SPECIAL MEETING - August 15, 2017
BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this 15th day of August A.D., 2017, there was begun and held a SPECIAL MEETING of the Honorable Commissioners’ Court of Hidalgo County, Texas, wherein the following members thereof were present, to-wit:
| HONORABLE RAMON GARCIA HONORABLE DAVID FUENTES HONORABLE EDUARDO "EDDIE" CANTU HONORABLE JOSEPH PALACIOS |
HIDALGO COUNTY JUDGE COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT NO. 1 COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT NO. 2 COMMISSIONER, PRECINCT NO. 4 |
and ARTURO GUAJARDO, JR., COUNTY CLERK & EX-OFFICIO CLERK OF THE COMMISSIONERS’ COURT of Hidalgo County, Texas, wherein the following proceedings were had, to-wit:
 |
AGENDA CC REGULAR HIDALGO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT MEETING August 15, 2017 9:30 A.M. |
|
NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, that a SPECIAL MEETING of the Commissioners' Court will be held at the Edinburg Council Chambers 415 W. University Drive, Edinburg, Hidalgo County, Texas. Discussion and possible action relating to the following business will be transacted:
1.
Roll Call
Commissioner Joe M. Flores was absent.
Commissioner Joe M. Flores was absent.
2.
Pledge of Allegiance
Judge Garcia led the courtroom in reciting the Plege of Alleginace.
Judge Garcia led the courtroom in reciting the Plege of Alleginace.
3.
Prayer
Virginia Townsand led the courtroom in prayer.
Virginia Townsand led the courtroom in prayer.
4.
Approval of Consent Agenda
The court moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item.6.A.
The court moved to approve the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item.6.A.
5.
County Judge's Office:
A.
AI-61125
1. Discussion and approval of the Certification of Formation for the Hidalgo County Regional Foreign Trade Zone.
2. Discussion and approval of the Bylaws for the Hidalgo County Regional Foreign Trade Zone.
No action taken on this item.
2. Discussion and approval of the Bylaws for the Hidalgo County Regional Foreign Trade Zone.
No action taken on this item.
Attachments:
6.
District Attorney's Office:
A.
AI-61089
DA-Border Prosecution Unit Grant (BPU) (1281):
1. Approval to accept the Region 3-Border Prosecution Unit Grant in the amount of $419,434.57, effective 09/01/2017 through 08/31/2018.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
2. Approval of certification of revenues as certified by the County Auditor for the FY 2017 Region 3-Border Prosecution Unit grant funds in the amount of $419,434.57.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
3. Approval to appropriate the FY 2018 Region 3-Border Prosecution Unit grant funds.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
1. Approval to accept the Region 3-Border Prosecution Unit Grant in the amount of $419,434.57, effective 09/01/2017 through 08/31/2018.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
2. Approval of certification of revenues as certified by the County Auditor for the FY 2017 Region 3-Border Prosecution Unit grant funds in the amount of $419,434.57.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
3. Approval to appropriate the FY 2018 Region 3-Border Prosecution Unit grant funds.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
Attachments:
7.
Health & Human Services Department:
A.
AI-61092
Discussion and consideration and action on the following:
In accordance with the Hidalgo County Civil Service Commission rules, requesting approval of mileage reimbursements and the payout of “extra hours”, related to the “No Refusal Weekend” project, coordinated between the Hidalgo County District Attorney’s Office and Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office during Labor Day Holiday Weekend, for the Health and Human Services Department staff, at a rate of time and a half, in addition to the employees regular work hours and/or leave taken.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously
Eduardo Olivarez reminded the court that this is the 3rd year of the "No Refusal Weekend".
In accordance with the Hidalgo County Civil Service Commission rules, requesting approval of mileage reimbursements and the payout of “extra hours”, related to the “No Refusal Weekend” project, coordinated between the Hidalgo County District Attorney’s Office and Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office during Labor Day Holiday Weekend, for the Health and Human Services Department staff, at a rate of time and a half, in addition to the employees regular work hours and/or leave taken.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously
Eduardo Olivarez reminded the court that this is the 3rd year of the "No Refusal Weekend".
8.
Executive Office:
A.
AI-61140
Discussion and update of the Utility Assessment Report (UAR) conducted by ELS and PSI.
Valde Guerra disclosed that the county is undergoing a self funded audit assessment with respect to county facilities and offices. The audit will permit to look at efficiencies in ways to reduce kilowatts usage in county facilities. In working with the electric company, the reduction of any kilowatts usage becomes a savings to county, through savings on less kilowatts and less payment or rebate. The assessment is at no cost to the county. The consideration of savings is also to the usage of water. Guerra noted that they are also working with the commissioners to find other ways to improve utilities. Again, Guerra restated that they are working with ELS & PSI.
Commissioner Palcios commented that years back they dealt with electrical rates, he stated that it is important to look at all phases. The commissioner noted that these two companies are looking at roofing, insulation, and other utilities.
Guerra emphasized that all county facilities have been through the latest and greatest updates, as related to energy efficiency. Light bulbs, automatic light sensors and door sensors have been installed. According to Guerra, they expected to be done within the next 40 days and have recommendations by late October or mid November.
Commissioner Fuentes encouraged the program and suggested working through phases.
Valde Guerra disclosed that the county is undergoing a self funded audit assessment with respect to county facilities and offices. The audit will permit to look at efficiencies in ways to reduce kilowatts usage in county facilities. In working with the electric company, the reduction of any kilowatts usage becomes a savings to county, through savings on less kilowatts and less payment or rebate. The assessment is at no cost to the county. The consideration of savings is also to the usage of water. Guerra noted that they are also working with the commissioners to find other ways to improve utilities. Again, Guerra restated that they are working with ELS & PSI.
Commissioner Palcios commented that years back they dealt with electrical rates, he stated that it is important to look at all phases. The commissioner noted that these two companies are looking at roofing, insulation, and other utilities.
Guerra emphasized that all county facilities have been through the latest and greatest updates, as related to energy efficiency. Light bulbs, automatic light sensors and door sensors have been installed. According to Guerra, they expected to be done within the next 40 days and have recommendations by late October or mid November.
Commissioner Fuentes encouraged the program and suggested working through phases.
9.
Adult Probation:
A.
AI-61135
April 2017
1. Approval of certification of revenues as certified by the County Auditor for the DWI Grant program income in the amount of $2,990.00
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
2. Approval of appropriation of the DWI program income (GPI) in the amount of $2,990.00
May 2017
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
1. Approval of certification of revenues as certified by the County Auditor for the DWI Grant program income in the amount of $2,012.00
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously
2. Approval of appropriation of the DWI program income (GPI) in the amount of $2,012.00
June 2017
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
1. Approval of certification of revenues as certified by the County Auditor for the DWI Grant program income in the amount of $2,420.00
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
2. Approval of appropriation of the DWI program income (GPI) in the amount of $2,420.00
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
1. Approval of certification of revenues as certified by the County Auditor for the DWI Grant program income in the amount of $2,990.00
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
2. Approval of appropriation of the DWI program income (GPI) in the amount of $2,990.00
May 2017
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
1. Approval of certification of revenues as certified by the County Auditor for the DWI Grant program income in the amount of $2,012.00
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously
2. Approval of appropriation of the DWI program income (GPI) in the amount of $2,012.00
June 2017
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
1. Approval of certification of revenues as certified by the County Auditor for the DWI Grant program income in the amount of $2,420.00
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
2. Approval of appropriation of the DWI program income (GPI) in the amount of $2,420.00
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 - Unanimously
Attachments:
10.
Elections Administration:
A.
AI-61128
Discussion, consideration and possible action including, but not limited to the November 7, 2017 polling site locations, hours of operation and estimated cost for early voting and election day
Yvonne Ramon reported that the cost to extend polling hours from 7 - 7 would be a total additional cost of $120,888 this would be for City of Edinburg and City of Weslaco whom are willing to share costs the remaining balance would be $110,060
The administrator informed of two scenarios:
1st scenario - the court decides to pay the additional cost of hours from
7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
or
2nd scenario - the county would pay the outstanding balance minus Edinburg and Weslaco.
Ramon emphasized that they reviewed all the estimates that had been presented, they reduced all the county wide costs and revisited poll sites. She announced that the secretary of state accepted the county as part of the County Wide Pilot Program. According to Ramon, the cost estimate for each location is based on the statistics they keep regarding voter turn out.
Judge Garcia commented that if they are trying to have extended hours through out the county, it is not fair to penalized City of Edinburg in charging them the additional costs. The judge stated that it is best to incurred the cost of $120,888
Commissioner Cantu voiced agreement to incurred the cost.
Commissioner Palacios commented that they should be partners to their cities and absorbed some of the costs. Additionally, Commissioner Fuentes also agreed that the county should be able to incurred the costs.
Commissioner Cantu informed that the Boys and Girls Club of Pharr is not going to work. He asked Yvonne Ramon to place back the Jose Pepe Salinas building. Ramon disclosed that if court votes on sites today, the list will include the Pepe Salinas building.
Regarding mobile sites, Ramon explained that they're still looking at voter turnout and cost from county and entities.
Yvonne Ramon noted that the approval would be for the cost of the outstanding balance, mobile sites and the change from the Boys and Girls Club to the Jose Pepe Salinas, and the hours.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 -Unanimously
Again, Ramon confirmed with the court that the county will take over the outstanding balance under Senario No.1
Yvonne Ramon reported that the cost to extend polling hours from 7 - 7 would be a total additional cost of $120,888 this would be for City of Edinburg and City of Weslaco whom are willing to share costs the remaining balance would be $110,060
The administrator informed of two scenarios:
1st scenario - the court decides to pay the additional cost of hours from
7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
or
2nd scenario - the county would pay the outstanding balance minus Edinburg and Weslaco.
Ramon emphasized that they reviewed all the estimates that had been presented, they reduced all the county wide costs and revisited poll sites. She announced that the secretary of state accepted the county as part of the County Wide Pilot Program. According to Ramon, the cost estimate for each location is based on the statistics they keep regarding voter turn out.
Judge Garcia commented that if they are trying to have extended hours through out the county, it is not fair to penalized City of Edinburg in charging them the additional costs. The judge stated that it is best to incurred the cost of $120,888
Commissioner Cantu voiced agreement to incurred the cost.
Commissioner Palacios commented that they should be partners to their cities and absorbed some of the costs. Additionally, Commissioner Fuentes also agreed that the county should be able to incurred the costs.
Commissioner Cantu informed that the Boys and Girls Club of Pharr is not going to work. He asked Yvonne Ramon to place back the Jose Pepe Salinas building. Ramon disclosed that if court votes on sites today, the list will include the Pepe Salinas building.
Regarding mobile sites, Ramon explained that they're still looking at voter turnout and cost from county and entities.
Yvonne Ramon noted that the approval would be for the cost of the outstanding balance, mobile sites and the change from the Boys and Girls Club to the Jose Pepe Salinas, and the hours.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 -Unanimously
Again, Ramon confirmed with the court that the county will take over the outstanding balance under Senario No.1
Attachments:
11.
Purchasing Department - Notes:
A. FOR ANY CONTRACT(S) AWARDED AND APPROVED UNDER THIS AGENDA, EXECUTED COPIES OF THE CONTRACT(S) WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE COUNTY INTRA-NET WEBSITE AND WILL BE FORWARDED VIA E-MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERED TO HIDALGO COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE.
B. ANY AND ALL REQUESTS FOR PAYMENT(S) APPROVED WILL BE SUBJECT TO COUNTY AUDITORS PROCESSING PROCEDURES INCLUDING AUTHORITY FOR COUNTY TREASURER TO ISSUE PAYMENT(S)/CHECK(S).
A. FOR ANY CONTRACT(S) AWARDED AND APPROVED UNDER THIS AGENDA, EXECUTED COPIES OF THE CONTRACT(S) WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE COUNTY INTRA-NET WEBSITE AND WILL BE FORWARDED VIA E-MAIL, FAX OR HAND DELIVERED TO HIDALGO COUNTY AUDITOR'S OFFICE.
B. ANY AND ALL REQUESTS FOR PAYMENT(S) APPROVED WILL BE SUBJECT TO COUNTY AUDITORS PROCESSING PROCEDURES INCLUDING AUTHORITY FOR COUNTY TREASURER TO ISSUE PAYMENT(S)/CHECK(S).
A.
Hidalgo County
1.
AI-61087
A. Review scoring/evaluation sheets of both nominated architectural firms of HDR and HOK for the purpose of ranking by CC so as to proceed to next step of the process-commence negotiations:
No. #1 ranked firm: HDR ;
No. #2 ranked firm: HOK ;
Steve Crain petitioned each of the court members to read out their original scoring ranking sheets. Crain explained that what happened was that there was an average score taken of each of the evaluators and that average score resulted in a tie. However, that average score is not the determining factor of what the ranking is. According to Crain, the determining factor is the individual ranking by each evaluator, being the judge and the commissioners. Once again, he instructed each of the evaluators to read out their scores. Crain commented that taking the average was for information of the evaluators only, also taking average dilutes each individual evaluation. He ordered to ignore the average and go by each of the evaluator's score. Crain further explained that the average score was additional information to the court to interpret the results.
Martha Salazar informed the court that she researched past evaluations based on architectural and engineer services. Judge Garcia commented that the scores were revised five times and five times it averaged a tie, because they were interpreting the evaluation the same manner in which they have always interpreted.
Salazar explained to the court that it has always been done by committee.
Commissioner Palacios noted that there's competitive bids and professional services, which are separate.
Salazar added that they have defaulted to 262, in only one or two instances she found to never do number one on architect. Most of the architectural firms are done with one score, because instructions allow for that. The user department, elected official, or commissioners court can nominate and then commissioners court ranks. As per Salazar, she referred to the purchasing association, who agreed that 2254 doesn't speak to it, they have defaulted to drawing of lots. She clarified that most of the time, drawing of lots is for bids, if there are two bids. Nevertheless, they said they defaulted, but not that they had done it for architect.
The judge stressed that they need to stay within the same rules and can not be changing them.
Steve Crain disclosed that there are no similar cases, therefore, he contacted the comptroller which does all trainings for every state agency in 2254 and 2262. According to Crain, the comment he received was that under 2254, there is no way there can be a tie. The explanation was that each evaluation stands on its own.
Jonathan Almanza informed that he contacted Jette Withers, State Chief Procurement Officer Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to inform of how the court calculated the scores. According to Almanza, Withers informed that their system is basically the same, but they use an independent committee, whereas the county uses the elected officials. In situations were there's a tie, they rescore or sent the committee back to reevaluate. As per Almanza, it was explained that in terms of drawing of lots, it is not prohibited, it is not in 2254 and they do not recommend using the drawing of lots but there's nothing prohibiting drawing of lots. She recommended not changing anything and to be consistent.
Almanza explained that "drawing of lots" means that in the aspect of competitive bidding, if the two lowest bids or the best bids are the lowest, they would be drawing out of a cup.
Salazar advised that no blank scoring sheets can be accepted, in this case, they have accepted them all but there is one that is blank.
Crain noted that as per the conversation with the comptroller, 262 concerning to competitive bids does allow for drawing of lots. However, this is not a bid and there is nothing in 2254 about drawing of lots. Again, Crain stressed that there's no tie if they look at each individual evaluator, the only time there's a tie is when they average the scores. Individually, there is no tie.
Martha Salazar clarified that Statute 2254 has two parts, architects and engineers, which are solely by demonstrated competence. The project manger is not specifically under Statute 2254. Engineers and architects are all by themselves.
Almanza informed that he forwarded the original RFQ to Jette Withers.
Martha Salazar disclosed that although, Commissioner Flores was absent from the meeting, the purchasing department had his scoring sheet.
Judge Garcia suggested to vote on a procedure and act accordingly. The judge questioned Martha Salazar if they have ever selected a professional in the manner in which she and Steve suggest. Salazar explained that it has been done, when there is a single score, in the manner in which they present the score to the court and allow them to accept the scores or rank them in the order of the scores. Salazar clarified to the judge that there hasn't been a tie of this type in 25 years.
Crain explained that Statute 2254 is silent only to drawing of lots. He noted to the judge that purchasing staff and Sergio Cruz only went back to confirm the average scores.
Commissioner Palacios made clear he did not want his vote to disenfranchise by focusing on an average number.
Steve Crain asked Martha Salazar if all the scoring sheets were completed with every single box filled in. In regards, Salazar announced that there was one that wasn't complete.
Virginia Townsand stated that as a tax payer, she expects the firm hired as a project manger to have some sort of saying.
Salazar said that statute 2254 says they are to select the best qualified.
Jeff Bradley from HOK questioned Crain if the tie could be broken by the judge. On that note, Crain stated to the court that this is a ranking and individually there is no tie.
Steve Crain asked to adjourn into Closed Session under Section 551.071 legal consultation with the attorney.
Court proceeded to Item.13.
After coming back from closed session, Crain recommended to the court to read out loud each of their original scoring sheets. The original scoring sheets are held by the purchasing department but the court members received copies of the original sheets.
Commissioner David Fuentes ranked HDR as No.1 with a score of 98 and HOK No.2 with a score of 96.
Commissioner Eduardo "Eddie" Cantu ranked HDR as No.1 with a score of 97 and HOK No.2 with a score of 96.
Judge Ramon Garcia ranked HOK as No.1 with a score of 76 and HDR No.2 with a score of 68.
Martha Salazar read the scoring sheet of Commissioner Joe Flores as stated, the commissioner ranked HDR No.1 with a score of 98 and HOK No.2 with a score of 96.
Commissioner Joseph Palacios ranked HDR as No.1 with a score of 95 and HOK No.2 with a score of 92.
Steve Crain noted that based on those rankings, if they go by each individual score and not average, HDR is the number one firm and HOK is the second ranked firm.
Commissioner Palacios motioned to ranked HDR as No.1 firm and HOK as No.2 firm, Commissioner Cantu seconded that motion.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval to rank HDR as No.1 firm and HOK as No.2 firm.
Vote: 3 - 1 – Unanimously
Judge Ramon Garcia voted against it.
B. Authority to commence the negotiation process with the number one ranked firm of HDR by the following selected/designated parties [HCCC to list names] with the Purchasing Department as a facilitator for the purpose of a letter of engagement/contract with an architectural firm for the design and construction of a New Hidalgo County Courthouse.
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
Steve Crain petitioned each of the court members to read out their original scoring ranking sheets. Crain explained that what happened was that there was an average score taken of each of the evaluators and that average score resulted in a tie. However, that average score is not the determining factor of what the ranking is. According to Crain, the determining factor is the individual ranking by each evaluator, being the judge and the commissioners. Once again, he instructed each of the evaluators to read out their scores. Crain commented that taking the average was for information of the evaluators only, also taking average dilutes each individual evaluation. He ordered to ignore the average and go by each of the evaluator's score. Crain further explained that the average score was additional information to the court to interpret the results.
Martha Salazar informed the court that she researched past evaluations based on architectural and engineer services. Judge Garcia commented that the scores were revised five times and five times it averaged a tie, because they were interpreting the evaluation the same manner in which they have always interpreted.
Salazar explained to the court that it has always been done by committee.
Commissioner Palacios noted that there's competitive bids and professional services, which are separate.
Salazar added that they have defaulted to 262, in only one or two instances she found to never do number one on architect. Most of the architectural firms are done with one score, because instructions allow for that. The user department, elected official, or commissioners court can nominate and then commissioners court ranks. As per Salazar, she referred to the purchasing association, who agreed that 2254 doesn't speak to it, they have defaulted to drawing of lots. She clarified that most of the time, drawing of lots is for bids, if there are two bids. Nevertheless, they said they defaulted, but not that they had done it for architect.
The judge stressed that they need to stay within the same rules and can not be changing them.
Steve Crain disclosed that there are no similar cases, therefore, he contacted the comptroller which does all trainings for every state agency in 2254 and 2262. According to Crain, the comment he received was that under 2254, there is no way there can be a tie. The explanation was that each evaluation stands on its own.
Jonathan Almanza informed that he contacted Jette Withers, State Chief Procurement Officer Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts to inform of how the court calculated the scores. According to Almanza, Withers informed that their system is basically the same, but they use an independent committee, whereas the county uses the elected officials. In situations were there's a tie, they rescore or sent the committee back to reevaluate. As per Almanza, it was explained that in terms of drawing of lots, it is not prohibited, it is not in 2254 and they do not recommend using the drawing of lots but there's nothing prohibiting drawing of lots. She recommended not changing anything and to be consistent.
Almanza explained that "drawing of lots" means that in the aspect of competitive bidding, if the two lowest bids or the best bids are the lowest, they would be drawing out of a cup.
Salazar advised that no blank scoring sheets can be accepted, in this case, they have accepted them all but there is one that is blank.
Crain noted that as per the conversation with the comptroller, 262 concerning to competitive bids does allow for drawing of lots. However, this is not a bid and there is nothing in 2254 about drawing of lots. Again, Crain stressed that there's no tie if they look at each individual evaluator, the only time there's a tie is when they average the scores. Individually, there is no tie.
Martha Salazar clarified that Statute 2254 has two parts, architects and engineers, which are solely by demonstrated competence. The project manger is not specifically under Statute 2254. Engineers and architects are all by themselves.
Almanza informed that he forwarded the original RFQ to Jette Withers.
Martha Salazar disclosed that although, Commissioner Flores was absent from the meeting, the purchasing department had his scoring sheet.
Judge Garcia suggested to vote on a procedure and act accordingly. The judge questioned Martha Salazar if they have ever selected a professional in the manner in which she and Steve suggest. Salazar explained that it has been done, when there is a single score, in the manner in which they present the score to the court and allow them to accept the scores or rank them in the order of the scores. Salazar clarified to the judge that there hasn't been a tie of this type in 25 years.
Crain explained that Statute 2254 is silent only to drawing of lots. He noted to the judge that purchasing staff and Sergio Cruz only went back to confirm the average scores.
Commissioner Palacios made clear he did not want his vote to disenfranchise by focusing on an average number.
Steve Crain asked Martha Salazar if all the scoring sheets were completed with every single box filled in. In regards, Salazar announced that there was one that wasn't complete.
Virginia Townsand stated that as a tax payer, she expects the firm hired as a project manger to have some sort of saying.
Salazar said that statute 2254 says they are to select the best qualified.
Jeff Bradley from HOK questioned Crain if the tie could be broken by the judge. On that note, Crain stated to the court that this is a ranking and individually there is no tie.
Steve Crain asked to adjourn into Closed Session under Section 551.071 legal consultation with the attorney.
Court proceeded to Item.13.
After coming back from closed session, Crain recommended to the court to read out loud each of their original scoring sheets. The original scoring sheets are held by the purchasing department but the court members received copies of the original sheets.
Commissioner David Fuentes ranked HDR as No.1 with a score of 98 and HOK No.2 with a score of 96.
Commissioner Eduardo "Eddie" Cantu ranked HDR as No.1 with a score of 97 and HOK No.2 with a score of 96.
Judge Ramon Garcia ranked HOK as No.1 with a score of 76 and HDR No.2 with a score of 68.
Martha Salazar read the scoring sheet of Commissioner Joe Flores as stated, the commissioner ranked HDR No.1 with a score of 98 and HOK No.2 with a score of 96.
Commissioner Joseph Palacios ranked HDR as No.1 with a score of 95 and HOK No.2 with a score of 92.
Steve Crain noted that based on those rankings, if they go by each individual score and not average, HDR is the number one firm and HOK is the second ranked firm.
Commissioner Palacios motioned to ranked HDR as No.1 firm and HOK as No.2 firm, Commissioner Cantu seconded that motion.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval to rank HDR as No.1 firm and HOK as No.2 firm.
Vote: 3 - 1 – Unanimously
Judge Ramon Garcia voted against it.
B. Authority to commence the negotiation process with the number one ranked firm of HDR by the following selected/designated parties [HCCC to list names] with the Purchasing Department as a facilitator for the purpose of a letter of engagement/contract with an architectural firm for the design and construction of a New Hidalgo County Courthouse.
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
Attachments:
B.
Pct. 1
1.
AI-61035
Requesting approval to purchase (1) New John Deere 350G LC FT4 Excavator through the County's membership/participation with TASB-Buybpard Cooperative Purchasing Program's awarded vendor Doggett for Pct.1 (Contract#515-16 Exp. 11/30/19) in the amount of $299,900.00.
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 -Unanimously
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 4, JOSEPH PALACIOS, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 -Unanimously
Attachments:
12.
Open Forum
1) Rosa Maria Valle from ARISE Organization and resident of Precinct 1, thanked Commissioner Fuentes for collaborating on the colonia cleaning.
2) Fern McClaugherty noted to the court that they did not take into account the suggestions from Jacobs. Further, she disclosed that she looked up campaign finances and claimed that ERO and HDR paid $9,500 to precinct 2. Additionally, claiming that ERO, Godinez and HDR paid over $19,500 to the campaign of Commissioner Palacios.
Commissioner Palacios said he did not base his decision on any campaign financing.
Court proceeded to Item.18.
1) Rosa Maria Valle from ARISE Organization and resident of Precinct 1, thanked Commissioner Fuentes for collaborating on the colonia cleaning.
2) Fern McClaugherty noted to the court that they did not take into account the suggestions from Jacobs. Further, she disclosed that she looked up campaign finances and claimed that ERO and HDR paid $9,500 to precinct 2. Additionally, claiming that ERO, Godinez and HDR paid over $19,500 to the campaign of Commissioner Palacios.
Commissioner Palacios said he did not base his decision on any campaign financing.
Court proceeded to Item.18.
Attachments:
13.
Closed Session:
Commissioners' Court may go into Closed Session pursuant to Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071 & 551.072 to discuss the following:
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously
Commissioners' Court may go into Closed Session pursuant to Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, Sections 551.071 & 551.072 to discuss the following:
On motion by COMMISSIONER PCT. 1, DAVID FUENTES, seconded by COMMISSIONER PCT. 2, EDUARDO “EDDIE” CANTU, the Court made a UNANIMOUS vote of approval.
Vote: 4 - 0 – Unanimously
A.
Real Estate Acquisition
No action taken on this item.
No action taken on this item.
B.
Pending and/or potential litigation
No action taken on this item.
No action taken on this item.
C.
AI-61129
Cause No. 7:09-CV-23; United States of America v. 0.78 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Hidalgo County, State of Texas; and Augusto O. Champion, III, et al.; In the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas McAllen Division
No action taken on this item.
No action taken on this item.
14.
A. Requesting exemption from competitive bidding requirements under the Texas Local Government Code, Section 262.024(A) (4) "a Professional Service" for the "provision of legal services/representation in connection with litigation."
B. Requesting engagement with the firm of _________________________ for the "Provision of Legal Services/Representation in connection with Litigation" and authority to submit letter of engagement (subject to compliance with HB1295)
No action taken on Item.14.A and B.
B. Requesting engagement with the firm of _________________________ for the "Provision of Legal Services/Representation in connection with Litigation" and authority to submit letter of engagement (subject to compliance with HB1295)
No action taken on Item.14.A and B.
15.
Open Session:
A.
Real Estate Acquisition and appropriation for same
No action taken on this item.
No action taken on this item.
B.
Pending and/or potential litigation
No action taken on this item.
No action taken on this item.
C.
AI-61130
Cause No. 7:09-CV-23; United States of America v. 0.78 Acres of Land, More or Less, Situated in Hidalgo County, State of Texas; and Augusto O. Champion, III, et al.; In the United States District Court of the Southern District of Texas McAllen Division
Valde Guerra informed that Josephine Ramirez's Office Civil Division will be representing the interest of Hidalgo County.
Court proceeded back to Item.11.A.1.
Valde Guerra informed that Josephine Ramirez's Office Civil Division will be representing the interest of Hidalgo County.
Court proceeded back to Item.11.A.1.
16.
Closed Session:
Commissioners Court may reconvene into Closed Session for the discussion regarding the agenda items listed
No action taken on this item.
Commissioners Court may reconvene into Closed Session for the discussion regarding the agenda items listed
No action taken on this item.
17.
Open Session:
Commissioners Court may reconvene into Open Session for the discussion regarding the agenda items listed
No action taken on this item.
Commissioners Court may reconvene into Open Session for the discussion regarding the agenda items listed
No action taken on this item.
18.
Adjourn
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
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
There being no further business to come before said
Court, the meetings of the Commissioners' Court and the
Drainage District #1 Board are now hereby adjourned.
Dated this the 15th day of August, 2017
ARTURO GUAJARDO, JR., County Clerk
Hidalgo County, Texas
By: ______________________________
Norma G. Cantu, Deputy
I, ARTURO GUAJARDO, JR., County Clerk attest that this is an accurate accounting of a proceeding of the Commissioners’ Court held on August 15, 2017.
Signed this 15th day of AUGUST 2017
ATTEST:
ARTURO GUAJARDO, JR.
County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk
Of the Commissioners’ Court of
Hidalgo County
By: ____________________________
(Seal) Norma G. Cantu, Deputy
Court, the meetings of the Commissioners' Court and the
Drainage District #1 Board are now hereby adjourned.
Dated this the 15th day of August, 2017
ARTURO GUAJARDO, JR., County Clerk
Hidalgo County, Texas
By: ______________________________
Norma G. Cantu, Deputy
I, ARTURO GUAJARDO, JR., County Clerk attest that this is an accurate accounting of a proceeding of the Commissioners’ Court held on August 15, 2017.
Signed this 15th day of AUGUST 2017
ATTEST:
ARTURO GUAJARDO, JR.
County Clerk and Ex-Officio Clerk
Of the Commissioners’ Court of
Hidalgo County
By: ____________________________
(Seal) Norma G. Cantu, Deputy