Authorization and approval to submit a State Administrative Agency Extension Request Form in reference to Operation Stonegarden FY 2014 and authorization for County Judge, as authorized official, to sign required document.

2. Requesting authorization to submit Amended FY 2015 Equitable Sharing Agreement and Certification Report on behalf of the Agency Head (Ricardo Rodriguez, Criminal District Attorney) and Governing Body Head (Ramon Garcia, Hidalgo County Judge), after review and approval by County Auditor, District Attorney, and County Judge.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously

Approval of Interfund Transfer from Hidalgo County Criminal District Attorney's HIDTA Task Force Chapter 59 fund (1251) to the Sheriff's Chapter 59 fund (1227) and Constable Pct. 3 Chapter 59 fund (1230).

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

Court proceeded to Item.14.A.

1.  Discussion, consideration and action to submit an application for a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) that is provided in the 2016-2021 Notice of Award (NOA) issued by the Department of Health and Human Services to the Hidalgo County Head Start Program for the 07/01/16 - 12/31/16 period

Mrs. Flores informed the court that the information placed on this agenda item came as a result from the direction of commissioners court to review and include staff from the county. The staff included included were Mr. Raul Silguero, members of the precincts, as well as members from the policy council.

Commissioner Cantu questioned if the first item was solely for submission. The director stated that this was for the application containing the recommendations. 

According to Mrs. Flores, base on the input by the entities and the following recommendations given during commissioners court, the present cost of living reflects at 2.32% from July to December 2016. Taken into account all employees, except for the five that have differential adjustments. The director explained that the differential adjustment has now been adjusted to be 50% of the original recommendation for the  remainder of the year, leaving it at 44%. She advised that when looking at the application, the figures show that amount of money. They do not have more than $202,059 COLA and can not exceed that amount. She further displayed "Exhibit 1" reflecting all employees in the Head Start Program and the other five under a separate exhibit. Mrs. Flores informed that those five other positions include, the Executive Director, two assistant directors,the Management Information Systems Director (MIS) and the Chief Financial Officer. The last exhibit shows the scale, due to the changes in COLA. 

Mrs. Flores stated that No.2 reflects the approval of the adjustment after calculating. She emphasized that 2.32% was as far as they could go, at 2.32% of COLA increase and differential at 50%.

Judge Garcia stepped away from the meeting.

Mr. Raul Silguero noted that the COLA for 2016 was actually divided into two parts. Mr. Silguero reminded the members that a few weeks ago they approved the COLA for the 1st half of the year, which provided 2% adjustment for 765 employees. Out of those employees, 5 got differentials at increases raging from 12% to 16%. Under the direction of the court, when the second portion of the COLA was presented it was a continuation of the first, however the court requested coming back and re-look at that in terms of increasing the amount for the lower paid employees and reducing the differential for the other five. Mr. Silguero pointed out that the caption on the agenda indicates 2.45%, however, at the time of placing it in the agenda they were still working on the numbers. Indicating that they were hoping to get to 2.45% but were only able to get to 2.32%. Hence, for the second half 765 employees will be able to get an increase of 2.32% and the five administrators that were scheduled to get anywhere between 12% to 16%, are only going to receive half of that, at 6% to 8% for the second half of the year and ongoing for the future. 

Commissioner Palacios requested Mr. Silguero to clarify when applying the COLA-is it separate for all employees or are the other five also being included on top of that. In regards, Mr. Silguero clarified that they are only providing half of what the initial COLA was approved for the half of the year. 

Mrs. Flores explained that the reason the COLA was divided into two parts, was due to the old grant ending on June 30. The grant then became a competitive grant and got the new funding starting on July 1, 2016. Therefore, when they applied for the old grant, because it ended on July 30 and it only provided to July 30, which was at 56% of the year that's how it was provided. Nevertheless, when the new grant came in under a new number in July, they required to submit the application again, and that's the reason it came in two parts.

Furthermore, Mr. Silguero explained that the county bases its COLA on the consumer price index. However, in this case Head Start is given a certain amount of money that indicates they must give the employee a specific amount. Different amounts could be given to other employees if they provide an explanation and stay within those dollars. He indicated that the minimum was at 1.8% but in this case they are going to be able to provide 2.32% and a differential for five other employees. Mr. Silguero affirmed that it's only permitted if there's justification and explanation. 

Commissioner Palacios questioned if Head Start employees were included in the 3% COLA increase that all county employees received last year. Mr. Silguero made clear that Head Start employees did not received this 3% COLA increase. Informing the commissioner that they actually obtain funding for COLA's at different times and not every year. He notified that in 2014 Head Start received money for COLA and the county did not provide COLA that year, until 2016. Mr. Silguero emphasized that there's no county dollars involved. 

Mrs. Flores affirmed with Commissioner Palacios statement, informing that Head Start funds all its salaries and the money does not come out from the general fund. Also, regarding any readjustments they've only been done during COLA's and during budget time. The director emphasized that currently 400 employees are earning less than $20,000 per year. Mrs. Flores indicated that because they were able to reduced 9 teacher salary positions and 9 assistant teacher salary positions, to the tune of almost $600,000 they'll be able to move those up to $20,500 this increase goes up from 4.5% to 10% providing the majority about 5% to 10% increase.

Judge Garcia joined the meeting.

Commissioner Palacios commented to Mrs. Flores that most of these questions are for clarification purpose for the benefit of the tax payer. The commissioner explained that his concern from hereon is on how to handle differential versus COLA. Furthermore, he restated that they requested for Mr. Guerra and Mr. Silguero to be part of the process in order to have a clear and define process. 

In regards, Mrs. Flores expressed her commitment to provide transparency and commitment to have accuracy with other departments.

Mr. Silguero noted that the COLA for the second part amounted to $200,000 however $500,000 was diverted to the lowest paid employees. These employees will receive increases ranging from 4% to 10% when counting the COLA. Additionally, he explained that these same employees only work 1,600 hours year in comparison to 2,080 hours worked by other employees. Hence, when comparing their salary to an hourly wage employee they're actually receiving an access of $12.00 per hour. Thus, it is line with the living wage that the judge has indicated wants to move the county to. Currently, the minimum is $10.10 per hour and Mr. Silguero assured that it's probably not going to cost much to have a living wage of $12.00 per hour. 

Mrs. Flores noted that Mr. Silguero was referring to the 12 weeks off for the field employees and less for central office employees. Also taking into consideration summer leave, 2 weeks in Christmas, Spring Break and Thanksgiving. Additionally, in order to complete the salary adjustments and the COLA, the court was presented with this item to be able to move forward with the lowest paid employees since it started July 1. They'll be able to do it once the office of Head Start approves the COLA part, however it still has to go through screening from the their office. 

The office of Head Start, the Notice of Award (NOA) includes it and approves it, then they can move forward. Mrs. Flores notified that employees were excited about the future of the program with regards to the new grant.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 4 - 0 -Unanimously 

 

a. 2.45% COLA to Head Start employees as listed on Exhibit A.

b. Differential COLA to Head Start employees as listed on Exhibit B.

Mr. Valde Guerra reminded Mrs. Fern McClaugherty that the Participation Form is an exhibit of Open Forum. Therefore, if she decided to speak during this item time will start counting from Open Forum.

Mrs. McClaugherty questioned the court as to the study of salary for the last 5 years before making any decisions.  Regarding "Exhibit B" she questioned if these positions should have a degree. According to Mrs. McClaugherty, the county has been encouraging for all employees to hold degrees. Pertaining the differentials for the five employees, she suggested to the court to instead give them the same 2.32% as the other employees. Mrs. McClaugherty claimed that she received calls about the unfair increases. 

Mrs. Norma Saldaña alleged that the Head Start director is looking into getting paid the same as a superintendent. She questioned the reason as to why the other staff will not be receiving any differentials as well. Furthermore, she declared that concerns have been raise as to having an audit of the books and all the financials from the Head Start Program from the last 5 years. Mrs.  Saldaña restated that parents and employees are concern over the discrepancy in the financials. Finally, she urged the court to not approve this budget and stop Mrs. Flores from purchasing a $5,000 dollar desk. 

Again, Commissioner Palacios emphasized on the deadline of July 31, 2016. Mrs. Flores articulated that if the deadline is not met, then no one gets anything. The commissioner notified that there was a meeting with the policy council, and repeated that there has to be concurrence from the policy council and commissioners court, in order to take any actions. The commissioner informed that last night the policy council heard the concerns by the court. On that regard, Mrs. Flores stated that the recommendation placed in the agenda is what the policy council agreed on. She emphasized that they approved the 2.32% across the board and the differential of 50% of what was there for the five positions, along with the approval to move the lowest employees to $20,500. Commissioner Palacios reaffirmed with Mrs. Flores that those five positions would not be receiving the adjustments on the COLA, and are looking at a new differential of 3.7% to 5.7%. 

Mrs. Flores informed that 400 employees are being increase to $20,500. Commissioner Cantu questioned if they'll have the money to sustain for 5 years. Mrs. Flores explained that right now the waiver is for a 18 months and every year they'll have to apply for that waiver in order to continue to have the same number of children. 

Commissioner Cuellar restated that if this item is not approve now, they'll lose everything. Mrs. Flores agreed with the commissioner and added that the COLA and not the grant will be lost if not approve. 

Commissioner Cantu questioned Mr. Silguero as to the history of raises for those five employees receiving differentials. On that regard, Mr. Silguero notified that he didn't have a chance to look into that. However, he assured that he has people researching the last 5 years. He further explained that previous COLA's have been used to address the salary increases for teachers who have increase their educational credentials, and others for center directors. 

Mrs. Flores stated that when she entered the program only five teachers had an associates degree and now they have 112 teachers with an associate degrees, and 82 teachers have bachelor's degree. She added that to convert a teacher from none associates to associates degreed it takes about $7,000 plus benefits. For a bachelor's degree, it takes $10,000 plus benefits. The director assured that even though the number of staff has been reduced, the quality has increase. She articulated that positions have never been cut to increase other salaries, all cuts have been done solely on violations.

Regarding the deletion of the 18 positions, Commissioner Cantu questioned if those would fund the increases for Item.4. Mrs. Flores affirmed with the commissioner. The commissioner then asked if they could approve Item.16.A.3.

Regarding Item.16.A.2. A and B. Commissioner Cuellar restated that their only options would be to accept or not, as per the policy council meeting held yesterday. Mrs. Flores noted that the procedures through the bylaws, is that it goes through Policy Council and then to Commissioners Court. The director assured that in the last 13 years there has never been a disagreement, until now. She restated that as of this point an approval that does not consider the recommendations by the policy council, would mean that there will be no time to do anything else. 

Commissioner Cantu questioned if they could vote for Item. 16.A.2.A. only, and hold on to B. Regarding the commissioner's inquiry, Mr. Silguero explained that at looking at options, there's a large number of employees to do calculations due to the limited time. 

Commissioner Palcios clarified and validated the question stated by Commissioner Cantu, as to whether or not they have the legal authority to only take action on Item.16.A.2.A. and not B. As per Mr. Silguero, the law regarding Head Start, the governing body and the policy council have changed in order to allow them to do that. However, in terms of bylaws it has not been implemented. 

Commissioner Cantu commented that if the employees under Item.16.A.2.B. wouldn't have had increases in the last 5 years, then he would have been an agreement with it, hence this is why he questioned the salary history. Mrs. Flores informed the commissioner that they haven't received a salary differential or salary raise, however they have received COLA. The commissioner questioned if this was applied to all five employees. Mrs. Flores noted that perhaps only one out of the five might of had a salary adjustment, but not the other four. 

Mr. Steve Crain simplified the question as to the authority of the court to be able to approve Item.16.A.2.A and not approve Item.16.A.2.B.

Again, Commissioner Cantu asked if they could approve the 2.32% and lose the other money for the other five employees. Mr. Crain commented that he would have to look at the application. 

Policy Council Attorney Rick Gonzalez emphasized on the short period of time, and reminded the court members that they held a lengthy meeting last night and these are the final recommendations by the policy council. Nevertheless, Judge Garcia questioned Mr. Gonzalez as to the legal authority the court has. 

Once more, Commissioner Palacios echoed the questioned as to the authority of the court to only take action on Item.16.A.2.A. 

Mr. Steve Crain repeated the question as to whether or not the court has the authority to approve Item.16.A.2.A. which is the COLA to head start employees listed on Exhibit A and take no action on Exhibit B and bring it back again. 

Commissioner Cantu commented that they would just bring it down because of time. However, Mr. Crain noted that if they bring it down, could this affect the entire COLA. 

 Mrs. Flores she emphasized that the application calls for the COLA to be for everyone. However, the recommendation comes from the policy council and now the court is looking to take another action. 

Commissioner Cantu questioned if they had an agenda for the meeting held last night, and requested Mrs. Flores to read the item. 

Mr. Gonzalez noted to the commissioner that it was approved as one item.

Mrs. Flores commented that they listed the agenda with guidance from Mr. Silguero and Mr. Guerra's office. Mrs. Flores read the item to the commissioner. 

For informational purposes, Mr. Crain informed that the Policy Council is composed 51% of parents of the head start children and 49% of community representatives. 

Again, Mr. Crain stressed that if the court and the policy council disagree, their procedures specify that both parties should get to together to find an agreement. However, there's no time to do so. 

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval on Item.16.A.2.A and B.

Vote: 4 - 0 -Unanimously 

Mrs. Flores invited the court to any of their sessions. 

Court proceeded to Item.13.A.

 

Presentation of Bids received [as detailed in tabulation sheet contained herein] for the purpose of award to the responsible vendor submitting the lowest bid [including meeting specifications and/or requirements] with approval of contract document for project titled: Hidalgo County-"Security Guard Services" to Valley Wide Security through RFB No.: 2016-075-05-04-SMA

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                              
 Vote: 3 - 0 - Unanimously

Acceptance and approval of the following Work Authorizations as submitted by Millennium Engineers Group, Inc. - Contract # C-15-319-09-15 for the provisions of "Construction Materials Engineering and Testing Services" for:

Requesting approval to process the following invoices as claims with authority for County Treasurer to issue payment after review, audit, and processing procedures are completed by County Auditor.

a. Requesting exemption from competitive bidding requirements under the Texas Local Government Code, Section 262.024 (A) (4) for a professional service;

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                              
 Vote: 3 - 0 - Unanimously

b. Presentation of the scoring grid (for the purposes of ranking by CC) the firms graded & evaluated through the County’s approved “pool” of Engineering Firms for the provision of "professional engineering services" for Project: "INDIAN HILLS (FEMA DR 4245)" located within Hidalgo County Precinct 1;

f. Authority for the Purchasing Department to negotiate a professional engineering services agreement for Project: "LAS NUBES, OLD RIVER ROAD, MARLEN LOTT ROAD (FEMA DR 4245)" located within Hidalgo County Precinct 1, commencing with the No.1 ranked firm ARANDA & ASSOCIATES, INC. for Engineering Services.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 4 - 0 -Unanimously 

g. Requesting exemption from competitive bidding requirements under the Texas Local Government Code, Section 262.024 (A) (4) for a professional service;

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously

h. Presentation of the scoring grid (for the purposes of ranking by CC) the firms graded & evaluated through the County’s approved “pool” of Engineering Firms for the provision of "professional engineering services" for Project: "MILE 13.5, MILE 11 NORTH & YVETTE CIRCLE (FEMA DR 4245)" located within Hidalgo County Precinct 1;

i. Authority for the Purchasing Department to negotiate a professional engineering services agreement for Project: "MILE 13.5, MILE 11 NORTH & YVETTE CIRCLE (FEMA DR 4245)" located within Hidalgo County Precinct 1, commencing with the No.1 ranked firm LeFEVRE Engineering & Management Consulting, LLC. for Engineering Services.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                              
 Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

 

j. Acceptance and approval of a professional services agreement #C-16-256-07-26 with LeFEVRE Engineering & Management Consulting, LLC for "job specific"-- FEMA Projects: 1) “Mile 8 North (between 2 Mile East and address 1267, Mercedes, Texas), 2) Mile 2 East (starting at address 4254, ending at Mile 4 N.E., Mercedes, Texas), 3) Mile 2½ East (between Mile 3 North and Mile 4 N.E., Mercedes, Texas) and 4) Mile 4 North (between FM 491 and Pedro Martinez Road, Mercedes, Texas)” located within Hidalgo County Precinct No. 1;

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                     
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

k. Acceptance and approval of Work Authorization No. 1 (with an estimated cost of $ 20,789.55) as submitted by project engineer, LeFevre Engineering & Management Consulting, LLC for [FEMA Project Site #8]: “Mile 8 North (between 2 Mile East and address 1267, Mercedes, Tx.)” within Hidalgo County Precinct No. 1, in connection to agreement # C-16-256-07-26.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                     
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

l. Acceptance and approval of Work Authorization No. 2 (with an estimated cost of $ 20,789.55) as submitted by project engineer, LeFevre Engineering & Management Consulting, LLC for [FEMA Project Site #10]: “Mile 2 East (starting at address 4254 and ending at Mile 4 North East, Mercedes, Tx.)” within Hidalgo County Precinct No. 1, in connection to agreement # C-16-256-07-26.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                                     
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

m. Acceptance and approval of Work Authorization No. 3 (with an estimated cost of $ 29,517.21) as submitted by project engineer, LeFevre Engineering & Management Consulting, LLC for [FEMA Project Site #11]: “Mile 2 ½ East (between Mile 3 North and Mile 4 North East, Mercedes, Tx)” within Hidalgo County Precinct No. 1, in connection to agreement # C-16-256-07-26.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously 

n. Acceptance and approval of Work Authorization No. 4 (with an estimated cost of $ 17,417.57) as submitted by project engineer, LeFevre Engineering & Management Consulting, LLC for [FEMA Project Site #12]: “Mile 4 North (between FM 491 and Pdero Martinez Road, Mercedes, Tx.)” within Hidalgo County Precinct No. 1, in connection to agreement # C-16-256-07-26.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.

Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

Approval of clarification to Change Order No. 2 in connection with the PCT #3 "Mile 2 North Roadway Project" (C-14-153-02-17) reflecting the correct amount of of $27,021.63 for a new contract amount of $1,568,626.21 (include 37 additional working days) from contracted vendor, IOC Company, LLC and as recommended by project engineer, L&G Engineer subject to compliance with HB1295 if and when applicable; with authority to execute document.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                              
 Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

Requesting approval of "Amendment" to current contract# E-13-264-08-27 (C-11-019-09-06) with GTL/VALUE ADDED COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (VACI).to comply with FCC regulations for: "INMATE PAY TELEPHONE SERVICES" for the HIDALGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, A.C. CUELLAR, JR., seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
                                              
 Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously

Court proceeded back to Item.9.A.