHIBIT B 37
EXHIBIT C 38
EXHIBIT D 39
y� . t ��rb�� `r � fl�"•T"T' � fir..
G �2
�
Page 2 of 39
ZERO SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report
z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
ABBREVIATIONS
ASCE American Society Civil Eng. MV Masonry Veneer
ACM Asbestos Containing Material NRCA National Roofing Contractors As.
AVB Air Vapor Barrier PW Punched Windows
BUR Built Up Roof PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
CFMF Colf Formed Metal Framing RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe
CIP Cast In Place Concrete ROM Rough Order Magnitude
CW Curtain Wall Glazing System RTU Roof Top Unit
IBC International Building Code SF Storefront Glazing System
IECC International Energy Conservation Code SP Single Ply
MB Modified Bitumen TDI Texas Department of Insurance
MEP Mechanical Electrical Plumbing TPO Thermoplastic Polyolefin
MP Metal Panels UV Ultraviolet
WRB Weather Resistive Barrier
ZSC Zero/Six Consulting
REPORT DEFINITIONS
Stage One Facility Evaluation Report based on review of construction documents and
visual observations only.
Stage Two Facility Evaluation Report based on review of construction documents, visual
observations, and testing.
Stage Three Facility Evaluation Report based on review of construction documents, visual
observations, testing, and destructive investigations.
Service Life The period during which a building material or system can
perform as intended.
Poor Condition Vulnerable to a common wind and/or rain event. Needs
attention immediately.
Fair Condition Service life should survive 5 years with yearly inspections
and normal maintenance.
Good Condition Service life should survive 5 years with no action. Re-
inspections should occur within a minimum of 5 years.
Recovery Details Architectural details prepared to correct a design or
construction defect, or to enhance existing and/or outdated
conditions.
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 3 of 39
A z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
PROJECT DATA
Project: Brazos County Admin Client: Plan North Architects
Building
Address: 200 South Texas Ave. Contact: Ryan Key— PNA
Bryan, TX Trevor Landsdown - BC
F✓
•
A!F rt
Y� s
{ C
•
�n Y
r w
*r wMf
Construction Unknown Design Code: Unknown
Team:
Project Manager: Unknown Wind Speed: Unknown
Architect: Calhoun, Tungate & Importance Factor: Unknown
Jackson
Contractor: Unknown Exposure Cat: Unknown
Complete: 1970s Levels: 3
Building Use: Administrative High Rise: No
Storm Damage: Damages appear from Approximate SF:
building age, not storm
related
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 4 of 39
axe z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
HISTORY
The Brazos County Administrative Building was originally constructed as the First Baptist Church
of Bryan, Texas, some time before 1973. Original construction documents dated from October of
1973 show the addition of the Education Building and Fellowship Hall to the original Sanctuary.
Construction documents dated November of 1979 show the addition of the Courtyard and New
Education Building. In between the late 70s and 2007, the Church Sanctuary was demoed and
rebuilt on the south-end of the structure, along with an addition to the older education building.
Two portable buildings were placed where the original Sanctuary was once located. Construction
documents titled "A New Administrative Office Facility for Brazos County" dated June 2007 show
the removal of the portable buildings, improvements to the parking lot areas and sidewalk
enhancements, a chiller and generator housing, in addition to interior remediations through-out.
Zero/Six Consulting, LLC (ZSC) was commissioned in January of 2024 to perform a stage three
facility evaluation of the building envelope with emphasis on the north wing and sanctuary
windows (as they are planning to be replaced in the near future) and provide a written narrative
outlining findings of the assessment and recommendations of repairs. This report is that narrative,
but it alone is not an adequate vehicle to direct future remedial services. All future construction
remedial activities should be master planned and described via detailed construction documents.
t + ..
1- i ,'7":'r 7,,,,v,,,,:„..C .''''t ET.potktAtt,,*ZreN ,..,1 it ;;N:s,,,,v...p' : , \
t x -- - . ;ate `N
w
\ .,
sobww '''. i. a •rh
Yp
re A s. { ,.. r
r
+r oils a,.
ill ls, ,.. v .a +
0111111111.1111111
�Jr1 'r'. -'„ . �.
r<
_I Ti t
ZERO SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 5 of 39
z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
SITE PLAN
itlyr T
• ,w k. mot• —r--;—.... #" •:..Z+R..t.,.. ,..�._�.
!-' ., .rl 1}: f,"*- �'4a "' .,'. 1a i fi.i t j ,. -`. .. i P
wittero,
n •^. ,�, w .. -,.','!,t,. s {sue ,r '1 ,} ` „ ,i i
•
s " rr 9 1
P #...;t ---1 ..W+S a y, t'`r rX 3 tf .c .` t" u,
4
fit' �! a y it''','',; l+ rE.. .Tt
r 7 a r� .t
... A✓',if'
fri*t. „i". t t .Kp'.# •4y.S`'x i HALL
`4
t ir .$•+� j' '.... .:}' .I . +7'v^�iry
$c�M Y • x Y;4 k .�° '.:i •tyy'� '- y rX'.{FAA 7 . +
`' � r i„ ii �,t .. S, -AMA ' " � t l
'4.*.'''''' ***.I. T* t''`,.*4 **:.1:14 '
', ,5, } "wS , k ;lar ter'.: ? + • L
...r' ,; s. *' x 7'..+ y '.yam; 7xr'1 { t h •,:w' .max 4.. '" fit [SEP" _. fi
•
► n I
. I.,-
-..,.. + 'Y` 4 :s krt; S rt,.i,Y� •t. • • mx4 A ,• f :'", T ,. 1
' $' ''' ^r xw,t #•�•_ , - - � # ' '...t' `,-. . , `: ,d , t t tif':.*ri F ti:} x+ `, ,
II'" x #a 7„ v .tc tk, d " "e' -" 0�7,,t`r� yv ya '', °'i'h'" S �t
.t1."'.4y, ,' .#'., =', t?� Se�R' A' i :st.9kl.. it. 3• '
♦ '9F O,p" 4 .:f ", sY y� '' f ♦at 't .0 ,fir .'frt;
I L}I r ..a,' tee, 'i' �,,t
>rdnlftM' i i.. ['11�(r•,i""yA• ,'„.. .1„ ., ; '#{L• . , . • - 5 .,
4 .� %•ter 4 ;7 `. x'f°,.i '.°dt "` a,• !..o_,:L`.
: .yF D''c a" .4.1. Jy' 0.r T F'3' p} s Kd `_.jatt. ],
{1 ,, g„i T'� 1 i I
ii.
IC't *t j rT!' •q¢ ..ru Y@" nt '^" A3tY?.y,yf t L,u ! '� �. 1 ;Ali. h
t' T3 .'t 4„...A't�tlKF�?. .. _ . m.f... �. .'"' +-7.�.1 , "1 :` ' f f;l �'k'' __ s,t. ....r ,...
Site Plan from 1979
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 6 of 39
c.. 7� " + z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
SITE PLAN
T
STRA
A DMINIION BUILDING
BRAZOS COUNTY
TEXAS AVr€SUI:', ...- '''' „.....1.x.,;-4t4 -..i.....:....,..:,... ...:„..,*,,..,:ti...
s e
" . commissio .....:„.,...i:..,;. . ....,...,..
, ...
,... ,
,. . . ,..? --.1 .,........,..,.....:L,,,i,...,.. -...'„';'f
North Wing
' 1 '' ' ..,."f:if,•.:.4.V.,-7..., ' "°""
_..
• ''q-19.--7-1,7". North elevation
4Aniii:, N°- Sanctuary and North
z
'• f4 •• 111,,,,74,4-4 .* :''' - ., '' !: • en..,
.1_.
- : 1. , . ,,,.„,:.:--,......,,, betwe
l 1 roof)
-..;1.,..! .4.;'''., Wing(over level' ''--- - ''..0'..'-'.4.:. J., ,......, :41,:ii:Mt -- W
- i
.., .:.
_
.;i,•. . 1 .
_
1 •
• . .. •.. -
. _
4 - . . •
. . 1 area'
. , .,. . ...,..iii,'..::.,, , .,,',..:.:•-,''''''
.-..,-,,,?',,,,i,:. -
,..,
,
: ,,,..!vis
...
irN.',''',,},E'-."-N-:r4ip.4l':,vk.T:.'.kR,.•):-',Y:'74.kec
.I
*tcin..1
.. ..., ,,. Sanctuary
-s 4 -
FIRST FLOOR
----,-,,-
Current First Floor Plan
7 of 39
Page Assessment Report
ngcom
SIX
ZERO ( :., 1
e .
e:,i;;t ' e
Envelope Brazos Countyz6
cAodnmsuirilti
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a Stage Three Facility Evaluation with medium investigative intensity that has
identified sources of water infiltration into the Sanctuary and the area between the Sanctuary and
North Wing (north elevation, over the level 1 roof adjacent to the enclosed chiller and generator
area). ZSC utilized modified AAMA 501.2 (nozzle) testing to recreate water infiltration, which
indicated failing window system sealants, and compromised perimeter sealant joints. United
Restoration and Preservation (URP)was contracted under ZSC to remove and re-install masonry
for observations in areas directed by ZSC.
Testing, in addition to observations at demoed areas, revealed that in most cases there is little-
to-no sub-wall waterproofing behind the masonry veneer. Additionally, the window systems
appear to be anchored directly to the masonry veneer. The sub-wall assembly appears to either
be cold formed metal framed wall (CFMF) with 'A" gypsum board (north wing and sanctuary), or
a CMU substrate (area over low roof), all with masonry veneer. The north wing and the north
elevation were noted to have an elastomeric coating applied over the masonry veneer, with wet
glazed detailing at the level 2 storefronts along the north wing. No leaks were observed during
testing in that area. Testing on the north elevation over the low roof resulted in failures regarding
the windowsills and sill pans. At the Sanctuary, leaks were observed along the jambs.
ZSC was commissioned by Plan North Architects to perform this Stage Three Facility Evaluation,
with emphasis on the North Wing and Sanctuary, which included reviews of available existing
construction documents, observations from ground level and cursory locations where accessible
via boom-lift, and removal of veneer in key locations chosen by ZSC (performed by United
Restorations). This report serves to incorporate our opinion and subsequent recommendations
based on the aforementioned data obtained.
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 8 of 39
t z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
OBSERVATIONS
ZSC conducted an envelope assessment, with emphasis on the Sanctuary, North Wing,
and north elevation area over the level 1 roof(between Sanctuary and North Wing, see site plan).
Randomized nozzle testing was performed on selected specimens at all three locations, with
results outlined below. ZSC directed URP to demo select areas of the masonry walls in order to
observe and document our findings to aid in a window replacement and remediation plan. These
areas were patched back with the existing masonry units, mortar joints were color matched, and
the coating was re-applied (where applicable).
Initial observations showed that a portion of the North Wing; west and north elevations has a
masonry coating applied to the brick masonry walls. A bucket of the coating was stored on-site,
and it was noted that Garland Tuff Coat was applied to these areas of the exterior. The west
elevation masonry wall at the Sanctuary, along with the south and east elevations did not have a
masonry coating applied to veneer. See Photos 01-04
Nozzle Testing at Sanctuary
Forensic nozzle testing at the Sanctuary's west elevation resulted in moisture infiltration
when the jambs were directly sprayed. ZSC was granted permission to cut small "access" holes
in the interior drywall (for the purpose of utilizing a borescope)to observe the moisture leaks from
the interior side. Testing began at ground level and worked up to level 2. Six (6) out of the ten
(10) multi-level window systems were tested, and water infiltration at the jambs at ground level
was observed throughout the testing via litmus (water indication) paper and the borescope
camera. It appears that water was able to bypass the perimeter joinery through the masonry
mortar joints and/or voids in the perimeter sealant joinery and window systems. See Photos 05-
09 and Exhibit A
Masonry Demo & Observations at Sanctuary
Two areas were opened for visual observations at the Sanctuary multi-floor window
systems, at the west elevation. The first area was located adjacent to the jamb/sill interface with
the window system,and the second one located adjacent to the head/jamb interface of the window
systems. Masonry units were not removed directly next to the window systems, so as to not affect
the perimeter sealant joinery.
The first area adjacent to the sill/jamb area of the window system revealed that there is no
waterproofing (or damp-proofing) applied to the exterior sheathing. Typically, the vertical joinery
of the sheathing boards would've been detailed with a mastic or damp-proofing, none of which
was observed to be applied on the Sanctuary sub-wall. No sheet metal flashings were installed
around the window system, with the exception of a sill flashing at the base of the windows. The
sill framing member did not appear to be attached to any structure, but is cantilevered out of the
interior and likely fastened to the brick masonry. A poly vapor retarder was observed extending
up from the wall base, which is likely the extent of the base wall flashing.
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 9 of 39
, z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
OBSERVATIONS (cont.)
The second area adjacent to the head of the window system also revealed bare sheathing boards
behind the masonry wall. The vertical sheathing joinery was verified to not be detailed with any
sort of waterproofing. The head of the window system also sits proud of the interior framing, which
may be the only non-component and cladding attachment point for the system (typical).
On the exterior of the Sanctuary windows, the perimeter sealant joinery appears to be at the end
of its service life. Voids in the window system sealant detailing were also observed throughout.
Interior damage indicates that these issues have been ongoing, and leaks have been occurring
at these windows for quite some time. See Photos 10-21
It is ZSCs understanding that the sheet metal fascia and flat roof area above the Sanctuary
are planned for replacement in the near future, and therefore were not included in this
assessment. No concerns were observed related to the exterior gutter system.
Nozzle Testing at North Wing
No water infiltration was observed during the nozzle testing performed along the west
elevation level 2 punched windows at the North Wing. Four (4) of the thirteen (13) punched
windows were tested per AAMA 501.2 standards, and all passed. The existing coating and wet
seal detailing appear to be in good condition, however, ZSC noted gasketed fasteners were
installed into the weep holes of the window system. See Photos 22-24 and Exhibit B
Masonry Demo & Observations at North Wing
Two areas were opened for visual observations at a single punched window along the
west elevation of the north wing at level 2. Similar to the Sanctuary, one location was adjacent to
the jamb/sill interface of the window system, and the other was located adjacent to the head/jamb
interface. Masonry units were not removed directly next to the window systems, so as to not affect
the perimeter sealant joinery.
At the area adjacent to the sill/jamb, ZSC also observed no waterproofing applied to the exterior
sheathing boards. Similar observations were made at the head/jamb openings adjacent to the
window system, however, it was noted that a mastic or damp-proofing type of material was applied
to the shelf angle at the head of the window opening.
On the interior of the North Wing's west elevation, a portion of the interior wall was opened and
ZSC was able to verify fasteners attaching the sill framing member directly to the masonry veneer.
See Photos 25-31
Existing water damage appeared to originate from the roof level at the North Wing,
however ZSC was informed that roof has recently been replaced, and therefore was not included
in this assessment. No concerns were observed regarding the exterior gutter system.
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 10 of 39
z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
OBSERVATIONS (cont.)
Nozzle Testing at North Elevation, over low roof (between north wing and sanctuary)
Forensic nozzle testing at the level 2 punch windows resulted in moisture intrusion via the
sill portion of the operable window systems. Three (3) out of the four (4) punch windows were
tested, and two (2) of the three (3) windows tested resulted in failures at the sill. Moisture was
observed infiltrating the interior side by rolling over the backside of the sill pan. The existing wet
seal detailing appears to have compromised the windows' ability to drain moisture that enters the
system. See Photos 32-34 and Exhibit C
Masonry Demo & Observations at North Elevation, over low roof
Only one area of the masonry wall was opened up over the level 1 low roof, due to the
roofing system interface with the masonry wall adjacent to the windowsills. This area was located
adjacent to the head/jamb interface of the operable window. Masonry units were not removed
directly next to the window systems, so as to not affect the perimeter sealant joinery.
ZSC observed the sub-wall to be comprised of CMU in lieu of CFMF and gypsum exterior
sheathing. Additionally, a mastic or damp-proofing type material was observed to be applied to
the CMU substrate. It was also observed that there was little to no air space between the masonry
veneer and CMU sub-wall.
The existing masonry coating appeared to be in good condition, with the exception of the sloped
masonry beneath the sill of the windows. These areas appear to be deteriorating at a faster rate
than the vertical surfaces, potentially from cascading water during rain events.Additional cracking
was observed in the coating that was applied over the mortar joinery along the head of the
windows. The existing window sealants were observed to be in poor condition, with cracking and
deterioration observed along the sills. See Photos 35-42
ZSC noted additional general concerns related to the buildings' exterior, some of which
may be repeat items from above: See Photos 43-63 & Exhibit D
• Cracking mortar joinery, and voids in masonry and mortar joinery where building signage
was once placed.
• Failing/deteriorating masonry control joints.
• Failing/deteriorating sealant joinery at window perimeters.
• Voids/holes in glazed-in panels and window systems.
• Hollow metal doors at North Wing (inside arched entrances) have a threshold that is
recessed into the topping slab.
• Voided/deteriorated wall penetrations.
• Landscaping concealed slab edge in some areas, where weeps and/or curtain wall sill are
potentially blocked.
• Exposed wood blocking along window heads at east elevation of North Wing.
• Staining at plaster eyebrow above soffit at east elevation entrance.
• Corroded window screens and window frames along south elevation (JP-21).
• Corroded shelf angles at south elevation (west facing) exit door (sanctuary area).
• Inadequate roof termination at north elevation low roof at north wing rise-wall
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 11 of 39
r r3. `° z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based off of the existing conditions, and lack of a continuous weather resistive barrier (WRB)
protecting the building, a window replacement project should not be the extent of the project if the
goal of the project is to waterproof the building's exterior envelope.
Window replacement will merely provide a water tight square in a very leaky (with regard to air
and water infiltration) existing building envelope. The air infiltration subject is something this
report does not go in depth on, however, moisture laden air is traversing the exterior walls during
hot, humid (and sometimes cold humid) months and likely causing condensation issues that we
were not made aware of or are hidden by interior finishes.
While an elastomeric coating may provide some level of temporary protection with regard to bulk
water infiltration, the masonry weeps would remain open and allow moisture laden air into the
building through the compromised back up wall. This may be a temporary solution until recladding
the building with proper environmental separation can be budgeted for but should under no
circumstances be considered a primary solution to the existing problem.
In order to maintain the buildings service life, and mitigate the amount of future moisture intrusion,
ZSC recommends the following.
Primary Action Plan:
1. Remove all masonry veneer over CFMF wall assemblies in sections to replace exterior
sheathing, install continuous weather resistant barrier (WRB), and reinstall veneer.
Updated building codes now require the use of C.I. (continuous insulation) which must be
established in the cavity wall. This may require revisions to the lengths of relief
angles/lintels to ensure proper cavity ratio, and proper masonry bearing surface is
achieved.
2. Incorporate flashings into the aforementioned WRB system that will span between the
new WRB and new window systems. Blocking or other attachment methods at the heads,
jambs and sills should be incorporated in this phase to provide structural attachment points
for the window system. Windows cannot be attached to components and cladding.
3. Replace window systems with systems that can perform per current wind loads (ASCE 7-
16)and resist water penetration per 20% of the design loads. All systems are to be sealed
to flashing extensions from the WRB and not components or cladding.
4. Reconfigure landscaping so there is a positive slope away from the building.
5. Implement a saw-cut sheet metal reglet-type counter flashing detailing at north elevation
low roof rise-wall.
A secondary, or back-up plan is also provided. However, it should be noted that this is more of a
way to phase out the primary action plan, with an initial focus on the window perimeters, until the
budget can allow for adding sub-wall waterproofing to the remainder to the buildings' exterior. It
should also be noted that this secondary option requires the removal of masonry twice.
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 12 of 39
ar z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.)
Secondary Action Plan — Phase A:
1. North Wing (at coated veneer)
1. Remove existing windows and masonry veneer at window perimeters.
Blocking or other attachment methods at the heads,jambs, and sills should
be incorporated to provide structural attachment points for the window
systems.
2. Replace window systems with systems that can perform per current wind-
loads (ASCE 7-16) and resist water penetration per 20% of design load.
Re-install adjacent masonry veneer. Seal perimeter joints to masonry
returns, and re-coat masonry up to perimeter joint.
2. North elevation between North Wing and Sanctuary (same as above)
1. Remove existing windows and masonry veneer at window perimeters.
Blocking or other attachment methods at the heads,jambs, and sills should
be incorporated to provide structural attachment points for the window
systems.
2. Replace window systems with systems that can perform per current wind-
loads (ASCE 7-16) and resist water penetration per 20% of design load.
Re-install adjacent masonry veneer. Seal perimeter joints to masonry
returns, and re-coat masonry up to perimeter joint.
3. Sanctuary
1. Remove existing windows and masonry veneer at window perimeters.
Blocking or other attachment methods at heads,jambs, and sills should be
incorporated to provide structural attachment points for the window
systems.
2. Install a stainless-steel sheet metal out-bound rigid flashing at jambs
(tabbed onto head lintel) and sills (w/ vertical tabs turned inside of jamb
flashing). SS sheet metal flashing should be set in a full bed of sealant at
existing sheathing adjacent of rough opening (to be stripped in during
Phase B)
3. Replace window systems with systems that can perform per current wind-
loads (ASCE 7-16) and resist water penetration per 20% of design load.
Re-install adjacent masonry veneer. Seal perimeter joints to masonry
returns, and re-coat masonry up to perimeter joint.
4. Reconfigure landscaping so there is positive slope away from the building.
5. Implement a saw-cut sheet metal reglet-type counter flashing detailing at the north
elevation low roof rise-wall.
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 13 of 39
t _ .+ . z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.)
Secondary Action Plan — Phase B
1. North Wing
1. Remove masonry veneer in sections, including window perimeter joints.
Replace exterior sheathing as needed and install a weather resistant barrier
(WRB).
Updated building codes require continuous insulation in the cavity wall space,
which may require revisions to relief angle lengths and masonry ties, ensuring
that the proper air space is maintained along with adequate masonry bearing
surface.
2. Install rigid stainless-steel sheet metal flashings into the WRB system, that will
span between the WRB and the window systems.
3. Re-install masonry veneer and install perimeter joints at window systems
between window frames and flashings.
2. North elevation between North Wing and Sanctuary (same as above)
1. Remove masonry veneer in sections, including window perimeter joints.
Replace exterior sheathing as needed and install a WRB.
Updated building codes require continuous insulation in the cavity wall space,
which may require revisions to relief angle lengths and masonry ties, ensuring
that the proper air space is maintained along with adequate masonry bearing
surface.
2. Install rigid stainless-steel sheet metal flashings into the WRB system, that will
span between the WRB and the window systems.
3. Re-install masonry veneer and install perimeter joints at window systems
between window frames and flashings.
3. Sanctuary
1. Remove masonry veneer in sections. Replace exterior sheathing as needed
and install a WRB, stripping in the sheet metal flashings at the existing
sheathing.
2. Re-install masonry veneer.
End of Recommendations
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 14 of 39
dui z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
PHOTOS
7r.�:
tea,
Sanctuary Overview
Non-coated masonry veneer `'w ""x
Photo 01 . . . :=§{', .- __`
North elevation
Area between Sanctuary and North Wing ,.:
Ai
Coated masonry veneer
Metal wall panels :
met {�; ;,
Photo 02 x< } et . .. {; T I.
!► ,:,.
#
North wing overview V A
Area over low roof between sanctuary and r,F ; ; ,. r
north wing 1 linim+ Auu'w:pim�m.rlio .n.,u
Ag,.-w asM
W � a..• '
A IIIIISSZPic+�
Photo 03 ,." .""'" r=,'r., ` `�
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 15 of 39
z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
NW Corner of North Wing
non-coated masonry veneer on
elevationnorth `
coated masonry veneer on west elevation r►
r1
Photo 04
x..
Nozzle Testing ongoing at the Sanctuary
ix
f rr
Photo 05
Water activation paper activating during
nozzle testing at jambs
.171
•
Photo 06
ZERO SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 16 of 39
y • , z6consulting.com
G nv elope Architects re
•
•
Water activation paper activating during
nozzle testing at jambs
Photo 07
Borescope image of water running down
backside of masonry during nozzle testing
Photo 08 i- Cl ^4 Fr,'
Borescope image of additional masonry
saturation during nozzle testing
Photo 09 z__4-- _ Fr:
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 17 of 39
z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
Masonry demo area at Sanctuary ..
•
i:.
s
;: l[ •,
f.
1
r.
r
11:
Photo 10 r a -1: nRt�'+ ►
9 ' c �,y ` .,,' tea,"S,� "i
.1:".'
No waterproofing observed at sub-wall
Potentially poly vapor barrier extending
up from wall base - y
Photo 11 . , .'. -
Sill flashing member appears "floating" "
thru sub-wall
- .„:.1,....::::.,,,...
0 4r
Photo 12
ZERO SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 18 of 39
o z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
i
9 +
, i
Demoed area a Sanctuary near head of
window system ,
4.7
�
Lack of sub wall waterproofing on 1
sheathing boards =ix' .;,; "`
;,,,..t.,,,„:,,:;4„:,„,,,I,,,,,,,,,a,,,,,,:,,,;0,..,
}
Photo 13 ",
Non detailed vertical sheathing joinery
#7,
4.
} ,
Photo 14 _
k
4
Head of window system proud RO } ;
and exteriorsits sheathingof #' . s '
z„ '�L Rr(
i
Photo 15 i
, ....
t AI
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 19 of 39
� , ° z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
Typical windowsill condition at Sanctuary ,
' '''' l <s' ,,.3r yy'
- 06' :„ „ .4, , Rilicf*,:l,,N;:',',"4,11,
..f J `. y Ypg
is f��t r
•
• r�;;�'+'� cr' ,� "'* ."ors ���" .,+.��
t p q A ', a z
g
Photo 16 , q„ ..,, =. ,, .. ..., .„:.:. �,,
✓ t -. Yt „�Mn R.-$��yc4 1.�+`Y 2 -.F T.
'. '.
Wet seal detailing with deteriorated '' "?.i}. `
sealant joints observed ,,.--...,t `"
s '' 1
r
t.t
Photo 17 . k . •` '
-,
Voids in masonry observed adjacent to �.
window systems -`', s ��1s
° 4 .r
}
1
11
POP, e.' 170- ^ ti .
1/4
Photo 18 ,/ i` 7^ * lall '"'t
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 20 of 39
- ,; , ,n- z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
4
4
•
Failing/deteriorating sealant joinery along 1 `{- \
jambs at Sanctuary
i
r3
Photo 19 ,t,, , t i . , ,
Failing sealant joinery observed at heads
of window system
is
t _. . :1
Photo 20 ,
�' . .. .
A � x
Failing sealant joinery at window head c .44\�',
fi";`'fin• ,:: v'sw�rs 4 j` -,' .'ft,,*r;.
tit 'k `..: t •,:
r
Photo 21
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 21 of 39
w irri z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
'44
i yam, a ,v ,' .. ,:-s.'
Nozzle testing ongoing at North Wing, It p '�:
west elevation rc `' " , lviii
t0-ivic
i--.itwar il
x,.
Photo 22
ft •
Borescope utilized to check for any leaks,
none observed
r} €
a, f
tt,u: .� ;r £
,x .
Photo 23
aMw`
Interior access holes opened by ZSC ''' ' --
revealed a large amount of organic growth `; 14 +
in wall insulation
. ..
,, ,. t
,..,...t.,
ri
Photo 24 �. f .
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 22 of 39
r 7K2,17 z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
Windowsill observed anchored directly �
into masonry beneath window system
: :.
fir ".7'1
4
lit ��F�jj} w �` o
ti
b. . .� Ay".;
Photo 25 3,.- t- .
•
Removed masonry unit at North Wing ' t r.?
adjacent to jamb/sill ' _ '
x ,
f
Note the lack of waterproofing at the e
sheathing !,q -
}
t
.
� #rim f'
Photo 26
j
ZSC utilizing a borescope into the sub-wall . r �', . 4
i; d t p
110 y dd
Photo 27 h ;
`
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 23 of 39
z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
Damp-proofing type material observed
running down sub-wall from head
detailing
Photo 28 2 * 4 _ . t Rr:
•
Shelf angle at head of window appear to '
be stripped in with a mastic or damp-
•
proofing
t
racy
Photo 29 =r
�r =
Existing material appear to minimally
capture the lintel detailing �x 5
t
•
3.
Photo 30
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 24 of 39
z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
+fir
Existing material appears to stop 8-10"
above shelf angle at head of window
Viz' t
1
o
Photo 31
d f
4.
Nozzle testing ongoing at area between t , '•'
North Wing and Sanctuary(over low roof) z kw't11 # .
W1
yet•} •� .' -, 3
• w.. _. s?.t.Tom•
rowwd m-my a3aN.Y'VIW.%^• x 4pF a ., -
Photo 32
r
Moisture intrusion observed via sill pans
Jy )
r
k ;} tli Photo 33 k
l .
t : .n
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 25 of 39
t ss.w ,4, z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
It appears the wet seal detailing is ;,,k
preventing the sill pan from draining, as N'
intended 4`
' tt..
:a
Photo 34 ,, ,.
g'
Masonry demo over low roof area • a ' ,
w.E
-!o-
ZSC did not remove brick at roof level 'I-- �'^ ;;.
y. w
1
Photo 35 ,. . .
11 l.,o,,, i. H.
,,I
Existing damp-proofing type material u , -
applied over sub-wall substrate 3,,,LL �,r , Ti lit ''t_ ' '
.k
t ,
t0. �. t t �lS j I
4'
s
Photo 36 r
t t ti . , g r t,
,111
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 26 of 39
ri-n'1.1.7.1,U7,77' z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
Suball substrate appears to be CMU block
wall ��
r4 •
.r" e
Y
*
Photo 37 , " i y .,'' _: q : K`
U
F{
Perimeter and window system sealants $r ' '
observed in poor condition
r
X?�
t
t
i
Ii
l
t
Photo 38
,, , ...4... „ ,,,,,,,,..*:. - ,..:, ' - 1 .
* „„ , , :. r,. ,,,r mom` ..'"`at^ t kr'.
Cracking and signs of failing at head - -
window perimeter joinery t
t
i
t„40 .
ti
Photo 39
,,
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 27 of 39
s .. z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
01 1 i` 4k r„
{{ h
0 jj
Wet seal detailing appears at the end of .t _ ' .. `
its service life ` \I , ' ' '
eim
'.. , 3 ' \
x
Photo 40 i
to h
t':: `•i. t i.i
Numerous cracks and chips observed in `
operable window frames. c, t i
Screws were utilized to make the windows
in-operable � Y
411,,‘,2:.N.
4 - ay
Photo 41 t ', f `
a-A.fit. Z...f.4.1. _.
it
Deteriorated perimeter sealant joinery at
sill of windows
i.
4! x. .
Photo 42 ;-
r:;„ Y'9k d-r
.07
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 28 of 39
rv ' z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
Typical view of crackingalongmortar • -,.•�` _t - -s. " n
Yp
joints ' . , 1- .._
lam, -
awns
.:
MINN
Photo 43
', _. .. '
TiohNik
1r
Close-up of masonry and mortar joinery ir
cracking
r.
Photo 44
ax ' Y1 7 `== 'F ,.•;�i,<. '05�2- b.R'�. l'.x`>"{'' <'9yFj yi
joint
Void in mortaront • 4**4
iii i':. - iN `'�` i ""< }�r-,,;.?h.o tomtit`.
+1 y�.`,'A,y e`ut .'Wt.!l r .K. N.
'A
et;;:`
Y -
4
e 1 S ,f�v M7 e }„ S ; ,.... • s� 4144 n
Photo 45 " ° h »a.. .f.
41111111,.
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 29 of 39
il., z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
.N1,-'"
Deteriorating/Failing sealant control , ''. ,s'r'•"-..',,,'r:,'''_''••.-.,'...4'0 44,.,..-,,,-',-.' ;• '�,,- , 'o.r.,--.-,,,v,.._.,- ' -/-,:-..,. .,./-„.' ..."-.'..
f
joinery in masonry walls
` .J ,
\,,
Photo 46
liff
Deteriorating sealant joinery at window
systems
t " 6 �.,
k�
ip;..
Photo 47 .4- ..
f '
., . .,._
. ,,.., .
4_,_ ,
,, .. ..,. .... 4
- .,,, ,
.' - ,.,..,
Deteriorating sealant joinery at window
, ,
perimeters
Photo 48
ZERO SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 30 of 39
z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
• '
= _
, , • =
in -
,.., ..,
.'
Window perimeter sealant joinery ndpoor
ition .4
2..
. .•
\
Photo 49
All
itlf,:t,:''',;t;
Hole in glazed in panel in window system,
•
located at north wing north stair tower
1 i
EA..'
- \ •- .4,- "'..' i ' OP =
,
... -,.* . • Itt,,
, . --, 2 .1",s, It0 •• -..,
-_.''''_'''''';', ".„.113-•".... „„. ,,, .., *--....."r'...-3.1.;:,-*;:' ,I.z..",;11.- - i
, .-...00`..,..-.'••it'-•:''.:*.::- ' -,•41,4- -., ',..-f,',",,ite-.,
• •-•-•••...."--" -''''',"r4....,..f.';'' ' ,2.,,,,:-..f‘-,,,---",-.'',..-...,--;..",•:.
Photo 50 -7"'' .--,,,,-.11,-.•-,-L--/' .,.' : ",--,,":;•::::-1-11C,'..'- ,,,-- ''-
i
.,.Hole/penetration thru glazed in panels
..,.
•
41.
.....
-••
Photo 51
, . .
O / SIX Brazos Count
y
AssessmentReport z6consulting.com
Envelope ArchitectureAdmiri
tM
Sanctuary entry doors,threshold recessed . :
in topping slab ' , '
Photo 52 .* '*
IIINIIINIIIIIUIIIIIIII
MiiiiiiiNIMIIIIIIB
Missing sealant detailing between sleeve 11111.111111.1.1111111111111111111111111111111.111111111
and piping at penetration iNil w
'
Photo 53
1111111Mnift --,...„
Inadequately detailed wall penetrationam .-.-
owl__
{
•
#_. ten_.
Photo 54 •
i -:.
,,ti„. .,
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 32 of 39
^ .IX ,: z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
Masonry weeps potentially obstructed by i i , , ___ ,,...'":'i
landscaping - '
*4:, '<iller
Photo 55 '
s .
Window system sill potentially obstructed
by landscaping
. . r • *-
x
` /s '
o
Photo 56 /.`y., N...
Exposed wood blocking at window head
along east elevation
;, ,
/
x i
Photo 57 , $4' 111 _ ____ ._—.,,
Rya '
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 33 of 39
r z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
Exposed wood block head
along
ingat eastwindow elevation
—
_ -.. i ,
ry
Photo 58
i
Staining plaster beneath sheet metal
fascia at east elevation :
xu
max,
Photo 59
Corroded window systems along ' ; Y
i
elevationsouth ; �4
f v d .
'fix: - .i
t
> - ... 9 i
i. L41 t :lx� i',m JIt3S.
t Y
„, . ,- »' '£k",t, $ y. ?ice' lY�
Photo 60 i " -
» 40,.E
X
ZERO SI
Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 34 of 39
r,, , =' z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
ill..."
.0"
_,,....."'.
40 -
.
-.4,---
,•09-.0."-1 4.1'fr
Corroded shelf angle
-
„•14.,,,
511,01,
,,,44,,,,,I.-,
. .:
•„I•
. 1
: • -".,- ,- ...., :,-`",• *
....,:, ,
Is
Photo 61
'$: `...., ,'''''4.,• '-44•,',...,),S, . ../....= .. • .•
, :,,,,:.•44.Z•,..-,•-•,,v3.4. .. ••:-,..,.: ,...,),;;; ,,;
Corroded shelf angle at south elevation , „, --„,.., ,--4,41... ,4-,,,:.4t.- 4,•,, t,,,,id.,--,--
Ix
t ' '
(west facing) exit door
.... ...,,,,4-4::g-4,1477'.-ItAx.mt-,...1-Si 1-1-.•;„:'...-'- .
.,, 41.tvA,,,,4-..z.:*.,r..t.",-..••3.4 3::,,14,4,...- ' i ''' ''''''''
•' .*,
Ts 4, y
. ,
I.'"7.,.,:;:1,, '-,,,.,,. t :;4,,...,,...z.-•.r.,,,,.,:e;:-.., ' - ,
•,r1
iii„..,...'„ •'. ...,, -'1.' -
,. .
Photo 62 -. 4 i -;.
f--- I ,4.•,. 0.,•*••"'":"*"1.1*
. -
Inadequate roof termination at north L
elevation low roof(north wing rise-wall)
.- *---,
,
- ,
04,
""..
..;•.-4,....fr , -Li '''' ,, -,-..,,i-
.. ,...t.:` ,'„:,-,t-,•
dee,
':, - ' ”. ''..iV14:•I''' 8:r
: .,..;,':.•••••.',..':i•Y,..^: ',444:e.'• ',„,.•zil_1,,,..:;,ri.h,-.1 4.•••,',c ' . .•„.4,-.....'4..:
...• . ' :4».•,'"."•70'•'-'-'';;;F..,*'.‘"r„r'• **AP
•-•,.."'e•''' .-; ' I ;,;....„;;:,,,=:,.. ,, -."-
Photo 63 4;1:1;,- --S,:ee'-4,..-;?. '--.Ir• ' ;:!:,1':',-;.---',..f": ',1°!!'f''',"1:','74,;'0:1;?44.14,1ir,i
' t';..,...4-4",.?",:,-,
-,, ...,:. .,.• .,..1---,,,,,-, - .„...,a-f.;-1.'",p,t-.N.c.'4741.4i4AVI,24 10:4;d" -,
._',.. .=4. '...•." ..‘... ..,.., ig.viiel.i.;it..;::,......:.'„A":,-..--,,..:444.0.0o01-4,sm •
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 35 of 39
z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
EXHIBIT A
, , ,
i I ,,
. ., _ . -
-- x
. .__. 1
fl if
rat[ 1 5
-, . 1,, :
' .. ‘- —1---. 'i 'M
9^
m i
--�----w—f--s e IA l .I',. MQ ..,, .G3 0.-.i 350 _ 3S ! . I _D.1'If t i.._y
M r r.
,--10a.1cv1 1.41
0 WEST ELEVATION ""
Sanctuary West Elevation Testing and Demo Mark-Up
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 36 of 39
m , z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
EXHIBIT B
! Passed MMA 50 I
testing
Mw. A. -r-r w.; !Demoad Areas
r s E c . c i t f'A„.. ff
= }"y y
♦ i. i I j#i i
North Wing West Elevation Testing and Demo Mark-Up
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 37 of 39
r z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
EXHIBIT C
Masonry Demo > , ....
3
AAAMA 501.2
tes �
t ` tions
North Elevation Area Between Sanctuary and North Wing Testing and Demo Mark-Up
ZERO / SIX Brazos County Admin Assessment Report Page 38 of 39
,, : t „ z6consulting.com
Envelope Architecture
EXHIBIT D
_ _ ....
r -
..— ........
•"'
t ,
,,—......,.*,
ft TA 1411,,,,,
. .
I '.St r"
' 7*.•',7.,', i ,
.,,,,,,
"'"'2'''' Viiiso')Pi 41"," A....'"*,,Agnituit ei n
,.... .... ,
- ..... .„...t..., 1,,:i,,,,z. - ...... , ..,,.." . ,
‘,.
., :-- ''''.
,,,,,,--
v
/
4,--
..../r.....
,... (42
k
il
--".."'—' '''''"
7 ,
' yok
-
tUT1111
Ixr414$10#4
t- '
4,.; ,'
. t_t......
. .
.Ntat
Current Site Plan Mark-Up
End of Report
Page 39 of 39
i
ZERO / SIX
z6consulting.com
hltecture
lope Arc Brazos County AdminAssessment Report
En,e
DocuSign Envelope ID:4A8BAD3E-8D8B-4515-938A-69FE0CD4OAD7
GRANT AGREEMENT
For The
Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program
Award# IA-0000000470
This grant agreement("Agreement")is entered into by and between the Texas Comptroller of Public
Accounts("Comptroller")and the Office of the County Attorney of Brazos
("Grantee")located at:300 East 26th street Bryan Texas 77803 . For
purposes of this Agreement,Comptroller and Grantee are sometimes collectively referred to as the
"Parties"or individually as a"Party."
Article I.Recitals
Whereas,the 88th Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 22(S.13.22)to establish a grant program to provide
financial assistance to qualified sheriff's offices, constable's offices, and prosecutor's offices in rural
counties(the"Program");
Whereas,Comptroller has authority to implement and administer the Program and award grants to eligible
applicants pursuant to Local Government Code, Chapter 130, Subchapter Z, Sections 130.911, 130.912,
and 130.913;
Whereas,Grantee warrants that it is eligible to participate in the Program;
Whereas,Grantee certifies that it has not and will no t reduce the amount of funds provided to its sheriffs
office,constable's office or prosecutor's office,as applicable,because of an award of grant funds under this
Agreement;
Whereas,Grantee timely submitted an application for a grant;
Whereas,Comptroller has reviewed and approved Grantee's application for a grant;
Whereas,the Parties desire to set forth their mutual expectations and obligations for participation in the
Program;and
Now, therefore, in consideration of Grantee's compliance with all requirements of:this Agreement,
Comptroller awards this Agreement to the Grantee and the Parties do hereby represent,covenant,and agree
as follows:
Article II. Authority
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority granted and in compliance with the provisions of
Local Government Code,Sections 130.911, 130.912,or 130.913, as applicable.This Agreement is funded
by state funds appropriated by the State Legislature.
Article III. Grant
In consideration of the various obligations to be undertaken by Grantee, Comptroller awards Grantee the
amount of$ 275000.00 , to be disbursed to Grantee for the purposes of funding a Rural
Prosecutor's Office Salary Assistance Grant,subject to the following:
1. Grantee shall use grant funds only for the authorized uses set forth in Article V of this
Agreement,and only for the Rural Prosecutor s office Salary Assi stance Grant as
indicatedon the Grantee's application.
Grunt Agreement for Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program
CIv] #24 7762BG Page 1 of 10
UocuSign Envelope I1):4A813Au3t-81.)613-451b-9:93A-691-tu{:u4OAur
2. Grantee shall fully comply with all terms and conditions of this Agreement;the requirements '
of Local Government Code, §§ 130.911, 130.912, or 130.913, as applicable; the relevant
provisions of the Texas Grant Management Standards (TxGMS) and the State of Texas
Procurement and Contract Management Guide,or their successors,adopted in accordance with
Texas law;and all applicable state or federal statutes,rules,regulations,or guidance applicable
to the grant award, including 34 Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Part I, Chapter 16,
Subchapter D.
3. Grantee specifically assures compliance with the provisions of Appendix 6 of TxGMS
(Uniform Assurances by Local Governments)that are applicable to this Grant.
Article IV.Term
This Agreement is effective from the date signed by Comptroller("Effective Date"),after first having been
signed by Grantee, to and including an expiration date of September 30 , 2024, unless
terminated earlier in accordance with other provisions of this Agreement.
Article V. Authorized Uses of Grant Funds; Limitations
Section 1 of this Article applies only to a Rural Sheriff's Office Salary Assistance Grant,Section 2 of this
Article applies only to a Rural Constable's Office Salary Assistance Grant,Section 3 of this Article applies
only to a Rural Prosecutor's Office Salary Assistance Grant, and Section 4 of this Article applies to all
grants except as otherwise set out in Section 4.
Section 1. Rural Sheriff's Office Salary Assistance Grant(Local Government Code,§130.911)
A. Authorized Uses. Grantee may only use grant funds to cover the following costs:
1. to provide a minimum annual salary of at least:
a. $75,000 for the county sheriff(as defined by 34 TAC.§16.300(3));
b. $45,000 for each deputy sheriff (as defined by 34 TAC §16.300(4)) who performs motor
vehicle stops in the routine performance of their duties;and
c. $40,000 for each jailer (as defined by 34 TAC §16.300(2)) whose duties include the
safekeeping of prisoners and the security of a jail operated by the county; and
2. provided that each county sheriff that meets the definition in 34 TAC§ 16.300(3),and each deputy
sheriff that meets the definition in 34 TAC:§16.300(4),and county jailer that meets the definition
in 34 TAC §16.300(2) that is employed by the county sheriff receives the minimum salary
described by paragraph(1)of this section:
a. to increase the salary of a person described by paragraph(1)of this section;
b. to hire additional deputies or staff for the sheriff's office; or
c. to purchase vehicles,firearms,and safety equipment(as defined by 34 TAC§§16.300(13)and
16.300(14))for the sheriffs office.
B. Deficient Grant Funds. If Grantee does not have sufficient grant funding to fund the minimum annual
salaries required by this Section 1,Grantee may use grant funds to increase the salaries of the persons
described in this Section 1 on a pro-rata basis.
Section 2. Rural Constable's Office Salary Assistance Grant(Local Government Code,§130.912)
A. Authorized Uses. Grantee may only use grant funds as follows:
Grant Agreement for Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program
PA4D#24 7762BG Page 2 of 10
DocuSign.Envelope ID:4A8BAD3E-8D8B-4515-938A-69FEOCD40AD7
1. to provide a minimum annual salary of S45,000 to a qualified constable (as defined by 34 TAC §
16.300(10)); and
2. for each qualified constable whose salary is funded in part by the Grant,Grantee must contribute
at least 75%of the money required to meet the minimum annual salary requirement.
B. Contribution for Fiscal Year Beginning October 1,2023. If Grantee's fiscal year began October 1,
2023,Grantee's contribution shall include county funds used to pay an annual minimum salary from
October 1,2023 through the end of the grant agreement awarded for Fiscal Year 2024.
Section 3. Rural Prosecutor's Office Salary Assistance Grant(Local Government Code,§ 130.913)
A. Authorized Uses. Grantee may only use grant funds to cover the following costs:
1. to increase the salary of an assistant attorney, an investigator, or a victim assistance coordinator
(as defined by 34 TAC §16.300(14) employed at the prosecutor's office; or
2. to hire additional staff for the prosecutor's office.
Section 4. Additional Terms
A. Nonmonetary Benefits and Taxes.A minimum annual salary as described in Sections 1 and 2 of this
Article does not include any overtime compensation.A salary increase includes increases required to
bring a salary to the minimum annual salary as described by Sections 1 and 2 of this Article,and salary
increases described by Sections 1 and 3 of this Article, and will be measured based on the salary
provided on the last day of the entity's fiscal year ending in 2023,excluding any overtime.The cost of
a salary increase as described in this Article includes the increase of legally required nonmonetary
benefits and taxes for that salary. A salary increase does not include overtime and the cost of a salary
increase does not include an increase of legally required nonmonetary benefits and taxes for overtime
compensation. Grantee may only use grant funds for the legally required nonmonetary benefits and
taxes for a salary if Grantee provides the minimum annual salary required by Sections 1 and 2 of this
Article, if applicable. Grantee may not reduce a salary below a minimum salary required by Sections
1 and 2 of this Article to use grant funds for legally required nonmonetary benefits and taxes for that
salary.
B. Minimum Hourly Wage Calculation.If a person described in Sections 1 or 2 of this Article is a part-
time or hourly employee, or holds a dual office or otherwise divides work hours between a position
described in this Article and another position,the minimum annual salary required by Sections 1 or 2
of this Article may be converted to a minimum hourly wage and will apply only to the hours of work
performed for a position described in this Article as follows:
1. for an employee with a 40-hour work week,the minimum hourly wage shall be the product of:
a. the minimum annual salary described in this Article; and
b. a quotient:
i. the numerator of which is equal to the number of hours the employee normally works
performing duties for a position described in this Article each week,not to exceed 40;and
ii. the denominator of which is equal to 40; and
2. for an employee with a county adopted work period as authorized by Section 7(k), Fair Labor
Standards Act,29 U.S.C.A§207(k),the minimum hourly wage shall be the product of:
a. the minimum annual salary described in this Article; and
b. a quotient:
Grant Agreement for Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program
C1vID#24-7762BG: Page 3 of 10
DocuSign Envelope ID:4A8BAD3E-808B-4515-938A-69FEOCD4OAD7
i. the numerator of which is equal to the number of hours the employee normally works
performing duties for a position described in this Article each period, not to exceed the
number of hours that are nonovertime as determined under the Fair Labor Standards Act;
and
ii. the denominator of which is equal to the number of hours that are nonovertime as
determined under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
C. A person whose salary increase may be paid with grant funds under Sections 1 and 3 of this Article
may be paid an increase in hourly wages if they are paid an hourly wage rather than an annual salary.
D. Expenditure of Grant Funds. Subject to Article VI, Section D of this Agreement, Grantee shall
expend the funds during the grant period. Funds for purchases are considered expended when Grantee
is legally obligated to expend the funds.
Article VI.Reimbursement
A. Advance Payment.Comptroller shall disburse the grant funds as soon as practicable following the
Effective Date.By making advance payment,Comptroller does not waive any requirements for the
reimbursement of costs. Upon Comptroller's request,Grantee shall submit records in support of
reimbursement requests.
B. Deposit of Funds. Whenever possible, grant funds must be deposited and maintained in insured,
interest-bearing accounts. Interest earned on grant funds is not considered program income,and
Grantee must use any accrued interest for grant purposes only and on allowable costs under this
Agreement.
C. Eligibility for Cost Reimbursement.Comptroller will reimburse Grantee for necessary and
reasonable allowable costs paid by Grantee in performance of this Agreement.Allowable costs are
restricted to costs that comply with the Agreement,TxGMS,and state law.The parties agree that all
the requirements of TxGMS apply to this Agreement,including the criteria for allowable costs.
D. Pre-award Costs.Comptroller will reimburse Grantee for pre-award costs provided(a)the costs are
incurred during the portion of Grantee's fiscal year in which this grant period occurs that precedes the
date of award,if any,and(b)the costs would have been allowable under the terms of this Agreement
if incurred during the grant period.
Article VII. Reporting and Compliance
A. Compliance Reports. Grantee shall submit a compliance report certifying compliance and detailing
expenditures of grant funds using Comptroller's electronic form no later than 30 days following the
expiration or termination of this Agreement. Comptroller may request supporting documentation
regarding.expenditures and any other information required to substantiate that grant funds are being
used for the intended purpose and that Grantee has complied with the terms, conditions, and
requirements of the applicable statute, the Agreement and 34 Texas Administrative Code, Chapter 16,
Subchapter D. Grantee shall submit any information requested by Comptroller within fourteen (14)
calendar days of the request.
B. Remedies for Non-Compliance.If Comptroller finds that Grantee has failed to comply:with terms and
conditions of this Agreement or any other requirement described in Article III, Section 2 of this
Agreement,Comptroller may:
1. require Grantee to return the grant funds or a portion of the grant funds;
2. withhold grant funds from the current grant or future grants to be received by Grantee pending
correction of the deficiency;
Grant Agreement for Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program
CMD Page 4.of 10
i
DocUSign Envelope ID:4A86AL73E-t30813-4515-83tfA-ti91-tUeU4UAU
3. disallow all or part of the cost of the activity or action that is not in compliance;
4. terminate the Agreement in whole or in part;
5. bar Grantee from future consideration for grant funds under 34 Texas Administrative Code,Chapter
16,Subchapter D;or
6. exercise any other legal remedies available to Comptroller under this Agreement,at law, in equity,
or otherwise.
Article VIII.General
A. Audit Requirements. Funds allocated in connection with this Agreement are considered to be state
financial assistance for the purpose of determining the audit requirements under the Texas Grant
Management Standards. If an audit is required to comply with the requirements of Texas Grant
Management Standards, Grantee shall complete an audit at the end of Grantee's fiscal year. Grantee
agrees that in the event of any audit findings related to state awards provided by Comptroller,Grantee
will inform Comptroller within two(2)business days following Grantee's receipt of any written audit
findings or reports(whether in draft or final form),and thereafter submit any documentation related to
the audit findings upon Comptroller's request (including, but not limited to, a copy of the final audit
report,a response to the current status of the prior year's questioned costs,copies of management letters
written as a result of the audit,and action plans,if any).
B. Texas Public Information Act.Comptroller is bound by the provisions of the Texas Public Information
Act("TPIA"),Chapter 552,Texas Government Code. Information,documentation,and other material
in connection with this Agreement may be subject to public disclosure pursuant to the TPIA. If Grantee
receives a request for information related to this Agreement from a third party, Grantee shall forward
the request to Comptroller within three(3)days of receipt.
C. Records; Right to Audit. Grantee acknowledges that acceptance of funds under this Agreement acts
as acceptance of the authority of the State Auditor(or any successor agency),under the direction of the
legislative audit committee,to conduct an audit or investigation in connection with those funds.Under
the direction of the legislative audit committee,Grantee or other entity that is the subject of an audit or
investigation by the state auditor shall provide the state auditor with access to any information the state
auditor considers relevant to the investigation or audit.Comptroller further reserves the right to monitor
and audit Grantee's compliance with the requirements of this Agreement.
D. Funding Limitation.The Agreement shall not be construed as creating a debt on behalf of Comptroller
in violation of Article III, Section 49a of the Texas Constitution.All obligations of Comptroller under
the Agreement are subject to the availability of grant funds.The Agreement is subject to termination or
cancellation,either in whole or in part,without penalty to Comptroller if such funds are not appropriated
or become unavailable.
E. Records Retention. Grantee shall maintain and retain all records relating to the performance of the
Agreement,including supporting fiscal documents adequate to ensure that claims for grant funds are in
accordance with applicable State of Texas requirements.These records will be maintained and retained
by Grantee for a period of five(5)years after the Agreement expiration date Or until all audit, claim,
and litigation matters are resolved, whichever is later. Comptroller reserves the right to direct grantee
to retain documents for a longer period of time or transfer certain records to Comptroller custody when
it is determined the records possess longer term retention value.
F. NO INDEMNIFICATION. THE PARTIES AGREE THAT COMPTROLLER WILL NOT
INDEMNIFY GRANTEE FOR ANY LIABILITY, ACTIONS, CLAIMS, DEMANDS, OR
SUITS,OR ANY RELATED COSTS,ATTORNEY FEES, OR EXPENSES ARISING OUT OF
OR RESULTING FROM ANY ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF GRANTEE IN PERFORMANCE
OF THE AGREEMENT.
Grant Agreement for Rural Law Enforcement,Salary Assistance Program
MID 24-:*2B Page 5 of 10
DocuSign Envelope ID:4A8BAD3E-8088-4515-938A-69FEOCD4UAD7
G. Limitations on Grants. Grantee acknowledges and agrees that funds received under this Agreement
will be expended subject to the limitations and reporting requirements similar to those provided by the
following: Parts 2 and 3 of the Texas General Appropriations Act, Art. IX, except there is no
requirement for increased salaries for local government employees; Sections 556.004, 556.005, and
556.006 of the Texas Government Code;and Sections 2113.012 and 2113.101 of the Texas Government
Code.
H. Law Enforcement Agency Grant Restriction. If Grantee is a law enforcement agency regulated by
Chapter 1701 of the Texas Occupations Code, Grantee represents and warrants that it will not use
appropriated money unless the law enforcement agency is in compliance with all rules adopted by the
Texas Commission on Law Enforcement,or the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement certifies that
it is in the process of achieving compliance with such rules.
1. Force Majeure.Neither Party shall be liable to the other for any delay in,or failure of performance,of
any requirement included in this Agreement caused by force majeure.The existence of such causes of
delay or failure shall extend the period of performance until after the causes of delay or failure have
been removed provided the non.performing Party exercises all reasonable due diligence to perform.
Force majeure is defined as acts of God, war, fires, explosions, hurricanes, floods, failure of
transportation, pandemic/quarantine orders or other causes that are beyond the reasonable control of
either Party and that by exercise of due foresight such Party could not reasonably have been expected
to avoid,and which,by the exercise of all reasonable due diligence,such Party is unable to overcome.
J. Independent Contractor.The Parties agree that each Party is contracting as an independent contractor.
K. Assignment. No assignment of this Agreement or of any right accruing hereunder shall be made, in.
whole or part,by either Party without the prior written consent of the other.
L. Headings.The headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not in
any way affect the meaning or interpretation of the Agreement.
M. No Waiver.This Agreement shall not constitute or be construed as a waiver of any of the privileges,
rights,defenses,remedies,or immunities available to either Party as an agency of the State of Texas or
otherwise available to the Party.The failure to enforce or any delay in the enforcement of any privileges,
rights,defenses,remedies,or immunities available to a Party under this Agreement or under applicable
law shall not constitute a waiver of such privileges, rights, defenses, remedies, or immunities or be
considered as a basis for estoppel.
N. Survival.The expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not affect the rights and obligations of
the Parties accrued prior to the effective date of expiration or termination and such rights and
obligations shall survive and remain enforceable.
O. Severability. If one or more provisions are deemed invalid, illegal, or unenforceable for any reason,
such invalidity,illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision and this Agreement
shall be construed as if the invalid,illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.
P. Governing Law.This Agreement is governed by and construed under and in accordance with the laws
of the State of Texas.
Article IX.Notices;Liaison
Any notice relating to this Agreement,which is required or permitted to be given under this Agreement by
one party to the other party shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the receiving party at the address
specified below. The notice shall be deemed to have been given immediately if delivered in person to the
recipient's address specified below. It shall be deemed to have been given on the date of certified receipt
if placed in the United States mail, postage prepaid, by registered or certified mail with return receipt
Grant Agreement for Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program
CMD#2447.62BG Page 6 of 10
DocuSIgn Envelope IL):4AS1:3A03E-8utft3-4b1b-5.SWk byrtuteU4uAu!
requested,addressed to the receiving party at the address specified below. Registered or certified mail with
return receipt is not required for copies.
The address of Comptroller for all purposes under this Agreement and for all notices hereunder
shall be:
Comptroller: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts
ATTN: Contracts Section
111 E 17th Street,.Room 310C
Austin,Texas 78774
With copy sent via electronic mail to contracts@cpa.texas.gov
The address of Grantee for all purposes under this Agreement and for all notices hereunder shall
be:
Grantee: Office of the County Attorney of Brazos
300 East 26th Street Bryan Texas 77803
Contact Person: Earl Gray
County Attorney
egray@brazoscountytx.gov
9793614300
Article X.Signatories
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their undersigned,
duly authorized representatives. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of
which is an original,and all of which constitute only one agreement between the Parties.
Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Office of the county Attorney of Brazos
BY BY
Lisa Craven Earl G ray
Deputy Comptroller • county Attorney
DATE DATE
3/ a1a4
a2oS Co Z vme
Grant Agreement for Rural Law Enforcement Salary Assistance Program
CMD if 24-7762BG Page 7 of 10
DOCUSigIT
bertnite'
Envelope Id:4A8BAD3E8D8B4515938A69FE0CD40AD7 Status:Sent
Subject:.Ruraltaw Enforcement Grant Agreement
Source Envelope:
Document Pages:8 Signatures:0 Envelope Originator
Certificate Pages:4 Initials:0 Heather Hampton
AutoNav:Enabled Heather.Hamptontitcpatexas.gov
•
Envelopeld Stamping:Enabled IP Address:52.61.135.34
Time Zone:(UTC-08:00)Pacific Time(US&Canada)
-• 777,
piciuno• , • rt ,7%,; , ;:;•;44.' ."
'Statii :Original Holder Heather Hampton Location:DocuSign
.• •- • •
3/12/2024 10:17A9 AM Heather.Hampton@cpa.te*as.gov
• Security Appliance Status:Connected Pool:FedRamp
Storage Appliance Status:Connected Pool:Salesforce-PROD Location:DocuSign
•
oignerp, Timestamp.",•
• • • ,
•
Earl Gray Sent 3/12J2024 10:18:07.AM
• egray@brazoscountytx.gov Viewed:3/12/2024 2:04:51 PM
Security Level:Email,Account Authentication
(None)
• Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
• 'Accepted:3/12/2024 2:04:51 PM
ID:bbdc7adb-cf44-445c-840a-e9f58b186452
•
Lisa Craven
. lisa.craven@cpa.texas.gov
Security Level:Email,Account Authentication
(None)
Electronic Record and Signature Disclosure:
Accepted:2/26/20-24 10:14:36 AM
.ID:d0daaa94-1252-47fe-afac-dfed056dfa5a
In Pere* ,gnee .60 • ;
.....................................................................
m• ge eevary;:x.• 4= I
•„. .
-
ervzionts,
. . . . .....
7:75.
' sverr
• •• ••••••
citt onv4 Ven. ' stW • Or:, 1).7 ,lltesitartip
. . . . , • • . •
iiiiI.LiL07.414'• •
InFILOOS vents
' ," ,i-etat,Z
. • ' •
ntraFe47-7-P!'7atIMIT,f..:ten‘,E4'.;.674V:V7CrgfPg r*.;EI.4AT'`'
• „,-• •-•
: Envelope Sent Hashed/Encrypted 3/12/.202 4 10:16:07 AM
. .
yreI W itit .4P 10,0'LtZ, WES • tr,„
7,7,4.7,'=-7,r2r4r4ftit7
L.? Electrenillesrdrand':S ign
..
•
• •
•
•