(FORT BEND COUNTY) - Amendments were made to an agreement concerning the development of the Fort Bend County Information Technology Building project after Pct. 3 Commissioner Andy Meyers voiced concerns over a lack of information.
The motion, approved today at the first Commissioner’s Court meeting of the new year, initially read, “Take all appropriate action to consider granting an exemption to the competitive bid process as authorized by Local Government Code Section 262.024(a)(4) to enter into an Interim Services Agreement to develop the Fort Bend County Information Technology Building Project and authorize the County Judge to sign all binding documents regarding such project, upon approval as to legal form by the County Attorney.”
Meyers made several references to the EpiCenter project, which was also a deal in which the county entered into a long-term lease agreement for the newly constructed building, rather than bidding the project to prospective builders and requiring voter approval to issue debt to pay for the construction.
“The other [EpiCenter] exemption listed costs and the names of the firm the county is looking to do business with,” said Meyers at the Jan. 3 Commissioner’s Court meeting. “This item does none of those things. What is the projected cost? What is the name of the firm we are doing business with? Has the County Attorney’s Office reviewed the agreement that we have never seen? Has due diligence been done? What is the projected size, square footage? None of this information is available. There is no way I can vote for this item.”
George said it “very clearly says interim service agreement to develop the Fort Bend County Project.”
“We are entering an agreement with a firm, what firm?” responded Meyers.
Pct. 2 Commissioner Grady Prestage said he was sure it was an oversight that the names of the companies were not included but was then told by a staff member that they were intentionally removed.
“I think you are right that the names of the firms we are entering an agreement with should have been on there,” said Prestage, adding that the companies are Stonehenge and American Holdings.
“So we are entering an agreement with them to do what?” asked Meyers.
He was told that they will be doing an evaluation and report back to the county with information about the cost and size of the project.
Meyers then questioned why the project was another planned lease agreement rather than being financed through issuing bonds.
“This is a situation where we again are not going to the voters for a vote on approving long-term debt, we are going through the process of doing another long-term lease,” said Meyers.
Due to Meyer’s concern, Prestage amended the motion to include the name of the companies and to remove George’s sole authority to give final approval. The changes were approved unanimously meaning the plan will now require approval by Commissioners Court.
“I am not trying to be obstinate at all,” said Meyers. “I know we have been talking about the IT building for ages. But at no time have we sat down and said, ‘here is what we are considering doing and these are the firms we are considering doing them with. I was very uncomfortable with the fact that I wasn’t getting any information. I am always in favor of trying to save taxpayer’s money. I am comfortable moving forward of all we are doing is making sure it is the most cost efficient.”
Thank you Commissioner Andy Meyers for thinking of the tax payer and for saving the county money.